7. In this investigation, were State or local law enforcement officials reluctant or unwilling to share information with NEA? 8. If ves, was this reluctance or unwillingness attributed to the Freedom of Information Act? 1) Yes 2) No 3) Unable to Determine Comments: 9. If informants were utilized in this investigation, were they reluctant or unwilling to fully cooperate with DEA? 10. If yes, was this reluctance or unwillingness attributed to the Freedom of Information Act? 1) Yes 2) No 3) Unable to Determine Comments: 11. In this investigation, did it appear that DEA investigative techniques and operations were known to the defendants? 12. If yes, do you think they vere revealed through the Freedom of Inforsation Act? 1) Yes 2) No 3) Unable to Determine Comments: 13. What effect did FOIA-related problems have on the outcome of this lavestigation? 1) Investigation Aborted _2) Investigation Significantly Compromised 3)Scope of Investigation Reduced 4)Significant Amount of Additional work Required 5) No Noted Effect PART B: Below are some questions which will allow you to express vour opinion of the Freedom of Information Act and its general impact on DEA operations. Each question will be followed by a positive and a negative answer and 5 possible responses in between. Assuming that number 5 represents the highest possible value and number 1 the lowest, please circle the appropriate number for each question. 14. To what extent has the Freedom of Information Act inhibited State and local law enforcement officials from sharing information with DEA? Greatly inhibited - 5 4 3 2 1 - No noted effect 15. To what extent has the Freedom of Information Act inhibited witnesses, defendants or informants from cooperating with DEA? Greatly inhibited - 5 3 2 1 - No noted effect 16. To what extent has the Freedom of Information Act lanibited DEA operations? 17. To what extent has the Freedom of Information Act inhibited the private sector from providing information to DEA? 18. Greatly inhibited - 5 General Comments: 3 2 1- No noted effect File No: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT SURVEY Type Case: Respondent's Name: In July of this year, Congress bexan a series of hearings which are anticlpated to thoroughly examine the impact of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) on the administration and operation of the Federal Government. In preparation for these hearings, the Department of Justice has requested DEA to assess the impact, if any, that the FOIA has had on DEA operations. As a first step la the analysis, DEA field offlcns vere asked last month to identify cases which documented difficulties encountered in various investigations as a result of the FULA. Where FUIA-related difficulties were identified, offices were requested to indicate the impact on the outcome of the Lavestigation. Since the responses received from the field offices clearly ladicated that problems related to the free exchange of information are present in a significant number of instances, a second phase of the analysis is now belag undertaken which will attempt to measure the extent to which these problems are occurring. The file number at the top of this page vas among approximately 400 cases randomly selected from a list of alÏ DEA file numbers initiated during 1980. Part A of this questionnaire pertains to the specific investigation that is noted above, while Part 9 seeks general responses. Comments, in each Lastance, are optional. I am asking each SAIC to distribute each questionnaire to the appropriate case agent/lavestigator or supervisor who should complete the questionnaire and forward it to DEA Headquarters, Management Analysis Division, Room 403, by September 11, 1981. I recognize that this represents additional tasking for the field; however, your responses to the questions contained in this questionnaire are of vital importance in our effort to secure amendments to the freedom of laformaiton Act. Should you have say questions, do not besitate to telephone Richard Smith or Jet? Kurtz at FTS 633-LUS4. Thank you for your cooperation. Aberta is simbi E Marion . HamoricK, ASSIStant PART A: The following questions refer to the investigation indicated above. Please check the appropriate answer. 1. Status of investigation: 1) Active ________ 2)Officially Closed________ 3) Pending. 2. Did this lavestigation lavolve the recruitment or use of confidential sources or witnesses or contact vita a State or local law enforcement Lgency? 3. In this lavestigation, was there difficulty in acquiring information from witnesses or defendants? 4. If yes, vas this difficulty attributed to the Freedom of Information Act? 1) Yes____ 3) Unable to Determine 2) No 2 Comments: 5. In this lavestigation, was there difficulty in acquiring laformation from the private sector (e.g., pharmaceutical firms, hotals, Western Union, etc.) 6. If yes, was this difficulty attributed to the Freedom of Information Act? 1) Yes Comments: 2) No 3) Unable to Determine 7. In this investigation, were State or local law enforcement officials reluctant or unwilling to share information with DEA? 1) Yes 2) No 8. If ves, was this reluctance or unwillingness attributed to the Freedom of Information Act? 1) Yes 2) No 3) Unable to Determine Comments: 9. If informants were utilized in this investigation, were they reluctant or unwilling to fully cooperate with DEA? 10. If yes, was this reluctance or unwillingness attributed to the Freedom of Information Act? 1) Yes 2) No 3) Unable to Determine Comments: 11. In this investigation, did it appear that DEA investigative techniques and operations were known to the defendants? 12. If yes, do you think they vere revealed through the Freedom of Information Act? 1) Yes 2) No 3) Unable to Determine Comments: 13. What effect did FOIA-related problems have on the outcome of this Lavestigation? 1) Investigation Aborted _2) Investigation Significantly Compromised 3)Scope of Investigation Reduced of Additional work Required 5) No Noted Effect 4)Significant Amount PART B: Below are some questions which will allow you to express vour opinion of the Freedom of Information Act and its general impact on DEA operations. Each question will be followed by a positive and a negative answer and 5 possible responses in between. Assuming that number 5 represents the highest possible value and number 1 the lowest, please circle the appropriate number for each question. 14. To what extent has the Freedom of Information Act inhibited State and local law enforcement officials from sharing information with DEA? Greatly inhibited - 5 4 3 2 1 - No noted effect 15. To what extent has the Freedom of Information Act inhibited witnesses, defendants or informants from cooperating with DEA? Greatly inhibited - 5 3 2 1 - No noted effect 18. To what extent has the Freedom of Information Act lanibited DEA operations? 17. To what extent has the Freedom of Information Act inhibited the private sector from providing information to DEA? Greatly inhibited - 3 3 2 1 - No noted effect 18. General Comments: Senator HATCH. Our next witness will be Charlie Rowe, who is editor of the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star. The subcommittee is pleased to welcome you, Mr. Rowe. Like Mr. Rose from the Justice Department, Mr. Rowe has also been a witness in some of our earlier hearings and has contributed greatly to the progress we have made on this issue. Mr. Rowe is the editor of the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star. He is before the subcommittee today as a representative of the American Society of Newspaper Editors and the National Newspaper Association. These associations represent a sizable portion of the daily and weekly newspapers in the United States. So, we look forward to hearing your testimony on S. 774, a bill that I think you have had a profound imprint on and have helped to develop. I hate to say this, but I have got to Chair another hearing at 10:30. So, if we could limit our statements to 5 minutes, I would really appreciate it because I do have some questions and I know Senator Leahy does. But I am pressured for time, and we will take, of course, the full statements and any other materials you would like to put in the record. STATEMENT OF CHARLES S. ROWE, EDITOR AND COPUBLISHER, FREE LANCE-STAR, FREDERICKSBURG, VA., ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION, THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEWSPAPER EDITORS, AND THE NATIONAL NEWSPAPER ASSOCIATION Mr. Rowe. It is sometimes hard for a southerner to speak very fast, Senator, but I will do my best. Senator HATCH. I know a number who can do pretty well at that, and you are one of them. Senator LEAHY. Mr. Chairman, I hate to cut into the time, but Senator Thurmond invited me to go down for the opening of the Thurmond Institute at Clemson. He and I were to have a debate on a particular issue involving economic matters. When the moderator said x number of minutes per side, and so on, Strom said, "Well, I think I ought to have double the time of Senator Leahy because he talks so much faster than I." I thought it was a good joke until I found out that that was exactly what they did. [Laughter]. Senator HATCH. Well, it was the Thurmond Institute. Senator LEAHY. It was the Thurmond Institute. At that point, I began to realize why it was so named. Senator HATCH. Mr. Rowe? Mr. Rowe. The American Newspaper Publishers Association, the American Society of Newspaper Editors, and the National Newspaper Association welcome the opportunity to express our views on S. 774, the Freedom of Information Reform Act. My name is Charles Rowe and I am the editor and copublisher of the Free Lance-Star in Fredericksburg, Va. The three groups on whose behalf I appear here today collectively represent the vast majority of newspaper publishers and editors in the country. It was our understanding until late Friday afternoon that we were also to offer our views on S. 1034, the Freedom of Information Improvement Act of 1983, which was introduced by Senator Leahy on April 12. However, some confusion arose as to whether I should address one or both bills, and consequently I will limit my statement today to S. 774. I would appreciate it if our full statement, which does address both pieces of legislation—— Senator HATCH. Without objection, we will put it in the record, and anything else you would care to put in on both bills. Mr. Rowe. Mr. Chairman, this is not the first time I have appeared before Congress and urged special care in any efforts to amend the Freedom of Information Act. During the last Congress, representatives of all major media organizations worked hard with you, Senator Leahy, Senator DeConcini, and other Senators to insure the preservation of the principles of openness inherent in this law. We commend you for your efforts. The bill that emerged from the Judiciary Committee last year, S. 1730, was a vast improvement over the original version of the bill and over the proposals of the administration. While we believe that the provisions of S. 774 and other bills represent a much better starting point for any discussions on amending FOIA, we still must urge careful deliberation, extensive discussion and action based solely on a fully substantiated record before any amendments to FOIA are enacted. The current FOIA is both a symbol of access and a very real tool which helps guarantee the right of the public to know. While we recognize that access must be balanced against the Government's need for some secrecy, we maintain that the current exemptions in today's FOIA, in large part, effectively strike that balance. We also believe that it is impossible to examine the need for amendments to FOIA in a vacuum. This law is firmly entwined in the informational matrix of our Government and society. Several components of this matrix have been altered recently by the current administration, and the changes, in our estimation, do not bode well for the public's access to information about the functioning of their Government. Some of the more troubling changes stem from the administration's effort to curb unauthorized informational disclosures through the recent Presidential directive on safeguarding national security information. This recent directive must be examined in conjunction with last year's executive order on national security that eliminated the requirement for Government employees-in considering requests for information-to balance the need for secrecy against the public's need to know, and required employees, when in doubt, to classify at the highest possible level of secrecy. First amendment authority Floyd Abrams, in a March 22 New York Times article, posed the question of what concept of national security leads to such actions. We heartily agree with his reply that: It is less one of politics than of ideology, an ideology that seems distrustful of information itself. It is a fearful ideology that focuses intently on the risks of information but not on its benefits, nor on the perils of its suppression. One other action must be examined as part of the matrix-the new Justice Department guidelines on granting fee waivers for |