CONGRESS PREPARES NEW ATTACK ON EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75B00380R000600190088-4
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 28
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 24, 2001
• Sequence Number: 88
• Publication Date: March 16, 1974
• Content Type: NSPR

Approved Fr r-or Release 2001/08/30 CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4
THE WASHINGTON POST
William ?
T#.7 Greider
roo staff Writer,
yCOtigreS3. ?is preparing ? to
toke: 4rcot.lierlepsiat1v-swipe
at the -PliWer.- Of -the--Pitsi-,
ViVeY; one alined at Win-
, noWing ,0 if '(!`executive ' privi-
' lege".,As a way to Withhold
Hotise information from
hd?legislative,,branch. ,7
' A measure with bipartisan.
sponsorship, , approved yester-
day, 24 to, 16, by the House
Government Operations Com-
mittee, would force the Presi-
dent to provide a personal ex-
planation within 30 days when
he invokes "executive Privi-
lege."
The House or Senate, if ei-
ther 'body were unsatisfied
.with his reasons; could then
initiate a civil Suit in federal
aides who normally refuse ?to
. appear before congressional
committees, even though they
I ma31 be More powerful in pol-
icy decisions than the Cabinet
officers Who do testify.
Ihe legislation _yvould
re-
quj?.aides to show_up
and, ifLthey refused to answer
questions on any, subject, the
President would have to ex-
hi why, in writing. The bill
d;Uesret mention "executive
ppralige" by name and
doesn't attempt to define what
might be ,worthy reasons far
refusing to disclose White
tlouse information.
The rationales ceuld range
from the traditional claim of
the President's need to enjoy
confidential advice from his
staff to special instances
where diplomatic or military
strategy would be jeopardized
by diSclosure. In any case, the
U.S. District Court here would
be assigned the job of deter-
mining the scopoVIIMinnettir
court to determine :whether'
the derliaL-Otinforniation met
"a compelling national inter-
est."
, '
The measure - is likelYho re-
new the Constitntionali)deba e
over presidential,; powers
Which surrounded the ; war
powers bill enacted 'last year
over President Nixon's veto.'
Sponsors think anotheryeto' is
likely ar,14,-that-the
-samq.otes,
Can, be assembled to override
it. t!' r, ?
But the bill is also under it-
tack from some . liberals who
insist that Congress should
not even seoncede the exist-
ence of "ex Lye privilege"
by legislatin
ment which
some of the
the war pow
The., Senate has already en-
acted a similar bill .with
slightly different 'mechanics.:
It was passed quietly In late
December Without debate-2)N
Hawse ..?,.measure is co-spon-'
sated by Rep. Jiihif "Mental),
(.31,111,) ,and William Meerliead,
(D:Ra.,) and 41 other's:
problem," said Erlen;
born, "has been -that= the only
way We could test executive
privilege was, to hold the Pres-
ident in contempt of Congress.
That is such an awesome
weapon and so abrasive that
the Congress just hasn't done,
it. What we've done, in effect,
is to allow the President to in-
Yoke executive privilege and,
PF,peessf he defines it," ,
4,41?1,0 opposition from
irtilde" said Moorhead.
The,-;'liberals are ;saying we
ktildnl,legislate at all be-
cause the Constitution already
0,-es'i* more power, while
ceryntives think that we're
impairing ' the pclWer of the
President. Then there's the
privilege on a case-by-case ba-
sis.
In recent years,'according to
a study by the Lib ary Corr
executive
eased dra-
might be
to the fact
xon has
ntrolled by
hile Presi-
Johnson
upport in
gress, the use o
privilege has inc
matically, but th
partly attributable
that President
faced a Congress c
the other party
dents Kennedy a
enjoyed majority
Congress.
According to
Nixon, Kennedy
all promised that
privilege" would
vokedby each of t
ally ? but offi
three administrati
that pledge and
protection without
thority' from the
Usually, agency o
ply refused to te
congressional inqu
Kennedy used
tiserlifaeanrdetliiiess:r
e study,
d Johnson
"executive
ly be in-
m person-
Is in all
s ignored
imed the
plicit au-
resident.
'als sim
fy before
S.
nee him-
ials used
'primatur, according to the
study, ,Johnson never used it
personally, but others in his
adMinistration invoked it twice
on their own.
DUring President Nixon's
first four years, he claimed ex-
ecutive privilege four times
himself. Other agencies out-
side the White House, from
the Pentagon to the Cabinet
Committee on Opportunities
for the Spanish Speaking,
have refused testimony or doc-
uments On 15 occasions. Execu-
tive piivilege has been in-
voked again in the President's
Watergate defense during hib
second term.
The proposed legislation
states that the House or Sen.
ate would initiate the civil le-
gal test by a resolution declar
ing that the congressional
need for the disputed informa-
tion "outweighs the grounds
cited by the President for
withholding the information
or testimony." The judge
lOtnieth. erk1R150/643it ?Mt?
great unwashed middle which
ttlinks111!s./.1?111,70,1.,y,:1!.,prog-
' John NIOS
one of the, leading opponents,
argues that the measure impli-
citly`...grants. the President a
right to refuse information,
which is net provided by the
Coristitutien.lBoth Government
Operations ChairMan Chet Holi-
field '.(D-Calif) and the rank-
ing Demearat, Rep: dick Brooks
(D-Tex.), opposed the measure
in 'Committee Yeasterday, so it
will . face considerable diffi.
cultY in Clearing the House.,
The proper remedy to
claims of executive privilege,
Moss said, is 'simple?"a plain
stiffening of the congressional
spine: aricra little bit of 'guts to
stand ' up' r, to . the Executive
Branch : a8, aggressively as the
Executive has stood up to Con-
gress."The most familiar clash be-
tween White House and Con-
gress has come over the ap-
pearance of White IIouse
;
secret in order to determine
which branch of government
would prevail.
The bill also makes an ex-
ception of impeachment mat-
ters. It states that under no cir-
cumstances can a President
,
conceal any information which ,
the House or Senate considers,
relevant to an impeachment
investigation or trial.
House Votes Changes ,
In Information Act
The House passed a bill yeS-
terday intended to corre
what sponsors said were prOz'
cedural weaknesses in the'
Freedom of Information Act.
The measure, passed 383 to
8 and sent to the Senate, speci-
fies, among other things, that
the public must be given ac-
cess o the records of the vari7,
ous bureaus and divisions com-
prising the Executive Office of:
WO Melt -
(C1-
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 . CIA-RDP751300380R000600190088-4
NEW YORK TIMES DATE tovne ?4- PAGE
By 383 to 8, House Votes Bill to S trengt hen Public's
Access to Government Information and Records
By RICHARD L. MADDEN
Special to The New York Times
WASHINGTON, March 14 ?
Despite opposition _from thg
,tml ___Administratioth the
House passed tciday legislation
ainfait,Streigthening thei
s access_ to Government_ in-
fuxuaation and records.
The bill, which was _passed
a. vote of 383 to 8,
goes_ to the Senate, where a
judiciary subcommittee has ap-
pawed a similar measure
.?
At the same time, the House
Government Operations Corn-
rnittee, splitting 24 to 16, ap-
---
proved a segittrate bill that
would let the *deral courts de-
termine?excelft in an impeach-
ment proceeding? whether a
President could withhold infor-
mation from Congress.
However, the bill now goes
to the House Rules Committee,
where it faces an uncertain
fate, and Administration offi-
cials have warned of a presi-
dential veto.
Under the committee bill, a
Congressional committee could
get House or Senate approval
to go into court whenever the
President directed an agency to
withhold information sought by
the committee.
Stral Democrats opposed
the bill, which had the support
of a number of Republicans.
Representative Jack Brooks,
Democrat of Texas, said it was
"disastrous legislation" that
would "inscribe into law the
concept of executive privilege
and give to every agency of the
Government, as well as the Pres-
ident, the appearance of legiti-
macy in denying certain infor-
mation to Congress."
The bill approved by the full
House dealing with the public's
access to records would make
the first changes in the Free-
dom of Information Act of 1966
and would give Federal courts
the option of privately examin-
ing any classified documents to
determine if the documents had
been properly withheld from
the public..
The provision would reverse
a recent United States Supreme
Court decision, which said that
the contents of documents with-
held from the pubic, such as
for national security reasons,
were not reviewable by the
courts.
The Supreme Court's rug,
in January was on a suit
brought under the Freedom of
info_rmation _Act_ by RepreSerr=
tive Patsy_T. Mink, Democrat
of?Hawaii, and other inemb6rs
?_ Congress who had sought
force the disclosure of clas-
led documents relating to an
underground nuclear test.
birr offers a s'ensible
and workable compromise be-
tween a democratic government
and the government need for
national security," Represen-
tative Spark M. Matsunaga,
Democrat of Hawaii, said dur-
ing the relatively brief House
debate.
There was no discussion of
whether President Nixon would
veto the bill if it reached
him, but the Departments of
Justice and Defense have op-
posed the measure in part on
the ground that it would im-
pose inflexible requirements on
Government agencies.
The Justice Department had
also asked Congress to delay
action on the bill until an Ad-
ministration study of ways to
improve compliance with the
Freedom of Information Act
was completed.
The 1966 law sought to grant
Americans the right of access to
Federal records and specified
categories of information, such
as that dealing with national
security, trade secrets and in-
tra-agency memos, which could
be kept secret.
The bill passed today would,
among other things, set various
time limits for Federal agencies
to respond to public requests fo
information and would require
the agencies to make annual
reports to Congress on how
they had impleented the act
Also, the courts would 1)4
permitted to award the cost oi
legal fees and court costs to I
plaintiff seeking information
the court decision went againsl
the Government agency.
In addition, the bill would ex
pand the definition of ,Federa
agencies covered by the 1964
law to include agencies withir
the executive branch, such al
the Office of Management and
Budget and the National Securi
ty Council and Government cop
porations, such as the Twines.
see Valley Authority.
Approved For Release 2001/08/30: CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4
\Ao u Se VtA4t
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4
49,13_411
-411farch 14, 19 APProved For KCINMIX2991X6/4140 :101AME113758411011KIR000600190088-4 11 1787
procure the temporary or intermittent serv-
ices of Individual consultants or organiza-
tions thereof pursuant to section 202(i) of
the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2
72a,(i)); but this monetary limitation
on the procurement of such services shall not
prevent the use of such funds for any other
authorized ,purpose. Not to exceed $388,000
of the total amount provided by this resolu-
tion (IA addition to the unexpended balance
of any sum heretofore made available for the
expenses of the Housing Subcommittee of
the Committee on Banking and Currency)
shall be made available for the expenses of
the Housing Subcommittee of the Commit-
tee on Banking and Currency in accordance
with this resolution which shall be paid on
vouchers authorized by such subcommittee,
signed by the chairman of such subcommit-
tee or the chairman of the committee,
Administration.
SEC. 2. No part of the funds authorized
by this resolutton shall be available for ex-
penditure in connection with the study or
investigation of any subject which is being
inyestlgated for the same purpose by any
other committee of the House, and the chair-
man of the Committee on tanking and Cur-
rency shall furnish the Committee on House
Adrr'nistration information with respect to
any study or investigation intended to be
financed from r uth funds.
? SEC. 3. Funds authorized, by this resolu-
tion shall be expended pursuant to regula-
tions established by the Committee on House
Administration under existing law.
, Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey (dux.-
.
ing the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask
Unanimous consent that further reading
of the resolution be dispensed with and
that it be printed in the RECORD.
The ,SPEAIKVR. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from New
Jersey?
There was ao objection.
Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. Mr.
Speaker, House Resolution 800 represents
the funding resolution for the Committee
on Banking and Currency. It has been
agreed upon by the majority and the
minority, and represents a modest in-
crease of $8,000 more than in the first
session.
(Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey asked
and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. Mr.
Speaker, I move the previous question
on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A m o reconsider was laid on the
....,.????=1M111?0
PROVIDING FOR CQNSIDERATION
OF H.R. 12471, FREEDOM OF IN-
FORMATION ACT AMENDMENTS
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, by
direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 977 and ask for
Its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as fol-
lows:
H. RELS. 977
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this
resolution it shall be in order to move that
the House resolve itself into the Committee
of the Whole House. on the State of the
Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
12471) to amend section 552 of title 5, United
States Code, known as the Freedom of In-
formation Act. After. general debate, which
shall be confined to the bill and shall con-
tinue not to exceed one hour, to be equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee
on Government -Operations, the bill shall be
read for amendment under the five-minute
rule. At the conclusion of the consideration
of the bill for amendment, the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House
with such amendments as may have been
adopted, and the previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amend-
ments thereto to final passage without inter-
vening motion except one motion to recom-
mit.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from
Hawaii (Mr. MATSUNAGA), is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, I
yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from
California, Mr. DEL CLAWSON, pending
which I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. MATSUNAGA asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, House
Resolution 977 provides for consideration
of H.R. 12471, which, as reported by our
Committee on Government Operations,
would strengthen the procedural aspects
of the Freedom of Information Act by
amendments to that act. The major
amendments would accomplish the fol-
lowing: First, clarify language in the act
regarding the authority of the courts,
relative to their de novo determination
of the matter, to examine the content of
records alleged to be exempt from dis-
closure under any of the exemptions in
section 552(b) of the code; second,
amend language pertaining to national
defense and foreign policy matters, in
order to bring that exemption within the
scope of matters subject to an in camera
review; and third, add a new section to
the act to provide. for mechanism to
strengthen congressional oversight in the
aaministration of the act by requiring
annual reports to House and Senate com-
mittees on requests and denials of re-
quests for information.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 977
provides for 1 hour of general debate, to
be equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member
of the Committee on Government Opera-
tions, after which the bill would be read
for amendment under the 5-minute rule.
At the conclusion of the consideration of
the bill for amendment, the committee
would rise and report the bill to the
House with 'such amendments as may
have been adopted. The previous question
shall then be considered as ordered on
the bill and amendments thereto to final
passage, without any intervening motion
except one motion to recommit.
The committee report estimates that
costs required by the bill should not ex-
ceed $50,000 in fiscal year 1974 and $100,-
000 for each of the succeeding five fiscal
years.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 12471 represents the
first ohangerf recommended to the Free-
dom of Information Act since that land-
mark law was enacted by this Congress
in 1966. The changes and clarifications
proposed in this bill are modifications
recommended by a unanimous vote of
the Government Operations Committee.
Its members in their wisdom, have clear-
ly determined that a pressing need exists
to lift the secrecy which continues to
shroud our Federal agencies. The aim of
this measure is to correct the dangerous
Inadequacies revealed by thorough inves-
tigative hearings conducted by the com-
mittee's Foreign Operations and Govern-
ment Information Subcommittee during
1972, as well as through frustrating per-
sonal experiences of many in this hall in
their dealings with Federal agencies.
Many of the proposed amendments are
procedural in nature yet crucial to the
Intended purposes of the act. The
amendments would improve the current-
ly confusing and inadequate indexes of
information now available in some agen-
cies. It would correct the procedures for
identification of records required by the
act. It would require prompt agency re-
sponses to requests and provide for rea-
sonable legal cost incurred by aggrieved
plaintiffs who are refused mandated
agency action on their legitimate re-
quests. This provision would help cover
their actions in Federal court to compel
uncooperative agencies to release infor-
mation which properly should be open
to public inspection.
There are three more substantive pro-
visions in the bill which warrant our full
deliberation. One provision would clarify
existing language regarding the author-
ity of the courts to examine the content
of agency records alleged by their cus-
todians to be exempt from disclosure un-
der section 552(b) of the code. Another
provision would permit in camera review
by the courts of matters pertaining to
national defense and foreign policy, as
defined by criteria established by Execu-
tive order. This will permit such matters
to be included with the existing provision
in the act which currently allow in
camera review in nine delineated areas.
I refer to section 552(b) of the code.
The third major provision would
strenthen the mechanism for congres-
sional oversight in the administering of
the act. This amendment would require
the filing of annual reports by the agen-
cies to House and Senate committees.
These reports would delineate statistical
data and other information on denials
of requests under the act, administrative
appeals of denials, rules promulgated by
the agencies, and fee schedules and funds
collected for searches and reproduction
of requested information.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is
to insure that the people's right to know
what their Government is doing will be
protected and that their access to legiti-
mate information will be unimpeded. The
Freedom of Information Act was in-
tended to help make the democratic proc-
ess work by assuring that the conduct
of Government in our republic would re-
main open for all to view, except where
genuine national security and foreign
policy concerns would be jeopardized.
The intent was, and is, to assure that our
people will remain an informed and en-
lightened citizenry.
Experience has taught us, however,
that the scope of this legitimate shield
which was provided by the act could
be stretched to suit particular partisan
or personal purposes. It could be extended
to veil matters unfavorable to the cus-
Approved For Release 2001/08/30: CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4
Approved For Release,200LQ8/30.; CA-RDIP15B00380R00060019008 -4
KEWED-- HOUSE arch 14, 1974-
Calais th7i 5' or emba
todwbatian eataitts _ 0 the of
_ . _ Meng t
those agerieks ww bill would -do I - ,
publiP judge
c
seri:liner tall have resists areql.tire
national ralitorea Produce to ae- Proper
don.ies or Policiesnnw of the agency's pee-
pie
ter mei Se-aunty- hasedoanso l'ederai
chae ht the st ? te's All of this ney's ac-
ne t wool
cies - Fed secrecY in d be
erai j ]e cleaed
entialit:g
este e"Ii1111111--411 foreign 1"elni*
tnitshuuld not airWilY the Amer4icy_in-
win _ha aim thoe ge- lose a
their at kless, of oided ao should bile the detern21gress?
whim 411- Impartial party, not! r de-
PresegeeneY- 6ffleial innwhtective bure 1-14
aeourinte law, oast o may, untiaucrat
their - need f gine
- court nods
which guarded:in eir could Or secrecy
sale-
guarded,
including ?XIII unreasonable,.
the c e-
of what"Sttred that and the Ce public,
will be e Press Th
busi-
ness 13.1cavt' every detaile cloak of national er the
ent ein-allre of that While ei414
Mritted=t9 know at which the allowing
- SPeeter, Pulite
firs rhment operationsd members and
re"
between sen"e and COnimitt of
ee, of
Gov n requirementsmr4abr oom
The in brief, of agen,
moo._ =wawa a, ef, provides -Toltisi-
for .vdis veleara-on7 secrets
for 1 the
cawOre *Ai ,...; as a. caw'
believe that this
w. weak/ -.PDROr of this
months mmill",,,?+ this bill,gli,.., act, t n ,,,view b intensive investigation "-e Produ tli
ii..-1? '
Gove y the respeete c- ?
of C;rnhlePt and the
of a deii9reneisie
I overnment and e appropotatrcratiq
chan,-eergratidate thenational -eedli
14411a-ea the most -clietin security.
reaSbhed 13nr' -
1Vicioaue Y
pPrOadh to -4.ael'?, for
Mr. ekr ".415 vital
12471 - eion _ adoption - _ urge the A
may be Order that ?'
overwlee,1 . considered' let
Mr. D agly. - and :passe
my
Cu sr and ,colleague from
dear
`'pri"intipsiEr ITOLUIEL California,b
thSpooted eigreagansoerallodf- tthh.fshbaurrVoc.:rking
House Re. Speer, 1 ' = - '
yield m CLAWB?1\T c '
r, leatti t e ? e as I ni,,,,, er, I
givivtr,rnippee,Euriaselfs.:111 eLAliliwinsoN' Ma_ skr:,,,,,,d.8e_13xeoetne.itnksdoeerities,..
Marta) _ on to revise -anecl and was
theth reedutio:,4bietil,l_c- bill thoroughly, sl."
Al Very auteki I, let me .. ,_,
r. speake - . y ; - luse soot_
gentleman- eWSON. Ner.
NAGA) has- mini Speaker,
exPlain a (Mr. e
tion 471" the Freedomor -is
rule Act araa of consideration of
for the public.
lie
GoeernnXisk Provide'
agencies for froer rseslpiogiodditoi,rgoetolinfiSim
in Information
substantially oa Information
ormation Actsub the.
th file its lirie time
for theshOttens
Government to
lel:eaward Of attor stilts, and aPualtdinAls .,
ag Mtifft in such _ attorney's fees to authorizes
ResolutionIs 977
The Puraoseur g general debate. at open
easier ae of .R. 124
the rale House
e bill sets elements'
encee oir suits _ suceessful
%tele_ ing its per-
Lug e act and
to . additioi
rep
ort ed
In to ton _ submit 1- each
form Congress - . ?
Is per-
mance 'admin evaluating annual
"agency" is defined to include the Execu-
tive_Office of the Prearitaint.
Tile committee report estimates the
cost of this bill at $50,000 for the re-
mainder of fiscal year 1974, and '100,000
for each of the succeeding five fiscal
years.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of
this rule in order that the House may
begin debate tin al.R. 1.2471.
Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for
time, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, I have
no requests for time.
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous ques-
tion am the reselution.
The previous queeetion was_ ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table. ,
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr MOORHEAD of Periasylvania. Mr.
Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days
in which to revise and exaend their re-
marks and include extraneous material
on the bill that we are about to consider,
H.R. 12471( to amend the Freedom Qf In-
formation Act:
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Penn-
sylvania?
There o objection,
eFR,EF.DO OF INFORMATION ACT
AMENDMENTS
Mr. MOORHEAD'of Pennsylvania, Mr.
peaker, I move that the House resolve
itself into the Committee of the Whole
House-on the State of the Union for the
consideration of the bill (H.R. 12471) to
amend section 552 of title 5, United
States Code.. known as the Yreedona of
Information Act.
The SPEAKER. The eueition is on the
motion Offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. McKean: %r) .
The motion was agreed tc.
IN THE COMMLnu,E or Taz WHOLE
Accordingly the House resolved itself
Into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the con-
sideration of the hill ILE. 12471, with
Mr. ECKHARDT/lithe chair
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
By unanimous consent, the first read-
ing of thabill was dispen.3ed with.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
MOORHEAD) will be recognized for 30 min-
utes, and the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Eateamorae) will be recognized for
30 minutes.
The Cher _recognizes the gentleman
from Pennsylvarua (Mr. MOORHEAD).
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
(Mr. MOORHEAD eL Pennsylvania
asked and was given permission to re-
vise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania,. Mr.
Chairman, I will be briee it. my remarks
explaining the bill, whic.a has the bipar-
tisan support of the me nbership of our
committee and which was rePorted
unanimously by the Government Opera-
tions Committee last month.
ILR, 12471 is a_ bill to insure the right
of the public to ask for and receive in-
formation about what their Government
is, doing. It contains amendments, 'essen-
tially procedural in nature, to the Free-
dom of Information Act, for the- most
part setting ground rules by whioh the
Federal agencies must respond ho in-
quiries from the public.
The major substantive provision of this
bill clarifies the original intent of Con-
gress that executive agency decisions to
withhold information from the public
may be reviewed by the Judicial branch
of Government.
H.R. 12471 is the result of over 2 years
of investigative and legislative hearings
be the Foreign Operations and Govern-
ment Information Subcommittee. It
represents the first overhaul of the Free-
dom of Information Act since its original
enactment in 1966. That milestone law
guarantees the right of Persons to know
about the business of their Government.
subject to nine categories of exemptions
whose invocation is, in most cases,
optional.
At the time the original Freedom of In-
formation Act was passed by the Con-
gress in 1966, it was recognized that con-
tinual oversight by the Committee on
Government Operations would probably
result in the recognition that amend-
ments would be needed in the future. In
1972, the Foreign Operations and Gov-
ernment Information Subcommittee
conmenced extensive investigative.hear-
ings resulting in the unanimous adoption
by the Government Operations Commit-
tee of House Report 92-1419 in Septem-
ber 1972. That report contained both ad-
ministrative and legislative recom-
mendations.
As a result of many days of hearings
and more days of markup, H.R. 12471, co-
sponsored by all but one member of the
subcommittee, was introduced as a clean
bill, was voted out favorably by the sub-
committee by a vote of 8 to 0, and was
unanimously reported by the: full
committee.
ILR. 12471 is mostly procedural in na-
ture and is designed to strengthen the
operation of Federal information policies
and practices. Essentially, the bill seeks
to do this by seven amendments which,
by the time the subcommittee had worked
its will, should be, and were in the corn-
mi Aee nonpartisan and noncontroversial
insofar as Members of Congress are con-
cerned:
The amendments are as follows:
_Amendment No. 1?Section (a) In-
dexes:
Requires agencies to publish indexes of
important actions taken by them to
make such actions more readily avail-
able to the public.
Amendment No.
Identifiable records:
Eases the technical burden on the pub-
lic by changing the words of the public
request from "for identifiable records"
to a request which "reasonably describes
such records."
2?Section 1(b)
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4
March 1,4, 1914pproved For PUItiCs41288114N81411:10110110P7-54018t1000600190088-4
.AmeiTifirnent No. 3?Section 1(c) 7
Time limits:
Sets a fixed time of .10 working days
for response, 20 working days for admin-
istrative appeal and 20 days for a respon-
sive pleading to a complaint in a district
court.
Amendment No. 4?Section 1(e) At;,
torney fees and court costs:
Allows the court at its discretion to
award reasonable attorney fees and
costs to plaintiffs who prevail in freedom
of information litigation.
Amendment No. 5 ?really two amend-
ments?Section 1(d) and section 2,
Court review:
Would, among other things, overrule
the Supreme Court decision in EPA
against Mink, by first making it clear
that a court may review records in cam-
era and, '
Second, authorizing a court to look
behind a security classification label to
see if a record deserved classification un-
der the "criteria" of an Executive order.
Amendment No. 6?Section 37 Reports
to Congress:
Requires affected agencies to submit
annual reports to the appropriate com-
mittees of the Congress on their freedom
of information activities.
Amendment No, 7?Section 37 Defini-
tion of "agency":
Expands, the definition of agency for
the purposes of the Freedom of Informa-
tion Act to include the Executive Office
of the President, Government corpora-
tions, and Government controlled corpo-
? rations, as well as 'those establishments
already recognized as Federal agenoies.
The amendments to the Freedom of
Information Act provided for in H.R.
12471. would take effect 90 days after en-
actment,
Mr. Chairman, I want to stress again
the bipartisan nature of and support for
this bill. It is a carefully drafted piece
of legislation. which I feel strikes the
proper Valance between efficient Govern-
ment operations and the public's "right
to know."
This bill has been unanimously ap-
proved by the Foreign Operations and
Government Irfformation Subcommittee
and the full Government Operations
Committee and merits the support of
this House.
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Jfr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. I
yield to my friend, the gentleman from
California (Mr. VAN DEERLIN)
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Mr. Chairman, I
am one of an overwhelming majority of
this House who will be in suPport of the
legislation before us this afternoon. I
will confesSlo-some sense of trouble over
the portion of the bill to which the able
subcommittee chairman has just re-
ferred, the definition of agencies and or-
ganizations to be affected by the amend-
ments.
The reference to Government-control-
led corporations in the legislation itself
raises no red. ,flags. I am, however, trou-
bled by the report accompanSring the bill
which reads on page 8 as follows:
The town "Government controlled cc.irpo-
ration," as used En this subsection, would
include a corporation which is not ownid
by the Federal Government, such as the Na-
tional Railroad Passenger Corporation (Am-
trak) and the Corporation for Public Broad-
casting (CPB).
The Corporation for Public Broadcast-
ing, as the gentleman knows, was created
by Congress as a means of pumping Fed-
eral money into broadcasting without
having Federal control over broadcast-
ing. It seems to me that this arrange-
ment very happily met the first amend-
ment requirements for this type of or-
ganization. We wanted to find some way
of providing Federal assistance to edu-
cational arid public broadcasting needs?
which includes the coverage of public
events and often political subjects. There
have been ongoing efforts to find
a means of financing this organization
Which would keep Congress, which would
keep the executive branch, and which
would keep politicians at any level out
of policymaking in public broadcasting.
I think that this administration, while
It was chided by our Committee on Inter-
state and Foreign Commerce many times
for what we thought was its slowness in
coming up with long-range financing
plans, did act in good faith and out of
the same sense of responsibility we all
felt in Congress for maintainnig the in-
dependence of this very sensitive broad-
casting operation.
This was by no means intended to be
a Government information agency or a
Government broadcasting agency. I
know the gentleman in the well feels as
strongly as I do the necessity of protect-
ing the Corporation for Public Broad-
casting against the intrusion of political
action.
Would the chairman be kind enough to
comment on this phase of the legisla-
tion?
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. I
would say to the gentleman that if in
fact of law the Public Broadcasting Cor-
pOration is not a Government-controlled
corporation, then the words of the stat-
ute and not the words of the report would
control. I would also say to the gentle-
man that this is not a bill to provide
Government access to information but it
is for the people, the individual citizens
across this country. I think the lan-
guage of the statute would control over
the language of the report.
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. If the gentleman
will yield further, the right of the indi-
vidual inquiry is backed up by the maj-
esty of Government through this legis-
lation. Where it would concern an or-
ganization such as Amtrak, I would say
hooray.
But I do raise the question in regard
to the CPB, and I am glad for the op-
portunity the chairman of the subcom-
mittee has provided to make legislative
history on this. In my opinion there
would never be a question on which the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting
would seek to hide information. They
have always testified freely before both
our committee and the Committee on Ap-
propriations, but I think we must be ever
mindful of the necessity for guarding a
sensitive agency such as this against po-
litical inquiry.
ii 789
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from
Texas.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I appreci-
ate the gentleman yielding to me. On
page 4 of the bill, the bill does recite
that on or before March 1 of each cal-
endar year, each agency shall submit a
report covering the preceding calendar
year, and then names the specific com-
mittees to receive the reports.
I wanted to advise the gentleman that
I intend to offer an amendment that in
accordance with rule XXIV of the House
the submission of reports would be to the
Speaker of the House and to the Presi-
dnt of the Senate, who would then sub-
mit it to the appropriate committees.
Would the gentleman have any objec-
tion to the submission?
Mr. MOORHEAD of Fennsylavnia. At
first blush, I would not. I would like to
submit it to my colleague on the other
side of the aisle.
I want to stress again the bipartisan
noncontroversial nature of this legisla-
tion. It had unanimous approval of the
subcommittee and the full committee. I
urge its adoption.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Can
the gentleman yield on his own time?
Mr. ERLENBORN. I wanted to know
if the gentleman would yield for a
question.
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Of
course, I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. ERLENBORN. The question has
been asked by Members on this side of
the aisle as to the meaning of two defini-
tions of agencies to include the Executive
Office of the President.
I want to ask the gentleman if it is
not correct, as it states in the report of
the committee, that the term "establish-
ment in the Executive Office of the Presi-
dent" as it is contained in this bill means
functional entities, such as the Office of
Telecommunications Policy, the Office of
Manager of the Budget, the Council of
Economic Advisers and so forth; that it
does not mean the public has a right to
run through the private papers of the
President himself?
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. No,
definitely not. I think the report is crystal
clear on that. I thank the gentleman for
bringing it up.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. I
yield to the gentleman.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding. Does this legislation
mean that foreign governments or indi-
viduals from foreign governments will
have the same kind of access as any
American citizen, or is it just limited to
American citizens?
I am referring especially in the case
where an individual has to go to a court
suit.
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania.
The legislation says any person; that
would exclude foreign governments.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. What about a for-
eign ambassador or a foreign alien, say
the Russian Ambassador?
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. I
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4
H 1790 Approved For REVedg1/0.8/30_: cIA:RDP751300380R000600190088=4
S1ONAL RECORD? IIOUSL
March 14, 1974
would think if he had standing in a wart
as an individual, not as an ambassador,
that he would have the same rights in
connection with this; subject, of course,
to the limitations provided in the orig-
inal act.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. So the interpreta-
tion of the gentleman would be that for-
eign citizens residing here could, in faint
have the some kind of access to Govern-
ment agencies as a U.S. citizen.
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania.
Whatever- the situation, I would say to
the gentleman from California it is not
changed by the legislation before int
He would have to go back to the original
1966 act to determine that, but we are
not changing that. We are not increas-
ing the coverage of the bill to additional
people.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Except in this legis-
lation we Sae; that "the court may assess
against the United States reasonable at
fees and other litigation costs
reasonably incurred in any case under
this section."
So, in fact; foreign citizens and aliens,
I was thiaking particularly of alien
groups that reside here, if they would
decide to go to court and the court could,
in fact, aaress the U.S. Government for
their legal fees.
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. 0.1
course, it is conceivable; but first the
plaintiff hes to prevail, and even if he
prevailed, the courts will grant it only at
their discretion.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. But it is clearly
possible the way the courts are today,
they are very lenient with our money. I
wondered if this is not a possible flaw
in this legislation.
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. I
think this section is important because
there is often no monetary involvement
In this field of litigation and it does
discourage individuate from bringing
suits.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Except it says the
court may assess against the United
States for attorney fees.
So, it is another form of legal fee at
the expense of the U.S. Treasury.
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania.
Mr. Chairman, I might point out to the
gentleman that in this kind of litiga-
tion, the plaintiff gets no monetary
award from winning the case. He is
serving all cf the people by making Gee-
ernment more open if lie prevails.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Except that he
may keep t; in court by trying to pur-
suede the udge or the court itself to
pay his fees.
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania.
Only, I say to MO gentleman, if the court
finds the Government has improperly
withheld material.
Mr. ROCSSELOT. Mr. Chairman I
appreciate the gentleman's comments.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman
from Cannel...11a.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, I was
merely going to make the point that in
order for such a person to prevail, the
original withholding would have had to
have been an improper act, or otherwise
he could not prevail..
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Mr. Chairman,
where does the language say that?
Mr. MOSS. The original act is to pre-
vent the improper withholiing.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. But where in, this
is it?
Mr. MOSS. The court here examines
in camera and determines whether or
not the information meets the test for
privilege or whether it Ii going to be
released.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. But the court has
the real decisronmaking power to
.decide?
Mr, MOSS. The court has the decision-
making power.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. It is not necessar-
ily what the agency feels and/or the
Congress; it is the court.
Mr. MOSS. It is the court, because it
is a matter that is being tried in the
courts in this case.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Well, my concern
is in the case of aliens and foreign peo-
ple and others who have all kinds of
reasons to try to attack agencies of our
Federal Government. This appears to
me to be a substantial loophole, if you
will, in the legislation, for them to get
free court costs. That is ray only concern.
cern.
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, I would say to the gentleman
that in the 7-year history of the act, we
know of no case where an alien or for-
eign official has brought, action. It could
be brought under existing law, and it is
not changed by this bill.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. However existing
law does not provide for the court to
assess the U.S. Government does it.
Does the present law provide for this?
So, this is really new LAW on the books,
and that was my point.
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Of
course, it is new law.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Mr. Chairman: I
thank the gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN. The chair recognizes
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Einem-
BORN ) .
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I
yield myself such time as I may consume,
(Mr. ERLENBORN risked and was
given permission to revise and extend his
rem arks. )
Mr. HORTON. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I
yield to the gentleman from New York_
Mr. HORTON. Mr. Chairman, I want
to commend the gentleman in the well,
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. ERLEN-
BORN) and the chairman of the sub-
committee, the gentleman from Penn-
sylvania (Mr. Mown-mime for their lead-
ership in bringing this bill to the floor.
I am one of the sponsors of the bill, and
I certainly hope that the House will en-
act this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of
H.R. 12471, a bill to strengthen the
people's right to be informed of their
Government's activities. Our form of
government?in fact the foundations of
our society?rest on an informed citi-
zenre. Nothing could be more essential
?
than measures like the one before us now
to the safeguarding of our demoicratic
As the ranking minority member of
the Committee on Government Opera-
tions, I am very fortunate to have par-
ticipated in writing laws in this area.
Eight years ago, I voted in favor of the
original Freedom of Information Act.
For 5 years, I served on the Foreign
Operations and Government lnforniation
Subcommittee, which investigated the
p(eformance of Federal agencies tinder
the act. Last February. I introduced,
along with several of my colleagues on
the committee, a bill to improve the ad-
ministration of this law. And today; I will
vole for a measure which fulfills that
same objective.
Almost every provision of H.R. 12471
is if not identical, to a pronision
of H.R. 4960, the bill I sponsored and
testified upon before the subcomndttee.
I am happy to see these points itt the
legislation we are now considering.
This measure requires agenciOn to
perform many functions which will di-
rectly aid citizens in obtaining Govern-
ment documents. It stipulates that men-
Cies publish indexes of their material,
respond to requests that reasoaably
describe records and decide whether to
comply with those requests within ape-
ciii periods of time. The bill also imposes
several obligations which will indi eectly
assist individuals. Under H.R. 12471,
courts could review agency classifiCation
of material which was allegedly made for
na donal security reksons and could force
the Government to pay attorney fees
and other litigation costs in suits where
the Government does not prevail. .Agen-
cies would have to respond to court:suits
quickly and report to congressional Com-
mittees annually on how they fulfilled
th(fr responsibilities under the Freledom
of Information Act.
Mr. Chairman, all these changes in the
law *ill advance the people's right to
know what their Government is doing.
/ comment their enactment to all
Members.
Mr. HORTON asked and was given
pei mission to revise aid extend his
ren larks. )
Mr. YOUNG of Florida Mr. Chairman,
wii the gentleman yield?
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mi. Chairman, I
yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman,
I would ask that the gentleman from
Illinois, during his comments, might give
sone specific comments concerning
page 7 of the report, the paragraph en-
titled, "National Defense and Foreign
Policy Exemption," which refers to the
laneuage on page 5 of the bill. This ia the
concern I have, and I would appreciate
vere much a discussion of that subject.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mn Chairman, I
will be happy to do that, and I will be
happy to answer any further questions
the gentleman from Florida may have.
Mr. Chairman, I am happy to join
with the chairman of the Foreign Opera-
tions and Government Information pub-
committee, Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsyl-
vania, in advocating H.R. 12471.
This bill would amend the Freedom of
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4
Mardi 14,1974Approved ForaitIMREdMANAORPMEOP-ZENOMR000600190088-4 II 1791
Information Act in several ways, all
designed to ease the public's access to
Government documents. It is the product
of bipartisan effort by our subcommittee.
We began our consideration' of the
Freedom of Information Act with two
bills, one by Mr. MOORHEAD and one by
Mr. Hoirron?the ranking minority mem-
ber of the Government Operations Com-
mittee?and myself. H.R. 12471 combines
features of both those measures and has
the unanimous support of both the For-
eign Operations and Government Infor-
mation Subcommittee and the full
Government Operations Committee.
Mr. Chairman, the Freedom of Infor-
mation Act became law on July 4, 1966,
and took effect exactly 1 year later. I am
proud to have played a part in securing
its passage in the House, along with the
gentleman from California (Mr. Moss)
and our former colleague from Illinois,
Don Rumsfeld. The act's guiding prin-
ciple is that public access to Govern-
ment information should be the rule, to
be violated only in the specific areas
which Congress believes are in the na-
tional interest to exempt.
In the few Tears that the act has been
in. existence, the executive branch of
Government has become far more open
to citizens of this country. Government
officials and employees are to be con-
gratulated for generally adopting atti-
tudes which are in conformity with the
act, but very different from the pre-
vious policy of nondisclosure.
The record of compliance with the
law has not been perfect, 'however. In
extensive investigative hearings over
the past 3 years, our subcommittee has
discovered many instances of failure to
respond to the dictates of this act and
many efforts to frustrate them by de-
laying release of public material.
The bill before us now is intended to
remedy problems we have found.
Some indiyiduals have experienced
difficulty in learning what types of doc-
uments are in the files of various agen-
cies. Section (1) (a) of H.R. 12471 re-
quires agencies to publish their indexes
of materials.
Some citizens have had requests for
information denied on the grounds that
they did not identify precisely the docu-
ments they wanted. The act was meant
to require individuals to describe rec-
ords reasonably, not identify them by
specific number. Section (1) (b) makes
this original intent clear.
Some people have had to wait ex-
eessive periods of time for? responses to
?
their requests. Section (1) (c) requires
agencies to live up to the spirit, as well
as the letter, of disclosure by answering
requests promptly.
The Supreme Court has held that
courts may not permit citizens to view
matters which have been classified for
reasons a national defense or foreign
policy, and that courts may not examine
those documents to see whether they
have been properly classified. Sections
(1) (d) and (2) of H.R. 12471, taken to-
gether, permit courts to examine ma-
terial in chambers and determine
whether it truly falls within the exemp-
tion for national 'defense or foreign policy
classified matter. This change should
persuade agencies to consider more care-
fully whether to classify material.
In addition, H.R. 124'71 mandates that
the Government respond quickly to'com-
plaints filed under this act and, at the
discretion of courts, pay attorney fees
and other litigation costs incurred by
victorious plaintiffs. The measure also
establishes that agencies shall report an-
nually to the Congress on their perform-
ance under the act. All these provisions
are designed to stimulate agencies to
comply more completely and promptly
with the law, and on close questions, to
decide in favor of disclosure of informa-
tion to the public.
Before closing, I would like to com-
ment about an omission in H.R. 12471.
H.R. 4960, which Mr. HORTON and I in-
troduced and on which the subcommittee
held hearings, included a title establish-
ing an independent Freedom of Informa-
tion Commission.
Our belief was that the existence of
the Commission, authorized to review
negative responses to information re-
quests, would have been an incentive for
positive agency responses. With author-
ity to examine classified material, the
Commission could have relieved judges
of the burden of in camera inspection
of information. Although the Commis-
sion's rulings would have been advisory
rather than mandatorY, its rulings would
have constituted prima facie evidence of
Improper withholding of records. Thus,
we anticipate fewer FOI cases would end
up in the courts.
The decision not to establish a com-
mission does not render H.R. 12471 de-
fective. We can establish such a com-
mission at a later time, if need be. I
mention it only to serve notice that we
are serious about making the Freedom
of Information Act work.
Mr. Chairman, all the changes which
the bill before us makes in procedures
of the Freedom of Information Act are
beneficial. They will lead, I believe, to
fuller and timelier sharing of information
by the Government with the people of
this country. The objective is worthy,
and the means of achieving it are fair.
I urge approval of this bill.
Mr. ARCHER. Will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. ERLENBORN. I will be happy to
yield to the gentleman.
Mr. ARCHER. Do I correctly under-
stand this legislation is to require the
prompt distribution to any individual
In this country by sale or otherwise of
Government documents that are not
otherwise classified as being in the na-
tional security? Is that basically correct?
Mr. ERLENBORN. Yes. That is
basically correct. The present law re-
quires that. The Freedom of Informa-
tion Act on the books requires that, with
certain exemptions that are spelled out
in the act.
Mr. ARCHER. There is one existing
practice that troubles me already. I
wonder if this bill would increase that,
that is, the sale by the Federal Govern-
ment of a list of names that they
accumulate which are then used by the
purchaser for the purpose of solicitation
or mass mailings or harassment of some
nature or another. I have legislation that
I have introduced which would prohibit
the Federal Government from selling
these lists of names to various people
in this country. I wonder what this act
does about it.
Mr. ERLENBORN. We considered that,
problem in the subcommittee and we had
testimony from interested individuals as
well as the agencies involved. I must
confess to the gentleman that we found
it difficult to resolve the problem to
everyone's satisfaction and, therefore, it
is not included here in this legislation.
I am sensitive to the problem, as is
the gentleman from New York (Mr.
HORTON) who has also introduced leg-
islation similar to that to which the
gentleman refers. As an example, I
understand that the Department of the
Treasury has made available the names
of all those who are listed as collectors
of or dealers in guns and weapons, which
made it possible for those with
sticky fingers and the ability to break
into a person's home to find out where
such weapons might be available, where
they could identify people who were
collectors of guns. It was not the intent
of the act, and I hope we find a way of
resolving that problem.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. ERLENBORN. I yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the
gentleman for yielding.
On the point I had orginally raised,
the language of the report on page 7
seems to me to give the court the priv-
ilege to examine now in camera any
information or documents that might
be relevant to the national defense. It is
a change from the existing law. That is
new law, then.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Yes. That is one of
the purposes of this bill; namely, to
change existing law in this respect. It is
the result of the decision in the Mink
case mentioned by the chairman of the
subcommittee, Mr. MOORHEAD. In that
case. the Supreme Court, said that the
courts were not invested with authority
to go behind the stamped document.
Therefore, the decision of any person in
the executive branch who puts a stamp
of "secret" or "classified" or whatever it
might be on a document could not be re-
viewed by the Court. It is clearly the in-
tention of the committee to make these
documents subject to inspection in
camera and in chambers, not in public,
by the judge, who can then decide as to
whether the classification is proper un-
der the Executive order authorizing such
classification.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the gen-
tleman yield further?
Mr. ERLENBORN. I yield to the gen-
tleman.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I have a seri-
ous concern about that very point, and
I wonder if the gentleman will respond
to this question. Just what is it that
makes the judge an expert in the field
and one who would have sufficient knowl-
edge so that he can make a determina-
tion as to what is or is not to be made
available and what should be prohibited
from public distribution?
Mr. ERLENBORN. The only way I can
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4
-Approved For Release 2001/08/30 CIA-RDP75B00380R000600190088-4
II 1792- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- HOUSE March 14,,1974
answer the gentleman is it is the same
thing that makes judges experts in the
field of patent law and copyright law or
all of the other laws on which they have
to pass judgment. There are n3 specific
qualifications for a judge in these areas;
a judge is a judge. I have the same eon-
cern as the gentreman has. That is why
I recommended, along with Mr. Horcrosr,
the creation of the Freedom of Etiforma-
tion Commission which could develop ex-
pertise in this area and act as a master
in chancery or an adviser to the court.
I expect, as I said in my prepared re-
marks today, that after we have some ex-
periencellider this new provision others
may agree that we need a Freedom of In-
formation Commission.
Mr. YOUNG of -Florida. Will the gen-
tleman sela%1 further?
Mr. ERLENBORN. I yield to the gen-
tleman.
Mr.- YOUNG of Florida. Let me re-
spond to_ the gentleman's statement by
saying that in the cases you mentioned
the judge does have written law and
precedent.; on which to base a decision,
hut in the case of classification and in the
case of making the decision of whe her
a matters:a relevant to national defense
and national security he does net have
this basis on which to make such a de-
oision. - -
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman,
I still think that insofar as the interna-
tional coarmunity is concerned, that oer-
haps the judge might consider something
to be tmimportant to a possible potential
enemy whereas it might be very, very im-
portant to- that potential enemy, and
where therjudge has no special back-
ground or expertise to be _able to malse a
reasonable Judgment in that regard.
Mr._ERfsENBORN. The gentleman is
accurate In saying that There iS no law
that establishes the criteria. We learned
as a resat of stlae Ellaberg, case that
there is no official secrets act in this
country, _ even though in other coun-
tries, England, for one, there are. There-
fore, what we operate under in the field
of classifidation is the Executive order.
We have an amendment in this bill to
paragraph 1 of the list of exemptions so
as to read as follows:
(1) authyrizecl under criteria establimied
by an xxessitIve order to ba kept _secret in
the interee; of the national defen3e or for-
eign policy
This will give direct attention of the
court to the Executive order rather than
the law, since we have none. The Execu-
tive order that establishes the criteria
in such an instance would be used by the
court to pass judgment on whether the
criteria in The Erxecutive Order has been
made by some flunky in the Department
of DefenSe,Sand who baa improperly clas-
sified such document.
Mr. _YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair-
man, if ttelgentlenran witl yield further,
have one morecitiestion.
_ o , _
Mr.EVIDtaltiattg. I ani happi to yield
_ _
to the gentleman from Fleride
- Mr. YOUNG Of Florida, Mr. Chairman,
I want tosasompliment the gentleman in
the well Ind the leadership of the corn-
itittee for The work that they have clone
in bringing out the Freedom of Informa-
tion Act amendments, freedom of in for-
mation is something which I do agree
with very, very strongly. I believe that
our people have the right to knew what
the Government is doing, or is not do-
ing. But again I must register my objec-
tion, and my strong concern about this
particular matter as it relates to our na-
tional defense, and as to who might be
making important decisions relative to
our national seettrity matters.
Mr. McCLOSKEY. Mr. Chairman, if
the gentleman will yield, just by way of
responding to the inquiries of the gentle-
man from Florida (Mr. NS:wise), because
I believe this matter is one that should
be made clear insofar as the legislative
history is concerned; The framework of
the committee's consideration of this hill
was against the recent decision in the
Silica case, where the Circuit Court of
Appeals in the District of Columbia did
provide for in camera inspection of docu-
ments upon which the President claimed
executive privilege. I think it is clear
from the language in that decision that
the court was prepared to bend over
backward to honor the executive claims
of privilege; in fact, the import in that
decision was that only if the need for
such revelation of the information to the
grand jury outweighed the national in-
terest in protecting the information
would the court order that it be dis-
closed to the grand jury in that case. And
all of the other decisions which we have
i before us in this field inticate the great
' reluctance of the court to overrule a con-
ttention that the national security inter-
ests are paramount. And we pass this
into law with the confidence that any
court will examine very closely the mat-
ter of national security interest as
against a citizen seeking disclosure of
information, and that the court is going
to be very reluctant to override an ad-
ministrative decision which exists in the
mind of the administration relative to
declassification of such information. And
what we have done in this bill. I think,
reaches a compromise that the commit-
tee has in the language of this bill that,
insofar as the safeguards of our national
security are concerned, that should not
alone be the single criteria that would
compel a court not to oserride such an
Executive order supposedly only because
of national security.
Mr. ERLENI3ORN. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman from California
(Mr. 1VIcCnosisay) for his contribtition,
and I agree with what the gentleman
has said. There will certainly be a strong
presumption in favor of declassification.
I say this because of the testimony be-
fore our committee which indicated that
the power to classify has been abused
considerably by various agencies of this
Government.
As I say, we had plenty of testimony
that would lead us to believe that docu-
ments have been improperly classified
in the first place and, second, not declas-
sified within a reasonable period of time.
As an historical example, there is the
so-called Operation Keelhaul in which
documents have been kept secret for 25
or 30 years, and which Ail are classified,
to keep information from the public
about what apparently was a very black
day in the history of the United States.
We really do not know why the secrecy
has been kept, even though there have
been attempts by historians to get at
them. The documents relate to events
which occurred in 1946, immediately
after World War II. The fact that they
are still classified, raises questions in
one's mind as to whether they are prop-
erly classified and should still be kept
from the public today, in 1974.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I do not deny
that at all. There are classifications that
probably have been the result of some-
one being overly cautious in their clas-
sification. I would make the point though
that if we are going to make a mistake,
it might be better to consider Making
that mistake in the interest of a strong
national security.
The second point, in response to the
gentleman from California, I recognize
the atterepts Of impartiality of the
courts, and I believe that from the stand-
point of their sincerity they certainly
could be trusted with this program. But
I am also aware, as is he, of the vast num-
bers of unauthorized leaks of informa-
tion, leaks in fact that are contrary to
the law that have come from same of
these courts that the gentleman has
mentioned.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
H.R. 12471, amending the Freedom of
Information Act of 1966. I am certainly
not opposed to the principle of streamlin-
ing the act through certain procedural
changes, but I have grave reservations
over the contents of one change which
security.
sat the heart of our national
My record in support of freedom of
information cannot be challenged. As a
Florida State Senator, I was one of the
primary supporters of Florida' land-
mark "Government in the Sunshine"
law. Since coming to Congress, my legis-
lative activities have included legisla-
tion to open House committee meetings
to the public, and H.R. 1291. a bill to
amend the Freedom of Information Act
to require public disclosure of records by
recipients of Federal grants. My bill re-
quires that a willingness to provide full
public disclosure be made a condition to
receiving a Federal grant; that complete
records must be kept on how these funds
are spent; and that refusal to make these
records public will result in the grant
being withdrawn.
I support the bill before us today in its
efforts to speed public access to agency
information and to require agencies to
provide this information in a :timely
fashion. These procedural changes would
be helpful in carrying out the intent of
the original act.
However, section 552(b) (1) of the
United States Code clearly states that the
Freedom of Information Act does not
apply to matters that are specifically re-
quired by Executive order to be kept
secret in the interest of natienalsdefense
or foreign policy. This is the rst_)f nine
specific exemptions from the previsions
of the act. -- -
3y _distinguished colleagues of the
Government Operations Committee,
however, have included in their so-called
procedural amendments a change in
the language of section 552(b) (1) which
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4
March 14, /9Aipproved For ROONTOR2681CIEMI. :1011?4t1147-6Efliaff8eR000600190088-4 II 1793
could effectively negate our national
security classification system. Taken in
conjunction with language elsewhere in
the bill, it permits the courts to examine
In camera the contents of agency records
to determine if a national security
exemption has been properly applied.
. This is a specific grant of authority to
the courts to second-guess security classi-
fications Made pursuant to an Executive
order and thus constitutes a clear threat
to our national defense. As the Justice
? Department noted in their report to the
Congress on this legislation:
Ng system of security classification can
work satisfactorily if judges are going to
substitute their interpretation of what
should be given a seourity classification for
those of the government officials responsible
for the program requiring classification.
My distinguished colleague from Il-
linois, the ranking minority member of
the Government Operations Committee,
Congressman ERLENBORN, himself has ad-
mitted in our colloquy earlier today:
That there will certainly be a strong Pre-
sumption in favor of declassification.
This does not bode well for top secret
documents on our national defense or
foreign policy should some judge de-
cide it would be more in the interest of
the Nation to make them available to the
world.
Both my distinguished colleague from
Illinois and my colleague from. Califor-
nia (Mr. McCLositcy) have pointed out
some of the defects of the existing classi-
fication system, especially with regard
to older defense materials. To which I
would respond that these defects have
already been recognized and an accel-
erated effort put underway to remedy
them.
In Executive Order 11652, dated March
8, 1972, President Nixon not only recog-
nized the problems of overclassification
and the denial to historians and other
interested parties of decades-old war
records and foreign policy documents,
he ordered the implementation of an ac-
celerated declassification program. Since
that time, the National Archives and
Record Service has sifted through close
to 100 million documents and reclassified
most of them so that they are available
to the public. According to the Presi-
dent's timetable, anything over a certain
age is automatically declassified; other
documents of a later date are subject to
review. Eventually, aiiythipg over 6 years
of age will be 'Subject to automatic re-
view and declassification unless the clas-
sifying agency can prove that the mate-
rials still fall under the national Security
aegis,
Therefore, became this procedure is
now in effect, it is clear that the thrust of
the committee amendment is against
current defense and foreign policy
secrets.
Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that the
American people want a judge to decide
what national defense and foreign policy
information should be publicized. In the
Sixth Congressional District of Florida
which I have the privilege of represent-
ing in Congress, 86.2 percent of those
responding to my March 1972 congres-
sional questionnaire stated that they did
not believe that the iieWS media should
have the right to publish or broadcast
secret Government information dealing
with national security.
As a former member of the House
Armed Services Committee and as one
who has long been concerned over the
erosion of our national defense and na-
tional security standards, I cannot
stand by and see this legislation breeze
through the House without drawing at-
tention to its one glaring defect. Mr.
Chairman, with this exception, I support
the legislation and its purposes, but will
vote against it on final passage to register
my concern over the weakening of our
national security, and hope that our
colleagues in the other body will elim-
inate this invidious provision so that I
can enthusasitically support the bill in
its final form.
Mr. ERLENBORN. I thank the gen-
tleman for his comments.
I now yield to the gentleman from Ne-
braska (Mr. THoxE) .
Mr. THONE. I thank the gentleman
f or yielding.
(Mr. THONE asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. THONE. Mr. Chairman, having as-
sisted in the authorship of an open rec-
ords bill in Nebraska and the open meet-
ings law we have in that State, and the
partially open court law, I strongly en-
dorse the legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of
H.R. 12471, a bill of which I am proud
to be a cosponsor.
For many years, I have advocated
openness in Government. We must make
certain the public's business is conducted
in public. Before I came to Congress, I
helped to draft and worked for passage of
Nebraska's open meetings and open rec-
ords laws. As a member of the Foreign
Operations and Government Information
Subcommittee, I have been impressed
with the part the Freedom of Informa-
tion Act has played in making Govern-
ment more accessible to the people. Our
hearings last year showed, however, that
there is a need for improvement of this
raw.
The hearings demonstrated that if
there is a way that a law can be inter-
preted to promote secrecy and to deny
the public access to public records, some
Government officials will find that way.
For example, the present law states that
agencies must respond to any request to
look at "identifiable records." Some agen-
cies have interpreted this language so
that a citizen can obtain-a document only
if he or she knows the precise title or the
file number. To prevent such pettifog-
gery, we propose to amend the law so
that agencies will have to respond to
any request which "reasonably describes
such records."
Here is another example of the bureau-
cratic urge for secrecy. The present law
states that an agency must make non-
?
classified Federal records "available for
public inspection by copying." Some
agencies have interpreted this language
to mean that a citizen can find out the
languagd in a public document only if
he comes to the agency headquarters
with pencil and paper and copies what is
in the record.
To Correct this, the proposed language
declares that with such nonclassified
Information, agencies shall "promptly
publish and distribute?by sale or other-
wise?copies."
Information is available only if it is
timely. Therefore, there are several
amendments to the Freedom of Infor-
mation Act in the bill before you that
would require the Government to act
more expeditiously. If an agency is in
doubt as to whether a record should be
made available to the public, it must
notify the person asking for the infor-
mation within 10 days whether his re-
quest will be answered, and if not, the
reason for the refusal. The citizen may
then appeal to the head of that agency,
and a reply must be forthcoming in
20 days.
We also want to correct a time element
that is unfair. If a citizen sues to get
access to Government records, under
present law his attorney must respond
to Government motions within 20 days.
The Government, however, is given 60
days to reply to motions by the other
side. Our bill would amend the law to
put both sides on equal footing, with a
20-day limit for replying.
A recent Supreme Court decision has
left a citizen with no place to turn if
an agency classifies material which the
citizen believes should be nonclassified.
? At present, courts can only determine
if the mechanics of the law and Execu-
tive orders were faithfully followed in
classifying a document. Our amendment
would give the courts the authority to
examine document in camera to deter-
mine if the information in dispute ac-
tually fall? within the criteria of an Ex-
ecutive _order.
The Federal Government has some-
times gone to great expense of litigation
to deny citizen access to requested
information.
On at least one or two occassions, Gov-
ernment officials have displayed an atti-
tude that could be interpreted as say-
ing to a citizen, "If you want this in-
formation, sue the Government," To
make Federal officials think twice about
engaging in litigation when the Govern-
ment does not have a strong case, our
bill would provide that the Federal Gov-
ernment must pay "reasonable attorney
fees and other litigation costs" of citi-
zens who win cases under the Freedom
of Information Act.
One of the most beneficial amendments
being proposed to this law, in my opin-
ion, is one requiring annual reports to
Congress. Each agency shall tell Con-
gress each year how many times it has
determined not to comply with requests
for records, how, many appeals there
have been, the results of the appeals, a
copy of each rule made regarding the
Freedom of Information Act, and a copy
of the fee schedule and the fees col-
lected for making records available.
Through these reports, we will be able
to determine which agencies are respon-
sive to the public and which are not.
I salute the gentleman from Pennsyl-
vania (Mr. MOORHEAD) , the chairman of
the Foreign Operations and Government
Information Subcommittee, and the gen-
tleman from Illinois (Mr. ERLENBORN)
the ranking minority member of the sub-
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4
II 1794 Approved For RE6ffeipggityypik: wpciftytp_ggigm000600i9ooskihreh 14, 1974
committee, They have carefully written
amendments to the Freedom of Informa-
tion Act worthy of your approval.. It was
a pleasure to be associated with them in
producing this legislation. I urge its
adoption.
Mr. ERLENBORN. I now yield to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. PA Fins) .
Mr. PARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I should
like to pursue the response the gentleman
made a moment ago to the inquiries from
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yourre).
Did I understand the gentleman to say
that in an in camera inspection by the
court of information that the gentleman
assumes hypothetically, for the purposes
of this collequy, has to do with national
security, that the court in this legislation
would look to the provisions of the Ex-
ecutive order that classifies that material
under the national security exemption
rather than to the 'material itself"
Mr. ERLENBORN. No. I am afraid the
gentleman misunderstood. The amend-
ment that we have on the bill says that
the materiel must be classified under cri-
teria established by the Executive order,
and this is the authority for classifying
the material. The court will look at the
material and see Whether or not it prop-
erly falls within the area established by
the Executive order for classification, if
it fits the criteria of the Executive order,
so the court would be looking to the ma- ?
terial itself.
Mr. PARRIS. If the gentleman would
yield further, let us perhaps try to draw
an analogy here where some individual
wants to determine some information
from the Department of Defense, and
the Department of Defense comes beck
and says Under this Statute, if it is law,
that this particular material has some
sensitive national security aspects to it.
Would it then presumably not deliver
that material, and the process would
go on, and there would be an inspection
In camera, a judicial_ proceeding"
Mr. ERLENBORN. Might I interrupt
the gentleman at that point? Once there
has been a refusal, the matter is moot
unless the party seeking the information
takes the next affirmative step of insti-
tuting suit.
Mr. PARRIS. I understand, and I have
gone by that step. That materiel that
has been determined by the appropriate
Government agency or Government of-
ficial within the Department of Defense
would then presumably be delivered or
made in some way available to the court
for examination, so 'that the court it-
self would review the documents, or-
whatever the case may be, and deter-
mine that that was in fact sensitive na-
tional security information.
Mr. ERLENBORN. The court could.
The court Would not be required to. We
say that the Court may inspect In
camera. That is one device that would
be made available to the court. The court
is not required to.
?
Mr. PARRIS. Would it not be a rea-
sonable Presumption that if the court
is going to make an intelligent decision
about the sensitivity, it is going to have
to look at the material?
Mr, ERLENBORN. Not necessarily it
may be that the description of the docu-
ment:itself would be sufficient. 31 some-
one were asking, for instance, for the
plans for a new weapons system, or
something like that, it would be quite
apparent on the face of the request that
this material is properly classified.
Mr. McCLOSKEY, M.7. Chairman,
would the gentleman yieiel for . a sup-
plement to that response?
Mr. ERLENBORN. I yield to the gen-
tleman from California.
Mr. McCLOSKEY. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding
Again, we examined this matter
against the Sirica case decision. There
the Court of Appeals ruled that if the
President offered a statement to the
court as to the reasons why the docu-
ments were being withheld, the court
would hear arguments on those issues,
and only if the arguments were not sat-
isfactory to the court would the court
then order that the documents be pro-
duced for in camera inspection. Using
this authorization under criteria estab-
lished by the Executive order, if that
circuit court decision which remains law
is followed, we would assume that the
court would not order the production of
the documents unless the arguments as
to the documents themselves were not
persuasive.
And the executive branch under the
Executive order, having the power to
classify matters as "Top Secret," "Se-
cret," or "Confidential," we would as-
sume the court would apply very strict
rules before applying the in camera ex-
amination of the documents themselves.
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. ERLENBORN. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Texas.
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman from Illinois for yield-
ing, and I congratulate the gentleman
in the well for his leadership as well as
that shown by the chairman of our sub-
committee, the gentleman from Penn-
sylvania (Mr. Mooanesre for bringing
a very well constructed and very well-
balanced piece of legislation before the
House.
It is necessary, I think, to point out
that most of the changes which this bill
would make in existing law are proced-
ural in nature but they are of consider-
able significance in the administration.
Mr. TREEN. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman. yield?
Mr. ERLENBORN. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Louisiana
Mr. TREEN. Mr. Chairman, regarding
the national defense issue which the
gentleman from Florida and the gentle-
man from Virginia have talked about,
do I understand that the in-camera re-
view by the judge would be solely for the
purpose of determining whether the ma-
terial had been classified consistent with
the criteria or does the judge have the
right to question the criteria. Before re-
sponding I would appreciate it if the
gentleman will direct his attention to
the language in the bill which says:
Authorized under criteria established by
an Executive order to be kept secret in the
interest of the national defanse or foreign
policy.
My question is whether or not the
judge can question whether those me-
teria were established in the interest of
the national defense or foreign policy.
Mr. ERLENBORN. I have no hesita-
tion in answering the gentleman that the
court would not have the right to review
the criteria. The court would only review
the material to see if it conformed with
the criteria. The description "in the in-
terest of the national defense or foreign
policy" is descriptive of the area that the
criteria have been established in but does
not give the court the power to review
the criteria.
Mr. TREEN. I thank the gentleman.
If the gentleman will yield further,
does the chairman of the subcommittee
concur in that interpretation, that the
criteria themselves may not be reviewed?
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. If
the gentleman will yield, the court muet
accept the language of the Executive
orler as it was written.
Let me say to the gentleman what we
were concerned about is a statement in
the Supreme Court construing the Free-
dom of Information Act. Justice Potter
Stewart said:
Instead the Congress has built into the
Freedom of Information Act an exemption
that provides no means to question an Ex-
ecutive decision to stamp a document "Se-
cret" however cynical, myopic or even cor-
rupt the decision might have been.
But it is that kind of thinking )f the
Court which we wanted to alter.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. ERLENBORN. I yield to the
gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chair-
man, 1, too, support the amendments to
the Freedom of Information Act con-
tained in H.R. 12471. These amendments
will, in my estimation, improve the ad-
ministration of the act by stimulating
Federal agencies to disclose more Gov-
ernment information to the nubile and
to disclose it more quickly.
When we think of the Freedom of In-
formation Act and providing access to
Government information, I kno* that
most people think in terms of affording
entry to material in the city of Washing-
ton. We often forget that the Federal
Government has offices in communities
all around the country, and that each
of these offices also maintains informa-
tion which is important to many citi-
zens. As we decentralize Government
further, we will have more of these of-
fices, and they will maintain increasing
amounts of important data.
The Freedom of Information Ant ap-
ples to matters which are in these local
Federal offices, as well as those 'which
are at the seat of Government. Regret-
tably, many officials and employees at
these offices are not familiar with the
pro-visions of the act. Requests fiir in-
formation made to them must often be
referred to Washington, and as a result
are complied with slowly, If at all Pub-
lic access to Government data is conse-
quently frustrated not due to any malice
or intent to deceive, but merely to ig-
norance of the law.
I sincerely hope that the various'agen-
cies covered by the Freedom of Informa-
tion Act willl take the occasion oh' con-
gressional consideration of amendments
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4
?
: March 14, 19 APproved
For ElegrtsftgRaw Kriedgez5.wegeo00600190088-4 111795
to this law to educate their employees in
general offices about it. Perhaps enact-
ment of these amendments, with its con-
sequent demands on agencies for in-
creased speed and scope of disclosure,
will effectively require agencies to make
their employees outside this city aware
of the? FOI,law.
However greater responsiveness of
Federal offices to the people they serve
can be achieved, I shall be happy to see
It occur. I view H.R. 12471 as a means
of accomplishing that goal. For that rea-
son, as well as those cited by previous
speakers, I support the bill.
Mr. Chairman, one further matter that
we may look at is that these agencies are
located not just in Washington, but also
around the country, and these agencies
ought to be accessible to the public, as
well as those agencies in Washington. I
think this is an important dimension of
? the bill,
(Mr. REGULA asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. ERLENBORN. I thank the gentle-
man from Ohio.
(Mr. WRIGHT asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, our ?
committee has worked long and hard to
produce H.R. 12471 as a genuinely bi-
partisan measure to strengthen and to
improve the operation of the Freedom of
,Information Act. A total of 19 days of
investigative and legislative hearings
were held on the act in 1972 and 1973
by our Foreign Operations and Govern-
ment Information Subcommittee, under
the chairmanship of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania AUL _MOorrimm) . Another
9 days of open' markup sessions were
held by the subcommittee during the
past months to revise, improve, and re-
fine the language of these amendments
so that we could have unanimous agree-
ment by our subcommittee and fut corn-
mdttee members--both Republicans and
Democrats.
Mr. Chairman, the freedom of infor-
mation issue?dramatized SP effectively
by the gentleman from California (Mr.
Moss) during his 16 years as chairman
of this subcominittee?has never been a
partisan one. The committee has been
diligent in advancing and protecting the
public's "right to know' during the past
four administrations?two Republican
and two Democratic. WQ have fought the
Government bureaucrat's -penchant for
secrecy for almost 20 years in our com-
mittee and have saved the American
taxpayers untold millions of dollars in
the process.
The amendments to the Freedom of
Information Act of 1066 that are pro-
posed in H.R. 12471 are the first to be
considered since its enactment. This is a
highly technical and complex subject,
and the committee has been exceedingly
careful and clejiberate irt the amending
process. Some may feel that we have not
gone far enough. For example, the lan-
guage of only one of the nine exemptions
contained in section 552(b) of the act
Is changed at all. We felt that, by and
large, the Federal courts were doing a
creditable job in interpreting the lan-
guage of most exemptions in a way con-
sistent with the original intent of the
Congress. The clear trend in case law
under the Freedom of Information Act
has been tilted toward the public's "right
to know" and against Government bu-
reaucratic secrecy, and that is the way it
should be.
Although Most of the amendments to
the law proposed by H.R. 12471 are pro-
cedural in nature, they are nonetheless
of significant importance in improving
the day-to-day administration of the
act. As examples, I call attention to the
specific time limits provided in this bill
for an agency's response to a request- for
information from the public. Also, the
requirement that indexes of certain
types of information "be published and
distributed by sale or otherwise" by each?
Federal agency and the discretionary au-
thority given the courts to award attor-
ney fees and costs to plaintiffs who pre-
vail against the Government in freedom
of information litigation. Amendments
relating to the court review provisions
of the act likewise reaffirm the original
intent of Congress in the definition of
the term "de novo"; they also confirm'
our support of discretionary- use by the
courts of in camera review of contested
records to clearly determine if they are
properly withheld under the criteria of
the exemptions set forth in section 552
(b) of the present law.
This is a meaningful and important
bill, Mr. Chairman, and one which de-
serves the support of every Member of
this body. By passing H.R. 12471 with
an overwhelming vote we may begin to
repair the grave erosion of public confi-
dence in our governmental institutions
that has resulted from recent Watergate
scandals, secrecy, and coverup.
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the orig-
inal author of the Freedom of Informa-
tion Act the gentleman from California
(Mr. Moss).
(Mr. MOSS asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, 8 years ago
when the Congress passed the Freedom
of Information Act without a single dis-
senting vote, I thought we had made it
abundantly clear that the courts would
have the power to examine classified
documents in camera and determine
whether they had been properly classi-
fied.
The criteria for each classification?.
confidential, secret, and top secret?had
been set forth clearly in an Executive
order by the President. Either a classified
document meets the test of the criteria
or it does not. It is just that simple.
It does not require an Einstein. What
it does require is some intelligence, sensi-
tivity, commonsense, and an appreciation
for the right of the people to know what
their Government is doing and why. I
have confidence our judges have these
qualities.
I do not think we have to make dum-
mies out of them by insisting they accept
without question an affidavit from some
bureaucrat?anxious to protect his de-
cisions whether they be good or bad--
that a particular document was properly
classified and should remain secret. No
bureaucrat is going to admit he might
have made a mistake.
If that sounds partisan or too severe
a criticism, I would like to quote directly
from a statement of the President of the
United States,only 2 years ago. He said:
Unfortunately, the system of classifica-
tion which has evolved in the United States
has failed to meet the standards of an open
and democratic society, allowing too many
papers to be classified for too long a time.
The controls which have been imposed on
olassification authority have proved un-
workable, and classification has frequently
served to conceal bureaucratic mistakes or
to prevent embarrassment to officials and
administrations. . . .
The many abuses of the security system
can no longer be tolerated. Fundamental to
our way of life is the belief that when in-
formation which properly belongs to the
public is systematically withheld by those in
power, the people soon become ignorant of
their own affairs, distrustful of those who
manage them, and?eventually?incapable
of determining their own destines . . .
Although the present Freedom of In-
formation Act requires de novo deter-
mination of agency actions by the Fed-
eral courts, the Supreme Court has prob-
lems to the extent which courts may en-
gage in in camera inspection of with-
held records.
A recent Supreme Court decision held
that under the present language of the
act, the content of documents withheld
under section 552(b) (1)?pertaining to
national defense or foreign policy infor-
mation?is not reviewable by the courts
under the de novo requirement in sec-
tion 552(a) (3). The Court decided that
the limit of judicial inquiry is the de-
termination whether or not the infor-
mation was, in fact, marked with a clas-
sification under specific requirements of
an Executive order, and that this deter-
mination was satisfied by an affidavit
from the agency controlling the infor-
mation. In camera inspection of the doc-
uments by the Court- to determine if the
information actually falls within the cri-
teria of the Executive order was specifi-
cally rejected by the Court in its inter-
pretation of section 552(b) (1) of the act.
However, in his concurring opinion in
the Mink case, Mr. Justice Stewart in-
vited Congress to clarify its intent in this
regard.
Two amendments to the act included
in this bill are aimed at increasing the-
authority of the courts to engage in a
full review of agency action with respect
to information classified by the Depart-
ment of Defense, the Department of
Defense, the Department of State, and
totheiragencies under Executive order au-
thority.
Chairman, it is the intent of the
committee that the Federal courts be
free to employ whatever means they find
necessary to discharge their responsibil-
ities. This was also the intent in 1966
when Congress acted, but these two
amendments contained in the bill before
you today make it crystal clear. I ask for
your unanimous support for this legis-
lation which is intended to close such
loopholes and make the right to know
more meaningful to the American
people.
I would like to point out, Mr. Chair-
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4
111796
Approved For Release 2001/08/30: CIA-RDP751300380R000600190088-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- HOUSE March 14, 1974
man, too, r know the concern expressed
by at least two Members in the ceueatiane
directed to the distinguished ranking
minority member or the committee, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emma-
Bose) , that the classifications of many
of these documents are made at such
low levels in the bureaucracy of Gov-
ernment that one would be almost
shocked to even find out that they had
the authority to impose a classification
stamp.
We found at one time that classifica-
tion authority was being exercised by
over 2 million persons in the Federal
bureaucracy. Many of those documents
were classified with little understanding
on the part of the classifiers and remain
hidden frena public view. Many of those
documents could be the subject of action
proposed to be taken in court u.ader the
provision of the language now being
amended to further clarify the Freedom
of Inforniation Act. I think the ameed-
ments are most worthwhile.
Mr. Chairman, before yielding the
floor, I would like to address a question
to the gentleman from Pemieylvania
(Mr. Mommeee), regarding the report
language-on page 9 under the subhead-
,
ing, "Information to Congress."
As I understand it I think it is of the
utmost importance that in no way do we
modify the rights of the Congress by
any of the language contained in the
amendments now pending before this
committee_
Mr. MOORHEAD cf Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yick. to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. MOORHEAD of Perinsyhania.
Mr. Chairman, as is the usual ease, the
gentletnar from California is 100 percent
correct.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the
gentleman,.
Mrs. MINK_ Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MOBS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to
the gentlewoman from Hawaii.
(Mrs, Mrtele asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend her re-
marks.)
Mrs. MINK. Mr. Chairman, T world
like to join the gentleman in the well in
expressing my very genuine support for
this legislation, and commend riot one,
the gentleman in the well, but the chair-
man of the subcommittee and the mem-
bers of this Committee for bringing forth
this legislation which will cor reel two
major defects in the court's decision
was rendered in the Mink against EPA
case.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of HR.
12471, legislation to amend tile Free-
dom of Information Act.
As Congress moves to reform eur elec-
tion laws, it it also essential that we
move for-Wird on another front to bring
Government closer to the people. This is
in the area of governmental mfonna -
tion, the free flow of which is the ell-
spring of Our constitutional democracy.
Fortunately, we have an excellent ve-
hicle for this. The e'reedom of Infor-
mation Ant, first enacted in 1f166, pro-
vides a tested and workable mechanism
for assuring the disclosure of infdrina-
tion to the public while at the same
time protecting the confidentiality of the
Government process where necessary.
Acting on the experience gained under
the basic statute, we can eefme and lin-
prove the act as needed. H.R. 124'71 is
an effort to do this. It is a carefully
considered and drafted hill which was
reported out unanimously by the mem-
bers of the Committee on Government
Operations. It makes spare and judicious
changes in the act, the need for which
has been fully demonstratedby events in
the information area.
I would like to discuss one such change
in particular, as I was a participant in
the events which showed the act must
be clarified. On January 22, 1973, the
U.S. Supreme Court rendered its deci-
sion in the case of Environmental Pro-
tection Agency against Mink, et al. This
was the first interpretation of the Free-
dom of Information Act by the Supreme
Court. I had initiated the suit a year
earlier with 32 other Members of Con-
gress as ceplaintiffs. We sought as Mem-
bers of Congress and as private individ-
uals to compel the execurdve branch to
release papers on the nuclear test "Can-
-nikin." At the time, Congress was mak-
ing a decision on Whether to authorize
and appropriate funds for the test.
In our suit, we asked that the judicial
branch rule on the Executive's compli-
ance with provisions of the act. We se-
cured an Appeals Court directive to the
Federal district judge to review the docu-
ments in camera to determine which, if
any, should be released. This seemed en-
tirely proper to us as an initial step under
the act, since the act does provide for
court determination under section (a) (3)
on a de novo basis of the validity or
Executive withholdings.
Unfortunately, in the Nfink case the
Supreme Court reached a. decision that
most of us regard as somewhat tortuous
in this regard. When the executive
branch took the Appeals Court decision
to the higher court on certiorari, the Su-
preme Court held that in camera reviews
of material classified by the President as
national defense and foreign policy mat-
ters are not authorized or Permitted by
the act. -
The basis of this decision was the act's
list of exemptions from compelled disclo-
sure. Exemption No. 1, under section (h)
(1) of the act, exempts matters author-
ized by specific Executive order to be kept
secret in the interest of the national
defense or foreign policy, Somehow, the
Supreme Court decided that once the
Executive had shown that documents
were so classified, the judiciary could not
intrude. Thus, the mere rubberstamping
of a document as "Secret' or "Confiden-
tial" could forever immunize it from dis-
closure. All the courts cculd do was to
determine whether it was 30 stamped. An
affidavit was used in the Mink case to
prove this. No judge ever saw the docu-
ments at all, not even their cover page.
The abuses inherent in such a system
of unrestrained secrecy are obvious. As
the system has operated, there Is no
specific Executive order foe. each classi-
fied document. Instead, the President
issued one single Executive order estab-
lishing the entire classification system,
and all of the millions of docUrnents
stamped "Secret" under this over suc-
ceeding years are now forever immune
from even the most superficial judicial
scrutiny. A lowerSlevel bureaucrat' could
stamp the Manhattan telephone :direc-
tory "Top Secret" and no court could
order this charged. Under the Supreme
Court edict, the Executive need only dis-
patch an affidavit signed by some. lowly
official certifying that the directory was
classified pursuant to the Executive
order, and no action could be taken.
Obviously, something must be done to
correct this ridiculous court interpreta-
tion. It need not, be a drastic sten. Ac-
tually, it was the original intention of
Congress in adopting the Freedom of
Information Act to increase the disclo-
sure of information. Congress authorized
de novo probes by the eicliciarye as a
check on arbitrary withholding actions
by the Executive. Typically, the do novo
process involves in camera inspections.
These have been done by lower .courts
in the case of materials withheld Under
other exemptions in the act. They can
be barred under exemption No. 1,
()vier through a misguided reading .of the
act and by ignoring the wrongful Conse-
quences.
H.R. 12471 contains two minor
changes in the act to correct this aspect
of the Mink decision and snake crystal
clear that courts have authority to make
in camera inspections of original ? docu-
ments, no matter under what ekemp-
ton they were withheld, to assure com-
pliance with the Freedom of Informa-
tion Act.
The first change inserts the ;words
"and may examine the contents Of any
asency records in camera to determine
wnether such records or any part thereof
shall be withheld under any of the ex-
emptions set forth" in the act. This
Cl kange will remove all doubt that 'Courts
have discretionary authority to Utilize
In camera inspections when they be-
lieve it is desirable. It does not compel
such actions but leaves it to the ettscre-
tion of the court.
The other change brought about by the
Mink decision revises the wording of ex-
etaption No. 1. Instead of Iref er-
ring merely to matters specifically re-
quired by Executive order to be' kept
secret, it will exempt matters "author-
ized under criteria established by an
Executive order to be kept secret. This
will give courts leeway to Probe into the
justification of the classification? itself.
The change will empower courts to de-
termine whether the matters meet the
cilterie established by the Executive or-
der under which they were withheld. In
effect, courts will be able to rule on
weether disclosure actually would bring
about damage to the national security or
on whatever other test is set fortieth the
Fxeeutive order as -justification for the
classification. Our Intention is making
this change is to place a judicial check on
arbitrary actions by the Executive to
withhold information that might be em-
barrassing, politically sensitive, or other-
wise concealed for improper reasons
rather than truly vital to national de-
fense or foreign policy. We are not say-
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4
- March 14, 194proved For FfeleEitifallISIMIMAIL:EECARBPJ7-5BEffillEr811000600190088-4 11 1797
jug any material must be released, only
that it must be submitted to an impar-
tial judge to determine whether its with-
- _
holding meets the provisions and pur-
poses of the act,
I believe these changes are essential if
we are to restore the proper functioning
of our democratic process. I ask for ap-
proval of H.R. 12471.
Finally in closing, I would like to ac-
knowledge the Members of Congress in
1971, who joined me in my sUit against
the Government, which led to the Mink
against EPA decision. The Members of
Congress who were coplaintiffs are:
LIST OF CopLATNrn's
(Senator) James Abourezk, Bella S. Abzug,
Herman Ba?dillo, (the late) Nick Begich,
Phillip Burton, William Clay, (former Rep.)
John G. Dow, Robert F. brinan, Bob Eck-
hardt, Don Edwards, William D. Ford, Donald
M. Fraser, Michael Harrington, Augustus F.
Hawkins, Ken Hechler, James J. Froward.
Robert W. Kastenmeier, Edward I. Koch,
Robert L. Leggett, Spark M. Matsunaga,
Romano L. Mazzoli, (former Rep.) Abner J.
Mikva, Parren J. Mitchell, John E. Moss,
Thomas a Rees, Teno Roncalio, Benjamin S.
Rosenthal, Edward R. Roybal, (the late)
William F. yktn, (former Rep.) James H.
Scheuer, John F. Seiberling, Frank Thomp-
,
son, Jr,
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman from California has again ex-
pired.
Mr. MOORHEAD_ of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, I yield 1 additional minute
to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Moss).
Mrs. MINK. Mr. Chairman, this has
been a very long struggle for many of us,
including the gentleman in the well, in
the case we brought against the Govern-
ment for the disclosure of information
which we felt was so essential in our de-
liberations. The actions of this commit-
tee today in bringing this bill to the
House will serve to enlarge not only our
ability but the ability of the American
people to acquire important information
so that we can fully, participate in this
democracy.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
again, together with the chairman and
members of the committee.
Mr. MOSS. Mn, Chairman I thank the
gentlewoman, and I would like to take
this opportunity to express to the gen-
tleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. MOOR-
HEAD) and the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. ERLENBORN) my unqualified admi-
ration for the work they did in drafting
these amendments.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support
them in offering the "Omendrnents to the
House today.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. BROWN) .
? (Mr. BROWN of Ohio asked and was
given permission to revise .and extend his
remarks.)
pine. 'gr. Chairman,
support laudable objectives of the
Freedom of Information Act, and the
worthy attempt that the committee is
making to strengthen the act and clarify
certain ambiguities that still plague the
act. But the House should make clear
that the Corporation for Public Broad-
casting is not intended to be covered
within the expanded definition of "agen-
cy" which is part of this amendment. The
corporation clearly is not a Government
corporation or a Government controlled
corporation and should not become sub-
ject to the act under those terms as used
within the expanded definition of
"agency" in the amendment.
The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967
expressly provided that the corporation
Is not to be "an agency or establishment
of the U.S. Government." Rather it is a
private, independent corporation incor-
porated pursuant to the District of Co-
lumbia Nonprofit Corporation Act. Al-
though Congress was desirous of support-
ing public broadcasting with Federal
funds in 1967, it was keenly aware that
it would be inappropriate?constitution-
ally and otherwise?for the Government
" itself to perform the suPport activities
that it envisioned for the corporation.
Congress established a private corpora-
tion so that the Government itself would
not be involved in deciding how the Fed-
eral funds appropriated for the support
of public broadcasting would be used.
Of course, the corporation is not op-
posed to making available to the public
information concerning its activities. In-
deed, it is important that the public
understand what the corporation does for
It to succeed in its mission. But it would
be a mistake to treat the corporation as
a Government agency or Government
controlled corporation when its very rea-
son for being is insulation from the Gov-
ernment. If the corporation is made sub-
ject to the act, the cotporation will in-
evitably be clothed with the trappings of
Government.
So, Mr. Chairman, I rise to inquire of
both the chairman of the subcommittee,
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
MOORHEAD), and the ranking Member,
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. ERLEN-
BORN) if, under the language on page 8,
the definition of "agency," in reference
to the Corporation for Public Broadcast-
ing, is not inconsistent with the lan-
guage of the legislation and if, in fact,
there is any effort to get control of the
corporation or its decisionmaking func-
tion through this act. I would certainly
hope not.
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
- Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, as I stated earlier in the de-
bate, the language of the statute, where
is says, "Government-controlled corpo-
ration," would be controlling over the
language of the report. If the Corpora-
tion for Public Broadcasting is not
a _Government-controlled corporation,
then the provisions of the act would not
reach it.
I will say to the gentleman that if
the act does apply to the corporation,
there is no intention to do anything but
give individual members of the public
the right to get information. I am sure
that this corporation would give that
to the individual citizens, either with the
law or without the law.
There is no intent to institute Gov-
eminent control or congressional control
over the corporation itself.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman,
I thank the gentleman for his response.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
ERLENBORN), will, concur, I trust.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, if
the gentleman will yield, I will state that
the gentleman is correct.
Mr. GUDE. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman,
I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
(Mr. GUDE asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. GUDE. Mr. Chairman, the people's
right to know is? fundamental in our
democracy. H.R. 12471 advances that
right by making improvements in admin-
istrative procedures under the Freedom
of Information Act. As a member of the
subcommittee which considered this bill,
I wish to add my support of it.
I would like to address myself to two
provisions of H.R. 12471 in particular:
Section (1) (d), which permits?but does
not require?courts to examine the con-
tents of agency records in camera to de-
termine whether the records or any por-
tion of them may be withheld from the
public under any of the exemptions to
the act, and section (2) , which makes
clear that only documents which may
be kept secret in the interest of the na-
tional defense or foreign policy are those
which have been properly classified.
Just before be began our hearings on
two bills to amend the Freedom of In-
formation Act, both of which I cospon-
sored, the Supreme Court ruled in En-
vironmental Protection Agency v. Mink,
410 U.S. 73 (1973) , that courts could not
review the contents of classified docu-
ments. It decided that a determination
of whether material was properly classi-
fied was satisfied by an affidavit from the
agency controlling the information.
On the basis of personal experience,
Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that this
decision is reasonable. Let me cite one
example. Weather modification in Viet-
nam during American participation in
the war there is a subject in which I
have had considerable interest. Both
Senator CRANSTON and I have asked the
Defense Department for information
about this subject repeatedly since 1971;
we have been denied it each time. Sen-
ator PELL, who is the chairman of the
Senate Subcommittee on Oceans and In-
ternational Environment, has also asked
for this information, and he, too, has
been denied it.
Weather modification is one of the
most sensitive and fascinating scientific
topics being discussed today. Scores of
meteorologists and environmentalists
are very concerned about developments
in this area. Surely Congress ought to
know what the Defense Department is
doing with regard to it before legislating
on measures in this field, such as my
House Resolution 329, expressing the
sense of the House that the United
States should seek prohibition of
weather modification as a weapon of
war.
I think that the Department erred
In not releasing Information on weather
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4
}I17
Approved For Reimleggia3Z:, $.1101itPrT5139E0400060019008RAn 14, j:97;
modification, but under the present law,
I could not seek court review of the De-
partment's position.
If H.R. 12471 were to be enacted, how-
ever, I could seek that court review. I
could get a hearing by an independent
arbiter on whether the executive branch
had acted rightly in withholding inf or-
Trianon. I am pleased to vote for a bfil
which makes this improvement in she
administration of the Freedom of :[n-
formation Act.
(Mr. ALEXANDER, at the request of
Mr. Moortemen of Frennsylvania, to revise
and extend his murexes at this point in
the Recortee
Mr. A.OnCANDER. Mr. Chai rrnan, I
rise in support of H.R. 12471, which is
designed to strengthen the Freedom of
Information Act. This legislation is an-
other step in making certain that gov-
ernment Is the servant of the people and
not its master.
One proeision is especially important
in this regard. The hill provides for the
recovery of attorney fees and costs at
the discret on of the courts.
Why is this so important? For one
thing, ther alias been altogether too much
unnecessary litigation forced upon our
citizens by Federal agencies that fed
they Own ,or have a proprietary interest
in Government infonnaticsa--informa-
tion that belongs to all of our peaple.
Citizens are sometimes compelled to
spend thousands of dollars?money they
can ill afford?simply to assert rights
which Congress is attempting to imple-
ment under both the spirit and letter of
the Constitution.
The Government has lost more than
half of its Freedom of Informatien eases...
That is not ramie of a track record. In
fact, it is lousy. And guess who is stuck
with the tab? The Unfortunate citizen
complaintant and the taxpayers.
The committee feels that once the
Government has to take full responsibil-
ity for litigating indefensible cases, it will
think twine before going to the inaik in
the first instance.
Let me emphasize that the recovery
of reasonable attorney fees and other
litigation _costs is at the discrete:3a of
the court. It may take into consideration
those factors it cOnsidces consistent w_th
the adnairdetration of justice.
These may` include when the suit ad-
vances a strong congressional policy, the
ability of sere plaintiff to sustain such
expenses without barrnful sacrifice, the
obstinance of the Government in press-
ing a weak case, the question of possible
malice and any other factors considered
important to the court.
The committee feels strongly that no
plaintiff should be forced to suffer any
possible irreparable damage because the
Government failed to live up to the letter
and spirit of the Freedom of Irforma-
t ion Act.
Only when this Natiene most thread-
bare citizen can stand before the fill
array of Government power and emerge
victorious la every sense when his cause
is just will-the full promise of our syftern
of government be realized. That proms?
must be guarded and brought. to reality
and that is our intention.
I ask this House to strike another blow
for liberty and approve this legislation
with resounding affirmation for its con-
stitutional goals.
Mr. IVIOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, I yield such thne as he may
consume to the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Fesceere , a member of the com-
mittee.
Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman for yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, as one of the original
charter members of the Moss subcommit-
tee, appointed by the late Chairman
Dawson in 1955 to Investigate Govern-
ment secrecy and withholding practices,
I am particularly pleased to support the
pending bill, HR. 12471.
This measure would measurably im-
prove and strengthen the Driginal Free-
dom of Information Act, now in opera-
tion for almost 7 years. Cur committee
has spent many weeks of concentrated
effort in investigative and legislative
hearings and in public markup sessions
to draft and perfect the legislation before
us today. The need for these amendments
has been fully documented in our 1972
investigative report Muss Report 92-
1418?and in our legislative report on
this measure?House Report 93-876. I
commend these two documents to all
Members.- They make a clear-cut case
for these important amendments to curb
Federal agency delays and other abuses
in the administration of the act, to
clarify and reaffirm original congres-
sional intent, and to make the Freedom
of Information Act a much more usable
tool for the working press.
Mr. Chairman the advantages of open
public access to the workings of govern-
ment have been clearly demonstrated in
both the Federal Freeciorc.. of Informa-
tion Act and in my own State of Florida
through the "sunshine law." One of the
ways in which we can help reestablish
public confidence in our governmental
operations is by the quick enactment of
these amendments to the Freedom of In-
formation Act.
For the most part, the Federal courts
have taken adequate notice of the im-
portance of the act as a milestone enact-
ment by Congress in. preserving the fon-
elemental right of all Americans to be
informed about the business of their
Government. The pending legislation,
therefore, does not change the language
of eight of the nine exemptions contained
in section 552(b) of the act. One of the
most eloquent statements by a Federal
court in support of the principles of the
act was made in the 1971 freedom of in-
formation case of Soucie against David:
Congress passed the Freedom of Informa-
tion Act in response to a persistent problem
of legislators and citizens. the problem of ob-
taining adequate information to evaluate
l'edcral programs and formulate wise poli-
cies. Congress recognized that the public
cannot make intelligent clecisions without
such information, and that governmental in-
stitutions become unresponsive to public
needs if knowledge of their activities is de-
nied to the people and their representatives,
The touchstone of any proceedings under the
Act must be the clear 14.isliAive intent to
assure public access to all imv .rnraental rec-
ords whose disclosure would not significantly
hwma specific governmental interestS, 'The
policy of the act requires that the disclosure
requirements be construed broadly, the ex-
emptions narrowly.
Mr. Chairman, one historical reference
Is particularly important in understand-
ing the need for these _amendments.
When hearings were held_ 9_ years ago
by the Moss subcommittee on legislation
that finally Was enacted as the Freedom
of Information Act of 1966, every single
witness from the Federal bureaucracy?
then under a Democratic President?op-
posed the bilL They claimed that it would
seriously hamper the functioning of Fed-
eral agencies and be ruinous to the de-
cisionmaking process. Despite their op-
pcnition, the bill was unanitneusly passed
by the Congress and President Johnson
wisely signed it into law. Of coulee, no
such calamitous result was forthcoming.
The spectres never appeared. During the
hearings on this current leidslatiOn to
strengthen the freedom of information
law, every single witness from the Fed-
end bureaucracy?this time under a Re-
publican President?has again opposed
the bill, using the same types of dis-
credited arguments heard 9 years ago.
taust that history will repeat itself and
that Congress will again give its 'over-
whelming approval to freedom of infor-
mation legislation and that the present
Write House incumbent will likewise sign
the bill into law.
Mr. Chairman, I urge our House col-
leagues to support the important biparti-
san amendments to the Freedom.of In-
formation Act as contained in H.R.
12471.
Mr. Chairman, I would just simply like
to add two points: One is that the origi-
nal act, after long years ,of studs' and
thousands of pages of testimony, has
been in operation now for 7 years and
all of the cries that were raised at the
time the original act was passed can be
summed up probably in this fashion:
That it was said that if we passed the
Freedom of Information Act, it would
bring the executive branch of Govern-
ment to a grinding halt.
None of that, of course, has happened.
The Freedom of Information Act has
found its place in the legislative history
and in the administration of our !Gov-
ernment. It has been an extremely- use-
ful tool for our citizens, and it has helped
build ciinfidence in Government. Good-
ness knows, we need more of that.
So these amendments now are another
long step toward clarifying the right of
public access to Government informa-
tion.
Mr. Chairman, I would just want to
add this one thought: That none of the
fears that have been expressed really
materialized. I do not believe that any
would materialize in the future as a result
of these amendments or any other act
-that deals with this subject. I think it
is too well ingrained now in our legisla-
tive history, and in the operational his-
tory of this Government.
One point we should keep in mind is
that members of the public and the rights
of individual Congressmen are also oov-
ered under this act as members of the
public, and I would like to ask the chair-
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4
March 14, 19Approved For lkft:0061t.ggg1!eff.hg :106?07114114MR000600190088-4
man of the committee, once again, in
View of the long history on this point,
that whatever rights accrue to Members
of Congress under this act as Members
of the body politic, this in no way is in
derogation of other rights which may
exist by reason of our responsibilities as
Members a congress and in no way
diminishes Or modifies those rights.
- Mr, 11/41fOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, the gentleman is entirely
correct.
- (Mr. FASCELL asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
support of the Freedom of Information
Act amendments, and urge the defeat of
any weakening amendments.
Mr. Chairman, the people in the 13th
District in Florida wonder Why it takes
over a month to receive even an interim
reply from a Federal agency on a -request
for information, As a matter of fact, my
staff often has the same problem.
The information stored in Obvern-
ment files is valuable stuff. And the peo-
ple whose taxes paid for it should in
most circumstances be able to get hold
of inforMation Quickly. I am pleased to
se that the committee has set time
limits of ten working days for agency
action on original requests.
The Freedom of Information Act
amendments before us today are more
Of what we in Florida call "government
In the sunshine," Government in the
sunshine is letting the people see What
It is that the Government is doing, and
gives the people better access to the Gov-
ernment. Conversely, it also makes the
Government more responsive to the peo-
ple.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the support of
my colleagues for this bill.
. Mr. H.A.NRAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I was
particularly proud of the recent action
of the House of Representatives in pass-
ing H.R. 12471. This bill represents the
first comprehensive attempt to expand
and improve upon the Freedom of In-
formation Act which became public law
in 1966.
Never before in the history of America
has the need for better access to gov-
ernmental information by the people
been so great. One of the major reasons
so many Americans have lost faith in
our form of government, has been the
Persistent belief that ours is a govern-
ment of the few which makes its deci-
sions in secret. The whole purpose of
the Freedom of Information Act was to
open up governmental information to
the scrutiny of the American people. By
passing H.R. 12471, the House has acted
decisively to make this important public
law more effective and available for use
by all Americans.
The following major improvements to
the Freedom of Information Act are in-
cluded in HR. 124'71:
First. A current index of agency poli-
cies and documentS alia,11 be promptly
published ancLdistiputed tor interested
indisilduaM by Ale or 'offierwise;
SecOnd. Requests for information must
merely "reasonably describe" as opposed
to "specifically identify" records in ques-
tion;
Third. Nothing in this bill shall be
construed to limit in any way congres-
sional access to information;
Fourth. Time limits for each phase of
agency response to informational re-
quests are set up. Original requests must
be acted upon within 10 days. Admin-
istrative appeals must be decided within
20 working days. Court proceedings may
be initiated if these deadlines are not
met; -
Fifth. The court may reimburse an in-
formational requester in cases where the
agency denial is not upheld;
Sixth. The court may examine in secret
any information denied to see if it falls
into any category of excluded informa-
tion.
Seventh. Information denied for se-
curity reasons must be specifically iden-
tified as such by the executive branch;
Eighth. Each agency must submit an
annual report of its efforts to meet the
requirements of this Act including the
number of denials, reasons for each and
the amount and rate of fees; and
Ninth. All executive agencies and Gov-
ernment corporations, including the Ex-
ecutive Office of the President, are re-
quired to abide by this act.
As a Member of Congress who has
taken a deep and abiding interest in the
free flow of Government information, I
feel the House has acted in the public
interest by passing H.R. 12471.1 sincerely
hope this wise and farsighted measure
will be speedily enacted into law.
Mr. PATTEN. Mr. Chairman, many
years ago, Lord Acton wrote that?
Everything secret degenerates, even the
administration of justice; nothing is safe
that does not show it can bear discussion
and publicity.
I have always believed that, for I am
convinced that the public has the right
to know what the Government is doing
right?or wrong. That is why I was a
cosponsor of the Freedom of Informa-
tion Act of 1966. It always disturbed me
to read or hear that some Federal de-
partments or agencies conceal public in-
formation, instead of revealing it.
Although the 1966 act has made more
information available to the public, many
improvements have to be made before
Congress can really say it is furnishing
the people with the information they de-
serve. Therefore, once again, I have be-
come a cosponsor of freedom of infor-
mation legislation, because it contains
provisions that help strengthen the pres-
ent law. The new legislation not only
strengthens procedural aspects, but also
improves its administration, and expe-
dites the handling of requests for infor-
mation from Federal agencies, including
reports to Congress that will show ap-
plications for information denied.
Mr. Chairman, I have, like Jeffer-
son, "confidence in the- people, cher-
ish and consider them as the most
honest and safe." After years in public
life, my confidence in the people has
grown, while my faith in some who gov-
ern has declined. Yet, I have hope and
believ.e that onv of the beat ways of im-
proving the low estem in which Congress
is held by the public?only about 21 per-
cent think we are doing a good job?is
to pass a Freedom of Information Act
that will provide people with the infor-
mation they need about government. If
government is right, it should be praised,
and if it is wrong, it should be criticized.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this
bill, for it will not only strengthen the
public's right-to-know, but also help re-
store some of the public confidence that
Federal agencies and Congress have lost.
Mr. THOlVIPSON of New Jersey. Mr.
Chairman, I rise in support of HR. 12471
in order that the Freedom of Informa-
tion Act might be strengthened and made
a more workable tool by the news media
and other Americans.
As a cosponsor of the original 1973 bill
on which the Foreign Operations and
Government Information Subcommittee
held hearings, I have closely followed the
markup sessions that produced this bi-
partisan measure before us today. I think
it significant, Mr. Chairman, that there
is a broad representation of the po-
litical spectrum of both sides of the aisle
in support of this bill.
History has repeatedly shown that an
obsession for secrecy in governmental
institutions has been the handmaiden of
repression, corruption, and dictatorial
rule. Government secrecy for the pur-
poses of hiding wrongdoing, inept leader-
ship, or bureaucratic errors undermines
and can eventually destroy our system of
representative government. The con-
fidence of the American public in gov-
ernmental institutions must be restored
if we, as a nation, are to emerge from
the Watergate doldrums. This bill to
make the Freedom of Information Act
a more viable weapon in the fight against
secrecy excesses of the entrenched Gov-
ernment bureaucracy is an important
start in. that direction.
Mr. Chairman, in that connection we
should all heed the recent observations
of former Chief Justice Earl Warren
when he said:
It would be difficult to name a more effi-
cient ally of corruption than secrecy. Corrup-
tion is never flaunted to the world. In Gov-
ernment, it is invariably practiced through
secrecy. . . . If anything is to be learned
from our present difficulties, compendiously
known as Watergate, it is that we must open
our public affairs to public scrutiny on every
level of Government. . . .
I urge that we begin today by an over-
whelming vote in support of H.R. 12471,
to let the American public know that we
in Congress believe that freedom of in-
formation is the best antidote for the
Watergate secrecy and coverup poison.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I should
like to commend the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. MOORHEAD) and the
Foreign Operations and Government In-
formation Subcommittee which he chairs
for doing a superb job of legislative over-
sight on the Freedom of Information
Act. That painstaking and hard-hitting
job of oversight in the 92d Congress led
to the introduction last year of amend-
ments to clarify and strengthen the act,
which I was pleased to cosponsor. Sub-fl legislative hearings helped shape
the amendments that are before us now.
I think a strong case for these amend-
ments has already been made. All I hope
to do now is. Contribute one example of
why congressional vigilance is necessary
to assure that the Freedom of Informa-
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : elA-RDP75B00380R000600190088-4
Approved For RvemiNgimu 9.iyuid35_9_98.19A90060019008mrch 1 19
tion Act f unctions in the way Congress
intended.
Last December 27 the Soil Conserva-
tion Service of the Department of Agri-
culture published regulations prescrib-
ing the policies, procedures and author-
izations governing tlie public availability
of its materials and records under what
it erroneously referred to as the "Pah-
lie Information Act."
The SCS said it would make its rec-
ords available with "reasonable prompt-
ness" for inspection or copying, except
for certain kinds of records which it then
Listed. The SCS may have intended that
its list reflect the act's list of certain
categories of information that are ex-
empt from mandatory disclosure, but the
agency stumbled before it even got
started.
Its very first category was:
Materials specifically required by Execu-
tive orders to be kept secret.
A much, much broader category than
that specified by the act itself, which row
reads:
Specifically required by Executive orde:'to
be kept secret in the interest of the na-
tional defuse or foreign policy.
To compound its error, the SCS did
not invite public comment on its regula-
tions, declaring blandly that?
lo substantive basic policy or p.veedural
changes have been made.
Of course, that allegation was non-
sense.
I cite this example to show that Fed-
eral agencies still cannot yet be trusted
to live up to the Freedom of Information
Act on the:x own. We must monitor them
constantly and continue to demand that
they strive to comply with the law to the
fullest. If we do not, the public will not
have the access to government inform,-
tion that it is entitled to have under the
law.
Mr. Chairman, I urge that these
amendments to the Freedom of Infor-
mation Ace be passed as reported out by
the Government Operations Committee
Mr. BROOM:Kit:La Mr. Chairman,
rise today in support of H.R. 12471, to
amend the Freedom of Information Act.
When thiE historic act was passed in
1966, the intent was to guarantee the
right of the American people to kr ow
what their Government was, doing by
enabling them to obtain information and
records from Federal agencies.
It has been increasingly evident since
then that the 1966 --act lacks the strength
necessary to make it effective in this
area. Certain ambiguities and weak-
nesses have prevented it from a ehieving
the results intended by its passage. We
have the ,epportunity today to correct
this situation and inject new If e into
the original act by passing H.R. 12471.
The basis of a sound democracy is an
informed public. we pride ourselves on
being a gogernment that depends on the
voices of ell the people, not just a few..
But for these voices to play an active
part they must have access to knewledge.
Otherwise, they are merely the voices cd
Ignorance.
The access to GOvernment informa-
tion is a basic right of all the American
people, As one of our greatest Presidents
said, this is a government 'of the people,
by the people, and for the neople." I urge
all my colleagues to echo Abraham Lin-
coln's words today by voting favorably
on H.R. 12471.
Mr. DRINAN. Mr. Chairman, the peo-
ple's right to know how the Government
is discharging its duties is essential to a
democratic society. This is the basis of
the Freedom of Informaticn Act, and for
the amendments to that act before us
today.
One of the most impoetant features
of the legislation before us-today is that
it would create the machenery for con-
tinuous congressional oversight of the
information practices of the Federal
Government.
The underlying principle of the Free-
dom of Information Act is that of Con-
gress performing its most essential role,
acting as a check in balance on the
growth of executive power. Indeed, Sen-
ator STUART SYMINGTON, 'quoted in "The
Pentagon' Papers and the Public," Free-
dom of Information Center Report No.
0013?U. Mo. July 1971?gave an excel-
lent example of the dangers of secrecy
in Government when he stated that he
"slowly, reluctantly, and from the unique
vantage point of having been a Pentagon
official and the only Member of Congress
to sit on both the Foreign Relations and
Armed Services Committees concluded
that executive branch secrecy has now
developed to a point where secret mili-
tary actions often first create and then
dominate foreign policy responses."
The bill before us today strengthens
the Freedom of Information Act of 1966.
It provides for a wider availability of
agency indexes listing informational
items. It permits access to records on the
basis of a reasonable description of a
particular document rather than requir-
ing specific titles or file numbers as is
presently the case in many agencies. The
bill sets short time lirnies for agency
responses to inquiries. It Provides for
recovery of attorneys' fees and court
costs by plaintiffs.
The bill also permits in camera court
review of classified documents for pur-
poses of determining whether 'the docu-
ments were properly classified under ex-
ecutive a,uthority. This key provision in
effect reverses Environmental Protection
Agency et al. v. Patsy T. Mink et al., 410
U.S. 73 (1973), a suit in which I was one
of 33 congres,sionel party plaintiffs, by
specifically allowing in camera inspection
by the courts of all documents in dispute,
including those which may relate to na-
tional defense and those which may fall
into the category of inter and intraoffice
memoranda. This provision reestablishes
the original intent of this bill.
The purpose of this legislation is to
facilitate access to information by the
public. At a time when the deleterious
effects of Government secrecy have never
been in greater evidence, this legislation
is most welcome.
Mr. REUSS. Mr. Chairman, I strongly
support H.R. 12471. The Freedom of In-
formation Act should be strengthened
and improved after 7 years of operation.
The Government Operations Commit-
tee adopted a comprehensive report on
the administration of the Freedom of In-
formation Act in September 1972. It was
the unanimous view of the membership
of our committee, based on many weeks
of hearings and investigations by the
Pc-reign Operations and Government In-
formation Subcommittee, that certain
amendments were required to make the
law truly effective.
Hearings held on legislation tnimple-
ment this committee recommendation
were held last year and produced' sup-
porting testimony and statements from a
number, of widely diverse organizations.
including:
From the news media:
Creed Black, editor of the Philadelphia
Inquirer;
Herbert Brucker, former editor of the
Hartford Courant and former president
of the American Society of Newspaper
Editors;
J. R. Wiggins, former editor of the
Washington Post, past president of the
ASNE, now publisher of the Ellsworth,
Maine, American;
Richard Smyser, editor of the Oak
Ridger, Oak Ridge, Tenn., and vice pres-
ident of the Associated Press Managing
Editors;
Clark Mollenhoff, former Nixon White
House counsel and now bureau chief of
the Des Moines Register-Tribune; .
Ted Koop, Washington office director
of the Radio-Television News Directors
As:soda:Lion;
E. W. Larnpson, president of the Ohio
Newspaper Association;
Ted Serrill, executive vice president.
National Newspaper Association.
Courtney R. Sheldon, chairman, Free-
dom of Information Committee. Sigma
Delta Chi;
Stanford Smith, president, Anunican
Newspaper Publishers Associationl
William H. Hornby. executive editor,
the Denver Post and chairman, POI
Committee, American Society of News-
paper Editors; and
The Association of American Publish-
ere, Inc.
From the legal profession:
John T. Miller, chairman, section of
administrative law, American Bar ,Asso-
ciation;
Richard Noland, vice chairman, Com-
mittee on Access to Government Infor-
mation, American Bar Association:.
Stuart H. Johnson, Jr., chairman for
Freedom of Information, Federal Ear
A sociation:
John Shattuck, staff counsel, Ameri-
ca a Civil Liberties Union;
Ronald Plesser, attorney, Center for
the Study of Responsive Law; and
rhomas M. Franck, law professor and
director, Center for International Stud-
ien New York University.
rhe measure is also supported by
the American Library Association, Com-
mon Cause, and has been cosponsored
in its various forms by more than 75
Members of the House and Senate.
H.R. 12471 contains needed and well-
conceived amendments to the original
1966 Freedom of Information Act. While
they may not solve all of tile problems in
its day-to-day administration resulting
from foot-dragging tactics of the Fed-
eral bureaucracy, it will serve notice
that Congress and the public strongly
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4
March 14, /9#143proved. For Wiled%16ffili:Ett-8.1N5BAME000600190088-4 ff1801
reaffirms its support for the principles
Of the people's "right to know." As the
late President Lyndon Johnson said
when he signed the original measure into
law:
This, legislation springs from one of our
Most essential principles: a democracy works
best when the people have all the informa-
tion that the security of the Nation permits.
No one should be able to pull curtains of
secrecy around decisions which can be re-
vealed without injury to the public in-
terest. I signed this measure with a deep
sense of pride that the 'United States is an
open society in which the people's tight to
know is cherished and guarded. ?
Mr. HARRINGTON. Mr. Chairman, in
1966 the Congress saw fit to enact Public
Law 89-487?popularly recognized as the
"Freedom of Information Act." This
landmark legislation was structured to
guarantee the right of citizens to know
the business of their Govermfient. But
for all of its desirable ambitions, the
Freedom of Information Act has, at
times, proved incapable of assuring pub-
lic access to the records of Federal agen-
cies and departinnts.
Accordingly, the Committee on Gov-
ernment Operations of the House of Rep-
resentatives has reported out legislation
(HR. 12471) to further protect the right
of the public to check on the activities
of the Federal Government, by: improv-
ing the Freedom of Information Act.
During the summer of 1971, the Gov-
ernment Operations Subcommittee on
Foreign Operations and Government In-
formation undertook a comprehensive
study of administration of the Preedom
of Information Act by the Federal agen-
cies. This investigation revealed wide-
spread abuses of the act by the Federal
agencies involved. 13y resorting to de-
laying tactics, various classification
ploys and requiring of requestors a spec-
ificity of identification of desired infor-
mation, Federal agencies were able, all
too often, to successfully circumvent a
multitude of the public's requests. The
subcommittee, in its subsequent report,
suggested a series of administrative
changes to correct existing deficiencies in,
making information available by the
Federal GpYernment. Also set forth were
a list of specific legislative objectives de-
signed to improve the administration of
the Freedom of Information Act. H.R.
12471, now before this House, is legisla-
tion that should correct those deficiencies
noted by the subcommittee.
This measure, similar to H.R. 5425
which I sponsored in the previous ses-
sion of the 93d Congress, seeks to accom-
plish more efficient, prompt, and full dis-
closure of information. H.R. 12471 would
affect the following areas of the Freedom
of Information Act:
H.R. 12471 would improve the avail-
ability of Federal agency indexes, which
list the specific information available
from individual agencies. The bill would
require that indexes be readily available,
in usable arid concise form, upon re-
quest, even though agencies would not,
by reasons of practicality, be required
to print indexes in bound form.
Many agencies at present require an
Individual to designate a specific title or
file number to identify desired docu-
ments. H.R. 12471 would allow for the
retrieval of information with only a rea-
sonable "description" of the requested
Information, thus restricting one manner
in which citizens' access to information
has been limited in the past.
Frequently, information from the Fed-
eral Government can be used only if it is
timely. Too often, however, the intent
of the Freedom of Information Act has
been circumvented by dilatory tactics or)
the part of agencies. To deal with this
problem, H.R. 12471 would set a 10-day
time limit on agency responses to origi-
nal requests for information, and 20 days
for administrative appeals of denials. In
unusual cases, good faith assurances of
the agency will allow for an extension of
the time period allowed. So as to expedite
litigation carried out under the Freedom
of Information Act, the bill would also
cut to 20 days the present 60-day re-
quirement for agency response to com-
plaints. The bill would also allow defend-
ents to recover attorney's fees from the
Government, as well as court costs, if
the case goes against the Government.
An important expansion of the cover-
age of the act is also included in Ha.
12471, as the definition of what consti-
tutes an "agency" is expanded. Govern-
ment corporations, such as the Tennessee
Valley Authority, and Government-con-
trolled corporations, such as the Corpo-
ration for Public Broadcasting or Am-
trak, would come under the authority of
the Freedom of Information Act for the
first time. Also, agencies within the ex-
ecutive branch, such as the Office of
Management and Budget or the National
Security Council, would be covered.
H.R. 12471 also contains a provision
extremely significant in the light of re-
cent controversies over the classification
of Government documents. The bill
would permit, at the option of the court,
in camera court review of document clas-
sification. Courts would be enabled to
review the actual classified documents,
rather than the classification notices, as
is often the case under existing law.
Courts would be empowered to deter-
mine whether the classifications imposed
upon documents by agencies were prop-
erly constituted. These new procedures, I
hope, will reduce the appalling incidence
of smokescreen "national security" de-
fenses raised by the Government in
Freedom of Information Act cases.
Mr. Chairman, this important legisla-
tion enhances and improves the original
Freedom of Information Act. In a nation
which claims with just pride that it is
ruled "by the people," the accessibility
of Government records to the populace
is of great importance. The amendments
proposed to the original act by H.R.
12471 would limit the abuses of the act
by Federal agencies that have had a
chilling effect on the ability of citizen's
to fulfill their right to know. Today the
House has the opportunity to pass his-
toric legislation, building upon the foun-
dation of the original 1,966 Freedom of
Information Act. We should not shirk
from the task before us today; we should
pass this bill.
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, I have no further requests for
time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time having ex-
pired, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. (a) The fourth sentence of sec-
tion 552(a) (2) of title 5, United States Code,
Is amended by striking out "and make avail-
able for public inspection by copying" and
inserting in lieu thereof ", propmtly pub-
lsh, and distribute (by sale or otherwise)
copies of".
(b) Section 552(a) (3) of title 5, United
States Code, is amended by striking out "on
request for identifiable records made in ac-
cordance with published rules stating the
time, place, fees to the extent authorized by
statute, and procedure to be followed," and
inserting in lieu thereof the following: "upon
any request for records which (A) reasonably
describes such records, and (B) is made in
accordance with published rules stating the
time, place, fees to the extent authorized by
statute, and procedure to be followed,".
(c) Section 552(a) of title 5, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end
thereof the following new paragraph:
"(5) Each agency, upon receipt of any re-
quest for records made 'under this subsec-
tion, shall?
"(A) determine within ten days (except.
Ing Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public
holidays) after the date of such receipt
whether to comply with the request and
shall immediately notify the person making
the request of such determination and the
reasons therefor, and of the right of such
person to appeal to the head of the agency
any adverse determination; and
"(B) make a determination with respect
to such appeal within twenty days (excepting
Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holi-
days) after the date of receipt of such ap-
peal.
"Any person making a request to an agency
for records under this subsection shall be
deemed to have exhausted his administra-
tive remedies with respect to such request
if the agency fails to comply with subpara-
graph (A) or (B) of this paragraph. Upon
any determination by an agency to comply
with a request for records, the records shall
be made promptly available to the person
making such request."
(d) The third sentence of section 553(a)
(3) of title 5, United States Code, is amended
by inserting immediately after "the court
shall determine the matter de novo" the fol-
lowing: ", and may examine the contents of
any agency records in camera to determine
whether such records or any part thereof
shall be withheld under any of the exemp-
tions set forth in subsection (b)
(e) Section 552(a) (3) of title 5, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the
end thereof the following new sentence:
"Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the United States or the officer or agency
thereof against whom the complaint was
filed shall serve a responsive pleading to
any complaint made under this paragraph
within twenty days after the service upon
the United States attorney of the pleading
in which such complaint is made, unless the
court otherwise directs for good cause shown.
The court may assess against the United
States reasonable attorney fees and other
litigation costs reasonably incurred in any
case under this section in which the United
States or an officer or agency thereof, as liti-
gant, has not prevailed."
SEC. 2. Section 552(b) (1) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended to read as
follows:
"(1) authorized under criteria established
by an Executive order to be kept secret in
the interest of the national defeVrie or for-
eign policy;".
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000600190088-4
111802
Sec. 3. Section 552 of title 5, 'United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end
thereof the following new subsections:
(d) On or before March 1 of each calendar
year, each agency shall submit a report cov-
ering the preceding calendar year to the Com-
mittee on Government operations a the
Bourse of Representatives and the Commit-
tee on Governmental Operations and the
Committee al the Judiciary of the Serrate.
The report shall include?
(I) the n amber of determinations made
ho such agency not to comply with requests
for records made to such agency under sub-
section (a) mid the reasons for each such
determination;
' )2) the nornber of appeals made by per-
eons under subsection (a) (5) (B), the result
of such appeals, and the reason for the action
moon each appeal that results in a denial
of information;
"(3) a copy of every rule made by such
afency regarding this section;
(4) a copy of the fee schedule and the
total amount of fees collected by the agency
for making records available under this sec-
tion; and
"(5) such other information as indicates
efforts to administer fully this section.
(e) Notwithstanding section 551(1) of this
title, for purposes of this section, the term
'agency' means any executive department,
Government corporation, Governme con-
trolled, cornea at1on, or other establishment in
the executive branch of the Government (in-
cluding the Esectztive Office of the Presiden
oi any independent regulatory agency.-
SEC. 4. The amendments made by this Act
shall take effect on the ninetieth clay be-
ginning after enactment of this Act
Mr. MOORHEAD of PennsVIvan is
(during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I
ask unanimous consent that the bill be
considered as read, printed in the REcoan,
and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Pemisylvan ?
There Wa3 no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any
amendments?
siasmoismnr OFFERED BY MR. wirers
Mr. wHrrE. Mr. Chairman, I offer on
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendmer t offered by Mr. Wurre; On
p sge 4, lines 9 through 14, strike all of sub
section (d) and insert the following in lieu
thereof:
"(d) On or before March 1 of each calendar
year, each agency shall submit a report cover-
ing the preceding calendar year to the Speaker
of the House and the President of the Senate
for referral to the appropriate committees of
the Congress. The report shall include--
(Mr. WHITE asked and was given
Permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WEITE. Mr. Chairman, my
amendment to the Freedom of Informa-
tion Act bill is designed to bring the bill
in conformity with the rules of the
House. I cite you on page 542, rule 40, en-
titled "Executive Communications":
Estimates of appropriations and an other
communicat Ions from the executive depart-
ments, intended for the consideration of any
committees ,af the House, shall be aaarewed
to the SPeal.er. and by referred as provided
by clause 2 of rule 24.
Clause 2 of rule 24 states:
Business of the Speaker's table shall be dis-
posed of as fellows:
Approved For F19(9,,: Re.
4:81e1751311MF000600190094ch 1.4 197_1 -
Messages from the Presidect shall be re-
ferred to the appropriate committees with-
out debate. Reports and communications
from the heads 01' departments, and other
communications addressed to the House . .
may be referred to the appropriate commit-
tees in the same Manner. . . .
Section 3 of the bill calls for submis-
sion of a report by each agency to the
Government Operations Committees of
the House and Senate and to the Senate
Judiciary Committee. But, according to
the House rules all such agency reports
must first be directed to the Speaker of
the House. Then the Speaker may refer
them in accordance with rale 24, clause
2, to the appropriate committee. I un-
derstand the Senate has the same proce-
dure.
If you desire to maintain order in the
application of our rules to our bills, then
my amendment should be adopted. Al-
though my amendment May be a techni-
cal one, it is offered with the purpose of
keeping the laws we make on submission
of agency reports consistent with the
rules we have made for ourselves.
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentlemarfyield?
Mr. WHITE. I am glad to yield to the
chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Chairman, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Wnirs) , has been kind enough to
provide us with a copy of his amend-
ment. Insofar as the members of the
committee on this side are concerned, we
would accept this amendment. -
Mr. wHrrE I thank the gentleman.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITE. I am glad to yield to the
gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Might I call to the
gentleman's attention what I consider to
be a statement which perhaps is confus-
ing in his amendment. It says "strike
all of subsection (d) and insert the fol-
lowing in lieu thereof :? and then the
material referred to is inserted. That
might be construed as striking out all of
subsection 1 through 5 in that subsec-
tion. I know that is not the gentleman's
intention.
Mr. WHITE. No. It is lines 9 through
14 that would be stricken by the wording
of the amendment. That covers the areas
that lam interested in.
Mr. ERLENBORN. Then it is clear that
the gentleman only intends to strike the
material in lines 9 through 14?
Mr. WHITE. Yes; according to the
language of the amendment.
Mr. ERLENBORN. I thank the gen-
tleman.
Mr. Chairman, I see no objection to
the language.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Texas (Mr. Wiliam) .
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any fur-
ther amendments? If not, under the
rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and
the Speaker having resumed the chair,
Mr. ECKHARDT, Chairman of the Com-
mittee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union, repoited that that Corn-
/ , 1
enlace having had under consideration
the bill (H.R. 12471) to amend section
552 of title 5, United States Code, known
as the Freedom of Information Act,: pur-
suant to House Resolution 9'77, he re-
ported the bill back to the House ' with
an amendment adopted in the Commit-
tee of the Whole. 1
The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the
previous question is ordered. 1
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to. .
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the engrossment and third reading of
the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, and was read the
third time.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the
passage of the bill. ,
The question was taken, and the
Speaker announced that the ayeS ap-
peared to have it. i
Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Speaker, I ob-
ject to the vote an the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the
point of order that a quorum hi not
present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is
not present. '
The Sergeant at Anna will notifY ab-
sent Members.
The Vote was taken by electronile de-
vice, and there were?yeas 383, nl,ys 8,
not voting 41, as follows:
[Roll No. Bi fl
YEAS-383
Abde or Carney, Ohio Eilberg
Alecug
Adams Carter Erlenborff
Casey, Tex. Eieh 1
Addabbo Cederberg Eshleman
Alexander Chamberlain Evans, Coto.
Anderson, Chappell Eying, Teen.
Calif. Chisholm Fascell
Andrews, N.C. Clancy
'Archer
N. Oak. Clausen,
usen,
Don H. Flood Findley
Andrews,
Fisher
Ashbrook Clawson, Del Flowers
_Wiley Cleveland
Aspin Cochran rinit
Foley
BadilloCohen Ford
Beans
Collins, Tex. Forsythe
Barrett Conlanrtt
Conable Fountain
Conte Fraser .
Baernen Pr elingh ey sen
BBei BennettalIggi
Sevin
Bergland Corman
Crane
Conyers Frenzel
Frey
Coughlin Froehlich
,
FPuticet?uan
Biester Cronin
Culver Gayclos
Bingham Daniel, Dan Gettys
Blackburn Daniel, Robert Giaimo
BP.ol egtgrisik
Gilman
W., Jr. Gibbons
DaDniomelsinick V. Ginn i
BedDe I] l9iinidg Danielson Goldwater
Bowen Davis, Ga. Gonzalez,
Bray
Davis, Wis. Grascisleing.
Breden)as Davis, S.C. G
Breaux de la Garza Green, Oleg.
Breckinridge Delaney Green, P.
Brinkley
Brooks Deerhim
eribrk Griffiths
D
Gross
Broomfield Denholm
Grover
Brown. Calif. Dennis Gubser
Brown, Mich. Dent Gunter
Brown, Ohio Derwinski G
Broyhill, N.C. Devine Haley
Broyhill, Va. Diggs Hamilton
Buchan= Dingell Hammer-1
Burke, Calif. Downing
FIRililLInenhineinaY idl.!';
Burgener Donohue
Burke, Fla. Drina!'
Burke, Mass. Dulski Hanrahan
Burlison, Mo. Duncan Hansen, Idaho
Burton Cu Pont Hansen, Wash.
Butler Eckhardt Harringten
Byron Edwards, Ala. Harsher,
Camp Edwards, Calif. Hastings.
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000600190088-4
4March 14, 1974Pproved ForagottipM12044113441D RellegIOP7-5E13913691R000600190088-4
Hawkins
liftYs
Hebert
Hechler, W. Va
Heckler, Mass.
Heinz
Helstoski
Henderson
Hicks
Hillis
Hinshaw
Hogan
Fiolifield
Holt
Holtzman
_Horton.
Howard
Huber
Hudnut
Hungate
Hunt
Hutchinson
'chord Nix
Jarman Obey
Johnson, Calif. O'Brien
Johnson, Pa. O'Hara
Jones, N.C. O'Neill
Jones, Okla. Parris
Jones, Tenn. Passman
JOrdan " Patten
Karth Perkins
Kastenmeier Pettis
Kazen Peyser
Kemp k
Ketchum
King
Koch
Kuykendall
Kyros
Lagomarsino
Landrum
Latta
Leggett
Lehman
Lent
Litton
Long, La.
Long, Md.
Lott
Luj an
Luken
? McClory
1VicCloskey
McCollister
-McCormack
,McDade
McFall
McKinney
McSpadden
Macdonald
Madden
Madigan
Mahon
Mallary Ruppe
Mann Ruth
Maraziti Ryan
Martin, Nebr. St Germain
Martin, N.C. Sandman
Mathias, Calif. Sarasin
Mathis, Ga. Sarbanes
Matsunaga Scherle
Mayne Schneebeli
Mazzo Schroeder
Meets Sebelius
Melcher Seiberling
Mezvinsky Shipley
Michel Shoup
Milford Shriver
Miller Shuster
Mills Sikes
Minish Sisk
. Mink Skubitz
Minshall, Ohio Slack
Mitchell; Md. smith, Iowa
Mitchell, N. Smith, N.Y.
Moakley Snyder
MollOhan Spence
' Moorhead, Staggers
Calif. Stanton,
Moorhead, Pa. J. William
Morgan . Stanton,
Mosher james V.
Moss Stark
Murphy, N.Y. steed
Murtha Steele
Myers
Natcher Steelman Steiger, Ariz.
Nedzi Steiger, Wis.
Nelsen Stephens
Nichols Stokes
Stratton
Stubblefield
Studds
Sullivan
Syinington
Symms
Talcott
Taylor, Mo.
Taylor, N.C.
Thompson, N.J.
Thomson, Wis.
Pie

Thone
Poage
Thornton
Powell, Ohio Tiernan
Towell, Nev.
Price, Ill. Treen
Preyer
Pritchard Udall
Ouie
'Ullman
QUillen
Railsback Van Deerlin
Vander Jaat
Renck
Randall Vander Veen
Vanik
Regula
ReussVeysey
?
Riegle Vigorito
Rinaldo ' Waldie
Walsh
Roberts
Wampler
Robinson, Va. ware
Rodin?
Roe Whalen
White.
Rogers
Whitehurst
Roncalio, Wyo. Whitten
Roncallo, NZ. Widnall -
Rooney, pa. wiggins
nOse Williams
RosenthalW Bob
Rostenkowski Wiillssoonn,
Roy
Roush Charles H.,
Roybal
Winn ,
Rousselot Calif.
Wright
Wyatt
Wydler
Wylie
Wyman
Yates
Yatron
Young, Alaska
Young, Ga.
Young, S.C.
Young, Tex.
Zablocki
Zion
Zwach
NA-8
Beard Hosmer
Burleson, Tex. Landgrebe
Dickinson Satterfield
Waggonner
Young, Fla.
NOT VOTINO-41
Anderson, Ill. Johnson, Colo. Price, Tex.
Annunzio Jones, Ala. Rangel
Arends Kluczynski Rees
Armstrong McEwen Reid
Brasco McKay Rhodes
Brotzrnan Metcalfe
Carey, N.Y. Mizell
Clay Montgomery
Collier Murphy, Ill.
Collins, Ill. Owens
Cotter Patman
Dorn Pepper
Gray Pickle
Gude Podell
So the bill was passed.
The Clerk announced the following
pairs:
Mr. Annunzio with Mr. Owens.
Mr. Rooney of New York with Mr. Pickle.
Robison, N.Y.
Rooney, N.Y.
Runnels
Stuckey
Teague
Wilson,
Charles, Tex.
Wolff
Young, Ill.
Mr. Cotter with Mr. Anderson of Illinois.
Mr. Rangel with Mr. Gude.
Mr. Brasco with Mr. Arends.
Mr. Gray with Mr. Mizell.
Mr. McKay with Mr. Brotzman.
Mr. Podell with Mr. Price of Texas.
Mr. Metcalfe with Mr. Reid.
Mr. Teague with Mr. Montgomery.
Mr. Wolff with Mr. Armstrong.
Mr. Pepper with Mr. Rhodes.
Mr. Kluczynski with Mr. Johnson of
Colorado.
Mr. Jones of Alabama with Mr. Collier.
Mr. Carey of New York with Mr. McEwen.
Mr. Clay with Mr. Rees.
Mrs. Collins of Illinois with Mr. Runnels.
Mr. Stuckey with Mr. Robison of New York.
Mr. Dorn with Mr. Young of Illinois.
Mr. Murphy of Illinois with Mr. Charles
Wilson of Texas.
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
PERMISSION TO POSTPONE FUR-
THER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 69,
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY
EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF
1974
Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that further con-
sideration of H.R. 69, the bill to amend
and extend the Elementary and Second-
ary Education Act of 1965, be postponed
until Tuesday, March 26, 1974.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
Mr. QUIE. Mr. Speaker, reserving the
right to object, I just want to point out
that the Committee on Education and
Labor tried to be fair to everyone by
asking the Committee on Rules to pro-
vide a rule that there be some days be-
tween general debate and the consider-
ation of the 5-minute rule, and 3 legis-
lative days were set aside by the rule.
That ought to be ample opportunity for
anyone.
We could have asked for a rule which
would have permitted us to go right into
the 5-minute rule after general debate
and we would have been in the amend-
ment stage right now.
I understand some Members are not
happy because they have not had enough
time. All the information is available
now that would be available a week from
now for the Members to consider; so I
really think it is unreasonable that we
start delaying. It is primarily important
that we get moving so the schools will
know what next year's program will be
like.
Since the chairman of the committee
asks that we put it over until a week
from Tuesday, March 26, I withdraw my
reservation of objection.
I just wanted to let the gentleman
know my displeasure.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. PERKINS) ?
Mr. STEIGER of Wisconsin. Mr.
Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER. Objection is heard.
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
(Mr. ARENDS asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
11 1803
Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Speaker, I take this
time to ask the majority leader if he will
kindly announce the program for next
week.
Mr.
0
'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. ARENDS. I yield to the gentleman
from Massachusetts.
Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, in reply to
the distinguished minority whip and act-
ing minority leader, may I say that the
program has been made up in the fol-
lowing way. The program for the week of
March 18, 1974, is as follows:
On Monday there will be the call of
the Consent Calendar to be followed by
four suspensions:
S. 1206, amend section 312 of Immigra-
tion and Naturalization Act;
H.R. 6371, Indian financing and eco-
nomic development;
H.R. 10337, Navajo-Hopi partition;
and
S. 2771, special pay bonus structure
relating to members of the Armed Forces.
On Tuesday there will be the call of
the Private Calendar, to be followed by
three suspensions:
S. 2174, changes in definitions of widow
and widower under civil service retire-
ment system;
H.R. 12503, Narcotic Adddict Treat-
ment Act; and
H.R. 12417, National Diabetes Mellitus
Act.
Mr. Speaker, under the rule adopted
Tuesday the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, H.R. 69, must come up
on Tuesday next. As the Members know,
the chairman of the committee, in re-
sponse to the requests of many Members,
has asked for a further postponement
of this matter because of the complexity
of the formula that is in the bill, the
formula the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. O'HARA) is going to offer as an
amendent, and other formulas which
are going to be presented.
For example, Mr. Speaker, in my own
home district, I understand the city of
Boston loses $476,000, while my two
other cities and three towns are making
a net gain on the bill. There is tremen-
dous concern among the Members of
Congress who want to know how the dif-
ferent formulas will affect their particu-
lar areas. Some of the Members have
six or seven counties, and it is not clear
how their districts will be affected in
total.
That was the reason the chairman
asked unanimous consent that the mat-
ter go over to a week from Tuesday.
Upon taking it up, it is expected that
as soon as possible, the committee will
rise and we will go into the program. In
other words, we will take the matter up
because there has been an objection, and
we expect that the committee will rise
Immediately. We think this is the fair
thing to do because there have been so
many requests by the Members of Con-
gress on both sides of the aisle with
respect to so many formulas that will
probably be pending at that time.
Therefore, I will have to include on
the legislative program for Tuesday thi
Elementary and Secondary Education
Act.
For Wednesday and the balance of the
week we will have H.R. 12435, the fair
labor standards amendments, subject
Approved For Release 2001/08/30: CIA-RDP75B00380R000600190088-4
II 180-4
Approved For ReeaTecifigMaiCkteatL0B paM006001900884aich 14, 11174
to a rule being granted. Then, we have
KR. 11929, the Tennessee Valley Auth-
ority pollution control facilities, sub-
ject to a rule being granted. After that
we have H.R. 12920, the Peace Ceres
authorization, subject to a rule being
granted.
In addi eon, we have H.R. 12412, For-
eign Disaster Assistance Act, subject to
a rule being granted. Then, we have H.R.
11989, Fire Prevention and Control Act,
subject to a rule being granted.
Finally, we will have H.R. 11105, nu-
trition program for the elderly, subject
to a rule being granted. Conference re-
ports may be brought up at any time, and
any further program will be announced
at a later date.
Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Speaker, let me just
say to the gentlemen from Massachusetts
that I am pleased that he did not con-
sider the :primary in Illinois next Tues-
day, because I think that a few years ago
we established a precedent in the House
that we would not be out of session on
primary days. I hope we do not start
that again.
Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, I enure
the gentleman from Illinois that it has
no bearing on our decision. -
Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased with the response of the gentle-
man from Massachusetts.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask one
further question of the distinguished
majority leader. I notice that he made
no reference to post-card registration.
Has that been given any consideration?
Mr. 0'NE1.1Je. Mr. Speaker, there are
no plans for it for nein week.
Mr.rzniKmrs, Mn speaker, wru the
gentleman yiekl?
Mr. AR:ENDS, Mr. Speaker I yield to
the gentlemen from, Kentucky.
Mr. PERKINS. Mr, Speaker, I want to
thank the gentleman very remit for
yielding tc me.
Mr. Speaker, I renew my line ninnies-
consent request to see if the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. STEIGER) Will th-
draw his ebetection..
Mr. Speaker, I now ask unanimous
consent that the consideration of HR.
89, the bill to amend the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, be postponed
untilTuesdaY, March 26, 1974.
Mr. STEIGER of Wisconsin. Mr.
Speaker, reserving the right to object,
the Elementary and Secondary Educa-
tion Act expires on the 30th of June, is
that correct?
Mr. PERKINS. That is correct,
Mr. STEIGER of Wisconsin. Mr.
Speaker, I find obsoletely no reasor to
believe that this House ought to abdicate
its responsibility in the consideration of
ESEA. The formula ie complicated It
cuts across all States and all counties;
it affects everybody somewhat different-
ly, and every formula affects somewhat
differently everybody in. this Chambee
The rule under which this bill crane
up clearly said that we would start the
debate on 1 day, go over 3 legis-
lative days, and then come, back and
continue tale bill.
Mr. Speaker, I must say in all honesty
that if, in fact, we are going to go
through this charade and if, in fact,
by my objection?and I shall object--
we then get free a situation where we
start the debate on .ESEA and then move
that the Conanitttee rise, we ought to
have a vote on that, in order to be fair to
each side, and decide whether or not we
should start consideration of the bill or
not start consideration of it.
If we decide we want the Committee
to rise, so be it. That is. the way the ball-
game is played.
Mr O'Neerens Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. STEIGER of Veiseonsin. Of
coursel I will yield to the distinguished
majority leader.
Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, the *com-
mittee on Education and Labor has
studied this matter since last August.
A formula was finally worked out and
passed the committee by a vote of 31 to 4.
In view of the fact that there has
been so much consternation among the
Members on both sides of the aisle with
regard ea the formula, does not the gen-
tleman think it fair that we should give
the Members of Congress this added
week? We are not doing it by reason of
the fact that there is a primary in Illi-
nois. That is of no concern whatsoever.
The Speaker has made the decision
and has asked for the chairman of the
committee to go along on a week's delay
because he has had an un.usual number
of requests concerning this matter,
Mr. S'IEICIlal of Wiscenstri Mr.
Speaker, further reserving the right to
object, I am mindful and deeply re-
spectful of the problems faced by the
distinguished majority leader, both with-
in the Congress and within the gentle-
man's district.
This bill, was reported by the Corn-.
mittee on Education and Labor some
weeks ago. The Committee on Education
and Labor, if / may say so, labored long
'and hard to achieve a formula that
would effectively reconcile and balance
the needs of the poor and the disad-
vantaged in the United States. I think
the formula is a good one.
recognize there are sonic Members
in some States 'who do not believe it was
fairly handled, but I think they have
had more than an adequate chance to
express their views. They are exceeding-
ly well represented on the Committee on
Education and Labor. The Members from
the State of New York are a very sizable
part of our Committee on Education and
Labor.
They know what happens to the for-
mula. They have known for weeks what
happens to the formula
Mr. Speaker, I will again say to the
House and to the distinguished majority
leader that I simply do not believe that
further delay is justified.
Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. Mr.
Speaker, before the gentleman objects,
will the distinguished gentleman yield?
Mr. STEIGER of Wiscoasin. I yield to
the gentleman from New eerseY.
Mr. THOMBSON of NeW Jersey. Mr.
Sneaker, I happen to represent one of
the States which would be vitally affected
by the formula in title I of the Elemen-
tary and Secondary Education Act.
Only this morning reeeived infor-
mation that involves my State. I do not
know who programs the computers for
1 ie several States and Counties. I had
t line versions of the effect title I for-
mula would have on the State of New
Jersey and on the other States as well,
but I particularize the State of New
.1 eesey.
I see no danger, I say to my friend, the
eentiernan from Wisconsin, that the act
eel expire June 1; out I do think most
5.acerely that a few additional days, the
modest number of days that haVe been
,quested by the chairman of the Com-
mittee on Education and Labor, the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Premiss)
night prove extremely valuable to each
and every Member.
The extremely complicated effect of
the flow of dollars to the children in all
ot our school districts should be eve lu-
sted by each Member.
Were I the gentleman from Wisconsin,
I would probably make the objection a
eek from now. However, I do ask the
ntleman most respectfully not to ob-
ject now so that we can evaluate the
effect of this on our States and our
counties and on our school districts. I
de not think that any injustice will be
cine by granting this request.
Mr. S rEiGER, of Wisconsin. Mr.
Speaker, further reserving the right to
object. I am impressed and almost
moved by the plea of the gentleman
Is om New Jersey.
Mr. Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objec-
tem is heard.
ADJOURNMENT OVER TO MONDAY,
MARCH 18. 1974
Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan-
imous consent that when the House ad-
journs today, it adjourn to meet ore Mon-
ci.ly next.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
DISPENSING WITH BUSINESS IN
ORDER UNDER THE CALENDAR
WEDNESDAY RULE ON WEDNES-
DAY NEXT
Mi. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan-
imous consent that the business in order
wider the Calendar Wednesday rule may
be dispensed with on Wednesday next.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Speaker, on
rollcall No. 79, March 12, 1974, I was in
the Chamber, placed my card La the box,
but was not recorded.
Had I been recorded, I would have
been shown as present.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES RE-
LATING TO ELEMENTARY AND
SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT
Mrs, MINK. Mr. Speaker, a paella-
nientary Inquiry.
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4
DATE74 WO .14 PAGE
THE WASHINGTONWASHINGTON POST
OVERNIMtL,?strsecy has become ai uktfortunate
Jack oh1e.nA,mencin society, despite the best
'hopes of this nation's founders. Jar0Q5, son once
tleclared_o_almistically: "Knowledge will forever govern
_
.-,10.21_*ance?..a.nd a ze2.ple who mean to be their own ov-
r 11,,AL:Linwst_arm themselves with the pewer ..know1cige
?JL?yeg." But those lofty ideals of 200 years past have
'been facing heavy weather for at least a generation, and
there is every evidence that reviving such notions in the
'current climate of government in Washington and
elsewhere remains a difficult task. Under the shroud
of national security and other devices of secrecy, the
bureaucrats go al;out their business without the knowl-
edge and consent of the governed. This is so despite the
fact ?that Congress provided the press and the people
with a weapon?admittedly a blunt one?in the Freedom
of Information Act of 1966. It gave the public a right to
examine the documents in the possession of government
..agencies and thus the opportunity to find out what is
`- being done in the name of the governed. But it's effec-
tive use is much more the exception than the rule.
Thanks to a- notable recent exception, we now know
,that in the 1960s, the late J. Edgar Hoover ordered his
agents at the'FBI to undertake a "counterintelligence"
program against what Mr. Hoover described as "black
nationalist hale groups," among others. We know this
. because Carl Stern of NBC News took the trouble to
go into court and win a law suit tinder the Freedom
- of Information Act. In theory, at least, FOIA reversed
an older law that made disclosure difficult and estab-
lished a policy that disclosure should be the norm and
. denial of information the exception. Unfortunately, the
act has not worked that way. For one thing, titere are
--a number of frustrating exceptions to the act. Beyond
that, its mechanism is so cumbersome that only seven
suits have been? filed by news organizations since the
...act was passed.
1 tSzne_nijiallap.19121,_. FOIA' s Aelleg,tiyenezsiajiate
tutaze,?1,2.1_iLe..?0.0L5,1)1Peclia-111Q7ARY.e
w,
Ltiat_rizais in-Lnaglate?.and if tky... cannot get w t
thsueed for a story, they must rnov_e_a_l'eahf.er
.
journalists have been willing to take the time that the
Freedom of Information Act now requires. Mr. Stern,
for example, obtained the most recent set of documents
on the FBI counterintelligence program 26 months after
first seeking them.
'the?tionof ,Repmeritatiyes moved decisively this
_week to reduce the burden on those who wish to make
Ilsof the FOIA. It voted 383 .to f_or_ an amendment
jo the law proposed by Rep. William Moorhead (H-Pa.).
.he Moorhead Amendment does several important
things to make the FOIA a better law. It reduces the
iuxber of days an agency has in which to 0..y if it
Intends to provide requested information voluntarily.
It places in the hands of the courts the question of
whether national security is sufficient reason for a
given agency to withhold information. It allows plain-
tiffs to recover their legal expenses if a court rules
that an agency withheld material it should have turned
over voluntarily. It adds the Office of Management and
Budget to the list of agencies now covered by the act,
and ,it requires all agencies to give an account to
Congress each year of how it implemented the law.
s,pozo,red
]yen. Edward M. Kenne_dy
(klylass,), has cleared a subcommittee of the Judiciary
C.ojnmittee and sbnuld he reartylor floor action shorty.
The Nixon administration has made rumblings that
could be the forecast of veto action, but that would be
a meaningless gesture if the Senate action is as decisive
as was that of the House. Attorney Ronald Plesser, who
heads the Freedom of Information Clearinghouse and
who represented Mr. Stern in his suit against the FBI,
has estimated that this new legislation ' could have
reduced the elapsed time of the Stern case from 26
months to six months. That is more in keeping with
the needs of justice and the public's right to know
what its government is up to. lYillinzyp_s_uktitute,,,.for
_azdafp,rmed, electorate exists in a democratic society,
_ ,an,d the ,:ikover
papers. make it clear once again Chow
41ang.g.r.o1hureaucratic secrecy can be to the _rights
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4
April 3, 1974
Approve4For Reese 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP751300380R000600190088-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? Extensions of Remarks 'E 2079
fli ed his free thr?tthe other end, how- TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF THE of delivering these services. he fiscal sta-
eve rid McNamara then tallied for Hand URBAN EMPLOYMENT ACT bility of the city can only e achieved by
retaining, expanding and ttracting a solid
'to ma it 69-68.
A pair f St, 'Paul turnovers enabled Hand
to itiove head as Fries was fouled by
Owsianko t rebounding scrap with 1:06
renlaining, an. the Hand center converted
the one-and-on to make it 60-59.
St. Paul,retalia by going to its strength,
clearing the way to Noon to work one-on-
one against Hand's B by Isleib. Noon beat
Islelb to the hoop on a ? lye, scored a layup
while being fouled, and nverted the free
throw to Make it 62760 with seconds show-
ing. A McNamara jumper 1 seconds later
tied it again, then St. Paul he on for the
final shot.,
The Falcons called a time out ?AT 10 sec-
onds to go, then tried to work the ball to
Noon again for the big Shot: Hand layed
tion 1 dge se hoWrei? n
-?.
ec ou
a e ? oo_ps .PatiTiereanedross?4essionand
looked for the go-ahead score. Noon pas sed
the ball to Corbin., who tossed in an 18-
tooter to make it 66-64. As Corbin _released
the bell, hewever, Noon took an elbow from
rarmer, the foul Was whistled, and Mark
stepped to the line for a one-and-one try.
He made both shots, and St. Paul had a e8-
64 advantage.
Another McNamara Score Cut the gap of
two points with 1:10 left, but then St. Paul
started to freeze the hall. Majewski was
fouled, with 38 seconds to ?go, making the
first shot but missing the second. Fries then
scored' on a rebound with 19 secends to go
to carve the margin down to one at 69-68, but
Hand was still in a position where it had
to foul to get the ball back.
Majewski was finally fouled by VanDeven-
ter with three seconds left, and after a time
out John sank both shots to wrap up the
victory. McNamara then scored at tile buZzer
to leave the tail margin, fittingly, at one
point.
St. Paqi, rated No. 15 in the tourney
tinichps the season with the best ,record 1
school history, 17-8, while Hand, ran d
fifth, concludes the year at 19-6.
It wag a banner evening for Har ord
_
County Conference teams as South oLic
defeated Naugatuck 71-57 inthe seco game
of the twin bill to capture the de, A title.
/t was the second time in three ars the
league has had two champions. ast won
Class A and Northwest tot C es B two
years ago. Northwest then def dad its B
title successfully last year. The ? uhle header
drew a crowd of 6,479, a new ClAc record.
St. Paul (71) Fld Fl Pts
Kurban 3 0 6
Noon 14 5 33
Owsianko 3 1 7
Majewski 2 5 9
Corbin 7 0 14
Peliitier 1 0 2
Totals 30 11 71
Kam). (70) Fid Fl Pts
Farmer 4 1 9
Ic.Na,msra 110 22
6 6 20
Lslelb ---- 0 0 0
Cassell. -r- 2 1 5
VantoeVen 6 2 14
Barry._..0 0 0
Tot ls 29 12 70
HON. JAMES V. STANTON
OF OHIO
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, April 3, 1974
Mr. JAMES V. STANTON. Mr.
Speaker, I am today inserting into the
RECORD another of the statements given
in conjunction with my own before the
House Economic Development Subcom-
mittee on April 1. This is the testimony
in support of the Urban Employment Act,
H.R. 5808, offered by Joseph P. Furber,
commissioner of economic development
Judi-mg:Ay of Cleveland. Mr. Furber'
-work in the field of economic develo
-rnent has been widely praised, and I
-am especially pleased to have his su ort
11 this effort:
"PREt.ARED FOR THE
m'ELOPDILTU5CO1VIMiTTEE OF
Tru f'Wda'ks COMMITTEE
_
.( By J ph P. Furber, Co issioner of
ECQ110 Development, Cit. of Cleveland,
April 1, 74)
The divisi of econo development of
-the departmen of huma resources and eco-
nomic developm nt, in e city of Cleveland,
Ohio, is specifics ly arged by ordinance
254-A-68, (Septems 23, 1968) to?
". plan and plement progams to
atract new bus ss and industry and to
assist the expan on o relocation of existing
business or in stry; to ?ordinate the activ-
ities and fad i ties of, an to cooperate with,
public and rivate agenc s in the area of
industrial evelopment an expansion, and
'to relate ederal and State ssistance pro-
grams the economic need of the com-
ONOMTC
E HOUSE
munri
Th gh the division has not b en specif-
ical charged with the respons lity for
bu ness and industrial retention, is our
b ief that the sentence beginning ". and
cooperate with public and private:en-
lea . . ." gives us this mandate. There e,
'It seems important to preface these rema
with the statement that our most importan
effort is business and industrial retention.
The establishment of a healthy business
climate achieved through a successful reten-
tion program logically represents the best
long-range plan for a mature city's business
expansion.
As you gentlemen are well aware, more
than 80 percent of all business expansion is
produced by existing business and industry.
For that very reason our economic develop-
ment strategy in Cleveland has been to con-
centrate upon the "Bird in the Hand" as
opposed to the "Bird in the Bush."
The probleins encountered by mature ur-
ban centers can be classified as follows:
Municipal services, obsolescence and produc-
tivity, economic dislocation, pollution abate-
ment, and land acquisition.
In the case of municipal services, a diver-
sified industrial base as historically enabled
Cleveland to grow. However, though the
Cleveland S.M.S.A. continues to grow and
prosper, economically speaking, the city has
failed to keep pace with the region. Local
efforts to develop and release even minimal
supportive funds are further reduced because
of the departure and closings of tax-paying
employers. The resulting loss of real income
to city employee and employer creates a
greater dependency upon the city of Cleve-
land for expanded municipal services. Only
a vital and healthy city economy is capable
?
tax base. H.R. 5808 add sses itself to this
problem.
The general obsol cence and marginal
productivity of capi land, labor and entre-
preneurship need be studied with an eye
to finding inno tive concepts capable of
overcoming the isadvantages of a physically
deteriorating nd mature industrial region.
The use of uman resources in affected in-
dustrial a as, to function as a talent bank
of leade ip, needs exploration. Human re-
source e as worthy of venture capital in-
vest nt as are land, buildings, and equip-
me and perhaps of more lasting value.
L al sources of capital need to be shown the
vantages of encouraging economic vitality
ithin the city. H.R. 5808 acts as an incen-
tive for local investmentin central cities
Economic dislocation occurs when employ-
ees are unable to follow an employer when
he moves to a suburban industrial park. The
availability of housing and transportation
tend to sever his e-,r?olionzitc_Aies_raost ,effec-
tively, cloed _publitranswirtatton needs to
be assessed in the light of whom it is de-
signed to serve. Most certainly, it should best
serve those members of its tax base most in
need of its service.
Technological advancements occasion
still more job losses to the least skilled. Be-
cause they lack the technology or training
needed for our changing job market, they
join the dislocated. A labor-rich manufac-
turing industry must remain competitive to
stay within the city. The more current move
to service industries is not conducive to
increasing personal property taxes nor to a
large labor force. HR. 5808 encourages cen-
tral city firms to solve these problems and
remain close to the workforce which also
conserves energy in this time of need.
The effects of increasingly vigorous en-
forcement of the Environmental Pollution
Act, though urgently needed to halt the
city's pollution in balance with the conser-
vation of energy currently mandated, also
coincides with Cleveland's economic decline.
Every effort should be pursued which will
help bring together those affected, so as to
reduce the impact and cost of pollution
abatement. MR. 5808 offers a way to over-
come this problem by permitting investment
in the latest machinery and equipment.
The land available for industrial expan-
'ion within a mature city is generally more
tly? less accessible, and more difficult to
a- -mble in usable parcels. Available land
ma contain homes; be landlocked by rail-
roa ? used for drainage; revert to a prior
zonin or be subject to a variance upon sale;
seem t eatening to a councilman, etc. There
are ma reasons for this plight, and a
thorough tudy and identification of the im-
pediments to assemblage of usable land
needs to be'us. Attention should be focused
upon the pr ven concept of an improved
land bank in t e city of Cleveland. H.R. 5808
specifically add sses itself to industrial land
banks.
Now I would li e to focus on how H.R.
5808 will help Cle eland's urban economy,
particularly with re rence to specific indus-
trial and commercial eeds.
The act expresses a c ncern about business
losses and industrial o tmigration from the
central cities, that spea t. directly to Cleve-
land's situation. For exa pie, in 1973, the
city planning commission sported that be-
tween 1966 and 1971 the cit lost 12,058 jobs
and 258 firms. This has co ributed to an
unemployment rate that is ? 'uble the na-
tional average. On the other h nd, the sur-
rounding suburbs in this sa five-year
period gained 2,564 jobs and 107 rms. The
city planning commission further timated
?-?
Approved. For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4
-E2080
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75B00384R000600190088-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- Extensio s of Remarks April 3, 1974
that between 1970 and 19'75, 60,000 nem and
10,000 women will join the labor force, while
20,000 persons will retire. Of the 50 000 per-
sons looking for work, there will only be
about 300tiO jobs available. Thus, the pres-
ent employment outlook is not encot raging
for Cleveland.
In keeping with our local legislative man-
date, we have initiated and continue to sup-
port, So ir nonprofit development corpora-
tions which are working for the industrial
and commercial Well-being of the localities
whereiri they are located. Two additional
area groups are in the process If being or-
ganized, and they are the Collinwool Area
Development Corporation and the St. Clair
Addison Road Area. The existing local de-
velopme at corporations are the Woodland
East Community Organization, the Lakeside
Area Development Corporation, the Detroit
Shoreway Community Development Oragni-
zation end the Buckeye Area (Cleveland)
Development Corporation.
All of these groups are eXeellent vehicles
through which to carry out the intent of the
proposed legislation, H.R. 5808
- Item?Them` area development corpora-
tions are self-help in nature and are repre-
sentative of large and small industries and
commercial establishments. They are con-
cerned shout both the present problems and
the future of the neighborhoods of the cen-
tral city where they are located.
Item--As such, these groups cooperate
closely 'frith the My and Would therefor
represent excellent vehicles through whic
funds could be granted or loaned as spel d
out in title VIII of this legislation.
Item--They account for a sizable nu ber
of the jobs and taxes upon which the, on-
omy of the city depends, i.e., Lecke, 6,100
jobs; W'WO, 2,500 jobs; DSCDO, 4,59s jobs;
BADC, _400 jobs; SCARA, 5,860 J s; and
CADCO, 609 jobs.
Item--They are legal entities 1atlit they
are incorporated with the State and at the
same thee qualify for tax exempt status un-
der the YRS Code 501(c) (3) or ;) (4 ) .
Item--Each corporation is grounded on
sound socio-economic studies/which set forth
rationale for the said co ration and the
recommendations for acti on felt needs
of resident firms.
These corporations are lready involved in
the following projects: uxillary police pa-
trols; neighborhood clfanup campaigns in
cooperation with resi ts; area beautifica-
tion as via shade tree lanting; coordination
With city hall resou ?es and agencies; en-
hancing a sense o community via street
festivals, newslette and other community
efforts; summer employment of youth;
neighbo hood em ovment where and when
legally possible.
A number of ese nonprofit corporations
are ores stitly ? lug comprehensive analyses
of their needs nd are projecting short and
long-range pla that will lead to ozograms
for area devel ment and in-town industrial
parks. These elude the following:
Mini-lass stems, internal and external
to the area; ys to alleviate crowded park-
ing coiiditi.as which are having serious con-
sequences or residents and merchants as
well as t Row of trucking suppliers, and
custom( for industrial firms; establishment
of Indus al clinics to meet OSHA standards;
working ith city hall to vacate and/or pave
streets, install high intensity lighting, re-
zone c itingent property for industrial usage,
and a4ulre vacant housing and demolish it
for pl nt expansion or parking needs.
In hart, these area development corpora-
tion are ready, able, and most importantly,
will ge-to avail themselves of parts A and
B of this act, through loans and grants for
lank ba aks, building dehabilitation or demo-
lit n, and the like. The division of economic
development is ready, willing and Able to
assist. H.R. 5808 opens the door.
Another area where this act will prove of
vital benefit is in reference to p C "urban
industrial development lcane", s., to aid in
financing any projeet in she ntral city for
the purchase or developrusnt f land and fa-
cilities, and to guarantee I ns for working
capital made to private ha owers by private
lenders.
Support for this prey on stems from the
numerous retention c. that come to the
attention of our de tment, specifically
those firms which a in need of funds for
land, plant facilit or working capital.
Usually they are in a position to secure
financing from ? ivate lenders, or if they
are, they catua secure the necessary col-
lateral from 1 rd parties such as govern-
ment lending rogrants. It must be remem-
bered, In examecticn, that Cleveland
continues have a conservative banking
climate. ? ey are not prone to make loans
to busi as establishmeats involving any
signifi t degree of risk--as where the firm
may b small, or in the incubation stage; or
wher it is located in what is perceived to be
a nsitional. Or insecure neighborhood.
Oer in of these firms could receive the
n essary privets financing if they moved
t of the central city. Thus, the provi-
ion of loans and loan guarantees for busi-
nesses in Cleveland will fill a much needed
gap and help to prevent the flight of jobs
and industry to the suburbs.
Gentlemen, in conclusion I ask you to
accept the three basic premises upon which
our economic development strategy in the
city of Cleveland Ls built:
1. A job IS, art integeal part of man's
environment; ,
2. Cleveland exists, as do other cities, to
fulfill two economic nec ds: As a place to
work and as a place to live; and
3. Central cities are handicapped due to
the fact that they hole legal Jurisdiction
over a geographic area hat does not cor-
respond. to the sphere of their economic in-
finence.
In my opinion, the only Feedral agency
that has addressed itself to the economic
problems of mature urban centers is the
leconomic Development Administration of
the U.S. Department of Commerce. H.R. 5808
continues and expands upon that agency's
good work.
ADDITIONAL SUPPORT FOR FREE-
DOM OF INFORMATION ACT
AMEND1VEENTS
HON. WILLIAM S MOORHEAD
OP PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE HOUSE OF REMESENTATIVES
Wednesday, April 3, 1974
Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Speaker, another leading American
newspaper has praised the action of the
House in passing HR.. 12471, our bill to
strengthen the Freedo:n of Information
Act of 1966 (5 U.S.C'. 552). The Des
Moines Register in a relent editorial spe-
cifically referred to the amendment that
Is contained in H.R. I.2471 that would
permit Federal courts to review, in cam-
era, Government documents ordered
withheld because of security clasifica-
tion markings, thereby undoing the mis-
chief resulting from the Supreme Court's
ruling in the Mink case last year.
As the editorial so accurately states:
Giving an Administration an Snreview-
able right to hide information through the
use of secrecy stamps is tantamount to mak-
ing -the Freedom of Information Act worth-
less. The House is on the right &reek with its
action on court review Congress as well as
private citizens have a -need to know" and a
right to assurance that "national, security"
isn't being used to hide information that be-
longs in the public domain.
Mr. Speaker, the full text of the edi-
torial follows:
From the Des Moines Register, Mar. 25,
19741
LIMITING OFFICIAL SECRECY
The U.S. House has taken a step toward
lifting the veil of government Secrecy by
voting to give the courts power -CO look be-
hind the secrecy stamps placed oh govern-
ment documents.
The Freedom of Information Aet is mia-
owed to give the public access to a wide
range of government information] However,
the act exempts from disclosure nine classes
of information, including :matter's "specif-
ically required by executive order to be kept
secret in the interest of the national defense
or foreign policy."
This exemption enables an admnistration
to withhold documents simply by stamping
them secret or giving them a similar security,
classification.
A circuit court of appeals ruled in 1972
that Judges are empowered under the Free-
dom of Information Act to examine classified
documents and order the non-secret portions
disclosed, But the U.S. Supreme ',Court de-
clared last year that judges are met author-
ized to do this under the act. The ;court mid
the law "makes wholly untenable any claim
that the act intended to subject the sound-
ness of executive security classifilrations to
judicial review at the Insistence of any
objecting citizen."
Justice Potter Stewart agreed with the ma-
jority, but he was sharply criticel of Con-
gress. Justice Steware declared: ,
"[Congress] has built into the] Freedom
of Information Act an exemption that pro-
vides no means to question an exeutive de-
cision to stamp a document 'secret,' however
cynical, myopic, or even corrupt, that de-
cision might have been . . . Without dis-
closure . . . factual information available
to the concerned executive agencies cannot
be considered by the people or valuated by
the Congress. And with the people and their
Congress reduced to a state of igniarance, the
democratic process Is paralyzed." '
Justice William Douglas added:
"The much advertised Freedom! of Infor-
mation Act is on its way to becoming a
shambles. Unless federal courts can be trust-
ed, the executive [branch] will hold full
sway and make even the time of day 'top
secret' . . . The executive branch now has
carte blanche to insulate information from
public scrutiny whether or not this informa-
tion bears any discernible relater' to the
interests sought to be protected hy [the ex-
:
emotions] of the act."
The House has taken these rebukes to
heart by voting to give Judges authority to
examine documents whose disclosure is
sought, to determine whether information is
being withheld by use of illegal o1 improper
security classifications.
Giving an administration an unreviewable
right to hide information through the use of
secrecy stamps is tantamount to Making the
Freedom of Information Act worthless. The
House is on the right track with ite action on
court review. Congress as well as private citi-
zens have a "need to know" and a right to ;
assurance that "national security" isn't being
used to hide information that belongs in the
public domain.
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4
Approved For Reledse 2001/08130 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000600190088-4
May 16, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
ituted therefor the text of S. 3344,
as ported by the Committee on Labor
a Tic Welfare with an amendment
ill th ature of a substitute.
The e tion was agreed to.
The a nanaent was ordered to be
engrossed d the bill to be read a third
time.
The bill read the third time and
passed.
Mr. MANSFI Mr. President, I ask
unanimous conse that S. 3344 be in-
definitely postpon
The PRESIDING CER. Without
objection, it is so orde d
QUORUM C
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. esident, I
suggest the absence of a qu , with
the time to be charged equal to both
sides.
The PRESIDING 01.141.C.E.R. hout
objection, it is so ordered. The cle will
call the roll.
The second assistant legislative cl
proceeded, to'call the roll.
Mr. ROBERT b. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask unarlinious consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The Pltr stbracf OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
TRANSA=ON OF ROUTINE
MORNING I3USINESS
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I ask inumimous consent that there now
be a period for the transaction of routine
morning business.
The PRESIDING 014q.CER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
REPORT ON IMPLEMENT/NG PRO-
VISIONS' OFbEFENSE APPROPRIA-
TION ACT, 1914?MESSAGE FROM
THE PRESIDENT
The VICE PREVIDENT laid before t
Senate a message from the President
the 17nited states, which was referre
the Committee on Appropriations he
message is as follows:
To the congress of the 'Unite ates:
In apcordance with Section (d) of
the .Department of Defense propria-
don Authorization Act, 1974 blic Law
93-155), I am pleased to it the fol-
lowing report to the -Co ess on the
progress made since lift, t report on
February 20, 1974 in 'i ementing the
provisions of Section 8 of the Act cited
above.
On April .25, re entatives of the
United States and e Federal Republic
of Germany sign a new offset agree..
merit covering ft years 1974 and 1975.
The offset to be ovided during this two
year period is ger in dollar terms and
provides mor stantial economic ben-
efits to us any Previous offset agree-
ment At exchange rate of $1=DM
2.669, the lar value of the agreement
is appro. tely $2.22 billion over the
two ye riot
The position of the agreement is
similar to that of previous off-
set ts, but there are a number
res-that significantly increase its
value to the United States, including
substantial budgetary relief. As before.
German military procurement in the
United States represents the largest sin-
gle element. In the present agreement it
amounts to $1.03 billion (at $1.00=DM
2.669) . Other attractive features include
German willingness to continue funding
the rehabilitation of facilities used by
American troops in the Federal Republic:
to take over the payment of certain real
estate taxes and airport charges in con-
nection with US military activities in
Germany: to purchase from the US
Atomic Energy Commission enriched
uranium, including enrichment services;
and?for the first time in the framework
of an offset agreement?to finance US-
German cooperation in science and tech
nology.
As in the case of previous offset ag -
ments, the new agreement makes i-
sion for German purchases of ecial
U.S. Government securities o nces-
sionary terms. The significa terest
savings resulting from an million
loan over seven years at 21 ercent, to-
gether with the above- i, tioned Ger-
an contributions to o roop station-
costs such as troop ilities rehabili-
ta n and absorptio f taxes and air-
Po ees, substant' y cover the addi-
tion costs we by deploying our
forces the F ml Republic rather
than in e Uni States.
Benefi ined in the agreement
constitute jor element in the ef-
fort to mee e requirements of Section
812. The r ent is the product of
many th.s difficult negotiations,
involy' not o the negotiators ap-
poin y our two vernments, but also
perexchanges the highest levels
a two govenun
y last report the Congress, I
d that U.S. expen ures entering
e balance of payments a result of
e deployment of forc in NATO
Europe in fulfillment of tre commit-
ments and obligations in 974 are
estimated to be approximately 1 bil-
lion. That estimate still holds.
I anticipate that the bilateral set
agreement with the Federal Republ
Germany, together with arrangeme
involving other Allies, will meet the re
quirements of Section 812. This will per-
mit us to maintain our forces in NATO
Europe at present levels. In this con-
nection, I would like to point' out that
the NATO study on allied procurement
plans, which I referred to in my last re-
port to the Congress, indicates that al-
lied military procurement from the U.S.
in FY 1.974 will be significant despite the
fact that many of our Allies have suf-
fered a worsening in their trade balance
and face the possibility of even greater
deterioration. I will provide the Congress
with further information on satisfying
the requirements of Section 812 in my
August report.
RICHARD NIXON.
THE WHITE HOUSE, May 16, 1974.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM EXECU-
TIVE DEPARTMENTS, ETC.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid be-
fore the Senate the following letters,
which were referred as indicated:
REPORT Or SEcitETARY OF D
A letter from the Deputy Se y of De-
fense, reporting, pursuant aw, en dis-
bursements made against appropriation
Contingencies, Defense r current and
prior years' obligatiorough March 3E,
1974. Referred to th ?mmittee on Appro-
priations.
APPROVAL OF L FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
CERTAIN T PORTATION FACILITIES
A letter f the Administrator, Rural
Electrificat Administration, Department
of Agric e, reporting, pursuant to law,
on the royal of a loan to Square Butte
Electr ooperative of Grand Forks, N. flak.,
to fl ce the land, land rights and Clearing
re ed for the construction of certain
mission facilities (with accompanying
ers). Referred to the Conunitee on Ap-
ropriations.
REPORT ON CERTAIN PROJECTS PROPOSED FOR
THE ARMY RESERVE
A letter from the Deputy Assistant Sec-
retary of Defense (Installations and Hous-
ing), reportngi, pursuant to law, on seven
projects proposed to be undertaken for the
Army Reserve (with accompanying papers).
Referred to the Committee on Armed Serv-
ices.
FACILITIES PROJECT PROPOSED FOR THE ARME
RESERVE
A letter from the Deputy Assistant Secre-
tary of Defense (Installations and Hous-
ing), reporting, pursuant to law, on a facil-
ities project proposed to be undertaken for
the Army Reserve, at Brockton, Mass., and
Of the cancellation of certain projects (with
accompanying papers). Referred to the Com-
mittee on Armed Services.
PROJECTS PROPOSED TO BE UNDERTAKEN FOR
THE ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
A letter from the Deputy Assistant Sec-
retary of Defense (Installations and Hous-
ing), reporting, pursuant to law, on eight
projects proposed to be undertaken for the
Army National Guard (with accompanying
papers). Referred to the Committee on
Armed Services.
REPORT ON FEDERAL CONTRIBITTIONS PROGRAM
EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES
A letter from the Director, Defense Civil
Preparedness Agency, transmitting, pursu-
ant to law, a report on Federal Contribu-
tions Program Equipment and Facilities, for
the quarter ended March 31, 1972 (with an
accompanying report). Referred to the Com-
mittee on Armed Services.
REPORT ON STRATEGIC AND CRITICAL MATERIALS
STOCKPILING PROGRAM
A letter from the Acting Administrator,
neral Services Administration, transmit-
pursuant to law, a report on the stra-
c and critical materials stockpiling pro.
gr. , for the 6-months period ended Decem-
ber , 1973 (with an accompanying report).
Refe d to the Committee on Armed
Servic
REPOR N ACTIVITIES OF THE U.S. TRAVEL
SERVICE
A letter 'm the Secretary of Commerce,
transmittin ursuant to law, a report of
the 'U.S. Tra Service, for calendar year
1973 (with companying report). Re-
ferred to the ittee on Commerce.
PROPOSED I.F.r/S/,
ON FROM SECRETARY OE
MERCE
A letter from the retary of Commerce,
transmitting a draft proposed legislation
to amend section 90 ) of the Merchant
Marine Act, 1956 (wi accompanying pa-
pers). Referred to the nnttee on Com-
merce.
REPORT OF DISTRICT OF
AGENCY
A letter from the Director,
lumbia Bail Agency, Wath
mitting, pursuant to law, a
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000600190088-4
IIBISIA BAIL
tract or co-
.c., trans..
of that
S 8346
Approved For Release 2001/08/30: CIA-RDP751300380R00060019 088-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
to law, a proposed contract with W. A. Wahler
& Associates, Palo Alto, Ciellf, for a research
project entitled "Study of High Modulus
Baelfirlil Systems" (with an accompanying
paper). Referred to the Committee on In-
terior and Insular Affairs.
PROPOSED CONTRACT FOR A RESEARCH PROJECT
A letter from the Deperty Assistant Sec-
retary of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant
to law, a proposed contract with Cities Serv-
ice 011 Co., Tulsa, Okla., f er a research proj-
ect entitled "Improved Oil Recovery by Mi-
cellar-Polymer Flooding" (with an accom-
panying paper). Referred to the Committee
on Interior and Insular Affairs.
AUDIT' REPORT OF FUTCRE FARMERS 01,
AMERICA
A letter from the peasecient, board of
trustees, Future Farmers of America Fou -
dation, Inc., transmitting. pursuant to in
a report of the audit of the accounts of t
foundation, for fiscal yea" ended Dece r
31, 1973 (with an accompanying repo
rented to the Committee on the Jud
TEMPORARY ADMISSION INTO THE TED
STATES OF CERTAIN ALIEN
A letter from the COMMiSSIO migra-
tion and Naturalization Servic apartment
of Justice, transmitting, puns to law. re-
ports on temporary admissio o the United
States of certain aliens (a accompanying
papers). Referred to the mittee on the
Judiciary.
REPORT ON CERTAIN
Agency, for the calendar year 1913 (with an
acco trying Mort). Referred to the Clout-
mit tee the Distil& of Colutunia.
Psopo EGSSLATION FROM Civil. Seavice.
Creinenserme
A lett m the Chairman, US Civil
Service Co anion, transmitting a cloaft, of
proposed le tion to amend the Social
Security Actchange the effective tate of
section 1862(c coincide with the effective
date of 0, natio ealth insurance law (with
accompa g 8). Referr ad to the
Committee on Fi
PROPOSES LEGISLA
TX
A letter 'from the
tiation Board, trans
posed lgoislation to
Renegotiation Act of
panying paper). Refe
on Finance.
FROIM run R
BOARD
GOTIA-
an, the Renego-
ting a draft of pro-
nd and amend the
(with an accom-
r to the Committee
REPORT ON INVENTORY
FOREIGN Cu
A letter from the Fiscal A
Department of the Treasu
pursuant to law, a report
ONP1.7 SRO
it1.111 SeCS'etary.
ansmitting,
tventory of
nonpurabseed foreign curren as of De-
cember 31, 1973 (with an aceo anytg re-
port). Referred to the Commi t Fpreign
Relations,.
INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS ENT
THE UNITED STATES
A letter from the Assistant Lega
for Treaty Affairs, Department,
transmitting certain documents rel
international agreements, other than It
entered Into by the United States (wi
companying papers). Referred to the
mittee or. Foreign Relations.
REPORTS OF COMPTROLLER CENLRLL
A letter from the Comptroller General
the United States, transmitting, pursuant t
law, a report entitled "Federally Supported
Attempts To Solve State and Local Court
Problems: More Needs To Be Done," Law En-
forcement; Assistance Administration, De-
partment of Justice, dated May 8, 1974 (with
an accompanying report). Refeired to the
Committee on Government Operations.
A letter from the Comptroller General of
the United States, transmitting, pursuant to
law, a report entitled "More Ciempetition
Needed in the Federal E'rocurerne at of Auto-
raatic Data Processing Equipment,' General
Services Administration, dated May 7, 197
(with an accompanying report). Referred
the Conualttee on Government Operate
A letter from the Comptroller Caner
the United States, transmitting, Innen( to
law, a report entitled "Need for Inorea Use
of Value Engineering, a Proven Cos aving
Technique, in Federal Constructio aulti-
agency, Mated may 6, 1974 (with aecom-
panylreetreport). Referred to t Commit-
tee on Government Operations.
A letter from the Conaptrol General of
the United States, transznitti pursuer:it to
law, a report entitled 'Inte Report on the
Commodly Exchange Anth and on Com-
modity Futures Tradin Department of
Agriculture, dated May 1974 (with an ex-
companying report). rred to the Com-
mittee or Governrne Operations.
PROPOSED CONCESSIO ONTRACT Wrrifin THE
NATIONA ARE SYSTEIVI
A letter from t Deputy Assistant Secre-
tary of the Int r, transmitting, purauant
to law, a prop concession contract under
which Parer R rvation System will be au-
thorized to ablish, maintain, and operate
a comput -campsite reservation sestena
for design areas within the National Park
System f designated areas within the Na-
tional Spirant (with accimpanying
papers) teferred to the Committee on In-
terior solar Metre.
PROP CONTRACT Fort A RESEARCH PROJECT
A tter from the Deputy Assistant Sere-
tar- of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant
INTO DT
dviser
e,
A letter from the
gration and Natur
rnent of Justice, t
law, copies of or
fector aliens (w
Referred to ti
diary.
REPORT ON U COMMISSION- ON CIVIL RIGHTS
A letter the Chairman, U.S. Commis-
on on C Rights, transmitting, pursuant
law, port entitled "Counting the Por-
ten, 1970 Censue Count of Persons of
S 1 peaking Ilackeroand in the United
(with an accompanying report). Re-
fer to the Committee cy.a the Judiciary.
OF FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION.
TMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND
A let from the Office of Legislative Serv-
ice, trait'- itting, for the information of the
Senate, a epublication copy of the annual
report of e Food and Drug Administra-
tion, for t seal year ended June 30, 1973
(with an we manying reeort). Referred to
the Connnitt on Labor and Public Welfare,
REPORT Dram ABUSE COUNCIL
A letter fro e Chairman of the Board,
Drug Abuse Col 1, tranecnittnag, pursuant
to law, a report at Connell, for the year
1973 (with an panning report). Re-
ferred to the Co on Labor and Public
Welfare.
REPORT OF FEDERAL CTIVITIES UNDER THE
VOCATIONAL RE ILLTATIOIN ACT
A letter from the Sec :ty of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare, trc pitting, pursuant
to law, the final annual rt of Federal ac-
tivities under the Vocatio Rehabilitation
Act, for July 1, 1972 throt June 30, 1973
(with -an accompanying rep . Referred to
the Committee on Labor and blic Welfare,
PROPOSED LEGISLATION PROM D TMENT OF
HEALTH, SDUCATION, 1150 FARE
A letter from the Secretary of H th, Edo-
ration, and Welfare transmitting raft of
proposed legislation to provide assi nce to
local educational agencies which are the
process of eliminating disaimination m
nority_ group isolation among studen
faculty in elementary and necondary soh
and for other purposes ( with accompa
ing papers). Referred to the Committee o
Labor and Public Welfare.
FECTOR ALIENS
WIT ISSIODRT, IM Mi -
ion Service, Depart-
milting, pursuant to
relating to certain de-
companying papers),
onnaittee on the Judi-
llay I6 162 ;
PROPOSED LEGISLATION FRaN, SERVI(1,.
COM MiESIO
A letter front the C U.S. Civil
Service Ccemnission, ing a draft of
proposed legislation end chapter 83 of
title 5, United Sta de, to establish time
limitations in app at civil service retire--
meat benents, i or other purpcides (with
all accompan paper). Referred to the
Committee o t Office and Civil Service,
PROSPECT oposn, G AcQUESITION OP
SPACE ERA . .9., R VICE s AMAIN Y STE A -
TioN
?
A r from the Ai ting
Services Admiinstration,
trsuant to IRV, a prospectus propos-
he ace uisitiOn of spec* in an fife ce build-
to he constructed in Jackson, Miss. with
ccompattying papers). Eeferred to the Com-.
mittee on Public Works.
A letter from the Acting Achninistrater,
General Servicee Administration, transmit.-
ting, pursuant to law, pvlspectuses Oroposio g
entering into leases for space presently OK'
copied at certain locations with accom-
panying papers), Referred to the COmmittcc
in Public Works.
REPORT OP BUILDING ,PROJEI:T SURIJE1
SITHA. At ASES 41,
A letter from the AC.ting Administrator
General Services Administration, transmit-
ting, pursuant to law, a report of Ruildine,
Project Survey for Sitka, Alaska (-vith ac-
companying papers). Referred to the Com-
mittee on Public Works.
AMENDMENTS TO PROSPECTUE.ES TOR PUBLIC
BUILDING PROJECTS
A letter from the AdMiDiStratOT,H0eneral
Services Administration, transmitting, pur-
suant to law, amendments ta the approved
prospectuses for public building ; projects-
it Lukeville, Ariz, and Laredo. Tex. (with
accompanying papers), Referred to the Com-
.?nittee on Public Works.
REPORT ENTITLED `711E ECONOMICS OF
CLEAN WATER-1973"
A letter from the Administrator, U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency, transmit-
ting, pursuant to law, a meport entitled ?The
Economics of Clean Water-19'73" (with an
accompanying report). Referred to the Com-
leittee on Public Works,
PROPOSED LEGISLATION FROM ATOMIC
ENERGY COMMISSION
A letter from the Acting Chairrnan, U.S.
Atomic Energy Commission, transmitting a
draft of proposed legislation to amend the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and
he Atomic Weapons Rewards Act ;of 1955.
and for other purposes (with accompanying
papers). Referred to the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy.
PETITIONS
Petitions were laid before the Senate
:aid referred as indicated:
By the PRESIDENT pro tempore:
A letter, in the nature of a petitiim, from
he University of Michigan Medical Center.
university Hospital, Ann Arbor, Mich., relat-
ing to radiopharmaceuticals for diagnosis
and treatment. Referred to the Joint Corn-
inittee on Atomic Energy.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following reports of committees
were submitted:
By Mr. KENNEDY, from the COMITIIIteR on
the Judiciary, with an amendment:;
S. 2543. A bill to amend section 55t of title
United States Code, commonly known as
the Freedom of Information Act (Rept. No,
(i3-454).
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4
. Approved For Release 2001/08/30 ? CIA-RDP751300380R000600190088-4
May 16, 1974
FREEDOM t"P -/?09 NtivrioN ACT AMENDMENTS
Mr. 1Nti, Mr. President, I am
pleased to file toda,y, on behalf of the
Senate Ju4ielai7 Coinmittee a unani-
mous report. recommending Passage of
S. 2543, as emended. l'h9 bill contains
a series of amendments to the Freedom
of Information Act, which are intended
to facilitate greater and more expeditious
Public access to Government information
and to strengthen the public's 'remedy
against agencies and officials who violate
the act.
Last year the Subcommittee on Admin-
istrative Practice and Procedure, in con-
junction with two other subcommittees,
held 11 days of hearings on freedom of
information and Government secrecy.
Following those hearings I introduced S.
2543, which contained a number of pro-
posed changes to the FOIA designed to
meet the problems with agency adminis-
tration of the act that were brought out
in our hearings. In February the sub-
committee reported out my bill. I was
pleased to have been able to work with
the ranking minority member of the full
committee, Senator HausicA, to develop a
bill which was supported by every mem-
ber of the comm4tee when ordered re-
ported last week. I want to commend the
Senator from Nebraska and his able staff
for their efforts in developing the com-
mittee bill which is being filed today.
When I introduced S. 2543 I observed
that "If the people of a democratic na-
tion do not IMQW what decisions their
government is making, do not know the
basis on which those decisions are being
made, then their rights as a free people
may gradually slip away, silently stolen
when decisions which affect their lives
are made under the cover of secrecy."
Former Chief Justice Earl Warren
later last year made an impassioned plea
for compelling "our public officials to
keep the avenues of information open
so the public can know and evaluate the
character of their wort from day to day."
"If we are to learn from the debacle we
are in," said the Chief Justice, "we should
first strike at secrecy in Government
wherever it exists, because it is the in-
cubator for corruption."
Mr. President, S. 2543 reflects a strong
commitment to promoting an open and
responsive Government for all Ameri-
cans. It is designed to provide the people
with a stronger mechanism for keeping
informed about what decisioris their Gov-
ernment is making and to require that
public officials keep the avenues of infor-
mation open to the public.
touring our hearings last year wit-
nesses outside the executiye branch
pointed out three major problems fre-
quently encountered in obtaining infor-
mation from the Government, under the
Freedom of Information Act. First, they
complained of consistent, unreasonable
delays on the part of Government agen-
cies in responding to requests for infor-
mation. Too often these delays are
brought about because agency officials
do not want to disclose embarrassing in-
formation, even though that information
may clearly be required to be disclosed
under the FOIA.
Second, they expressed concern over
the inability of Federal courts?after the
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
?
Supreme Court's decision in EPA against
Mink?to review agency decisions to
classify documents in the interest of na-
tional defense and foreign policy. Justice
Potter Stewart, in a concurring opinion
in the Mink case, had stated that Con-
gress built "into the Freedom of Infor-
mation Act an exemption that provides
no means to question an executive deci-
sion to stamp a document 'secret', how-
ever cynical, myopic, or even corrupt that
decision might have been." We were thus
urged to build into the act a process that
would allow judicial review of classifi-
cation decisions.
Third, they urged that Government
officials be made more sensitive to the
mandates of and more accountable un-
der the FOIA. Officials handling FOIA
requests have had little to lose by delay-
ing responses or withholding records
without justification. Few members of
the public have the resources to go to
court. News stories go stale with time, so
the press loses its incentive after unrea-
sonable initial delays. And possible em-
barrassment to the agency or its constit-
uency is always more likely to be avoided
by withholding than by disclosure. Thus,
there exists little incentive for an agency
or official to follow strictly the letter or
the spirit of the FOIA.
I am pleased, Mr. President, that S.
2543 as amended addresses each of these
important issues. One provision set defi-
nite time limits for agencies to respond
to an appeal of an initial denial. In very
limited and extraordinary classes of
cases, agencies may certify?with ap-
proval of the Attorney General and pub-
lication in the Federal Register?that 30
days are necessary for handling initial
requests because of the large numbers of
records and wide geographic distribution
involved. And in unusual circumstances,
narrowly defined by the bill, the agency
may add 10 days to its response time for
either the initial or the appeal period.
This should give agencies sufficient time
to handle FOIA requests, while not al-
lowing them to be dilatory in their prac-
tices. Each year they will have to report
to Qongress on the time it takes to handle
requests and appeals, so that there will
be a regular monitoring of agency com-
pliance with the time requirements of the
Act
Where agencies want to withhold docu-
ments under a statute or Executive order
as being classified in the interest of na-
tional defense or foreign policy S. 2543
as amended provides that courts may ex-
amine the documents themselves in cam-
era and must determine whether in fact
the documents were properly classified.
The bill sets out procedures to protect
particularly sensitive information, and it
provides that courts should utilize an in
camera examination only if they cannot
resolve the matter on the basis of argu-
ments and affidavits. But it firmly estab-
lishes the principle of judicial review of?
and accountability outside the executive
branch for?agency decisions to classify
material.
Three provisions of the bill are di-
rected at the problem of accountability
and responsibility in the agencies for ad-
herence to the requirements of the Free-
dom of Information Act. To begin with,
S 8347
the names and_positions of persons re-
sponsible for agency denials of informa-
tion must be conveyed to the requester
at each stage, and cumulated and re-
ported to the Congress annually. The ob-
jective of this provision is not merely to
single out publicly officials who work on
FOIA requests, but to let them know that
they must bear actual responsibility for
denials that go out over their signatures.
Another provision of the bill allows the
imposition of attorneys' fees and court
costs against the agency in many cases
where the requester substantially pre-
vails in litigation. The intention here is
not to encourage unnecessary litigation,
but to let the agencies know that these
fees and costs will no longer be an effec-
tive barrier to judicial enforcement of
the FOIA for a large number of persons
requesting information. Stricter adher-
ence to the Act by these agencies should
ensue.
Finally, a new provision added to the
FOIA puts teeth into its requirements;
it allows courts to impose disciplinary
sanctions against Federal officials who
violate the act. An innovation in admin-
istrative procedure, this Government ac-
countability section provides that if a
court finds Government records to have
been withheld without a reasonable basis
in law, the court ?shall order disciplinary
action?up to a 60-day suspension?
against the responsible Government of-
ficial. The inclusion of this sanction for
violation of the act clearly indicates a
congressional commitment to openness,
not secrecy, on the part of every officer
and employee of the Federal Govern-
ment.
Mr. President, democracy is indeed a
fragile commodity. In a government of,
by, and for the people, the people must
have a right to obtain information from
their government. And the people must
have available, as well, a mechanism for
securing that information. The Freedom
of Information Act embodies that right
and that mechanism. Both are strength-
ened by the bill being reported today.
Mr. BRUSKA. Mr. President, the hall-
mark of a democracy is an informed cit-
izenry. It is elementary that the people
cannot govern themselves if they cannot
know the actions of their government. It
is for this reason that we must remain
committed to the goal of implementing
the public's right to know to the greatest
extent consistent with good government.
To this end, Congress passed the Free-
dom of Information Act in 1966. That
act imposed on the executive branch an
affirmative obligation to provide access
to official information that previously
had been long shielded from public view.
Under that act, an agency must comoly
with a citizen's request for information
unless it can show that competing in-
terests, such as the right to privacy or
the national defense, require the infor-
mation to remain confidential.
While the Freedom of Information Act
has, by and large, worked successfully,
experience with the administration of
the act indicates that some changes are
necessary. In considering this legislation,
the Judiciary Committee found that the
primary obstacles to the act's effective
implementation have been procedural
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4
S 8348
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?SENATE May 76,
rather than substantive. S. 2543 is de-
signed to nereovethese obstacles. Its baste
purpose is to facilitate more free and
expeditious public access to the informa-
tion the act obligates the Government
agenates toedisclose.
Senator KENNEDY has already outlined
the provisions of the bill. The basic fea-
tures of the bill I consider worth em-
phasizing are the following:
First, the bill requires agencies to pub-
lish indexes of its records availebie to
the public so that the citizen can know
what information is held by the agency:
Second, it prohibits excessive charges
for the intermation requested;
Third, it expedites public limas to
Government information by requiring
Government. agencies to respond to re-
quests for information within smiled
time periods;
Fourth, the bill insoles responsible re-
sponses to requests by holding accom-
table those officials who withhold odor-
mation without a reasonable basis:
Finally, S. 2543 insures the integrity
of the classification of a classified doc-
ument by allowing the courts to review
the document in camera.
Mr. President, it is my view that this
bill, as amended, will secure the right
of the individual to gain access to all the
official information that good goveni-
ment arid lie rights of the individual will
permit.
Since the close of the hearings held
on the Freedom of Information Act, Sen-
ator lEaterreev and his fine staff have
worked with me and my staff to draft a
bill that, in the words of the Senate Judi-
ciary Committee in considering the Free-
dom of Information A: t in 1966, provides
"a workable formula which encompasses,
balances and protects all interests, yet
places emphasis on the fullest responsible,
disclosure" I believe that S. 2543 does
just that. It has my unvarying support.
13y Mr. SPARXMAN, rn the Conm!
en Banking, Housing Urban Affairs:
S. 3511. An original 1 to increase the
availability cif urgenti needed mortgage
credit for the financing housing and o.;her
purpose (Rept. No.9
Mr. SPARKMAN. . President, I am
reporting eo the Sen today a bill cited
as "The Emergency g Finance Act
of 1974." This bill ould broaden ex-
isting law with r et to the use of
mortgage credit to the financing of
housing and would icrease authoriza-
tions for the con ration of exiseing
housing assistance community devel-
opment programs r fiscal year 1975.
The hill is to provit temporary author-
ity to update exi g programs until
the provisions ofSenate-passed om-
nibus bill, S. 3066, Housing and Com-
munity Developme Act of 1971, can be
mplemented.
The Senate pas the omnibus bill on
March 11 and is ting fot the House
of Representative o mark ape com-
panion version to plete congressional
action on the mea I am hopeful that
the two Rouses agree in conference
soon on a final ye on and have it signed
into law by the dent before the end
of this fiscal yea If this is done, we
would not need to ass the interim bill.
The dilemma we are facing is how to
aware that needed legislation is passed
to continue existing programs in case the
omnibus bill establishing new programs
is not passed by July '1, 1974, without
prejudicing passage of the omnibeta bill
now wending its way through the House
of Representatives. Our committee and
the Senate worked hard and long on de-
veloping and passing S. 3066, which is one
of the most comprehensive and effective
housing bills ever before the Congress.
and it is extremely important that
nothing be done to jeopardize its final
pa ;Sage.
Mr. President, I have kept in touch
with the House leaders on the omnibus
legislation and have been assured that a
bill, somewhat reduced from the Senate
version, will be forthcoming 'within the
next few weeks. With this assurance, I
believe it is best to hold op Senate pas-
sae of the interim bill for a short while
until a clearer picture emerges on the
House action and the final approval by
the Congress and the President of the
omnibus legislation. If gull approval is
assured, no action is needed on the in-
terim bill. If, however, we see no hope for
an omnibus bill, we would move the in-
terim bill for prompt consideration by
the House and the President.
Mr. President, I should like to say
word or two about 'the President's m
sage on housing which came to the
ate on Friday, May 10. The Presid s
message was in two parts--one on i
diete action and the other on
legislative proposals. On the I t he
urged passage of housing provis al-
most all of which are contain the
omnibus bill, S. 3066, already ed by
the Senate.
The second and most signi nt part
of his message authorizes I ? ate ac-
tion to be taken by the ury, the
Government National Mo age Asso-
ciation, and the FederaI ome Loan
Bank System to increase ancial sup-
port for the mortgage ? ket. Por the
most part, the Presid implemented
some obscure legislati authority al-
reedy on the books. reeults of such
implementation may helpful but the
beneficiaries are un 1y to be the fam-
ilies most in need assistance, and we
will have to wait d see whether this
action is enough ake any difference
in the depressed te of home construc-
tion at this tin
With respect GNMA, the President
would l contin e tandem plan author-
it e given to p A last January to pur-
chase mortgi s at a below market in-
terest rate. that time, the President
announced at GNMA would purchase
200,000 m gages at a 7% percent in-
terest rat t now, 5 month later, only
about on ourth of such mortgages has
hem pt ased. On Frie.ay, the Presi-
dent a ounced that he is authorizing
GNMA ? purchase 100,000 mortgages at
ar 8- cent interest rate. I do not un-
ders d why the January program Is
neiv so slowly. One reason given is
the r rribly low production of the FHA
air based on what I hear is the fright-
ful low morale of local FHA staffs. If
lb. lag in the earlier program is any
criterion for the new program onder
how significant an inmact we expect
from the new proposal at an n higher
interest rate. Furthermore, ender how
helpful such a program be to the
IOW and moderate tricorn Mlles where
the greatest need exis ? ie statutory
ceiling for GNMA mo ges is $33,000.
The President arum d a $3.3 billion
program so he m xpect practically
all of the mortga ill be at the ceiling
level. A $33,000 rtgage supports a
$35,000 or even er priced hoiese so
the question is miry moderate in.-
come families T, aforti a $35,000 house
at an interest e of B percent -
I would h the same comment with
ref ereace he President's $4 billion
mortgage e gram financed through the
Federal e Loan Bank System. The
ceiling these mortgagee is $45,000
v
inch i d finance homes priced well
above i ,000. A program at such prices
willlittle help to the moderate in-
col ? erican family.
third program is efen more ques-
t( Ie because Treasury funds would
namitted to help support a $3 billion
gram of 8% percent mortgages with
flings of $35,000 through the Federal
ome Loan Mortgage Corporation, A 30-
ear, $35,000 mortgage with an 8% per-
cent interest rate would require a
monthly amortization payment of $275.
Adding the typical taxes, insurance and
utilities would call for a total monthly
outlay of about $375. To afford such a
payment would require incomes of
around $20,000 or more, or somewhere
in the upper 15 percent of the income
scale for American families.
My cencern is that the middle-income
American family is not being helped by
this program. Federal subsidies amount-
ing to millions of taxpayer dollars Will be
used to benefit families at income levels
well above the average, and nothing is
being done for families at the middle or
lower income levels. In fact, I wonder
how much of this money might go to
finance second homes for upper income
families.
The President has frozen funds for
programs of benefit to the lower income
families since January, 1973. One of
the reasons given for the freeze Was the
excessive cost to the Treasury. If the
President wanted to be helpful and spur
construction and provide housing where
It is needed most, all he would have had to
do was to release the FHA section '235 or
236 funds already appropriated by the
Congress. I suppose in today's political
environment, it is too much to expect the
President to take this route. Perhaps
once new legislation is passed whioh will
reaffirm Congressional intent that the
Government's first priority should be to
assist the needy low and moderate in-
come family, we shall see a more bah
enced program coming forth from the
Administration. In the meantime, I sup-
pose we have no choice but to go along
with the President's plan. It will help out
some, but it is obvious that, until We get
the omnibus bill passed and implemented.
anything we do now is only a stop-gap
measure.
Mr. President, another area of con-
Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4