PROSECUTIONS INVOLVING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP85-00003R000100010002-4
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 6
• Document Creation Date: December 21, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 23, 2008
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: June 18, 1981
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

36
rents for $130 a month. She said, "They let
me stay here, and I do laundry, iron, and
cook for them."
Maria is pregnant again. She said she
probably will have her next baby at Cook
County Hospital and get welfare payments
for that child, too.
The- caseworker, said,it was common for
he young women with new babies born in
he U.S. to keep house for other Illegal
aliens.
"Obviously these girls aren't coming here
to work," she added. "They're coming here
pregnant, either to live with someone, a
common-law spouse who is working, or
they're coming here specifically to get on
Public Aid."
Although the AFDC grants are meager,
they seem like gold to illegal aliens who
are accustomed to even greater poverty in
their native land, the caseworkers say.
Asked why she came to the U.S., Maria said:
"People in Mexico said it was a good place
to go; $50 here has the buying power of
$1,200 in Mexico."
Officials say illegal aliens also are easily
able to otbain unemployment insurance by
presenting false Social Security cards. Stella
Cuthbert, state unemployment insurance
commissioner, listened during an interview
as, an employee explained that If an appli-
cant had a Social Security card, employ-
ment, verification, "and stated that he was
a U.S. citizen, we wouldn't usually go any
further. We don't witch-hunt." Cuthbert
said, however, that the number of fraud
cases identified is "minimal."
A Latino social worker in Evanston, who
refers illegal aliens to social service agencies
in the area, agreed. "At unemployment com-
pensation offices, they ask, 'Are you' legal to
work in this countryT If the answer is yes,
they (the illegal aliens) have no problem."
Bob Kichura, an official at Chicago's De-
partment of Human Services Commnity
Service Center, 2550 W. North Ave., said il-
legal aliens frequently are given free baskets
of food and counseled about how to get Pub-
lic Aid for their children.
"We provide whatever services we can to
them. We don't ask if they're illegal or not,"
Kichura said. He estimated that 15 to 20
per cent of the approximately 30,000 persons
who come to the center each months are
illegal aliens.
The privacy regulations in both the Illi-
nois Department of Public Aid code and the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Serv-
ice Code state that the officials are "pro-
hibited from disclosing the contents of any
records, files, papers, and communications,
except Sor purposes directly connected with
. administration" of the program.
Johnetta Jordan, a Public Aid depart-
ment spokesman in Springfield, said the
most common reason for disclosing appli-
cant Information was to aid in fraud investi-
gations. But she said since the U.S.-born
children of illegal aliens are entitled to the
benefits, no fraud is involved in designating
the illegal parent as "grantee."
Cook County Board President George
Dunne, who officially is charged with over-
seeing the finances of Cook County Hospital,
was asked why the hospital did not report
the aliens. He said "that's the first time
that's come to my attention" and said he
would "check into the policy."
However, he said: "I don't think I would
want to put that imposition on the people
at the hospital. We treat people every day
who have broken the law of the govern-
ment-people injured in the act of a crime.
If someone presents himself and he's sick,
he ought to be taken care of, whether he's an
alien or not."
Georgetti said the attitude taken by other
government bodies toward illegal aliens is
frustrating but legal.
Approved For Release 2008/10/23: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100010002-4
LONG SS!ONAl RD-SENATIE June 18, 1981
pealing to me
said. "I'd welt
FLED INFORMATION
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, some-
times Federal criminal cases are not
prosecuted because the Government is
faced with a "Hobson's Choice"-whether
to disclose sensitive classified informa-
tion in a trial or not prosecute a case of
clear guilt. The Attorney General has
sent to me a copy of the guidelines to be
used by the Department of Justice in
making this delicate decision. Since the
issue is one of general interest to every
Senator, I ask unanimous consent that a
copy of these guidelines and the forward-
ing letter from the Attorney General be
inserted`in the RECORD:
There being no objection, the material
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Washington, D.C., June 10, 1981.
Hon. STROM THURMOND,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S.
Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Attached are the
guidelines I have issued for the prosecution
of cases which may involve'the disclosure of
classified Information. Issuance of these
guidelines was required under section 12(a)
of the Classified Information Procedures Act
of 1980 (Pub. L. No. 96-456, 94 Stat. 2025)
which provides in pertinent part that:
The Attorney General shall issue
guidelines specifying the factors to be used
by the Department of Justice in rendering a
decision to prosecute a violation of Federal
law in which, in the judgment of the Attor-
ney General, there is a possibility that classi-
fied information will be revealed."
While it is inevitable that there will con-
tinue to be cases in which the potential
damage to national security interests that
could result if classified information were
revealed at trial is such that prosecution is
precluded, the procedures set out in the
Classified Information Procedures Act should
enable the Department to prosecute more
effectively those cases in which classified
information may be at issue. Furthermore,
these guidelines should facilitate more rea-
soned and uniform decisionmaking with re-
spect to the determination of the propriety
of initiating or declining prosecution of such
cases.
Sincerely,
WILLIAM FRENCH SMITH,
Attorney General.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Washington, D.C.
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S GUIDELINES FOR PROSECU-
TIONS INVOLVING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION
1. Introduction:
The determination of whether it is appro-
priate to decline prosecution of a violation of
federal law is a matter within the discretion
of the Executive Branch. It is the policy of
the Department of Justice that where it is
believed that a person has committed a fed-
eral offense and there is sufficient evidence
to secure conviction, prosecution should be
sought unless no substantial federal Interest
would be advanced by the prosecution or un-
less there are other substantial federal
interests that would be served by declining,
prosecution.
This principle was among those articulated
in the recently published "Principles of Fed-
eral Prosecution." 1 Paragraph 2 of Part B of
the "Principles", which addresses the deci-
sion to decline prosecution, provides that:
"The attorney for the government should
commence or recommend federal prosecution
if he believes that the person's conduct con-
stitutes a federal offense and that the admis-
sible evidence will probably be sufficient to
obtain and sustain a conviction, unless, in
his judgment, prosecution should be de-
clined because:
"(a) no substantial federal interest would
be served by prosecution;
"(b) the person is subject to effective
prosecution in another jurisdiction; or
"(c) there exists an adequate non-criminal
alternative to prosecution."
However, in cases in which there is a pos-
sibility that classified information may be
revealed if the prosecution is pursued, an
addiitonal consideration must be addressed
in determining whether it is appropriate to
continue with the investigation or prosecu-
tion; that is, whether the need to protect
against the disclosure of the classified in-
formation outweighs other federal interests
that would be served by proceeding with the
prosecution. In such cases, therefore, it is
the responsibility of the Department of Jus-
tice, in consultation with the agency or agen-
cies whose classified information is Involved,
to identify and assess these competing inter-
ests so that a reasoned decision may be made
with respect to continuing the investigation
or prosecution.
The purpose of these guidelines is to iden-
tify those factors which should be considered
in determining whether to prosecute a viola-
tion of federal law where it appears that
there is a possibility that classified informa-
tion will be revealed If prosecution is pur-
sued. While these guidelines do not provide
an exhaustive list of all factors which may
properly have a bearing on this determina-
tion, an attempt has been made to enumerate
those factors which are most important and
are likely to arise with some frequency.
2. General Provisions.
a. Authority:
These guidelines are issued pursuant to
section 12(a) of the Classified Information
Procedures Act of 1980 (Pub. L. No. 96-456,
94 Stat. 2025), which provides in pertinent
part that:
The Attorney General shall issue
guidelines specifying the factors to be used
by the Department of Justice in rendering
a decision whether to prosecute a violation
of Federal law in which, in the judgment of
the Attorney General, there is a possibility
that classified information will be revealed."
b. Definitions:
As used in these guidelines-
(1) the term "classified information"
means any information or material that has
been determined by the United States Gov-
ernment, pursuant to an Executive order,
statute, or regulation, to require protection
against unauthorized disclosure for reasons
of national security and any restricted. data,
as defined in paragraph r of section 11 of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 201
(y)); and
(2) the term "national security" means the
national defense and foreign relations of the
United States.
'The "Principles of Federal Prosecution,"
which apply to all federal prosecutions, were
published by the Department of Justice in
July 1980, and are set out in section 9-27.000
of the U.S. Attorneys' Manual.
Approved For Release 2008/10/23: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100010002-4
 Approved For Release 2008/10/23: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100010002-4
June 18, 1981 CONGRESSIONAL ,RECORD- SENATE
with the freedom-to choose his own economic
destiny.
A person's economic well-being ought to
be proportionate to his talents and willing-
ness to better himself, according to the an-
cient law, one reaps what. one sows. From
this philosophy -sprang the, cornerstones of
our political and., economic structure, the
Constitution and the Free Enterprise : Sys-
'tem.
The next 150 years saw thirteen struggling
colonies grow from obscurity to become the.
undisputed international, leader, . following
World War II: Our government, assuming a
laissez faire approach toward business and a
protectionist attitude toward its citizens'
liberties, successfully steered our country
during this period of unparalleled growth. A
citizenry with character coupled with op-
portunity provided by a free enterprise gov-
ernment permitted this tremendous expan-
sion.
But recently our government has assumed
another role. Instead of protecting the indi-
vidual from outsiders, it has also determined
to.protect him from himself. Instead of pro-
viding the individual with the economic
freedom to determine his condition, the gov-
ernment has resolved to provide him with
guaranteed economic security. The United
States Government now seems to view as its
duty to put a steak in every stomach, an
education in every child, and clothes on
every back. Through Social Security, Medi-
caid, Welfare, and the Food Stamp - Pro-,
grams, to name a few, our government has
assumed social responsibilities that were
once left to the Individual or to the family
unit.
At first glance this trend may appear
harmless enough. What does it matter if
government wishes to provide economic se-
curity as well as physical security? But
steak, education, and clothes cost money;
somehow the price must be paid. To provide
these social "rights," government, not inher-
ently self-supportive, must turn to its sup-
porters for the material or monetary re-
sources. Any service or product that the
government provides, therefore, ultimately'
is paid for by the people (that is, the people
who work) : Those who receive the benefits
but do not support the system constitute
"dead weight." In essence, government in
such a situation is not a provider, as many
falsely believe,, but rather a distributor, who
transfers wealth from the worker to the non-
worker.
The result of our government acting as
a "provider" is an ever-increasing problem.
At first the productive, working class, com-
prising a large majority of the population,
could support the minority of non-workers.
People, however, easily see in such a system
a chance to get something-for-nothing, and
being human, begin to use it to their advan-
tage. After all, why work when one does not
have to? Because the initiative to work and
be productive has largely been taken away,
the ratio of non-workers to workers is con-
tinually Increasing. Add to this growth the
non-productive, Inevitable administrative
cost in the distribution of funds, and the
system is doomed to economic failure. Our
government, therefore, acting as the "pro-
vider," is in reality bankrupting our country.
Our government . protector or pro-
vider? As shown, when Its governmental
philosophy consisted of protecting the citi-
zens' rights and providing the individual
with an incentive to work, the. United States
prospered greatly. But when the government
decided to protect the individual from him-
self, providing guaranteed economic security
by redistributing wealth, stagnation set In,
and our national economy began its present
downhill slide. Our government, in a sense,
must be both protector and provider: it must
provide protection of the citizens' liberty and
also protect the providers of our national
wealth. But it muttnot,, as it does today,
provide economic ; protection for the non-
worker, or protect the non-pro rider.from his
own laziness. The United States Government
is both a protector, and. a. provid&, but, it
must administer .,these roles in the proper
perspective.
ILLEGAL ALIENS AND'THE WELFARE
SYSTEM
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, more
and more news reports reveal that all
too many illegal immigrants in the
United States are not only taking away
jobs from American citizens but are also
becoming an increasing burden on the
welfare system. .
Los Angeles County, Calif., has even
gone to the extreme of suing the Federal
Government for millions in unpaid
medical bills for illegal aliens.
James Reston of the New York Times,
in fact, has called illegal immigration
and all of the burdens that it is creating
"one of the most complicated human and
political problems before the Nation."
A recent article by reporter Mary El-
son in the Chicago Tribune expresses
some of my concerns about the welfare
system becoming a haven for illegal
aliens.
Mr. President, in order to share this
excellent journalistic piece with my col-
leagues, I ask unanimous consent that
this article appear at this point in the
RECORD.
There being no objection; the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
[From the Chicago Tribune, Apr. 12, 19811
"WELFARE SYSTEM A HAVEN FOR
ILLEGAL ALIENS"
Federal and state officials are aiding a
growing number of illegal Mexican aliens to
become part of the United States govern-
ment welfare system, openly thwarting at-
tempts by immigration officials to identify
and deport the aliens.
Illinois Department of Public Aid officials
say they routinely permit illegal aliens to
receive Public Aid Grants for their children
born in the U.S.. because the children qual-
ify as citizens for the payments.
The officials say they do not report the il-
legal aliens to the U.S. Immigration Service
because privacy regulations prohibit dis-
closure of information about welfare appli-
cants.
The result is that an increasing number of
Illegal aliens are able to remain in the U.S.
without working, surviving solely on income
from the U.S. government, immigration offi-
cials say.
"It's something they've . (illegal aliens)
recently tumbled onto," said Ted Georgetti,
an. Immigration Service Investigator in Chi-
cago. "The longer they're here, the more
knowledge and sophistication they get about
how the system, operates. They. come orig..
finally to work. But they certainly find out
'they needn't really work to make ends meet.
"They certainly have no compunction
about going on the federal dole."
Public Aid documents reveal that case-
workers plainly describe applicants as "ille-
gal aliens" on forms that include the names,
addresses, and phone numbers of the aliens.
Laurel Loughnane, a spokesman for the
Illinois Department, of Public Aid, acknowl-
edged that illegal, alien "guarantees" are a
source of discussion in the. department. But
she said. "We can't.report them to Immigra-
tion. It's the law. We follow the law. "
S 6435
Cook County hospital officials keep records
of the number of illegal aliens treated at the
financially troubled institution, and hospital.
personnel privately say that the responsi-.
bility for taking care of. the illegal immi-
grants is one reason, for the-hospital's eco-
noinio woes.
Asked why the hospital. did not report
the aliens to the Immigration Service, spokes-
man Margo Phillips said: "We don't feel it'
our responsibility.
"There are more coming to the door. What
do we do? We can't turn them away. But
we're stuck with the bill."
During February, Phillips said, records
show that the hospital treated 112 illegal
aliens. Of those, only .six were, able to pay
all or part of the bill. Phillips said, however;
that the number of Illegal aliens treated
probably is even larger because the aliens
frequently are able to obtain fraudulent So-
cial Security cards and pass as U.S. citizens.
She said the hospital treats 1,300 to 1,400
patients a day.
Georgetti said there is no way to tell how
many illegal aliens are benefitting through
their children from welfare grants. But he
said there are "hundreds of thousands" of
Illegal aliens in the Chicago area, and that
"they're certainly becoming a bigger part
(of the welfare system) as the knowledge be-
not wish-to be identified, said about 10 per
cent of each worker's 200-plus cases In her
office involved illegal aliens and that In the
last six months the numbers have increased
dramatically.
"Now that word is out, you'd think you
were in some town in rural Mexico.when you
walk Into our office," the caseworker said.
"They tell all their friends back In Mexico,
and they say, 'By God, those Americans are
even crazier than we thought.' "
Last week, the public aid department re-
ported that the number, of public aid cases
in Illinois-more than one million-is at the
highest level since the Depression. President
Reagan last week also called for a data bank
on welfare recipients that would make now-
private case Information available to fed-
eral and state agencies. Reagan asserts that
the system would reduce fraud, abuse, and
waste.
Maria (a psuedonym), an illegal alien who
was Interviewed by The Tribune in her West
Side home, is a typical case. The 23-year-old
woman came to Chicago two years ago. She
said her husband already had moved here
but deserted her shortly after she joined him.
Like an Increasing number of the women,
she was pregnant when she arrived. She had
her baby, now 2 years old, at Cook County
Hospital at taxpayers' expense. The hospital
sent her a bill for $120, but she said she did
not pay it.
After the baby was born, she went to -a
Public Aid Office, where she applied for and
was granted food stamps and $79 a month
for the baby under Aid to Families with
Dependent Children. She was designated as
the "grantee" on a Public Aid form.
Next to the blank for "Social Security
number," the caseworker had written:
"None." Another part of the form lists the
names of three persons living with her, with
the word "Illegal" after each name.
Another routine notation by the case-
worker stated: "RPY (Represenative
Payee-or grantee) is illegal alien--speaks
no English."
Asked if she had any fear of identifying
herself to Public Aid officials as Illegal, she
said, "No, a friend of mine (also illegal)
was already on Public Aid, and she took me
and said there would be no problem." In
January, about eO0,000 persons in Illinois
were receiving AFDC grants totaling nearly
$68 million a year.
Maria. now, lives with three young male
Illegal aliens In a four-room apartment that
Approved For Release 2008/10/23: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100010002-4
 W. 4 Approved For Release 2008/10/23: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100010002-4
June 18, 1981 . CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SIENAT2
c. Functions of the Attorney General:
The functions and duties of the Attorney
General under these guidelines may be ex-
ercised by the Deputy Attorney General,
Associate Attorney General, or an appropri-
ate Assistant Attorney General. However, the
exercise of these functions and authorities
by an official other than the Attorney General
3. Initiating or Declining Prosecution:
a. Determination of the propriety of initi-
ating or declining prosecution:
Where, in the judgment of the Attorney
General, it appears that the prosecution of
a violation of federal law may result in the
disclosure of classified information, the At-
torney General shall determine whether the
potential damage to the national security
that might result from such disclosure out-
weighs other federal interests that would be
served by the prosecution of the offense. If
it is determined, after review of all relevant
factors, that the potential damage to na-
tional security interests posed in prosecuting
such a case outweighs other federal interests
in proceeding with prosecution, prosecution
of the offense may be declined.
In making this determination, the Attor-
ney General shall assess all relevant infor-
mation and evidence, consult with and seek
the advice of the appropriate interested de-
partments and agencies, and, whenever ap-
propriate, fully utilize the procedures set
out in the Classified Information Procedures
Act of 1980 in order to assess more accurately'
the probability that classified information
would be disclosed if the case were prose-
cuted, and the likely nature and extent of
such disclose.
b. Factors bearing on the decision to initi-
ate or decline prosecution:
In rendering a decision whether to prose-
cute a violation of federal.law where there
is a possibility that classified information
may be revealed, the following factors, among
others, should be considered:
(1) The likelihood that classified infor-
iation will be revealed if the case is prose-
1 this issue should be weighed, including:
(a) whether it will be necessary for the
government to reveal classified information
publicly in order to establish an element
of the offense;
(b) whether the introduction of classi-
fied information will be sought by the de-
fendant as a means of establishing a defense;
(c) whether the government will be re-
quired to disclose classified information to
the defendant under the Brady doctrine, the
Jencks Act, or in fulfillment of due process
or other requirements;
(d) the likelihood that, under the proce-
dures of the Classified Information Proce-
dures Act, classified information sought to
be disclosed publicly by the defendant would
be found to be inadmissible, or the govern-
ment would be permitted to use a substitute
for the disclosure of specific classified In-
formation;
(e) the number and nature of persons to
whom disclosure of classified information
may be necessary, and the nature and extent
of protective measures that may be available
to prevent disclosure beyond authorized rec-
ipients; and
(f) whether the government's refusal to
permit disclosure of classified information
would result in dismissal of the indictment
or a lesser sanction.
(2) The damage to the national security
that might result if the classified informa-
tion is revealed. All relevant considerations
bearing on this issue should be weighed,
including:
(a) the nature and extent of anticipated
harm to the foreign relations or national
defense of the United States;
(b) the level of classification and sensi-
tivity of the information at issue;
(c) the extent of any previous unauthor-
ized disclosure of the information;
(d) the likelihood that disclosure of classi-
fied information in the course of the prose-
cution would confirm the accuracy of classi-
fied information previously unsubstantiated;
and
(e) the likelihood that disclosure would
adversely affect future cooperation with in-
dividuals. organizations, or governments in
obtaining classified or other confidential in-
formation.
(3) The likelihood that the government
would prevail if the case were prosecuted. As
in all Federal prosecutions in any case where
proceeding with prosecution may result in
disclosure of classified information the like-
lihood of a successful prosecution based on
the available evidence should be established.
(4) The nature and importance of other
federal interests that would be served by
prosecution. Although an assessment of the
federal interests that would be served by
prosecution is a consideration in the decision
to prosecute any case, where proceeding with
prosecution may result in the disclosure of
classified information that would create a
risk of damage to the national security, all
relevant considerations bearing on this issue
should be carefully weighed, including:
(a) the seriousness of the offense charged;
(b) the extent of the prospective defend-
ant's involvement in the commission of the
offense;
(c) the likely sentence that would be im-
posed if conviction were obtained;
(d) the likely deterrent effect of convic-
tion; and
(e) the availability of adequate non-
criminal alternatives to prosecution.
4. Reservation:
a. Relation to the authority of the Attor-
ney General:
Nothing in these guidelines shall be con-
strued to limit the authorities or respon-
sibilities of the Attorney General under the
Constitution or laws of the United States.
b. Non-litigability:
The guidelines set forth herein are solely
for the purpose of internal Department of
Justice guidance. They are not intended to,
do not, and may not be relied upon to create
a right or benefit, substantive or procedural,
enforceable at law by any party to any mat-
ter, civil or criminal.
5. Term and Effective Date:
These guidelines shall become effective on
June 10, 1981, and shall remain in effect
until modified in writing by the Attorney
General.
Issued this 10th day of June, 1981.
WILLIAM FRENCH SMITH,
Attorney General.
WARREN RICHARDSON
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, there
fs a growing concern in this Chamber
about the methods and tactics used when
we, or the general public, are feeling
antipathy toward a Presidential nomi-
nee.
One of the objectives of every Presi-
dent is to select talented people to help
him carry out the mission of the execu-
tive branch. Innate ability, complemen-
tary experiential background, and im-
peccable character are all important in-
gredients one hopes to find in people
selected for high-level Government posts.
It matters not that we may be,for or
against a particular nominee, for hope-
fully objective reasons, that we should
be concerned about the unfortunate
treatment that several recent nominees
have received.
8 6437
What'we have perceived in the media
and sensed in the behind the scenes
rumor mill have not aided us or the
American people in coming to just con-
clusions on these nominees. I trust that
commenting about it today will at least
have some ameliorating effect as we will
soon have before us again controversial
nominees.
Once more, I want to assert that it
does not matter whether we are for or
against particular nominees that this
issue should be raised. But rather that
we should be'concerned that possibly a
few less-than-principled people have
prevailed and could again, in short-
circuiting the objective analysis of can-
didates' qualifications.
For my own part, it is my conviction
that I should support the President in
his nominations unless there is a com-
pelling reason not to. In that light I sup-
ported Mr. Warren Richardson for the
post of Assistant Secretary of Legislation
at Health and- Human Services, and I
was prepared t o vote against Ernest
Lefever as th Assistant Secretary for
Human Rights at the State Department.
But notwithstanding my position on
these nominations, my concern grew
through the process of each man's con-
sideration that facts were put aside for
fiction to the detriment of society.
In Mr. Richardson's case it is my belief
that the Government has lost a fine man
and effective public servant. I wrote to
him recently to extend empathetic sup-
port and to ask for a "thorough debrief-
ing" from his perspective, with the belief
that his insights gained through his dif-
ficult experience would be helpful to the
Senate.
I was not disappointed. His response
not only addresses candidly, and with
thorough documentation, his own treat-
ment in being wrongly charged with
anti-Semitism, but also explores the
dangers of using McCarthy-era guilt by
association and the difficulties of having
stories like his handled factually in the
press. I commend his letter and its at-
tachments to your study.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that Mr. Richardson's letter and
the copies of correspondence to him be
entered into the RECORD.
There being no objection, the material
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
WASHINGTON, D.C.,
June 15, 1981.
Hon. MARK HATFIELD,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR HATFIELD: Thank you for
sending me a copy of the booklet, "For Those
Who Hurt." It was very thoughtful of you
and helpful to me. In your letter of June 9,
1981, you ask if it is possible to provide you
with a "thorough debriefing" from my per-
spective of the "unfortunate treatment" I
received as a nom4neeJor an assistant secre-
tary position.
At your suggestion, I am pleased to set
forth an account of the recent ordeal in-
volving the withdrawal of my name from
consideration by the President for nomina-
tion to the position of Assistant Secretary
for Legislation at the_ Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS). This account
will deal with three major aspects of the con-
troversy: the political battle, the battle of
personal integrity, and McCarthyism.
Approved For Release 2008/10/23: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100010002-4
 S6438
Approved For Release 2008/10/23: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100010002-4 l -t~43
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE June 18, 1981
At the outset, let me state clearly that Had there been no press 'statements until
I have no personal animosity towards the after he arrived at his office on April 20, and
cast of characters who played out their parts had we met with Jewish leaders about their
in this drama on thy steps of life. concerns, the opponents' critical timing
THE POLITICAL BATTLE sequence would have been ruined.
The synopsis of events began on Tuesday, On Friday, ' April 24, the White House.
April 14, when a local official of the Anti- made its formal announcement that the
Defamation League of B'nai B'rith called President would address Congress the next
Mr. David Newhall, who now holds the title Tuesday, April 28. That same Friday after-
of Chief of Staff at HHS, and informed him noon it became clear that there was no evi-
that the League would oppose my proposed dence to support the charge of anti-semit-
nomination. Upon being informed of this ism, and it was equally clear that the liberal
development late that afternoon, I tried to establishment timing sequence was on
locate former Senator Richard Stone. The course, thus allowing them to ride the issue
next day I talked to him in London. England, into a filibuster in order to embarrass the
and he called the Anti-Defamation League, President. Their ploy was checkmated when
asking them to postpone publicizing this I withdrew my name from consideration.
matter until after he returned to the United My decision was made without any pres-
States on Saturday, April 18, and we could sure from the Secretary or the President,
talk with the individuals concerned. There both of whom had been extremely sup-
was apparent agreement to proceed in that portive.
fashion. One of my colleagues at HHS commented
'Unfortunately, a Member of Congress is- afterward on the irony of the situation. He
sued a press release on the subject, and it pointed out that I had been employed, in
became a topic of newspaper reports on Fri- large measure, because of my ability to
day, April 17. More stories appeared in sub- understand political situations and to arrive
sequent. days. The allegation was put forth at sound political judgments. In exercising
that I am anti-Semitic, hence not qualified these abilities, I removed myself from the
Islatlon at HHlis. The following week, begin-
ning Monday, April 20, the intensity of the
press campaign increased. I wrote an apology
for whatever misunderstanding may have
arisen over any of 'my actions. I also visited
with the Washington chiefs of two well-
known Jewish organizations. A United States
Senator informed the Secretary that he was
going to lead a filibuster to try to stop my
confirmation if the nomination reached the
floor.
By mid-week it became. clear that the war
was being fought on two levels. Level one
was an attack on my character, i.e., the
charge of anti-Semitism. Level two was po-
litical, i.e., the liberal establishment tele-
graphing its desire to battle the Reagan
administration over my appointment.
The growing importance of the political
battle also became very clear because of
three events:
1. A leader of one Jewish organization as-
sured me that this affair was "nothing per-
sonal."
2. Letters from Americans of Jewish de-
scent who have known me for at least 25
years declared, and explained, that I am not
anti-Semitic. These were ignored by Jewish
leaders and the press.
3. A Jewish friend of mine called to ex-
plain that this was a liberal scheme to em-
barrass the Reagan Administration.
There is yet another reason why it be-
came apparent that the battle was now es-
sentially political in nature. Nothing ever
just happens in politics-it is planned.
Timing is one of the key factors in political
wars, just as it is in bullet wars. The whole
offensive against me was timed-to reach a
crescendo when President Reagan appeared
before the joint session of Congress to bring
them, and a nationwide TV audience, his
very important message about the economic
recovery program.
There is independent verification that the
whole attack was timed and not spontaneous.
As noted above, Tuesday, April 14, 1981, was
the date the Department was notified that
my appointment would be opposed. Six days
prior thereto, namely, April 8, a political ob-
server in Washington with excellent connec-
tions called to tell me that a decision had
already been made to oppose my nomination
in order to attack the Reagan Administra-
tion. Why the delay? Timing, of course.
It was not until the week beginning Mon-
day, April 13, that it became generally
known that President Reagan would address
the nation when Congress returned from its
Easter recess. The timing pattern was almost
upset by the phone call from Senator Stone.
winners and losers. I was a loser in this one.
From a political perspective only, I must
say that the liberal establishment planned
and executed its battle well. But there will
be other battles, other winners and other
losers.
THE BATTLE OF PERSONAL INTEGRITY
American political history is replete with
examples of mudslinging, name-calling, and
other assorted political dirty tricks. Like-
wise, the victims of such battles litter .the
pages of history. My case is no different from
the others. All of us have a duty to be grace-
ful losers in the political battle, but none of
us is under an obligation to allow false al-
legations relative to our personal life to go
unanswered. '
In terms of the battle over my personal
integrity, I was exonerated. In his statement
accepting my request to withdraw my name,
Secretary Schweiker said:
"A careful review produced no Convincing
evidence that Warren Richardson lb or ever
was anti-Semitic or racist."
His conclusion was based upon personal
knowledge and upon the letters which were
sent to the Department In my behalf.
These letters came about because many
friends called to offer help. They either read
or heard about the headline, "Charges of
Anti-Semitism Peril Nomination for Key HHS
Post," which appeared in the first story car-
ried by the Washington Post on April 17.
Most of them were outraged over the untrue
characterization of me since all have known
me to be non-anti-Semitic.
Fortunately, two of the people who offered
to help are American citizens of Jewish
descent. One of these individuals is Mr. Al-
bert A. Rapoport, who wrote, in part:
"I am an American of the Jewish faith
In
.
v, "T' U.. 1.~uurrrmuon Derween them.
the past, I have been a member of B'nai Ti-no
se private conversations took place long
B'rith, B'rith Sholom, and the Jewish War before he had any thought of returning to
Veterans. Because of my background, educa- government service. They have ranged over
tion and practice as a lawyer for over 27 all economic, political and geopolitical issues.
years, I feel well-qualified to judge whether "Never in that time can I recall a single
a person is anti-Semitic or not. Anti-Semi- statement or reference that might reason-
tism is a condition of a person's character. ably be construed as anti-Semitic. I can
It cannot be imputed. It either exists, or it vouch for the fact that Warren's view of the
doesn't exist." world is not antagonistic toward Jews or any
"Warred is not anti-Semitic in any way, other ethnic group."
shape or form. This judgment is based on The next attached letter is from Mr. Bruce
the many years I have known him as a friend, Klein who knows me socially through his as-
and to be a sensitive human being. We met sociation with my wife in their place of
in September of 1951, at law school in Wash- employment. He, too, states that I am not
ington, D.C. Warren and I went to classes anti-Semitic.
together, studied together, and endured the Mr. Svend Petersen, from Florida, writes:
trauma of studying for and taking the bar "At no time did I hear Mr. Richardson
examination together. We socialized at par- utter a remark that could be even remote-
ties and family gatherings. During all of ly construed as anti-Semitic. In fact, it
Approved For Release 2008/10/23: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100010002-4
these years, I have never heard Warren utter
an anti-Semitic remark; tell a racist story
of any kind; or speak unfeelingly of a per-
son, because of his race, religion, or national
origin. You can understand my sense of out-
rage at seeing groundless allegations that
Warren is anti-Semitic. The only obvious
thing to be gleaned from these Post articles
is that Warren is being used as a polit
football for the selfish interests of oth
regardless of consequences to a really decen
human being, and his family. Is it any won-
der that we have difficulty in getting the best
people for government service when they
have to bear unfounded slings and arrows?"
In short, Mr. Rapoport says that I'm not
anti-Semitic.
The second citizen of Jewish descent is
Mr. Irwin Richman. He states'
"At the outset, I would stress that as a
Jew, I have known anti-Semites and ex-
perienced their hatred first hand. I have
known Warren Richardson for over 28 years
(since December 1955) and state that Warren
Richardson has never by word or deed shown
or expressed anti-Semitism. On the contrary,
Warren Richardson is one of the most fair-
minded, objective persons I have known."
Again, I am not anti-Semitic. Copies of
both letters are attached.
Also attached are copies of other letters
which were received. Mr. and Mrs. George
Hewitt, who have known us for over thirty
years and come from "mixed heritage and
religious backgrounds," say that the allega-
tion of anti-Semitism is "the most unfor-
tunate, false, and unfounded accusation and
abuse of our freedoms that I have ever
known." Two people, Congressman Gene
Snyder and Mr. William E. Pursley, Jr., were
lobbied by me when I was employed at Lib-
erty Lobby, and they both testify, in effect,
that I was not then, and am not now, anti-
Semitic.
The next three people-Hubert Beatty,
James D. McClary, and R. M. Chastain-all
worked with me at the Associated General
Contractors (AGC) from 1973 to 1977, after
I had left Liberty Lobby, and testify as to my
competency as a lobbyist.
Mr. Charles T. Carroll, Jr., worked wit
me at AGC on a daily basis for almost You
years. His testimony is that "not once" dur-
ing that period did I ever express any thought
that could be viewed as anti-Semitic. During
the past eight years I have worked as a lobby-
ist with a great many people. Four of them-
Argyll Campbell, Hal Coxson, John S. Bush,
Jr., and F. Patricia Callahan-spent many,
many hours with me. All of them testify,
in effect, that I am not anti-Semitic.
Another business friend is Mr. Kenneth C.
0. Hagerty, Vice-President of the American
Electronics Association (AEA). AEA was a
client to my firm when I was in business
for myself from 1977 to 1981. Mr. Hagerty
states:
"What I'can speak to that you may not
know are Warren's philosophic and religious
views. He and I have had numerous extended
conversations over the years on religion, poll-
 Approved For Release 2008/10/23: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100010002-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE April 8, 1981
The result was announced-Yeas .66,
nays 27, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 80 Leg.]
YEAS-66
r Goldwater MiMeloher
tchell
wa Gorey Murlcowski
Baker Hatch Nickles
Bentsen Hatfield Nunin
Boren Hayakawa Percy
BoscbW1tz Heflin Pressler
Burdick Hems Ruadi ran
By ye ' Schmitt
Harry F., Jr. Humphrey Simpson
Cannon J
Cochran John Specter
Stafford
Cohen Johnston
Stennis
D'Amato Kassebaum Stevens
Danforth Kasten Symms
i
DeConcin
Ley Thurmond
Denton Tower
Domenflct Lugar Tsongas
East Wallop
Mathias Warner
Ford Mattingly Weicker
Gann
Baucus EXOn Poll
Biden Hart Proxmire
Bumpers Hollings Pryor
Byrd, Robert C. Inouye Randolph
Chafes Kepnedy
chiles
Cranston
Eaggleton
Matsunaga Sar'banes
Metzenbaum Sasser
Moynihan Zorinsky
NOT VOTING-7
Bradley Hawkins Williams
Dixon Huddleston
Durenberger Packwood
So the motion to lay on the table UP
amendment No. 59 was agreed to.
Mr. HEINZ. Mr. President, I move to
reconsider the vote by which the motion
was agreed to.
Mr. McCLURE. Mr. President, I move
distinguished manager of the bill yield
to me so that we may take care of an-
other matter?
Mr. HEINZ. I yield.
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I move to
reconsider the vote by which the resolu-
tion was agreed to.
The duties of the security officer include
making certain that the area where the
documents will be reviewed-for example,
the judge's chambers-is secure and that no
one who does not have CIA clearance sees
hat motion on the table. the information. !
-Ll.. in Ti IIT TM 'AC Mr. Jolliff
\1-IIC I11VL1Vil w awJ ?,?? _____ ..---
agreed to. 0 years for the CIA until he left
worked ed 10
i 1972 to work for UM as head of security
RAYMAIL LEGISLATION: PRO-
TECTING NATIONAL SECURITY
IN CRIMINAL CASES
Mr RInEN. Mr. President, I wa
Baltimore Sun that the Justice Depart
ment is implementing the so-call
graymail legislation for the first time
n
at the Baltimore campus.
In the grand jury indictment, Mr. Jolliff
was accused ? of obtaining loans from B.
Dixon Evander Associates, Inc., an insurance
firm, and from other investors in an alleged
scheme in which he purported to solicit
funds for secret CIA projects.
OIN ADDICTION AND STREET
CRIME
a case in Baltimore. That case involves a
former CIA agent charged with embez-
zling $60,000. The former agent's defense
is that the CIA authorized the loans for
secret CIA projects. Of course the de-
fendant intends to use that defense as a
pretext for pretrial discovery that will
force the Government to disclose classi-
fled information and, "graymail" the
Government into dismissing the case.
The Classified Information Procedures
Act which we developed in the Judiciary
Comliiittee last year addresses this prob-
lem by providing procedures to protect
classified information and restrict frivo-
lous discovery motions in these kinds of
cases.
I ask unanimous consent that an
article from the April 2 Baltimore Sun
describing this case be printed in the
RECORD:
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
NEW LAW on CLASSIFIED DASA MAKES
DEBUT IN JOLLIPP CASE
A federal judge yesterday. appointed a
caretaker for secret documents that may
be sought by a former CIA employee as
evidence in his criminal case, activating for
the first time here a new law to guard against
public disclosure of classified information.
The temporary appointment was made by
U.S. District Court Judge Frank A. Kaufman
Jr., who is
Jolliff
of wade A
,
.
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION in. the case
17-PROVIDING FOR ADJOURN- charged with impersonating a CIA agent*and
fraudulently obtaining more than $65 865,,00000 in
MENT OF.THE CONGRESS FROM loans for purported CIA "operations" while
APRIL 10, 1981, TO APRIL 27, 1981 working as head of-security at the University
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I send tQ of Maryland's Baltimore campus.
Mr. Jolliff, who the FBI. said worked. for
the desk a concurrent resolution and ask the CIA until 1972, disputes the charges,
unanimous consent for its immediate. -contending that there are CIA records that
consideration. will prove he, was actually on assignment
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The for the agency while employed at the uni-
clerk will state the concurrent resolution. versity's Baltimore campus.
The legislative clerk read as follows: However, concerned that Mr. Jolliffowho
had access to secret information while work-
A concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 17) ing for the CIA-may be seeking classified
providing for an adjournment of the Con- information, federal prorsecutors have asked
gress from April 10, 1981 to April 27, 1981. ? that proceduers outlined in the. Classified
Information Procedures Act be followed. .
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I have con- The law enacted last October, would re-
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, as ranking
minority member of the Senate Judiciary
Committee I am continuing to pursue an
issue I began addressing 2 years ago as
chairman of the Subcommittee on Crim-
inal Justice. Two years ago the subcom-
mittee began to notice an increase in
Southwest Asian heroin in the urban
Northeast. I am convinced that heroin
addiction is a prime contributor to much
of the increasing crime that occurs in
this country.
This opinion is supported by most
streetwise cops and prosecutors, but now
we have supportive research which shows
the appalling relationship between her-
oin addiction and street crime.
A study done by Prof. James Inciardi
of the University of Delaware showed
that 356 active heroin users were:
First, responsible for 118,134 crimes in
1 year;
Second, over 95 percent reported com-
mitting illegal activity in the year period;
Third, 90 percent relied on criminal
activity as a means of income; and,
Fourth, most disturbing, is that only 1
of every 413 crimes committed resulted
in an arrest.
Additional research completed this
past year at the Temple University
School of Medicine by Dr. John C. Ball,
Dr. Lawrence Rosen, Dr. John A. Flueck,
and Dr. David Nurco showed that 243
heroin addicts committed almost 500,000
street crimes in 11 years.
Their research also showed that when
these addicts were not dependent on her-
oin, there was an 84-percent decrease in
criminality.
These two studies clearly show that if
we could ever control heroin addiction
or even reduce it, we would see an appre-
ciable reduction in criminality.
As the new administration begins its
war on violent crime it also proposes to
cut $5.4 million requested previously by
the Drug Enforcement Administration
for its Southwest Asian heroin interdic-
tion program, elimination of the State
and local drug coordination program,
$5.9 million cut for the Federal, State,
and local task force programs, and
budget cuts to the State Department's
international narcotic management pro-
gram that suipports crop substitution
overseas. In the treatment area, there
will be major cuts in treatment slots and
prompted Mr. Julio Martinez of the New
York State Division of Substance Abuse
Servides to say in. the New York Times
on March 9, 1981':
ferred with the distinguished minority quire Mr. Jolliff to disclose in writing what
leader. I believe he is agreeable to dis- material he is seeking and to prove the
posing of this matter at this time, and I relevance to his case of any secret material
hope that the Senate can dispose of this he may request. The law also requires the
resolution so we can send it to the other appointment of a court security officer to
body at this time. protect any classified documents.
The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Judge Kaufman temporarily assigned
Mary Schwartz, a member of the Security
Res. 17) was considered and agreed to as Programs staff of the U.S. attorney's office,
follows: to that duty so the case could proceed in
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Rep- time for the April 21 trial. A permanent
resentatives concurring), That when the two caretaker will be appointed some time next
- _- _
didn tes provided hv-
f .
n
st o
Approved For Release 2008/10/23: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100010002-4
 Approved For Release 2008/10/23: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100010002-4
April 8, 1981 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE S 3641
of this issue so that we can look at im- I think the administration certainly same. However, I reserve my right to
proving our Nation's energy supplies, should get the very clear message that join with the Senator from Nebraska in
particularly in gas. amending the Natural Gas Policy Act the future were there to be an attem
Finally, we have to ask ourselves, is would not be an easy task. We want pt
trading bill which it hopes to amend? I would join the ranks of those who what Cindeeds wet are addressing
Clearly it is not germane. It is rather an. would tally a long +:
,.
-1 1-1
m
or
early end to the debate on natural gas sort of extended debate, yregarding any vaniahank the Senator from Pennsyl-
before it even begins. decontrol bill. Mr. HEINZ. Mr. President, I ask unan-
So I hope my colleagues will be more Finally, Mr. President, this resolution imous consent that the Senator from
deliberative on this emotional issue and does not provide the proper forum, or Nebraska (Mr. ExON) be yielded 2 min-
reject this amendment of my good friend afford us time for adequate preparation utes without my losing my right to the
from Nebraska. to discuss the hundreds of issues we floor during the pendency of the motion
I thank the distinguished Senator. would need to discuss in connection with to table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques- such an important debate.
tion is on agreeing to the motion to table. I will, therefore, support the tabling objection? The hairOears none, and it
Mr. HEINZ. Mr. President, I ask motion. I want to make it clear why I is so ordered. The Senator from Ne-
unanimous consent that the Senator am supporting it. I must state categori- braska is recognized.
from Washington (Mr. JACKSON) be rec- cally that I do not oppose the substance Mr. FXON. I thank the Chair, and
ognized for not to exceed 5 minutes dur- of the amendment, but I indeed oppose I thank my friend from Pennsylvania. I
ing the pendency of the motion. to table. the procedure here which I do not think also wish to thank the wide range of sup-
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there gives the consumers, the producers, and port I am receiving from my colleagues
objection to the Senator from Washing- the public interest as a whole an oppor- on the floor for what I am trying to do,
ton proceeding for 5 minutes notwith- tunity to be heard, to properly ventilate but not now.
standing the pendency of a motion to all of the matters that are relevant and It brings to mind the old story that
table? No objection being heard, the pertinent to this matter.
Senator from Washington is recognized The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques- I in am am g to all ive the church because buI t I not not
for 5 minutes. tion is on agreeing to the motion to able. the location. The fact of the matter is
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. President, I thank The yeas and nays have been ordered- I do not want the new church in the
the senior Senator from Pennsylvania. Mr. HEINZ. Mr. President, I ask unan- first place.
I just learned of this amendment a few imous consent that during the pendency I am amazed to hear on the floor
minutes ago. I believe the timing of the of the motion to table I may yield first 2 some of the people who conceded they
amendment and the procedure here are minutes to the Senator from Massachu- put together the Natural Gas Policy Act
not wise. As the major author of the setts (Mr. TSONGAS).
amendments to the original Natural Gas The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there- with 1978 saying we should not tamper
Act of 1937, I must speak my mind. objection? The Chair hears none, and Mr. President, this sense-of-the-Sen-
Mr. President, may I say that I agree it is so ordered. The Senator from Mas- ate resolution does not tamper with it
wholeheartedly with the substance of sachusetts is recognized for 2 minutes. at all. It says it was a good act and
the Pending amendment. I want to re- Mr. TSONGAS. Mr. President, this it says we should continue that. That
port, as we all know I am sure, that the amendment presents a dilemma for those is all it says.
Natural Gas Policy Act is indeed work- of us who are from the Northeast and Let me read it again:
ing. There are more rigs out drilling for whose States are reasonably dependent It is the sense of the senate that
gas now than at any time in history. We upon natural gas.
had a net increase in domestic natural But I share the view of the Senator schedule of the phased decontrol of natura
gas production last year. for the first from Washington, that it is gas prices embodied in the Natural Gas
premature icy Act of 1978 continues to sound public
time, Mr. President, in years
blic
li
t
,
cy which should not be altered.
o bring the issue Up like this without po
However, I must disagree with pur- serious debate and consideration. I think I am patting them on the back for
suing this amendment at this time, and it does not do justice to the complexity the good job they did, and they objected
I emphasize "at this time." The chair- of the issue.
man of the Energy Committee, Mr. for reasons-unless they are indeed in-
MCCLURE, has urged the administration I happen to support decontrol in prin- measur to change that well-thought-out
pursue legislation;for decontrol at ciple for the obvious reason that energy measure that
not to they enacted in 1978.
his time pu. su
may I point ou co rol t ought to be priced at its replacement cost I urge my colleagues to vote against
So, , Mr. presi
dent, Has the chairman of the in order to assure efficient use and suffi- the tabling motion.
House
Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr, cient development of energy. But the I thank my friend from Pennsylvania.
EnergyLa And, if I may add, I Committee, share specific question of natural gas decontrol question The PRESIDING OFFICER. The is on Enethe DINGELL?
the chairmen of the Senate depends on a great deal of information of the Senator agreeing to the Pennsylvania motion
the House committees. not yet available regarding the competi- la the Senable from ON's amendment
I think are all in athat tiveness of natural gas markets, projected lay on the table Mr. Ex amendment
act
the hi is working yin agreement gree well. It supply response, availability of substi- (~' a y. s and not be pkrnect, but it is indeed tutes, adequacy of programs to protect The ea and nays have been ordered,
achieving the purpose for which tin le the poor, and interregional transfers of and the clerk will call the roll.
illation was intended. It is my view,. Mr. wealth. I think that faced with an at- The assistant legislative clerk called
President, that 'tampering tempt by the President to deregulate the roll. STEVEN uncertainty, it willl natural gas suddenly, I would join with Mr. r from S. I announce that the
create nt a (M s.
crest wu nt need. and that is the Senator from Washington in the ex- Senator from Minnesota (Mr.
thing Now is not the proper time, nor is this tended die debate Natural Gas se efforts s to But HAWK) ,INS) the the Senator nfrom r Florida (Mon
vehicle, to pursue this I AWK, and
essa
the heed our proper not
If the administration chooseoissue. t to ing think pain issue today is the export trod- (Mr'
absent.
Senator CPACK RA from IllinM T are e neccessarilly y Oregon
from IlliON. n I a Kentucky ((Mr. Di that the
cdminiv advice and sends to The likelihood is. that the President Mr
Senator RA from
,the
h bill I want tc say right herd and now will not seek 'to deregulate murai ois y (Mr. HUDDLE-
that
I will oppose y. I h her mean just wilnot The chairman of the ral New Jersey
ordinary opposition gas (M STON) . , and Aenator from New Jersey mmitt
gk (Mr. WILLIAMS) are necessarily abs
ent.
said he d deeply out this subject uI believe that heat wille t kesplace either. I think h on from New Jersey (Mr
further announce that the Senator
ator
our collective efforts reached an equitable the merits I agree with the Senator from on official business.
. Is
result. We were able to achieve a bi- Nebraska but given the issue of time and
Partisan
DN PRESIDING BOFFICER )absent
partisan compromise. Our differences of place rather than substance, I will vote ABOR) Are there any other (M-
M^
opinion were fought out and resolved, to table and urge my colleagues to do the in the Chamber desiring to vote?
Senat~
Approved For Release 2008/10/23: CIA-RDP85-00003R000100010002-4