REAGAN INFORMATION POLICIES FACE THREAT FROM CAPITOL HILL

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP89B00236R000200190023-7
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 21, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 5, 2009
• Sequence Number: 23
• Publication Date: April 21, 1984
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

0
Approved For Release 2009/02/05: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200190023-7
? ? /' L-ZI/"7
Government Operations
Censorship, Lie Detectors Hit:
Reagan Information Policies
Face Threat From Capitol Hill
Concerned by what they consider
a Reagan administration policy to re-
strict public access to government in-
formation, press and civil liberties
groups, with the aid of influential
members of Congress, have begun a
counterattack.
The next salvo is expected to
come from the House Post Office and
Civil Service Committee, which is con-
sidering a bill barring censorship of
the writings of government employees
and limiting the use of polygraphs (lie
detectors) by federal agencies.
The bill (HR 4681) was intro-
duced in response to a controversial
administration policy decision made
in 1983 to expanfi the use of poly-
graphs and require lifetime pre-publi-
cation review of everything written by
some 120,000 federal workers.
Under pressure from Congress,
the administration has suspended the
policy, contained in National Security
Decision Directive 84, for the rest of
1984. However, some members fear
that although the practices are banned
governmentwide, individual agencies
may require employees to submit to
the provisions of the directive.
(Weekly Report p. 336)
Other attacks against the White
House policy have been mounted in
recent months. Press groups, with the
help of Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt.,
secured concessions before the Senate
passed a major revision of the Free-
dom of Information Act (FOIA) Feb.
27. As a result, while the bill (S 774)
does close off certain areas of informa-
tion, such as details of law enforce-
ment cases, it does not bar access to
information as broadly as the adminis-
tration originally proposed in 1981.
In addition, the bill contains-'sev-
eral provisions, backed by the press,
aimed at streamlining FOIA proce-
dures. (Weekly Report p. 511)
The Senate also passed a bill in
November 1983 (S 1324) empowering
the director of the CIA to prevent
freedom of information access to files
containing data on the agency's
sources and methods, but that mea-
sure also is less restrictive than the
administration originally had pro-
posed. (1983 Weekly Report p. 2479)
The House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence has ap-
proved legislation (HR 5164), similar
to S 1324, that contains provisions ad-
vocated by civil liberties groups allow-
ing legal challenges to decisions by the
CIA director to close files.
In addition, Sen.Qve Durenber-
ger, R-Minn., has introduced legisla-
tion to overturn the Reagan adminis-
tration's 1982 Executive Order 12356,
which provided guidelines on classifi-
cation of government documents.
While that order has resulted, ac-
cording to the White House, in an 18
percent reduction in the number of
new secrets, it also has tightened
classification of historical documents,
and they have been declassified at a
slower pace than before. Hearings in
the Senate Governmental Affairs
Committee are expected sometime
later this spring on the Durenberger
proposal.
"I don't think there's much ques-
tion" that the administration has pur-
sued a policy of keeping information
from the public, said Rep. Glenn En-
glish, D-Okla., chairman of the House
Government Operations Subcommit-
tee on Government Information.
"From its first days after being sworn
into office, from FOIA to new execu-
tive orders dealing with classification,
the administration has a general pol-
icy of, `Don't provide any information
unless you have to.' "
English has resisted the adminis-
tration's policy by moving slowly on
changes in FOIA. One Justice Depart-
ment official called his subcommittee
the "black hole of freedom of informa-
tion reform."
In addition, English has intro-
duced legislation to overturn a Justice
Department ruling that uses the Pri-
vacy Act to withhold certain informa-
tion requested under the Freedom of
Information Act. English called that
ruling "an opportunity for mischief by
those who don't support FOIA."
Charges of Secrecy
Reporters are quick to outline
what they see as Reagan administra-
tion efforts to close off the govern-
ment to them. In a recent column,
syndicated writer Jack Anderson
listed five examples of "how [Reagan]
has sought to control the flow of in-
formation to the public."
The Reporters Committee for
Freedom of the Press has a more ex-
tensive catalog. The committee sub-
mitted to the House Post Office Sub-
committee on Civil Service a list of 31
examples ranging from administrative
actions - such as excluding news me-
dia from covering the U.S. invasion of
Grenada - to legislative recommen-
dations, such as seeking a complete
exemption from FOIA for the CIA.
The administration defends its
actions as necessary to protect against
leaks of classified information, which
it regards as a serious problem. "The
"From its first days after
being sworn into office, from
FOIA to new executive orders
dealing with classification, the
administration has a general
policy of, `Don't provide any in-
formation unless you have to.' "
-Rep. Glenn English, D-Okla.
COPYRIGHT 1984 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.
Rep,,d-e,. prohibned i, bk a n pon e..pl by ed4o.fd LAHYL.
April 21, 1984-PAGE 931
Approved For Release 2009/02/05: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200190023-7
 Approved For Release 2009/02/05: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200190023-7
Government Operations - 2
unauthorized disclosure of our na-
tion's classified information by those
entrusted with its protection," Presi-
dent Reagan wrote to federal workers
Aug. 30, 1983, "is improper, unethical
and plain wrong."
The directive on polygraphs and
prepublication review, which pro-
voked the loudest criticism of all the
administration's actions, was an
amplification of existing policy.
A 1983 General Accounting Office
(GAO) report found that six agencies
- the departments of Defense, Jus-
tice, Treasury and Health and Human
Services, and the Postal Service and
Tennessee Valley Authority - used
tration issued National Security Deci-
sion Directive 84 in March 1983, al-
though details were not made
available until August. The directive
required about 120,000 federal work-
ers with access to certain classified in-
formation to submit for pre-publica-
tion review everything they write for
the rest of their lives.
In addition, the directive autho-
rized wider use of polygraphs in inves-
tigations of leaks of classified informa-
tion and imposed sanctions on
employees who refused to submit to
the tests.
The directive also required agen-
cies to set policies to govern contacts
through April 15, 1984. Mathias and
Eagleton, both ranking members of
the Senate Governmental Affairs
Committee, wanted an opportunity to
hold hearings on the regulations.
(1983 Weekly Report p. 2530)
But before the committee held
hearings, the administration an-
nounced that it had suspended the di-
rective. "This has been done to permit
consultations with Congress to con-
tinue, unaffected by an ongoing legis-
lative dispute on the provisions" of
the directive, Willard said.
Others argued, however, that the
suspension was insufficient. Some on
Capitol Hill said privately that the
suspension was timed to coincide with
confirmation hearings on the nomina-
tion of Edwin Meese III as attorney
general in order to defuse a potentially
contentious issue. (Meese, Weekly Re-
port p. 787)
Others said it left a loophole.
President Reagan "has not revoked,
withdrawn or otherwise disavowed the
suspended measures," said Landau.
"And as far as we know, they could be
reimposed tomorrow were it not for
the partial ban imposed by Congress
until April 15, 1984."
On March 20, national security
adviser Robert McFarlane wrote to
Rep. Patricia Schroeder, D-Colo., who
chairs the House Post Office Subcom-
mittee on Civil Service, informing her
that the directive will remain sus-
pended throughout the 1984 congres-
sional session.
"The presidential directive on pre-clear-
ance is a direct and we believe unconstitutional
prior restraint whose suppression power is
doubly reinforced by the polygraph and press-
monitoring provisions of the directive."
-Jack Landau, director, Reporters
Committee for Freedom of the Press
polygraphs. All but Defense and Jus-
tice used them primarily for investiga-
tions of criminal actions or employee
misconduct.
The report said the government
in 1982 employed 194 polygraph oper-
ators and had 14 under contract. Of
those, 28 employees and the 14 under
contract were used in connection with
national security matters.
The GAO also found that 7,805
articles, 2,887 speeches and 68 books
were reviewed in 1982 by federal agen-
cies prior to publication, and that 145
employees were assigned to that task.
From 1978 through 1982, six
agencies reported 328 unauthorized
disclosures, 21 of which were made
through writings and speeches.
The Directive
The spate of unauthorized disclo-
sures led to the creation of an interde-
partmental group made up of repre-
sentatives of the CIA and the
departments of State, Justice, Trea-
sury, Defense and Energy. It deter-
mined that the methods available to
the government to investigate leaks
were insufficient.
The group concluded that the in-
vestigatory system was "so ineffectual
as to perpetuate the notion that the
government can do nothing to stop
leaks of classified information."
In response, the Reagan adminis-
between employees and the media and
authorized the FBI to investigate
whether criminal laws were violated.
According to Acting Assistant At-
torney General Richard K. Willard,
author of the directive, "That direc-
tive included a number of measures to
prevent the unauthorized disclosure of
classified information."
However, at a closed hearing held
jointly by the House Post Office Sub-
committee on Civil Service and the
House Judiciary Subcommittee on
Civil and Constitutional Rights in
early 1984, Willard said the directive
would have stopped only a small per-
centage of the leaks he identified, ac-
cording to committee staff.
Whatever its intent, the regula-
tion provoked a firestorm.
"The presidential directive on
pre-clearance is a direct and we be-
lieve unconstitutional prior restraint
whose suppression power is doubly re-
inforced by the polygraph and press-
monitoring provisions of the direc-
tive," said Jack Landau, executive
director of the Reporters Committee
for Freedom of the Press.
Sens. Charles McC. Mathias Jr.,
R-Md., and Thomas F. Eagleton, D-
Mo., succeeded in attaching a provi-
sion to a State Department authoriza-
tion bill cleared in November 1983
(HR 2915 - PL 98-164) barring the
directive from being put into effect
PAGE 932-April 21, 1984
COPYRIGHT 19R4 CONGRESSIONAL OUARTERIY INC.
R,p.odu'.o p.ohibiNd r. hok a m p- nc.pl by .dioa.iul 6-1,.
Polygraph Ban
But Jack Brooks, D-Texas, chair-
man of the House Government Opera-
tions Committee, insists on plugging
the loopholes he says remain. Brooks
has introduced HR 4681, which would
prohibit government agencies from re-
quiring employees to submit to poly-
graph testing. The bill would permit
the use of such tests only for investiga-
tion of criminal activity and of leaks
- and employees would have to agree
to their use.
HR 4681 also would prohibit the
government from requiring employees
to submit books and articles written
by them for pre-publication review.
The bill would cover all govern-
ment employees except those in the
CIA and the National Security
Agency. However, other agencies are
seeking exemptions. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) is
currently reviewing agency requests
and is expected to report to Congress
by the end of April.
Approved For Release 2009/02/05: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200190023-7
 Approved For Release 2009/02/05: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200190023-7
s 0
In addition, Brooks and Post Of-
fice Committee Chairman William D.
Ford, D-Mich., have asked the GAO to
update its 1983 survey of polygraph
and pre-publication review use within
the federal government. When Ford's
committee receives the reports from
OMB and GAO, it plans to act on HR
4681.
The measure was not Brooks' first
attack on the administration's direc-
tive. In November his committee ap-
proved a report (H Rept 98-578) that
sharply criticized the directive and
recommended that it be rescinded.
Based on studies by GAO and the
Office of Technology Assessment, the
committee concluded that "the valid-
ity of the polygraph is not scientifi-
cally supported for the purposes and
manner of its use proposed by the ad-
ministration."
Furthermore, the committee said,
"The pre-publication review require-
ment will result in significant infringe-
ment of the free flow of information
and debate which is necessary for an
informed public and which has been
historically protected from prior cen-
sorship."
Five Republicans on the commit-
tee wrote in a separate statement that
they supported the polygraph use but
opposed the pre-publication review re-
quirement. Six other Republicans said
the pre-publication review should be
limited, rather than extend through-
out an employee's lifetime.
Freedom of Information
While the administration was tak-
ing a beating on National Security De-
cision Directive 84, it was winning a
partial victory on blocking certain in-
formation from public view.
Since entering office, President
Reagan has advocated tightening the
Freedom of Information Act to re-
strict the amount of information avail-
able to the public. According to the
administration, the act has been mis-
used by organized crime syndicates
and other lawbreakers to evade crimi-
nal investigations or retaliate against
informants.
The administration also has re-
ceived complaints from businessmen
that trade secrets and other informa-
tion they submitted to the govern-
ment were being released under FOIA.
In response to similar concerns,
the Senate Judiciary Committee spent
three years considering changes in the
law that would expand exemptions to
the act, particularly law enforcement
records, and protect commercial in-
formation submitted to the govern-
ment. But because of objections raised
by the news media and civil liberties
groups, legislation never reached the
Senate floor.
In late 1983 the committee
reached a compromise. S 774, reported
by the Judiciary Committee in Sep-
tember 1983 (S Rept 98-221) and
passed by the Senate in February,
would give the administration more
discretion to close certain files.
However, it also provides finan-
cial incentives for agencies to respond
promptly to requests and establishes a
uniform schedule of fees charged to
those requesting information. Both
"The pre publication review requirement
will result in significant infringement of the
free flow of information and debate which is
necessary for an informed public and which
has been historically protected from prior
censorship."
-The House Government Operations Committee
report on administration information policy
those changes were sought by media
organizations, such as the Reporters
Committee, to make the act work
more efficiently.
The Reporters Committee had
charged that the Reagan administra-
tion had virtually suspended fee waiv-
ers, which were routinely granted to
journalists and scholars, and that the
different rates charged by agencies to
search for the information requested
discouraged people from using FOIA.
Sen. Leahy, who argued on behalf
of the media organizations, said he
would have liked the legislation to ad-
dress other concerns, including the
president's executive order on classifi-
cation. Leahy is a cosponsor of Duren-
berger's bill overturning that order.
The bill would require agencies
classifying information to consider
first the public interest in disclosure.
But, Leahy said, "I am ... confi-
dent that Congressman English in the
House Government Operations Com-
mittee will pay particular attention to
these matters when they begin hear-
ings on this legislation."
English has said he will move
slowly on making changes in FOIA.
Noting that the act has undergone a
great deal of scrutiny in the courts,
English said that "any changes will
have to be made with equal care."
English also will have an opportu-
April 11 (HR 5164) carefully defines
the type of files that may be exempted
by the CIA director. Both bills require
the agency to search files in response
to. FOIA requests for information con-
cerning the person making requests,
information concerning covert actions
and information regarding suspected
CIA improprieties.
In addition, HR 5164 goes further
than S 1324 in providing a check on
the CIA director's discretion. The bill
expands the section permitting judi-
cial review of agency decisions, giving
judges more leeway in deciding
whether the CIA director should have
opened certain files.
The measure is now before En-
glish's Government Operations sub-
committee, which has not yet sched-
uled hearings.
English is less eager than his Sen-
ate counterparts to make changes in
laws governing public access to in-
formation. When he announced that
he would hold hearings on FOIA, En-
glish said the burden of proof was on
those who want to change the law. Ba-
sically, he said, the laws that are on
the books are adequate.
However, he said he has problems
with the way the Reagan administra-
tion interprets the laws - and "I
haven't come up with anything to
guarantee that they follow the law."I
COPYRIGHT 1984 CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC.
"P"d- proh.bn.d i, .fink or i. pon .rz.p by ediroriol cliem.
Government Operations - 3
nity to scrutinize S 1324, the Senate
bill allowing the CIA director to re-
move from FOIA coverage files that
contain information about the agen-
cy's sources and methods of operation.
According to Senate Select Intel-
ligence Committee staff, those files are
classified, and would be exempt from
the law in any case. S 1324 would free
the agency from taking the time to
look through them, thus, presumably,
making other requests proceed more
efficiently.
House Bill
Like S 1324, the version approved
by the House Intelligence Committee
Approved For Release 2009/02/05: CIA-RDP89B00236R000200190023-7