FOIA Improvement Act of 2014

Shared for feedback by OpenGov Foundation

Read the document

FOIA Improvement Act of 2014

Bill Number: S. 2520

Sponsors: Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Senator John Cornyn (R-TX)

Date Introduced: June 24, 2014, 113th CONGRESS, 2nd Session

Links to Learn More:

  1. Section-By-Section Explanation from Leahy & Cornyn

  2. List of groups supporting this legislation (via OpenTheGovernment.org)

#Bill Purpose: To improve the Freedom of Information Act.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. Leahy (for himself and Mr. Cornyn) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL To improve the Freedom of Information Act.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

#SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the “FOIA Improvement Act of 2014”.

#SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO FOIA. Section 552 of title 5, United States Code, is amended—

(1) in subsection (a)—

(A) in paragraph (2)—

(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking “for public inspection and copying” and inserting “for public inspection in an electronic format”;

(ii) by striking subparagraph (D) and inserting the following:

“(D) copies of all records, regardless of form or format—

“(i) that have been released to any person under paragraph (3); and

“(ii)(I) that because of the nature of their subject matter, the agency determines have become or are likely to become the subject of subsequent requests for substantially the same records; or

“(II) that have been requested not less than 3 times; and”; and

(iii) in the undesignated matter following subparagraph (E), by striking “public inspection and copying current” and inserting “public inspection in an electronic format, and current”;

(B) in paragraph (4)(A), by striking clause (viii) and inserting the following:

“(viii)(I) Except as provided in subclause (II), an agency shall not assess any search fees (or in the case of a requester described under clause (ii)(II) of this subparagraph, duplication fees) under this subparagraph if the agency has failed to comply with any time limit under paragraph (6).

“(II)(aa) If an agency determines that unusual circumstances apply (as the term is defined in paragraph (6)(B)) and the agency provides a timely written notice to the requester in accordance with paragraph (6)(B), a failure described in subclause (I) is excused for an additional 10 days. If the agency fails to comply with the extended time limit, the agency may not assess any search fees (or in the case of a requester described under clause (ii)(II) of this subparagraph, duplication fees).

“(bb) If a court determines that exceptional circumstances exist (as that term is defined in paragraph (6)(C)), a failure described in subclause (I) shall be excused for the length of time provided by the court order.”;

(C) in paragraph (6)—

(i) in subparagraph (A)(i), by striking “making such request” and all that follows through “determination; and” and inserting the following: “making such request of—”

“(I) such determination and the reasons therefore;

“(II) the right of such person to seek assistance from the FOIA Public Liaison of the agency; and

“(III) in the case of an adverse determination—

“(aa) the right of such person to appeal to the head of the agency, within a period determined by the head of the agency that is not less than 90 days after the receipt of such adverse determination; and

“(bb) the right of such person to seek dispute resolution services from the FOIA Public Liaison of the agency or the Office of Government Information Services; and”; and

(ii) in subparagraph (B)(ii), by striking “the agency.” and inserting “the agency, and notify the requester of the right of the requester to seek dispute resolution services from the Office of Government Information Services.”; and

(D) by adding at the end the following:

“(8) An agency—

“(A) shall—

“(i) withhold information under this section only if—

“(I) the agency reasonably foresees that disclosure would harm an interest protected by an exemption described in subsection (b) or other provision of law; or

“(II) disclosure is prohibited by law; and

“(ii)(I) consider whether partial disclosure of information is possible whenever the agency determines that a full disclosure of a requested record is not possible; and

“(II) take reasonable steps necessary to segregate and release nonexempt information; and

“(B) may not—

“(i) withhold information requested under this section merely because the agency can demonstrate, as a technical matter, that the records fall within the scope of an exemption described in subsection (b); or

“(ii) withhold information requested under this section because the information may be embarrassing to the agency or because of speculative or abstract concerns.”;

(2) in subsection (b), by amending paragraph (5) to read as follows:

“(5) inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters that would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency, if—

“(A) in the case of deliberative process privilege or attorney work-product privilege, the agency interest in protecting the records or information is not outweighed by a public interest in disclosure;

“(B) in the case of attorney-client privilege, the agency interest in protecting the records or information is not outweighed by a compelling public interest in disclosure; and

“(C) the requested record or information was created less than 25 years before the date on which the request was made;”;

(3) in subsection (e)

(A) in paragraph (1)—

(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting “and to the Director of the Office of Government Information Services” after “United States”;

(ii) in subparagraph (N), by striking “and” at the end;

(iii) in subparagraph (O), by striking the period at the end and inserting a semicolon; and

(iv) by adding at the end the following:

“(P) the number of times the agency denied a request for records under subsection (c); and

“(Q) the number of records that were made available for public inspection in an electronic format under subsection (a)(2).”;

(B) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:

“(3) Each agency shall make each such report available for public inspection in an electronic format. In addition, each agency shall make the raw statistical data used in each report available in a timely manner for public inspection in an electronic format, which shall be made available—

“(A) without charge, license, or registration requirement;

“(B) in an aggregated, searchable format; and

“(C) in a format that may be downloaded in bulk.”;

(C) in paragraph (4)—

(i) by striking “Government Reform and Oversight” and inserting “Oversight and Government Reform”;

(ii) by inserting “Homeland Security and” before “Governmental Affairs”; and

(iii) by striking “April” and inserting “March”; and

(D) by striking paragraph (6) and inserting the following:

“(6)(A) The Attorney General of the United States shall submit to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Judiciary of the Senate, and the President a report on or before March 1 of each calendar year, which shall include for the prior calendar year—

“(i) a listing of the number of cases arising under this section;

“(ii) a listing of—

“(I) each subsection, and any exemption, if applicable, involved in each case arising under this section;

“(II) the disposition of each case arising under this section; and

“(III) the cost, fees, and penalties assessed under subparagraphs (E), (F), and (G) of subsection (a)(4); and

“(iii) a description of the efforts undertaken by the Department of Justice to encourage agency compliance with this section.

“(B) The Attorney General of the United States shall make—

“(i) each report submitted under subparagraph (A) available for public inspection in an electronic format; and

“(ii) the raw statistical data used in each report submitted under subparagraph (A) available for public inspection in an electronic format, which shall be made available—

“(I) without charge, license, or registration requirement;

“(II) in an aggregated, searchable format; and

“(III) in a format that may be downloaded in bulk.”;

(4) in subsection (g), in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking “publicly available upon request” and inserting “available for public inspection in an electronic format”;

(5) in subsection (h)—

(A) in paragraph (1), by adding at the end the following: “The head of the Office shall be the Director of the Office of Government Information Services.”;

(B) in paragraph (2), by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the following:

“(C) identify procedures and methods for improving compliance under this section.”;

(C) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:

“(3) The Office of Government Information Services shall offer mediation services to resolve disputes between persons making requests under this section and administrative agencies as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation and may issue advisory opinions at the discretion of the Office or upon request of any party to a dispute.”; and

(D) by adding at the end the following:

“(4)(A) Not less frequently than annually, the Director of the Office of Government Information Services shall submit to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives, the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, and the President—

“(i) a report on the findings of the information reviewed and identified under paragraph (2);

“(ii) a summary of the activities of the Office of Government Information Services under paragraph (3), including—

“(I) any advisory opinions issued; and

“(II) the number of times each agency engaged in dispute resolution with the assistance of the Office of Government Information Services or the FOIA Public Liaison; and

“(iii) legislative and regulatory recommendations, if any, to improve the administration of this section.

“(B) The Director of the Office of Government Information Services shall make each report submitted under subparagraph (A) available for public inspection in an electronic format.

“(C) The Director of the Office of Government Information Services shall not be required to obtain the prior approval, comment, or review of any officer or agency of the United States, including the Department of Justice, the Archivist of the United States, or the Office of Management and Budget before submitting to the Congress, or any committee or subcommittee thereof, any reports, recommendations, testimony, or comments, if such submissions include a statement indicating that the views expressed therein are those of the Director and do not necessarily represent the views of the President.

“(5) The Director of the Office of Government Information Services may submit additional information to Congress and the President as the Director determines to be appropriate.

“(6) Not less frequently than annually, the Office of Government Information Services shall conduct a meeting that is open to the public on the review and reports by the Office and shall allow interested persons to appear and present oral or written statements at the meeting.”; and

(6) by striking subsections (i), (j), and (k), and inserting the following:

“(i) The Government Accountability Office shall—

“(1) conduct audits of administrative agencies on compliance with and implementation of the requirements of this section and issue reports detailing the results of such audits; and

“(2) catalog the number of exemptions described in subsection (b)(3) and the use of such exemptions by each agency.

“(j)(1) Each agency shall designate a Chief FOIA Officer who shall be a senior official of such agency (at the Assistant Secretary or equivalent level).

“(2) The Chief FOIA Officer of each agency shall, subject to the authority of the head of the agency—

“(A) have agency-wide responsibility for efficient and appropriate compliance with this section;

“(B) monitor implementation of this section throughout the agency and keep the head of the agency, the chief legal officer of the agency, and the Attorney General appropriately informed of the agency’s performance in implementing this section;

“(C) recommend to the head of the agency such adjustments to agency practices, policies, personnel, and funding as may be necessary to improve its implementation of this section;

“(D) review and report to the Attorney General, through the head of the agency, at such times and in such formats as the Attorney General may direct, on the agency’s performance in implementing this section;

“(E) facilitate public understanding of the purposes of the statutory exemptions of this section by including concise descriptions of the exemptions in both the agency’s handbook issued under subsection (g), and the agency’s annual report on this section, and by providing an overview, where appropriate, of certain general categories of agency records to which those exemptions apply;

“(F) offer training to agency staff regarding their responsibilities under this section;

“(G) serve as the primary agency liaison with the Office of Government Information Services and the Office of Information Policy; and

“(H) designate 1 or more FOIA Public Liaisons.

“(3) The Chief FOIA Officer of each agency shall review, not less frequently than annually, all aspects of the administration of this section by the agency to ensure compliance with the requirements of this section, including—

“(A) agency regulations;

“(B) disclosure of records required under paragraphs (2) and (8) of subsection (a);

“(C) assessment of fees and determination of eligibility for fee waivers;

“(D) the timely processing of requests for information under this section;

“(E) the use of exemptions under subsection (b); and

“(F) dispute resolution services with the assistance of the Office of Government Information Services or the FOIA Public Liaison.

“(k)(1) There is established in the executive branch the Chief FOIA Officers Council (referred to in this subsection as the ‘Council’).

“(2) The Council shall be comprised of the following members:

“(A) The Deputy Director for Management of the Office of Management and Budget.

“(B) The Director of the Office of Information Policy at the Department of Justice.

“(C) The Director of the Office of Government Information Services.

“(D) The Chief FOIA Officer of each agency.

“(E) Any other officer or employee of the United States as designated by the Co-Chairs.

“(3) The Director of the Office of Information Policy at the Department of Justice and the Director of the Office of Government Information Services shall be the Co-Chairs of the Council.

“(4) The Administrator of General Services shall provide administrative and other support for the Council.

“(5)(A) The duties of the Council shall include the following:

“(i) Develop recommendations for increasing compliance and efficiency under this section.

“(ii) Disseminate information about agency experiences, ideas, best practices, and innovative approaches related to this section.

“(iii) Identify, develop, and coordinate initiatives to increase transparency and compliance with this section.

“(iv) Promote the development and use of common performance measures for agency compliance with this section.

“(B) In performing the duties described in subparagraph (A), the Council shall consult on a regular basis with members of the public who make requests under this section.

“(6)(A) The Council shall meet regularly and such meetings shall be open to the public unless the Council determines to close the meeting for reasons of national security or to discuss information exempt under subsection (b).

“(B) Not less frequently than annually, the Council shall hold a meeting that shall be open to the public and permit interested persons to appear and present oral and written statements to the Council.

“(C) Not later than 10 business days before a meeting of the Council, notice of such meeting shall be published in the Federal Register.

“(D) Except as provided in subsection (b), the records, reports, transcripts, minutes, appendixes, working papers, drafts, studies, agenda, or other documents that were made available to or prepared for or by the Council shall be made publicly available.

“(E) Detailed minutes of each meeting of the Council shall be kept and shall contain a record of the persons present, a complete and accurate description of matters discussed and conclusions reached, and copies of all reports received, issued, or approved by the Council. The minutes shall be redacted as necessary and made publicly available.”.

#SEC. 3. REVIEW AND ISSUANCE OF REGULATIONS. (a) In General.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the head of each agency (as defined in section 551 of title 5, United States Code) shall review the regulations of such agency and shall issue regulations on procedures for the disclosure of records under section 552 of title 5, United States Code, in accordance with the amendments made by section 2.

(b) Requirements.—The regulations of each agency shall include procedures for engaging in dispute resolution through the FOIA Public Liaison and the Office of Government Information Services.

#SEC. 4. PROACTIVE DISCLOSURE THROUGH RECORDS MANAGEMENT. Section 3102 of title 44, United States Code, is amended—

(1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs (3) and (4); and

(2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:

“(2) procedures for identifying records of general interest or use to the public that are appropriate for public disclosure, and for posting such records in a publicly accessible electronic format;”.

#SEC. 5. NO ADDITIONAL FUNDS AUTHORIZED. No additional funds are authorized to carry out the requirements of this Act or the amendments made by this Act. The requirements of this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall be carried out using amounts otherwise authorized or appropriated.

18 Comments
  • User profile image

    Nate Jones

    made;

    The Federal Courts have also stated that only Congress can end b(5) withholding abuse of historic documents. This May, the DC District Court of Appeals ruled against a National Security Archive FOIA request for the release of a 30-year-old history of the 53-year-old Bay of Pigs invasion. The CIA claimed that the document in question was a “predicisional” draft, and used the b(5) exemption to argue its release could harm current CIA historical work, or even “confuse the public.” In it’s two-to-one decision, the Court wrote: “According to the FOIA requester, the CIA’s interest in protecting any contentious or sensitive issues discussed in the draft of Volume V has diminished over time. But unlike some statutes, such as certain provisions of the Presidential Records Act, see 44 U.S.C. § 2204(a), Exemption 5 of FOIA does not contain a time limit. We must adhere to the text of FOIA and cannot judicially invent a new time limit for Exemption 5.” It is time for Congress to mirror the successful Presidential Records Act and implement a b5 time limit.

  • User profile image

    Nate Jones

    No additional funds

    Thanks for you support Senator Coburn. :D

  • User profile image

    Nate Jones

    general interest

    I fear agencies will not do this without a stick. But the above reporting may help determine this. Again, I believe a better method would be to begin pushing agencies to default post FOIA releases online, unless they can cite a reasonable reason not to.

  • User profile image

    Nate Jones

    180 days

    Great! See above. Though I will note that the White House is currently pushing a common government wide regulation without. That reg and this bill are certainly not mutually exclusive.

  • User profile image

    Nate Jones

    The Council

    A great idea. We need to find ways to further empower the thousands of professional, genuine FOIA processes in government who have "getting information released to the public in their bones." No matter what the bill says, it is FOIA processers who are ultimately responsible for releasing more information more quickly.

  • User profile image

    Nate Jones

    agency regulations;

    Half of all federal agencies have not yet updated their regulations to comply with the 2007 FOIA law. Without updated regulations, agencies frequently are unaware or ignore Congressional FOIA reforms.

  • User profile image

    Nate Jones

    number of records

    This reporting is good, but I suspect it will show that agencies are not posting enough information online. It may also show that the "three times" hook is not strong enough. Still it will be important data.

  • User profile image

    Nate Jones

    to the Director of the Office of Government Information Services

    Granting the FOIA Ombuds Service more power is a wise move. I wish this bill went further though and gave OGIS authority to overrule agencies and even DOJ (which, as its role as government's lawyers, usually defend agency interests and fight against requesters). Currently OGIS cannot compel agencies to release information. It cannot even compel agencies to meet with it. FOIA would work better if OGIS had this power.

  • User profile image

    Nate Jones

    before

    The Federal Courts have also stated that only Congress can end b(5) withholding abuse of historic documents. This May, the DC District Court of Appeals ruled against a National Security Archive FOIA request for the release of a 30-year-old history of the 53-year-old Bay of Pigs invasion. The CIA claimed that the document in question was a “predicisional” draft, and used the b(5) exemption to argue its release could harm current CIA historical work, or even “confuse the public.” In it’s two-to-one decision, the Court wrote: “According to the FOIA requester, the CIA’s interest in protecting any contentious or sensitive issues discussed in the draft of Volume V has diminished over time. But unlike some statutes, such as certain provisions of the Presidential Records Act, see 44 U.S.C. § 2204(a), Exemption 5 of FOIA does not contain a time limit. We must adhere to the text of FOIA and cannot judicially invent a new time limit for Exemption 5.” It is time for Congress to mirror the successful Presidential Records Act and implement a b5 time limit.

  • User profile image

    Nate Jones

    25 years

    If agencies followed The Presidet's Excutive Order on FOIA, the Attorney General Holder's FOIA Memo, or DOJ Guidelines on b(5) they would never use it to withhold historic information. Indeed, even the predecisional records of the President are protected only 12 years after he leaves office. (In one ironic twist, as Senator Leahy was drafting this bill, Presidential predecisional records from the Clinton administration were properly released by the National Archives. In one record discussing previously (but no longer) touchy Supreme Court nominations, a Clinton Advisory called Senator Leahy "prickly." Of course, this disclosure --which may once have properly been withheld under b(5)-- did not dampen Senator Leahy's promotion of transparency when it no longer had to be protected. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-library-release-of-papers-on-ginsburg-breyer-nominations-offer-insight-some-fun/2014/06/08/3aac9276-ed8d-11e3-9b2d-114aded544be_story.html

  • User profile image

    Nate Jones

    attorney-client privilege

    This clause potentially creates the problem of "laundering" communications through an attorney. As written it would also exempt such important classes of documents such as Binding law-defining DOJ Office of Legal Counsel Memos that include such important and secret legal positions as under what circumstances an American citizen can be extra-judiciously killed or what interrogation tactics are US interrogators allowed to use or what is the legality of dragnet collection of American's information without a warrant. These are troubling cut outs. Still the "compelling public interest" clause is positive, and the attorney-client universe of b5 documents is relatively small. Many would have correctly been withheld under the above public interest balancing test.

  • User profile image

    Nate Jones

    not outweighed by a public interest in disclosure;

    This means that for contemporary documents, agencies (and courts) now must balance the benefit to the public interest against the benefit of government employee confidentiality before withholding documents. This balancing test now mirrors the effective language of the b(6) privacy exemption that weighs such factors as the public interest, passage of time, and seniority of an individual to determine if information should be released or not. B(5) was initially conceived to prevent government employees from “working in a fish bowl,” to allow employees to give each other –and their supervisors– candid advice. These protections should and will remain in the language as written. But, b(5) was cited 81,752 times last year, certainly not always to protect the flow of government employee ideas and positions. President Obama correctly stated that the principles behind the Freedom of Information Act prohibit the government from withholding information to prevent embarrassment, hide errors and failures, or because of speculative or abstract fears. But these are precisely the things the b(5) “withhold it because you want” exemption is being used to hide more and more. This balancing test --paralleling the successful b(6) balancing test-- is the best solution to this problem.

  • User profile image

    Nate Jones

    paragraph (5) to read as follows: “(5) inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums

    The absolute lynch pin of this law. If this extremely important provision is removed, I will not support this bill as it won't be substantive enough. I have written about the b5 exemptions extensive and rising history of abuse. The drafters of the original FOIA simply worded it too broadly. Government workers should not work in fishbowls --and this bill will continue to ensure that they won't. But it will also rein in the amount that this exemption is used to withhold information that --according to the principles of the FOIA-- should be disclosed. This includes names of its hospitals where veterans died due to delays in medical screenings, 50 year old histories of the Bay of Pigs Invasion, Embarrassing Department Diversity Studies, and even --Kafkaesquely-- agency instuctions on when to use b5! Here are some in depth analyses of b5 abuses: http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2014/03/27/the-next-foia-fight-the-b5-withold-it-because-you-want-to-exemption/

  • User profile image

    Nate Jones

    the agency reasonably foresees that disclosure would harm an interest protected by an exemption described in subsection (b) or other provision of law; or

    The codification of this language into law is positive. Currently it is only in an Executive Order which can change with administrations. The previous Ashcroft Executive Order on FOIA, essentially had the exact opposite language as this, instructing agencies to withhold anything legally possible. Still, many agencies currently ignore this Holder Executive Order, so I am dubious that they will follow the statute's instructions. DOJ OIP and/or OGIS will need to enforce this provision, as agencies have shown they do not follow it on their own.

  • User profile image

    Nate Jones

    Office of Government Information Services

    A good addition. Requesters have long called for the Office of Government Information Services (created in the 2007 bill) to have a larger oversight role and more power. This is a step in that direction.

Showing 1 to 15 of 18 entries