PAGENO="0001" PAGENO="0002" MEMBERS Ex 01 CLA PAGENO="0003" CO NTE NT S Statement of-~- Page A~tin, Dr. A. V., Director National Bureau of Standards, Departm~nt of Commerce -. - - - - - 1521 Estabrook, Watts T.; accompanied by James T. Stone, Estabrook & Estabrook, patent attorneys 1570 E1onarna~, R. Karl, former official of the Department of Defense and of the Department of Commerce 1123, 1153 Honeywell, Charles F., Administrator, Business and Defense Services Administration Department of Commerce; accompanied by Burt Roper, counsel 1410 Hughes, Dr. Donald J., chairman, Federation of American Scientists and senior physicist, Brookhaven National Laboratory 1447 Lemañ, Albert *N., Director of Information, Department of Com- merce 1286 Leman, Albert N., aCsistant to the Secretary of Commerce and the Director of Public InfLormation, Department of Commerce; accom.. panied by Allen Overton, Jr., special assistant to the General Counsel (in capacity as counsel for the Department), Department of Commerce 1309 McClellan, Hon. Harold C., Assistant Secretary for International Affairs; accompanied by John C. Borton, Director of Office of Export Supply, Bureau of Foreign Commerce; Newton Foster, Director, Finished Products Division, Bureau of Foreign Con~merce; and Nathan Ostroff, Assistant General Counsel, Department of Com- merce 1484 Morison, H. Graham, attorney at law, Washington, D. C., former Assistant Attorney General of the United States 1379 Murphy, Dr, Walter J., editorial director, Applied journals of the American Chemical Society 1464 Ray, Philip A., General Counsel, Department of Commerce; accom4 panied by Allen Overton, Jr., special assistant to the General Counsel, Department of Commerce 1190 ~eago, Erwin, Director, Office of Strategic Information; accompanied by Allen Overton, Jr., special assistant to the General Counsel, Department of Commerce 1233, 1268 Watson, Robert C. Commissioner, United States. Patent Office; accom~ panied by C. ~*. Moore, Solicitor; P. J. Federico, Examiner In Chief; James L. Brewrink, primary patent officer; and Allen Over- ton, Jr., special assistant to the General Counsel (appearing as Counsel for the Department), Department of Commerce 1350 Letters, statements, etc. submitted for the record by- Astin, Dr. A. V., liirector, National Bureau of Standards, Depart- ment of Commerce: Memorandum re adequate translating services for foreign tech.. ~iical material 1558 Memorandum re affixing general license to technical data - 1536 Memorandum re classified material 1552 Memorandum re request for a publication delay 1545 Memorandum re unclassified foreign publications 1538 Memorandum re whether other agencies of the Federal Govern- ment are developing standards of physical meaSurement 1542 National Bureau of Standards, Technical Advisory Committees.. 1559 Number of copies printed of Projects and Publications of the National Applied Mathematics Laboratories and Semiannual Progress Reports of the Office of Basic Instrumentation 1549 Publications policy for the National Bureau of Standards 1522 Report on publication entitled, "Care and Repair of the House" -- - 1563 1567 Tn PAGENO="0004" * IV CONTENTS Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by-Continued :page Fascell, Hon. Dante B., a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida: Excerpt from Executive Order No. 10501 1176 Excerpt from Statement of Erwin Seago 1250 Foster, Newton, Director, Finished Products Division, Bureau of Foreign Commerce, Department of Commerce: Excerpt from Depart4ient of Commerce regulations 1502, 1512 Hoffman, ~EIon. Clare IL, a Representative in Congress from the State of Micl~igan: Excerpt from Department of Commerce Order NQ. ~~--- 4 11~8, 1159 flonaman, ~R. Karl, former official of the Department of Defense andY of the llhpartment of Commerce: Department Order No. 157, regulation on the Office of Strategic Information, printed in the Federal Register, September 28, 1955 1154, 1184 I~xcerpt from Armed Forces industrial security regulations, De~ pa~'tment of Defense - 1184 Excerpt from Department of Defense Directive No. 5230.9 - - U... 1167 Exce~pt frpi~i talk with the Newspaper Editors Assooiatjon. - - 1167 Language re the Office of Strategic Information 1171 Men~orandum signed by Hon. George C. ME~rshall, Secretary of St$te, October 11, 1950 1151 hughes, Dr. Donald J., chairman, Federation of American Scientists, and sei~ior physicist, Brookhaven National Laboratory: Excerpt of letter from Ralph Brown, Yale law faculty member, to FAS Washington Office, April 6, 1956 1453 Letter from Donald J. Hughes, chairman, Federation of American SGientists, to Hon. Sinclair Weeks, October 31, 1955~ 1457 Lettbr from D. J. Hughes, to H. C. McClellan, March 7, 1956~. - 1458 Letter from 11. C. McClellan, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for International Affairs, to Donald J. Hughes: November 8, 1955 1458 March22, 1956 1459 PoliCy established by the Export Control Act of 1949 ~. - 1447 ~Pro~*ira~rjendment to the Export Control Aetof~I949 1449 Leman, [Albert N., assistant to the Secretary of Commerce, and the Direci~or of Public Information, Department ~f Commerce: Excerpt from ~ommittee print 1346 McClellan, Hon. Harold C., Assistant Secretary for International Affairs, Department of Commerce: Defbition of technical data 1494 Exeerpt from the Export Control Act of 1949 1482, 1493, 1505 Meader, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the State of Micli~gan: Excerpt from exhibit )~VIL~. - 1274, 1282 Exéerpt from statement of Philip A. Ray~. - 1205 J~x~erpt from subcommittee questionnaire 1599 *Ex~erpt from the Export Control Act of 1949 1492 * Excerpt of the amendment to Department of Commerce Order ]~o. 157 1255 Memorandum re committee, attached to paper in the possession cf the Air Force 1209 Mitchell, John J.., chief counsel, Special Subcommittee on Govern.. mentLlnformation: Department of Commerce public announcement released Novem- ber 5, 1954.~ 1515 * Excerpt from article in Aviation Week, January 30, 1956~ 1285, 1624 Excerpt from Department of Commerce Operating Instruction * ~o. 7 1413, 1423 PAGENO="0005" Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record bo~~1 Mitchell, John J., chief counsel__ContInued Page Excerpt from Department of Commerce Operating Instruction No.8 1419 Excerpt from first 0. S. I. progress report, February 18, 1955 -- 1617 Excerpt from House Judiciary Committee hearings 141~ Excerpt from letter by Albert Leman refusing to give list of Commerce Department employees, March 9, 1953 1339 Exeerpt~from letter by Carl P. Garver to Albert Leman, requ~st.. ing list of Oeni~nerce Department employees, March 6, 195& 1339 Excerpt from Operating Instruction No. 8, exhibit III 1419, 1436 ~xcerpt from statement of Albert N. Leman - 1292, 1318 Excerpt from statement of Dr. Donald J. Hughes - 1450, 1451, 1460, 1464/ Excerpt from statement of Dr. A. V. Astin 1539, 1542, 1552 Excerpt from statement of Erwin Seago 1244, 1609, 1625 Excerpt from statement of Harry B. Resseguie, November 10, 1955 1396 Eccerpt from statement of H. Graham Morison 1383 Excerpt from subcommittee questionnaire _~ 1316, 1597 Excerpt of letter from Hon. Daniel J. wood, to Hon. John Foster Dulles, April 12, 1955 1461 Letter from Albert N. Leman, Director of Public Information, Department of Commerce, addressed to "Editor, Berliji Re.. porter, Berlin, N. H." October 4, ~ 1293 Letter from Hon. George Mahon, to Han. John E. Moss, April 24, 1956 1610 Letter from Hon. John B, Moss, to Ho~p, George H. Mahan: April 23, 1956 1610 April 27, 1956 1611 May 9, 1956 1611 Letter from Hon. John E. Moss, to Hon. Sinclair Weeks: April 10, 1956 1190 April 13 1956 1191 Letter from hon. John E. Moss, to James S. Lay, Jr.: May 11, 1956 1612 MaSr 18 19~6 1614~ Letter from hon. Sinclair Weeks, Secretary of Commerce, to Hon. John B. Moss, April 12, 1956 1191 Letter from Hon. Sinclair Weeks, Secretary of Commerce, to Walter White, August 4, 1955 1198 Letter from Hon. William L. Dawson, to the Secretary of Com- merce, November 21, 1955 1431 Letter from James P. Hinchey, editor, Berlin Reporter, Berlin~ N. H., to Albert M. Leinan: October 13, 1955 1293 Ja*uary 27, 1956 1296 Letter from. James S. Lay, Jr., Executive Secretary, National Security Council, to Hon. John B. Moss: May 15, 1956 1613 Excerpt from National Security Council document 1613 May 22, 1956 1614 Letter from Robert C. Hill, Assistant Secretary (for the Secretary of State), to Hon. Daniel J. Flood, April 19, 1955 - 1462 Letter from Senator Alexander Wiley, to Hon. John B. Moss, June 7, 1956 1585 Letter from Senator Alexander Wiley to Commissioner Robert C. Watson, July 7, 1956 1585 Letter from Senator Joseph C. O'Mahoney, to Hon. John B. Moss, June 8, 1956 1586 Letter from Walter A. Shead, to James P. Hinchey, January 15, 1956 1294 Letters received by the House Government Information Sub- committee concerning public stenographers' space in the De- partment of Commerce 1570 Notice printed on the front of all forms or reports used by the Bureau of Standards 1545 PAGENO="0006" Letters, stateiflellts, etc~, subzflftted for the record by_CQfltiflU~d Mitchell, Jóhii J,, chief ~ Page ~ the News," editorial from National Weekly News- parier Service_Sept0mb~ 5~ 1955 1297 St~te~i~ent published by the National Weekly NewspaPer Service, Sei~tember 5~ 195& 1292 MoriSon, ~EL Graham, attorney at law, Washington, D. C., `former Assista~1t AttorneY General of the United States: Lette~ sent to governmental departments and agencies by the Department of Justice, October 19, 1950 1381 Sainj~le letter from geuera~ counsels of corporationa 1394 Moss, lion. John E., a RepresentatiVe in Congress from the State of California, ,and cbairmm', Speeia~ Subcommittee on Government Information: Evc~rpt from Armed Forces industrial security regulatiOns~ D~partmeflt of Defense * .1152, 1184 Evcqrpt from Departme~1t of Commerce Qrder No. 157 1159, 1271 ExcqrptJrom Department of Commerce regulati0T~s 1152 Rxc~rpt from Export Control Act of 1949 1506 E~c~rpt from exhibit I, tab 5, detailed answers to "Aviation Week" article, Janu~'Y. 30, 1956 1259 Exe~rpt frQm memorandum of Donald Davison 1390 Exc~rpt from opinion of the Attorney General re requirement of the exeputive branch of the Government to produce papers- - - - 1212 Exc~rpt.fr0m rules and regulations In tItle. ~32% National Defense, published in the Federal Register, September 15, 1955 11~1 Ex~erpt from statemeut of Albert N,. ~eman~ - 1312 Excerpt from statemer~t of former President Theodore Roosevelt__ 1389 * ~zqerpt from statement of Joseph AlsQP~ Jr 1303 E~perpt fro7n subcommittee ,que~tiOm~a~- - 1347 Evperpt of letter by Albert Leman, March 9, 1956 1300, 1342 Exeerpt of the an~endmeI1t to Department of Commerce Order No,,157~- _`` Jnt4erdepartmdt~~tal Advisory Cpmmitt~~ on International Ex- ~hangeS 1239 Jnjierdepartmental Advisory. Committee 0~,Publipat1ou 1239 Letter from George T. Moore, Assistant S,ecretarY of Commerpe, i~ç Hpn. John B. Moss, May 23, 1956 1573 Lejter from lion. John E. Moss, to Hon. Sinclair Weeks, May 11, 1956 * 1572 ~t~temeut. re exportatiOi~ of technical data 1455 Ray, Philip A~, general counsel, Department of Commerce: Excerpt from opinion of, Attorney General Jackson 1212 Roper~ Burt, counsel, Department of Commerce: Excerpt of letter fron~ Deputy Attorney General Peyton Ford, October 19,, 1950__ 1419 Mv,rpl4Y., Dr. Walter J., editorial director, Applied Journals of the Am~rican Chemical Society: Question re scientist from India 1468 Scher,' Jacob, special counsel, Special Subcommittee on Government *Info~mati0fl: E~cerpt from rules and regulatiOfl5~ ir~ title 32, National Defense, ,,published in the Federal Register, September 15, 1955 1140 I~etter and balance sheet for strategic ,information sent out by Brig. Gen. T. S. Riggs, Acting Chief of Information an~ Edu- cation, Department of Defense, June 2, 1955 - 1145, 1146 Seago~ Erwin, Director, Office of Strategic Information article from Aviation Week, January 30,. 1956 1253 ~cerpt from Defense appropriation bill for 1956 1234 1~,xcerpts from mor~in.g statement 1268 W~ts4?n, Robert C., Commissioner, United States Patent Office:. ]~xc~rpt from oath taken by Patent Office employees-*' 1351 l~ule 14 (3,7 CFR 1.14) 135 ~ection 122 of title 35, Patents 1351 sections 151 (c) and 151 (d) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954-- 1352 PAGENO="0007" CONTENTS ,fl List or `EXaIErrs 1'age ,Exhibit I. Inforn~ation submitted by, Office of Strategic Information at request of subcomn~ittee. Tab, 1. Baekgroun~ leading to establishment of 081 1639 Tab 2. Budget details and staff personnel history,,~,,~' 1640 Tab 3. Information of intelligence value impracticable to classify~ 1640 Tab 4. Aerial photography 1641 Tab 5. Detailed answers to Aviation Week article ` 1641 Tab 6. Open-skies exhibit 1642 `Tab 7. List of titles and items wanted and requested from the `Soviet bloc ("Want List") - 1642 Tab 8. Statement re titles and items received under the exchange program 1645 Tab 9. SummaTy comment on exchange Program,,. 1645 Tab 10. Summary comment on publication program 1647 Tab 11. Summary comment on business science and* industry rela- tionships 1648 Tab 12. Relationship of 081 to BFC 1649 Tab 13. Exchange of medical films 1650 Tab 14. 051 relationship with GPO 1650 Exhibit II. - Operating Instruction No. 7 cf Business and Defense Services Administration Manual of Administrative and Operating Instructions, part rr Exhibit ITT. Operating Instruction No. 8 of Business and Defense Services Administration Manual of Administra~ve and OPeri~ting Instructions, pert II - 1653 Exhibit IV. Report by Business and Defense Services Administration that 150 ~nillion tons of steel capacity will be'needed by 1960 1662 ,E~bibit `V. Executive Order 9568 `providing for the release of scientific information 1662 Exhibit VI. Memorandum to the Reviewer from the editors of: Analyticaj Chemistry, Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, Journal of Agricul- tural and Food Cbemistry~ 1663 Exhibit VII. Letter from Walter J. Murphy, editorial director of ACS Applied Publications, regarding stamps used to identify scientific publi- cations mailed overseas 1664 Exhibit VIII. Miscellaneous amendments to export regulations of the Bureau of Foreign Commerce, Department of Commerce, covering the export of technical and scientific data 1665 Exhibit IX. Letter from Philip A. Ray, General Counsel of the Depart.. ment of Commerce re constitutionality of Export Control Act restrictions Ofl technical data 1666 Exhibit X. Office of Strategic Information Progress Report, November 1, 1954, to February 18, 1955 1668 Exhibit XI. Office of Strategic Information Progress Report, February 19, 1955, to June 30, 1955 1671 Exhibit XII. Office of Strategic Information Progress Report, June 30, 1955, to February 29, 1956 1675 Exhibit XIII. Letter from Erwin Seago, Director of the Office of Strategic Information, re liaison activities between 051 and the Armed Services Technical Information Agency, and between OSI and the Office of Tech- nical Services, Department of Commerce - 1683 Exhibit XIV. Statement of ;John C. Green, Director of the Office of Tech- nical Services, prepared for submission to the Government Information Subcommittee 1683 Exhibit XV. Correspondence between the Government Information Sub- committee and officials of the Departmen~~ of Commerce, State, and Defense re publication of Office of Strategic Information progress reports 1684 Exhibit XVI. Interdepartmental Committee on International E~chang~es Document 4.3, revision 3, re policy for handling requests from Soviet bloc countries for Published informajjo~ 1691 PAGENO="0008" CONTENTS Page Exhibit XVII. Interdepartmental Committee on International Exchatges Document `3.2, re~vision 3, and transmittal memorandum of May 9, 1956, re guide to implement policy for handling requests from Soviet bloc Countries fc~r United $tates Government nonclassifled published infer- mation~__ 1692 Exhibit XVII~. Interdepartmental Committee on International Exchanges Document *.4, revision 4, re policy for United States executive agencies for handling requests from Soviet bloc countries for unpublished tion~~ classified Uhited States Government information 1698 Exhibit XIX~ Interdepartmental Committee on Publications Document 10.2 re stalius of aerial photography policy 1699 Exhibit XX. Department of Defense Industrial Security Letter 54-6 re action to be taken on requests from representatives of Soviet bloc countries f~r unclassified information -_ - - - 1700 Exhibit XXI. Ealance sheet for strategic information 1701 )l~xhibit Xxii Excerpts from reports on 1955-56 and 1956-57 Defense Departmeitt appropriation, regarding restrictions on information, and related co~respondence 1702 Exhibit XXIII. Department of Commerce Order No. 157, November 19, 1954 Subject: Office of Strategic Information Organization and Func- tions~ -- 1704 Exhibit XXfIV. Department of Commerce Order No, 157 (amended), August. 23~ 1955 Stibject: Office of Strategic Information 1706 Exhibit XXV. Declassified section of the National Security Council direc- tive ordering the establishment of the Office of Strategic Information_ - 1708 lhbibit XX~STI. Correspondence with Patent Office Commissioner Robert C. Watso~i regarding mechanization of patent searches 1708 Exhibit XXVTI. Correspondence regaFding number of appearances of See- retar~ of Commerce Sinclair Weeks before congressional committees - 1710 Exhibit XXVIII. Correspondence with Albert Leman, Commerce Depart- ment. Dii~ector of Public Information, regarding number of employees doing puljdic relations work in the Department - 1710 PAGENO="0009" AVAJLAEILITY OF INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Part 6-Department of Commerce FRIDAy, JANtTARY 13, 1956 hoUsE o~' REPRESENTATIVES, SuBCoMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT INFORMATION OF THE COMMrrIEE ON GOVERNMENT O1kSRATION$, Wa8hington, D. C. The subcommittee met at 10 a m, in room 1501, House Office Build- ing, Hon J E Moss, Jr (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding Present: Representatjv~~ Moss, Fascell, and Hoffman. .4Jso present Samuel Archibald, staff director, J Lacey Reynolds, senior consultant; Wallace Parks, chief counsel; Jacob Scher, special counsel. Mr. Moss. The subcommittee will come to order. The first witness this morning will be Mr R Karl Honaman, for- merly an official of the Department of Defense and of the Department of Commerce. The committee has invited Mr. Honaman here for the purpose of giving us the benefit of his views and his experience in the two depart- ments of Government. We feel that he can contribute materially to the study undertaken by this committee having had experience in two of the major departments of Government, and certainly from the in- formational aspects, two of the more controversial departmen~ of government. He has also had extensive experience in the informational field in private industry. Mr. Honaman, do you have a statement you would like to read as we start the hearing? STATEMENT OF B. KARL HONAMAN, FOBME~ OFFICIAL OP T~IE DEPARTMENT OP DEFENSE AND OP TEE DEPARTMENT OP QOMMERCE Mr. HONAMAN. Yes; I have, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Moss. Would you proceed, Mr. Honaman. Mr. HONAMAN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, having left Gov- ernment service, I am appearing before the subcommittee at the in- vitation of the chairman, to make available what views and thoughts I may have regarding the problems involved in the flow of informa tion from the Government departments. I am very glad to be of service to the subcommittee and hope that, to some extent at least, my views will be helpful in your study. 1123 PAGENO="0010" 1124 ~ IN]~O~MATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES I will ti'y~ to give you as briefly as I can my views a~ a citizen~ as well as one who has been associated with the day-to-day solution of inforrnatiorj problems in the Government. My thinking, as to the Government aspect, has naturally been prirn manly drawn from the experiences which I have had in the Depart~ merit of Defense The problems faced by Defense Department information people a~e comphcat&1 problems, and I should say at the outset they do not, as I~ have obsçved them lend themselves readily to easy solutions. The basic probl~m is that of balancing the need to give the public the maximum information possible with the parallel need to retain or limit acces~ to information where required in the national interest. Probably t~ie outstanding fact that has impressed itself upon me, is the fact th~t people handling these information problems need con- stantly to use judgment of a high order I will try to elaborate upon this point as we go along First, I believe' the public, in a democracy like ours, has a need and a right to a continuous flow of accurate information on the actions taken by their Government The people themselves must be the jndges of the appropriateness and effectiveness of the programs e~tab~ hshed and administered by their public officials Without availability of adeqm~te information, obviously they cannot exercise their judgment.~ Our coi~intry, to preserve~ its traditional freedoms, and fo~ th& maintenance of its imhtary defense position and for the growth of its econoirfy, needs free interchange of ideas. In America, the sharing of know-how by our engineers, scientists, and businessmen, which plays so vital a part in building our strength, is basic to our industrial leadership. For these rea~sons, I believe that the agencies of the Government should continue to exert every effort to make available as much in- formatloiT about their activities as they can and should affirmatively promote ~ policy of cooperation with the information media of the country-4press, magazines, radio, photograph, and TV agencies In the ~ractical carrying out of such a policy in a prolonged cold war, Gov~rnment people come face to face with the fact that informa- tion, in addition to enlightening the American public, may beconle and has become, intelligence to potential enemies. I believe the people of this country, who are called upon to fight its battles and the mothers and fathers of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, quite properly expect ~them to exercise caution to avoid, as far .as possible, making it easy for a potential enemy to learn about our plans and our weapons~ You thight say that, complementary to the right of the public to be inforifried, is the equally important right of the public to assurance that its Government officials are discharging their responsibilities, in the handling of intelligence information, with a maximum regard for the safety and security of our citizens Those who have taken an oath to perform their official duties have an obligation and a responsibility in this matter which they cannot shirk I am sure we all agree it is important to recognize that an alert and persistent potential aggressor finds information about our defenses of tremendous advantage to him In the report of the Appropriations Committee of the House of Repres~ntatives, dated May 5, 1955, for example, we find the statement, PAGENO="0011" I1~25 "toomu~hihforniationhiw bc&treleasèd which is o f ncrben~fIt to' the American people, but which is of tremendous value to our opponents" It is in the practical handling of this problem that we need to exer~ cise intelligent and informed judgment The problem does not lend itself to simple rules of easy application Sometimes it is clear that~ fragments of information will add little of benefit to the American people, though much to the advantage of our opponents. On the other hand, the importance of certain information to the American people may be such that it should be disseminated, even though it may unquestionably be of intelligence value to a potentia1~ enemy Many of the problems faced lie somewhere between these extremes Intelligent, conscientious, and informed judgment on the part of responsible people who handle information is needed to achIev~ the proper balance. The amount and quality of information that can be made available to the information media of the country is determined to some extent by the policies set by the Congress as to the size of the organization avajlable to work at this function. In the case of the Defense Depart~ ment, there is a fixed limit to the amount of money that may be-spent in public information activities. In my opinion, wise and economical use of these funds is made.: It-goes without saying that the people who work in the Government information field are not perfect, and I am sure they will sometimes make mistakes, but, I believe, they are doing their conscientious best, and overall that an above-average `job is being done, I believe the information media `serving the American people. are well supplied with information about the defense of our country. For example, in the Department of Defense periodic reports' of the Director of the Office of Public Information indicate that approxi- mately 1,000 to 1,200 inquiries from the press. and other media are received and answered each week. It is rather amazing to observe the volume of these inquiries which are expeditiously and accurately answered when one stops to consider the amount ef work involved in gathering and verifying the necessary information. Especially is this true in the case of the Department of Defense with its tremendous size and diverse operations, where even the average inquiry must, of necessity, to some extent have the attention of opera- tional or policy `personnel, in particular subject areas. After a-il, `it must not be forgotten that the information personnel cannot be ex- pected to be repositories of any but a small fraction of the substantive information needed to answer most inquiries They are, in essence, the communication and liaison channel between the media and. the people having the information. Incidentally, in this connection, in my opinion, with respect to con- tentions which have sometimes been made that Government depart~' ments fail to issue enough information, I believe that this is often clue to the understandable fact that many operational people are often too preoccupied with their operational duties to pass this information to the information personnel for dissemination. As a result, I be- lieve that' in some instances, the Government fails to gain the benefit, ~public-relations wise, of many good things it does. PAGENO="0012" 1126 iNFO ~. ~:TTON FRW~~ 1!BmItRJUJ ~EPør~:; A~fl~AGE~IES I have not ~xperienced any instance in which information waa re- quested and ubt supplied, except where such information in the opinion of responsiblô persons was considered of a tiature which would jeop- ardize the sectirity of our country or would violate statutes or directives of. higher authority. In addition to the responses to inquiries, much additional mforma- tion flows from the Defense Department through news conferences, press releases., speeches, and pictures. But another practical dilemma faced by Government information people is th~t while in certain quarters they are belabored for with~ holding mformation-in other quarters, including sometimes the in- fQrmatlon m~dia, they are often actually belabored with the accusation that they are papering the walls with too much, or useless, information Also, and 1 say this with all respect, I believe your committee is well aware that many Members of the Congress feel that considerable of the information activity by a Government agency is, in reality, the generation of mere self-serving propaganda, which in many cases dis- closes security information. `in conclusion, I would like to thank the committee for this oppor~ tunity to present my views. If I am able to contribute, even a little bit, to a bett~er understanding on the part of all parties concerned with this impor~nt, yet complex problem-the public, the information media, the ~ongress, and the ~vernment agencies-it will be a source of gieat pe~sonal satisfaction. Keeping the public adequately informed is a matter of tremendous importance and making sure that it is properly done requires con- stant study. Thank you. Mr. Moss. Thank you. Mr. Fascell, do youhave any questions? Mr. FASCELL. No. questions. Mr. MÔ~. Mr. Hoffman? Mr. HO~MAN. No. Mr. Mo~s. Mr. Honaman, the basic directive from the Department of Defense~ the one under which you operated during your service with the Department, was the Wilson directive of March 29, 1955; Depart- ment of Defense Directive No. 5230.9, is that correct? Mr. HQZ~AM4N. That is right. That was one of the directives un- der which `I operated. Mr. Moss. That is the basic policy of' the Department of Defense~ Mr. HO*AMAN. Well, there are others, of course. This is one deal-P ing with information. Other directives also deal with information. Mr. Mobs. Mr. Scher, have we a list of all of the other directives of the Department of Defense? Mr. Sc~reR. We have those directives which are pertinent to our study, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Moss.. The thing I am trying to establish is, is this the basic policy of the Department in the field of information ~ Mr. ~HONAMAN. This is a basic policy of the Department of Defense. Mr. Moss. I believe at the time of the release of this policy it evoked some measure of criticism in the press and from other public sources because it states that "such review and clearance shall be related not only to ~ determination of whether release of the material would PAGENO="0013" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1127 involve. any teclmic.al or substantive violation of security, but also to a determination of whether release or publication of the inatcri~1 would constit~ute a constructive contribution to the primary'*mission of the Department of Defense." I wonder if you would at this time give us your interpretation of that section of the directive. Mr. HONAMAN. I think that is substantially correct, and it did evoke considerable comment, Mr. Chairman. And I have made a few notes) here about it that I would like to refer to. The first part of the comment indicated that I was probably the author of the words in that directive, and I would like to point out for your record that that is inaccurate. rfhe directive was issued before I joined the Department of Defense, though I did operate under it and am quite familiar with it, and do not mean to imply by that that there was anything that we couldn't; operate under. The second thing I would like to point out is that that directive was not intended to apply, nor was it ever applied, to my knowledge, to material gathered in response to requests from any information media, but rather it was intended to guide people who are generating information to be issued from the Department. Now, as I have operated under it, I have become a cqiiainted with the reasons that I think led to the use of the word "constructive." And some of these go back quite a while. There have been occasions when in information that. was prepaiecl within the departments, because of the rivalry and the competition between various branches of the service there is sometimes reflected discredit upon a sister service, perhaps not intending to discredit it, but in the zeal for promoting their own service. And such statements, I think, could mislead and possibly alarm the public if they accepted the discrediting of one of the services. And that was one of the reasons why it was felt that people should be guided to think constructively about the things they put out. And I think that that has been a good reason. Actually the prime reason for this phrase "constructive contribu~ tion," as I understand it, was to meet that kind of situation and to avoid that kind of result. I think it is unfortunate that the term has been misinterpreted. And I may say that in my experience I haven't found that term has been used by people generating information as a basis for doing anything which the criticism indicated might. happen; namely, that they would use it to cover up the things that otherwise. might be proper subjects for disseminated information. Mr. Moss. Mr. Fasceli? Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Honaman, doesn't the language, however, in that paragraph lead to the very logical inference that anything which does ~not constitute a constructive contribution should not he dis~ seminated? Mr. ET0NAMAN. Yes I think it probably leads to that.. Mr. F~tsciur~. Wouldn't the language further have a tendency to lead you t.o draw a logical conclusion that constructive, information, as di iferenti ated from' destructive, if it were let's say useless, but it was just. information, should `not. be generated just for the sake of generating ii iformation? PAGENO="0014" 1128 ~LFON~TIQN FR~M ]PEVERAL DEPABTMENPS AND AG~ENCIES MHo~1~AN. ,As'i understand 3Tour question, it is that this might suggest to pebple that they should not generate information just for the sake of g~nerating it? Mr. FASCE1~L. Right. Mr }ToNA~r ~N I think that is piobably correct Mr. FASCELL. If that is true, wouldn't it be better perhaps if this p~rticUisr basic policy were amended ~o that it stopped at the prOvi- sion which stud that material should not be released which involved a technical ~r substantive violation of security, period ? Mr HONo~tAN Well, there are other kinds of things that are not ~otistructive~ For example, in one case a distinguished editor in this countri~ complained in a letter to the Secretary that he was re- ceivrng released information which was so useless to him that he wished the Defense Department would stop cluttering his files. So it isn't only security There are occasions when-and this runs to the situation~ where you might have discredit reflected upon a sister se~vic~ where it might not be a violation of security, but it still `would not Ileally be often of interest to an editor, and in other eases not really l~elp the public to understand what we are doing. I think this was pi~obably what the Appropriations Committee meant wheü they spoke~ about information of no benefit to the public. Mr. Moss. Mr, Honarnan, who should determine whether or not informatioP is of `benefit to the public? Mr. HONAMAN~ Well, the public ought to have everything that can be of benefit to them. ` And I suppose, Mr. Chairman, that everybody who handles information h'ts the responsibility, whether it be a Gov~ ernment ofRcial or a representative of the information media, I think there is a responsibility that all responsible people have Mr. Mo~s. But as we approach the problem, if the criteria is whether o~' not a public benefit exists because of the information, whether there is a collateral public benefit and that information must be i~vide avaihble, isn't there a question of what should or should nOt be made available, if the other approach, that of protecting the security of the tTmted States when we deal with the information of the Department of Defense-if it cannot be demonstrated that the security is imp'ured, then should there be other criteria applied ~ Mr. HO~AMAN. Well, there are certain kinds of information, Mr. Chairmar~; which do not involve the security but which cannot be made public I h'ive m'tde `i few notes about some of those Mr. Mops. Could you give us some examples? Mr. H~NAMAN. There is a case, for example, a situation where it is planne~l to construct a military base The information about that is genera'ly not released in advance of the time that the land, where It certainly would not be in the PAGENO="0015" fl~'0RMATIO~ 1?EOM 1~ifl~AL D1tPAnTM~NT~ ANI~ AG1~CI~ fl2~ Records and information which pertain to individu~l~, such as personnel records, medical records, investigative reports, are generally not made available-I see you have that list. Mr. Moss. Let's take this matter of personal records. To what e*tent is personnel infoi~mation withheld? If I wanted to find Out, as a private citizen, how many employees there were in the Depart~ ment of Defense, and, say, what the average salaries were in a given ~stablishment of the Department of Defense, would that be withheld from me? Mr. HONAMAN. No. But the individual personhel record of ~ per~ son, his individual record, is what is referred to here. Mr. Moss. What rule is applied-is, there a fixed rule in the Depart- ment of Defense as to exactly the type of information regarding per- sonnel which can be made available and the type which is withheld as a matter of policy? Mr. HONAMAN. I don't recall any situation in my. experience in which any information about size of personnel, number~ of people, except in the deployment of units for security reasons, was not made available. I only know of cases where individual personnel, person~ nel r.ecords about individual people, have not been made available. Mr. Moss. Mr. Hoffman? Mr. HOFFMAN. Now, referring to the second page of 5230.9, that part where it says, "but also to a determination of whether release or publication of the material would constitute a constructive contribu- tion to the primary mission of the Department of Defense," what is the primary mission of the Department of Defense as used there? 1~\That does it mean? Mr. HONAMAN. I think it means, Congressman Hoffman, to assure the adequate defense of our country, to promoting the adequate defense of our country. Mr. HOFFMAN. That is the primary mission and objècti~ve ? Mr. HONAMAN. That is the primary mission on the part of the Department of Defense. Mr. HOFFMAN. Well, assume that a congressional committee iu~ quired as to a particular gun and the cost of it and as to the elements that went into the cost, would a release of that information in your opinion be a constructive contribution to the primary mission? Mr. HONAMAN. May I say first that my own experience has not~ brought me into contact with problems regarding requests for infor- mation from the Congress. But I think in the case you cited there would be no question that information would be readily provided, and just offhand, I think it would be constructive to do so. Mr. HOFFMAN. Assuming that the cost of the gun w~s grossly excessive, disclosing that information wouldn't help the defense of the country, would it? It would make the taxpayers mad and resent~ ful, it might be reflected in action of the Appropriations Committee, might it not? Do you see what I mean? If the information would disclose a waste of the taxpayers' money, it wouldn't be constructive toward the primary mission of the Department of Defense, because right away the Congress would be cutting off funds; wouldn't they? Mr. HONAMAN. 1 would certainly not agree that that term "con- structiv&' applied there from the departmental viewpoint would rule out giving the information, in my opinion. PAGENO="0016" n30 INFO1 MAT~ON FROM FEDE1~AL DEPARTMENTS AND A~1!~CIES Mr. HOF~t~AN. If you leave that word in there it might give a reason for the department, a logical reason for the department, not to tell us whether there was any waste. ~ That is all I was thinking of on that Mr HO~AMAN I think I recall a comment by the Secretary to the effect that ~f we had allowed a situation to develop it might be entirely constructive to have it made known, because it would keep us on our toes In Q~her words, it is not really intended, gentlemen, I am sure, as I have observed it, it is not intended to be a means of preveut~ rng anybody from knowing mistakes, if mistakes have been made I have found no reason to believe that that interpretation was considered in any wa~ as a basis for this statement. Mr Moss There are just a few more points I would bite to touch on in connection with the eff~ct of that phrase "constitute a construc- tive contribution." What effect do you feel that might have internally upon people m the lower echelons in the Department of Defense in the actual gen- erating ofi information ~ As an information officer, or a man with the primary r~isponsibihty for information in the Department of Defense, your orgaiuization had to rely upon people in lower echelons frequently for the passing on of information If there is a directive from the department which tends to repress them in the releasing of informa tion or the passing on of information, doesn't it finally cut off inf or- mation which might be not only constructive, but, whether or not we apply that rule, might be of interest to a great many people ~ Mr. HONAMAN. I have not found, Mr. Chairman, any evidence that that is being done. Mr MOss Wouldn't it be difficult to determine that, though ~ Mr. H~NAMAN. I don't think so. Mr Mbss I think we are interested here in the attitude of people within ti'e Governnumt, too. Mr H~NAMAN I have found that our attitude can be expressed, I think, thts way That within the limits of the people that we have to work with in this field, we ought to get out all the information we can, unless it violates these directives of higher authority or the security of the country. That, I think, is a simple statement of the attitude, as I have ob- served it. Mr. Moss. How far down the line can we go, though, or how far down tl~e line do we go in policy determinations on a particular item of infor~naation as to whether or not it is of the type which should be made atailabie or should be kept within the Department? Is there a clear delineation of the authority within the Department? Mr }JONAMAN I wonder whether tour question recognizes the fact that th~ operation of things like this is supervised by people who guide and instruct And I think that the guidance by the people not only in the Defense Department but in the services reflects the same attitude that I just expressed. Now4 I am nOt sure that that answers your question. Maybe I haven'ti quite understood it. You were talking about people far down the 1in~. They are going to conduct thems~lves as their supervision guides jand directs them, of course, as in any large organization Mr ~Ioss Are there standards applied within the Department on information at the lower levels? PAGENO="0017" 1~]~OI~MAPIO~ FROM FED1i~kL~L DLPA1~ThENPS A~Th M~E~CIT~S 1131 Mr. HONAMA~. You say, are there standards? Mr. Moss. Yes. Mr HONAMAN Well, I am tiying to think of any examples I tln;i4~ th~ stada~ds that are applied are based upon the attitude I have ~ that we ought to make information availa~ble as far as we can. Each of the services has its own instructions, has its own informa- tion people, and they, in tuin, meet with their people clown the line and instruct them. And I think this attitude goes through the or- gan~oi~. Mr. Moss. How uniform are those policies between the various branches of the services? Mr HONAMAN They are fairly uniform, but they are not completely uniform, as you might expect. And one of the problems that we deal with constantly is to bring together the people in the services in order to help develop uniform policies. Mr. Moss. That is at the top? Mr. HONAMAN. That is at the top, the top in the service, the service gioups and the Office of the Secretary of Defense And there are cooperative relationships that go across the board at lower levels, too,. of course. Mr. Moss. I want to èome back to this, but I think before I do, Mr. Scher, you should pursue your line of inquiry. Hr. ~ Before you start, another one Just occurred to me.. Mr. M~ss~ Mr. Hoffman. Mr. H0rvMAN. Mr. Chairman, it seems that the language in th~ second paragraph to which refeience has been made, is susceptible of two opposite and perfectly logical conclusions The views of the Sec retary, as reflected by the witness in the example cited, assuming that the cost of a particular gun was grossly excessive, a disclosure of that information, as you suggested, might spur the Department on to better efforts I concede that that might be possible On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, if there was too much of that,. it would, as I have suggested before, have its effedt on the Appro priations Committee and on Congress in general, when it came to ap~ propri~te money, and might result in the denial of a needed appro priation. Couldn't the language be possibly written so as to avoid that double interpretation? That is all I have. I thank you. Mr. Moss. Would you care to comment on that question of Mr. Hoffman, Mr. Honaman? Mr. Ho1~'FMAN. Is there any other language you can use other than this limitation that it must constitute a constructive contribution to the primary mission? I assume that is the best you had at the time, or you wouldn't have put it in there. Mr. HONAMAN. That was, as I understand. I made the point earlier that I didn't participate in preparing it. Mr HOFFMAN If you had thought of something better, you would have suggested it, wouldn't you? Mr. HONAMAN. I would; yes. Mr. HOTMAN. Do you have any idea at the moment as to how it could be made better? 69222-56-pt. 6--2 PAGENO="0018" 1132 :Th~OI~APION R~O~t FE~D~RAL DEP4RTMENTS ~ND AG1~NCfl~S Mr. HONA~IAN. Not at the. moment. I have observed the operation of this, however, and it seexna to be operating s~tisfactorily I am sure that~ the people in the Depart- ment of Defense are constantly alert, and if there are re'isons de velopeci whi~h would indicate that that language should be changed, I am sure th~y would be alert to do it. Mr. Moss4 Mr. Fascell. Mr FASO*LL Mr Honaman, isn't the basic problem in interpreting the clause, particularly the word "constructive," that it is subject to various int~irpretations, depending on who does the interpreting? Mr HON~MAN Isn't that true, Mr Congressman, of any language you can write? Mr FASdELL I thoroughly agree with you Therefore, doesn't it become a variable and very unreliable standard to accomplish what you hope to accomplish? Mr. HONAMAN. Not in my opinion. I think experience has shown that it has~ been operated with sound judgment and that it is not unreliable In' practice. Mr. FAS~ELL. Then what you are saying is, in fact, that it depends upon goodj administrative supervision to make it work? Mr. HOI~AMAN. Thank you, sir. That is a very helpful addition. It certainly does. And that is true of any~ directive. When you come to ~ rite specific words covering a wide variety of situations, there are no words that are completely descriptive of every possible situa- tiOn that aan arise. I think your point is awfully w~ll made, it is as good as the sound- ness of th~ administration that carries it out. Mr. M~ss. Then, at that point, isn't it advisable some times to have some protection, either by directive or law, which doesn't rely entirely upon adn~inistration, in the event that you should have improper administr~ition ? Should we be entirely in the field of administrative discretion in the matter of information, or should we have some clearly drawn guidance which tends to continue a free flow of information, even under im- proper administration? Mr HONAMAN Sir, I guess this is partly a legal question, isn't is? I am not ~tn attorney. Mr. Mpss. It would be a matter also, I think, of opinion, Mr. Honama4. Mr. H~NAMAN. However, I would make this observation-this is as a iayman4 and not as a lawyer, because I am not an attorney-it seems tome that there is no way to write a law or a rule that doesn't require and depend upon good judgment, and, as Congressman Fascell has said, gooki administration. Now, if you interpret that to mean that if you get bad administration you can't operate properly, I am afraid I will have to leave that to the legal people, because I think it is a legal question. Mr. Moss. Don't you think it is true that a good law, improperly adminis4ered, can be ~ bad law, but it might not necessarily be as bad as no stabdard at all ~ And a bad law properly administered can be, for all pfractical purposes, only a fairly decent law ~ Mr I~(oNAMAN All I cau say to that is, I do believe that you ca~inot ~ubstitute anything for good judgment and good administration. PAGENO="0019" iNFORMi~TiON ~iiOM' DERAI~ ~EPARTM~NTS 4~W AGJ~CIES 1133 Mr Moss And you can't legislate good judgment or good admmis- tration? Mr HONAMAN You probably can't legislate good judgment or good administration. Mr. FAso~L, Mr. Chairman, that brings us to a point that has been disturbing me, particularly in this field, and that is the question of atmosphere under which thousands of employees, who are responsible for and who might generate information or who have it `available, would work I look at Directive 5230 9, and it sets out a specific criteria in the paragraph we have been talking about. And then, you pointed out that `there is no regulation as set forth in Directive 5200 6, so called nonsecurity information, which is also limited for information, use and in which you would have to exercise good judgment, and which is specifically limited in section 3, para graph (a), subsections 3 (a) through (g). And I imagine there are some more, I haven't reviewed all of the directives on this question But it finally gets to the point that if I am one of these employees down the line somewhere, in order to be absolutely safe I am not going to generate anything. Mr. HONAMAN. Yes, Congressman,' that has been a comment. I haven't found that to be true~ I haven't found it to operate that way. I think I can only tell you what my experience has been. Mr. FA5cELL. Does anything in your experience indicate what could be done to clear that type of atmosphere,if it should exist? You say it doesn't exist. Mr HONAMAN I haven't found in my experience that it does exist Mr. FASCELL. But assuming for the moment that it did, that this was an enveloping cloud that surrounds all employees, and in order to be satisfactory, particularly when it deals with national security, they would rather say nothing, what would be your opinion or recommendation to remove that feeling or atmosphere surrounding the employees? Mr HONAMAN I think that the atmosphere must be found in better administration, if that happens. Here is a point I think would help. The same confusion we are discussing here now did develop, of course, around this directive when it was first issued. And it was discussed at Mr. Wilson's news con.~ `ferences. He pointed out some of the same things we have been discussin~ here. And it is my belief now that the news men who work and stay in the Pentagon, representing the media, are satisfied that this interpretation is not an impedixnent to their getting information which they other~ wise would get. I think that is significant. Mr. Moss. I would like to state at this point that we are not today studying the Department of Defense, as such, we will at a future d~ite study the Department of Defense, and at that time we will have under study instances where the contrary would appear to be the case,. There have been expressions of dissatisfaction by the press And it is going to take more staff work before we are prepared to go into the Defense Department, as such. So that point will be pursued further at that time Mr FASCIiIL Mr Chairman, I have one further thought on this, pursuing thi~ line of reasoning. ~. ,. . . ` `, ` PAGENO="0020" I 134 INFORMATIONFI~OM I~EDERAL t~PABTMENTS AND AGE~NCI]~S In your ~xperience, when you op~rat&i under these directives, Mr~ IJonaman, did you find that the man in the lower echelon whO was generating informatiou which might be available, instead of reh~asuig it himself, or making the decision~himself, would pass it on up olrnn- nel~ so that it eventually wound up in one spot, the Director of the Office of ~ub1ic Information, and that he would have to make the decision? Mr. HOMMAN. No. Of course, all of the information that is released by the Department of Defense is released through the Office of the Secretary of Defense That is a part of our activity which has been a practice for a long time So that part of the answer to your question is, yes, the rnforma tion does cthne up to a central point. But that doesn't mean that the decision a~ to whether it should be prepared in the information form has had t~ wait until it got up there Is that a good answer? Mr FA~Ci~LL That is part of the answer But if this admirnsti a tion chanhel works that way, it means that an individual on the lower echelon generating information may make the decision that this is information which should be released but, in effect, if I un.der~tand your statement correctly, though he is actually recommending that it be released, he doesn't have the authority to go ahead and release it without further review? Mr HONAMA~ That is right Mr. Moss. Mr. Scher, you'inay pursue your questioning. Mr Sqrn!~n I have a fundamental confusion, Mr Honaman You started Øut by saying the phrase "constructive contribution to the primary mission of the Department of Defense" applied primarily t~ personnel in the Department of Defense, and this was an attempt to get a mo~re reasonable practice on their part and prevent interservice conflicts. Is that right? Mr. gO~AMAN. To prevent the release of information by one serv- ice that may reflect discredit upon another, that is right Mr. SOHER. And since then, you went on to talk about other matters, such as personnel data, and you included that under your definition of a constructive contribution? Mr JI0NAMAN No, I think not I think that was in answer to a questioni of what other kind of things might not be issued I was not intending to include under the constructive these things which are specifically included in the directive that you are speaking of Mr SCHER So you are referring primarily to service personnel, and their activity, as a constructive contribution ~ Mr. HONAMAN. That is right. This directive was djrected, you see, to the services, the three serv- ices, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Mr T~AsoELL Which one are you referring to now g Mr. HONAMAN. I am referring to-I assume Mr. Scher is, too-to. ~3O 9, jwhich contains the word "constructive" Mr ~CHER Yes As concerns members of the armed services, do you coi~sider it a constructive contribution to the primary mission of the arnied services to withhold the transcript of the Billy Mitchell court martial some 30 years agog Mr H0NAMAN That I don't know That is a problem I haven't considered Is it a fact that the transcript was withheld? PAGENO="0021" PAGENO="0022" ii3 ~ Mr Sc~iitsn Yes Was that freely releasedt Mr. Ho~tAMAN. Yes, indeed. Mr SCI~ER How soon after the correspondence took place was this thaterial r~leased? Mr HO*AMAN It was released as soon as the study could be com~ pieted afi$r inquiry had been made for the record. Mr. Sdw~R. Didn't this controversy develop at the time of the re- lease of the Yalta Papers? Mr HO~AMAN I am not in a position to say "Yes" or "No" to that Mr SOIIER Is it your opinion, sir, that it was a constructive con- tribution to the mission of the Defense Department to withhold that information f~r any period of time ~ Mr. H~NAMAN. Well, I would not agree that it was withheld for any periød of time. Mr. SdiIEu.. What is your explanation, then, for the time lag that took pla~e. between the time o~ the request and the time of the issuing of this ir~formation? Mr. TIONAMAN. The entire time interval was devoted to analyzing the material to get-to make available the material that bore on this question, to make the necessary checks with other governments that were in~n'olved in this correspondence, and with other departments of our own Government. And that work was carried on, as I observed it, rather diligently. Mr. Spim~. If I were a newspaper reporter and were not quite sure as to wh$her or not all the documents concerning General MacArthur's positionj had been released, how could' I be assured that that was so? Would i have to go on your word or the word'of someone in the Defense Departthent? Mr. ETONAMAN. `Well, `if you had some specific thing that you thought should be there and it wasn't, and you made inquiry about it, I an~ sure you would get a proper answer as to whether it exists or does not exist. But if you just felt that somehow maybe there ought to be iuore, I don't quite know how' you can solve that problem. Mr. SellER. Is the burden on ,the reporter to always come'up with a specifiq request, or may he ask a general question and depend upon the Department to fulfill it with thoroughness band dispatch ~ Mr. HONAMAN. Well, I believe the Department of Defense' will fulfill ~ny request that conies from a reporter. Mr. SCHER. Well, they have `requested the court-martial transcript of Ge~i. Billy Mitchell, and that has not been released. Mr. HONAMAN. I will have to say, sir, that I am not familiar with that situation, and I dOn't'know the answer to it. It is not anything that has arisen in my expethnce, nor' has it arisen during my time of service. ` Mr.' Scrn~it. Were you in the Defense Department on November 30,' 1955?, Mr~ HONAMAN. Yes;' I was., Mr~ Scii~n. You started April29, 1955? Mr~ HoR~x~. That is right. ` Mi~. SOJiER. A request was made about that time of the Defense Department by a certain~ newspaper, aiid. the request was denied. Mr. HONAMAN. I am simply not familiar with it. Mi'. SellER. It did not come to your attention? PAGENO="0023" ~PORMATTON FROM FEDRRAL~ ~E1?~BTMEN~ AND AO~T~ H Mr, HONAM tN It did not come to my attention Mr Moss Mr Honaman, on this general question, you said that the constructive dii ective was primarily aimed at the intraservice r~qmrement within the Department of Defense, that that was one of the problems the Department was dealing within in the issuance of this directive. Mr.~ HONAMAN. Yes. Mr. Moss. How far can we go, or how far should we go, in con- cealing from the public or from the Congress the fact that there do exist serious differences of opinion, or that there might exist sei ious differences of opinion, between the top commands of various branches of `/the~ military service, and what constructive purpose is served greater than the advantage to the American people in the release' of the information itself, concerning the general knowledge as to the types of controversy existing, the differing opinions existing in the Department? Mr. HONAMAN. Well, may I say that in speeches and in press' re- leases the separate interests of the military departments are rather completely brought out, and there is a lot of healthy rivalry which to my knowledge is not withheld or suppressed. Now, if you have any- thing more specific in mind than that, I will try to answer it. Mr. Moss. Will you go back to one item which has been mentioned ~ I think another which we are all generally familiar with, the appear- ~a~ce of Gen~raI Vandenberg before the Armed Service Committee of the Senate in sharp disagreement with Department of Defense policy, ~nd t'h~' letter of General Ridgway, which indicated some degree of differing: ipinion, at least. Now, those two-in one the General took it upon himself to place his views `upon the record, in the case of General Vandenberg, and in the othe'r, because General Ridgway by letter tried to inform or did' inform `the' Secretary of Defense. At the moment those are the only two I can recall. Certainly if there is that area of disagreement there must be other instances, and keeping them within' the Department and away from the public, does that serve a greater purpose, a more constructive pur- pose, than perhaps informing the Congress and the people of these differing opinions? Mr. HONAMAN. Well, I think, Mr. Chairman, the main thing that. needs to be done with differing opinions is to, shall we say, give them all the free play they can have in the discussions in t'he Department in developing policies-I mean, policies are beaten out `of a lot of different points of view. And I think that after they have been beaten out and become the policy, there can be very little purpose served in airing those things to the public. Now, you mentioned the Congress. I am not discussing this ques- tion, because Congress, of course, to my knowledge, gets very com- plete pictures of the various points of view. Mr. Moss. As a matter of fact, while we are on that point,, do com- mittees of Congress get that benefit in the more'sensitive fields? `They get the benefit of the differing views to a degree only, because the representatives of the Department of Defense who appear and testify as a rule are `testifying on policies determined upon by the Depart- ment of Defense and may not necessarily reflect their own views on PAGENO="0024" I 138 I~&I~MATION FR OM FEDJ~AL ]!~EPAflTMENTS AND AGENC~S them, arid if they hide these di~éren~es which have developed, isn't there a deni~Iof information to the American people and to the general body of the~Congress of what we in Congress call the minority view ~ We have di~EFerenees in committees, and we file a report which reflects the majoiity rule, and that becomes the policy of the committee But we also respect the view of the minority, and it is spread fully on the record. Mr. HOFEMAN. May I interrupt you there? Mr. Moss. Mr. Hoffman. Mr. HO~FMAN. I think the chairman and my associ~t~s4~e are thoroughly familiar with the fact that when an administration bill comes up, regardless of which party is in power, ab~nit the only wit- nesses we hear are those that. are sent up by the Department to sub- stantiate t~ie claims, show the advisability of passing the bill. Do you tecall any instances when anyone with opposite views came up from tI'~e Department on any bill? Mr. Moss. None other than the inst~nce I recall when General Vandenberg testified in the Senate hearings. Mr HOFFMAN But ordinarily in our own House experience all we get is the Department views I mean, we have a procession of wit- nesses in support of the administration bill. Mr Moss I think that is quite correct And I am just wondering how far we can go in the direction of completely concealing these different views in a Department as they relate to policy ~hi~h is extremel~ important to the American people without denying fre~ quently some of the information which not only the Congress but the people themselves should have in arriving at an informed opinion aS to whi~h policy might be the better. Mr. HIOFFMAN. As to whether, before we report out a bill, there are views, reasonable views, held by other members of the Department, and whether there is a reluctance-let's put it that way-to testify that may in some way be overcome so that they will be free to come up and tell us, so that they may do so without feeling that they are deprive~, say, of the opportunity for promotion. That is what is worrying me. Mr. I~ONAMAN. May I say again, Mr. Chairman, that the matter of informa4tion to Congress has never been a part of my responsibilities, you seed and I should not attempt to express more than a personal opinion My opinion has been that very complete information has been gi~'en to the Congress about our military problems. Now, I could be wrong on that. Mr Moss Of course, I think of equal importance is that there be as much iiiformation as possible of these disagreements to the American people. They have the responsibility of selecting the Congress, which only functions as their representatives. After all, in our Republic they ate finally the governors of the Nation, and how much of that import~ant information, where there is not just the normal day-to-day dis~g$ement but~wherc there is ~nbsta ial'disagre~mei~t on basic and vital policy-how far can we go in suppressing the fact that there is a disagreement ~ Wouldn't it be more constructive to air the disagree- ments? I know that there must be disagreement, because it has been placed on the record by two generals, General Ridgway and General Vandenberg, in the thinking of how far we can go in placing primary relianpe on certain new types of weapons, how much we should depart PAGENO="0025" INFOiU\~tATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 113~' from traditional weapons in a period, say, of, transition. Wouldn't the public be better informed and better able to evaluate the soundness of policy if they had the benefit of some of the disagreement as well as the policies that have finally been set forth by the Department of Defense? Mr. HONAMAN. I think I should answer that by saying that I would not in my opinion believe that different points of view should be with- held from the public, but I would think that you will make more prog.~ ross if they are first thrashed out and freely discussed in the councils, so that the best policy could be developed out of these different points of view. Now, the American people should not be deprived of the knowledge that these policies have been thrashed out from different points of view. Mr Moss Well, in the directive here, applying the word "construe tive" as relating to the internal operations of the department, doesn't it imp'y that to be "constructive" it must more or less-but certainly on~ the side of more-be in agreement with the policies arrived at by the department itself? Mr. HONAMAN. I have not seen any evidence that the use of the word "constructive contribution to the missioli of the Defense Depart- ment" has operated to prevent any military men making a speech, for example, expressing his views of the military situation, or, as I said earlier, any other evidence that that has been used to suppress infor- mation which, except for that, would be made available. Mr Moss What standard would you apply ~ Or do you feel it is possible to apply a standard? Mr. HONAMAN. Standard of what? Mr Moss Of determining whether the speech of an officer, say, in the Navy, which might be somewhat critical of Air Force policy merely reflects some internal controversy or whether it is a basic dis- agreement with a policy which might be of constructive benefit to the American peopie to know about. Mr HONAMAN It seems to me you have cited the standard, sir, right now, that if it is not-if it does not reflect discredit upon a sister service, then I would not, generally speaking, think that it would lack constructiveness. Does that answer your question? ]~r. ~Mó~s~ Supposing it were not flattering to a fellow offi~er, a fellow official, because of disagreement on policy? I am thinking now of an instance cited by Mr. Hoffman in the last hearings-I believe 1 state this correctly-where he had occasion to request a file which was highly classified from the Department of Defense, and after much difficulty he was given the file, and upon review it reflected merely an exchange of correspondence between two high-ranking officers. who were in disagreement on a basic policy. Mr. HONAMAN. I don't know about that situation. And, Mr. Chair- man, aren't we getting into some of the things that neither I ~am prepared for, and perhaps you, that ought to come up for discussion when you get into a study of the Defense Department? Mr Moss Let's get to the last paragraph of the directive, 52309, "All personi~el shall assume personal responsibility for the speeches, articles and information releases being consistent with the national security"-I don't think anyone will dispute that-"and the policies and objectives of the Department of Defense." PAGENO="0026" PAGENO="0027" I refer to my notes? Mr.] y. Mr. L~AMAN. n~. ~ that this was of interest, I made some notes. Iii the first place, publication in the Federal Register in September 1955 was the publication of a directive that had been promttlgated in January of 1955 and while the publication in the press advised the public that this was a new device for withholding more types of in- formation, it is unfortunate that (at least I did not see any), that no information was given to the public simultaneously to the effect that the directive really was of older standing than that. Mr. SCHER. Permit me to interrupt for just a second, sir. Would you explain why there was no publication in the Federal Register from January to September of 1955 of these rules and regu~ lations of the Defense Department? Mr; HONAMAN. I inquired about that, Mr. Scher, and discovered that was the time it took to get the mechanical operation of printing and releasing in the Federal Register accomplished. U Mr. SCHER. And is there not a statutory provision that all depart~ ments and agencies must publish in the Federal Register. their rules and regulations within a reasonable time? U Mr. HO~tAMAN. I have not investigated that question. U U Mr SCHER All right I am sorry to have interrupted U Mr. HONAMA~. This directive has been in force since January of thiS year. U U U U U U U U In fact, what was issued in January is practically the same, in Uform and substance, as one that was promulgated early in 1953 There is much information that may be of intelligence -value to a potential enemy and where security control over access to that, if it were in the complete physical control of the Government, would be needed. U But here, the lack of such security control requires its safeguarding by the voluntary cooperation of our citizens. Actually, industry must have free use of this information and in many cases, of course, the information is generated by industry itself, It has been a long-established practice of the Government to en- courage voluntary, and I emphasize "voluntary," care in handling by industry of information of intelligence value and, at the same time, to make the Government's experience in identifying matters as of substantial intelligence import available to industry, where it is de- sired to have assistance. Now, in addition to having worked in the Defense Department during the time this was in force, of course, I had a amountc' . .~1 I believe one can, PAGENO="0028" PAGENO="0029" PAGENO="0030" 1144 1~~~TIO~ ~o~4 ~ ~Ai~~SAN~ A~E~CI~ Mr FASta~LL In other words, we gave the world the transistor, but we gambled on the fact that we could make bettei use of it ~ Mr HO*AMAN That is right Now, that is, I think, quite an im- portant tI~ing because of the great breadth of the field that may be covered by that kind of a component devicer Mr. FA~CELL. But, then~ sôthebody must have determined that some pot~ntia1 e~iemy at that time did not already have the transistor? Mr HONAMAN I would like to leave the answer to that question until we get into the discussion of the classification matters. Mr Moss Well, was it your assumption there was greater benefit to the A'r~ierican people by the full disclosure of the. transistor than there might be benefit to an enemy in having the same information? Mr. ITONAMAN. That is right. On balance, the need was greater in our cduntry, and that was the conclusion reached out of the d~s cussions ~by many people, including military and industrial people. Mr. HOFF~AN. And th~t gives me an opportunity to ask, did wO. giveS soii~e money around about that time tO them to help develop it? Mr. Moss. If he knows---- Mr. HOFFMAN. If anyone knows, I mean. Mr. ~oss. Oertainly. Mr F~SCELL I don't know, but he may know Mr. J1~ONAMAN. Gave the Russians some money? Mr., HOFFMAN. These "potential enemies" at that time, making ~ contribiftion to them, to assist them in developing it ~ Mr IIONAMAN I don't know the answer to that, sir The years are 194~-l9*8 and 1949, I hope we were not prOviding any funds to' any potential enemy, Mr. HOFFMAN. What particular "potential enemy" was it feared: or known might develop it? : Mr. IIONAMAN. Well, of course, the Communists, as far as I can tell, art~ the only potential enemies that this country is facing Mr X{ori MAN Then, I suppose, sir, the record will show we were~ makin* appropriations at the time, at the same time, by loans or gifts-j---. Mr.'~TONAMAN. I don't know the answer---' Mr. HOFFMAN. I would not recall offhand, but I assume that we~ were mit. . Mr FASCELL Mr Honaman, in this example that you have :Just cited about the release.- of the transistor, obviously there must have been `taken into cohsideration the"civilian application of the iteth'? Mr HONAMAN As well as the military Mr FASO~LL And so since that time it has gone into substantial ~ivili~n use? "Mr~ HONAMAN. Yes; and progress is being made in substantiai~ militt4~ry use as well. Mr SellER Mr Honaman, you, I am given to understand, were respo~ible ~for the drawing, up of the. so-called balance sheet for strategic information; is that correct? Mr. HONAMAN. No; that is not correct, sir. Mr SCHER Did you play any part in preparing the balance sheet ~ 1¼h'. HONAMAN. Well, to simplify it, I have knowledge of it, but I have~no part. , "Mi. SCHER. Did you use it? Mi,. HONAMAN. No; I did not use it. PAGENO="0031" * ~ MATION FROM FEDERAL DEEARTME~S AND AG~NCx~ `1145 Mr. $~xrER. Did anybody use it? Mr. IIONAMAN. Yes; I understand SQ. Mr Scxi~n Did it have auiy relevance to your performance of your duties? , ` , / M~. ~]ONAMAN. No, sir. ~r. SCIIER. With the Defense Department~ Mr. IJONAMAN. No; none whatever. Mr., SCIJER. Why not? Mr, HONAMAN. Well, I think perhaps I back better tell the story aiout that balance sheet, which has not been told, to my' knowledge. One of the assistant directors of the office I had `in the Commerce Pepartme~t, the Office ~f Strategic Information, was experimenting with the idea that it may possibly be a help to people to set down in parallel columns the pros and cons of decision when making a Juc~g- ment, and he experimented with the idea of doing this with some of the factors that go into a judgment as to whethe~ information may be, on balance, more valuable to us than to a potential enemy__as an ex- ample,, the transistor case. During a meeting of editorial people he mentioned his experiments aRd his idea. One of the members of the staff of the Army' who was present said, "Well, we would like to experiment with that also," and Mr. Swain provided them with some copies in order to permit them to experiment with it, which I could see no harm in, and I would not criticize him for doing it, but it never was more than an experiment with an idea. Mr~ ~O~TER. I have before me a copy of that balance sheet for stra- tegic information I understand that it was sent out by T S Riggs, brigadier general, Acting Chief of Information and Education, De- partment of Defense, with an accompanying letter on June 2, 1955 That ~was during the period of your tenure in the Defense Depart- ment; is that correct? (See exhibit XXI.) Mr. HONAMAN. That is right. Mr. SORER. The `letter read: In £mrthetance of its prográrn, the Office has prepa~re~ a check sheet, balance sheet' for strategic information for use in determining whether the release of a particular item of information will help or harm the interests of the United States. A pad of these forms is forwarded herewith._as an enclosure. This ~s from the letter by General Riggs, It Is çonsj~j~r~ that this check sheet provides useful guidance with respect to the CQflslderatjons which Should be weighed in determining whether to release a' g~t~~en item of information Was used, wasn't it? Mr. HONAi~tAN. Well, I understand it was intended to be used `but frankly I have not heard what results were obtained with it. When you say, "trsed"__it was experimented with. I would like to ;be~sure that distinction is made. The~e. Was never any instruction given to people to use this in any special form, to my knowledge. * Mr. MOSS. Is it being used flow, to your knowledge? Mr floNAJ~rAN I don't know, sir, and I would~_I would Just pre- sume that if it is, I would have heard more about it. I doubt whether it is. PAGENO="0032" 1146 INFO~MATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Mr. Scir~R. Mr. Honaman, there is nothing in this letter which says that it is fo~ experimental use. Mr H0N4&MAN Well, certainly, the one letter that I saw, although this was after I had left the office where Mr Swain was working on this thins, the one letter I saw specifically pointed out that this was an experimental thing, and these forms were provided so that they could experiment with them. Now, I~havei~otii~ard of~anytbing further. Mr SOSE Well, Mr Honaman, let us do a little experimenting n~w with that. First of ell, we have an item here, reading: Net effeC1~ on military power (consider bow information will help United States milithry power and that of hostile nations. Strike balance). And there are five columns. One reads, "Helpful to United States," and under that it has other items, "Much" and "Little." and another column headed, "Harmful to the United States," underneath which is, "Little" and "Much." First of all, who made the decision on the release of the transistor to the public? Mr. HO~cAMAN. Oh, that was made by military and industrial people in cooper~ttion. Mr. Sdrn~R. Well, bow would you answer the first question, "Net effect on ~nilitary power," how the transistor would help the United States military power or that of hostile nations-would it be helpful to the United States, much or little? Mr. HQA~. I would say about that particular specific thing- that is a thing that I would suppose anybody could use As e~ hypo~ -thetical thing, we need facts to deal with any problem, first- Mr. SOHEE. Well, we are not asking you to state that for any future fact, just~ your opinion as to whether the transistor is helpful or harm- ful to th~ United States as far as military power is concerned. HONA~AN. The transistor? Mr. S~irnt Yes. Mr. NONAMAN. Well, I think it would be helpful to the United States. Mr. SQHER. Much or little? Mr }1O~AMAN Probably much Mr. SOnER. The next question is: `Net eff~ct on industrial power (consider effect on ability of the United States and of ho~tile nations to build stronger economic foundation for military power). Would it be harmful to the United States tor helpful to the United States? Mr. I~oNAMAN. Would you read that again, please? Mr. SCHER (reading): Net effect on industrial power (consider effect on ability of the United States nnd of hostile nations to build stronger economic foundation for military p~Wer) Helpful to the United States? Mr. ~ioNAMAN. Helpful to the United States economic foundations? Mr. SORER. Yes, sir. Mr. HONAMAN. I would say yes. Mr. ¶~CIIER. All right. Harmful to the United States? PAGENO="0033" INI~ORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 11~7 Mr. HONAMAN. Helping to build the United States economic power would be harmful to the United States? Mr. Scinat. No, the release of this would be harmful to the United States and be helpful to a hostile nation in developing its economic power and therefore its military power? Mr. HONAMAN. That would be harmful. May I see a copy of that? It is not a thing I have any personal familiarity with. No, I don't think so. I wouldn't, Mr. Scher, be prepared to make judgments offhand. Mr. SCHER. Yes. Mr. HONAMAN. On questions like this. Mr. ScriER. Mr. Honaman, how could anyoneelse make these judg- ments, then? Mr. HONAMAN. Well- Mr. SCIIER. How could anyone in the Government, how could any- one in the Department of Commerce or the Defense Department, since you cannot make such a determination, you with your knowledge and your years of experience-you being an expert and having worked so many years at the Bell Laboratories, how could anyone make the determination if you could not? Mr. HONAMAN. I am differentiating between offhand jixdgments and judgments that would be arrived at with sufficient time to get the necessary background information. Mr. HOFFMAN. Would counsel yield? Mr. Sornat. Yes. Mr. HOFFMAN. The answer to the question would depend entirely, would it not, with the individual's own ability- Mr. Moss. Right. Mr. HOFFMAN. That is, if he thought that he was a smart guy and knew all, he would answer right~ offhand-some folks can answer any- thing. Isn't that the obvious answer? Mr. SCrnm. Yes~ You are making my point, Mr. Hoffman. Mr. HOFFMAN. What is that? Mr. SOHER. I say, you are making the point. Mr. HOFFMAN. Well, sure. Mr. SellER. But this was promulgated as a way of testing whether ~material was of strategic value. Mr. HONAMAN. Well, it is a trial balloon. It depends in each case. Mr. HOFFMAN. And the answer depends on how smart the mdi- *`sddual thought he was. Mr. HONAMAN. It is a trial balloon. Mr. Moss. Well, Mr. Honaman, I would like-.-- Mr. HONAMAN. After working in the information field, Mr. Chair- man, I feel Yery humble. Mr. Moss. I would like to read the statement you made relative to the regulations published in the Federal Register, 72.1-ill. You emphasized, I believe twice in your statement, "Voluntary" corn- piiance. For practical purposes, how voluntary is the compliance of a con- tractor having, say, a major contract with the Department of Defense, ~hên he submits an advertisement or other material to them for clear- ance and they indicate that they would not want jt published and he might sincerely disagree and not at all feel~th~t the D~i~tthent was correct in asking him to withhold the information-is that really vol- 69222-56-pt. 6-3 PAGENO="0034" 1148 mF~yRMAT10N FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES untary on isn't there a considerable measure of pressure that caii be applied by the Department to make it in fact an enforced censorship? Mr. HONAMAN. No. I think it is really quite voluntary. Mr. Moss. There would be no prejudice attached to the firm for its refusal to comply with the request of the Department? Mr. HONAMAN. I have found no evidence whatever of that, and that is the point, of course, we raised lefore~ there is none. Mr. Moss. It is quite possible there could be, though; is it not? Mr. H9NAMAN. Well, theoretically, I suppose it would be quite possible. Mr. Moss. Do you feel that it works to restrain persons from exer- cising independent judgment when they know that they have a sub- stantial volume of their total production of business committed by con- tract to the Department of Defense? Mr. HONAMAN. Do I feel it restrains them? Mr. Moss. From exercising their inpendent judgment, overriding the view of the Department. Mr. Ho~MAN. No, I don't think so. The fact of the matter, sir, is that in most of the cases that have come to my attention, the contractors are just ~s concerned about the security aspect of this information as are the flefense Department people. Mr. M~oss. I quite agree with. you, Mr. Honaman, that they are just as concerned; but there might be an honest difference of opinion with officials of the Department. Mr. HONAMAN. We do have discussions of such matters and very often questions arise which are large enough so that we say, regardless of the intelligence value, "We think you are right, entirely correct, in going ahead with it"-that would conform with their judgmentr-~ Mr. Moss. Well, that is when you say, "We think you are entirely right." But suppose the tables were turned and they said, "Regardless, we think you are entirely wrong and w~ are going ahead with it~~ Mr. H0NAMAN. I do not know of a case where we did not sit ~down and consider pros ~and cons and come up with an answer both sides would agree to. Mr. Moss. But to what extent do you feel the attempt to control this information actually restrains the firm from exercising fully its independent judgment when it feels in good faith that you are wrong, or the Department is wrong? Mr. BONAMAN. I don't know of any. * Mr. Moss. But, you say, in all cases you have been able to work it out? Mr. ~IONAMAN. All that I have known about, we worked out. Mr. ~1oss. But don't you feel that they may think, perhaps, their concern over their standing as contractors might be something of an indireetipresSure, making them agree with your decision? Mr. IIONAMAN. Well, that is a difficult thingtO answer. That more or less assumes that I could get inside the mind of another person. Mr. Moss. Well, let us take it on a personal basis. You, I belie,e, are returning to Bell Laboratories? Mr. HONAMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. ~oss. Will you have the charge of public relations with Bell Labor~torieS? Mr. HONAMAN. Yes, sir. PAGENO="0035" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1 i49 Mr. Moss. And information. Well, supposing that, again you had something that in your opinion was as valuable to the American economy as the transistor and you were going to release some informa- tion on it. Now, if you went to the Department of Defense and they said, "No, in our judgment you should not release it," but you were firmly convinced that the advantages from release far outweighed any dis- advantage and if after careful consultation and exhaustive discus- sions their position was unchanged and yours was unchanged, would you then publish the information or would you yield to the Depart- ment? Mr. HONAMAN. This is asking a hypothetical question about a- Mr. Moss. I recognize those are always difficult to answer, Mr. HONAMAN. About a type of situation that I don't really expect to arise. I don't believe I could give a hypothetical answer to that because there would be so many other aspects of it that would come in, Con- gressman, before an answer would be arrived atrn-but I would say this, that I am sure that we would not arrive at our final de~cision because we were concerned as to whether our standing as a contractor would be prejudiced. Mr. Moss. Well, Bell Laboratories is a very large organization. There might be some small contractors who feel more or less that the defense contract at the moment constituted life or death to their business. Do you think that they would be inclined to exercise inde- pendent judgment if they were sincerely convinced of the rightness of their position; or do you think that the inclination, because of this directive, would be to yield to the position of the Department of Defense. Mr. HONAMAN. Well, I can only say I have no experience that iridi- cates that that is so. Mr. M~ss. You don't think it is possible. Mr. HONAMAN. I don't expect it. As I said before, if it were really debated and honestly argued out to bring all aspects of this problem together, I don't think it is likely to happen, and I can only appeal to the experience I have had in the department. Mr. Moss. This does cmistitute censorship of information of a non- security, type? Mr. HONAMAN. I think at this point I ought to say a word about this intelligence information, that is, nonsecurity, as you are using the phrase now. We have three classifications of information known as confidential, secret, and top secret, which people ordinarily speak of loosely as, "security information." But in addition, there is information which is of u nature which would bring it within one of those classifications but which because of certain practical considerations, make i~t' impossible to pu~ the stamp, one of `those stamps, on the information. Now, let me illustrate by saying'that when a new weapon has been developed and it has been put into the hands of using troops and men must maintain it and operate it, it is necessary to have detailed information about the components and the characteristics and the PAGENO="0036" 1150 `INF~R~A~ION ~ROi~ FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIF~S performance data o~f that weapon in a large nuthber of instruction books that `must be ~vaiiable to people literally in their hip pockets, not a safe~ and the method provided for the handling of confidential, secre't, and top ~secret information, if they were followed in the case of this information that is reasonably widely distributed, would corn- `pletely frustrate its use, you could not put it to use, and yet the in- forthation iS' still' of' a nature which, `as far as the substance is con- cerned, would justify giving it a stamp in 1 of these 3 classes. Now, èother kind of thing which I am sure you people heard aboutwa~ the preparation of a list of American Army and Air Force bases throughout the world, with the specific locations of each of those bases. This is a kind of a document that is of real intelligence value, but that was prepared in order that the people adm~nistering the travel operations of tbe Army and ~tbe Air Force could make out travel orders and handle travel vouchers where they need to know exact dis- tances between locations. Well, ~iow, you cannot clear all the people, the clerks working on a foreign l~ase, and you cannot operate on the basis that that information would b~ar one of these stamps; but the fact that it cannot be stamped does nott change its essential character as information that would be of intelligence value to the enemy. So, there is information which you cannot, without destroying or frustrating its use, you cannot put one of those stamps on it and it still has intelligence value. Will that help clear it? Mr. Moss. Well, I think there we are dealing with the handling of classified material. Mr. I~IoNAMAN. That is right. Mr. Moss. Government material; while, on the other hand, here we are discussing an entirely new approach. As I recall, there was considerable controversy raised back in 1951 when, I believe, President `Truman said that the press gives, away 95 percent of the United States secrets, in other w9rds, the publica- tion oft fragmentary informatio~i of the type we are trying to deal with in this directive; but is it possible to dry up that type of inf or- mation without alsohaving an adverse impact upon our own economy? If we limit the free exchange o'f fragmentary information, aren't w~ going to put brakes on American industrial development? Ho~ far can we go before we actually do ourselves considerable harm by slowing down exchange of ideas and information? Mr. HONAMAN. That is a point, sir, at which the judgment must be made ç~ase by case. I don't believe you can answer that queStion, again, as a categorical question, but answer it case by case Mr. Moss. Isn't there the danger in tampering' with it in this manner that we tend to. restrain excessively? Mr. HONAMAN. Not in my opinion, sir. Mr. Moss. You think we can maintain a fine balance? Do you not think it is something like trying to manage currency so as to prevent inflati~n and isn't that very dimeult to do? Isn't that about the same thing here? Mr4 H0NAMAN. Well, I cannot speak with any authority upon cur- rency~ management, but I believe we are doing a pretty good job in this field and I believe that we can continue to. PAGENO="0037" IN~1{~A~IONFflOM F~uERAt DEPARTMENTS `A~D AGENCIES 115L: ~There has been a great deal of expression of opinion by others thah Government people, expressing concern over this situation. Some editors have been rather frank in their recogrntion of the fact we published a good deal that helps the enemy. Mr. FASCELL. Well, Mr. Honaman, I am interested in your opinion as a businessman. From what I heard you testify in the last 10 or 15 minutes it would seem to me that the Defense Department is by necessity in. every business in the United States because the determination would have to be made by somebody in the Defense Department Intelligence as to whether or not whatever any business was doing might be of some potential use to the enemy. Mr. HONAMAN. No, sir, Congressman Fascell. This-and I guess I overlooked a point there-this directive that we have been talking about provides for aid to companies that ask for it and advice when asked for-they are responsible, and only a small fraction of the information that is published by companies comes, under defense contract, comes to the Defense Department for examination. A good deal of it, I believe, is probably discussed with the local representative of the defense organization, the resident officer of liaison in the indus- try itself- Mr. FASOELL~ Well, it makes no difference whether it is on a local level or in Washington. The point is that decision is being made by somebody in the Defense Department. Mr. HONAMAN. In a very small part of the total. I think the industry people make most of these decisions themselves. Mr. Moss. Do you ever request an industry, as the result of the publication of some information or some advertisement, to submit in the future to a review by the Defense Department? Mr. HONAMAN. I have no knowledge of that. I don't think we ever did. I have no knowledge of a case where we ever did, while I was in the Defense Department. Mr. Moss. Have there ever been, to your knowledge, any criticisms directed to a business because of the type of advertisement it might publish or material it might have released? Mr HONAMAN. No. There has been concern expressed in some cases. I don't have anything specifically to mention that comes to my mind at the moment. Mr. SORER. Well, there must have been concern, Mr. Honaman, or else this would not have been written into the regulation. Isn't that correct? Mr. HONAMAN. Into the regulation- Mr. SCUER. The September 15, 1955, regulation we are talking. about. Mr. HONAMAN. Well, there was concern, of course, Mr. Scher. Actually, this problem of concern over the kind of information which can be of value to the enemy goes back quite a long time. I probably have not gone all the way back, but I thought you might be interested to know that beginning at least as early as October 11, 1950-I have a copy of a memorandum signed by the then Secretary Marshall: The fundamental principle involved is voluntary control by the possessor of unclassified technical information. Censorship Is neither implied nor Intended. PAGENO="0038" 1152 DF MATION FROM FEDERAIJ DEPARTMENTS AND AflENCIES When fully implemented the program will help the holder of such InformatiOn to make a Eiore informed decision as to whether its free circulation would benefit the united States more than it would a potential enemy. This ptograln has my uuqi~alified approval and support. So, you see, this thing has been a problem for quite a long time; and later on, as we handled it and dealt with it, I think we have made progress in getting this balance of judgment, Mr. Chairman, that we talked about just a moment ago. Mr. Mol. Well, I am interested here in the language of the regula- tion itself1 It says: This section furnishes information which will enable the representatives of the militarY departments to provide advice and guidance on the subject to man- agement when requested by them or when circumstances make it desirable. What might be the conditions of that last qualification? Mr. FA5cELL. That just makes it a two-way street. Mr. Moss. "When circumstanceS make it desirable"-what circum- stances? Mr. HONAMAN. Would you read that again, please, sir? Mr. Moss. It is the end of the first paragraph, section 72.1-111, page 6775 of the Federal Register, September 15, 1955. / Mr. HONAMAN. And would you refer to the paragraph in the directive? Mr. Moss. 72.1-111. Mr. HONAMAN. Well, I am trying to think of something that would be an example of that, sir. Mr. FASCELL. I would like to give my interpretation of it while you are thinking about it. Mr. HONAMAN. I would be interested in hearing it. Mr. FASCELL. It just means that when somebody in the Defense De- partment decides a particular piece of information ought to be with- held, that it can be. Mr. HONAMAN. Can be called to their attention? Mr. FASCELL. That is right, and then they sit down and hold a conference to decide whether it really should be withheld. Mr. HONAMAN. I was thinking of a case that would be evon more pronounced than that. There are some areas, for example in the area involving atomic energy, that require certain restrictions on the handling of informa- tion by law. Presu~nably if a situation like that arose it would be quite necessary for the I~epartment to call attention of the manufacturers to the fact of certain statutes. I think that would probably be an example. Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Honaman, you do not need this regulation if you havo a statute. * Mr. HONAMAN. No. Mr. FASCELL. And you do not have to be polite about calling it to their attention, either. Mr. Moss. Perhaps it would be well if we recessed now until 2 o'clock and return at that. time, and we will have some further ques- tions on this directive at that time. (Whereupon, at 12:15 p. m., the subcommittee recessed, to resume at Q p. m., the same day.) PAGENO="0039" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AG~NO1~S 1153 AFTERNOON SESSION Mr. Moss. The subcommittee will resume. And, for the purpose of keeping the record clear, Mr. Scher has some material he would like to place in the record, and I believe some questions he would like to ask. Mr. SanER. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to get a little biographical material from Mr. Honaman just so the record shows who he is. Will you just tell us briefly about yourself, your education, your work in industry, and when the positions you held in Government, and what your present status is? FURTHER STATEMENT OP B. KARL RONAMAN, FORMER OFFICIAL OP THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND OP THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Mr. HONAMAN. Well, I am 60 years old. I was born in Lancaster, Pa. I went to college in Lancaster, at Franklin and Marshall College, receiving a bachelor's degree in 1916, and a master's degree in 1917. I worked briefly during the years of World War I as a laboratory assistant-that wasn't the title, but it is descriptive-in some of the work of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics that was being done to develop the Liberty engine for World War I. I went to the Bell System in 1919, first in the American Telephone & Telegraph Co. And when the research and development work of the Bell System, which was at that time a part of the American Tele- phone & Telegraph Co., was transferred to Bell Telephone Labora- tories in 1934, I went to work there. I had been doing engineering development work during those years, and then, in 1942, very early in 1942, just after the beginning of World War II, when the armed services were concerned about the training of civilian and military personnel in some of the new technological arts that had been coming along, notably radar and allied technology, my company, Bell Telephone Laboratories, was asked to set up a train- ing operation to train the people who, in turn, would go out in the field and establish the military schools for training in these areas I was made director of that school at a time when there was no school, I actually organized the school from its inception, recruited the faculty and recruited people to write all the textbooks-there were no text- books-and set up the facilities. And we trained 4,000 officers and men in radar, fire control, and allied areas. This lasted until 1945, at which time I became assistant director of publication for Bell Laboratories, and a year later was made director of publication, and still am. My Government service was begun in October 1954, when Secretary Weeks asked that I be made available for a few months to assist in setting up a program which he had been asked to undertake, that was the study program that became OSI. And instead of going back to my job at the end of a few months, I was asked to come to the Defense Department, and have been in that until the end of December 1955. I think you have my title in the Defense Department. Mr. SanER. Would you give us that again, please? PAGENO="0040" 1154 INFdRMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Mr. 110&AMAN. That was Deputy Assistant Secretary (Public Affairs). Mr. SOHER. Now, as to your work as director of publication for the Bell Laboratories, did that include the problem of protecting your firm from1 any possible leaks of patent information and other such: trade secreits involved in your firm's activities? Mr. HO*AMAN. Well, let me answer that this way: That in its pub- lications o~ur company, like other companies, has a policy of publi~h- ing the intormation on new developments )ust as promptly as we can after the proper, necessary patent coverage has been obtained. To that exteflt, we do pay attention to the question of how our patent position is taken care of. But beyond that, we publish very promptly, and we publish, incidentally, in the name of the man who has done the work; our research scientists publish their own results. Mr SCEIER You, therefore, had particular experience m ceitain fields which caused the Secretary of Commerce to have you com.e to Washington and help him set up some aspects of an information pro- gram; is that correct? Mr. H~NAMAN. I think that is a fair assumption, though I didn't ask Mr. Weeks what induced him to ask for me. Mr. SthIER. When you came to Washington, to what duties were you assiglned in the Department of Commerce? Mr. HONAMAN. I think the best way for me to answer that question is to refer you to the announcement that was made, and I can read from that. You have that, undoubtedly. This is an announcement. of th~ Office of Strategic Information: The pu*pose of this order is to establish and define the organization functions of~ the Office of Strategic Information. This order is issued pursuant to a directive bf the National Security Council which provides that the Department of CommØrce shall be responsible for the implementation of certain policy deter- mtnation~ governing unclassified scientific, technical, industrial, ~nd nonstatis- tical Information. Mr. Stxrrun. That, for reference purposes, was contained in the Fed- eral Register of September 28, 1955, and is the Commerce Department regulation on the Office of Strategic Information, its organizations and funetions; is that correct? Mr. HONAMAN.' Order No. 157. May I read the next paragraph? `Mr. SCHER. Yes. Mr. T~IoNAMAN (reading): The authority vested in the Secretary of Commerce by the National Security Council with respect to the matter described in section 8 is hereby redelegated to the Director of the Office of Strategic Information. S So that was the job I was asked to do. May I point out in that connection, that this did not include what I think of as operations in information in the Department of Com- merce, :in Commerce's normal operation; this was a separate study. Mr. ~ And it was to include the area of strategic information~ Mr. ~ioNAMAN. That is right~ Mr. Scirn~. Would you define the difference between "strategic", and "s~curity" information? S Mr. HONAMAN. Well, I think, generally, as I have understood the term as it has been used-and everybody doesn't use it-but as I have PAGENO="0041" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1155 understood that term, it means information which is of intelligence value to the enemies of our country. Mr. SCHER. And under section 3 of Order No. 157, it is a program designed to coordinate the release of unclassifiç~d, scientific, technical, industrial, and economic information, the indiscriminate distribution of which may be inimical to the defense int~rests of the TJnited States is that what we mean by strategic information? Mr. HONAMAN. Well, that was the particular assignment of this Office, and that is what the term "strategic information" in the name of, that office means. Mr. SCHER. Well, would you explain the difference between "stra- tegic information," distinguished from "security information." flow is it different? Mr. HONAMAN. Well, generically it doesn't differ. The difference between "strategic information" and what some people define as "security information" is merely the one I amplified this morning when I said that there is a provision for putting information- stamping information "Confidential," ~ or "Top Secret.'~ Mr. SOHER. That would be security? Mr. HONAMAN. And that is used by a good many people as se- curity information, although the term "security information," in my opinion, is too broad to limit it to that particular group of things Now there is other information which, in its substantive value-and I am just going over ground that we went over this morning-would be eligible to be stamped with one of those stamps, because it has intelligence value to enemies. But because the use of the stamp and the handling of it by the prescribed methods. would destroy its use- fulness, it does not lie within those three areas, but is still of intelli- gence value. Mr. SoirEE. Doesn't Executive Order 10501 specifically state what is security information and give the right to use the stamp? Mr. HONAMAN. As I understand it, Order 10501 provides for tbese three categories of information, and provides for stamping them and provides detailed instruction as to how to handle information that is so stamped. It does not, to my knowledge, deal with questions of whether other information that may be of intelligence value should be handled-it didn't give any interpretation of it. I think that is right. Mr. SOirEE. Mr. Honaman, doesn't Executive Order 10501 set up mandates for declassification of information, and wasn't one of its primary purposes that of undoing some of the harm thought to have been done by the Truman Order of 1951? Wasn't one of the purposes of the Eisenhower Order of 1953 to set up areas of specific declassi- fication; 28 agencies were taken specifically out of the area of security classification, some 17 or 18 others were given only limited rights to classify, and the order itself has many details as to procedures for declassification? Wasn't the attempt there made by Mr. Eisenhower *to limit the areas of security classification to some reasonable and workable ground? Mr. HONAMAN. Well, not being a part of any of the Government organization when that was issued~, all I can say is what I have heard. But I understand that there was question as to whether information PAGENO="0042" 1156 INFdRMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGEi~CIES that should not be put in any security classification at all was not sometimes improperly placed in a restricted classification. And I understand, again, that one of the reasons for issuing a new order was to eliminate the possibility of doing that. Mr. SCBER. So they were trying to set up a rule of reason as to what really is security, and to prevent over-classification of material? Mr. Ho~AMAN. That may possibly have been one of the objectives. Mr. SORER. Under point 1 of section 3, Order No. 157 calls for the establishment of an advisory committee. Did you establish any ad- visory committee or committees, in line with this order on strategic information? Mr. HONAMAN. Yes; we did. Mr. Sc~n~iR. And what were their functions? What did they do? Mr. HONAMAN. Their functions were to consider the kinds of in- formatioiii which originated within the departments, of the members of that committee, and to consider whether, because of the intelligence value, that information should have special consideration. Mr. SOrn~n. Did you, under section 2, provide a central clearing- house to which business and industry may look for guidance? Mr. HONAMAN. I did not, but that was because the problem was just in a state of active consideration when I left that office. But I believe that some progress has been made on that. That, perhaps, you can get more light on. Mr. SORER. Could this program have operated without the central clearinghouse, because it was a voluntary program for submission by thes~ people involved having scientific, technical, or industrial in~ormaition? How could it operate without a central clearinghouse? Mr. fiONAMAN. Well, it had been operating by having people who wished tsoluntarily to secure advice, coming to various places in the `Federal' Government. Mr 1~fos~ Mr Scher, I think it might be well at this point to go a little further into this matter of clarifying these directives or orders that we have been discussing this morning. You are talking about Department Order 157 now, of the Department of Commerce ~ Mr. Scrn~R. That is right. Mr. Moss. The other directive under discussion immediately prior to luncji was- Mr. SOHER. Those were the Department of Defense directives, Mr. chairman, which I would like to defer just a moment until we get these in order, and what they stand for. I will introduce them point by point. I think-and Mr. Honaman might agreer---that his experience in Commerce directly relates to his experience in Defense. Mr. Moss. Just so we finally have it very clear in the record as to exactly the directive we are discussing. I think it is important, because they are rather confusing. Mr. SORER. Yes, sir. No*, section 4, under "Organization and Functions," order 157 discu~ses the responsibility for formulating policies and providmg advice and guidance to public agencies, industry, and business, and other private groups who are concerned with producing and dis- tributing information described under section 3, and that was un- classified scientific, technical, industrial, and economic information. Were these concerned only with defense contractors? Mr. HONAMAN. No, not necessarily. PAGENO="0043" PAGENO="0044" 1158 I~FO~MATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES selves have,! and where you would like to advise them as to whether or not it would be wise to give out information on a product or an idea. Mr. HO4MAN. Or where they would like to be advised. Mr. Moss. Or where they would like to be advised. But you also under the order envisioned a control over certain types of governmental information, which in itself was not classfied, because if it were classified material the President's Order 10501 would apply, would it not? Mr. HONA1~tAN. If it was in the chtssifications of confidential, secret, or top secret, that is right. Mr. Moss. But there is information of a type not classified but still of value to the enemy? Mr. HO~TAMAN. Not in those classifications but still of value to the enemy. Mr. Mo~s. Then, in controlling the release .f that information, what standards were applied? Mr. HONAMAN. That, sir, comes right back to the questioii we dis- cussed this morning, and which I discussed in my opening statement, that the application of intelligent judgment is needed to consider what benefits might accrue to an enemy and what benefits might accrue to our country by its being put out. Mr. Mess. Aren't we in this spot, that the person whom you discuss the matt4~r with is equally as well informed as the Government, per- haps more so; if the information relates to some basic development, he is ful~y acquainted with, the fact that it might be of value to the enemy, and understands the Government's attempt to restrain such information because it is in the national interest for it not to be made public. But in the case of Government-held informatioxi, if it has been de- termined by the Office of Strategic Information that despite the fact that that information has not been classified it still should not be re- leased, t~hen it is not released? Mr. Uo~rAMAN. May I say first that the information was not con- templa1~ed to be released by the Office of Strategic Information. It was set! up to provide an awareness on the part of the other people who th~rnselves would be releasing agencies. This was not an operat- ing ag~ncy to handle information, but rather an agency to develop the awareness on the part of the people who themselves would be han- dling it. So it is not a releasing agency. Mr. Moss. Then, does it advise other, agencies of the Government as to the policies they should follow in the release of nonclassifie4 information? Mr. HONAMAN. That was the intent, sir. Mr. SCHER. Mr. chairman, there i~ a provision which says that this a~er~cy will serve all the other departments and agencies of the executive branch. Mr. HOFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, if counsel will permit, it also says over here under section 3, subsection 1: * * * to establish an advisory committee composed of aippropriate agencies for the purpose of furnishing gui&tnce to and establishing policy for the caecutive ~gencies, and ~b on. PAGENO="0045" .1 ~ * * * providing advice and guidance to public agencies, industry, business, and other private groups. Then these groups who are concerned with producing and distribut- ing information described in section 3 are included. Mr. SOHER. Mr. Hoffman, may I add this? Down further in that column, which I believe is .5, you will find a statement that they will act to - Mr. HOFFMAN. Formulate policies. Mr. ScrniR. Formulate for all agencies and departments in the ex- ecutive branch of the Government. Mr. HOFFMAN. And it says: * * * provide advice and guidance to departments a~d agencies of the execu- tive branch. Mr. SOHER. That is right. Mr. HOFFMAN. The one I was inquiring about is whether that state- ment above, who are concerned with producing and distributing information, as defined in section 3 or referred to in section 3, didn't in a way limit the scope of the activities. Mr. HONAMAN. It does, sir. I think your point is well made. it was not intended that this agency would pass on specific things, but would develop the philosophy and the awareness of this problem that could be used by people who themselves were going to handle informa- tion. And that, I believe, was the intent of the President and the Security Council in asking the Secretary of Commerce to do this. Mr. HOFFMAN. Well, is this true-, and counsel raised this point a moment ago, he asked about--how did you put it; voluntary censor- ship? Mr. SCHER. Yes. Mr. HOFFMAN. Or something of that kind. And as I read this, the thought occurs to me that perhaps all it was was a suggestion as to how those who were willing, might provide censorship over information which it had been suggested to them might be of value to our enemies. Mr. HONAMAN. I think that is quite right. I think that is a clear statement of it. Mr. HOFFMAN. That is all. I was trying to understand the thing. Mr. Moss. I think that that might be true were it not for the language in subsection 1 of section 3: establish an advisory committee composed of appropriate agencies for the pur- pose of furnishing guidance to and establishing policy for executive agencies for the publication of unclassified scientific, arid so forth on information originating in de~artm~nts and agencies of the executive branch. Now, then, taking that together with what is under section 4, subsection .05: The Office of Strategic Information shall formulate policies and provide advice and guidance to departments and agencies of the executive branch of the Federal Government. PAGENO="0046" 1160 INFOI~MATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Now, in the field of privately held information, perhaps it is purely advisory, but doesn't it go beyond the purely advisory function in relation to governmental agencies, reading those sections together? Mr. HOFFMAN. You mean, wasn't it a hint? Mr. Moss. Almost a directive: "shall formulate policies." Mr. HOFFMAN. Yes. All it needed to make it airtight, "which shall be followed," they might have said. Mr. Moss. That is right. Mr. HONAMAN. You see, the purpose of the committee was to get a group of people who had responsibility in their own departments to interchange ideas and become aware of this problem, but not to tell them case by case ~hat they should do. And that is the way the office, I be~ieve, is operated. It certainly did while I was there. And I b!elieve that that was the intent of the assignment when it was given to the Secretary of Commerce. Mr. Moss. What duplication is there under Department Order 157, of the Department of Commerce, and the regulations of the Depart- ment of Defense which were discussed this morning, where you provide a voluntary program of guidance to the defense contractor? Mr. SOI~ER. You are referring, Mr. Chairman, to the September 15, 1955, direetive? Mr. Moss. Yes. Mr. HO~AMAN. September 15? I don't think there is any duplica- tion. Th~ Department of Defense has had a member of this com- mittee, aiiid he has participated in the discussions that have taken place in the development of these ideas. But once again, the Office of Strategic Information had no responsibility or authority to tell De- fense what to do. Defense has its own problems and its own set of directives in operating. Mr. Moss. How would you interpret subsection 5: "The Office of Strategic Information shall formulate policies"-and then it goes on to give the additional duty-"to provide advice and guidanc~ to departments * *9 Mr. RONAMAN. That is right. Mr. Moss. Doesn't it have a directive there to formulate policies for departn~ents? Mr. HONAMAN. Yes. And still, the policies would be carried out, their implementation would take place in the Department. And, of course, the Defense directive is a directive to implement the policies in the Defense Department. Mr. Moss. Now, if I were a defense contractor preparing some ad- ~iertising to dramatize something I was working on for the Govern- ment and I wanted to be reasonably certain that I didn't incur the disple.a~ure of the Department of Defense or of the Government, and I submitted copy to the Department of Defense, should I also submit it to th~ Office of Strategic Information? Mr. ItI0NAMAN. No, unless you cared to; if you wished to. Mr. Moss. Supposing I cleared with the Office of Strategic Infor- rnation, shall I then submit to the Department of Defense? Mr. IJONAMAN. Only if you cared to. PAGENO="0047" PAGENO="0048" 1162 INFOR1\~IAT~ON FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES were 1953 re iilations of the De artment of That is correct, sir. those were never published until Mr. HONAMAN. I am hesitating, because I don't remembe copy of it. It must have been published in the Register r first issued in 1953. 1 can't answer that exactly, because I around, bi~t I would assume that it would have been. Mr. F4CELL. I mean, there is no reason to hold these regulations as classified material; is there? Mr. HO~AMAN. None whatever. Mr. FA~CELL. And if they were promulgated in January 1955, and not printed up until September, there would be no reason from a classification standpoint to hold them up? Mr. HONAMAN. No, sir. My understanding of the difference in time there, Congressman, is the difference and oniy the difference in time that was necessary to get the thing printed and into the Register, the mechaniqs of doing it. Now, that is the understanding I have. Mr. SGHER. Might I interrupt there? I don't doubt your statement, but at the very end of the Register, they alw~ys give the date when the material was filed with the Register for publication, and the date is given, "Filed September 14, 1955, at 8: 57 a. ~u." That is the day before it appeared in the Register. I can't quite see how it could have been filed the day before it appeared and havk~ been held up in the Government Printing Office from Janu- ary. Mr. HONAMAN. I can answer that only by saying this: That copies of the directive were distributed to manufacturers, and I think I am right when I say that copies of that directive had been available to the press, for example, in our Pentagon press room early in 1955, at the tim~ the thing was issued. It was not filed-and I don't recognize what tl4at 1 day prior to the publication date really means; but it was not issi~ed at that time, it was available to people very generally and had beØn widely distributed early in 1955. Mr. Moss. Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Sch~r, will you make certain that * this material is properly checked, so that when we do have the * Department of Defense before us we will have all the facts before us? Mr. SCHER. Yes, sir. Mr. fl0NAMAN. The people who would have been actively associated with the dissemination of this directive earlier in 1955, of course, are not here, and I was not personally actively associated with it. I am re- portir~g to you what I understood was the case when I inquired about it. I gue~s that is the best I can do. Mr.! SOHER. But you must be familiar with the rule under chapter 5 of th~ United States Code, section 1102, which says that all rifles and regulations of the departments and age~xicies must be promulgated in the Federal Register. I think it is section B which has specific refer- ence to the Federal Register. Mr. HONAMAN. Does it say how fast the Register must print it? Mr. SanER. I assume it doesn't contemplate a lag from January to PAGENO="0049" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1 163~ September in so important a directive which concerns so large a segment of American industry. Mr. HONAMAN. I wouldn't know about that, sir. Mr. FASCELL. May linquire, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Moss. Yes. Mr. FASOELL. Mr. Honaman, do I understand correctly now that the theory of voluntary nonuse of strategic information existed in the Department of Defense prior to the time that the theory was set up in the Department of Commerce? Mr. HONAMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. FA5GELL. And that regulations were promulgated and in use in 1953? Mr. HONAMAN. That is correct. Mr. FASCELL. And that when you set up the OSI you didn't set up anything new? Mr. HONAMAN. Not in respect to defense contractors. Mr. FASCELL. But it was something new with respect to nondefense matters? Mr. HONAMAN. That is true; yes. Let me elaborate on that, if I may, Congressman. There had been (before the Office of Strategic Information) a considerable flow of inquiry to various Government departments from manufacturers about information that they had and which they themselves were concerned with. So that it was not new in the sense that the problem was newly created then, b~t it was recognized- Mr. FAscEu~. The problem was there, but the method of handling it was not? Mr. HONAMAN. That is correct, sir; sonic new method of han- dling it. This isn't too difficult, to understand, it seems to me, because many contractors (many manufacturers; I will put it that way) have been for quite awhile aware of the fact that they had information which could be useful to someone whose intentions were inimical to our country. And just as you Members of Congress, when you are preparing a bill, look to experts for advice, these people often were not suflI~ ciently acquainted with the technical facts to make judgments, and theyhad been coming to various places in Government. And it was a recognition of that that led to the suggestion that there ought to be one place that people would be advised to come rather than to have these inquiries come, as I happen to have been `told some to the FBI, some to the Intelligency Agency, some to the ~tatc Department, some to the Commerce Department, and so on. And it seemed to those who thought this was a proper procedure~ that it would be wise, and probably in the interest of economic handling, to bring these things together. Mr. FA5CELL. Let's take a hypothetical case. Say we have a manu- facturer who doesn't have a contract with the Government to produce a particular item but is concerned about whether or not it might have some military application for an enemy, and he is also interested in making some money out of it, if he can put it into military use So he comes to the Government, and they say, "We don't want to buy it, but it can be used by the enemy, so don't do anything about it." 69222-56-pt. 6-4 PAGENO="0050" lloNA~A: `hat "So we s :ormation re ~. I am talking now the formation while I was there, which is ~ I can personal We did no more in any case than provide the kind of information that would be useful in guiding the thinking of anyone who is going to make a judgment on that. And I think that is the answer to your question. Mr. Moss. And are those the standards developed by the Office of Strategic Information for other governmental departments? `Were any standards published in connection with the Office of Strategic In- formation for the guidance of other departments? Mr. HOtNAMAN. Not to my knowledge. The guidance didn't take place through published standards. The guidance took place, or does take place, through the interchange of ideas in this committee, which ideas can be implemented as the department which is ultimately re- sponsible `intends to use them. The Office of Strategic Information has never told any department that "This is what you should do," but, "Here are the elements of this problem which you ought to think, about." Mr. Moss. Have they ever told a department what they shouldn't do? Mr. HbNAMAN. Not to my knowledge. Mr. 1~oss. How do they communicate? You have an Office of Stra- tegic In:Eormation, a director. What is the personnel of the Office of Strategi~ Information? Mr.. HONAMAN. There are just 3 or 4 people in it. Mr. Moss. And these 3 or 4 people sit down and discuss it? Mr. HONAMAN. They meet periodically with this Committee. Mr. Moss. How do they disseminate the substance of their discussion to the many agencies of the Federal Government which might origi- nate some information of strategic importance? Mr. HONAMAN. Each agency has a representative on the committee. Mr. ~{oss. On the Advisory Committee? Mr. HONAMAN. On the Interdepartmental Advisory Committee. And through the deliberations of that Committee, he takes to hi~ agency' whatever guidance value comes out of that. Mr. Moss. Are there any representatives on the Advisory Commit- tee from other than governmental agencies? Mr.. HONAMAN. No, sir. You see, if you read item I under .01, "Establish an Advisory Com~ mittee composed of appropriate agencies for the purpose of furnishing PAGENO="0051" noses of furn~ PAGENO="0052" 1166 INFO~MATION FROM FE ERAL DRPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Mr. HON4MAN. Of course, sir, the question of whether information has a harm~ful effect on this country if it is widely disseminated is not, a question of the stamp on the piece of paper, it is a question of fact And the kind of thing I discussed this morning where infor mation is of a nature that it should go in one of the three (confidentiaI~ secret, or top secret) classes, but because of the praotical handling problem its purposes and usefulness would be destroyed or frus~ trated if it were put within those restrictions, you still have with you- and as I sa~r, if you remove a stamp from a piece of paper that opera- tion does n~ot determine whether it is harmful to our country, that is a fact which is quite independent of the stampings on the piece of paper. Mr. Mo~s. I think we would concede that very readily. However, in the cla~sifled material under Executive Order 10501 you have an orderly re~view procedure, if the order is followed. I think it requires an annual review of the classification. In this field, in this area of sort of a superclassiflcation, or an undefined classification, what pro- cedure of review is provided? Mr. HONAMAN. Now, this is pretty much an operational question, so I will have to come to my own experience in operations. As an administitative function, the review of material for removal from any of the thk~ee classifications provided in 10501, or the removal of ma- terial fro~n any other classification, is a continuous process, not neces- sarily a periodic one. We look at this continuously-I say "we," I mean those in the Defense Department; it was "we" when I was there- are continually struggling with this problem, and I think keeping alert to it. So that this review is a problem again of sound administration and the exercise of good judgment. We come back to that, sir, always. Mr. Moss. I grant that it is a matter of sound administration. And yet the president saw fit to require an annual review. And I think it was t~stifled by other agencies in the first series of hearings that they were not reviewing certain types of classification. And the fact that it is required by the Executive order itself, I think would indicate that there was a fear that some of this would not be reviewed. If we a~e going to go into another field of classification, as is envisioned here, eVen though it should be voluntary, shouldn't there also be some reView procedure, as.a matter of policy? Mr. IJONAMAN. Well, I think any information which needs `special attenthm ought to be reviewed continuously. Otherwise, you could har conform to what I believe is a fundamental approach, that all infOrmation should be available unless it has some harmful aspects. And that implies to me that you constantly review the question of specia' consideration., I would agree to that. Mr. ~ioss. That doesn't go into this field of voluntarily submitting to cen~orship-and I recognize that you don't agree with the word "censcxrship" in this instance-as is being done here in both of these orders. Can it be left entirely to advisory committees and to decisions on the part of representatives of executive agencies of Government, or shotdd it require some representative of the public or the press to sit w if we are going to have this type of control over information which might be of the utmost importance, not only to our security but perhaps to our industrial development? PAGENO="0053" ~ion~ Le jIll atever i~ right in meeting thi~ pro~em Those who generate information and those who disseminate it are both con- cerned. We need the cooperation and help of the press. At the moment you may not know all the answers as to how to tackle it, I am confident that if you weigh the facts and consider them carefully, you can contribute to the solution of this problem. I think that that would be an answer to your question, sir. I think that it is a cooperative job. I am sure from my experience that no- body knows all the answers to this problem. To try to meet these problems is an experience which gives you pause because of its scope. And I think that only when you can get the cooperation of a variety of people who are concerned and who have the interest and safety of our country at heart can you get the best answer. Was that an answer to your question? Mr. Moss. I think partly. Perhaps this might add something. Don't you think it becomes, from the Government's standpoint, a matter of emphasis on attitude? If the attitude is one of having to justify, first, the release of information, that it becomes more restric- tive than if the attitude is that you must justify the withholding of information? Mr. H0NAMAN. I think the answer to that is "yes." And my philosophy is that information should be released unless it is clearly likely to jeopardize our national interest or national security, not the other way around. Mr. Moss. Then the general standard which the Government might well adopt would be that all information is free unless there is an affirmative finding that it would be not in the best interests of the Government to release it? Mr. HONAMAN. I think that is correct; yes, sir. Mr. Moss. We have found repeatedly in the first hearings a tendency to go just the other way, to sit on the information unless the finding were made that it should be released. Mr. HONAMAN. Well, sir, I think that in one of these directives we have talked about this morning (5230.9, 1 think) this was the thought that was behind this sentence: The Department of Defense has an obligation to limitations of security and policy ~ ~ to to provide the public with accurat~ garding the Army, Navy, Air Force, And I think there are two thij should not overlook the second to disseminate, unless there is a reason, a to properly qualify people; and the seco: be accurate. Mr. Moss, However, I which was apparent in There the policy state: ormation PAGENO="0054" an employee c~ true about any information-"being consi cut ~ curity and the policies and objectives of the Department of ~ They ha~ve~ to find first that it is consistent with all security require- ments. If there is an element of doubt you don't release it. I think the emph~sis in the other direction might tend to give a freer flow of informati2n. And if the person responsible is as diligent as he should be, it wouldn't go any further in the field of endangering the security, of the Nation. I think it might free up just a little more the flow of information. Would you agree with that statement 9 Mr. HONAMAN. Well, I can only say that in my experience I haven't found any situation which seemed to me to point to the fact that we cøuld have done better from that point of view if we had had different language. Mr. Mess. I recall our first discussion, Mr. Honaman. I think I indicatedi we were very much interested in attitudes and in views and the effects that some of the language might have upon people who work for Government. I think we have to recognize that sometimes committees of Congress have done things which have made employees of the Government feel perhaps that the les~ they say about their work the safer they are, the more secure they are personally. And language of this type, doesn't it go along the same line, "Be absolutely certain that you can justify the release consistent with the national security, or say nothing." It is the emphasis here And I think it is a reversal of the emphasis which, if this committee is able to accomplish it, might prove to be a useful contribution to the field of information. Mr. HONAMAN. I think that is an interesting comment. I still feel that we have the problem that any words you write cannot possibly deal with every~ conceivable and foreseeable specific situation, and that whatever words we write, the job will be as well done as the integrity, intelligence, and judgment of the people who are going to adminster it. So we still come back to good administration and good judgment. Mr. Moss. I certainly agree that we come back to that as a problem which dhallenges the imagination of every member of this committee in trying ~o arrive at a solution. Nevertheless, the matter of emphasis in the writing of these directives-in this instance the Department of Defense, in the first hearings the Civil Service Commission-could contribute to a freezing up of information, to a freer attitude, less tension, perhaps, on the part of employee who handles information Mr. U0NAMAN. I am sure that anything that can or will be done in that connection would be quite consistent with what I believe is the ~bjeetive of the Defense Department, from the Secretary on down. Mr. SORER. Pursuing that thought just a little bit further, Mr. Hpna~an, after you come to the Defense Department, when you were asked about the phrase in the directive of the Defense Department's PAGENO="0055" PAGENO="0056" 1170 Q~4TIQN FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Mr. H0N~MAN. I don't think we would be justified in spending the taxpayers' u~oney in providing releases which the editor himself corn ~p1ains about as being inconsequential. Mr. SOUSE. But were you not defining, the words "constructive news"? Mr. HONAMAN. No; I was defining things that were generated in the Defense Department to be disseminated as information. Mr. SCH~R. And so you were to judge whether it was "useful" or "valuable"? Mr. HO~AMAN. No, no. Mr. SoH~R. Who wa~ to judge? Mr. HO~AMAN. Well, there would be- Mr. ScarER. The Secretary of Defense? Mr. `HONAMAN. I might have a comment on it; I might have a part in it. Mr. SCHER. Well, now, how can we under our American democracy `have Government officials judge what is valuable or interesting or w~rthwhil~ for the American people to know? Mr. HOt'.TAMAN. Let me ask you if Government officials who have a sworn responsibility, do not do their co~nscientious best to judge what Is in the interest of the safety of this country, who will; what is going to happen to it? Mr. Sc~iER. Mr. Honarnan, may I ask you another question in reply? How long have we had the security problem with us? How long have we had crises in America? That has been for quite a while, has it not? Mr. HpNAMAN. We had a security problem for quite a while. Mr SqHER We will continue to have one for quite a while, from ~all indications. Mr. HIjNAMAN. Yes. Mr. SpUSR. As a matter of fact, we live in Government by crisis, we not? Mr. HbNAMAN. Well, I would not want to say yes or no to that im- less you defined it. I don't knoW about that. Mr. SOHicE. Every year there is an international crisis, is there not? Under those circumstances, the things that are valuable and inter- `esting and to be released will depend upon the nature of the crisis, will they not:? Is that our criteria for strategic information, for construc- tive news? Mr. HONAMAN. It would depend upon the nature of the crisis. I ~lon't tI~ink I understand just what is involved in that. Mr. SORER. Well, it is because of the cold war, is it not, that we have this problem of strategic information? Mr. 1~IONAMAN. Partly because of that and partly because of the `fact that Government has gotten large and ramified and people are properly, I think, concerned about the' amount of effort and money that is put into this program and I think as the' Congress informed us in the report of the Appropriations Committee, people who are in responsible positions ought to do their best to see' that they~ don't ~,waste the taxpayers' money. Mr. ~CHER; Has Congress enacted' any statute giving the Depart- ment of commerce the right to set up the Office of Strategic Informa- tion? Is there any statutory provision for such withholding of in- formation? PAGENO="0057" IN~ORMATI0N FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1L71~ Mr. HONAMAN. Well, this is getting into legal questions., I think the Offi~e-you are talking now about the Office? Mr. Scn~n. Yes. Mr. HONAMAN. Of Strategic Information? The Office of Strategie~ Information was set up as this release that we talked about states- in pursuance to a directive of the National Security Council on the advice of the President. Mr. SCHER. Then it is under the Presidential cloak, the aegis of confidentiality that this was s~t up? Mr. HONAMAN. In my operations in the Government, sir, Ihave been advised that the things that I have been asked to do were proper and legal. And not being an attorney I haven't specifically examined the questiOn such as you are stating which sounds to me like a legal technicality. I am not competent to answer a legal question. Mr. SOHER. Yes, sir. Mr. HONAMAN. But I have been advised that the things that I was asked to do have had competent, proper authority to ask me to do. them. Mr. SOITER. Were you informed by the American Society of News~ paper Editors that they were very willing to decide what was useful,. valuable, and interesting to the American public but they didn't want any Government official or agency to tell it or the public what was valuable or interesting? Mr~ HONAMAN. I have no recollection. Are you referring to some~ thing that you can state? Mr. SCHER. I thought that was part of the communication between you and the editor you mentioned? Mr. HONAMAN. I don't recall that as being part of the correspond.~ once. I won't say "Yes" or "No" to that. Mr. ScilEn. Let's just get back to this for 1 second. How can you define "useful," "valuable," and "interesting information"? Mr. HONAMAN. "Useful" is a very good word. I try to spend my time doing useful things-try to spend my time doing valuable things.. And I think most people who are properly informed would be able to~ make intelligent judgment about a question like that. Mi~.. Moss. At that point, though, Mr. Honaman, in the field of infoi~iiiation, information which might be useful or valuable to a cit- izen in one occupation might be completely uninteresting to a person in another line of activity? Mr. HONAMAN. Yes, sir; that is correct. Mr. Moss. When we try to impose standards-if such standards were imposed-are we not by the very standards limiting the news so that large groups of people, or even small groups of people might be denied information which to them would be extremely interesting? Mr. HONAMAN. Well, this is certainly one of the problems that must be dealt with in trying to find the practical course for this program. But if people in Government, sir, do not make an effort, a con- scientious effort to protect information which would be inimical to our interest, what would the alternative be? Should you just forget about this problem and say, "We will pub- lish everything to the world," and let everything drift, do nothing about it? / PAGENO="0058" 1172 INF0R~XATI0N FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Mr. Moss. 1 do not thinlç anyone at any time has challen&e.d the propriety of action aimed at protecting the security of the United States, the withholding of information which clearly endangers the security of the United States. I `think you have indicated in some of your statements or your speeches that this isn't an area that is clearly black or white. It is one of gray. Mr. I{oNA~IAN. It would be really a fine thing if it could be simply divided into blacks and whites. We would all have an easier time; wouldn't w~? Mr. Moss~ There would be no problem. Mr. HON~MAN. The problem would be easy. Mr. Moss. We are in an area where everyone would be in complete agreement. But if we are going to impose standards, the type of infor- mation which can be made available to the American people, in a field as broad as that of the strategic information, which could be almost anything, at certain times it might be that a weather report would have tremendous strategic value to a potential enemy, particu- larly if it happened to give detailed weather information at a time when they would be planning a surprise attack against the United States or same possession of the United States. It couldt be some news item in the very broad field of electronics. It could be any number of things that would have strategic informa- tion and perhaps in our diligence to watch this field we overlook some development which upon application proves of tremendous value about which much information is available. But in arriving at standards or attempting to control by a voluntary agreement and leaving entirely within the hands of Government the determination of what constitutes valuable information, is it not a fact that we are going in deeper and deeper into some field of shadow classification? The President by Executive Order 10501 tried to clarify a previous Executive order issued by President Truman and it was the announced intention' of the President that we narrow these fields of classification in an effort to free more information, but if in addition to these classi- fications we are going into this whole field of voluntary censorship, has the final result been a freeing of information or merely a shifting of methods of classifying, to a less clearly defined area? Mr. H0NAMAN. Well, of course, the President also was concerned about information which didn't fall in those three classes, indicated by the d~rection to study this problem in the Commerce Department. Mr. Moss. Do you think we could define more clearly the area of strategi~ information? Mr. IJ0NAMAN. I think it should be defined just as clearly as it can be,, sir. You mean more clearly than it is here? Mr. Moss. Yes; would there be less restriction by a clearer defini- tion of "strategic material," less restriction on information than will gradually build up under a system of voluntary censorship? I still feel that in submitting to the Department of Defense a manu- f&cturet has a pressure on him; if he holds a defense contract, there is the inclination to accept the decision of the Department of Defense, even thpugh it might be one with which he disagrees. We ~pend what ?-$36 billion a year-I think we have authorized that much-we have spent more than that actually, which is about PAGENO="0059" 1 w N PAGENO="0060" peienc 11 L - ere t. don't kno'~~ of any case where a contractor has contract b~cause of such a question arising. Mr. SOI~ER. How would he know? Is he told when he does not get clearance the reason for not getting the clearance? When was he ever told that he didn't get clearance for such and such a reason? When was the reason ever specified to a man who is not cleared for a defens&contract, or his employees in tke defense shop? Mr. HONAMAN. I don't know the ans~r to that. Can you help me on that? How is that implemented through the service? The ch~arance system, of course, is not a problem that my office in Defense Itiad any responsibility for, and the contracting system also, as I said a moment ago, is handled by the service people, who let con~ tracts, ar~d I would have to rely entirely on the information I get from them, exc~ept insofar as the committee may want to go into this when you come to operations, and I am only wondering if this isn't getting deeper into operating problems, Mr. Moss. I think that we can cover it clearly in a later hearing. Mr. SCHER. I want to set the stage for it, anyway. Just one `more question. A college professor who is known Communist or Communist sympa-. thizer, Would not be cleared to do work for the Department of Defense or exper~mental work for the ABC, or anything like that; would he? Mr. JItONAMAN. I would think not. Mr. SkmiER. What if that college professor were to reveal some of the findings which were confidential, strategic information, under this regulation of September 15, 1955, revealed some of these findings un-. wittingly and it turned out to be the kind of strategic information that you thought was of some value to the potential en~emy, would he ~et some mbr~ `w~rk~ on that? Would he again' be hired to do another project? Mr. IItONAMAN. You are talking about a college that has a research prograiin? ` Mr. SOHER. That is right, a research grant in a strategic area. Mr. l~IONAMAN. And information you said a moment ago that is -"confidential"? Mr. gcn~n. Because it is strategic, not because it is security but because it is strategic. Mr. FEONAMAN.' "Confidential" means to me that it is "confidential" as defined in 10501. That is what you mean? Mi SeTTER I mean by "confidential" anything involved in your concept of both strategic and security, `10501 plus the Office of Strategic Inforthation in the Commerce `Department plus the order in the Defën$e Departiuient-all of' that is, confidential according to your defimt~ion PAGENO="0061" I m~ist object to that because those are your 1 have not used the term "confidential" except specified. i~. in 1? kiL\N. Named as having specific signi heance and there is And you are perfectly correct, sir. 1 1 .i 1 r in Governmer ~i~say he d~.. -~ rategic information as i~ is c by the ( order and the Defense Department order, strategic information, but not security information, will he get another research contract or grant? Will he be cleared? Mr. HONAMAN. If he were a known Communist? Mr. SOHER. No, no. I have forgotten all about being connected with communism. Mr. HONAMAN. That is something else then. Mr. SeTTER. If he were a clearly non-Communist, loyal scientist who inadvertently divulged this information, would he not be right back in the position as though he were a Communist, and would not be cleared for further research work? Mr. HONAMAN. I don't think- Mr. SeTTER. He would get clearance despite the fact that h~ divulged strategic information? Mr. HONAMAN. That would be my opinion but again, if you can go to the contracting people and ask this question in terms that re~re- sent specific examples, I think you will get a. more informed answer. I believe that is correct. Mr. Kennedy reminds me-this will be of interest. This is a matter that is handled in the Department of Defense by the Office of Indus- trial Security and not by the Office of Information. Mr. SeTTER.. There is no liaison? Mr. HONAMAN. We consult from time to time but the responsibility, the responsibility in the operating are.a is in the Secretary's office in industrial security and in the various branOhes of the military service. Mr. FASOELL. That brings up an operational question I have been waiting to ask for some time During the time that you were in this position, and the question came up, nqt on defense matters, but on strategic information with respect to a manufacturer, and. a. decision was made that the particular piece of information would be withheld, the decision having been made by the pianufacturer without any, su - gestion or intimidation or otherwise, but he arrives at it indepen - ently, let us say for the purpose of this hypothetical question; then he changes his mind, and he goes ahead and releases the information anyway and it comes to the knowledge ~f you.r office where it properly should come, do you or did you maintain files which indicated in any way that the position of that manufacturer .had been changed and that the information had been `released when it originally had been determined that it would not be released? PAGENO="0062" lay or may Again, you see, these things have a wide range importance. Mr. FAscEu~. Depending on the nature of the information? Mr. HONAMAN. Depending on the nature of the information, yes. Mr. FASCELL. Well, now, we get back to 10501 for a moment and reading the definition of "confidential"- the use of the ciassification "con~dential" shall be authorized by appropriate authority only for defense information or material, the unauthorized disclosure of which could be prejudicial to the defense interests of the Nation. We have a clear concept there of what we mean by "confidential." Under the directive which established the Office of Strategic In.for- mation, the directive went beyond this and set up a classification for "strategic information" which as you say is voluntarily ~ I, want to get to the operation of how that is done. I am a manufacturer in Podunk a~nd I ha~e got somet~~ing that I think will sell, but I am concerned about what possible value it might have to a potential enemy. So I come to the Office of Strategic In - formation and I say, "0. K., thi~ is what I have got. Now, what can I do with it?" Do w~ have a conference in your office at that time or do I sit in on the conf~rence? What happens? Mr ILONAMAN By "my office" you mean the Office of Strategic Information? Mr. FASGELL. That is right. Mr. HONAMAN. Several things may happen. Theman's inquiry may come in in a letter, in which case that office would gather tqgether all of the pertinent information they could g~t from any departments that may have information relating to it. Mr. FA5GELL. As to the possible value of the particular informa- * tion to ~ potential enemy? Mr. HONAM~AN. That is correct, sir. Mr. FASCELL. All right. Mr. flONAMAN. And make this available to that inquirer as in- formation upon which be can act as-- Mr 1~'ASCELL One way or another as he see fit, you would give him the facts upon `which to base his judgment Mr HONAMAN That is correct, sir Mr FASOELL I understood you earlier today to testify that a partic- ular bit of information in this country might be of potential value to an enemy, that it was not rnformatipn wluch should be released, I?e cause i~hen that fact would be of value to the enemy, because they would know that we knew it. Mr ~[IONAMAN Oh, I think-will you phrase that question again because I think we are getting into another area now. Mr. FASCELL. No, we are talking about strategic information in a hypothetical case where I might make an inquiry to the Office of ut PAGENO="0063" v iation ONAM~ was a component for a guided missile, sir, for example, then except for the need for practically disseminating it, it presumably should be in 1 of those 3 classifications but you cannot put it there. Mr. FASCELL. Let us eliminate that type of a product from our dis~ cussion for the purpose of determining the operational procedure, be-. cause we are already a~~t the point, if I understand the operations of your office, where an inquiry comes into the OSI, and it gathers up the facts from other agencies as to the particular item being of any use to a potential enemy. Then you said that that information is made available to the manufacturer so that he can determine in his own mind whether or not it should be released. And the question I am asking you is the fact that you release the information that can be of potential use, is not that a violation of your own order? Mr. IIONAMAN. The fact that the manufacturer released it,.- Mr. FA5OEI.14. The fact that you release it to the manufacturer. Mr. HONAMAN. Oh, no, no, not necessarily. Mr. FASOELL. How in the world does he determine that the inf or.- mation he has got should be withheld? Mr. HONAMAN. Would you reduce your question to somo~- Mr. FASCELL. Specific item? Mr. HONAMAN (continuing). Some kind of an example. Mr. FASCELL. Let us take a transistor. Mr. HONAMAN. Yes. Mr. FAScELL. I go to the Office of OSI,I say, "I have got a wonder.- ful product here I can use it in civilian life and make $50 million with it on civilian application, but I have it in the back of my mmd that this thing might be of potential value to the enemy." All right. What happens? OSI has a meeting; they call in this Interdepartmental Committee; they decide right then and there how it can possibly be applied miii.- tarily and they say, "Yes; if this information got into the; hands ~of the enemy it could be of value of them." Now you tell me that that information as to how it would be of value to the enemy is disseminated to the manufacturer. Mr. HONAMAN. That is correct, Mr. FASCELL. Is that in writing? Mr HONAMAN It may be I think the Congressman is talking about giving the manufacturer a set of reasons or an understanding of the reasons of why this would be of value to an enemy. Mr. FASOELL. Right. PAGENO="0064" ~1i78 ~INi Mr. UOi~AMAN. That may be given in writing. But it may bo~ Mr. FASCELL. You do not come ~p with an ultimate conclusion, ~ `you, to the~manufacturer? Mr. HO~AMAN. You mean with an instruction? Mr. FA$CELL. No; just an ultimate conclusion new style 1~iairbrush-"yes; this could be of poten Mr. Ho±~AMAN. Generally, he will be given more than that. ) rnayb~ that the reasons why this would be of value to an enemy themsélve~ necessarily be put in one of those three classes. Mr. FACCELL. Right. Mr. HO~AMAN. In 10501. Mr. F~scELL. Supposing it is, you cannot release it to the manufacturer. Mr. HONAMAN. You can as a classified document. If it is deter- mined that there is a need to know, if he is an American citizen, for example,~ and it is determined that he had a need to know, you are at 1i~erty to, give him information which will bear the stamp ~"àonfidex~tial." ~\fr. FAscEu~. Maybe I do not understand the workings of this thing correctly. Do I understand that an American citizen can get infor- mation *hich he needs to know under Executive Order 10501 that has been classified under 1 of the 3 categories without getting security clearance? Mr. HONAMAN. On a need-to-know basis, on "confidential," "secret," nnd "top, secret," he must have security clearance. In any case, it is on a need-to-know basis in any of the three. Mr. Fi~soEu4. It is your statement that in the operations of the office while you were in there you noticed no impediment or interferences with the) American industry under this setup? Mr~ }tONAMAN~ Under the setup of this? Mr. F~scErL. OSI. Mr. HONAMAN. OSI; that is correct. I have not in my experience. Mr. FASCELL. And in your experience as a businessman operatin on the other side of'the table now, you do not anticipate any difficulty. Mr. flONAMAN. That is right, sir. `As a matter of fact, I think I can recall occasions when perhaps we were more concerned about the strategic value of information. Mr. ~`ASOELL. Than the Government was? Mr ~IONAMAN Than the people we consulted were That is the situation that I believe will go on `As I ~tarted tO s~y a moment ago, people can't have all of this infor- mation~ The president of a small company often feels that he wafit~ advice and he may be more concerned, and I think this thing works both ways. Coming back again to my statement that there have been occasions when we have been more concerned than we found the Government people~-I think that this has-and I am not sure that T have in mind the specific example, but I believe it has and I believe it will have also the effç~ct of releasing information which people in their doubts and ifl their Oaution would be inclined not to release, unless they could get some advice from others that would help them along that way Mr FASO1~'LTJ That raises a question that has been in my mind ever since we started today on this hearing, and that is, is there' any area PAGENO="0065" I FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1'179 nan. I I decide to drive to Jacksonville tomor- - `~r a roadmap, I am sure that have some strategic value. yOU b Mr ~. b nob~. his right mind would ever think that is an~ ... ~ the k~:::l of thing that must be used. You just don't stop more than a minute, you rea]ize that the strategic a~ct of that thing is so minor that you just don't (10 anything about it. Mr. FASCELL. Do you feel that the economy that the American people are living under today is such that we will get further and fur- ther into this type of thing rather than less and less of it? * Mr. HONAMAN. Well, this is kind of a crystal ball; i~t. it? Mr. FASCELL. It is n~t so much. I am asking you as a businessman now. * Mr. 1-T0NAMAN. Maybe, what you are coming to is, will this restrain the growth of our economy. I believe that the way it is being handled, it will not. I haven't seen it. Our economy has been growing. Our technology has been growing rather rapidly. Mr. FASOELL. I was not thinking from the standpoint of restraint, although that is an idea. It might well restrain. * Mr. HONAMAN. It might also be stimulated again because of the fact that if people who are not completely informed became too cau- tious it may be helpful to them to be stimulated, to take action which ir~ their caution they might not otherwise take. Mr. FASCELL. So does it not occur to you that what we have discussed now from what we can see in the. foreseeable future umuler the. condi- tions in which we live, that we wi]i have more and more control instead of less and less, unless we take some positive action somewhere to reverse the trei~d? Mr. HoNA~rAN. Well, I think if this cold-war situation persists we are going to have more and more problems. I agree to that. Mr. FAsc1~LL. You don't want to use the words "more and more governmental control ," over information? Mr. HONAMAN. I hope not. I would rather not, because my own philosophy is that we ought to strive as far as Possible without enclan- gering or jeopardizing our national security to get an absolute mini- mum of controls here. Mr. FA5CEIL. I agree with that as an ideal, but what are we doing as a practical matter? Mr. HONAMAN. To the best of my knowledge, we are doing the best we can with the best administration and the best judgment we can muster for it. ~tion which is not of possible strategic value to a poten- ~MAN. I haven't been able to think of one yet. FASCFLL I have not either As a matter of fact, I read somm~where that somebody had the idea futuie can be controlled for the benefit or destruc- ~1 we ought to have a new Cabinet post in this coun- ~ather minister because it would be ne of the greatest 69222-56-pt. 6-5 PAGENO="0066" PAGENO="0067" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1181 Mr. I-I0NAMAN. In the Defense Department, where information is of a nature that except for these practical problems that I described, that necessitate the care in handling the information, even though it must be widely distributed, we sometimes distribute the information widely to people who must use it, and in order to call their attention to the fact that it requires some special consideration, we will mark it "for official use only," so that peop1e know that this is in a large number of hands, but they would also. know that to put it iiito hands other than those that must make use of it, there ought to be another look. Well, that is a bit like a stamp which would read "Handle with care." We recogiiize that that information cannot be kept within a small compass. It falls in the category of things that we must dis- seminate wjdeiy even though they have large intelligence value. it is not as far clown the scale as our road hap, Congressman Fas- cell, but it is that kind of thing. This is the basis thiat I mentioned this morning. Mr. Moss. Let us take an example: This information, if it is in pri- vate hands, you say that the decision, of whether or not it be released, is entirely one voluntarily arrived at, after advice from the Office of Strategic information. But, now, this is information which is held by the Govermnent. Supposing a publication desires to have access to that information, wants to do some article on a relaled subject or a subject requiring some knowledge of this particular type of information; would it be made available? Mr. HONAMAN. Now, this is so general a characteristic that I think I ought to phrase it in terms like this: Practically every request of that kind will involve information which may have sorn~ of these aspects and others having no question involved. What we would do in that case would be to make all of it available except that which, if disseminated widely, would be of potential value to the enemy, and reconsider those fragments to make sure that it is wise and proper not to include those. Mr. Moss. Well now, you have decided that it is not wise or proper to include those fragments, and you inform the publication that the information is not available. On what grounds then is it withheld? Because it is classified? Mr. HONAMAN. Because it is of security value to the potential enemies of the United States. Mr. Moss. Then under what order? Mr. I-IONAMAN. Under our directive. Mr. Moss. Under what order or directive is it then withheld? Mr. HONAMAN. This would be dealt with in several. Do you re- member the numbers of these? Let's see-5200.6, I think would deal with this question, "Informa- tion not included within the purview of Executive Order No. 10501." Mr. Moss. And the authority for that directive is found where- the authority for the issuance of that directive controlling the re- lease of strategic, unclassified information? Mr. 1-IONAMAN. Are you asking me what is the legal authority for that? PAGENO="0068" U$2 INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENT~ Mr. Moss. I was wondering if you had available the legal autlior~ for it. Mr. HONAMAN. I have not examined this questipn; and again, I said before, I have been assured, or advised, that the directives under wh~ch we operate were proper ones for me to perform my func- tions, and not being an attorney, I haven't investigated the question of wheth~r that legal opinion is correct or not. Mr. Moss. Mr. Scher, will you take steps to make certain that the information is available to the committee at the time we hear the De- partment of Defense? Mr. SanER. Yes, sir. Mr. HONAMAN. This is a departmental operation matter. Mr. Moss. `I am very much interested in the response to the ques- tionnaire which was directed to the Department of Defense. Did yqu have any hand in the preparation of the answers, the replies to the questionnaire sent out by this committee last fall? Mr. IJONAMAN. Well, I was consulted ~bout certain parts of it and disctissed certain parts of it before it was completed. Is that what you would mean by "having a hand in it"? Mr~ Moss. Yes. Are you familiar with the May 17 letter of the President, the letter issued to the Department of Defense in connec- tion with the Army? I think they are usually referred to as the Army-McCarthy hearings. Mr. JIONAMAN. May 17. Mr. Moss. Letter of the President. Mr. ITONAMAN. What year? Mr. Moss. 1954. Mr. }l[ONAMAN. I heard about it; yes. Mr. Moss. That was cited by the Department of Defense as an authority for withholding. In your administration as the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Pub- lic Affairs, did you regard that as a specific order or a specific instance or a geheral order establishing an overall policy for the Department? Mr. IJONAMAN. Well, I haven't arrived at any judgments or made any deç~isions, sir, that have been based on that letter, nor was I called upon tÔmake any that would need to be. Andj so the question, as a practical problem, has not presented itself to me. Mr. Moss. Would you not be qualified to make any comment as to the scope of application of that letter in the Department of Defense? Mr. HONAMAN. Yes; if I were confronted with a situation where that question were presented to me, I would consult the General Counsel of the Defense Department and be guided and advised by him. I think your first comment is correct, that I wouldn't feel in a posi- tion tç comment on that personally. * Mr~ SQnER. When you moved over from Commerce to Defense, Mr. I~onaman, was there any specific reason why that move was made? Were1 you given any specific instructions on the move? Mrl HONAMAN No, I was given instructions as to what the duties of the office that I was to perform in the Defense Department were1 Mu~. SanER. Was there any mention of the fact that you had done creditable work in the Commerce Department in that area and, ti~erefore, you were moving ovor to institute a similar program in the Defense,Department? *1 PAGENO="0069" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1183 Not to my knowledge. No such thou~ht was con- ~.tome. Mr. SORER. But you did work in both departments? Mr. }J]IONAMAN. As a matter of fact, I never asked th~ Secretary L ~r he got me over there. ~. But your assignments in both departments were similar? ~~AMAN. Oh, yes; somewhat similar. A much broader on~ efense Department because, actually, sir, the percentage of Defense Department that was devoted to the positive - e information out was really very much greater thau ige c y time devoted to these considerations of strategic information, whereas in the Commerce Department it was all that. I can't give you exactly the percentage but I am quite sure it is quite large. Mr. SORER. Incidentally, is the balance sheet for strategic informa~ tion now being used in the Defense Department to your knowledge? Mr. IJONAMAN. Not to my knowledge. Mr. SORER. Referring to the September 15, 1955, directive of the Defense Department, specifically to section 72.1-111, as to the matter of unclassified economic or technical information in press releases, advertisements, notice to stockholders, annual or quarterly reports, brochures, etc.-do you see any limitation there? Mr. HONAMAN. This is the- Mr. SORER. The Defense Department. Mr. HONAMAN. The voluntary guidance of defense contractors? Mr. SORER. Yes. Do you see any threat there to freedom of the press? Mr. HONAMAN. No, sir; I do not. Mr. SORER. Do you consider an advertisement part of the nature of a free press, the right to advertise? Mr. HONAMAN. Well, I would think it would be. Mr. SORER. Do you consider the right to notify your stockholders a right to freedom of expression, or the publication of annual or quar- terly reports? Mr. HONAMAN. I think that to the extent that it does not involve information which would jeopardize our country, it should be com- pletely free. Mr. SORER. Could you set up in your own mind a working balance sheet which the newspaper editor can use, or any set of criteria or tests which he can use in which he can determine when to refuse to publish an advertisement or a notice to stockholders or unclassified scientific or other such information? Mr. HONAMAN. Would you reword that? Mr. SORER. In short, how is the editor to know when he satisfies your requirements? Mr. HONAMAN. I don't know that there is any suggestion that has been made to an editor that he ought to satisfy my requirements or any one person's requirements. The only suggestion that was ever made to the editors was that they themselves participate to the extent they can in judging. Actually, editors all exercise censorship. They don't publish every piece of information that comes to them. Mr. SORER. They don't need a Government agency to tell them what to censor; do they? the I Y tinie PAGENO="0070" ONAMAN. they set PAGENO="0071" then, this would refer to ~`tiaL" "sec'~"t," or' ienyc~ [cations. ir~t is the best answer I can give. Mr. Moss. We will go into that more in detail with the Depart- ment officials. Mr. HONAMAN. This is quite a way beyond the level of operations that would be my primary responsibility. Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Honamau, when you were the head of the OSI, did you sit in on conferences which made a determination in answer to an inquiry as to whether or not information might be of strategic value and the uses to which it might be put were made known to an inquirer? Mr. HONAMAN. Yes; some of those were visits by individuals. Mr. FASCELL. I mean, you personally participated in the meetings? Mr. HONAMAN. In some of them, yes, sir. Mr. FASCELL. And you had information that was available to you from other Government agencies in helping you evaluate what should be sent out to the manufacturer? Mr. HONAMAN. Yes. Mr. FASCELL. Was there ever any instance during the time that you were there that information went to a manufacturer as to the use of information, if it were published, when as a matter of fact, our own intelligence knew that the information was already in the hands of persons or groups of persons who were not under the direct control of the United States Government? Mr. HONAMAN. I have no recollection of any that would fit that statement. Mr. FA5CELL. Do you know of any? Mr. HONAMAN. Of course, there are occasions when persons will have information that has strategic value when we know that there has been some publication of it, and there are two aspects of that that I think would be of interest in your study: One is that further elaboration sometimes confirms the information that may be in the hands of an enemy and may be incomplete. It may fill in the mosaic of his intelligence pattern in a way that he needs to have it filled in. And sometimes it will help him by confirming or denying, as it was in the case of the story that came out that we had broken the Japanese code, and for a long time-this goes back-and again now I am draw- ing upon what I have heard from others-that was neither confirmed nor denied for a while, for several years-neither of us happened to be PAGENO="0072" active there at the time-but it have hari~ied our position if ~hád brok~n it, you see. Well; perhaps, in time they would get a new code. Mr. Sdrnu~. Is that not security information rather i information-that is security information? Mr. Hd~NAMAN. It is information of possible If you ask me what classification it had been in s matter of fact that I am not familiar with. Now the other aspect of it is that even though by publication a, potential enemy has learned something about us, it makes it just that much easier to give him more. And the question is a valid one, shall yOu continue to make it easy. Mr. J4SCELL. Is not the answer to that, do not give them anything?. Mr. HONAMAN. I don't think so. Mr. F~SOELL. I don't see how you can draw the line. Mr. HONAMAN. That is why I have been struggling so much to make the poi~it here that good administration and judgment are calledupon all along the line. Mr. FASCELL. I think you made the point, but I still do not see how you can exercise it. Mr. HONAMAN. Well, I think we do pretty well. Mr. FASCELL. Do I understand you correctly then in the determina~. tion on the strategic value of something that the Office of Strategic Information has to determine from military intelligence, No. 1, whethef or not the information has already been published; No. 2, the ext4nt to which it has been published; and No. 3- Mr. IIIONAMAN. Has this any bearing on developments? Mr. l~ASCEIjI4. On existing information. Mr. fiONAMAN. Has it any bearing on military weapons, for exam- ple? Mr. FASOELL. Does it substantiate existing information? Mr.~ HONAMAN. Generally. Mr. ~t!'ASCEI4L. Might it substantiate future information? In fact, would it not be smarter just not to say anything about it at all? Mr. IFIIONAMAN. It would be easier. Mr. FASCEIJL. It would be safer. Mr. HONAMAN. It would be safer and easier, but I do not recom- mend that we take the easy course just because it is easy. * Mr. FASCELL. How about the safer course? Mr. HONAMAN. The safer course only in case you have satisfied yourself that it is a wiser course as well. Mr. Moss. Would it necessarily be safer? * Mr.HONAMAN. Not necessarily. I think again that is a pretty broad brush~ you see. Mr.~ Moss. We cannot have absolute security, can we? Mr~ HONAMAN. I am sure there is no perfect answer to this prob- lem. We can't have absolute security. And I think that any progress we can make in the direction of help- ing our safety, at'the same time again being sure that we resolve every- thing in the direction of getting out all we can, except where we are sure that we jeopardize our safety, I am sure that if we move in that direction we will make progress but we shall never get a complete answer to this question. no good ai i whether C PAGENO="0073" asking me one that is a :perience in the psycholo~ cated problem. And I e e there rionaman, on beb , I w~ ~ppearance here I ut tha td have made an important contribution ~ee is making. go into the question of the Defense Department in more utter d ~e. adjourned. 4: ~ ~., Friday, January 13, L.. PAGENO="0074" PAGENO="0075" ~ITYOF DEPA] Part 6- WEDNESDAY, PAGENO="0076" .L ~JL A. L&.L £~. ~ A., ~~a.a4 ~J'.1 `J ~PJA.L1J, ~A.JA. OP CON~MEECE, ACCOMPANIED BY ALLEN OVERTON, fl~, SPE- CIAL ASSISTANT TO TEE GENEEAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OP COMME~RCE Mr. RAY. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement which I would like to insert in the record and to read some parts of it now, if I could, although I don't think I will read it all. Mr MITcuEI~I~ Mr Chairman, I would first like to introdi ce into the recor4 the letters of invitation extended by you to Weeks, dated. April 10, 1956, as exhibit 1; Mr. Weeks' April 12, will be exhibit 2; and a reply to Mr. Weeks by dated Aj~ril 13. Mr. Moss. If there is no objection, the items will be made part ~ the record. (The correspondence follows:) Hon. SINoI~&IR WEEKS, Secretary of Commerce, Department of Commerce, WasMngton, D. C. DEAR Mu. SECRETARY: The House Government Information Subcommittee plans to study the information practices and policies of the Department of Commerce in public hearings beginning April 18, 1956, and possibly lasting through April 20, 1656. The sutcommittee wishes you to discuss the very important policies of the Do. partmen~ in this field on the morning of April 18 beginning at 10 a. m. in room 362, Old House Office Building. Following your appearance, other representa- tives from your Department will be asked to discuss the specific information practices in the various fields supervised by the Department of Commerce. The staff of the House Government Information Subcommittee contacted repre- sentatives of your Department more than 2 months ago to discuss the specific matters to be covered at the hearing. Most recent contacts have been by letter from the staff to Mr. Harold B. Corwin and by a discussion between the staff members and Mr. J. Allen Overton. The l~earing will cover the Commerce Department's answers to the ques- tionnair~ sent to all Federal departments and agencies last year by the subcom- mittee ats well as the legal authority of the Department to restrict information. Other si~ecific items tentatively planned for the hearing include: The policy under which the Office of Strategic Information operates and how that policy is implemented in actual practice, including legal justification of the establishment of this office and its relationship to the National Security Council; the availability of information from various advisory committees; the opera- tion of the Department's Information Office and practices regarding contacts with editors who publish stories attributed to the Department; the operation and purpose of the "export control of technical data" regulation which was issued by the Department on February 8, 1955; changes the Department may have made recently in issuing statistical reports; the Commerce Department's role in the ~lissemination of information obtained by both commercial and scientific attach~s of the State Department; the procedure and policy concerning patents in the 4itomic energy field; the policy and practice regarding the distribution of report~ on tests ~by the Bureau of Standards on commercial products for other Federdi agencies; the availability to the public of information on private man- ageme~it engineering surveys contracted for by the Department, including a list of all such surveys since January 1, 1954. There may be several other points to be discussed, but the above list will give an idea of the general nature of the hearing. The subcommittee staff will con- tinue to contact appropriate officials of the Department for further discussions prior to the hearing. Sincerely yours, Joux B. Moss, Chairman. PAGENO="0077" FROM FEDIIiRAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1191 THE SECRETARy OP COMMEIiOR, Washington, April 12, 1956. ~x B. Moss, hairman, Government Information Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR Mn. CHAIRMAN: This will achnowledge receipt of your letter of April 10, to your committee's study of information practices of the Department merce commencing April 18, 1956. As I r. Overton informed you and your committee staff, the appropriate policy officials of the Department will be prepared to discuss in detail the areas of in- terest set forth in your letter. We will furnish to you promptly this list of officials whom we would suggest appear. In addition, I have designated Mr. Philip A. Ray, the General Counsel of the Department, as my representative to inform you fully concerning the general information practices of the Department as well as the legal problems with respect thereto. As you know, my schedule at present is extremely heavy, and I regret that the press of prior commitments makes it impossible for me to be with you on April 18. However, the Department officials present will be able to furnish all the information requested. Please be assured of our continuing cooperation. Sincerely yours, SINCLAIR WEEKS, Secretary of Commerce. APRIL 13, 1956. Hon. SINCLAIR WmKS, Secretary of Commerce, Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. SECRRTARY: This will acknowledge your letter of April 12, 1956. I am truly sorry you will be unable to participate in the House Government Information Subcommittee's study of your Department's information practices and policies. I feel the policy questions involved are so important that they should be discussed with the top-level departmental official. The subcommittee staff has informed Mr. Overton of the other persons from your Department whom we wish to participate in the subcommittee hearings on April 18 and 19, 1956. They are: Philip A. Ray, General Counsel; Charles l3~. Honeywell, Administrator, Busi- ness and Defense Services Administration; Charles B. Hersum, Director, Industry Advisory Committee Staff; Richard S. Blaisdell, Public Information Officer, Business and Defense Services Administration; Burt W. Roper, Counsel, Busi- ness and Defense Services Administration; Erwin Seago, Director, Office of Strategic Information; and Albert Leman, Director, Office of Public Information. The hearing will open at 2 p. m., April 18, in room 362, Old House Ofike Building, and at 10 a. m. on April 19, 1956. The subcommittee plans to continue the study of your Department's informa- tion policies at 10 a. m. on April 27. Witnesses to be heard at that time include: Harold C. McClellan, Assistant Secretary for International Affairs; John C. Borton, Director of Office of Export Supply, Bureau of Foreign Commerce; Newton Foster, Director, Finished Products Division, Bureau of Foreign Com- merce; Nathan Ostroff, Assistant General Counsel, Department of Commerce; Robert C. Watson, Commissioner, United States Patent Office; James L.. Brew- rink, Primary Patent Examiner, United States Patent Office; Dr. Allen V. Astin, Director, National Bureau of Standards; William I. Wiedemair, Office of Ship Construction and Repair, Maritime Administration; John J. McMullen, Chief Office of Ship Construction and Repair Maritime Administration William A. Stigler, security officer, Office of Ship Construction and Repair, Maritime Administration; and John C. Green, Director, Office of Technical Services, Business and Defense Services Administration. Sincerely yours, Jo~x B. Moss, Chairman. Mr. Moss. Now I suggest we let Mr. Ray summarize his statement and then file it for the record. PAGENO="0078" nent of Philip A. obvious that the primary policy of the merce is to disseminate information. On a 11 partment is the chief reporter of the Nation It collects, organizes, and distributes most of the statistics and information on the state of our economy the facts and prospects of trade and commerce. The Weather Bureau alone is a vast network for distribution of informa- tion to the public. Important facts covering all aspects of oi~ir nation- al life ~re constantly being collected, compiled, and distributed by the Census Bureau. Our transportation agencies, Maritime, Civil Aeronautics, and Public Roads, exist to provide aid and information in the transportation fields. There is not a major area in the Depart- ment of Commerce, from the maps and charts of Coast and Geodetic Survey to the scientific laboratories of the National Bureau of Stand- ards, which does not have a substantial news-distribution function carried on in the public interest. This informational function of the Department of Commerce stems from ith basic statutory charter under which it is called upon to pro- mote. cOmmerce and trade and transportation, and from other more particular statutes relating to the various bureaus and offices. There are three qualifications as to this policy of dissemination. Quantitatively these are slight However, each exists for a particular and va'id reason. Furthermore, each is either required or recognized by act of Congress. The first of these relates to material which, if released, would do unnecessary injury to same member of the public In this category fall such matters as the intimate personal and financial disclosures required by law to be made by the individual to the census-taker. Congress has recognized that the disclosure of such information would needlessly embarrass the individual and dry up census sources and has made its disclosure a crime (18 U. S. C. 105). In this concept also faIls such information as individual business statistics, which Comirierce obtains to compile into National, State, or regional sum- marie~. Obviously, the promulgation of these individual statistics could place a man at a competitive disadvantage and injure him un- necessarily, and the Congress has also confirmed this by statute The same is true of a lot of other things such as pending patent applica- tions, export license applications, and the like. In other words, there is a legitimate principle of privacy which is designed to protect the individual from being harmed by the opera- tions of his Government. PAGENO="0079" PAGENO="0080" U left my ~d air Navy, ~ ~ practice ~f did you first come with the Pepartment of a or about September 20, 1954. rr~~ Was that your first Government employm ~u know who prepared the answ re? s submitted to the Bureau of the ~ommittee? be glad to get thati PAGENO="0081" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCTh~S 1195 - - - DHELL. You probably don't know the answer to the next .v many times has Secretary Weeks been requested to appear re the congressional committees? RAY. That also I will be very glad to get. Mrrcrn~u~. Will you please furnish for the record a complete list of all requests made by congressional committees for Mr. Weeks to appear personally and his reason for his refusal~ if any? Mr. RAY. I might say in that connection, Mr. Counsel, it is ordinary and common practice, so far as I have seen it, for all of the committees of the Congress to address the Secretary, and so in getting that infor- mation up, I think you will find that nearly every request that comes to the Department of Commerce is a request to the Secretary, but, of course, it is not at all uncommon for that to be passed to someone who has more immediate responsibility in the particular area, and again. it must depend, of course, upon the Secretary's commitments. Mr. MITCHELL. Yes; I understand. Mr. FASCELL. I think what we are interested in, however, is not just a general request, but one which required the personal appear- ance of the Secretary or requested the personal appearance of the Secretary. Mr. RAY. We will endeavor to get that. (See exhibit XXVII.) Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Ray, you are familiar with the functions of the Business Advisory Council and its affiliations with the Department of Commerce. Mr. RAY. Yes. Mr. MITCHI~LL. Could you explain to this subcommittee the extent,, the scope of its duties, its responsibilities, and how it ties in with the, Office of the Secretary of Commerce? Mr. RAY. Yes. The Business Advisory Council came into existence, I believe, in 1933 as a standing advisory council to the Secretary of Commerce, and with its changing membership over the years, it has served under something like 7 successive Secretaries of Commerce and 3 Administrations, and its role and function is purely an advisory one. It will undertake studies at the request of the Secretary of Commerce,, it will report to him on economic conditions and, in other words, serve as an advisory group. It is not in any sense an action group. The~ members are not governmental employees as such, although their func- tion is to advise the Secretary. I might say that it is only one of a number of advisory committees both in the Congress and elsewhere that serve to create a tie between the industry and `the citizenry on the one hand and the Government on the other. Mr. MITCHELL. Is this a private corporation? Mr. RAY. It is not a corporation. Mr. MITCHELL. Could you explain the makeup of the Business Ad- visory Council, how it operates? Mr. RAY. Yes. The members of the Business Advisory Council are appointed by the Secretary. They do not appoint their own mem- bers. They, however, have a Chairman. They meet at the call of the Secretary a half dozen or so times a year, sometimes in Washington and sometimes out of `Washington. Mr. MIIICTIELL. Does the Secretary personally appoint these mem- bers of this Committee or `does he do it on the recommendation of the.. Business Advisory Council `~ 69222-56-pt. 6-6 PAGENO="0082" - CHELL. How ~. It is financ L JJ37 COil Overton reminds me this was explained in great detail to the ~ Judiciary Subcommittee, Mr. Celler's committee, and a report was issued by him on the subject, I believe, last fall or early this year. Mr. MITCHELL. Yes; the committee knows about that report, Mr. Ray. Is this a tax-exempt organization? Mr. RAY. Well, I don't think it is an organization as such as a tax- able entity. I think that the contributions made by the members are deductible under rulings made by the Treasury Department extend- ing back into the late 1930's, I think. Mr. Harriman first raised that question, and the Treasury Department looked at the matter and deter- mined that it was included within the normal concept of a businessman or anyone else in his line of endeavor being asked to come to Washing- ton to meet and deliberate that such an expense is a deductible expense. Mr. MITcHELL. As I understand you, Mr. Ray, this is a privately financed company. It has a board of directors; hasn't it? Mr. RAY. No; it does not, and it is not a company. It is an advisory council appointed by the Secretary. It is a group of men. Mr. MITCHELL. What I am a little bit interested in is how it acquired its tax-exempt status. How can a group of men operating as you indi- cate here as individuals get a tax-exempt status across the board unless they are performing a function similar to a foundation or something like that? Mr. RAY. Well, as I just explained, the contributions to the Council are made by the individuals who compose its membership and those contributions are deductible as an expense under the rulings of the Treasi4ry Department. Mr. MITchELL. By what authority does the Secretary of Commerce have tie right to assign employees from the Department of Commerce to thi~ Business Advisory Council for full-time duties? Mr. RAY. Well, I would take it that any Cabinet officer would have a right to consult with citizens and citizen groups. In fact- Mr. MITCHELL. That isn't my question. Mr. RAY. I am coming to your question. If this is a part of his job and he asks them to produce written recommendations, papers and so forth, it certainly would be appropriate that he would have someone who would attend to the housekeeping end of it, I would think. Mr~ MITCHELL. Is the executive secretary paid by the Government? Mr RAY No, he is paid by the contributions made by the members Mr~ MITCHELL. Are the reports or the minutes available for public inspeCtion of the Business Advisory Council? PAGENO="0083" e Governme] be.en at I PAGENO="0084" the long standing concept with regard to the B~isiness Adviso~y Coun- cii, and the fact is they were not made public and the investigation then terminated at that time. Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce into the record at this time a letter dated August 4, 1955, by the Secretary of Commerce to Mr. Walter White. I would like to read that letter for the benefit of the committee. This letter is dated August 4, 1955. It is directed to Mr. Walter White, executive director, Business Advisory Council, Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C. DEAR Mu. WHITE: This is to advise that the files pertaining to the Business Advisory Council of the Department of Commerce located in the Department of Commerce Building are the files of the Department of Commerce and that you have no right or authbrity to deliver these files or any of the content thereof to any Person or to any of the committees of Congress, including the Subcom- niittee on Monopoly of the committee on the Judiciary, House of Repreesntatives. Sincerely yours, SINCLAIR WEEKS, secretary of Commerce. Mr. Ray, would you care to comment on that letter, since it speci- fically says that they are not available, tue reports, the minutes, or anything of BAC are not available? Mr. RAY. Weil, yes. What particular comment would you like me to make? Mr. MITCHELL. Why aren't they available? Mr. RAY. The files and records in the Department of Commerce pertaining to the Business Advisory Council, which consists of re- ports of committees in the Business Advisory Council, individual busi- ness statistics reports and surveys, confidential recommendations to the Secretary of Commerce for his consideration are unquestionably, I believe, a part of the files and records of the Departmeut. The Busi- ness Advisory Council is merely an instrumentality of the Secretary of Commerce and always has been, and the files which the Secretary maintains in his Department with regard to this Council are files of the Department of Commerce, and this was a request, if I may go back, not for any particular document or reports b~~t for unlimited and in- discriminate access to and examination of a large area of the files of the Department of Commerce, coupled with publication of it, so that people who had expressed their most candid thoughts, the most inti- mate facts with regard to their busiuess, aud so forth, would in effect have been asked after the fact to have this body of material thrown into publication. Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Ray, to whoimi do the contributions belong? Mr. RAY. Well, the contributions belong, I think, to the Council as a collective group of men. I would say that my own view of this, Mr. Fascell, is that it is not really different than something like this: If I were a businessman in St. Louis and you were the Cabinet officer and you came to me and said, "Mr. Ray, I would like to get your advice about some program, policy, or problem. Will you go to work on it for me ~" and you said, "Yes; but this is going to take me some time and I will have to use my own secretary, and it will cost me a little money, and so forth," amid that you would think you were rendering a seryice to the Government and your secretary would be doing like- wise, and that would be an expenditure of yours. Now, what we have,. PAGENO="0085" ~s Advisory Council is a cc ,t character. Now, of course, the money individual secretary is your money in the iit~ words, the contributions that are made by ~.bers to the Council, which is themselves collec- .e as an expense item, and therefore the Secretary ierce has no proprietary interest and neither does the United ~nent in that money. it is in the nature of a trust fund or an account, I ~s deductible just for the same reasons that in the illus~ I gave you of the St. Louis businessman would be entitled to 1 expenses to which he might be put in endeavoring to give to a United States Cabinet officer. :Tcrn~I4i~. Now we have a different interpretation of theory, law, and practice when we start talking about files. You tell me now that when it comes down to written matters or other matters that deal with these individuals regardless of whether they happen to be in the control or custody of the individual or regardless of whether they happen to be the individual's documents, if they pertain to anything that has to do with the BAC, the Secretary of Commerce of the United States Government suddenly has a proprietary interest in all of the documents. Mr. RAY. Well, I wouldn't say that. What I endeavored to say was- Mr. MITCHELL. Just a minute. I understand what you were trying to say, but I am trying to reconcile it with the statement of the Secre- tary of Commerce who said that all of the files- Mr. RAY. That were in his custody and possession in the Department of Commerce. This has nothing to do with whatever files and records the members; of the BAC may have in their possession and custody or what have you. Mr. FASCELL. As a practical matter, do they have any individual files which would reflect anything that the Council did as a collective body? Mr. RAY. I presume they might, but I don't know. Mr. FASCELL. If they did have would you sustain the legal theory that they are not governmental files at all? Mr. RAY. Well, I would say that the only problem I have ever had to deal with in this area is the question of the responsibility for and custody over the files resting in the Department of Commerce which are kept and maintained by employees of the Secretary. Mr. FASOELL. But if they are not in the care, custody, and control or in the physical custody of the Department of Commerce, then a dif- ferent theory would apply; is that correct? Mr. RAY. As I say, I have not had an opportunity or- Mr. FASCELL. Do you think it would? Mr. RAY. I would rather not express an offhand view about it, Mr. Fascell. It presents a question. If a piece of advisory material comes from a constituent to you as a Congressman and you feel that you should protect it, the protection would be rather meaningless if the same material could be somehow obtained from the constituent; wouldn't it? So I would just as soon not endeavor to answer that problem off the cuff. PAGENO="0086" ~agov Mr. J~AY. V. all, I ~ in our normal conceit ofwhat is a ment agency, I would believe they are not. Mr. FASOELJJ. In other words, there is no statutory authority for the actual creation of this body because you say it exists at the will of the secretary. Mr. RAY. I don't agree that there is no statutory authority. I think that the statutory provision that the Secretary of Oommerc~e shall promote and develop the commerce and trade of this country would certainly carry with it his right to appoint citizens advisers and consult with citizens' groups. They might be intermittent or per- manent. Mr. FASCELL. 1 might not disagree with that, but is it your opinion that it carries the inherent power to clothe them with governmental authority? Mr. RAY. Well, they have no actual authority whatsoever. It is purely, advisory. Mr. F'ASCBLL. No, sir; and the Secretary can't give them ai~y either; can he? Mr. RAY. Not any action authority. Mr. FASCELL. They are not a taxable entity? Mr. RAY. No. Mr. FASCELTA. In other words they are just a group of citizens collected together to advise the Secretary at his request, period; right? Mr. RAY. Yes; that is right. Mr~ FASOELL. Now, let me ask you as a private citizen, the Secretary of Co~umerce may request advice or he may not request advice~ They might just volunteer it; might they not? Mr. RAY. Yes; he may or may not accept it, too. Mr. FASCELL. Yes; and as a matter of fact they often volunteer advice. Mr. RAY. Well, I am sure they do at times. How often, I don't know. Mr. FASCELL. And the Secretary, as you pointed out, may or may not accept it? Mr. RAY. That is right. Mr. FASCELL. Do you feel that there is any logic at all to the theory that if the Secretary of Commerce, one of the major agencies of the United States Government, acts on the advice of a collective group of ilidividuals, that somebody other than the Secretary should not PAGENO="0087" you I PAGENO="0088" ndupon~~ repr Now tha1~ is~ quite a ~ I t~ posture where all the advices that come to them, ~they may seek t from many, many people, and if you are going to dry those up it should be done only after a good deal of serious consideration. Mr. Moss. Mr. Ray, it seems to me we have just a little difference here in the matter of the Advisory Council than would be the case of the occasional advice from a citizen where the Secretary might ask for specific advice in a specific instance. Here you have a continuing body, a formalized body that meets periodically, and you Supply the secretarial staff. Does it have access to governmental information suppliediby the Department? Mr. Ray. Well, only to the extent it may need to have it in connec- tion with the work it may be doing for the Secretary in the way, as I say, always of advice and study and ultimate recommendation. The CHAIRMAN. I really can't see the difference basically in prin.. ciple. Let me say it is hard for me to think that seven Secretaries of Commetce, all with different personalities and all of them with differ- ent backgrounds, with this Council, the membership of which con- stantly keeps changing, could have kept something like this unless it were a thing of value in the public interest. I mean I wouldn't want t~ supersede their judgment by anything I might say. Mr. ~foss. Of course, you are taking a premise here that I am not willing to grant that is, that you cannot have candor in advice to Goverivment unless you have it iii secrecy. We get much advice in committees of Congress in the way of testimony. After all, the man who appears before a committee and testifies is in effect advising the committee, and the greater portion by far is given quite publicly. Now, I would like to feel that I can rely upon much of that as reflecting an honest opinion of the person who appears before the committee. The Secretary in effect is sitting as a committee and receiving advice in support of policies or in support of proposed policies or against poli- cies. I~ don't know why there has to be a greater cloak of secrecy there than governs the deliberations of Congress or the consideration of its committees. Mr. RAY. Well, of course. I don't think there is any difference in degree. The analogy to me would not be in your public hearings here or say in public hearings before-that would be more comparable to say public hearings before the CAB or something of that char- acter, but the analogy would be, do you think it would be wise to make public all of the thoughts and advices that are expressed to you by your staffs in your executive sessions, by your constituents who communi- cate with you-I think there is your question analogy. Mr~ Moss. Well, let's take one of the things that has been charged and c~ertainly causes some concern or some interest on the part of the public in the Advisory Council-certainly I think you are familiar with it-that it is predominantly big business. Maybe that isn't true. We PAGENO="0089" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1203 1 ask a little later that the names of the Council as it is presently stituted be made a part of the record. If it is in fact a big business ycouncil maybe it is of concern to small business as to the type which the Secretary might be receiving Now, undoubtedly has some weight with the Secretary He has placed a degree ~e men who make up the Council because he has selected ~i and he has appointed them. Now, there are other groups of busi- s in this country who have an interest in the policies which may pursued by our Government and perhaps they would like an oppor- unity to examine or to have some familiarity with the type of recom- mendation which the Secretary is receiving. Mr. RAY. Well, of course, no entity or organization or man or group ~comes the sole advisor to anyone. I mean the prime advisor, of course, to someone like the Secretary or his advisors surround him in the Government from the lowest employee right up to his top advisors. The editorial opinion, the comment, the factual informa- tion that comes from other sources, and let me say of the Business Advisory Council, that this is not dealing with market facts or competitive situations or anything of that character such as the usual industry advisory committee. It is chosen, as I understand it, the mem- bership is chosen for the wisdom and demonstrated public interest of the individual rather than to any size or scope of their activities. Mr. Moss. Might he advise the Secretary on the type of statistical data which he should collect and make available to business? Mr. RAY. If so, I know of no such advice. Mr. Moss. What type of advice then does it give primarily? Mr. RAY. Well, I could refer to a couple of recent ones. The Secre- tary asked the Business Advisory Council, I believe, to take a look at the organization as an efficient or nonefficient operating unit of a couple of the units of his office, and in the past they have studied a wide variety of problems; for example, foreign trade, tariff, and so forth. This is a group, in other words, with wide public interest, and where- ever a Secretary can gain any help I am sure he goes out and tries to get it. Mr. Moss. They were filling the role in that case of management consultant to the Secretary in the internal organization of the De- partment. Mr. RAY. No; I didn't say, that. Mr. Moss. Well, you said that they advised on certain aspects of organization, of units within the Department. Mr. RAY. They do, but I thought you said he would prefer that for the advice of his own people. Mr. Moss. I don't want to presume to state what he might or might not prefer. Mr. RAY. I misunderstood you. Mr. Moss. All we are trying to find out is the role played by the Advisory Council and why more information about its activity isn't generally available. Mr. RAY. I wasn't aware actually that this subject would be up for deliberation today. I had not been advised. I will be very glad to-I am glad to answer any questions I can to the best of my ability. Mr. Moss. Of course, we are not trying to- PAGENO="0090" rali Congres ~nt on the i press. I asked a little earlier if the members of this Council had access, ~ to classifi~d material? Mr. RAY. Not so far as I know. Mr. Moss. Do they originate anything which becomes classified? Mr. RAY. I think not. Mr. Moss. But you don't know for sure. Mr. RAY. Well, I think not. I would say not. If I am wrong, I will advise the chairman, but I do not understand that they originate any clas~ified material. Mr. ~oss. Do they keep minutes of their meetings? Mr. RAT. Yes; I believe they do. Mr. Moss. Is the agenda prepared by the Department and sub- mitted to them? Mr. RAY. Yes; and the minutes are kept by the Department. Mr. Moss. It is presided over by a governmental employee? Mr. RAY. The Secretary of Commerce is always present and pre- siding at their meetings. Mr. Moss. At all times? Mr. RAY. That is right. In his absence I suppose the Acting Secre- tary, but generally speaking there are several top officials in the Department there at all times. Mr. Moss. But they are always chaired by an official of the Department? Mr. RAY. Yes; the Secretary of Commerce is the continuing ex officio chairman of the BAC, the Business Advisory Council. They do have a member of the Council who is designated as chairman and who makes presentations, and so forth, but that is always in the presence of the Secretary or other Department officials. Mr. Moss. Then they are chaired by their own chairman rather than an official of the Department? Mr. RAY. Yes; I would say that technically the chairman who is acting as such at the time is the Council Chairman, although the departmental officials keep the minutes and are present at the meet- ings. This is a creature of the Department of Commerce in all respects. Mr. Moss. Mr. Meader. I wonder if I could interrupt for just a moment. I would like to acknowledge the presence of the chairman of the full Committee on Government Operations, Congressman Dawson of Illinois. Now, Congressman Meader. Mr0 M~AIXER. I am sorry I was a little late in getting to the meeting. Has Mr. Ray read this prepared statement to the committee? Mr. MITcHELL. Yes. PAGENO="0091" [the appearance of witnesses to ~ ~ its c here~? Mr. RAY. That is correct. Mr. M~Aorn. Now I take it that you believe there is some limitation upon that power of the Congress to investigate and to issue siibpenas for the production of persons and papers? Mr. RAY. Yes; I think these would be the executive branch or the judicial branch, of the Government. There is what I have described in here earlier as a qualification. I think it is little resorted to, but- Mr. M~AD~n. Let me see if having read your statement I correctly state what your belief of that qualification is; that the Congress is entitled to testimony and documents from the executive branch, of the Government to the extent that the particular department or agency believes Congress ought to have them? Mr. RAY. Well, I would not put it that way. I would say that there are occasions when the production of materials by the executive branch would not be in the public interest, and that the courts have held that that is a decision for the executive branch of the Government, but I trust it would never be- Mr. MEADER. Would you cite the decision? Do you mean to say the courts have held that the executive branch has the discretion to de- termine what information Congress is entitled to? Mr. RAY. I didn't state it again as you put it, but the court held, and I didn't read this part of the statement, but the courts have held in relation to court subpena.es, to be accurate, directed against the executive, that the internal working papers and so forth of the execu- tive branch are not reachable in general by the subpena of the court, and I quoted on page 6 here from the recent Timbers case, the portion of it which refers to as authority opinions given by Mr Justice Clark and Justice Jackson, and I might read that, and then I would like to go on and say that you are quite correct, I think, in stating that no court decision has precisely dealt with this subject as between the other two branches of the Government, the Congress and the executive branch, but I have developed some material in here on that subject as well. Mr. M~AD~R. Well, you cited President Tyler and Senator Jackson, who later became a Supreme Court Justice, as saying that the legisla- tive subpena was on the same foundation as the court subpena. Mr. RAY. That is right. Mr. M~AD~R. But that has not been held in any court decision that I know of. PAGENO="0092" 1206 Mr. R~x. No. As I say, these qualifications or incidents are fe~ usually the various branches of the Government will i problem of their proper separation. of powers and these come to a~ problem. Mr. MMDER. Let me ask you if tionthatIamgoingtoE~~~~ the legislative committee court subpena is issued, take in civil actions, to obtain facts necessary for the determine of a controversy between private citizens. In a criminal case it woul4 be the interest of the State in the enforcement of the law and the inter- est in the defendant in presenting his defense, but the legislative sub~ pena is to find out about the public business and the administration of authority vested in trust with servants of the people. Do you see the distinction, in the type of subpena, that I am trying to draw; that there~ might be every reason for the legislative committee to obtain facts on the ope~ation and the execution of the laws passed by the Congress and theiadministration of public trust which would not be present in a contro~rsy between individuals and a court? Mr. RAY. Well, I think it is an interesting distinction, Mr. Congress- man, but my belief is that if you assume that what the judiciary is going after, and I don't think it matters what kind of a case, is relevant to the protection of the man's rights in that case. I don't think there could be anything of higher importance, so I don't think that the dis- tinction would be borne out, and I don't think it is borne out by the authorities. Mr. MEAnER. We both concede there aren't any authorities except Tyler ~ind this Senator Jackson who were not actually passing upon any ca~es. Mr. ~RAY. There are a great many authorities. They are not judicial decisiOns as between the executive and the legislative branches of the Government, but there are a great many historical precedents. Presi- dent Tyler is one of a great many. Nearly every President since Washington has visualized this matter in, I think, almost precisely this way, and this is the first time I have heard the distinction which the eminent Congressman presents, and I was just saying that as far as I know it wouldn't be supported by the thinking in the past of con- stitutjonal lawyers and Presidents, and so forth, on the subject. Mr~ MEAnER. SWell, Mr. Chairman, if I might be permitted to do so, I wo~ild like to make a little statement and then ask Mr. Ray a ques- tion. It happens, Mr. Ray, that I was on the staff of the Truman committee during the war, and I had an occasion to look into the power of the committee of the Senate to obtain documents from the executive branch of the Government. I think it might be an interesting historical footnote to say that when Mr. Truman was th~ chairman of that com- mittee he was very assiduOus in protecting and advancing the powers of the committee of which he was the head. I i~night say I was somewhat disappointed to find him equally vigor- ous ~vhen he transferred to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in keening the committees of Congress from getting information from the executive branch of the Government. I have tried to obtain records frorn the Archives to substantiate this statement, but I am quite sure thati at least twice Mr. Truman as chairman of the Special Senate War Investigating Committee issued subpenas direct to the Attorney Gen-. can se merit in t. PAGENO="0093" ~2ARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1-207 of the United States, Mr. Biddle, and had them served on him. e precedents you refer to, and you will find many of them in Can- i's Precedents, are instances where an effort was made to obtain ormation and somehow the situation was resolved by a compromise I so far as I know there is no court decision passing upon the power ~ Congress to compel the production of papers in the possession ~ executive branch of the Government against the will of the I administrators in the executive branch of the Government. Mr. MITCHELL. I wish to ask one question. Mr. Meader, isn't it a fact that the usual practice when a subpena is served is that the sub- pena was withdrawn and then the Cabinet member appears? Mr. MEADER. I am not a witness here, Mr. Mitchell. Mr. MITCHELL. I believe the records will reveal that is the technique that is used and that is why we have never had a court test on the matter. Mr. MEADER. I wanted to ask Mr. Ray if he agreed with me that there is no authority, any court holding on the issue, and that the precedents you refer to are historical events which really didn't settle the basic issue of the power of Congress to get documents and informa- tion in the hands of the executive branch. Mr. RAY. I think that your statement is correct and that the entire statement you made is a very enlightened statement, and I would like to make a comment or two about it if I might, not by way of repetition, but I think that this is a very obviously difficult area, and the fact that it has arisen so few times and has been stalemated and com- promised somehow is testimonial to the good faith of our respective branches of Government, and their attempt to deal with what esseu~ tially becomes or might become a kind of a deadlocked problem. The Constitution attributed certain functions to each of the three great branches of the Government and surely they do not intend that they should be altered significantly, but the question day by day of how to keep them in balance is a very difficult question, and I think you would agree with that, and that is part of what you were saying. Mr. MEADER. I am very jealous of the prerogatives of the executive branch of the Government and have often opposed attempts on the part of Congress to inject itself into administrative matters which I thought were clearly within the province of the executive, but the right to information on the part of pohicymakin~ agencies Of the Government in times that are as complicated and difficult as they are today, it seems to me is one which is an inherent power of the Con- gress. It is a necessary adjunct to'* wise legislation, and I disagree with the tenor of your statement that the discretion as to what mat- ters Congress is entitled to have rests in the executive branch of the Government. Mr. RAY. I want to take away an impression that there would be any wisdom or justice in any arbitrary allocation of discretion to any branch of our Government. This is a matter that must be ap- proached at all times and in each instance with the highest considera- tion in mind of public interest. Mr. MEADER. Let me say, and I would like to see whether or not you see eye to eye with me on this proposition, that if the sole discretion `to give or not to give information to Congress resides in the executive `branch of the Government, the elected representatIves of the peopl& PAGENO="0094" i want to see question of .~e ~xecutiv'e branch giving informa~ion t~. ~iongres the question of making it public; that is to say t t there may material classified for security reasons, or, as you point out., ~uatters of infornmi conferences within a department, or there may be con- fidential revelations by citizens to the Department of Commerce. I think you concede in your statement that material which is classified for one reason or another can be given to committees of Congress in executive session with the confidential label maintained. Mr. RAY. That is the policy of the Department of Commerce. Mr. MEAnER. And time and again the executive branch of the Gov- ermnent has turned over to congressional committees material which is. classified even as top secret; isn't that true? Mr. RAY. That is right. Mr. MEAnER. So the question of whether or not it should be released to the general public is a different question than whether or not the information should be given to a properly constituted congressional committee.? Mr. RAY. Well, that certainly is correct. The thing about it in the classified area is nobody is smart enough that I know about to give it out publicly and still deny it to the enemy. So the Congress and the executive branch get together and do the best they can with it. Mr. MEAnER. Now, speaking then solely about the right of Congress to have the information wholly apart from whether or not it should be made public, I would like to talk about this third class of confi- dential material, these internal disagreements and so on you referred to. I would like to ask you whether it might not be precisely that type of material that a committee like this, for example, would like to have to appraise and evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness and economy of performance of its executive function by the Department? Mr. RAY. Well, are you suggesting that it might be made public? Mr. MEAnER. No; I am not talking about publicizing it. I am just talking about the naked right of the Congress to have access to ma- terial of that character on a confidential basis. Mr. RAY. Well, I don't know. I know there have been instances where there was material in the executive bianch which surely the Congress needed to know, but where there was some public-interest feature involved in its publication and such arrangements have been worked out. I don't know that I would be prepared to speak generally on the subject, but I am sure that in specific instances that sort of an arrangement should be made. Mr. MEADER. Let me ask this, Mr. Ray. If the congressional com- mittee is to be confined to the final product of the thinking of a depart- meiit, the thinking that jt PerhaPs releases to the public or sends up in the fonn of a message of some kind, or a report, and it has no right to go behind that to see the processes whereby that particular document caine into being, has the Congress had complete access to the operations of the Department to know whether its decision is based upon fact PAGENO="0095" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1209 and thorough consideration or whether it is just something which was, perhaps, pulled out of the air? Mr. RAY. Well, surely the chief problem is the problem of preserving the internal opi~rations of any kind of an organization which is difficult jn~mfie areas to do. ~[~EADER. That is exactly the question. P-Don't you think the Congress has a right to see those internal i-~operations? Mr. RAY. I would say certainly much of the difficulty is removed by the determination on the part of a committee to receive such material on, I won't say classified, but on an analogy to the treatment of classified material. Mr. MEADER. Do I get your answer then that you believe that it is proper for the Congress to have access to those internal matters pro- vided that they maintain whatever confidential characteristic the Department believes they should have, at least for the time being? Mr. RAY. I would go so far as to say in many instances that would be the, case. I wouldn't want to indicate that quite generally because there may be areas where it wouldn't be in the public interest. Mr. MEADER. Occasionally congressional committees have done some rather constructive work in uncovering wrongdoings in the executive branch of the Government. It would be precisely that type of material which the agency would be most inclined to cover up, would it not? Mr. RAY. I don't think so, and the thing I would like to say about that is that, of course, whenever, through any source, any congres- sional committee obtains any inferences or allegations or charges with~ regard to possible wrongdoings, then I think that it should be imme- diately brought to the attention of the executive branch, and it should immediately be placed under investigation by the highest investi- gating sources in the Government. I think that sort of thing is proper if direct charges or indications of wrongdoings are suspected or- brought to light. Mr. MEADER. If I might make one more observation, without risking putting myself on the witness stand-.-- Mr. Moss. You go right ahead. Mr. MEADER. I would like to say that my successor as counsel for- the War Investigating Committee, who is now Deputy Attorney Gen- eral-Mr. Rogers-._had charge of the investigation of activities of Brig. Gen. Bennett E. Myers, when he was head of the Air Materieb Command in the Air Force, and that committee requests certain docu... ments in the possession of the Air Force. They didn't think they got the complete file. Later on they requested the documents again andt this time they got the complete file and among the documents in the. file they obtained the second time there was a little memorandum at- tached to a paper, and the memorandum said, essentially, this: We believe this is the document the committee wants, but we don't think they- should have it. Mr. RAY. I would not be in sympathy with that. Mr. MEADER. What I am trying to get to, Mr. Ray, is some meeting of the minds, if we can, on the right of the Congress to this third class~ of material you are~ talking about. I don't believe you contend for a. moment that the Congress should be confined to the ultimate product of the Department and that it would have no right to go behind that.. PAGENO="0096" 1210 INFOR~~ATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Mr. RAY. it think that, generally speaking, these issues arise in some sort of specific context. However, I do consider that on a purely legal question, and I don't think it would be for me to speak here as to the whole possible policy as between one branch of our (~-overnment and the other, but just as someone who has looked at some of the authori- ties, Justice Jackson said that the courts have held repeatedly that they will not and cannot require the executive branch to produce pap~rs which in the opinion of the Executive would be contrary to the public interest to produce, and that this determination is for the Executive and not for the court. Mr. MEADER. He was Attorney General when he said that. Mr. RAY. Yes. Mr. MEADIui. Did you ever look up the decisions he cites from the courts repeatedly holding that? Mr. RAY. Of course, I am familiar, as you are, with Marbury v. Madison in this particular area. Mr. MEAnER. That didn't involve the subpena power of Congress. Mr. RAY. No. I say I am dealing with this as being a sound analogy. I realize you presented a possible distinction a moment ago, but as far as I am concerned, I consider it an analogy that we have in three areas, three departments of Government, and with respect to the things entrusted t~ them they are coequal branches. Mr. MEAtER. I don't expect to have you say that you agree with me and I feel pretty strongly about this, that the Congress should have rather complete access to the files of the executive branch of the Government, wholly apart from the question of whether they should be made public or not, but I think you will agree with me that you do not intend to tell this committee that it is only the final product of the Department that the Congress is entitled to have. Mr. RAY. Well, not at all times. What I was saying there is that the Congress has the right at any time to have the people who take. action and who make policy to come up before them and explain what they did and why they did it, and to subject themselves to what- ever publie criticism or congressional criticism can be derived in that course of aCtion. Mr. MEADER. You would apply that also to documents, would you, rather than just the oral testimony of the official? Mr. RAY. Well, if the ultimate final action of the Department or executive branch is a document, then, yes, the document, but I do make a distinction between the differing views, where the subordinate goes from one administration to another, and who are called upon to ener- getically ~xpress their candid views, and they are frequently on the wrong side in the sense of not having recommended or advised the final action taken. Mr. MI~TCHELL. Mr. Ray, isn't it a fact, to follow up the line of thought Mr. Meader had, that when the courts do look at a case that comes up before them, all they do is look and see if there has been a delegation of official discretion in the statute They do not look at the i~se of that official discretion except and unless it is a wide abuse of t~uIt discretion, and there never has been a decision by the courts, so that in America today we have a situation where nobody checks on the official discretion o± the executive, and this committee has received case afte~ case cited by the Goveruuient attorneys, and particularly in PAGENO="0097" PAGENO="0098" PAGENO="0099" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS A~D AGENCIES 1213 Mr~ MITChELL. Was that ever tested as to its consti1~utionality? Mr. RAY. No; but I think it is constitutional. Mr. MITCHELL. Therefore, that does not mean that that is consti- tutional, just because Congress passed it; isn't that correct? Mr. MITCHELL. That is right, of course. Mr. FASC&JL. That is a very interesting point. You say it is con- ~titutional. Why? Mr. RAY. Under the doctrine of separation of powers. Mr. FASCELL. All right, sir. That doctrine gives rise to what theory bflaw? Mr. RAY. It gives rise to the theory of law that none of the great departments of Government, the three branches of Government, shall destroy the powers granted by the Constitution to any of the others. Mr. FASCELL. All right, sir. Now, how does that theory apply to the theory that the public shall be entitled to all information regard- less of what branch of the Government it comes from? Where is there a division of power between the three branches of Government as it applies to the public information? Mr. RAY. Well, we believe and have said so that an informed public as to what goes on in your Government is absolutely essential to our form of republic government. Mr. FASCELL, I will agree with that philosophy. Mr. RAY, On the other hand, I don't think that that necessarily means that always the information contained in any one of the depart- ments of the Government is to be made public if to do so would be against the public interest. Mr. FASCELL. All right, sir, but let's get back to the legal theory now of the separation of powers. Is there a greater power in one agency of the Government over another that deals with the right of the public to have information? Mr. RAY. No. Mr. FASCELL. There is not? Mr. RAY. The executive branch of the Government is not elideavor- ing to assert any control over the Congress. Mr. FASCELL. No, sir, but it is endeavoring to exercise control over information. Mr. Moss. Well, to the extent that it controls information, it does exercise a control over the right of the Congress to function efficiently. Mr. FASCELL. That is undoubtedly correct indirectly. I am just trying to leave this whole question strictly on the problem of infor- mation, on the right of the~ public to have the information. What I am trying to get from you is your analysis that you have laid out here in which you talk about the separation of powers. You are talk~ ing about one case in which the Executive has inherent or inferred power-I am not sure yet because we have not gone into that ques- tion-tlirough some constitutional provision. You say he has the right to withhold, and we have not yet decided, as far as you are cou- cerned as a matter of law, whether or not he can delegate that right. We are discussing that problem as one phase, but separated from the problem of the general public's right to know and from whatever right the Executive has over any other agency or branch of the Government to withhold. Mr. RAY. I think, generally speaking, that all branches of the Goy- ernment should make public, available to the public, the actions they PAGENO="0100" 1214 INFOR~ATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES take and the reasons why in everything they can, which Is not against the public interest, but you won't find in the Constitution any pro- ~ision that says that the committees of Congress cannot meet in execu tive session and keep that secret from the public, hpr will you find in the Const~tution a provision that the executive branch of the Gov ernment shall not give away state secrets to an enemy But, never- theless, we have to weigh those things in the public interest~it seems to me, and make a decision as to what will serve the public i~n~terest best. Mr. FASGELL. I will agree with you, but is it custom or necessit~ or both, or common sense, or what do you thing it is ~ Mr. RAY. Well, several areas. If you are speaking about harm to the individual, I say that much Government information, as I said in here, would injure the individual needlessly. Mr. FASOELL. In other words, you are going back to your theory expressed ii~i your statement, and that is that the executive has some inherent or, inferred power to withhold in those cases where it is going to inj~1re the individual? Mr RAY I think the individual has rights which must be protected and that is~ the judgment which every department should exercise, and that includes the executive branch of the Government with re- spect to their area of responsibility under the Constitution. Mr. FASOELL. But you admit that there is no specific provision in the Constitution that deals with that? Mr. RAY. There is no specific provision about the executive ses- sions of the Congress either You exercise your iudgment about that Mr FASOELL Well, these powers that we have assumed or adopted, are they inherent or inferred or did they give rise by virtue of cus torn? Mr. BA~. They were intended, as the Federalist papers clearly show. Let me put it this way The Constitution doesn't say that the Su preme Court can invalidate an act of this Congress. You can read the Constitution from beginning to end and you will find no such words. But the court so held because that was what was intended by the framers of our Constitution. But you won't find those words in the Constitution either. Mr FASciELL Well, as a matter of fact, if you carry it one step further, it is only what the public will accept that becomes law, too. Mr. RAY~ That is right. Mr FASCELEA Because that is what law is, is it not ~ Mr. RAY. In the last analysis. Mr FASCELL In the last analysis, if you believe in the democratic form of government, that is what it is. Mr. RAY. Exactly. We change our Constitution, but until it is changed, you have to operate within it. Mr. FASCELL. Then I think we a~re in agreement on one thing, are we not, an~1 that is that the right to know is a right which is inherent in the peo~ple and not in any law or Constitution or anything else? Mr. RAT. The people in America can change everything, including our ConstItution. Mr. FAScELL. Yes, sir. That has to be done by law, since we have that type of government, does it not? PAGENO="0101" ~, INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1215 - it can be done by constitu as it might arise. It `~Iidn't sur~ender jurisdiction ai~ it said that he had the discretion himself to do what he pleases, but the court will look on each case as it arises, whether or not he should produce. He didn't lay down a pointblank decision giving him authority under all cir- cumstarices to determine whether he would release it or not. Mr. RAY. I wouldn't be able to say, but my own personal belief in the Department is that there should always be, in each instance of that character, a determination based on all of the facts and in the public interest by the person charged with the responsibility and not a frivo- lous exercise of any such power. Mr. DAWSON. Don't you think, under the circumstances, where there were deletions from lists prepared by the Secretary of State, with the advice of the Advisory Committee, and those deletions were not made available to the American public under his right to withhold knowl- edge, but were published in foreign papers, in Great Britain and other countries, that the people of the United States should know what is given to all of the rest of the world? Mr. RAY. Well, you are speaking now about the matter of East- West trade. Mr. DAWSON. Yes. Those items were taken from the lists and it was so secret that the American people shouldn't know it. Congress wasn't entitled to find out by subpena, and yet it appeared in the papers in Great Britain and in other countries. Don't you think that Con- gress ought to be interested in such a situation? Mr. RAY. Well, I welcome the opportunity to answer that question. First, there is not in any time, as far as I know and I know something of this, any secrecy or withholding of any trad~e statistics. What our allies ship to the Soviet bloc is an open book. That was not the ques- tion and is not the question; rather, the question is whether we are going to testify in public to the' reasons, the strategic reasons why, including the intelligence data and other material available to make the decision, thereby conveying that information to the Russians, as to why changes were made in the list, revisions were made, certain things were now considered strategic which had not been, certaiia things which had been were now in production and the Russians were going to be taken off. The executive branch of the Government, in that instance, merely sought to present those things in executive session of the committee. PAGENO="0102" 1216 INF0R~[ATI0N FRO DERAL1~Efl~r1VYtNTh A~D A~th~S information to the members af the Mr DAWSON W~ Jus d ~Jvisory Committee5 Mr. RAY.; No, sir. The question to which you refer, I believe, re- lates to th~ voluntary controls which we endeavor to maintain to the Co-Con~ countries. These are not done pursuant to any statute of our own, but are a matter of trying to get our allies who have dif- ferent needs, and so forth. * Mr. MITCHELL. You are saying now that the list that was deleted from the strategic materials list was not made available to the United States, to anybody? Mr. RAY. Nor to any other country and was not published in Bri-. fain either. Mr. MITCHELL. Weren't they made available and published in Eu- rope? Mr. RAY~ No. Mr. MITbHELL. The items I am talking about-. Mr. RAY. May I answer that question? Mr. MITCHELL. Yes. Mr. RAY. The British published a so-called board of trade list. That is akin to our own United States positive list in our country. This is Britain's version of what Britain controls, but they did not publish th~ international list, which some of our allies adhere to un- dercover, because they do not have clear authority to restrain the trade, and~ what Britain published was board of trade list, and, of course, it contained some of the same items that are on the 15 na- tion Co-.C~nn list, but it didn't publish those items which are on. the watch list and under surveillance for stralegic reasons, and it didn't publish th~ quotas. There are many, many other differences between 1~hat list and it is .not correct to assert that the British published the list and why don't we publish it. That is not the fact. Mr. MITCHELL. What did we publish? Mr. RAY. We published the United States positive list, which has been published at all times. Mr. MITCHELL. The positive list? You mean those items that are on the list? Mr. RA*. What we control as a Nation, not what our allies control. Mr. DA~VSON. I wasn't present when you testified. I am quite sure you testified to this, but I would like to ask a question or two. How often does the Business Advisory Council meet? Mr. R~r. I believe they meet 6 or 8 times a year, Mr. Dawson. Mr. DAwsoN. And they have offices within the Office of the Secre- tary of Commerce? PAGENO="0103" ~. INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPAItTMENTS AND AGE~OIES 1217 - ~ Ic next thing to b~ presented, but the Secretary is t. That would be Mr. Harold Boeschenstein? ~ was the Chairman. Who is the Chairman now? .~Holman. DAW~ N * vv ~ s he drawn from the membership, Eugene Hol- man, of the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey? Mr. RAY. Yes, sir. Mr. DAwsoN. Now, when they met, did the executive committee meet or did the full membership meet? Mr. RAY. On what occasion? Mr. DAwsoN. Whenever they met. Mr. RAY. Well, the meetings which I have- Mr. DAWSON. I will withdraw that question. They met at whose call? Mr. RAY. They meet at the Secretary's call. Mr. DAWSON. And how many times has the full membership met? Mr. RAY. They meet at the call of the Secretary of Commerce. As I say, the full membership meets either 6 or 8 times a year-something in that area. Mr. DAWSON. How about your executive committee? How often do they meet? Mr. RAY. I don't know, sir. Mr. DAWSON. What is the purpose of this executive committee when you have a full committee in an advisory capacity? Why ha~ve an executive commitee of them? Mr. RAY. There would be times when, at the request of the~ Secre- tary of Commerce, the Council would be studying various things with a view to making a recommendation, and I presume they met to coordi- ate those activities that are taking place in between meetings. Mr. DAWSON. Would he call members of the executive committee or members of the full committee to meet with him in accordance with the matters discussed? I see such a wide variety of industries in- volved. He didn't call all of them together to consult on all prob- lems, did he? Mr. RAY. Yes. In other words, as I said earlier, and you weren't here, this is not put together by industries; it is put together by back~ ground, experience and public interest and talent of the particular people. - Mr. DAWSON. How was the executive committee selected? By whom? Mr. RAY. I will have tO supply that to you, Mr. Congressman. I don't know. As I say, I had not expected to get into this subject and some things I am just not clear about. Mr. DAWSON. I am just interested in these people who could be present and get all this information and give all this information that PAGENO="0104" PAGENO="0105" )Sted, ev~ they meet v PAGENO="0106" 1220 INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Mr. FAScELL. You are talking about export-import control? Mr. RAY. Yes. Mr. FASCELL. Is that administered by the Department of Conimerce?~ Mr. RAY. This is administered by the Department of Commerce. The list there is of this character: We have a United States positive list; it is a public list. Mr. FA5OELL. Now, this is the export-import international control by the United States, not in conjunction with anybody else? Mr. RAY. That is right. Mr. FASOELL. But it is our positive list? Mr. RAY. That is our positive list. Mr. FASOELL. Let's stop there for a moment. Does the Business Advisory Council have anything to do with this list? Mr. RAY. No. Mr. FASCELL. Do they have access to the information? Mr. RAY. Well, it is public. Mr. FASCELL. Have they ever been requested, to your knowledge, to give any advice to the Secretary as to what should or should not be on the published list? Mr. RAY. No.; not that I know of. Mr. FASCELL. In other words, it is your testimony that as far as you know the Business Advisory Council does not arid has not made any recommendation, or given any advice, or influenced any policy with respect to the making of the positive list? Mr. RAY. I know of none. Mr. FASCELL. All right, sir, let's get down to this other list, this international list, or what is that? Mr. RAY. It is the international list. Mr. FA~SCELL. That is the list of strategic items that the United States joins with other countries in controlling? Mr. RAY. Yes; and here is what we would like: We would like the international list to be exactly at the same level of our own stiff con- trols, but the only tool we have with the other 15 nations of Co-Corn is the power of persuasion and there our governments are constituted differently. Their historic trade patterns are different, so we have a difficult time maintaining the international list at the high level of control that we maintain on our list. Mr. FASCELL. On the international list, are those materials which are considered strategic and would not be exported to the Communist bloc by this group of nations? Mr. RAY. By any one of them. Mr. FASCELL. That is by agreement between the nations? Mr. RAY. Yes. Mr. FASCELL. Has the BAC made any recornrnendatioi~s or given any advice with respect to any materials which are either on the list or taken off the list? Mr. RAY. I think not. Mr. FASCETL. You don't know for sure? Mr. RAY. Well, I would say not. I mean if I am wrong, I will cor- rect it, but until I do I will say not. Mr. FASCELI.. Do you know whether or not anybody on the BAC, individually or collectively, has access to any of the information in the Department of Commerce with respect to any of these controls? PAGENO="0107" ORMATION PROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIE$ 1221 Mr. R~ir. Of course, as I say, what we do-and this is Commerce respc~isibthty-the State Department has the international list nego- tiations and the establishment of it. Mr. FASCELL. You mean on what goes on or off the list? Mr. RAY. The international list? Mr. FASOELL. The international list, that problem is in the State De- partment, and the responsibility is not with the Department of Commerce? Mr. RAY. That is right. Now, you asked, I believe, does the BAC have anything to do with Commerce lists, and so forth. Our lists are all public, and everybody knows what they are. The only thing we do not publish, and neither does the BAG or anybody know about this, except sworn employees of the Department, is who has made application for a license in this or that area-the specific commercial facts. Mr. FASCELL. What are the mechanics for determining inside ,the Department-what does it mean when an item is published on the positive list? Mr. RAY. I was going to explain a little more how it works. The positive list is a list of items which we control. First, we don't send them at all to Russia or the Soviet bloc. Mr. FASCELL. In other words, that list is published? Mr. RAY. We do not send them to a friendly country unless we have absolute assurance they won't transshi Mr. FASCELL. That list is published. Mr. RAY. This list is published, and it is our own list. Then every- thing is embargoed to China, everything by the United States, and anything that is to be shipped to Russia, the Soviet-European bloc, whether or not it is on the positive list, requires a specific license, even if it is iust one can of beans. Mr. FASCELL. All right. Now, let me ask you this question: Mr. RAY. All of the statistics of what is shipped pursuant to specific licenses are also public. Mr. FASCELL. Supposing you want to take something off the positive list now. What are the mechanics for that? Mr. RAY. Well, if anything is to be taken off the list-of course, the list is constantly under study because we don't merely take things off. Mr. FASCELL. Do I understand your testimony correctly, that the BAC has nothing to do by way of recommended advice or knowledge with either taking something off or putting something on the positive list? Mr. RAY. That is my understanding. Mr. FASCELL. So they are completely excluded from export-import control? Mr. RAY. I think so, although I should think that the Secretary, if he wished, could ask anybody to advise him about the method of operation or whether the controls should be stiffened and get as many ideas as he could. Mr. FASCELL. I won't deny the Secretary's right to speak with any- one he wants to. I am trying to analyze exactly what recommenda- tions or policies or what general areas we might get into. Now the Department of Commerce is responsible for collecting and disseminating statistics of all kinds. PAGENO="0108" 1222 I~TFOIth\~(ATTON FEOM FEDfl1~AL DEPARTM1~NPS AND AG~L~OI~ Mr. RAY. Yes, sir. Mr. FASC1~LL. BAC makes recommendations and advises with respect to that duty ~nd function? Mr. RAY. Not that I know of. Mr. FASCELL. All right, sir. How abo~it itemizing in that same fashion, theh, all of the duties and responsibilities of the Department of Commerce in general areas and indicate those which the BAC has made recommendations or has acted in some fashion-I don't want the specific recommendations-and those areas, in which they have had no respensibility of any kind? In other words, we haye already detennined, for example, on e~- port-import control that there is nothing that they do with respect totlntt. Mr. RAY. They don't have any kind of functional job. I want to make that dlear. They are not told, "Now, you fellows go to work in this area an~d take a responsibility in here." Mr. FASCELL. Well, generally, what does the Secretary ask them to advise him on? Mr. RAY. He will take a specific problem that he has on the question of some general public character. Mr. FASOELIJ. Give me an example. I mean I don't know anything about this iperation. I am just trying to find out. Mr. RAY~ As I said earlier, I think when the matter of the discus- sion of i~orthgn trade and policies was under deliberation- Mr. FAs~LL. You mean the extension of the Reciproval Trade Act? Mr. RAIY~. No. I am calling on my recollection now, but this was a general ~oiicy question of wha~t they would suggest as ingredients for the foreigki trade policy. This was the time when countries were beginning to come back economically. Aid was dwindling. It was a matter Qf what kind of trade and tariff policies did they have.' Now the Secreta~ry would ask literally every group he could get his hands on to come up with their ideas about it. Mr. FASpELL. In other words, as to what the Department- Mr. RA'~r. The BAC didn't run it or control it, but he may have asked theip, li1~e he would ask a hundred other people, for their ideas on the subject. Mr. FASCELL. In other words, a determination as to whether or not the Secretary would approve or disapprove a particular legislative matter, he might ask, in conjunction with other people, the Advisory Council of BAC. Is that what you mean? Mr. RAT. lie might, although I think generally not, on bills or legislative proposals. At least not to my knowledge. Mr. FA$C]~LL. If they are not going to advise Commerce generally with respect to legislative proposals, what in the world would they counsel 0111? That is what I am trying to get at. Mr. RA~-. I endeavored to give a couple of illustrations. Mr. FA~QELL. I am sorry; it must have escaped me. Mr. R4Y. I' said the Secretary asked them to look into organiza- tional str~icture. Mr. FA~OELL. That is, internal management? Mr. R~r. Yes. Mr. FASCELL. That is pretty legitimate. These are all big-business men and ought to know about internal management. PAGENO="0109" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1223 Mr. RAY. Another one-I am not too clear when this arose, but it was a reconsideration all around of what the dominant features of a foreign trade policy ought to be, and that would be the whole gamut, I presume, of what would your ideas be about State Department tariff action as a procedure; what do you thiiik of quotas and how about the whole scope, to get a man's broadest thinking in the general area. Mr. FASOELL. What responsibility does the Department of Com- merce bear with respect to that? Mr. RAY. Well, the Department of Commerce has a very direct in- terest in the whole policy problem there because, you see, under c~ur basic departmental charter we are charged with promotion of trade and commerce, including foreign trade and commerce, and we have an Assistant Secretary for Foreign Commerce and we are constantly con- cerned with the problem of the injury, say, to the united States in- dustry by given imports from particular countries. Mr. FASCELL. Then would it be a fair statement to say in arriving at the Department's position with respect to the extension of~ the reciprocal trade that in some part it was governed or counseled by the study of the BAC? Mr. RAY. Well, I don't know that there was such a study, but it might well be. It wouldn't be governed by it, but they might well ask them for their advice. Mr. FASCELL. Maybe I misunderstood you, but I thought you said that one of the things that the I3AC was requested to undertake was a study of the overall foreign-trade policy of the United States. Mr. RAY. Well, I think so, but you use the term "reciprocal trade," which led me to think you were speaking about FR 1. Mr. FASCELL. Well, that was in that one specific case, but you are now talking about an overall study. Mr. RAY. Yes. Mr. Moss. Would it be in connection with the OTC? Mr. FASCELL. I don't know. I was trying to find out what they were requested to do, and, as I understand, they were requested to conduct a study and advise and recommend with respect to the overall trade policy of the United States. Mr. RAY. This is iust an example. Mr. FASCELL. I understand this is just an example. Is there such a study now going on? Mr. RAY. This was some time ago. Mr. FASCELL. That has been concluded? Mr. RAY. I don't know what they are studying now. Mr. FASCELL. You say this full committee meets 6 or 8 times a year and you are not sure about how many times the executive committee meets, but it might meet in between these meetings, and, therefore, it might be 16 meetings of that, for a total of some 24 meetings a year. Do you know whether or not the 13A0 would meet even though they might not have any business? Mr. RAY. Well, yes; I think they would. Mr. FASOELL. They just meet and disband? Mr. RAY. They have certain thhigs. For example, they have a standing committee that reports on some of the basic or very current economic facts, not only in their industry but occasionally in their particular companies, which is more timely. PAGENO="0110" 1224 INFOR~tATIO~ FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCI~8 For exam~1e, you take the textile industry There will be some one there wl~o will busy himself and cheek all of the profit-inventory trends and ~o on in a meeting and this is conveyed to the secretary and discuss~d and is of great value to him, as you can see, because while we have lots of material coming in from State agencies and other collectors and compilers of trade information and all the trade publications and everything, any source that you can get that gives you current information on inventories, pricing, depressed areas, wages, and everything else, is of value. Mr. FASC~LL. What you are telling me is this is some continuity of work, thought, and effort with respect to BAC? Mr. RAY. With respect to fundamental economic statistics. Mr. FASc~ELL. Now, getting back to the specific instance you just related, is that a duplication of responsibility of the Department~ In other words, are you telling me now that this independent citizen group performs a responsibility of the governmental agency? Mr. RAY. No. Mr. FASOELL. Is it a duplication of effort? Mr. RAY. No. Mr. FASOELL. The Department, then, does not collect this statistical information with respect to trends in industry and business that you are talking about? Mr. RAY~ Of course, we do, from every source we can get it, and this is one ~f them. Mr. FAS~ELL. This is just another collection, then? Mr. RAY. That is right. Mr. FASOELL. But it is not in the routine working processes of the Department, as it would be with the other businesses who are not a part of this BAG? Mr. RAY. Nobody can sit in an office in the Department and be a self-produèer of statistics. You have to get them some place2 and you get tl~em every place you can. You compare them and judge them, and so forth. Mr. FAS~JELL. All right; but I am just trying to find out now-I will just grab ~n example out of the hat. I have not examined this list, but let's take shoe manufacturers, or retail producers, producers of retail items, hard goods. If your Department is going to collect statistics from them, that is, the Department of Commerce, you go through certain routine fundamental processes-which are part of the responsibility of the Department of Commerce-do you not? Mr. RAY. Are you talking about our census operations? Mr. FASOZLL. I don't know. I am talking about any statistics or business i4iformation the Department is supposed to get. Mr. RAT. Of course, the Census Bureau makes censuses of all ~mati- ners and tiescriptions. The Secretary's office and the Office of Busi- ness Econiomics are on the prowl at all times, from trade assoeiations, from busi~ess groups, from the industry advisory groups, from indi- vidual concerns, from magazines, to get every scrap of current and projected information they can get. Mr. FASCELL. I follow you. Now, i~ you are getting-the Department of Commerce-informa- tion from all sorts of industries and businesses, which it is required to do under its charter, does it normally perform that function within the confir~es of its own organization? PAGENO="0111" INF0~MATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1225 Mr. R~. I would say "No." They arø meeting with all kinds of groups and people at all times. Mr. FASCELL. I realize that, but I mean it is a responsibility of their own organization to get the information; right? Mr. RAY. Of course, it is. Most of it is derived from things that other people who are not in the Government compile. Mr. FASCELL. Now, to get back to the shoe manufacturers, the De- partment would get the same information from all shoe manufacturers, wouldn't it? Mr. RAY. He might, and it might be a year late. Mr. FASCELL. I will go for that qualification. They would go about getting it the same way, wouldn't they? They wouldn't treat one man one way and another man another, would they? It would be the same form, for example, that went to everybody, would it not? Mr. RAT. Well, it sounds as though, to me, Mr. Fascell, you are - talking about census data which we get from individuals by the process of census takers mailing in forms, and so forth,, and I am talking about much more current and volatile economic information than that. Mr. FASCELL. For example? Mr. RAY. Precisely this: It is part of the Secretary's job to get an idea of whether the inventories have reached the position that they are going to have an effect on the economy. Mr. FASCELL. Let's stop there. You are going to check inventories to see what their position is? Mr. RAY. Right. Mr. FASCELL. If the Department of Commerce were doing that and you checked all inventories, you would check them all the same way, wouldn't you? Mr. RAY. If you wanted to get current information, I presume you would get them largely from trade organizations gathering that inforh. mation, which would be the most timely source you could get. You wouldn't necessarily go out and canvass all of the individual concerns, although you may be doing that in your census. Mr. FASCELL. Let me just get this one question and then you can have him. If a shoe manufacturer is submitting to you current data; that is, to the Department of Commerce, and he happens to hold a position on the Business Advisory Council, what different information does he give the Business Advisory Council that he doesn't give the. Depart- ment of Commerce, or vice versa? Mr. RAY. Well, he may be asked to make a 5-year survey of the shoe business, or he may be asked something that doesn't have anything to do with the shoe business. Mr. FASCELL. All right, sir. Mr. Biggers, of Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Co. is a member of this Advisory Council. Not all glass com- panies are represented on this Council. Mr. RAY. This is not a Council forum by type of business, although they do, as I say, come in with economic judgment for whatever it is worth in the way of guidance to the Secretary, and those who need to know. Mr. FA5CELL. You don't mean though, for example, he might be called upon to give his economic judgment with respect to the entire glass industry? PAGENO="0112" 1226 x~rQ1~MAT10N FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES M~r. RA~ Well, he might. He might be askth to express his opinion as to whether they are going to have a good year or bad year, or what. Mr. FAs~ELL. Even though some other section ot the Department of Commerce might actually be going on and getting the current data -from all of the glass companies in the country? Mr. RAY. That is right. We don't regulate the glass industry, Mr. Fascell. Mr. FAScELL. I am not suggesting you do; I am trying to find out what you 4o. You say you are collecting data and statistics, current trends, economics. Mr. RAY~ It is a part of the proceSs and only a small Dart of keeping the Secret4ry informed of what is happening in the ec~ri~omy~ and it `Isfl't mysteriOUS to me. Mr. FAS~ETJL. 1 am obviously not getting through to you, and I am sorry because I am trying desperately to do it. But I would like to tell you what impression I have been left with so far, and that is that the Business Advisory Council was called upon to do a big study with ~respect to the whole field of foreign trade; that the study has now been completed, so this committee is just sitting around and advising the Sec~retary of Commerce every now and then when he has a hot potato and he wapts some inside dope, and they do, too. That is the impres- sion you ie~ft with me. I don't want to have that impression. ~Mr. RAT. I don't believe I said anything that would lead to the impression they were sitting around getting a kt ~of inside dope, and I will state that is not the case. * Mr. FASCEIJL. Well, I am glad to hear you state that, and I am per- fectly willing to believe you, but I am still trying to find out what field, what general areas the Business Advisory Council gives advice or recommendations or counsel to the Secretary of Commerce. Mr. RAY. In the business fi'eld, organizational field, just like the ~farmer. group advises Mr. Benson, I presume. Mr. FASCELL. That is a good general statement. Mr. Mops. You have industry advisory committees, don't you? Mr. RA*. Yes; a great many. Mr. Mo~s. And they advise on particular industries? Mr. RA~r. Yes; and they have a particular and different function, too. Mr. Moss. The Department of Commerce has regular procedures which it follows whenever it desires to develop specialized statistical information on any segment of American business, has it not? Mr. RAY. Surely, and we so utilize it. Mr. Moss. And you do try to maintain currently important and valtiable information as a guide. At the moment we recognize that the auton~obile industry is faced with a very heavy inventory. Now, I imagin~ you keep currently informed through the regular, normal procedures within the Department of Commerce as. to the status of those inv~ntories? Mr. RAY. Yes. Mr. Moss. Then any information along the lines of what a particular business might be experiencing, which is developed by the Business ~dvisory Council, is supplemental? Mr. RY. It is supplemental; that is right. But, as I say, the Busi- ness Advisory Council is supplementary in every sense because it is not orgai~ized by businesses at all; it is organized by people. PAGENO="0113" INrOEMATION FROM FEDERAL.DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIE~S 1227 Mr. Moss. It gives a comprehensive, a more complete comprehensive advice than the Industry Advisory Committee? Mr. RAY. It is another type or facet of advice by people who are deemed to be people of knowledge and general stature, and so forth. Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Ray, Congressman Dawson, Congressman Fas- cell, and the chairman, and all of the members of this committee have asked you questions this afternoon in which you said, "No; 1 don't believe so; I don't think it is possible." Can you tell this committee how the American peQple would find out just exactly what the BAC, the Business Advisory Council, does since Mr. Weeks has written the letter that was read before denying access to the Business Advisory Council's records to any committee of the Congress? And, in general, one specific question: Are these minutes and records available to the Department of Justice? Mr. RAY. They have not generally been sent to the Department of Justice. Mr. MITCHELL. Have any ever been sent to the Department of Justice? Mr. RAY. I think not. Mr. MITCHELL. Why not? Mr. RAY. No request for them has been made, insofar as I know. The reason we send the Industry Advisory Committee minutes to the Department of Justice- Mr. MITCHELL. I didn't ask that. We are talking about the Busi- ness Advisory Council now. Mr. RAY. Well, what reason is there, Mr. Congressman, to send them to the Department of Justice? Mr. MITCHELL. Who in the Government gets these Business Ad.. visory Council minutes? Mr. RAY. The Secretary of Commerce. Mr. MITCHELL. He and he alone? Mr. RAY. That is right. Mr. MITCHELL. Are these reports available to be used by an in- cTividual or corporation participating in the BAC for defense pur- poses in an antitrust action initiated by a member of the public, a public citizen in a private da~mage action under the antitrust laws? Mr. RAY. I don't think so. I would think not. Then I wouldn't think they would be relevant, in any case. Mr. MITCHELL. You say that the member of BAC could not have access for his defense in an antitrust action? Mr. RAY. I would not think so. These are developed to be advisory to the Secretary of Commerce. They are as far away as the moon in any antitrust case. Mr. MITCHELL. Could this Business Advisory Council operate as an administrative lobby within the Government since the Celler committee report showed that it has access completely across the board, practically, in the entire Federal Government service? Mr. RAY. I dom~t think so. Mr. MITCHELL. You don't think it is possible? Mr. RAY. No. I take issue with that. I don't think it is. Com- posed of men of this character and for the purpose for which they are established, I think not. ~222-58--pt. ~---s PAGENO="0114" 1228 1NFO~MATION FROM FF~D~ERAL DEPARTMENTS ~AND AGENOI~S Mr. MITc~LI~. That impression has been created. This subcom- Inittee has i~eceived information to that effect from various people Will the Seèretary of Commerce see fit to change his mind and now make available the minutes and records of the Business Advisory Council? Mr. RAY. I think not. In other words, when you have been ob- taining advice from people on two considerations: one, that you want ~his best andmost candid thinking and that you can get it even though it may conflict with some business position or other, and it may have to be used ~olely for your work product and thinking to get another form of ide4, and that kind of confidence ought to be kept. Mr. MITCHELL. Shouldn't that kind of an opinion be made avail~. sble to the people? Mr. RAY. What kind of opinion? Mr. MITCHELL. His advisory opinion to the Secretary of Com- merce. Mr. RAY. Does the Congressman publish the advice of its staff? Mr. MITCHELL. Anything this committee does is available to any- body in th~ United States. Mr. RAY. The advice of his staff, the meetings of the executive ses- sion? Mr. Mrr~HELL.. The advice of staff, yes. We never have an execu- tive meeting. Mr. Mos~. Mr. Ray, I may say unless we are required by the claimed authorities of some of the executive departments to withhold informa- tion which is presented to us in our studies-and we may face that when we get into the more technical security questions-this commit- tee has held no executive sessions and our files are not classified. The only information which we would have any classification on is that placed in there by the executive department. Mr. RAi~t. Mr. Chairman, you are in a very fine position to conduct this studyJ I want to assure you that I consider it worthwhile. Mr. ME4DER. Mr. Chairman, you don't mean to say you are going to invite the press in on the debate on any possible report we may issue? Mr. MrrCIIELL. Sure. Why not? Mr. FASCELL. It is all right with me. Mr. MEAnER. I might say, Mr. Chairman-I don't mean to inject ~tny discord in here-that I agree that you ought to do the public business in the open, but I think there is value in executive sessions, ~nd parth~ularly in that area where there may be some reason for not making p~iblic information, and yet the Congress ought to have access to it. Th~ question whether it should be made public can be thrashed ~ut later ~n. I have a very firm belief in the value of executive, ses- sions and executive hearings. I don't like to have the right of Con- gress to information from the executive branch of Government con- fused with the question of whether or not matters should be made public. I think the Congress has a right, under pr.oper safeguards to classified material. It has been recognized again and again by the fr~xecutive branch of the Government. I think it confuses our think- ing to insist that just. because Congress hap, or a committee has, the right to ~he information that necessarily it means that it should be made pul~lic. PAGENO="0115" IN?OEMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1229 Mr Moss I think I indicated that where the e~ecutive agencies ~regard the information which might be required as being classified for security purposes, the committee, of course, would have to honor it, and I think that most, or a great many,~f the executive sessions of the committees of the Congress are executives at the insistence of the various departments with which the committee deals. It isn't the desire of this committee to work under any cloak of secrecy. We will do everything possible to avoid any sessions of an executive type. Mr. MEADEE. Mr. Chairman, might I ask Mr. Ray one further question? Mr. Moss. Congressman Meader. Mr. MEADER. Mr. Ray, in some of these communications, and pos- sibly an expression of views similar to your own statement to this committee this afternoon, 1 wonder if there may be some feeling on the part of the executive branch of the Government that Congress is not to be trusted with information, that it does not possess the dis- cretion that abounds in the executive branch of the Government. Now, I don't think you will hold any such view but I would like to hear you say it on our record. Mr. RAY. If I have left any such inference, I refute it. Mr. MEADER. It seems to me we aren't really too far apart on the legal right of the Congress to have access to information in the executive branch of the Government. The question is which depart~ ment is to have the power to decide what is in the public interest, and the Executive repeatedly and historically has asserted that where, in his judgment, it would be in the public interest to deny Congress acc~ss `to information in the possession of the executive branch of the Government, it will not give the information to the Congress~ My own view is that that discretion should be in the Congress. Mr. RAY. Well, I think, and I surely agree with you, that anything that can be done to narrow any possible differences, infrequent as they are, in this separation of power area is desirable, and the basic tool for it is that every department, every branch of the Government approach it in the best faith and rely upon it only after the most soul-searching consMeration. I believe that to be the case. Mr. Moss. Well, Mr. Ray, don't you think we are faced here with a matter frequently of emphasis? Mr. RAY. Very definitely. Mr. Moss. I certainly wouldn't want to leave the impression that this committee regards the executive department of the Government as being the only ones responsible for a tightening up of information or the availability of information to the American people and to the Congress. I think that the Congress must share the responsibility because we have legislated, in many instances I think unwisely. I have in mind the Export-Import Control Act for an example, where information is required to be withheld unless in the opinion of the Secretary its release would not be contrary to public interest. Don't you think it would be better if all of those statutes were looked over and a change of emphasis given that information inherently is open and free unless there is affirmative finding that it must be withheld for a good and sufficient reason? Mr. RAY. Mr. Chairman, I certainly would have an open mind on that subject. Mr. McClellan, who is Assistant Secretary in the For- PAGENO="0116" 1230 INFQI+JrATmN FROM FE~RAL DEPABTM1~NTS AND `~G~N~I~S E~igfl Cornm*ce area,is going to be before you. I ~wi11~ ask him to be prepared on this question I realize exactly what you are saying, that the burden of proof ought to be the other way~ and I think there is a lot to what you are sayi~. Mr. Moss. As Government expands-and certainly within the pnst 23 or 24 years Government has grown tremendously-and it has a much greater impact upon industry, science, education, on the daily lives of the ~eopie~. It controls so very much information that just a little withholding here and there can acid up to a very substantial amount in t~he totality of information withheld ftom the American people. Ililless we do change emphasis, we are going to continue toward less~r availability of information about Government.~ Now I feel very strongly that there is a constitutional right of the people to know. I think there is a constitutional right of the press to know I think freedom of spe&h and freedom of press is meaningless without a free access to information and that whenever Government withholds, it should find affirmatively and tor a good cause that it must be withheld. If we can change that emphasis as a result of the work of `this committee, I think we will accomplish a tremendous job. I wouldn't ask for an open mind on that. I would like a little prejudice on my side. Mr. RAY. I think you are always going to have some reservation of right in each of the branches under the conclusion to keep it in balance with the other departments and the only way I know to answer that is to publidly announce what, those limitations ought to fairly be. Mi~. FASOELL. Do you think it would be wise and that it could be done, for example, for Congress to lay down exactly what the executive branch could or could not do? At the present time it seems to be left up to each court case as it arises. That is what I am getting at. Mr. RAn The Congress and the executive branch have gotten. along for a long~ number of years, and if you look back at these prece- dents, whii~ they lay out a pretty definitive pattern, they have really been scarce as hen's teeth, and I would say that the Congress ought to consider it a long time before they pass a law endeavoring to state what is the constitutional power of another branch of the Government because I suspect that eith~r the courts would not look at it or it would break down finally in the usual compromise that takes place and it would be better to have that in an area where it is dealt with flexibly rather than with some intent through legislation to design by cate- gory the niethod of dealing with a problem which is essentially inter- nal to the three branches of the Government in their check and balance. 1 persoi~ally agree with you and I guess you can see that, but I would rather have Mr. McClellan speak on the subject. In preparing this statethent, Mr. Chairman, I kept feeling that I was overemphasiz- ing the negative. I think any time you say there are qualifications on the doctrine of a full and public release, you have to search and make sure you are dealing with the right qualifications, but neverthe- less in sitting and putting them down on paper, you tend to make it sound as th ough this is just sort of the usual way you do think, that you give out here and there but in explaining what you don't give out you take ~ lot of pages and sound like you don't have an affirmative mind on that. So in response in away to your remarks I would like to say I consi~ier these qualifications on the doctrine of full disclosure muse PAGENO="0117" FROM FRDE~AL ~PARTM S~4N1Y LG~N~T~S 1~2Z1 be tested as you say in each case aga.in~t the public interest; ~with a~ serious purpose in mind. Mr. Moss. And we shouldn't just close them out as we have done by, I think, very badly worded provisions of law? That ha~ tended to make just a little reluctance on the part of the officials to dIsclose any other Information. Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if Mr. Ray would care to comment on whether or not the testing he is talking about should be laid down by guidelines in the congressional act, or ought to be a loose policy of emphasis between departments, or ought to be tested by ~ action or just what? Mr. RAY. Are you speaking now about- Mr. FASCELL. Yes, about the first draft of your brief, if you didn't have enough sense to throw it in the wastebasket, to drag that up before this committee and make it public either before or after the trial of your lawsuit-do you think Congressmen are that foolish? That is what bothers me. Mr. RAY. You are coming back to the distinction as to whether or not the Congress shouldn't see that first draft, bad as it is, in executive session, I take it, because otherwise my Opponent in the litigation has the first draft if it is made public, even though you don't care to read it Mr. MEAnaR. You see what I resent is therather implicit assumption in all this denial of information to Congress that the elected repre- sentatives of the people are not trustworthy and they don't have any judgment. I don't think that is the case. I am not going to say that Congressmen are paragons of virtue, but I think at least they are a good cross section of the American public and probably as good a cross section as the executive branch of the Government. I don~t think there is any perfection in the personnel of the executive branch of the Government and no perfection in Congress but by and large I think that no committee that I know of in Congress would take your brief and give it to the opposition. Mr. RAY. Well, it is kind of like classified material or material made confidential by law. Some intimate fact is developed in the course of a census that you get only because you make, you might say. Mr. Moss. I think we have here a much broader question than just the rights of the Congress and the rights of the executive branch. We have the rights of the people. We have the right of the people for information. I think it is a very strong and a very important one. Mr. RAY. But times change and circumstances change, and I would think that, if you would deal with this complicated subject for what it is in the executive branch, the disclosure of which at a given time is or is not in the public interest, you would have a difficult task on your hands. Let me take just one illustration. I am working on a brief in a case in which Commerce is interested. The Government has been sued. I have that brief in draft. I go home and the next morning I realize that this is one of the worst briefs that was ever written, so I go back to work on it some more. Now, do I make all those drafts public and give them in effect to the opposition lawyer? This is a difficult thing to start trying to work out. Mr. MEAnER. May I make a comment on that point, Mr. Chairman? I don't know whether Congress would even be interested in reading your briefs, either the first draft or the last draft. PAGENO="0118" 1232 INF~ TION ~ROM~ ~ARTMENTS AND A~I~S Mr. RAY. My opponent would, I assure you. I might make' an admission inthe early drait. Mr MEAD~R I just don't like the implication that Congress and the committee cannot be trusted to handle information and deal with it intelligently. Mr. RAY. Well, I have said before, and I will say again, that Secre- tary Weeks and all of his Department feel the Congress as an honor- able group is entitled to the respect of every man in the Department from the toj~ to the bottom. We just are sitting here trying to thresh out principles and at times you have seen it from one vantage point and we are ~eeing it from another, but I am sure we are all operating in the best of faith. * Mr. Moss. Mr. Ray, I think that this will conclude the bearings for this afternoon. We will want you back later on in this series of hear- ings, and at that time we `will want to go over the questionnaire rather extensively, Mr. RAY+ I will endeavor to be prepared on that. Would you indicate any time when you think that might be? I am going to have to take a fa~irly active role next week in the Department presentation of the trai~sport policy matter before Chairman Harris' committee. I might be pretty well trapped. Mr. Moss. We will get together with you and work out a schedule. it will be another 3 or 4 days at leastwith the Department of Commerce. Mr. RAY. I will be glad to return at any time. Mr. Moss. The committee will reconvene at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning with Mr. Erwin Seago as the first witness. The committee will now stand adjourned. (Whereupon, at 4: 55 p. m., the subcommittee adjourned until 10 a. m. Thur~day, April 19, 1956.) PAGENO="0119" AVAILABILITy OF INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Part 6-Department of Commerce THURSDAY, APRIL 19, 1956 HOUSE OF REPREPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT INFORMATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, Wa8hington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a. m., in room 362, Old House Office Building, Hon. John E. Moss, Jr., chairman of the subcommittee, presiding. Present: Messrs. Moss, Fáscell, and Meader. Also present: Samuel J. Archibald, staff director; John Mitchell, chief counsel; and J. Lacey Reynolds, senior consultant. Mr. Moss. The subcommittee will now come to order and we will start our hearings with Mr. Seago, Director, Office of Strategic Infor- mation. I wonder if you would give a brief biographical statement for the members of the committee. Mr. SEAGO. Yes, Mr. Moss. My name is Erwin Seago. I am a graduate of the University of Chicago Law School. I practiced law in Chicago for about 25 years. I am admitted to the bar of Illinois and of Virginia. More recently I have been a lecturer at the University of Virginia Law School, from which I am now on leave. Since the latter part of June 1955, I have been serving in this place as Director of this Office of Strategic Information. Mr. Moss. You have a statement that you would like to present? Mr. SEAGO. I do. Mr. Moss. All right, commence. STATEMENT OP ERWIN SEAGO, DIRECTOR, OPPICE OP STRATEGIC INFORMATION; ACCOMPANIED BY ALLEN OVERTON, JR., SPE.. CIAL ASSISTANT TO THE GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OP COMMERCE Mr. SEAGO. Mr. Chairman gentlemen, we welcome an opportunity to tell you about the Office of ~trategic Information in the Department of Commerce and the direction in which its studies and work are proceeding. In this 20th century mankind is confronted by a new series of prob- lems of record magnitude which call for a fresh examination of procedures by which freedom and security have long been sustained. 1233 PAGENO="0120" 1234 INFOR~{ATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES These new conditions require profound thought and wise action by Government and every segment of the public, including science, industry, and the press. Mindful of the changes, and alert to the new dangers inherent in these changes, and prompted by the desire to preserve historic rights, expert mind~ throughout the Nation are giving much attention to these problews. In order tp study and make recommendations in one sphere of this widespread j~roblem the Department of Commerce was asked to take a fresh look at the publications and international exchange of non- classified information in relation to these new conditions. Accordingly, the Secretary of Commerce in November 1954, estab- lished the Office of Strategic Information and charged it with the responsibilities in this area. The work of this office is with respect to nonclassified scientific, technical, industtial, and economic infor- mation. The Secretary of Commerce has three exploratory responsibilities which are: 1. To study and furnish guidance to executive agencies, with the advice of ai~ interagency committee, on the publication of nonclassified information which might be prejudicial to the defense interests of the United States. 2. To study, develop, and coordinate, with the advice of an inter- agency committee, uniform guides on the international exchange of nonclassified information. 3 To provide a central clearinghouse to which science, business, and industry may look for guidance, on a voluntary basis, in consider ing the public release of nonclassified information which might be prejudiciali to the United States defense interests. This office is not an office of operations. We have been concerned primarily thus far in studying freely di~seminated nonclassified in formation to see what part of this material may be aiding unfriendly nations and the need of balancing the flow of information to unfriendly nations. Too mu~h of our technical, industrial, scientific, and economic in~ formation is going to the Soviet bloc This is a problem which re- quires the attention of the entire Nation. This prdblem was recognized by Congress when it considered the Defense appropriation bill for 1956. The report of that bill states- too much in~orthation has been released which is of no benefit to the American public, but ~zhich is of tremendous value to our opponents. (See exhibit XXII.) As fai back as October of 1950, the Interdepartmental Committee on Internal Security asked Secretary of Commerce Sawyer to initiate a program for the voluntary protection of nonclassified technical in- formation, the release of which might endanger the national security. In January of 1951, Secretary of Commerce Sawyer established a service in the Department of Commerce to implement this program It was announced to the public through a release of 20,000 brochures In June 1~53, the office charged with its operation recommended a com~~ piete revipw. The Interdepartmental Committee on Internal Security studied this recommendation and other recommendations, all of which re- thilted in the establishment of this office. PAGENO="0121" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1235 I would now like to indicate additional basic concepts involved in the 051 program. Mr. MEADER. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if it would be in order, before you proceed, to give us a brief description of the size and character of your establishment. Mr. OVERTON. Mr. Congressman, his statement covers this matter. Mr. SEAGO. Russia and its satellites are doing an amazingly success- ful job of preventing the transmission abroad of their own scientific and technical data and are at the same time collecting a dispropor- tionate amount of the free nations' technical information. In studying this matter we have to be guided by one of our most basic principles and that is the freedom which information must have in our way of life. We know that without the free exchange of information, industry is less efficient and production is more expensive. To maintain our technical superiority we must, among other things, promote wide dissemination of scientific and technical information in this country. However, on the other side is the recognized fact that the military potential of possible enemies has been substantially increased by the fact that we have given them the answers to many problems that other- wise would have taken them much time to develop. I believe you will agree that these various considerations present all of us with a difficult problem. Difficult as it may be, we believe that our studies indicate progress can be made to maintain and increase the flow of information from the Soviet countries to th~ free world and to protect information, the unwise release of which would be harm- ful to the national defense. The 051 approach is positive and not negative. Our study and work is to increase the flow of information to our own people and to the people of the free world-in this way we will be serving the cause of peace. These positive purposes flow from the twin needs of: 1. Maintaining and increasing th~ flow of such information to our own people. 2. Avoiding harm to the national defense. We will first consider Government publications. The purpose here is to strike a balance between the public's right to know and the aid to potential enemies that may result from the release of such infor- mation. In order to do this there is need for prudent and uniform action throughout Government. In studying and working with the Government publications prob- lem, it should be remembered that the Office of Strategic Information has an Advisory Committee on Publications so that it has at all times the advice of members from the most interested Government agencies. One guide developed with the advice of this committee relates to defense contract information. Here the purpose is to give the Amer- ican businessman the necessary information on defense procurement while at the same time minimizing the release of information harm- ful to the national defense. This is accomplished by eliminating overly specific descriptions and quantities on awards and procurement offers concerning new weap~ ons and special installations. PAGENO="0122" 1236 INFoR~1ATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS A~D AGENCIES For instance, the first public indication of a classified radar project on our south~vest borders was revealed through a Government publica- tion where bids were solicited for cOnstruction of an "aircraft early `warning station." If words such as "special installation" had been substituted for the words ~`aircraft early warning station," harmful information would not hive been divulged. This empimsizes the type of thing with which we are concerned in GovernmE~nt publication. This is not censorship or suppression of news. It is just commonsense. Another study example has to do with aerial photographs, many of which, we are told by~the intelligence people, contain information of strategic significance. The purpose is to suggest uniformity in Gov- ernment as to publication and release for publication of aerial photo- graphs. It~ is hoped to accomplish this by indicating the Defense *? Department as the central place where all Government aerial pho- tographs (i~ot just Defense Department photographs) are to be re- viewed priolr to such publication. It should be pointed out that this arrangement recognizes the nec- essary relea~se of aerial photographs to our own people for such nec- essary uses as farming, engineering, mining, city planning, etc. The second major study concerns the international exchange of non- classified Goverment information. There has been a trickle of infor- mation flowing from the bloc countries to us compared to the wealth of information available to them in the United States. The objective here is to gain a net advantage from this exchange. This can be done by a united effort of all in Government for the purpose of bbtaining value for value. Here, al~o, the Office of Strategic Information, in studying this ex- change work, has an Interdepartmental Advisory Committee on In- ternational Exchanges. At all times it has the advice of members from the interested departments and agencies of the Government. On exploratory guide developed with the advice of our Exchange Committee is for handling Communist requests for nonclassifled Gov- ernment information which has been published. Under this guide, published Government information will be fur- mshed th~ Soviet bloc upon request but attempts will be made on a coordinatad basis to obtain information of value in return. Anotheit guide has to do with the handling of Communist requests for unpublished, nonclassifled Government information. By unpub- lished information, we mean information that is not "published" by the Government, but which is available to our own people upon request. This guide indicates that in general unpublished Government infor- mation will be furnished to Soviet bloc requestors only after definite exchange arrangements have been completed for equally valuable in- formation. We know, of course, that we cannot entirely shut off the availability of noncl~ssifled information to the Communists. They have been known toi obtain even our classified information They can use new agents, letter drops, and numerous other tactics. We do not have to give our iW~ormation to them on a silver platter We can bargain for information in exchange. The Soviets are known to be hard bar- gainers a~id they respect the bargaining aspects of a quid pro quo approach. PAGENO="0123" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTME~TS AND AGENCIES 1237 Any steps the Government takes to increase the flow of information from the bloc brings us that much closer to our objective, and we~ are iiiready reaping benefits from this approach. To augment the exchange program, a list is being compiled of spe- cific Soviet bloc publications and items of information which we do not have in this country and which we want. This is the first time that this has been done in Government. It is by the use of such a list that the United States can be businesslike and specific in this interna~ tional exchange area. There are other factors which must be considered in the exchange area. We are studying a mechanism for evaluating the information re- ceived in exchange. Only in this way will we be able to determine whether we are getting value for value, quid pro quo, and a net ad- vantage. Logically, another step follows and that is the dissemination of the foreign technological information received in exchange. This may well be one of the most important studies of the overall program. In- formation so received must be made available to science, business, and industry in the United States, and for it to be made available, transla- tion may be required. The long-range exchange program is just good business. It is common sense. It does not invite retaliation. It in- vites respect. It furnishes the best method of overcoming the exist- ing imbalance. The third major study assigned to Commerce is to serve as aclearing- house for, and to enlist the cooperation of, science, business, and indus- try. In thi~ area, advice rendered to a person or firm seeking assist- ance is on the basis of the coordinated judgment of the principal Gov- ernment agencies involved. The objective here is to foster the technological growth o~ our coun- try by maintaining and increasing the flow of information to our own people without harm to national defense. We are convinced that, in general, science, business and industry are aware of these problems. In our early efforts to increase this aware- ness, there was some criticism levelled at the Government and there was some talk of censorship. We take the position that the Governs ment should put its own house in order before seeking the voluntary cooperation of science, business, and industry, and we are pointing our studies to that end. From our experience and letters received, science, business, and industry are for the most part, more than willing to cooperate and in some instances would be stricter than Government might finally recommend. Now as to the mechanics of operation within the Office of Strategic Information. The office is small, consisting of a Director and four staff assistants. As our studies may indicate the need and feasibility, guides will be suggested with the advice and recommendations of the two advisory committees established for that purpose. All of the interested Gov- ernment agencies are represented on each committee. Any studies developed in this area of nonclassifled information must be on a dynamic approach and geared to meet the changing world situation, Such studies must be approached on the basis of common- PAGENO="0124" 1238 INFO~MAtION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES sense, sound collective administrative judgment, and full exploration within the interagency committees where science, technology, military, defense, economic, propaganda, and other factors may be considered. In conclusion, let me suggest: (1) We g~iard against the attitude that these studies are too difficult and that nothing can be accomplished in the areas involved. (2) That the problems we have discussed are not negative, but on the contrary, they promote the publication and exchange of informa- tion where the defense interests of the United States will not be harmed. (3) We keep in mind the President's many statements with respect to the necessity for reciprocity in the exchange of information with the Soviet bloc. In an editorial of April 2, 1956, the Washington Evening Star endorsed these principles of reciprocity and quid pro quo, and said, "This is an eminently sensible view." The editorial stated further that such a quid pro quo program would have the added virtue of h~lping materially to promote peace. We will be glad to answer any questions that we can and we are pleased to ~ooperate in your study. Mr. Moss. Mr. Meader, do~you have any questions? Mr. MEADER. Would you mind adding to the information about your personnel, your annual budget? What does it cost to run your office? Mr. S~AGo. I have not the complete details on that, Mr. Meader. I can furnish you with that information. It is approximately $60,000. I can get that information for YOU. Mr. ME4DER. Do I understand that both of these advisory commit- tees have ~s members only officials of the Government, and there are no industijy members? Mr. SEA~. That is correct. I might say, in answer to your question, OSI was a line item in the Department of Commerce budget presentation to the Appropriations Committee for fiscal 1956. Funds were appropriated for 081 sub- sequent to a full explanation to the committee of the operations and functions øf the OSI. Mr. Moss. Mr. Seago, do you have a list of the members of these two advisory committees, and would you outline for the committee the exact func~tion of each committee? Mr SEAG0 I have furnished, I believe, a list of the committee mem- bers. W1~ether I brought that second list with me today, I am not sure. Mr. MoSs. Do we have a copy of the list, Mr. Mitchell? Mr. MrroIT~LL. Mr. Chairman, we have been furnished by the De- partment of Commerce a list entitled "Interdepartmental Advisory Committee on Publications," and we have an additional list entitled "Interdepartmental Advisory Committee on International Ex changes." Mr. Mess. Those are the two advisory committees? Mr. S~ao. Yes. PAGENO="0125" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1239 Mr. Moss. The lists will be made a part of the record at this point. (The lists are as follows:) JnterdepartsnentaZ AdDisory Committee on PEblioation Agency Member Alternate Agrlctdture Department. Atomic Energy Commission - Central Intelligence Agency Commerce Department Defense Department Health, Education, and Welfare Department Interior Department Justice Department National Science Foundation State Department U. S. Information Agency Exofflcio: Office of Defense Mobilization Gold, Theodore S Marshall, Charles L Salisbury Morse VanSlyck DeForest Green, John C Allen, Philip K Letcher, J. Clifford Howard, Paul Canavan, James J~. - Thompson, Dr. Alberto~..,.. Rusch, William H Dunlap, Henry A Schooler, Lee W Beckler, David Burgess, Donald R. Edgerton, Joseph. Banki, Lemuel, Pope, George A. Finney, George I. InterdepartmentaZ Aivi8ory Committee on Internationa' Ea'clurrrge8 Agency - Member Alternate Agriculture Department Atomic Energy Commission Central Intelligence Agency Commerce Department Defense Department Health, Education, and Welfare Depart- ment. Interior Department - International Cooperation Administration~ Library of Congress Natianffi&éicnee Foundation Post Office Department Smithsonian Institution State Department Treasury Department U. S. InformatIon Agency Ex offl~io: Office of Defense Mobilization... - Mohrhardt, Foster If - Salisbury, Morse Toth, Alexander B Astin, Dr. Allen V McCaffrey, H. Frank Bush, Harvey A Howard, Paul Blachly Frederick Coffin, Lewis C Thompson, Dr. Alberto~.~ Goff, A. M Roberts, Dr. Frank Pope, George A Fishman, Irving Lyon, Scott C Schooler, Lee W ~ecklor, David. Bercaw, Louise. Fry, Bernard. Vance, John K. Hockersmith, Forrest D. Martino, Eobtrt A. Adams, Stott. Banks-Lemuel. McPherson, Walter C. Cronin, John W. Blandf~rd, Joseph IT. Sbipman, Fred W. ~ Kormann, John 0. Mr. Moss. Now, will you outline for us the duties and functions of these two advisory c~ommittees? Mr. MITChELL. I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that these two lists contain the name of the Government employees who are on the committees. That is correct, is it not? Mr. SEAGO. Yes. Mr. Chairman, the members of these committees assist in the studies and exploratory work we are doing in these three areas we have just described. Mr. Moss. They represent Government departments and agencies only? There are no representatives of industry, business, or science on these committees? Mr. SEAGO. Well, I am sure that is correct. They are i~l1 Govern- ment employees. Mr. i~[oss. Mr. Mitchell. Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Seago, do you have a copy of the NSC directive establishing the Office~-requesting the Department of Commerce to establish the Office of Strategic Information with you? I believe I requested that of you over a month ago. Mr. SEAGO. It is a classified document. PAGENO="0126" 1240 j~O~MATiON FROM PED~RAL DEPARTM~TS AND AGENCIES Mr. MrrcIIET~L. It is a classified document? Mr. SEAGO. Yes. Mr. MITdirELL. Can you explain to the committee why it would be classified? Mr. SEAGb. No; I don't believe I could. Mr. Mos~. Can you tell us the classification the document bears? Mr OvritToN Mr Chairman, just on the basis of general observa- tion, I believe most' of the papers of the National Security Council bear a classification of at least secret. Mr. MITCHELL. This matter does not pertain to classified material, sir, in any way, according to the interpretation of the Department of Justice's own regulation. This has nothing to do with classification. Mr. OvERT0N. I didn't understand. I am merely making- Mr. Mos~. Let's stay right on the point that you made, that all of the docum~ntS of the National Security Council are classified. Mr. Ov1~RTON. I didn't say all of them, but I was speaking from general ob~ervation in an effort to be helpful, and therefore I would assume that this document bears the classification secret. Mr. Moss. This is a very important point. Is the committee to assume that we have large areas of classified material, that the classi- fication is placed upon the document because of the agency originating it, rather than the material itself? Mr. OVERTON. That is a matter beyond my competence and if it is a question with regard to NSC matters, I suppose it should be directed to someonp in that area. Mr. Mo$s. We will, of course, direct an inquiry to the agency itself, butit is ypur experience that all of their papers are classified regard- less of ththr content? Mr. OVInITON. I don't feel that my contact or experience in that area. is sufficient for me to comment, sir Mr. Møss. Well, Mr. Mitchell, you will direct an inquiry to the National :Security Council and have them give us detailed informa- tion on their classification procedures. That is a matter that the com- mittee is going to go into very carefully because we have much that leads us to believe that there are, in fact, large masses of documents and infojimation which are classified without regard to the content of the docui~ient itself, and, of course, if that finally proves to be true, it is an abuse of the intent of the classification privilege as laid out by the P~esident in his Executive Order 10501. Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Seago, you administer this program? Mr. SEAG0. Yes. Mr MITCHELL Is there anything in the subject matter of the NSO directive that is classified? I mean there is nothing classified about the procedure and the use of the OSI, the Office of Strategic Informa- tion; is there? Mr. S1~AGO. The work that I do is not classified. Mr. MrJTCHELL. The work you do. Are you cleared? Mr.' Si~AGo. Oh, yes. Mr. M~TCHELL. By which department were you cleared, sir? Mr. SEAGO. The Department of Commerce. Mr. MITCHELL. The Department of Commerce? Mr. SEAGO. Yes. Mr. MITCHELL. Are you cleared on a basis of need to know? Mr. SEAGO. No. PAGENO="0127" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1241 Mr. MITCHELL. Do you hate access to all Government files, classified or unclassified files throughout the Government? Mr. SEAGO. I have what is known as a top-secret clearance. Mr. Moss. Do you have a "Q" clearance? Mr. SEAGO. No. Not that I know of, Mr. Moss. Would you then be closed out from certain information of the Atomic Energy Commission? Mr. SEAGO. I think I would. Mr. Moss. Do you feel that it might be helpful if we had a uniform security clearance in our Government, where one would apply gen- erally government? Mr. SEAGO. I do not have enough experience, Mr. Moss, to com- ment on that. Mr. MITCHELL. Have you made requests for information that have been denied to you on the basis of security in your position as Director of the Office of Strategic Information? Mr. SEAGO. No. Mr. Moss. Have you made any such requests, then, to the Atomic Energy Commission? Mr. SEAGO. No. Mr. Moss. You are to deal in the field of strategic information; you are to evaluate and advise others on publications. One of the very large areas of information is that under the control of the Atomic Energy Commission. Do you coordinate with the Atomic Energy Commission? Mr. SEAGO. In this way, Mr. Moss: We have on our advisory corn- -mittees, both of them, members from the Atomic Energy Commission and they deliberate in the studies that we carry on. Mr. Moss. And the information which is controlled by other agen~ des, do you deliberate on the information of interest to the Atomic Energy Commission? Mr. SEAGO. Well, we do not control the information of other agencies. Mr. Moss. That is the fact that, let's say, at the moment we regard as debatable. We want to find out whether you do, in fact, control. Mr. SEAGO. We do not. Mr. Moss. Mr. Mitchell. Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like tO intro- duce Department of Commerce Order No. 157. It was issued on November 19, 1954, and became effective on November 1, 1954, but it was not put into the Federal Register until December 6, 1954. Mr. Moss. The order will be made part of the record. (The document referred to is exhibit XXIII.) Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to introduce an amendment to Department Order 157; date of issuance, August 23, 1955; effective date, August 23, 1955; but not put in the Federal Register until when, Mr. Seago? Mr. SEAGO. I do not have the date that it appeared in the Federal Register. Mr. MITCHELL. I believe the committee asked you for it. I think it will show it was September 28, 1955. Mr. Moss. The copy of this order will also be made part of the record. PAGENO="0128" 1242 INroR~.iATIoN FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES (The document referred to is exhibit XXIV.) Mr. MITC~TELL. Mr. Seago, can you explain why the 1954 order be- came effectiive on November 1, but it was not issued until November 19,1954? Mr. SEAGb. I was not here at that time, and T have no information or knowled~e about the situation. Mr. MITQHELL. Can you explain, then, why the amended order dated August 23, 1955, was not filed in the Federal Register until September ~8, 1955? Mr. SEAGO. I cannot. It would not strike me as an abnormal lapse of time. Mr. MITCHELL. The point is that the law requires that when a rule or regulation is promulgated by any department of the United States Governmer~t it does not become effective until it is put in the Federal Register-this is a lapse of about 5 weeks' time-because the citizens, the people ~f the United States, are not responsible for any compliance with it until it is published in the Federal Register. Could you ex- plain that lapse of time? Mr. SEAG0. I would agree that if that is the law the effectiire date then was September 28. Mr. MIT~HELL. Who is making the effective date, you or the Federal Register? You have an effective date of August 23, 1955, on your order. The document spea1~s for itself and it is so published that way in the Federal Register. Mr. SEApO. As I said, if that is the law, I certainly would assume that the effective date would be September 28, rather than August 23. Mr. MrIIOHELL. Mr. Chairman, neither of these two Department of Commerce orders contain the NSC directive. They refer to the NSC directive, but this committee has no way of knowing whether or not this is an interpretation of the Department of Commerce or whether it is a specific directive from the NSC to the employees of the Depart- ment of Commerce or to the public. Could you explain that? Mr. SEAGO. I am here to tell you, to the best of my ability~ what Commerce and OSI does. I cannot talk about the National Security Council's classified papers. Mr. MI~rCHELL. We are interested in knowing where you get your legal authority from and why, as of right now, this committee doesn't know it, ~xcept the nebulous ~tatement of an NSC directive. The chairman has already pointed out to you that that is not available. Why shouldn't it be available? You are the man that administers this program. Mr. SEAGO. The executive side of the Government certainly has an obligation to explore problems, and I think this is within that realm and that area. Mr. M~TCHELL. Mr. Seago, will you refer to page- Mr. M~ss. I think perhaps we should pursue this point just a little further. I don't think that anyone wants to chaitenge the fact that the execi~itive departments have certain responsibilities, but we do have here the creation of an agency to carry out specifically assigned duties based on a directive which you inform us was classified by the originating agency. Mr. SEAGO. That is right. Mr. Moss. "This order is issued pursuant to a directive of the Na- tional Security Council." There is uothing in here that quotes from PAGENO="0129" INFORMATION FROM FJ~DErtAL DEPARTMENTS ANb AOENCIES 1243 that National Security Council order or tells us the scope of it or gives us any information at all. Mr. SEAGO. I think that would be proper, that it should not quote from it. It is a classified document. Mr. Moss. Do these orders have numbers? Are they identifiable in any way? Mr. SEAGO. No. Are you referring, Mr. *Chalrman, to the NSC orders ~ Mr. Moss. Yes. "This order is issued pursuant to a directive of the National Security Council. * * ~" Which directive? Mr. SEAoo. I can't speak about that. Mr. Moss. Wouldn't it be reasonable to have some reference to the directive so that it would be identifiable even though it may be classi- fied? If you were established pursuant to a law, you would undoubtedly cite the authority. That isn't done here. Mr. SEAGO. No. We are not established by a law. Mr. Moss. Well, a directive is the law on which you rely for estab- ]ishment of this Office of Strategic Information, isn't it? Mr. SEAGO. It may be that it was improper to have referred to the National Security Council in that Commerce Department order. Mr. Moss. It would be improper unless you were relying upon the directive of the National Security Council for authority to establish the Office of Strategic Information. I imagine that the National Security Council has issued many directives. Mr. SEAGO. Yes. Mr. Moss. Are any and all of them the authority for the establish- ment of this Office or is there one specific one? Mr. SEAGO. Well, I believe that is beyond my competence. Mr. Moss. I don't agree with you. I think it is very much within your competence to tell us whether or not the directive is identifiable by number or other identifying symbol or marks. Mr. SEAGO. Of course, as my counsel indicates, the 051 itself was established by the Secretary of Commerce. Mr. Moss. Pursuant to a directive. Mr. SEAGO. Yes. Mr. Moss. He is the one that says it is. I, am not saying that. The committee will ask that there be some identification of the dii~ec- tive of the National Security Council supplied to the committee s6 that we will have Some means of knowing what it is, because we are going to, undoubtedly, as we continue to study, go into Some of the classified material which is originated by a number of these agencies. Mr. OVERTON. Mr. Congressman, with regard to the NSC question, we will be glad to check into that as Soon as we get back to the Depart~ ment to see what we can do to comply. Mr. Moss, We will ask that you do supply us with the information, and failing that, that you give us a specific citation of authority for not supplying the information. Mr. OVERTON. We will be glad to check into the matter promptly. Mr. MITc~J1~LL. Mr. Seago, the subject of the Office of Strategic Information has become one of considerable ~onfusion in the minds of the American people. Will you admit that? - Mr. SEAGO. I am not sure that that is true, and we will certainly do what we can to help you and others and try to straighten it out. 69222-56pt, G-9 PAGENO="0130" 1244 INFOn*ATION FROM FED~EAL DEPARTME~NTS ~ AGENCIES Mr. MIPhI~ELL. Certainly with all the complaints that this com- mittee has received, the articles that have been published concerning the Office of ~trategic Information, it is very questionable as to hiw it is operating. I will agree that you might have attempted to clarify that. Now my question is, since you referred to your appropriation in your prepared speech, Why didn't the Department of Commerce ask Congress for a clear mandate for the establishment of this Office and thereby make it legal? Mr. SEAGo. Mr. Mitchell-~- -Mr. MITCHELL. Excuse me, let me clarify the last part. I don't want to infer it is not legal until you answer the question and unless -you agree t~ it. Why didn't you ask Congress for a clear mandate for the establishment of this Office and thereby clarify the whole matter in the eyes of everybody, because Congress does legislate for people? Mr. SEAGO. Let me say one more thing, Mr. Mitchell, and that is in my prepared statement there were no comments about this appro- priatipn. We made some remarks here in response to a question about appropriations. The appropriation of this Office is through the Sec- retary of C~mmerce Office. Mr. MITqHELL. But did he ask for a clear mandate? Mr. SEAGP. To my knowledge, he did not. Mr. MITCIETELL. Why not? Since the Office has been highly criticized since its establishment in November of 1954, don't you think that would have been a good way to clarify its objective and purpose and intent? - Mr. SEAG0. The Appropriations Committee apparently did not have that feeling, and then, too, it is a short period of time. This explora- tory work thay yet call for such. Mr. MrI~ITELL. Mr. Chairman, could -you request the Department of Commerce to provide us with a written answer to that question ~ Mr. Mosg. Wh4ch question is that? Mr. MITb~rTELL. The question is why the Department of Commerce did not re4uest a clear mandate from the Congress as to the function- ing of this~ Office. Mr. Moss. I would suggest that at the conclusion of the hearings on this agency that we will undoubtedly have a number of requests and that we make all of them at that time. Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you, sir. Mr. Seago, in your prepared statement, on page 3, at the bottom, next to the lastparagraph, there appears this sentence: Difficult ds it may be, we believe that our studies indicate progress can be made te malntaii~ and increase the flow -of information from the Soviet cottntries to the free world and to protect information the unwise release of which would be harmful to 1the uation~l defense. - Throughout yj~urwbole statement you have indicated that you have hi~d some 1succ~s. Could you cite for the committee some examples of that? O~ the success you have had in obtaining information from the Soviet bløc? Mr. SEAG0. Yes; I think I can give you an example. I have a par- ticular example here. I thought~ I had it written out there, but I can tell you about it. There wa~s a request from the Soviet bloc to the Department of Labor PAGENO="0131" IN~ORMATI0N FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND ~GENCIES 1245 for certain special published information. The Department of Labor contacted us and we suggested to them that there was published in Russia a certain document that we did not have in this country and that it would be quite proper for them to send the document requested by the Soviet bloc, but at the same time to request this particular docu- ment we did not have. That was received and it was furnished to the interested agency. Mr. MITCHELL. Was that document available in the Western World? Mr. SEAGO. No; it was not. Mr. MITCHELL. Nowhere? Mr. SEAGO. Mr. Mitchell, our information was that it was not avail- able in the United States. Mr. MITCHELL. But was it published outside of the Soviet Union, available outside of the Soviet Union? Mr. SEAGO. We understand that it was not. Mr. MITCHELL~ Could you give us another example? Mr. MEADER. Mr. Chairman, before we leave that example, may I ask this What kind of information was that? Mr. SEAGO. It had to do with labor statistics. Mr. MEADER. What kind of ]abor statistics? Mr. SEAGO. I have forgotten at the moment. I will be glad to fur~ nish the full information. I thought I had it right here. I am not able to cite you the title, but it had to do with labor statistics. Mr. MEADER. You don't know whether it was cost-of-living infor- mation or unemploynient information? Mr. SEAGO. No; it was not cost of living. It was employment, labor statistics, as I remember-more in that nature. Mr. MEADER. Why wouldn't the best thing be to supply the com- mittee with a copy of each document so we can see the type of thing we are exchanging with the Soviet of nonclassified material? Mr. SEAGO. It will be voluminous, but I think it would be all right4 Mr. Moss. You may regard that as a request of the committee. Mr. SEAGO. I would like to work it out in detail. Mr. MEADER. If you just have 1 or 2 of the documents, you might let the staff look at it. Mr. OVERTON. Are there numerous exchanges? Are you talking about a truckload? Mr. SEAGO. No; not a truckload. We can furnish the documents to give you an example of the information. Mr. MITCHELL. That is, all of the documents you have. Mr. SEAGO. Well, for instance, all of the documents wouldn't be in our office. The various agencies would have the documents that they asked for in return. Mr. MITCHELL. Would those be classified in those agencies? Mr. SEAGO. No; not at all. Mr. MITCHELL. Could you furnish us with a list of agencies that have received such documents? Mr. SEAGO. I think I can. (See exhibit I.) Mr. MITCHELL. And entitle it so, for proper identification. Mr. MEADER. May I proceed with one further question? Mr. Moss. Congressman Meader. Mr. MEAnER. Mr. Seago, I am a little intrigued about this busi- ness of s~vapping information. Who was it that suggested that the PAGENO="0132" 124G iNFO~MATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTM~NT8 AND AGEN~,IES Russians had information that we might want? Was that you or was that the Laboi~ Department? Mr. SEAGO. In this particular instance:? Mr. MEAn~in. Yes. Mr. SEAio. We have started to develop what is known as a want list' that is, a compilation of the items that, throughout the Government: are not in this country and they would like to have them, and those are items that we know, for instance, were published in Russia. Mr. MEADER. Can you furnish the committee a copy of that want list or one edition of it? Mr. SEAGO. I think we can. (See exhibit I, table 7.) Mr. MEAI~ER. And was that utilized in this particular instance that you referred to? Mr SEAGb I think that in that particular instance that it may have been just at the inception of the work on that want list. It may not have been, but it was worked out, the mechanics of the way `the want list is worked out. Mr. MEADER. In this bargaining for the exchange of information, do you confine the exchange to similar fields of information? Mr. SEAGO. We try to. Mr. MEAIER. Or could you, for example, say to the Russians, "Now, you want some information about employment figures in the Uflited States. Wle don't care about your employment figures in Russia, but we do want some information about the number of scientists you have working ir~ the atomic energy field." Do you exchange different infor~. mation in different fields in your bargainingJ Mr. SEAGO. I think the answer to that is that you do, but in the first instance you try to exchange in the same field. Mr. OVERTON. Mr. Chairman, in order that we make sure we sup~ ply the committee with the information which it desires, am I to understand that Mr. Mitchell will give us an itemization of these re~ quests from the record so that we will have it, or should I be noting these requests as we go along? Mr Moss You ~ ill be furnished with a copy of the record I wonder if at this point you will identify yourself for the record. Mr OV]~RTON I am Allen Overton, Jr, special assistant to the Gen~ eral Counsel, Department of Commerce. Mr. MEADER. I had some more questions, but not on this particular point. Mr. FA5CELL. May I ask a question? Mr. Moss. Mr. Fascell. Mr. F~ISCELL. I see in your statement,' in talking about the mission of the OSI, you state, "The work of this office is with respect to non- classified scientific, technical, industrial, and economic information" Is that the full scope? Mr. SFJAGO. Yes, it is.' Mr. FASOELL. Now, if that is the field you work in, do I understand that you~ in some way, review information to determine whether or not it should be released? Mr. SEAGO. I have not done that, Mr. FA5CELL. You, personally? Mr. S~AGO. That is right, and my staff does not. PAGENO="0133" t~Th~ORMAPJON FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS A~D AGENOIES 1247 Mr. F~tsoEI~. In other words, 051 has nothing to do with r~iewing information to deter~njne whether or not it should or should not be released? Mr. SEAGO. No. Mr. Moss. Who does the reviewing, the individual departmei~ts and agencies represented on your two advisory committees? Mr. SEAG0. No. There is no review with which we are concerned. Mr. Moss. You do have material submitted to you? Mr. SEAGO. I do not, Mr. Moss. Mr. Moss. You do not have material submitted to you? Mr. SEAG0. No. Mr. MEADER. Mr. Chairman, maybe I can clarify that. Mr. Moss. Mr. Meader, Mr. MEADER. You are just a little congress down there, passing laws, determining policies and furnishing guidance, and you say right in your statement you don't conduct operations. You are just a little policy group. Mr. SEAGO. We are a small organization to furnish studies and guides in this field of exchange and publications. Mr. MEADER. That really raises a question I want to ask in this Manual of Orders, Part I, dated August 23, 1955. It says that you will formulate policies and provide advice and guidance to public agencies, industry, and business and other private groups who are con- cerned with producing and distributing information, nonclassified information. I just wonder how many teeth there are in sour di- r~ctives or orders or guidance, or whatever they may be. Mr. SEAGO. I would say that there are no teeth at all. We are studying these problems, where we can, to give some guidance. Mr. MEAnER, You can't compel the Department of Defense for example, if it has some information that it wants to give to the gen- eral public about new guided missile developments~you can't corn- pell them to suppress that? Mr. SEAGO. Not at all. We are only advisory. We are only study- mo'. ~1r. MEADER. Let me say, then, that probably the great value of sour operations and your policies and advice and guidance are to give them something to hide behind in case they don't want to give it out, even though it is unclassified. They can point over to the Office of Strategic Information and say, "Well, here is the policy of the Gov- ernment, not to release the information, even though it is not classi- fied." You can't compel action, but you can provide a cloak under which they can conceal things that they may not want to give to anybody. Mr. SEAGO. I am not aware that that is the feeling of anybody that is involved in this strategic information. Mr. Moss. Apparently you don't draft regulations? Mr. SEAGO. No. Mr. Moss. Do you send out advisory letters? Mr. SEAGO. We have only sent out, really, one, you might say, governmentwi~~ or executive agencywide~_a suggested guide on the exchange. Mr. Moss. How do you get your advice into the hands of the depart- ments and the agencies of the Government and to the business and scientific world? PAGENO="0134" FROi~r FEDERAL Ji~pARThtENTS AND A~Ewc~Es Mr~ So. Mr. Moss, there are two questions there. So far as the busines~ and industry side of the thing, that is entirely voluntary. We do not make any effort to suggest anything. Mr. Moss. But you have me completely confused. You say it is entirely voluntary, but what i~ voluntary? Mr. SEAG0. Any effort on their part to consider the question of pub- lications~an4 exchange of information. Mr. Moss. Who would they consult? Mr. SEAd0. They would probably write to us. Mr. Moss. And you don't review their material? Mr. SEAq0. Not at all. Mr. Mos~. Then how do you give them advice? Mr. SEA~iO. The question usually comes about like this: They will write in and say that someone in Russia has asked them for their technical publication; that they understand that the Government may have some policy in this regard. Mr. Moss. Let's leave Russia for a moment and let's get to the prob- lem of writing an advertisement. I want to know whether my ad is going to perhaps glamorize some new project on which I have a con- tract. Certainly it is going to do my business some good, make it look pretty good in the eyes of the people, but I am a little troubled as to whether 11 should phrase the ad as I had intended. To whom do I send a cop~ of the ad for advice? Mr. SEAO0. Well, no such item has ever come to my office that I know of. Mr. Moss. Then who does it go to? Mr. SEAG0. Well, I don't know that any such item goes any place. Mr. Moss. Have you recommended to any of the d~partmentS-SaY the Department of Defense, for example-that it have some clearing house for'that type of information? Mr. Si~wio. The Department of Defense issued what they call an industry security letter. I could read that to the committee if you would like. Mr. Mpss. Is that as a result of suggestions by the Office of Stra- tegic Information? Mr. S1~Aoo. That happened before I was in this Office, but I think it was in collaboration. Mr. Moss. Now in the domestic field, or in relations with the other departments in the Government, what have you done? What policies have yoi~ advocated? How have you gotten that information to the agencies1? Exactly what are your accomplishments in the domestic field in i~iformation? Mr. SEAG0. To date there has been no finalized action or study recomm~ndat10n5 in that area. Mr. Moss. You have not recommended to any department that it publish or withhold any information? Mr. SEAG0. We have an incomplete situation about aerial photo- graphs. We have suggested that they be handled in a certain way. As I said in my statement, we are suggesting that aerial photographs for release, publications of aerial photographs, be funneTled through the Department of Defense. Mr. ~{oss. Have you objected to the publication of some of the photOg~aphs? PAGENO="0135" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AOENCIES 1249 I noticed a few months ago-perhaps last fal1-~hort1y after the President enunciated the open-sky proposal that a number of publica- tions contained some very interesting aerial photographs. I have seen none recently. Did you feel those were improper and did you recoin- mend they not be published? Mr. SEAGO. At the very beginning of that program, we did say that we thought a lot of those photographs should not be published. Mr. Moss. Did you say it to the departments that controlled the photographs themselves - the various branches of the military services? Mr. SEAGO. Yes. Mr. Moss. And how did you say that? Mr. SEAGO. Well, we had a conversation about that with various members of the Defense Department. Mr. Moss. You say "we"; you had a conversation? Mr. SEAGO. Our staff. Mr. Moss. Did you reduce any of those recommendations to writing? Mr. SEAGO. We reduced one recommendation to writing. I think it was to the disarmament staff. Mr. Moss. The disarmament staff? Mr. SEAG0. Yes. Mr. Moss. But not to the other departments, to the Department of Defense? Did you have any conthct with them? Mr. SEAGO. Yes. As I said, we discussed this matter with them on several occasions. Mr. Moss. Now in arriving at the conclusion that it was improper to publish them, was that a decision of your staff or did you consult with these agencies and on their advice arrive at the conclusion that it would be improper to publish them? Mr. SEAGO. Oh, I think it was a joint thing. We consulted with our entire agency committee. Mr. Moss. Was there complete agreement? Mr. SEAGO. There was complete agreement in the final stages of the- matter, and there was no disagreement in the early stages. Mr. Moss. There was no disagreement? Mr. SEAGO. No. Mr. Moss. And this matter of aerial photographs is the only in- stance that you can call to mind where you consulted with the other agencies or departments? Mr. SEAGO. The only other thing is this one I mentioned, and that is the information contained in the contract awards. Mr. Moss. In the writing of the specifications? Mr. SEAGO. Yes. Mr. Moss. Do you follow the practice, then, of now reviewing speci- fications? Mr. SEAGO. No; we do not. Mr. Moss. Do you review them after they have been drafted? Mr. SEAGO. We review them in no way. We merely made the sug- gestion, as indicated, so that they would be aware of that problem. Mr. Moss. Was this in connection with this. early warning project, the construction of some land installations? What I am interested in is how often you can actually control the information.. What happens if an agency agrees with you that this unclassified material should be withheld under the Executive Order PAGENO="0136" 1250 INFoRkAT10~ FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1O5O1-ther~ is a clear right by Executive order to withhold the mate- rial, and it must be classified in 1 of 3 categorieS Now, we have a great mass of material. It could be a logical extension of this pro- gram, an ~~er~increaSing mass of information. It isn't classified. How is it identified? Mr. SEAGO. There is no identification that I can think of, Mr. Moss. Mr. Moss. Is there some other designation now being used to label that material? Mr. SEAGO. Not so far as my office is concerned. Mr. Moss~ What authority, then, would there be for withholding? Mr. SEAGO. There is no such authority. Mr. Moss. I thought you agreed now that certain types of aerial photographs would not be published. Mr. SEAGO. Should not. Mr. Moss. Then do we classify them? Mr. SEAG0. No. Mr. Moss. How do we control them? Mr. SEAG0. We don't control them. Mr. Moss. And yet they are not being published? Mr. SEAoio. Many of them are. Mr. FAS~FJ~T~ [r.-~Seago, ctoii't you feel that there is something a 1ittie_l3~1nconsistent about the executive, on the one hand, through -~ThIe President of the United States, advocating an open-sky policy, and the executive on the other hand, through the OSI and this inter- agency committee, advocating a closed-sky policy? Mr. SEAGO. I don't know that there is. The open sky was finally concluded as being not a complete release of information anyway. Mr. FASCELL. In other words, you see nothing inconsistent? Mr. SEAG0. I don't think so; no. Mr. FASCELL. I see in your statement, and I recognize it in several speeches that you made on the question of exactly what the OSI is supposed to guide, you say- * * * on the publication of nonclassifled information which might be prejudicial to the defense interests of the United States. which I assume is your definition of strategic information. Mr. SEAGO. I think that is correct. Mr. FAscEi~r~. And would you let this committee have the minutes of the Inter-Agency Advisory Council, please, so that we could see what kind of material you are passing judgment on? This is an Interdepartmental Advisory Committee. The way I see this thing, Mr. Seago, we have a situation where you are either required by law or by some executive order to delineate very carefully the limits within which information will be withheld, and then we have out of the Department of Commerce, through an across-the-board group, an agreement agency which says despite the fact that it takes real strict law to do all this job, now we have a bigger rubber stamp over here so that we can apply a stamp to all of the information even though not classified. That is the way this thing looks to me. You açlmit there are not teeth in this thing. So what we have is a correlating group within the Department which has reached the position were it will determine for itself what information, even though itonclassified, shall or shall not be made available to the Amer- ican public and to the world. PAGENO="0137" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1251 Mr. SEAGO. We have no rubber stamp. We have no power to do what you are suggesting, Mr. Fascell. Mr. FASCELL. But you are telling me, on the. other hand, that it has been done, and I believe you. Mr. SEAGO. I am saying that we are studying these problems and there are certain instances, consistent with that, where we take some steps and suggest; that is correct. Mr. FASCELL. I still would like to see the minutes of the Commit- tee so we can determine what nonclassified information this advisory group passes on which is detrimental to the defense interests of the country, and which, however, can't be classified under the Executive order. I mean that distinction escapes me at the moment, but I am willing to not pass judgment on it until we see what we have got. Mr. S1~Go. I will take up with counsel the supplying of all of those minutes, Mr. Moss. There are minutes maintained then? Mr. SEAco. Yes. Mr. FASCELL. Now, one other thing, Mr. Chairman, and then I will be through on this aspect of it. Mr. Moss. First you are making a request now for the minutes, and we don't want it to sort of go in the undefined area of discussion. When will we have an answer from counsel on the minutes? Mr. OVERTON. We will be glad, Mr. Chairman, to take the matter under advisement and try to communicate with you promptly. Mr. Moss. How promptly? Mr. OvERT0N. I would say, certainly, as promptly as we can. The only question that comes in my mind is perhaps this may involve a problem that Congressman Meader and Mr. Ray discussed at some length yesterday. It could possibly get into that area. I would like to have the opportunity to check with the General Counsel. Mr. Moss. Which area is that? Mr. OVERT0N. This is under your proposition of the internal work- ing papers of executive branch agencies and so on, which was discussed at some length yesterday. Mr. Moss. Don't the minutes reflect some final or definitive ac- tion? Mr. OVERTON. I have never seen the minutes. I didn't know that there were minutes until now. I am not familiar with the opera- tions of this office. Mr. Moss. Let's place our request to the committee? Any objection to the minutes being produced? Mr. MEAnER. I have no objection. Mr. Moss. Then the committee requests that it be supplied with copies of the minutes, and if the Department decides that it cannot give them, we ask for specific citations to support the position that the Department takes. Mr. MEADER. Mr. Chairman, might I ask some questions? Mr. Moss. Congressman Meader. Mr. MEAnER. Section 4.02, which I read to you a few minutes ago, concerns your responsibility for forming the policies and providing the advice and guidance to public agencies, industries and businesses, and other private groups. Now, have you given advice, as you are ordered to do under that sectidn 4.02? PAGENO="0138" 1252 xNFoR4ATI~ EnOM ~`EDERAL D~PARTMENT$ AND AQENCIES Mr. SEAGO. When business and industry makes a request, we do tell them wh~'*e think might be done in these areas. Mr Mm~DEu You mean to interpret that section to mean when re-i quested for advice you give it? Mr. SEAG0. Exactly. Mr. MEADF4i. But you don't give it unsolicited? Mr. SEAGO.~ Not at all. Mr. MEADER. Well, that certainly doesn't appear from the wording of your Manual of Order, part I, does it? Mr. SEAGo.~ I did not write that. Mr. MEAD*at Well, this soimds like you are supposed to make a study of this whole field and you are supposed to work out policies and tell the~e other agencies and industry what they ought to do about publishing unclassified information, but you have not drafted any text or manual to guide either the Government agencies or busi- ness on what unclassified infurmatiofl they should publish? Mr. SEACO. No; nothing has been done in that way for business. There is a guide for the Government for the exchange of information. Mr. MEADIut. Something which you prepared? Mr. SEAGO. Yes. Mr. MEAD~R. Does our committee have a copy of that? Mr. SEAGO. I am not sure, but I think they may have. Mr. MEAr~ER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to request that we be furnished with this guide. Mr. SEAGO. I have it here. Mr. Moss. That will also be a request of the committee, that we be supplied with a copy of the guide. Mr. SEAGO. Let me tender it right now. This is on the exchange of published information. Mr. MEAtpER. This deals only with the exchange? Mr. SEAGb. That is right. Mr. MEAIbER. That is your bargaining for information on the other side of the [ron Curtain? Mr. SEAd0. That is right. Mr. Moss. I wonder if I might interrupt. The Guide To Imple- ment Policies for Handling Requests From Soviet Bloc Countries to United States Government of Nonclassified Published Information will be made a part of the record. (See exhibit XVII.) Mr. MEADEE. Mr. Seago, I understand, then, except for this ex- change of information you have not any general statement of policy ~r advice tb give either to the Government or to industry. Mr. SEA~o. That is right. Mr. MEADIDR. And with respect to the publication of unclassified information, it is only when a Government department or some private organization approaches your office and asks for your advice that you give it? Mr. SEAG0. Well, certainly so far as science, business, and industry is concerned. As far as the working with our committees, as I have said before, we do take the attitude that we can suggest, on occasion what can or what should be done in these areas. Mr. M1~ADER. Even though no one has formally requested your' opinion? ` PAGENO="0139" INFORMA~flON PROM FEDERAL DEPART~IENTS AND AGENCIES 1253 Mr. SEAG0. Yes. But then that is within the executive branch, and an exact example of that, again, would be that early aircraft warning announcement. Mr. MEADER. Do you sometimes have disagreements with these departments? Mr. SEAGO. Well, no. We have lots of discussion. I think that the record might well indicate, and does indicate, that there have been unanimous decisions of whatever studies we have made to date. There has been plenty of discussion. Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have Mr. Seago read the attached document into the record for the committee. It is an article from Aviation Week, dated January 30, 1956, and please comment. Mr. SEAGO (reading): Military services are increasingly annoyed at Commerce Department's con- troversial Office of Strategic Information. OSI was set up to encourage "voluntary" censorship by civilians of nonclassi- fled technical information which might possibly be of use to an enemy. But services says OSI is gaining more and more power in the field of military censorship. They feel 081 has no authority to operate there, and less know'edge, background, and experience for making decisions on release of classified infor- mation. Surprising thing about this "collision of the censors" is that military some- times has thought it safe to talk and then been overruled by the civilian 081. Most exasperating difference has come over President Eisenhower's "open sky" plan for mutual aerial inspection of other nations' military installations. United States Information Agency was told to promote the plan both l~ere and abroad with pamphlets, photographic exhibits, and movies showing how effective aerial reconnaissance can be. USIA's efforts had support at the very highest Government levels. Coopera- tion from the services was excellent. But OSI stepped in and overruled military on release of some of its own pic- tures and information. Some photographs blocked by 081 had been cleared years before and published many times. OSI apparently also used the time-proven Washington technique of having military men "investigated" when it disagreed with their decisions on release of information. Ironically, the supercautious OSI censors cleared one piece of photographic equipment for display even though the military thought that would break secu- rity. Military finally won that skirmish. "If the OSI is to have authority over us," one officer said, "then let the Nationai Security Council promulgate such a policy, and we will follow it. "But the way the situation is now, OSI is reviewing what we have already reviewed and telling us what we can and can't be done with it, and we damn sight know a lot more about these things than they do. "They are rapidly becoming a governmentwide office of censorship." Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Seago, despite the fact that this might be within an area of definition of information on which your department is supposed to guide, I think it would be proper for you to go ahead and comment. Mr. SEAGO. All right. I would deny that there is any voluntary censorship. Then they say, "Surprising thing about this `col1isior~ of the censors' is that military sometimes has thought it safe to talk and then been overruled by the civilian OSI." I would deny that. We have never overruled anybody. Mr. FASCELL. Let's stop there. How does this interagency thing work ~ Is it a majority vote? Mr. SEAGO. We have never had to have that question decided. Mr. FASCELL. How do you reach a conclusion? PAGENO="0140" 1254 INFOIiMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND A~G~NCtE8~ Mr, Siw~. We have voted in the committee. Mr. FASOJiLL. That is what I just got through asking you. Mr. SEA~o. We never have had to have a question on a decision whether the majority rules or not because, as I indicated, the record, I think, shows a unanimous vote every time any vote has been taken. Mr. FAsc~LL. Did you vote on this? Mr. SEAu~ On this question right here? This question was worked around in ~nore ways than that. We had advice of the committee, and I don't know that this question ever got all the w~y to a vote in the committee. I was talking about the general procedure. Mr. Moss. I think a very important question at this point is: Does the National Security Council directive require compliance on the part of other agencies and departments of the Government with the policies which might be evolved by the 051? Mr. SEAGO. I am not competent to answer that. Mr. Moss. Have you seen the directive under which you operate? Mr. SEA~o. Oh, yes. Mr. Moss. And you can't recall whether it requires compliance? Mr. SEA~O, Well, this is the directive under which I operate. (See exhibit XXV.) Mr. Moss. That directive is issued pursuant to a directive of the National Security Council, so you always operate under the directive of the National Security Council. Does that directive calling upon the Secretary ~f Commerce to establish an Office of Strategic Information require compliance by other departments and agencies of the Govern- ment with the policies which might be evolved in the Office of Strategic Information? Mr. SEAGO. No, Mr. Chairman; I operate under this departmental order of qommerce. Mr. Mo~s. You mean that the directive of the National Security Council h~is no force or effect in any way, directly or indirectly, in the authotity of the OSI? Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that the directive issued by the Nahonal Security Council calling upon the Secretary of Com~. merce to establish the Office of Strategic Information did require compliance by other agencies and other departments in Government with whatever policy might be laid down by the Office of Strategic Information. Would it then have any effect on your policies? Mr. SE~GO. I didn't understand the question, Mr. Chairman. Mr. M~ss. Well, to go back to this National Security Council di- rective-t don't know how it is phrased, but apparently it called upon the Secretary of Commerce to establish an Office of Strategic Infor- mation or some office to define policies or to suggest policies on this broad field of unclassified but potentially important security infor- mation. I think perhaps I should read this section 1 of the amendment to order No. 157. The purpose of this order is to define the organization and the functions of the O~ce of Strategic Information established by department order No. 157, effective ?~ovember 1, 1953. 02. This order is issued pursuant to a directive of the National security Qonucil which pro¼ldes that the Department of Commerce shall be responsib'e for the implementation of certain policy determinations. PAGENO="0141" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES i25~ Now, it shall haves a responsibility for im~lementatiou of policy determinations governing unclassified scientific, technical, industrial, and economic nonstatistical information. Does that order of th~ Na- tioiial Security Council, which appears to be, certainly, a very major part of the overall authority of the Office of Strategic Information, require compliance? Mr. SEAGO. Mr. Chairman, may I say that this may or may not be a part of that order, but I do not believe I am competent to say what the National Security Council document is. Mr. Moss. Who would be competent? Mr. SEAGO. The National Security Council. Mr. Moss. You have received a copy of the directive. It has come to you, and it said for the Department of Commerce to do this. Mr. SEAG0. That is right. Mr. Moss. Those are instructions to the Department of Commerce. ~ ow, do those instructions require compliance of other agencies? Mr. SEAGO. The instructions are in the classified document, Mr. Chairman. I do not believe I am competent to talk about it. Mr. Moss. Now we are not going to, at the moment, resolve this question of unclassified documents. We will if we have to. The committee will want to know, as soon as you can get the in- formation, whether or not compliance is required by the directive of the National Security Council. It is very important to the study we are making. it is information which we must have. (See documents and discussion during subcommittee hearing June 11, 1956.) Mr. MEADER. Mr. Chairman, will you yield to me at that point? Mr. Moss. Congressman Meader. Mr. MEADER. Mr. Seago, I wonder if we need to go to the National Security Council directive. It seems to me that the language the chairman just read to you is pretty clear. I wonder if I couldn't get your interpretation of it. It says- * * * shall be responsible for the implementation of certain policy determina- tions. Now implementati~m, of course, is one of those bureaucratic words I never use myself, but I think I understand what it means. It means to carry out something, doesn't it? It means to execute, put into effect. Mr. SEAGO. Work with, study. There are several words you could add there, I think, Mr. Congressman. Mr. MEADER. Doesn't implement mean or doesn't it carry with it the meaning of something compulsory and mandatory? Mr. SEAGO. Oh, I would not think it is mandatory at all. Mr. Moss. Mr. Meader, wouldn't you agree with m~ that the con- notation would be more in the line of compulsion than just pure, sweet persuasion? Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield at this points As a matter of fact, it actually depends on what they do, not on wl~t h~ thinks this thing means. Implementation can be by volun~- tary methods or by compulsion. The question of fact is whet do they actually do and I don't believe he has testified yet on that pthnt. Mr. MEAnER. Well, the language, Mr. Seago, would indicate that certain policy determinations governing unclassified scientific, tech~ PAGENO="0142" 1'256'~MA~rI6~ Pitt PEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGE~XES nical, indu~trial, and economio nonstatistical information had been made by the Security Council and that there was a directive which ordered the Department of Commerce to carry out those policy deter- minations. Can you make any other meaning out of that language which the chairman r$ad to you? Mr. SEAGO. Well, I think that that causes us to study these areas and it is c~rtainly consistent with the studies of the areas that we study, and then we give advice as described. Mr. MEAnER. I can't quite buy that, Mr. Seago. When you talk about imp~ementation of policy determinations, it means that the Security Council has made a policy determination and the Depart- ment of Commerce was given the authority and responsibility of see- ing that that policy was carried out. I don't see how you can make any other rnterpretation of it. if that doesn't imply authority in the Department of Commerce to do more than advise Sand counsel with other dep~rtments, then I just don't understand the English language. Mr. SE~~kio. We have indicated that there are no teeth. You can't cause anybody to do anything. Mr. MEAnER. Well, you certainly can speak with whatever authority the National Security Council can speak; can't you? Mr. SEAGo. Oh, no. `Mr. MEAnER. They have made a policy determination and have ordered the Department of Commerce to see that that policy is carried out. Aren't you clothed with the power of the National Security Council ~When you attempt to carry out their policy determinations? Mr. SE~GO. I don't think so, Mr. Congressman. Mr. MMDER. We are trying to build up your agency for you, Mr. Seago, a*d you seem to kind of think that you are rather innocuous. Mr. FASCELL. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. Moss. Mr. Fascell. Mr. FASCELL. I think you are absolutely right because the order goes on to say that the authority vested in the Secretary of Com- merce by NSC with respect to the matters described below is hereby redelegated to the Director of 051. If you haven't got anything that sterns from the National Security Couircil, it is. only because of your interpretation because the order makes it clear you have all the power t~ey gave you. In' fa~t~' the' Secretary of Commerce c~t~ himself out with this directive. Actually you are an independent agency within an agency, if there ~is such a thing. Mr. MEADER. Mr. Chairman, I might observe this is an unusual experience of seeing an empire building in reverse. Mr. Moss. I would concur in that, Mr. Meader. `Mr. FASCELL. Has the gentleman finished? Mr. MEAnER. Yes; I have finished. Mr. `Moss. Mr. Fascell. Mr. `~`ASCELL. Let's get back to these remarks, because I believe they certain~y should be answered; M~r. Seago-the remarks that appear in~ this ~rticlO. Do you still have a copy there? Mr ~EAGO You mean Aviation Week ~ Mr FASCELL. Yes. What is your `comment on this statement: "But services says OSI is gaining more and more power in the field of military censorship"? PAGENO="0143" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1257 Mr. SEAG0. Well, I would cate~orica11y deny it. Mr. FASCELL. There is no basis at all, in your opinion, for that remark? Mr. SEAGO. None whatsoever. Mr. FASCELL. What is your comment on the statement that OSI has less knowledge, background, and experience for making decisions on release of classified information? Mr. SEAcio. Where is that statement? Mr. FASCELL. That is the next sentence. Mr. Sn~too. That doesn't strike me as very argumentatjv~~ Mr. FASCELL. Well, now, it strikes me as very argumentative~ You and I are arguing about it right now, but I will let you have your opinion on that. Mr. SEAGO. I certainly would say this- Mr. FASCELL. It sort of seems to me that, they are taking a good punch at you, and I thought you might like to punch back. Mr. SEAGO. We have no power in the field of military censorship. I certainly would deny that. We have no power. Mr. FASCELL. The answer is, of course, you are not supposed to be dealing in classified information anyway, are you? Mr. SEAGO. That is right. Mr. FASCELL. You are strictly in the field of unclassified infor- mation? Mr. SEAGO. That is right. Mr. FASCELL. Then I think you ought to send back that classified directive you have from the National Security Council because it is in violation of your Own directive. You are not supposed to be handling classified information, so I think you ought to send it back. This position about these photographs, did that actually occur as stated in this article? Mr. SEAGO. No. I think--well, I know it is a garbled account. Mr. MEADER. What is the true account? Mr. FASCELL. Thank you. That is what I want. Mr. SEAGO. They wanted to get this exhibit going- Mr. FASCELL. Who is "they"? Mr. SEAGO. As I remember it, it was the disarmament staff and USIA, and some part of the Department of Defense. We were advised about the matter and suggested the need of taking a second look at the aerial photographs that would be published or released for publication, and the final decision was that they were going to be used in the exhibit, and that, accordingly, they might not be considered as a release or release for publication. Mr. FASCELL. Let me see if I follow this course of events. How `did the matter come to the attention of the OSI to start with? Mr. SEAGO. I actually don't remember the details. Mr. FASCELL. Could you recall whether or not the military brought i~ to the attention of the OSI? Mr. SEAGO.. I will refresh my memory and tell you about it, but I just don't remember how the `material came up. Mi~. FASCELL. The reason I ask is because you just testified OSI si~ggested ~o the military that these photographs might be reviewed, Mr. SEAGO. To take a second look at them, by them, not by us. Mr. FASCELL. Well, then, this decision `was not reached with the interdepartmental Advisory Council? PAGENO="0144" 1258 INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Mr. SEAGO4 As I said before, Mr. Congressman, that particular aerial photograph matter did not come up in the committee, but it was reviewedhy them. Mr. FASCEI~L. How often does this agency committee meet? Mr. SEAGO. Once a month. Mr. FASC$L. And when you are providing the services of the central clearinghous~ for all of the agencies, business, and industry on prob- lems that might arise, do you tell me now that matters are uot dispOsed of until the regular meeting of this agency committee once a month ~ Mr. SEAG0. Certainly as far as the Government is concerned, I think that would be true. So far as business and industry is concerned, where they voluntarily write in, what answers are given are consistent with what actions or steps or advice or guidance or studies are made in these committees. Mr. FASC1~iT~L. So, then, what you are telling me is that as a practical matter, as f~r as industry is concerned, the matter is handled by staff and is alloe~ted, depending on how the work comes in? Mr. SEAGO. Well, yes, but it is consistent with what the Govern- ment is tryitig to do. Mr. FASC~LTJ. But those matters are not individually passed on by the interagency committee? Mr. SEAGO. No. Mr. FASCELL. It is strictly a matter within the operational setup of OSI? Mr. SEAG0. That is right. Mr. FASCELL. So OSI then establishes this guideline in a particular ~a~e and in all probability it is a particular staff member who is a~- signed to tl~at group of work? Mr. SEAdO. Yes. Mr. FAs~ELL. So we have one individual, then, in a particular case who is exercising his judgment as to what he thinks the OST policy is and applying it to the request of a particular business or industry? Mr. SEAG0. Well, I think that is stating it a little strongly, Mr. Congressman. Any of those questions are threshed out in the office and they are based on the deliberations that have heretofore taken place in the committees. Mr. ME4DER. Will the gentleman yield to me on this aerial photo- graph mat~ter? Mr. FASCELL. Certainly. Mr. ME4LDER. When did this photograph problem that the United States Information Agency wanted to use in this exhibit arise? Mr. SEAG0. I don't remember the date. Mr. MEADER. It was after you came to the agency? Mr. SEAG0. Yes. Mr. MEADEE. Apparently sometime before January 30, 1956, be- cause that is when the article appeare4. Mr. SEAG0. I do not remember the exact date, Mr. Congres~1TIan. Mr. M1~AnER. You don't know how the matter came to your atten- tion? Mr. SE~oo. I do not remember exactly who brought it to my at- tention. Mr. M~ADER. Do you recall whether USIA or the Defex~se Depart- ment asked you for an opinion on this matter? Mr. S~oo. I do not. PAGENO="0145" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES I25~ Mr. MEADER. Are there any documents on this particular problem? Mr. SEAGO. The particular communication that I talked about a little bit ago, there was a letter addressed to the Disarmament Staff about the matter. Mr. MEADEL That was the conclusion that your offlce came to? Mr. SEAGO. Yes. Mr. MEADER. But isn't there any documentary evidence of what preceded that? Mr. SEAGO. No. Not that I know of. I don't remember any. Mr. MEADEJ~. You can't say to the committee now whether this is a matter which someone brought to your attention, either the USIA or Defense Department, or some other Government agency, or whether it is one which you learned about and Volunteered some advice on? Mr. SEAGO. I just don't remember the exact details of how it happened. Mr. MEADER. Well, I understood your previous testimony, Mr. Seago, that aside from this document which we have made an exhibit here, about the exchange of information, you acted only when you were requested to act. Mr. SEAGO. Well, I think that is consistent; yes. Mr. MEADER. I mean you passed advice only when it was solicit& and did not give unsolicited advice? Mr. SEAGO. Well, that is certainly a positively true statement so f~r as the business and industry are concerned. There may be things that come up in the committees that are discussed there. Mr. MEADER. This aerial-photograph problem was not of that character? Mr. SEAGO. I don't remember exactly how that came up. I will refresh my recollection and tell you. Mr. MEAnER. I would certainly like to have a statement of the history of this specific instance of the operation of this office because I think frequently we can get. more information out of a detail account of a specific instance than we can by reams of generalities. Mr. Moss. We will make that request and note that it be made a part of the record. (See exhibit IL) Mr. Moss. 1 notice another item here: rronically the supercautious 051 censors cleared one piece of photographlc equipment for display even though the military thought that would break secu- rity. Military llnally won that skirmish. Mr. SEAGO, I believe that to be completely and wholly untrue. Mr. Moss. You have no recollection of any such thing? Mr. SEAGO. No; I do not. Mr. Moss. Do you have any recollection of any discussions of any type? Mr. SEAGO. No, Mr. Chairman, I do not, and I did not see any photographic equipment. M~. M~ADER. You mean this story about clearing a piece of photo~ grt~pltic ~quipment for display is just made out of whole cloth, and you haye no recollection bf anything of that kind? Mr~ SEAGO. The statements contained in this are not consistent with the way I remember the situation. 1 did not examine ~ny photo-~ giiiphs and I did not pass on any photographs, Mr. MEADER. This talks about a piece of photographic equipment for display. 6O222-56---~pt. 6--.-1o PAGENO="0146" 1260 iNFOf~MATI0N FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Mr SEAGO I don't even know what that is referring to Mr. Mossr Is it possible that they could be discussing some policy which might have developed in one of your Council meetings Do you recall a*1y discussion in the Council meeting? Mr. SEAG~. No. Mr. Moss. Do you attend all of them? Mr. SEAGO. No; I do not. Mr. Moss. Does a representative of your ofilce attend all of them? Mr. SEAGO. No. Mr. Moss. You know, I am, very frankly, puzzled. I am now at the point of wondering just what kind of an animal we have. You counsel with departments and agencies of the Government, meeting regularly once a month; you do not attend all of them and you are not eve~i certaia that members of your staff attend all of them. Mr. SEA~O. Mr. Chairman, I misunderstood your question. Did you ask me if I ~ttended all of the Committee meetings? Mr. Mos~. Yes. ~Mr. SEAGO. Oh, I do. I thought you meant something else.. Mr. Moss. Then let's get on to another point. Because you thought I meant something else, you said you didn't attend. What type of meetings occur regularly under your jurisdiction that you do not attend? Mr. SEAGO. You used the word "council," Mr. Chairman. Mr. Moss. Yes. Mr. SEA~O. I thought you meant the National Security Council. Mr. Moss. No. I assume that you don't attend the National Security Council n~eetings, but all of the Committees, you do attend those meetings? Mr. SEAG0. Yes. Mr. Moss. Your recollection is there has never been any discussion in those of photographic equipment? Mr. OvERT0N. May I- Mr. Moss. Mr. Overton, do you attend the Committee meetings? Mr. Ov~RToN. No, I don't. I must confess I am slightly confused, also. Mr. MIIADER. Mr. Seago, did you see this article or editorial about the time i~Ycame out? Mr. SEAG0. I saw it. Mr. MEADER. Didn't that intrigue you a little bit? Mr. SEAGO. Whatever intrigue means. I considered it a confusing statement. Yes, I saw it. Mr. MEADER. I know if I had been in charge of an agency that was lambasted~ like this, I would want to look into this business. Didn't you make a little investigation to find out what they were talking about, this charging you with wanting to release and declassify a piece of photographic equipment for display, over the objection of the mili- tary? That is a serious accusation. Mr. Si~&oo. It seems to me it fell of its own weight. Mr ~EADER You mean you didn't conduct an investigation of what thi~ writer was talking about? Mr. SEAGO. No. I didn't have anything to do with the problem they are talking about there, so why should I look into it ~ Mr. MEADER. Well, they charged that you had something to do with it. PAGENO="0147" fl(~ORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1261 Mr. SEAGO. Well I didn't. Mr. MEADER. Did you deny it to the press? Mr. SEAGO. No. Mr. MEADER. Don't you think it would have been a good idea to clear the record? Mr. SEAGO. Oh, it might have. Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Meader, may I point out that this is one of the confusing points that the public and the press has on the OSI. He has taken no pointed action, and that is the reason I asked the ques- tion this morning. Mr. Moss. I think we might explore this further. The Depart- ment of Commerce is interested in the establishment of affairs and expositions in the United States and overseas. It does participate in those, doesn't it? Is it possible that perhaps in the Department of Commerce, in some other agency, that they Were presenting for a display a piece of equipment and that it might, therefore, be confused with OSI, which is also in the Department of Commerce? You made no effort to determine whether that had occurred? Mr. SEAGO. No, sir, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Moss. We have clearly established the point that it was never discussed in any of these Committee meetings? Mr. SEAGO. As I stated, Mr. Chairman, this entire matter ~vas dis- cussed after the initial- Mr. Moss. I am not talking about the aerial photographs. I say we have established the point that the equipment was never discussed in any of these Committee meetings. Mr. SEAGO. I don't know anything about a piece of photographic equipment. I have no recollection of any such thing. Mr. Moss. But do you want the record to show that it definitely was not discussed or mere]y the fact that you do not recall? Mr. SEAGO. To the best of my knowledge, there was no discussion about a piece of equipment, photographic equipment. Mr. Moss. Now, in order to have the record clear, will you estab- lish for certain that it was not discussed? Mr. SEAGO. To the best of my knowledge, there was no discussion about a piece of equipment. Mr. Moss. Will you review the minutes of your meeting and tell us finally in a letter whether it was ever discussed? Mr. SEAGO. Yes. (See exhibit XIX.) Mr. FA5CELL. Mr. Chairman, I might add right there, since they are going to bring us the minutes and papers and what not of this inter~ agency group, we might as well have the correspondence and other papers that revolve around this open-sky photograph and everything else. The equipment might be buried in there. Mr. Moss. We were told that was a matter of discussion. There has only been one letter, as I understand, that you have written; is that correct? Mr. SEAGO. I think it was one. It may have been two. Mr. FASCELL. Was that the letter you said you wrote to the Disarma~ ment Staff? Mr. SEAGO. Yes. Mr. FASCELL. I have a question or two, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Moss. Mr. Fascell. PAGENO="0148" 1262 INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Seago, are you surprised that some of the m~li- tary, at least, have taken the position that OSI has ~ontroI over them with respect to the release of informatiQn? Mr. SEAGO. There seems to be some confusion, generally, so I am not overly su~prised, but I do deny that there is any control over them. Mr. FA5CELL. In other words, then, this statement that if the OSI ~is to have authority over us, then let the National Security Council promulgate such a policy and we will follow it is an unnecessary statement because OSI does not have any authority over any of the military with respect to the release of any of their information? Mr. SEAGO. I think the spokesman there was misinformed. Mr. FASCELL. How about the other statement? Are you ready to' testify now that the OSI has no authority over any of the military with respect l~o the release of any information? Mr. SEAGO. I have already saad that. Mr. FASOELL. Are you ready to testify that the OSI has no authority over any of the other agencies of the Government with respect to the release of any information? Mr. SEAGO. Sure. Mr. FASCEtL. Well, then, sir, will you tell me how you comply with your directive which~ says that you would provide a clearinghouse- that you would be the clearinghouse for all information across the board, in industry and in Government? How can you be a ckaring- house if all qf the information is not fwineled through your ag~ncy? Mr. S~&oo. The first step in this is a study and that is where we now are, and a clearinghouse- Mr. FASCE~L. I missed your answer. Mr. SEAGO. The first step in such a thing would be a study and a clearinghouse does not imply, Mr. Congressman, that you havc any- thing to do with compelling order, and so forth. Mr. FASCELL. In other words, if I understand your testimony cor- rectly, then, you are not at the point-that is, the OSI is not at the point yet-of complying with the manual of order with respect to~ acting as a clearinghouse for information? Mr. SEAGd. No; and I don't know that we will ever get there. Mr. FAsci~LI2. In other words, you are never going to carry' out the directive? Mr. SEAGO. I did not say that. H Mr. FASCELL. You say you don't know whether you will ever get there, meaning that you would never get there to act as a clearing- house of all information. Mr. SEAGO. In the first place, a clearinghouse doesn't mean ~ontroI over information. Mr. FASO~LL. What does it mean? Mr. SEAGO. It is a very simple thing. A~ clearinghouse could be nothing mo~e than an exchange of information. Mr. FASqELL. Well, you have to get. the information to exchange it; don'tyou? Mr. SEAG0. We are studying that kind we don't have to have the information itself. We can suggest to others how it might be done. Mr. FASCELL. Now, you say you are not doing that, meaning you are not receiving the information, but you are studying that? PAGENO="0149" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS A~D AGENCIES 126~ Mr. SEAGO. Well, our studies would not take us to the pOint of piling up bits of information, records, and pamphlets. We would never have such. Mr. FASCELL. Of course not. I am not saying that you would be a storehouse of information. I am just asking the question as to how you can comply with your directive of acting as a clearinghouse for information which, in my book, means bringing it to you to determine whether or not it may be cleared for release. Mr. SEAGO. That is not my interpretation of it. Mr. FASCELL. All right, sir, if that is not your interpretation of it, how do you get any information upon which you would pass judg-. ment ~ Mr. SEAGO. Well, in the first place I do not pass judgment on infor- mation. Mr. FASOELL. You establish a policy which somebody else imple- ments ~ Mr. SEAGO. We suggest a guide. For instance, the only thing that has been definitely suggested to date is in this field of exchange. Mr. FASCELL, In other words, the only definite policy guide has been on the question of exchange of material? Mr. SEAGO. That is right. Mr. Moss. I wonder if I could interrupt there for a moment. Mr. FASCELL. Surely. Mr. Moss. Now, you are to advise other departments and agencies. Recently the Secretary of Defense indicated that he felt there was too much information of a strategic importance being made available, and I believe he issued a new directive to strengthen the controls of the Department of Defense over information of that type. It was done rather recently. Did you advise the Department of Defense in that instance that in the judgment of your office of your committee that there was, in fact, too much information being made available? Mr. SEAGO. I have no recollection of the document about which you speak, but, in addition to that, we have not given the Department of Defense any such suggestion. Mr. Moss. You have not advised them, then, to tighten their control or their review of strategic nonclassified information? Mr. SEAGO. No. Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Seago, have you issued any rules or regulations or guide lines to the various departments of the Government, and if so, may this committee have a copy of those? Mr. SEAGO. I furnished to the chairman a little bit ago the only such guideline that has been issued. Mr. MITCHELL. In other words, where a specific question is brought up, your office does not give an answer? Mr. SEAGO. I do not understand the question. Mr. Moss. To get back to my ad which we were discussing a little earlier, let's take a good loyal American that has a defense contract. He doesn't want to give out too much informatiom Where does he take the ad for advice? Does he go to the Department of Defense or, to you? Mr. SEAG0. If it had to do with defense contracts, I suppose he would go to the Department of Defense. Mr. Moss. You have recommended no policy on that? PAGENO="0150" 1264 INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Mr. SEAGO. No, we have not. (See exhibit XX.) Mr. Moss. Can yoti tell me how many agencies or departments of Goveriiment lfrave some facility for the review of nonclassified stra- tegic inform~tion? Mr. SEAGo. None that I know of. Mr. Moss. Mr. Seago, I think you must have misunderstood my question. Mr. SEAGO. Maybe I did. Mr. Moss. Certainly you are aware, as I am, that in the writing of documents-take the Atomic Energy Commission. If you want to write about anything in the field of atomic energy, you take it to the Atomic Energy Commission for clearance. It was testified before this comm1tt~e by your predecessor, Mr. Honamari, that there are other agencies of the Government where they do undertake to review infor.. m~tion of this type on a voluntary basis Now, certainly in your agency, whiØh is going to act as an adviser to the Government in this whole field of strategic information, you must have made some deter- mination of the existence of facilities within the Government for the review of such information. Wouldn't it be a logical step? Whom do you advise with? Mr. SEAGO. We advise with the members of our interdepartmental committees. Mr. Moss~ And you have made no determination as to the number of facilities; in the Federal Government, in the agencies and depart- ments, of tl~e facilities where a review of this material can be made or is being m~de? Mr. SEAGO. I know of no such study. Mr. Moss Frankly, I am amazed. Mr. Overton, maybe you can help me on this. Mr. QVERTON. If I understand Mr. Seago correctly, he is saying that he knows o~ no organized function in any of the departments to screen the dissemination of nonciassified information. Is that a correct statement? Mr. SEA~O. That is correct. Mr. OVE~TON. There are no such agencies, as I understand him. Of course, thi~ is a matter of factual information that I have no personal knowledge; of. Mr. SEM~O. Each agency would have to say what their function is in that respect. Mr. OVERTON. With reference to your question concerning the Atomic Energy Commission-I believe you used that as an example- perhaps there you are into an area of classified national security informatien. Mr. Moss. Well, if you even have a thought about atomic energy~ the momeht you have the thought it is classified. Mr. OV*~RTON. This is a matter I am not aware of. Mr. M~ss. But at least we know, generally, that that agency does review material for publication, even though it may deal with material controlled by the Atomic Energy Commission, which has been declassified. Mr. OVERTON. Has that been reviewed to determine whether or not the material is classified material ~ I think we are involved in two different types of questions. PAGENO="0151" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1265 Mr. Moss. No; whether it is strategic, whether it should be discussed even though it is unclassified. Mr. OVERTON. These are matters beyond my competence. Mr. Moss. We have instances where writers have submitted to agen- cies in the Department of Defense manuscripts which have been held up for long periods of time for review to determine whether or not they contain material of strategic importance, and it just seemed to me a very reasonable approach to your assignment, that you determine how many of the agencies have a facility for review of material, and what their guideline might be. If you are going to advise them, certainly you should know the present policies or criteria employed by them in determining whether or not material has strategic importance. Mr. OVERTON. I might say, Mr. Chairman, I have not heard of the existence of any such organized units in any of the executive branches. This is not to say that there may not be some. Mr. Moss. My thought is that there has been, apparently, no effort to discover whether or not such agencies or facilities exist. Mr. OVERTON. Has there been such an effort? Mr. SEAGO. No. Mr. OVERTON. In other words, you have confined your effort so far to a study of the exchange program; is that correct? Mr. SEAGO. Yes. Mr. Moss. Foreign exchange only? Mr. Sn~&oo. No; and a study of the other problem. Mr. OVERTON. But you have not arrived at or made any effort in regard to other agencies, other than this matter of an increase in the flow of information? Mr. SEAGO. That is right. Mr. FASCELL. May I interrupt? Mr. Moss. Mr. Fascell. Mr. FASCELL. You testified that the OSI has no authority over any other governmen~~~ agency with respect to release or withholding of information Mr. SEAG0. That is right. Mr. FASCELL,. You testified that 051 has issued no policy guide with respect to the release of any information as it might flow from any governmen~~~ agency. Mr. SEAGO. That is right. Mr. FAScELL. You have testified that the only policy guide you have issued deals with exchange of information between the United States and Soviet bloc? Mr. SEAGO. Of published information. Mr. FASCELL. Of published information? Mr. SEAGO. Yes. (See exhibit XVIII.) Mr. FAScELL. And that you are presently in the process of a study to determine-_~ Mr. SEAGO. We are studying all of those other problems you mentioned. Mr. FASCELL. Therefore, at the present time am I correct in saying that any agency of the Government is at liberty to release any unclass- ified information that it wants to? Mr. SEAGO. Yes, except insofar as it is prohibited by law. PAGENO="0152" 1266 INFOI~MATI0N PROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Mr. Moss. There it would be classified by law. Mr. SEAGQ. Yes. Mr FASGIbLL I am talking and you are talking about nonclassified or so-called strategic information? Mr. SEAGO. That is right. Mr. FAscsIi~. Any individual is at liberty today to release any information of that type? Mr. SEAGO. That is right. Mr OVERT0N The only restriction on the dissemination of any informatioi~ in the executive branch, as I understand it, are those matters which are prohibited b~r law, and we discussed yesterday that aspect of it~as it related to the Commerce Department, or by Executive order or c~nstitutional concept under the doctrine of separation of powers. Otherwise you have an open-door policy on information, steming frOm the age-old philosophy in existence in this Government, that the public business is the people's business. Mr. FASCELL. What you are telling me is that despite the fact that ~ection 3.01 of the manual order says that the Department of Commerce has been assigned responsibility for several aspects of a program designed to coordinate the release of unclassified scientific, technical, industrial and economic importance, the indiscriminate distribution of which may be inimical to the defense interests of the United States-despite the fact that the order says that, you are not doing it? Mr. OVERTON. The order, as I understand the testimony adduced here this morning, is not consistent with the program. Therefore, I would say that the order-~- Mr. Moss. Wouldn't it be very helpful? Mr. OvERT0N. I don't think there is any question about it, and the order possibly is not a properly drawn order. Mr FA~oELL Mr Chan man, allow me to intei vene at this point and say I don't agree with that at all. I think it would be a lot better just to do away with the ordei In fact, I am not so sure about OSI at this point, from the testimony I have heard. What are they doing? "We are Qonducting a study in this committee on information." If all OSI is doing is a duplicate study with respect to Government agencies, then we Ought to get together and maybe we could work things out good, but at this point I see no need for 051, this directive, or the National Security Council order, or anything else in this whole field, because it leads to this kind of statement, that the military feel that 051 has authority over them, and OSI denies it. We do know there is no basis for it in law; there is no basis for it, in fact. We do not require them to bring a specific problem, and yet somebodfr says it is so. It not only creates confusion, but has a tend- ency to ~iry up information which might be useful. Now it might point out another thing while I am on this soapbox. The order says that "the indiscriminate use of which * * ~ That presupposes the fact that you might have discriminate usage which might be all right. You haven't done anything on that. Mr OVERTON No, sir The point I am making is, if I understand Mr. Seago's testimony and what the facts are, there are no efforts or no limitations in the executive branch on the dissemination of infor mation, other than those matters which we discussed from the legal PAGENO="0153" INFORMATION FRQM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1267 standpoint on yesterday, and you have an open-door policy of infor- mation. Mr. Moss. Of course we are going to go into this question with much more thoroughness when we have the Defense Department before the committee because apparently there is a feeling in the Defense De- partn~ient there is too much information, as evidenced b~ the state~ ments and directives of the Secretary. I am just amazed that they were issued without the advice of the Office of Strategic Information, which is specifically charged by the National Security Council with advising in this field. Mr. FASCELL. That raises another question, too, Mr. Chairman. It rais~s this question: If the OSI is not coordinating the release of un~ classified information, as they have been required to do, pursuant to a directive, why have an interagency committe from all of the depart- ments which meets once a month? What in the world do they do? Mr. Moss. I am as curious on that as you are. I would suggest before we pass- Mr. FASCELL. I am not passing judgment on that. I am thinking out loud what is probably happening is they are blithely bringing in these little problems and somebody is passing on them and making a decision with respect to them, and that is that. Mr. Moss. I think this afternoon, immediately after lunch, we will get into the exchange program of information, and perhaps there we will find the justification for the OSI's continued existence. Mr. MITCHELL. May I interrupt a minute? Mr. Moss. Yes, Mr. Mitchell. Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, will you ask Mr. Leman, the Di- rector of the Office of Public Information, to produce all correspond.. ence and memoranda and telephone notes concerning an article about the Business Advisory Council written by Mr. Walter Shead, the syndicated columnist. The correspondence that we specifically want is the correspondence exchanged with Mr. James P. Hinchey, editor of the Berlin Repc~rter, Berlin, N. H. Mr. Moss. We will ask Mr. Leman to be p\repared to give us the fullest information on that when he appears before the committee later in the day. Mr. Seago, we will continue with you at 2 o'clock. The committee is now in recess until 2 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 12: 15 p. m. the committee recessed, to reconvene at 2p. m. the same day.) AFTERNOON SESSION Mr. Moss. The subcommittee will now come to order and we will continue with the hearing. 1~Lr. Seago, Office of Strategic Information will resume. Do you have a further statement that yOU would like to make at this time, Mr. Seago? - Mr. SEAOO. I have no formal statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Moss. I think it might be helpful to the subcommittee if you ~roitld outline for us the foreign~exchange program that you have. Tell who cooperates with you on it and whether or not you revie~ur material. Give us a fairly detailed story on it. PAGENO="0154" 1268 IN~O~MATI0N PROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS A~1~ AGENcIES Frankly, ~t seems to me from the testimony this `morning, this is really the heart of the presint workings of the Office of Strategic Informatioi~. FURTHER, STATEMENT OP ERWIN SEAGO, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OP STRATEGIC INFORMATION, ACCOMPANIED BY ALLEN OVER TON, JR, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OP COMMERCE Mr. Sii~o. It is very important. Mr. Chairman, I think to aid in that respect, it would warrant me to just restAite three paragraphs of the statement this morning. For instance- Iii this 20th century mankind is confronted by a new series of problems of record magnitude which call for fresh examination of procedures by which freedom and security have long been sustained. These new conditions require profound thought and wise action by the Oov~ ernment and every segment of the public, including science, industry, and the press. Then I might say the advance in technology and science Is probably in areas of struggle, now, rather than another type of struggle between nations. Accordingly IOU, we, and all of us must examine the advances, the advir~tag,eB, and disadvaMages that can occur in those areas. Of course, this question `which you have asked me now, the question of exchanges is very important. I think you will agree that in the past there has been a terrific amount of technical scieii~ tific, and ecOnomic information that has been available without, you might say, restraint, and it is to balance that flow of information that we are studying. Mr. Moss. How do you become aware of information which might be exported? Mr. Sii~~oo. I presume we learn about that through the various de~ partments of Government. Mr. Moss. Much of this originates in the universities and private research? Mr. SE'oo. And much of it originates in Government. Mr. Moss. Do you try to control and guide- Mr. SEAGo. Not to control. We suggest, in the case of public iI1~ formation, that something be secured in return for that which is being sent. Mr. Moss. Are we talking now only of information which is con~ trolled by agencies of Government for which a formal request has been made by some foreign government? Mr. SEAoo. I am talking about published information tl~at is un- classified~ and for instance in this case, by Government. Mr. M9ss. By "public information" you mean the type that I can buy throUgh the Government Printing Office? Mr. S1~1Aoo. Yes. Mr. Moss. If I as an individual go down there and buy some for export, how do you know about it? Mr. SIiAGO. Well for instance, the Soviet bloc has a resident agency in this country known as the Fourth Continent Book Store in New `York. They buy through various sources but in one year they bought through the Government Printing Office, io,ooo pieces of published~ information. It is available to' them. We might as well use that information that is available to them, to get something back from them. PAGENO="0155" INFQ~MATION FROM FEDERAL DEPART~ENTS AND AGENCIES 1269 Mr. Moss. Suppose they did not bother to contact you but just had aome anonymous individuals go down to the Government Printing Office and purchase this material. Mr. SEAGO. That is a question that occurs, always. In the end, as I indicated earlier, you cannot stop all little leaks, or you cannot have ~n effect on all of those instances but where you can-. Mr. Moss. Do you attempt to license or control in any way? Mr. SEAGO. We have no control or licensing powers. Mr. OVERTON. In response to your question, he was speaking with reference to the OSI. Under the Export Control Act which is also administered in the Department of Commerce, in its Bureau of Foreign Commerce Sec- tion, you have some regulations concerning the export control of technical data, stemming from the Export Control Act of the Con- gress, and when you ship technical data to the Soviet bloc, then there are certain procedural matters that have to be treated with. Mr. Moss. Do you advise with the officials operating under the Export Control Act? Mr. SEAGO. Upon occasion. Mr. Moss. Do you maintain a cOntinuing liaison for the purpose of obtaining types of information which should be more closely guarded because of possible strategic value? Mr. SEAGO. No; I do not. Mr. Moss. You do not advise them at all? Mr. SEAGO. Well, the only kind of advice they would have would be to try to get back for published and freely available information, similar information from the Soviet bloc. Mr. Moss. They would try to get back, or you would try to get back? Mr. SEAGO. They. Mr. Moss. Then it is those who operate under the Export Control Act. Mr. SEAGO. In that instance. Mr. Moss. Do they use the same method you do? Mr. OVERTON, I might make mention of the fact that I believe it is on the 27th we have scheduled for appearance before this committee at your invitation, Assistant Secretary McClellan, who is Assistant Secretary for Foreign Commerce, together with Mr. Borton, and those other people in that area. Mr. Moss. It still has a direct bearing on this office. I am very much interested in what it does-what we get for even the small bud- get that we have for the Office of Strategic Information. Apparently we are down now to the field where you are actually operating. Have you evolved any material as guidelines to agencies? If a department receives a request from one of the Communist-bloc nations for certain publications, is that referred to you, or have you referred to them a policy suggestion? Mr. SEAGO. The latter in most instances. Mr. Moss. And in what form are those policy suggestions made ~ Mr. SEAGO. That one policy was the one about which I spoke this morning. Mr. Moss. That is the one publication we have? Mr. SEAGO. That is right. (See exhibit XVII.) PAGENO="0156" 1-270 INF&R~ATI0N FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS A~tD AOENCIE& Mr. Mo~s. ~ut it doesn't actually provide any effective control?' Mr. SEAGO~ No, none whatsoever. Mr. Moss. In administering the Export Control Act, then~ there have been d~eloped criteria for trying to bring about an exchange of information in return for a license to export certain types of technical data from this country and, that is administered outside of your agency? Mr. SEAGO, The Export Control Act is administered outside of our office. Mr. Moss. And it is a program of trying to promote an exchange of informatibn that is administered outside of and independently, in all respects, of your office. Mr. SEAGO. Well, I would think so. Mr~ Moss. Mr. Meader- Mr. MEADER. Mr. Seago, I am trying to follow this line of ques- tioning of the chairman to relate the operation of Mr. Borton's office on export control under a statute to your office~ which seeks in the first place to limit the amount of nonclassifléd material being exported or being available to the Soviet. Mr. SEAGO. Mr. Borton's office~ Mr. MEAD~ER. No; I am speaking now of trying to get the relation- ship between your activities and those of the agency in your De- partment administering the Export Control Act. I presume that in a sense your objectives are identical. Is that correct? Mr. SEAGO. I would think so. - Mr. MEAnER. Only they operate under a statute which wishes to deny to th~ enemy, or potential enemy, information and strategic materials that may be of benefit to them. Mr. SEAGO. There is nothing inconsistent there, because we deal with unclassified and published information in this instance, and they have granted a general license for that to be freely disseminated. Mr. MEA~ER. In other words. they do not attempt to limit the ex- port of noiaclassified information, is that correct? Mr. SEAGO. I think that is correct. Mr. OvERT0N, As I say, Mr. Congressman, the people who have intimate knowledge of this will be here on the 27th but it is my under- standing that the export control geheral license does confine the limits beyond which `technical data of a certain content should not be freely transshipped abroad. Mr. Seago's operation is not dupli- catory of ~he export control function because they are controlling and be is interested in exchange aspects-when something goes out that falls within the framework of the general license provisions then he is interested in securing a quid pro quo return to the United States.. Mr. Moss. What leverage does he have at that point? Mr. SEAGO. I have no leverage. Mr. Moss. As long as the license has been granted they can export the technical information and nothing you say or do, suggest or what- ever you might do, would have any bearing on it. Mr. SEAOO. Lunderstand neither question. Mr. Moss. You say they' control and therefore it is not a duplica- tion of your function. Mr. SE~GO. That is right. PAGENO="0157" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMEWi~S AND AGENCIES 1271 Mr. Moss. You try to bring about &n exchar~ge with the country seeking to export from the United States? Mr. SEAGO. That is right. Mr. Moss. Certain type information, and then you go directly to the country or you go to the State Department. How do you make your contact to try to arrange for this exchange? Mr. SEAGO. We do not go to anybody, Mr. Chairman. We have issued-and I say "we," it is the Secretary of Commerce, has issued that~ guideline that we spoke about this morning ai~d they follow that guideline. By "they," I mean the various executive offices. And they are not bound to follow it. If they have any questions about the following of that guideline, then they might call us. Mr. Moss. You say the Secretary of Commerce has issued the guidelines. Mr. SEAGO. Yes. Mr. Moss. That gets me back to this very interesting thing you have here. SEc. 2. The authority vested in the Secretary of Commerce by the National Security Council with respect to the matters described in section 3 below is hereby redelegated to the Director of the Office of Strategic Information. Mr. Seago, anything like this would be issued through the Secretary of Commerce. Why did they delegate the authority to you, then? Mr. SEAGO. I think that since the discussion has developed here about that departmental order, we could very well take a look at that for clarifying it. `Mr. Moss. It just has interesting possibilities, I might observe. What do you do, then, that couldn't be done just as effectively under the Export Control Act-done by those who are charged with the responsibility of administering that? Mr. SEAGO. I see no reason why it couldn't have been assigned to any particular group. It happened to be assigned to my group. Mr. Moss. Well, I asked the question because one of the instructions delegated to the Government Operations Committee by law is to deter- mine the economy and efficiency of the operations of agencies of the Government. If there appears to be duplication, it certainly is the responsibility of the committee to examine into the need for a dupli- eation. During the morning it seemed to be very difficult to tie down the function of this agency in the domestic field and there seemed to be nuch emphasis on the point that there was this function in the for- dgn field, with regard to the exchange of information. All I want tO know is what we are getting for our dollars and our ~ffort in this field that we could not get just as readily without OSI. You say in the export control program that they also try to encour- ~ge an exchange of information. Mr. SEAGO. Mr. Chairman, they do that upon suggestion made by ur Office, just as any other Government office might do the same. Mr. Moss. Is the net result of some 18 months operation of the )ffice of Strategic Information, is the net final Product of all of the ffort, time and dollars, this one publication which suggests that it ii~ht be wise in any exchange of information, or in any export of ~iformation abroad, to try to encourage th~i exchange of information PAGENO="0158" 1272 IN$RMATION FROM `FEDERAL DEPAEThiENTh AND AGEN~T~$ commg into the United States ~ Is that the final end product of all of the en~rgy that has been put forth on the part of the Office of Strategic Information? Mr. SEAGO. There are a good many areas that are under study. This is on~ that ha~ reached a point of interim finality, you might say. It has reached a point of where we are trying to operate the thing, where we are' trying to make the thing work. Mr. Mdss. Could you briefly summarize for us some of the other areas now under study where you hope to have some final recommen~ dations? S Mr. SE~oo. Yes. There is for instance in this exchange area un~ published~ information which is nonclassified and that exists on both sides. S We are working on a policy, or guidelines in that area. Mr. Mobs. How closely do you coordinate with the National Science Foundation? Mr. SEAG0. The National Science Foundation has a member on our committee. Mr. Moss. Have there been recommendations put before your com- mittee for a study, as a result of the interests of the National Science' Foundation in getting more information about scientific progress or technological progress in the Iron Curtain countries? Mr. S~Aoo. Not specifically, if I remember correctly, but there are certainly such suggestions made to the committee for study~ Mr. Mess. Do you have any timetable on these things? Mr. SEAG0. No, Mr. Chairman; we do not. There is another study and that is the necessary dissemination of the information we are beginning to get back Mr. Moss. Well now, isn't that a function which~ was originaily assigned' to the National Science Foundation to collect and dissemi- nate scie~itific information, aid in getting that out? - Mr. S~AGO. I am not competent to answer you in full. I would doubt that they have been assigned the job of getting out economic information and technical information. This area, you see, covers scientific, technical, economic and perhaps there is one other term of it. Mr Moss But in the field of scientific information, we can assume they have that responsibility. Mr. S~AGO. I am unaware of any particular point. Mr. ]~4oss. You haven't any other agency in the Department of Commerce charged with the responsibility of collecting statistical data on fore4gn countries, compiling it and making it generally known? Mr SEAGO As I understand it, not in foreign countries, no Mr. Moss. Is this a duplicating function? Mr SFAGO Well, I would not think so, because the information thai we try to get back by exchange is that information which is not ir this conntry. S Mr Moss Now what information have we gotten back? You huv cited the instance of certain labor statistics this morning. Mr $~ao We have many instances of it I happen to have om here 4. firm asked for advice on handling an order for their hous organ from Czechoslovakia A review was made of the publication of the Czechoslovakian firm.. PAGENO="0159" I~ORMATION FR01\~f FEDERAL DEPARTMENTh AND AGENCIES 127& Mr. Moss. I didn't catch the first part of that. Mr. SEAGO. A firm here in our country asked for advice on handiing~ n order for their house organ from Czechoslovakia. A r~view was ade of the publications the Czechoslovakian firm had produced, to etermine what was not available to the United States and it was sug-- ested they furnish the requested information and asked for certain navailable information in return. These publications are periodic nd we have now been receiving from them the Czech publications for he last 6 months. Mr. Moss. That is a case where an American business had a request o the Czechoslovakian company to be placed on the mailing list foi' heir house organ. In turn, they asked for some cooperation from he Czechs to be put on their list? Mr. SEAGO. A request for information which we were not getting. Mr. Moss. Do you receive requests in this field from individuals nd governments-what do you have abroad to determine information e are not receiving abroad? Mr. SEAGO. There is a unit established at the Library of Congress hich prepares a want list and they are to receive from Government, usiness, and industry, items which they are, which are not available. uch of the information which that want unit prepares is from a ocument they have now been able to get out of the bloc- Mr. Moss. Who pays for this? Is it a part of the Department of Jommerce or are they carried under the Library of Congress? Do hey operate under the Office of Strategic Information? Mr. SEAGO. They work with the Office of Strategic Information inder a contract, ai~d the Department of Commerce pays for that ~ork. Mr. Moss. Theu this is a staff function of the Office of Strategic uformation, handled under contract by the Library of Congre~s? Mr. SEAGO. Yes. Mr. MEADER. I understand that you have lists prepared by the `ibrary of Congress of those documents we have received? Mr. SEAGO. And of that which we want to get. Mr. MEADER. Also the want list. They are both handled by the ~ibrary of Congress; is that correct? Mr. SEAGO. I am not sure the Library of Congress keeps any par- c~lar record of the things we have received. We could make up Ech a list as that, I think, ourselves. Mr. MEAnER. I thought this document you gave us this morning id that anybody who got any of this exchange information was .pposed to report it to the Library of Congress? Mr. SEAGO. I don't remember it exactly that way. I would have review with my staff executive how the mechanics of that one item e worked. Mr. MEADER. Do you have prepared by the Library of Congress otherwise a list of those documents we have received under this change program? S Mr, SEAGO. I think we could prepare such; yes. Mr. MEADER. Could you furnish that to the committee? Mr. S~uo. Yes; in due course. It will take some time to pre- re it. ~{r. MEAnER. You have already agreed to provide us with the~ nt list this morning. PAGENO="0160" 1274 INI4OEMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AG~NCN~ Mr. S~AGO. The way the matter is worked, we can give you tha information. Mr. MErciniLL. Will you indicate the source, where the informatio eame from, whether it came from business, like the illustration yo just gave, or whether it came from other Government agencies? 0 the data you received. Mr. SEAGO. If I understand your question, I think we can do that (See exhibit I.) Mr. M~ADER. Now~ one other thing, Mr. Seago. This guide on ex change olf information requires agencies of the Government to furnis you with any blanket agreements or formal exchange agreement they ma~ enter into with Iron Curtain countries. Do you have an such agreements? Mr. SEAGO. That is a new study and that is for the purpose o i~valuating this material that we are getting back. There is not muc use to get it back unless you evaluate it and that is one of the thing we have been doing in that area. Mr. MEADER. I don't think I made my question clear. Item 5 (a) says this: Exchar~ge agreements or arrangements: There are instances in which agen des will *ant to draw up a formal exchange agreement. The fi~ial sentence in that paragraph says: Information concerning all new formal exchange agreements should be fur nished to the 051. Now this was March 7, 1956. Mr. MEAnER. Do you have any such agreements? Mr. ~EAGO. I am not sure, if any, how many have come through We wil~ find out. Mr. I~Ii~&m~i~. If there have been some, you should know about it shouldr~'t you? Mr. SEAGO. There is a little bit of work done around the staff an I just dpn't recall that one of those has come through. Mr. MEAnER. Does that contemplate that the Defense Department for example, would enter into a formal agreement with the Sovie Embassy here, to exchange information? Is that what you contem plate by that paragraph? Mr. SEAGO. Not necessarily. Any of the departments and agen cies, I am advised, over many years, unless there are strained rela tions, they do enter into formal and informal arrangements abou the ex4~hange of information, and in order to evaluate what is coin ing and going in that area, it has been worked out through the coin mittee that this office be furnished information on the volume th~ is being carried on in that way. Mr. MEAnER. This idea of exchanges in information, either class fled or nonclassified information- Mr. SEAGO. Nonclassified. Mr. MEADER. It strikes me as an innovation. Am I correct? this the first time, to your knowledge, anything of this charact has been attempted? Mr) SEAnO. Since this period of strained relations, you might sa it hasf been felt in Government that it has been a one-way street inforrhation going to the bloc. PAGENO="0161" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES, 1275 Mr. MEAnER. Until this development creating your office, as far as you know, there was np attempt to trade or swap information? Mr. SEAGO. There has always been some effort to trade and swap information. I don't think there is any question about that. Mr. MEADER. At least not formalized to the extent there is a Gov- ernment agency. with responsibility for controlling the exchange of information? Mr. SEAGO. There is no control here. There has been no formali- zation of the study of it; that is right. Mr. MEADER. un other words, for about a year, this exchange of information program has been in effect and as far as you know, prior to that time there was no formal attempt on the part of our Government to make any exchange of information on a formal basis? Mr. SEAGO. With the Soviet bloc, that is right. There has been no coordinated attempt. This is the first time there has been a sort of coordination of efforts in that area. Mr. Moss. Has OSI ever had occasion to say to some business firm in this country, "In our judgment, you shouldn't perhaps send this in- formation abroad." Mr. SEAGO. I think perhaps we could find such examples. I don't remember. any, but we might well find such examples in the office. Mr. Moss. What happens if the individual decides, "Well, in my judgment, I should, and I will"? Mr. SEAGO. He would do as he wishes. Mr. Moss. How do you inform business, industry, educational in- stitutions, research groups, that you have this service available? Mr. SEAGO. Well actually there is an awareness about this that is surprising to me because since I have been here, there has been very little done about that. Mr. Moss. I would say that is a mild understatement. ,It seems to me that there is an awareness of an organization far more powerful and far-reaching than the one you have described to us here today. Mr. SEAGO. Well, I am surprised, too, because there is hardly any- thing we have done except to answer requests for information that have come into our office. Before I came to the office I am sure there were some efforts toward creating an awareness of the problem and I think you agree that there is a problem of the flow of this information to the Soviet bloc without a corresponding amount coming back. Mr. Moss. Yes, I don't think anyone would challenge that. The only question in my mind is a lacking of leverage and there is a lacking of leverage. Mr. SEAGO. We have no leverage to compel any of these suggestions. Mr. Moss. Apparently we cannot refuse permission to let the infor- mation go out. Really, then, it is a matter of just nice cordial rela- ions. Mr. SEAGO. Which I think has been effective. Mr. Moss. Are we getting much more than we were getting before? Mr. SEAGO. We think so and we think we can produce information ;o indicate it. Mr. Moss. As I recall when we had the scientific panel before the ~ommittee, a number of publications were shown us containing scien- ~ific information, published by the Soviet Government, exchanged Lpparently quite freely with American scientists. 69222-56--pt. 6-11 PAGENO="0162" 1276 IN~ORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES In this instance, I think in the fi'eld of astronomy, or astrophysics. It is my understanding that none of that information had been in any way reverted to your agency. Do you have any way of knowing about the mass of material that might be coming in on a regular ex- change basis? Has there been any contact made with some of the in- dividuals who might well be making use of information of that type? Mr. SEAGO. I think over a time there have been many contacts with scientists Mr. M~ss. What have you done since you became Director of the Office of Strategic Information, to make these contacts? Mr. SEAGO. Let me suggest one thing that occurred before I came to the Office. Early In the operation of OSI, the studies indicated that the export control rogulations unduly restrict the free exchange of scientific and educational information. OSI recommended the relaxation of the controls on scientific and educational information to permit a freer flow of tins type of information This recommendation was adopted and it ihcluded correspondence, attendance at or participation in scientific, meetings, and instruction in the academic institutions and laboratoiies. I can ~ay further that there has always been a better ex~haiige in the pure scientific area than there has been in the, for instance, tech- nical and economic areas. Mr. Moss. That indicates the OSI recemmended the freeing of restrictions to permit more information to come in and go out. But there have been no actual contacts? Mr. S1~AGO. There have been contacts. Mr. Moss. How? Mr. S~IAGO. I made a speech to the American Chemical Society one time. * Mr. Moss. That is the only contact? Mr. S~AGO. Prior to my time, there were a good many contacts. Mr. Moss. You have been in the Office now for about 11 months? Mr. SEAGO. Yes. Mr. ~oss. You have been in operation for what, about 18? Mr. SEAGO. I think it has been about that. Mr. Moss. So for the major part of the time, you have been Dire~toi of the Office? Mr. SEAG0. Yes. Mr. gEADER. Mr. Chairman, might I ask a question at this point? Mr. ~[oss. Surely. Mr. MEADER. Mr. Seago, can you give us an example of informatioi received from the iron Curtain countries as a result of an exchange such as is provided for in your guide? Mr. SEAGO. Yes. I just read one and I think I can read anothei There is a large industrial research laboratory here in the countr~ that ha~ been following somewhat this same policy for the last severa years. They have bad some very fruitful exchanges with the Sovie bloc. It has been somewhat of a pilot-plant operation and we hay been fo~lowing it closely. Now as I indicated a little while ago, we will give you a list o these. PAGENO="0163" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1277 Mr. MEAnER. I am trying to determine a little more specifically the type of information we have gotten. Have we gotten some informa- tion about their handling of labor relations or something? Mr. SEAGO. Yes, that is right. Mr. MEAnER. Give me some examples of what we have gotten and the benefit we have received from the information we got through this exchange program. Mr. SL&oo. If I may suggest, what I would like to do is furnish you a list of those items. We can do that. I do not have here a list of those documents we have received back. (See exhibit I.) Mr. MEADEn. Do you think we have gotten anything that has~ be~n helpful? Mr. SEAGO. Surely; Mr. MEADEE. What would you say is the most helpful piece Qf in- formation we have gotten through this exchange program? Mr. SEAGO. It would be difficult for me to say right here. Mr. MITCHELL. Is your Office qualified to judge? Mr. SEAGO. I don't believe that-to answer that yes or no would be impossible. The information would go to the agency that wanted it and then that agency would be the one that would value-place a value on what they received back. They were the ones who asked in the first instance to have it, under this suggested procedure. Mr. MEAn1~R. Some of our scientific witnesses in hearings w~ had a short time ago indicated they had received some very valuable in- formation, I think at Geneva, and there was no question of exchange- at least not any quid pro quo exchange, hut they felt they had gotten quite a lot of information that was useful to us, that had been deyel~ oped in the atomic field by Russian scientists. Mr. SEAG0. I think there was a spirit of quid pro quo there. Mr. MEADER. It wasn't done on any exchange basis, "I will give you this piece of information if you will give me that one." I am trying to get from you something specific that I can under- stand, of information that we have received as a result of this quid pro quo exchange program that has been of some use, either.. to the +overnment or to private industry in this country. I am surprised you can't name something specifically that you think s really valuable. Mr. SEAG0. There are many of those pamphlets that have onme back o various parts of Government. Mr. MEAnER. Can't you just cite any one that you thinlc is really vorth while? Mr. SEAGO. The Department of State on March 17, 1955, trans- iitted a note to the Soviet Embassy in Washington proposing~ e~- hange on a reciprocal basis of medical films. This initiative arose rom discussions between Major Shafer, of the Medical Corps, of the Valter Reed Hospital, and from the Medical Scientists Association. The Department received a note from the Soviet Embassy- Mr. Moss. Would you mind reading it a little louder? I didn't Ltch the name of the conference. Mr. SEAGO. It involves an exchange of medical film. It wasn't par- cularly a conference. It was discussions that were held between [aj. Paul Shafer, of the Medical Corps, of the Walter Reed Army ospital, and Professor Petrovsky, member of the Soviet Academy Medical Sciences. PAGENO="0164" 1278 INF~RM4T10N FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES The Department received a note from the Soviet Embassy Septem- ber 5, 1955, expressing Soviet agreement to part~icipate in an exchange of medical film, as proposed by the United States. It is contemplated that for the initial exchange, each country would make available 10 technical films on medical subjects. This exchange was completed, recently. Mr. M1~ADER. As I understand it, you say March 17, 1955? Mr. SE~oo. That is when the matter started ai7id the exchange was just now completed. Mr. MEADER. It took from March until September for them to arrive at ~an agreement and you say the 10 films have actually now been exchanged? Mr. SEAGO. Yes. Mr. MEADER. What did the OSI have to do with that? Mr. SE~oo. They coordinated the entire project. Mr. M~ADER. It sounds like something the State Department took up with the Soviet Embassy. Mr. ~S*Aoo. The matter was coordinated by our office. Mr. MEAnER. Aside from that exchange of medical film-and we still don't know what kind of medical films they were-is there any other instance where you think that we have actually benefited from this exchange? Mr. SEAGO. There are some publications which are very difficult to pronounce. We received some publications through a request that was made to one of the industries here, and those publications named here are- do you want me to try to read them? KozpOnti, Fizikai, Kutato, Intet, from Budapest. These publi~ cations ~were received and forwarded to the Library of Congress. Mr. MEADER. Do you know what they had to do with? Mr. SEAGO. In this instance I don't remember what they are, but they were requested by some department here in our Government. Mr. MITCHELL. Were they requested by your office, or how? Mr. SEAGO. No. Mr. MITCHELL. I think the Congressman is trying to determim the procedure as to how it is accomplished. Mr. Meader asked fo: an example of how it is being done. You left out there the facilitie or meaitis of transmission and exchange. Mr. MEADER. I wasn't so much interested in the procedure bu wheth* we had gotten any benefit out of this exchange. When yo read off all those letters in the alphabet and you don't know wha they a~e and neither do I, I don't see how we can tell. Mr. SEAGO. Someone in Government wanted that and it mean something to them. Mr. MEAnER. Whether it was of any advantage to us or not yo don't have the slightest idea, do you? At least I don't. Mr. SEAG0. Yes, I think it does. I think if they wanted somethin that was not in this country and they knew what they wanted. think ~t is of value to them. Mr. Moss. You know, I would just like to observe that after rea ing th~it alphabetical menagerie, I would like to see it, too. Mr. MEAnER. Mr. Seago, as I say, I am a little bit inti~igued aboi this idea of exchanging information on a kind of a bargaining basi PAGENO="0165" IMA~rroN ~O~t'~fl~1tAL 1~EPARTMENTS AN~D AGENCIES ~I~79 You can bargain for,, wheat or you can bargain for manganess or you can bargain for a lot of materia1~ but it is kind of unusual to bargain for ideas and information. This seems to me to be a kind of an innovation. Do you know of any of our allies who have an Office of Strategic Information similar to yours? Mr. SEAGO. We have thought that might be important to look into. Mr. MITCHELL. It is very hard to hear you. Mr. SEAGO. We thought that might be important to look into. We understand that they do carry on some such process as this, but we have no definite information. i~fr. MEADER. Do the British have anything that compares to OSI? Mr. SEAGO. I don't know whether they have anything that com- pares to OSI, but they have an exchange program'. Mr. MEADER. What is their exchange program like? Mr. SEAGO. From what I have understood, it is similar to this; it is an attempt to obtain information on a quid pro quo basis. Mr. MEADER. Who handles that? Mr. SEAGO. I don't know. Mr. MEADER. Do any of the Iron Curtain countries have anything comparable to OSI? Mr. SEAGO. I think you might answer that question this way, and that is that all of the publications there, unlike publications in this ~ountry, are on a controlled basis. Mr. MEADER. In other words, they have a full, complete, and open )ffice of censorship; is that correct? Mr. SEAGO. I think that is correct. Mr. MEADER. And that would be the closest parallel? Mr. SEAGO. It would be no parallel. Mr. Moss. Now I have just a few additional questions. I am intrigued by this exchange of film and your role as coordinator. ~s I understand it, this was brought about originally as a result of liscussion by an American officer in Walter Reed Hospital, and a mem- er of the Russian Academy of Science, or Medicine. There was a uggestion to the Department of State. How did you coordinate what would appear to be a historic func- ion of State to negotiate with the foreign government; Did State efer the request to OSI? Mr. SEAG0. I think that is what occurred; yes. Mr. Moss. We should be very certain in this, because I think it is iiportant in this study. Did they refer it to OSI, or did it come up s a result of State's representative on the Council of the Committee? Mr. SEAGO. I think, whether it came one way or the other, it would e all the same. Mr. Moss. Did State say to OSI, "We would like you to undertake oordination?" Then what did you do in coordinating? Mr. SEAGO. From whatever agency it came, it came from either tate or Defense and they suggested we coordinate the matter. Mr. Moss. How did you coordinate it? Mr. SEAGO. We brought the people together; we arranged for the )llection of films and exchange of them. Mr. Moss. Did you contact representatives of American medical coups or schools? Mr. SEAGO. Yes; we did. PAGENO="0166" 1280 INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEFARTMEN~S AND AGENCIES Mr. Moss. Did you then deal directly with the Russians? Mr. S~ao. No. You deal with them through the Department of State. Mr. Moss. Then you undertook a limited assignment from State to collect internally the material which State would propose to exchange wi~th the *ussiarl government? Mr. SEAG0. We took on a coordination of the problem there. Mr. Moss. Why couldn't this assignment have been handled just as easily by State? It is very difficult for me to get the picture of the role being played by OSI in what would appear to be a very normal and routine function of State. I imagine we have exchanges of edu- cational material with friendly governments-completelY friendly governments, within the Western bloc of nations. There must be a continuing exchange of much information. You don't coordinate that; do you.? Mr. SE~ao. No. Mr. Moss. So that the degree of coordination required in this in- stance, aside from that which State itself is capable. of giving, would seem to be somewhat of an exception, or an unusual procedure, rather than a normal one. Mr. SEAGO. Well, I think we need again to look at the question- we are in an area where there is a greater importance on technological, economic, and scientific information than ever before and there has been a struggle for it. Mr. Moss. What liaison do you have for maintaining contacts with foreign ~overnments? Mr. Si~Aoo. We do not have such. Mr. Moss. Then if you have a request, as a result of this list of wanted publications which has been developed by the staff of the Library of Congress, when you have a request from an American businessman to send his publication overseas, how do you contact, or whom do you contact, to arrange for an exchange? Do you go to State? Do you go to the American commercial attaches, or how do you do it ~ For a while we had a scientific attaché and I, for one, am very much disturbed that our Government has discontinued the American scien~ tific att~ché, at the same time that the Russians have adopted thE prografl~ and apparently are extending the system of assigning scien tific att~chés to their Embassies and consular offices. And we hav apparently abandoned the practice. Do you make these arrangements through our State Departmen foreign office representatives or do you make them direct? Mr. SEAGO. As I understand your question, you are asking, when a request has been received from the Soviet bloc by an America~ businessman- Mr. Moss. Yes. Mr. SEAGO. Well, in that instance, he is on his own unless be hap pens to' write in and ask us whether it is a good idea to furnish th jnforn1i~tion that has been requested of him. Mr. Moss. Let us suppose that the request was made-and this agai is something we apparently haven't very well defined in the discw sions because these publications, many of them, are available throug the Go~rernment Printing Office-suppose one of the Soviet blo PAGENO="0167" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1281 of nations comes down to the Government Printii~ig Office and wants 1,000 copies of publication X; is that referred to you? Mr. SEAGO. It has not been referred to us; no. Mr. Moss. Suppose they go to the Department of the Air Force and in~~dicate they would like to buy certain unclassified publications? Mr. SEAGO. In such volumes, the Department might well think- Mr. Moss. Suppose they only want to buy one. They do not want to arouse your interest and perhaps they feel they have means of duplicating them. They only want one of them; is that referred to you? Mr. SEAGO. Not the document, but the person who received such re- quest would be guided by this guide statement that has been prepared. Mr. Moss, What would he do? Mr. SEAGO. He would furnish the statement and ask for some- thing in return. Now heretofore, we have found, too often, state- ments were sent on without asking for anything in return. Mr. Moss. If he asks for it, then he is the one who is doing the negotiating with the foreign power? Mr. SEAGO. That is right. Mr. Moss. So that your role of coordinator in that instance is merely in the role of giving the original advice, saying that "It seems to us as though it would be sound and prudent policy to ask for something in exchange"? Mr. SEAGO. And if he for instance does not have anything that he would like to have then he would use our office to find out what else- where else in Government, there might be something wanted. Mr. Moss. And in the meantime, does he hold, up the request? Mr. SEAGO. Yes. Yes. Mr. Moss. So that you are only covering a very tiny area in this field. They can go down to the Government Printing Office and buy ~ publication and there is no effort there to secure an exchange? Mr. SEAGO. That is another area that is und,er study and we are bbout to work out some arrangements with the Government Printing )ffice to also suggest exchanges. Mr. Moss. Well, you can just go iu there and request a document. Mr. SEAG0. That is right, but we are working on plans and studies o try to get exchanges for what is purchased there. Mr. Moss. Do you mean a person going into the Government Print- ng Office to buy a document would have to indicate who he is? Mr. SEAGO. Yes. The State Department has already asked bloc epresentatives to identify themselves. Mr. Moss. Would you then have identified in the Government >rinting Office, a person coming in and asking for certain types of ublications, they will have to identify themselves but if they ask for ~her types of information they will not have to identify themselves? Mr. SEAGO. No. If they do not identify themselves, there is nothing iat they can do about it. If they are known to be representatives 1~ the bloc, it is very likely they will say, "Well, why don't you go and ~y and get this document from, for instance, the Department of Agri- miture, if it is an agricultural bulletin that you want," and there, ~at gives the Department of Agriculture an opportunity to ask for mething in return. PAGENO="0168" 1282 INFORMATIbN FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Mr Mo~s Isn~t it possible, if we go that far, we might be encourag- ing the use of anonymous individuals to purchase this material so that we lose track of some of the things we might be interested in ~ Mr. SEL~GO. There are bound to be some of those instances. Mr. Mr~cJIELL. Mr. Chairman, I believe the testimony next week will disclose that the Soviet Embassy has a general export license granted ot~ the export control law and that they practically back a car up down at the Government Printing Office. That has already been revealed to this committee through the good offices ~f Mr. Over- ton and the members of the Bureau of Foreign Commerce, and that they have every right to go down there to the Government Printing Office and get that data and in fact, do, every day. Mr. OVZRTON. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that I have no knowl- edge of hi~ving myself informed the committee or counsel with regard to this. Mr. M~TcHELL. Excuse me. You were not the one. It was Mr. Borton, of the Bureau of Foreign Commerce. Mr. OVERT0N. This is a matter of which I have no knowledge. Mr. MrrCHELL. I thought with this foundation, you could then explain to the chairman just how your office functions under the light of those facts, as far as the Office of Strategic Information is con- cerned. Mr. MEADER. Mr. Seago, I would like to direct your attention again. ta this ~tjide dated March 7, 1956. Is thls[the first guide issued by your office? Mr. SzAoo. Yes. Mr. M~ADER. There was no predecessor guide? Mr. SEAGO. No. Mr. MEADER. Let me direct your attention to item 6, the section which requires each agency to evaluate the information they have received in exchange, and item 7, reporting, which requires the agen- cies to report to the Library of Congress, and in item C under 7 it says- Agencies ~hou1d furnish 051 the evaluation report as described under paragraph ~i, at the ~nd of each quarter of the calendar year. Have you yet received any such reports? Mr. ~EAGO. No; that guide has just been put out and the 3 months period has not come about. Mr. MEADER. When will the first reports be due? Mr. SEAGO. I think in another 30 days. Mr. OvERT0N. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the counsel a question? I wanted to be sure that I understood him. Mr. Moss. Wait until Congressman Meader has concluded hi~ questions. Mr; OVERTON. Surely. I'm sorry. Mr. ~{EADER. So these two examples you have given us-the 1( medical films, and the others, this long name that nobody knows whal it mear~s, you do not have any other informal reports from agencie~ of information they have received as a result of this quid pro qw exchange which you think is very important? Mr. SRAGO. Not right here, but we can furnish them to you. Mr. MEADER. I am correct then that from your recollection an( your records, there are only two items-- PAGENO="0169" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1283 Mr. SEAGO. I think that would be unfair, Congressman. I cannot remember these details. There are a good many of them. Mr. MEADER. I don't know that it should be so unimportant. If you think this exchange program is valuable enough to go through all this process of issuing a regulation, or a guide, and you seem to contend that it is useful to us to make this exchange, I don't think it is too unreasonable to expect that you as a director of this program should have some knowledge about benefits that would be received as a result of the program. Mr. SEAGO. I think we can furnish a list of those benefits. Mr. MEADER. But you do not recall any other than these two exam- ples you have given to the committee, today? Mr. SEAGO. I cannot name them in detail. Mr. Moss. I think we should have the list, and your evaluation of the items on the list, because the list as such would be relatively meaningless to the committee. Mr. SEAGO. I think this is important. We would have to take the evaluation of the agency that asked for the particular document. That we would try to get. Mr. Moss. I would not care who does the evaluating. Mr. SEAGO. We would not attempt to evaluate each document. Mr. MEADER. Mr. Chairman. I do not want to belabor the point but it strikes me from listening to this testimony and it is all new to me, I have no previous familiarity with Mr. Seago's operation-here we have set up an agency to control to some degree, at least-maybe not by compulsion but at least by persuasion or advice and counsel- the dissemination of nonclassified information, both from the Govern- ment and from private business, and it seems to me one of the advan- tages, or claimed advantages of that control was the exchange of information of a nonclassifieci nature which we have, for information which the Soviet bloc countries have. The OSI has been in operation apparently well over a year, and it seems to me we ought to have some kind of a bill of particulars of the results that we have obtained from it, the benefit that we have received from this exchange program. Mr. SEAGO. I have the two comments. I agree with you. In addi- tion to that, this exchange program has only been gotten under way recently. It is not a year and a half old. It took time to get these things started. Mr. MEADER. If anyone in your Office of Strategic Information would know about these benefits, Mr. Seago, you would be likely to be the one, wouldn't you? Mr. SEAGO. As well as any of them; yes. Mr. MEADER. And you have four assistants? Mr. SEAG0. That is right. Mr. MEADER. Do you get out any periodic reports to the Secretary )f Commerce, or anyone, on your operations, your achievements and your expenditures and so on? Mr. SEAG0. We make a semiannual report to the Interdepartmental Jommittee on Internal Security. / Mr. MEADER. When was the most recent report made? Mr. Si~oo. About a month ago. Mr. MEADER. Do we have a copy of that report, Mr. Counsel? PAGENO="0170" 1284 INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Mr. M~rcni~a~i,, I didn't hear which report he was referring to. Mr. SEAG0. That was a report to ICIS. That came out about a month ago. It is classified. Mr. Mm~AnER. it is classified? Mr. Si~o. Yes. Mr. MI~ADER. I thought it was unclassified. Mr. SE~&oo. My report to the Committee on Internal Security would be classified. Mr. Moss. What classification do you assign to it? Mr. SEAGO. I think it was confidential. Mr. Moss. And that is under Executive Order 10501? Mr. Si~oo. Yes. Mr. Mess. And you yourself classified it, because you originated the repoi~t? Mr. Si~Aoo. We classified it ourselves. Mr. M~ss. This is your progress report? Mr. S1~Aoo. That is correct. Mr. M~ADER. A report on the operations of your agency. Mr. S1~AGo. Yes. Mr. MEADER. Why should there be anything confidential about that? Mr. Si~Aoo. I think communications back and forth between that Committee and our office have always been on a classified basis. Mr. TV~ITCHELL, Will you spell out the correct name of that com- mittee p~ease? Mr. S~AGo. Interdepartmental Committee on Internal Security. Mr. Moss. The Interdepartmental Committee on Internal Security? Mr. S~A~o. Yes. Mi~. Moss. And you report to them on the progress of the Office of Strategic Information, an agency dealing entirely with unclassified information which could have a strategic value? Mr. S~oo. Yes. Mr. ~Eoss. Now I am very much interested in why, in your judg- ment, a~d in this instance it must be your judgment because under Executi'~e Order 10501, you are the classifying authority-Why in your ju~1gment must that progress report be a document classified iii the intei~ests of the security of the United States? Mr. SEAGO. I think that- Mr. Moss. That is the only criteria you could use under ExecutivE Order 10501 fix that number in the other two occasions back there~ Mr. SEAGO. I think in this area it would be wrong to furnish thai information to possible enemies. Mr. Moss. You are trying to bring about an exchange of informa tion. You say that is all you are trying to do. Mr. $EAGO. That is not quite correct, Mr. Chairman. We wer~ studying these other areas. Mr. 1'qlloss. Well, frankly, I believe almost anyone who looks at th record ~f the hearings, today, would be forced to almost the same con elusion that I have reached, that virtually your entire operation is ii developing this program of exchange of information. Now, I would like you to tell us what particular types of informa tion in that report would warrant the security classification, am what classification do you assign to it? PAGENO="0171" INI~ORMATJON FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1285 Mr. SEACO. Much of the matter contained in that report affects ou~ national security, and, accordingly, in my judgment it should have~ been classified. Mr. Moss, Much of it affects our national security, coming from an agency dealing entirely in nonsedurity information. Well, we will arrange for a properly cleared member of this staff to review that report, because one of the things that we have to go into is the possible abuses of classifying under the guise of the security of the United States. I hope that his findings bear out the wisdom of your classification, because at the moment I am strongly of the opinion that this is prob- ably an example of abuse of the privilege of classification. It would be difficult for me to imagine how a progress report, in an agency of this type, would have any great bearing upon the national seëurity, but I feel that it may have a very important bearing upon the economy and efficiency of the operation of the agency, and that, in my opinion, is not a national-security question. (See exhibits X, XI, and XII; also discussion of declassification of 051 Progress Reports at ~ubcom- mittee hearings June 11, 1956.) Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Moss. Mr. Mitchell------ Mr. MITCHELL. Only one further question on this subject, but the staff of this subcommittee has constantly received telephone calls and information that the psychological effect of an NSC directive which is not available and which this morning we were told is classified, when waved in the eyes of Government employees, forces them to withhold information which would ordinarily not come under Executive Order 10501, and the mere fear of an NSC directive forces the employee to withhold information. This is practically across the board in Government service because the OSI goes into practically every agency, as you have seen from the list of representatives on the two advisory committees that they have in the Government. Mr. Seago, could you please comment on that for the benefit of the ~ommittee 9 Mr. OVERTON. Mr. Counsel, I assume that you are going to put in the record the list of those phone calls and from whom they were received as well as the letters and the other communications. Mr. Moss. That would be entirely within the determination of the ommittee. Mr. OVERTON. I was merely asking a question, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MITCHELL. Refer to the one specific one which was brought up his morning, in the Aviation article right here, right now. "If the OSI is to have authority over us," one office has said, "then let the ~ational Security Council promulgate such a policy and we will follow it." By the way, the situation is now, OSI is reviewing what we have already eviewed and telling us what can and cannot be done with it, and we damn ight know a lot more about these things than they do. They are rapidly be~ caning a governmentwjde office of censorship. There is a clear-cut one, right there. Mr. SEAGO. Yes, Mr. Mitchell, and I denied those comments, this iorning. PAGENO="0172" 1286 INFCRMAflON. FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS ANP AGENCIES Mr. Mr1~duELL. You are going to give us a full report, surely, at * the reques1~ of the chairman, on this whole transaction; is that correct? Mr. SEApO. Yes. Mr. MI*~HELL. You will include that in your report? Mr. SEAOO. Yes, we can. (See exhibit I.) Mr. Moss. Mr. Meader, have you any questions? Mr. ME4DER. I think not. Mr. Moss. Mr. Mitchell. Mr. Mridn1~LL. That is all.. Mr. Moss. Mr. Seago, we thank you for your appearance here, and the cQrnmittee is now finished with your agency for the moment. We will have some specific requests to you, and one of those will be a request for a member of the staff to review carefully the progress reports wl~ich are at the moment classified. Mr. SE4GO. We will be glad to have them do so. Mr. Moss. The next witness will be Mr. Leman, Director of Pub- lie Inforiiiation for the Department of Commerce. STATEMENT OP ALEERT N. LEMAN, DIRECTOR OP INFORMATION, DEPARTMENT OP COMMERCE Mr. Moss. Mr. Leman, will you give us a brief biographical sketch? And then I understand you have a prepared statement you would like to read. Mr. LIIMAN. My name is Albert Leman. I was born in Rockport, Mass.; educated in the public schools and attended Boston Univer- sity. I left Boston University to enlist in the First World War. During the First World War, among my services overseas were some matters connected with G-2, the Intelligence Section. I have been a newspaperman most of my life. I began as a reporter on a small paper-then became a reporter on a large paper, a feature writer, a foreign correspondent, and an editor of the Boston Post in Boston, Mass. I have been a free-lance writer for numerous other publications. I have be~n the editor in chief of the McClure Newspaper Syndicate in New `york, As such, I handled very many different kinds of news, including foreign news, political news, business news, and so forth. I have been in addition a public official, an elected public official in a municipality. I have served in the office of the Governär of Massa- chusetts as one of the secretaries. I have been connected with Gov Sherman Adams and others in the pre-Eisenhower campaign beforE Chicago, in regard to publicity and newspaper work. I have served on General Eisenhower's advsiory staff after the Chi cago convention. I came to Washington as the assistant to the As sistant to the President-in other words, to Gov. Sherman Adams And ~ince the 20th of March, I think, but since March 1953, at an~ rate, I ~iave been the Director of Public Information for the Corn merce Department. I am also the assistant to the Secretary of Corn merce. Now with your kind permission, I have a statement along th lines of what I would like to have you hear. The chairman of the House Committee on Government Opera tions, in his initial letter chartering this subcommittee, stated the charges have been made that Government agencies have denied o PAGENO="0173" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIE~S 1287 withheld pertinent and timely information to newspapers, radio, tele- vision, and magazines. lie requested the scrutiny of information practices of the administration and the disclosure of any evidence of unjustifiable suppression of information or distortion or slanting of facts. I welcome the opportunity to set forth to this committee the policies and practices of the Commerce Department in respect to material avail- able to press, radio, television, publications, and other communica- tion media. We sincerely believe that the American people have a right to know the truth about the Commerce Department and that the Department has the responsibility to make that truth accessible to various press media. And when I refer to "press" hereafter, I mean radio, televi- sion, and all the media. Mr. Moss. I wonder if you would mind if I just inject the state- ment that the committee is specifically charged with inquiring into the information practices of the executive branch, the independent agencies, and not the administration. Mr. LEMAN. I referred to the whole administration rather than the legislative or the judicial. Mr. Moss. Most important to us, we are not charging that these practices have developed under any one administration. Mr. LEMAN. I understood that. Mr. Moss. It is well to state clearly on the record that it is the executive branch. Mr. LEMAN. Surely. That is all right. Mr. MEADER. We are just trying to make it perfectly clear that both Democrats and Republicans when they are in charge of the ex- ecutive branch of the Government may have a tendency to suppress information, and we would like to give a little nonpartisan color to this area. Mr. LEMAN. I understand. The information which the public learns about government can be misinformation and therefore detrimental to the general welfare Linless it is accurately given and truthfully reported. We do not listort or suppress news. Except for a few categories to which ac- ~ess is limited by law and restricted in the public interest-which ~vill be described later-we maintain an open-door policy on Gov- ~rnment information. One of the major functions of the Department is the collection, inalysis, and distribution to the public of facts, statistics, censuses, urveys, charts, reports, scientific and technological data, and other nformation. The very names of some of our agencies emphasize his public service: Weather Bureau, Office of Business Economics, 3ureau of the Census, National Bureau of Standards, and so forth. I repeat, we do not suppress news. In fact, for instance, we have Lot only the duty but the satisfaction of continually reporting the rogress of the all-time record prosperity which this nation now njoys. If desired later, I shall be willing to spell out the organized sys- un maintained by the Department to make its vast collection of iformation available to the press. In a nutshell, we provide the iw materials and the press selects information to fit its own require- tents. For example, reports on certain commodities may be of inter- PAGENO="0174" 1288 INFORMATION FROM F]~DERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES est only t~ a certain limited number of trade publication~. But the latest repbrt that March employment jumped half a million and was the highest March on record was of interest to nearly everyone. Our receflt report that busines plant and equipment expectations for 1956 a~re 22 percent above last year's expenditures was front-page news. We are constantly examining our accumulation of fact~ to see if we can improve their dissemination. We are using huge electronic computers at the Census Bureau to speed up certain economic re- porting. Approximately 3,000 publications_ranging from booklets to press releases-were turned out last year. Daily contact with the press is centered in the Department's newsroom and in the contact points 0ft the various agencies. Additional contacts are by tele- phone, letters, and personal interviews. Speeches, statements, brief- ings, TV~radio appearances and press conferences are frequent. So much for what may be described as the standard information functions of the Department in relation to the press. Now fOr a few thoughts directly on the general scope of Govern- ment information accessible to the press and certain limitations placed thereon by law, tradition, and sound practice. I apprøach the subject from a personal background which. covers a lifetime of reporting and editing, including Washington experience as a pri~ate syndicate editor during the administrations of Presi- dent ~Roo~evelt and Truman, and as a Federal Government informa- tion dire~tor in the administration of President Eisenhower. I also have attended some of the hearings of this subcommittee, at which newspapermen testified, and have discussed the subject of Govern- ment information with many members of my own former profession. Naturally, as an ex~newspaperman, I am proud that the editors of this country are ardent champions of freedom of speech and freedom of the press and have so effectively stated their position to this subcommittee. They l~now from long history that the tool of tyranny is the muzzle, In our oiwn day they have seen great newspapers silenced and writers exiled or tortured in concentration camps. Stalin, Hitler, and Peron- all three-snuffed out, free press and perverted journalism to govern- ment pi~opaganda and falsehood. / No such threat confronts this nation today. Editors understand from experience that the tendency of official~ in timid government, blundering government and corrupt govern nient at every level is to "cover up'~ and to duck scrutiny by inquirin~ reporters. E~ery champion of freedom owes a debt of gratitude t the age1long persistence of the press to get the new.s about all kind of government. In my opinion, the executive branch is cooperatin~ with th~ press both in spirit and in practice. But ~veryone who has studied this question thoroughly and earn estly co~nes to realize that the problem of providing truthful infoi mation about government is not a simple problem. The committe already has performed a public service in focusing renewed attentio. on the subject. The problem is as old as the Republic. Its definition never have been clearly formulated or accepted over the years b all of the press. It is further complicated by the giant size of moder government; the expansion of private records-like income-tax dat PAGENO="0175" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1289 of which the Government is custodian; the hazards of cold war with new perils resulting from scientific and technological progress; the requirement of a certain amount of secret diplomacy affecting foreign relations; the need for confidential advice in the discharge of executive duties; and other factors. In addition, there is the obligation of the conscientious public official. He strives to conduct his affairs properly. He wants the public to have a reliable record of his policies and programs not only because the public has a right to know the truth but also because unless it receives the truth it cannot render fair judgment on his stewardship. However, a conscientious public official must act in the public interest. That duty impels him at times to wIthhold some specially defined types of information from indiscriminate disclosure. To do otherwise could constitute a betrayal of trust and often an exposure of security. It is in this narrow zone that the press and public officials some- times have sincere differences of opinion. They always have recog- nized the problem. Progress is steadily being made in solving some parts of the problem. More progress is likely if each respects the other's integrity of purpose. So far as the Department of Commerce is concerned the press has access to a stream of information produced daily by different agen- cies. But there are three limited categories of information which are not fully available to the press-and, I believe, never have been since the establishment of the Department in 1913. The committee probably will find that somewhat similar categories have been spec- tfled over many years in other executive branch agencies and also in the Congress and the courts. They are: 1. National security information-required by law or executive )rder to carry a security classification. ~. Information made confidential by statute-certain private busi- iess data furnished on pledge of secrecy, applications for patents tnd other material whose publication is prohibited by law. 3. Internal working papers of the executive branch-such as ad- risory opinions, interoffice memoranda, personnel files, preliminary [rafts of recommendations of subordinates, reports on legislation o be submitted to Bureau of the Bud~et, Congress, etc. Disclosure in many cases not only would violate the law and make haotic the orderly housekeeping of Government but also would be ontrary to the public interest. But Commerce Department policy is o keep such categories as limited as possible. Release is effected as ast as reasons justifying nondisclosure no longer pertain. The establishment in the Commerce Department of a relatively ew Office of Strategic Information has aroused some interest in the ublishing field. A full description of its objectives has been sched- led for others to give to his committee. Since its inception this Office has not recommended any arbitrary artailment in the flow of Government information to the press from )epartment agencies. It has been in close and frequent consultation ith the Office of Public Information as it has carried forward ita udies and determined certain areas of o'uidance to executive branr t~ ~encies in the field of Government pubI~ications. PAGENO="0176" 1290 IN~iORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES The cui~rent keynote of its major effort is exploratory in relation to the functions committed to it by the National Security Council. I continues~to welcome suggestions from the press and other ~nterested parties on how best to approach the subject of certain borderline in- formation, whose release might be of significant strategic value to an enemy, without jeopardizing the freedom of the press. The problem, of course, is accentuated by the character of a free democracy and the nature of cold-war technology. Arguments o great validity and sincerity can be advanced on both sides of th question. It behooves those concerned with the freedom of ideas an the survFfral of civilization to recognize the problem, to study feasibl solutions! and to initiate constructive thinking on the entire subject In con~lusion, to sum up the Department's relations with the press Excepting only such restricti6n established by law or sound practic as necessary in the public interest, the policy of the Department o Commerce as determined by the Secretary, is an open-door polio with full and free access by the press to Government information so that the public may know the truth. During the noon recess, counsel for your committee asked for cer- tain correspondence. I should be very glad to give you the originals~ though TI have no copies. Mr. M~ITCHELL. Could you read them into the record? Mr. LEMAN. They are considerably long. Perhaps you could ex- amine tl4em and determine what you would like to do with theni, Mr. Moss. I would like to take this opportunity to point out thE f act that this committee is cOncerned not only with the withholdint of or control of information as it relates to the press, but also t( business, industry, science, education, the public generally, and th Corigrese, itself. Mr. LEMAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that. You understan' I am speaking primarily as what might be called in the governor' office or some place else, a press secretary. The matters that go ou to the p~iblic through the various channels of the press media. Mr. Moss. We are also very much interested in the availability o informattion which may not he generally reported on by the Inf or mation Office of the Department. Mr. LEMAN. I will be very glad to answer insofar as I can. Th information that would be available to the press and the variou media of the press, is that right? * Mr. Moss. Information and general availability to whoever migh desire i~. Mr. J41~n~AN. I will do what I can and if there is some area in whic I am n*t qualified to answer, I will be pleased to secure the infoi mation.I Mr. Moss. I notice you cited some limitations placed thereon by lay Mr. J~JEMAN. Yes. A quick illustration. Mr. Moss. I was going to continue: "or tradition." Mr. t~EMAN. Yes. Mr. Moss. And sound practices. Mr. LEMAN. Yes. Mr. Moss. Now those placed by law, we may question the wisdo of the law and in fact we intend in some instances to question ti wisdom of the law and as a result of the studies of this committe we wilil probably make some recommendations for changes in the lai PAGENO="0177" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1291 Getting into the field of withholdings because of tradition- Mr. LEMAN. I will be very glad to answer that. You will understand in doing this, instead of preparing a great legal document as an attorney would and making citations, I con- densed it with the understanding that you probably would want me to explain the condensation. Mr. Moss. Mr. Leman, not being an attorney, I much more ap- preciate this presentation. Mr. LEMAN. You and I would have the problem of trying to make layman language acceptable to the attorneys, but this is what `I had. in mind: The tradition is the field of the executive powers, the sepa- ration of powers, the confidential working papers of the executive branch. Now in those, the public information duty of mine comes into the picture. The private working ~papers of the executive branch. Now sound practice in my mind would include what is specified later, the classified reasons for not giving material to the enemy and so forth, you see. Mr. Moss. Those are by law? Mr. LEMAN. Yes. Mr. Moss. The Executive orders of the President are in some re- ~pects law. Mr. LEMAN. I was referring to that as what would follow, as if I ~iad spelled it out in more detail, which I omitted. Mr. Moss. I wonder if you gave any thought to the effect, the im- )act of, well, really, 3 wars, in a brief span of years? What effect iave they had upon these traditions-traditions which are developed mder the pressure of war and continue into more peaceful times? Mr. LEMAN. I think that is a very good question because I have bought on that. You see, I have thought on it in this way: Not ~nly does it make more information, but more masses of information, because of the very size of our Government. Our Government, today, s as it was before, just concerned mainly with America; we have as- umed a world stature. We are part of a permanent alliance. We re the greatest power on earth and we are exerting leadership. Well, now all of, that has brought about a tremendous mass of ~overnment information, because the very nature of the expanding hing is the result of the three wars. It also makes on the other ide a great problem and that is the problem of the responsibility f the Executive. The Executive is duly elected-as the servant of ~ie people-to perform great duties in this kind of a world. And iat in turn, you see, places on the Executive a very, very important ~ing, the importance of getting much more advice, perhaps, than dght have been the case, before. Many more confidential advices a many intricate subjects. In the one case, it expands the horizon f information. In the other case, it places a great, great responsi- ility on the Executive-on what use we would make of this great iiount of advice that we might receive. Mr. Moss. And the very expansion of information under the con- ol of Government places upon Government a great responsibility be very diligent in seeing that that information is freely available the people who, after all, are in the final analysis the governors this type of republic or democracy. Mr. LEMAN. That is right. 69222-~6-pt. 6-12 - PAGENO="0178" 1292 INFQRMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Mr. Mo~s. I have other questions. However, I believe it would be more in tifle interest of orderly procedure to have Mr. Mitchell now undertake the questioning on points which he wishes to develop. Mr. MTTdnEr.L. Mr. Leman will you kindly refer to page ~ of your prepared statement? Mr. LEMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. MITCHELL. The first paragraph: I repeat, We do not suppress news. This cc~mmittee has had called to its attention, Mr. Chairman, a series of communications that have transpired between Mr. Leman, and the e~litor and publisher, Mr. Hinchey, of the Berlin Reporter, I think is the name of it, and also the National Weekly Newspaper Service in Kentucky. Mr. LEt&EAN. Is that the Stead letter that you are referring to? Mr. MITCHELL. Yes. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to read into the record a statement which was published by the National Weekly Newspaper Service, September 5, 1955, and which was carried throughout the country. Do I h~tve your permission, sir? Mr. Mpss. Certainly. Proceed. Mr. M4~'rc1iELrA (reading): The modt recent evidence of arbitrary censorship in the executive departmefl of the Government at Washington has run afoul of a congressional committee As a result, a full-dress probe of censorship in the name of security likely will be one of the burning issues in the 2d session of the 84th Congress. This latest evidence of peacetime censorship comes at the hand~ of Secretar: of Commerce Sinclair Weeks, who has' refused to make information relative t his Department available, either to the public or to a House Judiciar subcommittee. Secretary Weeks charged the House committee with playing politics, with a attack ag~iinst free enterprise. He said it was no business of the Congress t probe int~ the operations of his Business Advisory COuncil. The Secretary's arbitrary refusal is the result of the same kind of thinkin among sohie businessmen who have come Into the Government that has resulte during th~ past several months in the resignatioll of 2 or 3 Cabinet members- that what he does or his Department does is no business of the Congress, an therefore is not the public's business. It is the same kind of thinking that mar top businessmen take into Government. They fall to realize when they enter th Government that the rules are changed. They cannot do as they please, c operate the Government's business as they would their own, for the Government business is the public's business, and the Congress as the elected representatic of the people has a perfect right to investigate the operation of any governmenti agency. Secretary Weeks is hiding behind two false premises: (1) That the President security Order gives him the right to decide what Is and what is not securit3 (2) that his Business Advisory Committee is financed with private funds, dray no pay ~rom Congress, and therefore Congress has no business jnvestigatil what his committee does. But that isn't true. The Council has official status which makesjt a part the govetnment as an advisory group to the Department of Commerce. HerE what happened. The Bureau of the Budget, with the approval of Secretai Weeks, eliminated many of the services which the Commerce Department w~ giving to business generally. These services in the way of Industrial and oth business surveyS were Invaluable information and open to all business, lar and small. Business rebelled at the loss of these services so l~r. Weeks s up an advisory committee supported by contributions from big business un to provide these services to big business. The result is, little business is shut from th~ service. PAGENO="0179" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIE~ 1293 Mr. Weeks contends, as other businessmen of the Government have contended, and as the President has contended thus far, that the executive branch of the Government has a right to keep its affairs to itself, secured by a Presidential order, against the prying eyes of Congress; that the President has the constitu- tional right to do so. Mr. Chairman, may I read into the record this letter? Mr. LEMAN. Oh, yes, indeed. Anything there. Mr. MITcHELl4. Mr. Chairman, this is a letter dated October 4, 1955, signed by Albert M, Leman, Director of Public Information. The ]etter is addressed, "Editor, Berlin Reporter, Berlin, N. H." Dn~x Sia~ There has come to my attention an article in your newspaper under "Washington Newsletter" (about September 8, J$55) which makes certain charges in respect to Secretary Weeks which are not in accord with facts, 1. Secretary Weeks has always given information to the Congress, the press, and tlie public regarding the operations of the Commerce Department. In the case you cited, officials of the I)epartment testified at great length at hearings and supplied a great mass of informational data. 2. The Secretary has refused to make public statistics, whose disclosure is forbidden by law, and advisory opinions given to the executive branch in con- tidence by its advisory groups. This separation of powers has been followed by presidential agencies since the earliest days of the Republic. 3. You say, "Mr. Weeks set up an advisory committee supported by contribu- tions from big business flims to provide these services to big business. Result is little business is shut off from the service." The group you mention was set up not by Secretary Weeks but by Secretary Roper back in President Roosevelt's day. It has advised all succeeding Secretaries on ways and means of strength- ening national security and promoting prosperity-subjects of vital concern to business of all sizes and to every man, woman, and child in America. I am sure that you, a highly respected editor of a Berlin paper, would not wish to give a false picture of a neighbor from Lancaster, N. H., who also is Secretary of Commerce. It may well be that some outside source sent you the srtlcle with the deliberate purpose of deceiving you and your readers. But because I believe you want to be fair, I bring the facts to your attention and we should appreciate hearing from you, if you care to write. Secretary Weeks and other members of the Eisenhower administration will- ingly seek counsel from every segment of society-press., agriculture, law, mili- tary, labor, science, and business. For from knowledge come sound policies. They are trying to save American families from the horror of bomb attack and from the worry and suffering of depression and inflation. Because they have been helped by a wise counsel and have acted in the public interest, our country right now enjoys prosperity and peace. Sincerely yours, Annni~ N. LnMA~, Director of Public Information. P. 8-1 am enclosing some data which bear out some of the things I bav~ written. Mr. Chairman, on October 13, Mr. James P. Hinchey, editor of the Berlin Reporter, Berlin, N. H., replied to Mr. Leman and in the fol- lowing letter: DEAR Mn. LEMAN: Many thanks for your letter of October calling opr at- tention to an article in our newspaper which, to quote your letter, made "cer- tain charges in respect to Secretary Weeks which are not in accord with fact." This information was obtained from a syndicated service which we have been purchasing for quite some time. To the best of our knowledge, it has always been reliable. The article which you refer to is not an article at all * * * ~~ is an editorial opinion of a phase of Washington, D. C., activities prepared for us by a service for weekly papers. It appeared on our editorial page of September 8, 1055. In publishing this editorial, we had no intention of giving "a false picture of a neighbor from Lancaster, N. H., who also is Secretary of Commerce." Rather, we put our faith in the judgment of our weekly service firm believing that they were accurate with their words as we ourselves endeavor to be at all times. PAGENO="0180" 1294 INFO4IATI0N~ FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES We have called the matter to their attention by forwarding a copy of your letter to them and have also requested a prompt reply from them with an ex~ planation concerning this matter. We will be happy to forward to you the inf or- mation which we receive from them. Again, many thanks for your information. Yours very truly, JAMES P. HINCIIEY, Editor. As a result of the correspondence I have just read, Mr. Ohairman,~ the author of the article, Mr. Walter A. Shead wrote on January 15,. 1956- Mr. LEM~N. You are going to include the Hinchey lei~er to me, enclosing tl~at as part of the record; are you not? The one of July 27~ 1956? Mr. Mrrorn~LL. I am, when I come to it. Mr. LEMAN. Very well. Mr. MITchELL. "Mr. James P. Hinchey, editor, the Berlin Reporter, Berlin, N. H." DEAR MR. ~IiNcHEY: I am in receipt of your letter addressed to the National Weekly Newspaper Service at Frankfort, Ky., under date of December 29, and enclosing copy of a letter to you from Mr. Albert N. Leman, Director of Public Relations of Lhe Department of Commerce, together with other communicatiOns signed by 5i$clair Weeks, Secretary of Commerce and a statement by Philip A. Ray, General Counsel of the Department of Commerce * * * all concerning an article which I wrote for National Weekly Newspaper Service and sent to weekly newspaPer subscribers to the service Under date of September 5, 1955. Ordinarily I would ignore such criticism, but there is one passage in Mr. Lemall's letter to you which marks for the first time in my experience an at- tempt by an~V Government agency to bring pressure to bear on a reporter with his editor and impugning the motives of the reporter. This passage reads: "It may well be that some outside source sent you the article with the deliberate purpose of deceiving you and your readers." Permit md to report to you that I have been a newspaper reporter since 1912. That covers a span of 44 years. I have been in Washington since 1941 which covers 15 ye~trS and I have written a column for weekly newspapers for National Weekly Ne~spaper Service for about 12 of those 15 years which measures up to some 624 columns. In addition, for about 9 years I wrote a byline column for the Western Newspaper Union until it retired from the weekly newspaper syndicate field. And I repeat that this is the first time in my career that my motives we~e ever impugned or questioned * * ~` which is not to say that all editors agreed with every column which I wrote. The story in question bad to do with the Business Advisory Council for the Department of Commerce and a subpena issued by a subcommittee on antitrust of the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives. This Business Advisory Committee is composed of business executives named by the Secretary of Commerce from the ranks of private industry to serve in an advisory capacity. The Goveriimënt is full of such advisory committees which come under the general hea~ding of w. o. c.'s, or men who serve without compensation. The Dep~rtment of Justice has laid down criteria for these advjsOry groups governing their operation and among other rulings is that they "should be called and chaired by full-time Government officials" and similarly the rulings declare that agend~ should be formulated by Government representatives and that full and complete minutes should be kept. Mr. Weeks contends that the reports of his BAC are privileged and that they are a part of the Department files under his control and custody and that under his orders the Secretary of BAC has no right to remove or produce them. However the Department of Justice on September 13, 1951, issued regulations that all Government advisory groups, including the Secretary of Commerce were subject to "these standards and policies which are applicable to all industry advisory g~oups utilized by the various departments and agencies and are not limited to those committees formed under the provisionS of the Defense Pro- duction Act." Again oi~ August 4, 1955, Stanley N. Barnes, Assistant Attorney General, Anti~Trust Division, stated the advisory group criteria of the Department of PAGENO="0181" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1295 Justice "are applicable in our opinion to all advisory groups." In response to a direct question, Mr. Barnes said of the BAG; "Yes, I think It IS an advlsory group," There is no law which prohibits the reports of these advisory groups from becoming public property. Mr. Weeks Is using an opinion of the Attorney Gen- eral handed down in the so-called McCarthy hearings, which had to do with conversations between members of the executive branch of the Government as being privileged,, to keep the reports of his BAG from congressional committees. No other Secretary of the Department of Commerce has held them privileged. As a matter of fact Secretary Charles Sawyer, his immediate predecessor, made the complete files available to this same committee. The BAC was in fact set up during the Roosevelt administration by Mr. Roper, the then Secretary of Commerce. Eut Mr. Weeks has named every member of the present active committee, and terms are for 1 year only. The only color of privilege of the reports of this advisory group come from a ruling of the Internal Revenue Bureau that contributions from private Industry to or for use of the BAG are deductible from taxable Income of those making the donation. This determination is made upon the opinion of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue that the BAG is "a part of the Department of Commerce" thereby making contributions to BAG fall within the definition of "charitable contributions" as provided by the Internal Revenue Code. These donations from private industry to the BAG, whIch if Mr. We,.eks is right and the BAG is actually a part of his Department of Commerce, makes private business make private donations to the Government, According to the report of the antitrust subcommittee: "From its large contributions the council (BAG) has built up a substantial reserve which `has been invested in United States securities. The Council presently holds United States Treasury notes, 2 percent August 15, 1956, valued at $100,000 and United States Treasury bonds, 2% percent June 15, 1958, valued at $70,087.52. Altogether at the end of June 1955, the Council had on hand over $200,000 in cash and securities. This does not include the principal In a retirement fund for the executive director of the Council, Mr. White, of $128,585.25 which is represented by a variety of invest- ments in common and preferred equities, Government securities, and corporate bonds." There is no color of law whereby a department of the Government can set up a private fund from private donations for its own expenses, nor set up a private retirement fund for its own Executive Director. So Mr. Weeks' claim that BAG is in fact a part of the Department of Commerce is more or less shallow. Neither can any agency or department of Government hold conventions costing as much. as $12,000; hire private registered lobbyists, nor do many things which the BAG had done according to the testimony of Mr. White and others before the committee. The Judiciary Committee of the Congress and the subcommittee as well be- lieves they have a right to inquire into these matters, and particularly so, if BAG is officially a part of the Department of Commerce, as Mr. Weeks contends, The BAG is financdd with contributions from private business organizations. Mr. Weeks does not contend that it is not, `so therefore certainly Congress has a right to inquire into any donations received from private business to either an agency of Government or a quasi-agency, or any agency acting in behalf of Government. There is no quarrel with any agency of Government seeking advice and counsel from any segment or segments of business. President Eisenhower just recently issued an order, however, that all such consultants serving without compensa- tion, or with compensation should be subject to the "conflict of interest" statutes. If Mr. Weeks' contention is correct that BAG is part and parcel of the Govern- ment, then most certainly they come within this category. Active members of the BAG are limited to 60 and may serve for 5 successive 1-year periods upon appointment by the Secretary of Commerce on recommenda- tion of a membership committee. After 5 years they assume what is called graduate status. Officers and the Executive Committee are made by the Secre- tary after consultation with the Membership Committee. In my story I reported that small business was shut out and that big business profited, by its contributions to the Council, or words to that effect. The report of the subcommittee says: Additional factors which assure that the BAG reflects the views of large cor- porations is the fact that its officers and Executive Committee are composed al- most wholly from representatives of the larger corporate segment of the economy. Chairman of the Council is currently Harold Boeschenstein, chair- PAGENO="0182" 1296 o'~i~ArroN ~`ROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES man of the bnard and president of Owens-Corning Fibre Glass Corporation, while its three vice chairman, Crawford H. Greenwalt, Eugene Holman, and $idney J. Weinberg, come respectively from E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., the largest chemical company in the chemical industry; Standard Oil (New Jersey), the largest concern in the oil industry; and Goldman, Sachs & Co., a large investment and financial house. The composition of the Executive Com- mittee of the BAC, which, according to Mr. Walter White, Executive Director of the BAC, provides a more manageable and intimate group for the exchange of ideas and views on subjects of timely importance, is of the same character. According to the testimony of Mr. White, only one (Mr. John C. Virden) out of the 13 busin~?ss members of the Executive Committee may be truly said to emanate fron~ small business. The others as disclosed by the table below, are all represent9flves of large business interests. The table lists the names and firms of the 13 members of the Executive Committee. Virden, said to be representing small business is chairman of the board and director of Interlake Iron Co., Diamond Alkali Co., Eaton ~a~ufactnring Co., according to the com- mittee report. Mr. White, whose salary is paid by private industry, maintains an office in the Department of Commerce Building. Aside from the office space the Depart- ment of Commerce furnishes two departmental secretaries. White draws a salary of $25~OO0 annually, paid entirely out of private donations from business, donations exceeded $94,100 for the year 195~, the committee report says. Ti?e Council hoid~ 6 general meetings a year, 4 In ~ashington and 2 at vacation resorts such as White Sulphur Springs, Va., or Sea Island, Ga., lasting about 4 days, and toj which expenses are borne out of the tax-deductible funds of the Council. At none of these meetings is criteria set by the Department of Justice followed. If you woi~tld follow this further, there are available three reports of the anti- trust subconlmlttee during August 1955. The first contains 37 pages, the second 1192 pages and an interim report, 68 pages. They may be obtained by writing to Mr. Iut such legislation had never seemed to get through to abolish it, md the Governor would not abolish it, and finally the ways and means ~ommittee denied it any funds and it stopped operating. Mr. MoRIsoN. It makes a neat little problem. Mr. Moss. If there are no further questions, we want to thank you very much. Mr. MoRisoN. 1 have enjoyed it, gentlemen. Mr. Moss. We want to thank you for the time which you have ~iven the committee. Mr. MoRIsoN. Thank you, sir. I am glad to be here. Mr. Moss. The committee will now adjourn until 10 o'clock tomor- row morning. (Thereupon, at 6 p. m., the committee adjourned to meet again at 10 o'clock, Tuesday, April 24, 1956.) PAGENO="0294" PAGENO="0295" AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Part 6-Department of Commerce TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 1956 HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE Ofl GOVERNMENT INFORMATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a. m., in room 1501, New House Office Building, Hon. John E. Moss, Jr., chairman of the subcommittee, presiding. Present: Representatives Moss, Fascell, Meader, and Hoffman. Also present: Samuel J. Archibald, staff director; John Mitchell, chief counsel; and J. Lacey Reynolds, senior consultant. Mr. Mo~s. The subcommittee will now come to order. Our first representative of a department this morning will be Mr. Charles F. Honeywell, Administrator of Business and Defense Services Administration, in the Department of Commerce. And you are accompanied, I believe, by Charles Hersum, Richard Blaisdell, and Roper. Allen Overton, Jr., is not here. Mr. ROPER. He will be detained. And if he can make it, he will make it. Mr. Moss. Mr. Honeywell, I understand you have a statement for the committee? Mr. HONEYWELL. Yes, sir. Mr. Moss. Before giving the statement would you give us a brief outline of your background, and your title in the department? Mr. HONEYWELL. I was born in Santa Anna, Calif., 1898. I grad- uated from the University of California at Berkeley, 1921. My home was in San Francisco Bay area until 1933, and I went to Hawaii to live. I lived there for 16 years, leaving Hawaii in 1949 as president of the Hilo Transportation & Terminal Co., and vice president of C. Brewer & Co., Ltd., the parent company. Two years thereafter, I operated a plantation in South Carolina as an agricultural activity. I came with Secretary Weeks to the Department of Commerce as his special assistant in January 1953, with the formation of the Business and Defense Services Administration. In October 1953, he appointed me as the First~Administrat0r, which position I have held until now. Mr. Moss. Give us your statement now then. Mr. HONEYWELL. Yes, I will be happy to. Thank you. 1409 PAGENO="0296" 1410 INFORI~tATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES STATEMENT OF CHARLES R HONEYWELL, ADMINISTRATOR, BUSINESS AND DEFENSE SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, DEPART~ MENT OF QOMMERCE; ACCOMPANIED BY BURT ROPER, COUNSEL / Mr. HON~WELL. It i~ my understandi~ig that this committee is studying cert~un aspects of the availability of information regarding various indus~ry advisory groups utilized by the Department of Com- merce in its Business and Defense Services Administration. I appre- ciate the opportunity to appear before this committee to talk about the advisory committee program of BDSA, the agency which I have headed since its establishment in October of 1953. Before going into the details of this program, with respect to which we have consistently attemptea to adhere to an opendoor policy, I should like to briefly review the organization and functions of BDSA. It succeeded ~he National Production Authority which had been cre- ated in Septe~jnber of 1950 to carry out the responsibilities of the De- partment of Commerce under the Defense Production Act during the Korean war. The principal functions of BDSA lie in the areas of defense production and mobilization preparedness and are carried out under the provisions of the Defense Production Act and related legis- lation. In addition under long-standing statutory responsibilities of the Department of Commerce, BDSA performs functions aimed at the promotion of domestic commerce. Group consultation with industry is an essential ingredient to the efficient perfo*mance by BDSA of its assigned duties. The authority for this activity has been inherent in the Department of Commerce for over half a century. Additionally, the Defense Production Act of 1950 expressly provides for the est~biishment of business advisory committees. Industry advisory groups are organized and their meetings con- ducted in accordance with procedures prescribed in BDSA Operating Instructions 7 and 8, copies of which I should like to submit~ for the consideration of this committee. Group consultation with industry takes four forms under the program of EDSA, as follows: Industry conferences, ir~dustry advisory committees, task groups, and special conferences. The industr~r conference is a high-level channel of communication between Government and industry, the purpose of which is to provide a vehicle for the exchange of views~ on matters involving national security and domestic and foreign commerce. The industry repre- sentatives serve only for the duration of the particular conference. The industry advisory committee is likewise a high-level channel of communication between Government and industry. It considers mainly defense production and mobilization preparedness matters and is continuing in nature, the members having fixed terms of appointment. The task groUp is utilized for the purpose of considering specialized or technical pi~oblems which cannot be expeditiously considered by the larger Industry Advisory CommitteQ. Task Group members~ have fixed terms of appointment. The special conference is employed for consideration of a particular probleni or problems which can be covered in a single meeting. The participants serve only for the duration of the conference. PAGENO="0297" iNPOffl~rATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIE~S 1411 All four types of industry advisory groups are organized in a manner to assure the Government a true cross-section of industry opinion. The members are selected under criteria which require fair representation for independent small, for medium, and for large busi- ness enterprises, for different geographical areas, for trade-asso~iatiofl members and nonmembers, and for different segments of the industry. Suggestions for membership on industry advisory groups come from many sources including personnel in the BDSA industry divisions who have broad knowledge of the industry involved; from industry itself; and from trade associations. Selections are made by BDSA. so as to assure the Government of the best advice it can obtain. I should like to submit for the committee's consideration the form em- ployed in proposing membership of industry advisory groups. It demonstrates the detailed information required by BDSA to assure that the advisory groups are truly representative before final selec- tions of members are made. Since BDSA was organized in October of 1953, it has sponsored 44 industry conferences, 61 industry advisory committee meetings, 913 task-group meetings, and 21 special conferences. The Small Business Administration has a standing invitation to send its representatives to all BDSA-sponsored industry meetings, except task-group meetings, which usually involve technical matters. The Small Business Administration, as well as other interested agen- cies, also receive copies of an advance list of meetings showing all meetings that have been scheduled and may request participation in any meeting. Information officers are available to the press for news of BDSA activities and industry advisory meetings. This service includes advance notice of meetings, briefings, telephone and letter communications, interviews, access to committee minutes and press releases. Such press releases are issued promptly after the conclusion of meetings, usually the following day, except for task groups. Since these task groups ordinarily coiiisider only special problems of a tech- nical nature, their deliberations are not considered to be of general public interest. Summary minutes of all meetings are prepared by BDSA per- ~onnel and sent to all participants in such meetings. Minutes of all meetings, except where classified, are furnished to anyone upon~re- quest. Out of a total of 339 meetings conducted since October 1, 1953, the minutes of only 2 have not been made available for general distribution. The foregoing amply demonstrates, I believe, the adherence by BDSA to a positive open-door policy with respect to the operations of its industry advisory groups. We have consistently made sincere and determined efforts to keep the public, the press, and the Congress fully informed with respect to this very vital activity. Mr. Moss. Thank you, Mr. Honeywell. Mr. MITCHELl4. I would like to have put on the record operating instructions No. 7, entitled "Instructions for Convening and Conduct- ing Industry Advisory Conferences (exhibit II) ." Mr. MEADER. Might it not also be appropriate to have at this point in the record the section of the Defense Production Act which au- thorizes the creation of these business advisory committees? Mr. ROPER. It is section 701 (b) of the Defense Production Act. PAGENO="0298" 1412 INFOR1\~rATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Mr. MITCHELL. Also operatinj instructions No. 8 "Instructions for convening and conducting meetings (other than in industry con- ferences) wit~i groups of industry representatives." Mr. Moss. 1 believe we should also include a copy of the form ~IAC-3, revisdd on October 22, 1951. (The docun~ents above referred to are exhibit III.) Mr. MITCHELL. I would like to ask Mr. Honeywell to give us some specific examples on each of the four different types of conferences. First we should take up industry advisory conferences. Mr. HONEYWELL, Well, an industry conference is a meeting called by the Secretary of Commerce and chaired by a secretarial officer, generally speaking, so that the senior officials of the Department of Commerce m~y consult with top-level industry representatives to dis- cuss matters qf general interest in primarily the field of domestic in- dustry, and i4 some instances the field of foreign business. Mr. Moss. I notice that you said chaired generally by a secretarial officer? Mr. HONEYWELL. The only exception is when 1 of the 2 Assistant Secretaries is not available to chair the meeting throughout. And in such cases I have chaired the meeting. Mr. Moss. It is also chaired, then, by an official of the Department of Commerce? Mr. HONEYWELL. That is correct, sir. It is not a separate BDSA meeting. It i~ a Department of Commerce meeting. Primarily, ~DSA establishes the meeting for the benefit of the secretarial level. Mr. MITCII*L. Are those meetings open to the public? Mr. HONEY1~VELL. Those meetings are not open to the public. They are open by invitation. Mr. Moss. Are they open to the press? Mr. HONEYWELL. They are not open to the press. But they are covered by press releases at once, or as soon thereafter as possible. And the minutes are open to the press. Mr. Moss. Is a representative of the Department of Commerce In- formation Division present at these meetings? Mr. HONEYV~TELL. Yes, invariably. Mr. MITCH14LL. Mr. Chairman, at this point, I think we should discuss operating instruction No. 7, which pertains actually to this type of industry conference. In fact, it is solely restricted to that, isn't it, to the industry advisory conference? Mr. HONEYWELL, Operation instruction No. 7 is; yes, sir. Mr. MITCHELL. Is the agenda for each industry advisory con~ ference always published in advance of the meeting? Mr. HONEYWELL. A tentative agenda is published at the time the invitation is edended to those who have been invited to participate. There may be minor changes in that up to and including the morning of the start of that conference. Mr. MITCHELL. Is it available to the press before the industry advisory confdrence-_-- Mr. HONEYWELL. The announcement of the conference is available to the press, but the agenda is not necessarily available to the press. Mr. MITCHELL. Are these meetings classified in any way? Mr. HONEYWELL. Not to my knowledge, generally not. PAGENO="0299" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1413 Mr. MITcrn~LL. Then, why is not the agenda published, or available bo the press before? Mr 1-T0NEYwELL I tried to explain that the agenda is a tentative agenda to inform the invitees as to the general nature of the subject ~natter th'~t will be discussed But it is subject to changes, bringing it right up to date at that time. Mr MITchELL Yes, but by the provisions of operating instruction No 7 in the detail of which you go about arranging such an industry advisory conference, you certainly know quite far in advance that there may be changes in the agenda. But you know far in advance the general quebtions that are going to be taken up at this meeting Mr. HONEYWELL. Well, Mr. Mitchell, I cannot answer your specific question. I do not know that the question has ever been raised. I do not know that we have been asked for an agenda in advance. Mr. ELAISDELL. No; I think it would be available if it were re- quested. Mr MEAP1~ II Might I ask a question for clarification, Mr Chairman ~ Mr. Moss. Yes. Mr. MEADER. You do announce that there is going to be a conferenc~ to the press? Mr. HONEYWELL. Yes. Mr. MEADER. Do you sometimes announce the general subject mat- ter of the conference? Mr. HONEYWELL. It is listed on the advance list of meeting; and the designation of the conference for example, in the metal working equipment area. They know that much. They know the area of the conference. And that is listed in the pressroom of the Department of Commerce Mr. MITCHELL. But there is nothing to notify the general public of any subject matter that will be discussed at this-before the meeting in order to have them alerted that if they wanted to attend or ob- tained an invitation, or were clear themselves to get such an Industry Advisory Council, there is nothing in that way published, is there ~ Mr. HONEYWELL. There is nothing published. And may I empha- size the fact that attendance at these meetings is by invitation. It is quite- Mr MITCHELL It is quite clear in operating instruction No 7 Mr. HONEYWELL. It is also quite obvious that were it known, broad- cast to the industry, in the metal working industries, for example, that the Secretary of Commerce was calling a meeting, we probably would have requests for 500 to attend, and the desire on the part of the Secretary is to keep a group small enough so that it can have a round- table give-and-take discussion of these problems. Mr. MITCHELL. Well, actually, aren't there about 30 or 35? It says here on section 5, operating instruction No. 7: Invitation to the conferees shall be extended to as many industry members as necessary with the desire of obtaining an industry attendance of not less than 30 and not more than 35 top industry and trade association executives. Now, it is pretty hard to run a roundtable conference with 30 or 35. Mr. HONEYWELL. We have had reasonable success with them, Mr. Mitchell. That is the total number that we attempt to get in order to get a cross-section of the industry. PAGENO="0300" 1414 ~NFOEi~IATION FROM FEDERAL D~PARTMENTS AND AG~ENCIES Mr. Moss. Well, I think now that perhaps we should go back just a moment to the statement as to whether or not the agenda was available. I think yo~i indicated that it is a tentative agenda. I believe Mr. l3laisdell ex~iress the opinion that it might be available if it had been requested. Apparently there have been no requests. Mr. HONEtWELL. I know of none. Mr. Moss. Now, however, you would indicate to me-and I want to see if this is the impression you want to leave-that it is not made available because it might promote so much interest in the conference that you woitild be besieged with requests for invitations to attend, and that in drder to keep it small, the agenda is not made available? I think th~t there is considerable conflict between the two positions. And I think ~clarification would be most helpful to the committee. Mr. HONEYWELL. Well, point 1, Mr. Moss: I know of no requests for the agenda in advance other than to the invitees, which list has been made up in advance of the public announcement that there is going to be a meeting. Point 2: We have had a considerable amount of pressure brought to bear to include 1, 5, 10 additional people beyond the capacity of our conference room, and beyond the willingness of the Secretary to meet with larger groups beyond the number that he thinks he can have a persoijial relationship with. I do not be1~eve there was any intent to clamp down on this proposed agenda, becaUse it goes to every one of the invitees, and it is not classified. Mr. Moss. Well, I think you can understand my position. All we are trying to do here is to develop the facts. Mr. HONEYWELL. Correct, sir. Mr. Moss. And it seemed to me that you had made two completely opposed statements there. And I just wanted to get them clarified for the sake of the record. Mr. MEADEji. Mr. Chairman, might I suggest that the committees files, contain ~opies of advance lists of meetings, which, as I under~ stand it, are ppsted in the pressroom at the Department of Commerce, and the description of these Industry Advisory Committee meetings itself seems to me would shed some light on the character of the subS. ject matter to be discussed. I noticed some here. Here is the Aluminum and Magnesium Divi.. sion, Industry Advisory Committee meeting, scheduled Here is Task Group on Aluminum and Magnesium Division, Prime Aluminum Products. And here aresome others,even more specific. Here is one of the Task Group on Gontinuity of Production Planning for Water and Sewerage. Facilities. Mr. MITCHEJ~L. That is a task group,sir. ~Mr. MEADE~. Yes. Mr. MITCHi~LL. We are talking about industry advisory conferences. Mr. MEADE1L Well, here is an Advisory Committee meeting on electrical relays, resistors, capacitors, transmitting and special pur- pose tube. In other words, it seems to me that the description of the Com- mittee meeting at least in a general way gives some notice of the type of thing that is going to be discussed. PAGENO="0301" INFDRMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AD AGENCIES 1415 Mr. Moss. I think that that is not possible. However, our .assign~ inent is to determine what is not available and why Mr HONEYWELL Well, may I say this, Mr Chairman If there were ever any issue made of making the tentative agenda for an industry conference avaliable in advance, it would be made available. Mr. Moss. In other words, there is no policy, then, to withhold? Mr. HONEYWELL. There is no policy to withhold. Mr. Moss. I see. Mr. MITCHELL. Could operating instruction No. 7 be revised tQ provide for that? Mr. HONEYWELL. Well, it could be. But if there is no need for it- at least no demonstrable need- Mr. Moss. Is it restricted? Mr. MITCHELL. No, it is not restricted. Mr. ROPER. Mr. Chairman, may I make an observation, please? Mr. Hersum advises me that the last industry conference was held during the early part of 1955, and further that customarily the ad- vance list of meeting, copies of which have been furnished to this committee since April or May of 1955, listed industry conference meetings. However, no specific industry conference mettings are listed in this set of advance list of meetings, because none have been held during the period covered by these lists furnished at the corn- mitte's request. Mr. MITCHELL. This is industry advisory conferences. Mr. ROPER. May I correct you, please? Industry conference is the term, the technical term, that is referred to in Operating Instruction No. 7. And I am talking about industry eonferences now. Mr. MEADER. Could I ask another question at this point, Mr. Chair~ man? Mr. Moss. Mr. Meader. Mr. MEADER. Mr. Honeywell, I believe you were here yesterday when Mr. Morison testified about business advisory committees? Mr. HONEYWELL. Unfortunately I was not. But my counsel was here. Would you care to address a question to him? Mr. MEADER. Well, I just happened to check on the basis of your 1~estimony, and this Operating Instruction No. 7., to see whether or not the five criteria that Mr. Morison said should be present in all advisory committees were met by your instructions. And maybe if I just read them, you could say whether or not in yotir opinion your procedure does meet his criteria. First, that there must be statutory authority for the employment of such committees, or there must be an administractive finding that it is necessary to utilize such hommittees to preform certain statutory duties? Mr. HONEYWELL. Well, sir, there is adequate statutory authority for this, because they are called by the Secretary of Commerce. He personally signs the invitation to each invites This is not a conference held under the authority of the Pefense Production Act. Mr. MEAtiER. Oh, it is not? Mr. HONEYWELL. No, sir. The conferences are held at the Secre~. tarial level for advice to the Secretary. PAGENO="0302" 1416 INFOR~tATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Mr. MEADF~R. So, section ~01- Mr. HON*WELL. That section is applicable to these conferences. Mr MEAD4R That section provides for what type of business ad Visory committees? Mr. HONErWELL. Task force and industry advisory committees. Mr. ROPER. Even though the industry conferences that Mr. Mitchell has been discussing are operated under authority other than the Defense Production Act-the organic legislation of the Department of Commerce-we adhere in all four types of meetings referred to in Mr. Honeywell's statement, the Industry Conference, the Jndustry~ Advisory Committee, the task group, and the special conference, tp the recommended criteria issued by the Department of Justice in ~ts October 19, 1950 letter. Mr. MEADEn. And you are familiar with these five criteria that I was about to read, are you? Mr. ROPER. Very definitely. Mr. MEAnER. Do you feel they are all met with respect to all of your advisory groups? Mr ROPER I would say, sir, that we substantially comply but that there are very minor deviations from the recommended criteria of the Department of Justice,, and that the Department of Justice is fully familiar with and aware of our minor deviations from these recom- mended critei~ia. Mr. MITOH*LL. You get a letter from the Department of Justice on each occasion? Mr. ROPER. No, sir. We do not. Mr. MEADER. What deviations are there? Are they important? Mr. ROPER. The deviations, if they are deviations-i should have put the term "deviations" in quotes-are these: that one of the recoin- mended criteria-and now I am talking about all four types of indus~ try meetings held under the sponsorship of BDSA-of the Department of Justice is that full and complete minutes of each meeting must be kept We do iIiot keep or maintain verbatim minutes of these meetings in the sense tl*t this reporter is transcribing my testimony. However, we do maintain what we call full and complete summary minutes, which are issued shortly after the meeting is held, within a matter of 1 week to 10 days,. normally. The other respect in which the Department of Justice has not entirely agreed with the Business and Defense Services Administration relates to the criterion that reads as follows: The meetings to be held must be at the call of and under the chairmanship of full-time Government officials. I would like to make an observation that the recommended criterion does not say salaried Government officials. From time to time, not with respect to inth~stry conferences, but with respect to industry advisory committee meetings and some other meetings, WOC's do on occasion chair these meetings. WOC's, we feel, meet the description of this recommended Criterion in that they are full-time Government officials. Mr. MITcHELL. At that point, Mr. Roper, may I ask you a question? Mr. ROPER. Yes, sir. Mr. MITCHELL. I was coming to this later on. Before you, you have part I of the Celler committee hearings. I would like to refer you to page 646. Mr. ROPER. Yes, sir, I have page 646. PAGENO="0303" INPORMATION PROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENC~ES 1417 Mr. MITCHELL. In the middle of the page the following statement appears: The ChAIRMAN. Suppose you find a WOO on a policymaking basis. What would you do? Mr. YOUNG. Of course, that is outlawed under the new Defense Production Act provisions. The CHAIRMAN. Under the old act there are occasions that that practice would be found. Let us take in the future: You find a WOO in a policymaking position. Let us assume that. What would you do there? Mr. YOUNG. If that were a part of our inspection procedure, that would be in direct violation of the new act, and of course we would exercise whatever power or authority was given us to call the President's attention or to anyone else. Now, that is right on the point that you were discussing. Isn't that the difference of opinion? Mr. RoPER. I don't see the analogy, Mr. Mitchell. In 1955 the Defense Production Act was amended to provide that WOC's shall be limited in connection with policy matters to advis- ing appropriate full-time salaried Government employees. Mr. MITOHELL. Did you state to Mr. Meader that they sometimes chair these meetings? Mr. Rorun. I certainly did. Mr. MEAnER. You do not regard the chairmanship of one of these meetings as a policymaking function? Mr. Ror~n. Definitely not. I would like to pursue that further, that we definitelydo not by any manner or means consider that the Chairman of an Industry Advisory Committee makes policy. Mr. MITCHELL. Does he call the meeting to order on any occasion? Mr. ROPER. Yes, sir, he does. Mr. Moss. Does he call the meeting? Mr. ROPER. }Te may on occasion call the meeting, which goes through the established procedure and must be approved by the In- dustry Advisory Committee's staff director who is Mr. Hersum, second on my left. Mr. Moss. How would you define "policymaking," then? Mr. ROPER. I can only say that I would have much difficulty. Judge Barnes, when he testified not very long ago, the day after Mr. Honey- well and I testified before the Antitrust Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, frankly admitted that he could not define "policy." And I just want to make one additional observation, if I may: That these ad~isory groups are convened for the purposes of making rec~ ommendations to the Government through the chairman who may be a without~compen5ati0n employee. He is a recipient of these indus- try recommendations. But the action with respect to these recom- mendations is not taken by the WOC chairman, assuming he happens tobeaWOC. Mr. MITCHELL But he is right in the department where he can see that they are taken care of. Mr. RorEn. No, sir. Mr. MITCHELL. ~Isn't he there every day in the week? Mr. RoPER. Yes, sir; with very, very few exceptions. Mr. MITCHELL. From a practical point of view-and I have worked downtown in the government too-I can see that something gets through when I am chairman of a committee. PAGENO="0304" 1418 INF0R~IATJ0N FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AG~NCIE~ Mr. ROPER.1 I am not clear on what point you are trying to make, Mr Mitchell I am just making the bald assertion to you that the mere fact that a WOO acts as chairman of the meeting does not put the WOO in a policymaking position. Mr. MITCHELL, Not the mere fact. He does not have to be at that particular time; but 5 minutes later when the Industry Advisory Corn- mittee has adjourned and his minutes prepared and recommendations prepared, he can then turn to, as assistant director, or director, of one of these divisions of BDSA and become a policymaking official. Mr. ROPER. No, sir. Because if he did, he would be violating the law, the 1955- Mr. MITCH1~LL. Then, why is he in the position to start with? Mr. ROPER. We do not think that there is any inconsistency, Mr. Mitchell, when a WOO chairs a business advisory group, with the inhibition contained in the 1955 amendments to the Defense Pro- duction Act. Mr. Moss. Now, you indicate that the Justice Department does not agree with you. Mr. ROPER. Well, sir, there has never been a categorical disagree- ment as such. I was trying to be perfectly frank and honest with this committee~ in telling you about the mild alleged deviations which the Justice Department has not bought 100 percent. I want to point out that these criteria were issued over 5 years ago; that these criteria, despite the fact that the Justice Department over a period years since 1950 or 1951 has known about our estab- lished practices, the Justice Department has not seen fit to amend its criteria. Mind you, these criteria run not only to the Department of Com- merce and to BDSA, but to every governmental agency. And I think that if it was a firm and positive position of the Department of Jus- tice that a WOO should not chair an TAO meeting, that the Justice Department pi~operly could amend its recommended criteria. Mr. MEADER. Mr. Chairman, might I ask on this other alleged devia- tion: Do you ibterpret minutes to mean a verbatim transcript? Mr. ROPER. ~O, sir; I do not. And if I may- Mr. MEADER. Does the Justice Department interpret minutes to mean a verbatim transcript? Mr. ROPER. I think at one stage in 1950 or in 1951 the Justice De- partment was rather insistent-and it might have been during the tenure of Mr. Morison-that the then National Production Authority maintain verbatim minutes of TAO meetings. I think probably that Mr. Morison has changed his views, because if I recall his testimony yesterday afterhoon, he stated in effect that as a practical considera- tion there shou~d not be long and extensive minutes if they are full and complete. And we feel that our minutes comply with that requirement. When we are talking about what the Justice Department's position is, it is rather difficult; because it is fluid; and it has extended over a period of 5 or 6 years with respect to some of these details, Mr. Meader. Mr. MITOHELL. The Department of Justice rulings-does that commit them in ~tny way? Mr. Ropmai. 14 what sense? PAGENO="0305" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1419 Mr. MITCHELL. With respect to antitrust possible violations? Mr. ROPER. No, sir. In fact, I think the 1950 letter expressly reserved to the Depart- ~nent of Justice the right to institute antitrust proceedings even :hough the five criteria were followed. Mr. MITCHELL. Well, paragraph 2 (b) Mr. ROPER. 2 (b) of what? Mr. MITCHELL. Operating Instruction No. 8. The first page. See- Eionlof2 (b). The participating industry members at advisory committee meetings con- clucted in conformity with these instructions and limitations will not be viewed by the Attorney General as constituting independent violations of the anti trust law. Can you explain to the committee what that means? Isn't that more or less saying that if they comply with these rules and regula- tions of the Attorney General they will not be subject to antitrust? Mr. ROPER. I assume you were reading. I just couldn't find the place in Operating Instruction No. 8. Mr. MITCHELL. That is right. Mr. ROPER. I want to say first that this Operating Instruction No. 8 is a very close carbon copy of the counterpart operating instruction which was issued by the National Production Authority and under which NPA operated. That operating instruction issued by NPA, of which this is a very close carbon copy, was expressly approved by the Department of Justice. Now, in specific response to your question, Mr. Mitchell, I would like to read from the October 19, 1950, letter of Deputy Attorney General Peyton Ford, which recommends these five criteria. And he says: So long as the activities of industry advisory committees are carried on within these limitations- parenthetically, the recommended criteria- we would i~ot view the activities as constituting~ an independent violation of the antitrust laws. I think that is rather close to the statement you read out of the operating instruction. I continue with the quote: We wish to emphasize, however, and it should be made clear to participants in such activities, that the Department of lustice retains complete freedom ~o institute proceedings, either civil or criminal, or both, in the event that any particular plan or course of action is used to accomplish unlawful private ends, Mr. MITCHELL. Do industry advisory committees, task force mem- bers, or anything else, sign any kind of a document making them aware of these rules of the Attorney General? Mr. ROPER. 1 would like to make a general answer to your question Mr. MITCHELL. Well, no Mr. ROPER. And then refer it to Mr. }Iersum. It is my understanding that all participants in TAO meetings re- ceive copies of this letter which was promulgated by Deputy Attor- ney General Peyton Ford in 1950. Mr. MITCHELL. Do you know the usual standard operating pro- cedure in the Government when you want an employee, to understand a rule and regulation? You make him sign for it. 69222-56-pt. 6-20 PAGENO="0306" i420 INFoi*'~1TATrON FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Now, my ~uestion specifically is: Do the industry advisory corn- inittee members and task group members sign an aoknowh~dgment of the fact that they have read Peyton Ford's letter? If you want to refer to that one. Mr. Ror~n. May I respectfully refer that question to Mr. Hersum? Mr. HERSnM. The answer is "No." Mr. MITCHELL. Why not? Mr. HERSUM. In all of our meetings, we make available to the new ~committee members copies of operating instruction No. 8. And also read and ha~e available copies of the Peyton Ford letter of October 1950. Mr. MITCEIIELL. Mr. Morrison went to great lengths yesterday after- ~noon to describe to this committe how these Attorney General's mem- orandums we~e set down to protect these businessmen. Now, don't you think it would be a good idea that they acknowledge the fact that they have been protected by you people in BDSA? Mr. HERStIM. I suppose that is a question of judgment on pro- ~cedure. However, i do not know how many copies we have printed to hand ~out to individluals so that they can have them in their home offices. Mr. MITCH~LL. Don't all the industry advisory committee members accept an apj~ointment ~ Mr. HERStIT~I. They accept an invitation to serve. Mr. MITCHELL. No, no. Mr. HERSUM. To serve as a member. And I do not know whether that is technically an appointment or not. Mr. MITCHELL. Well, it says specifically here that they are ap- pointed. Op~rating instruction No. 8 specifically says that they are appointed for a set period of time, if I read it correctly. Mr. ROPER. Is that operating instruction No. 8? Mr. HERSU~E. Yes. For a period of time. Mr. MITCHI~LL. Therefore, they must sign something. Mr. HERSUM. There is their acceptance of invitation. * Mr. MITCH~LL. Why couldn't they at that time acknowledge re- ceipt of these rules and regulations of the Attorney General and ~aving read them at the time they accept that letter? Mr. HERSUM. I suppose that practice could be introduced. When we extend the invitation we could attach copies of operating instruc- tion 8 and the Attorney General's letter, so that they would have had ~aeknowledgment of the same. Mr. MITCH1~tLL. Well, hasn't there been a wide difference of opinion among these industry advisory committee people down there about gettii~g specifi~ rulings on certain instances? Mr. ROPER. 1 do not have an answer to that. But I would like to ask you a ques1tion, if I may, Mr. Mitchell. I do not understand to what degree an industry participant in an IAC would receive more or better absolution from the Department of Justice by virtue of the fact that he signed a receipt acknowledging that he had read this letter. Mr. MITCHE1~L. He would know tinder his full responsibilities what his position is~ and would not in any way, either before or after such an industry advis~ry committee meeting, be likely to violate. You see, thej minutes are available to all of these members, but they :are not avatlable to ~nybody else. PAGENO="0307" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AN]) AG1~±~CT~S 1421 Mr. ROrnR~ I am sorry. The minutes of industry conferences, lAO's- S Mr. MITCHELL. All right. Industry conferences; that is one thing. Mr. Roi. And specifically the minutes oEt IAC's, the group that we were talking about, are available to anybody and everybody upon request, unless they contain classified information. And Mr. Honey- well, in his direct testimony, has indicated that there are 339 sets of minutes that have been prepared as a result of 339 meetings since October 1, 1953. And only two of them have not been made available for general distribution. Mr. Moss. How are those two classified? Mr. ROPER. One of them contained security information, Mr. Chair- man. And the other one involved pending international negotiations at the time. It did not bear a security classification. And copies were not even distributed tO the participants, the industry participants, in that meeting. Mr. MEADER. Mr. Chairman, might I ask a question on this? Mr. Moss. Mr. Meader. Mr. M1~DER. That would include your task-group meetings, would it not? Mr. ROPER. Yes, sir; it certainly would. Mr. MEADER. Well, now, maybe I do not understand the nature of your operation; but, if you are dealing with mobilization planning and the possible position of industry in another defense emergency, I should think there would be all kinds of things that you wouldn't want made public. Mr. ROPER. May I say this: that from time to time in these task groups, they do get into a discussion of security information, But that security information, it is my understanding, my information and belief, Mr. Meader, is not reflected in the minutes. Mr. MEADER. In other words, I would like to ask Mr. Honeywell this question: Has the fact that you have published 337 out of 339 minutes of meetings hampered your operation in any way? Mr. HONEYWELL. Not at all. Mr. MEADER. And you personally favor the policy of making this ii~formation public? Mr. HONEYWELL. Completely. Mr. Moss. Now, in the instances where you have classified for secu- rity reasons, what clearance is required of the members of the conference? Mr. ROPER. All industry participants in IAC or related types of meetings invited to meetings where security matters may be or will be discussed receive, must receive, the appropriate degree of security clearance depending on the degree of security of the matter to be discussed at the meeting. Mr. Moss. Of course, it would be possible that they would start out by discussing nonsecurity information and end up with a recom- mendation which in itself might become a security matter. Mr. ROPER. Well, that could happen. But I think only, Mr. Chair- man, if the members had received security clearance. We are ex- tremely careful in our operations about security clearance, because we are constantly dealing with Department of Defense, Atomic Energy Commission, and Office of Defense Mobilization Information. PAGENO="0308" * 1422 INPoR~rA'rION PROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND A~NCI~ Mr. Moss. iNow, in the instance where the conference mintttes were classified, did each member of the conference receive a copy of those minutes? Mr. ROPER. I am certain that he did. But I prefer to have Mr.. Hersum try to answer that. Mr. HERSUM. No. The industry conference in which the minutes~ were withheld- Mr. ROPER. Excuse me. The Chairman was talking about the one meeting, forg~etting about its labeling, that was security classified ;. is that correc~? Mr. Moss. That is correct. Mr. HERSU*. That was not made available to the members of the industry. Mr. Moss. Nor to the members of the conference? Mr. HERSUM. Let me get down to what we are actually talking about.~ We have two meetings that you made reference to. One dealt with a meeting which is an industry conference. Mr. Moss. I am quite clear on that. That was not classified under Executive Orfler 10501. Mr. HERSU*. Then, we have a task group meeting which brought in certain statistics. Unfortunately, they were carried in the minutes.. That put a classification of confidential on them. Mr. Moss. And it is those minutes that I am interested in. Were they made available to the conferees? Mr. HERSUM. They would be made available to the conferees, be- cause the conferees would have been there while the information was~ being discussed. Mr. Moss. Well, now, that is one of the things that interests me. Mr. HERSUM. I may amplify that a bit morn Mr.. Moss. ~aybe 30 or 35 men are serving on a conference. Well,, the order saysi something about 30 or 35. Is that correct? Mr. HONEY1~TELL. That is for an industry conference, sir. An in- dustry advisory committee, which is a different type., is more likely to have not to exceed 12 members. Mr. Moss. Well, I thought we were discussing the results of ~339~ meetings of conferences. Mr. HONEYWELL. Conferences, industry advisory committees, task groups, all types of meetings, Mr. Chairman; four categories. Mr. MITCHELL. Maybe the question would be: What specific type of conference was this at? In other words, that it was classified. Was it a confetence; was it a- Mr. HONEY*ELL. Mr. Mitchell, no confe~rence was security clas~i- fled. Mr. Moss. All right. Mr. HONEYWELL. It was withheld at the request of the State Dc-. partment. Mr. Moss. Well, I hope that you realize that the confusion results from the matt~r of presentation of the total here. We are trying, merely to get the information as to the type of meeting. Mr. HONEYWELL. Surely. Mr. Moss. This was an industry advisory committee meeting that. was classified ukTlder Executive Order 10501. Mr. HONEY~ELL. Can you give the exact title of that meeting that. was classified? PAGENO="0309" INFORMATION PROM FEDEEAL DEPART]V[ENTS A±~D AGENCIES 1423 Mr. HER5UM. I believe I can. It was aluminum extrusions meeting. Mr. Moss. Now, is that an industry advisory committee? Mr. HERStTM. No, sir. It is a task group. Mr. Moss. It is a task group of a conference or a committee ~ Mr. HERSUM. Of a committee. And possibly made up of 5 to 8 members from industry. Mr. Moss. Well, now, the information that was developed in the `minutes, was it classified because of the nature of the information made available to the conference for study, or as a result of informa- tion developed by the task force itself? Mr. HERSUM. It was made available to the task group. Certain statistical data. Mr. MITCHELL. I would like to return to the Operating Instruction No. 7 for a moment. Section 9 on page 301. Full and complete summary minutes of each conference shall be prepared. The industry committee staff will furnish a minutes writer whose function is to prepare a complete, accurate, and objective report of the proceedings without identifying any industry by name or company affiliation, unless cleared by the industry member involved. Could you explain to the committee the necessity for such a regu- lation "without identifying any industry representative by name or company"? Mr. HONEYWELL. I would be very happy to explain that. Experi- ence has indicated that when industrialists come to Washington and are asked their personal opinion on any given subject, they would be loath to commit themselves if they were to be identified by name and quoted verbatim for the public. Mr. MITCHELL. Why? Mr. HONEYWELL. For the simple reason that they may be at logger- heads with an opposite point of view of another individual. And they do not care to publish that for general public consumption as an individual. Mr. MITCHELL. Isn't that the way the public is advised on difference ~of opinion among industry? Mr. HONEYWELL. It would be a way of advising the public certainly. But it would be an excellent way of drying up the willingness of that individual to speak. Mr. HOFFMAN. May I ask one question there, Mr. Chairman? Wouldn't a competitor come in and take advantage of it? Why should I come in and tell you something that you are going to publish it so my competitor can get it? Mr. MITCHELL. The competitor is already there, sir. Mr. HOFFMAN. Not always. Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, sir. Mr. HOFFMAN. Then I am not coming if my competitor is going to come in there and steal all my business secrets. I will tell you that right off the bat. And that is the common experience. I have seen that work heretofore. Mr. MITCHELL. Well, is the competitor there? Mr. HONEYWELL. I can't speak categorically that the competitor is there, But all segments of industry are invited to be there. Mr. MITCHELL. Eventually are not all the competitors in a certain industry present-or not all, but- PAGENO="0310" 1424 INFOR4IATrON FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGRN~jE~ Mr. HOFFML&N. I want to disagree with you right there. That does~ not follow by any means, because these conferences, as I understand. it, are limited in number. That is, to a ~ertain number. Everybody is not in there. For instance, everybody on this one you referred. to-does that refer to aluminum? Mr. HERSrJ1~I. Yes, sir. Mr. HOFFMAN. Everybody that has anything to do with aluminum is not there by any means. Mr. MIPCI~ELL. No, but the purpose of an industry advisory committee, if I have it right-ancl according to your Operating Instruction 8 that is the purpose of it-is to get in as many people who have knowledge in a particular field, be they competitors or noncompetitors- Mr. HONEYWELL. It is for the purpose also, Mr. Mitchell, of advis- ing the Government of procedures, plans, and operating suggestions and recommendations, and not for advising the general public. This is a device set up under the Defense Production Act authoriz- ing that the Gpvernment get specific information from industry. Now, we, in broad brush, explain in the summary minutes- Mr. MrrcrnkI4 But we are talking about the identification of th& members. Mr. HONEY*ELL. That is correct. Mr. MITCHELL. We are not talking about the subject matter. That could easily be classified- Mr. Moss. I think we had better go back perhaps to this question of whether or not competitors would be on the same committee. Isn't it logical to assume that in almost every instance if you are seeking the consensus of a segment of industry that in order to have it representati~e, you would have to have competitors meeting together and advising t~ie Government? Mr. HONEYI~ELL. Yes, indeed. We cannot listen to only one point of view. Mr. Moss. So that the fear of divulging information to competitors~ would not be the primary reason for keeping out of the record the identification of the person making a suggestion or a statement. Mr. HONEYWELL. But if everything that is said verbatim in that meeting is broadcast to the whole industry- Mr. Moss. Well, now, we are talking of two types of minutes. Mr. MITCHELL. Yes. Mr. Moss. We have not held that a verbatim minute of the meeting should be mair~tained, but that a comprehensive summary would be maintained. And it is my understanding that that is the type of minute that is kept at these meetings. Mr. HONEYWELL. Those are the minutes. But only the general conclusions expressed by the preponderant number of people present,. together with the different points of view, without identifying its source go into those minutes. Mr. HOFFMAN. May I ask counsel: What would be the purpose of identifying the source; as long as you get the information, why do you care whether it js Jones or Smith that offers it? Mr. MITOHEI4A. I think you had that before you, sir, at the time of the Agricultur~ Department meetings, and subsequently there was an indictment w~hen you had it. PAGENO="0311" INFORMATION FROM FEDE1~AL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENOIES 1425 Mr. HOFFMAN, No. But I am asking you now: What is the pur- `ose here? You have this conference- Mr. MITCHELL. The protection of the busin~ssman with respect to he antitrust laws. Mr. HOFFMAN. Why should the name of the individual who makes ome proposition or offers some suggestion be broadcast~ and printed in he paper? Mr. MrFCHELL. Sir, that wasn't the intention-broadcasting it or printing it in the paper. The intention was to identify the record, to thow who made certain statements. Suppose price-fixing were ]iscussed. Mr. HOFFMAN. You mean your trying to get some information on which an indictment, for violations of an antitrust law can be instituted? Mr. MITCHELL. They are following the rules and regulations of the Attorney General in the setting up of this. Now, yesterday after- noon we listened to the former Assistant Attorney General in charge of antitrust matters. And he could find no reason whatsoever why an industry member could not be identified. Mr. 1-1OFFMAN. Of course he did want that information for the pur- pose of these prosecutions. I can understand that all right enough; if I was Attorney General I would like to have it too. Mr. MITCHELL. I go along with the suggestion that if you are going to tell everything here to everybody your source of information is go- ing to be dried up automatically. In your Department of Agriculture meetings you were told that one of the reasons for this rule was the fact that the man might not be will- ing to give full and complete information because it might be against the best interests of his company? Mr. HOFFMAN. I can understand that too. Mr. MITCHELL. Well- Mr. HOFFMAN. You cannot expect a fellow to come up and disclos&-- Mr. MITCHELL. That brings up the dual loyalty, sir. Is it loyalty to the company, or is it loyalty to the Government and the people? Mr. HOFFMAN. As I understand it no o~ne is required to turn himself wrong-side-out for the benefit of the public generally and put himself out of business. Mr. MITCHELL. That isn't the point. The point is: Why can't they be identified in the record as to who makes what statements. We do not want to know what is in the statement if it is classified. Mr. HOFFMAN. Why do you want his name if you have the information? Mr. MITCHELL. Because the subject matter has never been cleared up, sir. Mr, HOFFMAN. Because what? Mr. MITCHELL. Because this point has never been cleared up. And we have heard all kinds of testimony on this subject. Mr. HOFFMAN. Here is a fellow in a conference and someone ex- presses a view or gives some particular information. As long as you have the information why do you want the name of the individual except that you want to prosecute him or take some action against him? What do you care? Isn't it the value of the information, the PAGENO="0312" 1426 TNFO MATI0N FROM FEDERAL DEPARTME~cTS AND AGENCIES soundness of views expressed, rather than the source from which ii eomes? Mr. MITCIIELL. The summary meetings usually come out with s unanimous opinion; don't they? Mr. RoPER. Well, may I make a couple of observations about thb general subject? Mr. Moss. 1 would like first to- Mr. HOFF~[AN. Before you get to that it does not follow that be- cause Mr. H~over would advocate something that is absolutely sound. And that we have to `follow it. Because I assume he would be the first to admit that on occasion he has made a erroneous-that he has formed an eI~roneous conclusion. Mr. MITCEELL. Whether Mr. Hoover-. Mr. HOFFMAN. Herbert Hoover, the real Hoover-.. Pardon me for interrupting. But we have been into that thing so many timesbefore that I just could not help it. Mr. Moss. `Yes; we have, quite frankly we have been into it a num- ber of times4 And I am always somewhat reluctant to accept as available idetitification the premise that businessmen advising Gov- ernment require a cloak of anonymity in order to advise frankly and honestly in the best interest-of the Government. I think we are saying that without this right of nonidentification that the businessman's interest in his own affairs will cause him to limit or to be less than frank in advising his Government. I think that that would be, if it is a fact, a rather serious indictment of the American businessman. My experience with many would not lead me to believe that that is a proper assumption at all. Mr. HONEI~WELL. Mr. Moss, we are not here to in anyway indict the American~ businessman. I know that you recognize that. Mr. Moss. t appreciate that you are not. But I am constantly dis- turbed by the assertions made in the various departments and agencies, that you cannot have a frank and full discussion if there is any possi.. bility of the statements being correctly attributed to their authors. Mr. HOFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, right along that same line, my recol~ lection is very, very vivid that the House itself will not write legisla- tion requiring the departments to give the members information that they sought until it wrote in there a provision providing for their punishment if!they disclosed it to anybody. Mr. Moss. Well, that may be true. Mr. HOFFMAN. We did not trust our own membership far enough to let them have information. Mr. Moss. I recall working in a legislative body for a period of 4 ~years where the executive session of any type was the very rare excep- tion. And I feel that the discussions that we had in our meetings in the California Legislature were just as free from any personal inhibi- tions as the discussions that we have in the Congress of the United States. And I feel ihe hearings we had were just as full of important and accurate ~nformation as the hearings that we sometimes have in executive ses~ions. I recognize that there is a need on occasion where we are discussi~ig matters basic to the Nation's security where secrecy must of necessity be employed. But to just assume-and it seems to PAGENO="0313" D~FORMATION PROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1427 be a very broadly held assumption here in Washington-j--that you can~ riot have free discussion if it is open discussion. Mr. HOFFMAN. Over what? Mr. Moss. Free discussion, frank discussion, if it is open discussion.. Now, I believe, Mr. Honeywell as a fellow Californian, you might be familiar with the fact that for many years our city councils and boards of supervisors in California always had their so-called star chamber sessions where they sifted through all the important and controversial matters in advance of the public meetings. A few years ago the legislature said they couldn't hold those any more; they had to have theni all open. I think our Government today and in the State is just as good under that open-door policy of free discussion, public discussion, as it was when the meetings were held behind closed doors. As a matter of fact, because of the public accountability for statements made, I think it is perhaps even better than it was when you could make a statement without having to worry about being held account- able for it. I just want to be on record as not agreeing at all that the American businessman or industrialist has to be given the privilege of off the record discussion in order to frankly and candidly advise his Government. Mr. HOFFMAN. Then I get it, just a matter of theory or argument, that you wouldn't go along with executive sessions when we are mark- ing up a bill? Mr. Moss. I have never urged one. Mr. HOFFMAN. Well, I never have urged one. But you still don't want to say, do you that you should not have any executive sessions when we are marking up a bill? Mr. Moss. I have on occasion expressed the wish that we would hold it quite openly. There are times when I felt that I would gain advan~ tage by the open markup session over the closed markup session. Mr. HOFFMAN. Of course, even in Congress- Mr. MEADER. You are talking about the Post Office and Civil Service Committee, are you not? Mr. Moss. Yes. Mr. HOFFMAN. I think you will agree with me that we might on occasion get more sound legislation out of the House over there if the vote was secret, where our votes would not be exposed to the criticism of pressure groups? Mr. Moss. Yes. We might on occasion. But I think on occasion we might get some very interesting hybrids. I am of the opinion if we could get a little more record rolicali on some items, that perhaps the results might be a little different. Mr. HOFFMAN. I have always been in favor of rolicalls over there, although I am usually in the minority. But I never could go along with this idea that a Congressman was not entitled to the same degree of trust that may be 25 or a hundred or more clerks or stenographers down below. I never could see why I was not permitted to get infor- mation from the Department which some stenographer down there had at his or her fingertip. Mr. Moss. I quite agree with you. And I might also add that I usually stand. when you stand for the rollcalls. Mr. HOFFMAN. But the House did not agree with that propositiOn. They would not give us authority to get this information unless they PAGENO="0314" 1428 ~FO~d~ATIoN FEOI~t 1~EDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES also wrote into the law legislation a provision that we should be sub~ ject to a criminal penalty if we disclosed it. Mr. Moss. I think perhaps working together we might be able to make some recommendations that would support your position. Mr. HOFF1~AN. I have no doubt. But could we ever get them adopted? Mr. Moss. We could certainly try. Mr. MEADE~. I wanted to ask Mr. Honeywell a question or two. On page 3 of yo~fr statement, Mr. Honeywell, you say th~ Small Business Administration has a standing invitation to send its representatives to all BDSA sponsored industry meetings except, taslç group meet- ing~. Mr. HONEYWELL. Yes, sir. Mr. MEADE~. Do they send any? Mr. HONEYWELL. Yes. They attend practically every meeting. Mr. MEADER. I thought maybe your statement indicated they were invited but m~ybe they did not come, Mr. HONEYWELL. In most cases they come. If they find the subject matter is of n~ interest to them they telephone and say they think they will pass this one. Mr. MITOHI~LIJ. That is the task groups, too? Mr. HONEflVELL. No. This is in the industry advisory committees and conferences. In the task group, as we have tried to set forth, the nature of the study is highly technical of a segment of an industry. Mr. MITCHJ!ZLL. Does the small busine~s have an interest in that? Mr. HONEYWELL. They have not so expressed it. It has nothing to do with gener$l business across the country. It has to do with a tech- nical feature, such as fractional-horsepower motors in ~relation to a Department of Defense requirement. Mr. MEADER. Mr. Honeywell, are you familiar with the Office of Strategic Information in the Commerce Department? Mr. HONEYWELL. I know that there is such an office; yes, sir. Mr. MEADER. Have you had any contact with it? Mr. HONEYWELL. I have had no contact with it whatsoever other than when Mr. Karl Honaman first came to the Department of Com~ merce, I invited him to address a staff meeting of the BDSA in which there were pr~sent possibly 60 representatives of BDSA. Mr. MEADEI*. You have not received any directives or policy state- ments from th~ Office of Strategic Information? Mr. HONEYV~TELL. No, sir, I have not. We have never referred a case to them to my knowledge. Mr. MEADER. And are you familiar at all with their general direc- tive or regulation urging agencies of the Federal Government to ex~ change information on a barter basis with Iron Curtain countries? Mr. HONEYWELL. We saw that when it was first issued; yes, Mr. Meader. Mr. MEADER. Have you done any such exchanging? Mr. HONEYW~LL. We have done no such thing, because we develop very little origipal work which would have an exchange value. Ours is more a stati~tical review of availability and of location and that sort of thing 4vhich is not appropriate for an interchange inter- nationally. PAGENO="0315" ~NFORMAT1OT~ FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1429 ~ir. MEADER. Well, Iron Curtain eountries ma~ be doing something `along the line of .the function of your agencies in planning for mobili- zation. / Wouldn't you think it would be of some value to our Government to know what they are up to? Mr. HONEYWELL. I think it would be perfectly delightful if we could know a great deal about what they are up to. But I do not believe that we have anything very specific to offer in exchange. Be- cause everything of ours is of a public nature practically speaking excepting under those two single categories that we have revealed to you. Mr. MEADEE. But you see the Office of Strategic Information deals only the field of unclassified information. And it attempts to put some kind of a control over unc'assified information for the purpose of bartering it with the Iron Curtain countries. Mr. HONEYWELL. Well, of all the material that has been turned out of BDSA, whether it be in the nature of minutes of meetings, whether it be in the nature of small publications, we have never been requested to hold up on any item for the purpose of developing a barter approach to it. Mr. MEADER. Because of your experience in Government and busi- ness, Mr. Honeywell, do you care to give us the benefit of your judg- ment of the effectiveness of this barter of information program; or its likelihood of turning up anything worthwhile? Mr. HONEYWELL. Mr. Meader, I would like to be intelligent enough to have an opinion on that. But honestly I do not know. I do not know what could be secured or what should be given. Mr. Moss. Mr. Honeywell, to your knowledge has the OSI ever asked you for any evaluation of the material developed in those meetings? Mr. HONEYWELL. I explained to you, Mr. Moss, that Mr. Honaman addressed our meeting. The nature of his remarks was merely to call attention to the fact that there was such an office being established in the Department of Commerce, and that we might well review the na- ttire of the material which we were preparing to publish to see if in our judgment anything of that nature were to develop. Now, everything that we- Mr. Moss. Did you so review? Mr. HONEYWELL. Each individual division undoubtedly has had it in the back of their mind, but nothing came out of it, Mr. Moss. Mr. Moss. Perhaps it might be helpful to you if we explained why we are so much interested in your relations with OSI. I believe we had 4 hours of close questioning. And at the moment I think I can safely speak for other members of the committee in stating that we are unable to tell at the moment just exactly what they are doing. And we are looking for some enlightenment on the activities of the OSI. Mr. HONEYWELL. Well, sir, I wish that I could help you in that respect. Mr. Moss. I wish you could, too. Mr. HONEYWELL. Please remember that everything we publish in printed form is cleared through the publications office of the Depart- ment of Commerce. Mr. Moss. Of course, everything used by OSI genendly is avail- able to the public. PAGENO="0316" 1430 I~OR~tA~TION PROM EEDEEAL DEDARTMENTS~AND AGENCIES Mr. H0NEYwEI,I4. Well, the only point I wanted to make, Mr. ~oss~ is that pamphlets, small publications, might be cleared in another area that I would nbt be advised about. I have never been advised that there was to be[ any withholding of anything that we propose to put out publicly. Mr. MITCHELL. On that point, Mr. Honeywell, would you refer to page 4 of Operating Instruction No. 7, section 11. Are these complete summary meetings of each conference-this is a business conference-identical with those prepared by the Office of Public Information? Mr. HONEYWELL. No. The Office of Public Information, as I under- stand it, puts out apress release. Mr. MITCHELL. So, the minutes are not the same? Mr; HONEYWJ~LL. They are not the same, no. Mr. MITCHEL~. Are these complete summary meetings of each conference available for inspection by the public? Mr. HONEYWeLL. Yes. Mr. MITCHELL. Then, they are available also to the press? Mr. HONEYWELL. They are. Mr. FASCELL. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman, while we are wait~ing? Mr. Moss. Ye~. Mr. FASCELL. Maybe this has already been covered. But I am at a loss here. Your activity arises out of the Defense Production Act. Mr. HONEYWáJJ. In part, yes. Mr. FASCELL. In part. And you say other related laws? Mr. HONEYWELL. Well, the organic law is set up in the Department of Commerce that applies to nondefense activities. Mr. FASCELL. In other words, you have got some committees under one grouping and some under another? Mr. HONEYWELL. That is correct, sir. Mr. FASCELL. All right. When you sa~ that you cleared your matters with the Public In~ formation Officej of the Department of Commerce, which group of committees were tyou talking about? Mr. HONEYWELL. I am sorry. That throws me for a second. I want to be sure. Mr. MEADER. Press releases go out? Mr. HONEYWELL. Press releases go out through the- Mr. FASCELL. All press releases for all the groups of committees? Mr. HONEYWELL. Or through our own public relations officer. In other words, we may not even clear it with the Department office per se. We just put it out ourselves if it is just a routine press release of the meeting. Mr. FASCELL. What determines whether or not you send it up to the Department Public Information Office? Mr. HONEYWEI4~. We always clear any conference, because that meet~ ing has been called by the Secretary, and, as such, it is secretarial level of press-release clearance. If it is a task group, if it is an industry advisory committee, which is strictly within BDSA, it may not be necessary to in our judgment clear it with the Department Public Information Office. PAGENO="0317" ~IN~'OR1~ATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES ,1431 Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Honeywell, I would like to introduce one moire thing in the record. And then I think we can proceed to operating instruction No. 8. - Mr. Chairman, this is a letter that was addressed to all Government agencies by Chairman Dawson on November 21. Here is a copy for you gentlemen. Mr. HONEYWELL. Thank you. Mr. MITCHELL. I would like to read this for the record, if there is no objection. Mr. Moss. Certainly. Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Honeywell, this committee last November heard testimony from Mr. Harry E. Ressiguie of the Fairchild Publications concerning the employment and use of industry advisory committees. I might add that he was complimentary to the Department of Com- merce. The following day after his testimony, this committee heard testi- mony from the Department of Agriculture. As a result of this testimony, Chairman Dawson, chairman of the full Government Oper- ations Committee, wrote a letter dated November 21, 1955, to all eovernment agencies containing a series of 22 questions to be answered by January 1, 1956; on or about November 25, 1955, the Bureau of the Budget also requested similar information concerning the employ- ment and use of advisory groups. I am sure you are familiar with the request made by Chairman Dawson as far as BDSA is concerned; is that right ~ Mr. ROPER. I am familiar with it, yes. Mr. MITCHELL. For the purposes of the record, I would like to read that letter: And this went across the board. But this particular letter was for the Department of Commerce: DEAR MR. SECRETARY: Please furnish this committee by January 1, 1956, the followlng information with regard to all committees created by and/or advising your Department and any of its constituent parts since January 1, 195~3, if there is serving on such committee any person other than a regular full-time Federal employee compensated on an annual basis: 1. Name of committee and its functions and duties. 2. Date committee was created. .3. Membership of committee (give names of individuals). 4. Statutory authority for creation of committee. 5. Copy of document creating committee and/or authorizing its functions and activities. Also copy of all amending documents to date. 6. By when are members of committee appointed and for what terms of office? 7. With whom does the committee advise and consult? 8. In what manner and in what amounts are members of this committee com- pensated and/or reimbursed for expenses? Please cite authority. 9. How often does the committee meet? Where does it meet? 10. Who has authority to convene the committee? 11. Who appoints the chairman, secretary, or other officers of the committee? 12. Who is responsible for keeping minutes of the committee's meetings? 13. Where are these minutes kept on file? 14. Are the minutes of meetings available for public inspection? 15. What publicity is given the meetings of the committee, and who is re~ sponsible for giving out such publicity? - 16. Give dates and places of committee meetings since January 1, 1953. 17. Who prepares agenda for committee meetings? 18. Who has authority to place items on committee agenda? 19. Does the committee communicate recommendations or other advice to your department in written form? Any other form? Describe. PAGENO="0318" 1432 INI~OEMAITTON FROM FEDERAL DEPA~ITMENTS AND AGENCIES 20. Does the committee have any staff~ part time or full time? Descrthe~ staff, givthg nam~s, full-time nifiliation, and salary, if any, received from the~ Federal Government or other sources. 21. Give backgxkuud, business connections, and quaiificatioim including nO1i~ Federal affiliatior~ of members of committee and its staff. This applies only to organization coniitections frem which income is derived and/or which involve holding a position as officer or trustee of a non-Federal organization concerned With a business or industry. 22. List reports made by committee since January 1, 1953, other than coni- mittee minutes. Sincerely yours, WILLIA1\E L. DAwsow, 04a'irman. Mr. MITcrn~Lt. Now, Mr. Honeywell, isn't this the first time that an across-the-boar4l tabulation has ever been made by either Congress or the Executive *ith respect to the operation of industry advisory conifr mittees? Mr. HONEYW1~LL. I cannot answer that, Mr. Mitchell. I don't knowS Mr. MITCHELL. Do you know if an Executive order is in prepara- tion? Mr. HONEYWELL. That I don't know. Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Roper? Mr. ROPER. I heard that an Executive order regarding the estab- lishment and operation of industry advisory groups is being considered in the executive branch. Mr. MITCHELI~. Do you have any specific information as to whether the Department'of Justice is working on that or not? Mr. ROPER. I think, Mr. Mitchell, if you will look at the testimony~ of Judge Barm$s, I believe on December 9 before the House Anti- trust Subcommittee, you will find various references by Judge Barnes to a proposed Executive order dealing with industry advisory groups. In fact I think he did say in his testimony that there was no assur- ance, if I am not mistaken, that such an order would be issued. Mr. MITCHELL. Now, this committee is primarily concerned with the 7 questions: 12, 18, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18. Is there any duplication between the efforts of the EDSA and its industry advisory committees, task groups, and other speciai con- ferences with tije Department of Defense, which has over a thou~ sand industry advisory groups? Mr. HONEYWF~LL. We believe hat there is no overriding duplica- tion. Their need for information from industry is diferent from ours. In some instances, we have actually called our Committee to- gether for their benefit, because they did not have a comparable committee that they could refer their problem to. Mr. MITCHELL1 Do members of your groups also serve on advisory groups of the D~partment of Defense? Mr. HONEYWE~L. That is a possibility, although I am not per- sonally aware of ~t. Mr. MITCHELL~ Is there any, to your knowledge, effective control at the present time in the executive for the utilization of advisory committees? Mr. HONEYWE±~L. We believe that we have full and complete con-~ trol within BDS~A.; and I am not aware of the actions in other de- partments or agencies. Mr. MITCHELL. Is there any one place in the executive where a~ member of the public or an individual could go to find out infor- PAGENO="0319" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMFNTS AN]~ AG~CrES 1433 mation concerning the overall operation of industry advisory coin- mittees? Mr. HoNEYwELL. Not to my knowledge. Mr. MEAnER. Might I ask a question at this timeS? Mr. Moss. Mr. Meader. Mr. MEADEE. Mr. Honeywell, does the Office of War Mobilization have industry advisory committees and task groups and conferences like you do? Mr. HONEYWELL. The Office of War Mobilization? Mr. MEADER. Mr. Flemming's outfit. Mr. HONEYWELL. I believe that they do have committees, sir. Mr. MEADER. Is there any duplication between Commerce Depart- ment committees and 0DM committees? Mr. HONEYWELL. No, sir. Mr. MITCHELL. Where do your recommendations go? Don't~ they go to the 0DM? Mr. HONEYWELL. I wanted to expound on that very point; that the vast majority of our work in defense and mobilization is by delega- tion from the Office of Defense Mobilization. We report recommendations of these industry advisory committees to 0DM. If another committee of 0DM should act upon or review these recommendations, it would be at some other level which would need the information which we may have produced for their benefit. That is why I do not believe there is any duplication. Because Dr. Flemming's policy is to take the Office of Defense Mobilization out of all operations wherever possible and keep it strictly at the policy level and by delegation assign to other departments and agen- cies of Government the spadework responsibility of pulling together the details of specific problems. Mr. Moss. Do we have the same close liaison between the Defense Department and its committees as appear to exist between the Office of Defense Mobilization and the Department of Commerce? Mr. HONEYWELL. I am not in a position to answer that, sir. There is no liaison between those committees in the Department of Defense and the Department of Commerce. Mr. Moss. When you say there is no duplication, that is an as- sumption which is not- Mr. HQNEYWELL. There is no duplication to my knowledge, sir. May I put it that way. Mr. Moss. And you maintain no liaison; so it would be difficult to determine whether or not there was duplication? Mr. HONEYWELL. That is correct. May I also add for the record that it is my understanding that the Department of Defense is pri- marily concerned with the specific procurement problems related to their requirements only; whereas, the Department of Commerce re- sponsibility and concern is in accepting from the Department of Defense their requirements, and then adding to that the defense sup- porting and rockbottom essential civilian requirements. Mr. Moss. However, in determining requirements, you would have to determine military requirements in order to have a comprehensive picture of requirements; so to a degree at least you are duplicating? Mr. HONEYWELL. The needs of the military are supplied to us by the military through 0DM. We do not attempt to- PAGENO="0320" 1434 INFO4TIONFEOM PEDE~AL DEPAuTMENTS AND AGENc~S Mr. Moss. they have arrived at those needs in part through cone sultation with ftheir advisory committee? Mr. HONEY~TELL. That is to be presumed. Mr. MITCHELL. Isn't it one of the primary functions of the BDSA to keep and restrict their industry advisory committees and task groups in the fields of requirements of the military? Mr. HONEYWELL. No, sir. Requirements from the military are for- warded to us, as I just mentioned, through 0DM. Mr. MITCHEI~L. Through 0DM? Mr. HONEYWtELL. Through 0DM to us. Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to return to operating instruction No.~ 8- Mr. MEADER4 Before we go on, I would like to ask if the Small Business Admihistration has advisory committees to your knowledge? Mr. HONEYWELL. Not to my knowledge, sir. I do not know their organizational setup in that respect. Mr. MEADER. And whether there would be any duplication or not or any liaison between your organization and theirs. Mr. HONEY1?~ELL. There is li~tison. But as far as duplication, I would seriously doubt it, for the simple reason that in the field of de- fense and mobi~ization, the delegations run from the Office of Defense Mobilization to the Department of Commerce and through that to J3DSA; where~s, Small Business Administration in my understand- ing is largely a~ matter of help and assistance to the small-business man in helping to secure contracts with the military, or bank loans, or other types of service; but not predicated on mobilization base planning. You see, Mr. Meader, it is a physical impossibility to take any prod- uct-you can take any product_-ashtrays, if you please-and say that ~one organization will do the mobilization planning for companies that employ less than so many men and \another organization will do `the mobilizatioi~ planning for the larger companies. One agency must do all the utiobilization planning for the manufacture of ashtrays, if you please. Ashtrays are a poor simile for comparison. And that is the primary work of BDSA by delegation from 0DM. Mr. MEADER. I am pretty sure that the Small Business Administra- tion does have some kind of advisory committees. Mr. HONEYWELL. It is quite possible, sir. But I believe they would serve in a differe~it field of advice. Mr. MITCHELL,. Returning to operating instruction No. 8: Careful scrutiny of this operating instruction No. 8 reveals that nowhere in the regulation isjthere a provision made for public announcement of a meeting. Whynot? Mr. HONEYWE~AL. Well, I cannot say whether it is in there, because I haven't mernoriz~d operating instruction No. 8. We know that the publication is mi~de. Mr. MITCHELL. Well, this is a factor which the chairman has pointed -out many times with other departments, that their rules and regula- tions seem to inhibit the various people who are operating under them relative to the fields of public information. Mr. HONEYWELL. May I mention to you, Mr. Mitchell- `Mr. MITCHELL~ Now, the business advisory conference, operating order No. 7, does make specific provisions and review and availability PAGENO="0321" IN1~ORMATI~N FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENOI~S 1435 of records and everything else. But operating instruction No. 8, which by and large covers the vast majority of your activities, makes no provision for public information. Mr. HONEYWELL. Mr. Mitchell, may I repeat what I believe went into the testimony before; and that is that No. 8 is a close carbon copy of an NPA document. And probably it was never thought of in the review of the NPA document when it was reactivated in I3DSA. Mr. MITCHELL. But NPA operated strictly as a Korean war emer- gency agency. Mr. HONEYWELL. Correct. Mr. MITCHELL. We are not in that era at the present time and have not been since 1953. Wasn't BDSA established about October 1953? Mr. HONEYWELL. That is correct. Mr. MITCHELL. Well, certainly the NPA's policies and so forth could be-I hate to use the word "implemented"-but it could be looked at, activated, along the line of more information for the public. Mr. HONEYWELL. Well, isn't it fair to insert in the record that whether it be in operating instrtiction No. 8 or whether it be on the wall of the pressroom, the fact is that the public is being given notice of these meetings? Mr. MITCHELL. But the most important factor is that the people operating under these instructions may not be necessarily aware. In other words, the language of a directive has a great influence, as we found out with the Civil Service Commission, On the employees. Mr. Moss is much more familiar with that. I was not on the com- mittee. Mr. HONEYWELL. No meeting of any one of these types or categories can~ be held without advising our Mr. Hersum, who in turn, through our public information office, gets it on the list. This is not left to the discretion of an individual in a divisiofi. Mr. Moss. Well, Mr. Mitchell is pointing out the fact that we fre- quently encounter directives that either fail to specify certain public items of information or notice. The case of the Civil Service Com- mission-we were told that they maintained an absolute open-door policy. Yet their instructions, or their employees' manual, was so phrased that if I had been an employee of the Commission, I would never talk to anyone from any newspaper at any time, feeling that to do so would certainly bring about my dismissal; because that is the way the instructions read. And as long as the policy is set forth in detail here, if there is public notice, why wouldn't it be advisable to amend the instructions to make that fact clearly evident? Mr. HONEYWELL. May I call your attention, sir, to page 8 of instruc- tion No. 8 at the bottom; sections 9 and 10 inferentially deal with this very subject. Mr. MITCHELL. "Inferentially"; that is the right word. Mr. MEAnER. Mr. Chairman, may I make an observation at this point? Mr. Moss. Certainly. Mr. MEADER. Both of these operating instructions, as far as I have been able to see from a rather hasty look at them, are silent on the point of whether they should be secret or open. But that is not particularly unusual. I do not know that it would be quite ~9222-56--pt. 6-21 PAGENO="0322" 1436 INFORMkTION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENOIE$ appropriate t~ write in there that they shall be secret or open. It is silent on the point. And in that respect it is quite similar to the rules of the House of Representatives. And i-and I think the minority leader-were of the opinion that under the rules of the House of Representatives, committees had the power to permit cover- age of their open public hearings by television and radio. But there has been a ruling and interpretation of the rules to the contrary on the ground that the rules of the House do not expressly authorize coverage of tl~e proceedings in the House by television and radio, and that sinc'eI they are not expressly authorized, there is no power in the House or in the committees which are bound by House rules to permit television and radio coverage of their public proceedings. Mr. Moss. I want to thank the gentleman for making a most per- suasive argument for amending the directive to clearly set forth the policy on information. If that had been done in the House, we would not be at the mercy of an individual in determining what the rules might be. Mr. MEADER. Well, I sought to get such amendment to the rules of the House. But I didn't get very far. Mr. Moss. I 1~hink we have a little opportunity here to do some lobby- ing for a change of rules which would leave these committees free to go ahead and rri~tke the information on their meetings and their agenda freely available without perhaps being at the mercy of some successor of Mr. Hersun~'s or Mr. Honeywell's who might not believe as they do that they should be open. Mr. HONEYWELL. Mr. Moss, we are happy to take any suggestion that this committee would care to give to us. We have tried to ex- press to you what we said in our statement-on open-door policy on public information to the extent that it does not interfere with the private rights df the individuals or the security of the Nation. And that those two a~e our only restrictive points of view. Mr. MITCHEL1~J. Mr. Honeywell, would you refer to page 5 of No. 8. Section 5, item No. 6, "Minutes": Full minutes of each meeting shall be kept in accordance with instructions is- sued by the industry advisory committee staff. The industry advisory committee staff shall decide whether minutes or a sum- mary thereof shall be distributed; and if so, to whom such distribution may Lic~ made. Now, that puts a great deal of responsibility and authority in thaf position of an industry advisory committee. Is there any means pro- vided whereby t~ member of the public or the press can look at thos'~ minutes? Mr. HONEYWE~LL. Well, you haven't stated that they are not avaiL~ able yet. Mr. MITCHELL. That is my point. The point is that it gives thr~ interpretation that some are not available. Mr. HONEYWELL. There is always the possibility that one might pM~ be available or two might not be available. And we have volunteerca4 the fact that the minutes of two specific meetings were not ms,i~ available. Mr. Moss. Ar~ you the industry advisory committee staff? Mr. HONEYWEnL. Mr. Hersum is the head of that operation, sir, Mr. Moss. No~, does each advisory committee have a staff? Mr. IJ1iu~simt. ~o. PAGENO="0323" flEOI~M~TION ~`ROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1437 Mr. Moss. You are the staff~? Mr. HERSUM. I am the staff; yes Mr. MEADER. For all the meetings? Mr. HER5UM. Yes. Mr. Moss. For any determination as to whether or not the minutes of the meetings shall be available. Mr. HERSUM. Yes; that is true. In those two instances we cited where there was not distribution~ that was because they were classified. Mr. MEADER. Mr. Hersum, you are ~a full-time, paid employee of the Department of Commerce, are you? Mr. IJERsUM. Yes, sir. Mr. MEADER. You are not a WOC? Mr. HERSUM. No, sir. I can't afford it. Mr. MITCHELL. As a matter of fact, aren't there an awful lot of conferences or industry advisory committee meetings which do not come under the Defense Production Act or security requirements? Mr. HONEYWELL. The vast majority do not come under any security language. That is why we are able to make such public disposition of the minutes. Mr. Moss. Now, we are talking about two things, of course. We are talking about what you actually do; and we are talking about the authority which is delegated to the staff of the advisory committees. Mr. HONEYWELL. That is correct, sir. Mr. Moss. The practice appears to be a very open one. However, under the terms of the language, No. 6 on page 5, the industry advisory committee staff shall decide whether minutes or a summary thereof shall be distributed and if so to whom such distribu- tion shall be made. Mr. HONEYWELL. That is correct. Mr. Moss. That means that you, then, assert full authority to with- hold any and all information on whatever grounds you might deter- mine from any individual without having any uniform policy on this matter. Mr. HONEYWELL. Well, Mr. Moss, we have a uniform policy. Mr. Moss. I am not talking of practice; I am talking of what this language says. Mr. J-IONEYWELL. May I, then, amplify the reasons back of this? Mr. Moss. Yes. Mr. HONEYWELL. Please remember that within the Business and Defense Services Administration, we have 25 industry divisions that cover 450 basic industries, domestic industries. Now, our total employment roll for this number of divisions and the staff personnel is 450 people. It was felt necessary and highly advis- able that there be one central staff officer who would be responsible to review all minutes, check any requests for security coverage, or any re- quest from any other source that they not be made available, rather than to leave it in the hands of 25 divisions or 4~0 people to individu- ally make such a determination. That is the reason for this statement in these instructions. Mr. Moss. Yes. I appreciate that. Mr. Hersum would have to classify the minutes of any meeting where classified material was used, if it were material classified under Executive Order No. 10501. We would have no choice but to elassi~y PAGENO="0324" 1438 NFORM4~TION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES the meeting minutes at the highest level of classification of material used. Do you ~iso have the authority of original classification? Mr. HERSUM. No, sir. Mr. Moss. You do not claim that authority? Mr. HER5UM. No. Mr. Moss. So that the minutes classified because of the use of re- stricted materi~J would be an automatic classification of those minutes? Mr. HER5UM. On the other hand, it is actually this practice; because in practice you see we want to make these minutes available to people that have a direct interest. And if there is a classification I endeavor to find out whether a classification is necessary. That goes to 2 or 3 other people who customarily will confirm or deny that it should be classified. Mr. Moss. If classified material were used, you have no choice; you cannot downgrade it; you did not originate the material? Mr. HER5UM. That is correct. Mr. Moss. So in the matter of security classification, you are left without any choice? It is an automatic application of a classification to those minutes? Mr. HER5UM. Yes. Mr. HONEYWELL. May I comment to that point? Mr. Moss. Yes. Mr. HoNEYwn~u.. The determination and decision of appropriate classification under alleged security requirements is an individual judgment matter. In many instances- Mr. Moss. Mr. Honeywell, I would have, in this instance that I refer to, disagree. It is not Mr. Hersum's judgment; the minutes are con- trolled by the nature of the classified information used in the discus- sions. Isn't that correct, Mr. Hersuin? Mr. HERSUM.; That is correct. Mr. Moss. And you would have no choice, not being the originator of the classification, to classify them at a lower classification than that of the highest material used in the discnssion? Mr. HERSUM. Oniy following consultation with superiors who- Mr. Moss. Who originally imposed the classification? Mr. HEitsiThE. Yes, later. Now, you see in actual practice we would take the record, look it over, and say well, no~v, why is this secret? I might consult with one of our lawyers. I might consult with Mr. Honeywell. I might consult with other people wjthin the organization, particularly the staff officials. And if it was d~cided that it was not properly classified, why, it could possibly be remOved. Mr. MEADER. Let me ask a question at this point. Mr. Moss. Let me pursue this a minute further. Do I understand if you had a meeting where certain information was discussed which had been supplied to you under a classification, that the Department of Commerce acting unilaterally could override the classification which `had been imposed by the originating authority? Mr. HER5UM. I would say that in the particular case in question I went back to the Division Director, because it was not apparent to me what the nature of the classified information contained therein was, and he quickly proved to me that it was, and as such, why, the classifi- cation remained. Mr. Moss. Well, now- PAGENO="0325" I~V0RMAPION FEOM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1439 Mr. HER5UM. Otherwise, I might have taken it to additional staff officers~ within our organization for consideration as to whether or not that was a proper classification. Mr. Moss. That is dealing with meetings where classified material was used? Mr. HERSUM. Yes. Mr. Moss. The point I am trying to make is: Do you claim the au- thority to declassify those minutes without the permission of the classifying authority which supplied the information to you? Mr. HER5UM. The answer is "No." Mr. Moss. You do not claim that authority? Mr. HER5UM. That is correct; but we can review the classification. Mr. Moss. You can review it, but you may not declassify it? Mr. I-IEi~suM. Without his consent. Mr. Moss. Without his consent. So, your review is more an academic review than one of any practical force unless you want to go back to the classifying authority and ask their permission, or ask them to concur in your views that it should not be classified? Mr. HERSUM. That is correct. Mr. HONEYWELL. That is always the very first step. But the thing that we are very conscious of is that many people are supercareful by putting classification stamps on material which, in the broader judg- ment of BDSA, which is the originating agency, if not the originating individual, are not appropriate. So, we review that with them to be sure that the minutes, as prepared, do in fact contain materials which are appropriate for classification. Now, we do not at any time reserve the right to arbitrarily rule out a classification which has been appropriate and adequately demon- strated to apply. Never. Mr. Moss. No. But I think we have here-you are still asserting a right-and I am merely trying to define it-it is my contention that under Executive Order 10501 of the President that material supplied to you which has been classified under that orâer may not be declassi- fied by you nor your agency. Mr. HONEYWELL. That is correct. Material supplied to us from other sources who originated classification. Mr. Moss. Therefore, minutes containing that material would bear at Tea~t an equivalent cJassjfication? Mr HONEYWELL That is correct, sir Mr Moss So that would be an automatic thing You could review and you could recommend to the originator of the classified material that they declassify it so that you could declassify your minutes. Mr. HONEYWELL. That is correct, sir. Mr. Moss. But the thing that I am interested in actually is the language here "The Industry Advisory Committee staff shall decide whether minutes or summary thereof shall be distributed. And if so, to whom such distribution shall be made?" Now that seems to assert very broad right to determine whether or not minutes will be made available without any standard criteria, and even to assert the right to selectively distribute selectively wher- ever in your judgment the minutes should go. PAGENO="0326" 1440 INFORMA~t ION FROM FEDERAL DEPA~TMENTSA~1 ~A~ThB You could under that language decide that newspaper A would be entitled to the minutes and newspaper B would not. You have granted to the staff a very broad authority. Mr. HONEYWELL. That may be a correct statement, Mr. Moss, as you interpret these ~vords written here. May I call yOur attention to 1 of the 2 minutes, and only 2, that were no~ generally distributed? Mr. Moss. Remember that I said at the beginning of my statement that we were no~ talking about the policies you are following. And it is my judgment that those appear to be very open. And I com- mend you for them. I am talking about the policies you could follow if you wanted to under that language. Mr. HONEYWELL. That I recognize, Mr. Moss. But I was trying to call your attention also to that one particular meeting which was not classified in the established sense of security classification; but the withholding of those minutes was specifically requested. And this was the authority by which we did withhold it. Mr. Moss. Tl~ere was an affirmative finding that it was in the national interest to withhold the minutes? Mr. HONEYWELL. That is correct. Mr. Moss. Why would it not be well then to establish some criteria to guide the staff of the advisory committees in determining which minutes are to be made public-perhaps by saying that they can withhold the minutes for reasons of national security; whatever the need might be. But not this very broad grant of authority which says they can do anything they want with the minutes. Mr. HONEYWELL. Well, .1 can believe that that might have merit as far as this dodument is concerned. Mr. Moss. I ~ould like to make this point: A great part of the problem encountered by this committee is merely a matter of em- phasis. We feel that if a number of directives and statutes could be changed so that the implication is quite clear that the information was generally available except upon an affirmative finding of the need to withhold in the interest of national security, or in the interest of the Nation- Mr. HONEYWELL. National policy- Mr. Moss. That we would have a freeing out, in many agencies, of the information they control. This is just an example. You are not apparently using it as it could be used. But in Government we can- not always be sure from day to day that the same people will be administrating the affairs of Government. Mr. HONEYWELL. That, sir, I think we can count on in BDSA. Mr. MEADER. Could I ask a question? Mr. Moss. You would have to invoke the blessings of the Almighty to be able to assure me. Mr. MEADER. Mr. Honeywell, do all of the members of the various groups, conferences, and committees that you have require clearances for access to security material? Mr. HONEYWELL. No, sir. Mr. MEADER. 4re any of them? Mr. HoNEYw~L. Yes, sir. Mr. MEADER. Which ones, the task groups? PAGENO="0327" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1441 Mr. HONEYWELL. Many of the task groups are security cleared. And some of the industry advisory committees are security cleared. None of the conferences. Mr. MEAnER. In other words, it would be only where there was security material presented to people who had clearances, who have access to security material, where there would be any question of this kind? Mr. HONEYWELL. Basically, that is correct, sir. But 1 of the 2 that we did withhold was not security. It was in the public interest. So, there, again, it was not security, so this we did not have to have the members of the special conference cleared. It was policy. Mr. MEADER. That was this international negotiation? Mr. HONEYWELL. Yes. And that was strictly policy. And there again a single criteria that only if the members of the committee are cleared may the minutes be classified would not always obtain. Mr. MEADER. I would like to ask one more question on this item 6: Vesting expressly-by express language in item 6 the discretion to release the minutes of meetings in the Industry Advisory Committee staff, who are full-time paid employees of the Department of Com- merce. The effect of that is to deny that an Industry Advisory Com- mittee, or its members, have the right to withhold the minutes of their action; am I correct in that? Mr. HONEYWELL. You are correct, sir. No conference, no commit- tee, no task group, has any right to make any final determination. They are there for purposes of advice and consultation only. Mr. MEADER. And they cannot withhold- Mr. HONEYWELL. They cannot withhold a thing- Mr. MEAnER. The action that they took or the ideas that they ex- pressed during their meetings- Mr. HONEYWELL. That is correct. Mr. MEAnER. On the ground that perhaps they are not a govern- mental agency, that it is private information or anything else. Mr. HONEYWELL. That is correct, sir. Mr. MEADER. The authority to release or withhold is vested in full- time paid Government officials? Mr. HONEYWELL. That is correct, sir. Mr. MITCHELL. Which leads to the question of how complete are the minutes that are released and who makes that determination. Because many of the ones that this committee has studied in the re- leases tell practically nothing of what went on. Mr. MEADER. Are you speaking about minutes of this agency? Mr. MITCHELL. I am talking about right on No. 6. They make available a lot of information. There is no question of that. But the most important point is who makes the determination and who does the deciding as to the completeness of the minutes so that the public can know what has happened? Mr. HONEYWELL. That decision is made by joint recommendation. Mr. MITCHELL. Where the industry members participate? Mr. HONEYWELL. That is correct. Where industry members par- ticipate. Now, wait a second please. Let's not get me out of context. It is not made by the committee. But the committee may be ealled by a division of BDSA. It is the division that is the kriowledga- PAGENO="0328" 1442 INFORMJ~TI0N FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES ble unit of BSDA in relation to the subject matter for this committee, the calling of the committee. Excuse me, sir, may I complete this thought? Mr. Hersum's office is called upon to supply a summary minutes writer to attend and transcribe what happened at that meeting. That minute summary writer prepares a rough draft and submits it right back to the Industry Division, not to the committee; but to the In~ dustry Division, to see if it is appropriate through accurate summa- tion of what tOok place at that meeting. Now, then, there have been many minutes released with security information deleted. Now, that is why some of these minutes seem to say nothing. We would prefer to have some minutes available to the public of such material as is available to the public rather than to classify "umpteen" paragraphs because of 3 words in paragraph 7. Now, that information that they gave us at that time is locked in the files of that Division; so that we have accomplished the purpose of the meeting ~vith security information wrapped up in that informa- tion. But we go ahead and put out minutes of the meeting deleting that entirely. And, thereafter, we are in a position to let the rest of the industry who did not sit in that meeting have a broad scope approach to what happened at that meeting, rather than to cancel it all. Mr. ROPER. Mr. Chairman, I tried to make a point before. But I was not able to. Mr. Moss. You go right ahead. Mr. ROPER. I think Mr. Honeywell has made it very well. And I would like to dmphasize it. You were discussing in detail and quite extensively the fact that the industry representatives whose statements appear in the TAC minutes are not identified by name. Well, No. 1, that does away with the necessity of having these industry representa- tives review and approve the minutes. And secondly, it would be a very time-consi~ming operation when we consider that 12,20, or some- times 30 members are scattered all over the country. Mr. MITOHE1JL. Why would they have to review it at all? They are only giving advice. Mr. ROPER. I merely say this: I would never suggest, and I do not think you will, Mr. Mitchell, where you have a summary report of an industry repre~entative's statement, that you would not give him the opportunity to check the statement ascribed to him? Mr. MITCHELXJ. That is correct. Mr. Moss. I would say you face the same problem that we on this committee face when we have a number of witnesses? Mr. HONEYWELL. That is correct. Mr. ROPER. Excuse me. Just one step further. On the other hand the Government representatives who speak at these meetings are identified by name, and they are given an opportunity to review their statements. Of course that is not a mechanical problem because they are all close by. And they are relatively few in number. Mr. HONEYW~LL. That is for the benefit of industry; that the Army said that; the Navy said that, and the Air Force said this; if they happen to attend one of these meetings. So they have a record of that in their hands by those minutes. PAGENO="0329" INFOflMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS A~D AGENCIES 1443 Mr. MiPcI~L. In the light of what has just been said, this com- mittee has received a complaint about a meeting in mid-March 1956~- and here I am not going to call it a task group-I do know it was an advisory committee concerning steel-which according to metal trade journals was held without prior notice; without revealing the agenda, and without making public any of its findings in any way. However, a leak developed; apparently one trade journal received a tip from a member of the committee and wrote a story. Rival trade journals got a call back and found BDSA wanting to know what it was all about. The reporters were quite sore that they had been scooped and had not been told about the meeting by the Commerce Depart- ment. BDSA officials who handled the meeting are reported to have criticized Mr. Richard R. Blaisdell, their information officer, about the blowup. And he is reported to have replied "What can you ex- pect when you try to keep things secret which we in the information office should know about in the first place What do you think the Office of Information is for? We do not know anytihng about your secret meeting. And you did not take the time to inform us about it." The agenda before the Steel Products Advisory Comñiittee was highly important. It concerned the possible expansion of the steel industry from the present 125-million-ton capacity to 150 million tons. Also the matter of a 5-year ta~ amortization was brought up around the committee table. Is this a true or a- Mr. HONEYWELL. We have Mr. Blaisdell with us. Mr. BLAISDELL. I was misquoted. As a matter of fact I did not personally handle this release, nor the situation. Mr. MITChELL. There was not any, was there? Mr. BLAISDELL. Oh, yes. Mr. Rorsti. Did you say mid-March 1956? Mr. MrroHEtn. Yes. Just last month. Mr. ROPER. Can you identify that meeting? Mr. BLAISDELL. Not a meeting. It is a report that we- Mr. ROPER. Counsel has said- Mr. MITCHELL. Could you give us the details of it, please, of what this concerns? Mr. Bn~&Is1~LL. I have it secondhand from my former associate who is not in the office any more, and Who handled this particular case. The story broke on a recommendation which I understood was made by this task group on mobilization that by 1960 a certain tonnage of ingot and I believe pig iron or steel for castings would be needed. That is, for everything-military ahd civilian requirements cover- ing everything. Such reports and recommendations would normally go to 0DM. And it is my understanding that it would be up to 0DM to publicize it. In this case I am informed by Mr. Todd Wright who did handle the situation that after the story broke-I did not know how it broke, or where the reporter got his or her information-but Mr. Wright decided that it was a good story. So he got ih touch with 0DM, their information director, and was told that 0DM was not going to put out a release on it. And the 0DM director said you go ahead and put one out. So we did. That is the story as far as I know. Mr. HONEYWELL. For the record, sir, may I correct the date: the press release I have here in my hand that was put out by BDSA. PAGENO="0330" 1444 INFORMi~TION ~FROM ~~D~RAL DEPARTMEN~J~S AND AOENC~E$: And it is dated September 8, 1955. This is not ~a 195G action. (See exhibit IV.) Mr. MITcHEI4I4.. Has there been any iron and steel discussion this year in the month of March? Mr. HONEY*ELL. There may very well be. I do not know. But nothing to dol with recommendations on the expansion of the iron and steel industry. Because the Defense Mobilization Board of the Office of Defense Mobilization rejected any further expansion goals or tax amortization assistance to the iron and steel industry, which closed the door. Mr. MITOHELL. Have they so annouced that? Mr. HONEYWELL. Oh, yes. That was made public long ago. Mr. FA5CELL. Will somebody tell me what is secret or what is in the national interest, or what is security, about expansion by the producers of steel and iron? Mr. HONEY*ELL. There are the figures right there in the press re- lease, sir. Mr. FASCELL~ I mean just explain it to me. I do not understand it. I don't mean the content. I mean the reasoning behind why you woud not want to discuss this thing openly. Mr. HONEYWELL. For the simple reason that as I mentioned earlier, and possibly you were not present, that the vast majority of our work is in the nature of review and recommendations to the Office of Defense Mobilization. We make these recommendations, and then we say it is up to the Office of Defense Mobilization to publish it or not as they see fit. Mr~ FASCELL~ All right. I have nOt read this release. But does it say what the Industry Committee recommended with respect to the expansion of the prime producers of steel and iron? Mr. HONEYWELL. I think that this particular press release refers to what DBSA recorrunended. We forwarded the recommendation of industry directly to 0DM. Mr. FASCELL, What did BDSA recommend? Mr. HONEYWELL. 150 million ingot tons. Fr. FASCELL. Increase? Mr. HONEYWELL. No, sir. Total for 1960. The total today is ap-. proximately 12~8 million. And our recommendation that that produc- tion capacity should be increased to approximately 150 million by 1960. Mr. FAscEu4. Yes, sir. Now, BDSA recommended an increase; right? Mr. HONEYWELL. That is right. Mr. FAScELL. This is a policy matter, right? Recommended to the Office of Defense Mobilization? Mr. HONEYWELL. That is right. Mr. FASCELLI Recommended by the Industry Advisory Committee on Steel and Iron? Mr. HONEYW~ELL. No, sir. Mr. FASCELL. They did not recommend that. Mr. HONEYWELL. They made their own separate recommendations. And that was transmitted to 0DM separate from the BDSA re,com~~ mendation. PAGENO="0331" INE0B~.TION fl~0M FEDERAL DEPA!~TMENTS. AND AQENCI]~S 14443 Mr. FASCELL. All I am trying to find out is did the Committee recdffimend an increase or decrease? Mr. HONEYWELL. The Committee recommended an increase. Mr. FASCELL. BDSA recommended an increase? Mr. HONEYWELL. Subsequent to the Committee findings BDSA came up with a recommendation. Mr. MEADJDR. But not an identical one? Mr. HONEYWELL. Not an identical one as far as I can remember. Mr. MITCHELL. Is there any reference to tax amortization in there, in the release? Or was it discussed? Mr. HONEYWELL. No. There is no ref erencce here to tax amortiza- tion at all. It is the needs by 1960 of steel capacity. Mr. MITCHELL. How can we find out? Are the minutes of that par- ticular meeting available for public inspection? Mr. ROPER. Yes, sir. Mr. MITCHELL. They are? Mr. ROPER. Yes, sir. Mr. MITCHELL. And that will show whether or not there was a tax amortization discussed? Mr. ROPER. I don't know what it will show. But the minutes are available for inspection.. Mr. Moss. I wonder if it would be possible for the staff to complete this inquiry on this directly with your office. The bells have called the Members to the floor. And I will let Congressman Fascell conclude his questions. Mr. FASCELL. There is no point in my getting into it, because I wanted to find out ODM's rejection. And I wanted to, go into aluminum and a few other things. Mr. Moss. Will you check with Mr. Mitchell and have those ques- tions put to them? Mr. FASc~ELL. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, but I feel on a matter like this I would like to be present and ask the questions. There is no point in continuing it, because I think this establishes clearly the method of operation. And that is all I was interested in. I did want to get into a very important field, however, dealing with the types of meetings, TAO, task groups, and special conferences. Yet the subject matter says instructions for convening and conducting meetings-other than industry conferences. Mr. HONEYWELL. That is correct. Mr. FASCELL. So, naturally, I have an inquiry: Are there informal conferences; are there other conferences; are there other meetings? Mr. HONEYWELL. There are industry conferences covered by in- struction No. 7. Mr. FASCELL. I follow you. Mr. HONEYWELL. And No. 8 covers all others. Mr. FA5CELL. Then the other point is: I notice that on TAO, the agenda is initiated and formulated by the Director of the Division; ` that is a Government man. And in following through with these other meetings, I wanted to call your attention to certain language which allows discretion in some cases on the making up of the agenda. It allows discretion. in formulating the written statement for which the group is called together in the first place; it allows discretion on whether or not it shall be called by the. Government or the industry. PAGENO="0332" 1446 INFOIfl~ATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AN~ AGENCIES And I am just wondering if thaybe we couldn't well consider tighten- ing up those processes; because the rest of them seem to be very good. And keeping ut mind the aim that Government should call it-it should state prebisely what it seeks; the committee should meet, give its advice, and then be discharged. I do not knoW if the industry group has any reason at all for calling a meeting on his own or realiz- ing a problem in advance of being called on by the Government Mr. Moss. We will try to cover those points through the staff. I want to thank you gentlemen for being here this morning. I am going to have you cut this off, because we have to get on a roll- call which is now on its second round. The staff will be contacting you for additional information. We appreciate your cooperation. I would like to suggest that perhaps you look at your rules 7 and 8 and amend it so that it conforms with the practices of your Division. Thank you. (Whereupon, at 12: 17 p. m., the subcommittee adjourned.) PAGENO="0333" AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL~ DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Part 6-Department of Commerce PBII~AY, X~RII~ 27, i56 HousE o~' REPRESENTATIVES, SuBooMMITniiE ON GOVERNMENT INFORMATION OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a. m., in room 1501, New House Office Building, John E. Moss (chairman of the subcom- mittee) presiding. Members present : John E. Moss and George Meader. Also present: Samuel J. Archibald, staff director; John J. Mitchell, chief counsel; and J. Lacey Reynolds, senior consultant. Mr. Moss. The subcommittee will now come to order. I want to apologize to all of those who have been requested to appear today for the delay in starting the hearings. We were interrupted by a rollcall, and we may be interrupted again before the hearings get much further. The first witness this morning will be Dr. Donald J. Hughes, chair- man of the Federation of American ScienMsts. Dr. Hughes, do you have a statement? Dr. HuGHES. I have. Should I read it? Mr. Moss. If you will, please. STATEMENT OF DR. DONALD J. HUGHES, CHAIRMAN, FEDERATION OF AMERIOAN SCIENTISTS, AND SENIOR PHYSICIST, BBOOK~ HAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY Dr. HUGHES. I am Donald J. Hughes, senior physicist at the Brook- haven National Laboratory. I appear here not as a representative of the laboratory, but on behalf of the Federation of American Scientists, of which I have been chairman for the past year. In my testimony this morning, I am primarily concerned with the effects of the Export Control Act on the ilow of scientific information that is freely available within the United States because of its un- classified nature. The policy established by the Export Control Act of 1949 is- to use export controls to the extent necessary (a) to protect the domestic economy from the excessive drain of scarce materials and to reduce the inflationary impact of abnormal foreign demand; (b) to further the foreign policy of the United. States and to aid in fulfilling its international responsibilities; and (c) t~ exercise the necessary vigilance over exports from the standpoint of their sig- nificance to the national security. 1447 PAGENO="0334" 1448 INFORMAT~ON FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AOENCI~S Nowhere in this stated policy does there seem to be an intent to control scientific' information which is unclassified, which can be pub- lished freely, an~l whose release does not affect national security ad- versely. Point (a) of the act is intended to conserve the supply of scarce materials, hut the total of our scientific information is not dimrn- ished when some of it is exported. In fact, the net effect will generally be an increase, since we are likely to learn something new in return for the information we furnish. Concerning point (b), it certainly does not further our foreign policy and fulfill our international obligations to restrict scientific exchanges with foreign countries. When we raise barriers to limit the free international contacts of scientists, the prestige of the United States is bound to suffer. This can hardly be said to further our foreign policy. The third poli~cy declaration of the Export Control Act concerns the national security. The free exchange of unclassified scientific information-that is, information without military significance-can only strengthen the nation&I security. The control of scientific data of military significance is of course attained by the classification of such material as "secret." Our scientific achievements of the east could not have been carried out without the help of foreign scientists, both those who came to the United States and those who made their knowledge available to us through exchanges of information and through direct a~id indirect contacts. The Federation of American Scientists believes, that restrictIons on the free flow of unclassified scientific information will decrease, rather than increase, the na- tional security. We must remember that security by achievement is in thelong view much more important than security by eonceal~nent. Restrictions on free flow of information can take many forms-out- right prohibition, limitation, censorship, voluntary censorship, and many others. At present, the regulations require that shipments of scientific data bear the notation "GTDS, export license not required." This notation is actually self-contradictory, because GTDS is a gen- eral export license and is required. If there were no export license re- quired, as the pr~scribed notation ~claims, then the label itself would not be there. That the labelitig requirement does restrict the flow of information is evident. In organizations that do conform to the export regula- tions, special procedures are established to insure that all mail to foreign destinations will be properly stamped. This often requires clearance of letters through a central office, with consequent delays. Writers of letters who learn of the stamping may decide. their cor- respondence is suspect, and abandon projected letters. Thus the ef- fect of the labeling requirement is to slow down, and in some cases to reduce, the flow bf information covered by general license GTDS. The regulations t~iemselves do not prohibit the flow of such informa- tion; yet the labeling requirement amounts to a restriction. Even though the stam~3ing procedure has barely begun, there are already unfavorable reactions from European scientists, who assume that cen- sorship is in force. The FAS is particularly concerned about the fact that most scien- tists do not know of the existence of the export control of technical data, and do not comply. There appears to be no attempt to pub- PAGENO="0335" fl~OEMATION FROM FEDE1~AL DEPAUTMENTh M~fl AGENCI~S 1449 licize the regulations among scientists, and we know of no attempt to enforce them. In a letter to the FAS dated March 22, 1956, by H. C. McClellan, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for International Affairs, conceded that "there will undoubtedly be a certain amount of unwitting or careless violation" of these regulations. The many scientists who are unwittingly violating these regulations are thus subject to $10,000 fine and 1 year imprisonment-the maximum pen- alty authorized by the Export Control Act of 1949. Under these con- ditions, the law is subject to arbitrary and capricious application against a few violators. Scientists are familiar with the rules of classification and transmit information freely that is unclassified ac- cording to these rules. It deems superfluous to make a statement that the rules have been observed in connection with each such transmittal to a foreign country. The National Council of the Federation of American Scientists, at its meeting on April 25-that is, day before y~sterday-called for elimination of the general licenses GTDS and GTDP, as presently included in the Export Control of Technical Data regulations; this can be done by administrative action. In other words, we propose that all labeling requirements and all regulations relating to informa- tion presently in the categories GTDS and GTDP be eliminated from the Comprehensive Export Schedule. In this way, normal exchange of basic scientific information could be resumed. The FAS Council further urges that the Export Control Act of 1949 be specifically amended to exclude from export control all unclassified scientific and educational technical data, described in part 385.1 of the Comprehensive Export Schedule as involving: * (1) Dissemination of information not directly and signifteantly related to design, production, and utilization in industrial processes, including such dissem- ination by correspondence and attendance at, or participation in, meetings; or (2) Istruction in academic institutions and academic laboratories. We urge the Congress and the Department of Commerce to give immediate attention to lifting these controls which can have no gen- erally beneficial effects. Such changes cannot help but further the foreign policy of the United States and promote our long-range national interest. Now, I would like to make several additional remarks, if I may. Mr. Moss. Certainly. Dr. HIJOHES. I would like to make these remarks, actually, as an individual scientist and not as the chairman of the Federation of American Scientists. These remarks are in connection with several things that came up at the previous hearing, at which I appeared. I should now like to discuss briefly several recent developments rela- tive to a previous hearing of the Subcommittee on Government Infor- mation. At the hearing on March 8, at which I testified, you may recall that, among other things, we discussed (1) science attaches, (2) the invitations received by United States scientists to visit Mos~ cow, and (3) the advisability of releasing information on the controlled 1~usion reaction. I feel that it is direct evidence of the importance of the issues raised by your subcommittee that in the last few weeks sig- nificant developments have taken place on these three matters. (1) On March 8, the scientists on the panel agreed that the removal of the United States science attaches from our embassies would seri- PAGENO="0336" 1450 INF0RM~TIQN FROM FEDERAL DEPA~RTMENTS AND AGE1~CIES ousiy weaken our international scientific position; on April 11, the Associated Press reported that Soviet scientists are being assigned to Russian Embassies in all important capitals. (2) At the March 8 meeting we strongly urged that the tTnited States scientists be allowed to accept the Soviet invitations. On Tues- day of this week, newspapers carried the story that attendance at the Moscow meeting will now be allowed. (3) The proposed release of information on peaceful uses of the fusion reaction was strongly supported by most scientists at the hear- ings and received wide publicity. On Thursday-yestei~day-all newspapers carried the story that the Soviets have now performed this action. I~ is of great significance that this is the th~st case in which the So~iet release of scientific information has gone beyond that of the U4ited States, the procedure heretofore having been the reverse. We note that all three developments have to do with international scientific cooperation-and they indicate that the Soviets are now realizing the advantage of free flow of scientific information (the sub- ject matter of your subcommittee) and are acting accordingly-in some respects more decisively than we are. Mr. Moss. Mr. Mitchell, do you have any questions? Mr. MITCHELL. Dr. Hughes, I would like to refer to your first state- ment and ask ~rou to elaborate for the subcommittee your remarks which appear ~n page 2, second paragraph, third sentence: This often requires clearance of letters through a central office with consequent delays. Can you explain that in a little more detail for the subcommittee? Dr. HUGHES. This actually refers to the procedure in the Bureau Of Standards. That is, we can say here that we are talking about a procedure that is actually in force or that, in general, this is the process that will have to be followed, and the process which is actually going on at the present time. This is the process that goes on in the Bureau of Standards where all letters must be sent through a central office and this is where the stamping is actikally done. Mr. MITCHEL~. For the Department of Commerce? Dr. HUGHES. This is in the Bureau of Standards for the Bureau of Standards. Mr. MITCHELL. This is just for the Bureau of Standards? Dr. HUGHES. Yes, sir. Mr. MTTCHELL. Is it your interpretation that the Bureau of Stand- ards is responsible for administering the provisions of the Export Control Act? . Dr. HUGHES. My understanding is that for this basic scientific in- formation it is ~n individual matter. That is, an individual scientist, say, at a university, is empowered to affix the letters on his own cor- respondence. I would say it is my opinion that it is an internal ruling in the Bureau of Standards that this is the way they will enforce the rules and that they will have a central office, and all1the letters must go through the central office. Mr. MITcxwlI~L. Are you saying that it is the obligation of all scien-~ tists to apply for and obtain this foreign license? PAGENO="0337" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPAETMENTS AND AGENCIES 1451 Dr. HtTGHES. I would say, according to this act, it is th~ obligation o~th~ scientists to obtain a license, but accQrding to the present ruling the scientist does not obtain the license by sending an application to the Department of Commerce. He licenses himself by affixing these stamps. Mr. MIPCIIEL~J. Therefore, in order to be able to license himself, he must have wide knowledge or complete knowledge of these rules and regulations? Dr. HUGHES. That is right. Mr. MITCHELL. Further on down in that same paragraph you have the statement: Yet, the labeling requirement amounts to a restriction. Will you explain to the subcommittee the meaning behind that? Dr. HUGTIES. This is merely a repetition of the first part of the paragraph to the effect that the free flow of information is restricted by the necessity of affixing the label and it occurs in this way-that the letters must be sent through a central office. I would say you could argue that it is not a restriction in the case where a scientist sends letters directly himself, and, say, has the stamp right in his desk, and as his secretary puts a letter in an envelope she stamps it. In this extreme case you could say it is not a restriction. Mr. Moss. A scientist is not permitted to send out any information which might be classified? Dr. HUGHES. That is absolutely right. This is completely separate from classification. Mr. Moss. Then, the affixing of the stamp on the face of a l~tter or package in no way increases the security advantage of the United States; does it? Dr. HUGHES. No; not at all. A part of the act refers to unclassi- fied information. Mr. Moss. Do you feel it conveys the impression to scientists abroad that the information has, in fact, been ç~ensored? Dr. HUGHES. I feel, definitely, that it does create that impression where the rules are observed. Mr. MITCHELL. You further state in your testimony as follows: There are already unfavorable reactions from the European scientists who assume that censorship is in force. Could you give us any particular example of that? Dr. HUGHES. There are very few examples because the observance of these rules is~so slight. Most scientists in the United States do not even know about these rules. I would say that most scientists are breaking the law by sending information to Europe without affixing a stamp, and it is a little unreasonable to expect many complaints when the observance of the regulation is so slight. The regulation is ob- served at several of the Government laboratories. The information we have concerning unfavorable reactions refers to the Bureau of Standards where there have been unfavorable comments from Euro- pean scientists who do feel that the letters they have received have been censored. Mr. MEADER. Dr. Hughes, I gather the impression from your state- ment that you do not believe the Export Control Act covers the re- striction on sending scientific information abroad which is unclassi- fied? 6922Z-56--.-pt. 6-22 PAGENO="0338" 1452 INFORMA~TION F1~OM FIDDERAL DEPAR1~MENTS AND AGENcIES Dr. HuGHEs.~ That is right. Mr. MEADER. You refer to the statement of purposes of the policy of the act and ~et just a moment ago I thought you referred to some passage of the act which did specifically refer to scientific information. Dr. HUGHES. The act itself in its stated purpose seems to refer to strategic material. The regulations under the act and the rules which have been written-and these rules have been changed from time to time-do specifically refer to scientific information. These rales do not seem to be consistent with the stated purpose of the act. Mr. MEADER. In other words, it is your interpretation of the act that there was ho congressional intent to restrict the export of infor- mation of an uhdassified nature? Dr. HtrGHE&, That is correct. Mr. MEADER. But that the Department of Commerce has taken it upon themselves to add to the policy of Congress which dealt only with strategic materials and included scientific information when Congress did not intend to do that? Dr. HUGHES. That is correct. The act itself at the very beginning of it says that certain materials continue in short supply, and at home and abroad, so that the quantity of United States exports and their distri- bution among importing countries affect the welfare of the domestic ~economy and have an important bearing upon the fulfillment of the foreign policy ~f the United States. This sounds like strategic mate- rials as, for instance, tungsten, or something like that. The second part states: The unrestricted export of materials without regard to their potential military significance may affect the national security. Materials here, if it includes information, I feel is handled by the normal classification procedure; that is, information that has military significance is held within the country by the classification process. That is why the Federation of American Scientists feels that the intent ~of the act was riot to control basic scientific, unclassified information; yet, one of the rulings of the act-that is, under the Comprehensive Export Schedule-there is a reference to dissemination of information ~not directly related to the design, production, and utilization in indus- trial processes, including dissemination by correspondence and attend- ance at meetings or instruction at academic institutions and academic laboratories. That seems to he much broader than the purpose of the Act. That is the point. Mr. Moss. Y~u are reading now from the regulations adopted by the 1.Department of Commerce? Dr. HUGHES. Yes, sir. Mr. MEAnER. You are not reading from the act itself? Dr. HUGHES. This is the intent of the act-this business about do- mestic economy and scarce materials. Mr. MITOHELL. That is the law. Dr. HUGHES. That is the law. This ruling-that is, the Compre- hensive Export Schedule-refers to instruction at academic institu- tions as a type of information to be controlled. Mr. MITCHELL. It is your position, then, that these regulations have no foundation, pr no statutory authority? Dr. HUGHES. That is right. PAGENO="0339" INFORMATION PROM PE~EEAL DEPARTMENTS A~Th A~ENCtES 1453 Mr. MEADER. Yet they `are attended by a penalty of $10,000 or a year in prison? Dr. HUGHES. Yes, sir. I do not think anyone has paid it, but that is our feeling. Mr. MEADER. Do you know of any attempt to enforce these penalty provisions? Dr. HUGHES. I myself know of no attempt to enforce the rulings; that is, in connection with basic scientific information. On strategic materials, I have no real knowledge at all. Mr. MEADER. In the preparation of your statement have you had any legal advice on the validity of this attempt or alleged attempt to go beyond the statutory powers delegated by Congress and make law in the Department of Commerce? Dr. HUGHES. Well, one of the members of the Yale Law Faculty who is also a member of the Federation of American Scientists, has looked into the legal aspects and he actually feels there is a serious constitutional question involved, and that, actually, the Export Con- trol Act probably could be considered a violation of the first amend- ment because of the extent to which it controls information. He feels that it actually violates free speech. Mr. MEADER. You mean the Export Control Act as extended and developed by the regulations adopted' by the Department of Corn-. inerce is in conflict with the first amendment? Dr. HUGHES. No, sir. Let me read one sentence of his statement. He did not actually mention the act. He says: I am of the opinion that the undefined referejace to "technical data" In the 1949 act, followed by its inclusion with materials or supplies as the subject of licensing procedures backed up by criminal sanctions,, goes beyond any other legal restrictions that I know of on the flow of information. I am no lawyer so I am not sure whether he is criticizing the act or the interpretation of the act. Mr. MITCHELL. Is that a document that we might have for our files? Dr. HUGHES. Yes; you can. I do not have copies of it, but you can certainly have this copy. Mr. Moss. Would you leave it with the subcommittee so that it may be included in the record at this point? Dr. HUGHES. Yes, sir. (The letter referred to follows:) APRIL 6, 1956. Memoi~andum `To: FA~ Washington Office. From: Ralph Brown. Subject: Technical data export controls. * .* * * * * I ~till am of the opinion that the undefined reference to "technical data" in the 1949 act, followed by its inclusion with materials or supplies as the subject of licensing procedures backed up by criminal sanctions, goes beyond any other legal restrictions that I know of on the flow of information. It is true that the Department of Commerce deals as lightly as possible with most information by way of its general license provisions. But a license is still a liceiise even if the exporter is free to license himself. There is In constitu- tional law a fairly well-recognized doctrine that a power of prior restraint on freedoms protected by the first amendment is offensive whether or not it is ~exerc1sed, * * * PAGENO="0340" 1454 INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEP4RTMENTS AND AGENCIE$ Of course, th$~ fundamental question i~ whether any or all kinds of technical data are withifl the kind of speech protected by the first amendment. I would argue that some levels of scientific communication are certainly subject to the protection of the Qonstitution. On the other hand, at some point you reach a level of business communication (e. g., advertising), that is conventionally thought not to be immune from legislative restriction, if any kind of public interest puts such restriction in the usual scope of Government regulation. * * * Where the line between free speech and unfree business talk is drawn, nobody knows. However, Congress cannot simply ignore the c~.istjnction by making all technical data subject to licensing provisions. * * * * * * In the atomik~-energy field, t~ie reach o~ information contrpls over per~ons outside Governilnent has surely been carried to limits nowhere else approached. Yet all the sanôtions of the Atomic ~lr~ergy Act relate to restricted data, which at least has a statutory definition referring to atomic weapons and "special nuclear materlids." This definition is certainly much closer to a comprel~epsible security restriction than is the unadorned "technical ~Tata" of the Export Control Act. * * * * * * * * * (See exhibit IX.) Mr. MEAni~. Getting ba~k to the procedure which is used, have you personally, D~. }It~ghes, ever gone through the steps required by the regulations of labeling and stamping any letters which you have writ- ten abroad? Dr. HUGHIIS. No. Actually, in the last 2 months I sent 3 or 4 letters to Russia containing technical data, and they did not have these stamps at all, Mr. MEADER. You mean you just ignored it? Dr. Huonus. No; it is not quite that bad. At the Brookhaven Laboratory we have an Administrator who is, I think, called the infor- mation officer. In fact, he has charge of reports and documents and it is his job to see that what we do is consistent with the law, and the AEC rules, and so on. So, we asked him how we should send information to the Ri~issians~ These are the~ Russians whom we met i~t the Geneva Conference last August. He checked with AEC officials in Washington and told us that we shoul~l send these letters directly to Russia, and let him have copies of them; that it was not necessary for us to stamp the things with these letters. This is why I said before that it seems to depend upon the individual department or indjvidual organization about the extent to which these regulations are 4beyed. Mr. MEADER. Your opinion is that the material which you sent did not come within the purview of the regulations that we are talking about here? Dr. HuonM. No. I would say it probably does, according to these rulings of the Commerce Department. I would think, according to these rulings that I have read, this information certainly is included in the rulings~ and according to these rulings, the stamp should have been on the envelope, but according to the interpretation of the rules at the Brookhaven Laboratory the stamps on the letters were not necessary. Mr. MITCHElL. Was the information of a classified nature of any kind? Dr. HuGHES. It sure was not. Mr. MEADEn. Do I understand that you do have a procedure at the Brookhaven Laboratory somewhat similar to the Bureau of Stand- PAGENO="0341" Ii~FORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMEWPS AND AGENCIES 1455 ards' procedure for observing these rules of the Department of Com~ merce? Dr. HUGHES. No. The answer is "No." They do not stamp those letters. We do not put the stamp on correspondence that goes out of the country. I would say that Brook- haven does not observe these rules. Mr. MEAD~R. Do you know of any, either governmental or private institution, which does observe the procedure of the Bureau of Stand- ards? Dr. HUGHES. Yes. The Bureau of Standards, the Naval Ordnance Laboratory, and I learned just yesterday that the publication of the American Physical Society; that is, the Physical Eeview, that when those journals are sent out of the country, they have the stamp affixed to them. Mr. MITCHELL. Dr. Astin is going to elaborate on this point later. Mr. Moss. Could you tell me how you would afltx the stamp in this instance: Exportation of technical data is defined as any release of unclassified technical data for use outside the United States (except Canada) and includes the actual shipment out of the United States as well as the furnishing of data In the United States to persons with the knowledge or intehtion that the persons to whom it Is furnished will take such data out of the United States. How would you stamp the individual for export? Dr. HUGHES. I do not know. Mr. MITCHELL. Just a minute, Doctor. Would you read section (b) in the lower left-hand column? Dr. HUGHES. Well, this part (b) actually is not a ruling. It is a definition of the exportation of technical data. I do not think it im- plies that you should stamp the exportation. Mr. Moss. How do you affix the license? Dr. HUGHES. I do not see how you could in that case. Mr. Moss. How could the act be enforced from a practical stand- point? Dr HUGHES Well, actually, I do not see how the act could be en forced in a practical way. Most scientists do not even know of the existence of the act. If you remember, at the hearing on March 8 when this point came u~, Professor Struve said he had never heard of it, and if such a thing were ever done, he was sure that all his colleagues in Europe would be very shocked to have their letters stamped He is an eminent scientist who has lots of correspondence abroad and, just as an e~arnple, he did not know of the existence of the act, but he is violating it Mr. MEAnER. Dr. Hughes, are you familiar with the Office of Stra- tigic Information in the Department of Commerce? Dr. HUGHES. Not directly. I know what it is, and I know some- thing of its history. Mr. MEADER. Have you ever receiVed any communications from that office? Dr. HUGHES. No; none. Mr. MEAnER. Are you aware that one of their objectives is to pro- mote the exchange of information; that they have sought to put some restrictions on the dissemination of unclassified information in the United States with the purpose of trading oi' swapping that informa- PAGENO="0342" 1456 INFOi~tATION Ei~OM FEDERAI~ DEPARTMENTS. AND AGENCI~ tion for ththei~ information of alike character or of an unlike character which would be of some benefit to the people of this country? Dr. HUGHES. Well, my main impression of the OSI is that it is ala organization set up to attain a type of voluntary censorship of infor- mation; that is, a method of merely holding back information that is unclassified, but which yet might be important to another country. J~Jowever, I have never heard of this element that we would swap in- formation. Mr. MEADE*. Well, we have had introduced in our record-at least, we have had ~vailable to the committee, and I do not know whethei~ you would cail it a regulation or a directive designed to exchange and to get something in return for information that we send out of the country. The only example that was given to us of results from that regulation is that 10 medical films were exchanged with the Soviets. It would occur to me that there might be a good deal of information at the Brookhaven Laboratory which might be of interest to people in Iron Curtain countries which could be exchanged for information that they have either in that field or some other field which we want. Dr. HUGHES. Yes, sir. Mr. MEADER. I was just interested in whether or not you were aware of this policy~in the Department of Commerce to trade information ~ Dr. HUGHE$. No, sir; I was not~+iware of that policy. I have had no direct information from the OSI at all. The only information I had directly about the OSI is information which I have received from editors of technical journals. I know that there is some communication between the OSI and the editors of technical journals, but I thought that was all done on the side; that these editors should voluntarily censor their publications and not publish things that would be of strategic value to other countries. I did not hear anything about the swapping element. Mr. MEADE1~. I woul.d like to ~ask your expert opinion on the effec- tiveness, or t1~e probable effectiveness, of a program for swapping in- formation on a quid pro quo basis. Do you see how that could be worked out to anjr great benefit to this country? Dr. HUGHES. Well, my offhand opinion is that it is not a practical approach. I think the most sensible approach on scientific informa- tion is to decide clearly what is classified and what is not classified. Then what information is not classified should be disseminated just as widely as possible. Mr. MEADEL Without any effort to ~et a quid pro quo in return? Dr. HUGHE~. No. That is, just decide that a certain field is open, and in that field we publish everything and that we talk about it at meetings just ~is freely as we can. That is the best way to insure that our progress i~ just as rapid as possible. Mr. MEADER. You do not think it would add a great deal to our fund of knowledge if we said we will not tell you about this unless you tell us about another thing that we want? Dr. HUGHES. I would say not in the area of basic scientific informa- tion. As to industrial processes it might be different, but I really do not know. I am not an expert in that field. The best way to get the fastest progress in basic science in a certain field is to have it wide open. Mr. MEADEL I think that is all, Mr. Chairman. PAGENO="0343" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTME~tTS AND AGENCIES 1457 Mr. Moss. There is a continuing exchange ~of information between individual scientists in these areas of unclassified information, is there not? Dr. HUGHES. Yes, sir; there is, sir. Mr. Moss. In your judgment is that the most effective means of learning about the activities of scientists in other countries? Dr. HUGHES. That is right. Scientists in general are anxious to communicate with other scientists. A vast new area of information was made unclassified in connection with the Geneva meeting on atomic energy. Within a few months articles were submitted to the American Physical Review-the American .Journal-by Russians, but in fact, some of them were not good enough and were turned down. However, the Russians wrote back and said they would try to patch the articles up so that they would be good enough to appear in the American jour~ nals. Therefore, it is obvious that they are anxious to get their works published in America. We really do not have to make a deal with them that "We will give you our articles if you will send us your articles." They are anxious to have their works appear in our American publica-~ tions. Mr. MITCHELL. Dr. Hughes, on page 3 of your prepared statement you quoted from a letter received by the FAS at the top of the page. Do you have that exchange of correspondence? Dr. HUGHES. Yes. Mr. MITCHELL. Do you have any objection to its being inserted into the record at this point? Dr. HUGHES. No. Let me see. There are about four letters. They go back through October of 19~$5. The first is a letter from me as Chairman of the FAS to Secretary Weeks; then there is an answer which came from Mr. McClellan on November 8, 1955; then there is a letter from me as Chairman of the FAS to Mr. McClellan on March 9, 1956, and his answer of March ~2, 1956. Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, may we put those in the record? Mr. Moss. Without objection, they will be included in the record at this point. (The letters referred to follow:) OCTOBER 31, 1955. Hon. SINCLAIR WEEKS, k~ecretary of Commerce, Department of Commerce, Washington 25, D. C. DEAR SECRETARY WEEKS: As an organization concerned with relations of science and government, the Federation of American Scientists is troubled by the regulations which currently govern the export of technical data. Even after the revisions of April 1955 and September 1955 the regulations published by the Bureau of Foreign Commerce contain two very bad features. First, when data are exported under a general license GTDS, the regulations apparently require the sender to so designate on the outside of the envelope or wrapper. The propaganda effects of thIs requirement are spectacularly bad. The addressees conclude that the United States now has instituted general censorship. Normal scientific correspondence of university people violates this regulation contlimally, and there seems to be no intention to enforce it uni- formly. The regulation merely serves to make unwitting criminals out of most scientists. Second, the educational activities of engineering schools remain severely re- stricted by the regulations. For example, it appears that foreign graduate students could not be used in contract research work if it relates directly to industrial processes. We feel that the stultifying effect of such regttlatiOfl PAGENO="0344" 1458 INPoRMA~rIoN F1~OM )3~EDEBAL DEPARPMENTS AND AG]1iN~CI]~S on our engineering schools far out*eighs any presumed benefits secured by the restrictions. I3oth these features of the regulations could be eliminated by administrative action. We believe that such action is in the interests of the country as a whole. Respectfully yours, DONALD J. Huarnrs, Chairman. Tth~ AS8ISTA~T ~,ndRETARt or COM~tEROE, Washington, No'bembcr 8,1955. Mr. DONAW 1. H~ranms, Cli.airinan, 1$ deration of American Scientists, 1805 H SA~reet NW., Washington C, I). C. DEAR Mu: Huenns: This will reply to your letter of October 31, 1955, addressed to Secretary of Commerce Sinclair Weeks regarding th~ regulations currently governing the export of technical data from the United States. While we have had little reaction from abroad, good or bad, to the recjuire- ment that has been in existence since the beginning of World War II that all exports of technical data carry the appropriate license symbol on the wrapper, your point regardfi~g the difficulty of uniform enfor~cethent Is a good one and does concern us. Because of this and for other reasons, we are at this time reexam- thing the need for continuing the labeling requirement not only for experts under GTDS but also for those made under the two other technical data general licenses GTDP and GTDU. Your second poiht that "the educational activities of engiticering schools remain severely restricte4l by the regulhtions" is not entirely supported by the regula- tions as we interpifet theth. Under the revision of September 1955 foreign students can be used in contract research work relating directly to industrial processes provided the students are not nationals of the countries designated by the export control regulations as subgroup A countries, 1. e., the Iron Curtain countries, including China and North Korea. The only current provision relating to en- gineering schools utilizing foreign graduate students th conttact research Work arises under section 385.3, Security Provisions for Cettain Types of Technical Data. Under this provision, known as the voluntary plan, a potential exporter (in this case an engineering school) is told that before coth~ieting arrangements "to export or release for use lii foreign friendly countries * * * technical data which has signific~tnce to the cOmmbn seeurit~ and defense of the Uhited States" an official opinio~i should be requested from the United States Government, through the Burettu of Foreign Commerce, as to the desirability of this release for foreign use. In the light of all the international circumstances, this does not seem an unreasonable request. I should be glad tO have ~onr further comments. Cordially, H. C. Mc~LELn.&N, Assistant Secretarp of Commerce for Thternatloitat Affairs. BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABoRATORY, ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES, INC., DRPAn~MtNT or Ptr~xcs, Upton, Long Island, iV~ 1k., March `~, 1l~56. Mr. H. C. MCCLELI~AN, Assistant secretary of Commerce for Internatioital Affairs, United States Department of Commerce, Was hingtoi~ ~5, b. tJ. DEAR MR. MCCLELLAN: In your letter of November 8, 1955, we were pleased to read that the Department of Commerce was reexamining the need for the labelling requirement for exports of technical data. The Federation of American scientists as you know his fttvored the elimination of this requirement, and we are wonder- ing if any action has been taken Since our last exchange of letters. We are especially concerned at present, because since the Geneva atoms for peace meeting there has been an increasing amount of scientific correspond- ence between the tinited States and foreign scientists. In nearly all cases where we have made inquiries, the United States correspondents are unwittingly vio- lating this regulation. The FAS does not understand the need for GTDS, GPDP, PAGENO="0345" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1459 and GTDTJ general licenses. We would welcome any comments you could make concerning the present situation and the outlook for the future on this matter. Yours sincerely, (Original signed) D. 1. HUGHES. THE ASSISTANT SEcRETARY OF COMMERCE, Washington, 2J'Iarch 22, 1956. Mr. D. J. HUGHES, Federation of American Scientists, 1805 H Street NW., Washington 6, D. C. DEAR Mn. HUGHES: This will reply to your letter of March 7 regarding the labeling requirements for exports of technical data. Since my letter to you of November 8, a determination has been made to mair~tain the labeling require- ment for exports of technical data under the two general licenses G~JS and GTDP. Briefly the reasoning is this: Under the authority of legislation that has been kept in force since early in World War II, all exports of commodities and o1~ technical data must be made under some form of license. The technical data general licenses have been established to provide for the freest possible move- ment of (a) "Information not directly and significantly related to design, pro- duction, and utilization in industrial process" and (b) "Unclassified technical data generally available in published form." Now a general license, while con- stituting the lossest form of control, is nevertheless a license and an exporter in making a shipment under these licenses must make the determination that such use in the particular instance is clearly authorized. In placing the general license symbol on the export package the exporter is in reality certifying that he has made the proper determination and that the data are exportable under the general license indicated. It has been the consensus of those giving serious considration to export control regulations that this certification is of value and should be continued. ,s you have indicated in your correspondence, there will undoubtedly be a certain amount of unwitting or careless violation but this fact cannot be considered determining. As stated in my earlier letter, we have had little reaction from abroad, good or bad (and practically none within the Unite~i States) to this labeling require- ment that has been in e~dstence In some form since the begiuping of World War II. Compared with the export declaration that must be made out and presented for all materials shipped under the commodity general licenses, the technical data labeling requirement seems little onerous. Sincerely yours, H. C. MCCLELLAN, Interncttiomi Affq~irs. Mr. MITCHELL. Dr. Hughes, when did you become Chairman of the Federation of American Scientists? Dr. Hncunis. One year ago. Mr. MITCHELL. One year ago at this time? Dr. HUGHES. This week 1 year ago. Mr. MITCHEI~L. Had this subject matter tQ which you have referred this morning come up before that time? Dr. HUGhES. Yes. Well, you see, this letter is after that time. I do not have any documents with me, but there had been a lot of talk in the Federation of American Scientists about controls on the export of information, I think the matter of the establishment of the OSI had occurred at an earlier date. Mr. MITCHELL. In November 1954. Dr. HUGHES. Yes, sir. I am not sure of the exact date at which time the Export Control A~t was applied tQ basic scientMc informa- tion. It occurred at least a year ago, but I am not sure of the exact date, This regulation, for instance, appeared in the Federal Register ~n April 28, 19~5. That does not push it back much further. It is still the same date. PAGENO="0346" 146U INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES~ Mr. MITCHELL. On page 3 of your statement, second paragraph, you make the statement: * The National Council of the Federation of American Scientists, at its meeting on April 25, called for elimination of the general licenses GTDS and GTDP, as presently included in the export control of technical data regulations. You say this can be done by administrative action. Will you please explain what you had in mind there? Dr. HUGHES. You see, the act is dated 1949, and these regulations- this particular regulation which appeared about a year ago in our opinion extended the regulation or applied the regulation to basic scientific information, and in our opinion it would take a change in the ruling to exempt basic scientific correspondence. Mr. MITCHELL. Are you at all familiar with the Office of Technical Services in the Department of Commerce? Dr. HUGHES. 0niy in that several of our scientific publications have been handled by them. Mr. MITCHEI~L. Are you familiar with the Executive Order No. 9568 providing for the release of scientific information? This Executive order is dated June 8, 1945, and signed by Harry S. Truman, and recorded in the Federal Register, Document 45-10111, filed June 9, 1945, at 2: 54 p. m.? Dr. HUGHES. No; that is a new one to me. Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce that into the record at this time. Mr. Moss. Without objection, the order will be made a part of the record. (The order referred to is exhibit V.) Mr. MITCHE~JL. Do you know anything in more detail about the functions of tl~e Office of Technical Services? Dr. HUGHES. No. As I said, my experience with the Office of Tech~ nical Services has been in connection with the reports that we have written which they have printed and distributed for us; that is, com~ pilations of technical data. (See statement on OTT which is carried in exhibit XIV.) Mr. MITCHELL. Do you know whether or not under the export 11- cense provisions, if those documents which were sent abroad had that stamp on them to the effect that they were printed by the Department of Commerce? Dr. HUGHES, I am not absolutely sure, but my strong opinion is that thosa documen~s did not bear the stamp when they were sent abroad. You see, I am not sure of the dates. The document I am thinking of was a rather large compilation of nuclear data and was a volume of several hundred pages. It was a rather large book. My guess is that was 2 or 3 years ago. I do not think that that document was stamped when it was sent abroad and it was definitely sent abroad because I know. Mr. MITCHELL. Then, you would find here an incident or an occa- sion where the Department of Commerce is violating its own rules and regulatious under the Export Control Act? Dr. HUGHES!. I am not sure, because I do not know when the par~ ticular regulations were put into effect. It is my position that the Ex- port Control ~&ct does not cover all of these things; it is only the regulations that have been made by the Department of Commerce that PAGENO="0347" Th?~rORMATrON~ThOM rEflh1~TtAL DE~A1~T1QtE~TS ANt~ AGENCIES 1461 include such things as this report I am telling you about. I would say the intent of the act was not to cover that type of report, but the present rulings would include that report. Mr. MITCHELL. Could you as Chairman of the Federation of Amer- ican Scientists study Executive Order 9568 which is still in effect and under which the Office of Technical Services operates, and submit a statement to the subcommittee for the record? Dr. if tJGIIES. I would be very glad to do that. Mr. MrrCJIELL. We w~ould like to have a statement from you as to whether or not there is a conflict between the export control provisions and the Executive order. Dr. HUGHES. Yes, sir. Mr. MITCHELL. Dr. Hughes, in your additional remarks you made reference to the science attache program. I)r. HUGHES. That is right. Mr. MITCHELL. The last time that we had the science panel, on the 7th, 8th, and 9th of March, this program was discussed pretty much in detail by yourself, if I recall correctly. Could you elaborate a little further on that, as to what happened yes- terday or the day before, over at Harwell, England, as to the dis- closures by the Soviet scientists? Dr. HUGHES. Yes; well, you are mentioning two of the points, actually, in the additional remarks. I would say the connection between the two, is, of course, that if we had had a science attachó at the Embassy in London, this week, he certainly would have been in attendance at the talk at Harwell. That is obvious, I mean. So, our knowledge of what was contained in that particular lecture would be much better. I mean we probably had some representative from the Embassy there but I am sure such repre- sentative was not a scientist. Mr. MITCHELL. Dr. Hughes, under instructions from the chair- man I visited with Dr. Mervin Kelley of the Bell Telephone Labora- tories, and he informed me that he had a visit with another scientist whose name I do not know with Mr. Hoover and Mr. Robert Murphy of the Department of State some time ago-about 9 months ago-at which time the subject of science attachó was discussed. He left that meeting with the very definite feeling that the science attache pro- gram would be continued. He informed me that he has not been con- tacted nor consulted by the Department of State since. Mr. Chairman, you will recall that Congressman Flood has been carrying on a series of correspondence with the Department of State on this subject matter since January 13, and there have been other letters which were inserted into the record at the time of the science panel discussions. Congressman Flood on April 12 sent a letter to the Honorable John Foster Dulles as follows: DF~AR Mn. SECRuTARY: Expressing further my Interest in the matter of the continuing development of the science attaché program about which we have had some previous correspondence, I would appreciate your comments on the en- closed article, particularly the marked paragraph therein-that article was the article which appeared concerning the Russian establishment of science attaches in their Kmbassies throughout the world. PAGENO="0348" 1462 INFOR~AT1ON FROM FEDERAL DIEPARTM~NTS AND AGENCIES Congressman Flood received the following letter on April 19: DEAR MR. FLOOD: The Secretary has asked me to reply to your letter of April 12 1956 transmitting a clipping from the Washington Post and Times Herald of that date concerning science attachds. As explained in Mr. Morton's letter to you of February 23, 1956, the vacancies in the science attachi positions have occurred because of the expiration of the limited duration of appointments during a period when the Department was reviewing the program and making plans for the future. The vacancie5 in the science adviser positions predates this review, but the duties of the science advisers have been carried on in the meantime by a career assistant in the office. The science attachd stationed at Stockholm returned to the United States in December 1955. His assignment was terminated as described above, aud not because of the lack of funds, as stated in the newspaper story. I might comment that all the other previous letters specifically stated that it was not because of lack of funds. Continuing the quotation from the letter: The story seems to imply further that there were two science attaehis in Stockholm until recently. Actually, we have at no time had more than one science attache in Stockholm and none of the assignments have been terminated because of lack: of funds. The Departeüint hopes to complete within the near future the study of the science attaeh~ program and when the study has been completed I shall be glad to review the matter with you further. Sincerely, ROBERT 0. HILL, A$sistant Secretary (For the Secretary of State). Mr. Moss. What is the date of that letter? Mr. MITcu~LL. April 19~ Dr. Hughes, do you know if any committee or member of the Fed- eration of Aijierican Scientists has yet been coitacted by the Depart- ment of State for their advice in connection with this program? Dr. HUGHES. No; to my knowledge there has been no such contact. Mr. MITcI~nLI4. Would the period of 9 months be adequate for a re- view of this program in your opinion? Dr HUGHES My opinion is that it would take much less time In my opinion the science attachós were performing such a useful pur- pose that it is really a very big mistake to change that policy, so that we do not have science attach~s. As I mentioned at the other hearing, J was in England at the time Mulliken dis4ppeared, and it really caused quite a great concern and had quite a ~reat disruptive effect on the British scientists who had learned to de1pend on him for help in anything involving relationships with the United States scientists The same is true for Neilsen in Stockholm and Robertson in Paris, They had all done tremendously good jobs. Mr. MITCHELL4. How long dQ you think it will be before an average scientist in the United States gets the details on what happened at Harwell the other day? Dr. hUGHES. I must say a direct channel through the Government is necessary If it must come through unofficial channels, I would say that it may ijever happen. It will take months anyway. I am sure the only knowledge the scientists will have is through the newspapers. Mr. MITcrn~Lr4. Do you feel that a career assistant, not a scientist, who might have been present at this hearing at Harwell would be qualified to give our scientists the information? PAGENO="0349" fl~01~tATroN PROM FEDEBAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1463 Dr. HuGrn~S. No; I am sure that he would not. That is more or less obvious. Mr. MITcrn~L. Haire you ever seen any reports published by the State Department concerning the science attache program? Dr. HuaIEs. No. Mr. MITcIIEI~r4. That is, in your capacity? Dr. HtTOITES. NO; neither in my capacity as a scientist at Brook- haven nor as chairman of the FAS. Mr. MrrCHELL. Do you care to comment in more detail concerning this disclosure of the Soviet scientists at Harwell on Wednesday as to the real effects of it? Dr. HUGHES. Well, I would say the obvious thing is that the Rus- sians seem to have done just what we were recommending that the United States Government do. They sort of stole the show. However, as I mentioned in the additional remarks~ I think the main significant factor is that the Russians have gone further than we have in declassi- fying things for the first time. They really went quite far. We have declassified a slight amount of information about the con- trolled fusion reactions, but very little. I mean there haste been 1 or 2 public releases that more or less described the fact that work was going on and that it would be many years before a practical objective can be obtained. My impression is that the t~ilk given by the Ru~ssian scientists-it is hard to tell from a n~wspaper description-but my feeling is that they have revealed the great majority of the work that they have done. That is, I would say in that talk he probably covered 80 percent of the work that they have been doing. Mr. MITCHELL. Dr. Hughes, do you feel that this could possibly be a pGlicy of entrapment whereby because of their disclosure by the Soviet scientists the United States Woftid be more likely to rush to disclose things that it possibly should not? Dr. HUGHES. No; my honest opinion is that that is not the reason. I may be too optimistic but I think that the Rus5ian~ do realize that they will go a lot faster if they open things up. There was a speech at the congre~s of the Communist Party about 2 months ago-I forget who the speaker was-criticizing very seriously and very severely the policy of secreOy in Russian science. He said it was wrong and said that Russian science would go much faster if there was not this secrecy. I think this latest release is con- sistent with that statement. Mr. MITCHELL. Then in your personal opinion, if the argument is raised that this might be a disguise or an entrapment on the part of the Soviet to obtain more data from the United States, that argu- ment would not stand up too well? Dr. HUGHES. I do not believe so, and in the second place, even if it is true, I do not think they would get by with it. That is, I think we would get so much more by having the controlled-fusion work out in the open until it would not make any dif1~erence as to what their motive was. It is my opinion that we would get ahead faster and our relative lead would increa~se more if we opened things up regard- less of their motives. PAGENO="0350" 1464 INFOR ATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENOIES Mr. MITcHEu~. Dr. Hughes, on page 6319 of this mOrning's Con- gressional Record, on the floor of the Senate yesterday Senator Gore made the following remarks: The article strongly suggests that the facts presented in this lecture demon- strate that Rus$ia is ahead of both the British and the United States in the race to control thermonuclear fusion. Would yoi~ care to comment on that remark? Do you believe that is possible? I realize that it is a difficult question. Dr. HUGHES. unfortunately, I cannot answer it because our pro- gram is still classified. That is all I can say. Mr. MITCHELL. Do you think this is an unwarranted assumption? Dr. HUGHES. I still cannot answer that. I am not sure what his official connection is with the program. I do not know if he is cleared for work on thermonuclear controlled fusion or not. I would say if he is cleared for all of this work then you would probably say he knows what he is talking about. Mr. MITCH~LL. Who is cleared? Dr. HUGHI~S. The Senator. Mr. MITCHIELL. Oh; Senator Gore? Dr. HUGHES. Yes; however, I do not think he has the technical knowledge. So, he is only guessing. Mr. MITCHELL. You scared me for a minute, there. I thought you were talking about the Soviet scientists. Dr. HUGHES. No. Mr. MiTCHELL. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Moss. Do you have any further questions, Congressman Meader? Mr. MEAD~R. No, sir. Mr. Moss. I do not have any further questions, myself. Dr. Hughes, I want to express the appreciation of the committee for your reappearance here. We enjoyed very much having you with us the first time, and we continue to find it a pleasant experience on this occasion. Dr. HUGHES. Thank you very much. Mr. Moss. Thank you very much, sir. Mr. Moss. The next witness will be Dr. Walter C. Murphy, edito- rial director of the applied journals of the American Chemical So- ciety. Do you hat~e a statement, Doctor? STATEMENT1 OP DR. WALTER L MURPHY, EDITORIAL DIRECTOR~ APPLIED JOURNALS OP THE AMERICAL CHEMICAL SOCIETY Mr. MURPHY. I do, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Moss. I wonder if for the record you might give us a brief out- line of your background? Mr. MURPHY. I will be glad to. I am a graduate of Brooklyn Polytechnic in chemistry and chemical engineering. I am on the board of trustees of the Brooklyn Polytech- nic Institute. I am on the board of trustees of the Southwest Research Institute, th~ Midwest Research Institute. I am a member of the Advisory Council on Science and Engineering of Notre Dame Uni- versity and also chairman of two of thei.r visiting committees, one on. chemistry and the other on chemical engineering. PAGENO="0351" XN1~ORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTh AND AGENCIES 1465 I am on the advisory board to the Graduate School of Fordham Uni- versity. I do consulting work for the Chemical Corps on certain mat- ters. In 1945 I was a member of the Technical Industrial Intelligence Committee of the Joint Chiefs of Staff which went to Germany to dis- cover what had been done in science, engineering, and so on in Ger- many during the war, and to make that information available to industry here. Mr. Moss. Now if you would proceed with your statement ~ Mr. MURPHY. In appearing before this committee, I wish to make it plain that I am not representing in any official capacity the American Chemical Society of which I am editorial director of its applied jour- nals, nor the Society af Business Magazine Editors, of which I was president in 1954. The views I will express are personal ones. They do not necessarily reflect any official thinking or actions of either the American Chemical Society or the Society of Business Magazine Edi- tors. However, my views are based on nearly 26 years of editorial work on business, scientific, and technical magazines and journals. I bow to no man in my earnest desire to prevent the disclosure of truly secret information that would be of aid and comfort to any possible enemy. At the close of World War II, I received a letter of commendation from the Office of Censorship, congratulating the Americal Chemical Society for the cooperative attitude of its editors. I do not question for a moment the motives of those in and out of Government who feel that there should be a voluntary or even in- voluntary censorship of unclassified information, particularly infor- mation of a scientific or technical nature which may be of possible assistance to a potential enemy. I do believe most emphatically that their methods and judgments are based on wholly erroneous concep- tions and complete lack of understanding of what makes science and technology grow and prosper. There seeifls to be a childlike belief on the part of a great many peo- ple in this country-people who should know better-that (1) we have all, or practically all, of the scientific and technical brainpower of the world residing in this country. (2) If each night we lock up our store of scientific and technical reports, we will thereby curtail the scien- tific and technological advances of other countries. We have no monopoly nor anything like it in the way of scientific and technical manpower in the TJnited States. If we padlock our scientific and technical knowledge,we will be withholding it from our own scientists and technologists just as much as from a potential enemy. Anyone who has had the slightest contact with science knows it is an elementary fact that a report of one piece of progress catalyzes further advances. This is what we are referring to when we say "cross fertilization of ideas." Let me make it very clear at this point that I am not quarrelling with the withholding of truly secret information-information where there is substantial reason to believe we may have gained a momentary ad- vantage regarding military weapons and other items of direct rela- tionship to national defense and security. In these particular secret areas, however, there should be definite criteria upon which decisions are made when classifications are being considered. Certainly one important criterion should be the time element. Material that is PAGENO="0352" 1466 INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AG~NCTES classified "secret" or to put it another way, nonpublishable, should be reviewed periodically. Let me review for this committee for just a moment, censorship during World War II. When the United States suddenly was forced into that conflict, editors were required to send every galley to the Cen- sor's Office fo* clearance. This system broke down almost immedi- ately. As far as science and technology were concerned, it failed be- cause thete were not enough technically trained people to pass on such articles. To the nontechnically train~d mind, mention of 1 or 2 com- mon chemicals in a manuscript was sufficient to make the censors take the easy way out-namely, to withhold permission to publish. As a result, the job of censorship was very quickly placed on the shoulders of each editor-~--we were even held responsible for the advertisements appearing in our. publications. This system introduced by Byron Price and hi~ associates worked, I believe, admir~ibly throughout World War II. This kind of an ap- proach to a tr~ublesome problem can be effective in actual war periods. It is not a sat~sfactory method of operation under present conditions * where we ma~ be engaged in a so-called cold war for X number of years. The X can stand for 1 year, or it can stand for 50 years or more. When the Korean hostilities broke out~ I revived what we refer to as our pink sheet~ a copy of which I have available here for your perusal. A sheet like this went out to every reviewer of our scientific and techni- cal manuscripts 9f our applied journals. The reviewer was asked the question: "Does this manuscript contain information that should be withheld?" (See exhibit VI.) What disturbs me is criticism of the publication of unclassified information iii the press of this country. The pet excuse given by those who advocate such a program is the stock question: "Why make it easier for a potential enemy by gathering this information together in one place?" It is difficult to believe that any potential enemy is not extremely well equipped and qualified to put together pieces of unclassified information. In the long run we cannot hope to withhold this general information except from those who do not have such facilities, namely, our own people, our own scientists, and our own technologists. It is my firm belief that any Government agency which sets itself up to restrict or $low down the flow of unclassified information will do our country m4~re harm than good. Obviously, if anything is worth publishing, it has value to a possible enemy. The teason for publishing it, however, is to keep our own scientists and technologists abreast of what their fellow workers are doing. Although there is a risk involved, however, if we have confi- dence in ourselves and in our scientific and technological superiority, why should we be so concerned about publishing information of an unclassified nature? There is another pet theory among some nontechnically trained people to the effect that a better way of disseminating scientific and technical infdrmation is simply to make reports available only to those who are on some kind of a preferred list. Today we are tragi- cally short of ëompetent scientists and technologists. ~od only knows how much duplication of effort is going on at this moment, simply because much of our scientific i~esearch is highly compartmentalized PAGENO="0353" INrORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1467 and the results of this work are disseminated to only a very small fraction of all the scientists and technologists in this country. We can follow 1 of 2 policies regarding the dissemination of scien- tific and technical information in this country. We can eliminate our scientific ~t~iid technical journals, our business and trade press and put our confidence in the distribution of reports on a very, very limited basis, or we can continue to do as we have done in the past-give wide dissemination to unclassified information. The latter system is the one that has helped to make possible the industrial might Qf the United States. Why abandon it because a few people want to put their heads in the sand? There really is no middle ground. Let me explain this point further. In April of last year I left the national meeting of the American Chemical Society to meet with the representatives of the Office of StrateØc Information. This meeting was set up between the Office of Strategic Information, the Department of Commerce, and a committee of the Society of Business Magazine Editors. The editors present were informed that all that OSI was seeking was voluntary coopera- tion. Gentlemen, when we reach this stage there is always the im- plication that involuntary cooperation is just around the corner if the wishes of those who talk about voluntary cooperation are not complied with. At this meeting we were shown first considerable material wrapped with a red ribbon. We were told that this was a technical report compiled by a young engineer from unclassified sources, including scientific and technical journals, in an effort to impress a possible employer with the applicant's knowledge of a field. We were not shown the inside of this one volume masterpiece, but we were told that it was such a wonderful study that it had been immediately classified. Mind you, this report was compiled by a young, relatively uninformed engineer from readily available published information. We were also shown a very comprehensive list of areas in science and technology with the suggestion that we avoid these in our busi- ness, scientific, and technical journals. We were told, for example, that petroleum technology, plastics, and other general fields, although unclassified, should be ignored in our journals. If I followed volun- tary censorship as outlined in that suggestion, I would just about eliminate the value to American scientists and engineers of the journals I edit. One of the more specific suggestions was that we eliminate articles dealing with the subject of infrared spectroscopy in petroleum tech- nology. I could i~ot resist telling the representatives of OSI and the Department of Commerce that just the day before I had talked in Cincinnati with a young man from India. This person was spending a year in this country going from university to university, petroleum company to petroleum company, to learn more about infrared spec- troscopy in petroleum technology. Obviously, one of the chief reasons why the man was in Cincinnati was to attend the technical sessions of the spring meeting of the American Chemical Society. I cannot vouch for the fact that this man's expenses were being paid by our Government-possibly in connection with a technical as- sistance program, but I s~1spect we taxpayers were financing his year's visit. Certainly be was here with the full knowledge and encourage- ment of our Government. 69222-56--pt. 6-23 PAGENO="0354" 1468 INFORMAft~ION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES I raised the question at the conference just mentioned: What do you intend to do with this young scientist from India the clay he boards his plane to go home? Are you going to brainwash him so that he can- not take back with him any information whatsoever on the subject ~of infrared spectroscopy in p~tro1eum technology? Gentlemen, otviously the right hand does not know what the left~ hand is doing when we get into the subject of censorship of un- classified information. Nevertheless, a few public officials have made speeches around the country, which created the impression, I am sure, in the minds of the general public, that editors like myself are aiding and abetting possible enemies. The proposals of OSI are not exactly new. As early as January 1951, I attended a meeting in the office of former Secretary of Com- merce Charles Sawyer, in which the subject of restricting dissemina- tion of unclassified information was discussed. Our great scientific and industrial progress is the real basis for our national st~ength and security. Throughout our history such progress has bepn largely ~the result of rapid and extensive dissemina- tion of scientific information and technical know-how. In 1951, I could see no good reason for a program restricting dissemination of unclassified information and I opposed it. I can see no good reason for it.in 1956. Mr. Moss. Dr. Murphy, have ~you had any further contacts with the Office of Strategic Information? Mr. MURPHY. No; not personally. I believe some of the members possibly on the staff may have. Mr. Moss. Were you aware of their proposed exchange plan, ex- change of infor~nation? Mr. MURPHY. Yes. That was brought out in a speech Mr. Seago gave before a division of the American Chemical Society a year ago jn Minneapolis. I was present when he gave this paper. Mr. Moss. Were the mechanics of that proposal outlined to you at all? Mr. MURPHY. No more than indicated in this speech. Mr. Moss. Do you have foreign subscribers in the publications you edit? Mr. MURPHY.~ Very definitely. Mr. Moss. Have you been requested to supply a list of foreign sub- scribers to anyo~ie in OSI? Mr. MURPHY. That would not come under any jurisdiction butthe executive secretkry of the society. I wouldn't know that. Mr. Moss. To your knowledge has any such request been made? Mr. MURPHY. Not to my knowledge. It may or may not have been made. Idon't know. Mr. Moss. How could such an exchange program be worked out with a publication such as yours? It is published periodically and mailed to regular subscribers? Mr. MURPHY. That is correct. Mr. Moss. YOu would almost have to hold up each issue until some arrangement might be worked out for the exchange? Mr. MURPHY. I don't believe OSI was proposing that the publica~ tions get into this exchange business. I think, if I may interpret Mr. Seago's talk correctly, what he was referring to more directly was PAGENO="0355" IN1~OR1\~ATI0N FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES i469~ trying to work out a basis of exchange between individuals or com- panies that might be asked to give information abroad. Mr. Moss. That would be rather a cumbersome procedure. Mr. MURPHY. I would imagine it would be. My own personal feel- ing is that the scientists themselves are in a much better position to~ negotiate these exchanges than by injecting a third party who frankly may or may not know much about it. Mr. Moss. And they know exactly what they are trying to get in exchange? Mr. MURPHY. Yes, I would say they did. Mr. Moss. In these proposals to control the publishing of this infor- mation, you pointed out the case of the young student from India, the engineer from India. Unless we sealed off the United States, there is no way you could really control it. You miotht erect some roadblocks in certain instances, but they would be equ~ily roadblocks affecting our own people just as they would affect any foreigners? Mr. MURPHY. I think so. I think in general2 sir, what we are faced with here are 2 conflicting policies, or 2 conflicting philosophies. One philosophy is trying by one means or another to slow down the dis- semination of unclassified information and to withhold it within the confines of the United States so it will put a Chinese wall around our scientific and technical knowledge. Another policy indicates that we should be doing everything in the world to help backward coun- tries and to share our science and technology with them. This is where we get in between the middle. Mr. Moss. If you had voluntarily complied with the request of OSI that you eliminate from your journals all reference to petroleum tech- riology, plastics, and other general fields, what do you feel the effect would be internally? Mr. MURPHY. Well, it would prevent the dissemination o~ this kind cf information, essential information to the people doing research in this country. That is what they use our journals for. Mr. Moss. Would it give us greater security, do you believe? Mr. MURPHY. I don't believe so. I have confidence in the ability Df our scientists and technologists to keep ahead of the procession. Mr. Moss. Whether or not it would is a speculative question, but bhe matter of the effect internally would be one of retarding. Mr. MURPHY. That is my personal opinion, that it would. Mr. Moss. Mr. Mitchell? Mr. MITCHELL. Dr. Murphy, do you know of any accomplisments Df the Office of Strategic Information, what they have done which has ~een effective? Congressman Meader asked that question the other lay and didn't get a good answer from Mr. Seago. Mr. MURPHY. I don't know of any. Again this was touched on very briefly in this paper that Mr. Seago presented before the Amen- ~an Chemical Society meeting in Minneapolis. My own personal opinion, after reading it, is that it doesn't co n- ;titute a great deal of accomplishment. This is a public document. [f you want to make this part of the record I see no reason for not :urning it over to you. Mr. MITCHELL. We have a copy of it. Mr. MURPHY. All right, sir. PAGENO="0356" 1470 INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Mr. MITCHELL. Do you know if YOU have any subscribers from be- hind the Iron Curtain? Mr. MuRPHY. Oh, yes; definitely. Mr. MITcHE~I4. Have you ever been asked by the OSI office to limit the distributio~i? Mr. MURPHt. I wouldn't be in a position to answer this; this would be something which would have to be answered by the executive secretary because it would come under the business affairs of the society. Mr. MITCHELL. Could you for the record provide it at a later date and answer that question? Mr. MURPHY. I will try to, sir. Mr. Moss. To your knowledge do we receive, do our scientists i~- c&ive, any publications from behind the Iron Curtain ~ Mr. Mun~±. Yes; we do, and quite a number of them are digested or abstracted ~n chemical abstracts, which is one of the services the society performs. Mr. Moss. Do you think they contribute to our store of knowledge in this country? Mr. MURPHY. Unquestionably they do. Mr. Moss. I notice in your statement on page 2, in reviewing censor- ship during World War II, you mention the fact that the original pro- posal for a central office clearance of all articles broke down almost immediately. Aren't we faced at the moment with that problem in the mass accumulation of classified documents we have in scientific fields? We shbuld undertake declassification document by document, and even in minor categories it would take a great many years to re- view them. Mr. MURPHY. In my personal opinion, and I have had some expe- rience with these matters, I don't know whether it would take years but it would take a long time, Mr. Chairman, first because of the ex- tensive amount of such material which exists, which I believe exists, and, too, we have a very limited number of people who would be in a position to handle this kind of material and make intelligent decisions. Mr. Moss. rou feel a better method of classifying might be to put an automatic e~piration date on a document, and unless it was affirma- tively acted upon to reclassify it and have it become available? Mr. MURPHY. I feel very strongly on that, sir, in agreement with you on it. Mr. Moss. Have you any idea as to what might be an appropriate limitation? Mr. MURPHY. I think the criterion should be largely a realistic eval- uation-is this really being kept secret? Is it something we have rea- sonable assurance or belief that we can keep secret? The amount of information that you can keep secret in the strict sense of the wOrd is pretty small. Mr. MEAnER, Are you affected by this Export Control Act requiring labeling, and ~o on? Mr. MURFH~. Again that would be a matter which I would have to refer to the executive secretary, because this comes under the business aspects which I do not handle and which do not come under my juris- diction. If the rule says we must do it I presume we are doing it. (See ex- hibit VII.) PAGENO="0357" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1471 Mr. MEADER. But to your knowledge you do not know whether or not you are? Mr. MURPHY. No; I don't, sir. Mr. MEADER. I believe you answered Mr. Mitchell's question about this exchange of information. You are familiar, I presume, with the guide issued by the Office of Strategic Information which is designed to assist agencies in trading information; are you familiar with that? Mr. MURPHY. No; I am not, sir. Mr. MEAnER. You have never been approached by the Office of Strategic Information with respect to exchanging information? Mr. MURPHY. No, sir. Mr. MEAnER. Have you ever- Mr. MURPHY. Our whole operation is based upon the publication of journals and not the solicitation of individual information from abroad. Mr. MEADER. Do you have any comments upon the workability of such a program based upon a restriction of unclassified information in the effort to elicit from some country behind the Iron Curtain the equivalent information on a quid pro quo basis? Mr. MURPHY. The only thing I can say is that my personal feeling is that it is rather incongruous to have one agency of Government setting out with these two purposes in mind, one to very definitely slow down or help to restrict the volume of unclassified information going abroad but in the same breath saying one of our great objectives is to get more from abroad. I don't think the Russians are stupid about this matter. Mr. MEADER. I gathered from your statement, also, that you think there may be some conflict between this program of the Department of Commerce to limit export of information and also to engage in the bartering of information, and the program of the State Department and the International Cooperation Administration to promote per- sonnel exchanges financed by the Tjnited States taxpayers. Mr. MURPHY. It just doesn't make sense to me, sir~ We are training over here hundreds and hundreds of graduate students, in chemical engineering, for example. These people will go back to their re~pec- tive countries. Let us presume they make good use of the time they are here and the money it costs, and they find out a lot of this informa- tion, and then they offer some journal in their country an article on what they have learned. We have no control over that. We cannot turn around and tell them not to publish it. Mr. MEADER. And a good deal of our point 4 program is in technical assistance and improving the state of knowledge of various activities in foreign countries. True, they are not Iron Curtain countries but there is not much of a way you can control the information whicth might flow from a friendly country into an Iron Curtain country. Mr. MURPHY. Absolutely no way of controlling it. Sometimes this whole matter of censorship gets to a point of being frustrating and ridiculous. When I was in Europe in 1945 for the Technical Industrial Intel- ligence Committee, it was immediately after VE-Day, the British newspapers were filled, although they had only four pages to an issue in most cases, were filled, for example, with the story about the raad on Norway and the information which was gained about heavy water over there, and so on. PAGENO="0358" 1472 INF0R~!ATI0N FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES This was o~ie of the things which was completely forbidden for m to discuss in our publications during the war period. I actually *iailed these copies of these newspapers over to my office here in Wasi~ington and had them take them down to the censor's office. They said "Here, this information is being published in the newspapers freely in Great Britain. Why can't we wnte up some- thino~ about itr' were told what they did in Great Britain they couldn't control but it could be controlled here, so the essential element is that we didn't publish anything about it, but we certainly didn't stop anybody from finding out about it. Mr. MEADEI~. That is all I have. Mr. MITCHELL. Dr. Murphy, on page 4 of your statement, the second paragraph-"Tn January 151 we were at the height of the Korean conflict." Cduld you elaborate for the subcommittee why no action was taken at that time to establish an Office of Strategic Information? Mr. MURPH'~-. I think they did establish something. Whether it was called OSI or the Office of Technical Services, or something else, I remember distinctly, as I mention in this formal statement, I attended a meeting where this matter was discussed. There were several people present at that meeting besides myself. I was particularly interested in attending this because I wanted to raise the question of whether the rules that they were proposing would also be applicable to sccientiflc and technical journals and to the press generally. Mr. MITCH1~LL. It was your magazine or journal which published the data concerning the science attache program in January of this year; was it not? Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir. Mr. MITCHELL. Could you elaborate on the details of that story for the benefit of the subcommittee, please? Mr. MURPHY. I didn't write this article. I actually read it before it was published, so I am reasonably familiar with what was in it. Also, I was ~n Europe last summer, in fact had luncheon with Dr. Mulliken who was referred to by Dr. Hughes this morning. I at- tended the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry meet- ing in Zurich, and only illness prevented my being at the Geneva Conference on the Atom. This is essentially a review of the science attache program from the very beginning to what I consider to be a rather s~d ending of it. My personal feeling again is that I agree with everything Dr. Hughes said about it. It is unfortunate that this program was not continued. In fact in my opinion it should be enlarged upon. Mr. MITCHE1~L. Have you been consulted by the Department of State relative tb this program? Mr. MURPHY. Not I personally; no, sir. Mr. MITCHEI~L. What is your personal opinion on how long it will take the American scientific journals to get any information concern- ing the disclosure of the day before yesterday by the Soviet scientists? Mr. MURPHY. That is a hard question for me to answer. I hope our London editor was there but I have no assurances he was there. If he was, I imagine we will publish something in the Chemical and Engineering News. But to answer your question, perhaps more seri- PAGENO="0359" INFORMATION FROM FEDER4L DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1473 ously, sir, I think it will be quite a long time, and I just don't know what the medium would be for getting this inkrmation back except by personal letters from people who happened to be there to friends over here. Mr. Moss. Dr. Murphy, if the information should arrive in the United States, and it is dealing with the process of fusion, would it be classified and could you publish it? Mr. MURPHY. That would pose quite a probleth. Mr. Moss. As I understand it, you couldn't even undertake a dig- cussion of it unless you were properly cleared, could you? Mr. MURPHY. I certainly would question the authority of anybody to stop me from publishing something which was said in public at a meeting in England we reported as a reporter. He is not cleared. He doesn't have any access to any secret information over here, so all he would be reporting would be what Was said publicly at this Harwell meeting. Mr. Moss. You would be technically in violation of the Atomic Energy Act if you published it; would you not? Mr. MURPHY. I probably would be. Mr. Moss. Would you agree with the position taken by Dr. Hughes as to the effect on foreign scientists of the label which under the Ex- port Control Act regulations is required to be affixed on correspondence and publications of a technical nature? Mr. MURPHY. Yes; I think it has a detrimental effect. It is an indication to our foreign scientists that there is some possible cen- sorship being made concerning, you might say, almost private com- munications back and forth. This gets to the point of being rather difficult to administer, and I want to explain it in this way. For example, the International Union of Pure and Applied Chem- istry has a number of countries, including Russia, as members. This international union is not a labor union but it is an endeavor to arrive, for example, at agreement on such things as chemical nomenclature and atomic weights and so on. You will have on some of these committees an American and a Russian; you may have a Scandinavian. It seems to me these people ought to be perfectly free to correspond back and forth on these sorts of things without having to put a label on it or indicate that this letter is somehow being cleared here. Mr. Moss. Is there any indication required on the information in any of the other countries to your knowledge? Mr. MURPHY. I have never seen any, sir. Mr. MEAnER. Dr. Murphy, while we did have scientific attach~s abroad, did you, your publication, or to your knowledge did anyone else derive any benefit from their activities in the form of generating information for the scientific fraternity in this country? Mr. MURPHY. I am sure our London editor-Mr. William Hull is associate editor-did because he was in close contact with Dr. Mulli- ken over there. In fact, they have a little informal group of repre- sentatives of American chemical companies which meet in London about once a month, and Dr. Mulliken, I believe, was the chairman of this informal group and Mr. I-lull was the secretary. PAGENO="0360" 1474 INFORa\~ATIoN FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Actually th~ first meeting of this group was one I attended and gave a little review of what was going on back in the States, so I am sure Mr. Hull did have reasonably close contact with the science attaché in London. Mr. MEADER. It would be that type of informal meeting in which any benefit of the activities of these scientific attaches would be derived so far as your experience is concerned? Mr. MURPHY. I think it has a number of benefits. Dr. Hughes men- tioned one. If a foreign mind is coming here, sometimes he doesn't understand th~ rules and regulations regarding visas and so forth, he can frequently go to the science attaché; he can talk to him informally on a man-to-n~an basis and get these things cleared up. Mr. MEADER~ Let us stop at that. Ordinarily it would not be diffi- cult to get that kind of information from regular Embassy personnel, would it? Mr. MURPHY. I don't suppose it ~would, but they sort of belong to the same fraternity. Mr. MEADER. It might be nice, but you would not maintain scientific attaches for that purpose. Mr. MURPhY. I think one of the benefits that derive is to make contacts for our scientists going abroad, their scientists coming back to this country. In other words, I think they can do a great deal to help develop a greater flow of information on science internationally, and there is no~ geographical boundary on science. This is something which seems almost elementary and yet it is hard for a lot of people to understand. Mr. MEADER. I had the impression, and maybe it was erroneous, that scientists who testified on this subject at our earlier hearings believe that scientific information would be collected by scientific attaches abroad and transmitted to the United States, and somehow it would add to our store of knowledge here, and other than this meeting of you~ editor in London on an informal basis monthly with a scientific attaché are you aware of any specific information which was channeled through the scientific attache in the State Department here which got out into the scientific community here? Mr. MURPHY. I think there was a considerable amount of that. I cannot be specific about it, but I believe there was. Mr. MITCHELL. Dr. Murphy, would you care to comment concerning the recent announcement that the Russians were going to put science , attaches in their Embassies? Are you aware of that? Mr. MURPHY. Yes. Mr. MIToHw~. Would you please comment on the effect of that? Mr. MURPHY~ I think it merely emphasizes the fact that the Rus- sians are doingsomething which is highly desirable from their point of view which Itroni our point of view we should be doing and we are not doing. Mr. MITCHELL. Do you have a feeling that we should really imple- ment our program? Mr. MURPHY. I feel that very definitely, sir. Mr. Moss. Is it not true that even on the initial working of our pro- gram there might have been some doubt in the minds of the officials in the Department of State as to the benefits we would derive, that in view of the fact the Russians have now picked it up and adopted it, PAGENO="0361" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENT$ AND AQENOIES 1475 as they have a number of our programs, it is even more important that we have the attaches, the American scientific attachós, in the principal ~apitals of the world in ordei~ to maintain the liaison in ~behalf of A~merican science which Russia now wants to establish in beh~ilf of Russia? Mr. MURPHY. I believe definitely we should, sir. Mr. MEA~ER. ~Do you in your scientific publications have a practice of exchanging with scientific publications of other countries on a formalized basis? Mr. MUm?HY. Yes, sir. Mr. MEAnER. You are on their mailing list and they are on yours? Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir. This is the principal basis upon which we are able to issue chemical abstracts, sir. In most instances we do not pay for the journal we abstract because we are transmitting one of our journals in trade with them. Mr. MEAnER. That has been a practice of longstanding? Mr. MURPHY. It goes back for years and years and years. Mr. MEAnER, Has there ever been any effort on the part of our Gov- ernment during wartime or a period of emergency to restrict some- what your exchange of scientific publications? Mr. MURPHY. Not that I am aware of. Of course, during World War II there were certain limitations placed on where you could send your journals. Mr. MEADER. Do you have such exchange relationship with any pub- lications behind the Iron Curtain? Mr. MURPHY. I believe we do, sir. I am not the editor of Chemical Abstracts, but I believe we do have such. I know we do get quite a number of the Russian journals and that these are abstracted in Chem- ical Abstracts. Mr. MEADER. Who does the translating of these journals? Mr. MURPHY. A great many people, people whom the editor knows are competent, people who know the language and are competent to give a scientific abstract of the paper. Mr. MEADER. You have to arrange for the translation your~eif. There is no central place where these publications are translated? Mr. MURPHY. No, sir. Mr. Moss. Even though there were restrictions imposed during wartime upon the exchange of publications, one of the major efforts of all governments was to secure the publications of others, was it not, in order to gain the advantage of the information being circulated within those nations? Mr. MmPHY. That is correct. One of the problems I believe they had, and I am speaking from se~ond-hand knowledge now, fr~tnkly, was to get journals from abroad during World War II from the coun- tries we were at war with. Another problem was to catch up with the abstracts of those journals, the ones we were not able to get until after the war was over, so that the records, so to speak, would be complete. Mr. FASCELL. On the dissemnation of unclassified information, I see that you take a position there is really no middle ground, which means you favor the philosophy of the widest possible distribution, and that there should be no voluntary or involuntary atibempt made to restrict flow of that type of information. Is that correct? Mr. MURPHY. That is correct, sir. PAGENO="0362" 1476 INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AN*~D~ AGENCIES Mr. FASCE14~. I also gather from your statement and 5your testi- mony that wh~le you acknowledge the fact there is certain informa- tion which fr~m a strictly national viewpoint might gain some ad- vantage for the country, only from the standpoint of time that is should be held secret, that that field actually is very, very limited. Is that a correct interpretation of your position? Mr. MURPHY. In relationshi~p to the tremendous volume of un~ classified information, yes. Mr. FASOELL. And that time is the most important factor and per- haps the only factor to be considered in withholding information? Mr. MURPU~Y. That certainly is the principal factor in my point of view. S Mr. FASCELL. And therefore I assume from that that knowledge perhaps in the scientific field exists everywhere in the mind of man? Mr. MURPHY. That is correct, sir. Mr. FASCELL. On every major possible scientific accomplishment that we can envision today? Mr. MURPHY. That is correct. During World War II I think the press of this country cooperated extremely well on the whole develop- ment of the atom bomb, for example, although there were a great many who knew what was going on. I knew about it. I didn't know the details bu1~ I certainly was aware of what was going on. But frankly I do r~ot think that by our doing that we kept the Germans, for example, 1~rom any knowledge whatsoever of the fact we were trying to develbp an atom bomb. Maybe we kept our own people from knowing it, and perhaps it may have been a good thing on a temporary basis to keep them from getting panicky. I don't know. This is a question for psychologists to discuss. But we are in a different situation now. You can do this for a limited period of time and be reasonably successful, but when you extend it for a~'i indefinite period I think you do more harm. Obviously, ahything that I publish in a scientific or technical journal has some value to everybody who reads it who has the intelligence to read it and use it. Otherwise I wouldn't publish it. It is a calculated risk: Do we get more out of it by wide dissemination among our own people who can use it, even though we know it probably will be used by other people. You cannot Separate out, sir, too well what is essentially informa- tion of a military vah~e. For example; during the war an effort was made to keep the Germans from getting to know the research work we were doing on penicillin. Should we stop all publication of information on advances in antibi- otics in thi~ couhtry? Mr. FASCELL~ That points up the thinking which had occurred to me, also, which is that when you get into the question of restriction the problem compounds itself because of the natural. accumulation. There is no way to discard what you have in it already because every- thing is built up on that, it would seem to me, and after a while you get to a point where the whole thing is ridiculous. Mr. MURPHY. That is right. Mr. MEADER. Your comment that if it was not interesting and useful you would not publish it leads me to a question of whether or not there are sdme financial considerations involved in this voluntary PAGENO="0363" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1477 censorship. Obviously the most interesting article you ca~n write, and one which will spread information about something which was not known before, would sell more of your publications. If you were re- stricted to writing something everybody already knows and not very interesting, or newsworthy, or new, your circulation might go down. Mr. MURPHY. I am sure our readers would fall off considerably, sir. Mr. MEAnER. In other words, suppressing this flow of information may have its financial consequences upon the publication of scientific journals? Mr. MURPHY. That is right. I would point out to you that the American Chemical Society does have a Federal charter from the Government, and one of its objectives is to help provide the widest dissemination possible of material in the field of chemistry and related fields to help build up the national economy and welfare of our people. This is our objective. This is why we are publishing this information. Mr. Moss. Are you a nonprofit organization? Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir. Mr. MEADER. So far as you know, Dr. Murphy, the efforts of the Department of Commerce we have beten talking about here, the 051, and export control have not adversely affected your circulation or that of any other scientific publication up to the present time that you know of Mr. MURPHY. I am not aware of it, sir. Mr. FASCELL. Dr. Murphy, I am checking back in your statement and I am very glad to have some conflicting testimony on a point which previously has been presented to this committee. I never have been able to find out what the Office of Strategic Information has actually done with respect to carrying out the obligations of its charter. Now I see representatives of that office met somewhere with the American Chemical Society. Mr. MURPHY. No; with a committee of the Society of Business Magazine Editors, sir. I was on that committee. Mr. FASCELL. You were present at this meeting? Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir. Mr. FACELL. At which questions about voluntary cooperation was discussed? Mr. MURPHY. Obviously as editors the member of the society, Busi- ness Magazine Editors, the same as newspaper editors, are concerned when they hear even rumors that there is voluntary censorship. This is is sensitive subject with the American people and with editors. Maybe they are supersensitive, but I think they should be supersensi- tive on this thing to guard our rights in this matter, the freedom of the press. This setup of this meeting was based on an agreement to try to find out what they were driving at. Mr. FAScELL. Perhaps you would be interested in knowing that the director of the organization who testified before us, testified, as I recall it, that the organization had no authority over either any agency of Government or any business, that it had not formulated any policy guides with respect to business, that the agency itself did not go out and attempt to enlist voluntary compliance with anything particularly, and that as a matter of fact it handled only individual PAGENO="0364" 1478 IN~'OI~ATI0N FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGE~C~~S re~u~sts as,, iM, and when they came to the attention of the agency, and only at tbe request of the industry. This information which you made available to the subcommittee mdi- cates otherwise. Mr. Mri~rn~. Well, in all probability we made the suggestion we sit down with them and try to find out what it was all about. When 1 say we I rne~n the Society of Business Magazine Editors. This was the intent we had in appointing that committee. Mr. FASOELt~. Of course the thinking I have in back of my mind, Doctor, is this: As long as the agency is studying the problem, which is what we un~Ierstand they are doing basically at the present time in handling irnliHdual complaints, not complaints but giving advice in individual cases when requested, even though it doesn't seem to be too big a thing and we might do away with it~ I would be more in- clined to consider the possibility of perhaps the office being abolished if this type of thing you are discussing continues, because I think if we get into this the next logical step-this is the logical step from what is now being clone, as I understand it, which is studying the problem, determining what should be done, handle individual requests, and give advice ar~d recommendation. The Tlext thing then would be to sit down with the industry and develop an overall plan of some kind and try to imp~ement it by voluntary approach. I wondered ~tbout your reaction. I think I have it pretty clear from what you have said so far on this thing. You perhaps feel as I do, we probably would be better off, just forgetting about studying the problem and giving the widest possible dissemination. Were any minutes kept of this meeting you attended or was this an informal discussion? Mr. MURPIfl~. This took place a couple years ago, and my memory is not too good on it. I don't recall there was. There may have been, but I am not st~re. Mr. MITcHELr~. Mr. Chairman, this subcommittee has received in- formation that one of the primary objectives is to keep industrial processes and industrial methods used in this country from being disseminated abroad. Doctor Murphy, does your publication publish such matter as that? Mr. MURPHY. We publish engineering data and information. We publish what we call corroborative staff industry reports on processes. Obviously these are worked up in connection with a given company. I doubt very much that we publish all of the know-how which would be required to just take this article and put up a plant. Mr. MITCHELL. Have you had any meetings on this subject matter with menibers bf the Department of Commerce? Mr. MURPHY. No, sir. Mr. MITcHEIJL. Have the companies that you know of? Mr. MURPHY. Not that I am aware of, sir. Mr. Moss. Dr. Murphy, you pointed out, I believe, referring again to your statement, the fact that even though publication of this type of information might be withheld, that it would still not prevent its export abroad because of the exchange programs we have where we actually bring technicians here, take them into our plants, and acquaint them with our methods? / PAGENO="0365" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 147* Mr. MtJRPHY. Of course, most of our exchange people gb into the universities where they are perhaps doing more basic research than applied technology. Mr. Moss. You did mention the case of the young Indian, however. Mr. MTJRPHY. This infrared spectroscopy in petroleum technology ~s technoh~gy. This is not particularly basic science in my opinion. Mr. MITCHELL. It is know-how. Mr. MURPHY. It is know-how. Mr. MITCHELL. Would you care to comment on that statemen1~ which ~ppeared in the Congressional Record which I quoted to Dr. Hughes? You seem to have had traveled extensively, particularly in the sci- 3ntific field, and you certainly have a wide background in this type f information. The article strongly suggests that the facts presented in this lecture iemonstrate that Russia is ahead of both the British and the United Btates in the race to control thermonuclear fusion. Have you any comments on that? Mr. MURPHY. I am not competent to pass an expert opinion on that, nr. I would like to point out one final thing which Mr. Gibbs, my asso- 5iate, has reminded me of. We have encouraged bringing productivity ;eams to this country under Government auspices. Here again is the ~onfiict of two opposing ideas. It just doesn't seem logical to me, sir. Mr. Moss. Further questions? (No response.) Mr. Moss. If not, Dr. Murphy, we, want to thank you for your ap- Dearance here this morning. It has contributed considerably to the study of this committee. Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, sir. Mr. Moss. We will now adjourn until Monday morning at 10 )`clock. (Hearing adjourned at 12: 3Op. m.) PAGENO="0366" PAGENO="0367" AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Part 6-Department of Commerce 1~0NDAY, APRIL 30, 1956 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10: 15 a. m., in room 362, Old House Office Building, Representative John E. Moss, Jr. (chairman), presiding. Present: Representatives Moss, Fascell, and Meader. Also present: Samuel J. Archibald, staff director; John J. Mitchell, chief counsel; J. Lacey Reynolds, senior consultant; and William Fairfield, investigator. Mr. Moss. The subcommittee will now come `to order. The first witness this morning will be Mr. Harold C. McClellan, Assistant Secretary for International Affairs, Department of Commerce. STATEMENT OP HON. HAROLD C. McCL]~LLAN, ASSISTANT SECRE.~ TARY FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN C. BORTON, DIRECTOR OP OFFICE OF EXPORT SUPPLY, BURE4U OP FOREIGN COMMERCE, NEWTON FOSTER, DIRECTOR, FINISHED PRODt~CTS DIVISION, BUREAU OF FOREIGN COMMERCE; AND NATHAN OSTROFF, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPART MENT OF COMMERCE Mr. MCCLELLAN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I have with me 2 or 3 from my office in the Department of Commerce. Mr. Moss. Would you introduce the gentlemen to the committee? Mr. MCCLELLAN. Yes, I will. Present is Mr. John Borton, Director of the Export Supply, the Bureau of Foreign Commerce; Mr. New- ton Foster, Diuector of the Finished Products Division of the Bureau of Foreign Commerce; and Mr. Nathan Ostroff, Assistant General Counsel for the Department of Commerce. My name is H. C. McClellan and I am the ,Assistant Secretary of Commerce for International Affairs. Mr. Moss. I wonder if you might give us a brief background sketch, before you present your opening statement. Mr. MCCLELLAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just joined the Department of Commerce 8 months ago, coming from industry in California. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that is your State. 1481 PAGENO="0368" 1482 INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Mr. Moss. That is correct. I am very pleased to have a fellow Californian before the committee. Mr. MCCLELLAN. Thank you, sir. My experience has been that of a manufacturer for approximately 30 years prior to joining the De- partment of Commerce and terminating my relationship with the company with I headed-which is a paint manufacturing company in L0E Angeles. My service i~n public work through the years has been in connection with the chamber of commerce; Occidental College, of which I served as board chaiithian for 5 years; a local industrial association in Los Angeles, whicJ~ I served for 2 years as president; the Merchants & Manufacturers Association; as president of the `ocal Paint, Varnish & Lac4uer Association; as president of the National Association of Manufacturers in 1954; and on occasion I served during World War II on the War Labor Board as an industry member, and later served on the Wage Stabilization Regional Board; and then on several occa- sions I have served under the Foreign Operations Administration in missions to Chile, Yugoslavia, Italy, and Germany. As I mentioned, I have been here now for about 8 months. I would like~ Mr. Chairman~ to read a statement in connection with the export control of technical data about which I believe your com- mittee is concerned this morning. May I read the prepared statement? Mr. Moss. Certainly, go right ahead. Mr. MCCLELLAN. Export control of technical data: The Export Control Act of 1949 authorizes the President to- Prohibit or curtail the exportation from the United States, its Territories, and possessians, of a~1iy articles, materials, or supplies, including technical data, ex- cept under such rules and regulations as he shall prescribe. IJnder the priginal export-control legislation, throughout World War II, exports of technical data could be made only under license and enforcement was ensured by censorship. Shortly after the end of the war technical data was placed under general license. ~t this point it might be well to explain that an export-control general license is a license established and publicly announced by the Department of Commerce for which no application is required and for which no license document is granted or issued. It is a self- applicable license, available for use by all persons, which permits ex- portation within the provisions as prescribed in the export regula- tions. During the early postwar period any technical data could be exported to an~r destination under general license. In November 1949, security provisions for certain types of technical data were incorporated in the export control regulations. These provisions, however, were of a voluntary or consultative nature and the worldwide applicability of the technical data general license remained effective until March 1, 1951. Since that date all exports of unpublished technical data to Soviet bloc countries could be made legally only under validated license, except for-since April 28, 1955-scientific data "not directly and sigrnficantly $lated to design, production, and utilization in in- dustrial proces~es * * ~." In other words, since March of 1951, all exports to Iron Curtain countries of unpublished industrial tech- nology and kno~w-how have required validated export licenses. Very few such licens~s have been issued. PAGENO="0369" INFO1~MATI0N FROM FED1~RAL DEI~ARTMENTS AND AG~NCIES 1483 During the entire period of technical data control activity from November 1949 to date, there has been considerable and continuing effort put forth to inform industry and the technical fraternity gener- ally of the nature and objectives of the control regulations. All regulations are, of course, published in the Federal Register (See exhibit VIII) and in the Comprehensive Export Schedule, a looseleaf comj~endium of export regulations sold to the public on a subscription basis at $6 annually. Also, informative press re- leases are always issued simultaneously with any change. In addition, numerous discussion meetings have been held with various industrial groups and well publicized open meetings were conducted in New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. Other devices also have been utilized, such as distribution of re- prints of the regulations to technical organizations and to selected lists of engineers and industrial corporations active in fields con- sidered to be of strategic significance. Some public awareness has also been achieved through the publications of various engineering and technical societies and associations. In the program for safeguarding significant technical data related to special installations of strategic significance within the United States, contact has been maintained with such organizations as the Association of American Railroads, Association of Port Authorities, Airport Operators Council, and others. In September 1950, the Department of Defense, the Department of Commerce and the Association of American Railroads worked out sec~urity standards and criteria to govern release for foreign use of technical data considered of strategic significance, relating to the American railways. All foreign requests for data received by the 153 member railroads and 150 associate members are screened in Washington by. the AAR, in consultation, as need be, with the Technical Data Section of the Bureau of Foreign Commerce. A great many requests have been denied for data considered to possess security significance. The horns of a dilemma continually confront the administration of any control over the international flow of technology. The in- terest of security must continually be balanced against the desire to keep open the channels of scientific communication. Certain risks, either calculated or otherwise, must continually be taken in the interest of providing all possible technical assistance to our allies and to the free world generally, as well as of affording the greatest permissible freedom in the international commercial opera- tions of United States business. There has been a great deal of cdii- tinuing consideration and interagency consultation with respect to these problems; there is no clear-cut answer to any of them. The argument for the free flow of scientific information is corn-' promised now, as never before in history, by certain of the malign aspects of the most advanced technological developments. In the areas of technology such as thermodynamics and nuclear science, technical discussions carried on entirely in scientific abstract can be- come immediately the key to strategic applications of new principles of great power. On the other hand, in the service of the interests previvusly pien- tioned-of the welfare of our allies and friendly nations, of the ad- 69222-56-pt. 6-24 PAGENO="0370" 1484 INFORMIATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES `vancement of science, and of the legitimate interests of American business-controls must be maintained at a minimum. It is against the background of such considerations that the policies and the indi- vidual and recurrent problems in the administration of export con- trol of technical data are worked out. In 1949 a pr~cedure was established whereby persons or firms might obtain through the Bureau of Foreign Commerce official Government opinions as to ~he desirability of exporting or releasing for use in for- eign countries certain types of unpublished technical data considered to have significance to the common security and defense of the United States. In all such cases exporters were urged to seek such opinions before completing arrangements to export or release the data 1~or foreign use. Under this procedure, which became known as the voluntary program, innitmerable consultations have been held and literally thousands of opinions have been rendered. As far as B1?C is aware, all adverse opinions have been respected. While throughout the period since 1949 technical data has in most part remained under general license to friendly destinations, the pro- gram for voluiitary consultation has remained active and requests for the official advisory opinions continue to be received in volume. The general license designated GTDU continues to authorize exports of unpublished information to all friendly destinations. The export of information generally available in published form is authorized to the entire world under a general license designated ~TDP. Early in 195~ it became evident that the existing security controls over the expor1~ of technical data from the United States might bring about some unibtended interference with the free flow internationally of research and other scientific data. After extended discussions with representatives of national scien- tific organizations, a general license GTDS was established to cover exports from the United States to all nations of the world of technical data of a scientific nature "not directly and significantly related to design, production, and utilization in industrial processes." It was made entirely clear that the new general license authorized dissemination of technical information by correspondence and attend- ance at, or participation in, meetings; or instruction in academic insti- tutions and acaçleinic laboratories, provided in all cases, of course, that the data rele.as~d was of a scientific or research character that this general license ~as designed to cover. It is one of the provisions of all export-control general licenses that either the export declaration or the export package shall carry the i~ymbol of the particular general license authority under which the export is made. The symbol on the envelope, package, or export declaration is in effect a certification by the exporter that he is aware of and is complying with the provisions of that particular general license authorization. Mr. Chairm~i, before the questions might be. submitted to me, I had one further conkment I would like to offer with your permission. Mr. Moss. C~rtainly. Mr. MCCLELLAN. In the first place, I would like it understood that this operation, as described by the Department of Commerce, is not PAGENO="0371" IN~ORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1485 intended as a formulation of national policy, l~ut rather an e~ort to work within it. It is not our purpose in appearing before you to advocate or to oppose the policy, but rather to try to explain it. I want to make the point that it is our understanding that under the responsibility we hold in export control, we are to prevent the flow ~of strategic items to Communist-bloc countries, and that this particular part of the control is intended, as we understand it, to prevent the frustration of that effort by regulating the flow of technical applied information in terms of production and know-how, so that the frustra- tions won't follow. It is within that framework that we endeavor to write a regulation to prevent it. As this last regulation was drawn in connection with the scientific information, I might say that it was an easing of the regulations which had forme~rly applied, and in order to make it a proper one, we called into conference the representatives of the National Academy of Sci- ~nce, the National Research Council, the National Science Founda- tion, the American Council on Education, and the Engineering Col- lege Research Council. We were under the impression that at that time, through them- and they were the ones who called together any others they felt should be included as the discussion took place and the actual language of the proposal was written-that we had adequate conference with the people of science. These organizations, each of them and severally, approved the language and had some hand in writing it, which applies today. I might add further that this is the first instance under which we have had any complaint from anybody as to the way in which it was operating and the way in which the requirements were made as to the identifying of the flow of the technical and scientific combination of information. Mr. Moss. Of course during the hearings we had the scientiflc panel in the hearings in the past few days. I think it is quite obvious that the great majority of scientists are completely unaware of the require- ments that they fix a label on their correspondence. They almost to a man acknowledged that they bad not been complying. I just wonder how effective this requirement is in doing anything about that? Mr. MCCLELLAN. Mr. Chairman, may I say in connection with that, I was present at part of the discussion last week I did hear the state meilt made that the scientists were not informed. I would like to suggest first that our purpose is not to restrict the flow of purely scientific information, but to apply controls only where it is in con- nection with the specific uses in terms of know-how and industrial pro- duction operations. Mr. Moss. Mr. McClellan, in a world where there is the amount of travel and exchange of ideas between governments and between in- dividuals within those various nations, do you think that we can, if ~ e permit export at all of this information, keep it from reaching those nations we regard as unfriendly nations? Mr. MCCLELLAN. Mr. Chairman, I don't believe that there is any claim that we can completely deny the flow of even technical informa- tion of the order that concerns us, to Iron Curtain and/or Bamboo Curtain countries. I would say further that there is pretty clear evi- PAGENO="0372" 1486 INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES dence that there has been a certain amount of strategic material that has also reached the Communist countries. But I would also be of the opinion that it is national policy today, and ~ve are instructed to conform to it, as I understand it, in the IDepartmentof Commerce in our export-confrol activities, to do our utmost to restrain the flow from the United States either of strategic materials, strategic items, or of technical information which would have the effect of providing the know-how to develop and produce the same things that we have denied in terms of technical production. Mr. Moss. Isn't there a difference between the control you exercise over technical itiformation and that of a strategic material where you require a specific license for the export of strategic material? Or do you have general licenses which may be affixed by the ship- ment of strategic materials? Mr. MCCLELBAN. We have both, Mr. Chairman. We have general licenses to free ~world countries on items that are of lesser importance and not in shoi~t supply. We have complete embargo on shipments to the Communjsts in Asia, and we have a requirement for validated licenses for shijments to the Communist bloc in Europe. The same is substantially true in connection with the technical in- formation. Validated licenses are required for the shipment only of those items which are considered to be unpublished and which are tecthnical in terms of production. Mr. Moss. What assistance has the OIS rendered your agency? Mr. MCCLELI4AN, They are separate in this particular subject we are talking abou~ now. The OIS, according to my understanding, op~ erates in the Department of Commerce, but separately from the func- tion of export c~ntrol which we are here to talk about. That is, as I understand it, a voluntary program concerned with education and some other considerations. I frankly am not qualified to speak very much to it. I believe that Mr. Seago has appeared or is to appear in con- nection with that. Mr. Moss. Aren't we discussing here the major-at least, the volun- tary program? Mr. MOCLi~LLAN. But not the OIS program. It is quite separate from this one. Mr. Moss. Isn~t the OIS program to prevent the exportation or dis- semination of sti~ategic information abroad? Mr. MCCLELL4N. I think not, sir. I think the OTS has a purpose, as ,I understand it-and again IL am not here to speak for them be- cause IL don't rejDresent them-but I understand the OIS has as its purpose encouraging voluntary arrangements through which the in- creasing exchange of information of the order that is published and freely available can be achieved. Our concern here is to see to it that there is clear identification of those shipments of technical data which are within the area that might approach being strategic, from those which are not, and that where there is a license required, that it be ob- tamed. This is under e~port control. Any material of the order that would be shipped under this category to the Communist bloc anywhere re- quires a license tQclay under the law. That license may be automati- cally imposed by. the sender himself by merely stamping the envelope in the case it is what is considere~I to be published information, freely PAGENO="0373" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1487 available to the world. He stamps it, and that which is technical in nature must be cleared with the Department of Commerce, and in the cost of the Communist bloc in Europe and Asia, requires a license. Mr. Moss. Would you agree with the conclusions of some of the witnesses who appeared before the committee that the fixing of this label to correspondence creates an unfavorable reaction on the part of those receiving it ~ Mr. MCCLELLAN. Mr. Chairman, to give you a more direct answer, I have not found any evidence to support that contention for two rea~ sons. We are in constant touch with the American embassies around the world. We have yet up to this time to have one specific case where a protest was made or a complaint offered because of this stigma-if that is how they described it-before. I would call to your attention that if we are that sensitive in our mailing practices, perhaps we should take a look at it this way. If you will notice second-class mail, it says, "This may be opened by the postmaster"-I believe something to that effect. That could be in- terpreted, if we wanted to be that worrisome about it, as being a cen- sorship; could it not ~ It seems to me that the general pattern is such that it is not justified to consider this the kind of restraint that would give us a bad repute overseas. If that has been, it has not been brought to our attention before this time. I would again mention that this whole procedure was worked out in accordance with the thinking and the agreement of several repre- sentative scientific associations. I don't believe that there has been been up to this time any evidence either that it has been unacceptable, or that it has brought us bad report from our friends overseas. Mr. Moss. I think if you are going to use the sample of mail classi- fication in the United States, perhaps we should just correct that. It is the third and fourth that have the notation or the indicia "Open for postal inspection." It is clearly a right granted by law, not to censor but to inspect content for compliance with the law. There is a highly preferential rate granted to those classes of mail. Mr. MCCLELLAN. Of course all those things can be explained. And it is also explained that if a man puts his own stamp on there, although it is not censored, I believe the implication was made that it appears to be a form of censorship. My contention is that neither one is a valid argument-neither for the third, fourth, or fifth class of mail or for the self-administered identification of the type of material which is being sent out. May I say one other thing, Mr. Chairman. I think it is unfortunate indeed that in this era in which we live it is required that we have any of these restraints on communication or the flow of information of a scientific order. But I think the other consideration, which is overpowering in this case-certainly based on national policy today- is that we exercise at least appropriate restraint to avoid permitting information of the order that would be dangerous for the United States natural security to get behind the iron or Bamboo Curtains. Mr. Moss. Then why is it that also as a part of the national policy we are exporting not only technology but technologies, and we are bringing into this country for training and for education in American methods, a great many people who undoubtedly in their own coun- PAGENO="0374" 1488 INFORMATION FROMFEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCiES tries-countries which have maintained very close relations with ~ations behind both the iron and Bamboo Curtains. W~ can't censor the mind of a rerson who has been here. We certainly can't censor the actions of rother nations in exporting the knowledge they may gain from us, a~id to what extent are we able practically to control any of this? If we feel i1~ must be controlled, then haven't we the very strong control under the classification of information which would prevent, in fact, its exportation? Mr. MCCLELLAN. Mr. Chairman, you have a very good point. I would like to put it to you this way: We have, I think, three alterna- tives in connection with this export limitation or control. We can throw all controls out, we can have censorship, or we can have some- thing in betwe~n, which we have today, and it employs about four people in our Department to keep track of this operation about which we have been talking. To the point bf why should we bring experts, or people who want to become experts to the United States, and inform them about our technology and our philosophy of doing business, and about the ways we have advanced, and send experts overseas to do the same thing, I again must refer to the fact that this is national policy. While I am not here to speak for or defend the purposes and objectives of the foreign operations or the ICA, I would merely say that it has been our progr~tm to work with free countries, friendly countries, to help them advance and to trust them somewhat in preventing the things that we tell them from reaching the Iron Curtain countries until such time ~s we have passed this period of tense relations around the world. Whether tha1~ is sound or not is not our reason for being here. We are not here to debate that but merely to explain the pattern which is in operation today. I think it is clear there were some differences of opinion as to the national policy amongst those who appeared last week. Mr. Moss. I think rather than as a difference of opinion there is a serious question as to whether or not the policies we are discussing here at the moment are at all effective. If, as has been indicated before this committee, the great majority of those who originate or control information of this type are unaware of the requirements, then I would question whether we are having very much success in admin- istering the policy. Mr. MCCLELLAN. May I speak to that? First I was a bit surprised to hear one of the gentlemen who spoke report that, I think he was an editor of one of the publications, that he was not even aware of the regulations and he was certain that the scientists were not, when in his own publication he made a full report on these very regulations in their own maga~ine. I am positive also there has been pretty wide distribution of the information thi~ough the scientific services and through the Depart- ment of Commetce in various ways, as reported. Obviously, however, our principal cdntact and particular effort in this has been with the industrial concerns, with the people in business and industry through whom most of these technical informtions flow. It is with them we have had not only the most contact, but the maximum effect. I would like to give you just one illustration. PAGENO="0375" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1489 Not too long ago there was a firm that was called upon to send to a. friendly country-and this is permissible-under the arrangement which permits the sending of the kind of technological information to a free world country, engineering designs for the manufacture of equipment of the order that we would not ourselves export t~ Iron Curtain countries. Now, of course, Mr. Chairman, in Europe they have less rigid control over these shipments then we have in the United States. The question was posed to us: Should we send to this European country the draw- ings and the technical information that will enable them to manufac- ture in Europe and send to Iron Curtain countries machines which we would not send directly? We were in the position to deny, and did. The effect was this: We would not ship this type of machine, but we could have lost the shipments-not only the production but lost the shipments of this technical product and been unable to control it excepting for this very regulation of which we are speaking this morning. We have had excellent cooperation-almost 100 percent coopera- tion-from all those with whom we have conferred in these thousands of conferences which have taken place concerning the export of techni- cal data. Mr. Moss. Do you have any control over the right of an American corporation, we will say, to undertake contracts in other countries for the construction or the engineering know-how in designing or erecting plants? Mr. MCCLELLAN. Yes, sir; where it involves either technical infor- mation or strategic materials; yes, sir. Mr. Moss. Would that extend to the exportation of technicians themselves? Mr. MCCLELLAN. It would depend on what they were doing. But if it comes into the development of a product or a machine or a design,. yes, it does. Mr. Moss. How about some subsidiary operation of an American company abroad? Mr. MCCLELLAN. It doesn't make any difference. If the informa- tion flows from the United States, it is within our jurisdiction of ex- port control, yes, sir, no matter how it is sent. We think frankly that the responsibility has been very well met, not because we could possibly prevent frustration through efforts which would be attempted to get around the law, but through the cooperation of people in business and~ industry especially who understand what is being undertaken. Mr. Moss. What liaison do you have with OSI? Mr. MCCLELLAN. Very little, in my office. Mr. Moss. Have they ever requested that you be particularly con-~ scious of certain types of information for which a license has been re- quested because they might want to hold it up in an effort to bring about an exchange? Mr. MCCLELLAN. No, sir; I think not-not to my knowledge. We can check that in a moment. But you see their concern is not with the technical- Mr. Moss. Mr. McClellan, their concern is with strategic informa- tion-technical or otherwise. They told this committee that they were trying to foster a program of exchange. PAGENO="0376" 1490 INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL~DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Now, it seems to me that if you are controlling the export of techni- cal information of a strategic but nonclassified nature, and that they in fact are going to try to assist in bringing about an exchange, they would have to have same close working liaison with you or their whole program wouli~ fall because it just couldn't work out. You have tl~e knowledge of the requests fo.r license to export this information. Mr. MoCr~LLAN. That's right. Mr. Moss. If they want to hold up that exportation until they have worked out an exchange agreement, they would have to have liaison with you or they are just not doing anything. And at the moment, it is my very candid opinion that they are not. That is why I am inter- ested in the reaJ liaison maintained with your office. Mr. MCCLELLAN. Mr. Chairman, I think there is some misunder- standing here. Mr. Moss. `lihere is great misunderstanding. Mr. MCCLELLAN. The OSI has nothing to do with the export of material which requires a license. Mr. Moss. Have you read their testimony before this committee? Mr. MCCLELLAN. No, sir; I have not. Mr. Moss. Before making that statement, I would suggest to you that you do read it. Mr. MCCLELLAN. May I say that any trading that is done through OSI where a license is required would have to clear through the Bureau of Foreign Commerce for a license if it is a validated license that is to be issued. The validated licenses all come through the iSureau of Foreign Comnierce. Mr. Moss. When you are considering these license applications, do you try to foster a quid pro quo exchange of information? Mr. MCCLELLAN. No, sir. Mr. Moss. 051 does. Mr. MCCLELLAN. That's right. Mr. Moss. Then if they are going to make it an effective program, shouldn't they have liaison with you? Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that they should? Mr. McCreu~&N. They need clearance from us if there is to be a vali- dated license. Beyond that I wouldn't think so. Mr. Moss. They would have a chance to find out what requests might have been made if they had liaison with you. Mr. MCCLELLAN. I don't mean to imply that they don't have con- ferences with us. Perhaps- Mr. Moss. Have they had conferences with you? Mr. MCCLELLAN. I would like to have Mr. Foster speak to that. Mr. Moss. You have been here 8 months. Do you know whether or not they have had conferences with you? Mr. MCCLELLAN. Yes, I have had a conference with Mr. Seago my- self and have talked with him in the State Department about some of the~problems. Mr. Moss. Oik this matter of fostering a broader exchange program? Mr. MCCLELLAN. Oh, yes; certainly. Mr. Moss. Has he requested that you let him know of these requests for license? Mr. MCCLELLAN. I think in terms of that part of it I would like to have Mr. Foster report to you. PAGENO="0377" INFORMATtON FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1491 Mr. Moss. Mr. Foster, certainly. Mr. Fos1~R. The Office of Strategic Information has requested when we have requests for opinions or know of an export of published in- formation by a Government agency, that we let them know so that they ~an attempt to work out a quid pro quo. We see no reason not to let them know that we have given an opinion that this material is export- able under general license technical data published. Mr. Moss. We see no reason either, but I am just wondering why there isn't a closer liaison, because there are other types of information put out by priyate groups other than just that put out by Government agencies. Mr. Fos1~R. I personally have had no request whatsoever in the technical data exportation from OSI to coordinate information except with respect to unpublished information and after the fact let them know, as we would gladly let any other comparable agency of Govern- ment know, any licenses that have been issued to Soviet bloc coun- tries. Mr. Moss. When you say "any other comparable Government agencies," does that include the Congress? Mr. FosmR. I am speaking as part oJ~ the administration. I suppose that we would let the Atomic Energy Commission know of any- Mr. Moss. I asked about the Congress, Mr. Foster. It is not the Atomic Energy Commission that I am interested in at the moment. Mr. Foster's statement was that they would certainly let the OSI know as ~iey would any other competent Government ~igency. I said does that include the Congress? Mr. FOsTER. It would include the Congress except for this point: With respect to all applications from the trade, of course, we are di- rected by the legislation to keep the information entirely confidential. Mr. Moss. Are you directed, or are you given the right to withhold in the public interest? Mr. FOSTER. The right to withhold in the public interest. Mr. Moss, In your opinion the Congress would not be acting in the public interest if it had the information? Mr. FosTER. It seems to me, isn't it stronger- Mr. OsTRoFF. Mr. Chairman, I didn't catch the whole question. Would you please- Mr. Moss. We were just having a very, very pleasant little dis- cussion as to what the OSI might be entitled to receive. Mr. Foster said that they would be permitted to see these applications as would any other competent agency of the Government. Because of some of the interesting things that developed in this hearing, I merely asked whether he would classify the Congress as a competent agency. Would it have the same right of access? Mr. OSTROFF. I don't think the answer to the two would be the same. We certainly would treat the Congress in this respect as we do with respect to all other kinds of information, whatever rules apply to furnishing- Mr. Moss. What rules would apply? Mr. OSTROFF. I am not aware of any prohibition in this particular instance. Mr. Moss. But you would assert on behalf of the agency a right to determine whether or not the Congress was entitled to it? PAGENO="0378" 1492 INF0RMArPI0N FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Mr. Osmoh'. Just as we do in the case of other Government agen cies as well. Mr. Moss. Would you base that upon statutory authority of th agency in the field of information? Mr. OSTROFF. It might be statutory; it might be constitutional. I would all depend. Mr. Moss. If it i's constitutional, what section of the Constitution Mr. OSTROFF. I would say, for example, we are discussing here per haps internal working papers that are involved in the considera tion- Mr. Moss. It was an application for license or for an opinion, is al we are discu~sing. Mr. MCCLELLAN. Mr. Chairman, I think what we are really gettm~ at is, it would depend on the nature of the conference. There ar some things ~we would want to tell you in executive session. Other we would tell you in any conference where you wanted it. Or if any one called up, we would get the report for you. Mr. Moss. Mr. McClelland, whether or not it is an executive ses sion, I was merely dealing with the general attitude toward th~ Congress. Mr. MCCLELLAN. The general attitude is to give you everythin~ that the Congress needs to know that we know about what we are do ing and what~we are trying to accomplish, certainly. Mr. Moss. But asserting a right to withhold, if in your judgmen' you should. Mr. MCCLELLAN. Nothing new on that score at all, sir. Mr. Moss. We are not looking for something new, necessarily, bui a little more definitive than some of the policies. Mr. MCCLELLAN. I don't understand. To what do you have ref ~erence? Mr. Moss. One of our assignments is not only to determine th availability of information within the agencies of Government aii~ to the press stnd to the public, but also to the Congress itself. Sc we may do a1 little skipping about in our interrogation in order t establish som~ of these facts and relate them to other phases of oui study. Mr. MCCLELLAN. If you will ask us any information you want tc know, I am sure we can provide it. Mr. Moss. Mr. Meader, I believe you wanted to ask a question ol Mr. McClelland. Mr. MEAnER. I thought it might be well to have the record show a~ this point, section 6 (c) of the Export Control Act of 1949, which reads: No department, agency, or official exercising any functions under this Act shall publish ort disclose information obtained hereunder which is deemed con- fidential or with reference to which a request for confidential treatment is made by the person furnishing such information, unless the head of such de- partment or agency determines that the withholding thereof is contrary to na- tional interest. In other words, in the law which Congress passed, your Depart- ment was instructed not to publish or disclose information whiàh was presented to you on a confidential basis. Mr. MCCLELLAN. This is right, unless we determine it is contrary to the nationail interest not to reveal it-to withhold it. PAGENO="0379" INFORMATION FEO1Vr FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1493 Mr. MEADER. Mr. MeClelland, were you present when Dr. Hughes testified the other day? Mr. MCCLELLAN. 1 was, yes, sir. Mr. MEADER. I think you recall that in the discussion I had with him he asserted that the statute did not authorize the Commerce De- partment to prohibit the export of scientific information, but it was in the regulations which the Commerce Department adopted that that power was asserted, and in his judgment it went beyond the authority contained in the statute. Do you recall that? Mr. MCCLELLAN. I recall his statement, yes. Very frankly T think hd is in error. I would read from the legislative authority under which- Mr. MEADER. That is section 3 (a)? Mr. MCCLELLAN. Section 3 (a), yes, sir, which says- To effectuate the policies set forth in section 2 hereof, the President may pro- hibit or curtail the exportation from the United States, its Territories and possessions, of any articles, materials, or supplies, including technical data, except under such rules and regu~ations as he shall prescribe. I think that under the language that is used and the application we put to it, we are within the authority and clearly so in the use we have made of that authority. Mr. MEAnER. The policies in section 2 are to protect the domestic economy from the excessive drain of scarce materials, and to reduce the inflationary impact of abnormal foreign demand. `How would the expori or nonexport of scientific information have anything to do with that policy? Mr. MCCLELLAN. It goes on to say "and to further the foreign policy"- Mr. MEADER. Let's take (a) first. Mr. MCCLELLAN. To protect the American domestic economy, we have, for example, limitations on the export of nickel and copper and certain other commodities because of the shortages here and the need and purposes of national-defense mobilization. That has to `do with the domestic economy and the short supply factor. Mr. MEADER. How could the export of information, technical data, scientific information, possibly have any effect upon the shortage of, supply of scarce materials or inflationary aspects? Mr. MCCLELLAN. This section has not been the basis for this con- trol, frankly. Mr. MEADER. In other words, you agree .with me that as far as the policy declared in section 2 under (a), technical data has anything to do with that purpose? Mr. MCCLELLAN. Not in every case. Mr. MEAnER. Does it in any case? Mr. MCCLELLAN. I think it could, yes. It hasn't been the basis for- Mr. MEAnER. What could the release of scientific information have to do with affecting the shortage of materials or inflationary dan- gers? Mr. MCCLELLAN. I wouldn't make a claim that in this particular control that (a) has an important bearing. We wouldn't contend that that was the factor which justifies a limitation on technical data export. PAGENO="0380" 1494 INF0R~ATI0N TFROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Mr. MEADER. "To further the foreign policy of the United States," of course that is a pretty broad proposition. L~o you contend that the withholding of information furthers th~ foreign policy in the United States? Mr. MCCLELLAN. I would say it certainly does; yes, sir. We are eon- cerned about cTestination and we have a diffetence in our controls over the free world countries and those behind the Iron and Bamboo Cur- tains. It is in conformity with our policy on strategic items. We have am embargo on all shipments to the Communists in Asia, and we have a ~rery strong restriction on the export of commodities and products to Rhssia and to the satellites in Europe, and for the same reason precisely we have a limitation on the technical know-how that goes to these areas. That is foreign policy. We didn't write it. Mr. MEADER. I presume you could say with respect to (c), "signifi- cance of the National Security," that that is probably where the most direct and clear connection is between the export of scientific data and the purposes of this act? Mr. MC~LE~LAN. That's right. Largely, sir, this restriction on technical kno*-how is to prevent the frustration of the very limita- tions we put oti the products themselves which are denied export. Mr. MEAnER. I would like to ask you your definition of "technical data" in your regulations, section 385.1. Do you believe that you have expanded somewhat upon the field by including all scientific, profes- sional, and technical information? Mr. MCCLELLAN. Not so long as- they are adapted for use in connection with any process, synthesis, or operation in the production, manufacturing, utilization, or reconstruction of articles or materials. It is the application. If it is pure science-no problem. But when it becomes an i~pplied science in terms of industrial production, we are concerned. Mr. MEADER~ Now the two gentlemen who testified the other day- one was a scientist and spoke for some scientific group, and the other was a publisher of a scientific magazine-were not concerned with in- dustrial processes so far as I know, neither one of them. Yet they both felt they were under some cloud for having shipped information abroad which they believed might be covered by your definition. Mr. MCCLELLAN. There are 2 definitions that really apply as limi- tations, and oitily 2. One is classified information, and while they protest its application today-and I sense they did-that is clearly national polic~. Mr. MEADER.!Wait a minute. I don't know that anyone either in the committee or any witness who has appeared before us has objected to restraint on classified information. They may have said that some things were classified which ought not to be, but so-called security materially is uuiversally subject to restrictions. Mr. MCCLELLAN. Certainly, it is national policy. Mr. Moss. Will you yield at that point, Mr. Meader? I would just like to say~ and I think the record will bear me out fully, to my knowledge there has been no recommendation that we export classified material. There has been a suggestion that a review of some classify- ing procedures be undertaken, and in fact there has been the recom-, mendation that if this materialis of strategic importance to the point where it should not be exported, that it should be classified. PAGENO="0381" iNFORMATION FROM FEDI~1RAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1495 I think that would he the position of the great majority of the wit~ nesses and the record of these hearings will bear that out. Mr. MCCLELLAN. I certainly don't want to impugn the witnesses who have appeared before me or to misstate their position, and if I have in your judgment done so, let's strike it. I was under the im- pression that they considered it unfortunate that we did have classi- fied scientific information. If I was in error, I am sorry. My point, however, is that there are two kinds of limitation; one is on classified information and one is on the technical application o1~ scientific information which would have the effect of frustrating the controls on the export of strategic items and materials. The one is handled by classification, and that is understood. The other one is not so broadly understood, apparently. But it is under- stood in our department, and is broadly understood by industry, and we are doing our best through a minimum control to prevent the frustration of export controls on strategic items through the flow of technical information which would enable that production to take place elsewhere in unfriendly countries. Mr. Moss. Mr. McClellan, you couldn't grant a license for the ex- port of classified information. Mr. MCCLELLAN. That is correct. That is not in our jurisdiction at all. Mr. Moss. Because it would have to be declassified and only the originating authority- Mr. MCCLELLAN. That is not in our jurisdiction at all. Mr. MEAnER. You deal only in the field of unclassified information; is that correct? Mr. MCCLELLAN. That is right. But it is in the strategic items un- der export control; that is true. Mr. MEADER. Unclassified information. Mr. MCCLELLAN. We deal with classified information constantly, but we are talking in terms of export only of unclassified information and materials; yes, sir. Mr. MEAnER. Correct. Now let's get back to these witnesses that objected to what they call your censorship on unclassified information that they desired to communicate to somebody overseas. Aren't they under a kind of a cloud of-a threat perhaps-of a $10,000 fine, a year in jail, if they interpret the technical data so as not to require a license and you perhaps interpret it to require nlicens&? Mr. MCCLELLAN. I believe it is a misdemeanor not to conform to the regulations; yes, sir. Mr. MEAnER. Isn't there room for quite a difference of opinion as to what scientific information would be within the definition of ~~rour regulations? Mr. MCCLELLAN. Wherever there is a question the conferences are available. I think it is a pretty clear determination and we have had a pretty long record on this without any serious involvement on that issue. Mr. MEAnER. Have there been any prosecutions under this act? Mr. MCCLELLAN. No, sir. Mr. MEAnER. Not for the export of information. Mr. MCCLELLAN. Not for information. There have been for com- modities. PAGENO="0382" 196 INFORM N ThOM ThDERAL ~EPAR ENTS AND ~AGENCIE~H Mr. MEADER. H~aven't any violatiofls come to your attention? Mr. MCCLELLAi~. Yes; we have had, and we have had warning letters that have been se~it out wherever they have been caught and where it is clearly a question of perhaps full understanding. Mr. MITCHELL. On information? Mr. MCCLELLAi~. On information, yes, sir. Mr. MITCHELL. ~iow did you discover it? Mr. MCCLELLAN~ I think I will ask Mr. Foster to answer that. Mr. FO~TER. Th~re have been instances where we have had reports from the foreign ~mbassies of activities with respect to-.- Mr. MITCHELL. Foreign embassies meaning our embassies? Mr. FOSTER. Our embassies abroad-_with respect to technical activi- ties of negotiatior~s between American corporations__United States corporations__and foreign corporations or individuals. Mr. MITCHELL. Tou still haven't answered my question. How did you discover it? Mr. MCCLELLAN~ Communications from the United States Embas- sies abroad. Mr. MITCHELL. ~1Iow did they discover it? Mr. Fos~rER. Thrpugh their intelligence sources__whatever they are. I am not aware of all their methods of getting information of this kind. Mr. MEADER. I ~ouid like to ask a question. I think Mr. Ostroff probably should an~wer. What do you have to say about this restraint on technical data being in violation of the first amendment to the Constitution? Mr. OsTnor~'. Mr. Meader, we first heard that suggestion last Fri- day, as you know. As I recall, it was attributed to a member of the Yale Law School ~aculty. Mr. MITCHELL. Who is also a scientist. Mr. OSTROYF. Yo~i have me at somewhat of a disadvantage since I am? a graduate of: the Yale Law School and I have a considerable regard for the Yale Law School faculty, needless to say. I should also mention, perh~ps, though, that my impressions were that the faculty members used to be more concerned with stimulating discus- sions than giving us answers. I did have a chance to look at the memorandum that Was filed in this respeot, and it appears to be purely a casual general ob~ervation. But let me go on to say this, apropos of the whole questi~n of the constitutionality of the Export Control Act. It has never been ~pecifically tested in the courts, but a similar law nacted sometime in 1934, having to do with the export of munltlorl$, did get up to the Suj~reme Court. In the well-known Curtiss-Wriglit case, which I am sure your counsel is familiar with-_perhaps you are as wefl-the Suprerrie Court ruled quite clearly that different stand- ards with respect to the broad delegations of power to the executive branch are applied with respect to legislation that operates in the international field as distinguished from the domestic field. I brought that cas~ along with me. It was the only one I was able to brief in the short time that we had since this question was raised. But I am quite clear ~n my own opinion that the principles enunciated in the Curtiss-Wriglit case would very definitely uphold the consti- tutionality of the Ex~ort Control Act. PAGENO="0383" INFORMATION FROM FEtERAL ~EPA1tT~E~TS AN~D ~GE~CIES J497 Mr. MEAnER. Was the 1934 law similar to~ the 1949 act with respect to the control on technical data? Mr. OsTnoyi~. No. Mr. MITCHELL. It didn't even mention it. Mr. OSTROFF. It did not deal with technical data. Mr. MITCHELL. Therefore will you please confine your reply to the field of technical information? Mr. OsmoFF. I thought I was, because as I understood the ruling in that case, it was sufficiently broad to have application to any law that has any bearing on the international activities of the United States Government. Mr. MITCHELL. Didn't you admit the other day when I was talk- ing with you about this subject matter that the constitutionality of this question had never come up either before the hearings of Con- gress or had never been called to the attention of the Department before? Mr.. OsTRoFF. It didn't come up during the consideration by t~ie Congress, nor was it brought to our attention. But I don't quite see that that proves anything, if I may say so. Mr. MITCHELL. Now the question has been raised, I assume that you are going to do a study on that particular phase of it. Mr. OSTROFF. If you would like us to, we would. But I would want to point out that there is a presumption of constitutionality that goes with ~Federal laws. I don't think the fact that the Congress didn't spe- cifically tell us that they were enacting a constitutional act creates any doubt to its validity. Mr. MITCHELL. The point is: Doesn't any department of the Gov- ernment have a responsibility to the Congress to inform them and let them know as to a question in any law that they are passing? Mr. OSTROFF. We had no question about the constitutionality of this law. Mr. MITCHELL. Now one has been raised. What does the Depart- ment intend to do, because the Export Control Act is now before the Senate committe.~? Mr. OSTR0EF. If the committee would like, we would be glad to have this question briefed for the committee. (See exhibit IX.) Mr. MITCHELL. It isn't this committee that would like it. What is the duty and responsibility with respect to the Department as far as Congress is concerned? The question has now been raised. Nobody really knows the answer to it. Don't you think that the Department has an obligation now to call it to the attention of the appropriate congressional committee that the quesion of the first amendment with respect to technical information has been raised by the chairman of the Federation of American Scien- tists? Mr. OSTROFF. We certainly will. But I didn't want to join you in saying that there is any question about this, because it is my opinion, and it is one which we will be glad to brief for you-that there is no question as to the constitutionality of the Export Control Act. Mr. MITCHELL. The Export Control Act, that is correct. I am not going to question the Export Control Act. Mr. OSTR0FF. I mean any part of it. PAGENO="0384" 1498 INFOEMATIION FROM .FED&RAL DEPARTM1~NTS AND AQEN~TES Mr. MITcuELr~. The oniy question that has been raised before this committee is the question of the free speech-the first amendment of the Constitution-the relation of the Export Control Act with re- spect to technicai information. That portion of the Act. If that was declared unconstitutional, that wouldn't destroy the Export Control ~ct. Mr. OSTROFF. ~I agree. Mr. MITdnEu~. Therefore, the question has now been raised before this committee bjy the chairman of the Federation of American Scien- tists. You have been provided with a copy of the memorandum- Mr. OSTROFF. Not yet. Mr. MITC1IELT~. You may have it. Mr. OSTROFF. II will be glad to get one. Mr. MITOHELLq. You now have it officially. Mr. OsmoFF. ITIiis is the. first indication I have had, Mr. Mitchell, that you expected us to answer this memorandum officially. Mr. MrrouE4. We are not asking. the question as to whether it should be officially answered here before this committee. We are ask- ing whether or not the Department of Commerce now has an obliga- tion and a duty te call this matter to the attention of the appropriate congressional committee that this might possibly be a violation. Mr. OsmoFF. I would think the fir~st order of business would be for us to decide whether there is any serious question. I think all we have in this situation is an informal, personal communication between a Yale Law School faculty member and a friend of his at the FAS. I believe you ~will agree with me that this is hardly a legal opinion that he render4 to him. Mr. MJTOHEL~. That is right. I concede that. Mr. QsmoFF. I want to hasten to remind you that we began and we are still of the bpinion that there is no legal question here. We are satisfied that the rule in the Curtiss-Wright case does apply in this situation. I am not asking you to agree with me, but if you do want us to brief this, I ~would say the first order of business would be for us within the Government, within the executive branch, to make up our own minds, consult the Attorney General if we think it necessary, and then if there is any doubt about it, we certainly ought to go to Congress. Let's start of~ with a clear understanding that we have no doubt about it and we~hope you don't. Mr. Moss. W~ don't know at the moment-at least speaking for the chairman, I do~i't know whether we have any doubt about it, myself. I would apprediate having it briefed and made available to the com- mittee as part of the very broad question which is inherent in the study which has been assigned to this ccmmittee. Mr. OsmoFF. Mr. Chairman, we would be glad to comply. Mr. [1~Arn~R. I would like to ask another question, Mr. Ostroif. I call your attantion to sections 1 and 2 of the Export Control Act of 1949, section 1 being "Findings" and section 2 being "Declaration of Policy." It is perfectly clear to me from reading those two sec~ tions that wha1~ Congress is dealing with there is scarce materials. Mr. OsmoFr.l I can't quite agree, sirç for this reason: I think if you will look at th4 committee reports at the time, you ,wifl find that the Congress knew and intended to also enact similar control authority with regard to technical data that related to the commodities as well. PAGENO="0385" ~NPORMATION F~OM 1~DERAL JThPA1~TMENTS ANDM~ ~. ~3NOIE~ 1499 The 1egi~1ative history i~ quite. c1e~r that the~ Congress intended th give us the same authority with respeet to the t~chnica1 data as it did with respect to the eornm~Uties themselves. It happens we don't exercise anywhere near as much control over the technical data as we do over commodities because the circum- stances don't require it. Mr Mi~tni~ What is running through my mind is this, that if the primary objective of Congress was to prevent the exportation of scarce materials, either because they are in short supply in this coun try, or because they would aid a potential enemy, that the technical data should be confined to those materials. In other words, if you determine that uranium is a scarce material, but not iron, any scientific information that dealt with uranium-~. technical data on the processes of utilizing uranium for a~~~tomic energy-would be under the act, but scientific information about iron wouldn't be under your control at all. Mr OsTRoi'F I think you have given a very good explanation of why we have subjected scientific information only to a general license, which is our way of exercising a minimum of control over it On the other hand, I am quite clear that the law does not make that distinction, Mr MEADi~R In other words, you don't believe that the technical data referred to in section 3 relates back to the materials which you control? Mr Osnioi~r No, I said it did We are only concerned here with techmc'il data insofar as it is related to commodities, yes I said we have the same grant of authority with respect to the regulation of technical data as we have with respect to the regulation of articles and commodities-no more, no less. We exercise a lot less, but the legal authority is coextensive, Mr MITCHELL Then why doesn't your definition of technical data-~---excuse, me, ~1r. Meader-~-state that specifically? What you have just said now. Mr OSTROFF I don't believe it is incousistent with what I have said. Mr. MITCHELL. The Congressman pointed out specifically here it is in connection with any item on the so-called list. Mr. Os~L~no~'i'. Mr. McClellan read you the sentence. If you notice the qualifying clause is "for use in connection with any process, syn thesis, or operation in the production, manufacture, utilization, or reconstruction of articles or materials." There you have it We don't go beyond articles or materials Mr. MITCHELL. Maybe the Congressman should go back on this point. As I understand it, the Congressman said that his interpre- tation of the act and the policy set forth therein was in connection with the items that are listed under the act and determined by you people. Mr OSTROIT We have no specification of commodities in the law itself. It simply covers any articles or commodities. Mr. Moss. I have one question at this point. Under your rules 385.1 (b), exportation of technical data is defined as "any release of unclassified" and goes on and says "includes the actual shipment out ef the United States as well as the furnishing in the United States to 69222-56-pt. 6-25 PAGENO="0386" 1500 INFO.EMATXqN FROM ~FEDERAL DE1~ARTMENTS AND AO~NCIES persons with the 1~nowledge or intention the persons to whom it is furnished will tal~e~such data out of the United States." If ICA brings, or one of the oth.ler ~agencies brings someone into the Uiiited States~ to go. to American i~ndustrial plants to familiarize himself with Am*ican techmlogy~ do you graRt a license to that per~ son? How do yo~i control the export? Mr. Osmo~r. We may grant a license, but the 10k is Swell aware of our regulations~ and we are quite certain- Mr. Moss. But you are supposed to control the information here to any person wM might take it outside the United States. Mr. OSTROFF. What I was going to say was the American firms treat such a visitor just the way they would treat any foreign business- man and would give him no more data, no less data in this respect~ than the~r would ~i a straight commercial transaction.: I think I am rIght about that, ~m 1 not, Mr. Foster ~ Mr. FOSTER. That is, of course, true. We also, however, on numer- ous occasions wh~n visiting teams contain representation from Iron Curtain eountries~ have called the firm and cautioned them with re- spect to the types of technical data. We have had hearty agreement in all cases. You may or may not be aware that some United States grants have refu~ed-not a few-admission to these teams Mr. Moss. How? What kind of license does that information go out tthd~er? Mr FOSTER AU information and technical data to friendly coun tries goes out unkler a general license Licenses are required only to Iron Curtain c~untries. Iu conversatioi4s with the managers of plants or the executives of companies that itiave possession of industrial technology the~t we would consider df strategic significance, we have in a cooperative fashion asked them to be on their guard with respect to anything re- lated to these pro~sses that iight be revealed. Mr. Moss. You have placed the enforcement upon the shoulders of the plant managers or owners? Mr FOSTER TheIe is really no other way to do it We rely a great deal in the whole technical data program on the cooperation of Ameri~ can industry. * Mr Moss As ~ picture it in my mind, do I understand the general licenses under 38~S 2, the GTDP, GTDU, and GTDS apply only for the sending of information to nations other than those included in the group of Iron Curtain and/or Bamboo Curtain countries? Mr. FOSTER. The GTDP, those general licenses apply to the world. GTDU, unpublished technical data significantly directed toward in dustrial processes, applies only to friendly destinations and any ex- port of that type of data to Iron Curtain destinations requires a license. Mr. Moss. A sjccific license? Mr. FOSTER. A specific validated license. Mr MITCHELL How do you get submitted to you the unpublished data in order for[ you to issue such a specific license? That is a. vali- dated license~ isn't it? Mr. FOSTER. That is a validated license. Mr. MFFCIIELL.i How do you get that submitted to you? Mr. FOSTER. It is generally submitted in general terms. Say we have an entry which is pretty much apt to be a three-cornered deal PAGENO="0387" rEM~E'DERAL DEPA Th~NTS AND AGENCIES 150j hei'e~ with some European licensee of the American firm and the Euro- pean licensee gets into a proposed business arrangement, contract, with some Iron Curtain country. That is the way most of these ar- rive, although in some c'tses we have the direct application by an ~American firm to. export the technical data to an Iron Curtain coun~ try. One such instance covered the production of some agricultural equipment. How do we get the information, your question is, in what form does it.. come? It would be a statement that the technical data will cover all data necessary~ to put into production. in an equipment produced in a plant, we will say, a small tractor, a cultivator, and so forth, In a case of that kind, that is about all that we would need to know. Mr. MITCHELL. Where do you get it from? Mr FOSTFR We get it from the industrial appllc'Lnt, the United States firm who is in possession of the technology and whQ proposes to make a deal to export. Mr MITCW~LL £hen, in other words, what you are s'tying is that under mand'tte of law, every industri ii concern in the United States of America must submit to the Department of Commerce all unpub~ lished techniëai know-how before it can be exported. Mr. FOSTER. Only to the bloc. General ~license to free world ciesti- nations as I have pointed out. Mr. MITCHELL. Of unpublished information? Mr. FOSTER. Unpublished information, right. Mr. MITCHELL. Suppose they wanted to put one in let's say in jest, in the Western Zone of Germany. Mr FOSTER It is under general license The only provision that applies is the regulations. If they see some security question in some proposed export of technology, we are asked to consult with the Government. Mr. MITCHELL. Suppose they make the determination there ie no ~ecurity import ,in connection with it, are they then guilty Of a viola- tion for nt having done so? Mr. FOSTER. They are not. Mr. MITCHELL. What is the provision of the act saying that ther~ Is a $10,000 fine and 1 year in jail ~ Mr POSTER The provision of the act would apply to an infraction - of a regulation. Mr MITCHELL This is a regulation ~ Mr POSTER In this case there is no infraction of a regulation Mr MITCHELL You just cited a minute ago the illustration of sup. posing an American concern licensed a company outside the Iron Curtain-and they in turn they were .exporting to the Iron Curtain. Mr FOSTER In an instance of that kind, where they are exporting to the Iron Curtain, if the United States company controlled the foreign operation, we might have some question. But I am not entirely clear on exactly the circumstances that you ~ee here In the first place, going back to your earlier question, if a United States industrialist sees no security concern, then he will export the tech- nical data under a general license to a friendly destination. Mr. Moss. If I could right here pursue this point: As I understand it now, the general licenses-QTDP and GTDS-~apply worldwide. Mr. Fosrnn. That is correct, sir. - PAGENO="0388" 1502 ~FOR~ATI$Q~ ~i~oi~i r~i~r~AL nruz~rrs A~D *GEN~~IES Mr. Mosi~. At K~eneva we had a great many American ~eientists meeting scientistS from all ovi~r the world As I understand, there was a very free discussion Much information heretofore classified was freely availt~ble and widely discussed. There have been nurner~ ous instances thati have followed since those scientists have returi~ed to the United State~, &nd there has been an exchange of information by correspondence With scientists in both the Iron Curtsin and non-Irrn Curtain countrie$. Now, under th~ GTDU, I could write a letter as a scientist coneern~ ing the use of isotopes in an unclassified field, but I would have to seek from you a specific license to send my letter to Russia Mr. FOSTER. I would like to point out, first, sir, that there are certain commod4ies that are subject to the Atomic Energy Act and that our regulati~n specifically states- Mr. Moss. ~Thi~ is declassified now. Mr. Fosm. This is exactly the matter with which you are colt- cerned: ~egulattOflS promulgated by the Atomic Energy Commission or of the Atomic Energy Act or as the same ma~ be amended from time to time shafl govern the exportation of byproduct material source material special nuclear material, ~ind facilities for the production or utilization of special nuclear material except components of such facilities winch are licensed for export by the Bureau of Foreign Commerce ~s defined In the act and regulations. Mr. Moss. Wi~ere is that in the regulations? Mr. FOSTER. That is in our comprehensive export schedule. Mr Moss I hlave the Export Control of Technical Data~ Current Export Eulletin~ September 8, 1955 I have here regulation 8852 and 8852, through 3856 I want to be informed as a sdientist who care- fully observe all of your licensing requirements, and I write and receive this froni~ you. Where is the guidance here that would permit me to make a proper judgment of the type license I might re~mre ~ Mr Fosn~R `X'hat is a good question, sir That is a represent of the regulations. O~ course the complete regulations of export control are all here. Mr. M~s. Ru~ I see no reference here. I see a footnote to 5 for bet- ing of destinati4ms in subgroup A Is there a cross reference which would alert me Ito the fact that I should read the more comprelien- sive- Mr FoSmR I think not, sir, and I think it is a mistake not to have it in there I think it should be in there Possibly the reason that it is in here is that until the last Atomic Energy Act was published, there was considerable confusion over the fields of technical data covered by AEC and th~t were covered by ourselves. The last act, however, was more precise in its specification of the technical data $hich will be covered by AEC Mr MiTcuEL~ Does the act now being considered by the appro- pi'iate Senate cpmmittee have the provision in it that the Congress- man is asking about? Mr. Moss! These ~re by regulation, not by the act itself. Mr FOSTER ~ think that that reference should most certainly be in this reprint. We will see that it is in the next one. PAGENO="0389" ~EPARPM~NTS AND AGENOI~$ 1503 Mr Moss I would imagine if you intend to enforce it, it should be in here I imagine the typical scientist is not going much beyond these if he is niterested in the regulations at all Mr FOSTER The only cross-reference we have here is to the comrn p~ehensive export schedule But I agree with you, sir, that there should be something more specific Not only should it cover the AEC, but also the separate controls that are exercised by the Department of State over technical data related to munitions. Mr~ Moss. Do you grant the license on technical data relating to munitions, or does the State Department grant that license? Mr. FOSTER. Everything that is on the Presidential proclamation; the export control of technical data is the responsibility of the De- partment of State. Mr. Moss. In other words, munitions, because it is dealing primarily with classified material, would be under the Department of State, or weapons? 1~fr. FOSTER. It is not necessarily classified. A great deal of the technical data is not of a classified nature3 but relates to munitions or to aircraft or to items that are specifically listed on the Presidential proclamation. Mr. OsPRo~?'F. Mr. Chairman, the State Department also has an export control act which they administer. It is entitled, "The Mmii- tions Control Act of 1954." Mr. Moss. And it applies to munitions and technical data on muni- tions? Mr. Osmoi~r. Exactly. Mr. Moss. Yours does not in any way apply to munitions? Mr. Osmori~. No; that is right. Mr. Moss. It would ap~ply to the processes in the manufacturing of mimitions. Is that correct? Mr. FoSTER. It could. Mr. Moss. Mr. Meader? Mr. MEAnER. Mr. Ostroff, I am not quite sure whether ~we agreed that this restriction on the export of technical data did relate only to materials that you also control. Mr. OsTRoi'F. You say you are not sure whether we agreed? Mr. MEAnER. Whether we agreed that that is what the act meant Mr Osn~orF Let me say this As we understand the act, we have the same scope of authority to regulate technical data, and the pur- pose for which it may be used is the same with respect to technical data as it is with respect to the articles and commodities involved. I think if there is any confusion it `irises from the fact that in practice and as a matter of regulations, our regulations on technical data are not coextensive with our regulations on the commodities involved. In other words, administratively we are not exercising the full scope of the authority that we have. Mr. MEAnER. Let's take an example. Let's assume that materiuls for an atomic energy reactor are subject to your control and you re- quire licensing to export those materials and parts. Mr. O5TR0FE. Could we use another example? Atomic energy hap- pens to be completely outside of our scope. Mr. MEAnER. You give an example of something. PAGENO="0390" 1S04 ORMATIö~ Mi. ~Os'rnbr~. `lj'ake any ~ommoditic steei~ p~rtduetiofl.. Mr.. FosT~u. I ~ouid give an example. ~The equipuient used i~n the production or uti4hzation of atomic materials and what those atom~e materials are are ~recised spelled out in legislation-all that list with AEC. Instrumeilits that are of principal value in atomic or nuclear work like mass spectrometers, speetroscopeS, particle acceleratorS, Vandegraaf macbines, and so on, are flow under the control of the Departruent of Cbmmerce. - They were formerly controlled by the Atomic Energy Commission. But under the ne~v legislation, the attorneys decided that these did not conform to the s~ecificationS in the act. So thattype ot~ equipment, while some of it is specifically for nuclear experimentation and research and some of it is essential. to the build~ ing or operation~ of reactors-not because it is incorporated in them but because it is!. used as a guide, is interpreted as being within our scope. Mr. MEADER. Mr. Foster,I did not mean to get into this~ What I wanted. to have you do :f or me is give mC an.example of materials;which are regarded as strategic and subject to export controls, and then an example of mateHals which are not. Mr MCCLELLAN Maybe I can give you au example Of course nickel is subject Ito export control because it is of critical importance strategically. Qoal isn't. - Mr~ MEAnER. JAt's just take thosetwo examples. Let's assume that there is scientifib information in this country with respect to nickel, and let's assume that there is scientific information with respect to coal. My interpretation of the act is that you wouldn't have any control at all over any scientific information with respect: to cQal because that material in itself is not subject to control. Mr. McCLELLAN. I don't think, Mr. Congressman, it is quite that simple from this standpoint. What we are talking about inone sense- in this technic~l information flow-is this. Supposing we get an inquiry for the l~lueprrnts and designs of a horizontal boring machine We will not sIii~ them, so why should we send the blueprints and the designs. There is in same places public information But should we send those~? Maybe we have to make a judgment under the polic3or the language of the act as expressed here as to what, as technical informa~ tion, should be permitted to flow to unfriendly countries. It is that kind of a1.problem that confronts us. It may or may not be directly related to any particular raw material. Mr. MEAnER. In other words, you are saying you have control acroSs~ the-board on s~ientific information, whether it is related to scarce materials or nor? Mr. MCCLELEAN. No, I wouldn't say that. Mr. MEADER.~ You regard the scientific information itself as a scarce material? Mr. MCCLELLAN. In a dangerous information category of strategic importance.. - Mr. Moss. Mr. Meader, would you yield for just a moment? Let's take this coal borer The coal borer itself has been placed on your list of items which will not be granted licenses for export Mr. MOCi L~JAN. Yes. . . - PAGENO="0391" `IN1~QRMATION FEOM FED~RAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1505 * Mr. Moss. Wouldn't. it be oii that basis that you would claim the right to control the technical data? Mr. MCCLELLAN. Certainly; that's right. Mr. Moss. Therefore you haven't-amj I agree completely-an across-the-board control. You have to relate it to a controlled item, either a material or a piece of equipment. I think another thing that should be pointed out, or at least dis- cussed here, is the fact that nowhere in the act is there any reference to strategic material, and I see none in your regulations; nor do I see anything about strategic information. The only thing that I might find it tied to is under section 2: To exercise the necessary vigilance over exports from tile standpoint of their signifiean~e to the national security. Mr. MCCLELLAN. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. I suggest that under that language, you would have to keep your thinking in clear focus- to guard against releasing potential designs or technical information which have potential military significance and which may affect the national security. Mr. Moss. I wonder, Mr. Ostroff, if we might just explore further the point that Mr. Meader has been working on. We had the case on the coal borer and we relate the technical data to the coal-boring machine Isn't it necessary, in order to assert the right to control the data, that you relate it to some item which in itself is controlled under the Export Control Act? Mr OSTROFF Not necessarily one that is controlled, but one that is or could be controlled. Mr. Moss. You .could control anything if it had a strategic im- *portanc~. Mr. OSTROFF. That's right. Mr. Moss. In the case of the material, you are not asserting that it is controlled. Mr. OST~OFF. You mean the coal is not controlled, for example? Mr. Moss. The coal is not. Mr OsTRoFF As a matter of fact, of course, it is controlled for direct shipment to theSoviét group of countries. Mr. Moss. But aren't you asserting then a broacler'right because you are sayir~g in effect that all information is controlled? Mr. OSTROF]r. That's not broader. Mr. BORTON. Mr. Chairman, I think I can straighten you out. on this. Up until last week we required an export license for every commodity, regardless of what it was and regardless of the value going to the Soviet bloc. Mr. Moss. Do you now require it? Mr. BORTON. We just issued last week a general license for a specific list of items which now can go to the Soviet bloc without coming in ~for an individual application. Mr. Moss. Let's take that list for the general license. If I had technical information about an item on that general license, its appli- cation in any way, industrni or otherwise, under your regulations I would still have to ask for a specific GTDU license for the subgroup A destinations. PAGENO="0392" I 506 I~?Ot~MATTI~N ~itoi~r ~i~EAL D]~PAEfl\DD~TS AN~ AG~CiES You haven't rn+difi~d that reg~1ation, hai~e you, Mr. M~Cidllan ~ Mr. McCLELr~. You can issue a general licen~ on published im. formation and senid it anywhere in tim world Mr. Moss, I say GTDTJ. Mr. MOCLI~LLA~. That is unpublished. Mr BORTON Mr Chairman, let's see if I can't follow that along U'nder GTDTJ, you may ship to friendly countries-~-~- Mr. Moss. No, X am not talking about that now. You just stated to me that last we~k you placed quite a number of items in a category of general license~ for shipment to Soviet bloc countries. Mr. Bon~roN. That is correct. Mr. Moss. No~ I understand that the technical information in con~ nection with that would still require under your regulations a specific license. Mr BonToN That is correct The point I would like to make is that unpublished technical information going to the Soviet bloc, re- gardless of the commodity or material which is covered, requires an individual license from us The question of whether or not the license will be granted ot denied hinges primarily on whether or not that is a strategic item or ~ne which is not strategic. Mr. Moss. Included in this list for general license the other day, w~s there any m$chinery, any equipment? Mr. BOET0N. There was some equipment, but very little. Mr. Moss. Than if I wanted to send along the equipment and an instruction book,. I would require a general license which I could alk myself on the eqttipment; but on the instruction booklet I would still have to come to you and request the specific GTDU license? Mr BoaroN No, sir, because normally a pamphlet, a booklet, is a published document and therefore it can go under the general license. Mr. Moss. Maybe it is a piece of machinery that is made on order and I pist sat dawn and mimeographed some instructions Mr. BORTON. ~f it were unpublished- Mr., Moss. Ai~d that has not generally been published. You say here, "not generally available or in published form." This could b~- and there frequently is-machinery that is designed for specific use where there is no general publication of the technical data. I want to observe the law. Would I not have to come to you and ask for a specific license before I could include my instructions with my shipment? Mr BOIiTON You would if it did not qualify under the general license; that is correct. Mr. Msa.DRR. ~ gathered, Mr. Borton, from your statement of just a moment or tw~ ago that it is your opinion that technical data does not have to be r~lated to a material which is subject to control for you to control the export of technical data. Mr. BOSTON. That is correct,. sir. The general license applies by areas, and the exemption is by area. The exemption is the Soviet bloc. That in turn is not broken down by commodity. So, regardless of the commodity you are ts.lking about, if it is un- published technical data to go to the bloc~ it requires a license. The question of whether or not a license will be granted hinges on whether or not the kno*-how or technology is to be applied to the production of an item of sifrategie importance. PAGENO="0393" ~ffl'TO~ FI~YM Pi~HYEI~AL DE~A~TM~PS AND ~ AG~~TF~ 110? There in turn you can revert te what we call our positivB list, which is the published listof commodities or equipment that require a license, even to friendly areas Those i~tems are either in short suppiy or are strategic'. in thther casc~ the presumption would be that we would not issue a license for the Soviet bloc, either for those materials or the equipment, or for the technical data to produce them. Mr~ MEADER. My interpretation that the technical data must he related to these items' is erroneous? Mr. BORTON. It is the technical data related to industrial' know-how and application and instaliations~ r~gardiess of whether or not the item appears on the positive list. Mr. MITOflELL. In other words, it is across the board. Mr. BORTON. It is a'~cross the board. But it is an industrial appli.. cation to the Soviet bloc. That's the limitation, regardless of the material. Mr. MCCLELLAN. Actually, Mr. Chairman, I think it is related to all of them; but it is pretty hard to identify as to which one, possibly. For example, again, to come back to the example of the hori~ontal boring machines, we do not give them any material with it if we granted the license We do riot make the machine, but give them the design. What are they going to make it out of? What are they going to bore with? Who knows? We deny the drawings and the technical information on the premise that this has been determined as a machine which has military potential. Mr~ Moss. I think the committee appreciates that. But let's sup- pose for a moment that the vertieal boring machine had been among the items placed on the list for general license last week. Mr. MCOLELLAN. That would certainly have a bearing on whether or not we would send the drawings But it still doesn't have a direct relationship necessarily with a metal or a particular commodity unless you consider the boring machine itself ~ commodity. Mr~ MIToii~LL. Why do you need the drawings when you have the machine? Mr. MCCLELLAN. We don't ship them the machines. Why ship them the drawings if they do~i't need them? Mr. M~'s. Let'~ assume for the moment, for the purposes of diseus~ sion, that the machine is one of the items put on the list referred to last week. Mr. MCCLELLAN. The assumption would be if it were on the free list, we would also ease the restrictions on material and the technical information. That is an assumption. Mr. Moss. You have had many items on the free list for the Iron ~nrtain countries. Do you still require the specific license for the technical know-how and the use of these items? Mr. MCCLELLAN. We have only last week, I believe it was, an- noiunced the list of the items for general license to the Soviet European bloc. We have had for a long time the policy of granting licenses for export for most, if not all, of the items on this general license list now. Substantially, this change in pattern requirement was an easing of the redtape more than a basic change in export policy. PAGENO="0394" i~Q8: rNFOnMATR~N FROM F~DERAL DEPARTMENTS AND~GJ~W~ES As to the flow bf technical information, that too has~be~n, pretty constant and remained so As to anything that v~e considered to be of sti ategic importance in terms of eflect, the use of the mforin'ttion is really the evaluation factor: Has it a military potential? Is it contrary to the security interests of the United States to release it? That is the real test. I say again I think on a broad basis it is involved directly wit~i the very things whjel~ we would not export, but it is pretty hard to tie it down necessaril~y to one particular commodity as the meai~s of dou~g, that. Mr Moss I thi~nk the test is how effective these things are in bring ing about any degree of security for the United States. Howdifficult is it for an Iron Curtain country which has, many commercial con- nections in Europe and in the Middle East and in the Far. East, in countries where we really permit the exportation through a~ general. license of this technical information? As I understai~d it, you s'ud group A destinations are the only ones where you require these specific licenses. How difficult is `it for them to get tb4 information? Mr. MCCLELLA~. Mr~. Chairman, you can ask the same questions about the equipment itself. We ship rather freely many items whigh we consider of sti~ategic importance to friendly nations today Mr. Moss. Have we ever tried to evaluate the effectiveness of these programs? Mr. MCCLELIL~. Certainly, constantly. And we think they have, been very effective in many areas. For example, many of the things which we shipped to friendly countries and which we deny shipment to unfriendly countries, we even follow through with the coopera~ tion-good coOpe~ation, incidentally-of other countries to prevent transshipment b~$ irresponsible exporters. We think that has been quite effective. it would seem rather useless and futile on the face of it if we were to continue controls over the shipment of strategic items to the Corn- rn.itnis't bloc coimJtries and then permit' the flow of the technical in- formation which would enable them to produce it for themselves with ease. Mr. Moss. Wouldn't it be even more effective, then,' if we ha~ a form of classific't~ion which ~ ould apply to the flow of inform~ition to these countries sothat it could be more closely controlled? I also have in mind the fact 1~hat quote a number of very distinguished gentlemen sat in' this room ~nd told us that they had no knowledge of your li- censing provisioi~s at' all, and that they were maintaining contact with people in Iron Curtain countries. If they are doing that and if it is of such great importance to the security of the U~iited States, then have we employed the `most effec- tive method of preventing the disclosure of information which we feel' is highly valuable to our country? Mr. McCLiw ~. Mr. Chairman, may I say that, in the light of the fact that "this is ~ voluntary program and that its principal applica-. tion is in techni& information where it has industrial application `for production, i~nd recognizing that we have bad the wholehearted cooperation of bitsiness and industry in making it effective as I think it could be expec~ed `to be, and that having had conferences with the PAGENO="0395" ~N-~4~I?yp~ ~ ~T~DERA~ D~pARm~t~ps. ~ 1~o? top. scientifi~ ~ssoóatioia~s of tho United' States in the "drafting .oLthe resolutions and with their help in drtfting them, and that having circulated through these associations the specific i egulations `tnd their pm~pose, I `im ~tstoiushed to find such a clear statement to the e~ect that there is~nok~uowledge~of it. I think there has been opportunity to learn it, and I think if we have been deficient in that, to make clear what we are tryin.g to do a'nd'why and `how, I am certain that we can `get the cooperation of the. seve~i scientific associations to help us in getting a broader knowledge of what is involved. Mr. Moss. Mr. McOlella'n, how vohmtary is a program where there is~a legal penalty for failure to comply? Mr. MCCLFIJLAN. It is voluntary to the extent that they are per- mitted to send technical information to all of the free-world countries. Mr. Moss. Consistent with your regulations wherein you have the right to proceed against them, and so it is not in fact a voluntary program. Mr. McCu~u4AN. Would you permit me to finish, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Moss. I would; but I would like you to comment on the legal provisions that permit action against a person who does not observe the regulations. Let's keep the matter of voluntary and involuntary very clear in these discussions. You may proceed. ` ` Mr. MCCLELLAN. I think I have made the statement that I wish to make,' Mr. Chairman. We have had rather fine cooperation, I think, from the businesses and industries who in the main have the application of the technical and scientific information toward production. In the main this is what I would have interpreted as voluntary, be- cause they come to us principally when a question,, is in their minds. They come to us, having made the determination that that is theense, knowing that they may make a determination for themselves, ttnd identify the character of the information for themselves in ~nost of the instances where technical information is to be sent abroad. I think, as I said earlier, we have three choices in this: To completely disregard the importance of technical information reaching unfriendi hands and to have no control at all; to go to the former extreme, whic we did in w'irtime of ha~ ing censorship, which is unpahtable to most of us, or to have something in between of this order, or perhaps some~ thing better if we can find it, which invites the cooperation but has regulations which we hope will be widerstood by all and which we have found to be cooperated in certainly by most up to this time. ` Mr. Moss. Of course,, I want to make it perfectly clear that this com- mittee is not sitting in judgment on any policies. We are going to evoke, if necessary, through our questions considerable discussion. We are making a study. After our study is completed, we will prob.. ably sit down and try to arrive at some recommendations, and in the process make an evaluation of some of these programs. Nevertheless, I still would like to have comment of how voluntary, is a program where you can impose legal sanctions You say the businessmen, the industrialists, have been very cooperative I am, of course, pleased that they have been. Certainly it would be most diffi~ cult to achieve anything in a program of this type without complete PAGENO="0396" 1510 ~roRMAPIôN rno~1 fl~RAL D A r~t~r~ A~D LGF~O!ES eooperi~tion. But if they make an error in judgment, you still ~otild proceed against them and impose a penalty by law for their bad pidg- melTt, could you i~ot? Mr McCLELlAN I think it would be technically possible, but it has not been administrative policy, and the record clearly demonstrates that. Mr Mosa. But it is a possibility, and there is therefore a weapon When you have ~ weapon, I sometimes question how voluntary com~ pliance might be~ Mr. MEAnER. I just wanted to ask 1 or 2 questions. How large a staff do you have working on these hicen~es now? Mr. McCLELLA~. Four people, I believe, on this law we are talking about. Mr. MEADER. Just on technical information? Mr. MCCLELLAN. Yes. Mr. MITCHELL. And strategic materials? Mr. MCCLELL~N. That is a larger staff. Mr. MEADEE. }IIow large is that staff? Mr. BoR'roi4. I~fr. Meader, in the office for which I am responsible, which does the ~xport licensing, ~there are: at the present time 18~t people~ Of that amount, wehave two people full time on the licensing of technical data; but there there are some part-time people like our~ selves in the administrative end of the work. We calculate on generally the equivalent of about four people. Mr. MEADER. Has that staff been constant, or is it being reduced? Mr B0RT0N It has been constant since we eliminated the manda~ tory program. In other wo1~S, since September of last year it has been constant. Mr. MITCHEL4 September 1~55 ~ Mr. Born~oN. Yes, sir. Mr. MEAnER. ~t was larger before that, was it? Mr. BORTON. Yes. At that time we had the equivalent of about 1~ people on the program. Mr. MEAnER. Oh information? Mr. BOEI~N. ~Yes, sir. Mr. MITchELL. On that point, these gentlemen were present, I be- heve, when Dr Hughes last Friday made the statement that he had sent some Iette* behind the Iron Curtain and that he bad checked with the security officer at Brookhaven who in turn had been in touch with Washingt~n AEC, I believe. He peoificall~ stated that he did not put on that letter, on the out- side of it, the ~tamp for unpublished data. In your interpretation of your rules and regulations, is he in violation- Mr MCCLELLAN Mr Mitchell, as he stated, he is not He re ported to us, I believe, or to you, I believe, that in this instance it had to do with atomic energy materials and that his counsel checked with the Atomic Energy Commission and they said to send then a copy of the transmiss~ion and that no license was required and no identifica- tion needed. That is not ~ithin the jurisdiction of our Department. I judge from what he ~aid that he had followed the appropriate procedure and got hIs inst~uctions from the appropriate authority. PAGENO="0397" ~~~A~TJON ]~`RO~ FEDERAL 1~EPA~BTM1~NT~ A~D Afl ~N~I~S ~. 1511 Mi~. Mrrcrn~u~. That takes us to the stamp that goes on all letters and douiments and anything that is shipped out of the tIrntecl States, either to the free world or to the Soviet bloc countries. ~ These people abroad have lived under a system of censorship Dr Hughes stated that the scientists and the people communicating with people abroad resent the fact. He also stated, as chairman of the Federation of American Sc~en tists, that the implication of censorship was given. Why wouldn't it be possible to adjust 1 or ~ words, "Not censored" or "Uncensored" to the license? Mr. McCLEu~N. I do nOtsee any particularobjectjon~to it. F~aik- ly, Mr Mitchell, this is the first instance in which we have ever heard a statement made of this order. I would like to point out that even gi,ft packages have long required a stamp of this order Mr. MITCHELL. That is right. But the implication has been made after the Atoms for Peace Conference that we are holding back on information-thermonuclear and everything else. These people have been under a form of censorship during the war years in many coun- tries of the world. Why couldn't we just alleviate that by putting two words, "Not censored," or "Uncensored~' on to these various gen- eral licenses? Mr MCCLELLAN Mr Mitchell I think it might be a very good point I would like to see us take a look at it But I would suggest at the ~same time that we should not iush into this without due con sIcleration For example, I am not certain in my own mind, having considered this for the flu st time, that it might not imply that cer tam other documents were censored if we put that on there. Mr. MITCHELL. That could be. Mr. MCCLELLAN. I think it is in good sense to make the most of any opportunity in front of us to prevent the wrong impression being given abroad by the way in which we deal with this difficult problem I agree there, Mr MITCHELL How many violations involving scientific or tech- nical data were investigated, if any ~ This is information, technical data-not materials. Mr. FOSTER. You asked how many violations of exports under gen- eral license GDTS have been investigated ~ Mr MITCHELL Any one of the general licenses where they can put their own stamp on. Mr Fosn~n Including GDTP oi GDTS~ on ~u1l the general licenses, how many investigations? Mr MITCHELL How many violations involving scientific or tech- nical data were investigated? Mr. FOSTJ~R. Not many. I can think of one outstanding case. I know of quite a few cases where there have been some rnvestigation of the cases. I could not begin to give you an estimate. Some of these things are minor. Of The things that came to our attention one way or another, one particul~r case I recall was a very involved case involvj~g very ad- vanced technology, and involving also a naturalized foreigner in the United States and a subsidiary plant owned now by an American corporation, employing in a particular field certainly related to signifi cant security some of the highest and most aclvance~( technology in the world. PAGENO="0398" ~54~ ~RiM~t~N C EDE1~AL D AETMR~S A~ `A~t&~ There ive put ~n quite an extensive investigation and conference with these peop1~ n ith respect to the technical thta Fin'tfly, we revoked the genethi license `tnd put them under special licenses ~ ith re~pect~ t~ the ex~ort~ of technical data to'~ their Austrian subsidiary and so'lorth. I couldn't count how m'iny times we ha~e investigated exports of technical data, maybe 20, maybe 30. They are not many. Most of them were matters of inadvertent and very minor infractions in some cases-export of patent applicant case material to Iron Curtain cOtin- tries without a 1ic~nse, things .of that sort. Only in 1 or 2 instances have these investigations been o~f items ~riiere the matter was considered really of security import. Mr. MITCIIEIL. Of security import? Mr. FOSTER. M~jor security import. ~ir~ MrFCIIELL. If it were under security import, it would `he tinder the ~Jassified syst~m? Mr. FOSTER. N~, not at all. That is one mistake, I think, that is m'i~de in this concept, th'it most industrial technology today th'tt is uniquely possesseçl by our industrial corporations is not classified, and yet it may be ~ er~ significant to national secui ity * For instance, the incident was brought up of boring machines, which are used mostly b~ the military and in military work of various sorts. * ~ Mt~cii~r~r~., That belongs to military. That we concede. Mr. FOSTER. There is no classification on the technology for building boring machines. Technology from the United States has been sought by Thdustrialists in European. countries for building an 8-inch and larger bore, and l~as beeii sought with the idea that the bores would be e~poi~ted to Russ~a. after they were built We would not ipprove of that export While it is under general license, the technology may be shipped by a United States `manufac- turer~ of boring mills to any friendly nation if he consulted us, and they have cqnsulted us. We would tel,l them that in ,our opinion, at least, we do not think it is in the national interest Mr~ cmir~r~. What would happen if you had a difference of O~ifliOfl? L `Mr. `FOSTER. TI we had a difference of, opinion here we~ could-we have the ~power±to. make the opinion mandatory. Until then it is etitirel~r advisab~e and certainly cannot be subject to any penalty. Mr. M~LTCHELL. Until that determination is made? Mr. `FosTER. I~ntil the opinion is made mandatory. Then, and then only~ would~t be subject to penalty. Mr MTTcIIrLL Then I return to Congressman Moss' statement that i~ is not exactly voluntary. Mr FosTrR i$ is not voluntary once it is made mandatory Up to that t'imeft is vol~untary. The regulation says: Before cornp1etin~ arrangements to export or lease for use In foreign friendly countries unpublis~ied technical data including in the scope of the security regulations. ` * In other wor~1s, technical data that is specifically related to the n~tional securitir, the common defense of, the United States, before exporting any of that'type of data~ even to friendly countries~ we say exporters should reouest `in official opinion from the United States Goveriiment-should; advisory, not mandatory, not subject to peualty~ PAGENO="0399" * T~FO rEIO~~ ThOM EDERALD~?AET1\~~$S A~D A~E~e±E~S 151$ Mr. MITCIIELL. You read the kct and they are subject to penalty. Mr FOSTLE Not under regulatioas of this nature Exporters should; not exporters must. Mr. Moss. It is completely voluntary as long as you arrive at agree- ment which will be accepted by the applicant for a license. But if he should say, "Well, I am in complete disagreement with you," at that point the voluntary cloak goes out the window and you are then able to invoke- Mr. MCCLELLAN. That is correct. Mr. MITCHELL. Something not in the classified field. Mr. FOSTER. That is correct. Mr. MCCLELLAN. Very little of the manufacturing things of this order are. Your boring machines, which are the producers of the guns, are not part of the military. They are part of industrial pro- duction. They only become military when the gun is made. The point that Mr. Foster is making remains voluntary in the mujority of cases, and when they find that there is need undei~ the act or under the regulations to get council agreement, the co~mci4 in 99 percent of the cases is followed. `Where it is required of us under the responsibilities under the act to make it mandatory and then they violate it, it is a violation and it is compulsory. Mr. Moss. You say in 99 percent of the cases it is followed. What `happens in 1 percent? Mr. MCCLELLAN. We issue instructions. Then it is mandatory. Mr. Moss. It is a matter of semantics. But I think we could say it is a program where you seek the maximum of voluntary compliance. `Mr. MCCLELLAN. The main point here is that industry and the scientists generally are vulnerable for heavy fine or anything' of that order by using their judgment, but only when they are unwilling to conform to the mandates which are incumbent on us to make when a determination has been made that security is involved. Mr. Moss. I am not even objecting to the fact we might take steps to prevent the export of a boring machine or the plans for its cOn- struction, but I think the record should show that this is not a volun- tary progr~im. It is in fact a program `with all of the tools necessary to ~énforce it. Mr OSTRO1T If what you mean is that we are doing only what we believe is authorized by law, I am sure we would agree. Mr. Moss. I would hope that you would agree to that. I would not want an admission to the contrary. Mr MITCHELL Mr Ch'urrnan, the reason I asked the question on the violations is, it is significant that in the 34th quarterly report, fourth qui~rter 1955, on page 42, paragraph E reads: "Investigation `and `Enforcement Activities." This is a report to Congress, I believe, Mr, MCCLELLAN. Yes, sir. Mr. MITCHELL. It is significant by the fact that there has never been a statement or a hint that there has ever been any violation involving scientific oF technical data. Here this morning we have heard testi- `mony that there have been some. Mr. FOSTER. Shall I answ~r that? You asked me how many in- vestigations have been made. In one of the ihajor 5i~uations we did not definitely determine that there h~d been' any violation, but we did~ PAGENO="0400" 1114 ~o4tMATiM ~ROM~ FEt~Et~t*L ~E~~M~NT S AND ~~1N~Q~E8 with the ~~oia~eait of the An4iistri~Iists inv~iv~d-~is~ue a sns ~ens.ioi~ of t~e ~gei~era1 hcensb and sp~ctho&LIy hoea~e~ &e exports ~f teehno1~~gy I did say ther~ have been some inadvertent vio~ia~tious~ We wm ~ . Id 140t COflSid~ th~e. There have been a R~u~iJ~r of instan oes where patent applicatiokis have been made in C solioslovakm and Hungary without getting a license That is an infr~etion of the regnl4ions Mr. Mi HELL. That is or is not? Mr. FosTER. It is. Mr. MITCHELL. Then why shouhln't Congress be informed of those things? Mr. FOSTER. Which order do you mean? Mr MiTCHELL~ The 34th quarterly report, fourth cjuarter of 1~55 Mr. Fosi~. Thiring that quarter we may not have had any, Mr. M1TcHELI~. Were there any at nil on ~what you were talking about? Was it ~n aily of your reports of this nature that are public for everybody te read? Mr. Osmoer. You were reading from the account of our statistics efeeses prosecuted? Mr. MITCHELL. No; I am reading from psge 42. Mr QsTRorr That's right You notice we say approximately 1,~5OO warmng letters were issued We don't distioguish between the ones that were issued~- Mr. M HLLI~. There is my point. Mr. Osmorr. I hadn't intended to make your point, but perhaps I did. Mr. MITCHETA. That is why I asked the question: How many vio latrons or investigations were conducted involving scientific or tseh- thcai data? You lumped it all into one thing, the strategic .materials. Mr. Osmoer. That was not done for any purpose of- Mr MiTCHnL~J I don't think theie was any deliberateness behind that. Bnt 11 certainly feel that in such a controversial field as scien- tific and technid~l data, the Congress should be informed if there have been violations ror even inve~stigations in the scientific and technical data field. Mr. MOCuo4AN. I was just going to say we did not know it was controversial u4itil Friday. Mr. MITCHELL. It must have been a little controversial because you hai~e been exchanging letters for about a year. `Mr. MCCLELLAN. Two letters. Mr. Osmorr~ That isn't even ~par for the course. Mr. Moss. I am sorry these hearings weren't given more publicity in ~ovember, because ~at that time we had complaints which wonid i~ieate that ~there ~was ~ field of some degree of controversy. Mr. Osmoei~. Mr. ~Ohairman, may I just explain. about these quar- terly reports. ~Every 3 months we send a report to Congress on our current activitiies during the preceding quarter. A ~ert'ain nmount of this report is `more or less standard each quarter-that is, `the statistics and ~o forth. Then, at di1~erent periods, we will report specifically to Congress on particular programs which happen to have highlighted the activi- ties that quarter. So you will find, for exa~nple, in the 33d report-the preceding one-that we had a chapter on our export control piogram as it re- PAGENO="0401" io~i~o~ FROM FEDERAL DE?T~~ ~2~W ~IJ3$ 1515 late~ to technical 4ata1 We gavs ~a r&ther detalled accow4t *Yf this whole program ~nidthe activity ~i& ~espectto it. Mr. Mrrdn~eiL. Do ~roii say irnythiiig iti ~h~re alxut iw~stigatlng viQJ~tions? ~ O~r~i~.~'No, we did' say a lot about the oooperction we were getting from industry, which is a fact. Mr. MITCHELL. The point I am interested in is why you don~t report. some of these specific illiustrations. That is a public itocnn~eut that anybody can see~-Congress or anybody in the United States. in that wayp~eop1ele~n bow they can maJ~e mist~k~s, Mr. OSTROFr. That was the purpose of writing the story and techni-~ cal data. I take it the only difference we have ha~ is whether ~we should have reported in detail on every investigation we conducted. Mr. MITCHELL. Not every investigation, but giv~ a hint at least that there have been some, probably. I am not going to be the one to judge on that,. You people are the ones responsible. But the other question that I have that is of importance: We have listened before this committee for the better part of 2 months now to the words "stra- tegic information." Nowhere in the act, nowhere in the regulations that you' have, is there a definition. The first definition I have heard on it, or I believe that the committee has heard either, was the one given by Mr. McClel- lan this morning. Why can't ~owething be put eitbe~ in the act or in the rules ~nd regul~gto *hat ~t~'at~gie inf orm~tioi~ is, `becaijse that ~word cov- ers a multitude of sins. it is an across-the-board in everything. Mr. OsTRor~. I am not sure what your question is. Mr. MITCIrrLL. A definition of the term "strategic information." Mr. MoCu~LL~N.. Mr. Chairman, the only answer I would make to~ that is, it is very difficult for us to write these documents, to ~pe1i out every detaii of what we are ta1kin~ about, when we have once got th& policy clearly iainind as to what is intended. We try our best to make it clear ~what the regulations call for and to administer it under the intent of Congress. That is what has heen involved here, I ~ we could write something more a1bout what ~trategie items are, but I thought that these documents make it pretty clear what the purpose is and what strategic materials are seems to me is, pretty well sjpeiied out. For e~ampie, under security provisions, "certain -types of technical data"-~-this section establishes the procedure whereby persons or firms- may obtain through the Rureau of Foreign Commerce official l5nited States Government opinions as to the desirabitity of exporting or releasing for use in foreign friendly countries certain types of unpub~ lishe~1 technical data ~which have significance to the common security t~ml defen-seof the United States. Mr. MiLTCBEIIL. The reason I asked you the question is the fact that yoU do have within the Department of Commerce an office called the Office of &rategic Ihformation. I wonid like to read to you from a public announcement which was released on Friday, November 5, 1954. You have stated here this morning that ~ou do not have too much 4iaiso~ or connection with the members of the staff in the Office of the Bureau of Foreign Commerce. Secretary Weeks also named a committee of Commerce Department officlala to work with the new Office of Strategic Information, comprising John C. Green~ 69222-56--pt. 6-26 PAGENO="0402" ~51~ 1NFO~tAT)~0N~ PH PLbEI'tAL ~E~AHThtENPS ANWA~tO~S Aeting Director of the Office of Teehnic'tl Services an chairman Albert Leinan Director of Public Information Ccl New man Smith Director of the Office of Securitfr Control 1\f'trsball M Smith Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for International Affairs. Isn't that the office you are in? Mr. MCCLELLAN. Yes, that's right. ~r. M~tTCHELL (continuing): And George P. ~Eoore, Acting Director, Office of Administrative Operations. Certainly in t~hat announcement there was a definite implication that the Office oIL Strategic Information would coordinate and carry out its function~ with the advice and guidance of this committee or group of people. The Congressmen asked you this morning just what relationships you have with OSI. Mr. MCCLELLAN. We have very friendly relationships. They coop- erate, but our functions are separate. They are informed and we are informed. But as a matter of responsibility, they are separate func- tions. Mr. MITCHELI~. We haven't been able to get from the Office of Stra- tegic Informati~n a definition of the words "strategic information." You came the ~losest, Mr. McClellan, that I have heard wheit the Congressman as1~ed you the question. Mr. MCCLELLAN~ I thought I gave you a pretty good one. Mr. MITCHELL. You did. That is why I wondered why it was not in the rules or regulations or the act. I think you would clarify it quite a bit if your definition were to be considered and inserted. Mr. MCCLELLAN. Under "Scope" here in this same section I was reading: "The scope of this section is concerned with technical data in connection with, one, advanced developments, technology, and pro- ~duction~know-h~w; two, prototypes; and three, specialists." Mr. MITCHEI4J. I would rather have the off-the-cuff definition you g'tve this moining th'tn what is in th'tt regulation because you ~ ere very, very c1os~ to exactly what a proper definition should be, in my opinion. Mr. MCCLELLAN. I think so. / Mr. MITCHELL. I think maybe if some consideration should be given to define the word "strategic," a good deal of the fog could be lifted in this particular field. Mr. MEADER. Mr. McClellan, do any of our allies have any similar procedure to the export control we have been talking about? Mr. MCCLELLAN. Yes, sir; they have. But they are not the same and not as coni~rehensive as ours. The European countries do have controls over the shipment of information and materials to the Soviet bloc. They ar~ not as rigid as Our own. Some of us wish they were, b~t they are not. One of the problems that is incumbent in this whole situation in that we are working to the maximum in cooperation with friendly countries is that at the same time we do not want our Own controls frustrated by the less rigid controls they employ. That is why it is rather important that we safeguard not only the machines and the equipment, but the information relating to its use in production 1~o some degree. Mr. MEADER~ Does Great Britain have an act like our Expoi~t Con- ;trol Act of 194~? PAGENO="0403" ~X~oRMATIo~i Fi~O~4'PEnE1~AL DFthAnTM~wr~ AND AO~t1~ 1517 Mr MCCI~aLL&i~ I don t kno~v exactly whit their aeth are But I would doubt very much they are )ust like ours I am just. advised by Mr. Burton thut it is quite similar to ours. Mr BORTON Mr Meader, their legislation is somewh'tt similar to ours, and their method of operation is surprisingly similar to ours, though the two systems grew up eiitirely separately. Mr. MEADER. Do they attempt to control the export of information like we do? Mr. BORTON. They do, but it isn't quite as extensive as ours is. I believe that theirs applies only to the items which they embargo to the bloc. I think that is correct. Mr. MEADER. In other words, getting back to the question I asked before,, they `would limit the control of information to the materials that are. limited. Mr. BORTON. I believe so, but I `would like to check that and `then report to the committee. Mr. MITCHELL. Do you function through the commercial attaches? Will you explain to the committee the procedure under which you are able to obtain assistance from foreign countries in connection with getting them to go along with the provisions of this act on technical and scientific information? Mr. MCCLELLAN. Of course, the relations established by the United States with foreign countries is handled largely by the State Depart- rnent, and that is a matter of international liaison through the State De~artrnent here and abroad. We then cooperate within the pattern established in that fashion. Mr. MITCHELL. But the primary responsibility is in the State De- partment? Mr. BORTON. May I supplement that a little, Mr. Mitchell. Wehave in Paris a Committee called the `Coordinating Committee-Cocorn, for short-which has been meeting now for about 5 years. This is a multilateral arrangement to agree on the items which should be em-~ bargoed or in which qpantitative limitations should be placed on ship- ments'to the Soviet bloc. One of the agreements that has been reached around The table is that we should control not only strategic materials, but also the techni- cal data with reference to their production or installation. ~fr.' MITCHELL. Aren't you in a much better position than the Office of Strategic Information to effect the quid pro quo program, since you have direct control given to you by statute and not by a security or a secret order? Mr. MCCLELLAN. 1 `am not sure that I could say we are not, but I would certainly report that the function that we carry is one quite different from that. I would hate to be involved in it in this operation that' Mr. Borton has. I think the purposes here are quite different,' and the type of control' exercised has a different purpose back of it. I think that it would be unfortunate if we involved this control which has its purpose in n~- tional security with those items which have `strategic importance- some of which are unpublished and limited even in their releases to foreign countries in some instances. I think our primary work here should be alOng the lines we present- ly operate it, and if we were toconsider the purposes' of OSI in connec- PAGENO="0404" I ~ ~QR)~AT~ON ~RQM J~E~RAL PM~T~t~F~NTh AND AGE~CI~$ tioii with it, we w~uid still want toke~p it ~omewhat~parat~ from this function because I think it is ~eparate~ Mr Moss Oouid I ~sk why, iii vi~w of they fact the Of~ice~ of St~ ategie luformation is tp be conce~ic~e~1 with ~4i~ate~g~c u~forn~tian, woiiidn't there be iii your )udgment a degree oi~ overlapping here~ Mr. MoCLELL&~. There wouhl be & common interest, Mr. C .. hairman, I agree eomp1ete1y~ There ~hc~uid be. Mr. Moss. A cbmrnon interest, but apparently no common eflort? Mr. MoCLELL~. I think tha~t the effortwould have to be. one in corn- plete cooperation; and in order..to a~oid a conflict either of purpose or a plan of operating, certainly there shoUld be some good coordination Mr. Moss. Do you or your stan use the suggested guidelines on in- formation which OSI feels should. be negotiated for with other coun- ~tries? Mr. McOizu4~. I think you had better answer that, Mr. Foster. Mr. FOSTER. Our guidelines, the only guidelines we have- Mr. Moss. Do: you use the one that OSI put out? Have you seen it? Mr. Foar~u. ~o. I have seen it, but we do not use it in export control. Our gi~idelines are those that are published as part of our control. Mr Moss Have you exchanged thrnkrng on guidelines with 051 ~ Mr FosTi~B To this extent I have personally informed them corn pletely of the export-control regulation and of how they operate.. Outside of that I have read the gufde on expoits of published infor mation by Government-- Mr Moss We mentioned thitt before But that isn't the only assignment of OSI. Mr. FosT~u. ~ think that is the only guide I have read-the one on published infQr~nation by Gover~nrnent agencies. A general license is available. They don't hinve to come near us.. If we happen to hear of an expert, we would make the information available to them if they asked for it. Mr. MEADER. Mr. McClellan, this is not on this topic, but as long as I have you b1ere I would like to ask a question. It was suggested when Mr Mitchell was asking you about the commercial representa tion abroad Is there any movement in the Department of Qommerce to reestablish your own foreign service such as you bad at one time? Mr. McCLEu~N. Mr. Meader, I am glad you asked that question. I will answer it this way, There is ~ very vigorous movement under~ foot which I be~aii, I think, to- Mr. MEAnER. iYour predecessor was Sam Anderson? Mr. McCLEu~AN. That's right. Mt MEADeu. He had that idea. Mr. MCCLELLAN. He had that, but I have a somewhat di~erent one, and I hope it ibeets with.: success. The program, as we contemplate it, is not to start an independent service in.. the foreign offices for the Department of Commerce, but to reestablish a proper foieign service, economic and commercial, through ~ni integrated relationship between the State Depa~tmentand the epartinent of Commerce. We have negbtiated a new arrange~. nt with the State Department several months ago under which we would work together in full cooperation., m~kmg full use of an adequate number of commercial PAGENO="0405" 1:?thmMATm~ i~I~M n~~t ~ n~ 1~19 ~tt~eh~ in t~ Embas~ies who w ould b~ under the line a~ithority~ of the State Department while they are in the field, but who would be Commerce people-Commerce trained and also State Department trained. We have also agreed upon a procedure of exchanging people between the two Departments so that our people in the economic and comrn mercial fields and who have in mind going Overseas into foreign serv~ ice ultimately not only work in our Department but get Soifle expe~ Hence in the State Department so that they understand both sides of it. I hope some of them will also have field service in this country so that they will have industry and business knowledge as well as foreign service knowledge when they go out to represent this country and business interests overseas. I think this is going to work out very well. I am very optimistic about the improvement in relationships between the two departments toward this purpose and toward the effects that we can begin to see already.., Mr. MEADER. Thank you. Mr. Moss. Any further questions; Mr. Mitchell? Mr MITCHELL Are you satisfied with the information that you are now receiving from the commercial attaches abroad? Mr. `MCOt~LLAN. No, sir. Otherw~e I wouldn't be pushing so hard for these three things. We want a higher stature given the com- mercial man in the Embassies; and to achieve that he has to have more adequate training, better background, and we have to have a greater number. That means not that these men in the field are not able and compe- tent ; I think we are getting a fine job, but we need more of them. We need a higher level of competence and qualification, and we need to provide for them the stature ihich should go with such an ixn- portant position. As these are achieved, we will get what we need and we haven't had it for quite a while. I think today in the entire world there are only 8 technically, so designated, commercial attach~s in American Embassies. We should have at least 30 at this moment in my opinion. Mr. MEADER. Would the economic sections of the Embassies provide your information, your reports, `and so on? Mr MCCLELLAN Mr Meador, that is a different point We have great need in many departments of Government for economic infor- mation. But there is something of a distinction between a man who gets statistics and information, technical, in the economic field in various countries-someone who `understands enough about business and industry in a country to perform a needed service in the develop- merit of trade and the flow of capital. I have been around in a good many countries myself in the last 6 years, a good many of then~, and I have learned rather to my surprise that too little is known in many of these countries by the businessmen there and by the people in our own Embassies and the economic sec- tions about what would be helpful to that country in its trade rela- tions with the United States on both a buy-and-sell basis; and there is real need in this area. We are about to get it fixed, I hope, PAGENO="0406" 1~2O Q~~OM~R~ I5~flS~ ~ Mr. Mrron~EU44 Who is respoi~sibie fe~r publishing any economic di~t~, reports or anything that comes in from commercial att'iches ~ Mr MCiji4~ At the present that is compounded Much infor- mation comes ou~ through the State Department, of course, but we in the Departmeht of Commerce have the primary reapçnsibiiity of fostering and de~7eloping foreign trade in commerce. Thus we are publishii~g the niajerit~, I think, of the industry and business docu- ments in this field. We in the Department of Commerce publish and sell a great amount of information of a commercial order and distribute it throughou1~ the United States. Mr. MITcnELr~. Bnt where do you get that information? Do you get it through the State Department or do you have to go outside and get it through other sources? Mr. McOi.nu4N. We get it largely through the State Department from the commercial attaches and the economics sections in the Em- bassies But included in that, of course, are many inquiries which we made and we send people overseas, too, on occasion. Mr. Moss. I am just a little puzzled. In a questionnaire that went out in November, published in November last year, and put out in August-we asked each. of the Federal departments to tell us whether or not they had any difficulties in securing information from other departments or ~tgencies, or `my suggestions they might have for im proving the flow of information. You have just indicated that you have a definite suggestion, and Congressman :Mleader indicated that: your predecessor had the same general idea of jmproving the flow of information from the commer- cial attaches. . . . .. Mr MEAnER What Sam Anderson wanted to do was reesta~bk~}i the Foreign Service of the commerce Department. Mr. McCLELLAN. That is right, and I don't want to do that. Mr. MEAnER. Like the Agriculture. Department got the agricultural attaches. Mr. McCLELL~tN. I don't want todo that. But there is a distinction, Mr Chairman, between getting an adequate flow and getting enough information to now. We have no complaint on the State Departmen1~ as to giving us what we need that they have got. Our point is that they haven't gdt what we need, and we are trying to set up the ma~ chinery to provide it. Mr. Moss. Our question related to an adequate flow. You don't feel that it is an adequate flow? Mr. MCCLELLAN. That is correct. Mr. Moss. The committee has the problem of studying information in all of its aspects within the executive departments, the independent agencies of Government. I am glad now to have suggestions here which would iihdicate a little, more thought and detail than was re- flected in the a~iswer to the questionnaire that the committee sent out last year. Are there furiher questions? The staff will prepare some additional questions which will be sent to you. We appreciate having a response to them at the earliest pos- sible date. PAGENO="0407" TNTORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS~D ~G1E5 i52J~. 1 ~h3ni~ that finishes the inquiry of you genti~men. We wan.t t~ thank you for being here and cooperating with us. Mr. MCCLELLAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and your associates for a very fair heiring nd for the many suggestions you have given us. I can assure you that they are going to get some attention. Mr. Moss. Thank you, we will appreciate having them receive that attention. The committee will now adjourn until 2: 30 this afternoon. (Whereupon, at 12:40 p. m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 2: 30 p. rn) AFTERNOON SESSION (The subcommittee reconvened at 2:30 p. m., Congressman Moss presiding.) Mr. Moss. The subcommittee will now come to order. We will continue with our inquiry into the informational practices of the Department of Commerce. Our first witness this afternoon is Dr. A. V. Astin, Director of th~ National Bureau of Standards in the Department of Commerce. Dr. Astin, do you have any members of your staff present whom you would like to have introduced to the committee? Dr. ASTIN. Yes. I have with me Dr. Henry Birnbaurn, who is an. assistant to the Director. And also Mr. Hirschie J. Johnson, who is our legal adviser. Mr. Moss. If you would give us just a brief background sketch before you go into your prepared statement. Dr. ASTIN. Of myself, sir? Mr. Moss. Yes, STATEMENT OP DR A V ASTIN, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL BUREAU OP STANDARDS, DEPARTMENT OP COMMERCE Dr. ASTIN. I was born in Salt Lake City, Utah. I had ~an ele- mentary education in the State of Utah. I graduated from th~ State university there in 1925. I then went to New York University foi~ graduate work in physics where I got a doctor's degree in 1928. I then spent 2 years as a National Research Council fellow in physics at Johns Hopkins TJniversity. I then came to the National Bureau of Standards as a research associate working for the Utilities Research Commission. This took 2 years. In 1932 I became a permanent mem- ber of the staff of the National Bureau of Standards and have been with that agency ever since. Mr. Moss. Thank you. Now, if you have a statement you would like to read to the committee. Dr. A5TIN. I appreciate this opportunity to testify before this committee On problems relating to the exchange of scientific inforrna~ tion, and I share with you a concern for improving the methods of disseminating scientific data and the results of research Scientific information is the lifeblood of science, it nourishes research and there by assets in the technological progress of the Nation. No agency of the Federal Government is more aware of the im~ portance of the free and effective exchange of scientific informatioi~ PAGENO="0408" 1522 ~ .. ~ i4~1~OM ~~1y~1tAL D~?ART~~ ANL~ AGX~(CØ~S than the ~tiiflia! BflTetLU of Stand ~ ~ ards. We ar~ cht~rged ~y the Congress with tI~e re~ponsibihtY oi estabh~hfl)g arid de~eioping ~t~nd~ ards ~ of phy~ca~ measurement and of disseminttting these `~tnd~trds ~vvide1y to Goveri1iinE~Tit, science, and industry. Standards are the ha~i~ f~~r the~ exchange of scientific data ; they previde research with a basic language. To assure that the findings of scientists and engine~ers in one laboratory of the Nation have the same meaning to scientists and engineers in other institutions, their data must be based upon standards of physical measurement We feel that, in establishing and djs~emmatiIig such standards, we are doing much to augment the 1flow of scientif~c information. Furthermore, our primary output is scientific and technical data. Thus, it is ii~evitable that we would be strongly conscious of the ~vaiue of scientific information exchange. Accordingly, it is our policy to encourage, wherever feasible, full publication of ~ur research activities and to foster the free exchange of scientific information at scientific meetings, congresses, and sym- posiums. I might read or the recoid at this point the publications policy for the National Bureau of Standards which was established by the Sec- retary of Comtherce'S Advisory Committee on Publications to aid in making scientific findings generally available while at the same time protecting aga4nst the issuanefi of Information which does ~Ot con- tribute to the c~mmon good or that through misinterpretation or mis- use may affect property rights. PUBLICATIONS POLICY FOR TBR NATIONAL BuEa~tT OF STANDARDS 1. The end product of scientific research is a report of the findings. Thus the National Bureau of Standards has a positive duty to compile and disseminate scientific and tecbncal information pertinent to its operations. This responsi- bflity is set forth in the Organic Act (81 Stat 1449) as amended in 1954 (64 Stat. 871, 15 U. S~ C. 272) as follows: "* * * the compilation and publication of general scientific and technical data resulting from the performance of the functions specified herein or from other sources when suèh data are of Importance to scientific or manufacturing Inter- ests or to the ge~eral public and are not available elsewhere including demon- stration of the r~sults of the Bureau a work by exhibits or otherwise as may be deemed most e~ctiVe." Except wheti otherwise stated, the phrase "scientific and technical data" is construed to. mean information important from the view- point of science and technology, rather than material primaril~V of economic importance to industry, trade, or the general public. General policy for implementing the preceding responsibility v~ ~given in the fbllowing paragraphs: 2. ~ecogniZifl~ that it is impracticable to formulate a single policy to cover all cases there ~s established a Publications Advisory Committee responsible to the 5ecretary. tUhe Committee will consist of the Under Secretary of Commerce or his designate as Chairman and representatives of the Assistant Secretary for Domestic Atffatrs the Assistant Secretary for Adm mtratWn~ the General Counsel and the Visiting Committee of the National Bureau Of Standards The Director of the National Bureau of Standards shall meet with the Corn inittee In an er officio capacity The Committee shall perform the functions specificallY set forth in this policy statement and shall be available to advise the Secretary and the Director on any problem relating to Bureau publicatiOnS which either the Secretary or the Director may submit from time to time. 3 The major activities of the Bureau Involve research and development in the physical sciences with particular reference to standards for physical measure- PAGENO="0409" I~\tWirto~ l~TtO~t ~BTh~L ~ Att'I'ME~TS A~D AO~CThiS 1~23~ merit, to methods of measurement, and to basic propertieri of materials, The results of such investlgatibus are of wIde~seale value and lAterest to scientific and Industrial groups and therefore should be published. Policies governing publicn~ tiOn of the results of such r~e~eareh and development programs are to be de- termineci by the Director of the National Bureau of Standards. Most of the Bureau's publications are in this category and this method of handling has proved eminently satisfactory. However, In planning publication of the results of work from researches re- quested and paid for by another agency~ of the Government, the Director shall secure suitable clearances from the sponsOring agency prior to publication. I m~ijht mention at this point that this later qualification is icui- portant, .because over 60 percent of the Bureau's work is done i~or other agencies of the Government, with funds provided by these other agencies. 4. Another important type of Bureau activity involves the testing of matertals, supplies, and equipment considered for purchase, or Including items purchased for use of ~lovernment departments and independent establishments. This is a service which the Bureau is well qualified to render and which it must continue to provide. With rare exceptions this testing of products or devices is a service limited to Governn~ent agencies and is not available to the public. Private testing laboratories under university or Industrial sponsorship are generally available to provide Such testing service to the public. Exceptions to this gen- eral rule occur when the Bureau has unique facilities that are not available elsewhere or when Its services are needed in a referee capacity. This testing of products for other Government agencies is clone in response to specific requests from such other agencies and the work is considered in the nature of a confidential service to a client. The results of such testing, there- fore, are not to be publicized by the Bureau. Reports on such testing are to be made solely to the requesting agency. If that agency chooses to make public the results of such testing, which is clearly within Its rights, It is desirable that the National Bureau of Standards be consulted prior to publication The Ad- visory Committee on Publications shall assist the Director in developing satis- factory procedures with these other agencies. 5. A relatively infrequent but Important function of the Bureau Is the testing of commercial products for certain regulatory agencies of the Government. Since the results of such tests may become evidence in legal proceedings, special safeguards should be provided. Requests for such tests, and transmittal of results, should be handled through the Office of the General Counsel, Depart- ment of Commerce. In addition, requests for members of the Bureau staff to appear as expert witnesses should be handled through the Office of the General Counsel. The Advisory Committee will endeavor to enter into suitable arrange- ments with these regulatory agencies, and the Director of the Bureau, to accomplish this result. 6. It Is frequently possible that in the course of such testing, or in the c~qrseof~r~guiar research and development pr~grams, Information is dexelo~,ed leading to new, or not generally available, knowledge of the physical propertina of materials or devices, or to a better understanding of the performance or evaluation of classes of materials or devices, or to new or useful improvements in the performance, fabrication or handling of materials or devices. Such new information should be described and published only when such data are of scientific or technica' Importance to scientific or manufacturing interests, or to the general public, and are not available elsewhere Except as provided in paragraph 7, below, such reports shall not convey the lmpr~ssion of the Bureau's approval or condemnation of a particular class of products or devices. The Advisory Committee on Publications shall conSult with and assist the Director in the interpretation and administration of this para~- graph. 7 It Is possible that as a consequence of its testing program the l3ureau ma~ come into possession of exclusive knowledge regarding materials, devices or pro- cesses which indicates that under certain conditions these may be harmful or daug~r*~us to life, health, or- property. The Bureau, upon becoming aware of the un4~~ira'ble propertIes, should report its information to the Office of the General Counsel, Department of Commerce for transmittal to the appropriate public regulatory agency, without publicity, for such action as that agency PAGENO="0410" * ~ ~1~52~4 To~r~o~ FA1~D~Y~ARTMENTS AN)D A~VI~ES ~dee~ns appropriat4 It subsequent ~ibJicity is~given the matter, it . should be the responsibility of the appropriate regulatory agency but should occur only after notice and t,onsultatio~i with the Director~ If no other agency o~ the Federal GovernmeM has 3urlsdlction over the subject matter the problem should be submitted by the Director to the Advisory Committee on Publications for recommendations. . ~ . ~ 8. Another type of Bureau activity involves ths determination of properties of materials such as buildipg matenals and structural elements and encourage ment of their staudardization and most effectise use and also the stuc~y of new techniques processes and methods of fabrication of materials in which the Government l~as a special interest. These activities frequently involve, co- operative testing programs with private manufacturers or groups of manufac turers, in which the properties of various materials or devices are measured or evaluated under i~ variety of conditions Effective utilization of the results of such laboratory ~nvestigations usually will involve ldentiflcation of the ma- terial or techniqi~e by its proprietary or brand name. Publication of `such in- jormation is authØrized providing the permission of the manufacturers involved is obtained and j~roviding the infoimation is presented in such a manner that approval, endorsthnent, or condemnation of the identifle~l product or process cannot be reasonably construed, and provided further that the manufacturer agrees not to use the results for advertising or promotional purposes. 9 In its publication policy as well as in its research and testin~, the National Bureau of Standards should continue to give primary regard to scientific truth and accuracy, ih making Its findings public, the Bureau should, always be objective and inipartial, and should strive to~ strengthen our te~hnol,ogical economy through advancing industrial techniques for aiding the legitimate interest of American industry for the good qf, all the people of the United States. , That is the er~d of the policy on publications I believe thi~t almost all of the results of work done in the basic programs of the National Bureau of Standards, which warrant publi- cation, find their way into scientific and pofessional journals or into the Bureau's own technical publications To encourage such publlca- ~tion, we have established editorial committees within the Bureau to make helpful suggestions for improving, the quality~ and effectiveness of the technictil presentation and to encourage' a fuller `program' of * disseminating ~cientific information. I call your attention here to the fact that `Bureau scientists and engineers hav~ been eminently, successful in attaining publication in the professional journals and that we have a good record of pro- fessional recognition for outstanding scientific'pub'lication... The Bureau pub]ishes three periodicals The Journal of Research, ~ `monthly which contains full research papers; the Technical New Bulletin, a monthly which contains technical summaries of the Bureau's current research, and the Basic Radio Propagation Piedic- tions,. a monthly which presents radio weather data essential to radio communication and navigation. in addition to these regular publica- ~tions, the Bui~eau issues nonperiodicals such as the Applied Mathe- matics Series ,~ the Building Materials and Structures Reports, circ~i- ~Jars; handbooks' and miscellaneous publications. `I do not coi~isider that publication is our sole means of disseminating scientific info~m'ition In some cases, it is of more immediate import- ance that scientific information be made directly available to profes- sional groups and societies, especially to their technical committees which have a specific interest in our program In this context, mem- `bers of the staff of the National Bureau of Standards participate ac- tively in the work of many scientific organizations. Our people serve generouly and enthusiastically on a large number of technical com- mittees and si~thcommittees. PAGENO="0411" AG~U~~Es 1525 ~ At present our staff holds membership on more than 140 national and internationa' committees : many serve or have served in an execu~ tive capacity in such scientific groups And, I might point out that Bureau scientists and engineers are also serving on the editorial staffs of various scientific publications. Forexample, Dr. Wallace R. Brode, who is our Associate Director for Chemistry, serves as the editor for Journal of the Optical Society of America, and Dr. Walter Ramberg, who is Chief of our Mechanics Division, serves on two professional journals; the Journal of Applied Mechanics and the Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences. In fact, staff members of the National Bureau of Standards serve in an editorial capacity on about 60 professional publications. Another means of communication which we consider important is the service performed by our technical advisory committees. We have 12 such advisory groups to consider our scientific programs and to assist us in meeting the needs of science. These committees are made up of representatives from science, edircation, and industry. They have, been designated by the leading scientific and technical soeietie~ and they have an important function in the exchange of scien1~fic information They bring to the Bureau current information on the problems which* scientists in industry and at universities, are facing. And they carry back to their institutions and organizations informa~ tion which the Bureau has developed as part of its research activities1 Thus, these committees serve as links between Bureau research and other scientific work going on throughout the country. In studying our programs, these committees make useful and valuable recoinmeli- clations. The National Bureau.of Standards has encouraged the pub- lication of these recommendations in the professional scientific jour- iials so that scientists in this Nation may be better aware of our serv- ices; our progress4 and needs. I have said that most of our scientific data reaches our own tech~ nical publications or those of the scientific and technical societies Th~re are two classes of data, however, which are treated separately. One is the handling of~ data pertaining, to the national defense; the other is data resulting from specific tests of products for other age'~cies. S S Security information is handled in accordance with established pro- cedures for processing such data. Most of our security information results from work done for the defense agencies or the Atomic Energy Commission. In our basic programs, there is almost no security in- formation developed. When we undertake defense projects, it should be understood that the National Bureau of Standards does not estab~ lish the classification of the project or the resulting data, nor do we establish the procedures for handling such data. We act in strict ac- cordai~e with the policies and practices of the requesting agencies. Information resulting from specific tests for other Government agencies is handled as follows We usually undertake such tests at the request of another Government agency, in connection with its purchas~ ing, regulatory, or functional responsibilities. The tests are designed to ~provide information on the specific requirements of those agencies. Thus, the information gathered has limited applicability. It is de- signed to answer limited questions of use and performance. It could be dangerous to make generalizations based upon such tests. When PAGENO="0412" I8~~6~ ~ ~ th~ Eureau has émpleted its testsand. made its report, the inforrna~ tion becomes the property of the requesting agency to use in ways con~ sistent with that agency's purchasing or regulatory functions The National Bureau of Standards does not undertake the dissemination of such data. Only about 1 percent of the Bureau's activities is de~ voted to such work. Often confusion and misunderstanding result from this type of Bureau activity.~ Sometimes we are mistakenly classed as a consumer research and coiisumer information agency. Such is not ourS respon- sibility. It is ntt a normal function of the Bureau to evaluate corn- mercial product$ and processes for the public. There are many com- petent commerci~d laboratories available for this work. The National Bureau of Stan4lards is a service agency to the scientific and techno- logic community; and our activities are of primary benefit to the Na- tion's scientists and engineers. Although we attempt to respond to the more than 20,000 inquiries annually that come to us from the gen- eral public, at a rate of about 400 a week, the best way that we can serve thQ American people is providing scientists, engineers, and technicians with reliable an~l progressively refined data which will enhance their e~ffectivcness and their contributions to technological progress. Up to this time, I have concentrated on Bureau policies and prac- tices in the mat4er of scientific information. I would like now to turn to the more gen~raI problem of improving the flow of scientific data. It is a most imp~rtant problem challenging the future of science in this country. The problem is both severe and complex. It is a problem which has received and continues to receive the attention and study of many technical groups both in and out of Government. May I call your attention to several aspects of the problem and discuss them very briefly. / 1. The processing of scientific and technical information: The mounting backlog of ~cientiflc data which awaits publication suggests that radically i1~ew techniques are needed to process such information. liureased study and research are needed on the problem of data han- dling; the clas~ification, indexing, abstracting, and retrieval of seien~ tific information. New techniques are needed before science is choked off by a ma~sive flow of information which cannot be adequately processed. I believe that electronic data-processing tecbniques show some promise in help- ing to, solve this problem. I would urge increased emphasis in this area. An example of current activity iii this area is the processing and. searching of p~tents. Our patent system, as you well know, is closely related to the ~ndustrial growth and prosperity of the United States. The present patent examiners are dedicated, conscientious, and com- petent, but th~y face a task that is much more' complex than that of even a few decades ago. The unprecedented pace of science and technology is producing new facts and inventions at a rate beyond the capacity for patent-claim handling procedures. In awareness of this problem, the Senate Appropriations Committee directed the Depart- ment of Comn~erce to make an investigation of the possibility of mech- arnzing pateitit-search operations A committee, headed by Dr Vannevar Bu~h, was appOinted. This Committee concluded that if the patent sy~tem is to continue to make its contribution to our ex~ PAGENO="0413" i~aoE~E~TroN P~fl ~ GM ~E D~RAL DEi?ARTM~WS AND AGENCIES i~527 panding economy, mechanization of the routine aspects ~f the ~atent~ search process is essential, and that the automatic data-processing art has reached a stage of development which makes feasible its applica~ tion to this complex problem Accordingly, the Patent Office and the National Bureau of Standards are cooperating in a joint program c~f research and development to adapt machine techniques to these Patent Offi~e operations. (See exhibit XXVI.) 2 Attendance and participation in profe~siGna1 scientitic meetings &ientific meetings are vital links in the effective flow of technical in~ formation. They provide for the direct exchange of information on research which is currently being undertaken. These meetings help to overcome some of the substantial delays which occur in the publi- cation of scientific data. They provide excellent opportunities for discussion and planning of research I believe that greater opportumty fGr the attendance and participation of Government scientists at these meetings., would be of great benefit to the Government and its scientific programs. 3. Increased training for Government scientists: One of the im- portant ways of providing for vital Government-science program~~s is by allowing Government scientists to undertake additional studies at scientific institutions outside of Government. There is a great danger that scientists engaged in a particular line of scientific endeavor in Government laboratories may grow scien- tifically stale. Scientists coming from Government laboratories tø unlverbities would bring with them a practn~al knowledge of Gov~ ernment re~carch. In turn, they would return from their studies with a lresh ontlook on their work and withincr~ased competence resulting from their new training. 4. Foreign scientific literature: Here language barriers and the rela- tive unavailability of foreign technical literature are such that much of what goes on in the scientific research laboratories of foreign countries must necessarily be neglected. A special aspect of this problem is the need for more adequate trans lating services. One important step in this direction is the recent establishment of a bimonthly journal, Soviet Physics, prepared and published by the American Institute of Physics under the National Science Foundation sponsorship ~ Training scientists for pubhe~tion It is often forgotten that research does not end with the completion of an experiment or a series of experiments. The collation of the data, its analysis, and finally its publication are of major significance to the progress of science. Too few of our scientists have adequate training in preparing re search data for publication. 6. Developing more effective declassification procedures. The pur- pose of security classification of technical data is to restrict dissemma tion. Such restrictions usually have applicability at the time of origination and only for limited time periods thereafter For in formation of this type, it is desirable that there exist a positive means of declassification after the requn em~mt for security no longer exists The~e are only some of the problems whose solutions will provide for the more effective flow of scientific and technical data. Govern- ment scientists and technical information groups are aware of these problems, and they are devoting considerable study to them. The ob-. PAGENO="0414" fl28 GRMAPN~~~OM ~EDE~AIA DE~PART~1~NTS A~D A~ENOFES jectives of these ~tudies are clear: to improve the flow of scientific in- formation, to as~ist scientists and engineers in locating and process ing data, to improve the ability of scientists to keep up with the data In conclusion, et me state. that' we, at the National Bureau of Standards, are aware of and. concerned with these problems. Within our `organization, we seek the most effective means for improving the quality of the information which we produces and we strive to make that informatioi~ as generally available as. possible. Our record of publication substantiates this.' But: the problems must be studied iii a larger perspective. Their solutions must have broader application. For this reason,][ am pleased to see this committee deliberating on this subject. .1 ` ` ` .. Mr. Moss. Thank you, Dr. Astin. Mr. MeadOr, have you any questions? ` `` Mr. `MEADER~. I don't thing you told us when you became a Director of the Bureau of Standards.' Dr. ASTIN. I was appointed' Director in June `of 1952. Or I was sworn in in June of 1952. Mr. MEAOER. :The other day ~Dr, Hughes told us about some pro-j cednre that youlhad inthe Bureau of Standards for clearing material for export. I d~dn't see that in your prepared statement. Dr ASTIN Ih transmission of scientific or technic~tl data abroad, we follow proc~dures which have been established by the Bureau of Foreign `Commerce. These procedures were modified somewhat about, I would say, 6 or 8 months ago, which permits the free ex- change of scientific and technical data not directly related to utiliza- tion in industrial processes. This, of course, means that most basic scientific data do not require what is called the validated export license. , The regulations do, how- ever, require-at least as we understand them-that such mail carry `a stamp. T'he stamp merely indicates, that `it contains technical data and that a gen~eral export license is not required. This is the pro- cedure `we are f~llowing. ` ., ,. It seems to be, working reasonably `satisfactorily. We' also, of cour~e, attempt to keep track of"most communication abroad. The scientists do communicate directly with their colleagues over- seas. But we have an office which keeps track of our international relations And this, just for genei al information purposes, keeps record copies of our foreign correspondence. Mr. MEADER Are you familiar with the Office of Strategic Infor- mation? , ` Dr. AsriN. ~es, sir. ` ` Mr. MEAD~ii~ Have you in the Bureau of Standards' attempted tq carry out the ~ecommendations of their guide for exchange of mfor- `mation? Dr. ASTIN. Yes, sir. I should add that I have been a member of the Interdepartmental Advisory Committee to OSI, the one dealing with exchanges, and have been active, an active participant, in the development of this exchange. poIiç~y which the' OSI has promulgated. And as a result of this policy, we are now in the process of setting up exchanges which had been forbidden or discontinued some years ago with some of the Iron Ci~rtain countries. PAGENO="0415" ~FOEMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTM~NPS AND AGENCIES 1~29 This will bring into this country much or some information which. we do not now have. Well, two countries with which we are currently negotiating are Poland and Czechoslovakia. This will make available in~ our librury publications from these countries and, will aid in the dissemiütion of information produced abroad to our own staff. This is the phase of OSI which I have been familiar with. It is aimed mainly to increase the flow of information to the United States. And it is based on the mechanism of using our data whiëh are gen- erally available anyway to set up exchaiige procedures with these other countries. Mr. .MEADEE. As I understand it from your statement, now, there have not been any exchanges so far, but you are now negotiating for them; is that right? Dr As~iw We discontinued all of our exchanges with the Iron Curtain countries several years ago. We have justs~ up an exchange with Poland and are negotiating one with Czechoslovakia. Mr. MEADEL But you haven't yet begun to receive material as a result of th~tt? Dr. ASTIN. Yes. We now receive the Acta Physika Poloni1~a in ex- change for Our own Journal of Research. Mr. MEADEñ. Some of the scientific witnesses we have had, Dr. Astin, do not seem to think that this quid pro quo exchange of information is a very practical way of getting additional information. Do you have any comment on the philosophy of bartering or swap~ ping scientific information? Dr. ASTIN. Well, for years the exchange principle has been very successful in communication between scientists in different countries. And, as I said, ours were discontinued a few years ago, and we wel- corned the Opportunity to exchange generally available information anyway for things that we had not been getting from the Iron Curtain countries. Exchange itself implies some sort o.f reciprocity. But there is not a feeling on the part of the Committee members that this-I mean the OSI Committee members-that this should be too strictly interpreted That is, frequently if you can get one important publication in ex- change for ~ or 3 things that are usually available freely to them any- way, it is very much worth doing. And this h'is been the philosophy of the Exchange Committee, that we are seeking tobring into this country more information from the countries abroad, particularly the Iron Curtain countries. And we are using, as a tool in bringing this information in, publications which these people could get anyway with very little trouble if they wished~ So, essentially what we are doing is getting something in exchange for information which they have access to anyway Mr. MEADER. In other words, it is not strictly a trading of one docu- ment for another, but just a general encouragement that they make their material available to us without really any quid pro quo bar- gaining. at all? Dr. ASTIN. Well, although the reciprocity principle is involved in the exchange-the reciprocity principle has been stated as the basis for doing this by the President-in its application we feel that you do not have to have something exactly the same as what you are giving. The general idea is if one laboratory will exchange with another, this is quid pro quo. . PAGENO="0416" 1530 INFORMA ~ION ]~`flOM FEDEJ~AL L~EPARTMENTh AND AO~NCIES Mr. ME~wi~it. To go back to the export control proce ~ dure : how long have you had i4hat method of handling material under th~ ~ Contract Act? Dr. ABTIN. Well, we have been operating for several yet~rs und~r the regulations set up by the Bureau of Foreign Commerce. The pt~r~ ticular technique we are now employing I don't remember e~ctIy; but I can furni~h it for the record if you wish , but I think it started some time last ~uflufler Mr MEAnER And going through that procedure, is it time-con- suming and del~ying in your handling of material? Dr. ASTIN. ~ wouldn't be honest if I did not say that the require- ment to stampt the document is a, you might say, minor annoying deterrent on communication. Since the Bureau of Foreign Commerce is administering the law on regulations which require the export control technical data, there has to be some mechanism to make sure that the~ ~data which are to be con- trolled are rev~ewed The regulations do permit the free exchange of basic scientifici information which is not directly related to industrial processes. The use of the stamp is a means of just insuring that the data has been checked to see that it is not required to have a validated export license; Mr. MEADEIk. Well, I would assume that somebody stamping an envelope would not be very ii uch of a nuisance or take very much time. But to read the material and understand it and make a de~i~pn ~as to whether it did or did not fall withtn the des~ript~n might involve a considerable number of man-hours. Dr. A5TIN. Well, it does. It is my feeling that one cannot have any sort of eontrol without getting into some borderline areas where you have got to determine.. whether or n~t some information has to be controlled; whether it is included in the control definition or not. And the fact that there are expert controls involving technical data means that there will always be some problems in the borderline `trea of information which might oi might not be subject to the control Mr MEADFR Do you know of any other Government agent~y that has a similar system? I believe Dr Hughes the other "day, or some witness, testified the Naval Ordna~ice had a similar setup for export control. Do you know ~f any additional agencies? Dr. As~i* Well, the regulations established by the Bureau of Foreign Con~meree are supposed to apply to all Government agencies Whether they implement theirs in the same way we implement ours, I could not say. Mr. MEAD~R. You do not happen to know of any other agency which has a setup similar to yours? Dr. ASTIN. No, sir. Mr. MITCHELL. Specifically, Doctor, how do you implement it? Dr. As'rIN. How do we implement it? Mr. MJTCREI4L. Yes. Dr A5TIN The business of international relations is handled by our Associa1~e Director, Dr. Brode, and his office keeps track of the foreign coir~muñications. Our staff is advised that certain types of information require a validated export license. PAGENO="0417" ~FMAflO~ PROM FEDERAL DEPART~ENT$ A~D ~GE2~tE$ , The great bulk of basic scientific information does not., They ave aware of the regulations. And I think they are fairly conscientious about following them. Mr. MITCHELL. Does that office affix the stamp, or does the mdi- vidual affix the stamp? Dr. ASTIN. I am not sure how many stamps we have. But one dOes not need the stamp-why, you can just write the initials that are re- quired on the envelope. If you have much correspondence, it saves time to have a stamp. Mr MITCHELL In your opinion, does the appearance of the stamp or ~written data on the outside of the envelope communicating with the scientists abroad connote the meaning of censorship? Dr. A5TIN. It probably has some such implication; yes. I think that would be a rather natural consequence of the use of the stamp. Mr. MITCHELL. Do you feel that the people receiving such docu- mentation on the outside of an envelope when they reply feel that their letters are censored? Dr. ASTIN. There could be some feeling of this sort. Mr. MITCHELL. And that they would not be likely to give as much information? Dr. As~rIN. Well, when one is communicating basic scientific infor- mation, I do not think that they would be particularly concerned ~ibóut-well, they would not like censorship-but I do not particu- larly see why `they would withhold something because of that fact. Actually, such incoming information is not censored but there might be some occasion. Mr. MITCHELL. We know that. We know that that i~ actually true. But we have had testimony before the committee that the scientists in this country have received information that the people receiving such data rather resented and connoted it as being censored. They rather resent the necessity for this particular stamp when you have set up rules and regulations concerning technical data. ~nd it is enforced in the Bureau of Standards. Isn't that correct? Dr. A5TIN. Well, the enforcement is largely up to the trust we have in the indiviUual scientist. Mr. MITCHELL. Have you had any instances of an individual con- nected with the Bureau of Standards who may have violated this gen- eral license requirement? Dr. A5TIN. No, I haven't. I have no information of any violation of trust. Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out the fact that we have now for the better part of' 15 minutes been discussing this international aspect. And on the Advisory Committee that is provided, the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for International A~airs is not a member of your Advisory Committee. Is there any significance in that fact? Dr. ASTIN. No; the primary significance of our publications pol- icy is in connection with dissemination of information to the' Amevi- can people. And it was not felt that his interest in this problem w~ts sufficient to put him on the Advisory Committee. Mr. MITCHELL. Well, certainly you have a good deal to do with the Bureau of Foreign Commerce. And that comes under his juris- 69222-56--pt. 6-27 PAGENO="0418" 1532 MA~PIO~ FEØ~ ]~1it1EEAL `DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES dictiOn, as I und~rst~and it. `An'd'~oü would think that, On an Advisory Committhe~ of the nature that' you have set forth on page 2 of your prepared statenient-and I assume the way it is written that it is a regula~tion `of the Bureau of: Stañdärds-~-isn't that more or less what is published for the Bureau of Standards people, what is on page'2? Dr. ASTIN.' Yes; this is the publications policy that we follow. Mr. MITcii~L1~.. Followed by all ~mployees? Dr. A5TIN. Yes. Mr. MITCHELL. Therefore, I was wondering why in this day and age the Assista~t Secretary of Commerce for litternational Affairs, who is responsible for the administering of the Bureau' of Foreign Commerce, is nOt on your Advisory Committee. Dr. A5TIN. Well, the international problem is one of exchange of published information. And this policy relates primarily to the requirement for publication. The international aspect of that I think is relatively minor. Mr. MITCEELL. Also it concerns unpublished information which is what the Bu~eau could have in a great many instances. Dr. ASTIN. Well, yes. In communication between scientists fre- quently in the letters there would be discussion of basic work which is being readied for publication. Mr. Moss. I have just a few questions on this matter of exchange of information. You stated that you are now going to receive types of information which were not permitted in an exchange program heretofore. How were they restricted? By what action or what direction? Dr. ASTIN. Several years ago `regulations set up within the De- partment of Qommerce stopped all international exchanges of scien- tific and technical data with the Iron Curtain countries. We are now resumingi these on this reciprocity basis. Mr. Moss. And how are the negotiations carried on to bring about this resumption? Who handles them? Dr. ASTIN. They are generally started perhaps by the receipt of a. letter from abroad, perhaps by discussions which may originate at some international meeting. Then when we get a formal request, this is generally' reviewed by our editorial committee just to see whether the publication offered is of interest to the staff of the Bureau. If it is, then we would follow through withithe request for setting up an exchange. Mr. Moss. Well, now, this exchange is permitted under the regula- tions of the ~xport Control Act; the general license granted there,. GTDP and GTDTJ and GTDS? Dr. ASTIN. These regulations would permit the exchange of basic scientific data. Mr. Moss. Then where does the OSI come into the picture? Did they suggest you might exchange instead of just make available? Dr. AsTIN~ The OSI came in with one objective of setting up the mechanism to increase the flow of information into this country.. And many Qf the Government exchanges had been stopped. And this establisl~ed a policy of- Mr. Moss.~ Well, Dr. Astin, I think if we may for just, a moment: You say set up a mechanism to increase the exchange. The exchange PAGENO="0419" OR1~tATI0N fl~OM Ffl~ERAL DEPARP~]~1NTS ANI~ AO~N~IES 1588 ~olicy is permitted by regulation under the Export Control Act; is that correct? Dr. As~rIN. Yes; it would be. Mr. Moss. Then what mechanism has been set up by the OSI? Dr. A5TIN. Well, the main mechanism is one of promulgating a policy that we should exchange. And this, when exchanges a tew years ago had stopped, seems to me to be a very desirable thing. Mr. Moss. Well, having once enunciated the policy, then what role does OSI play in this exchange program? Dr. ASTIN. It is playing this role: that frequently there may be an opportunity to exchange where the material offered from the for- eign country is of no interest or value to the organization receiving the request. For example, we might conceivably get a request from Czechoslovakia offering a journal on biology or medicine which would have limited interest to us. And they might want our Journal of Research. If such a request were received, we would then tell the OSI about it, They would determine whether perhaps NIH or one of the other Gov~ ernment agencies with interest in biological affairs wanted this publica- tion. The 051, by this means, provides sort of a clearinghouse to make sure that we do not reject an opportunity to exchange merely because the material offered is not of interest to the person receiving the request Mr. Moss. Well, now, could the Government of Czechoslovakia buy from the Government Printing Office your Journal of Research? Dr. As~rIN. Yes, it can., Mr. Moss. It can buy it? Dr. A5TIN. Yes, sir. Mr. Moss. You serve on the Advisory Committee to OSI? Dr. AsTIN. Yes, sir. Mr Moss To your knowledge, do they have any staff presently engaged in receiving these requests and directing them to other &gencies of Government? Dr. ASTIN. Yes, sir. They have a staff of about four people. Mr. Moss. They have a staff of four. But what does it do? Does it receive the request and redirect it? Dr. AsriN. Well, if we received such a request as I mentioned, we would send it to OSI, and they would handle it from then on. Mr. Moss. Do you know that they do handle it? Dr. ASTIN. I have not seen the specific report of what they have been doing in this area. But I think there is apt to be a fair workload here. And I can see an opportunity for useful results. Mr. Moss. I am interested, of course, in the opportunities presented for 051. But as I recall the testimony of Mr. Seago before this com- mittee, their staff is not presently engaged in that sort of redirection of requests within the Government. And I was just interested to see if you had information which Mr. Seago did not have as to what they are actually doing with this information. Dr. A5TIN. Well, it is my understanding that Mr. Seago-of course, you know this much better than I-it is my understanding that they have been handling a few isolated examples of this. But I may be wrong. But actually this policy urging the Government agencies to develop exchanges has just recently been promulgated. And I would expect that as the agencies become aware of this, as we develop our interria- PAGENO="0420" 534 1NFORMA~tION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES tional contacts to bring more information into this country, that their workload will build up. Mr. Moss. Have you had such publications offered which you felt should be redirected to other agencies? Dr. ASTIN. No, sir; we have not received any to my knowledge. Mr. Moss. You are dealing purely here in the realm of speculation as to what might happen? Dr. ASTIN. ~hat is correct; yes, sir. Mr. MEADER. Might I ask a question on this subject? Mr. Moss. Surely. Mr. MEADER. Doctor Astin, when we had scientific attaeh~s in some of the European capitals, did they perform any function in this exchange of inforination? Dr. As~rIN. Yes; I think the.y performed a. very useful function. We received reports about scientific activities in foreign countries through some of these that we were not aware of otherwise. And also they served a useful role when our scientists are abroad; they make arrangements ~or visits, telling our scientists things they might look at in addition to tlheir main reason for being there And there i~ no question but what ~t was a useful service. Now, whether it is ~orth what it costs I am uot'in a position to say. Mr. MEADER. Well, I had in mind particularly whether~~ scientific attaches called attention to publications available in Iron Curtain countries which we might want or need. Do you know whether they did any of that? Dr. ASTIN. We had no attach~s to my knowledge in the Iron Cur- tain countrie~. But I recall hearing of some reports of meetings in the countries where the attaches were located with Iron Curtain scien- tists present. And they gave background information as to what the interest and accomplishments were of these Iron Curtain scientists. Mr. MEADER. In other words, even if they were not assigned to an Embassy in an Iron Curtain country, being in the general neighbor- hood of the Iron Curtain countries, they might run across information which would be useful to use either on an exchange basis or otherwise? Dr. ASTIN, Yes, sir. Mr. MEAnER. I gather that you rather think the scientific attaches were useful and we ought to have them? Dr. Asrn~, Well, there is no question in my mind but that* they were useful.! As to whether it is worth what they cost is a decision for the State Department or someone else to make, and not for me. Mr. MEADrii. By the way, I am a little bit curious about the stamp- ~ng of the lice~ise initials, or whatever you do. Can that be printed? Dr. A5TIN. Here is an example of the stamp that is actually used. Mr. MEAnER. Now, assuming that some of your publications ran into thousands of copies. I suppose this cart be printed while you are printing th~ documents? Dr. AsTn~. It could be, yes. Mr. MEAIER. But yOu do not usu~dly do that? Dr. ASTI*. It is my understanding that it is not printed. It is iust stamped when required. Mr. MEA~ER. But you would have to stamp each copy that goes out- side? Dr. ~ That ~s correct.. PAGENO="0421" ~~~TiON F~tOi~t TEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1535 Mr. MEADER. It would seem to me if you are going to do some print. lug anyway, you might just as well print all of them whether they are going to be sent outside the country or not instead of having people putting a rubber stamp on individual copies. Dr. ASTIN. The stamp has, I suppose, this value: it indicates that the person using it has conscientiously made a decision that the mate- rial in there does not require a validated export license. I would say that is its sole or primary value. Mr. MEADER. You do not stamp everything that is published, though? Dr. ASTIN. Oh, no. Mr. MRADER. Can you give some idea about the volume of these stamped copies that go through your office and how many people you have administering this ~rogram? Dr. ASTIN. Well, I think that most of our publications that go abroad go from the Government Printing Office. And this, then, is not our responsibility. I think virtually all of the copies of our Journal of Research that we send abroad are sent out by the Government Printing Office. And I am not familiar with-- Mr. MEADER. Do they stamp theirs? Dr. A5TIN. I am not familiar with whether or not they would stamp things sent to the Iron Curtain countries or not. * Doctor Birnbaum says he thinks they do, but he is not sure. We could determine this if you want us to, and let you know. Mr. MEADER. Well, it would strike me that if the law is to be observed, that the Government Printing Office ought to observe it as much as the Bureau of Standards. Dr. ASTIN. Well, that is their responsibility. I was advised just shortly before I came here that we do not have to use the stamp ourselves. Government agencies are exempt. Now, it is our interpretation of the regulation that the stamp is required. If we do not have to use it, we are going to cut it out. But our inter- pretation of the regulation was that the stamp was required. Mr. MEADER. Do you have any idea, or would it.be too difficult to find out, if you cannot tell us now, just how many man-hours are involved in carrying out this stamping requirement? Dr. A5TIN. Yes. I do not think it would be much trouble to make an estimate of it. Mr. MEADER. You mean you have 4 or 5 people who put full time on it? Dr. ASTIN. Oh ,no. It is not a full-time job for anyone. Probably a part-time job, a very small part-time operation, of one of the clerks in the office of the man who handles our international i~elations. Mr. MEAnER. Then, there is not a separate review made of each document to determine whether or not it falls within the Export Control Act? Dr. ASTIN. No, there is not. I thought I mentioned earlier that this determination is the respon- sibility of the individual staff members. Their mail is not censored by us at the Bureau We get an information copy in order to keep track of what is going on. But we depend upon the individual staff members to make their own determination. PAGENO="0422" 1536 ~ Mr. MEAnER. You mean whoever generates the information or pre- pares the docui~rient. at the same time he does it makes a decision as t~ ~hether or not `it falls within the restriction of the Exnort Control Act? Dr. AST1N. That is right. Mr. Moss. Dr. Astin, you indicated that the records of this foreign correspondence is kept in the Office of International Affairs, your agency? Dr. A5TIN.. Yes. Mr* Moss. Are records of the private correspondence of members of the staff in the Bureau of Standards also maintained in this office? Dr. ASTIN. If it relates to official business we keep a record. Mr. Moss. Don't many of them have activities on the outside that are not necessarily official business but might deal with scientific information? Dr. ASTIN. X would think that most of the scientific interests of our staff members ~re official business. But there are undoubtedly a num- ber of our mer~bers of our staff who have friends abroad with whom they correspond directly. But if it is done-if they are interested in communicating with a scientist abroad on something relating to the official research project of the man initiating the letter, then it is official business, and we would like to have a record of it. Mr. Moss. Well, do you ask them, then, to give you file copies of all correspondence with scientists overseas regardless of whether it is official or n~nofficial? Dr. A5TIN. Well, if it is not official, they are not supposed to be using Goverthnent communication for their work. Mr. Moss. `Well, maybe they are using private communications. Dr. ASTIN. Well, then, that is their own business. Mr. Moss. However, the requirement for a general license still prevails whether or not it is Government work? Dr. ASTIN. Oh, yes, that is correct. Mr. Moss. And I was just wondering how far you went in requir- ing copies of correspondence to be maintained on file. Dr. ASTIN. We have no regulation covering this. Mr. Moss. ~You indicated that you have been told-or you said you have been given the opinion that Government agencies are not re- quired to use this generally. Dr. `A5TIN4 Yes. I was advised of this just a, little earlier. And I have not h~d an opportunity to verify it. But I am going to look it up. Mr. Moss. When you verify it, would you inform this committee of your decision? Dr. A5TIN. I would be very happy to. (The material requested follows:) Since April 1955, all agencies of the Federal Government have been exempted from affixing the general license to technical data available in published form. A general lice~ise GTDS is still affixed to unpublished unclassified data which Is sent abroad.t Mr. Moss~ Congressman Fascell, do you have any questions at this point? Mr. FASCELL. I have one by request, Mr. Chairman. PAGENO="0423" INrOTRMAnON ~tOM ~ED~RAL DEPARPMENTS ~ND AQENCL~ 1537 The present stamp reads: Export Control of Techuical Data, Gen- ~ral License GTDS, Validated Export License not required. Dr. ASTIN. Yes. Mr. FASCELL. Is that correct? Dr ASTIN. That is correct. Mr. FASCELL. I wonder why we cannot put in English "This is free of censorship." Dr. A5TIN. Well, that might be a better thing to put on it. I don't know. This was drawn up in the form of the stamp or the statement was drawn up by the Bureau of Foreign Commerce and it is some- thing over which we have no jurisdiction. Mr. FASCELL. I have another question. I `am curious about this exchange program, about information that is now available to us that was not available to us before. And yet we state that what we are giving them in return is stuff that they already have access to; so we are not giving them anything. Don't you think they are just as smart as we are? Dr. A5TIN. There is a great deal of interest in scientific institutions of having direct exchange relationships with other laboratories. Mr. FASCELL. I will accept that as a corrected statement if that is the way you want to put it. Dr. ASTIN. Yes. But I think that many of these exchange opportunities we have merely involve making extra copies available to scientists in specific laboratories. Here is one example on the other end. Our Library of Congress- I should say your Library'of Congress- Mr. FASCELL. "Ours" is good enough. Dr. ASTIN. Requires a great deal of scientific and technical literature abroad, or from abroad. Now, this information is available to our staff members. But it is much more convenient if we can have in our own working library copies of the more important documents that we are interested in. And I think the same thing applies from their point of view. They may have centrally a few copies of our documents that are available. But there are undoubtedly many individual laboratories that would also like to have them merely for working convenience. And this is one opportunity that we are able to exploit. Mr. FASCELL. Well, I appreciate that. But what I am getting at is the general statement that we are getting information that would otherwise not be obtainable; because, as a matter of fact, they are not giving us anything that is not accessible to us and we are not either. So, all we are doing is exchanging for convenience, if I understand your testimony correctly, that information which is already available to everybody. Dr. A5TIN. I am not sure that this is strictly true. But I think that there is an opportunity to increase the amount of printed material abroad if we seek to develop these exchanges more fully. Mr. PASCELIJ. In other words, you have to start some place. And you feel this is the way to start now? Dr. ASTIN. Yes, sir. Mr. FASCELL. Do the documents that we receive from abroad, do they contain some of this gobbledegook? Dr. As~rIN. I am not familiar with that. PAGENO="0424" ~E5&8. INFOR~T10N FROM FEDERAL D~PARTMENTS~D AGENCIES Mr. FASaELL. In other words, we do not know whether or not they are stamped in any way, export licenses, or validations, or censorship? Dr. ASTIN. I am not familiar with such stamps on material coming from abroad. Mr. FASCELt~. As far as we know, then, their stuff is unstamped? Dr. AsTIN. As far as I know. Some of thp people that actually are closer to this than I am may be ftmiliar with some sort of stamps. But I am not familiar with that. Mr. FASCEIJL. They might be stamped and might not be stamped? Dr. ASTIN. That is correct. Mr. MITCHELL. Could you have somebody at the Bureau let us know if anything comes in from them stamped? Dr. A5TIN. Yes, sir. I would ask our library people who get most of the material to do that. (The material requested follows:) The Nationa~ Bureau of Standards has received no unclassified foreign publica- tion to which 1~as been affixed any sort of export control stamp. Mr. FASCE~LL. In your prepared statement, you are talking about the Secretary of Commerce's Advisory Committee on Publication. What is that? Dr. ASTIN. Well, it is a committee which consists of the representa- tives listed who advise the Secretary and the Director of the Bureau about publications policy for the Bureau. And it will handle specific problem cases where there is some fuzziness as to how they should be handled. Mr. FASCELL. How is that different from the interagency committee which is an advisory committee to the OSI? Dr. AsTmt. Well, this committee within the Department is strictly one related to problems of the National Bureau of Standards. The OSI-~--- Mr. FASC~LL. Is what the name indicates-an interagency coin- mittee? Dr. ASTIN. Yes, sir. Mr. FASCELL. This is another committee within the Department of Commerce dealing with the publications of the National Bureau of Standards? Dr. A5TIN. That is correct, yes, sir. Mr. FASO~ELL. What is the editorial committee that you were talk- ing about? Dr. AsTr~. This is a committee which we have within the Bureau which reviews all papers for publication. Now, thi~ is in order to assure tht he quality of the papers is good; that the method of presentation is straightforward. Mr. FASCELL. Does the editorial committee pass on the content? Dr. A5TIN. Yes. It makes a recommendation as to whether or not the material is worth printing. Mr. FAS~ELL. Who does it make the recommendation to? Dr. AsTI~. To me. Mr. FASd,ELL. Then, you decide in all cases what will and will not be published? Dr. AsTI~. That is correct. Mr. FASCELL. Why do you go to the Advisory Committee on Pub- lications then? PAGENO="0425" ~.TF0~RMATiON FROM FEDERAL D,EPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1~39 * Dr~ ASTIN. Well, in this statement of policy, responsibility is as- signed to the Director of the Bureau for determining the publi~cation of all basic research data. I go to the advisory committee when there are problems in connection with publication of work for the regula- tory agencies of the Government, when there are problems in connec- tion with the handling of the results of product evaluation which we paight do for other Government agencies. Mr. FASCE.LL. That is all I have. Mr. MfTCHELL. Dr. Astin, on page 1 of your prepared statement, you say: We are charged by Congress with th~ responsibifity of establishing and de veloping standards of physical measurement and of disseminating these standards widely to government, science, and Industry. Are you, by that statement, saying that you are a central clearing house for all Government agencies? For example, suppose the Department of Defense were to conduct some research or experiments in connection with physical measure- ments and standards. Dr. ASTIN. No. We would have no responsibility for their output. Mr. MITCHELL. Is there anyplace that you know of in the United States Government where such a function would be performed? Dr. A5PIN. You mean a central clearinghouse? Each agency has responsibility for developing its own publications policy. Mr. MITCHELL (reading): We are charged by Congress with the responsibility of establishing and devel- oping standards of physical measurement and of disseminating these standards widely to government, science, and industry. Dr. ASTIN. Yes. Mr. MITCHELL. If a unit of the Department of Defense or any con- nection with the National Science Foundation, the AEC, gets into this particular field, aren't you responsible according to this statement as a central clearinghouse for that job to be done? Dr. ASTIN. I would not interpret it that way. That is, although our basic responsibility involves the development of standards for physical measurement, there are a few specific standards. One that occurs to me, one of the most important standards we have, is the standard of time. And this one is maintained by the Naval Observa- tory through observations on the rotation of the earth about the sun. And they handle this activity and have handled it for years inde- pendently. So there are a few isolated cases such as the time standard where other agencies have the responsibility. But general responsibility for physical standards is assigned to us. But we do not exercise any supervision or review over the activities in the fields of standards which are legitimately assigned to other agencies of the Government. Mr. MITCHELL. Then, who does, in order to coordinate it and make sure that there is no duplication of effort and publication? Dr. ASTItIN. It is my understanding that the Bureau of the Budget has sort of overall responsibility in the executive branch for covering duplication. It is certainly not our responsibility. PAGENO="0426" 1540 INFORM~TION FROM FEDERAL DEPA~TM~NTS AND AGENCIES Mr. MITCHELL. Well, this committee is specifically mnterestsd in public information and the dissemination of it. And this is a very important field. Dr. A5TIN. 4Y~es, it is. Mr. MITCIIEfrJL. In the entire scientific world, this is a very, very im- portant field. Now, if the AEC or the Defense Department or some- body else-do~i't they owe you a duty and responsibility of giving you that information so that you can publish it? You say, "We are charged by Congress." Dr. ASTIN. Well, our law reads that we have the responsibility to develop and maintain the standards for physical measurement. And these standards, as I pointed out in my statement, are basic to the exchange of information. For example, much of the results of research are expressed in terms of numbers. The number has no meaning unless there is a unit or standard to which it can be re- ferred. For example, one may be making electrical measurements, describing pi~operties in terms of volts, or ohms or amperes. And the responsibilty for determining how big a volt or ohm or ampere is is our responsibility. And we have to make this information about these magnitudes available if there is to be true exchange of informa- tion among scientists. Mr. MITCHELL. So there are new standards being developed today in the field of atomic energy. Dr. A5TIN. That is correct. Mr. MITC~IELL. Are you charged with the responsibility in that field? Dr. As~rur. Yes. Our responsibility in that area is developing standards f~r measuring isotopes. And this is a very important and active program at the present time. It is one of the byproducts of the atomic age-the radioisotope. And in order to use the isotopes effectively, there have to be stand- ard methods for measuring the radioactive properties from these isotopes. Now, developing such standards is our responsibility. And in this area we cooperate very closely with the Atomic Energy Com- mission in ~Ietermining our workload. Mr. FASçELL. But you have not developed any standards for the measuremetit of force in the use of atomic power, I mean? Dr. As~. Yes. Mr. FAS~ELL. Or the measurement of energy delivered by atomic power? Dr. ASTI~. Oh, yes. Well, atomic power will be measured in terms of the basic energy units which re]ate to our fundamental standards. That is, the stand- ard for a watt, for example, is determined by the standards which we maintain. S Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to rephrase my ques- tion again: Do the other agencies-are they aware of your function and respo4isibilities? And do you obtain from them the necessary in- formation~to do this job? Dr. AS~IiIN. I think we have a very active prOgram trying to make sure that they are aware of our activities, the way in which we can serve them, and also to get from them their needs in terms of stand- ards of physical measurement. PAGENO="0427" INFORMATION FROM FE1)ERAL I)EPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1541 Mr. MEADER. Dr. Astin, did you also cover the field of aeronautics and electrothcs in your studies? Dr. ASTIN. Yes, sir. We have a small, but important, program in the field of aeronautics that relates primarily to, well, such things as instruments for measuring airflow, which is a basic phenomena that has to be understood and measured in aeronautics. Mr. M~&DER. And since, this mach number and so on, are they standards set by you? Dr. ASTIN. These, through an involved chain of measurement, would come back to us. But actually there are well-accepted scientific rules for defining mach number. This is more a matter of definition than as a standard. Mr. MEADER. It is not a standard then? Dr. ASTIN. I would call it a defined term. It is not a standard. * Mr. MEADER. How about the field of electronics, is there any occa- sion for setting standards? Dr. ASTIN. There is a very great need in that field. And we are just beginning to scratch the surface on what ought to be done in terms of electronic standards. Mr. MITCHELL. The Navy and Air Force, and so have outside pri- vate corporations done a terrific job on that. As I understand the act and the statute, the Bureau of Standards has that prime responsibility to see that the standards are laid out and set forth. What I am trying to ascertain is: Are you getting full-I just have a feeling, doctor, that the Government is so big and so many people are going out in different directions that you're not getting the- Mr. FASCELL. Excuse me, Mr. Mitchell. Let me ask the question another way. Are there any other agencies of the Government setting standards besides the National Bureau of Standards? Dr. ASTIN. I think there may be. Mr. FASCELL. Which agencies do you think they may be? Dr. A5TIN. Well, the-let me say this: Standards are used in a variety of connotations. Now, I would like to tell you of one very important program that is just getting started. Mr. MITCHELL. Is it classified? Dr. ASTIN. No. This is quite open. But it involves our national defense, and particularly the Air Force. A modern bomber or fighter, I think, has about 50 percent of its cost going into electronic equipment. And in order that all of the equip- ment in a modern aircraft operate as a unit, not only within the plane but within the air-control navigation system framework in which the aircraft should operate, it is necessary that these instruments all be precisely adjusted to generally accepted standards. That is a means that the resistors, capacitors, the vacuum tubes all have to be rated. And these ratings have no meanings, unless there are, standards to which the ratings can be referred. It is now recognized that an active standardization calibration pro- gram for electronic equipment in modern aircraft is. a must if our fleets are to be maintained at a high degree of efficiency. This need led the Air Force to come to us 2 or 3 years ago with a request to set up an active calibration center whereby the working standards in. standard centers of the Air Force-one in each depot-would feed in on a regular schedule to our master standards or national standards PAGENO="0428" 1542 INFORMA~0N' FRdM ygDERAI~ D~PARTMBNTS AND AGENCIES foi~ calibration. The Navy Bureau of Aeronautics also joined in this program. The result was a presentation to the Congress a year ago for funds to sei~ up the center to carry out this ~tandarizing activity. But we run what you might call the National Central standardizing Laborátory bi4t the Air Force and the Navy in thelr air depots also have 5tandardi~ing laboratories where the equipment in the aircraft comes in for checking against the master instruments in the depot. And these master instruments in turn go periodically to us to make sture that their readings are proper. Mr. FASCELL. Your talking about application, and I am talking about establishment. Dr. ASTIN. At the moment, I could not tell you whether any agency is establishing standards for physical measurement or not. They may be isolated insi~anceS. Mr. FAscEL1~. As far as you know, no other agency is invading your fieid~ Dr. As'rIN. rI'bat is correct. Well, there is this one exception in this connection with time, and the naval obsei~vatory preceded us by several decades. Mr. MITcmtLL. Could you make a review of that and advise the committee at a later date as to whether or not other agencies, or private corporations under research contracts and so forth, have done it, where you can provide the proper dissemination to the scientific community? Dr. ASTIN. If you wish, I will attempt to furnish something for the record on this subject, yes. (The mateHal requested follows:) T~ie question as to whether other agencies of the Federal ~overnmeflt are de- veloping standt~rds of physical measurement is difficult to answer. If one con- siders as standards on'y those which are directly related to the primary na tional standards, the answer is "No," with the exception of the Naval Obervatory which is responsible for the national standard of time. On the other hand. several agencies may develop working standards for use in a restiicted sense If these "working standards" are to be related to the primary standards, how- ever, they must ultimately be referred to the National Bureau of Standards for reference to the primary national standards which are the responsibility of the Bureau. Thus, the "working standards" of the Air Force which are used to calibrate elbctronic equipments in aircraft are calibrated by the National Bureau of StaitidardS, Mr. MITC~IELL. On page 3 of your prepared statement, the last sentence in the first paragraph: Ilowever, inpianfling publication of the rules of work from reserves requested and paid for by another agency of the Government, the director shall secure suitable clearances from the sponsoring agency prior to publication. Dr. ASTIN. Yes. Well, this, I think, is just plain politeness. If you are doing a job for another agency and publish the information that they have bought and paid f~r without letting them know about it, this would strike me as not a very desirable thing to do. Mr. FAsditLL. Your talking now, about establishing standards or conducting home kind of test for an agency ~ Dr. AsTn~r. Well, we do a fair amount of research and development work mainly involving methods of measurement and information on properties of materials for other agencies of the Government. This yields basic scientific information. PAGENO="0429" ~rOEMATION ~OM ~nbERAL ~ R~1~N~: AN~ A~Ct~S i54~ Mr. FASCELL. But you don't release it unless the agency first ap- proves it? Dr. A5TIN. Well, usually this does no ~nore-involves no more than a telephone conversation with the project officer in the sponsoring agency. Mr. MITcrnr~L. Have you ever had any difficulty getting clearances to so publish it? Let me give you a lead on that: We have had testimony before th~ committee where many of the basic scientific research programs in the Defense Department have been established "classified." The scientists that appeared before this committee have said that you can't classify basic scientific research. Now, have you had any instances where you have had difficulty getting published the things in the field of basic scientific research? Dr. ASTIN. Yes. There was one problem about 6 mohths ago. This involved the publication of some basic work which was done for the Department of Defense. The work was extremely important. And it resulted, so I am told, in a modification of the defense agency's procurement prograth for some electronic equipment. They asked that certain parts of this particular publication be held up, not classified but merely that the publication be delayed. This gave the D~partment of Defense what could be called important lead time in that they could take advantage of this basic knowledge before it became generally available to the world and provide a lead on a potential enemy to whom the information would be available if it were published. This problem caused-or this request, I should say-caused a little problem with the authors. It finally got worked out. But the infor- mation temporarily held up has since been released for publication. I think that this is an important instance of where occasionally it might be important just to delay for a short period a certain publi~a- tion if it does have important consequences for our defense effort. And this was a case which clearly fell in that category. They requested the to withhpld this information from publication and I did. Mr. MEADER. Could you describe what that information was? Mr. FASCELL. Yes. Now, it has been released. Dr. A5TIN. Well, I am not too sure. I have said that-~--~ Mr. MrrCUELL. It is unclassified you said? Dr. ASTIN. All right. It has an important implication on the Sig- nal Corps procurement program. This is in the category that I am a little hesitant about If I tell you exactly what it is, then I identify the field in which the equip- ment has been procured. Now, the basic scientific information is unclassified. I can tell you about that. But now that I have told you about the other problem, I get in a category where I get into an area which I am afraid they might consider is in the shady area of perhaps being classified. Mr. FASCELL. Doctor, you have just given us a very perfect exam- ple why it is that no information ever gets out. Dr A5TIN Oh, it gets out This was a delay, a delay perhaps of about 6 months in the publication of the basn~ information Mr. MITCHELL. Why couldn't they use their usual technique o.f classifying it during that period of time? PAGENO="0430" 1544 INFO~MA~ION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Dr. ABIIN. Well, this is where I think their move was-well, it might have bee~ia classified; but it was information about the proper- ties of nature *hich I think most people recognize you can't classify. But, our scientists have discovered, through the research paid for by these other agencies of the Government, this important phenomena of nature. It, has effect on their procurement program, and they wanted to gaiti lead time. All they said is, "We recognize this as unclassified, but will you hold it up?" Mr. FASCELL. That is un amazing piece of logic to me. I still don't comprehend. And I doubt if you told me what the basic signs were or to what particular piece of electronic equipment it was related that I would follow the reasoning. In other wqrds, we got some basic research data which is applied to a particular item, and the Department is requested to hold up re- leasing its findings on the basic research because of the fact that it will give the thilitary department a lead time in procurement because they are goin~ to have to change their procurement policy. But 6 months later the basic research data is released. Dr. AsnN. The point of view of releasing it is that, since it was an observation on a basic property of nature, it is something you just can't classify. Mr. FASCELL. `I know, but the point is: Was the reason valid, namely, that we should withhold this information because we need lead time in j~rocurement? That is the whole point? I agree wi1~h you that basic research can't be classified. Dr. ASTIN.I Well, since this was a job which- Mr. FASCEJIIL. Which came from another agency? You did not in~ quire as to the reason? Dr. ASTIN. Since they paid for it, I felt it was their privilege to ask this question. It is not up to me to question their decision. Mr. FASCELL. Right. But it is up to us. And we are~ just wonder- ing the value of a reason which would say that this information should be withheld, yet it is not classified in the national interest. As a matter of fact it is generally released. Yet it is important enough to with- hold for sev~ral months because of the fact that it affects a very vital procuremen1~ program. And it is so important that yciu have some hesitancy in! telling us about it, because it might be related to a spe~ cific item.of!procurement, all of which confuses me to start with. Mr. MITornLI~. Doctor, I think what the Congressman is-well, he can say for himself. Mr. FAsom.r~. Thank you. Mr. MITCiiELL. I am just a little bit interested as to who was getting the lead time? Was it for the national defense efforts, or was it for the company that procurement was being got from? Mr. FASC1~LL. I don't think that is a fair question to ask the doctor. Mr. MITCUELL. In other words- Mr. FASC~LL. He does not know. And I imagine that he wouldn't be hesitant ~o answer that question in that fashion- Dr. A5TI*. I. think this is a question which I should defer to th~ De- partment oE Defense. Mr. MITOMELL. That isone illustration- Mr. FASCELL. Wait a minute. Let's not be so fast here. I want to finish on this. PAGENO="0431" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS ANIi AGENCIES 1~545 Without getting into details on what the item was, we would like to pin it down so that we know ~vhat part of the Department of Defense we are going to have to deal with to find out about this? Dr. ASTIN. This was the Signal Corps of the Army. Mr. FASCELL. And it dealt specifically with the procurement prob~ lem and the request came from the procurement branch of the Signal Corps? Dr. ASTIN. No, sir. Mr. FASCELL. Where did the request come from, or from whom? Lot me put it.that way. Dr. ASTIN. Well, this was a publication which was in what you might call the gray area where there were possible security implica- tions. And it went to the Department of Defense for security clear- ances. This is our procedure. If we had something that arises out of a classified project or a project related to classified worl~, it is our procedure to submit such a document to the Department of Defense to make sure it does not contain classified information. They re- quested that some of the information in this paper be withheld tempo- rarily. They released most of the information. But there was a small part of it they wanted withheld. Mr. FASCELL. We are doing fine so far, except, who is "they"? Dr. ASTIN. The Signal Corps. Mr. FASCELL. Is that from the Chief's office or- Dr. AsTIN. It was in the Office of the Chief Signal Officer. I have forgotten right now the name of the individual. I can give you this if you wish. (The material requested follows:) The request for a publication delay in order to give the Signal Corps lead time was made by Lt. Col. B. J. Holliman, Chief, Communications Liaison Branch,, Signal Plans and Operations Division, Office of the Chief Signal Officer, De- partment of the Army. Mr. FASCELL. We can get that later if the committee wants to fol- low up on that interest. * Thank you. That is all. Mr. MITCHELL. Dr. Astin, you have on the front of all the forms or reports made by the Bureau of Standards the following printed material. The publication, reprinting or reproduction of this report in any form, either in whole or in part is pr~bibited, unless permission is obtained in writing fro~n, the Office of the Director, National Bureau of Standards, Washington 25, D. C. Such permission is not needed, however, by a Government agency for which a report has been specifically prepared if that agency wishes to reproduce addi- tional copies of that particular report for its own use. Now, according to the best legal research, I have been able to do, this more or less amounts to an illegal prohibition, and a violation of the copyright laws. And you and I have had some discussions on it. I wonder if you could explain to the committee the necessity for or what you are considering about this particular phrase? Mr. AsP~N. Yes. Well, I would like to attempt to clarify that. First I should say that we are not completely happy with that statement. At the pres- ent time it is under review. PAGENO="0432" 1546 INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES I will try to explain what we are trying to accomplish with such a stateffi~nt. It~is used on a series of documents which we call reports. We do not conslder a report a formal publication. One class of! reports involved progress to other agencies in connec- ~ion with work we are doing for them Frequently a report may b~ p~rebmiT1~ry summary of a research program not yet refined to the stage where we think it warrants or is worth formal publication. On the other hand, there may be a limited audience who can make use' of this~ ~~~~ort; ~ho can recognize the fact that the data in it are not completely refined; there n~my be errors in it. And for this rea- ~oti, we do `not like to see these reports freely circulated. When we get ready to publish something, then there are no holds barred. Thi& ~s freely avail~ble. This report series is used mainly for incomplete data, data ,tha~ is not ready or refined enough for formal publication. `Mi; FASOEI4A. Doctor, why not as a suggestion, print, for example, warning that ~he data herein is incomplete, this is an interim report, ~nd 1n~jiidicioi*S use of this will get your fingers burned? Dr. ASTiN. `W~ll, as I~ said, it is a problem. When we get ready- when our information has gone through our review process, we are sure it is accurate. Mrs. FASCELL. Put the/burden on the user, in other words, instead of creating a prohibition within the Department, it would seem to me. Dr. AsTIN.1 Well, any suggestions you have would be helpful on this. Becaus~, as I said, we are not satisfied with this statement. But ~ e want some sort of warning on these documents that it is not a finished prodhct. Mr. FAscE'~L. Sure. I can understand that. Mr. MITCHELL. Doctor, can you give an illustration of or an example of how a report of the Bureau may have been used which violated~ this stamp and the problems connected with it ~ Dr. AsTIN. Well, we frequently have examples of people using some of our information improperly, using it out of context. An1 here usually! it takes some correspondence to straighten the matter out. There was ~within the past few months a problem on what we thought was misuse off some data on tests involving granite or marbles-I have forgotten which-and a private manufacturer was using this data out of context. So we wrote him about it and it got settled. Well, this, I think, is an example of the sort of thing that we do~ like to prevent. And one of the reasonS why it is necessary to use- or one of the reasons-why we feel it is necessary to use some sort of restrictive statement on incomplete data. Mr. FASCELL. Well, it might be wise in a case like that to put some statement o~i there that any use of the mathrial which is misleading to the public would be dealt with in some way. Obviously that is what this n~anufacturer was doing, I take it, or you would not have written himr Dr. A5TIN. That is right. Mr. FASCELL. In other words, the incomplete stai~ement pulled out of context was misleading in some commercial way? That is a very important point, but I think it could be done without a prohibition of the material. PAGENO="0433" INFORMATION FROM FE~ERAL DEPARTMENTS ANDAGENOmS 1547 Mr. MITCHELL Doctor, the other day, when I was speaking to you on the phone, I asked you to bring, I think, four reports? Dr. ASPIN. Four reports; yes, sir. Mr. MITCHELL. Did you bring those? Dr. ASTIN. Yes, sir; I have. Mr. FASCELL. Could you read the entitlement of the report 3487? Dr. Asa~iN. Projects and Publications of the National Applied Mathematics Laboratories. Quarterly report, April through June 1954. Mr. MITCHELL. Does that document have it anywhere "For official use only?" Or "For official use?" Dr. ASTIN. Oh, yes. Underneath that is a typed statement "For official use." Mr. MITCHELL. Can you explain to the committee why that dis- tinction is used in the first place? Was it done by the Bureau for another agency? Dr. ASTIN. Well, this report concerns primarily progress On many activities for other Government agencies. And it is prepared pri- marily for the use of the other Government agencies that use the services of our Applied Mathematics Laboratory. Mr. MITCHELL. Is there any project or anything listed in there that is claSsified? Dr. ASTIN. No. If there were any classified project in here~ Mr. MITCHELL. Then, why wouldn't it be just as much available to the scientific community or the public in general to know what is going on in the various Government departmen~~~ Dr. ASTIN. This is primarily a question which would involve clear- ances in our opinion. Mr. FASCELL. Agency clearances? Dr. ASTIN. Yes. This lists the progress on projects to them, even though they are unclassified we feel that this information is essentiall~y information whose dissemination is under the control of the sponsor. And this is put on more or less as a means of Protecting their right to control the distribution of the information. Mr. FASCELL. I wonder if we could not reverse that process or at least give some consideration to doing it by the simple expedient of advising agencies that all unclassified information will be released by the National Bureau of Standards, and that any material which is not to be released you should be notified of, that is, the Bureau should be notified in advance that the material is not to be i~eleased and the agency should give you the authority by which they claim the right to Withhold the information. In other words, it is either classified by law or it comes within the Executive order or whatever the rea~on might be by law. Dr. ASTIN. This is a Possibility. Mr. FASCELL. I mean we just start out on the affirmative side rather than the negative side and again put the burden back on them. Actually you are a central clearinghouse for this information. There is no reason why you should be concerned with Whether Some information can be released or some cannot. It all should be re- leased. That should be the attitude from the National Bureau of Standards. It should all be released unless the agency advises you as ~o the classification within which it falls, and takes the responsibility 69222-56~pt. 6-28 PAGENO="0434" 1548 INPORMAtI~N FROMF~DE~ p~p~Ri~~tENTS A~'D AGENCrES for so classifyit~g the information; because the way it is now, you are assuming the responsibilitY for classifying it for them. And yet as far as they are~ concerned, they say "Well, we have got no reason to classify it." Dr. A5PIN. Well, that is an interesting suggestion. Aiid I think we should give It some study. Mr. MITcnEtJ~. Have you got report 4264: with you, please? Dr. AsTIN. Yes. Mr. MITcHElL. Will you read the entitlement of that? * Dr. A5TIN. This is "Semiannual Progress Report of the Office of Basic Instrumentation for the Period Ending June 30, 1955. For Official Use." F The same considerations apply to this. Mr. FAscELI~. Strictly an intragoVernment~ report? Dr. A5TIN. That is right. Mr. MrrcHliL. Nothing classified in the report? Dr. A5TIN. That is right. *Nothing classified. This again js in this category of what you might call incomplete or unrefined information. And it is felt that it is not ready for broad- dissemination. Mr. M1~rcHELL. Would the mere fact that those projects are going on with their titles on them be a value to the scientific community or the public industrially ~ Dr. A5TIN. Yes. Mr. MITCH~LL. One of the big problems that was pointed out to us by the scientIsts that were before the panel was that you cannot lay your finger a~iywhere in the Government on a research project that may be going on in any particular field. Now, there is a document, and the other one you had, and probably numerous docuri~ientS that would at least giv~ a lead to people to find out what is going on if it could be released. And, therefore, the Congressman's suggestion as to putting the burden of proof on the agency you could delete if that agency did r~ot want it? But at least the people would have a place where they could go to find out what is going on. Dr. A5TIM There is no problem in finding out what is going on. Mr. MIPcJ~ElL. Not in your place. Dr. A5TIN. In the unclassified field, I should say. Mr. MITchELL. In this particular case I assume maybe 10 agencies are involved, we will say, in that report you have there. All right, an individual would have to go to 10 separate agencies to find out where, as right there it is listed as the agency that is involved, isn't it? Or is it? At least they could find out from the Bureau which agency it was. Dr. AsTm~. Yes. Mr. MITc~rELL. Then they could go direct, particñlarly in the un- classified field. Mr. FA5~ELL. I don't know that be could go direct or not. Let's say you hate got 10 agencies interested in that report. They might all be givex~ clearanc% to use it. Then the question is, if he gets the majority, does he use it? Mr. MITcH1~LL. The point is, though, is that I am trying to find out under what basis would they refuse to give it? Mr. FASCELL. It is already marked for official use. Mr. MiTcHELL. There is nothing classified in it? PAGENO="0435" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIRS 1549 Dr. As~IN. NQ, there is nothing classified in it. It might impede some of the actual compilation and distribution of these things if it were felt that it were to become a document freely available in all of the libraries. That is, people might be a little more careful about the review they give it, and there might be more problems in getting these things out if they, are widely disseminated. These are what you might call sort of working papers. If you are going to disseminate them broadly, then there would be problems in getting suitable review before people were satisfied to consider it a document for broad distribution. Mr. FASCELL. Doctor, isn't it true, though, in the pure scientifie sense, even a scribbled note might be just the thing that somebody is looking for? Dr. A5TIN. Occasionally. Mr. FASCELL. Even unrelated to any project. Dr. ASTIN. I think this would be rare. Generally wheii a scientist puts out something, he wants to be pretty sure of it before he prepares something. Mr. FASCELL. If he puts it out as a finding or a conclusion, yes. Dr. ASTIN. Even his raw thinking I don't think he wants broadcast. Mr. MITCHELL. You don't have enough in those to indicate that raw thinking, do you? Dr. ASTIN. It is a bit beyond that. But I have a feeling if these were documents which were broadcast much more widely than they are that we would want a more. critical review procedure than we now have. Mr. MEAnER. Doctor, how many copies of those reports do you have printed? Dr. ASTIN. I can furnish that for the record. Mr. MEAnER. Is it in the thousands? Dr. ASTIN. It is my recollection there may be about 200 of these, something like that. (The material requested fOllows:) The number of copies of Projects and Publications of the National Applied Mathematics Laboratories and Semiannual Progress Reports of the Office of Basic Instrumentation which are printed is 700 each. Of the first title 600 are ~1istributed of the second title 550 are distributed both to recipients desig ngte.d by the sponsoring agencies and to other Government agencies. The remaining copies are used within NBS. Mr. MEAnER. Is there any distinction between your labeling "For official use" and "For official distribution"? Dr. A5TIN. No. Mr. MEAnER. It means the same thing? Dr. ASTIN~ It means the same thing. Mr. MEAnER. Really it doesn't stop anybody from making use of, it; does it? Dr. ASTIN. No. * Mr. MEADER. What legal significance does it have?' Dr AsTIN This to some extent relates again to this restricting or cautioning statement which we have on our reports. If there are errors or something not quite right in this, this might be our excuse- that it hasn't had the review that we like in a published document. But at the same time it is useful. PAGENO="0436" 1550 INF0RM~4TION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Mr. MEADI~R.~ Suppose some scientist working in that field reported. on that. Thei~e is nothing to keep him from making whatever use he wants to of it? Dr. ASTIN. ~o. If he wanted to look at it, ~ve would have no reason in withholding it from him. Mr. MEAnER. Do you mean to say this "official use" you interpret as something similar to that language counsel read to you first about reprinting or reproduction? Dr. AsTIN. It is my feeling that this statement here is intended t~ cover, generally, the same problem that is covered in that fine print~ that the counsel read earlier. Mr. MITCHT~LL. Why not just use that and drop that "For official use" or "For ~listribution"? Dr. ASTIN. This whole question as to how we handle these informal reports and cover this business of cautioning people about the poten~ tial rawness of the data is something we are looking at right now~ I think these two can be combined. Mr. FASCELL. The committee is very interested because throughout: the field of the Government we find any number of classifications- 1 think over 30 so far-"For official use," "For official distribution," "For my use only," "This for the Secretary at the third desk from the left," and so forth, all of which have the tendency to impede the flow of informatiOn. Therefore ~ny consideration that you can give for removing from any documenjts those words or any similar words would be extremely helpful to thIs entire problem. Dr. ASTIN. As I indicated earlier, it is a problem we are concerned. about, and we are not sure what the ideal way to do it is. Mr. FASCELL. You could put on there: This is raw information, and the Bureau of Standards refuses to be bound by anything in this report. Dr. As~rIN~ Maybe that is the best thing. Mr. MEAnER. Dr. Astin, are you familiar with the statements made by scientists1 who testified before this committee recently? Dr. AsTii,~. I have read a résume of some of th~rn. I have seen a few of th~m in the press. So I think probably I am, superficially, at any rate. Mr. MEAnER. You do deal with classified information, too, do you not? Dr. A5TIN. Oh, yes. Mr. MEAnER, In general these scientists seems to have the opinion that there is too much classification, that a great many things were classified which ought not to be, and that that tended to hold back our scientific development in this country because the free exchange of ideas an~I knowledge of new discoveries breeds those discoveries in others. I wonde~ if you have any view on that general philosophy and whether or not you, because of your experience with classified mate- rial, think there is too much classified material? Dr A5TIN I don't think I would say there is too much I think the main area for improvement is in the area I referred to in my prepared statement, where we have a better system than we now have PAGENO="0437" mRMA'rION~ FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS A~D AGENOIE~ 1551 for declassifying~the thing that was properly classified to begin with, and has lost its need for security classification. I think in general when information is classified, there is usually a pretty good reason for it. There may he mistakes, of course; but~ because this is not a subject where there~ is a positive right answer and a wrong answer, there are always some shady areas where you can argue about whether or not it needs to be classified. The area I think that offers most opportunity for an improvement is getting out the material which was classified temporarily. I think most development data loses its need for classification after a period of time. If we could develop a better overall system for declassifying infor- mation, I think that this would be a real help. But it is a difficult problem. It takes good people with time who know something about the subject matter to do the declassification work, and it takes money, too. It involves more than just saying "It ought to be done." One has to have mechanism for doing it. Mr. MEADER. Do you think there is some merit in the suggestion that has been advanced before this committee that, there should be a( time limit on the original classification which automatically declassi~. fled the material at the expiration of that time unless, in the mean- time, someone had asked for an extension of its classified character ~ Dr. ASTIN. I know this has been recommended. I have been think- ing about it some. I haven't yet convinced myself it is the way to do it because you run a risk. You might make a mistake and something might get declassified that shouldn't. The tendency to err, I think, has always been on the side of protec~ tion. Mr. FAScELL. You mean overclassification? Dr. ASTIN. I think in general this is the way things have to be. If you are really concerned about the security of the country and are worried a little bit about things getting out, I think most people are apt to err a bit on the side of overciassification. On the other hand, I think many people realize that this itself is a. problem which may affect security in a larger sense because it does impede the free flow of information. So you have got two opposing points of view, and there is no easy answer. That is, if you are security conscious from the point of view of with- holding information, then you will err in the overciassification. If you are security conscious from the point of view of "Let's have a stror~g healthy dynamic science," then you may go in the other direction. Mr. MITCHELL. Section 4 (a) of Executive Order 10501 specifically requests what Congressman Meader just pointed out to you, that a date for declassification should be put on a document. Have you seen any declassification date stamps put on any classified document the Bureau has ever received from another agency ~ Mr. FASCELL. You don't have to answer that, Doctor, if tha~t is classi~ fled information, Dr. A5TIN. There wouldn't be anything classified about it. I can't recall at the moment that I have seen this on any document. Mr. MITCHELL. Do you originate in the Bureau of Standards any classified projects? PAGENO="0438" 1552 INFORM4Tr~~ ~OM FEDERAL DEPAETMEN'~S AND AGENCIES Dr. A5TIN. ]~ don't think we have originated a classified project in years-that is, that comes out of our'basic program. Mr. MITCHELL. Would you make a check of some of your classified material that you get from other departments of the government an'i ascertain if a declassification date has been inserted on it? Dr. Asi~IN. I will be glad to. (The material requested follows:) As far as can be determined, the National Bureau of Standards has received no classified material to which there is affixed a predetermined date of dêclaSsiti cation. Mr. MITCHELL. The idea of the Executive order is that there will be a review at a specific time or something there. Dr. ASTIN. II don't see many classified documents myself any more.. Mr. MITCHI~LL. On page 4 of your prepared statement, in paragraph 7, you say: Under certain conditions these may be harmful or dangerous to life, health, or property. You then went on to state that it is up to the Bureau, upon becoming aware of the undesirable property, to report its information to the Office of the General Counsel, Department of Commerce, for trans~ mittal to an appropriate regulatory agency without publicity, for such action as that; agency deems appropriate. Then you ~o on to say if there is no appropriate public regulatory agency, it should be submitted to the General Counsel. What happens when you run into such an instance if no agency has cognizance of that particular subject? In other words, how does the information get to the public? Dr. A5TIN. This situation has not arisen since the policy was formu- lated. This was formulated about a year and a half ago, and to my knowledge this situation has not arisen since. Mr. FASCELL. What sort of thing was in mind when that, policy was formulated ~ Dr. As~rIN. We might, for instance, be working on new material and fitid out it has certain toxic properites. If it is a basic material, then there is no qpestion. This is just free information. It is disseminated. If it is a proprietary product, then there would be question about how you handle it. This would probably go to one of the public health agencies. Mr. FASCELL. Let me see if I can get an example to get it fixed in my mind. Would the Bureau be testing clothing, for example, for any of the armed services? Dr. AsTI~c. We do some work on clothing materials for some of the armed serv*ces. Mr. FASCELL. That is what I meant. Supposing you were testing some mate~ial and you found out that it had a very bad property. For example, it was highly flammable or that it was toxic to the skin. Do I understand now that under this policy, that information would be withheld? Dr. ASTIN. If we were doing this job for the Quartermaster Corps, for example, we would call the Quartermaster Corps about it. Mr. FASCELL. But it wouldn't be made public? Dr. ASIILN. We wouldn't attempt to make it public if it were a proprietar4Y product. PAGENO="0439" INFORMATION FROM FE1)Et~AL DEPARTMENTS AND~AGENCIPiS 1553 Mr. FASCELL. In other words, you would leave that responsibility up to the agency that was involved? Dr~ ASTIN. That is &rreet. Mr. FASCELL. Supposing in this case the Quartermaster Corps just calls up the Joe Doakes Co. and says, "we just canceled out, boys; tear that contract up. We are not going to do business with you," and they let it go at that. This is all hypothetical, of course. Would there be any responsibility to the public, or is there any action that the Bureau of Standards can take? Let's put it that way. Dr. ASTIN. This is a question which I would most certainly, as the policy says, take up with the General Counsel of the Department of Commerce. Mr. FASCELL. And determine whether or not you could properly and legally release it in the public interest? Is that the idea? Dr. ASTIN. That is correct. Mr. FASCELL. I thought that is what you meant. I just wanted to be sure. That is all. Mr. MITCHELL. Do you feel, though, the Bureau has a responsibility to release that information if it is not done by the agency? Dr. ASTIN. I would certainly feel uncomfortable if I had informa.. tion which I felt was of importance to the public and had no means of doing it. Mr. MITCHELL. But your hands could be tied. Dr. ASTIN. Yes. Here we would follow the advice of counsel, so to speak, which is the General Counsel. Mr. MITCHELL. And the agency itself? Dr. ASTIN. Yes, that is correct. Mr. MITCHELL. In other words, the Bureau couldn't do much about it. Dr. ASTIN. That is correct. This is in a field in which we have no authorization, so to speak, I guess. Mr. FASCELL. Right at that point, Doctor, do you think it might be wise to review that parth~ular policy so that there would be a dual responsibility, not only that of reporting back to the agency involved and instead of just leaving it there, some determination should be made as to whether or not the information should not also be released in the public interest? Dr. ASTIN. If a case like this came up, I am sure that we would have intelligent and public-spirited advice from the General Counsel. Mr. FASCELL. I am sure of that, but the only point is, the way the policy is worded now it excludes that possibility unless you first get release from the agency, because the way the policy reads the respon- sibility of the Bureau is terminated when you made your report to the agency. It would seem to me that your responsibility ought to go beyond that. I would suggest that some consideration be given to changing that if there was any way of doing it. Dr. ASTIN. I will refer your comment to the chairman of the com- mittee that is responsible for this policy. Mr. MITCHELL. Dropping down to the next paragraph: Publication of such information is authorized, providing the bermission of the manufacturers involved is obtained and providthg the information is presented in such a manner that approval endoisement or condemnation of the identified product or process cannot be reasonably construed; and provided further that PAGENO="0440" 1554 INFOE~A~PION. FROMFEDERAL DEPARTMENTS~ AND AGENCIES the manufacturei~ agrees not to use the `results ~or advertising or promotional jrnrposes. A hypothetiQal question: Suppose your report is a bad one. Sup- pose that the product didn't measure up. Are you restricted by the manufacturer's request? Dr. A5TIN. If we were making measurements on a class of materials and one manufacturer fell out of line with what might be considered a sort of a par for the course and he refused to let us publish the in- formation, I think our hands would be tied on that. Mr. MITCJIE~L. You think they would be? Dr. As~rIN. Yes, sir. But in general we handle this type of thing the other way ~iround. If we are doing a program of measurement of this sort, we get the permission in advance to publish the data before they know what the results are. Mr. FASCELL. Good, bad or indifferent? Dr. A5TIN. Yes, that is right. And in general this hasn't been a problem. Mr. MITCHELL. That doesn't seem to say that in your regulation. Dr. ASTIN. No. Mr. FASOELL. This program of testing and what not is not related strictly to private testing, is it? Dr. ASTIN. No. One of the classes of activities where this would be pertinent *ould be in measuring the heat insulation properties of a series of building materials. One might compare glass wool with aluminum foil reflectors, either plain or crumpled. We would have here a variety of different types of heat insulating materials which would be identified by trade name. We would measure and publish some of the physical properties of these materials. Mr. FA5CEU1. I gathered that, but at whose request would this be done? Dr. AsrrN. It conceivably might be done for one of the Government agencies intéested in this. It might conceivably be done as part of a joint progra~n of interest to industry. Mr. FASC*L. You mean coming from a technical advisory commit- tee or some iudustry advisory committee or something like that? Dr. ASTINI It might develop as, a result of a group of industries that would like to see a collection of data in this field. Mr. FASCELL. Is this strictly a function of the National Bureau? I am just inquiring as a matter `of knowledge because I am a little bit surprised to find that the Bureau is doing this sort of thing. Dr. ASTIN. The only area in this specific field that we have been working in ~s one that we are just getting out of- Mr. FASC*LL. You mean I got here just too late? Dr. AsTntr. Just too late. This involved the acoustic properties of building materials. This was done for a number of years because there were not suitable facilities in private laboratories to do this. So a group of manufacturers asked the Bureau if we would in our special facilities for measuring acoustical materials do it. Mr. FASCELL. But this was in the public interest? Dr. ASTIN. This was. The data were mainly of interest to architects and engineers in designing buildings and things of this sort. Mr. FASCELL. But there is no extensive program of this type that would conJ~Iict with private research groups or anything like that? PAGENO="0441" INPORMATION ThOM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AG~CflS i~555 Dr. ASTIN. No. This is an activity which in general can be carried on in commercial laboratories. Mr. M1~ADER. You charge a fee for those experiments, too, don't your Dr. ASTIN. In general the tests which we perform for the public are what are called calibrations of instruments. This is a process by which the scale or measuring properties of an instrument are related to our national standards for measurement. Mr. FA5CLLL. You mean I can go up there and get my television set calibrated? Dr. A5TIN. Your television set in general is not a measuring instru- ment. Mr. FASOELL. I wouldn't want to argue that point with you, but it does measure light. Dr. A5TIN. This is a service that we charge fees for and it is avail- able to the public at large-calibration of instruments. Mr. MEADER. These tests of materials that you spoke of: I always~ understood that the Bureau of Standards did make tests of materials for strength. Mr. MITcIrELr~. Aren't they routed through an agency? Dr. ASTIN. We will measure the strength and the fatigue charac- teristics of steel, as an example, as classes of materials whose use can be accelerated or helped if design people have available information on their properties. This is the sort of information that goes in handbooks, that engineers refer to. when they are designing a struc- ture. We do a great deal of this type of work. This is considered the determination of the basic properties of material and is not con- sidered a product evaluation. Mr. MEAnER. But that is done for private industry? Dr. ASTIN. This we do for technology at large. We formulate our `program in this area in the fields which are considered most irnpor- tant to the engineering and technological community. Mr. FASCELL. Doctor, where does sales promotion stop and tech- nology start? Dr. A5TIN, You can't draw a sharp line. Mr. FASCELL. Aren't `the general properties of steel pretty `well known nowadays? Dr. A5TIN. No. They are making new, steels, superior steels, all the- time. Also, some of their properties under unusual conditions of use are not well known. `These are characteristics which we are contin- ually in the process of determining. Mr. FASCELL. But these are not characteristiös which you feel would ijustifiably remain with the manufacturer who wants to sell his prod- uct? Dr. A&rIN. Well, to some extent they are related to this problem. Mr. FASCELL. The reason I ask, of course, is very obvious. Is the Bureau of Standards conducting any tests with respect to the use of coal? Dr. As'rIN. No. This is out of our area. Mr. FASCELL. Yet we would probably be well off if we could sell a lot more coal, especially in certain areas of the country. It seems to be as elemental as the sale of steel. How about agricultural sur- plus products? Dr. ASTIN. The Department of Agriculture does research on new' uses for agricultural materials. It is my understanding that the PAGENO="0442" i~5~8 , ~0q~ OMi~ERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Bureau of Minis does research on new uses for coal, or conl products- coal byprodUcts. Mr. FASCELL. Yet what the Bureau of Standards does with respect to certain products may facilitate the use of that product in fields where it is not now being used? Dr. AsTIN. Yes, I think that is a fair statement. Mr. FASCELL. And it would seem to me just as a very general prop- osition, without being critical, if we are going to do it in one field, it seems the Bureau should do it in all fields. It is a very wo~thwbi1C project. In other wQrds, I find it difficult to say that in one category it is in the public interest, but in the next category it may not be. It seems like to me a very close case, particularly with steel. I have never found manufacturers bad a hard time selling steel. Mr. MITCHELL. I have one further question, Mr. Chairman. On page 10, item No. 4, this committee has heard testimony from numer- ous people that there are now beginning to flow out from the Soviet- bloc nations considerable scientific and technical data. In fact, if I Tecall correctly, Dr. Hutchin~0fl, of Case Institute, mentioned that be was now the head of a committee for the translation of such ~documentS. How do y4u go about effecting the translation out at the Bureau ~of Standard~ when such documents come into your hands? . Is there any central place at the Bureau, or is there anywhere in Government? Dr. ASTIN. No. To my knowledge there is no central place in ~Government. Mr. FASCELL. Have you tried the Library of Congress, Doctor? They do everything. Dr. ASTIN. We have had some translation service from them. Most ~active scientists are supposed to have at least 1 or 2 foreign~langUage skills-that iS, part of the requirements of getting a doctor's degree is the ability to use -~ Mr. MITc1w!~LL. How many would you say had Russian? Dr. AsTrr,~. Very few. Mr. MITC~ELL. That's the point. Dr. AsTIN. We have, I would guess, at least a half a dozen people on ~our staff who can read Russian. Mr. MITCHELL. And translate it properly? Dr. ASTIN. Yes. They very frequently get called on, if we have a Russian item that needs translation. Mr. MITCHELL. But nowhere in our Government that you know of do we have a ~entral place where the scientific data from the Soviet-bloc nations car~ be translated? Dr. ASTI~. I would say the Library of Congress is the nearest thing that comes to us. Getting back to the OSI, this is one of the things that this 1~xchange Committee has been considering. The primary objective of that group is to increase the flow of information into the United States. And then to make sure it gets distributed. There has been discussion about trying to provide some centralized or im- proved translatiftg facilities. So far a suital?le plan hasn't been developed, but it has been one of the itenils under discussion. Mr. MI~tCHELL. It is very hard for a nonsciefltist, fluent in Russian even to be~able to translate that type of documentation, isn't it? PAGENO="0443" ~AGENc1I13~S 1557 For instance, you said the Library of Congress. Those men over ~there, and women, are very fluent in translation. But when you come ~down to scientific and technical journals, it is not the easiest thing in the world to translate it properly. Dr. ASTIN. I think if you want a good job done on translating a scientific article, the man doing the translating should have some scien- tific background. Dr. Birnbaum just tells me that the National Science Foundation has a contract with Columbia for some Rus- sian translation service. We haven't availed ourselves of that. With the people on our staff who can speak Russian, we have been able to handle most of our current needs. Mr. MITCHELL. Don't you think it is about time that somewhere in the Government service, and particularly your advisory committee, with all the men most concerned in industry and science on that com- mittee, that some affirmative action be taken along that line? Dr. ASTIN. I would think it would be helpful to do more than we are doing now. I mentioned this Journal of Russian Physics which the National Science Foundation has sponsored. This is a very help- ful thing, and I think we could have more of it. Mr. MITCHELL. I think that is what Dr. Hutchinson is the head of now. He mentioned it at that time. He said it was a recent one. Dr. ASTIN. Yes, this is within the past year. Mr. MITCHELL. But this is on a research grant out to private in- stitutions, as I understand it. Dr. As'rIN. `I~hat is correct. Mr. MITCHELL. Where in the Government are we going to get that type of information located.? Dr. ASTIN. I am not sure. The Library of Congress is one place that one might consider seriously if one wishes t set up this central ~service. Mr. MITCHELL. Now we are back. We are charged by Congress with the responsibility of establishing and developing standards and the dissemination of them. Won't it be one of the functions of the Bureau of Standards to take the Russian standar.ds that they may have- Dr. ASTIN. I would think in a limited area, probably yes. But I think generally it would be better to take a broad sweep of science ~and have someone perhaps with broader responsibilities do that. Mr. MITCHELL. Then you think the National Science Foundation might be a possible place to put this? Dr. ASTIN. This is a responsibility which reads right in the charter of the National Science Foundation. Mr. MITCHELL. Do you have an interagency committee at all? Dr. ASTIN. Yes, we do, This interagency committee has consid- ered to some extent this question, but we haven't got a good solution. There is an interdepartmental committee for scientific research and development. This is one of the questions that that committee has considered not particularly seriously up to the present time, however. Mr. MITCHELL. Not particularly what? Dr. ASTIN. We haven't given it an intensive study up to the present ;ime. Mr. MITCHELL. What will it take? Dr. ASTIN. I am a member of the Committee. I can relay this hought if you want. PAGENO="0444" 1558 I1~1~ ~ A~D A~L~ Mr. MITOUJ4LL. All right, we will make it positive. Will you please o'ive a statement for this committee as to what considerations might ~e given to this problem~ (The material requested follows:) The problem of providing adequate ~ranslatiflg services for foreign technical material deserves and has received extensive study by the National Science ]~`oundati0n. That agency has, in fact, undertaken some pilot projects in order to help alleviate the problem. It is a matter of deveioPiU~ a cooperatiVe~S~tem by wbkth forei~n data is collected, then channeled to the most efficient source for ~~anslatiflg~ the particular data, and then making it available to scientists. This, of course, is an oversimplification. It would, in fact, require a fairly ex- tensive organi4~atio~~ to coordinate such an activity ~nd to define the role of various tecbni4~al organizations in this field. The experience of the National Science FoUn~at1on and the ~ibrary of Congress would indicate that there is no easy solution to the problem and that it requires considerable support, study, and planning. Dr. AsTn~. There is a meeting of that Committee this Friday. I think the secretary of the Committee is in the room. I was the Chair- man of it last year, so I am very much interested in what that Com- mittee can do to help in this general problem. I think there are many things that it can do. Mr. MITcz~iELL. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. Mr. FASO~1LL. Mr. Moss wanted me to cover a couple of questionS here when he bad to leave, that dealt with the technical advisory com- mittees. *hat we are interested in knowing is whether or not those committees are operating so as. to comply with the r~qulrement5 set down by the Attorney General for such committees ~ Dr. ASTIN. Yes, I think they are. Dr. FASOELL. In other words, they are being chaired by a Govern- ment- Dr. As~nN. We don't call hem industry advisory committee. They are set up primarily to give us advice and assistance in the field of science and technology rather than policy development or anything of this typ~. These were set up as a result of a recommendation made by a spec~al evaluation committee that the Secretary of Commerce set up abo~it 3 years ago. The purpose was to provide a stronger link between the National Bureau of Standards and the scientific and engineering community of the Nation. One of the recommendations of the committee is that these groups should actually represent some of the major professional societies of the country and a real serious effort has been made to let tbese con'~mittees feel they were sort of independently advising us about science and technology. Mr. FA~cELL. You have 12 such committees, according to your pre- pared st~tement. Are they broken down by professional categories like arch~tectS, engineers ~ Dr. As~IN. They are broken down by professional societies. I hate a list of the committee and the committee members if you would like to have that. Mr. FA5CELL. Fine. If you would sub~it that for the record, if you have an extra list, the committee would be interested in seeing it PAGENO="0445" &RMA~TION FROM FEDERAL DEPARPMENT$ A~D AGEW~E~ i~9 (The list referred to is as fGllows:) NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANnARDS TECUNICAL ADvISoRY CoMMITTEEs AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ELECTRICAL R~GINEERS Dr. Ralph Bown, Bell Telephone Laboratories, Murray Bill, N. J. Di~. 0. G. Suits~ research laboratory, General Electric Co., The Knolls, Schenec~ tady, ~. Y. Dean F. E. Terman, School of Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif. Dr. E. W. Engstrom, RCA Laboratories division, Radio Corporation of~ America, Princeton, N. Y. Bobert C. Sprague, Sprague Electric Co., North Adams, Mass. Dr~ J, A. Hutcheson, Westinghouse Electric Carp., East Pittsburgh, Pa. INSTITUTE OF RAJ)IO ENGINEERS Harold 0. Peterson, RCA Laboratories division, Radio Corporation of America, Riverhead, Long Island, N. Y. Dr. A. W. Straiton, Electrical Engineering Research Laboratory, University of Texas, Austin, Tex. Prof. Henry G. Booker, School of Electrical Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y. stuart L. Bailey, Jansky & Bailey, 1735 DeSales Street, NW., Washington, D. 0. Dean William L. Everitt, School of Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana, Ill. Prof. A. H. Waynick, Pennsylvania State University, State College, Pa. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OP PHYSICS I~roL F: Seitz, University of Illinois, Urbana, IlL Prof. D. M. Dennison, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. Dr. E. M. Purcell, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. ProL J. A. Bearden, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md. Dr. M. Deutsch, Massachusettts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass. Dean R. R Lindsay, Brown University, Providence, R. I. Dean R. A. Sawyer, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. Prof. Cecil T. Lane, Department of Physics, Yale University, New Haven, Conu. Prof. Mark W. Zemansky, Department of Physics, City College of New York, New York, N. Y. Prof. A. 0. 0. Nier, Department of Physics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn. Dr. H. M. Parker, director, radiological sciences, General Electric Co., Richiand, Wash. POLICY COMMITTEE FOR MAThEMATICS Dean Mina Rees, Hunter College, 695 Park Avenue, New York, N. Y. Prof. Philip M. Morse, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass. Prof. David Blackwell, University of California, Department of Statistics, Berkeley, Calif. Prof. A. H. Taub, department of mathematics, University of Illinois, Urbana, Ill. Prof. Mark Kac, department of mathematics, Cornell University, Ithaca, N, Y. Dr.E~ U. Condon, 2938 Avalon Avenue, Berkeley, Calif. AMERIO~N INSTITUTE OF MINING AND ~IETALLURGICAL ENGINEER8 Dr. Walter A. Dean, Aluminum Company of America, Cleveland, Ohio. / Earle E. Schumacher, Bell Telephone Laboratories, Murray Hill, N. J. Dr. Maxwell Gensamer, Columbia University, New York, N. Y. Clarence E. Sims, Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio. Dr. E. C. Smith, Republic Steel Corp., Cleveland, Ohio. Prof. M. G. Fontana, department of metallurgical engineering, Ohio State Uni- versity, Columbus, Ohio. AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY Prof. N. Howell Furman, Princeton University, Princeton, N. J. Prof. C. S. Marvel, University of Illinois, Urbana, Ill. Dr. Milton Harris, Harris Research Laboratories, Washington, D. 0. PAGENO="0446" 1560' fl R~TroN ~ROM ~K.RRBA DEPARTMENTS AN1~ AGBNCIES Prof. parringtoiii Daniels, department of chemistry, University of Wisconsin,, Madison, Wis.. Dr. J. R. Ruhoff, MaUinCkrodt Chemical Works, St. Louis, Mo. Dr. Norman A. Shepard, Hunting Ridge Road, Stamford, Conn. AMERICAN CERAMIC SoCIETY Wayne Deringer, director, ceramic and organic research, A. 0. Smith Corp., Milwaukee, Wis. Dean Elburt Osl~orn School of Mineral Industries Pennsylvania State University, State College~ Pa. Dr A C SieferI~ Owens Corning Glass Corp reseaich department Newark Ohio Joe W Kruson Big Savege RefractOrles Corp Postoffice Box 358 Frostburg Md Paul V Johnson Structural Clay Products Research FQundatiOn Geneva lit Harry W. Thie*iecke, the Homer Laughlin China Co., Newell, W. Va. Hubert Woods, research director, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IlL AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MEChANICAL ENGINEERS James W. Parkç~r, 1125 Country Club Road, Ann Arbor, Mich, Prof Dana Young department of civil engineering Yale University 15 Prospect Street, New Haven, Conn. Prof. S. R. Bei1~ler, hydraulic engineering, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. Prof. C. Harolki Berry, Harvard University (retired), 162 Washington Street,, Belmont, Mi~sS. Paul V. Milleif, small tool and gage division, Taft Pierce M~nufactUriflg Co.,, Woonsocket, `B. I. NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WEIGIIT~ AND MEASURES John P. McBride, director of standards and necessaries of life, room 104, State House, Boston, Mass. Charles M. Fuller, sealer of weights and measures, 3200 North Main Street, Los Angeles, Calif. Harry J. Keniiedy, vice president, Continental Oil Co., Box 2197, Houston, Tex~ Seth T. Shaw, vice president, Safeway Stores, Inc., 401 Southern Building, Wash~ ington, B. C~ C. J. McCaffrèy, vice president, Ralph N. Brodie Co., Inc., 550 South Columbfla Avenue, Mo~int Vernon, N. Y. AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS Dr. G. H'. Hickox, National Science Foundation, Washington, B. C. Dr. A. T. Ippen, Massachusetts institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass, Raymond C. Reese, Postoffice Box 56, 300 Sandusky Street, Toledo, Ohio AMERICAN STANDARDS ASSOCIATION' II. Thomas Hallowell, Jr., Standard Pressed Steel Co., JenkintoWn, Pa. John R. Townsend, director, i~iaterials and standards engineering, Sandia Corp., Sandia Ba~e, Albuquerque, N. Mex. Arthur S. Joljnson, vice president and manager, engineering department, American Mutual Li~bilitY Insurance Co., Post Office Box 103, Boston, Mass. Vice Adm. G. F. Hussey, Jr., USN (retired), managing director, American Stand~ ards Association, 70 East 45th Street, New York, N. Y. Mr Cyril Aikisworth technical director American Standards Association, 70 East 45th Street, New York, N.Y. AMEnICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING MATERIALS Norman L. Mochel, manager, metallurgical engineering, ~estinghou5e Corp., 606 Thayer Street, Ridley Park, Pa. (pfesident of ASTM) Dr. A. Allan Bates, vice president of research `and development, Portland Cement Association, 33 West Grand Avenue, Chicago, Ill. T. A. Boyd, research consultant (retired), General Motors Corp., 1016 Harvard Road, Gro~se Pointe, Mich. Aiken W. Fisher, president, Fisher Scientific Co., 717 Forbes Street, pjttsburgh, Pa. B. B. Peters~n, Westinghouse Research Laboratories, East Pittsburgh, Pa. PAGENO="0447" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1561 Mr. FASCELL. These, then, are strictly technical advisory groups that deal with- Dr. ASTIN. Scientific and engineering problems. Mr. FASCELL. Give us an example as to how a particular group might advise the National Bureau of Standards? Dr. ASTIN. I can give you one. We had a meeting of a group from the American Institute of Physics here last Saturday morning. Mr. FASCELL. This is one of the Tecimical Advisory Committees? Dr. ASTIN. That is correct. They have been looking at the needs in the field of temperature measurement in. this country and standards for temperature measurement. They made a number of specific sug- gestions as to how we might improve- Mr. FASCELL. Is that industrial temperature measurement? Dr. A5TIN. This is temperature measurement of importance both to industry and to science, first to science. For example, right at the present time there is considerable research activity in the region of liquid temperatures. This is about 40 F. above absolute zero. There isn't a generally accepted scale for measuring these temperatures. This advisory group has been helping us. First of all, they tell us of the importance of this field. We are sort of aware of it too. I don't want to deny that. But then they make suggestions to us as to how we ought to go about setting U~ a program to accomplish a better temperature scale. They make some technical suggestions. They make some suggestions as to priorities, what phases of the temperature scale are of greatest interest to the scientists and the engineers. Mr. FASCELL. In other words, first they bring you the problem? Dr. ASTIN. Yes Mr. FASOELL. That ties in with whether or not you might be aware of it? Dr. A.STIN. Yes. Mr. FASCELL. Then they give you the technical assistance and the advice that goes with trying to solve that problem? Dr. A5TIN. That is correct. Mr. FASCELL. Does it go beyond that? Dr. A5TIN. This is primarily the area they are concerned with. We consider we are set up primarily to provide services to scientists and engineers. This is where the standard for measurement and standard testing techniques get used. So we feel it is important to have a mechanism to bring from the scientific and engineering profession am~ analysis of their needs, and at the same time we want to take back to the scientific and engineering profession greater knowledge of the services performed by the National Bureau of Standards and what our accomplishments are and what our problems are and what our progress is. Mr. FASCELL. Where do these committees meet? Dr. ASTIN. At the National Bureau of Standards. Mr. FASCELL. I-low often do they meet, or when do they meet? Dr. ASTIN. They are almost too recent a thing to have developed into a routine pattern, but I would say on the average of once or twice a year. Mr. FASCELL. You say it is a new thing, these coimnittees? Dr. ASTIN. ~es, sir. PAGENO="0448" 1562 INFORMA io~ rROM to. publish this report in prof~~i. soc~ it provides a r4ieans of communicating further with the scientists. Mr. FASCEUJ. Let. me see if I understand you correctly. You call i th~ group~together and they~ ~ ~t the Bureau I Dr. ASTIN. Yes. Mr. FASCELiJ. They have a discussion that may last all day or 2 days? Dr. ASTIN. The discussion last Saturday lasted for the whole Committee all morning, and then there were a few of them that stayed around for part of the afternoon with individual scientists. Mr. FASOELL. Do I understand, then, the committee breaks up and they go back ~nd each person individually writes in his evaluation of what transpii~ed with his personal recommendations? Dr. ASTIN.~ No. The committee selects a. chairman and this chair-' man writes a report which is essentially a set of recommendations to me. Mr. FASCELL. Is that report circulated among all the people who attended? Dr. ASTIN. Oh, yes. Mr. FASCELL. They each approve it. Is that the idea? Dr. ASTIN. That will be the mechanism, yes. Mr. FA50ELL. That what happens to the report? Dr. AsTn~. It will use the report to help me and my associates in planning th~ Bureau's program and formulating tasks and objectives. Mr. MITCr[ELL. It is available to the public? Dr. As~i~. Yes. Mr. FASCELL. These committee members are not paid in any way? Dr. A5TIN. No. Mr. FASOELL. Except for per diem and travel? Dr. ASTIN. We pay their transportation costs-travel. Mr. FASOELL. So they are in no sense Government employees? Dr. ASTIN. No. Mr. FASOELL. And there is no restriction upon them in using the informatio4 any way they want to? Dr. A5TI*. None at all. Mr. MITbHELL. Dr. Astin, some years ago the Bureau of Standards put out a booklet entitled, "Care and Repair of the House." Dr. A5TIN. Yes, sir. Mr. MITCHELL. Until 1950 this book sold for about 60 cents. It was completely revised and sold about 175,000 copies. This was a steadily increasing sale from the time it was first published in 1931, and I be- lieve the man who orginated this program was Vincent P. Phelan, National Bureau of Standards employee, who is now retired and living in Santa 1!arbara. Could y~u explain to this committee why the Bureau of Standards stopped piLiblication of this booklet? PAGENO="0449" PAGENO="0450" 1564 INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES What is the cost of the publication to the general public as against the cost by the Bureau of Standards publication-a comparison? Does McGraw-Hill still publish it? If McGraw-Hill doesn't pub-. lish it, who does publish it? In other words, what we are trying to get at is this. There is a way of withholding information, too, if you take a 60-. cent document and make it a $3.50 document or a $4 document. It isn't. available to just everybody under those circumstances. Dr. ASTIN. This isn't now available elsewhere. That is, McGraw- Hill considered putting it out as a private business activity. Mr. MITcI-IEIL. Is that out by you people? Dr. AST1N. This is the docmnent which has been discontinued. Mr. MITCI-IELI4. It has beemi discontinued? Dr. ASTIN. rflIjS is the one we put out but it is not available any- place else now. McGraw-Hill considered for a while putting out an up-to-date version of this. But it is my understanding that tha.t plan has fallen through. Mr. MITcEEI4L. Don't you think it is time to reactivate it, then, if that plan didn't go through? Dr. A5TIN. I would question our authority to do this, sir Read our law again. It says we are authorized to publish information- Mr. MITCHELL. Something you have been doing from 1931 until the present day. Mr. FASCELL. But that doesn't make it legal. Mr. MITCHELL. I think the Doctor knows what I am tryii~g to get at. Mr. FA SCELL. I am interested in this business. Are there any other such publications as this put out by the National Bureau of Stand- ards? You have got a couple there you just showed me, these gray pamphlets. What is the title of those? Dr. As~ri~. These are technical publications on the properties of building materials. One is called, Fire Resistance of Walls of Light- weight Aggregate Concrete Masonry Units. The other one. that I have here-we have a large series of them-is called, Investigation of Failures of White Coat Plaster. Mr. FASOELL. You haven't got one on how to hang a door frame, have you, or how to install a window or how to drive a nail? Dr. As~riN. No, sir. We consider that this is information which is generally in the public domain, and our law doesn't give us clear authority to publish such things. Mr. MrrcHELi~. It would take an engineer to be able to interpret what is in: those two documents; wouldn't it? Dr. As~1N. In general that is correct. Mr. MITCHELL. Would it take an engineer to interpret the booklet Care and Repair of the House? Dr. ASTIN. No. Mr. MITCHELL. There is the point exactly. The point is the Hous- ing Agency dropped it. Dr. ASTIN. But we have no clear-cut legal authority to run a con- sumer advisory program. Mr. MITCHELL. I am not saying whether you do or not. But then `till of a sudden-after 23 or 24 years-they come up with this de- cision, after they have built up a circulation list of a couple of hundred thousand copies which the Government is being paid for. Dr. ASTIN. That's right. PAGENO="0451" read, which we a PAGENO="0452" PAGENO="0453" of our PAGENO="0454" 1568 INF'OR~ATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES tional Bureai~ of Standards. But because of the fact that it can be ob- tained elsewhere and because of the fact that the publication Of this booklet was determined to be competitive with private industry by a Committee of Publications of the Department of Commerce, it has been discontijnued? Dr. AsTIN~ That is correct. Mr. FASc1~L.. Then I c~n assum.e as a matter of general policy that you will. digeontinue all publications which are competitive with private ind~stry? Dr. ASTIN. I would think that follows: I don't think we have very many. We have been looking them over. Mr. FASCELL. That would include professional documents and that sort of thing? Dr. ASTIN. It wouldn't include that type of thing, because this information isn't available elsewhere. Mr. FASdELL. If we apply the two tests-that is, that the informa- tion is available somewhere else, and that it is competitive-obviously all printin~ is competitive. The minute you print anything it is competitivo with the printer, so therefore you have got one phase o~ this thing that is already confronting us and it looks like you are about out of the printing business, because just about all information is available elsewhere. Mr. MITCHELL. If I might point out, the various publica~tions of the Bureau of Standards-no ordinary person can understand them 01 read them without a scientific or engineering background. This one particular book did translate what they had already tested in the way of materi~Js and so forth into common, ordinary, everyday language that the a~verage person could understand. They didn't indorse any product o~ any particular thing in the publication. Is that correct? That is m~ understanding of the book. Dr. AsnN. Yes. Mr. FASCELL. How about letting the committee look at one of them, I would like to see what it does say. Not right this minute. Are there any other questions? Dr. Astin, we want to thank yo~ very much, you and your staff, for coming down and appearing befor the committee and giving us the benefit of your testimony. We havE had advice flowing both ways. Let's hope that we can take advan. tage of it. I want to thank you very much. The meeting is now adjourned and will be r~sumed at the call of the Chair. (Whereupon, at 5: 15 p. m. the committee adjourned, subject tc call of the Chair.) PAGENO="0455" Part 6- Sur OF PIfl~ PRIDAY, 3tTNE 8, 1956 L, chief counsel; and d in patent 1 PAGENO="0456" Nan4e Address Date J. D. Doug1a~s - 1740 East 12th St., Cleveland, Ohio- May 25, Watts T. Estabrook Estabrook, & Estabrook, National Press Bldg., May 28, Do. Wc~shinst0fl, D. 0. Do. Do. Do. May 29,. Do. Do. Do. Do. W. M. Van Solver Roger Sherman Hoar Louis Quarles George J. Harding~3d ~dward.B. Gregg~ Charles 11. CarneI~ John A. Blair I Alfred W. Petchaft B. J. Ballutl George I.. DeMOtt Sidney B. Kuykendall -. Robert Ames Norton Stanley Blabs ~.A.Denny--~ I R0yH.0lS0hl~-4 J~1~fl r. Murpl~ - Sebley, Trask &Jenkins ~Ir. MIr0HELL. Mr. Estabrook has a prepare4i statement. Mr. Moss. Mr. Estabrook, would you give the committee your statemeflt~ Mr. Es~vAlrnoOiC. Mr. chairman, I have prepared about 2.½ pages here. With your perrni~si°fl I would be glad to re~d it. STATE~IENT OF WATTS T. ESTAB-ROO~; AcOO~PANIED BY NAMES T. STO~, ESTAB~OOK & ESTABROOK, PATENT ATTORl~EYS (The list of lawyers is as follows:) 1570 INFOR~ATI0N FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Letters receive~I ?y the House Government Information Subcommitte~~ Cl ing pubiiO stenofiraphers' space in the Department of Commerce Paul S. Sessions Harold B. Hood Harper Allen Byron B. Collings Virgil B. Woodcock Francisco, Calif Do. 1396 Union Commerce Bldg., Do. Pierce, General Motors Bldg., Do. May 31,. June 1~I of the May 31,: Lngton, Ohio June 1, Law Association, 1937 June 4,1 Con". at law, Mills Tower, Do. Concordia Ave, Mil- Do. i of Chicago, 141 West June 6, June 4, J 6, Mr. EsTABROO~. We have been asked to apear before this committee on behalf of the patent stenographers occupying room ~898-C of the United States Department of Commerce Building, Patent Office Section. This privilege of the use of this room was originallY granted to the first pate~it stenographer by the Commissioner of Patents in the year 1886. F~om 1886 to 1906 it was the general custom at the Patent Office foi~ a room to be set aside for the use of the patent stenographers. Howeve1~, in 1906 the custom was fixed by the order of the Commis- sioner of Patents by an official order, which order is still in force, setting aside a room for this purpose. PAGENO="0457" PAGENO="0458" 1572 INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENcIES tinned to give us, or the profession, the liecessary facilities for con- tinuing with this work which they have been so ably doing for us. Thank you, sir. Mr. Moss. A~re there any questions ~ Mr. Hoffma4? Mr. H0FFM4N. I have one. Has someone threatened to deprive the public of that space ~ Mr. ESTABROOJL As I understand it, the Commerce Department, sir, is in need of space. Mr. HoFFMAN. May I ask is there any disposition on the part of anyone to deprive them of that space~ Mr. Moss. It will put into the record at this point a letter I directed to Secretary Weeks on May 11, together with a reply received on May 23 from Mr. George T. Moore. (The two letters are as follows:) MAY 11, 1956. Hon. SINCLAIR *EEKS, $ecretarll o~' Coiwinerce, Department of Com,rnerce, WasMngtofl, D. C. DEAR Mn. SRCRRTARY The House Government Information Subcommittee has received numerous complaints from Congressmen and Senators as well as from the general public concerning the following notice which was posted on the door of room 2898-C of the Department of Commerce Building: "Room 2898-~C will not be available for use by public stenographers after May 31, 1956. "This action has been made necessary by the progressive expansion of the Patent Office, tnited States Department of Commerce, and the acute shortage of space confronting bureaus and offices of the United States Department of Com- merce in the pepartment of Commerce Building. We regret that we are corn- pelled to take this action but it is unavoidable under present conditions." It is also the understanding of this subcommittee that the space has been provided more than 70 years, and that it is a very necessary and useful function which Is performed by these public stenographers. The subcommittee desires a complete statement concerning the history on the subject matter. It is the subcommittee's ~nderstaflding that this action was taken by your office and not by the Commissioner of Patents. As part of its study on the availability of information from the Federal executive and independent agencies, the subcommittee is interested in whether or not the agencies have facilities for full access to public records under their control. The public stenographers room, the subcommittee understands, IS the only location ~here full access can be gained to patent records. Unless provisions are made for copying records which cannot be removed from the building, 4hese records would, in effect, be denied to those people who have the greatest need for them. In the event the Department is going to provide thiS very valuable service by using Governthent personnel, the subcommittee would appreciate being informed of such plans. In his statement at the subcommittee hearing April 18 1956 Mr Philip A Ra~ who spoke for the Department stated: "The first and foremost policy of the Department of Commerce is to achieve the widest possible distribution of information, in the belief that this open-door policy Is abso'utelY essential to the proper functioning of our ~epublic." Limiting the access to patent records certainly seems to ~ontradict this fine statement. The subcon~rnittee would appreciate a full report on the matter.. Sineer*lY yours, ~OIIN E.. Moss, Cha~frman. CC: Senat~r O'Maboney, attention Mr. Olesner. PAGENO="0459" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPAETMENTS AND AGENCIES 1~573 THE ASSISPANF ~ECREPARY OF COMMERCE, Wa8hington, D. C., Mary 28, 1956. HON. JOHN B. Moss, / House of Repre8entative8, WashinØon/, D. C. DEAR Mr. Moss: The Secretary has asked me to get in touch with you concerning the space in the Department of Commerce Building currently occupied by certain patent stenographic firms, about which you wrote the Secretary on May 11. We appreciate your interest in the matter, and we recognize as p~iramount the principle stated in your letter that full access must be provided to the public records in question. You may be assured that whatever solution we work out for this problem will be fully in accord with that principle. On the other hand, we have been concerned for some time about several ad- ministrative and legal aspects of the situation, In the first place, we are extremely short of space In which to carry on the Department's programs efficiently and space in the Commerce Building itself is at a premium. If the allocation of the space in question is absolutely necessary to carry out the program of the Patent Office efficiently, of course we shall continue It. If any reasonable alternative is available, however, which would achieve the same objective and yet make the space available for other work of the Patent Office or of other bureaus of the Department, we feel we must consider it favorably. Second, the space in question is not utilized merely by members of the general public who require access to patent records only on an occasional or infrequent basis. The space is utilized, in effect,. as free, regular office space by 26 patent stenographic firms for private commercial purposes, at public expense. The equipment and supplies are privately owned and the telephone is a pay station ?ut the Government furnishes space, heat, light, and other building facilities and services. Third, we call your attention to the fact that the allocation of space in the Commerce Building is controlled by the General Services Administration. The history of this situation is obscure, but it appears that the facility originated in 1886 and has been continuously used since that time. Little more is known about its history. While the date of establishment of the facility is of interest, we do not feel that a proper solution of the questions set forth above can be based primarily on the longevity of the practice. In view of your interest in this matter however and our desire to be certain that whatever action we take is consistent with the principle of full access to public records, as well as the best interests of the Department, we are holding in abeyance for 1 month the order to close the public stenographers' room, pending further study of the problem. When a final decision is reached, we shall get in touch with you further. Thank you for your interest in writing to us. If there are any other questions, please let us know. Sincerely yours, GEORGE T. MOORE, As~si$tant ~eoretary for Administration. Mr. Moss. An order had been issued taking away this space. Mr. HOFTMAN. What reason does he give for that order? Just give me the substance of it. Mr. Moss. It says this action has been made necessary by the pro- gressive expansion of the Patent Office, United States Department of Commerce, and the acute shortage of space confronting bureaus and offices of the United States Department of Commerce in the Depart- merit of Commerce Building. This is a copy of the notice that was placed on the bulletin board in the room. It was supposed to be discontinued after/May 31. We have now been advised that there will be a delay in this order. for 1 month while further study is given and that the committee will be informed of the decision made by the Department of Commerce. Mr. HOFFMAN. Does the committee intend to get the gentleman wli~ PAGENO="0460" 1574 INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEFARTMENTS AND AGENCIES issued that order or who was responsible for it, and ii~tend to finally pass upon it, up here to tell us why? Mr. Moss. Yes. Mr. HoFp~r~N. Personally I can't see any reason for depriving the people of an opportunity to get at the records any more than I can for limited sp~e for parking over here when the public comes down here. It seems ~ilmost an absurdity. Mr. Moss. I uite agree. It would seem to be rather crippling if it goes into effect. Mr. HoFr1~N. I don't think we ought to waste much time on it, I think we ought to tell them what we think about it, and have the full committee do the same thing. Mr. MITCHflJL. The letter that we have received in answer from the Assistant Secretary of Commerce, Mr. Moore, said that because of the expansiofl~ I ~rould like to have Mr. Estabrook explain the location of this particuli~r room. Weren't you consulted on the designation of this particuli~r space? Mr. HOmiAN. Just a minute. The thing doesn't seem to me to be worthy of an argument. You contend and I guess everyone does who has any interest in it, that the public has a right to know about those things. It is not a fair illus- tration perhaps, but it would be just as much reason to close the galleries of the House, at least that is~ my thought, as there is for denying the public in any Dep~rtment the opportunity to know what is going on 4own there, of course, within reasonable limits. Mr. Moss. I quite agree. And I think that the committee, if the order is not~ rescinded, should take steps to make certain that it will be rescinded~ Mr. HoF~MAN. We might introduce a bill, if We have to, and describe the size of the room and what should be in it. Mr. Moss. I quite agree. Mr. HoFFMAN. You and I, and members of the committee and the Congress have other things to do than to fuss around with, to me, such an absurd matter aS that. I am sorry to interrupt you, but you know we have so many things that I can't see any sense in wasting time on a matter as simple as that one. Mr. Moss. Do you have any questions? We wan1~ to thank you gentlemen for appearing. I believe it is quite evident that the committee will take steps to insure the con.. tinuation of this space. Mr. ESTABROOK. Thank you very much. Mr. Moss. The next witness is Mr. Philip A. Ray, General Counsel of the Department of Commerce. Mr. Moss. Mr. Ray, do you have a further statement prepared that you would like to make to the committee? Mr. RAt No, I do not, Mr. Chairman. You will remember that I made a s~atemeut~ Mr. Mo~s. Yes. Mr. E~v~ (continuing). Covering the subject generally, in my earlier appearan~e, and I don't have a further prepared statement at this time Mr. Moss. All right. Mr. Mitchell, then, you have your questions. Do you want to start PAGENO="0461" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1575 Mr. MIToHEu~. Mr. Ray, you will recall that when you appea~.ed before the committee the last time we discussed the subject matter of the Business Advisory Council, at which time you didn't-you stated that you were not really prepared on that. Since that time have you had a chance to read the transcript of the hearing then? Mr. RAY. Of my previous appearance here? Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, our hearing. Mr RAY Yes, I think I have read it fully, not in the last few days Mr. MITCHELL. I have a few quick questions that can be answered yes or no. Mr. RAY. All right. Mr. MITCHELL. Is the Business Advisory Council a privately financed organization~ Mr. RAY. The funds provided for the meetings of the Business Ad-. visory Council are provided by the individual members, yes. Mr. MITCHELL. Then it is a privately financed organization? Mr. RAY. It is financed by the members as individuals. Mr. MITCHELL. Does the Business Advisory Council have a tax exemption granted to it because it functions for a public purpose? Mr. RAY. Yes. The rulings, I think, are on the record. Mr. MITCHELL. That is right. Is the executive director of the Business Advisory Council paid from these private funds? By that, I mean he is not a Government employee? Mr. RAY. That is correct. Mr. MITCHELL. Are the secretaries or clerks in the Business Advisory Council's office Government employees? M~. RAY. Yes, they are. Mr. MITCHELL. Is the Business Advisory Council adhering to the standards established by the Department of Justice for the use and operation of advisory councils and committees? Mr. RAY. The criteria established by the Department of Justice are applicable to industry advisory committees and not to the more gener- alized committees that are brought together by all the departmen~~ of the Government. Mr. MITCHELL. Do you have a ruling from the Department of Justice to that effect, that the Business Advisory Council is exempt? Mr. RAY. I have not sought such a ruling. Mr. MITCHELL. In other words, the Department of Commerce feels that it is outside the scope of the standards? Mr. RAY. I think it is plainly outside of them. Mr. MITCHELL. That is what you think. Are the minutes and reports of the Bnsiness Advisory Council avail-. able to congressional committees? Mr. RAY. Not as a general proposition. I think this not only was explained before the Judiciary Committee quite fully but in my ap- pearance on the last occasion. Mr. MITCHELL. All we want is a "Yes" or "No" on it. Are they ivailable or aren't they available? That is all. Mr. RAY. There isn't a "Yes"~or "No" answer, because at times the ~eports to the Secretary and so forth are made public- Mr. MITCHELL. I said are they available.-_ Mr. HOFFMAN. Wait a minute. PAGENO="0462" 1576 INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Mr. Chairman, I think the witness should have an opportunity to answer. I do not meap any discourtesy to counsel-I notice the answer is interrupted every once in a while. Not being too familiar with the subject, I wot~ld like to have the witness' answer when a question is askM. Mr. RAY. I~i order that the record be complete here in this respect, the Business Advisory Council was organized in 1932 as a purely advisory group, an additional source of information as to what is going on in busines~, the state of its inventories and all that sort of thing. And it has operated under 7 Secretaries of Commerce and 4 Presi- dents I guess, in that manner; that it is a facility of the Secretai~y that brings to him economic and other information. And, generally speaking, its reports are not made public in the thought that ~o some degree by reason of that you get intimate business facts, the condition of particular businesses, their competitive informa- tion, which gives you one tool, one more tool to appraise the state of the economy. Mr. Moss. Well, then, do you assert a right to withhold them from a committee of~Congress? Mr. RAY. Well, I do not want to asserj any hypothetical rights. The only request that we ever had with regard to the Business Advisory Council was a request that a committee of the Congress have unlimited access to all the files of the Department pertaining to the Business Advisory CQuncil, and I would not want to comment on any specific piece of pa4~er. We never had any such request. This was `in the nature of a fishing expedition request. Mr. Moss. Did you assert the right then-It was what? Mr. RAY. Well, It think in common with all departments, we assert the right- Mr. Moss.1 You said it was what type- Mr. FASCELL. A fishing expedition. Mr. RAY. Fishing expedition. Mr. Moss. Then, would you assert the right to judge whether or not Congress is seeking information for a legitimate purpose? Mr. RAY.J No; that was not my point. Mr. Mos~. You apparently passed judgment on the character of the investigatiGn and study.. Mr. RAY. Well, I think quite generally the proposition that depart- mental files would be open to an mdiscrimrnate examination without regard to ¶11 the statutes and other prohibitions on particular pieces of information is something that we must resist. Mr. Moss. Do these statutes apply to the right of the Congress to request information? Mr. RAY. Well, we discussed that previously. The statutes are de- signed to protect the individual, and something at least turns on `the question o~f whether or not Congress is going to make the personal affairs'or jrivate considerations of an individual public. Mr. Moss. Don't you feel that the Congress is as responsible in its actions `as the executive departments are? Mr. RAt. I certainly do. Mr. Mobs. But' you would assert the right to judge whether or `not their request was a proper one and whether or not it was for a legiti~ mate purpose, or whether they would treat the information in th( PAGENO="0463" ma Mr. Concede do -- I will put it this way: I be sound for me L - ofitse ~ress. PAGENO="0464" 1578 INFORMATI~N FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Mr. FASCELL. I mean purely as a matter of law. I am coming to you as a lawyer. Mr. RAY. This is a matter of whether or not the publication of rec- ommendations, n~aterials, given in confidence as to which there is a pledge of confldehce would be in the public interest. Mr. FASOELL. ~ am very confidential, Mr. Ray. Mr. RAY. I am not about to determine that. Mr. FASCELL. 1~ have no antenna, no windows; I am very confidential. Mr. HOFFMAN. As I understand his answer is you asked for some- thing, Document A, B, C, and on down to X, Y, Z. He says he wants to take a look and see what is in it before he tells you. Mr. FASOELL. That is very nice. Mr. HOFFMAN. Isn't that it? Mr. FASCELL. That is what he said. Do you think you would arrive at a different couclusion after you looked at them? Mr. RAY. I haven't any idea. Mr. FASÔELL. You do not know what conclusion you would arrive at? Mr. RAY. Well, I would say we would be presented with a serious question becaus~. of the fact, as I say, these minutes contain business statistics, recommendations of individual people, candid expressions of op~i~ion, all solicited and received as advisory materials upon almost a historic understanding that they would be retained in confidence I am not making the decision for you now. Mr. FASCELL. I understand. Mr. RAY. Bi~t I am indicating to you that in a sense there has been a pledge of the Government's-of the Department's word in this regard. Mr. FASCELL. This is a private organization; isn't it? Mr. RAY. Well, the members are not Government employees, but at the request o1~ the Government they are like the myriad of citizen advisory committees coining to Government and presenting their views and ideas. Mr. FASC~LL. They get no Government benefits of any kind; do they? Mr. RAY. Not that I know of. Mr. FASCE~. They don't getiTavel pay; do they? Mr. IRAY. That is right. Mr. FASCE~JL. So they are not on any payroil? They come under no protection of the Federal Government other than that which would be obtained by any other citizens of the United States? Mr. RAY. That is right. Mr. FASCELL. Do you think I could get the minutes of this Business Advisory Council from the Advisory Council? Mr. RAY. Well, they are not theirs, they are lodged in the Depart- ment of Commerce. Mr. FASC1~LL. I see. Now, the Department of Commerce acquires a proprietary right in these minutes? Mr. RAY. I do not know whether it is a, proprietary right. Mr. FASCELL. You say they do not belong-~ Mr. RAY. They are prepared by Commerce Department people and lodged in the files of the Commerce Department. Mr. FASCELL. In other words, what you are saying is if I want to get the benefit of what is in those minutes I have got to call a meeting PAGENO="0465" PAGENO="0466" 1580 iNFORMATiON FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Mr. RAY. Yes, I presume- Mr. MITCHELL. Then the fact remains- Mr. RAY. There might be questions nevertheless of first amendment, and so forth, in connection with advices of counsel, all that sort o thing. Mr. MITCITEU4. Then the fact remains that the only reason that th Congress canno1~ get these records of the BAC, is because the Secr - tary of Commerce rules that they cannot have them? Mr. RAY. Tbese are departmental records. Also, as I believe we made plain- Mr. MITCHELL. Then you think- Mr. HOFFMAN. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Mr. RAY. I believe we made plain in our presentation of this matt r before the Judiciary Committee, we feel bound also by the concept th t if people bring to you confidential business statistics that you shou d not make them public, and unnecessarily injure the competitive po 1- tion of any pafrticular person who sees fit to serve on one of th se committees. Mr. Moss. Mr. Ray, you used the term "made public." The qu s- tions here have been directed to the availability of the informati n to Congress, to a committee of the Congress. Do you regard that as being in exactly the same category as making it public Mr. RAY. Well, generally, yes, unless there is some understandS g or commitment with regard to the maintenance of confidentiality~ Mr. Moss. I~i other words, you would feel that the right of Congr~ss to informatio* would be exactly the right of the public to infor a- tion? Mr. RAY. ~o; I did not say that. I mean, as you well know, we appear before many, many committees of the Congress with reg rd * . to, say, classified information, where we-and the Congress sh res the view-that while you need to know if for your investigative nd legislative purposes it should not be made public. Not that we are trying to deny it to the public, but we are trying to deny it f om * enemy ears. And this is impossible to do if you make it public. Mr. Moss. ¶I'hat is classified information? Mr. RAY. The same is true of other types of informatioii~ ake the individuail's income-tax return. Mr. FASCE~AL. There is nothing private about those. Mr. RAY. There is a specific statute on the subject. Mr. FASCELL. Still nothing private about them. Mr. RAY. 1 can speak more knowledgeably about the census ata that our census unit collects. Mr. Moss. Then, how are these minutes classified? Mr. RAY. They are not classified. Mr. Moss. But they are not available, generally they are not available. Mr. RAY. That is correct. As I say, in the past the Secretary of Commerce, over the* ears, has releasedt particular reports. Mr. Moss. Do you rely on statute for the authority to withho d? Mr. RAY. In what respect? Mr. Moss. Well, in any respect. Mr. RAY. Well, I think we rely on statute in many, many re pects in the Department of. Commerce. For example, under the E port PAGENO="0467" economists, statisi try. So I think that as a h~ ens, and ~( ~a1 matter t11nI~ at would in do you f f these minutes? RAY. I am not expressing any opini s to me that ~assed a you? Mr. RAY. Obv Mr. HOFFMAN. on come~ Mr., L. of such a rtme] ~ig it 3, you just tt I am ml PAGENO="0468" 1582 INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES gress to enact such a law should it determine that that would be in the public interest. Mr. HOFFMAN. Don't misunderstand me, I think the Congress has the whip hand *i the whole thing, because, for example, this-thi is the Commerce ~Department? Mr. RAY. Yes,t sir. Mr. HOFFMAN. All right. If he won't give us the information w want, all we have to do is say, "All right, we won't give you an money." And they are through. We established the Commerc Department, we can abolish it if we want to, if we dare. Mr. Moss. Of course, this becomes an important question. Mr. FASCELL. A~e you suggesting that we do? Mr. HOFFMAN. No. I am trying to remind us of the fact that w have some pow~r, although we either lack the inclination to enfor e it or the courag~to do so. I don't know which. Mr. Moss. The reason for my questions is I would just like to g t some of these gehtlemen to acknowledge the fact. We have had clai, a of some nebulous power over here, some inherent power that th y can pick up on occasion and interpose between Congress and t e information it wants. Mr. H0pEMAN. That is due to the fact that we do not exert o r power over there, to say, "Listen, boys, you are not going to have a y money for the next 6 months." Mr. Moss. Y~u and I are in complete agreement. Mr. HOFFMAN. You mean you want an admission out of them ti at they are not si~preme? Mr. Moss. Yes. Mr. HOFFMA~. I doubt if you will get it. Mr. Moss. I am increasingly convinced that in this field of inf r- mation, if there is a statute, that the statute governs and not he claimed powers of executive departments. Mr. HoFPi~N. The only suggestion I had with reference to t at statement was just as I made a while ago, if we say that the d ors shall be wide open to everyone, then I might go along with that. It occurs to me if the Government would also create a sort of a revol ~ng fund that I n4ight use so that if one of the Government departm nts was going to establish an airbase here, there, or some other plac , or buy a particu'ar plane, I could use the money furnished by the on~ gress to buy some of that stoôk or adjoining land. It would be ery helpful~ ~ttr Moss Of corn se, that is again back in the field of the wis om of the action of the Congress. Mr. HoFFMAN. Well, I would rather not discuss that. Mr. FASOFLL. My colleague is assuming that that informati Ii is now secret. Mr. HOFF~AN. Is now what? Mr. FASC~LL. I said you are assuming in that observation that the information you are talking about is now secret. Mr. HOFFMAN. I understand that some of that information bout location of certain plants had leaked out and there has been co sid~ era~l~ criticism of a certain Congressman. I am not critic zing hirn. Mr. FASCELL. I am not either. PAGENO="0469" be a revie~ PAGENO="0470" 1584 I~FORMAT~ON FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Mr. Moss. Ex~epting you would be defining the practices. No there is a lack o~f definition on some of the practices. Mr. RAY. I d~n't think so. I think we struggle to make every thing public th~t anybody wants, unless it is against the publi interest. The way you word this statute, I don't think alters tha very much, if at all. Mr. Moss. I would disagree to the extent that in a great man other instances--perhaps it might not be true in the Export Contr 1 Act-but in a great many other instances we are just automaticall putting considerable amounts of information under lock and key. Mr. RAY. Under the Constitution, the executive branch has a constitutional r~sponsibility to carry out the laws. I presume th t it means that they should be carried out effectively and as wise y as possible. And as I said earlier, take the Export Control A t again, I think if there were no provision either way by Congress, th t the executive branch, to operate, would have to operate, opera e, operate. Mr. MITCHELL. On that very subject, you have repeatedly m n- tioned the data of the Census Bureau. Is that by statute? Mr. RAY. Yes. Mr. MITCHELL. Do you think that Congress intended to* deny to its congressional committees by passing such a statute, informat on of the census? Mr. RAY. 1,~Tell, certainly not. When we speak of the Cen us Statute-. Mr. MITCHELL. It provided for confidentiality; did it not? Mr. RAY. Yes; but not as to the ultimate facts of the census, me ely as to the individual business and trade statistics of the indivi ual concerned, or person. Mr. MITCHELL. Do you think Congress intended to deny th m- selves that information when they passed that statute to an ap ro~ priate congressional committee? Mr. RAY. I~ think so; yes.' Mr. MITCIIELL. Do you so interpret all statutes so passed, hen Congress passes a statute they are denying information to themsel es? Mr. RAY. ~[ am not prepared to issuc a blanket interpretatio of all statutes. Mr. MITCHELL. Well, your Department cited title 18, United S ates Code, section 1906, which is the criminal statute about gove ning offices and employees of the Government and disclosure of confid ntial information. Do you think in that statute Congress intended to deny information to itself? Mr. RAY. Yes, I think so. Mr. HOFF~IAN. How do you know what Congress intended? Mr. RAY. Well, I really don't. Mr. HOFFMAN. That is what I thought. Only the Supreme ourt can.say whit we intended. [Laughter.] I do not like this disturbance and ridicule back there. It hu s my feelings. [Laughter.] Mr. Moss. I will ask- Mr. HOFFMAN. Will you ask that they refrain from what ver it' may~be that they are doing to me'? Mr. Moss. I will do that, Mr. Hoffman. Mr. FAs~Er4r~. You don't know? PAGENO="0471" bright I ~ct not ~ - itseit. RAY. Well, I c Lnnot say as to that. ~man,J n- U have rece i Senator ~ Tlittee ) L Hon. Joii~ E. Chair se Govern - - I 3? C - -we yo~ WI ation and best Wishes, bar. `~. C. ] la desir~t~s~ve space~ Dther tice was posted on the door artment t~ at the end of May. This ye prevented the] PAGENO="0472" 1586 INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES obtaining copies o~ documents essential to their practice but which very pro, - ~rly may not be reijnoved from the Patent Office. As soon as the ~mpei~ding plight of the patent lawyers was called to my a - tention, I asked tl~e staff of the Senate Subcommittee on Patents, Trademark and Copyrights to iaitiate a request that the Department of Commerce reco ~sider its action. As a result, the closing of the public stenographers' room was postponel 0 ~1ays, and I hope that during this period the Department of Commerce and t e General Services Administration will decide to continue this needed pub ic facility permanently. I am sure it is an essential service to the patent bar throughout the Unit States. With best wishes. Sincerely, ALEXANDtR WILRY. UNITED STATES SENATE, ~June 8, 195 Eon. Jona Ii. Moss. Chairman, Honse Goverament Information Snbcoinnvittee, Flonse Office Bititding, Washington, D. C. * Dn&n CONGRESSMAN Moss: The Senate Committee on the Judiciary's Sub in~ zmttee on Patents Trademarks and Copyrights has received numerous telegr ms and letters protesting the announcement that room 2898-0 will not be avail ble for the use by public stenographers after May 31, 195g. Strong representat ons are made that this action will seriously interfere with the efficient day by day operation of the~ patent system. As it is the purpose of the Patents Stibcomm ttee to study the pgtent system and to make recommendations to improve It ef- ficiency the subcommittee has been greatly disturbed by the effect which this proposed order ~nay have on the efficiency of the patent system. `this specific room was assigned for the public stenographers use in the Ian- fling of the building. Patent Office public records cannot be removed fro the attorney's room of the Patent Office. Room 2898-C has been provided so that public stenographers may draw the necessary public files and make ecpie , ab- stracts, and abridgments without removing the files from the Patent Offic and without disturbing patent searchers in the attorney's room. By the above means the information of the public records of the atent Office become more accessible to the general public, especially those outscle of the local area~ by the service rendered by the public stenographers. Tb evi- dence of this fact is indicated by the origin of the letters of protest. It appears ~bat the service rendered provides out-of-town patent att rneys and the gener~l public a means of quickly obtaining either copies of or infor- mation from public records essential to their practice and needs. It al 0 ap- pears that the Patent Office has surveyed the situation and feels it cannot dupl1~ cate this service without utilizing even more space than that now used y the public stenographers. Furthermore, the Patent Office is not now equip ed to perform the same or similar service. Following the receipt of these letters of protest, I asked the staff of t e sub- committee to ascertain the facts. After study, I wrote to the Secretary o Com- merce, Sinclair Weeks, on May 4, 1956, asking that the order be withdr wn. Assistant Secretary of Commerce George T. Moore answered on May 1 ,1956, stating that the Department of Commerce had decIded to postpone th ir pro- posed. action in regard to room 2898-0 for GO days. I am sure the availability of room 2898-0 aids in making more easily a allable to the publk~ essential patent information from public records aml the service rendered to ~he patent bar and general public is such that a domplete wit drawal of this order is appropriate in the public interest. Sincerely yours, JOSEPiX 0. O'MAHON Cltai n. Mr. MITCHELL. Did you attend the recent meeting of the B siness Advisory Council at White Sulphur Springs ~ Mr. RAY. Yes. PAGENO="0473" Si ~S large1y~ PAGENO="0474" 1588 INF0RMAT~N FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Mr. MITCHELL.! Was there a complet& unanimity? Mr. RAY. I coitld not say as to that. Mr. FASOELL. 1S~tay I ask a question? Mr. Moss. Surely. Mr. FASOELL. Was there anything of importance that was arrive at as a conclusion at this meeting that was not discussed or given a the press conference? Mr. RAY. I think the substance of the discussions was pretty we covered. Mr. FASCELL. In other words, every major conclusion was then r - leased at the pr~ss conference? Mr. RAY.. We~l- Mr. FASQELL. Substantially? Mr. RAY. The press conference was a discussion. The reporte s asked any questions they wished to ask. I do not bear in mind all t e detail of what was covered, but I think as I say, within that conte t, I can say generally that they were asking the questions that we e bringing out the substance of what occurred. Mr. FASOELL. Like what was the meeting called for? Mr. RAY. And who spoke and what was discussed and so forth.. Mr. FASOELL~ What conclusions you arrived at? Mr. RAY. Well, as I say, this isn't a meeting to arrive-take vo es, and arrive at cbnclusions. Mr. FASOELI4. Well, you did something. Mr. RAY. To receive reports and views and facts. Mr. FASCELL. Was this for the basis of some action to be take in the future? Mr. RAY. No, just a current economic rundown. Mr. FASCELL. Was this done on a regular basis, I mean is this d ne quarterly or semiannually? Mr. RAT. It is done at each meeting, I think, Mr. FA5CEI4L. Well, you lost me at this point. What do they is- cuss? Do they take the economic report by the .Joint Committe on Economics? Do they take the Commerce Department's own econ mic report? Wtht do they discuss? Mr. RAY. I will give you an illustration. The Secretary may . ave asked that they or some committee study the status of the credit s'tua- tion. Now, they do not come in and necessarily have a vote on hat to do about credit, but report to him what the credit situation s as they are able to see it out in the business community. Mr. FASOELL. Was that actually done at this meeting, or is thi just a hypothetic~ii case? Mr. RAY. ~No, there was some discussion of the credit situation Mr. FASC1~LL. What was the conclusion of the conference wit re- spect to the ~urrent credit situation? Mr. RAY. There was no conclusion, there was no conclusion. Mr. FAsoEr.r4. They had to say something. I mean you can' take the opinions of a hundred men and make them valuable to a Sec etary unless somebody puts down each man's opinion and he reviews .~ and arrives at a.conclusion. Mr. RAY. He listens to it. Mr. FASCELL.. He listens to it and arrives at a conclusion? Mr. RAY. The Business Advisory Council does not take any ction or endeavor to reach a determination. PAGENO="0475" ~i~g quarters investment than we had I would say that was Othe~ )fl bo~ 3 information that `s `t hundred but e a cc Went. do,I hAN. _Iow much -. - ~ I not only r i my remai s but~ye ical. Am I correct in a~suming that this is the manner in whi sensus is arrived ~ Mr. RAY. r~ 3 one -, -- might not be anc meth Mr. FASCELL. have ) each v are n~ Mr. FA from the they can - far as I have observed, Over who have good judgment, public in governme~~ and in their local Comm but as people. Mr. FASCELL. I will agree to you and I discussed this the last tim All I am trying to find out is wli things that has to be secret. I still Mr. RAY. Well, if you are going to hold meetings such you are going to tend to Government might others e reCE ye. Now, this is just a queston of whether that is desirable my judgment, it is not. Mr. FA5GELL. It is also a question as to w' A Occurs. How do you know exactly what ml in a committee of 100 is going to give to t' ~ t not as PAGENO="0476" 1590 JNFORMATI~N FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES vations do you kiiiow that he has made with respect to protecting hi own industry? `~ou don't, Mr. RAY. Certhinly not. This is just a question of degree. Mr. FASCELL. Eight. So you have to'evaluate it on the best pos sible basis that you can at the time that the testimony is given and yo cannot do it any other way. Mr. RAY. And this has been the judgment of seven Secretaries o Commerce under four Presidents. Mr. FASCELL. ~Fhat doesn't make it right. Mr. RAY. No, it does not. Mr. HOFFMANL It might show it is the best we have gotten so far. Mr. MITcH1~x~. Mr. Ray, as I understand it- Mr. HOFFMAi~. Can I get in a question and then may I be excuse., Mr. Chairman? There is still another committee hearing. Mr. Moss. Certainly. Mr. HOFFMAN. You have been asked here several times and r - peatedly about these executive sessions. Is it your understanding d rived from runtor or newspaper reports that the committees of Co gress themselves and that the Congress itself has a rule that when e are voting on a 1~ill it is in executive session? Mr. RAY. Ye~, it is. Mr. HOFFMAN. Do you think that is a bad practice-I won't sk you what you i~hink about Congress. I wouldn't want you to expr ss your opinion. Mr. RAY. I wouldn't necessarily have too good a judgment on t at. Mr. HOFFMAN. As long as we follow the practice ourselves e shouldn't be too critical of the departments, do you think that? Mr. RAY. That is right. I would like to say, if 1 might, in t at connection that we in the executive branch in carrying out statutes 1. ok very closely to the history developed in Congress that can guide us, yet there mustf be sound reasons for your cloakrooms and some of y ur executive sessions you couldn't transact your business openly. Mr. Hoirr~4N. When we vote on a bill and sometimes when we de,- termine a policy which a committee shall take, we have an execu ive session. Mr. FASGELL. Mr. Chairman- ~fr. ~wi. That is all I had. Mr. FASCELL. I just want the record to be clear that I am not g in to be bound by my colleague's fallacious reasons. Just because a ir has 2 legs and a man has 2 legs doesn't make every man a bird. Mr. HOFri~çAN. Off the record. (Diseussio~i off the record.) Mr. FASCE~L. I will join with you and change the system. I will vote out intbu open any time. Mr. HOFF~AN. This is not on the record. (Discussio~n off the record.) Mr. HOFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Moss. I might for the sake of the record at this point stat that this committee has not been given the right to study the inform ition practices of the Congress. If we had that right, I have no doub but what some of us would agree that there are too many executive se sions of congressioual committees. PAGENO="0477" PAGENO="0478" 1592 INFORMATI~N FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Mr. RAY. The$ is great danger on both sides, and ~this is a matter of~ balance. Mr. Moss. Certhinly it is. Mr. RAY. All I am saying is that to state categorically that under n conditions is it injurious to the public of this coi~ntry for half-bake statistics, draft materials, opinions solicited in confidence, all must g it seems to me is a somewhat dogmatic attitude. Mr. Moss. We have not taken that position at any time, nor do w intend to. We ~re merely trying fo find out through careful stud the areas of mfdrmation which should be generally available, and w would like to hai~e some uniformity in determining that which shoul not be available. Mr. RAY. As we have said before, Mr. Chairman, we share that goa, and we believe that both the Congress and the executive branch shou work to develop the fullest release of public information, consiste t with that residue which, as a matter of balance, should not be release Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Chairman- Mr. Moss. That is our objective, that is why we are asking t e questions. Mr. Meader? Mr. MEADER. First, I want to say I am sorry I wasn't here at e opening of thi~ meeting. But the Hardy committee was having he - iii~s which I attended f~r a while. Therefore I may be asking so e- thing that has been covered. Mr. Ray, are we talking about making information available to he Congress or are we talking about making it available to the pu lic generatly? Mr. RAY. We have talked about both. Mr. Mm~DEr~. Let me ask you this, then: Do you make a distinc ion between the availability of information to Congress and its pubi ca- tion? Mr. RAY. l1Vell, definitely, and I think I said earlier here a g eat deal of infori~iation, the thing that iccurs to you first off is the seci rity classified information, is made available under safeguards which oth the Congress and the executive branch observe. Mr. MEAIThR. Let me ask you then, if this free discussion, these pri- vate sesisons of the Business Advisory Council in your opinion s ôuld be available to the Congress, even though it might not be approp iate to make it available to the general public? Mr. RAY. ~That question was asked and I was not prepared to give an answer oi~t the specific case, because as I say we do not set up i our mind, at least I don't, a lot of broad categories of what we w 11 or don't do. I~ somebody asks for something, we take a look at i and endeavor tolmake a determination, not in the abstract, on the su ject. Mr. MEAnER. I wonder if yOu can visualize a situation which I be- lieve I can visualize, and that is that a congressional committee ight have a legitimate pthnt in wanting to know what went on in ne of these meetings even though it might agree that it would be in priate tO make it public generally? Mr. RAY, Yes; I can conceive that. Mr. ME~nER. I mean, do you feel that the right of the have acces~ to minutes or stenographic transcripts of these meetings ~f the Business Advisory Council would necess~ dis- PAGENO="0479" INFORMA'I'ION 1~ROM rEDERAL~DEPARTME~PS AND AGENCIES 1593 courage any members from being frank and free in their discussion? Mr RAY Well, I can conceive that it might But again I wouldn't want to judge it in theabstract. Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Chairman-excuse me, are you through? Mr. MEAnER. I was just about through. I think we have some- times made a tacit assumption that everything that goes to Congress must necessarily be thrown wide open and available to the general public And I think there is a distinction that we sometimes overlook Mr. RAY. I agree with that thoroughly. However, in general, we tend to think of it, I think, as presenting our materials to Congress in public sessions and on the record, and certainly we are charged with making sure that some material is not so handled, individual census data, location of roads planned. Mr. Hoffman brought out some preliminary statistics and data that would be misleading if they seemed to have the force of the Com- merce Department behind them, that were not maturely thought through. Unless some safeguards are established, we tend to think of it as something that might be put on public record that might be injurious to an individual or highly disruptive to the operation of the Government. Mr. Ma&DER. I would like to say that I resent the implications in many of these statements on the part of the executive branch of the Government refusing information to Congress that Members of Con- gress are irresponsible and not to be trusted, and in the event the national interest would be harmed by publication of information, if it is given to Congress, they seem to have the feeling that Congress will disclose it irresponsibly. I think the record is all the other way. If any information has gone to potential enemies, I think you will have difficulty finding a case where that has gone from a congressional committee, or from an, individual Congressman. But you can find plenty of instances, such as Alger Hiss and others, who have provided information to the enemy who were members of the executive branch of the Government. Mr. RAY. I would hope that we would never try to make a determi~. nation on any information based not on the merits but based on the notion that it might be misused. But I must be frank to say that at times the matter of publishing things and putting them out, out of context, must have had an impact on the executive branch. Mr. Moss. I wonder if we might just examine into this a little further on the role that Congress plays in government. Now, supposing the Department of Commerce should release some figures and that in the course of a few months the developments in business or industry would indicate that those figures were not of the best, perhaps they might be too optimistic And this committee, a subcommittee of Government operations, which has statutory author- ity to examine into the efficiency and the economy of governmentr- of course, that is very broad-it decides then to go back and ask the Commerce Department to justify the figures that it released and we want in order to determine whether those were properly arrived at conclusions, we want to see those working papers. Do you feel, then, that we would have made a proper request and that we should have the information?' PAGENO="0480" 1594 INFORMATIbN FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Mr. RAY. In g~neral, yes. Again I want to make it clear that I am not going to express some abstract judgments here about a mass of unknown and unlooked-at papers. But one thing I am clear about and that is that the Commerce Department would and should appear before the committee of the Congress and give it such information a would be necessary to determine whether its actions have been proper Mr. Moss. Mr. Ray, there is where we get to the crux of this ~ues tion: Who det~rmines, the Department of Commerce or the Con gress, as to the adequacy of the information which the Department i supplying? Mr. RAY. We~l, I do not visualize this as a black-and-white proble but as a problem of balance. I certainly don't think the executi e branch should have a dictatorial attitude with regard to its side of' nor do I think that the Congress ought to go so far as in effect it s operating the details of the executive branch. Mr. Moss. Well, it has assigned to Commerce certain specified fu - tions, and it has the need in legislating to certain information. Now, when it is exercising a legislative function, then would y u claim the right~ in any degree, to determine whether or not the inf r- mation is requ~sted would be made available? Mr. RAY. Inj my experience, we have had very little difficulty w~th any committee~ of the Congress with regard to providing informati n. But, again, I would not on an abstract case abdicate the judgm nt that the executive branch must have after looking at the docume ts, a judgment to some degree, and which I hope would be exercise as wisely as possible. Mr Moss Aren't you just taking the very long way around nd saying yes, you do feel that you do have the authority to deter me whether or n~t the information requested would be made availa le? Mr. R~Y. I think certainly in the first instance, yes, we must ook at the documents, we must then look at the statutes, we must loo to see whether o~ not they are classified. Mr. MOss. If you are going to look at the statutes, then you are recognizing the right of Congress to direct how the information w uld be made available. Mr. RAY. Just as an illustration-I am not prepared to answe the question of how specifically we must guard underlying census i for- mation. Certainly, it is a crime not to safeguard it. I couldn'' ex- press a judg~nent on an unknown line of papers. Mr. Moss.~ Who says it is a crime? Did the Congress say it as a crime? Mr. RAY. Yes. Mr. Moss~ Then you are relying on a statute. Mr. RAY. I am not about to disregard it. Mr. Moss. Would you claim the same authority in the abse ce of the statute? Mr. RAY. Well, I take it the executive branch has no power t pass triminal statutes, but when it comes to safeguarding the info ation, as I said earlier, I think probably even in the absence of the s atute, prudent operation would dictate pretty much what we do toda Mr. Mrrtxai~ri~. And you feel that the Congress ~hould in the future in enactm~ statutes, making statutes, should put a modifica ion in each bill s~.ying this will not be denied to Congress? In other ords, PAGENO="0481" PAGENO="0482" -~ 1596 INFORMA~ION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Mr. RAY. Well, bear in mind here you don't have an action body all. The Secretary of Commerce has got to stand up and respond whatever action he takes in any area. Mr. FASOELL. I am just suggesting it might be a good thing to t y for a year. It certainly can't be any worse than what we have g t, because nobody knows what goes on except the Secretary. Mr. RAY. Well, I don't believe that is entirely correct. We ha e pretty full pr~ss conferences, with the press free to ask questio s following the r~ieetings. Mr. FASOELL, Well, it is pretty hard to pick up a cold file, I thi k you will agree on that. Mr. MITCHELL. Is it possible that there can be management of e news, such as this would be, and see which committee has had char es made; has that happened quite often? Mr. RAY. Not to my knowledge. Mr. FASCELL. I would like to ask one more question, then I m through on this line. Will you take this suggestion to the Secret ry of Commerce ?~ Mr. RAY. I would be glad to. Mr. FASCEI4I. Will you let this committee knQw what his answer is? Mr. RAY. If would be glad to. Mr. FASCELIA. Thank you. Mr. Moss. Do you have some questions, Mr. Meader? Mr. MEAnER. Well, I am not sure I want to have it appear th t I go along fully with Mr. Fascell on this proposition of holding p blic meetings of the Business Advisory Council. I can see the danger hat Mr. Ray mentions, that some of these men wouldn't be intereste in participatin~ in a kind of public debate on what they though the future of the economy might be. Mr. FASCE~JL. You know, I can understand that feeling, Georg , be- lieve me. B~it then, again, they might welcome the opportuni y to stand up when they have got a real audience and say something. You can't ever tell. People are funny about things like that. I have heard the same discussion with respect to putting tele ision in the halls of Congress. You might have a bunch of actors. Mr. RAY. The Secretary wants information, the best he ca get, and he is not interested in theatrical appearances of the situation. Mr. MEAnER. I havebeen pretty clearly on record favoring tele ision and radio cpverage of public committee hearings. I haven't b~ en so sure that it *ould be appropriate to have all of our debates in the ouse of Represer~tatives televised, but certainly where the public is e titled to come in personally as they are in this meeting, where the new paper * reporters a$ here, I think that the American public has the ri ht to use these new instrumentalities to see what is going on that is a atter of a public ~iature. But I thinkthat is a completely different qu stion. Mr. FASCELL. Yes, I will agree. Mr. MEJ~DER. The informal, confidential advisory nature of hat IL understand the Business Advisory Council to be, I can very ell see there might be some timidity and hesitation on the part of the e cap- tains of industry to come in and guess about what the future of the economy ~*ould be if they were going to do it in the spotlight. Mr. FAskJELI,. I think we can all agree, however, that it is de atable, because th~se men might be stalwart, courageous men, and the might speak theii~ piece anyway. I think it is worth a try. PAGENO="0483" * INFOJ~MATION FI~OM FEDEm~L D~iPARTMENT~ ANfl A~ENcj~s L597 Mr. RAY. Of course, if I could add one wo~rd: Every one of these men is completely available, I presume to the press at any time. If they have a speech they want to make all they have to do is to be asked, I presume. Mr. FASCELL. Except there is a restriction by the bylaws that they can't speak about what they said in the meeting. Now, if we could change that bylaw, I might go along with you. Mr. RAY. This doesn't bar Mr. X who lives in St. Louis from pub- lishing any kind of economic information he wants to. The point, however, is that he in effect feels that he shouldn't publicize what some other fellow had said in confindence. He can give his own views any time he wants. Mr. Moss. Do you h~~e further questions? Mr. FASCELL. No, sir, I have no more questions. Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Ray, I would like to refer to questjon~~~~0 for a moment, please. On page 98 the following appears: The Department's position is that except only where its release endangers the public interest as aforesaid, Government information is made freely available. Who in the Department of Commerce makes this decision? Mr. RAY. Well, in the only instances I have seen it has been made at the very highest levels of the Department, usually by the Secretary. Mr. MITCHELL. Then in all cases he m~kes this decision? Mr. RAY. Well, I don't know about all cases. But that would be the fact, as far as I have been aware of it. Mr. MIIcHELL. Will you please explain to this subcommittee how the vast majority of the minutes and records of advisory committees will endanger the public interest. For example, when a fast tax program for the steel industry is being consicinred? Mr. RAY. Well, that is a hypothetical question, as far as I am con- ceriled. Are you talking about industry advisory committees ndw? Mr. MITCHELL. Or any advisory committee? Mr. RAY. Well, of course-~.. Mr. MITCHEI~. The security of the United States is not involved and a fast tax program for the steel industry I don't think the se- r curity would be involved. Mr. RAY. The industry advisory committee minutes are regularly made public. They are sent to the committees of the Congress. Mr. FASCELL. Excuse me, just a minute. You say the minutes of the industry advisory committees are regu- larly made public? Mr. RAY, Yes, are regularly made public and sent to the committees of the Congress. Mr. Moss. Do you get frank discussion in these industry advisory committee meetings? Mr. RAY. Yes, I think so. These are summary minutes of actions and recommendations and do not-they endeavor not to reflect what may be said or will be said, what Mr. A. said or what Mr. B. said, by name. Mr. Moss. Well, then, the record should show that summary minutes, rather than the detailed minutes or the comp1~te minutes are- Mr. RAY. We don't have a reporter and keep a transcript, if that is what you mean, which is released, but minutes are kept of *h~t PAGENO="0484" 1598 `INFORMAT~ON FROM.1?EDERAL DE P ARTMENTS AND AGENCIES transpired. And I think every effort should be made in those case~ tQ keep the minutes as full as is reasonably practicable. There yo~ have a somewhat different situation, because you have eompetitor~ at the request of the Government discussing the competitive facts ir~ order to give the Government an idea of how some allocation o~ distribution mig~'it be made. So you can g~t t~ the threshold of antitrust problems, for whicl~ there is ne imr4unity under the Defense Production Act, or oth* statutes. Mr Mn~c~IEr~r~ Do you think men serving on advisory committe~s where a tax-ai~iortization program is being considered for their particular industry are true representatives of the general public? I Mi RAY Well, I think under the Defense Production Act they a~e supposed to represent the industry, expressly. They represent tl~e public only indirectly I believe it is the Departmdnt that rep$.. sents the public. But the purpose of the industry advisqry commit$e is to get the buainess facts of the matter. / Mr. MITcIi~L~. Why aren't the recommendations of these men fro~n industry report~ed and made available for public inspection beforej a policy decision ~s~made to put a program into effect. / Mr. RAY. I don't know. I don't know whether the assumption y~u make is correct and if it is correct I don't know the answer. I Mr. MITCHE~L. Beginning at the bottom of page 98- Advisory materials and information solicited and received by the Departni~nt in confidence are imt~mad~ public. I Will you pknise cite for the committee a few examples of this t~pe of informatiOni Mr. RAY. P~rdon me, Mr. Mitchell, where did you- I Mr. Moss. lEt is the last sentence, the bottom of page 98, beginning with the word~"ad~visory" which is the last word on that page. I Mr. RAY. Ytes~ Well, we have already discussed some aspects of the Business 4~d- visory Council. Information solicited and received by the Dep~rt- ment in confidence is not made public. I Mr. MITCHELL. That is usually done by the statute; is it not? I Mr. RAY. Well, it is done under some statutory responsibi1~ity. I But, for exaqiple, again referring to export controls, we may (ask people, other people in the trade who are competitors of a firm ux~der ii1vestigation~ to tell us what they know, in order to facilitate th~ in- vestigation of what may be a possible violation of the statute, and (fre- quently we gjet that information, the competitor requests that i~ be. kept in confidence, otherwise we may not get it. We have $ go along with that. / Mr. Mii~cuELL. Is this type of information avaihible to ~ther agencies? I Mr. RAY. Well, I wouldn't think so, generally, unless they (had some need to know. For example, if this should result in a re~om~ meud ttion for prosecution then it would be transmitted to the Ji~stice Department, of course. Mr. M~ETC*TELL. Who determines- Mr. M~AI~ER. Wait a minute. Do I understand even stat stics and inform~tion obtained in confidence, assuring the one prov ding the information that it would be kept cénfidential, would nevert eless PAGENO="0485" INFORMATION rEOM 1~EDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AG~NtIES i599~ be turned over to the Justice Department ~f~or prosecut'oi~ of the in~ dividual who gave the information in confidence? Mr. RAY. No, I dbn't tbi~ik so~ 1 am talking thout the informer, the informatio~ii you get from the informer about a third party who is ,andeir iinve~igatioia. Mr MEADEt Let me ask you, do you ever turn over to the Justice Department information obtained in conhdenoe assuring those ~vho provide the information that it would be retained i~n ~onfid&nee in prosecutions such as a~ititrust casesl Mr. RAY. Not to my knowledge. I think we might-the type of investigation I was thinking of was one where you are, say, seeking to determine whother a violatioa~, triminal violation, of the Export Ooaitrol Act had taken place In there you might, if you detormined on the basis of your investigation, the facts .~ent themselves to such a charge, you would send the facts to the ~Jepa~rtme~t of Justice, but don't believe that you would send the name of a pa?ty who may kave given information in confidence, such as a competitor of the ~firm under investigation. Mr. MEAnnR. I would like to ask one mor~ ~pIe~tion, Mr. Ray. I am interested primarily in the ia~t centence of the second para- graph on page 99 which reads: In general, it should be pointed ~iIt that informatAon in all of ene above cate- gories in many instances would be provided for the Congress in the exectitFve sessions of committees in aid of d velopmet ~sf 4eg1siatioa,~wh4Ie It e~Ouid not be appropriate for general publIcation. I wonder if you wouldn't mind strikii~g out that phrase "in many instances"? You have qualified by saying "in general." It seems to me one qualification is enough. Mr. RAY. I don't want to quibble. I know it is done a lot, but we appear before many, many committees for many purposes I think within the last 2 months, we thave appeared on legi~lativ~ and in- vestigation matters before virtually every Senate `committee tind a peat many of the House comittees, and we were there to provide information. We endeavor to cooperate. Whether it is some or many or a whole lot- Mr MEAnER I mean the whole statement is qualified by the begin- ning phrase "In general" Now, why do you have to qualify it again? Anyway, it says "would be provided." I thean you kind of make a statement that sounds like you are giving Congress access to information in the commerce Department, and yet~ by the time yoi~ look at the qualifying phrases, well, you really haven't ~id very miteh. Mr RAY Well, I would go along with you in the change from "would be" to "is." [Langhter.] Mr. Mfl~nELL. How about the "many instan'c~"? Mr. MEAnER. That is what you call a compromise, i~ it? Mr. Mrrcnm.i.. Could you by letter cite some examples for the record of where "in many instaxices"? Mr. RAY. I will endeavor to do so if you feel you~-~- Mr. MEAnER. It might be more important to take the re*erse side of that coin and cite the instances where you refuse information to Congress and how you justify those. Mr. RAY. Well, we made a check of all of our ii bureaus for the period requested by this questi'&nnaire andI think that is ~et forth in PAGENO="0486" 1600 fl~FORMAT~ON ~0~'~D~EAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES here somewhere. And I think that demOnistrates the cOnverse of the problem. Mr. MITOHELL~ We just discussed the BAC. That is not cited. Mr. RAY. We~l, the BAO' evidently thBrefore didn't occur within that period. This was a period of a year. Mr. MEAnER.' ~It is `on page 107, item 3-B. During, the period fol-, lowing July 1, 1955, according to present information there were three instances in which the Department refused information to congres- sional committees on request. Two were Export Control Act cases, the other was a request for information which was confidential infor- mation under section 705 (e) of' the Defense Production Act. And you say in item 4 in none of the instances referred to in item 3 was informatio~i refused on the basis of the doctrine of executive ~ommunications~ In other words, the three cases where you refused information to ~ongress you cited statutory requirements. Mr. OVERTON~ Ye~s. Mr. MEADER. To keep it confidential. Mr. RAY. Yes, sir. Mr. MEADER. SAnd you interpreted those statutes to require keeping information* from congressional committees. Mr. RAY. I do not know. I don't know what the form of the request was; whether it was to submit it for the record or what. I just don't know. Mr. MEADER.J You can't say whether or not the request by the con- gressional com~nittee which was refnsed was to receive the material on a confldenti'~kl basis or in executive session as contrasted with receiv- ing it publicly ~ Mr. RAY. N~, I don't recall, if I ever knew, whether that distinction was made in the request. Mr. MEADEL Mr. Chairman, I think it might be worthwhile to explore those three cases and have the circumstances available to the committee, because they are examples where the Commerce Depart- ment in a year's period refused `information to congressional com- mittees. Mr. Moss. Will you prepare that information and submit it to the, committee? Mr. RAY. 1~Te would be glad to. Mr. MEAD1~t. And I notice it says "according to present `informa- tioii." Now, ~ince this questionnaire was answered, it may have been developed thnt there were some other cases during that period- Mr. RAY. Well, if that is so-.- Mr. MEADER. Could'a~check be made? Mr. RAY. It could be made. I presume that "according to present information," was put in there just as a matter of abundance of caution on the part of my office, because bear ~n mind when we try to' take a year's period with all `the bureaus and ~ffices of Commerce and all their dealings with all com- mittees, what you have to `do is write out and get reports from them, and you don't-you are not able to make an independent investigation of it yourself. So I would be confident there weren't any more,: but I didn't want to assert that without an investigation. Mr. MEAnER. `I notice the reply `was dated October 10, 1955, and it just occurred to me that it might `have been developed since October 10, 1955, that there were some other instances. And if there were I PAGENO="0487" fl~FORMA'rroN FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AN1~ AGENCIES 1601 woud like to have similar information on those. Yo~ don't men~ tion-maybe the judiciary committee request didn't fall in that period. Mr. RAY. No; that is right. It was subsequent to July 1, i955~ Mr. MITCHELL. It did not, that is right. Mr. MEADER. Well, I wonder if it would be too much difficulty, Mr. Ray, to bring that up to date. It is almost July. Another year has gone by. Mr.Moss At least, another session of Congress. Mr. MEADER. I am quith interested in these instances where an executive department has refused information to Congress. I would like to have specific facts on each case, if possible, because I think that is, in my judgment, one of the most important aspects of this committee's inquiry. And I would like to know particularly whether the committee was willing to recognize safeguards of security and confidence and whether, notwithstanding the committee's attitude on that subject the information was still refused. Mr. Moss. That will be a request of the committee. And we would like to have that information as quickly as it can be compiled. Mr. RAY. You are talking now about- Mr. Moss. The additional cases, the three specific instances, cited in the questionnaire and the cases which have developed since the question was prepared. Mr. RAY. May I suggest that we already have collected this in- formation. We i~rill get it up to you. The other will require a re- solicitation of all our bureaus and offices, and it would take some time. Mr. MEADER. How much time do you think it will take? Mr. MITCHELL. Aren't most of those cases referred to your office anyway? Isn't it a fact that practically every case where Congress requests information and doesn't get it is referred to the general counsel? Mr. RAY. , Well, not necessarily. You see, you take an operation such as the Maritime Administration, it has a large amount of work with congressional committees in and of itself, and while we keep general tab on the thing there are many things in which they exercise final judgment. - Mr. MITCHELL. Do the lawyers for the Maritime work for you? Mr. RAY. The lawyers for the Maritime are under my statutory responsibility, but there is a delegation of certain matters in writing to the heads of what we call the outside legal stafl~s, Maritime, Civil Aeronautics Administration, and the Bureau of Public Roads, under which certain matters of general- Mr. MITCHELL. Then they speak for their agency before committees of Congress without consultation, necessarily, with you? Mr~ RAY. Yes. We endeavor to maintain a general overall under- Btanding of the progress and to get in on things that involve con- frovérsy or difficulty, but I am not going to state here that' we always ~O. Mr. Moss. But certainly the withholding or refusal of information ;o a congressional committee would involve considerable controversy. Mr. RAY. I should think it normally would. Mr.- Moss. And yet, you would delegate the responsibility for that lecision to others within the Department? Mr. RAY. No, that is not expressly delegated, but there is a consid- rable amount of general responsibility delegated `and I couldn't say PAGENO="0488" i~O2 INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES that some of this might not fall in that. For example, they might be merely following a routine-as a routine matter, some policy that has been laid down iiji an earlier matter. Mr. Moss. Let's find out here, do you have any policies laid down as to what wiJlb~ withheld from Congress? Mr RAY No, but I would say that if precisely the same question came up in a subsequent period as those three set forth here, unless there were some fresh or different reasons, you would follow the statute and follow the same practice you had followed in the earlier case Mr Moss You know, in your interpretation of statutes as applying ~o Congress have you ever gone back over the hearings and the debate to cletermi~e that Congress intended that they apply to Congress? Mr RAy Well, I don't want to be misunderstood I don't assert categoncally th~it a group of statutes do or do not relate to submission of materials to ~ongress. I would want to look at the specific case As I say, I am under the impression that those requests are requests to place matters in the public record, and that is what we are dealing with. Mr MEADER That raises a question I had about the second category of information mentioned on page 98, information made confidential by law, infprm~tion a~d standards pertaining to individuals or indi- vidual establishments, provided to the Government for compilation or guidance, such as individual census records, applications for pat- ents and other ~naterials the release of which is prohibited by law. Now, you sa± the release of that information is prohibited by law. But, in your ju~gment, would providing that information to the Con- gress or a congressional committee, with proper safeguards for pre- serving its security or confidential character, be release prohibited by law? Mr. RAY. I wouldn't think so, unless the statute was susceptible of that interpretation and had been so interpreted. ~4s I say, I just don't know generaU~, o~ these statutes, whether some do or do not. Mr. ME4DER., That is all. Mr. Moss. I ~iave one other question. I note this i~natter of restricted or classified information, national security infpr4iation is not available to anyone except to Members of the Congress ~id other Federal agencies. Page 102, bottom of the page, which r~ises an interesting point: this committee las a staff which is very important in carrying on the work of the committee. We desire to see some material which is classified. Who clears the staff? The Congress or the executive depa~t~ent? Mr. ~ I ~rn not sure. It seems to me though that they are cleared through FBI channels, are they not? Mr. ~ri~ii~jj4. No. There are a few committees of Congress that have ~ longsthndmg practice with ~`BI, but the average committee in Congress, ~ongressional staffs as a whole are not cleared by the FBI. The 14'BI doesn't actually clear them; all they do is the investigation. Mr. R~r. I understand that. Mr. Moss. Who grants them clearance new? Now, we want in- formation fr9m your information and it is classified. So I send a staff man down to look it over. PAGENO="0489" . ~FOBMATION FROM ?E.DEEAL DI3~ARTMENTS AND AGEN~Ij~~ 1603 ~ Mr. RAY. J~ the only instances that I have seen and they are very few, I mean we usually ask the chairman of the com~jttee whether ~ the staff is clear. Mr. Moss. Supposing he says yes, they are ~ie~r. I cleared them. Mr. RAY. Well, I think that would be unfortunate if that had been the whole investigation of the matter. Mr. Moss. Well now, of course, I am always assuming here that the Congress is going to be as responsible as anyone else. But do you require in making this information availabi.e to a staff member of a congression~~ committee that they have clearance which is the same as you would expect from an employee of another Federal de- partment, or agency? Mr. RAY. I think we rely on the committees to represent to us that their staffs are cleared, in general If there are exceptions to that I am not Personally aware of it. Mr MEAnER Mr Chairman, I might say that I think the Joint committes on Atomic Energy, for example, has its staff menThers go through the same clearance procedure that. someone who was em- ployed by the Atomic Energy Commission would go through, and they receive whatever evidence of clearance that an employee of the Com- mission would receive. Of course, we all know that there Was some doubt about the clearance of a Member of Congress not too kmg ago by the Atoime Energy Commission, and he wasn't permitted to wit Hess a demonstration at Yucca Flats. Mr. Moss. I think that Me.mbe~ failed to uphold his rights as a Member of Congress in bowing to that decision of the Atomic En- ergy Commission Because, as I recall tbe Constitutioji gives to the House, the right to judge its Members and I think that is a form of judgment which is unconstitutional. It is even conceivable, that you might have a Communist elected, as a Member of the Congress, but if that is the judgment of his people that they want him to represent them, he has the right to represent them. It may not be the best security, but I think certainly it is th~ most consistent with the Constitution Mr MEAnER But I think the question about the clearance, as far as that is concerned, where agencies of Go~rern.men.t are under some compulsion to keep the matters confidential ~ think they must even- tmIlly take the responsibility for the release of classified information to any individual. I n~ay beinistaken about that. Mr. Moss. I think it is a question which is somewhat important in this study because of the fact that it is conceivable, and I am not citing any instance, because I know of none, where a department might not approve a staff member, not on a security basis, they just don't want to work with him. If he is not cleared by us, why, we are not going to supply that in- formation to him, and the work which the committee has assigned him. Mr. MEAnER. I believe the staff of the Armed Services Committee gets some kind of clearance from the Pentagon. Mr. Moss. But should the Congress clear its own staffs oi~ should it rely upon executive agencies; in `the instance in this committee the staff man working with the Pentagon has been cleared by the Pentagon. PAGENO="0490" 1604 INFORMAT~0N ~ DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES That is a niati~er though of custom. But I am wondering what the proper procedur~ is. Mr. MEAnER. ~ think 4t might be very* well for Congress to set up an agency for clearing its own staff. I think if they did it would have to be respected by the executive branch of the Government. Mr. Moss. That is the point Iwas getting at. Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, do you feel that if any of the ex- ecutive departments feel that a member should not be cleared as far as they are coucerned, they have the duty and responsibility to so tell the chairman of a committee and prove it? Mr. Moss. I think they should. In other words, I don't think any committee wants to play with security. But it is just a matter of who has the r~ight finally to clear these employees. Mr. MITCIIEI~L. Mr. Ray, on page 99 of the questionnaire the De- partment of Commerce cites under national-defense security inf or- mation, 180 S. C. 798, pertaining to the disclosure of cryptographic information. Will you kindly explain to the committee how this ci- tation applies specifically to the Department of Commerce? Mr. RAY. Cables. Mr. MITCHELL. What is that? Mr. RAY. C~b1es. Mr. MITCH4L. Do they receive them direct, the Department of Com- merce, or doe~ the National Security Administrati0~ receive cables? Mr. RAY. I~think they come to us, they go through the State De- partment chatinelS but come to us, such as matters as strategic in- formation concerning export controls, thinks of that character. Mr. MITCHELL. Would you get the raw cryptographic information? Mr. RAY. I am not sure, but we would receive the cables in such form as their raw disclosure could or would tend to compromise the cryptographic system. Mr. MITCH~LL. You mean the code could be broken? Mr. RAY. Yes. Mr. MITCH~LL. In other words, yOu receive material from another agency of Go~ernment, we will say, or directly from abroad, which is cryptograph~ which there is possibility of a code being broken. Mr. RAY. That is right. Mr. MITCHELL. Is the type of information identified as being cryptograph1~ Mr. RAY. Surely. Mr. MITCHELL. Are all employees of the Department of Commerce cleared to receive cryptographic information? Mr. RAY. Certainly not. In the first place, unless they need to they don't see it, and secondly, if they need to, they have got to have the proper ~ecurity clearance. Mr. MITc~rELL. On page 100 of the questionnaire the Department cited 18 United States Code 1902, which prohibits unauthorized dis- closure of &op information or speculation on such crop prior to its release or information thereon by officers, and so forth. Please ex- plain how crop information comes to the attention of the Department of Commerce before it is released for publication by the Department of Agriculture. Mr. RAY, Mr. Overton tells me that it is collected by the Census Bureau fo~ Agriculture, in some instances. And then I think that PAGENO="0491" INFOrflS4ATION PI~0M 1~EDEI~AL DEPARTM TSAi~ AGL1~NCiES 1005 the Secretary sits on some boards such as the Commodity Exchaiige Commission or whatever it is, to which that might be relevant. Mr. MITCHELL. He sits on them? Mr. RAY. Yes, as Secretary of Commerce. Mr. MITCHELL. And you say that the Department of Commeree does gather crop information? Mr. RAY. Through the Bureau of Census. Mr. MITCHELL. By statutory authority? Mr. RAY. Yes, IL think so. The census of agriculture at least is em- braced within the general census authority and would be the subject of a specific appropriation, I presume. Mr. MITCHELL. Do you obtain from the Department of Agricul.. ture-~-do they publish crop information? Mr. RAY. They certainly do on a great scale, but they don't, I pre~ sume, publish any that is in violation of this statute. Mr. MITCHELL. Is this statute for the Department of Commerce specifically? Mr. RAY. No, it is a general statute, I think. The census statute, itself, is referred to as the census statute but it is not limited in its ap- plication to the work of the Census Bureau, It is governmentwi~~ in its application. Mr. MITCHELL. Therefore, wouldn't the correct citation be the one for the census? Mr. RAY. Well, I think they are both relevant. One may be more particular than the other. Mr. MITCHELL. On page 100 the Department of Commerce cited statute 18 TI. S. C. 1905 which is applicable through the entire Go~- ernment service, and it is a correct citation. In your opinion does this statute prevent your Department from giving information to appropriate committees of Congress?, Mr. RAY. I am not able to answer what the statute requires in that connection. Mr. MITCHELL. Could you answer for the record at a later date? Mr. RAY. Yes. Mr. MITCHELL. Should this statute be amended or modified to per- mit the Department of Commerce to give necessary information to the Congress? You can answer that for the record, too. (Mr. Ray nods.) Mr. MITCHELL. Does the Department of Commerce have subpena powers to obtain records and files of individuals and corporations? i believe they do under the Export Control Act, don't they? Mr. RAY. Yes; and I think under the Defense Production Act~ Mr. MITCHELL. If the Department of Commerce finds an individual or corporation has violated export-control law what action is taken by the Department? Mr. RAY. Well, if the investigation is completed, and it indicates that administrative action should be taken, then the Export Control Act provides administrative machinery for holding a hearing and reaching a determination and prescribing a penalty. That penalty is a loss of commercial privileges for a period of time, Mr. MITCHELL. Are those hearings open? Mr. RAY. I don't believe so. PAGENO="0492" i~Ot~ INFORMATION FROM ?E~ERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES ~Mr~ MITcnna~1i Why isn't the case referred to the Department of Justice'? Mr. RAY. W~ll~,it can be. It depends somewhat upon the nature of the offense as to whether the purely criminal penalties come into play or not. Mr. MITCHELL. Suppose the Department of Commerce does find an individual or corporation in violation of the Export Control Act, is this information made available to the public'? Mr. RA~ Yes~ It then takes ~he form of an order and a public release reflecting the order, and s~ating that the penalty of suspension or cancellation of license privil~ges, or whatever the penalty may be. Mr. MrrcH~LL. Is this violation data or the records obtained under the subpena pow'ers of the Dep1~a~tment available to a committee of Congress having the same sub ena powers? Mr RAY You mean the Department's recoid in a pending hearmg~ Mr. MITCHELL. Well, once they get a possible violation or so forth, are those records available'? Mr. RAY. Well, I don't know whether we have ever been a. ~sked for any such reeor~s. And I haven't examined that question. Mr. MITCHELL. Well, I have been by another committee, subcommit- tee of this oom~ni~teo~ Will you~take .a look at that and provide, us with an answth~? There was a ~iolation~-~--~ Mr. RAY. I think I am aware of the- Mr. MITCHELL. Would you cite that in the case Mr. Meader was asking for, your reasons and so forth? Mr. RAY. This was not a hearing, this was an investigation con- ducted. largely at the request of the subcommittee to which you refer. Mr. MITCHEL. And those records have not been made available to~ that committee. Mr. RAY. Wfell, I don't understand that to be correct. Mr. MITOHE~L. In other words, they have been made available. Mr. RAY. As far as I know, there is no outstanding request that has not been dealt with and fulfilled. Mr MITCHELL What happens where a congressional committee who has the same subpena powers as the Department of Justice to go out and get an individual record or a corporation, if the Department has already gotit, would they require Congress to go out and get the ~sam.e records? Mr. RAY. Well, in the abstract I can't answer as to all degress of all kinds of pendkg cases, with classified or nonclassifled material in them. A general q~uestion of that character- Mr. MITO~II~LL. This is Export Control Act. Mr. RAY. I understand. Strike the period in the last answer before this one. Whether it would be wise to place on the public record a pending investigation would depend on the particular facts of the particular case and the in- jury which might come to the prosecution of the case. Publication can lead to people fleeing the jurisdictiou and other things which would frustrate any attempt to prosecute the case. Mr. MITC~IELL. Page 100: the Department cites title 5, U. S. C., section 139b~ Could you read that for the record, please. PAGENO="0493" INFORMATION FROM FED1~AL DEPARTMENTS AND AGE~OTES 1607 Mr RAY United States Code 189b provides that if information obtained in confidence by one Federal agency is released to another Federal agency all provisions of the law relating to the information apply equally to officers and employees of the second agency. It also provides that information may be released to the second agency only if it is released as statistical totals or summaries, Two, it has not been declared to be confidential by the colle~ting agency or inferior authority. Three, the person supplying the information consents to the release, or Four, the second agency has authority to collect the information supported by the penal provisions against persons failing to supply it Mr. MITCHELL. Will you please explain to this committee why the Departme~~ will turn Over to another agency having the same subpena powers the data it obtains and refuses to turn it over to a committee of Congress with the same subpena powers, the identical data. Mr. RAY. Then again, that assumes something that I haven't felt qualified to express myself on. But this turnover provision is set forth in the statutes. Mr. MITCHELL. That gets back to our other thing again-_~ Mr. Moss. There is a quorum call on in the House at the present time. Mr. MITCHELL. I would like to submit a series of further questions for the record, at a later date to the Departrne~~ of Commerce. Mr. Moss. Yes. Does that conclude your questions~ Mr. MITCHELL. Of Mr. Ray. Mr. Moss. Mr. Ray, we will submit additional questions to you in writing. Mr. RAY. We will be glad to answer them. Mr. Moss. And this would conclude your appearance before the Committee. The committ~ will not meet this afternoon because of debate on the foreign aid bill. We will meet again at 10 o'clock on Monday morning for hearings with the Office of Strategic Information. The committee is now adjourned, (Whereupon, at 12:18 p. m., the subcommittee adjourned,) PAGENO="0494" PAGENO="0495" AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Part G-Departm~~~ of Commerce MONDAZ 3tTN~ 11, 1956 HOUSE or REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT INFORMATION OP TIlE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERAflONS, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10: 10 a. m. in room 414 Old House Office Building, Representative Dante B. Fascell, pre- siding. Present: Representatives Moss, Fascell, Meader, and Hoffman. Also present: Samuel J. Archibald, staff director; John J. Mitchell, chief counsel; and J. Lacey Reynolds, senior consultant. Mr. FASCELL. The subcommittee will come to order. This morning we will continue with the further investigation of the Os'. All right, Mr. Mitchell. Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, I believe we have Mr. Erwin Se~go, Director of the Office of Strategic Jnforthation accompanied by Mr. Allen Overton, Jr., special assistant to the General Counsel, Depart~ nient of Commerce. Mr. Chairman, when Mr. Seago appeared before this committee on April 20, in his prepared statement, page 106 of the transcript, midway down the page, the following quotation appears: This problem was recognjz~~ by Congress when it considered the defense appro~ priations bill for 19~6. The report of that bill states "To~ much information has been released which Is of no beneiit to the American public but which is of treb mendous value to our opponents" Mr. Chairman, that is a direct quotation, slightly out of context. Mr. FASCELL. Is that where he was talking aboiit information going to the Sovi~t bloc? Mr. MITCHELL. He used the phrase "which is of tremendous value to our opponents" But that is what it means. Now, that was in the prepared statement he gave to this committee. In a speech that Mr. Seago gave at Minneapolis on September 16, ~19~5: the ideiltical phra~eology "too much information ha~ been re~ leased which is of no benefit to the American. public but which is of tremendous value to our opponents" This language was taken from the House Committee on Approprja tioris' report of 1955, for the fiscal year 1966. 1609 PAGENO="0496" 1610 INFORMATIbN FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND A~ENCIES tinder instruclionS from the chairman of the committee, the staff consulted with Congressman George Mahon, chairman ~f the House Committee on Appropriations. Mr. FA5cELL. The Defense Subcommittee on Appropriations. Mr. MITCHELL. The Subcommittee on ApproPriatiohls, for the milItarY, With your pe~miSsi0n I would like to read into the record this ex- change of correspondel~ with Mr. Mahori. It is a letter dated April 23, 1956, to Coi~gresSman George H. Mahon, subject: Statement of the Department of Defense appropriati01~ bill, 1956. I understand that r. Lacey ReynOlds, senior consultant of the House Govern- ment Information Subcomllllttee, talked with you on Saturday morning about a statement in the House apprGPriatt0~~ report an the Defense Department appropriations bill last year. The statement said that "Too much information has been released which Is of no benefit to the American public but which is of tremendous value to our opponents." As you know, I have ~-ery much concern that we pot divialge Information that might be of value to a potential enemy, especially in the field of weapons develop- ment. There 15 a ieg~timate reason for the three categories of classificatlontoP secret, secret, an$1 confidentia~_5et forth in the President's Executive Order 10501. But, in o~ir study of the informational activities of Federal agencies, we find that the comment made in the House appropriations report last year about "too much information" is being used in an effort to suppress unclassified information. The Departmellt of Commerce has set up the Office of Strategic InformatiQfl which frankly says that it wants to go beyond the president's Executive Order 10501 to cut down on unclassified information of a scientific and technical nature. I feel that it is not the intent of the House Appropriations Committee to have the words of its report of last year used to cover the unclassified field. Obvi- ously, you were talking about top secret, secret, and confidential matters that applied specifica'ly to the area of military application of science and technology. I would be happy to discuss this matter with you because I think it- would be well to strike tl~is sentence from the report of your committee this year, in the light of what has transpired this past year in hearings before the House GoV'~ ernment Information Subcommittee. (Signed) IoaIN B. Moss, Chairman, Government Information Subcommittee. Mr. MITCHELL. The next letter is dated April 24, signed by Con- gressman George Mahon, directed to the Honorable .John E. Moss, chairman, House Government Information SubcomWittee: DEAR ~TonN: Thanks for your letter of April 23, in regard to Informational activities of the Government. The Defense Department goes bog wild and has for years in gi~ring to the public information in regard to our various weapons and war plans. This is very, very bad. The value of the information to Russia must run into the billions, because Russia is able to keep fully abreast of our defense program, generally speaking, and is thereby able to pattern Soviet defense spending accordingly. You quote the following statethent from our report of last year: "Too much information has been released which is of no benefit to the American public but which is of tremendous value to our opponents." tt is unpardonable that Govern- anent agencies are seeking to bide behind such ~nchalleflg~tble language. I am sure that you and I will agree that much ~pilitarY information IS made available to the American public which is of little benefit ~to the American people but which is of tremend4us value to the Soviets. Lacey Reynolds did talk to me about this matter, but I twas not too much impressed with his suggestions. I am frank ~o say that I believe officials In the Government for political reasOnS are followin~ the practice of concealing a lot of informatioP which ought to be made available to Congress and the American people. I would like to do every- thing in my power to assist you and others in getting for the American press and PAGENO="0497" ~MATION FROM FEJXSBAL ~EPARTMENPS AND AGENCIES 1611 t~e ~mer1~an people any and all information which would not be of material assIstance to our Soviet enemtes~ As 1~o l~helanguagein the report of last year which you think probably should be omitted thia year, I think we might very well leave it out, because the language seems to be so ineffective in stopping the flow of important military data to the Soviets. I must repeat, however, that I think it is perfectly ridiculous for any Government agency to insist that the language in the report on the military bill in any way encourages the suppression of legitimate iniformation for the Cong~ess and for the press. *We can discuss this matter on the floor sometime. Heat personal regards. Sincerely, GEORGE MAnOR, Mr. MITCHELL. On April 27, 195~3, Mr. Moss replied to Congressman Mahon: DEAR GEORGE: Thank you for your letter of April 24 and your very pertinent observations on a major problem facing us today. Enclosed is a statement submitted by Mr. Erwin Seago, Director of the Office of Strategic Information, on Thursday, April 19, 1956, before the House Govern~ ment Information Subcommittee. The Office of Strategic Information deals only in the field of unclassified information and this statement substantiates that fact. ~o date, however, we have been unable to ascertain the accomplishments of the Office. On page 2 of the attached statement you will find Mr. Seago's reference to the subject I mentioned in my memorandum of April 23. In my personal opinion, this is an attempt to establish voluntary censorship in a nonsecurity field. I believe that Mr. Seago's quotation from the Appropriations Committee report is out of context and has been tortured beyond its true meaning. If my interpretation is correct, th purpose of the committee's comment was to make the Defense De- partment aware of the fact that too much information was being given out in the field of weapons and war plans, as confirmed in your letter to me of April 24. On March 7, 8, and 9, 1956, this subcommittee had a panel discussion with some of the country's leading scientists. These scientists unanimously agreed that, when we are developing a weapon, the security in such a development program should be very tight. They also unanimously agreed, however, that security in the field of basic scientific research has the effect of slowing down research because, as they stated, you can't classify the secrets of nature. Other misuse of the Appropriations Committee's report is indicated in the enclosed copy of a letter from Robert Trlpp Ross, Assistant Secretary of Defense. When Mr. R. Karl Honeman, to whom Assistant Secretary Ross refers, appears~ J~efore the House Government Information Subcommittee he also quoted the Appropriations Committee report as justification for additional restrictions on unclassified information. I am in no position to judge the intent or purpose of the Appropriations Committee and do not want to. I am merely submitting these facts for your consideration. I do appreciate your offer to assist us. Please let me know of any instance you come across concerning the third paragraph of your letter. Sincerely, (Signed) Fon~ E. Moss, Chairman/. Mr. MITCHELL. And the final letter, dated May 9, 1956, addressed to Mr. Mahon: DEAR GEORGE: As chairman of the House Government Information SubcO~~ mittee, I am well pleased with the language on withholding information which you incorporated in your report on the Defense Department appropriations bill, I think that the revised wording will serve notice on all departments that they caanot use the language in last year's report to evade giving out legitimate information. The House Government Information Subcommittee concurs thoroughly in the wording of your report, on page 15 concerning the Office of Public Aftairs, in which you express concern ever "continued leaks and premature disclosure of our military secrets." No member of this subcommittee would want to reveal the secrets of the Military Establishment in matters applying to weapons and weapon deveIopmeut~ 69222-56-pt. 6-32 PAGENO="0498" ~612 I~FORMAT±0N FROM FEDREAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1, too, believe the Defense Department should take "more drastic admlniSttat~0h1 action" to prevent leaks that may ~ndaflger our national security. From the viewpoint of the work done ~o far by the souse Government Infor- mation Subcommittee, possibly one of the more Important comments in the report is the sentence stating: "The committee trusts that the language in this paragraph will not be used by the Department of Defense ~r other Government agencies as a reason for with- holding legitimate informatioll from the press and public, nor should this para- graph be used ~as ~ coverup for inefficiencies and weaknesses of administration." This statement will, I am sure, prevent Government officials from rnisusing the house ApprOI~riatio~I5 Committee's expression of concern over premature disclosure of militarY secrets. (Signed) Jonx E. Moss, Chaiflfl'~°~'* Sincerely, Mr. MITCHELL. Would you care to comment on that, Mr. Seago? Mr. FAsCELL. Well, before you get into that: Rather than have him comment, I would like to have him answer this question. Mr. Seago, is the interpretation of the new language clear to you? Mr. SEAGO. I think it is. Mr. FASCELI4. And it is also quite clear that the former language would be inapiflicable to any operations of Os' ~ Mr. SEAGO. I am not sure that I thoroughly understand your ques- As I have said before, we are just not engaged in censorship and tion. never have been. I do not see quite the application. Mr. FASCELL. Well, then, if there is any implication in the record that this former language that was in the Appropriations Committee report would be a general basis for restricting or ~ithhoiding or classi- fying any unclassified or so-called strategic information that it would flow be inapplicable ~ Mr. S1~AGo. As near as I can follow it, I should think that would be so. Mr. MITcH~LL. Mr. Seago, can you arrange so that the appropriate officials in th~i Department of Commerce take a look at page 15 of the House Committee Ofi Appropriation's military appropriations~ under the heading of Oflice of Public Affairs, so that they will understand the language? Mr. 5~AGo. So that they will see page 15 of the committee report? Mr. MITcHEL1~. Yes. The next ~tem of business this morning is an exchange of èorre- spondence between this subcommittee and the National Security Council. Mr. FAS~LL. All right. Mr. MITC~IELL. I would like to read these letters into the record. The first letter is dated May 11, 1956, addressed to Mr. James S. Lay, Jr., executive secretary, National Security Council, Executive Office fluilding, washington, D. C. DEAn Mx. LAY On April 19, 1956, officials of the Department of Commerce, in- cluding Erwip Seago, Director of the Office of 5trategic Information, testified be- fore the House Government Information SubCommitt~ Mr. Seago and others explained that the 051, operating under a directive from the National Security Council, Is i4structed to guide executive a~enci es on the publication of nonclasSi fled informa1~i0n; to develop guides for the interflati0fl~ exchange of nonclassified information kind to provide a central ~~~~ringh0u5e to guide science, business an~ jndu~try from the publication of nonclassifl'~d information. Mr~ scago1testified the directive granting the agency ~tuthoritY for work in those nonclassified fields iS itself a classified document. PAGENO="0499" PAGENO="0500" 1614 INFOTROMF~DE~AL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES the purpose of furnishing guidance to executive agencies on the ~ub1ication of unclassified scientific, ~technical, Industrial, or economic (nonstItistical~ in- formation originating in departments and agencies of the executive branch, where such publication might be pr~judiciai to the defense interests of the United Statesc 3. Activate the pi~ogram for controlling the direct export of unclassified Gov~ erument technical publications to Soviet bloc countries and, where possible. extend the program to the indirect export of such publication. Mr. MITornsth~. Under dii~ections from the chairman, ano'thet letter was written to the National Security Council dated May 18 to Mr. J~ames S. Lay, J~. DEAR Mn. LAY: Thank you for sending me a copy of the section of the National Security Council directive establishing the Office of Strategic Information in the Department of Commerce. It is my understanding you have discussed this with Samuel ~. Archibald, staff director of the subcommittee, and informed him that this specific language is now declassified so that the subcommittee can make any public use of it desired. If it was not your intention to declassify this specific language, notify me immediately b~y letter. Your letter of ]~4ay 15 does not answer the question posed in my letter to you of May 11, 1956. I stated: "I would also like an explanation of the reason for originally classifying this particular ~ection. While the classification apparently was established under Executive Order 10501, there obviously is no possibility that public knowledge of this particular section could result in `jeopardizing the interna- tional relations of the United States, endangering the effectl~reness of a program or policy of vital importance to the national defense, or compromising impor- tant mi1itt~ry or defense plans, scientific or technological developments impor- tant to national defense, or information revealing important intelligence operation.'" Comparing tl~e specific language to the "substance" included in the two Federal Registe~ publications mentioned by you shows that the specific language has been misint~rpreted, The amended Commerce Department Order No. 157 published in the Federal Register on Sep~ember 28, 1955, states the Office of Strategic Information is te "establish policy" for other executive agencies on the publication of strategic materjal. Since there is no authority in the NSO directive to permit OSI to establish policy, was this misuse of the NSO directiVe brought to the atten- tion of the Commerce Department by NSC? I would appreciate an immediate answer to this question as weI~ as an explanation of the use of a security classification for a separate section of a document dealing solely with nonclassified activities. Sincerely, Jomix E. Moss, Cho~irman. Mr. MITCI~ELL. Mr. Lay replied to that letter, Mr. Chairman, in a letter dated ~May 22, 1956, to the Honorable John E. Moss, chairman, House Gove~nment information Subcommittee: DEAR Mu. ~oss: In response to your inquiry of May 18, the enclosurl ti my letter of May 15 containing the Presidential directive pertaining to the functions being carried out by the Department of Commerce through its Office of Strategic Information is unclassified, in its content having been declassified by publication in 1954 (as indicated in the second paragraph of my May 15 letter). With respect to your question concerning the originai classification, the afore- mentioned enclosure to my letter of May 15 was, as indicated in that letter, originally an integral part (rather than a "separate section") of an NSO document. This basic NSC document, as I explained In my letter of May 15, contained other data which required classification pursuant to Executive Order 10501. Thercrfore, the entire document, including the integral sectiomi to which you refer, was given an overall classification, as determined by its entire contents. As indicated in the first paragraph above, the particular sect ion to which you refer, when extracted from the basic NSC document, is unclassified. As to the points raised in your letter of May 18 coucerning the interpretation of the Presidem~tiaI directive enclosed with my letter of May l~ and the relation PAGENO="0501" PAGENO="0502" 1616 INFORMATION FROM FEPJ1~RAL DJ~PART1\1E~NTS AN~~N~IES Mr. FASOELL. Because, as I recall the testimony, and if we go ba~k to the transcript I am sure we will find all kinds of stuff in there where we say that. Mr. SEAGO. D~dn't we take the position at the time we testified be- fOre that it was classified? Mr. FASCELL. Yes. So, what I am asking you now is: what position do you take now? Mr. SEAGO. That itis not now classified. Mr. MITCHELL It is not now classified? Mr. SEAGO. That is right. That the information out of there is not now classified. Mr. MITCHELL. The Congressman's question was: anything flowing from that document. Mr. FASCELL, It depends on the specific piece of information? Mr. SEAGO. tes, that is right. Mr. FASCELL~ All right. I just wanted to answer it for you, because I knew what you would have to say. Mr. MITCHi~LL. There is a copy of the memorandum that we re- ceived, the original NSC document. Mr. Seago, will you show me where the word "policy" or "estab- lished policy" is in there? It is the top paragraph-reactivate-these three paragraphs. Where is your authority for the establishment of your supplemental publication i~ the Federal Register in which the words are used? Let me quo1~e the words- Mr. SEAGO. Well, as I said before, 1 think the directive could well be revised and athended. Mr. FASCEtL. I am inclined to agree with you. I think it is gen- erally understood that it goes far beyond what the NSC directive said. Mr. SEAGO, The activities never went far beyond. Mr. FASCELL. Well, the activities may not have. But I think your original order may have. Mr. SEAGO. It may have, yes. Mr. MITCI~IELL. If the NSC intended that the OSI was to establish policy, why didn'tthey say it in their directive? Mr. SEAG~. I think I have answered that. Mr. MITC4IELL. Executive Order 10501 was issued by the President on Novembe~r 3, 1953. At that time there was a great deal of publicity and commetit about the fact that the classification "restricted" was dropped. This NSC directive to the Department of Commerce is dated November 1954. Was this an attempt by either the NSC, the Department of Commerce, or the OSI to reactivate the classification term known as restricted without so identifying it? Mr. SEAGO. No, I don't think so. Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Seago, as a result of all these hearings with respect to the operations and the authority of OSI and whatnot, is somebody undertakir~g to revise departmental order No. 157? Mr. SEA*O. Yes. I have s~arted some work on revision of that. But it is not corn- pleted andcit is not even in final draft at all. Mr FASCELL But it would be safe to say that we are thinking about it ~ Mr SEAGO That is right PAGENO="0503" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGEl~CIES 1617 I would like to add one more comment there. I have always felt that it should be revised, long before we started talking about it here. Mr. FASCELL. You and I are somewhat in disagreemer~t. I don't even think there is any need to have it. Mr. MITCHELL. In the progress reports of the OSI, there was con- tinual comment about the need for uniform classification policy; and in tern~s covering nonsecurity information. Could you explain to this subcommittee why the ret~ommendation is contained in the progress reports that there is the necessity for uniform classification policy? Mr. SEAGO. Mr. Chairman, I do not think that recommendation is in there. We are not talking about classification. Mr. MITCHELL.. In the progress report? Mr. SEAGO. Yes. Mr. MITCHELL. Sure. Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Seago, I think we can get around this; the Prog- ress, reports are available. And the committee can decide for itself what it says and what it doesn't say. So, I suggest we go ahead and put them in the record. Mr. SEAGO. All right. Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Chairman, the progress reports of the 051 will be made part of the record at this point. Mr. FASCJILL. These are the reports that the committee previously requested, is that right? Mr. SEAGO. Yes. Mr. FASCELL. They will be admitted without objection. (The documents above referred to are exhibits X, XI, and XII.) Mr. MITCHELL. On page 7' of the first progress report dated Febru- ary 18, 1955, under "Recommendations," the following language ap~ pears, and this is the third paragraph: The NSC directive sets forth the operations of the OST in the field of un- classified information, the release of which would be detrimental to the security~ of the country. Executive Order 10501 states that information detrimental to the security of the country should be classified. These directives present and overlap and thus OSI cannot disregard the inherent problems involved in the classification of information. If the executive branch of the Government is to be consistent in what it publishes, it must be consistent in its classification, and more particularly its declassification procedure. Due to the apparent Incon- sistencies, it is recommended that a complete study be made of the Government's classification and declassification system in light of present world conditions. That is dated February 18, 1955. Can you advise the subcommittee what has been done in connection with that recommendation? Mr. SEAGO. Just a minute, please. Mr. Chairman, that happened before my connection with the office. But I understand that that was a suggestion that the question of de- classification and the increase of flow of information be looked into. And ICIS, the Interdepartmental Committee of Internal Security, said they thought they should do that. Mr. FASCELL. Declassification? Mr. SEAGO. Yes. Mr. FASCELL. You mean with respect to OSI or all agencies across the board? Mr. SEAGO. Across the board. And that it would be no part. of OSI's responsibility. PAGENO="0504" 1618 INFORMArI?ION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Mr FAScELL In other words, OSI would take the action of classi fying strategic information, setting up the guidance and what not, but lOIS wouk~ be the declassifying board; is that what you are tell- ing me? Mr. SEAG0. N~. Mr. FASCELL. Then, I misunderstood you. Mr BOWMAN This recommendation was made prior to Mr Seago's entry on duty. And the TOTS, the Interdepartmental Oomm4btoeon J~t~rnal Secut'ity, has this under study now. We are reviewing the declassification and downgrading to deter- mine what procedures are being used. It was the belief here that we weren't releasing information that should be out of the classification system to the people so that they would have the use of the technological and scientific advances, and that they had to be consistent and that there should be some guide put down so people would not ~ias~ify it because it was 1~he simplest thing to do. This is unde~ study by 1Q15 now and the report will be made before too long. Mr. MITOHI~LL. Who is the Chairman of ICIS? Mr. BOWMAN. Mr. Yeagley. Mr. MITc~eIL. Since you seem to be familiar with the procedure, may I ask you a question? Is the policy set forth in Executive Order 10501 that a c1assz1lc~Mion date be placed on a document being followed? Mr. BOWM4N. I don't know, sir. Mr Mi~cii~u4 Do you know in your own particular setiip~ You see classified documents, don't you? Mr. BowMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. MITCHElL. Have you seen a declassification date put on chssi- fled documents? Mr. BOWMAN. On soxe., yes; not on all. Mr MITCHELL Is that a matter that is being considered by 1Q15 g Mr. BOWMAN. Yes. Mr FAscei~r~ Let's stop right there Let's get me straight even if the record is~'t. Is it iCT~ or ISIS? Mr Si~u~ It is TOTS It is part of the National Security Council structure ~IIt is one of their committees under the National Security Council structure. Mr. FASCELL. Is it made up of members of the NationaiSect~idty Council, or is it an advisory committee? Mr. BOWMAN. It is working under the Security Council. Mr. FASCELL. In other words, it is in effect a subcommittee? Mr. BOWMAN. Yes. Mr. FASOELL. And this recommendation we are talking about in the progress report dealing with classification and declassification, ac- cording to your interpretation, deals with the thinking of this com- mittee on l~andling declassification procedures? Mr. BOW~MAN. Classification and declassification; yes, sir. Mr. FASCELL. But it would in no way affect OSI? Mr. BOWMAN. No, sir. Mr. FASCELL. Well, then, they would be restricted strictly to that information which would be classified pursuant to Executive order; right? PAGENO="0505" I~~ORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS A~D AGENCIES i61~ Mr. BOWMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. FASCELL. All right. I just wanted to be sure what their field was. And they operate across the board? Mr. BOWMAN. That is right. Mr FASCELL At this point let the record show that the staff will consult with this committee and let's find out more about this. Mr MITcin~LL Mr Seago, on the second progress report-or the third progress report- Mr FASCELL Before you get into that I am still nibbling around with this recommendation. I cannot understand what this recom-- mendation is doing in the progress report of OSI unless it is auto- matically voluntarily cutting itself out of a field of endeavor. Was that the purpose of that recommendation? Mr BOWMAN No, sir, it wasn't Mr. FASCELL. It doesn't mention the committee by name saying OSI shall have this )urisdietlon and the lOIS shall have this jurisdiction. Mr BOWMAN It is a problem we recognized and made recommenda~. tion to the Council that something should be done about it. Mr FASQELL In other words, you take the position that there was overlapping of functions and that something should be done to deter mine where one committee stopped and another one took over? Mr. BOWMAN. No, sir. Mr. FASOELL. You tell me. Because at* this point I am ~really confused. Mr. SEAGO. I have heard of this, Mr. Chairman. I was not in the hearing at the time But it is an effort to increase the flow of in- formation, to not have so much information classified, and to better their procedures for declassification It was a problem that the staff recogmzed when they came on this problem And it really was a suggestion to JOTS that there should be some better uniformity in order to get more information flowing. That is the point of it. Mr. FASCELL. I got that too, because emphasis is made on decla~si- fication, which is the first time I have run across that anywhere in~ these hearings I did not know anybody was interested in de~ classifying anything. Mr. SEAG0. We have the same objectives that the committee has in that respect. And it is a very complex problem. It is a very com- plex problem. Mr FASCELL Yes, it is It is very complex I don't mean to minimize it by being facetious in any sense of the word. Well, we will have to do some more studying on it unless somebody can testify on this thing right now Because due to apparent ni consistencies, it is recommended that a complete study be made and whatnot And I am just-all along here we have had testimony that OSI was in this one little field of strategic information that was not classified in any sense, and yet we got somebody on the staff here mak- ing recommendations that you have got inconsistencies and overlappings. Mr Si~oo Mr Chairman, I think, if I may suggest, that was the ~m1of that problem And as we said here, the 1015 undertook that- PAGENO="0506" 162O~NFoRMATroN FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES undertook the consideration of that question. It is not a part o1~ the problem now. Mr. MITCIIELL~ Just a moment, Mr. Seago, Mr. Bowman. Progress report No. 3, page 5, I think it is. I quote: "Other and projected action~"-you were in OSI at this particulartime, I believe. Mr. SEAGO. Yes. Mr. MrTCHEL1~. Quote: The committee also has been concerned with the language of uniformity among various agencies in marking docu- ments that do not fall under Executive Order 10501, Those markings include `~Oil1cial use only," "Restricted distribution only"; "Adminis- trative use," and so forth. Mr. FASCELL.! They found a couple we didn't? Mr. SEAGO. les; we did. Mr. MITCHELL This remains a problem for further determination. Additional stuc~y also will be made on the question of guides for Army, Navy, and Air! attaches in requesting GPO and OTS reports. My specific question is: "Official use only," "Restricted distribution only," and "Administrative use only," does that come under the Office of Strategic Information, or the Committee, ICIS? Now those words have nothing to do with 10501. They are not restrictions. Those are used words. Mr. MITCHELL. You found out as well as this committee has that they are widespread in use in Government service. Mr. SEAGO. Yes. Mr. MIPom~LL. In Government agencies. Mr. SEAGO. Yes. Mr. MITCHELL. Is a study being made as you say here-"This re- mains a problem for future determination." Is a study being made now? Mr. SEAGO. Yes. It has been under study and it has been under study a long time before we got into it or before this committee got into it. Mr. FASCE~L. The thing that interests me, Mr. Seago is: Why should ~nybody be concerned with the language of uniformity on anything that didn't ~fa1l under Executive Order 10501? It should all be marked open. Mr. SEAGO. Maybe so. Mr. FASCELL. I mean this indicates, of course, that OSI, in addi- tion to handling strategk~ information, and whatnot, is concerning itself, with the problem of all information across the board in Govern- ment that does not fall under the Executive order, because you are raising the question in this report that it is pretty difficult because of the laugi~tage of uniformity in the restricted markings to tell exactly what class this stuff is in; the way I react this thing. Maybe you can read it differently. Mr. SEAGO. Well, we don't want t.o restrict information as we have said before. Mr. FASCELL. Neither do we. So now let's start from there. But that is riot what I read here. I read here what I have l)een concerned about all the time, which is that we have got an agenc~y which sooner or iatei is going to conceri~ itself with some type of supervision and classification of all iiuforinati.on that doesn't f all under Executive Order 10501. PAGENO="0507" t~t]~ORMAflON FE~M 1~1~IXEItAL D~Pi~RT1\~tENTS A*D AG~CIES 1621 Mr. SEAGO. Our position, and your position is, as I understand it, if you have too many markings you interfere with the flow of information. Mr. FASCELL. No question about that. But all you are talking about in this progress report is a language of uniformity in the clas- sification system. Mr. SEAGO. Not classification, Mr. Congressman. That is not clas- aification. That is marking. Mr. FA5CELL. When you mark something "Official use only"? Mr. SEAGO. That is not classification. Mr. MITCHELL. It is not classification under the Executive order. Mr. SEAGO. That is right. Mr. FASCELL. We are agreed on that. But it is classification: "Restricted distribution only," "Administrative use only," or "For the girl at the third desk on the right as you go down the hall only." If that isn't classifying, I never heard of it. By the way, how long has this-what is it-ICIS-been operating? Mr.. SEAGo. It has always been a subcommittee of the NSC. Mr. FASCELL. What jurisdiction, if any, do they exercise over OSI? Mr. SEAGO. I wouldn't say they exercise any particular jurisdiction, Mr. Congressman. We are just a part of Commerce. Mr. FASCELL. They do what now? They don't exercise any partic~- ular jurisdiction? Mr. SEAGO. No; I wouldn't say they exerci~e any particular juris- diction. Mr. FASCELL. Well, this subcommittee was just an appointed com- mittee by the National Security Council or was it created by law? Do you know? You don't? Let somebody on the staff find that out, will you? That leaves us in a conflict position, because somebody testified a i~noment ago that this NSC subcommittee on information operated across the board. If it does that, it has some jurisdiction over the Department of Commerce. And, of course, on down over OSI. Mr. SEAGO. It is a subcommittee-advisory, I presume. Mr. MITCHELL. Who is the one specifically responsible for the policy that comes out of ICIS? Mr. SEAGO. We are not competent on that. Mr. MITCHELL. The Department of Commerce then is not re~pon- sible for any policy coming out of that committee; ~is that correct? Mr. SEAGO. Well, I wouldn't know how to answer on that, Mr. Chairman. Mr. FASCELL. Let's turn it the other way around, Does this coni- mittee ~ct as any kind of umpire or referee or board of arbitration on any information that might conic out of OSI? Mr. Si~~co. I don't believe so. Mr. FASCETAL. Well, ]et's-you have some reservation. And, I am curious as to why you have a reservation. You say, "I don't believe so.,, Mi. Sr~oo. I have never had any occasion for that particular kind of (]1IeStiOll to conic ui). Mr. FASCELL. In other words, as far as you know, right now, you ~iave no reason t.o clear anything with this ICIS? Mr. Si~~oo. No. Except that you would always advise with van- )US areas in executive part of the Government. PAGENO="0508" 1622 INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Mr. FASOEIL. What do you mean by that that if OSI were to under- take the release or euggest some voluntary guidelines for the withhoid~ ing of information that you would take it up with them first? Mr. SEAGO. Nb. Mr; FASOELL. There is no responsibility on you- Mr. SEAGO. We would have no-any questions that we have are considered by our two advisory groups Our Advisory Committee on Exchanges and our Advisory Committee on Publication. Mr. FASCELL. That is under the OSI you are talking about? Mr. SEAGO. That is with OSI; yes. Mr. FASCELL. With 051? Mr. SEAGO. i~es. Mr. FASGELLf. 051 4oes not do any cieariiu~g with ICIS? Mr SEAG0 Well, of course, its words, and what you do, what you mean by "clearing" and what you mean by "consuiting"-we are consulting with you now, it seems to me We would on occasion-~--- Mr. FASCELL. Except there is one big difference. And, that is that we are not in a position yet to tell you what to do. And they might be. Mr. SEAG0. I don't think they are. Mr FASCELL You say you don't think they are ~ You, agam, have got some kind of mental reservation that I am trying to get at. I mean if you want to protect yourself, that is all right, by not making a specific statement on it? Mr. Seago, ~1o you wish to make any statement with respect~to~olear- ing up the~reservatiom which I detected in your answers? Mr. SEAGO. Well, the only thing I can think of, Congressman, is that we could consult with any advisory group in government and certainly since that is an advisory group of NSC which has issued the recommendations on which the President acted, we would consult with them. Mr. FA5CEIa.. As a matter of fact, Mr. Seago, don't you actually look at this OUtfit as an information clearing agency of the United States Government and, therefore, you consult on all matters of policy with them? Mr. SEAG~. There are two questions there. I don't know that we would look alt them in answer to your first question. Mr.EASOELL. Well,~theauthority for your information stems~fr~m the National Security Council. They are your father aren't they? Mr. SEAGO. They recommend to the administration. Mr. FAScELL. So, isn't it fair to assume logically that whatever you do would have to meet with their approval? Mr. SEAGO. I wouldn't so understand it that way. Mr FASC~LL Well, maybe you don't understand it that way But do you actually do it? Mr. SEAG~. No. Mr. FASdELL. Well, the reason I am curious about this is because when you testified before at these hearings we asked you the same question and you said you weren't competent at that time to testify on the question. Mr. SEAGO. That is right. Mr FASCELL Go ahead I mean the recoid is youis if you want to say anything further on this thing. Mr. SEAG0. I have tried to answer it, Mr. Congressman. PAGENO="0509" PAGENO="0510" 1624 INFortMA~ION FROM FED~3RAL DEFAR~tMEN~S AND AGENCIES' Mr. Moss. D4 you maintain any continuing liaison? Mr. SEAGO. Tes, we do. . Mr. Moss. Dç you have a representative on their committee? Mr. SEAG0. 1~o. But, either I or someone from the staff may ge to some of their meetings. Mr. Moss. Do they issue directives or memorandums of policy or suggested policy? Mr. SEAGO. No. They do not. Mr. Moss. ~ey do not? Mr. SEAGO. No, nothing. Mr. Moss. 1~ want to ask then at this point a question which I di- rected to you ~n your last appearance. Mr. MITcII*L. Page 155 of the transcript? Mr. Moss. .X think a very important question at this .point is: Does; the National Security Council directive require compliance on the' part of other agencies and departments of the Government with the policies that might be evolved by OSI? Mr. SEAG0. And, we said "No." Mr. Moss. You are saying "No," now? Your answer at that time was: I am not competent to answer that. Mr. SEAGO. My answer is "No," now. Mr. Moss. ~lt does not require compliance? Mr. SEAGO. No. Mr. MITci~1~r~L. Mr. Chairman, I would like to interrupt right there for one mirnite. Will you refer to page 153 of the transcript? Mr. Seago, you were reading at the request of the committee from an article that appeared in Aviation Week, dated January 30, 1956. On page 153, which was in that aviation article: Ironically, the supercautious OSI censors cleared one piece of photographic equipment for display even on a military thought that that would breach security. Military ~nally won that skirmish. The poin1~ I am interested in, and that the committee is interested in: if the 051 is to have authority, over us, one officer said, then, let the National Security Council promulgate such a policy, and we will follow it. Do you believe that the National Security has promulgated such a pohey? Mr. SEAC0. Mr. Chairman, as I said before, we have never attempted to assert such authority. And, we don't know- Mr. MITcHw~. Then why do the military officer'~ `~who are quoted here directly assume that it hasn't been in practice, in effect?' Mr. SEMIO. I would have to talk to the man who made the assertion. Mr. MITCHELL. You know the man who made the assertion?' Mr. Su4o. Maybe, I do. I don't know. Mr. MFJiCHELL. Therefore, you do nOt. have-do you or don't you have authority over the military? - Mr. S1Aoo. I have answered that. I am pleased to answer you again. We do not. Mr. MITCHELL. I think that is clear for the record, now, Mr. Chair- ~ rf]~e, last time Mr. Sea go was before the committee-I can't fiuid my exact quotation-but I made the statement that the waiting of a NSC directive iii the eyes of Government employees had a ter~ dency to dry up information and make them overly cautious of th information they would give out. PAGENO="0511" PAGENO="0512" 1626 INFORMA~I0N FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Mr. SEAG0. ~o; Mr. Chairman. ~That was a recommendation policy ~and has never been fully developed. Mr. Moss. Alti right. Now, it would come do'wn to this then: that you make recomim~iida. tions with your various a&visory groups. But, it clearly is the right of each executive department or agency to determine whether or not they will adopt your recommendation as their policy? Mr. SEAGO. Yes. That is right. Mr. Moss. Sp~ that the role, then, of OSI is at all times an advisory Mr. SEAGO. That is coi~rect. Mr. Moss. `1~hey make recommendations? `Mr. SEAGO. Yes~ `Mr. Moss. Now, again, how are these recommendations brought to the agencies of the individual departments or agencies after the ad- ~visory committees have acted? Mr. SEAGQ. I think I testified to that, Mr. Congressman. It would `be brought to their attention by a' letter from the Secretary of Corn- ~xnerce tha~ th~ matter in question had been considered by the advisory ~committees. Aa~4, this was the suggested procedure. Mr. Moss. lThat would be from the Secretar~y of Commerce rather ~than from th4 4i~ector of the OSI? Mr. SEAGQ.' Yes. That is the way we thought we should do it. Mr. Moss. `fhen you forward the recommendations to the Secretary? Mr. SEAGO. That is right. Mr. FA~ci~LL. Mr. Seago, all through your progress reports, I notice `that the position taken by the OSI with respect to the job that it has to do, it says~ that you can't very well get industry to come out and be part of the program unless the Government's house is first in order. You continue to discuss your question of uniformity of policy in Governmentj as we have already seen, both on the markings and on ~other matters, and so forth. Now, howL would you be able to ever achieve uniformity in Govern.. xnent without some directive? :Mr. SEAGO. Well, that is a sort of a hypothetical question. Mr. FASCI~LL. It is not hypothetical at all. I mean you are trying ~~to do your~job. You raised the question in your own studies and your own reports. You say we have got to get the Government's house in order first `bef re we can go out and get industry to really take a hold in this volnutary program. And, the main thing is uniformity' of policy and4 procedure among Government agencies. And, you are complaining about the f~ct. And, you are saying in your reports ~that you ar~working toward achieving that end. Mr. SEA~O. ~On the ~basis of recommendations; not on the basia of being abie'to tell. Mr. FAsOEL1~. I assume f'rom this that you are talking' about at.~ `tempting to get voluntary uniformity throughout Government. on this question? Mr. SEAGO. ~I think that would be correct. Mr. FASCELL. But you are obviously not getting it. Mr. SEAGO. We are iii some instances. Mr. FASCELL. Some instances? Mr. SEAGO. Yes. Mr. FASCELL. The prospects are not too good are they? PAGENO="0513" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND ~WENC~tE~ 1627 ~Mr. SEAOO. I wouldn't say that. Mr. FASCELL. You would not say that the prospects are not too good which makes it affirmative. Mr. SEAGO. No. I would say the prospects indicate a great deal of hope. Mr. FASCELL. In other words, there is some hope that you can get voluntary uniformity across the Government with the various agen- eies on the question of strategic information and other information? Mr. SEAGO. And exchange of information. Mr. FASCELL. And exchange of informati&n? In other words, all information not under 10501? Mr. SEAG0. I think that is too broad, Mr. Chairman, to say all information. Mr. Moss. All information of possible strategic value? Mr. Si~AGO. Yes, which would mean anything of benefit to possible enemies. Mr. Moss. Getting back to the question I asked a moment ago: On page 5 of the third progress report, at this time, the Defense Depart- ment has been asked to work out the details of implementation. Fol- lowing that, all of the executive agencies will be advised formally by the Secretary of the policy statement and procedure. Now, has the Defense Department completed the details of that? Mr. SEAGO. No they have not. Mr. Moss. Would they advise you upon the completion of those details? Mr. SEAGO. Yes, I think they would. Mr. Moss. Then having arrived at a final policy for implementing these recommendations, they indicated then that Secretary Weeks would then inform formally all of the agencies. Would they then be expected to adopt and live with the policy determined by the Defense Department? Mr. SEAGO. If in each instance they wanted to do so. If your ques- tion is can it be compelled, it could not be compelled. Mr. Mr~rcHELL. Mr. Seago- Mr. Moss. At that point, I have another question. Assuming that this information has clear strategic value that can be demonstrated, it's free availability is prejudicial to the security of this nation, aren't we adopting a sound policy of not taking steps to see that its withheld; wouldn't we be better off if there is this great need for controlling this information to implement some policy which would insure that our security needs would be recognized? If it is a sensitive area. If it is an area where the security of the Nation is involved, shouldn't it be handled in more nearly under the procedures of Executive Order 10501, rather than the indefinite uncoordinated policies which are being studied by your group~ What would your opinion on that be? Mr. SEAGO. Mr. Congressman, I think that if you had a classifi- cation for some of this type of material and information, you still would have this problem. There is an area here that is difficult to handle, The proof that it is difficult to handle is what we see right here. It is sometimes referred to as a "gray" area. You do not want to permit people to just stamp something all the time classified. That is an easy thing to do. It takes some courage to work iii this thing and not classify. 69222-56-pt. 6-33 PAGENO="0514" 1628 INFOR]\~tA~ION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Mr. Moss. W~ll, then, this infOrmation-it is not proposed to ac- tually withhold it, as I understand it; but rather to arrange a quick exchange of the information? Mr. SEAGO. That is right. Mr. Moss. Then we are willing to exchange. the information. Is it that it has an adverse effect on our security, or that we are trying again, through the exchange of the information to obtain some addi- tional advantage? Mr. SEAGO. Well, if I understood the question, I think the later premise is corr~ct, that you stated. Mr. Moss. Then actually the only concern of OSI is to control the exchange part of this information so that you get something of like value when yo~I make an exchange? Mr. SEAGO. Control, I think, is an improper word. We are to study- Mr. Moss. Let us say the influence in the handling of it. Mr. SEAGO. Yes, that would be correct. Mr. Moss. But it is not felt that the internal use of this informa- tion is harmful to the security of the Nation. And, therefore, you are making m~ attempt to influence the internal dissemination of this information within the United States? Mr. SEAGO. Yes, that is correct. Mr. Moss. I think if that is clearly on the record it will clear up much concern on the part of many that we are actually aiming here toward a censoring of information available to the American people and to the American news gathering and disseminating agencies. Mr. SEAGO. Mr. Congressman, ever since I have been connected with this office, I have made an effort to see that this is not censorship. Mr. Moss. Well, I took ~the occasion a short while ago to point out rather clearly that the last progress report, the one filed under your administratiçn of the office was a turnabout from those oi~iginally filed, and indicated a change of basic idea and a change Of emphasis. Mr. SEAGO~ I think it is a change of emphasis. But I do not think it was a turnabout. Mr. Moss. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Mr. SEAGO. Thank you very much. Mr. FASCELL. Have you ever had occasion on the question of the releases of certain information that you felt specifically should not be released, and that you could not get the cooperation of the particu-~ I ar executive agency involved and it became necessary for you then to go to the NSC to get them to get the executive agency to comply? Mr. SEAG0. No, I don't remember any such instance. Mr. FAsc~LL. You don't recall any instance where you had to do that? Mr. SEAGO. No. Mr. Moss. Have you ever had a case like that arise where you have gone to any other executive branch of Government to get an executive agency to comply with what you thought should be done? If so, I would appreciate it if you would tell us in detail the case. Mr. SEAGO. I do not remember any specific instance. Mr. MITCHELL. What about the aerial photographic setup, the USIA, the one referred to in the Aviation Week article? Mr. SE~o. We prepared a little statement on the aerial photograph industry that maybe what you had in mind. PAGENO="0515" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1629 Mr. Moss. What I have in mind is simply this: When your group is convinced that certain information should not be released because it would be ~trinrental, and yet it does not fall clearly within the Executive Order 10501, have you called upon any executive agency of the Government to help you get compliance with your point of view? Mr. SEAGO. No, not in that sense. In this case of aerial photogra- phy, we suggested that aerial photographs which had not been pre- viously published be not published at that time, and suggested that to the agency that was involved. But that was it. Mr. FA5CELL. The agency complied? Mr. Sii~uio. No. They said that they had cleared the matter with the Department of Defense to their satisfaction. And that was the end of it. Mr. FA50ELL. All right. That is all I have. Mr. Moss. Mr. Hoffman, do you have any questions? Mr. HOFFMAN. You mean then they published them? Mr. SEAGO. Mr. Congressman, there were some pictures that they wanted to send to Europe. And, we thought that those pictures that they would send to Europe should be pictures that had already~been published, and not send unpublished, previously unpublished pic- tures. And, he advised the agency that that was our view on it. And, they cleared that with the Department of Defense, and said that they had secured satisfactory clearances, to the satisfactioll of th~ Department of Defense, and they published it. Mr. HOFFMAN. Disregarded your suggestions? Mr. SEAGO. I wouldn't say it was complete disregard. Mr. HOFFMAN. You thought they shouldn't publish them? Mr. SEAGO. If they had not previously been published, that is correct. Mr. HOFFMAN. If I had that kind of controversy with my wife, I would figure she won. Wouldn't you, Mr. Moss? Mr. Moss. I would agree. Mr. FASCELL. I detect a little reservation in there, like half com- pliance or something. Mr. MITCHELL. Is it a fact, Mr. Seago, that those pictures we are referring to in the aerial photography were in effect published by the USIA, and then Ambassador Lodge showed the publication to the 111. N. officials and so forth. Mr. SEAGO. What constitutes publication? Mr. MITCHELL. Well, I would say that did if all the foreign diplo- mats at the U. N. had occasion to bk ato those same photographs. Mr. HOFFMAN. But a dissemination of any information is publica- tion, isn't it, no matter what method? Mr. Moss. Well, now I have another question: April 19, we asked for concrete examples of progress in this matter of arranging for the exchange of information. At that time I believe we had cited the. instance of some medical motion pictures. And, we asked that. you make a review of your files and prepare to give us other samples where this policy in actual operation had brought about exchange of iiiforma- tion. Do you have, now available indications of more ~)rOgresS? Mr. Si~~oo. Theie is a. list ii~ivolved in that.. PAGENO="0516" 1630 INFORMATI~N FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Mr. Moss. In the supplementary material you furnished this morn- ing? Mr. SEAGO. Yes. Mr. Moss. All right. Now, your attention on the material goes only to Government pub- lications? Mr. SEAGO. What is that? Mr. Moss. Yo~ir attention to material which might be exchanged goes only to offidial Government publications, is that correct? Mr~ SEAGO. That is correct, except if business and industry volun- tarily would ask us what our suggestions would be, then we would give it to them on a voluntarily basis. Mr. Moss. I asked then in the occasion of the first hearing that suppose I, as a manufacturer preparing a manufacturing brochure should desire to check with someone as to whether or not the material I was putting out might be harmful, where would I take it for review? You indicated that you had no machinery for re~view of such informa- tion. Mr. SEAGO. That is right. Mr. Moss. Do you now have the machinery for such review? Mr. SEAGO. No, I do not. That would probably be reviewed by the Defense Department. Mr. Moss. We have many types of technical publications that are privately sponsored. Supposing a publisher of one of those desired to have-or asked for a review; where would you direct them? Mr. SEAGO. We have, and I think we continue to avoid passing on such a question. All that we would do- Mr. Moss. Aren't you in effect recommending policies without pro- viding the ma~hinery for implementing the policies? Mr. SEAGO. I think this would be helpful: If there is any question that came in like that, we would refer that to the agency that was involved in the particular matter. Mr. Moss. Have you determined-and I think this was a question I asked in April-whether or not the many agencies of Government have established some means of reviewing or evaluating this material which might be submitted on your recommendation? Mr. SEAGO. Yes. I think I didn't-I was a little confused by your question before. I am sure that the various security departments do that. Mr. Moss. Have you conducted a survey to determine the facilities for the handling of requests of this type within the various depart- ments or ag~ncies of the Government? Mr. SEAGO. Not a survey to that extent. We do have liaison people with the various departments and agencies. And, when a question of that would come up we would contact the liaison individual. Mr. Moss. If you are going to take responsibility for establishing policy, it says to a very conscientious publisher that where you are dealing with certain types of unclassified material, you might be aid- ing the eneitiy. And, we would suggest that this material be reviewed. Shouldn'~ you be able to tell them the name of the person in agencies that would undertake the review? Is it fair to them to send them out on a fishing expedition where they might encounter interminable delays in having their material reviewed; time is an important elemenfr in publication. PAGENO="0517" I~RM~TION F~O~t FE ~ 1~31 Mr. SEAGO. I don't believe, Mr. ~ngressman, that referring it to the liaison person is sending them out on a fishing expedition. Mr. Moss. Suppose you refer them to the liaison officer in the Department of Agriculture. They are publishing an article on the use of certain types of isotopes in agricultural research. And, you refer them to Mr. "A" over in the Department of Agrictilture. Do you have any assurance that he is equipped personally or has a staff to undertake the review of the article? Mr. SEAGO. I don't think that the liaison man- Mr. Moss. Wouldn't he start scurrying around at that point and try to determine whether there is someone available who could under- take it? Mr. SEAGO. Well, I don't think it is our responsibility to see to it- Mr. Moss. Well, if you are going to ask for voluntary submission to policy, then haven't we the responsibility to assure the person that they are not going to be faced with a lot of needless red tape and a lot of frustration in trying to have the review. Mr. SEAGO. And, I think we refer that person, for instance, to the Department of Agriculture, I think we have done all we should do. Mr. Moss. Don't you think you should know in the operation of your agency if you are going to undertake, as you apparently feel you properly should, the advising on policy, don't you think you should know what facilities are available in Government to carry out the policies which you recommend? Mr. SEAGO. Well, I think we do. Mr. Moss. You have a liaison man in the Defense Department? You .don't know whether that liaison man is qualified to undertake this particular type of assignment? Isn't it reasonable to assume that you would have that information? Mr. SEAGO. That is true. The way everything has been referred, it has been promptly handled. And I have had no occasion - Mr. Moss. Has anything been referred? Do you know? Mr. SEAGO. I would have to get the file to see how many items there are. Mr. FASOELL. I think one of your progress reports indicates that you had 500 inquiries. And that those inquiries have been referred. Mr. Moss. Are those departmental or private? Mr. SEAGO. That is business. Mr. Moss. I think it would be very interesting to the committee to know to whom they were referred and how they were handled. Mr. SEAGO. I think a good deal of that, again, Mr. Chairman, is item 11 in the material I gave you this morning. It has been put in the record. (See exhibit I.) Mr. Moss. I have not had an opportunity of reviewing that mate- rial. And I think these questions are very important. Mr. FASCELL. May I ask a question at this point? Isn't it true as a matter of fact that what you are primarily con- cerned with is establishing a uniform policy among Government agencies in this voluntary thing, and that cooperation has to take a back seat until you get this thing ironed out? Mr. SEAGO. It is a question of approach. And that is the approach. Mr. MITCHELL, Mr. Seago, in reply to Congressman Fascell this morning, did you say you were revising that order No. 157? PAGENO="0518" * 16a2 INFQ ATI~N FROM FEDERAL DEPAaTME~T84NR. ACIES Mr. SEAGO. Yes, we are working on that. Mr MITCHElL You have a committee on Government publications, * is that correct? Mr. SEAGO. Yes. Mr. MITCHELL. Who is on the committee? Mr. Si~eo. At the first hearing-I don't know where it appears in the record-but there was a question about that. And I indicated that it had been furnished to the committee. And you said it had. Mr. MITCHELL~ Who was on the committee of Government pubhca- * tions? TOTS people? Mr. SEAGO. No. The list is in your files. Mr. MITCIrsLL. All Government employees? Mr. SEAGO. Yes. As you asked me at the other hearing, they are all Government employees. Mr. MITCHELL4. Do you have any contact with the committee, or have you established any committee with outside technical publishers in any way? Mr. SEAGO. Mr. Mitchell, as you asked me before, and as I answered then: "No." Mr. Moss. On these Government publications: Is a review under- taken to determine which publications contain strategic information? Mr. SEAGO. I did not get the question. Mr. Moss. Has a study been undertaken to determine which Gov- ernment publications contain strategic information? Mr. SEAGO. That is a real difficult question. And we have a task force that is trying to get at that rigl~t now. Mr. Moss. Is the task force part ~f the advisory committee? Mr. SEAGO. Yes. And if your question is: Are they all Govern- ment people, they are all Government people. Mr. FAScELL. Do I understand you correctly now that you have got a task force which is reviewing all Government publications to deter- mine whether or not they have strategic information in them? Mr. SEA&~. It is a very difficult area. It isn't a questioR of the material, Mr. Congressman. The task force is looking at the prob- lem. It is not a question at the moment of reviewing any material. Mr. FASOEL~L. You mean to determine whether or not Government publications should be reveiwed to determine whether or not they have stratiegic inf~rmation in them. Mr. SEAGO. If you put it that way,. that is correct. Mr. FASOIOIJL. I am not trying to put it any way. I am trying to find out what the task force is doing. So you tell me. Mr. SEAG0. I think the way you stated it is correct. Mr. FASCELL. The task force then is tackling the problem of deter- mining whether or not all Government publications should be reL viewed to determine whether or not they have strategic information in them. Mr. SEAGO,. That is right. Mr. FAsasIL. I will check with you again in the year 2936 and see how you are getting along. Mr. Moss. Getting back to this: In the second published report of July 7, 1955~ page 4, bottom of the page: "A study is planned on what unclassified Government publications contain strategic information." PAGENO="0519" PAGENO="0520" 1634 INFORMATmN FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Mr. FASCELL. Right on this point may I inquire. Mr. Moss. You say if it is published information it doesn't have to be considered at all, because it is published. But aren't we dealing here in the field of published information? Mr. SEAGO. Yçs. Mr. Moss. And its strategic value and the need for some quid pro quo, I think is th~ term you used. Mr. SEAGO. That is right. Mr. Moss. Exchange with nations requesting that information ~ Now my question was: First, how do you evaluate the information itself as to whether or not it would be possible to arrange an exchange if there was such interest in it to warrant an exchange? You further complicated my question by saying that the case of basic or pure sci- ence, that was to flow without any attempt to arrange exchange. Mr. SEAGO. That is right. Mr. Moss. But you haven't reviewed the documents; so how do you know the chara~ter of the information you are dealing with in these publications? Mr. SEAGO. It is difficult, and I am not sure I still thoroughly under- stand it. If there is published information, Mr. Chairman, then no one has to determine whether it is restricted or otherwise. It is in- formation that flows. And we want to use that information in order to get other information in return. Mr. Moss. I understand that, Let's take it this way. We have publication A which contains information on basic science. Then we have publication B which may or may not contain information of strategic value~ You have a *equest from government X for these two publications. On one of theni, because it contains basic science, you are not going to try to arrange an exchange program. Mr. SEAGO. Oh, no. There has always in the tradition of science been an exchange. Mr. Moss. Well, then, you do arrange it. You try to. Mr. SEAGO. But we are not too much concerned about pure basic science. Mr. Moss. But you have not evaluated the documents. How do you know whether A or B contains the basic science or the strategic information? Mr. SEAGO. Well if it is published information, I don't think it makes too mi~ch difference. Mr. Moss. Maybe I am not understanding you. But you have indicated that you would make an all-out effort, to make an exchange. Because if it is a basic science you wouldn't be so particular in trying to. arrange an exchange. Now that policy I understand. But I do not understan4 how you determine what is in document A or document B if you haven't evaluated the material in the documents. Mr. SEAGO~ Well, we ourselves would not. Each agency or the exchanging i~nit would do that. Mr. Moss. Then you do not undertake the exchange? You merely urge the policy upon the agency that they try to undertake it. Mr. SEAGO. That is right. It would be very seldom that we our- selves would ever be involved in an actual exchange. PAGENO="0521" that OSI does n( Idid not q ite sa 1)0 ye Agric~ -~ let's ~ Departrn SOflie iiiforinatjon. (~ ider State. Moss. But where there is t stationed ~1 imrnec AgricuL ss? addressed to the y of Cc they i~. be addressed to us. But that 1 Mr. ~. Now are all requests for this material brought to ~ advice? Mr. SEAGO. Not necessarily. No. For inst~ Agriculture would follow the guide that thE and develop so far as they are concerned, they i in making an exchange. Mr. Moss. Aren't we faced - - 1 of functions here on the p~ committee, if everything that is done is o selves after the meetings have been hc and a ~olicy has been recom [ed; ~ 1 ]V ~. Youarec yout" L ~uest L~ ~eyh~veno us ~togo. ~. You tell them? Yes, and we suggest. ~ Moss. Do you have a file then of information which might be held by the departments available for an exchange program? Mr. SEAGO. Yes. We have in constant work and preparation what we call a want list. 1 Mr:MITCHELL At - - - c our ~ ~ in our , PAGENO="0522" 1636 INFORMA~I0N FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES ical setup which the Library of Congress had lent itself much better to the staffing out of that particular function or of checking titles as we say right there. So we have ma4e a contract with the Library of Congress to have a small staff continue on in that work. Mr. Moss. On that want list-is that something which is-is that a classified document? Mr. MITcHELI~. As for the want list- Mr. SEAGO. ~Well, no. And that information about the want list is also in the material which was furnished to you this morning. (See exhibit I.) Mr. Moss. That is under constant revision? Is it determined by OSI or by the Advisory Committee? Mr. SEAG0. Yes. It is determined by the people who have the wants. For instance, again if Agriculture would like to have a known docu- ment out of the bloc countries, they would advise the-they would advise us or theLibrary of Congress to put that title on the list. Mr. MITOHE1~L. In other words a master list of the want items is maintained at the Library of Congress? Mr. SEAGO. That is right. Mr. Moss. It is self-developing. Mr. SEAGO. That is right. And our staff works with them all the time. Mr. MITCHELL. Do you have employees stationed at the Library of Congress of your staff? Mr. SEAGO. ~O. Mr. Moss. You say they work with them in compiling the want list. The want list is made up of the requests of the departments and agencies? What role do you play in the work with the Library of Congress? Mr. SEAGO. The man who does all the correspondence and telephon- ing is right here. Could I have him answer your question? Mr. Moss. Surely. Mr. SEAGO. This is Mr. Mason from the staff of OSI. Mr. MASON. As I understood the question, it involved our working with the Library of Congress. Mr. Moss. Yes. Mr. MAsoN. Our work with the Library of Congress is more or less a liaison1 activity where we keep in touch with them and serve as a focal paint between them and the agencies on certain matters that question arise on. Mr. Moss. Could you give us an illustration of the types of matters or questions? Mr. MASON. Yes. Say Agriculture as was indicated here a moment ago, might have a request for some document and they didn't have an immediate need for something in return, they might send it to us and ask us to contact another agency to ~ee what they might have. Mr. Moss. Or they might send it to the Library of Congress. Mr. MAsoN. That is right. Mr. Moss. Is there a possibility there that we have a duplication in this instartce? Mr. MASON. I would not say that. It seems to me that our purpose primarily is one of working together with all of the executive agencies on this matter of exchanges. And to assist in clearing up problems PAGENO="0523" ii'. eXalill) *l..iibiaiv iid ~ 3fl on a - Overnrn t. ~on do yor ~ot. aren't any? are not I ee. PAGENO="0524" 1638 INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Mr. Moss. But you would not claim liaison with them, or that you are formulating policies as a guide to their exchanges. Mr. SEAG0. Oh, on the exchange problem, sure we maintain liaison with them. Mr. MITCHELL4. The purpose of the letter of a request for informa- tion concerning the Armed Services Technical Information Agency is extremely important. And I would like to have that. Mr. SEAGO. We will prepare that. Mr. Moss. It might be well for you to give them a written memo- randum on that. And we will have it for our files. This will con- clude the hearings for OSI. And I want to thank you gentlemen for cooperation with us. The committee will now stand adjourned. (Whereupon, at 12: lOp. m., the subcommittee recessed subject to the call of the chairman.) PAGENO="0525" APPENDIX EXhIBIT I MAY 25, 1956. Hon. JOHN 131 Moss, Chairman, Government Information Eubcommittee of the Committee on Government Operation~ House of Representatives, House Office Building, Washington, 13. C. DEAR Mr. Moss: I am pleased to submit herewith for the record, information which was requested or proffered at the hearing before your Government Infor- mation Subcommittee held on April 19, 1956, and the items of information are as follows: Page of transcript Tab 1. Background Leading To Establishment of OSI Tab. 2. Budget Details and Staff Personnel History 115 Tab. 3. Information of Intelligence Value Impracticable To Classify~_ 146 Tab. 4. Aerial Photography 168 Tab. 5. Detailed Answers to "Aviation Week" Article 152 Tab. 6. Open Skies Exhibit 168 Tab. 7. List of Titles and Items Wanted and Requested From the Soviet Bloc ("Want List") 134~204 Tab. 8. Statement re Titles and Items Received Under the Exchange Program 204, 226 Tab. 9. Summary Comment on Exchange Program 144,226,227 Tab. 10. Summary Comment on Publication Program 144 Tab. 11. Summary Comment on Business Science and Industry Relation- ships 237 Tab. 12. Relationship of OSI to BFO 194, 195 198 Tab. 13. Exchange of Medical Films 213 Tab. 14. OSI Relationship with GPO 221 Sincerely yours, ERWIN SEAGO, L'ireotor. Tab 1 BACKGROUND LEADING TO ESTABLISHMENT OF OSI By 1949 the Administration was confronted with the fact that the Soviet bloc had made great strides in its industrial and military might and the fact that the Soviets were also making a tremendous effort to collect our industrial and military information. It was believed that much of the Soviet progress was dependent upon technology from the United States. This situation brought about a study on an interagency basis early in 1~50 to see if steps could be taken to minimize this Soviet collection of United States technology without interfering with the necessary flow of information to our own people. As a result there was established on January 5, 1951, a clearing house program to which science, business and industry, could seek voluntary advice on the publication of their scientific, technical, industrial, and economic know-how. On November 9, 1951, Secretary of Commerce Sawyer recommended that uniform Government policies in this area be established before pursuing the clearing house function further. An interagency study which had been started in the meantime on the exchange of information with the Soviet bloc was combined with a study on Government publication policies. 1639 PAGENO="0526" 1640 INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Thereafter the voluntary clearing house program, the program on Government publications and the exchange program were combined and in July, 1954, these three programs were assigned to the Department of Commerce by the President for implementation on recommendation of the National Security Council. On November 4, 1DM, Secretary of Commerce Weeks issued a departmental order establishing the Office of Strategic Information to carry out the imple- mentation of the alxWe mentioned three programs. Tab 2 021 budget, fIscal year 1956 (estimate) Appropriated funds Transferred funds 1 Totalfunds Number of positions Amount Number of positions Amount Number of positions Amount Persclàal services Otherobjects Total 5. 5 $46, 600 5,700 2. 1 $17,334 213,366 7. 3 $63, 934 19,066 52,300 30,700 - 83,000 `These funds were found necessary to carry out the exchange functions of 051 after July 1955 and were provided by the member agencies of the Advisory Committee upon unanimous approval. 2 Of this amount $12,000 has been transferred to the Library of Congress for preparation of a want list. November, 1954: Director, WOO Assistant Director December 1~l54-February, 1955: Director, WOO Assistant Director, WOO March and April, 1955: Director, WOO Assistant Director, WOO Assistant Director Staff Assistant May, 1955 Assistant Director, WOO Assistant Director Staff Assistant June, 1955 Assistant Director Staff Assistant July-December, 1955 Acting Director, WAR Assistant Director Staff Assistant January and February, 1956 Acting Director, WAR Assistant Director 2 Staff Officers March to Present Director Assistant Director 3 Staff Officers INFOEMATION ose INTELLIGENCE VALUE IMPRACTICAL To CLAssIFY Executive Order 10501 establishes classification procedures for information, the unauthorized disclosure of which could be harmful to our national defense interests. The order also sets forth specific custody and safekeeping require- ments providing for the use of safes, safe files, dial padlocks, etc., for the physi- cal protection of the information so classified. As a practical i~iatter, however, experience has demonstrated there is certain information important to our national defense which cannot readily be classi- tied. For examplis: 1. Certain information relating to our national defense cannot be classified under Executive Order 10501 because there is no way in which disclosure can readily be prevented. The eaistence of guided missile, bomber or other de- fen~e installations cannot be classified. Their location is apparent to anyone in the vicinity. Yet, a list of all such known installations in the country could be of help to a potential enemy. As another example, the fact that certain STAFF PERSONNEL His~onx OF OSI The Office of Strategic Information operated from November, 1954, to March, 1956, with an average of 3.6 staff positions on an annual basis not including sec- retarial and clerical personnel. As shown below there were periods of time during which there were only two staff members on duty plus a secretarial staff. Tab 3 PAGENO="0527" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGI~NCIES 1641 companies are engaged in defense production activities is common knowledge, even outside the vicinity, and in many cases there is generalized knowledge as to the nature of the products being produced. 2. Certain types of information, not covered by section 14 of Executive Order 10501 (combat or combat-related operations), are not susceptible to classifica- tion under the Executive Order because it is impracticable to comply with the physical protection requirements of the Executive Order. For example, classi- fication of maintenance and operating manuals for weapons or blueprints for weapons or defense construction activities would seriously hamper or delay defense activities. Also, there is information which may have intelligence value to a potential enemy, but on which a calculated risk must be taken because publication and dissemination is essential for our own technological and economic growth and our own civilian uses. Examples are: maps, charts, and geodetic data used for land, sea, and air transportation activities, engineering, mining, etc., and aerial photographs used by farmers, miners, and city planners, etc. Tab4 AEIUAL Pnoroenxrny Aerial photographs have assumed great strategic importance with the devel- opment of new weapons of warfare. They are used either for target lnforma~ tion or for navigation by both guided missiles and aircraft. However, they also are essential for many civilian and industrial purposes. On February 8, 1955, 081, with the advice of its Interdepartmental Advisory Committee on Publications, appointed a Task Force on Aerial Photography con- sisting of Government experts in this field. The terms of reference were "to study and recommend solutions to the problem of publishing and disseminating aerial photographs, to retard the flow of these photographs to possible enemies without denying their use for essential purposes." This task force was chaired by the Department of Agriculture with representatives from Defense, Interior Commerce, and CIA. This task force held the first of 10 meetings on March 3, 1955. After con- sulting With industry the task force on Oetober 18, 1955, submitted its report to, the Interdepartnienal Advisory Committee on Publication. The committee tentatively recommended a guide whereby the Department of Defense would serve as the central point for the review of all Government aerial photographs before publication. This guide is not to affect the dissemination o~ aerial photographs for necessary civilian uses such as farming, mining, city planning, etc. Defense is presently studying the feasibility and mechanics of carrying out such a guide. Tab 5 DETAILED Axswxns p0 "AvIATIoN Wzni~" AETIOLn, ~ANTJARY 30, 1956 1. "Military services are increasingly annoyed at Commerce Department's controversial Office of Strategic Information," Defense liaison with OSI indicates no such annoyance. 2. "081 was set up to encourage `voluntary' censorship by civilians of non- classified technical information which might possibly be of use to an enemy." No censorship involved-authptized, implied, or actual. 3. "But services says 081 is gaining more and more power in the field of military censorship. They feel 081 has no authority to operate there, and less knowledge, background, and experience for making decisions on release of classified information." OSI does not carry out censorship in any sense, accordingly could not and is not involved in military censorship. OSI has no concern with the area of classified information. 4. "Surprising thing about this `collision of the censors' is that military some- times has thought it safe to talk and then been overruled by the civilian OSL" OSI is not informed of military releases prior to publication. 081 has never "overruled" the military and has no authority to do so. 5. "Most exasperating difference has come over President Eisenhower's `open sky' plan for mutual aerial inspection of other nations' military installations." There were no differences as to the necessity of the exhibit to illustrate the feasibility of President Eisenhower's "Open Sky" proposal. The ques- PAGENO="0528" 1642 INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES tion raised by 051 was on the type of aerial photograph to be used. 051 recomended the use of photographs in this exhibit which had been previously released and against the use of Photo?:raphs which might be exclmnged if the U. S. S. R. ~tccepted the President's proposal. 6. "U. S. Information Agency was told to promote the plan both here and abroad with pamphlets, photographic exhibits, and movies showing how effective aerial reconnaisañce can be. USIA's efforts had support at the very highest Government levels. Coope~ation from the services was excellent." True. 7. "But OSI stepped in and overruled military on release of some of its own pictures and information. Some photographs blocked by 051 bad been cleared years before and published many times." 051 never overruled the military on the release of any photographs, it only recommended the use of photographs which had previously been relea sed. 8. "OSI apparently also used the time-proven Washington technique of having military men `investigated' when it disagreed with their decisions on release of information." No personal knowledge of this and believe it to be incorrect. 9. "Ironically, the super-cautious 051 censors cleared one piece of photographic equipment for display even though the military thought that would break se. curity. Military finally won that skirmish." 051 was never involved In any discussions regarding equipment. The Office * is only concerned with information and not equipment. 10. "If the OSI is to have authority over us," one officer said, "then let the National Security Council promulgate such a policy and we will follow it." OSI never contended it had such authority and does not seek such authority. 11. "But the way the situation is now, OSI is reviewing what we have already reviewed and telling us what can and can't be done with it, and we damn sight know a lot more about these things than they do." "They are rapidly becoming a governmentwide office of censorship," he said. OSI does not review such information. Review of military information i~ up to the Department of Defense. Censorship is not a function of OSI. Tab6 "OPEN SKIES" EXHIBIT In October 1955, OSI learned from the Defense representative on the Aerial rhotography Task Force, of an exhibit of aerial photographs designed to publicize the President's "Open Skies" proposal. The Disarmament Staff and USIA were advised of the study being made by the OSI and its Interdepartmental Advisory Committee on Publications on the matter of publishing and disseminating the Government's aerial photographs~ OSI suggested that the aerial photographs which had already been published be used rather than new photographs not previous released, Conferences were be)~d among the Disarmament Staff, Defense, USIA and 081 and all a*reed on the desirability of such an exhibit. OSI offered every possible assistance and made the point that only published and general available photographs should be used to demonstrate the feasibility of aerial inspection. It was contended by OSI that unpublished photographs of military installations should not be evhibited since these actually represented the type that would be subject to exchange if the USSR accepted the President's proposal. OSI suggested Defense Department clearance of photographs prior to use in the exhibit and supporting publications. OSI was advised by USIA that it was satisfied that it had obtained proper clearance for the photographs from the Department of Defense. Tab 7 LisT OF TITLES AND ITEMS WANTED AND REQUESTED FROM THE SovIET As OF APRIL 24, 1956 Attached is a sample list of publications which we do not have in this country and which we are attempting to obtain through our exchange program from the Soviet bloc. As of April 24, 1956, there were approximately 2,276 suéh items. The com~ plete file of these titles is available for inspection at the Library of Congress. PAGENO="0529" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAl4 DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1643 ITEMS REQUESTED FROM UNITED STATES NYO 837-The Carrasion of Zirconium. ARC publications: AECD-3290, NYO- 838 and 000-103. Brookhaven Symposia in Biology No. 6-Abnormal and Pathological Plant Growth. Pulp paper and board industry, annual review. Atomic Energy Commission publication: AECU-2900. Subscription to International Iron and Steel. Atomic Energy Commission publication: AECU-2040. Atomic Energy Commission publication: AECD-3394, NAA-SR--184, BNL-173, Subscription to Proceedings of the Mer- chant Marine Council. Reprint of article "Cultivation of Large Cultures of Hela Cells in Horse Serum." "Unusual Synovial Tumors." "Test for Immobilization of Treponema Pallidium." "Phenomenon of Treponemal Agglutina.. tion for the Sero-Diagnosis Syphilis." Study of Newsprint Expansion. "Unusual Synovial Tumors." "Forestry Progress and Timbering Op- portunities in the Republic of Li- beria." AAA directories. "Liver biopsy in clinical schistosmolasis, comparison of wedge and needle types." ~ Received. 69222-5(1-pt. 6-34 ITEMS REQUESTED FROM SOVIET BLOC Collected articles on radiation chena- istry.' Phase transformation in alumino-man- ganese alloys and attendant recrystal- lization features. Apparatus used for submierogaseous analysis and for determining the pres- ence of nitrogen in gaseous mixtures. The practical use of the defectoscope In the discovery of defects in vital forg- ings. Roentgenographic e x a m I n a t I o n of atomic structures of certain dual and triple systems of easily corroding alloys. Electronic phenomena in catalysis and absorption. Potato and vegetable market in the U.S.S.R. Economic Problems of Ferrous Metal- lurgy in the U. S. S. R. and Foreign Countries. Political Economy. Offer made for continuous exchange. Study and computation of phase charts of the compounding of synchronous low and medium powered generators. Nomenclature of organic compounds. Certain problems of heat displacement in steam boiler furnaces. Publication supplied as part of regular LC exchange with the Akademiia nauk U. S. S. R. Similar publication requested. Similar publication requested. Similar publication requested~ Similar publication requested. Planning of the national economy in the U. S. S. R.~ Annual of Pedagogical Readings. Collection of information materials of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences~ Similar article requested. Polish bibliography of Geography, 1945- 52. Similar directories requested. "Examination of blood catalase In a hybridization experiment with rab- bits." The attached sample list is divided into two paris, Exhibit A Is a sample list of titles wanted and requested from Soviet bloc institutions on a general ex~ change basis and Exhibit B is a list of titles requested from the Soviet bloc in return for specific items sent. ITEMS REQUESTED FROM SOVIET BLoc IN RETURN FOR ITEMS SENy ExHIBIT B PAGENO="0530" "The Eaton Ne+Ts." Labor Department employment serv- ice tests. Commerce Department's "Business Information Service, Part 2, For- eign." 1 Received. ITEMS nEQUESTED FROM sovier BLOC Dwellings, Collection of selected docu~ ments. Steel copstruCtion in buildings. Tunnels, Collected documents. Process for the simplification of alum- ~ alloys and their resulting industrial composition. Geology of petroleum and gas deposits. Heavy combustible ores. Similar publication requested. Gazetteer of HungarY, 1952. Gazetteer of Hungary (Suppl.). Guidebook of Budapest. ProfessiOwil lectures and discussionS of journalists. Catalog of Publications in English. Catalog of Soviet Books. Books in the languages of the Republics of the U. S. S. R. Transactions of the U. S. S. R. Academy of Sciences. Physics series.1 Automation and telemecbanics.' Photo and sound techjilcs. Official Report of the Ministry of Heavy and Light Industry Organic Chem- istry and Technology. Desiderata list of 130 titles in the field of housing, building, and architecture. Transactions of the Moscow Serge Ordzhdflikidze Aviation Ipstitute~ Transactions of the Moscow Tech- nical Aviation Institute. Trans- actions of the Flight Research In- stitute. U. S. S. R. Academy of Sciences Ab- stract Journals. Five Years of (progress) Central Physi- cal Research Institute of Budapest.' The Role of the Central Research In- stitute for Physics in the Develop- ment of the Researches in Physics in Hungary since 1945.' periodical of the Institut°, Nos. 1-6, 1955.' Reports of CzechoSlOvak Academy of Sciences on Semiconductors and germanium crystals. Yearbook of pedagogical Readings of Nauch Tekh BibliOteka (current is- sueS and continuations). Collection of Information Material by Academy of Pedagogical Science. Czech Foreign Trade.' CKD Stalingrad.' Socialist Labor Discipline in the Penal Code of Warsaw.' Publications of hungarian Chamber of Commerce that deal with foreign trade. 1644 II~FORMAT10N FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES ITEMS REQUESTED FE0M SovIET BLOC IN BETUnN iron ITEMs SENT ExUIBIT B- Continued ITEMS REQUESTl~ FR~M IINITED STATES TID~56020WCR_T$5~32 and TID- 58-62. TID-5O3i~ Reprint from the ~3ritisb Journal of Venereal Disease~. Six Books on Ame~ican Journalism. Burgess Publishing Co. Catalogs. Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics Journal. Tantalum ElectrolytiC Capacitors. Certain Atomic 1~lnergY CommissiOn Reports. 130 American Imprints. proceedings of National Conference on Aeronautical Electronics. United States technical publications. Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc., Cata- log of Publications. MIT Reports of Solid State and Mo- lecular Theory Group. Subscription to the American Voca- tional Journal. PAGENO="0531" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPART1VtENTS AND AGENCIES 1645 Tab8 STATEMENT or TITLES AND ITEMS RECEIVED TJ~vimn THE EXCHANGE PROGEAM The exchange policy statement was formally disseminated to Government ngencies on February 2, 195t~. Although some agencies had adopted and were operating under this policy prior to that time, we have had or~ly a brief period of operation under the policy. Nevertheless, worthwhile exchanges with the Soviet bloc have been accomplished. The following are three examples of significant exchanges that have been very recently developed with the Soviet bloc. Some material agreed to In such ex- chonges has already been received. Number of items received or agreed to by U. S. S. B. (1) In response to a request to the Lenin state library of the U. S. S. R. for certain items wanted by the United States, reply has been re- ceived from the U. S. S. R. that they will exchange on a page-for- page basis. (This excbange is in the order of 2,500 books annu- ally.) 2,500 (2) The Academy of Sciences of the Ukraine agreed to furnish the Library of Congress with 350 missing back numbers of periodicals taken from the want list 350 They also agreed to send 22 serial publications (periodicals) cur~ rently issued 22 (3) In response to requests for needed material (United States wants), the Fundamental Library of the Academy of Sciences of the U. S. S. R., sent 266 monographs including problems in the utiliza- tion of atomic energy, heavy industry, basis of development of U. S. S. R. national economy and other items of interest on a variety of subjects 266 Total 3, 138 Tab ft SUMMARY COMMuST ON EXCHANGE PRoGRAM The Interdepartmental Advisory Committee on International Exchanges con- sisting of representatives from 15 agencies was established on February 8, 1955. The following is a summary of the accomplishments in the field of exchanges of information with the Soviet bloc. 1. Policy on ecDchanging published information.-After many Interagency dis- cussions over a period of 8 months, a uniform governmentwide policy was de- veloped for executive agencies to follow in filling requests from the Soviet bloc countries for published government information. This policy was sent to execu- tive branch agencies on February 2, 1956, by the Secretary of Commerce. 2. Guide to policy o~ eEchanging published informa4ion.-The "Guide To Im- plement Policy for Handling Requests From Soviet Bloc Countries for United States Government Nonclassifled Published Information" was distributed to exevutive branch agencies on March 29, 1956. This guide was developed for use by all executive branch agencies for use in carrying out the policy noted under item 1 above. 3. The Geneva Conference regarding ea~chanyes of informa,tion.-A position paper regarding exchanges of government publications with the Soviet bloc was prepared and furnished State Department representatives who attended the Geneva Conference in October 1955. 4. UNESCO Conference on International Eechaage of Publications.-The 051 and it~ Advisory Committee prepared the position paper to be used by the United States representative at this conference at which the Soviet bloc was represented. Nominees to represent the United States Government at this conference also were furnished the State Department. 5. Backlog of Soviet material at Custorns.-Action was taken to speed up the Bureau of Customs review of material from the Soviet bloc so that deliveries to ~ona fide recipients would not be delayed. Screening by Customs now is current. 6. Elimination of controls on scientifIc and educational inforrnation.-OSI, vith the advice of Government and scientific experts and in consultation with the ~lational Academy of Sciences, recommended the removal of unpublished basic cientifle and educational information from mandatory export control. This ecommendation was adopted and announced by Commerce press release 578. PAGENO="0532" 1646 INFORMA~~ION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 7. Jilcechange of medical film with the Soviet bloc.-On March 8, 1955, OSI re- quested the Depa~tment of State to establish formal exchange arrangements for the exchange of c~rtain medical films between the United States and the U. S. S. B. (Refer to attachdient 13 for further information on this.) 8. Action on specific ecechange problem&-In most instances specific inquiries received by OSI from science, business, and Industry are handled on the basis of general policies already discussed at Committee meetings. Some inquiries, how~- ever, are of such importance that they are considered and discussed with the Committee. At one recent meeting of the Committee, five such inquiries from private industry were discussed. 9. Day-to-day operations of the ecechange program.-Tbe OSI and its Advisory Committee discussed at a number of meetings bow it would be best to handle the day-to-day operational details of the exchange program. It was decided that these details should be handled by existing agencies and that 051 should remain as a smaal unit to guide the program. 10. Establishment of Library of Congress working unit on e~rchanges.-Ir.t oi~der to handlei certain details of the exchange program, a working unit was established at the Library of Congress to prepare the want list of items needed from the Soviet bloc and, in general, to aid in carrying out other details of the Government exchange program. Funds have been provided the Library of Congress through OSI for this purpose under a contractual arrangement. 11. Policy for ecechanging unpublished information.-A policy statement has been prepared for use by Government agencies in exchanging unpublished Gov- ernment information with Soviet bloc countries. TJnder this policy it is ex- pected that unpublished information will be furnished the bloc only after a definite exchange agreement has been reached. A guide to accompany this policy is now being prepared at which time these papers will be disseminated ta government ag~ncies. 12~. Ewchang~ of patents-The question concerning reciprocal exchanges of issued nonclas~ified patent information with the Soviet bloc were discussed at an early da4e by the Committee and a task group prepared a report which is now pending further action. 13. Ecechange of ABC nonclassified reports.-The Advisory Committee dis- cussed and considered the best method to follow in handling Soviet bloc re- quests for AEC reports. It was decided that such reports should be handled under the Government's exchange policy for published information, which meant in substance that we would let the Soviet bloc have our unclassified AEG reports to the extent that they would let us have theirs. 14. Policy on initiating ecvchanges.-The OSI and its Advisory Committee is now devising a uniform policy statement for use by Government agencies in initiating exc~ianges with the Soviet bloc. 15. American Committee on International Eceehange of lnformation.-The OSI and its 4dvisory Committee considered the possibility of setting up a com- mittee consi~ting of representatives from principal industrial and scientific organizations to advise on exchange problems. This idea was agreed to as being a good one but it was thought that this should not be set up until the Gov- ernment itself had adopted uniform policies. 16. Dissemination and translation of Soviet bloc information received by United Siates.-IIow to get better dissemination and translation of Soviet bloc information received by the United States was considered at the first meeting of the exchange advisory committee. A task group has recently been appointed to recommend specific action on this problem. Agreement already has been reached to disseminate more widely lists of Soviet bloc items avail- able to scien~e, business, and industry. 17. Evalu4tion.-Action has been taken leading to a governmentwide evalua- tion of the Information sent to the Soviet bloc in comparison with that being received in ±eturn. The guide sent to executive agencies on March 29 contained a provision for centralized reporting of necessary facts which will be used in this connection. 18. Soviet bloc requests received by GPO.-As noted in attachment 14, the 051 and its advisory committee is now considering how requests made by the Soviet bloc to GPO may be used in the exchange program. The above 18 items outline the accomplishments of the OSI in the exchange program, with the cooperation and assistance of its advisory committee. The following is a brief statement of the background of the overall exchange problem with the Soviet bloc, Initial steps were taken on this problem in 1950, PAGENO="0533" INFORMATrON FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1647 at which time one of the committees of the NSC began a study and review of the existing situation. It was determined that among the different agencies some had effective ex~ change arrangements, others had none. It was also found that Soviet-bloc re- quests made to agencies were handled in many different ways. Some agencies would fill them and others would ignore them. It was decided by the NSC subcommittee that there was a need for a coordi- nated and uniform governmentwide program. It was further decided that the problem should be assigned to the Department of Commerce. Shortly after the OS! was established, an advisory committee was appointed, consisting of representatives from the principal Government agencies. One of the most troublesome problems that the committee faced from the outset was that of considering the divergent views of the different Government agencies and determining what should be followed as a uniform and consistent exchange policy throughout Government. A number of lengthy discussions were held and from these discussions there have been developed several policies, and numerous troublesome and difficult cases have been decided and acted upon. Tab 10 SUMMARY COMMENT ON TIlE INTERDEPARTMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATION The first meeting of the committee was held on December 21, 1954, and 15 meetings have been held since that time. This committee was established to develop needed uniformity among Gov- ernment agencies in their publication policies so as to (a) minimze the possiblity of inadvertently disclosing information which might be harmful to our defense interests and (b) maximize the release of information which is not harmful to our defense interests. The decision to establish such a committee was made after consideration within the executive branch and in light of the growing recognition, by both Govern- ment and industry, that bits and pieces of ordinary, nonclassified information when put together were of strategic importance to the Soviets and accordingly harmful to the defense interests of the United States in some instances. At the same time, it was recognized that no action could be taken to curtail or cease publication of information which our own people must have, for business, scientific, or other reasons, or which they have a right to know. The result is that OS! and the committee are presented with one of the most difficult problems in the Government and one for which there is no ready solu- tion. At the first meeting, the committee realized the difficulties involved, the fact that there is no complete answer in view of the changing situations, and that progress must be made slowly on a piece-by-piece basis. It is obvious that in some instances the study will result in a determination that nothing can be done in a particular area without interference with the rights and needs of our own people. Yet the alternative is to do nothing in an area which concerns our national defense. This alternative would be difficult to justify within Government and, for example, in replying to letters we receive pointing out apparent disclosures of defense information in publications and advertisements. In view of the complexities of the problem and the limitations on what the Committee can do, it is readily apparent why the Committee cannot point to a long list of actions taken during its relatively short existence. The necessity to preserve our basic freedoms and the rights of the people preclude the hasty adoption of apparent solutions but require, rather, long and careful study which might or might not lead to some positive steps. Since its inception, the Committee has been studying the publications of various agencies to determine whether there are areas in which nonelassified information is being divulged which might be harmful to our defense interests. Currently, there are two active task forces studying certain phases of the overall problem and whose recommendations will be submitted to the Committee for further review. These are: (1) Task force to study problems incident to the publication and dissemination of aerial photographs by the eriecutive agencies This group was established in February 1955 and, as a result of its activities, a policy guide was recommended by the committee after months of study. flow- PAGENO="0534" 1648 INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGE~WIES ever, due to certain unanticipated difficulties on the feasibility of working out the same by the Defense Department, in April 1956, the task force was asked to review the matter again. Additional details of the work on this problem appear in tab 4. (2) Task force to study problems incident to the publication and distribution of maps, charts, and geodetic data by ecoecutive agencies This group was recently established after Defense had written Interior and Coast and Geodetic Survey of Commerce expressing concern over the release of geodetic data on Alaska. Briefly, other specific activities of the Committee included the following: Defense-contract information.-Consideration was given to problei~is inherent in the Commerce publication "Synopsis of U. S. Government Proposed Procure- ment, Sales, and Contract Awards." It was determined that by eliminating too specific deseripti~ns and quantities on contract awards and proposed procure- ments of new we~tpons and new installations, that there would be no effect on the intent and effectiveness of the publication or its value to the Government and to business and industry. Balance sheet for strategic information-This was an exploratory effort to determine whether such a guide is needed or is practicable in helping to balance the need for releasing an item of information against the possible harm that might result to the defense interest of the United States. This approach ap- peared to be not feasible and it was abandoned. Publication board reports.-These are research reports from Government re- search which are made available under public law. As a result of Committee consideration, a uniform procedure was developed for distribution of these re- ports by Commerce and the Library of Congress. Preparation and distribution of a list of official representatives and registered agents of the U. ~. B. B. and Boviet Bloc countries-After considering au the factors involved, it was determined that such a list should not be prepared or distributed. Weapons ctdvertisements.-At Defense's request, the Committee considered the problem which results from the fact that too often advertisements contain more strategic detailS on performance and other characteriStics of new weapons than are necessary. As a result, a letter was addressed by the Secretary of Defense to the National Security Industrial Association advising of the Government concern with this* problem. This letter was brought to the attention of the member firms by the association. The comments received in reply indicated generally that the firms were sympathetic with - the problem and would cooperate in safeguarding the United States defense interests. Tab 11 SUMMARY COMMENT ON BusINEss, Scinxcz AND INDUSTRY RELATIONSIUPS Since the April 19 hearing, we have made a sample review of approximately 250 of the written inquiries which OSI has received from business and industry. This analysis is designed to answer some of the questions raised at the hearing and to give some indication of the manner in which OSI is fulfilling its assigned responsibility to serve as a clearing house for science, business and industry. Letters were received from individuals, firms, and research organizations from California to New England. Many such inquiries were referred to OSI by the FBI, CIA, Defense and other agencies. About 90 of the letters reviewed were those which $sulted from the issuance of Industrial Security Letter 54-6 by the Department o~ Defense. The letters covered a wide range of inquiries. Firms writing in questioned the desirability of sending literature, photographs, catalogs, weapons informa- tion, and other data to not only the Soviet Bloc countries but also to practically all of the Western European countries, Japan and countries in South America, Questions were raised by the incoming letters as to the advisability of sending information to unknown firms or apparently suspicious individuals within the United States. Some firms had no individual problem but pointed out possible instances and loopholes which might be a security danger to our country. In- quiries received from numerous unrelated firms made it clear that an Iranian firm was carefully subscribing to newspapers surrounding United States Army installations. PAGENO="0535" INFO~tMA~rION FROM FEDI~RAL IiEPARTMEN1~S AND AG~INCIES 1649 Most of the OSi replies tequired consultation with other government agencies or other bureaus within Commerce. In this connection, it developed that some firms' requests for data which were on ornate letterheads were in reality only covers for post office boxes. It was determined by OST that some of the inquiries were of concern to certain of our foreign missions abroad, the FBI, CIA, and other agencies in Washington. On some it was noted that an export license would be required either by Com- merce, under the Export Cbntrol Act, or by State, as relating to arms, ammuni- tion, and implements of war. On others, it was determined that the foreign nations or countries over which a firm expressed concern were actually a part of the International Cooperation Administration program. The most common request OSI receives now is for advice as to whether a Soviet bloc request for information, literature, or photographs should be fulfilled or as to the attitude of the Government on exchanges of information with the bloc. In reply, OSI points out the exchange policy which the Government follows in furnishing nonclassified information to the Soviet bloc and emphasizes that there are no legal restrictions against forwarding the information, provided it is not the type requiring an export license. If the firm does not have any particular publication to request in return from the bloc, OSI, by utilizing the "Want List," suggests the name of a comparable Russian publication which we do not have hi this country. When this is received, OSI then forwards it to the Library of Con- gress Russian Accession Division. One example of the reaction of business, science, and industry Is a letter dated April 25, 1956, received from the department of geology of a large eastern uni- versity quoted as follows: "Please accept my thanks for your letter of April 18. "I am greatly pleased to learn that Government policy on the matter of release of seismograms to the Russian Academy of Sciences is on the same terms of inter- change which are customary between seismologists of the world. "In reply to your question of whether the request by L. Malinosvaska for the loan of seismograms from at least one other United States scientist is the usual practice of geophysicists, it is my opinion that the request is entirely normal. We are sending the seismograms which ~ie requested and are requesting in return records of an earthquake in which we are particularly interested. "If additional requests are received in the future, I will seek your advice before mailing the seismograms. Many thanks for your cooperation." All of the above points out the soundness of the position taken in the past and which led to the eventual establishment of OSI as a clearinghouse for business and Industry in this Important area. It is only through the utilization of one central coordinating point that any uniformity can be achieved in advising bus!- ness and industry of the policies of the Government in these fields in which reli- ance is placed solely on voluntary cooperation. Tab 12 Riu~ATIoNsuIP oF OSI TO BUREAU OF FOREIGN CoMMEncE The question has been raised whether OSI duplicates the functions of the Bureau of Foreign Commerce, The answer that has already been given is that it does not, but to understand the reason why it does not, it is necessary to explain the respective functions of OSI and BFC. Under the Export Control Act, the BFC is primarily controlling exports of strategic commodities and equipment to the Soviet bloc. As a corollary to that program and in order to prevent frustration of it, BPC has established controls over unpublished technical data related to that type of goods. OSI's objectives, on the other hand, are to correct the present heavy imbalance in favor of the Soviet bloc in the exchange of scientific, industrial, technical and economic information, and to alert U. S. Government agencies and American industry to the danger in the indiscriminate publication of nonclassifiable information, release of which would be of assistance to a potential enemy. Thus, it is apparent there is no duplication or overlapping between the control of data exercised by BFC, and the e~ohaiu~ge of data fostered by OSI. Indeed, these functions are not only separate, but mutually exclusive. Since BFC as a part of its trade-promotion activities also publishes a large amount of information mainly for trade use and which might also be desired by the Soviet bloc, OSI also furnishes guidance to BFC on the exchange of any of its publications with the Bloc. OSI's guidance in this respect is identical with PAGENO="0536" 1650 INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES the guidance furnish~d all other Government agencies, and is exactly in line with the quid pro quo aspect of the exchange program, of which 051 is alerting American industry. Tab 13 EXCHANOE OF MEDICAL FILMS In September 1954, during a visit to Walter Reed General Hospital, Prof. B. V. Petrovsky, Academy of Medical Sciences, U. S. S. H., expressed to Maj. Paul Schafer, U. S. Medical Corps, the U. S. S. R. desire to exchange medical films. This wa-s later confirmed to Maj. Schafer by the Soviet Embassy. Maj. Schafer referred this request to the Army Surgeon General and Medical Intelligence. There were no procedures to handle such requests and after unsuccessful attempts to develop this exchange, Medical Intelligence requested the newly established Office of Strategic Information to assist in this effort in ~anuary, 1955. 051 took over the' coordination of the entire exchange. Meetings were held by 051 with CIA, State, Defense, and Commerce. Commerce obtained 28 medical films through its film services. On February 2, 9, and 16, 1955, these films were screened and 10 were selected by Medical Intelligence and CIA for exchange. Procedures were worked out with the American Medical Association for the procurement of these films. Procedures were' also worked out for distribution and disposition of the Russian films. A1\jA agreed to handle national distribution of the films, with the Armed Forces Medical Library to be the final depository. On March 8, 195~, OSI requested the Department of State to establish a formal exchange arrange~nent with the U. S. S. H. A note was despatched to the U. S. S. H. on Merc~i 17, 1955, by the Department of State. On September 5, 1955, U. S. S. H. accepted the proposal and submitted a list of the Soviet films available in exchange. This list was screened by Medical In- telligence and CIA to determine whether we were obtaining a quid pro quo. The exchange was acceptable to the United States and purchase of the films not provided by AMA was initiated by OSI on October 4, 1955. Due to the necessity of preparing additional prints an~d screening for quality,' the procurement was not completed until the middle of December. Seven films were furnished by AMA and three by the Government. OSI delivered these films to the State Department for transfer to the U. S. S. R. in December and they were delivered to the Russians. The Russian films were received by the Department of State on March 13 and 26; 156, and forwarded to OSI.' These films are now being screened by the National Institufes of Health and will soon be turned over to AMA. Tab 14 OSI RELATIONSHIP WITH GovERNMENT PRINTING Orricu - In coordinating a uniform Government policy for the exchange of publications with the Soviet bloc, it was realized that GPO sales would be an important factor since the Soviet bloc buys many publications from GPO. It was con- eluded that when a uniform policy had been agreed upon for Government agencies, GPO must be contacted for assistance. A policy was developed which provides that Soviet bloc requests for pub- lished informatjon be honored on a reciprocal exchange basis. When this policy was ready for dissemination to the executive branch departments and agencies, OSI conferred with GPO. At this conference officials of the GPO indicated their complete willin~ness to cooperate. Arrangements are under consideration whereby GPO would refer written requests from the Soviet bloc to the agencies whose publications were requested. The agencies could then use these requests in their exchange program in accord- ance with the Government exchange policy. The Government Printing Office has recently submitted a summary of 161 orders that it received from the Four Continent Book Corp., a registered Soviet agent, covering the period from February 27 to April 20, 1956. These 161 orders represent 441 publications which were furnished and 249 subscriptions which PAGENO="0537" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1651 were entetM. The principal agencies whose publications were soug~ht during this period by this agent were: Publications Sulseriptions Interior Commerce Agricilture National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics State 227 53 57 5 31 10 107 17 39 10 The above-mentioned arrangements are now pending further consideration by a task group of the Interdepartmental Advisory Committee on International Exchanges. EXHIBIT II UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF OOMMERCE BusINEss AND DEFENSE SERVICES ADMINISTRATION MANUAL OF ADSIINISTRATIVE AND OPERATING INSTRUCTIONS-PART II Operating Instruction No. 7. Issuance date: May 10, 1954. Effective date: May 10, 1954. Subject: Instructions for convening and conducting indusjry conferences. Section 1. Purpose of this instruction .01 The purpose of this instruction is to establish procedures in BDSA for calling and conducting industry conferences, in accordance with the public announcement of the Office of the Secretary dated December 18, 1953. Section 2. Definition and purpose of industry conferences .01 An "industry conference" is a high-level channel of communication be- tween top Department of Commerce officials and leaders in business and indus- try; participants from industry have (1) no formal membership appointments~ and (2) no fIxed term of office, serving only for the duration of a specific conference. .02 The purpose of the industry conference is to provide a vehicle for the- exchange of views between top Department of Commerce and BDSA officials. and executives from business and industry on matters involving national security~ and domestic and foreign commerce. Section 3. FjstabZishing and using industry conferences .01 General provisions.-Conferences may be called to advise the Depart- ment or its constituent units on problems affecting an entire industry or seg- ment the~eof and in every ease shall be composed of representative groups from the industry. The fundamental consideration In the selection of conferees shall be the specific needs of the Department; however, it is appropriate that other Federal departments or agencies having responsibilities in related fields be permitted to seek advice and information from such conferences. This practice will tend to provide uniform information and advice in planning the Government's business, avoid duplication, and save time and effort of repre. sentatives from business and industry. .02 Proposal for calling a conference-Proposals for calling conferences should be initiated by the cognizant BDSA division or office and should meet the following requirements: 1. The problem to be discussed is of sufficient importance to warrant the attendance of businessmen and Government officials. 2. The conferees proposed for attendance will represent a true cross section of the industry with due ëonsideration given to large, medium, and small business, geographic distribution, degree of integration, etc., as well as of related trade associations. 3. The proposed selection of conferees will represent responsible leaders in the business or industry to assure that the best advice may be secured for the Department. PAGENO="0538" 1652 INFORMATIdN FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES .03 Approval of conference.-All proposals for conferences must be coordinated with the bead of tb~ Industry Advisory Committee staff and approved by the appropriate Assistant Administrator and the Administrator of BDSA. .04 Agenda.-The division director shall prepare an agenda which must be cleared with the Industry Advisory Committee staff, the appropriate Assistant Administrator, the Administrator, and the presiding officer, with a copy fur- nished to the Office of the General Counsel. Industry men receiving the agenda should be invited to suggest additional topics for discussion either prior to or at the conference. .05 Invitations and attendance.-Invitations to the conferees shall be extended to as many industry members as necessary with the intent of obtaining an in- dustry attendance 0± not less than 30 and not more than 35 top industry and trade association executh$es and shall be prepared by the sponsoring BDSA divislon or office in the name of the Secretary of Commerce. Attendance at the con- ference shall be by invitation only. Invitations issued to Government personnel in the Commerce Department and in other Government agencies shall be signed by the division director, except in the following instances: 1. Where personnel holding the rank above division director but below Assistant Secretary are involved, the invitation shall be prepared for the signature of the Administrator of BDSA. 2. Where personnel holding the rank of Assistant Secretary, Under Secre- tary, or chairman of a board or commission are involved, the invitation shall be prepared fof the signature of the Assistant Secretary for Domestic Affairs. 3. Where p~$rsonnel of Cabinet rank are involved, the invitation shall be prepared for t1~ie signature of the Secretary. Section 4. LimitatIons of conference actions .01 Recommendations resulting from conference deliberations are purely ad- visory; any determinations of action to be taken shall be made solely by Govern- ment officials. Secf ion 5. Selection of conferees .01 Conferees shall include top men from a cross section of the industry in- volved, giving full consideration to the following elements: Equitable representa- tion as to (1) small, medium, and large concerns, (2) geographical location, (3) trade association and nontrade association affiliation, and (4) executives of related trade assoCiations. Section 6. Place of conference .01 Unless exempted by the Assistant Secretary for Domestic Affairs or the Administrator of BDSA, conferences must be convened at Department of Com- merce beadquarh~rs, Washington, D. C. Section 7. Scheduling of conferences .01, Not more than two conferences shall be scheduled in any week, and no conference shall be set for either Monday or Friday without prior approval of the Administrator. Starting time should be 10 a. m. Copference rooms will be reserved by the Industry Advisory Committee staff after the Assistant Adminj~- trator has approved the proposal for the conference. Section 8. Presl&ing officer .01 Conferences shall be presided over by the Assistant Secretary for Domestic Affairs or the Administrator of BDSA. If neither the Assistant Secretary nor the Administrator is available, the Deputy Administrator of BDSA shall preside. The division director, or his deputy, shall attend all conferences sponsored by the division and will assist the presiding officer in the conduct of the conference as necessary. Conferences must at all times proceed in the presence of a full~ time Government official. Section 9. Record of proceedings .01 Full and complete summary-minutes of each conference shall be prepared. The Industry Advisory Committee staff Will furnish a minutes writer whose function is to prepare a complete, accurate, and objective report of the proceed- ings without identifying any industry representative by name or company affilia- tion unless cleared by the industry member involved. The minutes shall be submitted to the Division director for review and clearance with speakers, when appropriate, a~id for a decision on the general distribution. They shall also PAGENO="0539" OPERATI 4. f1t~j - PAGENO="0540" 1654 INFORMAT~ON P1~OM FEDEttALDEPA~TMENTS A~1D AG1~N~CIES luetion Act, the N~tiona1 Security Act, and other legislation and pursuant to delegations, directi~ës, and orders of the Secretary of Commerce ; and ( b) the participating industry members that advisory meetings conducted in conformity with these limitations and restrictions will not be viewed by the Attorney Gen- eral as constituting independent violations of the antitrust laws~ .03 DistinctionS between industry conferences and industry advisory corn- mittees.-An Industry conference is a high-level channel of communication be- tween top Department of Commerce officials and leaders in business and industry; participants from Industry have (1) no formal membership appointments, and (2) no fixed term of office, serving only for the duration of a specific conference. (See Business an4 Defense Services Administration operating instruction No. 7, dated May 10, 1954.) An industry advisory committee is also a high-level channel of communication between top Department of Commerce officials and leaders in business and in- dustry; participants from industry, however, have both formal membership ap~ pointments and fixed terms of office. Section 2. Limitations on meetings with groups of industry representatives .01 No representative of the Business and Defense Services Administration shall call together groups of industry representatives except in accordance with the procedure set forth in this instruction. .02 The provi~ions of this instruction are not to be construed as prohibiting individual citizens or groups of citizens from seeking discussions with employeea of the Business 4nd Defense Services Administration. Section 3. Devic*~4s for securing advice of groups of industry representatives .01 Industry a~lvisory coinniittees.-If meetings are desired for the purpose of considering problems affecting an entire industry, or a segment thereof, O~ involving questions upon which views or recommendations of several segments~ of the industry are desirable, they shall be held and conducted as industry ad- visory committee meetings. Industry advisory committees shall be established and function in accordance with section 4. .02 Task groups.-If meetings are desired for the purpose of considerin problems of a specialized or technical nature or problems requiring a considerable amount of time and effort, which cannot be expeditiously or practicably con sidered by an Industry advisory committee, such problems may be referred in writing to a task group which shall be established and function in accordance with section 5 .03 Special k~onferences.-If a meeting is desired for the purpose of considerin or obtaining advice or information on some specialized or technical problem, or for the purpose of preliminary or general discussions on other problems, a special conference may be held in accordance with section 6. Section 4. Establishment and functions of and procedure governing industr advisory committees .01 Proposal for a new Industry Advisory Committee.-The establishment o an industry advisory committee may be proposed by the director of an industry division or office. Such proposal shall be made to the director, Industry Advisor Committee sti%ff and shall set forth: 1. The purposes for which the industry advisory committee is to b established. 2. Tbetname, position, business connection, and address of each committee member proposed. 3. A statement, together with supporting data and other pertinent informa~ tion, that the committee, in the opinion of the director of the industry division concerned is repi eseiitative of the entire industry a segment or segments thereof In this connection section 701 (b) (ii) of the Defense Production Act o 1950 as amended requires that such business advisory committees shall be appointed as shall be appropriate for purposes of consultation in the formulation of rules regulations or orders or amendments thereto issued under atithority of this Act and in their formation there shall be fair rew resentation for independent small for medium and for large business enter prises for different geographical areas for trade association members and nonmen~ibers and for different segments of the industry 4 The proposed date time and place of the first meeting of the committee the Go~ ernment representatives (their names titles addresses and agen cies) proposed for attendance and an agenda foi such meeting PAGENO="0541" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DFPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1655 5. The proposal shall have attached (1) the nomination of the Govern- ment presiding officer by the director of the industry division concerned and (2) a clearance memorandum from the Office of Small Business stating that the Office of Small Business has reviewed the proposed membership of the Industry Advisory Committee and is of the opinion that such Com- mittee affords fair representation to independent small-business enterprises. If the director of an industry division and the Office of Small Business fall to agree on the question of such fair representation, the matter shall be referred to the director, Industry Advisory Committee staff for final decision. .02 Approval of an Industry Advisory Comrnittee.-If the director, Industry Advisory Committee staff, is satisfied that the Committee is representative and justified, the committee shall be established by the Industry Advisory Committee staff. All invitations to serve as members of an industry advisory committee shall be issued by either the Administrator or Deputy Administrator of the Business and Defense Services Administration or the director, Industry Advisory Committee staff, as provided in section 4.05 1. In order to make a committee as representative as practicable, the Industry Advisory Committee staff may change the membership of a proposed committee, or one already established, either by adding names to or eliminating names from the proposed list, or the existing membership; in such event it shall advise the director of the industry ~divsion concerned of the changes to be made in order to enable the latter to express his views with respect thereto. No change affecting fair representa- tion to independent small-business enterprises shall be made by the Industry Advisory Committee staff without prior consultation with the Office of Small Business. Generally, members shall be designated for limited terms to permit rotation of membership where this is feasible or desirable, provided that when changes or rotations are made the requirements in accordance with section * 4.01 3 are met. .03 Refusals, vacancies, and additions.-In case any invitations are refused, vacancies occur or additional members are needed, the director of an industry division shall propose such additional members as will meet the requirements of section 4.01 3, as are necessary to complete the membership of a committee. If such additional members are approved by the Industry Advisory Committee staff, it shall invite them to serve on the committee. .04 Eligibility of Industry Advisory Committee niembership.-Only those per- sons presently and directly engaged in a business or industrial enterprise in a supervisory, managerial, scientific, or technical capacity relating to the produc- tion, distribution, or use of a material or service shall be eligible for membership ~on an industry advisory committee established for a particular industry, a segment or segments thereof. .05 Meetings of industry advisory committees- 1. Invitations and attendance.-All invitations to and notices of meetings of any industry advisory committee shall be in writing and prepared by the Industry Advisory Committee staff upon the receipt of a request for a meet- ing from the director of an industry division or the Government presiding officer, together with an agenda from the director of an industry division or the Government presiding officer, provided that the Industry Advisory Com- mittee staff deems such request justified and such agenda adequate. Such invitations shall be issued to committee members, appropriate representatives of Busin~ss and Defense Services Administration units and of other Federal agencies. The Industry Advisory Committee staff may also authorize a member of a committee to have a specified person or persons with specific qualifications accompany a member to a particular ir - -, or to send a specified person or persons with s ualification that eh orth ir byt. ministral Led. 3. j be proposed by m~ rs.-A of an i visory comm] ;tee may be proposed by any three of 1 s member dustry Advisory Committee staff which shall determine the necess committee meeting. PAGENO="0542" 1656 INFORMAT~ON FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 4. Presiding of/icer.-A full-time Government official, not below the level of deputy director of a division, shall preside over all meetings of a committee. 5. Agenda.-The agenda shall be Initiated and formulated by the director of an industry division or the Government presiding officer. 6. Minutes.-Full minutes of each meeting shall be kept in accordance with instructh~ns issued by the Industry Advisory Committee staff. The Industry Advisory Committee staff shall decide whether minutes or a sum- mary thereof shall be distributed and, if so, to whom such distribution shall be made. 7. Segment attendanoe.-If meetings are desired for the purpose of con- sidering problems affecting a segment or segments of an industry adviSory committee, meetings of a segment or segments may be called and shall be governed by the same limitations and restrictions established herein for the full industry advisory committee. .08 Limitations on use of industry advisory ~~o~inim%ttee Znd th~ antitrust Zaws.-Inclustry a~lvisory committees are established as a means of maintaining contact between the Business and Defense Services Administration and an entire industry, a segment or segments thereof, on all matters relating to Business and Defense Services Administration programs. In the opinion of the general coun- sel of the Department of Commerce, so long as industry advisory committees, duly established and meeting in accordance with this instruction, confine their activities to the ~ollowing limitations and restrictions, such activities will not be viewed by the AI~torney general as constituting an independent violation of the antitrust laws. 1. An industry advisory committee may discuss all subjects outlined in the agenda pertinent to the Business and Defense Services Administration program and to the entire industry concerned, or a segment or segments thereof, at a meeting duly called and conducted in accordance with this instruction. 2. An industry advisory committee may render advice and make recom- mendations to the Government presiding officer when requested by him to do so. 3. An industry advisory committee shall not undertake to determine policies no~ shall its members attempt to compel or coerce any person to comply with any request or order made by the Government presiding officer or any publjic authority, nor shall they reach any agreement or understanding among themselves or with the Government presiding officer regarding specific acts to be t~iken, provided, however, that an. agreement made at a duly called and condu~ted meeting by the committee members with respect to recom- mendations to the Government shall not be prohibited. .07 Required use of industry advisory committees- 1 Except when such consultation is found by the Administrator to be impracticable, no rule, regulation, or order, or amendment thereto, which would restilt in a substantial change in the rate of operation or an entire Industry, a segment or segments thereof, shall be submitted for clearance without prior consultation with the proper industry advisory committee. Every attempt should be made to consult the proper industry advisory com- mittee as early in the development of an order as is practicable. 2 Wh~never it is the opinion of the director of an industry division responsible for the preparation and circulation of a proposed order that its unusually confidential character or the time factor require the circulation or issuaitce of an order of the type prescribed in section 4.07-1 without consultation with the entire industry concerned, or a segment or segments thereof, he shall state the reason in writing to the appropriate Assistant Administrator to whom he reports, who will then decide whether to recom- mend to the Administrator, that an exception to the rule be allowed and the order be issued without consultation. 3 In any case in which an order of the type prescribed in section 4.07-1 Is proposed by the director of an industry division to which the industries substantially affected are assigned, it shall be the responsibility of such director to effect the necessary consultation with the proper industry ad- visory cpmmittee or committees In any case in which the division sponsor ing the order does not have assigned to it the industries which will be ~ub stantially affected It shall be the responsibility of the director of such sponsoring division to notify the appropriate officials of the division to PAGENO="0543" Tient ~ PAGENO="0544" 1658 INFORMATthN FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Committee staff may add names to or eliminate names from the list of conferees if it is deemed advisable. A communication inviting each conferee to attend a special conference and stating its purpose shall be transmitted in such form and manner as may be determined by the Industry Advisory Committee Staff. It shall be made clear to the conferees that the functions of the special conference itre solely to render advice or make recommendations to the director of an industry division. .02 Place of mee~ing.-No special conference shall be held outside of Greater Metropolitan %Vash~ngton or on other than government premises unless specific ~written authorization by the Administrator, Deputy Administrator or Director, Industry Advisory Committee Staff is first obtained. .03 Presiding ojjlcer and minutes.-A full-time government official shall pre. side over all special conferences. The gbvernment presiding officer shall be responsible for the keeping of full minutes of each conference, a copy of which, signed by him, shall be filed with the Industry Advisory Committee staff within ten (10) days after each special conference. Section 7. DissoZving industry advisory committees .01 When the purpose for establishing an industry advisory committee has been served and it is no longer required, the Industry Advisory Committee staff shall so notify ea~h member. Section 8. Dissoliving task groups .01 When the ~urpose for establishing a task group has been served and it is no longer required, the director of an industry division shall transmit a letter so notifying each member. A copy of each letter shall be sent to the Indastry Advisory Committee staff. Section 9. Publicity regarding meetings witlv industry representatives .01 All information to be released to the general public relating to any meeting with industry representatives shall be released by the Office of Public Infor- mation. Section 10. Information and instrnctions .01 The Industry Advisory Committee staff shall prepare and isSue such additional infor~nation and instructions as may be necessary in effectuating the purposes of thisl instruction. [Attachment 1] DISTRIBUTION OF RESPON5IBILITTES WITH RESPECT TO INDUSTRY CONFERENCES Industry Advisory Committee staff 1. Serves as control point for industry conferences for the Administrator. 2. Provides advice and guidance on preparation of: (a) Justification for conference (b) Proposed invitation (c) List of industry participants (with respect to representativeness) (d) List of Government representatives (e) Proposed agenda (f) Sea#ing chart, etc. 3; Determink~s availability of Assistant Secretary and Administrator and makes the ne~essary arrangements for attendance of Secretary. 4. Makes the necessary clearances of invitations, agenda, etc. 5. Issues advance list of meetings. 6. Reserves room in Commerce Building. 7. Prepares summary minutes. 8. Issues necessary instructions. Inxiustry divisions 1. Hold preliminary discussions with Assistant Administrator and lAO Staff. 2. If matters of a classified nature are to be discussed, take necessary security measures. 3. Prepar~ sufficient copies of the following, documents for distribution and clearance wiith (1) the presiding officer, (2) the Administrator, BDSA, (3) the Deputy Adn~inistrator, BDSA, (4) the cognizant Assistant Administrator, BDSA, and (5) the Industry Advisory Committee staff: (a') Justification (b) Proposed invitation (draft) PAGENO="0545" LI [Attachment 3J SAMPLE AGENDA FOR INDUSTRy cONFERENCE DEPARTMENT OF C TIlE SECRETARY `~--s, 10 a. r~ ~ecretary f 69222-~56~pt 6-_~ PAGENO="0546" 1660 1NFORMATI~N FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AOENCI1~IS 3. Foreign Economic Policy, Sathuel W. Anderson, Assistant Secretary for International Affairs. Discussion. Recess for lunch, 12: 80 p. m., Canton Room, Sheraton-Canton HoteL Hon~ Sinclair Weeks, Secretary of Commerce. 4. Taxes, James C. Dockeray, Tax Consultant, BDSA. Discussion. 5. Business Outidok, M. J. Meeban~ Director, Office of Business Economics. Discussion, 6. Discussion of ]3ndustry Problems. Conferees are invited to suggest additional topics for discussion either prior to or at the conference. [Attachment 4] SAMPLE INVITATION TO 0ON~EEEES (IND~ST15T) DEAR Mn. : You are cordially invited to attend a con- ference of automotive-parts manufacturers on Thursday, April 15. The conference will convene at 10 a. m. in Room 4817, Commerce Bldg., and will recess for lunch at the Sheraton-Canton Hotel. The meeting will continue there after lunch and adjourn at approximately 4 p. m. The agenda of major items to be discussed is enclosed. My staff and I h~ive planned this conference to hear your views on Government policy and prograths affecting your industry as well as to discuss your problema. We believe that iti this way we can best serve business, Government, and the general economy of our country. I hope you will find it possible to attend and I look forward to hearing from you as soon as convenient. Sincerely yours, ~eoretary of CnmAnusrce.. Noru.-Consult the lAG staff for form of invitations to Government personnel, if necessary. Section 11. Con~penscttion and ewpenses .01 The Business and Defense Services Administration shall not pay any compensation to~ or the expenses of, any committee member~ The committee shall not have a budget nor solicit for support thereof. Section 13. Use of industry advisory convin'itteer .01 Any industry advisory committee established by the Business and De- fense Services Administration may be utilized by other agencies of the Do- partmhnt of Commerce as well as by Government agencies outside the Depart- ment. RequestS for the use of such committees shall be made of the director of the industry division concerned. Section 13. Orders superseded .01 This ins4ruction supersedes General Program Order No. 6, issued December 18, 1950, and i~evised January 2, 1t~52. All other orders or parts ther~of, the provisions of which are inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of this instruction are hereby amended or superseded accordingly. CHAIrLES F. I~4Ir~EYwELL, AdmSnistrator. Approved: HAROLD B. ConwIN, Deputy General Counsel, Depart nient, ofCçnnmerce. H. B. McCoy, Deputy Adm,in'tstrator. PAGENO="0547" - PAGENO="0548" 1662 INl~ORMATI~N FROM FEDERAL D ARrt~N~s A~h' AOE~~S EXHIBIT IV UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ComacE, BFSINES5 AND DEFENSE ~m~visas IADMINSTRATION, WASHINGTON, D. 0. - ~D-549 ONE HUNDRED ANP FIFTY MILLION TONS OF STEEL CAPAOITY NEEDED BY 1960 Demand for steelJwill require an increase in the present 126 million ingot tons capacity of the industiy to 150 million tons in 1960 according to a survey by the Business and Defense Services Administration, United States Department of Commerce. Current civilian demand running at the rate of X17 million tons, plus the 18 million ton minimum margin for defense would require a capacity today of 135 million tons to conform to the Defense Production Act the Iron and Steel Division of BDSA points out in its report. Thus, there exists today a deficit of 9 million tons. Even if an ininiediate program were Initiated to make up this deficit, engi- neering, constructlpn and operating break-in requirements would take 2 to 5 years, the Division said. I The following table projects steel requirements based on the indicated growth in the civilian economy, through 1960, in millions of net ingot tons: Year ~i'ei= ~EP ~fte~d ii7 is i35 i956 i20 i8 138 1937 i23 ii 141 1968 126 i8 144 1959 4 i29 i8 147 1960 i32 18 iSO EXHIBIT V ExEcUTIvE ORDER 9568 PROVIDING FOR THE RELRASR OF 5CIRNTIFIO INFORMATION Ey virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States by the Constitution and Statutes and as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy and in order tç~ provide for the release for publication by individuals or groups in so far as It may be done without prejudice to the public Interest of certain scientific and technical data now or hereafter withheld from public dissemina- tion for the pt~rpose of national military security to the end that such inform't tion may be of maximum benefit to the public it is hereby ordered as follows 1 For the Purpose of determining what portion thereof should be released for publication and making appropriate recommendations therefor to the War and Navy Departments, the Director of War Mobilization and Reconversion (herein- after referred to as the Director) is hereby authorized to review all scientific and technical information, which (1) has been, or may, hereafter be developed by, or for, or with funds of any department or agency of the Government, and (2) is now or may hereafter be classified as secret confidential restricted or by other comparable designation, or otherwise withheld from the public for purposes of the nationgi military security. This information is hereinafter referred to as scientific inf~rmation. 2. All dePurtments and agencies shall furnish the Pirector all information that be ma~ request as essential to the performance of Ins duties under this order Any provision of this order notwithstanding there shall be excluded from the sc4pe of this order any scientific information which the President shall declare to h~ in a closed field of information, except as the President shall subse- quently remove any such Information from the closed field. 3 In determining what scientific information may be released and generally in the performance of his duties under thIs order, the Director shall proceed In the manner hereinafter outlined and in accordance with such procedures as may be adopted by him, utilizing such governmental and private agencies and per- sonnel as he shall deem appropriate: PAGENO="0549" ent ~r of -iand~ S. EZOLISE, ne 8, 1945. (F. R. Doe. 45-lolli; Filed, June 9. EXHIBIT Vi Q. PAGENO="0550" 1664 INPORMATION PROM PEDE1kAL DEPARThtENTS ANb AGENCT1~S necessity of formal c~risorshIp, which would ~lnevitably in~ol~e publication delays for practically all m~terlal. Won't you please indicate yOur v1~W~ conc~rtling the attached manuscript by completing the qu~stionnaire below. 1. Would pi1bll~at~on be unwise from the atandpoint of national seeurity~ Yes No1X 2. If answer is "Y~s," please elaborate below. B. S. Gamntrntmm, ~4gaat'~tre for Uonftde~ivtiai Record Only. July 23, 19~3. Exir~nir VII AC$ APPLIED PUBLICATIONS, Washington, 11 U., May 31, 1956. Mr. Jornr MITOHEL~, Snbeommittee ~n Government Operations, Ilonse of I~epresentatives, Wash~ington, D. U. DEAR Mn. MITon~iLL: When I appeared before the Moss Subcommittee a few weeks ago, I was asked the question: "Are you using the identifying stamp in mailing Society journals to countries behind the Iron Curtain, the Bamboo Ourtaii~, etc.?" I have checked with the business office of the Society and they state that we are following the Commerce Department and the Post Office Department require- ments Which have been in effect for several years. Attached are wrappers as used for foreign mailing In accordance with these requirements. Actually one of the wrappers i~ addressed to an individual in Darmstadt, Germany, which is in the Western Zone. In other words, all our foreign circu1atioi~ carries the notation "General License GTDA." Cordially yQurs, WALTER J. M~npuy, Editorial Director. (The wrappers referred to are imprinted and addressed as follows:) Chemical and Engineering News, Easton, I~a. Newspaper. General License GPDA. Entered as second class matter, Easton, Pa. U. S. Postage, 091/2~ paid, Easton, Pa. Perbiit No. 7: Lee, Wayne P., Care of Mutual Prust Co., 308 Edinburgh House, Queens Road C, tlongkong, China. Chemical Abstracts, Easton, Pa. GPt~P-Export license not required. Rn- tered as second class matter at Easton, Pa. U. S. Postage 18~/2 ft paid, Ea~ton, Pa. Permit No. 7: Lee, Waytie P., Care of Mutual Trust Co., 308 Edinburgh ~1ouse, Queens Road C. Ho~igkong, China. Chemical audi Engineering News, Easton, Pa. Newspaper. General License GTDA. Enteredi as second class matter, Easton, Pa. U. S. Postage, 0O1/~çb paid, )~aston, Pa. Permit No. 7: Merck, F~iedrich L., Frankfurter Str. 250, Darmstadt 16, Germany. Chemical and Engineering News, Easton, Pa. Newspaper. General License GTDA. Entered as second-class matter, Easton, Pa. U~ S. postage, 9~ paid, Easton, Pa. Permit No. 7: Mauss, Wilhelm, Rheinstrasse 25, Wlesbaden-Biebrich 16, Germany. Chemical Abstracts, Easton, Pa. GTDP-Export license not required. Entered as second-class matter at Easton, Pa. U. S. postage, 181/2~ paid, Easton, Pa. Permit No. 7: Journal ~f the South, African Chemical Institute, care of Honorable Sec- retary, P. b. Box 3361, Johannesburg, South Africa. Chemical Ab~tracts, Raston, Pa. GTDP-Export license not required. Entered as second-clasa matter at Easton, Pa. U. S. postage, 181/2~ paid, Easton, Pa. Permit No. 7: South African Journal of Science, Honorary Librarian, University Library, Mimer Park, Johannesburg, South Africa. PAGENO="0551" PAGENO="0552" DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, GFFIOE OF THE GENEa.&t COUNSEL, Wa~hin~gton, D~ C., Ma,~j 17, 1~6. Inf&rmatlon subcommittee. of the Oon~ni4ttee on ives, Wa8M4vgton,D. C. ~~rse of t~ hearing 1~ ~ your subeom- Foster, M Ian, and Ostroff ~onstitutiona1lty 1945 ~ ~. 0., ~ Acting Director, Bureau of [F. R. Doe. 55-3484, Filed, Apr. 27, 1956, 8: 53 a. m.1 EXHIBIT IX PAGENO="0553" rely yours, PAGENO="0554" PEO~RES5 RJSI?ORT NOV15~BE1~ 1 Rs~oi~r ro `r~iu N~vioi~ This is a progress re Strategic Information t action taken by the Office in carrying out the p Security Council~s document. BACKG1~OUND The National Security Council asked the Secretary of Commerce to Implement s outlined in paragraph 3 of National Security Council documei by the Be ~artment of Commerce, on Au 1 that it ? a clearinghouse where on a truly voluntary basis, when ifled scientific, technical, industrial, PAGENO="0555" PAGENO="0556" PAGENO="0557" ~ayed in reaching the addressees. with the Bureau of Customs and other ex- ~ess has recently been made in speed- ing ~ Working with the Central Intel ~.reasury Del nent the Office of Strategic Infor- matlpn is is nearing a sa isfaçtory answer and smooth-running operation. Achieveing an answer to this problem will be of great help to Govern- ment departments and industrial people who have been developing exchanges and who find the material received in exchange is of value in their work. SUMMARY Industry, in general, is alert, well aware of the strategic information problem and cooperative. Industry is not our major problem in respect to published Information. Establishment of OSI brought on a nationwide flurry of editorial criticism, mainly the result of a campaign conducted by a small grou~~ fearing censorship. Such attacks have now subsided. In private many editors are in sympathy with the program and the aims of OSL It must be expected that a small minority of editors will fall to cooperate with any voluntary program. Compe- tition for readership may then prevent the majority from withholding strategic Information, For this reason, not too much can be expected of a voluntary editorial program at this time. In addition, editors remonstrate that most of the dangerous information pub- lished has first been officially released or leaked from a Government department. This appears to be true. The matter should have immediate attention at top Government levels. The Interdepartmental Committee on Goveri~ment Publications has been formed and two problems are being investigated; (1) How to prevent leakage of strategic information, and (2) aerial photography. The Interdepartmental Committee on International Exe'~ formed and is at work on the problem of centralizing excb specifically posed in the NSO directive. There appears to be an increasing trend by the Soviet bloc nations to information. One probem, the delay in processing Soviet bloc material throi - is on the way to solution. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Control of the release of ii adequately handled by the however these control. It - prevent the unwarranted unclassified, by officials ar 2. Consistency in release a be improved. 3. The NSC directive sets I nclassifledi~' ----- --- -~ -~ ExHIBIT XI Orricn OF STRATEGIC INFORMATION PRoGRRSS REPORT FEBRUARY 19 1955-.] 30 1955 On recomme dent, Secretary Information wit] among dep~ PAGENO="0558" Department's Advisory ~ chairman of both interdepartmental cc ~, OST prepared and transmitted to t~. ~ Security Cor concerning its progress to February 1955. IMPLEMENTA9~ION TO JUNE 30, 1955, OF N5C * * ~ ~1MMJ I. Implementation of * * * part I: This part provides that 4 set up a central clearinghouse for business and F affirmative steps to publicize the~avai1abi1ity of a for industry A. Iad~stry contacts.-Since its establishment, the Office of Strategic Informa- tion has initiated a p: .m to create a pre )ublication awareness by news media. Talks have been v"~ fore the Ame'~1 a Society of Newspaper Editors, the National Industrial ~ Associ~ ~`1 a special presentation was made before the Society of ~ B. Inqv~ir~es fr~n I D inquiries for assistance re- garding the strategic ii ~1 C. Probleim of dw~a,re* ~ant but ba~d to ~ recommended a spe dustry to alert producers and users o~. - photograj~hs. A meeting was held on June 3J with ret.. ~ ~ photography industry. The industry aupported the views and plans L. ~I and voluntarily agreed to carry out an educational program within their industry PAGENO="0559" PAGENO="0560" C. Weapons advertisements,-It is ~ underway, concerning weapons advertisem~. mation. A task gropp of the Interdepartmental Committee on ~ already been appointed to work with the National Security Industrial Associa- tion on this problem. III. Further imph~mentation of * * * part III: A. Central poin,t.-1-It is planned to strengthen our exchange program by desig- nating OSI as a cent~ral point in an executive branch of the Government to which exchange problems can be channeled. B. Present e~rch~ge policies.-A complete analysis of existing exchange poll- cies and procedures~ will be made with a view toward improving benefits poten tially available to the United States. Close liaison with the State Department will be maintained to assure ~ relations with foreign countries. C. Working gronp.-In carrying out this 0 Committee on International Exchanges has re working group which would handle the day~-. program. If this is properly pursued it could be of the whole program. Uxir~ STAThS DEPARTMENT OF CoMMERcE, ~ The Commerce ~epartment acted today to amend i export of unpublished technical data to exclude gener~ activities from licensing controls. The action was taken following consultations with scientific organizations, private and governmental. The proposed amendment, which becomes effective when published in the Federal Register, excludes from validated licensing requirements the following categories of technical data: (1) The dissemination of scientific information not directly and significantly related to design, production, and utilization in industrial processes. Information thus exempted, includes correspondence and attendance at or participation in meetings. (2) Instruction in academic institutions and academic laboratories. The regulatiob, issued December 16, 1954, and effective January 15, 1955, is administered by the Department's Bureau of Foreign Commerce; It is intended to prevent the acquisition by unfriendly countries of applied technology and industrial knoW-how of strategic significance. There are no validated licenses required for the export of published technical data; these may be shipped under general license to any destination in the world. The regulation also provides for voluntary consultation by industry with the Bureau of Foreign Commerce for advice on unpublished technical data of significance to the common security and defense, especially where the technical data is concerfled with (1) advanced developments, technology, and production know-how; (2) prototypes, and (3) special installations~ To preserve free dissemination of basic information and to help protect the Natiou from l~aks which, inform unfriendly nations about developments of stra- tegic importance In the United States the Departments Office of Strategic Infor mation is encburaging the exercise of balanced judgment and alerting members of scientific arid technical societies to the possible strategic importance of certain types of technical data prior to publication. PAGENO="0561" 0. GBNEn~4j~ RI `, thej - which the to our de_~~ 69222*~6pt. O-.-.-.SO PRC,. ORT, ~ A. INTRODUCTION ~ *__~ * .y ~ - B. ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONS 1. Under the NSO directive the Secretary Of Ooum~. blilty to: (\ - e a central clE . - ~eonav (b) mt nai se Inrflitteein ? Oftlce of ~ r business a PAGENO="0562" _Jus ~ their products and t~, often the advertisemen and other c leristics of a n~ 7 weapon proper choice of language and r~ the suggestion of 051, a letter ws National Sec~~~ ~ Association by the Secretary of ~ soliciting its assistance in this matter. This problem will require further attention and action. The Director of the Office of Strategic Information addressed a meeting of the American Chemical Society at the University of Minnesota, In Minneapolis in September. A copy of the speech is attached. (Tab A) Representatives of the Industrial Editors' Association met with OSI and its advisory committee, and a representative from OSI attended a meeting of the board of directors of this organization. The board approved a policy of close cooperation with OSI, through its Government liaison committee on the intOr- national exchangeS on house organs and maufacturers' brochures. A member of th~e OSI staff addressed the American A~sociat1on for Advance- ment of Science, Section on Scientific Editorial rroblcms, in Atlanta in December. n before the Science and Te~bnology groi1~ of the ~rnlng the OST exchahge pro- entations and indications a Government agency v w a immediately by some critics as censorship and the press. There is an attitude that this task is too great and that r can be acomplisbed. The Commerce Department does not Progress already has been made and there is more that can b P. ACTIVITIES ni a greater t than some in Govern AcTIvITTES nse contract information ~ Govern~ tent publication, bids were solicited for an "Aircraft Early Warn- r, Tex. This was the first indication of the existence a ~a~lar network on our southwest border. .1 Installation," could have achieved giving away strategic information of PAGENO="0563" o11IItrie~. I (iflil /)lOj('(t((I u1Jll1t(:~(~ better with han ~(.jf~ by the ~ labor Departm eat te - - PAGENO="0564" Other and projected actions Arrangements were worked out between the Commerce Office of Technical Services and the Library of Congress and Atomic Feergy Commission to peovide a means for exchanging AEC reports which had been released at the Geneva lonference on the peaceful uses of atomic energy. In tMs instance, the United States Government Is taking steps to obtain valuable information in return fOr the AEC reports requested by Soviet bloc countries. In coopertlon with AEC, the widespread sale of microcards of newly declassl- fled and other nonelassifled AEC reports to Soviet bloc countries is being with- held. A pilot exchange of medical film was coordinated by OSI. This exchange ar- rangement provided that the United States would supply 10 specified medical films and that the Russians would supply in exchange 10 similar films. The D~- partment of State, the Department of Health Education, and Welfare, the Armed Forces Library, and American Medical Association all cooperated with 051 on this proje,ct. A position paper for the Geneva Conference of foreign ministers in October 1955 regarding exchanges of Government publications was prepared in coopera- tion with other interested Government agencies and departments. This Office, in cooperation with the Exchange Advisory Committee, furnished guidance on United States participation at the UNESCO Conference on the International Exchange of Publications he'd in Paris, February 6-10. In this instance; (o~) United States representatives were nominated; (,b) the critique prepared by Library of Congress on the proposed conference was reviewed; and (o) the position' paper for the United States representatives was furnished. ~ planning conference was held with GPO in February conc~rnlng the tie-in be- tween GPO and ~xecutive agencies on release of Government documents to Soviet bloc agents and. representatives. At this meeting, GPO officials assured us of their complete cooperation. Details are now being worked out. OSI is~ cooperating closely with the State Department on the exchange of persons between the United States and Russia. The purpose is to insure that policies developed by OSI and its advisory committee governing information exeha~pges are followed. Consideration is being given to a plan whereby United States patents will be exchanged with the Soviet bloc countries on a reciprocal basis. A task force of the Committee has furnished one report but considerable work remains to be done. It ~ that the United States should take steps to initiate exchanges r~it for requests from the Soviet bloc. Studies also are underway to iism to evaluate the information received in exchange as corn- on flowing to the bloc. be given to the establishment of a procedure necessary to o information received in exchange. We expect to develop a ~ the Information received from the Soviet bloc may be distri- -~ -~ industry as well as the Government agencies need- Ion. ~s may result in a recommendation for the establish- on services. E. CONCLUSIONS ~s the difficulties posed by this unclassIfied information progress already has been made in minimizing some of these .onal `~-`---s can be made. -~ ~ shut off the availability of such information to 1---~---n to obtain even our classified information. for them to obtain informatiop which .s. We can establish some uniformity exchange of information, and promote OSI fully problem. I proble'~' PAGENO="0565" PAGENO="0566" follows: "Strategic information is defined as unclassified information u or published, would be prejudicial to the defense interests of the United States." In deciding whether the infOrmation is prejudicial, all factors are weighed, both domestic and foreign, such as military, propaganda, economic, political, technological, etc. I am going to discuss the three jobs of 051 in their order of importance as our staff now view$ its work, and accordingly tl~e first for discussion will be the exchange problem. With respect to e~changes of technical information, we should note again the Hoover report which states that the Communists have been quite effective, in comparison with o½ir security measures, in the collection of vital secrets in this country and With relative ease; and further that we are not fully ex- ploiting the possibilities of valuable technological data potentially available in scientific report~ and technical publications Issued in foreign countries. This statement sharpens the point that valuable information flows to the Soviet bloc without a corresponding amount of such information coming to us. Few segments of our society could be more interested and none more active In the exchange of scientific information than the American Chemical Society. It is the mission and purpose of the Office of Strategic Information to assist you, the public gelierally and the Government in increasing the flow and inter- change of such information with the Soviet bloc for a more advantageous return to our country. It is our belief that in this respect we can render a very important service4 To carry out the activities of the exchange program, OSI is analyzing trends concerning technical data going to and coming from the Soviet bloc coun- tries and making studies with a view to recommending improved methods of channeling Soviet information to users in the United States. OSI maintains liaison with Government and industry regarding overall ex- change problems and policies, and serves as a central point in Government to coordinate requests for Government information by the bloc countries. Here are three examples of positive action which OSI and its Advisory Committee on Exchanges have taken. We found that there was a backlog in the flow of Soviet scientific publi- cations into this country and we invited the Bureau of Customs to participate in a study of this problem. As a result the screening procedures of the Bureau of Customs were realined and the overwhelming backlog of Soviet publi- ~d. Now the Bureau of Customs is speeding the delivery essees PAGENO="0567" PAGENO="0568" 1682 INFORMATION ThOM F1~DEIiAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES It becomes impossible to protect these manuals or the weapons by any classifica- tion procedure. The r~su1t is that the Government department involved must declassify the weapon !hile information regarding it is still harmful. Accord- ingly it would seem error to give detailed technical data and show pictures of the guided missile and ~how performance characteristics of it to the world when by doing so we are shdrtening any lead that we might have on the model. When once information is classified it is difilcult to declassify it. How- over the Government is continually declassifying information with the purpose of increasing the flow of information Co our people. An example of increasing the flow of Information to our people Is the In- formation contained In the news release on August 21 iasued by Sinclair Weeks, Secretary of tJommerce, announcing that the Government had released reports on atomic energy research which can be put to peaceful use. This release indicated that the reports covered many fields including chemistry, geology, metallurgy mlneralo~y ceramics instrumentation physics and reactor tech nology. It was also ~ndicated that AlTierican industry must have all available information if we ar~ to realize the full application of atomic energy to peace- ful uses. Just as in the case of our work with exchanges, in this Instance of Govern- ment publication, we have an Interdepartmental Advisory Committee on Pub- lication and at all times we have the advice of its members who come from: Agriculture Atomic Energy Commission Commerce Defense Health Education and Welfare, Interior, Justice, National Science Foundation, State, and other intelligence agencies of the Government. The third and last job which 051 has is with respect to publication by busi- ness and industry. As policies become firm and accepted in Government they will then in some histances be offered to business and industry in the hope they can be voluntarily followed. The ice th this field has been broken for OSI and our efforts now are to balance the entir4i 051 program as indicated above. The contest we are in is not that of the usual form of battle, as our contest Is a battle of tools, mae~iinery, electronics, guided missiles and supersonic airplanes and information wtth respect to these items. It is accordingly important that we not overlook the consequences of giving too freely of such strategic informa- tion to our possible opponents. While we are hopeful of greater international good will since the Geneva Conference, these are not normal times and the problem of strategic Information should be thought of in the environment of today. SUMMARY In summary let me say I have endeavored to explain the why of 051, and Its functions which ire to repeat-be a clearinghouse to which business and in- dustry may look voluntarily for guidance as to unclassified publications, to work out policie~ for the executive agencies of the Government In handling Its unclassified p~blications and finally, to work out an overall Improvement of International exchange of unclassified technical publications, particularly with the ~Iron Curtain coutitrIes, for a more advantageous return to our country. In working with all of this we must all remember that no one wants to muzzle the freeloms about which I spoke in the beginning and neither does any responsible person in the event of war want to see American property de- stroyed and American people butchered because information of strategic value ~was carelessly given away in peace tIme to an enemy. It is good business to be careful. A solution requires the earnest cooperation of Government, science, industry and the press. As citizens of this country you and I want as little Information curtailed as posgible,-we want more information-and OSI offers a vehicle by which and throngh which we can have more information and can have security of information and at the same time. have information with security. PAGENO="0569" (1) ~"jon Ag - I ServjC~ ely Yours, Ice of ~S'tra, ions, and %VL RELATIONSTUP OF Osi TO OTS ~s from ~`~t bloc c - S velope - iI'feidej ~tee on EXhIBIT XIV Oi~ JOiji~ C. GREEN, DIa~x-ToJI, ( ICE o~ lo~ )ress r repor~ red by t - - -- PAGENO="0570" 1684 INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES of the Library of Oong~ress a large national collection of these reports is main- tained for reader inspet~tion. Further, the library is prepared to make copies of out-of-stock items tbro~igh photographic techniques. In the 11 years sinc4~ the program has been in effect a wealth of unclassified scientific data has bee4 processed and distributed. At the moment the operation is showing a steady dhd healthy growth. In the last year subscribers to the monthly bibliography have increased from 1,900 to about 5,000. Monthly sales have expanded from the average figure of $16,900 to $19,300, and acquisitions have increased from 350 to 500. We do not believe that this demand has leveled off and, in fact, we estimate that by July 1, 1957, all of the current figures may be increased by 100 percent. In looking back over the 11 years of OTS existence, one should make special reference to Rxecutive Order 9508 which sets the national policy favoring the supply of Government research information to industry where conditions of se- curity permit. This Executive order, reinforced by Public Law 770 of the 81st Congress, has been, in effect, the charter for the Office of Technical Services. Op- erating thereunder, *e have developed friendly and cooperative relationships. with the many Government agencies undertaking scientific research. Further, we are prepared to seek declassification review of any categories of information if a responsible scientific or industrial group seeks our aid. In the early days of the Executive order, this declassification review reached peak proportions since naturally a wealth of information had been' classified in World War II and with the end of the war it seemed reasonable to press for its release from security for public distribution. After the channels of declassification review and dissemina- tion were set up, such a volume of information began to feed to us that this aspect of. the effort became `less significant. Since the three military branches and the Atomic Energy Commission are the primary research a~encies of the Federal Government, it is from these groups that we acquire the r~iajority of the reports handled. It has been our good fortune throughout the years to have an excellent understanding of our problem ~by all mentioned. In the period since President Eisenhower's Geneva pronouncements, the flow of information from the Atomic Energy Commission has stepped up remarkably. Similarly, the defense agencies, perhaps stimulated by the efforts of Dr. Quarles when he was Assistant Secretary for Research and Development and now by his successor, Dr. Furnas, have improved working relationships with our office. In addition to our activities on the domestic scene, we sell these reports to friendly foreign governments and nationals thereof. If and when requests from Soviet-bloc agencies or their citizens are received, we have been advised by the Office of Strategic Information to work with the Exchange Division of the Library `of Congress upon the problems of exchange instead of sales. Consistent with this recommendation, niechanisms have been worked out with the Library of Congress to endeavor to dev~lop some exchanges. 1~he handling and supply of reports can never be an entirely automatic pro- cedure since the content of each item differs. Even in the unclassified field we occasionally find that proprietary or copyrighted material has been incorporated in reports prepared by Government agencies. Of course, none of us wants to violate legitimate private rights; thus we continuously strive to distribute the scientific content while respecting copyright or other proprietary rights. I have been giving some thought to this problem and believe that when the reports are prepaid it might be wise for the editors to specifically identify copyright or other proprietary information where included. In this way the channels of dissemina- tion, and in particular, distribution through the press might be Improved. Last, I should mention that under contract with. the International Coopbration Administration, thy office supplies a substantial amount of unclassified technical information to cdoperating centers or to ICA missions in the countries in which ICA has a technik~al-assistance program. The information supplied here is sent abroad consistent with the export-control regulations of our Bureau of Foreign Commerce. In the past It has spurred productivity in Europe and is making a comparable contribution in less-developed nations of the world. Exninir XV M~x 15, 1950. Mr. ERwIN Sn~eo, Director, 0/flee of strategic I~formatio~v, Depiirtme~t 91 Commerce, Washington, ~5, D. C. Duix Mu. SE4G0: The House Government Information Subcommittee, as part of its study of the flow of information from Federal executive and independent PAGENO="0571" ie for PAGENO="0572" JOHN B. Moss, Chatrman. DEPAIiPMENT OF STARR, Washington, June 27, 156. Hon. JOHN B. Moss, Cha,irnuin Go'vernm~en~t Infecmatron t~Iub&nnsmttee Committee on Government Operations, House of Repr~ DEAR Ma Moss On June 21 Mr Archibald staff directol called my Deputy, )~Er. O'Connor, and inquired about c~ had originally been attached to three 051 progress reports tha. made available to your subcommittee on June 7 by the Office of ~ formation of the Department of Commerce. Because of some uncertainty as to exactly what documents were referred to, my office sought clarification of Mr. Archibald's request and on June 26 was given the following list of documents: (1) Department of Defense Industrial Security Letter 54.6, December 27, 1954, (2) Memorandum from Robert A. Bowman, secretary of the Interdepartmental Advisory Committee on Publication, to members of the Advisory Committee (lOP Document 10.2), March 12, 1956. (3) lOUD Document 4.3/RevIsion 3, approved by the Interdepartmental Ad- visory Committee 4n International Exchanges on Octeber 11, 1955. (4) lOUD Document 6.2/RevIsion 3, approved by the Interdepartmental Ad- visory Committee on International Exchanges, dated March 7, 1956. (5) ICIE Document 4.4/Revision 4, approved by the Interdepartmental Ad-S visory Committee on International Exchanges on February 21, 1956. I understand that your subcommittee wishes to know the views of the Depart- ment of State regarding public release of the above-listed documents. Accord- ingly, we have carefully reviewed them. We wish to point out to the subcommittee that a number of departments and agencies of the executive branch in addition to the Department of State are concerned in the Information contained therein. The documents themselves are in the custody of the Department of Commerce. With respect t~ the first and second of these documents, the Department of Defense and the ~epartment of Commerce have the primary responsibility. The Department of State would, therefore, be guided by the views of those Depart- ments as to the ~dvisabllity of making them public. As to the last three documents listed above, the Department of Stare considers that their pu~lieation at this time would not be in the natiOnal antere~t We believe the public release of these documents would be prejudicial to our inter- national relations and would tend to cut off Important sources of foreign infor- mation now available to us. We would be glad to supply you with further details on this aspect of the matter in executive session, or in an off-the-record conversa- tion with you, Mr. Chairman, if you should so desire. In order to be as cooperative as possible, however, the Department of State would have no objection if arrangements were made for inspection of the docu- ments In the O~I offices by any member of the Subcommittee or its staff, or for the release of ~he documehts to the subcommittee on the clear understanding that they woui4 not be made public. We are sendhig a copy of this letter to the Director of 051, Mr. Erwin Seago, for his information and guidance. Sincerely yours, n you or M~. Overton on r I ROBERT C. HILL, Assistaint Secret'iry. PAGENO="0573" TMtO~MFEDE~AL 6EPARTMEN~r~ AND AGENCIES 1687 DErAWE~MENT OT STATE, Wash~ngton, An9ust 20, 1956~ Hen, Jour E. Moss, eha4rman, GoDerument Information ~uboomnUttee, Comin'ittee on Government Operations, House of Representa~tives. DEAR MR. Moss: This is with further reference to Mr. Hill's letter of .June 27, 1956, which concerned 5 documents which had originally been attached to 3 OSI progress reports that had been made available to your subcommittee. In this letter the Department informed you that it was concerned only wIth the following three documents: (1) ICIE Document 4.3/Revision 3, approved by the Interdepartmental Advisory Committee on Internationaj Exchanges on October 11, 1955. (2) 10110 Document 6.2/RevIsion 3, approved by the Interdeparamental Advisory Committee on International E~changes, dated March 7, 1956. (3) ICIE Document 44/Revision 4 approved bI the Interdepartmental Advisory Oommittee on International Exchanges on February 21, 1956. The Department indicated that it considered that the publication of these three documents at this time would not be In the national interest. It was further stated that we believe that the public release of thes documents would be prejudicial to our international relations and would tend to cut off important sources of foreign information now available to us. Subsequently, representatives of the Department, Miss Florence Kirlin and Mr. George A. Pope, appeared before you and amplified in more detail our reasons for the above position. At that time, you informed them that you had no concern about item No. 3 above, but that the first two items had already been included and discussed In the public hearings before your subcommittee. You indicated that you were reluctant to modify the public hearings record; you felt it wopld do more harm than good to our interests if such action were taken~ You stated that the committee would consider our request, but you asked us to examine first the whole text of the hearings and to advise you whether in this light we still would request their modification, Up to that time, we had not realized that these documents were already in the hearings and thus had been, in effect, already released to the public. Mr Archibald of your staff was kind enough to make the preliminary copies of these hearings available to us and a thorough study of them has been made. Upon reading them, we can recognize that the documents in question and dis- cussions concerning them are woven through the whole context of this portion of the ppoceedlngs We agree after careful consideration that the disaclvan tages to you and to us of their removal would outweigh the possible disad vantages which might result from their appearing in a public document Accordingly the Department withdraws its formal objection to their inclusion in the published hearing record. We shall appreciate however for the reasons indicated to you in your office as little direct publicity on the specific documents as is convenient and feasible I would like to emphasize that we veiy much appreciate your cooperation and consideration of the Department s interest In this matter We shall certainly desire to continue to cooperate with you on any future sub)ects in eveiy way We are sending a copy of this letter the Director of the Ofilce of Strategic Information (OSI), Mr. Seago, for his information. Sincerely yours, Robzaio L. O'CONNOR, Acting Assistant Secretary. JuLY 26, 195~. Mr. Enwir SEAGO, Dlreotor, Office of Strategic Information, Department of Commerce, Washington 25, D. C. DEAR MR. SEAG0: During a discussion in my office today you stated TOP Docu- nient 10.2 from the Office of Strategic Tnfo~matiqp does not reflect the present status of the OSI policy on aerial photographs. Because it is an incomplete document, you said, it had been deleted from the OSI progress reports released to the public. I would appreciate your report on the current status if the aerial photogtaph5r policy which can be combined with TOP Document 10.2 and inserted in the sub- committee's record. PAGENO="0574" 1688 INFORMATIO~4 FROM PEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES If you still feel that~ even with the addition of an explanation of the current status of the policy, I~~P Document 10.2 should not be made public, I woulct appreciate a complete explanation of your reasons. Sincerely yours, Jorn~r E. Moss, Chairman.. DEPARTMENT OF CoMMERcE, OFFICE OF TIlE SECRETARY, O~rrc~ or STEATEGI~C INFORMATION, WashinØon, 4ng~st 6, 1956.. Hon. Jonr E. Moss, Hoase of Represe~ztatives, Washington 25, D. C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN Moss: This is in reply to your letter of July 26 concerning the public release of ~CP Document 10.2. As you will recall from our discussion in your office this document, entitled "Status of Aerial Photography Policy," is one of the study papers prepared for' and used by our Advisory Committee members In the review of the aerial. photography problem. It does not represent &n'y final action taken by Goverm ment agencies, nor is it a statement of Government policy. It is, as the title' Indicated, a status memorandum on the problem. You realize that during the course of reviewing its problems the executive agencies prepare and use many study papers which, since they are prepared only for internal use, are incom- plete and inadequate for public release. Since the particular study paper is still under review and revision, it is our judgment that it should not be released. Sincerely yours, Enwix SEAGO, Director. Jvrx 2~, 1956.. Hon. CHAiu~s E. WIi~son, Reeretary of Defense, Department of Defense, The Pentagon, Wathington, D. C. DEAR Mn. SECRETA~Y: During a hearing of the House Government Tnformatioñ~ Subcommittee on April 19, 1956, with representatives of the Office of Strategic Information of the Department of Commerce, industrial security letter 54-6~ dated December 27, 1954, was made part of the record. This same letter also was made part of the subcommittee's record during a. hearing with Defen~e Department witnesses on July 10, 1956. Following the OS~ hearing, Mr. Erwin Seago, Director of the Office of Strategic Information, as1~ed that this document and others, which had been submitted, be removed from the record: He said he bad received this advice from the Depart- ment of State. A~sistant Secretary of State Robert 0. Hill has written me, however, that the State Department has no views on the advisability of remov- lug industrial security letter 54-6 from the subcommittee's public recOrd, Ife stated the Department of Defense has the "primary responsibility" in this instance. I wish to know whether the Defense Department wishes this particu- lar document removed from the subcommittee's record. If so, I wish to know' the full and complete reasons for removal. As wjth other items of information on which restrictions are placed, the burden of proof to justify the restrictions~ is upon the agency or individual withholding the information. Sincerely, JOHN E. Moss, Chairman. ASSISTANT SECREFARY OF DEFENSE, Washington, D. C., August 15, 1956. Hon. JOHN E. Moss, Chairman, Government Information `Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Your letter dated July 25, 1956, addressed to Secretary Wilson, regarding the industrial security letter 54-6, has been referred to me. Upon investigating this matter, we find no reason why this document should be removed from the subcommittee's record. Sincerely yours, ROBERT Tnx~r Ross. PAGENO="0575" PAGENO="0576" of the Department ~4-6, I wide .t you have taken Department of Def4nse. Sincerely ythirs, ERWIN SEAGO, Direotor. OCTOBER 29, 1956. Mr. Enwix SEAG0, Director, Offtec of Strc&tegio Information, Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C. DEAR Mn. SEAGO: Thank you for your undated letter commenting on docu- ments which the House Government Information Subcommittee plans to make part of the Depa~tment of Commerce hearing record. I understand ~rou have received a copy of a letter to me, dated August 20, 1956, from Mr. I~oderic L. O'Connor, Actink Assistant Secretary of the Depart- - documents In o i, Mr. O'Connor states: and dis- of State, I do not see how the sub. covered. In transmitting ~ ~a may wish to explain their exact current status. JOHN ID. Moss, Chairmae. PAGENO="0577" PAGENO="0578" 1692 INFORMATIO~T FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES Although this polic~r is intended to include in its application direct requests for Government publications by official representatives of Soviet bloc countries stationed in the United States, the most appropriate manner of handling such requests is being discussed with the Department of State and will form the basis of a subsequent communication. I will appreciate it If you will take the necessary steps to implement this policy in your agency in order that we may establish a coordinated exchange program throughout the executive branch of the Government designed to give an advanta- geous return of inforraation to the United States. I want to express my appreciation for the assistance given by the representa- tives of your Departnlent who helped to develop this policy. Sincerely your~, SINCLAIR WEEKS, ~ecretary of Commerce. The attached letter sent to the following agencies and departments: :I3ureau of the Budget Council of Economic Advisers Office of Defense Mobilization Civil Aeronautics Board Defense Transport Administration Board of Commis~ioners (District of Columbia) Export-Import Bank of Washington Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service Selective Service System Civil Service Commission Central Intelligence Agency State Department Treasury Department Department of Defense Department of Justice Post Office Department Department of Interior Department of AgI~iculture Department of La~or Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Atomic Energy Commission Federal Civil Defense Administration Federal Communications Commission Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Federal Power Commission Federal Reserve System Federal Trade Commission International Cooperation Administra- tion General Services Administration Housing and Home Finance Agency Interstate Commerce Commission National Advisory Committee.for Aero- nautics National Labor Relations Board National Mediation Board National Science Foundation Railroad Retirement Board Securities and Exchange Commission Small Business Administration Smithsonian Institution Tennessee Valley Authority United States Information Agency United States Tariff Commission Veterans' Administration EXHIBIT XVII DErARTMENT OF COMMERCE, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, OFFICE OF STRATEGIC INFORMATION, Washington 25, May 9, 1956. Memorandum. To: Heads of Bu~reaus and Offices of the Department of Commerce. From: Erwin Seago, Director, Office of Strategic Information. Subject: Policy for handling requests from Soviet-bloc countries for United States Government nonclassified published information. Attached for your information and for implementation withIn your bureau is a copy of a Guide to Implement Policy for Handling Requests from Soviet-Bloc C&untries for United States Government Nonclassified Published Information. The Secretary's policy statement is enclosed with the guide. These have al- ready been sent to other Government agencies. Both the guide and the policy statement were prepared with the assistance of our Interdepartmental Advisory Committee on International Exchanges. While the gtkide is self~explanatory insofar as policy, objectives, and gezieral instructions are concerned, certain internal procedures will be necessary to assure a coordinated ~xehange program within the Department of Commerce. In order to develop the close working relationships so essential to the success of this prograth, it is requested that you designate and furnish this Office the name of a member of your staff with whom we can deal on this subject matter. PAGENO="0579" PAGENO="0580" A. Ea'change agreem~,~ There are instances in which agreement prior to the shipment of the physical material by this instance special altention shall be given to the matter of reciproci ;y and the United States should attempt to secure information equally valuable to that furnished. The value and accessibility of the information to be exchanged shall be given more consideration than the number of pieces to be exchanged. In- ~on concerning all new formal exchange agreements should be furnished cumer sal e) are in I I and] not being received ëonsideration e given tion until our requests have been complied with. Ii~ should be told the teason for noncompliance. 2. If agency redeiving the request is not desirous of making an ecochange.- Sometimes an agency receiving a request for one of its publications may not need an item in return, In this case it is recommended that the agency attach the desired publication to the correspondence and forward to the Office of Strategic Information for appropriate action. Information concerning written requests from the Soviet bloc and their agents should, as indicated in paragraphs VI and VII, be reported to OSI at the end of each quarter of the calendar year. C. In-person reqs.~ests by offtcia~ Soviet-bloc representatives in the United States Direct request~ by official Soviet-bloc representatives in the United States for - ified pub" I Government information either by purchase or gratis - ~s are available with the following exception: "~ photomaps, `-~d bydro- ~t plans D news- ~ avail- [isplay promln~ ted to identify requests for on to providing a satisfactory degree of channeling the establishment these procedures will facilitate reporting to OSI matters concerning Soviet- bloc requests or trar~sactions. Every effort should be made by the agency concerned to record the material supplied to Soviet-bloc representatives and the country represented by the re- quester. As Indicated in paragraphs VI and VII, summary reports of such transactions shall be forwarded to OSI at the end of each quarter of the calendar ~`~h r~ports will be examined by OSI and the Interdepartmental Advisory ~`~-`l Exchanges in connection with their appraisals of Soviet bloc. Is, determination can be made by Soviet-bloc representatives of the net advantage of the PAGENO="0581" `u vi, at VIII. insUre 1 - forL [Attachment 1 to IdE Doc~ - letter sent to agencj~~ and e `.5 Il w forn~~ excl e. DINATI0N WITI-JJN F~ducation, and `gy Commiss~ PAGENO="0582" 1696 INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS ANI~ AGENCIES DEAR Mn. : Pursuant to responsibilities assigne&to me by recommenda- tions of the National Security Council, approved by the President, I have estab- ilahed the Office of Strategic Information to develop policies for, and to coorcji- Rate actions taken within, the executive branch of the Government in relation to international exchange of information. With the advice of the Interdepart- mental Advisory Committee on International Exchanges, the following policy has been developed fdr United States executive agencies for handling requests from Soviet bloc countries for published information: "It is the policy of the executive agencies of the Federal Government to encourage the exchange of nonclassified Government published information with Soviet bloc countries~ Such published information, with the exception noted below, should be furnished upon request, but an attempt should be made to obtain something of value in exchange in order that there shall accrue an advantageous return to the United States. "When an exchange is attempted and no return results after a reasonable period, consideration should be given to withholding further information. "Where a particular agency does not have a specific exchange need, the request itself in this instance should be referred to the Office of Strategic Information, as the same may be psed to acquire information desired by another agency. "This `policy applies to all proposed exchange agreements and r&quests by citizens, agents, or r~presentatives of Soviet bloc countries whether such requests be by correspondence or otherwise. "In order to achieve a periodic evaluation of the effectiveness of this policy, the Office of Strategic Information, in cooperation With Federal agencies, shall collect and record requests for information from Soviet bloc countries, and of exchange arrangements initiated or consummated. "Definition: The term `published information' as used in this policy means nonclassified information which meets any one of the following criteria: (1) Sold at newsstands or bookstores, or (2) available by subscription or purchase without restrictions to any person, or available without cost to any person, or (3) granted second-class mailing privileges by the United States Government, or (4) freely available to the public through libraries. "Note: Published information, such as aerial photographs, mosaics a~nd photo- maps, maps and c1~iarts of scale of or larger than 1: 250,000, navigational and hydrographic map~ and charts, panoramic photographs, or detailed development plans of industrial cities, except where they appear in or are appendixes to newspapers, periodicals, technical journals, atlases, and books commercially available to the general public, is not to be exchanged under this policy. This information may be exchanged only on the basis of a formalized agreement." Although this policy is intended to include in its application direct requests for Government publications by official representatives of Soviet bloc countries stationed in the T~nited States, the most appropriate manner of handling su~h requests is being discussed with the Department of State and will form the basis of subsequent communication. I will appreciate it if you will take the necessary steps to implement this policy In your agency in order that we may establish a coordinated exchange program throughçut the executive branch of the Government designed to give an advantageous return of information to the United States. I want to express my appreciation for the assistance given by the representa- tives of your Dejartment who helped to develop this policy, Sincerely yours, STyCLAIR WEEKS, /~ecretary of Convmeroe. Norn.-The designations "Department/Agency" indicated where applicable. Last paragraph of letter deleted in cases where Department/Agency are not represented on committee. PAGENO="0583" PAGENO="0584" NS FOB R1IPORTING EXCHANGE TITLES T( ry of Congr i, Exchange EXHIBIT XVIII [IdE Document 4.4/Revision 4 (M-14)] STATES EXECUTIVE AGENCIES FOE HANDLING REQUESTS FROM TRIES FOB UNPUBLISIIED~ NONCLASSIFIED UNITED STATES ~FORMATION (Approved ~y Interdepartmental Advisory Committee on I Exchanges, February 21, 1956) Uo~n~nerce.-Export licenses are I ~tta, including scientific information v ~*.~nder Bureau of Freign Commerce Comprehensive I Schedule, se~ PAGENO="0585" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1699 significantly related to the design, production, and utilization of industrial processes. (Other scientific information is subject to No. 1, above.) (5) Department of ~tate.-The Department af State issues licenses for un- published technical data relating to articles defined as arms, ammunition, a~d implements of war as set forth in section 414 of the Mutual Security Act of 1954. ~e) Atomic Energy Commission-Export authorization is required~ fot cer- tain unpublished technical data relating to Atomic Energy and fissionable ma- terial. 3. In line with the policy objective of increasing the flow of valuable inforina- tion to the United States, correspondence between research workers is to be generally encouraged. Such correspondence however, should conform to the standards for exchange of information, in that it should not disclose informa- tion precluded by other exchange criteria. ExHIBIT XIX IICP Document 10.2] UNITED STATEs DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, OFFICE OP STRATEGIC INFORMATION, March 12, 1956. Memorandum. rib: Members. Interdepartmental Advisory Coniinittee on Publications. From: I~. A. Bowman, Jr., Secretary, Interdepartmental Advisory Committee on Publications. Subject: Status of Aerial Photography Policy. This memorandum has been prepared by the OSI staff in order to answer eer~ tam questions raised and clarify the status of the policy on nonclassified aerial photography. The policy, as approved by the committee, is as follows: 1. Publication of aerial photographs All departments and agencies of the executive branch of the Gover~nent should refrain from publishing, causing to be published or otherwise displaying to the general public, any aerial photograph even though noliclassified, which is considered by the Department of Defense to be such as might be prejudicial to the defense interests of the United States. 2. Dissemination of aerial photographs Aerial photographs disseminated by time Government (for necessary purposes, such as farming, engineering, mining, city planning, etc.) should be stamped or marked by a statement which contains the following wording: "This photograph may contain information of strategic value to a potential, enemy. Discretion should be used in its publication and release." Purchasers of copy negatives should be requested to use this statement on all reproductions. The purpose of this policy is to retard the flow of aerial photographs to pos- sible enemies without interfering with the necessary flow to our own people and to provide uniformity among Governnient agencies. According to intelligence advice, all aerial photographs contain strategic information but, in some cases, publication is necessary to our continued economic and technological growth. A task force of the committee, composed of members from Defense, Interior, Agriculture, CIA, and Commerce, after considering many approaches, determined that (1) publication of aerial photographs should be minimized; (2) the public should be educated to the strategic importance of aerial photographs. It also determined that the release of photographs for necessary purposes to our own people does not constitute publication but that an educational stamp should be affixed to all photographs so released. This was based on the assump- tion that our people, if alerted to the importance of aerial photographs to our enemies, are as interested as we are in protecting our country. Only those photographs which the Government plans to publish, release for publication, or to display to the general public need be submitted to the Defense Department for approval. The volume of such photographs will be small. A letter was addressed to Secretary Wilson by Secretary Weeks advi~h~ of the approved policy in paragraph 1. Formal notification to all the other qxecp- tive agencies was withheld pending further advice from Defense as to the mechanics of implementation. 6~222 -~56-pt. 6---38 PAGENO="0586" 1700 IN FORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES ~ was believed that the Government also must discourage on a voluntarY basis t~p~CL~ti0fl of aetial photograPhs by busines~ and industry. Because of this, (iS! s~1icited and received the cooperation of the private aerial photographers. rrbese photographers, through theft respective associations, agreed to use a simi- lar educational stamp on all photographs they sold, as well as to keep the Govern- ment informed of untisual requests for photograPhs. EXHIBIT XX No. 54-6 INIJTJSTRIAL SECURITY DIVIsION, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE~ Wasloiflhlton, D. 1., December 27, 1954. INDUSTRIAL SECURITy LETTER (While this document is unclassified, it is for use only in industry and not for public release) Official representatives of Soviet-bloc missions in the United States are active ~~roughOut the country in attempting to obtain various types of unclassified information which have military ~~telligence value. Among the types of information being sought are industrial brochures and catalogS, production charts, blueprints and layouts, technical and research re- ports, aerial photographs of plants, etc. The Department of Defense ~ecogfliZe5 that at this time much of this type of material is unclassified. It is desirable, however, to withhold this information so far as possible from these particular individuals who have frequently used 5~~terfuges or have other- wise failed tO ide~itify themselves properly as officials of Soviet bloc countries. Such deceptions have also appeared in written requests for industrial data. Because it is d~sirab~e to withhold certain industrial information from these individuals, it is 5uggested that, if you receive such a request, you at once seek the guidance of the Office of 5ti.ategic Information, Room 7844, United States Department of Commerce, ~asbiflgt011 25, D. c. However, those industries and facilities which are engaged in defense contract work should seek guidance from their military security representative. This notice is concerned ~xc1Usively with unclassified information. The 5~feguardiflg of classified information is governed by the Armed Forces Industrial Security Manual. You may receive a notice similar to this from the Atomic Energy Commission, if you happen to be one of the Commission's prime or subcontractors. RoBERT B. ANDERSON, Acting Secretary of Defense. PAGENO="0587" PAGENO="0588" 1702 INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES EXHIBIT XXII Polldw.ing correspond~nçe between Congressman John E. Moss, chairmai~ of tltq `:Special Subcomrkiittee on Government Information, and Congressman QleoTgeH. ~Mabon, chairrhan of the Subconmiittee on Department of Defense Ap- propriations, the Appropriations Subcommittee took special notice of certain Defense ~Department restrictions on information. Some executive agency offi- dais had quoted, as justification for restricting information, the following lan- gtiage from Report No. 403, 84th Congress, 1st session, on the Defense Depart- melit appropriation bill for fiscal year 1955-50: "TITLE I-OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE "SALARIEs AND ExPENsEs-The budget estimate of $12,250,000 is approved in the amount of $12 million, a reduction of $250,000. Although the* current rate of obligation on an annual basis exceeds by a very small margin the amount recommended, it is believed that the general leveling off of total appropriations for defense should redt~ce somewhat the activities in the Ojflce of the Secretary. "OFFICE OF PUBLIC I1~FORMATIoN.-Tbe bill includes $400000 for this activity, a reduction of $100,000 below both the estimate and the current appropriation. Since all press releases channel from the services to the Press Branch of the Office of Public Information, the recent request of the Secretary looking toward a reduction in public information personnel of the services should result in lesser requirements of the central office. Furthermore, the rate of obligation necessary to even carry out the current program is approximately $420,000 annually. The committee was concerned over the inadequacy of control by this Office of informational activities throughout the Department which, it would seem, should be one of the principal responsibilities of a central office. Another criticism is the rather comprehensive interpretation which has been placed by the Office on what constitutes public relations and public information activities. The Office, it would see~n, should concentrate on the broader aspects of keeping the country informed of thie Department's activities while at the same time providing and enforcing strict rules for the guarding of our military secrets. Too nuwh information has been released which is of no benefit to the American pabitic but which is of tremenfous value to oar opponents." [Italics added.] Report No. 2104, 84th Congress, 2d session on the Defense Department appro- ii iation bill for fiscal year 1956-57 contained the following language: "TITLE I-OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE "SALARIED AND EXP~NSES.-The budget estimate of $14,.~00,000 is approved in the full amoqnt. Of the allowed increase of $1,481,000 over the amount appro- priated for 1956, approximately $750,000 is to cover the cost of civilian pay in- creases authorized by Public Law 94, 84th Congress. Other major changes from 1956 involve a decrea~e of $1,203,100 for Supply and Logistics due to completion of cataloging development, and a requested increase of $2,206,400 for the expan- 5i311 and improvememit of capabilities for scientific evaluation of weapons and weapons systems. A request of $349,400 was made for engineering, research, and management studies In the Office of the Secretary of Defense and for establishing criteria and standards for use in the military construction programs and devel- opment of other management tools. The committee is of the belief that usual and inevitable delays in the ~formalization of contracts to cover the above two activ- ities should result in savings adequate to provide for additional personnel and other items in the Office of Special Assistant for Guided Missiles, the costs of which were not deteymined in time to be budgeted. While it is indicated that a reduction of 240 civilian personnel will be effected in this Office during next fiscal year, the employees will actually be transferred to the military departments in connection with the conversion of the Federal cataloging program. "The matter of business enterprises in' the Pentagon was discussed at some length during the hearings. The committee is left with the impression that acle- quate consideration has not been given in the past to the fostering of competition in order that employees may be given some opportunity, no matter how limited, for choice as to service and merchandise. No one establishment should be per- mitted to have a monopoly on the merchandise it sells. It is felt that two or more smaller establishments in each type busines would best serve the large Pentagon community. No establishment should be permitted to extend the variety of its merchandise beyond those on the basis of which the concession was originally granted, thereby tending to freeze out competing enterprises. Contemplated PAGENO="0589" to , `IIl(If/~/(' `Ii.Sei Ill )0IJfl('(/ ill (/( *siroii.s of ~itl iIljOijnq1 1/. it itoithi S('efl~ to t/i~ ~ 0/ /~OJ1/e ~`0!/ i.'~ ill I - t be ii `011 J'oi 1~ ` f/us' / that menibers may lote Congress~~~ ~rn Over `Continued nnjttee w ~tatemnent will, I ani ~e Appropija~jo~~~ Con-mi, e of niilitary secrets" PAGENO="0590" Noves~r~ STRATEGIC OFFICE OF ecretary of Connerce by tI Section 3 below is bereby hes been assigned responsibility with respect to the p~b ~e standpoint of the national security. the Office of Strategic Inforsetion which shi ow u~ tIe Secretary of Comserce. (over) PAGENO="0591" PAGENO="0592" 1.706 INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGEWOJES EXHIBIT XXIV UNITED STAT~S OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE DEPARTMENT ORDER P~,.I57 lAmeedod) MANUAL OF ORDERS DATE OF ISSUANCE EFFECTIVE DATE Part 1 August 23, 1v55 August 23, 555 ~SUBJECT OFFiCE OF STRATEGIC INFORHATION Section I. Purpose: .01 The purpose of this order is to define the organizution and fsmctions of the Office of Strategic Information established by Department Order No. 157 effective November 1, 1954. .02 This order us issued pursuant to a directive of the National Security Council which provides that the Department of Coesnerce shall be respons ible for the impleewntatios of certain pnln&g determinations governing anclassified scientific, technical, industrial, and economic non- statinticab information. Section 2. Delega~ionof Authority: The anthorit~ vested in the Secretary of Coouoeace by the National Security Cioncil with re- spect to the nattgrs described is Section 3 below is hereby redelegoted to the Director Office of Strategic Infoteiation. Section 3. Scope of Activity: .01 The Department of Covacerce has been ansi gssed responsibility for several aspects of a program designed to coordinate the release of anclansified scientific, technical, industrial, and economic information, the isdiscriminote distribution of which may be isnnncal to the defense us- teresta of the United States. The Department shall 1 Estsblioh an advisory committee composed of appropriate agencies for the purpose of fuceisising guidance to and eotablishing policy for executive agencies on the publi- cat~os of unclassified scientific, technical, isdsstrial, or economic (nionotatis- ticfd) information originating in departeiemts and agencies of the executive branch, whef'e ouch publication might be prejudicial tu the defenue intei'esta of the United States. 2 Provide a central clearing house to wlsich business and industry nay bob for guid' asic for theurvolustary use in considering the public release of unclassified scientific, technical, industrial, or economic (sonstatintical) informatinn where such publication mighc be prejudicial to the defense interests of the United States; 3 Establish an advisory committee to coordinate and establish the policies af agencies of the United Stateu gavernment in the exchange uf psblicutinns with foreign coun- tries fund organizations; to study the possibilities for pooling exchange operations foi' greater effectiveness in the national interest and security; to coeperate with and render advice to private organizations in connection with private international eochasgea of publications. .02 The E~ecretary af Cnmoerce in cainaltation with appropriate Federal Agencies will estab- lish the Committees indicated in Sectinns 3.011 and 3.013. (over) wlie-nC-2e79 PAGENO="0593" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1707 00 157 (Amended) .03 The Bnrcao of tile ilndget ms been assihned responsibility nith respect to the publication of statistical noformotiom from tile standpoint of the national securi ty. !~on Organ rat ion and Punch I .01 The Office of Strategic Information, a COOS tituent unit of the Office of the Secretary of Commerce, is headed by a Director slim reports and is responsible directly to tile Secretary of Con- .02 The Office of Strategic Information as responsible for formulating policies and providing advice and guidance to public agencies, nodunto'y and business, and other private groupn who are con- cerned with producing and din trabutung anformatisu described in Section 3 of thin order. .03 The Office sf Strategic Inforolation shall Undertake to psbliuize the availability of the `Oaluntax'y guidanme program deacribed an Section 3,012 and establish procedares for handling .naterialn which nay be subr,intted for revies and determinatfon as to their ntrategic value. .04 The Office of Strategic Inforc,atsn0 shall take positive Steps to alert the American business "°"~-~ community to the dangers involved in the sndnscr inmate release of strategic information and solicit the voluntary cooperation of busunens and industry in the acuomplinholent of tile objectives of this program. .05 The Office of Strategic Information shall formulate policies and provide advice and guidance to departnenta sad agencies of the esecs time branch of the Federal Government respecting the psblica- tins of unclassified information uith which this order in concerned, .06 The Office of Strategic Information shall formulate policies aid provide advice and guidance to departnents and agescues of the executive branch reaper tug the exchange of pablicatiuno with for- cogs countries and organizations, .07 The Office of Strategic Information shall cooperate with and render advice to Private Ameri- can org~nuzatinns inc005ec tins with private international exchasgeo of publications. .08 The Office of Strategic tofnrnation shall perfsrn such other functions inherent in the re- sponsibilities set fmrth in thia order. $ectiOn 5. Ef fect on Other Or~ This order Supersedes Department Order No, 157 of November 1, 1954 and Amendment No. 1 thereto of May 11, 1955. Any other orders or parts of orders the provisions of which are inconsistent or in con- flict with the provisions of thus orderare hereby amended or superseded accordingly. Acting Secretary of Commerce PAGENO="0594" 1708 INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES EXHIBIT XXV DECLAsSIFIED SECTION OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL DIRECTIvE ORDERINa THE ESTABLI5HI~IENT OF THE OFFICE OF STRATEGIC INFORMATION "The Department of Commerce should- "1. Reactivate the approved program which provides a central clearinghouse to which business and industry may look for guidance for their voluntary use in considering the public release of unclassified scientific, technical, indus- trial, or economic (nonstatistical) information, where such publication might be prejudicial to the defense interests of the United States. In reactivating this program the Department of Commerce should take affirmative steps to publicize the availability of this voluntary guidance program, and in the case of information of special strategic intelligence value, to solicit the voluntary cooperation of business and industry. "2. Establish an advisory committee composed of appropriate agencies (to be determined by the Seci~etary of Commerce in consultation with the ICIS) for the purpose of furnishing guidance to executive agencies on the publication of unclassified scientific, technical, industrial, or economic (nonstatistical) information originating in departments and agencies of the executive branch, where such publication might be prejudicial to the defense interests of the United States. "3. Activate the program for controlling the direct export of unclassified Government technical publications to Soviet bloc countries and, where possible, extend the program to the indirect exp6rt of such publications." EXHIBIT XXVI Ocroana 3, 1956. Hon. ROBERT C. WATSON, Commissioner. United $tates Patent Office. Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C. DEAR Mn. COMMI55I0NEn: During your appearance before the House Govern- ment Information Subcommittee on April 23, 1956, you discussed a pi~oject to mechanize the search for patents. When Dr. Allen V. Astin, Director of the National Bureau of Standards ap- peared subsequently on April 30, 1956, he testified to the need for "radical new processing techniques" in processing and searching patents. The House Government Information Subcommittee would like to know what progress is being made by the team which is studying the mechanization matter. We also would appreciate it if you would keep the subcommittee informed of developments as the~y occur. I presume you noted the reference to this subject in the subcommittee's inter- mediate report (p.31). ~incerely yours, JOHN B. Moss, Chairman. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE, Washington, D. C., October 12, 1956. Hon. JOHN B. Moss, Chairman, Housg of Representatives Government Information ~ ubcom- mittee of the Committee on Government Operations, House Office Etuild- ing, Washington, D. C. DEAR Mn. Moss: I was pleased to receive your letter of October 3, 1956, and to observe that the committee of which you are chairman is interested in ascer- taining what is being done in the Patent Office, and by the Bureau of Standards, to mechanize the search operation which is performed in the Patent Office. Experience has shown that about 60 percent of the time consumed by a.patent examiner in the processing of a patent application is spent in making an ex- tended search through prior United States patents, foreign patents, and publi- cations of all kinds, the purpose of the search being to ascertain whether or not the invention which is sought to be patented is actually new. rfhe search task increases in difficulty with each passing year due to the pile up of printed matter PAGENO="0595" INFORMATION FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1709 which the examiner must scrutinize and hence the examiner's ability to dispose of applications decreases with the passing of time. I enclose herewith for your information copy of t1~e report of the Commissioner of Patents for the year 1954 in which, on page 6 you will find a chart whTcb indicates the rate of increase of the field of search and the decreasing rate of productivity of the examiner, over a period of 50 years. There is no known way of simplifying the examiner's search task-no known machine for curtailing the time spent in the search. At this time all that fve can do is to improve our classification of patents and publications and thus make it more easily possible for an examiner to confine his search to those publica- tions which are most pertinent, and to attempt to develop machines with the aid of which the pate~it examiner may conduct his searching operation with greater ease and much greater rapidity. The joint effort of the Patent Office and the Bureau of Standards is being financed by funds granted to the Patent Office by the Congress. We have estab- lished in this office for the first time a Research and Development Unit coinpris- lug a number of experienced patent examiners. These gentlemen are cooperat- ing with a group at the Bureau of Standards, where there is a n~iachine known as the SEAC-this machine being of the electronic type and having the capacity to store information in such manner that it may be retrieved expeditiously when needed. The combined research teams of the Bureau of Standards and the Pat- ent Office have devised a program routine for instructing the Bureau's electrOnic computer to make searches through chemical formulas, such as presently per- formed by some of the examiners in the Patent Office. The computer is caused to investigate the codes for each chemical element found in the compound and make a determination as to whether it satisfies a question fed into the computer both as to the nature of the element and its relationship to the remaining dc- nients. Approximately 250 compounds have been encoded, and we are now in the process of verifying the accuracy of the codes preparatory to making test runs through the codes. While the operations performed by the computer are quite complex, the operations of coding are extremely simple and can be performed by nonchemists. Research is being conducted to determine the feasibility of adopting a so-called machine language into which any scientific description can be reduced. Such a language would be conceptual and not be fraught with the differences ~resent when two different people view the same scientific improvement. This is an ex- tremely difficult task, and there is no real progress to report. The Patent Office is also investigating the use of entirely new punched card machines to determine their applicability for operations where expensive electronic equipment may not be feasible. Research work of this nature naturally proceeds slowly and on the trial and error basis. Just how long a time must elapse before we shall be able to report that we have developed a machine and a procedure for materially lightening the burdens of the patent examiner is hard to say. I do feel, however, that progress is definitely being made, and it may develop that we shall be able to report sub- stantial progress within the next 6 months. I shall be pleased to keep your coin- mittee advised from time to time if you would like to have me do so. Kindest regards. Sincerely yours, ROBERv C. WATSON, Commissioner. PAGENO="0596" 1710 INFOI~MAT1~N FROM FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES EXHIBIT XXVII OCTOBER 11, 1956. Mr. PHILIP A. RAY, General Counsel, Department o~ Commerce, Washington, D. C. - DEAR MR. RAY: During hearitigs before the House Government Information Subcommittee on April 18, 1956, you may recall that you were asked to supply a eomplete list of all requests for the appearance of Secretary Weeks before con- gressional committees, as well as the reasons for his refusal. Enclosed is a copy of the transcript referring to this matter. We are now working on our final report and would like to have a prompt reply, in accordance with yOur statement before the subcommittee. Sincerely, JOHN E. Moss, Chairmas. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL, Washiagton 25, D. C, October 16, 1P56. lion. JOHN E. Moss, Chairman, Government Information Subcommittee, Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CHAIRI~IAN: This refers to your letter of October 11, 1956, inquiring as to appearances bly the Secretary of Commerce before committees of the Con- gress and referring in that connection to my testimony of April 18, 1956. You will appreciate that the committees of the Congress, as a matter of normal routine, write to thO Secretary when they desire to have testimony from Depart- metit officials, or wl~en offering the Department an opportunity to appear. Quite commonly, the actutil arrangements are then discussed informally with the com- mittee chairman or his stafi and mutually agreed upon. Due to the great volume of these communications and to conflicting engage- ments of either the Secretary or the committee, it is not possible for the Secretary to appear personally in response to all such requests. In fact, a great many of the requests do not expressly call for a personal appearance on the part of the Secretary and frequently they will either leave the matter to the judgment of the Secretary or will deal with the matter by suggesting the type of information which they want. It is the practice of the Secretary, consistent with other paramount commit- ments, to appear whenever his personal appearance is desired, especially on matters of high policy. The files indicate that the Secretary made approximately ~37 formal appearafices before committees since January 1953. This would not include, however, appearances before committees or subcommittees handled less formally and often held in executive session. In one instance, when the Secre- tary was asked to appear and was unavailable due to other commitments, be indicated he would be glad to appear subsequently if it should then appear that be could add anything to the testimony to be offered by the representatives of the Department who appeared in the first instance. In cases in which the Secretary cannot appear, satisfactory arrangements are made with the committee concerned for the appearance of other Department officials having special responsibility and knowledge on the subject under con- sideration, such as under or assistant secretaries, heads of bureaus and offices, and specialists an4l technicIans.. It is the policy of the Department of Commerce to attempt to fuHUl all congressional requests for appearances in the manner best calculated to inform the committee. Sincerely yours, PHILIP A. RAY, General Counsel. EXHIBIT XXVIII OCTOBER 5, 1956. Mr. ALBERT LRMAN, Director, Office of Public Information, Department of Commerce, Washington 25, D. C. DEAR MR. LEHAN: During your appearance before the House Government In- formation Subco~imittee on April 23, 1956, you were requested to supply figures PAGENO="0597" INFORMATION FROM F1~DEEAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES 1711 on the public information budget of the Department of Commerce and all its bureaus and divisions. That information has not yet been received. The subcomnlittee is now pre- paring its next report and would like to have the information in hand in wl4ting by October 15, 1956. A careful rereading of your testimony and subcommittee questions indicates rather plainly the figures desired. Galley proofs are enclosed. It is not necessary to becloud the question by blanketing into the total all of the employees of the Weather Bureau or Census Bureau, etc. We merely want the number of employees_pub1icre~~fi~115 employees, secre- taries, and clerical help-in your central office and in the various bureaus and branches of the Department, together with the annual cost of these operations. Sincerely, JOHN B. Moss, Chairman. T)EPARPMENT OF COMMERCE, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, October 17, 1956. Hon. JOHN E. Moss, Chairman, Government Information ~u bcommittee, Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR Mu. Moss: This letter is in reply to your request dated October 5, 1956, concerning the public information budget of the Department of Commerce, in- cluding constituent bureaus with public information personnel on their rolls. The number of positions and salaries as reflected in the 1957 budget follow: Office of Public Information (Office of the Secretary) (14 positions) $103, 900 Bureau of Census (7 positions) 41,980 Civil Aeronautics Administration (6 positions) 43, 925 Business and Defense Services Administration (2 positions) 15, 400 Bureau of Foreign Commerce (1 position) 7, 465 Maritime Administration and Board (7 positions) 50, 665 Bureau of Public Roads (4 positions) 34,155 National Bureau of Standards (2 positions) 8,330 Weather Bureau (3 positions) 19, 070 The positions listed are those which devote at least 50 percent of their time to lublic information services. Positions concerned primarily with publications or technical research reports are not included in the above list. I trust the above information will serve your purpose. Sincerely yours, HENRY SCHEERER (For Albert Leman, Director of Public Information). x PAGENO="0598" S PAGENO="0599" PAGENO="0600" I