House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Billy Tauzin (R-LA) and senior Committee Republicans announced their support for increasing government secrecy in the name of national security. In a July 19 letter, the Republicans wrote the Director of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, to indicate their "continued concern that sensitive information regarding potential vulnerabilities… are fully protected from improper public disclosure." The Republicans also encouraged Ridge to "coordinate a comprehensive and consistent approach for assessing threats and vulnerabilities posed by potential terrorist actions to America's critical infrastructure and manufacturing facilities." The letter comes as Congress is considering creation of a new Homeland Security Department. It also comes at a time when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is rumored to be considering a proposal to mandate that thousands of industrial, chemical manufacturing, storage and treatment facilities located across the United States conduct vulnerability assessments of the risks posed to their operations from intentional acts of terrorism. This proposal is very similar to Sen. Jon Corzine’s (D-NJ) Chemical Security Act, S. 1602 (see related article). Tauzin and the co-signers seem uncomfortable with EPA's pursuing the vulnerability assessments. "[W]e are concerned that the Clean Air Act [the authority EPA is using to mandate the assessments] was not enacted with deliberate terrorist actions in mind, and does not provide either the statutory authority or the appropriate framework for such assessments." The Republicans would prefer to grant that authority to the new Department, and recommends that, "rather than having individual Federal agencies and critical infrastructure sectors develop differing assessment models and security programs, the new Department should develop and promote a single framework for conducting vulnerability assessments across the critical infrastructure sectors." Even though the administration's bill does not transfer any of the EPA's expertise to the new agency. But it seems the real concern is over public access to information about vulnerabilities. The letter notes, "we must ensure that vulnerability assessments are never allowed to be used as roadmaps for terrorist action." They add that the Clean Air Act does not "shield them [the assessments] from improper public disclosure." Under the Clean Air Act, EPA would make such information available to the public in order to help people protect their health and safety. According to recent surveys, most people do not know that they live within a vulnerability zone. These assessments could help families make informed decisions about where to live, where to send their kids to day care or school, and what dangers generally exist. The Republicans may want to require the vulnerability assessments in the Homeland Security bill because of a provision inserted by the Bush administration. Section 204 of the bill creates a huge loophole in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), our safety net for right-to-know: "Information provided voluntarily by non-Federal entities or individuals that relates to infrastructure vulnerabilities or other vulnerabilities to terrorism and is or has been in the possession of the Department shall not be subject to section 552 of title 5, United States Code [the Freedom of Information Act]." This broad and vague exemption raises a number of important questions:

• Exactly what types of information would be withheld?
• What qualifies as "infrastructure" or "vulnerabilities"?
• What counts as "voluntarily provided"?
• Is voluntarily-submitted information that "is or has been in the possession of the Department" (a sweeping phrase) exempt from disclosure even if it was obtained by another agency as part of the regulatory process?

Without these answers, this exemption could create a black hole into which companies dump information and through which they escape public scrutiny. Unfortunately these unanswered questions do not seem to trouble Tauzin and the other co-signers of the letter. And it fits exactly what the chemical industry has wanted all along -- less public disclosure about what it is doing. This is not the first time this troubling concept has been raised. The Critical Infrastructure Information Act (S. 1456), recently pushed by Sens. Robert Bennett (R-UT) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ), proposes to exempt voluntarily-disclosed "critical infrastructure" information from FOIA -- a concept fiercely opposed by environmentalists, reporters, libraries, and other public interest groups. A recent letter, signed by 45 of these groups, urged Senators to oppose the Bennett/Kyl legislation. Unfortunately, this issue has found its way into Bush's Homeland Security Act, and we're left wondering why. Certainly, it has nothing to do with the creation and elevation of a new department. In addition, we must wonder why Tauzin and his co-signers felt that this issue alone among the numerous complexities of establishing a new cabinet-level department required a specific letter of support. Perhaps it is because the provision is the least established or proven proposal in the bill. Indeed, as the debate surrounding the Bennett/Kyl bill suggests, such a broad new exemption from FOIA is a highly complex issue deserving of careful consideration and detailed handling. This clearly cannot be accomplished with a single sentence. Beyond Tauzin, the other House members signing the letter were: Committee Vice Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC), Health subcommittee Chairman Michael Bilirakis (R-FL), Energy and Air Quality subcommittee Chairman Joe Barton (R-TX), Telecommunications and the Internet subcommittee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI), Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection subcommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns (R-FL), Oversight and Investigations subcommittee Chairman James Greenwood (R-PA) and Environment and Hazardous Materials subcommittee Chairman Paul Gillmor (R-OH).