SENATE PASSAGE OF "DIPLOMATIC SECURITY AND ANTI-TERRORISM ACT OF 1986

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 59
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 26, 2012
• Sequence Number: 12
• Publication Date: July 1, 1986
• Content Type: MEMO

Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL SUP g JUL 1986
TCh (Hame. once symbol, room numbor,
building.Rissa/PosI)
MS/DDA
1.
InitialsDate
v
OV
ADDA
lk
'V7
\II
. el
kt m
v
A
DDA
3.
4
DDA REGISTRY
B.
Action
File
Note and Return
Approval
For Clearance
Per Conversation
As Requested
For Correction
Prepare Ropy
Ph"We
For Your Information
See Me
pornment
investigate
Signature
Coordination
Justify
D/OP and D/OS received a copy.
CC:
D/OC
D/OIT Dc14--
Uore,
DO NOT use this form as a RECORD of aPProvals concurrences, disposals
clearances, and similar actions'
FROM: Ohms ore. symbol. Alloncy/Post)
Room No.?Bldg.
Phone No.
5041-102
USG), I4R:10-381-529 (31h)
OPTIONAL FORM 41 (Rev. 7-76)
Prescribed kr GSA
FPIAlt (41 CP10 101-11406
(bcS
6
flprlaccifipri in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
OCA 86-2245
1 July 1986
MEMORANDUM FOR: Nb/Cr
D/CP
DDA
C/PCS/DDO
C/CTC/DDO
AGC/DO
c/AuVocc
D/OS/DDA
Deputy Comptroller
C/EPS/DDO
FROM:
Deputy Director for Legislation
Office of Congressional Affairs
SUBJECT: Senate Passage of "Diplomatic Security and
Anti-terrorism Act of 1986
1. Attached for your information please find copies of various pages from
the Congressional Record of June 25, 1986 (pp. S8403 - S8445, 58458 - S8459,
S8462 - S8466, and S8470 - S8474). They reflect Senate consideration and
passage of the Senate version of H.R. 4151, the "Omnibus Diplomatic Security
Act of 1986". The bill now goes to Conference. Highlights of the Senate
floor action are as follows:
2. Control of Overseas Staffing Levels: Secretary of State's
Authorities (p. S8404). Section 103 (b)(2) of the version of the bill which
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee brought to the floor and which was
ultimately adopted by the Senate provides that the Secretary of State shall
"establish" appropriate overseas staffing levels for all Federal agencies with
activities abroad. The actions of the Committee and the Senate in this regard
were contrary to the assurances which the Agency had received from the
Committee and the Administration. We are in the process of working with the
conferees in an attempt to limit this authority to "coordination" of staffing
levels insofar as it applies to the Agency.
3. Control of Overseas Staffing Levels: "Savings" Clause (p. S8404).
Section 106 (b) of the bill as originally passed by the House ("House I") was,
in effect, a "savings" clause which could have ameliorated any potentially
adverse impacts of Section 103 (b)(2). The initial Senate version of
Section 106 (b) ("Senate I") was itself somewhat modified by the Committee
so as to undercut this "savings" potential. The Committee, however, had
indicated to the Agency that while the "House I" language would not be
restored, the "Senate I" language would again be modified ("Senate II") so as
to restore somewhat its "savings" potential. Contrary to these assurances,
however, the version of Section 106 (b) brought to the Senate floor by the
Committee and ultimately passed by the Senate was not "Senate II",but rather
"Senate I". W are now in the process of working with the conferees in an
attempt to restore "House I".
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
4. Extraterritorial Jurisdiction for Violent Crimes Committed Against
United States Nationals Abroad (p. S8435). The Senate adopted an amendment by
Senator Spector to incorporate into the bill the provisions of S.1429, his
bill to vest United States courts with extraterritorial jurisdiction over
violent crimes against United States citizens overseas. The bill had
previously passed the Senate overwhelmingly on its own and is currently
stalled in the House Judiciary Committee.
5. NATO Cooperation on Terrorism (p. S8458). The Senate adopted an
amendment calling upon the President to request NATO to establish a committee
to study the problem of terrorism and recommend solutions to the member
nations.
6. Records Checks of Nuclear Power Plant Employees (p. S8414). The
Senate adopted an amendment by Senators Leahy and Denton to incorporate into
H.R. 4151 the provisions of S. 274, Senator Denton's bill to require a
fingerprint check of state and local police records of individuals to be
employed in nuclear power plants.
7. Forfeiture of Proceeds from Espionage Activities (p. S8425). The
Senate adopted an amendment offered by Senator Stevens to incorporate into the
bill the provisions of his bill, S. 1654, which provides for the forfeiture of
certain proceeds derived from espionage activities.
8. Office Equipment/Telecommunications/Computer Security Funds
"Earmarked" (p. S8411). The Senate adopted an amendment offered by Senators
Durenburger and Leahy to "earmark" certain funds, otherwise authorized by the
bill, for the "protection of classified office equipment, the expansion of
information systems security and the hiring of American systems managers and
operators for computers at high threat locations."
9. Diplomatic Security Authorization Funding Levels - Equitable Funding
Levels for Non-State Agencies. The version of the bill which passed the
Senate includes a provision, Section 401(c), which requires the Secretary of
State to ensure that an "equitable level of funding is provided for the
security requirements of other foreign affairs agencies". This mandate is,
however, made contingent upon the phrase, "Based solely on security
requirements and within the total amount of funds available for security...".
10. "Wilson-Terpil" Provision - Restrictions on Transfer of Military &
Intelligence Services to Designated Countries (p. S8407). Section 503 of the
Senate-passed legislation is a provision, originating in the House version of
the legislation, which would restrict the transfer of certain intelligence and
military services to countries designated by the Secretary of State, the
so-called "Wilson-Terpil" provision. Subsection (i) contains an exception for
activities of the United States Government, including intelligence activities.
11. Withdrawal of "Victims of Terrorist Compensation" Amendment (pp.
S8430 - S8432). Senator Mathias attempted to offer as an amendment to the
bill the title of the House version of the bill entitled "Victims of Terrorism
Compensation" which the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had deleted in its
"markup" of the House version. The Senator withdrew his amendment, however,
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
after receiving assurances that the issue would be "considered" in Conference
(S8434). This indicates that in Conference the Senate may ultimately drop its
opposition to this title, thereby allowing it to be included in the final
version of the bill sent to the President for signature.
12. Afghanistan Resolution (p. S8462). The Senate adopted an amendment
offered by Senator Byrd expressing the sense of Congress that the Secretary of
State should examine the actions of the Soviet forces against the Afghan
people to determine whether or not they are engaging in genocide and, if so,
to review the merits of continuing to recognize the existing Afghan government.
13. Increased Language Training of Foreign Service Officers (p. S8419).
The Senate adopted an amendment expressing the sense of the Senate that the
Secretary of State should substantially strengthen the foreign language
capabilities of foreign service officers.
14. We are continuing to monitor the bill as it enters Conference and, as
noted above, will work to ensure that the Agency's equities are protected in
the conference.
Attachment
as stated
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
June 25, 1986
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 8415
The Commission has investigated
more than a dozen incidents of sus-
pected sabotage by plant employees.
The incidents involved critical valves
in the wrong position, miswired elec-
trical equipment, and other problem
areas. A Commission report indicated
that between 1974 and 1982 there had
been 32 possible deliberate acts of
damage at 24 operating reactors and
reactor construction sites. including
the dozen reported since 1980.
I would like to offer some examples
of these incidents, Mt. President, to
give us a more immediate familiarity
with them.
Examples of incidents include in-
strument valves apparently deliberate-
ly mispositioned in a way that knocked
out the steam generatot feed-water
pump thus forcing the operator to
reduce power immediately to keep the
reactor from going into emergency
shutdown. That incident happened on
May 1. 1982, at the Salem atomic
power station in southern Nets/ Jersey.
Another example at the Beaver Valley
plant near Pittsburgh, a valve normal-
ly left in an open position was found
closed and the chain and padlock that
normally secured the valve in the open
position were missing. With the valve
closed, emergency cooling water would
not have been available for high pres-
sure injection into the core.
The Commission reported: "Since
there were no indication of unauthor-
ized entry to the sites of these inci-
dents. they are thought to have in-
volved insiders." A 1983 Commission
memorandum concluded that: "The
major threat of sabotage to a nuclear
plant is associated with the insider."
More stringent employee screening
procedures might have prevented
many incidents of that kind.
Mr. President, currently, the FBI
provides criminal history records
checks only to Government or private
entities specifically authorized by stat-
ute. The FBI originally disseminated
criminal history records to State, city,
and county officials if authorized by
statute, ordinance, or rule for appli-
cants for employment or for a permit
or license, as well as for federally in-
sured banks. However, in Menard v.
Mitchell, 328 P. Supp. 718, 725-728
(D.D.C. 1971), rev'd. on other grounds,
498 F.2d 1017 (D.C. Cir. 1974), a U.S.
District Court interpreted the statute
which authorizes the FBI to collect
criminal records (28 U.S.C. 534) as con-
taining an implicit prohibition against
dissemination to private entities and
Us State and local noncriminal justice
agencies. The FBI, accordingly,
amended its regulations to prohibit
criminal history record dissemination
to the general public or private sector
employers, except in limited circum-
stances not relevant in this case.
The Menard decision has, however,
been partially superseded. Congress in
Public Law 92-544, authorized the FBI
to disseminate criminal history records
to officials of federally chartered or
insured banking institutions and to of-
ficials of State and local governments
for purposes of employment and li-
censing decisions, if authorized by
State statute and approved by the At-
torney General. Following Public Law
92-544 Congress also authorized dis-
semination to private entities engaged
in certain securities transactions, such
as brokerage houses (15 U.S.C. section
78(F)).
Mr. President, to prevent nuclear
power facilities from becoming targets
of terrorists, extortionists, or sabo-
teurs, the licensees must be given
access to the data contained in the
criminal history files of the FBI.
The criminal history records contain
full fingerprint identification cards for
Individuals who have been arrested by
Federal, State or local authorities. It is
important to note that identification
of the person arrested is based on a
full set of fingerprints rather than a
name. Social Security number or other
personal identifier. Currently, the FBI
maintains over 22 million arrests
records broken into 1,200 fingerprint
classification codes.
Mr. President, because these records
are based on a full fingerprint identifi-
cation, the FBI, by comparing finger-
prints, can positively identify a record
as belonging to a certain individual
thereby ensuring that the person de-
termining employment suitability does
not attribute a criminal record to the
wrong person. This procedure avoids
problems which could occur if an un-
sophisticated noncriminal justice user
of criminal record information under-
took a criminal record check based on
an individual's name and other identi-
fiers. With a name check it is possible
that a record could be attributed to
the wrong person or, by merely, using
an alias, a criminal record might never
be identified.
While the arrest data contained in
these criminal history records is gener-
ally accurate, it is often incomplete.
The FBI requires that law enforce-
ment authorities submitting arrest
data subsequently submit information
concerning the disposition of the
arrest. Despite this requirement, FBI
experts have informed the Senate Ju-
diciary Committee that this disposi-
tion data does not get forwarded to
the FBI in close to 50 percent of the
cases.
Because of the imcompleteness of
this data, the Senate Judiciary Com-
mittee was faced, during consideration
of the original bill, with requiring the
withholding from the Commission of
arrest data unaccompanied by disposi-
tion. This would protect the privacy
and due process rights of prospective
employees, but ft would risk the fail-
ure to provide the operator important
and relevant information concerning
the prospective employee. Alternative-
ly, the Senate Judiciary Committee
could authorize the FBI to provide a
complete arrest history record to the
Commission, provided that the Com-
mission institutes a program to protect
the rights of prospective employees to
correct and supplement the record and
to limit the redissemination of the in-
formation supplied to the operator.
After weighing the pros and cons of
each approach. the Senate Judiciary
Committee chose the latter course.
I should note, however, Mr. Presi-
dent, that in choosing the latter
course, Senator PArascx LEAHY and
myself added specific language to the
original bill to protect the civil liber-
ties of the individuals to be finger-
printed. That is, the original bill and
the amendment specifically directs the
Commission to prescribe regulations
for the taking of fingerprints and for
establishing the conditions for both
using the information and limiting the
redissemination of the information
provided by the record check in a
manner limited to the purposes con-
tained in the act. The legislation gives
discretion to the Commission to imple-
ment a practical program, through
regulation, for carrying out the pur-
poses of the act. Because of the possi-
ble incompleteness of the FBI's crimi-
nal history records mentioned earlier
and because of the important due
process and privacy interests of pro-
spective employees, it was Senator
LEAHY'S and my belief that the regula-
tions prescribed by the Commission
shall contain the following minimum
requirements:
First, individuals who are asked to
submit fingerprints under the pro-
gram will be notified that the finger-
prints will be used to run a criminal
history records check through the
FBI;
Second, individuals who are subject
to fingerprinting will be provided with
an opportunity to complete and cor-
rect the information contained in the
FBI's criminal history records prior to
any adverse job action being taken;
and
Third, the Commission will establish
procedures to ensure that the informa-
tion provided to the plant operator
will only be used to determine wheth-
er the person is fit to be given unes-
corted access to the nuclear facility,
and for no other purpose.
Mr. President, the original bill and
the amendment have wide support. In
written testimony endorsing S. 2470?
the 98th Congress version of S. 274?
Herzel H.E. Plaine, general counsel of
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
noted that the bill represented a
means of facilitating nuclear reactor
licensee efforts to obtain criminal his-
tory records and of promoting uni-
formity in industry-conducted person-
nel screening programs.
In testimony submitted to the
Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Se-
curity and Terrorism on June 13, 1985,
Arthur E. Lundvall, vice president of
Baltimore Gas & Electric Co., and
president of the Nuclear Power Execu-
tive Advisory Committee of the Edison
Electric Institute, noted that:
Nuclear powerplants have effective securi-
ty programs that may include a system for
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
1
S 8416 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE June 25, 1986
psychological evaluation of potential em-
ployees and the conduct(ing) of a back-
ground investigation that involves limited
State and local police record checks. This
system would be significantly improved with
the enactment of S. 2470 (S. 274) since it
would provide a uniform system for back-
ground investigation throughout the indus-
try.
He goes on:
Each individual's complete criminal histo-
ry will be reviewed and we can be assured
that, to the maximum extent possible, only
stable, reliable, and law-abiding people have
unescorted access to vital areas of our nucle-
ar powerplants.
One other piece of testimony by the
manager of Corporate Security, Ala-
bama Power Co.. Mr. David Hinman.
submitted to my Subcommittee on Se-
curity and Terrorism expressed con-
cern that the failure of the industry to
obtain criminal history records based
on fingerprint identification could
permit terrorists and would-be sabo-
teurs an opportunity for employment
at nuclear plants, using falsified birth
records and other falsified credentials.
Mr. Hinman concluded by endorsing
this amendment and stating that it is
Imperative that access to such records
be provided to assure that employ-
ment in sensitive positions be conduct-
ed based on full information as to the
trustworthiness of the individual.
Mr. President, the amendment
which is endorsed by the Commission.
the Department of Justice, and private
Industry, would help to ensure the
safety of nuclear powerplants, and
thereby protect our citizens and our
environment from disasters on the
scale of Chernobyl. It is urgently
needed to safeguard the security of
the United States and the welfare of
the American people.
It is my understanding, Mr. Presi-
dent, that this amendment has the
support of the distinguished chairman
of the committee and the ranking
member and I understand it has been
cleared by both sides and is accepta-
ble.
THE NUCLEAR POWEMPLANT SECURITY
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am
very pleased to be an original cospon-
sor of this amendment. I congratulate
my colleague and chairman of the
Subcommittee on Security and Terror-
ism, Senator DENTON, for his initiative
In sponsoring this legislation. I was
proud to work closely with him on the
final draft which was passed over-
whelmingly by the Senate on August
3, 1985.
There are currently 85 nuclear reac-
tor plants that produce and are li-
censed for full power in the United
States. We recently saw the great
harm that just one of these plants can
cause, when the nuclear reactor at
Chernobyl exploded killing and con-
taminating dozens of people in the
Soviet Union. In the days following
that accident, the milk from cows in
my own State of Vermont, half way
around the world, was found to con-
tain high levels of radiation.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission
has investigated dozens of incidents of
suspected sabotage by plant employ-
ees. Between 1974 and 1982, there
were 32 possible deliberate acts of
damage at 24 operating reactors and
reactor construction sites. Several of
those incidents could have resulted in
a catastrophe at least on the scale of
Chernobyl. All of those incidents were
believed to have involved insiders.
At a time when terrorism is on the
minds of most Americans, it would be
Inexcusable for us not to do every-
thing reasonably possible to protect
our nuclear powerplants from sabo-
tage.
Under current law, most background
checks by nuclear powerplant licens-
ees are limited to State and local files.
Those files do not include information
about a person's criminal record, if
any, in other parts of the country. By
allowing nuclear plant operators to
have access to FBI criminal records
files, they would be better able to de-
termine who should be granted unes-
corted access to nuclear facilities.
That is, very simply, what this legis-
lation does. The nuclear plant licensee
would bear the cost of fingerprinting
and of the criminal records check, and
could use the information obtained
only for the limited purpose of deter-
mining if the person is fit to receive
unescorted access to the plant. Indi-
viduals who are subject to fingerprint-
ing would be given an opportunity to
correct and complete any information
contained in the FBI's records prior to
any adverse Job action being taken.
Mr. President, this amendment is
drafted narrowly to accomplish its im-
portant purpose without unreasonably
Infringing on individual civil liberties.
It is absolutely necessary legislation
and I am proud to have taken part in
the final draft. I urge my colleagues to
support it.
1250
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I wish
to identify our side strongly with the
amendment offered by the distin-
guished Senator from Alabama. This
measure, as the Senator has pointed
out. gathered 44 cosponsors when it
was passed by voice vote unanimously
by the Senate last year. It is an impor-
tant measure. It is illustrative of the
vital work performed by the Judiciary
Committee's Subcommittee on Securi-
ty and Terrorism, which is chaired, of
course, by Senator DorroN.
This legislation, in my judgment,
adds an important tool to our efforts
to protect weapons grade nuclear ma-
terials from falling into the wrong
hands. It was recognized clearly by the
Senate last year. In my judgment, it
should be recognized again today. Our
side endorses the amendment.
Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, this seems
like an excellent amendment. There is
no amendment to it on our side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there further debate? If not, the ques-
tion is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2174) was
agreed to.
AMENDMENT NO. 2175
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President. I send
an amendment to the desk and ask for
Its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read
as follows:
The Senator from Indiana (Mr. Lvaaa)
proposes an amendment numbered 2175.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President. I ask
unanimous consent that further read-
ing of the amendment be dispensed
with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment reads as follows:
On page 124, between lines 9 and 10.
Insert the following new section:
SEC. 664. MANAGEMENT OF ANTI-TERRORISM AS-
SISTANCE PROGRAMS.
(a) Section 373(d) of the Foreign Assist-
ance Act of 1981 Is amended as follows:
Paragraph (4) is amended to read as fol-
lows: "(4)(A) Articles on the United States
Munitions List may be made available under
this chapter only if?
"(I) they are small arms in category I (re-
lating to firearms), ammunition in category
III (relating to ammunition) for small arras
In category I. articles in category IV(c) or
VI(c) (relating to detection and handling of
explosive devices), articles in category X (re-
lating to protective personnel equipment),
or articles in subsection (b), (c), or (d) of
category XIII (relating to speech privacy de-
vices. underwater breathing apparatus and
armor plating), and they are directly related
to anti-terrorism assistance under this chap-
ter: and
"(ID at least 15 days before the -articles are
made available to the foreign country. the
President notified the Committee on For-
eign Affairs of the House of Representatives
and Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate of the proposed transfer, in accord-
ance with the procedures applicable to re-
programming notifications pursuant to sec-
tion 634A of this Act.
"(B) The value (in terms of original acqui-
sition cost) of all equipment and commod-
ities provided under subsection (a) in any
fiscal year may not exceed 25 percent of the
funds made available to carry out this chap-
ter for that fiscal year.
"(C) No shock batons or similar devices
may be provided under this chapter."
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the pur-
pose of this amendment is to replace
the present $350,000 worldwide cap on
equipment and commodities of the
Anti-Terrorism Assistance Program
with a cap equal to 25 percent of the
appropriated amount.
The Anti-Terrorism Assistance Pro-
gram, enacted into law 3 years ago,
has established itself as a valuable ad-
dition to our Nation's effort to defend
itself and its citizens against terrorist
attack.
The program has created valuable
links between professionals in our
Government with antiterrorism re-
sponsibilities and their counterparts
overseas. The potential benefits of
these contacts must not be underes-
npriacsified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26 CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
June 25, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
tablished. Should some future incident
occur where American lives are endan-
gered overseas, these linkages could
expand dramatically the options avail-
able to the President in responding.
When enacted. Congress emphasized
that the ATA Program was to empha-
sise training of foreign security forces:
it was not to be an equipment transfer
program. Congress placed a worldwide
pap of $325.000 in equipment and com-
modities that could be provided under
the program.
This amendment retains that em-
phasis. It removes the $325.000 cap on
equipment and commodities and puts
in its stead a cap of 25 percent of the
total appropriated amount. That
means that at a minimum, 75 percent
of ATA funds will go for training.
The administration has asked for
this change after having had experi-
ence with the ATA Program. They
have discovered that few benefits
derive from training an individual on
equipment here in the United States
which is then unavailable upon his
return home. The problem is especial-
ly acute for those countries participat-
ing in the program which are experi-
encing severe financial problems.
As Congress has increased funds for
the ATA Program, the $325,000 muni-
tions limit has begun to constrain the
training program itself. Several coun-
tries have faced immediate needs for
airport security programs and have
consumed most of the equipment
funds. This amendment provides an
appropriate ratio of equipment to
training without altering Congress'
intent that the ATA Program empha-
size training.
In addition the amendment expands
the categories of equipment which
may be provided to include underwat-
er and diving equipment, armor plat-
ing and structural materials for de-
fense purposes, and secure communi-
cations gear.
It is my hope this amendment will
be readily adopted.
Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, there is no
objection to this amendment on our
side. I suggest we proceed to vote on it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there further debate? If not, the ques-
tion is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2175) was
agreed to.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I move
to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. PELL. I move to lay that motion
on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
AMENDMENT NO. 2176
(Purpose: To make available for use within
the United States the United States 'in-
formation Agency's film "The March")
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President. I send
an amendment to the desk and ask for
Its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read
as follows:
The Senator from Indiana (Mr. Lima'.
on behalf of Mr. Kkaity, proposes an amend-
ment numbered 2176.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President. I ask
unanimous consent that further read-
ing of the amendment be dispensed
with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment reads as follows:
On page 129, after line 3. add the follow-
ing new section:
SEC. Toz DISTRIBUTION WITHIN THE UNITED
STATES OF THE USIA FILM ENTITLED
'THE MARCH-.
Notwithstanding section 207 of the For-
eign Relations Authorization Act. Fiscal
Years 1986 and 1987, and the second sen-
tence of section 501 of the United States In-
formation and Educational Exchange Act of
1948 (22 U.S.C. 1461)?
(1) the Director of the United States In-
formation Agency shall make available to
the Archivist of the United States a master
copy of the film entitled "The March"; and
(2) upon evidence that necessary United
States rights and licenses have been secured
and paid for by the person seeking domestic
release of the film, the Archivist shall reim-
burse the Director for any expenses of the
Agency in making that master copy avail-
able. shall deposit that film in the National
Archives of the United States, and shall
make copies of that film available for pur-
chase and public viewing within the United
States.
(b) Any reimbursement to the Director
pursuant to this section shall be credited to
the applicable appropriation of the United
States Information Agency.
On page 91. in the table of contents, after
the item relating to Section 701, insert the
following new item:
"Sec. 702. Distribution within the United
States of the USIA film enti-
tled "The March".
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I sin of-
fering this amendment on behalf of
Senator KERRY, a distinguished
member of the Foreign Relations
Committee. It provides that a film en-
titled "The March" might be shown
principally on a television station in
Boston, MA. Specific requirement is
made under the act that Congress
must rule on these exceptions. That is
the purpose of the amendment today.
On our side, we are prepared to accept
the amendment.
Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, this seems
like an excellent amendment and we
support its passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there further debate? If not, the ques-
tion is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2176) was
agreed to.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President. I move
to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. PELL. I move to lay that motion
on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
S 8417
AMENDMENT NO. 2177
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I send
an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read
as follows:
The Senator from Indiana (Mr. LUGAR)
proposes an amendment numbered 2177.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that further read-
ing of the amendment be dispensed
with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment reads as follows:
In the appropriate place in the bill insert
the following amendment:
Szc. . (a) In addition to funds otherwise
available for such purposes under chapter 8
of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961. assistance authorized to carry out the
purposes of chapter 4 of part II of such Act
for the fiscal years 1986 and 1987 (as well as
=disbursed balances of previously obligat-
ed funds under such part) which are allocat-
ed for Egypt may be furnished, notwith-
standing section 660 of such Act, for the
provision of nonlethal airport security
equipment and commodities, and training in
the use of such equipment and commodities.
The authority contained in this section
shall be exercised in coordination with the
office of the Department of State rsponsible
for administering chapter 8 of part Il of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1981.
(b) This section shall take effect on the
date of enactment of this Act.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, this
amendment responds to an urgent re-
quest from the Government of Egypt
for United States help in increasing se-
curity at Cairo Airport.
Airport security in the region is ?
high priority for the Egyptians and
for the United States but the Egyp-
tians do not have the financial re-
sources to upgrade.
The United States Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) is working with
the Egyptians to upgrade security and
has identified $5 to $9 million in
needed equipment and training.
The amendment would permit eco-
nomic support funds (ESP) already al-
located for commodity procurement in
Egypt to be used to procure nonlethal
airport security equipment such as x-
ray machines and bomb disposal
equipment, perimeter fencing, vehi-
cles, closed circuit television systems,
and so forth.
The procurement needs exceed the
funding available under the antiterror-
ism chapter of the Foreign Assistance
Act. The amendment would simply
permit utilization of the ESF in Egypt
for this purpose.
To ensure coordination of antiterror-
ism activities, the amendment requires
that the procurement of equipment be
coordinated with the office in the De-
partment of State responsible for ad-
ministering the antiterrorism pro-
gram.
The amendment is Egypt-specific. It
does not allow similifr use of ESP`
worldwide. If there are similar needs
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R00110012001-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
S 8418 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
elsewhere, the administration still
must come back to Congress for addi-
tional authorization.
I know of no opposition to the
amendment on our side. We are pre-
pared to accept the amendment.
Mr. FELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. FELL. Mr. President, this is an
excellent amendment. On behalf of
the minority, I suggest its passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there further debate? If not, the ques-
tion is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2177) was
agreed to.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I move
to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. PELL. I move to lay that motion
on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the
Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from New Jersey.
AMENDMENT NO. 2I7S
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President,
I send an amendment to the desk and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
STrvENs). The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read
as follows:
The Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lim-
vErnunta/ proposes an amendment numbered
2178.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dis-
pensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place in the bill, insert
the following section:
See . INTERNATIONAL MEASURES FOR SEAPORT
AND SHIPBOARD SECURITY
The Congress encourages the President to
continue to seek an agreement through the
International Maritime Organization on
matters of international seaport and ship-
board security, and commends him on his
efforts to date. In developing such agree-
ment, each member country of the Interna-
tional Maritime Organization should con-
sult with appropriate private sector inter-
ests in that country. Such agreement would
establish seaport and vessel security stand-
ards and could include?
(1) seaport screening of cargo and baggage
similar to that done at airports;
(2) security measures to restrict access to
cargo, vessels, and dockside property to au-
thorized personnel only;
(3) additional security on board vessels:
(4) licensing or certification of compliance
with appropriate security standards: and
(5) other appropriate measures to prevent
unlawful acts against passengers and crews
on board vessels.
SEC. . MEASURES TO PREVENT UNLAWFUL ACM
AGAINST PASSENGERS AND CREWS ON
BOARD SHIPS.
(a) REPORT ON PROGRISS OF IMO.?The
of Transportation and the Secre-
tary of State, jointly, shall report to the Con-
gress by December 31, 1988, on the progress
of the International Maritime Organization
In developing recommendations on Meas-
ures to Prevent Unlawful Act Against Pas-
sengers and Crews on Board Ships.
(b) Corrrzirr or REPORT.?The report re-
quired by subsection (a) shall include the
following information?
(1) the specific areas of agreement and
disagreement on the recommendations
among the member nations of the Interna-
tional Maritime Organization;
(2) the activities of the Maritime Safety
Committee, the Facilitation Committee, and
the Legal Committee on the International
Maritime Organization in regard to the pro-
posed recommendations: and
(3) the security measures specified in the
recommendations.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President,
this amendment has been cleared on
both sides.
This amendment encourages the
President to continue to seek an agree-
ment through the International Mari-
time Organization (IMO] on matters
of international seaport and shipboard
security. It specifies that such an
agreement would establish seaport and
vessel security standards, and could in-
clude provisions on seaport screening
of cargo and baggage, and security
measures to restrict access to cargo,
vessels, and dockside personnel.
The amendment also requires that
the Secretaries of Transportation and
State make a detailed, joint report to
Congress by December 31, 1986 on the
IMO's progress in developing such an
agreement. The importance of such an
International agreement cannot be
overstated.
Mr. President, 11/2 million Americans
will travel on cruise ships this year,
armed with only American passports.
As passengers on the Achille Lauro
learned. that Is not enough. The
Achille Lauro hijacking dramatized
how vulnerable cruise passengers are
to the ruthless tactics of terrorists.
Nothing stopped the terrorists from
smuggling weapons aboard the Achille
Lauro while it was docked at one of its
ports of call. No security measures pre-
vented those terrorists from turning
hundreds of dream vacations into
nightmares. As Viola and Seymour
Meskin, constituents of mine from
New Jersey, and passengers on the ill-
fated Achille Lauro testified before
the House Merchant Marine Subcom-
mittee, no one checked their bags or
their person at any time before or
during the cruise. The Achille Lauro
was a floating invitation to terror. And
there are more ships like it.
Before the Achille Laura provides
deadly inspiration to other terrorists,
security aboard cruise ships must be
Improved. One life is too many to lose
to terrorism.
Fortunately, until now, shipboard
terrorism has not been as common as
that directed at airlines. But cruise
and cargo ships are large, slow moving
means of transportation. They make
ideal targets for major acts of terror-
ism and war. Others are undoubtedly
watching to see if security improves in
the wake of the Achille Lauro inci-
dent. It is in the interest of passen-
gers, shipowners, and nations to make
ships as secure as possible.
June 25, 1986'
;
Currently, no Federal or internation-
al laws require that security measures
be taken to protect ports, vessels, pas-
sengers, or crew from incidents of ter-
rorism. Though many cruise ships and
ports take such measures voluntarily,
many do not. A cruise ship passenger
simply cannot rely on the fact that
the particular ship he or she boards
will be safe.
Passing U.S. laws requiring stricter
security on ships, while desirable,
must be accompanied by similar action
on an international scale. The cruise
ship industry in the United States con-
trols only two ships, with a third
coming into operation within months.
Most cruise ships are foreign-flag and
foreign operated. Real improvements
in cruise ship security will come only
with the adoption of international
safety standards. To reach this goal,
we need cooperation on an interna-
tional scale. Such cooperation has al-
ready begun at the international level.
The International Maritime Organi-
zation amol, a U.N. agency whose
charter directs it to aid cooperation
among governments on matters affect-
ing shipping, has discussed the issue of
maritime security at several meetings.
IMO's Maritime Safety Committee
has begun to draft international safety
standards for shipboard security. If
such standards are completed by the
Maritime Safety Committee, and ac-
cepted by all IMO's members, they
will go a long way to fulfilling the
need for a workable international
agreement on seaport security.
An international seaport security
agreement will increase safety for the
traveling public by requiring that
countries observe agreed upon interna-
tional standards to prevent terrorists
from gaining a foothold on cruise and
passenger ships. Measures that could
be adopted to increase security range
from instituting seaport screening of
cargo and baggage to requiring addi-
tional security on board cruise ships.
Other measures could include enacting
international criminal sanctions
against terrorists who seize or attempt
to seize ships.
Cruise passengers, seeking relief
from the wear and tear of ordinary
international travel in the leisurely
pace of a cruise ship would gladly
endure some inconvenience in return
for peace of mind on their crufee. As
Viola and Seymour Meskin testified
from firsthand experience, whatever it
takes to ensure that cruise passengers
are safe would be a great improvement
over being hijacked.
Mr. President, the best tribute to the
bravery of the Achille Lauro hostages,
and to the life of Leon Rlinghoffer, is
to take strict precautions to assure
that their experiences are not repeat-
ed. While the United States cannot act
alone, we can lead the way. I urge my
colleagues to adopt this amendment.
I yield back the remainder of my
time.
Mr. LUGAR addressed the Chair.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
25, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Tile PRESIDING OFFICER. The
r from Indiana.
or. LUGAR. Mr. President, we wish
eonunend on our side the distin-
ed Senator from New Jersey for
? thoughtful amendment. We are pre-
^ to accept the amendment.
jgr. PELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
orator from Rhode Island.
Mr. FELL. Having been a delegate to
ate MO, which was the IMC, Inter-
sorerrunental Maritime Commission, I
- love been following its work through
tbe years. I think it Is eminently
Suited to take on this study and this
report. The amendment is excellent.
For our side of the aisle I recommend
approval.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there further debate on the amend-
LAUTENBERG. I thank the
managers of the bill for their support.
urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there further debate on the amend-
ment? If not, the question is on agree-
to the amendment of the Senator
from New Jersey.
The amendment (No. 2178) was
agreed to.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I move
to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FELL. I move to lay that motion
on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Illinois.
AMENDMENT NO. 2119
(Purpose: To urge the Secretary of State to
substantially strengthen the foreign lan-
guage skills of the U.S. Foreign Service)
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I send
an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Illinois (Mr. Smog)
proposes an amendment numbered 2179.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that further read-
ing of the amendment be dispensed
with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection. it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of the resolution, add the fol-
lowing new section:
Ssc. . It is the sense of the Senate that
the Secretary of State substantially
strengthen the foreign language training of
foreign service officers and other diplomatic
personnel who may serve in embassies over-
seas, and to work toward early Implementa-
tion of a program focusing on acquisition
and retention of effective linguistic skills
throughout a foreign service officer's
career.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, this is an
amendment I have discussed with the
chairman of the committee and the
ranking member. I appreciate their co-
operation on this.
It is an amendment that stresses the
sense of the Senate that we have to
strengthen our foreign language ex-
pertise in the Foreign Service. We
have the only Foreign Service in the
world where someone can get into the
Foreign Service without speaking a
foreign language. And it is costing us
in all kinds of ways.
Just recently the diplomatic message
the United States intercepted from
Libya warning of the attack on the
West German discotheque sat un-
translated for several days because of
the unavailability of someone to trans-
late the telegram from Berber to Eng-
lish. One of the complaints of Yur-
chenko, the recent defector from the
Soviet Union. who went back to the
Soviet Union, was there was no one
here with whom he could speak in
Russian.
We had recently the case of the
Ukrainian sailor where we had a lan-
guage difficulty. At the U.S. Embassy
in Pakistan right now, no one speaks
Pashto, the language spoken by over
20 million tribesmen in Afghanistan.
At the U.S. Embassy in Manila
where we have 1,500 employees, we
have only one, -the economic attach?
who speaks Tagalog. That happens to
be the language spoken by the majori-
ty of the people in the area where you
have the Communist revolt right now.
Totally, in the Foreign Service we
have only 30 fully fluent speakers of
Arabic, we have only 15 to 16 U.S. For-
eign Service officers fully fluent in
Chinese, and only 10 Foreign Service
officers who are fully fluent in Japa-
nese.
Just recently Monteagle Sterns,
former Ambassador to Greece. did an
internal examination and report for
the State Department. He reported
not only do we have a bad situation,
but it is getting worse. Be makes com-
parisons with other countries and
comparisons that are, frankly, not
very helpful to our country. And he
says we are hurting ourselves.
0 1310
I had an amendment adopted on the
Foreign Service Act a few years ago
which called for the Secretary of State
to designate two countries where we
would have an experiment, where we
would require everyone in those coun-
tries, including the secretaries, the
Marine guards, AID people, everyone,
to speak the language of the country.
Secretary Haig designated Senegal
and Uruguay as the two countries.
It is very interesting. We have a
report back from the State Depart-
ment now saying it was an unbeliev-
able success.
Well, it did not surprise some of us.
Clearly, we ought to be moving in this
direction.
I was pleased to note that the chair-
man of the committee quoted Bob
Inman in his opening remarks. Admi-
ral Inman, when he was still in the
Navy, testified before a subcommittee
X chaired in the House, in which he
S 8419
said we faced a horrendous problem in
foreign language competency in our
country.
The head of the CIA has talked
about it. Secretary Weinberger has
talked about it. Morehead Kennedy,
one of the hostages in Iran, testified
that of the 52 hostages in Iran. 6
spoke Fars!, the language of the coun-
try in which they were stationed. His
explanation or one of the reasons for
what happened is that he said we were
speaking with the elite in English
rather than speaking to the people on
the street.
Well, we have a problem.
I thought initially about taking
some money from this appropriation
and having it put directly into this
very serious area of concern. After dis-
cussing it with the chairman of the
committee and having a brief discus-
sion with Senator PELL and Senator
SARBANES, I decided, instead, to have
this sense-of-the-Senate resolution,
which I believe is agreeable. I do want.
however, for that to have some
muscle.
For that reason. Mr. President, I am
going to ask for a rollcall on this par-
ticular amendment so that we send
the signal to the State Department
that we are going to have to change.
Let me just add, this is not a prob-
lem for the State Department in isola-
tion. It is a problem in our culture. We
are the only nation on the face of the
Earth where you can go through grade
school, high school, college, get a
Ph.D. and never have a year of foreign
language. We have to change things.
I hope that the State Department
will get a signal from this and that we
can start improving things.
Mr. President. I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there a sufficient second? There is not
a sufficient second.
Mr. SIMON. I renew my request for
the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there further debate?
The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the Sen-
ator from Illinois has presented an im-
portant amendment. It is correct that
we have had discussions with the Sen-
ator. The success was apparent at the
Embassies in Senegal and Uruguay
where the experiment was conducted,
where their abilities were enhanced
and improved.
It appears to me that the sense-of-
the-Senate resolution with regard to
increasing language capability is well
placed. Therefore, we are prepared to
accept the amendment. Obviously, the
Senator has called for a rollcall vote
and the Senate will be heard in a dif-
ferent way.
I would like to ask the distinguished
ranking Member to get some indica-
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
S 8420 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
tion from his leadership as to the de-
airability of having that vote at this
time. It occurs to me that there are
many Members who were not antici-
pating votes at 1:15, and who are some
distance from the floor. I simply add
that thought to give staff time to con-
sult the leadership and determine
what would appear to be the proper
procedure at this stage.
Mr. PELL. I must say I have the
same reaction. I know of at least one
Senator on this side and others who
are downtown attending various func-
tions.
First. I will comment on the amend-
ment and then I will suggest the ab-
sence of a quorum.
The amendment to my mind is an
excellent amendment. I think it is a
disgrace that we are the only Foreign
Service in the world where you can
enter with just one language, English.
I believe very strongly that greater
emphasis should be made on foreign
language training, particularly on
tough languages, as the Senator from
Illinois has pointed out.
I do, indeed, support this amend-
ment. I know of no objection to it on
our side.
Mr. SIMON. If the Senator will
yield, can I ask unanimous consent to
stack this vote and have it just before
final passage? That would be fine with
me.
Mr. LUGAR. The Senator has asked
that a rollcall vote on his amendment
occur before the rollcall vote on final
passage.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to
call the roll.
0 1320
Mr. LUGAR. 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. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the amend-
ment of the distinguished Senator
from Illinois be set aside until, at the
tirne of 2:15 on this date, the rollcall
vote which has been requested will be
cast on his amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there objection?
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving
the right to object.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I amend
my unanimous-consent request to ask
merely that the pending amendment
be temporarily set aside. I do so in
view of the fact that Members may
wish to be informed via the hot lines
of both parties before we set the time
for the vote. My request is simply that
the amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there objection?
Mr. BYRD. I have no objection, Mr.
President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, while
the minority leader is present. I
should like to make a unanimous-con-
sent request that the vote on the
Simon amendment occur at 2 p.m., and
that no amendment be permitted to
the Simon amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MOYNIHAN and Mr. McCON-
NELL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Kentucky.
AMINDSIZPIT NO. 2150
(Purpose: Relating to trade between the
United States and the Republic of Korea)
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I
send an amendment to the desk and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McCon-
msg.] proposes an amendment numbered
2180.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous
consent that further reading be dis-
pensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following:
SEC. . DENIAL OF BENEFITS UNDER THE GENER-
ALIZED SYSTEM OF PREFERENCES TO
THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA.
(a) The Congress finds that?
(1 the exports of the Republic of Korea to
the United States have grown at an average
annual rate of nearly 16 percent since 1981,
United States exports to the Republic of
Korea grew at an average annual rate of ap-
proximately 3 percent during that period
with a decrease of 2 percent in 1985;
.(2) in 1985 the United States imported
from the Republic of Korea merchandise
worth $10.013,085,000. the Republic of
Korea only imported merchandise from the
United States of a value of $5.720,136,000,
resulting in a United States trade deficit of
$4,292.949,000:
(3) in 1985 the United States extended to
the Republic of Korea preferential treat-
ment under the Generalized System of Pref-
erences (GSP) program for certain products
it exports to the United States worth
$1.655,000.000, making the Republic of
Korea the second largest beneficiary under
such program;
(4) the Republic of Korea persists in
maintaining the following acts, policies, and
practices which are unreasonable, unjustifi-
able, or discriminatory and which burden or
restrict United States commerce:
(A) the domestic market of the Republic
of Korea is closed to cigarettes made in the
United States to the extent that--
(1) it IS illegal for citizens of the Republic
of Korea to possess cigarettes made outside
the Republic of Korea, and
(Ii) a citizen of the Republic of Korea pos-
sessing foreign cigarettes is subject to a fine
of up to $1,161.44, imprisonment, and loss of
employment.
(B) the importation into the Republic of
Korea of all beef and pork from the United
States has been effectively banned since
May 1985 even though, prior to the ban. the
United States supplied most of the high-
quality beef imported into the Republic of
Korea,
(C) the Office of National Tax Adminis-
tration of the Republic of Korea is sched-
uled to require that all distilled spirit prod-
June 25. 1986
ucts be manufactured with a minimum pro.
portion of local raw materials after January
1987,
(D) the Ministry of Agriculture and Fish-
eries of the Republic of Korea restricts the
importation of many United States agricul-
tural items by refusing to grant import ap-
proval to those items, including fresh or-
anges. canned fruit cocktail, grape juice.
wine, alfalfa products, edible meat off sic
walnuts, fresh grapes. sausages, canned beef
and pork, canned peaches, concentrated
orange juice, other fruit juices, and canned
corn and dried peas,
(E) the issuance of an import license for
United States manufactured goods must
have the recommendation of the Korean in-
dustry association whose members compete
with the imported goods, which has an ad-
verse effect on many United States Prod-
ucts, including agricultural chemicals, soda
ash, automotive parts, cosmetics, nylon car-
pets. loudspeakers, electric hand tools.
razors and razor blades, machine took, per-
sonal computers. electric shavers, cameras.
and construction equipment.
(F) the importation of computers and pe-
ripheral equipment that can be produced lo-
cally has been effectively banned since July
1982, by the requirement of the Republic of
Korea that investment or licensing of local
production of computers and peripheral
equipment be made as a condition for im-
porting computers and peripheral equip-
ment.
(G) tariffs imposed by the Republic of
Korea remain unreasonably high on several
products in which the United States has a
comparative advantage. including?
(i) fresh fruits and vegetables (current
tariff is percent ad valorem),
(ii) canned meat (current tariff is 40 per-
cent ad valorem),
(iii) cosmetics (current tariff is 40 percent
ad valorem).
(iv) wood products (current tariff is 20
percent ad valorem),
(v) electric hand tools (current tariff is 20
percent ad valorem).
(A) computers (current tariff is 20 percent
ad valorem).
(vii) automobile parts (current tariff ia 30
percent ad valorem), and
(viii) chocolate confectionary (current
tariff is 40 percent ad valorem, failing to 30
percent ad valorem in 1988).
(H) the application of emergency tariffs,
adjustment tariffs, special commodity taxes.
and value added tax on top of the general
tariff rate, and other fees, make many prod-
ucts prohibitively expensive.
(I) the entire import regime of the Repub-
lic of Korea is designed, through the use of
import licenses and quotas, to discourage
the importation of any seafood, so that the
only United States product now entering
the Republic of Korea in any volume comes
from joint ventures, and much of this is re-
processed in the Republic of Korea skid ex-
ported.
(J) the Republic of Korea unreasonably
restricts the sale of United States fire insur-
ance to only those properties outside of the
10 largest cities in the Republic of Korea.
and unreasonably denies licenses to United
States firms to write life insurance,
(K) the Republic of Korea unreasonably
denies United States banks the ability to
participate fully in the domestic financial
market, and
(L) the Republic of Korea does not ade-
quately protect intellectual property; and
(5) these unreasonable, unjustifiable, and
discriminatory acts, policies, and practices
of the Republic of Korea burden or restrict
United States commerce.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4 ?
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
June 25, 1986
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 8421
(b) It is the sense of the Congress that the
Republic of Korea should not be treated as
a beneficiary developing country under title
V of the Trade Act of 1974. popularly
known as the Generalized System of Prefer-
ences. until the unreasonable, unjustifiable,
and discriminatory acts, policies, and prac-
tices described in subsection (aX4) are elimi-
nated and import restrictions imposed by
the Republic of Korea are liberalized
through?
(1) agreement by the Republic of Korea
that the purchase and sale of imported ciga-
rettes. and regulation thereof by the Repub-
lic of Korea and its instrumentalities, will
be conducted on a nondiscriminatory and
equitable basis, including repeal of the law
which makes it illegal for citizens of the Re-
public of Korea to use or possess imported
tobacco products under threat of fine. im-
prisonment. or loss of employment;
(2) extension of the ability to import
United States tobacco leaf into the Republic
of Korea to all private non-Korean entitles:
(3) elimination of the ban on the importa-
tion into the Republic of Korea of beef and
pork from the United States:
(4) inclusion on the Automatic Approval
List of fresh oranges, canned fruit cocktail.
grape Juice, wine. alfalfa products, edible
meat off als, walnuts, fresh grapes, sausages,
canned beef and pork, canned peaches, con-
centrated orange juice, other fruit juices,
and canned corn and dried peas:
(5) inclusion on the Automatic Approval
List of agricultural chemicals, soda ash,
automotive parts. cosmetics, nylon carnets,
loudspeakers, electric hand tools. razors and
razor blades, machine tools. Personal com-
puters, electric shavers, cameras, and con-
struction equipment;
(8) elimination of the ban on the importa-
tion of computers and peripheral equipment
that can be produced locally:
(7) reduction and binding of the general
tariff rates imposed by the Republic of
Korea to the levels of protection maintained
by average industrialized countries, includ-
ing, but not limited to, wood, wood products.
and dairy commodities:
(8) elimination of the practice of discour-
aging the importation of seafood into the
Republic of Korea:
(9) elimination of the requirement that all
distilled spirit products be manufactured
with a minimum proportion of local raw ma-
terials after January 1987;
(10) elimination of restrictions on the sale
of United States fire insurance in the Re-
public of Korea;
(11) elimination of unreasonable denials
of licenses to United States firms to write
life insurance: and
(12) extension to United States banks of
the ability to participate fully in the finan-
cial markets of the Republic of Korea.
Mr. McCONNELL Mr. President, on
March 19, I submitted Senate Resolu-
tion 369, which if approved, would ex-
press the sense of the Senate that the
Republic of Korea should not be ex-
tended benefits under the generalized
system of preferences (OSP] until the
unreasonable and unjustifiable trade-
related acts, policies, and practices de-
scribed in the legislation are eliminat-
ed. Presently, 13 of my Senate col-
leagues have cosponsored this resolu-
tion: Senators ABDNOR, EAST, FORD,
GORE, HEINZ, HELMS, HOLLINGS,
SASSER, SYMMS, THIGRNOND, TRIBLE,
WARNER, and Wasow. The resolution
Is embodied in the amendment that I
have sent to the desk today.
I recognize that this initiative is
narrow in its focus. By submitting
Senate Resolution 369 and offering
this amendment, however, I have
chosen to isolate what I believe is a
particularly important part of the
trade debate. Korea is not alone in
erecting trade barriers, but it has
maintained in some areas especially
egregious policies of import protec-
tion.
Title V of the Trade Act of 1974 as
amended provides the authority to
extend preferences and sets forth cri-
teria for country and product eligibil-
ity, and for limitations of preferential
treatment under GBP. In all GSP de-
terminations, the President is required
to take into account several discretion-
ary criteria relating to country prac-
tices. Specifically, he is required,
among other things, to examine "the
extent to which such country has as-
sured the United States it will provide
equitable and reasonable access to the
markets and basic commodity re-
sources of such country and the
extent to which such country has as-
sured the United States that it will re-
frain from engaging in unreasonable
export practices ? ? ? ."
Furthermore, the President must
consider "the extent to which such
country is providing adequate and ef-
fective means under its laws for for-
eign nations to secure, to exercise, and
to enforce exclusive rights in intellec-
tual property, including patent, trade-
marks, and copyrights * ? ? ." He must
also consider "the extent to which
such country has taken action to
reduce distorting investment practices
and policies (including export per-
formance requirements); and reduce or
eliminate barriers to trade in services."
Mr. President, it was after examin-
ing these criteria as applied to the Re-
public of Korea that I decided to
submit Senate Resolution 369, and it is
why I offer this amendment today. I
am convinced that market access bar-
riers that have been set up by the Re-
public of Korea to protect its markets
require us to seriously consider elimi-
nating duty-free access for Korean
products and commodities to our mar-
kets. Let me take a couple of minutes
to talk about the kind of barriers the
Republic of Korea erects.
For example, the importation into
the Republic of Korea of all beef and
pork from the United States has been
effectively banned since May 1985.
Prior to the ban, the United States
supplied most of the high-quality beef
Imported into the Republic of Korea.
The Office of National Tax Adminis-
tration of the Republic of Korea is
scheduled to require that all distilled
spirit products be manufactured with
a minimum proportion of local raw
materials after January 1987.
The Ministry of Agriculture and
Fisheries in the republic restricts the
importation of many U.S. agricultural
items by refusing to grant import ap-
proval to those items. Included in the
items which are subject to such re-
straints and are presented from being
imported into the Republic of Korea
are fresh oranges, canned fruit cock-
tail, grape juice, wine, alfalfa products.
edible meats. walnuts, fresh grapes,
canned beef and pork, canned peaches,
frozen orange juice concentrate, and
on and on. I have a whole list in my
amendment of a variety of different
American products that are either
eliminated altogethr from the market
or to which are applied such restric-
tive quotas or such excessive tariffs
that they are eliminated from the
market.
Obviously, coming from a State that
has 150,000 tobacco growers, I am par-
ticularly offended by the fact that in
Korea, it is illegal for a Korean to pos-
sess a foreign cigarette. The Korean
Government is not kidding about this.
They arrested several Korean people
back in 1984. What can happen to you
if you have a foreign cigarette on your
person? A Korean found with a for-
eign cigarette on his person is subject
to a fine up to $1.161.44, imprison-
ment, and loss of employment. I call
that rather serious protectionism.
The tobacco growers in Kentucky
cannot understand why, in a country
where many of them fought side by
side to protect South Korea from the
Communist invasion from the north, ft
is illegal to possess American ciga-
rettes into which the tobacco they
grow is placed.
After I submitted this resolution,
with the support of all the Senators
referred to earlier, I had a number of
discussions with the various Korean
officials In this country for a couple of
months prior to my visit to Korea over
the Memorial Day recess. I want to
relate to my colleagues my experience
upon my visit to Korea during that
period.
The Koreans could not have been
nicer. I met with their equivalent of
our Secretary of State, their equiva-
lent of our Secretary of Commerce,
their equivalent of our Federal Trade
Representative, and with the Presi-
dent of Korea, Chun Doo Ewan. for 45
minutes privately at the Blue House.
During all of those discussions and
most specifically during the discussion
with President Chun, the following
commitment was made: No. 1, that the
Korean National Assembly, during its
extraordinary session, which just
ended yesterday, was to pass a bill
which would begin to change the way
the Republic of Korea handles import-
ed cigarettes.
The bill which was to have passed
during the extraordinary session
would have begun to change the
Korean ginseng and tobacco monopoly
from a government agency into a cor-
poration. This first step on the part of
the Korean Government would have
taken some courage. They have 30,000
employees in their tobacco and gin-
seng monopoly. Mr. President, larger
than the State of Kentucky govern-
ment. It was, of course, a move that
would have been somewhat unsettling
to those Korean employees of the
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
S 8422 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Government. Nevertheless, President
Chun. whose party controls the Na-
tional Assembly, assured me that that
step would be taken during the ex-
traordinary session.
The extraordinary session ended yes-
terday and the step was not taken.
The President's party does control the
National Assembly. While I under-
stand and realize the political difficul-
ties in taking that first step toward lib-
eralizing the market, it seems to me
clearly evident that this commitment
was not kept.
No. 2. the second commitment made
by the President was that in the regu-
lar session of the National Assembly
this fall. Korea would pass a bill de-
criminalizing the possession of foreign
cigarettes. I am now told that both
steps will be taken in the regular ses-
sion this fall. But I might say, Mr.
President, I am quite impatient and I
know other Members of the Senate
from States which have commodities
that are effectively shut out of the
Korean market are growing equally
impatient. Word was given that this
step would be taken during the ex-
traordinary session and it was not
taken.
Mr. President, I offer the amend-
ment today, even though I do not
Intend to press for its adoption or for
a vote. because I think it is appropri-
ate to bring up at this time the failure
to honor this commitment on behalf
of the Korean Government. I shall
not. as I have assured the chairman of
the Committee on Foreign Relations.
press for a vote. I do think this is a
matter that should come before the
Senate this year. It is my understand-
ing, from various observations that
the majority leader has made, that
some kind of trade legislation will be
before the Senate. likely this summer.
I shall indicate to him and I indicate
to my colleagues today that I intend
to offer this sense-of-the-Senate reso-
lution as an amendment to appropri-
ate trade legislation when it comes
before the Senate, we hope this
summer.
0 1350
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I have
listened carefully to the distinguished
Senator from Kentucky. He makes a
very important point about conversa-
tions with the Government of South
Korea. Let me indicate to the distin-
guished Senator, it is my understand-
ing that many Senators, led by, of
course, the majority leader, have ex-
pressed a serious interest in trade leg-
islation. Indeed, a comprehensive bill
was introduced with the cosponsorship
of many committee chairmen last
year. That bill still remains a working
vehicle in the judgment of this Sena-
tor. My guess is that there are many
Senators who would want to be heard,
If they were in my stead presently, in-
dicating a very considerable interest in
the expression by the Senate on these
issues, one of which the distinguished
Senator from Kentucky has raised
very specifically this afternoon. I ap-
preciate the Senator's willingness to
revisit this issue on another piece of
legislation on another day but, like-
wise, the very explicit facts that he
has brough to the attention of the
Senate that clearly will be a part of
the conversation as we look at overall
trade legislation.
Mr. McCONNELL. If the Senator
will yield, I must repeat my particular
exasperation with receiving two specif-
ic commitments on this trip?two very
specific commitments. Unlike a lot of
the experiences that many of us have
had abroad in trying to tie down an
exact time after which a certain step
was to be taken. I was told by officials
In the Korean Government. unlike
other governments in that area of the
world, specific commitments would be
made, A, and B, specific commitments
would be kept. Two specific commit-
ments were made, the first to be kept
during the extraordinary session of
the National Assembly that ended yes-
terday and that commitment was not
kept. So I think it is a matter of grave
concern to all of us who are looking
for market access abroad. I thank the
distinguished chairman of the Foreign
Relations Committee for his observa-
tions and, Mr. President, I withdraw
my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, the amendment is with-
drawn.
AMENDMENT NO. 2181
(Purpose: To express the sense of the
Senate that funding of Kurt Waldheim's
retirement allowance from the United Na-
tions should be eliminated)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from New York.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I
send to the desk an amendment and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair notifies the Senator from New
York that it would take unanimous
consent to set aside the Simon amend-
ment.
Mr. MOYNIHAN, Mr. President. I
thank the Chair for its courtesy. I ask
unanimous consent that the Simon
amendment be temporarily laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there objection? Without objection, it
is so ordered. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New York (Mr. MOYNI-
HAN] proposes an amendment numbered
2181.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dis-
pensed with.
.The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place. insert the fol-
lowing:
(a) FINDINGS?The Congress finds that?
(1) Since Kurt Waldheim has lied repeat-
edly about his past, particularly his service
as intelligence officer for convicted war
criminal General Alexander Lohr:
June 25, 1986'
(2) Since such mendacity enabled Kurt
Waldheim to rise to the position of Secre-
tary General of the United Nations:
(3) Since Kurt Waldheim currently re-
ceives 881.650 a year as a retirement allow-
ance for his service in that position: and
(4) Since the allowance rewards him for
having lied about matters that are at the
very heart of the existence and purposes of
the United Nations.
(b) SENSE OF THE SENATZ.?II IS the sense
of the Senate that the President should in-
struct the Permanent Representative of the
United States to the United Nations to in-
troduce in the General Assembly?
(1) an amendment to the 1986-1987
United Nations Regular Program Budget
eliminating funding of Kurt Waldheim's re-
tirement allowance: and
(2) a resolution denying Kurt Waldheim a
retirement allowance in all budgets after
1987.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President,
this amendment can be stated in very
compact terms. It has to do with the
pension allowance which is provided
each year in the budget of the General
Assembly for Mr. Kurt Waldheim in
respect of his 10-year service as Secre-
tary General. This amount is 981.650 a
year. It is not a pension. There is no
pension fund. It is, rather, an appro-
priation in lieu of a pension and is en-
tirely optional with the General As-
sembly.
Mr. President, I do not think it nec-
essary to rehearse here on the Senate
floor the very painful and damaging
details of the past history of Mr.
Waldheim that we have learned in the
course of this year's campaign for the
Presidency of Austria in which he was
a candidate, ultimately the successful
one, and during which these facts
came out.
Let me suggest that as the Senate
acts in this measure?and I am sure
that it will wish to do?we make a
narrow statement of the facts dealing
only with measures that can be fully
established from the record but which
in our view are sufficient to merit this
action. The facts to which I refer are
elemental and indeed there is only one
important fact, which was that in all
of his representations to the Western
World, in his autobiography, in his of-
ficial biographies, his public state-
ments. Mr. Waldheim always repre-
sented that he was a member of the
German Armed Forces, the German
Infantry?and in that time Austria was
a part of Germany?that he fought for
a period in the Easten front, that ts to
say, in the Soviet Union, that he was
wounded in the leg and returned in
1942 in most narrations and in effect
left military service and resumed his
law. studies.
Mr. President, it is painful to say
this, but this is a lie, a lie now admit-
ted, a lie no longer in any dispute, but
a lie that was not of just an ordinary
misrepresentation of the past: rather,
a misrepresentation that went to the
very heart of the purposes and origins
of the United Nations, for the fact is
that Mr. Waldheim, after recovering,
returned to military service and was
npclassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4 1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
June 25, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
.1r sctively involved on the staff of a war
criminal. Gen. Alexander Lohr, who
was executed for war crimes involving
oe Balkan region in 1943-44. It was
he who ordered the expulsion, the de-
portation. if you like, of the Jewish
community of Salonika, one of the
oldest Jewish Sephardic communities
of the Mediterranean. almost to the
last child rounded up and deported to
he destroyed, to be murdered at
Auschwitz as an act of sheer madness.
it was Lohr who carried out, for a
ruthless time, the extraordinary bar-
barous treatment of civilians in the
guerrilla war that the Yugoslavian
partisans and various groups under-
took in response to the German inva-
sion of that country. In all these mat-
ters. Mr. Waldheim was on hand. He
was an intelligence officer. He was a
translator. These are all his own ad-
mission. And they could even at this
distance of time with enough open-
ness. honesty. contrition. I think, be
understood and accepted. This was the
experience of many persons of that
time and not everyone had their fate
under their own control. But if you
consider that the United Nations was
formed in an alliance against Nazi
Germany and its declarations of
human rights, international law, are
so fundamentally directed to putting
an end to exactly those things in
which Mr. Waldheim participated, for
him to have concealed those facts is
unjustifiable, is unforgivable, and has
done the United Nations damage
which will be a very long while before
It becomes a matter of the past, and
from which the institution has recov-
ered, if indeed it does recover.
0 1340
Some day, on this floor, we are going
to have to talk about the process by
which the United States involves itself
in the selection of the Secretary Gen-
eral. But suffice it to say at this point
that had Mr. Waldheim's past been
known, it is very unlikely he ever
would have been chosen. In my mind
it is not possible that Mr. Waldheim
would have been chosen Secretary
General had this aspect of his past
been known.
It happens that I was present on the
evening, the early hours of the day, on
which the choice was made. The
United States had supported a distin-
guished diplomat, Mas Jakobson of
Finland, who was unacceptable to the
Soviet Union for the very reason of his
distinctions. Other candidates were
put in nomination. In the end. Mr.
Waldheim was chosen, with obviously
very little attention on our part to any
background we might have needed to
know. He was then the permanent rep-
resentative of the Government of Aus-
tria. We had reason to take some
things as given, but clearly we will not
have that reason in the future.
In any event, had it ever developed
in the course of his first term that he
had in fact concealed this information
the way he did, he would never have
been nominated for a second term.
Certainly the United States would
have vetoed it. I was the permanent
representative at the time the decision
was made that we would support him
for a second term, and I can speak
with a degree of certainty that had
this concealed past been known, there
would have been no such second term.
So the question is now, What can we
do? Well, we cannot undo the history
of 10 years of this man as Secretary
General, but we can cease to reward
him for those 10 years of deception?
and we know not what else.
It is the practice each year for the
General Assembly to appropriate
$81,650 as a payment in lieu of pen-
sion?in place of pension. It seems to
me that this need no longer be done.
Dr. Waldheim is President of Austria.
He is well provided with the amenities
and allowances and salary that go with
that position. He has other resources
as well from his past in the foreign
ministry. We need not concern our-
selves that he may become destitute as
a consequence of our action. Our
action gives our government the first
opportunity to state that it does not
like what happened and wishes, by
formal action, to declare its dismay
and possibly to indicate its resolve
that such an event will not happen
again.
Mr. President, the amendment
simply asks our President to instruct
the permanent representative to offer
an amendment striking this retire-
ment allowance for the current year
and for future years. I cannot doubt
that this would be welcomed in the ex-
ecutive branch and in the Department
of State as a measure of supporting
what I cannot but suppose is the wish
of the administration. It may be that
they are not aware of this payment.
All the better, then, that we could put
them on notice and give them the op-
portunity and the right to say that the
U.S. Senate supports them in this
matter and, indeed, has urged it upon
them.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, it is
always important to listen to the dis-
tinguished Senator from New York as
he speaks about the United Nations. I
know that I speak for all Senators in
the admiration we have for his distin-
guished service on behalf of our coun-
try at the United Nations. It is of his-
torical interest, as the Senator has
pointed out, that he was present at
the time that Mr. Waldheim came into
the office that is being discussed.
I have no indication from the admin-
istration or the Department of State
with regard to their feelings on the
amendment. It is a new subject that
has come to the attention of the man-
agers of the bill today. At the same
time, we have read the amendment
carefully. It does express the sense of
this body that the President of the
United States ought to instruct our
permanent representative with regard
to the Waldheim pension. It seems to
me to be a sensible and reasonable
S 8423
proposition, and we are prepared on
this side of the aisle to accept the
amendment.
Mr. FELL. Mr. President. I think the
amendment of the Senator from New
York probably expresses the chagrin
of many of us for the behavior and the
actions and the lack of fullness in tell-
ing the truth of the Secretary Gener-
al.
We are aware of the good he did
when he was Secretary General; con-
scious of the fact that his wife, who
joined the Nazi party as a young
woman of 19, was persuaded by Secre-
tary General Waldheim 2 or 3 years
later, as a condition of their marriage,
to get out of the Nazi party.
So it is not all black and white here.
But I do think that, on balance, the
Senator from New York has raised
some very valid points. There is no
question that if the United Nations
had been aware of the wartime record
and service of Mr. Waldheim, he
would not have been rewarded with
the Secretary Generalship of the
United Nations.
For that reason, I say there is no ob-
jection to this amendment on our side
of the aisle.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there further debate? If not, the ques-
tion is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2181) was
agreed to.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I
move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agred to.
Mr. LUGAR. I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I
thank my distinguished friends, the
chairman and ranking minority
member of the committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
seeks recognition?
1111:128D111282 O. 2112
(Purpose: To authorize a study of the feasi-
bility of a program for the control and
eradication of amblyomrna variegatum
(heartwater), in bovins animals in the Car-
ibbean and for a program to control and
eradicate arnblyomma varlegatum in coun-
tries in the Caribbean)
Mrs. HAWKINS. Mr. President, I
send an amendment to the desk and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair will inform the Senator from
Florida that the amendment of the
Senator from Illinois would have to be
temporarily set aside in order to con-
sider the Senator's amendment and
the Chair will also indicate to the Sen-
ator from Florida that the time of 2
o'clock has been established for voting
on that amendment.
Does the Senator wish to set aside
the amendment temporarily?
Mrs. HAWKINS. The Senator does
wish to set the amendment aside tem-
porarily.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, the amendment of the
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
1"1"11
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
S 8424 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Senator from Illinois is set aside tem-
porarily.
The amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Florida [Mrs. HAW-
xtrts) for herself and Mr. MATTINGLY, pro-
poses an amendment numbered 2182.
At the appropriate place insert the follow-
ing:
(a) Section 103 of the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961 is hereby amended?
(1) by adding the following paragraph
after paragraph (a)(2):
(3) Of the funds authorized to be appro-
priated in paragraph (2) of this subsection,
$150.000 for the fiscal year 1986 shall be
available only for a study of the feasibility
of a program for the control and eradication
of arnblyomma variegatum (heartwater) in
bovine animals in the Caribbean, to be com-
pleted within 180 days from the date of en-
actment of this act. Of the funds authorized
to be appropriated for the fiscal year 1987.
not less than $4 million shall be available
only for the purpose of controlling and
eradicating arnblyotnma variegatum in these
countries.
Mrs. HAWKINS. Mr. President, I
rise to offer an amendment to deal
with an emergency situation that has
arisen in the Caribbean. There has
been identification of heartwater,
known by its scientific name amb-
lyornma vaniegatum, in several islands
In the Caribbean.
This is a disease which has been un-
known in this hemisphere until recent-
ly when it seems to have been trans-
mitted from Africa to certain coun-
tries in the Caribbean.
There is reason to fear that this dis-
ease could be further transmitted to
the southern, warmer regions of the
United States where it could cause
severe economic hardship on the
cattle industry of this country. It
could even be transmitted to the
northern part of the country.
Agriculture, especially livestock rais-
ing, is an Important element in the de-
velopment of all the countries of this
region. The disease transmitted is
fatal. It can be transmitted by birds
and wildlife, as well as bovine animals.
There is no way these countries will be
developed unless we show our concern
for their agricultural industries.
This is an opportunity to help the
countries of the region, and protect an
Important American industry, simulta-
neously. I hope the managers of the
bill will be willing to accept the
amendment. It is a small amount of
money, but an amount that will be
well invested.
We know that heartwater is present
in the Caribbean. We cannot afford to
have it spread into the United States.
Florida could very well be the gateway
and we cannot let that happen. The
cattle industry in Florida is a $350 mil-
lion a year business that is directly
threatened by the possible spread of
this disease.
This is a major type of amendment.
We have been working on this prob-
lem since March 1986. This benefits
the entire United States. A study that
we do in our State is solving a problem
throughout the United States and one
wonderful thing about this particular
amendment is it is a study to be done
in 180 days so we will have a solution
to this problem.
I unerstand it has been cleared on
both sides of the aisle.
I thank both sides of the aisle for
giving it immediate consideration,
since it is a major matter.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President. I believe
we are prepared to accept the amend-
ment on our side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there further debate on the Senator's
amendment? The question is on agree-
ing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2182) was
agreed to.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I move
to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mrs. HAWKINS. Mr. President, I
move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. RUDMAN. Mr. President, I in-
quire of the managers of the bill since
there is a vote scheduled for 2 o'clock.
I have four very small amendments.
They have been cleared on both sides.
Will the managers agree that we
might go forward at this time by
asking the pending amendment be set
aside?
Mr. LUGAR. Yes.
Mr. RUDMAN. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be laid aside for the pur-
pose of considering en bloc four
amendments that have been accepted
by both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
AMENDMENT NO. 2189
(Purpose: To reduce the dollar threshold on
contracts for which only U.S. contractors
may bid)
(Purpose: To narrow the provision authoriz-
ing the Secretary of State to waive the re-
quirement that U.S. contractors be used)
(Purpose: To permit more United States
persons to bid on contracts)
(Purpose: To require that 10 percent of the
contracts, to the extent practicable, be
amended to small businesses)
Mr. RUDMAN. Mr. President, I send
to the desk four amendments which I
ask to be considered en bloc and ask
for their immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Hampshire (Mr.
Rummy) proposes an amendment en bloc
numbered 2183.
Mr. RUDMAN. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 109, line 4, strike "$5,000,000"
and insert in lieu thereof "6500,000 or which
involves physical or technical security".
June 25, 1986
On page 109, line 7, beginning with "laws"
strike all through line 13 and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
"statutes which prohibit the use of United
States contractors on such projects. The ex-
ception contained in this subsection shall
only become effective with respect to a for-
eign country 30 days after the Secretary of
State certifies to the House Committee on
Foreign Affairs. the House Committee on
Appropriations. the Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations, and the Senate Commit-
tee on Appropriations what specific actions
he has taken to urge such foreign country
to permit the use of United States contrac-
tors on such projects, and what actions he
shall take with respect to that country as
authorized by the Foreign Missions Act.".
On page 110. line 4, strike "5" and insert
in lieu thereof "2".
On page 110, beginning on line 12. strike
all through line 15.
On page 110, strike "(F)" and "(G)" where
they appear and insert in lieu thereof "(Er
and "(F)", respectively.
On page 111. line 8, strike "(e)" and insert
in lieu thereof the following:
"(e) AMERICAN SMALL BUSINESS CONTRAC-
TORS.?Not less than 10 percent of the
amount appropriated pursuant to section
401(a) for diplomatic construction projects
each fiscal year shall be allocated to the
extent practicable for contracts with Ameri-
can small business contractors. Contracts
awarded pursuant to subsection (d) of this
section shall not be considered in determin-
ing compliance with this subsection.
"(fr.
THRESHOLD FOR -BUY AMERICAN" PROVISION
Mr. RUDMAN, Mr. President. The
committee bill indicates that only U.S.
contractors may bid on diplomatic con-
struction or design projects with total
project values exceeding $5,000,000.
The effect is to open those projects
valued at less than $5,000,000 to for-
eign competition, in effect often deny-
ing projects to American firms.
An ironic effect of the committee
bill is to provide a "Buy American"
preference for the larger projects
likely to be bid on by large companies,
while denying such preference for
those projects more likely to be bid on
by small business.
My amendment solves this problem
by reducing from $5,000,000 to
$500,000 the level at which foreign
contractors may compete for projects
involved in this diplomatic security en-
hancement program. In addition, it
provides that only U.S. firms., may
compete on any projects involving
physical or technical security.
FOREIGN PROHIBITIONS ON U.S. CONTRACTORS
Mr. President, the committee bill
permits the Secretary of State to
waive the preference for U.S. contrac-
tors when the foreign country has
laws or policies which prohibit the use
of U.S. firms, provided he notifies
Congress of his intent to do so.
My amendment strengthens that by
limiting the Secretary's authority to
waive in situations where the foreign
country has statutes precluding U.S.
firms from competing. The amend-
ment also requires the Secretary to
report to the appropriation congres-
' narlaccifipri in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26 CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
I Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
June 25, 1986
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 8425
sional committees on what retaliatory
action, if any, he is proposing to take
under the Foreign Missions Act.
The fact of the matter is that U.S.
Embassies and consulates overseas are
legally a part of the United States. No
foreign country should be allowed
with impunity to dictate io our Gov-
ernment who we may or may not use
to build or improve the security of our
diplomatic facilities.
MAKING IT POSSIBLE FOR MORE FIRMS TO
COMPETE
Mr. President, the third amendment
addresses provisions which effectively
preclude many firms, especially small-
er businesses, and any new companies
from bidding on these projects.
The committee, in what I believe
was an effort to try control quality,
limited eligible contractors to compa-
nies who had been in business for at
least 5 years and which had achieved a
certain level of business volume. How-
ever, many of the companies involved
in physical and technical security
equipments and installations are
evolving companies resulting from the
recent upsurge in worldwide terrorism.
The committee provision has the
effect of precluding many of these
newer companies from competing for
contracts under this program. With
less competition, the taxpayer will end
up paying more.
My amendment solves the problem
by reducing the 5 year requirement to
2 years and striking the business
volume threshhold.
SMALL BUSINESS SETASIDE
Mr. President, the fourth amend-
ment establishes a setaside for small
businesses, and now I quote from the
amendment, "to the extent practica-
ble."
The fact of the matter is that the
State Department has a history of pre-
ferring to deal with a small number of
favored suppliers for goods and serv-
ices. Small businesses around the
country who are not in favor find it
almost impossible to successfully bid
on State Department work.
My amendment attempts to address
this problem by ensuring small busi-
nesses a percentage of the available
work. At the same time, it provides the
State Department with the flexibility
to waive these provisions when abso-
lutely necessary.
I might note that I expect the State
Department to have good explanations
if they fail to meet this requirement.
As chairman of the Appropriations
Subcommittee with jurisdiction over
their budget, I intend to monitor their
Implementation of this provision care-
fully.
Mr. President, a very brief explana-
tion.
As the committee bill is presently
written. I believe that American com-
panies will in general, have more diffi-
culty in competing for contracts on
the smaller projects.
Accordingly, these four amendments
deal with enhancing the opportunities
for American firms to do the kind of
construction that we are talking about
In support of the diplomatic security
Initiative that this Congress is going to
fund at a very high level this year.
These amendments will enhance the
opportunity of American companies,
both large and small, to do that work.
It is also the purpose of one of these
amendments to ensure that only
American companies will compete for
projects involving physical or techni-
cal security.
I believe that fairly describes the
amendments, which have been cleared
on both sides.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, my dis-
tinguished colleague, the Senator from
New Hampshire, has proposed four
amendments which will assure further
participation by American small busi-
ness in the Diplomatic Security Pro-
gram
One of the most important objec-
tives the Foreign Relations Committee
had in drafting the amended version
of H.R. 4151 was to see that American
companies were involved in the pro-
gram both for the economic benefit as
well as the additional security it af-
forded the program.
The Senator's amendment certainly
helps reach that objective.
I support the amendment on our
side of the aisle and I am prepared to
accept all four.
Mr. FELL. Mr. President. these are
four excellent amendments.
Coming from the State where I do,
where small business is really a great
deal of all our business, I am glad
indeed to recommend the passage of
these amendments and commend the
Senator from New Hampshire for
having proposed them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If
there be no further debate, the ques-
tion is on agreeing to the amendment
of the Senator from New Hampshire.
The amendment (No. 2183) was
agreed to.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I move
to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I move to
lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. RUDMAN. Mr. President, let me
express my appreciation to the chair-
man and ranking minority member of
the Foreign Relations Committee and
their staff working with us and work-
ing out these amendments and allow-
ing us to present them at this time.
I am sure the small business commu-
nity of America does appreciate that.
Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Senator.
AMENDMENT NO. 2179
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
RtmataN). Under the previous order,
the hour of 2 p.m. having arrived, the
vote will now occur on the Simon
amendment.
The question is on agreeing to the
amendment of the Senator from Illi-
nois. On this question, the yeas and
nays have been ordered, and the clerk
will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called
the roll.
Mr. SIMPSON: I announce that the
Senator from Oregon [Mr. Pacxw000l
Is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
PRESSLER ). Are there any other Sena-
tors in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced?yeas 99.
nays 0, as follows:
(Rollcall Vote No. 150 Leg.]
YEAS-99
Abcinor Glenn McConnell
Andrews Goldwater Melcher
Armstrong Gore Metzenhaum
Baucus Gorton Miu.h,?11
Bentsen Gramrn Moynihan
Biden Grassley Murkowski
Bingaman Harkin Nickles
Boren Hart Nunn
Bosch witz Hatch Pell
Bradley Hatfield Pressler
Bumpers Hawkins Proxmire
Burdick Hecht Pr)-or
Byrd Heflin Quayle
Chat ee Heinz Rtegle
Chiles Helms Rockefeller
Cochran Hollings Roth
Cohen Humphrey Rudman
Cranston Inouye Sarbanes
D'Arnat 0 Johnston Sasser
Danforth Kassebaurn Simon
DeConcini Kasten Simpson
Denton Kennedy Specter
Dixon Kerry Stafford
Dodd Lau tenberg St ennis
Dole . Lax alt Stevens
Domenicf Leahy Symms
Durenberger Levin Thurmond
Eagleton Long TrIble
East Lugar Wallop
Evans Mathias Warner
Exon Matsunaga Weicker
Ford Mattingly Wilson
Garn McClure Zorinsky
NOT VOTING-1
Packwood
So the amendment (No. 2179) was
agreed to.
0 1420
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I move
to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President. I
move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be temporarily set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
AMENDMENT NO. 2184
(Purpose: To provide for forfeiture of pro-
ceeds derived from espionage activities,
and for other purposes) ?
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send
an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska (Mr. Srevoisl.
for himself. Mr. DE/civic Mr. THURMOND,
Mr. LEANT, Mr. MURROWSKI, Mr. D'AMAr0,
Mr. BORER. Mr. LAICALT, Mr. ZORINSICY. Mr.
MCCONNELL, Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. DUREN-
BERGER, Mr. MATTINGLY. Mr. LEV/N, Mr. AN-
DREWS, and Mr. LUGAR proposes an amend-
ment numbered 2189.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
S 8426
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the fol-
lowing: Section 794 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by inserting at the end
thereof the following:
"0:1)(1) Any person convicted of a violation
of this section or of any other felony in vio-
lation of the provisions of this chapter shall
forfeit to the United States, irrespective of
any provision of State law?
(A) any property constituting, or derived
from, any proceeds the person obtained. di-
rectly or indirectly, as the result of such vio-
lation: and
03) any of the person's property used, or
intended to be used, in any manner or part.
to commit, or to facilitate the commission
of. such violation.
"(2) The court, in imposing sentence on a
defendant for a conviction of a violation of
this section or of any other felony in viola-
tion of this chapter, shall order that the de-
fendant forfeit to the United States all
property described in paragraph (1) of this
subsection.
"(3) The provisions of subsections (13). (c)
and (e) through (o) of section 413 of the
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and
Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853 (b), (c),
and (e)-(o)) shall apply to?
"(A) property subject to forfeiture under
this subsection;
"(B) any seizure or disposition of such
property: and
"(C) any administrative or judicial pro-
ceechng in relation to such property,
If not inconsistent with this subsection.
"(4) Upon motion of the United States at-
torney made at any time after conviction of
a person at a trial conducted under chapter
47 of title 10 with respect to convictions
under sections 004 (article 104), 906 (article
106). 906a (article 106a), and for convictions
under section 934 (article 134) that incorpo-
rate provisons of this chapter, a court of
competent jurisdiction shall, if the court de-
termines that the interest of justice so re-
quires, order such person to forfeit to the
United States all property described in pare-
grapoh (1) of this subsection.
"(eX1) Upon the motion of the United
States attorney made at any time after con-
viction of a defendant for a violation of this
section, for any other felony in violation of
this chapter, or for an offense described in
subsection (d)(4) of this section, and after
notice to any interested party, the court
shall, if the court determines that the inter-
est of justice is requires, order such defend-
ant to forfeit to the United States all or any
part of proceeds received or to be received
by that defendant, or by a transferee or
that defendant, from a contract relating to
the depiction of such offense in a movie.
book, newspaper, magazine, radio or televi-
sion production, or live entertainment or
presentation of any kind, or from a contract
relating to an expression of the convicted
person's thoughts, opinions, or emotions re-
garding such crime.
"(2) An order issued under this subsection
shall require that the party with whom the
defendant contracts pay to the Attorney
General any proceeds due the defendant
under such a contract.
"(3) Proceeds paid to the Attorney Gener-
al under this subsection shall be paid into
the general fund of the Treasury of the
United States.
"(4) As used in this subsection, the term
Interested party' includes the defendant,
any transferee of proceeds due the defend-
ant under the contract referred to in par-
agrpah and the person with whom the
defendant has contracted.
"(1x1) The Attorney General of the
United States, at his discretion, is author-
ized to pay ? an amount not to exceed
$100.000 as a reward for information?
'1A) leading to the arrest or conviction of
any person for?
"(i) the commission of a felony in viola-
tion of this chapter or for a conspiracy or
attempt to commit such an offense; or
"(ii) an offense described in subsection
(d)(4) of this section, or for a conspiracy or
attempt to commit such an offense; or
"(B) leading to the prevention, frustra-
tion, or mitigation of the effect of a felony
In violation of this chapter or of an offense
described in subsection (d)(4) of this section.
"(2) The Attorney General or the desig-
neee of the Attorney General shall deter-
mine whether an individual furnishing in-
formation described in paragraph (1) is enti-
tled to a reward under this section and the
amount to be paid, except that the author-
ity to pay a reward of $10.000 or more shall
not be delegated to any person other than
the Deputy Attorney General. the Associate
Attorney General, or the Director of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation. A determi-
nation made by the Attorney General or the
designee of the Attorney General under this
subsection shall be final and conclusive, and
no court shall have jurisdiction or power to
review such determination.-
"(3) No officer, employee, or member of
the Armed Forces of the United States or of
any governmental entity who, while in the
performance of his or her official duties.
furnishes the informaton described in para-
graph (1) shall be eligible for any monetary
reward under this subsection, except that a
person who acts with official approval as an
undercover source or informant, when it is
not a part of that person's normal official
duties to do so. may be eligible for such a
reward.
"(4) There are authorized to be appropri-
ated such sums as are necessary for the pay-
ment of rewards under this subsection
except that no funds may be appropriated
for this purpose prior to fiscal year Mr.".
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the
amendment I present to the Senate
addresses what I consider to be a seri-
ous problem that faces our Nation, the
question and the problem surrounding
espionage.
I introduced S. 1654 on September
-17 of last year to attempt to respond
to that problem and that bill was
pending before the Judiciary Commit-
tee for some time. It is now before us.
I offer this amendment on my
behalf and also Senator DENTON, who
worked very hard to get the bill out of
the Judiciary Committee, as well as
Senators LEAHY, Monxowsm,
D'ABIATO, Bow, ZORINSIET,
THURMOND, McCown:1.a Limns, AN-
DREWS, IWIATTINGLT, AftwiTIONG, and
DURENBERGER.
There are at least 41 cosponsors to
the basic bill. Unfortunately I have
been unable to contact all of them
before today so I ask unanimous con-
sent the remainder of the list be print-
ed in the RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the mate-
rial was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
Senators Domenici, Heim Simpson,
Glenn, Nunn, Hatch. Chiles, East, Chafee,
Gorton, Kasten, Rudman. Goldwater, Gam,
Bumpers, Byrd, Boschwitz. litxon. Nickles,
Hawkins. Roth. Gore. Abdnor. GrassleY.
Quayle, and Symms.
June 25, 1986'
Mr. STEVENS. This legislation. Mr.
President, is not too complicated. It
addresses the problem of spies, spies
who have been selling information
concerning the security of our country
and have been profiting from that
action.
It would deny spies the proceeds of
the sale of the information. It would
deny spies any royalties from the sale
of any story pertaining to their activi-
ties, and it would allow rewards for
those who turn in information which
leads to the apprehension of spies.
By taking away the proceeds of espi-
onage and confiscating property used
to commit espionage, we will not just
be punishing those convicted of espio-
nage; we will make them think twice
about entering into the career of
spying for profit.
I believe that we can make it harder
for people to get their hands on infor-
mation of this type. We can try to im-
prove detection methods and we will
take various steps to increase security.
However, until we take away the mo-
tivation which has been present, that
is the financial aspects of spying, we
will not be able to stop what has been
going on.
Our real job. I think, is to let every-
one know that no one in this country
will be allowed to profit from espio-
nage.
This legislation will allow the confis-
cation of any of the "proceeds of the
sale of the spy story, that is of the spy
himself or herself.
The public, I think, has a fascination
with spies and espionage but infamy
should not be the foundation for a
public career or for financial success.
I really believe that it is time for us
to act to prevent this type of situation
from developing in our country. It is a
growing threat to our national aecuri-
ty.
Since 1945 there have been 65 pros-
ecutions relating to espionage. Since
1982 the FBI has arrested 25 individ-
uals for espionage; 18 have been con-
victed and six cases are still pending.
This 4-year total is the highest rate
for arrest and convictions for espio-
nage charges since World War II. I
think the figures speak for them-
selves.
The lure of money is taking people
Into espionage. It is attracting too
many people and this prime motiva-
tion is sheer greed.
Law enforcement officials responsi-
ble for investigating espionage cases
recognize the common denominator in
these cases has become the search for
profit. To quote Bill Baker, assistant
director of the FBI, 'It says in the
KGB manual, 'Americans can be
bought.'"
We are all aware of the Walker
family spy case. We are actually fortu-
nate that John and Michael Walker
reached a plea bargaining agreement.
This gives us the opportunity to
answer questions about just how seri-
ous the damage done by the Walkers
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
June 25, 1986
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
has been. The Walkers, however, are
not alone in their infamy?by any
stretch of the imagination. They have
been joined in the headlines recently
by Ronald Pelton and the Pollards.
There have been several serious
csises in the last few years. The prob-
lem of U.S. citizens selling off national
security information is best illustrated
by a few examples.
Joseph Helmich was arrested on
July 15, 1981, on charges of selling top
secret information about a crypto-
graphic system to Soviet agents. He
was awarded the honorary rank of
Colonel in the Soviet Army, and re-
ceived $131,000.
David Barnett, a former member of
the CIA's Directorate of Operations,
pleaded guilty on October 29, 1980, to
a charge of selling classified informs-
tion on CIA operations to the Soviet
Union. He admitted to receiving
$92.600 for this information, and may
have been paid an additional amount
to try and secure a staff position with
the Senate or House Intelligence Com-
mittees.
William Bell. a former employee of
Hughes Aircraft Corp., was arrested
on June 28, 1981. He was charged with
espionage in connection with the sale
of documents to the Polish intelli-
gence service, for which he received
approximately $110,000.
James D. Harper was arrested Octo-
ber 15, 1983. for selling missile data to
a Polish agent. Harper reportedly was
paid over $250,000. He pleaded guilty
to one count of espionage, and was
sentenced to life imprisonment on
May 14, 1984.
In this sampling?which is far from
exhaustive?there is a common factor
which dominates each case. These in-
dividuals were paid fairly large sums
for classified information. Each of
them exchanged a portion of our na-
tional security for their personal gain.
We all recognize that it is time for
Congress to do something about what
has become a pervasive problem. This
is by no means the only response I
expect us to make to espionage. How-
ever, I believe this to be a major step
In the right direction. If we discourage
Individuals from selling information
we remove the incentive to commit es-
pionage. I propose that we use the
profit motive against these perpetra-
tors. This legislation would confiscate
the proceeds of espionage activity, and
turn the tables on spies by paying
those who provide information on
their activities.
The tool we would create with this
legislation to fight espionage is very
similar to one available to drug en-
forcement agents. This is very appro-
priate, since the motivation to commit
espionage and to deal in drugs is very
similar. In both cases, the perpetrator
cares little for the consequences of his
actions. The reason for being in the
business is to make money?at any
cost, no questions asked. It is an em-
barrassment to our society.
It is now apparent that one of the
best ways to strike at drug dealers is
by taking away the profits of their
business. Even though spies are in-
spired by a similar desire, the amounts
of money we are talking about are de-
cidely smaller. At the same time, the
harm being done is much greater.
Drug use is a plague in this country,
but espionage threatens the nation's
survival.
Taken as a package. I believe this
proposal provides a fairly complete re-
sponse to the prime motivation of espi-
onage. It is carefully drafted so that it
affects only those convicted of espio-
nage felonies. The power to grant re-
wards is carefully limited to avoid
abuse and excess. This is a good piece
of legislation?one that demands
action now. To put it off any longer
could doom this proposal as time runs
short later this year.
In my judgment, it is time for Con-
gress to do something about this prob-
lem. I think the Senate knows that I
have other legislation pending which I
think is sort of old fashioned, but I be-
lieve spies just ought to be shot. As a
matter of fact, the Senator from Ari-
zona told me just now he thinks they
ought to be hung using a loose rope.
I do not think there is anything
about our system in the United States
today that infuriates me as much as
the increasing tendency of Americans
to spy on their own Government and
to do so because of the motivation of
profit.
It is time for us to take a major step
to discourage individuals from selling
information, and if we do so, I think
we will take action to remove the in-
centive to commit the espionage in the
first place.
As I said, this amendment would
confiscate the proceeds of espionage
activities and turn the table on those
who spy against their awn country by
paying individuals who provide infor-
mation on the spying activities. The
tool we would create with this legisla-
tion to fight espionage is very similar
to that we are using in the drug en-
forcement area.
I think the Senate is well aware of
that.
Mr. ANDREWS. Will the Senator
yield?
Mr. STEVENS. I am happy to yield.
Mr. ANDREWS. I appreciate my col-
league yielding and I am proud to join
him in this effort because of all the
kinds of heinous acts against our
people, the sellingout of our Nation's
secrets for profit is perhaps the worst.
You can talk about ideology, you can
talk about people who disagree with
what is going on within the Govern-
ment, you can talk about general
spying. They are all bad enough. But
spying for pay for those 40 pieces of
silver has absolutely no place, Mr.
President, in this society of ours.
Spying for profit, selling out your
friends, your family, your neighbors,
for a few dollars is the worst, the most
S 8427
treasonable act anyone can engage in
against our people.
I would hope that we would be able
to put this kind of stiff regulation in
wherein we would confiscate any of
the profit, any of the profit from writ-
ing the books or taking part in a movie
later on, celebrating this great spy
case or whatever it might be. Not only
that, but I am totally inclined to go
along with my colleague when he
quotes our colleague from Arizona in
saying, "These are the kinds of people
who ought to be shot because there is
absolutely no justification for spying,
for espionage, for profit."
I applaud my colleague for introduc-
ing this amendment. We cosponsored
the legislation. It would be my hope
that the leaders of the debate of this
bill will accept this amendment be-
cause it is long overdue.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I
thank the Senator from North
Dakota. He has been in the forefront
of those who have tried the assist to
work out this legislation. I think we
should mention Senator DrarroN, who
has worked very hard to see to it that
the legislation be brought to the floor.
There is no question about it that we
are now dealing with a different phe-
nomenon in our country with this in-
creased activity of espionage for
money.
I have introduced legislation to
make certain that that kind of activi-
ty, espionage for profit against our
own Government, is considered trea-
son.
0 1430
I consider it to be treason and I
think the country believes it is trea-
son. This amendment has been care-
fully drafted. It does not affect those
people who go out and study the ac-
tivities of a convicted spy and present
to the country the story of that type
of activity. What it does is prevent the
person who is convicted of espionage
from profiting from the act and forfeit
whatever that person received in con-
nection with the espionage activity.
There is no reason to allow them to
keep their ill-gotten gains and there is
no reason to allow them to sell for any
purpose the story of their actions.
Mr. President, I hope that the
Senate will adopt this amendment. It
is time for us to take this action, par-
ticularly in view of the nember of
cases that are pending right now in
which substantial sums will be re-
tained by those who have been in-
volved if Congress does not act.
? Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President,
as a member of the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence I am acute-
ly aware of the problem of espionage
against the United States. Soviet bloc
Intelligence services spare no effort or
expense in a relentless effort to steal
scientific, technical, and defense se-
crets from the West. A single technical
document can save Moscow years and
hundreds of millions of dollars in re-
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
S 8428 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
search and development. Super-sophis-
ticated U.S. intelligence systems, upon
which our security depends, can be
compromised in a few minutes by a
traitor with special knowledge. Any
reader of the newspaper in recent
weeks knows these are not hypotheti-
cal possibilities; they are case histo-
ries.
We have seen the emergence of a
new breed of spy, unscrupulous merce-
naries willing to sell out their country
for cash. Spying has become a lucra-
tive business. Men like Walker and
Whitworth apparently received hun-
dreds of thousands of dollars for the
information they provided. Walker,
now that he has been caught, has em-
barked on a new money-making
scheme to sell his story to a publisher.
The more notorious the author, the
fatter the royalties.
Why should espionage pay? It
should not, and passage of the amend-
ment will make sure it does not. It is
time to make It abundantly clear that
there will be no opportunity for the
Walkers and their ilk to keep their ill
gotten gains. Espionage is not fun and
games. Anyone contemplating spying
against this country must know that
there will be no pot of gold at the end
of the rainbow?only a very long stay
in prison.
Mr. President, the amendment of-
fered by Senator STEVENS is right on
point. It prevents spies from taking ad-
vantage of their illegal activities, and
says that spies cannot profit by receiv-
ing financial rewards from book royal-
ties, movie rights, and similar arrange-
ments. Clearly. Mr. President, the
Senate must say loud and clear that
spies cannot become "media stars"
from their illegal activities. I urge my
colleagues to support this important
amendment..
? Mr. DENTON. Mr. President, I rise
in support of the amendment offered
by my distinguished colleague from
Alaska (Mr. STEVENS) which incorpo-
rates the substance of S. 1654. The
original bill, which was unanimously
approved by the Judiciary Committee
on June 12, 1986, will amend title 18
U.S.C. to provide for criminal forfeit-
ure of proceeds derived from espio-
nage activities and rewards for infor-
mations providing Information leading
to arrests in espionage cases. I com-
mend Senator SID/Errs for his leader-
ship in this area and I am only too
happy to join as an original cosponsor
of this amendment.
Mr. President, recent events sur-
rounding the Walker and other espio-
nage cases have made it abundantly
clear that the threat of espionage is
real and pervasive. The Soviet Union,
its client-states, and other hostile
countries have a massive effort under-
way in this country to amass large
amounts of material about our mili-
tary secrets and technology.
The foreign intelligence-gathering in
the United States has caused untold
damage to our national security. The
technological lead enjoyed by the
United States in certain defense-relat-
ed areas has been seriously eroded by
the foreign success in obtaining classi-
fied scientific and technical informa-
tion. In addition, spying has cost our
country billings of dollars in stolen
technology and military secrets. To re-
verse the trend, we must remove the
financial incentive for those persons
who would assist these foreign spies by
engaging in espionage activity.
This amendment will remove the fi-
nancial incentive and will aid in the
battle against espionage. The amend-
ment contains three separate provi-
sions.
First, it requires that convicted spies
forfeit all proceeds from their espio-
nage activities by incorporating by ref-
erence the forfeiture provisions con-
tained in the Comprehensive Drug
Abuse Prevention and Control Act of
1970, (21 U.S.C. section 853);
Second, it requires that any proceeds
from publication or television rights to
the story on, or interviews of, convict-
ed spies be forfeited (Mirroring the
Son-of-Sam provisions contained in 18
U.S.C. section 3671);
Third, it establishes a new fund to
reward those whose information leads
to the arrest or conviction of spies
(mirroring the rewards provision con-
tained in the Rewards for Information
Concerning Terrorism Act, 18 U.S.C.
section 3071).
Mr. President, I am pleased that
Senator STEVENS has accepted, at my
suggestion, language which will make
the provisions of the amendment ap-
plicable to members of the Armed
Forces convicted of espionage pursu-
ant to the Uniform Code of Military
Justice, as well as those individuals
convicted under title 18 of the United
States Code.
This amendment represents a neces-
sary tool in our fight against espio-
nage. I urge my colleagues to support
It..
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am
pleased to be an original cosponsor of
this amendment. Simply stated, it will
apply existing Federal procedures for
forfeiture of criminal proceeds, and re-
wards for informants, to espionage
cases.
We have all been shocked by the
wave of espionage cases that have oc-
curred in the Defense Department,
among Defense contractors, and even
in the intelligence agencies. Perhaps
the most ominous development was re-
vealed in the Walker case. Whatever
other factors may have motivated
John Walker to betray his country's
defense secrets to the Soviet Union,
his cynical attention appeared to focus
primarily on the money he stood to
make from his activities.
This amendment squarely addresses
the ill-gotten gains from espionage
and the incentive to turn in those sus-
pected of this crime. It will be a useful
contribution In our effort to see to it
that espionage will never be seen to
pay, and that those actually or con-
templating spying for foreign powers
June 25, 1986
recognize that others could be reward-
ed for providing information that
leads to their arrest.
I want to congratulate Senator STE-
vENs for his initiative, and Senator
DENTON, chairman of the Subcommit-
tee on Security and Terrorism, who
worked closely with me on the
Denton/Leahy substitute which
became the final draft of this bill.
Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. STEVENS. I yield for a question
to the Senator from Maryland.
Mr. MATHIAS. My question arises
from the so-called Son of Sam provi-
sion of this amendment, which would
prevent persons convicted of certain
espionage offenses from profiting by
writing about their crimes. It is surely
a repulsive spectacle when an individ-
ual profits from the commercial ex-
ploitation of his crimes against the
United States, and I am in complete
sympathy with the Senator's effort to
divert that profit stream. Nonetheless,
I am also concerned about the degree
to which any "Son of Sam" provision
burdens the exercise of first amend-
ment rights. Am I correct in my under-
standing that this amendment Is mod-
eled after the "Son of Sam" provision
that Congress enacted in the Compre-
hensive Crime Control Act of 1984,
and that now is codified at 18 U.S.0
section 3671?
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is cor-
rect. I am offering this legislation so
that the forfeiture remedies that were
made available to the Government in
the Comprehensive Crime Control Act
of 1984 with respect to crimes of vio-
lence can be used against those who
are convicted of violating certain spec-
ified espionage statutes.
Mr. MATHIAS. Am I also correct
that it is not the Senator's intent to
inhibit in any way the right of a third
person to write or publish an account
of the crimes that a convicted spy
committed against the United States?
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is cor-
rect. Let me quote from a portion of
the Judiciary Committee's report on
the 1984 "Son of Sam" legislation. I
am confident that it will help clarify
the scope of the forfeiture provision
that I am offering:
. . . the I l amendment refers to money
payable to the defendant's "transferee,"
rather than "any other party." This is to
ensure that innocent third parties, such as
Truman Capote. the author of "In told
Blood," or other authors who have not par-
ticipated in criminal conduct and who wish
to depict the defendant's crime, are not af-
fected by the proposed rule change.
(S. Rep. No. 98-497 at 6.)
The "In Cold Blood" example is in-
structive here, since the corresponding
provision in this legislation is not in-
tended to reach an innocent third
party who was not convicted of espio-
nage when that third party writes or
publishes an account of the events sur-
rounding the espionage offense. It
would apply to any proceeds due to
the convicted spy or any part of the
nntIV Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4 aim*
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
June 25, 1986
CONGRESSIONAL
convicted spy's share that he has di-
verted to some third person.
Mr. MATHIAS. I thank the Senator
from Alaska for that clarification. I
have one additional question. One of
the statutes covered by this amend-
ment is 18 U.S.C. 793. As the Senator
Knows. an important case under that
statute was recently concluded in my
home State of Maryland. In that case,
the jury convicted Samuel Morison of
providing certain classified photo-
graphs to Jane's Defense Weekly.
I raise this point because the pros-
ecution of Mr. Morison under section
793 is unprecedented, has wide-rang-
ing first amendment implications, and
is currently on appeal. In other words,
the law in this area may be in a state
of flux. Would the Senator's amend-
ment have any effect on the substan-
tive reach of section 793?
Mr. STEVENS. It is not my intent to
affect in any way the definition of the
underlying offenses to which this leg-
islation would apply. Thus, this legis-
lation should have no impact on the
judicial interpretation of section 793.
It would simply provide the Govern-
ment with the opportunity to seek an
additional remedy against someone fi-
nally convicted under that statute.
Mr. MATHIAS. I thank the Senator
from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Let me amplify the
comments I have just had with Sena-
tor MATHIAS to emphasize again that
this is not any attempt to invade the
other areas of the Federal Code. Nor is
it an attempt to in any way prevent a
third party from engaging in the busi-
ness of writing either for the print
media or for the air or television
media the stories of those who have
been involved in these kinds of activi-
ties.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STEVENS. I am pleased to
answer any questions my colleagues
may have.
Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President,
I do not think any of us would speak
in opposition to the amendment of the
Senator from Alaska with respect to
the forfeiture of funds gained from es-
pionage or from writing relative to
that or removing pictures. I think we
all support that concept. This lan-
guage is. I think, identical with lan-
guage that has been in the Judiciary
Committee for several weeks.
We have been wrestling with one
aspect of the problem I would like to
discuss with my colleague from
Alaska. That has to do with the ques-
tion of the right of a defendant to
have legal counsel and the concern
that has been expressed that assumes
the individual did engage in espionage
or it was alleged that he did and then
he hires counsel. As I understand it,
under this provision, those funds that
would have been paid to counsel could
be forfeited as well., As a consequence,
the individual might not be in a posi-
tion to be represented by a lawyer. He
is not guilty until he is found guilty.
RECORD ? SENATE S 8429
I wonder whether or not it is the
intent of the author of the amend-
ment to preclude the right of the de-
fendant to have legal counsel, even
though it very well might be that
some portion of those funds would be
expended for legal counsel. Some
thought has been given to giving the
judiciary, the judge handling the case.
some discretionary authority in con-
nection with this subject. Would the
Senator from Alaska care to indicate
his thoughts on that subject?
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, we
have no intention of changing the
normal treatment of attorneys' fees in
such circumstances. If an attorney has
reason to know that his client is
paying him the proceeds that he has
obtained by committing a crime, then
the money in the hand of the attorney
is forfeitable. If he does not have
reason to suspect that, then it is an-
other matter.
It is my understanding that this has
been handled this way in other cir-
cumstances, it does not come up just
in connection with this case. If a
person robs a bank and Is on trial and
the lawyer who is defending that
person knows that the money he has
received is part of the loot from the
bank, he cannot keep that. I think
those of us in our profession under-
stand that full well. We are not seek-
ing to change that.
Mr. STEVENS. I say to my friend
from Ohio. I understand what he is
saying. I have no intention of chang-
ing the normal treatment of attorney-
client relationship nor the right of the
attorney to be paid. Unless he has
reason to believe that the money he
receives is part of the proceeds of the
crime, we do not affect his status.
Mr. 26IETZENBAUM. I appreciate
the comment of the Senator from
Alaska. I think it goes most of the way
to the thing about which I have con-
cern. But let us assume for the
moment that the attorney were to
know where the proceeds came from
but that for a host of other reasons,
he was convinced that the defendant
was not guilty. The man might have
the money but he might not be guilty
for any one of a number of reasons, in-
cluding the conceivable reason of stat-
ute of limitations, that it was out of
the jurisdiction of the court, that
there was some violation of his rights
as to how the information was ob-
tained, that there was an unlawful
search and seizure.
I am not trying to make out a case
for any particular individual, but my
colleague and I are both lawyers. I
think we would both agree that a
lawyer would not be held responsible
or should not be called upon to make a
judicial determination as to whether
his client is or is not guilty.
I think it is reasonable to assume
that the lawyer taking the individual's
case is taking it on the basis that he?
assuming he is going to put in a "not
guilty" plea?that he in his mind feels
that there is a chance of having the
defendant found not guilty. All I want
to do is let the individual, whoever he
may be?whether he is accused of the
most heinous crime, and certainly es-
pionage has to be included in that cat-
egory?to let that individual have legal
counsel. Some have suggested that the
courts could appoint counsel. but I
think we would agree that if the indi-
vidual had funds, and certainly sub-
stantial funds, it would not be reasona-
ble to expect that the court would ap-
point counsel.
I have that one reservation concern-
ing the Senator's response, which indi-
cated that if he knew the man was
guilty or where the money came from.
I think he has practiced law long
enough and I have practiced law long
enough to know that nobody is guilty
until the court has found the individ-
ual guilty and that every person has
the right to have his day in court.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President. we
have been in the practice of law for a
long time, and I was the Government
attorney in my State for 3 years, and I
know some of these issues come up In
a hard way.
I say to the Senator from Ohio that
they cannot come under this amend-
ment in any more difficult circum-
stances than they do in a drug situa-
tion today with all the drug cases we
see, with tremendous funds being re-
ceived by those peddling drugs. When
we do apprehend them, we regain
some of that money. We find that the
defendant has received money and
upon conviction, there are existing
statutes which allow for forfeiture. As
a matter of fact, this bill, as the Sena-
tor knows, is patterned after the drug
statute that requires the forfeiture of
the money received by the defendant
who has been convicted of violating
the law relating to drugs.
I say to my friend that this amend-
ment before us does not require a for-
feiture until conviction and it puts in
the hands of the court that imposes
the sentence the duty to order the for-
feiture to the United States of the
property we have listed as being sub-
ject to forfeiture. It is similar as I
said, to the drug statute.
Mr. METZENBAIUM. I know it
cannot cause a forfeiture of attorneys'
fees as such. That is not indicated by
implication or otherwise. Am I correct
in my understanding?
0 1440
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is cor-
rect in the sense that we, of course,
are not trying to require that?but if
the court, following the normal proce-
dures, would find that the attorney
had knowledge of the source of the
moneys he received, the court could
order forfeiture of the moneys in the
hands of the attorney in whole or in
part, depending on what the court de-
cides under the circumstances. But it
is the Comprehensive Drug Abuse and
Prevention and Control Act that has
been the guide and it does, as I said,
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4 'mg
S 8430 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
deal with the forfeiture of such funds
that have been received and gives the
authority to the court to order such
other disposition of the property as it
sees fit.
I think we have to leave this issue,
Mr. President. where it has been in
the past, and that is with the judge
who presides over the case. Obviously,
what the Senator from Ohio says is
right, that until conviction the attor-
ney is not in any way in a position of
facing a forfeiture of moneys that
have come into his hands as a result of
his relationship with the defendant.
But if he has knowledge and it can be
shown and the court decides the attor-
ney had knowledge the money the de-
fendant delivered to him was received
from proceeds of espionage or the pro-
ceeds of selling drugs, they are treated
the same. It is up to the court to deter-
mine what should be forfeited under
this statute.
Mr. METZENBATTM. Is it my under-
standing that the amendment of the
Senator from Alaska is intended to be
interpreted in the same manner the
courts have interpreted the drug-relat-
ed cases?
Mr. STEVENS. That is correct.
Mr. METZENBAUM. I have no fur-
ther questions, Mr. President.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, as a co-
sponsor of the amendment, I certainly
commend the distinguished Senator
from Alaska for a very important
amendment. On our side, we are pre-
pared to accept the amendment.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, the collo-
quy between the Senator from Alaska
and the Senator from Ohio cleared up
one of the problems that might have
been with us in approving this amend-
ment. We think it is a good amend-
ment and, as far as I know on my side,
there is no objection to it. I recom-
mend we go forward.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there further debate? If not, the ques-
tion is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2184) was
agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I
move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. LUGAR. I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I
thank the Senator from Indiana and
the Senator from Rhode Island. I ap-
preciate the contribution the Senator
from Ohio has made to the legislative
history on this amendment.
Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to call the roll.
0 1450
Mr. LUGAR. 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.
NOMINATION OF DANIEL A.
MANION
r. LUGAR. Mr. President, I want
take a moment to express the
st ng support I have for Dan Manion,
wh is being considered for an impor-
tan judgeship. There will be a vote
held ? n this floor tomorrow afternoon
on cl ture, so that we might proceed
to a v on Dan Manion.
He a Hoosier, which means a resi-
dent o the State of Indiana. Beyond
that, h has served in a distinguished
capacity or 4 years as a State senator.
He was e ted in the South Bend area
to that t. I have know him, have
campaigne with him, have been in-
volved wit him in politics in South
Bend and h ve a very good idea of the
support on ? th sides of the aisle that
Dan Manion Wogs from both Demo-
crats and Re ublicans. He has that
support in his ome town, which is a
sizable city, a omplex city, a city in
which the vo are narrowly divided
between Democ In and Republicans,
In which indepe. 'ent voters have cast
their lot with peo le of quality.
Mr. President, my association
with Dan Manion, have found him to
be a person of vigo of character, and
of intelligence. Ve clearly, in his
work in behalf of e people of the
State of Indiana, he demonstrated
qualities which have 1 to very strong
support in our State ? d very strong
support from many rsons around
the Nation for his no tion.
I mention all this
been, I have noticed, a onal cam-
paign of persons who not so well
acquainted with Mr. M on. I appre-
ciate the nature of the ent that
Is being made. In short, y persons
around the country believ that Dan
Manion is a conservative an some be-
lieve he is too conservativ for the
courts and for issues that e might
consider.
I think it is a misfortune at the
Issue has been cast in this mo I ap-
preciate that others have ? that
that really is not the issue. We not
persuaded that persons are cit r too
conservative or too liberal but, ther,
we are talking about competenc We
are talking about specific op ons
that have been written. We are
about specific activities as part o leg-
islative and administrative abiliti
Mr. President, I say in all Or
that those who are attempting to
make a case on the basis of co
tence have had to stretch very far.
a matter of fact, Dan Manion is a v
competent human being, a very c
petent public servant, a person, I
lieve, of extraordinary force as he
presented conservative ideas in t e
State legislature?some of them ado
ed, some of them not. Clearly, he h
acquitted himself well. I know of
one in Hoosier politics who ev
thought he lacked confidence o
lacked the ability to handle himse
well in public life and with public
Issues. Ing:
there has
rY
June 25, 1986
r. President, I hope that as we
e a look at this vote on cloture to-
m ? ow, we take a look at another
issu and that is basic fairness to a
nom ee, a nominee for a very impor-
tant ? ffice. In my judgment, most
Amen, believe that Mr. Manion
ought ? receive a vote up or down on
the bas of his record, on the basis of
the Presi ent's nomination of him for
this high ? . ition.
I appreci that legal scholars have
been combin through the years to try
to find if th re is a single other in-
stance in whi a nominee for a judge-
ship has been locked on the Senate
floor by extend ? debate or filibuster.
That instance, I ink, for the particu-
lar office Mr. M ion seeks, has not
been found, and fo good reason.
Senators, wheth Republicans or
Democrats, believe ? fairness. They
believe in taking a 1.. at the man or
the woman, the no ? ? ee: the Presi-
dent who has made t nomination;
the circumstances of th nomination.
I hope that precedent will prevail
again, that there will be a ng vote
for cloture, so that the de' ? can pro-
ceed after tomorrow on the ..erits of
the case.
Senator DAN QUAYLE of Indi
I, as those who are happy
Dan Manion as our constituen
forward to making a strong
the merits for this nominee, the
nee of the President, for whom
4sivavessesaireat resnert
0 1500
Mr. President, I suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to
call the roll.
a and
count
look
on
1-
0 1510
Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. President. I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
McComszrz). Without objection, it is
so ordered.
ABIENDMENT NO. 21115
Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. President. I send
an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Maryland (Mr. MA-
THIAS) proposes an amendment numbered
2185.
Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that further read-
ing of the amendment be dispensed
with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment reads as follows:
At the appropriate place insert the follow-
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
June 25, 1986
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 8431
TITLE .?VICTIMS OF TERRORISM
COMPENSATION
SEC PAL SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the "Victims of
Terrorism Compensation Act".
skc. air. BENEFITS FOR CAPTIVES AND OTHER VIC-
TIMS OF HOSTILE Ael'ION.
(a) IN GENERAL.?Subchapter VII of chap-
ter 55 of title 5. United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end thereof the
following:
"I 5569. Benefits for captives
"(a) For the purpose of this section?
"(1) 'captive' means any Individual in a
captive status commencing while such indi-
vidual is?
"(A) in the civil service. or
"(B) a citizen, national, or resident alien
of the United States rendering personal
service to the United States similar to the
service of an individual in the civil service
(other than as a member of the uniformed
services);
"(2) the term 'captive status' means a
missing status which, as determined by the
President. arises because of a hostile action
and is a result of the individual's relation-
ship with the Government;
"(3) 'missing status'?
"(A) in the case of an employee, has the
meaning provided under section 5561(5) of
this title; and
"(B) in the case of an individual other
than an employee, has a similar meaning:
and
"(4) 'family member', as used with respect
to a person, means?
"(A) any dependent of such person: and
"(B) any individual (other than a depend-
ent under subparagraph (A)) who is a
member of such person's family or house-
hold.
"(b)(1) The Secretary of the Treasury
shall establish a savings fund to which the
head of an agency may allot all or any por-
tion of the pay and allowances of any cap-
tive to the extent that such pay and allow-
ances are not subject to an allotment under
section 5563 of this title or any other provi-
sion of law.
"(2) Amounts so allotted to the savings
fund shall bear interest at a rate which, for
any calendar quarter, shall be equal to the
average rate paid on United States Treasury
bills with 3-month maturities issued during
the preceding calendar quarter. Such inter-
est shall be compounded quarterly.
"(3) Amounts in the savings fund credited
to a captive shall be considered as pay and
allowances for purposes of section 5563 of
this title and shall otherwise be subject to
withdrawal under procedures which the
Secretary of the Treasury shall establish.
"(4) Any interest accruing under this sub-
section on?
"(A) any amount for which an individual
is indebted to the United States under sec-
tion 5562(c) of this title shall be deemed to
be part of the amount due under such sec-
tion 5562(c); and
"(B) any amount referred to In ?section
5566(f) of this title shall be deemed to be
part of such amount for purposes of such
section 5566(f).
"(5) An allotment under this subsection
may be made without regard to section
5563(c) of this title.
"(c) The head of an agency shall pay (by
advancement or reimbursement) any indi-
vidual who is a captive, and any family
member of such individual, for medical and
health care, and other expenses related to
such care, to the extent that such care?
"(1) is incident to such individual being a
captive; and
"(2) is not covered?
"(A) by any Government medical or
health program; or
"(B) by insurance.
-(d)(1) Except as provided in paragraph
(3), the President shall make a cash pay-
ment to any individual who became or be-
comes a captive commencing on or after No-
vember 4. 1979. Such payment shall be
made before the end of the one-year period
beginning on the date on which the captive
status of such individual terminates or, in
the case of any individual whose status as a
captive terminated before the date of the
enactment of the Victims of Terrorism
Compensation Act, before the end of the
one-year period beginning on such date.
"(2) A payment under this subsection in
the case of any individual held as a captive
shall be not less than the amount of the
world-wide average per diem rate which
would be payable to any person under sec-
tion 5702 of this title, based on?
"(A) a period of time equal to the period
for which such individual was held as a cap-
tive; and
"(B) the world-wide average per diem rate
which, during the period of captivity in-
volved, was in effect under such section.
"(3) The President?
"(A) may defer a payment under this sub-
section in the case of any individual who.
during the one-year period described in
paragraph (1), is charged with an offense
described In subparagraph (B), until final
disposition of such charge; and ?
"(B) may deny such payment in the case
of any individual who is convicted of an of-
fense described in subsection (b) or (c) of
section 8312 of this title committed?
"(i) during the period of captivity of such
individual: and
"(Ii) related to the captive status of such
individual.
"(4) A payment under this subsection
shall be in addition to any other amount
provided by law.
"(5) The provisions of subchapter VIII of
this chapter (or, in the case of any person
not covered by such subchapter, similar pro-
visions prescribed by the President) shall
apply with respect to any amount due an in-
dividual under paragraph (1) after such in-
dividual's death.
"(6) Any payment made under paragraph
(1) which is later denied under paragraph
(3)(B) is a claim of the United States Gov-
ernment for purposes of section 3711 of title
31.
"(e)(1) Under regulations prescribed by
the President, the benefits provided by the
Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of
1940. including the benefits provided by sec-
tion 701 of such Act but excluding the bene-
fits provided by sections 104, 105, 106. 400
through 408, 501 through 512, and 514 of
such Act, shall be provided in the case of
any individual who is a captive.
"(2) In applying such Act under this sub-
section?
"(A) the term 'person in the military serv-
ice' is deemed to include any such captive;
"(B) the term 'period of military service' is
deemed to include the period during which
the individual is in a captive status;-and
"(C) references to the Secretary of the
Army, the Secretary of the Navy, the Adju-
tant General of the Army, the Chief of
Naval Personnel, and the Commandant.
United States Marine Corps, are deemed, in
the case of any captive, to be references to
an individual designated for that purpose by
the President.
"(f)(1)(A) Under regulations prescribed by
the President, the head of an agency shall
pay (by advancement or reimbursement) a
spouse or child of a captive for expenses in-
curred for subsistence, tuition, fees, sup-
plies, books, and equipment, and other edu-
cational expenses, while attending an educa-
tional or training institution.
"(B) Except as provided in subparagraph
(C), payments shall be available under this
paragraph for a spouse or child of an indi-
vidual who is a captive for education or
training which occurs?
"(I) after that individual has been in cap-
tive status for 90 days or more. and
"(ii) on or before?
"(I) the end of any semester or quarter (as
appropriate) which begins before the date
on which the captive status of that individ-
ual terminates. or
"(II) if the educational or training institu-
tion is not operated on a semester or quar-
ter system, the earlier of the end of any
course which began before such date or the
end of the 16-week period following that
date.
In order to respond to special circum?
stances, the appropriate agency head may
specify a date for purposes of cessation of
assistance under clause (ii) which is later
than the date which would otherwise apply
under such clause.
"(C) In the event a captive dies and the
death is incident to that individual being a
captive, payments shall be available under
this paragraph for a spouse or child of such
individual for education or training which
occurs after the date of such individual's
death.
"(D) The preceding provisions of this
paragraph shall not apply with respect to
any spouse or child who is eligible for assist-
ance under chapter 35 of title 38 or similar
assistance under any other provision of law.
"(E) For the purpose of this paragraph.
'child' means a dependent under section
5561(3)(B) of this title.
"(2XA) In order to respond to special cir-
cumstances, the head of an agency may pay
(by advancement or reimbursement) a cap-
tive for expenses incurred for subsistence.
tuition, fees, supplies, books, and equip-
ment, and other educational expenses, while
attending an educational or training institu-
tion.
"(B) Payments shall be available under
this paragraph for a captive for education
or training which occurs?
"(i) after the termination of that individ-
ual's captive status, and
"(ii) on or before?
"(I) the end of any semester or quarter (as
appropriate) which begins before the date
which is 10 years after the day on which the
captive status of that individual terminates,
or
"(ID if the educational or training institu-
tion is not operated on a semester or quar-
ter system, the earlier of the end of any
course which began before such date or the
end of the 16-week period following that
date, and
shall be available only to the extent that
such payments are not otherwise authorized
by law.
"(3) Assistance under this subsectipn?
"(A) shall be discontinued for any individ-
ual whose conduct or progress is unsatisfac-
tory under standards consistent with those
established pursuant to section 1724 of title
38: and
"(B) may not be provided for any individ-
ual for a period in excess of 45 months (or
the equivalent thereof in other than full-
time education or training).
"(4) Regulations prescribed to carry out
this subsection shall provide that the pro-
gram under this subsection shall be consist-
ent with the assistance program under
chapters 35 and 36 of title 38.
"(g) Any benefit provided under subsec-
tion (c) or (d) may, under regulations pre-
scribed by the President, be provided to a
family member of an individual if?
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
" Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
S 8432 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
"(1) such family member Is held in captive
status: and
"(2) such individual is performing service
for the United States as described in subsec-
tion (aX1)(A) when the captive status of
such family member commences.
"(h) Except as provided in subsection (di,
this section applies with respect to any indi-
vidual in a captive status commencing after
January 21. 1981.
"(I) Notwithstanding any other provision
of this subchapter, any determination by
the President under subsection tax 2) or (d)
shall be conclusive and shall not be subject
to judicial review.
"(j) The President may prescribe regula-
tions necessary to administer this section.
"i 5570. Compensation for disability or death
"(a) For the purpose of this section?
"(1 ) 'employee' means?
"(A) any individual in the civil service: and
"(B) any individual rendering personal
service to the United States similar to the
service of an individual in the civil service
(other than as a member of the uniformed
services): and
"(2) 'family member', as used with respect
to an employee, means?
"(A) any dependent of such employee: and
"(B) any individual (other than a depend-
ent under subparagraph (A)) who is a
member of the employee's family or house-
hold.
"(b) The President shall prescribe regula-
tions under which an agency head may pay
compensation for the disability or death of
an employee or a family member of an em-
ployee if, as determined by the President,
the disability or death was caused by hostile
action and was a result of the individual's
relationship with the Government.
"(c) Any compensation otherwise payable
to an individual under this section In con-
nection with any disability or death shall be
reduced by any amounts payable to such in-
dividual under any other program funded in
whole or in part by the United States (ex-
cluding any amount payable under section
5569(d) of this title) in connection with such
disability or death, except that nothing in
this subsection shall result in the reduction
of any amount below zero.
"(d) A determination by the President
under subsection (b) shall be conclusive and
shall not be subject to judicial review.
"(e) Compensation under this section may
Include payment (whether by advancement
or reimbursement) for any medical or
health expenses relating to the death or dis-
ability involved to the extent that such ex-
penses are not covered under subsection (c)
of section 5669 of this title (other than be-
cause of paragraph (2) of such subsection).
"(f) This section applies with respect to
any disability or death resulting from an
Injury which occurs after September 30.
1985.".
(b) CONFORMING AMIMDMENT.?The analy-
sis for chapter 55 of title 5, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after the item
relating to section 5588 the following
"5589. Benefits for captives.
"5570. Compensation for disability or
death.".
SEC OM RETENTION OF LEAVE RV ALIEN EM-
PLOVERS FOLLOWING .INATRI FROM
HOSTILE ACTION ABROAD.
Section 6325 of title 5. United States Code,
Is amended by adding at the end thereof the
following: -The preceding provisions of this
- ;section shall apply in the case of an alien
employee referred to in section 6301C2Xvii1)
of this title with respect to any leave grant-
ed to such alien employee under section
6310 of this title or section 408 of the For-
eign Service Act of 1980.".
SEC. 801. TRANSITION PROVISIONS.
(a) SAVINGS PUND.?(1) Amounts may be
allotted to the savings fund under subsec-
tion (b) of section 6569 of title 5. United
States Code (as added by section 802(a) of
this Act) from pay and allowances for any
pay period ending after January 21. 1951,
and before the establishment of such fund.
(2) Interest on amounts so allotted with
respect to any such pay period shall be cal-
culated as if the allotment had occurred at
the end of such pay period.
(b) MEDICAL AND HEALTH CARE: EDUCATION-
AL EXPENSES.?Subsections (c) and (f) of
such section 5569 (as so added) shall be car-
ried out with respect to the period after
January 21. 1981, and before the effective
date of those subsections, under regulations
prescribed by the President.
(c) Drrierriort ?For the purpose of this
subsection. "pay and allowances" has the
meaning provided under section 5561 of title
5. United States Code.
SEG MK. BENEFITS FOR MEMBERS OF UNIFORMED
SERVICES WHO ARE VICIWAS OF )*OS-
TILE ACTION.
(a) PAYMENTS.?( 1) Chapter 10 of title 37,
United States Code, is amended by adding
at the end thereof the following new sec-
tion:
'1559. Benefits for members held as captives
"(a) In this section?
"(1) 'captive status' means a missing
status of a member of the uniformed serv-
ices which, as determined by the President.
arises because of a hostile action and is a
result of membership in the uniformed serv-
ices, but does not include a period of captiv-
ity of a member as a prisoner of war if Con-
gress provides to such member, in an Act en-
acted after the date of the enactment of the
Victims of Terrorism Compensation Act,
monetary payment in respect of such period
of captivity: and
"(2) 'former captive' means a person who.
as a member of the uniformed services, was
held in a captive status.
"(b)(1) The Secretary of the Treasury
shall establish a savings fund to which the
Secretary concerned may allot all or any
portion of the pay and allowances of any
member of the uniformed services who is in
a captive status to the eztent that such pay
and allowances are not subject to an allot-
ment under section 553 of this title or any
other provision of law.
"(2) Amounts so allotted shall bear inter-
est at a rate which, for any =Lender quar-
ter, shall be equal to the average rate paid
on United States Treasury bills with three-
month maturities issued during the preced-
ing calendar quarter. Such interest shall be
computed quarterlY.
"(3) Amounts in the savings fund credited
to a member shall be considered as Pay and
allowances for purposes of section 553(c) of
this title and shell otherwise be subject to
withdrawal under procedures which the
Secretary of the Treasury shall establish.
"(4) Any interest accruing under this sub-
section on?
"CA) any amount far which a member is
indebted to the United States under section
552(c) of this title shall be deemed to be
part of the amount due under such section:
and
"(B) any amount referred to in section
558(1) of this title shall be deemed to be
part of such amount for purposes of such
section.
"(5) An allotment under this subsection
may be made without regard to section
563(c) of this title.
"(c)(1) Except as provided in paragraph
(3) of this subsection, the President shall
make a cash payment to any person who is a
former captive. Such payment shall be
?
June 25, 1986
made before the end of the one-year period
beginning on the date on which the captive
status of such person terminates.
"(2) The amount of such payment shall be
determined by the President under the pro-
visions of section 5689(d X2) of title 5.
"( 3 RA ) The President?
"(1) may defer such payment in the case of
any former captive who during such one-
year period is charged with an offense de-
scribed in clause (ii) of this subparagraph,
until final disposition of such charge: and
"(ii) may deny such payment in the case
of any former captive who is convicted of a
captivity-related of f ense?
"(I) referred to in subsection (b) or (c) of
section 8312 of title 5: or
"(II) under chapter 47 of title 10 (the Uni-
form Code of Military Justice) that is pun-
ishable by dishonorable discharge. dismissal,
or confinement for one year or more.
"(B) For the purposes of subparagraph
(A) of this paragraph. a captivity-related of-
fense is an offense that Ls?
"(I) committed by a person while the
person is in a captive status: and
"(ii) related to the captive status of the
person.
"(4) A payment under this subsection is in
addition to any other amount provided by
law.
"(5) Any amount due a person under this
subsection shall, after the death of such
person, be deemed to be pay and allowances
for the purposes of this chapter.
"(6) Any payment made under paragraph
(1) of this subsection that is later denied
under paragraph (.3XAXii) of this subsec-
tion is a claim of the United States Govern-
ment for purposes of section 3711 of title 31.
"(d) A determination by the President
under subsection (a)(1) or (c) of this section
Is -final and Is not subject to judicial
review.".
(2) The table of sections at the beginning
of such chapter is amended by adding at the
end thereof the following new item:
'159. Benefits for members held as cap-
tives.".
(3XA)(1) Except as provided in clause (ii).
section 559 of title 37. United States Code,
as added by paragraph (D. shall apply to
any person whose captive status begins after
January 21. LAIL
(U)(I) Subsection (c) of such section shall
apply to any person whose captive status
begins on or after November 4. 1979.
(II) In the cal* of any person whose status
as a captive terminated before the date of
the enactment of this Act. the President
shall make a payment under paragraph (1)
of such subsection before the end of the
one-year period beginning on such date.
(B) Amounts may be allotted to a savings
fund established under such secUon from
pay and allowances for any per period
ending after January 21. 1981. and before
the establishment of such fund.
(C) Interest on amounts so allotted with
respect to any such pay period shall be cal-
culated as if the allotment had occurred at
the end of such pay period.
(b) Disasn.rrr AND Drwrit Beierrrrs.?(1)
Chapter 53 of title 10. United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end thereof the
following new section:
"1 1851?Disability and death compeasation: de-
pendents of members held as captives
'(a) The President shall prescribe regula-
tions under which the Secretary concerned
may pay compensation for the disability or
death of a dependent of a member of the
uniformed services if the President deter-
mines that the disability or death?
"(I) was caused by hostile action; and
? Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
June 25, 1986
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?SENATE S 8433
"(2) was a result of the relationship of the
dependent to the member of the uniformed
services.
"(b) Any compensation otherwise payable
to a person under this section in connection
with any disability or death shall be reduced
by any amount :payable to such person
under any other program funded in whole
or in part by the United States in connec-
tion with such disability or death, except
that nothing in this subsection shall sesult
in the reduction of any amount below zero.
"(c) A determination by the President
under subsection (a) is conclusive and is not
subject to judicial review.
"(d) In this section:
"(1) 'Captive status' has the meaning
given that term in section 559 of title 37.
"(2) 'Dependent' has the meaning given
that term in section 551 of that title.
"(3) 'Secretary concerned' and 'uniformed
services' have the meanings given those
terms in section 401 -of that title,".
(2) The table of sections at the 'beginning
of such chapter is amended by adding at the
end thereof the following new item:
-1051. Disability and death compensation:
dependents of members held as
captives.".
(3) Section 1051 of title 10. United States
Code, as added by paragraph (1 ),shall apply
with respect to any disability or death re-
sulting from an injury that occurs after
September 30, 1985.
(c) MEDICAL BENEFITS. ?(1) Chapter 55 of
title 10, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end thereof -the following new
section:
"01095. Medical carer members held as captives
and their dependents
"(a) Under regulations prescribed by the
President. the Secretary concerned shall
pay (by advancement or reimbursement)
any person who is a former captive, and any
dependent of that person or of a person who
is in a captive status, for health care and
other expenses related to such care, to the
extent that such care?
"(1) is incident to the -captive status: and
"(2) is not covered?
"(A) by any other Government medical or
health program: OT
"(B) by insurance.
"(b) In the case of any person who is eligi-
ble for medical care under section 1074 or
19'76-of this title,. such regulations Shall re-
quire that, whenever practicable, such care
be provided in a facility of the uniformed
services.
"(c) In this section:
"(1) 'Captive status' and 'former captive'
'have the meanings given those terms in sec-
tion 559 of title 37.
"(2) 'Dependent' has the meaning given
that term insect-ion 651 01 thst .
(2) The table of sections at the beginning
of such chapter is amended by adding at the
-end thereof thefollowingnew item:
"1095. Medical care: members held as cap-
tives and their dependents.".
(8)(A) Section 1095 of title 10, United
States Code. .as added by paragraph (1),
shall apply with respect to any person
whose captive status begins after January
21. 1981.
(B) The President shall prescribe specific
=regulations regarding the carrying out of
such section with respect to persons whose
captive status begins during the period be-
ginning on January 21, 1981. and ending on
the effective date of that section.
(d) EDUCATIONAL Aasiarsecr..?(1) Part III
of title 10. United -States Code, is amended
'by adding at the end thereof the following
new chapter.
"CHAPTER i)4?EDUCATIONAI. ASSISTANCE
FOR MEMBERS HELD AS CAPTIVESA.NI)
THEIR DEPENDENTS
"2181. Definitions.
"2182. Educational assistance: dependents of
captives.
"2183. Educational assistance: former cap-
tives.
"2184. Termination of assistance.
"2185. Programs to be consistent with pro-
grams administered by the Vet-
erans' Administration.
'112181. Definitions
In this chapter:
"(1) 'Captive status' and 'former captive'
have the meanings given those terms in sec-
tion 559 of title 3'7.
"(2) 'Dependent' has the meaning given
that term in section 551 of that title.
"0 2182. Educational assistance: dependents of
casavet
"(a) Under regulations prescribed by the
President, the Secretary concerned shall
pay (by advancement or reimbursement) a
dependent of a person who is in a captive
status for expenses incurred, while attend-
ing an educational or training institution,
for?
"(1) subsistence:
"(2) tuition:
-(3) fees:
"(4) supplies;
-(5) books:
"(6) equipment; and
"(7) other educational expenses.
"(b) Except as provided in section 2184 of
this title, payments shall be available under
this section for a dependent of a person who
is in s captive status for education or train-
ing that occurs?
"(1) after that person is in a captive status
for not less than 90 days: and
"(2) en or before?
"(A) the end of any semester *or quarter
(as appropriate) that begins before the date
on which the captive status of that ,person
terminates:
"(B) the -earlier of the end of any course
that began before such date or the -end of
the 16-week ;period following that date if
the educational or training institution is not
operated ton a semester 'or quarter system:
-or
"(C) a date.specified by the-Secretary con-
cerned in order to respond to special circum-
stances.
"(c) If s person in a captive status or a
former captive -dies and the -death is inci-
dent to the captivity, payments shall be
available ander this section for a dependent
of that person for education or training that
occurs after the -date of -the death of that
person.
'Id) The provisions of this .section shall
not -apply to any dependent who Is .eligible
for assistance under chapter 35of title 38 or
similar assistance under any -other provision
of law.
"*2193. Educational assistance: 'former captives
"(a) In order to respond to 'special circum-
stances, the Secretary concerned may Pay
(by -advancement -or *reimbursement) a
person who is a former captive for expenses
Incurred, while stiendaar aew aciacaltointl for
training institution, for?
"U) subsistence:
"(2) tuition;
"(3) fees;
"(4) supplies;
"(5) books:
"(8) -equipment: -and
'TT) othereducationalexpenses.
"Ib) *Except as :provided in section 2184 'of
-this title, payments shall be available -under
this section for a person who is a former
captive for education or training that
occurs?
"(1) after the termination of the status of
that person as a captive: and
"(2) on or before?
"(A) the end of any semester or quarter
(as appropriate) that begins before the end
of the 10-year period beginning on the date
on which the status of that person as a cap-
tive terminates: or
"(B) if the educational or training institu-
tion is not operated on a semester or quar-
ter system, the earlier of the end of any
course that began before such date or the
end of the 16-week period following that
date.
"(c) Payments shall be available under
this section only to the extent that such
payments are not otherwise authorized by
law.
"8 2 I Termination of assi.tance
"Assistance under this chapter?
"(1) shall be discontinued for any person
whose conduct or progress is unsatisfactory
under standards consistent with those estab-
lished under section 1724 of title 38: and
"(2) may not be provided for any person
for more than 45 months (or the equivalent
in other than full-time education or train-
ing).
"8 2185. Programs to be consistent with programs
administered by the Veterans Administration
"Regulations prescribed to carry out this
chapter shall provide that the programs
under this chapter shall be consistent with
the educational assistance programs under
chapters 35 and 36 of title 38.".
(2) The table of chapters at the beginning
of subtitle A of such title, and the table of
chapters at the beginning of part III of such
subtitle, are amended by inserting after the
Item relating to chapter 109 the following
new item:
"110. Educational Assistance for Mem-
bers Held as Captives and Their De-
pendents 2181".
(3) Chapter 110 of title 10. United States
Cade, as added by paragraph (1), shall apply
with respect to persons whose captive status
begins after January 21, 1981.
SEC. SOS, EFFECTIVE DATE OF ENT1TLEMEMS.
Provisions enacted by this title WhiCh pro-
vide new spending authority described in
section 401(c)( 2)(C) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 shall not be effective
until October 1. 1986.
Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. President, this is
an amendment to offer comprehensive
compensation for American victims of
terrorism abroad. This legislation has
already been considered in the other
body. In fact, a similar measure has
been approved in the other body.
Its purpose is ?very straightforward.
It would establish a permafient pro-
grain to protect -our diplomats, diplo-
matic families and foreign -nationals
whom we employ in our Embassies and
our consulates around the -world. If we
are to engage able and well-educated
Individuals to serve abroad, we lhave to
provide assurance that not only 'they
but their families will receive educa-
tional and medical benefits 'in the
event of a terrorist attack or, -God
lorbid, in the event that they axe
taken hostage and held for prolonged
periods of time.
The likelihood of such catastrophic
-events would at one time have been
considered very remote. And for that
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
S 8434 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
reason, among others, no comprehen-
sive program was established to meet
such contingencies. As a result, we
have yet to provide the hostages who
were held in Iran and their families
with any kind of adequate compensa-
tion for the experience which they en-
dured as a direct consequence of their
employment by the United States of
America.
This amendment would only offer a
just settlement to the hostages who
went through those long days in
Tehran, but it would establish a ra-
tional basis for compensating victims
of such terrorism in the future.
I hold?and I am sure that every
Senator would agree?that we have a
moral obligation to those to whom we
appoint to represent our interests all
over the world. I think it is absolutely
necessary that we be able to promise
employees and their families that they
and their survivors will be cared for if
they are injured or killed in an attack
or if they are held as hostages over a
long period of time.
If we put an American employee's or
official's family at risk by authorizing
them to accompany him or her to a
dangerous spot, then we have the
normal employer's obligation to pay
the medical expenses of the family
member injured in an attack. If a
former hostage is unable to return to
active duty as a result of some trau-
matic incident, I think we have, as an
employer, the normal employer's obli-
gation to help in his or her retraining
for other duties.
Furthermore, I think we must do
what we can to continue to attract the
most qualified foreign nationals who
serve important secondary services at
Embassies and consulates abroad. The
State Department reports that it is be-
coming more and more difficult to re-
cruit able employees because of the in-
creased danger and because of the lack
of prospects of any permanent relief if
some problems of the kind I have been
discussing should occur.
0 1520
Now, I am well aware that there is
considerable concern that the eligibil-
ity requirements of this legislation are
too broad. One specific complaint is
that it would cover employees of con-
tractors who build Embassies and con-
sulates. That is not an immaterial
point in the light of the general pur-
poses of this bill which will contem-
plate a serious construction activity. I
would point out, however, that such
employees are already covered by
workmen's compensation for being
part of the contract signed by the con-
struction firms before they can begin
on the project.
Such issues have been cited as com-
pelling reasons to separate the terror-
ism compensation title of the bill from
the other body from the legislation
which is now before us. I respect the
commitment to write and report a sep-
arate bill devoted to this problem.
But in all due respect I hardly think
that we should wait on this subject. I
am confident that some of the most
specific terms that may be unaccept-
able to some Members such as the use
of worldwide per diem or other rates
for compensation in the hostage case
can be worked out in conference. The
State Department has offered to clari-
fy and tighten any language in the bill
with the other body that will ensure
that only deserving cases receive bene-
fits under the legislation.
But the fact is, the fact that we all
have to live with, the fact that I think
should weigh upon our consciences. all
Americans, all of our officials, all of
our employees abroad remain today
without the kind of basic protection
they deserve in the truly dangerous
circumstances in which they live and
work. The other body has already
acted to correct this oversight in an ef-
fective, economical, and just manner.
And I submit, Mr. President, that it is
incumbent upon us to respect that
work and to carry it through to com-
pletion without delay.
Mr. LUGAR addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President. the dis-
tinguished Senator from Maryland
has spoken eloquently as always to a
very important point that is especially
poignant with ?regard to those who
have served our country in the foreign
service in its broad sense in the past.
And clearly, as the distinguished Sena-
tor from Maryland has pointed out,
the House of Representatives as it
thought about Embassy security legis-
lation decided to address this problem
of victims of terrorism compensation
very directly and included title VIII in
their bill. The Senate Foreign Rela-
tions Committee decided not to in-
clude title VIII in our markup largely
because there were problems raised as
the Senator from Maryland has men-
tioned, of the levels of compensation
and and who would be covered.
Further, in a technical and jurisdic-
tional sense, Mr. President, there were
claims on this issue by several commit-
tees of the Senate for various reasons.
There were calls for sequential refer-
ral, and we simply tried to meet this
by indicating that we see the item as
very important, and one on which sep-
arate legislation with separate hear-
ings might be appropriate.
The distinguished Senator from
Maryland already has mentioned in
his remarks the fact that the House of
Representatives has such a provision
in its bill, and therefore the victims of
terrorism compensation at this time
will be apart of the conference with
the House and the Senate in view of
the fact that it is a conferenceable
Item, We will have an opportunity to
discuss it.
I hope, perhaps, he would be willing
to withdraw the amendment from con-
sideration today on this bill with as-
surances that there are many Senators
who will be members of that confer-
June 25, 1986
ence who have been made much more
knowledgeable by the Senator's re-
marks today. Sensitivity clearly is an
Issue that is involved. With the inten-
sity with which he is pressing these
issues upon us, and in view of our sen-
sitivity and our interest. I hope he will
withdraw the amendment today and
take part in that conference with
others who share the concern and
Idealism he has expressed.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I share the
sentiments of our chairman. I com-
mend the Senator from Maryland for
this amendment. As a former member
of the Foreign Services I am particu-
larly in sympathy with the travails of
those men and women in today's
world. But those in the military serv-
ice receive rewards for different dan-
gers, different risks, and different
blows of fortune. If you are wounded,
you get a Purple Heart. You get cer-
tain benefits if you are an invalid at
home. If you are killed, your family
gets certain benefits. If you are a pris-
oner of war, you get certain benefits.
But to be a hostage is like being a pris-
oner of war only with greater risk in
it, greater mental horror, and harass-
ment because you do not know if you
are going to survive. If you are a pris-
oner of war, you know that under the
Geneva Convention you will be re-
turned unless something dreadful hap-
pens. If you are a hostage, you have
no idea whether you will be returned
or not be returned, or shot in the back
of your head instead.
So our people who are exposed to
these dangers really deserve to be rec-
ompensed at at least the same stand-
ard or level that we do for our mili-
tary. I hope this will be a criterion
that will follow in the conference.
But in the meantime. I agree it prob-
ably would be best if this amendment
Is withdrawn at this time.
Mr. MATHIAS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Maryland.
Mr. MATHIAS. I am reluctantly per-
suaded by the managers of the bill. I
am persuaded. I must say to them
with all due respect, not so much be-
cause of their arguments but because
of their personal assurances that this
matter will be considered in confer-
ence. As a little backup in my personal
confidence in them. I even have the te-
merity to hope that I might be a coil-
feree myself, and will be watching.
So I think under those circum-
stances the position that we have
stated is a reasonable one. Therefore, I
withdraw the amendment.
AMENDMENT NO, 2186
Mr. President, I send another
amendment to the desk and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Maryland [Mr. MA-
rims] proposes an amendment numbered
2186.
? Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
June 25, 1986
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 8435
Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that further read-
ing of the amendment be dispensed
with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 129. after line 3, insert the fol-
lowing new section:
SEC 701 EXPRESSION OF SUPPORT OF ACTIVITIES
OF THE UNITED STATES TELECOM-
MUNICATIONS TRAINING INSTITUTE.
Nothing in this Act, the Communications
Act of 1934, or any other Act, shall be con-
strued to preclude the Department of State.
the U.S. Agency for International Develop-
ment (AID). or the United States Informa-
tion Agency (USIA) from participation (in-
cluding use of staff, other appropriate re-
sources and service on the board of the
USTTI) in support of any activities of the
United States Telecommunications Training
Institute (USTTI).
Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. President. The
amendment I am offering, expressing
support for the activities of the U.S.
Telecommunications Training Insti-
tute, is not a contentious one and is
similar to language which was at-
tached in 1984 to the Cable Communi-
cations Policy Act. The USTTI is a
nonprofit corporation sustained by
private sector contributions and the
volunteer services of those who sit on
the board. Since 1982. this institute
has offered tuition-free training to
qualified telecommunications profes-
sionals from the developing world.
The institute's success in equipping its
participants with valuable training
and a better understanding of the
United States and its telecommunica-
tions industry is due in part to the
working partnership between Govern-
ment leaders and chief executives in
the telecommunications field. This
amendment simply clarifies that this
cooperation between Government and
corporate leaders does not present a
"conflict of interest" on the part of
the USTTI's Government board mem-
bers.
Mr. LUGAR addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the Sen-
ator from Maryland has presented an
important clarification. It is important
there not be conflict of interest. He
has made a good commendation in the
course of his statement. On our side,
we are prepared to accept the amend-
ment. I have been advised by the dis-
tinguished ranking member of the
Foreign Relations Committee, Senator
PELL, that the Democratic side is like-
wise prepared to accept the amend-
ment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there further debate on the amend-
ment? If not, the question is on the
agreeing to the amendment of the
Senator from Maryland.
The amendment (No. 2186) was
agreed to.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President. I move
to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. MATHIAS. I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President. short-
ly I shall be proposing two amend-
ments which have been discussed with
the distinguished chairman of the For-
eign Relations Committee and have
been cleared on both sides of the aisle,
amendments which deal with the sub-
ject of terrorism. For some time now,
Mr. President, it has been apparent to
everyone in the world that firm action
had to be taken against terrorist at-
tacks. Starting back in mid-1984, I in-
troduced a series of legislative enact-
ments, resolutions, and proposed bills
to deal with terrorism. The matters
first came to my attention as matters
of some .urgency with the April 10.
1984, shooting of the British police-
woman by the Libyan diplomat.
0 1530
Following that. I submitted a sense-
of-the-Senate resolution seeking to
limit diplomatic immunity because if
anything is clear, it is clear that diplo-
matic immunity does not comprehend
the shooting of a policewoman. That is
not an act of diplomacy. I called at
that time for a provision in the con-
vention on diplomatic immunity.
Subsequent to 1984, there has been a
series of terrorist acts taking Ameri-
can lives around the world, the lives of
innocent American soldiers, and the
lives of tourists around the world, call-
ing for some firm action.
The two measures which I will offer
deal with the effort of attacking the
problem of terrorism, first by making
It an international crime, with an
International definition of terrorism,
and, second, awaiting action for such
an international definition of terror-
ism, legislation which would provide
that it is a violation of the laws of the
United States to attack, maim, or
murder a U.S. citizen anywhere in the
world.
The latter legislation passed this
body on February 18 of this year by a
vote of 90 to 0. I seek to attach it as an
amendment to this legislation. It will
be in the conference with the House
and will be enacted into law, it will be
signed by the President, and will pro-
vide much needed protection.
AMENDMENT NO. 2187
(Purpose: Expressing the sense of the
Senate that the President should call for
International negotiations to make inter-
national terrorism a universal crime pros-
ecutable in the United States)
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I send
an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr.
SPECTER] proposes an amendment numbered
2187.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that further read-
ing of the amendment be dispensed
with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place in the bill add
the following: In the past decade there have
been nearly 6,500 terrorist incidents around
the world, killing over 3.500 people and
wounding more than 7.600. including over
2.500 incidents against Americans.
Terrorism anywhere affects nations every-
where by chilling the free exercise of sover-
eign authority:
Rampant terrorism by its very nature
threatens world order and thereby all civil-
ized nations and their citizens:
Any and every nation has the right, under
current principles of international law, to
assert jurisdiction over offenses considered
to be "universal crimes, such as piracy and
slavery, in order to protect sovereign au-
thority. universal values, and the interests
of mankind: and
Individuals committing "universal crimes"
may be prosecuted in any nation in which
the offender may be found. irrespective of
the nationality of the offender or victim or
the place of the offense: Now. therefore.
It is the sense of the Senate that the
President should call for international nego-
tiations for the purpose of agreeing on a
definition of "international terrorist
crimes" and for the purpose of considering
whether such a crime would constitute a
universal crime under international law.
Such definition should require that acts
constituting an international terrorist
crime?
(1) involve the threat or use of violence or
be dangerous to human life.
(2) would be a crime in the prosecuting ju-
risdiction if committed within its bound-
aries.
(3) appear to be intended?
(A) to intimidate or coerce a civilian popu-
lation;
(B) to influence the policy of a govern-
ment by intimidation or coercion: or
(C) to affect the conduct of a government
by assassination or kidnapping: and
(4) transcend national boundaries in terms
of the means by which they are accom-
plished, the persons they appear intended
to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in
which their perpetrators operate or seek
asylum.
The President should also consider includ-
ing in these international negotiations the
possibility of establishing an international
criminal court along the lines of the Inter-
national Military Tribunal established after
World War II for the trial of major war
criminals at Nuremburg. Germany. that
would have jurisdiction over the crime of
international terrorism.
Mr. SPECTER. The essence of this
amendment is to provide two resolu-
tion clauses. First, that it is the sense
of the Senate that the President
should call for international negotia-
tions for the purpose of agreeing on a
definition of international terrorist
crimes and for the purpose of consid-
ering whether such a crime would con-
stitute a universal crime under inter-
national law.
The second aspect of the resolution
calls for the President to consider in-
cluding in these international negotia-
tions the possibility of establishing an
International criminal court along the
lines of the International Military Tri-
bunal established after World War II
for the trial of major war criminals in
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
S 8436 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Nuremberg. Germany, which would
have jurisdiction over the crime of
international terrorism.
Mr. President. I suggest there is
ample precedent for declaring terror-
ism an international crime. Piracy has
long been an international crime, and
in defining piracy as an international
crime, it differed from the general
concept that the crime could be pros-
ecuted only in the jurisdiction where
it was committed.
As. for example, if a crime were com-
mitted in the United States, for exam-
ple, in my home State of Pennsylva-
nia, it customarily could be prosecuted
only in Pennsylvania. An international
crime such as terrorism could be so de-
fined that a terrorist could be pros-
ecuted wherever he would be appre-
hended because terrorism is such a
serious offense.
The act of torture has received some
status as international crime. I think
the time has come. Mr. President, that
terrorism should be defined as an
international crime. If such a defini-
tion can be agreed upon, we ought to
look to the future to having the crime
of terrorism and the terrorist defend-
ants tried in an international tribunal
similar to Nuremberg.
Mr. President, I realize that It is a
difficult matter to achieve such a defi-
nition and to set up such an interna-
tional tribunal, considering all the fac-
tors of national sovereignty and the
difficulty of getting nations to act to-
gether. But it is the view of this Sena-
tor that such action will really put the
Imprimatur and the stamp on terror-
ism as an act which the world conunu-
nay will not tolerate. If these crimes
were prosecuted in a world tribunal,
there could be no question that such
prosecutions, as distinguished from
prosecutions of any specific nature, in
an international tribunal would have
much greater force and much greater
weight than those prosecutions in an
Individual state.
That is the first amendment which I
seek to offer. Mr. President, at this
time.
At this time I yield to the distin-
guished chairman of the Foreign Rela-
tions Committee.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President.! com-
mend the distinguished Senator from
Pennsylvania for this amendment. He
has been a scholar in this field, both
as a U.S. Senator and as a distin-
guished prosecutor, a district attorney.
We believe that the amendment is a
sound one and we are prepared to
accept it on this side.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I have one
question I would like to be enlightened
upon. That is in view of the fact that a
crime is committed outside the United
States in another country's jurisdic-
tion, do we have now in the law the
right to bring that particular criminal,
or whatever you want to call him who
carried out this act, under the jurisdic-
tion of our own courts, or does that, as
a matter of custom, remain wider the
courts of the country where the crime
was committed?
Mr. SPECTER. The question which
the distinguished ranking Member
raises relates more directly to the next
amendment I will offer, which makes
It a violation of U.S. law and an act
prosecutable in U.S. courts even if the
act were committed in some other
country.
On that subject, there is solid prece-
dent as a matter of international law
that the United States may prosecute
in U.S. courts an attack or a crime
against the United States anywhere in
the world regardless of the locale
where the crime was committed.
On the amendment now pending, it
encourages the President to work for
an international definition of terror-
ism. with those acts prosecuted in
international court.
There is no question about the juris-
diction of such an international tribu-
nal to move to prosecute defendants in
that context, where an act was com-
mitted anywhere in the world.
Mr. PELL. But in the present body
of international law, is terrorism rec-
ognized as a crime?
Mr. SPEL-11.41.. I would think it is,
but not with sufficient clarity so there
is one coherent, cohesive definition of
terrorism.
I believe there would be precedent
for a nation to define terrorism in a
variety of ways and to make it stick as
a matter of national law and as a
matter of international law. But there
are some who would disagree with
what is a justifiable definition of ter-
rorism.
Some have said that one man's fear
is another man's terror. That is why
this Senator believes that there ought
to be an international tribunal for
international consideration. It would
be a broader definition of what we in
the United States would find to be an
act of terrorism. Let others have input
and let us try to reach an internation-
al consensus on terrorism.
Mr. PELL. But the international ar-
biter would be the International Court
of Justice at The Hague. Have they
had any cases of international terror-
ism?
Mr. SPEL-itat. I think that many
would not recognize the International
Court of The Hague as being the arbi-
ter.
Mr. PELL. Who would?
Mr. SPECTER. The answer is that
no one is the arbiter. The internation-
al law is defined most frequently as
International narrowly. The fact is
that international law customarily
turns on where power lies, where force
lies, and where the ability lies to carry
out what nations seek to achieve.
0 1540
So we do not have international law
in so many situations involving inter-
national disagreements. There are
some narrow ranges of international
law on an International commercial
transaction, maybe the U.S. district
June 25, 1986'
court for Washington, DC. But if you
are talking about terrorism, talking
about conflict, talking about encroach-
ment. talking about acts of war maybe.
there are wide differences of opinion
as to what the act of the law is.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President. the reason
I felt this should be pursued is that I
understand this corning week, or later
on this week, the International Court
of Justice is going to come out with a
case in which it is inferred that terror-
ists are our own people?Contras, and
so forth?in Nicaragua. So I withdraw
from suggesting the ICJ as an arbiter
and turn again to asking whether we
are not now creating a new body of
law?which may be a good idea.
Mr. SPEL.-i-rit. We may be creating
a new body of law. Every time there is
a judicial decision, in a sense, there is
a new body of law. That is the way the
common law functions.
A case arises, the court makes a deci-
sion, and the law is established on the
relationship of that particular transac-
tion or occurrence with those parties.
That is the way the law evolves. When
Congress passes a legislative enact-
ment, we create many laws and there
are many interpretations. Frequently,
courts cannot agree among themselves
as to what it has done?as in the cir-
cuit court of appeals this spring. The
process of establishing the law is a
very complex procedure. The thrust of
this amendment is to try to bring some
international focus on this critical
aspect of terrorism so that it is not
merely a U.S. determination.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I asked a
theoretical question. Let us say that,
In Central America, a Contra machine-
guns a bus and some people are killed
there. Would they then be justified in
passing a law in their country having
us return from Miami or the United
States that individual if he were in the
United States?
Mr. SPECTER. That is precisely the
sort of question which I do not think
this Senator can answer or this body
should answer. That is precisely the
kind of question which ought to be ad-
dressed by an international tribunal.
There would be a different answer by
the courts in the United States to that
question as opposed to the courts of
Nicaragua. That is precisely why this
Senator believes that there ought to
be an international focus, an effort by
an international tribunal to define ter-
rorism in a way that transcends the in-
terests of the United States and tran-
scends the interests of the Contras or
the Sandinistas, and seeks a philo-
sophical definition of terrorism which
would satisfy all parties, including
those involved in the disputes in Iran
or those involved in the disputes in Af-
ghanistan or Angola.
It is a very, very difficult assignment
but I think it is one which ought to be
tackled on the international level, one
which is long past due.
? Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26 CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
June 25, 1986
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Mr. PELL. I join my friend from
Pennsylvania and I support the
amendment. There is no objection.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am
happy the Senator supports the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there further debate? If not, the ques-
tion is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 2187) was
agreed to.
Mr. SPECTER. I move to reconsider
the vote by which the amendment was
agreed to.
Mr. LUGAR. I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
AMENDMENT NO. 2188
Mr. SPEt.fr.mt. Mr. President, I send
an amendment to the desk and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Sescrical for himself, Mr. LEAHY. and Mr.
Dorrom proposes an amendment numbered
2188.
At the appropriate place in the bill add
the following:
SEC.
(A) This section may be cited as the "Ter-
rist Prosecution Act of 1985"
(B)(1) Part I of title 18. United States
Code. is amended by inserting after chapter
113 the following:
"CHAPTER 113A?TERRORIST ACTS
AGAINST UNITED STATES NATION-
ALS ABROAD
"2331. Findings and purpose.
"2332. Terrorist acts against United States
nationals abroad.
-sec. 2331. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
"The Congress hereby finds that?
"(a) between 1968 and 1985, there were
over eight thousand incidents of interna-
tional terrorism, over 50 per centum of
which were directed against American tar-
gets:
"(b) it is an accepted principle of interna-
tional law that a country may prosecute
crimes committed outside its boundaries
that are directed against its own security or
the operation of its governmental functions:
"(c) terrorist attacks on Americans abroad
threaten a fundamental function of our
Government: that of protecting its citizens:
"(d) such attacks also threaten the ability
of the United States to implement and
maintain an effective foreign policy:
"(e) terrorist attacks further interfere
with interstate and foreign commerce.
threatening business travel and tourism as
well as trade relations: and
) the purpose of this chapter is to pro-
vide for the prosecution and punishment of
persons who, in furtherance of terrorist ac-
tivities or because of the nationality of the
victims, commit violent attacks upon Ameri-
cans outside the United States or conspire
outside of the United States to murder
Americans within the United States.
"SEC. 21132. TERRORIST ACTS AGAINST UNITED
STATES NATIONALS ABROAD.
"(a) Whoever outside the United States
commits any murder as defined in section
1111(a) of this title or manslaughter as de-
fined in section 1112(a) of this title, or at-
tempts or conspires to commit murder, of a
national of the United States shall upon
conviction in the case of murder be pun-
ished as provided in section 1111, for man-
slaughter be punished as provided in section
1112, for attempted murder be imprisoned
for not more than twenty years. and for
conspiracy be punished as provided by sec-
tion 1117 of this title, notwithstanding that
the offense occurred outside the United
States.
"(b) Whoever outside the United States.
with intent to cause serious bodily harm or
significant loss of liberty, assaults, strikes,
wounds, imprisons, or makes any other vio-
lent attack upon the person or liberty of
arcy national of the United States or, if
likely to endanger his person or liberty.
makes violent attacks upon his business
premises, private accommodations, or means
of transport, or attempts to commit any of
the foregoing, shall be fined not more than
$5.000 or imprisoned not more than three
years, or both. Whoever in the commission
of any such act uses a deadly or dangerous
weapon shall be fined not more than 810,000
or imprisoned not more than ten years. or
both.
"(c) Whoever, outside of the United States
conspires to commit murder, as defined in
section 1111(a) of this title, within the
United States of any national of the United
States, shall be punished as provided in sec-
tion 1117 of this title notwithstanding that
the offense occurred outside the United
States.
"(d) As used in this section, the term 'na-
tional of the United States' has the meaning
given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1101(aX22)1.
"(e) No indictment for this section can be
returned without the written approval of
the Attorney General or his designee.".
(2) The table of chapters for part I of title
18. United States Code, is amended by in-
serting after the item for chapter 113. the
following:
"113A. Terrorist acts against United
States nationals abroad 2331".
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this
amendment is identical to S. 1429,
which was adopted by the U.S. Senate
on February 19, 1986, by a unanimous
vote of 92 to zero. It is an amendment
which has an extensive legislative his-
tory on a series of amendments or per-
fecting amendments which the Sena-
tor has introduced over the course of
the past 2 years.
This amendment would expand U.S.
law by making it a crime for anyone in
any country to assault any U.S. citizen
as part of an act of terrorism. This leg-
islation would also preclude defend-
ants in such cases from challenging
the manner in which they were
brought before the court.
A similar bill was originally intro-
duced as S. 3018 in the 98th Congress.'
This broader version now deserves
prompt enactment.
We need not wait for international
agreements to be finalized before we
begin to exert the full force of the law
against the terrorist menace. There
are steps we can take right now, uni-
laterally, to expand our ability to pro-
tect our own citizens abroad.
Significant security measures have
already been implemented at U.S. em-
bassies and installations, and the new
Overseas Security Advisory Council re-
cently announced by Secretary Shultz
September 25, 1984.
8 8437
should enhance the safety of corpo-
rate personnel in threatened areas
throughout the world.
But there remains a critical gap in
our arsenal against terrorism: murder
of U.S. citizens outside our borders.
other than of specially designed Gov-
ernment officials and diplomats, is not
a crime under U.S. law.
I was stunned to realize that those
responsible for murdering over 260
U.S. marines while they slept in their
barracks in Lebanon are not guilty of
any U.S. crime for their murder. Nor
are those terrorists who cold-bloodedly
shot two U.S. citizens during the hi-
jacking in Kuwait. Existing law pun-
ishes only those who assault our clinic).
mats. Under my bill, when a U.S.
marine is killed or wounded in a bomb
attack, an investigation can be initiat-
ed and the culprits can be brought to
this country and prosecuted.
This act will in no way contravene or
conflict with either international or
constitutional law. While criminal ju-
risdiction is customarily limited to the
place where the crime occurred, it is
well-established constitutional doc-
trine that Congress has the power to
aPP1Y U.S. law extraterritorially if it
so chooses. (See e.g.. United States v.
Bowman, 260 U.S. 94. 98 (1922)).
International law also recognizes
broader criminal jurisdiction. If an al-
leged crime occurs in a foreign coun-
try, a nation may still exercise juris-
diction over the defendant if the crime
has a potential adverse effect upon its
security or the operation of its govern-
mental functions. This basis for juris-
diction over crimes committed outside
the United States has been applied by
the Federal courts in contexts ranging
from drug smuggling to perjury. Clear-
ly, then, the exercise of U.S. criminal
jurisdiction is also justified to pros-
ecute the terrorist who assaults or
murders American personnel abroad.
Such attacks undoubtedly have an ad-
verse effect upon the conduct of our
Government's foreign affairs, and po-
tentially threaten the security interest
of the United States as well.
But making terrorist murder a U.S.
crime alone will not protect Americans
abroad. We must also demonstrate our
seriousness by applying the law with
fierce determination. In many cases,
the terrorist murderer will be extradit-
ed or seized with the cooperation of
the Government in whose jitrisdiction
he or she is found. Yet, if the terrorist
Is hiding in a country like Lebanon,
where the Government, such as it is, is
powerless to aid in his removal, or in
Lybia, where the Government is un-
willing, more forceful intervention
may be necessary.
This bill provides, in accord with
constitutional and international law,
the necessary subject matter jurisdic-
tion to prosecute those who attack
U.S. personnel abroad. But to obtain
Personal jurisdiction over the culprit
himself, the suspect must first be
seized or arrested and brought to the
im,,,-.1,ccifimri in Part - Sanitized Com/ Approved for Release 2012/01/26 CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
- Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
S 8438
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE June 25, 1R86
United States to stand trial. Under
current constitutional doctrine. both
U.S. citizens and foreign nationals can
be seized and brought to trial in the
United States without violating due
process of law. See, for example. Fria-
bte v. Collins. 342 U.S. 519, 522 (1952):
Ferry. 119 U.S. 436 (1886).
It may surprise some to hear that
such methods are an appropriate way
to bring criminals to trial. If someone
is charged or chargeable with an of-
fense and is at liberty in some foreign
country. it is an accepted principle of
law to take that alleged criminal into
custody if necessary and return him to
the jurisdiction which has authority
to try him. That prosecution and con-
viction is sustainable and is proper
under the laws of the United States
and under international law.
This principle has been in effect for
almost 100 years, going back to 1886,
in the landmark case of Kerr versus Il-
linois. where the State of Illinois kid-
naped a defendant in Peru, a man
being charged with a crime in Illinois,
and brought him back to Illinois for
trial, where he was convicted. The case
went to the Supreme Court of the
United States and the Supreme Court
of the United States said it was appro-
priate to try that man in Illinois and
to convict him notwithstanding the
means which were used to bring him
back to trial in that jurisdiction.
No country in the world, no country
in the history of the development of
law. has more rigorous concepts of the
due process of law than the United
States of America and the U.S. Su-
preme Court. That doctrine was
upheld in an opinion written by Jus-
tice Hugo Black, well known for his
concern about defendants' rights. In
the ease of F'risbie versus Collins.
handed down by the Supreme Court of
the United States in 1952 and upheld
in later decisions.
In the Prisbie case, Justice Black
stated:
This court has never departed from the
rule announced in Kerr v. filinois, that the
powers of a court to try a person for a crime
is not impaired by the fact that he had been
brought in the oourt's jurisdiction by reason
of a forceable abduction.
I would suggest to Senators that in
dealing with the crime of terrorism,
we ought to find the terrorists when
we have some reason to believe we
know who they are. It requires an in-
vestigation. It requires pursuit. It may
know who require extradition or,
where extradition is not possible, it
may require abduction to bring these
vicious criminals to trial.
Resort to such tactics will not ordi-
narily be necessary. The nation where
the offender is found may prosecute
that person itself or that nation may
extradite him or consent. to a seizure
by U.S. agents within its territory. In
the rare instance, however, where
there exists in effect no government
capable of arresting or prosecuting the
offender?and I would suggest that
that situation exists in a nation like
Lebanon today where there is hardly a
government capable of enforcing law
and order?in that extreme situation
or wherever the terrorists may be
found in nations which flagrantly vio-
late international law or harbor inter-
national terrorists, then the United
States may be compelled to use force-
ful methods to bring a terrorist to jus-
tice. And I would suggest that on a
balancing test, that is an appropriate
course of conduct.
It is the kind of forceful, effective
action that the United States must be
In a position to employ where neces-
sary to respond to terrorist attacks
against our citizens abroad. The legis-
lation will accomplish that result.
I shall proceed at this juncture to
summarize the thrust of this amend-
ment.
The thrust of this amendment wanld
make it a violation of US. law for a
terrorist to attack, maim, murder, or
assault a U.S. citizen anywhere in the
world. This amendment is based upon
the established principles of interna-
tional law, that the United States has
a sufficient interest or nexus so that
even if the act occurred outside the
territorial jurisdiction of the United
States, judicial jurisdiction would
attach in the U.S. courts.
Strange as it may seem, Mr. Presi-
dent, the United States of America
could not have proceeded against the
terrorists who brutally murdered 240
US. marines in Beirut. Strange as it
may seem, the United States could not
have proceeded against the terrorists
who murdered the United States citi-
zens in the Vienna and Rome airports.
This bill seeks to correct that deficien-
cy and to authorize the prosecution of
these terrorists by the courts of the
United States.
Mr. President, there is a little-known
decision by the Supreme Court of the
Untied States. handed down exactly
100 years ago, in 1886, which sets
forth a sound jurisdictional base for
this approach. The case was Kerr
against Illinois. It involved a situation
where Kerr, charged with fraud, had
fled to Peru. While he was in Peru. he
was arrested by Illinois authorities.
You might say that he was abducted
or even a harsher categorization would
have been kidnapped.
In any event, Kerr was brought back
bodily from Peru to Illinois, where he
was prosecuted and convicted.
Kerr then challenged his conviction
In the Supreme Court of the United
States and the conviction was upheld.
the Court saying it was appropriate to
prosecute Kerr in the courts of the
United States of America regardless of
haw he was brought back for that
proseCution.
Later, Peru acquiesced In the United
States action but Peru did not do so at
the time Kerr was taken into custody.
The Eictunann case is another illus-
tration, where the State of Israel took
Eichmann from Argentina without
consent by the Argentine Govern-
ment, without extradition proceedings,
and tried and convicted him for hei-
nous crimes and later executed him.
Mr. President. this approach has
been the subject of extended hearings.
Secretary of State Shultz has testified
that under appropriate circumstances.
It was his view that it would be appro-
priate for the United States to take
terrorists into custody and bring them
back to the United States for trial. At-
torney General Meese has testified to
a similar effect. Legal counsel Abra-
ham Sofair of the Department of
State has given similar testimony.
One illustration of the use of this
kind of jurisdiction occurred when the
hijackers of the Achille Lauro in the
Egyptian airliner were intercepted by
United States planes and forced down
an Italian soil. At that time, there was
a disagreement between United States
and Italian authorities as to who
would take custody of the hijackers.
Unfortunately, the Italian authorities
got custody.
Had that not been so. those hijack-
ers might have been brought back to
the United States for trial under pro-
vision 2334 of the omnibus crime con-
trol law which made it a crime for any
person or group to hijack or take U.S.
citizens hostages.
This provision I consider to be emi-
nently sound. The matter of taking
these terrorists into custody is a deli-
cate matter, one which we will have to
approach with care, caution and dis-
cretion. But in a world where terror-
ism is such a major problem and the
Untied States has utilized the kind of
force which we did in response to
Libyan terrorism, this is a much more
moderated approach. This is an ap-
proach which focuses on individuals
who are specifically identified for spe-
cific acts, where probable cause has
been established, where a warrant of
arrest has been issued, where grand
jury indictments have been presented
In accordance with established princi-
ples of law.
It may surprise some to know that at
this very moment, there are outstand-
ing indictments out of the U.S. Court
for the District of Columbia against
the terrorists who hijacked the TWA
plane, these terrorists being subject to
US. jurisdiction because of the 1984
enactment which deals with hostage
taking.
Mr. President, I consider this to be
very significant step forward, acqui-
esced in by my colleagues when this
bill received a 2940-0 vote on February
19. I am joined in sponsorship of this
bill by the distinguished Senator from
Alabama (Mr. Deimos] and the distin-
guished Senator from Vermont 'Mr.
IgarrY3.
Mr. DENTON. Mr. President, I rise
In support of the amendment offered
by my distinguished colleague from
Pennsylvania. Mr. Serena, which in-
corporates the substance of S. 1429,
the Terrorist Prosecution Act, a bill to
amend title 18, United States Code, to
authorize prosecution of terrorists and
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
June 25, 1986
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
others who attack U.S. nationals
abroad, a bill which passed the Senate
on February 19, 1986. by a vote of 92
to O.
Mr. President, in reviewing the sub-
ject of international terrorism, the Ju-
diciary Subcommittee on Security and
Terrorism, which I chair, collected suf-
ficient evidence, through hearings, to
conclude that there is more to terror-
ism than just a series of unrelated vio-
lent events perpetrated by several un-
related groups.
There is, for example, a clear pat-
tern of Soviet-supported and equipped
insurgencies seeking to destabilize, by
revolution, whole regions such as
Southern Africa, to politicize estab-
lished religion, such as in Nicaragua
and the Middle East. and to export vi-
olence against the democratic govern-
ments of neighboring states.
The trends are clear. Cooperation
among terrorist groups is increasing.
In some instances drug money fi-
nances the violence. The lethality of
the action is becoming greater as more
powerful and more sophisticated
weapons are employed. There is in-
creasing disregard for the innocent.
More diplomats and world leaders are
targets. More innocent civilians are
made into pawns. United States inter-
ests are the No. 1 target.
The pattern that emerges from
studying the testimony obtained in
more than 60 hearings before the Sub-
committee on Security and Terrorism,
and more recently in joint hearings
with the Judiciary Committee and the
Foreign Relations Committee, is that
terrorism is the most widely practiced
form of modern warfare. It is both a
major force and a major trend in for-
eign affairs.
Row successful have we been in deal-
ing with terrorist warfare against our
commerce, soldiers, diplomats, facili-
ties, leaders, and private citizens? Not
very. We in Gongress sometimes adopt
self-defeating, even contradictory,
measures that often put us at odds
with our friends and allies. Most
people are outraged at the violence of
terrorism as depicted by the daily
news, but that rage is short lived.
We have come to a point that re-
quires that we establish both a foreign
and domestic policy for dealing with
the obvious threat.
U.S. policy on terrorism is fragment-
ed and only partially developed. I be-
lieve that it is essential that we deter-
mine the degree of the threat to our
Interests, set our goals and objectives,
and then develop a policy and commit-
ments. From there, we must explain
our policy so that we can build a con-
sensus that will enable us to persevere
and to succeed over the long haul.
Terrorism must be dealt with on
many fronts and a military response
alone will not suffice. First, we must
have laws that are sufficient to meet
the threat. We must have a mecha-
nism capable of enforcing these laws.
We must pursue diplomatic initiatives
and our allies must stand firm with us
on this issue. We must in the end be
prepared to employ a full range of
sanctions: legal, diplomatic, economic,
and military.
This amendment, which incorpo-
rates the substance of S. 1429. will
allow for prosecution in the United
States of individuals who commit ter-
rorist murders against U.S. nationals
abroad. I believe that S. 1429, with the
amendments suggested by Senator
LEAKY and myself, represents a step
forward in our ongoing fight against
terrorism.
I urge my colleagues to support the
amendment.
THE TERRORIST PROSECUTION ACT OF 1986
Mr. LEARY. Mr: President, I am
very pleased to be an original cospon-
sor of this important amendment. I
want to commend Senator SPECTER for
his initiative, and Senator DENTON.
chairman of the Subcommittee on Se-
curity and Terrorism of which I am
the ranking member, who worked
closely with me on the final draft of
this legislation which passed the
Senate 92 to 0 on February 19, 1986.
The recent wave of terrorist attacks
against Americans overseas has given
new urgency to the debate over the
proper U.S. response to international
terrorism.
The United States needs a compre-
hensive counterterrorism policy. The
cornerstone of that policy must be
high-level, sustained diplomatic efforts
which address the underlying causes
of terrorism.
Part of that policy must be to im-
prove our intelligence, so the discrimi-
nate use of force against terrorists
who have committed or are about to
commit violent acts becomes feasible
and legitimate.
And, as this amendment demon-
strates, our policy must include laws
which provide for the criminal pros-
ecution in the United States of terror-
ists over whom we can obtain jurisdic-
tion through extradition and other
means.
Remarkably, under current law, the
murder of U.S. citizens outside our
borders, other than of certain Govern-
ment officials and diplomats, is not a
crime.
The Terrorist Prosecution Act will
close this serious gap in our arsenal
against terrorists, by providing for
long jail sentences for individuals who
commit or conspire to commit terrorist
assaults, murders or kidnapings
against Americans abroad.
I am proud to have worked with
Chairman Dricrou and Senator SPEC-
TER on this amendment which received
the strong support of the State and
Justice Departments and all members
of the Judiciary Committee.
Terrorism will continue to plague us
into the future. There are no simple
solutions, but we should have every
weapon at our disposal The Terrorism
Prosecution Act passed the Senate
urianimonsly earlier this year, and I
am confident that It will receive the
same overwhelming support today.
S 8439
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I
yield to the distinguished chairman of
the Committee on Foreign Relations
for his comments.
0 1550
Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President. the amendment of-
fered by the distinguished Senator
from Pennsylvania. as he has pointed
out, came before this body in the form
of legislation and received a 92 to 0
vote. That affirmation. I think, rt-
mains equally as strong presently, per-
haps stronger, as we have come to re?
alize the wisdom of the reasoning of
the Senator from Pennsylvania and
the piece of legislation that he intro-
duced. It is certainly our pleasure to
accept the amendment on our side and
commend the Senator.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I would
like to address the further question if
I could to the Senator from Pennsyl-
vania. and that is my recollection is
several years ago there was a Chilean
national in our country. Letelier, who
was killed, assassinated by another
Chilean terrorist on our own territory.
As I understand this provision, it
would mean that if the Chileans had
the same law the assassin of Letelier
could be tried under Chilean law just
as we were able to try him under our
law, if my recollection is correct. Is
that correct?
Mr. SPECTER. I believe that if
Chile has a law applicable within its
own territorial jurisdiction, as a
matter of international precedents
they could assert jurisdiction over the
Chilean who committed an offense in
the United States against another
Chilean, if they could gain custody of
that individual, take him to Chile and
prosecute him in Chile, entirely con-
sistent with the principles of interna-
tional law.
Mr. PELL. Following up the thought
of taking custody, does that mean
they would have to legally take custo-
dy, I mean extradite or wcruld it be a
question of kidnaping him like the
fellow they took to Israel?
Mr. SPECrilat. When you ask the
question whether they have to legally
take custody, that is like the rabbit in
the hat. It is legal if the court says it
Is legal, and the courts have said it is
legal regardless of how theydgain phys-
ical possession of the individual. And
that has a very solid legal precedent
on moral and philosophical jurispru-
dential grounds because that individ-
ual is then afforded all the procedural
protection as Kerr was to the State of
Illinois, the right to confront his ac-
cusers, under the T.J.S. law a right to
trial by jury, due process of law in the
fullest sense of the word.
Now, I do not know what the law of
Chile is. but Chile as a nation has the
right to establish its own judicial
system as it sees fit. The issue of how
the defendant gets before the court in
the United States is one which the Su-
preme Court has said is not germane
? n.r.inifipri in Part - Sanitized Coov Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
IFDeclassified
t. S 8440
4
1
t
I
I
1
1
i
in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE June 25. 1986
or not determinative and once he is
tried and convicted, the individual
cannot complain about how he got
before the court. But as a matter of
basic justice. if we can put our hands
on the hijackers of the Achille Lauro,
who went to Italy and were let go and
it was later decided they should have
been prosecuted, if we could find any
of these terrorists around the world
where we are not constrained as in the
circumstances of the Libyan raid to
use the kind of force we did, how
much wiser it would be to have a more
moderate approach to find that specif-
ic individual.
When I was district attorney in
Philadelphia?and a good many of
these ideas come from the experience
I had as the district attorney of a city
and county?we frequently had people
who barricaded themselves within
buildings and we had to use force to
take them into custody. Was it abduc-
tion? Was it forceful? Was it pretty
tough? You bet it was. But a lot less
tough than a bombing raid. And once
you get that person into custody, you
try him. You have evidence and you
have witnesses and he gets plenty of
justice through due process of law.
Mr. EAGLETON. Will the Senator
yield for a question on the same point
that Senator PELL raised?
Mr. SPECTER. I will.
Mr. EAGLETON. Does the Senator
mind if I propounded a question to the
Senator from Pennsylvania?
Mr. FELL. I do not.
Mr. EAGLETON. I heard the Sena-
tor's answer to Senator PELL but I do
not know that that is directly respon-
sive. I think what Senator Pma. has in
mind and what I now have in mind is
If we have, under Kerr V. Illinois, the
right to go into any country in the
world and kidnap an individual there
who has been duly indicted in an
American court and to put our mitts
on him by whatever means we decide
to do it, bounty hunters. U.S. mar-
shals, with or without the cloak of the
law, whoever it may be?that is what
Kerr v. Illinois seems to say and that
is how we got into Peru?then other
countries can get into this same act
and under a same kind of theory can
come over here and do a little kidnap-
ing of individuals to whisk them back
to Chile.
Paraguay seems to like this a little
bit. Iran might like this kind of busi-
ness extraordinarily. Iraq would do a
very good job at it. Syria would be no
slouch at it. So my question is when
you are devising a strong-arm law that
gives global strong-arm powers to put
the snatch on people, do not others
then have the right to structure their
laws if they so desire to play the same
strong-arm game and to play it on the
U.S. ball field?
Mr. SPECTER. I think the distin-
guished Senator from Missouri is rais-
ing a real issue, a real problem, a real
concern. But I would say that that is a
risk which is worth taking. At the
present time, the strong-arm tactics
are all on the side of the terrorists.
They are not coming to the United
States and taking U.S. citizens into
custody, but they are taking Mr.
Klinghoffer into custody on the
Achille Laura and they are brutally
murdering him or they are finding
U.S. citizens in the Roman airport and
they are brutally murdering them
there.
It is not determinative whether a
U.S. citizen may be in the United
States, in Pennsylvania or Missouri. or
may be traveling abroad and is victim-
ized by a terrorist there. We have to
take a stand. Now, we have a pretty
good defense in the United States if
people come here and try to kidnap
our citizens but it is not perfect.
Within a few feet from where we are
standing a bomb went off on Novem-
ber 7, 1983. It was a Monday night. It
blew a big hole in the Republican
cloakroom windows at that time. So
we are subject to problems in this
country. But it is similar, I say to the
Senator from Missouri, to problems
which he and I faced as prosecuting
attorneys. I am sure the Senator had
the experience many times of victims
of crimes who did not want to pros-
ecute because they were afraid that
the defendants on bail would seek ret-
ribution and their families would be
victimized. So that frequently when
you seek to enforce the law and take
tough actions against criminals, you
face the possibility of reprisal.
But what I think we have to do is
make a decision about what is appro-
priate treatment and what risks we are
willing to take. I believe that if we
could lay our hands on the terrorists
who murdered Mr. Klinghoffer or if
we could lay our hands on the terror-
ists who hijacked the TWA plane, we
ought to take the chance.
Mr. EAGLETON. A brief rejoinder. I
expect my colleague from Rhode
Island would permit me to interrupt. I
know we are all caught up in this busi-
ness of terrorism, as we should be?
horrible,' dirty, filthy, atrocious busi-
ness. Kerr versus Illinois did not relate
to terrorism. It is a 19th century Su-
preme Court case; is it not?
? Mr. SPECTER. That is correct.
Mr. EAGLETON. The person who
fled, the fleeing fellow was not a ter-
rorist? What was he?
Mr. SPECTER. Charged with fraud.
Mr. EAGLETON. Fraud. That could
be a bum check. Anything on up.
1600
So, if we are going to enunciate this
doctrine as an American doctrine, we
should be on notice?the people of
Philadelphia should be on notice?
that other nations could come in and
send body snatchers into Philadelphia,
Into St. Louis, into Providence, RI, and
grab people indicted for fraud; writing
a bum check over $50?say, $51 in Mis-
souri. It may have been upped to $100.
so let us make it a $101 check. Say
there is a $101 bum check from Iran
on the bank of the shah; a $101 bum
check on the Bank of Iraq: a S101 bum
check on the Bank of Syria. They are
indicted over there. They can come in
and grab people out of restaurants,
hotels, homes. whatever. in Philadel-
phia, whisk them back to those coun-
tries: and under the doctrine of the
Senator from Pennsylvania. that
would be legally permissible. That
worries me.
Mr. SPECTER. The hypotheticals
suggested by the distinguished Sena-
tor from Missouri. I would say, are not
realistic, but the thrust of what he
raises as his concern is, I think: and
that is that if you are going to get
tough with terrorists, you may be sub-
ject to reprisals. But I think that is
something we have to be willing to
risk, if we are going to be tough with
terrorists.
I do not think they are going to
come into cities in the United States
and kidnap American citizens for bad
checks.
Let me add to the distinguished Sen-
ator from Missouri the fact that the
Kerr decision, an 1886 decision, does
not stand by itself. It has been repeat-
edly upheld, as a matter of legal prin-
ciple, by the courts in the United
States: in a decision in 1950 written by
Justice Hugo Black, one of the most
noted civil libertarians in the history
of the Supreme Court of the United
States; and upheld in later decisions
by the court of appeals. This approach
articulated in the Kerr case is sound.
There is nothing to stop somebody
from kidnaping an American citizen in
the United States today and taking
him to a foreign country, for fraud.
That is something which could happen
at any time. But I do grant that when
we take strong action against terror-
ists, however we do it. we are going to
be subject to risk of retaliation.
It Is very much like the victim who
testifies in a rape case, the victim who
testifies in an assault case. If you want
to bring those defendants to justice
and be strong and tough it, they may
seek to retaliate. But if we are going to
have an orderly society, with law and
order and justice, that is a risk we
have to take.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I think
there has been much benefit from this
exchange, and we are being educated?
I am, in any case. I know of no qbjec-
tion to this amendment on this side of
the aisle, and I suggest that we vote
for it. -
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
EvAris.) Is there further discussion? If
not, the question is on agreeing to the
amendment.
The amendment (No. 2188) was
agreed to.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President. I move
to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. PELL. I move to lay that motion
on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
I Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
June 25, 1986
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 8441
Mr. HELMS. and Mr. EAGLETON
addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President. will
the Senator yield?
Mr. HELMS. I yield.
Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President,
may I make an inquiry of the Chair?
Is there still an informal rule that
used to be in existence that there be
alternating between Republicans and
Democrats? I have been sitting here
for a good part of an hour. There used
to be. in the old days of comity, an un-
written rule that it -went from one side
of the aisle to the other. Has that
been done away with?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There
is no such rule. The rule of the Senate
is that the first Senator seeking recog-
nition and recognized by the Chair is
the one to be recognized. Of course, a
tie may occur. Unfortunately. this
Senator just assumed the Chair, and
this is my first recognition.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I will be
delighted to defer to the Senator from
Missouri. He and I have been waiting.
I have three amendments which I un-
derstand will be accepted.
Mr. President, I defer to the Senator
from Missouri, with the understanding
that I will follow him.
Mr. EAGLETON. If the amend-
ments will be accepted and can be han-
dled quickly, I will wait.
The PRESIDING OFFICER.. The
Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I had
intended to offer an amendment at
this time to transfer $10 million from
funds available to the United Nations
Department of Public Information to
fund a coordinated, carefully targeted
Interagency Program of Counterter-
rorism Research and Development.
The Technical Support Group of the
Interdepartmental Group on Terror-
ism. formed at the recommendation of
the Inman Commission, has identified
major deficiencies In development
funding for new techniques to identify
and counter potential terrorist at-
tacks. Accordingly, the administration
requested an urgent appropriation of
$10 million to fund priority programs.
Because of the wide diversity of ter-
rorist threats, as well as the tradition-
al differences in the missions of vari-
ous Federal agencies, there are signifi-
cant gaps in technological programs
which no individual agency now has
responsibility for addressing.
For example, the Federal Aviation
Administration is currently developing
an explosive detection device for air-
port use to combat contemporary
bombs that defy traditional airport x
ray machines, such as that likely used
in the recent TWA flight 840 tragedy
In which four Americans lost their
lives. With some modification, this
same technology could be adapted for
use in Federal buildings such as the
White House, Capitol, State Depart-
ment, embassies, et cetera. Yet, FAA's
responsibility is airport security, and
no agency is charged with taking a
broader perspective on interagency
needs, so that this potentially life-
saving explosive detection device is not
being developed for other uses.
I recently wrote to Secretary of
State George Schultz urging him to
evaluate this technology and its poten-
tial application to embassy security be-
cause it is my understanding this kind
of advanced technology is not current-
ly being pursued at the State Depart-
ment, or any other agency outside
FAA.
Funding of the counterterrorism re-
search and development plan proposed
in this amendment will provide for a
focused and coordinated interagency
effort to fill these kinds of gaps in
combating terrorism.
The funds will be utilized by various
agencies according to agreed inter-
agency research priorities for ad-
vanced technology applicable to coun-
tering terrorism and I understand that
$400,000 of the $10 million would go to
fund development of a technical plan
to meet interagency needs for explo-
sive detection using demonstrated
thermal neutron activation technolo-
gy.
It is extremely important that we
develop the ability to anticipate poten-
tial terrorist tactics and develop suita-
ble countermeasures before serious in-
cidents occur. The scientific and tech-
nical know-how exists, but we lack a
funded interagency structure to co-
ordinate these activities and assure
that all major technological areas are
being addressed. Without this central
coordination, there is no certainty
that technological evolutions in the
terrorist threat will be adequately ad-
dressed, or that research areas cur-
rently being neglected will be identi-
fied and pursued.
I would have proposed that the
offset for these urgently needed funds
come from the United Nations Depart-
ment of Public Information. A recent
General Accounting Office report that
I requested indicates that about half
of the media pieces put out by the
United Nations Department of Public
Information EUNDPI1 on topics desig-
nated by the Department of State to
be important to U.S. interests took po-
sitions contrary to U.S. policies and
contained biases against the United
States. Only one of the items pro-
duced during 1983-85 which GAO
studied supported our interersts. On
May 2, 1986, I wrote Secretary Schultz
urging him to withhold U.S. funding
for UNDPI until the materials it pro-
duces and distributes are less biased
against America.
Clearly, our national interests are
better served by a coordinated coun-
terterrorism R&D effort than by sub-
sidizing anti-American publications.
International terrorist violence has
been largely limited to Europe and the
Middle East, but the threat of terror-
ism within the United States grows
more serious each day.
Members of this body in 1984 will
not soon forget the explosion that
ripped through the wall of the Senate
Republican Cloakroom in the Capitol
late one evening. The Senate had been
scheduled to meet late that night, but
had unexpectedly adjourned early. As
a result, no one was in the Cloakroom
at the time of the explosion, but the
near-miss provided dramatic evidence
of the reality of the threat even in the
U.S. Capitol and the need for more ef-
fective security.
I ask unanimous consent that copies
of my letters to Secretary Shultz on
the explosive detection technology
(May 8. 1986) and on the UNDPI?
May 2, 1986?be printed at this point
in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letters
were ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
U.S. SENATE.
Washington, DC. May 2, 1986.
Hon. GEORGE P. SHULTZ,
Secretary of State.
Washington, DC.
'DEAR GEORGE: I am writing to urge the
withholding of United States funding for
the United Nations Department of Public
Information (DPD until the materials it
produces and distributes more significantly
represents American interests.
A recent General Accounting Office
Report that I requested, entitled "United
Nations: Analysis of Selected Media Prod-
ucts Shows Half Oppose Key U.S. Inter-
ests." has provided important evidence that
our positions are being ignored in DPI's lit-
erature and productions. DPI is the princi-
pal U.N. body engaged in public information
activities and is responsible for producing
and distributing a variety of media around
the world.
The Report indicates that about half of
the DPI materials analyzed on areas identi-
fied by the Department of State as being
important to U.S. interests opposed our in-
terests because they took political positions
contrary to U.S. policies and/or contained
elements of bias against the United States.
The Report also concludes that only one of
the items the study used supported U.S. in-
terests.
Given that the United States' contribu-
tion to DPI is roughly 25% of its budget. it
is critical that our national interests be
served by this investment. The GAO study
has clearly shown that our interests are not
being furthered by DPI and I strongly urge
that all U.S. funding for this program be
withheld until DPI produces unbiased and
fair materials that do not undercut our vital
interests.
Sincerely. ?
ARLEN SPECTER.
U.S. SENATE,
Washington, DC. May 8, 1986.
Hon. GEORGE P. SHULTZ,
Secretary of State,
Washington, DC.
DEAR GEORGE: I am concerned that ad-
vanced technologies capable of comprehen-
sive explosive detection are not being in-
cluded in the State Department's Embassy
Security program. I strongly urge you to in-
vestigate Thermal Neutron Activation
(TNA) explosive detectors and incorporate
them into this program.
As the Inman Commission concluded, se-
curity at many of our embassies overseas is
very much in doubt, especially in high-risk
areas of the Middle East, Europe and Africa.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
1
S 8442 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?SENATE June 25, 1 9 86
While the Federal Aviation Administration
has made important advances in this field,
the State Department currently has no in-
house development program underway to
study TNA technology for inclusion in
comprehensive system of embassy security.
In January of this year. I was able to view
a TNA detector which has been demonstrat-
ed to be effective in detecting the presence
of all known types of explosives in luggage
at four major U.S airports. I understand
from the Westinghouse Corporation, one of
the companies presently engaged in TNA re-
search, that this technology can be modified
for embassy or car bomb detection arid will
serve as an effective deterrent against
today's sophisticated terrorists.
I also understand from Westinghouse that
the Physical Security Division of the State
Department is aware of the capabilities of
TNA in Identifying explosive compounds.
but there has been no effort to utilize this
technology.
I strongly urge you to evaluate TNA and
Implement this potentially life-saving
system into the State Department's plan to
enhance embassy security.
My best.
Sincerely.
ALL= Sescrint.
Mr. RUDMAN. Mr. President, I ap-
preciate knowing of the Senator's in-
terest in this issue. I will certainly
keep his views in mind when we are in
conference with the House of Repre-
sentatives. As the committee stated in
its report accompanying the urgent
supplemental appropriations bill, we
were concerned that much of this
work is already being done in other
parts of the Government. However,
the Senator has made a good point
about the need for interagency coop-
eration in the area of counterterror-
ism research and development. While I
am not in a position to agree to a
figure at this time, I fully expect fund-
ing will be made available for at least
a portion of this request in 1986. At
the same time, I understand his inter-
est in pursuing research and develop-
ment of explosive detection using dem-
onstrated thermal neutron activation
technology and I expect the interagen-
cy task force will give every consider-
ation to a research proposal in this
area.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator
from New Hampshire for indicating
his support for funding of a program
for interagency counterterrorism re-
search and development and his ex-
pectation that at least a portion of the
$10 million can be included in the
urgent supplemental for fiscal year
1986. Moreover, I appreciate his posi-
tive statement about pursuit of dem-
onstrated thermal neutron activation
technology for interagency explosive
detection needs. In light of these re-
marks, I am withholding this amend-
ment.
Mr. President, this matter has been
discussed between the staffs, and my
only request of the distinguished
chairman of the Foreign Relations
Committee would be to consider this
matter in conference, with the request
of this Senator that the Senator might
accede to the higher figure. It is im-
portant for this research and develop-
ment. But I shall not press the amend-
ment at this time. I seek only to ask
for that consideration by the distin-
guished chairman.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank
the Senator for his consideration. We
are sensitive to the argument being
made and will give it every consider-
ation.
Mr. SPECIEtt. I thank the Senator
from North Carolina for yielding.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, will the .
Senator from North Carolina yield for
a question?
Mr. HELMS. I yield.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I do not
want to interrupt the flow of Senate
activity.
This Senator was advised that at 4
o'clock this afternoon, no later than 4,
we would be going about the business
of setting aside the bill before us so
that the Senate would have an oppor-
tunity to work its will on the urgent
supplemental appropriation.
I have talked to the majority leader
and the chairman of the Appropria-
tions Committee about this. The sup-
plement appropriations is a tremen-
dously important bill, and in my opin-
ion we must get it passed this evening
sometime.
Important as the measure is before
us, I am wondering if there is any in-
formation that could be imparted to
this Senator as to when we will take
up the urgent supplemental appropria-
tion. Does the Chair have any knowl-
edge of that?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There
is no agreement to take up the urgent
supplemental appropriation at 4
o'clock. The Chair has no knowledge
as to precisely when that will be taken
up.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, if the
Senator will yield, I should like to
assist the Chair by saying that we
have had great cooperation from the
majority leader and the minority
leader, and we are not going to abuse
that.
It appears that there are three
amendments by the Senator from
North Carolina which will be agreed
to. The minority leader will have
amendments, and I suspect that we
will accommodate those rapidly. To
my knowledge, that will end the
amending process, and we can move to
final passage. I am pleasantly sur-
prised by events at this point.
Mr. EXON. I thank the Senator.
ASEENDKENT NO. 2189
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send
an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Masts] proposes an amendment numbered
2189.
Mr. HELMS Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection. it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, add the following
new section:
SEC. . (a) ESTA1LE22111ENT UNDO( IN-
SPECTOR GENERAL ACT.?a &MU= 2(1) of
the Inspector General Act of 1978 is amend-
ed by inserting "the United States Informa-
tion Agency," inunediately before "the Vet-
erans' Administration".
(2) Section 11 of such act is amended?
(A) in paragraph (1) by inserting "or the
Director of the United States Information
Agency" immediately before "as the case
may be:" and
(B) In paragraph (2) by Inserting "the
United States Information Agency" immedi-
ately before -or the Veterans' Administra-
tion".
(b) Of the funds authorised to be appro-
priated to the United States Information
Agency for the fiscal year 1987, not leas
than 85 million shall be available only for
the operation of the office of the Inspector
General established by subsection (a) of this
section.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President. I will be
brief. All three amendments that I
shall offer have been cleared on both
sides, I understand.
Last year, the Senate approved a
measure creating an independent in-
spector general at the U.S. Informa-
tion Agency under, of course. the In-
spector General Act of 1978.
The USIA has been plagued with nu-
merous difficulties, which I do not
think need repetition here today.
These difficulties have hampered
American efforts to sell American for-
eign policy overseas. Some have
argued that the agency has become
excessively politicized, but I would like
to reiterate the Senate decision of last
year by offering this amendment, to
try once again to solve a problem that
the Senate already identified at USIA.
The amendment earmarks a small
amount of funds for fiscal year 1987
for startup costs for the new office. It
is quite small in comparison with the
total agency's budget.
I emphasize that it is earmarking
and not an additional expense. But it
will provide a large return if it suc-
ceeds in identifying management prob-
lem at USIA. After all USIA and State
are the only major agencies which do
not have an independent IG. State has
a mandate under law, but USIA does
not even have a mandate. This amand-
ment will correct this oversight.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the
amendment does indeed affirm Senate
policy. On our side, we are prepared to
accept the amendment
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there further debate?
Mr. LUGAFt. I understand that the
other side of the aisle is Prepared to
accept the amendment, so there is no
further debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment.
The amendment (No: 2189) was
agreed to.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
June 25, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I move
to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. LUGAR. I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
0 1610
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I thank
the Chair.
AMENDMENT NO. 2190, AS MODIFIED
(Purpose: To provide for an independent In-
spector General for the Department of
State)
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President. I send
another amendment to the desk and
ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Carolina [Mr.
HELMS/ proposes an amendment numbered
2190.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President. I ask
unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 129, after line 3, add the follow-
ing new section:
SEC. 702. INDEPENDENT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR
THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE.
(a) ALLOCATION or FUNDS.?Of the funds
authorized to be appropriated for the De-
partment of State for the fiscal years 1986
and 1987. 2.000.000 for the fiscal year 1988
and 12.000.000 for the fiscal year 1987 shall
be available only for the operations and ac-
tivities of the Inspector General for the De-
partment of State, appointed by the Presi-
dent under section 3 of the Inspector Gener-
al Act of 1978, to conduct those activities
specified In section 209(g) of the Foreign
Service Act of 1980. as such section was in
effect before the date of enactment of this
Act.
(12) ABOLITION OF PROGRAM INSPECTOR GEN-
ERAL.?(I) Section 209 of the Foreign Service
Act of 1980 and section 150(b) of the For-
eign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal
Years 1986 and 1987, are repealed.
(2) Not later than 30 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
State shall reassign the personnel and dis-
pose of the property, records, and unex-
pended balances of appropriations which
were used by or available for use by the
office of the Program Inspector General
before the date of enactment of this Act.
(c) PROH/BITION ON USE OF FOREIGN SERV-
ICE MEMBERS.?(I) No member of the For-
eign Service, as defined by section 103 of the
Foreign Service Act of 1980. shall be ap-
pointed Inspector General for the Depart-
ment of State.
(2) No career member of the Foreign Serv-
ice may participate in the recruitment, se-
lection, or recommendation of any individ-
ual to be appointed by the President as In-
spector General for the Department of
State.
On page 91. in the table of contents, after
the item relating to section 701. insert the
following new item:
-Sec. 702. Independent Inspector General
for the Department of State.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, Con-
gress mandated an independent?and I
underscore the word "independent"?
inspector general at the State Depart-
ment last year despite objections from
the Career Foreign Service who be-
lieve that nothing should ever be pub-
licly known about certain activities.
Now, the fact is?and I regret to say
it?that the State Department has
dragged its feet for the past year and
has declined to carry out the law.
They are trying very hard to cripple
the independent inspector general
office which they have yet to establish
after a year by limiting it to audits,
and that certainly was not the con-
gressional intent.
The GAO has reported time and
time again showing the urgent need
for an independent inspector general.
I do not believe we should allow the
State Department to go forward with
this massive budget expansion for em-
bassy security without protecting the
taxpayer by getting in place the in-
spector general office that we mandat-
ed last year.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I wish
to pose a question to the distinguished
Senator from North Carolina.
It is my understanding that the
amendment now has deleted three
words in the language of lines 14. 15,
and 16, and all of line 17.
Mr. HELMS I would be ready to
accept that, I say to my friend.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, we are
prepared to accept the amendment.
Mr. F'ELL. Mr. President, on this
side, too, we accept the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there further debate?
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I have
agreed with the managers of the bill
to remove a legislative prohibition
from the amendment against the as-
signment of foreign service personnel
to the ICI office at the State Depart-
ment. I have done so because it is in
fact redundant. The independent IG
at the State Department must be,
under the IC) Act of 1978, in complete
control of the personnel in his office
Including their hiring, continued em-
ployment, and promotion. If those
who are the subject to the audit and
evaluation activities of the inspector
general are in any way in charge of
the hiring, firing, promotion, or any
other supervisory authority over the
personnel in the inspector general's
office, it undermines the intention of
Congress and the independence of the
office under the 1978 act.
Nothing would prevent a member of
the Foreign Service from serving in
the office of the inspector general
should that member be hired by the
IC} as an independent decision. That
would require the ICI to offer perma-
nent employment in his office to that
member of the Service.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there further debate? The question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
Without objection, the amendment
(No. 2190) was agreed to.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I move
to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
S 8443
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
AMENDMENT NO. 2191. AS MODIFIED
(Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for
facilities in Israel. Jerusalem. or the West
Bank, and for other purposes)
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send a
third amendment to the desk and ask
that it be stated. This amendment is
cosponsored by the distinguished Sen-
ator from Nevada (Mr. Hzorrl, the
distinguished Senator from Florida
(Mrs. HAwKiNs], and the distin-
guished Senator from Minnesota [Mr.
Boscirwrrz].
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will report.
Thebill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Azusa for himself. Mr. HECHT, Mrs. HAW-
SINS, and MT. BOSCHWITZ, proposed an
amendment numbered 2191.
Mr. HrtasS Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection. It is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 129, after line 3. add the follow-
ing new section:
SEC TOL PROHIRMON ON THE USE OF FUNDS FOR
FACILITIES IN ISRAEL, JERUSALEM.
OR THE WEST RANK.
None of the funds authorized to be appro-
priated by this Act may be obligated or ex-
pended for site acquisition, development, or
construction of any facility in Israel. Jerusa-
lem, or the West Bank. except that
$83,423.000 shall be available for site acqui-
sition, development, or construction in
Israel of a chancery and residence within
five miles of the Israeli Knesset building
and within the boundaries of Israel as they
existed before June 1, 1987. "Provided, That
nothing in this section shall require the con-
struction of any facility if the Secretary of
State determines and reports to the Con-
gress that the physical security of personnel
to be employed at that facility cannot be
adequately guaranteed."
On page 91, in the table of contents, after
the item relating to section 701. insert the
following new item:
"Sec. 702. Prohibition on the use of funds
for facilities in Israel. Jerusa-
lem. or the West Bank.".
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, a brief
background on this amendment and
then we can put it to a vote.
As I stated earlier, I believe it has
been agreed to, including the n;odifica-
tion, by both sides.
The background is that the Diplo-
matic Security and Anti-Terrorism Act
of 1986, which is H.R. 4151. includes a
line item authorization of 8857,800,000
for "acquisition and maintenance of
buildings abroad" at 75 posts.
The State Department presentation
to the Foreign Relations Committee
proposes to spend 883,423,000 for the
acquisition, development, and con-
struction of a new U.S. Embassy com-
plex in Tel Aviv and $41,083,000 for a
new West Bank consulate in Jerusa-
lem. The West Bank consulate is an
independent representational office
linli,inecifipn in Part - Sanitized Coov Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4 -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
S 8444 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
which, of course, reports directly to
the Secretary of State and not to the
U.S. Ambassador to Israel.
Mr. President. the construction of a
new Embassy in Tel Aviv is an affirma-
tit e act which assumes that there will
never be an outcome to the Middle
East peace negotiations which ac-
knowledges Jerusalem as the capital of
Israel. Yet for historic, political, and
religious reasons, it is inconceivable, at
least for this Senator, that Israel
would ever remove the key functions
of its Government from Jerusalem.
Nevertheless. once $142.5 million have
been spent on new U.S. diplomatic
buildings to set the status quo in con-
crete, it is no longer credible that the
United States might one day recognize
Jerusalem as the Israeli capital.
By building these complexes, we are
saying to Israel that we ean conceive
of no outcome to the peace negotia-
tions which would allow us to have our
Embassy in Jerusalem. I do not think
we want to say this, Mr. President. By
constructing the new buildings, the
United States will change the status
quo, and put the United States firmly
on the side of those who do not recog-
nize the right of Israel to exist, and
who will not accept U.N. Resolution
242.
But unless Congress acts now. the
State Department will proceed with
site acquisition in Tel Aviv in October.
H.R. 4152 gives the State Department
the authority to proceed.
Previously, representatives of the
State Department have always held
that any change in the status quo
would prejudge the outcome of negoti-
ations. Thus the consulate in what was
formerly East Jerusalem under Jorda-
nian occupation was to be maintained
as a separate entity to demonstrate
that the United States was neutral as
to the outcome of peace negotiations.
Similarly, it was held that to move the
Embassy to Jerusalem would be recog-
nition of Israel's proclamation of Jeru-
salem as the capital of Israel, and
would prejudge the future status of
Jerusalem. But by acquiring new sites
for the West Bank consulate in Jeru-
salem and the Embassy in Tel Aviv,
the State Department upsets the fic-
tion that the present locations are
contingent upon the outcome of peace
negotiations. By changing contingency
to permanency, the whole character of
the status quo is changed.
My amendment is carefully drawn to
overcome previous objections. It pro-
vides the following:
First, it prohibits construction of a
new West Bank consulate, since such
construction would change the status
quo, and would be redundant when a
new Embassy is built in Jerusalem.
Second, it prohibits construction of a
new Embassy in Tel Aviv, for the same
reasons.
Third, it makes available $83,423,000
for the construction of a new Embassy
complex, provided the site meets the
following criteria: first, it is 5 miles
from the Knesset building, and
second, It is within the boundaries of Orman Fem oink TM
Israel as they existed before June 1.
1967. Pool NIId-? PION "ICI.? PIM* Pi"tied
By adopting this formula, the
amendment avoids mandating that the Pete .. . ... Is 89 120 126 205 215
Embassy actually be in Jerusalem, and
ft avoids situating the Embassy in any atm us__ in 117 172 In IV 299
site that would recognize the territori-
al changes that resulted from the 1967
war. The Knesset building itself is in a
new part of the city, and well within
the pre-1967 line. Thus only those who
deny the right of Israel to exist could
object to the United States action. WON taailves 11.9M sew
In the past. Mr. President, it was Repose wee* 121,000 11.000
argued that the congressional propos-39.0M 34000
als on moving the Embassy to Tel Aviv Meow
would trespass upon the constitutional
prerogative of the President to con-
duct foreign policy and that the move
Itself would adversely affect the secu-
rity of our other Embassies in the
Middle East. Neither of these objec-
tions pertain to this amendment now
pending.
The administration itself has raised
the issue and sent it to Congress for
action.
Moreover, my amendment is not
mandatory. It merely restricts con-
struction in Israel to the appropriate
site if the administration chooses to
act.
Finally, the security objection itself
cannot be sustained in view of the fact
that this bill itself is intended to raise
June 25, 1986
security at all of our Embassies at a
level sufficient to withstand terrorism.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the State Department pro-
gram submission for Jerusalem and
Tel Aviv be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the mate-
rial was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, RS follows:
ACQUISITION AND MAINTENANCE Or BUILDINGS
ABROAD (RE*17LAR
1908 SECURITY SUPPLEXENTAL =TIBIA TES-
19 7 CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY / OUTYEAR
COSTS
Project: New Chancery Compound.
Location: Israel. Tel Aviv.
Funds: Total. Sg3.423,000.
Post Profile: Chancery/Annex Occupancy.
Caw USG...........25 28 52
M 11 84
PROJECT WAS
Er nine
mem lee
[In bounds el Obis)
Narrative Description: The Embassy in Tel
Aviv is faced with continued substintial secu-
rity threats. The present Chancery Is located
in the center of the congested commercial
district of the city with no security set-back
from the surrounding streets. The building Is
now extremely vulnerable to terrorist or mob
violence.
The Chancery does not have adequate
space for requirements of all the U.S. agen-
cies now in Israel. To adequately consolidate
all U.S. Government offices Into one Chan-
cery compound to meet space program de-
mands and security and structural designs
objectives. It will be necessary to acquire an
alternate site in Tel Aviv of 10-acres for con-
struction of 120.000 square foot office build-
ing compound. The new building will include
space for additional staff. Marine Guard Res-
idence (11.000 sq. ft.) and the personnel cur-
rently housed in leased properties.
*cot
foes eicedfd11 Estimated &lions
Date Ott (fiscal wet
19161 exe yew 1912 fool or 19111 foal e 7101 Mot or 1,91 OW or 1991
%Opens
good
Proem
See learoion October 1914. 14718 45211
Onetime 1)53 053
Censuotai. 37 195 _ 3719$
Swam minnow ? 4,013 8.073
I eme ages
&Jordon 5.030 5200 2.347 12.511
Camino at IVoromele 4.212 4.277
foam awl terieftees 3.635 3.639
late woo ants
14.9T1 50,998 13.107 2.341 11.423
IDeclassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
June 25, 1986
Project. Consulate Office Building.
Location: Jerusalem.
Funds: Total, 841.083.000.
Post Profile: Chancery/Annex Occupancy
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?SENATE S 8445
Avericans Foretge noticoots Total
Present P'r Present Pr Pam!
Stair
Omr USZ
iota L.SC
79 19 10 10 59 si
I 4 5 12 12
27 76 U 15 71 71
knot!405,
PROJECT AREA
boss Ilet suble
Mare feet
EmsPoe Winters
20 000
13.069
Premed Nodes
33.000
f.000
13000
9.000
Narrative Description: The Consulate
General in Jerusalem is faced with contin-
ued substantial security threats. The Con-
sulate General is in two compounds, West
Jerusalem and East Jerusalem. None of the
Consulate buildings meets current security
standards primarily due to the total lack of
setback from streets.
Dee
osussiss oars]
Flail 'dad
ISISCe ftil
1986
e.matge
Ilkeston
To consolidate all Government offices
Into one compound to meet security and
structural design objectives.. IL wUl be Moas.
sary to acquire a new site of 5 acres and eon-
struction of a 33.500 square foot building.
The projected space requirements Includes a
Marine Guard Residence and USIA offices
presently located in leased properties.
Foot ow
1987
1988
1989
199(
Tau Nut
'mud
Propects
S,!F
Con
SOPC.iser
Pr',? coot:
COMM anc SI er.o.Joient
anc gnrn:ngs
Tata er vasz.
810.000
920
17.139
2.104
2.125 2.130 1.061 ._
3.119
1.055
000
920
17.839
2.10e
5.316
3.1111
1.059
10.920 Z2.068
7 031
1.061
1113
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President. I would
like to address a question to the distin-
guished Senator from North Carolina.
In the amendment as he presented it
to us and I think indicated it was
modified were the words "providing
nothing in this section shall require
the construction of any facility unless
the Secretary of State determines and
reports to the Congress physical secu-
rity of personnel employed at the fa-
cility cannot be adequately guaran-
teed."
Mr. HELMS. I say to the Senator he
is absolutely correct, I would accept
that modification.
Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Senator,
and we are prepared to accept the
amendment.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, this side of
the aisle has no objection. We are glad
to accept the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there further debate on the amend-
ment?
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, in inter-
est of time again, just for the record, I
ask unanimous consent to be able to
extend my remarks in connection with
this matter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, this
modification makes no change in my
amendment. My amendment does not
require the construction of any new
facility anywhere. It merely prohibits
the construction of an embassy in Tel
Aviv. It makes funds available to con-
struct an embassy near the Knesset
building if the State Department
wishes to.
I presume. Mr. President, that the
State Department would not build any
err. tiassy or consulate in which our dip-
lomats would be unsafe. I doubt that it
is the intention of the distinguished
chairman to suggest that a new embas-
sy near the Knesset, built with
modern antiterrorist construction,
would be less secure than our old Em-
bassy in Tel Aviv, situated as it is in an
ordinary office building on a busy
street.
It should be noted that the State
Department did contemplate spending
$91 million on a new West Bank consul-
ate complex in Jerusalem. If a 41-mil-
lion-dollar building in Jerusalem would
be safe, then certainly an 83-million-
dollar building would be safe. It would
be very extraordinary indeed if the Sec-
retary of State gratuitously declared
that it would be unsafe to build a facili-
ty in Jerusalem after having submitted
plans to build a smaller facility there.
It would be very cynical indeed to try to
pretend that we could not protect our
diplomats in Jerusalem.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from North Caro-
lina.
The amendment (No. 2191) was
agreed to.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I move
to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, let me
extend my gratitude to the managers
of the bill for their excellent coopera-
tion.
Mr. LUGAR. I thank the Senator.
Mr. HELMS. I thank them very
much.
OMINATION OF DANIEL A.
ION. OF INDIANA. TO BE
CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE
ENTH CIRCUIT
Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, I
have n in the Senate now for close
to 18 rs and today has been one of
the st est of those 18 years.
Wheth anyone knows it or not, we
are in th midst of a filibuster, Mr.
President.
A filibust is where a Senator or
group of Sen tors get up and speak at
an unusual 1 gth on a given issue,
talking on an ? on and on. and those
who think the have talked too long
file a thing d cloture to cut off
that inordinate e ended debate. Then
at a time certain t ere is a vote on clo-
ture and if 60 Sen ors vote to cut off
the debate, that en it,, more or less,
subject to the ad na am Allen-type
amendments.
The purpose of my marks at this
time, Mr. President, not to talk
about the Senate rule, not to talk
about the filibuster, but ust to alert
the country that we are one, and it
Is most unusual that those ho would
normally be considered to the fill-
busterers, those who are ? the
elevation from obscurity o Daniel
Manion of South Bend. IN, to the
court that is right below the 8
Court of the United States, 7th
Circuit Court of Appeals, th who
are considered the filibusterers not
have any time to speak with to
Manion. We are going to vote
row to cut off debate without
debate having occurred.
There is a reason for it, Mr.
0.116.2214119144.4ZSMPLISOLitmems.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
8458 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
t e qualities that a Supreme Court
C f Justice ought to have."
I. ?r one, said, "I am for him. Send
him ? Mr. President, and I will vote
yes."
0 1700
When J ge Scalia came up, they
also said he a man who is extremely
conservative. e is a man also of great
intellectual e ergy, of charm, of
mental capacit of integrity, of all of
those other thin which go to make
up a fine judge. y reaction, when I
heard of Judge ? ha was, if he ap-
pears at the commi ee hearing as he
Is talked about in th press, I also am
enthusiastically for , because he
will certainly improve be up to the
standards of the Supre Court when
it comes to capacity, in ect, compe-
tence, and those other q ities of a
Judge that generally go wi what we
expect of the standards o the Su-
preme Court.
The third judge, Mr. Pres ent, is
Daniel Manion, and to utter h name
in the same breath with Judge ehn-
Quist and Judge Scalia is almo to
make a joke. We are told that we
ought to accept this third-quality or
fourth-quality lawyer for the seco
highest court in the land because he
conservative. Because he is conserva-
tive, we ought to accept any judge
that is sent up to us.
Mr. President, I say that is so much
bunk. We in this Senate will not meas-
ure up to our own standards of integri-
ty if we do not exercise some inde-
pendent judgment and require some
standards of quality when it comes to
second-highest court in the land.
Mr. President, I have read these
briefs. Why, in one of these briefs
there are six different errors on one
page. not simple errors. Some are mis-
spellings. They are generally the mark
of a sloppy lawyer, not just a lawyer of
medium quality but a sloppy lawyer.
They are so bad, Mr. President, that
you would have to say to make that
many mistakes in any brief turned
into any court of record disqualifies
that judge for this kind of position.
Now, I do not say that Mr. Manion
should be disbarred. I do not say that
Mr. Manion should be dishonored. I do
not say that Mr. Manion would not be
a perfectly competent attorney in a
whole range of endeavors, small
claims, whatever it is. He would prob-
ably do an excellent job. But for the
second-highest court in the land, the
court of appeals, Mr. President, the
fact that he is conservative is not
enough. The fact that he might have
voted right on right-to-life?and I
think I have an unblemished record on
right-to-life, but do not tell me Mr.
President, that I have to vote for
every judge that is sent up here if he
happens to agree with me on the
right-to-life issue. If that is the stand-
ard, why, send up my wife: she is prob-
ably stronger on right-to-life than I
am, if that is possible.
Mr. President. we ought to have
some quality, and we ought to have
something better out of the White
House than these veiled threats about
trying to identify Senators as being
part of the liberal claque around here
if they do not approve every judge of
whatever quality that is sent to us. I
think that is offensive to this body
Mr. President. and I think the Presi-
dent of the United States ought to re
tract his statement and look at h"
nominee, and if that nominee is as poo
in quality as all these law school deans
say, as a thousand lawyers out of Chi-
cago say, as commentator after com-
mentator says. then I think the Presi-
dent ought to rethink his criticism of
this body and withdraw his name and
send us up, if he likes?and I am sure
he would?a strong conservative, a
strong right-to-life person but some-
one with a little judicial competence.
This man has none.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
majority leader.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, we are
within about 5 minutes of completing
a very important bill, the Diplomatic
Security and Antiterrorism Act of
1986. But now we are hearing speeches
on the Manion nomination. I do not
object to that. Last night nobody
wanted to talk. Tonight I think others
do. But I hope that we complete
tion on the pending bill. I under-
d we are 5 or 10 minutes away
final passage, there are two
ndments by the distinguished mi-
no leader which would be accepted
and e bill will end. Then I am pro-
posin we have 2 hours of debate yet
this ev g on Manion, equally divid-
ed, an. tomorrow have another 2
hours eq y divided and then vote on
the Mani' nomination at 1 o'clock, at
least on cl ure. But I think what we
see here is little judicial assassina-
tion, not eve ving the man the right
to have an -or-down vote. It has
been a policy ? ision apparently, po-
litical decision, hat we are going to
take care of this y and not going to
invoke cloture, therefore he will
never have a chan? to have a vote up
or down of whethe or not he should
be confirmed. I belie? that is unfortu-
nate. I hope that is n the case. But I
sort of sense that it is tarting to boil
on the other side. I ope that we
would treat this no.. ation as we
have many in the past, can recall
after the election in 1980, candidate
by the name of Stephe Breyer, a
Carter nonimee, and there as a clo-
ture motion filed. I voted h those
who wanted the Breyer no ination
voted up or down. It seems to e that
Is the least we can do for someo e who
comes before this Chamber.
So, Mr. President, until we wor out
some agreement, I suggest the abs ce
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER.
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded
call the roll.
June 25. 1.986
0 1710
r. BYRD. Mr. President. I ask
una us consent that the order for
the quor 11 be rescinded.
The PRESI ? OFFICER. With-
DIPLOMATIC SECURITY AND
ANTITERRORISM ACT
The Senate continued with the con-
sideration of the bill.
AMENDMENT NO. 3193
(Purpose: To coordinate further the
International war on terrorism)
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President. I send an
amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
BYRD), for himself and Mr. DIXON, proposes
an amendment numbered 2192:
On page 129. after line 3. add the follow-
ing new section:
SEC. 702. COORDINATION OF INTERNATIONAL WAR
ON TERRORISM.
(a) FINDINGS.?The Congress finds that?
(1) international terrorism is and remains
a serious threat to the peace and security of
free, democratic nations:
(2) the challenge of terrorism can only be
met effectively by concerted action on the
part of all responsible nations;
(3) the major developed democracies evi-
denced their commitment to cooperation in
the fight to save terrorism by the 1978 Bonn
Economic Summit Declaration on Terror-
ism: and
(4) that commitment was renewed and
strengthened at the Tokyo Economic
Summit and expressed in a joint statement
on terrorism.
(b) POLICY.?It is the sense of the Con-
gress that in order to concert action and in-
crease information sharing in the interna-
tional war on terrorism. the President
should propose to the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) the establish-
ment of a standing political committee to
examine all aspects of international terror-
ism. review opportunities for cooperation.
and make recommendations to member na-
tions.
On page 91. in the table of contents, after
the item relating to section 701, insert the
following new item:
"Sec. 702. Coordination of international war
on terrorism.".
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, there is
no reason for the United States to go
it alone in the war on state-sponsored
terrorism. The President's decisive
action against Libya left residual bi&-
teniess in the minds of many Ameri-
cans when they learned that our allies
had refused to support the raid.
This administration has been ac-
cused of a unilateral policy of not con-
sulting or including our closest allies
until too late in the planning of major
actions affecting them, or only after
the fact. We need to regularize our dis-
cussions on areas of mutual interest.
Nowhere is that need greater than in
the face of the challenge of global ter-
rorism.
I offer an amendment today that
will encourage such cooperation by
building upon antiterrorist commit-
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
;
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
June 25, 1986
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
ments undertaken by heads of the de-
veloped democracies and expressed in
the Bonn summit declaration against
terrorism, and the recent Tokyo
summit statement.
My amendment expresses the sense
of the Congress that the President
should propose that the North Atlan-
tic Treaty Organization should estab-
lish a permanent political committee
to deal with the subject of terrorism.
NATO has been reluctant to exceed its
mandate of cooperation against the
Warsaw Pact threat. But the new
International terrorism has targeted
NATO interests, as well as those of in-
dividual member states.
The North Atlantic Assembly has es-
tablished a working group on terror-
ism, and the NATO military structure
has made strides toward better infor-
mation sharing. However, a political
committee of NATO would provide an
important forum for government-to-
government cooperation and policy
discussions on terrorism. Such a com-
mittee could help in building a consen-
sus for joint action, and in weighing op-
tions on a case-by-case basis.
Given the rise of state-sponsored ter-
rorism, it is all the more important
that like-minded governments share in
planning a response.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the able
Democratic leader has made an excel-
lent contribution to this legislation.
Our side is prepared to accept the
amendment.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, the Demo-
cratic side is delighted to accept the
amendment of the Democratic leader
and recommends its immediate adop-
tion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment.
The amendment (No. 2192) was
agreed to.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I move
to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. BYRD. I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President. I thank
the able chairman and the able rank-
ing member of the committee for their
acceptance of the amendment.
0 1720
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I believe
it is a good amendment. I thank the
Senate for adopting it.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I suggest
the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
DANFORTH). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to
call the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. DOLE. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objec-
tion is heard.
The legislative clerk resumed the
call of the roll.
Mr. BYRD. 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.
AGENDA
r. BYRD. Mr. President. I have an
a ndment to the bill, an amendment
on ghanistan. I would like to discuss
that endment. It will take a little
while, not very long. I think the
amend ent deserves some little bit of
time, 3 minutes, 35 minutes, or 40
minutes. least.
Some of ? y colleagues want to dis-
cuss the M ion nomination. Tomor-
row there wi be a vote on the cloture
motion. That does not give my col-
leagues a grea deal of time in which
to discuss that n ination.
I would hope t t they could discuss
the nomination is afternoon and
evening as much they desire to do
so. I would hope hat the distin-
guished majority lea r would allow
them to do that.
I know that the distin ished major-
ity leader wants to get o with finish-
ing this bill, and I am per tly agree-
able to doing that.
However. I am agreeable t delaying
my amendment, because th cloture
vote is coming up on us under e rule,
and there is no way of delay' that
except by unanimous consent.
Those of us on this side who ar op-
posed to the Manion nomination do
want some time to discuss it before e
have to vote on cloture.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, will th
Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield for a ques-
tion.
Mr. BIDEN. As I understand it, we
have a bill before us to be finished. We
have a supplemental to be finished.
Yet we have a cloture vote set for to-
morrow at 11 o'clock. Is that the mi-
nority leader's understanding?
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, there has
been no order entered with respect to
setting the cloture vote at a time out-
side the requirements of the rule. The
rule would be that if the distinguished
majority leader brings the Senate in at
10 o'clock tomorrow, then the cloture
vote would occur a little after 11
o'clock. Whatever hour the distin-
guished majority leader brings the
Senate in would determine the hour
when the Senate would vote on clo-
ture, because under the rule there is
only 1 hour for debate on that cloture
motion.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator further yield for another
question?
Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield.
Mr. BIDEN. The Senator from Dela-
ware is under the understanding that
the purpose of the cloture vote was to
end debate. The assumption is that
there was going to be debate before
you move to end the debate. I know
that we have the bill before us. There
Is the supplemental, which the majori-
S 8459
ty leader indicates is important. and I
agree with him on that, to deal with
when the House sends it over. if it is
not already here. I am confused as to
how we. can be accused of wanting to
extend the debate, therefore, requir-
ing a cloture motion to cut off the
debate before we are allowed to
engage in the debate.
The majority leader said last night
that he was bringing it on last night.
But I was told as I stood up to speak
that the majority leader wanted to
take us out by 6:30 p.m. I stood on the
floor in response to a question. The
majority leader said it was the inten-
tion to end by 6 or 6:30 p.m. The Sena-
tor from Delaware and the Senator
from Massachusetts were prepared to
go ahead. Instead. I gave an 8-minute
statement last night to accommodate
the Senate, thinking we had a chance
to debate it today.
My question to the Senator from
West Virginia is how can there be a
motion to cut off debate that has not
begun?
Mr. BYRD. Well, the distinguished
Senator poses a very appropriate ques-
tion. If the debate has not begun, it
cannot be cut off. The Senator's obser-
vation is correct. I must say, of course.
that the distinguished majority leader
is acting within the rule. He may go to
a matter in executive session without
any debate on the motion?which he
did. He may then immediately offer a
cloture motion thereon, which he did.
and he can do all that within the rule.
Then, on the following day but one?
in this situation, the cloture motion
having been entered on Tuesday, the
nate will vote on the cloture motion
Thursday. I hour after the Senate
c? venes and following the establish-
m - it of a quorum.
the majority leader is doing what
he do within the rules.
On he other hand, my colleagues
who h to debate the nomination
are not ? -ing given much of an oppor-
tunity ? do so. Once the Pastore rule
had run course today, of course,
debate di not then have to be ger-
mane. An xecutive nomination can
then be deb ed during legislative ses-
sion, and th is what my colleagues
were undertak g to do.
A quorum suggested earlier a
short time ago. take it that the Sena-
tor from Delawi e and the 'Senator
from Massachuse wanted to discuss
the nomination, b the distinguished
majority leader uld not let the
quorum call be calle off.
I called the quoru off for the pur-
pose of calling up amendment to
the bill. But I do want o take the op-
portunity, while I hay the floor, to
state that I think o colleagues
should have had more t* today and
tomorrow to discuss this no 'ination.
It would require unanimo consent
on tomorrow to extend the, cloture
vote beyond the time allowed by the
rule, and the majority leaderas pro-
posed ?
sed a request which is being ecked
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
S 8462 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Ir. DOLE. It is just a test of wills of
w ther we are going to pass this bill
bef e Senator BIDEN speaks. We can
play hat game all evening. I thought
he w ted to speak on the nomination.
Se ? Pzu. and Senator LUGAR have
been .. the floor most of the day. I
ILSSLUTDP ' are willing to wait. If nec-
essary. It ems to me it is a little bit
too much re to suggest we cannot
complete ac ? I on the bill. let Sena-
tor BIDER - and Senator KENNE-
DY, whoever, we will have someone
on this side in t e absence of Senator
THURMOND to ? ? so they can have a
little debate. By time we find that
person, maybe the will be ready to
talk. But I would er not inject a
third element into it . ? w.
Mr. BIDEN. If I ma for the last
time, I have no objecti? to going to
this bill, finishing the and then
going to the Manion nomi ation. The
only reason I raised the ternative
was that I am concerned t at if, in
fact, cloture is invoked, the are we
now going to be put in the po tion of
those of us who want to then ? duct
the debate under the rule?so t t we
have a full debate on Mr. Manio o
be put in the position to be told we re
stopping the supplemental fr
coming up because once cloture is
Yoked. as the able Democratic leade
pointed out, that is a matter that we
cannot move from until we end. Are
we not into Friday or Saturday? But if
the majority leader will give me a gen-
tleman's agreement that while the
Senator from Delaware. after he in-
vokes cloture, if be does invoke clo-
ture, is operating under the rules, he
will not repeatedly stand on the floor
and tell America that those folks on
the Manion nomination are really just
driving the supplemental out of reach
of the American people, et cetera?
That is the only thing I am concerned
about, to be fairly blunt about it. I say
to the majority leader.
0 1750
But if that will not happen, then I
am delighted to do it the way the ma-
jority leader would like to proceed.
I did not hear his answer, but I am
curious.
Mr. DOLE. I would be happy to
work it out. If we invoke cloture. I
would certainly try to get the 8-hour
agreement I thought we were going to
get earlier this week on the nomina-
tion, 4 hours on each side. that is what
we hoped would happen. We did not
think there would be this backdoor ap-
proach to kill the nomination.
Mr. BIDEN. The backdoor ap-
proach?
Mr. EXON. Will the Senator yield
for a question?
Mr. BYRD. I yield to the distin-
guished Senator for a question. I ask
unanimous consent that I may yield
for the purpose of the Senator from
Nebraska's asking a question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. EXON. Mr. President, early last
week sometime the majority leader
and I had a little colloquy on the floor
wherein we stipulated the tremendous
Importance of the urgent supplemen-
tal. At that time, we could not act on
It because it had not passed the House
of Representatives. I thought we had
an agreement at that time that we
would give it priority or immediate
consideration when it came over. It is
now here.
This Senator came on the floor at 4
o'clock today prepared to engage in
debate and move along on the urgent
supplemental for a number of good
reasons, not the least of which is farm-
ers throughout the United States have
not gotten their money that they are
entitled to for signing up for the farm
bill, mainly with regard to deficiency
payments, and they are busted.
As important a.s the Manion nomina-
tion is. and as important as the securi-
ty legislation before us is, would it be
out of order for this Senator to sug-
gest that maybe we could put aside
both of those and dispose of them
after we pass the urgent supplemen-
tal?
I am asking the majority leader.
Mr. BYRD. I yield to the majority
leader.
Mr. DOLE. The distinguished chair-
man of the Appropriations Committee
was here at 4 o'clock. He was advised
hat if we would complete action on
Is bill by 4:30, he was ready to go
h the supplemental. I suggest that
ot er Members felt compelled to
on the Manion nomination. The
Se or from Missouri made an excel-
lent ? ech. Others would still like to
speak the Manion nomination.
At . it 5:20 or 5:30. I believe it was,
the tor from Oregon, the chair-
man of t e Appropriations Committee,
the man er of the supplemental ap-
propriatio bill, departed. He did not
see any o ? ortunity, and I do not
know whet there is one now. I told
him, "You y want to place a phone
call."
I mentione? the conversation with
the Senator fr.. Nebraska. We had a
conversation 1 week and today. We
are aware of th enator's desire. We
are trying to bal s ce three things in
the air. There are ose who want to
complete everythi by no later than
4 o'clock on tomo w. I doubt that
that can be done.
Mr. EXON. Is it 'ble that we
could get an agreem right now to
set aside both the pe ? ing business
and the debate on the ion matter
so we can take up the ent supple-
mental?
Mr. DOLE. If the dist' hod mi-
nority leader will yield, let indicate
that we are shopping for a t' agree-
ment on the supplemental Xi: now.
We are not losing time. The c rman
of the Appropriations Commit felt
If he could get this narrow time ?ee-
ment, which is being worked o by
both sides, we would still be ahe: ? %:?y
several hours by doing what we
a
su
sett
ha%
Act.
tion.
the u
Mr.
Manion
Senate
my cone
Mr. BID
Mr. BYR
Mr. BIDE
that. I do not
this urgent su
Mr. EXON.
Mr. President, t
the chairman o
Committee and t
sons I was here a
have come in just
here until about 4.
that he assumed we
at 4 o'clock. Is User
propound a request n
jority leader could no
quest now, to set asi
business so w e could go
mental appropriations
objection to that on th
majority leader, then I
is his prerogative.
Mr. DOLE. Again. I w uld like to
discuss it with the Sena. ? from Ne-
braska, but I would say, if minori-
ty leader will yield for that , it
Is privileged matter. I woul ? want the
chairman of the commit to be
present, of course.
Again I get back to the ? ridicu-
lous point of this bill before which
Is very important, which co. . a w se-
curity. We can still pass tha. by 6
o'clock. That would eliminate ? .e of
the problems. Then we could go ead
with debate on Manion while w are
trying to get a time agreement on he
supplemental. We are not really lo
any time. I think the chairman of ?e
Appropriations Committee wo d
rather have a time agreement for
hours than spending all day tomorro
on the supplementaL I believe we ar
making some progress on that one.
I would be happy to discuss it with
the Senator from Nebraska. I know of
his interest, and I know of the discus-
sions we have had on the floor and pri-
vately.
Mr. EXON. I thank the mainrit v
ireftr.
June 25, 1986
oing now. We can show that to the
tinguished Senator from Nebraska.
r. EXON. Is there any objection by
one presently on the floor to my
est ion to the majority leader, to
g aside the two matters that we
talked about. No. 1. the Security
d, No. 2, the Manion nomina-
move expeditiously and now to
t supplemental?
RD. If I may respond, the
mination is not before the
be set aside. That is what
es are concerned about.
. Will the Senator yield?
Yes.
I have no objection to
ant to be in the way of
lemental at all.
would add, if I could.
at I also talked with
the Appropriations
t is one of the tea-
4 o'clock. He must
fter I left. I was
e also assured me
would take it up
no way we can
w, that the ma-
propound a re-
the pending
that supple-
1? If there is
part of the
gnize that
DIPLOMATIC SECURITY AND
ANTITERRORISM ACT
The Senate continued with the con-
sideration of the bill.
- Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
im1.2.tclassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
June 25, 1986
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
AMENDMENT NO. 2193
Purpose: To express the sense of the Con-
Frew on United States polity toward Af-
ghanistan)
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President. I send an
amendment tqithe desk and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from West Virginia for him-
self. Mr. HUMPHREY, Mr. PELL. Mr. BIDER,
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. MELCHER. Mr. SASSER. Mr.
PROXMIRE, Mr. DeConcini. and Mr. KASTEN,
proposes an amendment numbered 2193.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President. I ask
unanimous consent that further read-
ing of the amendment be dispensed
with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 129. after line 3. add the follow-
ing new section:
SEC. 792. POLIC1 TOWARD AFGHANISTAN.
(a) Fixonws.?The Congress finds that ?
(1 ) the Soviet Union invaded the sovereign
territory of Afghanistan on December 27.
1979. and continues to occupy and attempt
to subjugate that nation through the use of
force, relying upon a puppet regime and an
occupying army of an estimated 120.000
Soviet troops;
(2) the outrageous and barbaric treatment
of the people of Afghanistan by the Soviet
Union is repugnant to all freedom-loving
peoples as reflected in seven United Nations
resolutions of condemnation, violates all
standards of conduct befitting a responsible
nation, and contravenes all recognized prin-
ciples of international law:
(3) the Special Rapporteur of the United
Nations Commission on Human Rights. In
his November 5. tS85, report to the General
Assembly, concludes that "whole groups of
persons and tribes are endangered in their
existence and in their lives because their
living conditions are fundamentally affected
by the kind of warfare being waged" and
that "ftlhe Government of Afghanistan,
with heavy support from foreign [Soviet].
troops. acts with great severity against op-
ponents or suspected opponents of the
regime without any respect for human
rights obligations" including -use of anti.
persona] mines and of so-called toy bombs"
and "the indiscriminate mass killings of ci-
vilians. particularly women and children":
(4) the Special Rapporteur also concludes
that the war in Afghanistan has been char-
acterized by "the mast cruel methods of
warfare and by the destruction of large
parts of the country which has affected the
conditions of life of the population, destabi-
lizing the ethnic and tribal structure and
disrupting family units" and that "Mlle de-
mographic structure of the country has
changed, since over 4 million refugees-from
all provinces and all classes have settled out-
side the country and thousands of Internal
refugees have crowded into the cities like
Kabul":
(5) the United Nations General Assembly,
in a recorded vote of 80-22 on December 13.
1985, accepted the findings of the Special
Rapporteur and deplored the refusal of
Soviet-led Afghan officials to cooperate
with the United Nations, and expressed
"profound distress and alarm" at "the wide-
spread volations of the right to life, liberty,
and security of person, including the com-
monplace practice of torture and summary
executions of the regime's opponents, as
well as increasing evidence of a policy of re-
ligious Intolerance":
(6) in a subsequent report of the Special
Rapporteur of February 14. 1986, the Spe-
cial Rapporteur found that "The only solu-
tion to the human rights situation In Af-
ghanistan is the withdrawal of the foreign
troops" and that "Continuation of the mili-
tary solution will. in the opinion of the Spe-
cial Rapporteur, lead inevitably to a situa-
tion approaching Genocide, which the tradi-
tions and culture of this noble people
cannot permit.":
(7) the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
caused the United States to postpone in-
definitely action on the SALT II Treaty in
1979, and the presence of Soviet troops in
that country today continues to adversely
affect the prospects for long-term improve-
ment of the United States- Soviet bilateral
relationship in many fields of great impor-
tance to the global community;
(8) the Soviet leadership appears to be en-
gaged in a calculated policy of raising hopes
for ? withdrawal of Soviet troops from Af-
ghanistan in the apparent belief that words
will substitute for genuine action in shaping
world opinion: and
(9) President Reagan. in his February 4,
1986, State of the Union Address promised
the Afghan people that "America will sup-
port with moral and material assistance
your right not just to fight and die for free-
dom, but to fight and win freedom ? ? ?".
(b) P0ticv.?(1) It is the sense of the Con-
gress that the United States, so long as
Soviet military forces occupy Afghanistan,
should support the efforts of the people of
Afghanistan to regain the sovereignty and
territorial Integrity of their nation
through?
(A) the appropriate provisions of material
support;
(B) renewed multilateral initiatives aimed
at encouraging Soviet military withdrawal,
the return of an independent and nona-
ligned status to Afghanistan and a peaceful
political settlement acceptable to the people
of Afghanistan, which includes provision for
the return of Afghan refugees in safety and
dignity:
(C) a continuous and vigorous public in-
formation campaign to bring the facts of
the situation -in Afghanistan to the atten-
tion of the world:
(D) frequent efforts to encourage the
Soviet leadership and the Soviet-backed
Afghan regime to remove the barriers erect-
ed against the entry into and reporting of
events in Afghanistan by international jour-
nalists: and
(E) vigorous efforts to impress upon the
Soviet leadership the penalty that contin-
ued military action in Afghanistan imposes
upon the building of a long-term construc-
tive relationship with the United States, be-
cause of the negative effect that Soviet poli-
cies in Afghanistan have on attitudes
toward the Soviet Union among the Ameri-
can people and the Congress.
(2) It is further the sense of the Congress
that the Secretary of State should?
(A) determine whether the actions of
Soviet forces against the people of Afghani-
stan constitute the international crime of
Genocide as defined in Article II of the
International Convention on the Prevention
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,
signed on behalf of the United States on De-
cember 11, 1948, and, if the Secretary deter-
mines that Soviet actions may constitute
the crime of genocide, he shall report his
findings to the President and the Congress.
along with recommended actions: and
(B) review United States policy with re-
spect to the continued recognition of the
Soviet puppet government in Kabul to de-
termine whether such recognition is in the
Interest of the United States,
S 8463
On page 91, in the table of oontents, after
the item relating to section 701, insert the
following nes Item.
"Sec. 702. Policy toward Afghanistan ".
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President. last week
I met with leaders of the Afghan re-
sistance. as well as the Pakistani For-
eign Minister's to solicit his views on
the Afghan question. It is clear to me
that, despite Soviet claims of progress
at the recent U.N-sponsored peace
talks, the situation in that sad country
remains very grave. Despite the bru-
tality of the Soviets?and the accelera-
tion of Soviet warfare against the
people of Afghanstan?the resistance
fighters tell me that the spirit of the
people remains unbroken.
Mr. President, the United States
ratification of the Genocide Conven-
tion will permit the United States a
much stronger hand in confronting
the Soviet Union on the vital matter
of its activities in the nation of Af-
ghanistan. The reality of Soviet be-
havior in Afghanistan seems to
amount to the crime of Genocide as
defined in that Convention. Now that
the United States will shortly become
a full party to that treaty, we can op-
erate with a more credible and strong-
er hand in bringing the case against
the Soviet activities in that country
before the world community.
The President, despite the public re-
lations blitz by the new Gorbachev
leadership to portray itself as reasona-
ble and flexible in its approach to the
West, and despite hints and indica-
tions given here and there that Mr.
Gorbachev is on the verge of making a
major change in Soviet volley toward
Afghanistan, no substantial change in
Soviet policy or practices has yet ap-
peared. Sooner or later, flashy new
Soviet imagery must give way to prac-
tical changes in policy leading to a
more constructive, humane, and pro-
ductive path.
Mr. President, I think it is important
to give the Soviets every opportunity
to meet us halfway on the outstanding
issues which divide our two nations. I
have made very effort to do what I can
to help produce a better atmosphere
and mechanisms for reducing misun-
derstandings and for developing ar-
rangements and agreements on arms
control matters and regional disputes
where our interests clash with those of
the Soviets. I led a bipartisan,Senate
delegation to meet with Mr. Gorba-
chev last September. I have proposed
that Mr:Gorbachev be invited to ad-
dress a joint session of the Congress
when he visits this Nation, provided
that an address by President Reagan
to the same joint session be televised
unedited to the Soviet people.
Nevertheless, Mr. President, we must
continue to impress upon the Soviets
how repugnant their activities in Af-
ghanistan are to us.
Most recently, General Secretary
Gorbachev took the opportunity pro-
vided by his address to the 27th Coin-
munist Party Congress to say. "We
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4 ?
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
S 8464 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
should like, in the nearest future, to
withdraw the Soviet troops stationed
In Afghanistan at the request of its
government." He went on to claim
that there was agreement with the
puppet regime in Kabul on a schedule
for that withdrawal, and to remind his
audience that, "It is in our vital na-
tional interest that the U.S.S.R.
should always have good and peaceful
relations with all its neighbors."
It is difficult to cultivate good rela-
tions when you are engaged in the
wholesale massacre of unarmed civil-
ians. I look forward to the 'day when
the glimmers of hope for a change in
Soviet policy raised by Mr. Gorba-
chev's words are translated into
action, into reality, into military with-
drawal. So far, unfortunately, only ex-
pectations have been raised.
The action by the Senate to approve
the Genocide Convention for ratifica-
tion, then, provides the United States
with the opportunity to raise, for the
first time as a signatory, the issue of
Soviet viclations of the Genocide Con-
vention in Afghanistan. In his report
of November 5, 1985, to the U.N. Gen-
eral Assembly on the "Situation of
Human Rights of Afghanistan," the
Special Rapporteur of the Commission
on Human Rights described the situa-
tion during the fifth year of Soviet oc-
cupation of Afghanistan in these
words:
The Government, with heavy support
from foreign troops, acts with great severity
against opponents or suspected opponents
of the regime without any respect for
human rights obligations . . . It appears
that in the course of operations, all kinds of
sophisticated weapons, in particular those
that have a heavy destructive and psycho-
logical effect, are being used. The target is
primarily the civilian population, the vil-
lages, and the agricultural structure.
The report continues,
As a result, not only individuals, but
whole groups of persons and tribes are en-
dangered in their existence and in their
lives because their living conditions are fun-
damentally affected by the kind of warfare
being waged.
The report cites "the use of antiper-
sonnel mines and of so-called toy
bombs" and "the indiscriminate mass
killings of civilians, particularly
women and children." The report
notes that the war is characterized by
the most cruel methods of warfare and by
the destruction of large parts of the country
which has affected the conditions of life of
the population, destabilizing the ethnic and
tribal structure and disrupting family units.
The demographic structure of the country
has changed, since over 4 million refugees
from all provinces and all classes have set-
tled outside the country and thousands of
internal refugees have crowded into the
cities like KABUL.
This independent account by the
United Nations conforms to the Geno-
cide Convention's definition of that
crime in article II, as the willful act of
destroying in whole or part a national,
ethnical, racial, or religious group by:
First, killing members of the group;
Second, causing serious bodily or
mental harm to members of the group:
Third, deliberately inflicting on the
group conditions of life calculated to
bring about its physical destruction in
whole or in part;
Fourth. imposing measures intended
to prevent births within the group:
and
Fifth, forcibly transferring children
of the group to another group.
The U.N. Report substantiates the
fact that the Soviet Union and its
Afghan puppets are engaged in acts
which seem to satisfy the elements of
this definition of the crime of geno-
cide. In fact, the report demonstrates
that the Soviets in Afghanistan are
engaged in many practices which,
under the Convention, appear to
amount to the crime of genocide.
The amendment I am offering today
recognizes that the Soviet actions in
Afghanistan may constitute the crime
of genocide against the Afghan people,
and calls upon the Secretary of State
to investigate whether the Soviets are
in fact violating their obligations
under the Genocide Convention by
virtue of their cruel warfare against
the Afghan people.
In addition, it urges the Secretary of
State to review the U.S. policy that af-
fords diplomatic recognition to the
puppet regime in Kabul. There may be
sound reasons for this, but I believe it
is time for the Secretary of State to
conduct a thorough review of whether
a continuation of this policy is appro-
priate. The Soviet Government is at
war with the people of Afghanistan,
and the so-called Government of Af-
ghanistan is nothing but a Soviet
sham.
I do recognize that we are looking
forward to the possibility that the So-
viets will pull their military forces out
of Afghanistan and the Afghan Gov-
ernment that comes to power in the
wake of that withdrawal will be the
beneficiary of guarantees by both su-
perpowers?and that that government
will be independent and neutral and
truly represent the whole of Afghan
people. Obviously, an American pres-
ence is needed for such guarantees,
and one might argue that a continued
presence such as the one that now
exists is therefore appropriate to that
long-term goal.
0 1800
Nevertheless, Mr. President, the
entire concept of diplomatic relations
In the context of Afghanistan today
strikes me as questionable. I believe
the question should be thoroughly re-
assessed by the executive branch on
an expedited basis.
Mr. President, the amendment also
states that the United States should
take every opportunity to increase the
visibility, internationally, of what the
Soviets are doing in Afghanistan. This
should be done in international meet-
ings and fora of all kinds; it should be
done by increased media coverage and
the use of our programming capabili-
ties.
June 25, 1986'
I have reference to the Voice of
America, Radio Free Europe. and
other mechanisms available to the De-
partment of State. It should be done
by continuing to press the Soviets to
allow journalists into Afghanistan so
they can report freely on events there.
The Soviet invasion and occupation of
Afghanistan has been invisible too
long. That means for the entire second
half of the 7 years it has been going
on.
The Soviet Union is getting a good
return on the rumors it is floating
about its desire to pull out of Afghani-
stan. As I told General Secretary Gor-
bachev last year, he has it in his power
to end the war in Afghanistan. All he
has to do is bring his troops home.
Finally, the amendment recognizes
the need for material support for the
people of that war-ravaged country. a
renewed effort to encourage Soviet
withdrawal and a political solution to
the stalemate, and a renewed commit-
ment to informing the world of the sit-
uation in Afghanistan.
I believe this amendment is entirely
in keeping with the President's State
of the Union promise to the people of
Afghanistan that "America will sup-
port with moral and material assist-
ance your right not just to fight and
die for freedom, but to fight and win
freedom." In 1984. I introduced the
first successful Senate resolution call-
ing for essential food and medical as-
sistance for the people of Afghanistan.
I believe that this amendment is an
appropriate outgrowth of that earlier
effort.
I point out, Mr. President, that this
will be the first action to be taken by
the United States in regard to the
terms of the Genocide Convention. I
can think of no more appropriate sub-
ject for the first action to follow ratifi-
cation of the convention than the
plight of the heroic people of Afghani-
stan.
When I led the first Senate delega-
tion to meet Soviet General Secretary
Gorbachev last September, we found
the subject of Afghanistan to be the
most contentious and emotionally
volatile issue in our discussions. Since
that time, we have heard persistent
stories of increased Soviet willingness
to reach an accommodation on the Af-
ghanistan question. It would be a mis-
take for the Soviet leadership to 1:)e-
lieve that talk about solutions will
reduce the outrage of the world com-
munity. As long as Soviet troops
commit atrocities against the Afghan
people and continue to occupy that
long-suffering country, freedom loving
peoples will decry these actions and
will be moved to help the Afghan
people.
As participants in the Genocide Con-
vention, we are now in a much better
position to join in condemning Soviet
actions which, as described in the
report to the United Nations General
Assembly, amount to a calculated
effort to destroy the Afghan people.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26 CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
June 25, 1986
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?SENATE
This amendment will permit the
Senate to make an appropriate state-
ment on this matter.
The meeting that I had with Mr.
Rabbanni and his group renewed my
sense of admiration for the people of
Afghanistan. They are courageous and
determined in their struggle against a
superpower war machine. I believe
that we should stick with them for the
duration of their long struggle, until
they achieve what they so truly de-
serve?their national independence.
Mr. President. I ask the managers of
the bill especially if they feel they
have any objection or if it can be ac-
cepted.
Mr. HUMPHREY addressed the
Chair.
Mr. BYRD. I yield, Mr. President.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I
commend the distinguished Democrat-
ic leader for proposing this important
amendment. I am pleased to join with
him in urging our colleagues to accept
It this afternoon.
The situation In Afghanistan is out-
rageous. The Soviets have committed
every known barbarity in their inva-
sion and continued occupation and
bludgeoning of that poor country.
Before the Soviets moved in some 61/2
years ago, there were 15 million resi-
dents, citizens of Afghanistan. In the
intervening years, somewhere between
one-half of 1 million and 1 million
have been killed as a result of the war.
I am not talking about combatants
alone. Mr. President; indeed, they
probably make up a small part of
those who have suffered casualties. I
am talking about men, women, chil-
dren, and elderly persons who have
been deliberately singled out and
butchered by the Soviet occupiers and
their puppets in Afghanistan. Out of
15 million, something approaching a
million have been killed or wounded
and some 4 million have fled Afghani-
stan altogether to Iran or, principally,
to Pakistan.
The amendment proposed by the
Senator from West Virginia is timely.
I want to focus on two provisions of
the "Resolved" section of the resolu-
tion. The resolution states:
Resolved that the United States, so long
as Soviet military forces occupy Afghani-
stan, should support the efforts of the
people of Afghanistan to regain the sover-
eignty and territorial integrity of their
nation through?
And it lists a number of things
among which are:
(E) vigorous efforts to impress upon the
Soviet leadership the penalty that contin-
ued military action in Afghanistan imposes
upon the building of a long-term construc-
tive relationship with the United States, be-
cause of the negative effect that Soviet poli-
cies in Afghanistan have on attitudes
toward the Soviet Union among the Ameri-
can people and the Congress.
The Senator from West Virginia is
calling upon the United States to im-
press upon the Soviets the penalty
they will pay if they continue with
this occupation. I point out to my col-
leagues that if the United States Gov-
ernment undertakes what he has pro-
posed here, it will represent a new de-
parture, because we are not doing
today anything that this Senator is
aware of in the area of diplomatic re-
lations or economic relations to im-
press upon the Soviets that there is
any penalty at all for their continued
bludgeoning of the people of that
country. We have listed all of the im-
portant sanctions imposed by the last
administration. They are all gone now.
Aeroflot is flying into the United
States. Pan American is flying into
Moscow. Everything is cozy once
again.
I point out that in this year alone.
two Cabinet Secretaries have jour-
neyed to Moscow?the Secretary of
Commerce back in January, I think it
was, or perhaps it was December of
last year, with a party of over 100
American businessmen and women
seeking new commercial contacts with
the Soviet Union. That is a mighty
Poor way, is it not, to impress upon
the Soviets the penalty they pay for
their continued barbarities in Afghani-
stan, a Cabinet Secretary off to
Moscow seeking new commercial con-
tracts?
Just this past week, the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development was
off to Moscow likewise to seek infor-
mation on housing.
Mr. President, I am not suggesting
that we should pursue a course of bel-
ligerence against the Soviet Union. I
am saying our relations should be cor-
rect, neither warm nor cold, and we
should begin to do the things that the
Senator from West Virginia suggests?
finding ways to impress upon the
Soviet Union that there is a penalty
for their continued military action in
Afghanistan. We are doing nothing
today.
It would represent a departure if we
did what the Senator from West Vir-
ginia suggests. Indeed, it is business as
usual today between the Soviet Union
and the United States. I regret to say
that. I regret to have to point that
out, but it is an important point, one
that should not go unnoticed in this
debate.
One other point on which I want to
focus. Mr. President, again in the "Re-
solved" section. laying out the things
that the United States should do as
long as Soviet forces continue to
occupy Afghanistan. Section 2(B) says
that we should review United States
policy with respect to the continued
recognition of the Soviet puppet gov-
errunent in Kabul to determine wheth-
er such recognition is in the interest of
the United States.
Mr. President, this week, much to
his credit, the President of the United
States entertained leaders of the
Afghan freedom fighters in the White
House. That was a significant step for-
ward in advancing the standing of the
freedom fighters of Afghanistan. It
was long overdue, may I say.
But what kind of mixed signal does
it send, what kind of inconsistent
S 8463
policy is shown, when the President on
the one hand invites the Afghan lead-
ers of the freedom fighters to the
White House and, on the other hand.
every single day of the year. the Amer-
ican flag is raised at an Embassy in
Kabul. the seat of the very govern-
ment against which those freedom
fighters are struggling, with our en-
couragement in a material sense and a
moral sense?
Here we are, encouraging these
people to lay down their lives to free
their society and we have an American
Embassy at the seat of the Govern-
ment against which those people are
struggling. Not only that, perhaps
which is worse, that criminal puppet
government has representatives here
maintaining an Embassy in Washing-
ton. That is a classic case of sending
mixed signals, that is a classic case of
inconsistent policy. When you are
trying to send a message to Moscow.
the last thing you want to do is send
mixed signals.
Mr. President, we cannot have one
foot on one side of the fense and one
foot on the other side of the fence
when we are dealing with the Soviet
Union and with this ghastly situation
in Afghanistan. If we mean what we
say, if the President means what he
says and the Secretary of State means
what he says and all of the other gov-
ernment officials who periodically
make these lofty and inspiring state-
ments about support for the freedom
fighters of Afghanistan, then let us
have a consistent policy. Let us send
meaningful signals of the kind the
Senator from West Virginia seems to
Imply so that the Soviets will under-
stand the penalty that they will pay
for continued military occupation of
Afghanistan.
0 1810
Let me just close with this observa-
tion. Mr. President. The Senator from
New Hampshire has made a priority
Issue out of this matter of Afghani-
stan. I have looked at it closely now
for 2 years. If there is one lesson to be
learned, if there Is one bottom line ob-
servation to be made about our efforts
with respect to Afghanistan, it is this:
There is nobody in charge, and that is
why we have all these problems. That
is why we have these inconsistencies.
That is why we are sending mixed sig-
nals. That is why there is so little co-
operation and coordination between
the executive departments of this
Government In implementing policy
and turning into policy the lofty rhet-
oric of the President and the Secre-
tary of State.
Truly, within the entire executive
there is not one high-level official
with any clout who spends full time on
Afghanistan, making sure that all of
the executive departments pull togeth-
er. There is no such person. The man-
agement of our Afghanistan effort is
part time and conducted by commit-
tees who meet from time to time and
in DarF - aniti7PCI Coov Approved for Release 2012/01/26 CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
S 8466 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE June 25, 1.986
hash things other. That is no way to
run an operation of this kind, especial-
ly when the stakes are so very high.
not only for the people of Afghanistan
but for the American people and for
people everywhere who love freedom.
Mr. President. I and others have
urged the administration to put some-
one in charge, to create a special
office, if that is necessary, to catalog
the opportunities that are available to
US to send these kinds of signals. We
are not calling for belligerence toward
the Soviet Union but there are oppor-
tunities to bring additional military
pressure to bear, additional economic
pressure to bear, additional diplomatic
pressure to bear, additional pressure
of international public opinion to bear.
opportunities that are being missed
because there is nobody in charge.
I urge once again, Mr. President, al-
though it is not part of this resolution,
that the administration put somebody
in charge, create an office that can
catalog the opportunities, recommend
policy?I am not saying make policy,
recommend policy?and when it is
adopted ensure that all of the execu-
tive departments and agencies cooper-
ate and comply in carrying out that
policy.
I commend the Senator from West
Virginia for this important resolution
and I urge my colleagues and fellow
Senators to support it wholeheartedly.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank
the distinguished Senator from New
Hampshire (Mr. HUMPHREY] for his
strong support not only of the amen-
dent in this instance but I thank him
for his statement that he has made
this matter involving savage slaughter
of innocent women and children, old
men in Afghanistan by the Soviet in-
vaders a priority matter. I hope that
other Senators will do the same. I
commend him.
Mr. President, for the record, Mr.
HUMPHREY is a cosponsor of this
amendmnet, as are the following Sena-
tors: Mr. Pku., Mr. Brnsx, Mr. Iwouirr.,
Mr. MXLCHER, Mr. DsComma, Mr.
SASSER, Mr. PROXMIRE, Mr. DOLE, Mr.
Wilson, and Mr. Macron.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that other Senators who may
wish to add their names as cosponsors
may do so.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask for
the yeas and nays on the amendment.
I sin prepared to vote on the amend-
ment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. BYRD. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
majority leader.
Mr. DOLE. 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. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent further proceed-
ings under the quorum call be rescind-
ed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection. it is so ordered.
UNANIMOUS CONSENT
AGREEMENT
DOLE. Mr. President, I ask
un..ous consent that before the
vote t ordered on the Byrd amend-
ment t e Chair turn to the conference
report accompany H.R. 4420, the
Military etirement Reform Act and
it be co ? ered under the following
time agree 'ent: 10 minutes on the
conference ? ort to be equally divid-
ed between he chairman of the
Armed Servic ? Committee and the
ranking minori member or their des-
ignees, and that ollowing the conclu-
sion or yielding back of time the
Senate proceed to ote on adoption of
the conference repo
The PRESIDINs OFFICER. Is
there objection? Wit .ut objection, it
Is so ordered.
Mr. DOLE. To be Cl-then, I ask
unanimous consent that ollowing the
vote on the conferenc report we
would vote on the Byrd am dment.
The PRESIDING OFFI . With-
out objection, it is so ordere..
Mr. LUGAR. Will the Sena, ?r yield?
Mr. DOLE. I will be happy yield.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I ould
like to ask the leader if it wo be
possible for me to proceed with two
technical items with regard to th
curity bill so that all would be ti d
up prior to the vote on the Byrd amen
ment. My understanding is that ther
is no request for a rollcall vote on the
overall bill, and we would be able to
proceed to completion.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President. I also ask
unanimous consent there be no
amendment to the Byrd amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOLE. And in addition, prior to
the vote on the Byrd amendment, the
distinguished chairman be permitted
to offer technical amendment to the
bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there objection? Without objection, it
Is so ordered.
MILITARY RETIREMENT REFORM
ACT?CONFERENCE REPORT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
report will be stated.
The Assistant Legislative Clerk read
as follows:
The committee of conference on the dis-
agreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
4420) to amend title 10, United States Code,
to revise the retirement system for new
members of the uniformed services, and for
other purposes, having met, after full and
free conference, have agreed to and do rec-
ommend to their respective Houses this
report, signed by a majority of the confer-
ence.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, the Senate will proceed
to the consideration of the conference
report.
(The conference report will be print-
ed in the House proceedings of the
RECORD.)
Mr. WILSON addressed the Chair.
Mr. STENNIS. May we have order.
Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
request for order is needed.
The Chair recognizes the Senator
from California.
Mr. WILSON. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I rise in support of
this conference report which provides
for changes in the military retirement
system. I hope these changes will be
viewed for what they are. They have
been occasioned by an act of Congress
requiring that the Senate Armed Serv-
ices Committee and that in the House
examine into the question of whether
or not we may quietly compensate
those who are peacekeepers for the
United States and at the same time
find ways of cutting costs. Some will
regard these changes as long awaited
reform. Mr. President. Others may
not.
It is my hope, after the long, long
hours of work, that this settlement
will be regarded as fair and equitable,
and at least as importantly that the
changes made will assist the military
in continued success in recruitment
and retention of the kind of quality
volunteer force that virtually all have
acclaimed is of the highest quality in
recent years.
Mr. President, I will give a very brief
description of the elements of the
House-Senate compromise. It is one
hat I think both the House and
nate have worked hard to achieve.
e pay base will be that based on an
av e of the highest 3 years of
? .? The multipliers will be for the
pen. ? of the years 1 through 20, for
some. .e retiring at the end of 20
years, percent for each year. For
years 2 through 30, for those that
remain a ull 30 years, there will actu-
ally be a .5 percent per year factor
applied ag t that high 3-year base
average.
The resul of these changes, Mr.
President, w . be that someone who
retires at the - d of 20 years will re-
ceive 40 percent f that base: someone
who retires at th end of 30 years will
receive 75 percen of the base. The
compromise I t ? goes a long way
toward encouraging ople to make at
least a 20-year career f the military.
That decision is made ? tween the 6th
and 12th year of servic .y most who
make the election to beco e career en-
listed or officers. The sma r number
who remain for a full 30 ye are en-
couraged to do so by a more h dsome
rate of retirement. All perso eceiv-
ing benefits from military reti ent
will receive a cost-of-living adjust ent
of CPI minus 1, or of the Consu er
Price Index less 1 percent for life. t
-. Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4 =IN
! Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
S 8470 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
pply to them. This legislation recog-
izes the promises that we have made
our military personnel, and I am de-
tt mined not to break those promises.
In moment. I will defer to Senator
Wz ON, the chairman of our Manpow-
er bcommittee. who will explain the
prov .ons of the retirement reform
meas % e in detail.
Mr. resident, this bill also contains
the re- .lution of the controversy be-
tween he Defense Appropriations
Subcom it tee and the Armed Services
Committ over the issue of excess or
unauthori d appropriations. I am
happy to s v that we have worked out
our dif fere! es in a very amicable way,
and I want t express my very sincere.
personal app ciation to the chairman
of the Defe e Appropriations Sub-
committee, S ator STEVENS, for his
cooperation i helping resolve this
matter. Throug this process, we have
forged what I b ieve will be a greatly
improved worki g relationship be-
n the Arme Services Committee
t.7id the Defense ppropriations Sub-
committee
Mr. President. th t concludes my re-
marks. I hope we n now move this
conference report e editiously. It is
not a controversial bi ? but it is impor-
tant that we pass it t day in order to
avoid having to lay o several thou-
sands of people in the efense Depart-
ment.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING 0 ICER. The
time on the conference ?ort has ex-
pired.
The Chair recognizes e Senator
from California.
Mr. WILSON. Mr. Presid it, I thank
the distinguished chairm of the
Armed Services Committee.
We are ready to vote. Mr. esident.
The majority and, I believe t minor-
ity, do not see the necessity f a roll-
call vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICE The
Question is on agreeing to the nfer-
ence report.
The conference report was agre.. to.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I mo to
reconsider the vote by which the ?n-
ference report was agreed to.
Mr. WILSON. Mr. President, I m ye
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table w
air r t
rMrDIPLOMATIC SECURITY AND
ANTITERRORISM ACT
The Senate continued consideration
of the bill.
. LUGAR. Mr. President, earlier
today during consideration of two
amendments by Senator HELMS, Nos.
2190 and 2191, Senator HELMS agreed
to modifications in a colloquy with me.
However, through inadvertence the
amendment submitted to the desk did
not reflect those modifications.
I ask unanimous consent that the
corrected copies of those amendments,
with the modifications, be substituted
to the versions submitted earlier.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendments, Nos. 2190 and
2191, have been so substituted.)
Mr. LUGAR. Mr., President, I know
of no further amendments.
AACNDMENT NO. 2193
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to .Amendment
2193. On this question, the yeas and
nays have been ordered, and the clerk
will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called
the roll.
Mr. SIMPSON: I announce that the
Senator from Rhode Island [Mr.
CHAFEE], the Senator from Florida
(Mrs. HAWKINS], the Senator from
Nevada (Mr. HECHT], the Senator from
Nevada [Mr. LAXALT ] , the Senator
from Oregon (Mr. PAcxwoonl and the
Senator from South Carolina [Mr.
THURMOND] are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present
and voting the Senator from Florida
[Mrs. HAwitizis]. and the Senator
from South Carolina [Mr. THURMOND 1,
would each vote "yea."
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are
there any other Senators in the Cham-
ber who desire to vote?
The result was announced?yeas 94,
nays 0, as follows:
fRollcall Vote No. 151 Leg.]
Abdnor
Andrews
Armstrong
Saurus
Bentsen
Biden
Bingaman
Boren
Boschwitz
Bradley
Bumpers
Burdick
Byrd
Chiles
Cochran
Cohen
Cranston
D'Amato
Danforth
DeConcini
Denton
Dixon
Dodd
Dole
Domenic'
Durenberger
Eagleton
East
Evans
Exon
Ford
Garn
YEAS-94
Glenn
Goldwater
Gore
Gorton
Gramm
Grassley
Harkin
Hart
Hatch
Hat field
Heflin
Heinz
Helms
Hollings
Humphrey
Inouye
Johnston
Kaasebaum
Kasten
Kennedy
Kerry
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Long
Lugar
Mathias
Matsunaga
Mattingly
McClure
McConnell
Melcher
Metzenbaum
Mitchell
Moynihan
Murkowski
Nickles
Nunn
Pell
Pressler
Proxmire
Pryor
Quayle
Riegle
Rockefeller
Roth
Rudman
Sarbanes
Sasser
Simon
Simpson
Specter
Stafford
Stennis
St evens
Symms
Trible
Wallop
Warner
Weicker
Wilson
Zorinsky
NOT VOTING-6
Chafee Hecht Packwood
Hawkins Laxalt Thurmond
So the amendment (No. 2193) was
agreed to.
0 1850
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to
reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. LUGAR. I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. LUGAR addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Indiana.
June 25, 1986'
Mr. LUGAR. I ask unanimous con-
sent that the Senator from South
Carolina [Mr. THURMOND ] be added as
a cosponsor to the Byrd amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
There will be order in the Senate.
There is too much conversation.
Please remove your conversations to
the Cloakroom. We cannot hear the
Senator from Indiana.
Mr. KASTEN. Mr. President, I
wonder if the distinguished Senator
from Indiana will yield for a question?
Mr. LUGAR. I am happy to yield.
Mr. KASTEN. I am advised that the
funding contemplated by this legisla-
tion will provide an increase of about
400 new positions for the Department
of State's diplomatic security services.
Mr. LUGAR. The Senator from Wis-
consin is correct.
Mr. KASTEN. Mr. President, it is
my understanding that some of the
new positions authorized in this bill
are to be assigned on a nonreirnbursa-
ble basis to the small security office of
AID. It is my understanding that the
discussions have focused on approxi-
mately 15 positions. This arrange-
ment, which I strongly endorse, re-
sults from discussions between the
Foreign Relations and Appropriations
Committees with appropriate officers
of the Department of State and AID. I
wonder, Mr. President, if my under-
standing on this point is shared by the
distinguished chairman, the Senator
from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, the dis-
tinguished Senator from Wisconsin is
correct in his understanding. A key
consideration in this legislation is the
necessity to fix responsibility for secu-
rity of our diplomatic personnel in one
officer, the Secretary of State. Section
106(a) of the act, however, in the in-
terest of organizational effectiveness.
vests authority in the Secretary to del-
egate operational control of overseas
security functions of other Federal
agencies to the heads of those agen-
cies who remain fully responsible to
the Secretary of State in the exercise
of those delegated duties. In terms of
day-to-day security operations, the
AID security group must be able to
execute and administer for AID's over-
seas personnel the Department's secu-
rity standards and policies. It is with
this requirement in mind that the De-
partment of State and AID have deter-
mined that a limited number of these
new positions, as the Senator from
Wisconsin has indicated, should be
made available to AID, funded from
the supplemental appropriations pro-
vided under this bill.
Mr. KASTEN. I thank the distin-
guished Chairman, Mr. President. I be-
lieve the arrangement we have dis-
cussed here will enhance the effective-
ness of this legislation by insuring
that AID has sufficient resources to
fully support the Department's securi-
ty requirements in these hazardous
times.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
1
June 25. 1986
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 8471
Mr. DENTON. Mr. President, the
shocking hijacking of TWA flight 847.
EgyptAir 648. the airport massacres in
Rome and Vienna and the bombing of
TWA flight 840 underscores the neces-
sity for effective security at airports in
this country as well as abroad. The
aftermath of these bloody terrorist
episodes demonstrated that lax airport
security may have provided the oppor-
tunity for terrorists to carry out their
grim mission of vengeance and death.
Mr. President. the United States
must take a lead in securing its air-
ports from access by terrorists and
must also work with the international
community to prevent the loss of lives
of innocent air travelers at the hands
of terrorists. To allow this Nation to
take such a lead. I introduced S. 2468,
the Antiterrorism and Air Security
Act, a bill which was referred to the
Commerce Aviation Subcommittee
chaired by my distinguished col-
leagues from Kansas, Senator KASSE-
BAUM.
The Antiterrorism and Air Security
Act will require that a criminal history
check be conducted on any airline or
airport employee whose duties permit
them access to secured areas of air-
ports or to commercial aircrafts. The
act also proposes to make it a Federal
crime to enter airport secured areas
without authority. The latter provi-
sion is intended to deter the unlawful
circumvention of airport security sys-
tems as well as the unauthorized pene-
tration of secured areas on airports.
Such activity must be forcefully pro-
scribed by Federal law to combat any
threat of terrorist activity against civil
aviation in this country.
Mr. President, I had considered of-
fering the substance of S. 2468 as an
amendment to the bill currently being
considered. However, after talking
with Senator KASSEBAUM, chairman of
the Aviation Subcommittee, who
shares my concern over the safety of
our airports, we concluded that it
would be beneficial to conduct a joint
Judiciary Security and Terrorism Sub-
committee/Committee Aviation Sub-
committee hearing on the question of
airport security in general and S. 2468
in particular.
Therefore, at this point I will not
offer S. 2468 as an amendment.
I look forward to working with Sena-
tor KASSEBAUM in our joint effort to
protect our Nation's airports.
KOREAN TRADE PRACT/CES-AMENDMENT NO.
2180
Mr. WILSON. Mr. President. I want
to join with my colleague and friend
from Kentucky, Senator McCozozzza.,
in denouncing the blatantly unfair
and protectionist trade practices of
the Republic of Korea. This country,
which has benefited so greatly from
Its friendship with the United States,
should not so cavalierly maintain old
trade barriers nor continue to erect
new ones. Yet. Mr. President, it does.
The barriers run from high technol-
ogy goods and electronic products to
agricultural goods, both fresh and
processed. The barriers also extend to
pharmaceuticals, chemicals, books.
and movies, which are denied fair
market access both through tariffs
and quotas and by refusal to provide
adequate protection for intellectual
property.
Mr. President, in the area of agricul-
ture, South Korea maintains the most
protectionist import policy of the
newly industrialized countries In Asia.
The list of trade barriers, particularly
to high-value or specialty crops, is ex-
tensive and entrenched. Let me just
point out a few examples.
The Korean Government, on Janu-
ary 1, 1986. implemented a compre-
hensive plan to protect their indus-
tries from agricultural imports. They
attempted to justify these new import
restrictions by arguing that balance-
of-payments problems force them to
preserve foreign currency. A Korea
Trade News article on December 8,
1985, outlined this management plan
that would be used to effectively con-
trol imports. This plan included sever-
al actions that are injurious to Califor-
nia.
For example, the Ministry of Agri-
culture and Fisheries has been sending
letters to importers of raisins and
citrus fruits informing them that im-
porting such goods is contrary to the
policy of conserving foreign exchange,
and urging them to work with their
customers to reduce the volume pur-
chased.
South Korea has also tightened
quarantine procedures against Califor-
nia citrus and requires our citrus to be
subjected to 2 weeks of zero degree
temperatures. This seriously reduces
the high quality of our fruit, and is an
unjustified nontariff barrier.
The other measures that went into
effect on January 1 include a contin-
ued suspension of all high-quality beef
Imports, and imposition of quotas on
frozen potato imports designed to keep
Imported french fries out of supermar-
kets.
The U.S. Agricultural Counselor in
Seoul, in a report he submitted on De-
cember 23. 1985, concluded about
these measures that "Traders in food
products all report that they are expe-
riencing overt pressure (letters and
warnings) and indirect pressure (extra
redtape and unexplained delays)
aimed at discouraging imports of con-
sumer-ready products, and that this
pressure has been increasing in recent
months."
In particular, the Koreans' move to
tighten quarantine procedures has fo-
cused on California citrus, which is re-
quired to be subjected to 2 weeks of
zero degree temperatures. The Kore-
ans have unilaterally and incorrectly
declared all California citrus to be in-
fested with the Mediterranean fruit
fly, in spite of the fact that the USDA
gave California citrus a clean bill of
health over 3 years ago.
In early December of last year, the
USDA invited Korean scientists to
come to the United States to snake a
firsthand inspection of their claims of
fruit fly infestation, but to date. the
Korean Government has not yet re-
sponded to the invitation.
Let me mention briefly a few other
entrenched barriers. Korea maintains
a senseless 60-percent tariff on United
States raisin exports. There is no logi-
cal justification for this barrier since
there is no raisin industry In South
Korea to protect. The California
Raisin Advisory Board has shown a
positive and aggressive business atti-
tude by developing a marketing pro-
gram in Korea using targeted export
assistance funds. Their efforts will be
wasted if this trade barrier remains
Intact.
Finally. Korea was also a country
designated by the USTR under the
Wine Equity Act. which I authored in
1984, as a country that has significant
market potential for United States
wine sales, but maintains trade bar-
riers, including tariffs, inhibiting such
wine trade. Consultations with Korea
to rectify these trade barriers have
produced no results to date.
Now, outside the area of agriculture,
there have been some promising signs.
For example, there are press reports
that the pending actions against
Korea brought under section 301 of
the Trade Act of 1974. covering insur-
ance and intellectual property, are
progressing significantly. Also, we are
eagerly awaiting chaiiges in Korean
laws that will allow United States film
distributors to do business in Korea.
Nevertheless, there are so many
other importar,t disputes to be settled,
that we must press for continued im-
provement in order to allow for con-
tinued designation of the Republic of
Korea as a beneficiary under OSP
after the completion of the general
review prior to January 4, 1987.
Mr. President, I commend the distin-
guished Senator from Kentucky (Mr.
MCCONNELL), for bringing the present
troublesome situation in United
States-Korean trade relations to the
attention of the Senate, and I sincere-
ly hope that we can settle this matter
quickly and comprehensively.
AMENDMENT NO. 2180
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President., I
rise today in support of the amend-
ment by Senator McCoprzrzu. to the
diplomatic security ,bill. This amend-
ment expresses the sense of the
Senate that the Republic pf Korea
should not be treated as a beneficiary
developing country under the U.S.
Generalized System of Preferences
until Korea discontinues its "unrea-
sonable, unjustifiable, and discrimina-
tory acts, policies, and practices" with
respect to trade. This amendment is
Identical to Senate Resolution 369, of
which I am a cosponsor.
Last month, the President of the Re-
public of Korea made a commitment
to Senator McCornizu. that the Na-
tional Assembly of Korea would pass a
bill to privatize the Korean tobacco
monopoly. Yesterday. the Korean Na-
- Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
S 8472 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
tional Assembly completed its special
session. Not only did this bill not pass
the Assembly, but the entire bill was
withdrawn. I am disappointed that the
Koreans did not carry through with
this commitment.
Mr. President. this action by the
Korean Assembly is particularly disap-
pointing in view of the fact that Korea
continues to flood our market with
textile imports. For calendar year
1985. Korea was the source of over 10
percent of the textile and apparel im-
ports coming into the United States.
In fact, their total shipments of over
1.1-billion-square-yard equivalents was
second only to the total sent to the
United States by Taiwan.
Many of us have hoped that the Ko-
reans would open their market to
American businesses. U.S. businesses
would like to trade with the Koreans.
Unfortunately, this latest action
shows a lack of commitment on the
part of the Koreans. I am prepared to
support legislation that would correct
these trade inequities, and urge my
colleagues to do the same.
THREATS TO THE INTEGRITY OF RURAL AND FARM
STATISTICS
Mr. ABDNOR. Mr. President. by of-
ficial count. more rural people live in
the United States today than at any
other time in history. This probably
comes as a surprise to many Ameri-
cans, rural and urban alike.
This highest-ever number of rural
Americans occurs despite the fact that
only 26 percent of our total U.S. popu-
lation is rural. It is this percentage
that is so often cited to indicate a de-
cline in the rural population. For
while half of the nation was rural at
the end of World War I, about one-
fourth is today. Rural population
growth has always been a part of our
country's overall growth, yet, only the
declining percentage seems to receive
attention and, by implication, to the
detriment of rural inhabitants.
Still, and contrary to conventional
hearsay, the number of rural people is
growing rather than shrinking. Ac-
cording to the latest figures available
for 1984. over 61 million people are
rural residents. This number approxi-
mates the number of all people in our
country a century ago.
There are as many rural Americans
as all who live in the Nation's eight
largest cities?New York, Los Angeles,
Chicago. Philadelphia, San Francisco,
Detroit, Boston, and Houston. Illus-
trated in other ways, rural people in
total outnumber the combined popula-
tion of the three largest States as well
as that of the 30 smallest States.
There are nearly as many rural people
as there are persons under age 18
across the United States. The number
of rural people in America is simply a
large number by any national compari-
son.
While we can now realize that the
rural population is large, we cannot
know as much as we need to know
about this major component of our so-
ciety and economy. Studies tell us, for
example, that rural unemployment
data?one of the most salient pieces of
Information on the well-being of rural
America?are tragically underestimat-
ed. Beyond shaky statistics on employ-
ment is evidence of even higher levels
of underemployment in rural areas.
Studies of such topics are reported in
a new publication, "New Dimensions
In Rural Policy." which has been pre-
pared through the Joint Economic
Committee.
Another rural-related topic that ob-
viously requires more detail and atten-
tion is agriculture. Agriculture re-
mains the dominant force behind eco-
nomic and social well-being in many
hundreds of our counties and, just as
Important. is the major national indus-
try for rural and urban jobs alike. Yet,
the U.S. census of agriculture is facing
restrictions from Office of Manage-
ment and Budget on top of continued
funding difficulties as the Census
Bureau gears up for the 1987 collec-
tion of data on farms throughout the
more than 3.000 counties of the
States.
Perhaps at no time has there been a
greater need for a better count of our
farms, farm operators, and indicators
of what has been happening to our
farms. American agriculture and hun-
dreds of thousands of farmers in this
proud land have taken a beating far
too long. There is a strategic need to
know how farms have changed since
the last census of agriculture in 1982.
We need more information on the fac-
tors that have torn at our way of
farming, factors that have stressed in-
dividuals and farm families, factors
that have strained or collapsed so
many rural and farm communities,
and factors that are sapping one of
America's strengths.
The burden of ignorance of these
matters is severe. To address the ongo-
ing rural and farm crisis and to better
manage long-term changes, we need
quality data from our national agen-
cies which provide it. Indeed, the pro-
vision of these data is a national re-
sponsibility to the federation of our
States and to local areas.
All Americans benefit from this in-
formation. With quality data on rural
and agricultural situations, citizens,
scientists, and policy analysts can
better provide the suggestions which
can lead to valid, lasting rural and
farm policies.
Today I call for quality data on rural
and farm America. The integrity of
rural and agricultural data must be
protected and enhanced. Without ac-
curate knowledge of the problems, at-
tempting policy solutions may be inef-
fective, wasteful, and even counterpro-
ductive. The millions of our citizens
who are facing the special problems of
rural America certainly rate fair and
comprehensive data on their condi-
tions.
Late last week, the Census Advisory
Committee on Agricultural Statistics?
a group of representatives from agri-
cultural businesses, farm organiza-
June 25. 1.986
tions. farm labor organizations, agri-
cultural universities, and agricultural
scientists?unanimously passed a reso-
lution that the Bureau of the Census
and the agricultural division should
move ahead without further restraint
to finalize plans for the critically im-
portant 1987 census of agriculture.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that their resolution be printed in
the RECORD at this time.
RESOLUTION
Whereas the recent and ongoing agricul-
tural and rural crisis demands quality
census data including economic and social
agricultural statistics.
Whereas the U.S. census of agriculture
provides data for the Nation. States, and
the only county level data and thereby car-
ries the federated responsibility for us all.
Whereas we share the goal of obtaining
high quality agricultural census data at the
county level for use by Federal agencies,
State governments, local county agencies.
businesses, and private groups.
Whereas the mail-list development proce-
dures are one important component in the
process of building an accurate base for the
1987 census, follow-on surveys, and future
censuses.
Whereas the census of agriculture is faced
with the externally imposed prospect of
moving from a methodology dependent
upon carefully developed lists with nonfarm
names to an optional combination of mail
lists and area samples.
Whereas the loss of a large mailing list
will make it impossible to produce detailed.
county level data,
Whereas the quality and comparability
with previous censuses would be lost and
any follow-on surveys such as a farm fi-
nance survey would be impaired, and
Whereas list development for the next
census would also be adversely affected,
It is resolved that:
The Advisory Committee on Agricultural
Statistics supports the commitment of the
Bureau to preserve and enhance the integri-
ty of the data at the National. State, and
the important county levels.
We support the Bureau's efforts to en-
hance mail list development and experimen-
tation with data collection techniques which
will improve lists and response rates.
As in the past, we support the concept of
area samples as a supplement to State esti-
mates but feel that area sampling cannot re-
place the need for county level estimates.
We recommend that the solution to qual-
ity agricultural census data with integrity at
the National. State, and county levels lies
not in budget cutbacks or in mail list restric-
tions but, instead, in the base of tried, dem-
onstrated, and improved data collection
techniques carefully developed through the
experiences of recent censuses. and
We recommend that the agricultural
census mailing list have an adequate
number of addresses to maintain previous
levels of completeness, as recommended by
the Census Bureau, in the range of 3.7 to 4.0
million addresses.
Mr. President, let us not fail rural
and agricultural America for lack of
knowledge that is within our grasp.
Rather, let us gain knowledge upon
which to base sound solutions.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise to
voice my strong support for the Diplo-
matic Security and Anti-Terrorism
Act.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
June 25, 1986
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?SENATE
With the increase in recent years of
terrorist attacks against Americans
and American installations overseas.
Congress has enacted a number of im-
portant pieces of antiterrorism legisla-
tion. As the ranking member on the
Subcommittee on Security and Terror-
ism, I am proud to have worked closely
with Chairman DENTON on many of
those measures. They include the ena-
bling legislation for the Conventions
Against Hostage-Taking, Aircraft Hi-
jacking and Crimes Against Interna-
tionally Protected Persons. A program
of antiterrorism assistance to foreign
countries has been established, a re-
wards-for-information fund was au-
thorized and funded, and a major air-
port security measure was adopted.
Since 1980, as a result of major at-
tacks on United States Embassies in
Iran. Pakistan and Libya. Congress
embarked on a 5 year Security En-
hancement Program and approved
yearly supplemental funds for over-
seas security. Total State Department
funding for security since 1980 has to-
taled over $1.4 billion.
Because of all that Congress has
spent on security during the past 6
years, this legislation demanded care-
ful scrutiny by the Congress. The ad-
ministration requested almost $4.4 bil-
lion for diplomatic security over the
next 4 years. That would amount to a
fourfold increase in funding over the
past 6 years, at a time when we are
making major cuts in important do-
mestic social programs.
No security is foolproof. We can
never make our embassies impenetra-
ble. We must resist the tendency to
adopt a "bunker" mentality, whereby
our embassies become fortresses and
our diplomats cut off from the people
of the countries where they are sta-
tioned. If we allow the fear of terror-
ism to overwhelm us, the terrorists
will have won an important victory.
They will hold this entire country hos-
tage.
I support strong measures to combat
terrorism. I have often recommended
that we develop a comprehensive
counterterrorism policy. Such a policy
should be based on diplomacy, and in-
clude the ability to deter terrorist at-
tacks by extraditing and prosecuting
terrorists, and, if necessary, the dis-
criminate use of force. Finally, we
must do what is reasonably possible to
protect our diplomats stationed over-
seas.
I believe that this bill, as reported
from the Committee on Foreign Rela-
tions, is a good compromise. It author-
izes appropriations for diplomatic se-
curity and antiterrorism totaling $1.1
billion for 1986-87, rather than the
$4.4 billion over 4 years proposed by
the administration.
In arriving at this amount, the com-
mittee considered that not all funds
previously appropriated for security
have been spent, that some of the ad-
ministration's goals do not directly
relate to security, and that others can
be accomplished with less money and
better management. This bill will
insure that existing resources are used
in ways which save lives and protect
American interests. That is exactly
what we should be doing. and I urge
my colleagues to vote for it.
Mr. THURMOND. I rise to com-
mend Senator LUGAR and the members
of the Foreign Relations Committee
for their efforts in bringing this im-
portant legislation before the Senate
today.
Terrorism has increased dramatical-
ly in the last 5 years. I am particularly
concerned that much of the terrorist
activity has been directed against
United States' interests and installa-
tions abroad. The vicious attack in
1984 on American Marines in Beirut.
Lebanon is a clear illustration of ter-
rorism specifically targeted at our
Nation. The tragedy in Beirut and
other acts of terrorism directed at
American officials abroad raise impor-
tant questions concerning the physical
security of United States' Embassies
and our other installations throughout
the world.
Passage of the Diplomatic Security
and Anti-Terrorism Act of 1986 is nec-
essary so that our Nation can better
defend against terrorists attacks. This
legislation establishes the Diplomatic
Security Service (DSS) which will be
responsible for the security of our Em-
bassies. The DSS will operate under
the supervision of the Secretary of
State. Substantial capital improve-
ments to existing diplomatic facilities
in order to improve security are au-
thorized by this bill. The necessary
construction work is to be performed
by American contractors.
Mr. President, this legislation is of
vital importance in order to protect
Americans who serve our Nation over-
seas. I urge its passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If
there be no further amendment to be
proposed, the question is on agreeing
to the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute.
The committee amendment was
agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on the engrossment of the
amendments and the third reading of
the bill.
The amendments were ordered to be
engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill was read a third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill having been read the third time,
the question is, Shall it pass?
So the bill (H.R. 4151), as amended,
was passed.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to
reconsider the vote by which the bill,
as amended, was passed.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I move to
lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. BYRD and Mr. MATHIAS ad-
dressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Democratic leader.
S 8473
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President. I will only
be 1 minute. So that the distinguished
Senator from Maryland will get the
floor. I only want a minute, and I yield
the floor.
Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. President. I
have a unanimous-consent request.
one that I have discussed with the
chairman of the Committee on For-
eign Relations and with the ranking
minority member of the Committee on
Foreign Relations.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that conferees on behalf of the
Senate Governmental Affairs Commit-
tee be appointed specifically to deal
with the Grassley amendment to H.R.
4151.
The Grassley amendment eliminates
two sections of the District of Colum-
bia Code from the law which prohibit
and set penalties for interference with
foreign diplomatic and consular of-
fices, officers, and property. In addi-
tion, the amendment would bring the
District of Columbia under the juris-
diction of the Federal proscriptions
contained in 18 U.S.C. 112. As such, it
is a matter which is arguably within
the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee
on Governmental Efficiency and the
District of Columbia of the Govern-
mental Affairs Committee. For this
reason, I ask that representatives from
that committee be appointed to the
conference to address this amend-
ment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator is advised we have not yet ap-
pointed conferees on this bill.
Mr. MATHIAS. My unanimous con-
sent was when they are appointed that
there be conferees on behalf of the
Governmental Affairs Committee on
that specific amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there objection? Without objection, it
Is so ordered.
Mr. MATHIAS. I thank the minority
leader.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if I might
have 30 seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
minority leader.
Mr. BYRD. I compliment the man-
ager and the ranking manager. Mr.
LUGAR and Mr. Pru. respectively, on
the skill and the great dedication to
the sense of purpose which they have
demonstrated in handling the embassy
security legislation. At all times they
exhibited great forebearance, pa-
tience, and understanding toward
those Senators who sought to bring up
amendments. I thank them for the
good job that they have done on
behalf of the Senate.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I thank
the majority leader, and the minority
leader, for their cooperation.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we
have order in the Senate so that we
can hear the distinguished manager of
the bill?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will
conversations going on please cease?
npriacsified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26 CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
S 8474
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE June 25.1986'
We are asking for order in the Senate.
The Democratic leader's request was
well made. Please desist from further
conversations.
The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, in addi-
tion to my thanks to the majority and
minority leaders. I thank, of course, the
distinguished ranking member of our
committee, and all members of our
committee who have prepared this
markup and debate on this legislation.
Also I want to thank the members of
the staffs on both the majority and
minority sides, and all Senators for
giving us this opportunity.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I concur in
these thoughts of the Senator from
Indiana. I am very grateful to him, to
our staffs, and to the leadership which
helped us keep this bill on the road.
THE JUDICIARY
NOMI TION OF DANIEL A. MANION, OF INDIANA.
TO 11 ? .S. CIRCUIT RIDGE POR THE SEVENTH
CIRCE!
Mr. P In view of the fact that
for the mo nt I have the floor, I
would like to ide into another sub-
ject, the subjec if Daniel Manion to
be a judge in th U.S. Court of Ap-
peals for the Seve Circuit which
concerns me very muc ' deed.
I had the benefit of a ng talk with
him in my office and fo him to be
very open, honest, and dece Howev-
er. measured against the quail ations
needed for a Federal circuit surt
judge, he simply does not mess p,
In experience or legal scholarship.
cause of his lack of qualifications
must oppose his nomination.
In my opinion, it is a shame that Mr.
Manion has to bear the weight of criti-
cism which has been most severe. This
criticism should more properly be re-
served for those in the executive
branch who made such a poor selec-
tion for this nomination.
I would add here that I am not
amongst those who have criticized
Dan Manion because of his beliefs or
his loyalty to his father's precepts or
because he wanted the Ten Command-
ments displayed in school rooms.
Rather I only wish that he had the ju-
dicial qualifications that would have
permitted me to vote for him. I would
only hope that in the future, the exec-
utive branch would send up candidates
who are qualified and whom we in the
Senate can proudly support. To send
up a nomination like this can hurt a
very fine young man without any real
reason.
Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I
oppose the confirmation of Daniel
Manion to be a Federal Judge in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit.
Let me respond at the outset to
those who are so piously regretting
that this issue may well be decided on
a cloture vote instead of an up-or-
down confirmation. That argument is
disingenuous. The simple truth is too
many Members of this body will vote
for any administration nominee who is
still breathing. The Justice Depart-
ment hit bottom when it persuaded
President Reagan to submit Mr. Man-
ion's nomination. By rejecting the
nomination the Senate will be sending
an unmistakable message to Attorney
General Meese that we expect future
judicial nominees to meet at least min-
imum standards of competence.
Mr. Manion's nomination is in trou-
ble for one reason only?his extreme
lack of qualifications. He has had no
experience in Federal courts. His
briefs in State courts border on illiter-
acy. He insulted the Supreme Court
by defying one of its key decisions in-
terpreting the Constitution. He is op-
posed by the deans of a long list of
major law schools throughout the
country, and, compounding all of his
other demerits, he refused to come
clean in his Senate confirmation hear-
ing.
Mr. Manion is a conservative?but
Ideology is not the issue in this debate.
In fact, the issue of ideology is a red
herring in the literal sense?a false
odor dragged across the trail of Senate
debate to confuse the real issue.
Democrats have voted to confirm
dozens of President Reagan's conserv-
ative judicial nominees?but they have
all had adequate qualifications.
Manion flunks the test, not because he
is conservative, but because he is not
qualified. If the President wants to
point the finger of blame for this
fiasco, he need point no further than
Meese for setting the standard of
q ifications so low.
t, the shoe is on the other foot.
Mr. On's lack of qualifications to
be a Fe. ?1 circuit judge is so striking
that it s ? ? ests he was nominated
solely beca of his conservative ide-
ology and no or any distinction in
the law.
In 1979, when I chairman of the
Senate Judiciary Co.... ttee, we held
specific hearings on th election and
confirmation process Federal
judges, in order to develop orkable
and effective set of standards guide
the committee in its evaluation ju-
dicial nominees.
During the course of those hearing
Senator Tinyitmorm, then the ranking
minority member, noted that "it is im-
portant that we keep in mind and cen-
trally focus our efforts on the fact
that we must have qualified people on
the bench ? ? ? our emphasis, there-
fore, must be on ensuring that the ju-
diciary of this country remains filled
with judges of superior quality and
merit."
Senator THURMOND went on to note
that this task "is not to be taken light-
ly but (is) one which the Senate and
this committee, as a screening tool of
the body, must accomplish with care-
ful scrutiny of each nominee." He
then promised that he would continue
to "fully evaluate the candidates to
ensure that only those people best
qualified for appointment are favor-
ably reported- by the Judiciary Com-
mittee.
I completely agree with the views ex-
pressed by Senator THURMOND in 1979
concerning our advice and consent re-
sponsibilities as Members of the
Senate.
Daniel Manion's nomination was not
favorably reported by the Senate Judi-
ciary Committee. and for good reason.
He is not an individual of "superior
quality and merit." Nor is he among
the "best qualified for appointment."
The composition of the Seventh Cir-
cuit Court of Appeals and the creden-
tials of the 13 judges now serving on
that distinguished bench prove the
point.
Six of the 13, almost half of the cur-
rent bench, were already judges at the
time of their nomination to the sev-
enth circuit. Each had demonstrated
an ability to analyze complex legal
Issues and judicial precedents, to apply
the law to the facts in complex cases.
and to write lucid, well-reasoned judi-
cial opinions for the guidance of other
courts, the bar, and the country as a
whole. The skills and experience re-
quired for members of the seventh cir-
cuit were nothing new to these six
judges.
An additional five members of the
seventh circuit had distinguished
themselves as faculty members at law
schools prior to their appointment.
Their experience obviously qualified
them to meet the challenging tasks of
the Federal appellate courts. Both
roles require an exceptional ability to
analyze complex questions of law and
explain their views in clear, concise,
and compelling terms.
The remaining two current members
of the seventh circuit had been prac-
ticing attorneys for 25 years at the
time of their appointments. And each
of them had substantial litigation ex-
perience in the Federal courts.
By comparison. Mr. Manion has no
experience even remotely approaching
the distinguished qualifications of the
judges he aspires to join. He has never
served on the bench, he has never pub-
lished a scholarly work, he has never
been a faculty member at any law
school, and he has never had any sig-
icant experience in dealing with
eral or constitutional issues. In
fact, Mr. Manion has never Oen
argue Federal or a constitutional
claim in ? e court to which he seeks
appointme
Mr. Manion ack of qualifications is
obvious to le of the bar. He re-
ceived the lowest g grade from
the American Bar - . lation's Com-
mittee on the Federal . ciary: a mi-
nority of the ABA co.. ? tee found
him unqualified.
The Chicago Council of La ,an
organization of 1,000 attorneys I he
largest city in the seventh circuit, c
eluded that Mr Manion is not quali-
fied. More than 40 law school deans, in
Dnr+ - gni-11117Pd Cony Approved for Release 2012/01/26 CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
June 25, 1986
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE S 8403
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that a copy of a letter to Senator
Dous be placed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
U.S. SUMS&
Washington, DC, June 4. 1986.
Ron. ROBERT DOLL
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Das Boa: Oklahoma farmers are going to
be put in a real bind unless Congress takes
immediate action to fund the Commodity
Credit Corporation. Today, the Commodity
Credit Corporation (CCC), which funds gov-
ernment farm programs, ran out of money.
As you know, the Senate has included $5.3
billion to fund the CCC in its supplemental
appropriations bill. However, the House in-
cluded no additional funding in its supple-
mental spending bill. As you may recall, an
indefinite CCC appropriation requested by
the Reagan Administration passed the
Senate but was dropped in conference with
the House. Such a measure would have pre-
vented the need for periodic CCC supple-
mental appropriations.
It is Congress' responsibility to compen-
sate the CCC for losses incurred beyond its
$25 billion spending authority. On behalf of
agriculture producers in Oklahoma and
through the nation. I strongly urge your as-
sistance and that of our colleagues in ob-
taining approval of the necessary CCC fund-
ing.
Sincerely,
Dox Monza,
U.S. Senator.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, it is
the responsibility of Congress to com-
pensate the CCC for losses. If Con-
gress is to fulfill its obligation to the
farmers of America, the House and
Senate must stay in session until the
necessary CCC funding is passed and
signed into law. This reminds me of a
time last summer when I warned that
unless Congress completed action on
the wheat section of the farm bill.
Oklahoma farmers would be. unable to
make planting decisions based on pro-
gram details. Farmers lost that round.
Mr. President, how many times will
congressional inaction result in a loss
to the farmers of America? How often
will Congress rebuff the Nation's No. 1
Industry?
Some of the President's advisers,
have expressed opposition to provi-
sions other than the CCC funding in
the appropriations bill. I have asked
several of my colleagues to join me in
a letter to the President urging timely
approval of legislation containing the
necessary CCC funding. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that a copy
of this letter be printed in the Rzcoan
at this point.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
U.S. &MATZ,
Washington, DC, June 24, 1986.
Hon. RONALD REAGAN,
President of the United States, The White
House, Washington, DC.
DEAR MR. Pitssrogrrr: Soon, Congress may
send you a supplemental appropriations bill
containing sorely needed Commodity Credit
Corporation (CCC) funding. Approval of
this legislation will allow resumption of
farm program payments, which have been
suspended since June 4.
Last December, you approved legislation
authorizing five years of farm programs.
Now, farmers are harvesting the first crop
under the new law and are unable to receive
program benefits. Mr. President, they want
and need to be paid. To a great extent, the
existence of rural families and communities
hinges on timely farm program funding.
Your advisers may urge you to veto the
appropriations bill over a separate provision
they find objectionable. If so, we urge you
to act independently, considering a cost too
often lost in billion dollar budget figures-
the human costs the American people will
pay if farm programs remain unfunded.
With this in mind, we strongly urge you to
approve legislation containing the necessary
farm program funding. Your consideration
of this request is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Don Niciuss,
U.S. Senator.
Mr. NICI1N-9 Today, we must
move on farm program funding legisla-
tion so local ASCS offices can deliver
on the promises made by Congress. A
letter I recently received from an
Oklahoma constituent clearly states
the problem at hand. I ask unanimous
consent that the letter from E.O.
Wheeler with Wheeler Bros. Grain Co.
be printed in the RECORD following my
remarks and I urge my colleagues to
join me in heeding its call.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
(Mailgram]
WHEELER BROS. GRAIN Co.,
Watonga, OK, June 21, 1986.
Hon. Dow Morris,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dir.sa Sin: The Oklahoma wheat harvest is
nearly complete. Our farmers need to be
able to receive the Government loan pay-
ments. Many farmers have land payments
and other bills due July lat. We very strong-
ly urge you to do whatever it takes to see
that the local ABCS offices can start writing
checks as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
E.O. WHEELER.
- CONCLUSION OF MORNING
BUSINESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morn-
ing business is closed.
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate
resume legislative session.
? The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
DIPLOMATIC SECURITY AND
ANTITERRORISM ACT
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate
now turn to Calendar Order No. 455,
H.R. 4151, the diplomatic security bill.
The managers are here and prepared
to go.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will report.
. The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 4151) to provide enhanced dip-
lomatic security and combat international
terrorism, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there objection to the request of the
Senator from Kansas?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the bill which
had been reported from the Commit-
tee on Foreign Relations, with an
amendment to strike out all after the
enacting clause, and insert the follow-
ing:
SECTION L SHORT ?MIL
This Act may be cited as the "Diplomatic
Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986".
MC a TAILS or coNTENTS.
The table of contents of this Act is as fol-
lows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
TITLE I-DIPLOMATIC SECURITY
Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 103. Responsibility of the Secretary of
Stale.
Sec. 104. Bureau of Diplomatic Security.
Sec. 105. Responsibilities of the Assistant
Secretary for Diplomatic Secu-
rity.
Sec. 106. Cooperation of other Federal agen-
cies.
TITLE II-DIPLOMATIC SECURITY
SERVICE
Sec. 201. Establishment of Diplomatic Secu-
rity Service.
Sec. 202. Director of Diplomatic Security
Service.
Sec. 203. Positions in the Diplomatic Securi-
ty Service.
TITLE III-PERFORMANCE AND
ACCOUNTABILITY
Sec. 301. Accountability review.
Sec. 302. Accountability Review Board.
Sec. 303. Procedures.
Sec. 304. Findings and recommendaHons by
a Board.
Sec. 305. Relation to other proceedings.
TITLE IV-DIPLOMATIC SECURITY
PROGRAM
Sec. 401. Authorisations Of appropriations.
Sec. 402. Diplomatic construction program.
Sec. 403. Qualifications of persons hired for
the diplomatic construction
program.
Sec. 404. Cost overruns.
Sec. 405. Efficiency in contracting
Sec. 406. Training to improve perimeter se-
entity at United States diplo-
matic missions abroad.
Sec. 407. Certain protective functions.
Sec. 408. Reimbursement of the Department
of the Treasury.
TITLE V-STATE DEPARTMENT AU-
THORITIES TO COMBAT INTERNA-
TIONAL TERRORISM
Sec. 501. Rewards for information relating
?to international narcoterror,
ism and drug trafficking.
Sec. 502. Counterterrorism Protection Fund.
Sec. 503. Authority to control certain terror-
ism-related services.
TITLE VI-FASCELL FELLOWSHIP
PROGRAM
Sec. 601. Short title. '
Sec. 602. Fellowship program for temporary
service at United States mis-
sions in the Soviet Union and
Eastern Europe.
Sec. HS Fellowship Board.
Sec. 404. Fellowships.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4 "m""
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
S 8404 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?SENATE
Sec. SOS Secretary of State.
TITLE VII?MISCELLANEOUS
PROVISIONS
Sec. 701. Peace Corps authorization of aP-
propriations.
TTTLE I?DIPLOMATIC SECURffY
sec mi. atone MEL
Titles I through IV of this Act may be cited
as the "Diplomatic Sentra?, Act"-
SEC Mt FINDINGS AND PUISPOESIL
(a/ FINDINGL?The Congress finds and de-
clares thet?
a) the United States has a crucial stake in
the presence of United States Government
personnel representing United States inter-
ests abroad;
(2) conditions confronting United States
Government personnel and missions abroad
are fraught with security concerns which
will continue for the foreseeable future: and
(3) the resources now available to counter
acts of terrorism and protect and secure
United States Government personnel and
missions abroad, as well as foreign officials
and missions in the United States, are inad-
equate to meet the mounting threat to such
personnel and facilities.
(b) Pulzposas.?The purposes of titles I
through IV are?
(1) to set forth the responsibility of the
Secretary of State with respect to the securi-
ty of diplomatic operations in the United
States and abroad;
(2) to provide for an Assistant Secretary of
State to head the Bureau of Diplomatic Se-
curity of the Department of State, anti to set
forth certain provisions relating to the Dip-
lomatic Security Service of the Department
of State;
(3) to maximize coordination by the De-
partment of State with Federal, State, and
local agencies and agencies of foreign gov-
ernments in order to enhance security pro-
grams:
(4) to promote strengthened security meas-
ures and to provide for the accountability of
United States Goverrunent personnel with
security-related responsibilities: and
(5) to provide authorizations of appro-
priations for the Department of State to
carry out its responsibilities in the area of
security and counterterrorism, and in par-
ticular to finance the acquisition and im-
provements of United States Government
missions abroad, including real property,
buildings, facilities, and communications,
informaticns, and security systems.
SIC 111 RESPONSMULITT OF IRE SECRETARY OF
STATE.
(a) Sammy FuNcrrossa?The Secretary of
State shall develop and implement (in con-
sultation with the heads of other Federal
agencies having personnel or missions
abroad where appropriate and within the
scope of the resources made available) poli-
cies and programs, including funding levels
and standards, to provide for the security of
United States Government operations of a
diplomatic nature and foreign government
operations of a diplomatic nature in the
United States. Such policies and programs
shall include?
U)protection of all United States Govern-
ment personnel on official duty abroad
(other than those personnel under the com-
mand of a United States area military com-
mander) and their accompanying depend-
ents;
(2) establishment and operation of securi-
ty functions at all United States Govern-
ment missions abroad (other than facilities
or installations subject to the control of a
United States area military consmander);
(3) establishment and operation of securi-
ty functions at all Department of State fa-
cilities in the United States; and
(4/ protection of foreign missions, interna-
tional organizations, and foreign officials
and other foreign persons in the United
States, as authorized by law.
lb) ovresiatir or Poem AnnoAra.?The Sec-
retary of State shall?
(1) have full responsibility for the coordi-
nation of all United States Government per-
sonnel assigned to diplomatic or consular
posts or other United States missions
abroad pursuant to United States Govern-
ment authorization (except for facilities, in-
stallations, or personnel under the com-
mand of a United States area military com-
mander); and
(2) establish appropriate overseas staffing
levels for all such posts or missions for all
Federal agencies with activities abroad
(except for personnel and activities under
the command of a United States area mili-
tary commander).
(c) FEDERAL Ron:cr.?As used in this title
and title m. the term "Federal agency" in-
cludes any department or agency of the
United States Government.
SSC me Bowl/ OF DIPLOMATIC SECURITY
(a) THE BORL4u?There shall be a Bureau
of Diplomatic Security in the Department of
State, to be headed by the Assistant Secre-
tary for Diplomatic Security. The Assistant
Secretary shall be responsible for carrying
out the functions and duties set forth in sec-
tion 105 and such additional functions as
may be directed by the Secretary of State.
(b) Numeral or AssiSTANT SECRETARJES.?
The first section of the Act entitled "An Act
to strengthen and improve the organization
and administration of the Department Of
State, and for other purposes," approved
May 26. 1949 (22 U.S.0 2652), is amended by
striking out "fourteen" and inserting in lieu
thereof "fifteen".
ICI POS177O3vS AT LEVEL IV Or THE EXECu-
27v1 SCHEDULZ.?Section 5315 of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by striking
out "(14)" following "Assistant Secretaries
of State" and inserting in lieu thereof
(d) COMPLIANCE Wine BUDGET den?New
spending authority (within the meaning of
section 401(c)(21(C) of the Congressional
Budget and Impoundment Control Act of
1974) provided by the amendment made by
subsection (c) of this section shall be effec-
tive for any fiscal year only to the extent or
in such amounts as provided in appropria-
tions Acts.
SEC. In RESPONS11111,177ES OP THE ASSISTANT SEC-
RETARY FOR DIPLOMATIC SECURITY.
The Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Se-
curity shall be responsible for such activities
related to diplomatic security as the Secre-
tary of State shall designate.
SEC. im COOPERA770N OF OTHER FEDERAL AGEN-
CIES
(a) AsszseaNce.?In order to facilitate ful-
fillment of the responsibilities described in
section 103(a), other Federal agencies shall
cooperate (through agreements) to the maxi-
mum extent possible with the Secretary of
State. Such agencies may, with or without
reimbursement, provide assistance to the
Secretary, perform security inspections, pro-
vide logistical support relating to the differ-
ing missions and facilities of other Federal
agencies, and perform other overseas securi-
ty functions as may be authorized by the
Secretary. Specifically, the Secretary may
agree to delegate operational control of over-
seas security functions of other Federal
agencies to the heads of such agencies, sub-
ject to the Secretary's authority as set forth
in section 10310). The agency head receiving
such delegated authority shall be responsible
to the Secretary in the exercise of the dele-
gated operational control
(b) Onus AGENCIES.?The President shall
prescribe such reputations as may be neces-
June 25, 1986
sary to assure that the implementation of
titles I through IV does not limit or impair
the authority or responsibility of any other
Federal, State, or local agency with respect
o law enforcement, domestic security oper-
Mans, or intelligence activities (as defined
In Executive Order 123331.
(c) CERTAIN LEASE ARRANGEMENTS.?The Ad-
ministrator of General Services is author-
ized to lease (to such extent or in such
amounts as are provided in appropriation
Acts) such amount of space in the United
States as may be necessary for the Depart-
ment of State to accommodate the personnel
required to carry out this title. The Depart-
ment of State shall pay for such space at the
rate established by the Administrator of
General Services for space and related serv-
ices.
TITLE II?DIPLOMATIC SECURITY SERVICE
SEC m. ESTABLISHMENT Of DIPLOMATIC SECURI-
TY MIME
There shall be, within the Bureau of Diplo-
matic Security, the Diplomatic Security
Service. The Diplomatic Security Service
shall perform such functions as may be as-
signed to it by the Secretary of State.
SEC :a DIRECTOR OF DIPLOMATIC SECURITY SERV.
ice
The Diplomatic Security Service shall be
headed by a Director designated by the Sec-
retary of State from among individuals
haying a demonstrated ability in the area of
security, law enforcement, management, or
public administration. The Director shall
act under the supervision and direction of
the Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Secu-
rity.
SEC SU POSITIONS IN THE DIPLOMATIC SECURITY
SERVICE
Positions in the Diplomatic Security Serv-
ice shall be filled in accordance with the
Provisions of the Foreign Service Act of 19110
(22 U.S.C. 3901 et seq.) and title S. United
States Code. In filling such positions, the
Secretary of State shall actively recruit
women and members of minority groups.
The Secretary of State shall prescribe the
qualifications required for assignment or
appointment to such positions. In the case
of positions designated for special agents,
the qualifications may include minimum
and maximum entry age restrictions and
other physical standards and shall incorpo-
rate such standards as may b s inquired by
law in order to perform security functions,
to bear arms, and to exercise Investigatory,
warrant, arrest, and such other authorities
as are available by law to special agents of
the Department of State and the Foreign
Service.
TITLE III?PERFORMANCE AND
A CCOUNTA BILI77'
SEC 351. ACCOUTTADILITY REVIEW.
In any case of serious injury, loss of life,
or significant destruction of property at or
related to a United States Government mis-
sion abroad which is covered by the provi-
sions of titles I through IV (other than a fa-
cility or installation subject to the control of
a United States area military commander),
the Secretary of State shall convene an Ac-
countability Review Board thereafter in this
title referred to as the "Board"). The Secre-
tary shall not convene a Board where the
Secretary determines that a case clearly in-
volves only causes unrelated to security.
SEC :a ACCOUNTABILITY REVIEW WARD.
(a) MEMBERSHIT.?A Board shall consist of
five members, 4 appointed by the Secretary
of State, and I appointed by the Director of
Central Intelligence. The Secretary of State
shall designate the Chairperson of the
Board Members of the Board who are not
Federal officers or employees shall each be
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
June 25, 1986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
paid at a rate not to exceed the maximum
rate of basic pay payable for level GS-18 of
the General Schedule for each day (includ-
ing travel time) during which they are en-
gaged in the actual performance of duties
vested in the Board. Members of the Board
who are Federal officers or employees shall
receive no additional pay by reason of such
membership.
(DI FACILJTTES, SERVICES, SUPPLJES, AND
STAM?
M SUPPLIED BY DEPARTMENT OP STATE.?A
Board shall obtain facilities, services, and
supplies through the Department of State.
AU expenses of the Board, including neces-
sary costs of travel, shall be paid by the De-
partment of State. Travel expenses author-
ized under this paragraph shall be paid in
accordance with subchapter I of chapter 57
of title 5. United States Code, or other appli-
cable law.
(2) Eirrzn..?At the request of a Board, em-
ployees of the Department of State or other
Federal agencies. members of the Foreign
Service, or members of the uniformed serv-
ices may be temporarily assigned, with or
without reimbursement, to assist the Board.
Upon request, the Inspector General of the
Department of State and the Foreign Service
may provide assistance to the Board.
(3) EXPERTS AND corautnivrs.?A Board
may employ and compensate (in accordance
with section 3109 of title 5, United States
Code) such experts and consultants as the
Board considers necessary to carry out its
functions. Experts and consultants so em-
ployed shall be responsible solely to the
Board.
SEC. AIL PROCEDURES
(a) EVIDF.NCI.?
(1) UNTIED STATES GOVERNMENT' PERSONNEL
AND CONTRACTOR.S.?
.00 With respect to any individual de-
scribed in subparagraph (B), a Board may?
(ii administer oaths and affirmations;
nil require that depositions be given and
interrogatories answered: and
(iii) require the attendance and presenta-
tion of testimony and evidence by such indi-
viduaL
Failure of any such individual to comply
with a request of the Board shall be grounds
for disciplinary action by the head of the
Federal agency in which such individual is
employed or serves, or in the case of a con-
tractor, debarment
(B) The individuals referred to in subpara-
graph (A) are?
employees as defined by section 2105 of
title 5, United States Code (including mem-
bers of the Foreign Service);
MI members of the uniformed services as
defined by section 101(3) of title 37, United
States Code:
(iii) employees of instrumentalities of the
United States; and
/iv) individuals employed by any person
or entity under contract with agencies or in-
strumentalities of the United States Govern-
ment to provide services, equipment, or per-
sonnet
(2) Orme einsovs.?With respect to a
person who is not described in paragraph
(1)(B), a Board may administer oaths and
affirmations and require that depositions be
given and interrogatories answered.
(3) SURPOEIVAS.?W The Board may issue a
subpoena for the attendance and testimony
of any person (other than a person described
in clause W, (ii), or (iii) of paragraph
(1)(B)) and the production of documentary
or other evidence from any such person if
the Board finds that such a subpoena is nec-
essary in the interests of justice for the de-
velopment of relevant evidence.
(13) In the case of contumacy or refusal to
obey a subpoena issued under this pare-
graph, a court of the United States within
the jurisdiction of which a person is direct-
ed to appear or produce information, or
within the jurisdiction of which the person
is found, resides, or transacts business, may
upon application of the Attorney General,
issue to such person an order requiring such
person to appear before the Board to give
testimony or produce information as re-
quired by the subpoena.
(C) Subpoenaed witnesses shall be paid the
same fee and mileage allowances which are
paid subpoenaed witnesses in the courts of
the United States.
(b) CONI7DENI7ALITY.?A Board shall adopt
for administrative proceedings under this
title such procedures with respect to confi-
dentiality as may be deemed necessary, in-
cluding procedures relating to the conduct
of closed proceedings or the submission and
use of evidence in camera, to ensure in par-
ticular the protection of classified informa-
tion relating to national defense, foreign
policy, or intelligence matters. The Director
of Central Intelligence shall establish the
level of protection required for intelligence
information and for information relating to
intelligence personnel, including standards
for secure storage.
(c) RECORDS.?Records pertaining to ad-
ministrative proceedings under this title
shall be separated from all other records of
the Department of State and shall be main-
tained under appropriate safeguards to pre-
serve confidentiality and classification of
information. Such records shall be prohibit-
ed from disclosure to the public until such
time as a Board completes its work and is
dismissed. The Department of State shall
turn over to the Director of Central Intelli-
gence intelligence information and informa-
tion relating to intelligence personnel which
shall then become records of the Central In-
telligence Agency. After that time, only such
exemptions as apply to other records of the
Department of State under section 552(b) of
title 5 of the United States Code (relating to
freedom of information) shall be available
for the remaining records of the Board.
(d) STA7'US OF BOARDS.?The provisions of
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. App. 1 et seq.) and section 552b of
title 5 of the United States Code (relating to
open meetings) shall not apply to any
Board.
SEG M. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS BY A
BOARD.
(a) PINDINGS.?A Board convened in any
case shall examine the facts and circum-
stances surrounding the serious injury, loss
of life, or significant destruction of property
at or related to a United States Government
mission abroad and shall make written find-
ings determining?
(1) whether there are reasonable grounds
to believe that the injury, loss of life, or de-
struction of property with respect to which
the Board was convened was security-relat-
ed; and
(2) whether there is reasonable cause to be-
lieve that a breach of duty by an individual
described in section 303(a)(1)(13) contribut-
ed to such injury, loss of life, or destruction
of property.
In making its findings, the Board shall take
into account such standards of conduct,
statutes, rules, regulations, instructions and
other sources as may have been pertinent to
the performance of work and official duties.
(b) PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS.?The
Board shall make recommendations to the
Secretary of State as appropriate to improve
the efficiency, economy, suitability, or secu-
rity of any program or operation which the
Board has reviewed, particularly recommen-
dations to promote security awareness and
individual accountability for security pro-
grams.
S 8405
Ic I DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.?
a Nonce.?Whenever a Board finds rea-
sonable cause to believe than an individual
has breached a duty under subsection (a)(2).
the Board shall promptly notify the individ-
ual concerned. The Board at the same time
shall notify the head of the appropriate Fed-
eral agency or instrumentality of such find-
ing and recommend that such agency or in-
strumentality initiate an appropriate inves-
tigatory or disciplinary proceeding.
(2) Reconos.?Whenever notice of a find-
ing under paragraph (1) is made. the Board
shall transmit to the head of the appropriate
Federal agency or Instrumentality a certi-
fied copy of the record of the pertinent ad-
ministrative proceeding undertaken by the
Board under this title, which shall be part of
the official record for all purposes of any
disciplinary action against the individual
concerned. The head of such agency or in-
strumentality shall maintain such copy
under appropriate safeguards to preserve
confidentiality and classification of infor-
mation. For purposes of section 552(b) of
title 5, United States Code (relating to free-
dom of information), such portion of the
copy which corresponds to the portion of the
original record which was turned over to the
Director of Central Intelligence shall be
deemed to be held by the Director.
(d) REPORTS.?
) PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS. ?In any
case in which a Board transmits recommen-
dations to the Secretary of State under sub-
section (b), the Secretary shall, not later
than 90 days after the receipt of such recom-
mendations, submit a report to the Congress
on each such recommendation and the
action taken with respect to that recommen-
dation.
(2) PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATTONS.?In any
case in which a Board transmits a finding
of reasonable cause under subsection (c), the
head of the Federal agency or instrumentali-
ty receiving the information shall review the
evidence and recommendations and shall,
not later than 30 days after the receipt of
that finding, transmit to the Congress a
report specifying?
(A) the nature of the case and a summary
of the evidence transmitted by the Board;
and
(B) the decision by the Federal agency or
instrumentality to take disciplinary or
other appropriate action against that indi-
vidual or the reasons for deciding not to
take disciplinary or other action with in-
spect to that individuat
SEC. Its, RELATION TO OTHER PROCEEDING&
Nothing in this title shall be construed to
create administrative or judicial review
remedies or rights of action not otherwise
available by law, nor shall any provision of
this title be construed to deprive any person
of any right or legal defense which would
otherwise be available to that person under
any law, ride, or regulation
TITLE IV?DIPLOMATIC SECURITY PREMIUM
SEC. MIL AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATION
(a) DIPLOMA77C Szcuzurr PROGRAM.?
/ IN GENERAL?In addition to amounts
otherwise available for such purposes, the
following amounts are authorized to be ap-
propriated before October 1, 1987, for the De-
partment of State to carry out diplomatic
security construction, acquisition, and oper-
ations pursuant to the Department of State's
Supplemental Diplomatic Security Program,
as justified to the Congress for the respective
fiscal year:
(A) For 'Administration of Foreign Af-
fairs", as follows:
(i) For "Salaries and Expenses",
8245,327,000.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
S 8406 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
(ii) For "Acquisition and Maintenance of
Buildings Abroad". $857,806.000.
liii) For "Counterterrorism Research and
Development", 32.000.000.
(B) For "Antiterrorism Assistance':
34.840.000.
(2) Amounts appropriated pursuant to
this section are authorized to remain avail-
able until expended.
lb) REPROGRAMMING TREATTWENT?Amounts
made available for capital projects pursuant
to subsection tar shall be treated as a repro-
gramming of funds under section 34 of the
State Department Basic Authorities Act of
1956 (22 U.S.C. 2706) and shall not be avail-
able for obligation or expenditure except in
compliance with the procedures applicable
to such reprogramming.
tc) SECURITY REQUIREMENTS OF OTIIER FOR-
EIGN AFFAIRS AGENCIES.?Based solely on se-
curity requirements and within the total
amount of funds available for security, the
Secretary of State shall ensure that an equi-
table level of funding is provided for the se-
curity requirements of other foreign affairs
agencies.
Id) INSUFFICIENCY OF FUNDS.?In the event
that sufficient funds are not available in
any fiscal year for all of the diplomatic secu-
rity construction, acquisition, and oper-
ations pursuant to the Department of State's
Supplemental Diplomatic Security Program,
as justified to the Congress for such fiscal
year, the Secretary of State shall report to
the Congress the effect that the insufficiency
of funds will have with respect to the De-
partment of State and each of the other for-
eign affairs agencies.
SEC 4?2. DIPLOMA TIC CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM.
(a) PREFERENCE FOR UNITED STATES CON-
rnAcroRs.?Notwithstanding section 11 of
the Foreign Service Buildings Act, 1926, and
where adequate competition exists, only
United States persons and qualified United
States joint venture persons may bid on a
diplomatic construction or design project,
for which funds are authorized to be appro-
priated by this title, which has an estimated
total project value exceeding $5,000,000.
(b) EXCEPTION.?Subsection (a) shall not
apply with respect to any diplomatic con-
struction or design project in a foreign
country the laws or policies of which prohib-
it the use of United States contractors on
such projects. The exception contained in
this subsection shall only become effective
with respect to a foreign country 30 days
after the Secretary of State certifies to the
Congress that he has urged such foreign
country to permit the use of United States
contractors on such projects.
DEFINTTIONS.?For the purposes of this
section?
(1 ) the term "adequate competition"
means with respect to a construction
project, the presence of two or more quali-
fied bidders who are (A) United States per-
sons or are qualified United States joint
venture persons and (B) who are submitting
responsive bids for that project,'
(2) the term "United States person" means
a person which?
) is incorporated or legally organized
under the laws of the United States, includ-
ing State, the District of Columbia, and
local laws;
(B) has its principal place of business in
the United States;
(C) has been incorporated or legally orga-
nized in the United States for more than 5
years before the issuance date of the invita-
tion for bids or request for proposals with
respect to a construction project,'
ID) has performed administrative and
technical, professional, or construction serv-
ices similar in complexity, type of construc-
tion, and value to the project being bid;
(E) has achieved total business volume
equal to or greater than the value of the
project being bid in 3 years of the 5-year
period before the date specified in subpara-
graph (C);
(F) employs United States nationals in
more than half of its full-time supervisory
positions in the United States and will
employ United States nationals in 80 per-
cent of the supervisory positions on the for-
eign buildings office project site; and
(G) has the existing technical and finan-
cial resources to perform the contract: and
(3) the term "qualified United States joint
venture person" means a joint venture in
which a United States person or persons
owns at least 51 percent of the assets of the
joint venture
(di AMERICAN MINORITY CONTRACTORS.?Not
less than 10 percent of the amount appropri-
ated pursuant to section 401(a) for diplo-
matic construction projects each fiscal year
shall be allocated to the extent practicable
for contracts with American minority con-
tractors.
lel SECURITY CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR
CoPrrnscrons.?Not later than 90 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secre-
tary of State shall issue regulations to?
(l) strengthen requirements for security
clearances for all contractors and subcon-
tractors involved in any way with a diplo-
matic construction or design project; and
(2) prohibit access to any design or blue-
print relating to such a project by any such
contractor or subcontractor without the ap-
propriate security clearance.
SEC. CM QUALIFICATIONS OF PERSONS HIRED FOR
THE DIPLOMATIC CONSTRUCTION PRO-
GRAM.
In carrying out the diplomatic construc-
tion program referred to in section 401(a),
the Secretary of State shall employ as profes-
sional staff (by appointment, contract, or
otherwise) only those persons with a demon-
strated specialized background in the fields
of construction, construction law, or con-
tract management, In filling such positions,
the Secretary shall actively recruit women
and members of minority groups.
SEC. 554. COST OVERRUNS.
Any amount required to complete any cap-
ital project described in the Department of
State's Supplemental Diplomatic Security
Program, as justified to the Congress for the
respective fiscal year, which is in excess of
the amount made available for that project
shall be treated as a reprogramming of
funds under section 34 of the State Depart-
ment Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22
U.S.C. 2706) and shall not be available for
obligation or expenditure except in compli-
ance with the procedures applicable to such
reprogrammings.
SEC. PK EFFICIENCY IN CONTRACTING.
lal BONUSES AND PENALTIES.?The Director
of the ,Office of Foreign Buildings shall pro-
vide for a contract system of bonuses and
penalties for the diplomatic construction
program funded pursuant to the authoriza-
tions of appropriations provided in this
title. Not later than 3 months after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Director shall
submit a report to the Congress on the im-
plementation of this section.
(b) SURETY BONDS AND GUARANTEES.?The
Director of the Office of Foreign Buildings
shall require each person awarded a con-
tract for work under the diplomatic con-
struction program to post a surety bond or
guarantee, in such amount as the Director
may determine, to assure performance under
such contract.
DISQUALIFICA770N OF CONTRACTORS.?No
person doing business with Libya may be el-
igible for a contract under this Act.
June 1986
SEC. IN TRAINING TO IMPROVE PERIMETER SECU-
RITY AT UNITED STATES DIPLO.M.4rn.
MISSIONS ABROAD.
It is the sense of Congress that the Presi-
dent should use the authority under chapter
8 of title II of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 (relating to antiterrorism assistance)
to improve perimeter security of United
States diplomatic missions abroad.
SEC 497. CERTAIN PROTECTIVE FUNCT/OVi
Section 208(a) of title 3. United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end
thereof the following: "In carrying out any
duty under section 202(7). the Secretary of
State is authorized to utilize any authority
available to the Secretary under title ll of
the State Department Basic Authorities Act
of 1956.".
SEC ala REIMBURSEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
THE TREASURY.
The Secretary of State shall reimburse the
appropriate appropriations account of the
Department of the Treasury out of funds ap-
propriated pursuant to section 401(al(1) for
the actual costs incurred by the United
States Secret Service, as agreed to by the
Secretary of the Treasury, for providing pro-
tection for the spouses of foreign heads of
state.
TITLE V?STATE DEPARTMENT AUTHORITIES
TO COMBAT INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM
SEC. sot. REWARDS FOR INFORMATION RELATING TO
INTERNATIONAL NA RCOTERRORISM
AND DRUG TRAFF7CALVG.
(a) INTER_NAnoNAL TERRORISM.?Section
36(a) of the State Department Basic Au-
thorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2708(a)) is
amended to read as follows:
"(a) The Secretary of State may pay a
reward to any individual who furnishes in-
formation leading to?
"(1) the arrest or conviction in any coun-
try of any individual for committing, or for
conspiring or attempting to commit, an act
of international terrorism; or
"(2) the prevention, frustration, or favor-
able resolution of an act of international
terrorism if the act of international terror-
ism is against a United States person or
United States property and is primarily out-
side the territorial jurisdiction of the United
States.".
(b) INTERNATIONAL NARCOTERRORISM AND
DRUG TRAFFICKING.?Section 36 of such Act is
further amended?
(1) by redesignating subsections Ibl.
(di, (e), and If) as subsections lc), le).
(f), and (g), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (a) the fol-
lowing new subsection:
"(b) The Secretary of State, upon the re-
quest of a chief of mission and with the con-
currence of the Attorney General, may pay a
reward to any individual who furnishes in-
formation leading to?
"(1) the arrest or conviction in any coun-
try of any individual for committing out-
side the United States any narcotics-related
offense if such offense involves or is a signkf-
icant part of conduct that involves?
"(A) a violation of the laws of the United
States for the prevention and control of illic-
it traffic in controlled substances (as such
term is defined for the purpose of the Con-
trolled Substances Act);
"(B) an act of narcoterrortsm, which in-
cludes the killing or kidnapping outside the
territorial jurisdiction of the United States
4!?
"(ii any officer, employee, or contract em-
ployee of the United States Government
while such individual is engaged in official
duties, or on account of that individual's of-
ficial duties, in connection with the enforce-
ment of United States drug laws or the im-
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
June 25, 1986
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 8407
punienting of United States drug control
objectives: or
"(tit a member of the immediate family of
ear such individual on account of that in-
dividual's official duties in connection with
ifse enforcement of United States drug laws
or the implementation of United States drug
control objectives; or
-ICI an attempt or conspiracy to do any of
Hie acts described in paragraph Ill or (21; or
"(2) the prevention or frustration of an
act described in paragraph (1).".
IC1 FUNDING /OR Rzwaitos.?Section 36(g)
of such Act, as redesignated by subsection
110(14 is amended by striking out the Period
at the end of the first sentence and inserting
tit lieu thereof the following: ", up to
$2,000,000 of which may be used for reward.s
for information described in subsection
lb)(1)(A) or (B). In addition to the amount
authorized by the preceding sentence, there
are authorized to be appropriated
$10.000,000 for fiscal year 1987 for 'Adminis-
tration of Foreign Affairs' for use in paying
rewards under this section, up to $5,000,000
of which may be used for rewards for infor-
mation described in subsection (b)(1)(A)
or (13).".
(d) CONFORMING Asesupststrr.?Section 36(f)
of such Act, as redesignated by subsection
(bill), is amended by inserting "or (b)" after
"subsection (a)".
lel REPORTS ON REWARDS; DEFIN177ONS.?
Section 36 of such Act is further amended by
adding at the end thereof the following new
subsections:
"Oil Not later than 30 days after paying
any reward under this section, the Secretary
of State shall submit a report to the Con-
gress with respect to that reward. The report,
which may be submitted on a classified
basis if necessary, shall specify the amount
of the reward paid, to whom the reward was
paid, and the acts with respect to which the
reward was paid, and shall discuss the sig-
nificance of the information for which the
reward was paid in dealing with those acts.
"(1) The purpose of the rewards under sub-
section lb) is to assist narcotics law enforce-
ment in the effective arrest and prosecution
tif major narcotics traffickers and, wherever
aPProPriate, to offer rewards in connection
with the killing of, or the attempt to kill.
any United States officer or employee, in
connection with the peiformance of narcot-
ics control duties by such officer or employ-
ee, or any member of the family of such offi-
cer or employee- To ensure that the rewards
program authorized by this section, espe-
cially subsection (b)(1)(A), does not dupli-
cate or interfere with the payment of in-
formants or the purchase of evidence or in-
formation, as authorized to the Department
of Justice, the offering, administration, and
payment of rewards under subsection (b),
including procedures for?
"(I) identifying individuals, organiza-
tions, and offenses for which rewards will be
Offered,
"(2) the publication of rewards,
"(3) offering of joint rewards with foreign
governments,
"(4) the receipt and analysis of data,
"(5) the payment and the approval of Pay-
ment and
"(6) the recommendations of rewards by
chiefs of mission to the Secretary of State
and the Attorney General,
shall be governed by procedures approved by
the Secretary of State and the Attorney Gen-
eral
"(j) As used in this section?
"(1) the term 'United States drug laws'
means the laws of the United States for the
prevention and control of illicit traffic in
controlled substances (as such term is de-
fined for purposes of the Controlled Sub-
stances Act); and
"(2) the term 'member of the immediate
family' includes?
"(A) a spouse, parent, brother, sister, or
child of the individual;
"(B) a person to whom the individual
stands in loco parentis; and
"IC) any other person living in the indi-
vidual's household and related to the indi-
vidual by blood or marriage".
SEC. SM. COC.VTERTERRORISM PROTECTION FUND.
The State Department Basic Authorities
Act of 1956 is amended?
(1) by redesignating section 39 as section
40; and
(2) by inserting after section 38 (22 U.S.C.
2710) the following new section:
"SEC. :a conTERTERRORISN PROTEcTio,v FUND.
"(a) Au7uonrry.-77te Secretary of State
may reimburse domestic and foreign per-
sons, agencies, or governments for the Pro-
tection of judges or other persons who pro-
vide assistance or information relating to
terrorist incidents primarily outside the ter-
ritorial jurisdiction of the United States.
Before making a payment under this section
in a matter over which there is Federal
criminal jurisdiction, the Secretary shall
advise and consult with the Attorney Gener-
a/
"(b) AU77fORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.?
There are authorized to be appropriated to
the Secretary of State for 'Administration of
Foreign Affairs' $1,000,000 for fiscal year
1986 and $1,000,000 for fiscal year 1987 for
use in reimbursing persons, agencies, or gov-
ernments under this section.
"(c) DesIoNsnom OF FUND.?Amounts made
available under this section may be referred
to as the 'Counterterrorism Protection
Fund'.".
SEC. sat A(7710RITI TO CONTROL CERTAIN TER-
RORISM-RELATED SERVICES
The State Department Basic Authorities
Act of 1956 is amended?
( 1) by redesignating section 40 las so re-
designated by section 502 of this Act) as sec-
tion 41; and
(2) by inserting after section 39 (as added
by section 502 of this Act) the following new
section.'
"SEC. It AUTHORITY TO CONTROL CERTAIN TER-
RORJSN-RELATED SERVICES.
"(a) Atrruonrrr.?The Secretary of State
may, by regulation, impose controls on the
provision of the services described in subsec-
tion (b) if the Secretary determines that pro-
vision of such services would aid and abet
international terrorism.
"(b) SERVICES SUBJECT TO Coternot.?The
services subject to control under subsection
(a) are the following:
"(1) Serving in or with the security forces
of a designated foreign government
"(2) Providing training or other technical
services having a direct military, law en-
forcement, or intelligence application, to or
for the security forces of a designated for-
eign government
Any regulations issued to impose controls
on services described in paragraph (2) shall
list the specific types of training and other
services subject to the controls.
"(c) PERSONS SUBJECT OF CcerisioLs.?These
services may be controlled under subsection
(a) when they are provided within the
United States by any individual or entity
and when they are provided anywhere in the
world by a United States person.
"(el) LICENSES.-17i carrying out subsection
(a), the Secretary of State may require li-
censes, which may be revoked, suspended, or
amended, without prior notice, whenever
such action is deemed to be advisable.
"(e) DEFINITIONS.?
"( 1) DESIGNATED FOREIGN GOVERNMENT.?As
used in this section, the term `designated
foreign government' means a foreign govern-
ment that the Secretary of State has deter-
mined, for purposes of section 60)11) of the
Export Administration Act of 1979, engages
in or provides support for international ter-
rorism.
"(2) SECURJTV FORCES. ?As used in this sec-
tion, the term 'security forces' means any
military or paramilitary forces, any police
or other law enforcement agency (including
any police or other law enforcement agency
at the regional or local level), and any intel-
ligence agency of a foreign government
"(3) UNITED STMTS.?As used in this Sec-
tion, the term 'United States' includes any
State, the District of Columbia. the Com-
monwealth of Puerto Rico. the Common-
wealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
and any territory or possession of the
United States.
"(4) UNITED STATES PERSON?As used in
this section, the term 'United States person'
means any United States national, any per-
manent resident alien, and any sole propri-
etorship, partnership, company, association,
or corporation organized under the laws of
or having its principal place of business
within the United States.
"(f) VIOLATIONS.?
"( PENALTIES.?Whoever willfully violates
any regulation issued under this section
shall be fined not more than $100,000 or five
times the total compensation received for
the conduct which constitutes the violation,
whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not
more than ten years, or both, for each such
offense.
"(2) INVESTIGATIONS.?The Attorney Gener-
al and the Secretary of the Treasury shall
have authority to investigate violations of
regulations issued under this section.
"(g) CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGH7'.?
"(1) REVIEW OF REGULATIONS.?Not leSS
than 30 days before issuing any regulations
under this section (including any amend-
ments thereto), the Secretary of State shall
transmit the proposed regulations to the
Congress.
"(2) REPORTS.?Not less than once every
six months, the Secretary of State shall
report to the Congress concerning the
number and character of licenses granted
and denied during the previous reporting
period, and such other information as the
President may find to be relevant to the ac-
complishment of the objectives of this sec-
tion.
"(h) RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS.?The
authority granted by this section is in addi-
tion to the authorities granted by any other
provision of law.
"(i) Cotarnucriou.?Nothing in this sec-
tion may be construed to make unlawful
any activity conducted by an officer or em-
ployee of the United States Government, or
any agent thereof, which is properly author-
ized and conducted in accordance with Fed-
eral laws, rules, and regulations, including
Executive Orders, governing such activi-
ties.".
TITLE VI?FASCELL FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM
SSC. M. SHORT rirtE.
This title may be cited as the "Fascell Fel-
lowship Act".
SEC. SOL FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM FOR TEMPORARY
SERvICE AT UNITED STATES MISSIONS
IN THE SOVIET UNION AND EASTERN
EUROPE.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT.?There is established a
fellowship program pursuant to which the
Secretary of State will provide fellowships to
United States citizens while they serve, for a
period of between one and two years, in po-
sitions formerly held by foreign national
employees at United States diplomatic or
consular missions in the Soviet Union or
Eastern European countries.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26 : CIA-RDP88G01332R00110017nni9-4 41.11
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
S 8408 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Ibl DESIGNATION OF FELLOWSHIPS.?Fellow-
ships under this title shall be known as
"Fascell Fellowships".
(c) PURPOSE Or nit PELLOWSHIPS.?Fellow-
ships under this title shall be provided in
order to allow the recipient (hereafter in this
title referred to as a "Fellow") to serve on a
short-term basis at a United States diplo-
matic or consular mission in the Soviet
Union or an Eastern European country in
order to obtain first hand exposure to that
country, including (as appropriate) inde-
pendent study in Soviet or Eastern Europe-
an area studies or languages.
(d) INDIVIDUALS WHO MAY RECEIVE A FEL-
LOWSHIP.?To receive a fellowship under this
title, an individual must be a United States
citizen who is an undergraduate or graduate
student, a teacher, scholar, or other academ-
ic, or an other individual, who has expertise
in Soviet or Eastern European area studies
or languages and who has a working knowl-
edge of the principal language of the coun-
try in which he or she would serve.
(el WOMEN AND MEMBERS OP MINORITY
GROUPS. ?In carrying out this section, the
Secretary of State shall actively recruit
women and members of minority groups.
SEC al FELLOWSHIP BOARD.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT AND PUNC770N.?There is
established a Fellowship Board (hereafter in
this title referred to as the "Board"), which
shall select the individuals who will be eligi-
ble to serve as Fellows.
(b) MEMBERSHIP.?The Board shall consist
of 9 members as follows:
al A senior official of the Department of
State (who shall be the chair of the Board),
designated by the Secretary of State.
(2) An officer or employee of the Depart-
ment of Commerce, designated by the Secre-
tary of Commerce.
(3) An officer or employee of the United
States Information Agency, designated by
the Director of that Agency.
(4) Six academic specialists in Soviet or
Eastern European area studies or languages,
appointed by the Secretary of State (in con-
sultation with the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on For-
eign Affairs of the Rouse of Representatives
and the chairman and ranking minority of
the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
Senate).
(c) ifirenuos.?The Board shall meet at
least once each year to select the individuals
who will be eligible to serve as Fellows.
(d) COMPENSATION AND PER MEAL?Members
of the Board shall receive no compensation
on account of their service on the Board, but
while away from their homes or regular
places of business in the performance of
their duties under this title, may be allowed
travel expenses, including per diem in lieu
of subsistence, in the same manner as per-
sons employed intermittently in the Govern-
ment service are allowed expenses under sec-
tion 5703 of title 5 of the United States Code.
SEC MM. FELLOWSHIPS
(a) NUMBER.?Up to 100 fellowships may be
provided under this title each year.
(b) REMUNERATION AND PERIOD.?The Board
shall determine, taking into consideration
the position in which each Fellow will serve
and his or her experience and expertise?
(1) the amount of remuneration the Fellow
will receive for his or her service under this
title, and
(2) the period of the fellowship, which
shall be between one and two years.
lc) TILUNING.?Each Fellow may be given
appropriate training at the Foreign Service
Institute or other appropriate institution.
ki) HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION.?The
Secretary Of State shall, pursuant to regula-
tions?
(1) Provide housing for each Fellow while
the Fellow is serving abroad, including
(where appropriate) housing for family
members; and
(2) pay the costs and expenses incurred by
each Fellow in traveling between the United
States and the country in which the Fellow
serves, including (where appropriate) travel
for family members.
le) EFFECTIVE DATE.?Subsection (d) of this
section shall not take effect until October 1.
1986.
SEC. SAS. SECRETARY OF ST 4TE
(a) DETERMINATIONS.?The Secretary of
State shall determine which of the individ-
uals selected by the Board will serve at each
United States diplomatic or consider mis-
sion in the Soviet Union or Eastern Europe
and the position in which each will serve.
(b) Aurmosrnes.?Such service shall be in
accordance with the relevant authorities of
the Foreign Service Act of 1980, the State De-
partment Basic Authorities Act of 1956, and
title 5 of the United States Code.
(c) FUNDING?Funds appropriated to the
Department of State for "Salaries and Ex-
penses" shall be used for the expenses in-
curred in carrying out this title.
TITLE 1711?MISCELLANEOUS PROI1S10.VS
SEC. 7111. PEACE CORPS AITHORIZATIo.% OF APPRO.
PRIATIO.vS
Section 3 of the Peace Corps Act is amend-
ed by amending subsection (b) to read as fol-
lows:
"(b) There are authorized to be appropri-
ated to carry out the purposes of this Act
$130,000,000 for the fiscal year 1986 and
$137,200,000 for the fiscal year 1987."
Mr. LlJGAR, addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Indiana.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to
ask the Senate's consideration of the
Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism
Act of 1986. This legislation is a re-
sponse to the immediate need to im-
prove the security of our diplomatic
posts overseas and to make manage-
ment and operational changes in the
Department of State which will
strengthen our ability to fight the
threat of terrorism.
In the past few years, we all have
witnessed the deadly consequences of
international terrorism. We know that
much of this terrorism is aimed direct-
ly at America and American interests.
American diplomatic missions, the
people who work in them and their
families are the clearest symbols of
American interests overseas and are,
therefore, prime targets for interna-
tional terrorists.
I think it is particularly important
to point out that, while most people
associate American missions abroad
with the Department of State. in fact
more than 70 percent of the personnel
of the average Embassy are employed
by other U.S. Government agencies.
About 30 U.S. Government agencies
have employees overseas representing
American foreign policy interests, ana-
lyzing international economic develop-
ments, promoting the export of Ameri-
can products and services, and serving
in a wide range of other duties.
The U.S. Government has about
17,000 Americans serving overseas in
diplomatic missions and another ap-
proximately 31,000 foreign nationals.
These numbers do not include person-
nel at military bases who are not in-
June 25, 1986
eluded in the scope of the Diplomatic
Security Act. Therefore, the State De-
partment is responsible for the protec-
tion of about 48,000 employees plus
the families of Americans assigned
overseas.
Last year, a distinguished panel of
experts headed by Adm. Bobby Inman
made an extensive study of the securi-
ty problems facing American interests
overseas. The report of the Inman
panel contained a number of recom-
mendations to improve diplomatic se-
curity overseas as well as security for
foreign diplomats in the United
States.
Most of these recommendations
have been incorporated in the admin-
istration's plan for a new Diplomatic
Security Program. In February of this
year, the State Department presented
Congress with a request for a supple-
mental authorization of $4.4 billion
over 5 years, beginning with the cur-
rent fiscal year.
The administration's original re-
quest for a Diplomatic Security Pro-
gram was contained in S. 2015 which I
introduced earlier this year. The
House passed H.R. 4151, which has the
Diplomatic Security Programs and
seven other titles on subjects related
to various aspects of terrorism. The
Diplomatic Security Program should
be the focus of our attention at this
time and, therefore, the legislation
before us today is an amendment to
H.R. 4151 and concentrates on the ad-
ministration's original request.
Mr. President, the Committee on
Foreign Relations has studied this au-
thorization request for more than 3
months. We have talked with State
Department officials, officials of other
Government agencies represented
overseas and representatives of private
Industry knowledgeable about the
costs and procedures of the Overseas
Security Program.
On May 14, the committee held a
markup on the Diplomatic Security
Act and voted to report the bill which
is before the Senate today. This legis-
lation has several key components:
It authorizes a total of
$1,107,821,000 in supplemental funds
for fiscal years 1986 and 1987.
It establishes within the Depart-
ment of State a Bureau of Diplomatic
Security to be headed by an Assistant
Secretary with overall authority, to
manage the worldwide Security Pro-
gram.
It establishes a Diplomatic Security
Service as a professional career path
in the Department of State.
It establishes an Accountability
Review Board to investigate breaches
of security where there are injuries,
loss of life or serious destruction of
property.
The bill also contains strong prefer-
ence for the use of American compa-
nies in the construction projects and it
bars from these projects any company
doing business with the Government
of Libya.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
June 25, 1.986
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 8409
The committee considered numerous
pieces of legislation dealing with the
broader issue of terrorism. Three sec-
tions were included in the bill that
were contained in the House-passed
measure with slight modifications.
One section adds a new provision to
the current terrorism rewards-for-in-
formation fund to permit rewards
leading to the arrest and prosecution
of major narcotics offenders for nar-
cotics-related offenses committed over-
seas. Included in these offenses are
the killing or kidnaping, or the at-
tempted killing or kidnaping, of U.S.
personnel and their families because
of their connection to U.S. enforce-
ment and control programs. An addi-
tional $5 million is authorized for the
rewards-for-information program for
1987.
A second terrorism-related section
permits the Secretary of State to regu-
late the provision of technical services
to the law enforcement or security
forces of countries defined as support-
ers of terrorism under the terms of
the Export Administration Act. This
provision narrows an original adminis-
tration proposal which arose out of
the Wilson-Terpil case and created
some controversy by its vague defini-
tion of supporters of terrorism.
The last terrorism-related section in
the bill permits the Secretary of State
to make reimbursements for the pro-
tection expenses of those who have
provided information relating to ter-
rorist incidents outside the United
States. This section augments the Ad-
ministration of Justice Program by
providing protection to witnesses in
those instances where the United
States has lent special assistance to
the investigation and prosecution of a
case.
This bill also has a provision for a
fellowship program for United States
citizens to work at American diplomat-
ic missions in the Soviet Union and
Eastern Europe for 1 or 2 years. This
program, named after House Foreign
Affairs Committee Chairman DAN=
FASCELL, would serve two important
purposes:
First, it would allow American stu-
dents, teachers, and scholars to study
the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe-
an countries firsthand, a valuable re-
source to the United States.
Second, the Americans in this pro-
gram would replace some Soviet and
East bloc nationals working in our Em-
bassies, thus increasing the overall se-
curity at these posts.
The cost of this program would
come from the State Department's sal-
aries and expenses account and no ad-
ditional authorization is necessary.
Finally, this bill also has an amend-
ment, added in the markup, to author-
ize an additional $7.2 million for the
Peace Corps in fiscal year 1987. This
amendment, which increases the
Peace Corps' total authorization to
$137.2 million, was proposed by Sena-
tor DODD and cosponsored by Senator
KERRY and Senator EVANS. The objec-
tive of the amendment is to allow the
Peace Corps to begin implementation
of a 8-year plan to increase its volun-
teer force which Congress requested in
Public Law 99-83 in 1985.
Mr. President, I would like to pro-
vide some additional details on the
budget and the process by which the
committee arrived at the authoriza-
tion levels. As I said earlier, we studied
the budget request in great detail. The
budget submission provided by the
State Department is more than 300
pages and each line item has a narra-
tive to describe the particular expense
and the reason for the request.
In examining the State Department
request, we considered two main com-
ponents: the total amount?$4.4 bil-
lion?and the period of authoriza-
tion-5 years.
The committee decided that a short-
er authorization period was necessary
In order to fulfill our responsibility to
those who represent our Government
overseas and taxpayers here at home
to see to it that the money is spent in
the most efficient and effective
manner. During the coming year, we
will be examining the budget very
closely to monitor the State Depart-
ment's performance with these funds
and funds received in previous years.
Then, during the next, regular 2-year
authorization process, we will respond
to the situation and the needs at that
time.
Another reason for the shorter au-
thorization period is that this program
Is much larger than anything the
State Department has undertaken
before and we want to be in a position
to positively influence the Security
Program should changes be necessary.
As to the amounts of specific au-
thorization, the funds are intended for
the following four categories:
For salaries and expenses,
$243,175,000. In this category, the
committee has made clear to the De-
partment of State that the money
should be spent on personnel and pro-
grams directly related to security.
Nonessential items were cut back or
eliminated from this authorization.
This category has such important
items as perimeter security for Ameri-
can missions, Marine guards, Seabees
and security training. Also included
here is money for counterintelligence
and communications security, an area
which the Inman Panel identified as
needing special attention and which
the committee agrees should have
high priority.
For the acquisition and maintenance
of buildings abroad, $857,806,000. With
these funds the State Department will
undertake the construction or renova-
tion of diplomatic posts overseas and
Incorporate into these buildings new
security systems and equipment. The
cost of these individual projects is
high because of the unique security re-
quirements of American diplomatic
posts and the need, in some cases, to
acquire additional land to set back the
buildings 100 feet from main roads, as
security experts and Inman Panel rec-
ommend. In this category again, we
have made it clear to the State De-
partment that it should not spend this
money on nonessentials and it should
be very, very careful in its planning of
new buildings to avoid costly designs
that contribute nothing to security or
basis building needs.
For counterterrorism research and
development. $2.000,000. The technol-
ogy which terrorists have used against
our interests is not static but will
change and become more dangerous.
Therefore, we must continue our own
research to anticipate and negate
whatever threats we will face in the
future.
For antiterrorism assistance.
$4.840,000. This money is for the con-
tinuation of a program that provides
training and equipment to help for-
eign governments improve their anti-
terrorist capabilities. This program
also acts as an incentive to other coun-
tries to cooperate with the United
States and other friendly governments
In combating international terrorism.
Mr. President. the Committee on
Foreign Relations had two objectives
in formulating this supplemental au-
thorization. The committee wanted to
authorize a program which will sub-
stantially increase our ability to pro-
tect our people and our interests over-
seas. The committee also wanted to
authorize a program which accommo-
dates the tight budget situation which
we are all facing today.
This supplemental authorization
achieves both of those objectives and I
urge my colleagues to vote in favor of
the Diplomatic Security and Anti-Ter-
rorism Act of 1986.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
GOLDWATER). The Senator from Rhode
Island.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I join the
chairman in urging the Senate to pass
the Diplomatic Security and Antiter-
rorism Act of 1988. This bill. H.R.
4151, would authorize an appropria-
tion of $1.1 billion for fiscal year 1986
and 1987 to initiate the administra-
tion's 5-year $4.4 billion security en-
hancement program. This project is
designed primarily to finance the ac-
quisition and construction of over 70
new chanceries, consulates, or resi-
dences and the renovation of art' addi-
tional 170 posts. In addition to this
ambitious construction program, the
administration, through this legisla-
tion, hopes to:
First, consolidate all of the overseas
diplomatic security responsibilities in
the Department of State and create a
new bureau for this purpose:
Second, establish a board of inquiry
and accountability to review security
breaches and to recommend action
against negligent personnel;
Third, increase the protective serv-
ices provided by the Department of
State for foreign official visitors and
diplomats within the United States:
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
I Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
-t:14
S 8410 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?SENATE
Fourth. strengthen the residential
security provided for U.S. employees
at high threat diplomatic posts:
Fifth. increase the staff and training
of security personnel in the State De-
partment; and
Sixth, provide additional and im-
proved technical security and commu-
nications equipment to reduce the vul-
nerability of U.S. diplomatic missions
to electronic penetration.
Mr. President, there is no question
that we must do all that is possible to
provide adequate protection for Amer-
ican personnel abroad. Americans are
being attacked in larger numbers and
in increasingly brutal and indiscrimi-
nate ways. Since 1975, there have been
a large number of citizens killed in 243
attacks against U.S. Embassies and
personnel abroad.
In fact, more ambassadors have been
assassinated since World War II while
serving our Nation abroad than all of
our generals and admirals killed in the
same period as a result of two wars
from enemy action. American diplo-
mats deserve better protection.
I realize the numbers involved may
not seem large in scope. In fact, since
1988, nearly 1,000 times as many
Americans were killed as the result of
CASUALTIES CAUSED BY INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM, l968-85
(U.S Diortmee1 cif Dote. Ike 1ff Cur4,46rorism 4441 Ernmpocy PIrme]
June a 1986"
drunk driving as of terrorists, but the
very fact of Americans working for
their Government being at risk I think
is a fact that we should prevent.
In this regard, with regard to the
total number of casualties, I ask unan-
imous consent to insert into the
RECORD at this point a table prepared
by the Department of State on U.S.
casualties caused by international ter-
rorism, 1968-85.
There being no objection, the table
was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
1994 1119 1970
1971 1472 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1970
1979 IMO 191I 11112 1913 IIP 19M
Wail ROL
S 3 6
TI 19 3 14
4 23
23 33
23 42 IS
4
2 17 78 32 7
9 15 9 1 s 711 11 21
21 21 17 40 II 115 31 111
IU ....... 15 6 20
27 56 25 59 96 79 11
3) 36 26 47 le 340 42 111
Mr. PELL. In July 1984, in response
to the increasingly visible problem of
state-sponsored terrorism. Secretary
Shultz created an Advisory Panel on
Overseas Security, chaired by Adm.
Bobby Inman. Other members of the
panel were Senator WARREN RUDMAN of
New Hampshire; Ambassador Anne
Armstrong. chairperson of the Presi-
dent's foreign intelligence advisory
board: Congressman DAN Mics from
Florida; Lt. Gen. D'Wayne Gray. U.S.
Marine Corps: Ambassador Larry Eag-
leburger, Robert McGuire, chief execu-
tive officer of Pinkerton's Inc.; and
Victor Dikeos, former director of secu-
rity and of the multinational force in
Rome.
This panel was created to review our
security posture and to chart a course
of action for the U.S. Government to
take in better defending our persormel
and buildings abroad, Our current de-
fenses were simply inadequate. A more
progressive plan to combat the scourge
of terrorism was needed.
In June 1985, the Inman panel sub-
mitted its comprehensive study and
109 recommendations. Most of these
recommendations which cover a wide
range of physical and technical securi-
ty, intelligence, organization and dip-
lomatic efforts to combat terrorism
were accepted by the Department of
State. H.R. 4151 is designed to imple-
ment the Inman recommendation. In
addition to the Department, many
other agencies with personnel and in-
terests abroad contributed to the de-
velopment of this legislation.
This bill has broad bipartisan sup-
port. It passed the Democratic House
by a vote of 389 to 71. Therefore, I
urge my colleagues to support this bill.
The lives of Americans working
abroad may depend upon it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Maryland.
Mr. SARBAN:ES. Mr. President. I
rise in support of this legislation, now
pending on the floor, to provide and
enhance diplomatic security for our
personnel serving abroad. This propos-
e flows from a series of recommenda-
tions made by the Advisory Panel on
Overseas Security, which was con-
vened by the Secretary of State
following the Beirut bombings and
chaired by Adm. Bobby Inman, now
retired and, in my opinion, one of
the most able men we have had in
public service in this country in recent
times. After a very thorough review of
the problem, the Inman panel recom-
mended a series of steps, well over 100,
that could be taken to improve securi-
ty.
While the panel noted that it was
not possible to prevent all attacks
upon our overseas facilities, it did
detail a number of steps that could be
taken to bring about significant im-
provement in the situation, including
increased professionalism on the part
of State Department security person-
nel, a strict accountability in cases in-
volving a significant loss of life, and a
major construction program for up-
grading and building new diplomatic
facilities overseas.
On the basis of the Inman panel rec-
ommendations, the administration
submitted recommendations to Con-
gress. The House of Representatives
has acted and now it is time for the
Senate to act.
Given the parliamentary situation, I
will not propose an amendment on the
floor, but I regret that an amendment
I offered in the committee, which
would have increased the authoriza-
tion level of this bill by about 25 per-
cent, was defeated on a close vote of 7
to 10 within the committee. That
amendment was geared to provide an
authorization sufficient to fund all the
items which the Department of State
had included within a band 1 recom-
mendation.
The Department had originally sub-
mitted a very broad request to Con-
gress. They were asked to reexamine
their request very carefully, to consid-
er it,, to put priority items first in the
process of making that judgment, they
came up, in effect, with band 1 recom-
mendations. To provide an authoriza-
tion for that band would have re-
quired an increase of about 25 percent
over what is contained in the bill. I
made such a proposal in the commit-
tee. It was not adopted?regrettably,
in my view, because I do think this is
an extremely important program, one
that Congress needs to stand behind.
We had the benefit of the State De-
partment's judvnent as to what were
the priority items and I thought it,
better to accept their evaluation items
rather than for Congress, in elect, to
substitute its own judgment. I am
hopeful that when this matter goes to
conference, we will be able to arrive at
a figure that rests upon some solid
basis for meeting the recommendation
from the executive branch to Congress
as to the authorization that is abso-
lutely necessary. It seems to me that
when the executive branch is really
pushed to provide their top priorities,
as was done with respect to this band 1
recommendation, Congress ought to
go along with it.
This is a program with which we
should be penny-wise, because I' be-
lieve we will end up running a very
high risk: We will not only be pound-
foolish in terms of the expenditure of
money, but lives will be at risk.
The fact of the matter is that our
diplomatic personnel serving in over-
seas posts are probably as much at risk
as anyone serving in the U.S. Govern-
ment under current circumstances.
The figures on the number of diplo-
matic personnel who have been killed
or injured over the last decade, as we
confront the problem of international
terrorism, are sufficient to cause not
only concern but alarm. I think it is
very important that we are now
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
June 25, 1986
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?SENATE S 8411
moving in a forthright way to deal
with this problem.
The pending legislation seeks to do
that. It does not go quite as far as I
think it should have gone. I am hope-
ful that when we resolve the differ-
ences between the House and the
Senate. we will be able to do better.
This is an extremely important pro-
gram. I know Members appreciate
that.
0 1220
There is an understandable tendency
to focus on this program and its im-
portance in the immediate aftermath
of a particular incident, of a loss of life
or an attack. We must also take the
longer view. It is very important for
Members of Congress and indeed the
Nation to comprehend and appreciate
the importance of the very well
thought out and considered recom-
mendations of the Inman panel. Con-
gress and the country must stand
behind the program on a sustained,
continuing basis in order to do what
we can to enhance diplomatic security
and to provide the maximum protec-
tion possible we can for our personnel.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
AMENDMENT NO. 2172
Mr. DURENBERGER addressed the
Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. Presi-
dent. I send an amendment to the desk
and ask for its immediate consider-
ation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read
as follows:
The Senator from Minnesota (Mr. DUREN-
BERGER). for himself and Mr. LZAHY, pro-
poses an amendment numbered 2172.
Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. Presi-
dent. I ask unanimous consent that
further reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 101, in line 15, delete
"S245.327,000" and insert "8283.104.000."
On page 108. between lines 20 and 21,
insert the following new subsection:
"(e) ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR CERTAIN SE-
CURITY PROGRAMS.?Of the amount of funds
authorized to be appropriated by paragraph
(a)(1X Ax I). $34,537.000 shall be available
only for the protection of classified office
equipment, the expansion of information
systems security, and the hiring of American
systems managers and operators for comput-
ers at high threat locations.
Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. Presi-
dent, I rise in my capacity as chairman
of the Senate Select Committee on In-
telligence to propose the amendment
before us. I ask unanimous consent
that in addition to my colleague, the
Senator from Vermont (Mr. Way),
who is the ranking member and the
vice chairman of the Intelligence Com-
mittee, Senators Colizm, MIIRKOWSKI,
HEcirr, McCoxsztt, and BErerszri also
be included as cosponsors of the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection. it is so ordered.
Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. Presi-
dent, I will be very brief, I will begin
by complimenting my colleagues on
the Foreign Relations Committee for
the difficult task they have undertak-
en over the last year-and-a-half to deal
with the issues of diplomatic and em-
bassy security, not an easy task, and
always a task that has resource param-
eters pressing. So I compliment the
chairman of the committee and the
ranking member of the committee for
the excellent job that they and mem-
bers of the Foreign Relations Commit-
tee have done.
Mr. President, the Diplomatic Secu-
rity Act is an incredibly important
measure. In the wake of the Beiruit
bombings and numerous other terror-
ist attacks, our willingness to create a
Bureau of Diplomatic Security and to
authorize funds for better security is a
crucial, tangible commitment of Con-
gress to United States interests around
the world. Without this concrete com-
mitment to security, our Nation will be
unable to maintain its active role in
the world's capitals and centers of
commerce.
Just as we support the Nation's de-
fense, so must we now support it diplo-
matic security. Our diplomatic pres-
ence abroad is truly the first line of
our defense. It enables us to seize op-
portunities for cooperation and for the
amicable settlement of disputes with
others. It saves us from having to
resort to military measures, and it
paves the way for the efficient use of
our armed forces when that is neces-
sary. We cannot?and must not?do
without an active, assertive diplomatic
presence overseas.
While much of the authorization in
this bill is to improve the physical se-
curity of U.S. diplomatic facilities
against the terrorist threat, some of
the funding covers the important need
for technical protection against hostile
intelligence services. As our Embassies
have adopted modern methods of com-
munication, our adversaries have
adopted modern methods to penetrate
those communications. If our secrets
are not to be compromised, we must
improve our defenses against those
hostile efforts. We must not scrimp on
this protection. The compromise of
sensitive information, whether it con-
cerns secret negotiations instructions
or embassy security plans, can threat-
en American interests as severely as
any terrorist bomb.
Indeed, it is especially important
that we appreciate the inherent link
between technical security and securi-
ty against terrorism. Counterterrorist
plans do not emerge out of thin air;
they are written, discussed, and may
well be stored in computers. Seemingly
innocent information from people's
conversations, communications or
data bases can be of tremendous help
to terrorist plotters or to the states
that support them. And frankly, no
physical security system if foolproof.
It is of the utmost importance, then.
to safeguard the information about
our physical security efforts so that
terrorists will not discover ways
around them. The technical security
programs that this amendment sup-
ports are a vital link in the chain of
defense against terrorist attacks on
U.S. facilities overseas.
The Foreign Relations Committee
has subjected this bill to intense scru-
tiny and significant reductions. I can
well appreciate the need, in a very dif-
ficult year from the budgetary stand-
point, to pare down expensive building
proposals. But these technical security
programs are relatively low-budget
items that are well worth the funds
they require. They are needed now,
and they can be implemented now;
they are not dependent upon the pace
of new Embassy construction; and
they can all be accommodated within
the levels prescribed in the report of
the committee of conference on the
State Department supplemental ap-
propriation. Now that the conference
report on the urgent supplemental has
adopted a "salaries and expenses"
figure that would permit full funding
of these programs, we on the Intelli-
gence Committee strongly urge our
colleagues to earmark some of that
figure for these programs.
There are three technical security
areas that merit this special attention:
protection of classified office equip-
ment; expansion of information sys-
tems security; and hiring of U.S. citi-
zens to manage and operate Embassy
computers in high-threat locations.
This amendment would provide $34.6
million for these programs, compared
to the $12.6 million recommended by
the Foreign Relations Committee. The
amendment would delete another $7.7
million requested by the State Depart-
ment that could not reasonably be
used by these programs in fiscal year
1987.
These programs all respond to con-
cerns raised by Admiral Inman's Advi-
sory Panel on Overseas Security, and
also by the Select Committee on Intel-
ligence in our yearlong study of U.S.
counterintelligence and security pro-
grams. Several of these programs grow
out of efforts that were supported by
the $35 million supplemental appro-
priation that Congress enacted last
year at the urging of the Intelligence
Committee.
Mr. President, security has long
been the stepchild of our bureaucra-
cies. It is inevitably seen as a sidelight,
taking resources away from major mis-
sions and making people's lives more
difficult. But security is essential, and
events of recent years have made that
terribly clear. In the past year, dec-
ades of bureaucratic inertia have been
overcome and the Government has
begun programs to improve the securi-
ty of both persons and programs.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
J Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
S 8412 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE
Now we must keep up that momen-
tum. Programs that we have called for
are beginning to appear; now we must
fund them and support them. The
payoffs will be real but invisible. They
will be terrorist Opts that fail, or that
are rejected by the terrorists them-
selveg, they will be intelligence coups
that our enemies never achieve: they
will be state visits that are unmarred
by security problems, buildings that
are neither bombed nor broken into,
and secrets that remain secret.
This is a silent war, and the techni-
cal security programs that this amend-
ment supports are a crucial movement
of forces in that campaign. I urge my
colleagues of the Senate to enlist in
this campaign by supporting this
amendment.
Mr. President, I also have a detailed
description of the programs that this
amendment supports. I ask unanimous
consent that it be included in the
liscoau at this point.
There being no objection, the de-
scription was ordered to be printed in
the Rscoan, as follows:
Paorscrion or CLASSIFIED Orrice
Ecanyworr
Emanations from electronic equipment
can be intercepted and converted from elec-
tronic impulses into human language. In the
past. recognition of this vulnerability has
led to extraordinary physical and electronic
protection for communications centers and
communications equipment at overseas
posts. Recent events have highlighted an-
other important area of vulnerability: inter-
ception of emanations from typewriters and
office equipment that are used to process
classified information. To address this prob-
lem. the State Department has developed a
coordinated program to protect classified
office equipment.
The equipment protection program has
four parts product certification: secure
transportation with State Department
couriers; secure handling of repair jobs; and
regular inspections a both equipment and
security practices. New technical equipment
Is required in each of these areas, as well as
more couriers, inspection personnel, and
contracts for secure repair of the office
equipment. The State Department request-
ed 03,287.000 over two years for this pro-
gram; we estimate that they can usefully
spend $28.227.000 in fiscal year 1987. The
Foreign Relations Committee would author-
he only $10,648,000.
EXPANSION OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS
SECURITY
The Department of State and other for-
eign affairs agencies are rapidly increasing
their use of computers and word processors
overseas. Admiral Inman's Advisory Panel
on Overseas Security notes that this in-
crease is being sommpanied by a document-
ed increase in the hostile electronic intelli-
gence threat at those overseas facilities.
Currently, however, there are few State De-
partment personnel available to work on
this problem, and none at the Regional Ad-
ministrative Management Centers to which
embassies typically turn first for help in
managing office systems.
The Department of State proposes to
assign six computer security personnel and
one administrator to its three Regional Ad-
ministrative Management Centers, and two
computer security people plus an adminis-
trator for headquarters- They requested
81,872.000 for two years, but could usefully
spend 8764,000 in fiscal year 1867. The For-
eign Relations Committee would authorize
only 8345,000.
U.S. MANAGERS AND OPERATORS OP COMPVTERS
AT HIGN-THREAT LOCATIONS
The State Department operates large
minicomputer systems and small office in-
formation (word processing) systems in
many overseas locations. While these are
unclassified systems, some contain sensitive
information, particularly when the informa-
tion in several files can be accessed and ana-
lysed In the aggregate. Unclassified systems
at high technical threat locations are espe-
cially vulnerable, and foreign nationals are
currently involved in the management and
operation of systems in those locations. The
State Department has designated certain
countries as high technical threat locations
based upon reported efforts of other coun-
tries to penetrate electronic systems in
those locations.
Admiral Inman's Advisory Panel on Over-
sees Security recommends that no foreign
national employee have access to an auto-
mated information system at any U.S. Em-
bassy. and the State Department proposes
at least to eliminate such foreign nationals
as managers and operators of the equip-
ment in high threat areas. State Depart-
ment requested $7,124.000 far this program
over two years, and we estimate that they
could usefully spend their hell FY 1987 re-
quest of $5,5411,000. The Foreign Relations
Committee would authorise only $1.578,000.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President. I rise in
support of the amendment from the
distinguished chairman of the Intelli-
gence Committee. The Foreign Rela-
tions Committee and. the Intelligence
Committee have consulted with regard
to the wisdom of this amendment and
come to a unanimous point of view
that it is in the best interest of this
legislation and therefore we are pre-
pared to accept the amendment on
this tide.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I concur in
the view of our chairman. I think it is
a good amendment. It is being joined
by both the Intelligence and Foreign
Relations Committees. However,
before acting on it, I know that my
colleague, the Senator from Vermont
(Mr. Lasnyl, would like to comment
on it.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the call of the
quorum be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am de-
lighted to cosponsor this amendment
with my distinguished colleague, the
chairman of the Intelligence Commit-
tee, Senator DURENBERGER. I see in the
chair the distinguished senior Senator
from Arizona and former chairman of
the Senate Intelligence Committee. I
know both of my colleagues are well
aware of the security considerations
reflected in this amendment. The
Durenberger-Leahy amendment to the
Diplomatic Security Act would ear-
mark $34,537,000 in the diplomatic se-
curity bill for three very important
June 25, 1.986
technical security programs. Current-
ly, the bill provides only 41254 million
for these programs. Our amendment
earmarks an additional $21 mtllion.
almost $22 million for technical securi-
ty improvements in our Embassies.
The security of our Embassies and
consulates abroad is a critical matter
for all Americans. certainly to any of
those who have visited abroad. It has
been one of the first things mentioned
to me by our ambassadors or our
security people. It is important
for those who serve our country
abroad, for those who use American
facilities when they travel and really
for each of us who care about Ameri-
ca's ability to pursue an effective for-
eign policy. We have to protect our fa-
cilities abroad so that we can continue
to influence and assist and do business
with other people in the world. We are
the preeminent nation in the world.
We have to be able to carry out our re-
sponsibilities worldwide.
In an age of modern terrorism, it is
not enough to bar the doors or to but-
tress walls or to hire more guards. Ter-
rorists, and those who aid them, espe-
cially when it is State sponsored ter-
rorism, can and do subject U.S. facili-
ties to intensive surveillance, enor-
mous surveillance. They seek to under-
stand our security measures to deter-
mine their weak points. If we fail to
protect the information about our se-
curity practices, we make it that much
easier for terrorists to attack us.
Now, the State Department, re-
sponding to the recommendations of
Admiral Bobby Inman's Advisory
Panel on Overseas Security, has pro-
posed some excellent programs to im-
prove the security of communications
and computers in 1J.S. Embassies.
These programs are aimed at making
sure that the typewriters and word
processors handling classified informa-
tion do not fall into hostile hsuids.
Certainly, as vice chairman of the In-
telligence Committee, I understand
the concerns we have about that, as do
the two distinguished Senators, the
Senator from Minnesota and the Sena-
tor from Arizona_
0 1230
These programs are aimed at making
sure that the typewriters and word
processors handling classified informa-
tion do not fan into hostile bands.
They will put Americans in charge of
the computers in U.S. Embassies,.
rather than leaving reams of sensitive
Information in the hands of foreign
employees who may actually be hostile
intelligence agents, and oftentimes
, and they will provide computer se-
ty experts, both at headquarters
d in regional communications sup-
rt centers. These are the most basic
security measures. They can be im-
emented in our current Embassies
nstead of waiting for new ones to be
ilt, and they can be funded without
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26 : CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
June 25, 1986
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 8413
adding to the overall total authorized
in this bill. They deserve our support.
Today we are going to vote on au-
thorizing $1.1 billion for overseas secu-
rity through fiscal year 1987. The
$34.537,000 that our amendment ear-
marks for high-priority technical secu-
rity programs is only about 3 percent
of the bill. I believe that the State De-
partment can squeeze that amount out
of its construction budget. Surely this
is not too high a price to enhance
technical security in those new embas-
sy buildings this bill will fund.
Let us make sure that our computers
and word processors are in the hands
of Americans, not hostile agents, as
they have been many times in the
past. The amount of money we are
talking about is a tiny fraction of what
we would lose if we do not do that.
As a member of the Appropriations
Committee, I emphasize that our
amendment is within the figures
agreed to by the conference committee
on the urgent supplemental appropria-
tion. As a concerned citizen, I am con-
vinced that this sign of our determina-
tion to strengthen technical security is
a vital part of the effort to improve
our security against hostile intelli-
gence services and terrorist organiza-
tions. I urge the floor managers to
accept this amendment and my fellow
Senators to support it.
Mr. DURENBERGER.. Mr. Presi-
dent. I thank my colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment.
The amendment (No. 2172) was
agreed to.
Mr. DURENBERGER. Mr. Presi-
dent. I move to reconsider the vote by
which the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. LEAKY I move to lay the
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
/11112112421311 170. 2173
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I
send an amendment to the desk and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read
as follows:
The Senator from Iowa [Mr. GltASSIXYL
for himself, Mr. Diane'', and Mr. Di:Com-
et'''. proposes an amendment numbered
2173:
At the appropriate place in the bill add
the following new section: That (a) para-
graph (3) of subsection (b) of section 112 of
title 18, United States Code. is amended by
striking out "but outside the District of Co-
lumbia and-.
(b) The Act entitled "An Act to protect
foreign diplomats and consular officers and
the buildings and premises occupied by
them in the District of Columbia". approved
February 15. 1938 (52 Stat. 30: D.C. Code
22-1115 and 1116) is repealed.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I
thank Senator DECoNcrzii and Senator
DENTON for cosponsoring this amend-
ment with me.
This amendment is a product of leg-
islation that Senator DzComcnn and I
recently introduced, which was S.
2508. This would repeal a District of
Columbia Code, and the section
number is 22-1115. This local law for
the District of Columbia makes it a
crime to congregate within 500 feet of
an Embassy and to refuse to disperse
when ordered to do so by the police.
In effect, S. 2508 would replace the
local law with a more recent and more
comprehensive congressional statute
codified in the Federal criminal law,
and that was put on the books in 1972.
The Federal statute protects foreign
diplomats in all 50 States in this coun-
try, such as New York, where the
headquarters of the United Nations is,
and the home of many foreign diplo-
mats of ambassadorial rank. This 1972
law prohibits activity within 100 feet?
as compared to the 500 feet of D.C.
law?of a diplomatic facility when it is
designed to threaten, harass, coerce,
or intimidate those entering or those
leaving such a facility.
Congress did not extend this law to
the District of Columbia, because it
was said at that time that the District
already had sufficient law, and it was
evidently thought to be similar to this
1972 law.
However, the fact is this: The Dis-
trict of Columbia law is in no way
similar. Unlike the Federal law, D.C.
law prohibits more than two people
from standing in front of an Embassy.
On its face, this law, it seems to me,
Infringes upon our constitutional right
of freedom of speech and freedom of
assembly.
Moreover, we have had selective en-
forcement of the D.C. statute. That
has resulted in the arrests of peaceful
demonstrators?arrests that have
taken these people, so arrested,
through an ordeal of prosecution,
trial, sentence, and, in some cases,
even imprisonment.
It is grossly offensive to our consti-
tutional values in this country to sub-
ject a U.S. citizen to prosecution
simply because he or she stands peace-
fully on a public street holding a sign
that might say something like "Russia
Get Out Of Afghanistan," or have the
word "Solidarity" on it, or have the
words "Apartheid Is Evil."
There is no reason why professional
diplomats in the District of Columbia
need more protection from seeing such
demonstrations than, say, those locat-
ed at the consulates in New York or
Chicago or Los Angeles.
What I have sent to the desk is, of
course, the contents of S. 2508 in
amendment form. Its adoption will
ensure uniform treatment of Embassy
property and personnel, while at the
same time it ought to protect impor-
tant constitutional rights of U.S. citi-
zens.
Mr. President, the bill I have re-
ferred to, S. 2508, was favorably re-
ported recently by the Security and
Terrorism Subcommittee of the Judi-
ciary Committee. That committee is
chaired by our colleague Senator from
Alabama (Mr. Darr?Nl. and I thank
him for his favorable consideration
and the unanimous approval that this
subcommittee gave to our bill. It also
enjoys the sponsorship of Senator
DECoxam and the cosponsorship of
Senator Durrox and Senator EAST. In
addition. I have heard of no opposition
to this proposal.
I defer to Senator DENTON, if he
would like to make some comments on
this amendment, of which he is a co-
sponsor.
Mr. DENTON. Mr. President, I
thank my distinguished colleague
from Iowa. I strongly support Senator
GRASSLEY'S amendment to H.R. 4151. I
am proud to be a cosponsor.
As Senator GRASSLEY mentioned, we
did clear the bill unanimously 2 days
ago in the Subcommittee on Security
and Terrorism, which this Senator
chairs. In doing so, we noted that
there was a bipartisan feeling on the
subcommittee that in our haste to im-
prove the security of embassies, the se-
curity of airports, the security of Gov-
ernment installations around Wash-
ington, and the security of our citizens
around the world, we must take care-
ful consideration to avoid infringing
on first amendment rights.
Mr. President, this amendment
would repeal the District of Columbia
law which makes it a crime for more
than two people to congregate within
500 feet of an Embassy if they fail to
leave when ordered to do so.
By repealing that law, we permit the
embassies in Washington. DC to fall
under the same law as is applicable in
the 50 States, which prohibits activity
within 100 feet of a diplomatic facility
when it is designed to threaten,
harass, coerce, or intimidate those en-
tering or leaving the facility.
Senator GRASSI= mentioned that
the current inconsistency in the law
could prohibit peaceful demonstrators
from congregating and expressing that
which they are entitled to by their
first amendment right. I appreciate
his efforts in this matter. I should
note that Senator DECoNcna has
worked closely with me and with Sena-
tor Lamp/ on this and on a number of
legislative initiatives which do improve
antiterrorism propensities in our coun-
try.
I thank Senator OBASSLEY for his
leadership and for yielding to me.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President. I do
not see any of my colleagues desiring
to comment on this. It is my under-
standing that this amendment has
been approved by the managers of the
bill. If that is true, maybe we can have
adoption of the amendment.
Mr. LUGAR.. Mr. President, I am
pleased to say that the Senate, I
think, will be well advised to adopt the
amendment of the distinguished Sena-
tor from Iowa. He has long been a
champion of the peaceful rights of
Americans to assemble and make
known their points of view. He has
brought this issue to the floor on nu-
merous occasions.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
eclassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4
S 8414 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Working in cooperation with the dis-
tinguished chairman of the subcom-
mittee of the Judiciary Committee, on
terrorism. Senator Marro?, has done
much excellent work in this area.
I believe they have come forward
with a suggestion that merits our ap-
proval. We are prepared to accept the
amendment on our side.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President. personally,
I have some doubts here because I vis-
ualise not just peaceful demonstrators
but overseas where you have angry
problems sometimes surrounding our
Embassies. I wish to keep them as far
away as we can.
I hope if we accept this amendment
It will not be used as an example or a
precedent for other nations and other
parts of the world to let mobs get
closer as is the case now.
However, in view of the hard work
and efforts of the supporters of the
administration, and I believe certainly
in America they are absolutely correct,
we have no objections on this side.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I
comment, first of all, to thank both of
the managers of the bill. The chair-
man and the ranking minority
member have been very cooperative,
and without their help, I am not sure
that this bill would be this far.
Also I wish to comment, because
maybe I could alleviate some of the
fear that the Senator from Rhode
Island expressed about it and the
point of view that he made in regard
to what might be the situation in a
foreign country, this was all taken into
consideration in 1972 when the legisla-
tion now on the books that we are con-
forming the D.C. law to was all taken
into consideration and was considered
to be good public policy at that time.
As far as I know, there is no change
of that thought at this point.
Mr. President, I move adoption of
the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If
there be no further debate, the ques-
tion is on agreeing to the amendment
of the Senator from Iowa.
The amendment (No. 2173) was
agreed to.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I
move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. DENTON. Mr. President, before
I send an amendment to the desk I
would say to the Senator from Rhode
Island that I concur with his concern
and would further state that my sub-
committee will look into the concerns
he has raised.
The United States has simply not
been confronted with the same kind of
Incidents which have arisen in foreign
countries with respect to their Embas-
sies. If and when it does confront such
a threat most assuredly Senator
GRASSUZY, I am certain, as well as
myself and members of MY subcom-
mittee would take another look at this
concession to first amendment privi-
leges.
AlIKNDILINT NO. 2174
(PIITPOSe: To amend the Atomic Energy Act
of 1964 to provide for the national securi-
ty by allowing access to certain Federal
criminal history records)
Mr. DENTON. Mr. President, I send
an amendment to the desk and ask for
Its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alabama (Mr. Darrow]
for himself and Mr. LEAHY proposes an
amendment numbered 2174.
Mr. DENTON. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that further read-
ing of the amendment be dispensed
with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill insert the following:
NATIONAL SIDC1TRITY ACCINS
?
Sac. (a) The Atomic Energy Act of 1954
(42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) is amended by
adding after section 148 the following new
section:
"Sac. 149. FINGNIRPRINTING TOR SZCIIIIITT
CLLARANCI.?
"a. Every person in the process of being li-
censed or licensed pursuant to section 103 or
104b to operate a utilization facility shall re-
quire that each individual allowed unescort-
ed access to the facility be fingerprinted. All
fingerprints obtained by a licensee as re-
quired in the preceding sentence shall be
submitted to the Attorney General of the
United States through a person or persons
designated by the Commission in consulta-
tion with the Attorney General for identifi-
cation and a criminal history records check.
The costs of any identification and records
check conducted pursuant to the preceding
sentence shall be paid by the licensee. Not-
withstanding any other provision of law, the
Attorney General may provide all the re-
sults of the search to such person or persons
designated by the Commission in consulta-
tion with the Attorney General.
"b. The Commission, by rule, may relieve
Penang from the obligations imposed by
this section, upon specified terms, condi-
tions, and periods, if the Commission finds
that' such action is consistent with its re-
sponsibilities to promote the common de-
fense and security and to protect the health
and safety of the public.
"c. For purposes of administration this
section. the Commission shall prescribe reg-
ulations to?
"(1) implement procedures for the taking
of fingerprints
"(2) establish the conditions for use of in-
formation received from the Attorney Gen-
eral in order to?
"(A) limit the redissemination of such in-
formation: and
"(B) assure that such information is used
solely for the purposes provided in this sec-
tion; and
"(3) provide individuals subject to finger-
? printing the right to complete and correct
information contained in the criminal histo-
ry records prior to any final adverse
action.".
.(b) The provisions of subsection a. of sec-
tion 149 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
as Added by this Act, shall take effect upon
promulgation of regulations by the Commis-
sion as set forth in subsection c. of such sec-
tion. Such regulations shall be promulgated
on or before January 1,1988.
June 25, 1986
(e) The table of contents at the beginning
of such Act is amended by inserting after
the item for section 148 the following new
item:
Sac. 149. Fingerprinting for security clear-
ance.".
Mr. DENTON. Mr. President. this
amendment to H.R. 4151. which I
offer on behalf of Senator LFANY and
myself will incorporate the substance
of S. 274. the Nuclear Power Plant Se-
curity and Anti-Terrorism Act, a bill
which I introduced on January 24,
1985. On September 12, 1985, the
Senate Judiciary Committee unani-
mously reported S. 274 with wide bi-
partisan support. The bill was then
considered by the full Senate on Octo-
ber 3, 1985, and was passed with simi-
lar wide bipartisan support.
The purpose of the proposed Nucle-
ar Power Plant Security and Anti-Ter-
rorism Act amendment is to provide
for the national security by granting
nuclear power reactor licensees access
to the national criminal history files
of the Federal Bureau of Investiga-
tion. By creating a mechanism to con-
duct a background investigation on
any individual having unescorted
access to a nuclear power facility, the
amendment will help to ensure that
only individuals who are reliable and
trustworthy have access to critically
sensitive areas thereby significantly
improving the security of that nuclear
power facility.
Most background checks by nuclear
power reactor licensees are limited to
State and local files as things present-
ly stand. Unfortunately, those files do
not include information about an indi-
vidual's criminal record, if any, from
other parts of the country other than
the local and the State from which
that individual comes and where the
powerplant is located. By allowing nu-
clear power reactor operators to have
access to the FBI's criminal history
records files, they would be able to
obtain more complete criminal histo-
ries. That information is an essential
element in the determination of who
should be granted unescorted access to
nuclear facilities.
The Nuclear Regulatory Conunis-
sion?the Commission--advises that
there are 85 U.S. nuclear reactor
plants that produce and are licensed
for full power. There are five that are
licensed for fuel loading and low
power. These facilities currently
produce approximately 15.5 percent of
all our electrical power in this country.
As of December 1984, 37 additional
plants had been granted construction
permits, when those plants become
operational, nuclear power will pro-
vide approximately 25 percent of all
our national electrical power. Al-
though increasingly vital for energy,
nuclear facilities can also present a
grave danger to the environment and
to human life, as Chernobyl dramati-
cally indicates and with little help
from saboteurs is a. more important
danger than that which Chernobyl ap-
pears to have presented.
npriacsified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/26: CIA-RDP88G01332R001100120012-4