LETTER TO LOUIS B. STOKES FROM THOMAS M. BOYD

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP89T00234R000200220019-2
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 7
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 26, 2013
• Sequence Number: 19
• Publication Date: May 24, 1988
• Content Type: LETTER

STAT
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release
2013/07/26: CIA-RDP89T00234R000200220019-2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release
2013/07/26: CIA-RDP89T00234R000200220019-2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/26: CIA-RDP89T00234R000200220019-2
U.S. Depart of of Justice
Office of Legislative Affairs
OCA 1758-88
Office of the Assistant Attorney General
Washington, D.C. 20530
24 May 1988
Honorable Louis B. Stokes
Chairman
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
U.S. House of Representatives
Room H-409 Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 1986,
Public Law No. 99-169, requires the Department of Justice to
provide this Committee with a report on a provision of that law
which permits certain federal agencies to enter into
indemnification agreements with States and localities which make
available to those agencies criminal history information on
individuals being considered for federal security clearances.
Title VIII of this statute added a new section 9101 to Title
5 of the United States Code, which requires States and localities
to make criminal history information available to CIA, DOD, OPM
or the FBI (the FBI was added by section 402(a)(2) of Public Law.
No. 99-569) when requested in connection with an individual's V
security clearance. Section 9101 also permits the federal
agencies to enter into indemnification agreements when requested
to do so by States and localities in order to protect those
entities where local law otherwise prohibits the release of such
information. 5 U.S.0 ?9101(b)(3). Whenever such an agreement is
entered into and a relevant claim arises, the State or locality
is immediately required to notify the .Attorney General and the
local United States Attorney. Id.
Section 803(a) of Pub.L. No. 99-169 requires the Department
of Justice to consult with DOD, CIA, OPM and FBI, and report to
the appropriate committees of Congress on the effect of 5 U.S.C.
Section 9101(b)(3) and, in particular, the effect of the absence
of indemnification agreements upon States and localities not
eligible for such agreements.
In general, the involved agencies find that the
indemnification program has not greatly facilitated the provision
of criminal history information but, rather, has caused a
significant amount of disruption and time-consuming negotiations
in a few cases, for the following reasons. Some State and local
entities read the statute to require an indemnification agreement
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/26: CIA-RDP89T00234R000200220019-2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/26 : CIA-RDP89T00234R000200220019-2
2
as a condition precedent to providing criminal history
information to the federal government. Moreover, some entities
believe the statute may prompt damage suits because the statute
compels the disclosure of inaccurate or incomplete information.
Further, a consortium of State and local criminal justice
agencies has expressed dissatisfaction with the indemnification
agreement, concluding that, while the statute renders State and
local entities absolutely liable for the disclosure of
information to the federal government, the indemnification
agreement only protects the local entities from negligent
disclosure.
On the other hand, no claims have arisen to date under any
of the signed agreements, and there are no reports that
ineligibility to enter into an agreement has prevented any State
and local entity from providing requested information. Because
the statute has not affected the flow of information from most
local entities, and has created significant problems with others,
OPM, CIA and DOD recommend that the indemnification program be
allowed to expire. FBI declines comment based on its limited
experience. A summary of each concerned agency's experience with
this provision follows.
Department of Defense
Since this provision was enacted, DOD has received 14
requests to enter into agreements: 8 agreements have been
signed; 2 are pending; 2 entities have been asked to provide
additional information, and; 2 entities, located in South
Carolina and Massachusetts, respectively, have declined to enter
into agreements. No claims have been filed under any agreement.
The Defense Department strongly supports discontinuation of
this program for the reasons discussed above. They find that, in
most cases, the statute either does not facilitate or has no
effect on the receipt of information from State and local
entities, and, in a small number of cases, has created new
barriers to the provision of information.
Office of Personnel Management
Since the statute was enacted, OPM has received 15 requests
to enter into indemnification agreements: 3 have been signed; 5
were not eligible for an agreement; 3 provided no documentation
to support their requests (i.e., a copy of pertinent State or
local law prohibiting disclosure); 3 declined to enter into the
agreement, and; 1 approved agency has not signed the agreement to
date. No claims have arisen to date.
OPM also supports the expiration of this program for the
reasons discussed above. It, too, has found that most entities
have not expressed interest in an agreement, those ineligible to
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/26: CIA-RDP89T00234R000200220019-2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/26: CIA-RDP89T00234R000200220019-2
?
3
enter into agreements have not denied access to information and,
in a few cases, differing interpretations of the program have
caused extended problems.
Central Intelligence Agency
The CIA has received 11 requests for indemnification
agreements: 4 have been signed; 2 are pending; and in 5 cases
the CIA has requested additional information. No claims have
arisen to date under the agreements. The CIA believes these
statistics show a decided lack on interest in the indemnification
program, and favor letting this provision lapse.
Federal Bureau of Investigation
The FBI has received only one request to enter into an
indemnification agreement, from the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. The FBI intends to respond to this request once
its implementing regulations and agreement form have been
approved.
Please contact me if you have further questions.
Sincerely,
Thomas M. oyd
Acting Assistant Attorney General
cc. Honorable David L. Boren
Chairman
Select Committee on Intelligence
United States Senate
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/26: CIA-RDP89T00234R000200220019-2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/26: CIA-RDP89T00234R000200220019-2
v?/
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Legislative Affairs
Office of the Assistant Attorney General Washington. D.C. 20530
24 May 1988
Honorable David L. Boren
Chairman
Select Committee on Intelligence
United States Senate
Room 211 Hart
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 1986,
Public Law No. 99-169, requires the Department of Justice to
provide this Committee with a report on a provision of that law
which permits certain federal agencies to enter into
indemnification agreements with States and localities which make
available to those agencies criminal history information on
individuals being considered for federal security clearances.
Title VIII of this statute added a new section 9101 to Title
5 of the United States Code, which requires States and localities
to make criminal history information available to CIA, DOD, OPM
or the FBI (the FBI was added by section 402(a)(2) of Public Law
No. 99-569) when requested in connection with an individual's
security clearance. Section 9101 also permits the federal
agencies to enter into indemnification agreements when requested
to do so by States and localities in order to protect those
entities where local law otherwise prohibits the release of such
'information. 5 U.S.0 ?9101(b)(3). Whenever such an agreement is
entered into and a relevant claim arises, the State or locality
is immediately required to notify the Attorney General and the
local United States Attorney. Id.
Section 803(a) of Pub.L. No. 99-169 requires the Department
of Justice to consult with DOD, CIA, OPM and FBI, and report to
the appropriate committees of Congress on the effect of 5 U.S.C.
Section 9101(b)(3).and, in particular, the effect of the absence
of indemnification agreements upon States and localities not
eligible for such agreements.
In general, the involved agencies find that the
indemnification program has not greatly facilitated the provision
of criminal history information but, rather, has caused a
significant amount of disruption and time-consuming negotiations
in a few cases, for the following reasons. Some State and local
entities read the statute to require an indemnification agreement
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/26 : CIA-RDP89T00234R000200220019-2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/26 : CIA-RDP89T00234R000200220019-2
2
as a condition precedent to providing criminal history
information to the federal government. Moreover, some entities
believe the statute may prompt damage suits because the statute
compels the disclosure of inaccurate or incomplete information.
Further, a consortium of State and local criminal justice
agencies has expressed dissatisfaction with the indemnification
agreement, concluding that, while the statute renders State and
local entities absolutely liable for the disclosure of
information to the federal government, the indemnification
agreement only protects the local entities from negligent
disclosure.
On the other hand, no claims have arisen to date under any
of the signed agreements, and there are no reports that
ineligibility to enter into an agreement has prevented any State
and local entity from providing requested information. Because
the statute has not affected the flow of information from most
local entities, and has created significant problems with others,
OPM, CIA and DOD recommend that the indemnification program be
allowed to expire. FBI declines comment based on its limited
experience. A summary of each concerned agency's experience with
this provision follows.
Department of Defense
Since this provision was enacted, DOD has received 14
requests to enter into agreements: 8 agreements have been
signed; 2 are pending; 2 entities have been asked to provide
additional information, and; 2 entities, located in South
Carolina and Massachusetts, respectively, have declined to enter
into agreements. No claims have been filed under any agreement.
The Defense Department strongly supports discontinuation of
this program for the reasons discussed above. They find that, in
most cases, the statute either does not facilitate or has no
effect on the receipt of information from State and local
entities, and, in a small number of cases, has created new
barriers to the provision of information.
Office of Personnel Management
Since the statute was enacted, OPM has received 15 requests
to enter into indemnification agreements: 3 have been signed; 5
were not eligible for an agreement; 3 provided no documentation
to support their requests (i.e., a copy of pertinent State or
local law prohibiting disclosure); 3 declined to enter into the
agreement, and; 1 approved agency has not signed the agreement to
date. No claims have arisen to date.
OPM also supports the expiration of this program for the
reasons discussed above. It, too, has found that most entities
have not expressed interest in an agreement, those ineligible to
npriaRRified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/26: CIA-RDP89T00234R000200220019-2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/26 : CIA-RDP89T00234R000200220019-2
3
enter into agreements have not denied access to information and,
in a few cases, differing interpretations of the program have
caused extended problems.
Central Intelligence Agency
The CIA has received 11 requests for indemnification
agreements: 4 have been signed; 2 are pending; and in 5 cases
the CIA has requested additional information. No claims have
arisen to date under the agreements. The CIA believes these
statistics show a decided lack on interest in the indemnification
program, and favor letting this provision lapse.
Federal Bureau of Investigation
The FBI has received only one request to enter into an
indemnification agreement, from the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. The FBI intends to respond to this request once
its implementing regulations and agreement form have been
approved.
Please contact me if you have further questions.
Sincerely,
Thomas M. IBoyd
Acting Assistant Attorney General
cc. Honorable Louis B. Stokes
Chairman
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
U.S. House of Representatives
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/07/26: CIA-RDP89T00234R000200220019-2