Congressional Record: July 26, 2002 (House)
Page H5845-H5888

 
                     HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 24 printed in House Report 107-615.

                              {time}  1700


               Amendment No. 24 Offered by Ms. Schakowsky

  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 24 offered by Ms. Schakowsky
       Strike subtitle C of title VII.
       Strike section 762 and insert the following:

     SEC. 762. REMEDIES FOR RETALIATION AGAINST WHISTLEBLOWERS.

       Section 7211 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting "(a)" before "The right"; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       "(b) Any employee aggrieved by a violation of subsection 
     (a) may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States 
     district court, within 3 years after the date on which such 
     violation occurs, against any agency, organization, or other 
     person responsible for the violation, for lost wages and 
     benefits, reinstatement, costs and attorney fees, 
     compensatory damages, and equitable, injunctive, or any other 
     relief that the court considers appropriate. Any such action 
     shall, upon request of the party bringing the action, be 
     tried by the court with a jury.
       "(c) The same legal burdens of proof in proceedings under 
     subsection (b) shall apply as under sections 1214(b)(4)(B) 
     and 1221(e) in the case of an alleged prohibited personnel 
     practice described in section 2302(b)(8).
       "(d) For purposes of this section, the term `employee' 
     means an employee (as defined by section 2105) and any 
     individual performing services under a personal services 
     contract with the Government (including as an employee of an 
     organization).".
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). Pursuant to House Resolution 
502, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) and a Member 
opposed each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois.

[[Page H5846]]

  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) 
and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) I rise to offer an amendment 
that will prevent the Department of Homeland Security from becoming the 
"department of homeland secrecy." I want to commend the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Waxman) and his staff, as well as the Select 
Committee, particularly its ranking member, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi).
  First, this amendment strikes subtitle C of section VII of the 
underlying bill, language that excludes from the Freedom of Information 
Act information submitted voluntarily from corporations regarding 
critical infrastructure information. It strikes language that preempts 
all State and local open records laws.
  Second, this amendment strikes section 762, language that allows the 
Secretary to circumvent the Federal Advisory Committee Act, FACA, by 
putting all the deliberations of those advisory committees beyond 
public reach.
  Third, this amendment provides real teeth to protections against 
retaliation for whistleblowers, the kind of individuals who have been 
the lifeblood of exposing failures at the FBI to heed warnings of 
terrorists within the country, and exposing corporate misconduct.
  The Freedom of Information Act is a law carefully crafted to balance 
the ability of our citizens to access information and the interests of 
those who want to protect such information from public scrutiny. There 
are nine exemptions to FOIA, including national security information 
and business information. FOIA currently protects information that is a 
trade secret or information that is commercial and privileged or 
confidential. In addition, President Reagan issued Executive Order 
12600 that gives businesses even more opportunities to oppose 
disclosure of information.
  In fact, I and other Members of the Committee on Government Reform 
repeatedly have asked proponents of this exclusion, including the FBI 
and Department of Commerce, for even one single example of when a 
Federal agency has disclosed voluntarily submitted data against the 
express wishes of the industry that submitted that information. They 
could not name one case.
  Instead, we are told that FOIA rules just are not conducive to 
disclosure, that corporations are not comfortable releasing data needed 
to protect our country, even if we are at war.
  Is our new standard for deciding such fundamental questions of 
openness and accountability in our democracy how comfortable industry 
will be? Environmental groups, open government groups and press 
organizations support my amendment because the broad secrecy provisions 
of the new Department would hide information critical to protecting 
public safety, such as chemical spills, results of testing to determine 
levels of water and air pollution, compliance records, and maintenance 
and repair records. Corporations could dump information they want to 
hide into this department under the cover critical infrastructure 
information. Corporate lobbyists can meet with government officials in 
the name of critical infrastructure protection and hide their collusion 
behind this exclusion.
  If we create the Department without my amendment, corporations will 
no longer need to bury their secrets in the footnotes, or even shred 
their documents. They can hide them in the FOIA exclusion at the 
Department of Homeland Security. No longer will industry officials have 
to hide their meetings with government officials. The exemption from 
FACA will offer them a safe haven within which to have those secret 
meetings. State and local authorities would also be barred from and 
subject to jail sentences for disclosing information that they require 
to make public, even if it is because it is withheld at the Federal 
level.
  This amendment also protects the rights of whistleblowers. My 
colleagues will go into more detail. But most whistleblowers are not as 
high profile as Sharon Watkins of Enron or Coleen Rowley of the FBI, to 
whom we owe a great debt, and many of them suffer retaliation. They 
often lose their jobs or are demoted as punishment for speaking out.
  It is clear that the protections currently available simply are not 
working. Since the Whistleblower Protection Act was amended in 1994, 74 
of the 75 court decisions have gone against whistleblowers. So my 
amendment gives whistleblowers the right to go to court instead of 
going through the administrative process and requires the same burden 
of proof to be used in whistleblower cases as in all other cases 
involving personnel actions.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that we are in great danger today of tipping 
the delicate balance between security and basic, precious freedoms, 
those rights that uniquely define our American democracy. We can have 
both, and I urge my colleagues to restore the balance and support my 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 
15 minutes.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment because I believe that this 
amendment will significantly damage the ability of the Department of 
Homeland Security to be effective.
  Now, let me make a couple of points clear from the beginning. 
Whistleblowers are protected in the legislation now. That is one of the 
specific protections we were talking about earlier in the various 
management flexibility amendments which were offered. Whistleblowers 
are protected now.
  Now, under current law, various companies and industries have to 
disclose certain information. Nothing changes under this bill. They 
still have to disclose that information, and we add no loopholes. There 
are no new requirements, and they cannot hide. They still have to meet 
the current requirements. But our hope is that under the new law, the 
Department of Homeland Security will receive additional information 
voluntarily from industries. They will tell us their vulnerabilities. 
They will tell us what they are worried about in their computer 
networks. They will tell us what they are worried about in their 
infrastructure.
  We want them to tell the Federal Government that information 
voluntarily, so that we can help protect that infrastructure. They will 
not disclose that information if you just turn right around and make it 
public. It could be trade secrets, it could be information that you are 
giving to the terrorists. You certainly do not want to help them.
  So, to go as far as the amendment does in requiring this additional 
information, which is voluntarily disclosed to the government, to turn 
around and make all that public means that companies simply will not 
disclose it, we will not know their vulnerabilities, and this 
Department will not be able to do its job to protect infrastructure.
  Mr. Chairman, I would suggest the better course would be to reject 
this amendment. There are essential protections already in the bill. We 
do not need more.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), a cosponsor of the amendment.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to directly respond to the prior speaker, 
who made a case for further extension of the exemptions for the Freedom 
of Information Act by arguing that it was necessary in order to protect 
private sources of information that might be necessary for this new 
Department.
  I want to call the attention of the House to the current Freedom of 
Information Act, which already includes nine exemptions for all Federal 
agencies, including the Defense Department and all the other security-
type organizations that now exist that fall under the Freedom of 
Information Act and have done so for the last 30 years, because they 
are protected under the exemptions that exist under current law.
  The exemptions are all classified documents. The government has the 
power

[[Page H5847]]

to classify documents. So if there is something in their possession 
that is essential to the national security or homeland security, they 
could classify those documents. They have that power inherent in the 
FOIA legislation.
  As far as private confidential trade secrets, there is an exemption 
specifically for business information. So there exists already the 
power of the government to classify as nonapproachable by a Freedom of 
Information request information which is private, trade secrets, or 
something which is essential to the protection of business.
  All of these rules exist. The exemptions exist. They were part of 
legislation which I helped to work out in the early 1970s, and they 
have stood the test of time.
  It has created a broad range of protections for the people of the 
United States. The most important liberty, freedom, that we have is 
that we as individual citizens of this country have the right to 
information that the government possesses, and we do so by making a 
FOIA request.
  I cannot conceive of enlarging the nine exemptions that already 
exist. What kind of a Department of Homeland Security are we creating? 
Why does it have to have all of the super protections of private 
information, when we already have nine exemptions that exist that can 
protect every single suggested item that has been discussed here on the 
floor?
  So I hope that people will realize that under this climate, being 
concerned about terrorism and the protection of property and the 
protection of life and so forth, we cannot jeopardize those things that 
we have fought for so hard, so diligently, and which have, to a large 
measure, enabled the public of the United States to know what is going 
on. The nuclear tests out in the Midwest and the terrible things that 
happened from them would have continued to be the secrets of the 
government if we did not have FOIA. But because we had the Freedom of 
Information Act, we enabled the public to be better informed and we 
enabled the Congress to do a better job in legislating.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the author of the original FOIA language, who 
has done such an excellent job.
  (Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, let me first of all say I 
think the problem with this amendment is it goes in the wrong 
direction. We are all strong supporters of FOIA legislation. I served 
in local government for 15 years, and the Freedom of Information Act 
applies to local government. Strangely enough, Congress is exempt from 
any of these exemptions.
  This is a very narrowly tailored FOIA exemption that will allow 
companies out there that have innovative ideas in terms of how to 
protect our critical infrastructure, it will allow them to disclose it 
to the government without fear of it being discovered by competitors or 
terrorists.
  We have to remind ourselves that we discovered when we went into the 
caves in Afghanistan that al Qaeda groups had copies of GAO reports and 
other government information obtained through the Freedom of 
Information Act. While we work to protect our Nation's assets in this 
war against terrorism, we also need to make sure we are not arming 
terrorists.
  The previous speaker spoke about how they worked on this in the early 
1970s. I would submit the world has changed. There was a challenge from 
the other side saying there were no instances where information was not 
shared. Just last year it was discovered that the widely used 
implementations of the simple network management protocol, a 
fundamental element of the Internet, contained vulnerabilities that 
could expose the Internet's infrastructure to attack. Many companies 
were reluctant to give the government information about these 
vulnerabilities, which were not yet mentioned in the general press, for 
fear that the vulnerability information would be forced to be disclosed 
once it was in the government's hands and this could create substantial 
risk to their customers and to the Internet and the U.S. economy.
  I might also add the Department of Energy for years has asked that 
electric utility industries provide it with a list of critical 
facilities. They have consistently refused because they do not want to 
create a target list that could be released under the Freedom of 
Information Act. I suspect there are many, many others.
  We need to remember that the critical infrastructure of the United 
States is largely owned and operated by the private sector, 90 percent 
operated by the private sector. Understanding the vulnerabilities, 
experiencing the vulnerabilities, finding, if you will, antidotes to 
these vulnerabilities, is something that the private sector has much 
more experience in than the public sector. We need that information at 
the Federal level if we are to protect our critical infrastructure.
  This very narrowly tailored amendment, I might add, went through the 
Senate committee on a bipartisan unanimous vote. There were no concerns 
over there, because it is narrowly tailored. This is essential if we 
are going to get companies to be able to volunteer to the government 
solutions that can help us protect our critical infrastructure.
  There is precedent for this. I heard arguments that this is 
unprecedented. If you take a look at the successful Y2K Act, 
Information Readiness Disclosure Act, it provided a limited FOIA 
exemption and civil litigation protection for shared information.
  We narrowly tailor these so we do not take away what FOIA offers the 
general public, very important protections. But if we do not allow it 
in these narrow instances, I am afraid we are not going to have the 
tools to fight terrorism. This legislation, I think, helps the private 
sector, including the ISOs, to move forward without fear from the 
government. It is essential.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking Democrat on the 
Committee on Government Reform and a leader in this House on both 
homeland security and good government.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, it is remarkable, the position of the Republican Party 
today. It really shows the bankruptcy of that party. The Republican 
party used to stand for the idea that there should be some distrust of 
government. The theory was it can get too big, too bureaucratic; the 
federal government could interfere in the lives of individuals and 
start dictating policies from Washington. So what does this bill do? It 
grows the bureaucracy. It wastes money. With these Freedom of 
Information and FACA changes, it allows the government to keep things 
secret.
  You know who wrote the Freedom of Information Act? Barry Goldwater 
wrote it. Barry Goldwater wrote FOIA, because he said a government that 
has so much power can intrude in the lives of individuals, and he 
wanted the public to know what was going on.
  This bill and the way it is drafted without the Schakowsky amendment 
would allow this administration to meet in secret with business 
executives and lobbyists, just like it did in the Energy Task Force 
Vice President Cheney chaired. The administration could keep it all 
quiet. It could, in the name of national security, reward all these big 
industry groups that it is now so beholden to, by meeting with 
executives from the airline industry when they come in for special 
favors. But the public will never know, because the Freedom of 
Information Act, which protected all of us, will now be wiped out.
  Remember the days when the Republicans said Washington is not the 
place where all the wisdom is located? Well, what do they do? They 
preempt the States from having Freedom of Information laws that are 
more open to the public than what we are going to get in the bill 
passed today.
  It is a very sad day to see this in the Republican Party. I did not 
used to agree with them, but I used to respect them, when they worried 
about a big intrusive government that wasted money, that grew 
bureaucracy and became inefficient. Now it is responsive just to 
special interest big money.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the

[[Page H5848]]

distinguished chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, the 
committee of jurisdiction.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say to my good friends, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), I have high regard for both of them. We have 
tried to work on this in a bipartisan manner, and I really hope this 
whole issue does not degenerate into a political name-calling session, 
because we all want the same thing. We want to make sure Americans are 
secure and free from the threat of terrorism.
  Now, the President wants to encourage the private sector to give 
information to the Department of Homeland Security to enhance the 
safety of the American people. He is concerned that the people we are 
talking about will not volunteer information if they think whatever 
they turn over will be released to the public under the Freedom of 
Information Act. I think he is right. You would not want some terrorist 
getting some of this information that would be voluntarily given to 
Homeland Security.
  Let me give you an example. If a business owner recognizes that some 
part of his business infrastructure might be vulnerable to a terrorist 
attack, we want him to be able to come to the government and tell us 
about what he thinks might be done and how to deal with it. We want him 
to go to the Department of Homeland Security and be very candid. We 
wanted to be proactive, not reactive.
  This is the sort of information we must have to prevent tragedy to 
the American people. But if the businessman is worried and if his 
lawyers are worried that whatever he voluntarily discloses will go 
straight into the public domain and hence maybe to the terrorists, as 
we said earlier today, then he probably will not do it.
  We are in a war. I hope my colleagues all remember that. We are in a 
war. We need to take steps to guarantee that those people will come to 
us with that information to protect the safety of the American people, 
and that is why I oppose this amendment.
  I think the concerns raised by the sponsors of the bill, and I have 
high regard for all of them, are misplaced. The Freedom of Information 
Act will not be harmed. The legislation we will vote on today will not 
allow people to dodge the Freedom of Information Act. This bill does 
not change FOIA or the rules of FOIA for any other forms that 
businesses have to produce to any agency of the Federal Government. The 
only thing that will not be subject to FOIA information are the 
vulnerabilities to terrorist attacks.
  The government needs the kind of information we are talking about, 
and we will not get it unless there is a voluntary decision by the 
business people and the private sector to disclose it to government. 
They are not going to do it if they feel like they are going to be 
threatened or they will expose something that might lead to a terrorist 
attack.
  This is a commonsense, real world proposal, and we should not tie our 
hands behind our backs when it comes to fighting terrorism and 
protecting the American people.
  I hate to say this, but I have high regard for the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Waxman), but this amendment would do more harm than good.

                              {time}  1715

  We need to make sure we take every step possible to get the private 
sector working with the government to make sure we are free from 
terrorist attacks.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The Chair wishes to inform 
Members that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) has 7 minutes 
remaining and the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) has 5\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) whose whistleblower amendment passed in the 
Committee on Government Reform, the language included in this bill.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, it would be unfortunate, in our efforts 
to improve homeland security, if suddenly our government became less 
open, less transparent. It would appear if we do that, then the 
terrorists win, because their attack is on our basic premise of 
democracy, of a free and open society.
  The current language in the bill fails to protect transferred 
homeland security, civil servants from whistleblower reprisals. Under 
the current Whistleblower Protection Act, the standard bureaucratic 
response has been to silence messengers blowing the whistle on national 
security breakdowns.
  Now, the Schakowsky-Kucinich-Mink amendment is designed, and it is 
needed, to protect national security whistleblowers by allowing them to 
petition Congress directly and providing an effective remedy for any 
reprisal taken by the new agency.
  Whistleblower rights are workers' rights and no worker should lose 
his or her job for exposing waste, cover-up, and lies of his or her 
superiors. It is ironic that in a bill which is designed to fight 
terrorism we have a provision designed to terrorize workers.
  The passage of this amendment is vital to protect the security of the 
American people. The September 11 terrorist attacks highlight a long-
standing necessity to strengthen free speech protections for national 
security whistleblowers, a number of whom have already made significant 
contributions to reducing U.S. terrorist vulnerability.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, I just want to offer one example of a case that 
this House ought to be aware of, the case of Mark Graf.
  Mark Graf was an alarm station supervisor and Authorized Derivative 
Classifier. He worked 17 years at the Department of Energy's Rocky 
Flats Environmental Technology Site. After the Wackenhut Services, a 
private security agency, took over this site with more than 21 tons of 
uranium and plutonium, Mark Graf witnessed the elimination of their 
bomb detecting unit, sloppy emergency drills, and negligence at taking 
inventory of the plutonium for months at a time. He and several other 
high-level officials raised serious concerns about a terrorist risk to 
the security of plutonium, as more than a ton of the material is 
unaccounted for at Rocky Flats. He took his concerns to management, 
which took no action.
  In 1995, after blowing the whistle to a Member of Congress, Mr. Graf 
was immediately reassigned from the areas that raised concerns in the 
first place. In a classified memo to the site supervisors and later to 
the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, he outlined specific 
vulnerabilities which, if exploited, could result in catastrophic 
consequences.
  With no corrective action being taken, he did an interview with CBS 
News. After the interview, he was subjected to a psychological 
evaluation and placed on administrative leave. As a condition of 
returning to work, he was gagged from speaking to Congress, the media, 
the agency, and also under the threat of job termination.
  In 1998, he filed and later won a whistleblower reprisal complaint 
currently being appealed by his employers. His disclosures contributed 
to legislation in the 1998 Defense Authorization Bill requiring an 
annual review of the safety and security program.
  We have a nuclear industry in this country with over 100 nuclear 
reactors, many of which have been relicensed and have reactor vessels 
that have been embrittled. We have a hole in a reactor that is trying 
to be repaired in Toledo, Ohio. Nuclear reactors are part of the 
critical infrastructure. This bill would let a cover-up be, in effect, 
okay in the name of national security so that the public would never 
know about a hole in a nuclear reactor or anything that was done that 
compromises the security of people who lived in the area.
  This amendment is necessary. This amendment is in the interests of 
our national security and our public health.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman).
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I think the FOIA concerns over parts of 
this amendment have already been made by others, but I will say just to 
my friend from Ohio, that is clearly not the intent of the underlying 
bill nor is it the impact of the underlying bill. All of the FOIA 
requirements that

[[Page H5849]]

we would have, including right to know, would continue to be operative. 
This is a very narrow stipulation that, with regard to infrastructure 
information provided by the private sector, that we would get limited 
FOIA protection, which is absolutely necessary for national security, 
and that has been discussed.
  This amendment would also create a plaintiff lawyers' dream as I see 
it, and that is the civil actions open to punitive damages for 
whistleblowers claiming to have suffered from reprisal. The mere threat 
of these punitive damages can cause defendants, including the 
government, to settle cases; and it does, to settle cases that have 
questionable merit just to reduce that risk of an extreme verdict.
  The opportunity of punitive damages for a plaintiff, can make an 
otherwise meritless case look awfully tempting to pursue, just in case 
the jury does come in with a big verdict. It is excessive. Let us be 
clear. The committee bill does have traditional whistleblower 
protections in it. I am kind of tired of hearing it does not. Please 
turn to page 185 of the bill, because it is right there. These are the 
whistleblower protections that we have currently and they should be 
continued. They are important.
  We should be promoting team spirit at this new Department, 
collaboration. The bill gives the Department the chance to give merit 
pay, performance bonuses in order to make this department work better 
as a team. That is the right incentive.
  Let us not give incentives to start disputes in the off chance that a 
clever plaintiffs' lawyer might find something to win in a settlement. 
Let us stick with the strong whistleblower protections we have in the 
underlying legislation. Let us stick with the FOIA provisions which are 
appropriate to provide this narrow limitation with regard to 
infrastructure information that is important to protecting the national 
security of this country. Let us vote down this amendment and support 
the underlying bill.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to how much time we 
have remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. 
Schakowsky) has 2 minutes remaining.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, how many times will this Congress need to 
relearn the very basic lesson that an unaccountable government is an 
irresponsible government? When we confront difficult problems, we can 
either work to try to solve them, or we can seek to hide them. Without 
the amendment that is being advanced at the moment, it is the latter 
choice that is being made.
  Exempting so much of this new bureaucracy from the Freedom of 
Information Act and denying basic protections to whistleblowers is a 
true ticket to trouble for America. It is a "kill-the-messenger" and 
"hide-the-body" approach that tries to sweep all problems, including 
ones that endanger basic public health and safety, under the carpet by 
increasing the power of self-appointed censors and denying 
whistleblowers protection from retaliation.
  The only lesson that some people have learned from Enron is the value 
of secrecy. After all, who exposed Enron's misconduct? A whistleblower 
named Sheeron Watkins. Certainly no one in this Congress exposed it. 
Indeed, some are still trying to ignore the causes of what happened at 
Enron.
  Meanwhile, with this Administration, this is not the only place where 
secrecy is beloved. Just ask Vice President Cheney about his "Energy 
Policy Development Group". We can ask, but he will not tell until a 
court makes him do it.
  Congress should not shield unscrupulous employers who wield the 
powerful weapon of the pink slip to intimidate their workers into 
silence in order to conceal and perpetuate activities that endanger 
America.

                              {time}  1730

  These are citizen crime-fighters, who deserve the protection that we 
provide crime-fighters, not our scorn.
  I have confidence in the power of courageous individuals to make 
lasting contributions to our Nation--to improve our private and public 
institutions. Congress should advance that interest by building in 
government accountability and by ensuring that our government is as 
open as possible, where employees are encouraged to fix security 
problems, not to hide them.
  Vote in favor of the Schakowsky amendment.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon).
  (Mr. CANNON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I was intrigued by the comments of the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) and also the gentleman from 
California. My first job as a lawyer was to work with Stuart Udall in 
the late 1970s when he was suing the Federal Government on the facts 
that came out about the fallout, which came out, in fact, in the 
context of FOIA requests.
  Let me say that the information that came out was remarkable. I read 
every page of that information of the discussions that were held at 
very high levels in the military about how they should control the 
information about fallout and subject citizens of the United States 
knowingly to the unknown effects, known to be bad; but the scope of 
those effects were unknown at the time.
  I agree that it was appropriate to have that information come out and 
be the subject of a lawsuit. The fact, though, is that that was 
government activity that was made available through the Freedom of 
Information Act.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) talked about the 
Republican Party. These are governmental activities. What we are 
dealing with in this exception is information that comes from private 
parties who own 90 percent of the infrastructure.
  This amendment is ill advised, inappropriate; and I suggest that my 
colleagues vote against it.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I really like and respect its 
author, but I have to urge my colleagues to vote against the Schakowsky 
amendment on the Freedom of Information Act.
  This is a very narrow restriction on public disclosure of information 
about the private industry's critical infrastructure. We all rely on 
that privately owned infrastructure of this Nation: computer networks, 
phone and power lines, airplanes, et cetera. As the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) said, 90 percent of our critical 
infrastructure is owned by the private sector.
  In President Clinton's Directive 63, an effort was put into play to 
enable the owners of this infrastructure to communicate with each other 
and formulate effective response plans to terrorism, extortion, and 
hacking. However, PD-63, that Presidential directive, found that 
companies would not share information about threats to their 
infrastructure because of their lawyers' concerns about FOIA and 
antitrust. Sharing such information would put them in an even more 
vulnerable position with respect to their customers, their 
shareholders, and their competitors.
  I have to say, some of the objections that this amendment addresses 
are misleading. It is not unprecedented. Congress passed Y2K 
legislation to exempt information-sharing about critical infrastructure 
vulnerabilities from use in lawsuits and disclosure to third parties. 
It is narrower than that Y2K legislation. It contains numerous 
definitions. It provides no immunity from liability, no limit on 
discovery or lawsuits, no free pass on criminal activity. All required 
disclosures under the Clean Air and Clean Water Act must continue.
  If we do not include this limited FOIA restriction, we will not be 
able to say we did everything we could to prepare and defend our 
homeland. It is a narrowly crafted restriction on FOIA, and it can help 
win the war on terrorism; so I urge my colleagues to join me in voting 
against the Schakowsky amendment and for the Davis-Moran amendment, 
which comes up next.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

[[Page H5850]]

  Mr. Chairman, the amendment of the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. 
Schakowsky) would do two things. It would set aside some very carefully 
crafted language that modifies FOIA out of consideration for private 
sector firms who are asked to share crucial information with the 
government. That would be a mistake to set that aside. We need these 
firms that own so much of our infrastructure to cooperate.
  Let me just say, FOIA was designed for the American people to 
understand what is going on in this government; not designed, nor would 
I think many Americans would think it appropriate, to use FOIA to force 
private citizens or corporations to give their information up to people 
like trial lawyers, newspaper editors, or college professors, the three 
practical categories of people who access FOIA information.
  The second part of the gentlewoman's amendment is predicated on the 
misrepresentation that we do not protect whistleblowers in this 
legislation. This myth has been running amok in public discourse since 
the President proposed this. It was always the President's intention, 
and I believe discerning people would have recognized the President's 
intention in everything he said and submitted. It certainly is our 
intention on page 185 of this bill to protect whistleblowers.
  So, one, Mr. Chairman, the argument that this bill contains no 
protection for whistleblowers is just plain flat wrong. The 
perceptiveness of any eighth-grader who can read would reveal that to 
anyone.
  Now, what the gentlewoman does, building on the myth that there is no 
protection, is to provide extra special protections in the form of 
compensatory damages. Also, and I like this one, lawyers across America 
must be licking their chops over this one: "any other relief that the 
court considers appropriate not currently available to 
whistleblowers."
  Mr. Chairman, if Members want to win the lottery, they should buy a 
ticket. In the meantime, vote down this amendment and defend the rights 
of the American people that are legitimate and just.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois 
(Ms. Schakowsky) will be postponed.

[...]

               Amendment No. 24 Offered by Ms. Schakowsky

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The pending business is the 
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment No. 24 offered by the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) on which further proceedings 
were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188, 
noes 240, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 363]

                               AYES--188

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Solis
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--240

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Blunt
     Combest
     Meehan
     Roukema
     Terry

                              {time}  2007

  So the amendment was agreed to. [sic]
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

[...]