home | about | documents | news | publications | FOIA | research | internships | search | donate | mailing list
Chief of Staff Donald Rumsfeld, President Gerald Ford and Deputy Chief of Staff Richard Cheney April 28, 1975
Veto Battle 30 Years Ago Set Freedom of Information Norms

Scalia, Rumsfeld, Cheney Opposed Open Government Bill

Congress Overrode President Ford's Veto of Court Review

National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 142

Edited by Dan Lopez, Thomas Blanton, Meredith Fuchs and Barbara Elias
For more information contact Thomas Blanton: 202/994-7000

Posted November 23, 2004

In the news

"30 years of Freedom of Information"
By Thomas S. Blanton
The Fresno Bee
December 5, 2004

In Memoriam
Ronald L. Plesser,
an architect of the 1974 FOIA amendments and long-standing friend, legal advisor, and pro bono litigator for the National Security Archive.

 

Timeline of Events

July 4, 1966 - President Lyndon B. Johnson signs into law the Freedom of Information Act

1972 - 1974 - Congressional hearings uncover bureaucratic resistance to the Freedom of Information Act

March 14, 1974 - House passes H.R. 12471, 383-8 (H. Rep. No. 93-876)

May 30, 1974 - Senate passes H.R. 12471, in lieu of S.2543 as amended, 64-17 (S. Rep. No. 93-854)

August 6, 13, 20, 21, 1974 - Conference Committee meets to work out the differences between the House and Senate versions of H.R. 12471

August 9, 1974 - President Richard M. Nixon resigns; President Gerald Ford takes presidential oath

August 20, 1974 - President Ford sends a letter to the Conference Committee outlining his concerns about H.R. 12471

October 1, 1974 - Senate passes H.R. 12471 by voice vote

October 7, 1974 - House passes H.R. 12471, 392-2

October 17, 1974 - President Ford vetoes H.R. 12471

October 18 - November 18, 1974 - Congress recesses for mid-term elections

November 20, 1974 - House votes to override veto, 371-31

November 21, 1974 - Senate votes to override veto, 65-27

 

 

 

 

Washington, D.C., November 23, 2004 - President Gerald R. Ford wanted to sign the Freedom of Information Act strengthening amendments passed by Congress 30 years ago, but concern about leaks (shared by his chief of staff Donald Rumsfeld and deputy Richard Cheney) and legal arguments that the bill was unconstitutional (marshaled by government lawyer Antonin Scalia, among others) persuaded Ford to veto the bill, according to declassified documents posted today by the National Security Archive to mark the 30th anniversary of the veto override.

The documents include President Ford's handwritten notation on his first legislative briefing document after succeeding President Nixon in August 1974, that "a veto [of the FOIA bill] presents problems. How serious are our objections?" White House aide Ken Cole wrote Ford on September 25, 1974, "There is little question that the legislation is bad on the merits, the real question is whether opposing it is important enough to face the political consequences. Obviously, there is a significant political disadvantage to vetoing a Freedom of Information bill, especially just before an election, when your Administration's theme is one of openness and candor."

On November 20, 1974, the House of Representatives voted to override Ford's veto by a margin of 371 to 31; on November 21, the Senate followed suit by a 65 to 27 vote, giving the United States the core Freedom of Information Act still in effect today with judicial review of executive secrecy claims. [i]

The 1966 Freedom of Information Act

After almost eleven years of congressional investigations, reports, and hearings, the 89th Congress passed the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). [ii]

Signed into law on July 4, 1966 by President Lyndon Johnson, the FOIA established the public’s right to access government information.  Ironically, the landmark legislation was not signed into law on that day for its historic significance, but because the ten-day period in which President Johnson had to sign the law had run out.  As President Johnson’s then press secretary Bill Moyers recounted: “LBJ had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the signing ceremony. He hated the very idea of the Freedom of Information Act; hated the thought of journalists rummaging in government closets; hated them challenging the official view of reality. He dug in his heels and even threatened to pocket veto the bill after it reached the White House.” [iii]

Government Agencies Hinder the FOIA’s Goals

Passage of the FOIA did not lead to a new era of open government.  In a series of oversight hearings from 1972-1974, Congress heard extensive testimony describing bureaucratic resistance to the FOIA.  For example:
  • The cost of copying documents was as high as $1 per page and the cost of searching as high as $7 per hour; [iv]
  • A requester was assessed a search fee when he asked an FAA official for the names of the 26 people who directly reported to him ; [v]
  • A requester was told that his request was not specific enough, but when asked if agency indices could be used to better identify the records was told that indices were unavailable as they were “intra-agency” memoranda ; [vi]
  • Agencies were using the “contamination tactic” – mixing confidential, exempt materials with non-exempt materials in the same folder and refusing to expend resources sorting out releasable materials. [vii]
Congress was told that the FOIA only worked when people resorted to costly litigation:
  • Mr. Malvin Schecter, a senior editor of Hospital Practice Magazine, was denied reports on nursing homes from the Social Security Administration (SSA).  After suing and gaining access to the reports, he later requested similar reports from the SSA, was once again refused access, and had to return to court; [viii]
  • Mr. Peter Schuck of the Center for Study of Responsive Law successfully sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to obtain meat inspection reports.  But when a successor tried to access similar reports, the USDA replied that they were exempt.  It was only through the efforts of Mr. Schuck’s attorney that the USDA was convinced that they had previously committed to the release of the reports. [ix]

The House Subcommittee on Government Information identified a number of general problems with the FOIA, including:

  • Excessive delays in responding to document requests;
  • Excessive fees for searching and copying documents;
  • Burdensome and costly legal remedies after exhaustion of administrative remedies;
  • News media opting not to use the FOIA due to excessive delays and burdensome appellate procedures; and
  • Inappropriate and inadequate agency regulations and policies regarding the FOIA, poor administration and recordkeeping regarding FOIA processes and a failure to inform members of the public of their rights under the FOIA. [x]
Congress Acts to Fix the FOIA

Although the Watergate break-in that led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon took place in 1972, the controversy surrounding the event gained momentum through 1973, when numerous top administration officials were investigated and disputes emerged over access to the White House tape recordings made by President Nixon.  It was against this background that real movement was achieved regarding the FOIA.

At the beginning of the 93rd Congress in 1973, Representative William S. Moorhead (D-PA), chair of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations and Government Information, and ranking Republican Representative Frank Horton (R-NY) each introduced a bill to amend the FOIA. [xi] By January 1974, a cooperative piece of legislation, H.R. 12471, was put forward in the House of Representatives.  It passed the House on 14 March 1974 by a vote of 383-3.  With one exception, the House legislation was focused on administration of the FOIA rather than substantive changes to the exemptions.  It required public indices of agency information, timeframes for agency action on FOIA requests, appeals and litigation, recovery of reasonable attorney fees and costs, annual reporting on administration of the FOIA, and an expanded definition of an “agency.”  The exception was in response to the Supreme Court decision in EPA v. Mink, 410 U.S. 73 (1973).  In Mink, the Supreme Court held that an agency’s claim of withholding documents based on the national defense or foreign policy exemptions of the FOIA could be sustained with an affidavit from the government that the materials were properly classified.  The court found that Congress had not empowered judges to question executive classifications and therefore conduct in camera review of those classifications.  It essentially gave the executive carte blanche to “rubberstamp” a document as classified, exempting it from disclosure, and a court would be able only to verify that it was in fact stamped as classified.  The House bill expressly gave judges the ability to review classified documents in camera to assure that materials were properly classified. [xii]

Senator Edmund Muskie (D-ME) introduced a companion bill in the Senate . [xiii]   After the hearings, Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) introduced S. 2543, which included important differences from the legislation passed by the House.  The most striking of these were:  permitting venue in the District of Columbia District Court for a requester’s lawsuit; permitting courts to impose sanctions on agency personnel who wrongfully withheld information; clarifying a request for “identifiable records” as one that “reasonably describes such records,” thus making it easier for requesters to “perfect” a proper request; and requiring non-exempt portions of documents to be released.  The bill also included attorney fees, indexing of agency records, and annual reporting requirements, and it expanded the definition of an “agency.” [xiv]

Initially some federal agencies tried to restrain congressional zeal by proposing compromise language that would limit the reforms.  As the legislative proposals were working their way through Congress, however, the administration’s opposition to the proposals began to solidify.  The Central Intelligence Agency was particularly concerned with the in camera review provision and its effect on the CIA’s statutory obligations for the proper handling of sensitive information. The Department of Justice likewise had concerns.  In addition to the in camera review provision, the DOJ also took issue with the investigatory files exemption, administrative time limits, sanctions, and the limited time in which to answer a requester’s complaint in court.  Negotiations between congressional offices and the administration stalled.  Thomas Susman, a key member of the congressional staff working on the 1974 FOIA amendments as counsel to Senator Kennedy, later learned that the FBI ceased its negotiations with Congress because it wanted the bill to be “as bad as possible” to make the case stronger for presidential veto.  Clearly, some of President Nixon’s advisors saw such tactics as a way of ensuring any veto would not be overridden.

The administration’s inflexibility emboldened the Senate, leading to introduction of substantial amendments on the Senate floor to FOIA exemptions 1 and 7 that were not in either of the legislative proposals.  Senator Muskie introduced an amendment to strengthen court review of classification determinations through in camera review.  If the issue of classification could not be determined by affidavit, the court was empowered to ensure that documents were properly classified according to current statute or Executive Order . [xv]

Senator Muskie’s amendment was agreed to by a vote of 56-29. [xvi]

Senator Phillip Hart (D-MI) proposed an amendment that defined the instances when the “investigatory files” exemption (5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)) could be used:  when the release of records would interfere with enforcement proceedings; deprive someone of a fair, impartial trial; constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; disclose the identity of an informer; or disclose investigatory techniques and procedures. [xvii]

The FBI criticized Senator Hart’s amendment and predicted ominous effects.  Senator Hart’s amendment was agreed to, 51-33. [xviii]

At the close of debate, the text of the amended Senate bill was substituted for the text of the House bill (H.R. 12471). [xix]

H.R. 12471 was then passed by a vote of 64-17. [xx]

The Conference Committee Retains Most Reforms

The conference committee met on August 6, 13, 20, and 21 to reconcile the differences in the House and Senate bills. [xxi]

The conference delayed activity a week to allow President Ford, who had assumed the presidency on August 9, an opportunity to present his views on the bills.  Ford sent a letter to conference committee leaders on August 20 expressing concerns over five provisions of the bills . [xxii]   The president was concerned that (1) judicial imposition of sanctions was “unprecedented and unwise;” (2) judges could disclose military or intelligence secrets through in camera review; (3) the investigatory files exemption would hamper law enforcement by disclosing sources of information and would violate individual privacy; (4) attorneys' fees and costs would subsidize corporate interests; and (5) administrative time limits were too restrictive.  Once the conference committee concluded its work, Senator Kennedy and Representative Moorhead sent a letter to President Ford on September 23 in response.  On the other side of the debate, the conference received a letter from public interest lawyer Ronald Plesser, justifying and supporting administrative deadlines, sanctions, and amendment of the (b)(7) exemption.

The conference agreed on important changes to exemptions from disclosure under the FOIA: [xxiii]

  • National Defense and Foreign Policy Exemption (5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1)) – The conference amended exemption (b)(1) to allow information that is properly classified to be kept secret according to an Executive Order.  In light of amendments clarifying a court’s authority to conduct de novo and in camera review, thus overriding Mink, the conferees made clear that substantial weight should be given to agency classification determinations on account of the agencies' unique experience and expertise.
  • Investigatory Records Exemption (5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)) – The conference adopted the Senate amendment that narrowed the definition of “investigatory files compiled for law enforcement purposes” – a definition that had been interpreted broadly by court decisions.  The conference, however, made some changes to reflect President Ford’s concerns. [xxiv]

The amendment that came out of conference allowed the withholding of investigatory records if disclosure would interfere with enforcement proceedings, deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication, constitute an unwarranted invasion of person privacy, disclose the identity of a confidential source or confidential information supplied by a confidential source,  disclose investigative techniques or procedures, or endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel . [xxv]

The conference committee also agreed to many changes in the administration of the law and to several definitions within the FOIA: [xxvi]

  • The conference adopted the Senate provision which required the release of any reasonably segregable portion of exempted materials.
  • The conference adopted the provisions of both the House and the Senate bills requiring agencies to produce annual reports to Congress of the number of determinations to withhold information, the reason for the withholding, the number of appeals of adverse determinations and their results, any rules promulgated in relation to the FOIA, the agency fee schedule, the total fees collected, and the names of personnel who made denial decisions.  The conference also required that the Attorney General submit a report listing the number of legal cases arising under the FOIA, the exemptions claimed, their disposition, and the costs, fees, and penalties incurred, as well as the Department of Justice’s efforts to promote agency compliance with FOIA.
  • The conference expanded the definition of an agency for the purposes of the FOIA so it would include any executive department; military department; government corporation; government-controlled corporation; or establishment under the executive branch, including the Executive Office of the President; or any independent agency.
  • required frequent publication of indices of agency materials;
  • required that a request for information "reasonably describe" the records sought and eliminated the requirement that the records be "identifiable;"
  • required each agency to promulgate their own regulations regarding search and copying fees, but allowed for the reduction or waiver of fees if the agency determined that doing so was in the public interest;
  • ensured the availability of de novo review by courts of FOIA appeals by specifically authorizing courts to review documents in camera to ensure proper classification;
  • concurrent venue in District of Columbia federal courts;
  • a thirty-day timeframe in which the government is required to file a responsive pleading when a requester has sought judicial review of his or her denial;
  • provided FOIA complaint precedence over other cases on the dockets of federal courts;
  • allowed for the awarding of attorney fees and costs if the requester had "substantially prevailed" in litigation;
  • provided for court-imposed sanctions on agency employees who wrongfully withheld information;
  • established administrative deadlines of ten working days for processing FOIA requests and twenty working days for administrative appeals, and a one-time, ten working day extension in "unusual circumstances" – when the agency must search off-site facilities, examine voluminous records, or consult with another agency.  The conference also retained Senate provisions requiring the identification of agency personnel responsible for initial and appellate determinations and authorizing courts to allow agencies more time to examine records if they are exercising due diligence.

President Ford's Veto

On August 9, when President Ford took office following President Nixon’s resignation, he promised the American people an open government.  As a congressman in 1966, President Ford had supported the FOIA.  Former Illinois congressman Donald Rumsfeld, Ford’s new White House chief of staff, also supported the FOIA in 1966.  The deputy chief of staff in 1974 was Richard Cheney.

Some reports indicate that President Nixon had been ready to sign the bill prior to his resignation . [xxvii]  As early as July 1974, Nixon approved working with the conferees to rewrite the bill< to get agreeable legislation instead of vetoing the bill altogether. He did so over the recommendations of many of his advisors – several of whom  remained to advise Ford after Nixon’s resignation.

Upon Ford's assuming the presidency, his advisors set out to bring Ford up to speed on the most pressing policy issues before Congress, including the FOIA amendments.  Ford noted that a veto of the FOIA amendments posed a political problem, and wondered whether the objections to the bill were serious enough to warrant a veto. Attorney General William Saxbe met with White House Chief of Staff Alexander Haig (whom Donald Rumsfeld would succeed in September 1974) to discuss the FOIA bill and the Department of Justice’s objections.  Interestingly, Saxbe was the only cabinet member not to have been personally asked to remain in the Ford administration – a concern that likely motivated him to request a meeting with Ford during his first week in office.  Saxbe would later become ambassador to India, making way for Edward Levi to become Attorney General in February 1975.

The administration remained concerned over the in camera and investigatory files exemption provisions, concerns that the conference committee had not addressed to the administration’s liking. Ford's advisors however, were well aware of the fact that, in Ford's words, "a veto presents problems." White House aide Ken Cole wrote Ford on September 25, 1974: "There is little question that the legislation is bad on the merits, the real question is whether opposing it is important enough to face the political consequences. Obviously, there is a significant political disadvantage to vetoing a Freedom of Information bill, especially just before an election, when your Administration's theme is one of openness and candor." Aides like Cole were also keenly aware of the possibility that any veto would be overridden.

Before the FOIA bill had even arrived at the White House, the head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, Antonin Scalia, was organizing opposition. According to CIA documents, the Agency had weighed in with the Office of Management and Budget against the bill; but Scalia told them "if we wanted to have any impact, we should move quickly to make our views known directly to the President." Apparently expecting that "neither State nor Defense would be recommending veto," Scalia telephoned the CIA on September 26, 1974 to urge direct contact with a particular White House staffer against the bill.

The amendments to the FOIA were sent to President Ford on October 8. [xxviii]   Congress was due to recess on October18 , and inaction on the bill as Congress went into recess (a so-called “pocket veto”) would obviate Congress’s override power.  As the clock ticked, Congress waited to see what President Ford would do. Senator Muskie expressed concern on the floor of the Senate that President Ford would not veto the bill before Congress recessed for the 1974 mid-term elections . [xxix]

The Department of Justice, Civil Service Commission, Department of the Treasury, Department of Defense, Department of Commerce, Department of State, and the Veterans’ Administration all recommended that President Ford veto the amendments to the FOIA. The General Services Administration, while sharing the concerns of other agencies, did not make a recommendation for action on the bill. Supported by federal agency input, the Office of Management and Budget recommended that the president veto the bill.

Philip Buchen, counsel to the president, appears to have been the only senior advisor in the White House to have advocated signing the final bill.  In the end, however, even Buchen changed his mind. Despite the realization that an override would be all but certainly successful, Ford’s advisors unanimously advocated vetoing the measure, simultaneously submitting an alternative bill to Congress and seeking its passage instead of an override.  President Ford agreed.

The question remains, why did Buchen and President Ford change their minds? The available documents do not provide a definitive answer, but notes from key meetings in September and October provide clues to Ford's priorities - and these were far from government transparency. For example, handwritten notes of the first White House senior staff meeting presided over by Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Richard Cheney (September 30, 1974) show Rumsfeld's rising concern about leaks, a discussion that takes up a major part of the meeting. Similarly, notes from the National Security Council meeting on October 7, 1974 reveal Ford himself opening the session by complaining about leaks for a full two pages of the transcript, asking for "recommendations on how to tighten up this system," and telling his advisers that "I could have ordered an FBI investigation on this, but Don and I thought it would be better to see what you could do first."

On October 17, President Ford vetoed the FOIA bill.  The FOIA veto was President Ford’s third veto of the week and the eighth of his fledgling administration . [xxx] In his veto message, based largely on the Justice Department's proposed draft, President Ford expressed three concerns with H.R. 12471, calling it “unconstitutional.” [xxxi]   President Ford felt that military and intelligence secrets were at risk if a court could determine anew if classifications were correct; he felt that classification should be upheld as long as there was a “reasonable basis to support it.” [xxxii] He believed that the investigatory files exemption would burden law enforcement and pose confidentiality issues, and that more flexibility in the exemption was necessary . [xxxiii]   Finally, President Ford felt the administrative deadlines were unrealistic . [xxxiv] F ord’s veto was not received well, especially because he entered office assuring a policy of open government.  The media editorialized strongly against President Ford’s action [xxxv]   and the veto received an equally angry response from the House and Senate.  Representative Moorhead – the lead House conferee, Representative Edward R. Roybal (D-CA), Senators Alan Cranston (D-CA) and Lawton Chiles (D-FL), and Senator Muskie all spoke out against the veto.

On October 25, President Ford submitted suggested changes to the FOIA amendments in a letter to Senator Kennedy.  These changes would have:

  • Limited the use of in camera review to situations where there was no reasonable basis to support the classification;
  • Extended agency response and extension timeframes;
  • Allowed agencies to charge requesters for reviewing costs;
  • Expanded the investigatory files (§ 552(b)(7)) exemption . [xxxvi]
    Ford’s administration, in conjunction with sympathetic congressional leaders including Senator Roman L. Hruska (R-NE), a conferee on the FOIA amendments, continued to push to change the bill or to pass Ford’s version in lieu of it.  They did so knowing that these efforts were likely to be unsuccessful and that an override was imminent.  Congress made no changes to the bill before voting to override President Ford’s veto.

Override

On 20 November, the House voted 371-31 to override the President’s veto. [xxxvii] (See Washington Post article. [xxxviii] The following day, the Senate followed suit by a vote of 65-27 . [xxxix The FOIA amendments were one of two vetoes overridden by Congress that day; up to that point, only one of President Ford’s vetoes had been overridden – a railroad retirement pension bill. [xl]   Editorials on the FOIA override were positive . [xli]

As the administration was preparing requests for supplemental appropriations on a variety of topics, President Ford suggested asking for additional funds for all legislative measures that he had vetoed and were overridden.  This was meant to impress upon the Democratic Congress the administration’s policy of fiscal restraint. Supplemental appropriations for the FOIA amendments were quickly dismissed as the White House acknowledged that their objections to the amendments were not budgetary, but substantive concerns relating to the possible negative effects of specific provisions.

Conclusion

The 1974 Amendments to the Freedom of Information Act represent another milestone in the quest to secure the public’s right to information.  They were the product of a tumultuous time in U.S. political history and came on the heels of the problematic and secretive Nixon administration.  Congress overwhelming supported the measures, and their passage was well received by the public.

Since 1974, and subsequent amendment, the FOIA has allowed citizens to learn more about their family histories and personal files; it has brought to light government oversights, shortfalls, and transgressions; it has forced improvement in government regulations and activities; and it has broadened the public’s body of knowledge about its government, thus creating a more informed, effective citizenry. 

Additional Information

  • Attorney General's 1974 FOI Amdts. Mem. (February 1975) available at http://www.usdoj.gov/04foia/74agmemo.htm (last visited August 13, 2004).
  • George Kennedy, How Americans Got Their Right to Know, available at http://www.johnemossfoundation.org/foi/kennedy.htm (last visited August 13, 2004).
  • Lotte E. Feinberg, Open Government and Freedom of Information:  Fishbowl Accountability in Handbook of Public Law and Administration 386 (Philip J. Cooper et al. eds., 1997).

Footnotes

Memorandum for President Ford from Ken Cole, "H.R. 12471, Amendments to the Freedom of Information Act," September 25, 1974 Source: Gerald R. Ford Library. Document 10.
House Comm. on Gov’t Operations, Subcomm. on Gov’t Info. and Individual Rights & Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, Subcomm. on Admin. Practice and Procedure, 94th Cong., Freedom of Information Act and Amendments of 1974 (P.L. 93-502), Source Book:  Legislative History, Texts, and Other Documents 109 (J. Comm. Print 1975) [hereinafter Source Book]. 
Bill Moyers, Bill Moyers on the Freedom of Information Act, Now with Bill Moyers at http://www.pbs.org/now/commentary/moyers4.html (last visited August 13, 2004
). 
U.S. Government Information Policies and Practices – Administration and Operation of the Freedom of Information Act (Part 4):  Hearing Before the House Comm. on Gov’t Operations, 92nd Cong. 1223-1224 (1972) [hereinafter Hearings (Part 4)] (statement of Roger C. Cramton , Chairman, Administrative Conference of the United States). 
Hearings (Part 4), supra note 4, at 1252 (statement of Reuben B. Robertson III, Attorney, Center for the Study of Responsive Law). 
Hearings (Part 4), supra note 4, at 1253-1254 (statement of Harrison Wellford, Center for the Study of Responsive Law). 
Id. at 1254-1255. 
Memorandum from Ronald L. Plesser, Attorney, Public Citizen, to the Conference Committee on H.R. 12471, 93rd Cong. (n.d.) (on file with National Security Archive). 
Id. 
Source Book, supra note 3, at 110. 
H.R. 5425, 93rd Cong. (1973) and H.R. 4960, 93rd Cong. (1973). 
Source Book, supra note 3, at 110-111. 
S. 1142, 93rd Cong. (1973). 
Id. at 111-112. 
Id. 
Id. 
Id. 
Id. 
Id. 
Id. 
Id. at 117. 
See Ford Gives Information Bill Objections, Austin American-Statesman, Aug. 22, 1974
. 
S. Conf. Rep. No. 93-1200 (1974), reprinted in 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6290-6291. 
Source Book, supra note 3, at 117-118. 
1974 USCCAN at 6291. 
S. Conf. Rep. No. 93-1200 (1974), reprinted in 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6285-6293. 
Lotte E. Feinberg, Open Government and Freedom of Information:  Fishbowl Accountability in Handbook of Public Law and Administration 376 (Philip J. Cooper et al. eds., 1997).
Source Book, supra note 3, at 116. 
120 Cong. Rec. S36,083 (daily ed. Oct. 17, 1974). 
Jules Witcover, Ford Vetoes Information Bill
, Wash.
Post, Oct. 18, 1974
, at A1. 
Vetoing H.R. 12471, To Amend Freedom of Information Act, A Message from the President of the United States, H. Doc. No. 93-383, reprinted in Source Book at 484. 
Id.  
Id. 
Id. 
A Regrettable Veto, Wash. Post, Oct. 21, 1974
, at A22; White House Acts to Tighten Security, Wash. Post, Oct. 24, 1974, at H11; Elizabeth Langer, Congress and the Freedom of Information Act, Wash. Post, Nov. 20, 1974, at A27; Federal Files:  Freedom of Information, Wash. Post, Nov. 20, 1974, at A26. 
Letter from Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, to Edward M. Kennedy, United States Senator (Oct. 25, 1974) (on file with National Security Archive). 
Source Book, supra note 3, at 116. 
Mary Russell, House Votes to Override 2 Ford Vetos, Wash. Post, Nov. 21, 1974, at A1. 
Source Book, supra note 3, at 116. 
Marry Russell, Two Vetoes Overridden By Senate, Wash. Post, Nov. 22, 1974, at A1. 
Information:  A Vital Gift, Wash. Post, Nov. 23, 1974
, at A14. 

Documents
Note: The following documents are in PDF format.
You will need to download and install the free Adobe Acrobat Reader to view.

Document No. 1: Memorandum for William Timmons from General Counsel Stanley Ebner, "S.2543 - To Amend the Freedom of Information Act," April 29, 1974
Source: Gerald R. Ford Library

Document No. 2: Department of Justice Memorandum to Attorney General William Saxbe from Assistant Attorney General Robert Dixon, "Freedom of Information Act Amendments - S.2543," May 7, 1974
Source: Gerald R. Ford Library

Document No. 3: Central Intelligence Agency Memorandum to Pat O'Donnell, May 23, 1974
Source: Gerald R. Ford Library

Document No. 4: Memorandum for Kenneth Cole from Jerry Jones, "Freedom of Information Act Amendments (H.R. 12471)," July 11, 1974, Administratively Confidential
Source: Gerald R. Ford Library

Document No. 5: Memorandum for President Ford from Ken Cole, "Meeting With Attorney General Saxbe, August 13, 1974, 11:00 A.M., Oval Office," August 12, 1974
Source: Gerald R. Ford Library

Document No. 6: Memorandum for Al Haig from Ken Cole, "Meeting With Saxbe on Freedom of Information Act," August 12, 1974
Source: Gerald R. Ford Library

Document No. 7: Memorandum for President Ford from Director of the Office of Management Roy Ash, Ken Cole, and William Timmons, August 15, 1974
Source: Gerald R. Ford Library

Document No. 8: Memorandum for Roy Ash, Ken Cole, and William Timmons from Jerry Jones, "Decision and Information Memoranda Dealing with Policy Issues Before Congress," August 19, 1974, Administratively Confidential
Source: Gerald R. Ford Library

Document No. 9: Memorandum for President Ford from William Timmons, "Freedom of Information Act Amendments," August 19, 1974
Source: Gerald R. Ford Library

Document No. 10: Memorandum for President Ford from Ken Cole, "H.R. 12471, Amendments to the Freedom of Information Act," September 25, 1974
Source: Gerald R. Ford Library

Document No. 11: Memorandum for President Ford from the Central Intelligence Agency, September 26, 1974
Source: Gerald R. Ford Library

Document No. 12: Handwritten Notes from Rumsfeld Meeting, September 30, 1974
Source: Gerald R. Ford Library

Document No. 13: Minutes of National Security Council Meeting, "SALT," October 7, 1974
Source: Gerald R. Ford Library

Document No. 14: Memorandum for President Ford from Ken Cole, "H.R. 12471, Amendments to the Freedom of Information Act," October 9, 1974
Source: Gerald R. Ford Library

Document No. 15: Letter to Roy Ash and Budget from Assistant Attorney General W. Vincent Rakestraw, October 9, 1974
Source: Gerald R. Ford Library

Document No. 16: Letter to Roy Ash from the Civil Service Committee, October 10, 1974
Source: Gerald R. Ford Library

Document No. 17: Memorandum for Phil Buchen from Ken Lazarus, "H.R. 12471, Amendments to the Freedom of Information Act," October 10, 1974
Source: Gerald R. Ford Library

Document No. 18: Letter for Roy Ash from the Department of the Treasury, October 10, 1974
Source: Gerald R. Ford Library

Document No. 19: Letter for Roy Ash from the Department of Defense, October 11, 1974
Source: Gerald R. Ford Library

Document No. 20: Memorandum for Jerry Jones from John Guthrie, "Notes on Cabinet Meeting - October 11, 1974," October 11, 1974
Source: Gerald R. Ford Library

Document No. 21: Letter for Roy Ash from the Department of Commerce, October 15, 1974
Source: Gerald R. Ford Library

Document No. 22: Letter for Roy Ash from the Department of State, October 15, 1974
Source: Gerald R. Ford Library

Document No. 23: Memorandum for President Ford from Ken Cole, "Freedom of Information Act Amendments," October 16, 1974
Source: Gerald R. Ford Library

Document No. 24: Letter to Roy Ash from Administrator at the General Services Administration Arthur Sampson, October 16, 1974
Source: Gerald R. Ford Library

Document No. 25: Memorandum for President Ford from the Office of Management and Budget, "Enroll Bill H.R. 12471 - Freedom of Information Act amendments, Sponsor - Rep. Morehead (D) Pennsylvania and 11 others," October 16, 1974
Source: Gerald R. Ford Library

Document No. 26: Veto Message to the House of Representatives, October 17, 1974
Source: Gerald R. Ford Library

Document No. 27: Letter to Roy Ash from the Veteran's Administration, October 18, 1974
Source: Gerald R. Ford Library

Document No. 28: Memorandum for William Timmons from Pat O'Donnell, "Status of FOIA Amendments," October 30, 1974
Source: Gerald R. Ford Library

Document No. 29: Memorandum for Jerry Jones from John Guthrie, "Notes from the Cabinet Meeting - October 30, 1974," October 30, 1974
Source: Gerald R. Ford Library

Document No. 30: Memorandum for President Ford from Roy Ash, "Supplemental Appropriations for Implementation of the Freedom of Information Act Amendments," December 4, 1974
Source: Gerald R. Ford Library

home | about | documents | news | publications | FOIA | research | internships | search | donate | mailing list

Contents of this website Copyright 1995-2004 National Security Archive. All rights reserved.
Terms and conditions for use of materials found on this website.