EXISTING LAW cal information and data (including maps) concerning wells. (f) LIMITATION OF EXEMPTIONS.-Nothing in this sec- (g) PRIVATE PARTY.-As used in this section, "private (h) EFFECTIVE DATE.-This amendment shall become effective one year following the date of the enactment of this Act. NEW TEXT (5) inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or (6) personnel and medical files and similar files (7) investigatory files compiled for law enforce- (8) contained in or related to examination, oper- (9) geological and geophysical information and (f) This section does not authorize withholding of H.R. 5357 Considered and Passed House April 3, 1967, 113 Cong. Rec. 8109 CODIFICATION OF PUBLIC LAW 89-487 The Clerk called the bill (H.R. 5357) to amend section 552 of title 5, United States Code, to codify the provisions of Public Law 89-487. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill? Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, it is my understanding, although it is not so stated in the report, that these changes were recommended by the Department of Justice. Will the gentleman from the Committee on the Judiciary confirm this? Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman from Missouri yield? Mr. HALL. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Speaker, These are not actual changes, but this procedure, incorporating this entire title 5, was recommended by the Department of Justice. Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire further as to whether this would in any way aid or abet what has come about as a result of the Reorganization Act of 1949, which makes it possible to print in the Federal Register a reorganization of one of the executive branches, with the full effect and weight of law if not objected to by resolution on the part of one of the two Houses of Congress within a requisite number of days- Is there anything within these changes of the provisions of Public Law 89-487 which would make this power of the "veto in reverse"-as I have referred to in the provision-more applicable? In other words, what I am getting at is, will it further relegate any of the powers of the Congress to the executive branch of the Government? Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman from Missouri yield? Mr. HALL. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Speaker, I assure the gentleman this does not have that effect. This does not change in any respect the powers of Congress or the executive branch. Mr. HALL. We do have the gentleman's full assurance that on this bill there is no substantive change, and that it is really a technical and conforming amendment which has nothing to do with the "veto in reverse"? Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Missouri will yield further, the bill simply incorporates into title 5, without any substantive change, an amendment of the Administrative Procedures Act. This bill incorporates into title 5 of the United States Code, without substantive change, the provisions of Public Law 89-487. That law was not amended by title 5, which was enacted by Public Law 89-554, but which codified the Administrative Procedures Act. For this reason we have so recommended. Mr. HALL. I appreciate the gentleman's explanation. Mr. HALL. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa. Mr. GROSS. This would confer no greater power upon the 10th Judicial Conference or upon any other judicial conference in the country; is that correct? Mr. KASTENMEIER. If the gentleman will yield further, I assure the gentleman it will not. Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the present consideration of the bill? There being no objection, the Clerk read the bill, as follows: [text omitted] The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table. 89TH CONGRESS 2d Session H. Rept. No. 1497, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES { REPORT No. 1497 CLARIFYING AND PROTECTING THE RIGHT OF THE PUBLIC TO INFORMATION MAY 9, 1966.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. DAWSON, from the Committee on Government Operations, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany S. 1160] The Committee on Government Operations, to whom was referred the bill (S. 1160) to amend section 3 of the Administrative Procedure Act, chapter 324, of the act of June 11, 1946 (60 Stat. 238), to clarify and protect the right of the public to information, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. I. PURPOSE Section 3 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 1002) requires every executive agency to publish or make available to the public its methods of operation, public procedures, rules, policies, and precedents, and to make available other "matters of official record" to any person who is properly and directly concerned therewith. These requirements are subject to several broad exceptions discussed below. The present section 3 is not a general public records law in that it does not afford to the public at large access to official records generally. S. 1160 would revise the section to provide a true Federal public records statute by requiring the availability, to any member of the public, of all of the executive branch records described in its requirements, except those involving matters which are within nine stated exemptions. It makes the following major changes: 1. It eliminates the "properly and directly concerned" test of who shall have access to public records, stating that the great majority of records shall be available to "any person." So that there would be no undue burden on the operations of Government agencies, reason able access regulations may be established and fees for record searches charged as is required by present law.' 2. It sets up workable standards for the categories of records which may be exempt from public disclosure, replacing the vague phrases "good cause found," "in the public interest," and "internal management" with specific definitions of information which may be withheld. Some of the specific categories cover information necessary to protect the national security; others cover material such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation files which are not now protected by law.? 3. It gives an aggrieved citizen a remedy by permitting an appeal to a U.S. district court. The court review procedure would be expected to persuade against the initial improper withholding and would not add substantially to crowded court dockets.3 II. BACKGROUND The broad outlines for legislative action to guarantee public access to Government information were laid out by Dr. Harold L. Cross in 1953. In that year he published, for the American Society of Newspaper Editors, the first comprehensive study of growing restrictions on the people's right to know the facts of government. Newspapermen, legislators, and other Government officials were concerned about the mushrooming growth of Government secrecy, but as James S. Pope, who was chairman of the Freedom of Information Committee of ASNE, explained in the foreword of the Cross book, "The People's Right To Know": we had only the foggiest idea of whence sprang the blossoming Washington legend that agency and department heads enjoyed a sort of personal ownership of news about their units. We knew it was all wrong, but we didn't know how to start the battle for reformation. Basic to the work of Dr. Cross was the conviction that inherent in the right to speak and the right Dr. Cross outlined three areas where, through legislative inaction, the weed of improper secrecy had been permitted to blossom and was choking out the basic right to know: the "housekeeping" statute which gives Government officials general authority to operate their agencies, the "executive privilege" concept which affects legislative access to executive branch information, and section 3 of the Administrative Procedure Act which affects public access to the rules and regulations of Government action. In 1958 Congress corrected abuse of the Government's 180-year-old "housekeeping" statute by enacting a bill introduced in the House by Congressman John E. Moss and in the Senate by Senator Thomas E. Hennings. The Moss-Hennings bill stated that provisions of the 1 Hearings, pp. 61 and 67; see also 5 U.S.C. 140. Hearings, pp. 15, 20, 27, and 39. Hearings, pp. 107 and 109. Hearings, Foreign Operations and Government Information Subcommittee, on a proposed Federal public records law. Mar. 30, 31, Apr. 1, 2, and 5, 1965, p. 26, cited hereafter as "hearings.' "housekeeping" statute (5 U.S.C. 22) which permitted department heads to regulate the storage and use of Government records did not permit them to withhold those records from the public. The concept that Government officials far down the administrative line from the President could use a claim of "executive privilege" to withhold information from the Congress was narrowed in 1962 when President Kennedy informed Congress that he, and he alone, would invoke it. This limitation on the use of the "executive privilege" claim to withhold information from Congress was affirmed by President Johnson in a letter to Congressman Moss on April 2, 1965.5 While there have been substantial improvements in two of the areas of excessive Government secrecy, nothing has been done to correct abuses in the third area. In fact, section 3 of the Administrative Procedure Act has become the major statutory excuse for withholding Government records from public view. THE "PUBLIC INFORMATION" SECTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT The Administrative Procedure Act, which was adopted in 1946 to bring some order out of the growing chaos of Government regulation, set uniform standards for the thousands of Government administrative actions affecting the public; it restated the law of judicial review permitting the public to appeal to the courts about wrongful administrative actions; it provided for public participation in an agency's rulemaking activities. But most important it required "agencies to keep the public currently informed of their organization, procedures, and rules." The intent of the public information section of the Administrative Procedure Act (sec. 3) was set forth clearly by the Judiciary Committee, in reporting the measure to the Senate. The report declares that the public information provisions— are in many ways among the most important, far-reaching, The act was signed in June 1946, and on July 15, 1946, the Department of Justice distributed to all agencies a 12-page memorandum interpreting section 3, which was to become effective on September 11, 1946. The memorandum, which together with similar memorandums interpreting the other sections of the act was later made available in the Attorney General's Manual, noted that Congress had left up to each agency the decision on what information about the agency's actions was to be classed as "official records." 8 The Administrative Procedure Act had been in operation less than 10 years when a Hoover Commission task force recommended minor changes in the public information section. S. 2504 (Wiley) and S. 2541 (McCarthy) were introduced in the S4th Congress to carry out the minimal task force recommendations, but the bills died without even a hearing. In the 85th Congress, the first major revision of the public Hearings, p. 123. Attorney General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act, prepared by the Department of Justice, 1917, p. 9; cited hereafter as "Attorney General's Manual." H. Rept. 752, 79th Cong., 1st sess., p. 198. Attorney General's Manual, p. 24. |