Freedom Of Information Act Amendments Of 2007
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2007 -- (House of Representatives - March 14, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have a bit of irony in play here on the House floor. This week the Democratic leadership has declared it Open Government Week, Open Government Week as we take up amendments to the Freedom of Information Act, an act that is incredibly important as a tool for us to hold our government accountable because it gives people the opportunity to access information that can be reviewed by people to determine what action needs to be taken.
But, unfortunately, in the middle of this Open Government Week we have a bill that is coming to the floor, not the bill that went to the committee, not the bill that went through the subcommittee hearings, but an amended bill that has not been reviewed, and was handed to us 10 minutes ago.
Now, the reason why bills come on the Suspension Calendar where we agree to suspend the rules is because they are bills that have been fully vetted, that have openness to them, and that people are aware of what they are and have the opportunity to review them when we have an understanding that more than a majority of this House supports what is in that bill.
But today, without prior notice, and 10-minute amendments to the bill, we have a bill that we are currently reviewing to determine what changes have been made and what the implications would be.
Some of the speakers on the other side of the aisle talked about in Open Government Week that we wanted to make certain that there weren't backroom deals that were being made. Well, clearly the bill, unfortunately, that comes before us on the Freedom of Information Act is the product of a backroom deal where the majority of this House is going to be left with reviewing it to determine what is in it after it had come through our committee and subcommittee.
So my comments about this bill will be about the one that came from the committee and the subcommittee that the subcommittee Chair and the chairman worked so hard in a bipartisan way to bring to this floor.
I know others on this side of the aisle will be reserving their comments for the areas of the bill where it has been modified, where the backroom deals have been made. And we are all unaware of its impact.
The Freedom of Information Act is a popular tool for inquiry for the press, researchers, business, attorneys, activists. But most importantly, it remains a tool for the citizen. Improving the procedural aspects of the act is certainly a worthy goal.
Legislation designed to streamline and improve the Freedom of Information Act process was introduced last Congress by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith). His bill, H.R. 867, has moved through subcommittee to the full committee. This was a solid bipartisanship bill that Republicans introduced and guided through the legislative process. This year the majority took that bipartisanship bill and made a few changes.
Republicans offered two amendments that were not included in the reported bill. First, the attorneys' fee provision appears to significantly lower the bar for the recovery of fees, making it easier for those seeking information from the Federal Government to recover legal fees.
The language in this bill differs from that in H.R. 867. The Supreme Court has ruled on this matter in the Buckhannon case, and now some fear the effect of this decision, what it might have on their ability to get attorneys' fees.
The language of section 4 of this bill would make plaintiffs eligible for attorneys' fees in almost any case, so long as they can show that the defending government agency somehow changed its position once the case had commenced. I hope we can closely consider the rationale behind this provision, and its implications for the numerous Federal statutes providing for attorneys' fee awards where the United States or a Federal agency or official is a party. You have to assume that if this is the provision that passes, everyone litigating under any private right of action will clamor for the same favorable legislative treatment.
An amendment was offered in committee to strike section 4 to preserve settled judicial precedent regarding attorneys' fees and highlight this issue. I hope my colleagues in the House and the other body will take a close look at this section as the legislation moves forward.
Second, the majority has taken to heart various groups' concerns about the so-called Ashcroft memo. During President Clinton's administration, Attorney General Janet Reno issued a memorandum establishing a presumption of disclosure if no foreseeable harm would result from the release of information.
Shortly after 9/11, and recognizing the challenges of the standard and the challenges that we face in the global war on terror, Attorney General Ashcroft issued a memorandum that encouraged agencies to carefully consider the protection of the values of interest embodied in the statutory exemptions to FOIA when making disclosure determinations.
I understand that there are serious concerns with this section, and I understand the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) will speak on this bill and this provision.
Nevertheless, I hope that we continue to balance the need for open government with the need to protect information vital to national security and homeland security, and I hope we keep in mind the importance of individual privacy throughout this debate.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to commend the Chair of our subcommittee, Mr. Clay, for his thoughtful approach to hearings on this matter and his leadership in shepherding this bill. I want to thank Chairman Waxman for his efforts in having a very bipartisan discussion in the committee on the bill. He was very welcoming of the input from all of the committee members.
Unfortunately, though, here, right in the middle of Open Government Week, we have the irony that this is not the bill that both of these gentlemen worked so diligently on a bipartisan basis for in the committee and subcommittee. It has been amended, unfortunately, as the other side of the aisle decried, in a back room by Democratic leadership in order to make the bill conform to the rules of the House for it to be able to move forward.
In the middle of Open Government Week, what does that mean? Well, it means that while we all stand up here and talk about the importance of freedom of information, and freedom of information is important because it gives people the ability to hold their government accountable; but as we all discuss that, we have a bill that is going to be moving forward and come before this House that the members of the committee did not see, the members of the subcommittee did not see, that each of them is going to have to review and have to have their staff review, that members of the public at large who may have been following this bill in the professional community or average citizens who had an interest in it will go to a Web site and look at a bill that was approved by the committee and approved by the subcommittee, but unfortunately, is not the bill that is before us.
And it is not before us because in the middle of Open Government Week, the bill that was placed before us was amended without the participation of the committee, without the participation of the subcommittee, and without the participation of this body. We will all come to vote on a bill that has been amended in a back room by Democratic leadership.
You have heard that there are a number of concerns that people on this side of the aisle have about the bill. As you are aware, this bill began as a Republican bill offered by Mr. Smith of Texas, H.R. 867. It has been modified in several ways about which individuals do have concern. But the underlying principle, freedom of information, that encourages effective government and encourages government to be responsive, is one that we all support and hold dear and certainly we should continue to support the Freedom of Information Act.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov/