-A A +A

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT AMENDMENTS - VETO MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

Document Type: 
CREST
Collection: 
General CIA Records
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
CIA-RDP75B00380R000700010002-6
Release Decision: 
RIFPUB
Original Classification: 
K
Document Page Count: 
17
Document Creation Date: 
December 16, 2016
Document Release Date: 
June 2, 2005
Sequence Number: 
2
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
November 20, 1974
Content Type: 
OPEN
File: 
AttachmentSize
PDF icon CIA-RDP75B00380R000700010002-6.pdf2.9 MB
Body: 
Tow 1.1 10864 OA /2_9-N Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700010002-6 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE November 20, 1974 the request of the gentleman from Indiana? There was no objection. TRANSFERRING CONSIDERATION OF S. 2149 FROM COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHER- IES TO COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES Mrs. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the Commit- tee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries discharged from further consideration of the Senate bill S. 2149 and that it be referred to the Committee on Armed Services. S. 2149 would amend title 10 of the United States Code to provide certain benefits to members of the Coast Guard Reserve, and for other purposes. It is my understanding that this arrangement Is satisfactory to the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Missouri? 400, no objection. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT AMENDMENTS?VETO MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES The SPEAKER. The unfinished busi- ness is the further consideration of the veto message of the President on H.R. 12471, an act to amend section 552 of title 5, United States Code, known as the Freedom of Information Act. The question is: Will the House, on reconsideration, pass the bill, the objec- tions of the President to the contrary notwithstanding? The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. MOORHEAD) for 1 hour. Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes. (Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to re- vise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous matter.) Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is a rare experience for any Member of this distinguished body to lead off the debate in an effort to over- ride a Presidential veto. In my almost 16 years of service here, it has never before been my responsibility to handle a leg- islative measure in this situation, under the procedures prescribed in section 7 of article 1 of the Constitution. It is an awesome task for any Member and one that requires the deepest reflection and most careful consideration of such a course of action. A little more than 6 weeks ago when I stood here in the Chamber and urged approval of the conference report on H.R. 12471, The Freedom of Informa- tion Act amendments, it never occurred to me that a Presidential veto might be forthcoming. I explained in detail on that October 7 the changes agreed to by the House-Senate conferees, how they differed from the bill originally Passed by the House on March 14 of this year, and the sincere efforts which the con- ferees of both parties made to accom- modate the specific concerns raised by President Ford. I included at pages H10002-H10004 of the RECORD the full text of the President's letter outlining these concerns and the text of our letter to the President detailing each of the significant modifications which we made to allay his concerns. Other distinguished members of the conference committee, including the ranking minority member of the full Government Operations Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Holt- TON), and the ranking minority member on our subcommittee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. ERLENBORN) , spoke in strong support of the bipartisan com- promise legislation which we had pro- duced in almost 2 months of confer- ence committee deliberations. Every single House member of our conference committee had signed the conference report. Congress certainly went "more than half-way" to accom- modate the President's views. We had been led to believe by administration of- ficials that the Freedom of Information Act amendments would promptly be signed into law by the President since major Ford amendments were incorpo- rated in the bill. After all, he had so clearly stated upon assuming the Presidency that he and his administration were fully committed to a restoration of "open government." Surely, these amendments to the basic law to assure more "open government" within the Federal bureaucracy would provide to the President an early op- portunity to prove to the disillusioned and still suspicious American public that, in fact, he really meant What he said that day on nationwide television. By signing into law with a flourish these much needed amendments to the Free- dom of Information Act, he could strike a ringing blow for credibility in Govern- ment. By a stroke of the pen, he could have taken a giant stride forward to reverse the public's cynical distrust of governmental institutions and public of- ficials. By an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 349 to 2, the Members of this body approved the conference report on H.R. 12471 and sent the bill to the White House, it having been unanimously ap- proved by voice vote in the Senate a few days earlier. By our votes we spoke clear- ly for open government and for an end of excessive Government secrecy that has eroded public confidence in goverrurtent, politics, and politicians. We overwhelm- ingly gave President Ford the golden opportunity to sign into law a bill to dramatically fulfill his 2-month-old pledge of open government in Amer- ica?a bill on which our committee and this Congress had tediously worked 3 years and 4 months to finally produce in virtually unanimous bipartisan form. Mr. Speaker, how on earth?we rea- soned?could President Ford not avail himself of this golden opportunity to re- store desperately needed confidence in Government by signing H.R. 12471 into law as soon as possible? But alas, Mr. Speaker, something went awry on the way to the Presidential sign- Ing ceremony to proclaim the fulfillment of open government in the Ford ad- ministration. Incredibly, and to the amazement of virtually everyone con- cerned, President Ford vetoed H.R. 12471 on October 17, just prior to commence- ment of the congressional recess. The big question. Mr. Speaker, is, Why did he really veto the freedom of information open government bill? Certainly, there is little evidence to answer that question to be gained from reading and rereading his veto message. We can only speculate as to what the real reasons might be. We do know that virtually all Federal agency bureaucrats opposed these amendments in our hear- ings, in written reports, and in their lob- bying efforts against H.R. 12471. We do know that almost every segment of the Federal bureaucracy recommended that President Ford veto the legislation. We all have experienced the depth of com- mitment of the Federal bureaucrats to the principles of "open government" and have generally found it sadly wanting. We also know, Mr. Speaker, that 8 years ago, when the original Freedom of Inf or- mation Act was passed by Congress? every single agency within the Federal bureaucracy also urged that President Johnson veto the measure. In that in- stance, President Johnson wisely dis- regarded the advice of the self-serving bureaucrats and promptly signed the bill into law. In his statement he said?and these words are particularly significant today in view of what has transpired during the past several years? 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 interest ... I signed this measure with a deep sense of pride that the United States is an open society in which the people's right to know is cherished and guarded. Mr. Speaker, I can only speculate on what bureaucratic advice President Ford?by contrast?relied upon to exer- cise his veto power over this needed leg- islation. It is clear from the wording of certain portions of his veto message? particularly those dealing with the per- missive judicial review of classified mate- rial authorized in H.R. 12471?that there is little understanding of either the clear meaning of the language of these parts of the bill or the intent as spelled out in detail in the conference report to meet what was a previous misunderstanding On the President's part of such language. For example, the veto message states: As the legislation now stands, a deter- mination by the Secretary of Defense that disclosure of a document would endanger our national security would, even though reasonable have to be overturned by a Dis- trict judge who thought the plaintiff's posi- tion just as reasonable. . . . Mr. Speaker, this is just not true. The bill does not say that, it does not mean that, and no one familiar with the legis- lative history could ever imagine that Members of Congress could almost unanimously vote to write into law such an obviously dangerous provision. Approved For Release 2005/06/09: CIA-RDP751300380R000700010002-6 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700010002-6 Novepber 20, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE bers v1eed the rehabilitation effort as programs oL.human development as op- posed to w1fare, the major responsi- bility of the Sial Rehabilitation Serv- ice. Because o le disparate nature of the programs 1 was believed, par- ticularly strongl among consumer groups, that reha tation considera- tions tended to be merged within SRS. As a consequenc e full benefits of rehabilitation program id not accrue to their users. I regret that President Fe does not share Congress assessment o e situa- tion and find it particularly ? essing that he employed the device of a cket veto to once again derail much- ded programs. In addition to extending the provisi of the Rehabilitation Act until June 3 1976, the bill before us clarifies the defini- tion of "handicapped"; requires affirma- tive action in employment in State agen- cies and facilities; makes provisions for reviewing the case of individuals initially deemed ineligible for vocational rehabili- tation; and establishes a Consumer Ad- visory Panel for the Architectural Bar- riers Compliance Board. It also calls for the convening of a White House Confer- ence on the Handicapped within two years of enactment and establishes a Na- tional Planing Council, 10 members of which must themselves be handicapped. Most significantly, it also clarifies and strengthens the provisions of the Ran- dolph-Sheppard Act and thus establishes realistic safeguards for the Nation's blind vendors. Mr. Speaker, this measure passed the House with only one dissenting vote a few months ago, while the Senate saw fit to support it unanimously. In view of the urgent, unmet needs of the handicapped, I hope that it will once again receive overwhelming support. Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise In support of the motion to approve, not- withstanding the Presidential veto of H.R. 14225, the bill to extend and strengthen the important Rehabilita- tion Act of 1973. The vetoed measure would continue essential financing for the program through fiscal 1976. It would also remove the Rehabilitation Services Administra- tion from the Social and Rehabilitation Service and place it in a more productive association with the Office of the Secre- tary of the Department of Health, Edu- cation, and Welfare. In addition, a long- overdue White House Conference on the Handicapped would be authorized, and our commitment to the essential Ran- dolph-Sheppard program, which permits blind persons to earn a decent living as responsible, self-sufficient vendors in Government buildings, would be reaf- firmed. I urge an affirmative vote to override the Presidential veto of H.R. 14225, so that we can insure the continuation and establishment of its essential programs. Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr, Speaker, I move the previous question. The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER. The question is, Will the House, on reconsideration, pass the bill, the objections of the President to the contrary notwithstanding? Under the Constitution, this vote must be determined by the yeas and nays. The vote was taken by electronic de- vice, and there were?yeas 398, nays 7, not voting 29, as follows: [Roll No. 6331 YEAS-398 Abdnor Dell urns Abzug Denholm Adams Dennis Addabbo Dent Alexander Derwinskl Anderson, Devine Calif. Dickinson Anderson, ni. Diggs Andrews, N.C. Dingell Andrews, Donohue N. Dak. laorn Annunzio Downing Archer Drinan Arends Dulski Armstrong Duncan Ashbrook shley pin illo B lis Ba t Ban Beard Bell Bennett Bergland Bevill Biaggi isher Biester and Bingham'were Blackburn F t Blatnik FO Boland For Bolling Foray Bowen Founts Brademas Fraser Bray Frelinghu Breaux Frenzel Breckinridge Frey Brinkley Froehlich Brooks Fulton Broomfield Fuqua Brotzman Gaydos Brown, Calif. Gettys Brown, Mich. Giaimo Brown, Ohio Gibbons Broyhill, NZ. Gilman Buchanan Ginn Burgener Goldwater Burke, Calif. Gonzalez Burke, Fla. Goodling Burke, Mass. Grasso Burleson, Tex. Green, Pa. Burlison, Mo. Gross Burton, John, Grover Burton, Phillip Gubser Butler Gude Byron Gunter Carey, N.Y. Guyer Carney, Ohio Haley Carter Hamilton Casey, Tex. Hammer- Cederberg schmidt Chamberlain Hanley Chappell Hanna Chisholm Halarahan Clancy Clark Clausen, Don H. Clawson, Del Clay Cleveland Cochran Cohen Collier Collins, Ill. Collins, Tex. Conte Conyers Carman Cotter Coughlin Crane Cronin du Pont Eckhardt Edwards, Ala. Edwards, Calif. Eilberg Erlenborn Each Evans, Colo. Evins, Tenn. Fascell Findley Fish Jones, Okla, Jones, Tenn. Jordan Earth Kastenmeier Kazen Kemp Ketchum King Kluczynati Koch Kyros Lagomarsin0 Landrum Latta Leggett Lehman Lent Litton Long, La. Long, Md. Lott Lujan Luken M ry McCloskey McCollister McCormack McDade McEwen McFall McKay McKinney McSpadden Macdonald Madden U Madigan Mahon Maalnlary n raziti tin, Nebr. Ma n, N.C. Mat , calm Math Ga. Matsu Mayne Mazzoli Meeds Melcher Metcalfe Mezvinsky Michel Milford Miller Mills Minish Mink Mitchell, N.Y. Mizell Moakley Mollohan Montgomery Moorhead, Moorhead, Pa. Hansen, Wash. morgan Harrington Mosher Harsha Hastings Hawkins Moss Murphy, III. Murphy, N.Y. Hays Murtha Hechler, W. Va. Myers Heckler, Mass. Natcher Heinz Nedzi Helstoski Nichols Henderson Nix Hicks Obey Hillis O'Brien Hinshaw O'Hara Hogan O'Neill Holifield Owens Holt Parris Holtzman Passroan Horton Patman Culver Howard Patten Daniel, Dan Huber Pepper Daniel, Robert Hudnut Perkins W., Jr. Hungate Pettis Daniels, Hunt Peyser Dominick V. Hutchinson Pickle Danielson Ichord Pike Davis, S.C. Johnson, Calif. Poage de la Garza Johnson, Colo. Powell, Ohio Delaney Johnson, Pa. Preyer Dellenback Jones, Ala. Price, Ill. Price, TeL Pritchard Quie Quillen Railsback Randall Rees Regula Reid Reuss Rhodes Rinaldo Roberts Robinson, Va. Robison, N.Y. Rodin? Roe Rogers RoncaliO, Wy0. Rooney, Pa. Rose Rosenthal Rostenkowski Roush Rousselot Roy Roybal Runnels Ruth Ryan St Germain Sandman Sarasin Sarbanes Satterfield Scherle Schneebeli Schroeder Sebelius Seiberling Shipley II 10863 Shoup Udall Shriver Ullman Shuster Van Deerlin Sikes Vander Jagt Sisk Vander Veen Skubitz Vanik Slack Vigorito Smith, Iowa Waggonner Smith, N.Y. Walclie Snyder Walsh Spence Wampler Staggers Whalen Stanton, White J. William Whitehurst Stanton, Whitten James V. Widnall Stark Wiggins Steed Wilson, Bob Steele Wilson, Steelman Charles 11-, Steiger, Ariz. Calif. Steiger, Wis. Wilson, Stephens Charles, TeL Stokes Winn Stratton Wolff Stubblefield Wright Stuckey Wyatt Studds Wydler Sullivan Wylie Symington Yates Symms Yatron Talcott Young, Alaska Taylor, Mo. Young, Fla. Taylor, N.C. Young, Ga. Thompson, N.J. Young, Ill. Thomson, Wis, Young, S.C. Young, Tex. Zablocki Zion Zwach Thone Thornton Tiernan Towell, Nev. Treen NAYS--7 Broyhill, Va. Landgrebe Williams Davis, Wis. Minshall, Ohio Roamer Ware NOT VOTING-29 Baker Griffiths Rarick Boggs Hansen, Idaho Riegle Brasco Hebert Roncallo, N.Y. Camp Jarman Rooney, N.Y. Conable Jones, N.C. Ruppe Coni an Kuykendall Teague Davis, Ga. Mitchell, Md. Traxler Eshleman Nelsen Veysey Gray Podell Wyman Green, Oreg. Rangel So, two-thirds having voted in favor thereof, the bill was passed, the objec- tions of the President to the contrary otwithstanding. he Clerk announced the following pa : Mr . ebert with Mr. Hansen of Idaho. Mr. ' .ney of New York with Mr. Roncallo Of New k. Mr. Mit ? ell of Maryland with Mr. Davis of Georgia. Mr. Range th Mrs. Green of Oregon. Mrs. Boggs h Mr. Kuykendall. Mr. Teague Mr. Rarick. Mr. Riegle with r. Nelsen. Mr. Gray with Baker. Mr. Jarman with . Conlan. Mr. Jones of No ? Carolina with Mr. Camp. Mr. Traxler with Mr. leman. Mrs. Griffiths with Mr. liable. Mr. Ruppe with Mr. Wyn The result of the vote announced as above recorded. The SPEAKER. The Cler will notify the Senate of the action of e House. GENERAL LEAVE Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks, and Include extraneous matter, on the biU H.R. 14225, just passed. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700010002-6 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : C1A-RDP75600380R000700010002-6 November 20, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?HOUSE 11 10865 The President went on to say in his veto message: I propose, therefore, that where classified documents are requested, the courts could review the classification, but would have to uphold the classification if there is a rea- sonable basis to support it. In determining the reasonableness of the classification, the courts would consider all attendant evidence price to resorting to an in camera examina- tion of the document. Mr. Speaker, in the procedural han- dling of such cases under the Freedom of Information Act, this is exactly the way the courts would conduct their proceed- ings. An agency, in defending an action in Federal court that involves a Govern- ment document' having classification markings, normally submits an affidavit to the court explaining the basis for the particular classification assigned to it as authorized under the provisions of Ex- ecutive Order 11652 and the implement- ing regulations of the agency involved. The court would then review such affi- davit to determine the proper use of classification authority. If there was doubt, or if the affidavit was not suffi- ciently detailed to permit a clear deci- sion, the court can request supplementary detail from the agency involved. It can discuss the affidavit with Gov- ernment attorneys in camera, or em- ploy other similar means to obtain suf- ficient information needed to make a judgment. Only if such means cannot provide a clear justfication for the classi- fication markings would the court order an in camera inspection of the document Itself. If the examination and subsequent discussions of the affidavit from the agency indicate that the classification assigned to the particular document is reasonable and proper under the Execu- tive order and implementing regulations, the court would clearly rule for the Gov- ernment and order the requested docu- ment withheld from the plaintiff. But if the examination and subsequent discus- sions of the affidavit from the agency could not resolve the issue, the court could then order the production of the document and examine it in camera to determine if the classification marking was properly authorized. Such discretionary authority for in camera review is authorized in H.R. 12471, and properly so, to safeguard against arbitrary, capricious, and myopic use of the awesome power of the classifi- cation stamp by the Government bu- reaucracy. Abuses of the classification stamp are well known. As former Presi- dent Nixon said in issuing the present classification and declassification Execu- tive order in March 1972: The many abuses of the securtiy system can no longer be tolerated . . . Unfortu- nately, the system of classification which has evolved in the United States has failed to meet the standards of an open and demo- cratic society, allowing too many papers to be classified for too long a time. The con- trols which have been imposed on classifica- tion authority have proved unworkable, and classification has frequently served to con- ceal bureaucratic mistakse or to prevent em- barrassment to officials and administra- tions . . . Former Defense Secretary Melvin Laird also said in a 1970 speech: Let me emphasize my convictions that the American people have a right to know even more than has been available in the past about matters which affect their safety and security. There has been too much classifica- tion in this country. Mr. Speaker, even if a district court ordered the release of a classified docu- ment in dispute, after following all of the procedural steps just described and in- cluding in camera review of the docu- ment itself, such decision may?of course?be appealed by the Government to the circuit court of appeals, and, if necessary, to the Supreme Court. I find it totally unrealistic to assume?as ap- parently the President's legal advisers have assumed?that the Federal judici- ary system is somehow not to be trusted to act in the public interest to safeguard truly legitimate national defense or for- eign policy secrets of our Government. Similarly ludicrous legal arguments are made later in the veto message with respect to investigatory law enforcement files and time limits placed in the Free- dom of Information Act for agency re- sponses. For example, the veto message states: I propose that more flexible criteria govern the requests for particularly lengthy investi- gatory records to mitigate the burden which these amendments would otherwise impose, in order not to dilute the primary, responsi- bilities of these law enforcement activities. Mr. Speaker, no one wants to burden law enforcement agencies or to take their attention away from the difficult job of fighting the growing menace of crime in America. The language of sec- tion 2(b) of H.R. 12471 in no way places an undue burden on such agencies. The conference committee specifically took into consideration the potential problem that might be created within an agency if it received a request for the type of "particularly lengthy" records men- tioned in the veto message. We wrote Into the law a provision that additional time could be obtained by an agency in cases involving "a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records which are demanded in a single request." Obvi- ously, the President's lawyers did not notice this part of the bill before draft- ing the veto message. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, we also include language requested by the President in his August 20 letter to the conference committee to authorize the courts to grant a Federal agency additional time to respond to a request under the Free- dom of Information Act if the agency is "exercising due diligence in responding to the request." Here again the veto mes- sage ignores sp'ecific language already in- cluded in the bill. Mr. Speaker, as I have attempted to explain in detail during my remarks, this veto is without merit and represents a shocking lack of understanding of the workings of the present law, court proce- dures, and the clear language- in the bill which has already dealt with the major objections raised against H.R. 12471. As strongly as I know how, Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members of this House to join in voting "aye" to override this ill-advised veto of the Freedom of Information Amendments contained in H.R. 12471. Let our voices here today make clear to the doubting citizens of America that Congress, at least, is totally committed to the principle of "open government." By our votes to override this veto we can put the needed teeth in the freedom of information law to make it a viable tool to make "open government" a reality In America, not merely a preelection slogan to be erased by the pressures of secrecy-minded bureaucrats. Mr. Speaker, during the past several days, I have inserted into the Appendix of the RECORD more than 20 articles and editorials from all parts of the Nation urging that Congress override President Ford's veto of H.R. 12471, the Freedom of Information Act amendments we will vote on today. Many of our House col- leagues have also placed in the RECORD other editorials from papers in their own districts, also condemning the unwise veto and calling for an override. At this point, Mr, Speaker, I would like to include at this point another ex- cellent editorial entitled "Congress Must Override Veto of Information Act Changes," from the November 7, 1974, Issue of the Denver Post. The executive editor of the Post, Mr. William Hornby, Is also chairman of the Freedom of In- formation Committee of the American Society of Newspaper Editors. I would like to express our appreciation to the officers and members of the many news media organizations who have helped spearhead the fight to preserve the pub- lic's right to know. They include the ASNE, whose president is Howard H. Hays, Jr., editor-publisher, of the River- side, Calif., Press-Enterpirse; the Na- tional Newspaper Association, its execu- tive vice president Theodore A. Serrill and William Mullen; Sigma Delta Chi, the Society of Professional Journalists; the Radio-Television News Directors As- sociation; and the Association of Amer- ican Publishers. Other national organiza- tions participating in the effort were Common Cause; Public Citizen; the AFL-CIO and individual unions includ- ing the United Auto Workers and the American Federation of Government Employees' Government Employment Council; the American Civil Liberties Union; and the Consumer Federation of America. Mr. Speaker, I also include the edi- torial today from the Washington Post entitled "Federal Files: Freedom of In- formation" and other timely editorials from the Jackson, Mich., Citizen Patriot; the Des Moines Register; the Philadel- phia Inquirer; the Tuscon, Ariz., Daily Star; and the Wichita Falls, Tex., Times and the Wichita Falls, Tex., Record News: [From the Denver Post, Nov. 7, 19741 CONGRESS MUST OVERRIDE VETO OF INFORMA- TION ACT CHANGES When Congress reconvenes after the elec- tion recess, it ought to act promptly?and decisively?to override President Ford's veto of essential amendments to the Freedom of Information Act. The amendments, embodied in the bill H.R. 12471, are designed to improve the Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700010002-6 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700010002-6 H 10866 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?HOUSE November 20, 1974 seven-year-old POI law by removing bureau- cratic obstacles in the way of freer public access to governmental documents. Mr. Ford's veto of Eta 12471 is in direct contradiction of his avowal of en "open .ad- ministration." Further, his demands for More concessions from Congress on POT amend- ments raise additional questions about )he credibility of his openness pledge. Congress has gone more than halfway to meet administration objections to the origi- nal FOI changes considered on Capitol sill. The House-Senate conference committee bill that emerged was a genuine comproMise between congressional representatives and 0 Justice Department experts. Mr. Ford got four out of the five changes he recommended to the committee. Yet not only did Mr. Ford veto the final bill, but he added a new demand to his origliaal proposals. In his veto message, President Ford atm- tended for the first time That lengthylin- vestigatory records should not be disclosed on the grounds that law enforcement agen- cies do not have enough competent offkmrs to study the records. He also restated his earlier demand that Congress should not jive the courts as much power as the bill pro es to decide on whether documents should be Withheld for reasons of national security. Mr. Ford's veto also prevented other _im- provements in the POI law ranging from the Setting of reasonable time limits for federal agencies to answer requests for public rec- ords to requiring agencies to file annual reports on compliance of the law. ? The amendments to strengthen the ,'OI law represent a true consensus of Congress: HR 12471- passed the House with only two dissenting votes and there was no opposition ILL the Senate. If Mr. Ford will not follow through on: his open administration pledge, then Congress ought to do it for him by overriding his veto. [From the Washington Post, Nov. 20, 474] FEDERAL FILES: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION JUst before the election recess, President Ford used his power to veto and sent back to the Congress a piece of very important legislation, the 1974 amendments to ;the Freedom of Information Act. Those amend- ments were important because they strength- ened a law that was fine in principle and purpose but poor in practical terms. 'The Freedom of Information Ant had been,en- acted in 1966 in the hope of making it possible for the press and the public to obtain clOcu- snents from within government to which they are entitled. Because of cumbersome provi- sions of the sot, however, obtaining such in- formation proved very difficult. This year, after long hearings, much hag- gling between House and Senate and two resounding votes, a series of amendmenta was ready for presidential signature. They short- ened the amount of time a citizen would be required to wait for the bureaucracy to pro- duce a requested document. They removed some restrictions on the kinds of information that could be obtained; and they placed sanc- tions on bureaucrats who tried to keep in- formation secret that should be released in the public interest. In light of President Ford's previous statements in support of openness in government, it was assumed that the President would welcome this legislation and sign it into law. Instead, sadly, Mr. Ford yielded to the arguments of the bureaucracy and vetoed the legislation. Since then, a number of journalists' and citizens' groups have criticized that actiop by the President and urged Congress to over- ride the veto. Today in the House and ton:sor- row in the Senate, those votes are schedisled to take place. We would urge a strong vote In support of the legislation, particularlY in light of two recent disclosures made possible by the Freedom of Information Act. Recently, a Ralph Nader-supported group on tax reform turned up the fact the Nixon White House instigated Internal Revenue Service investigations of social action groups on the left and in the back community. The absurdity of the exercise is illustrated by the fact that the Urban League was among the targets, lumped in as "radical" along with several social organizations that hardly merit either the label or the attention they were given by IRS. As we have had occasion to say in the past, the tax laws were not intend- ed to be used for polit: cal harassment. The interesting point about these latest dis- closures is that they were made possible by the utilization of the Freedom. of Informa- tion Act. In the same veil, the. Justice Department released a report earlier this week on the operations of the counter intelligence op- erations of the FBI. Mich of this informa- tion about the use of dirty tricks against the far left and the far right had been revealed earlier this year, again because of action taken under the Freedom of Information Act. Attorney General William Saxbe felt compelled, on the basis of what the Justice Department had been forced to release about the program, to order 3. study of what the FBI had done. Mr. Sas.be found aspects of the program abhorrent. But FBI director Clarence M. Kelley actually defended the practices of his predecessor, J. Edgar Hoover. This is a good example of how important it is that this country have a strong Freedom of Information law that will niake it possi- ble for the public to learn of such activi- ties?and such attitudes on the part of offi- cials in sensitive and ppwerful jobs?and to learn of them as quickly as possible. The Freedom of Information Act is not a law to make the task of journalists easier or the profits of news organizations greater. It is, in other words, not special interest legis- lation in the sense th it the term is ordi- narily used. It is special interest legislation in that it is intended to assist the very spe- cial interest of the American people in be- ing better informed about the processes and practices of their government. This is a point President Ford's advisers missed badly at the time of the veto. One of them is alleged to have said that if the President vetoed the bill, "who gives a damn besides The Wash- ington Post and the NE W York Times?" The truth of the matter is that this legislation goes to the heart of what a free society is about. When agencies or government such as the FBI and IRS can engage in the kind of activity just revealed, it is serious business. That's why we should all give a damn? especially those who ate to cast their votes today and tomorrow. [From the Jackson (Mich.) Citizen Patriot] Jos NEEDS FLNISHING Issue: Should Congress override President Ford's veto of a bill amending the federal Freedom of Information Act? Almost lost in the campaign rhetoric was the President's veto of a bill that had taken three years of cooperati 70 work between con- gressmen, public groups and the press. It would have made the federal bureauc- racy more responsible for classifying docu- ments and refusing to open them to public inspection. In its final form, the bill, amending the 1966 Freedom of Information Act, passed the Senate by voice vote because of the minute opposition, and the House voted 349-2 in favor of it. Back in 1966, Congress established the policy of the public's right to know what and how well government was doing. The present bill was opposed by several federal agencies, and as a result, President Ford proposed five modifications. Congress agreed to four of them. Then President Ford, who launched his ad- ministration with a p eclge of openness in government, vetoed tee measure because Congress didn't grant h in the fifth requested modification. The bill does not jeopardize national se- curity, safeguards having been built in. It does jeopardize overzealous bureaucrats who want to operate in their own private vac- uums. At issue between the President and Con- gress (and the various non-governmental backers of the measure) is a provision that would allow the courts to determine reason- ableness of classifications. As written, the bill would fill a chink in the 1966 act, by allowing persons to sue, then be bound by the court's ruling. It also estab- lishes specific time limits on both parties so that no unreasonable time period would thwart the intent of the law. Ford's position LS that the amendments to the 1966 Freedom of Information Act would compromise military and intelligence secrets and diplomatic relations while placing un- realistic burdens on various agencies by set- ting time limits for response to requests for data. However, nine specific exemptions are pro- vided. They are secret national security or foreign policy information; internal person- nel practices: information specifically ex- empted by law; trade secrets or other confi- dential commercial or financial information; inter-agency or intra-agency memos; person- al information; personnel or medical files; law enforcement investigatory information; information related to reports on financial institutions; geological and geophysical in- formation. What it boils down to is that the employes of the various federal agencies don't like opening the doors to what's going on. The Watergate-related activities, among others, prove there is good cause to fight such an attitude. The President seems to have dumped his open-administration policy in favor of re- strictions on the public as dictated by the bureacracy and Cabinet. We strongly urge Congress to override the veto when it resumes business later this month. After enacting this legislation by such an overwhelming majority, it would be irresponsible for Congress to do otherwise. [From the Des Moines Register, Nov. 5, 1974] Tans SHOULD BE VETOPROOP One of the first pieces of business for Con- gress after the election is to consider over- riding President Ford's veto of the bill strengthening the Freedom of Information law. Since the House approved the bill by a vote of 849 to 2, and the Senate adopted it by voice vote with no dissent, these should be ample support for overriding the veto, whether a "veto-proof" Congress is elected or not. All Iowa's congressmen voted for the bill, and we hope the delegation from this state will vote the same way. The amendments are vitally needed to make the Freedom of Information law more effective and to live up to the political promises (including those of President Ford) for more open government. The ability of the 'Nixon administration to keep material secret during the -Watergate scandal shows the im- portance of the reforms in the law to make information available to the public. The most important amendment is one permitting court review pf national security secrecy classifications. The law says that doc- uments can be kept from the public if "spe- cifically required by executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy." The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1973 that not even the courts could question the validity of secrecy stamps placed on government documents. However, the court opinion invited Con- gress to change the law to authorise judicial review of such secrecy. Congress has now done this overwhelmingly, and President Ford has vetoed it. President Ford evidently allowed himself to be argued into this position by the tracii- Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700010002-6 - Approved For Release 2005/06/09 .? CIA-RDP75600380R000700010002-6 November 20, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?HOUSE II 10867 tional secreay hounds in the Defense Depart- ment, as well as officials in other departments who do not want the public prying into their affairs. Other amendments in addition to the na- tional defense item require agencies to re- spond more promptly to complaints filed under the act and establish formal proce- dures making it easier for the public to get answers to requests for documents. - President Ford's veto of this measure is Indefensible and is a repudiation of his own pledge to the American people. It should be overridden decisively and promptly. [From the Philadelphia Inquirer, Oct. 21 1974] CONGRESS SHOULD OVERRIDE THE FORD ANTISECRECY VETO In 1966, when both houses of Congress passed the important but limited Freedom of Information Act, virtually every depart- ment in the executive branch urged a veto. President Johnson signed it into law. Some- how, government survived. President Ford would have done well last Thursday to have followed the example. Instead, he vetoed an immensely important, Widely supported and overdue bill to extend the 1966 act. His veto should be overridden by the Senate and House as an early order of business when they reconvene Nov. 18. Since 1966, and intensely for most of the past four years, the earnest enemies of arbi- trary secrecy in government have been laboring to broaden reasonably the 1966 law. The principal opponents have been the often faceless, nameless functionaries of govern- ment who by their nature seem to find it either too troublesome or too dangerous for the people of the United States to know what business is being done on their behalf. Watergate and all its offuscation, stone- walling and outright lying added fuel to the movement. Ultimately the Senate last Tune passed an amending bill by a vote of 64 to 17; the House passed a somewhat different ver- sion, 363 to 8. Responding to pressures from executive agencies, and raising some conscientious con- cerns, President Ford last August submitted to the Congress written objections to the pending measure. A House-Senate confer- ence committee made significant compro- mises and resolved conflicts. The conference- approved bill was passed 340 to 2 by the House and by unanimous voice vote in the Senate. Then came Mr. Ford's veto, urged by every department of the executive branch except the Civil Service Commission and?some- what astonishingly?the Department of De- fense. The President's veto message focused mainly on the bill's assignment to the judi- ciary the authority to rule on the appropri- ateness of secrecy classifications erected by executive agencies, and on enforcement pro- visions?including time limits on bureau- cratic stalling and rather mild penalties for violating the law. The same objections were, raised by Mr. Ford in August. Serious attention was given them, Significant adaptations were made to avoid any possibility of excess. We are convinced that the only real dan- ger the final bill raised was to threaten the anonymous and arbitrary excesses of power often used by government servants to evade accountability. Mr. Ford's invocations of un- constitutionality and national security? especially in the aftermath of the Water- gate experience?are not only flimsy in their logic; they are offensive in their insensitiv- ity to public dismay. With the Congress in adjournment, its members are at home, pursuing votes in an election year made tumultuous by the very concerns about government secrecy and un- accountability the Freedom of Information bill sought to help remedy. Those legislators' constituents?you? would do well to demand how each of them will stand when it comes time in November to override Mr. Ford's unwise and ill-con- sidered quashing of the public's right to know what its servants are doing in Wash- ington's back stairs. [From the Tucson (Ariz.) Daily Star, Oct. 27, 1974] THE INFORMATION VETO The President has vetoed proposed amend- ments to the Freedom of Information Act that would have gone far in holding ac- countable the headless mass of federal bu- reaucracy. His veto must be overridden. The amendments would have required agencies to keep an index of the tons of in- formation they record each year for use by the consumer-taxpayer. It would have re- quired agencies to produce information on request by general subject matter rather than much less-accessible file numbers. It would have provided for court review of each re- fusal of information. Bureaucrats would be required to report annually to Congress the number of times in- formation was withheld, by whom and why; whether appeals were made under the act and the outcomes of those appeals. The law was specifically applied to the executive de- partment, the Pentagon, government corpor- ations, government-controlled corporations and independent regulatory agencies. Those individuals who withhold information with- out firm basis would be subject to civil serv- ice discipline. But President Ford was persuaded by the FBI, the CIA and others that such law would dangerously inhibit them in their work. They want to be totally exempted. In fact, the amendments provide numer- ous safeguards to the conduct of active police investigation, foreign intelligence and counter-intelligence. Specificially exempted was information classified for national de. fense, information that would foul a crizn- inal case, deprive a defendant of fair trial, constitute an unwarranted , invasion of pri- vacy, disclose the identity of a confidential source, disclose unusual procedures and tech- niques or endanger the life of an officer. If all that failed there would be the courts to make the determination behind closed doors. The American system of government can afford no isolated enclaves of nonresponsive- ness?certainly not after the revelations of the past two years that the FBI and CIA have been employed for extensive political services. The conduct of criminal law enforcement and legitimate foreign intelligence would not be hampered by the amendments. It would make agencies like the FBI and CTA, not used to being held accountable, account- able, and that is their real objection. [From the Wichita Falls (Tex.) Times, Oct. 31, 1974] PRESIDENT BLOCKS RIGHT To KNOW Congressional improvements in the Free- dom of Information (FOI) Act adopted in 1966, have been blocked with a veto by Presi- dent Ford. The Times, Concerned with our readers' right to know, believes Congress should override the veto when it convenes after the election recess. The President vetoed amendments to the FOI Act at the insistence of many federal agencies, including the Justice Department. The measure went to the White House Oct. '7 after the House approved the con- ference report by the overwhelming vote of 349 to 2. The Senate had approved the conference report by voice vote Oct. 1. The FOX amendments were approved by Congress to facilitate public access to in- formation. The FOX Act requires the federal government and its agencies to make avail- able to citizens, upon request, all documents and records, except those which fall into certain exempt categories. Studies of operation of the law indicate that major problems in obtaining informa- tion are bureaucratic delay, the cost of bring- ing suit to force disclosure, and excessive charges levied by agencies for finding and providing requested information. It was to correct these problems that Con- gress approved the 1974 amendments to the law. The POI amendments have been three years in development. Spokesmen for the American Society of Newspaper Editors believe every reasonable effort has been made to cooperate with governmental bureaucracy in shaping legislation where legitimate national secu- rity matters are concerned. In ensuring a basic American right, Con- gress should lose no time in overriding the presidential veto when it convenes after the elections. [From the Wichita Falls (Tex.) Record News, Nov. 6, 1974] CITIZENS' RIGHT To KNOW An important question before Congress is whether or not President Ford's veto of the freedom of information amendments to the POI Act of 1966 is to be allowed to stand. Congress will consider an attempt to override the veto after members return from the gen- eral election recess, Nov. 18. Purpose of the amendments was to close some glaring loopholes in the 1966 law which had negated its intent. Although the amend- ment, HR. 12471, passed both House and Senate with only two dissenting votes, Ford vetoed it because of disagreement with three provisions, review of classified documents, time limits and costs, and investigatory records. The President felt the review of classified documents provisions might adversely affect national security. Of course newspapers have heard this argument before, and have seen It misapplied more often than not. News Is perishable, thus quick reaction to requests for information is essential. If enough time lapses, such as sometimes is the case under present law, the information sought becomes worthless. Fear that compulsory disclosure of FBI and other investigatory law enforcement files will eliminate confidentiality also is an ultra- cautious approach. The White House is giving the FBI, the CIA, Department of Justice and the fears of every document classification official in Washington the benefit of doubt over the citizens' right to know. Attitude of the federal government is per- sonified by a White House aide's remark about the veto: "Who gives a damn except the Washington Post and New York Times whether he vetoes them?" Well, we also care. And so should every citizen who is fed up with the secrecy with which the public's business too often is being transacted, not only in Washington, but by bureaucrats everywhere whose qualifica- tions have never been passed on by the voters. Major problems in obtaining information under present law of bureaucratic delay, cost of bringing suit to force disclosure and ex- cessive charges levied by agencies for de- veloping and providing requested informa- tion. Correction of these problems should be given top priority, not the negativism that the amendments are designed to counter. The key to overriding the veto, which will help restore openness in our government, rests with the people. An expression of sup- port for the amendments from individual citizens to their representatives in the U.S. House and Senate could make the difference. We suggest it of every interested person. Mr. REID. Mr. Speaker, will the gen- tleman yield? Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP751300380R000700010002-6 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700010002-6 H 10868 CONGRESSIONAL R ECORD -- HOUSE November 20, 1974 ? Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania., I will be happy to yield to the gentlemen from New York, a former member of the subcommittee. Mr. REID. I commend:the gentleman on his statement as to the action on the conference report. I believe very strongly that the Free- dom of Information amendment bill be- fore us is clearly a step forward. In ad- dition to setting important time limits by which Government agencies would-be required to respond to eases and law- suits, it would authorize a court "to en- join the agency from withholding agency records," "to determine the matter de novo," and to "examine the contents of such agency records in camera to deter- mine whether such records or any part thereof shall be withheld under any of the exemptions set forth" later in the bill. As the bill emphasizes, "the burden is on the agency to sustain its action." The in camera inspection provision Included in this bill would overturn the 1973 Supreme Court decision, HPA against Mink, in which the court held that in-chambers inspection is ordi- narily precluded under the act. Such in- spection was also denied in a case in which I was involved?with Mr. Moss? relating to the Pentagon:papers. In ails case, Judge Gerhard Gesell of the C.S. District Court for the pistrict of Co- lumbia held that in camera inspection would not be appropriate. While the lan- guage added by the managers of the con- ference points out that this inspection procedure is ciscretionary and not man- datory, and that courts will "accord substantial weight to an agency's alfi- davit" arguing that documents may be exempt for defense or foreign policy rea- sons, I am hopeful that this language would be construed exceptionally nar- rowly. The courts, in my view, have a duty to look behind any &aim of exeMP- ton, which all too often In the past has been used to cover up inefficiency or em- barrassment even in foreIgn policy Mat- ters which, many times, are fully known by other countries but not printable in our own?supposedly the most demo- cratic and most open in the world. This bill also makes some important redefinitions of exemptions from the act. While in the original aot, there wag a blanket exemption for all national 'se- curity matters, these amendments linait that exemption to those matters: First, specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy; and second, are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order. Finally, this bill redefines the law en- forcement exemption, narrowing it sig- nificantly compared to previous law. Rather than affording all law enforce- ment nutters a blanket exemption, this bill requires that the Government specify some harm in order to claim the exeMP- tion. When one considers that in the past the law enforcement exemption has been construed by agencies to preclude access to meat InSpection reports, OHBA safety reports, airline safety analyses and reports on medical tare in federally supported nursing homes, one can easily see the need for plugging the loophole in the old law. The gentleman in the well and I both, I think, would have liked to see it stronger in some of the criteria, particu- larly as concerns what constitutes na- tional security, which is frequently used to bar the door to information. But sometimes I believe in clear violation of the Constitution. I believe the steps nar- rowing the criteria in section 552 which sets forth the requirement for prompt consideration by the courts of what constitutes appropriate action_within the meaning of the Execinive order and the criteria of the Executive order are pre- cisely the kind of accountability that the American people must have if we are to have freedom .of information, both for the public, the press and the Congress. I think an override is an essential first step to make further progress in this area, and I think the arguments pre- sented in the conference report are clear and overwhelming. Mr. Speaker, I hope and urge that the veto will be overridden. Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania.. I yield to the gentleman from Washington. Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania for bringing this matter t) the floor today. I strongly support the public's right to know about their Federal Oovernment and, therefore, I am voting today to over- ride President Ford's veto of the freedom of information bill?H.R. 12471. The arguments for overriding this veto are well set forth in the following edi- torial from the Seattle Post Intelligencer: CONGRESS MUST Gl7ARANTEE PUBLIC'S RIGHT To Ksew One of the vital issues facing Congress when it returns from the election recess will be President Ford's veto of the 1974 Freedom of Information Act. Congressmen should override the Presi- dent's veto of the measu.:e?designed to make It easier for citizens to gain access to federal documents. The 1974 version of the act would close loopholes in the 1966 Frcedom of Information Act that have frustrated the public's right to know. The new act would Shift the burden of proof from individuals seeking informa- tion to those agencies denying access to fed- eral documents. Under the present act, information often has been withheld simply because it might serve to embarrass an egency or cause a bit of effort by government employes. Individ- uals have had to go to court to obtain federal documents. A dramatic example cf why the new act is needed was provided last week with the end of a local couple's five-year struggle to see Internal. Revenue Department tax audit reCords. Philip and Sue Long of Bellevue finally secured access to the records atter spending $20,000 of their own money in the quest for IRS tax information. It is the first time taat this information has been made available to the public, the press or even Congress. The new Freedom of Information Act would reduce the leewar of lave-,enforcement agencies to withhold information for "con- fidential" reasons and Shorten by a few days the amount of time an ,agency has to comply with a request. It would also permit the Civil Service Commission to discipline bu- reaucrats if the courts find that they have "arbitrarily or capriciously" withheld in- formation. During the House debate on the 1974 bill, Rep. Bill Alexander, Arkansas Democrat, said he had been unsuccessful last year when he tried to find out how unieh wheat subsidy had been paid to grain exporters for their sales to the Soviet Onion. Alexander concluded: "If I, as a member of Congress, become frustrated when I am denied access to information vital to the public welfare, what about John Q. Citizen and his efforts to -get the information he needs?" What about John Q. Public indeed? When President Ford took office in August, he declared his administration would be an "open" one. Despite that promise, he has taken a step backward in vetoing the Free- dom of Information Act. Congress should act promptly to re-affirm the public's right to know what its govern- ment is doing. Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania,. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to the ranking member of the subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. ERLENBORN). (Mr. ERLENBORN asked a:nd was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to override the veto of the amendments to the Freedom of Information Act, Mr. Speaker, the original Freedom of Information Act was a bipartisan effort. It originated in this House in the first term during which I served in Congress. One of the Republican cosponsors of that effort was my colleague, the gentle- man from Illinois, Don Rurnsfeld,' who. now serves President Ford in the White House. The bill before us is also the result of a bipartisan effort in our Subcommittee on Foreign Operations and Government Information of the Government Opera,- tons Committee. We started out with the same goals in mind, with some di- vergent opinions, and in our subcom- mittee, I think in the best tradition of bipartisanship, we resolved what differ- ences we did have, and came to the floor with a bill that was very substantially supported by this House. President Ford had his first opportu- -nity to have input as President on this bill when it was in conference, and he did make his views known to the confer- ees. I think in great measure the confer- ees responded to the concerns that Presi- dent Ford articulated to us, and when we then brought the effort of the con- ference committee to the floor it was supported overwhelmingly. I believe the concerns that the Presi- dent states in his veto message are not sufficient to warrant the support of this veto. I would like to address myself to those concerns that the President enumerated in his veto message. The first has to do with the section of the bill that clearly reverses the Supreme Court decision in the case of ELIA against Mink. That de- cision held that there was no authority under the act to look behind the stamp of classification In a .document that vras classified. We clearly intend to overturn Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700010002-6 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA.-RDP75B00380R000700010002-6 November 20, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RtCORD ? HOUSE that decision. The question that arises is what weight of evidence must there be for the court to find that a document has been improperly classified. We do not spell out in the conference report a par- ticular rule of weight of evidence, but I think the normal rule in civil cases or preponderance would apply. The Presi- dent asks that the classification be sup- ported, and the court not have authority to overturn it if there is any reasonable basis to support the classification. He uses an argument a corollary pf the deci- sions coming from regulatory agencies. I do not believe that the corollary is apt. The decisions of regulatory agencies are reached ordinarily as a result of adver- sary proceedings, public proceedings, and theinaking of a record. The decisions whether to classify a document are made usually on an arbi- trary basis of some employee of the ex- ecutive branch, deciding whether or not the document falls within the system of classification as outlined in the Execu- tive order. Therefore, I think that the weight of the evidence or the preponder- ance of the evidence is the proper test. Second, the President would have longer time limits for response. Mr. HORTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ERLENBORN. I yield to the gen- tleman from New York. Mr. HORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. This Is on the first point the gentleman made: One of the points, as I read the Presi- dent's veto message, and the explana- tion which was given, was that there might be instances in which they did ?nOt want to produce sensitive documents with regard to the in camera inspection so that the document would not be pre- sented to the court. We did try to cover that situation in the language of the conference report, and I thought it might be appropriate to put on the rec- ord what we said in the conference re- port: However, the conferees recognize that the Executive departments responsible for na- tional defense and foreign policy matters have unique insights into what adverse affects might occur as a result of public disclosure of a particular classified record. Accord- ingly, the conferees expect that Federal courts, in making de novo determinations in section 552(b) (1) cases under the Free- dom of Information law, will accord sub- stantial weight to an agency's affidavit con- cerning the details of the classified status of the disputed record. ? The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker. I yield 2 additional minutes to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. ERLENBORN. I yield to the gen- tleman from New York (Mr. HORTON). Mr. HORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. In other words, we did make it pos- sible that the court would not have to have the document, and we indicated that it would not necessarily have to have the document produced and that it could be determined on affidavit. Mr. ERLENBORN. The gentleman is correct, and I think that we made it clear. We anticipated the court would give great weight to the affidavit, com- ing from the executive branch, and would not in most cases even view the document but only if the court felt it was necessary to do so in camera. Mr. CONTE. Mr. Speaker, will the gen- tleman yield? Mr. ERLENBORN. I yield to the gen- tleman from Massachusetts. Mr. CONTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I am compelled to stand and speak for this bill, despite the veto by my President. The issues in this legislation go far beyond whether we will have "openness and candor" in this particular adminis- tration. This is a struggle over constitu- tional interpretation. How the Congress decides the fate of this bill shall have a grave effect upon the interpretation of the first amendment and the people's right of access to their Government. A century ago, the British Prime Min- ister, Benjamin Disraeli, said: From the people and for the people, all springs and all must exist. A decade later, President Lincoln wrote that we have a? Government of the people, by the pepole and for the people. This quotation states the essence of our democracy and our freedoms. We cannot take them for granted. They can perish if the Government is allowed to become a separate and independent en- tity from the people. The bill that has been returned to this House, the Freedom of Information Act amendments, embodies the spirit of "government of the people, by the people, and for the people." These amendments provide greater access to Government records. They provide a mechanism for tearing away some of the layers of offi- cial secrecy without endangering our national security. This bill has come before this House twice before and passed by overwhelming margins. On March 14, the House passed this bill on a vote of 383 to 8. Then last month, on October 7, the House adopted the conference report on a vote of 349 to 2. The purpose of the Freedom of Infor- mation Act amendments is to strengthen the public's right to know what its Gov- ernment is doing. When this right to know is bolstered, democracy will work better. This is an objective that all Mem- bers of Congress support overwhelmingly. Mr. Speaker, the value of the Freedom of Information Act has been demon- strated time and time again since it was enacted in 1966, Recently, it was instru- mental in exposing some dubious, if not illegal, activities by the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Bureau of In- vestigation. The Washington Post ran an incisive editorial on the act in this morn- ing's edition, which I submit for the RECORD. It explains clearly why my col- leagues should pass this bill over the veto of the President. The article follows: [From the Washington Post, Nov. 20, 1974] FEDERAL FILES: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION Just before the election recess, President Ford used his power of veto and sent back to the Congress a piece of very important legis- lation, the 1971 amendments to the Freedom 11 10869 of Information Act. Those amendments were important because they strengthened a law that was fine in principle and purpose but poor in practical terms. The Freedom of Information Act had been enacted in 1966 in the hope of making it possible for the press and the public to obtain documents from within government to which they are entitled. Because of cumbersome provisions of the act, however, obtaining such informa- tion proved very difficult. This year, after long hearings, much haggling between House and Senate and two resounding votes, a series of amendments was ready for presidential signature. They shortened the amount of time a citizen would be required to wait for the bureaucracy to produce a requested document. They re- moved some restrictions on the kinds of Information that could be obtained; and they placed sanctions on bureaucrats who tried to keep information secret that should be released in the public interest. In light of President Ford's previous statements in sup- port of openness in government, it was as- sumed that the President would welcome this legislation and sign it into law. Instead, sadly, Mr. Ford yielded to the arguments of the bureaucracy and vetoed the legisla- tion. Since then, a number of journalists' and citizens' groups have criticized that action by the President and urged Congress to over- ride the veto. Today in the House and tomor- row in the Senate, those votes are scheduled to take place. We would urge a strong vote in support of the legislation, particularly in light of two recent disclosures made possible by the Freedom of Information Act. Recently, a Ralph Nader-supported group on tax reform turned up the fact the Nixon White House instigated Internal Revenue Service investigations of social action groups on the left and in the black community. The absurdity of the exercise is illustrated by the fact that the Urban League was among the targets, lumped in as "radical" along with several social organizations that hardly merit either the label or the attention they were given by IRS. As we have had occasion to say in the past, the tax laws were not in- tended to be used for political harassment. The interesting point about these latest dis- closures is that they were made possible by the utilization of, the Freedom of Informa- tion Act. In the same vein, the Justice Department released a report earlier this week on the op- erations of the counter intelligence opera- tions of the FBI. Much of this information about the use of dirty tricks against the far lett and the far right had been revealed earlier this year, again because of action taken under the Freedom of Information Act. Attorney General William Saxbe felt compelled, on the basis of what the Justice Department had been forced to release about the program, to order a study of what the FBI had done. Mr. &Abe found aspects of the program abhorrent. But FBI director Clarence M. Kelley actually defended the practices of his predecessor, J. Edgar Hoover. This is a good example of how important it Is that this country have a strong Freedom of Information law that will make it possible for the public to learn of such activities? and such attitudes on the part of officials in sensitive and powerful jobs?and to learn of them as quickly as possible. The Freedom of Information Act is not a law to make the task of journalists easier or the profits of news organizations greater. It Is, in other words, not special interest legis- lation in the sense that the term is ordinarily used. It is special interest legislation in that It Is intended to assist the very special in- terest of the American people in being in- formed about the processes and practices of their government. This is a point President Ford's advisers missed badly at the time of the veto. One of them is alleged to have Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP756003.80R000700010002-6 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700010002-6 H 10870 cONGRESSIONAL RECORD?HOUSE November 20, 1974 said that if the President vetoed the who gives a mu besides The Weable Post and the New York Times?" The truthj.f the matter is that this legislation goes to SA heart of What a free society is about. Wn agencies of government such as the FBI and IRS can engage in the kind of activity just revealed, it is serious business. That's why We Should all give a damn--especially those to are to cast their votes todale and tomo Mr. BROOMFIE'LD. Mr. Speaker, sell the gentleman yield? Mr. ERLENBORN. I yield to the geja- tleman from Michigan. Mr. BROOMFIELD. I thank the gess- _ tleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of f4 motion to override the President's v of H.R. 12471 consisting of amendme designed to improve the Freedom of Di- formation Act and urge my colleagues to do the same. As you know, one of the amendments would permit Federal judges to make en In camera examination of classified doSU- ments to determine whether they had been properly classified. 'The author of the Freedom of Information Act, ;le gentleman from California (Mr. Moe), has stated that was the orksinal intentRus of the act when it was passed 8 yeirs ego during the Johnson administratiiin. But the courts said the issue was rest that dear. Although a Federal agency's aftidaidt that a document is properly classi&d should be given due consideration by e courts, that assertion simply cannot e and should not be the Duel word in Uie matter. We should remember that a number of the "political enemies" doeu- meats in the Watergate investigatkm carried false classification labels bad on national security. The abuse of classification labels ly any administration should be open to challenge. It does not require an ?able to know when something does not meet specific classification requirements. tou do not have to be a chicken to know wIkn an egg is bad and that Is what we are talking about. I have faifh that in gen- uinely gray areas, Federal judges will tend to rule in favor of national security. But when something clearly does not meet the test, it is going to come out. aid it should for the sake of good Govevi- trent. That sort of thing helps the Amer- ican people make an infamed judgmint on whether its governmental leaders are doing a good or bad job. Mr. Speaker, I include the folio g editorial on this subject from the Det ? it Free Press: Foan LAPSES ON Paonase TO OPEN UP' GOVERNMENT In light of the new era of openness Pres- ident Ford has pledged to bring to the fed- eral bureaucracy in Washington, his rent veto of changes in the Freedom of Inforina- tion Act was unfortunate and misguided; The act was passed in 1966; and was 'de- signed to make it easier, not harder, for Ike -- - public to -know What its government was doing. The law, however, contained nuir Otis loopholes which have allowed insensifive federal agencies to continue the auriClof secrecy which for far too long has penile- ated government thinking. The neW amendments to the act were - ?- signed to eliminate some of the key boles, and were passed olNirwhelmingly both houses of Congress. 7 The amendments wou d put a time limit of 10 working days on a federal agency to decide whether it would honor a request to make information public, and 20 working days to decide appeals when access to infor- mation is denied. These are not unreasonable limits, and they would force agencies to come to grips with th 3 public's right to know, instead of indulging in bureaucratic foot-dragging. Another amendment called for judicial review of classified national se- curity information, if its release is sought, before it could be withhe ci. Within the government, opposition to the amendments has come mainly from officials connected with foreign policy ezed national defense policy. It was on their objections that President Ford apparently acted in an- nouncing his veto. The president said he would submit pro- posals of his own to Congress. We hope he will do so, and soon, for there are good reasons otherwise why Congress should try to override this veto. While it is true that newsmen and newswomen are among those who have been pressing for passage of the amendments, all of the public has a stake in them. Over the last decade, we have seen the fruits of governmental Eecrecy?in the con- duct of the war in Vietnam, the decisions that led to and increased American involve- ment there, in the secret decisiOns to bomb Cambodia, and in the aftermath of the Watergate scandals. Whet all of these events have shown Is that government governs worst when it does not trust the people, and is unwilling to tell the people what it is doing. That is why the,public should sup- port efforts to strengthen the Freedom of Information Act, and why President Ford is wrong to veto such efforts. Mr. ROUSSELOT, Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. FaLENBORN. :E yield to the gen- tleman from California. Mr. ROUSSELOT. I thank the gentle- man for yielding. 1).17. Speaker, I will vote to override the President's veto of H.R. 12471, the Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1974. In vetoing this legi3lation, the Presi- dent cited three reasons: First. The legislation would authorize a Federal judge to examine agency rec- ords privately to determine whether these records can be properly withheld under the Freedom of Information Act, and that this provision could endanger our diplomatic relations and our military and intelligence secrets; Second. The bill would permit access to additional law enforcement inVestiga- tory files; and Third. The Presider t believes that the time limits for agencies to respond to re- quests for information-10 days on fur- nishing the document, and 20 days for determinations on appeal?to be unrea- sonable. During the debate on the House floor on October 7 on the conference report on H.R. 12471, the first two points which the President used as reasons for the veto were specifically discussed in an ex- change between Congressmen HORTON and MOORREAD of Pennsylvania, both of whem serve in ranking positions on the House Government Operations Commit- tee, the committee w.aich had jurisdic- tion over this legislation. During this ex- change, it was brought out that the "judge would have to decide whether the document met the criteria of the Presi- dent's order of classification?not whether he himself would have classified the document in accordance with his own Ideas of what should be kept secret," and. that before the Court orders an in camera inspection, the Government would be given the opportunity to estab- lish in testimony and detailed affidavits that the documents in question are ex- empt from disclosure. The conference report clearly states that an in camera Investigation would not be automatic. With regards to exempting national security and law enforcement investiga- tory information, the conference langu- age is very specific on this issue. The legislation protects materials which have been? (1) (A) specifically authorized under cri- teria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order; (7) investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such records would (A) interfere with enforcement proceedings, (B) deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, (C) constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal pri- vacy, (D) disclose the identity of a con- fidential source and, in the case of a record compiled by a criminal law enforcement au- thority in the course of a crimial investiga- tion, or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation, confidential information furnished only by the confidential source, (E) disclose in- vestigative techniques and procedures, or (F) endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel;" It Is my view that this legislation is necessary in order to give the citizens of this Nation access to their Govern- ment?a Government which was created to serve them, and which they support through their tax dollars. Although I respect the President's position and his willingness to approve similar legislation once it has been amended as he suggests, I cannot in this instance agree with him. I believe that this bill does protect those lawful sensitive areas of Government, and I think that the time allowed for agencies to respond to citizen's requests for information-10 days for agencies to respond to a request, with provisions for an additional 10-day extension under "unusual circumstances," and 20 days for agencies to respond to appeals--is reasonable. I urge my colleagues to join with me In continuing to support this legislation. Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Speaker, I want to Make the second two points. Under the bill before us the time limits for response to a -request are reduced to 10 working days for the original re- sponse, 20 working days for an admin- istrative appeal, and then 10 additional days' extention in cases where there are particular difficulties. This would be a total of 40 working days or a total of 8 weeks. I think that is long enough. The President suggests in his . veto message and the amendments he sent here to the House 30 days, plus 15 for extension, plus 20 for the administrative appeal. That would be 65 working days or 13 weeks before a final decision would be made. I think that lean unreasonable delay. In either - event, whether it be Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700010002-6 z Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000700010002-6 November 20, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?HOUSE 1110871 under the proposal of the President or in the bill, there is the opportunity for court intervention to give additional time in cases where there are particular difficulties. Lastly, on the question of opening up investigatory records, at the present time under the law all investigatory files are exempt, and we found that there have been abuses in this regard. Under the bill we would open up nonexempt records that are within exempt files. I think that there are reasonable safe- guards in the bill, and I hope that the veto will be overridden. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished author of the original bill, the gentleman from California (Mr. Moss). (Mr. MOSS asked and was given per- mission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. ASPIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gen- tleman yield? Mr. MOSS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin. Mr. ASPIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we vote today on a bill which would put an end to 7 years of brueaucratic foot-dragging and guar- antee the openness in Government which the original Freedom of Information Aa was designed to promote. The overwhelming margin by which this House passed H.R. 12471 when it was first before us testifies to the broad sup- port which these goals command. But the President has chosen to veto this bill. He returns it to us with his rea- sons for refusing to sign it. Our job is to consider whether those reasons are cogent. First, he argues that the provisions of the act with respect to classified material would compromise national security, be- cause no presumption of reasonableness is created for an administrative classi- fication. The language of the veto mes- sage suggests that the provisions of H.R. 12471 are dangerous innovations, that they would "violate constitutional prin- ciples." Yet there is nothing unprecedented in this bill. It merely treats challenges to classification under the Freedom of In- formation Act as those challenges are treated when suit is filed on other grounds. Why should the courts presume that an administrative classification is rea- sonable? Surely we are familiar by now with the extent to which any document tending to embarrass any agency tends to become an instant top secret. I am often reminded of the Russian story about the man sentenced to 23 years in prison for saying "Brezhnev is a fool": 3 years for insulting the party secretary, and 20 for revealing a state secret. No, by their own actions the managers of those classification stamps have for- feited any presumption that their ac- tions are reasonable. Let the courts decide. The second objection raised in the veto message is simply a matter of adminis- trative convenience. It is claimed that too great a burden is placed on the bu- reaucracy to act quickly and to demon- strate document by document that there is a need for secrecy. If the agencies had a history of cooperation with the spirit of freedom of information, if we did not have before us their history of stubborn, protracted, trench warfare, yielding nothing except under compulsion, then these arguments might carry some weight. But the record being the record, I cannot work up any great degree of sympathy for the administration's posi- tion. The President would have us build In loopholes for the agencies to snipe through. I see no reason to do so. This bill, as we passed it before, is a major advance. I hope my colleagues support overriding the President's veto. (Mr. ASPIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. MOSS. Mr. Speaker, this legisla- tion deserves to be finally enacted by the overriding, in this instance, of an ill- advised Presidential veto. I think that the advice upon which President Ford acted in vetoing this bill came in many instances from the same top and middle echelons in the Government, the same group of people who so vigorously urged the late President Lyndon Johnson to veto the original legislation. In drafting the original legislation, there were many compromises made which, in my judgment, should not have been made, but they made it possible to accomplish something toward opening the Government wider to the American people. After all, it is their Government, not only their Government, but they are the ultimate governors of this Nation, and that they have in the final analysis the greatest need for information. The bill upon which we are voting to- day, the matter of overriding the veto, represents compromise in the finest tra- dition, compromise of the views of the Congress, and it should have been the views of the Executive, because they were carefully considered. I know that I per- sonally agreed to modification of posi- tions that I had carefully thought through in an effort to go more than half way toward meeting the objections of the Executive. I think every legitimate objection that could have been supported has been met in the bill before us. I think it is the minimum that we should do as a Congress to insure more openness in Government. Mr. REID. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MOSS. I yield to my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. REID), who worked so hard on the original Freedom of Information Act. Mr. REID. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. As coauthor of the original Freedom of Information Act along with the chair- man, I share his view. I would like merely to make one point and ask a question. First I share the gentleman's concern about what constitutes executive privi- lege, and to the extent it does exist it should be construed extraordinarily nar- rowly in my judgment. I hold that it does not, for instance, extend to foreign pol- icy or national security information which is essential to the legislative and oversight purposes of the Congress under the Constitution. But my question goes beyond that to the experience the gentleman and I had with respect to the Pentagon papers and I believe Judge Gesell. By the time the court acted, the Pentagon and Secretary Laird had declassified about 80 percent of the papers; the court at that time in their opinion held they could not then look behind the Government's judg- ment?determined by the then Pentagon attorney Fred Buzhardt?on the remain- ing 20 percent. So, when the gentleman in the well says we are dealing here with a very minimum somewhat more stringent standard and much prompter action by the court, we nonetheless are dealing with an area which is still very, very broad. I personally think well over 90 percent, perhaps 98 percent of the Pen- tagon papers could have been declassi- fied at that time. And unless the courts can act to hold some kind of accounta- bility in this kind of determination, then our Republic lacks defenses for the right of the people to know that which it is imperative for us to know. Mr. MOSS. I thank the gentleman. I am not going to take further time other than to urge that we send a loud and strong and clear message downtown: This is the people's business. This must be public and this Congress insists that It be public to the extent provided by this series of amendments. Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes for the purpose of debate to the ranking minor- ity member of the Government Opera- tions Committee, the distinguished gen- tleman from New York (Mr. HORTON), who has helped so much in the construc- tion of this legislation. (Mr. HORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. HORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of overriding the Presi- dent's veto of H.R. 12471, the Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1974. This bill is the result of long, careful, and reasonable consideration by the Committee on Government Operations, on which I am proud to serve as ranking minority member. The committee be- gan its review of the Freedom of In- formation Act in this Congress with two bills, one principally sponsored by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Mooanzsa) and one principally spon- sored by myself in which I was joined by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. ERLENBORN) as a cosponsor. After hearing the views of many individuals?includ- ing several representatives of executive branch agencies?we recommended to the House a measure which combined the best features of both bills. I am pleased that this product passed the House by a vote of 383 to 8. The con- ference report, which does not differ greatly from the House bill, pased by an equally impressive margin-349 to 2. I was disappointed that the President vetoed this bipartisan legislation. Mr. Ford has found three parts of H.R. 12471 objectionable. First, he says in his veto message that Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700010002-6 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700010002-6 H 10872 CONGRESSIONAL courts should not have authority to re- view "reasonable" decisions by executive agencies as to what information should be clasified for reasons of national se- curity. In asking us to revise the perti- nent section of our 12111, however, he explicitly reserves to judges the right to determine which decisions are "reason- able" and which are not. Under Mr. Ford's proposal, then, judges themselves would still be able to decide when _they would view classified documents in chambers and when they would not. Mr. Speaker, that is what H.R. 12471 does The President's proposed landiage makes no real change in this part Of the bill. Objection No. 1 Is, very frankly, without substance. Second, the President says that the time limits we have prescribed for agen- cies to respond to public requests for in- formation are too short. Agencies need more time, according to Mr. Ford-65 days instead of 40. Mr. Speaker, I think we should ask here exactly what actions are required within these time Mints. The bill does not stipulate that agencies physicaly produce all requested docu- ments within these periods. It does not even stipulate that agencies say within the time periods which specific docu- ments of the ones requested will bepro- duced. It merely states that officials of the executive branch tell requestors With- in certain amounts of time whether ?their inquiries will be complied with or not. Again, the conference report makes this clear. It also states quite clearly :that further action shall occur promptly?it does not use the word "immediately." Mr. Speaker, this does pot seem an, on- erous requirement to me. Its effect would be to demand of executive ofitcials that they process information reqpests quickly, not that they disrupt their activ- ities to fulfill their requests. To my Mind, objection No. 2 is also without merit. Third, the President Says that the bill places unreasonable demands on law en- forcement agencies and should be amended to provide that the heads of such agencies need not comply with the law when doing so would be difficult Mr. Speaker, this proposal is extraordinary. It just does not make sense as a Utter of public policy. Suppose we enacted a law that people need not pay income taxes whenever completing an ineome tax form would be difficult. Of course that would be absurd. What we 7)1ave been asked to do here Is similar in con- cept, and It is equally nonsensical.' The real problem, as I understand, Is that searching through records in response e to some requests may be time consulting and expensive for law enforcement Ewen- cies. As I explained in detail during the original debate on the conference report, under H.R. 12471, agencies could charge members of the public the actual cost of these searches through recordi. So objection No. 3 is without merit as well. Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity now to strike a blow for the public's right to know what its Government is dotog. urge all Members to join with me in striking that blow by voting to override the President's veto of H.R. 12471. Mr. /v100RHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the RECORD?HOUSE November 20 1974 gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. ALEX- ANDER), a very able member of the sub- committee. Mr. ALEXANDER Mr. Speaker, Pres- ident Ford's surprising veto of the amendments to the Freedom of Infor- mation _Act passed by Congress last month makes a mcx kery of his promise of "open government." Like patriotism being the "last refuge of scoundrels," Mr. Speaker, the with- holding of information from the public is the "last refuge" of the bureaucrat. Have we not had enough of Govern- ment secrecy just for the sake of hiding mistakes, political embarrassment, or covering up criminal behavior? Have the bureaucrats not learned any- thing from the Watergate scandal? Has the White House not learned that Government secrecy is the real enemy of democracy? Our subcommittee worked long and hard for more than 3 years to produce a workable, enforceable, and effective series of amendments to make the Free- dom of Information Act more viable. The bill, with bipartisan support, was unanimmisly reported by the full Gov- ernment Operation .5 Committee. This body passed H.R. 12471 last March by a vote of 383 to 8. It was likewise passed in the Senate in May by a one-sided vote. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the con- ference committee, I can assure our col- leagues that we afforded every possible consideration to the concerns expressed by the President about certain provisions of the bill. We made a number of signifi- cant changes in the language of the bill to help meet the objections of his ad- visers. We had every assurance that these changes would make it possible for him to sign the bill into law promptly. But the executive bureaucrats who had fought H.R. 12471 were successful in persuading him to veto it and it is now our clear responsibility to override that unwise and unwarranted veto. I urge an overwhelming "aye" vote to restore crediblity to our governmental processes and preserve the public's right to know. Mr. TIERNAN. Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of H.R. 12471, the Freedom of Information Amendments Act, the President's veto notwithstanding. If there was ever a time in our National Government's history for candor and truth that time is now. I regret very much that President Ford accepted the bad advice to veto this legislation. It does not wash with his goal of an "open" administration. The right of the public to know what their Government is doing was never so much needed as it Is today. A recent edi- torial in the Providence Evening Bul- letin speaks to the issue when it said: If Congress meant what it seemed to say in 'overwhelmingly supporting these amend- ments, Ofie of the fist orders of business when it reconvenes eter the elections will be a vote to override and a clear message to the White House that Americans are de- manding the kind of open administration that Mr. Ford in tie inaugural address promised to Maintain. Mr. Speaker, without objection I in- clude this editorial of October 21 as part of my remarks: [From the Providence Bulletin, Oct. 21, 19741 INFORMATION FREEDOM There were no ruffles and flourishes when President Ford vetoed the Freedom of In- formation Act Amendments last week. As quietly as possible the press was informed late Thursday afternoon that the President considered the legislation "unconstitutional and unworkable" although he said it had "laudable goals." ' Ironically, the Senate-House conference committee, which labored four months over a compromise measure, had altered various provisions in an effort to satisfy White House reservations expressed soon after Mr. Ford took office. When the final version was com- pleted, Mr. Ford took no position and it was approved?by voice vote in the Senate and 349 to 2 in the House. Ironically, the President's most serious objection is to a provision authorizing the courts to review secret government informa- tion to determine whether it had been prop- erly classified. Mr. Ford said this would per- mit the courts to make what amounts to "the initial classification decision in sensi- tive and complex areas where they have no expertise." An important point he failed to acknowledge, however, is that the courts now have this authority in criminal cases. Other objections cited in the vet) message include these provisions: 1. giving the courts discretionary authority to grant court costs and attorneys' fees to successful petitioners; 2. establishing a procedure for disciplinary action when a court found that a federal em- ploye had acted capriciously or arbitrarily in withholding information; and 3. setting time limits of 10 working days for an agency to respond to a request for information, 20 days to answer an appeal from an initial request; and 30 days to respond to a complaint filed in court under the act?limits we view as emi- nently reasonable. In vetoing the amendments, President Ford has given in to pressure from executive agen- cies whose opposition may be understand- able in terms of bureaucratic convenience but is wholly without merit in terms of open government and the public's right to know. If Congress meant what it seemed to say in overwhelmingly supporting these amend- ments, one of the first orders of business when it reconvenes after the elections will be a vote to override and a clear message to the White House that Americans are de- manding the kind of open administration that Mr. Ford in his inaugural address prom- ised to maintain. Mr. WHALEN. Mr. Speaker., we as- semble here in the aftermath of an elec- tion in which only 38 percent of the American people participated. It was the lowest voter turnout in more than a quarter century. That is troubling news, because it ap- pears to confirm the contention that we now face the most serious problem that can arise in a democracy: The people are alienated from their Government. Millions of Americans believe that the "government of the people" has become a government Very Separate from the people. And no wonder. The Watergate scan- dal confirmed the worst suspicions about _ secrecy, deception, and Government offi- cials'. contempt for the American citizen. Fortunately, the Constitution authored nearly two centuries ago was resilient enough in 1974 to enable us to survive Watergate. Ouritask now, however, is to Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700010002-6 Approved For Release 2005/06/09: CIA-RDP75600380R000700010002-6 November 20, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?HOUSE ? H 10873 revive the confidence of the people in their government by insuring that Gov- ernment is responsive to the people. The fact is that many agencies of Gov- ernment are not open. Too often the public interest is subservient to the insti- tutional interest. Secrecy prevails. In 1966, Congress enacted the Freedom of Information Act so that the public could obtain information about the poli- cies being formulated and the tax dollars being spent by government departments. The act was a vital first step, but its use- fulness has been limited because officials have devised ways to impede public in- quiry into the public's business. For in- stance, documents simply are stamped "secret." Or citizens are told that there will be indefinite delays. Or individuals are charged exorbitant prices for obtain- ing copies of documents. Now, however, after 3 years of bipar- tisan effort, 17 amendments to the act have been passed by the House and the Senate by overwhelming margins. Ap- parently accepting the advice of the Gov- ernment agencies who opposed the act In 1966, President Ford vetoed the Free- dom of Information Act amendments. In my view, it is imperative that the representatives of the people override the veto and enact these amendments into law. If we sanction continued govern- ment secrecy by sustaining the veto, we will damage?perhaps irrevocably?ef- forts to revitalize government and return it to the people. The amendments require Government agencies to maintain an index of docu- ments so that citizens can know where to look for information. A time limit for agency response is established to elimi- nate bureaucratic foot-dragging. Exces- sive charges will be prohibited?the Gov- ernment will be able to charge only what It costs to provide requested material. The "secret stamp" cannot be used to shield material that need not be secret, since the amendments provide for court review of classified documents. The amendments also require that the Civil Service Commission initiate proceedings to determine if disciplinary action is warranted in cases where a court finds that an official acted "arbitrarily or ca- priciously" in denying information. This carefully drafted legislation ex- empts materials_ that must be kept pri- vate, including medical reports, trade secrets, and legitimate national defense information. The years that have elapsed since the original Freedom of Information Act was passed are replete with the tragic evidence of the consequences of secrecy in Government. If the spirit of the law had been alive during the past 8 years, we might have been spared the agonies of Vietnam and Watergate. The spirit of the law has not been sufficient, how- ever, to penetrate a detached Govern- ment bureaucracy. Thus, the letter of the law must be strengthend. These amendments do just that. When the amendments are enacted into law, the people who want to par- ticipate will have the law on their side. Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, if I had not already made up my mind to vote to override President Ford's unwarranted veto of the Freedom of Information Act, I would certainly have been influenced by the editorial which appeared in the Valley Independent of Monessen, Pa. It is a short editorial but very much to the point and I recommend its reading to my colleagues. The editorial follows: MORE INVORMATION Soon after the Freedom of Information Act took effect in 1967 it became evident that the law did not guarantee quite as much public access to government docu- ments as had been expected. It is gratifying that Congress has at last completed work on revisions designed to strengthen access. The law is basically a good one. In general it permits access to information from fed- eral agencies, and also provides the machin- ery for court appeal of official decisions to withhold data. Exceptions are made in cer- tain areas?trade secrets, investigatory rec- ords of law enforcement agencies, and so on. Problems arose from the start, however. About three years ago Congress began the task of improving the Act. Matters were com- plicated by a Supreme Court ruling in 1973 which allows the president to screen docu- ments from judicial review. This ruling will in effect be overturned by the new legislation. It authorizes federal courts to make' a determination as to whether a secrecy stamp on any given piece of information is actually justifiable under terms of the law. Nor will the courts have unbridled discretion in classifying questioned documents. They will be obliged to decide whether the criteria of an executive order for classification are met by a document. All this is in aid of the people's right to know what their government is up to. Let us hope that President Ford, whose earlier objections have largely been met by congres- sional compromise, will sign the bill. The past 2 years have done anything but win the confidence of the American people for an unquestioned support of our system, especially in the area of the accessibility of information regarding actions of the Government. It is dis- couraging to report to the Congress that, to the best of my knowledge, there is not one agency of Government that can give you an accurate and, an honest answer to inquiries pertaining, for example, to Imports and exports in such a way that the average American citizen can under- stand them. Is it not curious that when this great Republic was founded, it was founded upon the intentions of people who were tired of hearing nothing from Mother England save dictums as to how to con- duct their affairs and where they were to send their taxes. Nearly 200 years later we hear again of the distrust and disgust of the people with their Gov- eminent, precisely because they feel, in large part, that some great, secret ma- chinery is operating in Washington, D.C., and they have very little access to its inner workings. You know, a machine can be a very ominous, frightening thing. Our form of government was not meant to be ominous or frightening, and yet in various ways the public is confronted with the closed door, the closed envelope, and the closed file in attempting to deal with the work- ings of our federal system. We have gone through a frightening period in this last summer, a chain of events that should have effectively pointed out the dangers of secrecy in government. The "imperial Presidency" of Richard Nixon is over, halted by vigi- lance, and yet we may be ,now in danger of perpetuating the attitudes of the Nixon administration if we should allow the Ford veto to stand on the Freedom of Information Act amendments. I voted for Congressman Gerald Ford's selection to the Vice Presidency of the United States. If I had the opportunity, I would vote to make him a Member of Congress again because in that posi- tion he could not do as much harm as he has done in his short stint in the White House. He takes the easy way out by continuing to criticize Congress for anything and everything, yet he knows that between his use of the Presidential veto power, and the inherent rules and criteria-making powers of the bureaus and departments of the executive branch, Congress has become the fifth wheel on a hearse. For instance, I have just been informed that the Labor Department is interpret- ing the recently highly acclaimed Pension Reform Act of this Congress in such a manner that any resemblance between the intent of Congress and the rules and criteria that they are promulgating is strictly accidental. And this has become true in nearly every area of legislative enactment. Particularly is this true in the enact- ment of the so-called Kennedy round of trade agreements. It has been admin- istered without regard of any kind to the intent, or the goals, or the letter of the law. The present administration of the Kennedy round, although perhaps well intended, seems now to be aimed at the destruction of American inter- national trade, rather than to keep the promise made by that act that it would create jobs in America, support pros- perity in America, and above all, bring peace to the world. This morning, within a 2-hour span of having breakfast and answering mail, I watched at least three TV stations, and their various news presentations and I believe now that I can recite President Ford's toast to the Emperor of Japan, verbatim. However, I did not hear more than a single line about the Chrysler Corp. starting a massive layoff, shutting down production in several more plants; about Greyhound Bus Lines going on strike and stranding thousands of travel- ers; about the coal miners' dissatisfac- tion with what their president, Arnold Miller, called a reasonable and good con- tract; about Bethlehem Steel threaten- ing to close down part of its operation permanently. While I sat and contemplated the great damage these various economic Up- heavals could do in the next month, the President was promising the Japanese a continuance of the policies we have followed in regard to Japan. Mr. Ford's "openness" was bright and shining in his pronouncements to the Japanese, even in the light of his veto of this bill, a veto which will effectively maintain a l'closedness" here at home. I will venture to say that there are Arab leaders who have better access to information concerning trade, arms and energy in the United States than do most of the American people. And this has all come about at the behest of that in- veterate globetrotter Dr. Henry Kis- , Approved For Release 2005/06/09: CIA-RDP75600380R000700010002-6 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700010002-6 II 10874 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?HOUSE November 20, 1974 singer, whose "openness" with the Arabs we do not need, but who obviously was holding something fromus in the Chilean upheaval. There just may be a few dozen Arab sheiks In the Middle East who know more about the United States than we in Congress know and the only way we are going to improve the situation is to override this veto. I opened by quoting the concerns of one of my local papers. I might effectively close by quoting from this morning's Washington Post: FEDERAL FILES: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION Just before the election recess, President Ford used his power of veto and sent back to the Congress a piece of very important legislation, the 1974 amendments to the Free- dom of Information Act. Those amendments were important because they strengthened 'a law that was fine in principle and purpose but poor in practical terms. The Freedom of Information Act had been enacted in ipee in the hope of making it possible for the press and the public to obtain documents from within government to which they are entitled. 33ec,ause of cumbersome provisions of the act, however, obtaining such informa- tion proved very difficult. This year, after long hearings, much hag- gling between House and.. Senate and two resounding votes, a series of amendments was ready for presidential signature. They short- ened the amount of time a, citizen would be required to wait for the bureaucracy to pro- duce a requested document. They removed some restrictions on the kinds of informa- tion that could be obtainecii. and they placed sanctions on bureaucrats who tried to keep Information secret that should be released In the public interest. In light of President Ford's previous statements in support of openness In government, it was assumed that the President would welcome this legislation and sign it into law. Instead, sadly, Ar. Ford 'yielded to the arguments of the bureaucracy and vetoed the legislation. Since then, a number of journalists' and etizens' groups have criticized that action by the President and urged Congress to over- ride the veto. Today in the House and to- morrow in the Senate, those votes are sched- uled to take place. We would urge a strong vote in support of the legislation, particularly In light of two recent disclosures made pm- able by the Freedom of Information Act. Recently, a Ralph Nader-supported group on tax reform turned up the fact the Nixon White Rouse instigated Internal Revenue Service inevstigations of social actions groups on the left and in the black community. The absurdity of the exercise is illustrated by the fact that the Urban League was among the targets, lumped in as "radical" along with several social organizations that hardly merit either the label or the atten- tion they were given by IRS. As we have had occasion to say in the past, the tax laws were not intended to be used for political harassment. The Interesting point about thesse latest disclosures is that they were made possible by the utilization of the Freedom of Information Act. In the same vein, the Justice Department released a report earlier this week on the operations of the counter intelligence op- erations of the FBI. Much of this informa- tion about the use of dirty tricks against the far left and the far right had been re- vealed earlier this year, again because of action taken under the Freedom of Informa- tion Act. Attorney General William Etaxbe felt compelled, on the basis of what the Justice Department had beeu forced to re- lease about the program, to order a study Of what the FBI had done. M. Sarin found aspects of the program abhorrent. But 191.1 director Clarence M. Kelley actually defended the practices of his predecessor, J. Edgar Hoover. This is a good example of how impor- tant it Is that this country have a strong Freedom of Informatthn law that will make it possible for the public to learn of such ac- tivities?and such attitudes on the part of officials In sensitive and powerful jobs?and to learn of them as en, ickly as possible. The Freedom of Inf ormation Act is not a law to make the task of journalists easier or the profits of news organizations greater. It is, in other words not special interest legislation in the ser se that the term is ordinarily used. It is special interest legis- lation in that it is intended to assist the very special interest of he Amercan people in being better informed about the processes and practices of their government. This is a point President Ford's advisers missed badly at the time of the veto. One of them is alleged to have said that if the President vetoed the bill, "who gives a damn besides The Washington Post and the New York Times?" The truth of the matter is that this legislation goes to the heart of what a free society is about. When agencies of government such as the FBI and IRS can engage in the kind of Extivity just revealed, it is serious business. That's why we should all give a damn?especially those who are to cast their votes today and tomorrow. Mr. UDALL. Mr. Speaker, at the time of the President's veto of H.R. 12471, the freedom of informaton bill, I thought that action to have been ill-timed to an extreme and contrary to his pledge to "go more than halfway" to meet the Con- gress efforts to peas this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, the President again raised the specter of abuse of national defense secrets in his veto message. If there is a more transx arent and bedrag- gled banner to wave in this post-Water- gate era, it is the one bearing national security as a shield against the public's right to know. The committee worcing on this legis- lation labored for more than 3 years to come up with a bill that provided neces- sary security safeguards, but provided Improved public access to Government information. It is a vital bill at a vital time. The Public is skeptical of its Government. It is suspicious of the security agencies and the repositories of such information as tax records. The public is questioning the Candor of such agencies as the Atomic Energy Commission and the Food and Drug Administration arid whether or not these agencies are telling all the facts about the water we dlnk. the food we eat, and the safety of use of nuclear energy for power production. Mr. Speaker, the President's veto of the amendments to the Freedom of Infor- mation Act ought to be overridden for at least two very basic reasons: First, it eases public access by requiring the agencies to be more accountable to the Congress and gives the people new op- portunities to force disclosure of infor- mation not classified ax d not vital to the Nation's security; and st?cond, enactment of this bill at this time will serve notice to the people of this Naaion that we have learned at least one lesson from Water- gate, that the old politics of supersecrecy and basic suspicion have been replaced by candor and openness, Mr. Speaker, a recent editorial in the Arizona Daily Star of Tucson, Ariz., called for override of the President's veto. In that editorial, the Star stated: The American system of government can afford no isolated enclaves of nonrespon- siveness?certainly not after the revelations of the past two years that the FBI and CIA have been employed for extensive political services. Mr. Speaker, I can only add my full concurrence with those sentiments and I rise in support of the resolution to over- ride. Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Speaker, when Presi- dent Ford took office he promised the Nation more openness and candor in government. Since then he has taken some actions which have raised serious doubts about his commitment to a more open government. The most recent such action was the ill-advised veto of H.R. 12471, the Freedom of Information Act amendments. The veto of this legislation was clearly contrary to the public inter- est. In my view, H.R. 12471 would make a number of responsible and highly desir- able changes in the Freedom of Infor- mation Act?changes which would great- ly improve the access of the American people to the business of government. It would shift the burden of proof from in- dividuals seeking information to those agencies denying access to Federal docu- ments; it would permit the Civil Service Commission to discipline bureaucrats, if the courts find that they have "arbitrar- ily or capriciously" withheld informa- tion; it would allow courts to review classified documents and classification procedures; and it would also shorten the length of time an agency has to com- ply with a request. In short, the amend- ments give the Freedom of Information Act some teeth. Why the President would veto such a bill on the heels of his pledge to more openness is exceedingly difficult to under- stand. In his veto message of October 17, 1974, the President asserted that the courts had neither the expertise nor the constitutional jurisdiction to question the classification of documents. This allege.- tion is reminiscent of the argument used by the former President Nixon in his at- tempt to keep the Watergate tapes se- cret?and argument which, I might add, was rebuked by a unanimous Supreme Court in the case of United States against Nixon. The American people want and deserve more candor in the conduct of the pub- lic's business. They do have a right to know what their Government is doing. To protect, to expand, and to strengthen that right are the purposes of the Free- dom of Information Act amendments. The bill is the product of careful study and deliberations extending over a period of more than 3 years. If ever a veto deserved to be overriden, it is this one. Mr. MOOR.HEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I will at the appropriate time ask for general leave to extend; but hav- ing no further requests for time, I move the previous question. The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER. The question is, Will the House, on reconsideration, pass the bill (H.R. 12471) the objections of the Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700010002-6 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700010002-6 *- 4 November 20, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?HOUSE President to the contrary notwithstand- ing? Under the Constitution, this vote must be determined by the yeas and nays. ?The vote was taken by electronic de- vice, and there were?yeas 371, nays 31, not voting 32, as follows: [Roll No. 634 YEAS-371 Abdnor Abzug Adams Addabbo Alexander Anderson, Calif. Anderson, Ill. Andrews, N.C. Andrews, N. Dak. Annunzio Archer Armstrong Ashbrook Ashley Aspin Badillo Befalls Barrett Bauman Bell Bennett Bergland Bevill Biaggi Biester Bingham Blackburn Blatnik Boland Bolling Bowen Derwinski Ketchum Devine Kluczynski Dickinson Koch Diggs Kyros Dingell Lagomarsino Donohue Landrum Dorn Latta Downing Leggett Drinan Lehman Dulski Lent Duncan Litton du Pont Long, La. Eckhardt Long, Md. Edwards, Ala. Lott Edwards, Calif. Luj an Eilberg Luken Erlenborn McClory Each McCloskey Evans, Colo. McCollister Evins, Tenn. McCormack Fascell McDade Findley McEwen Fish McFall Flood McKay Flowers McKinney Flynt mespaciden. Foley Macdonald Ford Madden Forsythe Madigan Fountain Mahon Fraser Mallary Frenzel Mann Frey Maraziti Brademas Froehlich Martin, Nebr. Breeux Fulton Mathias, Calif. Breckinridge Fuqua Mathis, Ga. Brinkley Gaydos Matsunaga Brooks Gettys Mayne Broomfield Gialmo Mazzoll Brotzman Gibbons Meeds Brown, Calif. Gilman meicher Brown, Mich. Ginn Metcalfe Brown, Ohio Goldwater Mezvinsky Broyhill, N.C. Gonzalez Michel Buchanan Grasso Milford Burgener Green, Pa, Miller Burke, Calif. Griffiths Mills Burke, Fla. Gross Minish Burke, Mass. Grover Mink Burlison, Mo. Gude Minshall, Ohio Burton, John Gunter Mitchell, N.Y. Burton, Phillip Guyer Mizell Butler Haley Moakley Byron Hamilton Mollohan Carey, N.Y. Hammer- Moorhead, Carney, Ohio schmidt Calif. Carter Hanley Moorhead, Pa. Casey, Tex, Hanna Morgan Cederberg Hansen, Idaho Mosher Chappell - Hansen, Wash. moss Chisholm Harrington Murphy, Ill. Clancy Harsha Murphy, N.Y. Clark Hawkins Murtha Clausen, Hays Myers Don H. Hechler, W. Va. Natcher Clawson, Del Heckler, Mass. Nedzi Clay Heinz Nelsen Cleveland Helstoski Nix Cochran Henderson Obey Cohen ' Hicks O'Brien Collins, Ill. Hillis O'Hara Conte Hinshaw O'Neill Conyers Bonfield Owens Corman Holt Parris Cotter Holtzman Passman Coughlin Horton Patman Crane Howard Patten Cronin Huber Pepper Culver Hudnut Perkins Daniel, Dan Hungate Pettis Daniel, Robert Hunt Peyser W., Jr. Ichord Pickle Daniels, Johnson, Calif. Pike Dominick V. Johnson, Colo. Poage Danielson Johnson, Pa. Powell, Ohio Davis, S.C. Jones, Ala. Preyer de la Garza Jones, Okla,. Price, in. Delaney Jones, Tenn. Pritchard DellenbaCk Jordan Quie Dellums Mirth Quillen Denholm Kestenmeier Railsback Dennis Hazen Randall Dent Kemp Rangel Rees Regula Reid Reuss Rinaldo Roberts Robinson, Va. Robison, N.Y. Rodin() Roe Rogers Rooney, Pa. Rose Rosenthal Rostenkowski Roush Rousselot Roy Roybal Ruppe Ryan St Germain Sandman Sarasin Sarbanes Satterfield Schneebell Schroeder Sebelius Seiberling Shipley Shriver Sikes Sisk Skubitz Mends Beard Bray Broyhill, Va. Burleson, Tex. Collier Collins, Tex. Davis, Wis. Fisher Frelinghuysen Goodling Baker Boggs Brasco Camp Chamberlain Conable Conlan Davis, Ga. Eshleman Gray Green, Oreg. Slack Vanik Smith, Iowa Vigorito Smith, N.Y. Waldie Snyder Walsh Spence Wampler Staggers Whalen Stanton, White J. William Whitehurst Stanton, Whitten James V. Widnall Stark Wiggins Steed Wilson, Bob Steele Wilson, Steelman Charles H., Steiger, Wis. Calif. Stephens Wilson, Stokes Charles, TeL Stubblefield Winn Stuckey Wolff Studds Wright Sullivan Wyatt Symington Wydler Symms Wylie Talcott Yates Taylor, Mo. Yatron. Taylor, N.C. Young, Alaska Thompson, N.J. Young, Fla, Thone Young, Ga. Thornton Young, Ill. Tiernan Young, S.C. Traxl er Young, Tex, Udall Zablocki Ullman Zion Van Deerlin Zwach Vander Veen NAYS-31 Gubser Hanrahan Hosmer Hutchinson King Landgrebe Martin, N.C. Montgomery Price, Tex. Rhodes Runnels Ruth Scherle Shuster Steiger, Ariz. Stratton Treen Waggonner Ware Williams NOT VOTING-32 Hastings Hebert Hogan Jarman Jones, N.C. Kuykendall Mitchell, Md. Nichols Podell Rarick Riegle Roncallo, Wyo. Roncallo, N.Y. Rooney, N.Y. Shoup Teague Thomson, Wis. Towell, Nev. Vander Jagt Veysey Wyman So, two-thirds having voted in favor thereof, the bill was passed, the objec- tions of the President to the contrary notwithstanding. The Clerk announced the following pairs: Mrs. Boggs with Mr. Baker. Mr. Hebert with Mr. Conlan. Mr. Rooney of New York with Mr. Eshle- man. Mr. Mitchell of Maryland with Mr. Davis of Georgia. Mr. Riegle with Mr. Hogan. Mr. Jarman with Mr. Camp. Mr. Jones of North Carolina with Mr. Kuykendall. Mr, Teague with Mr. Chamberlain. Mr. Gray with Mr. Rarick. Mr. Nichols with Mr. Roncallo of New York. Mr. Roncalio of Wyoming with Mr. Con- able. Mrs. Green of Oregon with Mr. Hastings. Mr. Shoup with Mr. Thomson of Wiscon- sin. Mr. Towell of Nevada with Mr. Wyman. Mr. Vander Jagt with Mr. Veysey. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. The SPEAKER. The Clerk will notify the Senate of the action of the House. GENERAL LEAVE Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 11 10875 that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks, and include extraneous matter, on the bill just passed. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Penn- sylvania? There was no objection. RELIEF OF BURT, POPE, AND KENNEDY The SPEAKER, The unfinished busi- ness is the further consideration of the veto message of the President of the bill H.R. 6624, an act for ,the relief of Alvin V. Burt, Jr., Eileen Wallace Kennedy Pope, and David Douglas Kennedy, a minor. The question is: Will the House, on re- consideration, pass the bill, the objec- tions of the President to the contrary notwithstanding? The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. DONOHUE) , for 1 hour. Mr. DONOHUE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The bill H.R. 6624, the subject matter of this Presidential veto, when passed by the House provides for payments of certain sums to a newspaperman, one Alvin Burt and the widow and child of another newsman, Douglas Kennedy. These payments were recommended in an opinion of a Court of Claims Com- missioners' panel transmitted to the House of Representatives in 1972. The bill authorizes a payment to Alvin V. Burt, Jr., of $45,482 and a payment of $36,750 to the widow of Douglas E. Ken- nedy, deceased, and the same amount of $36,750 to the son. In each instance the amounts would be paid in full settlement of claims based upon injuries and dis- abilities suffered by the two newspaper- men on May 6, 1965, as the result of wounds received when they were fired upon by U.S. marines at a checkpoint in Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic. The claims involved in this bill have been the subject of extended considera- tion. A bill and an accompanying House resolution were considered in the Com- mittee on the Judiciary during the 90th Congress, and a House resolution (H. Res. 1110) was reported and passed the House in that Congress on May 21, 1968, which referred to bill to the Chief Com- missioner of the Court of Claims as a congressional reference case. After ex- tended consideration, the opinion in that case was filed November 16, 1972. The opinion and the accompanying state- ment of facts provide the basis for the provisions of H.R. 6624. The facts in the case are as follows: That bill passed the House on Novem- ber 6, 1973 and passed the Senate on October 10, 1974. It was vetoed on October 29, 1974. In 1962, Mr. Alvin V. Burt was the Latin American editor of the Miami Herald. Mr. Douglas E. Kennedy was the chief photographer of that same paper. On May 3, 1965, Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Burt flew to San Juan, Puerto Rico, and the next day were flown to Santo Do- mingo on a U.S. Navy plane. They trav- eled to the Dominican Republic as news- Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700010002-6 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700010002-6 11 10876 -CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?HOUSE November 20, .79'14 Men to cover the civil strife in that country. At that time the U.S. Army and Marine forces were performing a peace- keeping role and were maintaining a zone of neutrality which had tkeen established to separate two contending local groups. It was at one of the checkpoints estab- lished to control Passage through the neutral zone that the tragedy referred to in this bill occurred. This car in which they were riding was marked with the word "Presna," the Spanish word for "press," The marine officer in charge of the checkpoint or- dered a Spanish-speaking corporal for- ward to halt the car. The driver of the car complied with his hand signal to stop some 25 to 30 meters away from the blockade. The corporal called for the oc- cupants to get out, but this request was net immediately complied with. After several minutes, the Dominican driver opened his door and began to get out. At this point, there were several rounds of rifle fire from the area beyond the claimants' car. At this, the driver slammed his door, the car accelerated violently in reverse, and at this point the Marines opened fire on the car. Both Al- vin V. Burt, Jr., and Douglas E. Kennedy were badly wounded and the injuries they sustained were those for which corn- Peresation would be paid as provided in this bill. Each claimant receiv,ed multiple wounds from machinegun fire. Mr. Ken- nedy was hit in the head and left leg and was more seriously injured than Mr. Burt. Each had multiple metal fragments In their bodies from the bullets and each required multiple surgical procedures to repair damage to bones, nerves, and other tissues. Douglas E. Kennedy died In Canada on November 10,4971. The opinion examines the question of impaired earning ability and other ele- ments which bear upon the right to re- covery. Each individual was forced to make changes in his occupation as a re- sult of the injury sustained on May 6, 1965. On the basis of the reasons stated in the opinion, Chief Commissioner and the review panel of commissioners concluded that the claimants had established that the United States has a moral obliga- tion to recognize the claims of the two newspapermen. In essence, the opinion held that considerations bearing on the "sovereign honor and good conscience" of the United States dictate an obliga- tion to compensate the persons injured In this incident. It was pointed out that Mr. Burt and Mr. Kennedy were present in the Dominican Republic to observe and report the events transpiring there and their presence was directly attribut- able to the encouragement and even the logistical support of the U.S. Govern- ment. As te the actions of the marines, the opinion stated that the marine gun- fire that caused serious injuries to these two men was an unquestionably tragic occurrence but that, with the benefit of hindsight, was unwarranted. As was noted in the concurring opinion, the facts of the case make it clear that the start of firing by the marine guard in- volved a collapse of discipline and a loss of command control that was not war- ranted by the circumstances. While the marine guard's actions may not have met the tests of actionable negligence as re- quired in a court of Lew, it is also clear that these men would not have sus- tained multiple wounds and injuries had the chain of command maintained con- trol. The Judiciary Committee agreed that the facts and circumstances provide the basis of an obligation reit the part of the United States to compensate the in- dividuals named in the amended bill in the amounts stated therein. This is an obligation based upon broad moral prin- ciples of right and Justice. It is recom- mended that the ameaded bill be con- sidered favorably. The veto message of the President seeks to make a distinction between the terms "legal" or "equitable" claims as contained in the congressional reference statute and the use of the terms "good conscience" and "broad moral considera- tions" as stated in the congressional reference opinion recommending relief In this case. As a matter of fact, private bills do embody appeals for relief which are directed to the conscience of the Congress. The courts have recognized that when the Congress acts on such measures, the obligation of the United States is based upon a moral right recog- nized by the Congress. The Supreme Court in the case of United States v. Realty Co., 163 U.S. 427 (1896) commented on the basis of such claims against the United States. Specifi- cally, the Court stated that: The nation, speaking broadly, owes a "debt" to an individual when his claim grows out of general principles of right and Justice; when, in other words it is based upon con- siderations of a moral or merely honorary nature, such as are binding on the con- science or the honor of an individual, al- though the debt could obtain 120 recogni- tion in a court of law. The power of Con- gress extends at least as for as the recogni- tion and payment of claims against the gov- ernment which are thus I ounded . . The term "equitable claim" was de- fined by the Court of Claims in the case of Bertha A. Burkhard e et al, v. the United States, 113 Ct. Cle. 658 (1949). In commenting upon the use of that Phrase in the congressional reference provisions of section 2509 of title 28, the court stated: We are therefore of the 'pinion -that the term "equitable claim" as used ftt 28 U.S.C., Sec. 2509, is not used in a strict technical sense meaning a claim involving considera- tions of principles of right and justice as ad- ministered by courts of Nutty, but the broader moral sense based upon general equitable considerations. This was reiterated in congressional reference case, Clarkson against United States, decided in 1971. In commenting on the basis for the recom mendation, the opinion stated: The inquiry thus focium on whether plaintiff has an equitable c. aim within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. ? 2509(c). In this sense, "equitable" is used to mesa broad moral responsibility, i.e., what the Government ought to do as a matter of good conscience. This is precisely the basis cited for re- lief in this instance. I therefore urge my colleagues, in good conscience, that the veto in this instance be overridden. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. BUTLER), Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Massachusetts and urge the House to vote to override the veto of the President in this instance. The committee worked long and hard In consideration of this measure. It was Indeed an equitable and justifiable claim and it passed in the subcommittee and the committee with substantial support.. I urge that the President's veto be overriden. Mr. DONOHUE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman front Florida (Mr. FASCELL). Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the sub- committee and I express ray appreciation to him and to the ranking minority member for speaking on this bill. The chairman has very carefully and fully outlined the details of the matter. I simply would like to add this to what the chairman has laid out in the RECORD. In my 20 years experience here I do not know of a claim bill that has been more carefully scrutinized by the Members of the Congress and the Court of Claims, in this case the matter went to the Court of Claims by reference of the House. There was a hotly contested trial there. The trial commissioner found in favor of the claimants in amounts higher than are called for in this bill. The matter was then considered by a review panel of three commissioners. The review panel unanimously recommended in favor of the claimants, although they did reduce the amounts recommended by the trial commissioner to the amounts which are now called for in this bill. One other fact needs to be emphasized. While in the legal sense these men could not have been considered invitees -of the U.S. Government, they were welcomed most strongly to provide press coverage In the Dominican Republic during the time of the ceasefire. I want to empha- size again it was not a combat situa- tion. Our Marines were there to protect American citizens and to maintain a neutral zone. The Government Mew these men from Puerto Rico to the Do- minican Republic, briefed them, and gave them the credentials so they could do their work. And these men had previous- ly talked to the very people at the check- point where this totally unwarrarted tragic incident occurred. Their injuries, I might add, were very substantial. One of the men was shot in the head and it took 30 stitches to close the wound. Each had multiple shell frag- ments throughout his entire body, in every muscle and nerve and bone. Many operations were required in order to put the men back into shape. It has taken 9 long years for justice to find its way through the court of claims and the legislative process, only to vanish at the last moment with the President's perfunctory veto. During those 9 years the U.S. Court of Claims, the House of Representatives and the U.S. -Senate all reached the same con- clusion?that the United States has an obligation to compensate Burt and Ken- nedy for the injuries caused by U.S. Marines, Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700010002-6 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP7A10320R000/00010002-6 THE WASHINGTON POST DATE if.)14 Otilr' PAGE CA, Federal Files: Freedom of Information... TUST BEFORE the election recess, President Ford used his power of veto and sent back to the Congress piece of very important legislation, the 1974 amend- 'lents to the Freedom of Information Act Those amend- inents were important because they strengthened a law that was fine in principle and purpose but poor in prac- Itical terms. The Freedom of Information Act had been enacted in 1966 in the ,hope of making it possible for the press and the public to obtain documents from ,Within government to which they are entitled. Because it pf cumbersome provisions of the act, however, obtaining such information proved very difficult. This year, after long hearings, much haggling be- tween House and Senate and two resounding votes, a series of amendments was ready for presidential signa- ture. They shortened the amount of time a citizen would be_required to wait for the bureaUcracy to produce. a requested document. They remoyed some restrictions on 1,'.he kinds of information that could be obtained; and they placed sanctions on bureaucrats who tried to keep information secret that should be released in the public .interest. In light of President Ford's previous statements in 'Support of openness in government, it was assumed that the President would welcome this legislation and siOi it into law. Instead, sadly, Mr. Ford yielded to the aksiiiments of the bureaucracy and vetoed the legislation. Since then, a number of journalists' and citizens' grasps have criticized that action by the President and urged Congress to override the veto. Today in the House ad tomorrow in the Senate, those votes are scheduled td. take place, We would urge a strong vote in support ot the legislation, particularly in light of two recent disilosures made possible by the Freedom of Informa- tion Act. Iteeently, a Ralph Nader supportedgroup on tax re- . form turned up the fact the Nixon White House insti- gated Internal Revenue Service investigations of social action groups on the left and in the black community. The absurdity of the exercise is illustrated by the fact that the Urban League was among the targets, lumped in as "radical" along with several social organizations that hardly merit either the label or the attention they were given by IRS. As we have had occasion to say in the past, the tax laws were not intended to be used for political harassment. The interesting point about these latest. disclosures is that they were made possible by the ultiliz. ation of the Freedom of Information Act. In the same vein, the Justice Department released a report earlier this week on the operations of the counter intelligence operations of the FBI. Much of this informa- tion about the use of dirty tricks against the far left and the far right had been revealed earlier this year, again because of action taken under the freedom of Informa- toil Act. Attorney General William Saxbe felt compelled, on the basis of what the Justice Department had been forced to release about the program, to order a study of what the FBI had done. Mr. Saxbe found aspects of the program abhorrent. But FBI director Clarence M. Kelley actually defended the practices of his predeces- sor, J. Edgar Hoover. This is a good example of how important it is that this country have a strong Freedom of Information law that will make it possible for the public to learn of such activities?and such attitudes on the part of officials in sensitive and powerful jobs?and to learn of them as quickly as possible. The Freedom of Information Act is not a law to make the task of journalists easier or the profits of news organizations greater. It is, in other words, not special interest legislation in the sense that the term is ordi- narily used. It is special interest legislation in that it is intended to assist the very special interest of the Ameri- can people in being better informed about the processes and practices of their government. This is a point Presi- dent Ford's advisers missed badly at the time of the veto. One of them is alleged to have said that if the President vetoed the bill, "who gives a damn besides The Wash- ington Post and the New York Times?" The truth of the matter is that this legislation goes to the heart of what a free society is about. When agencies of govern- ment such as the FBI and IRS can engage in the kind Of activity just revealed, it is serious business. That's why we should all give a damn?especially those who are to cast their votes today and tomorrow. Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700010002-6 fi1a0P$1 Zt'gag Approved For Release 2005/06/09 ? CIA-RDP75600380R000700010 NEW YORKYORK TIMES DATE IOCAriet 110 SE OVERRIDES WO FORD VETOES ? . Vote8.HOli . .)EflabritationL . ? ItitarrOation. 371. to 31 r'..st0.1.t.'10.4-i'. ACT. tiiiiky The House did s third Presidential veto, 236 ,to 163, for a m override President Ford'a apProval of a bill to pitvide oompensation to two repprtera who. were Wounded accidentally by United States Marines in a 1965_ uprising in the Dominican Republic. Ellen that vote, however, was on 31 short of the two-thirds rriajSrity needed to override and was a reflection of the Co3ressional ferment. Private Money cihn bftls are custom- arily dropped in the face of a W House veto. is *qtylously Ills_taln a veto ut Leaders in Tw r les ee Alessage to rest entio oosplt Wi th congress By IAME.S gAUGHTON &pow to Thi Ntw York Times , WASHINGTO14, gov. 20 ? The 'House of Representatives, dealing a serious blow to Presi- dent Ford, overrode today his Veto0 Of two bills by over- whelming 'margins. With all but 'few lame-duck Republican Representatives abandoning the President, the HouSevoted, 398 to 7, to over- ride the veto of an $851-million vocatiOnal rehabilitation mea- Sure? n Hou officials said that ? they believed the overiide mar- gin was the largest on record. The UouSe also voted, 371 to t9 avertide Mr. Ford's Vgto 94.4egu1ztoLualtargozn- formation more? accea- Leading Republicans and Democrats characterized the ,,Hotite votes as a message to the President that ?he should consult With Congress in the future before rejecting legisla- tion that had broad bipartisan acl?g e it(ady to Act Senate is' eipected to underline such a message -by votini to Otig.fiali 'the two: let?t-s tom011:0 ," Althought by somewhat lei's" 'dramaticl margins. less they are conVinCed there is something wrong with the bill," Representative John J. Rhodes of Arizona, the House Republican leader;said of the votes. He said that they appeared to herald a climate in which vetoes would, be sustained only If directed at "flagrantly bad" legislation or at major, infla- tionary increases in Federal spending. Some Bewildered Some House members pro- fessed bewilderment that Mr. Ford had sought to kill the two bills, each of which had cleared Congress originally with almost no opposition. "There's a message to Ford," said Representative Wayne L. Pays, Democrat of Ohio. "Its is, 4Get rid of some of those fel- lows who are giving you bum advice."' two_measure!, ,ap- . .v ed? the Will-Se over Mr. or- a was e tre- .rapusiv o.ppos y the White se. $16.1,S.,121.1 se- djanL_QL ija_grnation -KC( of 19/afi.:?The.act.Morlze.iinglItri- to file com laints ' ts to ent e c to net orma ion an o- T1 5..for PurITS7Sea afic.ialaatboartuse to 004'1121Y- go_palicy,? ad rational detpaSe iRformatiO4 Tut ex- tr4 from the ori I act, one e ents Approved h rA4 .1EINIUtWeipaW'l ? . ? Arglit*MrUlla ,17,r. I nOMBIIIPAI to cases. Id 3 tegel Cliiketw,, 51114** cri- earrlu "'" partment. in maxirmUn of 40 Hfpr anagency,to respond 'tizen's request. for infor- ion. A _third,* _provision ard cont_coza_to an *To successfully isclo- ress to on to e mate ded ? unworkable' in its Pr.&.sgzt--f,=L.k.e.,c,ause it_could ulgezsaig...affe,c1.-dtploanatic re- nallignal se- ctsuit.,v-sagrata-and....subject the Goventunent tp bur,dsnsome ex- asainstiona of requested: infor- =tan. Veto Called 111-Advised No one in the House spoke today in support of the Pres- ? ident's position on the bill. But , several of its proponents called the veto ill-advised Represen ? tative '11' vr ho e s ed , let our today ntake-alearin 'alp &malting ci? ti ens of America," he said, 'that Congress. eat --corn- open revise - ni agUellialej".4,seivrsenta'?Vive2Alexan- def, Ar ansas, his voice rising from e well of the House, referred to the i Watergate scandal and shouted t the following rhetorical ques- tion: qlia,n't tbc Whito.. Bouse ; macktiaa.Likaleaunextsecre- , cyui.reaLa1ay of perno-, : 9aragaV . The author orn of : tima3ohn-E.441efas; Demosrat of i Califocnia.,._said_that-Mr..,-Ford 1.40-eaCuignilv-ae.ted,..art-tlaa. ad- , v;r,r_stfjaureaggrat,,s_ wiz _were ;gad..,.Ille late B....I.oh,nson to met,e-theaxiginaUsgislation." .- The second measure tenta- tively saved from death-by-veto would set funding levels in the ? fiscal year 1976 for Federal P ograms to rehabilitate handi- capped persons and, in the s onsors' view, rescue the pro- grams from "mismanagement" by the Social and Rehabilitation Service of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. .President Ford objected that - transferring the programs to t the office of the H.E.W. Secre- tary was an attempt to "admi- 1 nister through legislation," 4 would require a new monitor- ing process and necessitate "a new, 250 -man bureaucracy" GE Ton pieteiy - c curate' But f sr,- ioined De- mocrats in asserting that Mr. Ford had been ill-advised and : misinformed about the bill and Iin noting that it was in fact patterned after part of a Nixon Administration reorganization plan, The President's veto mes- 'i sage, said Representative Al- phonzo Bell, Republican of Ca- lifornia, was "completely mac- curate." - In the end, only Representa- itive Earl F. Landgrebe of India- na, one of 36 Republicans de- feated in re-election bids on A Nov. 5 and the sole House member to oppose the rehabili- tation bill in October, defended the veto. He urged all House members, "particularly Repub- lican members, to take this op- portunity to support President Ford." Mr. Landgrebe's appeal was spurned by all but six other Re- publicans who were defeated or are retiring from the, House? Representative Joel T. Broyhill of Virginia, Glen R. Davis of Wisconsin, Craig Hosmer of ? California, William E. Minshall e Ohio and John H. Ware and Lawrence G. Williams of Penn- sylvania. 10002-6 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700010002-6 House Override of Veto Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000700010002-6
Agency
About CIA
Organization
Director of the CIA
CIA Museum
News & Stories
Careers
Working at CIA
How We Hire
Student Programs
Browse CIA Jobs
Resources
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
Center for the Study of Intelligence (CSI)
The World Factbook
Spy Kids
Connect with CIA
Search CIA.gov Site Policies Privacy No FEAR Act Inspector General USA.gov Site Map