Mr. Speaker, I do wish to make one other point about the bill.  This bill is not to be considered, I think it is safe to say on behalf of the members of the committee, a withholding statute in any sense of the term.  Rather, it is a disclosure statute.  This legislation is intended to mark the end of the use of such phases as "for good cause found," "properly and directly concerned," and "in the public interest," which are all phrases which have been used in the past by individual officials of the executive branch in order to justify, or at least to seem to justify, the withholding of information that properly belongs in the hands of the public.  It is our intent that the courts interpret this legislation broadly, as a disclosure statute and not as an excuse to withhold information from the public.

         I must add, that disclosure of Government information is particularly important today because Government is becoming involved in more and more aspects of every citizen's personal and business life, and so the access to information about how Government is exercising its trust becomes increasingly important.  Also, people are so busy today bringing up families, making a living, that it is increasingly difficult for a person to keep informed.  The growing complexity of Government itself makes it extremely difficult for a citizen to become and remain knowledgeable enough to exercise his responsibilities as a citizen; without government secrecy it is difficult, with Government secrecy it is impossible.

         Of course, withholding of information by Government is not new.  The Federal Government was not a year old when Senator Maclay of Pennsylvania asked the Treasury Department for the receipts Baron von Steuben had given for funds advanced to him.  Alexander Hamilton refused the request.

         In the United States, three centuries of progress can be seen in the area of access to Government information. Based on the experience of England, the founders of our Nation established--by law and by the acknowledgement of public men--the theory that the people have a right to know.  At local, State and Federal levels it has been conceded that the people have a right to information.

         James Russell Wiggins, editor of the Washington Post, argues eloquently against Government secrecy in his book, "Freedom or Secrecy."  He says:

         We began the century with a free government--as free as any ever devised and operated by man.  The more that government becomes secret, the less it remains free.  To diminish the people's information about government is to diminish the people's participation in government.  The consequences of secrecy are not less because the reasons for secrecy are more.  The ill effects are the same whether the reasons for secrecy are good or bad.  The arguments for more secrecy may be good arguments which, in a world that is menaced by Communist imperialism, we cannot altogether refute.  They are, nevertheless, arguments for less freedom.

         In August of 1822, President James Madison said:

         Knowledge will forever govern ignorance.  And a people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.  A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both.

         Thomas Jefferson, in discussing the obligation of the press to criticize and oversee the conduct of Government in the interest of keeping the public informed, said:

         Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without government, I should not hesitate for a moment to prefer the latter.  No government ought to be without censors; and where the press is free, none ever will.

         President Woodrow Wilson said in 1913:

         Wherever any public business is transacted, wherever plans affecting the public are laid, or enterprises touching the public welfare, comfort or convenience go forward, wherever political programs are formulated, or candidates agreed on--over that place a voice must speak, with the divine prerogative of a people's will, the words:  "Let there be light."

         House Report No. 1497, submitted to the House by the Committee on Government Operations to accompany S. 1160, concludes:

         A democratic society requires an informed, intelligent electorate, and the intelligence of the electorate varies as the quantity and quality of its information varies.  A danger signal to our democratic society in the United States is the fact that such a political truism needs repeating.  And repeated it is, in textbooks and classrooms, in newspapers and broadcasts.

         The repetition is necessary because the ideals of our democratic society have outpaced the machinery which makes that society work.  The needs of the electorate have outpaced the laws which guarantee public access to the facts in government.  In the time it takes for one generation to grow up and prepare to join the councils of government -- from 1946 to 1966 -- the law which was designed to provide public information about government has become the government's major shield of secrecy. 

         S. 1160 will correct this situation.  It provides the necessary machinery to assure the availability of government information necessary to an informed electorate.

         Mr. Speaker, I was interested to learn that Leonard H. Marks, Director of the U.S. Information Agency-USIA-recently suggested before the Overseas Press Club in New York City the development of a treaty "guaranteeing international freedom of information."  To be sure, this is a commendable suggestion, and one which I would be delighted to hear more about.  For the time being, however, I am concerned with the freedom-of-information question here in the United States.  Here is our basic challenge.  And it is one which we have a responsibility to accept.

         The political organization that goes by the name of the United States of America consists of thousands of governing units.  It is operated by millions of elected and appointed officials.  Our Government is so large and so complicated that few understand it well and others barely understand it at all.  Yet, we must understand it to make it function better.

         In this country we have placed all our faith on the intelligence and interest of the people.  We have said that ours is a Government guided by citizens.  From this it follows that Government will serve us well only if the citizens are well informed.

         Our system of government is a testimony to our belief that people will find their way to right solutions given sufficient information.  This has been a magnificent gamble, but it has worked.

         The passage by the House of S. 1160 is an important step toward insuring an informed citizenry which can support or oppose public policy from a position of understanding and knowledge.

         The passage of S. 1160 will be an investment in the future; an investment which will guarantee the continuation of our free systems guided by the people.

         Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of this legislation.  It merits the enthusiastic support of each Member of the House of Representatives.