[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12411-S12418]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page S12411]]



                FOLLOWING UP ON THE HALPERIN NOMINATION

 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in 1993, the Senate Armed Services 
Committee conducted an extensive review of the nomination of Morton 
Halperin to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Democracy and 
Peacekeeping. The committee held an open hearing on November 19, 1993, 
where Mr. Halperin appeared to answer questions regarding his 
qualifications, background, and activities. Subsequently, however, his 
nomination was withdrawn by the President.
  At that hearing, Mr. Halperin directly refuted certain information 
provided to the committee by Mr. Frank McNamara regarding Mr. 
Halperin's nomination. Inasmuch as Mr. McNamara was not present at the 
hearing and did not have an opportunity to testify before the 
committee, he was unable to defend his position regarding the 
nomination.
  Mr. President, I therefore ask that the following statement of Mr. 
McNamara, fully setting forth his views on Mr. Halperin's nomination, 
be inserted in the Record at this point for the information of 
Senators.
  The statement follows:

    Statement of Francis J. McNamara on the Nomination of Morton H. 
    Halperin To Be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Democracy and 
                              Peacekeeping

       The following is offered in opposition to the confirmation 
     of Morton H. Halperin as Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
     Democracy and Peacekeeping.
       For some 25 years, as an employee of the Department of 
     Defense and the National Security Council as well as in 
     various private sector posts, he has violated security 
     regulations and/or consistently attacked and strongly opposed 
     generally accepted security practices, in addition to 
     demonstrating extremely poor judgment about what constitutes 
     sensitive security information.
       On July 5, 1996, upon entering the employ of the Defense 
     Department, Mr. Halperin signed an affidavit which said:
       ``I agree to return all classified material upon 
     termination of employment in the Office of the Secretary of 
     Defense.''
       On September 19, 1969, terminating his employment with the 
     National Security Council, Mr. Halperin signed another 
     affidavit:
       ``I do not now have in my possession or custody or control 
     any document or other things containing or incorporating 
     information affecting the national defense, or other security 
     information material classified Top secret, Secret or 
     Classified to which I obtained access [during my 
     employment].''
       Did Halperin live up to his word?
       Defending a presidential authority vital to the national 
     security against a lawsuit brought by Halperin, the Carter 
     Administration on May 24, 1978 filed a brief with the Court 
     of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in which it said that 
     Halperin took classified documents with him when he left the 
     Defense Department and so that--
       ``Dr. Halperin managed to cart off boxes of highly 
     classified material without the National Security Council's 
     permission or knowledge when he left the NSC.''
       In addition to this double violation of his word and 
     security regulations, Halperin was deceptive in other ways as 
     well, according to the 1978 court brief. When Halperin was 
     with the NSC, Henry Kissinger, the President's national 
     security adviser, ``specifically instructed'' Halperin not to 
     talk to journalists, but ``contrary to those instructions Dr. 
     Halperin talked repeatedly with journalists.''
       Also: Halperin told Kissinger in a September 1969 telephone 
     conversation, ``I haven't talked to the press . . . since 
     May,'' but the record revealed he ``received a number of 
     calls from, conversed with and met with a variety of 
     journalists.''
       A wiretap had been placed on Halperin's home phone because 
     he was the prime suspect in the leak of the secret US bombing 
     of Cambodia to New York Times reporter William Beecher. That 
     tap revealed the following about Halperin's conversations on 
     his home phone: ``revelations on the North Vietnamese 
     position . . . differing internal recommendations of the 
     Secretaries of State and Defense and the Attorney General as 
     to Cambodia . . . his plan to meet with representatives of a 
     German news magazine about the National Security Council . . 
     . and a planned meeting with a representative of the Soviet 
     Union's Pravda.''
       Press accounts of Halperin's suit predating the brief had 
     reported affidavits revealing John Erlichman saying that 
     Kissinger had described Halperin ``as being singularly 
     untrustworthy. Defects in his philosophy and character were 
     generally described (by Kissinger).'' [Washington Post, March 
     12, 1976]; and that two weeks after Halperin left the 
     National Security Council, FBI Director Hoover reported to 
     the White House that he has been heard saying on his 
     telephone that ``he was to meet with the foreign editor of 
     Pravda'' [W.P. 3/21/76].
       Also reported by the same newspaper: a Kissinger affidavit 
     said Halperin's FBI security file revealed he had failed to 
     ``report a visit to Greece, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union'' 
     on a passport application; that in 1965 he had received the 
     Communist magazine, ``World Marxist Review/Problems of Peace 
     and Socialism'', and that Halperin recalled Kissinger had cut 
     off his access to 
_______________________________________________________________________
                              N O T I C E

   Effective January 1, 1997, the subscription price of the 
 Congressional Record will be $295 per year, or $150 for 6 months. 
 Individual issues may be purchased for $2.50 per copy. The cost for 
 the microfiche edition will be $141 per year; single copies will 
 remain $1.50 per issue. This price increase is necessary based upon 
 the cost of printing and distribution.
                                                                     
 MICHAEL F. DiMARIO, Public Printer.
_______________________________________________________________________

[[Page S12412]]


     ``more sensitive information regarding national security 
     matters'' because of high-level Administration figures' 
     suspicions about his political views. (3/28/76)
       Not only the Carter Administration brief, but various news 
     accounts reported that Kissinger had hired Halperin for his 
     NSC position over the objections of FBI Director Hoover, the 
     Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Senator Goldwater, 
     White House aide Haldeman, and the security officer of the 
     NSC. Kissinger himself said in Salzburg, Austria, in June 
     1974 that he had hired Halperin for the NSC ``over the strong 
     objections of all my associates.''
       A J. Edgar Hoover file memo revealed that Kissinger had 
     called him May 9, 1969, the day the Times story appeared, to 
     complain that the Beecher story was ``extraordinarily 
     damaging and uses secret information.'' The Carter 
     Administration brief noted that the District Court in 
     Washington had said ``There was justifiably grave concern in 
     1969 over the leaking of confidential foreign policy 
     information.'' President Nixon later deposed that Prince 
     Sihanouk of Cambodia had agreed to the bombing as long as 
     it was secret, but for internal political reasons could no 
     longer do so once it became known. A halt to the bombing 
     was thus forced, with the result that the enemy was 
     guaranteed a safe haven from which he could attack 
     American troops and then escape to safety. The President 
     deposed that the leak was ``directly responsible for the 
     deaths of thousands of Americans.''
       A September 1969 memo from FBI Director Hoover to Attorney 
     General John Mitchell said Kissinger wanted all the wiretaps 
     he had requested in trying to identify the source of the leak 
     discontinued except for those on Halperin.
       William C. Sullivan, Assistant FBI Director for 
     Intelligence, said in a July 8, 1969 memo to Director Hoover:
       ``As we know, Halperin cannot be trusted. We have learned 
     enough already from the early coverage of him to conclude 
     this.''
       Another reason for rejecting Halperin's nomination is that 
     he has revealed a sick, unhealthy animus and hostility toward 
     the U.S. Intelligence Community and the individual agencies 
     composing it, despite their vital relationship to the 
     security of the Nation.
       Appearing on the Ben Wattenberg PBS-TV program, ``In Search 
     of the Real America,'' on June 15, 1978, he contradicted 
     Wattenberg when Wattenberg said the CIA was a defender of 
     American freedoms.
       ``No,'' Halperin replied, ``they've been a subverter of 
     everybody else's freedom.''
       He has also accused CIA officers of ``promoting fascism 
     around the world.''
       What does he think of the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
       ``Causing violence in American cities has been an on-going 
     FBI program,'' a pamphlet he published on the Bureau said.
       To Halperin it is ``an open question'' whether the CIA and 
     other agencies in the Intelligence Community would turn to 
     assassinating American citizens.
       Halperin has adopted unbelievably ridiculous positions--as 
     when he told Wattenberg that he would oppose CIA use of 
     covert action, even if it were to stop Libyan leader Quadaffi 
     from sneaking nuclear weapons into New York harbor!
       In 1974, referring to the early `70s period of the Vietnam 
     War, he actually wrote questioning ``the need for the kind 
     of reconnaissance which involved an intrusion into North 
     Vietnamese air space''!
       He knows as little about the law as he does about war. In 
     September of 1976, he attacked the Department of Justice for 
     acting on the belief that when a foreign power is involved, 
     there is a national security exemption to the Fourth 
     Amendment. He wrote:
       ``No court in the United States has ever seriously 
     considered the possibility that it exists.'' (``First 
     Principles,'' 9/76)
       100% wrong! It is difficult to conceive of a more erroneous 
     statement. Not only had a number of District Courts 
     ``seriously considered'' its existence at the time, but some 
     Appeals Courts had as well, and most of the decisions had 
     upheld the concept.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\ Footnotes at end of articles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       The Carter Administration court brief noted ``poor 
     judgment'' on Halperin's part and ``disquieting'' points in 
     his conduct. It is my view that he has continued to exhibit 
     these traits on a considerable number of occasions, 
     particularly those treated at some length in the attached 
     ``Partial Record''--the cases of Philip Agee, the CIA 
     Defector; David Truong, the Communist Vietnamese espionage 
     agent, and the leak of the so-called ``Pentagon Papers.''
       For these and other reasons, I believe his confirmation 
     would constitute a security risk to the United States not 
     only because of his actions and views concerning what 
     constitutes sensitive security information, but also because 
     it would deal a blow to the morale of the Nation's military/
     security/intelligence services with related adverse 
     performance of functions vital to the national security.


      further statement of francis j. mcnamara re morton halperin

       Concerned about the nomination of Morton Halperin to serve 
     as an assistant secretary of defense, friends who knew I had 
     closely studied the assault on the Intelligence Community 
     that had marked the decade of the mid-seventies to the mid-
     eighties and had testified and written about it and also 
     about Halperin's role in it,\2\ suggested that I assist the 
     effort of the Center for Security Policy, directed by Frank 
     Gaffney, Jr., to defeat the nomination, and also that I 
     prepare a personal statement opposing it.
       I did both. Senator Thurmond distributed copies of my 
     statement to members of the Armed Services Committee and also 
     to all members of the Senate.
       During the November 19, 1993 hearing by the committee on 
     his nomination, in response to a question by Senator McCain, 
     Halperin testified:
       ``Senator McCain, those comments appear to be identical 
     with a set of allegations made in a document which Senator 
     Thurmond distributed to members of the committee. That is a 
     scurrilous, outrageous attack on me, full of false 
     statements, innuendoes, and misleading assertions. I will 
     give you just two examples. . . .''
       He then branded what I had written about his association 
     with a group named PEPIC ``an outright lie and a scandalous 
     attack,'' implied that what my statement said about a listing 
     of CIA memoirs by former Agency employees fell into the same 
     category, and asked for permission to insert in the hearing 
     record ``a detailed response'' to my statement. Senator 
     Levin, presiding at the time, granted his request.
       Having recently undergone surgery, I did not attend the 
     hearing. After I had obtained a hearing transcript and read 
     his words, I wrote to the committee on December 15:
       ``I flatly deny and deeply resent Halperin's charges about 
     my statement and request that I be granted an opportunity to 
     appear before the committee to respond to them.
       In reply, I was informed that committee rules barred my 
     appearance because, during the hearing, nothing had been said 
     on the record authorizing it.
       When, on April 12, 1994 I received a copy of the printed 
     hearing I learned that in his alleged ``detailed response'' 
     to my statement submitted for the record since I had last 
     seen a transcript, Halperin had added a few choice epithets 
     describing it: ``inaccurate . . . distorts facts . . . 
     patently untrue . . . misrepresents . . . absurd . . . false 
     . . . an outright lie'' [again] (printed record, pages 181, 
     182).
       In the almost 50 years I have been writing, lecturing, 
     testifying and carrying out various administrative duties in 
     the security and intelligence fields, particularly as they 
     relate to Communism, no one has ever before accused me of 
     lying and making false and misleading statements, except 
     Radio Moscow and Izvestia. As a matter of fact, the Senate 
     Internal Security subcommittee said some twenty years ago:
       ``Mr. McNamara commands a national reputation as a careful 
     scholar and researcher in matters relating to communism, 
     extremist activities in general, and internal security.''
       Despite this and similar other statements I could quote, 
     the summary of major developments in the Halperin case 
     presented June 23 on the Senate floor by the chairman of the 
     Armed Services Committee appeared to support Halperin 100% 
     and thus, like Halperin's words, cast doubt on my integrity 
     and veracity. It was true, the Chairman said, that the 
     Halperin nomination was controversial, but controversy, he 
     emphasized, ``should not stand as a judgment on the 
     individual's qualifications or on the merits of the specific 
     allegations that were brought to the attention of the 
     committee. . . . the fact that an allegation has been made 
     should not stand as a judgment that the allegation is 
     valid. . . . If credible allegations are presented to the 
     committee, we will pursue them.''
       These, of course, are not more than basic truths, but in 
     the context in which they were spoken they had a definite 
     pro-Halperin slant that belittled his critics and tended to 
     disparage all charges made against him, including mine.
       Halperin, the chairman continued, ``has an impressive 
     record . . . he has taught and lectured widely on a variety 
     of subjects related to the national security'' and his 
     nomination ``has received the support of a number of 
     distinguished Americans, including a bipartisan array of 
     former government officials.'' The issues raised about his 
     nomination ``were explored in detail'' at his hearing, during 
     which Halperin ``demonstrated dignity, seriousness of 
     purpose, and broad understanding of national security 
     issues--and patience.'' He ``directly addressed a variety of 
     allegations concerning his fitness for office'' and ``I was 
     impressed by the care and attention he gave to each question 
     . . . none of the allegations of improprieties were 
     substantiated in the course of the standard report on the 
     nominee by the FBI, in other investigations by the executive 
     branch, or in any evidence submitted to the Armed Services 
     Committee. I would like to quote directly from his testimony 
     because it deals with a number of charges that were reported 
     in the news media and that I think he dealt with at the 
     hearing.''
       The chairman then quoted eight paragraphs of Halperin's 
     testimony in which Halperin summarized in his own words [very 
     convenient] as many allegations about his record and said of 
     each one, ``That is false.''
       Whether or not Halperin summarized the eight accusations 
     accurately and his ``false'' claim about them is true, the 
     fact is that Halperin more than once testified falsely about 
     my statement in his hearing. There is not a single false 
     statement, misleading assertion, innuendo, outrageous lie or 
     any other kind of lie in my statement. Under the general 
     heading, ``Halperin and Philip Agee,'' it stated:

[[Page S12413]]

       ``Following is at least part of the public record of Morton 
     Halperin's actions relative to CounterSpy, the Covert Action 
     Information Bulletin and Philip Agee:
       It continued with the following description of the first of 
     a series of actions noted, the one Halperin told Senator 
     McCain was ``an outright lie:''
       ``CounterSpy's publisher, the Organizing Committee for a 
     Fifth Estate (OC-5), according to its 1975 annual report, 
     `had been instrumental in organizing several other 
     organizations' that year, one of which was `The Public 
     Education Project on the Intelligence Community (PEPIC) . . . 
     a year-long effort.'
       ``Morton Halperin, the report continued, was a member of 
     PEPIC's speakers bureau, all of whose members `will be 
     donating their time, energy and fees to PEPIC to ensure its 
     survival.' ''
       ``The Senate Internal Security subcommittee, in its 1977 
     annual report, identified PEPIC as one of `several fronts' 
     set up by Agee's OC-5 to accomplish its objective of finding 
     `those individuals with research or organizing abilities to 
     join the Counter-Spy Team'.''
       What is the public record basis for the above three 
     paragraphs?
       The Winter 1976 issue of CounterSpy, which identified 
     itself as ``The Quarterly Journal of the Organizing Committee 
     for a Fifth Estate,'' published an item captioned ``Fifth 
     Estate Annual Report: 1975 . . . .'' (pages 62, 63), the 
     fifth subsection of which was entitled ``Organizing.'' The 
     second paragraph of this subsection read as the follows:
       ``The Organizing Committee has also been instrumental in 
     organizing several other organizations during 1975. Most of 
     these organizations are independent of the Fifth Estate and 
     the Organizing Committee. Others are local research and 
     action groups, which operate autonomously but may eventually 
     join the national umbrella of the Fifth Estate.''
       This was followed by the names of the four groups the Fifth 
     Estate had been ``instrumental in organizing'' in 1975, with 
     a brief description of each one. The second organization 
     listed was--
       ``The Public Education Project on the Intelligence 
     Community (PEPIC) is a year-long effort, sponsored by the 
     Youth Project, Inc. of Washington, D.C., designed to create 
     informed public discussion on intelligence issues. . . . All 
     speakers participating in this project will be donating their 
     time, energy and fees to PEPIC to ensure its survival. 
     Speakers include some of the foremost experts on the 
     intelligence community:''
       It then listed the names of the twenty members of PEPIC's 
     speakers bureau, giving brief identifying date for each. The 
     sixth read:
       ``Morton Halperin: Director, ACLU Project on National 
     Security and Civil Liberties. Co-editor of `The Abuses of the 
     Intelligence Agencies.'' Former Assistant Deputy Director 
     (sic) of Defense.''
       The Senate Internal Security Subcommittee issued a 55-page 
     ``Annual Report For The Fiscal Year Ending February 28, 
     1977'' (Reported No. 95-20, 95th Congress, 1st Session), 
     which contained a two-page section, ``Organizing Committee 
     For A Fifth Estate'' (pages 43, 44) in which it identified 
     Counter Spy as OC-5's ``official publication.'' Under a 
     subhead, ``Objectives of OC-5,'' the Senate report said:
       ``As stated in its first annual report, dated January 1974, 
     of the OC-5, its Counterspy campaign against the intelligence 
     community of the United States was:
       ``Designed to locate, train and organize those citizens who 
     have the courage and strength to dedicate their lives and 
     their resources to changing the current direction of our 
     government and nation. We are looking for those individuals 
     with research or organizing abilities to join the Counter-Spy 
     Team. Our hope is to weld counterspies into groups forming a 
     nationwide alternative intelligence community--a Fifth 
     Estate--serving as a force to focus a public effort towards 
     altering the present course our government is now taking 
     towards a technofascist society.'
       The Senate subcommittee report then commented:
       ``In an effort to accomplish the above-stated objectives, 
     OC-5 operates through several fronts, such as: . . . and (5) 
     Public Education on the Intelligence Community (sic).

                           *   *   *   *   *

       ``In essence, the objectives of OC-5 are to discredit and 
     render ineffective all American intelligence gathering 
     operatiaons--domestic and foreign.''
       Thus, everything my statement said in the three paragraphs 
     about Halperin and PEPIC is, as claimed, based on the public 
     record. Yet, Halperin had the gall to grossly twist the facts 
     in an effort to make it appear that I had lied in stating 
     them.
       When Senator McCain, questioning Halperin, referred to my 
     statement's above-quoted facts about the Halperin-PEPIC-
     CounterSpy ties, Halperin claimed:
       ``The sentence after the one you read about the Organizing 
     Committee says most of these organizations are independent of 
     the Fifth Estate and the Organizing Committee, and then it 
     goes on to list independent organizations who they happen to 
     think are worthy of drawing to people's attention, and one of 
     them is this Public Education Project.
       ``The attempt in that document to suggest that the Public 
     Education Project was an instrument of the Organizing 
     Committee and that I worked for that and donated my money to 
     them and that is why they listed my publication is an 
     outright lie and a scandalous attack.
       ``It happens that that organization, which was totally 
     independent of the Fifth Estate, was project of the Youth 
     Project, as is indicated in the document which the people who 
     wrote this for Senator Thurmond had. It was an independent 
     organization. They asked if they could list my name as 
     somebody who was available to speak. Along with many other 
     people I did. I did not in fact end up speaking for them. I 
     did not donate any money for that purpose, and the assertion 
     that I supplied money that went to the Fifth Estate is an 
     outrageous lie.''
       Fact: Halperin's testimony that Fifth Estate's annual 
     report listed PEPIC as an ``independent'' organization is 
     false, as a mere reading of its words demonstrates. It did 
     say that ``most'' of the groups it had organized in 1975 were 
     independent, but it clearly did not specify which were and 
     which were not.
       The second paragraph of Halperin's just quoted testimony is 
     all falsehood. I did not ``attempt . . . to suggest'' that 
     PEPIC was an instrument of OC-5. I quoted a formal finding of 
     a Senate subcommittee which stated that ``OC-5 operates 
     through several fronts'' and specifically named PEPIC as one 
     of them. I did not ``suggest'' that Halperin ``worked for'' 
     and ``donated'' money to PEPIC. I accurately stated that the 
     Fifth Estate annual report listed him as a member of PEPIC's 
     speakers bureau (which he admits in the next paragraph) and 
     also reported that all its members would be ``donating their 
     . . . fees to PEPIC.'' What reason was there to doubt the 
     word of OC-5, PEPIC's creator, on this point?
       Where were the words in which I told, as he testified, ``an 
     outright lie'' in a ``scandalous'' attack?
       Third paragraph: Halperin's claim that PEPIC was ``totally 
     independent'' of the Fifth Estate and ``an independent 
     organization'' is flatly contradicted by the report of the 
     Senate subcommittee. Like most people, I choose to believe 
     the Senate subcommittee on this point--and would do so 
     whenever there were conflicting claims between it and 
     Halperin. Obviously, the fact that PEPIC was ``sponsored 
     by'' the Youth Project does not mean it was not, or could 
     not be, a ``front'' for OC-5. I made no ``assertion'' that 
     Halperin ``supplied money . . . to the Fifth Estate.''
       Again, who told an ``outrageous lie,'' Morton Halperin or 
     I?
       Halperin next offered what he claimed was ``another 
     example'' of an ``outright lie'' in my ``scandalous'' attack 
     on him:
       ``one of the charges is that Organizing Notes listed Mr. 
     Agee's book under `Memoirs by Former Government Employees.' 
     There is in fact such a list. It lists the following books.''
       Halperin then named nine books and their authors, 
     commenting that various of the authors are supporters and 
     ``strong supporters'' of the agency, and added:
       ``and I am accused of supporting Agee because Agee's book 
     was listed along with all those others in what was clearly a 
     complete list of memoirs.''
       Again, Halperin is, at best, in careless errors and 
     misstating the facts. The relevant part of my statement 
     distributed by Senator Thurmond is as follows:
       ``In late 1978, Halperin's CPR published a Materials List 
     to assist its members in their agit-prop work against 
     American intelligence agencies. Agee's `Inside the Company' 
     was included in it under the category `Memoirs by Former 
     Employees' and his Covert Action Information Bulletin under 
     `Sources of Information.' ''
       Obviously, contrary to his claim, the part of my statement 
     about which Halperin was testifying did not even mention 
     ``Organizing Notes.'' The so-called Campaign for Political 
     Rights which Halperin chaired did, as he admits publish a 16-
     page Materials List dated ``12/78.'' It had numerous sections 
     and subsections--``General Organizing Information'', 
     ``Litigation'', ``U.S. Government and Foreign Intelligence 
     Agencies'', ``FBI'', ``Local and State Police Spying and 
     Harassment'', ``Surveillance of Women'',``Surveillance of 
     Black Americans'', etc, etc.
       The two-page ``Central Intelligence Agency'' section was 
     subdivided as follows: ``General'', ``Specific Countries or 
     Regions'', ``CIA and Human Rights Violations Abroad,'' ``The 
     CIA and Labor,'' ``CIA--Mind Control Testing,'' and, 
     finally, ``Memoirs by Former Employees,'' which listed the 
     works cited by Halperin, including Agee's ``Inside The 
     Company: CIA Diary.''
       Completely false, however, is Halperin's testimony that the 
     books in the ``Memoirs'' subsection ``was clearly a complete 
     list of memoirs.'' His Materials List itself contradicts him 
     on this point because in other subsections it mentions at 
     least three other works that qualify for the Memoirs 
     category, all published by December 1978 and all omitted from 
     it: ``The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence'' by Victor 
     Marchetti and John Marks; ``Decent Interval'' by Frank Snepp, 
     and John Stockwell's ``In Search of Enemies.''
       In addition, there are other works that could be included: 
     ``The Real CIA'' by Lyman Kirkpatrick; ``Street Man'' by E. 
     C. ``Mike'' Ackerman; ``The Counter-insurgency Era'' by 
     Douglas Blaufarb, and ``The Game of Nations'' by Miles 
     Copeland.
       Completely phony, therefore, is Halperin's implication that 
     he is absolved of any blame for including promoting Agee's 
     book because it is a memoir and thus has to be included in a 
     ``complete'' list of such works. The truth is

[[Page S12414]]

     that the list was not comprehensive and any of the above-
     listed books could have substituted for Agee's, but 
     Halperin's CPR chose to name Agee's book rather than any one 
     of the others. Why?
       Interestingly, Halperin changed his story in submitting his 
     written ``detailed response'' to my statement to the 
     committee: He wrote:
       ``It is true, as the piece [McNamara's statement] claims, 
     that CPR published a Materials List which included Agee's 
     ``Inside the Company'' and the ``Covert Action Information 
     Bulletin.'' The list also included books by . . . , all of 
     whom present far different views of the CIA. CPR was simply 
     providing a reference list of materials on intelligence 
     organizations.''
       Now it is a mere ``reference list.'' What happened to his 
     testimony's ``complete list of memoirs''? Could it be that he 
     lied when he made that claim?
       Was Halperin and his CPR ``simply providing a reference 
     list of materials on intelligence organizations'', or 
     promoting something, when it noted that its Materials List 
     ``differs from a bibliography in that all materials can be 
     currently obtained from the organizations and individuals 
     listed. Please request materials from the noted source'' and 
     then, immediately after the title of Agee's book, listed the 
     following source:
       ``(Penguin Books or Center for National Security 
     Studies.)''
       So it turns out that Halperin's CNSS not only stocked and 
     peddled Agee's book, but his CPR also publicized this fact 
     through its Materials List!
       To the above-quoted claim about a simple ``reference list'' 
     in his written response submitted for the record to the Armed 
     Services Committee, Halperin added:
       ``The piece goes on to say that `Organizing Notes' 
     `promoted' `Counterspy' and the `Covert Action Information 
     Bulletin.' As with the Materials List discussed above, the 
     piece is misconstruing the presentation of reference 
     information as endorsement.''
       But did I misconstrue the above presentation of mere 
     ``reference information'' about Agee's book as endorsement by 
     Halperin? Why else would Halperin stock and sell it, but not 
     any other of the nine books on the list? And what about the 
     following items in his CPR Materials List, not included in my 
     original statement?
       1. At the end of the Memoirs by Former Employees section we 
     read:
       ``See . . . Newsletters--Counterspy, Covert Action 
     Information Bulletin. . . .
       2. In the Research section (p. 3) we also read:
       ``See . . . CIA--`Dirty Work' (article on `How to Spot a 
     Spook')'' [`Dirty Work' was the short title for Agee's book, 
     `Dirty Work: The CIA in Western Europe'].
       ``Newsletters: `Covert Action Information Bulletin' (How to 
     Research and Expose CIA personnel).''
       3. In the CIA ``Specific Countries or Regions'' section, we 
     are again treated to:
       `` `Dirty Work: The CIA in Western Europe.' Philip Agee and 
     Louis Wolf. Compilation of articles, a guide on `spotting a 
     spook,' and a listing of 700 alleged CIA agents in Western 
     Europe. 1978. $24.95. $10.00 discount if purchased from 
     `Covert Action Information Bulletin' with a subscription 
     order. (Lyle Stuart, Secaucus, NJ or CAIB.)''
       4. In the Newsletters section, the CAIB is the second one 
     recommended (p. 12). Its promotion takes this form:
       ``Covert Action Information Bulletin. Following in the 
     footsteps of Counterspy, this periodical has included 
     articles about CIT activities in Jamaica, research ideas, and 
     CIA recruitment of foreign officers. Published bimonthly; 
     $10.00 a year in U.S., $16.00 overseas. (CAIB)''
       5. In this same section, the first-listed item is CAIB's 
     predecessor and sister publication which, like it, relished 
     exposing the identities and locations of CIA overseas 
     personnel:
       ``Counterspy. Covered variety of issues including CIA in 
     Jamaica, Chile, South America; CIA use of unions overseas and 
     the League of Women Voter's Overseas Fund; Garden Plot 
     (national emergency plan). Selected issues, $1.50 and xerox 
     copies (cost) available. (Public Eye.)''
       6. CounterSpy also turns up in two other sections of 
     Halperin's CPR ``Materials List'', as the source for:
       `` `Jordan: A Case of CIA/Class Collaboration.' This 
     booklet describes CIA involvement in Jordan. 1977; $1.00 
     (Counterspy, Box 647, Washington, DC 20044.)''
       Under the SURVEILLANCE OF WOMEN subsection, we again find: 
     ``See . . . Newsletters . . . Counterspy''
       Whatever you do, do not misconstrue any of the following 
     above-quoted words and phrases as endorsement of CAIB or 
     Counterspy, or as an indication that Halperin, boss of the 
     CPR, was supporting Agee or his effort to expose CIA 
     personnel:
       ``How to spot a spook--how to research and expose CIA 
     personnel--a guide on `spotting a spook'--a listing of 700 
     alleged CIA agents in Western Europe--CIA in Jamaica, Chile, 
     South America--CIA involvement in Jordan.''
       Why shouldn't you believe any of the above could possibly 
     be mistaken for support for Agee? Because, in his ``detailed 
     response'' to ``the piece'', Morton Halperin told the SASC 
     ``I never supported nor condoned his [Agee's] activities'' 
     and Halperin is the very embodiment of candor, openness and 
     truth!


  halperin and bills to protect identities of u.s. intelligence agents

       Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1981 as 
     director of the Center for National Security Studies (CNSS), 
     Halperin stated:
       ``We do not condone the practice of naming names and we 
     fully understand Congress' desire to do what it can to 
     provide meaningful protection to those intelligence agents 
     serving abroad, often in situations of danger.''
       It sounded great--as though he and his CNSS cronies were 
     all for the national effort to end the damaging and dangerous 
     exposures of covert U.S. intelligence personnel and would 
     support legislation to accomplish that purpose.
       Doubts about that existed, however, because of another 
     statement Halperin, this time speaking for the ACLU, had made 
     to the Senate Intelligence Committee a year earlier:
       ``I think a citizen has a right to impair and impede the 
     functions of a Government agency, whether it is the Federal 
     Trade Commission or the CIA. The fact that your intent is 
     impair or impede does not make your activity a crime if it is 
     otherwise legal.''
       Halperin placed no restrictions or limits on the devices 
     used ``to impair and impede,'' leaving open the possibility 
     that even the technique of impairing by deliberate exposure 
     of covert intelligence personnel was any citizens ``right'' 
     in his view [a year later, the Supreme Court held that such 
     exposures ``are clearly not protected by the Constitution'', 
     i.e., they are not any citizens ``right''].
       Additionally, in testimony before the House Intelligence 
     Committee in 1981, again representing the ACLU, Halperin had 
     stated:
       ``I am not sure we would ever reach the point where we 
     would support any legislation [to criminalize the deliberate 
     exposure of agents].''
       Just where did the slippery-worded Halperin really stand on 
     the issue?
       The only way to find out is to check his actual record, as 
     revealed by his testimony pro or con various identities 
     protection bills. Here it is:
       1/30/80: House Intelligence Committee, ``Proposals to 
     Criminalize the Unauthorized Disclosure of the Identities of 
     Undercover United States Intelligence Officers and Agents.'' 
     Testified for the Center for National Security Studies, which 
     he directed, in opposition to the proposals (p. 66, et 
     sequitur).
       3/27/80: House Intelligence Committee, ``H.R. 6588, The 
     National Intelligence Act of 1980.'' Testifying for the CNSS, 
     Halperin opposed the intelligence identities protection 
     provisions of the proposed act (pp. 138-142).
       6/25/80: Senate Intelligence Committee, ``Intelligence 
     Identities Protection Legislation.'' Representing the ACLU, 
     Halperin opposed the legislation (p. 88, et sequitur).
       9/5/80: Senate Judiciary Committee, ``Intelligence 
     Identities Protection Act, S. 2216.'' This time, again 
     representing the Center for National Security Studies (CNSS), 
     he opposed the bill (p. 98, et sequitur).
       4/8/81: House Intelligence Committee, ``H.R. 4, The 
     Intelligence Identities Protection Act.'' Back this time 
     wearing his ACLU hat, he once more took a position against 
     the proposed law (p. 73, et sequitur).
       5/8/81: Senate Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism, 
     ``Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1981--S. 391.'' 
     Back in his CNSS of the ACLU cloak, he again took the 
     ``anti'' position (p. 70, et sequitur).
       My statement submitted to the Senate Armed Services 
     Committee said; ``Halperin campaigned hard against all bills 
     introduced to criminalize exposures of the identities of U.S. 
     intelligence personnel, though the Supreme Court had held (in 
     its Agee passport decision) that such activities `are clearly 
     not protected by the Constitution'.''
       Halperin branded my charge ``an outright lie'' in his 
     written ``detailed response'' to my statement submitted to 
     the committee (hearing, p. 182).
       But where was my lie? Can he produce evidence in any House 
     or Senate hearing record that he ever supported any bill 
     under consideration?
       Of course not. And why did he make no attempt to refute my 
     charge that the CPR, which he chaired, coordinated the mass 
     signing of letters to the House and Senate which urged the 
     weakening of bills under consideration?
       As a member of AFIO, the Association of Former Intelligence 
     Officers--whose members represent every intelligence agency 
     of the U.S.--I was aware that in 1980 it had passed a 
     resolution urging enactment of an identities protection bill 
     and followed developments in this area closely. John Warner, 
     former General Counsel of the CIA, was serving as legal 
     adviser to AFIO in 1982 when Congress passed, and the 
     President signed, the desired protection bill. Commenting on 
     the March 18 Senate 90-6 vote for the bill, Warner wrote in 
     Periscope, official AFIO newsletter:
       ``This vote is a significant achievement for those who 
     support a strong and effective intelligence service. The 
     American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Center for 
     National Security Studies (CNSS) (read: Jerry Berman and 
     Morton Halperin respectively) had great influence in 
     proposing some weakening amendments which had been given 
     approval by the House Intelligence Committee on HR-4 and the 
     Senate Judiciary Committee on S-391. The bills as reported by 
     these two committees were amended, however, after floor 
     debate in the House and Senate, to the language supported by 
     President

[[Page S12415]]

     Reagan, CIA, the Department of Justice--and AFIO. (Jerry 
     Berman of ACLU was quoted in the Washington Post after the 
     Senate vote, as admitting `we [ACLU] took a bath.')
       ``While ACLU and CNSS apparently can influence some 
     congressmen and certainly initially had their way in the 
     House and Senate committees, the majority sentiment in both 
     houses, when it came to a floor vote, demonstrated strong 
     congressional support for CIA and the US intelligence 
     effort.''
       Warner was thoroughly justified in pairing Berman and 
     Halperin in his account. Berman, an ACLU attorney, served as 
     counsel for its Project on National Security which Halperin 
     directed. He also served as chief legislative counsel for the 
     Center for National Security Studies which Halperin also 
     directed and, over the years had worked hand-in-glove with 
     Halperin on many issues involving intelligence and national 
     security, opposition to enactment of an agents' identities 
     protection bill being just one of them.
       On June 24, 1982, I attended a hearing of the Senate 
     Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism. Berman was there, 
     too. When the session ended, we spoke briefly in the hall 
     outside the hearing room. Referring to President Reagan's 
     signing the identities protection bill into law at CIA 
     headquarters the day before, Berman said to me:
       ``It's incredible how Mort [Halperin] and I kept Congress 
     from doing anything about it for six years.''
       The ``it'', of course, was the deliberate exposure of 
     covert U.S. intelligence personnel by Agee, ``CounterSpy'' 
     and the ``Covert Action Information Bulletin''.
       That statement, coming from his close working associate for 
     a period of years on such matters--combined with the bill 
     hearings record cited above--reveals Halperin's true position 
     on the question of ``naming names.'' According to Berman, 
     they--he and Halperin--did not want Congress to do anything 
     to stop the continuing exposure of American intelligence 
     agents; they did not think they had a chance of succeeding in 
     their efforts on the issue; yet, in an ``incredible'' 
     development, they had prevented any effective Congressional 
     action for six full years! [Their intense lobbying, 
     buttonholing, testifying and related actions were known to 
     all interested in the matter].
       One thing is clear. Halperin lied when he accused me of 
     lying about his opposition to intelligence agents identities 
     protection bills.
       He also lied to Senator Levin on the issue in his Armed 
     Services Committee testimony, according to Herbert 
     Romerstein, now retired, who headed the USIA's Office to 
     Counter Soviet Disinformation and Active Measures and, before 
     that, was a professional staff member of the House 
     Intelligence Committee when Halperin testified before it on 
     agent identity bills in 1980.
       Responding to a question by the Senator about his role in 
     the House Intelligence Committee's action on an identities 
     protection bill ``making it a crime to disclose the identity 
     of covert intelligence agents,'' Halperin testified--
       ``That is right Senator. It was in two parts. There was a 
     part relating to people like Philip Agee, who were former 
     government officials, which we actively supported from the 
     beginning, and there was a second provision which put the 
     people who were naming names out of the business of naming 
     names while protecting the right of legitimate journalists to 
     report on intelligence matters.''
       Halperin ``was not telling the truth,'' Romerstein wrote in 
     ``Human events'' shortly after Halperin's appearance, ``I was 
     present during his testimony'' and in it he said ``any effort 
     to cover individuals who have not had authorized access to 
     classified information is inherently flawed . . . the 
     Constitution does not permit the prosecution of those 
     individuals.''
       The record bears out Romerstein's claim. Later in his 
     testimony that same day, Halperin stated emphatically that 
     once someone had gotten the name of an agent by some means 
     other than official access ``the cat is out of the bag . . . 
     there is no way constitutionally to deal with the problem.''
       It has been Halperin's consistent position that, while an 
     Agee could be punished for revealing agents' identities he 
     had learned by authorized access to classified information, 
     such conduct by others who have learned identities by other 
     means is completely protected by the Constitution and cannot 
     be criminalized.
       How, then, could he have supported bills that took a 
     contrary position, as the one eventually enacted did?
       And how could he, without lying, tell the Senate Armed 
     Services Committee in his written reply to my charges that he 
     ``worked hard . . . to formulate constitutional laws that 
     imposed strict criminal penalties on those who would reveal 
     undercover agents''?


       morton halperin: the non-chair, non-director, non-entity?

       Halperin has held important-sounding titles in the anti-
     security, anti-intelligence drive of the '70s and '80s. The 
     ACLU, having given ``top priority'' in 1970 to a nationwide 
     driven aimed at ``the dissolution of the Nation's vast 
     surveillance network'' (its collective description of the 
     CIA, NSA, DIA, FBI, etc. and the security-intelligence 
     elements of state and local police) that same year set up the 
     Committee for Public Justice (CPJ) headed by the unrepentant 
     ``ex''-Communist, Lillian Hellman who, when she died in 1984, 
     left part of her $4 million estate for the establishment of a 
     fund for Communist writers. Halperin served on the executive 
     council, newsletter committee and wrote for the newsletter of 
     the CPJ which had the FBI and Department of Justice as its 
     targets.
       In early 1974, the ACLU Foundation, jointly with the Fund 
     for Peace, organized the so-called Center for National 
     Security Studies (CNSS) to serve as the research and 
     documentation element of the drive. Halperin soon became CNSS 
     director and held that post until he resigned in late 1992, 
     remaining as Chair of its Advisory Committee. The next 
     creation was the Project on National Security and Civil 
     Liberties, sponsored by the ACLU Foundation and the CNSS 
     (headed by Halperin). Halperin also became director of this 
     litigating arm of the nationwide operation. In September 
     1975, ``First Principles'' was launched, published by the 
     Project on National Security and Civil Liberties, which 
     Halperin directed. Halperin became the chief editorial writer 
     for this information-propaganda newsletter of the drive. 
     Finally, when the Campaign to Stop Government Spying (CSGS) 
     was organized as a united front agitprop force for the 
     operation in 1977, Halperin emerged as its chairman. He 
     retained his chairmanship of this anti-intelligence 
     conglomerate when it changed its name the following year to 
     the Campaign for Political Rights (CPR) and held the post 
     until the CPR folded in 1984 or so.
       The CPR initially billed itself as ``a project of the Youth 
     Project'' of Washington, D.C. It later described itself as 
     ``a national coalition of over 80 religious, educational, 
     environmental, civic, women's Native American, black, 
     latino and labor organizations which have joined together 
     to work for an end to covert operations abroad and an end 
     to political surveillance and harassment in the United 
     States.'' \3\
       The CPR began publishing ``Organizing Notes'' (``ON''), its 
     official monthly which, in time, began featuring an 
     ``Update'' section, saying that the section was ``a combined 
     effort of First Principles [published by Halperin's CNSS] and 
     Organizing Notes [published by Halperin's CPR].''
       My statement noted that ``CounterSpy'' was on the Steering 
     Committee of both the CSGS and the CPR, and that the ``Covert 
     Action Information Bulletin (CAIB)'' was also on that of the 
     CPR (not formed until 1978, the CAIB did not exist when the 
     front was launched in 1977 under its CSGS title), and 
     commented that ``as chairperson of both . . . Halperin must 
     have had some say about just which groups would be invited to 
     join, and which would be selected for leadership positions 
     in, his organization.''
       Halperin's reply to the Armed Services Committee: ``The 
     piece tries to link me to ``CounterSpy'' and OC5 through my 
     chairmanship'' [of CSGS-CPR]. ``It lists a number of the 
     member organizations of CPR and its steering committee . . . 
     and asserts that I had control over that membership. On the 
     contrary, the policy of CPR at that time was that any 
     organization could join.''
       Another Halperin lie. I did not write that he ``had 
     control'' over the CSGS-CPR membership, but only that he 
     ``must have had some say'' about it. Did he attend any 
     meeting at which the CPR's ``open to all'' policy was 
     discussed or agreed upon. Did he say so much as a word about 
     it--pro or con? The chairperson of a group having absolutely 
     no say at all about so basic an issue? Come on!
       My statement also noted that ``Organizing Notes,'' the 
     publication of the CPR which was chaired by Halperin 
     ``routinely promoted both Agee's ``CAIB'' and ``CounterSpy'' 
     as containing worthwhile material of value to its readers,'' 
     and commented that ``as chairperson of the CPR he had to be 
     responsible for its contents, just as he was for the contents 
     of the CPR's `Materials List'.''
       Halperin's response to the committee: ``This is false; an 
     editorial staff made decisions about its contents.''
       What kind of dim-witted ``refutation'' is this? Does the 
     fact that the chairperson of an organization has an editorial 
     or any other kind of staff free him of all responsibility for 
     the work it does, no matter how atrocious its product? 
     Please!
       My statement also said: ``Halperin's `First Principles', 
     like `ON','' also routinely gave favorable notice to the 
     contents of current issues of both  ``CounterSpy'' and 
     ``Covert Action Information Bulletin.''
       Halperin's response: Not a word.
       Strange. As director of both the ACLU`s Project on National 
     Security and its Center for National Security Studies, each 
     at different times the publisher of ``First Principles'' 
     (which, like his CPR, had an editorial staff), Halperin says 
     elsewhere that he is ``proud'' of his work with the two 
     organizations and expects to be ``held accountable'' for it. 
     He does not offer in this case, however, the ridiculous ``no 
     responsibility'' defense he offered in the case of the CPR's 
     ``Organizing Notes.'' At the same time, while refusing to 
     accept responsibility for the CPR's organizational membership 
     and leadership and its repeated plugs for Agee's 
     publications, he apparently accepts responsibility for its 
     Materials List compilation of CIA memoirs by presenting a 
     false argument in its defense. Just where does he stand on 
     this issue of his authority, responsibility and 
     accountability?
       He has a language problem here. Webster's Dictionary of the 
     American Language defines ``chairperson'' as one who ``heads 
     a committee, board, etc.'' and variously defines ``head'' as 
     ``a dominant position, position of leadership or first 
     importance . . . a foremost person; leader, ruler, chief, 
     etc'';

[[Page S12416]]

     says that as an adjective says means ``most important; 
     principal; commanding, first'' and, as a transitive verb, 
     ``to be chief of; command.''
       A director, it says, is a ``supervisor, manager; a person 
     who directs or controls''; that ``direct'' means ``to manage 
     the affairs of; guide; conduct; regulate control'';
       So, for example, I was deeply involved in the ACLU decision 
     to file amicus briefs on behalf of. . . .
       ``So I did have a line responsibility for decisions about 
     what cases to undertake or what amicus briefs to file.'' 
     (pages 33, 34. Emphasis added).
       If Helperin exercised this much authority in the ACLU 
     itself where he was technically merely in charge of its 
     Washington office, how much more power must he have wielded 
     in its various projects, fronts, etc. in which he was 
     technically the overall boss as director, chairman, etc.?


                   halperin's hokum on agee's sources

       Responding to my charge that Halperin had testified that 
     ``it is difficult to condemn'' people who expose CIA 
     personnel on the basis of information gleaned from State 
     Department documents, he claims that my statement 
     `'completely misrepresents'' his views and that ``when the 
     context for that fragment is provided'' it is ``clear that 
     the quoted clause did not refer to someone like Philip Agee 
     who learned identities as a result of access to classified 
     information.''
       More Halperin hokum--as he makes clear in placing the 
     ``fragment'' in context. His exact testimony read:
       ``I think where the CIA has not seen fit to provide 
     appropriate cover for individuals, and it is easy . . . it 
     determine the name simply by looking at State Department 
     publications, that it is difficult to condemn people who do 
     that.'' (emphasis added)
       That is precisely one of the things Agee and his 
     CounterSpy--CAIB crews were doing--``looking at State 
     Department publications,'' specifically its unclassified 
     Foreign Service List and Biographic Register, among others. 
     The first contained the names of all U.S. Foreign Service 
     officers and the second brief biographic sketches of all U.S. 
     employees working in the field of foreign affairs, which 
     obviously embraces many more than State Department personnel.
       This practice was clearly what I was referring to in my 
     words ``information gleaned from State Department 
     documents,'' and I placed his quote completely in its correct 
     context, his claim to the opposite notwithstanding.
       Because it was known that analyses of these publications 
     were being used by the Agee crowd and others to help them 
     uncover CIA personnel using diplomatic cover, the Department 
     announced in early 1976 that it was halting publication of 
     both. The Foreign Service List would not appear again, and 
     the Biographic Register, last published in 1974, would be 
     classified ``for official use only'' when again released, and 
     contain more discreet background information.
       It is amazing that Halperin would assert in 1993 that his 
     words, as quoted completely in context by me ``did not refer 
     to someone like Philip Agee who learned identities as a 
     result of access of classified information.'' (emphasis 
     added)
       Why? Because only an idiot would believe that, 10 years 
     after he left the CIA after service in only three countries, 
     Agee could be making continuing exposures of Agency 
     personnel, fronts and covert operations in all parts of the 
     world on the basis of the official access he had had while in 
     the CIA. The CIA simply is not ``built'' to give any of its 
     employees such knowledge. Consider, in addition, the 
     following among other similar facts that could be cited to 
     demonstrate how ridiculous Halperin's claim about Agee's 
     sources is:
       The Supreme Court, in its 1981 decision upholding the 
     authority of the Secretary of State to deprive Agee of his 
     passport, pointed out that when Agee released a list of 
     alleged CIA agents at a 1974 London press conference, he said 
     the list--
       ``was compiled by a small group of Mexican comrades whom I 
     trained to follow the comings and goings of CIA people before 
     I left Mexico City'' [where he had been working on his first 
     book].
       The Court also noted, based on unchallenged judicial 
     evidence, that Agee travels to target countries and--
       ``recruits collaborators and trains them in clandestine 
     techniques designed to expose the `cover' of CIA employees 
     and sources.''
       In the introduction to his first book, ``Inside The 
     Company: CIA Diary,'' Agee thanked the Cuban Communist Party, 
     other Cuban agencies and a number of individuals and groups 
     in New York City, London, Paris and Mexico City for the help 
     they had given him in collecting data and research materials 
     for it.
       As Jeff Stein wrote of ``Inside The Company,'' in ``The 
     Village Voice'':
       ``the book drained his [Agee's] mind of every agent, code 
     name, and cover operation he could remember.''
       His ``Covert Action Information Bulletin'' stated 
     truthfully in its issue of January, 1979:
       ``The naming of names in books and in publications like 
     this Bulletin have nothing to do with people Philip Agee may 
     have met while in the employ of the CIA. And, of course, 
     Louis Wolf [a member of the Bulletin's editorial board] and 
     most of the other journalists who are engaged in this 
     struggle to expose the CIA were never in such government 
     employ.''
       William Schaap, Ellen Ray, and Louis Wolf, all CAIB 
     editors, testified before the House Intelligence Committee in 
     January 1980. Speaking for the group, Schaap said:
       ``You might all be interested to know that Mr. Agee has 
     not, to our knowledge, named any names in more than 3 years, 
     and that applies as well to both ``Dirty Work'' and ``Dirty 
     Work 2,'' the two books which we sitting before you have 
     coedited [with Agee].''
       The late Rep. Larry McDonald stated in Congressional Record 
     remarks on July 20, 1976:
       ``It is known that the names of alleged CIA personnel in 
     London featured in the Spring '76 issue of ``CounterSpy'' 
     were provided by the International Marxist Group, a British 
     Trotskyist group associated with the FI [Fourth 
     International, the Trotskyist equivalent of the Comintern], 
     headed by IPS's [Institute for Policy Studies'] Tariq Ali.''
       McDonald also revealed in the June 16 Record that year that 
     the names of the alleged CIA personnel in Africa named in the 
     same ``CounterSpy'' issue had been provided by the Black 
     Panthers and the left-wing Paris publication, ``Liberacion.''
       Agee cites Julius Mader's ``Who's Who in the CIA'' as a 
     source. Published in 1968, this was a joint production of the 
     Communist East German and Czech intelligence services (Mader 
     was an East German intelligence officer). Deliberately, only 
     about half those listed in it were actually CIA personnel.
       When Agee and William Schaap announced the publication of 
     the ``CAIB'' at the Moscow-sponsored 11th World Festival of 
     Youth and Friendship in Havana in July 1978, they also 
     announced the formation of Counter-Watch, which was to be a 
     worldwide network of agents dedicated to exposing CIA 
     personnel everywhere. Agee said Counter-Watch would give 
     him--
       ``a great opportunity to continue my work of recent years . 
     . . so that the people are able to learn about the methods, 
     or exactly how to identify the CIA personnel in different 
     countries'' (emphasis added).
       [Schaap said Halperin's CNSS was represented in Havana for 
     the occasion and that a Damu Smith was also there on behalf 
     of Halperin's Campaign to Stop Government Spying (CSGS).]
       Louis Wolf, the ``CAIB'' editor who co-edited ``Dirty 
     Work'' with Agee, addressed over 500 delegates to the Havana 
     Youth Festival, describing in detail how they should go about 
     uncovering the identities of CIA personnel who were using 
     military and diplomatic cover. The ``CAIB'' reprinted the 
     text of his remarks for their educational value in its second 
     (10/78) issue.
       Agee himself, in addition to attending the Soviet-
     engineered festival contributed an article to the first issue 
     of ``CAIB'' distributed gratis to the delegates. His article 
     was no more than a somewhat altered version of the 
     introduction to ``Dirty Work.'' In it he said that ``a 
     continuing effort--and a novel form of international 
     cooperation'' could ultimately lead to the exposure ``of 
     almost all of those [CIA personnel] who have worked under 
     diplomatic cover at any time in their careers.'' He spelled 
     out the five-step method he had in mind for accomplishing 
     this, which included the acquisition of lists of all 
     Americans employed in official U.S. offices in each country, 
     obtaining old Foreign Service Lists and Biographic Registers 
     from libraries, getting copies of the Diplomatic and Consular 
     Lists regularly published by all Foreign Ministries, etc.
       Check the information obtained carefully, he said, then 
     publish it and organize demonstrations: ``Peaceful protest 
     will do the job. And when it doesn't, those whom the CIA has 
     most oppressed will find other ways of fighting back'' a 
     backhand watch to violence against CIA personnel.
       From the viewpoint of Halperin's operations, however, the 
     most interesting item was the opening sentence in the third 
     of his five-step methods:
       ``Check the names as suggested in the various articles in 
     `Dirty Work,' especially John Marks `How to Spot a Spook.' ''
       Who was John Marks?
       The November 1974 Washington Monthly which originally 
     published his ``spook'' article, noted that he was ``an 
     associate'' of Halperin's CNSS, as did the Washington Post 
     when it published his article, ``The CIA's Corporate Shell 
     Game'' in 1976 (both of which were reprinted in Agee's 
     ``Dirty Work''). At the time Agee was preparing his above-
     mentioned ``CAIB'' article with its promotion of Marks' opus, 
     Halperin's ``First Principles'' listed Marks  as the ``CIA 
     Project Director'' for the CNSS, which Halperin directed. 
     Halperin's CNSS reprinted and sold Marks CIA corporate 
     shell game article in pamphlet form. Marks was also a 
     member of the Speakers Bureau of Halperin's CSGS, and his 
     spook article was promoted by Halperin's CNSS and CPR 
     (e.g., see previous Materials List section).
       A former employee of the State Department's Bureau of 
     Intelligence and Research, Marks first won notoriety when, 
     under the name Terry Pollack, he wrote an article, ``Slow 
     Leak In The Pentagon,'' for Ramparts magazine in 1973. 
     Subtitled ``the informal art of leaking,'' it recounted how a 
     federal employee with access to top-secret Pentagon documents 
     had come across a highly sensitive paper of the Joint Chiefs 
     of Staff and, through a Congressional aide, leaked it to the 
     New York Times. A leakers A-B-C, it was believed to be 
     autobiographical.
       The evidence is thus overwhelming that Agee's 
     ``CounterSpy--CAIB'' exposures of

[[Page S12417]]

     CIA personnel, contrary to Halperin's testimony, are not 
     based on his access to classified information while in the 
     employ of the CIA. To put it another way, there is a 
     superabundance of information indicating that Morton 
     Halperin, the claimed and alleged authority on intelligence 
     and national security, is in reality a pathetic ignoramus 
     about such matters.
       And isn't it strange that Halperin, who has repeatedly 
     testified that he is opposed to ``naming names,'' that he has 
     counseled others not to do so when asked for advice on the 
     matter [who and when?] and, that he ``detests'' what Agee 
     does, should have as director of his CIA studies-action 
     program, a man known throughout the world for his pioneering 
     article on the techniques for uncovering and exposing covert 
     U.S. intelligence officers? And isn't it also strange, in 
     view of his same testimony, that his CNSS and CSGS-CPR have 
     given so much favorable mention to Marks' ``spook'' article?
       [FBI agents searching the apartment of Halperin's friend 
     and convicted spy [------ ------], found three photocopies of 
     State Department biographies on foreign service personnel 
     with this typed notation on them: ``Almost definite spook.'' 
     Truong was a student of Halperin's CIA Project Director, John 
     Marks, even adopting his language to designate suspected CIA 
     officers.]
       But is Halperin really that ill-informed and unintelligent?
       There is evidence to the contrary. In the same testimony in 
     which he said it is ``difficult to condemn'' exposers who had 
     never had access to classified information but learned 
     identities by various analytical techniques, he revealed 
     thorough knowledge of the instruments used in their analyses: 
     he referred to the State Department's halting publication of 
     the Biographic Register, of Embassy telephone directories; 
     pointed out that articles on identification methods had been 
     widely distributed (a reference to his friend John Marks 
     ``How to Spot a Spook'', which he had publicized), etc., and 
     testified knowingly that ``the people who want to publish the 
     names of agents, the Covert Action Publishers, don't need the 
     advice of Mr. Agee or any other former official; they could 
     do it without that, and don't need access to classified 
     information.''
       Clearly, Halperin knew that the exposures in Agee's 
     ``CounterSpy--CAIB'' were not based on access to classified 
     information.
       Why, then, was he spreading the hokum that Agee's 
     identities were ``a result of access to classified 
     information''? Only Halperin can answer that.
       But it is clear what would have happened if the House and 
     Senate believed the line he was peddling: Congress would have 
     enacted identities ``protection'' legislation that was 
     completely useless. Criminalizing only exposures based on 
     authorized access to classified information, it would not 
     touch Agee because it could not be retroactive and he is 
     incapable of additional such exposures, having long ago 
     exhausted his knowledge of that type.
       Basically, the only real result would be to protect the 
     Agee's ``CounterSpy--CAIB'' cabal from prosecution while it 
     continued its dirty work of exposing covert U.S. intelligence 
     officers, by analytic technique, thus endangering their lives 
     as well as the national security.


                        ny ``vague accusation''

       My statement opposing Halperin pointed out that ``part of 
     the public record of Morton Halperin's actions relative to 
     `Counterspy' . . . and Philip Agree'' was the fact that he 
     had been singled out for praise in ``Counterspy's'' winter 
     '76 issue which extended ``special thanks'' to 21 people, his 
     name and nine other among them being printed in bold type for 
     emphasis.
       It also noted that the magazine did not say what the 
     special thanks to Halperin were for, but offered several 
     possibilities based on the public record. Perhaps, I 
     suggested, it was for many speeches he had made, turning over 
     his fees, as pledged, to PEPIC; perhaps for his favorite 
     review of Agee's book in ``First Principles'', but concluded 
     logically ``it could have been for any number of things he 
     might have done for ``Counterspy''. All we can do is 
     speculate--until Halperin reveals it with substantial 
     evidence to support whatever claim he makes.''
       Halperin's response: ``It is difficult to respond to an 
     accusation as vague as this one. . . . I do not in fact know 
     what motivated the editors of ``Counterspy'' to mention me.''
       Fact: I did not accuse Halperin of anything, vague or 
     otherwise. I simply stated a fact he cannot dispute: 
     ``Counterspy's'' publicly printed special thanks to him and 
     called on him to say what they were for.
       Do you believe that he does not know what they were for?
       Following the murder of CIA station chief Richard Welch in 
     Athens in December 1975, ``Counterspy'' was probably the most 
     notorious and despised publication in the non-Communist 
     world. As it continued its exposures, the initial 
     denunciations of it--strong as they were originally--grew 
     more intense in the press, on radio and TV, on the floor of 
     Congress and in other public forums. And what did readers see 
     immediately upon opening the issue that, in effect, marked 
     the first anniversary of Welch's death?
       On the contents page, under the names of ``Counterspy's'' 
     editorial board members and the two ``coordinators'' of the 
     issue, an item calling special attention to Halperin's 
     name as one meriting the magazine's gratitude. Not only 
     that, but just about opposite it was the title of an 
     article beginning on page 26: ``CIA Around the World/Who 
     was Richard Welch/CIA Agents Named in Europe and Zaire.'' 
     That was really rubbing it in.
       If, as Halperin testified, he ``detests'' Agee and what he 
     does, he must have cringed in shame. He surely was so 
     mortified that he would never be able to forget the incident 
     and what caused it, no matter how many years passed. His good 
     name tarnished forever!
       But he apparently has no recollection of the incident or 
     what led to it!
       Presuming he was really desirous of answering my ``vague 
     accusation,'' couldn't he have gotten in touch in some way 
     with Julie Brooks and/or Harvey Kahn, coordinators of that 
     ``CounterSpy'' issue--or Tim Butz, Eda Gordon, Winslow Peck, 
     Dough Porter, or Margaret Van Houten--all editorial board 
     members at the time and presumably knowledgeable about the 
     reason for ``CounterSpy's'' gratitude.
       Did he try? If so, and he reached one or several of them, 
     what was he told? If he didn't try, why didn't he?
       Finally, there is this: Halperin compiled for the committee 
     a detailed list of honors and awards he has received, his 
     employment record, organization memberships, published 
     writings, the texts of speeches he had delivered, etc. going 
     back years prior to 1976.
       Strange, isn't it, that this is one thing apparently not 
     recorded or recalled:
       But, let's be fair to Morton. As he told the committee, my 
     accusation was ``vague,'' really vague, so vague as to be 
     ephemeral, amorphous. Since it was based completely on 
     ``innuendo,'' expecting him to respond to it would be like 
     asking him to bottle smoke or nail jello to a wall.


             just how ``absurd'' were counterspy and caib?

       Admitting my charge that ``CounterSpy'' included on its 
     ``Resource List'' two groups he directed, Halperin comments 
     that he is ``proud'' of his work with the groups and claims 
     it is ``absurd'' to imply that he was ``in any way 
     supporting'' the magazine because of this.
       No doubt he would make the same comment had I included 
     another similar fact in my statement: that the initial issue 
     of Agee's ``CAIB'' featured on its inside back cover an item 
     entitled ``Publications of Interest'' and a subhead ``Some 
     Worthwhile Periodicals.'' Only four periodicals were listed 
     under the subhead presumably because they were the only ones 
     Agee and his crew knew of and believed would be useful to the 
     delegates to the Soviet-sponsored Havana conference and to 
     ``CAIB's'' other readers.
       The first-listed was ``First Principles,'' the organ of 
     Halperin's CNSS, its address and subscription price followed 
     by this parenthetical statement: ``An excellent review of the 
     abuses of the U.S. intelligence community, with a 
     comprehensive bibliography in each issue.''
       Third listed was ``Organizing Notes,'' the newsletter of 
     Halperin's CPR. Noting that it was ``available by request to 
     the Campaign'', the CAIB made this comment after giving its 
     address:'' (It is suggested that foreign requests include a 
     contribution to cover airmail postage.) (A review of 
     activities in the U.S. involving the surveillance practices 
     of the CIA, FBI, and other intelligence agencies.)''
       [The other two listed were the publications of the New 
     York-based North American Congress on Latin America and a 
     ``counterspies'' magazine published in London.]
       What was the significance of this ``CAIB'' item?
       Agee and his ``CAIB'' cronies had been in the business of 
     naming names for at least five years (since the first issue 
     of ``CounterSpy'' was published in 1973) when they launched 
     their magazine in Havana in 1978. During those five years 
     they had full opportunity to analyze reactions pro and con 
     their operations and to draw conclusions about who their 
     enemies, critics, opponents, etc., were and also who their 
     supporters, allies, defenders, sympathizers and apologists 
     were.
       ``First Principles'' had been published since 1975, 
     ``Organizing Notes'' since 1977. The ``CAIB--CounterSpy'' 
     personnel had apparently read or subscribed to them because, 
     as my original statement noted, ``CounterSpy'' had more than 
     once given favorable notice to both. Sufficient time had 
     elapsed for the CAIB people to assess the past performance of 
     both publications and, presuming the continuance of their 
     leadership, their likely future activity.
       Perhaps it was absurd for Agee and his collaborators to 
     bring Halperin's publications to the attention of all readers 
     of ``CAIB's'' first issue, with its ``Worthwhile'' plug, in a 
     mistaken belief about their basic orientation. If it was, I, 
     for one, can easily understand how they made their mistake 
     because Halperin fooled me, too, on this issue. Clearly, it 
     was an ``absurd'' mistake for me to believe that anyone else 
     would ever think that Halperin supported ``CAIB'' or 
     ``CounterSpy'' in any way simply because of the complimentary 
     notices those Agee magazines gave his publications.


    the revolutionary message in the halperin-cpr ``materials list''

       Chaired by Halperin, the CPR was so thoroughgoing in its 
     efforts to discredit U.S. intelligence agencies that it 
     sought out every possible item that could be used against 
     them, even peddling buttons proclaiming

[[Page S12418]]

     what it deemed appropriate messages. The last section of its 
     list offered for $1.00 a 2'' diameter button proclaiming ``I 
     am Kathy Power.''
       What did this signify?
       Katherine Ann Power (``Kathy'' to her friends, allies and 
     defenders), charged with murder, armed robbery, theft of 
     government property and unlawful flight to avoid prosecution, 
     turned herself in to authorities in September 1993 after 25 
     years as a fugitive from justice. On the FBI's Ten Most 
     Wanted list for 14 of those years--longer than any other 
     woman in history--she had been dropped from it in 1984 for 
     lack of any clues to her whereabouts. How had she ``made'' 
     the list?
       ``Kathy,'' sister revolutionary Susan Saxe, and three ex-
     convicts--all ``anti-war'' students at Brandeis University--
     broke into a National Guard armory in Newburyport, MA, on 
     September 20, 1970 and stole blasting caps, 400 rounds of 
     .30-caliber ammunition, radios and a pickup truck in 
     preparation for their coming revolution against the U.S. 
     Three days later, they robbed a Boston branch of the State 
     Street Bank and Trust of $26,000 to help finance that 
     revolution. As he approached the front door of the bank in 
     response to a silent alarm, police officer Walter Schroeder, 
     a 41-year old father of nine, was shot dead when one of the 
     convicts, acting as a lookout, emptied his machine gun into 
     the officer's back. Kathy drove the getaway car.
       The three convicts were captured shortly thereafter. Power 
     and Saxe, also wanted for the $6240 holdup of the Bell 
     Savings and Loan Association in Philadelphia on September 1, 
     1970, escaped. A thoroughly unrepentant Saxe, captured in 
     1975, pleaded guilty to all charges the following year.
       ``Kathy'' Power continued to elude authorities for 18 more 
     years--a tribute to the effectiveness of the terrorist 
     underground in the U.S. Since her surrender, she has been 
     offered $500,000 for her story. State judge Robert Banks, 
     sentencing her to 8-12 years and 20 years probation for the 
     robbery-murder, directed that she not profit a penny by her 
     story or he would change her sentence to life imprisonment, 
     declaring:
       ``I will not permit profit from the lifeblood of a Boston 
     police officer.'' Schroeder's eldest child, Clare, now a 
     police officer herself, in court at Power's sentencing, 
     commented, ``He gave his life to protect us from people like 
     Katherine Power.''
       A federal judge later sentenced Power to five years for the 
     armory robbery (to be served concurrently with the state 
     sentence) and a $10,000 fine. Power's lawyers and the 
     Massachusetts ACLU--true to typical ACLU performance--are 
     appealing the no profit element of her robbery-murder 
     sentence as violating her First Amendment right to free 
     expression.
       ``Kathy's'' crimes were eight years old when the CPR's 
     Materials List supporting her message of defiance of the FBI 
     and the U.S. system of justice was released in 1978. By that 
     time, all her associates in her crimes had either confessed 
     to, or been convicted of, them. There was little or no 
     question about the guilt of the revolutionary fugitive who 
     was still successfully evading the law and justice.
       Yet that was when Halperin's CPR chose to defend and 
     glorify her--``I am Kathy Power''--to hold her up as a model 
     who merited the support and adulation of the American people.


                               footnotes

     \1\ District Courts: U.S. v. Clay, '70; U.S. v. Smith, '71; 
     U.S. v. O'Baugh, '69; U.S. v. Brown, '73; U.S. v. Stone, '69; 
     U.S. v. Hoffman, '71; Circuit Courts of Appeals: 9th (Buck); 
     5th (Clay, Brown) 3rd (Butenko).
     \2\ ``The Nationwide Drive Against Law Enforcement 
     Intelligence Activities,'' Hearing, Subcommittee on Internal 
     Security, Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 
     94th Congress, First Session, September 18, 1975. ``Freedom 
     of Information Act--Appendix'' Hearings, Subcommittee on the 
     Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary, United States 
     Senate, Ninety-Seventh Congress, First Session, July-
     December, 1981, Volume 2, Serial No. J-97-50, pp. 383-430.
     ``FOIA: A Good Law that Must Be Changed,'' Human Events, 
     October 29, 1983, pp. 10-13, particularly 13.
     ``Will `Mr. Anti-Intelligence' Get Key ACLU Post?,'' Human 
     Events, December 29, 1984, pp. 10-13, 16.
     \3\ CPR member organizations included, in addition to 
     ``CounterSpy'' and ``Covert Action Information Bulletin,'' 
     the National Lawyers Guild, cited as a Communist front by 
     House and Senate investigating committees, the National 
     Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression and National 
     Committee Against Repressive Legislation, both cited by the 
     House Committee on Internal Security; Women Strike for Peace, 
     by the House Committee; the National Emergency Civil 
     Liberties Committee, also by both Senate and House 
     committees, and a considerable number of violence-advocating 
     groups such as the Black Panther Party and American Indian 
     Movement, as well as a number of church-affiliated 
     organizations.

                          ____________________