equal, because it has one set. If the Congress really wants to use them. perhaps we should introduce a resolution to print them and make a set available to each Member of the House. And this is within the powers of the House to do and might well be explored. There are other alternatives. I don't think we should just rely upon the resources of the press to inform us. Perhaps a little initiative on our own part might be helpful. Would you agree? Mr. ECKHARDT. Yes; I agree with the gentleman particularly with respect to the question of his not being bound except in an advisory manner. I would prefer, myself, to be better advised. When the entire set is designated top secret, I don't even have advice, I would like to know what they consider to be matters sensitive to the Nation. Then, on this basis I would know what I could talk about freely and what I should not reveal. This would be better, it seems to me, than to receive the entire set of volumes with the same classification. Mr. Moss. Well, I have had documents before me classified top secret and upon examination discovered the only reason they were classified top secret was that serial number was part of an agency's marking system and it was classified. The document content was not above the level of confidential. So I am accustomed to the excesses of caution resorted to in classification. You don't have to have information that is classified; you can have just a system out of an agency that normally goes with classified information and the whole set will take that highest classification. The bulk of the material is undoubtedly unclassified in its original state. And the other area of agreement-I seem to have forgotten the second point we were discussing there. The question you raisedMr. MOORHEAD. Procedure. Mr. Moss. The procedure, yes, with respect to declassifying. I would never want to submit any of my rights to an administrative tribunal. There are enough of them subject to administrative action now, and I wouldn't want to give any of my first amendment rights to one. So I would be very concerned over any action proposed in that direction. The courts better serve the people in handling appeals from the abuse of a system established by law. Mr. MOORHEAD. Well, we thank you very much, Mr. Eckhardt, for your usual erudite and articulate statement. It was very thought provoking and we appreciate it very much. I'd like to thank our colleague, the Honorable Michael Harrington, of Massachusetts, for a very excellent statement, too, which will be inserted in the record at this point. (Mr. Harrington's prepared statement follows:) PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL J. HARRINGTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, first, I want to commend you for conducting these hearings. If you are at last able to dispel the shroud of secrecy hovering over the Departments of State and Defense, then you have performed your duty well. As one of the newest members of the Armed Services Committee, I am constantly vexed by a system which stamps with regularity everything in sight either "Top Secret," "Confidential," or "Classified." All of this leads to a process where the most insignificant documents become vital to national security, and as Congressmen, forces us to make decisions in a vacuum. To put it an other way, Congress is no longer an equal partner in the American democratic process on par with the executive and the judiciary. Instead, we have become political eunuchs in matters of foreign policy and defense. Merely by classifying whatever it chooses, the administration can bar a Congressman from taking an active role in his constitutionally granted powers. And when we try to reassert the role it lost to an increasingly powerful executive branch, we are told that any act of Congress would interfere with the President's power as Commander in Chief. That is what the administration asserted in its brief last week moving for dismissal of a suit which I and several of my colleagues brought against the President to end the war. To me, that sounds like the President is assuming dictatorial powers in determining the course of war and peace. I cannot believe, I refuse to believe our Founding Fathers ever meant the Constitution to be interpreted that way. Nor is that what I would call a strict construction interpretation. The danger in classifying all these discussions in Armed Service Committee hearings is obvious. Without the broad forum, without the benefits of a broad forum, the committee preclude new observations. The committee has evolved into a closed group of men who think alike and bless nearly every scheme the military can come up with. It creates a situation, and we have seen this come true, where the executive takes advantage of a passive Congress. And under the guise of national security, the executive bypasses the House and Senate in major treaty decisions. We now have some treaty with Laos, but only the Nixon administration knows what our obligations are. Who knows what our commitments are to Thailand? Rather than trust secret treaties to the Senate, the Johnson and Nixon administrations have gone ahead and written their own without seeking Senate confirmation. And the ultimate arrogance is when a Secretary Rogers or a Presidential adviser like Henry Kissinger refuses to appear before the appropriate congressional committee. Former Senator Joseph S. Clark, appearing before the Armed Services Committee not too long ago, raised that point. He was very pessimistic about the legis lative branch ever being able to regain its rightful place in the Government. I would like to quote a portion of his testimony: "I think one of the great vices in the whole business of relationship between the executive and legislature today is the fact that there is this apparently unlimited power of classification of material which should never be classified at all," he said. "I don't know how you can get that changed unless you can get the Supreme Court to take it up, and my guess is that they won't do it." I would hope it wouldn't to have to go that far. But the military, by its constant penchant for secrecy, erodes whatever public confidence it may ever hope to have. The military has been sharply criticized lately, but instead of offering candid explanations for its policies, it hides behind the cloak of "Top Secret." I asked Secretary of the Navy Chafee why dumping at sea or the problems of race relations in the service were stamped "Confidential." While he agreed that the Navy should make every effort to bring dialog before the public, he explained that parts of the document were classified so all of it was classified. Again, I want to commend the committee for conducting these hearings, but I believe a joint committee is more pragmatic. A joint committee would present a unified congressional effort to finally remove secrecy from Government. I think this should be a standing subcommittee, composed of the members from the major House and Senate committees. I think this new committee should have the power of review as well to determine whether classified documents really deserve to be sheltered under a national security umbrella. The publication of the Pentagon study has been a great public service, but these mistakes never should have been allowed to proliferate. History is fine, but if a mistake has been made, the discovery of that mistake 2 or 3 years later offers the country little solace. The mistakes have been made in Vietnam and they cannot be undone. But had we the benefit of all the information perhaps minds may have changed earlier. That is speculation, but there could have been fewer deaths both American deaths and Vietnamese deaths, never mind the destruction we have caused and the urban decay which has spread through our neglect. I am not calling for outright declassification of all Government documents, but I am suggesting there has been widespread abuse. I realize this committee is concerned with the larger philosophical issues raised by the Pentagon study on the origins of American involvement in the Vietnam war, and not the court cases pending against the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the Knight Papers, and who knows how many other newspapers within the next few days. I would like to point out, however, that I doubt the Pentagon would have released this historical information on its own, as Secretary Laird says they now intend to do within 90 days. This sudden decision is a direct result of a free press. The role of the press has always been to arouse the public. A company paper, a timid paper, a paper which prints just what the Government wants it to, has no place in a free society. I cannot understand how the attorney-general and the lawyers who represent him, can argue as they have, for prior censorship. I believe, and the former chairman of the House Freedom of Information Subcommittee, Representative John E. Moss believes, and I quote him: "The Times violated no law and publication of*** the report is very much a public service." I agree, but I would add the other papers which have published subsequent documents. Art Buchwald, in a column this week, may have come across the real reason for the abuses of classification. If some general in the Pentagon wants to look important, he makes a suggestion and has it classified. Then, he shows it to another general who also feels important because he's in on the secret. Later, they both leak it to the press, so the newspapers will take their idea seriously. And, as was the case with the Pentagon study on Vietnam, classifying documents is the best way to prevent past blunders from ever seeing the light of day and prevents embarrassment. National security considerations, Buchwald concluded, amounts to just 5 percent. I don't think there is any more that needs to be said except that it's time to clear away this secrecy once and for all. It is time to open Government so people will trust its leaders once again. Candor, not contrived excuses of national security, will restore faith in Government. The press did us all a favor this week. Let's hope it is not too late. Mr. MOORHEAD. Before we conclude today's hearing session, I would like to call attention to tomorrow's schedule. We will begin our hearing at 10 a.m. in the same room to hear testimony from a distinguished panel of witnesses representing the public media, newspaper editors, reporters, broadcasters, book publishers, and the business press. To our previously announced list of witnesses I add the name of Mr. John Callaham, vice president, editorial, McGraw-Hill Publications, who will represent the American business press. The subcommittee stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 4:45, the hearing was adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Friday, June 25, 1971.) U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION POLICIES AND (Part 1) FRIDAY, JUNE 25, 1971 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FOREIGN OPERATIONS AND GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:15 a.m., in Room 2129, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. William S. Moorhead (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives William S. Moorhead, John E. Moss, Ogden R. Reid, and John N. Erlenborn. Staff members present: William G. Phillips, staff director; Norman G. Cornish, deputy staff director; William R. Maloni, professional staff member; and William H. Copenhaver, minority professional staff, Committee on Government. Mr. MOORHEAD. The Subcommittee on Foreign Operations and Government Information will come to order. This morning we begin the third day of our hearings into U.S. Government information policies and practices. The first day we heard from constitutional experts on our cherished freedoms and the constitutional right to know, including testimony from a former Justice of the Supreme Court. Yesterday we learned some of the dimensions of the security classification system from a retired Pentagon expert. Today we have as our witnesses a distinguished panel who will present expert testimony on yet another facet of the Government information crisis. All segments of the public media are represented here today on this panel, publishers, editors, reporters, broadcasters. We regret that Mr. Davis Taylor, who was to have presented the view of the American Newspaper Publishers' Association, cannot be with us today as he was called home because of a personal tragedy. We hope ANPA will be able to supply testimony next week or to submit a statement for the hearing record. Our panel from the media is made up of Mr. J. Edward Murray, vice president, American Society of Newspaper Editors and presidentelect, former chairman of the Freedom of Information Committee; Mr. Richard P. Kleeman, chairman, Freedom of Information Committee, Sigma Delta Chi Society, correspondent, Minneapolis Tribune; Mr. W. Bradford Wiley, chairman of the board, Association of American Publishers, John Wiley & Sons, Publishers: Mr. Charles A. Perlik, president, American Newspaper Guild; Mr. J. W. Roberts, Washington bureau chief, Time-Life Broadcasting, chairman, Freedom of In(229) 68-036-71-pt. 1-16 formation Committee, Radio-Television News Directors; and Mr. John Callaham, vice president-editorial, McGraw-Hill Publications, Inc., and American Business Press. Before we begin the proceedings, I should like to place in the record a letter from the American Library Association and a statement on behalf of the American Library Association. Without objection, that will be placed in the record. (The letter follows:) AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION. Hon. WILLIAM S. MOORHEAD, DEAR MR. MOORHEAD: On behalf of the American Library Association, may I respectfully request that the enclosed statement be made a part of the record of the hearings on U.S. Government information policies and practices of your subcommittee. Copies of this statement are being sent separately to the chairman and members of the full House Committee on Government Operations. Sincerely, Enclosures. GERMAINE KRETTEK, Director, ALA Washington Office. STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION The American Library Association is a nonprofit educational organization of some 30.000 librarians and laymen who are dedicated to the development, extension, and improvement of libraries as an essential element in the educational, business, and scientific life of the Nation. The council of the American Library Association, the governing body of the association, on June 22, 1971, passed a resolution to "voice its full public support of the principle of freedom of the press and of the news media in their current battle to keep the American people informed of the actions of its Government." The resolution was passed during the 19th Annual Conference of the American Library Association at Dallas, Tex. This is the text of the resolution: Whereas, the controversy between the Federal Government and The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Boston Globe has drawn into question the policies of the Federal Government relating to the classification and declassification of information: and Whereas, the American Library Association strongly supports the right of the public to hear what is spoken and to read what is written; and Whereas, the American Library Association believes that it is a gross abuse of the purpose and intent of security classification to suppress information which does not directly and immediately endanger the national security: Now, therefore, be it Resolved. That the American Library Association endorse a full congressional investigation of the policies of Government relating to the classification and declassification of information to: A. assure that such policies preserve the rights of the people; B. guarantee that such policies do not operate to contravene freedom of the press: C. protect the trust of the people in the integrity of their Government from being abused or exploited; and be it further Resolved, That the American Library Association, in accordance with its declared policies on intellectual freedom, voice its full public support of the principle of freedom of the press and of The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Boston Globe, and any other news media, in their current battle to keep the American people informed of the actions of its Government, and that it communicate this to the President of the United States and to the news media. We appreciate this opportunity to place this statement before the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations and Government Information, and will be pleased |