The Senate voted on Friday, June 24, to better explain when Congress keeps information from the public. The move is intended to push Congress to be clear when keeping secrets from the public and stop secrecy that Congress does not intend. The bill (S. 1181), introduced by Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT), would require legislation enacted after July 1, 2005, that exempts government-held information from public access to specifically say so. The bill sets the intent of Congress that documents should be available to the public under FOIA unless Congress explicitly creates an exception. Congress can either specifically state that the information is intended to be held secret "in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue" or refer to particulars that should be exempt under provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. In addition to Cornyn and Leahy, the bill was co-sponsored by Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), and Arlen Specter (R-PA). It was passed on a voice vote in the Senate. The bill amends what is commonly known as the (b)(3) exemption in FOIA, which states that records that are specifically exempted by statute may be withheld from disclosure. According to data from the Justice Department, the number of identifiable statutes exempting information from FOIA stands at approximately 140, and many other laws encourage government employees to "protect," "safeguard," or otherwise think twice before providing public access to a government document. For example, one bill currently in Congress, the Port Security Act (H.R. 173) would require the heads of all U.S. seaports to "secure and protect all sensitive information, including information that is currently available to the public, related to the seaport." The bill does not specify whether the information should be completely withheld from the public or how the port captain should decide whether to make public or keep secret certain information. In fact, the bill defers all these questions to the port captain. Less-than-explicit exemptions result in ambiguity and court battles. The bill modifies the (b)(3) exemption provision in FOIA to require Congress to explicitly state its intent to withhold the information from the public and to specifically say it is intending to creating a (b)(3) exemption. The bill, if passed by the House and signed by the president, could change the current secrecy climate in at least two small but significant ways. First, the bill asks agencies and courts to err on the side of disclosure when a statute is vague about whether certain government-held information should be kept secret or made available to the public. This should help reduce costly court deliberations. Second, it would allow better tracking of the number of laws currently on the books that call for exemptions from public disclosure. A number of public access advocates supported the bill, including many members of the OpenTheGovernment.org, co-chaired by OMB Watch. Cornyn was pleased to announce that three conservative groups -- Defenders of Property Rights, One Nation Indivisible, and Liberty Legal Institute -- also endorsed the bill. The bill was originally part of a broader package of FOIA reforms that Cornyn and Leahy put together in the OPEN Government Act. The two senators broke off this narrow provision to attract broader support for reforming the nation's open government laws and begin to address the problem of excessive secrecy in government. It is expected that the senators will pursue other parts of the OPEN Government Act in the future.