energy type information, to those prosecutions. Perhaps you are not referring to that type of case. I am not being very specific, I know. Mr. MCCLOSKEY. I am not concerned now about violations of the Espionage Act, where somebody spied and tried to turn something over to a foreign government. What I am speaking about is something that is fairly commonplace in the Defense Department, isn't it, where some superior becomes concerned that a subordinate has disclosed classified information or has declassified information or has downgraded something the superior felt should be more highly classified. This happens fairly frequently, does it not?

Mr. FLORENCE. The so-called leakages occur very frequently.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Do you know of any criminal prosecution in the last 15 years for allegedly leaking information?

Mr. FLORENCE. Sir, if I do, it does not come to my mind immediately. But because I can't recall specifically for this body I am speaking to doesn't mean there hasn't been.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Do you recall any administrative treatment that was rough on someone who allegedly declassified something or leaked classified materials?

Mr. FLORENCE. Yes, sir; I recall.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Administrative action?

Mr. FLORENCE. Yes, sir; very definitely, sir.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Now, Mr. Florence, to your knowledge, have there been any decisions made in the Department of Defense by someone to reveal classified information for the purposes of legislative advocacy? In other words, to your knowledge in the past 15 years have there been any instances where a given Defense Department official might make something public, either to the press or to the Congress, to obtain the enactment of a law or a specific appropriation?

Mr. FLORENCE. Mr. Congressman, let me divide that question two ways. First, as I referred to in my prepared comments, the Department of Defense actually does a very good job in communicating with the Congress, perhaps in closed sessions of committees, but they do communicate with the Congress quite well. The assignment of security classification or defense classifications really does not impair very much the communication with the Congress through the established channels.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. When you say that, aren't you saying then that people in the Defense Department selectively take some classified information and convey it to the Congress for the purposes of passing legislation?

Mr. FLORENCE. Very definitely, sir.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Do they not also do this with the press for the same purpose of building public opinion in favor of proposed legislation that the Armed Services determine beneficial to the national interest?

Mr. FLORENCE. I personally, Mr. Congressman, do not have knowledge of an act where there was a communication by an individual to a member of the press, of information that the Department of Defense officially communicated as unclassified but retained the classification after communicating it. I personally don't know this. I am sure it has happened, because I have seen the results of it.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. I have run out of time, Mr. Florence.

Thank you very much for testifying. I commend you highly for your willingness to do this and I hope you will furnish us those documents, the specific memorandums to which you referred, because they are very important at this point in the record and the sooner we have them, I think the better.

Mr. FLORENCE. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Florence, suppose an individual comes into possession of a document marked "secret" or something like that and it just seems ridiculous. Is there any independent board or commission to which that individual could appeal for reclassification? I am thinking not of a person in the Defense Establishment, but someone outside? Mr. FLORENCE. Someone outside the Defense Establishment coming into possession of a document with these alleged security classification marking on them? The individual, of course, may go into the Department of Defense. Normally the entry would be through the public relations office, which receives individuals for all purposes, and ask whatever questions he may wish to ask about what these markings mean and what should he do, or anything of that sort, sir.

Mr. MOORHEAD. But there is no appeal machinery setup, there is no independent commission to do this? Mr. Florence, is there any catalog listing all of the documents classified as top secret?

Mr. FLORENCE. No, sir; there is not.

Mr. MOORHEAD. Thank you, Mr. Florence.

Mr. Reid.

Mr. REID. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Florence, I would like to ask you one basic question, if I may, on premise and philosophy. Do you feel that in the main the officers you have dealt with in the Defense Department and the Air Force have been animated with a timely sense of accountability, timely sense of accountability to the Congress and the American people in the sense that they would try to make an affirmative determination to present the Congress in particular with essential material relative to the national defense and that they made a positive effort in this regard, or did you feel on the contrary that they would at times in the absence of Executive direction to the contrary, if it existed, attempt to conceal or deceive or not to take a chance or to play it safe on the assumption that what the Congress didn't learn wouldn't hurt them? Mr. FLORENCE. Sir, I would like to answer that in two parts also because you have given two parts. The first part-may I have the sense of the question on the first part?

Mr. REID. The sense is whether there is a positive animation to give to the American people and the Congress the material that would represent fair accountability on major decisions and material that was central to policy judgments by the Congress and the American people in the great decisions? Or was there in turn a failure to present basic information and a tendency to play it safe rather than affirmative feelings that the Congress was entitled to basic information and that it was part of the function of the Executive to understand that they had a sense of accountability to the Congress and the American people?

Mr. FLORENCE. Mr. Congressman, the answer to that question is in this way. My personal experience of Secretaries of the Air Force and to some degree the Secretaries of Defense, since they have been in the

positions, is that every one of them, whichever name we are going to use, I would perhaps have personal reason to recall his dedication to furnishing the Congress everything in the way of substantive information and related information necessary for communication between the Department and the Congress for the Congress to perform its functions. I am speaking most emphatically that I have never heard of an instance where the officials that we are referring to have felt that there was any division between the legislative branch and the performance of his function in free communication.

Now, in the lower levels, Mr. Congressman, the practical effect of communication with the Congress is not anywhere near that complete. There is definitely a sense of division at the lower levels, many of the lower levels within the Department of Defense and the Congress on what the Congress might need in the way of performing its function. I don't mean now to imply that there are a great many people less than the Secretary of Defense who actively strive to withhold information. I am attempting to describe the situation where there are many individuals within my own personal relationships when I was in the Department of Defense who were not as wholehearted in communicating with the Congress as perhaps would have been better in the inter ests of the country.

Mr. REID. If you were a junior officer, or indeed junior flag officer, would you be inclined to follow the practice of minimum classification or would you be inclined to follow a practice of overclassification, if there was a choice, on the theory that you could be called, to use your language, before superior officers and perhaps encounter fairly rough going, if you had not classified sufficiently?

Mr. FLORENCE. I believe I understand completely the question the Congressman has asked and I will answer it in that sense. In today's orientation, throughout the Department of Defense, and specifically in the military service, the tendency, by nature of the existence of the authority to do so, is to exercise authority for designating something as classified. There is the tendency for the individual to impose a feeling of security control, over what he is attempting to do in the performance of his functions.

Mr. REID. Were you ever a participant in discussions wherein the subject of whether material should be forwarded to the Congress or not was part of the conversation?

Mr. FLORENCE. I believe, to be completely truthful and not try and recall exceptions, most of my relationships with other individuals in the Department of Defense on that matter has been limited to policy, That is, to the issuance of directives such as I mentioned a while ago in the Department of Defense relating to this matter. My efforts have contributed to assuring that the directives themselves did not inhibit complete communication between the Department of Defense and the Congress.

Mr. REID. Thank you, Mr. Florence, I think your testimony has been excellent and most helpful to the committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Horton.

Mr. HORTON. Mr. Florence, I, too, want to thank you for coming up and discussing with us this matter of classification, overclassification, and the need for declassification. You did testify earlier that

you had read the papers that were printed in the New York Times. Do you know of your own knowledge whether in fact the published documents are classified?

Mr. FLORENCE. Mr. Congressman, may I make a distinction between how much reading of the articles in the New York Times as opposed to the articles in the Washington Post I engaged in? I am not completely familiar with all of the issuances in the New York Times, although I read some of them. But in answer to-may I have the question again, sir, please?

Mr. HORTON. The question I asked is do you know-let me add to it now, the New York Times and the Washington Post, do you know whether in fact the documents that were published in these two papers are classified?

Mr. FLORENCE. I have not seen the documents as to their marking. I have knowledge of course

Mr. HORTON. You have not see the documents?

Mr. FLORENCE. No, sir.

Mr. HORTON. I am just asking of your own knowledge.

Mr. FLORENCE. I have not seen the documents. I have seen only those portions published in the papers, sir.

Mr. HORTON. I am not asking you to classify them. I am asking you whether or not you know them to be classified?

Mr. FLORENCE. No, sir, I do not.

Mr. HORTON. You do not know?

Mr. FLORENCE. I know only what has been published about them in the papers, sir.

Mr. HORTON. Are you aware of any documents that are not published in that 47 volumes? Have you seen the 47 volumes?

Mr. FLORENCE. I have not, sir. My comments about them are limited to what is in the paper.

Mr. HORTON. I see. Thank you.

Mr. MOORHEAD. Thank you very much, Mr. Florence, we appreciate your testimony and the public session of the subcommittee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock this afternoon, at which time we will hear testimony from several Members of Congress.

(Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m., the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Mr. ALEXANDER (presiding). The meeting will come to order. Mr. Moorhead asked me to preside in his absence. He will be delayed for a few minutes due to a meeting he is having now with the Speaker of the House.

The next witness to come before the committee is Congressman Sam Gibbons of Florida.

Congressman, we will be glad to receive your testimony.

STATEMENT OF HON. SAM M. GIBBONS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. GIBBONS. Thank you, Chairman Alexander.

I appreciate the opportunity to come here. Let me say in the beginning I applaud what this committee is doing. If I have any condemna

tion, it is because you did not do it sooner. I want to applaud not only the subject matter of this hearing, but the manner in which it is being conducted.

As you recall, during last year's reorganization hearings we tried in many different ways to remove some of the secrecy that infects Congress and we were successful. This hearing today is one of the types of hearings that we envisioned. Other reforms which were adopted, such as the recorded tellers, and the committee reports reflecting how the committee members voted, are all steps in the direction to remove secrecy. I applaud what you as an individual committee are doing here today.

I applaud it too because you have gotten down to the very guts and the heart and soul of our system. As I understand our system, and as I am sure you understand it, we derive all of our just powers from the consent of the governed, and how can it be said that the consent of the governed has been given when the governed have been mislead, have not been fully informed, and in effect have been lied to in this governmental process?

It is absolutely essential that this subcommittee and that this Congress pull off the cloak of secrecy that has been unnecessarily thrown upon these Vietnam papers. What you are doing today is most important.

Mr. Chairman, I have a formal statement. I would like to enter it into the record at the end of my testimony and I would like to summarize it as best I can here in an informal fashion.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Without objection, it will be admitted.

Mr. GIBBONS. As I said, what you are doing today goes to the very essence of our Government. Freedom of the press and freedom of speech goes much deeper than a license to express an opinion. Really, this freedom is much deeper than that. It is based upon the concept that a person cannot give his consent to be governed unless that person is fully informed about the facts on which he has to make a decision, the facts upon which he must cast his ballot, and, therefore, Mr. Chairman, what you are doing today goes to the very essence of our society, the very essence of our Government, and it is something that 1 hope this committee will fight for.

Not only are we as Members of Congress entitled to see the history that has been compiled in these documents, but every American as a citizen is entitled to see what is in these documents. From all that 1 have been able to ascertain from the little that has been already disclosed, these are historical documents, not documents that would telegraph to the enemy any future plans that we have, contingency plans things of that sort. In fact, I have a suspicion, Mr. Chairman, that the enemy knows far more about most of this situation than do many members of the American public, including many of us here in Congress.

I have been troubled with this problem of secrecy for a long time. I know of the distinguished work that Mr. Moss and the subcommittee then did about removing some of the troublesome classification problems that arose in the past over the invocation of executive privilege and over the very vague laws that we find in chapter 18 of the United States Code dealing with espionage, and with censorship.