Rob Portman: “I think the FOIA concerns over parts of this amendment have already been made by others, but I will say just to my…”

“I think the FOIA concerns over parts of this amendment have already been made by others, but I will say just to my friend from Ohio, that is clearly not the intent of the underlying bill nor is it the impact of the underlying bill. All of the FOIA requirements that we would have, including right to know, would continue to be operative. This is a very narrow stipulation that, with regard to infrastructure information provided by the private sector, that we would get limited FOIA protection, which is absolutely necessary for national security, and that has been discussed. This amendment would also create a plaintiff lawyers' dream as I see it, and that is the civil actions open to punitive damages for whistleblowers claiming to have suffered from reprisal. The mere threat of these punitive damages can cause defendants, including the government, to settle cases; and it does, to settle cases that have questionable merit just to reduce that risk of an extreme verdict. The opportunity of punitive damages for a plaintiff, can make an otherwise meritless case look awfully tempting to pursue, just in case the jury does come in with a big verdict. It is excessive. Let us be clear. The committee bill does have traditional whistleblower protections in it. I am kind of tired of hearing it does not. Please turn to page 185 of the bill, because it is right there. These are the whistleblower protections that we have currently and they should be continued. They are important.”