CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY INFORMATION ACT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 23
• Document Creation Date: December 21, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 6, 2008
• Sequence Number: 6
• Publication Date: September 28, 1984
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0 .,o
moneys collected from the industry in
insured or fully collateralized, inter-
est-bearing accounts or in U.S. Gov-
ernment debt instruments. This
change Would result in grain industry
paid user fees being treated in a
manner similar to user fees collected
by the Government in connection with
warehouse examination programs, as
well as cotton classing and various
other inspection or grading programs
for agricultural commodities such as
meat, poultry, eggs, fruits, and vegeta-
bles under the Agricultural Marketing
Act of 1946. This change would put
the grain inspection and weighing pro-
gram on a basis comparable with these
other programs, provide additional
revenues for FGIS operations, and
reduce the need for the agency to in-
crease user fee charges or request ad-
ditional appropriations.
Finally, the bill prohibits the estab-.
lishment of a new class of wheat, des-
ignated "Red Wheat," as was proposed -
by the Administrator of the Federal
Grain Inspection Service in volume 49
of the Federal Register, pages 1730-35,
on January 13, 1984. The concern is
that establishing this new class of
wheat could result in some types of
Hard Red Winter Wheat being dis-
counted to a lower price. Representa-
tives of the grain industry have stated
that establishment of an eighth wheat
hclass would disrupt the wheat market.
I would like to note that the Depart-
ment of Agriculture indicated in a
?notice published in the Federal Regis-
weighing user fee system. -
The current fee system was imple-
mented as a result of changes in the
law-effective for the 1982 through
1984 fiscal years-made by the Omni-
bus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981.
Without action by Congress, the au-
thority for the current system provid-
ed in the 1981 legislation will end this
Sunday, September 30.
The most important change in the
-fee system made in 1981 was to require
the Federal Grain Inspection Service
to collect reasonable fees to cover the
Service's costs incurred in supervising
grain inspection and weighing. These
fees, together with the fees charged by
the service for inspection and weigh-
ing performed by the Service itself,
have enabled the Service to cover the
bulk of its costs with funds paid by the
users of grain inspection and weighing
services.
The administration supports an ex-
tension of the current user fee system
and has requested that enabling legis-
lation be enacted.
The bill would also increase-from
35 percent to 40 percent-the portion
of Federal Grain Inspection Service
expenditures that can be devoted to
administration and supervision, while
extending the percentage limitation
for 4 years. The increase in the limita-
tion has been made necessary by the
substantial reduction in grain exports
YRD. There is no objection.
YRD. There is no objection.
in recent years. The supervision pro- r VMr. STEVENS. 1257.
gram overseeing the national grain in- Mr. BYRD. There is no objection.
spection and weighing system has sub-
stantial fixed costs that should b
e
maintained, even though Federal in-
spections and weighing activities are
down temporarily. The grain trade has
indicated a willingness to accept this
S 12395
try-paid user fees being treated in a
manner similar to user fees collected
in connection with other Federal in-
spection or grading programs for agri-
cultural commodities. It will also pro-
vide additional revenues for Federal
Grain Inspection Service operations
and-reduce the need for the agency to
increase user charges or request addi-
tional appropriations.
Mr. President, the efficient oper-
ation of the national grain inspection
and weighing system is important to
U.S. farmers. This system is essential
to the orderly and timely marketing of
grain, and provides assurances to our
foreign customers as to the quality
and quantity of grain they purchase.
I urge the Senate to act expeditious-
ly on this bill to avoid any possible dis-
ruption of the Federal Grain Inspec-
tion Service's supervisory operations
or the smooth functioning of the na-
tional inspection and weighing system.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on the third reading of the
bill.
The bill was read
passed.
Mr. STEVENS.
move to reconsider
the bill was passed.
Mr. President, I
the vote by which
Mr. BYRD. I move
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN
ITEMS ON THE CALENDAR
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. -President, I call
the attention of the Democratic leader
to Calendar No. 1221 and Calendar No.
1250.
Mr. BYRD. There is no objection.
Mr. STEVENS. 1251.
Mr. BYRD. No objection.
Mr. STEVENS. 1252.
Mr. BYRD. No objection.
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
AGENCY INFORMATION ACT
The Senate proceeded, to consider
the bill (H.R. 5164) to amend the Na-
increase.. tional Security Act of 1947 to regulate
. The bill would extend-for 4 years- public disclosure of information held
the requirement for the establishment by the Central Intelligence Agency,
of an advisory committee of industry and for other purposes.
experts to advise the Government on Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, I
the implementation of the U.S. Grain rise in strong support of H.R. 5164, the
Standards Act. The advisory commit- Central Intelligence Agency Informa-
tee has served the Federal grain in- tion Act. The purpose of this legisla-
spection and weighing program well, tion is to amend the National Security
and the beneficial work it does should Act of 1947 in order to relieve the Cen-
be continued. tral Intelligence Agency of the unpro-
The bill would authorize the Secre- ductive burden of searching and re-
tary of Agriculture to invest moneys of viewing certain operational files under
the grain inspection and weighing the Freedom of Information Act. This
user-fee fund in interest-bearing ac- relief will enable the CIA to become
counts. This will result in grain indus- more efficient so that requests under
Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0
ter on May 16, 1984, that the Depart-
ment had decided not to establish a
new "Red Wheat" class as previously
proposed.
Mr. President, implementation of
user fees, and input by the Advisory
Committee, have resulted in increased
efficiency of program administration
as well as a more cost-effective deliv-
ery of program services. Passage of
H.R. 5221 will maintain efficiency in
the national grain inspection and
weighing system and maintain the
quality of grain exported from the
United States. I urge its passage.
Mr. HUDDLESTON. Mr. President,
H.R. 5221 would extend, for 4 years,
the current grain inspection and
September 28, 1984 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
Mr. President, no appropriations
have been provided for fiscal year 1985
to cover such expenses, and the 1985
-v fiscal year begins on October 1, 1984.
It is imperative that we pass this legis-
lation so that we do not disrupt the
marketing and distribution of U.S.
grain. Also, passage, of the bill will
ensure annually savings of taxpayers'
dollars totaling over $13 million a year
for each of the next 4 years.
Mr. President, there are several
other changes in current law incorpo-
rated in H.R. 5221. The measure in-
creases the cap on administrative and
supervisory cost from 35 to 40 percent
of total inspection costs. Retention of
the cap at 40 percent will promote ef-
fective management of the grain in-
spection and weighing programs and
still provide an effective limit on
agency growth.
Another provision which is extended
by the bill is the requirement for the
establishment of an advisory commit-
tee constituted of experts in the indus-
try to advise the Administrator of
FGIS on the implementation of the
United States Standards Act. I believe
that the beneficial work of the Adviso-
ry Committee should be continued.
Under current practice, the FGIS re-
volving fund, consisting of user fees
paid for services rendered to the grain
industry, has been maintained in a
U.S. Treasury account until needed by
FGIS to pay its operating expenses.
H.R. 5221 would allow the Secretary
4 of Agriculture to invest user fee
 Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0
S 12396
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE September 28, 1984
the provisions of the Freedom of In-
formation Act may be answered more
quickly.
BACKGROUND OF LEGISLATION
On June 21 and June 28, 1983, the
Senate Select Committee on Intelli-
gence held open hearings on S. 1324-
the counterpart legislation to H.R.
5164. The Central Intelligence Agency,
American Bar Association, American
Civil Liberties Union, Association of
Former Intelligence Officers, newspa-
per publishers, historians and journal-
ists were all there to provide their
comments on this bill. We listened to
them carefully then we worked hard
to combine all their special concerns
into one piece of legislation.
The work in our committee included
extensive staff and member consulta-
tions with CIA representatives. The
end result was that even those Sena-
tors who expressed the greatest con-
cern about the risk of excessive secre-
cy signed a joint statement supporting
S. 1324, as it was amended in the
course of committee debate. The state-
ment, signed by Senators DUREN-
BERGER, HUDDLESTON, INOUYE, and
LEAHY, said in part:
We are satisfied that S. 1324 will serve not
just the CIA's interest in preserving secrecy
about sensitive intelligence operations, but
the public's right to information about their
Government. For these reasons we urge fa-
vorable Senate action on the bill.
Following our open hearings on this
subject S. 1324 was reported unani-
mously from the Senate Intelligence
Committee. Every single Senator on
the committee voted in favor of this
legislation. Subsequently, on Novem-
ber 17, 1983, this bill was passed unani-
mously by voice vote by the full
Senate.
SECURITY CONCERNS
Mr. President, presently the Free-
dom of Information Act mandates
that when someone requests informa-
tion from the CIA on a certain subject,
all CIA files containing such informa-
tion have to be searched. Obviously,
most responsive information in opera-
tinal files is properly classified. But
that does not end the Agency's job. An
experienced person must go through
stacks and stacks of these papers-
sometimes they are many feet tall-to
justify why almost every single sen-
tence shoud not be released. If this is
not done properly, a court could order
the information released.
However, in the past, very little in-
formation has been released from CIA
operational files, which are used to
store information concerning the
sources and methods used to collect in-
telligence. Even when information is
released, it is fragmented and difficult
to understand.
Also, there is always the risk there
will be a mistake in disclosure or that
some court could order the release of
information which might unintention-
ally reveal a source's identity or liaison
relationship. This is why these most
sensitive operational files-and only
such files-would be exempt from
search and review under the provisions
of this bill.
GREATER EFFICIENCY IN PROCESSING
In return for this exemption, re-
questers under the Freedom of Infor-
mation Act are going to get something
as well. They are expected to get
better service.
I have talked with officials of the
Central Intelligence Agency and they
have agreed not to reduce the budget-
ary and personnel allocations for Free-
dom of Information Act processing for
2 years immediately following passage
of this bill. This means that, to the
extent that resources are freed up as a
result of this legislation, the Agency
would utilize those sources to reduce
the backlog of FOIA requests.
HOUSE ACTION ON H.R. 5164
Mr. President, on September 19,
1984, the House of Representatives, by
a vote of 369 to 36, passed H.R. 5164,
which has the same basic features as
S. 1324. I think the overwhelming bi-
partisan support for this legislation
demonstrates that this is a bill whose
time has come. H.R. 5164 will effec-
tively end a debilitating waste of re-
sources without significantly diminish-
ing the proper public release of infor-
mation about the CIA. It will enable
the CIA to respond more quickly and
more efficiently to Freedom of Infor-
mation Act requests. This legislation
will also positively contribute to secu-
rity in the conduct of intelligence ac-
tivities.
Finally, a bipartisan House amend-
ment to the legislation makes clear
that the Privacy Act is not a nondis-
closure statute displacing the disclo-
sure provisions of the Freedom of In-
formation Act. This provision restores
the relationship between the Freedom
of Information Act and the Privacy
Act which was intended by the Con-
gress when it considered both statutes
in 1974.
During House debate on this legisla-
tion in March of this year, Represent-
ative WHITEHURST of Virginia, stated
that "We have forged a bipartisan con-
sensus on legislation to modify the ap-
plication of the Freedom of Informa-
tion Act to the Central Intelligence
Agency." Representative WHITEHURST
went on to say: -
The bill is carefully crafted to achieve
three purposes.
First, the bill will relieve the CIA from an
unproductive FOIA requirement to search
and review certain specifically defined CIA
operational files consisting of records
which, after line-by-line security review,
almost invariably prove not to be releasable
under the FOIA.
Second, the bill will provide more effective
security for the identities and operational
activies abroad of individuals who risk their
lives and livelihoods to assist the United
States by cooperating with the Central In-
telligence Agency.
Third, the bill will improve the ability of
the CIA to respond to FOIA requests from
the public in a timely and efficient manner,
while- preserving undimished the amount of
information releasable to the public under
the FOIA.
ADMINISTRATION POSITION
The Director of Central Intelligence
has told us that H.R. 5164, as passed '
by the House of Representatives, will
make an important contribution to the
safeguarding of intelligence sources
and methods. He also has said it will
improve CIA responsiveness to Free- '
dom of Information Act requests. The
administration supports Senate ac-
ceptance of H.R. 5164 as passed by the
House, and this is also the position of
the American Civil Liberties Union.
I urge my colleagues to join me, Vice
Chairman MOYNIHAN, and other mem-
bers of the Senate Intelligence Com-
mittee in voting in favor of this legis-
lation without amendment. I hope
that we do not lose this opportunity to
enact an important piece of legislation
which will simultaneously enhance in-
telligence effectiveness and further
the aims of the Freedom of Informa-
tion Act.
In closing, I want to thank Senator
THURMOND, the distinguished chair-
man of the Judiciary Committee, for
his support in cointroducing this legis-
lation last year. As well, I want to
thank Senators MOYNIHAN, CHAFEE,
DURENBERGER, HUDDLESTON, and LEAHY
for their time and interest in helping
the committee to reach agreement on
this bill. Finally, I want to thank Sen-
ator HATCH for his help and under-
standing in getting this legislation to
the floor at this late date in this ses-
sion. .ni
Once again, I urge my colleagues to
support this important legislation.
Mr. HUDDLESTON. Mr. President,
the Senate passage today of the Cen-
tral Intelligence Agency Information
Act will mark the end of a long and
difficult effort by several of us on the
Intelligence Committee. to find a way
to help the CIA with some of its prob-
lems under the Freedom of Informa-
tion Act. It has taken over 5 years
since CIA Director Stansfield Turner
came to us with the proposal to
exempt the CIA's most sensitive oper-
ational files from search and review
under the FOIA.
The intelligence charter legislation
which I introduced as the National In-
telligence Act of 1980 included this
proposal. Although the charter was
not enacted, several of its provisions
have become law as separate legisla-
tion since 1980. The CIA Information
Act carries on the process of building a
new framework for a strong and effec-
tive CIA that continues to respect the
principles of our free society.
The fact that this bill is fully sup-
ported by the CIA, the administration,
and the American Civil Liberties
Union makes it an extraordinary
achievement. Great credit is due to
Senator GOLDWATER who, as chairman
of the Intelligence Committee, recog-
nized over a year ago that the time{.
had come to reach an agreement be=
tween the CIA and those concerned
about public access to Government In-
Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0
 Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0
September 28, 1984
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE S 12397
Two individuals should be singled
,out for their role in breaching the bar-
riers that appeared to block legislative
action on this problem. They are Mr.
Mark Lynch of the American Civil Lib-
ierties Union and Mr: Ernest Mayerfeld
~a: of the Central Intelligence Agency,
outstanding lawyers who vigorously
represented opposing viewpoints and
successfully framed the basic elements
of a bill that could serve the interests
of both sides.
The broad consensus that has devel-
oped in support of this legislation re-
flects the bipartisan approach that
the Intelligence Committee has con-
sistently taken, over the years since
the Select Committee was established.
For this bill to work its way through
the House and Senate, it was impor-
tant to have an Intelligence Commit-
tee in each body that could work close-
ly with other committees and mem-
bers to accommodate their concerns.
It is my hope that the two Intelli-
gence Committees can, in the years
ahead, continue addressing the practi-
cal problems of our intelligence com-
munity in the same manner.
As a result of this legislation, the
American people should have greater
confidence that the men and women
who serve their Nation at the CIA are
fully committed to the maintenance of
our open society. As the committee re-
ports on H.R. 5164 and S. 1324 state,
The Agency's acceptance of the obligation
under the FOIA to provide information to
the public not exempted under the FOIA is
one of the linchpins of this legislation. The
Act has played a vital part in maintaining
the American people's faith in their govern-
ment, and particularly in agencies like the
CIA that must necessarily operate in secre-
cy. In a free society, a national security
agency's ability to serve the national inter-
est depends as much on public confidence
that its powers will not be misused as it does
on the confidence of intelligence sources
that their relationships with the CIA will be
protected.
The CIA Information Act is an out-
standing legislative accomplishment
that should meet both the CIA's need
to reassure its sources and the public's
need for improved CIA responsiveness
to FOIA requests. Therefore, I strong-
ly urge the Senate to pass H.R. 5164
and express my thanks to all those
who have worked so hard on this legis-
lation.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am
indeed pleased that the Senate is ac-
cepting the House revisions to the
Central Intelligence Agency Informa-
tion Act. This means that the impor-
tant legislation will soon become law.
Two major goals will be accomplished:
The Central Intelligence Agency will
be relieved of the obligation to search
and review its sensitive operational
files, from which it almost never re-
leases information in response to Free-
dom of- Information Act requests. At
the same time, relief from this obliga-
tion will enable the CIA to respond in
a more timely way to FOIA requests
not involving its operational files.
Thus, both the CIA and the user of
FOIA will benefit.
When S: 1324 first came to the
Select Committee on Intelligence for
hearings, I had considerable reserva-
tions about it. In fact, I doubted that
it could, in its original form, pass the
Senate. Nevertheless, I believed the
basic arguments made by the CIA in
support of the bill made sense. The
Agency said that the FOIA require-
ment that it search and review its
operational files, which contain the
most sensitive data on intelligence
sources, broke down the vital compart-
mentation necessary to protect the
identities of sources. Moreover, the
Agency said that it virtually never re-
leases information from its operation-
al files, and never any significant in-
formation. Yet, the requirement to
search and review those files contrib-
uted greatly to the growing backlog of
FOIA cases of the Agency. Relief from
the search and review of operation
files would thus not only improve se-
curity, but would improve the CIA's
FOIA performance.
The fact that the ACLU shared the
CIA's views also indicated that, with
some improvements and modifications,
S. 1324 could be made acceptable to
those of us who believe the FOIA is an
indispensable bulwark of the public's
right to know what their government
is doing. In an intensive series of meet-
ings with representatives from the
ACLU, CIA, Department of Justice,
press groups and others, I and other
members of the Select Committee on
Intelligence worked to amend the
original language. We were successful,
thanks in large part to the construc-
tive attitude of the CIA, ACLU repre-
sentatives, and others from private in-
terest groups, as well as the leadership
of several members of the Select Com-
mittee on Intelligence.
When S. 1324 went to the House,
further changes were made. In my
judgment, these House amendments
have additionally strengthened the
bill's protections against misuse of the
exemption being granted the CIA
from search and review of its oper-
ational files. The Central Intelligence
Agency Information Act will provide
that FOIA may still be used by indi-
viduals to request any information
held by the CIA on themselves. It will
permit continued search and review of
files on covert actions where the exist-
ence of the operation is not exempt
from disclosure under the FOIA. It
will also permit continued search and
review of matters which are the sub-
ject of official investigations for ille-
gality or impropriety. The bill also
continues the present FOIA standard
for judicial review. Finally, in an im-
portant amendment introduced in the
House, the bill prohibits the use of the
Privacy Act as a basis for nondisclo-
sure under section (b)(3) of the FOIA.
This closes a potential loophole cre-
ated by recent ambiguous court deci-
sions.
Mr. President, this is an important
piece of legislation, which I believe
will serve the interests of both the
Central Intelligence Agency and the
public. It has come a long way since it
was first introduced and referred to
the Select. Committee on Intelligence.
I am pleased to have been a part of
the process which led to its present
form.
I also want to applaud the efforts of
Eric Newsom and John Podesta of my
office for their help.
I am well aware of the hours and
hours they spent negotiating in my
conference room, with all the parties
involved. The final product was worth
it.
The bill was ordered to a third read-
ing, read the third time, and passed.
CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN REAL
PROPERTY
The bill (S. 2721) to confirm a con-
veyance of certain real property by
the Southern Pacific Transportation
Company to Ernest Pritchett and his
wife, Dianna Pritchett, was consid-
ered, ordered to be engrossed for a
third reading, read the third time, and
passed; as follows:
8.2721
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That, sub-
ject to section 3, the conveyance described
in section 2(a) of this Act involving certain
real property in Jackson County, Oregon,
forming a part of the right-of-way granted
by the United States to the California and
Oregon Railroad Company under the Act
entitled "An Act granting Lands to aid in
the Construction of a Railroad and Telegr-
pagh Line from the Central Pacific Rail-
road, in California, to Portland, in Oregon",
approved July 25, 1866 (14 Stat. 239), is con-
firmed in Ernest Pritchett and his wife,
Dianna Pritchett, the grantees in such con-
veyance, and their successors in interest,
with respect to all interests of the United
States in the rights to the real property de-
scribed in section 2(b) of this Act.
SEC. 2. (a) The.conveyance confirmed by
this Act was made by a deed dated July 23,
1982, by the Southern Pacific Transporta-
tion Company to Ernest Pritchett and his
wife, Dianna Pritchett, and recorded on Oc-
tober 20. 1982, in the official records of
Jackson County, Document Numbered 82-
15174.
(b) The real property referred to in the
first section of this Act is a parcel of land in
the northwest quarter of section 26, town-
ship 36 south, range 4 west, Willamette Me-
ridian, County of Jackson, State of Oregon,
more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the west quarter corner of
such section 26; thence south 89 degrees 46
feet 45 inches east along the southerly line
of such northwest quarter of section 26 a
distance of 1082.50 feet to a point in a line
parallel with and distant 100 feet northeast-
erly, measured at right angles, from the
original located center line of Southern Pa-
cific Transportation Company's main track
(Siskiyou Branch), and also the true point
of beginning of the parcel to be described;
thence north 65 degrees 2 feet 35 inches
west along such parallel line 1191.92 feet to
the westerly line of such section 26; thence
south zero degrees 12 feet 52 inches west
Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0
 Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0
H 9756
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE September 19, 1984
sary for America's to take a position of
leadership in our foreign policy.
We can no longer continue the kind
of misguided policy that has alienated
many of our friends, policies that in-
clude the mining of the harbors in
Nicaragua and the misguided support
for the Contras against the Nicara-
guan Government. It is a situation
that has certainly not enhanced Amer-
ica's image in Central and South
America.
We find ourselves in a position in.
which we have alienated many of our
friends. America's position has deterio-
rated throughout Latin America and
has, in effect, even strengthened the
hands of the Soviets in the region.
What we must do, as a nation, is see
that we have a policy that is not
simply reactive to the problems of en-
demic injustice, rampant hunger, and
the crisis of overpopulation, but that
is an activist policy that draws on the
best of President Kennedy's ideas like
the Peace Corps, and the Alliance for
Progress.
CALL OF THE HOUSE
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move a
call of the House.
A call of the House was ordered.
The call was taken by electronic
device, and the following Members re-
sponded to their names:
[Roll No. 397]
Ackerman
Coleman (TX) ,
Fuqua
Akaka
Collins
Garcia
Albosta
Conable
Gejdenson
Anderson
Conte
Gekas
Andrews (NC)
Cooper
Gephardt
Andrews (TX)
Coughlin
Gibbons
Annunzio
Coyne
Gilman
Anthony
Craig
Gingrich
Aspin
Crane. Daniel
Glickman
Badham
Crane, Philip
Gonzalez
Barnard
Daniel
Goodling
Bartlett
Dannemeyer
Gore
Bateman
Darden
Gradison
Bates
Daschle
Gray
Beilenson
Daub
Green
Bennett
Davis
Gregg
Bereuter
Dellums
Guarini
Berman
Derrick
Gunderson
Bethune
DeWine
Hall (IN)
Bevill
Dickinson
Hall (OH)
Biaggi
Dixon
Hall, Ralph
Bilirakis
Dorgan"
Hall, Sam
Bliley
Dowdy
Hamilton
Boehlert
Downey
Hammerschmidt
Boggs
Dreier
Hance
Bonlor
Duncan
Hansen (ID)
Honker
Durbin
Hansen (UT)
Borski
Dwyer
Harkin
Bosco
Dymally
Hartnett
Boucher
Early
Hatcher
Boxer
Eckart
Hayes
Breaux
Edwards (AL)
Hefner
Britt
Edwards (OK)
Heftel
Brooks
Emerson
Hertel
Broomfield
English
Hightower
Brown (CA)
Erdreich
Hiler
Brown (CO)
Erlenborn
Hillis
Broyhill
Evans (IA)
Holt
Bryant
Evans(IL)
Hopkins
Burton (CA)
Fascell
Horton
Burton (IN)
Fazio
Howard
Byron
Feighan
Hoyer
Campbell
Fiedler
Hubbard
Carney
Fields
Huckaby
Carr
Flippo
Hughes
Chapple
Foglietta
Hunter
Clarke
Foley
Hutto
Clay
Frank
Hyde
Clinger
Franklin
Ireland
Coats
Frenzel
Jacobs
Coelho
Frost
Jeffords
Jenkins
Molinari
Siljander
Jones (OK)
Mollohan
Sisisky
Jones (TN)
Montgomery
Skeen
Kaptur
Moody
Skelton
Kasich
Moore
Slattery
Kastenmeier
Morrison (WA)
Smith (FL)
Kazen
Murphy
Smith (IA)
Kennelly
Murtha
Smith (NE)
Kildee
Myers
Smith (NJ)
Kindness
Natcher
Smith, Denny
Kleczka
Nelson
Smith, Robert
Kogovsek
Nichols
Snowe -
Kolter
Nielson
Snyder
Kostmayer
Nowak
Solomon
Kramer
O'Brien
Spence
LaFalce
Oakar
Spratt
Lagomarsino
Oberstar
St Germain
Lantos
Olin
Staggers
Latta
Ortiz
Stangeland
Leach
Owens
Stark
Leath
Oxley
Stenholm
Leland
Packard
Stokes
Lent
Panetta
Stratton
Levin
Parris
Stump
Levine
Pashayan
Sundquist
Levitas
Patman
Swift
Lewis (CA)
Patterson
Synar
Lewis (FL)
Paul
Tallon
Lipinski.
Pease
Tauzin
Livingston
Penny
Taylor
Lloyd
Pepper
Thomas (CA)
Loeffler
Petri
Thomas (GA)
Long (LA)
Pickle
Torres
Lott
Price
Torricelli
Lowery (CA)
Pursell
Towns
Lowry (WA)
Quillen
Traxler
Lujan
Rahall
Udall
Luken
Rangel
Valentine
Lundine
Ratchford
Vander Jagt
Lungren
Ray
Vandergriff
Mack
Regula
Vento
MacKay
Reid
Volkmer
Madigan
Richardson
Vucanovich
Marlene
Rinaldo
Walgren
Marriott
Ritter
Walker
Martin (IL)
Roberts
Watkins
Martin (NC)
Robinson
Weaver
Martin (NY)
Roe
Weber
Martinez
Roemer
Weiss
Matsui
Rogers
Wheat
Mavroules
Rose
Whitehurst
McCain
Rostenkowski
Whitley
McCandless
Roth
Whittaker
McCloskey
Roukema
Whitten
McCollum
Rowland
Wirth
McCurdy
Roybal
Wise
McDade
Rudd
Wolf
McEwen
Russo
Wolpe
McHugh
Sabo
Wortley
McKernan
Schaefer
Wright
McKinney
Schneider
Wylie
McNulty
Schroeder
Yates
Mica
Schumer
Yatron
Michel
Seiberling
Young (AK)
Miller (CA)
Sensenbrenner
Young (FL)
Miller (OH)
Sharp
Young (MO)
Mineta
Shaw
Zschau
Minish
Shumway
Moakley
Sikorski
^ 1040
The SPEAKER. On this rollcall, 358
Members have recorded their presence
by electronic device, a quorum:
Under the rule, further proceedings
under the call are dispensed with.
"NO" VOTE ON H.R. 5164 IS
NEEDED -
(Mr. WEISS asked and was given
inute and to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WEISS. Mr. Speaker, the Ameri-
can public first learned that the CIA
spied on Martin Luther King, Jr., from
documents obtained through the Free-
dom of Information Act. The same is
true of the CIA's recruitment of Amer-
ican blacks in the late sixties and early
seventies to spy on Black Panthers,
and of the CIA's continued. involve-
ment with the National Student Asso-
ciation.
Enactment of the CIA Information
Act.(H.R. 5164), a bill we will be voting
on later today, will make future dis-
coveries of this nature and others that
quickly come to mind more difficult-
if not impossible.
H.R. 5164 would also dangerously in-
trude on the power of the courts to
review CIA actions and both a plain-
tiff and the courts would be effectively
prevented from forcing the CIA to dis-
close improperly withheld informa-
tion.
Only a few months ago the CIA was
caught withholding vital information
from congressional Intelligence Com-
mittees regarding the mining of Nica-
ragua's harbors and at this very
moment appear to have violated con-
gressional prohibitions on transferring
airplanes to the Contras for use over
Nicaragua.
I believe the CIA requires not less,
but even closer oversight by the Con-
gress, the courts, and the American
people. I urge my colleagues to join
me in voting against an unjustified in-
crease in secrecy.
ADMINISTRATION SAYS "NO" TO
FAIR TRADE IN STEEL ACT
(Mr. KOSTMAYER asked and was
given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. KOSTMAYER. Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the administration an-
nounced its long-awaited response to
the steel industry's pleas for help. The
President responded to the recommen-
dations of his International Trade
Commission that tough import restric-
tions were justified and needed.
President Reagan had the chance to
say "yes" to 150,000 steelworkers who
have lost their jobs since 1980-"yes,
we will help."
He said, "No."
President Reagan had the chance to
say "yes" to fairness and equity for an
industry devastated by heavily subsi-
dized imports.
He said, "No."
President Reagan had the chance to
say "yes" to a plan, backed by both
management and labor, to reinvest
and revitalize a steel industry desper-
ately in need of modernization.
He said, "No."
Mr. Speaker, the President got bad
advice.
Over 200 Members of Congress, Re-
publicans and Democrats, have co-
sponsored the Fair Trade in Steel Act.
The bill lays out a moderate, fair, and
responsible plan for 5 years of compre-
hensive import relief in return for a
commitment by the industry to rein-
vest the capital generated back into
plant modernization.
The President had the opportunity
to implement this legislation himself.
Since he has chosen not to, Mr. Speak-
er, I urge the Ways and Means to
Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0
 I Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0
September 19, 1984
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE H 9817
the health and welfare of abused or neglect-
ed children, including instituting legal pro-
ceedings. The new clause (K) includes spe-
r cific statutory reference to the authority to
institute legal proceedings only because
questions have occasionally been raised
about the authority of particular child pro-
tective services agencies to take such actions
In cases involving withholding of medically-
indicated treatment from disabled infants
with life-threatening conditions. Under new
clause (K). States have the flexibility to de-
termine the specific agency or agencies
within their child protective services sys-
tems, to exercise that authority. State au-
thority to utilize other agencies, in addition
to the child protective services system, for
these purposes would be unaffected by the
legislation.
ADDITIONAL GRANTS TO STATES
The amendment (in section 201(c)(2))
would add a new subsection 4(c) to the Act
to authorize the Secretary to mak'b addition-
al grants to the States for the purposes of
developing, establishing, and operating or
implementing (1) the procedures or pro-
grams required under the new clause (K),
(2) information and education programs or
training programs (for the purposes of im-
proving the provision of services to disabled
infants with life-threatening conditions) for
professional and paraprofessional personnel
concerned with the welfare of such infants,
including personnel employed In child pro-
tective services programs and health-care
facilities, and for parents of such infants,
and (3) programs to help obtain or coordi-
nate necessary services, including existing
social and health services and financial as-
sistance for families with disabled infants
'? with life-threatening conditions as well as
those services necessary to facilitate adop-
tive placement of such infants who have
been relinquished for adoption.
REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES
The amendment (in section 202) would
direct the Secretary, within 90 days of the
date of enactment, to publish for public
comment proposed regulations to imple-
ment the requirements of the new clause
(K), and to publish final such regulations
within 180 days after enactment.
It also would direct the Secretary to pub-
lish, within 60 days after enactment, interim
model guidelines to encourage the establish-
ment within health-care facilities of com-
mittees which would serve the purposes of
educating hospital personnel and families of
disabled infants with life-threatening condi-
tions, recommending institutional policies
and guidelines concerning the withholding
of medically indicated treatment from such
infants, and offering counsel and review in
cases involving disabled infants with life-
threatening conditions. Not later than 150
days after the date of enactment and after
notice and opportunity for public comment,
the Secretary would be required to publish
the model guidelines.
REPORT ON FINANCIAL RESOURCES
The amendment (in section 203) would re-
quire the Secretary to conduct a study to
determine the most effective means of pro-
viding Federal financial support other than
the use of funds provided through the
Social Security Act, for the provision of
medical treatment, general care, and appro-
priate social services for disabled infants
with life-threatening conditions and report
the results of such study to the appropriate
committees of the Congress not later than
270 days after the date of enactment. The
report to the appropriate Committees would
also be required to contain such recommen-
dations for legislation to provide such finan-
cial support as the Secretary considers ap-
propriate.
TRAINING, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND
CLEARINGHOUSE ACTIVITIES
The amendment (in section 204) would
direct the Secretary to provide, directly or
through grants or contracts with public or
private nonprofit organizations, for training
and technical assistance programs to assist
states in meeting the requirements of new
clause (K) and for establishing and operat-
ing national and regional information and
resource clearinghouses to provide the most
current and complete information regard-
ingmedical treatment procedures and re-
sources and community resources for serv-
ices and treatment for disabled infants with
life-threatening conditions. The funds do
carry out these activities would be provided
from the funds, other than those funds
made available for basic States grants under
section 4(b)(1), otherwise available to the
Secretary to carry out activities under the
Act (meaning the Child Abuse Prevention
and Treatment Act). -
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
The amendment (in section 205) would
provide that no provision of or any amend-
ment made by the Act is Intended to affect
any right or protection under section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
It would also provide that no provision of
or any amendment made by the Act may be
construed to authorize the Secretary or any
other governmental entity to establish
standards prescribing specific medical treat-
ments for specific conditions, except to the
extent that such standards are authorized
by other laws.
It would also contain a standard severabil-
ity provision in the event that a particular
provision of or any amendment made by the
Act is declared unconstitutional by a court.
AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
The amendment (in-section 206) would in-
crease the authorization of appropriations-
from the levels in the bill as reported ($27
million for FY 1984, $34 million for FY
1985, $35.5 million for FY 1986, and $37.08
million for FY 1987)-under the Act by
$5,000,000 for each fiscal year for the/pur-
pose of making the additional grants to the
states to implement the provisions of new
clause (K) and to establish the information
and education and training programs and
the programs to help obtain or coordinate
necessary services for disabled infants with
life-threatening conditions authorized under
the new section 4(c)
The amendment would retain the earmark
contained in S. 1003 as reported of
$9,500,000 in each fiscal year for the carry-
ing out of the provisions of section 4(b)(1),
relating to basic state grants, and $4,000,000
in each fiscal year for identification, treat-
ment, and prevention of sexual abuse.
It is the firm intention of the sponsors
that appropriations for the new section 4(c)
program should be in addition to appropria-
tions-at the authorization levels contained
in the amendment for the section 4(b)(1)
basic state grant program and for the sexual
abuse, identification, treatment, and preven-
tion program and that neither of these ex-
isting programs should be reduced in fund-
ing in order to provide funds for the new
section 4(c) program
EFFECTIVE DATES
The provisions of the Act and amend-
ments made by the Act would be effective
upon the date of enactment, except'that the
amendment establishing new clause (K) as a
requirement for participation in the state
grant program does not become effective
until one year after the date of enactment.
The amendment further provides that in
the event that, prior to the clause (K) effec-
tive date, funds have not been appropriated
pursuant to section 5 of the Act (as amend-
ed by section 104 of this Act) for the pur-
pose of grants under new section 4(c), the
Secretary may grant to any State which has
not met the requirements of new clause (K)
a waiver of such requirements for a period
of not more than one year, if the Secretary
finds that such State is making a good faith
effort to comply with such provisions.
AUGUSTUS F. HAWKINS,
JOE GAYDOS,
MARIO BIAGGI,
PAUL SIMON,
GEO. MILLER,
AUSTIN J. MURPHY,
BALTASAR CORRADA,
PAT WILLIAMS, '
DENNIS E. ECKART,
JOHN N. ERLENBORN,
BILL GOODLING,
TOM COLEMAN,
STEVE BARTLETT,
JOHN MCCAIN.
Managers on the Part of the House.
ORRIN HATCH,
JEREMIAH DENTON,
DON NICKLES,
EDWARD M. KENNEDY,
CHRIS DODD,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
APPOINTMENT OF ADDITIONAL
CONFEREE ON H.R. 4164, VOCA-
TIONAL-TECHNICAL EDUCA-
TION ACT OF 1984
Mr. HAWKINS. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the Speaker
be authorized to appoint an additional
conferee on the part of the House on
H.R. 4164, the Vocational-Technical
Education Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is
there objection to. the request of the
gentleman from California? The Chair
hears none and, without objection, ap-
points the following additional confer-
ee: Mr. TAUKE.
There was no objection.
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
AGENCY INFORMATION ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu-
ant to the provisions of clause 5 of
rule I and the order of the House of
September 18, 1984, the unfinished
business is the question de novo of sus-
pending the rules and passing the bill,
H.R. 5164, as amended, on which fur-
ther proceedings were postponed on
Monday, September 17, 1984.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
question is on the motion offered by
the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. BOLAND] that the House suspend
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5164,
as amended.
The question was taken.
RECORDED VOTE
Mr. WEISS. Mr. Speaker, I demand
a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic
device, and there were-ayes 369, noes
36, not voting 27, as follows:
Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0
 Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0
H 9818
[Roll No. 4021
AYES-369
Rudd
Snowe
Vandergriff
Russo
Snyder
Vento
Sabo
Solarz
Volkmer
Sawyer
Solomon
Vucanovich
Schaefer
Spence
Waigren
Scheuer
Spratt
Walker
Schneider
St Germain
Watkins
Schroeder
Staggers
Waxman
Schulze
Stangeland
Wheat
Schumer
Stenholm
Whitehurst
Sensenbrenner
Stokes
Whitley
Sharp
Stratton
Whittaker
Shaw
Stump
Williams (MT)
Shumway
Sundquist
Winn
Shuster
Swift
Wirth
Sikorski
Synar
Wise
Siljander
Tallon
Wolf
Sisisky
Tauke
Wolpe
Skeen
Tauzin
Wortley
Skelton
Taylor
Wright
Slattery
Thomas (CA)
Wyden
Smith (FL)
Thomas (GA)
Yates
Smith (IA)
Torricelli
Yatron
Smith (NE)
Traxler
Young (AK)
Smith (NJ)
Udall
Young (FL)
Smith, Denny
Valentine
Young (MO)
Smith, Robert
Vander Jagt
,Zschau
NOES-36
Ackerman
Edgar
.,Murphy
AuCoin
Edwards (CA)
Ottinger
Bedell
Fuqua
Owens
Boxer
Garcia
Paul
Burton (CA)
Gray
Roybal
Clay
Hawkins
Savage
Conyers
Hayes
Seiberling
Crockett
Kastenmeier
Stark
Dellums -
Kostmayer
Torres
Dixon
Leland
Towns
Dorgan
Lowry (WA)
Weaver
Dymally
Mitchell
Weiss
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
Addabbo
Feighan
Lott
Akaka
Fiedler
Lowery (CA)
Albosta
Fields
Lujan
Anderson
Fish
Luken
Andrews (NC)
Flippo
Lundine
Andrews (TX)
Florio
Lungren
Annunzio
Foglietta
Mack
Anthony
Foley
MacKay
Applegate
Ford (MI)
Madigan
Archer
Ford (TN)
Marlenee
Aspin
Fowler
Marriott
Badham
Frank
Martin (IL)
Barnard
Franklin
Martin (NC)
Barnes
Frenzel
Martin (NY)
Bartlett
Frost
Martinez
Bateman
Gaydos
Matsui
Bates
Gejdenson
Mavroules
Beilenson
Gekas
Mazzoli
Bennett
Gephardt
McCain
Bereuter
Gibbons
McCandless
Berman
Gilman
McCloskey
Bevill
Gingrich
McCollum
Biaggi
Glickman
McCurdy
Bilirakis
Gonzalez
McDade
Bliley
Goodling
McEwen
Boehlert
Gore
McHugh
Boggs
Gradison
McKernan
Boland
Green
McKinney
Bonior
Gregg
McNulty
Bonker
Guarini
Mica
Borski
Gunderson
Michel
Bosco
Hall (IN)
Mikulski
Boucher
Hall (OH)
Miller (CA)
Britt
Hall, Ralph
Miller (OH)
Brooks
Hall, Sam
Mineta
Broomfield
Hamilton
Minish
Brown (CA)
Hammerschmidt Moakley
Brown (CO)
Hance
Molinari
Broyhill
Hansen (ID)
Mollohan
Bryant
Hansen (UT)
Montgomery
Burton (IN)
Harkin
Moody
Byron
Harrison
Moore
Campbell
Hartnett
Morrison (WA)
Carney
Hatcher
Mrazek
Carper
Hefner
Murtha
Carr
Heftel
Myers
Chandler
Hertel
Natcher
Chappell
Hightower
Neal
Chappie
Hiler
Nelson
Clarke
Hillis
Nichols
Clinger
Holt
Nielson
Coats
Hopkins
Nowak
Coelho
Horton
O'Brien
Coleman (MO)
Howard
Oakar
Coleman (TX)
Royer
Oberstar
Collins
Hubbard
Obey
Conte
Huckaby
Olin
Cooper
Hughes
Ortiz
Corcoran
Hunter
Oxley
Coughlin
Hutto
Packard
Coyne
Hyde
Panetta
Craig
Ireland
Parris
Crane, Daniel
Jacobs
Pashayan
Crane. Philip
Jeffords
Patman
D'Amours
Jenkins
Patterson
Daniel
Johnson
Pease
Dannemeyer
Jones (NC)
Penny
Darden
Jones (OK)
Pepper
Daschle
Jones (TN)
Petri
Daub
Kaptur
Pickle
Davis
Kasich
Porter
de la Garza
Kazen
Price
Derrick
Kemp
Pritchard
DeWine
Kennelly
Pursell
Dickinson
Kildee
Quillen
Dicks
Kindness
Rahall
Dingell
Kleczka
' tangel
Donnelly
Kolter
Ratchford
Dowdy
Kramer
Ray
Downey
LaFalce
Regula
Dreier
Lagomarsino
Reid
Duncan
Lantos
Richardson
Durbin
Latta
Ridge
Dwyer
Leach
Rinaldo
Dyson
Lent
Ritter
Early
Levin
Roberts
Eckart
Levine
Robinson
Edwards (AL)
Levitas
Rodino
Emerson
Lewis (CA)
Roe
English
Lewis (FL)
Roemer
Erdreich
Lipinski
Rogers
Erlenborn
Livingston
Rose
Evans(IA)
Lloyd
Rostenkowski
Evans(IL)
Loeffler
Roth
Fascell
Long (LA)
Roukema
Fazio
Long (MD)
Rowland
NOT VOTING-27
Alexander
Gramm
Shannon
Bethune
Kogovsek
Shelby
Boner
Leath
Simon
Breaux
Lehman (CA)
Studds
Cheney
Lehman (FL)
Weber
Conable
Markey
Whitten
Courter
McGrath
Williams (OH)
Edwards (OK)
Moorhead
Wilson
Ferraro
Morrison (CT)
Wylie
Mr. TOWNS changed his vote from
"aye" to "no."
Mr. GEJDENSON and Mr. MATSUI
changed their votes from "no" to
"aye."
So (two-thirds have voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended, the
bill, as amended, was passed.
The result of the vote was an-
nounced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
FURTHER-MESSAGE FROM THE
SENATE
A further message from the Senate,
by Mr. Sparrow, one of its clerks, an-
nounced that the Senate agrees to the
Report of the committee of conference
on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendments of the
Senate to the bill (H.R. 3755) "An act
to amend titles II and XVI of the
Social Security Act to provide for
reform in the disability' determination
process."
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDER-
ATION OF H.R. 3082, EMERGEN-
CY WETLANDS RESOURCES
ACT OF 1983
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, by di-
rection of the Committee on Rules, I
September 19, 1984
call up House Resolution 579 and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as fol-
-lows:
H. RES. 579
Resolved, That at any time after the adop- I.
tion of this -resolution the Speaker may,
pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, de-
clare the House resolved into the Commit-
tee of the Whole House on the State of the
Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
3082) to promote the conservation of migra-
tory waterfowl and to offset or prevent the
serious loss of wetlands by the agcuisition of
wetlands and other essential habitat, and
for other purposes, and the first reading of
the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of
order against the consideration of the bill
for failure to comply with the provisions of
section 402(a) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344) are hereby
waived. After general debate, which shall be
confined to the bill and to the amendment
made in order by this resolution and which
shall continue not to exceed two hours, with
one hour to be equally divided and con-
trolled by the chairman and ranking minori-
ty member of the Committee on Merchant
Marine and Fisheries and thirty minutes to
be equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Interior and Insular Af-
fairs and thirty minutes to be equally divid-
ed and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee
on Public Works and Transportation, the
bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the
amendments recommended by the Commit-
tees on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, In-
terior and Insular Affairs, and Public Works
and Transportation now printed in the bill,
it shall be in order to consider the ammend-
ment in the nature of a substitute printed in
the Congressional Record of September 11,
1984 by Representative Jones of North
Carolina as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment under the five-minute rule.
Said substitute shall be considered for
amendment by titles instead of by sections
and each title shall be considered as having
been read, and all points of order against
said substitute for failure to comply with
the provisions of section 303(a) of the Con-
gressional Budget Act of 1947 (Public Law
93-344), clause 7 of rule XVI, and clause
5(a) of rule XXI are hereby waived. At the
conclusion of the consideration of the bill
for amendment, the Committee shall rise
and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted, and
any Member may demand a separate vote in
the House on any amendment adopted in
the Committee of the Whole to the bill or
to the amendment made in order as original
text by this resolution. The previous ques-
tion shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and amendments thereto to final pas-
sage without intervening motion except one
motion to recommit with or without instruc-
tions.
0 1610
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
MOAKLEY] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield
the customary 30 minutes, for pur-
poses of debate only,. to the gentleman-
from Tennessee (Mr. QUILLEN], pend-
ing which I yield myself such time as
Imay consume.
Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0
 Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0
September 19, 1984 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
tion activities, State export-import banks,
and State export trade companies;
(10) the organizational structures under
hich other industrial nations, such as
Japan, Great Britain, Canada, and West
Germany, carry out the international trade
-+* activities of those nations;
(11) the organizational structure of Feder-
al agencies which make and carry out trade
policies, including the need for strength-
ened and integrated implementation of
international trade functions and improve-
ments in the Foreign Commercial Service;
and
(12) the need to promote institutional and
noninstitutional educational activities that
will contribute to the ability of United
States businesses to succeed in the market-
ing of United States goods and services
abroad. such as-
(A) government-sponsored work-study
programs which allow United States repre-
sentatives of business, labor, and govern-
ment to live overseas and analyze foreign
market opportunities, study existing trade
and cultural barriers, and develop expertise
on foreign business practices and trade
issues; and
(B) the promotion of foreign language ca-
pabilities to facilitate United States com-
merce by overcoming language and market-
ing barriers.
FINAL REPORT
SEC. 4. Not later than July 1, 1985, the
Commission shall transmit 'to the President
and to the Congress a report containing a
detailed statement of the study conducted
by the Commission under this Act and the
recommendations of the Commission with
respect to the matters specified in section 3,
including any recommendations for legisla-
tion the Commission considers appropriate.
TERMINATION
SEC. 5. The Commission shall terminate
on July 1, 1985.
AUTHORIZATION
SEC. 6. For fiscal years 1984 and 1985,
there are authorized to be appropriated
such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this Act.
BAUCUS AMENDMENT NO. 4284
Mr. BAUCUS proposed an amend-
ment to amendment No. 4244 proposed
by Mr. DANFORTH to the bill H.R. 3398,
supra; as follows:
S 11519'
of such Act is amended by adding at the end "(a) DEFINITIONS.-For purposes of this
thereof the following: section-
"TITLE VII-PROTECTION OF OPER- "(1) The term 'customs broker' means any
ATIONAL FILES OF THE CENTRAL IN. person granted a customs broker's license by
TELLIGENCE AGENCY - the Secretary under subsection (b).
"Sec. 701. Exemption of certain operational "(2) The term 'customs business' means
files from search, review, publi- those activities involving transactions with
cation, or disclosure. the Customs Service concerning-
"Sec. 702. Decennial review of exempted "(A) the entry and admissibility of mer-
operational files.". chandise,
(c) Subsection (q) of section 552a of title 5,
United States Code, is amended-
(1) by inserting "(1)" after "(q)"; and
(2) by adding at the end thereof the fol-
lowing:
"(2) No agency shall rely on any exemp-
tion in this section to withhold from an in-
dividual any record which is otherwise ac-
cessible to such individual under the provi-
sions of section 552 of this title.".
SEC. 3. (a) The Director of Central Intelli-
gence, in consultation with the Archivist of
the United States, the Librarian of Con-
gress, and appropriate representatives of
the historical discipline selected by the Ar-
chivist, shall prepare and submit by June 1,
1985, a report on the feasibility of conduct-
ing systematic review for declassification
and release of Central Intelligence Agency
information of historical value.
(b)(1) The Director. shall, once each six
months, prepare and submit an unclassified
report which includes-
(A) a description of the specific measures
established by the Director to improve the
processing of requests under section 552 of
title 5, United States Code;
(B) the current budgetary and personnel
allocations for such processing;
(C) the number of. such requests (I) re-
ceived and processed during the preceding
six months, and (ii) pending at the time of
submission of such report; and
(D) an estimate of the current average re-
sponse time for completing the processing
of such requests.
(2) The first report required by paragraph
(1) shall be submitted by a date which is six
months after the date of enactmenmt of
this Act. The requirements of such para-
graph shall cease to apply after the submis-
sion of the fourth such report.
(c) Each of the reports required by subsec-
tions (a) and (b) shall be submitted to the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelli-
gence and the Committee on Government
Operations of the House of Representatives
and the Select Committee on Intelligence
page 65 of the matter proposed to be and the Committee on the Judiciary of the
ted, strike out line 9, and insert in lieu Senate.
reof the following: 'and the extent to bons (a) and (b) of section 2 shall be effec-
ich such country has assured the United tive upon enactment of this Act and shall
ter that it will refrain from engaging in apply with respect to any requests for
u asonable export practices;"'. records, whether or not such request was
NO. 4285
(Ordered to lie on the table.)
Mr. GOLDWATER submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the bill (H.R. 5164) to
amend the National Security Act of
1 1947 to regulate public disclosure of
information held by the Central Intel-
ligence Agency, and for other pur-
poses; as follows:
At the appropriate place insert the follow=
ing:
made prior to such enactment, and shall
apply to all civil actions not commenced
prior to February 7, 1984.
f
OMNIBUS TRADE ACT
BAUCUS AMENDMENT NO.. 4286
"(B) the classification and valuation of
such merchandise,
"(C) the payment of duties, taxes, or
other charges assessed or collected by the
Customs Service upon merchandise by
reason of its importation, or
"(D) the refund, rebate, or drawback of
such duties, taxes, or other charges.
"(3) The term 'Secretary' means the Sec-
retary of the Treasury.
"(b) CUSTOM-BROKERS LICENSES.-
"(1) IN GENERAL.-No person may conduct
customs business (other than solely on such
person's own behalf) unless such person
holds a valid customs brokers license issued
by the Secretary under paragraph (2) or (3).
"(2) LICENSES FOR INDIVIDUALS.-The Sec-
retary may grant an Individual a customs
brokers license only if that individual Is a
citizen of the United States. Before granting
the license, the Secretary may require an
applicant to provide any information that
the Secretary determines to be necessary to
establish that the applicant is of good moral
character. and qualified to render valuable
service to others in the conduct of customs
business. In assessing the qualifications of
an applicant, the Secretary may conduct an
examination to determine the applicant's
knowledge of customs and related laws, reg-
ulations and procedures, bookkeeping, ac-
counting, and any other appropriate mat-
ters.
"(3) LICENSES FOR CORPORATION.-The Sec-
retary may grant a customs brokers license
to any corporation, association, or partner-
ship that is organized or existing under the
laws of any of the several States of the
United States if at least one officer of the
corporation or association, or one member
of the partnership, holds a valid customs
brokers license granted under paragraph
(2).
"(4) DUTIES.-A customs broker shall exer-
cise responsible supervision and control over
the customs business that the customs
broker conducts.
11(5) LAPSE OF LICENSE.-If a corporation,
association, or partnership that is licensed
as a customs broker under paragraph (3)
fails to have, for any continuous period of
120 days, at least one officer of the corpora-
tion or association, or at least one member
of the partnership, validly licensed under
paragraph (2), in addition to any other sanc-
tion under this section (including paragraph
(6)), the customs broker's license of such
corporation, association, or partnership
shall expire at the close of such 120-day
period.
"(6) PROHIBITED ACTS.-Any person who In-
tentionally. transacts customs business
Mr. BAUCUS proposed an amend- (other than solely on such person's own
ment to amendment No. 4244 proposed behalf) without holding a valid customs bro-
kers license granted to such person under
supra; as follows: this subsection shall be liable to the United
States for a monetary penalty not to exceed
On page 34 of the matter proposed to be $10,000 for each such transaction as well as
Inserted, between lines 2 and 3, insert the for each violation of any other provision of
following: this section. This penalty shall be assessed
SEC. . CUSTOMS BROKERS. in the same manner and under the same
(a) Section 641 of the. Tariff' Act of .1930 procedures as the monetary penalties pro-
(19 U.S.C. 1641) is amended to read as fol. vided for in subsection (d)(2)(A).
lows: "(C) CUSTOMS BROKERS PERMITS.-
Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0
 Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0
S 11520 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE September 19, 1984
"(1) IN GENERAL.-Each person granted a plaints In writing within 30 days of the date tary penalty not to exceed $30,000, than was
Customs brokers licence ,,..A...........
i
_
_ _ _
_ _
ect
on (b)
ti
f t
"
"(A) be issued a permit, in accordance
with regulations prescribed under this sec-
tion, for each customs district in which that
person conducts customs business; and
"(B) regularly employ in each customs dis-
trict for which such a permit is issued at
least one individual who is licensed under
subsection (b)(2) to exercise responsible su-
pervision and control over the customs busi-
ness conducted by that person in that dis-
trict.
"(2) LAPSE OF PERMIT.-If a customs broker
granted a permit under paragraph (1) fails
to employ, for any continuous period of 120
days, at least one individual who is licensed
under subsection (b)(2) within the district
for which a permit was issued, in addition to
any other sanction under this section (in-
cluding any sanction imposed under subsec-
tion (d)), such permit shall expire at the
end of such 120-day period.
"(d) DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.-
"(1) GENERAL RULE.-The Secretary may
impose a monetary penalty in all cases
(other than in the case of infractions de-
scribed In subparagraph (B)(iii)) or revoke
or suspend a license or permit of any cus-
toms broker, if the Secretary determines
that the broker-
"(A) has made, or caused to be made, in
any application for any license or permit
under this section, or in any report filed
with the Customs Service, any statement
which was, at the time and in light of the
circumstances under which it was made,
false or misleading with respect to any ma-
terial fact, or has omitted to state in any
such application or report any material fact
which was required to be stated therein;
"(B) has been convicted at any time after
the filing of an application for license under
subsection (b) of any felony or misdemeanor
which the Secretary finds-
"(I) involved the importation or exporta-
tion of merchandise;
"(ii) arose out of the conduct of.the cus-
toms business of the customs broker, or
"(iii) involved larceny, theft, robbery, ex-
tortion, forgery, counterfeiting, fraudulent
concealment, embezzlement, fraudulent con-
version. or misappropriation of funds;
"(C) has violated any provision of any law
enforced by the Customs Service or violated
the rules or regulations issued under any
such provision;
"(D) has counseled, commanded, induced,
procured, or knowingly aided or abetted the
violations by any other person of any provi-
sion of any law enforced by the Customs
Service or of the rules or regulations issued
under any such provision;
"(E) has knowingly employed, or contin-
ues to employ, any person who has been
convicted of a felony, without written ap-
proval of such employment from the Secre-
tary; or
"(F) has, in the course of the customs
business of such broker and with the intent
to defraud, wilfully and knowingly deceived,
misled, or threatened any client or prospec-
tive client.
"(2) PROCEDURES.-
"(A) MONETARY PENALTY.-
., (I) NOTICE.-Unless action has been taken
under subparagraph (B), the appropriate
customs officer shall serve notice in writing
upon any customs broker to show cause why
the broker should not be subject to a mone-
tary penalty not- to exceed $30,000 In total
for a violation or violations of this section.
Such notice shall advise the customs broker
.
y p
o
e
of the allegations or complaints against him for the sanction contained in the notice to
and shall explain that the broker has a show cause or any lesser sanction author-
right to respond to the allegations or com- ized by this subsection, including a mone-
(ll) CONSIDERATION OF ALLEGATIONS AND "(3) SETTLEMENT AND COMPROMISE.-Tl
RESPONSES.-Before imposing a monetary Secretary may settle and com
romise
p
cal
p
r. ~__~ customs officer snap consider disciplinary proceeding which has been in-
the allegations or complaints and any stituted under this subsection according to
timely response made by the customs broker the terms and conditions agreed to by the
and issue a written decision. - parties, Including but not limited to the re-
"(III) REMISSION OR MITIGATION OF PENAL- duction of any proposed suspension or revo-
TIES.-A customs broker against whom a cation to a monetary penalty.
monetary penalty has been issued under "(4) LIMITATION OF ACTIONS.-NotWith-
this section shall have a reasonable oppor- standing section 621, no proceeding under
tunity under section 618 to make represen- this subsection or subsection (b)(6) shall be
tations seeking remission or mitigation of commenced unless such proceeding is insti-
the monetary penalty. tuted by the appropriate service of written
(iv) WRITTEN DECISION.-After the conclu- notice within 5 years from the date the al-
sion of any proceeding under section 618, leged violation was committed; except that
the appropriate customs officer shall pro- if the alleged violation consists of fraud, the
vide to the customs broker a written deci- 5-year period of limitation shall commence
sion which sets forth the final determina- running from the time such alleged viola-
tion and the findings of fact and conclusions tion was discovered.
of law on which such determination is "(e) JUDICIAL APPEAL.-
based. "(1) IN GENERAL.-A customs broker, appli-
(B) REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION.-
"(1) cant, or other person directly affected may
NOTICE OF COMPLAINT.-The appropri- appeal any decision of the Secretary deny-
ate customs officer may, for good and suffi- ing or revoking a license or permit under
cient reason, serve notice in writing upon subsection (b) or (c), or revoking or suspend-
any customs broker to show cause why a 11- ing a license or permit or Imposing a mone-
cense or permit issued under this section tary penalty in lieu thereof under subsec-
should not be revoked or suspended. Such tion (d)(2)(B), by filing in the Court of
notice shall be in the form of a statement International' Trade, within 60 days after
specifically setting forth the grounds of the the issuance of the decision or order, a writ-
complaint, and shall allow the customs ten petition requesting that the decision or
broker 30 days to respond. order be modified or set aside in whole or In
(ii) NOTICE OF HEARING.-If no response to
the notice provided under clause (1) is filed, part. A copy of the petition shall be trans-
or the appropriate customs officer deter- mitted promptly by the clerk of the court to
mines that the revocation or suspension is v
the olving revocation Secretary atioo hir nIof cases in-
still warranted after receiving such a re- or permit cn or suspension o a license
pen-
sponse, the appropriate customs officer or peor imposition of a monetary pen-alty shall notify the customs broker in writing (d)(2XinB) lieu receipt of the under subsection
of- d)(, after receipt petition, the
"(I) a hearing to be held within 15 days, or Secretary shall file in court the record upon
at a later date if the broker requests an ex. which the decision or order complained of
tension and shows good cause therefor, was entered, as- provided in section 2635(d)
before an administrative law judge appoint- of title 28, United States Code.
United "(2) CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS: The
ed pursuant to section 3105 of title 5
,
States Code, who shall serve as the hearing court shall not consider any objection to the
officer, and admission of evidence or testimony or to the
"(II) the right of the customs broker to be decision or order of the Secretary unless
represented by counsel at such hearing. that objection was raised before the hearing
"(iii) TESTIMONY; CROSS EXAMINATION.- officer in suspension or revocation proceed-
Testimony presented at the hearing de- ings or there were reasonable grounds for
scribed in clause (ii), including the proof of failure to do so.
the charges and the response thereto, shall "(3) CONCLUSIVENESS OIL FINDINGS.-The
be taken under oath and the right of cross- findings of the Secretary as to the facts, If
examination accorded to both parties at supported by substantial evidence, shall be
such hearing. conclusive.
"(Iv) TRANSCRIPT.-A transcript of the "(4) ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES.-If any party
hearing described in clause (ii) shall be applies to the court for leave to present ad-
made and a copy shall be provided to the ditional evidence and the court is satisfied
appropriate customs officer and the cus- that the additional evidence is material and
toms broker. that reasonable grounds existed for the fail-
"(v) POST-HEARING BRIEF.-The customs ure to present the evidence in the proceed-
broker and the appropriate customs officer ings before the hearing officer, the court
shall be provided a reasonable period of may order the additional evidence to be
time after receipt of the transcript in which taken before the hearing officer and to be
to file a post-hearing brief. presented in a manner and upon the terms
"(vi) WAIVER OR ABSENCE.-If the customs and conditions prescribed by the court. The
broker waives the hearing, or the broker or Secretary may modify the findings of facts
his designated representative fails to appear on the basis of the additional evidence pre-
at the appointed time and place, the hear- sented. The Secretary shall then file with
ing officer shall make findings and recom- the court any new or modified findings of
mendations based on the record submitted fact which shall be conclusive if supported
by the parties. by substantial evidence, together with a rec-
"(vii) TRANSFER OF RECORD.-The hearing ommendation, if any, for the modification
officer shall promptly transmit the record or setting aside of the original decision or
of the case along with the findings of fact order.
and recommendations of the hearing officer "(5) EFFECT OF PROCEEDINGS.-The com-
to the Secretary for decision. mencement of proceedings under this sub-
"(viii) DECISION OF THE SECRETARY.-The section shall, unless specifically ordered by
Secretary will issue a written decision based the court, operate as a stay of the decision r
solely on the record which sets forth find- of the Secretary except in the case of a
ings of fact and the reasons for the decision denial of a license or permit.
of the Secretary
Such decision ma
r
vid
"(6) FAILURE TO APPEAL.-If an appeal is
not filed within the time limits specified in
this section, the decision by -the Secretary
shall be final and conclusive. In the case of
Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0
 Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - Extension
near reservations in IHS facilities.
Many more are needed, however, to
eliminate shortages of health profes-
sionals that are common to IHS facili-
ties, especially in remote reservation
areas.
As a result of title II appropriations,
many health service backlogs for sur-
geries, such as for otitis media, an
inner ear disease, and the incidence of
such diseases as tuberculosis, have
been eliminated or reduced. However,
statistics reveal Indian people contin-
ue to suffer from a variety of environ-
mentally related diseases and other af-
flications at rates well above those of
the general population. Alcoholism,
which is an economic and social prob-
lem as well as a health problem, re-
mains the scourge of Indian society.
Since 1976 more than a dozen IHS
hospitals have been upgraded to meet
JCAH accreditation standards. Several
new Indian hospitals and clinics have
been built. Other facilities have been
modernized, repaired, and staffed with
medicare and medicaid funds available
Washington University, Washington,
DC.
John P.: Nevada State senator twice;
unsuccessful candidate for Lieutenant
Governor and Governor; his daughter,
Elizabeth, practices law with her
father and serves on the Young Demo-
crats National Committee.
Thomas A.: Former Nevada State
deputy attorney general; former presi-
dent of the Nevada State Bar Associa-
tion; currently, a Nevada State district
court judge; his son, Michael, took
over his father's law practice when he
became a judge.
As you can see, the accomplishments
of this family are many, and there is
no indication of anything but even
more outstanding contributions in the
future for the State and the Nation.
That is why it is a special privilege for
me to have had a part in the renaming
of the Federal building in Clark
County, which will be known as the
Foley Federal Building and U.S.
Courthouse.?
SPEECH OF
HON. JOHN McCAIN
OF ARIZONA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Friday, September 14, 1984
The House in Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union had under
consideration the bill (H.R. 4567) to reau-
thorize and amend the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act, and for other purposes.
? Mr. McCAIN. Mr. Chairman, I am
pleased to rise in strong support of
H.R. 4567, the Indian Health Care
Amendments of 1984.
As the distinguished chairman of
the Interior Committee has stated,
this legislation has been the subject of
extensive hearings in three commit-
tees of the House and Senate over the
past 2 years.
The record of those hearings shows
that substantial progress has been
made in the status of Indian health as
a result of the programs and efforts
established under the Indian Health
Care Improvement Act of 1976 and the
1980 amendments to it.
The record also shows that Indian
health continues to lag well behind
that of the general population. Indeed,
recent statistics indicate that on more
than half the 265 reservations in the
continental United States and in
Alaska Native villages, native Ameri-
cans are 40 to 60 percent deficient in
terms of their access to a. standard
measure of health care resources. In
my State of Arizona, with its large
Indian population, 17 of 20 reserva-
tions rate a 40 to 60 percent deficien-
cy.
The Indian health scholarship . pro-
grams of the 1976 act have enabled
hundreds of young Indians to obtain'
education and skills in various health
professions. Many now work on or
spite these improvements, 9 of 48 IHS
hospitals still are unable to meet ac-
creditation standards, and many of the
more than 200 IHS health stations
and clinics are understaffed and/or lo-
cated in substandard structures.
In urban areas, where roughly half
of all native Americans now live, Indi-
ans have experienced considerable dif-
ficulty gaining access to health care.
Under the 1976 act, 37 urban clinics
provide a wide range of direct and in-
direct care and help Indians obtain
access to existing health care re-
sources. In Phoenix, as in other cities,
the Urban Indian Program does
yeoman work in meeting the needs of
so-called urban Indians.
If we are to achieve the goals of the
1976 act-to raise the health status of
Indian people to a level of parity with
the general population and to increase
Indian involvement in their health
care system-then Congress has a duty
to continue the efforts begun under
the Health Care Improvement Act.
That is the purpose of the legislation
before us.
H.R. 4567 is a sound, fair, reasonable
bill that represents a responsible
effort to fulfill this Nation's legal and
moral obligations to improve the
health of Indian people. It enjoys bi-
partisan support in this House and in
the other body. It has unanimous sup-
port from Indians and Indian tribes
around the country. The administra-
tion, with some objections to particu-
lar provisions, supports reauthoriza-
tion. H.R. 4567 is good legislation and
I urge my colleagues to support it.*
rks September 18, 1984
KEEP THE CIA ACCOUNTABLE:
VOTE "NO" ON H.R. 5164
SPEECH OF
HON. RICHARD L. OTTINGER
OF NEW YORK
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES -
Monday, September 17, 1984
? Mr. OTTINGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise
to commend the efforts of my friend
and colleague from New York, Mr.
WEISS,-to inject some necessary clarity
into the debate on exempting the CIA
from certain Freedom of Information
Act reviews. I join him in opposing
passage of H.R. 5164.
Clearly, in the interests of national
security, some CIA information should
not be automatically available for
public consumption. The committee
makes that point in its report. Howev-
er, over the past several years there
has been an accelerating trend away
from public scrutiny and toward Gov-
ernment secrecy in cases of CIA In-
volvement where 'security Interests are
not demonstrated, a trend I believe
threatens the public's right to know.
Classification of CIA documents has
become the norm, rather than the ex-
ception. Such actions should not be
encouraged by legislating indiscrimi-
nate protection of classified files.
Most dangerous, this bill seeks to
limit scrutiny of even the decision to
classify by curtailing the rights of citi-
zens to judicial review of a CIA deci-
sion to withhold classified information
from release under the FOIA. Why is
this necessary? Proponents of the bill
claim it will facilitate response to
other FOIA requests, ones that do not
involve classified operational files, by
eliminating the 2-year backlog of re-
quests for classified information. But
if judicial review is eliminated, what is
to prevent greater and greater
amounts of information from being
placed in these protected files?
Under current law, the CIA is al-
lowed to protect classified information
from FOIA review. But should the re-
quester suspect that some Information
has been unnecessarily or unjustly
classified, a judge may order and con-
duct a private-in camera-review of
the material to determine its sensitivi-
ty. As Representative WEISS pointed
out, the courts have almost always
ruled in favor of the agency in such
cases, and there has never been an un-
authorized release of documents under
this procedure. What can we expect if
this right of review is curtailed?
Rather than speeding the FOIA
process, we would be sanctioning the
classification of materials that in the
past have been crucial to the discovery
of numerous illegal operations of the
CIA, from the domestic surveillance of
activists to the mining of foreign
ports. It is possible to adjust require-
ments for access to sensitive material
without legislating blanket exemption
to an already recalcitrant agency to
proceed without public checks. It is an
Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0
 Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0
September 18, 1984 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - Extensions of Remarks
Or, where, feasible and cost effective to
set up an on-site child care at the place of
the parents' federal employment.
These are only a few of the most fre-
quently used types of employer-sponsored
child care options.
(c) The areas where cost savings will most
likely be found are detailed in this section.
The study should consider measuring the
current costs to the government which are
lost in the following areas due to dependent
care-related matters: productivity, recruit-
ment, turnover, absenteeism, tardiness, sick
leave, annual leave, training of replace-
ments, lost worktime, loyalty, public rela-
tions and other factors-which are often re-
lated to problems with dependent care and
then compare these figures with the costs of
offering a child care benefit.
(d) The Comptroller General is authorized
to conduct research as necessary with the
private consultant-whether through sam-
pling, surveys, or estimates-to formulate or
substantiate any cost savings identified by
this analysis.
(e) The report made by GAO, and the pri-
vate consultant must be transmitted to Con-
gress within one year and should include
recommendations for administrative or leg-
islative action. Although a report would be
welcome before such deadline, a researcher
in this area in Texas has outlined that a
report of this magnitude would take a full
year to complete.
(f) GAO shall contract with a private con-
sultant or consulting firm having educaticn,
training, expertise and knowledge in analyz-
ing cost benefits of child care.
(g) All federal hgencies are instructed to
cooperate with GAO in accumulating the
necessary data and material on which to
make an accurate cost-benefit analysis.
(h) Such sums as necessary are authorized
to carry out this cast benefit analysis. It is
assumed by the sponsor that this type of
analysis would not cost more than $250,000
over the course of the next year.
H.R. 6269
A bill to require a cost-benefit analysis of a
Government program of furnishing work-
day care benefits for dependent children
of Federal employees
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That this
Act may be cited as the "Federal Employ-
ees' Day Care Benefits Study Act of 1984".
SEC. 2. (a) For the purposes of this sec-
tion-
(1) the term "Comptroller General"
means the Comptroller General of the
United States; and
(2) the term "consultant" means the indi-
vidual or entity entering into a contract
with the Comptroller General under subsec-
tion (f).
(b)(1) The Comptroller General, in the
consultation with the consultant, shall-
(A) identify several options for a program
for the Government to furnish workday
care benefits to dependent children of Fed-
eral employees; and
(B) carry out a cost-benefit analysis of es-
tablishing and carrying out each program
identified as an option pursuant to clause
(A).
(2) The options identified by the Comp-
troller General pursuant to paragraph
(1)(A) shall include such options as-
(A) a program to furnish child care at the
place of employment;
(B) a program to furnish vouchers to pay
for child care services;
(C) a program to furnish child care under
a Government contract;
(D) a program to furnish child care
through a consortium of Government agen-
cies or a consortium of Government agen-
cies and other employers using child care
services; and
(E) a program to furnish information and
referral services relating to child care.
(c) In carrying out the cost-benefit analy-
sis required by subsection (b), the Comptrol-
ler General shall determine, with respect to
each program identified pursuant to such
subsection, whether the Government would
achieve any cost savings in carrying out the
program by reason of such factors as-
(1) increased productivity;
(2) reduced turnover in employees;
(3) reduced absenteeism;
(4) reduced tardiness;
(5) reduced use of sick leave and annual
leave;
(6) reduced loss of worktime:
(7) increased loyalty; and
(8) reduced recruitment costs resulting
from increased attractiveness of the Gov-
ernment as an employer.
(d) In carrying out the cost-benefit analy-
sis required by subsection (b), the Comptrol-
ler General-
(1) shall review existing data and research
available on the options for a child care pro-
gram; and
(2) may carry out such surveys asld sam-
pling, distribute and collect such question-
naires, and make such estimates as the
Comptroller General, in consultation with
the consultant, considers appropriate for
the purposes of the analysis or to assure
that there is sufficient data relating to the
entire Government workforce and the sever-
al Government agencies nationwide.
(e) Not later than one year after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller
General shall transmit to the Congress a
report on the cost-benefit analysis carried
out under this section. The report shall in-
clude the findings of the Comptroller Gen-
eral and any recommendations for adminis-
trative action or legislation that the Comp-
troller General considers appropriate.
(f) The Comptroller General shall enter
into a contract with any qualified individual
or entity to consult with the Comptroller
General on the cost-benefit analysis re-
quired by subsection (b). For the purposes
of the first sentence, a qualified individual
or entity is any individual or entity who, by
reason of education, training, or experience,
has extensive knowledge and 'expertise in
the major areas to be considered in the cost-
benefit analysis.
(g) Each head of a department, agency, or
other entity of the Government shall fur-
nish the Comptroller General such informa-
tion, services, and other assistance as the
Comptroller General considers necessary to
carry out the cost-benefit analysis required
by subsection (b).
(h) There are authorized to be appropri-
ated such sums as may be necessary to carry
out lis section.o
FOLEY FAMILY: A NEVADA
LEGAL SAGA
HON. HARRY M. REID
OF NEVADA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, September 18, 1984
O Mr. REID. Mr. Speaker, throughout
the legislative session, we Members of
Congress study thousands of docu-
ments, as well as attend hundreds of
briefings and- hearings, before we
commit our votes to legislation when it
comes before the House. Recognizing
that even this description of the proce-
IE 3889
dure is simplistic, I am especially ap-
preciative of the August 9, 1984, pas-
sage of H.R. 4717, a bill to name the
Federal building in C1arls County, NV,
the Foley Federal Building and U.S.
Courthouse.
To understand the significance of
this name change it is important to Id
understand the impact that the Foley
family has made on Nevada, especially
in terms of the State's legal history. In
fact, in describing the people who
pursue the diverse challenges of the
law, Nevadans consider the name
Foley as synonymous with "the law."
In toto, the Foley clan has been in
that business for about 300 years-
with more to come. That translates
into four generations-12 lawyers, at
last count-who have held nearly
every political position.
Thomas Llewellyn Foley came to
Goldfield, NV, in 1906, where he set
up law practice. His son, Roger T.,
joined his practice, but soon branched
off into politics as Esmerelda County
District Attorney.
In 1928, the family moved to Las
Vegas, where Roger T.'s five sons,
George, Joe, John, Roger, and Tom,
would eventually create, protect, and
practice the law.
It was in 1945 that President Frank-
lin Roosevelt appointed Roger T. as a
Federal judge, a position he held until
his death in 1974. Five years after that
appointment, his five sons, all practic-
ing law together at that time, held the
record as the Nation's largest film of
"all brothers." They held that auspi-
cious title for at least 10 years.
In 1961, one of the brothers, Roger
D., followed his father's example by
being appointed Federal judge by
President John Kennedy. He now is a
sedlior Federal judge.
Indeed, there has never been such a
dynamic family that has given so
much knowledge, experience and loy-
alty to the legal and political develop-
ment of one State.
Following are brief profiles of the
five sons of Roger T., highlights of
their political careers and the legal ca-
reers of some of their offspring.
Roger D.: Former Clark County dis-
trict attorney, former Nevada attorney
general and former Federal district
judge; he now is a senior Federal dis-
trict judge; his daughter, Mary Louise,
is a pre-law student at the University
of Nevada/Las Vegas.
George W.: Former member of the
Nevada Boxing Commission and
former Clark County District Attor-
ney; his son, George, Jr., recently
graduated from McGeorge School of
Law as valedictorian and now practices
law with his father in Las Vegas.
Joseph M.: Currently, and an-
nounced candidate for UNLV Board of
Regents; his daughter, Helen, has
now serves in the State senate; his son,
Daniel, is a recent law graduate of the
University of Utah; his daughter,
Shannon, is studying law at George
Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0
 Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0
September 18, 1984 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - Extensions of Remarks
abdication of our responsibility to
uphold the practice of open Govern-
ment to allow greater secrecy for an
agency that has repeatedly betrayed
> the public in its undertakings.
I urge my colleagues to vote "no" on
proving the exemption. All District of
(Columbia laws must undergo a period
of congressional review before taking
effect. With the sine die adjournment
date rapidly approaching, that review
could not be completed in this Con-
gress. Thus, any local legislation deal-
ing with this problem would need to
be resubmitted in the next Congress
for review. The bottom line is that it
would be sometime in the spring of
1985 before the local law could become
finalized. A delay of that long is
simply unacceptable, since the organi-
zation would be forced to pay the tax
levied until an exemption were final-
ized, and then seek reimbursement.
That would clearly not be consistent
with the intent of Congress in grant-
ing the original exemption.
There are more severe problems
with a reliance on local government
action. The Supreme Court decision in
H.R. 4994-TRANSFER OF DC TAX
EXEMPTION ON CERTAIN
PROPERTY OF THE JEWISH
WAR VETERANS
SPEECH OF
HON. STEWART B. McKINNEY
OF CONNECTICUT
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, September 17, 1984
? Mr. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, the
purpose of H.R. 4994 is to transfer a
congressional-granted District of Co-
lumbia tax exemption provided to the
Jewish War Veterans, U.S.A. National
Memorial, Inc., from one piece of
property to another. The original ex-
emption, which was 'granted in 1955,
was site specific to what was then the
headquarters building of the organiza-
tion. That property has now been sold,
and the organization has acquired a
new headquarters building nearby.
Although it should be clear, I would
stress that this bill does not add an-
other piece of property to the existing
exemption, nor does it create a sepa-
rate, new exemption. Instead it repeals
the reference to the original head-
y
b
qua ers
ulldmg in the original ex-
emption, and substitutes a description
of the new building. If this measure is
enacted, which I sincerely hope will be
the case, the former headquarters
building will be returned to the Dis-
trict of Columbia tax rolls, as it has
been sold to a private entity, and the
new building will be exempted from
taxes as long as it is owned and occu-
pied by the organization.
In light of the existence of home
rule for the District of Columbia, it is
legitimate to question why the Con-
gress, and not the local council, is
taking this action. There are two very
legitimate reasons. First, the organiza-
tion has made a good faith effort to
have this matter resolved at the local
level. An application was filed with the
District of Columbia Department of
Finance and Revenue seeking a tax ex-
emption for the new property. That
request has been denied. That denial
can only be assumed to reflect the po-
sition of the local executive branch of
government. Since the original exemp-
tion was granted by Congress, and
since the Congress maintains its con-
stitutional authority to act as legisla-
ture for the District of Columbia on
any and all matters, it is within the
power of Congress to act. Although it
would be my personal preference that
the city take the necessary action to
grant this exemption, the indications
received thus far point to that not
happening.
There are further problems, even if
the city did enact local legislation ap-
INS against Chadha declared legisla-
tive vetoes unconstitutional. That de-
cision applied to the review procedures
contained in the Home Rule Act-
Public Law 93-198, as amended-per-
taining to finalization of local laws.
Thus, any local legislation on this, or
really any other matter will become
and remain legally questionable pursu-
ant to the Supreme Court decision. it
is for this very reason that the city, al-
though they have the authority to
issue bonds, has not done so and will
not do so unless the overriding legality
of any local legislation is resolved.
Mr. Speaker, for these reasons it is
proper and prudent for Congress to
take the action suggested in H.R. 4994.
It is not an erosion of the principle of
home rule, and should not be viewed
as such. It is a reaffirmation. of the
intent of Congress structured in the
only manner possible to insure its con-
tinued and uninterrupted validity.?
EUROPE'S HIGH-TECH
DELUSIONS
HON. DON RITTER
OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, September 18, 1984
? Mr. RITTER. Mr. Speaker, I would
like to share with my colleagues a
recent article from the Wall Street
Journal by Peter F. Drucker. The arti-
cle strongly supports the "targeting
the process of innovation" type of
tonic that our House task force on
high technology initiatives is prescrib-
ing to strengthen U.S. industrial com-
petitiveness. Mr. Drucker presents a
very compelling case for why our ap-
proach is right for the United States
with its large enterpreneurial economy
but wrong for Europe.
EUROPE'S HIGH-TECH DELUSION
(By Peter F. Drucker)
High-tech entrepreneurship is all the rage
in Europe these days. The French have
funded a high-powered ministry that will
make the encouragement of high-tech en-
trepreneurship a top government priority.
E 3891
The West Germans are starting up venture-
capital firms on the U.S. model and are talk-
ing of having their own Silicon Tat, or
valley. They have even coined a new word-
Unternehmer-Kuttur (entrepreneurial cul-
ture)-and are busy writing learned papers
and holding symposia on it. Even the Brit-
ish are proposing government aid to new
high-tech enterprises in fields such as semi-
conductors, biotechnology or telecommuni-
cations.
The Europeans are right, of course, to be
concerned about the widening high-tech gap
between themselves and their U.S. and Jap-
anese competitors. Without Indigenous
high-tech capacity and production, no coun-
try can expect to be a leader any more. And
yet, the European belief that "high-tech en-
trepreneurs" can flourish, all by themsleves
and without being embedded in an entre-
prenurial economy, is a total misunder-
standing.
One reason is politics. High-tech by itself
is the maker of tomorrow's jobs rather than
today's. To provide the new jobs needed to
employ a growing work force a country
needs "low-tech" or "no-tech" entrepre-
neurs in large numbers-and the Europeans
do not want these. In the U.S., employment
in the Fortune 1,000 companies and in gov-
ernment agencies has fallen by six million
people in the past 15 to 20 years. Total em-
ployment, however, has risen to 106 million
now from 71 million in 1965. Yet high-tech
during this period has provided only about
six million new jobs-that is, no more than
smokestack industry and government have
lost. All the additional jobs in the U.S. econ-
omy, in our words, have been provided by
"middle-tech," low-tech and no-tech entre-
preneurs-by makers of surgical instru-
ments, of exercise equipment for use in the
home, of running shoes; by financial-service
firms and toy makers; by "ethnic" restau-
rants and low-fare airlines.
POLITICAL REALITIES
If entrepreneurial activity is confined to
high-tech-and this Is what the Europeans
are trying to do-unemployment will contin-
ue to go up as "smokestack" industries
either cut back production or automate. No
government, and certainly no democratic
one, could then possibly continue to subor-
dinate the ailing giants of yesteryear to an
uncertain high-tech tomorrow. Soon, very
soon, it would be forced by political realities
to abandon the support of high-tech and to
put all its resources in defending, subsidiz-
ing and bailing out existing employers and
especially the heavily unionized smokestack
companies. The pressures to do that are al-
ready building fast.
In France, the Communists recently
pulled out of the government over this
issue. President Francois Mitterrand's own
Socialist Party, especially its powerful and
vocal left wing, is also increasingly unhappy
with his high-tech policies. They are also in-
creasingly unpopular, moreover, with large
employers. Indeed it is widely believed that
the French right, in its attempt to regain a
majority in the 1986 parliamentary elec-
tions, will make a reversal of Mr. Mitter-
rand's industrial policy its main plank and
demand that France give priority to employ-
ment in existing industries and scuttle high-
tech entrepreneurship. This already is the
program of the National Front, a rapidly
growing far-right party.
In West Germany, demands to shore up
old businesses to maintain employment, and
to deny access to credit and capital to new
entrepreneurs, are growing steadily. Banks
are already under some pressure from their
main clients, the existing businesses, which
expect them not to provide financing to any
Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0
 I Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0
September 17, 1984 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
Catastrophic wildfires occurred in the
Pacific Northwest and Northern
Rocky Mountain States in 13'73 and '.n
Ca :rnia in 1977. In these situations
Canadian Forces could have been ef-
fectively used to supplement and back
up domestic firefighters. H.R. 3726
would allow such amts to be used and
would permit their reimbursement.
Mr. KINDN ESS. Mr. Speaker, I join
in support of H.R. 3'326, a bill to
permit the use of foreign firefighting
resources on Federal land and to im-
prove the wildfire fighting capability
of the Federal Government.
Wildfires, as has been pointed out,
e5pecially in the '71estern States, have
caused minions of alas of d^abe in
the last decade. 'decently, the fixes in
Montana raged nut ci control and
burned thousands of acres of forest
and range land as well as rasil=ential
and commercial property and this
needless destruction must be deterred
or stopped to the best of our ability.
H.R. 3726 will increase cur ability to
fight such fires by permitting the use
of firefighting organizations of foreign
lands includL ; those sf foreign corpo-
rations and associations, in lighting
wildfires anywhere on Federal land in
the United States.
These foreign firefighters would pro-
vide much-needed assistance man-
power and equipment to our amestic
forces. The Department zf agriculture
stated that Canadian forces would be
especially helpful in controlling fires
In the Pacific 'Northwest and Rocky
Mountain States.
In addition, the Department has as-
certained that in certain situations it
S is more cost-effective to reimburse for-
eign !orces rather than to transport
Fader-1 or State forces from more aiis-
tant'_: cations.
So, fir. Speaker, H.R. 3'725 was pro-
posed by the adr_ 4 istrat on.:.t repre-
sents a logical and necessary step in
incr ai g the fire protection of our
Federal land. I strongly urge support
of H.R. 3726 and recommend its ap-
proval, and yield to the gentleman
from Alaska.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. MVir. Speaker,
I was unaware of this bill, and the gen-
tleman =y wonder why I am a little
concerned right now, but you are talk-
ing about Federal lands and it is
cheaper, apparently the administra-
tion says it is cheaper to hire foreign-
ers to be fighting our fires on our Fed-
eral lands.
Now, are we speaking it is cheaper
because of the salaries being paid or
because of transportation capabilities?
Mr. KINDNESS. Mr. Speaker, the
concern is that uppermost is trans-
porting equipment and personnel over
greater distances. For example, in the
gentleman's State of Alaska, it is a po-
tential problem to have backup per-
sonnel and equipment coming from
down In the Western States; a greater
distance while fires might rage.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. What I am
concerned here with, we have a very
valid group of firefighters available in
the State of Alaska primarily as Alas-
kan Indians. We just passed a bill a
few moments ago concerning waters.
I would be deeply disturbed if I hap-
pened to look out and see a bunch of
Canadians working in my Federal
lands which is now owned because of
efforts of some people in this Congress
approximately 74 percent by the Fed-
eral Government, but seeing Alaskans
deprived of one -I the major sources
of income from the more remote areas,
fighting fires on Federal lands.
^ 1300
Mr. KINDr7SS. Mr. Speaker, I
would hasten to.-assure the gentleman
from Alaska that what is intended
here is strictly the emergency supple-
mental use of personnel from outside
of the area that would be affected by
the fire, and rnly where there are no
domestic personnel and resources
readily available to get there.
But as the gentleman would con-
cede, there could be occasions in which
it would be mere costly and more time-
consuming to move people and equip-
ment from, let us say, Wyoming to a
fire in Alaska than it would be to get
some help from our neighbors across
the border.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I have no ar-
gument with that. I just want to make
sure that those in Montana, if the fire-
fighters are available, they would have
been hired first; or if it is in Wyoming
or Utah or California or the State of
Washington or Oregon, the timber
States, and Alaska, that because of the
proximity of the Canadian work force,
that they are not available or they are
not used when there are available
forces near.
of employment whenever those things
occur.
Mr. KINDNESS. I thank the gentle-
man for his contribution in making
the record clear on that point.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further re-
quests for time and I reserve the bal-
ance of my time.
Mr. FUQUA. Mr. Speaker, I have no
further requests for time, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
question is on the motion offered by
the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
FmwAl that the House suspend rules
and pass the till, H.R. 3726, as amend-
ed.
The question was taken; and (two-
thirds having voted in favor thereof)
the rules were suspended and the bill,
as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. FUQUA. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to
revise and extend their remarks on the
bill.just passed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is
there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
AGENCY INFORMATION ACT
Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Speaker, I move
to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 5164) to amend the National Se-
curity Act of 1947 to regulate public
disclosure of information held by the
I would like to ask the chairman of N Central Intelligence Agency, cad for
the committee about that. other purposes, as amended by the
Mr. FUQUA. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. KINDNESS. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Florida.
Mr. FUQUA. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from
Alaska brings up a very legitimate
question, and that is not the intent of
the legislation, to deny that. It is
really to assist in logistics operations,
like in the recent fire in Montana. We
brought firefighters from all over the
United States, which would have
strained the system if we had fires de-
velop in other places, and it was very
close in proximity to where Canadians
could help.
Under the present law, we could not
reimburse them, had they come in.
This is not hiring the Canadians; it
would be on a reimbursement basis in
case of emergency, so that the system
would not be strained.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I want to
thank both of the gentlemen for this
colloquy. I think it has set the record
straight that the areas that we are
concerned with would be protected,
and also that the residents there will
have access to, very frankly, a source
Committee on Government Oper-
ations.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 5164
Be it enacted by the Senate and :louse of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress -assembled, That this
Act may be cited as the "Central intelll-
gence Agency Information Act".
SEC. 2. (a) The National Security Act of
1947 is amended by adding at the end there-
of the following new title:
"TITLE VII-PROTECTION OF OPER-
ATIONAL FILES OF THE CENTRAL IN-
TELLIGENCE AGENCY
"EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN OPERATIONAL FILES
FROM SEARCH, REVIEW, PUBLICATIOII, 00 DIS-
CLOSURE
"SEC. 701. (a) Operational files of the Cen-
tral Intelligence Agency may be exempted
by the Director of Central Intelligence from
the provisions of section 552 of title 5,
United States Code (Freedom of Informa-
tion Act), which require publication or dis-
closure, or search or review in connection
therewith.
"(b) For the purposes of this title the
term 'operational files' means-
"(1) files of the Directorate of Operations
which document the conduct of foreign in-
telligence or counterintelligence operations
or intelligence or security liaison arrange-
ments or information exchanges with for-
Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0
 Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0
H 9622 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
eign governmems or their intelligence or se-
curity services;
"(2) files of the Directorate for Science
and Technology which document the means
by which foreign intelligence or counterin-
telligence is collected through scientific and
technical systems; and
"(3) files of the Office of Security which
document investigations conducted to deter-
mine the suitability of potential foreign in-
telligence or counterintelligence sources;
except that files which are the sole reposi-
tory of disseminated intelligence are not
operational files.
"(c) Notwithstanding subsection (a) of
this section, exempted operational files
shall continue to be subject to search and
review for information concerning-
"(1) United States citizens or aliens law-
fully admitted for permanent residence who
have requested information on themselves
pursuant to the provisions of section 552 of
title 5, United States Code (Freedom of In-
formation Act), or section 552a of title 5
United States Code (Privacy Act of 1974);
"(2) any special activity the existence of
which is not exempt from disclosure under
the provisions of section 552 of title 5,
United States Code (Freedom of Informa-
tion Act); or
"(3) the specific subject matter of an in-
vestigation by the intelligence committees
of the Congress, the Intelligence Oversight
Board, the Department of Justice, the
Office of General Counsel of the Central In-
telligence Agency, the.Office of Inspector
General of the Central Intelligence Agency,
or the Office of the Director of Central In-
telligence for any impropriety, or violation
of law, Executive order, or Presidential di-
rective, in the conduct of an intelligence ac-
tivity. -
"(d)(1) Files that are not exempted under
subsection (a) of this section which contain
information derived or disseminated from
exempted operational files shall be subject
to search and review.
"(2) The inclusion of Information from ex-
empted operational files in files that are not
exempted under subsection (a) of this sec-
tion shall not affect the exemption under
subsection (a) of this section of the originat-
ing operational files from search, review,
publication, or disclosure.
"(3) Records from exempted operational
files which have been disseminated to and
referenced in files that are not exempted
under subsection (a) of this section and
which have been returned to exempted
operational files for sole retention shall be
subject to search and review.
"(e) The provisions of subsection (a) of
this section shall not be superseded except
by a provision of law which is enacted after
the date of enactment of subsection (a), and
which specifically cites and repeals or modi-
fies its provisions.
"(f) Whenever any person who has re-
quested agency records under section 552 of
title 5, United States Code (Freedom of In-
formation Act), alleges that the Central In-
telligence Agency has improperly withheld
records because of failure to comply with
any provision of this section, judicial review
shall be available under the terms set forth
in section 552(a)(4)(B) of title 5, United
States Code, except that-
"(1) in any case in which information spe-
cifically 'authorized under criteria estab-
lished by an Executive order to be kept
secret in the interest of national defense or
foreign relations which is filed with, or pro-
duced for, the court by the Central Intelli-
gence Agency, such information shall be ex-
amined ex parte, in camera by the court;
"(2) the court shall, to the fullest extent
practicable, determine issues of fact based
on sworn written submissions of the parties;
"(3) when a complaint alleges that re-
quested records were improperly withheld
because of improper placement solely in ex-
empted operational files, the complainant
shall support such allegation with a sworn
written submission, based upon personal
knowledge or otherwise admissible evidence;
"(4)(A) when a complainant alleges that
requested records were improperly withheld
because of improper exemption of oper-
ational files, the Central Intelligence
Agency shall meet its burden under section
552(a)(4)(B) of title 5, United States Code,
by demonstrating to the court by sworn
written submission that exempted oper-
ational files likely to contain responsive
records currently perform the functions set
forth in subsection (b) of this section; and
"(B) the court may not order the Central
Intelligence Agency to review the content of
any exempted operational file or files in
order to make the demonstration required
under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph,
unless the complainant disputes the Central
Intelligence Agency's showing with a sworn
written submission based on personal knowl-
edge or otherwise admissible evidences;
"(5) in proceeding under paragraphs (3)
and (4) of this subsection, the parties shall
not obtain discovery pursuant to rules 26
through 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, except that request for admis-
sion may be made pursuant to rules 26 and
36;
"(6) if the court finds under this subsec-
tion that the Central Intelligence. Agency
has improperly withheld requested records
because of failure to comply with any provi-
sion of this section, the court shall order
the Central Intelligence Agency to search
and review the appropriate exempted oper-
ational file or files for the requested records
and make such records, or portions thereof,
available in accordance with the provisions
of section 552 of title 5, United States Code
(Freedom of Information Act), and such
order shall be the exclusive remedy for fail-
ure to comply with this section; and
"(7) if at any time following the filing of a
complaint pursuant to this subsection the
Central Intelligence Agency agrees to
search the appropriate exempted operation-
al file or files for the requested records, the
court shall dismiss the claim based upon
such complaint.
"DECENNIAL REVIEW OF EXEMPTED
OPERATIONAL FILES
"SEc. 702. (a) Not less than once every ten
years, the Director of Central Intelligence
shall review the exemptions in force under_
subsection (a) of section 701 of this Act to
determine whether such exemptions may be
removed from any category of exempted
files or any portion thereof.
"(b) The review required by subsection (a)
of this section shall include consideration of
the historical value or other public interest
in the subject matter of the particular cate-
gory of files or portions thereof and the po-
tential for declassifying a significant part of
the information contained therein.
"(c) A complainant who alleges that the
Central Intelligence Agency has improperly
withheld records because of failure to
comply with this section may seek judicial
review in the district court of the United
States of the district In which any of the
parties reside, or in the District of Colum-
bia. In such a proceeding, the court's review
shall be limited to determining (1) whether
the Central Intelligence Agency has con-
ducted the review required by subsection (a)
of this section within ten years of enact-
ment of this title or within ten years after
the last review, and (2) whether the Central
Intelligence Agency, in fact, considered the
criteria set forth in subsection (b) of this
section in conducting the required review.".
(b) The table of contents at the beginning
of such Act Is amended by adding at the end
thereof the following:
"TITLE VII-PROTECTION OF OPER-
ATIONAL FILES OF THE CENTRAL IN-
TELLIGENCE AGENCY
"Sec. 701. Exemption of certain operational
files from search, review, publi-
cation, or disclosure.
"Sec. 702. Decennial review of exempted
operational files.".
(c) Subsection (q) of section 552a of title 5,
United States Code, is amended-
(1) by inserting "(1)" after "(q)"; and
(2) by adding at the end thereof the fol-
lowing:
"(2) No agency shall rely on any exemp-
tion in this section to withhold from an in-
dividual any record which is otherwise ac-
cessible to such individual under the provi-
sions of section 552 of this title.".
SEC.'3. (a) The Director of Central Intelli-
gence, in consultation with the Archivist of
the United States, the Librarian of Con-
gress, and appropriate representatives of
the historical discipline selected by the Ar-
chivist, shall prepare and submit by June 1,
1985, a report on the feasibility of conduct-
ing systematic review for declassification
and release of Central Intelligence Agency
information of historical value.
(b)(1) The Director shall, once each six
months, prepare and submit an unclassified
report which includes-
(A) a description of the specific measures
established by the Director to Improve the
processing of requests under section 552 of
title 5, United States Code;
(B) the current budgetary and personnel
allocations for such processing;
(C) the number of such requests (i) re-
ceived and processed during the preceding
six months, and (ii) pending at the tine of
submission of such report; and
(D) an estimate of the current average re-
sponse time for completing the processing
of such requests.
(2) The first report required by paragraph
(1) shall be submitted by a date which is six
months after the date of enactment of this
Act. The requirements of such paragraph
shall cease to apply after the submission of
the fourth such report.
(C) Each of the reports required by subsec-
tions (a) and (b) shall be submitted to the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelli-
gence and the Committee on Government
Operations of the House of Representatives
and the Select Committee on Intelligence
and the Committee on the Judiciary of the
Senate.
SEC. 4. The amendments made by subsec-
tions (a) and (b) of section 2 shall be effec-
tive upon enactment of this Act and shall
apply with respect to any requests for
records, whether or not such request was
made prior to such enactment, and shall
apply to all civil actions not commenced
prior to February 7, 1984.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu-
ant to the rule, a second is not re-
quired on this motion.
The gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. BOLAND] will be recognized for 20
minutes and the gentleman from Vir-
ginia [Mr. WHITEHURST] will be recog-
nized for 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Massachusetts [Mr. BOLAND].
Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Speaker, I yield
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support
of H.R. 5164, the Central Intelligence
Agency Information Act.
Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0
 Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0
September 17, 1984 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
This bill represents an important
convergence of necessary protection
for true national security secrets and
preservation of the public's right of
timely access to Government Informa-
tion.
A.R. 5164's synthesis of these some-
times conflicting principles is ,a tribute
to, the hard work of. the gentleman
from Kentucky [Mr. MAZZOLI], the
chairman of the Subcommittee on
Legislation, and the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. WHITEHURST], the rank-
ing minority member of the subcom-
mittee. Mr. MAZZOLI was unable to be
present to manage the bill today be-
cause he had to attend an immigration
bill conference committee meeting,
perhaps one of the most important
conferences this year.
As always, the contributions of the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. ROBIN-
sox], the ranking minority member of
the committee, were quintessentially
demonstrated by the unanimous sup-
port H.R. 5164 received from the Per-
manent Select Committee on Intelli-
gence.
The bill thereafter was considered-
and improved-by the Committee on
Government Operations, where it was
shepherded through by the gentleman
from Oklahoma [Mr. ENGLISH], the
chairman of the Subcommittee on
Government Information, Justice, and
Agriculture, and by the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. KINDNESS], the rank-
ing minority member of the subcom-
mittee.
The result of all these efforts, Mr.
Speaker, is a bill unanimously en-
dorsed by the Intelligence Committee
and by all but one member of the
Committee on Government Oper-
ations.
The administration supports the bill.
It has the firm support of the Cen-
tral Intelligence Agency and the
American Civil Liberties Union.
The CIA can of course be expected
to be in favor of this legislation.
The reason why the ACLU's en-
dorsement is especially significant,
however, is because that organization
cannot be expected to endorse a bill
that will result in less information
being available to the public than is
presently the case.
Such is @indeed the policy of the
ACLU.
Its endorsement is premised on the
firm expectation-shared by the two
committees which have worked on
H.R. 5164-that the flow of properly
releasable information to the public
will be expedited by this bill.
It will, they believe, eliminate those
requests from the queue that never
result in the release of information
but do consume many man-hours of
search and review.
. Yet, while faster CIA response to
Freedom of Information Act requests
was the reason the ACLU supported
legislation of this type, the issue that
convinced the ACLU leadership to en-
dorse H.R. 5164 was its judicial review
provisions.
Judicial review will de novo, as it is
under the FOIA today.
The key point, however, is that judi-
cial review will be no less restrictive
than current litigation practices.
In effect, the bill codifies current
FOIA reality for CIA cases.
This is because -litigants simply have
not prevailed in seeking access to the
kind of information to be found in
purely operational files. And, it is the
judgment of your committees that
such Information ought not to be
made public.
The ACLU has accepted the legiti-
macy of the bill's definition of oper-
ational files. That acceptance follows
10 years of actual, practical litigation
experience that confirms that courts
agree with the CIA on withholding
such information from the public. -
Mr. Speaker, that situation won't
change, but neither will CIA's backlog
until some relief is provided.
More money and personnel won't de-
plete the.growing queue of FOIA re-
quests since only experienced CIA op-
erations officers are qualified to prop-
erly review material from operational
files.
These people are unique because of
their experience and special knowl-
edge. They have other important tasks
to do. If they can be freed from the la-
borious review of files that never are
released, other requests will be han-
dled more quickly.
At the same time, no less informa-
tion will be released to the public than
if a search has been made.
Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested
that those who contest by lawsuit CIA
practices under this bill must prove
CIA activities violate its provisions
before they can seek to raise such
issues.
"A real catch-22," the critics claim,
and they add that regular discovery
- isn't available to assist such litigants.
That is simply wrong. Plaintiffs
don't have to prove their case before
they file it, but they must show some
support for their allegations. After all,
the object of the bill is to release the
CIA from the obligation to search its
operational files.
If mere allegation will force a search
to prove that a search Isn't required,
that is a catch-22 of real proportions.
Further, discovery in FOIA suits
under this bill will be limited only
with respect to two new types of alle-
gations-allegations which this legisla-
tion makes it possible for plaintiffs to
raise when suing CIA.
Questions involving all other com-
plaints are subject to existing discov-
ery rules and case law.
Mr. Speaker, it is. true that under
this bill, FOIA litigants likely will be
unable to reach documents In CIA
operational files. Their chances under
present law are no better.
What Is preserved is the essence of
effective judicial review now applied in
national security FOIA cases.
If a plaintiff can offer some evidence
that documents have been improperly
H 9623
filed in operational files, or files have
been improperly designated as oper-
ational files, then the court must con-
sider those issues.
That review will be a de novo review
under the existing FOIA judicial
review provisions. And what the plain-
tiff cannot see, the judge can if he be-
lieves he needs to see it to decide the
case.
Although the bill encourages the
resolution of such suits on the basis of
written submissions, the court always
has the power-as in any FOIA case-
_to see any document, examine any file.
"Judicial Discovery," if you will, and
de novo judicial review are the corner-
stone of FOIA review today, and they
will remain the bedrock of review
under H.R. 5164.
Mr. Speaker, there are other con-
cerns that have been raised about this
legislation. I include at the end of my
statement a response to these allega-
tions. These responses show, I believe,
that the bill before the House has
carefully covered the important right
to information of the American
people.
It protects that right. It also pro-
tects intelligence information that
should not be-and has not been-re-
vealed publicly.
The balance struck between these
two concerns has stood the test of in-
tense-scrutiny. Most importantly, it is
a balance that will survive the test of
time, because it advances the public
interest of the Nation.
It deserves the support of this
House.
ATTACHMENT
Allegation: H.R. 5164 would effectively
bar public access to almost all of the CIA's
operational files. Had this law been part of
the original FOIA legislation, it is likely
that the American people would never have
learned of the numerous illegal undertak-
ings by the agency, at home and abroad,
that have come to light in recent years.
Response: There never has been any
public access to CIA operational files. No
meaningful information from such files has
ever been released pursuant to any FOIA re-
quest. The revelations of CIA illegalities
and improprieties, with one exception, came
from the Rockefeller Commission, the Pike
Committee, the Church Committee, and
through leaks to investigate reporters, not
through FOIA. The one exception, addition-
al information concerning CIA drug experi-
ment programs which was obtained through
an FOIA request, would still be accessible
because the issue has been the subject of
both CIA and congressiqnal investigations
and because, in any case, the files from
which the drug experiment information was
obtained do not meet H.R. 5164's definition
of operational files. This issue was specifi-
cally examined by the Intelligence Commit-
tee and the Government Operations Com-
mittee. At the Committee's request, CIA ex-
amined a very long series of examples of
previous FOIA released documents relating
to past CIA illegalities and improprieties.
The review showed that the same material
would still be released under H.R. 5164. This
review is publicly available in the published
hearings on H.R. 5164.
Allegation: The most alarming provisions
of H.R. 5164 are those relating to the all-im-
Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0
 Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0
H 9624 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
portant judicial review. If the CIA were to
Improperly withhold information from dis-
closure, the ability of the person filing the
FOIA request and of the courts to compel
disclosure are so restricted by H.R. 5164 as
to be rendered meaningless. For example,
the bill would establish a Catch 22 whereby
a requester could not use the FOIA to
secure most relevant CIA documents unless
he or she could convince an oversight
agency or committee to investigate the spe-
cific subject of the request.
Response: The ACLU fully supports the
bill and the judicial review provision. This
support was reaffirmed as recently as
Friday, September 14, by ACLU Executive
Director Ira Glasser. Further, the "Catch-
22" is no catch at all because the "investiga-
tions" section was only added as an extra
precaution: in most cases, information
searchable because of the investigations ex-
emption would also be searchable because of
the first person request exemption and be-
cause such information would be duplicated
in non-operational files. Moreover, as the
Intelligence Committee report notes, indi-
viduals can, in appropriate circumstances,
trigger internal CIA investigation of illegal-
ities or improprieties; thus, related records
would become open to search under the in-
vestigations exemption. .
Allegation: Moreover, in prohibiting the
plaintiff's use of depositions and Interroga-
tories, H.R. 5164 would severely limit the
gathering of information by "discovery,"
even under close court supervision to pro-
tect sensitive information. The bill would
also: alter normal rules of federal evidence
law in unprecedented ways; eliminate, In
almost all' cases, the ability of the courts to
review contested information; and, even if
the court were to find the CIA had willfully
violated the law, remove the courts' power
to impose legal sanctions on the agency.
Response: The bill only prohibits use of
depositions and interrogatories when the
legal dispute concerns the two narrowly fo-
cused issues of whether a document has
been Improperly filed or a.file has been im-
properly designated as operational, two new
issues which can arise in CIA FOIA cases
due to H.R. 5164. Even as to these issues,
the Court may compel the production of
testimony or documents to aid it in deciding
the case, and. the plaintiff, as noted in the
House Intelligence Committee Report, is
free to make recommendations to the court
on what the court should seek. It is impor-
tant to note as a practical matter that, in
existing CIA FOIA cases in which plaintiffs
seek discovery from the CIA, the CIA seeks,
and almost invariably obtains, protective
orders severely restricting or prohibiting
discovery from CIA.
As to alleged alteration of "normal rules
of federal evidence law" the Intelligence
Committee Report on page 33 very clearly
states: "Nothing in H.R. 5164 in any way af-
fects the law of evidence," and nothing in
the bill addresses any rules of evidence. The
bill only addresses the standard of review,
which is de novo, and a few special proce-
dural rules, but does not change existing
rules concerning what is relevant, probative,
or admissible to prove any proposition in a
lawsuit. Existing rules of evidence will con-
tinue to apply.
Finally, as to the Court's alleged inability
to review the information sought by the
FOIA requester, the Intelligence Committee
Report, on page 33, states:
"Thus, when necessary to decision, the
court may go beyond sworn written submis-
sion to require the Agency to produce addi-
tional information, such as live testimony,
or the court may examine the contents of
operational files. As an example, if the pro-
priety of the exemption of an operational
file is properly drawn into question under
paragraph 701(f)(4), and the court con-
cludes after considering the various sworn
written submissions of the parties that it is
necessary to decision that the court exam-
ine the content of the operational file, the
court may do so."
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. WHITEHURST. Mr. Speaker, I
yield such time as he may consume to
my colleague, the gentleman from Vir-
ginia [Mr. ROBINSON].
Mr. ROBINSON. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal
of pleasure that I rise in support of
H.R. 5164, the Central Intelligence
Agency Information Act. The Perma-
nent Select Committee on Intelligence
and the Committee on Government
Operations have drawn this bill care-
fully to accommodate both the infor-
mational needs of the public and the
operational security needs of the Cen-
tral Intelligence Agency. The bill will
contribute to the achievement of two
important goals-an informed citizen-
ry and an effective foreign intelligence
agency.
The legislation has been designed to
achieve three important objectives.
First, the bill will relieve the CIA
from an unproductive FOIA require-
ment to search and review certain CIA
operational files consisting of records,
which, after line-by-line security
review, almost invariably prove not to
be releasable under the FOIA.
Second, the bill will improve the
CIA's ability to respond to FOIA re-
quests in a timely and efficient
manner, while preserving undimin-
ished the amount of meaningful infor-
mation releasable to the public under
the FOIA.
Third, the bill will provide addition-
al assurances of confidentiality to indi-
viduals who cooperate with the United
States as CIA sources.
The House owes a debt of gratitude
to the leaders of the committees and
subcommittees whose painstaking
work had enabled this legislation to
come to the House floor. I would like
to acknowledge the leadership and
contributions of:
Chairman BOLAND of the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence;
Chairman MAZZOLI and ranking
member WHITEHURST of the Intelli-
gence Subcommittee on Legislation;
Chairman BROOKS and ranking
member HORTON of the Committee on
Government Operations; and
And Chairman ENGLISH and ranking
member KINDNESS of the Government
Operations Subcommittee on Govern-
ment Information.
These distinguished Members of the
House forged a strong, bipartisan con-
sensus of support for H.R. 5164. It is a
testimony to their wisdom, patience,
and legislative skill that they have de-
veloped a bill strongly supported by a
diverse group of organizations which
includes both the Central Intelligence
Agency and the American Civil Liber-
ties Union.
September 17, 19841
Mr. Speaker, this bill carefully pro-
tects the existing rights of the public
to obtain information from the CIA
under the Freedom of Information Act
and at the same time relieves the CIA.
of unproductive administrative proc- --%
essing burdens that contribute noth-
ing to the FOIA goal of an informed
citizenry. I urge my colleagues to vote
to suspend the rules and pass H.R. .
5164.
^ 1310
Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Speaker, I yield
such time as he might require to the
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. ENG-
LISH], who is chairman of the Subcom-
mittee on Government Information,
Justice, and Agriculture.
(Mr. ENGLISH asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in
support of H.R. 5164.
The Central Intelligence Agency In-
formation Act exempts specifically de-
fined CIA operational files from the
search and review requirements of the
Freedom of Information Act. These
files document intelligence sources
and methods, and, because of the sen-
sitivity of the information, little has
ever been made public.
Although H.R. 5164 provides the
CIA with a limited exemption from
the FOIA; the legislation does not
make any change in the basic policy
on which the FOIA is based. In fact,
the bill reaffirms that the principles
of freedom of information are applica-
ble to the CIA.
The bill leaves the CIA subject to
the FOIA. It confirms that the CIA
maintains information about which
the public may legitimately inquire. It
recognizes that access to information
is important in maintaining the pub-
lic's faith in Government agencies, in-
cluding the CIA.
H.R. 5164 is consistent with the pur-
poses of the FOIA because it will not
interfere with the processing of re-
quests for major categories of CIA in-
formation. The only CIA records that
will be subject to withholding under
H.R. 5164 are those records that are
currently exempt today.
Because the amount and type of in-
formation that must be disclosed will
not change, H.R. 5164 is essentially a
procedural reform of the CIA's free-
dom of information responsibilities.
The bill will make it less burdensome
for the CIA to deny access to files that
are already exempt. Instead of review-
ing records in operational files on a
page-by-page, line-by-line basis, the
CIA will be able to deny most requests
for operational files in a categorical
fashion.
The result will be more efficient
handling of FOIA requests by the
CIA. For those seeking CIA records,
increased efficiency will mean faster
processing, and a substantial reduction
of response time has been promised by
the CIA. This will restore the useful-
Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0
 Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0
September 17, 1984 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
ness of the FOIA without any mean-
ingful limitations on the amount of in-
formation that will be released.
In short, H.R. 5164 will make things
better not only for the CIA but also
for those who use the FOIA to obtain
records from the CIA.
The Government Operations Com-
mittee made only two amendments to
the bill as reported by the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence. One
amendment requires the CIA to file an
unclassified report on FOIA process-
ing every 6 months for the 2 years fol-
lowing enactment. This report will
permit the public and the Congress to
determine whether the CIA is living
up to its commitment to improve the
speed of its FOIA operations.
The second amendment clarifies the
relationship between the Freedom of
Information Act and the Privacy Act
of 1974. There has been unnecessary
confusion lately about- how these two
laws fit together. The committee
amendment clarifies the original con-
gressional intent and restores the in-
terpretation that had been in place
ever since enactment of the Privacy
Act in 1974.
This clarification is necessary be-
cause H.R. 5164 relies on the contin-
ued ability of individuals to use the
FOIA to seek access to CIA records
about themselves. Without the Priva-
cy Act amendment, the right of access
contemplated by H.R. 5164 would be
unenforceable in court.
The Privacy Act amendment includ-
ed in H.R. 5164 is the text of H.R.
4696, a bill that I introduced along
with Representatives BROOKS,
HORTON, KINDNESS, and ERLENBORN.
The amendment makes it crystal clear
that the exemptions of the Privacy
Act do not authorize the withholding
of information that would otherwise
be available if requested under the
FOIA by the subject of the record.
The effect of the amendment is to
codify the holding of the D.C. Circuit
Court of Appeals in Greentree v. U.S.
Customs Service, 674 F.2d 74 (1982),
and to reject recent amendments to
the Department of Justice POI and
Privacy Act regulations and to the
OMB Privacy Act Guidelines. The
holding in Greentree and the original
OMB Privacy Act guidelines reflect
the intent of Congress when the Priva-
cy Act 1974 was passed.
The clarification of the relationship
between the Privacy Act and the
FOIA will not only affect access re-
quests made at the CIA but will have
an identical effect on requests made at
all other agencies subject to the FOI
and Privacy Acts. In removing any am-
biguity that may surround the rela-
tionship of the Privacy Act to the
FOIA, we are specifically taking steps
to apply a uniform interpretation to
the records of all Federal agencies. To
do otherwise would only increase un-
certainty, confusion, and litigation.
With the amendment to the Privacy
Act made by H.R. 5164, individuals will
continue to be able to make requests
for records about themselves using the
procedures in either the Privacy Act,
the FOIA, or both. Agencies will be
obliged to continue to process requests
under either or both laws. Agencies
that had made it a practice to treat a
request made under either law as if
the request were made under both
laws should continue to do so.
H.R.' 5164 is the product of several
years of effort by the CIA, House and
Senate Intelligence Committee, and
others, including the American Civil
Liberties Union. It was hard work, and
everyone associated with the bill de-
serves to be congratulated. I especially
want to commend Representative MAz-
ZOLI and Chairman BOLAND and the
other members of the Intelligence
Committee for their careful drafting
and excellent legislative report.
I think that some lessons regarding
the FOIA in general can be drawn
from the consideration of H.R. 5164.
First, although the bill is drafted as an
amendment to the National Security
Act, it was jointly referred to the Gov-
ernment Operations Committee as
well as the Intelligence Committee.
This was appropriate because the bill
has a direct impact on the FOIA. Both
committees held public hearings, and
all interested parties had an opportu-
nity to comment.
For these reasons, H.R. 5164 should
be a model for the consideration of
legislation that affects the availability
of information under FOIA without
amending the FOIA itself. The
prompt action taken by the Govern-
ment Operations Committee demon-
strates a willingness to consider care-
fully written and narrowly drawn pro-
posals that increase the efficiency of
the FOIA process without interfering
unduly with public access to Informa-
tion.
I urge the adoption of H.R. 5164.
Mr. WHITEHURST. Mr. Speaker, I
yield such time as he' may consume to
the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
YOUNG].
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speak-
er, I rise to urge my colleagues to sup-
port H.R. 5164, the CIA Information
Act, to protect. the operational secrecy
of CIA human intelligence activities.
Several of the Members have em-
phasized that CIA responses to FOIA
requests will be faster and more effi-
cient when H.R. 5164 is implemented,
and that no meaningful CIA informa-
tion will cease to be available to the
public under FOIA because of enact-
ment of H.R. 5164. This is, of course,
true, and these are important reasons
to support the bill. But I believe there
is an even more important reason for
supporting the bill. We must reassure
CIA sources abroad who cooperate
with the CIA that the United States
can keep secrets. This bill will send a
message to CIA sources that they are
safe in trusting the United States.
To carry out its intelligence activi-
ties, the CIA depends upon sources, in-
cluding both individual agents and in-
telligence services of cooperating na-
H 9625
tions, for information and operational
assistance. CIA human sources, the re-
cruited agents, are a vital part of the
Nation's intelligence program, in part
because they can often provide the
key pieces of information U.S. intelli-
gence agencies need on the intentions
of foreign powers.
To secure the cooperation of a well-
placed individual who can provide in-
formation or operational assistance,
the Central Intelligence Agency offi-
cer who will work with that individual
must establish with him a secret rela-
tionship of great trust. The source
places his life and his livelihood in the
hands of the CIA when he agrees to
serve as a source of information or
operationalassistance for the U.S.
Government. If the fact of the
source's cooperation with the CIA be-
comes known, the United States loses
a source of great value in ensuring the
security of our Nation. The source
loses his freedom, and in many parts
of the world, his life. The critical ele-
ment in establishing and maintaining
the cooperation of a source is the
source's perception that he can safely
cooperate with the CIA because the
CIA can protect the secrecy of the re-
lationship.
The CIA establishes similar relation-
ships based on trust with the intelli-
gence and security services of cooper-
ating foreign nations. These services
share intelligence with the CIA and
assist the CIA in the conduct of its in-
telligence activities worldwide. These
services will cooperate only if the
United States protects the secrecy of
the liaison relationship. These services
will not share information with the
CIA if such sharing places their
sources at risk. Moreover, it is in the
nature of relations among nations that
they do not publicly acknowledge co-
operation with other nations in the
conduct of intelligence activities.
Thus, even those nations whose intelli-
gence services are widely presumed to
engage in some form of cooperation
with the CIA abroad would remain
quite sensitive to any U.S. acknowledg-
ment of the existence of such a rela-
tionship .
In the dacade since the 1974 amend-
ments to the Freedom of Information
Act, the CIA has experienced difficul-
ty traceable in part to that act in re-
cruiting sources. The CIA has testified
repeatedly that potential sources of
great value have declined to cooperate
with the CIA from fear that our Gov-
ernment cannot protect the secrecy of
their relationship to the CIA from dis-
closure under the FOIA. The CIA also
testified that existing sources termi-
nated cooperation from the same fear,
and that intelligence services of other
nations have expressed concern about
cooperating with the United States
due to the application of the Freedom
of Information Act to the CIA.
The perception of these CIA sources
of information and operational assist-
ance is not unfounded. Errors can
Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0
 19626 .
119626-
Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0
Approved
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE September 17, 1984
occur, and have occurred, in the proc-
essing of FOIA requests. The risk of
disclosure is not as great as they may
perceive it to be since FOIA exemp-
tions exist for source-revealing infor-
mation. It is, however, the source's
perception, and not the actual state of
affairs, which governs the willingness
of the source to cooperate with the
CIA.
H.R. 5164 contributes substantially
to resolving the problem of the per-
ception by CIA sources that the CIA
may not be able to protect the secrecy
of their relationship from FOIA dis-
closure. The bill withdraws CIA files
which directly concern intelligence
sources and methods from the FOIA
process. The risk of accidental or un-
knowing disclosure or source-revealing
information will be largely eliminated,
because the sensitive CIA operational
files documenting the operational ac-
tivities of sources will no longer be
part of the FOIA process. With enact-
ment of H.R. 5164, those who cooper-
ate with the Central Intelligence
Agency in the conduct of intelligence
s ctivities can rest assured that the
CIA can maintain inviolate the confi-
dentiality of their relationsip to the
U.S. Government.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to
vote in favor of passage of H.R. 5164.
^ 1320
Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Speaker, I yield
such time as he may require to the dis-
tinguished gentleman from New York
[Mr. WEISS].
(Mr. WEISS asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. WEISS. Mr. Speaker, I want to
express my appreciation to my distin-
guished colleague for his courtesy.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposi-
tion to H.R. 5164, the Central Intelli-
gence Agency Information Act.
This legislation would dangerously
intrude on the power.of the courts to
review the actions of the Central In-
telligence Agency and would likely
limit legitimate public access to CIA
documents. It would place excessive
trust in an agency that only a few
months ago was caught withholding
vital information from Congressional
Intelligence Committees.
Had this legislation been part of the
original Freedom of Information Act,
it is possible the American people
never would have learned of the agen-
cy's numerous illegal undertakings, at
home and abroad, that have come to
light in recent years.
For example, we first learned that
the agency spied on civil rights leader
Martin Luther King, Jr., from docu-
ments obtained through FOIA. The
same is true of the CIA's recruitment
of American blacks in the late 60s and
early 70s to spy on Black Panthers in
this country and in Africa.
Author Stephen Schlesinger, seeking
material on the CIA-backed coup in
Guatemala in 1954, after being told by
the CIA that 165 pages of material
comprised the entire file, learned of
the existence of 180,000 pages of infor-
mation that the CIA was withholding,
only after filing a FOIA suit.
And the National Student Associa-
tion learned through the FOIA that
the CIA may have continued its covert
relationship with the association years
after the two had signed a separation
agreement.
Enactment of H.R. 5164 will make
future discoveries of this nature more
difficult-if not impossible-to uncov-
er.
Most alarming are the unique provi-
sions in this bill that would essentially
prevent both the plaintiff and the
courts from forcing the CIA to disclose
improperly withheld information.
I am aware of no other law on the
books that bars virtually all "discov-
ery"-the pretrial gathering of evi-
dence-by a litigant in a suit against a
Government agency, thereby requiring
a plaintiff to prove his case on the
basis of personal knowledge or other
admissible evidence already in his pos-
session; or that bars a Federal court
from imposing penalties on a Govern-
ment agency if it finds the agency
guilty of illegally withholding infor-
mation. Sections 701f3 and 701f6 of
this bill would.
The court's ability to conduct an in-
dependent review of the contested doc-
uments would be curtailed by section
701f4A, which permits the CIA to sub-
stitute a written statement in lieu of
the actual documents. The court may
not even require the CIA staff to go
back and review the documents itself
in preparation of the written state-
ment (section 701f4B).
If the House is of the mind to re-
strict the public's access to informa-
tion, we should do it directly, without
tying the hands of the courts to en-
force the laws we enact.
It is not difficult to see why groups
like the Society for Professional Jour-
nalists, American Historical Associa-
tion, Radio-Television News Directors
Association, Newspaper Guild, and Re-
porters Committee for Freedom of the
Press are opposing this bill.
The CIA's record of responding to
requests under the Freeom of Infor-
mation Act has been appalling. The 2-
to 3-year backlog that this bill seeks to
erase is among the worst records in
the Federal bureaucracy. Individuals
filing FOIA requests commonly face a
host of tactics that delay and impede
legitimate access to information. The
agency has consistently ignored the
mandate of the Congress to submit,
except in limited circumstances, to the
scrutiny of public review.
Moreover, the necessity for in-
creased secrecy has not been justified.
The Freedom of Information Act al-
ready adequately protects properly
classified foreign intelligence informa-
tion. In those cases in which the CIA
refused an individual's request for in-
formation, the individual may ask for
a judicial review that includes a closed
session inspection of the documents in
.question. In the entire history of
FOIA, judicial review has never result-
ed in the improper release of sensitive
information.
The bill does retain access to oper-
ational files in three narrow catego--,
ries-those containing subject matter
under investigation by a congressional
or agency oversight panel, for exam-
ple. But that provision forces a re-
quester to somehow trigger an investi-
gation before gaining access to the in-
formation. Some scholars believe this
provision to be unconstitutional.
One last concern: While H.R. 5164
would instruct the CIA Director to
review the status of exempted materi-
als every 10 years, there is no require-
ment that any of the documents be re-,
leased at that time-or ever. Without a
time limit on exemptions, the Ameri-
can public may forever be denied the
change to fully evaluate the CIA's role
in our Government and history.
Few would dispute that a legitimate
need exists to protect some CIA infor-
mation from public release. But re-
stricting public access should be the
exception, not the norm.
The American public would be
better served by enacting legislation
clarifying the limited circumstances
under which information could be
withheld by the CIA. This was, in fact,
proposed by former Federal district
court judge and our former colleague
Congressman Richardson Preyer in
1980. He advocated exempting from
disclosure, information provided to the' -
CIA in confidence by a secret intelli-
gence source or a foreign intelligence
service. Sensibly, his bill would not
have tampered with judicial review.
I believe the CIA requires even
closer oversight by the Congress, the
courts, and the American people.
Given its past. record, it is no wonder
the CIA is so eager to limit review of
its actions.
I urge my colleagues to join me in
voting against this unnecessary in-
crease in secrecy.
Mr. WHITEHURST. Mr. Speaker, I
yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr., KIND-
NESS].
(Mr. KINDNESS asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. KINDNESS. Mr. Speaker, I
thank the gentleman from Virginia for
yielding this time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to express my
support of H.R. 5164.
I will not reiterate what has already
been said about the provisions of this
bill. It is a bill which has undergone
careful scrutiny and drafting by the
Intelligence Committees of the Senate
and House and your Committee on
Government Operations here in the
House.
This bill is the product of a consen-
sus which developed after some 9,#_
years of experience in litigating Free-
dom of Information Act lawsuits aris-
ing from requests for information di-
#I
Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0
 Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0
September 17, 1984 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
rected to the Central Intelligence
Agency. During those years of litigat-
- ing, a pattern became clear, and that
was that certain operational files of
the CIA could not be opened to public
scrutiny.
Meanwhile, other requests for infor-
mation which, to some extent, could
be released were caught in the long
lineup of those requests for access to
information in operational files. .
While the pattern became clear
some years ago, I took some time for a
consensus to develop on the means of
speeding up access to CIA files with-
out jeopardizing either the current
degree of access or the agency's essen-
tial functions.
The experience of the Agency and of
those who have sought to obtain infor-
mation from the Agency under the
Freedom of Information Act has been
a great teacher. Four years ago, at the
time our Government Operations Sub-
committee on Government Informa-
tion held hearings on legislation simi-
lar in concept and structure to H.R.
5164, I do not believe that any of us,
either we in the Congress or the CIA
or the ACLU and others who request
information, knew quite how to adjust
the CIA's obligation under FOIA.
cial review was a critical issue. The
questions raised at that time about the
extent of judicial reviewability of CIA
compliance with the FOIA and the au-
thority granted in this legislation have
been dealt with fully, and I believe,
fairly in this bill.
Section 701(f) provides for de novo
judicial review pursuant to the provi-
sions of the. Freedom of Information
Act with very limited exceptions.
Those exceptions are fair, they are
limited, they are clearly.stated in the
language of the bill as well as being
clearly explained in the report of the
Permanent Select Committee on Intel-
ligence. I recommend particularly that
all who are interested in obtaining in-
formation from the CIA pursuant to
the Freedom of Information or Priva-
cy Acts to read the bill and the accom-
panying reports.
I would also like to comment, Mr.
Speaker, specifically about the amend-
ment added to the bill by your Com-
mittee on Government Operations in-
tended to clarify the relationship be-
tween the Freedom of Information Act
and the Privacy Act.
It was unfortunate that a couple of
circuit courts of -appeals took it upon
themselves to raise .the issue of the re-
lationship between the two acts and
resolve it in a way not intended by the
Congress. It was even more unfortu-
nate that after 9 years of adherence to
a policy consistent with congressional
intent both the Department of Justice
and the Office of Management and
Budget last March decided to follow
those misguided courts of appeals and
reversed their regulations and policy
guidance.
I think it is appropriate that we in
the Congress act to clarify the rela-
tionship between the Freedom of In-
formation Act and the Privacy Act and
that this legislation is an appropriate
vehicle in which to do that.
As one who has been involved in ef-
forts to amend the Administrative
Procedure Act over recent years, ef-
forts which have been referred to as
"regulatory reform," I am particularly
troubled by agencies reversing long-
sj;anding regulations or policy guid-
ance where there has been no change
in the underlying statute by the Con-
gress or no change in the circum-
stances. And, if some courts do not in-
terpret the statutes as W in the Con-
gress intended, I believe it is incum-
bent upon the Congress to clarify the
law, removing any ambiguity which
may exist.
This bill is an appropriate vehicle in
which to make this clarification. The
issue is clearly raised by this legisla-
tion. And one need not harbour feel-
ings of mistrust toward the CIA in
order to see the issue as it is raised in
section 701(c)(1), the exception de-
signed to preserve an individual's
access to information maintained
about him- or herself.
I understand that there is a Su-
preme Court case pending to resolve
differences between several circuit
courts of appeals on this issue of stat-
utory interpretation. We in the Con-
gress should save the Court the trou-
ble and clarify the law on this point.
I urge my colleagues to support this
bill and hope that it will be cleared
quickly by the other body for the
President's signature.
There are some points that ought to
be clarified for those who might have
some concern about points that have
been raised in the discussion by the
gentleman from New York. It was
pointed out that the bill would in the
opinion of the gentleman dangerously
intrude upon the power of the courts
to review CIA activity, paraphrasing
the gentleman's expression of that
point, but I would point out to my col-
leagues that it is clear in section
701(c)(3) of the bill before us that
there is not such an intrusion. Opin-
ions might differ, but at least the clear
wording of the bill points out that
nothing would preclude or prohibit
the inquiry by the court into the sub-
ject matter that is the subject for
search and review if that is a specific
subject matter of an investigation by
the Intelligence Committees of the
Congress, the Intelligence Commit-
tee's Oversight Board, the Department
of Justice, the Office of General Coun-
cil of the Central Intelligence Agency,
the Office of Inspector General of the
CIA or the Office of the Director of
the CIA, for any impropriety or viola-
tion of law or Executive order or Presi-
dential directive in the conduct of an
intelligence activity, and further, that
material would be subject to review if
it involves any special activity, the ex-
istence of which is not exempt from
disclosure under the provisions of sec-
tion 552 of title V of the code, the
Freedom of Information Act.
Therefore, I feel as others do, that
all of the cases that could be cited as
potential areas of abuse have been
covered by these exceptions that are
made in section 701(c).
There are other points that have
been raised that I think I might clari-
fy for the record.
O 1330
There has been criticism of section
701(f), various parts of it, but particu-
larly subsection 4(B) pointing out that
the court may not order the Central
Intelligence Agency to review the con-
tent of any exempted operational file
or files in order to make the demon-
stration required under subparagraph
(A) of that same section, unless the
complainants dispute the Central In-
telligence Agency's showing with a
sworn written submission based on
personal knowledge or otherwise ad-
missible evidence.
In other words, this is really a codifi-
cation of the existing case law. The
court is not under present practice
going to review the content of an ex-
empted operational file unless some-
one has something substantial to indi-
cate that there is, in fact, reason to do
so.
I think on balance the bill before us
has not only done an excellent job of
creating the situation that will reduce
the caseload or the burden, the back-
log, and thus allow more Freedom of
Information Act requests to be dealt
with promptly, but it has protected
the necessary elements and I think
indeed, as the gentleman from Florida
has pointed out, improved the ability
to protect that which needs to be pro-
tected for the purposes of being able
to carry out our intelligence activities,
and that is the integrity of the oper-
ational files of the CIA.
I think we have an excellent bill
with an unusual history of agreement
and consensus about two committees
that are most deeply concerned with
the matter, the Freedom of Informa-
tion Act and the Intelligence Informa-
tion Act activities.
I would hope that all of our col-
leagues would join in support of H.R.
5164, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Speaker, I have
no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WHITEHURST. Mr. Speaker, I
yield myself such time as I may con-
sume.'
(Mr. WHITEHURST asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
their remarks.)
Mr. WHITEHURST. Mr. Speaker, I
rise in support of H.R. 5164, the CIA
Information Act. This bill has
achieved wide support in the Congress
because it was drafted carefully to ad-
dress successfully the concerns of all
who are interested in the legislation:
Even on the thorniest issue, that of
Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0
 Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0
I19628 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
the nature of judicial review of CIA
action to implement the legislation, a
balanced position has been achieved.
The bill has been drawn carefully to
ensure that the operational security
needs of the CIA are met and that the
current statutory right of individuals
to obtain information under the FOIA
from the CIA is preserved. The admin-
istration supports enactment of this
bill.
The issue of judicial review of CIA
implementation of the bill provides a
good example of the extraordinary
good faith efforts of all concerned to
develop legislation to which everyone
can give full support. Initially, the po-
sitions of the three organizations
which expressed particular interest in
the judicial review provisions were far
apart:
The Central Intelligence Agency ini-
tially believed that any judicial review
was inappropriate and that congres-
sional oversight alone would provide
the mechanism for ensuring faithful
CIA implementation of the bill.
The American Bar Association be-
lieved that judicial review was appro-
priate, but that it should be limited to
determining that the action of the Di-
rector of the Central Intelligence is
not frivolous, a very deferential stand-
ard of judicial review.
The American Civil Liberties Union
believed that judicial review was essen-
tial, and that such review must take
place under the existing FOIA sub-
stantive judicial review provisions re-
quiring de novo judicial review.
The committee concluded without
difficulty that judicial review of CIA
implementation of H.R. 5164 was im-
portant to ensure public confidence in
that implementation. Precisely defin-
ing the nature of that review took con-
siderably greater time and effort.
After a great deal of discussion, it
became clear that the primary' concern
of the CIA with the judicial review
provisions was procedural, while the
primary concern of the American Civil
Liberties Union was substantive. The
CIA feared that the judicial review re-
quirements would ultimately undo the
benefits the legislation was designed
to achieve by requiring CIA upon a
mere, unsupported allegation of CIA
error by a disappointed FOIA request-
er to conduct FOIA searches of
exempt operational files and line-by-
line reviews of exempt records in order
to explain the CIA's actions to judges.
The ACLU, on the other hand, was
concerned that specifying a deferen-
tial standard of review, which would
require courts to uphold CIA action
upon determining that such action
was merely "nonfrivolous" or "not ar-
bitrary or capricious," would signal
the courts to conduct very little review
at all, since the courts have interpret-
ed the existing de novo FOIA substan-
tive review standard to involve a sig-
nificant amount of deference.
These two positions, which initially
appeared to be incompatible, were in
fact reconcilable, and resulted in sec-
tion 701(f) of H.R. 5164. Section 701(f)
provides that judicial review of CIA
action to implement section 701 of the
bill will be conducted under the exist-
ing judicial review provision of the
FOIA; that is, under the FOIA de novo
substantive standard of judicial
review. Section 701(f) also, however,
contains several special procedural re-
quirements which ensure that the
process of judicial review will not undo
the benefits which the bill is designed
to produce of reducing an inappropri-
ate FOIA processing burden on the
CIA.
This type of reconcilation of posi-
tions of interested parties was the
hallmark of development of H.R. 5164.
I believe this bill reflects the legisla-
tive process at its best.
H.R. 5164 ensures that existing
public access to CIA records under the
FOIA is not impaired, while improving
CIA operational security and CIA re-
sponsiveness to FOIA requests.
I urge my colleagues to support en-
actment of H.R. 5164.
e Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise
in strong opposition to H R. 5164; the
Central Intelligence Agency Informa-
tioin Act. This act would grant the
Central Intelligence Agency an un-
precedented exemption from the ap-
plication of the Freedom of Informa-
tion requests for its "operational"
files.
The advocates of H.R. 5164 are using
a political tactic which has become
quite popular during this administra-
tion. It is a rather facile strategy:
when you want to make major
changes in public policy but recognize
that they will not go unchallenged by
the American people, simply offer
your proposals under the guise of
mere procedural reform. This gambit
has been used many times in the past
4 years. When the President did not
like the proposals of the Commission
on Civil Rights, he did not publicly an-
nounce his disagreements with the
Commission and offer any kind of jus-
tification for his positions; rather, he
simply tried to change the method
with which appointments are made to
the Commission-conveniently chang-
ing their recommendations at the
same time. Similarly, when the Presi-
dent wanted to make major cuts in
spending for health and education, he
hid the cuts in his New Federalism
program of block grants, hoping that a
change in the method of disbursing
funds would detract from the substan-
tial change in the amount of funds dis-
bursed. This administration has per-
suaded the Supreme Court to overturn
its own precedents regarding the ex-
clusionary rule by obtaining excep-
tions when mistakes-that is, viola-
tions-are made in "good faith." In
each of these examples, the pattern is
the same. A major shift in policy was
cloaked in a "technical" change. It is
left to the opponents of the proposed
change to spell out its actual effects.
In this case, the self-anointed target
of bureaucratic efficiency is the Cen-
September 17, 1984
tral Intelligence Agency. The CIA as-
serts that H.R. 5164 is warranted by
the backlog of Freedom of Informa-
tion requests at the Central Intelli-
gence Agency, the interminable delay
in the processing of such requests, and
the rarity with which meaningful in-
formation is actually disseminated in
accordance with these requests. The
Agency is modestly offering a proposal
to improve this situation: a request
that its operational files simply be ex-
empted from the Freedom of Informa-
tion Act. Essentially, the CIA is asking
us to' respond to its current intransi-
gence to and phobia of releasing infor-
mation by enshrining it into law.
Why does the CIA consider the pas-
sage of this bill such a high priority?
The Agency makes no claims that sen-
sitive information is being released
under current rules. The existing pro-
visions of the FOIA make adequate
provisions for national security. Not
once in the history of the act has judi-
cial review resulted in the improper re-
lease of sensitive information. The
CIA instead asserts that an exemption
is needed to remove a bottleneck of pa-
perwork caused by the act. It is not
concerned by the fact that such an ar-
gument would be absurd if used by
most agencies. If the Social Security
Administration was to claim that it
was too overworked to process FOIA
requests, Congress would properly
seek a means to expedite the process-
ing on a long-term basis. It would not
offer reduced responsibility through
an exemption from fundamental ac-
countability as a solution. The CIA
claims that it is unique because useful
information is released so infrequently
from operational files in response to
FOIA requests. This cost-benefit anal-
ysis is simply not legitimate. In fact,
the scarcity of information released by
the Agency only makes that informa-
tion all the more valuable. Moreover,
our constitutional values will not allow
us to place the elimination of some
redtape in an Agency office above the
right of citizens to even attempt to dis-
cover the activities of their own Gov-
ernment.
H.R. 5164 would have several chill-
ing effects which belie the ostensibly
innocuous goals claimed by its propo-
nents. New obstacles to the release of
information would be erected in the
paths of FOIA requesters. Under this
legislation, the Freedom of Informa-
tion Act could be used to obtain CIA
documents only after the applicant
has persuaded an oversight agency or
committee, on the basis of alleged.ille-
gality or impropriety on the part of
the Agency, to investigate the specific
subject addressed by the documents.
As the CIA must realize, documents
from the Agency are often the very in-
formation needed to establish the cri-
teria for an investigation. In effect,
the CIA would not even be required to
consider releasing documents unless
its activities in a certain area have al-
ready been established by a different
Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0
 Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0
September 17, 1984
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
source of information. Even if an in-
vestigative body has been persuaded to
initiate an inquiry into a certain sub-
ject, requests for CIA documents
would be limited to those relevant to
{ the "specific subject matter" of the in-
vestigation. Needless to say, the CIA
would be very selective in determining
what constitutes the "specific subject
matter."
? Finally, this bill would create an-
other deterrent to citizen-initiated
FOIA requests. There is no provision
which would mandate the CIA to pro-
vide attorney's fees for a litigant who
forces the Agency to comply with this
legislation. This omission makes a
challenge to the Agency by the vast
majority of citizens in the United
States financially impossible. The
FOIA itself was rarely used before at-
torney's fees became the responsibility
of any violator of the act.
The CIA argues that H.R. 5164
would not have an adverse effect upon
the flow of information because few
documents are released by the Agency
under present regulations. This rea-
soning ignores the value of simply
knowing that such documents exist.
Under current law, the CIA must
answer each FOIA request, if not by
actually releasing materials, then by
listing all existing documents and pro-
viding a justification for the withhold-
ing of these documents. The knowl-
edge of the existence of such docu-
ments is by itself valuable to research-
ers and other FOIA applicants. Yet
R M. 5164 would remove this require-
ment, and with it, the ability of a citi-
zen to even determine that he is the
subject of files at the Agency.
H.R. 5164 would set a highly ques-
tionable precedent of .self-regulation
by an agency regarding compliance
with the FOIA. In hearings before the
Senate, representatives from the CIA
testified that the Director of Central
Intelligence alone would have the au-
thority to designate files as being
"operational" and thus subject to ex-
emption from the FOIA. If such a des-
ignation was disputed in court, the
CIA would need only submit a written
statement reiterating its decision to
the court, and would not be required
to submit the disputed documents
themselves for judicial review. In
other words, the Director of the CIA
wo{ild be answerable to no 'one for
such a decision. The CIA has failed to
demonstrate to Congress and to the
American people that it can be en-
trusted with such a power. The recent
mining of Nicaraguan harbors, as well
as past activities directed against the
Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.,
and oathers in the civil rights move-
ment prove that the CIA cannot be
left to its own judgment concerning
the propriety of its activities. If we
grant the CIA this power of self-regu-
lation, not only will we be granting the
CIA a carte-blanche unwarranted by
it's previous activities, we also will be
inviting other law-enforcement agen-
cies to seek this same exemption.
Thus, we would be introducing a new
and dangerous trend of curbing judi-
cial review over executive agencies.
Proponents of H.R. 5164 claim wide
support for their measure, but the
support is shallow. The American Civil
Liberties Union, whose support was
crucial to the bill's success up to now,
is now reconsidering its decision. H.R.
5164 is opposed by such groups as the
Newspaper Guild, the Society of Pro-
fessional Journalists, the Reporters
Committee for Freedom of the Press,
the Radio-Television News Directors
Association, the American Historical
Association, and the National Commit-
tee Against Repressive Legislation.
The fact that this measure is being
considered under suspension of rules is
an indication that its backers realize
that careful consideration of the bill
would not be to its benefit.
By now, the actual motives behind
this bill should be clear. The CIA feels
that it is an opportune time to push
through a bill which would not stand
up to real scrutiny. I urge my col-
leagues to judge this bill on its actual
merits, not on the desire for clean
desks claimed by its proponents. H.R.
5164 represents an attempt to roll
back the rights of information which
have been obtained so recently, and
the bill should be judged as such.o
o Mr. STUMP. Mr. Speaker, H.R.
5164, the Central Intelligence Agency
Information Act is the culmination of
years of congressional effort to grap-
ple with the problems the Freedom of
Information Act poses for the Nation's
primary foreign intelligence agency.
Since 1977, subcommittees of the
House and Senate Intelligence Com-
mittees, and of the House Government
Operations Committee and the Senate
Judiciary Committee, have held a
number of hearings on these prob-
lems. These committees have all
reached the conclusion that legislation
to modify the application of the Free-
dom of Information Act to the CIA is
required. Bills to make the necessary
modifications have been under consid-
eration in the Congress since 1980.
The many views presented to the Con-
gress concerning the legislation have
all been considered at great length.
H.R. 5164 is the carefully crafted
result of these years of congressional
deliberation.
The bill modifies the application of
the FOIA to the CIA by removing spe-
cifically defined CIA operational files
from the FOIA process. These files
hold the CIA's most sensitive secrets,
such as the names of CIA sources
abroad or the high technology meth-
ods for overhead reconnaissance of the
military installations of hostile na-
tions. The secrets contained in these
operational files are, of course, kept
secret under the current exemptions
in the FOIA for classified information
and information relating to intelli-
gence sources and methods. That is
,precisely the point of H.R. 5164-it
makes no sense to continue to require
CIA personnel to conduct FOIA secu-
rity reviews of these records on a line-
by-line basis in response to FOIA re-
quests, since experience has shown
that nothing meaningful can ever be
released to the public from these oper-
ational files anyway. The substantial
amount of time currently squired by
statute to be wasted in conducting the
line-by-line review of these records
which can't be released, produces a big
FOIA backlog at CIA which prevents
CIA from processing in a timely fash-
ion FOIA requests for material which
can be released.
H.R. 5164 will take care of the prob-
lem. As a result of.H.R. 5164:
Taxpayers' money will no longer be
wasted by requiring CIA officers to
spend their time conducting FOIA re-
views of sensitive operational records
that cannot be released to the public
under the FOIA.
CIA sources abroad will be reassured
that the United States can keep secret
the fact of their cooperation with the
CIA.
Skilled CIA operations officers who
are now diverted away from their
operational duties to conduct FOIA re-
views will devote themselves full-time
to the intelligence work they are
hired, paid, and trained to do.
The risk of accidental or unknowing
disclosure under the FOIA of sensitive
operational information will be re-
duced.
CIA backlogs in FOIA processing
will be reduced, Improving the timeli-
ness of CIA responses to FOIA re-
quests from the public.
H.R. 5164 has been drawn carefully
to ensure that these goals will be
achieved without diminishing the
amount of meaningful information
currently available to the public under
the FOIA. The bill meets the Nation's'
needs for both an effective intelligence
agency and an informed citizenry.
I urge my colleagues to vote to sus-
pend the rules and pass H.R. 5164.0
O Mr. HORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise
in support of H.R. 5164, the Central
Intelligence Agency Information Act.
H.R. 5164 provides a limited exemp-
tion from the Freedom of Information
Act [FOIA] for specifically defined
operational files maintained by the
Central Intelligence Agency. The bill
will relieve the CIA from the require-
ment under the FOIA to search and
review records in these operational
files that, after line-by-line review,
almost invariably prove to be exempt
from disclosure under the FOIA. The
bill will thereby improve the ability of
the CIA to respond to FOIA requests
from the public in a more timely and
efficient manner, without reducing the
amount of meaningful information re-
leasable to the public.
The bill contains several exemptions
which will assure that requests for cer-
tain types of information will be ful-
filled, notwithstanding the fact that
those records are maintained in oper-
ational files. Those exemptions are
for: First, information concerning U.S.
Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0
 Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0
H 9630
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE September 17, 1984
citizens and permanent resident aliens
requested by such individuals about
themselves; second, information re-
garding covert activities the existence
of which is no longer classified; and
third, information concerning any CIA
intelligence activity that was improper
or illegal and that was the subject of
an investigation for alleged illegality
or impropriety.
The Committee on Government Op-
erations amended the bill to provide.
an additional means of overseeing the
CIA's compliance with FOIA during
the first 2 years of implementation of
this legislation. The committee also
added an amendment that guarantees
the effectiveness of the exemption
mentioned above for information re-
quested by individuals about them-
selves. This amendment, contained in
section 2(c) of the bill, clarifies the re-
lationship between the Freedom of In-
formation Act and the Privacy Act to
state explicity in the law that no
agency can use the Privacy Act as a
basis for denying an individual access
pursuant to the Freedom of Informa-
tion Act to information in Govern-
ment files about him or herself. This
was the understanding of the Congress
when the Privacy Act and the 1974
amendments to the Freedom of Infor-
mation Act were enacted. But that in-
terpretation has been called into ques-
tion recently by a couple of circuit
court of appeals decisions, and by a
change in policy guidance from OMB
and regulations by the Department of
Justice. By this amendment, we are
simply maintaining the -status quo
which ' existed before the Justice De-
partment and OMB issued their
unwise reversals of policy.
I' am glad to support this bill and
urge my colleagues to do likewise. I
hope that this bill in its current form
can be quickly cleared for the Presi-
dent's signature.o
? Mr. MAZZOLI. Mr. Speaker, H.R.
5164 is a narrowly focused measure
which provides the CIA with limited,
but important, relief from Freedom of
Information Act processing require-
ments, while preserving undiminished
the amount of meaningful information
now releasable by the CIA to FOIA re-
questers.
H.R 5164 has been favorably report-
ed by both the Intelligence Committee
and the Committee on Government
Operations, and is supported by both
the CIA and the ACLU. A similar
measure passed the other body last
November.
This measure does not exempt the
CIA from the Freedom of Information
Act. In the past the CIA had sought to
convince the Congress and the Intelli-
gence Committees of the need for such
a total exemption-but could not make
its case. We are here today because
the CIA now recognizes that it is nei-
ther feasible nor desirable for it to be
totally excluded from FOIA coverage.
We are also here because some of the
Agency's outside critics have agreed
that it is reasonable and prudent to
afford the CIA some FOIA relief, and
have made significant contributions to
the drafting process. And, we are here
today because the legislative effort on
this measure has been characterized
by a non-partisan, cooperative spirit
from the beginning.
The Freedom of Information Act
currently applies to the Central Intel-
ligence Agency in .precisely the same
manner that it applies to other Feder-
al agencies. Thus, in response to a re-
quest for reasonably described records,
the CIA must: First, search its records
systems for records responsive-to the
FOIA request; second, review the re-
sponsive records retrieved from its
files to determine which records fall
within FOIA exemptions and need not
be disclosed; and third, disclose all rea-
sonably segregable portions of the re-
sponsive records which do not fall
within one or more of the nine FOIA
disclosure exemptions.
A decade of experience has shown
that most CIA operational files-those
which contain the most sensitive infor-
mation directly relating to intelligence
sources and methods-contain few, if
any, items which need to be disclosed
to requesters under the FOIA. The
records contained in these operational
files fall within the FOIA exemptions
protecting classifed information and
information relating to intelligence
sources and methods.
Nevertheless, the CIA must search
and review these records in response
to FOIA requests on a line-by-line,
page-by-page basis.
This process of searching and re-
viewing CIA operational records sys-
tems costs money and absorbs a sub-
stantial amount of time of experienced
CIA operational personnel. This con-
siderable expenditure of time and
money usually contributes nothing to
the goal of the FOIA of an informed
citizenry since routinely almost no
records are released to the public after
this detailed search.
In fact, these search procedures ac-
tually hinder achievement of that goal
because the time-consuming process of
reviewing sensitive CIA operational
records creates 2 to 3 year delays in
the Agency's ability to respond to
FOIA requests for information which
is releasable.
H.R. 5164 would permit the Director
of Central Intelligence to exempt
operational files from the search and
review process of the FOIA.
Operational files are defined in the
bill as: First, files in the Directorate of
Operations "which document the con-
duct of foreign intelligence or counter-
intelligence operations or intelligence
or security liaison arrangements or in-
formation exchanges with foreign gov-
ernments or their intelligence or secu-
rity services"; Second, files in the Di-
rectorate for Science and Technology
"which document the means by which
foreign intelligence or counterintelli-
gence is collected through scientific
and technical systems"; and third files
in the Office of Security "which docu-
ment investigations conducted to de-
termine the suitability of potential
foreign intelligence or counterintelli-
gence sources."
Files within these three components
which do not meet the statutory defi-
nitions will not be eligible for exemp-
tion from search and review. Further-
more, records in all other parts of the
CIA, including information which or-
ginated in the operational compo-
nents, will continue to be subject to
search and review. For example, all
documents which go to the Director of
Central Intelligence, even if they con-
cern the most intimate details of an
operation, will be subject to search
and review. Furthermore, all intelli-
gence collected through human and
technical means will continue to be
covered by the FOIA because the oper-
ational components forward such in-
formation to the analytic components
of the Agency. What will be exempt
from search and review is information
about how intelligence is collected-
for example, how a source was spotted
and recruited, how much he is paid,
and the details of his meetings with
his case officer. Such information is
invariably exempt from disclosure
under the FOIA and will continue to
be exempt under any conceivable
standard for classification.
In some instances, collected intelli-
gence is so sensitive that it is dissemi-
nated to analysts and policymakers on
an eyes only basis and then returned
to the operational component for stor-,
age. To cover these situations and to
guard against the possibility of an ex-
pansion of this practice to circumvent
the intent of this legislation, the bill ,-
also includes a proviso that files main-
tained within operational components
as the sole repository of disseminated
intelligence cannot be exempt from
search and review.
The new exemption would not
apply-I repeat, would not apply-To:
First, requests by American citizens
for any information pertaining to
themselves; Second, requests for infor-
mation concerning a covert action the
existence of -which is not classified; or
Third, requests for information con-
cerning the specific subject matter of
an investigation by the two Intelli-
gence Committees, the Department of
Justice, the CIA, or the Intelligence
Oversight Board into improper or ille-
gal intelligence activities.
These three exceptions are crucial in
ensuring that the new statute does not
dilute the force of the principles upon
which the Freedom of Information
Act is based. They preserve a citizen's
access to whatever files the CIA may
keep, on him, preserve access to infor-
mation of importance to informed
public debate, and preserve access to
information which may illuminate or
reveal past or present intelligence
abuses.
Actions taken by the CIA pursuant -
to this legislation will be subject to the
de novo judicial review provisions cur-
Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0
 Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0
September 17, 1984 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
rently applicable to all FOIA requests.
However, procedural safeguards have
been added to H.R. 5164 which insure
that the judicial review process does
not permit the courts to reimpose the
search and review burdens on the
Agency which the bill is intended to
eliminate.
Other provisions of H.R. 5164: First,
require the Director of Central Tntelli-
genee to review, at feast once every ru
years, the exemptions of operational
files in force to determine whether the
exemptions may be lifted from any
files or portions of files; second, re-
quire the Director of Central Intelli-
gence to report by June 1, 1985, to the
Intelligence Committees on the feasi-
bility of conducting a program of sys-
tematic review for declassification and
release of classified CIA information
of historical value; and third, apply
the measure retroactively to all pend-
ing FOIA requests, and to all civil ac-
tions to enforce FOIA access to CIA
records which were not filed prior to
February 7, 1984.
H.R. 5164 contains an important sec-
tion which was added by the Commit-
tee on Government Operations and
which I fully support. The provision,
which the gentleman from Oklahoma
will explain in more detail, amends the
Privacy Act to make clear that the Pri-
vacy Act is not a withholding statute
for purposes of FOIA exemption
(b)(3).
I -urge my colleagues to support the
changes in the -FOIA contained in
H.R. 5164. They are reasonable
changes designed to eliminate waste,
improve the efficiency of FOIA proc-
essing, and provide increased protec-
tion to intelligence sources and meth-
ods.
In testimony before the Senate In-
telligence Committee, Deputy Director
McMahon pledged that no further
relief from the FOIA for the intelli-
gence community.beyond what is con-
tained in this measure will be sought
by the administration.
H.R. 5164 does not represent a chip-
ping away of the FOIA as it applies to
CIA. It is not the camel's nose under
the tent. Rather, by ensuring more
timely responses to requests and pre-
serving access to currently releasable
information, H.R. 5164 recognizes the
continuing vitality and importance of
FOIA as it relates to the Central Intel-
ligence Agency.?
? Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Speaker,
H.R. 5164 is the product of delibera-
tions over several Congresses on how
to balance the needs of the CIA to
keep certain information secret and
the needs of the public in our free so-
ciety to be appropriately informed on
the activities of the CIA.
Two -Congresses ago, while I was
serving on the Government Oper-
ations Subcommittee on Government
Information, we considered legislation
similar in concept to that which is
before the House today. At that time
there was no consensus on the issues
of the nature and extent -of the
burden imposed on the CIA by being
subject to the Freedom of Information
Act. Nevertheless, those hearings
raised the issues-particularly judicial
review-which would have to be re-
solved before this legislation could be
enacted.
In my judgment, those issues have
now been resolved. This legislation has
been carefully crafted. It includes pro-
visions which will provide the Con-
gress with the oversight mechanisms
needed to monitor the balance we
have reached.
I would also like to express my par-
ticular appreciation for the amend-
ment added by our Committee on Gov-
ernment Operations to clarify the re-
lationship between the Freedom of In-
formation Act and the Privacy Act. As
one of the authors of the Privacy Act
and the 1974 amendments to the Free-
dom of Information Act. I have been
'troubled to see that a couple of circuit
courts of appeals have rendered deci-
sions which are contrary to the goals
of those two acts.
Even more troubling was the deci-
sion of the Justice Department and
the Office of Management and Budget
last March to reverse the policy guid-
ance and regulations which have been
in effect since the Privacy Act took
effect in 1975. This reversal of policy
has the effect of restricting an individ-
ual's access to Government files con-
taining records about him or herself in
a way not contemplated by the Con-
gress in 1974.
The amendment contained in section
2(c) of the bill restores the relation-
ship between the two laws which Con-
gress intended in 1974, and which the
executive branch has honored-for all
but 6 months of the time since.
All parties that have been involved
in bringing this legislation to this
point are to be congratulated for their
efforts. It is a good bill and is deserv-
ing of our support. I. hope that we will
pass the bill and that the other body
will quickly ratify our work and send
this legislation to the President for his
signature..
? Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, I
rise in support of H.R. 5164, the Cen-
tral Intelligence Agency Information
.Act. We in the Intelligence Committee
like to adhere to the principle of open
government as much as we possible
can, but much of our work takes place
out of public view because we have not
found a magic way to keep the Ameri-
can people informed about U.S. intelli-
gence activities without letting hostile
foreign nations know the same things.
Even some of the public work of our
committee, such as the annual Intelli-
gence authorization bill, has secret as-
pects to it. That authorization bill is
public, but it doesn't contain the
actual budgeted amounts which other
authorization bills contain.
It is thus a great pleasure to- the
members of our committee to be able
to deal, as we have in considering H.R.
5164, with an issue of great impor-
tance in the same public and delibera-
H 9631
tive fashion as most other legislation
in the Congress is considered.
The Intelligence Committee and the
Committee on Government Oper-
ations have fully vetted this legisla-
tion. The concerns of all have been
considered carefully and, indeed, have
been favorably addressed by the legis-
lation. I note that it is somewhat of a
monument to the legislative process
that we have produced a bill on the
question of public access to govern-
mental information that is fully sup-
ported by both the Central Intelli-
gence Agency and the American Civil
Liberties Union.
The bill ensures that the pubic will
continue to have access to meaningful
CIA information under the FOIA to
the full extent that they do today.
While preserving such access, the bill
rationalizes the FOIA administrative
process at CIA so that the CIA is not
required to spend time and taxpayers'
money reviewing and justifying the
withholding of its most sensitive oper-
ational records that everybody agrees
are properly classified and must
remain secret. The taxpayers' re-
sources allocated to CIA-FOIA activi-
ties will instead be employed produc-
tively in reviewing CIA records which
may contain information which can be
released to the public. This is a good
government bill-it should save some
money for the taxpayers, speed up
service to the members of the public
who make FOIA requests,. and improve
operational security in U.S. intelli-
gence activities, all while preserving
undiminished the amount of meaning-
ful CIA information available to the
public under the FOIA.
Mr. Speaker, I will vote for H.R.
5164 and I ask my colleagues to join
me..
Mr. WHITEHURST. I have no fur-
ther requests for - time, Mr. Speaker,
and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
question is on the motion offered by
the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. BOLAND], that the House suspend
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5164,
as amended by the Committee on Gov-
ernment Operations.
The question was taken.
Mr. WEISS. Mr. Speaker, I object to
the vote on the ground that a quorum
is not present and make the point of
order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu-
ant to clause 5, rule I. and the Chair's
prior announcement, further proceed-
ings on this motion will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is consid-
ered withdrawn.
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Speaker,.I ask
unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to
revise and extend their remarks on
H.R. 5164.
Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0
 Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0
H 9632
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is
there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
PERMISSION TO CONSIDER DIS-
TRICT OF COLUMBIA BUSI-
NESS ON MONDAY, SEPTEM-
BER 24, 1984
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that District of
Columbia business be in order on
Monday, September 24, 1984.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is
there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
COMMON CARRIERS BY WATER
IN FOREIGN COMMERCE
Mr. BIAGGI. Mr. Speaker, I move to
suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 1511) to provide for jurisdiction
over common carriers by water engag-
ing in foreign commerce to and from
the United States utilizing ports in na-
tions contiguous to the United States,
as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 1511
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That sec-
tion 8 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 App.
U.S.C. 1707) is amended by adding the fol-
lowing new subsection:
"(g)(1) For purposes of this section and
section 10(b)(1), (2). (3), (4), (8), and (10) of
this Act, the term 'common carrier' includes
a person that holds itself out to the general
public to provide ocean transportation of
cargo originating in or destined for a United
States point by way of a port in a nation
contiguous to the United States and that-
"(A) advertises, solicits, or arranges, di-
rectly or through an agent, within the
United States, for that transportation; and
"(B) engages, directly or through an
agent, in the transportation of that cargo
between a point within the United States
and a port In a nation contiguous to the
United States.
"(2) This Act does not require any person
described in paragraph (1) to reveal any in-
formation with respect to transportation of
any cargo between a point of origin or final
destination in the United States and a
United States port or a port in a nation con-
tiguous to the United States, except insofar
as the costs of that transportation comprise
an undifferentiated portion of the whole
amount of any tariff required to be filed
under this section.
"(3) This Act does not extend to the Fed-
eral Maritime Commission any jurisdiction
or authority to regulate rail or motor carri-
ers, when they are engaging in activities
subject to the jurisdiction of the Interstate
Commerce Commission."
SEc. 2. The Federal Maritime Commission
shall submit a report to the Congress within
eighteen months after the effective date of
this Act. The report shall include-
(1) an assessment of whether this Act has
caused increased transportation and related
costs that have resulted in noncompetitive
pricing by export shippers, taking into ac-
count the comparative value of United
States and foreign currencies;
(2) an assessment of whether this Act has
resulted in a diversion of cargo from one
CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD - HOUSE September 17, 1984
United States port to another United States
port;
(3) an assessment of whether the addition-
al regulatory burden imposed by this Act
has resulted in conditions contrary to the
intent of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 App.
U.S.C. 1701 et. seq.), including an increase in
litigation involving tariff challenges; and
(4) an assessment of whether this Act has
resulted in the creation of trade or transpor-
tation barriers by foreign nations.
SEC. 3. This Act shall become effective
ninety days after the date of Its enactment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a
second demanded?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker,
I demand a second.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. With-
out objection, a second will be consid-
ered as ordered.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
gentleman from New York [Mr.
BIAGGI] will be recognized for 20 min-
utes and the gentleman from Alaska
[Mr. YOUNG] will be recognized for 20
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from New York [Mr. BIAGGI].
Mr. BIAGGI. Mr. Speaker, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
The motion to suspend Includes
minor clarifying amendments added to
the bill after it was reported by the
committee. These amendments were
requested by the distinguished chair-
man of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce. Their purpose is to make it
clear that neither the bill, nor the
Shipping Act, as amended by the bill,
affects matters within the jurisdiction
of that committee. Further, the
amendments also make it clear that
the Federal Maritime Commission
does not, under the Shipping Act, as
amended by this bill, have any juris-
diction or authority to regulate those
activities of rail and motor carriers
that are subject to the jurisdiction of
the Interstate Commerce Commission.
That jurisdiction remains with the
Interstate Commerce Commission.
Before explaining the bill, let me ex-
press my appreciation to the gentle-
man from Michigan for his coopera-
tion in working out these amend-
ments.
I rise in support of H.R. 1511. This
bill addresses the longstanding prob-
lem of Canadian cargo diversion. Since
the mid-1970's, there has been a
steady increase in the amount of cargo
being diverted from U.S.east coast
and gulf ports and transported instead
through Montreal. The result has
been a loss of business for American
ports and a loss of jobs for American
workers.
While H.R. 1511 may not stop this
pattern of diversion, it will, at least,
require certain ocean carriers operat-
ing out of Canadian ports to play by
the same rules as carriers operating
out of American ports. The affected
carriers would have to file their tariffs
with the Federal Maritime Commis-
sion. They would be required to make
their rates available to all similarly sit-
uated shippers, and they would be pro-
hibited from engaging in certain ac-
tivities such as rebating.
To clarify what this bill would do,
let me tell you what it will not do.
H.R. 1511 will not affect any cost ad-
vantages now enjoyed by a carrier di- r
verting cargo through Canada;
It will not increase shipping charges
for American shippers or force any
ocean carrier to raise its rates; and
It will not restrict the movement of
cargo or diminish a shipper's freedom
of choice.
Simply put, H.R. 1511 would elimi-
nate the dual standard that favors for-
eign-flag carriers operating out of Ca-
nadian ports over carriers operating
out of our ports here at home.
The opponents of the bill say we are
overstepping our bounds. They say we
are attempting to exercise extraterri-
torial jurisdiction over the foreign
commerce of Canada. I do not agree.
The bill applies only to a specific
group of carriers-those that engage
in the ocean transportation of cargo
originating in or destined for the
United States, If that ocean carrier ad-
vertises or solicits the transportation
within the United States and trans-
ports the cargo between the United
States and a port in a contiguous
nation for shipment abroad.
Under general principles of interna-
tional law, a national government has
jurisdiction over conduct within Its
boundaries. Consider the following)-
facts:
The cargo that would be covered by
this bill originates in or is destined for
the United States;
It is shipped in containers that are
loaded or unloaded in the United
States;
In the case of export cargo, the in-
voices and bills of lading are issued in
the United States; .
The foreign carriers servicing Cana-
dian ports maintain offices in the
United States;
They advertise and solicit business
in the United States;
They quote rates for the shipment
of cargo from the Unites States to
overseas points in the United States;
and
They provide overland transporta-
tion service in the United States.
I do not think that requiring such
carriers to file their tariffs can realisti-
cally be termed the exercise of extra-
territorial jurisdiction over Canadian
foreign commerce.
This legislation has been considered
in several previous Congresses. Hear-
ings have been held before three
House and Senate committees. It is
time we enact this bill. It would
impose no undue burden on the affect-
ed foreign-flag carriers. Rather, it
would assure that those carriers that
choose to patronize American ports
are not penalized for doing so.
Approved For Release 2008/11/06: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200240006-0