As  :i  member  of  the  House  of  Representatives  Subcommittee  on  Sci- 
ence Kescareh  and  ]  )t*vi*lopninit,  lit*  advocated  the  a  I  local  ton  of  Na- 
tional Science  Foundation  grants  io: small  colleges  and  universities  not 
previously  eligible  for  surd  support-.  Anions  these  beneficiaries  in  his 
home  State  arc  Texas  A  &  MM  Sou! horn  Methodist,  and  flic  Univcsrity 
of  Texas,  all  of  whom  grate fully  acknowledge  his  dynamic  ell'orLs  in 
their  behalf,  fn  ndditinn,  ho  was  instrumental  in  amending  ami 
strengthening  tli(%  District  of  Columbia  Crime  bill,  insuring  more 
*m j ui t :i I ik*  justice  for  all  citizens  than  had  theretofore  prevailed.  ]Ic 
further  devised  a  new  financing  concept  enabling  construction  of  the 
metro  mass  transit  system  to  proceed,  and  also  authored  legislation 
precluding  duplication  of  welfare  benefits  to  recipients  in  the  Distrirt. 
During  his  entire  career  \\\  public  oilier  he  remained  responsive  to 
the  needs  and  wishes  of  his  constituents,  working  tirelessly  in  f he 
interests  of  the  State  of  Texas  and  its  inhabitants. 
COMMITTEE  VIEWS 
The  Committee  believes  it  would  be  most  appropriate  \n  name  tin* 
Federal  Olliee  Huilding  and  I'.S.  Courthouse  the  "Karle  Cabell  Fed- 
eral Uuilding"  as  a  tribute  to  this  outstanding  individual,  whose  every 
els'ort  was  directed  toward  achieving  more  ellicient  Government  mi- 
mi  uist  rat  ion. 
COST  OF  LEGISLATION 
Section  *2.V2  (a)(1)  of  the*  legislative  Reorganization  Act  of  1970 
requires  publication  in  this  report  of  the  Committee's  estimate  of  the 
rnvfs  of  reported  legislation,  together  with  estimates  prepared  by  nnv 
[•Vderal  agency.  There  is  no  cost  to  the  Federal  Government  nn* 
t  hori/.ed  by  this  legislation. 
ROLLCALL  VOTES 
Section  VY-)  of  the  Legislative  Reorganization  Act  of  J. 070  and  flir 
tides  of  the  Committee  on  J'ubiie  Works  require  that  any  rolleall  vote* 
b<  umouueed  in  this  report.  During  the  Committee's  consideration  of 
this  bill  no  rolleall  votes  were  taken.  The  measure  was,  on  a  voUr 
vote,  unanimously  ordered  reported. 
CHANGES  OF  EXISTING  LAW 
In  compliance  with  subsection  4  of  rule  XXIX  of  the  Standing 
Rules  of  the  Senate,  it  is  reported  that  this  bill  effects  no  change  in 
existing  law. 
o 
t t
!>:;»*   <\.nc:i;k.kk       |  SKNATK  (  L'murr 
1st  Session  \  j  Net.  <U -t('H) 
(JUKSTIONS   RELATfcD  TO  SECRET  AND  CONFIDENTIAL 
DOCUMENTS 
Octouku  12,  IU7.J. — Ordered  In  he  printed 
UEPOBT 
<>f  l he 
^IM.CIAL  COMMITTER  TO  STUD  V  QUK.STIONS  RI-XATKM  TO  St-CUKT 
AND    CONFIDENTIAL   GOVERNMENT    UOCUMKNTS 
In  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  S.  Res.  \:\.  the  Special  Com- 
mittre  (o  Study  Questions  Related  tu  Secret  mid  Confidential  Docu- 
hi.-iin  submits  tho  following  report  and  recommendations. 
The  Committee  wus  aided  in  ils  work  by  the  legislative  Reference 
**'r\i>p  of  the  Library  of  Congress  ami  wishes  to  commend  Mr. 
I(»lw»rl  Lawk  and  Mr.  Dnvid  Sale  of  tliat  service  for  their 
"•itrihutions. 
Thi*  report  covers  questions  relating  to  (1)  access  to  classified 
•ftfiDrrttii ficiii  by  McmbcT-s  of  Congress,  (2)  legal  rigl  is  of  nn  individual 
^•fintor  with  respect  to  classified  doeunient.s  in  his  possesion,  (;{)  )^w[ 
?!:jliN  of  n  Senate  Committee  with  respect  to  classified  documents  in 
i'»  pn-<es<ion(  (4)  legal  rights  of  individual  members  with  respect  to 
•I-  iiiiH'ufs  on  information  received  from  foreign  emissaries,  (5)  (he 
*''*«  Ift^^ifir-nf icni  of  documents  in  the  possession  of  an  individual 
'•^riilier.  (0)  pending  bills  and  proposals  for  Congressional  machinery 
*••  i>MT-ce  classified  information  matters  and  (7)  recommendations  bv 
{i  *  Committee. 
I    A«fj>4  to  Classified  Lvfokmation  hy  Memiceus  ov  Congkess 
^'IIim  Krrodom  of  Information  Act  (FOIA),  Pub.  L.  89-4S7,  SO  StnL 
«    *.   *    L.S.C.   552.    amending   the    Administrative    Procedure   Act. 
♦  i    v<  .  551 1  rt  sr.q.)t  enunciates  a  policy  of  public,  disclosure  and 
1'y^tn  information  generated  by  Federal  agencies. 
y« iruming  with  the  access  problem  in  the  context  of  the  Freedom 
^  
It  f'-rmnfion  Act,  the  first  two  questions  are:  (I)  What  limitations 
•'*  ;-rnvidf*d  by  the  Act  on  public  disclosure  of  classified  information? 
'     .  «2)  do  these  limitations  apply   to  Members  and  committees  of 
,•!■•»*•*
I 
'Micro  are  nine  specific  exemptions  to  disclosure  of  information  ».. 
the  public.  The  one  relating  lo  classified  information  occurs  at  5  U  S  C 
(h)  This  sec  (ion  does  not  apply  lo  mat  lei's  (hat  mv —  j
U)  specifically  required  by  Executive  order  to  be  kepi  secret.  !
in  the  interest  of  the  national  defense  or  foreign  poliov;   ...  I
The  limitation,  then,  depends  upon  there  having  !ieen  a  detcrmin."-  I
tion  iiniler  nn  Executive  order  that  a  document  should  he  classified  [
"in  the  interest  of  national  defense  or  foreign  policy."  The  eurrriif  I 
order  under  which  such  determinations  are  made  is  Ew  Ord.  ]\i\'t'2.  ' 
issued  liy  (he  President  on  March  10,  1972.  lo  tnkeeireet  dune  I,  1072 
The  order  is  discussed  in  detail  in  our  first  report. 
On  the  question  of  access  (o  classified  information  (ho  order  i- 
impor(:in(-  as  the  basis  or  origin  or  any  limi(a(ion.  To  repent,  tlir 
exemption  applies  to  "mutters  .  .  .  required  l>y  an  Executive  Onirr 
import  nut-  as  the  basis  or  nritjm  or  any  limitation.  To  repeat,  dit- 
to he  kept  secret  .  .  ."  Given  a  classification  of  documents  hv  t Ji#- 
proper  executive  department  official  pursuant  to  terms  of  (he  Exoni- 
tive  Order,  what  ritjht  is  there,  first,  for  a  private  individual  and.  , 
so*  (ind.  for  a  Member  of  Congress,  to  ^nin  access  to  the  documents?     • 
The   first    part    of   this  question    was   considered    bv   the   Suprot:"* 
Court  in   {Environmental  frntrctirm  A'tracy.  rf  <il.  v.  Afink\  ft  (i!,, — 
L\S-   ,  35  L.  Ed.  2d  110.  Docket  71-909  (January  22,  197:*). 
(  onjxrosswomnn  Patsy  T.  Mink  and  several  other  Meinl»er>  of 
Congress  (in  their  capacities  as  private  individuals,  as  it  developed1 
sought  (o  compel  disclosure  of  certain  documents  relating  to  propo-n! 
nuclear  le*t\t\£  at  Amohifka,  Island,  Alaska.  The  documents  wills 
which  this  paper  is  concerned  were  those  that  had  been  chissifird 
"Top  Secret"  and  "Secret"  under  Executive  Order  lOoOI.  prodc-osM* 
t«  (he  current  order,  E.  ().  11052.  (Several  unclassified  document- 
were  sought  to  be  withheld  on  the  basis  of  exemption  (b)(5)  "inPT- 
njreney  or  intra-a^oney  memorandums  or  letters  which  would  not  I"' 
available  bv  law  to  n  partv  other  than  an  nirencv  in  litigation  uitli 
(he  agency."  Tlie  part  of  the  opinion  applying  only  to  exemption  (•; 
is  not  discussed  here.) 
It  was  held  |»y  I  he  court  that  exemption  (b)0)  prevents  disclosure  k' 
the  classified  documents.  The  exemption  also  does  not  permit  in  anntf 
inspection  of  the  documents  to  identify   unclassified   or  "non-seen" 
components"  for  disclosme.  Tin*  Court  of  Appeals  had  read  theexeiup- 
!  ion  as  applying  only  lo  the  port  ions  of  the  documents  1  hat  were  seen-! 
At    the  direction   of   the   Appeals  Court,    (he   District  Court   was  l" 
identify  any  non-secret  portions  for  release.  Hut  the  majority  epinie:: 
of  the  Supreme  Court  turned  flown  this  view,  roncludine;  that  thc^'!' 
finding  for  (lie  court  was  whether  the  material  had  been  classified  !>;• 
Executive  order  as  contemplated  by  t,b)(I). 
In    statiiur    this    conelusion,    \\\(^    majority    opinion    relied    on    ti*-   ( 
him:u::i;e  ,-,f  i|,e  exemption  and  tlie  legislative  hisforv. 
The   hmLTunire   of  the  exemption,   quoted    above,   includes   the  if-' 
"required  by  Executive  order  t«»  be  kept  secret   .   .    ."  The  court  sni'» 
Obviously,  this  lest  wns  not  the  only  alternative  available.  ' 
But  Conjrros*  chose  h,  follow  the  Executive's  determination  } 
in  tiiese  matters  and  that  choice  imis|  he  honored.  /</.,  \t.  Ed. 
i 
• ' » i
hi  his  concurring  opinion,  Mr.  Justice  Stewart  njrronl  with  the 
majority  that  the  Freedom  of  Information  A<t  at  ^ec.  S/Vilbj?  1 )  fore- 
closes any  judicial  inquiry  into  the  classification  of  document^: 
[Congress]  has  built  into  the  Freedom  of  Information  Act. 
an  exemption  that  provides  no  menus  to  question  an  Exccu- 
( ive  decision  to  stump  a  document  "secret ",  however  c\  "ideal, 
myopie.  or  even  corrupt  thiit  decision  might  hnve  been   .   .  . 
.  .  .  [T]he  only  "mutter"  to  be  determined  tie  nono  [referring 
lo  Mr.  .Justice  Brcnncn's  discussion  of  see.  552(a)  (.'{)  in  dis- 
>onl]  under  sec.  552(b)(1)  is  whether  in  fact  the  President  hns 
required  by  Executive  Order  tlutt  t lu*  documents  in  question 
nre  to  be  kept  secret.  Under  the  Act  as  writ  (en.  that  Uthe  end 
of  the  inquiry.  A/M  L.  Ed.  p.  \'M\. 
A<  slated  above,  (Ik*  court,  held  that  its  view  was  aUo  supported 
hv  (lie  legislative  history  of  the  Art: 
.    .    .     jTJhc    legislative*   history   disposes   of   any    possible 
argument-  that  Congress  intended  the  Freedom  of  Information 
Act  lo  subject  executive  security  classifications   to  judicial 
review  at  the  insistence  of  anyone  who  might  seek  lo  question 
them.  Thus,   the  House  Report  stated  with  respect  to  sub- 
section (b)(1)  that  'citizens  both  in  and  out  of  (iovernninit 
can  agree  to  restrictions  on  categories  of  information  which 
the  President  has  determined  must  be  kept,  secret  to  protect 
(lie  national   defense  or  to  advance  (nvvi^tx   policy,  such   ns 
matters    classified     pui'siuiiit     to     Executive    Order    10501,' 
if.  Hep.  No.  1497,  pp.  9-10.  Similarly,  Representative  Moss, 
Chairman   of  (In*   House  Subcommittee  that  considered   the 
hill,  staled  that  the  exemption  'was  intended  to  specifically 
recognize  that  Executive  order  [No.  10501]'  and  was  drafted 
'in  conformity  with  that  Executive  order.1  Hearings  before  a 
Subcommittee    of    the    House    Commit  foe    on    (lovernment 
Operations,   'Federal  Public.   Records  Law\  89(h  Coin,:..    l*t 
Sess.  (March  and  April  1905),  pp.  52,  10a  (hereinafter.  1905 
House  Hearings).  And  a  member  of  (he  committee,  Repre- 
sentative Oallnghcr,  stated  that  (he  legislation  and  (lie  Com- 
mittee Report  make  it  'crystal  clear  that  ihe  bill  in  no  way 
affects  categories  of  information  which   the  President  .    .     . 
luw  determined   must,  be  classified    lo   protect   the  national 
defense  or  to  advance  foreign  policy.  These  areas  of  informa- 
tion   most'  generally   are   classified    under   Executive    Order 
No.  10501.'  112  Cong.  Rec  \:m<). 
These  same  sources  make  untenable  (he*  argument  that, 
classification  of  material  under  Executive  Order  10501  is 
somehow  insufficient  for  Exemption  1  purposes,  or  that  the 
exemption  contemplates  the  issuance  of  orders,  under  some 
other  authority,  for  each  document  the  Executive  mav  want 
protected  from  disclosure  under  the  Act.  Congress  could 
certainly  have  provided  that  the  Executive  Branch  adopt, 
new  procedures  or  it  could  have  established  its  own  pro- 
cedures—  subject  only  to  whatever  limitations  the  Executive 
privilege  inny  be  held  to  impose  upon  such  congressional 
ordering.  Of. ' Uiiilrri  State*  v,  linjnMA,  .115  U.S.  I  <19.":<). 
l»»il.   Exemption    I    doe<  neither,    it   Hate<   with    the  utmost
direef  ue>s  that  the  Act  exempts  matters  'specifically  required 
by    IC\oculive   order   to    be   kept    secret/   ( \m*;rrs>   was   well 
aware  of   (lie  Order  unci   obviously   accepted   determinations 
pur*amnl  to  (lint  Order  us  qualifying  for  exempt  status  under 
m*c.   (h)(1).  In   (his  context  it  is  patently  unrealistic  (n  argue 
that   the  'Order  has  nothing  to  do  willi  the  first  oxriiiptitm.* 
What  has  been  said  thus  fur  makes  wholly  untenable  anv 
claim  (hat  the  Act  intended  lo  subject  I  ho  soundess  of  e.xecu- 
I  i  ve  <ecurify  classifications  f  n  judicial  review  at  the  insistence 
of  any  objecting  citizen.  !l  nl>o  negates  the  proposition  that 
Kvcmption   I   authorizes  or  permits  in  camera  inspection  of  a 
contested  document  bearing  «»  single  classification  so  that  I  ho 
rourt  may  separate  (ho  secret  from  (he  supposedly  nonsccrol 
and  order  disclosure  of  (lie  hilier.  A/.t  L.  Kd.  pp.  129-30. 
The  Sinatr  /.V/mj/7,  S.  Rep.  \o.  N13,  NOlh  Cong.,  1st  Sess.  OOfi/i), 
apparently  more  favorahlv  disposed  (o  puhiie  disrloMire,  was  before 
both  I  louses  n[  the  time  oi  the  passage  of  the  Freedom  of  Information 
A*  I  while  (he  House  /{fjiort  was  not  hofore  the  Senate  when  it.  passed 
t  he  Ael .  (  %anmen'a(ors  have  t  hus  opined  1  hat  the  Smatr  li'rjwrf  should 
rarry  more  weight  in  interpretation  of  the  provisions  of  !  he  Art.  (^rr 
K.<"\  Davis,  Ai/minishvtirr  Lmr^rr.  3A.  2,  at  117  (1070  Snpp.)).  Thr 
majority  of  the  eonrt  appears  satisfied,  however,  that  the  opinion  K 
supported   !»y   the  legislative  history  represented   by  both    Reports. 
Thus,  on  i lie  question  whether  Congress  intended  to  subject  any 
partieidar  document  to  judicial  review  to  determine  whether  it  \vi\< 
properly  classified,  Mr.  Justice  Stewart  capsuli/.os  the  majority 
opinion  based  on  both  statutory  language  and  legislative  history: 
".  .  .  Congress  chose  ...  to  decree  blind  acceptance  of  executive 
fiat."  /,/.,  L.  Ed.  p.   }'M, 
The  separate  dissenting  views  of  Mr.  Justice  Brennen  (joined  by 
Mr.  Justice  Marshall)  and  Mr.  Justice  Douglas  vigorously  dispute  I  In1 
majority  opinion.  As  to  legislative  intent: 
We  have  the  word  of  both  Houses  of  Congress  that  the  tic, 
?>nrn  proceeding  requirement   [(a)(3)]  was  enacted  expressly 
'in  order  (hat  the  ultimate  decision  as  to  the  propriety  of  the 
agency's  action  is  made  by  the  court  and  prevent  it  from  be- 
coming meaningless  judicial  sanctioning  of  agencv  disr.ret  ion.; 
S.   Rep.  No.  St;j(  NOlh  Cong.,   1st  Sess.  ,S  (1005)'  (hereinafter 
cited  as  S.  Rep.  No.  813);  il.  Rep.  No.  1497,  S9th  Cong.,  2d 
Sess.  \)  (\\m\)  (hereinafter  cited  as  H.  Rep.  No.  1497).  What 
was  granted,   and    purposely  so,   was  a   broad   grant  to   the 
Di-l  riot  Court  of  'authority  whenever  it  considers  such  action 
equitable  and  appropriate  to  enjoin  the  agency  from  with- 
holding its  records  and    to  order  the  production  of  agency 
records  improperly  withheld/  II.  Rep.  No.  1497,  at  9.  And  to 
underscore  its  meaning  Congress  rejected  the  traditional  rule 
f)f  deference  to  admiuistrat ive  determinations  by  *fp  lacing 
( he  burden  of  proof  upon  the  agency'  to  justify  t he  wit.  diold- 
ing.  S.    Rep.   No.   Si:j,   at  S;   IL    Rep.    No.    1*497,   at  9.  The 
('ourt's  rejection   of  t\\f%  Court  of  Appeals'  construction   is 
inexplicable  in  the  face  of  this  overwhelming  evidence  of  the 
it  ic<;i'r  wo  a)  ♦le'.ign.
r) 
limitations  (r»  iifiTss  to  such  information  in*  the  /;///;///*  under  the 
t'Yeedom  of  Information  Act.  Ciivrn  the  jreiieral  limitation  of  (b)(lj 
discussed  above,  the  next  question  i-:  whether  the  limitation^  :ip| »lvin*r 
tn    public   access   apply   equally    t(i    Members   of   ( 'oii^rcss   in    I  heir 
C!l|K1ci(  V    H*    *\'I(,lll!»(,I"S. 
This  question  was  not  ruled  upon  by  the  Supreme  Court  in  (he 
Mink  enso  because  (  V»n«;n*ss\v»iiiiiiii  Mink  jiihI  her  cnl!cij«;oc-  were  in  if 
before  (ho  Court  us  Members  hut  as  pri\  ale  iudi\  iduals.  Th<*  threshold 
question  of  the  Members'  sfa/iffhifj  tn  Mitr  us  Members  wa^  challenged 
in  I  Ik*  District  Court,  which  granted  n  motion  In  dismiss  on  this 
point.  Tim  Court  of  Appeals  did  nut  consider  the  j^ue.  ( 'on<equently, 
the  next  question,  whether  Mrs.  Mink  :ntd  <»(h'»«-  ( \in«rr<'«mrn  who 
brought  (lie  suit  were  cnlillpd  In  I  he  classified  documents  as  Members 
won  though  not  us  private  individuals,  was  nnf  decided  by  f  In* 
Supreme  Court. 
The  question  of  standing  (n  sin*  by  a  Member  of  Con*i;re^s  in  his  oi- 
lier official  capacity  Inn  nnf.  been  addressed  hy  I  lie*  Supreme  Cnurl. 
Il  received  renewed  attention  recenUv  in  I  Ik*  lower  courts. 
In  Ural  v.  Comity  (  'ntnmisxioiirrs,  277  U.S.  ;J70,  72  Law.  Ed.  024, 
(IU2S),  petitioners  were  U.S.  Senators,  inemhers  of  a  Committee 
urifiiuupiJ  and  acting  pursuant  l^  a  Senate  Resolution.  Upf»n  refusal 
of  ihnse  in  charge  of  certain  evidence  (ballot  boxes,  etc.)  In  produce  it 
(nf  I  he  Committee's  use,  the  Senators  brought,  suit.  The  court  said 
(hnl  without,  express  authority  from  the  Senate  to  brinjz  suit  if  neces- 
Miry  in  perform  its  duties  under  the  Resolution  (which  had  not  itself 
provided  such  authority),  the  Senators  had  no  standing  to  sue. 
Authority  to  exert  (he  powers  of  the  Senate  lo  compel 
production  of  evidence  ddTers  widely  from  authority  (o 
invoke  judicial  power  for  that  purpose  .  .  .  Petitioners  are 
not.  'authorized  l>v  law  to  sue.'  (at  l\S\)). 
In  short,  the  Senators  were  said  to  have  no  standing  to  -me  in  their 
ollichd  capacity  even  as  n  means  nf  carrying  out  the  stated  purpose  of 
»i  Semite  Resolution  when  no  action  of  the  body  as  a  whole  authorized 
the  use  of  such  process.  (An  interesting  historical  nnte  is  (hat  on  the 
-nnie  day  the  case  was  decided  May  2.X,  I92S,  the  Senate*  passed  a 
SiMinhnp:  Order  authori/Jnp  any  "ommiMcp  to  hrinjz  suit  in  any  court, 
when  in  its  opinion  the  suit  is  necessary  to  the  performance  of  du ties 
impo-cd  by  the  Constitution,  Resolution  of  the  Senate,  or  oilier  law. 
>.*h>ur.  572,70-1,  Mav  2S,  I92.V;  Reprinted  in  Senate  Manual,  Senate 
D'-'ument  No.  I,  SO  III  Coup.,  1st  Srss.). 
The  question  of  standing  of  a  Member  of  Congress  to  hruur  *mit  in 
hi-  or  her  official  capacitv  !ins  been  considered  and  decided  in  several 
r«-ci.|if  cases.  In  MitckeU'x.  [jtini%  Nn.  71-1510  (l).C.  Cir.  March  20, 
t,,7:$),  the  court  considered  whether  thirteen  Congressmen  Inul  stand- 
in«r  (o  seek  declaratory  and  injunctive  relief  against  continued  war- 
f*u<«  in  Indochina.  Plaintiffs  had,  according  to  the  court,  implicitly 
premised  their  standing  claim  on  Confess'  'Vrr///.v/Vr  risrht  to  decide 
*h"ther  the  United  States  should  light  till  types  of  war^."  Without 
•r:r*>fiu£  wifli  (his  assertion,  the  court  had  no  difficulty  finding  for  the 
*  «»iii:rpssinpii  on  the  shuuling  issue: 
linwovrr,  plaintiffs  are  not  limited  by  their  own  concepts 
of  their  standing  to  swo.  We  perceive  that  in  respects  which 
^^y   have  not  alleged    thpv   mav   be  entitled    In   complain. 
I   we.  for  the  moment,  .-w-utuc  (hat   defeudanl-'  a«*ti*»n-   in
G 
rniihmiiiijr  t ho  hosMliiies  in  Indo-Uhiua  were  or  are  hoyond 
(In*  authority  conferred  upon  them  hv  the  ( 'oust  itutiou,  u 
ilrrliimlinri  to  thai  effort  \vniil«l  hour  upon  (h'»  duties  of 
|»l:iinhfrs  to  consider  whether  to  impeach  defendants,  and 
upon  plaintiffs '  quite  distinct-  and  different  dutios  to  make 
appropriations  to  support  the  docilities,  or  to  Inko  other 
le^hilne  unions  related  to  such  hostilities  >o<'I*  as .  mi-ini; 
nix  iirmv  or  enacting  othor  «*ivil  or  criminal  legislation. 
//;  cur  ricu\  these  ca)^i(/cral ions  arc  sufficient  to  tjirc  plaintiffs 
a  .Kfttittfintf  to  make  thrir  complain!.  (  T.  /'"///*/  v.  Cohen,  o*»2 
[TS  S:\  '  (lOf)S);  Associati<ui  nf  Ihtta  Rmccssi.mj  St  race 
Organizations,  Inc..  v.  fri//i/jf  ;;<)7  U.S.  lot)  (1070);  ft/r/^/'  v. 
<U('nis%  :;(J7  U.S.  lf>0  (1970). 
Thus    npp.-nviillw    where    tho    performance   of  legislative   dutios   is 
Mrpendelif    upon,  or  related   to.  llio  relief  sought   or  there  W  otherwise  11 
le-i^lative  ronton  for  the  notion.  Members  of  (  one; loss  have  sliuiflinp 
IcTmio  in  their  official  capacity.  The  roii<cuiiiijr  >ooiiw  effectively  in 
pn-inUc  Khindinir  *»"  "■■>"  VJ,,i(l  "legislative  purpose",  (n  uso  a  familiar 
phrase,  and  mus(  1)0  viewed  as  srninjr  furthor  limn  did  tho  Ural  ease, 
supra.  It  can  ho  argued  (lint  tho  same  le<t  applied  in  Recti  would  have 
allowed  standine;  for  tho  Members  of  tin*  Senate  committee  In  hiini: 
>nii  in  pursiiMiioc  of  it-  purposo  of  l«-%ri^l:it in«r  in  tin*  oloolion  law  hold 
uithoui  Mir  express  ititt liorily  to  do  so  provided  Iiy  tho  Standing 
Order  piw-iod  hitor  hv  tho  Senate. 
Tin-  points  involved  in  tho  ( 'ou-ro— i(»nnl  shmdiui:  issue  "''''"V-1.- 
liuod  iu  the  verv  rooont  ej^o  of  Ifoltzman  v.  Richardson,  No.  7:t  ('  ">>7 
M).(\  K.D.N.  S".,  -Juno  t.J,  VJ7-)),  iu  whieh  (ou-res.wnmau  ifoli/.- 
iiinn's  vi:.;idiuir  to  sue  iu  I  km*  official  capacity  \vu>  upheld: 
Under  Ariieie    III,   srr.   2,   CImiisi'    1.   of  Mir  (  'oust  il  u  t  ion, 
tho  jim.-dVtinn  of   federal   courts  is  limited  to  "eases"  and 
•Voiilrover-ios."  Judicial  definitions  of  tho  oloiuonts  rcquiMfe 
for  "oases"  and  "controversies"  have  proved  to  he.  elusive. 
Unlike  ea<=e  or  controversy,  terms  snocifh  ally  enumera led 
in  Aruelo  ill,  "standing"  isnot  mentioned  in  the  Constilu- 
li„n  1 1  roeeivo<l  its  first  full  expression  in  FrathiiHjhatn  v. 
Miflon.  202  Vk>.  H7,  4:i  S.  O.  .r,«)7  (\\r>:\). 
Laler,  in  /•"A/.v/  v.  '.'ohm,  :\!)2  V.*.  M.  SS  S.  ('(.  \?A2  (lOtiS), 
•he  CcmiVi  stato'l  timt  political  fpie<tinns?  advisory  (opinion-, 
m.i.I  lack  of  ^landiuir  n-suil  in  (hero  hoini:  no  jusMciahle  nm- 
iruvor-v.  Wh.other  standing  i>  deuoiuinaiod  u  componoiil  of 
jiiri-dielion  or  of  juslieiahilily  may  at  first  hhish  sooiu  imiiu- 
|inrla!il,  due  (o  Mie  vet piireiiieu I  (hat  »>oMi  issuer  init^t-  h" 
rc-nlvcd  hefore  any  dotermiiiat ion  can  he  made  of  l\\r  inerits 
of  ihe  eoniriivor^v.  linker  v.  ('trr,  '.WO  V^.  IS'»,  S2  >.  Ci. 
nOI  [VV.VJrJInC^hi  v.  L;tinft-\7\  l'\  2d  I  hlti  (2d  Cir.  \U7:\). 
However,  a  complaint  may  ho  diNiuissed  for  lack  of  juris- 
diction of  Mio  ^ulijeet  iii:i  M'-V  onl  \  if  tho  elaim  is  so  attenuated 
;,nd  i'l-uh-tanliai  ms  lo  he  ali<nliltely  <|evoid  of  merit.  AV'O- 
hurtipot:  W'rlrr  Co.  v.  X*  >rUm  i/pm  /,  H»:i  U.S.  .r>n  t  ,  21  S.  ('». 
.'.V;'  i  I '.Hi  I ) ;  lltd-rr  v.  <  'an\  supra. 
Plaintiff  has  rawed  a  serious  nnwl  it  nt  ional  question  deal- 
ing v.ith  \\w  uar-inakimr  power  of  (  un»iv>s  enumerated  in 
AMiele   [.   -.-e.   S  of  the  (  on-iifulion.  'i'lie  seriousness  of  Mils 
f
quo-lion  has  been  rerotrni/.ed  repeatedly  within  this  circuit. 
llerk  v.  Lain/,  429  K.'  2d  .(02  (2d  CiV.  11)70);  /Irtamfn  v. 
LaUtK  -14-*I  V.  2il  UKM)  (2d  Cir.  1071).  The  dclicte  balance  in 
the  relationship  between  Congress  and  the  President  nm- 
ccrning  t ho  power  to  wage  war  is  a  controversy  arising 
under  the  Constitution  and  therefore  within  1 1 10  jurisdiction 
of  f lii^t  coiiit  2s  U.S.C  sec.  i:;:*Uii) 
Whether  :i  particular  party  hit-;  a  sufficient  slake*  in  mii 
otherwise  justiciable  controversy  to  obtain  judicial  resolution 
(if  it  is  \vh:it.  lias  traditionally  licoii  referred  to  as  the.  quesiion 
(jf  standing  to  sup.  In  Sierra  Chib  v.  Mnrtnn,  4U.ri  U.S.  727. 
7:i2,  02  S.  Cl,  l-'SOI,  I ::04  (1072),  (ho  Supreme  Court  hrhl 
l tut t.  when  a  parts,  such  as  the  plaintiff  here,  does  not  rely 
<Mi  any  specific  statute  authori/.ing  invocation  of  the  judicial 
process,  the*  question  of  standing  depends  upon  wli«»f  hrr  the 
party  has  alleged  such  a  "personal  slake  in  the  outcome  of 
the  controversy,"  Ihthrr  v.  Can  ...  as  to  ensure  that  "the 
dispute  sought  to  be  adjudicated  will  be  presented  in  an 
adversary  context,  and  in  a  form  historically  viewed  as 
capable  of  judicial  resolution."  /''07-v/  v.  Cohen. 
The  heart  of  the  question  become*  whether  [\\v  plaintiff 
h:is  alleged  such  a  personal  stake  in  the  outcome  of  the 
controversy  as  lo  assure  the  concrete  presentation  of  issues 
in  an  adversary  context  so  that  a  eourf  will  be  properly 
eaiided  in  determining  difficult  issues.  The  controversy 
involved  must  be  a  substantial  one  admitting  of  specific 
relief.  Artnn.  Life  Insurance  Co.  v.  Haworth,  :\i)[)  [].&.  211 1  .07 
S.  Ct,  401  (l!>:*7). 
In  the  present  case  the  court  is  not  being  asked  to  decide 
ill-defined  controversies  over  constitutional  issues.  The  i-^ue 
\tn<  been  focused  as  sharplv  as  possible:  Whether  the  Presi- 
dent'>  orders  directing  the  bombing  of  Cambodia  constituted 
a  usurpation  of  Congress'  war  making  power  under  Article  I. 
see.  S  of  the  Constitution.  Nor  is  this  a  case  in  which  \\\r 
court  is  being  asked  to  deride  a  hypothetical  question  or 
abstract,  issue.  Plaintiff  is  not  asking  for  a  determination 
whether  the  President  would  violate  the  Constitution  by 
engaging  in  certain  acts,  but  rather  n  determination  that  the 
present  action  of  the  President  violates  the  Constitution.  Nor 
1*  this  a  collusive  suit  where  the  parlies  are  suspected  of 
sharing    the   same   interests. 
Plaintiff  v^aCouejresswoman  does  not  merely  suffer  in  some 
indefinite  way  in  common  with  people  generally.  She  i-  a 
member  of  a  specific?  and  narrowly  defined  group-  the 
II«'!i>e  of  Representatives.  As  a  Congrcs-woiuan.  plaintiff  i> 
'ailed  upon  to  appropriate  funds  for  military  operations. 
fai-e  ;in  army,  and  declare  war.  Additionally,  plaintiff  has  a 
<ontinuinir  responsibility  to  insure  the  checks  and  balances 
ft       *  *"  m 
our  democracy   through   the  use  of  impeachment.   When 
»  phiiuiiff  is  a  member  (;f  a  narrowh    defined  group,  which 
ha-  been  more  directly  a  free  ted  hv  tin*  conduct   in  tiucsliou 
'mm    has    the    general    population,    the    !<>>'    for    ^landing 
**:,«»uld    be    met.    Scott,    Standintj    ir    lie   S'fjimnc    C<ntrf-a 
i  't/.ctmtitf!  Analysis.  S(»  llnrw  F..  Kov.  U4o  fl'Vb.  107:;).
s 
The  f[iirN.(i(Mt  whether  j!  purl  ieular  person  is  a  proper 
peilv  (<»  iii:*itiliiin  (In*  action  t\ar<  nul.  I»y  iK  nun  force, 
i:«U«-  --i-prtni  tidii  of  power*-  problems  related  (o  improper 
[:nlif'i:il  interference  in  :irf*:is  committed  (o  other  branches 
"(    (If   federal   IToveniUienf  .    I'ltls!   V.    ('nit  tlif  sii  pm . 
An  ntjiuulion  was  e_raufed  in  the  I  Inhuman  ea>e  on  .in!\  'Jo,  P.lT' 
wa-  .t  -iuv  pending  argument  before  (lie  (  'nurl  of  AppcaU  lav  \U 
N'lnml  (  'irenil  on  .litlv  *J7.  Tin*  appeals  court  has  now  granted  :i  M.i, 
ol  i  he  injninlion  until  A»i«;ii*«l   l-J. 
To  re!  urn  (o  I  he  Mink'  c.mm\  fiiii^ltl  1 1  
if*  result  ha Ve  been  ddjereiil  It,;-' 
'in*  -Ciudim:  question  been  befoie  (he  Supreme  ('nurl  and  had  r 
liecn  :in-U(iv<l  ;i<  jl   was  in  (lie  Milclull  inn!  1 1  allium ,)  en<*es*.' 
li  K  lo  he  nn(ed  (lint  no  mention  was  made  in  the  Mm!:  cu-e.  e\o 
by  the  c[wseiifer-%  of  a  provision  of  (lie  Krcednm  of  Informal  ion  A-' 
thai  would  appear  lo  he  of  pfiin  :iry  importance  in  determins: 
. 
(  'on^re^jnnal  intent   in  passing  the  Ad  : 
(e)  .  .  .  This  srelion  (including  (Ik*  classified  informal  inn 
"e.xeinpt  inn"  |  is  not  authority  to  wilhhold  information  frtim 
(  'ontrrcss. 
flurry    whether   (ho   ('nurl    would    reach    the   same   result    :i<   t«»  d 
*  In  — ifieii  it i ff iriiisi ( ion  exemption  of  (h)(1)  if  a  Member  of  ('oniae— 
found  \n  I » ii  vi*  standing  (o  eh  alienee  t  he  exempt  ion  in  hi-  or  her  <»(!ir  i 
capacity.    Obviously,    this    conjecture    attunes    (Inif     i!n*    ('oiirl    \m 
follow  (he  Mitchell  and  Iloltzmai*  cases  on  >fandin<r  (he  kmic. 
i
VSK    AM)    U\Kl>USC.    OF    CLASSM-IKO    IJOCCMKNTS 
Several  questions  wefo  posed  by  (he  Committee  re^nrdinix  (he  ■.<; 
propriale  disposition  t hut  enttld  he  instc Ic*  of  classified  document-  I 
Members  and  committees  of  the  Congress.  In,  (ho.  disruptions  of  th-1 
questions  that  follow  ,10  assumption  is  made  about  the  eh—il'- 
documents  except  that  they  have  boon  regularly  classified,  whether' 
not  with  crood  reason,  and  (hat  t\\cy  have  come  into  the  po>^e— ina  ■ 
a  Member  of  a  Committee. 
I 
Lc.uw,    Rights    or    an    Isiuvioiiai,   Sknatok    With     !vi>iu:<  i 
ClASSIKIKI)    DoiT.MKNTS    IN     Ills    Possession 
There*  are  various  provisions  of  (he  ('nifnl  States  Ctnlr  whieh  ni:o 
applicable   lo  persons  in  po-.-e-.Mou  of  classified  document s.  \\  I ■  1 1**  f 
follow  intr   listin""   is   not    intended   ro   Ik*  (*\ha nst  \e,    it    doe<   pn»i. 
s-nna*  if,*nc!-:il   insi'dd    into  the.  (viie  of   individual   eondnet    ulii'M 
proscribed. 
I.    is  lT.S.(\  see*.  702   700  (Ivspinnaire  and  Censorship) :  See.  7" 
'-Tat  hei-ini;.  I raiwuiit  ( tJiLT,  or  Iosjult  <h'fens*»  information. 
><■'•.    70 1  --  iralherinLT    or    delivering    defence*    iuformalion    to   m-- 
for«'i^n  lti ivernmrut . 
Sf»*.  70o      phntn^niphin*;  or  ^ketrhiujj:  defence  i 1 1  —  1  aHat  'niiv 
See.  707-    publication   and  <a|i»  <»(   |)hoto*rraphs  of  d<  ti'ii^t*  i':*f 
(ions. 
Sc'-.  70v«      di^rlo^ure  of  rla-^ilied  infortuat  ion.
:».  IS  U.S.C  <rc.  2071  (Records  and  Reports) :  Sec.  2f>7!  runceal- 
Mirjd,  removal,  en*  mutilation  of  records  and  reports,  such  a-  1 1 %* *— t*  mi 
(ilr  tir  deposited  with  any  public  officer  of  the  I •  1 11 1 *** I  Si m ■  •  — . 
4.  IS  U.S.C.  srr.  04*1  (Kmbc/cy.lemcul  jiihI  Theft;:  S-  ■.  i>.\\  \ •<- 
-••ivuer,  concealing,  or  rct.ii iiiin^  stolen  government   doeim .«-r*U. 
."».  IS  LI.S.( \  srr.  .17!  ((  \>aspha«\v) :  Sec.  ,171  conspiracy  Inn-iiiinil. 
;t*i\   olFense  against  lhe  United  Stales. 
»;.  t:i  U.S.C.  sees.  2274  2277  (Development  tnul  Conim!  <»f  Atomic 
li'ncrirv}:  Sec  227-1  ■— communicating  or  diMhwimr  re-(;'<ied  data. 
^a<  h  data  includes  information  concerning  I  lie*  dc>i^n,  manufacture,  or 
•  :!ili/.:ilion  of  atomic  weapons,  III/*  production  of  special  nuele-ir  malc- 
r;:d.  or  (he  use  of  special  iiu<"If:ir  iu:ilfM*iiil  in  the  production  of  energy. 
>.v  pj  U.S.C.  sec  20l4(y). 
7.  '»()  [J.S.(-.  sec.  7s:t  (IlllcTllnI  Security):  Sit.  7s:t(li)  n»iiilililllir;i- 
r  iuft  ef  classified  information  by  £overmncnt  o.'Iic  r*r  nr  empio\  re. 
For  a  detailed  examination  of  those  sf at  nte-.  see  ICilcrar  and  Srimiid 1 1 
The  Kspin?tnjro  Statutes  and    Publication   of   Defense    Information," 
:.;  Cnl.  L.  Itn\  020  (May  107:0.  ('!"-« f »-  I  J. 
Tin*  question  of  the  extent  to  which  an  individual  Mcndier.  or  hi* 
•  Me.  may  be  immune  front  (ho  operation  of  ihese  or  older  criminal 
i«ni\  idons,  when  the  Member  or  aide  possesses  a  classified  document, 
«<:i-  received  some  recent  clarification  in  Crawl  v.  I'mf**!  Slafr*.  40S 
U.S.  li()0  (1072).  [Tah.  2].  See  also  (Jnifnl  Wa'rs  v.  Brorsfcr,  4ns  U.S. 
Ml!   (1072). 
On  I  he  basis  of  (Ik*  Growl  decision  it  would  >eein  pos>ible  !o  construct 
i-venil   categories  of  activities  and   conduct    in   which   an   individual 
Member  may  safely  engage  when  he  possesses  a  classified  document. 
Kducver,  l>efore  considering  protected  mul  proscribed  conduct  some 
timlv>H  of  the  Grovel  derision  is  in  order. 
Article  f,  section  G\  clause  I,  of  (ho  United  Stales  Constitution 
jimvi'les  as  follows: 
The  Senators  ami  Representatives  shall  receive  a  Com- 
pensation for  their  Services,  to  he  ascertained  by  Lawf  ;md 
l^ud  out  of  Lhe  Treasury  of  the  United  States.  They  shall 
in  all  Cases,  except  Treason,  Felony,  and  Breach  of  the 
Pence,  he  privileged  from  Arrest,  during  their  Attendance  at 
the  Session  of  their  respective  Houses,  and  in  ^oimr  lo  and 
reluming  from  the  same;  and  for  any  Speech  or  Debate  in 
cither  House,  they  shall  not-  he  questioned  in  anv  other 
Place. 
Im  writing  for  the  Court  majority,  Mr.  Justice  White  indicated  that 
*'.••  Privilege  from  Arrest,  guaranteed  hy  (Ins  Article,  extends  only 
'■'  a  privilege  from  civil  arrest  (a  practice  common  at  lhe  tune  the 
'"M-iundon  was  adopted),  and  does  not  immunize  Members  from 
''-••  operation  of  the  ordinary  erimiual  laws.  Grovel  v.  lu'ttnl  States-, 
<*^  U.S.  000,  014-01/5  (1072).  Thus,  -'»  Member  would  he  ironerally 
1  *•  aid  hy  (he  operation  of  those  criminal  taws  which  regula«e  conduct 
^:*li  respert  U*  (he  handling  o(  elassilied  documents. 
Ihc  Court's  analysis  of  the  scope  of  protection  afforde;!  Members 
,v  the  in sf.  clause  of  Article.  It  section  (i,  clau>e  I  t'lie  Spr-ch  a!id 
I'  l»:i'e  ( laiise),  however,  has  important  implications  for  an  individual 
*'    aber  in   possession  of  a  classified  document.   lOxplainin  „'  liial    lhc» 
f
Spri*r!i  uujl  Dchato  Clause  do--  not  lirosifllv  exempt  Muit.  which  Mm* 
Crivilr-je  from  Am-in|  Clause  allows  (i.e.  that  Momher-  are  suhjrel  to 
Mir  opor.i!mn  i»f  the*  ordinary  rriminal  law),  the  Court  nevertheless 
indicated  I'wn'i   the  former  Clause  was  intended  to  protect  the  intr^rii  v 
of  !]]••  I.'_'i-J;iliv,.  prooe—  it  lie  1   "nssiiir  it  cn-ecptal   luauch  of  the  <;ovrrn- 
mrnl  wuli'  freedom  of  speech,  debate,  and  deiiixua  I  inn  without    ititimi- 
ilnUnn  in-  MuvaU  from  the  Executive  llninr.li."  /,/..  r.tfM(>.  Moreover. 
this    prnn--Mou    is    tiroad    «Miou«rli    In    immunize    Members    "against 
pnxccutuew   Mint    directlv  imping   upon   or  threaten    the   !o<dJn!ivr 
il  U  impnrlant  lo  noli*  that  :i!« hrnitrlt  it  Member  nuiy  lip  immune 
from  ihf  n;».M-;t!ir);i  of  the  criminal  inw  where  \\i<  ennduej  is  within 
Mic  "-phriv  n  ?'  Ir-iMmatc  IrjrUa  f  ivr  ar'ivily"  [hi  j;i  (V21),  Mir  f»cf 
that  .m  parMrolar  jn-i  in  -nine  way  "rrhtfrs  to"  the  legislative  proce  ^ 
i  tut!  ucec— arily  a  ju-f  ifiraiion  for  immunity.  I'mled'nm  under  Mir 
Speech  and  Debate  (  *(;» u -c  is  is vaila hlr  only  whore  Mir  Member'-* 
act  i-  "clearly  a  part  of  the  legislative  process  —  Mir  tine  fuiuM  inning 
of  Mir  jim-iNs,"  I'uitrd  Strifes  v.  lirrvufrr,  4 OS  U.S.  .r»0 1 ,  51  o-  fj  1  il 
(  1072).  The  h^i  for  detcrminim:  what  conduct  is  within  Mir  protected 
"-pherr    of    legitimate    legislative    activity"    under    Mir    Speech    and 
Debate  Clause  wa-  staled  by  Justice  White  as  follows: 
Lr'.'i-liiMvr  acts  nrr  not  all-encompassing.  The  heart  of  Mir 
Clau-e   i<  -poceh   or  debate   in   either  flonsr.    Insofar  as   Mir 
Clau-r  is  funslnu'ii  to  reach  other  matters  Miry  nuwt  be  mm 
integral  pari  of  Mir  drlihrru Mvr  and  ronimunicnt ivr  proees-e< 
hy    which    Members    participate    in    commit  lor    and    IFousr 
prurrr.lin.srH  wiih  rrspiM-l   to  the*  ctmsiili  ration  :md  passage  «»• 
n*p',-fif,n    nf   proposed    IrjrislnMon    or   with    rr-pect   to   oIIkt 
math-p.  wjiii-h  I  he  (  ojwht nt ion  plnros  within  t  Jio  jurisdiction 
of  crMK-r  ilncKf.  As  i\in  Court  of  Apprnls  put   it,  the  courts 
hayr  rxtrndrcl  thr  orivilrjro  hryond  purr  speech  or  drhnlo  in 
eft  iter  Jhiusr,  \)iit  ''only  when   necessary  to  prevent  indirect 
iinp'iiniicitf  of  such  driihern! icii!."  l-niied  Sfeftm  v.  J>nc.  \:>:> 
V.    2d.    at    7(W).    Gran  I   v.    I'nifnl  Stairs,   40S    U.S.   fiOn,   r,2") 
f  if)72i. 
^,l  n'-h(  i  «f  these  rnnsido?Vit?o|jS  it  sitiiin  it  ppropriri  I  »•  f(^  su^p^! 
-e\« -r;d  t.\pe-  «.f  conduct  which,  in  Mir  case  of  an  individual  Mrmhrr 
having  prw-r^-ictn  of  a  cln^vifjed  dornmrrM,  should  la*  protected  under 
the  Spfrcli^  ami   Droatr  Clnusr.  'I'he  following  list  is  riot  intended  to 
he  e\haf.'-(  i\c; 
I.   Any  -jM-ft  h  or  dehafe  on  the  Senate  floor  conerrmui:  Mi^  classified 
dormuorif.  
^ 
2.   .\-\y  *.pe.-.-h  during  a  comfoiltee  mrotinir.  hearing,  etc. 
."J.  An\  readint.-  from  the  clarified  document  either  on  the  Srinde 
h««nr  f.j-  in  a  •'"innuUer  ntccMnir. 
•».  .\uy  -!"•<  ,  |,  conreruinLr  the  classified  document  in  (ctun:iHcr 
report-.  !  **;t  cm  r;   .  or  in   ?  r^i'tuMuns. 
•'■     v,:>    !»hn  iti'_:  uf  a  ehi^ificfl  d"rimieut  into  [)\r  puhli*'  record. 
(i.  Ac\  .i.odiM  t  at  a  cnmmillee  meeting  or  on  Mir  Senate*  fh».»r  wi'li 
n^pecf   f<.  Mir  r-!a^.ilied  docitmrnf  and  any  motive*  or  purpose  hehiml 
>  U  c  1 1   i  •  1 1 1 1  d  i  a  • !  
. 
#.  .>m;.  .■••o-rnMniraliiiiiv;  Iwiwr-en  a  Memhei'  and  aide  during  f I 
»*" 
:    '        '(     '■        •''*   ■  'Miirlt*;.  m»ao*   w  irh  re  pni-f   t<t  !  hr»  c!a  -  ilird  document
if  ri'l:il«'il    l«>   '>•   (•oiiiniilli-c    mcoliiii;  or   oilier   l<"i>liifiv<'   nH    of    (lie 
A-  In  I  hose  types  of  conduct  for  which  il  would  ^tiii  no  Speech  or 
!  iflui (••  Clause  protection  exists,  the  following,  nlsn  not  intended  to  be 
.  JuniMive,  are  illustrative: 
I.  Any  act  with  reaper!-  In  a  classified  document  in  preparation  for  a 
!.'  uiiii;  which  mnv  be  relevant  to  the  investigation  of  1-hird-parl  v 
.  <  inir. 
J,  Any  act  with  respect  (o  a  classified  document  in  preparation  for 
i  hearing  which  is  itself  criminal,  cir.,  gathering  defense  information 
!n  U.S.C.  Sec  7i>:i). 
',.  Any   act,  arranging  for  the   private   publication   of  a  clarified 
«!•.<  tmirnf . 
1.  Any  net.  publishing  a  c|a>sified  document  privately. 
.".  Any  speech  or  debate,  concerning  the  classified  document,  de- 
*m  ned  i  ir  conducted  outside  (  -omnvss;  i.e.,  no  I  in  a  commit  tee  meeting 
..r  on  the  Senate  Moor. 
f..  Anv  transmittal  or  communication  concerning  the  classified 
J."  uinenl.  in  newsletters  or  news  releases  to  constituents  or  in  answer- 
c;,'  constituent  mail. 
7.  Any  disclosure  of  the  classified  document  on  radio  or  television 
.npearauces. 
Apart  from  any  listing  of  acts  and  .induct  which  may  be  entitled 
•••  pnitcftion  under  the  Speech  and  Debate  Clause,  another  important 
;»•»•(  of  ihe  question  concerning  the  legal  rights  of  an  individual 
x-!uitor  in  possession  of  a  classified  document  mav  l>e  noted.  The 
<  *."irt  in  drarcl  indicated  (hat  it  could  not  '•perceive  any  constitu- 
'••-•ini  or  other  privilege  that  shields  .  .  .  any  .  .  .  witness  from 
•/fjud  jury  questions  relevant  to  tracing  the  source  of  obviously  highly 
*■■  -ifird  documents  that  came  into  iUr^  Senator's  possession  and  arc* 
«*•••  lm<ic  subject  mat  ter  of  inquiry  in  this  case,  a^  long  as  no  legislative 
*  J  i~  implicated  by  the  questions."  Id.  at  G2N.  This  analysis,  assubse- 
*i  ;»nlly  reflected  in  i\\o  Court's  final  order  (sec  A/.,  at  029)  presents  a 
"'•mna   to  an   individual   Member  which   has  been  summari/.ed   as 
■ 
•  im\\  .; 
.  .  .  [Tjhe  decision  in  Gravel  may  make  if  impossible  for  a 
( '"Ugressman  to  promise  confidentiality  to  a  would-be  inform- 
ant :  where  the  release  of  information  could  constitute,  a  crime 
'Mid  could  therefore  be  investigated  by  a  grand  jury,  the 
det-Mnn  forces  n  Congressman  cither  to  refuse  tr>  promise 
I-  dimihl  be  mentioned  that  the  Grarrl  Court,  also  determined  that 
•"pi1  of  immunity  available  to  a  Member's  aide  under  the  Speech 
•I  iJ'hsilc  Clause  is  coextensive  with  that  of  the  Member  himself. 
'  i-.  :mv  act  of  a  Member's  aide  with  respect  to  a  classified  docu- 
t    *      i  * 
'•  uluch  would  constitute  a  protected  legislative  act  if  don**  by  the 
■     h«-i   himself,  is  also  immunized  under  the  Clause.  The  rationale 
''•'-  cipud  treatment,  of  Member  and  aide  "is  'hat  it  is  literally  im- 
1  •  ■»■.  hi  view  of  the  complexifies  of  the  modem  legislative  nioce-.s, 
i  MiMj|-r..^  jjlrnost  must  a  lit  l\   in  session  and  m  titer-;  of  icgi.iative
112 
riHli-rin  niii'.l  ant  l\  proliferating,  for  M  (Mil!  KM  "S  of  (  "on^r**-^  t<»  perforin 
f  1 1 1  ■  i  t"  Ir^i-dal  i\  e  la*d\s  without  the  help  of  rildrs  :  M  i  *  I  a-^i-M a nt  s  ;  1  fin! 
flic  d:r\ -In-day  work  of  sued  aides  is  s<>  critical  Id  the  \femher-'  per- 
form a  in  e  I  h:i  (  ( hev  mu>t  he  t lea  led  a-  I  he  f:i  1 1  rr's  alter  er;o ;  an*  j  I  Ln 
if  thev  nrc  im»(  ^»  reen<.MU/.cd,  the  central  role  of  [he  Speech  "f*  Drhalr 
("ian-e  hi  prevent  in!  itiiiil:i  ( inn  of  lr^i^l:»tors  Iiy  (In*  I'!\i,*,!j  j\  c  :iin( 
m«  'oimf  ahihi  \  heforr  ;i  pn*-ililv  hostile  ptdieian  -  will  inexitahly  lie 
diminished  jumI  frustrated."  1*1.  at   (»)('»   017. 
III.    Ij:c\5.    Ktcrr'rs    or    \    Sknatk    (.!n.\ninTi;i-;    W'n  ii    IiI-mtiit  t»i 
(YknsNMKP    I)nr!'.Mi:\TS    IN     Its    I  N«ssl>Sh».\ 
Thcl'i'  would  in  t  f   -.cent  !n  !>e  ::i'V  le^at   h:iM-  for  :i  d'~»!pi<  Mum  hel  wrr-i 
i'ii*   nt'fif-  of  ;i   committer  or  of  :i   •  ■<  >i  p  i  ni i(  f  «•,*•'  -  -*tn!l    in    |  
»•  >.-*—<• — ii  »i;  <f 
I  i.l  — -lfl**«i  (!/»'■  MM  KM  J I  »  111(1  (111*  ll'^lll-  (»ir  Mil  IfltM  \  hi  II. 'it  Mt'Ml  Im!"  of  !••- 
:•(»!'*  hi  I'^-iMU'i',  a  romiP't  1  er  1»  a  U'Joiip  of  MrmheT*-.  and  :i  <  i  »n  mil  (  !  i  • 
-t.-ilf  U  :i  vj'oiip  of  niilc^.  .\ftti('o\c!'.  although  n  commit  I  e**  CM  j*  i  \"  ^  -on-* 
tir^irc  of  nidrprndrpl  *.iaJli>-  a-  nil  ru'llv  IM  ll-  own  ri'^hl,  ll  *«\" III  h" 
recalled  (Itaf  the  projection^  of  ihc  Sprcrli  and  I)**!):!!*1  (  MallM'  :m-' 
made  e.\pre***»l  V  applic;lhle  '•'»  ''Senator^  and  I'!epre-»iMl  t  a  t  I  vr«.."  1' 
\\(»iilil  appear  f  f  
i«"  rcf«  »ri*,  that  the  >''(i|ii'  of  prt  nuclide  a«  fivnie-,  m  '!"• 
s  ,i  c  ttf  :i  Semite  *  omnuffre  t*r  i  «  mum  f  t  er  -tatf  in  p(i*-.e»-.p»u  (»!  a  ela--"- 
!n'i(  <  it  ten  iiicil  ,  would  fitil  mmernlU  into  lhn>.e  cnfrr;o:p>-  -mu^'M  r,! 
^tpf'f,  which  uri'c  predicated  npiMi  fh<*  (ifitt'rf  and  Hn'ir^frr  « !  ■*  t-i<  in  - 
( )iif  )m  hlif  innal  point  of  inipnt  Imik-c  rnnrrniin'_r  llic  l<"u;'I  t '  i  '_r  1 1 1  ^  «»f  * 
i  uirniiii  I  i*i*  fun  he  imlctl  hi  Hi"  (hnr.l  ('(nni\  tliM>uMt  um  (*f  {[»• 
(  i'i\rninir!i('<  rnnlrtMieii  lhal  Mu1  foiji'ls  air  fm*  uinliT  \\ir  Spcn  li 
.>M«I  I)rh:i(i«  ( 'Lm-;!'  In  (pir-linn  !  lit*  "rc'^iilnri (y "  (if  \\ir  viihi-mninii  !■  «• 
imrlMi^  r-allcd  i>\"  Srimtnr  (inivrl  which  \\  u<  n!Ici:ct|lv  '*-p(M-i;ii. 
wruiiil  hon/.i'fj,  uniinic'v"  (nf  mi«hii^ht),  ;i  nt  I  far  »h*»  purpnsr  <»f  rcntlifi; 
l  In*  ''la^Hicd  (I(*cuiihmi(<  in  hi^  po-^r-^iop.  Th<»  ( '(Mirl  fro  in  ( lit*  !  )Uln* ' 
( 'unrl  *s  rcjcclinn  (if  I  hi<  iir^ninchl   wlicrc  it   \\;i<  sliilcd  lh;i(: 
"Sriuilor    (irsivrl    ini^   ^u^cslfMl    iha!    ihc»   n\  niiahihly    of 
fniuk    fnr    llio    ronsiniHinrt     au»i     improvrrufMil.    nf     ptililic 
I)tiihfin^<   :irul    ^1(?ipuU    h:;^;    IxaMi    nOVf-fnl    hy    I  Ik1    pcco-ary 
cu>i<  ttf  f Ik*  wnr  in  Vietnam  anal   (hat   llirrcfon*  the  ilrvi-Inp- 
niriil  iifhI  cnntlucf.  of  ihr  war  is  pro|icrly  within  tin*  ronrrrn 
of  hi-;  siihcninniii  fro  [Senate  Snbennmiit  1»m»  on  Pnhlie  Wnrk-l. 
'I'll*'  eeiiirl   rejects   the    ( J*i\  eninieni 's  n  riiu  mtMi  (    without    de- 
fat!e«!  consideral inn  of  the  merit"*  of  the  Scn-ilor's  position. 
<m    the  i  a^i<  of   the  genera!   inle   rest r'ic-tin^  jiniirinl   incpiirv 
inln  matters  of  Irvjshit  »*» "«'   pnrj»ose  and   opera!  ions."    f'u>t>ti 
Shift*   v.   l!n<\  \VX1    V.   Snpp..   at    0:;5    ...   "ft    has   not    hern 
^ir.t^r^lrd   |jy   the  ( lo\  (MjiriKMit    that    the  Stihcotnmii  tee  it-»*jf 
i-    nnan!  hori/.ed,    nor   llial    tin*    war   in    Vielmtm    i>   an    i— hi* 
hevo'id    tip*    pnrvicwv    «tf    eon^re^-.i<»nal    dehate    and    aetinn. 
AI-o  \\\r  individual  rights  at   stake  in   \\ux<o  proceed itej:^  are 
not    those  of  a    witne^<  hefore  a   eon^ressi^itial  enmrniite**  or 
of  a   siihjrrt.  of  a  commit  tec's  in\'es(t^a(iont   hut   only   I Im»-»«« 
of    a    e(»Tiiirri,-.sin;in    nnd    nuMnher   of    his    [iei>omd    stall*   win* 
'•!;:im  'intimidsition  h\    the  executive*  ,*  :\:\2  l'\  Supp.,  at  lXW* 
(picitnl   in    (tntnl   \\  'I'nihtl  Str/hx,   4DS    Ir.S.   ti(l(it   CHI   n.  ti
The  significance  of  llii>  language  is  that  ji  commit  tee,  or  the  Member 
ihiTftif.  seem  to  enjoy  u  lan^e  men.su  re  of  insulation  fro  in  Kxcculive 
nntl  Judicial  inquiry  into  its  proceedings.  1 1  would  appear,  therefore, 
f  fiit  f    the   proceedings  of   any   commit  Ice    with    respect    to   a   classified 
document  in  its  possession  will  not  Ik*  questioned  for  purpose*,  of 
,1—  oMnjj  "regularity"  under  tin*  Speech  and  Debate  Clause  nt.  least 
where  (1)  (ho.  committee  itself  is  mil  [incized,  or  (2)  (lie  subject  matter 
of  the  classified  document  or  perhaps  I  Up  document  itself  is  an  i<-uc 
uithin  tlip  constitutional  purview  of  Congress  or  (mA)  (he  rights  nf 
individuals  uro  not  threatened  by  (ho  committee's  proceeding. 
I.koai.   Rights   ok  I\nivn>i<Ar.  Mkmhkus  With    Rkspkct  to    Dor- 
IMKNTS    Oil    I.N'FOU.\fATIO\     ItttrKrVKO    KltOV    KnitKIGN    ICmISSAJUKS 
Although  it.  misrht  Up  useful  in  some  cases,  to  distinguish  Uctween 
aiformation  and  documents  received  from  foreign  emissaries  which 
lt:«vi*  been  classified  by  (lie  United  States  j^ovrrnmeiit  [see  ,r)()  U.S.C. 
<•« -.  7SM  fb)  (e)  and  IS  U.S.C.  sec.  79S|  mid  information  nod  docu- 
ments which  arc  either  unelassified  or  cUissifie<I  \}y  a  foreign  jjovcrn- 
nK-iit  without  a  reclassification  by  tlip  United  States,  it  is  perhaps 
••|'i:dlv  important  to  notp  generally  that  under  the  lOspionage  and 
<  '•'Ti-ur^hin  provisions  of  I  lit*  federal  criminal  code  (IS  U.S.(\  sees. 
7l''J  7WM  it   is  a  criminal  net    for  any   unatil  hori/.ed   possessor  of  any 
•  lu'-iuuent  "relati'mr  to  the  national  defense"  either  \)  wilfufiv  to 
'  •  oimuuicate  or  cause  to  l>e  communicated  that.  doeuniPiit  to  miv 
i-r-nn  not  entitled  to  receive  it,  or  2)  wilfullv  to  retain  lite  document 
•nil  ftiil  to  deliver  it  to  an  ollieer  of  the  United  Statps  entitled  to  receive 
if  1^-c  IS  U.S.C.  see,  7{)'i  (o)  J.  'Jims,  under  this  prohibit  ion  Uoth  the 
  ne  anrl  the  classification  of  the  document  are  immaterial  ami  anv 
»ii  nut horixed  possessor  thereof  fares  grave  risks. 
It  may  be  concluded  that  where  an  individual  member  lias  received 
■«  document  or  information  from  u  foreign  emissary,  and  where  such 
•!«»Mimrut  or  information  may  be  within  the  intendment  of  appiicnUIe 
•  rirtiintil  provisions,  there  would  seem  to  be  two  alternatives  under  the 
I'p-M'iit  law:  ])  the  member  ma\'  use  i\\v  document,  or  information  to 
''"  extent  that- his  immunity  from  the  criminal  law  under  (lie  Speech 
vid  Debate  Clause  allows,  or  2}  lie  mnv  eomplv  with  sect  ions  4  (c)  and 
•I'  of  Executive  Order  i  IG52,  37  Fed.'/try.  5200  (1972),  which  provide 
".•  fallows: 
(r)  Information  or  Material  Furnish fd  by  A  Foreign  Gorrrn- 
iiunf  or  International.  Organization.  Classified  information  or 
material  furnished  to  the  United  States  by  a  foreign  govctn- 
inent  or  international  organization  sliall  either  retain  its 
ori«:innl  classification  or  bo  assigned  a  Unite<l  States  classi- 
li'alion.  In  either  case,  the  classification  shall  assure  a  decree 
of  protection  equivalent,  to  that  required  by  the  government 
•  t   intenuitional    orjranizatiou    winch    furuislied    (he    infor- 
mation or  material. 
fd)  Classification  [{cxynnsibiliticx.  A  holder  of  classified 
iuforitiatioii  or  material  shall  observe  and  respect  the  classi- 
fication Assigned  Uv  the  ori<rinalor.  If  the  holder  believes 
dial,  there  is  an  unnecessary  classification,  tliat  i lie*  assigned 
*  Unification  is  improptT,  or  ihnl  lN»  docfiment  is  subject  to 
*h*«-|;i.sifira(ifiii    under    tUis    order.    \\r   ^hnll    so    inform     (be 
■  ;       « i    .  i  -  i  i.   .      .  I  :  i         i  :     .
w    , 
Tin:    I)i-:<"f..\ssn-*icATiM.v    or    Docpmknts    ix    tiii:    I'okskssion    or 
Indivimi'at,  Mr/vnu.i: 
The  ouestion  of  the  method  by  which  an  individual  member  iiuiy 
declassit v  a  < lc >f *it i r km 1 1  in  his  possession  seems  1<>  yield  two  npproncluu 
under  t In*  present  law.  Fir>lt  the  member  iniiy  effect  n  kind  of  * **!#•- 
clarification"  by  uiili/.inir  (ho  documents  in  ncc.ordauee  with  hi, 
privilege  under  the  SpcM^-h  and  Debute  Clause.  A  member  cnuid,  for 
example,  rend  from  (he  classified  document  nl  a  committee  mcHin-j 
as  u  as  done  in  Grairl.  Strictly  speaking,  of  course,  (his  proter-fptf 
c-f  nit  I  ur-t-  on  the  pin  t  of  a  member  does  not  technically  "declassify"  c  ln» 
diinmuMil  but  it  does  mnke  the  document  public,  effectively  defeat  in;; 
the  classification.  However,  experience  indicated  that  such  effective 
declassification  m:iy  contribute  to  .'i  marked  reluctance  on  the  pun 
of  executive  department  officials  to  lender  restricted  iufonnntion  in 
\\\f  future. 
A  second  alternative  under  present  law  for  a  member  dc^irin^  to 
declassify  a  document  in  Ids  possession  is  to  submit*  the  document  !») 
the  appropriate  government  authority  in  accordanee  with  section  I 
(<l)  of  K.O.  1  1052  quoted  supra.  Section  5  of  K.O.  I  1 052  contains  \Ur 
general  declassification  and  downgrading  guidelines,  [Tab  :{]. 
VI.    PkNIUS'i;  HtfJ.S  ANH  Plt<)P()SAt.S   FOIl  CoNOKF.SSlOSAl.  M\rnrNKKY 
T()    OVKHSKR    Cl.ASSlKrHI)    I  N  l-'Oini  ATION    M ATTKKS 
Our  earlier  report,  discussed  n  number  of  bills  now  pending,  Ilai' 
would  effect,  chimin's  in  several  of  (he  matters  discussed  above.  .All 
of  (he  bills  noted  would  amend  (he  Freedom  of  Information  Ad  in 
one  wiiv  or  {mother  except  for  (he  proposed  new  Federal  (  YimiM:il 
t  'ode  provisions  in  S.  MOM. 
For  purposes  of  this  supplemental  report,  mention  t^f  two  nf  M«.* 
bills  will  provide  a  basis  for  further  consideration  and  recommendation- 
bv  l\\r  Committee.  During  deliberation,  the  unifier  was  discussed  nf 
the  possible  establishment  of  machinery  within  the.  Senate  for  haudlin: 
classified  information.  Senator  Gravel's  Hill,  S.  1720,  makes  a  muulnt 
of  proposals  !>€»:» ri riLC  on  Congressional  oversight  and  participation. 
TIjc   bill   proposes  a  mechanism   whereby   two  Congressional  ''uiii- 
mittens  would  oversee  all  clarification  and  drclassiiicaliou  of  govern- 
infill   documents.  The  proposal,  contained  in  section  I ()-■  of  (he  pre* 
po-cd    Public   Information  Act  of   197o,   mandates  an   nutomatic  de- 
classification  of   all    materials   after   a    two-year   period   of   clas-ufiiv 
status.    If   the   materials   are   thought   to   require   a   second    two-y<*:'f 
period  of  classification,   tbe.   President   or  airency  head   charged   wif' 
the    dech' .^ificafion    of   such    data    must    submit    a    detailed,    wriffr* 
jus!  ificjit  ion    for    the    extension    of    clarification    for    one    addition:- 
two-year  period.  Such  submis-iou  must  be1  made  !o  the  Senaf"  C*»e:- 
mi!  (re  fai  <  loveriuueiil  Operations,  (he  House  Committee  on  Covert. 
m":>f  Operations  and   the  Comptroller  Ceueral  of  the   United  Sfatc- 
Tbe  two  ( 'ongressioual  committees  are  also  charged   with  pubh'-.-- 
tion    of    no    annual    public    document    containing    )dl    of    the    writ!;' 
justifications  for  continued  classilicaliou  presented  to  them.  Ivxccpu* 
from   Ibis  f)ubJ!e  document  are  only  those*  justifications  which  them- 
selves; are  determined  by  the  President  or  appropriate  agency  bead  ' 
In*  fl;t--'lied.   Kvm  1  hc^r  (»\peeir|f|  writing-  arc  available  upon  rema
h) 
Ah  aecessorv  safeguard  to  declassification  is  provided  In  making 
(he  Comptroller  (icnoral  mi  overseer  of  nil  agency  ela-- ifi'-aiinu  and 
ci *•*-! =i  sMticatinn.  Tin*  ( 'nmplrollor  General  would  report  semi-annually 
(o  l)o(Ii  the  Senate  Committee  on  Ciovenuneut  Operations  and  the 
House  Committee  on  Government  Operations  setting  forth  finding  of 
nil  inquiries  or  investigations  ho  would  make  under  tin*  proposed  AH. 
Tin*  reports  would  he  made  no  Inter  than  Mjireh  I,  mid  September  1, 
of  each  vcar. 
The  "Gravel"  13ill  would  ai>o  create  an  Office  of  tin*  General 
Cou use!  to  the  Congress.  The*  duties  of  the*  General  Counsel  would 
presumably  include  advising  the  Senate  Committee  on  Government. 
Operations  and  the  Jlouso  Committee  on  Government.  Operations  on 
the  excepting  of  some  materials  from  a  uf  omit  fir.  biennial  d.w  -In  — *i  f  Ic-n  — 
lion  unci  the  other  supervisor}'  decisions  assigned  to  (lie  committees 
l»y  the  proposed  Act. 
Another  hill.  S.  1520.  would  establish  a  studv  commission  which 
could  make  recommendations  to  the  Congress  in  the  clarified  infor- 
tiuition  field  "including  the  proper  performance  of  its  duties."  As 
previously  observed,  the.  Commission's  charge  would  be  similar  to  that 
undertaken  by  S.  Res.  1.'*. 
Finally,  mention  needs  to  he  made  again  of  S.  1142  introduced  by 
Srnnfor  Muskie  and  J  I. It.  .542.5,  introduced  bv  Congressman  Moon*- 
heml.  These  bills  would  strengthen  the  Freedom  of  Information  Act's 
ih<»-lo<urc  provisions  in  several  respects.  The  provision  of  special 
^iirnifieanee  to  the  subject  of  this  memorandum,  however,  relates  and 
n*fer<  directly  to  the  classified  information  exemption  of  the*  Mhi/c 
<  <«-e.  It  reads  as  follows: 
(2)(A)  Notwithstanding  subsection  (b),  any  agency  shall 
furnish  any  information  or  records  to  Congress  promptly  upon 
written  request,  to  the  head  of  such  agency  by  the  Speaker 
of  the  House  of  Representatives,  l\\o  President  of  the  Senate, 
or  the  chairman  of  uuy  such  committee.  a>  the  case  may  be. 
Vir — Recommendations  of  the  Committee 
UECO.M.M  EN  D  ATI  ON* 
I.  The  Committee  recommends  a  rc-e\amiuati<>n  of  the  broad 
'/rant  of  discretion  j/ivon  by  the  Congress  to  the  President  and  imple- 
ftMMifed  by  Mxcoulive  Order  to  classifv  and  resfri"!  tin*  u>e  and 
'innlaliou  of  government  documents,  lite  Committee  urges  (lu.t  a 
•'•itutory  framework  for  the  classificaf ion  system  be  set  up  and  ihai 
V'H'lelinrs  specifically  defining  areas  of  National  security  be 
«•  'uhlished. 
I  he  extent  to  which  Congress  has  ceded  tins  authority  to  the 
*\r«*ulive  is  discussed  from  mi  historical  j>erspoc(ive  in  this  report  and 
i-  rmpluisizeri  in  (he  Supreme  Court  decision  in  I'lnr'mmivr'thtl  /'mfrr- 
'  **<•  .if/f/'C//,  ct.  a/,  v.  Mink,  410  US  7'4  (107.*;)  wherein  the  Court  held 
'hut  under  existing  law  not  even  the  courts  eouid  look  beyond  an 
•■  •'•'•'! !ivo  determination  in  this  area.  "Congress  rluwo",  wrote  Justice 
"•icwar!,  "to  decree  blind  acceptance  of  executive  lint." 
In  enacting  (he  Freedom  of  Information  y\*(  Congress  created  "an 
1  ^' iiipljon  that-  provides  no  means  to  quesiio  i  an  Kxoeu(ive  derision 
'■•    '  'Uif»  it  iloeitmcnt  'secret  \  however  r\  njeal.  my»pi<\  <»r  even  mn  -opt
Hi 
that  cirri-inn  mi^hl  have  been/'  The  Committee  sunr^ests  thai  I  he 
riiiM-ftiiirrv  be  <e!  up  for  questioning  in  nil  orderly  manner  the^n 
e\crutivc  decisions  lo  clarify  for  reasons  of  Nulion:ii  security,  and 
we  ure;c  tin*  (idvcrniMfMU  Operations  ( *oiutiiil  (ee  lo  give  priority  con- 
sideration lo  hills  now  pending  before  it  ntid  discussed  herein  designed 
!«>  accomplish  l his  objective.  We  make  no  detailed  evaluation  of  the^ 
hilK  lea  vim:  1 1 1 zc_ (.  (o  ( In*  jiitl^moi)  1-  of  (ho  substantive  committee  but 
uv\jH'  (hat  :t  complete  overhaul  of  (ho  classification  system  ho  under- 
taken at   I  hi*  earliest  possible  time. 
I!.  Tin*  question  of  procedures  io  he  followed  by  a  member  who 
ha*,  classified  documents  in  his  possession,  prior  !o  his  disclosure  (if 
finish  documents,  whs  discussed   by  (ho  Committee. 
Tli"  Commit  too  recommends  iliul  individual  memhers  who  htwr 
siii-h  documents  and  wi>h  to  disclose  thorn,  consult  with  the  Semite 
Kl  hit -s  (  'ommiii  ee  prior  to  such  disclosure. 
'die  Committee  wishes  to  make  it.  clour  that  although  it  recom- 
mends consultation  with  tho  rOthics  (Commit  tee,  any  determination 
h\-  the  Klines  Committee  would  not  bo  binding  on  the  member.  TIk- 
ri'iiMin  for  (he  rocommomhition  of  consultation  is  to  permit  a  member 
the  opportunity  of  gelling  tin*  additional  thinking  and  precedent- 
available  to  him  heforo  makine;  a  final  decision  regarding  disclosure. 
I  If.  At  the  request  of  Senator  Cranston,  (he  Committee  di>cu^»**I 
providing  tin'  Sonaie  tin*  overall  sums  recpiestod  for  each  sopnnin* 
intelliireni  e  agency.  The  release  of  such  sums  would  provide*  member- 
with  the  minimal  information  t hoy  should  have  about  our  intelligent 
operations.  Such  information  would  also  end  the  practice  of  iidlatiir; 
certain  budvrrl  (inures  so  as  to  hide  intelligence  costs,  and  would  in* 
sure  lh.it  all  memhers  will  know  tho  true  cost  of  each  budget  item 
t  \\vy  mhiM  vote  upon. 
Accordimrlv,  tho  Committee  recommends  that  tho  Appropriation* 
Committee  itemize  in  the  Defense  Department  Appropriations  Ml 
tht»  total  sums  proposed  to  he  appropriated  for  intelligence  activities 
hv  each  of  the  following  agencies:  Central  Intelligence  Agency,  J)e- 
^  fen>e  Intelligence.  Agency,  National  Security  Agency,  National  lb*- 
couuawsancc  Office  and  anv  separate  intelligence  units  within  (If 
Army,  Navy,  and  Air  Force.  Tin*  Committee  does  not  request  that  run 
lino  items  bo  revealed. 
The  Committee  also  recommends  that  the  committee  reports  iiali- 
cnte  the  total  number  of  personnel  to  he  employed  by  each  of  tie- 
above  agoneios.  T!ic  Committee  does  not  request  any  information 
about   their  duties. 
o
n::.,    CoKnnEss        )  SKNATIO  (  Kr.mirr 
tx?  Session         j  (  X<».  n:t--l<i7 
AUTHORIZING  APPROPRIATIONS,  FISCAL  YEAR  107-1,  FOR  MILITARY 
PROCUREMENT,  RESEARCH  AND  DEVELOPMENT,  AiTIVK  -DDTY  AND 
RESERVE  STRENGTH.  MILITARY  TRAINING  STUDENT  LOADS.  AND 
FOR  OTHER  PURPOSES 
OcTonru  IC,  VMX — Onlcm!  to  ho  printed 
Mr.  Syminctos,  from  (Ik*  committee  of  conference, 
submit  tod  the  following 
CONFERENCE  REPORT 
[To  accompany  ILR.  028C] 
The  committee  of  con  former,  on  the  disagreeing  voles  of  the  two 
Houses  on  the.  amendment  of  the  Senate,  to  the.  bill  (U.K.  0280)  to 
authorize  appropriations  during  the  fiscal  year  1074  for  procurement 
of  lircraft,  missiles,  naval  vessels,  tracked  combat  vehicles,  torpedoes, 
itul  other  weapons,  and  research,  development,  test  and  evaluation  for 
thr  Armed  Forces,  and  to  prescribe  the  authorized  personnel  strength 
for  each  active  duty  component  and  of  the  Selected  Reserve  of  each 
rrcrpvr  component  of  the  Armed  Forres  and  (he  military  training 
•indent  loads,  and  for  other  purposes,  having  met,  after  full  and  free 
<-nnfrrence,  have  agreed  to  recommend  and  do  recommend  to  their 
r^porti  vc  Houses  as  follows : 
That  the  House  recede  from  its  disagreement  to  the  amendment  of 
'V  Senate  and  agree  to  the  same  with  an  amendment  as  follows : 
In  lieu  of  the  matter  proposed  to  Ik*  inserted  by  the  Senate  amend- 
^nf  insert  tho  following : 
TITLE  I— PROCUREMENT 
s'"\  WJ.  Funds  are  hereby  authorised  to  be  appropriated  a1  win  a  the. 
4*  -tt  year  197&  for  the  use  of  the  Armed  Force*  of  the  United  States 
''*»■  procurement  of  aircraft \  missiles  *  vaval  vessels*  tracked  combat 
"•'r.f,   torpedoes  *   and   other   weapons   as   authorised,    hy   fa/r,   rn 
•~"»n)ts  as  fallow* : 
Aircraft 
/V  aircraft:  for  the  Army,  $lGRf)0Offl0;  for  the.  Navy  and  the 
V'rntr  Corps,  $8J9/2/}00/)00  of  irhirh  amount  vol  to  exceed "SCMJOO,. 
'"  'ttff  If  Jtrt  available  for  an  F-Vi  airrroff.  pro  prom  of  not  trss  than 
'  rrritff^  &}fhjrrt  to  vo  incrcusr  hritif/  nut*lr  in  the  rrifttu;  prirr  of