18 May 1999. Thanks to BD.

    The Progressive Review 5/17/99

    HOUSE PROVIDES MORE COVER FOR CIA CRIMES

    Sam Smith

    In a major move almost entirely ignored by the media, the House of
    Representatives voted to make it a crime to reveal not only the names of
    current CIA agents but of former ones as well. The House also voice voted
    mandatory sentencing for those convicted of revealing names.

    The effect of the legislation is to provide still more cover for illegal CIA
    activity, particularly in this country. It could soon well be against the
    law to reveal W.J. Clinton's involvement with the agency going back to
    Oxford days, or George Bush's decades-long affiliation with the CIA before
    he was named its director. Other past examples of crucial information that
    might soon be illegal to reveal: the 400 mainstream journalists who once
    worked for the CIA, the Washington Post's Benjamin Bradlee's work for the
    agency, the names of CIA operatives involved in drug smuggling in this
    country out of such places as Mena AK, and the names of CIA operatives
    illegally placed in city police departments in positions as high as chief.

    One of the few restraints on rogue activities of the CIA has been public
    exposure by the media. Even under present circumstances this can be
    dangerous and difficult. For example, when California journalist Gary Webb
    revealed the ties between the agency and west coast drug dealers, Webb came
    under heavy attack by papers like the Washington Post, which has long been
    close to the agency.

    Ironically, the same measure that granted lifelong impunity to criminal CIA
    agents, gave new credence to Webb's charges. The measure specifically bans
    the CIA from engaging the in drug business that Webb accused them of.
    Would the measure apply to reporters revealing the agency connections of a
    Bill Bradlee or W.J. Clinton? Most likely, because in the process of telling
    the CIA what it couldn't do with drug traffickers, it defined an employee of
    the agency as including anyone "acting on behalf, or with the approval, of
    an element of the intelligence community."

    In other words, under these rules, Gary Webb could go to jail for 10 years
    for revealing the very wrongs the House thought serious enough to
    specifically ban the agency from doing in the future.

    So far TPR has only been able to find one major media mention of this
    extraordinary and dangerous new legislation. Reuters devoted a few lines to
    it in an account of the CIA appropriations bill.

Excerpted from: House debate on HR 1555, Intelligence Authorization Act for FY2000: http://jya.com/hr1555-talk.txt

    [Congressional Record: May 13, 1999 (House)]
    [Page H3112-H3141]
    From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
    [DOCID:cr13my99-42]

              INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000

    [Excerpt]

           Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Sweeney:
           At the end of title III (page 10, after line 2), insert the
         following new section:

         SEC. 304. PROTECTION OF IDENTITY OF RETIRED COVERT AGENTS.

           (a) In General.--Section 606(4)(A) of the National Security
         Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 426(4)(A)) is amended--
           (1) by striking ``an officer or employee'' and inserting
         ``a present or retired officer or employee''; and
           (2) by striking ``a member'' and inserting ``a present or
         retired member''.
           (b) Imposition of Minimum Prison Sentences for
         Violations.--Section 601 of the National Security Act of 1947
         (50 U.S.C. 421) is amended--
           (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``not less than five
         and'' after ``or imprisoned'';
           (2) in subsection (b), by inserting ``not less than 30
         months and'' after ``or imprisoned''; and
           (3) in subsection (c), by inserting ``not less than 18
         months and'' after ``or imprisoned''.

      (Mr. SWEENEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
    remarks.)
      Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, before addressing my amendment, allow me
    to first express my strong support for the intelligence authorization
    bill and commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) and the
    gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon), the ranking member, for their
    great work on this important bill.
      Mr. Chairman, our intelligence community is truly our first line of
    defense; and we must do everything in our power to ensure that our
    counterintelligence operations are as strong as our potential enemies.
    The amendment I am offering today is intended to complement this fine
    bill on an important national security issue, the protection of our
    intelligence agents.
      Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply increases the criminal penalty for
    individuals who expose covert agents and expands the Intelligence
    Identities Protection Act to protect the identities of former agents as
    well.
      First and foremost, my amendment establishes a minimum mandatory
    penalty for the willful identification of a United States intelligence
    agent. The existing criminal penalties against such an offense are
    woefully inadequate. While several lesser criminal offenses require
    mandatory minimums, few are as consequential to the interests of our
    national security as the protection of those who serve our country in
    this capacity.
      Secondly, the amendment extends the scope of these protections to
    former covert agents as only current agents are now covered by the law.
    By increasing the criminal penalties for disclosing identities for
    existing agents and by including former agents, my amendment
    accomplishes several important national security objectives and
    appropriately emphasizes the high priority with which we make national
    security. It protects agents and former agents from possible harm as a
    result of the disclosure of their true identities and past locations
    and activities. It also protects the entire intelligence network that
    often remains in place after an individual agent leaves his or her
    assignment.

                                  {time}  1215

      By protecting retired agents, the amendment protects those active
    operatives who may have assumed the former agents' positions.
      Through the Freedom of Information Act people obtain information
    relevant to U.S. intelligence operations. Currently no statutory
    protection exists to prohibit identification of retired intelligence
    agents. This initiative strengthens the penalties against disclosing
    the information that identifies covert agents. Penalties in my
    amendment are proportional, yet tougher to those which exist under
    current law.
      The majority of our current and former intelligence agents serve or

    [[Page H3123]]

    have served the United States at considerable risk, Mr. Chairman, and
    there is absolutely no justification for exposing them to danger.
      Identifying current or former agents warrants serious criminal
    liability, and my amendment does just that. Ensure the safety of our
    intelligence community and provide adequate penalties to those who
    jeopardize America's national security by voting yes on the Sweeney
    amendment to H.R. 1555.

       Amendment Offered by Mr. Goss to Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr.
                                    Sweeney

      Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
      The Clerk read as follows:

           Amendment offered by Mr. Goss to amendment No. 10 offered
         by Mr. Sweeney:
           Strike subsection (b) of section 304, as proposed to be
         added by the amendment and insert the following:
           (b) Imposition of Minimum Prison Sentences for
         Violations.--Section 601 of the National Security Act of 1947
         (50 U.S.C. 421) is amended--
           (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``shall be fined not
         more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or
         both.'' and inserting ``shall be imprisoned not less than
         five years and not more than ten years and fined not more
         than $50,000.''.
           (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``shall be fined not
         more than $25,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or
         both.'' and inserting ``shall be imprisoned not less than 30
         months and not more than five years and fined not more than
         $25,000.''.
           (3) in subsection (c), by striking ``shall be fined not
         more than $15,000 or imprisoned not more than three years, or
         both.'' and inserting ``shall be imprisoned not less than 18
         months and not more than three years and fined not more than
         $15,000.''.

      Mr. GOSS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
    that the amendment to the amendment be considered as read and printed
    in the Record.
      The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
    Florida?
      There was no objection.
      Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, the perfecting amendment to the Sweeney
    amendment that I have offered I am told makes a technical correction.
    The amendment filed contained a drafting error, and as a result, would
    not impose a true mandatory minimum sentencing requirement, which was
    the intent. Whether we agree or not, the intent was to make it
    mandatory.
      The amendment clarifies the intent of the amendment to toughen the
    sentencing standards and impose mandatory minimums. I understand, in
    plain English, it is both a penalty and mandatory time.
      I would ask the gentleman from New York, is my understanding correct?
      Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
      Mr. GOSS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
      Mr. SWEENEY. That is correct, Mr. Chairman, that was my intent.
      Mr. GOSS. Reclaiming my time, then, Mr. Chairman, and going to what
    that would leave us with on the Sweeney amendment if the secondary
    amendment is considered and approved is that we would have an amendment
    which would in fact deal with the Agent Identities Protection Act and
    put some more teeth into it.
      I would point out that Mr. Solomon, our colleague from New York,
    former chairman of the Committee on Rules, offered a similar amendment
    in 1981 which I am told passed the House by some 300 votes and then
    disappeared in conference, as sometimes happens.
      As Members will recall, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act
    penalizes the unauthorized disclosure of identities of covert employees
    and assets of the United States. This is willful disclosure, we are
    talking about here. We are not talking about an accident or a slip of
    the tongue or leaving a document someplace by a mistake. Those are bad
    things. We are talking about setting out to deliberately expose
    classified information that can result in harm to an individual,
    serious harm.
      Mr. Chairman, I understand originally that the act was offered in
    1979 by Chairman Boland in response to the disclosure of identities of
    CIA officers and assets by Philip Agee, Louis Wolf, and others. The Act
    is sharply focused upon present and former cleared employees and upon
    those who publish deliberate and repeated disclosures of the type found
    in the Covert Action Information Bulletin.
      The Act has been an useful tool for prosecutors and the intelligence
    community, although it has not been applied aggressively, as some
    prefer, including me. The U.S. government has charged some current and
    former employees, and as an apparent consequence of that, the
    disclosures have been abated. But it has been a pretty weak tool. It
    has not been able to be used as it was originally intended.
      I honestly believe that the amendment of the gentleman from New York
    (Mr. Sweeney) does add extra strength, and does it in a reasonable way.
    We are not throwing out all the rules of judicial protection or
    anything like that. What we are basically doing is putting people on
    notice that for willful disclosure of agent identities, there is a
    penalty. It is a serious penalty, because it is a serious crime.
      Having said that, I will urge acceptance of the Sweeney amendment, as
    perfected by our secondary amendment.
      Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
    words.
      Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate the gentleman from New
    York (Mr. Sweeney) on his amendment. I will not object to it, but I do
    have some concerns with it.
      As I understand the amendment and the perfecting amendment, basically
    it does two things. It covers retired agents, but the concern I have is
    the decision to make penalties, whether they be incarceration or money
    fines, mandatory without hearings. Generally speaking, I am opposed to
    mandatory sentences. I have great faith in the Federal judiciary.
      I do not think that we should move this fast without some hearings on
    this to find out if this type of activity should be in the class of
    mandatory sentences. I would tell the gentleman from New York, I will
    not object to it, but I would like to reserve to discuss this further
    at the conference.
      Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
      Mr. DIXON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
      Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks. The
    gentleman is correct in saying that what the bill essentially does is
    extend the protection to retired agents.
      Also, in establishing mandatory minimums, my intent was to raise the
    level of Section 601 to the highest levels and the highest priorities,
    which I believe our national security interests dictate.
      I will point out that what the mandatory minimum sentences that I
    have prescribed in my amendment do is cut in half the mandatory
    maximums, so I think proportionately, it is very reasonable.
      Let me also just say that in relationship to Federal mandatory
    minimums, there are hundreds, literally hundreds, as I am sure the
    gentleman knows, of Federal crimes, including food stamp fraud,
    including bribery of meat inspectors, that have mandatory minimum
    sentences.
      I think in order for this Congress to send a very strong message
    about the protection of agents and former agents, the inclusion of the
    mandatory minimum is an essential part.
      Mr. DIXON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I may ultimately agree
    with the gentleman from New York. I just think it is worth more than 5
    minutes of time on the floor, and I will reserve to address this issue
    in conference.
      The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
    gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) to the amendment offered by the
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney.)
      The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
      The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
    gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), as amended.
      The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.