2005 FOI update: federal legislation
If there is one overarching theme relevant to freedom of information in 2004,
it is the lack of activity on Capitol Hill with regard to the legislation that
was introduced with such fanfare in 2003 and early 2004. Among the bills that
fall into the category of “dead by the 2nd Session”:
personal privacy online)
Despite these casualties, Congress did take some action on FOI-related
legislation in 2004. Although only a handful of bills were introduced or acted
upon during the year, some are noteworthy for their potential impact on FOIA,
even though they were introduced too late in the legislative session to effect
But the forecast for the current session of Congress is a lot more
The 109th Congress has started strong. Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and
Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., have introduced the Open Government Act of 2005 as S. 394
Also introduced by Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, in the House as H.R. 867, this
bill proposes the first major amendments to FOIA in nearly a decade and is
intended to ensure that FOIA works as smoothly in practice as it is intended to
Sens. Cornyn and Leahy also seek increased oversight through the Faster FOIA
Act (S. 589) introduced on March 10. It seeks to create a commission to
recommend improvements in the processing of FOIA requests.
In addition, there have been three bills introduced that would provide
statutory protection for reporters who are subpoenaed to testify in federal
108th CONGRESS, 2nd SESSION (2004)
Restore Open Government Act of 2004
In September, Rep. Henry
Waxman, D-Calif., the ranking minority member of the House Government Reform
Committee, issued a strongly-worded report titled “Secrecy in the Bush
Administration.” On Sept. 14, 2004, he introduced legislation intended to build
on the findings of this report.
The reports starts bluntly, stating, “Open and accountable government is one
of the bedrock principles of our democracy. Yet virtually since inauguration
day, questions have been raised about the Bush Administration’s commitment to
this principle. News articles and reports by independent groups over the last
four years have identified a growing series of instances where the
Administration has sought to operate without public or congressional scrutiny.”
Then it cuts deeper, finding that “there has been a consistent pattern in the
administration’s actions: laws that are designed to promote public access to
information have been undermined, while laws that authorize the government to
withhold information or to operate in secret have repeatedly been expanded. The
cumulative result is an unprecedented assault on the principle of open
The report dissects how that the Bush Administration has chipped away at laws
that provide public access to federal records, citing changes to the Freedom of
Information Act in three major areas:
- reversing a presumption of disclosure in favor of instructing agencies to
withhold “sensitive information.”
- withholding a wide range of economic, health and critical infrastructure
- using administrative tactics such as denials of fee waivers and delays in
responses to effectively deny FOIA requests.
The report also references the executive order that blocks the release of
large amounts of records under the Presidential Records Act. Finally, the report
discusses the increased secrecy under which federal advisory committees are
permitted to act.
There is also a study of the increase in affirmative use of laws that allow
withholding of records, particularly by taking greater advantage of the ability
to classify records.
The report discusses the Bush Administration’s tactics that include reversing
the previously held presumption against classification, expanding the authority
to classify documents and the time for which they remain classified, and
reducing the instances in which documents are automatically declassified.
Specifically, the report finds that in fiscal years 2001 to 2003, the average
number of original decisions to classify information increased by 50% over the
previous five years. In the last year alone, the total number of classification
decisions increased by 25%.
The Administration has also taken greater advantage of previously little-used
provisions that allow information to be withheld from the public through a
designation of that information as “sensitive security information,” as well as
using the USA Patriot Act to conduct investigations in secret, which are then
followed by an increasing number of secret detentions, trials and deportations,
according to the report.
Congressional access to executive branch records has also been diminished.
The Bush Administration challenged the long history of the Government Accounting
Office’s access to federal records on constitutional grounds. It similarly
challenged the “seven-member rule” which requires an executive branch agency to
provide information on matters within the jurisdiction of a congressional
committee upon request of any seven members of that committee.
Finally, the report states, the Administration has refused to accommodate
requests from Members of Congress for various government documents. The report
states that “On over 100 separate occasions, the Administration has refused to
answer the inquiries of, or provide the information requested by, Rep. Waxman,
the ranking member of the House Committee on Government Reform.”
“Taken together,” the report concludes, “the actions of the Bush
Administration have resulted in an extraordinary expansion of government
secrecy. External watchdogs, including Congress, the media, and nongovernmental
organizations, have consistently been hindered in their ability to monitor
government activities. These actions have serious implications for the nature of
our government. When government operates in secret, the ability of the public to
hold the government accountable is imperiled.”
In conjunction with the report, Rep. Waxman introduced H.R. 5073, which
sought to effect six major changes to the current state of access to government
information, many of which have been sought for several months. These
“compromise language” which was to be passed into law as the Critical
Infrastructure Information Act of 2002 but at the last minute was passed over
for much more stringent language.
policy on FOIA, in favor of a standard used by Attorney General Janet Reno, who
said the Department of Justice would only defend a FOIA denial in federal court
if foreseeable harm was likely to result from disclosure of the records at
records in favor of the previous standard enunciated by President Reagan.
force headed by Vice President Cheney are not subject to disclosure via the
Federal Advisory Committee Act.
congressional oversight of the classification process.
plaintiff seeking records from a federal agency a greater opportunity of
recovering attorneys fees upon receiving the records by providing such fees even
if the case was not officially resolved through a court order, as long as the
commencement of litigation provided the substantial impetus for release of the
Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient (SAFE) Transportation
The “Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient (SAFE) Act of 2004″
(S. 1072 and H.R. 3550) authorized funds for federal highways, highway safety
programs and transit programs. The Senate version of the bill contained two
provisions dealing with the ability of the public to access information related
to transportation safety, facilities and infrastructure through FOIA, both of
which would have greatly affected the ability of the press and public to
participate in homeland security.
Neither was in the House bill, but both were expected to be included in any
final bill sent to the President for signature. Fortunately, in the end, the
SAFE Act was not voted on by Congress, which could not resolve the differences
in the many policy-based provisions of these bills. Instead, Congress passed a
“continuing resolution” to allow for continued funding of highway programs for
Section 3029, introduced by Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., existed in the Senate
version, but not the House version, of this legislation. It sought to expand the
definition of “sensitive security information” (“SSI”) that could be withheld
from public access through FOIA. Currently, SSI is defined as information that
Section 3029 would have added the following to the italicized language:
, transportation facilities or infrastructure, or transportation
The definition of SSI would become so broad as to allow the Transportation
Security Administration to withhold virtually any record in its possession as
SSI. It would be impossible to learn the reasons for any major action by the TSA
or its field offices, such as the shut downs of airports, highways, bridges,
etc. — whether through a real or perceived threat.
In addition, this section stated that, “A State or local government may not
enact, enforce, prescribe, issue or continue in effect any law, regulation,
standard, or order to the extent it is inconsistent with this section or
regulations prescribed under this section.” That means that state and local
governments would have been pre-empted from releasing and, to some extent,
utilizing information regarding the transportation infrastructure or facilities.
Local communities, therefore, would have little ability to participate in their
own protection because they would have no knowledge of any dangers on local
roadways, airports, seaports or other transportation facilities. As these
changes were being proposed, the bill failed to provide any guidelines as to
when information might be appropriately released, either generally or in time of
Section 4439 of H.R. 3550 stated that the TSA can only reveal information
regarding the vulnerability of hazardous materials in very limited situations.
This information could only be given to:
or local government, including volunteer fire departments, concerned with
carrying out transportation safety laws, protecting hazardous material in the
course of transportation in commerce, protecting public safety or national
security, or enforcing Federal law designed to protect public health or the
under other federal law intended to protect public health or the environment, or
under other federal law intended to address terrorist actions or threats of
As one can deduce from the language of both provisions, the access community
dodged a large-caliber bullet by not having this legislation passed. Chances are
good that it will be introduced again in the 109th Congress.
The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004 — which was passed into law in December as the most
extensive overhaul of our intelligence laws in more than 30 years — contained
several provisions which are potentially damaging to access to intelligence
information. After much negotiation (some of which was conducted in secret on
drafts of the bill that were not themselves made public), this bill (S. 2845)
keeps the intelligence budget secret, creates an internal government review
board that has power over all decisions to stamp documents as “secret” and
proposes overall review and oversight of access to intelligence issues, all the
while vesting disproportionate power in the director of national intelligence,
who can now oversee and “protect” information held by 15 agencies. In fact, the
director could virtually gag thousands of government employees in the name of
Meanwhile, several provisions that would have provided at least some
oversight of the government’s intelligence activities were stripped out, including:
reporting guidelines to maximize the dissemination of information while protecting intelligence sources and methods.
over-classification and offered incentives for inter-agency sharing of information.
executive council on information sharing that would: (1) make public reports to Congress and (2) otherwise inform the
public of its activities.
FOIA exemption for satellite imagery
Introduced on April 22, 2004, H.R. 4200 (the National Defense
Authorization Act) was passed into law on Oct. 9, 2004. Section 914 of this law exempts
maps, reports or analyses that are derived from commercial satellite images and
then licensed to the government, even if those images are not classified. State or
local laws to the contrary are be preempted to the extent that these government
officials cannot release this information even if they so desire.
Although this language looks damaging, it is actually a step down from the
language in the original Senate bill (Section 1034 of S 2400) which went beyond an
exemption to an outright prohibition on the disclosure of this information. The
narrowing occurred in a conference committee at the last minute to apply the language
only to imagery whose sale to non-government persons is already prohibited for
reasons of national security.
Free-Speech Protection Act
This effort by Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., was the first bill introduced in 17 years (since Sen. Harry Reid introduced legislation on the
same topic in 1987) that would provide a statutorily based privilege protecting reporters from being compelled to testify in or produce documents for a
The bill addresses all of the major topics that split the journalism
community when it approached this topic throughout the 1970s and early 1980s. For instance,
the bill does not attempt to define a “journalist,” instead providing protection
to a “covered person” who is one who (1) engages in the gathering of news or
information, and (2) has the intent, at the beginning of the process of gathering news or
information, to disseminate the news or information to the public, with the
term “news or information” defined very broadly in an attempt to cover as many
media outlets as possible.
The bill does list seven types of news media that are specifically covered, including:
electronic means of disseminating news or information to the public
Another issue that was particularly divisive in past years was the extent of
the privilege to be applied. Some media entities would only support an absolute
privilege, which others believed that a qualified privilege was the more
realistic — though less desirable — option. Sen. Dodd’s bill proposed the former,
creating an absolute privilege for confidential sources, rendering the information inadmissible in any proceeding or hearing before any branch of the federal government.
A qualified privilege would apply to materials such as notes, outtakes,
photographs or negatives, video or sound tapes, film, or other materials that are not
communicated in the news media. This qualified privilege could only be
overcome through clear and convincing evidence that (1) the news or information is
critical and necessary to the resolution of a significant legal issue before an entity
of the federal government; and the news or information could not be obtained by alternative means; and (2) there is an overriding public interest in the
As it was not introduced until Nov. 19, 2004, the bill did not even
receive a hearing in Congress. It has now been introduced in the 109th Congress as S.
On March 11, 2004, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., introduced H. Con. Res.
384, which sought to remove all restrictions on the ability of the press to cover repatriation ceremonies, stating that all restrictions should be removed “from
the public, the press, and military families in mourning that would prohibit
their presence at the arrival at military installations in the United States or
overseas of the remains of the Nation's fallen heroes, the members of the Armed Forces
who have died in Iraq or Afghanistan, with the assurance that family requests for privacy will be respected.”
Rep. Rangel’s resolution was not voted on by the House.
On June 7, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., introduced an amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill which related to the coverage by the
media of the return to the United States of the remains of soldiers killed
overseas. It would have required the Secretary of Defense to “develop a protocol that
permits news coverage of the return to the United States of the coffins containing
the remains of members of the Armed Forces who are killed overseas.”
That protocol would allow for open repatriation ceremonies, while ensuring
that the ceremonies remain dignified and the identities of the actual soldiers whose
remains are being returned to the United States are kept confidential.
Lobbying efforts for the proposal were unsuccessful. The amendment was
defeated and not included in the final version of the bill that passed Congress.
Defense of Privacy Act
This bill was introduced on Jan. 27, 2003, by Rep. Chabot, R-Ohio.
After receiving little attention for nearly one year (a hearing was held in the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law of the House Judiciary
Committee on July 22, 2003), H.R. 338 suddenly passed that subcommittee on June 23, 2004,
and then passed the full Judiciary Committee on July 7, 2004.
The bill would have amended Title 5 of the United States Code to require that agencies, in promulgating rules, take into consideration the impact of such
rules on the privacy of individuals. Specifically, whenever an agency was required
by section 553 of Title 5 to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for
any proposed rule, or publishes a notice of proposed rulemaking for an
interpretative rule involving the internal revenue code, that agency would have to prepare
and make available for public comment an initial privacy impact analysis to
assess the extent to which personally identifiable information such as an individual's
name, address, telephone number, photograph, Social Security number or other
identifying information would be affected.
The analysis would have been required to describe the impact of the proposed
rule on the privacy of individuals. Upon publication of a final rule, the agency
Annual publication would also be required in the Federal Register of all
rules reviewed under this law, with a brief description of each rule and the need
for and legal basis of that rule.
The bill never received a vote on the House floor.
Animal identification information
H.R. 4005 was introduced
March 18, 2004, by Rep. Peterson, D-Minn. It would have exempted information obtained through the livestock identification
system from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.
There were certain exemptions to this secrecy provision. Disclosure would be allowed if: (1) the information involved livestock threatened by disease or
pest, or (2) the person obtaining the information needed the information for reasons consistent with public health and public safety purposes.
Disclosure would be required if the requester was (1) the person owning or controlling the livestock, (2) the attorney general, if the request was made
for the purpose of law enforcement; (3) the secretary of homeland security, if
the request was made for the purpose of national security; (4) a court of
competent jurisdiction; or (5) the government of a foreign country, if the request was necessary to trace livestock threatened by disease or pest.
The bill was referred to both the Agriculture Committee and the Government
Reform Committee, but received no attention from either.
109th CONGRESS, 1st SESSION (2005)
Openness promotes effectiveness in Our National (OPEN) Government Act
After an extensive research and drafting process undertaken by Sen.
John Cornyn, R-Texas, and his staff, legislation proposing the first major changes to
the federal Freedom of Information Act in nearly a decade has been introduced in
both Houses of Congress. S. 394 was introduced by Sen. Cornyn and Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, has introduced the same bill in the
House as H.R. 867.
These bills have several provisions intended to improve
the efficiency of FOIA so that it remains a useful and effective tool for the public and press.
obtaining waivers of the full copying and search fees for obtaining government documents, with that
definition focusing on the newsgathering function of the requester, not on
the status of the requester as a journalist. This is very important because it
does not allow the government to define the term “journalist.”
circumstances allowing for recovery of attorneys fees by a litigant who must go to court to obtain documents from a federal agency. This
will combat instances in which a FOIA requester must go to court to get records requested from the government, investing time and money in the endeavor, only
to get the records on the eve of an eventual court decision but be denied
recovery of the attorneys fees spent in pursuing the court litigation because the records
were technically not released pursuant to a final decision of the court.
critical infrastructure information that was created in the Homeland Security Act of
2002. Since passage of the Critical Infrastructure Act of 2002, access advocates
have sought legislation that would rein in the seemingly unlimited ability of the government to withhold information submitted by private entities seeking
government assistance with security issues that affect the nation's infrastructure. This
does not accomplish that goal. However, it is a positive step forward, as it will
allow the processing of critical infrastructure information to be subject to some
public oversight; this will allow the public to discern whether private companies
are abusing this program in order to “hide” possibly embarrassing or damaging information that is completely unrelated to the nation's critical
fails to comply with the statutorily required 20-day deadline for responding to a FOIA request.
This provision attacks the major problem that exists within FOIA today — the long waiting
times for records that are requested from many government agencies. No longer will
these agencies be able to simply ignore this deadline, as they will lose the
ability to use certain FOIA exceptions to withhold documents as a penalty for
contractors for storage and maintenance are still subject to FOIA.
Ombudsman” within a new Office of Government Information Services to oversee FOIA and ensure it is administered fairly.
The Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and
Homeland Security held a hearing on this bill on March 15, 2005, to coincide with
Sunshine Week. Testifying at the hearing were:
chief and executive editor, The Associated Press
Civil Liberties Union
Faster FOIA Act
In another attempt to attack the ever-growing FOIA backlog, Sens.
Cornyn and Leahy also introduced S. 589. This bill would create a 16-member commission
that would report to Congress and the president with recommendations for ways in
which delays can be reduced in FOIA processing. The commission’s report would be
due no later than one year after the date of enactment of the law, and would include recommendations for legislative and administrative action to enhance FOIA
The commission would also have to produce a study to ensure the efficient and equitable administration of FOIA throughout the federal government, which
would include an examination of the system for charging fees and granting fee
Free Flow of Information Act
On Feb. 14, 2005, Sen. Dodd reintroduced his version of a
reporter’s shield law. It was given bill number S. 369.
Garnering more attention was the introduction by Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., and
Rick Boucher, D-Va., of H.R. 581, which was subsequently introduced by Sen. Richard
Lugar, R-Ind., in the Senate as S. 340.
Known as the “Free Flow of Information Act,” these bills are based largely on
the Department of Justice’s policy guidelines for issuing subpoenas to members of
the news media. The bills provide an absolute privilege against compelled testimony
before any federal judicial, legislative, executive or administrative body regarding
the identity of a confidential source or information that would reveal the
identity of that source.
They also provide a qualified privilege against the production of documents
to these bodies unless clear and convincing evidence demonstrates that the
information cannot be obtained by a reasonable, alternative non-media source and: (1) in
a criminal prosecution or investigation, there are reasonable grounds to
believe a crime has occurred and the information sought is essential to the prosecution
or investigation, or (2) in a civil case, the information is essential to a
dispositive issue in a case of substantial importance.
There is also protection for information about a reporter that is sought from
a third party, such as telephone toll records or e-mail records and, in the
event that they are sought, the party seeking the information shall give the
covered entity reasonable and timely notice of the request and an opportunity to be
heard before disclosure.
As with all proposed shield laws, a key issue is defining who merits the
protection of the law. In these proposals, the law speaks in terms of a “covered
entity,” which is the publisher of a newspaper, magazine, book, journal or other
periodical; a radio or television station, network or programming service; or a news
agency or wire service, with a broad listing of media such as broadcast, cable,
satellite or other means. It also includes any owner or operator of such entity, as well
as their employees, contractors or any other person who gathers, edits,
photographs, records, prepares or disseminates the news or information.
Neither bill has received a hearing in its respective Judiciary Committee.
General privacy legislation
As usual, multiple bills have been introduced that purport to protect the privacy of personal information, especially when that information is
available online. The bills, none of which is expected to gather significant attention or action from their committees of reference, are:
Social Security On-Line Privacy Protection Act
Introduced Jan. 4, 2005, by Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-N.J., as H.R.
82, this bill would regulate the use by interactive computer services of Social Security account numbers and related personally identifiable information. It
was referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Online Privacy Protection Act of 2005
Introduced Jan. 4, 2005, by Rep. Frelinghuysen as H.R. 84, it would
require the Federal Trade Commission to prescribe regulations to protect the privacy
of personal information collected from and about individuals who are not covered
by the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 on the Internet, in
order to provide greater individual control over the collection and use of that
information. It was also referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Privacy Act of 2005
Introduced Jan. 24, 2005, by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., as S. 116, it
will require the consent of an individual prior to the sale and marketing of
such individual's personally identifiable information. It was referred to the
Senate Judiciary Committee.