Without doubt you will wonder: Why did I choose to bequeath our collecton to the George C. Marshall Foundation? Why not NSA? Or the Library of Congress? Or some other government institution? As to NSA we know that the Collection would not be available to scholars and students there, because no one-but no one-without a high-degree clearance can even enter its portals. The Library of Congress would disperse the items-they don't have the funds to keep collections intact, and duplicates of items on their own shelves would be sold or given away to some other library in exchange for an item the L. of C. might lack. At any rate the Friedman Collection will be kept intack at the Marshall Foundation and available for serious scholars.

Friedman died on November 2, 1969, and within a year or two the entire collection was shipped to the Marshall Library. Prior to the papers being opened to the public, however, the NSA visited the library and went through the collection. They pulled out two categories of papers and ordered that they be kept locked in a vault and never released. The first category consisted of classified documents which the NSA had agreed to hold for Friedman at Fort Meade. The second, however, despite the wishes of the late cryptologist consisted of totally unclassified, private correspondence between Friedman and other private citizens.

Nevertheless, despite the NSA restrictions, the library allowed me to review and make copies of Friedman's unclassified personal correspondence files. These consisted mostly of letters to and from other private citizens about family matters and personal feelings about the NSA. Nothing in the letters, which were dated mostly from 1955 until 1965, could be considered in any way damaging to the national security and I therefore quoted from them extensively in my book.

Seeing my references to the Friedman letters, the NSA in April of this year went back down to the library and again pulled many of Friedman's unclassified letters and papers from the open shelves, stamped them secret, and locked them in the vault. This despite the Reagan administration's own executive order on secrecy which limits classification to material that is owned by, produced by or for, or is under the control of the United States Government.

Thus, although the letters and documents, unclassified for two to three decades, are quoted in more that 150,000 copies of my book, the NSA insists that they remain "secret." "Just because information has been published doesn't mean it should no longer be classified," said NSA Director Faurer.

In the Reagan administration's war on words there is perhaps no issue more frightening than the issue of reclassification. It would be total anarchy for historians and scholars, who frequently spend years on their research, if one administration would be permitted to recall history by forcing them to return materials released by a previous administration. The NSA offers a perfect example of what happens when an agency is allowed to run wild with the classification stamp. It is a choice of history or hysteria.

About 350 years ago Cardinal de Richelieu declared the principle under which the Reagan Administration currently operates: "Secrecy is the first essential in affairs of the State."

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you, Mr. Bamford.

I am sorry, I did misrepresent that you once had worked for the National Security Agency. In fact, you had not; is that correct? Mr. BAMFORD. That is true.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Yes.

Now, Mr. Ralph McGehee, will you proceed, sir?

Mr. McGEHEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the invitation to appear before the subcommittee to discuss my experiences with the CIA's prepublication review requirement.

I am a retired CIA officer who earned numerous awards and medals, including the prestigious Career Intelligence Medal.

During my last 10 years with the CIA, I protested false information on Vietnam. The deficiencies that created Vietnam permeate CIA operations, and I felt an imperative to tell this to the American people and wrote a book about my experiences. The book did not attempt to reveal the identities of my associates or other classified information.

I had opted for early retirement in 1977 and immediately began research for a book. I was confused about how to proceed. I couldn't contact publisher, for anything I might tell him might violate prepublication review restrictions.

So I decided to work alone without benefit of a contract or guidance from an editor. This was a mistake that cost me 2 years of misguided effort.

In February 1980, following 3 years of research and writing, I submitted a manuscript to the CIA. A month later the Agency's Publications Review Board notified that it had identified 397 classified items. These ranged in length from one word to several pages. Over the next weeks I worked with a representative of the PRB to prove that those deleted passages did not contain classified information. I sourced my claims primarily to information appearing in the cleared writings of other Agency authors, such as Colby and Cline and Dulles.

We agreed on a number of revisions, and I rewrote the text accordingly. Dismayed that I had defeated its claims of secrecy, the PRB reversed earlier decisions and began classifying information that only a short time before it said was not classified. This forced me to again prove many of those claims false and to rewrite the text.

Finally, I overcame all objections, and for the first time I had a manuscript to shop around to publishers. Sheridan Square Publications agreed to publish the manuscript only if I would rewrite it as an autobiography, and to do this I prepared an outline as an aid. In the transmitting letter I said I wanted the outline for discussions with an editor, following which I would rewrite and resubmit the manuscript to the CIA.

The PRB refused to deal with the manuscript, yet a little while later they found out that I was going to speak before an academic association, and they requested my speech, even if it was only in outline form-serving a double standard there.

After I had submitted three chapters of the rewrite, the PRB demanded that I complete the entire book before it would release any of the material. I then had to go about rewriting the text without the opportunity of consulting with an editor.

Led by William Casey, the CIA in early 1982 decided, regardless of the legalities, to stop my book. It was not going to let me publish the book.

It attempted to do this by reclassifying everything of substance that was in my first chapter. When I pointed out that this violated the Executive order then in existence, the PRB responded, "That is too bad, we are doing it anyhow."

The CIA was determined to prevent publication of my exposé. It ruled that the entire second chapter was classified, and the second chapter dealt primarily with my personal life, my family life.

I contacted the Washington Post and the subsequent public exposure forced the CIA to relent. If the Post had decided not to run the story, my book would have died there.

Embarrassed by the Post article, the PRB assigned a representative to work with me. Finally, in mid-1982, after more than 5 years of struggle, I had a cleared manuscript.

It was only intense anger and bitterness over Vietnam and a certainty that we would repeat that mistake that motivated me to fight the CIA. At various times I felt defeated and just stopped all my efforts.

But ultimately, anger and concern drove me on. Others who don't have this same overwhelming issue certainly will not endure the frustration.

The CIA claims that it does not use prepublication review to conceal violations of law or to prevent embarrassment. For me it did just that.

The CIA further asserts that it follows the paramount principle of evenhanded and fair treatment for all authors. This is demonstrably not true, and I know of authors it has assisted in writing their books.

Since 1977, the CIA has processed more than 62,000 pages of material, but it does not maintain an institutional memory of released information. This is a deliberate attempt to keep its capability low so it will not have to use that capability when dealing with critics. Magazines have requested me to write articles very recently. One time I wrote an article, and set up a schedule to deliver it to the legal counsel of the CIA. On reflection I thought if I turn this in then the Agency is going to classify this information, and I will lose my right to even discuss it. At that point it was a nebulous issue whether it was classified or not. I assumed it wasn't, but if they ruled it classified, then I couldn't even discuss it.

Other occasions, I have wanted to write Op-ed pieces and letters to the editors, but I have always stopped because I fear now if I go back to the PRB they are going to classify overt information and stop me from even discussing these issues.

I think it is particularly relevant to relate some of the things that happened to me as I tried to live up to all the strictures of the secrecy agreement that I had signed in 1952. My efforts met only with CIA suspicion. I was placed under surveillance. My phone is tapped, and my mail has probably been opened.

Blatant surveillance is conducted not to determine my actions, but to frighten me into silence. Agency security people have walked my heels in supermarkets, sit in cars near my house, and probably entered my hotel room and removed documents. I have been harassed overseas.

On one occasion a phone monitor was getting a little bit upset at what was being said, and he broke in and started interjecting his objections.

Intimidation is the purpose of all this activity, and I am well aware that Big Brother is watching.

From my experience, I conclude that the CIA, reacting as any bureaucracy, uses prepublication review and spurious claims of national security to prevent the American people from learning of its illegal and embarrassing operations. It attempts to deny to the American people information essential to the good of the Nation and to our democratic processes.

The CIA's efforts demonstrate what we can expect from other agencies, given the same authority under President Reagan's Executive order.

The national security state regards truth as its greatest enemy and cries national security to destroy our freedoms. I fervently hope that something can be done to prevent this from happening. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The complete statement follows:]

PREPARED STAtement of Ralph W. McGehee, Author of Deadly Deceits-MY 25 YEARS IN THE CIA

I appreciate the invitation to appear before the subcommittee to discuss my experience with the Central Intelligence Agency's prepublication review requirement. The issue is of paramount importance as President Reagan's March, 1983 Executive order places hundreds of thousands of Government employees under identical constraints. Supreme Court decisions and liberal interpretations of the executive order could extend life-long prepublication review constraints over an additional several million government employees and employees of firms doing classified Government work. This is a major threat to our constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech and forbodes the approach of 1984 and the national security state.

I am a retired CIA officer who earned numerous awards and medals including the prestigious Career Intelligence Medal. During my last 10 years with the CIA I protested its false information on Vietnam. The deficiencies that created the Vietnam war permeate CIA operations and I felt it imperative to tell this to the American people and wrote a book about my experiences. The book did not attempt to reveal the identities of my associates or other classified information. In an ensuing 2-year battle with CIA censors Mark Lynch an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union provided advice and excellent legal support.

I had opted for early retirement in 1977 and immediately began research for a book. I feared possible CIA retribution if it discovered I was writing an expose and attempted to keep my activities secret from friends and from family members not living at home. My fears were justified as the CIA soon discovered what I was doing and placed me under close, intimidating, multiple types of surveillance. A surveillance that continues to this day.

I was confused about how to proceed. I could not contact a publisher for anything I might tell him might violate prepublication review restrictions. I decided to work alone without benefit of a contract or guidance from an editor. This was a mistake that cost 2 years of misguided effort.

On February 26, 1980 following 3 years of research and writing, I submitted a manuscript to the CIA. A month later the publications Review Board [PRB] notified me that it had identified 397 classified items in the text varying in length from one word to several pages. Over the next weeks I worked with a representative of the PRB to prove that those deleted passages did not contain classified information. I sourced my claims primarily to information appearing in the cleared writings of other agency authors. We agreed on a number of revisions and I rewrote the text accordingly. Dismayed that I had defeated it claims of secrecy the PRB reversed earlier decisions and began classifying information that only a short time before it had judged to be not classified. This forced me to again prove many of those claims false and to rewrite the text. Finally I overcame all objections and for the first time I had a manuscript, truncated as it was, to shop around to publishers.

The search for a publisher was a long time-consuming effort. Many publishers admitted I had a viable manuscript but all said it needed better focus and rewriting. None but a small ideologically-motivated publisher would risk the time and uncertainty of battling the CIA's review process.

Sheridan Square publications agreed to publish the manuscript only if I would rewrite it as an autobiography. As an aid I prepared a 50-page outline and sent it to the PRB. In the transmitting letter I advised that I only wanted the outline for discussions with an editor following which I would rewrite and resubmit the manuscript. The PRB refused to deal with an outline. (Yet a few weeks later the CIA learned that I was to give a speech to the Association of Asian studies and sent me a registered letter advising that I must submit the speech for review even if only in outline form.) After I had submitted three chapters the PRB demanded that I complete the entire rewrite before it would release any material. I then had to rewrite the remaining text without the opportunity of consulting my editor.

Led by William Casey the CIA in early 1982 decided regardless of the legalities to stop my book. It attempted to do this by reclassifying everything of substance that was in my first chapter. When I pointed out that Executive Order 12065, then in effect, section 1-607 said "classification may not be restored to a document already

declassified and released to the public under this order and prior orders." the PRB responded in essence that that was tough.

The PRB had ruled that I could not discuss my training or the training site at Camp Peary even though such topics had been declassified and well publicized. More oddly the PRB ruled that details of the personality test it gives recruits were classified. Yet a proprietary company had copyrighted and published the test. Also, Jack Anderson's column had carried, in over 1,000 newspapers, those same details that the CIA was claiming were classified.

I appealed those and other decisions to Admiral Inman then the Deputy Director of the CIA. He recognized the total illegality of the Board's decisions and ruled in my favor in every single instance.

The CIA, however, was determined to prevent publication of my expose. It ruled that the entire second chapter was classified. I contacted the Washington Post and the subsequent public exposure forced the CIA to relent. If the story had not run it would have been the end of my book. Embarrassed by the Post's article the PRB assigned a representative again to work with me over the classified items and I again rewrote and resubmitted the manuscript. Finally in mid-1982, after more than 5 years of struggle, I had a cleared manuscript.

It was only intense anger and bitterness over Vietnam and the certainty that we would repeat that mistake that motivated me to fight the CIA. At various times I felt defeated and ceased my efforts. But ultimately anger and concern drove me on. Others not motivated by such an overwhelming issue will not endure the frustration.

The CIA avers that it does not use prepublication review to conceal violations of law or to prevent embarrassment. For me it did just that and claimed secrecy to conceal its illegal and inefficient operations. The CIA further asserts that it follows the paramount principle of evenhanded and fair treatment for all authors. This is demonstrably not true. It assists the writings of proponents while supressing the works of critics. Since 1977 the CIA has processed more than 62,000 pages of material but maintains no institutional memory of released information. This is not bureaucratic inefficiency, it is the deliberate crippling of its own ability. If the CIA kept records of cleared information it might be forced to use that memory when dealing with critics. This it avoids at all costs.

Magazines have recently requested me to write articles for them. I went about conducting the research and preparing drafts. But upon reflection I worried that if I submitted the articles to the CIA for review it would again classify overt information and I would lose my right to even discuss those issues. I decided not to take the risk and informed the magazines that I could not write the articles for them.

On various other occasions I had wanted to write letters to the editor or op-ed pieces for newspapers. Each time I stopped because I feared the consequences. Due to prepublication review and the inevitable use of that authority by the CIA to suppress criticism, my informed opinion on a range of topics is not available for public debate. Multiplying the constraints on me by the hundreds of thousands or possibly millions of Government employees subject to the new executive order, the result is obvious and calamitous. Informed criticism of the processes of Government will be repressed and those essential contributions to the maintenance of our democratic institutions will be stilled.

It is of particular relevance to the topic of this hearing to relate some of my experiences as the CIA monitored by activities. I have lived up to all the requirements of the secrecy agreement I signed in 1952. My efforts have met only with CIA suspicion. I have been placed under surveillance, my phone is tapped and my mail has probably been opened. Blatant surveillance is conducted not to determine my actions but to frighten me into silence. Agency security personnel have walked up my heels in supermarkets, sit in cars near my house and have probably entered my hotel room and removed documents. I have been harassed overseas in Canada. On one occasion a phone monitor interrupted a conversation to protest what was being said. Intimidation is the purpose of all this activity and I am well aware that "Big Brother Is Watching."

From my experiences I conclude that the CIA, reacting as any bureaucracy, uses republication review and spurious claims of national security to prevent the American people from learning of its illegal and embarrassing operations. It attempts to deny to the American people information essential to the good of the Nation and to our democratic processes. The CIA's efforts demonstrate what we can expect from other agencies given the same authority under President Reagan's executive order. The national security state regards truth as its greatest enemy and cries national security to destroy our freedoms. I fervently hope that something can be done to prevent this from happening. Thank you.