SALARIES AND EXPENSES, ANTITRUST DIVISION

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP87B00858R000600940020-5
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 6
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 14, 2010
• Sequence Number: 20
• Publication Date: July 17, 1985
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Approved For Release 2010/10/14: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600940020-5
I- 'u
July 17, 1985
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE H 5799
Markey
Pickle
stump
Marlene
Richardson
Sweeney
Martin (NY)
Ritter
Swift
Martinez
Roberts
Taylor
Mavroules
Robinson
Thomas (CA)
McCloskey
Rogers
Thomas (OA)
McEwen
Rose
Towns
McGrath
Rowland (CT)
Traficant
McKernan
Scheuer
Vander Jagt
Miller (WA)
Schuette
Volkmer
Mitchell
Schumer
Vucanovlch
Mollohan
Shelby
Watkins
Monson
Shuster
Waxman
Morrison (CT)
Sikorskl
Weiss
Mrazek
Sisisky
Whltehurst
Myers
Skeen
Whitley
Nelson
Slattery
Whittaker
Nielson
Slaughter
Whitten
Nowak
Smith (IA)
Williams
O'Brien
Smith (NE)
Wolf
Oskar
Smith, Denny
Wortley
Ortiz
Smith, Robert
Wright
Oxley
Spence
Wyden
Packard
Staggers
'Wylie
Parris
Stallings
Yatron
Pashayan
Stangeland
Young (FL)
Pepper
Strang
Young (MO)
NOT VOTING-12
Bonior (MI)
Dornan (CA)
Hefner
Coelho
Edwards (OK)
Schneider
Courter
Fuqua
SilJander
Crane
Hall, Ralph
Torres
O 1440
Messrs. WYDEN, BILIRAKIS, and
NOWAK changed. their votes from
"aye" to "no."
Mr. FAWELL, Mrs. JOHNSON, Mr.
GRAY of Pennsylvania, Mr. AN-
DREWS, Mrs. MARTIN of Illinois,
and Messrs. HERTEL of Michigan,
BARTON of Texas, and KOLTER
changed their votes from "no" to
.'aye.,,
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was an-
nounced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
read.
The Clerk read as follows:
SALARIES AND EXPENSES, ANTITRUST DIVISION
For expenses necessary for the enforce-
ment of antitrust and kindred laws.
$43,476,000.
SALARIES AND EXPENSES. FOREIGN CLAIMS
SETTLEMENT COMMISSION
For expenses necessary to carry out the
activities of the Foreign Claims Settlement
Commission, including services as author-
ized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; allowances and bene-
fits similar to those allowed under the For-
eign Service Act of 1980 as determined by
the Commission; expenses of packing, ship-
ping, and storing personal effects of person-
nel assigned abroad; rental or lease, for such
periods as may be necessary, of office space
and living quarters of personnel assigned
abroad; maintenance, improvement, and
repair of properties rented or leased abroad,
and furnishing fuel, water, and utilities for
such properties; insurance on official motor
vehicles abroad; advances of funds abroad;
advances or reimbursements to other Gov-
ernment agencies for use of their facilities
and services in carrying out the functions of
the Commission; hire of motor vehicles for
field use only; and employment of aliens;
$700,000.
SALARIES AND EXPENSES, UNITED STATES
ATTORNEYS AND MARSHALS
For necessary expenses of the offices of
the United States attorneys, marshals, and
bankruptcy trustees; including acquisition,
lease, maintenance, and operation of air-
craft, $471,500,000.
SUPPORT OF UNITED STATES PRISONERS
For support of United States prisoners in
non-Federal insitutions, $53,240,000; and in
addition, $9,000,000 shall be available under
the Cooperative Agreement Program until
expended for the purposes of renovating,
constructing, and equipping State and local
correctional facilities: Provided, That
amounts made available for constructing
any local correctional facility shall not
exceed the cost of constructing space for
the average Federal prisoner population to
be housed in the facility, or in other facili-
ties in the same correctional system, as pro-
tected by the Attorney General: Provided
further, That following agreement on or
completion of any Federally assisted correc-
tional facility construction, the availability
of the space acquired for Federal prisoners
with these Federal funds shall be assured
and the per diem rate charged for housing
Federal prisoners in the assured space shall
not exceed operating costs for the period of
time specified in the cooperative agreement.
FEES AND EXPENSES OF WITNESSES
For expenses, mileage, compensation, and
per diems of witnesses and for per diems in
lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law, in-
cluding advances; $47,900,000, to remain
available until expended, of which not to
exceed $550,000 may be made available for
planning, construction, renovation. mainte-
nance, remodeling, and repair of buildings
and the purchase of equipment incident
thereto for protected witness safesites.
SALARIES AND EXPENSES, COMMUNITY
RELATIONS SERVICE
For necessary expenses of the Community
Relations Service, established by title X of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, $33,217,000, of
which $26,583,000 shall remain available
until expended to make payments in ad-
vance for grants, contracts and reimbursa-
ble agreements and other expenses neces-
sary under section 501(c) of the Refugee
Education Assistance Act of 1980 (Public
Law 96-422; 94 Stat. 1809) for the process-
ing, care, maintenance, security, transporta-
tion and reception and placement in the
United States of Cuban and Haitian en-
trants: Provided, That notwithstanding sec-
tion 501(e)(2)(B) of the Refugee Education
Assistance Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-422;
94 Stat. 1810), funds may be expended for
assistance with respect to Cuban and Hai-
tian entrants as authorized under section
501(c) of such Act.
ASSETS FORFEITURE FUND
For expenses authorized by 28 U.S.C. 524,
as amended by the Comprehensive Forfeit-
ure Act of 1984, such sums as may be neces-
sary to be derived from the Department of
Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund: Provided,
That in the aggregate, not to exceed
$10,000,000 shall be available for expenses
authorized by subsections (c)(1)(B),
(c)(1)(E), and (c)(1)(F) of that section.
FEDERAL BmtEAU OF INVESTIGATION
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
For expenses necessary for detection, in-
vestigation, and prosecution of crimes
against the United States; including pur-
chase for police-type use of not to exceed
one thousand six hundred forty passenger
motor vehicles of which one thousand four
hundred fifty will be for replacement only,
without regard to the general purchase
price limitation for the current fiscal year,
and hire of passenger motor vehicles; acqui-
sition, lease, maintenance and operation of
aircraft; and not to exceed $70,000 to meet
unforeseen emergencies of a confidential
character, to be expended under the direc-
tion of the Attorney General, and to be ac-
counted for solely on his certificate;
$1,194,132,000. of which not to exceed
$25,000,000 for automated data processing
and telecommunications and $1,000,000 for
undercover operations shall remain avail-
able until September 30, 1987; of which
$30,000,000 for research related to investiga-
tive activities shall remain available until
expended; and of. which not to exceed
$500,000 is authorized to be made available
for making payments or advances for ex-
penses arising out of contractual or reim-
bursable agreements with State and local
law enforcement agencies while engaged in
cooperative activities related to terrorism:
Provided That notwithstanding the provi-
sions of title 31 U.S.C. 3302. the Director of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation may es-
tablish and collect fees to process finger-
print identification records for noncriminal
employment and licensing purposes, and
credit not more than $13,500,000 of such
fees to this appropriation to be used for sal-
aries and other expenses incurred in provid-
ing these services: Provided further, That
$13,120,000 shall remain available until ex-
pended for constructing and equipping new
facilities at the FBI Academy, Quantico.
Virginia: Provided further, That not to
exceed $45,000 shall be available for official
reception and representation expenses.
POINT OF ORDER
Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Chairman, I
have a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from New Jersey will state his point of
order.
Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Chairman, I
make a point of order against the lan-
guage which appears on page 15, line
21 after the colon beginning with the
proviso down through and including
line 23 ending with Virginia. This is a
violation of rule XXI, clause 2. This is
legislation in an appropriation bill.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. BROWN of
California). Does anyone else desire to
be heard on the point of order?
In the opinion of the Chair, the
amount is unauthorized and the lan-
guage is legislative in character and
the point of order is sustained.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. YOUNG OF
FLORIDA
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. YOUNG of
Florida: On page 15, line 4 strike
"$1,194,132.000" and insert "$1,203,625,000".
0 1450
Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman,
I reserve a point of order on the
amendment.
Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr.
Chairman, I also reserve a point of
order on the amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, this is the amend-
ment that I discussed earlier during
general debate that would provide an
additional $9.5 million for the FBI for
use in their counterterrorism program.
The details as to how the $9.493 mil-
lion would be spent, unfortunately, are
very classified and cannot be discussed
openly in this debate today but the in-
formation is available here.
Approved For Release 2010/10/14: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600940020-5
 Approved For Release 2010/10/14: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600940020-5
H 5800
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE: Jul), 17, 1.985
For Members only I would be more
than happy to make available to them
the data as to what the money would
provide and why it is so desperately
needed.
It is something that needs to be
done now. Thanks to the efforts of the
subcommittee, and I compliment the
subcommittee for their work in this
field, the funding for the FBI's battle
against domestic terrorism has been
taken care of adequately. The funding,
though, for their international terror-
ist activities has not been funded to
the extent that they require.
Now I realize that several points of
order have been reserved and I would
hope those points of order would not
be pressed. -
'The time to give the FBI the tool to
battle terrorism is now. We do not
want any more airplane hijackings,
and if we do have any, we want to be
able to respond. we do not want any
more assassinations; we do not like the
fact that the White House is barri-
caded; the Capitol of the United
States has., garbage trucks parked
around it at night to protect against
terrorists; and two bombs have ex-
ploded in this Capitol Building since I
have been a Member of this House.
The time to act is now. We can even-
tually, if the points of order lie today,
we can eventually get another vehicle
by which we will be able to consider
this money, maybe later on this year,
probably next year.
But the case is made strongly,
though, that we need to give the FBI
the tools that they need right now to
battle international terrorism. We are
only talking about $9.5 million. The
House spends that much every week
just in the legislative budget.
Mr. EARLY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I would be
happy to yield to my colleague.
Mr. EARLY. Air. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman. I would suggest that
the gentleman has offered a very pro-
gressive amendment. To reiterate
what happened with regard to terror-
ism. I think foreign and domestic ter-
rorism are related. Chairman SuITm
and Mr. O'BRIEN, the ranking minori-
ty member, put $1.3 million into the
supplemental for 191 positions for do-
mestic terrorism. which was stricken
on a point of order. It is in this bill. As
the gentleman from Florida, whom I
have much respect for-you know
every spending measure is in the eyes
of the beholder; he is the leader in the
fight to save the Social Security COLA
and here he comes in with a very valid
attack on terrorism and to prevent it
and to save money before the problem
occurs.
Now, with the 191 positions we have
in this bill, we are not doing a whole
lot for the FBI. All we are doing with
regards to terrorism in this respect is
giving the FBI the resources they uti-
lized in 1984 and what they utilized in
1985.
But what happened? The Bureau
had to borrow from Narcotics, white-
collar crime and other activities.
Now as to the specific amendment of
the gentleman, during general debate
he identified several specific cases that
are all very accurate. Members inter-
ested in the additional material, which
is classified, would see how necessary
this money is.
I would urge the gentleman, though,
to withdraw the amendment because
the Chairman of the subcommittee,
Mr. SMITH of Iowa, and, I think, Mr.
O'BFIEN are in agreement but were
just prohibited by the rule. Let us
work our will because we know what a
priority this is and we hope that it will
get in the next financial vehicle be-
cause it, is a necessary amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I would like
to compliment the gentleman, Mr.
EARLY, for the work that he has done
in providing the funding already in
the bill for the domestic counterter-
rorism programs. I would ask the gen-
tleman if he would be able, as a
member of that subcommittee, to give
us some _idea, if we withdraw this
amendment, when we might; be able to
get consideration of the amendment to
provide these funds?
Mr. EARLY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I would be
happy to yield to my colleague.
Mr. EARLY. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, the first vehicle, the
first vehicle that we can get, I can
assure the gentleman, only speaking
for myself as a member of the subcom-
mittee, that I will try to insert the
money.
As I told the gentleman, as I suggest-
ed to this House, Chairman SurTi had
done it in the supplemental. Recently
we read an article about a Member of
the other body in which he had sug-
gested they v. ere doing something.
There i= nothing new here.
The CI-AIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Florida [PMZr. YOUNG]
has expired.
(On -request of Mr. EARLY and by
unanimous consent, Mr. YOUNG of
Florida was allowed to proceed for
three additional minutes.)
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, I yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
Mr. EARLY. I thank the gentleman
for yielding further. As to what the
gentleman suggested, Mr. Chairman,
there was not one new thing that this
subcommittee did not try to do in: this
funding bill. I would assure the gentle-
man that in the first vehicle, the first
vehicle that we have available, I would
at least try to put in this foreign
counter intelligence money.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yeild?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I would be
happy to yield to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. SENSENBRENNER].
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chair.
man, I thank the gentleman for yield-
ing.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong sup-
port of the amendment of the gentle-
man from Florida, Mr. YouNG. I recog-
nize the germaneness problems in-
volved in it. but one of the problems
we have is that the Subcommittee on
Civil and Constitutional Rights abso-
lutely refuses to deal with the increase
in authorization that is necessary to fi-
nance this amendment. I think the
need for this amendment is abundant-
ly clear, and we certainly do not wish
to see any more acts of terrorism com-
mitted against the United States and
against the citizens of the United
States, either here or overseas.
It is a very necessary amendment in
order to get the FBI out to speed so
that they will be able to do the job
that we all hope will be successful. So,
that is why I would hope that the
point of order would not be pressed,
and we would be able to provide the
FBI with this additional money today
because every day we wait in not pro-
viding the money that is requested is
one more day that the terrorists can
strike and embarrass this country, and
threaten the lives of our diplomatic
personnel overseas and threaten the
lives of our citizens.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. YOUNG
of Florida was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I think
what we are seeing here is a debate in-
dicating that most everyone is sup-
portive of recognizing the need of the
FBI, which the FBI has in these two
specific cases that this money would
provide for. Secondly, it appears that
everyone seems to be in agreement
that if there was some way to have
this amendment offered without it
being in violation of the Budget Act
that. they would be willing to do that
I would like to add this thought. as
-we deal with the Budget Act, so far we
have only passed the first budget reso-
lution and it has not passed both
bodies. We have not passed the second
budget resolution. My understanding
is that the first budget resolution is
not binding anyway. In the last 10
years, only once, that was in 1978, did
we ever pass a second budget resolu-
tion on time.
So, I have strong reason to believe
that we can make a persuasive argu-
ment in opposition to a point of order
against this amendment, but whether
we can do that or not remains to be
seen. But before we get to that point I
would like to ask my friend and co!-
league with whom we have cooperated
many times, successfully on a number
of issues, if, in fact, he would be. will-
ing, on the next vehicle, to seek the
type of a rule that would protect the
right to offer this type of an amend-
ment.
Approved For Release 2010/10/14: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600940020-5
 Approved For Release 2010/10/14: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600940020-5
July 17, 2985 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOB. 4
O 1500
Mr. EARLY. I will just say to the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Youxal
that as far as, other than the normal
procedure here, I will do anything I
can to help to get the funds through.
That is the rule, that is anything that
we have to do to make sure that the
FBI gets this tool to carry out what
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
SaxsmmzNsntl just suggested.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I appreciate
the gentleman's comment, and I know
of the many hours that he spent on
this subject at the FBI and in his com-
mittee office.
I yield to the chairman.
Mr. SMITH of Iowa. I do not want
to preclude what we might do on a
rule, but I want to say that we have
tried our best to cooperate; we do not
have the administration's request for
this and I think if it were urgent and
they submitted a request that it would
be approved today.
As the gentleman knows very well,
there are a number of ways these
things are financed. We are trying our
best to take care of them, but we are
also under constraints here today be-
cause we are operating under our ten-
tative limitation on 302 allocations.
Even though we do not have a budget
resolution yet, we are voluntarily, in
the Appropriations Committee, stay-
ing within. our 302 allocation according
to the budget resolution that passed
the House; and if we start violating
that I do not know where this bill will
go.
Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, I understand that, and I appreci-
ate the comments that have been
made.
Yes, I yield to the gentleman.
(Mr. EDWARDS of California asked
and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. EDWARDS of California. I
thank the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. YOUNG] for yielding. I know the
gentleman from Florida understands
the high respect that I have for him
and for my friend from Massachusetts
[Mr. EARLY] and the request that you
are making today.
I think the record ought to be made
clear, however, that at the hearings
the Judiciary Committee subcommit-
tee had on the FBI's request for funds
the FBI did not ask for this money.
Indeed, I have asked Director Webster
on several occasions whether or not he
needed the money, and to the best of
my recollection he said, "Well, we can
always use more money, but no, we are
not asking for the money," referring
to the money for 191 new agents with
regard to domestic terrorism.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. YOUNG
of Florida was allowed to proceed for 3
additional minutes.)
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to
the gentleman.
Mr. EDWARDS of California. I ap-
preciate the gentleman yielding. The
subcommittee that I chair has jarisdie-
tion over terrorism and has had exten-
sive iavestigatI and bearktgs, and
has written a report on it.
We have kept very careful count of
the incidents of terrorism In the
United States. and it is a real problem
and I certainly understand that. How-
ever, the FBI is doing a very good job.
and we have always supported any re-
quest that the FBI has made in this
area.
Let me point out to you, Mr. Chair-
man, that terrorist incidents in the
United States have fallen off from an
average of over 100 a year a few years
ago to 51 in 1982, 31 in 1983, and 13 in
1984. In the first 6 months of 1985
there have been only 2 incidents in the
United States, according to FBI
records. In 1984, no one was killed or
injured as a result of terrorist activity
in the United States.
At the same time, in the first 6
months of this year, at current fund-
ing levels, the FBI was able to success-
fully thwart 17 terrorist incidents
before they occurred.
Moreover. Mr. Chairman, I should
emphasize that last year in this coun-
try, there was not one single interna-
tional terrorist incident in the United
States. International terrorist inci-
dents are those in this country com-
mitted by foreign groups. All of the
terrorist incidents in this country last
year were by domestic groups. The
FBI does not generally have jurisdic-
tion over terrorist incidents abroad.
The gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. EARLY] has added additional
funds for 191 agents to counter terror-
ism by domestic groups, and I am in
agreement with the gentleman. I
cannot agree with the gentleman from
Florida's [Mr. YOUNG] amendment on
international terrorism.
I should also note that the FBI's
counterterrorism program is unrelated
to its foreign counterintelligence pro-
gram. This year. for the 3rd straight
year, the bill contains substantial in-
creases for foreign counterintelligence,
and I fully support those increases.
The FBI has increased the staffing
of its counterterrorism program by re-
assigning agents from other areas. An
increase in funding would increase
overall staffing for the Bureau but
would not increase counterterrorism
staffing. Holding funding at present
levels will require the FBI to set its
priorities, as every agency in the Fed-
eral Government must. It will not pre-
vent the Bureau from continuing to al-
locate substantial resources to coun-
terterrorism and it will not interfere
with the continued success of the
FBI's counterterrorism program.
That is the reason that the FBI has
not come forward and asked for this
money. However, we are not going to
object to the request of the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. EARLY] for
the 191 new agents. We know that he
is making this request in good faith,
and even though the administration
and OMB do not want this to go
H 5801
through, as far as we are concerned.
we are not going to object to it.
The issue raised by the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. YOUNG) is some-
thing. else. It certainly should be the
subject of hearings, It should be the
subject for the Department of Justice
and the FBI to come and ask for it.
which they have not done. We really
ought to follow some orderly processes
in this. body.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Will the
gentleman from Florida yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to
the gentleman.
Mr. SENSENERENNER. Mr. Chair-
man, just to make sure that the record
an this subject is complete, the hear-
ings before the Subcommittee on Civil
and Constitutional Rights are far from
complete. As a matter of fact, last
month the three minority members of
the subcommittee, the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. DEWiNEI, the gentle-
man from California [Mr. DANxE-
aEYER] and myself, specifically at-
tempted to invoke the House rule that
provides for a minority day of hear-
ings, to hold hearings on this subject:
and we were rejected by the chairman
of the full committee, Mr. Ronixo.
So there were no hearings on this
subject, and the record ought to be
perfectly clear on where the obstruc-
tionism is; it is in the majority side of
the aisle on the Committee on the Ju-
diciary why we have not been able to
deliberate on this subject before the
authorization committee.
Mr. EARLY. Will the gentleman
from Florida yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to
the gentleman.
Mr. EARLY. I want to clear the
record, too, on this for my good friend
from California [Mr. EnwARns]. With
regards to domestic terrorism, the gen-
tleman said they have had hearings
and there has been no request for the
money.
The gentleman from California. and
everyone on the Committee on the Ju-
diciary knows, and everyone in this
House should know, the FBI spent
much more than originally available
for domestic terrorism iri 1984 and in
1985.
(By unanimous consent. Mr. YOUNG
of Florida was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. EARLY. If the gentleman will
yield further, for the past 2 years, uti-
lization of work-years for this area has
outstripped the work-years assumed,
given the appropriation levels.
In 1984, they had to increase re-
sources that we provided by 118 per-
cent. In 1985, they had to increa.E
them by 150 percent.
If the gentleman wants to suggest
that domestic terrorism is not a
threat, I quote from a Washington
Post article, a matter of months ago:
Files seized'ln a Baltimore apartment used
by self-proclaimed revolutionaries contain
detailed plans to bomb the Old Execut h: e
Approved For Release 2010/10/14: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600940020-5
 Approved For Release 2010/10/14: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600940020-5
H 5802 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOU;.
Office Building in the White House com-
plex.
Documents found in a file drawer marked
"in progress" include "very detailed" plans
to bomb up to a dozen other federal offices.
A threat is of no concern if the
person has never done it before. These
particular groups; this particular
group, the United Freedom Front, has
bombed 16 Federal buildings; so they
have done it. These are legitimate
threats.
This money, that the gentleman
from California [Mr. EDWARDS] sug-
gests the FBI has not requested, and
in this particular amendment from the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. YOUNG]
there is no question that I think they
will come back in 1987 for this particu-
lar funding, and it should be funded
and should not be a partisan issue.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, the gentleman is exactly correct
about the threat from domestic terror-
ists; the threat from international ter-
rorists is equal, if not greater, and the
FBI is going to meet that threat. They
are going to do the job to the best of
their ability, but if they take resources
to fight terrorism that we have not
provided, they are going to take it
from their battles against organized
crime. It is going to have to come out
of their racketeering or corruption or
graft or extortion operations, or out of
their white collar crime funds.
Something else is going to have to
suffer. Terrorism is here. It is now, it
is immediate, and the FBI is going to
do the very best job they can to meet
that threat; but something else is
going to suffer, and I do not think any
of us want that to happen.
(On request of Mr. EARLY and by
unanimous consent, Mr. YOUNG of
Florida was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. EARLY. Will the gentleman
yield for one more point?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I am happy
to yield.
Mr. EARLY. Mr. Chairman, I would
like the House to look at the FBI's
budget. They have a billion almost
$200 million for their whole operation.
It is almost all in personnel.
Now this bill includes the $8.5 mil-
lion that we put in for domestic terror-
ism. If, later on in the day, this House
adopts a 4-percent across-the-board
cut, you will cut $47.8 million from the
FBI. It will give them less money than
they had in 1985. There is no way the
FBI will be able to approach domestic
terrorism or what the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. YOUNG] is talking about.
So I urge the Members as we vote,
the only type of cuts we get today are
across-the-board because every one of
us can run and hide when we do that.
I have never voted for an across-the-
board cut. I do not saying that brag-
ging; I am just saying it is not respon-
sible.
Each Member that wants to cut 4
percent as the items come up, stand
and ask to reduce it 4 percent. If the 4
percent prevails, the FBI cannot do
any of the domestic terrorism work.
The 4-percent cut would leave the FBI
with less than they had last year.
^ 1510
POINTS OF ORDER
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentle-
man from California [Mr. EDWARDS]
insist on his point of order?
Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr.
Chairman, did the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. YOUNG] withdraw his
amendment?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, I did not withdraw the amend-
ment, no.
Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr.
Chairman, it was my understanding
there was a commitment made to
withdraw the amendment. If that is
not true, I insist on my point of order,
Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from California (Mr. EDWARDS] will
state his point of order.
Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr.
Chairman, the amendment violates
clause 2 of House rule XXI, which pro-
vides no appropriation shall be report-
ed in any general appropriation bill
for any expenditure not previously au-
thorized by law.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentle-
man from Iowa [Mr. SMITH] desire to
press his point of order?
Mr. SMITH of Iowa. I do, Mr. Chair-
man, I have a different point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
will state it.
Mr. SMITH of Iowa. I am very reluc-
tant to make a point of order, but I
feel I have to in this case.
It would add budget authority for
fiscal year 1986. The waiver of the
points of order against the provisions
in the bill did not waive points of
order against amendments. Therefore,
an amendment to add money to the
bill would not be in order.
I am very constrained to do that, but
if I do not do that in this case, I know
there will be a lot of amendments all
over the place.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentle-
man from Florida [Mr. YOUNG] wish to
be heard on the point of order)
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, I do.
Regarding the point made by our
colleague, the gentleman from Califor-
nia [Mr. EDWARDS], that it is an unau-
thorized item, this paragraph in ques-
tion is not authorized but it is protect-
ed by the rule. It is well established
under the precedents of the House
that where an unauthorized appro-
priation is permitted to remain in the
bill by waiver of points of order, that
appropriation may be amended to in-
crease the sum, provided the amend-
ment does not add unauthorized items.
My amendment does exactly that,
and I believe that that point of order
should be overruled.
On the point of my friend and col-
league from Iowa [Mr. SMITH], dealing
with the Budget Act, again, Mr. Chair-
man, I suggest that the point of order
July 17, 1985
is not well taken. The purpose of
House Resolution 221, the rule cover-
ing points of order against the Budget
Act, is to allow an appropriations bill
to be considered on the House floor
before the first concurrent budget res-
olution has been approved by Con-
gress. And since consideration of an
appropriations bill on the House floor
generally does not require a rule and
does not limit amendments, interpre-
tation of this language should follow
usual House procedures and allow
amendments to appropriations bills
whether the amendment would in-
crease or decrease an uncertain budget
ceiling.
Therefore, the point of order I think
should be overruled. I make the point
again that the first budget resolution
is still pending, it has still not been fi-
nalized by the Congress.
Second, on the same point, Mr.
Chairman, House Resolution 221, the
rule covering points of order against
the Budget Act, provides that all
points of order for failure to comply
with the provisions of section 303(a) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974,
Public Law 93-344, are hereby waived.
Section 303(a) of the Budget Act
states that "it shall not be in order in
either the House of Representatives or
the Senate to consider any bill or reso-
lution (or amendment thereto) ' ? ' "
Since House Resolution 221 does not
specifically limit amendments and
since it is to be read in conjunction
with section 303(a), my amendment of-
fered during consideration of a general
appropriations bill that was reported
by the Appropriations Committee
prior to July 12, 1985, should be al-
lowed and the point of order over-
ruled.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. BROWN of
California). If no one else wishes to be
heard on the point of order, the Chair
is prepared to rule.
With regard to the point of order
raised by the gentleman from Califor-
nia [Mr. EDWARDS]. as to appropriation
without authorization, the Chair is
constrained to overrule that point of
order on the grounds that a waiver has
been provided in the rule against the
amount in the bill, and the amend-
ment merely increases that amount
without an earmarking for an unau-
thorized purpose.
With regard to the point of order
made by the gentleman from Iowa
[Mr. SMITH] as to whether it has not
been waived by the rule, the Chair is
constrained to uphold that point of
order on the grounds that, while con-
sideration of the bill itself has in
House Resolution 221 received a
waiver from section 303(a) of the
Budget Act, that does not apply to
amendments adding new budget au-
thority to the bill and the Chair,
therefore, sustains the point of order.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. YOUNG OF
FLORIDA
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, I offer an amendment.
Approved For Release 2010/10/14: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600940020-5
 Approved For Release 2010/10/14: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600940020-5
July 17, 1985 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOL.,i
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. YOUNG Of
Florida: On page 15, in line 4. strike
"$1.194,132,000," and insert in lieu thereof
"$1,203.625,000, of which $9,493,000 shall be
derived by transfer from the appropriation
in this Act for "National Endowment for
Democracy" _
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, this is the same amendment, the
same money to be applied to the FBI's
Counterterrorism Program, but in this
case, in order to comply with the
Budget Act and the rules, we attempt
to transfer that same money from an-
other section of the bill dealing with
the National Endowment for Democ-
racy. This is somewhat of a controver-
sial program, to begin with, Mr. Chair-
man, the National Endowment for De-
m(cracy. What it does is provide
money for certain private organiza-
tions to get involved in international
diplomacy. According to the report,
the Endowment would promote plural-
ism democratic governments and po-
litical processes, education, culture
and communications, research and
international cooperation, and it pro-
vides that the Endowment itself would
not do any of these things but would
provide funding for organizations like
the AFL-CIO and the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce or other private organi-
zations and groups to use this money.
The Federal Government is already
doing this, with the expenditure of a
lot of money from a lot of sources, and
I would remind my colleagues that on
the last vote we had on this issue on
May 31, 1984, 226 of our colleagues
voted for an amendment to strike the
funding for this Endowment. The
other body put the money back in.
I am not suggesting that it is a bad
program or that it is a good program.
What I am saying is that I do not
think it has the priority that fighting
international terrorism does. So let us
take the $9.5 million that the FBI
needs from the National Endowment
for Democracy and put it into the FBI
account. Do this and we will have
struck a good blow in the fight against
international terrorism. Again, I do
not want to abuse the time of the com-
mittee by carrying on the argument. I
think everyone is convinced we need
the money. Here is a way to do it and
do it under the rules and within the
provisions of the Budget Act.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to
the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. The gentleman has
really got me between a rock and a
hard place. We have got to get rid of
NED, but I did not want to give it to
the FBI this way. I hope this survives
the test of the parliamentary chal-
lenge that is in front of it. But the
gentlemen is quite right, NED is the
biggest waste of a small amount of
money that has happened in quite a
while. I reluctantly go half way with
the gentleman on his amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I would say
to the gentleman that this is basically
a compromise because we do not take
all of the money from the indowment
fund. We just took $9.5 million. We
are going to leave about $10 million
there. If the gentleman thinks we
ought to get rid of that as well, I
would, probably be happy to support
his amendment.
Pala" of oRDtR
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentle-
man from Iowa U r. Sxtm) desire to
press his point of Order?
Mr. SMITH of Iowa Yes, Mr. Chair-
man, I do.
My point of order is that it is in vio-
lation of clause 7, rule XVI. It involves
an increase in the FBI by a transfer of
funds. There are no transfers in the
bill for the FBI. The money would be
transferred from a source that is en-
tirely different and unrelated, and
therefore taking money that is intend-
ed for one purpose and transferring it
to an entirely different purpose when
it is offered as an amendment is not
germane.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentle-
man from Florida [Mr. YOUNG] desire
to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, I am in opposition to the point of
order. The amendment does not vio-
late section 303 of the Budget Act be-
cause the amendment does not provide
new budget authority but rather pro-
vides funds by trnasfer from elsewhere
in the bill.
The amendment does not violate
rule XXI, clause 2, because it is in
order to perfect a paragraph in the bill
permitted to remain by a waiver of
points of order, so long as the amend-
ment does not add legislation or unau-
thorized items. A transfer of funds
within the confines of an appropria-
tion bill is not considered legislation,
and clearly the amendment does not
add unauthorized items. The amend-
ment is germane to the bill which con-
tains numerous other transfers. For
example, I call to the Chair's attention
page 6 and page 7, where there are nu-
merous transfers from one fund to an-
other in that section of the bill alone.
So I would hope that the Chair
would overrule the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. BaowN of
California). If no one else wishes to be
heard on the point of order, the Chair
is prepared to rule.
The Chair believes that the amend-
ment is not germane to this paragraph
because there are no other transfers
involved in this particular paragraph
and it would effect an account in an
unrelated portion of the bill.
The Chair, therefore, upholds the
point of order made by the gentleman
from Iowa [Mr. SMITH].
AMENDMENTS OFFERED BY MR. KASICH
Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer
two amendments, and I ask unanimous
consent that they be considered en
bloc.
The text of the amendments is as
follows:
H 5803
Amendment offered by Mr. KRsIew. Page
15, line 4, strike out "$1,114.132,000," and
insert in lieu thereof "$,1,199.647,924,".
Page 25, line 10, strike out "$480,235,000:"
and insert in lieu thereof "$474,719,076:".
The CHAIRMAN_ Is there objection
to the request of the gentL'man from
Ohio?
Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman,
reserving the right to object, I yield to
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
KASICn] to explain his amendments.
Mr. KASICfi. I thank the gentleman
for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I was trying to bring
my amendment up under the same
procedure that Mr. YOUNG was at-
tempting to use to transfer some
money. What my amendment would
do is freeze our operations support of
the United Nations at the 1985 level,
taking the $5 million that would be
saved and transferring it to the FBI
domestic counterintelligence area. The
reason being that there is great con-
cern expressed by a number of people,
including Mr. Lichenstein, who was
our Alternate Representative at the
United Nations, about the problem of
espionage involving Soviet personnel,
at the United Nations.
Let me elaborate for a second and
explain that when someone goes to
work for the Secretariat, they are
asked to take an oath of office. In that
oath they swear that they will not
seek or accept any instructions in
regard to the performance of any of
their duties from any government or
any authority external to the organi-
zation.
What we have found, of course, is a
consistent violation of this oath on the
part of the Soviets. We have 333
Soviet personnel who work for the
Secretariat. According to the Senate
Intelligence Committee, the Soviet
citizens assigned to the United Nations
civil servants report directly to the
Soviet missions and are part of an or-
ganization controlled by the Soviet
Foreign Ministry, the Soviet intelli-
gence services, KGB and GRU. and
the Central Committee of the Commu-
nist Party.
The Soviet Union, according to the
Senate Intelligence Committee, has
gained significant advantage over the
West through a comprehensive strate-
gy of using the U.N. Secretariat for its
own ends. Beyond the Secretariat,
there are 295 accredited Soviet diplo-
mats at the U.N. mission in New York,
plus the 333 Soviet nationals who are
employed by the U.N. Secretary. That
does not include 18 accredited person-
nel representing the Ukranian Soviet
Socialist Republic. There are also 27
Ukranian U.N. Secretariat employees,
14 Belorussian diplomats, and 11 Belo-
russian U.N. Secretariat employees.
What is particularly disturbing
about this is that if you add together
the delegation from the Secretariat,
add together all the Soviet diplomats,
all of the Soviet employees of the
Soviet Union and bloc nations, we are
Approved For Release 2010/10/14: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600940020-5
 Approved For Release 2010/10/14: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600940020-5
H 5804 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
talking about somewhere in the vicini-
ty of 2,750 Soviet bloc personnel in
New York State alone.
Now, the FBI estimates that 35 per-
cent of these people are spies, which
means that there are 1,000 spies work-
ing directly or Indirectly through sat-
ellite governments for the U.S.S.R. at
the United Nations. The FBI arrived
at the 35-percent figure by counting
only those personnel who had received
formal intelligence training.
Mr. Shevchenko, who we are all fa-
miliar with now, who defected from
the Soviet Union, estimates that 50
percent of their personnel are working
as spies in some capacity, and a Roma-
nian defector says 70 percent of his
fellow nationals in New York are espi-
onage agents.
We had a big debate up here with
Mr. MCCOLLUM's amendment on
whether we should have the death
penalty for those people who engage
in espionage. After a major debate in
this House, it passed. We are con-
cerned about the Walker case and
what could be the overwhelming impli-
cations, the threats to America's na-
tional security. We just got done
talking about the need to beef up the
area of antiterrorist activity, and we
find that we have a tremendous
number of Soviet bloc personnel, who
our own FBI says are actually spies
that we pay for. Twenty-five precent
for the funding for the United Nations
comes from the United States. Keep in
mind that former FBI Director Clar-
ence Kelly said that if you are going
to have effective counterintelligence
you have got to have an agent on ever
one of these people.
We are not meeting that now. We do
have a program that is moving along
which is intended to beef this section
up. I think it ought to move more
quickly. We can see the tremendous
implications of espionage activity.
Charles Lichenstein, who was the Al-
ternate Representative to the United
Nations, said, "We are in effect subsi-
dizing a hostile intelligence effort on
our own soil." DON SWIDQUIST, not
long ago, offered an amendment on
this floor that asked for a study in the
State Department to check Soviet
laundering of money that we pay to
them that they launder back to the
Soviet Union in order to use for bribes;
for espionage purposes.
Let me tell you what the Soviet em-
ployees in the Secretariat do. They
have complete access to all the person-
nel files at the United Nations. They
can make determinations as to wheth-
er people have financial troubles. We
know from the Walker case that mon-
etary reward is becoming a seemingly
more interesting reason to try to
tempt people. Yet, we have Soviet per-
sonnel who the FBI says could be spies
having access to this kind of informa-
tion.
Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman,
I hope we will not take too much
longer on this. As the gentleman
knows, this subcommittee is nonparti-
san. On the subcommittee we cooper-
ate 100 percent. This subcommittee
and the Intelligence Committee are
taking care of things in the best way
we can, and I think very satisfactorily.
After all, the United Nations is in
New York; it is a fact, you cannot just
kick the United Nations out with an
amendment on a bill like this. We
have to pay our assessment as we are
doing; we also have to watch the em-
ployees who might want to do this
country harm. The problem is not just
limited to New York. There are other
places that are included. I know the
gentleman is very interested in this,
but I would hope that the gentleman
would not offer these amendments be-
cause we cannot address these issues
properly in an appropriations bill.
Mr. KASICH. If the gentleman
would yield, the chairman is certainly
within his right to object to the unani-
mous-consent request, and I under-
stand that he will. I am disappointed
that he objected to the amendment by
the gentleman from Florida; I am dis-
appointed he objects to this.
We are not trying to kick everybody
out. I tell the chairman what we are
simply saying is let us freeze U.N.
funding at the 1985 level and take that
$5 million and give it to the FBI for
counterintelligence activity. I think to-
morrow is too late; we have got to get
on with it today.
Mr. SMITH of Iowa. I would explain
to the gentleman that your amend-
ment does not really accomplish any-
thing because we are paying, in this
budget for 1986, our dues for calendar
1985. Just by taking $5 million out of
the payment that we have got to make
for last year's dues does not eliminate
what we owe; the bill is still there. It
will have to be paid. So you are not
really finding extra money to transfer
to the FBI; that bill has to be paid.
Mr. KASICH. If the gentleman will
yield, let me just say this. What I am
suggesting is that for this year's activi-
ty and operation we spend no more
than what we spent last year. There
has been some discussion that if we
were to reduce our level of reimburse-
ment to the United Nations it would
violate a treaty. It certainly does not
because the provision In the law says
that if the funding of any of these or-
ganizations or activities could work to
the detriment of this Government, we
certainly are within our rights to with-
hold some payments. When the FBI
estimates that 35 percent of the Soviet
employees at the United Nations are
working as spies and Mr. Shevchenko
is saying it is as high as 50 percent, I
think we have a problem.
I do appreciate the gentleman's con-
cern on this issue; I understand his
reasons for objecting. I think they are
more parliamentary than they are
substantive, and I would hope that the
committee would address this issue.
^ 1530
We are going to hear more about it.
We are going to hear more about it on
July 17, 1985
Soviet travel and Soviet laundering of
money and activity within the Secre-
tariat.
Mr. SMITH of Iowa. I am sure we
will hear more about it.
Mr. KASICH. I appreciate the gen-
tleman's attention and his gracious-
ness in yielding time to me.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, would
the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of Iowa. I yield to the
gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder if it might
be possible on this bill to adopt a
sense-of-the-Congress resolution of
some sort that would prescribe, in
light of the continuing Soviet abuses
in East Germany and other places.
Mr. SMITH of Iowa. First of all,
that is legislation in an appropriations
bill.
Mr. HUNTER. I understand that.
Mr. SMITH of Iowa. But second, I
especially do not like sense-of-Con-
gress resolutions. That is like simply
playing you are in Congress. A sense
of Congress just expresses an opinion.
Anyone who wants to can offer an
opinion, and I am one who objects to
having 20 or 30 -or 40 bills on the
House floor every year as sense-of-
Congress resolutions. Again, that is
playing like you are passing legislation
when you are not really doing any-
thing. So I really do not like sense-of-
Congress resolutions.
Mr. HUNTER. If the gentleman
would continue to yield, the reason I
offered that was because the chairman
did not like and indicated he would
object to the gentleman's amendment.
I was trying to think of something
that would send a message. I think
there is a value in message sending in
light of the three or four attacks on
American and British personnel in
East Germany recently, and the
abuses with regard to Soviet officials
in the United States.
Mr. SMITH of Iowa. I think the col-
loquy here indicates that there is no
difference of opinion on the substance
at all and there is no reason to put an-
other resolution In because everybody
is in agreement on the substance, as
far as I know.
Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentle-
man.
Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Chairman,
would the gentleman withdraw his
unanimous-consent request?
Mr. KASICH, Mr. Chairman, I
would rather not withdraw it. I would
rather the gentleman object.
Mr. SMITH of Iowa. I have to object
on this issue, Mr Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is
heard.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
For necessary expenses of the Drug En-
forcement Administration, including not to
exceed $70,000 to,meet unforeseen emergen-
Approved For Release 2010/10/14: CIA-RDP87B00858R000600940020-5