{ "id": "R43924", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R43924", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 462238, "date": "2016-04-21", "retrieved": "2017-07-17T16:47:56.565993", "title": "Freedom of Information Act Legislation in the 114th Congress: Issue Summary and Side-by-Side Analysis", "summary": "Congress is currently considering legislation that would make substantive changes to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). FOIA was originally enacted in 1966 and has been amended numerous times since\u2014most recently in 2009. FOIA provides the public with a presumptive right to access agency records, limited by nine exemptions that allow agencies to withhold certain types or categories of records.\nThe legislation under consideration in the 114th Congress, S. 337 and H.R. 653, is largely based on bills from the 113th Congress, S. 2520 and H.R. 1211. Both of the bills in the current Congress seek to amend a number of provisions of FOIA for the purpose of increasing public access\u2014including improving electronic accessibility of agency records, clarifying the right to request information related to intra- and inter-agency memoranda or letters, standardizing the use of search and duplication fees by agencies, and requiring agencies to notify requestors of the status of their requests and of the availability of dispute resolution processes for requests that they believe have been inappropriately denied. Both bills would also create a Chief FOIA Officers Council, responsible for informing government-wide FOIA administrators of best practices, and would establish new FOIA-related oversight responsibilities and reporting requirements.\nIn addition, both the House and Senate legislation would establish a statutory \u201cpresumption of openness,\u201d whereby information may only be withheld if it harms an interest protected by a statutory exemption or if disclosure is prohibited by law. This presumption of openness would codify the principles outlined in the current Administration\u2019s guidance on FOIA. \nWhile these bills address a number of similar topics, often in similar ways, there are substantive differences between them. For instance, S. 337 provides a timetable for the assessment of fees if an agency fails to comply with a statutory FOIA request response deadline. Conversely, H.R. 653 would authorize applicable federal inspectors general to review agencies\u2019 FOIA compliance and recommend the agency head take potential adverse actions against improper or negligent execution of the law. In addition, both H.R. 653 and S. 337 include language seeking to cap the amount of time that agencies can withhold intra- or inter-agency records. The House bill, however, provides additional details that would further limit the withholding of such records. A summary of provisions in both bills, a side-by-side comparison of these provisions, and analysis of selected provisions is provided in this report. \nIn some areas, amendments to the House and Senate bills made the bills more similar. For example, an amendment to H.R. 653 brought the process for determining FOIA-related search or duplication fees assessed after statutory deadlines have passed more in line with the provisions in S. 337.\nIn other areas, amendments were added to H.R. 653 that are not found in any version of S. 337. For example, H.R. 653 contains provisions requiring annual training for federal employees on their FOIA-related responsibilities. H.R. 653 would also provide authority to suspend or remove federal employees found to have violated FOIA or a FOIA-related regulation. S. 337, as amended, does not contain the training requirement or violation provisions.\nThis report provides a side-by-side comparison of the bills, using the versions that have passed each of their originating congressional chambers. The report also provides context related to bill amendments and language additions that occurred between bill versions, when applicable. Finally, the report provides analysis of certain provisions of the bills.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43924", "sha1": "14cc8624f39ea23991f660a9911af5225f179e09", "filename": "files/20160421_R43924_14cc8624f39ea23991f660a9911af5225f179e09.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43924", "sha1": "cd8ad8db65e4982c4f4d5e1379da512c7557da43", "filename": "files/20160421_R43924_cd8ad8db65e4982c4f4d5e1379da512c7557da43.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 438588, "date": "2015-02-26", "retrieved": "2016-04-06T19:27:02.940067", "title": "Freedom of Information Act Legislation in the 114th Congress: Issue Summary and Side-by-Side Analysis", "summary": "Both the House and Senate are currently considering legislation that would make substantive changes to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). FOIA was originally enacted in 1966 and has been amended numerous times since\u2014most recently in 2009. FOIA provides the public with a presumptive right to access agency records, limited by nine exemptions that allow agencies to withhold certain types or categories of records.\nThe legislation under consideration in the 114th Congress, S. 337 and H.R. 653, is largely based on bills from the 113th Congress, S. 2520 and H.R. 1211. Both of the bills in the current Congress seek to amend a number of provisions of FOIA for the purpose of increasing public access\u2014including improving electronic accessibility of agency records, clarifying the right to request information related to intra- and inter-agency memoranda or letters, standardizing the use of search and duplication fees by agencies, and requiring agencies to notify requestors of dispute resolution processes for requests that have been denied. Both bills would also create a Chief FOIA Officers Council, responsible for informing government-wide FOIA administrators of best practices, and would establish new FOIA-related oversight responsibilities and reporting requirements.\nIn addition, both the House and Senate legislation would establish a statutory \u201cpresumption of openness,\u201d whereby information may only be withheld if it harms an interest protected by a statutory exemption or if disclosure is prohibited by law. This presumption of openness would codify the principles outlined in the current Administration\u2019s guidance on FOIA. \nWhile these bills address a number of similar topics, often in similar ways, there are substantive differences between them. For instance, S. 337 provides a timetable for the assessment of fees if an agency fails to comply with a statutory FOIA request response deadline. Conversely, H.R. 653 would authorize applicable federal inspectors general to review agencies\u2019 FOIA compliance and recommend the agency head take potential adverse actions against improper or negligent execution of the law. In addition, H.R. 653 includes new language seeking to narrow the exemption that provides for agencies\u2019 withholding of intra- or inter-agency records. A summary of provisions in both bills, a side-by-side comparison of these provisions, and analysis of selected provisions is provided in this report.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43924", "sha1": "4f3c5d310223ad392226e5f9ebd04d8a24787689", "filename": "files/20150226_R43924_4f3c5d310223ad392226e5f9ebd04d8a24787689.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43924", "sha1": "bc639c50a8b9fe42e1ac76fe250aad05a1cb77d1", "filename": "files/20150226_R43924_bc639c50a8b9fe42e1ac76fe250aad05a1cb77d1.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [ "American Law" ] }