November 5, 1975
Page 35194
Mr. ROTH. Is the Senator suggesting that the original language would be acceptable to him, if we added an additional provision, I guess it would be section 5, providing that two members of a committee could close a session only for the purpose of deciding whether or not there should be a closed session? Is that what the Senator is suggesting?
Mr. GRIFFIN. That would certainly be an improvement. My question is, if you need a majority vote of the committee in open session to close the committee meeting, how do you, in open session, convince your colleagues that the matter they are about to take up involves national security? Are we supposed to do that in open session? That is the kind of situation in which we are going to put all committees of the Senate. I realize it is not very important in many committees. Maybe the Committee on Public Works never would have that kind of a problem. But other committees do.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. GRIFFIN. I am glad to yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. We have not had experience with all contingencies covered by the five positions in the original text, but we had experience with some.
For example, with respect to item 2, which has to do with matters of committee staff personnel or internal staff management or procedure, when such matters arise involving a frank discussion of possible candidates for committee staffing, in my case the chairman advises the committee that that is the nature of the discussion that we are about to undertake and that I would recommend that we close the session for that purpose. We do not actually get into the detail of the matter. We do not have to make a case, deciding the substance of why we go into closed session. I would think that what was proposed to be discussed is classified information, and that the chairman advising the committee that what he wants to put before them is certain classified information is sufficient in and of itself to justify a vote to go into closed session. I do not think we have to go into great detail about the discussion that will take place. So I do not think it is quite as complicated as might appear on the face of it.
On the other hand, I think the Senator from Delaware, perhaps, has a useful suggestion to obviate the kind of problem that disturbs the distinguished minority whip. I certainly would be interested in pursuing that because it could conceivably, in some circumstances, create difficulties of persuading a majority to make a decision on closing the meeting.
Mr. GRIFFIN. There is nothing personal in this. But there are Senators who do not believe that any session should be closed — maybe I am wrong on that — and who would be very reluctant to go along only with the suggestion that something involves national security. They would want to be convinced. Are we going to convince them in private? Maybe that is what would be done. But that is going to be against the sunshine rule. We have to convince them in open public session.
Mr. MUSKIE. What would happen, if either side of such an issue were operative, is the committee might well make it possible for itself to act. The situation would clarify itself.
But I have no objection pursuing the suggestion, provided that going into closed session for the purpose of discussing the merits of one of these conditions is limited to that.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I can conceive of the situation, for example, where the reputation of an individual might be involved in a hearing, and the question might be much more difficult than the question of whether national security is involved. It might take a good deal of factual information and argument to convince the committee, particularly in a difficult case, that it would not be fair to the individual, and would be an unwarranted invasion of his civil rights, or whatever. It might not be able to make the case in open session without doing the very damage that should be avoided.
Mr. MUSKIE. I would agree. The Senator is raising a legitimate point. I think it is manageable along the lines of the suggestion of the Senator from Delaware. Of course, if the original text of Senate Resolution 9 becomes the pending business, I assume the Senator from Delaware would pursue his suggestion.
Mr. ROTH. That would be the intent of the Senator from Delaware.
If there is no further debate, Mr. President, I am ready to yield back the remainder of our time.