U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

90–863 PDF 2013

S. HRG. 113–449 

WE THE PEOPLE: FULFILLING THE PROMISE OF 

OPEN GOVERNMENT FIVE YEARS AFTER THE 

OPEN GOVERNMENT ACT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 13, 2013 

Serial No. J–113–7 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHUCK SCHUMER, New York 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

MAZIE HIRONO, Hawaii 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa, Ranking Member 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

KOLAN DAVIS, Republican Chief Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 1 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 30 

Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa ............................ 3 

WITNESSES 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 29 

Pustay, Melanie Ann, Director, Office of Information Policy, U.S. Department 

of Justice, Washington, DC ................................................................................. 6 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 32 

Nisbet, Miriam, Director, Office of Government Information Services, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC ....................... 8 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43 

Moulton, Sean, Director, Open Government Policy, Center for Effective Government, Washington, DC ................................................................................... 18 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 49 

Goldberg, Kevin M., Esq., Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, PLC, Arlington, Virginia, on behalf of the Sunshine in Government Initiative, American Society 

of News Editors .................................................................................................... 20 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 58 

Blanton, Thomas, Director, National Security Archive, George Washington, 

University, Washington, DC ............................................................................... 22 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 75 

QUESTIONS 

Questions submitted by Senator Patrick Leahy for Melanie Pustay .................. 84 

Questions submitted by Senator Patrick Leahy for Miriam Nisbet .................... 86 

Questions submitted by Senator Charles Grassley for Miriam Nisbet ............... 87 

Questions submitted by Senator Amy Klobuchar for Sean Moulton ................... 88 

Questions submitted by Senator Amy Klobuchar for Kevin Goldberg ................ 89 

ANSWERS 

Responses of Melanie Pustay to questions submitted by Senators Leahy and 

Grassley ................................................................................................................ 90 

Responses of Miriam Nisbet to questions submitted by Senators Leahy and 

Grassley ................................................................................................................ 104 

Responses of Sean Moulton to questions submitted by Senator Klobuchar ....... 115 

Responses of Kevin M. Goldberg to questions submitted by Senator 

Klobuchar .............................................................................................................. 118 

MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

‘‘Texas Gets High Marks Regarding Transparency in Legislative Matters but 

Still Needs More Sunshine,’’ editorial, Austin American-Statesman ............... 124 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), study by Associated Press (AP), March 

11, 2013 ................................................................................................................. 126 

Anne L. Weismann, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, 

testimony, March 13, 2013 .................................................................................. 130 

Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), 2013 Recommendations, 

March 13, 2013 ..................................................................................................... 137 
Page

IV 

Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), cover letter, March 12, 

2013 ....................................................................................................................... 139

Letter from Senator Al Franken to Melanie A. Pustay, Director, Office of 

Information Policy, Washington, DC, October 9, 2012 ..................................... 141 

ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Submissions for the record not printed due to voluminuous nature, previously 

printed by an agency of the Federal Government or other criteria determined by the Committee, list: OGIS 2013 Report for FY 2012: Building 

a Bridge Between FOIA Requesters & Federal Agencies. https:// 

ogis.archives.gov/Assets/OGIS+Reports/OGIS+Report+March+2013.pdf ........ 143 
(1) 

WE THE PEOPLE: FULFILLING THE PROMISE 

OF OPEN GOVERNMENT FIVE YEARS AFTER 

THE OPEN GOVERNMENT ACT 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 2013 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:35 a.m., in Room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Leahy, Franken, Grassley, and Cornyn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Chairman LEAHY. I apologize for the delay. As always, my friend 

from Iowa is here right on time, even if I was not, so I appreciate 

that. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Sometimes I am not on time. 

Chairman LEAHY. I cannot remember. 

This is an important hearing on one of our most cherished open 

government laws, the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA. It is 

one part of our system of laws that means the most to me. We are 

also commemorating Sunshine Week. That is an annual celebration 

of transparency in our democratic society. The more transparency 

you have in any society, the more apt it is to be a democratic and 

open society. 

For more than four decades, FOIA has translated our great 

American values of openness and accountability into practice by 

guaranteeing access to government information. Sunshine Week is 

a timely opportunity to take stock of the progress we have made 

in improving the FOIA process, as well as some of the very real 

challenges that remain when citizens seek information from their 

government. 

Five years ago, Congress enacted the Leahy-Cornyn OPEN Government Act. This was the first major reform to the Freedom of Information Act in more than a decade. It was a bipartisan bill with 

Senator Cornyn and myself. We wanted to demonstrate that we 

wanted freedom of information whether we have a Republican or 

a Democratic administration. It should be the same. And so today 

we are going to examine how federal agencies are implementing 

the reforms in this landmark law. 

When Congress enacted this bipartisan legislation, I said that 

our goal was to help reverse the troubling trends of excessive FOIA 
2 

delays that we had witnessed for so many years and, by eliminating them, restore the public’s trust in their government. The 

OPEN Government Act sought to restore meaningful FOIA deadlines but also increase transparency. 

In the five years since we enacted it, there have been some promising developments, and I commend the Obama administration for 

establishing innovative initiatives such as Data.gov and FOIA.gov, 

which have significantly increased the public’s access. I am also 

pleased that we are beginning to witness progress in reducing 

FOIA backlogs across government. Now, these are all good signs, 

but there are still some major challenges. 

Too many of our federal agencies are not keeping up with the 

FOIA reforms in the OPEN Government Act. A recent audit conducted by the National Security Archive found that 56 out of 99 

federal agencies—more than half—have not updated their Freedom 

of Information Act regulations to comply with the OPEN Government Act. 

Now, I would tell those 56 that we did not pass this law just for 

the sake of having a law on the books. We worked very hard. Republicans and Democrats came together to have a good law, and to 

have it ignored is putting oneself above the law. 

I am troubled by reports that the Obama administration is becoming more secretive about its national security policies. According to the Associated Press, during the past year, the Obama administration withheld more information for national security reasons in response to FOIA requests than at any other time since the 

President took office. 

Now, for many years—during both Democratic and Republican 

administrations—I have urged the Justice Department to be more 

transparent about the legal opinions issued by its Office of Legal 

Counsel. Our government must always balance the need to protect 

sensitive government information with the equally important need 

to ensure public confidence in our national security policies. Simply 

saying everything is secret does not instill confidence in the American people. The uneven application of fee waivers, the growing use 

of exemptions, and inadequate communication with FOIA requesters also are key impediments. 

Now, I am pleased that representatives from the Department of 

Justice and the National Archives and Records Administration are 

here to discuss these challenges and detail how the Obama administration is implementing FOIA. We have a distinguished panel of 

expert witnesses. 

Speaking of the Leahy-Cornyn Act, which I was just praising, 

here is Senator Cornyn. I appreciate you being here, Senator. 

This Committee has a long tradition of working across the aisle 

when acting to protect the public’s right to know, during both 

Democratic and Republican administrations. I value the strong bipartisan partnership that I have formed over the years with Senator Cornyn and Ranking Member Grassley on open government 

matters. Again, I do not care which party holds the Presidency. 

Open government is important to every single American, no matter 

what their political affiliation. The annual celebration of Sunshine 

Week reminds us that openness and transparency in government 
3 

is important to all Americans. So I hope that this spirit is going 

to guide our work today. I look forward to a good discussion. 

Senator Grassley. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK GRASSLEY, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Senator GRASSLEY. Well, first of all, I can say that I listened to 

everything you just said, and I agree with you, and I thank you for 

making those strong statements. There is probably no reason for 

me to speak, but I want to speak anyway. 

Before I go to my remarks, I think that the Chairman has said 

something I am just going to say. This is a problem whether you 

have Republican or Democrat administrations, and I have been in 

this business long enough to work under both. If there is a difference with this administration, it is not different from previous 

administrations only in the sense that the President has said, 

when he was first sworn into office, that this was going to be the 

most transparent administration of any. And I know he still believes that because he has updated that statement with some recent things I have seen on television. And that would be the only 

difference. So that is a standard he set, not one that the law sets 

or anything. But it is a problem in all administrations. 

So I thank you for holding this hearing today during Sunshine 

Week. It is always good to focus on the important topic of transparency. Fortunately, every March we have the opportunity to do 

so. 

Today we are looking at the most recent amendments of the 

Freedom of Information Act. Five years ago, thanks to the work of 

the Chairman and Senator Cornyn, the OPEN Government Act became law. That law sought to strengthen the Freedom of Information Act in several ways. However, five years later problems remain. Agencies are not putting into practice what this law requires. 

It is frustrating that there are so many reports criticizing this 

administration’s implementation of the law. As we make clear, 

every administration has put too many impediments into open government. It should be just the opposite. The President reports criticizing and not implementing law, reports complimenting administrations and more openness. So I would like nothing more than to 

see groups praising this administration or any administration for 

being really transparent. 

Instead, there is a December 2012 study from the National Security Archive which found that 56 federal agencies have not fully 

complied with the 2007 law. Things can move slowly within government, but this seems to be a bit too much. 

As reports show, the Department of Justice has not even updated 

its own Freedom of Information Act regulations since 2003, which 

also means that they were not updated during a Republican administration. Ironically, the Justice Department is charged with encouraging and monitoring governmentwide Freedom of Information 

Act compliance. 

Delays from the Justice Department are not just confined to private citizens. Last year I asked the Attorney General about the 

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 2011 De-
4 

partment of Homeland Security investigation. The investigation 

found that political staff under Secretary Napolitano corrupted the 

agency’s Freedom of Information Act compliance procedures. I discussed this investigation at last year’s hearing in this Committee. 

I then asked the Attorney General about it as a follow-up question 

to his September 2011 Committee testimony. However, to date, I 

have not received a response from the Attorney General to these 

questions. 

Additionally, I have not yet received any proposals from the Department of Justice to address the Supreme Court’s decision in Milner v. the Navy. I recall that Milner had been characterized as 

leaving unprotected a great deal of information that could threaten 

public safety if disclosed. At the hearing last year, one of our witnesses here back again, Ms. Pustay, told us legislation was needed. 

In fact, we were told that the Justice Department was ‘‘actively 

working’’ on a proposal and that she ‘‘looked forward to continuing 

to working with the Committee on this issue.’’ So here we are 

again, and I have still not seen this legislative language. 

So there is widespread frustration with this administration—only 

because it is this administration. Ten years from now, it will be a 

different one, unrelated to the freedom of information process. But 

problems with implementing the Freedom of Information Act are 

even more troubling because the law compels certain actions, and 

the Department of Justice has the responsibility to be a leader. 

Unfortunately, DOJ actions set a bad example for other agencies. 

When the Department of Justice failed to update its own regulations, we should not be surprised when other agencies failed to update theirs as well. Such behavior undermines the President’s 

transparency pledge. 

Another recent example highlighted this culture of obfuscation 

coming from the EPA. Last week I joined in a letter sent from Senator Vitter and Congressman Issa to the Attorney General. Senator 

Vitter’s staff recently discovered a troubling exchange between government officials. The documents show advice from the Environmental Protection Agency Office of General Counsel to a regional 

official handling freedom of information requests. The Office of 

General Counsel said, first, that it is standard protocol in such 

cases to instruct the requester to narrow their request because it 

is overbroad. Second, the Office of General Counsel at EPA instructed the regional officials to tell the requester that it will probably cost more than the amount of money that they have agreed 

to pay. This exchange validates those who criticize bureaucrats for 

deterring citizen engagement. 

And the advice regarding fees may even be against the law. Last 

month Congressman Issa and the Democratic leader over there, 

Mr. Cummings, sent a letter to the Office of Information Policy. 

That letter covered a lot of ground regarding Freedom of Information Act compliance. 

These are questions that the Justice Department needs to answer, so I support this bipartisan effort. Hopefully we will get an 

update today as to the progress being made in responding to the 

letter. 

Justice must lead by example. Unfortunately, the evidence demonstrates that the Department has a lot of work to do. I look for-
5 

ward to hearing from our witnesses, and we need candid discussion 

of this issue. 

Mr. Chairman, you have been very forthright in your statement, 

and I compliment you for it, and your weight around here will do 

a lot of good in getting us the results we can expect. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you, and I thank you for the help from 

all four of you. We have Senator Franken and Senator Cornyn 

here. Senator Franken is going to take the gavel a little later on, 

but did either one of you want to say anything before we start with 

the witnesses? 

Senator FRANKEN. I have no opening statement. I just want to 

say what a privilege it is to be with these three gentlemen who 

have been champions of open government—Senator Cornyn and the 

Chair, the authors of the OPEN Government Act, and Senator 

Grassley, who has always been focused on transparency in government and has been a real champion of that. So it is a pleasure to 

be here. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator Cornyn. 

Senator CORNYN. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your kind words 

earlier. I know people consider us the ‘‘Odd Couple’’ in many respects on open government issues, but to me it is a no-brainer. Democracy only works when the public knows what their government 

is doing and holds public officials accountable. And like it or not, 

our friends in the news media are the ones who generally are in 

the business of rooting that information out, and that is their job. 

It is different from our job. But we have to learn to live with it in 

public life. And it is very important. 

So I want to just thank you again for your leadership, Mr. Chairman, in holding this hearing during Sunshine Week. As you noted, 

it has been a little over five years since President Bush signed the 

OPEN Government Act into law, and I will not repeat what you 

and Senator Grassley have already said about concerns. We can address those to the particular witnesses here today that we are glad 

to have. 

But I do want to brag, if you will permit me just briefly. I want 

to submit for the record an editorial from yesterday’s Austin American Statesman that is entitled, ‘‘Texas gets high marks regarding 

transparency in legislative matters, but still needs more sunshine.’’ 

[The editorial appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator CORNYN. It gets an A rating, along with seven other 

States, and I think the reason why Texas is a leading light in open 

government reform is because not only do we have the right laws 

in place, but Texas leads because its leaders are committed to making sure the cause of open government is enforced, and it requires 

government agencies to comply with the law. And until we have 

the same level of commitment to permeate the federal bureaucracy, 

I fear we can pass more laws that will do very little to shed sunlight on the operation of the Federal Government. 

But I think we have made a good start, Mr. Chairman. Thanks 

for having this hearing, and I look forward to learning from the 

witnesses whether there are additional things we need to do in 

order to let the sunshine in. 

Thank you. 
6 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, thank you very much, Senator Cornyn. 

As I said, I have enjoyed the partnership on this, and we will continue it. I think the American people expect us to, and they should. 

Melanie Pustay is the Director of the Office of Information Policy 

at the Department of Justice. That office has statutory responsibility for directing agency compliance with the Freedom of Information Act. Before becoming the office’s Director, she served for eight 

years as Deputy Director, so she certainly has experience there. 

She has extensive experience in FOIA litigation. She received the 

Attorney General’s Distinguished Service Award for her role in providing legal advice, guidance and assistance on records disclosure 

issues. She earned her law degree from American University’s 

Washington College of Law, and served on the Law Review, as I 

recall. 

Please go ahead with your statement, and then after you, we will 

hear Ms. Nisbet’s statement, and then we will go to questions. 

Please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF MELANIE ANN PUSTAY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

INFORMATION POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. PUSTAY. Thank you, and good morning, Chairman Leahy, 

Ranking Member Grassley, and Members of the Committee. I am 

pleased to be here today during Sunshine Week to discuss the 

OPEN Government Act of 2007 and the Department of Justice’s 

continued efforts this past year to assist agencies in improving 

their FOIA administration and ensuring that President Obama’s 

Memorandum on the FOIA and Attorney General Holder’s FOIA 

Guidelines are fully implemented. 

As you know, this Sunshine Week we celebrate the fourth anniversary of the Attorney General’s FOIA Guidelines, and I am 

pleased to report to you today that agencies are taking concrete 

steps to improve FOIA administration, and significant accomplishments have been achieved. The number of requests received by 

agencies has increased every year since Fiscal Year 2009, and during this past year in particular, the Government was faced with the 

historically high number of over 650,000 requests. But in response 

to this ever increasing demand, agency FOIA offices processed 

more than 665,000 requests. That is 14,000 more than were received, and it is over 34,000 more than were processed the last fiscal year. 

Even more significant than that, agencies processed this record 

number of requests while still maintaining a high release rate, releasing information in 93 percent of requests where records were 

processed for disclosure. 

Additionally, as you know, the OPEN Government Act highlighted Congress’ desire for agencies to respond to requests more 

timely, and agencies have made progress in this area as well. 

The government’s overall processing time for both simple and 

complex requests has significantly improved as agencies are providing information to requesters more quickly. And as a result of 

those efforts, I am very proud to report that the government overall 

achieved a 14-percent reduction in the request backlog this past fiscal year. This marks a nearly 45-percent reduction in the number 
7 

of backlog requests that existed four years ago. This illustrates the 

progress that agencies are making in implementing the Attorney 

General’s Guidelines. And all of these efforts are more than just 

statistics. They represent real improvements to the FOIA process 

as agencies are getting more information to more requesters more 

quickly. 

I am particularly pleased to report on the successes achieved by 

the Department of Justice. In response to record high numbers of 

incoming requests, we once again increased the number of requests 

we processed at the Department. We improved our average processing time and maintained a high release rate. In fact, of our requests that were processed, nearly 75 percent resulted in a full release of records. 

My office has been actively engaged in a variety of initiatives to 

help FOIA administration across the government. For example, 

this past year my office continued to lead the effort to maximize 

agencies’ abilities to utilize more advanced technology to streamline the most time-consuming parts of FOIA processing, such as the 

time it takes to search for and review records. 

OIP partnered with the Department’s Civil Division to conduct a 

digital FOIA pilot program so we could assess the impact of using 

these existing document management tools to automate tasks that 

were previously done manually. The results of the study are very 

encouraging, and we are going to continue our work in this area 

for the benefit of all agencies. 

Additionally, just yesterday my office issued new agencywide 

guidance on metadata tagging standards for FOIA that lays the 

groundwork for enabling easy aggregation of FOIA data into one 

governmentwide FOIA library where all the records posted by 

agencies can be assessed easily in one place. 

And, finally, to increase agency accountability, OIP recently instituted a new quarterly reporting requirement for all agencies that 

will provide the public with a more real-time assessment of the 

flow of FOIA requests handled by the government. 

Starting with this current fiscal year, agencies will report on four 

key FOIA statistics each quarter. The Department recently enhanced our ‘‘Reports’’ page on FOIA.gov, which will display all this 

quarterly reporting data. 

Looking ahead, the Department is fully committed to achieving 

the new era of open government that the President and Attorney 

General envision. We have accomplished a great deal these past 

four years, but OIP will continue to work diligently to help agencies achieve even greater transparency in the years ahead. 

In closing, the Department of Justice looks forward to working 

together with the Committee on matters pertaining to governmentwide administration of the FOIA, and I am, of course, pleased to 

answer any questions you might have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Pustay appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

Our next witness is Miriam Nisbet, who is the founding Director 

of the Office of Government Information Services at the National 

Archives and Records Administration. Before that, she served as 
8 

Director of the Information Society Division for the United Nations 

Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 

Paris. Her extensive information policy experience also includes 

previous work as legislative counsel for the American Library Association, and the Deputy Director of the Office of Information Policy 

for the Department of Justice. She earned her bachelor’s degree 

and her law degree from the University of North Carolina, and is 

no stranger to this Committee. 

Good to have you here. Please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF MIRIAM NISBET, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES, NATIONAL ARCHIVES 

AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. NISBET. Thank you, and good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Grassley, and Members of the Committee. I am very 

pleased to be here with you during Sunshine Week, and I would 

like to just mention we do have the original Freedom of Information Act on display in the Rotunda of the National Archives, and 

we would love to have you come take a look at it. 

Chairman LEAHY. I will. 

Ms. NISBET. Thank you. 

I appreciate the opportunity, too, because as Director of the Office of Government Information Services, we, of course, were created by the OPEN Government Act of 2007. 

As you know, we work with all executive branch departments 

and agencies as well as requesters. We are in a unique position to 

observe various aspects of agency Freedom of Information Act processes. 

As I have shared with this Committee before, much of OGIS’ 

work in the last three years has been to establish the office, including determining our role in the FOIA process while actively carrying out our important mission. 

The model that Congress chose for our office is a hybrid. We are 

a neutral place for FOIA requesters and agencies to come for nonbinding assistance with FOIA disputes, and at the same time we 

have a review function. We look at agencies’ FOIA policies, procedures, and compliance. And these two missions may at times be in 

tension with one another. On the one hand, in mediation we provide voluntary and partial assistance to agencies and must encourage them to work with us. And on the other hand, we have a review mandate that is not a voluntary process. In both instances, we 

must build the trust of agencies and gain their confidence in our 

work. 

Because mediation cases continue to arrive in increasing numbers—our workload was up in the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2013 

considerably compared with last year—our staff spends most of its 

time responding to those cases, and we have not yet been able to 

fully turn to building and carrying out the more robust review program that we envision. But we hope that will improve. 

The 2007 amendments centered on a few tenets, including executive support, customer service, and dispute resolution. The new 

provisions in the law added heightened statutory roles for the Chief 

FOIA Officers and FOIA Public Liaisons within the agencies, both 
9 

to provide top-down support for FOIA activities and also to improve 

interaction between requesters and agencies. 

Introducing dispute resolution to the FOIA process was another 

important aspect of the amendments. Our observations providing 

mediation services and reviewing agencies’ FOIA policies, procedures, and compliance helped shape our FOIA recommendations. 

We determined early on that nearly everything we do at OGIS is 

geared toward improving FOIA in some way. We regularly provide 

suggestions to agencies and requesters on various aspects of the 

FOIA process, and we also identify and target bigger-picture recommendations. Last year, we shared five recommendations to improve the FOIA process, and my written testimony updates you on 

where we have been working on those recommendations. And I 

would also like to share with you recommendations that are new 

this year. 

We recommend that agencies encourage and support the use of 

dispute resolution in FOIA processes. OGIS seeks to more strongly 

connect FOIA professionals, legal counsel, and dispute resolution 

professionals to embed dispute resolution firmly into the FOIA 

process with the goal of preventing and resolving disputes administratively. 

We also encourage agencies to remind all staff of the importance 

of FOIA, and I have attached to my testimony the message that the 

Archivist of the United States, David Ferriero, sent to our staff last 

week in anticipation of Sunshine Week. 

Additionally, this year we have identified two issues to research 

and explore. We plan to examine FOIA fees. As you all have noticed and brought out today, it is a persistent problem for requesters and agencies. And we also want to look at immigration records 

and FOIA. While not ripe for recommendations yet, we anticipate 

that they will be forthcoming. 

There are still many improvements to be made in FOIA administration. Indeed, my office hears too often from requesters who cannot get a simple answer to when they can expect to get a reply 

from the agency. At the same time, many requesters may not appreciate the challenges that agency FOIA professionals face in 

dealing with complex requests and voluminous records. We also believe there continues to be too much FOIA litigation. The latest figures show a cost of about $23 million a year. I think that might 

be conservative, too. 

Nevertheless, we believe that OGIS is making a positive impact 

on the FOIA process from the standpoint of requesters and agencies. We appreciate our unique position to observe and reflect on 

FOIA activity across the government, and we believe our role will 

be an important part of improving the FOIA process in years to 

come. 

Thank you, and I will be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Nisbet appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, thank you, and I note your comment at 

the end there about too much FOIA litigation. Of course, some 

would argue that if there were speedier answers to FOIA requests 

and more openness, there might be less litigation, too. I am especially concerned about that in the area of national security. 
10 

You know, when Senator Cornyn and I worked with others on 

the OPEN Government Act, we made it very clear that we were not 

doing this just as an exercise. We really wanted it to work, and we 

wanted it to work whether we were in the Senate or not. And no 

matter who was President. We just wanted this to work. And I saw 

a recent report by the National Security Archive saying more than 

half of all federal agencies have failed to update their FOIA regulations to comply with this law. That is worrisome. They said that 

62 percent of all federal agencies have not updated their regulations to comply with the Attorney General’s March 19, 2009, FOIA 

memorandum. 

Why is this? Let me ask Ms. Pustay first. Why are the majority 

of federal agencies not in compliance with the OPEN Government 

Act? And what is the Justice Department doing to make sure they 

update their regulations? 

Ms. PUSTAY. I am happy you asked this question because the—— 

Chairman LEAHY. You are probably more happy than some of 

those agencies that have not updated that I asked this question, 

but go ahead. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. PUSTAY. Why I am happy to respond is that the key fact that 

is missing in this discussion is that the amendments that you put 

into the FOIA through the OPEN Government Act were effective 

upon enactment. They did not require implementing regulations. 

So they were effective once the bill was signed into law. A couple 

provisions had later effective dates. 

And, similarly, the Attorney General Guidelines did not require 

agencies to promulgate or change their regulations. The Attorney 

General Guidelines are fully—the agencies’ compliance with the Attorney General Guidelines are fully detailed in the first-ever reporting requirement that we initiated specifically under those 

Guidelines, which are the Chief FOIA Officer Reports. We have actually never had such a robust vehicle for learning from agencies 

the steps they are taking to implement the Attorney General’s 

Guidelines. 

Chairman LEAHY. No, I understand that, but why haven’t the 62 

percent of them updated their regulations? 

Ms. PUSTAY. Of course, we encourage agencies to update regulations if they need to, if they need updating, and the Department 

of Justice is in the process of updating our regulations literally as 

we speak. But the importance of the OPEN Government—we have 

done a range of things to make sure that agencies fully understand 

the requirements, the changes to the FOIA that were made by the 

OPEN Government Act—— Chairman LEAHY. But the OPEN Government Act has been there 

for a number of years. 

Ms. PUSTAY. Exactly. 

Chairman LEAHY. I understand that a certain amount of time is 

needed for the learning process, but this seems awfully long. I went 

to law school in less time. 

Ms. PUSTAY. Right. The agencies, again, there is a disconnect, I 

think, between the premise that you need a change in your regulations and the idea of the OPEN Government Act. As I said, the 

OPEN Government Act made changes to the law that were effective 
11 

immediately. And so what my office did in response to the enactment of the OPEN Government Act was we immediately issued 

guidance to agencies. We had very detailed guidance on each of the 

substantive provisions of the OPEN Government Act. Chairman LEAHY. How many agencies are fully in compliance 

with the OPEN Government Act? What percentage? 

Ms. PUSTAY. I think all agencies are in compliance with the 

OPEN Government Act. Chairman LEAHY. So there should be no delays in getting FOIA 

requests? 

Ms. PUSTAY. I think, as I mentioned in my opening statement, 

Senator Leahy, there are improvements in processing times across 

the government. There is a reduction in backlog. The very things 

that were designed to be addressed by the OPEN Government Act 

are taking hold. We have real reduction, and we have real improvement in time. 

Chairman LEAHY. Let me ask Director Nisbet about it, because 

OGIS has completed its report to Congress and has recommendations to improve the FOIA process. What are those recommendations generally? 

Ms. NISBET. Well, we have specific recommendations, Senator 

Leahy, that we have provided to you last year that related to technology to improving and supporting dispute resolution in the agencies, a number of specific recommendations. 

We also make recommendations in a sense all the time with suggestions to both requesters and agencies about how they can improve the way they work and particularly how they can communicate with each other. 

The regulations are a particularly difficult area, I think, for 

agencies because it can take quite a long time to review them. I 

would note that a number of them have started coming to OGIS 

to have us sort of work through and look at their proposals before 

they get to the point that they actually put them out for notice. 

That is a service that we offer. 

I think there is a strong interest in updating regulations, particularly nowadays, to be plainer, perhaps, than regulations were 

in the past, easier for requesters to read—— 

Chairman LEAHY. You actually have them in English so people 

can read and understand them? 

Ms. NISBET. Yes, sir. 

Chairman LEAHY. Fewer of the ‘‘wherefore,’’ ‘‘hitherto,’’ ‘‘whereas’’ 

B.S.? 

Ms. NISBET. Yes. Some of us have a hard time getting away from 

that, but we are trying. 

Chairman LEAHY. I was asked if I was using Latin up here. I am 

going back to my grade school and high school education, although 

one of our colleagues on this Committee introduced me as the 

‘‘President Pro Tempore,’’ saying, ‘‘That is Latin for ‘longest-serving 

dude.’ ’’ 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman LEAHY. I will not say which of the Carolinas that Senator is from, but I thought it was pretty funny. 

Can I ask—do you mind if I ask just one more question here? 

Senator GRASSLEY. Go ahead. 
12 

Chairman LEAHY. Ms. Pustay, I have called on the Department 

of Justice to be more transparent about opinions from the Office of 

Legal Counsel. We even got into a discussion of this yesterday with 

the President at a meeting he had with a number of us. And according to a study by the Sunlight Foundation, the Office of Legal 

Counsel is withholding more than a third of the legal opinions that 

this office promulgated between 1998 and 2012. 

Now, I understand you have to balance the importance of sensitive government information. We all understand that. We are all 

used to handling classified and other information. But I also wonder if sometimes that can be an easy crutch to say, well, it is sensitive so let us hold it back. 

Can you provide the Committee with a list of all OLC memoranda, a list of those that are currently in force? 

Ms. PUSTAY. That specific question is an oversight matter that 

is beyond the purview of my office, which, of course, is focused on 

implementation of the FOIA. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, I understand, but, you know, I get— 

every time I ask the question, you know, of various people—the Attorney General, the President, and others—it is always somebody 

else’s department. Bring back that question to the Department and 

tell them—and I think Senator Grassley would join me in this— 

that we would like to see the list of all the OLC memoranda that 

are in force. 

Senator GRASSLEY. You just asked for both of us. 

Chairman LEAHY. Yes. Is that okay? 

Senator GRASSLEY. Yes. Very good. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. And we would like to know whether they can be made available to the public. You may want to emphasize back at DOJ that this is something we are very serious 

about. We have had one especially that this Committee may end 

up subpoenaing if we cannot get it. 

Senator Grassley. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Well, I would back you up on that. In fact, 

probably we have been pussyfooting around too long. So if you 

want to do that, you surely have my backing. 

I am going to start out with Ms. Nisbet. Last December the thing 

housed at Syracuse University, the Transactions Records Clearinghouse, had a study released, finding that there were more Freedom 

of Information Act lawsuits during the Obama administration’s 

first term as compared to the second Bush term. These lawsuits 

forced the government to release information. It is obviously costly 

and burdensome for individuals. This increase has occurred even 

though the OPEN Government Act created your office to mediate 

disputes between the government and FOIA requesters. 

Now, you said in your testimony that this year your office is recommending agency heads ‘‘encourage and support the use of dispute resolution in FOIA processes.’’ Is it your view that agencies 

are not currently taking full advantage of dispute resolution that 

your office provides? 

Ms. NISBET. Senator Grassley, let me answer in two ways. 

Bringing dispute resolution into the FOIA process was really new 

with the amendments from 2007. My office got started in September 2009, and we provide dispute resolution across the execu-
13 

tive branch. But, also, the law now gives dispute resolution responsibility to the agencies as well. 

One of the things that really needs to be done and that we are 

trying to do—it does take time; it also takes leadership to emphasize how important it is—is to have that working at the agency 

level. That is the best place to prevent disputes and to resolve disputes. In fact, if we could put us out of business so that it is all 

being taken care of at the agencies, that would be terrific. I do not 

think that is going to happen. 

The second thing I just want to mention is in terms of litigation. 

Dispute resolution, mediation, seems to be becoming more and 

more accepted in the courts for a way to approach FOIA disputes. 

For example, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, the United States 

Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, now has a pilot program in 

which it is requiring—requiring—mediation in every FOIA lawsuit 

that comes before it. I think that is a really good signal that you 

can mediate before, you can mediate later, but probably better to 

mediate early. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Ms. Pustay, your written testimony is silent 

on the topic of reducing litigation. Does the Justice Department encourage the use and support of dispute resolution? 

Ms. PUSTAY. Oh, sure we do. In fact, we have sent thousands of 

requesters to OGIS since they have been in office, since they have 

been up and running. But more importantly, we are doing a variety 

of things all connected with implementation of the Attorney General’s FOIA guidelines which would have significant potential to reduce lawsuits. 

As I mentioned, the fact that we have reduced backlogs and improved processing times helps to reduce litigation. The fact that we 

are maintaining, as a government, a high release rate, releasing 

records in full or in part in more than 92 percent of requests—and 

that is for the last four years. Under the leadership of the Attorney 

General, we have had such a high release rate. That cannot help 

but have a positive impact on reduction in litigation. 

We have also issued guidance to agencies, informing them of the 

importance of good communication with requesters. This is one of 

the first things that my office did after the Attorney General 

Guidelines were issued, because there are—oftentimes the simple 

ability to pick up a phone or send an email to a contact at an agency to ask a question about your request, to have a human being explain that, yes, your request is here on my desk, or it is here in 

my queue, here is the status of your request, that can be tremendously important. And that is something that we encourage and 

that we are constantly reinforcing to agencies in our training. 

So we think there is a wide range of activities that we are certainly undertaking as part of the Attorney General Guidelines all 

for the benefit of improving FOIA administration and reducing litigation. 

Senator GRASSLEY. If I could ask one more question. 

This is for you, Ms. Pustay. The OPEN Government Act had a 

goal of compelling faster FOIA processing. Agencies must provide 

a response to the requester within 20 days indicating how the 

agency plans to proceed. Example: whether or not the agency will 

release the requested information. 
14 

Unfortunately, the Federal Elections Commission is arguing in 

federal court that a simple response acknowledging receipt of a request is sufficient, and the Justice Department, who is not involved 

in this case, has filed a brief supporting the argument. 

So to you, why is the Justice Department arguing that any communication with a requester satisfies the 20-day response requirements? Isn’t the law clear that more than a receipt of acknowledgment is required? So why is the Justice Department disregarding 

the plain meaning of the law, as I read it? 

Ms. PUSTAY. I am certainly not going to discuss anything connected with an ongoing litigation case, as I am sure you understand. But what I can tell you is that we have had, in addition to 

the general focus that the Attorney General and the President put 

in their FOIA memorandam about making more prompt responses 

to requests, my office has actually pinpointed that focus even further by calling on agencies to work to process their simple track 

requests within—actually process them within—an average of 20 

working days. And we now actually assess agencies on that requirement as part of what we do every year when we review agency Chief FOIA Officer Reports. 

So we think it is very important that there be improved processing time and particularly with simple track requests. We have 

been encouraging agencies to do what they can to process those requests within 20 working days. 

I am very proud to report, as I mentioned in my testimony, that 

at the Department of Justice our average processing time for simple track requests is under 19 days. So we are below the 20-working-day requirement for that metric, and for the government overall, we have seen improvement in processing times. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Okay. I am done asking questions. Just let 

me sum it up. I think this Chairman and I discussed in our opening statement about regulations, and I think the exchange you and 

I just had is an example of why regulations would be helpful to 

provide clarity and instruction. We cannot satisfy the requests just 

because they have responded within 20 days with the first communication. 

Thank you. 

Senator FRANKEN [presiding]. I would like to thank the Ranking 

Member. 

Senator Cornyn, if you would like to go now, please. 

Senator CORNYN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome. 

Good to see you both. 

I am troubled by the costs and the delay associated with the increase in litigation that we have seen over the last couple of years. 

The whole purpose, or at least one of my purposes, in working with 

Senator Leahy on the OPEN Government Act and creating the ombudsman office was to help informal resolution of any misunderstandings about either the scope or the nature of a request for documents. That was based—I think we have had this conversation 

before—on my experience when I was Attorney General of Texas 

that many times people not familiar with how to navigate government, they may be making requests broader than they really want, 

or they may be directing it to the wrong person. And the whole 

idea was to, way before any kind of adversarial process is created, 
15 

just create more of a culture of customer service, for lack of a better term. And I think that is part of the cultural shift that has not 

yet occurred here in Washington, DC, but hope springs eternal. 

Ms. Nisbet, the response that you made, I believe, about the D.C. 

Circuit Court alternative dispute resolution for these cases, of 

course, you know and Ms. Pustay knows that the purpose was to 

prevent litigation in the first place, if possible. And so it does not 

seem satisfactory to me to say that the court as a docket management tool has instituted a pilot program to deal with, mediate 

these cases. 

How do we prevent them from getting to the court in the first 

place? 

Ms. NISBET. First of all, I want to be sure you understand that 

I was not suggesting that the D.C. Circuit is a solution; rather, it 

is a great indication that they think mediation should be working 

in FOIA cases. 

Senator CORNYN. In this case, I agree with the D.C. Circuit 

Court. 

Ms. NISBET. Yes, I do, too. I think it is a great start. And so it 

is a model. It is also an incentive, I think, to agencies to know that 

if they are going to have to—if a lawsuit is filed against them, certainly in the DC Circuit—and I understand there might be other 

circuits to do the same thing—and they are going to be directed immediately to mediation, that is an incentive to do it earlier. 

It does take a culture change. It is going to take time. But certainly the dispute resolution skills training that we teach, that the 

Office of Information Policy participates in with OGIS, is aimed at 

giving people in the agencies the skills they need to be able to better communicate with requesters, to prevent those disputes in the 

first place, and become much more comfortable with exactly the 

kind of give and take that you are pointing to and that can make 

a difference and can head off litigation so that we do not have 

somebody having to file a federal case just because they cannot 

get—they cannot have a communication with the agency about 

what they are looking for and when they are going to get it. 

Senator CORNYN. I do not have any statistics at hand, but I 

would imagine that the number of people or the percentage of people who actually file lawsuits is a much smaller number than those 

who make FOIA requests in the first place. And, of course, lawsuits 

are expensive, and so it seems to me to be an inadequate remedy— 

I know you are not suggesting otherwise—to provide for mediation 

at the circuit court. 

Are there other tools that you believe that are needed? In other 

words, do Senator Leahy and I and the Committee need to look at 

additional reforms aimed at preventing litigation or otherwise resolving these disputes more quickly? 

Ms. NISBET. Well, I do think the amendments from 2007, the 

OPEN Government Act was really an innovation, and it is going to 

take time. I think support from this Committee, support from the 

House as well for this kind of approach and really encouraging it 

and encouraging agencies to do it is going to continue to go a long 

way. 
16 

It does require a change in thinking. It requires a change in approach. But I think agencies are receptive to that, and we are just 

going to keep at it. 

Senator CORNYN. I know patience is considered a virtue, but in 

this instance, it seems like we have waited a long time since 2007. 

And I would just ask you or any of the other witnesses or people 

in the audience who are interested in this topic to please send to 

me, Senator Leahy, Senator Franken, and the Committee any other 

suggestions you may have, because the litigation expense alone is 

something it seems like we would want to avoid in these times of 

sequestration and concerns over our fiscal condition here at the 

Federal Government. 

Ms. NISBET. Yes. 

Senator CORNYN. But in terms of getting people access with minimum hassle, minimal expense, and just—because it is something 

I think we are going to have to change in terms of the attitude on, 

as I suggested, customer service, one where this is an obligation of 

government officials, not a nuisance to be tolerated, which I fear 

so often is the attitude. 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. NISBET. Thank you. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you both for your testimony and answering the questions. 

Director Pustay, last year a group of Minnesotans visited my office to report problems with their FOIA requests. The group was 

trying to make sure that federal contractors were complying with 

the Davis-Bacon laws, but they experienced some very long delays 

in recovering the records they had requested, and at this point, I 

would like to enter the letter that I wrote to you on that topic. 

[The letter appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator FRANKEN. Though some delays are unavoidable, I think 

we are all in agreement here that we should try to avoid—reduce 

avoidable delays. Actually, in the letter that I got back from Judith 

Appelbaum, it says, ‘‘Delays can also be the result of long queues 

of FOIA requests at agencies, which are typically processed in a 

first-in, first-out basis to be fair to all requesters.’’ 

Is this backlog getting shorter? 

Ms. PUSTAY. The backlogs are tremendously shorter. That is one 

of the key accomplishments of this administration. We have reduced—when you compare the backlog from 2009 to the backlog at 

the end of Fiscal Year 2012, the last 4 years, the backlog was reduced nearly 45 percent, nearly half. So it is a tremendous accomplishment, and during that time more than 2.5 million requests 

were processed by agencies. 

Senator FRANKEN. And that is more requests than have been 

done—is every year more—— 

Ms. PUSTAY. Every year the number of requests is increasing. 

And agencies are marshaling their resources and matching that by 

processing more requests. And a 45-percent reduction in the backlog in the past four years, I think, is a tremendous accomplishment. 

Senator FRANKEN. Does that translate into a shorter wait on 

most requests? 
17 

Ms. PUSTAY. Right. In addition, of course, as the backlogs decrease, then that makes it—then the responses are also more 

quick, are also more prompt. But we also had governmentwide improvements in processing times, so there is a complementary process that agencies are both reducing backlogs and responding more 

quickly. And it is important to note that they are doing that by 

keeping a high release rate. Records are being released in full or 

in part in a really high percentage of cases. So, overall, I think 

there are really solid, concrete improvements from these past four 

years. 

Senator FRANKEN. You spoke earlier about that when the OPEN 

Government Act became law, effectively the rules in that became 

rules of all the agencies, covering all the agencies on FOIA requests. 

Ms. PUSTAY. Exactly. 

Senator FRANKEN. And so the Chairman asked you about agencies that have not adopted those regulations yet, but you say they 

are in force. Actually, there are a number of agencies which have 

updated their regulations and not necessarily done so in compliance with the OPEN Government Act. Ms. PUSTAY. Right. 

Senator FRANKEN. How is your office working to make sure that 

agencies update their regulations in compliance with existing law? 

Ms. PUSTAY. As just a general concept, of course, it is important 

to have up-to-date regulations, so that is something that we would 

encourage all agencies to do. And as I mentioned, the Department 

of Justice is in the process of updating our own regulations, and 

our thought all along has been that agencies can use our regulations as a model for their own. So it is something that we—— 

Senator FRANKEN. But you have not finished yours. 

Ms. PUSTAY. We are in the final stages of the process of updating 

them, yes. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay. But they cannot very well use them as 

a model if they are not complete. 

Ms. PUSTAY. No, not until they are done. That is right. Of course. 

Senator FRANKEN. Unless the model is incomplete regulations. 

Ms. PUSTAY. Right. The—— 

Senator FRANKEN. That is kind of silly. 

Ms. PUSTAY. The idea behind updating regulations is—updating 

our own regulations is that once they are finalized, they will be a 

model for other agencies to use. 

Senator FRANKEN. And how long have you been working on 

those? 

Ms. PUSTAY. We have been working on those for a couple years. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay. 

Ms. PUSTAY. It is a time-consuming process to update regulations. That is why it is important to remember that updating regulations was not required by the OPEN Government Act. It was not 

required by the Attorney General Guidelines. And those provisions 

have been fully implemented across the government, and certainly 

at the Justice Department, and we have done that through a wide 

range of efforts—training, specialized guidance, reporting requirements and Chief FOIA Officer reports, assessments of agency 

progress, a specialized focus on some of the key provisions of the 
18 

OPEN Government Act. So through all those initiatives, we have 

been making sure that the FOIA is understood by agency professionals across the government and that we are giving them the 

tools they need to implement the law correctly and also in accordance with the Attorney General’s Guidelines. 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, I want to thank you for your testimony 

and for answering questions, and Ms. Nisbet as well. 

We will go to the second panel now, so you are excused. Thank 

you. 

Senator FRANKEN. I would ask the second panel to take their 

seats. Thank you, gentlemen. 

I would now like to introduce our second panel of witnesses: 

Sean Moulton is director of Open Government Policy at the Center for Effective Government. He is the author of several reports 

on open government and transparency. 

Kevin L. Goldberg is an attorney and is here representing the 

American Society of New Editors and the Sunshine in Government 

Initiative. 

Thomas Blanton is the director of the National Security Archive, 

an independent research institution at George Washington University. 

Thank you all for joining us. Your complete written testimonies 

will be made part of the record. You each have five minutes for any 

opening remarks that you would like to make. 

Mr. Moulton, please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF SEAN MOULTON, DIRECTOR, OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICY, CENTER FOR EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT, 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. MOULTON. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank 

you for inviting me to testify today on the important topic of fulfilling the promise of open government, the impacts of the OPEN 

Government Act, and agency performance on FOIA. My name is 

Sean Moulton. I am the director of Open Government Policy at the 

Center for Effective Government—formerly OMB Watch—an independent, nonpartisan policy organization. Improving citizen access 

to public information has been an important part of our work for 

almost 30 years. I would like to begin with a quick look at FOIA 

implementation. 

Today we published our analysis of FOIA performance at 25 

agencies, including most Cabinet-level departments. Our analysis 

evaluated performance on processing of requests, the rates of requests granted, and the use of exemptions. 

In Fiscal Year 2012, the Obama administration processed more 

FOIA requests than in any year since 2004. Specifically, the 25 

agencies processed more than 512,000 requests, an eight percent 

increase over the previous year. As a result, 12,000 fewer requests 

were still pending at the end of the year, a 12-percent decline compared to 2011. Nevertheless, more than 80,000 requests remained 

unprocessed at year’s end. 

In terms of granting requests, 19 of the 25 agencies fully denied 

requests less than 10 percent of the time. The Department of 

Homeland Security denied requests less than one percent of the 

time. Not surprisingly, the Central Intelligence Agency and State 
19 

Department were the most likely to fully deny requests, rejecting 

59 percent and 44 percent, respectively. 

Overall, in 2012 agencies granted, in full or in part, 94 percent 

of requests processed. However, the administration’s performance 

continues to rely much more heavily on partial releases rather than 

full releases. In fact, granting in full declined to the lowest level 

on record to just under 41 percent. Conversely, partially granted 

requests are at a near record high, and based on the information 

reported, we are unable to say just how partial these releases were. 

We could be talking about releasing 99 documents out of 100 or 

withholding 99 documents and only releasing one. Both would be 

a partial grant. 

We also found that the total use of exemptions rose by 26 percent 

from the previous year. Three exemptions accounted for almost 

three-quarters of exemptions used: personal privacy, law enforcement personal privacy, and law enforcement techniques for prosecution. Each were used approximately 100,000 times or more. 

The use of the internal rules exemption, which was once among 

the most frequently used, was almost entirely eliminated, with a 

92-percent reduction, part of an ongoing shift from a 2011 Supreme 

Court ruling that restricted the use of the exemption. However, an 

increase in the use of the interagency memos exemption suggests 

that some agencies may have expanded it to withhold records previously claimed as internal rules. 

This overview of FOIA performance indicates that the changes 

brought from the OPEN Government Act and the Obama administration’s new FOIA policies have made some positive impact on 

FOIA implementation. But serious challenges and disparities remain. We would like to offer six recommendations to improve FOIA 

performance: improve compliance efforts, a stronger ombudsman, 

expanded proactive disclosure, better technology, congressional 

oversight, and expanded reporting. 

First, we believe that the Justice Department should be more aggressive in overseeing FOIA compliance. There need to be greater 

incentives for strong performance and stronger penalties for failures to comply. 

Second, the Office of Government Information Services, created 

under the OPEN Government Act, should be expanded and 

strengthened. OGIS is already having a positive impact on FOIA 

implementation, and we firmly believe the benefits would be greater if its capacity were increased. 

Third, we recommend expanding FOIA’s proactive disclosure requirements to make more information available without needing a 

filer request. Agencies should be required to routinely post key information about how they are operating. Agencies should also have 

to post records already released in response to other FOIA requests. 

Fourth, agencies should leverage technology to build on the 

tracking numbers required by the OPEN Government Act and provide automatic status updates to FOIA requests. Additionally, 

agencies should be able to receive requests and post responses online. The new interagency portal, FOIA Online, already offers many 

of these features, and it should continue to be improved, and participation should be expanded to include more agencies. 
20 

Fifth, Congress should codify the presumption of openness, the 

foreseeable harm standard, and the affirmative obligation to disclose. We also encourage committees of jurisdiction to continue to 

exercise assertive oversight into FOIA by holding regular hearings, 

issuing letters of inquiry, and ordering GAO studies. 

Finally, we recommend expanded reporting requirements to describe how much information is being withheld under these partial 

releases, such as a record or page count of what is being released 

and what is being withheld. 

Like the Committee, the Center for Effective Government is committed to improving FOIA and ensuring that federal agencies provide timely and complete responses to the public’s requests for information. I look forward to the Committee’s questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moulton appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Moulton. 

Mr. Goldberg. 

STATEMENT OF KEVIN M. GOLDBERG, ESQ., FLETCHER, 

HEALD & HILDRETH, PLC, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, ON BEHALF OF THE SUNSHINE IN GOVERNMENT INITIATIVE, 

AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEWS EDITORS 

Mr. GOLDBERG. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I am pleased to represent the Sunshine in Government Initiative and the American Society of News Editors, because I recall 

how optimistic we all felt almost eight years ago when we first 

started working with Congress to reform FOIA. 

Eight years ago, the starting point for what would become the 

OPEN Government Act was Senator Cornyn’s desire to create an 

enforcement mechanism like he had enjoyed as the Attorney General of Texas. Though not everybody may agree that ‘‘everything is 

better in Texas,’’ we did think Senator Cornyn was onto something 

here, and the Austin American Statesman has actually agreed and 

proven that. 

Our optimism grew when President Obama proclaimed that his 

administration would be the most transparent administration ever. 

But these eight years have not brought the desired changes to 

FOIA processing itself. In the words of what I understand to be 

Chairman Leahy’s favorite Grateful Dead song, the public still sees 

a black muddy river that rolls on forever. 

Why? Well, that is because our original effort was quickly diluted 

to include several less effective provisions. I will first highlight 

those that have worked. 

We believe the Office of Government Information Services has 

been successful. OGIS has helped avoid bigger disputes and avoid 

litigation when agencies fail to communicate with requesters. If 

anything, this office needs more power and resources to perform an 

enforcement role. 

We also are pleased with the fix to the so-called Buckhannon tax 

to make it easier to recover attorneys’ fees when challenging a 

FOIA denial in court. 

There has been a lot of discussion about the increase in litigation. We actually view this as somewhat of a good thing. It is clear 

evidence that requesters use the OPEN Government Act to enforce 
21 

their rights. But excessive secrecy, of course, still remains. Examples include the withholding of Office of Legal Counsel memoranda, 

and a recent change by the U.S. Marshals Service, which has 

begun ignoring a longstanding federal appellate decision requiring 

the disclosure of mug shots. 

The procedural of processing has also been a mixed bag. The 

major enforcement element from the OPEN Government Act— waiving processing fees when an agency fails to meet the 20-day 

response deadline—has not kept agencies in line. But enforcement 

issues aside, FOIA processing simply needs an infusion of leadership, resources, and technology. 

I will praise the administration here. It has not received enough 

credit for harnessing technology to make processing more efficient. 

It just needs to go a little further, and it may need some help from 

Congress to get there. 

The Justice Department’s FOIA.gov Web site is a step in the 

right direction, but as Justice Department officials told the GAO 

last year, FOIA.gov was never intended to manage FOIA requests. 

It is simply a tool to hold agencies accountable for meeting their 

FOIA responsibilities. 

The new multi-agency FOIA Online system offers more promise 

by creating a freely searchable, online data base of already disclosed records that will advance the proactive disclosure of frequently requested records. It will create a streamlined electronic 

tracking system, fulfilling a mandate of the OPEN Government Act, that could save as many as 30 minutes per request by automating 

the logging and confirmation of requests. 

Now, if you look at the over 650,000 requests in Fiscal Year 

2012, that would offer a savings of about 325,000 person-hours, 

possibly the equivalent, if you want to look at it this way, of creating 163 new FOIA officers. It is also a mechanism to allow agencies or components of agencies to more freely talk to one another 

to reduce the tolling of every individual request. 

So against this backdrop of moderate success, greater disappointment, and vast potential, we ourselves offer five steps for congressional action. 

Number one, strengthen OGIS by increasing its funding and its 

independence authority to hold other agencies accountable. 

Two, hold OGIS itself accountable. OGIS should exercise its advisory opinion power to create a record that requesters themselves 

can use to hold agencies accountable. 

Three, hold individuals accountable. Information disclosure 

should be a part of every Federal Government employee’s overall 

performance review. 

Four, codify the disclosure-friendly standard laid out by Attorney 

General Holder that information should only be withheld if foreseeable harm would result from its disclosure. 

And, five, save taxpayers some money by encouraging agencies to 

switch to FOIA Online as their existing software contracts expire. 

The proposals we suggest are a vital part of Congress’ ongoing 

oversight efforts and are necessary to avoid finding ourselves back 

here five, six, eight years from now summing up an unchanged 

Freedom of Information Act landscape with the lamentations of one 

of my musical icons, Bruce Springsteen, who wrote, ‘‘somewhere 
22 

along the line, we slipped off track, Going one step up and two 

steps back.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate working with you to ensure transparency moves two steps forward for every step back. Thank you 

for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to answering 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Goldberg appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Goldberg. 

Mr. Blanton. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS BLANTON, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. BLANTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and all the 

terrific Committee staff who have helped make this hearing happen and this oversight happen. It is a lot of work, I know. 

I have a prepared statement already for the record, and I have 

also brought copies of the brand-new Freedom of Information Act 

audit that we just posted this morning to celebrate this hearing 

and Sunshine Week. It has some new numbers that might correct 

the numbers that Senator Leahy and Senator Grassley used on the 

number of agencies. But I want to use the limited time here just 

to address the Justice Department presentation, which I wish we 

had Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post and his renowned Fact 

Checker column with us, because while that presentation was happening, I could just see the little symbols of the Pinocchios just hitting the page, because the stretches that were involved there were 

really extraordinary. 

I think the Justice Department might be the only player in the 

entire freedom of information environment that thinks new regulations are just optional, that you do not really need them to make 

the system work. 

You go to any training session of Government Freedom of Information Officers, and the senior folks up on the podium say, ‘‘Guys, 

look at your regs. That is the basis of your implementation. Do not 

worry about the statute. And that AG memo? Ah, you know, do not 

worry about that. Your regs, that is what counts.’’ 

So having a list of agencies—this is the red—that have not updated their regulations since Congress passed the OPEN Government Act of 2007 is just—it is a tragedy and a farce. 

The folks who disagree with the Justice Department on the need 

for new regs include federal judges who ruled against the government in the National Park Service case because the agency involved had not updated its regs to charge fees. 

The folks that disagree include former Attorney General Janet 

Reno, who, when she did a memo to the agencies to try to get a 

presumption of openness in there, said, ‘‘Change your regs to fit the 

new policy.’’ 

This Attorney General failed to do so in a memo drafted by that 

office of the folks who were just testifying. 

The people who disagree with the Justice Department include 

the entire open government community that see new across-theboard regs as the opportunity for this Congress and this adminis-
23 

tration to really bring everybody up to the standard of openness 

that we need to expect. 

Among the folks who disagree but are way too polite to say so 

is the Office of Government Information Services, because OGIS 

has done a systematic effort to comment on every new agency 

FOIA regulation proposal because it is vital for OGIS’ success that 

they be mentioned in those regs as a core resort for every requester 

and for every agency to figure out disputes. 

So the entire community of folks, government and requesters, 

who care about the Freedom of Information Act disagree with the 

Justice Department on this. And yet that piece of litigation that 

she would not comment on is the most direct attack by this government on the OPEN Government Act of 2007. They are attempting 

to eviscerate the one single enforcement provision, which is you 

cannot charge fees if you delay your answer. It was very simple. 

As Senator Cornyn and Senator Leahy’s idea, it was a great idea. 

It was one of the first pieces of teeth that we have seen in the law 

anytime, anywhere. The Justice Department is trying to gut that 

out. That is why they will not comment on that lawsuit. 

It is absurd. There has never been a litigation review by the Justice Department to look at what the Attorney General or the President is saying about open government and trying to look at those 

cases and figure out: What can we settle? What can we get rid of? 

What can we disclose? That is why litigation is going up, not down, 

despite the best efforts of OGIS, which is dramatically, I think, improving the requester experience with the freedom of information 

process. 

And then another Pinocchio. That release rate, I think I heard 

it five times in that presentation: 94-percent release rate. The only 

way the Department of Justice gets to that number is by leaving 

out nine of the 11 reasons the government does not answer your 

FOIA requests. Those other nine reasons are: fee-related issues 

that do not get resolved or the agency has a ‘‘No records’’ response 

or it sends the request to another agency for a referral. If you add 

in those reasons why FOIA requesters go away unsatisfied, your 

actual response rate gets down to a more pedestrian, more realistic 

55, 60 percent, roughly. 

So that is the kind of number we ought to be getting out of the 

Justice Department. We are not getting them. We are getting 

hyped-up numbers that you cannot really rely on. You are getting 

a secret sneak attack on the OPEN Government Act in the courts. 

And you are getting claims that just do not hold scrutiny. You get 

no implementation on new freedom of information regulations. 

So I could say it is bad news, but we have had three agencies 

just since December who have updated their regs and added into 

the green side of our ledger. But as you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, 

updated regs do not necessarily mean good regs, because only one 

of those three agencies actually included OGIS in their regulations, 

language about dispute resolution. We have got to do more. We 

have got to order agencies to update their regs along a best practices template. In my written statement, I have got the top 10 best 

practices we think ought to be in every reg. 

OGIS itself has done a series of excellent comments on different 

proposed regulations that talk about how agencies should be run-
24 

ning their processes to make them better, to make them more responsive, to avoid disputes and litigation. 

Congress could order this. There is some energy over on the 

House side. The Issa-Cummings bill that Senator Grassley mentioned actually would order agencies to do this within 180 days. It 

does not take two years. It does not take three years. The reason 

the Justice Department is still struggling with its own regulations 

is its first draft was so bad that all of us had to gather and put 

a stake through the heart to keep that set of regulations in the casket so it would not come out and bite us at night. Terrible regulations. And I hope—the new ones are not likely to be a better model 

either. 

So Congress has got an opportunity. I think the President has a 

real opportunity. We have advocated that President Obama put 

this in the next action plan for the Open Government Partnership, 

that agencies should update their regulations and include these 

best practices and the excellent suggestions that Kevin and Sean 

and many others in our community are making. 

I am just really glad that this Committee has decided to take on 

this issue, to have this oversight, and to bring some pressure to 

bear. 

And my final point would be—and I wish Senator Leahy was 

here, and Senator Grassley. They talked about maybe doing a subpoena for those Office of Legal Counsel memos. I think the next 

nominee for a Justice Department confirmation position that comes 

up here ought to be told, ‘‘I am sorry. Your confirmation is not 

going to go through until you turn over the OLC memos.’’ I think 

maybe Senator Leahy sits on an Appropriations Committee. I just 

remember when a Secretary of State named Jim Baker showed up 

in front of the Appropriations Committee, and Senator Leahy said, 

‘‘Don’t you have a big FOIA backlog? ’’ And Secretary Baker went 

back to the Department and found a couple million dollars to clean 

out the backlog. It takes some pressure. It takes leverage of money. 

It takes holding up some confirmations. And yes, it might take a 

subpoena. 

But I would love the opportunity, and I ask your patience, Mr. 

Chairman, if we could also submit some further comments to the 

record just to take into account the responses of the Justice Department, which I think are part of the problem. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Blanton appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Senator FRANKEN. Yes, absolutely. 

[The comments appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, I would like, Mr. Moulton and Mr. Goldberg, your reactions to Mr. Blanton’s testimony there. He was basically saying—when he was talking Pinocchios, he is talking—we 

know what Pinocchio did. He lied. 

Mr. BLANTON. His nose stretches. 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, the nose stretched because he lied. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FRANKEN. So let us be clear about what you are saying, 

which is that the testimony of the first two witnesses was not 

truthful. 
25 

Mr. BLANTON. Not the first two witnesses. Just the first. 

Senator FRANKEN. Oh, the first witness. 

Mr. BLANTON. Yes. Thank you. 

Senator FRANKEN. Do you gentlemen have any reaction to that? 

Mr. MOULTON. I was disappointed by Ms. Pustay’s testimony because I felt it was extremely one-sided. It was very serpentine in 

bending over backward to find all the highlights and all the 

positives and talked about none of the clear weaknesses, and I do 

think there was some omission on those points. The high release 

rate, even if you do not adjust—or even if you do adjust for these 

other reasons that people go away or that the request does not get 

processed—— 

Senator FRANKEN. So the release rate throughout those that 

were denied because of some of the normal reasons to exempt 

things. Is that right? 

Mr. MOULTON. Yes. Tom is talking about—— 

Senator FRANKEN. So is that a normal way to look at the release 

rate, to take out those that are exempted because of the list of normal exemptions? 

Mr. MOULTON. It is a way, and there is a certain validity to it 

if you are trying to figure out the exemptions and how often the 

exemptions are being used, because the others are not about exemptions. They are about disagreements on fees. There are still, as 

Tom is pointing out, very big concerns in these other denials as to 

whether or not the system is still being gamed. 

Senator FRANKEN. So you said in your testimony on the list of 

improvements that need to be made, one was an improvement by 

Congress in oversight. 

Mr. MOULTON. Yes. 

Senator FRANKEN. So how would you suggest that we do that? 

Mr. MOULTON. Well, I think Tom is raising some good points 

about, you know, really holding the Department of Justice’s feet to 

the fire in terms of their follow-through with their responsibility to 

oversee agencies, their regulations, and their compliance with the 

law and the mandate to requests substantively inside the statutory 

20-day deadline. 

Senator FRANKEN. Now, Mr. Blanton was recommending, it 

sounded like, more resources put toward ending the backlog or just 

in terms of fixing some of these problems and holding up a nomination toward that end. We are currently under a sequester, and we 

do have budgetary limits, and I am not sure that we would want 

to hold up a nomination by demanding that more resources be applied when we are kicking kids off of Head Start and we are limiting women, infant, and children and their food. Would you like 

to say something? 

Mr. BLANTON. In Kevin Goldberg’s testimony, he has a wonderful 

suggestion for dealing with exactly this problem, which is if the 

FOIA Online portal really reached its full potential, it would be the 

equivalent in time savings on freedom of information requests of 

adding 163 new Freedom of Information Officers without a single 

additional dollar of our resources being—I think this is—this goes 

right to heart of why the new technologies can address some of 

these issues without us getting caught in the resource trap that we 

are all very well aware of. 
26 

Senator FRANKEN. Mr. Goldberg. 

Mr. GOLDBERG. Thank you, Tom. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GOLDBERG. I should just stop there. 

I cannot possibly speak with more authority than either of these 

gentlemen on that topic. I will just hit three things that stood out 

to me. 

I was not going to jump all over the lack of agency implementation of the OPEN Government Act changes, but then I think I will, 

because something was running through my head with regard to 

the idea that Congress should not—or, I am sorry, the agency 

should not be required to do this because it was not required, you 

know, in the law itself. And a problem with that is that some of 

the regs are actually now out of sync with the changes in the Act. 

They were wholesale changes that now create a conflict. That sort 

of demands—— 

Senator FRANKEN. The new regs that have been promulgated or 

the old regs? 

Mr. GOLDBERG. No, no. The regulations that were not changed. 

Senator FRANKEN. Oh, okay. 

Mr. GOLDBERG. And then, you know, once the Act changed the 

language of the law itself, you have regs that are in conflict and 

simply need to be changed. And I do not buy the idea that you 

should be required to make a change before you make the change. 

I have the words of my wife ringing in my ears right now, and I 

am going to go on record under oath saying, ‘‘Brenda, I love you, 

you are right. I should not have to be asked to take out the trash.’’ 

You know, I get that all time. ‘‘I should not have to ask you to 

do this.’’ And it is true. If you view the interaction between the 

agencies—— 

Senator FRANKEN. So we have had Jerry Garcia, Bruce 

Springsteen, and your wife now in the record. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GOLDBERG. I am trying to cover all my bases here. 

I mean, if you think about the interplay between the agencies as 

a relationship, the relationship will work better if everybody works 

to their potential and does things voluntarily to help out. They 

should not have to wait for the others to press them on it. We all 

know it is true. 

You know, and I will go out as well on one last topic, back to 

oversight, which is I do think oversight from this Committee and 

from the House Committee and from any Committee that can possibly oversee FOIA is incredibly important. We come up here once 

a year, quite often, for a very important hearing during a very important—to me—week since ASNE is one of the creators of Sunshine Week. And I think that is good. But you hear a lot of statements, you hear a lot of promises, and then there is not a lot of 

follow-through to make sure those promises have been met until 

the next year. 

I think the letter from Chairman Issa and Representative 

Cummings was a very good example of how to hold people’s feet to 

the fire, listen to what was said, go back through the testimony, 

look at what they have promised, look at where they are saying 
27 

they are making progress, and specifically hone in on that and 

make sure they have kept those promises. That is what I would do. 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, thank you. Thank you, gentlemen, for 

your testimony. And I will note that we will hold the record open 

for one week for submissions of questions for the witnesses and for 

other materials. 

I want to thank the Ranking Member and Senator Cornyn and 

the Chairman for being here today, and this hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(29) 

A P P E N D I X 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
30 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PATRICK LEAHY
31 
32 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MELANIE ANN PUSTAY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF

INFORMATION POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MIRIAM NISBET, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES, NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION, WASHINGTON, DC 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SEAN MOULTON, DIRECTOR, OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICY, 

CENTER FOR EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT, WASHINGTON, DC 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KEVIN M. GOLDBERG, ESQ., FLETCHER, HEALD & 

HILDRETH, PLC, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA, ON BEHALF OF THE SUNSHINE IN GOVERNMENT INITIATIVE, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEWS EDITORS
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS BLANTON, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SECURITY

ARCHIVE, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, WASHINGTON, DC 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 

QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY FOR MELANIE PUSTAY
85 
86 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY FOR MIRIAM NISBET
87 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CHARLES GRASSLEY FOR MIRIAM NISBET
88 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR AMY KLOBUCHAR FOR SEAN MOULTON
89 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR AMY KLOBUCHAR FOR KEVIN GOLDBERG
90 

ANSWERS

RESPONSES OF MELANIE PUSTAY TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATORS LEAHY AND

GRASSLEY
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 

RESPONSES OF MIRIAM NISBET TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATORS LEAHY AND

GRASSLEY
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 

RESPONSES OF SEAN MOULTON TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR KLOBUCHAR
116 
117 
118 

RESPONSES OF KEVIN M. GOLDBERG TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR

KLOBUCHAR
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 

MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

‘‘TEXAS GETS HIGH MARKS REGARDING TRANSPARENCY IN LEGISLATIVE MATTERS BUT

STILL NEEDS MORE SUNSHINE,’’ EDITORIAL, Austin American-Statesman 
125 
126 

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), STUDY BY ASSOCIATED PRESS (AP), MARCH

11, 2013 
127 
128 
129 
130 

ANNE L. WEISMANN, CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ETHICS IN WASHINGTON, 

TESTIMONY, MARCH 13, 2013 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 

OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES (OGIS), 2013 RECOMMENDATIONS, 

MARCH 13, 2013 
138 
139 

OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES (OGIS), COVER LETTER, MARCH 12, 

2013 
140 
141 

LETTER FROM SENATOR AL FRANKEN TO MELANIE A. PUSTAY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF

INFORMATION POLICY, WASHINGTON, DC, OCTOBER 9, 2012 
142 
143 

ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Submissions for the record not printed due to voluminous nature, 

previously printed by an agency of the Federal Government or 

other criteria determined by the Committee, list: 

OGIS 2013 Report for FY 2012: Building a Bridge Between 

FOIA Requesters & Federal Agencies; https:// 

ogis.archives.gov/Assets/OGIS+Reports/ 

OGIS+Report+March+2013.pdf 

Æ