TO:      
   Hon. Arlen Specter, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee 
     (711 Hart Building
     Washington, DC 20510 FAX: 202-228-1229)
   Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, Ranking Minority Member, Senate 
     Judiciary Committee (433 Russell Senate Office Bldg., 
     Washington, DC 20510 FAX: 202-224-3479)
   Hon. Kit Bond, Sponsor of S 3774 (274 Russell Senate Office 
     Bldg., Washington, DC 20510 FAX: 202-224-8149) 

FROM: Society of Environmental Journalists

DATE: September 6, 2006

SUBJECT: Opposition to (S 3774) "Official Secrets Act"

On behalf of our more than 1,350 members, the Society of Environmental 
Journalists is writing to urge the Senate Judiciary Committee not to 
report S 3774, which we feel would gravely harm the oversight of 
government by the public, the press, and Congress itself. This bill 
would cast a pall of fear that would make impossible the public 
oversight of government that is essential to democracy and the rule of 
law.

The Society of Environmental Journalists (SEJ) is the world's largest 
and oldest organization of individual working journalists covering 
environmental issues. Founded in 1990, SEJ consists of journalists, 
educators, and students dedicated to improving the quality, accuracy, 
and visibility of environmental reporting. Working through its First 
Amendment Task Force and WatchDog Program, SEJ addresses freedom of 
information, right-to-know, and other news-gathering issues of concern 
to journalists reporting on environmental topics.

Congress has rejected such efforts to broadly criminalize leaks for 
more than half a century, not only because it is unnecessary, but 
because it violates core American values of freedom and democracy. We 
think Wendell Phillips was right when he said: "Eternal vigilance is 
the price of liberty." This bill would make vigilance impossible. If 
this bill had been law, the disclosure leading to publication of the 
"Pentagon Papers" in 1971 would have been illegal.

It is clear to us that this legislation comes at a time of escalating 
attacks on the press for its role in revealing government acts which 
many Americans consider improper or illegal. The bill's effect would 
be to frighten sources into silence. Worse yet, it would give 
prosecutors an expanded array of tools for coercing journalists into 
revealing confidential sources. It might even be used in attempts to 
justify unconstitutional search of newsrooms and seizure of 
journalists' notes and records.

Moreover, it comes at a time when both federal prosecutors and the 
courts are asserting an unprecedented claim that it is criminal to 
receive unauthorized disclosure of classified information, even 
unwittingly (e.g., the "AIPAC Case"), much less to publish it. 
Together, the bill and this new legal doctrine could be used by the 
Justice Department, courts, and others to attempt to blind press 
watchdogs. All any government would have to do to avoid accountability 
for illegal actions would be to classify them as secret.

The bill also comes at a time when new categories of 
"pseudo-classified" information are being created at an alarming rate. 
Designations like "Sensitive But Unclassified" or "For Official Use 
Only" may have little legal basis, but in practice impede disclosure 
under the Freedom of Information Act or through confidential 
reporter-source conversations. Even though S 3774 may nominally apply 
only to unauthorized disclosure of properly classified information, 
its chilling effect will spill over into the growing realm of 
unclassified secrets.

As environmental journalists, we encounter the practical results of 
these chilling measures every day as we try to gather information 
about what government agencies are doing and deciding. Government 
employees are increasingly afraid to talk to us, even off the record. 
Even when they do not handle classified information -- and most on our 
beat do not -- they may be confused or uncertain about what is 
classified and what is illegal. When in doubt, many would choose to 
remain silent rather than risk prosecution and the three-year prison 
term the bill would impose.

We see evidence on our beat every day of instances where government 
secrecy actually harms national security rather than improving it. The 
nation's chemical facilities have remained a largely unguarded and 
undefended target for terrorists and vandals since the 9/11 attacks. 
The secrecy on chemical risks which Congress mandated in 1999 has done 
little or nothing to make the millions of Americans at risk much 
safer. FERC secrecy on dam-safety issues (e.g., cracks in the Milltown 
Dam near Missoula, Montana) still leaves dam-safety programs with 
scant federal funding.  The Corps of Engineers' denial of inundation 
maps to residents who would be in harm's way if Florida's Herbert 
Hoover Dike failed only served to impede prevention and preparedness 
efforts. 

Another reason S 3774 particularly concerns us as environmental 
journalists is because we know the Environmental Protection Agency was 
given original classification authority on May 6, 2002. We know that 
EPA uses this authority, but have only the vaguest idea of what 
information EPA is classifying. Our concern is that rather than 
working to keep the public safe, the secrecy may be working to prevent 
public knowledge of government failures to keep the public safe. It 
disturbs us to think that an EPA employee could go to jail for three 
years for telling a reporter something the public needs to know.

We urge you to withdraw S 3774 and to oppose or abandon any attempts 
to enact this bill or legislation along similar lines.

Sincerely,

Perry Beeman, President
Society of Environmental Journalists