MATERIAL ON THE ALEXANDER :ANTI-STONEWALLING" AMENDMENT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90M00005R001500070005-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 17
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 21, 2012
• Sequence Number: 5
• Publication Date: September 14, 1988
• Content Type: REPORT

Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/21 :CIA-RDP90M00005R001500070005-9
o~~ ~E __, , ~ I .
.~,-
-~~ ~~y
"~``'?3
~~_`` OCA 3079-88
~~c icy ,,
Z ~, CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
~ `~~ ~ ' Office of Congressional Affairs
~~,F` Washington, D.C. 20505
~ fE~iEStl .~'~'
~_ ~ Telephone: [phone]
TO: Sven E. Ho]Jnes
Staff Director/General Counsel
~~~ Seleot C~rnittee on Intelligence
14 Sept 1988
Dear Mr . Holires ,
E7~close3 are materials on the Alexander
"Anti-Stonewalling" Aunt. We understand it
~Y ?~~ up today or t:~norrow on the House floor .
Legislation Division
Offices of Congressional Affairs
STAT
EORN. ~ 533 oesoiETE
~,~ PRE v~p;,g
E DiTlpr~c
15 Sep 88
Distribution:
Orig -addressee
1 - DDL/OCA (w/enc.)
1 - 0 Chrono (w/enc. )
1 - OCA Records (w/enc.)
1 - OCA/L~ Subj. FIle (w/enc.)
STAT
STAT
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/21 :CIA-RDP90M00005R001500070005-9
 s
C
~?
r?
r
I
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/21 :CIA-RDP90M00005R001500070005-9
i.
H 6~4?
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE
least v~?e have broken the logjam to
Bice lM,embers an opportunity here to
have their say.
Wr are seeing the results of the hard
work and dedication of the task force
members, led by Lhe gentleman from
California, Mr. JERRS? I.tw?is, Lhe gen-
tleman from Oklahoma, Mr. MICxEY
Er~?~rns, on our side. the gentleman
from Florida. Mr. BILL MCCOLLII)G, LR'o
of the three are down on our conven-
tion on the platform currently.
Countless hours of dedicated work
by Members and staff created this op-
poriunit}? to pas quality legislation.
While I cannot list Lhe names o1 all
these people, I think they know- I
mean them. when 1 express the graft~
rude of this side of the aisle for their
hard work.
14s I said. Nr, Speaker, I would have
preferred ar. open rule, but I mu_et add
that the b:pariisan spirit that has per-
meated this process is very- much et~-
dent in the rule today. As a result of
the cxopera ive spirit etidenced by our
Speaker and majority leader and the
Rules Committee, Lhe content of the
bit; is not ova}? comprehenshe, but it is
of high qusLty-.
Sure]}? a~e do not agree on every-
thing in the bil?. nor do a?e agree on ail
of tl~e amen~mer;ts. but a?e have en-
abled Members to add_*ess and debate
Lhesc key issues when v,?e re: ume in
September .
S~?, Mr. Speaker, I want Lo again
than]: the Speaker and the majority
leader and the distinguished chairman
of the committee for his cooperation
here, that when we do come back from
our recess there a-il] be probably three
or more dogs intolted in amendia~
this comprelcersive drug bill.
1 u~r the a.~aptior, of the rule. and
th~nl; the gentleman for yieldirk th;
time.
>\!r. PEPP%c . I~.r. Speaker, for pur-
poses o~ debate o:a} ? I yield s minutes
to the distinguished gentleman, from
Arkansas flt4r. ALEx~r-nESI.
F~!~D~ asked and was
~ ~ en perrrissier. to reuse and extend
his remarks. and to include extraneous
material . )
Mr. At .FS a~'DER. Mr. Speaker. I
rise in support of the rule and to e~:-
plair, m}- amendment made in order
under the rule.
1v.r. Speal:e-. I first conducted a
forum on drug abuse i6 years a?o in
order to attach a dilemma that a?as
just beginning to invade some a*eas of
my home State of Arkansas. Today-,
a-it h Arkansa< as well as the rest of
the cotiniry seemingly no closer to
solvin@ the problem of drug abu.~e
than in 1972, the question arises as to
why America has been unable to deal
with the scourge of drug abuse.
As we debate the rule on the omni-
bus antidrug bill today, we should rec-
ognize that there is no one simple
ansv.~er to this question, but a major
obstacle in attacking drug use is the
absence of a clearly defined, u:unistak-
able policy. L~ the void left by the lack
of a clear policy, confusion reigns
amwig the agencies that are charged
with drug enforcement.
As a remedy to this altuation, In Sep-
tember I plan too offer an anti-
stonea?alling amendment to the anti-
drug bill, which would require the
sharing of Information among certain
Federal agencies about illegal foreign
drug activities. My amendment R?ould
require that any executive branch offi-
cial hating infonatation about such ac-
titities x~ould transmit it to the heads
of agencies involved in formulating
U.S. foreign policy or enforcing Feder-
al drug leas. The antistonea?alling
amendment would also require that
such information be shared, when re-
quested. R-ith committees of Congress
and the Genera] Accounting Office.
A classic example of the difficulties
that arise from the national policy
tscuum in drug abuse occurred on
July 12 when John ]La~c-n, the head of
the Drug Enforcement Administra-
tion, testified to s congressional sub-
committee that he had written letters
praising the alleged drug interdiction
efforts of Gen. Manuel Noriega and
the Panama Defense Forces. The DEA
Administrator testified that e! the
time the letters were a-ritten he had
net knoa-n about the crimina? investi-
gation into General Iv'oriega's invoh?e-
ment R-ith L'legal importation of for-
eign drugs into the United States, be-
czu_te he was "left out of the loop" b}-
L'.S. intelligence agencies and never
given hard ee-idence tying Noriega to
narcotics traffickers.
That criminal intestigation eventu-
ally led to Noriega's indictment, and
a?as conducted by the Miami U.S. at-
torney genero?'s office, which i a part
of the Department of Justice. V~-e
must prevent this kind of con-fusion
among agesc.ies charged a?it1-, drug
laws enforcement in which the left
hand of the Justice Department clear-
]}- didn't know a-hat the right hand
w-as doing.
A second example concerns an ongo-
ing investigation by- the General Ac-
counting Office, undertaken at m}' re-
quest, which would examine hov in-
formation about drug trafl~cking b}?
high-level Government ofii~ials of
other countries affects U.S. icreign
polio' decisions, using es a case stud}~
information concerning the drug traf-
ficking activities of General Noriega of
Panama.
GAO indicated in an Au~.ISt 9 letter
to me that "since b.zy 11, 1988 we
have been formally- tn?ing to gain
access to personnel and records at the
Departments of State, Justice, and De-
fense." In late May, GAO a?as in-
formed that the National Security'
Council would handle this assignment
for the administration, and the Depart-
menu of State, Justice, and Defense
mere instructed by .the NSC to cease
cooperation in the investigation until
NSC issued guidelines for GAO access
to information. Repeated GAO re-
quests for Information x-ere refused by
State, Justice, and Defense, R?iih each
August ll, 19Fb
refusal being accompanied by a refer-
ence to the NSC stoneW~alling policy.
While ft Is perfectly justifiable to
withhold certain types of information
that would Jeopardize lea enforce-
ment or intelligence activities. the
GAO Lold me that "most of Lhe infor-
mation ~ e need to examine should be
considered to be releasable." GAO of-
ficials met with NSC officials and told
them of "our precious experience on
other successful assignments im~oh?ing
similarly sensitive information." There
is no reason a?hv Lhe executive should
not protide information on the basic
objective of the GAO investigation,
which is the organization and decision
process for foreign policymaking when
information is available on foreign oi-
ficiaL' drug trafficking.
A series of questions remain urar.-
saered about iliegai drug tra,`iicl:ir.~
in Central America. For example. ir.
Arkansas serious questions continue to
surf are about allegatiorL~ concernin?
Adler Ber.?ilaan (Barn-) Seal's gun
running and dru? smugling. Sez?, a
DEA informant a?ho a?ap.t~.ir, ir. ls~u-
isiana in 1986, a?as allegedly involved
in sn Operation in which a plane
loaded a-ith guns to aid the 1vTicana-
guan Contras flea from Mena. AP,.
doa-n to Central Americz and then re-
turned loaded a-ith drugs. One of
Seal's planes, s C-123K that had been
sen-iced and parked at the Menz air-
port during much of 1354 and 1985.
a-as shot doa~ over Nicaraguz in Octt?-
ber 1986, while carrying supplies to
the Contras, and an Arkansan, 4.-z]-
lace (Bum) SzRyer, a?as killed in the
crash. There hate been local, State.
and Federal int?estigatiens into the
Menz operation, but man}~ questioa~
persist. A tital goal of the anti
stonet;?alling amendment i< to ensure
that all agencies are cooperating ir:
givin? and receiving Lhe information.
the}~ need to do their job.
One question that arises i< whether
Federal agencies mere a?crking at cros
purposes during the period of Seams
a.ctivitie; as an informant. There is e. i-
dence that the C1A and the NSC bot3-,
wanlPd Lo dit?uige Seat's intoh?erae ;?
in e massive undercover drug investi-
gation because ai those agencies' in-
terest ir, influencing the Contra sic
deba?~ that a?as taking place in Con-
gres_~ shoril}? before Seals rr-,under ir.
February- 1955; simultaneous?}?, the
D1y?'s primary- interest a?as appzren:
ly the undercover effort to brez4 ur
the Colombian drug cart.ei. A new s
leak by an unknov;r. U.S. Governrre~t
official resulted in articles a?ie?inr
that the Sandinista government u?as
invoh-ed in dru? trafficking, and it
blew- the investigation. According to
our distinguished colleague, Chairman
BILL ]HUGHES of the House Judiciary
Subcommittee on Crime, the political-
ly motivated leak cost Sea] his life.
A'hile everyone respects the need to
avoid disclosing information about the
criminal investigation of Noriegz.
there are many other questions the
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/21 :CIA-RDP90M00005R001500070005-9
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/21 :CIA-RDP90M00005R001500070005-9
nu~usl.~t, iyc~8 (.V,'V(iRESSIOI`AL RECORD -HOUSE H 68.9
fXPGUUt'P should bF eble LO Q1tF th
GAO- including
First. what procedures are there for
lau enforcement agencies Lo communi-
cate their intelligence needs to the in?
Lelligence community-?
Second, ltoa arc Ise enforcement
and!or foreign policymaking officials
further up the chair, of command pro-
vidPd intelligencF information-a?h~t
prcicFdures are ir,rolred. what kind of
inforntatior. i< prodded?
T'hira. werF firl} specific instruciioris
or directives prepared requesting in-
form;,tion or. illegal drug-related ac-
titities in Panama or on Noriega's in-
volt~ement in iliegal actit?ities?
Fourth, who receit?ed the rat; infor-
mation. what did thec? do with it, what
studies, reports, or analcses were pre?
pared on illegal aciirities in Panama
or o.^, Noriega?
Flits, a-ho were these reports sent
to-e~pecia115, aerE ark rec;pier.L in
the lba enforcement community or in
foreign policyniakinf: positiozis%
Stith, how did 4hF law enforcement
recipier.T^c use the reports-did they do
further analysis, did ihe~? use the in-
tF111~E'nCF 8; input to build or develop
and- criminal case?
Set-ent2., hour did the foreiFrl po:i^}-
mal:ine recipient use the reports-did
they discuss then:. did they do further
an21\'SCS, did tl'ei' Stlrrtrn2riZE for
higher let?el reciyient?
Mr. Speaker, there is no reason a ht?
the executit~F branch should aitY:hold
information ~ the prinizry ibcQ~ of
the GAO inquiry, which is the organi-
zation and decision process for foreign
polic~~makin? when information is
aralable on foreign officials' drug
traEficktz-ig. ThF sntistone~-al;ing
amendment would focus only- on infor-
ms; for. such as that involt-ed in t1;e
G90 s im?estigation of Noriega and
other officials, which legitimatrl~- tali
be prutided: it would not require dis-
clos~re under three conditions:
First, when it a-ould jeopardize a
Z%S. foreign intelligence or txiunterir,-
t.eliigence actirit}-:
Second_ when it would endanger a
tat; enforcemert int-estitation: and
Final]}', aher; it mai? ad;?erse)}?
affect U.S. defe:~s:~ or national securi-
t ~'.
A decision not t,o share information
could be m~dF o-ay- b~ thF head of an
aget-~c::. If the President decided to
a-)t1-,ho;d the irlorm.2tion from a c?om-
rnitteF o_` Con?re~, he would hate to
prot-ide the comet?tte~ tl;e reasons for
suc1; action. In thF etent that the in-
formation, irto)ted II.6. foreign. intelli-
gence or court.eri-ItelligencE. the
President would be required to
prong;l~? inform, thF chairman and
ranl:inF minorit>? members of the
HousE~ and Senate co.-nmittees or. fnte]-
ligence.
Mr. Speaker, drug abuse is the most
dEtast.atin? plague confronting Amer-
ica t.oda~?. In battling this evil, v,?e
cannot ar.~? longer tolerate the policy
told in which agencies operate in igno-
rance of each other and occasionally,
c e~?en pursue contradictory objectives.
V4e must replace the current vacuum
with a clear)y defined, unmistakable
policy in which all agencies cooperate
fully with each other in shariri,g infor-
mation about 111eFal drug trafficking.
I further submit carious copies of
various letters from the GAO, the DE>-
partment of State, thF Department of
t>_stice, thF Department of Defense,
and the National SE-curits? Council
which further explairis thF need for
the antistonea?alling amendment.
Gncls,At Aocorwniac Omcc. Nn-
rloxAt Steven- tarn 1Fr~-ICA
TIOICAIf AnAZxs DIPiSIOT.
A'nsAinoton, DC, Aul7tut 9, 1588.
Hon. Btu. Ai~zitxn~.
Subcommittff on Commtrrc Justice. State,
the Jiidiciarp and Relnled 1,pencics.
Committee on AyDroflraettons. Hoi:sc of
Rep rfscr. ; ? c i t,es-
D>-rAIaS Drrt SIOT:,
Washington, DC. Augus! 3, ISdb.
Hon. BILL AL~+v.-ol~..
House o./Representetirr~
D~ )ylP Ai.S.er-nrr I.^. BLa}' 198:;. yot:
asked us Lo reties hoe inforltatior. about
dru? ttaff:chil?.g by hign-]eve] geternmen;
officials of nations fnend:c' t,o the United
States affects U.S. foreign, policy decistoris
Becat:se Lhe inlorriatio:: required to suc-
cessfully ttndettake this assig:unent would
potential:y involve information related tc?
intFlligence gathering ru,d on-goirir lsa en-
forcement irtestigsUonc wh,cL is dtfficul;
for the General Accour:u.? Office tin ob:s:r.
under our access-io-recar~. authorities. ai
stiggest~-d. and you &E""eed, the; a?e a?culd
eapiore the issue tisi.-ie as a case studl the
information eoncerr.:st? the d-ug trafficking
actitities of General Noriegz o' Psrtame As
you requested at our meeting o.^. August ~.
198f_. aF arF protidin? a detziied stmunsrt
on the experience we stave 2tad so fa* in at-
tempting to obtain. iri.`orzsation on the as-
signment.
In summar3, slthou~: ice were able to
perform a limited amount of audu work a;
the Department of Defense in June, the Nz-
tional Security CounE71 (NSC, has directed
the other Eti:ecutive Branch agencies in-
volved not to meet with GAO staff or pro-
vide any information to GAO on thLs assign-
ment until NSC issues guideline` concerning
GAO access to information on the assign-
ment. The NSC has informed us that it con-
Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/21 :CIA-RDP90M00005R001500070005-9
 Declassified in Part -Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/21 :CIA-RDP90M00005R001500070005-9
l$ ~fi5~' CONGRES510NAL RECORD -HOUSE August I1, ].9,45?
eidr`rvl our request for information concern
leg Oencra3 Noriega's drug lraffickinfi and
other aciititirs a.: raising "important biatu-
iory and constitutional issues.'
A.t of AURUSt 1, 1988. ihr representaUtc of
NSC tt?ha ha been our contact said that hr
Could not tell us when the guidelines would
be forihcorning, but he said that he expert
ed them W be issued within, perhaps. a
couple of weeks tthat is. not a?Ithin daFs.
and not after months). WE have mode aPi'er-
a1 attempts, b}' letu: and through trlr
phony discussions, to obtain information
and schedu}e meetanrs with thE? Depart?
menu of State, Justice, and Defense, but
these efforts hate been refused. with each
agency' citing the NSC s direction a: the
reason for their refusal. V','e have also con
traded the Contra) intelligence Agency'.
a here our request !or information a?as also
declined.
? A detailed chronolog;: of our efforts to
meet with NSC and agency' official. and to
obtain information, L pro: ided in Enclosure
I Copies of the letters a?e sent t4 NSC and
to the agencies are provided in Enclosure Il.
The NSC list prodded one written inlrnm
response to our letters tEndosurf II] ): of
tht agencies, only the Central intelligence
Agency has responded in a-ritin? (E,nciosure
I ~' ).
We are currently aa'ai:ing Lhe NSC guidE-
lines. We will continue to keep you in-
Jormed of the status of our efforts, and will
discuss further steps which a?e believe may'
ire appropriate. tf any. after a'e date re~
t'lea'ed any guidelines issued by NSC.
SIn CPtE ly y'OllrS.
NANC? A. KINGSSItF.F,
Assxiatc Director.
ENCLOSCP.E I
CxP.O).-OLOCICAL SUM7~?P1' Of GAO CONIACSS
Vt'ISH ETtECTTIVE BY,.+.NCIs AG?N CI ?S AT:7
OrrlctALs
biac 11-16. 1988 We sent routine notifica-
tion, letters to the Department-s of State.
Justice. 8nd DeferLse. and the Nations: Se-
c?~rity' Council adi-isinF them of our ret'iea
and identifyir.F thE- suY~t?~ct and scope of our
a'orl: LEtters were sent specifics??} ait?1in
,.';F Department of JusticE LO ti1E Drug En-
i~rcement AFPnc}? (DEAI. the Erecutii?E
C!ifire for U.S. Attorn~ s, and Justice's
Cninlinal Di;i~ior.
b:al' 23. 1988: V,'e receii?ed our ilrst rP-
spc?rse iron? the NSC. M*. Nicolas P.ustou,
?} f?cia? Assistant to Lhe President and Legs:
Ad': isor. laid us by telephone that hE
t: anted Lo '?ihirlt about i:" before schedul-
i ;t a meeting with us.
Mar 24. 1988: V'e sent a notification ]Eat.er
?:, thf Ceilt,al Inteiil?eace agent;' asi:ing
for a mee:ini? to discus:. rile issues..
b'1e}- 3G-Junf 1. 1985. ~;~f bE'gar. COrlii!Ciirl?
>;crsannel 8t Stare find Justice t4 arrariFF
fGr ]nlilb? I31fe:1nr_` IO d.+: i1SP Lhe SCupe and
df'p:.^^. of our audit. r?.*. T`a:,uel F.od-icue~.
.- S. Attorney's O"ice li~isor: who aa: co-
4~dm~ting the Justi^E Department comp~-
P.ertts. dE?C]lned IO SPi L't:- a mPPi1P.g ctat:n[
that KSC a'd; coordi*tating the Adr::inis*.ra-
tiGr.'s response to our notification and he
aa~ t'oin? to wait unu? hr heard fraln KSC
befare procfedinF. bin. Bub Harris. front the
Dcpa.rtment of State, ad::s=_d us that State
could not deal with us on this assignment
until a?e had disclirsed our work a-ith the
'~ 5C.
Junf 1: V.'e conducted our initial meetir.F
i, ith the Department ai Defense. R'e per-
formed work at the Defense Intelligence
Agency iDIA) and the military departments
until Juh' 12. 1988.
Junf 6. 1988: We had our first meeting
with bin. Dan Leon. Depute Legal Adrior.
NSC. Mr Latin stated he understoud the
purpose of our renew. Dut wasn't sure ar
Could hate sreess to srnsfth?e tntriligenre or
lea enforcement files. Hr promLsed to dig
cuss access with the agencies fntolted and
would ,get back to us quickly'. We tcerr offi~
cially notified that NSC would be our focal
point on this assignment. Wr adi?ised Mr-
I,etin that x?e preferred to deal a?iih the
agencies direeil}' without ha?.'ing to Clear et-
erything with the NSC-our normal pray
lice. Mr. Lenin stated wr are fret tc> deal
with eact: agent} dlrectl}' and t!tat NSC
would not be a bot:ieneck
June $-9. 1988: Vfe again contacted the
Departments of S:t,te and Jl1StiCe to ar
range for initia? meetings. Despite b:r.
Leon's SLiLemerit that oie could deal dlrect?
ly aiih the agencies, both Mr. Harris at
StatE and Mr. Rodriquez at Justice adtised
its the NSC instructed there not to deal with
1L until NSC had developed operational
guidelines on what to do and what not to do
on this ass;t-rtmeni.
June 13. 1988: Mr. John L Helgenon. Di.
rector of ConFressione? A