Government concerning the Department of Agriculture, release of figures of the payments of over a certain figure to the individual farmers. And we had great difficulty in attempting to find out specifically farmer A and farmer B and farmer C, what their payments were, although we knew that they were in excess of this minimum figure that they had announced.

Mr. REGULA. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MOORHEAD. Thank you.

The subcommittee would now like to hear from Mr. Courtney R. Sheldon, chairman of the Freedom of Information Committee, Sigma Delta Chi.

Mr. Sheldon?

STATEMENT OF COURTNEY R. SHELDON, CHAIRMAN, FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMITTEE, SIGMA DELTA CHI

Mr. SHELDON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, there is no question from the standpoint of the public's right to know that the changes you are now considering in the Freedom of Information Act are in the public interest. There is still too much delay and obstruction in the making available to the public information they are entitled to. We journalists have been negligent in not using the FOI Act to a maximum, sometimes because the procedures could become drawn out and our deadlines are very immediate. But, those who have used it testify to its necessity. We support your efforts to improve the act.

We note the objections that some Government officials are now making to the proposed changes, but getting information to the people about their own Government is more important than saving some time of officials and saving money here and there. Speaking generally, the White House has, for the last 412 years, severely restricted the flow of news to the public. If it had not ignored the questions of newsmen, and the President had held regular press conferences to set an example for open Government, the country might not today be wallowing in the Watergate scandal. Those close to the President's office have adopted the President's style of secrecy and the aggressive use of White House power. John D. Ehrlichman felt secure enough not to report the crime of burglary by the team of Liddy and Hunt. The fact that the White House was investigating news leaks was well known 2 years ago, but President Nixon and his aides could pick the times when they submitted to questioning. They were usually so infrequent that there was never time for probing deeply and to bring up a host of peripheral subjects of lesser importance than Peking and Moscow. If Mr. Nixon had done as every other modern day President has, held press conferences two or three times a month, someone, just someone might have asked questions about that plumbers team, and Liddy and Hunt might have been put early in the public limelight in a way that would have made their escapades in the Watergate impossible.

At the White House one struggle between reporters and Mr. Ziegler last fall illustrates what we are up against on a daily basis. It has been determined by sources outside the White House that Donald Segretti was in frequent telephone contact with Dwight Chapin, an aide in

H. R. Haldeman's office. Reporters first pressed to have Mr. Chapin come forward. That failed, as has every other attempt of that kind, including efforts to bring Mr. Haldeman to be interviewed.

What is clear now was clear then, that Mr. Segretti and Mr. Chapin, acting for the White House, had engaged in political espionage on behalf of Mr. Nixon. So, Mr. Ziegler stepped forward with a statement that the charges were fundamentally inaccurate. It was a coverup, cover story that lasted until the more recent disclosures.

Now, last fall when reporters tried to get Mr. Ziegler to say just what was accurate and what was inaccurate about the reports of Chapin and Segretti, he stonewalled. One reporter asked if there was any record of the phone calls to Chapin from Mr. Segretti. Mr. Ziegler did not seem to know anything about them and was reluctant to find out. Mr. Ziegler was then asked if the White House switchboard had any such information and would give it out if asked. Mr. Ziegler's reply was, "I would hope not."

As reporters like myself run from one event to another, there does not seem to be time to even consider whether such a withholding of news is justified under one of the exemptions of the FOI Act. It would not seem to come under foreign policy, national security, trade secrets or internal personnel rules, but who can be sure what the administration would claim if it were asked, and how long it would take to even start the process?

Now, asking White House Press Secretary Ziegler questions about what the President thinks or knows is one of the most frustrating exercises in Washington, and it is not wholly his fault. He does what he is asked to do, not just by the Ehrlichmans and Haldemans, but by the President himself. The President sets the climate for the Government on freedom of information matters, just as on everything else. If the Freedom of Information Act is not working as well as it should, it is because certainly in part the President really is not interested in having it more effective. It might not be a great deal different under another President, but getting the truth in the White House today is certainly more difficult than it has been in my memory of Presidential administrations. The skills of news management are greater and they are used more frequently. There may be flashes of reform, it may be possible for the leopard to change its spots.

Anyway, we are most grateful for the contributions that you and your committee are making toward giving the American public what it has every right to know. Your diligence is a shield and a comfort to many of us.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MOORHEAD. Thank you, Mr. Sheldon, and thank you also for those kind words with which you concluded your statement.

I have some questions which I will direct to anyone of the panel who may wish to answer them-whoever wants to take a crack at them can do so. It would probably be well if anybody who agrees would say so, or if they have qualifications they would so indicate.

One of the amendments we are considering would require agencies to make a preliminary determination as to whether to comply with the request for information within 10 days of the receipt of it, permitting

additional time to gather the documents if that were necessary. In your opinion, is this a reasonable time limit?

Mr. SHELDON. Well, it is certainly better than what was required before. It seems to me very reasonable. I have never been a public relations officer, preferring to stay on my own side of the fence, but it does not sound unreasonable, and certainly from the standpoint of the news gatherer it still could be quite a stretch of time, delay us, and encourage us not to go forward. Fortunately a lot of newspapers these days are using investigative teams, taking their time to do stories, and so your efforts to compress the time, and our efforts to take more time could bear fruit for the good of us all.

Mr. MOORHEAD. The amendments would require an individual refused access to public records to file an administrative appeal of the denial within 20 days, and would require an agency to act on the appeal within 20 days of receipt. Do you think this is a reasonable limit? Mr. LAMPSON. I would think that that would be more than a liberal time. It seems to me that an agency should be able to prepare their position in a shorter period of time. However, it is an improvement over the existing situation, and I think would be welcomed by the news gathering people as an improvement.

Mr. MOORHEAD. If a request for public records goes to court, H.R. 5425 requires the Government to answer the complaint within 20 days instead of the 60 days now required by law. Is this, in your opinion, a reasonable time limit?

Mr. SHELDON. I would certainly say it was, and anything you could do to shave that down would be desirable. Courts and lawyers are very expensive processes, and except for the very large papers they are not used too often. And anything that could make the process easier would be a tremendous step forward.

Mr. MOORHEAD. The amendments would permit the court to assess the Government for reasonable attorney fees and court costs if the Government is found in violation of the Freedom of Information law. Would this amendment permit citizens to enforce their right to know more effectively and mitigate against unreasonable Government court action?

Mr. LAMPSON. I would say most certainly, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MOORHEAD. I am assuming that when there is no dissenting remark that you both are in agreement with the answers?

Mr. SHELDON. That is right.

Mr. MOORHEAD. The amendments would require each agency to file an annual report with Congress on its administration of the Freedom. of Information law. Would this provision make public and congressional oversight of the law more effective as well as requiring agencies to give more careful consideration to their administration of the law? Mr. SHELDON. Well, I certainly think it would be useful. I am not sure how many of us read these reports, but if the committee can somehow use them as a police means, I certainly would say they would be most valuable. But, I guess obviously what is most needed is their day-to-day reaction rather than the summation. But, I am sure they would be valuable.

Mr. MOORHEAD. I would think that the objective would be to give the Congress the necessary data to isolate the recalcitrant agencies so

that in the following year hopefully they would be more responsive on a day-to-day basis.

Mr. SHELDON. Yes; I think that is a good point.

Mr. MOORHEAD. H.R. 5425 would also require all agencies to furnish any information or records to Congress or its proper committees. Do you think this would help clarify the right of congressional access to Government information?

Mr. LAMPSON. It would appear that it would be such, and I would assume from the recent history that it would be helpful to the Congress. Mr. MOORHEAD. H.R. 5425 would require the courts to examine the contents of agency records-including classified records-in private, if necessary, to determine whether the records must be withheld from the public. This involves the Mink v. Environmental Protection Agency case. Would this provision make possible a qualified, independent judgment on whether an agency has sufficiently proved the necessity for withholding specific records?

Mr. SHELDON. Yes; I am sure it would, because obviously so much is overclassified in Government that that review at that point would be very helpful.

Mr. MOORHEAD. H.R. 4960, commonly called the Horton bill, would establish an FOI Commission-a majority of the members of which would be appointed by the Congress to investigate cases of withholding of public records and to issue findings which would be prima facie evidence against an agency in a later court suit. Would this concept be a workable system to help to enforce the Freedom of Information law?

Mr. SERRILL. I would like to comment on that. I wonder if there is a need for another commission, another department of Government in this instance, or whether it might not be better to assign this responsibility, say, to a Federal district court, in the District of Columbia or some other agency in being, or to some standing committee of the Congress? I just feel that we have a great proliferation in the years I have been around Congress and State government, and we establish more commissions and agencies than I think we have need for. And I raise that question rather than having a definitive answer for it, but we have discussed this, and I discussed it with counsel yesterday. And we came to no definite conclusion insofar as that area is concerned.

Mr. MOORHEAD. To make the point completely clear, I am convinced that H.R. 4960 does not intend to have the Commission as a required step. It would still permit the requester to go directly to the court. But, in the case particularly where a requester did not want to spend the money for court costs, he could go to the Commission and a lot of the groundwork could be done for them at no cost.

Mr. SERRILL. That sounds good. I mean to eliminate cluttered courts, if we can do so, in other words, I do not think that we have studied this in the depth that probably it should be studied with respect to the ultimate results of establishing such a Commission. I am sure I would be interested in what Sigma Delta Chi has to say about this particular aspect of it.

Mr. SHELDON. Well, I guess if I thought it was just another commission being put into a picture, doing a job that somebody else was already doing I might raise some reservations. But, it sounds to me

as if it could be a very useful tool, someone to turn to short of the courts to get a very quick opinion. And the mere presence of it would exert pressure on Government agencies and public relations officers to tread a little softly in areas that they might be a little bit more heavy handed.

Mr. MOORHEAD. I noticed in your prepared written statement, Mr. Lampson, that you mentioned bureaucratic delay, abuses in fee schedules, and cumbersome and costly legal remedies. I think the bill we are considering deals with these bureaucratic delays. We have not attacked the fee schedule directly, except that we might give the Commission authority to review fees to make sure that they are reasonable. The commission might also cut down on the costly legal remedies, which we also try to solve by permitting the award of court costs and attorney fees to a successful plaintiff. We have attacked the problem of "identifiable records." Our proposed language, I think, is better from your point of view.

Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you.

Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. McCloskey?

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am interested in the question of how this committee might assist to get a broader distribution of accurate information about what happens here in Washington into the interior of the country. I am particularly concerned about the small neswpapers throughout the country who are either limited to wire services or what they can perceive on the network news, but do not have the resources to station a reporter here in Washington with all of the problems that a reporter who is here faces in keeping up with the canned news releases and the like that come in such copious quantities out of this Government, including those of us in the Congress. What do you see as the possibility of enhancing the small rural newspaper's ability to keep up with this tremendous volume of news from Washington?

Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. McCloskey, we do rely for interpretive material from our association office here in Washington, looking at the national scene. But, in a community press we do limit most of our news to our immediate area, with the exception of the wire service information. And I think my personal concern, and the concern I am sure that others in the smaller communities have, other publishers, is an ability to get information from those Federal agencies that are operating in our

area.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Your contact then with the local offices has been essentially disappointing?

Mr. LAMPSON. Many times, yes. Sometimes that might not be a reluctance to give us the information. It sometimes is their inability to put their hands on the information.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Well, coming from our particular area in the country in California, it has been almost impossible to get square statements of any information from regional offices because of the tendency of the bureaucrat to be reluctant to issue any statement or provide any information that is likely to be overruled by a policy decision in Washington. I wonder if you would comment on the problems that would be raised or the benefits obtained, and any drawbacks that would accrue from adding to these amendments to the Freedom of Information Act a misdemeanor section that would make any Government employee