[Congressional Record: October 15, 2009 (House)] [Page H11389-H11394] PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2892, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010 [...] Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank my colleague for yielding. Madam Speaker, there are few things that say more about our country and our trust in the public's right to know than the Freedom of Information Act. It is one of the most powerful statements of openness and transparency that we have. It affords ordinary people the ability to peer behind the curtains of power and see inside the many bureaucracies that define the Federal, State and local governments in this country. It is a symbol for all, that despite anything else that our government does in the name of the people, there should be no secrets. Over the years, FOIA laws have been used for a wide range of purposes. FOIA helped us to discover the ugly truth about the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia during the 1960s. And FOIA was also used to uncover data showing that Ford Pintos were built with serious dual system defects that made them more prone to fire and explosions. In some ways, FOIA is simply a reminder to the public that there is an avenue to pursue if they believe the government is keeping a secret. At the heart of FOIA is the concept that the people's right to know is more important than the government's desire to keep things secret. The FOIA laws in this country have enabled reporters and citizens from all spectrums access to information that otherwise might never see the light of day. Signed into law by President Johnson in 1966, the FOIA laws allow for the full or partial disclosure of information and documents with only a narrow list of important exemptions. And so it was with some dismay when I learned recently that the House and Senate conferees on the Homeland Security appropriations bill had slipped in a provision that gives the government the option of making old photos of detainee abuse exempt from the FOIA laws. This case has already followed a lengthy path beginning with a lawsuit filed by the ACLU against the Pentagon. Last spring, when it appeared that the lawsuit might go against the government, the administration responded by asking some Members of the House and Senate to insert language into the legislation to make sure that the photos stay secret. Joining the ACLU against the Pentagon was the American Society of News Editors, the Associated Press, Cable News Network, Inc., the E.W. Scripps Company, Gannett Co., Inc., the Hearst Corporation, Military Reporters and Editors, the National Press Club, NBC Universal, Inc., The New York Times Company, the Newspaper Association of America, the Newspaper Guild--CWA, the Radio-Television News Directors Association, the Society of Professional Journalists, The Washington Post, and me. Never mind that the photos in question likely have very little value given that a similar set of photos showing the abuse were released under the Bush administration. Despite some complaints that releasing photos would place service men and women in danger, the fact is there was absolutely no increase in violence or attacks after the previous detainee photos were released. I assume that if we were to release the new photos, the result would be the same. Americans were simply able to find out what was being done in their name. Many observers argue that releasing the photos was actually a clear break from the abuses of the past and a signal to our allies and to everyone else that the days of this type of detainee mistreatment were over and that the United States is willing to come to terms with past practices. Indeed, we have said so. In June, I and other House leaders prevailed and the FOIA exemption was dropped from the legislation. However, the conferees, apparently under direct orders, quietly put it back into the bill this month. It's hard for me to express how disappointed I am with that decision. I am sorry because I believed that we had turned a page from the cloud of suspicion and secrecy that marked the previous administration. It runs so counter to our principles and stated desire to reject abuses of the past. The FOIA laws in this country form a pillar of our First Amendment principles. It is unfortunate, given that this administration promised that openness and transparency would be the norm. We should never do anything to circumvent FOIA, and I believe our country would gain more by coming to terms with the past than we would by covering it up. I hope the President will follow judicial rulings and consider voluntarily releasing these photos so we can put this chapter in history behind us. Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I especially appreciate the remarks of the distinguished woman, the Rules Chair, Ms. Slaughter, and echo her sentiments. [...] Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the contributions during this debate, enlightening our colleagues with regard to the merits of the legislation that we are bringing to the floor today. You know, one of the, I think, most interesting aspects of the American representative democracy is that we differ from other representative democracies probably because our two parties are, in effect, great coalitions. We have a two-party system by virtue of that; both parties represent different coalitions of thought on numerous issues. {time} 1100 So it's interesting that today, for example, while my friend and the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee expressed an opinion contrary to the position maintained by the President of the United States on an important issue--and I think it's appropriate to do so--I commend the President of the United States for his position with regard to the release of detainee photos. The legislation before us codifies the President's decision to allow the Secretary of Defense to bar the release of detainee photos. I commend the President because, obviously, his leadership and support on that aspect has been decisive in the inclusion of that provision in this legislation. [...]