Senator Metzenbaum has just illustrated why it is going to be a great loss not to have him in the U.S. Senate. I happened, back many years ago, to have served in military intelligence when I was in the Army. I think the bill he offers makes a great deal of sense. I have never been on the Intelligence Committee. I will be pleased to cosponsor it. But I rise primarily because there is a kind of an unreality to some of the conversations about what is going on with spies. Let us face it, Russia spies, we spy--we should. It tomorrow we hear a rumor that Great Britain, our good friend, is developing some special kind of weapon, we are not going to sit back and wait until we read it in the London Times. We are going to have espionage operations. That applies to our friends; it applies to our potential foes. That is the way the intelligence community operates. For us not to look at the big picture and not to do what we can to see that Russia has a viable democracy and a stable situation, and to get all wrought up over this one instance of their spying is not in our national interest. What we have to do on the floor of this body is to serve the national interest, not the national passion. We are responding to the national passion. Is this a tragedy? Yes. Is this going to be repeated in the future? I hate to say it, but even with the Metzenbaum legislation, it is going to happen again in the future.
Editor's note · Context
The speaker discusses the importance of understanding espionage in the context of national interest.
Share
More from Sen. Paul Simon
Absolutely not. And the argument that we are taking away Presidential prerogative is not valid. The President has the obligation to submit a balanced budget. But the President may very well say, because of circumstances, we are in a…
first I respect the sincerity of the President pro tempore and his careful work in this body. I also respect my friend from Oklahoma, Senator Nickles. Let me point out, to just reinforce what Senator Kennedy had to say, that it is those of…
The answer is that it would, and that is why we have that flexibility. We do not go as far as Thomas Jefferson wanted to go. He wanted to absolutely prohibit any Federal Government borrowing.
what this amendment proposes is very simple: That we appoint a three-member privacy commission with no more than 25 employees, $1.5 million authorization the first year that would take a look at the whole question of privacy in our…





