the General Accounting Office as well as the efforts of the Defense Department to hide the facts.

Mr. RUMSFELD. The gentleman's comments are most pertinent. Certainly it has been the nature of Government to play down mistakes and to promote successes. This has been the case in the past administrations. Very likely this will be true in the future.

There is no question but that S. 1160 will not change this phenomenon. Rather, the bill will make it considerably more difficult for secrecy-minded bureaucrats to decide arbitrarily that the people should be denied access to information on the conduct of Government or on how an individual Government official is handling his job.

Mr. Speaker, the problem of excessive restrictions on access to Government information is a nonpartisan problem, as the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Moss) has said. No matter what party has held the political power of Government, there have been attempts to cover up mistakes and errors.

Significantly, S. 1160 provides for an appeal against arbitrary decisions by spelling out the ground rules for access to Government information, and, by providing for a court review of agency decisions under these ground rules, S. 1160 assures public access to information which is basic to the effective operation of a democratic society.

The legislation was initially opposed by a number of agencies and departments, but following the hearings and issuance of the carefully prepared reportwhich clarifies legislative intent-much of the opposition seems to have subsided. There still remains some opposition on the part of a few Government administrators who resist any change in the routine of government. They are familiar with the inadequacies of the present law, and over the years have learned how to take advantage of its vague phrases. Some possibly believe they hold a vested interest in the machinery of their agencies and bureaus, and there is resentment to any attempt to oversee their activities either by the public, the Congress or appointed Department heads.

But our democratic society is not based upon the vested interests of Government employees. It is based upon the participation of the public who must have full access to the facts of Government to select intelligently their representatives to serve in Congress and in the White House. This legislation provides the machinery for access to Government information necessary for an informed, intelligent electorate.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to be able to speak on behalf of Senate bill 1160, the freedom-of-information bill, which provides for establishment of a Federal public records law.

I believe that the strong bipartisan support enjoyed by S. 1160 is indicative of its merits and of its value to the Nation. Twice before, in 1964 and 1965, the U.S. Senate expressed its approval of this bill. On March 30, 1966, the House Subcommittee on Foreign Operations and Government Information favorably reported the bill, and on April 27, 1966, the House Committee on Government Operations reported the bill out with a do-pass recommendation. It remains for the House of Representatives to record its approval and for the President to sign the bill into law.

I consider this bill to be one of the most important measures to be considered by Congress in the past 20 years. The bill is based on three principles:

First, that public records, which are evidence of official government action, are public property, and that there should be a positive obligation to disclose this information upon request.

Second, this bill would establish a procedure to guarantee individuals access to specific public records, through the courts if necessary.

Finally, the bill would designate certain categories of official records exempt from the disclosure requirement.

I believe it is important also to state what the bill is not. The bill does not affect the relationship between the executive and legislative branches of Government. The report and the legislation itself specifically point out that this legislation deals with the executive branch of the Federal Government in its relationship to all citizens, to all people of this country.

The very special relationship between the executive and the legislative branches is not affected by this legislation.

As the bill and the report both state:

"Members of the Congress have all of the rights of access guaranteed to 'any person' by S. 1160, and the Congress has additional rights of access to all

Government information which it deems necessary to carry out its functions." Mr. SKUBITZ. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RUMSFELD. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas who has been very active in behalf of this legislation.

Mr. SKUBITZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1160. Passage of this legislation will create a more favorable climate for the people's right to know— a right that has too long languished in an environment of bureaucratic negativism and indifference.

From the beginning of our Republic until now, Federal agencies have wrongfully withheld information from members of the electorate. This is intolerable in a form of government where the ultimate authority must rest in the consent of government.

Democracy can only operate effectively when the people have the knowledge upon which to base an intelligent vote.

The bill grants authority to the Federal district court to order production of records improperly withheld and shifts the burden of proof to the agency which chooses to withhold information.

If nothing else, this provision will imbue Government employees with a sense of caution about placing secrecy stamps on documents that a court might order to be produced at a later time. Thus inefficiency or worse will be less subject to concealment.

Mr. QUIE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RUMSFELD. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota. Mr. QUIE. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the gentleman, will this enable a Member of Congress to secure the names of people who work for the Post Office Department or any other department?

Mr. RUMSFELD. I know the gentleman almost singlehandedly worked very effectively to bring about the disclosure of such information at a previous point in time. It is certainly my opinion, although the courts would ultimately make these decisions, that his efforts would have been unnecessary had this bill been the law. Certainly there is no provision in this legislation that exempts from disclosure the type of information to which the gentleman refers that I know of. Mr. QUIE. I thank the gentleman and want to commend him on the work he has done in bringing out this legislation. I believe it is an excellent bill.

GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND

Mr. REID of New York. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield to me for 1 second?

Mr. RUMSFELD. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New York, who serves as the ranking minority member of the subcommittee.

Mr. REID of New York. Mr. Speaker, in order that the gentleman may complete his statement, may I ask unanimous consent that any Member of the House may have 5 legislative days in which to include his thoughts and remarks in the Record on this bill?

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?

There was no objection.

Mr. RUMSFELD. Mr. Speaker, in the seconds remaining, I do want to commend my colleague and good friend, the gentleman from California. As the able chairmain of this subcommittee, he has worked diligently and effectively these past 11 years to secure a very important right for the people of this country. Bringing this legislation to the floor today is a proper tribute to his efforts. Certainly his work and the work of others whose names have been mentioned, the gentleman from Michigan, now a Member of the other body, Mr. GRIFFIN, who served so effectively as the ranking minority member of our subcommittee and the ranking minority member of our full committee, the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. DWYER), all shared in the effort and work that resulted in this most important and thoughtful piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I do wish to make one other point about the bill. This bill is not to be considered, I think it is safe to say on behalf of the members of the committee, a withholding statute in any sense of the term. Rather, it is a disclosure statute. This legislation is intended to mark the end of the use of such phrases as "for good cause found," "properly and directly concerned," and "in the public interest," which are all phrases which have been used in the past by individual officials of the executive branch in order to justify, or at least to seem to justify, the withholding of information that properly belongs in the hands of the public.

It is our intent that the courts interpret this legislation broadly, as a disclosure statute and not as an excuse to withhold information from the public.

I must add that the disclosure of Government information is particularly important today because Government is becoming involved in more and more aspects of every person's personal and business life, and so the access to information about how Government is exercising its trust becomes increasingly important. Also, people are so busy today bringing up families, making a living, that it is increasingly difficult for a person to keep informed. The growing complexity of Government itself makes it extremely difficult for a citizen to become and remain knowledgeable enough to exercise his responsibilities as a citizen; without Government secrecy it is difficult, with Government secrecy it is impossible.

Of course, withholding of information by Government is not new. The Federal Government was not a year old when Senator Maclay of Pennsylvania asked the Treasury Department for the receipts Baron von Stueben had given for funds advanced to him. Alexander Hamilton refused the request.

In the United States, three centuries of progress can be seen in the area of access to Government information. Based on the experience of England, the Founders of our Nation established-by law and by the acknowledgment of public men-the theory that the people have a right to know. At local, State, and Federal levels it has been conceded that the people have a right to information. James Russell Wiggins, editor of the Washington Post, argues eloquently against Government secrecy in his book, "Freedom or Secrecy." He says:

"We began the century with a free government-as free as any ever devised and operated by man. The more that government becomes secret, the less it remains free. To diminish the people's information about government is to diminish the people's participation in government. The consequences of secrecy are not less because the reasons for secrecy are more. The ill effects are the same whether the reasons for secrecy are good or bad. The arguments for more secrecy may be good arguments which, in a world that is menaced by Communist imperialism, we cannot altogether refute. They are, nevertheless, arguments for less freedom."

In August of 1822, President James Madison said:

"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance. And a people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives. A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both."

Thomas Jefferson, in discussing the obligation of the press to criticize and oversee the conduct of Government in the interest of keeping the public informed, said:

"Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspaper without government, I should not hesitate for a moment to prefer the latter. No government ought to be without censors; and where the press is free, none ever will."

President Woodrow Wilson said in 1913:

"Wherever any public business is transacted, wherever plans affecting the public are laid, or enterprises touching the public welfare, comfort or convenience go forward, wherever political programs are formulated, or candidates agreed on-over that place a voice must speak, with the divine prerogative of a people's will, the words: 'Let there be light.'"

House Report No. 1497, submitted to the House by the Committee on Government Operations to accompany S. 1160, concludes:

"A democratic society requires an informed, intelligent electorate, and the intelligence of the electorate varies as the quantity and quality of its information varies. A danger signal to our democratic society in the United States is the fact that such a political truism needs repeating. And repeated it is, in textbooks and classrooms, in newspapers and broadcasts.

"The repetition is necessary because the ideals of our democratic society have outpaced the machinery which makes that society work. The needs of the elec torate have outpaced the laws which guarantee public access to the facts in government. In the time it takes for one generation to grow up and prepare to join the councils of government-from 1946 to 1966–the law which was designed to provide public information about government has become the government's major shield of secrecy.

"S. 1160 will correct this situation. It provides the necessary machinery to assure the availability of government information necessary to an informed electorate."

Mr. Speaker, I was interested to learn that Leonard H. Marks, Director of the U.S. Information Agency-USIA-recently suggested before the Overseas Press Club in New York City the development of a treaty "guaranteeing international freedom of information." To be sure, this is a commendable suggestion, and one which I would be delighted to hear more about. For the time being, however, I am concerned with the freedom-of-information question here in the United States. Here is our basic challenge. And it is one which we have a responsibility to accept.

The political organization that goes by the name of the United States of America consists of thousands of governing units. It is operated by millions of elected and appointed officials. Our Government is so large and so complicated that few understand it well and others barely understand it at all. Yet, we must understand it to make it function better.

In this country we have placed all our faith on the intelligence and interest of the people. We have said that ours is a Government guided by citizens. From this it follows that Government will serve us well only if the citizens are well informed.

Our system of government is a testimony to our belief that people will find their way to right solutions given sufficient information. This has been a magnificent gamble, but it has worked.

The passage by the House of S. 1160 is an important step toward insuring an informed citizenry which can support or oppose public policy from a position of understanding and knowledge.

The passage of S. 1160 will be an investment in the future; an investment which will guarantee the continuation of our free systems guided by the people. Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of this legislation. It merits the enthusiastic support of each Member of the House of Representatives.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RUMSFELD. I will be happy to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I hardly see how it can help but improve the practice of separation of the powers as it is conducted in the executive branch of the Government. However, in the days of the right to lie rather than no comment and in the days when reportorial services are being asked to be the handmaidens of Government rather than give them full disclosure, I think it is important to have this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my strong support, and to urge the support of my colleagues for the freedom of information bill, designed to protect the right of the public to information relating to the actions and policies of Federal agencies. This bill has been a long time in coming, too long I might add, since the withholding of information, it is designed to prevent, has been a fact of life under the present administration.

I believe this bill is one of the most important pieces of legislation to be considered by Congress, and I support its enactment 100 percent.

As in all such bills, however, the mere passage of legislation will not insure the freedom of information which we hope to achieve. For there are many ways by which executive agencies, determined to conceal public information, can do so, if and when they desire. Where there is a will, there is a way, and while this bill will make that way more difficult, it will take aggressive legislative review and oversight to insure the public's right to know.

To indicate the challenge that lies ahead, I need only refer again to an article from the Overseas Press Club publication Dateline 66, which I inserted in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD on May 12. Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Arthur Sylvester was quoted by CBS Correspondent Morely Safer as saying at a background meeting that—

"Anyone who expects a public official to tell the truth is stupid-"” And as if to emphasize his point, Sylvester was quoted as saying, again: Did you hear that? Stupid!

Subsequently, at Mr. Sylvester's request, I inserted his letter in reply to the charge, but, since that occasion, at least four other correspondents have confirmed the substance of Morely Safer's charges, and to this date to my knowledge, not a single correspondent present at that meeting in July of 1965, has backed up the Sylvester so-called denial.

So, I repeat that the passage of this legislation will not, in itself, insure the public's right to know, but it is an important first step in that direction. As long as there are people in the administration who wish to cover up or put

out misleading information, it will take vigorous action by the Congress and the Nation's press to make our objectives a reality. Passage of this bill is a great step, on the part of the legislative branch of the U.S. Government, toward proper restoration of the tried and true principle of separation of powers. Mr. DOLE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield to me?

Mr. RUMSFELD. I will be happy to yield to the distinguished gentleman from Kansas, who also serves on the Special Subcommittee on Government Information.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1160, which would clarify and protect the right of the public to information.

Since the beginnings of our Republic, the people and their elected Representatives in Congress have been engaged in a sort of ceremonial contest with the executive' bureaucracy over the freedom-of-information issue. The dispute has, to date, failed to produce a practical result.

Government agencies and Federal officials have repeatedly refused to give individuals information to which they were entitled and the documentation of such unauthorized withholding-from the press, the public, and Congress-is voluminous. However, the continued recital of cases of secrecy will never determine the basic issue involved, for the point has already been more than proven. Any circumscription of the public's right to know cannot be arrived at by congressional committee compilations of instances of withholding, nor can it be fixed by presidential fiat. At some point we must stop restating the problem, authorizing investigations, and holding hearings, and come to grips with the problem.

In a democracy, the public must be well informed if it is to intelligently exercise the franchise. Logically, there is little room for secrecy in a democracy. But, we must be realists as well as rationalists and recognize that certain Government information must be protected and that the right of individual privacy must be respected. It is generally agreed that the public's knowlege of its Government should be as complete as possible, consonant with the public interest and national security. The President by virtue of his constitutional powers in the fields of foreign affairs and national defense, without question, has some derived authority to keep secrets. But we cannot leave the determination of the answers to some arrogant or whimsical bureaucrat-they must be written into law.'

To that end, I joined other members of this House in introducing and supporting legislation to establish a Federal public records law and to permit court enforcement of the people's right to know.

This bill would require every agency of the Federal Government to "make all its records promptly available to any person," and provides for court action to guarantee the right of access. The proposed law does, however, protect nine categories of sensitive Government information which would be exempted. The protected categories are matters—

"(1) specifically required by Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of the national defense or foreign policy;

(2) related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of any agency; (3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute;

(4) trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from any person and privileged or confidential;

(5) interagency or intra-agency memoranda or letters which would not be available by law to a private party in litigation with the agency;

(5) personnel and medical files and similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;

(7) investigatory files compiled for law enforcement purposes except to the extent available by law to a private party;

(8) contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by, on behalf of, or for the use of any agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions; and

(9) geological and geophysical information and data (including maps) concerning wells.

The bill gives full recognition to the fact that the President must at times act in secret in the exercise of his constitutional duties when it exempts from availability to the public matters that are "specifically required by Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of the national defense or foreign policy."

Thus, the bill takes into consideration the right to know of every citizen while affording the safeguards necessary to the effective functioning of Government.