Page images



12 JANUARY 1982


12 JANUARY 1982 Pg. 32 1

Technology Transfers to the Soviet Union


the U.S. or those who participate in the In- present new evidence to our alles on how A few months ago a fisherman working

ternational Control System (COOOM) 10 the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pack are off the coast of North Carolina picked up

yield advanced technology, the Soviets em- using Western technology to strengthen what terned out to be an intelligence gath

ployed a number of clandestine means. their offensive military capabilities. We, ering device neatly enclosed in a Soviet Businessmen, engineers, scientists and want to conclude at thai meeting a redefin oceanographic current meter. This device workers have been bribed. Innocent-look- ition of the C0OOM International control and others like tt are used to gather vita) ing corporations have been created to buy program Information about the U.S. Navy's activi; equipment later sent to the U.S.S.R. Diplo i am also working to involve NATO. ties and could be extremely harmful to us

mats and official visitors have been used to One of the peculiar aspects of the control 1 employed In

ferret out items of interest. Neutral and system is that defense interests are poorly At the heart of this device is 2 modem inonaligned states are targeted for exploita represented. For example, only the United printed circuit board. It and several others ton. And, where all else falls, intelligence States sends Department of Defense a have been brought to my office the past six missions have been run by Soviet agents. perts to COOOM, even though COCOM's months. Most were packaged for military The Soviets obtain considerable benefit main purpose is to safeguard technology menuses on all were designed for use in a Tide variety of weapons systems, including Baltistic missiles, "fire and forget" weap ons, and guidance and control for alrcran

"The Soviets have organized massive systematic to name a few..!****

effort to get advanced technology from the West. The Whal surprised me most was that these sochisticated devices were not made in the case purpose is to support the Soviet military buildup. 22 Urited States. Nor were they produced in sani wa surose or Japan. They were products of stessa the Soviet Union..

Specialists in the Department of De from these complicated maneuvers. Each that can be used for military purposes by terse tested these circuit boards carefully. year they save billions of dollars in te the Soviet Union and Warsaw Puct. At the They found many of the cornponents; par search and development costs by "bor national level, only the U.S. and France at ücuta-ly the microcircuits, to be exact cop rowing" Western technology. They get low defense specialists to review regularly ies of chips" made in the United States. hardware and know-how that is proven and proposed technology exports to the Soviet In fact, a US chip was put on the Soviet trouble-free. These acquisitions can be, Union. The result is that many judgments circuit board and worked properly. Such and often are, supported by additional de are made without expert participation, and microelectronic circuits are used exten- velopments in the West. Indeed, merely a good deal of damage results, as in the sively to our strategic and conventional reading the full range of technical litera. case of highly advanced communication I weapons systems. Clearly the Soviets have ture openly published gives the Soviets the switching equipment obtained by the made remarkable progress in being able to ability to repair and maintain products U.S.S.R from Western Europe. Unfortu: copy and manufacture advanced electronic they have acquired Olegally.

nately this equipment can also be used to equipment of this kind.

But the most significant and troubling add greatly to the Soviets' command and Alarming Implications

aspect of all this is how the Soviets use the control abilities. My hope is that the NATO

equipment they have gathered to add to countries can work together to help change How the Soviet Union got the manufac their military power. And this is our great- the reviewing procedures for technology turing know-how and circuit design Infor est concern.

transfer issues. mation to build these components is a story An important part of our own national

Need Public Understanding as complicated as its implications are defense as well as the security of our allies alarining. The simple answer is that the

We cannot, however, achieve all we and friends around the globe is the Soviets have organized a massive, system

would like to without public understanding. "quality edge" we have enjoyed for many atic effort to get advanced technology from

In particular we need Industry to take the years. This advantage is largely the result

lead and inform both management and emthe West. The purpose of this ts to support of the talent and skill produced by our free Ue Soviet military buildup. enterprise system. We have made use of

ployes of the dangers. In sensitive factories This musual acquisition program fol- this asset effectively in supporting our na.

we need voluntary security comuniuces to ious two paths-openly whenever possible

safeguard essential designs and manufac. tional defense programs. It is one of the ut clandestinely when not. The Soviets

turing know-how. Industry associations can pillars of our security. make a maximurn effort to get technology Unlike some, who from time to time

play an important part in protecting our from the West by claiming a need for crtucize our defense programs, the Soviets

national security by advising member equipment to be wred in strictly civilian en- understand how important the quality edge

companies on appropriate measures and

internal safeguards. terprises. An example is their effort to ob is to us. Their actions prove that they

Businessmen. In general, can be more tain modern medical equipment such as mean lo benefit from our technology. Thus, CAT spanners which require sophisticated it is clearly in our best interest to prevent

supportive by recognizing the fact that the

long-term interests in peace and security coenfester technology to operate.

them from doing so and that is what this Using civilian cover, during the 1960s administration is trying to do.

they share with their stockholders far outand 19705 the Soviets moved quickly to pur President Reagan took the lead last

weigh the short-term gains which the sales chase electronics technology. Our bureau- July at the Ottawa summit conference

of certain equipment offer. If we ignore cracy was asleep to the danger of this, so when he appealed to our allies to tighten

this and proceed with business as usual, nothing was done to prevent it. As a result, our international control system. We have

current sales may please some but they the Soviets were able to set up a number of worked hard to plan an effective high-level

will yield the most unpleasant dividends in suecialized electronics factories - all of

the future. COCOM conference. The meeting, to be which are operated today as classiñed fa- held in Paris next month, will be the first cilities.

broad reconsideration of our technology Mr. Weinberger is the U.S. Secretary of Where they were unable to get either control system in nearly 30 years. We will Defense.


87-749 - 82 - 9

Senator HATCH. Our next two witnesses are Steven R. Dornfeld and Ted Capener, representing the Society of Professional Journalists, Sigma Delta Chi.

Mr. Dornfeld has been a Washington correspondent for KnightRidder Newspapers since October 1980. For the prior 10 years, he was a political writer with the Minneapolis Tribune of Minnesota. Mr. Dornfeld was a professional humanities fellow at the University of Michigan. He has served on the national board of the Society of Professional Journalists, Sigma Delta Chi, since 1973 and is currently the national secretary of the society. He is nominee for president-elect of the society in 1981-82.

I am proud to welcome Ted Capener to our committee as a fellow Utahan who is vice president of news and public affairs for Bonneville Broadcasting Corp. of Salt Lake City, Utah, which owns 13 radio and television stations across the Nation. Until his recent relocation to Salt Lake City, he was for 9 years Washington bureau chief of Bonneville Broadcasting. Prior to that, he was news director for 7 years of KSL television and radio in Salt Lake City, Utah.

We are very proud to have you with us today and to have your testimony. Mr. Dornfeld and Mr. Capener are accompanied by Bruce W. Sanford of Baker & Hostetler, legal counsel to the Society of Professional Journalists, Sigma Delta Chi. We are also happy to have you here as well, Mr. Sanford. We are well aware of your law firm and know what a fine firm it is.

We are very pleased to have you gentlemen from the media here today. We look forward to hearing your testimony in whatever order you choose to present it. STATEMENT OF STEVEN R. DORNFELD, WASHINGTON CORRE


Mr. DORNFELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We greatly appreciate the opportunity to be with you today and to participate in this opening day of legislative hearings on the Freedom of Information Act.

For the record, my name is Steve Dornfeld. I am a Washington correspondent for Knight-Ridder Newspapers and national secretary of the Society of Professional Journalists, Sigma Delta Chi.

I appear here today on behalf of the society which, as you may know, is the oldest, largest, and most representative organization of journalists in the United States. Founded in 1909, the society today has more than 28,000 members in all branches of the media-print and broadcast.

As you mentioned, I am accompanied here today by Ted Capener, vice president of news and public affairs for Bonneville Broadcasting in Salt Lake City, and by Bruce Sanford of Baker & Hostetler here in Washington who is our society's first amendment counsel.

If you will permit me, I will try to summarize my prepared testimony which has been submitted to you this morning so that we will have sufficient time to hear from Ted Capener, who is here to tell you how the FOIA has been used in one randomly selected State, the State of Utah.

Senator HATCH. I take it he may have an opinion that might be decidedly different from my own.

Mr. DORNFELD. It is possible.

The society would appreciate it, Mr. Chairman, if you would make our complete written statement a part of the record of this hearing

Senator HATCH. Without objection, the complete written statement and anything else that your society cares to contribute will be made a part of the record following your oral presentation. We have much respect for your society. Of course, being politicians, that respect is not always self-engendered.

Mr. DORNFELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Society of Professional Journalists comes here today to document what we believe to be the public benefits that have flowed from access to information under the FOIA.

Journalists use the act constantly, but no statistics can reflect the enormous amount of Government information received from the mere presence of the act on the books. Most agencies voluntarily disgorge information, sometimes reluctantly to be sure, at the mere mention of a possible FOIA request.

Russell Roberts, president of the American Society of Access Professionals and Director of the FOIA/Privacy Division of the Department of Health and Human Services, recently confirmed that HHS personnel are encouraged to avoid formal FOIA requests by providing requested material voluntarily. He tells us:

We figure that we do not want to give the press two stories when we mess up. If we try to withhold information, they hit us with one story about our mistake and another about how hard we made it for them to do the story.

Mr. Chairman, the bureaucratic reverence for secrecy is as old as ancient civilization when Roman soldiers returning from battle were prohibited from informing citizens of their occasional defeats. Our society believes it is the presumption favoring openness in Government, the presumption favoring disclosure by the civil service that in a historic sense strengthens our Nation at time when we rely as never before upon a Federal bureacracy to guide our destiny.

The Reagan administration may well give us admirable improvements in the management and organization of the Federal Government, but this possible renovation cannot realistically alter the need for an act assuring Americans the access to information about governmental operations they need if they are to participate in the deliberations of a democracy.

In short, the act is a two-edged sword for all seasons. It gives the public a weapon to prevent the bureaucracy from overwhelming it, and discourages lord knows how many public officials and bureaucrats from contemplated abuses of authority.

The FOIA has always been and always will be a pain in the side of public employees. It was always meant to be. If the act is amended to increase delays or costs or otherwise discourage use of the FOIA, our society is convinced that the ramifications to the public will be devastating.

Voluntary government disclosures would be both less frequent and less informative. Agency employees, now assured that corruption, waste, and mismanagement can be legally exposed through the FOIA, would retreat to an underground system of leaks or would provide no information at all.

Journalists would be relegated to cultivating underground sources and would be largely dependent upon them for information. Unofficial leaks and statements would proliferate at a time when journalists are striving to rely more heavily on attributed sources and documentation.

Finally, we believe that press organizations located outside of the Washington-Boston corridor, which now enjoy access to information equal to those of us on the east coast, would be unable to gather information about the Federal Government and would be forced to rely on journalists who serve different readers with different interests. This was the world that existed in 1966 before the Freedom of Information Act was approved.

As the Republican Policy Committee stated when it endorsed the passage of the act back in 1966: “In this period of selective disclosures, managed news, half truths, and admitted distortions, the need for this legislation is abundantly clear."

A number of proposals for amending the FOIA are currently before this subcommittee. Some of these amendments respond to agency complaints that compliance with the act is too costly and time consuming. Others are directed to claims by agencies that compliance hampers their effective operation.

Our society believes that most of these agency concerns were anticipated and effectively dealt with by Congress when it drafted the act in 1966. Congress crafted a workable statutory framework that carefully balances the public's needs for information about its Government with the necessity that the Government operate efficiently and effectively.

In 1974 and again in 1976, Congress reaffirmed the essential soundness of that balance and cautiously engaged in legislative fine-tuning designed to achieve the original statutory purpose. Additional fine tuning may again be in order. Times change and needs change.

We are all aware that private business and their legal counsel have been major users of the act, more than journalists, scholars, and others seeking to disseminate information for public purposes. Taxpayers should not be required to foot the bill for private litigants to research their cases in Government files.

The society could support legislation designed to reduce costs associated with use of the act in private civil litigation. The original legislative purpose of the act, we believe, was not to create a Government subsidized discovery vehicle for the antitrust bar. At the same time, any such legislation should seek to expedite the handling of requests made by persons who indicate that the information is sought for public purposes such as news dissemination.

Even if new legislation can reduce the costs associated with the private use of the FOIA, our society believes that all of us should frankly acknowledge that Government responsiveness and Government accountability do cost something.

Since we have heard today from a representative of the Department of Defense, I would note that today our Nation spends more than $100 million a year on military bands. It does not seem unreasonable to us that our Nation spend half that amount or even twice that amount on freedom of information. The result may not be as uplifting as a John Philip Sousa march, but I think it will certainly be more valuable in preserving our democratic system of Government.

Senator HATCH. That is an interesting point.

Mr. DORNFELD. It is our understanding that the Department of Justice is currently undertaking a thorough review of the FOIA with an eye toward presenting Congress with a comprehensive package of reform proposals later this year. The society hopes to be able to consult with Assistant Attorney General Rose and his office about such proposals, and about the Justice Department's administration of the act.

Prudence dictates, we believe, that this subcommittee await the Reagan administration's proposals before embarking on piecemeal efforts to amend the FOIA. Deceptively simple solutions may well achieve nothing more than upsetting the delicate balance that has undergirded the FOIA for the last 15 years.

In presenting the society's specific views concerning the proposed legislation currently before this subcommittee, we express two hopes at the outset: First, that you will again solicit the views of our society and other press groups once the Justice Department has presented its comprehensive study of the FOIA and, second, that you will exercise restraint in considering any amendment or fine tuning of the act, performing any needed adjustments with screwdrivers and not crowbars.

Any perceived problems should be corrected gently, with precision, leaving intact the tools needed to fulfill the act's primary purpose of providing ready access to Government information for the public and the public's surrogate, the press.

As Chief Justice Burger wrote in the landmark Richmond Newspapers case: “People in an open society do not demand infallibility froni their institutions, but it is difficult for them to accept what they are prohibited from observing."

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would stop. As you know, the society has provided written testimony that offers more detailed comments on the proposed legislation before the Senate, namely, Senate bills 587, 1235, and 1247. We would be pleased to answer any questions you might have, but before we move on to that part, I would like to introduce Ted Capener.

Senator HATCH. Thank you. Your statement was very reflective and, I might add, very persuasive in many ways. I enjoyed it. What has impressed me is that you have admitted that there needs to be some fine tuning here. We need to really study this act thoroughly to discover what we can do to institutionalize it better than ever, but for the benefit of everybody concerned. I was very much interested by your statement.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dornfeld follows:

« PreviousContinue »