1998年11月3日
这是今天上午洽谈分类和解密的话题在这里很高兴。驾驶在这里，我现在看到的NRO是如何分类存放了这么久 - 没人能找到这个地方。作为埃德指出，我最近换工作。你应该知道，没有什么比一个工作开关给一个统一的背景调查标准个人欣赏。
我不想错过这个机会跟大家介绍一下克林顿政府的承诺 - 和我个人的承诺 - 开放的政府。
The task in which you are engaged is at the core of what George Washington called America's "great experiment." Our nation was founded on a principle that was revolutionary then, and too often seems revolutionary today: that government depends for its legitimacy on the trust of the governed; that all citizens have the right to a say in the decisions made in their name; that, as Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis memorably said, "Sunlight is the best of disinfectants."
The concept of checks and balances was not limited to the design of the legislature; it was integral to the very design of our constitutional system. And when trust declines, the work of government can grind to a halt.
作为埃德提到的，我在委员会供职于保护和减少政府秘密，我们的主席，参议员莫伊尼汉干练领导。
Many people thought that the Commission's name -- Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy was an oxymoron.
但事实是,有秘密值得保护ecting: to protect national security, to engage in effective diplomacy, to fight terrorism and to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
But as the commission noted the best way to ensure that secrecy is respected, that the most important secrets remain secret is for secrecy to be returned to a limited but necessary role...to reduce secrecy overall.
这些原则是克林顿高级的基础trations commitment to the effective protection of secrets critical to our national security, while promoting openness in government. Three overlapping tenets underlie our policy. First, in a free society, the public must have access to information about the workings of government. Second, in the information age, government must use technology to promote openness -- but it must use it wisely, to prevent unauthorized access. Third, in an era of shrinking budgets, the management of government information must be more cost-effective.
Let me elaborate briefly on each of these points. First, the purpose of openness in a free society. Our founders knew that democracy cannot function in the absence of public information. But there are very practical reasons for greater openness in government, as well -- and great incentives for government to want to make that information available.
Greater openness permits more public understanding of government's actions -- and makes it more possible for the government to respond to criticism and justify those actions. Greater openness makes the free exchange of scientific information possible, which in turn encourages discoveries that foster economic growth. And greater openness, especially regarding the government's past actions, can help resolve long-standing controversies -- and may provide a guide for the future.
Of course, as I noted, some information is not appropriate to disclose, especially regarding matters of national security. The government has an unquestionable responsibility to assiduously protect such information, particularly when it comes to intelligence sources and methods -- and there can be no tolerance for its unauthorized release.
The second tenet underlying the Clinton Administration's policy of openness is the use of new technologies to increase the free flow of information. In 1996, we worked with Congress, and in particular with Senator Leahy, to enact the Electronic Freedom of Information Act. Since President Clinton signed the bill into law, literally millions of pages of public information with widespread public interest have been made readily available on the Internet.
这一成功是由于在不小的一部分戈尔副总统的努力重塑政府，使其“工作得更好，成本更低。”其结果是，今天，每个联邦机构有一个公共网站，让公民可以了解政策和影响他们生活的节目。
But we should not forget the same information revolution also creates new challenges for the management of information, particularly in limiting access to it. The new technology promotes access, and today computer security too often is an afterthought, a feature to be added in next release of software that has been rushed to market.
And I would only note in passing that beyond what have become the difficult but somewhat routine questions of controlling access to classified and sensitive but unclassified computer systems, government is just beginning to grapple with the national security challenges posed by access to open source information on the net. Can you imagine the allied armies planning the D-Day deception if every unit had its own web site. That can be the subject of next year's conference.
The third tenet I mentioned is that government management of information must be cost-effective. The E-FOIA statute I discussed earlier recognizes that it's cheaper to disseminate information that you know the public is likely to be interested in, than to wait for the public to request that information under FOIA.
FOIA is the least efficient way to make government information public, not only from a Federal budget standpoint, but also in terms of its cost to the public and the delay in getting information out. Our information management systems must be built to maximize the appropriate and timely dissemination of information to the public, so that we don't have to go back and release it on a costly, piecemeal, after the fact basis.
总统的分类和解密的政策，体现在第12958号行政命令，建立在这些相同的原则。作为该订单的注释，一个翻天覆地的变化在国际关系中，在柏林墙倒塌标志着，增加了一个额外的考虑进来，并提供了一个机会，强调我们的承诺，以更加开放的政府。
大家都熟悉的执行顺序，你最下它和你的日常活动衍生机构的指导工作。昨天上午你听到了两位专家的观点，纽约时报的蒂姆·维纳和ISCAP的罗兹梅泽，所取得的进展和陷阱，我们该订单项下的经验。我想简要地补充我的观点，然后有什么建议做别的需求。
在克林顿总统的领导下，我们取得了不少的进步。由于发行EO 12958的，机构已经展开了一个前所未有的努力，以满足订单的要求解密。
In fiscal years 1996 and 1997, agencies declassified more than 400 million pages of historically valuable documents -- 50 percent more in the last two years than in the previous 16 years. The Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) estimates that these 400 million pages constitute about a quarter of the total universe of classified pages subject to automatic declassification by April 2000. In other words, we are off to a good start. And I thank you for that.
让我给你另一个例子。1992年,美国国会established the Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board. In the aftermath of the assassination of President Kennedy, suspicions that the government had withheld information had eroded confidence in the truthfulness of Federal agencies in general and damaged their credibility. The Board was created to dispel this perception, and it has done a remarkable job. Its accomplishments include reviewing and voting on over 27,000 previously redacted assassination records, and obtaining agencies' consent to release an additional 33,000-plus assassination records. These records included previously redacted records from the CIA's Directorate of Operations, and FBI documents describing the FBI's attempts to track Lee Harvey Oswald's activities in Europe prior to the assassination.
None of this progress would have occurred without the excellent cooperation of these agencies. I think history will show that, for this unique set of records -- given the importance of their full release in terms of public confidence in government -- the process and expense were well-justified. The process permitted a few of the declassification recommendations to go to the highest levels, including the President. The Board is an example of how clear direction and accountability can produce progress.
我是促进开放，同时管理风险，我们国家安全的其他例子自豪。克林顿总统1994年的行政命令解密散装约45万页的二战和越战老式的文件 - 近15％的国家档案馆持有的机密材料的。
早在1995年的总统下令，首次从电晕，氩气，和挂绳任务俯拍的解密 - 历史文献，这将是很有价值的历史学家，以及自然资源和环境的社区。
In 1996, NSA released extensive information about the Venona project. This single act ended a 50-year silence regarding one of cryptography's most successful efforts, and provided valuable insight into Soviet attempts to infiltrate the U.S. government. That same year, NSA initiated "Project Open Door," releasing over one million pages of historic crypto logic documents that provide insight into some of the century's most compelling stories.
When it comes to the declassification of information regarding nuclear age human experiments, once again, the Clinton Administration has led. The Energy Department's "Openness Initiative" incorporated both public meetings and extensive use of the Internet to answer many questions about the declassification and release of sensitive nuclear information and human experimentation activities. Less than one year after the President issued EO 12958, the Department of Energy declassified more than 1.9 million pages of formerly classified materials. Since then, the Department has declassified or confirmed unclassified more than 11 million pages. For the third year in a row, the Department of Energy is declassifying more documents than it is classifying.
Our progress is not limited to the declassification of old documents. Perhaps more significant is a trend that will affect future declassification. Before President Clinton signed the Executive Order, a tiny minority -- only 5% -- had a fixed declassification date. Since President Clinton signed the Executive Order, ten times that many are now marked for declassification in ten years or less.
In all these ways, the Clinton Administration has pursued a policy of government openness -- but we know there is far more work to be done.
1997年财年看到的分类决定数量50％的增长，虽然这是相当一部分是由于大量增加FY 1997年国家工业安全计划的实施过程中进行的军事行动和演习的数量，其中许多你这里在意，已经相当不均衡，比预期的要慢。
最后，在立法方面，画面是阴天。
在第105届国会的最后几天，规定附于国防授权法案。国会，在明显善意的努力，以进一步防止核武器的信息，包括一个过于宽泛的规定，即会阻碍历史价值的记录超过25岁的解密。
该规定要求能源部长和美国的档案保管员发展的25年历史的记录自动解密过程中保护限制和以前的数据限制从无意的泄露的计划。在此期间，机构不得撤销密级尚未收到页逐页审核的任何25岁的记录。在他签署声明的国防授权，总统做出所需的计划将在90天内提交的承诺，国家安全委员会正在向前推进，以确保这种情况发生。在此期间，不到25岁的记录，目前的程序继续适用。我要明确指出：对于超过25岁以上的记录，机构自动解密处理，但不是最终的解密，也将继续进行。
该信息（它由大约大规模杀伤性武器的核心技术细节）正是那种必须得到保护，免受发布信息。因此，我们会处理，以保护这些信息的现实途径这一潜在问题，同时确保它只会对加快旧历史记录解密的执行顺序的目标有限的和暂时的影响。我已经讨论了这个问题与能源理查德森的秘书，他向我保证，有在部门全力支持载于执行顺序的政策和做法，他将采取的步骤，是必要的，以确保这样的持续支持整个部门。
More significantly on the legislative front, this year saw a great deal of hard work aimed at creating a statutory basis for the President's classification authority. This law, S. 712, the Government Secrecy Reform Act, sponsored by Senator Moynihan, essentially came out of the work of the Secrecy Commission. Congress was unable to complete this work this year, but sometimes these things take more than one try. Since Congress will be back in just a few months, I think it is worthwhile to go over the basis for the Administration's willingness to support legislation in this area, and the reasons why, ultimately, we were unable to support the particular bill that the legislative process produced.
Now there has been controversy about whether there can be -- within the structure created by the Constitution of the United States -- any law that would put conditions on the President's authority to control the classification of national security information. And so, during the legislative process, we consulted with the Justice Department on this matter, and they and we have concluded that it is possible under the Constitution for Congress to legislate in this area and establish a statutory basis for national security classification. But not everything that is possible is desirable.
So, what are the reasons why such legislation would be desirable? I think the reasons are actually laid out pretty clearly in the 1997 report of the Secrecy Commission. There is a lot of detail in there, but they boil down to two basic benefits: stability and openness.
On stability, as you all know better than I, since the Second World War, in virtually every new Administration where the political party has changed, new classification policies have been put in place. Because the process of classification and declassification is one which rightly contains a great number of checks and balances, making new policies effective is a slow process.
And so, the effect has been that one administration's policy changes have only begun to take hold when the next comes in and alters the course.
For a system that deals with time periods of 10 and even 25 years, such frequent change is not productive. A statute would provide a stable foundation for the classification system, and would ultimately result in more uniform and predictable procedures and results. An overarching statute which recognizes the President's constitutional responsibilities and prerogatives would also greatly mitigate the perceived need for more specific statutes, such as the proposed Human Rights Information Act, which, while well-intended, can actually disrupt the overall declassification process.
对于开放性，我认为有两种方式法规会有所作为。首先，制定法律的过程很是各方都能接受的提供了在播放各种利益的机制在公开的方式来平衡。法律的发展，通过我们的民主，公开过程的性质。而在这一领域，其中各种机构和公众权益经常冲突，赌注是很高的，这是非常合适的是一个开放的过程来制定政策。其次，一旦法规到位，国会则有机会代表公众，开展执行活动的监督。
Now, it's no secret that Executive branches are not always brimming with enthusiasm for more Congressional oversight. But in this area, the President believes that the public interest equities require striking a balance for openness, for an advocate beyond that which institutionally exists in the Executive branch. Congress, acting responsibly can serve that function.
作为今年的行动表明，然而，不是任何法规都行。今年五月，国家安全顾问桑迪·伯杰表示，政府愿意与国会的工作就一项法令协议，将建立一个法定依据为总统分级授权。
At that time, we made it clear that any legislation must not impinge on the President's authority and flexibility to manage the classification system, within a broad statutory framework. As the bill evolved over the summer, a number of our concerns were addressed by the Congress, but we were unable to resolve one intractable issue. That issue was a dual statutory requirement: first, that classifiers balance the potential benefits from public release of the information with the potential damage to national security from that release, and second, that those decisions would be subject to review by the courts.
In that the Administration strongly believe that commitment to openness with administrative accountability is better than an unpredictable litigation model in this sensitive national security arena.
时间跑出来之前，我们可以解决这一争端，但我们在法规遗迹的兴趣，我希望这个问题在未来的国会，我们希望能够工作了这一点回来。从政策角度看，平衡测试是有道理的。事实上，我们在目前的执行顺序的版本这样的测试。当我们无法与国会达成的协议是对问责制进行此项测试的应用程序。打官司是唯一一个实现问责的方式，它通常是一个耗时且昂贵的方法，成本当中，我们认为，超过它的好处。
The statute would also have created an independent National Classification and Declassification Center to assist the President in managing the classification system. A strong and independent Center could make a real difference throughout the whole information life cycle, from creation to disposition. Working with agencies to develop and maintain agency classification guides would improve the front end.
The statute would also create a Classification and Declassification Review Board, which presumably would have performed most if not all the functions currently being performed by the ISCAP. The ISCAP, as you heard yesterday, has really been quite successful. Without going into the details of its accomplishments, I would say that classifiers can learn from its decisions so the issues do not have to be reviewed over and over. I applaud the ISCAP's initiative to create an outreach and education program to disseminate its decisions to agency classifiers.
As we enter the legislative process next year, I can imagine that such a administrative review board could become a first stop in classification and declassification disputes, before going to the
courts. As we approach this issue with the new Congress, we look forward to your input and suggestions.
Finally, let me conclude by saying that the Administration will continue to balance the vital interests of national security with the genuine claims of public openness. But doing so requires real choices. It requires us to make distinctions between those things that are unambiguously important to protect, and those where the public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm that could come from release.
这种类型的平衡比没头没脑的保密政策更加困难。在采取这种做法，我们寻求保护国家安全，而且要忠实于我们作为一个国家最基本的价值。在过去的两个世纪中，我们得到了蓬勃发展，并赢了，因为 - 我们最好的 - 我们已经找到了一举两得。正如詹姆斯·麦迪逊在1822年，“一个民选政府写了没有流行信息，或获得它的手段，也不过是一个序幕闹剧或悲剧，或者两者兼而有之。知识将永远统治无知，和一个人谁的意思是自己州长必须与知识给人力量武装自己。”我向你们保证 - 只要我参谋长总统 - 我会一起与您合作，那种高贵的结束。