Democrats call on House panel to narrow FOIA request

from FederalTimes.com --

House Democrats are calling on the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to pare back his request to dozens of agencies to divulge details of Freedom of Information Act requests from the last five years.

The committee's request "will encumber every agency with a work-stopping diversion" and have a chilling effect on the public's willingness to make use of FOIA, Rep. Peter Welch of Vermont wrote in a letter Tuesday to the committee chairman, Darrell Issa, R-Calif.

Last month, Issa asked dozens of agencies, ranging from the Justice Department to the Railroad Retirement Board, for their FOIA logs from the past five years, along with all communications with requesters and a rundown on how each request was handled.

Read the rest here.

Republican congressman proposes tracking FOIA requests

from The New York Times:

WASHINGTON — Representative Darrell Issa calls it a way to promote transparency: a request for the names of hundreds of thousands of ordinary citizens, business executives, journalists and others who have requested copies of federal government documents in recent years.

Mr. Issa, a California Republican and the new chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, says he wants to make sure agencies respond in a timely fashion to Freedom of Information Act requests . . .

But his extraordinary request worries some civil libertarians. It “just seems sort of creepy that one person in the government could track who is looking into what and what kinds of questions they are asking,” said David Cuillier, a University of Arizona journalism professor and chairman of the Freedom of Information Committee at the Society of Professional Journalists. “It is an easy way to target people who he might think are up to no good.”

Read more here.

Loopholes already being sought for earmark ban

from the Sunlight Foundation Blog:

Some House Republicans are already looking for a way around the ban on earmarks imposed on the next Congress. These members are rapidly trying to come up with a new definition for earmarks, or directed spending, to skirt the ban.

Politico reports, “[S]ome Republicans are discussing exemptions to the earmark ban, allowing transportation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and water projects. While transportation earmarks are probably the most notorious — think “Bridge to Nowhere” — there is talk about tweaking the very definition of “earmark.”

[....]

If Congress is at all serious about reforming earmarks they need to do something about the transparency of earmarks. This is especially true if they aren’t as serious as they say they are about a ban.

Read the rest here.

Whither transparency in the next Congress?

from OMB Watch:

When the 112th Congress convenes in January, attention will be focused on the newly Republican-controlled House. On transparency issues, House Republican leaders have sounded positive tones. However, it remains to be seen whether bipartisan consensus on meaningful transparency can be achieved or whether transparency will be wielded as a partisan weapon.

Undoubtedly, divided party control of Congress will mean a more adversarial relationship between Congress and the White House and between the House and the Senate. What remains unclear, however, is whether Republicans will support the administration's many positive efforts to improve transparency while criticizing the instances where it has fallen short or dragged its feet. The House could also fall prey to the political theater that often occurs when parties in divided government compete for the public spotlight.

Read the rest here.

Missouri Senate candidate calls for lawmakers to open records to public

JEFFERSON CITY, MO. -- U.S. Senate Candidate Robin Carnahan called for the records of federal lawmakers to be open to the public.

During a campaign stop Monday in Jefferson City, Carnahan called for an expansion of the Freedom of Information Act.

The federal open-records law currently applies to the white house and executive agencies, but not to the U.S. House and Senate.

Read more here.

Report: Threats to lawmakers increase

Threats against members of Congress have increased 300% this year as lawmakers delve into a host of complicated issues in a particularly charged political environment, Politico reports.

The story, based on FBI documents requested by Politico under the Freedom of Information Act, describes the cases in detail, including a threat made against North Carolina Democratic Rep. Heath Shuler by a 70-year-old voter with "a history of mental illness and a cache of guns" over President Obama's economic stimulus.

More here, and the original Politico article can be found here.

New Bipartisan House Caucus Formed to Promote Transparency

A 19-member bipartisan group of House Republicans and Democrats formed a congressional transparency caucus to promote laws requiring the free accessibility of federal information on the Internet. The caucus will work to educate peers and the public, legislate new policies, and oversee existing ones.

For a list of the caucus members and their guiding principles, click here.

House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee Examines How FOIA is Working

Assistant professor in the University of Arizona's School of Journalism David Cuillier was one of eight witnesses called to testify to a U.S. House of Representatives committee on how well the FOIA is working. Other witnesses included the federal public records ombudsman, agency FOIA officers, and a litigator for the Electronic Freedom Foundation and expert records requesters.

Read more here.

Pressure Builds to Make Secret Chemicals Known

The Washington Post reports lawmakers are facing pressure to make it more difficult for manufacturers to keep chemical compounds a secret. Under the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, manufacturers must report new chemicals they intend to market to the federal government, but the law exempts from public disclosure any information that could be considered trade secrets. Practically speaking, that means 20 percent of the 84,000 chemicals in commercial use in the United States are kept secret.

Critics, including the Obama administration, say consumers should know what toxic substances they might be exposed to. Congress is expected to rewrite chemical regulations this year.

For more information, click here.

Congress Expected to Pass Bill Permitting Defense Department to Suppress Evidence of its Misconduct

Congress is expected to pass an amendment to the Homeland Security appropriations bill this week that will allow the Defense Department to suppress evidence of its own misconduct.  The amendment has passed the House and is headed to the Senate floor for a final vote.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) proposed the amendment in response to an appellate court decision requiring the Defense Department to release photos of Afghan and Iraqi prisoner abuse, stemming from a 2003 FOIA request filed by the ACLU.  

More from the LA Times here.

Open-government advocates disappointed about watered-down bill

A House bill that was initially lauded by watchdog groups is now being criticized by them, Washington Independent reported. The bill no longer requires all contracts stemming from the stimulus bill to be posted online. Only summaries of contracts worth more than $500,000 will be available to the public.

Internet junkies and wonks alike may have jumped the gun in looking forward to the new online transparency hyped by House members who vowed to put contracts doled out from the $800 billion stimulus package online.

That promise, included in the initial House bill, was hailed by watchdog groups, who pointed to it as real reform in government contracting. However, in a major concession to government contractors, which opposed having the contracts made public, the final bill requires only a “summary of the contracts” to be posted online; and even the summaries will only be available for contracts worth more than $500,000.

According to the law, the government has to provide certain data about federal contracts, including whether the contracting process was competitive, how the contract was awarded, and for those contracts over $500,000 “a summary of the contract.”

More here.

E-mails reveal Pelosi staffers impatient about aircraft

FOI at Work!
E-mails obtained through an FOIA request indicate no illegal actions but impatience about the type of aircraft available to Nancy Pelosi, Politico.com reported. The report created by Judicial Watch, which filed the request, also says Pelosi and her staff "frequently made demands on Air Force personnel and often canceled on short notice, costing the military an unspecified amount." Pelosi's spokesperson said the Department of Defense dictates the type and availability of aircraft.

The good-government group Judicial Watch has released a batch of unflattering e-mails, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, that show staffers for Nancy Pelosi kvetching about access to official aircraft.

The group, which has investigated politicians from both parties in recent years, isn’t alleging illegality — just petulance.

Pelosi’s office is pushing back, saying the type of plane she uses is dictated by the demands of a transcontinental flight — and the House sergeant-at-arms’ security concerns associated with refueling a smaller plane.

More here.

Congressional data mining could be on its way

A provision that would Congress and its bodies to release data in raw form was slipped into a spending bill passed by the House of Representatives, Mother Jones reported. If the Senate doesn't edit out the three-sentence statement, the public will no longer have to rely on government Web sites, which filter the data they provide. Some Web sites already use remix raw data to create databases and charts, but they must "scrape" government sites to obtain this data -- a process that is cumbersome and not perfect.

By slipping a simple, three-sentence provision into the gargantuan spending bill passed by the House of Representatives last week, a congressman from Silicon Valley is trying to nudge Congress into the 21st Century. Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.) placed a measure in the bill directing Congress and its affiliated organs—including the Library of Congress and the Government Printing Office—to make its data available to the public in raw form. This will enable members of the public and watchdog groups to craft websites and databases showcasing government data that are more user-friendly than the government's own.

If the Senate passes the bill with the provision intact, citizens seeking information about Congress' activities—such as bill names and numbers, amendments, votes, and committee reports—won't have to rely on government websites, which often filter information, are incomplete, or are difficult to use. Instead, the underlying data will be available to anyone who wants to build a superior site or tool to sift through it. "The language is groundbreaking in that it supports providing unfiltered legislative information to the public," says Honda's online communications director, Rob Pierson. "Instead of silo-ing the information, and only allowing access through a limited web form, access to the raw data will make it easier for people to learn what their government is doing."

More here.

Negotiations on stimulus bill kept secret

While a Web site (www.recovery.gov) will be set up for people to monitor the spending of the stimulus plan, the negotiations were far from public, Slate reported. As John Dickerson wrote, "The time for transparency is when a decision is being made, not after it has been issued. Once a piece of legislation has been agreed to, or a project has been put in motion, pointing to a Web site doesn't create much moral pressure to undo the deed."

For President Obama to get a stimulus bill, something had to give. You can have urgency or transparency or a thorough think about things. But you can't have all three. Forced to choose, Obama chose the fierce urgency of now.

The president heralded a deal reached Wednesday in the House and Senate on a stimulus bill, but the process wasn't pretty. Creating legislation often isn't. Instead of finding a Lego piece that fits, lawmakers get a larger one and bite it in half. Never mind the jagged edges.

In this case, not only is the end product ragged—some of the elements aren't terribly stimulative—but the means were ugly. The differences between the House and Senate bills were reconciled mostly in secret by House and Senate Democratic leaders, three Northeastern Republicans, and White House aides. This is hardly unusual for Washington—which is precisely the problem: It's not the change Obama promised.

More here.

Obama contradiction leads to bill

The Obama administration ruffled quite a few feathers by taking the same position as former President Bush on an issue involving government secrecy and torture, two positions Obama condemned upon entering office. Now legislation has been filed to limit the use of the "state secrets" privilege, the Boston Globe reported. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy said the bill "does not restrict the government's ability to assert the privilege in appropriate cases. In light of the pending cases where this privilege has been invoked, involving issues including torture, rendition and warrantless wiretapping, we can ill afford to delay consideration of this important legislation."

House and Senate committees yesterday introduced bills that would sharply curtail the government's use of the "state secrets" privilege, a policy used by President Bush to argue that a lawsuit involving allegations of torture should be dismissed - and a position that the Obama administration has now adopted.

Drafted and filed separately by the House and Senate Judiciary committees, the legislation was filed just days after Justice Department lawyers working for the new administration told a federal appeals court that its position did not differ from the Bush administration's: the court should throw out a lawsuit that accuses Jeppesen Inc., of helping the CIA secretly transport five terrorism suspects overseas for harsh interrogations, on the grounds that the suit involved state secrets that, if revealed, could jeopardize national security.

More here.

Federal shield law may be on the way

The Free Flow of Information Act of 2009 is a dream for journalists who worry about going to jail for not revealing confidential sources. Journalists would only be forced to relinquish this qualified privilege in cases that involve issues such as national security or threats of imminent bodily harm.

Citing the need for a federal media shield law to protect reporters from being compelled to reveal their confidential news sources, U.S. Representatives Rick Boucher (D-VA) and Mike Pence (R-IN) today introduced the Free Flow of Information Act of 2009. In the 110th Congress, the measure Boucher and Pence advanced was approved by an overwhelming, bipartisan majority of 398 to 21 in the House of Representatives. The Senate did not take up the measure in the last Congress. Boucher and Pence are joined in sponsorship of the bill by 37 of their colleagues in the House, including Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and Vice Ranking Member of the Committee, Bob Goodlatte (R-VA).

"Often the best source of information about public corruption or misdeeds in a large corporation or charity is a person on the inside of the organization who would like to bring the facts to public light, but that person has a lot to lose and to avoid punishment at the hands of superiors will only divulge the information to a reporter if promised confidentiality," Boucher said. "If confidentiality cannot be assured, the public may never learn of the wrong doing and never have an opportunity to take corrective action," he added.

Thirty-six states and the District of Columbia currently have statutes protecting reporters from the compelled disclosure of sources of information.

More here.

Secret Congressional records, worth nearly $1 billion, released

More than 6,700 reports from the Congressional Research Service, known as "Congress' brain," were made available to the public by Wikileaks. Because CRS is a branch of Congress, it is exempt from FOIA. Members of Congress, however, may choose to release reports that portray them in a favorable light.

Wikileaks has released nearly a billion dollars worth of quasi-secret reports commissioned by the United States Congress.

The 6,780 reports, current as of this month, comprise over 127,000 pages of material on some of the most contentious issues in the nation, from the U.S. relationship with Israel to the financial collapse. Nearly 2,300 of the reports were updated in the last 12 months, while the oldest report goes back to 1990. The release represents the total output of the Congressional Research Service (CRS) electronically available to Congressional offices. The CRS is Congress's analytical agency and has a budget in excess of $100M per year.

Open government lawmakers such as Senators John McCain (R-Arizona) and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vermont) have fought for years to make the reports public, with bills being introduced--and rejected--almost every year since 1998. The CRS, as a branch of Congress, is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.

More here.