CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP92B01283R000100070002-7
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 13
• Document Creation Date: December 23, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 16, 2013
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: September 17, 1984
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/16: CIA-RDP92-1301283R000100070002-7
senten.oerw,L984,L coNGREsS,10*1.;ftgCQR1.--.,11W5E)
Catastroplik wildfire/km:Furred .in the
Pacific - Northwest and t. Northern
Rocky Mountain Stslashi7/213:and
California .in 111. .I these nitrations
Canadkn ?Fbrees. could have been tef-
fectively u,sed tOsupplerifent iiiiihaek
tip domestic Iketighteek..11.R. :3721
watibLeNosr itch await to be used and
would permit theirrebobersement.
Mr. KINDNESS. Mr:Speaker. join
In support ? of Hit. 'VIM, a bill to
preens& the isse of fariditri Nivel***
resources on Federal land and tditu-'
prove the, wildfire filditing caPatY
of the Federal Government.
Wildfires, as has been pointed
especiaily.in the Western Stateri..bave
caused talk= of dollars of darnage hi
the bid decade. Recently, the fins In
Montana raged out of contml and
burned thousands of acres .of forest
and range land as Weil as. residential
and eonnnercial property arid
needless destruction mud be 'deterred
or stopped to the best of our ability. ?
- HR. 3726 will increase our ability to
fight such tires by permitting the use
of firefighting organizations of foreign
lands includbig those of foreign corpo-
rations and associations, hi fighting
wildfires anywhere on *lidera land in
the United States.
These foreign firefighters would pro-
vide much-needed assistance in Man-
power and equipment to oar domestic
forces. The .Department of Agriculture
stated that Canadian forces would be
especially heirdtd hi controlling fires
in the Pacific Northwest and Rocky
Mountain States.
In addition, the Department has as-
certained that in certain situations it
Is more cost-effective to reimburse for-
eign forces rather than to transport
Federal or Stale tomes from more dis-
tant locations.
So. Mr. Speaker, HR. 37211 was pro-
posed by the admirsistration. lit repre-
sents a logical and nereseray :Item 'hi
Ira:reusing the -fire 'protection of onr
Federal land.1 strongly urge support
of H.R. 2725 and recommend Its ap-
proval, and yield to the gentleman
from Alaska.
Mr. YOUNG of Absks.:Mr. Speaker.
I was unaware of this bill, and the gen-
tleman may wonder why I am a little
concerned right now. but you are talk-
ing it Federal lamb and it is
cheaper, apparently the administra-
tion says ft is chewer 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 rairashattiew?
Mr. KINDNESS. Mr. 'Speaker the
concern is that uppermost is trans-
porting equipment and personnel over
greater distances. litir example. In the
gentleman's State -iit Alaska, ft is a po-
tential problem to have backup per-
sonnel and equipment coming from
down in the Western States; a greater
distance while Ikea 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 AialikliVrimarilY as Aim-
_ kan'Indiann,AVeduat 'Passed .s bills
few Slaiste42131.1?D eimeoesiag Waters. -4
wooM'be tleegily:Olottiebed?H Thep-
Pined to look est landaiee_o bunch Of
Can:idling Federal
lands WhiCh .3s 470iresk baCiUnie of
gnats col wine aiskidehaihisOnigrela
approxinidety 34percent:by the Fed-
eral Govenuatet.'hurseeing'Alairkans
deprived:di one oi/ .1110901401.r. =mei
or tneorne 'friim-tbistafirkirtinterte
Sabi:lot flits on ltderallitrids.',
; ? a 400- -LI.
?? . --
Mr- ICINDERSS. t Mr; Speaker. I
would hastento antreerthe gentleman
from Aladia "thit iisbat Is *Mended
here Is Strictly the eineegerrek `Supple-
the:Ita1. the of tiessotaietfrorrenntsIde
of the .area that leuldlie.alfected by
the .fire. and only ?Idierethere are no
domestic .persamsel,i end sisources
readily =Sable topetthere.
But as -the '34ould con-
cede. there osold be Ocearikini in Which
it would be more acidly and more time-
consuming to ma* -people- and ecadn-
merit from. let -os lay. 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 mantic make
sure that those In likotans. If the fire-
fighters are available. they would have
been hired that or if It brim Wyoming
or Utah or 'California or the State of
Washington br Oregon.- the timber
States, and Alaska; that because of the
proximity of the Canadian tvork force.
that they are not available Of they are
not used when there are -available
brines near. , .
' would like to ask the chairman of
the eoromittee about that. ?
7271x. FUQUA. /dr. 'Speaker,. will the
gentleman yield?
? Mr. .KINDNESS. I yield to .the gen-
tleman from Florida:. . -
Mr. FUQUA. 1 thank the gentleman
for yielding.
'Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from
Ahem brings np ? a very legitimate
question, and that is not the intent of
the legislation. to .deny that: It is
really to assist in logistics operations,
hire in the recent tire in Montana.-We
brought firefighters from all over the
United States, which would have
drained the system if we had fires de-
velop in other places, and it was very
close in proximity to where. Canadians
could nein.
Under the present law, we couki 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 Alaaka. 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,
arid also that the residents there will
have access to, very frankly. source
?
? H-964
of employment whenever those things
OCCUr.
.Wir. kil i UnE
' SS.:1:theilk the gentle-
man for contribution in making
the tecoril Claw ontbat Point.
-Mr.-Streakett.? I have no further re-
f:SWAB ter_ tiourAnd 1_ reserve the bal-
ance of rag then ? .?
;Mr. TULFCIA. ler.13yealter, 1 have no
further requests for time, and 1 yield
beet the tidancerof tny time. - -
J'ISPEAKER pro 'tempore. The
question is on the Motion offered by
the gentlemen itrom" Florida (Mr.
Factual that the?House suspend rules
and pass thebill. H.R. 3726, as amend-
ed. ? r .., ? -
'The 'question 'Iris taken: and (two-
thlittihaving -voted in favor thereof)
the rules were suspended and the bill,
as =ende4 was passed.
A motion to teconsider was laid on
the table. t -
?re,
?- ? GExiam, 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 paned. -
The SPEAKER pm 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
(ER. 5164) to amend the National Se-
curity Act of 1947 to regulate public
disclosure of information held by the
Central Intelligence Agency, and for
other purposes, as amended by the
Committee on Government Oper-
ations..
.The Clerk raid as follows:
H.R. $164
Be 1 enacted by the Senate and Nouse of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That this
Act may be cited as the "Central Intelli-
gence Agency Information Act".
-Sac. 2. la) The National Seccertty Act of
1947 is amended by adding at the end there-
of the following new titim
"TITLE VII?PROTECTION OF OPER-
ATIONAL FILES OF THE CEArPELAL IN-
TELLIGENCE AGENCY
"IX.10117TIO1 07 CRICTAIN 01.7811172021A3. TILES
FROM SEARCH, =VIEW, 71:01L0:2121.01R, OR ass-
CLOSURE
"Sec. 701. (a) Operational files et the Cen-
tral Intelligence Agency may be erremPted
by the Director of Central Ihtellbreuce from
the provisions of section 552 of title 5,
United States Code (Freedom of Informa-
tion Act),--vrhich require publication or dis-
closure, or search or review in connection
therewith.
"ib) For the purposes of this title the
term 'operational filed' 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-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/16: CIA-RDP92B01283R000100070002-7
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/16: CIA-RDP92B01283R000100070002-7
H 9622 CONGRESSIONAL RECORL HOUSE September 17, 1984
sign governmemi or their Intelligence OS 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 throughscientific 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 Statee Code (Freedom of In-
formation Act), or section 552s of title 5
Milted States Code (Privacy Act of 1074);
"(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)(5) of title 5, United
States Code, except that?
"(1) in any case in which information spe-
cificalli, 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 submissioneof the parties;
"(8) *hen --obmPlaint alleges thsit
in-
quested records' Were ? improperly Withheld
because of improper placement solely in ex-
empted operational film, the eemphileent
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 *ere improperly withheld
because of improper exemption of oper-
ational tiles, the ? Central Inte)ligenoe
Agency Shall meet its burden under section
552(aX4)(13)?of title 5, United States Code,
by demonstrating to the court by eivorti
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 .ACM7 IO review the pcmtent of
any exempted operational file or files in
order to Make the demonstration required
under subparagraph (M bf this paragraph;
unless the complainant disputesthe Central
Intelligence Agency's showing with a sworn
written submission bitsed 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 38 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 EXLIETTED
OPERATIONAL TILES
"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 ottho 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 -Ltitelligence 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 conteate at the beginning
of such Act Is amended by adding at the end
thereof the following: ?
-raiz vu-rnomcdriori or OPER-
ATIONAL FILES OF THE CENTRAL LW-
? TELLIOENCE AGCY ?
"Sec. 701. Exemption of Certain operational
? files from search, review, publl-
cation, or disclosure.
"Sec: 702. Decennial review of exempted ?
:operational Mex.".
(c) Subsection pi) Of section 552s: of title
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-
dividuil any record whkh is otherwise ac-
oessible to such individual under the provi-
glOsis of section 552 of this title'. ? .
Sec. 2. (a)The Director of Central Intelli-
gence, in consultation with.the Archivist of
the United States, the Librarian of Con-
tress, and approPriate representatives of
the historical discipline selected by the Ar-
chivist, Shall prepare and submit by?June 1,
1085, a report on the feasibility of conduct-
ing systematic review for declassification
and release of Central Intelligence Agency
information of historical value.
(bX1) 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.
Sac. 4. The amendments made by subsec-
tions (a) and (b) of section 2 shill 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 ehactment, 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. Boum:0 will be recognized for 20
minutes and the gentleman from Vir-
ginia (Mr. Wfirrznuasrl will be recog-
nized for 20 minutes. . ?
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. BOLAND].
Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Speaker, I yield
myself such time as may require.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support
of H.R. 5164, the Central Intelligence
Agency Information Act.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/16 CIA-RDP62B01283R000100070002-7
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/16 : CIA-RDP92B01283R000100070002-7
Sqlkisier IS, MS* CONGRESSMALIUICORs.--, HOU' IMO
oeserergratesi naessad, loratedgair
Ihr trim national Seecillit'iseevetg and rr,11.,..!! feed th Olbfebtfrigallega; 'Or alocusi*
-Vide VS reptkingillt Mt lailvortat ",shillItial
,440 Pak
perservation Of the gehiltis right Of AlrOgil(
timely access to Government Informs- Muciest UM . , _
In effect, the bill codifies merest under the wadies 1,01A ? judicial
be& de lesso Review
Kit. 5104's mothesb el them some- TOL Peaty for CIA cases. MOWN Molitor.. AM IMO Ilor plain-
thou conflicting grinalplas is a tribute This Is because litigants simply have gal egotist gob.the yogieroguilf bowl.,
to the hard work al the gentleman Riotprieljniletics iseekislit ocean to the neves be needle to gee k by deckle Abe
from Keatacky (Mr. Idamoca the kind of llIforiaation to be found In . .
chairman of the 'Subcommittee onruillagmeigirra*HAI VOA And. it is thli AMMO* OP; brkgralleMallk,the
Legislation. and the gentleman from a row 9,ptiatt??? that sesciabia alma indisaktio Inds Of
Virginia [Mr. WIrrrsnessr], the rank- sada 4ntimentittion mans sot to be written submissiosis, the court alionys
bag minority member of the submits- made Public. - has the power?as la any IP)IA ease?
aeltitee. Mr. Mazzou was usable to be The AMA hos *ColiPted the legilti- to see any document, likareineunY elle-
present to manage the hill today hp- Meg al the haft dalmatian of *Per- VI:dicta Disottvery: 1 11' yrs, %IA and
MUMS be had to attend an immigration War* =kW Tblat nocardanns *Mows de aim Janda review ezeAlig corner.
bill conference committee meeting. IS Fears nif nettle. nructleal litigation stone O'f Path coats todos, and they
perhaps one of the most important. 441110111h0. ttlat mann= ilud MIAS will moths the hedge& of endear
conferences this year. agree with tho CIA on withhoiding tinder H.R.
As always: the contributions et the meth issfermalien hour the public. - Mr. npesker, there are ether eon-
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Roam- Pda Speaker. that sitaation weal eerie; that have bees raised about this
sea], the racking sainortty member of chime, but neither win CIA's backlog legislation. I include at the end of my
the committee, by the
wereunazamou a sup. akes mon
quintessentially untftsonee rran is d pperagx"eirovided. wont de, statement a response te
demonstrated
these snags.
tams. These responses show,! believe.
Port MR. 5164 received from the Per- Plebe eke swims queue at FOIA re- that the bill before the Rowe has
manent Select Committee on Intelli- Weda since enlY esPerlenced CIA of,- carefully covered the important right
genoe. orations officers are qualified to prop- to information of the American
The bill thereafter was considered-- erly review material from operational people.
and improved?by the Committee on files._. It protects that right. It also pro-
Government Operationa, where it was These IlehPie are unique because WRI teas intelligence Information that
shepherded through by the gentleman their experience and special knowl- should not be?and has not been?re-
from Oklahoma [Mr. Ertousni. the edge. They hare other important tasks vested puby.
chairman of the Subcommittee on to lio. If they can be freed from the iis-
The balance struck between these
Government Information, Justice, and borious review of files that never are
two concerns has stood the teat of in-
Agricunure, and by the gentleman released. other requests will be hail- tense scrutiny. Most importantly, It Is
from Ohio Mr. Kninrixssl. the rank- died more quickly, a balance that win survive the test or
Mg minority member of the subcom- At the same time. no less informs:-
time, because It advances the public
mIttee. Um: will be released to the public than
The result of all these efforts. Mr. if a search has been made- Interest Of the Nation.
Speaker, Is a bill unanimously en- Mr- Sneaker. It has been suggested It deserves the support of this
House.
dorsed by the Intelligence Committee that those who contest by lawsuit CU
and by all but one member of the Practices under this hill must Prove Arragenorr
Cornmittee on Oovermnent Oper- CIA activities violate its provisions Allegation: H.R. 3164 would attroUvely
Worn. before they can seek to raise such bar Public amok to shwa all ef the CIA's
The administration supports the bin. issues. operational tiles. Had this law bees part of
It has the firm support of the Cen- .".1 real catch-U." tin critics thank the "labial "IA legtelett??' It te Mel/
hid Intelligence Agency and the and they add that regular discovery tat" the Americas Peb9/e would never have
learned at Um numerous anal tradertak-
American Glyn Liberties Union. isn't available to assist such litigants. ?
The CIA can of course be expected That is BilliPlY Ilrrept- Plaintiffs thatinga habirmtnisaireWito neg. atiatiZerdroaraillaread.
to be In favor ot this legislation. don't have to Prove their Case before Response There never has been any
The reason why the ACLU's en- they file it. but they must show some public access to CIA. operauonsi tiles. Pio
dorsement Is especially significant. support for their allegations. After all. Ineergodia lolonnehell Iron such Mee hoe
however, is because that organization the object at the bill is to release the ever hem re/eased pursuant to any FOUL re-
cannot be expected to endorse a bill CIA from the obligation to search its quest- The ""letiem .1 CIA Illegalities
that win result in less information operational files. and Improprieties. with one exception. came
from the Rockefeller Common. the Pike
being available to the public than is U mere allegation will force a search Committee. the Church Committee. and
presently the case. to prove that a search isn't required, through leaks to investigate reporters. not-
Such is indeed the policy of the that is a catch-22 of rest proportions. through you. The one exception. addition-
ACLU. Further, discovery to FOIA mite al information concerning CIA drug expert-
Its endorsement Is premised on the under this bill will be limited only meat programs which was obtained through
arm expectation?shared by the two with respect to two new types of alle- an FOIA request, would still be accessible
committees which have welted on gations?allegations which this legisia- because the blew bas been the subject 61
H.R. 5164?that the flow of properly tion makes it possible for plaintiffs to both CIA tulti ceelgresettine/ blveetigetkehe
releasable information to the magic raise when suing CIA. and because, in any ease, the flies hors
will he expedited by this hill. Questions involving all other con-whirl' the drug espertment informotion was
obtained do not meet H.H. 5164s definition
It will, they believe, eliminate those plaints are subject to existing disco'-
requests from the queue that never ery rules and case law. rally examined by the Intelligence Commit-
result hi the release of information Mr- Speaker. it is true that under tee and the ?overgarment Operations Com-
but do consume many man-homa of this hill. FOIA litigants likely will be 'Dittos. At the Committee's rained. CIA ell-
search and review. unable to reach documents in CIA sasioed a ees7 Wog series ef examples at
Yet. while faster CIA response to operational files. Their chances under previous MIA released deletmente reatithtg
Freedom of Information let requests present law are no better, to past CIA illegalities and improprieties.
The review showed that the same material
was the reesOn the ACLU suPoorted What is preserved is the essence of would still be released under R.R. G/BL This
WO/dation of this type, the issue that effective judicial review now applied in review Is publicly available is the published
ownwinced the ACLU leadership to en- national security JOU ease& headings on RR. SUM.
dame H.R. 5144 was its judicial review U a plaintiff can offer some evidence Allegatiorg The most alarming provisions
provisions, that documents have been improperly of H.R. 11164 are these relating to the en-Int-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/16: CIA-RDP92B01283R000100070002-7
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/16: CIA-RDP92B01283R000100070002-7
119624 CONGRESSIONAL RECORL ? HOUSE September17, 1984
portent judicial review. U the CIA were to
Improperly withhold information from dis-
closure, the shiny 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 draws Into question under
paragraph 701(fX4), 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. WHITEHDRST. Mr. Speaker, I
yield such time as he may consume to
my colleague, the gentleman from Vir-
ginia [Mr. Rosmsonl.
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 WarriEiruasT 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.
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 KR.
5164.
0 1310 '
Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Speaker, I yield
such time as he might require to the
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Ewa-
rasa], 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-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/16: CIA-RDP92B01283R000100070002-7
- Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/16: CIA-RDP92B01283R000100070002-7
September 17, 1984 C---; CONGRESSIONAL RECORL ? HOUSE
ness of the FOIA without any mean; for records about themselves using the
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 POIA 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 ERIMNBORN.
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
procedures In either the Privacy Act,
the POIA, 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 ?Lu-
z= 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-
grates 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 semis to informa-
tion.
I urge the adoption of H.R. 5164..
Mr. WILITEEfURST. Mr. Speaker, /
yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
YOUNG).
Mr. YOUNG a 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-
9625
tions, tor informition 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 sour& of information or
operational assistance 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 decade since the 1974 amend-
ments to the Freedcim 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
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/16: CIA-RDP92B01283R000100070002-7
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/16: CIA-RDP92B01283R000100070002-7
II 9626 CONGRESSIONAL RECO,
occur, and have ?coined in the proc-
essing Of FOIL requests. The risk of
disclosure 11 not as great as they May
perceive it to be glade FOIL exemp-
tions exist for source-rerealing infor-
!nation. 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
. . _
-? H.R. 5164 contributes isubstantiallY
to ' resolving the Probleni of, the per-
ception by CIA isouteef that the CIA
may not be able tanretect the secrecy
of their relationship from FOIL dis-
closure:- The blfl withdraws CIA files
which directly concern intelligence
'sonnies 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
eetivities 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.
. 0 1320
Mr. BOIAND. Mr. Speaker, I yield
such.thne as he may require to the dis-
thumished gentleman from New York
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 605 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
I.. .?
J HOUSE September 17, 1984.
.compriaed the entire file, learned of
the existence of 1E000 pages of infor-
mation that the CIA was withliolding,
only after filing a Anil suit.
- And the National Student AssOcia-
tion learned through the FOIA that
the CIA ina.y have continued its covert
relationship with the association years
after the two had signed a Separation
agreement. -
Enactmenrof ILL 5164 will ?Make
future discoveries of this nsitire more
diffidult?if. not Impossible?to tuacev-
.
er. . ?
Most alarming are the Unique provi-
sions in this bin that would essentially
prevent both the plaintiff and the
courts from forcing the CIA to disclose
improperly withheld' infOrniation.
, I am aware -of no other law on the
books that bars virtually all "dIscoir-
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-
&aims 7043 and 70116 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-
rnent.(section 70114B).
If the House is of the mind to re-
strict the public's access to informs.
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 Free= 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 corarn,only face a
host of tactics that delay and impede
legitimate actess to information. The
agency has consistently ignored the
mandate of the Congress to submit,
excepein 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
tiltiestion. hi the entire history of
MIA, judicial review has never result-
ed in the improper release of sensitive
infonnation.
The bill does retain access to oper-
ational files in three narrow catego-
ries?those contatitne 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 acmes to the In-
formatioe. Some scholars believe this
provision to be unconstitutional.
One last cencern: While H.R:51134
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 doctiMents be re-
leased id that time?or ever. Withoutx
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 extent' 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. ettireCHURST. Mr. Speaker, I
Yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. KIND-
NESS3.
(Mr. KINDNESS asked and was
given permissioll 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 II.R. 5164.
/ 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 s. consen-
sus which developed alter some 9
years of experience in litigating Free-
dom of Information Act lawsuits aris-
ing from requests for information di-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/16: CIA-RDP92B01283R000100070002-7
? Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/16: CIA-RDP92B01283R000100070002-7
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 FOIL
At the time of those hearings, judi-
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
1' 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 he Privacy Act and
that this legislation is an appropriate
vehicle in which to do that.
As one who has been involved in-cf.'
forts to amend the Administrative
Procedure Act over recent years,, ef-
forts which have been referred to as
"regulittory reform," I nth particularly
troubled by agencies reversing long-
standing 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 we 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(cX1), 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 itis 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 s 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-
II
9627%
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.
01330
There has been criticism of section
701(f), various parts of it, but particu-
larly subsection 4(8) 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 cam 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. winTEETuRsr. Mr. Sneaker. I
yield myself such time as I may con-
sume.
(Mr. WHITEBRIRST asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
their remarks.)
Mr. WHITEHUEST. 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
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/16: CIA-RDP92B01283R000100070002-7
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/16: CIA-RDP92B01283R000100070002-7
9628
CONGRESSIONAL RECORO ? HOUSE September 17,1984
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 POIA 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. $164. 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.
? Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise
In strong opposition to HR. 5184, 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 admirdstra-
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-
tialchange 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 lathe Cen-
-
Ira! Intelligence Agency. The CIA as-
setts that Hit 8164 is warranted by
the backlog of Freedom of Informs-
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 &warm 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 latv.
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
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/16: CIA-RDP92B01283R000100070002-7
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/16: CIA-RDP92B01283R000100070002-7
'Sejlientber 1i7 Alni,
mem at iniarmation. Even AC8.11111!
Tedinative body has amen pensireded
initiate en -inquiry into-Svcortain sub-
ject, requests for Clit adornments
would be limited -to those rekvant to
the eipecific faibject oat*" of the in,
vestigation. Need/esp. te sag. the CIA
wouldhe veer selective ba determining
what constitutes ,the :Specific subject
matter71 , . . tr _ . 4 .
lna1Iy. 1.1311.2)111 would ,oreate-an
Thet deterrent lo atizenanitiated
POIA requests. There Is no provision
&Midi would reendete the CIA to pro-
vide attornets lees /or &litigant ,sdho
throes the Agency to comply With this
legbilatien. 'This oraission makes ? a
challenge to The Agency by the vast
majority -a ieltizens In The United
States financially Impossible. The
FOIA itself was rarely used before at-
tornefs lees became the responsibility
. als, Violator of the act. '
.The CIA argues that E.R.- 5164
if/wed nothave an theme effect, upon
the new eflnfonnation because few
documents are released 'by the Agency
under present regulations. This rea-
soning ignores the value of :tinnily
knowing that such documents exist.
Under .currerft law, 'the CIA niust
answer each POIA request, If hut 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 4s by Itself valuable to research-
, ens end ether 41:01A asnuicants. 'yet
alt.Sat64 evercild remcrve This regutre-
ment, and with ft, the. ability -of s
eltI-
eo to even determine that he is the
subject of iles at the Agency.
R.R. 51164 would set a thighly ques-
tion precedent -of self-regtilation
hy an .agency regarding compliance
with The A. In hearings before the
Eienate, representatives from the CIA
testified that the Director off -40eritral
Intelligence alone would have the au-
thority to designate tiles as being
-operational" And thus subject to ex-
emption from the FOIA. 11,suu a des-
igeatIon was -.disputed in -court, the
CIA would need only submita 'Witten
statement reiterating Its decision to
the court, and would nat be 'neutral
to !submit the disputed documents
themselves fa judicial review. to
other words, the Director of the cm.
would be answerable to no one for
such a decision. The CIA has bailed 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 wee
as past Activities rdirected against . the
Reverend Mirth' Luther Kb*. Sr,
and others fin the civil Addis move-
ment prove that the CIA cannot be
left to its :own judgment concerning
the geopriesty of ;its Activttles. 'we
want the CI this power of self-regu-
lation. hot only will we be grautingthe
CIA a carte-blanche unwarranted by
s previous activities, we .elso will be
inviting other wenforcement agen-
cies to seek this same exemption.
CON.GRESSIOt hOUSE
?
WreettellIbmihstradincing a mew
ant atalignaellelblessfillismailidngl.
cialroviewitaillegicial. ?
APPmemle stilLEL 11144 cloth vide
atIPPort ter - their! mesisine, bolt the
supsertgrahaillais The American Civil
Liberties Union. ;skew istniest Wit
Crileiaiii ise itleeeati arm 'to now.
Is now mconstdeling denisien. RR
1.164 ia.sippasetbr sack irrirupssi the
NaszimPer'Clont the $c it Pro
les:dons' ,dcrucoaliste 'the Reporters
Committee for Freedom otthe Press,
the asdie-Teleidales Nam Directors
A.Isociatiost. Atm American Eftstorical
ANSectstiore *ad the National Commit.
tee Mi Repaeadre ?Legi.slation.
rhe &act lb* this =seizure is fbeing
coadidered under suspension of rules is
as indication that its hackers. realize
that taiNtig ,COnSid asthma of the WM
would not he Wits *event. .
? itovi.? the actual? *natives behind
this hill should healear. The CIA .feels
taloa it Uoan doPnOrtusie gime to posh
tba ibill 'would not stand
L p to real scrutiny. 4 urge -my col-
leagues to judge this kill ton its actual
merits, not ..the (desire for clean
desks dr A4 proponents. R.R.
Red nepresento sn attempt to troll
back the rights ,of btionnation which
have been obtained so recently and
the bill should be judged as such
? Mr. .STIYMP. .Speaker, Ha.
5164, the Central babeRigenoe Agency
Information Act is the culmination of
years of omgressional effort to 'grap-
ple with the problems the Preedosn of
Information Act poses for the.Nation's
primary If amigo intelligence , ageney.
Since 11.977? 3stabommittees of the
House and Senate Intelligence Com-
mittees, and of the Mouse Government
Operations Committee and the Senate
Judiciery. Clammittee, have held a
number of hemings these prob-
lem. . Mese - ycommittees have AU
reached the conclusion that legislation
to tmodify the Application of thePree-
dom of Informatimi Act to ite CIA is
require& Bills to -make the necessary
modifications have 'been under consid-
eration in the Corxgregs -since 1.981L
The many wiewspresented to the Con-
gress concerning the legislation have
ail been considered of great length.
ILR. 5164 is the carefully crafted
result of these years of cougresslonal
debbenaltion.
The bill modifies the aPPlication of
the POIA to the CIA by removing spe-
cifically defined CIA operational files
from the POIA process. These -files
hold the 'CIA's most sensitive secrets.
sock ,as ,the slams of CIA sources
abroad or the high technology meth-
ods for overheartreconnaissance of the
military installations of hostile ma-
tions. Tire Besets contained to these
npeeatkmal Illes see. of course. :kept
secret 'under lbeerarrent exemptkrns
in the POSA Icor classified information
and informatinknetating to dntelli-
gence sources sad -methods. That is
precisely the s3olne Ha. .-5164?it
makes no sense ta 'continue to require
CIA personnel to .conduct POIA secu-
14 9624 .
^ genems aid these records ants hile?
trams lads Tattneae to POIErt rs
*sesta. aim experlasee tau shy=
that sarkling menainglIal cgs aver 'be
rielealied istirs peddle hum these
flies tasgasty.. Vire inkatantial
11213neet at three sunned* reistred by
orientate be wasted to csesilucting the
ane40-.11tne review of Dime records
which can't be released, teaduces big_
PIXA %Wraps at CIA Which prevents
CIA4sont-proces5ing in a timely fash-
ion MIA requests for material which
rumba released. 4
1,tHa. 5164 Will take care of thenrdb-
tem. As ri result of H.R. 5164:
Taxpayers' money Will no tenger be ?
'lasted ,by requiting C/A officers- to
spend their time ;condi:table PplA re-
Views of -sensitive operational records
that cannot be 'released to the public
underldre POIA.
CIA Scums 21bn:wad -will be reassured
that the I:kilted 'States can keep secret
the fact, of their cooperation with The
CIA. -
Skilied CIA operations officers Who
are now diverted away from their
opersdlonal duties to conduct POIA re-
Views Will devote themselves lull-time
to tthe 'intelligence 'work They are
hired. paid, and trained to do.
The risk of accidental or unknowing
dIselesure under the POIA of sensitive
operational Information will be re,
duced.
. CIA backlogs In RNA processing
will 'be reduced, Improving the timeli-
ness of CIA responses to POIA re-
quests from the public.
.H.R. 5164 has been drawn carefully
to unsure that these goals will be
achieved without diminishing the
amount of Meaningful information
currently available to the public under
the POIA.. The bill meets the Nation's
needs for both an effectiveintelligeece
agency and an informed ,citizenry.
? are -my colleagues -to vote to sus-
pend the rules and pass H.R. 61.4.0
? /tr. , HORTON. Mr. Speaker., 1 rise
'hiesport of E.R. 5164; the Central
Intelligence Agency Information Att.
N.R. 6154 providei a limited erremp-
tton.from the Freedom -of Information
Act LIVIA) for -specificallY ? defined
operational files maintained by the
Central Intelligence Agency. The bill
witi relieve the CIA from the require-
ment under the POIA to search and
review records in these operational
files .thet, after line-by-line review,
almost invariably prove to be exempt
from disclosure under the FOIA. The
bill will thereby. improve the stalky of
the CIA to respond to POIA -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 at information will be fol.
Med. -notwithstanding the fact That
those records sire maintained in oper-
ationsl files. =hose exemptions are
for: First, Information concerning U.S.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/16: CIA-RDP92B01283R000100070002-7
Declassified and Aproroved
II NW IP
-4; ? "
For Release 2013/08/16: CIA-RDP92B01283R000100070002-7..iiik
aszuwa....Fa. ? a 0".., - ? ..".V."'"
citizens and permanat resident aliens
requested by Such Individuals -about
themselves; second.. information re-
garding covert activities the existence
of which Is no longer claselfied; and
third, information concerning any CIA
Intelligence adtivity-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 F'01A 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
beats for denying an individual access
pursuant to the Freedont 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.
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.? .
? Mr. MAZZOLI. Mr. Speaker, H.R.
5164 is a narrowly focused measure
which provides the CIA with limited,
but Important, relief from FreeddIn 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 -LIMP:ROO POLtVelief. land
have madeltridfiebnteontributiOns to
the drafting process.. And, we are here
today becabseitluilletiglative?effort on
this measure has been chafacterized
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 his records
systems for records responsive to the
POIA 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, diticloSe all rea-
sonably isegregable 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-pagebasis.
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-
? Mtthtiveritleitking -,601?;ancted
? Itirtifinle- 411llteldlitritt btenUal
foreiarOntelligehrte '.oriftatinteri*etti-
teilceignftete.;*
Filek*IthilSicese fhitiebbnijithients
which dO nice meet the 'statutory deft-
nitiOns' Will not be eligible for exemp-
tion from search and review. Further-
more, records In all other 'Pitts bf the
CIA, including information which or-
(ciliated In ? the orient's:nisi nompo-
nents,_ will Continue. to be subject to
srdh ? revI Furiiittriple,'ill
documents whidlito to the birector. of
Central Intelligence, even if they con-
cern the mbst Intimate detains of an
Operation, will be subject to search
and OA*: FtuthermOre, all- int011i-
gence ?lected through human- and
technical Means will cobtthile to be
covered by the FOIA beeausitfie Oper-
ational Components forward such in-
formation to the 'analytic components
of the Agency. What svill 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-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/16: CIA-RDP92B01283R000100070002-7
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/16: CIA-RDP92B01283R000100070002-7
61471thiiiber;A*15L31
gently explicable tio:ail YOU. requelita.
However, ProoOdialliAdefuftrds ;hue
been addedta HAL MU which Aware
That The Itidlcial review ,proCess .doee
not permit the /tarts :to reimpose the
search land ieview 'burdens on the
Agency -width the bill is Intended 'to
eliminate.e ? 44
- 11.11.4511lit Mitt,
require theldrector of Central inteM-
genet to reyiew. at least once ewery ID
;testa .the ortemptions of !ctperational
Liles in force to determine whether the
exemptions may be lifted from AM
files or portions a m fil second, :re-
quire the Dtrettor of Centre Intelli-
gence to report. liy June 1, 1885. to the
Intelligenoe COMmittees on the -feasi-
bility -of 'ceinclectini n -program of'syl-
ternatic reilew ',or declassification arid
-release -of ielasalled CIA taormadon
histaricaltabm and apply
42se measure *retroadtively to all vend-
lag FOIA xecruests, and to all
tions to enfense FOIA access to CIA
records whidtt were ed. -filed prior .to
-February .7. -1994. - ?
R. 8154 contains an 1eoportaritsee-
.1,km which was added by the Commit-
lee on -Government 'Operations ;and
?which I fully support. The provision,
which the gentleman from Oklahoma
explain in more -detail, amends the
Privaczy Act to make clear that the Pri-
vacy Act is not .a withhokling statute
for Purposes a TOIA exemption
'then
urge my colleagues to support the
+Changes in the 'FCRA contained in
Hit. MM. They are 'reasonable
changes designed to eliminate waste,.
Improve the .effideney of PA pine-
easing, and gnovide Ant:teased protec-
tion to intelligence anuses and meth-
ods.
In testimony before the Senate In-
telligence Committee, Deputy Director
McMahon pledged that no further
relief from the .POIA lor The intent-
; gence ? commurdty beyond -what is con-
tained in this measure -will be .sought
try the ndminittration.
_H.R. 5164 does-rot-represent a Chip-
ping away of the FOIA WS It applies to
CIA. It is not the camel's nose ender
the 'tent. Rather. by ensuring _more
tiniely responses to requests and .pre-
serving access to currently releasable
information, MR. 5184 recognizes the
vontinuing vitality and importance of
FOIA as it relates to the Central Intel-
`, ligence Acertcy.?
? Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Speaker,
II.R. SIN is the product a delibera-
tions over 'several Congresses on bow
-to bslunce the needs of the CIA to
imp certain Information secret and
the needs of the public In ,our tree so-
ciety to he appropriatel,y Informed on
the activities of the CIA.
-Two ?Congresses ago, Avbile I was
.sereing an the Ciovernment Oper-
ations Subcommittee on Government
Informal-inn we considered legislation
similar in concept to that which is
before the House today. At that time
There was no consensus on the Issues
ibtirdaalimposed ten-the CIA bYteing
subjedt to the Freedom of Information
Itett,/ftrertheless,- -those 'bearings
itbseirthe issues?particulnifludicial
resdewL;which -would have la he re-
sdIved' before this legislation could be
'enacted.
1Dthergcrovistora
-sta toy ,Judgment, these -tunes have
*Ow been reached. This tee:13121ton ism
been carefully crafted. It dm:lodes two-
aitiorio enrich will provide tire Con-
OrressInIth the oversight 4ineehanismis
needed tin monitor -12ze balance live
have reached.
mad also like to express my gar-
ticular appreciation tor -the amend-
-trent added by our Committee on Cksv-
41111MeidlOperations to daffy :the re-
- lationship between theliteedom to/In-
formation' Act and the Privacy Ad. As
vi otthe =thong Of the Privacy Act
.and the 14 ausendannts to the Free-
don of Information Act. I have been
itrotilded to see that a couple of circuit
courts re appeals have rendered deci-
sions which are contrary, to the goals
cd those two acts.
Even more troubling was the deci-
Mon ar 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 tot*
effect in 1975. This reversal of policy
*as the effect of restricting en Individ-
and's access to Government files (con-
taining records about him or herself in
a way not conic mptated by the Con-
gress in 11174.
The in section
d(e) of the bill .resicatis the relation-
ship between the ,to laws -which Con-
gress intended in 1974. and which the
esceeutive brandis hes honored for all
butt =maths Of the time since.
All pasties that -,have been involved
An bringing this legislation to this
point are to be 'congratulated for their
efforts. It is good bill and is 'deserv-
ing of our support. I hope that we -will
pass the bill and that the other hody
will quickly ratify our work and tend
this Legislation to the President for his
signature,*
/dr- GOODUNG. Me.Speolcec, I
rise in support of H.R. 5164, the Cen-
tral Intelligente Agency Information
Act. We in the Intelligence ,Committee
ilke to adhere to the principle of 'Peet
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 Amen-
Can people informed about U.S. intelli-
gence activities without letting hostile
Latvian nations know the same things.
Even some of the public work of our
committee. such as the a.nrnzal Intent-
gedoe authorization bill, has secret as-
pects to It. That authorization bill Is
public. but 31 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 haie in considering HR.
SLIM with an issue Of great inspor-
of the nature and . extent of the . lance in the .same public.and delibera-
rave latiston airunmit Other legidallici
In the Congress is considered. I 'matt
The Intelligente tionimitteetrid
Committee 43baemment -0iier-
ations have -tally netted this legisla-
tion. The conceals of all r have been
considered carefully and, Indeed, have
beentavorably addressed by the legis-
lation:I note that nia somewhat`Off a
monument to the legislative proisess
that we :hate' produced a isal 'Oh Atie
ifueetlion .of Jp4ablie".1iteelis 4W
mental :information that is hilly 'sup-
ported by both the Central Intelli-
gence Agency and the American Civil
liberties:Union.
The bill ensures -that-the pubic' Id
continue to have siscesi to meaningful
CIA information-vender 'the FOIA-to
the lull mcberst that -they do lodes/.
While preserving %such access, the bill
rationalizes the FOIA administrative
process at CIA so that theCIA is not
'required to imend time and taxpayers*
money reviewing and testifying the
withholding of its most senattise Oper-
ational records that everybody agrees
are properly eleatrified 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 tnforrastion Which can be
released to the public. This is a good
government bin?it should save sonie
money for the taxpayers, -speed up
service 'to the members of the magic
who make FIOIA requests, and improve
operational .security -II.S. intelli-
gence activities, all labile caesareans
immirdshed the saimmt of meaning-
Cul CIA Information available to the
pubiic under the POI&
Mc. -Speaker, IWill vote for H.R.
.51541 and I ash .mt colleagues to join
Wn.rtarruittiT. I have no fur-
ther 'requests for time, 'Mr. Speaker,
and .I :yield back the balance of 'my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
ouestion is an the reittion -offered by
the gardiernan from Massachusetts
BOLAND3, 'that the House suspend
the rules and mesa the bill. MR. 5184,
as amended 'by the Committee on Gov-
ernment Operations.
Tile question was taken.
Mr. IWEISS. 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 riot present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu-
ant to clause 5, rule 1. 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. BOLKNO. Mx. Smoker. I ask
unanimous consent that ell Members
-may have Simla-Lai:lye days in Which to
revise and extend their -remarks on
11.R..51134.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/16: CIA-RDP92B01283R000100070002-7
*P Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/16: CIA-RDP92B01283R000100070002-7
SepteFthe47.-1,9,. - CONGRESS
the hes1thaucleralfertiolrebuiredier neglect,
ed chfithen. intledifig =MUM* legal.pne
ceedinga The- new thrust-at inettrder ape,
Wit itatutteer refereace to the antirortty
institute legal proceedings only
questions have occasionally been .
about the authoetty?of particular ? i d pro.
tectieseeretees agenetest Oa ? ? ? 4? veiling
in. cases, boobies' reedicailo
indicate& treatment, fano - iota=
with.lifothreabeniag Under. new
clause QC):. .-. fleilo to do
terathie. the . soma. er. stranclat
within their .i. protective servic?ow
tiene,. to ex that authoritState aue
thortty to it 1. / other agencies. ingeldition
In the child .? - ? e services Ude= Itir
these purposes woad' be unaffected by the
legtslation.
anDtriostuasuurrs.nairtaTES.
The amendment. (In' section 201ten
would- add a new.subsectioit4MOto the
to authorize the Secretary to make
al grants to the. States . for the.
developing. eidahlighing, and o
fraplementtng. (17 the proced
grams requited' under the n
(2) ird'or=tion.aritredece
traftiltig Opera= (for
proving-the provedini
infants-Cite/ life-t
professitinal and
concerned with t
? ?
41
frectoding
=ten
fact/him
and (3) p
.1'?
or
or pro.
clause (
IK).
.Drograms. or
purposes of. lim
? ces to dables'
conditiensTfier
?nal' pensormel
-welfare of such infanta,
employe& in child pro-
Programa* and tintittecare
fter menet; of such. Wants;
ma to heloobtain or coordi-
nate . services, including existing
health services and financial as-
for families with disabled Wants
life-thneatening ? conditions as well as
those menaces necessary to facilitate adop-
tive placement of such. infanta who have
been relinquished for adoption.
MEDIATIONS AND CUIDELTNES
The amendment (in sectem 202) ould
direct the Secretary, within 90 day of the
date of, enactment. to Publish ? public
comment proposed regulati m. to, intple-
merit the requirements at t ? new clause
(RI and to publith final eh regulations
within 180 days after
IL also wouke direct., Secretary: to pub.
enactoient,,inierins
model guidelines usage_ the establish.
merit within he -care. facilities. et com-
miteees. which odd genie-the purposes. oe
educating 11- tal personnel and families of
disabled I? .with life-threatening conde
dons_ emending, institutional, policies
and lines concerang the, withholding
of m catty-indicated treatment from such
itrfarree and o eilug counsel and" review in
eases involving disabled inf ants with 111
threatening- conditions. Not niter than
days after- the date of enactment and
notice and opportunfty for public erre
the Secretary would be required to . dish
the model guidelines.
Renoir ONFTNANCIAL Reit) cm
The amendment an section I ) would re-
quire the Secretary to con a study to
determine the most effect e means of pro-
viding Federal financial s pport other than
the use of funds P ? ided through the
Social Security Act, ? r the provision of
medical treatment, ral care, and appro- irrscrors DATES ? '
priate social. for, disabled infants The revisions of the Act arid amend-
with life-threa ? . g conditions and report men made by the Act would be effective
the results of such study to the appropriate u tire date of-enactment except that the
committees of the Congress not later than eidznent establishing new eieust(N)asi an
270 dare-after the tede of enactment. The eqpfrement for participation in the state
report to the appropriate Cornmitteerw grht program does not become. effectlee
also . be required. to -contain. such ? ? 11,1 til one year after the date-of enactment.
as rt the Secretary ?onside = ep- e.prlor-to the-ceseserati Wee-
/ the event thaThe amendment further provitiee thee in
cial support dations for legislation to-provide such
propriate. tive dete? funds have not been.appiaptiated.
itig
"-
a
RECORL, ? HOUSE
ncwcea AJI
COMMUNOHOUSIMMIPMUS
The amendment tin mem 204) Would
direct the Secretary te preside, directly or
througri.grants or con
private. =opera
and technic:air
states Mt mating tier
chute. (KJ and for
ith public or
fortntioing
-to wig
ents
Mg net:Renal., and

and'Operad
one ildOrtnattOn and
ousts to provide the most
fete infonnattoo.regazdi
t neopedures anek
vommunitoreseurces foe mew
I for disateed infantirwitit
geeniher conditienic The fun& tie
out thew activities-would be provided
f? the, Arndt other- Man those.
e available for. basic-States grants
section 4(b)(4), otherwise available to. the
Secretary- to. carry outiactbdties under-Um
Act (meaning the Chilet.Alluae Fteeerstion
s.nriTteatment Act).
STATUTORTVONSTRUCTION
resource
current' and,
ingrnedicse
sources ?
Ices an
life-t
111 ?
The amendment, (hs- eeetion
provide that no provislois?ot
ment made l thetAer-ir
any right or protection
the Rehabilitation Act
It would also provi
or any amendment
construed.to auth
other g
standards
ments for
extent t
by othe
It iv
ity
pr
05) would
an emend.
nded Moffat
section 5114 of
913.
Matta? prineeden 01
e by, the.Act may be
the Secretary.or. any
tel. entity to establish
bing specific medical treat.
contittlems, except tip the
such standards, are authorised
wa..
d also contain a standard severabil-
on in the event that a particular
sion-of or any amendment made ? y the
Is declared unconstitutional by court
AUTHORTLATION OF ADTROFRIA
The imiendinent (in section I ; would in-
crease the authorizatiim of sp. ? nations?
from the levels be the bill reported ($27
million for FY 1984, $34 ? lion for FY
1985, $35.5 milliorefor 1988, and $37.08
million for FY 1987 der. the Act by
$5,000.000 for each year for the pur-
pose of making the clitionargrants to the
states torn the provisions -of: new
clause(Z) and estelinsh the Inflormation
and education ? d training program' god
the to. hely obtain or. eceetitratte
necessary ices .loe Clisabied. iafants, with
ning condlLionsauthorized under
Min 41e7
nettnent woeld retain the-earmark
ned in- S. IOW as reported of
Iffe-thre
the ne
The
con
00,000An:esell fiscaltyearlor t
out of the provisions of secti
lating to basic state grants, and
In each fiscal year for identifi
mentond prevention of sexual,
It is the firm intention. o
that appropriations for the
program should be in?ed
dons at the authorize
in the wasendrrient f
basic.state grant
abuse,..identificati
tion program
isting p
tog in order
section 4(c)
?se
. BE 9811
?
pursuant to seeable itattlitrAct (as amend-
ed by section 104..ef Ude Act) for the
pose of grants under new section 4 , the
Secretary NM grant to-any-State h has
not met 'the 'requirementsof clause (K)
a waiver of such req .? for ',period
of not more than one y if the Secretary
finds that-such State ? g stgood? frith
effort to comply wi such provisions... .
usetnier.Hewaters, '
os Cleentise.
Memo' MANGE,
PAUL 81111110NT ?
Ciro. Mum,.
Aorrrn JjKIERPET,
BALTAAAN CONRADA.
PAT WILLTANN,
DENNIR E ECICART.
JOHN N. EHLEKNORN,
BTLL Clocrousge,
TOM OXEN=
Srsvs.Besmusrr,
- JOHN McCue,
Ma!Fteers on the Pare of Ittruse;
Oaanr
- ' Dow
ED hLitiontme,
? . ? ... .? .. Isepa-IPZ
on of the Senate.
WTI
,000?
treat-
I I
e sponsors
section 4(c)
to apProPria-
leveis3eontained
settioa Una 1)
'for the sexual.
reatment, and proven-
that-neither et these ex-
houkl be redueedin fund.
Provide fundsdfor the new.
gram ?
???
AP ?a ' OF ADDITIONAL
Ilk ON H.R., 4164, VOCA-
IONAL-TECHNICAL. EDUCA-
TION ACT OF 1984
Mr. HAWKINS. Mr. Speaker;
unanimous consent that the S
be authorized to appoint an itional
conferee on the part-of ouse on
H.R. 4164, the Vocatio al-Technical
Education Act.
The SPEAKER ? no tempore. Is
there objection ? the request of the
gentleman frorn California? The Chair
hears pone d, without. object p-
points t Bowing additional er-
ee: Mr Amu.
T re wasno obj
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
AGENCY INFORMATION ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempcire. Pursu-
ant to the: provisions, of clause 5 of
rule I wad 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.Septernber 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:
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/16: CIA-RDP92B01283R000100070002-7
-
Declassified and Approved For Release 2013/08/16: CIA-RDP92B01283R000100070002-7
119818 CONGRESSIONAL RECORL -HOUSE September.19, 194.
Moll NO. 4023
ATES-369
Adclabbili rekihill
Akaka Fiedler
Albosta - Fields
Anderson Fish
Rudd ? Snots.
Russo Snyder
Sabo. , Solara
Lott - Sawyer Solomon" ,
Lowery (CA) Schaefer Spence
Luian , . Scheuer Swett
Luken - Schneider St Ciernah)
Schroeder ? ' Staggers
Schuh. ? Stangetand
. Schumer Stenholni
Sensenbrenner Stokes
Sharp . Stratton- --
Shaw ? Stump
Mahrlott Shumway? - Sundstalat
Martin (n,) Shuster SWift .
Martin (NC) Sikonild SYnar
Martin (NT) . RWander Talton ?
Martinez ' , Bisiskir ? Tanks
Matsui ? . Skeen . .., Tauzin
Mavroules -Skelton Taylor
Andrews (NC) Flippo Lundine
Andrews (TX) -"torte - Lungren
Annunzio . Poirlletta ,', Mack -
Anthony ? Paley ? MacKay
Applegate Ford (MI) Madigan
Archer Ford (TN) Marlenee
Aspin
Badham
Barnard
Barnes
Bartlett ? -
Bateman
Bates
Beilenson
Bennett - ?
Bereuter ?
Berman
Prank ?
Franklin -
Frenzel ? ,
Frost
Gaydos
?
Geldenson -.
Gekas
Gephardt -
Gibbons
?
Gilman "...1
'Bevil' Gingrich ?
Biaggi Glickman
Bilirakis Gonzales
Bliley Mottling
Boehlert ? , Gore
Boggs .Gradison
Boland Green - ?
Banior ? Gregg
Honker "Guarini
Borsid Gunderson
Bosco Hall (IN)
Boucher
Britt
Brooks
Broomfield
Brown (CA)
Brown (CO)
Broyhill
Bryant
Burton (IN)
Byron
Campbell
Carney..
Carper
Carr
Chandler
Chappell
Chapple
Clarke
Clinger
Coats Hopkins
Coelho Horton
Coleman (MO) Howard
Coleman (TX) Hoyer
Collhns Hubbard
Conte Huckaby
Cooper ? Hughes
Corcoran Hunter ? Oxley "
? Coughlin . Hutto _ ,Packard _
?????
Coyne Hyde Panetta
Craig . Ireland Parris
Crane, Daniel Jacobs Pashayan
Crane, PhUip Jef fords Patman
D'Amours Jenkins Patterson
Daniel Johnson Pease
Dannemeyer Jones (NC) Penny
Darden Jones (OK) Pepper
Daschle Jones (TN) Petri
Daub K.aptur Pickle
Davis Kutch Porter
de la Garza Kasen ' Price
Derrick Kemp Pritchard
DeWine Kennelly Purse')
Dickinson Kildee Quillen
Dicks ? Kindness Rahall
Dingell Kleczka Rangel
Donnelly Kolter Ratchford
hiazzoll
McCain
McCandless
McCloakey.
McCollum'
McCurdy
McDade
McEwen
-McHugh
MeXernan
McKinney
McNulty
Mica
Michel
Mikulski
Hall