Page images
PDF
EPUB

Letters, statements, etc.-Continued

Excerpt from memorandum..

Page

997, 1001
1067

1080, 1091

Excerpt from statement of Lt. Gen. Floyd L. Parks___
Excerpt of letter from Hon. John E. Moss, to the Secretary of
Defense, June 29, 1956.

Parks, Lt. Gen. Floyd L., United States Army (retired), executive
director, National Rifle Association, and former chief, Army Public
Information Office:

Excerpt from Regulation SR 360-45-5, December 10, 1951----
Addition to policy defining the limitation, 1955---

Ross, Hon. Robert Tripp, Assistant Secretary of Defense, Legislative

and Public Affairs:

1039

1077

1078

931

1019

1008

930

930

Excerpt of memorandum re the story of the Indianapolis, June 6,
1956

989

AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL

EXECUTIVE AGENCIES

Part 5-Department of Defense, First Section

MONDAY, JULY 9, 1956

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT INFORMATION

OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met at 10 o'clock, a. m., in room 362, Old House Office Building, Hon. John E. Moss (chairman) presiding.

Mr. Moss. The subcommittee will be in order. I have a statement that I would like to read at this time.

The Government Information Subcommittee began a study of the Defense Department's information activities soon after the subcommittee was chartered in June 1955. This continuing study, which was carried out by the subcommittee staff in cooperation with representatives of the Department, has been intensified in recent weeks in preparation for the subcommittee's hearings with the Defense Department.

The study included the collection of complaints that the Department has restricted information from the public or Congress wihout necessity or justification; that some information released by the Department was twisted to express a particular viewpoint and that the Department has been following other information practices which restrict or channel the flow of information to the public and to Congress. These complaints came from newspaper organizations, reporters and columnists, from witnesses testifying at earlier subcommittee hearings and from other sources.

The staff study was carried out in close cooperation with Defense Department officials, particularly in the field of information classified for security reasons. The subcommittee has never had any intention of matching its judgment on presently classified material against the judgment of security officials in the Pentagon. It is, however, interested in the judgment exercised in the past, as revealed by material subsequently declassified, and in the policies and practices currently being followed by Defense Department officials engaged in the classification of material.

In general, the staff study covered the following areas:

(1) Whether the Defense Department is following the provisions of Executive Order 10501 which state that a person classifying a document should note on the document that it may be downgraded or

declassified after a certain event or date or upon removal of classified enclosures.

(2) Whether there is variation in classification procedures between agencies within the Defense Department.

(3) Whether there is variations among offices within the Defense Department in applying need-to-know standards for granting access to classified documents.

(4) Whether there is variations between the Department of Defense offices in the practice of segregating "pure" scientific information from scientific facts of military application.

(5) Whether procedures for security review of material submitted to the Department by magazine writers and reporters are uniform for all persons.

(6) Whether the removal of the "restricted" category of securityclassified information by Executive Order 10501 freed more information or resulted in the development of numerous other terms to define information which is withheld.

(7) Whether the Department's practices and policies restricting information are based on clear legal authority for their establishment. (8) Whether Secretary Wilson's order that all information released by the Defense Department constitutes a "constructive contribution" is still being followed and the practical effects of that order.

(9) Whether Secretary Wilson's memorandum of March 29, 1955, suggesting a sweeping reorganization of the Defense Department's public information activities, has been implemented, and whether the Department's present information organization is operating satisfactorily.

Various instances detailing the general restrictive practices about which there have been complaints are to be discussed during this series of hearings with the Defense Department. The hearings will serve as a basis for recommendations to remove any unnecessary restrictions on information and help improve the flow of information to the public and to Congress.

I would like to add this observation: This committee is most anxious to cooperate fully with the officials of the Department of Defense in developing the facts necessary for us to arrive at conclusions and recommendations that will be helpful to the Congress.

We have deferred to the request of the Secretary of Defense and the various service Secretaries that they be permitted to send substitutes to the extent that substitutes appearing on their behalf are in a position to give us the information we desire and need. We will continue to work in that way. Should it become necessary at any time, however, for the committee to seek the appearance of the Secretary or the service Secretaries in order fully to develop the facts in connection with its assignnment, we will at that time insist upon the appearance of those individuals.

Mr. Hoffman, do you have any question?

Mr. HOFFMAN. Only in view of your statement, I would like to have the names of those who made complaints, with a concise statement of the particulars of the complaint and the date when it was made.

Mr. Moss. You have the complaints in front of you, I believe, at the present time and any additional items which you feel you require will be made available to you by the staff.

« PreviousContinue »