held that, "based on the AFRBA's record of making available emergency loans and educational assistance to its members and financial planning and other useful information to all military personnel, we have determined that the provision of these public interest-oriented services outweighs the invasion of privacy which results from receipt of the AFRBA's membership solicitation packet once each year." Recognition that FOIA disclosure of service rosters to organizations such as AFRBA was in the general public interest was reflected in the Senate Judiciary Committee report on S.774 in which the following language was included at page 22: "By requiring the courts to balance the interest in disclosure of The Committee's intention with respect to this language was evidenced in a letter to the Association sent by Senator Strom Thurmond, on September 6, 1983, in which he stated: "Thank you for your kind and thoughtful letter concerning my effort to provide language in the Judiciary Committee Report which will continue to allow the Armed Forces Relief & Benefit Association to provide insurance services to our Armed Forces personnel within Congressional guidelines. Be assured I was glad to help with this important matter which is beneficial to our military personnel." Position of AFRBA With Respect to Section 9 of S.774 AFRBA's principal concern is that the bill's contemplated modification of Exemption 6 contains language that prohibits release of "compilations or lists of names and addresses that could be used for solicitation purposes, the release of which could reasonably be expected to constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." The unavoidable likelihood is that this language will unfavorably prejudice an agency of the federal government in its examination of the Association's membership services, aside from insurance coverage, when it conducts the courtapproved balancing test to determine whether the interest in privacy is not outweighed by the public interest in disclosure. AFRBA fears that such language will be construed as lumping both commercial and non-commercial requesters collectively in an implicitly tainted category. The new language suggests that solicitation for any purpose, whether or not it is for commercial profit, is prohibited conduct. As a result, AFRBA not only would have to meet the threshold test of whether its annual mailing constitutes an invasion of privacy and a balancing test as to whether the mailing is unwarranted, but also each of such tests would be conducted under a heavy inference that the requester is engaging in proscribed "solicitation", an act the new statute implies is tainted per se. Clearly receiving from an agency a prospective member's name and the address of his unit of assignment (address) for the purpose of offering participation in the benefits of AFRBA is not an invasion of personal privacy, but an opportunity strongly desired by military personnel, as attested to by the 133,000 size of AFRBA's current membership. It is therefore recommended that the language of Section 9 in S.774 be modified to identify only solicitation for commercial purposes, thusly: "(6) records or information concerning individ- We also request that this Committee's report clearly preserve AFRBA's continued entitlements to names and station addresses under FOIA to enable military personnel to make an informed judgment of their insurance needs. Otherwise, I am fearful that servicemember protection will be abandoned to the large for-profit life insurance companies, whose business, being conducted as it is with armies of sales agents, and unfettered employment of media advertising and marketing techniques, will be unaffected by any lack of access to FOIA information. I would predict that AFRBA would atrophy over the next decade and become primarily an Association of retirees, with increasing costs and decreasing membership. The advantages of this Association's low cost group term life insurance coverage would be denied the active, National Guard, and Reserve personnel it was developed to protect. The two remedies we have requested, Mr. Chairman, will insure that our Association will continue to have access, through once a year mailings, to uniformed personnel everywhere ... and that our members will continue to benefit from our low cost coverage and services in peace and in war. Mr. ENGLISH. Mrs. Haskin. STATEMENT OF LYNN MARTIN HASKIN, PRESIDENT, WOMEN IN COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ACCOMPANIED BY LOUISE OTT, PUBLIC AFFAIRS DIRECTOR Mrs. HASKIN. We would like to thank Congressman Glenn English and the subcommittee for inviting Women in Communications, Inc. to present its views on S. 774, the Freedom of Information Reform Act. My name is Lynn Martin Haskin. I am assistant professor of journalism at Pennsylvania State University, Delaware County Campus. Currently, I am on leave and working as special assistant to the provost of Temple University in Philadelphia. Accompanying me here today is Louise Ott, public affairs director of Women in Communications, Inc. I am the national president of Women in Communications, Inc., a national organization of 12,000 women and men who work in all fields of communications-newspapers, public relations, advertising, magazines, broadcasting, journalism education, freelance writing, editing, and photography. The organization was founded 75 years ago this year, by nine women student journalists at the University of Washington in Seattle. Since that time, two purposes of our organization have endured, to work to preserve freedom of information, and to advance the progress of women in communications fields. Our testimony here furthers both of those goals. As communicators and as women, we are in a special position to have an impact on freedom of information and women's struggle to gain equality in the workplace. On both counts, we have experienced problems. As women journalists and communicators, we urge that access to government information remain as open as possible. As women striving for equity in the workplace, we must have access to information that documents the efforts of government, business, and industry to eradicate employment and other sex discrimination. WICI is allied with the other media organizations who have already appeared before you: The American Society of Newspaper Editors, the Society of Professional Journalists, Sigma Delta Chi, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the American Newspaper Publishers Association, to name a few. Like them, WICI opposes S. 774. We believe the changes proposed by S. 774 make information more difficult to secure, give Government agencies more reasons not to release information, and more time to ponder those decisions. The Freedom of Information Act, in its present form, is a useful and working tool for news and information gathering, research and documentation. WICI also works to help women advance in their communications careers. We cooperate with many other national women's membership and professional organizations on activities of mutual interest. We share expertise and exchange information. From this perspective, we want to call particular attention to one provision of S. 774 which we believe needs further comment and discussion. The expansion of the language in the business procedures section to include "commercial, research, financial or business information" could make affirmative action and other employment-related information nearly impossible to secure. The language of the section would permit companies to stamp as confidential all documents and data about the employment of women and minorities. Without narrow definitions, we fear that hiring and employment data on women and minorities would be labeled "research" or "business information," and therefore keep hidden from view of inquiring women's organizations who monitor enforcement and other activities of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. That section of S. 774, as proposed, would tilt the scales toward nondisclosure and would set off a series of complicated and timeconsuming procedures for agencies and the requesters; notifying all businesses about whom information is sought, taking comments, and eventually battling in court over the release of the requested information. In preparing our testimony, WICI consulted with two national women's organizations who research and monitor the employment of women and minorities in business and industry, and the enforcement efforts of the Government agencies concerned with affirmative action. The two groups are Women Employed and the Women's Legal Defense Fund. Although these groups are not the only women's organizations to use the Freedom of Information Act in their research and monitoring, they have developed expertise in affirmative action and employment practices. They freely share their findings with other organizations, like WICI, and coalitions of groups who do not have the resources to undertake this kind of data gathering. Nancy Kreiter, research director of Women Employed, a 10-yearold national membership organization based in Chicago, said, "The major basis of our monitoring activity could be wiped out if we couldn't get affirmative action information. We don't favor any change in the FOIA that would make it harder to get this kind of information." Kreiter said that Women Employed has experienced a "slowing down" of responses by the EEOC and the OFCCP during the past 3 years. "Now we must be very tenacious in keeping after the agencies, checking repeatedly and on a regular basis about their progress in fulfilling our requests." However, she said eventually all of their FOIA requests have been granted, after all avenues have been pursued, including legal intervention. Claudia Withers, staff attorney for the Women's Legal Defense Fund, a national membership organization based in Washington, also said that WLDF has experienced slower responses to their requests for affirmative action information. |