From: cdp!christic%labrea.stanford.edu Subject: BUSH VETOES COVERT OPS BILL /* Written 4:21 pm Dec 31, 1990 by christic in cdp:christic.news */ /* ---------- "BUSH VETOES COVERT OPS BILL" ---------- */ ----------------------------------------------------------------- PRESIDENT BUSH VETOS COVERT OPERATIONS BILL Convergence Magazine, Christic Institute, Winter 1991, p. 11 A controversial bill that institutionalized covert operations as a permanent instrument of foreign policy was vetoed by President Bush in early December. Bush did not object to most provisions of the bill, which increased his statutory power to wage secret wars. But he refused to accept a modest attempt by Congress to require notification in writing when the President decides to use foreign countries or private contractors to conduct covert operations. ``Bush's veto is one more sign that the imperial President is opposed to any form of Congressional control over covert actions --even the most modest of reforms,'' said Christic Institute Executive Director Sara Nelson. The bill--which Congress adopted with bipartisan support-- authorized spending for intelligence activities and covert operations in fiscal year 1991. The total is a classified secret, but sources on Capitol Hill say the bill increased budget authority for the C.I.A. and other clandestine agencies to $30 billion--the highest spy budget in history. Congress is expected to move quickly to draft a new version of the bill more to the President's liking. The bill's progress through Congress coincided with months of crisis in the Gulf, and therefore was hardly noticed by the press. But the decision by Congress to increase the President's power to conduct covert operations is an important signal that the end of the Cold War does not mean the end of secret warfare as a tool of United States policy. The bill's most controversial provision gave the President new statutory powers to use foreign governments and private companies for covert operations. Critics in the House of Representatives, led by California Democrat Barbara Boxer, said this provision legalized the methods used by the White House during the war against Nicaragua to evade a Congressional ban on military aid to the contras. When Congress blocked funding, Oliver North turned to foreign governments to finance the war and various front companies and private contract agents to smuggle weapons to the contras. ``Using private companies and foreign countries to finance or carry out covert actions threatens the `power of the purse'--now virtually the only control Congress has over the C.I.A. and other spy agencies,'' said Lanny Sinkin, the Christic Institute staff attorney who led efforts to defeat provisions of the bill. The decision to enlist private firms and contract agents for secret operations in Central America also created new opportunities for organized crime. In 1988 the Senate Foreign Relations narcotics subcommittee confirmed what supporters of the Christic Institute have known since Avirgan v. Hull was filed in Federal court in May 1986: that contra bases in Central America were used as staging areas for cocaine flights to the United States. ``The logic of having drug money pay for the pressing needs of the contras appealed to a number of people who became involved in the covert war,'' the committee said. ``Indeed, senior U.S. policy makers were not immune to the idea that drug money was a perfect solution to the contras' funding problems.'' The Senate version of the bill included one key provision, Title VII, that required the President to tell the House and Senate Intelligence Committees in writing when he ordered a covert action. However, Title VII also gave the President new statutory powers to use foreign governments and private companies for covert actions. It also said the President could spend funds from any Government agency or department to finance a covert operation, even if the funds were not appropriated by Congress for that purpose. The Christic Institute argued that the reporting requirement in the Senate bill was ``vague and toothless.'' The President, for example, was not obliged to tell Congress which foreign governments or private companies he planned to use, only of his intention to use them. Moreover, the bill mentioned no criminal penalties or enforcement mechanisms if the President intentionally withheld information from Congress. The bill also authorized the President to omit from his report to Congress any matters he considered ``exceptionally sensitive.'' ``Most important, in conceding to the President the power to initiate covert actions without prior approval of Congress, Title VII illegally amended the Constitution by transferring to the Executive Branch the exclusive congressional powers to declare war, to raise and finance armies, and to appropriate funds,'' Sinkin said. The bill ``all but eliminates what little accountability to Congress that has existed until now,'' said David MacMichael, a former C.I.A. intelligence analyst who now directs the Association of National Security Alumni, a reform group. The members of the Senate Intelligence Committee ``have tossed the bitter lessons of past abuses into the shredder.'' At first the Senate bill attracted little notice in the press. It was passed without debate at 3:30 a.m. on Aug. 4, two days after Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait. Both Democrats and Republicans supported the measure as a routine budget authorization bill for intelligence agencies. ``When analysts at the Christic Institute learned that Title VII of the Senate bill increased Presidential power to conduct covert operations,'' Sinkin said, ``we began to organize a nationwide coalition to oppose passage.'' In Washington, representatives of the governing bodies of 26 national religious and human rights organizations signed a letter to Congress opposing the provisions in the Senate bill. Christic Institute staff visited more than 250 offices on Capitol Hill. During the summer and fall the Institute's three citizen action networks--Legislative Action, Media Watch and Religious Response --went to work against the bill. Nearly 10,000 calls, letters and telegrams to congressional offices protested the new Presidential powers voted by the Senate. Emboldened by strong grassroots pressure, Rep. Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, offered an amendment that directly challenged Title VII of the Senate version of the bill. The Boxer amendment --Required Congressional approval before the President could order most covert actions. --Banned the use of foreign governments and private parties to finance or carry out covert operations. --Restricted the use of Federal employees apart from intelligence personnel for covert operations. --Said that covert actions would only be approved to meet extraordinary threats to the national security. ``Thanks to the Boxer amendment, a forum was created to debate the future of covert operations,'' Sinkin said. In October the House of Representatives debated its version of the intelligence bill. Sinkin says the seven-hour exchange was the most comprehensive discussion about covert action to take place in the Congress since the early Seventies. Another important amendment--introduced by Democratic Reps. Ron Dellums of California, Mervyn Dymally of California and Lee Hamilton of Indiana--sought to cut off covert aid in support of military or paramilitary operations in Angola. ``The brutality of covert action is amply demonstrated by the Angola War in which women and children are constantly victims of mines and other explosives,'' said Dymally. ``Angola now has the highest amputation rate in the world.'' Rising to speak for the Boxer Amendment were some of the most respected members of the House--including Democrats Robert Kastenmeier of Wisconsin, then a senior member of the Intelligence Committee; Don Edwards of California, chair of the Judiciary subcommittee on civil and constitutional rights, and Ted Weiss of New York, a senior member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. ``They and others addressed the unconstitutional nature of covert action, the inherent tension between democracy and secrecy, and the abysmal history of blood and terror that U.S. covert actions have produced around the world,'' Sinkin said. ``The only sure way to avoid a repetition of the Iran-contra affair would be to eliminate covert actions altogether,'' Weiss said during the debate. ``But if we can not do that, we must, at least, ensure that such actions are strictly limited and scrupulously monitored by Congress.'' Both the Boxer and Angola amendments were defeated. Seventy members of Congress supported Boxer, however, showing that liberals in the House were disturbed by the new powers granted to the President despite the end of the Cold War. According to Christic Institute Organizing Director Mary Cassell, ``the campaign was a building block toward forming the Congressional coalition and the national constituency needed to reverse 40 years of usurpation of Congressional authority by the Executive Branch and to end the practice of covert operations.'' After passage of the House version of the intelligence bill, conferees from the two houses agreed on the bill's final language, including most of the Title VII provisions from the Senate bill. A provision asserting that the President had a basis in the Constitution for covert operations was removed, however. The President vetoed the bill after Congress adjourned, meaning there is no possibility of a vote to override. Rep. Anthony Beilenson, the California Democrat who chairs the powerful House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told the Washington Post that the veto might disrupt ``an excellent working relationship between the intelligence committees and the Administration.'' In his veto message the President said that the requirement of a written notification to Congress would have had a ``chilling effect on the ability of our diplomats to conduct highly sensitive discussions concerning projects that are vital to our national security.'' Bush said he was also disturbed by language in the Congressional report explaining provisions of the bill, which said that prior notice of covert actions should be withheld only in exceptional situations and that the intelligence committees would still have to be notified within ``a few days'' after an operation was ordered by the President. The Washington Post reported that the President also objected to classified provisions in the bill limiting covert aid for antigovernment rebels in Angola, Cambodia and Afghanistan. A bill further weakening Congressional oversight of covert operations may be introduced when Congress convenes in January. ``Such a bill will probably once again avoid the real issue of congressional control over Executive Branch actions in the covert arena and focus solely on how much the President has to tell the intelligence committees about such actions,'' Sinkin said. ``The challenge to us is clear. There is no doubt that the vast majority of people in this country do find assassination, drug smuggling and the other criminal acts committed in the name of national security to be fundamentally repugnant,'' says Christic Institute Executive Director Sara Nelson. ``But only an aroused public pressuring a resistant Congress and removing from office corrupted executives will successfully put an end to such activities.'' ----------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Lang 151251507 CHRISTIC telex Christic Institute tcn449 TCN Washington, D.C. christic PeaceNet 202-529-0140 BBS uunet!pyramid!cdp!christic UUCP 202-797-8106 voice cdp!christic%labrea@stanford Bitnet 202-462-5138 fax cdp!christic@labrea.stanford.edu Internet