(3) I was advised by the CIA to narrow my original request for information, which I now believe may have resulted in a less than thorough search for all responsive document;

(4) Certain documents released to me in whole or in part reference other documents which appear to be in the CIA's possession and responsive to my request, but which have not been identified by the agency as responsive documents. Specifically, I refer to the document designated "DO Document No. 28" which mentions a "file on the Rev. Jimmie Jones" compiled by the Office of Security, and to, the document designated "OPA Document No. 1" which mentions a "Factbook" concerning the Peoples Temple. The CIA knew these documents existed on December 5, 1978, the date of DO Document # 28, which was before my FOIA request was filed. This leads me to believe that all statements by the CIA in response to my request, especially Mr. Owens' letter of December 21, 1978 and Mr. Rochester's more specific representations on or about January 10, 1979 that searches for records under headings other than "Peoples Temple" would most likely turn up no records, were misleading.

(5) In testimony before a Subcommittee of the House of Representatives, Joe Holsinger, former administrative assistant to the late Representative Leo J. Ryan who was assassinated in Guyana on November 18, 1978, allegedly by a Peoples Temple member, testified that a CIA agent was present at the assassination of Congressman Ryan; that the CIA was engaged in covert operations in Guyana involving Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple; and that the CIA withheld information from Congressman Ryan concerning the living conditions in Jonestown. Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Foreign Affairs, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 7-15 (February 20, 1980). (A copy of Mr. Holsinger's testimony is attached as Exhibit E).

(6) The CIA refused to give me any indication whatsoever of when my FOIA request would be processed and it failed to process my request for almost two years, forcing me to bring an action in this Court in order to have my request processed. I was given contradictory information at different times by various CIA personnel regarding whether or not the processing of my request had even begun. The CIA has also recently insisted that with respect to six of the responsive documents that have not been disclosed to me, and the information deleted from seven others, I must now seek relief from the State Department, which is not a party to this action and which claims that I have not exhausted my administrative remedies for access to the withheld information, and from the Federal Bureau of Investigation which also is not a party to this action and with which I have had no contact regarding this matter. All of these circumstances indicate to me that the agency has acted in bad faith in processing my FOIA request, that it has been begrudging in every respect with regard to searching for and identifying responsive documents, and that it has obstructed my right of access under the FOIA.

22. I do not believe that the CIA has met its burden of proving that it has conducted a thorough and complete search for all responsive documents to my FOIA request and that it has

identified all such responsive documents. However, I am unable to assert on the basis of personal knowledge all of

the facts necessary to support this belief without the

opportunity to obtain responses to my second set of

Interrogatories and Document Production Request which seek to obtain information bearing on the nature, scope and manner of the CIA's search for responsive documents.

23. Nor do I believe that the CIA has met its burden

Specifically, through this dis

of proving that the documents it has identified and withheld in their entirety and the deleted portions of other documents are exempt from disclosure under exemptions 1 and 3 of the FOIA because they constitute "intelligence sources." However, I am unable to assert on the basis of personal knowledge all of the facts necessary to show that the CIA's withholding is improper under exemptions 1 and 3 without the opportunity to obtain responses to my second set of Interrogatories and Document Production Request. covery, I have sought to ascertain whether the withheld information was obtained pursuant to the CIA's guarantee of confidentiality, whether any such guarantees were necessary to obtain the withheld information, and why the CIA needs this particular information to perform its intelligence functions effectively. I have also sought to ascertain whether the CIA made a determination that the public interest in disclosure of the withheld information was outweighed by the need to keep the information secret, pursuant to Executive Order 12065 (Sec. 3-303).

24.

Furthermore, I do not believe that the CIA has met its burden of proving that the documents, and information withheld from me, and which it has referred to the State Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation, are exempt from disclosure under the FOIA. However, without a detailed itemization of those documents and portions thereof, together with a detailed justification for the agency's claims of exemption for each document or portion, I am unable to advocate my position that the information must be disclosed.

25. I believe that the public's interest in knowing the underlying circumstances and reasons for the tragic murders and suicides of 900 Americans in a foreign country and the unprecedented murder of a Congressman on a fact-finding mission on behalf of his constituents far outweighs any need on the part of the CIA to keep the documents I have requested secret. 26. The foregoing assertions are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.

Senator HATCH. Our next witness is Robert Nesoff, the national representative for the Federal Criminal Investigators Association, a professional association for all Federal special agents involved in domestic law enforcement.

Mr. Nesoff is a former newspaperman for the Newark News and is president of the North Jersey Press Association.

He also writes a nationally syndicated column.

With impressive credentials in both the fields of law enforcement and journalism, your perspective on these questions surrounding the Freedom of Information Act, I think, will be particularly valuable to the committee.

We are very grateful for your taking the time to come in and chat with us.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT NESOFF, NATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE, FEDERAL CRIMINAL INVESTIGATORS ASSOCIATION

Mr. NESOFF. Thank you, Senator.

I am speaking today on behalf of the Federal Criminal Investigators Association.

I would like to take a moment and thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the FCIA on these critical and important

matters.

The recent atmosphere in Washington, in treating our intelligence services and their special agents as adversaries whose every word must be suspect, has obviously come to an end. In its place, we simply ask for an attitude of concern, interest, and an opportunity to present our point of view for your consideration before you weigh all input and make an independent decision.

That such an atmosphere exists today is evident in the witness list and the courtesy with which our representatives have been welcomed in the offices of yourself, Mr. Thurmond, and Mr. DeConcini.

The members of the Federal Criminal Investigators Association are in full accord with the intent and purposes of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts. Our members believe that a free society must enjoy a free press and not fear Government dossiers on their personal lives.

The same public, however, has a right to enjoy a life free of harm from criminals and terrorists. It is in this area that the concerns of freedom clash, although it should not be so. Rather, it should be very compatible.

The need for Government investigative agencies to collect and amass certain information free of scrutiny by the general public is in line with the Constitution and the concept of a free people.

To recount the litany of horror stories created by misuse of the FOIA/PA-such as organized crime elements, uncovering informants, narcotics users obtaining detailed information on how to process drugs, convicts receiving investigation records while they are still in prison, and convicts requesting training manuals from the FBI-need not be gone into in minute detail here.

Previous testimony that we furnished before the Senate Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations of the Senate Government Affairs Committee, chaired by Mr. Sasser, might be of interest to you for this background information.

What we are concerned with today is how to stop the abuses that have been generated by the FOIA/PA bills. Both bills have been enforced for a number of years now, and their warts have become visible.

Law enforcement officials at all levels have reported that the proliferation of access and privacy laws were instrumental in creating a restrictive climate which affects their ability to obtain information from the public and institutions to recruit and maintain informants and to exchange information with other law enforcement agencies.

The need to recruit confidential informants and protect their identities, the need to show such informants that their identities will never be compromised, is nowhere more graphically demonstrated than in the incident involving a newspaper informant, known today as Deep Throat, who provided background information for the Watergate exposé.

The Washington Post would argue for the need to protect such an identity, pointing out that they could not obtain informants otherwise. We fully agree.

We find it incongruous that journalists argue against the Government's obligation to develop and protect informants. Neither the Washington Post nor the FBI could obtain critical information unless the provider could be totally assured that his identity would remain forever a secret.

Without strict controls on the information from such Government files being released to the public, it is not difficult for criminal elements to determine who such informants are.

The original legislation in an attempt to make Government more open and responsive to the people has at the same time impaired society's ability to protect itself.

Television news operations maintain files not used in actual news broadcasts. Print reporters similarly record reams of information in their notebooks that will never see the light of print. This is necessary to make a value judgment about what will be used in the actual news story, what will be banked for future investigation, and what may not be relevant at all.

The media has steadfastly fought against making such filed information known to Government agencies and law enforcement, contending that it is confidential and must be protected.

Yet the same media cannot bring itself to understand that in the course of an investigation, a great deal of information is gatheredsome critical and pertinent-other details superfluous.

While it fights to protect its own background and file information, it fights with equal vigor to force open investigative files of various intelligence agencies for its own benefits.

Forcing investigative agencies to disclose or destroy certain file information may inhibit future investigations.

A subcommittee was told: "Information about members of criminal groups at every level is essential to effective law enforcement today, tomorrow, and even years from now. A low-level member of a syndicate today may be tomorrow's upper echelon leader."

After placing severe restriction on intelligence agencies, former President Carter complained publicly that they had not provided him with proper information. His comments and actions are tanta