EARLIER THIS YEAR, I INTRODUCED A BILL WHICH WOULD MAKE THE UNATUHORIZED DISCLOSING

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90-00552R000201080023-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 28, 2010
• Sequence Number: 23
• Publication Date: October 26, 1981
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/28: CIA-RDP90-00552R000201080023-7
JOHN H. CHAFEE
RHODE ISLAND
FINANCE COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT
AND PUBLIC WORKS
BANKING. HOUSING AND
URBAN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
SELECT COMMITTEE ON
INTELLIGENCE
STAT
'Zcnffeb zfafez zenafe
October 26, 1981
WASHINGTON OFFICE:
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510
[phone]
/ PROVIDENCE OFFICE:
301 JOHN O. PASTORE
FEDERAL BUILDING
KENNEDY PLAZA
PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND 02903
[phone]
TOLL FREE NUMBER
IN RHODE ISLAND
1-800-682-5188
Earlier this year, I introduced a bill which would make
the unauthorized disclosing of the names of American intel-
ligence officers a crime.
This bill, which is titled the Intelligence Identities
Protection Act of 1981 (S. 391), was first introduced in the
Second Session of the 96th Congress. After extensive hear-
ings during which a full range of witnesses provided expert
testimony, the bill was reported from the Senate Intelligence
Committee by a vote of 13 to 1. A series of procedural delays
prevented this legislation from being brought to the floor of
the Senate for a vote last year.
Thus, we redoubled our efforts this year. Through our
most recent efforts, a bill almost identical to mine did
pass the House of Representatives earlier this month and we
should soon see passage in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The purpose of my bill is to strengthen the intelligence
capabilities of the United States by prohibiting the unau-
thorized disclosure of information identifying American
intelligence officers, agents, and sources of information.
In short, the bill places a criminal penalty on those in-
dividuals who are engaged in the destructive activity of
identifying our intelligence agents.
I firmly believe passage of this legislation is vital
to the lives and safety of those Americans who serve this
country on crucial and dangerous missions abroad.
For your information, I have enclosed a copy of an
article which appeared in The Washington Post on October 4,
1981, which explains my bill and its ramifications in further
detail.
If you have any reactions to this legislation or any
other issue of concern to you, I do hope you will share them
with me.
Sincerely,
John H. Chafee
United States Senat
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/28: CIA-RDP90-00552R000201080023-7
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/28: CIA-RDP90-00552R000201080023-7
John H. Chafee
Why Should We Endanger Our Spies?
When a complicated problem is be-
fore Congress, it is extremely conven-
ient to pin on any proposed solution a
simplistic label reflecting the labeler's
bias---and then to make a judgment
based on one's appraisal of the label.
A current case of simplistic labeling
and predictable Judgments is the desig-
nation by the press of legislation to for-
bid the disclosure of the names of cov-
ert agents serving our country abroad.
It "limits free speech." Such legislation
is, in the words of The Post (Sept. 25)
"a swipe at the First Amendment"
Congress, in a frenzy, is blowing away
our, rights of free speech, The Post
would have us believe.
Labeling is considerably easier than
studying the legislation or producing a
solution.
The problem: Americans in the em-
ploy of our government are sent abroad
by that government on (dangerous mis
sions. Their identities as agents are con-
cealed for their protection and so that
they might better accomplish their as-
signed tasks. Other Americans, with la-
borious effort, considerable skill and
Taking Exception
countless hours, using the montage of
nlclassitae(t materials, ferret out the
names of these agents, publish their
names and thus imperil the lives of their
fellow countrymen. One agent, Richard
Welch, was murdered ih Athens follow-
ing such a disclosure. Others have had
attempts made on their lives, their fami-
lies have suffered: and uselid careers
have been terminated.
What should we (1u?
"Nothing," counsels the press. Any
action would allegedly require a sacri-
fice of constittitional liberties. Freedom
of speech must not be abridged.
Exactly right--to a limit. Long ago,
it was decided that one's right to free-
dom of speech ends when the other
man's safety is endangered. There Is no
right under freedom of speech to cry
"fire" in a crowded theater. There is no
right, having observed the wartime
troop ship depart, to tell the world
about it. -
Legislation I have sponsored in the
Sentite, which has now, passed the
House of Representatives, makes it a
crime to pursue a "pattern of activities
intended to identity and expose covert
agents with reason to believe that such
activities would impair or impede the
foreign intelligence activities of the
United States...."
Note that this legislation deals solely
with the identification and exposure of
agents. It does not inhibit the revela-
tion of intelligence abuses or cry for re-
form, as has been charged. A reporter
is free 'to castigate ? our intelligence
agencies, their leaders, their activities,
and the results of the work done. But
systematic disclosure of agents' names
is forbidden. Will this stifle reform?
The answer is no. The entire activi-
ties of former senator Frank Church's
committee in.1975, and its investiga-
tion of the CIA, never once involved
the disclosure of an agent.
To be found guilty under this legis-
lation would require proof of six ele-
ments. The accused must have:
? Acted in the course of a "pattern
of activities intended to identify and
expose covert agents."
? Had "reason to believe that such
activities would impair or impede for-
eign intelligence activities of the
United States."
? Disclosed information that did, in
fact, identify a covert agent.
? Made disclosure "to any individ-
ual-not authorized to receive classified
information."
? Known that the information; dis-
closed did, in fact, identify a covert
agent.
? Known that the government was
"taking affirmative measures to con-
ceal such individual's classified intelli-
gence relationship to the U.S."
Much is made of the "reason to be-
lieve" standard set forth in the pending
bill. "Reason to believe" language is
well-established in espionage law and
has been upheld in the courts on a
number of occasions. "Reason to be-
lieve" is an objective standard: would a
reasonable person have reason to be-
lieve that by such actions the intelli-
gence activities of the United States
would be impaired? It does not require
inquiries into the political beliefs of the
accused, or past critical remarks he.
might have made about the govern-
ment. Those matters are irrelevant
The Justice Department, under two
successive, politically different admin-
istrations, has given the opinion that
this legislation is constitutionally
sound. A succession of CIA directors
has implored Congress to enact this
law to protect the well-being of our
agents.
Our fellow Americans, who are serv-
ing abroad as covert agents, find it in-
comprehensible that their lives and the
lives of their families-can be jeopard-
ized by other Americans who remain
safe from prosecution.
The writer is a Republican
senator f rom Rhode Island
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/06/28: CIA-RDP90-00552R000201080023-7