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
7336942
label
Message by the President to Members of Sigma Delta Chi [Ford Speech or Statement]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
7336942
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Message by the President to Members of Sigma Delta Chi [Ford Speech or Statement]
citationUrl
collections
White House Press Releases (Ford Administration)
Press Releases
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
7336942
levelOfDescription
item
productionDates
day
14
logicalDate
1974-11-14
month
11
year
1974
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
a7db257c2081606d
ocrText
Digitized from Box 4 of the White House Press Releases at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
A MESSAGE BY THE PRESIDENT TO MEMBERS OF SIGMA DELTA CHI
You are all concerned about my recent veto of the Freedom of Infor-
mation Act Amendments -- and understandably so.
Upon assuming the Office of President, I assured my countrymen that
mine would be an open and candid Administration. .To some people, my veto of
the Freedom of Information Act Amendments may have appeared inconsistent with
that pledge. Actually, it was not. Let me explain.
To begin with, I agree with nearly all of you that the Freedom of In-
formation Act should be strengthened. I would be delighted to sign legisla-
tion providing for more prompt, efficient and complete disclosure of infor-
mation. To that end, I have sent Congress proposals for modifying the
legislation I vetoed -- proposals that would meet my objections to the bill
while giving us a strong, workable Freedom of Information Act.
There were three major problems with the Freedom of Information Act
Amendments recently placed on my desk. These problems probably could have
been worked out beforehand, except that most of the House-Senate Conference
Committee's work on the legislation has been completed before I assumed the
Presidency. So I had been playing catch-up ball.
My chief objection to the bill I received is that it would authorize
any Federal judge to overturn any protective classification placed on certain
material by a government agency simply because the judge found the plaintiff's
position to be of equal, not superior, merit to the Government's. This is
neither good sense nor good law.
In my view, such a policy could, in some instances, adversely affect
our diplomatic relations and endanger our military and intelligence security.
I accept the concept of court review of classified materials. But
the courts should not be forced to make what amounts to the initial classi-
fication decision in sensitive and complex areas where they have no particular
expertise.
What I have proposed to the Congress is that the courts be authorized
to review classifications, but that the classifications should be upheld where
a reasonable basis exists to support them. And in determining whether a
classification is reasonable, the court would have to examine all other
available evidence before resorting to private examination of the classified
document itself. The burden of proof remains with the government to
demonstrate the reasonableness of the classification.
My second objection to the vetoed bill is that it would have allowed
an agency only 10 days to determine whether to furnish a requested document --
and then only 20 days for a ruling on a decision to withhold the document.
An additional 10 days would have been permitted in unusual cases.
These time limits are unrealistic. Therefore, I have proposed that
the two ten-day periods be increased to 30 and 15 days, respectively. If an
agency needs more time, it could seek an extension from the court. This
additional time would make it possible for the Government to give full respon-
sible consideration to each request -- and still facilitate a prompt response.
My third objection to the vetoed bill was that millions of pages of
FBI and other investigatory law enforcement files would have to be disclosed
at the request of any person unless the Government could prove to a court --
paragraph by paragraph -- that disclosure would cause one of the particular
harms specified in the amendment.
I maintain that in those cases where a substantial possibility exists
that specified harms would be caused by disclosure, a document should be
withheld. The potential harm we are talking about here could deprive defend-
ants of the right to a fair trial, invade personal privacy, compromise our
law enforcement operations and endanger the lives or the physical safety of
law enforcement personnel.
I want to sign good sound legislation strengthening the Freedom of
Information Act. That is why I have submitted to the Congress specific
language dealing with the three problems I have outlined for you.
As I have told the Speaker of the House and other Congressional
leaders, I believe that enactment of the Freedom of Information bill with
these changes would produce the truly significant and beneficial legislation
we all seek.
November 14, 1974
GERALD R. FORD