Congressional Documents
104th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 104-795
_______________________________________________________________________
ELECTRONIC FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AMENDMENTS OF 1996
_______________________________________________________________________
September 17, 1996.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Clinger, from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 3802]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, to whom was
referred the bill (H.R. 3802) to amend section 552 of title 5,
United States Code, popularly known as the Freedom of
Information Act, to provide for public access to information in
an electronic format, and for other purposes, having considered
the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and
recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Background and Need for the Legislation..........................6
II. Legislative Hearings and Committee Action.......................14
III. Committee Hearings and Written Testimony........................15
IV. Explanation of the Bill.........................................18
V. Compliance with Rule XI.........................................30
VI. Budget Analysis and Projections.................................31
VII. Cost Estimate of the Congressional Budget Office................31
VIII.Inflationary Impact Statement...................................32
IX. Changes in Existing Law.........................................32
X. Committee Recommendation........................................39
XI. Congressional Accountability Act; Public Law 104-1..............40
The amendment is as follows:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Electronic Freedom of Information
Amendments of 1996''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) the purpose of section 552 of title 5, United States
Code, popularly known as the Freedom of Information Act, is to
require agencies of the Federal Government to make certain
agency information available for public inspection and copying
and to establish and enable enforcement of the right of any
person to obtain access to the records of such agencies,
subject to statutory exemptions, for any public or private
purpose;
(2) since the enactment of the Freedom of Information Act in
1966, and the amendments enacted in 1974 and 1986, the Freedom
of Information Act has been a valuable means through which any
person can learn how the Federal Government operates;
(3) the Freedom of Information Act has led to the disclosure
of waste, fraud, abuse, and wrongdoing in the Federal
Government;
(4) the Freedom of Information Act has led to the
identification of unsafe consumer products, harmful drugs, and
serious health hazards;
(5) Government agencies increasingly use computers to conduct
agency business and to store publicly valuable agency records
and information; and
(6) Government agencies should use new technology to enhance
public access to agency records and information.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are to--
(1) foster democracy by ensuring public access to agency
records and information;
(2) improve public access to agency records and information;
(3) ensure agency compliance with statutory time limits; and
(4) maximize the usefulness of agency records and information
collected, maintained, used, retained, and disseminated by the
Federal Government.
SEC. 3. APPLICATION OF REQUIREMENTS TO ELECTRONIC FORMAT INFORMATION.
Section 552(f) of title 5, United States Code, is amended to read as
follows:
``(f) For purposes of this section, the term--
``(1) `agency' as defined in section 551(1) of this title
includes any executive department, military department,
Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or
other establishment in the executive branch of the Government
(including the Executive Office of the President), or any
independent regulatory agency; and
``(2) `record' and any other term used in this section in
reference to information includes any information that would be
an agency record subject to the requirements of this section
when maintained by an agency in any format, including an
electronic format.''.
SEC. 4. INFORMATION MADE AVAILABLE IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT AND INDEXATION
OF RECORDS.
Section 552(a)(2) of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in the second sentence, by striking ``or staff manual or
instruction'' and inserting ``staff manual, instruction, or
copies of records referred to in subparagraph (D)'';
(2) by inserting before the period at the end of the 3rd
sentence the following: ``, and the extent of such deletion
shall be indicated on the portion of the record which is made
available or published'';
(3) by inserting after the 3rd sentence the following: ``If
technically feasible, the extent of the deletion shall be
indicated at the place in the record where the deletion was
made.'';
(4) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(5) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following:
``(D) copies of all records, regardless of form or format,
which have been released to any person under paragraph (3) and
which, 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; and
``(E) a general index of the records referred to under
subparagraph (D);'';
(6) by inserting after the 5th sentence the following: ``Each
agency shall make the index referred to in subparagraph (E)
available by computer telecommunication by December 31,
1999.''; and
(7) by inserting after the 1st sentence the following: ``For
records created on or after November 1, 1996, within one year
after such date, each agency shall make such records available
by computer telecommunications or, if computer
telecommunications means have not been established by the
agency, by other electronic means.''.
SEC. 5. HONORING FORM OR FORMAT REQUESTS.
Section 552(a)(3) of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(3)'';
(2) by striking ``(A)'' and inserting ``(i)'';
(3) by striking ``(B)'' and inserting ``(ii)''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
``(B) In making any record available to a person under this
paragraph, an agency shall provide the record in any form or format
requested by the person if the record is readily reproducible by the
agency in that form or format. Each agency shall make reasonable
efforts to maintain its records in forms or formats that are
reproducible for purposes of this section.
``(C) In responding under this paragraph to a request for records, an
agency shall make reasonable efforts to search for the records in
electronic form or format.
``(D) For purposes of this paragraph, the term `search' means to
review, manually or by automated means, agency records for the purpose
of locating those records which are responsive to a request.''.
SEC. 6. STANDARD FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Section 552(a)(4)(B) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new sentence: ``In addition to any
other matters to which a court accords substantial weight, a court
shall accord substantial weight to an affidavit of an agency concerning
the agency's determination as to technical feasibility under paragraph
(2)(C) and subsection (b) and reproducibility under paragraph
(3)(B).''.
SEC. 7. ENSURING TIMELY RESPONSE TO REQUESTS.
(a) Multitrack Processing.--Section 552(a)(6) of title 5, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(D)(i) Each agency may promulgate regulations, pursuant to notice
and receipt of public comment, providing for multitrack processing of
requests for records based on the amount of work or time (or both)
involved in processing requests.
``(ii) Regulations under this subparagraph may provide a person
making a request that does not qualify for the fastest multitrack
processing an opportunity to limit the scope of the request in order to
qualify for faster processing.
``(iii) This subparagraph shall not be considered to affect the
requirement under subparagraph (C) to exercise due diligence.''.
(b) Unusual Circumstances.--Section 552(a)(6)(B) of title 5, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(B)(i) In unusual circumstances as specified in this subparagraph,
the time limits prescribed in either clause (i) or clause (ii) of
subparagraph (A) may be extended by written notice to the person making
such request setting forth the unusual circumstances for such extension
and the date on which a determination is expected to be dispatched. No
such notice shall specify a date that would result in an extension for
more than ten working days, except as provided in clause (ii) of this
subparagraph.
``(ii) With respect to a request for which a written notice under
clause (i) extends the time limits prescribed under clause (i) of
subparagraph (A), the agency shall notify the person making the request
if the request cannot be processed within the time limit specified in
that clause and shall provide the person an opportunity to limit the
scope of the request so that it may be processed within that time limit
or an opportunity to arrange with the agency an alternative time frame
for processing the request or a modified request. Refusal by the person
to reasonably modify the request or arrange such an alternative time
frame shall be exceptional circumstances for purposes of subparagraph
(C).
``(iii) As used in this subparagraph, `unusual circumstances' means,
but only to the extent reasonably necessary to the proper processing of
the particular requests--
``(I) the need to search for and collect the requested
records from field facilities or other establishments that are
separate from the office processing the request;
``(II) the need to search for, collect, and appropriately
examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records
which are demanded in a single request; or
``(III) the need for consultation, which shall be conducted
with all practicable speed, with another agency having a
substantial interest in the determination of the request or
among two or more components of the agency having substantial
subject-matter interest therein.''.
(c) Exceptional Circumstances.--Section 552(a)(6)(C) of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``(i)'' after ``(C)'', and
by adding at the end the following new clauses:
``(ii) For purposes of this subparagraph, the term `exceptional
circumstances' does not include a delay that results from a predictable
agency workload of requests under this section.
``(iii) Refusal by a person to reasonably modify the scope of a
request or to arrange an alternative time frame for processing a
request (or a modified request) under this section after being
requested to do so by the agency to whom the person made the request
shall be exceptional circumstances for purposes of this subparagraph.
``(iv) In determining whether exceptional circumstances exist, a
court shall consider the efforts by an agency to reduce the number of
pending requests under this section.''.
SEC. 8. TIME PERIOD FOR AGENCY CONSIDERATION OF REQUESTS.
(a) Expedited Processing.--Section 552(a)(6) of title 5, United
States Code (as amended by section 7(a) of this Act), is further
amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(E)(i) Each agency shall promulgate regulations, pursuant to notice
and receipt of public comment, providing for expedited processing of
requests for records--
``(I) in cases in which the person requesting the records
demonstrates a compelling need; and
``(II) in other cases determined by the agency.
``(ii) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A)(i), regulations under this
subparagraph must ensure--
``(I) that a determination of whether to provide expedited
processing shall be made, and notice of the determination shall
be provided to the person making the request, within 10 days
after the date of the request; and
``(II) expeditious consideration of administrative appeals of
such determinations of whether to provide expedited processing.
``(iii) An agency shall process as soon as practicable any request
for records to which the agency has granted expedited processing under
this subparagraph. Agency action to deny or affirm denial of a request
for expedited processing pursuant to this subparagraph, and failure by
an agency to respond timely to such a request shall be subject to
judicial review under paragraph (4), except that the judicial review
shall be based on the record before the agency at the time of the
determination.
``(iv) A district court of the United States shall not have
jurisdiction to review an agency denial of expedited processing of a
request for records after the agency has provided a complete response
to the request.
``(v) For purposes of this subparagraph, the term `compelling need'
means--
``(I) that a failure to obtain requested records on an
expedited basis under this paragraph could reasonably be
expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical
safety of an individual; or
``(II) with respect to a request made by a person primarily
engaged in disseminating information, urgency to inform the
public concerning actual or alleged Federal Government
activity.''.
(b) Extension of General Period for Determining Whether To Comply
With a Request.--Section 552(a)(6)(A)(i) of title 5, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``ten days'' and inserting ``20 days''.
(c) Estimation of Matter Denied.--Section 552(a)(6) of title 5,
United States Code (as amended by section 7 of this Act and subsection
(a) of this section), is further amended by adding at the end the
following new subparagraph:
``(F) In denying a request for records, in whole or in part, an
agency shall make a reasonable effort to estimate the volume of any
requested matter the provision of which is denied, and shall provide
any such estimate to the person making the request, unless providing
such estimate would harm an interest protected by an exemption under
subsection (b) under which the denial is made.''.
SEC. 9. COMPUTER REDACTION.
Section 552(b) of title 5, United States Code, is amended in the
matter following paragraph (9) by adding at the end the following:
``The amount of information deleted shall be indicated on the released
portion of the record, unless including that indication would harm an
interest protected by an exemption under this subsection under which
the deletion is made.''.
SEC. 10. REPORT TO THE CONGRESS.
Section 552(e) of title 5, United States Code, is amended to read as
follows:
``(e)(1) On or before February 1 of each year, each agency shall
submit to the Attorney General a report which shall cover the preceding
fiscal year and which shall include--
``(A) the number of determinations made by the agency not to
comply with requests for records made to such agency under
subsection (a) and the reasons for each such determination;
``(B)(i) the number of appeals made by persons under
subsection (a)(6), the result of such appeals, and the reason
for the action upon each appeal that results in a denial of
information; and
``(ii) a complete list of all statutes that the agency relies
upon to authorize the agency to withhold information under
subsection (b)(3), a description of whether a court has upheld
the decision of the agency to withhold information under each
such statute, and a concise description of the scope of any
information withheld;
``(C) the number of requests for records pending before the
agency as of September 30 of the preceding year, and the median
number of days that such requests had been pending before the
agency as of that date;
``(D) the number of requests for records received by the
agency and the number of requests which the agency processed;
``(E) the median number of days taken by the agency to
process different types of requests;
``(F) the total amount of fees collected by the agency for
processing requests;
``(G) the average amount of time that the agency estimates as
necessary, based on the past experience of the agency, to
comply with different types of requests; and
``(H) the number of full-time staff of the agency devoted to
processing requests for records under this section, and the
total amount expended by the agency for processing such
requests.
``(2) Each agency shall make each such report available to the public
through a computer network, or if computer network means have not been
established by the agency, by other electronic means.
``(3) The Attorney General shall make each report which has been made
available by electronic means available at a single electronic access
point. The Attorney General shall notify the Chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of
the House of Representatives and the Chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committees on Governmental Affairs and the Judiciary of
the Senate, no later than April 1 of the year in which each such report
is issued, that such reports are available by electronic means.
``(4) The Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget, shall develop reporting and
performance guidelines in connection with reports required by this
subsection by October 1, 1997, and may establish additional
requirements for such reports as the Attorney General determines may be
useful.
``(5) The Attorney General shall submit an annual report on or before
April 1 of each calendar year which shall include for the prior
calendar year a listing of the number of cases arising under this
section, the exemption involved in each case, the disposition of such
case, and the cost, fees, and penalties assessed under subparagraphs
(E), (F), and (G) of subsection (a)(4). Such report shall also include
a description of the efforts undertaken by the Department of Justice to
encourage agency compliance with this section.''.
SEC. 11. REFERENCE MATERIALS AND GUIDES.
Section 552 of title 5, United States Code, is further amended by
adding after subsection (f) the following new subsection:
``(g) The head of each agency shall prepare and make publicly
available upon request, reference material or a guide for requesting
records or information from the agency, including--
``(1) an index of all major information systems of the
agency;
``(2) a description of major information and record locator
systems maintained by the agency; and
``(3) a handbook for obtaining various types and categories
of public information from the agency pursuant to chapter 35 of
title 44, and under this section.''.
SEC. 12. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), this Act shall
take effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Provisions Effective on Enactment.--Sections 7 and 8 shall take
effect one year after the date of the enactment of this Act.
I. Background and Need for the Legislation
A. The Freedom of Information Act
With the enactment of the Freedom of Information Act
(``FOIA'' or the ``Act'') thirty years ago, the Federal
Government established a policy of openness toward information
within its control. The FOIA establishes a presumptive right
for the public to obtain identifiable, existing records of
Federal departments and agencies. Any member of the public may
use the FOIA to request access to government information.
Requestors do not have to show a need or reason for seeking
information. Requestors use the FOIA for a variety of purposes.
Private vendors with the government, for example, use the FOIA
requests as part of the procurement process for competitive
purposes. Journalists use the FOIA to obtain details about
government actions to broader dissemination to the public.
Individual citizens use it to learn more about government
activities that have affected them personally.
The burden of proof for withholding requested material
rests with the department or agency that seeks to deny the
request. Agencies may deny access to records, or portions of
records which fall within an enumerated exemption. Agency
employees responsible for responding to requests screen
requested records to remove or redact exempted material from
release. The nine exemption categories are listed below:
Information that is classified for national defense or
foreign policy purposes;
Information that relates solely to an agency's
internal personnel rules and practices;
Information that has been clearly exempted under other
laws.
Confidential business information, such as trade
secrets;
Internal government deliberative communications about
a decision before an announcement;
Information about an individual that, if disclosed,
would cause a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy;
Law enforcement records, particularly of ongoing
investigations;
Information concerning bank supervision;
Geological and geophysical information, such as maps.
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the
Office of Management and Budget exercises under various
statutes, including the Paperwork Reduction Act, <SUP>1 broad
authority for coordinating and administering various aspects of
government-wide information policy. The Department of Justice,
in turn, provides policy guidance and oversees the agencies'
compliance with FOIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Paperwork Reduction Act consists of (P.L. 96-511, 94 Stat.
2812) as amended by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1986 (section 101
(m) [Title VIII, Part A] of P.L. 99-500 and P.L. 99-591, 100 Stat.
1783) and The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-13, 109 Stat.
163). The Paperwork Reduction Act is codified at Chapter 35 of Title 44
of the United States Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individual departments and agencies generally have
established specific offices for processing FOIA requests.
Nevertheless, lack of sufficient agency resources has
constrained the effectiveness of the FOIA. At some agencies
failure to allocate sufficient staff to comply with the Act has
resulted in lengthy backlogs measured in years. Efforts at
improving FOIA response time have centered on better
prioritization of requests and more efficient administrative
practices.
FOIA access to unpublished agency records has resulted in
many disclosures of waste and fraud in the Federal Government.
The Act reflects the view that the full disclosure of
information to the public about government wrongdoing and other
mistakes will ultimately generate appropriate corrective
responses. Such revelations may have a certain degree of
preventive effect, prompting a higher degree of probity and
conscientiousness in the performance of government operations.
Exposures resulting from FOIA disclosures, and the reactions
they produce, are critical to maintaining an open and free
society.
B. The Evolution of the Freedom of Information Act
Initially enacted in 1966, the Act resulted from years of
congressional examination of executive department and agency
impediments to public access to information. <SUP>2 The
prevailing public access law, Section 3 of the Administrative
Procedure Act of 1946, was being interpreted to restrict
information availability. <SUP>3 This so-called
``housekeeping'' law originated from the earliest days of the
Republic. It directed department heads to prescribe regulations
for the custody, use, and preservation of department records,
papers and property. <SUP>4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ House Committee on Government Operations, Availability of
Information From Federal Departments and Agencies: Hearings before the
House Committee on Government Operations, 84th-86th Congresses.
\3\ 60 Stat. 237 at 238. Francis E. Rourke. ``Secrecy and
Publicity: Dilemmas of Democracy.'' Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press,
1961, pp. 57-58.
\4\ See 1 Stat. 28, 49, 65; these and similar provisions were
consolidated in the Revised Statutes of the United States (1878) at
Section 161, which is presently located in the United States Code at 5
U.S.C. 301 (1994). Rourke, ``Secrecy and Publicity: Dilemmas of
Democracy,'' pp. 47-49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The origins of the original Freedom of Information Act can
be traced to a predecessor subcommittee to the House
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and
Technology. In 1955 the House Committee on Government
Operations established the Special Subcommittee on Government
Information. In chartering the Subcommittee, full Committee
Chairman William L. Dawson directed it:
To study the operation of agencies and officials in
the executive branch of the Government at all levels
with a view to determining the efficiency and economy
of such operation in the field of operation. * * * With
this purpose your subcommittee will ascertain the trend
in the availability of Government information and will
scrutinize the information practices of executive
agencies and officials in the light of their propriety,
fitness and legality. <SUP>5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ House Committee on Government Operations, Amending Section 552
of Title 5, United States Code, Known as the Freedom of Information
Act, 93rd Congress, 2nd Session, House Report 93-876, p. 3.
The efforts of this subcommittee expanded the people's
right to know. Congress, in 1958, amended this ``housekeeping''
law to state that it ``does not authorize withholding
information from the public or limiting the availability of
records to the public.'' <SUP>6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 72 Stat. 547. Rourke, ``Secrecy and Publicity,'' pp. 59-60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The author of one of the earliest and most thorough studies
of this protective bulwark stated the resulting dilemma
dramatically and concisely:
Public business is the public's business. The people
have the right to know. Freedom of information is their
just heritage. Without that the citizens of a democracy
have but changed their kings. <SUP>7
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Harold L. Cross. ``The People's Right to Know.'' New York City:
Columbia University Press, 1953, p. xiii.
The Freedom of Information Act evolved from the 1958
Administrative Procedure Act disclosure requirement. An early
attempt at a freedom of information bill was considered and
approved in the Senate during the 88th Congress. <SUP>8
However, the House took no action on such a measure before sine
die adjournment. Again, in the 89th Congress, the Senate
returned to the measure and adopted a revised and refined
version of the earlier bill on October 23, 1965. The House
subsequently passed this bill on June 20, 1966.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ For the legislative history of the Freedom of Information Act
of 1966, see Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Freedom of Information
Act Source Book: Legislative Materials, Cases, Articles, S. Doc. No.
93-82, 93rd Congress, 2d Session (1974).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signing the FOIA into law on July 4, 1966, <SUP>9 President
Johnson declared:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 80 Stat. 250.
This legislation springs from one of our most essential
principles: A democracy works best when the people have
all the information that the security of the Nation
permits. No one should be able to pull curtains of
secrecy around decisions which can be revealed without
injury to the public interest. <SUP>10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lyndon
B. Johnson, 1966. Book 2. Washington, U. S. Govt. Print. Off., 1967, p.
699.
The FOIA became operative on July 4, 1967. It became
codified as section 552 of Title 5, United States Code. <SUP>11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 5 U.S.C. 552 (1970).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During House and Senate committee consideration of
legislation leading to the FOIA, no executive department or
agency representative had testified in support of the
proposals. Subsequent congressional oversight of the Act
revealed that this distaste for the legislation transformed
into hostility toward the statute during its initial
implementation. A 1972 report by the House Committee on
Government Operations characterized the situation as follows:
The efficient operation of the Freedom of Information
Act has been hindered by five years of foot-dragging by
the Federal bureaucracy. The widespread reluctance of
the bureaucracy to honor the public's legal right to
know has been obvious in parts of two administrations.
This reluctance has been overcome in a few agencies by
continued pressure from appointed officials at the
policy making level and in some other agencies through
public hearings and other oversight activities by the
Congress. <SUP>12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ House Committee on Government Operations, Administration of
the Freedom of Information Act, House Report 92-1419, 92nd Congress, 2d
Session, 1972, pp. 8-9.
Officials sometimes argue that the FOIA was not a primary
program of a particular department and agency. This contention,
however, ignores the importance of government information
accessibility for the citizens of a democracy. Unfortunately,
over time administration of the FOIA has suffered from a lack
of resources. Consequently many requests languished, awaiting a
response, because agencies failed to provide necessary
resources. FOIA has also suffered from weak administrative
support in its implementation.
Amendments strengthening FOIA were introduced in the House
in early 1973 and legislative hearings were held in May of that
year. No department or agency witness expressed any support for
the proposed amendments. By the end of 1973, the House bill was
refined, reported from the House Government Operations
Committee in February 1974, and adopted by the House in March.
Shortly thereafter, in May, a Senate counterpart bill was
reported, strengthened during floor debate, and adopted.
<SUP>13
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ For the legislative history of the 1974 amendments to the
Freedom of Information Act, see House Committee on Government
Operations and Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Freedom of
Information Act and Amendments of 1974 (P.L. 93-502). Source Book:
Legislative History, Texts, and Other Documents. Joint Committee print,
94th Congress, 1st Session, 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the twenty months that the FOIA amendments moved
through the two Houses of Congress, various congressional
committees and a Special Prosecutor were engaged in pursuing
inquiries related to the Watergate scandal. Against this
backdrop of concern about the accountability of public
officials, the availability of Government information became an
important issue for Congress and the public.
Though the FOIA amendments of 1974 were not developed in
response to the Watergate incident, they gained legislative
momentum as congressional investigators probed Watergate and
related matters. President Nixon resigned shortly after the
conferees on the FOIA amendments began their deliberations in
August. The new President, Gerald Ford, sent a letter to the
conferees expressing his reservations about some specific
amendments. After resolving their differences, the conferees
placed their report before their respective chambers. Approval
by the Senate came on October 1, 1974 and the House voted
acceptance on October 7, 1974.
On October 17, 1974 the President vetoed and characterized
the legislation as ``unconstitutional and unworkable.'' <SUP>14
On November 20, 1974 the House voted 371-31 to reject the
presidential veto. The next day, the Senate completed action on
the legislation, voting 65-27 to override the President's
objections. The amendments became law, taking effect on
February 19, 1975. <SUP>15
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ ``Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Gerald
R. Ford, 1974.'' Washington, U. S. Govt. Print. Off., 1975, pp. 374-
376.
\15\ 88 Stat. 1561.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps the most significant change under the FOIA
amendments was that requestors needed only to ``reasonably
describe'' the requested records. Additionally, agencies were
directed to furnish documents without charge or at a reduced
cost if it determined that such an action would be in the
public interest. Courts could conduct an in camera review of
contested materials to decide if any materials were being
properly withheld. Agencies received specific response
deadlines for agency action. The Federal courts were given
authority to award attorney fees and litigation costs where a
private complainant had ``substantially prevailed'' in seeking
records from an agency; they were authorized to take notice of
the ``arbitrary and capricious'' withholding of documents. In
addition the amendments expanded and clarified the definition
of agencies covered by the FOIA. They also specified that
records containing segregable portions of withholdable
information be released with the necessary deletions.
Additionally the exemptions in the Act concerning
classified information and law enforcement materials were
narrowed and made more specific. The amendments, and their
manner of adoption, also displayed Congress's strong support
for and commitment to the FOIA and its proper administration.
In 1976, when adopting another open government law--the
Government in the Sunshine Act--in fulfillment of the people's
right to know, Congress again amended the FOIA. <SUP>16 This
change was a limited one, prompted by a 1975 Supreme Court
case. The court's decision expanded the interpretation of the
types of information covered by the third exemption of the
FOIA. <SUP>17 Consequently, the FOIA amendment modified the
exemption covering information specifically excepted from
disclosure by other statutes. The amendment mandated that
protection only applied if the statute ``left no discretion on
the issue,'' or referred to particular types of information to
be withheld. <SUP>18
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ For the legislative history of the Government in the Sunshine
Act and its amendment to the FOIA, see Senate Committee on Government
Operations and House Committee on Government Operations. Government in
the Sunshine Act'--S. 5 (Public Law 94-409). Source Book: Legislative
History, Texts, and Other Documents. Joint committee print, 94th
Congress, 2d Session, 1976.
\17\ Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration v. Robertson,
422 U.S. 255 (1975).
\18\ 90 Stat. 1241, at 1247.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further Senate FOIA amendment initiatives ended
unsuccessfully during the 97th and 98th Congresses. In the
closing days of the 99th Congress, however, during Senate
debate of an omnibus anti-drug abuse bill, FOIA amendments were
attached to the measure. <SUP>19 They strengthened the
protection for law enforcement records and created new fee and
fee waiver arrangements. They set a structure of three fee
categories for FOIA users. The fees covered commercial users;
scholars, scientific researchers, journalists; and all other
requestors. However, fees could not be charged if the costs of
routine collection were likely to be equal or greater than the
amount of the fee itself. Also, the first two hours of search
time or the first 100 pages of document duplication were free,
except for commercial users. In addition, if the disclosure of
the information was in the public interest because it was
likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of
the operations or activities of the Government and otherwise
was not primarily in the commercial interest of the requestor,
there would be a reduced fee or no charge. These amendments
remained in the anti-drug abuse bill signed by the President on
October 27, 1986. <SUP>20
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See Harold C. Relyea. ``U.S. Freedom of Information Act
Reforms--1986,'' 9 Journal of Media Law and Practice--12 (March 1988).
\20\ 100 Stat. 3207, at 3207-48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FOIA has become a popular tool used by various quarters
of American society--the press, business, scholars, attorneys,
consumers, and environmentalists, among others. Recent agency
annual reports on the administration of the Act, covering 1992
operations, show an annual volume of almost 600,000 requests.
The response to a request may involve a few sheets of paper,
several linear feet of records, or, increasingly, information
in an electronic format.
C. The Effect of Electronic Records
Today, the FOIA faces a new challenge. The volume of
Federal agency records created and retained in electronic
formats is growing at a rapid pace. Agency records are now
created not just on pieces of paper and placed in filing
cabinets. Personal computers and digital storage media, such as
CD-ROMs (compact disk read-only memory), are becoming more
commonplace at Federal agencies. Information technology makes
the management of the information collected, stored, and used
by the Government more efficient.
When the FOIA was enacted agency records were primarily
produced on paper. FOIA's efficient operation requires that its
provisions make clear that the form or format of an agency
record constitutes no impediment to public accessibility.
Furthermore, the information technology currently being used by
executive departments and agencies should be used in promoting
greater efficiency in responding to FOIA requests. This
objective includes using technology to let requestors obtain
information in the form most useful to them. Existing
technologies for searching electronic records can often review
materials more quickly than is possible via a paper review.
Harnessing these tools for FOIA can enhance the operation of
the Act.
The public is increasingly using networked computers and
broadly accessible data networks such as the Internet. Agencies
need to fulfill their responsibilities under the FOIA in a
manner that keeps pace with these developments. An underlying
goal of H.R. 3802 is to encourage on-line access to Government
information available under the FOIA, including requests
ordinarily made pursuant to section 552(a)(3). As a result, the
public can more directly obtain and use Government information.
This can result in fewer FOIA requests, thus enabling FOIA
resources to be more efficiently used in responding to complex
requests. H.R. 3802, the Electronic Freedom of Information
Amendments Act of 1996, amends the FOIA to address these
considerations and other information access issues prompted by
the electronic information phenomenon.
In 1955, when congressional hearings laying the groundwork
for the FOIA were held on the availability of information from
Federal departments and agencies, the Federal Government had 45
computers. Ten years later, when the Senate passed its version
of the FOIA, the inventory had risen to 1,826 computers. Only
five years elapsed before the Government's holdings jumped to
5,277 computers, resulting in hundreds of thousands of
automated files and many data banks of agency information.
<SUP>21
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Alan F. Westin and Michael A. Baker. ``Data Banks in a Free
Society''. New York: Quadrangle Books, 1972, pp. 29-30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In succeeding years, the proportion of agency records
produced and retained in electronic formats has grown at an
expansive rate. The Government's use of personal computers and
digital storage media, such as CD-ROMs, also became more
widespread. <SUP>22 In fiscal year 1994, the Federal Government
used almost 25,250 small computers (costing $10,000 to $100,000
each), 8,500 medium computers (costing $100,000 to $1,000,000
each), and 890 large computers (costing more than $1,000,000
each). Personal computers have proliferated throughout the
Federal executive establishment. In a related development,
during the past three years, more than 800 Federal sites have
been set up on the World Wide Web. <SUP>23
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See House Committee on Government Operations. Electronic
Collection and Dissemination of Information by Federal Agencies: A
Policy Overview, H.R. Rep. No. 99-560, 99th Congress, 2d Session.
(1986); U. S. Office of Technology Assessment. ``Informing the Nation:
Federal Information Dissemination in an Electronic Age''. Washington,
D. C., October 1988.
\23\ Lisa Corbin, ``Cyberocracy,'' Government Executive. p. 28
(January 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FOIA must stay abreast of these developments in order
to ensure continued public access to Government information.
The FOIA must promote uniformity among agencies, reduce
uncertainty among FOIA requestors, and avoid potential
disagreements between the two. These are the central purposes
of H.R. 3802, the Electronic Freedom of Information Amendments
of 1996.
Many evolving technological innovations promote the greater
availability of Government information through the electronic
information ``superhighway.'' <SUP>24 For example, the 104th
Congress created the ``Thomas'' on-line service of the Library
of Congress, providing access to many legislative resources,
including the text of legislation and the Congressional Record.
Individual agencies have published data on the World Wide Web
through home pages. Agencies, such as the Government Printing
Office, have broadly expanded electronic access to government
information at other agencies. Computer links let users reach
information maintained by other agencies in a matter of key
strokes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See U. S. Information Infrastructure Task Force, ``The
National Information Infrastructure: Agenda for Action''. Washington,
D. C., September 15, 1993; U.S. Information Infrastructure Task Force's
Committee on Applications and Technology. ``Putting the Information
Infrastructure to Work''. Washington, D.C., May 1994; U.S. Information
Infrastructure Task Force's Committee on Applications and Technology,
``The Information Infrastructure: Reaching Society's Goals''.
Washington, D.C., September 1994; U.S. Advisory Council on the National
Infrastructure. ``A Nation of Opportunity: Realizing the Promise of the
Information Superhighway'', Washington, D.C., January 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 reflects congressional
intent to encourage wider use of electronic distribution as an
integral part of the management of Government information. It
acknowledges that private, non-governmental information
providers perform an essential public service in expanding the
availability of information to the public. Government agencies
cannot be expected to match the dynamism and creativity of
information providers in transforming Government information
into valuable consumer information products, especially given
the robust nature of information technology developments.
Consequently, nongovernment information distributors play a
valuable role in advancing information policy objectives.
The FOIA, by contrast, provides access to specifically
requested Government information sought at the initiative of a
requestor. The Paperwork Reduction Act provides the
administrative framework for agencies to more affirmatively
disclose information to the public. With more affirmative
disclosure, agencies can better use their resources. Making
more information available to the public can divert simple
requests away from FOIA. This will enable agencies to more
efficiently use their limited resources to complete requests on
time.
D. Processing of Freedom of Information Requests
A principal constraint to the full effectiveness of the
FOIA has been the lack of adequate agency resources. As a
result, many agencies have failed to process FOIA requests
within the deadlines required by the law. These delays in
responding to FOIA requests continue as one of the most
significant FOIA problems.
A 1986 House report cited inadequate resources, unnecessary
bureaucratic complexity, political interference with the
disclosure process, poor organization of agency records, and a
lack of commitment by agencies to disclosure as reasons for the
delays.<SUP>25 These delays have persisted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ House Committee on Government Operations. Freedom of
Information Act Amendment of 1986. pp. 11-12, House Report 9-832, 99th
Cong. 2d. Session, 1986.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a memorandum dated October 4, 1993, to all heads of
departments and agencies, President Clinton stated:
The use of the Act by ordinary citizens is not
complicated, nor should it be. The existence of
unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles has no place in its
implementation. I therefore call upon all Federal
departments and agencies to renew their commitment to
the Freedom of Information Act, and to its underlying
principles of government oneness, and to its sound
administration. This is the appropriate time for all
agencies to take a fresh look at their administration
of the Act, to reduce backlogs of Freedom of
Information requests.* * * <SUP>26
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Clinton, William J., President of the United States,
Memorandum for Heads of Departments and Agencies, October 4, 1993,
``The Freedom of Information Act.''
In an October 1993 memorandum that accompanied the President's
memorandum, Attorney General Janet Reno acknowledged the delay
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
problem and the cause for FOIA backlogs, stating:
Many Federal departments and agencies are often
unable to meet the Act's ten-day time limit for
processing FOIA requests, and some agencies--especially
those experiencing a high-volume of demands for
sensitive records--maintain large FOIA backlogs greatly
exceeding the mandated deadlines. The reasons for this
may vary, but principally it is a matter of limited
resources for the heavy workload. This is a serious
problem--one of growing concern and frustration to both
FOIA requesters and Congress, and to agency FOIA
officers as well.<SUP>27
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Reno, Janet, Attorney General, Memorandum for Heads of
Departments and Agencies, October 4, 1993, ``The Freedom of Information
Act.'
Out of a total of 75 agencies responding to a Department of
Justice request for backlog information in February 1994, only
28 agencies reported no backlog.
In Open America v. Watergate Special Prosecution
Force,<SUP>28 the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals
held that exceptional circumstances exist when the agency can
show it has inadequate resources to process FOIA requests
within statutory time limits. Also, an agency may show that it
is exercising due diligence by processing requests on a
``first-in, first-out'' basis. Relying upon overly broad dictum
in this case, agencies have employed the exceptional
circumstances-due diligence exception to obtain judicial
approval for lengthy delays whenever they have a backlog.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 547 F.2d 605 (D.C. Cir. 1976)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Backlogs of requests for records under the FOIA should not
give agencies an automatic excuse to ignore the time limits.
The development of agency administrative processes to respond
to specific types of requests on an expedited basis and for
encouraging agencies to cooperate with requestors to frame more
targeted requests is critical to using agency FOIA resources in
the most efficient manner possible.
II. Legislative Hearings and Committee Action
A. House Action
Representative Tate introduced H.R. 3802 on July 12, 1996,
with Chairman Horn, of the Subcommittee on Government
Management, Information and Technology; Representative Maloney,
the ranking member; and Representative Peterson, a member of
the Subcommittee, as original co-sponsors. The Subcommittee had
previously held a legislative hearing on June 14, 1996 on S.
1090, the bill's Senate counterpart.
H.R. 3802 was marked up on July 12, 1996, by the
Subcommittee on Government Management, Information Technology.
No amendments were offered and the legislation passed the
Subcommittee unanimously by voice vote.
Representative Maloney introduced H.R. 3885, concerning
certain reporting requirements, on July 24, 1996.
Representative Tate, and Chairman Horn supported the bill as
original co-sponsors.
The House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
considered the measure on July 25, 1996. Chairman Horn offered
an amendment in the nature of a substitute and Representative
Maloney offered an amendment to it reflecting the substance of
H.R. 3885. Both were adopted unanimously by voice vote. The
bill was favorably reported unanimously to the House of
Representatives by voice vote without further amendment.
B. Senate Action
On November 7, 1991 Senator Patrick Leahy introduced S.
1040, a bill to clarify the application of the FOIA to agency
records in electronic forms or formats. Senator Brown co-
sponsored the bill. ``The Electronic Freedom of Information
Improvement Act of 1991'' was referred to the Senate Committee
on the Judiciary, and a hearing on it was held by the
Subcommittee on Technology and the Law on April 30, 1992.
Testifying before the Subcommittee was Steven R.
Schlesinger, Director, Office of Policy Development, Department
of Justice, accompanied by Daniel Metcalfe, Co-director, Office
of Information and Privacy, Department of Justice. The
Subcommittee also received testimony from a panel of witnesses.
These included Peter Richard, Editor, USA Today, appearing on
behalf of the American Newspaper Publishers Association,
American Society of Newspaper Editors, Society of Professional
Journalists/Sigma Delta Chi, National Newspaper Association,
National Association of Broadcasters, Radio-Television News
Directors Association, and Reporters Committee for Freedom of
the Press; Scott Marshall, Director, Governmental Relations
Department, American Foundation for the Blind; Sybil McShane,
Director of Library and Information Services, Vermont State
Department of Libraries; and Thomas M. Susan, a practicing
attorney with Ropes & Gray, appearing on behalf of the American
Bar Association.<SUP>29 The Subcommittee took no further action
on S. 1940 before the final adjournment of the 102d Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ The Electronic Freedom of Information Improvement Act: Hearing
before the Subcommittee on Technology and the Law of the Committee on
the Judiciary, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. (1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Leahy introduced a related bill, S. 1939, ``The
Freedom of Information Improvement Act of 1991,'' on November
7, 1991. This bill contained amendments to the FOIA concerning
matters other than agency records in electronic forms or
formats. S. 1939 was also referred to the Senate Committee on
the Judiciary, but no action was taken on it during the 102d
Congress.
Senator Leahy introduced a modified version of S. 1940 on
November 22, 1993, as S. 1782, ``The Electronic Freedom of
Information Improvement Act of 1993,'' with Senator Brown as a
cosponsor. It was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts co-sponsored the bill on
April 11, 1994.
During 1994 and 1995, staff of the Subcommittee on
Technology and the Law conferred with representatives of the
Office of Management and Budget, the Department of Justice,
FOIA officers from various Federal agencies, and interest
groups using the FOIA concerning further development of the
provisions of S. 1782. Because of these and other
consultations, a revised version of S. 1782 was unanimously
approved by the Subcommittee on Technology and the Law on June
29, 1994, and by the Committee on the Judiciary on August 11,
1994. The bill then passed the Senate by unanimous consent on
August 25, 1994. No further action on the bill was taken in the
103rd Congress.
On July 28, 1995, Senators Leahy, Brown, and Kerry
introduced S. 1090, ``The Electronic Freedom of Information
Improvement Act of 1995.'' It was modified from the version
passed by the Senate in the 103rd Congress. S. 1090 was
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and, on October 6,
1995, to the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and
Government Information. The Subcommittee favorably reported the
bill on March 14, 1996. Following consultation with the Office
of Management and Budget, revisions were made to S. 1090 in the
form of a substitute amendment.
On April 25, 1996, by voice vote, the Committee on the
Judiciary unanimously ordered the Committee substitute to S.
1090 favorably reported.
III. Committee Hearings and Written Testimony
On June 13 and 14, 1996, the Subcommittee on Government
Management, Information and Technology of the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight, held hearings on Federal
information policy. The first day of hearings was devoted to
oversight of information policy. The second day was a
legislative hearing that considered related amendments to the
Freedom of Information Act: H.R. 1281; ``The War Crimes
Disclosure Act''; and S. 1090, ``The Electronic Freedom of
Information Improvement Act of 1995.''
In his opening statement, Chairman Horn expressed his
frustration at learning that the Federal Bureau of
Investigation has a four-year backlog for responding to FOIA
requests. In noting the significance that the Committee
attaches to the Freedom of Information Act, he observed that
the first report issued by the House Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight had been an updated version of ``A
Citizen's Guide on Using the Freedom of Information and Privacy
Act of 1974 to Request Government Records.'' <SUP>30
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, A
Citizen's Guide on Using the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy
Act of 1974 to Request Government Records, House Report, 104-156, 1st
Session, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Subcommittee's ranking member, Representative Maloney
noted the interrelation between the Freedom of Information Act
and the Paperwork Reduction Act in establishing the presumption
that all government documents be available to the public. She
noted that: ``Information policy is the bedrock of an open and
accessible government. The Paperwork Reduction Act codifies one
of the fundamental principles of democracy--government
information belongs to the public. Information created by
government officials and paid for by the public should be
available to the public at the lowest possible cost.''
Representative Tate commented that: ``Opening the work of
the Federal Government to the watchful and vigilant eyes of the
American public is an effort that both parties and the
Administration should embrace wholeheartedly.'' Representative
Peterson observed that: ``One of the biggest frustrations with
the Freedom of Information Act is that deadlines are rarely
met.'' Representative Flanagan noted with displeasure that
citizens who requested their own FBI files could wait years
before receiving them in order to correct errors contained
therein.
The Subcommittee received testimony from Senator Patrick
Leahy on S. 1090 during the June 13th oversight hearing. The
Senator noted the role that FOIA requests had in uncovering
information about various government actions. He noted that the
law needed to be updated to reflect the advancing use of
information technology in government to maintain records,
adding ``access should be the same whether they are on a piece
of paper or a computer hard drive.'' The Senator also
criticized the failure of agencies to comply with the statutory
time limits for responding to requests:
Long delays in access can mean no access at all. The
current time limits in the FOIA are a joke. Few
agencies actually respond to FOIA requests within the
10-day limit required by law. Such routine failure to
comply with the statutory time limits is bad for morale
in the agencies and breeds contempt by citizens who
expect government officials to abide by, not routinely
break, the law.
Also testifying at the June 13th hearing were Ms. Roslyn A.
Mazer, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Policy
Development, Department of Justice; Mr. Kevin O'Brien, Section
Chief, Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts Section, Federal
Bureau of Investigation, and Mr. Anthony H. Passarella,
Director, Directorate for Freedom of Information and Security
Review, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public
Affairs). These three witnesses explained how their agencies
processed public requests for information under the Freedom of
Information Act and related statutes.
Four representatives of the ``requestor'' community related
their experiences in seeking government information: Ms. Eileen
Welsom, on behalf of Society of Professional Journalists,
American Society of Newspaper Editors, and the Newspaper
Association of America; Mr. Larry Klayman, Chairman, Judicial
Watch, Inc., Ms. Jane E. Kirtley, Executive Director, The
Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press and Mr. Byron
York, reporter, The American Spectator. Each drew upon their
professional experiences in recounting difficulties experienced
in obtaining information on time. They noted that the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, in particular, failed to respond to
FOIA requests on time.
Ms. Kirtley expressed concern that S. 1090 seemed to
require that to be a candidate for expedited access, a news
story had to be ``already the subject of fervent media
attention.'' She suggested that agencies ought to speed up
access to records for the media ``whenever records are
requested that would enlighten the public on matters where
public concern is strong.''
Mr. Klayman noted that agencies ought to be penalized when
they fail to comply with the law, such as applying criminal
penalties for willful failure to abide by the requirements of
the FOIA and related laws. He proposed the awarding of attorney
fees and costs to successful FOIA plaintiffs be made mandatory,
rather than discretionary.
At the June 14th hearing, the Subcommittee heard testimony
from Mr. Robert Gellman, an attorney and a privacy and
information policy consultant. Mr. Gellman had previously been
chief counsel in the 103rd Congress for the congressional
predecessor to the Subcommittee on Government Management,
Information and Technology and has written extensively on FOIA
issues. He was critical of the definitions used in S. 1090. He
criticized the standard used in S. 1090 that media receipt of
expedited access involve ``widespread media coverage'' as
lacking any clear meaning.
Mr. Gellman praised the principle in S.1090 requiring
agencies to respond to requestor format requests for electronic
records, but suggested that S. 1090 might go too far in
allowing the requestor to unreasonably require disclosure in
seldom used formats. He further suggested that a requirement
that agencies identify redacted material on electronic records
should be subject to a standard of technical feasibility. He
criticized the Department of Justice for its handling of FOIA
litigation for agencies, stating that: ``the Department of
Justice defends unreasonable agency denials in court and will
make an argument, without regard to the purpose of FOIA or the
policies of the President, department litigators bear
substantial responsibility for much of the bad FOIA case law in
recent years.''
Mr. Alan Adler, an attorney familiar with the experience of
reporters making FOIA requests, recounted the barriers that
journalists face when they request production of records in an
electronic format. Based upon his participation in the
development of the Leahy bill, he discussed the manner in which
the drafters had addressed various administration concerns. In
recounting the evolution of Senator Leahy's initiatives toward
an electronic Freedom of Information bill, Mr. Adler stressed
that the legislation was intended to help agencies to reduce
request backlogs and to more effectively use scarce resources.
He noted that the legislation had evolved in response to agency
concerns.
Mr. James Lucier, Director of Economic Research at
Americans for Tax Reform, testified in support of S. 1090. He
observed that the public was now more eager to obtain
government information than it was when the FOIA was first
enacted in 1966. He suggested that increasing public access to
Government information through electronic means was essential
if the government were to approach the pace of private sector
developments. He argued that government needed to keep pace in
its use of communication technologies that made information
about private institutions more accessible. Lucier testified
that Government needs to meet the expectations for
responsiveness that consumers insist upon from private
institutions.
IV. Explanation of the Bill
A. Overview
The highlights of the Electronic Freedom of Information
Amendments include:
Electronic records.--Records which are subject to the FOIA
shall be made available under the FOIA when the records are
maintained in electronic format. This clarifies existing
practice by making the statute explicit on this point.
Format Requests.--Requestors may request records in any
form or format in which the agency maintains those records.
Agencies must make a ``reasonable effort'' to comply with
requests to furnish records in other formats.
Redaction.--Agencies redacting electronic records (deleting
part of a record to prevent disclosure of material covered by
an exemption) must note the location and the extent of any
deletions made on a record. This provision, however, applies
only if the agencies have the technology to comply with it.
Expedited Processing.--Certain categories of requestors
would receive priority treatment of their requests if failure
to obtain information in a timely manner would pose a
significant harm. The first category of requestors entitled to
this special processing includes those who could reasonably
expect that delay could pose an imminent threat to the life or
physical safety of an individual. The second category includes
requests, made by a person primarily engaged in the
dissemination of information to the public, and involving
compelling urgency to inform the public.
Multitrack processing.--Agencies will be able to establish
processes for processing requests of various sizes on different
tracks. Because of this procedure, larger numbers of requests
for smaller amounts of material will be completed more quickly.
Requestors will also have an incentive to frame narrower
requests.
Agency Backlogs.--Agencies can no longer delay responding
to FOIA requests because of ``exceptional circumstances''
simply as a result from a predictable agency request workload.
This strengthens the requirement that agencies respond to
requests on time.
Deadlines.--The deadline for responding to FOIA is extended
to 20 workdays from the current 10 workday requirement for
initial determinations.
Reporting requirements.--The legislation expands certain
reporting requirements, and requires agencies to make more
information available through electronic means.
B. Section by Section
Section 1. Short title
The Act should be cited as the ``Electronic Freedom of
Information Act Amendments of 1996.''
Section 2. Findings and purposes
The findings make clear that Congress enacted the FOIA to
require Federal agencies to make records available to the
public through public inspection and at the request of any
person for any public or private use. They further acknowledge
the increase in the Government's use of computers and
encourages agencies to use new technology to enhance public
access to Government information.
Section 3. Application of requirements to electronic format information
The section explicitly states that a ``record'' under the
FOIA includes electronically stored information. This
articulates the existing general policy under the FOIA that all
Government records are subject to the Act, regardless of the
form in which they are stored by the agency. The Department of
Justice agrees that computer database records are agency
records subject to the FOIA. \31\ The bill defines ``record''
to ``include any information that would be an agency record
subject to the requirements of this section if maintained by an
agency in any format, including an electronic format.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See ``Department of Justice Report on `Electronic Record'
Issues Under the Freedom of Information Act,'' Senate Hearing 102-1098,
102d Cong., 2d Sess. P. 33, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This section clarifies the meaning of the term ``record''
and similar terminology used in the FOIA. Several important
points are worth making.
Breadth of Policy.--First, the FOIA usually uses the term
``record,'' but other terms are also used occasionally,
including ``information'' and ``matter.'' The terms are used
interchangeable. The section makes clear a comprehensive policy
that records in electronic formats are agency records subject
to the Act. The language of the section should leave no doubt
about the breadth of the policy. As noted previously, a number
of statutes set Federal Government information policy. This
bill is not intended to be dispositive of all aspects of those
policies. For example, matter not previously subject to FOIA
when maintained in a non-electronic format is not made subject
to FOIA by this bill.
Storage Media.--Second, the section clarifies that a record
in electronic format can be requested just like a record on
paper or any other format, and within enumerated exceptions,
can potentially be fully disclosed under the law. The format in
which data is maintained is not relevant under the FOIA.
Computer tapes, computer disks, CD-ROMs, and all other digital
or electronic media are records. Microfiche and microforms are
records. When other, yet-to-be invented technologies are
developed to store, maintain, produce, or otherwise record
information, these will be records as well. When determining
whether information is subject to the FOIA, the form or format
in which it is maintained is not relevant to the decision.
The requirements for the disclosure of information exist
elsewhere in the Act. No matter how it is preserved,
information that passes the threshold test of being an agency
record, remains a record. This provision should restrain
agencies from evading the clear intent of the FOIA by deeming
some forms of data as not being agency records and not subject
to the law. The primary focus should always be on whether
information is subject to disclosure or is exempt, rather than
the form or format it is stored in. This provision, however,
does not broaden the concept of agency record. The information
maintained on a computer is a record, but the computer is not.
Rejected Definitions.--Third, the Committee rejects the
definition of record in the substitute to S. 90, as reported by
the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on April 25, 1996. The
Senate bill had incorporated a definition of record drawn from
the Records Disposal Act.<SUP>32
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 44 U.S.C. *3301 (1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A case in point comes from the decision in SDC Development
Corp. v. Mathews.<SUP>33 The decision has previously been
sharply criticized by this Committee and its holding is
inconsistent with the policies expressed in this
legislation.<SUP>34 The Court found that an agency-created
computer database of research abstracts was not an agency
record because it was library material. The court used the
library material exclusion in the Records Disposal Act as an
excuse to place these records beyond the reach of the FOIA.
H.R. 3802 makes clear, contrary to SDC v. Mathews, that
information an agency has created and is directly or indirectly
disseminating remains subject to the FOIA in any of its forms
or formats.<SUP>35
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ 542 F.2d 1116 (9th Cir. 1976).
\34\ See House Committee on Government Operations, Electronic
Collection and Dissemination of Information by Federal Agencies: A
Policy Overview, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. 32-36 (1986).
\35\ A recent scholarly article examines the background and policy
of the Records Disposal Act and the FOIA. It provides a more extensive
discussion of the Court's misreading of the FOIA, the Records Disposal
Act and the Copyright Act. See Robert Gellman, Twin Evils: Government
Copyright and Copyright-Like Controls Over Government Information, 45
Syracuse Law Review 999, 1036-1046 (1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 4. Information made available in electronic format and
indexation of records
This section of the bill requires that materials, such as
agency opinions and policy statements, which an agency must
``make available for public inspection and copying,'' pursuant
to Section 552(a)(2), and which are created on or after
November 1, 1996, be made available by computer
telecommunications, and in hard copy, within one year after the
date of enactment. If an agency does not have the means
established to make these materials available on-line, then the
information should be made available in another electronic
form, e.g., CD-ROM or disc. The bill would thus treat (a)(2)
materials in the same manner as it treats (a)(1) materials,
which under the Government Printing Office Electronic
Information Access Enhancement Act of 1993 <SUP>36 are
required, via the Federal Register, to be made available on-
line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ 44 U.S.C. 4101 (1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This section would also increase the information made
available under Section 552(a)(2). Specifically, agencies would
be required to make available for public inspection and
copying, in the same manner as other materials made available
under Section 552(a)(2), copies of records released in response
to FOIA requests that the agency determines have been or will
likely be the subject of additional requests. In addition, they
would be required to make available a general index of these
previously-released records. By December 31, 1999, this index
should be made available by computer telecommunications. Since
not all individuals have access to computer networks or are
near agency public reading rooms, requestors would still be
able to access previously-released FOIA records through the
normal FOIA process.
As a practical matter, this would mean that copies of
previously-released records on a popular topic, such as the
assassinations of public figures, would subsequently be treated
as (a)(2) materials, made available for public inspection and
copying. This would help to reduce the number of multiple FOIA
requests for the same records requiring separate agency
responses. Likewise, the general index would help requestors in
determining which records have been the subject of prior FOIA
requests. By diverting some potential FOIA requests for
previously-released records with this index, agencies can
better use their FOIA resources to fulfill new requests.
This section also makes clear that to prevent a clearly
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, an agency may delete
identifying details when it makes available or publishes the
index and copies of previously-released records.
Finally, this section would require an agency to indicate
the extent of any deletion from the previously-released
records. This provision is consistent with the ``Computer
Redaction'' section of the bill. Both provisions similarly
temper this requirement by giving agencies the flexibility to
show that marking the place on the record where the deletion
was made was not technically feasible. Agencies need not reveal
information about deletions if such disclosure would harm an
interest protected by an exemption.
Section 5. Honoring form or format requests
This section requires agencies to help requestors by
providing information in the form requested, including requests
for the electronic form of records, if the agency can readily
reproduce it in that form. The section would overrule Dismukes
v. Department of the Interior, which held that an agency ``has
no obligation under the FOIA to accommodate plaintiff's
preference [but] need only provide responsive, nonexempt
information in a reasonably accessible form.'' <SUP>37
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ 603 F. Supp. 760, 763 (D.D.C. 1984)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This section also requires agencies to make reasonable
efforts to search for records kept in an electronic format. An
unreasonable effort would significantly interfere with the
operations of the agency or the agency's use of its computers.
Electronic searches should not result in any greater
expenditure of agency resources than would have occurred with a
conventional paper-based search for documents.
The bill defines ``search'' as a ``review, manually or by
automated means,'' of ``agency records for the purpose of
locating those records responsive to a request.'' Under the
FOIA, an agency need not create documents that do not exist.
Computer records found in a database rather than in a file
cabinet may require the application of codes or some form of
programming to retrieve the information. Under the definition
of ``search'' in the bill, the review of computerized records
would not amount to the creation of records. Otherwise, it
would be virtually impossible to get records maintained
completely in an electronic format, like computer database
information, because some manipulation of the information
likely would be necessary to search the records.
Current law provides that most requestors receive the first
two hours of search time for free. Ten years ago, computer time
was expensive and carefully metered. Today, computer time is
generally no longer a scarce resource. Except in unusual cases,
the cost of computer time should not be a factor in calculating
the two free hours of search time. Often, searching by computer
will reduce costs because computer searches are generally
faster, more thorough and more accurate, than manual searches.
In those unusual cases, where the cost of conducting a
computerized search significantly detracts from the agencies''
ordinary operations, no more than the dollar equivalent of two
hours manual search time shall be allowed for two hours free
search time. For any searches conducted beyond the first two
hours, an agency shall only charge the direct costs of
conducting such searches.
Section 6. Standard for judicial review
Section 5 requires a court to accord substantial weight to
an agency's determination as to both the technical feasibility
of redacting non-releasable material at the place on the record
where the deletion was made, under paragraphs (2)(C) and
subsection (b), as amended by this Act, and the reproducibility
of the requested form or format of records, under paragraph
(3)(B), as amended by this Act. This deference is warranted
because agencies are the most familiar with the availability of
their own technical resources to process, redact, and reproduce
records.
This section does not affect the extent of judicial
deference that a court may or may not extend to an agency on
any other matter. There is no intent with this provision,
either expressly or by implication, to affect the deference or
weight which a court may extend to an agency determination or
an agency affidavit on any other matter. The provision applies
narrowly to agency determinations with regard to technical
feasibility.
Section 7. Ensuring timely response to requests
The bill addresses the single most frequent complaint about
the operation of the FOIA: agency delays in responding to FOIA
requests. This section encourages agencies to employ better
records management systems and to set priorities for using
their FOIA resources.
In underscoring the requirement that agencies respond to
requests in a timely manner, the Committee does not intend to
weaken any interests protected by the FOIA exemptions. Agencies
processing some requests may need additional time to adequately
review requested material to protect those exemption interests.
For example, processing some requests may require additional
time in order to properly screen material against the
inadvertent disclosure of material covered by the national
security exemption.
Multitrack First-In First-Out Processing.--An agency
commitment to process requests on a first-in, first-out basis
has been held to satisfy the requirement that an agency
exercise due diligence in dealing with backlogs of FOIA
requests. Processing requests solely on a FIFO basis, however,
may result in lengthy delays for simple requests. The prior
receipt and processing of complex requests delays other
requests, increasing agency backlogs. The bill would permit
agencies to promulgate regulations starting multitrack
processing systems, and makes clear that agencies should
exercise due diligence within each track. Agencies would also
be required to give requestors the opportunity to limit the
scope of their requests to qualify for processing under a
faster track.
Unusual Circumstances.--The FOIA currently permits an
agency in ``unusual circumstances'' to extend for a maximum of
ten working days the statutory time limit for responding to a
FOIA request, upon written notice to the requestor setting
forth the reason for such extension. The FOIA enumerates
various reasons for such an extension. These reasons include
the need to search for and collect requested records from
multiple offices, the volume of records requested, and the need
for consultation with other components within the agency.
An extra ten days may still provide an insufficient time
for an agency to respond to unusually burdensome FOIA requests.
The bill provides a mechanism to deal with such requests, which
an agency would not be able to process even with an extra ten
days. For such requests, the bill requires an agency to inform
the requestor that the request cannot be processed within the
statutory time limits and provide an opportunity for the
requestor to limit the scope of the request so that it may be
processed within statutory time limits, and/or arrange with the
agency a negotiated deadline for processing the request. In the
event that the requestor refuses to reasonably limit the
request's scope or agree upon a time frame and then seeks
judicial review, that refusal shall be considered as a factor
in determining whether ``exceptional circumstances'' exist
under subparagraph (6)(C).
The Committee believes that the FOIA works best when
requestors and agencies work together to define and fulfill
reasonable requests. When a requestor can modify a request to
make it easier for the agency to process it, this benefits
everyone. Still, there will be circumstances in which a
requestor and an agency cannot agree upon a modification that
will speed processing. As long as a request meets the legal
standards of the FOIA, each requestor has the right to frame
his or her own request. If an agency determines by an objective
standard that a requestor has unreasonably refused to modify a
request, and a court concurs, then the court shall consider
that refusal when determining whether exceptional circumstances
exist.
However, if an agency determines on its own that a
requestor has unreasonably refused to modify a request, the
agency may not otherwise discriminate against that request or
requestor. The request must be processed as it would have been
had no modification been sought. An agency may not maintain a
separate queue of ``unreasonable'' requests, nor may an agency
constantly move ``unreasonable'' requests to the back of the
queue. The Committee cautions agencies against using this
limited test of ``reasonableness'' in any way other than the
narrow way that the statute provides.
This provision does not relieve an agency of the
responsibility of making a diligent, good-faith effort to
complete its review of an initial request within the statutory
time frame. An agency should seek an extension beyond the
additional ten days already provided in ``unusual
circumstances'' only in rare instances. This procedure will
achieve one of the bill's important goals of encouraging a
dialogue between an agency and a requestor. This enhances the
opportunity of a requestor to obtain at least some of the
records sought in a timely fashion, and could alleviate some of
the agency's burden in responding to a request that could not
otherwise be processed within the statutory time limits. In
addition, it could provide a requestor with some certainty as
to a time frame for processing his or her request.
Exceptional Circumstances.--The Freedom of Information Act
provides that, in ``exceptional circumstances,'' a court may
extend the statutory time limits for an agency to respond to a
FOIA request, but does not specify what those circumstances
are. The bill would clarify that routine, predictable agency
backlogs for FOIA requests do not constitute exceptional
circumstances for purposes of the Act. This is consistent with
the holding in Open America v. Watergate Special Prosecution
Force, <SUP>38 where the court held that an unforeseen 3,000
percent increase in FOIA requests in one year, which created a
massive backlog in an agency with insufficient resources to
process those requests in a timely manner, can constitute
``exceptional circumstances.'' Routine backlogs of requests for
records under the FOIA should not give agencies an automatic
excuse to ignore the time limits, since this provides a
disincentive for agencies to clear up those backlogs.
Nevertheless, the bill makes clear that a court shall consider
an agency's efforts to reduce the number of pending requests in
determining whether exceptional circumstances exist. Agencies
may also make a showing of exceptional circumstances based on
the amount of material classified, based on the size and
complexity of other requests processed by the agency, based on
the resources being devoted to the declassification of
classified material of public interest, or based on the number
of requests for records by courts or administrative tribunals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ 547 F.2d 605 (D.C. Cir. 1976)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aggregation of Requests.--The amendments reported out of
Committee had reflected an implicit assumption that agency
regulations may permit the aggregation of requests by the same
requestor, or requestors that an agency reasonably believes are
acting in concert. An amendment clarifying this point is
anticipated to be considered on the House floor.
Any aggregation must involve such clearly related material
that should be considered as a single request. Multiple
requests involving unrelated matters should not be aggregated.
Existing agency procedures regarding entitlement for fee
waivers already permit agencies to aggregate some multiple
requests.
The purpose of this aggregation is to ensure the equitable
treatment of similarly situated requestors. Aggregation would
depend upon the factual circumstances of the requests, and
particularly whether multiple requests were being used
primarily to obtain a procedural advantage over other requests
or requestors. Multiple or related requests could also be
aggregated with requests seeking similar information for the
purposes of negotiating the scope of the request and schedule.
Where multiple requestors have not acted in concert, such
aggregation must be with their consent. Applying the same
principles, agencies should not aggregate groups of requests
simply to delay responding to requests. For example, the filing
of a subsequent request should not affect the processing of an
initial request by the same requestor.
Section 8. Time period for agency consideration of requests
The bill contains provisions designed to address the needs
of both agencies and requestors for more workable deadlines for
processing FOIA requests.
Expedited Processing.--The bill would require agencies to
promulgate regulations authorizing expedited access to
requesters who show a ``compelling need'' for a speedy
response. The agency would be required to decide whether to
grant the request for expedited access within ten days and then
notify the requestor of the decision. The requestor would bear
the burden of showing that expedition is appropriate. This
section limits judicial review to the same record before the
agency on the determination of whether to grant expedited
access. Moreover, the section provides that the Federal courts
will not have jurisdiction to review an agency's denial of an
expedited access request if the agency has already provided a
complete response to the request for records. The latter
provision does not limit a court's ability to consider a
requestor's application for the award of attorney's fees.
A ``compelling need'' warranting faster FOIA processing
would exist in two categories of circumstances. In the first
category, the failure to obtain the records within an expedited
deadline poses an imminent threat to an individual's life or
physical safety. The second category requires a request by
someone ``primarily engaged in disseminating information'' and
``urgency to inform the public concerning actual or alleged
Federal government activity.'' The section also permits
agencies to elect to offer expedited processing in other
circumstances.
The agencies are directed to establish rules and
regulations for processing requests for expedited access. By
requiring a ``compelling need,'' the expedited access procedure
is intended to be limited to circumstances in which a delay in
obtaining information can reasonably be foreseen to cause a
significant adverse consequence to a recognized interest.
Agency officials will be required to make factual and
subjective judgments about the circumstances cited by
requestors to qualify them for ``expedited processing.'' To do
so the requestors will need to explain in detail their basis
for seeking such treatment. Agency discretion should be
exercised with fairness and diligence. The credibility of a
requestor who makes repeated claims for expedited processing
that are determined to lack factual foundation may be taken
into account when the same requestor makes additional requests.
The specified categories for compelling need are intended
to be narrowly applied. A threat to an individual's life or
physical safety qualifying for expedited access should be
imminent. A reasonable person should be able to appreciate that
a delay in obtaining the requested information poses such a
threat. A person ``primarily engaged'' in the dissemination of
information should not include individuals who are engaged only
incidentally in the dissemination of information. The standard
of ``primarily engaged'' requires that information
dissemination be the main activity of the requestor, although
it need not be their sole occupation. A requestor who only
incidentally engages in information dissemination, besides
other activities, would not satisfy this requirement.
The standard of ``urgency to inform'' requires that the
information requested should pertain to a matter of a current
exigency to the American public and that a reasonable person
might conclude that the consequences of delaying a response to
a FOIA request would compromise a significant recognized
interest. The public's right to know, although a significant
and important value, would not by itself be sufficient to
satisfy this standard.
Some agencies, such as the Department of Justice, already
employ expedited access procedures that, in some respects, have
a broader criteria for expedited access than contained in
Section 7. <SUP>39 Agencies are given latitude to expand the
criteria for expedited access, ``in other cases determined by
the agency.'' However, the expedited processing procedure
should be invoked in the circumstances as enumerated in the
bill. Given the finite resources generally available for
fulfilling FOIA requests, unduly generous use of the expedited
processing procedure would unfairly disadvantage other
requestors who do not qualify for its treatment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ The Department of Justice's procedures for expedited access
permits it if a delay would result in the loss of substantial due
process rights and the information sought is not otherwise available in
a timely manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expansion of Agency Response Time.--To help Federal
agencies in reducing their backlog of FOIA requests, the bill
would double the time limit for an agency to respond to FOIA
requests from ten days to twenty days. Attorney General Janet
Reno has acknowledged the inability of most Federal agencies to
comply with the ten-day rule ``as a serious problem'' stemming
principally from ``too few resources in the face of too heavy a
workload.'' <SUP>40
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Reno, Janet, Attorney General, Memorandum for Heads of
Departments and Agencies, October 4, 1993, ``The Freedom of Information
Act.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimation of Matter Denied.--The bill would require
agencies when denying a FOIA request to try to estimate the
volume of any denied material and provide that estimate to the
requestor, unless doing so would harm an interest protected by
an exemption.
Section 9. Computer redaction
The ease with which information on the computer may be
redacted makes the determination of whether a few words or 30
pages have been withheld by an agency at times impossible. The
amendments require agencies to identify the location of
deletions in the released portion of the record and, where
technologically feasible, to show the deletion at the place on
the record where they made the deletion, unless including that
indication would harm an interest protected by an exemption.
Section 10. Report to the Congress
This section would add to the information an agency is
already required to publish as part of its annual report.
Specifically, agencies would be required to publish in their
annual reports information regarding denials of requested
records, appeals, a complete list of statutes upon which the
agency relies to withhold information under Section 552 (b)(3),
which exempts information that is specifically exempted from
disclosure by other statutes, the number of backlogged FOIA
requests, the number of days taken to process requests, the
amount of fees collected, and the number of staff devoted to
processing FOIA requests. The annual reports would be required
to be made available to the public, including by computer
telecommunications means. If an agency does not have the means
established to make the report available on-line, then the
report should be made available in another electronic form. The
Attorney General is required to make each report available at a
single electronic access point, and advise the Chairmen and
ranking members of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary and
the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight that
such reports are available.
Congress has undertaken several recent initiatives focused
on streamlining government, making government processes more
efficient, and improving the availability of government
information. The Government Performance and Results Act
requires a system of evaluation measures based on performance
and results. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 reexamines
government information in the light of recent technological
developments. Also, the Reports Elimination Act eliminates
hundreds of reports to Congress required in a statute. Other
pending legislation is likely to eliminate more than 200
statutorily required reports to Congress from the General
Accounting Office.
In the spirit of these reforms, the Committee considered
the reporting requirements of the Freedom of Information Act.
Some new requirements were added to make the reports more
useful to the public and to Congress. For the public, the FOIA
reports should answer certain common questions, such as: How
does one request documents? How does the Government respond to
those requests, including an explanation of the reasons for not
honoring a request? And, how long does it usually take for a
request to be processed? For Congress, these reports should
furnish a view of the agency workload and any backlog. The
reports should identify the progress the agency is making
toward eliminating that backlog. They should report on the
resources devoted to answering FOIA requests, allowing for
meaningful comparisons among agencies about performance.
Someone unfamiliar with the FOIA process should be able to
understand a report without resorting to reading the statute.
Jargon such as ``(b)(3) exemptions'' should be replaced with
more understandable language substituted. Guidance should be
given to the agencies so that all reports contain terms with
identical meanings.
Besides revising the contents of the reports to make them
more useful, the Committee changed the timing and reporting
period of the reports. Both changes were done to reduce the
burden on the agencies, though it meant a delay in providing
information and descriptive language to the public and
Congress. FOIA reports have previously reported on a calendar
year and have been due on March 1st of the following year. This
bill changes the reporting period to a fiscal year to make it
easier for agencies to compile the budget and staffing
information required. This bill also gives agencies more time
to prepare the reports from two to four months. Of course,
agencies should strive to make their reports available sooner.
In addition, the Committee has provided an additional two
months to the Department of Justice to coordinate electronic
access to these reports.
This bill also requires the availability of all FOIA
reports by electronic means. The Committee anticipates that the
Department of Justice will establish a home page for reaching
all agency reports through a single site. Until a single site
of electronic access is available for all reports, the
Committee expects the Attorney General will forward to Congress
print copies of all reports not available electronically.
Agencies that do not provide electronic access should also make
print reports available to the public, including distribution
to Depository Libraries.
In drafting this legislation, the Committee rewrote the
entire reporting section of the Freedom of Information Act.
This was done to make it easier for the public to understand
the new reporting requirements, without constant reference to
existing law.
Three reporting requirements were added to aid the public
and Congress to understand the work flow in each agency.
Beginning in 1998, agencies will be required to report:
How many requests have not been resolved to the
requestors' satisfaction at the end of the reporting
period? What is the median number of days those appeals
have been pending?
What is the number of requests received during the
year, and the number of requests processed during the
year?
What is the median number of days taken to process
requests of different types? What is the volume of
requests coming into the agency annually, and the
number of requests processed by the agency that year?
These requirements will give the public and Congress
clear measures of any backlog that exists. This will
allow Congress to monitor progress in responding to
FOIA requests across time. It will help the public
understand how long it takes an agency to respond to a
request.
The Committee has requested that agencies provide the
median number of days requests have been in the backlog queue,
and the median number of days necessary to complete the
processing of requests. The Committee elected to use medians as
a statistical measure because of their appropriateness when the
measure being summarized does not have a normal distribution,
or when a few cases of extreme value would skew an average. For
example, a few requests for excessively large numbers of
documents could artificially inflate the average time taken to
fill a request. Of course, if agencies determine that the
average time is a better measure of their performance, they can
include that in the report along with the median. Medians are
simple to calculate, simply requiring a distribution of the
number of days each request has been pending, and do not
increase the reporting burden on agencies. The Committee
appreciates that some agencies with decentralized FOIA
operations may have trouble in calculating a precise agency-
wide median. In such circumstances reasonable estimates may be
used. Finally, this bill requires that agencies report the
number of staff assigned to processing FOIA requests, and their
budget for processing FOIA requests.
Much comment is made of the adequacy of agency resources to
comply with the statutory requirements of the FOIA. Effective
future congressional oversight of the FOIA requires more
detailed information about the level of resources that agencies
devote to FOIA, the effectiveness of their utilization and the
level of resources that might be required for agencies to fully
comply with the FOIA. Agencies should inform Congress of the
additional resources needed to fully comply with the FOIA. In
the absence of such information on budget requests and
management initiatives, the complaint by agencies that Congress
has denied the resources necessary to comply with the statutory
deadlines is unsupportable.
The Committee has rewritten the FOIA reporting requirements
to make them more useful to the public and to Congress, and to
make the information in them more accessible. With those goals
in mind, we expect that the Department of Justice, in
consultation with the Office of Management and Budget, will
provide guidelines to the agencies so that all reports use
common terminology and follow a similar format. The Attorney
General and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget
are required to develop reporting guidelines for the annual
reports by October 1, 1997.
Section 11. Reference materials and guides
This section requires agencies to make publicly available,
upon request, reference material or a guide for requesting
records or information from an agency. This guide would include
an index and description of all major information systems of an
agency, and a handbook for obtaining various types and
categories of public information from an agency.
The guide is intended to be a short and simple explanation
for the public of what the Freedom of Information Act is
designed to do, and how a member of the public can use it to
access government records. Each agency should explain in clear
and simple language, the types of records that can be obtained
from the agency through FOIA requests, why some records cannot,
by law, be made available, and how the agency makes the
determination of whether or not a record can be released.
Each agency guide should explain how to make a FOIA
request, and how long a requestor can expect to wait for a
reply from the agency. In addition, the guide should explain
the requestor's rights under the law to appeal to the courts to
rectify agency action. The guide should give a brief history of
recent litigation it has been involved in, and the resolution
of those cases. If an agency requires that certain requests,
such as applications for expedited access, be completed on
agency forms, then the forms should be part of the guide.
The guide is intended to supplement other information
locator systems, like the Government Information Locator System
(GILS) called for in the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995.<SUP>41 Thus, the guide should reference those systems and
explain how a requestor can obtain more information about them.
Of course, any agency specific locator systems should be
similarly referenced in the guide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ The Paperwork Reduction Act consists of (P.L. 96-511, 94 Stat.
2812) as amended by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1986 (section 101(m)
[Title VIII, Part A] of P.L. 99-500 and P.L. 99-591, 100 Stat. 1783)
and The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-13, 109 Stat. 163).
The Paperwork Reduction Act is codified at Chapter 35 of Title 44 of
the United States Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is expected that OMB will assist the agencies in
assuring that all guides follow a common format so that a
requestor picking up guides from two or more agencies can
easily find the information they are seeking. Similarly, OMB
should assure that all agencies use common terminology in
describing record systems, how to file a FOIA request, and in
describing other locator systems.
All guides should be available through electronic means,
and should be linked to the annual reports. A citizen picking
up a FOIA guide should learn how to access the annual reports.
Similarly, any potential requestor reading an annual report
should learn about the guide, and how to access it.
Section 12. Effective date
To provide agencies with time to implement new requirements
under the Act, sections 7 and 8 shall become effective one year
after the date of enactment. These sections concern multitrack
and expedited processing, unusual and exceptional
circumstances, the doubling of the statutory time period for
responding to FOIA requests, and estimating the amount of
material to which access is denied. The remainder of the bill
will take effect 180 days after enactment.
V. Compliance With Rule XI
Pursuant to rule XI, clause 2l(3)(A) of the rules of the
House of Representatives, under the authority of rule X, clause
2(b)(1) and clause 3(f), the results and findings for those
oversight activities are incorporated in the recommendations
found in the bill and in this report.
VI. Budget Analysis and Projections
This Act provides for no new authorizations or budget
authority or tax expenditures. Consequently, the provisions of
section 308(a)(1) of the Congressional Budget Act are not
applicable.
VII. Cost Estimate of the Congressional Budget Office
The Committee was provided with the following estimate of
the cost of H.R. 3802, as prepared by the Congressional Budget
Office.
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC August 30, 1996.
Hon. William F. Clinger, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
reviewed H.R. 3802, the Electronic Freedom of Information
Amendments of 1996, as ordered reported by the House Committee
on Government Reform and Oversight on July 25, 1996. CBO
estimates that enacting this bill would not significantly
affect spending by the federal government. Because the bill
would not affect direct spending or receipts, pay-as-you-go
procedures would not apply.
Bill Purpose.--H.R. 3802 would amend the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) to:
Require that agencies make available for public
inspection and reproduction copies of any records that,
because of the nature of their subject matter, are
likely to elicit additional requests;
Require that agencies provide information in the form
requested (for example, paper or computer disk), if the
information is readily reproducible in that form;
Authorize agencies to implement a multitrack system
for processing requests under FOIA;
Expand the amount of time an agency has to respond to
a FOIA request from 10 days to 20 days; and
Require agencies to file an annual report with the
Attorney General that documents statistics related to
the processing and the denial of FOIA requests.
Federal Budgetary Impact.--Many of the bill's provisions
are similar to those already required by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB Circular No. A-130), and therefore
are not expected to affect agencies' budgets. Some provisions,
however, could change the way certain agencies respond to FOIA
requests. For instance, the bill would require that agencies
make available for public inspection and reproduction copies of
any records that--because of the nature of their subject
matter--are likely to elicit additional requests. The bill also
would require that agencies provide information in the form
requested, if the information is readily reproducible in that
form. The first provision could reduce agencies' costs, while
the second provision might increase agencies' costs, but CBO
cannot estimate the extent of these impacts. The bill's
provisions would likely have the greatest impact on the
departments of Defense and Health and Human Services, which
historically receive about one-half of all FOIA requests. Any
change in spending from either provision would be subject to
appropriation actions.
The bill could also alleviate current agency backlogs in
filling FOIA requests by doubling the amount of time an agency
has to respond to a FOIA request and by allowing agencies to
classify and process requests according to level of effort
rather than on a strict first-in, first-out basis. In a 1994
Department of Justice survey of agency backlogs under FOIA,
almost two-thirds of the 75 agencies included in the survey
reported average response times to new FOIA requests of more
than 15 days. While these provisions should help agencies
better comply with statutory response times, it is unclear
whether they would significantly affect agency costs for
completing such response.
Finally, H.R. 3802 would require that agencies annually
report a number of statistics concerning FOIA activities to the
Attorney General. Under current law, agencies already submit
much of this information to the Congress each year. Thus, we
expect the new reporting requirement would not significantly
increase agency costs.
Mandates Statement.--H.R. 3802 contains no
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4) and
would not have a significant impact on the budgets of state,
local or tribal governments.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The staff contact is John R. Righter.
Sincerely,
------ ------
(For June E. O'Neill, Director).
VIII. Inflationary Impact Statement
In accordance with rule XI, clause 2(l)(4) of the Rules of
the House of Representative , this legislation is assessed to
have no inflationary effect on prices and costs in the
operation of the national economy.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the
bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed
to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is
printed in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed
is shown in roman):
TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
PART I--THE AGENCIES GENERALLY
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 5--ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER II--ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 552. Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records,
and proceedings
(a) Each agency shall make available to the public
information as follows:
(1) * * *
(2) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall
make available for public inspection and copying--
(A) final opinions, including concurring and
dissenting opinions, as well as orders, made in the
adjudication of cases;
(B) those statements of policy and interpretations
which have been adopted by the agency and are not
published in the Federal Register; [and]
(C) administrative staff manuals and instructions to
staff that affect a member of the public;
(D) copies of all records, regardless of form or
format, which have been released to any person under
paragraph (3) and which, 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; and
(E) a general index of the records referred to under
subparagraph (D);
unless the materials are promptly published and copies offered
for sale. For records created on or after November 1, 1996,
within one year after such date, each agency shall make such
records available by computer telecommunications or, if
computer telecommunications means have not been established by
the agency, by other electronic means. To the extent required
to prevent a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,
an agency may delete identifying details when it makes
available or publishes an opinion, statement of policy,
interpretation, [or staff manual or instruction] staff manual,
instruction, or copies of records referred to in subparagraph
(D). However, in each case the justification for the deletion
shall be explained fully in writing, and the extent of such
deletion shall be indicated on the portion of the record which
is made available or published. If technically feasible, the
extent of the deletion shall be indicated at the place in the
record where the deletion was made. Each agency shall also
maintain and make available for public inspection and copying
current indexes providing identifying information for the
public as to any matter issued, adopted, or promulgated after
July 4, 1967, and required by this paragraph to be made
available or published. Each agency shall promptly publish,
quarterly or more frequently, and distribute (by sale or
otherwise) copies of each index or supplements thereto unless
it determines by order published in the Federal Register that
the publication would be unnecessary and impracticable, in
which case the agency shall nonetheless provide copies of such
index on request at a cost not to exceed the direct cost of
duplication. Each agency shall make the index referred to in
subparagraph (E) available by computer telecommunication by
December 31, 1999. A final order, opinion, statement of policy,
interpretation, or staff manual or instruction that affects a
member of the public may be relied on, used, or cited as
precedent by an agency against a party other than an agency
only if--
(i) it has been indexed and either made available or
published as provided by this paragraph; or
(ii) the party has actual and timely notice of the
terms thereof.
(3)(A) Except with respect to the records made available
under paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, each agency,
upon any request for records which [(A)] (i) reasonably
describes such records and [(B)] (ii) is made in accordance
with published rules stating the time, place, fees (if any),
and procedures to be followed, shall make the records promptly
available to any person.
(B) In making any record available to a person under this
paragraph, an agency shall provide the record in any form or
format requested by the person if the record is readily
reproducible by the agency in that form or format. Each agency
shall make reasonable efforts to maintain its records in forms
or formats that are reproducible for purposes of this section.
(C) In responding under this paragraph to a request for
records, an agency shall make reasonable efforts to search for
the records in electronic form or format.
(D) For purposes of this paragraph, the term ``search'' means
to review, manually or by automated means, agency records for
the purpose of locating those records which are responsive to a
request.
(4)(A) * * *
(B) On complaint, the district court of the United States in
the district in which the complainant resides, or has his
principal place of business, or in which the agency records are
situated, or in the District of Columbia, has jurisdiction to
enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to order
the production of any agency records improperly withheld from
the complainant. In such a case the court shall determine the
matter de novo, and may examine the contents of such agency
records in camera to determine whether such records or any part
thereof shall be withheld under any of the exemptions set forth
in subsection (b) of this section, and the burden is on the
agency to sustain its action. In addition to any other matters
to which a court accords substantial weight, a court shall
accord substantial weight to an affidavit of an agency
concerning the agency's determination as to technical
feasibility under paragraph (2)(C) and subsection (b) and
reproducibility under paragraph (3)(B).
* * * * * * *
(6)(A) Each agency, upon any request for records made under
paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this subsection, shall--
(i) determine within [ten days] 20 days (excepting
Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) after
the receipt of any such request whether to comply with
such request and shall immediately notify the person
making such request of such determination and the
reasons therefor, and of the right of such person to
appeal to the head of the agency any adverse
determination; and
(ii) make a determination with respect to any appeal
within twenty days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and
legal public holidays) after the receipt of such
appeal. If on appeal the denial of the request for
records is in whole or in part upheld, the agency shall
notify the person making such request of the provisions
for judicial review of that determination under
paragraph (4) of this subsection.
[(B) In unusual circumstances as specified in this
subparagraph, the time limits prescribed in either clause (i)
or clause (ii) of subparagraph (A) may be extended by written
notice to the person making such request setting forth the
reasons for such extension and the date on which a
determination is expected to be dispatched. No such notice
shall specify a date that would result in an extension for more
than ten working days. As used in this subparagraph, ``unusual
circumstances'' means, but only to the extent reasonably
necessary to the proper processing of the particular request--
[(i) the need to search for and collect the requested
records from field facilities or other establishments
that are separate from the office processing the
request;
[(ii) the need to search for, collect, and
appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate
and distinct records which are demanded in a single
request; or
[(iii) the need for consultation, which shall be
conducted with all practicable speed, with another
agency having a substantial interest in the
determination of the request or among two or more
components of the agency having substantial subject-
matter interest therein.]
(B)(i) In unusual circumstances as specified in this
subparagraph, the time limits prescribed in either clause (i)
or clause (ii) of subparagraph (A) may be extended by written
notice to the person making such request setting forth the
unusual circumstances for such extension and the date on which
a determination is expected to be dispatched. No such notice
shall specify a date that would result in an extension for more
than ten working days, except as provided in clause (ii) of
this subparagraph.
(ii) With respect to a request for which a written notice
under clause (i) extends the time limits prescribed under
clause (i) of subparagraph (A), the agency shall notify the
person making the request if the request cannot be processed
within the time limit specified in that clause and shall
provide the person an opportunity to limit the scope of the
request so that it may be processed within that time limit or
an opportunity to arrange with the agency an alternative time
frame for processing the request or a modified request. Refusal
by the person to reasonably modify the request or arrange such
an alternative time frame shall be exceptional circumstances
for purposes of subparagraph (C).
(iii) As used in this subparagraph, `unusual circumstances'
means, but only to the extent reasonably necessary to the
proper processing of the particular requests--
(I) the need to search for and collect the requested
records from field facilities or other establishments
that are separate from the office processing the
request;
(II) the need to search for, collect, and
appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate
and distinct records which are demanded in a single
request; or
(III) the need for consultation, which shall be
conducted with all practicable speed, with another
agency having a substantial interest in the
determination of the request or among two or more
components of the agency having substantial subject-
matter interest therein.
(C)(i) Any person making a request to any agency for records
under paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of this subsection shall be
deemed to have exhausted his administrative remedies with
respect to such request if the agency fails to comply with the
applicable time limit provisions of this paragraph. If the
Government can show exceptional circumstances exist and that
the agency is exercising due diligence in responding to the
request, the court may retain jurisdiction and allow the agency
additional time to complete its review of the records. Upon any
determination by an agency to comply with a request for
records, the records shall be made promptly available to such
person making such request. Any notification of denial of any
request for records under this subsection shall set forth the
names and titles or positions of each person responsible for
the denial of such request.
(ii) For purposes of this subparagraph, the term
``exceptional circumstances'' does not include a delay that
results from a predictable agency workload of requests under
this section.
(iii) Refusal by a person to reasonably modify the scope of a
request or to arrange an alternative time frame for processing
a request (or a modified request) under this section after
being requested to do so by the agency to whom the person made
the request shall be exceptional circumstances for purposes of
this subparagraph.
(iv) In determining whether exceptional circumstances exist,
a court shall consider the efforts by an agency to reduce the
number of pending requests under this section.
(D)(i) Each agency may promulgate regulations, pursuant to
notice and receipt of public comment, providing for multitrack
processing of requests for records based on the amount of work
or time (or both) involved in processing requests.
(ii) Regulations under this subparagraph may provide a person
making a request that does not qualify for the fastest
multitrack processing an opportunity to limit the scope of the
request in order to qualify for faster processing.
(iii) This subparagraph shall not be considered to affect the
requirement under subparagraph (C) to exercise due diligence.
(E)(i) Each agency shall promulgate regulations, pursuant to
notice and receipt of public comment, providing for expedited
processing of requests for records--
(I) in cases in which the person requesting the
records demonstrates a compelling need; and
(II) in other cases determined by the agency.
(ii) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A)(i), regulations under
this subparagraph must ensure--
(I) that a determination of whether to provide
expedited processing shall be made, and notice of the
determination shall be provided to the person making
the request, within 10 days after the date of the
request; and
(II) expeditious consideration of administrative
appeals of such determinations of whether to provide
expedited processing.
(iii) An agency shall process as soon as practicable any
request for records to which the agency has granted expedited
processing under this subparagraph. Agency action to deny or
affirm denial of a request for expedited processing pursuant to
this subparagraph, and failure by an agency to respond timely
to such a request shall be subject to judicial review under
paragraph (4), except that the judicial review shall be based
on the record before the agency at the time of the
determination.
(iv) A district court of the United States shall not have
jurisdiction to review an agency denial of expedited processing
of a request for records after the agency has provided a
complete response to the request.
(v) For purposes of this subparagraph, the term ``compelling
need'' means--
(I) that a failure to obtain requested records on an
expedited basis under this paragraph could reasonably
be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or
physical safety of an individual; or
(II) with respect to a request made by a person
primarily engaged in disseminating information, urgency
to inform the public concerning actual or alleged
Federal Government activity.
(F) In denying a request for records, in whole or in part, an
agency shall make a reasonable effort to estimate the volume of
any requested matter the provision of which is denied, and
shall provide any such estimate to the person making the
request, unless providing such estimate would harm an interest
protected by an exemption under subsection (b) under which the
denial is made.
(b) This section does not apply to matters that are--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(9) geological and geophysical information and data,
including maps, concerning wells.
Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be provided
to any person requesting such record after deletion of the
portions which are exempt under this subsection. The amount of
information deleted shall be indicated on the released portion
of the record, unless including that indication would harm an
interest protected by an exemption under this subsection under
which the deletion is made.
* * * * * * *
[(e) On or before March 1 of each calendar year, each agency
shall submit a report covering the preceding calendar year to
the Speaker of the House of Representatives and President of
the Senate for referral to the appropriate committees of the
Congress. The report shall include--
[(1) the number of determinations made by such agency
not to comply with requests for records made to such
agency under subsection (a) and the reasons for each
such determination;
[(2) the number of appeals made by persons under
subsection (a)(6), the result of such appeals, and the
reason for the action upon each appeal that results in
a denial of information;
[(3) the names and titles or positions of each person
responsible for the denial of records requested under
this section, and the number of instances of
participation for each;
[(4) the results of each proceeding conducted
pursuant to subsection (a)(4)(F), including a report of
the disciplinary action taken against the officer or
employee who was primarily responsible for improperly
withholding records or an explanation of why
disciplinary action was not taken;
[(5) a copy of every rule made by such agency
regarding this section;
[(6) a copy of the fee schedule and the total amount
of fees collected by the agency for making records
available under this section; and
[(7) such other information as indicates efforts to
administer fully this section.
The Attorney General shall submit an annual report on or before
March 1 of each calendar year which shall include for the prior
calendar year a listing of the number of cases arising under
this section, the exemption involved in each case, the
disposition of such case, and the cost, fees, and penalties
assessed under subsections (a)(4)(E), (F), and (G). Such report
shall also include a description of the efforts undertaken by
the Department of Justice to encourage agency compliance with
this section.]
(e)(1) On or before February 1 of each year, each agency
shall submit to the Attorney General a report which shall cover
the preceding fiscal year and which shall include--
(A) the number of determinations made by the agency
not to comply with requests for records made to such
agency under subsection (a) and the reasons for each
such determination;
(B)(i) the number of appeals made by persons under
subsection (a)(6), the result of such appeals, and the
reason for the action upon each appeal that results in
a denial of information; and
(ii) a complete list of all statutes that the agency
relies upon to authorize the agency to withhold
information under subsection (b)(3), a description of
whether a court has upheld the decision of the agency
to withhold information under each such statute, and a
concise description of the scope of any information
withheld;
(C) the number of requests for records pending before
the agency as of September 30 of the preceding year,
and the median number of days that such requests had
been pending before the agency as of that date;
(D) the number of requests for records received by
the agency and the number of requests which the agency
processed;
(E) the median number of days taken by the agency to
process different types of requests;
(F) the total amount of fees collected by the agency
for processing requests;
(G) the average amount of time that the agency
estimates as necessary, based on the past experience of
the agency, to comply with different types of requests;
and
(H) the number of full-time staff of the agency
devoted to processing requests for records under this
section, and the total amount expended by the agency
for processing such requests.
(2) Each agency shall make each such report available to the
public through a computer network, or if computer network means
have not been established by the agency, by other electronic
means.
(3) The Attorney General shall make each report which has
been made available by electronic means available at a single
electronic access point. The Attorney General shall notify the
Chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight of the House of Representatives
and the Chairman and ranking minority member of the Committees
on Governmental Affairs and the Judiciary of the Senate, no
later than April 1 of the year in which each such report is
issued, that such reports are available by electronic means.
(4) The Attorney General, in consultation with the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget, shall develop reporting
and performance guidelines in connection with reports required
by this subsection by October 1, 1997, and may establish
additional requirements for such reports as the Attorney
General determines may be useful.
(5) The Attorney General shall submit an annual report on or
before April 1 of each calendar year which shall include for
the prior calendar year a listing of the number of cases
arising under this section, the exemption involved in each
case, the disposition of such case, and the cost, fees, and
penalties assessed under subparagraphs (E), (F), and (G) of
subsection (a)(4). Such report shall also include a description
of the efforts undertaken by the Department of Justice to
encourage agency compliance with this section.
(f) For purposes of this section, the term--
(1) ``agency'' as defined in section 551(1) of this
title includes any executive department, military
department, Government corporation, Government
controlled corporation, or other establishment in the
executive branch of the Government (including the
Executive Office of the President), or any independent
regulatory agency; and
(2) ``record'' and any other term used in this
section in reference to information includes any
information that would be an agency record subject to
the requirements of this section when maintained by an
agency in any format, including an electronic format.
(g) The head of each agency shall prepare and make publicly
available upon request, reference material or a guide for
requesting records or information from the agency, including--
(1) an index of all major information systems of the
agency;
(2) a description of major information and record
locator systems maintained by the agency; and
(3) a handbook for obtaining various types and
categories of public information from the agency
pursuant to chapter 35 of title 44, and under this
section.
X. Committee Recommendations
On July 25, 1996, a quorum being present, the Committee
ordered the bill, as amended, favorably reported.
Date: July 25, 1996; final passage of H.R. 3802; offered
by: Mr. Horn; voice vote: Ayes.
XI. Congressional Accountability Act; Public Law 104-1; Section
102(b)(3)
This provision applies to the legislative branch in that
the Comptroller General is required to review laws and
regulations to determine that they do not conflict with the
provisions of this bill. It does not relate to any terms or
condition of employment or access to public services or
accommodations.
<greek-d>