[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 11]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 14873-14874]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        JOHN E. MOSS FOUNDATION

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. ROBERT T. MATSUI

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 25, 2002

  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, the John E. Moss Foundation recently awarded 
its annual Public Service Award to our colleague, the Honorable David 
Obey of Wisconsin. The award, which is given each year to a member of 
the House or Senate who most exemplifies the qualities of integrity, 
courage and dedication to the public interest, is richly deserved by 
Congressman Obey who has always fought hard for legislation benefiting 
the small investor, the working man, and the consumer. At the award 
ceremony on July 9th, Paul McMasters of the Freedom Forum delivered 
keynote remarks on current threats to the public's right to 
information, which are of importance to all Americans. Mr. McMasters' 
remarks are as follows:

       On Independence Day, 1966, President Johnson took time out 
     from holiday festivities at his ranch on the Perdernales to 
     sign the Freedom of Information Act into law. If he had 
     waited only a few hours more, a pocket veto of the 
     legislation automatically would have gone into effect.
       There was no press release, no ceremony, no special pens 
     struck for the occasion. The chief sponsors were not invited.
       It had taken 11 arduous years for Congressman John Moss of 
     California to coax into existence a law that few in 
     government liked or wanted. But the legislation finally made 
     it through. This law providing meaningful access to 
     government information embraced three democratic ideals:
       The First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and the 
     press.
       Creation of a proper environment for the people to function 
     as full partners in their own governance.
       The checks-and-balances role of Congress.
       That was 36 years ago. But we never quite escape the 
     clutches of history. It has a way of landing on us suddenly 
     and hard when we forget it. And when it comes to the 
     conditions that created the great need for the FOIA back 
     then, the past has caught up with us.
       The reason that Congressman Moss and his colleagues worked 
     so hard and endured so much getting FOIA passed was that it 
     had become next to impossible for members of Congress and 
     their staffs to obtain access to even the most routine of 
     information in the custody of federal agencies or the White 
     House.
       Today, the federal government, while attending to the 
     formidable responsibility of waging a war on terrorism, has 
     allowed itself to slide backward into history with an ever-
     widening array of restrictions on access. These new 
     restrictions in effect have demoted both the public and the 
     Congress as partners in the democratic process.
       Once more, Congress is summoned to the crucial task of 
     championing access to government information--a role mandated 
     by tradition, by law, and by the Constitution.

[[Page 14874]]

       There is no question that in the world we live in today, 
     there is some information that must remain secret to protect 
     our national security. Beyond that narrow but important 
     spectrum, however, the Congress, the public and the press 
     should have maximum access to government information.
       It is essential to the public so that we have true 
     democratic decision-making.
       It is essential to the press so that it can facilitate the 
     flow of information among the three branches of government 
     and the public.
       It is essential to Congress so that it can provide proper 
     oversight and accountability.
       There always has been what some describe as a ``culture of 
     secrecy'' in government. It is a natural thing because 
     information is power; in some instances it is dangerous; in 
     other instances, it may violate personal privacy or 
     compromise an ongoing law-enforcement investigation. 
     Responding to FOIA requests also is a drain on scarce 
     resources.
       But many restrictions on the flow of information in recent 
     months have gone well beyond those considerations.
       In addition, there is a theory afoot these days that to 
     share information is to weaken the executive. That theory, in 
     practice, may well be responsible for many of the current 
     restrictions on access.
       Finally, there is another reason for some restrictions: The 
     horrors of September 11. That tragedy provoked a serious re-
     examination of our information policies--a reexamination that 
     was legitimate and necessary. There are some secrets that 
     must be kept.
       But many of the changes in access policies that have come 
     out in the wake of September 11 are not truly related to the 
     war on terrorism; in many cases, they seem designed more to 
     increase the comfort level of government leaders than the 
     security level of the nation.
       What has emerged is an environment where government is 
     providing increasingly less information to U.S. citizens 
     while demanding increasingly more information about them.
       Many of these new restrictions impact directly on public 
     access and in many instances the ability of members of 
     Congress to participate in the making of policy and to 
     represent their constituencies properly. To list a few:
       Just as it was to go into effect, the law providing access 
     to presidential records was severely compromised by an 
     executive order, Many in Congress had to learn about the 
     formation of an emergency government by reading about it in 
     the newspapers, The White House dramatically reduced the 
     number of intelligence briefings for Congress and the number 
     of members who could attend, The executive branch has 
     resisted congressional attempts to obtain information on a 
     variety of vital topics, including the energy task force 
     hearings, the FBI's relations with mob informants, and the 
     decision to relax restrictions on emissions from older coal-
     fired power plants and refineries, The attorney general's 
     memo on implementation of the FOIA turned a presumption of 
     openness on its head, The Justice Department has stonewalled 
     attempts to get information about the detainees rounded up in 
     the aftermath of the September 11 attacks.
       In addition, Congress increasingly is pressured to 
     ``incentivize'' compliance with old laws and to spice up news 
     laws by granting exemptions to the FOI and whistleblower 
     laws. Examples include legislative proposals concerning 
     critical infrastructure, the Transportation Security 
     Administration and the proposed Homeland Security Department.
       These developments raise several important questions: Do 
     new laws, policies and executive actions live up to 
     democratic principles, constitutional requirements and the 
     true needs of national security? Are members of Congress 
     providing insight as well as oversight in the formulation and 
     implementation of access policies? How do we best affirm and 
     ensure checks and balances among the executive, the 
     legislative and the judicial branches and include the public 
     and the press in the equation?
       There are a number of ways Congress can address such 
     questions: By commissioning a definitive study and public 
     report calling for specific action, by creating a bipartisan 
     caucus on access and accountability, by conducting hearings, 
     or by establishing a joint select committee with FOIA 
     oversight.
       There are other things Congress can and should do to make 
     access to information a priority in governmental life: Demand 
     information from federal agencies and officials. Make 
     information-sharing a priority. Conduct real oversight of 
     FOIA compliance. Make federal agencies' FOIA performance a 
     part of the budget process. Provide incentives for disclosure 
     and penalties for non-compliance. Insist on discipline and 
     rationality in classification authority. Harness technology 
     to make government more transparent.
       The key to bringing about change, however, is that the 
     members of Congress themselves must care; if it's not 
     important to them, it's not important at other levels and in 
     other branches. Government information must be branded as 
     crucial to democracy, to responsible governance and to 
     freedom.
       It really is up to Congress to create ways to protect 
     access and to raise its value as a democratic principle.
       It must embrace the idea that, except for very specific 
     areas, information, not secrecy, is the best guarantor of the 
     nation's security. There is danger in the dark.
       And it must recognize that there always will be loud and 
     persuasive voices raised on behalf of security, privacy and 
     the protection of commercial interests--especially during 
     times of national crisis--but there are no natural 
     constituencies with the resources and organization to make 
     the case for access and accountability.
       That role falls rightly to Congress.
       Democracy depends above all on public trust. Public trust 
     depends on the sharing of power. And the sharing of power 
     depends on the sharing of information.
       That time-honored principle assuring the success of this 
     ongoing adventure in democratic governance suffers mightily 
     when the system of checks and balances becomes unbalanced and 
     the role of Congress as guardians of access and 
     accountability is compromised.

     

                          ____________________