The first of them would be in section 3317, to renumber paragraph 7, make that paragraph 8, and insert a new paragraph 7 as follows:

The privacy interests of individuals whose communications with federal officeholders, task forces, commissions, and boards are a part of the papers and documents produced by such individuals and organizations.

It is further suggested that under section 3318 there be a new item G, which would read: "One member of the White House or Executive Office staff appointed by the President."

I submit those for your consideration. I would say they do seem to me to be constructive suggestions.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much, Dr. Rhoads, for a most useful statement. It has delineated some of the major philosophical and substantive problems to which the proposed study commission would have to address itself.

In line with what you have just said and in light of the proposed amendments suggested by OMB, do I take it those changes are an indication that the administration favors passage of the bill under consideration?

Dr. RHOADS. I believe that inference could be drawn by reason of the text of my prepared statement.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I wonder if you could make any further comments with respect to the matter of the composition of the proposed commission?

The bill provides:

The Commission shall be composed of fourteen members as follows

(A) one member of the House of Representatives appointed by the Speaker of the House upon recommendation made by the majority leader of the House;

(B) one Member of the House of Representatives appointed by the Speaker of the House upon recommendation made by the minority leader of the House; (C) one Member of the Senate appointed by the President of the Senate upon recommendation made by the majority leader of the Senate;

(D) one member of the Senate appointed by the President of the Senate upon recommendation made by the minority leader of the Senate;

(E) one Justice of the Supreme Court, appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court;

(F) three appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, from persons who are not officers or employees of any government who are specially qualified to serve on the Commission by virtue of their education, training, or experience;

(G) one representative of the Department of State, appointed by the Secretary of State;

(H) one representative of the Department of Defense, appointed by the Secretary of Defense;

(I) one representative of the Department of Justice appointed by the Attorney General;

(J) the Administrator of General Services (or his delegate);

(K) one member of the American Historical Association, appointed by the counsel of such Association; and

(L) one member of the Society of American Archivists, appointed by such Society.

Do you feel the proposed composition, together with the amendment you just cited, represents an appropriate spectrum of membership to carry out the proposed duties of the commission?

Dr. RHOADS. It certainly seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that this provides a very balanced membership and would include a proper spectrum of interests.

Mr. BRADEMAS. You are the nonvoting chairman of the National Historical Publications Commission. I wonder if you could briefly

indicate to us the functions of the National Historical Publications Commission?

Dr. RHOADS. It has as its responsibility to make plans and recommendations for the publication in letterpress or microform of documentary sources important to the study of American history. Under its aegis a substantial number of extremely valuable collections of documentation of national importance have been published. In recent years the NHPC has had at its disposal modest amounts of money for grant/ to assist in such publication efforts.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I am aware as a member of the National Historical Publications Commission of the meeting on September 20, 1974, at which the Commission unanimously adopted some resolutions directly related to the subject under consideration here today.

As I think these resolutions have not been made public, I would request that you read the text into the record today.

Dr. RHOADS. The first one reads:

The Commission urges the establishment by law of an independent national commission to make a careful and objective study of the disposition of the records and papers of elected and appointed officials of the Federal government and to make appropriate recommendations to the President and the Congress with respect to this subject.

The second resolution reads:

The National Historical Publications Commission states and affirms its continuing position that the official records of the nation, the states, and other governmental units and the papers of present and former government officials having continuing value for research should be retained and maintained for the benefit of all who study the history of the United States.

The Commission holds that official records and papers include handwritten and typewritten documents, motion pictures, television tapes and recordings, magnetic tapes, automated data processing documentation in various forms, and other records that reveal the history of the nation.

In this regard, the Commission views with alarm the unprecedented provision contained in the agreement announced by the President on September 8, 1974. which requires the destruction of magnetic tapes or other materials of value for historical research, and calls for remedial action with respect to the aforementioned agreement.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you very much, Dr. Rhoads.

Let me ask you about the allusion to the agreement of the President with respect to former President Nixon's destruction of magnetic tapes and the stipulation in that agreement which requires the destruction of those tapes. May I ask you, as you are the Archivist of the United States, if you were consulted with respect to that agreement?

Dr. RHOADS. No, sir, I was not.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Was Mr. Sampson consulted, do you know, or was the GSA Administrator simply put in the position of being required to implement its agreement?

Dr. RHOADS. It is my understanding he was consulted and did discuss the agreement before he signed it. It is my understanding he was not involved in negotiating the agreement with the former President. Mr. BRADEMAS. Speaking for myself, I think it strange that the professional person in the Federal Government who is in charge of the preservation of papers and other materials essential for historical reasons, namely, the Archivist of the United States, was not consulted on a matter of that consequence. Although the matter of the disposition of the Nixon tapes is not immediately before this subcommittee, in view

of the nature of the legislative jurisdiction of this subcommittee, I would only voice my strong disagreement with that agreement. If one looks at what the other body is doing, both Senators and Representatives, Republican and Democrats, are overwhelmingly opposed to that provision regarding the destruction of materials which the former President said himself, by way of defending the practice of taping, had been carried out for historical purposes.

The other night on television I recall having seen a documentary on World War II. Having seen some films of the burning of books in Germany by the Nazis, instantly there came to my mind the offense against history which I believe the agreement announced on September 6 represents.

I want to express my own very strong view that Congress can abrogate this agreement. At the same time I believe it is essential we establish a Commission of the type that we are discussing, to study the whole spectrum of problems that are posed by the matter of the disposition of records and tapes of Federal officials which over the long run, are complex and so varied.

I have just a couple of other questions before I yield to my colleagues, Dr. Rhoads, in your statement you said you felt it necessary to have a clear charter. Would you elaborate on that?

Dr. RHOADS. For the Commission to be productive and arrive at well reasoned conclusions in the time set forth in the bill, it is essential that early in the life of the Commission, perhaps almost as an initial step, it define as clearly as it can the various matters it should look into.

In my prepared statement I tried to suggest what I thought some of those matters were; there may very well be others. I make no claim that I have laid out the complete charter for the Commission, but perhaps I have suggested some of the matters which should be taken up. Mr. BRADEMAS. How much money, in your view Dr. Rhoads, do you think the Commission would require to perform this work and report to the President and Congress no later than December 31, 1975?

Dr. RHOADS. I must confess I have not given that matter any careful thought. It seems to me the quality of the staff is, of course, more important than the sie of the staff. It would seem to me that perhaps a good staff of approximately 10 people, with the right kind of background and experience might be sufficient, and I would imagine that would price out to something like $200,000 or $250,000. Those are just ball park figures.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I would be very grateful if later on we could consult with you again to get a more specific judgment.

Dr. RHOADS. We will give that some serious thought in anticipation of that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BRADEMAS. I have many other questions but we have other witnesses so I will yield to my colleague from Tennessee, Mr. Jones.

Mr. JONES. I have no question at this time but I appreciate the fact he has been here to testify on this subject which is of great importance. I yield the balance of my time to you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BRADEMAS. I thank you. I will call on Mr. Koch.

Mr. KоCH. I was struck by your basic argument. You make the major point that the person involved has to be protected from public scrutiny in this sense. That is to say, he might run again. You point out that others have run after leaving the Presidency. That is one of the

points of view, to protect this individual. But that is another view you had not touched upon. If he were not to be protected, you would destroy the papers?

Dr. RHOADS. An official might destroy sensitive portions of his files or else he might not create or retain such documentation from the

outset.

Mr. KоCH. I am very much interested in legislation which relates to right of privacy so one cannot always see the dossiers as kept on individuals. There is a privacy bill which hopefully might come to the floor before we go into recess. I am very supportive of the position that these documents should be made available notwithstanding the problems raised and, hopefully, the commission will find a way to deal with them because they are legitimate problems.

The chairman pointed out this bill will not assist us in connection with the Presidency, involving the former President.

The Judiciary Committee had a meeting as to what to do with the former President's papers. That was by way of background. I wanted to ask if you have a point of view on it. Is the agreement entered into by, I guess GSA, with the former President, is that agreement in your judgment binding since the destruction of papers? As I have read the legislation covering the disposition of Government papers, there was nothing in any legislation that I am aware of which permits the destruction of papers.

The agreement with former President Nixon did permit this. Do you have any comment on that?

Dr. RHOADS. First of all, I might say I am not a lawyer but when I read the agreement for the first time, I must confess this question had occurred to me also.

I think that is a matter for persons other than me to make a final determination on.

Mr. KOCH. I yield back my time to the chairman.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Thank you.

If I am not mistaken, the agreement regarding former President Nixon's tapes and other materials would simply not permit a destruction of those materials, rather there is a stipulation requiring the destruction of those materials.

Dr. RHOADS. That is correct.

Mr. BRADEMAS. This requirement of the destruction of the materials seems to me to be so outrageous on its face that I am very gratified that the National Historical Publications Commission, in the resolution which you quoted, called for remedial action with respect to this requirement.

I may seem too tough on that matter by making a comparison of the burning of books by the Nazis but I am also reminded of the Soviet Union. Every time the Soviet encyclopedia came out, they rewrote it according to the views of the person who had been in charge of history. That was against all reasoning of common decency.

I do hope you will allow us to consult with you further as we consider this legislation.

Dr. RHOADS. Thank you.

Mr. BRADEMAS. Our next witness is the distinguished Jonathan Bingham, who has introduced legislation on this subject.

STATEMENT OF HON. JONATHAN BINGHAM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. BINGHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to commend you for holding these hearings on what as you have pointed out is a most important matter.

If I may, I would like to read the prepared statement with some interpolations as I go along.

The September 6, 1974, agreement on the disposition of Presidential papers between former President Richard Nixon and Mr. Arthur Sampson, Administrator of the General Services Administration, is an appalling abuse of historical precedent. It must not be allowed to take effect. I commend you and your subcommittee for the priority consideration you are giving to this urgent matter.

This agreement rests on a mushy foundation of tradition, not law. It presumes that Presidential papers, documents, and tapes are the personal property of the President during whose tenure of office they are produced. The agreement therefore proposes to maintain these materials in the custody of the Federal Government at a storage facility near Mr. Nixon's home in California, while giving him complete control of access to the materials, and the right to withdraw and destroy any and all papers after 3 years, and tape recordings after 5 years.

As you pointed out, the tapes would all be destroyed if Mr. Nixon should die before the 5-year period had elapsed. While the right of access to the materials through court subpena is specified in the agreement, no provision is made for third party supervision, which could allow the former President to make undisputed claims that certain subpenaed evidence simply does not exist.

Since the former president can certainly be expected to resist any court subpena for these materials, there is a clear and present danger that this agreement may be the final act of coverup in the Watergate affair. It could well prevent the full story of the Nixon administration's violations of the law and the Constitution from full disclosure, leaving history and the American people with an incomplete understanding of the traumatic events of the last few years and the lessons they must teach. Worse still, since that limited understanding is based on a record that is replete with gaps and unanswered questions, it is quite possible that Richard Nixon will resurrect his claims of innocence in the years ahead and appeal to those who believe he was driven from office by partisan furies and the news media. In these circumstances, I do not believe the Nation should meekly sacrifice the national interest in completing the investigation of Richard Nixon's administration because of historical precedents under which former Presidents have been allowed to retain their papers.

I have introduced legislation which has been referred to the Committee on House Administration, and perhaps which would establish by statute that the official papers of all Federal elected officials are the property of the American people.

It would require the Administrator of General Services to obtain all public documents of Presidents, Vice Presidents, Senators and Members of the House within 180 days after they cease to hold office, whereupon these documents would be deposited in the National Archives of the United States.