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 fron 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:] THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVEN R. DORNFELD INTRODUCTION Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to participate in the opening day of legislative hearings on the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA")._1/ My name is Steve Dornfeld, and I am a Washington Correspondent for Knight-Ridder Newspapers and National Secretary of the Society of Professional Journalists, Sigma Delta Chi. I am 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 has more than 28,000 members in all branches of the news media print and broadcast. - Accompanying me today is Ted Capener, Vice President of News and Public Affairs for Bonneville Broadcasting Corp. in Salt Lake City, and Bruce W. Sanford, a partner of Baker & Hostetler in Washington, legal counsel to the Society. 1/ 5 U.S.C. § 552 (1976). Mr. Dornfeld will capsulize this prepared testimony in his appearance before the Subcommittee and Mr. Capener will testify briefly as to the use of the FOIA by local news media in one particular state, Utah. The Press and the FOIA The Society has been an active proponent of the - Clark FOIA since its inception. Three of our members Mollenhoff of the Des Moines Register & Tribune, Julius Frandsen of United Press International, and V. M. Newton of the Tampa Tribune chaired the Society's Freedom of Information Committee and were instrumental in forming a group of journalists that worked closely with Congress in drafting the Act. In recent years, the Society has funded the lion's share of the Freedom of Information Service Center here in Washington, which has assisted hundreds of journalists in using the Act. A copy of the Service Center's widely distributed publication, How To Use the Federal FOI Act, is submitted herewith to illustrate how the Society has devoted its resources to encouraging use of the Act. Our experience at the FOI Service Center has confirmed the Society's expectation that the FOIA would prove a valuable tool for professional journalists in their efforts to gather and report newsworthy information to the public. In 1980, the Service Center answered some 300 telephone requests for assistance from journalists seeking access to government information. In the first half of 1981, the Center has already handled another 300 requests. The burgeoning activity at the Service Center is just one indication that the Act is a widely employed tool of journalists. 2/ Through formal requests or merely threatened requests under the Act, the public and the public's surrogate, to use Chief Justice Burger's term, 3/ the press has been able to gain access to a wide range of information that has resulted in countless news reports of public interest. Without the FOIA, the public might never have received the news that: - Ten elderly patients at a private Philadelphia nursing home died in 1964 and 1965 while they were being used 4/ as subjects in a drug experiment. - Approximately one-third of all small corpora tions regularly underpaid Federal income taxes in the late 1960's. _51 - Tests of drinking water near uranium mines in western New Mexico uncovered high levels of radioactivity 6/ and poisonous waste. 2/ 3/ __5/ In recent years, critics of the Act, chiefly government Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 100 S.Ct. 2814,2825 (1980) (Burger, C.J., announcing judgment). New York Times, Nov. 16, 1975, at 46, col. 1. New York Times, July 21, 1975, at 31, col. 6. New York Times, Aug. 20, 1975, at 18, col. 3. |