Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 9, 2016
Document Release Date: 
August 24, 2001
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
March 16, 1974
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP75B00380R000600190088-4.pdf5.24 MB
Approved Fr r-or Release 2001/08/30 CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4 THE WASHINGTON POST William ? T#.7 Greider roo staff Writer, yCOtigreS3. ?is preparing ? to toke: 4rcot.lierlepsiat1v-swipe at the -PliWer.- Of -the--Pitsi-, ViVeY; one alined at Win- , noWing ,0 if '(!`executive ' privi- ' lege".,As a way to Withhold Hotise information from hd?legislative,,branch. ,7 ' A measure with bipartisan. sponsorship, , approved yester- day, 24 to, 16, by the House Government Operations Com- mittee, would force the Presi- dent to provide a personal ex- planation within 30 days when he invokes "executive Privi- lege." The House or Senate, if ei- ther 'body were unsatisfied .with his reasons; could then initiate a civil Suit in federal aides who normally refuse ?to . appear before congressional committees, even though they I ma31 be More powerful in pol- icy decisions than the Cabinet officers Who do testify. Ihe legislation _yvould re- quj?.aides to show_up and, ifLthey refused to answer questions on any, subject, the President would have to ex- hi why, in writing. The bill d;Uesret mention "executive ppralige" by name and doesn't attempt to define what might be ,worthy reasons far refusing to disclose White tlouse information. The rationales ceuld range from the traditional claim of the President's need to enjoy confidential advice from his staff to special instances where diplomatic or military strategy would be jeopardized by diSclosure. In any case, the U.S. District Court here would be assigned the job of deter- mining the scopoVIIMinnettir court to determine :whether' the derliaL-Otinforniation met "a compelling national inter- est." , ' The measure - is likelYho re- new the Constitntionali)deba e over presidential,; powers Which surrounded the ; war powers bill enacted 'last year over President Nixon's veto.' Sponsors think anotheryeto' is likely ar,14,-that-the -samq.otes, Can, be assembled to override it. t!' r, ? But the bill is also under it- tack from some . liberals who insist that Congress should not even seoncede the exist- ence of "ex Lye privilege" by legislatin ment which some of the the war pow The., Senate has already en- acted a similar bill .with slightly different 'mechanics.: It was passed quietly In late December Without debate-2)N Hawse ..?,.measure is co-spon-' sated by Rep. Jiihif "Mental), (.31,111,) ,and William Meerliead, (D:Ra.,) and 41 other's: problem," said Erlen; born, "has been -that= the only way We could test executive privilege was, to hold the Pres- ident in contempt of Congress. That is such an awesome weapon and so abrasive that the Congress just hasn't done, it. What we've done, in effect, is to allow the President to in- Yoke executive privilege and, PF,peessf he defines it," , 4,41?1,0 opposition from irtilde" said Moorhead. The,-;'liberals are ;saying we ktildnl,legislate at all be- cause the Constitution already 0,-es'i* more power, while ceryntives think that we're impairing ' the pclWer of the President. Then there's the privilege on a case-by-case ba- sis. In recent years,'according to a study by the Lib ary Corr executive eased dra- might be to the fact xon has ntrolled by hile Presi- Johnson upport in gress, the use o privilege has inc matically, but th partly attributable that President faced a Congress c the other party dents Kennedy a enjoyed majority Congress. According to Nixon, Kennedy all promised that privilege" would vokedby each of t ally ? but offi three administrati that pledge and protection without thority' from the Usually, agency o ply refused to te congressional inqu Kennedy used tiserlifaeanrdetliiiess:r e study, d Johnson "executive ly be in- m person- Is in all s ignored imed the plicit au- resident. 'als sim fy before S. nee him- ials used 'primatur, according to the study, ,Johnson never used it personally, but others in his adMinistration invoked it twice on their own. DUring President Nixon's first four years, he claimed ex- ecutive privilege four times himself. Other agencies out- side the White House, from the Pentagon to the Cabinet Committee on Opportunities for the Spanish Speaking, have refused testimony or doc- uments On 15 occasions. Execu- tive piivilege has been in- voked again in the President's Watergate defense during hib second term. The proposed legislation states that the House or Sen. ate would initiate the civil le- gal test by a resolution declar ing that the congressional need for the disputed informa- tion "outweighs the grounds cited by the President for withholding the information or testimony." The judge lOtnieth. erk1R150/643it ?Mt? great unwashed middle which ttlinks111!s./.1?111,70,1.,y,:1!.,prog- ' John NIOS one of the, leading opponents, argues that the measure impli- citly`...grants. the President a right to refuse information, which is net provided by the Coristitutien.lBoth Government Operations ChairMan Chet Holi- field '.(D-Calif) and the rank- ing Demearat, Rep: dick Brooks (D-Tex.), opposed the measure in 'Committee Yeasterday, so it will . face considerable diffi. cultY in Clearing the House., The proper remedy to claims of executive privilege, Moss said, is 'simple?"a plain stiffening of the congressional spine: aricra little bit of 'guts to stand ' up' r, to . the Executive Branch : a8, aggressively as the Executive has stood up to Con- gress."The most familiar clash be- tween White House and Con- gress has come over the ap- pearance of White IIouse ; secret in order to determine which branch of government would prevail. The bill also makes an ex- ception of impeachment mat- ters. It states that under no cir- cumstances can a President , conceal any information which , the House or Senate considers, relevant to an impeachment investigation or trial. House Votes Changes , In Information Act The House passed a bill yeS- terday intended to corre what sponsors said were prOz' cedural weaknesses in the' Freedom of Information Act. The measure, passed 383 to 8 and sent to the Senate, speci- fies, among other things, that the public must be given ac- cess o the records of the vari7, ous bureaus and divisions com- prising the Executive Office of: WO Melt - (C1- Approved For Release 2001/08/30 . CIA-RDP751300380R000600190088-4 NEW YORK TIMES DATE tovne ?4- PAGE By 383 to 8, House Votes Bill to S trengt hen Public's Access to Government Information and Records By RICHARD L. MADDEN Special to The New York Times WASHINGTON, March 14 ? Despite opposition _from thg ,tml ___Administratioth the House passed tciday legislation ainfait,Streigthening thei s access_ to Government_ in- fuxuaation and records. The bill, which was _passed a. vote of 383 to 8, goes_ to the Senate, where a judiciary subcommittee has ap- pawed a similar measure .? At the same time, the House Government Operations Corn- rnittee, splitting 24 to 16, ap- --- proved a segittrate bill that would let the *deral courts de- termine?excelft in an impeach- ment proceeding? whether a President could withhold infor- mation from Congress. However, the bill now goes to the House Rules Committee, where it faces an uncertain fate, and Administration offi- cials have warned of a presi- dential veto. Under the committee bill, a Congressional committee could get House or Senate approval to go into court whenever the President directed an agency to withhold information sought by the committee. Stral Democrats opposed the bill, which had the support of a number of Republicans. Representative Jack Brooks, Democrat of Texas, said it was "disastrous legislation" that would "inscribe into law the concept of executive privilege and give to every agency of the Government, as well as the Pres- ident, the appearance of legiti- macy in denying certain infor- mation to Congress." The bill approved by the full House dealing with the public's access to records would make the first changes in the Free- dom of Information Act of 1966 and would give Federal courts the option of privately examin- ing any classified documents to determine if the documents had been properly withheld from the public.. The provision would reverse a recent United States Supreme Court decision, which said that the contents of documents with- held from the pubic, such as for national security reasons, were not reviewable by the courts. The Supreme Court's rug, in January was on a suit brought under the Freedom of info_rmation _Act_ by RepreSerr= tive Patsy_T. Mink, Democrat of?Hawaii, and other inemb6rs ?_ Congress who had sought force the disclosure of clas- led documents relating to an underground nuclear test. birr offers a s'ensible and workable compromise be- tween a democratic government and the government need for national security," Represen- tative Spark M. Matsunaga, Democrat of Hawaii, said dur- ing the relatively brief House debate. There was no discussion of whether President Nixon would veto the bill if it reached him, but the Departments of Justice and Defense have op- posed the measure in part on the ground that it would im- pose inflexible requirements on Government agencies. The Justice Department had also asked Congress to delay action on the bill until an Ad- ministration study of ways to improve compliance with the Freedom of Information Act was completed. The 1966 law sought to grant Americans the right of access to Federal records and specified categories of information, such as that dealing with national security, trade secrets and in- tra-agency memos, which could be kept secret. The bill passed today would, among other things, set various time limits for Federal agencies to respond to public requests fo information and would require the agencies to make annual reports to Congress on how they had impleented the act Also, the courts would 1)4 permitted to award the cost oi legal fees and court costs to I plaintiff seeking information the court decision went againsl the Government agency. In addition, the bill would ex pand the definition of ,Federa agencies covered by the 1964 law to include agencies withir the executive branch, such al the Office of Management and Budget and the National Securi ty Council and Government cop porations, such as the Twines. see Valley Authority. Approved For Release 2001/08/30: CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4 Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4 \Ao u Se VtA4t Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4 49,13_411 -411farch 14, 19 APProved For KCINMIX2991X6/4140 :101AME113758411011KIR000600190088-4 11 1787 procure the temporary or intermittent serv- ices of Individual consultants or organiza- tions thereof pursuant to section 202(i) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 72a,(i)); but this monetary limitation on the procurement of such services shall not prevent the use of such funds for any other authorized ,purpose. Not to exceed $388,000 of the total amount provided by this resolu- tion (IA addition to the unexpended balance of any sum heretofore made available for the expenses of the Housing Subcommittee of the Committee on Banking and Currency) shall be made available for the expenses of the Housing Subcommittee of the Commit- tee on Banking and Currency in accordance with this resolution which shall be paid on vouchers authorized by such subcommittee, signed by the chairman of such subcommit- tee or the chairman of the committee, Administration. SEC. 2. No part of the funds authorized by this resolutton shall be available for ex- penditure in connection with the study or investigation of any subject which is being inyestlgated for the same purpose by any other committee of the House, and the chair- man of the Committee on tanking and Cur- rency shall furnish the Committee on House Adrr'nistration information with respect to any study or investigation intended to be financed from r uth funds. ? SEC. 3. Funds authorized, by this resolu- tion shall be expended pursuant to regula- tions established by the Committee on House Administration under existing law. , Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey (dux.- . ing the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask Unanimous consent that further reading of the resolution be dispensed with and that it be printed in the RECORD. The ,SPEAIKVR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey? There was ao objection. Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 800 represents the funding resolution for the Committee on Banking and Currency. It has been agreed upon by the majority and the minority, and represents a modest in- crease of $8,000 more than in the first session. (Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered. The resolution was agreed to. A m o reconsider was laid on the ....,.????=1M111?0 PROVIDING FOR CQNSIDERATION OF H.R. 12471, FREEDOM OF IN- FORMATION ACT AMENDMENTS Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 977 and ask for Its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as fol- lows: H. RELS. 977 Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House. on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 12471) to amend section 552 of title 5, United States Code, known as the Freedom of In- formation Act. After. general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and shall con- tinue not to exceed one hour, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Government -Operations, the bill shall be read for amendment under the five-minute rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amend- ments thereto to final passage without inter- vening motion except one motion to recom- mit. The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. MATSUNAGA), is recognized for 1 hour. Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from California, Mr. DEL CLAWSON, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. MATSUNAGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 977 provides for consideration of H.R. 12471, which, as reported by our Committee on Government Operations, would strengthen the procedural aspects of the Freedom of Information Act by amendments to that act. The major amendments would accomplish the fol- lowing: First, clarify language in the act regarding the authority of the courts, relative to their de novo determination of the matter, to examine the content of records alleged to be exempt from dis- closure under any of the exemptions in section 552(b) of the code; second, amend language pertaining to national defense and foreign policy matters, in order to bring that exemption within the scope of matters subject to an in camera review; and third, add a new section to the act to provide. for mechanism to strengthen congressional oversight in the aaministration of the act by requiring annual reports to House and Senate com- mittees on requests and denials of re- quests for information. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 977 provides for 1 hour of general debate, to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Government Opera- tions, after which the bill would be read for amendment under the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee would rise and report the bill to the House with 'such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall then be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage, without any intervening motion except one motion to recommit. The committee report estimates that costs required by the bill should not ex- ceed $50,000 in fiscal year 1974 and $100,- 000 for each of the succeeding five fiscal years. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 12471 represents the first ohangerf recommended to the Free- dom of Information Act since that land- mark law was enacted by this Congress in 1966. The changes and clarifications proposed in this bill are modifications recommended by a unanimous vote of the Government Operations Committee. Its members in their wisdom, have clear- ly determined that a pressing need exists to lift the secrecy which continues to shroud our Federal agencies. The aim of this measure is to correct the dangerous Inadequacies revealed by thorough inves- tigative hearings conducted by the com- mittee's Foreign Operations and Govern- ment Information Subcommittee during 1972, as well as through frustrating per- sonal experiences of many in this hall in their dealings with Federal agencies. Many of the proposed amendments are procedural in nature yet crucial to the Intended purposes of the act. The amendments would improve the current- ly confusing and inadequate indexes of information now available in some agen- cies. It would correct the procedures for identification of records required by the act. It would require prompt agency re- sponses to requests and provide for rea- sonable legal cost incurred by aggrieved plaintiffs who are refused mandated agency action on their legitimate re- quests. This provision would help cover their actions in Federal court to compel uncooperative agencies to release infor- mation which properly should be open to public inspection. There are three more substantive pro- visions in the bill which warrant our full deliberation. One provision would clarify existing language regarding the author- ity of the courts to examine the content of agency records alleged by their cus- todians to be exempt from disclosure un- der section 552(b) of the code. Another provision would permit in camera review by the courts of matters pertaining to national defense and foreign policy, as defined by criteria established by Execu- tive order. This will permit such matters to be included with the existing provision in the act which currently allow in camera review in nine delineated areas. I refer to section 552(b) of the code. The third major provision would strenthen the mechanism for congres- sional oversight in the administering of the act. This amendment would require the filing of annual reports by the agen- cies to House and Senate committees. These reports would delineate statistical data and other information on denials of requests under the act, administrative appeals of denials, rules promulgated by the agencies, and fee schedules and funds collected for searches and reproduction of requested information. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to insure that the people's right to know what their Government is doing will be protected and that their access to legiti- mate information will be unimpeded. The Freedom of Information Act was in- tended to help make the democratic proc- ess work by assuring that the conduct of Government in our republic would re- main open for all to view, except where genuine national security and foreign policy concerns would be jeopardized. The intent was, and is, to assure that our people will remain an informed and en- lightened citizenry. Experience has taught us, however, that the scope of this legitimate shield which was provided by the act could be stretched to suit particular partisan or personal purposes. It could be extended to veil matters unfavorable to the cus- Approved For Release 2001/08/30: CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4 Approved For Release,200LQ8/30.; CA-RDIP15B00380R00060019008 -4 KEWED-- HOUSE arch 14, 1974- Calais th7i 5' or emba todwbatian eataitts _ 0 the of _ . _ Meng t those agerieks ww bill would -do I - , publiP judge c seri:liner tall have resists areql.tire national ralitorea Produce to ae- Proper don.ies or Policiesnnw of the agency's pee- pie ter mei Se-aunty- hasedoanso l'ederai chae ht the st ? te's All of this ney's ac- ne t wool cies - Fed secrecY in d be erai j ]e cleaed entialit:g este e"Ii1111111--411 foreign 1"elni* tnitshuuld not airWilY the Amer4icy_in- win _ha aim thoe ge- lose a their at kless, of oided ao should bile the detern21gress? whim 411- Impartial party, not! r de- PresegeeneY- 6ffleial innwhtective bure 1-14 aeourinte law, oast o may, untiaucrat their - need f gine - court nods which guarded:in eir could Or secrecy sale- guarded, including ?XIII unreasonable,. the c e- of what"Sttred that and the Ce public, will be e Press Th busi- ness 13.1cavt' every detaile cloak of national er the ent ein-allre of that While ei414 Mritted=t9 know at which the allowing - SPeeter, Pulite firs rhment operationsd members and re" between sen"e and COnimitt of ee, of Gov n requirementsmr4abr oom The in brief, of agen, moo._ =wawa a, ef, provides -Toltisi- for .vdis veleara-on7 secrets for 1 the cawOre *Ai ,...; as a. caw' believe that this w. weak/ -.PDROr of this months mmill",,,?+ this bill,gli,.., act, t n ,,,view b intensive investigation "-e Produ tli ii..-1? ' Gove y the respeete c- ? of C;rnhlePt and the of a deii9reneisie I overnment and e appropotatrcratiq chan,-eergratidate thenational -eedli 14411a-ea the most -clietin security. reaSbhed 13nr' - 1Vicioaue Y pPrOadh to -4.ael'?, for Mr. ekr ".415 vital 12471 - eion _ adoption - _ urge the A may be Order that ?' overwlee,1 . considered' let Mr. D agly. - and :passe my Cu sr and ,colleague from dear `'pri"intipsiEr ITOLUIEL California,b thSpooted eigreagansoerallodf- tthh.fshbaurrVoc.:rking House Re. Speer, 1 ' = - ' yield m CLAWB?1\T c ' r, leatti t e ? e as I ni,,,,, er, I givivtr,rnippee,Euriaselfs.:111 eLAliliwinsoN' Ma_ skr:,,,,,,d.8e_13xeoetne.itnksdoeerities,.. Marta) _ on to revise -anecl and was theth reedutio:,4bietil,l_c- bill thoroughly, sl." Al Very auteki I, let me .. ,_, r. speake - . y ; - luse soot_ gentleman- eWSON. Ner. NAGA) has- mini Speaker, exPlain a (Mr. e tion 471" the Freedomor -is rule Act araa of consideration of for the public. lie GoeernnXisk Provide' agencies for froer rseslpiogiodditoi,rgoetolinfiSim in Information substantially oa Information ormation Actsub the. th file its lirie time for theshOttens Government to lel:eaward Of attor stilts, and aPualtdinAls ., ag Mtifft in such _ attorney's fees to authorizes ResolutionIs 977 The Puraoseur g general debate. at open easier ae of .R. 124 the rale House e bill sets elements' encee oir suits _ suceessful %tele_ ing its per- Lug e act and to . additioi rep ort ed In to ton _ submit 1- each form Congress - . ? Is per- mance 'admin evaluating annual "agency" is defined to include the Execu- tive_Office of the Prearitaint. Tile committee report estimates the cost of this bill at $50,000 for the re- mainder of fiscal year 1974, and '100,000 for each of the succeeding five fiscal years. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this rule in order that the House may begin debate tin al.R. 1.2471. Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous ques- tion am the reselution. The previous queeetion was_ ordered. The resolution was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. , GENERAL LEAVE Mr MOORHEAD of Periasylvania. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and exaend their re- marks and include extraneous material on the bill that we are about to consider, H.R. 12471( to amend the Freedom Qf In- formation Act: The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Penn- sylvania? There o objection, eFR,EF.DO OF INFORMATION ACT AMENDMENTS Mr. MOORHEAD'of Pennsylvania, Mr. peaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House-on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 12471) to amend section 552 of title 5, United States Code.. known as the Yreedona of Information Act. The SPEAKER. The eueition is on the motion Offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McKean: %r) . The motion was agreed tc. IN THE COMMLnu,E or Taz WHOLE Accordingly the House resolved itself Into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the con- sideration of the hill ILE. 12471, with Mr. ECKHARDT/lithe chair The Clerk read the title of the bill. By unanimous consent, the first read- ing of thabill was dispen.3ed with. The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. MOORHEAD) will be recognized for 30 min- utes, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Eateamorae) will be recognized for 30 minutes. The Cher _recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvarua (Mr. MOORHEAD). Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. MOORHEAD eL Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to re- vise and extend his remarks.) Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania,. Mr. Chairman, I will be briee it. my remarks explaining the bill, whic.a has the bipar- tisan support of the me nbership of our committee and which was rePorted unanimously by the Government Opera- tions Committee last month. ILR, 12471 is a_ bill to insure the right of the public to ask for and receive in- formation about what their Government is, doing. It contains amendments, 'essen- tially procedural in nature, to the Free- dom of Information Act, for the- most part setting ground rules by whioh the Federal agencies must respond ho in- quiries from the public. The major substantive provision of this bill clarifies the original intent of Con- gress that executive agency decisions to withhold information from the public may be reviewed by the Judicial branch of Government. H.R. 12471 is the result of over 2 years of investigative and legislative hearings be the Foreign Operations and Govern- ment Information Subcommittee. It represents the first overhaul of the Free- dom of Information Act since its original enactment in 1966. That milestone law guarantees the right of Persons to know about the business of their Government. subject to nine categories of exemptions whose invocation is, in most cases, optional. At the time the original Freedom of In- formation Act was passed by the Con- gress in 1966, it was recognized that con- tinual oversight by the Committee on Government Operations would probably result in the recognition that amend- ments would be needed in the future. In 1972, the Foreign Operations and Gov- ernment Information Subcommittee conmenced extensive investigative.hear- ings resulting in the unanimous adoption by the Government Operations Commit- tee of House Report 92-1419 in Septem- ber 1972. That report contained both ad- ministrative and legislative recom- mendations. As a result of many days of hearings and more days of markup, H.R. 12471, co- sponsored by all but one member of the subcommittee, was introduced as a clean bill, was voted out favorably by the sub- committee by a vote of 8 to 0, and was unanimously reported by the: full committee. ILR. 12471 is mostly procedural in na- ture and is designed to strengthen the operation of Federal information policies and practices. Essentially, the bill seeks to do this by seven amendments which, by the time the subcommittee had worked its will, should be, and were in the corn- mi Aee nonpartisan and noncontroversial insofar as Members of Congress are con- cerned: The amendments are as follows: _Amendment No. 1?Section (a) In- dexes: Requires agencies to publish indexes of important actions taken by them to make such actions more readily avail- able to the public. Amendment No. Identifiable records: Eases the technical burden on the pub- lic by changing the words of the public request from "for identifiable records" to a request which "reasonably describes such records." 2?Section 1(b) Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4 March 1,4, 1914pproved For PUItiCs41288114N81411:10110110P7-54018t1000600190088-4 .AmeiTifirnent No. 3?Section 1(c) 7 Time limits: Sets a fixed time of .10 working days for response, 20 working days for admin- istrative appeal and 20 days for a respon- sive pleading to a complaint in a district court. Amendment No. 4?Section 1(e) At;, torney fees and court costs: Allows the court at its discretion to award reasonable attorney fees and costs to plaintiffs who prevail in freedom of information litigation. Amendment No. 5 ?really two amend- ments?Section 1(d) and section 2, Court review: Would, among other things, overrule the Supreme Court decision in EPA against Mink, by first making it clear that a court may review records in cam- era and, ' Second, authorizing a court to look behind a security classification label to see if a record deserved classification un- der the "criteria" of an Executive order. Amendment No. 6?Section 37 Reports to Congress: Requires affected agencies to submit annual reports to the appropriate com- mittees of the Congress on their freedom of information activities. Amendment No, 7?Section 37 Defini- tion of "agency": Expands, the definition of agency for the purposes of the Freedom of Informa- tion Act to include the Executive Office of the President, Government corpora- tions, and Government controlled corpo- ? rations, as well as 'those establishments already recognized as Federal agenoies. The amendments to the Freedom of Information Act provided for in H.R. 12471. would take effect 90 days after en- actment, Mr. Chairman, I want to stress again the bipartisan nature of and support for this bill. It is a carefully drafted piece of legislation. which I feel strikes the proper Valance between efficient Govern- ment operations and the public's "right to know." This bill has been unanimously ap- proved by the Foreign Operations and Government Irfformation Subcommittee and the full Government Operations Committee and merits the support of this House. Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Jfr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. I yield to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. VAN DEERLIN) Mr. VAN DEERLIN. Mr. Chairman, I am one of an overwhelming majority of this House who will be in suPport of the legislation before us this afternoon. I will confesSlo-some sense of trouble over the portion of the bill to which the able subcommittee chairman has just re- ferred, the definition of agencies and or- ganizations to be affected by the amend- ments. The reference to Government-control- led corporations in the legislation itself raises no red. ,flags. I am, however, trou- bled by the report accompanSring the bill which reads on page 8 as follows: The town "Government controlled cc.irpo- ration," as used En this subsection, would include a corporation which is not ownid by the Federal Government, such as the Na- tional Railroad Passenger Corporation (Am- trak) and the Corporation for Public Broad- casting (CPB). The Corporation for Public Broadcast- ing, as the gentleman knows, was created by Congress as a means of pumping Fed- eral money into broadcasting without having Federal control over broadcast- ing. It seems to me that this arrange- ment very happily met the first amend- ment requirements for this type of or- ganization. We wanted to find some way of providing Federal assistance to edu- cational arid public broadcasting needs? which includes the coverage of public events and often political subjects. There have been ongoing efforts to find a means of financing this organization Which would keep Congress, which would keep the executive branch, and which would keep politicians at any level out of policymaking in public broadcasting. I think that this administration, while It was chided by our Committee on Inter- state and Foreign Commerce many times for what we thought was its slowness in coming up with long-range financing plans, did act in good faith and out of the same sense of responsibility we all felt in Congress for maintainnig the in- dependence of this very sensitive broad- casting operation. This was by no means intended to be a Government information agency or a Government broadcasting agency. I know the gentleman in the well feels as strongly as I do the necessity of protect- ing the Corporation for Public Broad- casting against the intrusion of political action. Would the chairman be kind enough to comment on this phase of the legisla- tion? Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. I would say to the gentleman that if in fact of law the Public Broadcasting Cor- pOration is not a Government-controlled corporation, then the words of the stat- ute and not the words of the report would control. I would also say to the gentle- man that this is not a bill to provide Government access to information but it is for the people, the individual citizens across this country. I think the lan- guage of the statute would control over the language of the report. Mr. VAN DEERLIN. If the gentleman will yield further, the right of the indi- vidual inquiry is backed up by the maj- esty of Government through this legis- lation. Where it would concern an or- ganization such as Amtrak, I would say hooray. But I do raise the question in regard to the CPB, and I am glad for the op- portunity the chairman of the subcom- mittee has provided to make legislative history on this. In my opinion there would never be a question on which the Corporation for Public Broadcasting would seek to hide information. They have always testified freely before both our committee and the Committee on Ap- propriations, but I think we must be ever mindful of the necessity for guarding a sensitive agency such as this against po- litical inquiry. ii 789 Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas. Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I appreci- ate the gentleman yielding to me. On page 4 of the bill, the bill does recite that on or before March 1 of each cal- endar year, each agency shall submit a report covering the preceding calendar year, and then names the specific com- mittees to receive the reports. I wanted to advise the gentleman that I intend to offer an amendment that in accordance with rule XXIV of the House the submission of reports would be to the Speaker of the House and to the Presi- dnt of the Senate, who would then sub- mit it to the appropriate committees. Would the gentleman have any objec- tion to the submission? Mr. MOORHEAD of Fennsylavnia. At first blush, I would not. I would like to submit it to my colleague on the other side of the aisle. I want to stress again the bipartisan noncontroversial nature of this legisla- tion. It had unanimous approval of the subcommittee and the full committee. I urge its adoption. Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Can the gentleman yield on his own time? Mr. ERLENBORN. I wanted to know if the gentleman would yield for a question. Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Of course, I yield to the gentleman. Mr. ERLENBORN. The question has been asked by Members on this side of the aisle as to the meaning of two defini- tions of agencies to include the Executive Office of the President. I want to ask the gentleman if it is not correct, as it states in the report of the committee, that the term "establish- ment in the Executive Office of the Presi- dent" as it is contained in this bill means functional entities, such as the Office of Telecommunications Policy, the Office of Manager of the Budget, the Council of Economic Advisers and so forth; that it does not mean the public has a right to run through the private papers of the President himself? Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. No, definitely not. I think the report is crystal clear on that. I thank the gentleman for bringing it up. Mr. ROUSSELOT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman. Mr. ROUSSELOT. I thank the gentle- man for yielding. Does this legislation mean that foreign governments or indi- viduals from foreign governments will have the same kind of access as any American citizen, or is it just limited to American citizens? I am referring especially in the case where an individual has to go to a court suit. Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. The legislation says any person; that would exclude foreign governments. Mr. ROUSSELOT. What about a for- eign ambassador or a foreign alien, say the Russian Ambassador? Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. I Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4 H 1790 Approved For REVedg1/0.8/30_: cIA:RDP751300380R000600190088=4 S1ONAL RECORD? IIOUSL March 14, 1974 would think if he had standing in a wart as an individual, not as an ambassador, that he would have the same rights in connection with this; subject, of course, to the limitations provided in the orig- inal act. Mr. ROUSSELOT. So the interpreta- tion of the gentleman would be that for- eign citizens residing here could, in faint have the some kind of access to Govern- ment agencies as a U.S. citizen. Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Whatever- the situation, I would say to the gentleman from California it is not changed by the legislation before int He would have to go back to the original 1966 act to determine that, but we are not changing that. We are not increas- ing the coverage of the bill to additional people. Mr. ROUSSELOT. Except in this legis- lation we Sae; that "the court may assess against the United States reasonable at fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred in any case under this section." So, in fact; foreign citizens and aliens, I was thiaking particularly of alien groups that reside here, if they would decide to go to court and the court could, in fact, aaress the U.S. Government for their legal fees. Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. 0.1 course, it is conceivable; but first the plaintiff hes to prevail, and even if he prevailed, the courts will grant it only at their discretion. Mr. ROUSSELOT. But it is clearly possible the way the courts are today, they are very lenient with our money. I wondered if this is not a possible flaw in this legislation. Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. I think this section is important because there is often no monetary involvement In this field of litigation and it does discourage individuate from bringing suits. Mr. ROUSSELOT. Except it says the court may assess against the United States for attorney fees. So, it is another form of legal fee at the expense of the U.S. Treasury. Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I might point out to the gentleman that in this kind of litiga- tion, the plaintiff gets no monetary award from winning the case. He is serving all cf the people by making Gee- ernment more open if lie prevails. Mr. ROUSSELOT. Except that he may keep t; in court by trying to pur- suede the udge or the court itself to pay his fees. Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Only, I say to MO gentleman, if the court finds the Government has improperly withheld material. Mr. ROCSSELOT. Mr. Chairman I appreciate the gentleman's comments. Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Cannel...11a. Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, I was merely going to make the point that in order for such a person to prevail, the original withholding would have had to have been an improper act, or otherwise he could not prevail.. Mr. ROUSSELOT. Mr. Chairman, where does the language say that? Mr. MOSS. The original act is to pre- vent the improper withholiing. Mr. ROUSSELOT. But where in, this is it? Mr. MOSS. The court here examines in camera and determines whether or not the information meets the test for privilege or whether it Ii going to be released. Mr. ROUSSELOT. But the court has the real decisronmaking power to .decide? Mr, MOSS. The court has the decision- making power. Mr. ROUSSELOT. It is not necessar- ily what the agency feels and/or the Congress; it is the court. Mr. MOSS. It is the court, because it is a matter that is being tried in the courts in this case. Mr. ROUSSELOT. Well, my concern is in the case of aliens and foreign peo- ple and others who have all kinds of reasons to try to attack agencies of our Federal Government. This appears to me to be a substantial loophole, if you will, in the legislation, for them to get free court costs. That is ray only concern. cern. Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman that in the 7-year history of the act, we know of no case where an alien or for- eign official has brought, action. It could be brought under existing law, and it is not changed by this bill. Mr. ROUSSELOT. However existing law does not provide for the court to assess the U.S. Government does it. Does the present law provide for this? So, this is really new LAW on the books, and that was my point. Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Of course, it is new law. Mr. ROUSSELOT. Mr. Chairman: I thank the gentleman. The CHAIRMAN. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Einem- BORN ) . Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, (Mr. ERLENBORN risked and was given permission to revise and extend his rem arks. ) Mr. HORTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York_ Mr. HORTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman in the well, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. ERLEN- BORN) and the chairman of the sub- committee, the gentleman from Penn- sylvania (Mr. Mown-mime for their lead- ership in bringing this bill to the floor. I am one of the sponsors of the bill, and I certainly hope that the House will en- act this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 12471, a bill to strengthen the people's right to be informed of their Government's activities. Our form of government?in fact the foundations of our society?rest on an informed citi- zenre. Nothing could be more essential ? than measures like the one before us now to the safeguarding of our demoicratic As the ranking minority member of the Committee on Government Opera- tions, I am very fortunate to have par- ticipated in writing laws in this area. Eight years ago, I voted in favor of the original Freedom of Information Act. For 5 years, I served on the Foreign Operations and Government lnforniation Subcommittee, which investigated the p(eformance of Federal agencies tinder the act. Last February. I introduced, along with several of my colleagues on the committee, a bill to improve the ad- ministration of this law. And today; I will vole for a measure which fulfills that same objective. Almost every provision of H.R. 12471 is if not identical, to a pronision of H.R. 4960, the bill I sponsored and testified upon before the subcomndttee. I am happy to see these points itt the legislation we are now considering. This measure requires agenciOn to perform many functions which will di- rectly aid citizens in obtaining Govern- ment documents. It stipulates that men- Cies publish indexes of their material, respond to requests that reasoaably describe records and decide whether to comply with those requests within ape- ciii periods of time. The bill also imposes several obligations which will indi eectly assist individuals. Under H.R. 12471, courts could review agency classifiCation of material which was allegedly made for na donal security reksons and could force the Government to pay attorney fees and other litigation costs in suits where the Government does not prevail. .Agen- cies would have to respond to court:suits quickly and report to congressional Com- mittees annually on how they fulfilled th(fr responsibilities under the Freledom of Information Act. Mr. Chairman, all these changes in the law *ill advance the people's right to know what their Government is doing. / comment their enactment to all Members. Mr. HORTON asked and was given pei mission to revise aid extend his ren larks. ) Mr. YOUNG of Florida Mr. Chairman, wii the gentleman yield? Mr. ERLENBORN. Mi. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the gentleman from Illinois, during his comments, might give sone specific comments concerning page 7 of the report, the paragraph en- titled, "National Defense and Foreign Policy Exemption," which refers to the laneuage on page 5 of the bill. This ia the concern I have, and I would appreciate vere much a discussion of that subject. Mr. ERLENBORN. Mn Chairman, I will be happy to do that, and I will be happy to answer any further questions the gentleman from Florida may have. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to join with the chairman of the Foreign Opera- tions and Government Information pub- committee, Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsyl- vania, in advocating H.R. 12471. This bill would amend the Freedom of Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4 Mardi 14,1974Approved ForaitIMREdMANAORPMEOP-ZENOMR000600190088-4 II 1791 Information Act in several ways, all designed to ease the public's access to Government documents. It is the product of bipartisan effort by our subcommittee. We began our consideration' of the Freedom of Information Act with two bills, one by Mr. MOORHEAD and one by Mr. Hoirron?the ranking minority mem- ber of the Government Operations Com- mittee?and myself. H.R. 12471 combines features of both those measures and has the unanimous support of both the For- eign Operations and Government Infor- mation Subcommittee and the full Government Operations Committee. Mr. Chairman, the Freedom of Infor- mation Act became law on July 4, 1966, and took effect exactly 1 year later. I am proud to have played a part in securing its passage in the House, along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Moss) and our former colleague from Illinois, Don Rumsfeld. The act's guiding prin- ciple is that public access to Govern- ment information should be the rule, to be violated only in the specific areas which Congress believes are in the na- tional interest to exempt. In the few Tears that the act has been in. existence, the executive branch of Government has become far more open to citizens of this country. Government officials and employees are to be con- gratulated for generally adopting atti- tudes which are in conformity with the act, but very different from the pre- vious policy of nondisclosure. The record of compliance with the law has not been perfect, 'however. In extensive investigative hearings over the past 3 years, our subcommittee has discovered many instances of failure to respond to the dictates of this act and many efforts to frustrate them by de- laying release of public material. The bill before us now is intended to remedy problems we have found. Some indiyiduals have experienced difficulty in learning what types of doc- uments are in the files of various agen- cies. Section (1) (a) of H.R. 12471 re- quires agencies to publish their indexes of materials. Some citizens have had requests for information denied on the grounds that they did not identify precisely the docu- ments they wanted. The act was meant to require individuals to describe rec- ords reasonably, not identify them by specific number. Section (1) (b) makes this original intent clear. Some people have had to wait ex- eessive periods of time for? responses to ? their requests. Section (1) (c) requires agencies to live up to the spirit, as well as the letter, of disclosure by answering requests promptly. The Supreme Court has held that courts may not permit citizens to view matters which have been classified for reasons a national defense or foreign policy, and that courts may not examine those documents to see whether they have been properly classified. Sections (1) (d) and (2) of H.R. 12471, taken to- gether, permit courts to examine ma- terial in chambers and determine whether it truly falls within the exemp- tion for national 'defense or foreign policy classified matter. This change should persuade agencies to consider more care- fully whether to classify material. In addition, H.R. 124'71 mandates that the Government respond quickly to'com- plaints filed under this act and, at the discretion of courts, pay attorney fees and other litigation costs incurred by victorious plaintiffs. The measure also establishes that agencies shall report an- nually to the Congress on their perform- ance under the act. All these provisions are designed to stimulate agencies to comply more completely and promptly with the law, and on close questions, to decide in favor of disclosure of informa- tion to the public. Before closing, I would like to com- ment about an omission in H.R. 12471. H.R. 4960, which Mr. HORTON and I in- troduced and on which the subcommittee held hearings, included a title establish- ing an independent Freedom of Informa- tion Commission. Our belief was that the existence of the Commission, authorized to review negative responses to information re- quests, would have been an incentive for positive agency responses. With author- ity to examine classified material, the Commission could have relieved judges of the burden of in camera inspection of information. Although the Commis- sion's rulings would have been advisory rather than mandatorY, its rulings would have constituted prima facie evidence of Improper withholding of records. Thus, we anticipate fewer FOI cases would end up in the courts. The decision not to establish a com- mission does not render H.R. 12471 de- fective. We can establish such a com- mission at a later time, if need be. I mention it only to serve notice that we are serious about making the Freedom of Information Act work. Mr. Chairman, all the changes which the bill before us makes in procedures of the Freedom of Information Act are beneficial. They will lead, I believe, to fuller and timelier sharing of information by the Government with the people of this country. The objective is worthy, and the means of achieving it are fair. I urge approval of this bill. Mr. ARCHER. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. ERLENBORN. I will be happy to yield to the gentleman. Mr. ARCHER. Do I correctly under- stand this legislation is to require the prompt distribution to any individual In this country by sale or otherwise of Government documents that are not otherwise classified as being in the na- tional security? Is that basically correct? Mr. ERLENBORN. Yes. That is basically correct. The present law re- quires that. The Freedom of Informa- tion Act on the books requires that, with certain exemptions that are spelled out in the act. Mr. ARCHER. There is one existing practice that troubles me already. I wonder if this bill would increase that, that is, the sale by the Federal Govern- ment of a list of names that they accumulate which are then used by the purchaser for the purpose of solicitation or mass mailings or harassment of some nature or another. I have legislation that I have introduced which would prohibit the Federal Government from selling these lists of names to various people in this country. I wonder what this act does about it. Mr. ERLENBORN. We considered that, problem in the subcommittee and we had testimony from interested individuals as well as the agencies involved. I must confess to the gentleman that we found it difficult to resolve the problem to everyone's satisfaction and, therefore, it is not included here in this legislation. I am sensitive to the problem, as is the gentleman from New York (Mr. HORTON) who has also introduced leg- islation similar to that to which the gentleman refers. As an example, I understand that the Department of the Treasury has made available the names of all those who are listed as collectors of or dealers in guns and weapons, which made it possible for those with sticky fingers and the ability to break into a person's home to find out where such weapons might be available, where they could identify people who were collectors of guns. It was not the intent of the act, and I hope we find a way of resolving that problem. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. ERLENBORN. I yield to the gentleman. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding. On the point I had orginally raised, the language of the report on page 7 seems to me to give the court the priv- ilege to examine now in camera any information or documents that might be relevant to the national defense. It is a change from the existing law. That is new law, then. Mr. ERLENBORN. Yes. That is one of the purposes of this bill; namely, to change existing law in this respect. It is the result of the decision in the Mink case mentioned by the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. MOORHEAD. In that case. the Supreme Court, said that the courts were not invested with authority to go behind the stamped document. Therefore, the decision of any person in the executive branch who puts a stamp of "secret" or "classified" or whatever it might be on a document could not be re- viewed by the Court. It is clearly the in- tention of the committee to make these documents subject to inspection in camera and in chambers, not in public, by the judge, who can then decide as to whether the classification is proper un- der the Executive order authorizing such classification. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the gen- tleman yield further? Mr. ERLENBORN. I yield to the gen- tleman. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I have a seri- ous concern about that very point, and I wonder if the gentleman will respond to this question. Just what is it that makes the judge an expert in the field and one who would have sufficient knowl- edge so that he can make a determina- tion as to what is or is not to be made available and what should be prohibited from public distribution? Mr. ERLENBORN. The only way I can Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4 -Approved For Release 2001/08/30 CIA-RDP75B00380R000600190088-4 II 1792- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- HOUSE March 14,,1974 answer the gentleman is it is the same thing that makes judges experts in the field of patent law and copyright law or all of the other laws on which they have to pass judgment. There are n3 specific qualifications for a judge in these areas; a judge is a judge. I have the same eon- cern as the gentreman has. That is why I recommended, along with Mr. Horcrosr, the creation of the Freedom of Etiforma- tion Commission which could develop ex- pertise in this area and act as a master in chancery or an adviser to the court. I expect, as I said in my prepared re- marks today, that after we have some ex- periencellider this new provision others may agree that we need a Freedom of In- formation Commission. Mr. YOUNG of -Florida. Will the gen- tleman sela%1 further? Mr. ERLENBORN. I yield to the gen- tleman. Mr.- YOUNG of Florida. Let me re- spond to_ the gentleman's statement by saying that in the cases you mentioned the judge does have written law and precedent.; on which to base a decision, hut in the case of classification and in the case of making the decision of whe her a matters:a relevant to national defense and national security he does net have this basis on which to make such a de- oision. - - Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I still think that insofar as the interna- tional coarmunity is concerned, that oer- haps the judge might consider something to be tmimportant to a possible potential enemy whereas it might be very, very im- portant to- that potential enemy, and where therjudge has no special back- ground or expertise to be _able to malse a reasonable Judgment in that regard. Mr._ERfsENBORN. The gentleman is accurate In saying that There iS no law that establishes the criteria. We learned as a resat of stlae Ellaberg, case that there is no official secrets act in this country, _ even though in other coun- tries, England, for one, there are. There- fore, what we operate under in the field of classifidation is the Executive order. We have an amendment in this bill to paragraph 1 of the list of exemptions so as to read as follows: (1) authyrizecl under criteria establimied by an xxessitIve order to ba kept _secret in the interee; of the national defen3e or for- eign policy This will give direct attention of the court to the Executive order rather than the law, since we have none. The Execu- tive order that establishes the criteria in such an instance would be used by the court to pass judgment on whether the criteria in The Erxecutive Order has been made by some flunky in the Department of DefenSe,Sand who baa improperly clas- sified such document. Mr. _YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chair- man, if ttelgentlenran witl yield further, have one morecitiestion. _ o , _ Mr.EVIDtaltiattg. I ani happi to yield _ _ to the gentleman from Fleride - Mr. YOUNG Of Florida, Mr. Chairman, I want tosasompliment the gentleman in the well Ind the leadership of the corn- itittee for The work that they have clone in bringing out the Freedom of Informa- tion Act amendments, freedom of in for- mation is something which I do agree with very, very strongly. I believe that our people have the right to knew what the Government is doing, or is not do- ing. But again I must register my objec- tion, and my strong concern about this particular matter as it relates to our na- tional defense, and as to who might be making important decisions relative to our national seettrity matters. Mr. McCLOSKEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, just by way of responding to the inquiries of the gentle- man from Florida (Mr. NS:wise), because I believe this matter is one that should be made clear insofar as the legislative history is concerned; The framework of the committee's consideration of this hill was against the recent decision in the Silica case, where the Circuit Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia did provide for in camera inspection of docu- ments upon which the President claimed executive privilege. I think it is clear from the language in that decision that the court was prepared to bend over backward to honor the executive claims of privilege; in fact, the import in that decision was that only if the need for such revelation of the information to the grand jury outweighed the national in- terest in protecting the information would the court order that it be dis- closed to the grand jury in that case. And all of the other decisions which we have i before us in this field inticate the great ' reluctance of the court to overrule a con- ttention that the national security inter- ests are paramount. And we pass this into law with the confidence that any court will examine very closely the mat- ter of national security interest as against a citizen seeking disclosure of information, and that the court is going to be very reluctant to override an ad- ministrative decision which exists in the mind of the administration relative to declassification of such information. And what we have done in this bill. I think, reaches a compromise that the commit- tee has in the language of this bill that, insofar as the safeguards of our national security are concerned, that should not alone be the single criteria that would compel a court not to oserride such an Executive order supposedly only because of national security. Mr. ERLENI3ORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 1VIcCnosisay) for his contribtition, and I agree with what the gentleman has said. There will certainly be a strong presumption in favor of declassification. I say this because of the testimony be- fore our committee which indicated that the power to classify has been abused considerably by various agencies of this Government. As I say, we had plenty of testimony that would lead us to believe that docu- ments have been improperly classified in the first place and, second, not declas- sified within a reasonable period of time. As an historical example, there is the so-called Operation Keelhaul in which documents have been kept secret for 25 or 30 years, and which Ail are classified, to keep information from the public about what apparently was a very black day in the history of the United States. We really do not know why the secrecy has been kept, even though there have been attempts by historians to get at them. The documents relate to events which occurred in 1946, immediately after World War II. The fact that they are still classified, raises questions in one's mind as to whether they are prop- erly classified and should still be kept from the public today, in 1974. Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I do not deny that at all. There are classifications that probably have been the result of some- one being overly cautious in their clas- sification. I would make the point though that if we are going to make a mistake, it might be better to consider Making that mistake in the interest of a strong national security. The second point, in response to the gentleman from California, I recognize the atterepts Of impartiality of the courts, and I believe that from the stand- point of their sincerity they certainly could be trusted with this program. But I am also aware, as is he, of the vast num- bers of unauthorized leaks of informa- tion, leaks in fact that are contrary to the law that have come from same of these courts that the gentleman has mentioned. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 12471, amending the Freedom of Information Act of 1966. I am certainly not opposed to the principle of streamlin- ing the act through certain procedural changes, but I have grave reservations over the contents of one change which security. sat the heart of our national My record in support of freedom of information cannot be challenged. As a Florida State Senator, I was one of the primary supporters of Florida' land- mark "Government in the Sunshine" law. Since coming to Congress, my legis- lative activities have included legisla- tion to open House committee meetings to the public, and H.R. 1291. a bill to amend the Freedom of Information Act to require public disclosure of records by recipients of Federal grants. My bill re- quires that a willingness to provide full public disclosure be made a condition to receiving a Federal grant; that complete records must be kept on how these funds are spent; and that refusal to make these records public will result in the grant being withdrawn. I support the bill before us today in its efforts to speed public access to agency information and to require agencies to provide this information in a :timely fashion. These procedural changes would be helpful in carrying out the intent of the original act. However, section 552(b) (1) of the United States Code clearly states that the Freedom of Information Act does not apply to matters that are specifically re- quired by Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of natienalsdefense or foreign policy. This is the rst_)f nine specific exemptions from the previsions of the act. -- - 3y _distinguished colleagues of the Government Operations Committee, however, have included in their so-called procedural amendments a change in the language of section 552(b) (1) which Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4 March 14, /9Aipproved For ROONTOR2681CIEMI. :1011?4t1147-6Efliaff8eR000600190088-4 II 1793 could effectively negate our national security classification system. Taken in conjunction with language elsewhere in the bill, it permits the courts to examine In camera the contents of agency records to determine if a national security exemption has been properly applied. . This is a specific grant of authority to the courts to second-guess security classi- fications Made pursuant to an Executive order and thus constitutes a clear threat to our national defense. As the Justice ? Department noted in their report to the Congress on this legislation: Ng system of security classification can work satisfactorily if judges are going to substitute their interpretation of what should be given a seourity classification for those of the government officials responsible for the program requiring classification. My distinguished colleague from Il- linois, the ranking minority member of the Government Operations Committee, Congressman ERLENBORN, himself has ad- mitted in our colloquy earlier today: That there will certainly be a strong Pre- sumption in favor of declassification. This does not bode well for top secret documents on our national defense or foreign policy should some judge de- cide it would be more in the interest of the Nation to make them available to the world. Both my distinguished colleague from Illinois and my colleague from. Califor- nia (Mr. McCLositcy) have pointed out some of the defects of the existing classi- fication system, especially with regard to older defense materials. To which I would respond that these defects have already been recognized and an accel- erated effort put underway to remedy them. In Executive Order 11652, dated March 8, 1972, President Nixon not only recog- nized the problems of overclassification and the denial to historians and other interested parties of decades-old war records and foreign policy documents, he ordered the implementation of an ac- celerated declassification program. Since that time, the National Archives and Record Service has sifted through close to 100 million documents and reclassified most of them so that they are available to the public. According to the Presi- dent's timetable, anything over a certain age is automatically declassified; other documents of a later date are subject to review. Eventually, aiiythipg over 6 years of age will be 'Subject to automatic re- view and declassification unless the clas- sifying agency can prove that the mate- rials still fall under the national Security aegis, Therefore, became this procedure is now in effect, it is clear that the thrust of the committee amendment is against current defense and foreign policy secrets. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that the American people want a judge to decide what national defense and foreign policy information should be publicized. In the Sixth Congressional District of Florida which I have the privilege of represent- ing in Congress, 86.2 percent of those responding to my March 1972 congres- sional questionnaire stated that they did not believe that the iieWS media should have the right to publish or broadcast secret Government information dealing with national security. As a former member of the House Armed Services Committee and as one who has long been concerned over the erosion of our national defense and na- tional security standards, I cannot stand by and see this legislation breeze through the House without drawing at- tention to its one glaring defect. Mr. Chairman, with this exception, I support the legislation and its purposes, but will vote against it on final passage to register my concern over the weakening of our national security, and hope that our colleagues in the other body will elim- inate this invidious provision so that I can enthusasitically support the bill in its final form. Mr. ERLENBORN. I thank the gen- tleman for his comments. I now yield to the gentleman from Ne- braska (Mr. THoxE) . Mr. THONE. I thank the gentleman f or yielding. (Mr. THONE asked and was given per- mission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. THONE. Mr. Chairman, having as- sisted in the authorship of an open rec- ords bill in Nebraska and the open meet- ings law we have in that State, and the partially open court law, I strongly en- dorse the legislation. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 12471, a bill of which I am proud to be a cosponsor. For many years, I have advocated openness in Government. We must make certain the public's business is conducted in public. Before I came to Congress, I helped to draft and worked for passage of Nebraska's open meetings and open rec- ords laws. As a member of the Foreign Operations and Government Information Subcommittee, I have been impressed with the part the Freedom of Informa- tion Act has played in making Govern- ment more accessible to the people. Our hearings last year showed, however, that there is a need for improvement of this raw. The hearings demonstrated that if there is a way that a law can be inter- preted to promote secrecy and to deny the public access to public records, some Government officials will find that way. For example, the present law states that agencies must respond to any request to look at "identifiable records." Some agen- cies have interpreted this language so that a citizen can obtain-a document only if he or she knows the precise title or the file number. To prevent such pettifog- gery, we propose to amend the law so that agencies will have to respond to any request which "reasonably describes such records." Here is another example of the bureau- cratic urge for secrecy. The present law states that an agency must make non- ? classified Federal records "available for public inspection by copying." Some agencies have interpreted this language to mean that a citizen can find out the languagd in a public document only if he comes to the agency headquarters with pencil and paper and copies what is in the record. To Correct this, the proposed language declares that with such nonclassified Information, agencies shall "promptly publish and distribute?by sale or other- wise?copies." Information is available only if it is timely. Therefore, there are several amendments to the Freedom of Infor- mation Act in the bill before you that would require the Government to act more expeditiously. If an agency is in doubt as to whether a record should be made available to the public, it must notify the person asking for the infor- mation within 10 days whether his re- quest will be answered, and if not, the reason for the refusal. The citizen may then appeal to the head of that agency, and a reply must be forthcoming in 20 days. We also want to correct a time element that is unfair. If a citizen sues to get access to Government records, under present law his attorney must respond to Government motions within 20 days. The Government, however, is given 60 days to reply to motions by the other side. Our bill would amend the law to put both sides on equal footing, with a 20-day limit for replying. A recent Supreme Court decision has left a citizen with no place to turn if an agency classifies material which the citizen believes should be nonclassified. ? At present, courts can only determine if the mechanics of the law and Execu- tive orders were faithfully followed in classifying a document. Our amendment would give the courts the authority to examine document in camera to deter- mine if the information in dispute ac- tually fall? within the criteria of an Ex- ecutive _order. The Federal Government has some- times gone to great expense of litigation to deny citizen access to requested information. On at least one or two occassions, Gov- ernment officials have displayed an atti- tude that could be interpreted as say- ing to a citizen, "If you want this in- formation, sue the Government," To make Federal officials think twice about engaging in litigation when the Govern- ment does not have a strong case, our bill would provide that the Federal Gov- ernment must pay "reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs" of citi- zens who win cases under the Freedom of Information Act. One of the most beneficial amendments being proposed to this law, in my opin- ion, is one requiring annual reports to Congress. Each agency shall tell Con- gress each year how many times it has determined not to comply with requests for records, how, many appeals there have been, the results of the appeals, a copy of each rule made regarding the Freedom of Information Act, and a copy of the fee schedule and the fees col- lected for making records available. Through these reports, we will be able to determine which agencies are respon- sive to the public and which are not. I salute the gentleman from Pennsyl- vania (Mr. MOORHEAD) , the chairman of the Foreign Operations and Government Information Subcommittee, and the gen- tleman from Illinois (Mr. ERLENBORN) the ranking minority member of the sub- Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4 II 1794 Approved For RE6ffeipggityypik: wpciftytp_ggigm000600i9ooskihreh 14, 1974 committee, They have carefully written amendments to the Freedom of Informa- tion Act worthy of your approval.. It was a pleasure to be associated with them in producing this legislation. I urge its adoption. Mr. ERLENBORN. I now yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. PA Fins) . Mr. PARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I should like to pursue the response the gentleman made a moment ago to the inquiries from the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yourre). Did I understand the gentleman to say that in an in camera inspection by the court of information that the gentleman assumes hypothetically, for the purposes of this collequy, has to do with national security, that the court in this legislation would look to the provisions of the Ex- ecutive order that classifies that material under the national security exemption rather than to the 'material itself" Mr. ERLENBORN. No. I am afraid the gentleman misunderstood. The amend- ment that we have on the bill says that the materiel must be classified under cri- teria established by the Executive order, and this is the authority for classifying the material. The court will look at the material and see Whether or not it prop- erly falls within the area established by the Executive order for classification, if it fits the criteria of the Executive order, so the court would be looking to the ma- ? terial itself. Mr. PARRIS. If the gentleman would yield further, let us perhaps try to draw an analogy here where some individual wants to determine some information from the Department of Defense, and the Department of Defense comes beck and says Under this Statute, if it is law, that this particular material has some sensitive national security aspects to it. Would it then presumably not deliver that material, and the process would go on, and there would be an inspection In camera, a judicial_ proceeding" Mr. ERLENBORN. Might I interrupt the gentleman at that point? Once there has been a refusal, the matter is moot unless the party seeking the information takes the next affirmative step of insti- tuting suit. Mr. PARRIS. I understand, and I have gone by that step. That materiel that has been determined by the appropriate Government agency or Government of- ficial within the Department of Defense would then presumably be delivered or made in some way available to the court for examination, so 'that the court it- self would review the documents, or- whatever the case may be, and deter- mine that that was in fact sensitive na- tional security information. Mr. ERLENBORN. The court could. The court Would not be required to. We say that the Court may inspect In camera. That is one device that would be made available to the court. The court is not required to. ? Mr. PARRIS. Would it not be a rea- sonable Presumption that if the court is going to make an intelligent decision about the sensitivity, it is going to have to look at the material? Mr, ERLENBORN. Not necessarily it may be that the description of the docu- ment:itself would be sufficient. 31 some- one were asking, for instance, for the plans for a new weapons system, or something like that, it would be quite apparent on the face of the request that this material is properly classified. Mr. McCLOSKEY, M.7. Chairman, would the gentleman yieiel for . a sup- plement to that response? Mr. ERLENBORN. I yield to the gen- tleman from California. Mr. McCLOSKEY. I thank the gentle- man for yielding Again, we examined this matter against the Sirica case decision. There the Court of Appeals ruled that if the President offered a statement to the court as to the reasons why the docu- ments were being withheld, the court would hear arguments on those issues, and only if the arguments were not sat- isfactory to the court would the court then order that the documents be pro- duced for in camera inspection. Using this authorization under criteria estab- lished by the Executive order, if that circuit court decision which remains law is followed, we would assume that the court would not order the production of the documents unless the arguments as to the documents themselves were not persuasive. And the executive branch under the Executive order, having the power to classify matters as "Top Secret," "Se- cret," or "Confidential," we would as- sume the court would apply very strict rules before applying the in camera ex- amination of the documents themselves. Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ERLENBORN. I yield to the gen- tleman from Texas. Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yield- ing, and I congratulate the gentleman in the well for his leadership as well as that shown by the chairman of our sub- committee, the gentleman from Penn- sylvania (Mr. Mooanesre for bringing a very well constructed and very well- balanced piece of legislation before the House. It is necessary, I think, to point out that most of the changes which this bill would make in existing law are proced- ural in nature but they are of consider- able significance in the administration. Mr. TREEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman. yield? Mr. ERLENBORN. I yield to the gen- tleman from Louisiana Mr. TREEN. Mr. Chairman, regarding the national defense issue which the gentleman from Florida and the gentle- man from Virginia have talked about, do I understand that the in-camera re- view by the judge would be solely for the purpose of determining whether the ma- terial had been classified consistent with the criteria or does the judge have the right to question the criteria. Before re- sponding I would appreciate it if the gentleman will direct his attention to the language in the bill which says: Authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of the national defanse or foreign policy. My question is whether or not the judge can question whether those me- teria were established in the interest of the national defense or foreign policy. Mr. ERLENBORN. I have no hesita- tion in answering the gentleman that the court would not have the right to review the criteria. The court would only review the material to see if it conformed with the criteria. The description "in the in- terest of the national defense or foreign policy" is descriptive of the area that the criteria have been established in but does not give the court the power to review the criteria. Mr. TREEN. I thank the gentleman. If the gentleman will yield further, does the chairman of the subcommittee concur in that interpretation, that the criteria themselves may not be reviewed? Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. If the gentleman will yield, the court muet accept the language of the Executive orler as it was written. Let me say to the gentleman what we were concerned about is a statement in the Supreme Court construing the Free- dom of Information Act. Justice Potter Stewart said: Instead the Congress has built into the Freedom of Information Act an exemption that provides no means to question an Ex- ecutive decision to stamp a document "Se- cret" however cynical, myopic or even cor- rupt the decision might have been. But it is that kind of thinking )f the Court which we wanted to alter. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ERLENBORN. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chair- man, 1, too, support the amendments to the Freedom of Information Act con- tained in H.R. 12471. These amendments will, in my estimation, improve the ad- ministration of the act by stimulating Federal agencies to disclose more Gov- ernment information to the nubile and to disclose it more quickly. When we think of the Freedom of In- formation Act and providing access to Government information, I kno* that most people think in terms of affording entry to material in the city of Washing- ton. We often forget that the Federal Government has offices in communities all around the country, and that each of these offices also maintains informa- tion which is important to many citi- zens. As we decentralize Government further, we will have more of these of- fices, and they will maintain increasing amounts of important data. The Freedom of Information Ant ap- ples to matters which are in these local Federal offices, as well as those 'which are at the seat of Government. Regret- tably, many officials and employees at these offices are not familiar with the pro-visions of the act. Requests fiir in- formation made to them must often be referred to Washington, and as a result are complied with slowly, If at all Pub- lic access to Government data is conse- quently frustrated not due to any malice or intent to deceive, but merely to ig- norance of the law. I sincerely hope that the various'agen- cies covered by the Freedom of Informa- tion Act willl take the occasion oh' con- gressional consideration of amendments Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4 ? : March 14, 19 APproved For ElegrtsftgRaw Kriedgez5.wegeo00600190088-4 111795 to this law to educate their employees in general offices about it. Perhaps enact- ment of these amendments, with its con- sequent demands on agencies for in- creased speed and scope of disclosure, will effectively require agencies to make their employees outside this city aware of the? FOI,law. However greater responsiveness of Federal offices to the people they serve can be achieved, I shall be happy to see It occur. I view H.R. 12471 as a means of accomplishing that goal. For that rea- son, as well as those cited by previous speakers, I support the bill. Mr. Chairman, one further matter that we may look at is that these agencies are located not just in Washington, but also around the country, and these agencies ought to be accessible to the public, as well as those agencies in Washington. I think this is an important dimension of ? the bill, (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. ERLENBORN. I thank the gentle- man from Ohio. (Mr. WRIGHT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, our ? committee has worked long and hard to produce H.R. 12471 as a genuinely bi- partisan measure to strengthen and to improve the operation of the Freedom of ,Information Act. A total of 19 days of investigative and legislative hearings were held on the act in 1972 and 1973 by our Foreign Operations and Govern- ment Information Subcommittee, under the chairmanship of the gentleman from Pennsylvania AUL _MOorrimm) . Another 9 days of open' markup sessions were held by the subcommittee during the past months to revise, improve, and re- fine the language of these amendments so that we could have unanimous agree- ment by our subcommittee and fut corn- mdttee members--both Republicans and Democrats. Mr. Chairman, the freedom of infor- mation issue?dramatized SP effectively by the gentleman from California (Mr. Moss) during his 16 years as chairman of this subcominittee?has never been a partisan one. The committee has been diligent in advancing and protecting the public's "right to know' during the past four administrations?two Republican and two Democratic. WQ have fought the Government bureaucrat's -penchant for secrecy for almost 20 years in our com- mittee and have saved the American taxpayers untold millions of dollars in the process. The amendments to the Freedom of Information Act of 1066 that are pro- posed in H.R. 12471 are the first to be considered since its enactment. This is a highly technical and complex subject, and the committee has been exceedingly careful and clejiberate irt the amending process. Some may feel that we have not gone far enough. For example, the lan- guage of only one of the nine exemptions contained in section 552(b) of the act Is changed at all. We felt that, by and large, the Federal courts were doing a creditable job in interpreting the lan- guage of most exemptions in a way con- sistent with the original intent of the Congress. The clear trend in case law under the Freedom of Information Act has been tilted toward the public's "right to know" and against Government bu- reaucratic secrecy, and that is the way it should be. Although Most of the amendments to the law proposed by H.R. 12471 are pro- cedural in nature, they are nonetheless of significant importance in improving the day-to-day administration of the act. As examples, I call attention to the specific time limits provided in this bill for an agency's response to a request- for information from the public. Also, the requirement that indexes of certain types of information "be published and distributed by sale or otherwise" by each? Federal agency and the discretionary au- thority given the courts to award attor- ney fees and costs to plaintiffs who pre- vail against the Government in freedom of information litigation. Amendments relating to the court review provisions of the act likewise reaffirm the original intent of Congress in the definition of the term "de novo"; they also confirm' our support of discretionary- use by the courts of in camera review of contested records to clearly determine if they are properly withheld under the criteria of the exemptions set forth in section 552 (b) of the present law. This is a meaningful and important bill, Mr. Chairman, and one which de- serves the support of every Member of this body. By passing H.R. 12471 with an overwhelming vote we may begin to repair the grave erosion of public confi- dence in our governmental institutions that has resulted from recent Watergate scandals, secrecy, and coverup. Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the orig- inal author of the Freedom of Informa- tion Act the gentleman from California (Mr. Moss). (Mr. MOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, 8 years ago when the Congress passed the Freedom of Information Act without a single dis- senting vote, I thought we had made it abundantly clear that the courts would have the power to examine classified documents in camera and determine whether they had been properly classi- fied. The criteria for each classification?. confidential, secret, and top secret?had been set forth clearly in an Executive order by the President. Either a classified document meets the test of the criteria or it does not. It is just that simple. It does not require an Einstein. What it does require is some intelligence, sensi- tivity, commonsense, and an appreciation for the right of the people to know what their Government is doing and why. I have confidence our judges have these qualities. I do not think we have to make dum- mies out of them by insisting they accept without question an affidavit from some bureaucrat?anxious to protect his de- cisions whether they be good or bad-- that a particular document was properly classified and should remain secret. No bureaucrat is going to admit he might have made a mistake. If that sounds partisan or too severe a criticism, I would like to quote directly from a statement of the President of the United States,only 2 years ago. He said: Unfortunately, the system of classifica- tion which has evolved in the United States has failed to meet the standards of an open and democratic society, allowing too many papers to be classified for too long a time. The controls which have been imposed on olassification authority have proved un- workable, and classification has frequently served to conceal bureaucratic mistakes or to prevent embarrassment to officials and administrations. . . . The many abuses of the security system can no longer be tolerated. Fundamental to our way of life is the belief that when in- formation which properly belongs to the public is systematically withheld by those in power, the people soon become ignorant of their own affairs, distrustful of those who manage them, and?eventually?incapable of determining their own destines . . . Although the present Freedom of In- formation Act requires de novo deter- mination of agency actions by the Fed- eral courts, the Supreme Court has prob- lems to the extent which courts may en- gage in in camera inspection of with- held records. A recent Supreme Court decision held that under the present language of the act, the content of documents withheld under section 552(b) (1)?pertaining to national defense or foreign policy infor- mation?is not reviewable by the courts under the de novo requirement in sec- tion 552(a) (3). The Court decided that the limit of judicial inquiry is the de- termination whether or not the infor- mation was, in fact, marked with a clas- sification under specific requirements of an Executive order, and that this deter- mination was satisfied by an affidavit from the agency controlling the infor- mation. In camera inspection of the doc- uments by the Court- to determine if the information actually falls within the cri- teria of the Executive order was specifi- cally rejected by the Court in its inter- pretation of section 552(b) (1) of the act. However, in his concurring opinion in the Mink case, Mr. Justice Stewart in- vited Congress to clarify its intent in this regard. Two amendments to the act included in this bill are aimed at increasing the- authority of the courts to engage in a full review of agency action with respect to information classified by the Depart- ment of Defense, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and totheiragencies under Executive order au- thority. Chairman, it is the intent of the committee that the Federal courts be free to employ whatever means they find necessary to discharge their responsibil- ities. This was also the intent in 1966 when Congress acted, but these two amendments contained in the bill before you today make it crystal clear. I ask for your unanimous support for this legis- lation which is intended to close such loopholes and make the right to know more meaningful to the American people. I would like to point out, Mr. Chair- Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4 111796 Approved For Release 2001/08/30: CIA-RDP751300380R000600190088-4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- HOUSE March 14, 1974 man, too, r know the concern expressed by at least two Members in the ceueatiane directed to the distinguished ranking minority member or the committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emma- Bose) , that the classifications of many of these documents are made at such low levels in the bureaucracy of Gov- ernment that one would be almost shocked to even find out that they had the authority to impose a classification stamp. We found at one time that classifica- tion authority was being exercised by over 2 million persons in the Federal bureaucracy. Many of those documents were classified with little understanding on the part of the classifiers and remain hidden frena public view. Many of those documents could be the subject of action proposed to be taken in court u.ader the provision of the language now being amended to further clarify the Freedom of Inforniation Act. I think the ameed- ments are most worthwhile. Mr. Chairman, before yielding the floor, I would like to address a question to the gentleman from Pemieylvania (Mr. Mommeee), regarding the report language-on page 9 under the subhead- , ing, "Information to Congress." As I understand it I think it is of the utmost importance that in no way do we modify the rights of the Congress by any of the language contained in the amendments now pending before this committee_ Mr. MOORHEAD cf Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, I yick. to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. MOORHEAD of Perinsyhania. Mr. Chairman, as is the usual ease, the gentletnar from California is 100 percent correct. Mr. MOSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman,. Mrs. MINK_ Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MOBS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Hawaii. (Mrs, Mrtele asked and was given per- mission to revise and extend her re- marks.) Mrs. MINK. Mr. Chairman, T world like to join the gentleman in the well in expressing my very genuine support for this legislation, and commend riot one, the gentleman in the well, but the chair- man of the subcommittee and the mem- bers of this Committee for bringing forth this legislation which will cor reel two major defects in the court's decision was rendered in the Mink against EPA case. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of HR. 12471, legislation to amend tile Free- dom of Information Act. As Congress moves to reform eur elec- tion laws, it it also essential that we move for-Wird on another front to bring Government closer to the people. This is in the area of governmental mfonna - tion, the free flow of which is the ell- spring of Our constitutional democracy. Fortunately, we have an excellent ve- hicle for this. The e'reedom of Infor- mation Ant, first enacted in 1f166, pro- vides a tested and workable mechanism for assuring the disclosure of infdrina- tion to the public while at the same time protecting the confidentiality of the Government process where necessary. Acting on the experience gained under the basic statute, we can eefme and lin- prove the act as needed. H.R. 124'71 is an effort to do this. It is a carefully considered and drafted hill which was reported out unanimously by the mem- bers of the Committee on Government Operations. It makes spare and judicious changes in the act, the need for which has been fully demonstratedby events in the information area. I would like to discuss one such change in particular, as I was a participant in the events which showed the act must be clarified. On January 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered its deci- sion in the case of Environmental Pro- tection Agency against Mink, et al. This was the first interpretation of the Free- dom of Information Act by the Supreme Court. I had initiated the suit a year earlier with 32 other Members of Con- gress as ceplaintiffs. We sought as Mem- bers of Congress and as private individ- uals to compel the execurdve branch to release papers on the nuclear test "Can- -nikin." At the time, Congress was mak- ing a decision on Whether to authorize and appropriate funds for the test. In our suit, we asked that the judicial branch rule on the Executive's compli- ance with provisions of the act. We se- cured an Appeals Court directive to the Federal district judge to review the docu- ments in camera to determine which, if any, should be released. This seemed en- tirely proper to us as an initial step under the act, since the act does provide for court determination under section (a) (3) on a de novo basis of the validity or Executive withholdings. Unfortunately, in the Nfink case the Supreme Court reached a. decision that most of us regard as somewhat tortuous in this regard. When the executive branch took the Appeals Court decision to the higher court on certiorari, the Su- preme Court held that in camera reviews of material classified by the President as national defense and foreign policy mat- ters are not authorized or Permitted by the act. - The basis of this decision was the act's list of exemptions from compelled disclo- sure. Exemption No. 1, under section (h) (1) of the act, exempts matters author- ized by specific Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of the national defense or foreign policy, Somehow, the Supreme Court decided that once the Executive had shown that documents were so classified, the judiciary could not intrude. Thus, the mere rubberstamping of a document as "Secret' or "Confiden- tial" could forever immunize it from dis- closure. All the courts cculd do was to determine whether it was 30 stamped. An affidavit was used in the Mink case to prove this. No judge ever saw the docu- ments at all, not even their cover page. The abuses inherent in such a system of unrestrained secrecy are obvious. As the system has operated, there Is no specific Executive order foe. each classi- fied document. Instead, the President issued one single Executive order estab- lishing the entire classification system, and all of the millions of docUrnents stamped "Secret" under this over suc- ceeding years are now forever immune from even the most superficial judicial scrutiny. A lowerSlevel bureaucrat' could stamp the Manhattan telephone :direc- tory "Top Secret" and no court could order this charged. Under the Supreme Court edict, the Executive need only dis- patch an affidavit signed by some. lowly official certifying that the directory was classified pursuant to the Executive order, and no action could be taken. Obviously, something must be done to correct this ridiculous court interpreta- tion. It need not, be a drastic sten. Ac- tually, it was the original intention of Congress in adopting the Freedom of Information Act to increase the disclo- sure of information. Congress authorized de novo probes by the eicliciarye as a check on arbitrary withholding actions by the Executive. Typically, the do novo process involves in camera inspections. These have been done by lower .courts in the case of materials withheld Under other exemptions in the act. They can be barred under exemption No. 1, ()vier through a misguided reading .of the act and by ignoring the wrongful Conse- quences. H.R. 12471 contains two minor changes in the act to correct this aspect of the Mink decision and snake crystal clear that courts have authority to make in camera inspections of original ? docu- ments, no matter under what ekemp- ton they were withheld, to assure com- pliance with the Freedom of Informa- tion Act. The first change inserts the ;words "and may examine the contents Of any asency records in camera to determine wnether such records or any part thereof shall be withheld under any of the ex- emptions set forth" in the act. This Cl kange will remove all doubt that 'Courts have discretionary authority to Utilize In camera inspections when they be- lieve it is desirable. It does not compel such actions but leaves it to the ettscre- tion of the court. The other change brought about by the Mink decision revises the wording of ex- etaption No. 1. Instead of Iref er- ring merely to matters specifically re- quired by Executive order to be' kept secret, it will exempt matters "author- ized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret. This will give courts leeway to Probe into the justification of the classification? itself. The change will empower courts to de- termine whether the matters meet the cilterie established by the Executive or- der under which they were withheld. In effect, courts will be able to rule on weether disclosure actually would bring about damage to the national security or on whatever other test is set fortieth the Fxeeutive order as -justification for the classification. Our Intention is making this change is to place a judicial check on arbitrary actions by the Executive to withhold information that might be em- barrassing, politically sensitive, or other- wise concealed for improper reasons rather than truly vital to national de- fense or foreign policy. We are not say- Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4 - March 14, 194proved For FfeleEitifallISIMIMAIL:EECARBPJ7-5BEffillEr811000600190088-4 11 1797 jug any material must be released, only that it must be submitted to an impar- tial judge to determine whether its with- - _ holding meets the provisions and pur- poses of the act, I believe these changes are essential if we are to restore the proper functioning of our democratic process. I ask for ap- proval of H.R. 12471. Finally in closing, I would like to ac- knowledge the Members of Congress in 1971, who joined me in my sUit against the Government, which led to the Mink against EPA decision. The Members of Congress who were coplaintiffs are: LIST OF CopLATNrn's (Senator) James Abourezk, Bella S. Abzug, Herman Ba?dillo, (the late) Nick Begich, Phillip Burton, William Clay, (former Rep.) John G. Dow, Robert F. brinan, Bob Eck- hardt, Don Edwards, William D. Ford, Donald M. Fraser, Michael Harrington, Augustus F. Hawkins, Ken Hechler, James J. Froward. Robert W. Kastenmeier, Edward I. Koch, Robert L. Leggett, Spark M. Matsunaga, Romano L. Mazzoli, (former Rep.) Abner J. Mikva, Parren J. Mitchell, John E. Moss, Thomas a Rees, Teno Roncalio, Benjamin S. Rosenthal, Edward R. Roybal, (the late) William F. yktn, (former Rep.) James H. Scheuer, John F. Seiberling, Frank Thomp- , son, Jr, The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen- tleman from California has again ex- pired. Mr. MOORHEAD_ of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Moss). Mrs. MINK. Mr. Chairman, this has been a very long struggle for many of us, including the gentleman in the well, in the case we brought against the Govern- ment for the disclosure of information which we felt was so essential in our de- liberations. The actions of this commit- tee today in bringing this bill to the House will serve to enlarge not only our ability but the ability of the American people to acquire important information so that we can fully, participate in this democracy. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman again, together with the chairman and members of the committee. Mr. MOSS. Mn, Chairman I thank the gentlewoman, and I would like to take this opportunity to express to the gen- tleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. MOOR- HEAD) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. ERLENBORN) my unqualified admi- ration for the work they did in drafting these amendments. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support them in offering the "Omendrnents to the House today. Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. BROWN) . ? (Mr. BROWN of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise .and extend his remarks.) pine. 'gr. Chairman, support laudable objectives of the Freedom of Information Act, and the worthy attempt that the committee is making to strengthen the act and clarify certain ambiguities that still plague the act. But the House should make clear that the Corporation for Public Broad- casting is not intended to be covered within the expanded definition of "agen- cy" which is part of this amendment. The corporation clearly is not a Government corporation or a Government controlled corporation and should not become sub- ject to the act under those terms as used within the expanded definition of "agency" in the amendment. The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 expressly provided that the corporation Is not to be "an agency or establishment of the U.S. Government." Rather it is a private, independent corporation incor- porated pursuant to the District of Co- lumbia Nonprofit Corporation Act. Al- though Congress was desirous of support- ing public broadcasting with Federal funds in 1967, it was keenly aware that it would be inappropriate?constitution- ally and otherwise?for the Government " itself to perform the suPport activities that it envisioned for the corporation. Congress established a private corpora- tion so that the Government itself would not be involved in deciding how the Fed- eral funds appropriated for the support of public broadcasting would be used. Of course, the corporation is not op- posed to making available to the public information concerning its activities. In- deed, it is important that the public understand what the corporation does for It to succeed in its mission. But it would be a mistake to treat the corporation as a Government agency or Government controlled corporation when its very rea- son for being is insulation from the Gov- ernment. If the corporation is made sub- ject to the act, the cotporation will in- evitably be clothed with the trappings of Government. So, Mr. Chairman, I rise to inquire of both the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. MOORHEAD), and the ranking Member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. ERLEN- BORN) if, under the language on page 8, the definition of "agency," in reference to the Corporation for Public Broadcast- ing, is not inconsistent with the lan- guage of the legislation and if, in fact, there is any effort to get control of the corporation or its decisionmaking func- tion through this act. I would certainly hope not. Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania. - Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, as I stated earlier in the de- bate, the language of the statute, where is says, "Government-controlled corpo- ration," would be controlling over the language of the report. If the Corpora- tion for Public Broadcasting is not a _Government-controlled corporation, then the provisions of the act would not reach it. I will say to the gentleman that if the act does apply to the corporation, there is no intention to do anything but give individual members of the public the right to get information. I am sure that this corporation would give that to the individual citizens, either with the law or without the law. There is no intent to institute Gov- eminent control or congressional control over the corporation itself. Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his response. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. ERLENBORN), will, concur, I trust. Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I will state that the gentleman is correct. Mr. GUDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland. (Mr. GUDE asked and was given per- mission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. GUDE. Mr. Chairman, the people's right to know is? fundamental in our democracy. H.R. 12471 advances that right by making improvements in admin- istrative procedures under the Freedom of Information Act. As a member of the subcommittee which considered this bill, I wish to add my support of it. I would like to address myself to two provisions of H.R. 12471 in particular: Section (1) (d), which permits?but does not require?courts to examine the con- tents of agency records in camera to de- termine whether the records or any por- tion of them may be withheld from the public under any of the exemptions to the act, and section (2) , which makes clear that only documents which may be kept secret in the interest of the na- tional defense or foreign policy are those which have been properly classified. Just before be began our hearings on two bills to amend the Freedom of In- formation Act, both of which I cospon- sored, the Supreme Court ruled in En- vironmental Protection Agency v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73 (1973) , that courts could not review the contents of classified docu- ments. It decided that a determination of whether material was properly classi- fied was satisfied by an affidavit from the agency controlling the information. On the basis of personal experience, Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that this decision is reasonable. Let me cite one example. Weather modification in Viet- nam during American participation in the war there is a subject in which I have had considerable interest. Both Senator CRANSTON and I have asked the Defense Department for information about this subject repeatedly since 1971; we have been denied it each time. Sen- ator PELL, who is the chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Oceans and In- ternational Environment, has also asked for this information, and he, too, has been denied it. Weather modification is one of the most sensitive and fascinating scientific topics being discussed today. Scores of meteorologists and environmentalists are very concerned about developments in this area. Surely Congress ought to know what the Defense Department is doing with regard to it before legislating on measures in this field, such as my House Resolution 329, expressing the sense of the House that the United States should seek prohibition of weather modification as a weapon of war. I think that the Department erred In not releasing Information on weather Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4 }I17 Approved For Reimleggia3Z:, $.1101itPrT5139E0400060019008RAn 14, j:97; modification, but under the present law, I could not seek court review of the De- partment's position. If H.R. 12471 were to be enacted, how- ever, I could seek that court review. I could get a hearing by an independent arbiter on whether the executive branch had acted rightly in withholding inf or- Trianon. I am pleased to vote for a bfil which makes this improvement in she administration of the Freedom of :[n- formation Act. (Mr. ALEXANDER, at the request of Mr. Moortemen of Frennsylvania, to revise and extend his murexes at this point in the Recortee Mr. A.OnCANDER. Mr. Chai rrnan, I rise in support of H.R. 12471, which is designed to strengthen the Freedom of Information Act. This legislation is an- other step in making certain that gov- ernment Is the servant of the people and not its master. One proeision is especially important in this regard. The hill provides for the recovery of attorney fees and costs at the discret on of the courts. Why is this so important? For one thing, ther alias been altogether too much unnecessary litigation forced upon our citizens by Federal agencies that fed they Own ,or have a proprietary interest in Government infonnaticsa--informa- tion that belongs to all of our peaple. Citizens are sometimes compelled to spend thousands of dollars?money they can ill afford?simply to assert rights which Congress is attempting to imple- ment under both the spirit and letter of the Constitution. The Government has lost more than half of its Freedom of Informatien eases... That is not ramie of a track record. In fact, it is lousy. And guess who is stuck with the tab? The Unfortunate citizen complaintant and the taxpayers. The committee feels that once the Government has to take full responsibil- ity for litigating indefensible cases, it will think twine before going to the inaik in the first instance. Let me emphasize that the recovery of reasonable attorney fees and other litigation _costs is at the discrete:3a of the court. It may take into consideration those factors it cOnsidces consistent w_th the adnairdetration of justice. These may` include when the suit ad- vances a strong congressional policy, the ability of sere plaintiff to sustain such expenses without barrnful sacrifice, the obstinance of the Government in press- ing a weak case, the question of possible malice and any other factors considered important to the court. The committee feels strongly that no plaintiff should be forced to suffer any possible irreparable damage because the Government failed to live up to the letter and spirit of the Freedom of Irforma- t ion Act. Only when this Natiene most thread- bare citizen can stand before the fill array of Government power and emerge victorious la every sense when his cause is just will-the full promise of our syftern of government be realized. That proms? must be guarded and brought. to reality and that is our intention. I ask this House to strike another blow for liberty and approve this legislation with resounding affirmation for its con- stitutional goals. Mr. IVIOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield such thne as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fesceere , a member of the com- mittee. Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, as one of the original charter members of the Moss subcommit- tee, appointed by the late Chairman Dawson in 1955 to Investigate Govern- ment secrecy and withholding practices, I am particularly pleased to support the pending bill, HR. 12471. This measure would measurably im- prove and strengthen the Driginal Free- dom of Information Act, now in opera- tion for almost 7 years. Cur committee has spent many weeks of concentrated effort in investigative and legislative hearings and in public markup sessions to draft and perfect the legislation before us today. The need for these amendments has been fully documented in our 1972 investigative report Muss Report 92- 1418?and in our legislative report on this measure?House Report 93-876. I commend these two documents to all Members.- They make a clear-cut case for these important amendments to curb Federal agency delays and other abuses in the administration of the act, to clarify and reaffirm original congres- sional intent, and to make the Freedom of Information Act a much more usable tool for the working press. Mr. Chairman the advantages of open public access to the workings of govern- ment have been clearly demonstrated in both the Federal Freeciorc.. of Informa- tion Act and in my own State of Florida through the "sunshine law." One of the ways in which we can help reestablish public confidence in our governmental operations is by the quick enactment of these amendments to the Freedom of In- formation Act. For the most part, the Federal courts have taken adequate notice of the im- portance of the act as a milestone enact- ment by Congress in. preserving the fon- elemental right of all Americans to be informed about the business of their Government. The pending legislation, therefore, does not change the language of eight of the nine exemptions contained in section 552(b) of the act. One of the most eloquent statements by a Federal court in support of the principles of the act was made in the 1971 freedom of in- formation case of Soucie against David: Congress passed the Freedom of Informa- tion Act in response to a persistent problem of legislators and citizens. the problem of ob- taining adequate information to evaluate l'edcral programs and formulate wise poli- cies. Congress recognized that the public cannot make intelligent clecisions without such information, and that governmental in- stitutions become unresponsive to public needs if knowledge of their activities is de- nied to the people and their representatives, The touchstone of any proceedings under the Act must be the clear 14.isliAive intent to assure public access to all imv .rnraental rec- ords whose disclosure would not significantly hwma specific governmental interestS, 'The policy of the act requires that the disclosure requirements be construed broadly, the ex- emptions narrowly. Mr. Chairman, one historical reference Is particularly important in understand- ing the need for these _amendments. When hearings were held_ 9_ years ago by the Moss subcommittee on legislation that finally Was enacted as the Freedom of Information Act of 1966, every single witness from the Federal bureaucracy? then under a Democratic President?op- posed the bilL They claimed that it would seriously hamper the functioning of Fed- eral agencies and be ruinous to the de- cisionmaking process. Despite their op- pcnition, the bill was unanitneusly passed by the Congress and President Johnson wisely signed it into law. Of coulee, no such calamitous result was forthcoming. The spectres never appeared. During the hearings on this current leidslatiOn to strengthen the freedom of information law, every single witness from the Fed- end bureaucracy?this time under a Re- publican President?has again opposed the bill, using the same types of dis- credited arguments heard 9 years ago. taust that history will repeat itself and that Congress will again give its 'over- whelming approval to freedom of infor- mation legislation and that the present Write House incumbent will likewise sign the bill into law. Mr. Chairman, I urge our House col- leagues to support the important biparti- san amendments to the Freedom.of In- formation Act as contained in H.R. 12471. Mr. Chairman, I would just simply like to add two points: One is that the origi- nal act, after long years ,of studs' and thousands of pages of testimony, has been in operation now for 7 years and all of the cries that were raised at the time the original act was passed can be summed up probably in this fashion: That it was said that if we passed the Freedom of Information Act, it would bring the executive branch of Govern- ment to a grinding halt. None of that, of course, has happened. The Freedom of Information Act has found its place in the legislative history and in the administration of our !Gov- ernment. It has been an extremely- use- ful tool for our citizens, and it has helped build ciinfidence in Government. Good- ness knows, we need more of that. So these amendments now are another long step toward clarifying the right of public access to Government informa- tion. Mr. Chairman, I would just want to add this one thought: That none of the fears that have been expressed really materialized. I do not believe that any would materialize in the future as a result of these amendments or any other act -that deals with this subject. I think it is too well ingrained now in our legisla- tive history, and in the operational his- tory of this Government. One point we should keep in mind is that members of the public and the rights of individual Congressmen are also oov- ered under this act as members of the public, and I would like to ask the chair- Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4 March 14, 19Approved For lkft:0061t.ggg1!eff.hg :106?07114114MR000600190088-4 man of the committee, once again, in View of the long history on this point, that whatever rights accrue to Members of Congress under this act as Members of the body politic, this in no way is in derogation of other rights which may exist by reason of our responsibilities as Members a congress and in no way diminishes Or modifies those rights. - Mr, 11/41fOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is entirely correct. - (Mr. FASCELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Freedom of Information Act amendments, and urge the defeat of any weakening amendments. Mr. Chairman, the people in the 13th District in Florida wonder Why it takes over a month to receive even an interim reply from a Federal agency on a -request for information, As a matter of fact, my staff often has the same problem. The information stored in Obvern- ment files is valuable stuff. And the peo- ple whose taxes paid for it should in most circumstances be able to get hold of inforMation Quickly. I am pleased to se that the committee has set time limits of ten working days for agency action on original requests. The Freedom of Information Act amendments before us today are more Of what we in Florida call "government In the sunshine," Government in the sunshine is letting the people see What It is that the Government is doing, and gives the people better access to the Gov- ernment. Conversely, it also makes the Government more responsive to the peo- ple. Mr. Chairman, I urge the support of my colleagues for this bill. . Mr. H.A.NRAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I was particularly proud of the recent action of the House of Representatives in pass- ing H.R. 12471. This bill represents the first comprehensive attempt to expand and improve upon the Freedom of In- formation Act which became public law in 1966. Never before in the history of America has the need for better access to gov- ernmental information by the people been so great. One of the major reasons so many Americans have lost faith in our form of government, has been the Persistent belief that ours is a govern- ment of the few which makes its deci- sions in secret. The whole purpose of the Freedom of Information Act was to open up governmental information to the scrutiny of the American people. By passing H.R. 12471, the House has acted decisively to make this important public law more effective and available for use by all Americans. The following major improvements to the Freedom of Information Act are in- cluded in HR. 124'71: First. A current index of agency poli- cies and documentS alia,11 be promptly published ancLdistiputed tor interested indisilduaM by Ale or 'offierwise; SecOnd. Requests for information must merely "reasonably describe" as opposed to "specifically identify" records in ques- tion; Third. Nothing in this bill shall be construed to limit in any way congres- sional access to information; Fourth. Time limits for each phase of agency response to informational re- quests are set up. Original requests must be acted upon within 10 days. Admin- istrative appeals must be decided within 20 working days. Court proceedings may be initiated if these deadlines are not met; - Fifth. The court may reimburse an in- formational requester in cases where the agency denial is not upheld; Sixth. The court may examine in secret any information denied to see if it falls into any category of excluded informa- tion. Seventh. Information denied for se- curity reasons must be specifically iden- tified as such by the executive branch; Eighth. Each agency must submit an annual report of its efforts to meet the requirements of this Act including the number of denials, reasons for each and the amount and rate of fees; and Ninth. All executive agencies and Gov- ernment corporations, including the Ex- ecutive Office of the President, are re- quired to abide by this act. As a Member of Congress who has taken a deep and abiding interest in the free flow of Government information, I feel the House has acted in the public interest by passing H.R. 12471.1 sincerely hope this wise and farsighted measure will be speedily enacted into law. Mr. PATTEN. Mr. Chairman, many years ago, Lord Acton wrote that? Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show it can bear discussion and publicity. I have always believed that, for I am convinced that the public has the right to know what the Government is doing right?or wrong. That is why I was a cosponsor of the Freedom of Informa- tion Act of 1966. It always disturbed me to read or hear that some Federal de- partments or agencies conceal public in- formation, instead of revealing it. Although the 1966 act has made more information available to the public, many improvements have to be made before Congress can really say it is furnishing the people with the information they de- serve. Therefore, once again, I have be- come a cosponsor of freedom of infor- mation legislation, because it contains provisions that help strengthen the pres- ent law. The new legislation not only strengthens procedural aspects, but also improves its administration, and expe- dites the handling of requests for infor- mation from Federal agencies, including reports to Congress that will show ap- plications for information denied. Mr. Chairman, I have, like Jeffer- son, "confidence in the- people, cher- ish and consider them as the most honest and safe." After years in public life, my confidence in the people has grown, while my faith in some who gov- ern has declined. Yet, I have hope and believ.e that onv of the beat ways of im- proving the low estem in which Congress is held by the public?only about 21 per- cent think we are doing a good job?is to pass a Freedom of Information Act that will provide people with the infor- mation they need about government. If government is right, it should be praised, and if it is wrong, it should be criticized. I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill, for it will not only strengthen the public's right-to-know, but also help re- store some of the public confidence that Federal agencies and Congress have lost. Mr. THOlVIPSON of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of HR. 12471 in order that the Freedom of Informa- tion Act might be strengthened and made a more workable tool by the news media and other Americans. As a cosponsor of the original 1973 bill on which the Foreign Operations and Government Information Subcommittee held hearings, I have closely followed the markup sessions that produced this bi- partisan measure before us today. I think it significant, Mr. Chairman, that there is a broad representation of the po- litical spectrum of both sides of the aisle in support of this bill. History has repeatedly shown that an obsession for secrecy in governmental institutions has been the handmaiden of repression, corruption, and dictatorial rule. Government secrecy for the pur- poses of hiding wrongdoing, inept leader- ship, or bureaucratic errors undermines and can eventually destroy our system of representative government. The con- fidence of the American public in gov- ernmental institutions must be restored if we, as a nation, are to emerge from the Watergate doldrums. This bill to make the Freedom of Information Act a more viable weapon in the fight against secrecy excesses of the entrenched Gov- ernment bureaucracy is an important start in. that direction. Mr. Chairman, in that connection we should all heed the recent observations of former Chief Justice Earl Warren when he said: It would be difficult to name a more effi- cient ally of corruption than secrecy. Corrup- tion is never flaunted to the world. In Gov- ernment, it is invariably practiced through secrecy. . . . If anything is to be learned from our present difficulties, compendiously known as Watergate, it is that we must open our public affairs to public scrutiny on every level of Government. . . . I urge that we begin today by an over- whelming vote in support of H.R. 12471, to let the American public know that we in Congress believe that freedom of in- formation is the best antidote for the Watergate secrecy and coverup poison. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I should like to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. MOORHEAD) and the Foreign Operations and Government In- formation Subcommittee which he chairs for doing a superb job of legislative over- sight on the Freedom of Information Act. That painstaking and hard-hitting job of oversight in the 92d Congress led to the introduction last year of amend- ments to clarify and strengthen the act, which I was pleased to cosponsor. Sub-fl legislative hearings helped shape the amendments that are before us now. I think a strong case for these amend- ments has already been made. All I hope to do now is. Contribute one example of why congressional vigilance is necessary to assure that the Freedom of Informa- Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : elA-RDP75B00380R000600190088-4 Approved For RvemiNgimu 9.iyuid35_9_98.19A90060019008mrch 1 19 tion Act f unctions in the way Congress intended. Last December 27 the Soil Conserva- tion Service of the Department of Agri- culture published regulations prescrib- ing the policies, procedures and author- izations governing tlie public availability of its materials and records under what it erroneously referred to as the "Pah- lie Information Act." The SCS said it would make its rec- ords available with "reasonable prompt- ness" for inspection or copying, except for certain kinds of records which it then Listed. The SCS may have intended that its list reflect the act's list of certain categories of information that are ex- empt from mandatory disclosure, but the agency stumbled before it even got started. Its very first category was: Materials specifically required by Execu- tive orders to be kept secret. A much, much broader category than that specified by the act itself, which row reads: Specifically required by Executive orde:'to be kept secret in the interest of the na- tional defuse or foreign policy. To compound its error, the SCS did not invite public comment on its regula- tions, declaring blandly that? lo substantive basic policy or p.veedural changes have been made. Of course, that allegation was non- sense. I cite this example to show that Fed- eral agencies still cannot yet be trusted to live up to the Freedom of Information Act on the:x own. We must monitor them constantly and continue to demand that they strive to comply with the law to the fullest. If we do not, the public will not have the access to government inform,- tion that it is entitled to have under the law. Mr. Chairman, I urge that these amendments to the Freedom of Infor- mation Ace be passed as reported out by the Government Operations Committee Mr. BROOM:Kit:La Mr. Chairman, rise today in support of H.R. 12471, to amend the Freedom of Information Act. When thiE historic act was passed in 1966, the intent was to guarantee the right of the American people to kr ow what their Government was, doing by enabling them to obtain information and records from Federal agencies. It has been increasingly evident since then that the 1966 --act lacks the strength necessary to make it effective in this area. Certain ambiguities and weak- nesses have prevented it from a ehieving the results intended by its passage. We have the ,epportunity today to correct this situation and inject new If e into the original act by passing H.R. 12471. The basis of a sound democracy is an informed public. we pride ourselves on being a gogernment that depends on the voices of ell the people, not just a few.. But for these voices to play an active part they must have access to knewledge. Otherwise, they are merely the voices cd Ignorance. The access to GOvernment informa- tion is a basic right of all the American people, As one of our greatest Presidents said, this is a government 'of the people, by the people, and for the neople." I urge all my colleagues to echo Abraham Lin- coln's words today by voting favorably on H.R. 12471. Mr. DRINAN. Mr. Chairman, the peo- ple's right to know how the Government is discharging its duties is essential to a democratic society. This is the basis of the Freedom of Informaticn Act, and for the amendments to that act before us today. One of the most impoetant features of the legislation before us-today is that it would create the machenery for con- tinuous congressional oversight of the information practices of the Federal Government. The underlying principle of the Free- dom of Information Act is that of Con- gress performing its most essential role, acting as a check in balance on the growth of executive power. Indeed, Sen- ator STUART SYMINGTON, 'quoted in "The Pentagon' Papers and the Public," Free- dom of Information Center Report No. 0013?U. Mo. July 1971?gave an excel- lent example of the dangers of secrecy in Government when he stated that he "slowly, reluctantly, and from the unique vantage point of having been a Pentagon official and the only Member of Congress to sit on both the Foreign Relations and Armed Services Committees concluded that executive branch secrecy has now developed to a point where secret mili- tary actions often first create and then dominate foreign policy responses." The bill before us today strengthens the Freedom of Information Act of 1966. It provides for a wider availability of agency indexes listing informational items. It permits access to records on the basis of a reasonable description of a particular document rather than requir- ing specific titles or file numbers as is presently the case in many agencies. The bill sets short time lirnies for agency responses to inquiries. It Provides for recovery of attorneys' fees and court costs by plaintiffs. The bill also permits in camera court review of classified documents for pur- poses of determining whether 'the docu- ments were properly classified under ex- ecutive a,uthority. This key provision in effect reverses Environmental Protection Agency et al. v. Patsy T. Mink et al., 410 U.S. 73 (1973), a suit in which I was one of 33 congres,sionel party plaintiffs, by specifically allowing in camera inspection by the courts of all documents in dispute, including those which may relate to na- tional defense and those which may fall into the category of inter and intraoffice memoranda. This provision reestablishes the original intent of this bill. The purpose of this legislation is to facilitate access to information by the public. At a time when the deleterious effects of Government secrecy have never been in greater evidence, this legislation is most welcome. Mr. REUSS. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 12471. The Freedom of In- formation Act should be strengthened and improved after 7 years of operation. The Government Operations Commit- tee adopted a comprehensive report on the administration of the Freedom of In- formation Act in September 1972. It was the unanimous view of the membership of our committee, based on many weeks of hearings and investigations by the Pc-reign Operations and Government In- formation Subcommittee, that certain amendments were required to make the law truly effective. Hearings held on legislation tnimple- ment this committee recommendation were held last year and produced' sup- porting testimony and statements from a number, of widely diverse organizations. including: From the news media: Creed Black, editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer; Herbert Brucker, former editor of the Hartford Courant and former president of the American Society of Newspaper Editors; J. R. Wiggins, former editor of the Washington Post, past president of the ASNE, now publisher of the Ellsworth, Maine, American; Richard Smyser, editor of the Oak Ridger, Oak Ridge, Tenn., and vice pres- ident of the Associated Press Managing Editors; Clark Mollenhoff, former Nixon White House counsel and now bureau chief of the Des Moines Register-Tribune; . Ted Koop, Washington office director of the Radio-Television News Directors As:soda:Lion; E. W. Larnpson, president of the Ohio Newspaper Association; Ted Serrill, executive vice president. National Newspaper Association. Courtney R. Sheldon, chairman, Free- dom of Information Committee. Sigma Delta Chi; Stanford Smith, president, Anunican Newspaper Publishers Associationl William H. Hornby. executive editor, the Denver Post and chairman, POI Committee, American Society of News- paper Editors; and The Association of American Publish- ere, Inc. From the legal profession: John T. Miller, chairman, section of administrative law, American Bar ,Asso- ciation; Richard Noland, vice chairman, Com- mittee on Access to Government Infor- mation, American Bar Association:. Stuart H. Johnson, Jr., chairman for Freedom of Information, Federal Ear A sociation: John Shattuck, staff counsel, Ameri- ca a Civil Liberties Union; Ronald Plesser, attorney, Center for the Study of Responsive Law; and rhomas M. Franck, law professor and director, Center for International Stud- ien New York University. rhe measure is also supported by the American Library Association, Com- mon Cause, and has been cosponsored in its various forms by more than 75 Members of the House and Senate. H.R. 12471 contains needed and well- conceived amendments to the original 1966 Freedom of Information Act. While they may not solve all of tile problems in its day-to-day administration resulting from foot-dragging tactics of the Fed- eral bureaucracy, it will serve notice that Congress and the public strongly Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4 March 14, /9#143proved. For Wiled%16ffili:Ett-8.1N5BAME000600190088-4 ff1801 reaffirms its support for the principles Of the people's "right to know." As the late President Lyndon Johnson said when he signed the original measure into law: This, legislation springs from one of our Most essential principles: a democracy works best when the people have all the informa- tion that the security of the Nation permits. No one should be able to pull curtains of secrecy around decisions which can be re- vealed without injury to the public in- terest. I signed this measure with a deep sense of pride that the 'United States is an open society in which the people's tight to know is cherished and guarded. ? Mr. HARRINGTON. Mr. Chairman, in 1966 the Congress saw fit to enact Public Law 89-487?popularly recognized as the "Freedom of Information Act." This landmark legislation was structured to guarantee the right of citizens to know the business of their Govermfient. But for all of its desirable ambitions, the Freedom of Information Act has, at times, proved incapable of assuring pub- lic access to the records of Federal agen- cies and departinnts. Accordingly, the Committee on Gov- ernment Operations of the House of Rep- resentatives has reported out legislation (HR. 12471) to further protect the right of the public to check on the activities of the Federal Government, by: improv- ing the Freedom of Information Act. During the summer of 1971, the Gov- ernment Operations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations and Government In- formation undertook a comprehensive study of administration of the Preedom of Information Act by the Federal agen- cies. This investigation revealed wide- spread abuses of the act by the Federal agencies involved. 13y resorting to de- laying tactics, various classification ploys and requiring of requestors a spec- ificity of identification of desired infor- mation, Federal agencies were able, all too often, to successfully circumvent a multitude of the public's requests. The subcommittee, in its subsequent report, suggested a series of administrative changes to correct existing deficiencies in, making information available by the Federal GpYernment. Also set forth were a list of specific legislative objectives de- signed to improve the administration of the Freedom of Information Act. H.R. 12471, now before this House, is legisla- tion that should correct those deficiencies noted by the subcommittee. This measure, similar to H.R. 5425 which I sponsored in the previous ses- sion of the 93d Congress, seeks to accom- plish more efficient, prompt, and full dis- closure of information. H.R. 12471 would affect the following areas of the Freedom of Information Act: H.R. 12471 would improve the avail- ability of Federal agency indexes, which list the specific information available from individual agencies. The bill would require that indexes be readily available, in usable arid concise form, upon re- quest, even though agencies would not, by reasons of practicality, be required to print indexes in bound form. Many agencies at present require an Individual to designate a specific title or file number to identify desired docu- ments. H.R. 12471 would allow for the retrieval of information with only a rea- sonable "description" of the requested Information, thus restricting one manner in which citizens' access to information has been limited in the past. Frequently, information from the Fed- eral Government can be used only if it is timely. Too often, however, the intent of the Freedom of Information Act has been circumvented by dilatory tactics or) the part of agencies. To deal with this problem, H.R. 12471 would set a 10-day time limit on agency responses to origi- nal requests for information, and 20 days for administrative appeals of denials. In unusual cases, good faith assurances of the agency will allow for an extension of the time period allowed. So as to expedite litigation carried out under the Freedom of Information Act, the bill would also cut to 20 days the present 60-day re- quirement for agency response to com- plaints. The bill would also allow defend- ents to recover attorney's fees from the Government, as well as court costs, if the case goes against the Government. An important expansion of the cover- age of the act is also included in Ha. 12471, as the definition of what consti- tutes an "agency" is expanded. Govern- ment corporations, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, and Government-con- trolled corporations, such as the Corpo- ration for Public Broadcasting or Am- trak, would come under the authority of the Freedom of Information Act for the first time. Also, agencies within the ex- ecutive branch, such as the Office of Management and Budget or the National Security Council, would be covered. H.R. 12471 also contains a provision extremely significant in the light of re- cent controversies over the classification of Government documents. The bill would permit, at the option of the court, in camera court review of document clas- sification. Courts would be enabled to review the actual classified documents, rather than the classification notices, as is often the case under existing law. Courts would be empowered to deter- mine whether the classifications imposed upon documents by agencies were prop- erly constituted. These new procedures, I hope, will reduce the appalling incidence of smokescreen "national security" de- fenses raised by the Government in Freedom of Information Act cases. Mr. Chairman, this important legisla- tion enhances and improves the original Freedom of Information Act. In a nation which claims with just pride that it is ruled "by the people," the accessibility of Government records to the populace is of great importance. The amendments proposed to the original act by H.R. 12471 would limit the abuses of the act by Federal agencies that have had a chilling effect on the ability of citizen's to fulfill their right to know. Today the House has the opportunity to pass his- toric legislation, building upon the foun- dation of the original 1,966 Freedom of Information Act. We should not shirk from the task before us today; we should pass this bill. Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time. The CHAIRMAN. All time having ex- pired, the Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. (a) The fourth sentence of sec- tion 552(a) (2) of title 5, United States Code, Is amended by striking out "and make avail- able for public inspection by copying" and inserting in lieu thereof ", propmtly pub- lsh, and distribute (by sale or otherwise) copies of". (b) Section 552(a) (3) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking out "on request for identifiable records made in ac- cordance with published rules stating the time, place, fees to the extent authorized by statute, and procedure to be followed," and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "upon any request for records which (A) reasonably describes such records, and (B) is made in accordance with published rules stating the time, place, fees to the extent authorized by statute, and procedure to be followed,". (c) Section 552(a) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph: "(5) Each agency, upon receipt of any re- quest for records made 'under this subsec- tion, shall? "(A) determine within ten days (except. Ing Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) after the date of such receipt whether to comply with the request and shall immediately notify the person making the request of such determination and the reasons therefor, and of the right of such person to appeal to the head of the agency any adverse determination; and "(B) make a determination with respect to such appeal within twenty days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holi- days) after the date of receipt of such ap- peal. "Any person making a request to an agency for records under this subsection shall be deemed to have exhausted his administra- tive remedies with respect to such request if the agency fails to comply with subpara- graph (A) or (B) of this paragraph. Upon any determination by an agency to comply with a request for records, the records shall be made promptly available to the person making such request." (d) The third sentence of section 553(a) (3) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting immediately after "the court shall determine the matter de novo" the fol- lowing: ", and may examine the contents of any agency records in camera to determine whether such records or any part thereof shall be withheld under any of the exemp- tions set forth in subsection (b) (e) Section 552(a) (3) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new sentence: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the United States or the officer or agency thereof against whom the complaint was filed shall serve a responsive pleading to any complaint made under this paragraph within twenty days after the service upon the United States attorney of the pleading in which such complaint is made, unless the court otherwise directs for good cause shown. The court may assess against the United States reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred in any case under this section in which the United States or an officer or agency thereof, as liti- gant, has not prevailed." SEC. 2. Section 552(b) (1) of title 5, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: "(1) authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of the national defeVrie or for- eign policy;". Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000600190088-4 111802 Sec. 3. Section 552 of title 5, 'United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsections: (d) On or before March 1 of each calendar year, each agency shall submit a report cov- ering the preceding calendar year to the Com- mittee on Government operations a the Bourse of Representatives and the Commit- tee on Governmental Operations and the Committee al the Judiciary of the Serrate. The report shall include? (I) the n amber of determinations made ho such agency not to comply with requests for records made to such agency under sub- section (a) mid the reasons for each such determination; ' )2) the nornber of appeals made by per- eons under subsection (a) (5) (B), the result of such appeals, and the reason for the action moon each appeal that results in a denial of information; "(3) a copy of every rule made by such afency regarding this section; (4) a copy of the fee schedule and the total amount of fees collected by the agency for making records available under this sec- tion; and "(5) such other information as indicates efforts to administer fully this section. (e) Notwithstanding section 551(1) of this title, for purposes of this section, the term 'agency' means any executive department, Government corporation, Governme con- trolled, cornea at1on, or other establishment in the executive branch of the Government (in- cluding the Esectztive Office of the Presiden oi any independent regulatory agency.- SEC. 4. The amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the ninetieth clay be- ginning after enactment of this Act Mr. MOORHEAD of PennsVIvan is (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered as read, printed in the REcoan, and open to amendment at any point. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pemisylvan ? There Wa3 no objection. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments? siasmoismnr OFFERED BY MR. wirers Mr. wHrrE. Mr. Chairman, I offer on amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendmer t offered by Mr. Wurre; On p sge 4, lines 9 through 14, strike all of sub section (d) and insert the following in lieu thereof: "(d) On or before March 1 of each calendar year, each agency shall submit a report cover- ing the preceding calendar year to the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate for referral to the appropriate committees of the Congress. The report shall include-- (Mr. WHITE asked and was given Permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. WEITE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment to the Freedom of Informa- tion Act bill is designed to bring the bill in conformity with the rules of the House. I cite you on page 542, rule 40, en- titled "Executive Communications": Estimates of appropriations and an other communicat Ions from the executive depart- ments, intended for the consideration of any committees ,af the House, shall be aaarewed to the and by referred as provided by clause 2 of rule 24. Clause 2 of rule 24 states: Business of the Speaker's table shall be dis- posed of as fellows: Approved For F19(9,,: Re. 4:81e1751311MF000600190094ch 1.4 197_1 - Messages from the Presidect shall be re- ferred to the appropriate committees with- out debate. Reports and communications from the heads 01' departments, and other communications addressed to the House . . may be referred to the appropriate commit- tees in the same Manner. . . . Section 3 of the bill calls for submis- sion of a report by each agency to the Government Operations Committees of the House and Senate and to the Senate Judiciary Committee. But, according to the House rules all such agency reports must first be directed to the Speaker of the House. Then the Speaker may refer them in accordance with rale 24, clause 2, to the appropriate committee. I un- derstand the Senate has the same proce- dure. If you desire to maintain order in the application of our rules to our bills, then my amendment should be adopted. Al- though my amendment May be a techni- cal one, it is offered with the purpose of keeping the laws we make on submission of agency reports consistent with the rules we have made for ourselves. Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlemarfyield? Mr. WHITE. I am glad to yield to the chairman of the subcommittee. Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Wnirs) , has been kind enough to provide us with a copy of his amend- ment. Insofar as the members of the committee on this side are concerned, we would accept this amendment. - Mr. wHrrE I thank the gentleman. Mr. ERLENBORN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WHITE. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. ERLENBORN. Might I call to the gentleman's attention what I consider to be a statement which perhaps is confus- ing in his amendment. It says "strike all of subsection (d) and insert the fol- lowing in lieu thereof :? and then the material referred to is inserted. That might be construed as striking out all of subsection 1 through 5 in that subsec- tion. I know that is not the gentleman's intention. Mr. WHITE. No. It is lines 9 through 14 that would be stricken by the wording of the amendment. That covers the areas that lam interested in. Mr. ERLENBORN. Then it is clear that the gentleman only intends to strike the material in lines 9 through 14? Mr. WHITE. Yes; according to the language of the amendment. Mr. ERLENBORN. I thank the gen- tleman. Mr. Chairman, I see no objection to the language. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentle- man from Texas (Mr. Wiliam) . The amendment was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any fur- ther amendments? If not, under the rule, the Committee rises. Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. ECKHARDT, Chairman of the Com- mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, repoited that that Corn- / , 1 enlace having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 12471) to amend section 552 of title 5, United States Code, known as the Freedom of Information Act,: pur- suant to House Resolution 9'77, he re- ported the bill back to the House ' with an amendment adopted in the Commit- tee of the Whole. 1 The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the previous question is ordered. 1 The question is on the amendment. The amendment was agreed to. . The SPEAKER. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time. The SPEAKER. The question is on the passage of the bill. , The question was taken, and the Speaker announced that the ayeS ap- peared to have it. i Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Speaker, I ob- ject to the vote an the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum hi not present. The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is not present. ' The Sergeant at Anna will notifY ab- sent Members. The Vote was taken by electronile de- vice, and there were?yeas 383, nl,ys 8, not voting 41, as follows: [Roll No. Bi fl YEAS-383 Abde or Carney, Ohio Eilberg Alecug Adams Carter Erlenborff Casey, Tex. Eieh 1 Addabbo Cederberg Eshleman Alexander Chamberlain Evans, Coto. Anderson, Chappell Eying, Teen. Calif. Chisholm Fascell Andrews, N.C. Clancy 'Archer N. Oak. Clausen, usen, Don H. Flood Findley Andrews, Fisher Ashbrook Clawson, Del Flowers _Wiley Cleveland Aspin Cochran rinit Foley BadilloCohen Ford Beans Collins, Tex. Forsythe Barrett Conlanrtt Conable Fountain Conte Fraser . Baernen Pr elingh ey sen BBei BennettalIggi Sevin Bergland Corman Crane Conyers Frenzel Frey Coughlin Froehlich , FPuticet?uan Biester Cronin Culver Gayclos Bingham Daniel, Dan Gettys Blackburn Daniel, Robert Giaimo BP.ol egtgrisik Gilman W., Jr. Gibbons DaDniomelsinick V. Ginn i BedDe I] l9iinidg Danielson Goldwater Bowen Davis, Ga. Gonzalez, Bray Davis, Wis. Grascisleing. Breden)as Davis, S.C. G Breaux de la Garza Green, Oleg. Breckinridge Delaney Green, P. Brinkley Brooks Deerhim eribrk Griffiths D Gross Broomfield Denholm Grover Brown. Calif. Dennis Gubser Brown, Mich. Dent Gunter Brown, Ohio Derwinski G Broyhill, N.C. Devine Haley Broyhill, Va. Diggs Hamilton Buchan= Dingell Hammer-1 Burke, Calif. Downing FIRililLInenhineinaY idl.!'; Burgener Donohue Burke, Fla. Drina!' Burke, Mass. Dulski Hanrahan Burlison, Mo. Duncan Hansen, Idaho Burton Cu Pont Hansen, Wash. Butler Eckhardt Harringten Byron Edwards, Ala. Harsher, Camp Edwards, Calif. Hastings. Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000600190088-4 4March 14, 1974Pproved ForagottipM12044113441D RellegIOP7-5E13913691R000600190088-4 Hawkins liftYs Hebert Hechler, W. Va Heckler, Mass. Heinz Helstoski Henderson Hicks Hillis Hinshaw Hogan Fiolifield Holt Holtzman _Horton. Howard Huber Hudnut Hungate Hunt Hutchinson 'chord Nix Jarman Obey Johnson, Calif. O'Brien Johnson, Pa. O'Hara Jones, N.C. O'Neill Jones, Okla. Parris Jones, Tenn. Passman JOrdan " Patten Karth Perkins Kastenmeier Pettis Kazen Peyser Kemp k Ketchum King Koch Kuykendall Kyros Lagomarsino Landrum Latta Leggett Lehman Lent Litton Long, La. Long, Md. Lott Luj an Luken ? McClory 1VicCloskey McCollister -McCormack ,McDade McFall McKinney McSpadden Macdonald Madden Madigan Mahon Mallary Ruppe Mann Ruth Maraziti Ryan Martin, Nebr. St Germain Martin, N.C. Sandman Mathias, Calif. Sarasin Mathis, Ga. Sarbanes Matsunaga Scherle Mayne Schneebeli Mazzo Schroeder Meets Sebelius Melcher Seiberling Mezvinsky Shipley Michel Shoup Milford Shriver Miller Shuster Mills Sikes Minish Sisk . Mink Skubitz Minshall, Ohio Slack Mitchell; Md. smith, Iowa Mitchell, N. Smith, N.Y. Moakley Snyder MollOhan Spence ' Moorhead, Staggers Calif. Stanton, Moorhead, Pa. J. William Morgan . Stanton, Mosher james V. Moss Stark Murphy, N.Y. steed Murtha Steele Myers Natcher Steelman Steiger, Ariz. Nedzi Steiger, Wis. Nelsen Stephens Nichols Stokes Stratton Stubblefield Studds Sullivan Syinington Symms Talcott Taylor, Mo. Taylor, N.C. Thompson, N.J. Thomson, Wis. Pie Thone Poage Thornton Powell, Ohio Tiernan Towell, Nev. Price, Ill. Treen Preyer Pritchard Udall Ouie 'Ullman QUillen Railsback Van Deerlin Vander Jaat Renck Randall Vander Veen Vanik Regula ReussVeysey ? Riegle Vigorito Rinaldo ' Waldie Walsh Roberts Wampler Robinson, Va. ware Rodin? Roe Whalen White. Rogers Whitehurst Roncalio, Wyo. Whitten Roncallo, NZ. Widnall - Rooney, pa. wiggins nOse Williams RosenthalW Bob Rostenkowski Wiillssoonn, Roy Roush Charles H., Roybal Winn , Rousselot Calif. Wright Wyatt Wydler Wylie Wyman Yates Yatron Young, Alaska Young, Ga. Young, S.C. Young, Tex. Zablocki Zion Zwach NA-8 Beard Hosmer Burleson, Tex. Landgrebe Dickinson Satterfield Waggonner Young, Fla. NOT VOTINO-41 Anderson, Ill. Johnson, Colo. Price, Tex. Annunzio Jones, Ala. Rangel Arends Kluczynski Rees Armstrong McEwen Reid Brasco McKay Rhodes Brotzrnan Metcalfe Carey, N.Y. Mizell Clay Montgomery Collier Murphy, Ill. Collins, Ill. Owens Cotter Patman Dorn Pepper Gray Pickle Gude Podell So the bill was passed. The Clerk announced the following pairs: Mr. Annunzio with Mr. Owens. Mr. Rooney of New York with Mr. Pickle. Robison, N.Y. Rooney, N.Y. Runnels Stuckey Teague Wilson, Charles, Tex. Wolff Young, Ill. Mr. Cotter with Mr. Anderson of Illinois. Mr. Rangel with Mr. Gude. Mr. Brasco with Mr. Arends. Mr. Gray with Mr. Mizell. Mr. McKay with Mr. Brotzman. Mr. Podell with Mr. Price of Texas. Mr. Metcalfe with Mr. Reid. Mr. Teague with Mr. Montgomery. Mr. Wolff with Mr. Armstrong. Mr. Pepper with Mr. Rhodes. Mr. Kluczynski with Mr. Johnson of Colorado. Mr. Jones of Alabama with Mr. Collier. Mr. Carey of New York with Mr. McEwen. Mr. Clay with Mr. Rees. Mrs. Collins of Illinois with Mr. Runnels. Mr. Stuckey with Mr. Robison of New York. Mr. Dorn with Mr. Young of Illinois. Mr. Murphy of Illinois with Mr. Charles Wilson of Texas. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. PERMISSION TO POSTPONE FUR- THER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 69, ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION AMENDMENTS OF 1974 Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that further con- sideration of H.R. 69, the bill to amend and extend the Elementary and Second- ary Education Act of 1965, be postponed until Tuesday, March 26, 1974. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? Mr. QUIE. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I just want to point out that the Committee on Education and Labor tried to be fair to everyone by asking the Committee on Rules to pro- vide a rule that there be some days be- tween general debate and the consider- ation of the 5-minute rule, and 3 legis- lative days were set aside by the rule. That ought to be ample opportunity for anyone. We could have asked for a rule which would have permitted us to go right into the 5-minute rule after general debate and we would have been in the amend- ment stage right now. I understand some Members are not happy because they have not had enough time. All the information is available now that would be available a week from now for the Members to consider; so I really think it is unreasonable that we start delaying. It is primarily important that we get moving so the schools will know what next year's program will be like. Since the chairman of the committee asks that we put it over until a week from Tuesday, March 26, I withdraw my reservation of objection. I just wanted to let the gentleman know my displeasure. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PERKINS) ? Mr. STEIGER of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I object. The SPEAKER. Objection is heard. LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM (Mr. ARENDS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.) 11 1803 Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Speaker, I take this time to ask the majority leader if he will kindly announce the program for next week. Mr. 0 'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ARENDS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts. Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, in reply to the distinguished minority whip and act- ing minority leader, may I say that the program has been made up in the fol- lowing way. The program for the week of March 18, 1974, is as follows: On Monday there will be the call of the Consent Calendar to be followed by four suspensions: S. 1206, amend section 312 of Immigra- tion and Naturalization Act; H.R. 6371, Indian financing and eco- nomic development; H.R. 10337, Navajo-Hopi partition; and S. 2771, special pay bonus structure relating to members of the Armed Forces. On Tuesday there will be the call of the Private Calendar, to be followed by three suspensions: S. 2174, changes in definitions of widow and widower under civil service retire- ment system; H.R. 12503, Narcotic Adddict Treat- ment Act; and H.R. 12417, National Diabetes Mellitus Act. Mr. Speaker, under the rule adopted Tuesday the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, H.R. 69, must come up on Tuesday next. As the Members know, the chairman of the committee, in re- sponse to the requests of many Members, has asked for a further postponement of this matter because of the complexity of the formula that is in the bill, the formula the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. O'HARA) is going to offer as an amendent, and other formulas which are going to be presented. For example, Mr. Speaker, in my own home district, I understand the city of Boston loses $476,000, while my two other cities and three towns are making a net gain on the bill. There is tremen- dous concern among the Members of Congress who want to know how the dif- ferent formulas will affect their particu- lar areas. Some of the Members have six or seven counties, and it is not clear how their districts will be affected in total. That was the reason the chairman asked unanimous consent that the mat- ter go over to a week from Tuesday. Upon taking it up, it is expected that as soon as possible, the committee will rise and we will go into the program. In other words, we will take the matter up because there has been an objection, and we expect that the committee will rise Immediately. We think this is the fair thing to do because there have been so many requests by the Members of Con- gress on both sides of the aisle with respect to so many formulas that will probably be pending at that time. Therefore, I will have to include on the legislative program for Tuesday thi Elementary and Secondary Education Act. For Wednesday and the balance of the week we will have H.R. 12435, the fair labor standards amendments, subject Approved For Release 2001/08/30: CIA-RDP75B00380R000600190088-4 II 180-4 Approved For ReeaTecifigMaiCkteatL0B paM006001900884aich 14, 11174 to a rule being granted. Then, we have KR. 11929, the Tennessee Valley Auth- ority pollution control facilities, sub- ject to a rule being granted. After that we have H.R. 12920, the Peace Ceres authorization, subject to a rule being granted. In addi eon, we have H.R. 12412, For- eign Disaster Assistance Act, subject to a rule being granted. Then, we have H.R. 11989, Fire Prevention and Control Act, subject to a rule being granted. Finally, we will have H.R. 11105, nu- trition program for the elderly, subject to a rule being granted. Conference re- ports may be brought up at any time, and any further program will be announced at a later date. Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentlemen from Massachusetts that I am pleased that he did not con- sider the :primary in Illinois next Tues- day, because I think that a few years ago we established a precedent in the House that we would not be out of session on primary days. I hope we do not start that again. Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, I enure the gentleman from Illinois that it has no bearing on our decision. - Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased with the response of the gentle- man from Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask one further question of the distinguished majority leader. I notice that he made no reference to post-card registration. Has that been given any consideration? Mr. 0'NE1.1Je. Mr. Speaker, there are no plans for it for nein week. Mr.rzniKmrs, Mn speaker, wru the gentleman yiekl? Mr. AR:ENDS, Mr. Speaker I yield to the gentlemen from, Kentucky. Mr. PERKINS. Mr, Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman very remit for yielding tc me. Mr. Speaker, I renew my line ninnies- consent request to see if the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. STEIGER) Will th- draw his ebetection.. Mr. Speaker, I now ask unanimous consent that the consideration of HR. 89, the bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, be postponed untilTuesdaY, March 26, 1974. Mr. STEIGER of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, the Elementary and Secondary Educa- tion Act expires on the 30th of June, is that correct? Mr. PERKINS. That is correct, Mr. STEIGER of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I find obsoletely no reasor to believe that this House ought to abdicate its responsibility in the consideration of ESEA. The formula ie complicated It cuts across all States and all counties; it affects everybody somewhat different- ly, and every formula affects somewhat differently everybody in. this Chambee The rule under which this bill crane up clearly said that we would start the debate on 1 day, go over 3 legis- lative days, and then come, back and continue tale bill. Mr. Speaker, I must say in all honesty that if, in fact, we are going to go through this charade and if, in fact, by my objection?and I shall object-- we then get free a situation where we start the debate on .ESEA and then move that the Conanitttee rise, we ought to have a vote on that, in order to be fair to each side, and decide whether or not we should start consideration of the bill or not start consideration of it. If we decide we want the Committee to rise, so be it. That is. the way the ball- game is played. Mr O'Neerens Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. STEIGER of Veiseonsin. Of coursel I will yield to the distinguished majority leader. Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, the *com- mittee on Education and Labor has studied this matter since last August. A formula was finally worked out and passed the committee by a vote of 31 to 4. In view of the fact that there has been so much consternation among the Members on both sides of the aisle with regard ea the formula, does not the gen- tleman think it fair that we should give the Members of Congress this added week? We are not doing it by reason of the fact that there is a primary in Illi- nois. That is of no concern whatsoever. The Speaker has made the decision and has asked for the chairman of the committee to go along on a week's delay because he has had an un.usual number of requests concerning this matter, Mr. S'IEICIlal of Wiscenstri Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I am mindful and deeply re- spectful of the problems faced by the distinguished majority leader, both with- in the Congress and within the gentle- man's district. This bill, was reported by the Corn-. mittee on Education and Labor some weeks ago. The Committee on Education and Labor, if / may say so, labored long 'and hard to achieve a formula that would effectively reconcile and balance the needs of the poor and the disad- vantaged in the United States. I think the formula is a good one. recognize there are sonic Members in some States 'who do not believe it was fairly handled, but I think they have had more than an adequate chance to express their views. They are exceeding- ly well represented on the Committee on Education and Labor. The Members from the State of New York are a very sizable part of our Committee on Education and Labor. They know what happens to the for- mula. They have known for weeks what happens to the formula Mr. Speaker, I will again say to the House and to the distinguished majority leader that I simply do not believe that further delay is justified. Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, before the gentleman objects, will the distinguished gentleman yield? Mr. STEIGER of Wiscoasin. I yield to the gentleman from New eerseY. Mr. THOMBSON of NeW Jersey. Mr. Sneaker, I happen to represent one of the States which would be vitally affected by the formula in title I of the Elemen- tary and Secondary Education Act. Only this morning reeeived infor- mation that involves my State. I do not know who programs the computers for 1 ie several States and Counties. I had t line versions of the effect title I for- mula would have on the State of New Jersey and on the other States as well, but I particularize the State of New .1 eesey. I see no danger, I say to my friend, the eentiernan from Wisconsin, that the act eel expire June 1; out I do think most 5.acerely that a few additional days, the modest number of days that haVe been ,quested by the chairman of the Com- mittee on Education and Labor, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Premiss) night prove extremely valuable to each and every Member. The extremely complicated effect of the flow of dollars to the children in all ot our school districts should be eve lu- sted by each Member. Were I the gentleman from Wisconsin, I would probably make the objection a eek from now. However, I do ask the ntleman most respectfully not to ob- ject now so that we can evaluate the effect of this on our States and our counties and on our school districts. I de not think that any injustice will be cine by granting this request. Mr. S rEiGER, of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object. I am impressed and almost moved by the plea of the gentleman Is om New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I object. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objec- tem is heard. ADJOURNMENT OVER TO MONDAY, MARCH 18. 1974 Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan- imous consent that when the House ad- journs today, it adjourn to meet ore Mon- next. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts? There was no objection. DISPENSING WITH BUSINESS IN ORDER UNDER THE CALENDAR WEDNESDAY RULE ON WEDNES- DAY NEXT Mi. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan- imous consent that the business in order wider the Calendar Wednesday rule may be dispensed with on Wednesday next. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts? There was no objection. PERSONAL EXPLANATION Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 79, March 12, 1974, I was in the Chamber, placed my card La the box, but was not recorded. Had I been recorded, I would have been shown as present. PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES RE- LATING TO ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT Mrs, MINK. Mr. Speaker, a paella- nientary Inquiry. Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4 Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4 DATE74 WO .14 PAGE THE WASHINGTONWASHINGTON POST OVERNIMtL,?strsecy has become ai uktfortunate Jack oh1e.nA,mencin society, despite the best 'hopes of this nation's founders. Jar0Q5, son once tleclared_o_almistically: "Knowledge will forever govern _ .-,10.21_*ance?..a.nd a ze2.ple who mean to be their own ov- r 11,,AL:Linwst_arm themselves with the pewer ..know1cige ?JL?yeg." But those lofty ideals of 200 years past have 'been facing heavy weather for at least a generation, and there is every evidence that reviving such notions in the 'current climate of government in Washington and elsewhere remains a difficult task. Under the shroud of national security and other devices of secrecy, the bureaucrats go al;out their business without the knowl- edge and consent of the governed. This is so despite the fact ?that Congress provided the press and the people with a weapon?admittedly a blunt one?in the Freedom of Information Act of 1966. It gave the public a right to examine the documents in the possession of government ..agencies and thus the opportunity to find out what is `- being done in the name of the governed. But it's effec- tive use is much more the exception than the rule. Thanks to a- notable recent exception, we now know ,that in the 1960s, the late J. Edgar Hoover ordered his agents at the'FBI to undertake a "counterintelligence" program against what Mr. Hoover described as "black nationalist hale groups," among others. We know this . because Carl Stern of NBC News took the trouble to go into court and win a law suit tinder the Freedom - of Information Act. In theory, at least, FOIA reversed an older law that made disclosure difficult and estab- lished a policy that disclosure should be the norm and . denial of information the exception. Unfortunately, the act has not worked that way. For one thing, titere are --a number of frustrating exceptions to the act. Beyond that, its mechanism is so cumbersome that only seven suits have been? filed by news organizations since the ...act was passed. 1 tSzne_nijiallap.19121,_. FOIA' s Aelleg,tiyenezsiajiate tutaze,?1,2.1_iLe..?0.0L5,1)1Peclia-111Q7ARY.e w, Ltiat_rizais in-Lnaglate?.and if tky... cannot get w t thsueed for a story, they must rnov_e_a_l' . journalists have been willing to take the time that the Freedom of Information Act now requires. Mr. Stern, for example, obtained the most recent set of documents on the FBI counterintelligence program 26 months after first seeking them. 'the?tionof ,Repmeritatiyes moved decisively this _week to reduce the burden on those who wish to make Ilsof the FOIA. It voted 383 .to f_or_ an amendment jo the law proposed by Rep. William Moorhead (H-Pa.). .he Moorhead Amendment does several important things to make the FOIA a better law. It reduces the iuxber of days an agency has in which to 0..y if it Intends to provide requested information voluntarily. It places in the hands of the courts the question of whether national security is sufficient reason for a given agency to withhold information. It allows plain- tiffs to recover their legal expenses if a court rules that an agency withheld material it should have turned over voluntarily. It adds the Office of Management and Budget to the list of agencies now covered by the act, and ,it requires all agencies to give an account to Congress each year of how it implemented the law. s,pozo,red ]yen. Edward M. Kenne_dy (klylass,), has cleared a subcommittee of the Judiciary C.ojnmittee and sbnuld he reartylor floor action shorty. The Nixon administration has made rumblings that could be the forecast of veto action, but that would be a meaningless gesture if the Senate action is as decisive as was that of the House. Attorney Ronald Plesser, who heads the Freedom of Information Clearinghouse and who represented Mr. Stern in his suit against the FBI, has estimated that this new legislation ' could have reduced the elapsed time of the Stern case from 26 months to six months. That is more in keeping with the needs of justice and the public's right to know what its government is up to. lYillinzyp_s_uktitute,,,.for _azdafp,rmed, electorate exists in a democratic society, _ ,an,d the ,:ikover papers. make it clear once again Chow 41ang.g.r.o1hureaucratic secrecy can be to the _rights Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4 April 3, 1974 Approve4For Reese 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP751300380R000600190088-4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? Extensions of Remarks 'E 2079 fli ed his free thr?tthe other end, how- TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF THE of delivering these services. he fiscal sta- eve rid McNamara then tallied for Hand URBAN EMPLOYMENT ACT bility of the city can only e achieved by retaining, expanding and ttracting a solid 'to ma it 69-68. A pair f St, 'Paul turnovers enabled Hand to itiove head as Fries was fouled by Owsianko t rebounding scrap with 1:06 renlaining, an. the Hand center converted the one-and-on to make it 60-59. St. Paul,retalia by going to its strength, clearing the way to Noon to work one-on- one against Hand's B by Isleib. Noon beat Islelb to the hoop on a ? lye, scored a layup while being fouled, and nverted the free throw to Make it 62760 with seconds show- ing. A McNamara jumper 1 seconds later tied it again, then St. Paul he on for the final shot., The Falcons called a time out ?AT 10 sec- onds to go, then tried to work the ball to Noon again for the big Shot: Hand layed tion 1 dge se hoWrei? n -?. ec ou a e ? oo_ps .PatiTiereanedross?4essionand looked for the go-ahead score. Noon pas sed the ball to Corbin., who tossed in an 18- tooter to make it 66-64. As Corbin _released the bell, hewever, Noon took an elbow from rarmer, the foul Was whistled, and Mark stepped to the line for a one-and-one try. He made both shots, and St. Paul had a e8- 64 advantage. Another McNamara Score Cut the gap of two points with 1:10 left, but then St. Paul started to freeze the hall. Majewski was fouled, with 38 seconds to ?go, making the first shot but missing the second. Fries then scored' on a rebound with 19 secends to go to carve the margin down to one at 69-68, but Hand was still in a position where it had to foul to get the ball back. Majewski was finally fouled by VanDeven- ter with three seconds left, and after a time out John sank both shots to wrap up the victory. McNamara then scored at tile buZzer to leave the tail margin, fittingly, at one point. St. Paqi, rated No. 15 in the tourney tinichps the season with the best ,record 1 school history, 17-8, while Hand, ran d fifth, concludes the year at 19-6. It wag a banner evening for Har ord _ County Conference teams as South oLic defeated Naugatuck 71-57 inthe seco game of the twin bill to capture the de, A title. /t was the second time in three ars the league has had two champions. ast won Class A and Northwest tot C es B two years ago. Northwest then def dad its B title successfully last year. The ? uhle header drew a crowd of 6,479, a new ClAc record. St. Paul (71) Fld Fl Pts Kurban 3 0 6 Noon 14 5 33 Owsianko 3 1 7 Majewski 2 5 9 Corbin 7 0 14 Peliitier 1 0 2 Totals 30 11 71 Kam). (70) Fid Fl Pts Farmer 4 1 9 Ic.Na,msra 110 22 6 6 20 Lslelb ---- 0 0 0 Cassell. -r- 2 1 5 VantoeVen 6 2 14 Barry._..0 0 0 Tot ls 29 12 70 HON. JAMES V. STANTON OF OHIO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, April 3, 1974 Mr. JAMES V. STANTON. Mr. Speaker, I am today inserting into the RECORD another of the statements given in conjunction with my own before the House Economic Development Subcom- mittee on April 1. This is the testimony in support of the Urban Employment Act, H.R. 5808, offered by Joseph P. Furber, commissioner of economic development Judi-mg:Ay of Cleveland. Mr. Furber' -work in the field of economic develo -rnent has been widely praised, and I -am especially pleased to have his su ort 11 this effort: "PREt.ARED FOR THE m'ELOPDILTU5CO1VIMiTTEE OF Tru f'Wda'ks COMMITTEE _ .( By J ph P. Furber, Co issioner of ECQ110 Development, Cit. of Cleveland, April 1, 74) The divisi of econo development of -the departmen of huma resources and eco- nomic developm nt, in e city of Cleveland, Ohio, is specifics ly arged by ordinance 254-A-68, (Septems 23, 1968) to? ". plan and plement progams to atract new bus ss and industry and to assist the expan on o relocation of existing business or in stry; to ?ordinate the activ- ities and fad i ties of, an to cooperate with, public and rivate agenc s in the area of industrial evelopment an expansion, and 'to relate ederal and State ssistance pro- grams the economic need of the com- ONOMTC E HOUSE munri Th gh the division has not b en specif- ical charged with the respons lity for bu ness and industrial retention, is our b ief that the sentence beginning ". and cooperate with public and private:en- lea . . ." gives us this mandate. There e, 'It seems important to preface these rema with the statement that our most importan effort is business and industrial retention. The establishment of a healthy business climate achieved through a successful reten- tion program logically represents the best long-range plan for a mature city's business expansion. As you gentlemen are well aware, more than 80 percent of all business expansion is produced by existing business and industry. For that very reason our economic develop- ment strategy in Cleveland has been to con- centrate upon the "Bird in the Hand" as opposed to the "Bird in the Bush." The probleins encountered by mature ur- ban centers can be classified as follows: Municipal services, obsolescence and produc- tivity, economic dislocation, pollution abate- ment, and land acquisition. In the case of municipal services, a diver- sified industrial base as historically enabled Cleveland to grow. However, though the Cleveland S.M.S.A. continues to grow and prosper, economically speaking, the city has failed to keep pace with the region. Local efforts to develop and release even minimal supportive funds are further reduced because of the departure and closings of tax-paying employers. The resulting loss of real income to city employee and employer creates a greater dependency upon the city of Cleve- land for expanded municipal services. Only a vital and healthy city economy is capable ? tax base. H.R. 5808 add sses itself to this problem. The general obsol cence and marginal productivity of capi land, labor and entre- preneurship need be studied with an eye to finding inno tive concepts capable of overcoming the isadvantages of a physically deteriorating nd mature industrial region. The use of uman resources in affected in- dustrial a as, to function as a talent bank of leade ip, needs exploration. Human re- source e as worthy of venture capital in- vest nt as are land, buildings, and equip- me and perhaps of more lasting value. L al sources of capital need to be shown the vantages of encouraging economic vitality ithin the city. H.R. 5808 acts as an incen- tive for local investmentin central cities Economic dislocation occurs when employ- ees are unable to follow an employer when he moves to a suburban industrial park. The availability of housing and transportation tend to sever his e-,r?olionzitc_Aies_raost ,effec- tively, cloed _publitranswirtatton needs to be assessed in the light of whom it is de- signed to serve. Most certainly, it should best serve those members of its tax base most in need of its service. Technological advancements occasion still more job losses to the least skilled. Be- cause they lack the technology or training needed for our changing job market, they join the dislocated. A labor-rich manufac- turing industry must remain competitive to stay within the city. The more current move to service industries is not conducive to increasing personal property taxes nor to a large labor force. HR. 5808 encourages cen- tral city firms to solve these problems and remain close to the workforce which also conserves energy in this time of need. The effects of increasingly vigorous en- forcement of the Environmental Pollution Act, though urgently needed to halt the city's pollution in balance with the conser- vation of energy currently mandated, also coincides with Cleveland's economic decline. Every effort should be pursued which will help bring together those affected, so as to reduce the impact and cost of pollution abatement. MR. 5808 offers a way to over- come this problem by permitting investment in the latest machinery and equipment. The land available for industrial expan- 'ion within a mature city is generally more tly? less accessible, and more difficult to a- -mble in usable parcels. Available land ma contain homes; be landlocked by rail- roa ? used for drainage; revert to a prior zonin or be subject to a variance upon sale; seem t eatening to a councilman, etc. There are ma reasons for this plight, and a thorough tudy and identification of the im- pediments to assemblage of usable land needs to be'us. Attention should be focused upon the pr ven concept of an improved land bank in t e city of Cleveland. H.R. 5808 specifically add sses itself to industrial land banks. Now I would li e to focus on how H.R. 5808 will help Cle eland's urban economy, particularly with re rence to specific indus- trial and commercial eeds. The act expresses a c ncern about business losses and industrial o tmigration from the central cities, that spea t. directly to Cleve- land's situation. For exa pie, in 1973, the city planning commission sported that be- tween 1966 and 1971 the cit lost 12,058 jobs and 258 firms. This has co ributed to an unemployment rate that is ? 'uble the na- tional average. On the other h nd, the sur- rounding suburbs in this sa five-year period gained 2,564 jobs and 107 rms. The city planning commission further timated ?-? Approved. For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4 -E2080 Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75B00384R000600190088-4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- Extensio s of Remarks April 3, 1974 that between 1970 and 19'75, 60,000 nem and 10,000 women will join the labor force, while 20,000 persons will retire. Of the 50 000 per- sons looking for work, there will only be about 300tiO jobs available. Thus, the pres- ent employment outlook is not encot raging for Cleveland. In keeping with our local legislative man- date, we have initiated and continue to sup- port, So ir nonprofit development corpora- tions which are working for the industrial and commercial Well-being of the localities whereiri they are located. Two additional area groups are in the process If being or- ganized, and they are the Collinwool Area Development Corporation and the St. Clair Addison Road Area. The existing local de- velopme at corporations are the Woodland East Community Organization, the Lakeside Area Development Corporation, the Detroit Shoreway Community Development Oragni- zation end the Buckeye Area (Cleveland) Development Corporation. All of these groups are eXeellent vehicles through which to carry out the intent of the proposed legislation, H.R. 5808 - Item?Them` area development corpora- tions are self-help in nature and are repre- sentative of large and small industries and commercial establishments. They are con- cerned shout both the present problems and the future of the neighborhoods of the cen- tral city where they are located. Item--As such, these groups cooperate closely 'frith the My and Would therefor represent excellent vehicles through whic funds could be granted or loaned as spel d out in title VIII of this legislation. Item--They account for a sizable nu ber of the jobs and taxes upon which the, on- omy of the city depends, i.e., Lecke, 6,100 jobs; W'WO, 2,500 jobs; DSCDO, 4,59s jobs; BADC, _400 jobs; SCARA, 5,860 J s; and CADCO, 609 jobs. Item--They are legal entities 1atlit they are incorporated with the State and at the same thee qualify for tax exempt status un- der the YRS Code 501(c) (3) or ;) (4 ) . Item--Each corporation is grounded on sound socio-economic studies/which set forth rationale for the said co ration and the recommendations for acti on felt needs of resident firms. These corporations are lready involved in the following projects: uxillary police pa- trols; neighborhood clfanup campaigns in cooperation with resi ts; area beautifica- tion as via shade tree lanting; coordination With city hall resou ?es and agencies; en- hancing a sense o community via street festivals, newslette and other community efforts; summer employment of youth; neighbo hood em ovment where and when legally possible. A number of ese nonprofit corporations are ores stitly ? lug comprehensive analyses of their needs nd are projecting short and long-range pla that will lead to ozograms for area devel ment and in-town industrial parks. These elude the following: Mini-lass stems, internal and external to the area; ys to alleviate crowded park- ing which are having serious con- sequences or residents and merchants as well as t Row of trucking suppliers, and custom( for industrial firms; establishment of Indus al clinics to meet OSHA standards; working ith city hall to vacate and/or pave streets, install high intensity lighting, re- zone c itingent property for industrial usage, and a4ulre vacant housing and demolish it for pl nt expansion or parking needs. In hart, these area development corpora- tion are ready, able, and most importantly, will ge-to avail themselves of parts A and B of this act, through loans and grants for lank ba aks, building dehabilitation or demo- lit n, and the like. The division of economic development is ready, willing and Able to assist. H.R. 5808 opens the door. Another area where this act will prove of vital benefit is in reference to p C "urban industrial development lcane", s., to aid in financing any projeet in she ntral city for the purchase or developrusnt f land and fa- cilities, and to guarantee I ns for working capital made to private ha owers by private lenders. Support for this prey on stems from the numerous retention c. that come to the attention of our de tment, specifically those firms which a in need of funds for land, plant facilit or working capital. Usually they are in a position to secure financing from ? ivate lenders, or if they are, they catua secure the necessary col- lateral from 1 rd parties such as govern- ment lending rogrants. It must be remem- bered, In examecticn, that Cleveland continues have a conservative banking climate. ? ey are not prone to make loans to busi as establishmeats involving any signifi t degree of risk--as where the firm may b small, or in the incubation stage; or wher it is located in what is perceived to be a nsitional. Or insecure neighborhood. Oer in of these firms could receive the n essary privets financing if they moved t of the central city. Thus, the provi- ion of loans and loan guarantees for busi- nesses in Cleveland will fill a much needed gap and help to prevent the flight of jobs and industry to the suburbs. Gentlemen, in conclusion I ask you to accept the three basic premises upon which our economic development strategy in the city of Cleveland Ls built: 1. A job IS, art integeal part of man's environment; , 2. Cleveland exists, as do other cities, to fulfill two economic nec ds: As a place to work and as a place to live; and 3. Central cities are handicapped due to the fact that they hole legal Jurisdiction over a geographic area hat does not cor- respond. to the sphere of their economic in- finence. In my opinion, the only Feedral agency that has addressed itself to the economic problems of mature urban centers is the leconomic Development Administration of the U.S. Department of Commerce. H.R. 5808 continues and expands upon that agency's good work. ADDITIONAL SUPPORT FOR FREE- DOM OF INFORMATION ACT AMEND1VEENTS HON. WILLIAM S MOORHEAD OP PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REMESENTATIVES Wednesday, April 3, 1974 Mr. MOORHEAD of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, another leading American newspaper has praised the action of the House in passing HR.. 12471, our bill to strengthen the Freedo:n of Information Act of 1966 (5 U.S.C'. 552). The Des Moines Register in a relent editorial spe- cifically referred to the amendment that Is contained in H.R. I.2471 that would permit Federal courts to review, in cam- era, Government documents ordered withheld because of security clasifica- tion markings, thereby undoing the mis- chief resulting from the Supreme Court's ruling in the Mink case last year. As the editorial so accurately states: Giving an Administration an Snreview- able right to hide information through the use of secrecy stamps is tantamount to mak- ing -the Freedom of Information Act worth- less. The House is on the right &reek with its action on court review Congress as well as private citizens have a -need to know" and a right to assurance that "national, security" isn't being used to hide information that be- longs in the public domain. Mr. Speaker, the full text of the edi- torial follows: From the Des Moines Register, Mar. 25, 19741 LIMITING OFFICIAL SECRECY The U.S. House has taken a step toward lifting the veil of government Secrecy by voting to give the courts power -CO look be- hind the secrecy stamps placed oh govern- ment documents. The Freedom of Information Aet is mia- owed to give the public access to a wide range of government information] However, the act exempts from disclosure nine classes of information, including :matter's "specif- ically required by executive order to be kept secret in the interest of the national defense or foreign policy." This exemption enables an admnistration to withhold documents simply by stamping them secret or giving them a similar security, classification. A circuit court of appeals ruled in 1972 that Judges are empowered under the Free- dom of Information Act to examine classified documents and order the non-secret portions disclosed, But the U.S. Supreme ',Court de- clared last year that judges are met author- ized to do this under the act. The ;court mid the law "makes wholly untenable any claim that the act intended to subject the sound- ness of executive security classifilrations to judicial review at the Insistence of any objecting citizen." Justice Potter Stewart agreed with the ma- jority, but he was sharply criticel of Con- gress. Justice Steware declared: , "[Congress] has built into the] Freedom of Information Act an exemption that pro- vides no means to question an exeutive de- cision to stamp a document 'secret,' however cynical, myopic, or even corrupt, that de- cision might have been . . . Without dis- closure . . . factual information available to the concerned executive agencies cannot be considered by the people or valuated by the Congress. And with the people and their Congress reduced to a state of igniarance, the democratic process Is paralyzed." ' Justice William Douglas added: "The much advertised Freedom! of Infor- mation Act is on its way to becoming a shambles. Unless federal courts can be trust- ed, the executive [branch] will hold full sway and make even the time of day 'top secret' . . . The executive branch now has carte blanche to insulate information from public scrutiny whether or not this informa- tion bears any discernible relater' to the interests sought to be protected hy [the ex- : emotions] of the act." The House has taken these rebukes to heart by voting to give Judges authority to examine documents whose disclosure is sought, to determine whether information is being withheld by use of illegal o1 improper security classifications. Giving an administration an unreviewable right to hide information through the use of secrecy stamps is tantamount to Making the Freedom of Information Act worthless. The House is on the right track with ite action on court review. Congress as well as private citi- zens have a "need to know" and a right to ; assurance that "national security" isn't being used to hide information that belongs in the public domain. Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4 Approved For Reledse 2001/08130 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000600190088-4 May 16, 1974 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE ituted therefor the text of S. 3344, as ported by the Committee on Labor a Tic Welfare with an amendment ill th ature of a substitute. The e tion was agreed to. The a nanaent was ordered to be engrossed d the bill to be read a third time. The bill read the third time and passed. Mr. MANSFI Mr. President, I ask unanimous conse that S. 3344 be in- definitely postpon The PRESIDING CER. Without objection, it is so orde d QUORUM C Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. esident, I suggest the absence of a qu , with the time to be charged equal to both sides. The PRESIDING 01.141.C.E.R. hout objection, it is so ordered. The cle will call the roll. The second assistant legislative cl proceeded, to'call the roll. Mr. ROBERT b. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unarlinious consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The Pltr stbracf OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. TRANSA=ON OF ROUTINE MORNING I3USINESS Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask inumimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of routine morning business. The PRESIDING 014q.CER. Without objection, it is so ordered. REPORT ON IMPLEMENT/NG PRO- VISIONS' OFbEFENSE APPROPRIA- TION ACT, 1914?MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT The VICE PREVIDENT laid before t Senate a message from the President the 17nited states, which was referre the Committee on Appropriations he message is as follows: To the congress of the 'Unite ates: In apcordance with Section (d) of the .Department of Defense propria- don Authorization Act, 1974 blic Law 93-155), I am pleased to it the fol- lowing report to the -Co ess on the progress made since lift, t report on February 20, 1974 in 'i ementing the provisions of Section 8 of the Act cited above. On April .25, re entatives of the United States and e Federal Republic of Germany sign a new offset agree.. merit covering ft years 1974 and 1975. The offset to be ovided during this two year period is ger in dollar terms and provides mor stantial economic ben- efits to us any Previous offset agree- ment At exchange rate of $1=DM 2.669, the lar value of the agreement is appro. tely $2.22 billion over the two ye riot The position of the agreement is similar to that of previous off- set ts, but there are a number res-that significantly increase its value to the United States, including substantial budgetary relief. As before. German military procurement in the United States represents the largest sin- gle element. In the present agreement it amounts to $1.03 billion (at $1.00=DM 2.669) . Other attractive features include German willingness to continue funding the rehabilitation of facilities used by American troops in the Federal Republic: to take over the payment of certain real estate taxes and airport charges in con- nection with US military activities in Germany: to purchase from the US Atomic Energy Commission enriched uranium, including enrichment services; and?for the first time in the framework of an offset agreement?to finance US- German cooperation in science and tech nology. As in the case of previous offset ag - ments, the new agreement makes i- sion for German purchases of ecial U.S. Government securities o nces- sionary terms. The significa terest savings resulting from an million loan over seven years at 21 ercent, to- gether with the above- i, tioned Ger- an contributions to o roop station- costs such as troop ilities rehabili- ta n and absorptio f taxes and air- Po ees, substant' y cover the addi- tion costs we by deploying our forces the F ml Republic rather than in e Uni States. Benefi ined in the agreement constitute jor element in the ef- fort to mee e requirements of Section 812. The r ent is the product of many th.s difficult negotiations, involy' not o the negotiators ap- poin y our two vernments, but also perexchanges the highest levels a two govenun y last report the Congress, I d that U.S. expen ures entering e balance of payments a result of e deployment of forc in NATO Europe in fulfillment of tre commit- ments and obligations in 974 are estimated to be approximately 1 bil- lion. That estimate still holds. I anticipate that the bilateral set agreement with the Federal Republ Germany, together with arrangeme involving other Allies, will meet the re quirements of Section 812. This will per- mit us to maintain our forces in NATO Europe at present levels. In this con- nection, I would like to point' out that the NATO study on allied procurement plans, which I referred to in my last re- port to the Congress, indicates that al- lied military procurement from the U.S. in FY 1.974 will be significant despite the fact that many of our Allies have suf- fered a worsening in their trade balance and face the possibility of even greater deterioration. I will provide the Congress with further information on satisfying the requirements of Section 812 in my August report. RICHARD NIXON. THE WHITE HOUSE, May 16, 1974. COMMUNICATIONS FROM EXECU- TIVE DEPARTMENTS, ETC. The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid be- fore the Senate the following letters, which were referred as indicated: REPORT Or SEcitETARY OF D A letter from the Deputy Se y of De- fense, reporting, pursuant aw, en dis- bursements made against appropriation Contingencies, Defense r current and prior years' obligatiorough March 3E, 1974. Referred to th ?mmittee on Appro- priations. APPROVAL OF L FOR CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN T PORTATION FACILITIES A letter f the Administrator, Rural Electrificat Administration, Department of Agric e, reporting, pursuant to law, on the royal of a loan to Square Butte Electr ooperative of Grand Forks, N. flak., to fl ce the land, land rights and Clearing re ed for the construction of certain mission facilities (with accompanying ers). Referred to the Conunitee on Ap- ropriations. REPORT ON CERTAIN PROJECTS PROPOSED FOR THE ARMY RESERVE A letter from the Deputy Assistant Sec- retary of Defense (Installations and Hous- ing), reportngi, pursuant to law, on seven projects proposed to be undertaken for the Army Reserve (with accompanying papers). Referred to the Committee on Armed Serv- ices. FACILITIES PROJECT PROPOSED FOR THE ARME RESERVE A letter from the Deputy Assistant Secre- tary of Defense (Installations and Hous- ing), reporting, pursuant to law, on a facil- ities project proposed to be undertaken for the Army Reserve, at Brockton, Mass., and Of the cancellation of certain projects (with accompanying papers). Referred to the Com- mittee on Armed Services. PROJECTS PROPOSED TO BE UNDERTAKEN FOR THE ARMY NATIONAL GUARD A letter from the Deputy Assistant Sec- retary of Defense (Installations and Hous- ing), reporting, pursuant to law, on eight projects proposed to be undertaken for the Army National Guard (with accompanying papers). Referred to the Committee on Armed Services. REPORT ON FEDERAL CONTRIBITTIONS PROGRAM EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES A letter from the Director, Defense Civil Preparedness Agency, transmitting, pursu- ant to law, a report on Federal Contribu- tions Program Equipment and Facilities, for the quarter ended March 31, 1972 (with an accompanying report). Referred to the Com- mittee on Armed Services. REPORT ON STRATEGIC AND CRITICAL MATERIALS STOCKPILING PROGRAM A letter from the Acting Administrator, neral Services Administration, transmit- pursuant to law, a report on the stra- c and critical materials stockpiling pro. gr. , for the 6-months period ended Decem- ber , 1973 (with an accompanying report). Refe d to the Committee on Armed Servic REPOR N ACTIVITIES OF THE U.S. TRAVEL SERVICE A letter 'm the Secretary of Commerce, transmittin ursuant to law, a report of the 'U.S. Tra Service, for calendar year 1973 (with companying report). Re- ferred to the ittee on Commerce. PROPOSED I.F.r/S/, ON FROM SECRETARY OE MERCE A letter from the retary of Commerce, transmitting a draft proposed legislation to amend section 90 ) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1956 (wi accompanying pa- pers). Referred to the nnttee on Com- merce. REPORT OF DISTRICT OF AGENCY A letter from the Director, lumbia Bail Agency, Wath mitting, pursuant to law, a Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000600190088-4 IIBISIA BAIL tract or co- .c., trans.. of that S 8346 Approved For Release 2001/08/30: CIA-RDP751300380R00060019 088-4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE to law, a proposed contract with W. A. Wahler & Associates, Palo Alto, Ciellf, for a research project entitled "Study of High Modulus Baelfirlil Systems" (with an accompanying paper). Referred to the Committee on In- terior and Insular Affairs. PROPOSED CONTRACT FOR A RESEARCH PROJECT A letter from the Deperty Assistant Sec- retary of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant to law, a proposed contract with Cities Serv- ice 011 Co., Tulsa, Okla., f er a research proj- ect entitled "Improved Oil Recovery by Mi- cellar-Polymer Flooding" (with an accom- panying paper). Referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. AUDIT' REPORT OF FUTCRE FARMERS 01, AMERICA A letter from the peasecient, board of trustees, Future Farmers of America Fou - dation, Inc., transmitting. pursuant to in a report of the audit of the accounts of t foundation, for fiscal yea" ended Dece r 31, 1973 (with an accompanying repo rented to the Committee on the Jud TEMPORARY ADMISSION INTO THE TED STATES OF CERTAIN ALIEN A letter from the COMMiSSIO migra- tion and Naturalization Servic apartment of Justice, transmitting, puns to law. re- ports on temporary admissio o the United States of certain aliens (a accompanying papers). Referred to the mittee on the Judiciary. REPORT ON CERTAIN Agency, for the calendar year 1913 (with an acco trying Mort). Referred to the Clout- mit tee the Distil& of Colutunia. Psopo EGSSLATION FROM Civil. Seavice. Creinenserme A lett m the Chairman, US Civil Service Co anion, transmitting a cloaft, of proposed le tion to amend the Social Security Actchange the effective tate of section 1862(c coincide with the effective date of 0, natio ealth insurance law (with accompa g 8). Referr ad to the Committee on Fi PROPOSES LEGISLA TX A letter 'from the tiation Board, trans posed lgoislation to Renegotiation Act of panying paper). Refe on Finance. FROIM run R BOARD GOTIA- an, the Renego- ting a draft of pro- nd and amend the (with an accom- r to the Committee REPORT ON INVENTORY FOREIGN Cu A letter from the Fiscal A Department of the Treasu pursuant to law, a report ONP1.7 SRO it1.111 SeCS'etary. ansmitting, tventory of nonpurabseed foreign curren as of De- cember 31, 1973 (with an aceo anytg re- port). Referred to the Commi t Fpreign Relations,. INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS ENT THE UNITED STATES A letter from the Assistant Lega for Treaty Affairs, Department, transmitting certain documents rel international agreements, other than It entered Into by the United States (wi companying papers). Referred to the mittee or. Foreign Relations. REPORTS OF COMPTROLLER CENLRLL A letter from the Comptroller General the United States, transmitting, pursuant t law, a report entitled "Federally Supported Attempts To Solve State and Local Court Problems: More Needs To Be Done," Law En- forcement; Assistance Administration, De- partment of Justice, dated May 8, 1974 (with an accompanying report). Refeired to the Committee on Government Operations. A letter from the Comptroller General of the United States, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled "More Ciempetition Needed in the Federal E'rocurerne at of Auto- raatic Data Processing Equipment,' General Services Administration, dated May 7, 197 (with an accompanying report). Referred the Conualttee on Government Operate A letter from the Comptroller Caner the United States, transmitting, Innen( to law, a report entitled "Need for Inorea Use of Value Engineering, a Proven Cos aving Technique, in Federal Constructio aulti- agency, Mated may 6, 1974 (with aecom- panylreetreport). Referred to t Commit- tee on Government Operations. A letter from the Conaptrol General of the United States, transznitti pursuer:it to law, a report entitled 'Inte Report on the Commodly Exchange Anth and on Com- modity Futures Tradin Department of Agriculture, dated May 1974 (with an ex- companying report). rred to the Com- mittee or Governrne Operations. PROPOSED CONCESSIO ONTRACT Wrrifin THE NATIONA ARE SYSTEIVI A letter from t Deputy Assistant Secre- tary of the Int r, transmitting, purauant to law, a prop concession contract under which Parer R rvation System will be au- thorized to ablish, maintain, and operate a comput -campsite reservation sestena for design areas within the National Park System f designated areas within the Na- tional Spirant (with accimpanying papers) teferred to the Committee on In- terior solar Metre. PROP CONTRACT Fort A RESEARCH PROJECT A tter from the Deputy Assistant Sere- tar- of the Interior, transmitting, pursuant INTO DT dviser e, A letter from the gration and Natur rnent of Justice, t law, copies of or fector aliens (w Referred to ti diary. REPORT ON U COMMISSION- ON CIVIL RIGHTS A letter the Chairman, U.S. Commis- on on C Rights, transmitting, pursuant law, port entitled "Counting the Por- ten, 1970 Censue Count of Persons of S 1 peaking Ilackeroand in the United (with an accompanying report). Re- fer to the Committee cy.a the Judiciary. OF FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION. TMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND A let from the Office of Legislative Serv- ice, trait'- itting, for the information of the Senate, a epublication copy of the annual report of e Food and Drug Administra- tion, for t seal year ended June 30, 1973 (with an we manying reeort). Referred to the Connnitt on Labor and Public Welfare, REPORT Dram ABUSE COUNCIL A letter fro e Chairman of the Board, Drug Abuse Col 1, tranecnittnag, pursuant to law, a report at Connell, for the year 1973 (with an panning report). Re- ferred to the Co on Labor and Public Welfare. REPORT OF FEDERAL CTIVITIES UNDER THE VOCATIONAL RE ILLTATIOIN ACT A letter from the Sec :ty of Health, Edu- cation, and Welfare, trc pitting, pursuant to law, the final annual rt of Federal ac- tivities under the Vocatio Rehabilitation Act, for July 1, 1972 throt June 30, 1973 (with -an accompanying rep . Referred to the Committee on Labor and blic Welfare, PROPOSED LEGISLATION PROM D TMENT OF HEALTH, SDUCATION, 1150 FARE A letter from the Secretary of H th, Edo- ration, and Welfare transmitting raft of proposed legislation to provide assi nce to local educational agencies which are the process of eliminating disaimination m nority_ group isolation among studen faculty in elementary and necondary soh and for other purposes ( with accompa ing papers). Referred to the Committee o Labor and Public Welfare. FECTOR ALIENS WIT ISSIODRT, IM Mi - ion Service, Depart- milting, pursuant to relating to certain de- companying papers), onnaittee on the Judi- llay I6 162 ; PROPOSED LEGISLATION FRaN, SERVI(1,. COM MiESIO A letter front the C U.S. Civil Service Ccemnission, ing a draft of proposed legislation end chapter 83 of title 5, United Sta de, to establish time limitations in app at civil service retire-- meat benents, i or other purpcides (with all accompan paper). Referred to the Committee o t Office and Civil Service, PROSPECT oposn, G AcQUESITION OP SPACE ERA . .9., R VICE s AMAIN Y STE A - TioN ? A r from the Ai ting Services Admiinstration, trsuant to IRV, a prospectus propos- he ace uisitiOn of spec* in an fife ce build- to he constructed in Jackson, Miss. with ccompattying papers). Eeferred to the Com-. mittee on Public Works. A letter from the Acting Achninistrater, General Servicee Administration, transmit.- ting, pursuant to law, pvlspectuses Oroposio g entering into leases for space presently OK' copied at certain locations with accom- panying papers), Referred to the COmmittcc in Public Works. REPORT OP BUILDING ,PROJEI:T SURIJE1 SITHA. At ASES 41, A letter from the AC.ting Administrator General Services Administration, transmit- ting, pursuant to law, a report of Ruildine, Project Survey for Sitka, Alaska (-vith ac- companying papers). Referred to the Com- mittee on Public Works. AMENDMENTS TO PROSPECTUE.ES TOR PUBLIC BUILDING PROJECTS A letter from the AdMiDiStratOT,H0eneral Services Administration, transmitting, pur- suant to law, amendments ta the approved prospectuses for public building ; projects- it Lukeville, Ariz, and Laredo. Tex. (with accompanying papers), Referred to the Com- .?nittee on Public Works. REPORT ENTITLED `711E ECONOMICS OF CLEAN WATER-1973" A letter from the Administrator, U.S. En- vironmental Protection Agency, transmit- ting, pursuant to law, a meport entitled ?The Economics of Clean Water-19'73" (with an accompanying report). Referred to the Com- leittee on Public Works, PROPOSED LEGISLATION FROM ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION A letter from the Acting Chairrnan, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, transmitting a draft of proposed legislation to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and he Atomic Weapons Rewards Act ;of 1955. and for other purposes (with accompanying papers). Referred to the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. PETITIONS Petitions were laid before the Senate :aid referred as indicated: By the PRESIDENT pro tempore: A letter, in the nature of a petitiim, from he University of Michigan Medical Center. university Hospital, Ann Arbor, Mich., relat- ing to radiopharmaceuticals for diagnosis and treatment. Referred to the Joint Corn- inittee on Atomic Energy. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES The following reports of committees were submitted: By Mr. KENNEDY, from the COMITIIIteR on the Judiciary, with an amendment:; S. 2543. A bill to amend section 55t of title United States Code, commonly known as the Freedom of Information Act (Rept. No, (i3-454). Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4 . Approved For Release 2001/08/30 ? CIA-RDP751300380R000600190088-4 May 16, 1974 FREEDOM t"P -/?09 NtivrioN ACT AMENDMENTS Mr. 1Nti, Mr. President, I am pleased to file toda,y, on behalf of the Senate Ju4ielai7 Coinmittee a unani- mous report. recommending Passage of S. 2543, as emended. l'h9 bill contains a series of amendments to the Freedom of Information Act, which are intended to facilitate greater and more expeditious Public access to Government information and to strengthen the public's 'remedy against agencies and officials who violate the act. Last year the Subcommittee on Admin- istrative Practice and Procedure, in con- junction with two other subcommittees, held 11 days of hearings on freedom of information and Government secrecy. Following those hearings I introduced S. 2543, which contained a number of pro- posed changes to the FOIA designed to meet the problems with agency adminis- tration of the act that were brought out in our hearings. In February the sub- committee reported out my bill. I was pleased to have been able to work with the ranking minority member of the full committee, Senator HausicA, to develop a bill which was supported by every mem- ber of the comm4tee when ordered re- ported last week. I want to commend the Senator from Nebraska and his able staff for their efforts in developing the com- mittee bill which is being filed today. When I introduced S. 2543 I observed that "If the people of a democratic na- tion do not IMQW what decisions their government is making, do not know the basis on which those decisions are being made, then their rights as a free people may gradually slip away, silently stolen when decisions which affect their lives are made under the cover of secrecy." Former Chief Justice Earl Warren later last year made an impassioned plea for compelling "our public officials to keep the avenues of information open so the public can know and evaluate the character of their wort from day to day." "If we are to learn from the debacle we are in," said the Chief Justice, "we should first strike at secrecy in Government wherever it exists, because it is the in- cubator for corruption." Mr. President, S. 2543 reflects a strong commitment to promoting an open and responsive Government for all Ameri- cans. It is designed to provide the people with a stronger mechanism for keeping informed about what decisioris their Gov- ernment is making and to require that public officials keep the avenues of infor- mation open to the public. touring our hearings last year wit- nesses outside the executiye branch pointed out three major problems fre- quently encountered in obtaining infor- mation from the Government, under the Freedom of Information Act. First, they complained of consistent, unreasonable delays on the part of Government agen- cies in responding to requests for infor- mation. Too often these delays are brought about because agency officials do not want to disclose embarrassing in- formation, even though that information may clearly be required to be disclosed under the FOIA. Second, they expressed concern over the inability of Federal courts?after the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE ? Supreme Court's decision in EPA against Mink?to review agency decisions to classify documents in the interest of na- tional defense and foreign policy. Justice Potter Stewart, in a concurring opinion in the Mink case, had stated that Con- gress built "into the Freedom of Infor- mation Act an exemption that provides no means to question an executive deci- sion to stamp a document 'secret', how- ever cynical, myopic, or even corrupt that decision might have been." We were thus urged to build into the act a process that would allow judicial review of classifi- cation decisions. Third, they urged that Government officials be made more sensitive to the mandates of and more accountable un- der the FOIA. Officials handling FOIA requests have had little to lose by delay- ing responses or withholding records without justification. Few members of the public have the resources to go to court. News stories go stale with time, so the press loses its incentive after unrea- sonable initial delays. And possible em- barrassment to the agency or its constit- uency is always more likely to be avoided by withholding than by disclosure. Thus, there exists little incentive for an agency or official to follow strictly the letter or the spirit of the FOIA. I am pleased, Mr. President, that S. 2543 as amended addresses each of these important issues. One provision set defi- nite time limits for agencies to respond to an appeal of an initial denial. In very limited and extraordinary classes of cases, agencies may certify?with ap- proval of the Attorney General and pub- lication in the Federal Register?that 30 days are necessary for handling initial requests because of the large numbers of records and wide geographic distribution involved. And in unusual circumstances, narrowly defined by the bill, the agency may add 10 days to its response time for either the initial or the appeal period. This should give agencies sufficient time to handle FOIA requests, while not al- lowing them to be dilatory in their prac- tices. Each year they will have to report to Qongress on the time it takes to handle requests and appeals, so that there will be a regular monitoring of agency com- pliance with the time requirements of the Act Where agencies want to withhold docu- ments under a statute or Executive order as being classified in the interest of na- tional defense or foreign policy S. 2543 as amended provides that courts may ex- amine the documents themselves in cam- era and must determine whether in fact the documents were properly classified. The bill sets out procedures to protect particularly sensitive information, and it provides that courts should utilize an in camera examination only if they cannot resolve the matter on the basis of argu- ments and affidavits. But it firmly estab- lishes the principle of judicial review of? and accountability outside the executive branch for?agency decisions to classify material. Three provisions of the bill are di- rected at the problem of accountability and responsibility in the agencies for ad- herence to the requirements of the Free- dom of Information Act. To begin with, S 8347 the names and_positions of persons re- sponsible for agency denials of informa- tion must be conveyed to the requester at each stage, and cumulated and re- ported to the Congress annually. The ob- jective of this provision is not merely to single out publicly officials who work on FOIA requests, but to let them know that they must bear actual responsibility for denials that go out over their signatures. Another provision of the bill allows the imposition of attorneys' fees and court costs against the agency in many cases where the requester substantially pre- vails in litigation. The intention here is not to encourage unnecessary litigation, but to let the agencies know that these fees and costs will no longer be an effec- tive barrier to judicial enforcement of the FOIA for a large number of persons requesting information. Stricter adher- ence to the Act by these agencies should ensue. Finally, a new provision added to the FOIA puts teeth into its requirements; it allows courts to impose disciplinary sanctions against Federal officials who violate the act. An innovation in admin- istrative procedure, this Government ac- countability section provides that if a court finds Government records to have been withheld without a reasonable basis in law, the court ?shall order disciplinary action?up to a 60-day suspension? against the responsible Government of- ficial. The inclusion of this sanction for violation of the act clearly indicates a congressional commitment to openness, not secrecy, on the part of every officer and employee of the Federal Govern- ment. Mr. President, democracy is indeed a fragile commodity. In a government of, by, and for the people, the people must have a right to obtain information from their government. And the people must have available, as well, a mechanism for securing that information. The Freedom of Information Act embodies that right and that mechanism. Both are strength- ened by the bill being reported today. Mr. BRUSKA. Mr. President, the hall- mark of a democracy is an informed cit- izenry. It is elementary that the people cannot govern themselves if they cannot know the actions of their government. It is for this reason that we must remain committed to the goal of implementing the public's right to know to the greatest extent consistent with good government. To this end, Congress passed the Free- dom of Information Act in 1966. That act imposed on the executive branch an affirmative obligation to provide access to official information that previously had been long shielded from public view. Under that act, an agency must comoly with a citizen's request for information unless it can show that competing in- terests, such as the right to privacy or the national defense, require the infor- mation to remain confidential. While the Freedom of Information Act has, by and large, worked successfully, experience with the administration of the act indicates that some changes are necessary. In considering this legislation, the Judiciary Committee found that the primary obstacles to the act's effective implementation have been procedural Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4 S 8348 Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?SENATE May 76, rather than substantive. S. 2543 is de- signed to nereovethese obstacles. Its baste purpose is to facilitate more free and expeditious public access to the informa- tion the act obligates the Government agenates toedisclose. Senator KENNEDY has already outlined the provisions of the bill. The basic fea- tures of the bill I consider worth em- phasizing are the following: First, the bill requires agencies to pub- lish indexes of its records availebie to the public so that the citizen can know what information is held by the agency: Second, it prohibits excessive charges for the intermation requested; Third, it expedites public limas to Government information by requiring Government. agencies to respond to re- quests for information within smiled time periods; Fourth, the bill insoles responsible re- sponses to requests by holding accom- table those officials who withhold odor- mation without a reasonable basis: Finally, S. 2543 insures the integrity of the classification of a classified doc- ument by allowing the courts to review the document in camera. Mr. President, it is my view that this bill, as amended, will secure the right of the individual to gain access to all the official information that good goveni- ment arid lie rights of the individual will permit. Since the close of the hearings held on the Freedom of Information Act, Sen- ator lEaterreev and his fine staff have worked with me and my staff to draft a bill that, in the words of the Senate Judi- ciary Committee in considering the Free- dom of Information A: t in 1966, provides "a workable formula which encompasses, balances and protects all interests, yet places emphasis on the fullest responsible, disclosure" I believe that S. 2543 does just that. It has my unvarying support. 13y Mr. SPARXMAN, rn the Conm! en Banking, Housing Urban Affairs: S. 3511. An original 1 to increase the availability cif urgenti needed mortgage credit for the financing housing and o.;her purpose (Rept. No.9 Mr. SPARKMAN. . President, I am reporting eo the Sen today a bill cited as "The Emergency g Finance Act of 1974." This bill ould broaden ex- isting law with r et to the use of mortgage credit to the financing of housing and would icrease authoriza- tions for the con ration of exiseing housing assistance community devel- opment programs r fiscal year 1975. The hill is to provit temporary author- ity to update exi g programs until the provisions ofSenate-passed om- nibus bill, S. 3066, Housing and Com- munity Developme Act of 1971, can be mplemented. The Senate pas the omnibus bill on March 11 and is ting fot the House of Representative o mark ape com- panion version to plete congressional action on the mea I am hopeful that the two Rouses agree in conference soon on a final ye on and have it signed into law by the dent before the end of this fiscal yea If this is done, we would not need to ass the interim bill. The dilemma we are facing is how to aware that needed legislation is passed to continue existing programs in case the omnibus bill establishing new programs is not passed by July '1, 1974, without prejudicing passage of the omnibeta bill now wending its way through the House of Representatives. Our committee and the Senate worked hard and long on de- veloping and passing S. 3066, which is one of the most comprehensive and effective housing bills ever before the Congress. and it is extremely important that nothing be done to jeopardize its final pa ;Sage. Mr. President, I have kept in touch with the House leaders on the omnibus legislation and have been assured that a bill, somewhat reduced from the Senate version, will be forthcoming 'within the next few weeks. With this assurance, I believe it is best to hold op Senate pas- sae of the interim bill for a short while until a clearer picture emerges on the House action and the final approval by the Congress and the President of the omnibus legislation. If gull approval is assured, no action is needed on the in- terim bill. If, however, we see no hope for an omnibus bill, we would move the in- terim bill for prompt consideration by the House and the President. Mr. President, I should like to say word or two about 'the President's m sage on housing which came to the ate on Friday, May 10. The Presid s message was in two parts--one on i diete action and the other on legislative proposals. On the I t he urged passage of housing provis al- most all of which are contain the omnibus bill, S. 3066, already ed by the Senate. The second and most signi nt part of his message authorizes I ? ate ac- tion to be taken by the ury, the Government National Mo age Asso- ciation, and the FederaI ome Loan Bank System to increase ancial sup- port for the mortgage ? ket. Por the most part, the Presid implemented some obscure legislati authority al- reedy on the books. reeults of such implementation may helpful but the beneficiaries are un 1y to be the fam- ilies most in need assistance, and we will have to wait d see whether this action is enough ake any difference in the depressed te of home construc- tion at this tin With respect GNMA, the President would l contin e tandem plan author- it e given to p A last January to pur- chase mortgi s at a below market in- terest rate. that time, the President announced at GNMA would purchase 200,000 m gages at a 7% percent in- terest rat t now, 5 month later, only about on ourth of such mortgages has hem pt ased. On Frie.ay, the Presi- dent a ounced that he is authorizing GNMA ? purchase 100,000 mortgages at ar 8- cent interest rate. I do not un- ders d why the January program Is neiv so slowly. One reason given is the r rribly low production of the FHA air based on what I hear is the fright- ful low morale of local FHA staffs. If lb. lag in the earlier program is any criterion for the new program onder how significant an inmact we expect from the new proposal at an n higher interest rate. Furthermore, ender how helpful such a program be to the IOW and moderate tricorn Mlles where the greatest need exis ? ie statutory ceiling for GNMA mo ges is $33,000. The President arum d a $3.3 billion program so he m xpect practically all of the mortga ill be at the ceiling level. A $33,000 rtgage supports a $35,000 or even er priced hoiese so the question is miry moderate in.- come families T, aforti a $35,000 house at an interest e of B percent - I would h the same comment with ref ereace he President's $4 billion mortgage e gram financed through the Federal e Loan Bank System. The ceiling these mortgagee is $45,000 v inch i d finance homes priced well above i ,000. A program at such prices willlittle help to the moderate in- col ? erican family. third program is efen more ques- t( Ie because Treasury funds would namitted to help support a $3 billion gram of 8% percent mortgages with flings of $35,000 through the Federal ome Loan Mortgage Corporation, A 30- ear, $35,000 mortgage with an 8% per- cent interest rate would require a monthly amortization payment of $275. Adding the typical taxes, insurance and utilities would call for a total monthly outlay of about $375. To afford such a payment would require incomes of around $20,000 or more, or somewhere in the upper 15 percent of the income scale for American families. My cencern is that the middle-income American family is not being helped by this program. Federal subsidies amount- ing to millions of taxpayer dollars Will be used to benefit families at income levels well above the average, and nothing is being done for families at the middle or lower income levels. In fact, I wonder how much of this money might go to finance second homes for upper income families. The President has frozen funds for programs of benefit to the lower income families since January, 1973. One of the reasons given for the freeze Was the excessive cost to the Treasury. If the President wanted to be helpful and spur construction and provide housing where It is needed most, all he would have had to do was to release the FHA section '235 or 236 funds already appropriated by the Congress. I suppose in today's political environment, it is too much to expect the President to take this route. Perhaps once new legislation is passed whioh will reaffirm Congressional intent that the Government's first priority should be to assist the needy low and moderate in- come family, we shall see a more bah enced program coming forth from the Administration. In the meantime, I sup- pose we have no choice but to go along with the President's plan. It will help out some, but it is obvious that, until We get the omnibus bill passed and implemented. anything we do now is only a stop-gap measure. Mr. President, another area of con- Approved For Release 2001/08/30 : CIA-RDP75600380R000600190088-4