Mr. PHILLIPS. One additional question, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Friedheim, does your office or any other office in the Pentagon produce "canned" articles or "canned" editorials for use in newspapers around the country to support the Pentagon's point of view? Mr. FRIEDHEIM. No, sir. Mr. PHILLIPS. You do not? Mr. FRIEDHEIM. No, sir. Mr. PHILLIPS. The reason I asked, I saw an editorial recently in a Joplin, Mo., newspaper attacking the chairman of this subcommittee for his criticism of the abuses of executive privilege by the President and it occurred to me that you had once worked as a reporter for a Joplin, Mo., newspaper. I just wondered if there was any connection? Mr. FRIEDHEIM. I once wrote editorials for that newspaper. I did not write that one, sir. Mr. PHILLIPS. Thank you. Mr. MCCLOSKEY [presiding]. Any other questions? Mr. KRONFELD. Would the Department of Defense oppose a provision in this legislation which did not make in camera review mandatory, but would leave it up to the court-as a matter of discretion. Mr. BUZHARDT. Speaking personally-and I really have not researched the question thoroughly-I do not think I would. I think the court now, under the present law, does on occasion actually view classified documents in camera. They are in camera when they examine them. So I think you do not need a change in the law if that is your objective. I do not think there is any need for it, because I think the court exercises that power in some cases now. I believe that they do not have to in every case. They are not mandated to do that. I do not consider it necessary. Mr. KRONFELD. It is my interpretation of EPA v. Mink that under the present language in the Freedom of Information Act the courts are prohibited from going into the body of the documents and examining it under section (b) (1) of the act. That is what I think the amendment in 5425 is trying to reach, not that the courts have to in every case, but they would be given the option if they so wished. Mr. BUZHARDT. Perhaps that was the situation before Mink. Mr. KRONFELD. So there would be no objection to the language that would insure that the courts would have the option of going into the body of the document enacted under subsection (b) (1)? Mr. BUZHARDT. I do not perceive any presently. I think the courts will still use their best judgment. I think that is very much a matter of last resort in the more complicated cases. Mr. KRONFELD. Thank you. Mr. MCCLOSKEY. If there are no further questions, the committee will be adjourned until the next session of these hearings on Thursday, May 10, at 10 a.m. in this room, to hear public witnesses on information amendments to the Freedom of Information Act. Thank you. [Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, May 10, 1973.] THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT THURSDAY, MAY 10, 1973 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 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. William S. Moorhead (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives William S. Moorhead, Paul N. McCloskey, Jr., Gilbert Gude, and Ralph S. Regula. Also present: William G. Phillips, staff director; Norman G. Cornish, deputy staff director; L. James Kronfeld, counsel; and William H. Copenhaver, minority professional staff, Committee on Government Operations. Mr. MOORHEAD. The Subcommittee on Foreign Operations and Government Information will please come to order. On this fourth day of hearings on amendments to the freedom of information law which, many of us hope, will make it a more effective freedom of the press law, we will hear testimony from some of the organizations of the press which share a part of the credit for creating the original law. And we will hear from representatives of the other groups which worked on the original legislation or have studied the administrative problems posed by the law. Over the years, various representatives of Sigma Delta Chi-the national professional journalism association-have worked with this subcommittee to help solve the problems of Government secrecy. Today, Courtney R. Sheldon of the Christian Science Monitor, chairman of the SDX Freedom of Information Committee, will testify on the amendments which have been introduced to make the Freedom of Information law a more effective tool for the press to dig out Government information. We will also hear testimony from two representatives of the National Newspaper Association, an organization which has been involved in the fight against Government secrecy ever since it began. Mr. E. W. Lampson, president of the Ohio Newspaper Association, will represent the National Newspaper Association, along with Ted Serrill, executive vice president of the NNA, who has been one of the longest and strongest supporters of this subcommittee's work. John Shattuck, staff counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union, will testify later on the legislation, as will Antonin Scalia, chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States. (231) I now yield to my colleague, Mr. Regula, who may want to welcome one or more witnesses because of previous acquaintance with them. Mr. REGULA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of the minority party, of which through some quirk of fate I got to be ranking today, and that is an unusual thing for a freshman, I am pleased to welcome all of the witnesses, but especially Ab Lampson from Ohio. Ab and I served 8 years in the Ohio General Assembly together, and he had a number of years before I got there. How many did you have as a total, Ab? Mr. LAMPSON. Ten. Mr. REGULA. Ten years in the general assembly. Mr. MOORHEAD. Won't you gentlemen come forward to the witness table? Why don't you all come forward. Mr. REGULA. Ab I am sure can bring to us some excellent help and guidance on this proposed legislation for the reason that he had a very distinguished career in the Ohio Legislature. He was chairman of the ways and means committee which, of course, we recognize is one of the vital responsibilities in the legislative process. And we could use some of your expertise here, Ab, on not only freedom of information but on how to provide the necessary funds. I know that you labored through an income tax law in the State of Ohio just recently, and bear the scars to prove it. But, Ab, I am very pleased that you are here. I might say, Mr. Chairman, I have a radio taping at 10:30, so if I have to leave, it is not out of any lack of respect for our witnesses. We are all so happy to see Mrs. Lampson here and hope that she is enjoying the city. Ab can relax because she is here and not down at Garfinkel's. But, we are especially pleased, and I am particularly, that my colleague from Ohio is going to appear before our committee. Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you. Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Sheldon, you are first on the list, but maybe in view of this relationship you would yield to Mr. Lampson. Would that be all right with you, sir? Mr. SHELDON. It certainly would. Mr. MOORHEAD. That would give Mr. Regula a chance to pose questions to his former colleague. Mr. REGULA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MOORHEAD. It would be a rare turnabout really. STATEMENT OF E. W. LAMPSON, PRESIDENT, OHIO NEWSPAPER Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. For the purpose of the record. I am E. W. Lampson, publisher of the Jefferson, Ohio, Gazette and president of the Ohio Newspaper Association, an organization representing 96 Ohio daily newspapers and 261 nondaily papers from the largest in the State to the smallest. I am also an affiliate member of the National Newspaper Association. As has been stated by the chairman, with me today is Theodore A. Serrill, executive vice president of the National Newspaper Association. The association has prepared a formal statement which I will ask you to enter into the record of the proceedings. I will not read the association's statement, but I do have a few remarks of my own which I would like to present at this time. Mr. MOORHEAD. Without objection, the full statement will be made a part of the record. Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you. [The document referred to follows:] STATEMENT OF NATIONAL NEWSPAPER ASSOCIATION INTRODUCTION The National Newspaper Association, as I am sure you are aware, is the official representative for our nation's approximately 8,500 community newspapers. These are the 7,500 weekly and 1,000 smaller city daily newspapers of our country whose major purpose is to provide local news and information to the communities they serve. We are indeed honored to be a part of this prestigious panel which is composed mainly of our colleagues from the big city newspapers and from the broadcasting field. BACKGROUND In March 1963, this Association informed this same Subcommittee that it was no "Johnny-come-lately" to the fight for freedom of information. Long before the Cold War era we said, NNA (which then was NEA, the National Editorial Association) had been active in defending the precepts of the First Amendment. This Subcommittee should should know that the idea for the creation of the Freedom of Information Center at the University of Missouri, which maintains a continuing record of instances of censorships, suppressions, and manipulation of information and assists the Press in overcoming such instances, first emerged at a 1957 meeting of the then NEA. NNA continues to support the Freedom of Information Center, both in spirit and with financial contributions. NNA has appeared before this Subcommittee in the past and has supported and publicized its activities since its inception. This Association was involved directly in this Subcommittee's efforts to enact the present FOI law. As you realize, that law is the result of a compromise, as is all good legislation. We would even call the present law an experiment, to answer the question of whether such a concept could be made to work at the Federal level. Government officials warned against its enactment, predicting all sorts of dire consequences should it become law, arguments which they have recently repeated to you in trying to prevent amendments to improve the Act's effectiveness. In spite of these contentions, it was discovered that the experiment workedthat it is feasible, indeed desirable, to make information possessed by the government available to the public. The fears expressed by government officials simply have not been realized. What we have discovered, however, is that the law is not as effective or useful as it ought to be, and it is that problem to which we now address ourselves. It is at the local level where NNA's constituency, the home town press, is the sole defender of the right to know. Policies of the Federal government toward access to governmental information however, are becoming more and more of a problem to this segment of the news media because of the tremendous growth of the Federal government in recent years. This has led to the establishment of branch and regional Federal offices in nearly all of the three thousand-plus counties of our nation. What happens in Washington today becomes immediately important to local communities everywhere. The Federal government's information policies are important not only with respect to actual access to information held by the Federal government, but also |