Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1683369
label
Freedom of Information Act Amendments
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1683369
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Freedom of Information Act Amendments
citationUrl
collections
Robert T. Hartmann Files
Robert Hartmann's General Subject Files
subjects
Freedom of information
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1683369
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-01-31
month
1
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1974-10-01
month
10
year
1974
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
0ccfa989dcb264f2
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 12, folder "Freedom of Information Act
Amendments" of the Robert T. Hartmann Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 12 of the Robert T. Hartmann Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Oct. 16
Mr. Hartmann said he would per-
sonally call Ken Cole about the
Freedom of Information memo.
(His position on this is the same
as Timmons. RTH's position is not
reflected in the memo and he doesn't
know why. He would like to receive
these things a little earlier so that
his position could be included in
the memo along with other staff
members.)
RTH is going to take care of this.
Joan 7878
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Neta -
Waven Henducks
came by + would like
the Freedom of Information
memo to R+ve from
Icen core . Please coll
Hendricks office + someone
will prin it up 6570
g
GERALD LIBRARY GERALD R FORD
RTH - This was given to Jerry
for the President just prior
to his meeting yesterday after-
noon (3:30pm, I believe)
um
File
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 10, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR:
ROBERT HARTMANN
FROM:
KEN COLE
SUBJECT:
AMENDMENTS TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
ACT
Attached is our memorandum on the Amendments to the Freedom
of Information Act.
I realize that the politics on this one could be sensitive
and would appreciate you taking a look at the memorandum
prior to its going to the President.
Many thanks.
why was this me around me not on ?
the Back Specification
I
cannot is MA 10/16
with
Tacked acque
Toed w w his Timmons tion Cole 10/16
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Mr. H:
Ken Cole's office just called
and said this is the original copy
and they need the President to
see it before the 3:30 p.m. meet-
ing today.
Neta
Oct. 10
gove Jury rm
THE WHITE HOUSE
ACTION
WASHINGTON
October 9, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
KEN COLE
SUBJECT:
H. R. 12471, AMENDMENTS TO THE FREEDOM
OF INFORMATION ACT
Background
The Conference bill passed the Senate by voice vote October 1 and the House
on October 7 347 to 2. As previous discussions with your legal staff have
indicated, the bill contains a severely objectionable provision providing for
judicial review of document classification. There are also difficulties with a
section permitting search and disclosure of law enforcement agency investiga-
tory files.
Utilizing your letter of August 20 to Kennedy and Moorhead, the affected Depart-
ments (State, Justice, Defense and CIA) as well as OMB and your Domestic
Council have worked extensively to moderate these provisions without substantial
progress, although a number of your concerns about other problems have been
accommodated. The Conference Committee maintained that the House and Senate
versions of the judicial review provision were virtually identical and that they
therefore lacked the authority to make substantial alterations. The best we were
able to obtain was some favorable legislative history in the Conference Report
and in the debate on the House floor (attached at Tab A). All affected agencies
except Civil Service strongly recommend a veto. The letter from Colby to you
so stating is attached at Tab B.
Options
Since the legislation was received here yesterday, you have basically two options:
1.
Sign the legislation. Recognize the political difficulties of opposing
"Freedom of Information"; have a signing ceremony; and issue a signing
-2-
statement which reinforces your Administration's interpretations of the
judicial review of classified documents provision and expresses your
intention to seek resolution of the constitutional issue in the courts
(Buchen)
2.
Veto the legislation and simultaneously transmit virtually identical
legislation with your proposed changes. This would be preceded by a
meeting with the senior Conferees when you endorse all aspects of their
bill but one, empathize with their inability to alter this provision in
Conference, but point out its crucial effect on the Executive; and ask
that they work toward immediate passage of your virtually identical
bill instead of attempting to override your veto. A draft veto message
is attached for your consideration in this regard (Tab C) (Ash, Timmons,
NSC, CIA, State, Justice and Defense recommend veto.)
Your legal staff is currently wrestling with the propriety of your using
the Pocket Veto because of the month-long recess. All vetos would, of
course, have to be uniform, but this possibility might make this option
more attractive.
Since either scenario involves Congressional participation, it is important to have
your decision in time to be effectuated before Congress goes home.
Decision
Option 1
Sign legislation
Buchen
Option 2
Veto legislation
Ash
Marsh
Timmons
Burch
NSC
CIA
State
Justice
Defense
UP-020
(SDX)
CHICAGO (UPI) -- THE SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS, SIGMA
DELTA CHI, FRIDAY STRONGLY CRITICIZED PRESIDENT FORD'S S VETO OF
LEGISLATION DESIGNED TO STRENGTHEN THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT.
"FOR A PRESIDENT WHO IS PUBLICLY COMMITTED TO A MORE OPEN AND
HONEST ADMINISTRATION TO OPPOSE SIGNIFICANT REFORMS IN FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION LEGISLATION IS BOTH STARTLING AND DISAPPOINTING, II SAID
RALPH OTWELL, CHICAGO SUN-TIMES MANAGING EDITOR AND NATIONAL
PRESIDENT OF THE 27, 000-MEMBER SOCIETY.
OTWELL SAID ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND EARLIER ENLIGHTENMENT OF THE
PUBLIC WOULD HAVE "SPARED THE NATION PROLONGED CONFUSION AND
TORMENT
BUT PRESIDENT FORD'S VETO SUGGESTS THAT HIS
ADMINISTRATION IS PURSUING A DISCREDITED POLICY OF COVER-UP AS
USUAL.
II
THE NEW LEGISLATION - 17 AMENDMENTS TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
ACT PASSED IN 1966 - PREVIOUSLY HAD BEEN APPROVED BY BOTH HOUSES OF
CONGRESS.
ONE OF THE KEY AMENDMENTS WOULD REQUIRE JUDICIAL REVIEW OF FOREIGN
POLICY AND DEFENSE INFORMATION BEFORE IT COULD BE WITHHELD.
IN VETOING THE AMENDMENTS, FORD THURSDAY SAID HE SOGN WOULD OFFER
HIS OWN PACKAGE OF LEGISLATION.
OTWELL SAID THE 230 MEMBER CHAPTERS OF THE NATIONAL JOURNALISTIC
SOCIETY WOULD BE URGED TO CONTACT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS FROM THEIR
AREAS IN HOPES OF MOBILIZING ENOUGH CONGRESSIONAL SUPPORT TO OVERRIDE
THE PRESIDENT'S S VETO.
UPI 10-19 10:02 RED
UP-020
(SDX)
CHICAGO (UPI) -- THE SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS, SIGMA
DELTA CHI, FRIDAY STRONGLY CRITICIZED PRESIDENT FORD'S VETO OF
LEGISLATION DESIGNED TO STRENGTHEN THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT.
"FOR A PRESIDENT WHO IS PUBLICLY COMMITTED TO A MORE OPEN AND
HONEST ADMINISTRATION TO OPPOSE SIGNIFICANT REFORMS IN FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION LEGISLATION IS BOTH STARTLING AND DISAPPOINTING, = SAID
RALPH OTWELL, CHICAGO SUN-TIMES MANAGING EDITOR AND NATIONAL
PRESIDENT OF THE 27,000-MEMBER SOCIETY.
OTWELL SAID ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND EARLIER ENLIGHTENMENT OF THE
PUBLIC WOULD HAVE "SPARED THE NATION PROLONGED CONFUSION AND
TORMENT.... BUT PRESIDENT FORD'S VETO SUGGESTS THAT HIS
ADMINISTRATION IS PURSUING A DISCREDITED POLICY OF COVER-UP AS
USUAL. il
THE NEW LEGISLATION -- 17 AMENDMENTS TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
ACT PASSED IN 1966 -- PREVIOUSLY HAD BEEN APPROVED BY BOTH HOUSES OF
CONGRESS.
ONE OF THE KEY AMENDMENTS WOULD REQUIRE JUDICIAL REVIEW OF FOREIGN
POLICY AND DEFENSE INFORMATION BEFORE IT COULD BE WITHHELD.
IN VETOING THE AMENDMENTS, FORD THURSDAY SAID HE SOON WOULD OFFER
HIS OWN PACKAGE OF LEGISLATION.
OTWELL SAID THE 230 MEMBER CHAPTERS OF THE NATIONAL JOURNALISTIC
SOCIETY WOULD BE URGED TO CONTACT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS FROM THEIR
AREAS IN HOPES OF MOBILIZING ENOUGH CONGRESSIONAL SUPPORT TO OVERRIDE
THE PRESIDENT'S VETO.
UPI 10-19 10:02 AED
GERALD
LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
From: Robert T. Hartmann
To: Paul miltich
a.m.
Date:
10/22
Time
p.m.
per onversation phone
Bot
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
10/22
2:58
Geoff Shepard said you requested this
info for Mr. Hartmann.
sj
never Flood THE
Draft
WHITE HOUSE
FACT SHEET
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT AMENDMENTS
The President today signed into law the Freedom of
Information Act Amendments, which will facilitate
timely access by the public to documents within the
Executive branch.
The President has publicly stated his commitment towards
a more open Executive branch and has worked personally
and closely with the Congress on this legislation.
The legislation will:
set strict time limits for agencies to respond
to requests for documents
require courts to give accelerated consideration
to litigation concerning requests for documents
permit the award of attorney fees to those who
are successful in court on gaining access to
disputed documents
ACTION
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 16, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
KEN COLE
SUBJECT:
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT AMENDMENTS
The last day for action on H. R. 12471 is Saturday, October 19, 1974.
Background:
The Conference bill passed the Senate by voice vote October 1 and the House on
October 7, 347 to 2. As your legal staff have indicated, the bill contains:
(1) a severely objectionable provision providing for judicial review
of document classification (Tab I);
(2) overly strict administrative time limit provisions (Tab II); and,
(3) a section permitting search and disclosure of law enforcement agency
investigatory files (Tab III) .
A full description of the legislation with these three problem areas numbered in
red is contained in the enrolled bill memorandum from OMB at Tab A.
Options:
1.
Sign the legislation. Recognize the political difficulties of opposing
"Freedom of Information"; have a signing ceremony; and issue a signing
statement which reinforces your Administration's interpretations of the
judicial review of classified documents provision and expresses your
intention to seek resolution of the constitutional issue in the courts.
2.
Veto the legislation and simultaneously transmit with your proposed
changes. This should be preceded by a discussion with the senior
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 24, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR:
RON NESSEN
FROM:
JACK MARSH gm
For your information I received a call today from
Mr. Roudebush, Administrator of the Veterans
Administration, who called to advise that Mr. Bob
Owens, an associate of columnist Jack Anderson,
had been in touch with them concerning the Chase
report on the Veterans Administration. Mr. Owens'
phone message was that Anderson had all or part
of the Chase report and they would begin running
portions of it this coming Sunday.
Mr. Roudebush explained that he did not know how
they could obtain a report because the Veterans
Administration could account for all of their copies
of the same. It occurred to me we might wish to
examine the report in order to be able to explain
the inquiries that are likely to occur.
cc: Ken Cole
Bob Hartmann
Don Rumsfeld
Phil Buchen
Bill Timmons
[
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Date 10/24/74
TO:
Robert Hartmann
FROM:
WILLIAM TIMMONS
FOR YOUR INFORMATION
FOR YOUR COMMENTS
FOR APPROPRIATE HANDLING
OTHER TP may sign
tomoriow. followup
to freedom of sufo
veto.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Dear Mr. Speaker:
As promised in my Message returning H.R. 12471, the
Freedom of Information Act amendments, to the Congress
without my approval, I enclose three draft amendments
to that bill which would eliminate the basis for my
veto if adopted. Also enclosed is a summary and
analysis explaining each of the proposed amendments.
I hope that the Congress will, upon its return on
November 18, consider these amendments on an urgent
basis. Enactment of H.R. 12471 with these modifica-
tions will produce truly significant and beneficial
legislation.
Sincerely,
Honorable Carl Albert
Speaker of the
House of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515
Enclosures
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Dear Mr. President:
As promised in my Message returning H.R. 12471, the
Freedom of Information Act amendments, to the Congress
without my approval, I enclose three draft amendments
to that bill which would eliminate the basis for my
veto if adopted. Also enclosed is a summary and
analysis explaining each of the proposed amendments.
I hope that the Congress will, upon its return on
November 18, consider these amendments on an urgent
basis. Enactment of H.R. 12471 with these modifica-
tions will produce truly significant and beneficial
legislation.
Sincerely,
Honorable James O. Eastland
President Pro Tempore
of the Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510
Enclosures
as
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Dear Ted:
Because of our previous correspondence on the Freedom of
Information Act Amendments (H.R. 12471) and your leader-
ship in moving this legislation through Congress, I wanted
you to have the enclosed amendments I have today submitted
to the President Pro Tempore.
While I realize we have had our differences on this bill,
I think they are few compared to the many compromises and
the substantial agreements which have been worked out over
the past several months. I ask your further help and co-
operation in obtaining early consideration of these proposed
amendments so that we may accomplish our common goal of
producing viable freedom of information legislation before
the close of the 93d Congress.
As before, Administration representatives are ready to
meet with you and your staff at any time to help work out
a final product.
Sincerely,
Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
United States Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510
Enclosures
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Dear Bill:
Because of our previous correspondence on the Freedom of
Information Act Amendments (H. 12471) and your leader-
ship in moving this legislation through Congress, I wanted
you to have the enclosed amendments I have today submitted
to the Speaker.
While I realize we have had our differences on this bill,
I think they are few compared to the many compromises and
the substantial agreements which have been worked out over
the past several months. I ask your further help and co-
operation in obtaining early consideration of these proposed
amendments so that we may accomplish our common goal of
producing viable freedom of information legislation before
the close of the 93d Congress.
As before, Administration representatives are ready to
meet with you and your staff at any time to help work out
a final product.
Sincerely,
Honorable William S. Moorhead
House of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515
Enclosures
Review of Classified Documents
Amendment to H.R. 12471
That Section 2 (a) of H.R. 12471 be amended by adding
at the end of proposed paragraph (1) contain therein
the following:
"Provided: That for matters described in
(A), above, a court has jurisdiction to
enjoin the agency from withholding agency
records and to order the production of any
agency records to the complainant unless
it finds that there is a reasonable basis
to support the classification pursuant to
such Executive order. The court may examine
such records in camera only if it is neces-
sary, after consideration by the court of
all other attendant material, in order to
determine whether such classification is
proper. "
2
Review of Classified Documents
This amendment would, as did the provisions it replaces,
permit a court to review documents classified by agencies
in the interest of national defense or foreign policy
and to insure the reasonableness of that classification.
However, the proposed language would permit a court to
review the document itself and to disclose the document
only if there is no reasonable basis to support the
classification. This amendment removes an unconstitu-
tional arrangement in H.R. 12471 as vetoed whereby a
highly sensitive document pertaining to our national
defense would have to be disclosed even if the classifi-
cation were reasonable. The new language simply provides
that after a review of all the evidence pertaining to a
classified document, including the document itself if
necessary, the document may be disclosed unless there is
a reasonable basis for the classification by the agency.
The burden of proof remains upon the agency to sustain
the reasonableness of the classification.
3
Time Limits and Costs
Amendment to H.R. 12471
That Section 1 (c) of H.R. 12471 be amended by:
a. Substituting the word "thirty" for the word "ten"
appearing in proposed paragraph (6) (A) (i) contained
therein; and deleting the second sentence of proposed
paragraph (6) (B) , and substituting therefor the
following sentence:
"No such notices shall specify dates that
would result in extensions with respect to
a single request for more than fifteen
working days."
b. Redesignating proposed paragraph (6) (c), paragraph
(6) (D), and inserting as new paragraph (6) (C) the
following:
" (C) If the agency finds at any time before
the filing of suit under subparagraph 552 (a)
(4) (B) above that the periods set forth in
subparagraph (A) above and any extension
available under subparagraph (B) above are
insufficient, it may petition the United
States District Court in the District of
Columbia for such further extension or
extensions as may be needed, setting forth
with particularity the reasons therefor
and with appropriate notification to the
person making the request. The court shall
grant such further extension or extensions
4
as are appropriate if it is persuaded that
the agency has proceeded with due diligence
in responding to the request and requires
additional time in order to make its deter-
minations properly. . II
That Section 1 (b) (2) of H.R. 12471 be amended by deleting
the period at the end of the second sentence of proposed
paragraph (4) (A) contained therein and adding the fol-
lowing:
" , except that the reasonable cost of reviewing
and examining records may be charged where such
cost is in excess of $100 for any request or
related series of requests. "
5
Time Limits and Costs
As vetoed, H.R. 12471 provides that following a request
for documents an agency must determine whether to furnish
the documents within ten days, and following an appeal
from a determination to withhold documents, the agency
is afforded twenty days to decide the appeal. In unusual
circumstances an agency may obtain an additional ten days
for either determination.
Time limits on agency action with regard to requested
documents are important additions to the public's right
to know of the operations of its Government, and several
agencies have already voluntarily adopted time limits for
their responses. Experience with these time limits
indicates that the restrictions in H.R. 12471 are imprac-
ticable. Because of the large number of documents often
requested, their decentralized location and the importance
of other agency business it would often be impossible to
comply with requests in the time allotted.
This amendment would provide thirty days for the initial
determination and would provide an additional fifteen
days in unusual circumstances. Furthermore, in exceptional
circumstances, the agency would be authorized to seek
additional time from a court if it could demonstrate due
diligence in responding to a request. For particularly
burdensome requests, an agency would also be permitted to
charge for the cost of reviewing requested documents if
such cost exceeded $100 for each request or each series of
related requests. This provision would help to defray
those unusual expenses in responding to requests for
documents at a time when we are seeking to limit our
Governmental expenditures. Furthermore, the additional
time afforded agencies in responding to requests will
lead to more responsive determinations and more efficient
use of agency personnel and resources, while still pro-
viding for prompt agency response to requested documents.
6
Investigatory Records
Amendment to H.R. 12471
That Section 2 (b) of H.R. 12471 be amended by adding
after the word "that" in the second line of proposed
paragraph (7) the phrase "there is a substantial pos-
sibility that"; by deleting the word "criminal" in
the seventh line of proposed paragraph (7) ; and by
adding at the end of that proposed paragraph the fol-
lowing sentence:
"Provided: That where the agency head, after
considering the results of a preliminary
examination of the files involved in the
request, personally finds, in light of (1)
the number of documents covered by the
request, (2) the proportion of such docu-
ments which consist of reports by Federal
or State investigative agents or from con-
fidential sources, and (3) the availability
of personnel of the type needed to make the
required review and examination, that appli-
cation of the foregoing tests on a record-
by-record basis would be impracticable, the
agency may apply such tests to the investi-
gatory file as a whole or to reasonably
segregable portions thereof; except that this
provision shall not be applied to files which
7
the agency has reason to believe contain
records which are not investigatory records
compiled for law enforcement purposes, nor
shall it protect from disclosure any records
which, as a result of the preliminary exami-
nation or for any other reason, do not require
further significant review or examination. "
8
Investigatory Records
The first portion of this revision is intended to render
more realistic the showing of harmful effect which the
Government would have to make in order to sustain the
withholding of investigatory records. It is simply not
possible in most cases to establish that release "would"
cause particular harm of the type described. But when
what is involved is harm so enormous as depriving a
defendant of the right to a fair trial, invading personal
privacy, compromising our law enforcement operations, and
endangering the life or physical safety of law enforcement
personnel, existence of a substantial possibility that
the harmful effect will ensue ought to be adequate reason
for withholding the document.
The second portion broadens the bill's protection of con-
fidential information provided to a criminal law enforce-
ment agency to such information provided to an agency
with civil law enforcement functions. There are several
agencies that perform important civil law enforcement
functions, and often civil law enforcement investigations
directly lead to criminal investigations. In these
instances it is essential that confidential information
furnished only by a confidential source be protected
from premature disclosure.
In the past, all records contained in investigatory files
compiled for law enforcement purposes have been exempt
from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.
Although such a categorical exemption is too broad,
Congress originally adopted that provision in 1966 because
of special characteristics of these files which the pre-
sent bill entirely disregards. First, improper release
of the information they contain can be exceptionally
harmful, and thus particularly careful screening is
required; second, many of these files are of enormous
size; and finally, the proportion of nonreleasable infor-
mation they contain is typically much higher than that
contained in other Government files. The combination of
9
these factors makes it impracticable in some situations
to devote the efforts of our law enforcement personnel
to a paragraph-by-paragraph screening of these files.
This is so whether or not the time which these personnel
take from law enforcement duties is paid for by the person
making the request. While this consideration does not
justify the categorical exception of all investigatory
files, it cannot be entirely ignored. The amendment will
enable the agency head himself to make a case-by-case
finding of impracticability, on the basis of specific
factors which can be reviewed by the courts. This
resolution is both reasonable and not subject to uncon-
trolled application by the Executive branch. The last
clause of the sentence also prevents this limited "investi-
gatory files" exemption from being abused so as to protect
records which are not investigatory records or which the
agency knows do not qualify for any specific exemption
from disclosure.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 25, 1974
Dear Sir:
President Ford's reasons for vetoing the freedom of information bill
have received far too little attention.
It seemed to me you would be interested in a full statement explaining
the President's views regarding the legislation.
I hope you find the attached paper useful and informative.
Sincerely,
Paul a. miltich
Paul A. Miltich
Special Assistant to the President
for Public Affairs
Enclosures (2)
Not printed or mailed at government expense.
REASONABLE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION BILL NEEDED
President Ford is hoping that when Congress returns to Capitol Hill
after the election the lawmakers will produce Freedom of Information Act
legislation he can sign.
The existing Freedom of Information Act went on the books in 1966.
It gives the public greater access to government documents. It empowers
the Federal courts to review agency decisions to withhold information and
places on the government the burden of providing that the withholding was
proper.
The President recently vetoed a bill aimed at strengthening the 1966
Freedom of Information Act by providing for more prompt, efficient and com-
plete disclosure of information. The President favored the legislation in
principle, but he found certain provisions in the bill unreasonable.
In vetoing the bill, the President urged Congress to modify it along
lines he was recommending and then return it to him for his signature.
The President wants stronger Freedom of Information legislation -- but
he wants legislation which is workable.
Critics of the President's veto have taken the attitude that rejection
of the congressionally-passed freedom of information bill is unthinkable.
Well, it's true that "freedom of information" is a catch phrase. Who in a
democracy is opposed to freedom of information? Better you should be against
motherhood.
-2-
Let's take a good look at the President's reasons for vetoing the
freedom of information bill sent him by the Congress. He took the action
reluctantly.
The President found three provisions of the bill objectionable.
One would authorize any Federal judge to examine agency records pri-
vately to determine whether those records can be properly withheld under
the Freedom of Information Act. This provision would reverse a 1973 Supreme
Court ruling which held that judicial review of classified documents should
be limited to determining whether the document was, in fact, classified --
and precluded private review by the judge focused on the reasonableness of
the classification. Under the new provision, the judge could overturn the
agency's classification simply because he found the plaintiff's position
just as reasonable.
The President felt that this provision endangered our diplomatic re-
lations and our military and intelligence secrets.
He said he could accept court review of classification except that
"the courts should not be forced to make what amounts to the initial clas-
sification decision in sensitive and complex areas where they have no partic-
ular expertise."
As the provision now reads, the President said, agency decisions deal-
ing with classification of documents would be given less weight in the courts
than agency determinations involving routine regulatory matters.
-3-
The President therefore proposes that courts be given review author-
ity over classification of documents but that they be required to uphold
the agency classification "if there is a reasonable basis to support it."
Mr. Ford's second objection to the vetoed bill was that it would per-
mit access to additional law enforcement investigatory files.
The President objected to an invasion of the confidentiality of FBI
files. He also noted that our already overburdened law enforcement agencies
do not have the numbers of personnel that would be needed to make a line-by-
line examination of each individual public request for such information.
The President proposed that more flexible criteria govern such infor-
mation requests, so that responding to the requests would not be so heavy a
burden.
Finally, the President objected that the vetoed bill set unreasonable
time limits for agencies to respond to requests for documents -- 10 days to
decide whether to furnish the document, and 20 days for determinations on ap-
peal.
The time provision, Mr. Ford asserted, should provide more latitude.
The President concluded that the bill as sent to him by the Congress
was unconstitutional and unworkable. But he endorsed its main objectives.
Fully cognizant of the people's right to know, the President stated in
his veto message: "I sincerely hope that this legislation, which has come so
far toward realizing its laudable goals, will be reenacted with the changes I
propose and returned to me for signature during this session of Congress."
######
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 17, 1974
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 12471,
a bill to amend the public access to documents provisions of
the Administrative Procedures Act. In August, I transmitted
a letter to the conferees expressing my support for the di-
rection of this legislation and presenting my concern with
some of its provisions. Although I am gratified by the
Congressional response in amending several of these provi--
sions, significant problems have not been resolved.
First, I remain concerned that our military or
intelligence secrets and diplomatic relations could be
adversely affected by this bill. This provision remains
unaltered following my earlier letter.
I am prepared to accept those aspects of the provision
which would enable courts to inspect classified documents
and review the justification for their classification. How-
ever, the courts should not be forced to make what amounts
to the initial classification decision in sensitive and
complex areas where they have no particular expertise. As
the legislation now stands, a determination by the Secretary
of Defense that disclosure of a document would endanger our
national security would, even though reasonable, have to be
overturned by a district judge who thought the plaintiff's
position just as reasonable. Such a provision would violate
constitutional principles, and give less weight before the
courts to an executive determination involving the protec-
tion of our most vital national defense interests than is
accorded determinations involving routine regulatory matters.
I propose, therefore, that where classified documents
are requested the courts could review the classification,
but would have to uphold the classification if there is a
reasonable basis to support 1t. In determining the rea-
sonableness of the classification, the courts would consider
all attendant evidence prior to resorting to an in camera
examination of the document.
Second, I believe that confidentiality would not be
maintained if many millions of pages of FBI and other in--
vestigatory law enforcement files would be subject to
compulsory disclosure at the behest of any person unless
the Government could prove to a court separately for
each paragraph of each document -- that disclosure would
cause a type of harm specified in the amendment. Our law
enforcement agencies do not have, and could not obtain,
the large number of trained and knowledgeable personnel
that would be needed to make such a line-by-line examination
of information requests that sometimes involve hundreds of
thousands of documents, within the time constraints added
to current law by this bill.
more
2
Therefore, I propose that more flexible criteria govern
the responses to requests for particularly lengthy investi-
gatory records to mitigate the burden which these amendments
would otherwise impose, in order not to dilute the primary
responsibilities of these law enforcement activities.
Finally, the ten days afforded an agency to determine
whether to furnish a requested document and the twenty days
afforded for determinations on appeal are, despite the
provision concerning unusual circumstances, simply unrealistic
in some cases. It is essential that additional latitude be
provided.
I shall submit shortly language which would dispel my
concerns regarding the manner of judicial review of classi-
fied material and for mitigating the administrative burden
placed on the agencies, especially our law enforcement
agencies, by the bill as presently enrolled. It is only
my conviction that the bill as enrolled is unconstitutional
and unworkable that would cause me to return the bill without
my approval. I sincerely hope that this legislation, which
has come so far toward realizing its laudable goals, will
be reenacted with the changes I propose and returned to me
for signature during this session of Congress.
GERALD R. FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE,
October 17, 1974.
# # # #
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 25, 1974
Dear Sir:
President Ford's reasons for vetoing the freedom of information bill
have received far too little attention.
It seemed to me you would be interested in a full statement explaining
the President's views regarding the legislation.
I hope you find the attached paper useful and informative.
Sincerely,
Paul a. miltich
Paul A. Miltich
Special Assistant to the President
for Public Affairs
Enclosures (2)
Not printed or mailed at government expense.
REASONABLE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION BILL NEEDED
President Ford is hoping that when Congress returns to Capitol Hill
after the election the lawmakers will produce Freedom of Information Act
legislation he can sign.
The existing Freedom of Information Act went on the books in 1966.
It gives the public greater access to government documents. It empowers
the Federal courts to review agency decisions to withhold information and
places on the government the burden of providing that the withholding was
proper.
The President recently vetoed a bill aimed at strengthening the 1966
Freedom of Information Act by providing for more prompt, efficient and com-
plete disclosure of information. The President favored the legislation in
principle, but he found certain provisions in the bill unreasonable.
In vetoing the bill, the President urged Congress to modify it along
lines he was recommending and then return it to him for his signature.
The President wants stronger Freedom of Information legislation -- but
he wants legislation which is workable.
Critics of the President's veto have taken the attitude that rejection
of the congressionally-passed freedom of information bill is unthinkable.
Well, it's true that "freedom of information" is a catch phrase. Who in a
democracy is opposed to freedom of information? Better you should be against
motherhood.
-2-
Let's take a good look at the President's reasons for vetoing the
freedom of information bill sent him by the Congress. He took the action
reluctantly.
The President found three provisions of the bill objectionable.
One would authorize any Federal judge to examine agency records pri-
vately to determine whether those records can be properly withheld under
the Freedom of Information Act. This provision would reverse a 1973 Supreme
Court ruling which held that judicial review of classified documents should
be limited to determining whether the document was, in fact, classified --
and precluded private review by the judge focused on the reasonableness of
the classification. Under the new provision, the judge could overturn the
agency's classification simply because he found the plaintiff's position
just as reasonable.
The President felt that this provision endangered our diplomatic re-
lations and our military and intelligence secrets.
He said he could accept court review of classification except that
"the courts should not be forced to make what amounts to the initial clas-
sification decision in sensitive and complex areas where they have no partic-
ular expertise."
As the provision now reads, the President said, agency decisions deal-
ing with classification of documents would be given less weight in the courts
than agency determinations involving routine regulatory matters.
-3-
The President therefore proposes that courts be given review author-
ity over classification of documents but that they be required to uphold
the agency classification "if there is a reasonable basis to support it."
Mr. Ford's second objection to the vetoed bill was that it would per-
mit access to additional law enforcement investigatory files.
The President objected to an invasion of the confidentiality of FBI
files. He also noted that our already overburdened law enforcement agencies
do not have the numbers of personnel that would be needed to make a line-by-
line examination of each individual public request for such information.
The President proposed that more flexible criteria govern such infor-
mation requests, so that responding to the requests would not be so heavy a
burden.
Finally, the President objected that the vetoed bill set unreasonable
time limits for agencies to respond to requests for documents -- 10 days to
decide whether to furnish the document, and 20 days for determinations on ap-
peal.
The time provision, Mr. Ford asserted, should provide more latitude.
The President concluded that the bill as sent to him by the Congress
was unconstitutional and unworkable. But he endorsed its main objectives.
Fully cognizant of the people's right to know, the President stated in
his veto message: "I sincerely hope that this legislation, which has come so
far toward realizing its laudable goals, will be reenacted with the changes I
propose and returned to me for signature during this session of Congress."
######
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 17, 1974
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 12471,
a bill to amend the public access to documents provisions of
the Administrative Procedures Act. In August, I transmitted
a letter to the conferees expressing my support for the d1-
rection of this legislation and presenting my concern with
some of its provisions. Although I am gratified by the
Congressional response in amending several of these provi--
sions, significant problems have not been resolved.
First, I remain concerned that our military or
intelligence secrets and diplomatic relations could be
adversely affected by this bill. This provision remains
unaltered following my earlier letter.
I am prepared to accept those aspects of the provision
which would enable courts to inspect classified documents
and review the justification for their classification. How-
ever, the courts should not be forced to make what amounts
to the initial classification decision in sensitive and
complex areas where they have no particular expertise. As
the legislation now stands, a determination by the Secretary
of Defense that disclosure of a document would endanger our
national security would, even though reasonable, have to be
overturned by a district judge who thought the plaintiff's
position just as reasonable. Such a provision would violate
constitutional principles, and give less weight before the
courts to an executive determination involving the protec-
tion of our most vital national defense interests than is
accorded determinations involving routine regulatory matters.
I propose, therefore, that where classified documents
are requested the courts could review the classification,
but would have to uphold the classification if there is a
reasonable basis to support it. In determining the rea-
sonableness of the classification, the courts would consider
all attendant evidence prior to resorting to an in camera
examination of the document.
Second, I believe that confidentiality would not be
maintained if many millions of pages of FBI and other in-
vestigatory law enforcement files would be subject to
compulsory disclosure at the behest of any person unless
the Government could prove to a court separately for
each paragraph of each document -- that disclosure would
cause a type of harm specified in the amendment. Our law
enforcement agencies do not have, and could not obtain,
the large number of trained and knowledgeable personnel
that would be needed to make such a line-by-line examination
of information requests that sometimes involve hundreds of
thousands of documents, within the time constraints added
to current law by this bill.
more
2
Therefore, I propose that more flexible criteria govern
the responses to requests for particularly lengthy investi-
gatory records to mitigate the burden which these amendments
would otherwise impose, in order not to dilute the primary
responsibilities of these law enforcement activities.
Finally, the ten days afforded an agency to determine
whether to furnish a requested document and the twenty days
afforded for determinations on appeal are, despite the
provision concerning unusual circumstances, simply unrealistic
in some cases. It is essential that additional latitude be
provided.
I shall submit shortly language which would dispel my
concerns regarding the manner of judicial review of classi-
fied material and for mitigating the administrative burden
placed on the agencies, especially our law enforcement
agencies, by the bill as presently enrolled. It is only
my conviction that the bill as enrolled is unconstitutional
and unworkable that would cause me to return the bill without
my approval. I sincerely hope that this legislation, which
has come so far toward realizing its laudable goals, will
be reenacted with the changes I propose and returned to me
for signature during this session of Congress.
GERALD R. FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE,
October 17, 1974.
#
#
#
#
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 25, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
PHILLIP AREEDA P.A.
I attach a brief statement of your objections to the vetoed
H.R. 12471 Amendment to the Freedom of Information Act.
I include a brief statement of the revisions you proposed to
Congress earlier today.
Defects in Vetoed Amendments to
Freedom of Information Act Amendments
1. Treatment of Classified Information.
Existing law exempts classified information from disclosure.
There is no judicial review of the propriety of the classification.
H.R. 12471 provided for de novo judicial determination of the
propriety of a classification. The burden of proof was on the
government.
H. R. 12471 went too far because it gave no weight to the
administrative determination. It seemed to force the judge
to examine every classified document in camera in order to
make his determination.
(The Conference Report acknowledged the difficulties with
the statutory language and indicated that the agency classi-
fication should be given substantial weight because of the
agency's "unique insights into what adverse affects might
occur as a result of public disclosure. " But the Conference
Report is not statutory language.)
My proposed revisions -- which were sent to Congress today - -
do the following:
Provide for judicial review of the propriety of a
classification.
Place the burden of proof on the government to
justify that its classifications have a reasonable basis.
Authorize in camera inspection by the judge where he
(or she) believes it to be necessary.
2. Investigatory Files.
These files have always presented two peculiar difficulties:
(1) Many of them are massive in size. (2) Very much of
the material in them is not to be disclosed, even under the
standards of H. R. 12471.
-2-
The existing Act recognizes this problem simply by
exempting "investigatory files" from disclosure.
I recognize that some reform may be necessary (1) to
permit disclosure of that which properly can be disclosed
even though contained in an investigatory file, and (2) to
prevent the possible abuse of inserting disclosable
material in an investigative file in order to immunize it
from disclosure.
H.R. 12471 overcame these difficulties of present law.
At the same time, it created a dreadful management
problem. It would apparently have forced the examination
of millions of pages of investigative files in order to dis-
cover disclosable sentences or paragraphs within such
vast files.
Finding the proper middle course has not been easy, but
I believe that my proposed revisions offer a constructive
approach.
I retain the H. R. 12471 tests for disclosure.
I do, however, provide for a way of dealing with
those particular vast files which seem mainly to
contain material not disclosable under the specified
standards.
At the same time I have added new provisions against
abuse.
3. Time and Costs.
H.R. 12471 provided an aggregate of 40 days for the adminis-
trative disposition of requests. This is too tight.
I suggest adding an additional 25 days for certain
cases. If the agency needs more time, it can
only obtain it from the courts.
H.R. 12471 provides that those requesting information may be
charged for the cost of finding it.
-3-
The same principle, I believe, should be applied
to the cost of reviewing and examining requests for
large volumes of material. My revisions so provide.
4. Conclusion. H.R. 12471 is in the main a good bill. With my revisions,
it will be even better.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 25, 1974
Dear Mr. Speaker:
As promised in my Message returning H.R. 12471, the
Freedom of Information Act amendments, to the Congress
without my approval, I enclose three draft amendments
to that bill which would eliminate the basis for my
veto if adopted. Also enclosed is a summary and
analysis explaining each of the proposed amendments.
I hope that the Congress will, upon its return on
November 18, consider these amendments on an urgent
basis. Enactment of H.R. 12471 with these modifica-
tions will produce truly significant and beneficial
legislation.
Sincerely,
Honorable Carl Albert
Speaker of the
House of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515
Enclosures
NOTE: Identical letter to President pro tem of Senate.
Review of Classified Documents
Amendment to H.R. 12471
That Section 2 (a) of H.R. 12471 be amended by adding
at the end of proposed paragraph (1) contain therein
the following:
"Provided: That for matters described in
(A), above, a court has jurisdiction to
enjoin the agency from withholding agency
records and to order the production of any
agency records to the complainant unless
it finds that there is a reasonable basis
to support the classification pursuant to
such Executive order. The court may examine
such records in camera only if it is neces-
sary, after consideration by the court of
all other attendant material, in order to
determine whether such classification is
proper."
2
Review of Classified Documents
This amendment would, as did the provisions it replaces,
permit a court to review documents classified by agencies
in the interest of national defense or foreign policy
and to insure the reasonableness of that classification.
However, the proposed language would permit a court to
review the document itself and to disclose the document
only if there is no reasonable basis to support the
classification. This amendment removes an unconstitu-
tional arrangement in H.R. 12471 as vetoed whereby a
highly sensitive document pertaining to our national
defense would have to be disclosed even if the classifi-
cation were reasonable. The new language simply provides
that after a review of all the evidence pertaining to a
classified document, including the document itself if
necessary, the document may be disclosed unless there is
a reasonable basis for the classification by the agency.
The burden of proof remains upon the agency to sustain
the reasonableness of the classification.
3
Time Limits and Costs
Amendment to H.R. 12471
That Section 1 (c) of H.R. 12471 be amended by:
a. Substituting the word "thirty" for the word "ten"
appearing in proposed paragraph (6) (A) (i) contained
therein; and deleting the second sentence of proposed
paragraph (6) (B) , and substituting therefor the
following sentence:
"No such notices shall specify dates that
would result in extensions with respect to
a single request for more than fifteen
working days. "
b. Redesignating proposed paragraph (6) (C) , paragraph
(6) (D) , and inserting as new paragraph (6) (C) the
following:
" (c) If the agency finds at any time before
the filing of suit under subparagraph 552 (a)
(4) (B) above that the periods set forth in
subparagraph (A) above and any extension
available under subparagraph (B) above are
insufficient, it may petition the United
States District Court in the District of
Columbia for such further extension or
extensions as may be needed, setting forth
with particularity the reasons therefor
and with appropriate notification to the
person making the request. The court shall
grant such further extension or extensions
4
as are appropriate if it is persuaded that
the agency has proceeded with due diligence
in responding to the request and requires
additional time in order to make its deter-
minations properly. "
That Section 1 (b) (2) of H.R. 12471 be amended by deleting
the period at the end of the second sentence of proposed
paragraph (4) (A) contained therein and adding the fol-
lowing:
", except that the reasonable cost of reviewing
and examining records may be charged where such
cost is in excess of $100 for any request or
related series of requests. "
5
Time Limits and Costs
As vetoed, H.R. 12471 provides that following a request
for documents an agency must determine whether to furnish
the documents within ten days, and following an appeal
from a determination to withhold documents, the agency
is afforded twenty days to decide the appeal. In unusual
circumstances an agency may obtain an additional ten days
for either determination.
Time limits on agency action with regard to requested
documents are important additions to the public's right
to know of the operations of its Government, and several
acencies have already voluntarily adopted time limits for
their responses. Experience with these time limits
indicates that the restrictions in H.R. 12471 are imprac-
ticable. Because of the large number of documents often
requested, their decentralized location and the importance
of other agency business it would often be impossible to
comply with requests in the time allotted.
This amendment would provide thirty days for the initial
determination and would provide an additional fifteen
days in unusual circumstances. Furthermore, in exceptional
circumstances, the agency would be authorized to seek
additional time from a court if it could demonstrate due
diligence in responding to a request. For particularly
burdensome requests, an agency would also be permitted to
charge for the cost of reviewing requested documents if
such cost exceeded $100 for each request or each series of
related requests. This provision would help to defray
those unusual expenses in responding to requests for
documents at a time when we are seeking to limit our
Governmental expenditures. Furthermore, the additional
time afforded agencies in responding to requests will
lead to more responsive determinations and more efficient
use of agency personnel and resources, while still pro-
viding for prompt agency response to requested documents.
6
Investigatory Records
Amendment to H.R. 12471
That Section 2 (b) of H.R. 12471 be amended by adding
after the word "that" in the second line of proposed
paragraph (7) the phrase "there is a substantial pos-
sibility that"; by deleting the word "criminal" in
the seventh line of proposed paragraph (7) ; and by
adding at the end of that proposed paragraph the fol-
lowing sentence:
"Provided: That where the agency head, after
considering the results of a preliminary
examination of the files involved in the
request, personally finds, in light of (1)
the number of documents covered by the
request, (2) the proportion of such docu-
ments which consist of reports by Federal
or State investigative agents or from con-
fidential sources, and (3) the availability
of personnel of the type needed to make the
required review and examination, that appli-
cation of the foregoing tests on a record-
by-record basis would be impracticable, the
agency may apply such tests to the investi-
gatory file as a whole or to reasonably
segregable portions thereof; except that this
provision shall not be applied to files which
7.
the agency has reason to believe contain
records which are not investigatory records
compiled for law enforcement purposes, nor
shall it protect from disclosure any records
which, as a result of the preliminary exami-
nation or for any other reason, do not require
further significant review or examination. "
8
Investigatory Records
The first portion of this revision is intended to render
more realistic the showing of harmful effect which the
Government would have to make in order to sustain the
withholding of investigatory records. It is simply not
possible in most cases to establish that release "would"
cause particular harm of the type described. But when
what is involved is harm so enormous as depriving a
defendant of the right to a fair trial, invading personal
privacy, compromising our law enforcement operations, and
endangering the life or physical safety of law enforcement
personnel, existence of a substantial possibility that
th e harmful effect will ensue ought to be adequate reason
for withholding the document.
The second portion broadens the bill's protection of con--
fidential information provided to a criminal law enforce-
ment agency to such information provided to an agency
with civil law enforcement functions. There are several
agencies that perform important civil law enforcement
functions, and often civil law enforcement investigations
directly lead to criminal investigations. In these
instances it is essential that confidential information
furnished only by a confidential source be protected
from premature disclosure.
In the past, all records contained in investigatory files
compiled for law enforcement purposes have been exempt
from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.
Although such a categorical exemption is too broad,
Congress originally adopted that provision in 1966 because
of special characteristics of these files which the pre-
sent bill entirely disregards. First, improper release
of the information they contain can be exceptionally
harmful, and thus particularly careful screening is
required; second, many of these files are of enormous
size; and finally, the proportion of nonreleasable infor-
mation they contain is typically much higher than that
contained in other Government files. The combination of
9
these factors makes it impracticable in some situations
to devote the efforts of our law enforcement personnel
to a paragraph-by-paragraph screening of these files.
This is so whether or not the time which these personnel
take from law enforcement duties is paid for by the person
making the request. While this consideration does not
justify the categorical exception of all investigatory
files, it cannot be entirely ignored. The amendment will
enable the agency head himself to make a case-by-case
finding of impracticability, on the basis of specific
factors which can be reviewed by the courts. This
resolution is both reasonable and not subject to uncon-
trolled application by the Executive branch. The last
clause of the sentence also prevents this limited "investi-
gatory files" exemption from being abused SO as to protect
records which are not investigatory records or which the
agency knows do not qualify for any specific exemption
from disclosure.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Bob Hartmann
TO:
FROM: PAUL THEIS pt
In case you missed it...
the NPC Record of this past week has
a good concise rundown on the new
Freedom of I formation la W (copy
attached).
REC
RD
Volume XXV
Number 5
Feb. 20, 1975
CLUB LUNCHEON
Senator Frank Church (D-Idaho) will be the speaker
at an NPC luncheon Thursday, Feb. 27. Chairman
of the Select Committee to Study Governmental
Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities,
Church will discuss the current inquiry into the CIA.
Relentlessly independent, Church has earned a
reputation for toughness in many areas including
campaign financing reform, pay raises for Congress
and Administrative officials (which he rejects). He
was also co-chairman of the Committee on Emergency
Powers of the Presidency. Club luncheons start at
12:30 p.m. Tickets are $6 each; call 737-2502.
(This is the first in a new series of reports by the Professional Relations Committee
of the National Press Club offered as a service to the members. It was prepared by
William J. Eaton of the Chicago Daily News.)
NEW FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
TAKES EFFECT FEB. 19
* * *
HERE'S HOW TO USE IT
A revised Freedom of Information Act, which takes effect Feb. 19, is designed to
give citizens quicker, easier access to documents in federal government files.
The 1974 amendments written into law over President Ford's veto do several things:
They impose strict deadlines on federal agencies to respond to requests;
While they still give the government nine specific grounds for denying
requests for documents, they define and limit the exceptions relating
to national security and investigatory records;
They put the burden of proof on the government to justify a claim of secrecy
when a request is denied and a citizen sues to get the information. Judges
are permitted to review documents to see whether "Top Secret" classifications
and other security labels are being misused to prevent disclosure of non-
sensitive information.
On the other hand, the 1974 amendments do not make the act a magical "open Sesame"
for reporters and editors. You must start the disclosure machinery with a written re-
quest and be ready to file a prompt appeal to the head of an agency if the initial
request fails. If your appeal is unsuccessful, you may want to seek a partial disclo-
sure, or go to court. Although Freedom of Information Act cases are supposed to be
(Cont. on Page 2)
handled speedily and the government may get stuck with your lawyer's bill if you win,
(6) Personnel and medical files whose disclosures would be a "clearly un-
going to court can be costly as well as +ime-consuming.
warranted invasion" of privacy. If your request touches on this area, you should
explain why you want the information so officials can weigh whether any invasion of
The show of strong Congressional backing for the new law, however, may well open
privacy resulting from disclosure would be "unwarranted."
more of the closed federal files without resort to litigation.
--(7) The exemption for "investigatory files" has been narrowed. It now covers
Here's a guide to the new law and some suggestions on how to get the greatest
investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes (such as FBI files) but
advantage from it:
only if disclosure of such records would: (a) interfere with law enforcement; (b)
deprive a person of fair trial; (c) constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal
DETAILS OF THE ACT
privacy; (d) disclose the identity of a confidential source and, in a criminal investi-
gation or lawful national security intelligence investigation, confidential information
TITLE: Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552. This means the law can be
furnished only by the confidential source; (e) disclose investigative techniques and
found in Volume 5 of the U.S. Code, section 552. The Code is available at law libraries
procedures; (f) endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel.
and most lawyers' offices.
This has been another widely used exemption.
THE REQUEST: The law says that you must "reasonably describe" the records you
(8) Reports prepared by or for an agency responsible for supervision of financial
want. You do not need the formal name of the document or report but describe it well
institutions, such as reports by the Securities and Exchange Commission on the New York
enough so that it can be found with a reasonable try. Give all the details you can.
Stock Exchange.
The request should be addressed to the agency having the records, its general counsel
or the agency official designated to handle FOI Act matters. Give your telephone
(9) Geological and geophysical data, including maps, concerning oil and natural
number in your letter to speed up things.
gas exploration by private firms.
FEES: The law allows the government to assess "reasonable standard charges for
ADVICE
document search and duplication." It says these fees may be waived if the agency
decides that release of the information primarily benefits the public at large. You
There are two organizations willing to help reporters exercise their rights under
could save money by asking to see the documents instead of having copies made. Your
the revised FOI Act. They are:
request may set a ceiling on such charges in advance.
Freedom of Information Clearinghouse, P.O. Box 19367, Washington, D.C., 20036.
TIMETABLE: A request for information, says the new law, must be answered within
This is a Ralph Nader spinoff. Contact Mark Lynch at 785-3705.
10 working days. If some or all of the requested information is refused, you must be
told of your right to appeal and given the name of the official, usually the agency
Project on Freedom of Information and the National Security, 122 Maryland Ave.
head, who will rule on it. With some exceptions, that decision must be made within 20
N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002. Run by former National Security Council aide Morton
working days from the time an appeal is filed. If documents are denied, an appeal
Halperin, this is sponsored jointly by the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
should be filed along with copies of the request and the denial.
and the Center for National Security Studies. Phone: 544-5380. It specializes in
documents held by the Defense Department, Central Intelligence Agency, State Department
If you lose the appeal or there is no response within the prescribed periods, you
and National Security Council.
may file suit in Federal court. The government must file an answer in 30 days, instead
of the customary 60 days, unless they win a delay by proving "exceptional circumstances."
SAMPLE REQUEST
EXEMPTIONS: There are nine justifications spelled out in the law for refusal
(Name and Address of Government Agency)
to disclose information. Study them before making a request.
Washington, D.C.
--(1) Documents properly classified as secret "in the interest of national defense
Dear (general counsel or other designated official):
or foreign policy." Under the 1974 amendments, however, Federal courts may examine a
claim of national security to see if it is being used to suppress material that would
Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, I hereby request
be politically embarrassing but not truly sensitive. Also, proper classification of a
access to, or a copy of, (describe the document) together with all appendices,
few pages of a report does not justify secrecy for the entire document.
annexes, or other materials attached to the (document).
--(2) Documents related "solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of
If any expenses in excess of $
are incurred in connection with this
an agency" that do not affect the public.
request, please inform me in advance for my approval. (A person may ask that
any fees be waived if furnishing the information could be considered as
--(3) Documents kept confidential by Federal law, such as income tax returns,
"primarily benefitting the public".)
applications for patents and completed census forms.
If you determine that some portions of the (document) are exempt from
--(4) Trade secrets and commercial or financial information furnished by a person
release, I request that you provide me with the remainder. I reserve my
on a privileged or confidential basis.
right to appeal any such decisions.
(5) Inter-agency or intra-agency communications, with views and recommendations
If you do not grant this request within 10 working days, I will
of officials on policy or legal matters. This has been a widely used exemption. Ex-
consider my request denied.
perts suggest it does not apply to factual reports or analyses, however.
Sincerely,
(Continued)
coming events
Thurs., Feb. 20
NPC Luncheon: Rep. Mike Harrington and Walter
Heitmann, Chilean Ambassador: CANCELLED
Mon., Feb. 24
Newsmaker Breakfast: Gerald Parsky, Assistant
Secretary of Treasury, media only, 8 a. m. *
Thurs., Feb. 27
NPC Luncheon: Sen. Frank D. Church (D-Idaho)*
Thurs., Feb. 27
Burgundy Enhancement Wine Tasting, President's
Room, 6 to 8 p. m., $15 per person*
RESERVATIONS for events marked with an asterisk (*) may be made now: 737-2502
JOB OPPORTUNITY
P/R DIRECTOR for racetrack. Media, PR managerial and special events background
preferred. Salary in low 20's. Must relocate. (R-126).
APPLICANTS: Send resume plus a cover letter for employer, outlining how your
backgr ound fills his needs, to NPC Employment Committee Chairman: Thomas G.
Riley, Manager, Goodyear Public Relations, 812 National Press Building, Washington,
D.C. 20045. Include job code and your NPC membership number.
NPC TRANSPORTATION TABLE: Dan Sweeney, Teamsters Legislative Director,
will be guest speaker in East Lounge, Feb. 21. Program begins at noon, and every-
one is welcome.
NEW NPC PHONE NUMBER: 737-2502 is the new reservations number for all club
functions, ticket requests and parties. Other club offices, including the main desk
for paging or information, will continue to use 737-2500.
GOURMET CORNER: Steak Night, Tuesday; Colorado Trout Night, Wednesday;
Lobster Night, Friday. (Lobster reservations needed by Thursday noon).
"MAKE NO MISTAKE, I'm biased, Federal Energy Administrator Frank Zarb
warned an NPC luncheon. Four alternative energy programs exist, Zarb said:
rationing, allocations, price setting or laissez faire. Rationing he dismissed as
not practical. Allocations are "cumbersome, disruptive and inequitable, and
by all means, "let's not do nothing. " As to questions about the auto industry doing
its part, Zarb said that DOT and EPA negotiations with car manufacturers are
progressing satisfactorily at this time. Zarb suggested one energy conservation
measure for the Press Club: not SO many bright lights at the speakers luncheons.
NATIONAL PRESS CLUB
RECORD
C
Phone: RE 7 - 2500
STAFF THIS ISSUE: Ray Courage, editor, Linda
Adler, Berny Krug, Ralph Patterson, Mark Plaisted.
Published weekly by the Publica-
Photos by Walter Fisk.
tions Committee of the National
Press Club, National Press Building,
EDITOR NEXT WEEK: Dennis S. Feldman, FAA,
Washington, D.C. 20045. Mailed to
426-3883. Send copy to editor, Press Club Record.
members weekly. except the Fourth
of July, first week of August, Labor
Day and Christmas week. Second
NPC OFFICERS President: WILLIAM W. BROOM, Ridder Publications; Vice President, ROBERT AMES ALDEN,
class postage paid at Washington,
Washington Post; Secretary, DON HILL, Landmark Newspapers; Treasurer, DAVID A. NELSON, Research Institute
D. C. $2 a year to members (in-
of America; Financial Secretary, CLARK HOYT, Knight Newspapers.
cluded in dues). Deadline: Monday
BOARD OF GOVERNORS Chairman, LINDA S. VANCE, Commodity News Service; Vice Chairman, RICHARD G.
noon; leave copy at Club desk or
ZIMMERMAN, Cleveland Plain Dealer; DON BYRNE, Traffic World; ROBERT E. FARRELL, McGraw-Hill World News;
ROBERT LEWIS, Booth Newspapers; MICHAEL POSNER, Reuters; VIVIAN VAHLBERG, Daily Oklahoman-Okiahoma
mail to issue editor.
City Times; KENNETH SCHEIBEL, Washington Bureau News, ex officio.