AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED FOR PRINTING

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP77M00144R000800020022-1
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 31, 2001
• Sequence Number: 22
• Publication Date: August 1, 1975
• Content Type: OPEN

S 14948
Approved For ItVIMINCAlagila:atfa37-7-1VISMA4f00080002002Altgust 1, 1975
OCR's increased caseload was due to its
enforcement efforts mandated under
legislation passed by the Congress in
1973 prohibiting discrimination against
the handicapped, OCR did not initiate
the development of an enforcement pro-
gram for this legislation until 1975, and
did not request staff positions to begin
actual enforcement until its fiscal 1976
budget request.
I think these observations cast serious
question on the Department's justifica-
tion of inadequate staff and resources
to carry out its congressional mandate
regarding individual_ bias complaints. It
appears HEW and the administration
for reasons of their own have determined
to give a low priority to the protection of
the rights of individual citizens. Indiffer-
ence to the individual is not the answer
to solving the problems of discrimina-
tion.
The frustration and disillusionment
born of such indifference will be justi-
fied. Let us not forget that it is exactly
this kind of frustration and disillusion-
ment with the processes of Government
that holds the greatest threat to the sur-
vival of our democracy. What good are
our country's basic constitutional rights
unless they have meaning to individual
citizens?
I do not think anyone here in the
Congress today would question the need
for efficiency and the rational allocation
of available resources in the adminis-
tration of civil rights enforcement pro-
grams. I do not think there is anyone
here today who would dismiss the no-
tion that the compliance review, when
conducted with thoroughness and rea-
sonable speed, is perhaps the most
? effective Way to combat systemic
discrimination.
But I do not believe that we can turn
our back on the individual?and our
commitment to that individual?in the
name of efficiency.
No matter how much more efficient it
may seem to simply refer the aggrieved
individual to another remedial agency
rather than process the case, this can-
not be the proper solution. Court en-
forcement by the Justice Department or
by any other federal agency should not
be allowed to become a substitute for
the use of administration sanction. One
of the primary purposes of the Congress
In enacting title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 was to provide an adminis-
trative remedy for individuals, and to
remove the concept of the courts as the
sole enforcer of civil rights of minorities.
If it is the case that OCR cannot
perform its mandated responsibilities
because of staffing or budgetary con-
straints, let the Department come before
the Congress and request the necessary
assistance.
Mr. President, I would hope that this
body and this Congress would be equally
concerned as the court has been, with
taking steps we can and must take to
Insure the rights of individuals in this
country.
Congress and the people of this Na-
tion have expressed a commitment to
end discrimination?be it discrimination
against women, against racial or ethnic
minorities, or against the handicapped.
Simple justice requires that public
funds, to which all taxpayers contribute,
not be spent in any fashion which en-
courages, entrenches, subsidizes or re-
sults in discrimination.
This is what we are talking about, Mr.
President. It is not our own personal
desires, but the way we spend the tax-
payers' money generally. We must not
spend these dollars in a way which aids
and abets discrimination.
The plan to issue such procedural
regulations must inevitably call into
question this administration's commit-
ment to ending discrimination and to
protecting those individual rights se-
cured by our Constitution.
Therefore, Mr. President, today I am
submitting for myself and 52 of my
colleagues the resolution calling for the
withdrawal of the proposed procedural
regulations on civil rights enforcement.
Withdrawal of the regulation is essen-
tial if we are to convince the un-
derstandably skeptical American citi-
zens whose rights are in jeopardy
that we have an enduring com-
mitment to protect those rights. The
Senate must speak loudly and clearly in
defense of individual rights, and adop-
tion of this resolution is the vehicle by
which our message can be forcefully
conveyed to the administration. I urge
its speedy adoption.
AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED FOR
PRINTING
TAX REFORM ACT OF 1975?S. 512
AMENDMENT NO. 858
(Ordered to be printed and referred to
the Committee on Finance.)
Mr. HASKELL. Mr. President, I am
submitting an amendment to S. 512, the
Tax Reform Act of 1975, which I intro-
duced earlier this year.
As introduced, the bill currently taxes
for U.S. income tax. purposes income
earned by a foreign subsidiary of a United
States corporation even though that in-
come has not been distributed to its
parent. My amendment would delete that
section.
Since introducing S. 512,1 have learned
that no other major industrialized na-
tion treats undistributed foreign subsid-
iary income as liable for current taxa-
tion. I would not want to put United
States corporations at a disadvantage
with their foreign competitors. There-
fore, I have decided to strike that section.
I am also a cosponsor of S. 651, the Tax
Neutrality Act of 1975, which was
Introduced by the Senator from Idaho
(Mr. CHURCH). I would support a similar
amendment to that legislation at the
appropriate time.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the amendment be printed in
the RECORD.
There being no objection, the amend-
ment was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 858
Strike out all of section 110, beginning on
page 40 and continuing over through page 44.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM ACT
OF 1975?S. 1
AMENDMENTS NOS. 859 THROUGH 887
(Ordered to be printed and referred to
the Committee on the Judiciary.)
Mr. MOSS: Mr. President, I am sub-
Mining today nine amendments to S. 1,
the Criminal Justice Reform Act of 1975.
The first amendment is designed to de-
fine the term "war" with its constitu-
tional meaning. This term is not defined
in the bill, and the courts have not: lim-
ited its scope to the constitutional defini-
tion. Many of the terms of imprisonment
are stringently increased if a violation of
the law occurs during a time of war. Past
experience has taught us that the term
"war" can sometimes be ambiguous. If
we are going to increase penalties based
on that term, then it must be defined.
This definition is in keeping with Con-
gress asserting its sole constitutional au-
thority to define and declare "war."
The second amendment returns the
definition of the crime of treason to its
constitutional definition. The Supreme
Court has held that Congress does not
have the authority to alter the definition
of treason?its sole power is to prescribe
the penalties for the commission of the
offense. Although the present wording of
the bill only enlarges on the language of
the Constitution, and modernizes it, the
risk of possible constitutional challenge
to the wording is not worth the proposed
changes. The Constitution must be our
guiding light for defining constitutional
crimes.
The third amendment being offered
brings the section entitled "Instigating
Overthrow or Destruction of the Gov-
ernment," within the constitutional
guarantees of free speech and assembly
as interpreted by the Supreme Court. The
Court in those decisions which have set
the guiding principles for those who
would advocate and incite lawless action
for the overthrow or destruction of the
Government has required that there
must be in the offense the elements of
"urging to imminent lawless action" and
has also required that the speech or con-
duct be "likely to achieve the lawless con-
duct." This section as drafted does not
contain these constitutional require-
ments as stated by the Supreme Court.
Also, the section as drafted does not
protect the rights to freely assemble and
petition the Government for redress of
grievances. The Supreme Court decisions
dealing with the membership provisions
of the Smith Act have required a close
connection between an organization and
its immediate purposes to alter the Gov-
ernment of the United States. My
amendment will accomplish that result
by requiring that the organization, or a
member in that organization, is not sub-
ject to criminal sanctions unless its pur-
pose is the imminent overthrow or de-
struction of the Government, and that
its urgings and incitements are to im-
minent lawless conduct.
The fourth amendment concerns the
crime of sabotage. The amendment limits
the scope of the crime to interfering
with the ability of the United States to
engage in war, rather than allowing the
crime to extend to interfering with the
Approved For Release 2001/09/03 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800020022-1
Augmit 1 , 1975APproved Fob5ifttEmbyinoorti9mRailtr000800020022-1 S 14947
tion expressing the Senate's sense that
specific points of co tention between our
two countries must be resolved in any
agreement to ease relations with the
present Governmen of Cuba. I hope that
through this forthr t statement. of the
Senate's minimal r irements the air is
cleared and producti e negotiations can
begin.
SENATE RESOLUTIO 235?SUBMIS-
SION OF A RESOL ON RELAT-
ING TO PROPOSED R in ES OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF HE TH, EDU-
CATION, AND WELFARE
(Referred to the Committee # ? Labor
and Public Welfare.)
Mr. BATH (for himself, Mr. CAS Mr.
BROOKE, MT. ABOUREZK, Mr. BAKER, r.
BENTSEN, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. BUMPERS,
BURDICK. Mr. CHURCH, Mr. CLARK,
CRANSTON, Mr. CULVER, Mr. EAGLETON,
Mr. FONG, Mr. GLENN, Mr. GRAVEL, Mr.
GARY W. HART, Mr. PHILIP A. HART, Mr.
HARTKE, Mr. HASKELL, Mr. HATFIELD, Mr.
HATHAWAY, Mr. HUMPHREY, Mr. INOUYE,
Mr. JACICSON, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. LEAKY,
Mr. Meats, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. MCIN-
TYRE, Mr. MAGNUSON, Mr. MANSFIELD,
Mr. MATHIAS, Mr. METCALF, Mr. MONDALE,
Mr. MONTOYA, Mr. MUSKIE, Mr. NELSON,
Mr. PACKWOOD, Mr. PASTORS, Mr. PEAR-
SON, Mr. PELL, Mr. RANDOLPH, Mr. RIBI-
COFF, Mr, SCHWEIKER,; Mr. HUGH SCOTT,
Mr. STAFFORD, Mr. STEVENSON, Mr. SY-
MINGTON, Mr. TART, Mr. TUNNEY, and Mr.
WILLIAMS) submitted the following reso-
lution. To express the Sense of the Senate
that the Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare sharld withdraw its
proposed Consolidated; Procedural Rules
for Administration and Enforcement of
the Department's statutory responsibil-
ities:
S. Res. 235
Whereas the Congress has enacted Title VI
of the Civil Rights Asa at 1964, Title I-X of
the Education Amendments of 1972 and
other provisions of law to prohibit discrim-
ination against individuals on the bails of
race, sex, religion, national origin or handi-
cap; a.nd
Whereas it was clearly the intent of Con-
gress in enacting those prohibitions on dis-
crimination to protect the individual rights
of all persons as well as to thwart systemic
discrimination against groups of individ-
uals: and
Whereas the 14th Amendment of the Con-
stitution Is explicit in ,affiording equal pro-
tection of the laws "to any person"; and
Whereas the courts and the Commission on
Civil Rights have found-the Office for Civil
Rights of the Department of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare negligent in the exer-
cise of the statutory obligation to investi-
gate and reciolve both individual bias com-
plaints and compliance reviews; and
Whereas the position of the Office for Civil
Rights and the Department that effective
enforcement of existing law is hampered
by the la* of adequate personnel cannot
Justify any failure to enforce existing law.
and
Whereas it is the strongly held view or
the Senate that the Office for Civil Rights
and the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare have a continuing responsibility
to investigate and to take, appropriate action
both in oases of individual complaints and
in cases of systemic discrimination; and
Whereas the preceding is not required
under the proposed procedural regulations,
therefore ;Se it
Resolved, that it is the sense of the Senate
that the Department of Health, Education
and Welfare should withdraw the aforemen-
tioned proposed procedural regulations.
And be it further resolved that if addi-
tional positions are required within the Of
flee for Civil Rights for effective enforcement
of Civil Rights laws this need should
promptly be brought to the attention of the
Senate.
And be it further resolved that the Office
for Civil Rights within the Department of
Health. Education, and Welfare shall con-
tinue to make every effort to detect systemic
discrimination through the use of annual
surveys which shall be modified to encom-
pass areas relating to discrimination based
on sex and handicap.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I am today
submitting, for myself, Senators CASE
and BROOKE and 50 of our colleagues, a
resolution calling upon the Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare to
withdraw proposed regulations that?
if permitted to take effect?would con-
titute a serious setback in our national
al of ending discrimination against
orities, women, and the handicapped.
0 June 4, 1975, the Department of
Heal n Education, and Welfare issued a
propos... uniform procedural regulation,
relating o all the civil rights enforce-
ment res. insibilities of the Department
with the ception of its obligations
under Exec ive Order 11248, banning
discriminatio by Federal contractors.
The import of these regulations for
victims of discr .# ination?be they wom-
en, minorities e the handicapped?is
that HEW will no onger take any action
on individual com laints, but will rely
instead on periodic ompliance reviews.
The proposed proc urea regulations
would remove the requirement of
"prompt investigation' of individual
complaints, and in effect, would appear
to summarily dismiss individual
complaint as no longer be g the con-
cern of the Department.
It was my understanding th t the De-
partment's justification for the reposed
Procedural regulation related t e in-
creased responsibilities of the 0 ice of
Civil Rights, both in terms of inc ased
statutory responsibilities and incr ed
volume of complaints. Former Secre ry
Weinberger stated the proposed regul -
tion grew out of the current practice o
determining the priorities of the Office
for Civil Rights by whatever happened
to arrive in the morning mail. Accord-
ing to the former Secretary, this "mail
bag method of investigation" left many
large-scale areas of discrimination un-
investigated.
Mr. President, I find this a strange
answer to the problem of efficiency. In-
stead of responding to a growing num-
ber of complaints by requesting suffi-
cient staff and funds to perform its man-
dated obligations under the law, both
through compliance reviews and
through consideration of individual
complaints, the Department's response
Is simply to abandon its responsibilities.
The answer to the problem according
to this reasoning, is not to attempt to in-
crease efficiency of the Office, but rather
to rid the Department of the obligation
to handle individual complaints alto-
gether by simply pushing these com-
plaints off on the shoulders of other
agencies or onto the courts or by ignor-
ing them completely.
In light of my concern over this new
procedural regulation on July 7, 1975,
with the consent of the distinguished
Senator from Washington (Mr. MAGNU-
SON), I chaired a day of hearings before
the Labor-HEW appropriations subcom-
mittee, focusing on the staff and re-
source problems of the Office for Civil
Rights. At that time, the subcommittee
received testimony from Peter Holmes,
the Director for the Office for Civil
Rights and from various groups and
organizations directly affected by the
proposed procedural regulation.
Testimony from both the Office for
Civil Rights and from groups such as the
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights,
the Council for Exceptional Children, El
Congress?, and the National Organiza-
tion for Women's Legal and Education
Defense Fund produced some surprising
and revealing findings:
Despite the heavy reliance by the De-
partment on the various court rulings
placing time limitations on the Office
for Civil Rights handling of title VI
complaints, since the first Court ruling,
Adams versus Richardson in 1972, HEW
has requested no new positions for title
VI enforcement. -
Despite the justification of insufficient
resources and staff to continue investi-
gating and processing individual com-
plaints, there has been no testimony by
representatives of OCR to this effect be-
fore either Congressional Appropria-
tions Committees;
In 1966, nine Federal agencies dele-
gated certain civil rights compliance and
enforcement responsibilities to HEW
under a Department of Justice coordina-
tion plan for title VI enforcement Un-
der this plan, HEW is entitled to ask for
reimbursement for the activities under-
taken for those Federal agencies. Ac-
cording to a report on Federal Civil
Rights Enforcement Effcnts by the U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights, HEW has
failed to claim such reimbursement dur-
ing the 9 years the plan has been in
effect;
Despite the Department's insistence
that a new approach would rely on com-
pliance review, the Department; has elim-
inated the use of annual student sur-
eys, one of the tools previously used as a
de to areas in need on compliance re-
vie 's;
De 'its the Department's continuing-
compl t that it is understaffed, the
Depart at failed, to fill over 50 posi-
tions ant orized under the fiscal year
1975 appro iations bill.
On the sa e day the Department re-
leased the pr. ised procedural regula-
tion, it also issu P? final regulations to im-
plement title a: of the Education
Amendments of 1 , banning sex dis-
crimination in all f fly assisted edu-
cation programs. Des the fact that
title IX enforcement th oughout 16,000
public school districts an. 2,697 institu-
tions of higher learning is ow required,
and the Department is ere ting a high
volume of complaints under t le IX, the
Department has requested onl, six new
positions for title IX enforceme t;
Despite the justification that art of
Approved For Release 2001/09/03 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800020022-1
1975 Approved Fcizanggi6INXE9fidatROFs'iM44R000800020022-1
August 1, S 14949
ability of the United States to prepare
for defense activities, as S-1 currently
does. In line with this more precise de-
fining of the limits of the crime of sabo-
tage is the elimination of the amorphous
concept of "public facility" from the def-
inition of the crime of sabotage. Sabotage
is a heinous crime, but has traditionally,
and should now, relate to crimes specifi-
cally against a war effort or mobilization.
This amendment will maintain that ele-
ment of the crime.
The fifth amendment to S. 1 deals with
section 1112 impairing military effective-
ness. This section is a stepped-down
sabotage section where .a specific intent
is not required, but rather imposes crim-
inal sanctions if the person engages in
the same conduct but with only a reckless
disregard to the risks of the results of his
conduct. Therefore similar amendments
to this section are offered to bring it in
line with its parent, the sabotage statute.
This next amendment, the sixth, cov-
ers section 1112, inciting or aiding mu-
tiny insubordination or desertion. It
deals with advocacy and incitement and
the constitutional guarantee of free
speech requires a more stringent limiting
of what is to be proscribed conduct or
speech. Also as presently written, the
punishment does not fit the crime?in-
citement to insubordination is punished
as severely as incitement to mutiny or
desertion and it does not adequately
recognize the severe nature of the offense
during time of war. Therefore this
amendment attempts to more rationally
fit the punishment to the crime.
The seventh amendment concerns the
crime of espionage. In keeping with the
nature of the other amendments offered
today it changes the nature of the crime
from one concerning "national defense
information" to "classified information."
It also rejects the notion of S. 1 as pres-
ently drafted which has reduced the cul-
pability for the commission of this
crime by requiring only a knowledge
that the release of information "may be
used to the prejudice" of the United
States. My amendment will require that
the individual "intend that the informa-
tion be used to prejudice of the United
States".
The eighth amendment offered in the
most extensive. The sections that are to
be amended concern the disclosing and
handling of national defense and classi-
fied information, which were referred to
by the Chicago. Sun Times as a ."blue-
print for tyranny" in their present form.
Sections 1112?disclosing national de-
fense information-1123?mishandling
national defense information?and
1124?disclosing classified information?
are consolidated into one section entitled.
"The Disclosure and Handling of Classi-
fied Information."
The Government has legitimate inter-
ests in keeping certain information con-
fidential. However, the definition of na-
tional defense information and the pos-
sible sanctions, were far too broad And
amorphous. The Government's legiti-
mate interests in preserving secrets
should only extend to those areas that
could awfully be subject to a classified
status. That is what this amendment at-
tempts to do. Certainly any national de-
fense information which is critical to
this great Nation's security will be clas-
sified. The sections as written are un-
necessarily redundant.
The amendment retains the admirable
provisions of 1124 that allow for review
of the classified status, and adds that all
classified items must be reviewed, an-
nually to insure that their classified
status is still proper and lawful. These
procedures are required on all informa-
tion or any prosecution is tarried. It
also retains the affimative defense of the
information not being lawfully subject
to classification, if the person did not
receive money for it and did not give
the information directly to a foreign
agent, but only if the person followed
the review procedure.
It is my intent by this amendment to
balance the conflicting interests of al-
lowing a free flow of information and
the Government's legitimate interests in
keeping some information secret. The
bill as drafted dismisses too lightly the
right of the public to be informed and
stresses too heavily the Government's
needs for secrecy, a concern which now
increasingly confronts the Congress and
the Nation each day.
The last amendment deals with the
definitions. As to the definition of classi-
fied information, it excludes information
that is, or was, freely available to the
public. This insures that information
that, say, was at one time in the CON-
GRESSIONAL RECORD will not thereafter
be classified and possibly subject individ-
uals to prosecution.
The definitions of "communications
intellengence information" and "crypto-
graphic information" are amended to
make only specific, as opposed to general,
information the subject of concern, This
insures that if two individuals are talk-
ing and say "I understand the CIA still
uses phone taps" that they will not be
prosecuted, but if one says "I understand
that there is a bug in room 4B of the
X building in G country" then there is
a possibility of prosecution.
When I initially cosponsored this bill,
I realized that there were some provi-
sions in the bill that did not adequately
protect our basic liberties. These amend-
ments related to chapter 11. Offenses
involving national defense, and are an
attempt to more adequately preserve the
constitutional rights of all Americans
and also to more adequately define the
national defense concerns and interests
that should be protected through the
criminal justice system. They are the
first of several amendments I intend to
Introduce as I review this extensive act
to make certain it adequately provides
for the prosecution of criminal offend-
ers while preserving our precious con-
stitutional safeguards. -
I ask unanimous consent that the
amendments be printed at this point in
the RECORD.
There being no objection, the amend-
ments were ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, EIS follows:
AMENDMENT No. 859
(1) At page 65, line 15 delete the word
"might", and insert in lieu thereof the word
"would";
(2) At page 65, line 15 delete the words
"interfere with,";
(3) At page 55, lines 16 and 17 delete the
words "to prepare for or";
(4) At page 65, line 17 delete the words
"or defense activities";
(5) At page 65, line 22 insert before the
word "other" the word "any", and at page
65, lines 22 and 23 delete the words "for the
purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid and protection";
(6) At page 65, line 33 delete the word
"or"; and
(7) At page 65 delete all of line 34.
AMENDMENT NO. 860
(1) At page 67, lines 30 and 31 delete the
words "in mutiny, insubordination, refusal
of duty, or desertion" and insert in lieu
thereof "immediately in mutiny, insubordi-
nation, refusal of duty, or desertion, and his
conduct was likely to produce such result";
(2) At page 68, line 9 delete the words
"class D felony" and insert in lieu thereof
the words "class E felony";
(3) At page 68, line 10 delete the words
"in the circumstances set forth" and insert
in lieu thereof the words "if the offense is
mutiny or desertion as set forth";
(4) At page 68, line 11 delete the word
"or"; and
(5) At page 68 delete all of line 12 through
line 14 and insert in lieu thereof "(3) a class
A misdemeanor in all other circumstances".
'AMENDMENT NO. 861.
(1) At page 69, line 2 delete the word
"knowing" and insert in lieu thereof the
word "intending"; -
(2) At page 69, line 3 delete the words
"national defense information may", and
insert in lieu thereof the words "classified
information will";
(3) At page 69, line 6 insert before the
word "communicates", the word "directly";
(1) At page 69, line 6, insert after the
words "foreign. power" the words "or its
agent";
(5) At page 69, line 7 delete the words
"knowing that it may" and insert in. lieu
thereof the words "intending that it will";
(6) At page 69, line 10 delete the words
"knowing that it may" and insert in-lieu
thereof the words "intending that it will";
and
(7) At page 69, lines 14 and 15 delete the
words "or during a national defense emer-
gency".
AMENDMENT No, 862
At page 69, delete all of line 23 through
page 71, line 26, and insert in. lieu thereof:
1122. Disclosing classified information
(a) Offense.?,A person is guilty of an of-
fense If:
(1) being or having been in authorized
possession or control of classified informa-
tion, he:
. (A) communicates such information to a
person who he knows is not authorized to
receive it;
(B) intentionally fails to deliver it on de-
mand to a federal public servant who is au-
thorized to demand it;
(C) engages in conduct that causes its loss,
destruction or theft, or its communication
to one not authorized to receive it, and such
conduct is in reckless disregard of the risk
of such result; or
(D) fails to report promptly, to the agency
authorizing him to possess or control such
Information, its loss, destruction, or theft,
or its communication to one not authorized
to receive it.
(2) being in unauthorized possession or
control of classified information, he:
(A) intentionally communicates it to an
.individual who he knows is not authorized
to receive it;
(B) intentionally fails to deliver it
promptly to a federal public servant who is
authorized to receive it; or
(C) engages in conduct that causes its
Approved For Release 2001/09/03 : CIA-RbP77M00144R000800020022-1
Approved For Release 2001/09/03 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800020022-1
S 14950 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE August 1, 1975
loss, theft or its communication to one not
authorized to receive it, and such conduct is
in reckless disregard of the risk of such
reaul t.
,1b) Exceptions to liability as an accom-
plice. conspirator Or solicitor.-A person who
is not authorized to receive classified infor-
mation is not subject to prosecution as an
accomplice to an offense under this section,
and is not subIeet to prosecution for con,-
spIracy to commit or for solicitation to com-
mit an offense under this section.
:c) Bar to proseeution.-A prosedution
this section is' barred unless:
[1) At the time of the offense there ex-
isted, pursuant to a statute or an executive
enter, or a regulation or rule pursuant there-
to
:A) a government agency responsible for
imuring that other governmental agencies
classIf3r and maintain as classified only such
information as is lawfully subject to classi-
ficetion, and that the classification of such
information was reviewed for the purpose
of ascertaining its: lawfulness within the past
year; and
.13) a review procedure through which the
de:CeiLdant could Obtain review, by the gov-
ernment agency described in subparagraph
(Ai, of the lawfulness of the classification of
the information; and
:2) prior to the return of the indictment or
the filing of the F information, the head of
the government agency classifying the in-
formation, the head of the government
agency described in subparagraph (A) of
pa.agraph (1), and the Attorney General
jointly certify to the court that the infor-
mation was lawfully subject to classification
at the time of the offense.
Id) Affirmative defenses.-It is an affirma-
tive defense to a prosecution under this sec-
tion that:
11) the information was communicated
only to a regularly constituted subcommittee,
committee, or joint committee of Congress,
pursuant to a lawful demand: or
12) the defendant had attempted to ob-
tain the reclassification of the information
and had exhausted all administrative reme-
dies arising out of the review procedure de-
sciibed in subsection (c) (1), and the infor-
mation:
%Ai was not directly communicated to an
agent of a foreign power;
iB) was not communicated in exchange
for anything of value; and
C) was not lawfully subject to classifi-
ea:don at the time of the offense.
le) Defense precluded.-It is not a defense
to a prosecution :under this section, except
as provided in subsection (d) (2), that the
Information was not lawfully subject to
classification at the time of the offense.
If) Grading.-An offense in this section
is:
A.) if committed in time of war:
1.A) a class A felony if the person to whom
the information IS directly communicated is
an agent of a foreign power;
1B) a class B felony in the circumstances
set forth in (a) (1)(A), (1)(B), (1)(D), or
(2)(A);
CC) a class C felony in any other case.
:2) if not conunitted in time of war:
(A) a class C felony if the person to whom
the information is directly communicated is
an agent of a foreign power in the circum-
stances set forth in section (a) (1) (A) or (2)
(A);
. .
B) a class D felony in the circumstances
set forth in (a) (1).(A) or (1) (B);
, CI a class E felony in the circumstances
set forth in (a) (1) (C), (1)(D), (2)(A) or
(2)(l3);
? '
OD) a class A misdemeanor in the circum-
stances set forth in (a) (2) (C)."
At page 71, line 27, delete the numbers
"1125" and insert in lieu thereof the num-
bers "1123";
At page 71, line 36, delete the numbers
1.1
::11224::;
6and insert in lieu thereof the namDers
At page 72, line 10, delete the numbers
"1127" and insert in lieu thereof the num-
bers "1125";
At page 72, line 33, delete the nUmbers
"1128" and insert in lieu thereof the num-
bers "1126".
---
AMENDMENT No. 863
At page 73, lines 1 and 2 delete the words,
". regardless of its origin,";
At page 73, line 6, insert after the word
"security" the words ", and is not 0.0w, nor
was previously, freely in the public domain";
At page 73, line 9, insert before the word
"procedure" the word "particular";
At page 73, line 13, insert before the word
-use" the word "particular";
At page 73, line 23, insert before the word
-nature" the word "particular";
At page 73, line 28, Insert before the word
-use" the word "particular";
At page 74, delete all of line 1 through
line 20.
--
AMENDMENT No. 864
(1) At page 64, line 7 delete the words
-to prepare for or";
(2) At page 64, lines 7 and 8 delete the
words "or defense activities";
(p) At page 64, line 18 delete the words "in
part", and insert in lieu thereof the words
"substantially in whole";
(4) At page 64. line 23 delete the word
(5) At page 64, line 24 delete the words
""(D) any public facility;";
(6) At page 64, line 31 delete the word
(7) At page 64, line 32 delete the words
' "(B) a service of a public facility.";
(8) At page 65, line 10 delete the word
-or"; and
(9) At page 65, line 11 delete the words
""(8) is committed during a national de-
fense emergency; ".
--
AMENDMENT No. 865
(1) At page 63, lines 23 and 24 delete the
words "as speedily as circumstances permit,"
and insert in lieu thereof the word
-imminently";
(2) At page 63, lines 25 and 26 delete the
words "then or at some future time" and
insert in lieu thereof the word "imminently";
and
(3) At page 63, line 27 insert after the
word "government" the words "and his con-
duct is likely to produce such result'.
At page 63, delete everything from line 3
through line 8 and insert in lieu thereof
"(2) levies war against the United States."
At page 43 line 16 insert the following
definition "war" means a war declared by
Congress pursuant to its Constitutional
power, or an invasion of the United-. States.
by a foreign Nation."
NOTICE OF HEARINGS
Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. President, on
Wednesday, July 30, 19'75, I announced
that the Subcommittee on Financial In-
stitutions of the Committee on'Banking,
Housing and Urban Affairs would hold a
hearing on NOW accounts in Concord,
N.H., on Friday, September 12, 1975.
Since NOW accounts are preserilly re-
stricted to the States of New Hampshire
and Massachusetts, I wish now to an-
nounce that the Subcommittee will hold
an additional hearing in Worcester,
Mass., on Thursday, September 11, 1975.
This additional hearing should afford
the subcommittee a better overall view
of NOW accounts in the two States where
they are presently authorized.
Anyone wishing information concern-
ing these hearings should contact Mr.
William R. Weber, counsel, room 5300,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Wash-
ington, D.C. 20510, telephone: Area
code 202/224-7391.
NOTICE OF HEARINGS OF THE SUB-
COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE
JUVENILE DELINQUENCY
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, It wish to
announce that the Subcommittee To In-
vestigate Juvenile Delinquency, Com-
mittee on the Judiciary, will continue
hearings on the escalating rate of fire-
arms crimes. The subcommittee to date
has held two hearings this year-April 23
and July 22-which explored additional
initiatives to more effectively curb the
senseless slaughter of innocent human
beings and the ever-escalating number
of armed assaults and robberies involv-
ing firearms. The third day In our series
of hearings is scheduled to be held on
Monday, August 18, 1975; at 10 a.m., in
room 2228, Dirksen Office Building.
Mr. President, the subcommittee will
also continue their hearings on the abuse
and misuse of controlled drugs in juve-
nile institutions. Last year the subcom-
mittee initiated a special investigation
of these distressing problems and in the
[coming months will continue with a
comprehensive assessment of the prac-
tices which lead to the chemical strait-
jacketing of thousands of youngsters.
The second in our series of hearings is
scheduled to be held on Thursday, Au-
gust 14, 1975, at 10:30 a.m., in room 2228,
Dirksen Office Building.
Anyone interested in these subcom-
mittee investigations or desiring to sub-
mit a statement for the record should
contact John M. Rector, staff director
and chief counsel of the subcommittee,
U.S. Senate, A504,- Washington, D.C.
20510, 202 (224-2951) .
GRAIN SALES TO THE SOVIET
UNION-NOTICE OF HEARING
Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, there
has been a flurry of statements the past
few days in regard to the recent grain
sales to the Soviet Union, Most are equat-
ing the current situation with that which
prevailed at the time of the 1972 Soviet
grain purchase.
I can appreciate the fact that people
would be concerned about a repeat of
that unhappy experience but I cannot
understand the extent of misinformation
being given out and, it some cases, bla-
tantly irresponsible statements by per-
sons who should know better.
The Agriculture and Consumer Protec-
tion Act of 1973, initiated by the Com-
mittee on Agriculture arid Forestry, pro-
vides a- reporting and monitoring system
that was unavailable in 1972. This re-
quirement and authority is contained in
section 812 of that 1973 act. If the act is
properly administered, there is no chance
of a repeat of the 1972 grain raid.
Approved For Release 2001/09/03 : CIA-RDP77M00144R000800020022-1