you have to ben trait we need working relationships some of whom have grown suspicious and others who have become participants. how do you handle yours yourself and your department in terms of your work in this area and how is it going? building relationships, raising the trust with the private sector, with private business, with the average american. interfacing with best practices, and the like. and we're doing that, i'm permanently committed to that. i'm engaging with business leaders myself, to talk to them about this problem, and lowering some of the barriers. i agree that with some of the

unauthorized disclosures last year there's been a lot of suspicion raised about our government's national security surveillance practices, and a lot of public confusion about what we're doing and not doing, and we've got to restore some of that trust. that's a big personal priority of mine. there have been efforts in this congress as cyber security legislation, which i by and large support. i outlined in a speech a couple of weeks ago what i think our goals should be. i'm glad to know our authorizing committees are taking a in the rued interest because cyber security legislation will help to clarify for the private sector what we can do in support of their efforts, and raise the trust factor. so, i'd like to work with the congress on cyber security legislation to try to get it in a better place. but best practices, information-sharing, rapid

response, doesics -- diagnostics, that's the key with the private sector. >> thank you, mr. chairman, mr. secretary could you give me the breakdown of the 2,000 custom and border patrol officers by location? >> we're in the process of doing that right now, sir. >> all right. nose to be unfriendly here. how do you ask for 2,000 if you don't know where you're going to put them? >> it's an overall assessment of what we need. >> where did that come from? why 2,000? why not 1753, or 2162? how did you come up with 2,000? >> well, first of all, i wasn't -- >> you inherited it, i understand. >> i'm responsible for it, obviously. my sense is that we are able to make an overall estimate based on where we know we have a need nationwide, to get to that number. >> okay so, with the domestic, you're saying nationwide so they

would be not overseas in preclearance offices. is that correct? >> by and large, but some are and should be in my judgment, devoteed to preclearance overseas. that's very important. >> how big do you think that number is? >> off hand i don't know. we just opened a preclearance capability. as i'm sure you know in abu dhabi, and i think we need to continue to work in that direction. >> so, how many preclearance officers would we have in the middle east? >> we'd like to have more. it depends upon an assessment of the security at each airport, and this is not something that well occur overnight but i believe it's a general direction we should work in. >> where are the nonmiddle east -- preclearance offices.

>> you mean airports? >> is. >> doh! ha -- >> nonmiddle east. >> 0, in huron. >> are -- in europe. >> are we not worried about placing so many in northeast? >> the level of security at last points of departure airports tends to vary, some are better than others. so, i think we need to focus our preclearance resources in the airports that need a little more help and where the host government is willing to support us. so, for example, what we hope to have is a situation where the host nation, host government, will support our efforts and help pay for it. >> where do -- >> depends on the ability to work out an arrangement for the host government. >> you propose a fee for this to pay for this?

>> we proposed that cbp, our customs efforts, be funded in part -- well, this is largely tsa -- through the increases, that's correct. >> the fees would go to -- on an airline ticket or where? >> if you're talking about tsa, there is a fee that we propose that would be paid by the airline, and then there is the 9/11 security fee, and i think i'm getting the terminology a little wrong -- that's paid by the passenger who uses the -- who flies and passes through tsa. >> i think if i could get from you the breakdown of the 2000, where they would go and why, and the breakdown of the amount of money generated by the fees, and if that fee covers it or if you're talking about fees

partially covering it, and then how much money is already generated through other fees, that would be of interest. and i'd also like to know what kind of congestion decrease there would be because of this. >> well, the allocation of the additional officers is -- my understanding is still a work in progress but we're almost done. the fee is referred to a moment ago would go to helping to support tsa, not cbp. so, the aviation infrastructure fee and the security fee would help to sustain tsa. preclearance is a cbp function. >> okay. thank you, mr. secretary. mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman, could i have just to make sure i understand what the line of question -- when you said boarder patrol you

mean the men and women in blue. the men and women in green is border patrol. the men and women in blew is cbp officers. i assume -- i just want to make sure. >> i'm talking about cbp. >> okay. the men and women in blue. okay. >> mr. -- just for clarification, the abu dhabi preclearance facility, the only one anywhere in the middle east or europe, is shannon island? in ireland, and then canada. there's no others over on the european side except shannon. is that correct? >> mr. chairman -- >> the the that they're talking about, the immigration user fee,

abu dhabi, they are asking for increase in that fee. >> that's what i mean. increase in fee. >> but that doesn't -- pretty long time established the -- >> no. no. i know -- yes, sir. i know about the fee. i understand they're an additional fee being proposed. >> do we know what that additional fee is? >> to finance tsa. >> but do we know what the fee and is how much it generates? >> well, the aviation security fee -- >> we know what they and are we do know the increases -- we're not excited about and have already explained we're not excited about fees. >> just caught my -- >> one of them is an authorized -- they all require authorization. >> correct. >> thank you. >> i talked earlier about the reports that we're supposed to get, about 20 of them.

four of them, mr. secretary, is for the coast guard, capital investment plan, and are the departments comprehensive acquisition status reports should be -- we don't have that. i wanted to get -- i got you but i'd like to know when you're going to get that to us. >> can i -- >> i got a hearing tomorrow. >> i have directed my staff to give you what we owe you, and not delay. i think congress should have what you need to help me. >> i asked that question strictly to make the point. it's helpful to have that kind of information as we go into a hearing. it saves times and makes more accurate questions. going off to something else which we talked about when we first met. mr. secretary, we all note with interest your testimony stating

the need to reform the department, the budget reform. first i'd like your opinion why you believe dhs budget process needs reforming, and i think to some extent you have -- more in detail where you intend to start. very important. i, too, have an interest as does mr. price in this subject. we are -- we think we can always do better, and so i look forward to working with you on this. i'd love to have your information, what -- maybe for the ben photo -- >> my impression is that the dhs budget process is too stovepiped. at it developed at the component level. we get the components budget requests and we react to that at the dhs level. we give it to omb and omb gives it to you. i think that -- there are certain respects in which dod

cannot be a model for dhs, but i think we ought to start with define what our overall mission is with report to counterterrorism, border security, aviation security, maritime security. define your mission. at the dhs level, early on in the process, once you have defined the mission you figure out the resources you need to philadelphia a mission -- to fulfill a mission, and then you expect the components to meet the resource needs, paying attention to potential overlaps, gaps in efficiencies. so, i know from personal experience, if you plante department of defense to have the capability to fight two major conflicts at once around the world, that's done the joint staff level you. don't ask the army, navy, air force, marine corps to develop their own sense of what they need themselves and then you racket to that. so i think that we need to a more centralized mission focused budget process that starts

earlier in the budget cycle, that originated at the dhs level. and we're building that process now, and i want to work with the committee and get your advice on this as well, mr. chairman. because i do think that we can identify better efficiencies and inefficiencies if we do this. >> well, i look forward to working with you on that. i have a real interest in that; to not to be trial, we're the congress and we're here to help but we want to work with you. we need to know your needs. and i think there's an interest among all the members of this committee that we have an interest in this. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. secretary, as i said when we started, you have a tough job,

and i would say that one of the toughest challenges is immigration enforcement. and it's tough because there's a significant amount of disagreement on this issue among the american people and it's really one of the few issues where the members of this subcommittee don't regularly see eye to eye. we do have differences on this, and if you think it's bad on the subcommittee, wait until we get to the house floor. that's where we really see some of the differences emerge. so, this discussion here today, we have focused on the detention, bad mandate. i think that a mandate of this sort is very up wise. i've made this very clear. conceivably forced i.c.e. to detain individuals at a significant cost of the taxpayer who don't otherwise meet the requirement for detension. then there's the question about

enforcement of immigration law, deportation. how do you prioritize? as any prosecutorial office would have to do, how do you prioritize your cases, your most dangerous individuals to focus on, and make the best use of limited resources. i'd like to just invite you to reflect on this. how much, if at all, these dilemmas might be made more tractable, more resolvable, if we had better data, more comprehensive information. we're working, as you know, at the staff level, on this right now to get more detailed data on exactly how detention is working and how deportation is working, how we're enforcing immigration law. i don't think the best data in

the world will bring us perfect consensus. on the other hand we do find ourselves wondering. the example that was brought up. how typical is that? is that what we're dealing with in substantial numbers in terms of these specific decisions that are made on detention? i certainly wonder about the deportation. we all hear about the anecdotes about people who should have been deported and weren't, and even more of those who probably shouldn't have been prioritized who were. families that were broken up unnecessarily. the situation with these -- i mean, some people go so far as to suggest -- i don't think anybody on this subcommittee but some of our colleagues suggest that's no difference. shouldn't be any difference, between a dream act student and a hardened criminal. that if you give priority to the

latter, than that really is declaring amnesty. that's absurd, obviously. but there still are important differences, and here, too, we're not exactly certain what we're dealing with. the department has data that suggests there has been an increasingly sharp focus on dangerous people deportation, but we all know that case is something less than airtight and the reality is somewhat messy and probably we would be better served by more precise data and more precise information about exactly what we're dealing with. i guess i'm just asking you to reflect on that, how much would better data help you? i certainly think it would help us. and we might see disagreement narrowed if we knew exactly what we were dealing we are here.

so i do want to ask for your help in getting better information on this area and particularly in this area of prosecutorial discretion or the analogy to prosecutorial direction in terms of enforcement, the deportation decisions you're making. the decision about whom to go after. what you think improved data is going to show news terms of how far you have come and how far you still need to go. >> mr. price, i agree that informed judgment is always better than uninformed judgment. i'd rather arm you with information so that we can have an informed discussion about the correct approach to immigration reform. as the immigration reform debate advances, i have had a number of members of congress, house and

senate, express similar -- sentiment to me and i'm committed to giving you the information you need. i had this discussion of a similar nation as recently as earlier today with some members of the senate. so, if there's a specific request that this committee has with regard to data, with removals, priorities, happy to consider it, and i pledge numbers of times to be transparent with congress on issues of this nature. sometimes we have certain law enforcement sensitivities so i might ask you to accept the information with certain protections, and the like. but in general, i agree with the need to provide the congress with information of this type so that we can all make informed judgments. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

to follow up on the subject we have all been keenly interested in, of 0 course, the number of detention beds and the folks you have here in the country that are not legally present. in 2013, mr. secretary, i.c.e. deported 368,644 convicted criminals and noncriminal immigration violators, all of whom met the definition of mandatory detentions. you have a tremendous number of people here in the country who were -- just looking for that number -- that had folks who have, for example, been accorded due process, entered the country illegally, exhausted their appeal and received a final order or removal but remain in the country in defiance of that order, and at the end of july july 2013 there were 872,000

individual0s on i.c.e.'s docket in that category. they've gone through the whole process and they have been ordered removed, and the vast majority of those just simply disappeared. so in light of that, what are the assumptions that you're making that would justify the agency recommending that you only need 30,539 detention beds? since you obviously have plenty of customers. >> well, obviously -- well, a couple of comments. obviously not everyone among the 368,000 that were removed in fy13, had beened in the detention for the entire time they were in the united states. a large part of that population was at liberty for some period of time, and then they were subject to our process, and they were removed. the other point i'd make is that a very large fraction -- i don't know the number offhand but a

very large fraction of that 368,000 are basically border removals where they're apprehended in or around the border. >> the border patrol just takes care of it. >> they're given over to i.c.e. because either they can't be sent right back to mexico or some other reason. so a lot of these are border removals, where they're in the country for a very short period of time. we're criticized by some for the very high number of removals that are taking place right now, and so the end result of a process where somebody is detained, who is not lawfully in this country, who meets our priorities, is a removal, and as you know, we have removed -- we managed to remove 368,000 people last year, and my understanding is that 98% of those fit within

our removal priorities. so that's pretty effective. >> but under the obama administration, more than of those removals were atranscribed to i.c.e. were actually border patrol arrests, so you can't use that number in term0s when you say i.c.e. removed those people. half of those are border patrol removalled and were never counted before. in fact there's even a quote i saw from the -- president obama said in 2011 that these statistics on removal are in fact -- quoting directly -- these statistics are deceptive because what we have been doing is, with the stronger bored enforcement, we have been apprehending folks at the border and sing them back. that's counseled at a deportation even though they were held 48 hours and sent back. that's never been done before. in previous administrations.

i've been on this subcommittee since it was created and the bush administrationer in counted people removed by the border patrol as being deported by i.c.e., and you have vast numbers of criminal aliens. ias to be sure for the record, if i could -- i appreciate the time, mr. chairman -- would you please tell the committee, what are the assumptions that dhs made that you believe justify reducing the number of detention beds from 34,000 to 30,539. >> two things. first, the -- my understanding that the 368,000 is the number of removed by i.c.e. now, it is the case that for various reasons, including reasons involving logistics, a larger number of people who are apprehend in or around the board gore to i.c.e. custody. the number, 368,000, reflects

those removed by i.c.e. the number, 30,006 is our best judgment about where detention bed levels should be, given who we believe needs to be detained in this process. that is our best assessment based on what our removal priorities should be, based on what we believe our national security public safety threats, the number tens to hover around that number. i think at it also higher right now as we speak but it goes up and down that's our best assessment who should be detained at any given moment in time. >> you'll provide that to the subcommittee and the chairman and the staff, those assumptions, those numbers to justify your request? >> i believe we can do that. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman.

>> mr. secretary, one of the reasons that we are given for not passing a come mensive immigration reform is that the majority believes that president obama does not -- can't be trusted to enforce our laws. yet in the little over four years president obama has been in office, projections are that around early april, deportations will have reached two million and that's more deportations than during the entire eight year of the bush administration and actually the $2 million -- the two million deportation number exceeds the sum total of all deportations prior to 1997. another excuse for delaying the passage of comprehensive immigration reform is that our borders must first be secured. the fact is that under president obama's leadership, and frankly, the thoughtful work of this

subcommittee, remarkable progress has in fact been made in securing our borders. we now have more than 21,000 border patrol agents, 651 miles of fencing, more than 300 remote video surveillance systems and at least six drones deployed along the southwest border. in addition, due in part these investments, the number of illegal entries into our country is at a 40-year low. and according to a 2012 report by the pew research center, net migration for mexico has fallen to zero. i have a three-part question. first of all, does this -- what does this number of -- record number of deportations tell you about the president's commitment to obey our laws, and what is your assessment of our border

security, and based on that assessment, do you believe we need to spend tens of billions of dollars more on border security before we can begin fixing our broken immigration system? >> first of all i agree with everything you said in the first part of your question. we are enforcing the law. we are enforcing the law vigorously and effectively, which results in the removal of over 300,000 people a year over the last several years. we are using the resource congress gave to us remove those who we believe are threats to national security, public safety, and border security, and they result in the numbers that you see. at the same time, you are correct, the apprehension levels at the border have been going down recently. they've begun to spike up again slightly for a various reasons.

i suspect maybe because the economy in this country is getting a little better, they're beginning to spike up again. all of this to say that we are enforcing the law at unprecedented levels, given -- with the resources congress has given us. and i believe that when it comes to border security, border security is -- you have to be agile. it's an evolving task in that challenges to border security tend to migrate different places. you focus resources one place, you have to be agile and be able to move your surveillance resources, your manpower, to another part of the border, the southwest border in particular. so we have to be vigilantes. continually vigilant. i don't believe that we should have a standard of border

perfection before every other aspect of comprehensive immigration reform kicks in, because i believe, as a matter of homeland security, those who are here in this country undocumented should be encouraged to come out of the shadows, as matter of homeland security should be encouraged to come out of the shadows, be accountable, pay taxes and get on an earned path to citizenship, which is contemplated by the senate legislation, would take 13 years. so not going to happen tomorrow. i believe that we should do that. we should continue to work on border security, which we're doing at unpress depthed levels right now, as part of an overall comprehensive package, and proceed on all of those fronts attachment. so i agree with you.

>> i asked your predecessor on the disaster relief funding. the disaster relief fund is important to the northeast or wherever there's been major dollars. your fiscal year '55 budget includes 7.8 billion in the fema disaster relief fund, including 2.9 billion for the cost of disasters that have already occurred, such as hurricane sandy. based on the disaster relief fund annual report, which was submitted friday, this is what the department needs to respond to disasters during the fiscal year '14 budget based on current spend plans and what we call the ten-year averages. your monthly report which i have, states that you'll carry

over 4.6 billion into fiscal year '14. is the requirement for 7 billion furphies school year '15 -- is there a requirement of 7 billion for '15 or significantly higher? in other words, two reports, both submitted by your departments, seem to be somewhat in conflict. can you provide a little bit of clarity? >> i'd have to study the reports specifically that you're referring to answer that question. my general understanding is that the request we made with regard to the disaster relief fun, which is multiyear money, is sufficient to meet what we believe will be the disaster relief challenges, but i will take a look at those two reports to see whether there are any

inconsistencies in that regard. >> during the debate though floor on hurricane sandy -- i took quite a lot of flack. one of the issues was -- this is understandable -- fema was -- is still working on programs and rebuilding from storms that occurred before sandy. in the event of another disaster, considering sandy and others we're still cleaning up from, how would you prioritize spending between sort of immediate needs, sandy projects underway, and past projects? because there was quite a lot of angst and anger that we in the northeast were getting this and other partses of the country weren't getting, shall we say, the remainder of what they needed to do to do their cleanups. how do you view that situation?

>> i think you have to -- it obviously depends on the circumstances. having -- living in an area affected by hurricane sandy myself, and in a neighborhood -- i lost -- a lot of damage to my own yard. i know that there's a lot of angst about how slow that money has been in coming. a lot of that depends beyonds a certain point on what the states are doing with the money, not the federal government. and how fast we are able to push out money like that is -- it is obviously depending on the circumstances. could we do a better job? i suspect the answer is, yes. there's always room for improvement. how you prioritize old money versus -- old needs versus new needs depends on the circumstances and that's one of

the reasons why it's multiyear money. >> but you still have carryover money which needs to be -- >> yes. >> put to use and that's something which you were committed to expediting its use. >> yes. >> to meet the needs of the people. >> yes, that's correct. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. secretary, again, i know you're new and i have a lot of high hopes for you. you're smart, and we really appreciate working with you. a couple points -- >> that excuse won't work for me anymore. >> at least with this appropriation hearing it's going to work for you. let me just say this -- >> hasn't reflected too much. >> let me first of all, on the cbp officers this men and women in blue, for us on the border, we appreciate all the work the men and women in green do but having ports of entry, those men

and women in blue are very important, and keep in mind, members, that over 80% of all the goods and people that come into the u.s., come through land ports and sometimes we don't tend to put that much attention, but the right of my home town we handle 45% of the trade between the u.s. and mexico. 12,000 trailers a day. and number two even though we have them at the bridges, we appreciate that professionalism campaign, they were supposed to start that in laredo and extended out. if there's a bad apple, you do what you need to do but the majority of them people coming over are coming over to spend money in the u.s., and i have been working with your office, and thomas, good person, but we have to make sure they know, they're here to spend money, they're here, we got to treat them with a little dignity and

respect instead of thinking everybody is a bad apple on that. i ask you to just check up on that. ask you to check up on something the chairman and i and the committee mocked on and senator mary landrieu, the public-private partnerships on the infrastructure. i know there's five pilot programs for the service overtime but i'm also asking you to look at the infrastructure because the federal government is not putting the money in. i think we need probably about $5 billion on infrastructure. i think that's one of the studies we need 5,000cbp officers. we start off with 2,000. that's a pretty good start. i ask you to look at the public-private partnership because we want to see men and women in blue and also the infrastructure. the last point i would ask you to look at, canada and the united states -- we worked with candace miller on this -- on the northern border, the utah and canadians work together, they do joint operations and a lot of

stuff together, and i'm going to be sitting down with the chairman and the committee ask the ranking member, mr. price here, and the committee so see if we can look at something similar with mexico. i would ask you to do that to look at some of the joint operations, and i'm familiar with -- they're doing some but i ask you to look at that, whether it's trade, tourism, infrastructure, what they do entry lanes, fast lanes, and we have to make sure we sit down with them on the other side. the head of customs, the mexican customs, was here last week and i'm sure he met with y'all, and we need to do more coordination. so we do it with the canadians, would help us expedite trade and tourism and security the southern border. we have been working with the chairman and the ranking member and we appreciate your support. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

>> mr. secretary, the state department requested from gsa a foreign affairs security claim center at blackstone, virginia, and is a understand authorized in committee were the ones that first waved the flag on this but the original cost was 935 million. however if they use the existing federal law enforcement training center facilities it would have been 272 million. over $600 million savings or difference, and then the scope of the operation was reduced but it still is almost half to do with the federal law enforcement training center that is in existence up and running and fully capable of doing this, than it is to create a new facility and training center at fort picket. omb is looking at this doom you know what their timeline is and do you have any comment on the

difference? >> i don't know the timeline. this is exact issue is something i talk to the director about. the numbers you cited are the numbers i understand to be the case, that we could support the state department diplomatic security training mission by an expenditure of 275 million, which is a lot less than a billion. and frankly, that's the -- the purpose is to be a training center for law enforcement protection services across the federal government. so, this is in my judgment, a perfect example of why you have a training center like this. additionally, if we bring a diplomatic security training capable, that will work to the benefit of other federal law enforcement agencies and departments. i fully support having the state

department bring that nation that center. >> do you know when owe mb is going do make the final decision? >> i don't know but i can find out. >> also. i wanted to submit few questions for the record, and mostly -- some of it is past tense now because we have another bill that has taken its place, but there was a requirement for fema to do a feasibility study on it before they implemented it, and for some reason they bypassed that study, and i'm not door clear why. so i'd like to submit that to you for the record, mr. chairman, and a couple of other little followups. >> my understanding is the money appropriated to do the study was not sufficient, that's why we cooperate do it. >> okay.

we'll -- may want to flesh that out a little bit. i appreciate your sensitivity of that. you know what it did to the coastal areas. thank you very much, mr. secretary. >> mr. secretary, we're going to conclude this hearing. i'm going to -- before we do i'm going to point something out to you. there's several suggestions about morale, and you and i had a conversation, you and i, mr. price, had a conversation about the vacancies. i want to commend you for the vacancies you built a fire in the white house to get them done. also keep the fire burning. i think the leadership of having permanent people in positions, and i think you awe agree on this -- is very, very important 0 the morale of the people. i commend you also for being a man that says, i take responsibility. that's rare. before this committee in many instances, and i appreciate

that. and that's the kind of thing, in this leadership, we're going to call upon these knew people to get these appointments to be responsible for the position they've been awarded. so, thank you for that. i hope you stick with it because we need it. thank you for this here and being here. your candor was much appreciated. we look forward to working with you in the future. >> thank you, sir. thank you. >> unless anybody got any other business? we're adjourned. [inaudible conversations] >> on next washington journal

we'll talk about the ongoing investigation into the missing malaysian airlines flight. then the conversation on how to he president's 2015 pentagon budget could affect military red ins. congressman rob whitman will join us. and later, as part of our spotlight on magazine series, a guest is steven levy. he wrote an article called how the nsa almost killed the internet. we'll also get an update on the allegations the cia searched senate computers. we'll take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. washington journal, live each more than at 7:00 eastern on c-span. >> when they built the new capitol in the 1970s, but a fight ensued basically between

politicians and the people of florida and there was a save the old capitol campaign. when the call came out that the architect had planned to demolish the historic structure, but the citizen campaigned to save the old capitol had prevailed, and the two build little were going to coexist and one capitol complex. how exactly the historic capitol would be referred to was the debate. wasn't whether we save it or not. it was what time period do we restore it to? the 190 2 version offered great bin fits because all three branches of government were in this one building and the goal of the department of state was to turn it into a museum and use it as a teaching school for florida school children so being able to come to this one site and see the supreme court, governor's office, house and senate chamberingses and understand the three branches of government and how they worked

together, really was a benefit. >> this weekend booktv and american history tv look at the history and literary life of florida state capitol, tallahassee. >> the freedom of information act's only budsman testified at a senate judiciary committee about how the law should be updated and government information could be more accessible to the public. they argued against claims that government agencies are ignoring the requests for next. a second panel includes witnesses representing journalists and advocates for open government. this an hour and a half.

>> i apologize for being late. once or twice a year the chief justice brings in the -- called the judicial conference with chief judges of all the circuits as well as some others, for a meeting, and a number of us come and briefly answer questions, and i was there if the attorney general others, and ran a little later. but i wanted to have this hearing, and i will stay here as long as i can, and then i think senator franken will take over the gavel, but we're going to talk about the freedom of information act, all of you

refer to it as foia. and as we stream what we do here, i would hope the whole freedom of information act -- i'll call it foia -- we also commemorate the annual celebration of openness in our democratic society called sunshine week, which will be next week. i'll be in vermont talking about it in several places. for almost half a century, the freedom of information act has translated our american values of government openness and accountability into practice, helping guarantee the public's right to get information. so i think it's time we take stock, which is where we are. what progress we have made during the last decades. we tried to improve foia. also examine proposals to reform

foia to address new technologies that were not even imagined at the time it was written. and the challenges that remain with citizens seeking information about their government. five years after president obama issued presidential directives in foia in open government with hey spend some progress. backlogs of requests are on the decline. a trend started during this first time. online tools such at date.gov. foia.gov. an i.t. working group to monday concernize it. it's a step in the right direction but we all have to agree there's more that remains to be done and i feel that much of the progress has come too slowly. created the responsiveness of the 15 federal agencies to process the moist foia requests, found that half of these agencies earn a passing grade.

another impediment to the process, the growing list of exemptions to withhold information from the public. according to the 2013 secrecy act, federal agencies used foia exemption five to withhold information from the public more than 79,000 times. 41% increase from the previous year. i might say parenthetically, if everything is classified, nothing is classified. i've been in meetings where, among the things that have been brought up that are not classified, were the covers of a couple of news magazines. getting a little built carried away. i'm concerned of the growing trend towards relying upon foia exemptions to withhold large parts of government information,

hindering the public's right to know. it becomes to much of a temptation, if you screw up in government, just mark it top secret. that's why i've long supported adding a public interest balancing test to the statute. so federal agencies consider the public interests of the disclosure of information before issuing the exemption. this is a state bipartisan effort. seven years ago, senator coin anyone from texas worked together to create the ogis, to mediate foia disputes and make recommendations to congress, and how to improve the foia process. i'm encouraged by the good work they're doing. but i worry the office does not have sufficient independent authority and especially resources to fully carry out its work. the office is critical, keeping

our government open and accountable to the american people. so continue to work to get the tools and the resources necessary. involve both democratic and republican administrations and both democrats or republicans as chair of this committee. this commit he has had a proud tradition working in a bipartisan manner to protect the public's right to know. we have enacted several bills to improve foia for all americans. the value of the strong partnerships i formed with ranking member grassley and senator cornyn in open government matters and i look forward to that continuing because it makes to difference if you're a democrat or republican, as president, the american public is served only if it knows what its government is doing and why.

and that is something that -- should you unite to keep us going. senator grassley. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i always enjoy this hearing and from what you just said, let me emphasize there is no distance between you and me on this subject, and i hope that that broad-based political support will send a clear signal to everybody in the bureaucracy, not just these two people here, of the importance of the public's information being public. this hearing provides us an opportunity to focus on how the government handles freedom of information. as i've said before, it's been my experience that every administration, whether republican or democrat, has challenges in providing the degree of transparency desired by so many, a right of citizens

to know and, more importantly, as i've said, public information -- ought to be public. unfortunately, this administration, as administrations before, continued to fail to provide the transparency, in this particular case maybe a higher standard set by the president himself, because of the statements he made of this being the most transparent administration in history -- this is troubling as we were all told of that fact on january 21, one day of he was sworn in as president for the first term. we need to do better than the status quo. i expect that we'll hear about some of the changes in technology that are taking place to make foia process better. this is an important and an

improvements are in fact needed, but we also must remain focused on improving the way government thinks about transparency and freedom of information. all the changes to technology will be futile if there's not a change of attitude. on this point about change of attitude, at last year's hearings, i questioned what the justice department was doing to improve the way people think about transparency. i hope to hear today what has been done to change the so-called culture of obfuscation among freedom of information officials. the term "culture of obfuscation" is a quote. the justice except its office of information policy, has unique and special role with regard to" the office of information policy can have a profound impact on foia. it can tackle head on the

government-wide culture of obfuscation, problems. i'm concerned, though, that rather than lead in a positive way, this office has reacted in a way that is contrary to the president's transparency promises. i am frustrated with the legal argument that the justice department and the federal election commission made in a recent foia case. this is citizens for responsibility and ethics in washington. the yates department made an argument that in the view of many undermine foy gentleman. fortunately the administration's argument was rejected. the dc circuit said the government's position would create a catch-22 situation, leaving requestors in limbo for months or years. that resulted in what congress

or the law envisioned. i'm glad the court got this one right. but it's a shame that it even had to consider the question. what message does the justice department argument send to other agencies? meaning the argument in that case. i fear this, do as i say, not as i do, approach, embot bold -- emboldens the agencies to craft maneuvers that -- the justice department was right there to help them in the court. given the justice department's leadership role with respect to foia, that's disappointing if not downright alarming considering what the purposes of foia is all about. if justice makes this kind of argument, why shumann be shocked about the lack of transparency claims against the government? as a senator i have had my open challenges in obtaining

information, not only from this administration but a lot of administrations since i've been in the senate, and again, only hold this administration to a higher standard because of the standards set by themselves that on january 21st, 2009, they were going to be the most transparent in the history of our country. if it's this difficult for a senator, i can only imagine how much more difficult and frustrating for a private citizen. i'll note that the recently the house of representative unanimously passed bipartisan foia legislation. i think that's a real accomplishment in the politicized world that washington is today. i understand, mr. champion, that our staffs are reviewing this legislation and hearing from those in the transparency community. overall the reception seems to be positive, but there's some questions that have been raised

regarding, for example, the technology used in handling requests. we'll continue to examine this issue and others, but here's a bill that we should take serious and examine closely. there's a lot of room for improvement and i look forward to asking our witnesses today about some of these concerns i've raised before. or that i've racessed today. >> thank you. our staff has been looking at it, and an area where i believe we can find common ground. the only per se ash does the director of the office of information policy department of socrates has statutory responsibility for directing agency compliance with the freedom of information act, before becoming director she served for eight years as the deputy director, so great deal of experience there, and please go ahead.

>> to be here today to discuss the department of justice's ongoing efforts to assist agencies in improving their administration toll the foia. increasing use of technology to improve the public's access to information has been a key part of our work. over the past five years, we have seen agencies embrace technology in a wide variety of ways. agencies recognize the benefits of i.t. and are using ever more sophisticated technology improve access to information. one area that we have found technology to be particularly beneficial is this use of tools and applications that assist with the core task of processing foia requests. such as technology that assists in the search and review of records. automating those functions has the potential to improve timeliness in responding to requests. now, oip has hosted seminars and given presentations to our foia

working group. last year 68 agencies reported using some type of advanced technology to increase their efficiency in deaths agencies -- in addition agencies are can use technology to improve with, a with the able. making more information available online is another way. given that pro-active disclosures can satisfy public demand for information without the need to ever file a foia request, oip has focused on the topic in or written guidance and treasonning to agencies, and agencies have embraced pro-active disclosures by posting a wide variety of material of high public interest and have made their can bees more useful. ...

>> lead in the interagency team to develop a common foia regulation that has flexibility for specific requirements. third, as agencies are

working to practice their foyer of practices -- foia practices they will have workshops where they can help to implement the attorney general foia guidelines. of number four to ensure they have a proper understanding of foia it is having a suite of learning resources to charge a discrete groups of employees from the newly arrived in turn to the senior executives and oip will participate in that foia buys three committees to foster dialogue between the community. the department of justice will continue our work to encourage and oversee compliance with of law. we issued guidance addressing a number of ways with communication and continued to conduct assessments' using a wide variety of milestones including those that target technology used. as agency implementation

foia guidelines has matured oip has refined those milestones in the gauge the community with the effort and appreciate the ideas and suggestions we have gotten from that. this past fiscal year marks where they have received record high numbers of foia request able to increase the total number and out of the 99 agencies, 73 had a backlog of 100 requests or less, 29 reported no backlog at all. but producing significant backlogs oip required a plan to reduce the backlog in the year ahead. so the department of justice looks forward to working with the committee with matters pertaining to new foia. we have accomplished a lot but oip will help to create

a greater transparency in the years ahead and increase of technology is a key part of those efforts. thank you. >> we will for gate -- forebear question sam was our next guest served as director of the information society over the education and scientific and cultural organization so i guess i should say co-head. >> brochure mr. chairman and ranking member grassley thank you for the opportunity leading up to sunshine week. we have been working hard to

carry out the mission of policies procedures in compliance to provide mediation services to resolve disputes. in fact, the case load was up 40% fiscal year 2013 which is a testament to the innovative approach to resolve foia disputes but we have worked closely with colleagues to contribute to five efforts to modernize foia through the second annual action plan. they embrace technology in some way. for example, of the administration and committed to launching the portal to give a single site across coverage to file requests.

i would note the existing act and expanding system in which our parent agency the national archives was the subject of a recommendation in 2012 will inform that process. additional lee to support the new advisory committee made up of government and nongovernment experts to recommend improvements starting this spring if it ever comes. more specifically foia has you know, directs policy changes to improve the foia process. we recommended for ways to do that last year and they'll continue today. we're making progress on to to, 2013 recommendations to carry forward. one is examining the fees in reviewing the process to request immigration related

records. one-third recommendation long-term involves working with agencies to employment dispute resolution. to work with several agencies to identify ways to prevent it resolve disputes as well as to avoid litigation. the final recommendation was to encourage agencies of everyone's responsibility which we are very glad to see some agencies do. beyond those and other efforts there are additional low or no cost ways to address the technological issues to improve the foia process provided a given time agencies are working to update or purchase new information technology infrastructure. we recommend upgrading existing technology or to create a new large agency

database program officers consult with records managers and professionals to determine how the records will be managed. how they conduct foia searches and to proactively disclose. it should extend to contracted technology service is so when the foia request is received there not burdened without a contract cost. while it can theoretically make it easier to maintain it can sometimes pose a challenge in response to the foia request to rely on their colleagues to unleash information held in a database. there are also low-tech low-cost or no cost ways to make a difference to improve

customer service. for example, i have sent a letter to the president asking the white house to issue a memorandum to general counsel to focus on an exemplary customer service for a better foia process with particular attention to appropriate dispute resolution through foia publicly jayson -- liaison. iran to work with agencies to ensure they provide information about estimated date of completion for the request. this remains a challenge and we will work closely of that. i appreciate the opportunity to appear before this committee invites thank you for the support you have shown to the government information services.

>> let me ask a couple of questions. this year marks the fifth anniversary of the foia guidelines to restore the presumption of openness. i worry they are undermined by the growing use of the foia exemptions. with the opening statement day recently reports that a federal agency uses the foia exemption to withhold information more than 79,000 times in 2012. 41% increase. why do they rely so extensively for those numbers with 2012? is your microphone on?

>> just a couple of things 2.0 to looking at a statistics such as that. the use will fluctuate from year-to-year. there are years in the past where a number of citations went down sova does fluctuate driven by the requested agencies receive they have no control over what types of records are asked for. third the use of its exemption five over the past year over 85 percent of the use is attributed to two agencies. last year when we looked at the use of the exemption five, one of those agencies overwhelmingly was processing records that was under protection of but under the work product privilege.

>> the two agencies? >> ths and eoc but they both use it to protect the attorney-client information which is not subject to the release so these are reasons why lastly to keep in mind an agency might be processing a record to release everything but one sentence but the use it to protect one says they will cite exemption five and nine counts. so the number of citations does not tell you how much is released or without. for all those reasons what we have asked agencies to do with their chief foia reports with the discretionary release there is a public accountability for the actual increases of

releases. >> attorney general guidelines said they will not depend on the the decision to deny a foia request unless it is unforeseeable but those that process the most to be promulgated is there up would try again? -- a . dry again? >> as they are demonstrated each and every year with those reports we ask every agency to provide. regulations are not required for the attorney guidelines. we have a very robust accountability for the implementation through the chief foia officer report that has a wide variety of

steps agencies are taking specifically to advance the presumption of openness but also for technology and improve the efficiency. to mention this spring ever comes i want you to know in vermont they got 45 inches of snow per day and now say they will have a dusting to more of what they did announce tomorrow it will be moderate to heavier snow between 18 and 20 inches. [laughter] and it is conceivable schools might to open one hour late. [laughter] we could open on time if we were had anywhere near the equipment as in this area but we do the best leakey and.

but to be serious, i was serious about that but to be serious, considering a legislative proposal to make dis maurer independent to make recommendations on improving correctly through congress to support the proposal? >> senator leahy the a frustration has not yet taken a position and i am not able to do comments. i will say i always appreciate the attention and that will be interested to see what happens. >> i understand the reason to be cautious but we just made nine recommendations part of 2012 and 2013 but it

seems they were delayed for so long because with the department of justice looking at it i hope we can reach a point where the recommendations could be made directly to us all so the government accountability office that you don't have adequate staffing resources to form the dual mission to let the agency point of compliance in to provide mediation service to get something done. so i will ask you this question. for adequate staff and resources carry out its work ? >> mr. chairman and the answer that in a couple of

ways. a number of common jurors even before noted with a broad mission in that we have come with the dual mission to review mediations services any one of those would be quite a challenge for the office that we have. we have tried to do as best we can we have been challenged and our caseload with mediation is up significantly from the year before. having that bin said we're looking at ways to take the recommendations into effect and i am pleased to tell you that our agency has approved hiring three additional staff members in large part

to work on the review part of the mission and we are very much looking forward to getting these people on board. >> i am not restraint ideas seeing you need more staff because i don't care if there is a republican or democratic it ministration debt to move quickly on a the foia request the very reasonable is extremely important to the democracy of this country. senator grassley had to step out and he suggested to go next to senator blumenthal. i think we are lucky that he is here. >> thank you very much i appreciate you having this

hearing that i think it is from the important to recognize your leadership with freedom of information and the panel here today. you use the word earlier robust for the initiatives going forward. i think it is hard to square the term robust with frustration and the anchor that people feel and we hear as representatives. what additional steps or what kinds of recommendations you would make to this committee whether the legislation proposed or other measures to make it work better to convince people they're government is open and complete with some of? to make respectfully i disagree with the promise --

promised that the agencies are robustly implementing the law but there is not further improvements to be made but we do have record high numbers of incoming foia request the agency's cost more last year than ever before. we have had agencies to the state records in over 90 percent of cases. we have many examples of agencies putting records of their website to make information available without the foia request for acquiescing concrete steps to improve access but we do think there are further steps we can take. one of those indicted detailed five if has a lot of potential to have

agencies andrew questors to create a common foia regulation to streamline a and standardized the procedures to administer the foia to make it the same to the extent that we can that would have a direct day-to-day impact to know there is the same time period for filing the in appealed with every single one of the 99 agencies. >> so why is it that way? >> writes. it is a new idea. right now there are 99 agencies with 99 sets of regulations so we want to look up the feasibility to do that. then working together as the

interagency team in to get comments from the public about the content. >> who is responsible for that? clinic where office is leading that but with input across the government and my friends will all be part of a team to you do this. to do a study of how to do this. >> what is your time line? vindicate we're going to start this spring. we're going to start very soon to have meetings to delve into the different mechanics but it is a one or two year project. >> with all due respect to use the word robust with standard regulation were already in place.

similarly with improving the agency's internal processes who is in charge of the project? >> oip is leading the effort to to create some opportunities to share their best practices across the government we have many examples of agencies doing terrific things like technology or taking steps derek is a wide to be connected but the administration and we have stars we can identify with every topic. the idea is to have a group of agencies that have done very well share their experience, their tips and strategies for success with everyone else then create written documentation of

those strategies and make those available on line but the whole idea to have synergy and learn from one another. >> i very much applaud and welcome those initiatives but my suggestion is the sooner we implement them the only real obstacle is the resource is that you have. in to give you dates what juju. >> we have already announced dates with a series of meetings that they are already interested to serve on panels with more suggestions they think i don't want to keep using a the word robust but it will

be very energetic stomach you question the premise of my question the procedures were not robust but not the more important idea that the public is not happy with the responses and the amount of information when you mention freedom of information to the ordinary citizen in the state government with federal the common reaction is not a good reaction because it does not function well. >> in addition to processing your request, the agency's improved processing time i do have a thought to that characterization for some simple foia request. there is no doubt there is

the incredible interest to have over 700,000 requests each year we're fortunate that the public embraces the use of freedom of information act. but to help them with a capacity to deal with the high volume of request is where technology holds a lot of great potential in those tools to help with processing with manual processes can be changed into automatic, the actual time per request can be reduced and to me has the most potential to reduce time in this across the board. >> i would second your comment we should welcome the public's interest in what government does at a

time when we moan about the cynicism for these requests that are motivated by that feeling of doubt but at the same time a lot of it is simple curiosity that we should welcome and support and aid so the quicker we provide information in the better democracy works which is a less articulate statement than some often give regarding our laws. >> thank you senator you have been a strong supporter of the information act and as i said at the beginning senator grassley has joined us on a number of pieces of legislation and i yield to him. >> there is not a lot of

members here today but i hope you get of you from all of us on the bipartisan way we're very serious to make foia work and withholding information you heard me mention in my opening statement last year you could not so with the office of information policy role in that case the bottom line to follow up with specifics whether or not you had a seat at the table saw your office could provide assistance to those handling the case were you involved to prepare a brief or if not that far, in an argument or

were you consulted at all? >> senator from a because you still ask me questions with litigation is not appropriate for me to go behind the scenes i will refer you to their brief that we filed for the statements for the position the government took but i can tell you. >> what is ongoing? >> it is not ongoing any more but it is not appropriate for me to go behind the scenes to talk about procedures are strategy that the government took that information is in our brief says publicly available. >> you are a key player if they don't seek your advice you ought to know that? if they didn't you could say

no. >> can do is just not appropriate for me to talk about that with the behind the scenes discussions that go on with litigation. >> i am not a lawyer by can i ask the lawyers on the staff once the decision has been made? privilege extends beyond litigation tell the whenever you can tell me. >> what i thought that might be helpful senator grassley we have taken a number of steps since the foia issues -- regulations issued to help the experience to interact more productive lee to gather it in particular issuing over the course of

several years due guy whose articles on the importance of good communication. in doing so we have taken into account and have gotten suggestions to the round tables to take that information all designed to help improve the way agencies interact with sequesters. that is the good example of how my office through a guidance function improves the process. >> another question i pointed out my concern for increased litigation and specifically the 2012 study finding from complaints do get freedom of information act documents under obama is first term it seems the the

government is short of getting transparency this highlights questions without harm standard attorney general has instructed agencies to apply this with the agency's decision making to encourage discretionary disclosures whenever possible. so has the justice department ever applied for the foreseeable harm standard not to pursue the lawsuit? limit the department of justice, yes. through the review process for win the lawsuit is filed information was released to

apply the attorney general guidelines those are contained and in published court opinion. >> the next question so give us the citations so we can get to that. >> ms. nisbet your testimony says the goal is to simplify the process to improve the online process for freedom of information request with other agencies participate in the portal and i would like to hear what we should consider when we examine the matter. given the agency's very in size and operation how can a single on-line portal be created that avoids a one-size-fits-all approach

and the failure to accommodate the differences to causes it to you turn it as a result of foia online. i understand the treasury department no longer uses foia on line but it is helpful to reconsider how to establish job lined systems utilized by multiple agencies of different sizes. knu in to that for me? >> yes i hope so. foia on line launched october 12012 operating about a year in the half current these seven agencies that are pardners with the national archives and records administration is one and we are an example we are quite small compared to the others.

customs with border protection and has joined and the department of the navy joint in february were led -- barely more than one month ago at the goal is to have the shared service to accommodate small agencies and we as a partnership have not discovered there is an issue. the system seems to be working quite well we have heard good feedback we think it will be a good model to continue to expand or to the next version that comes along. treasury did belong for about one year and it was in

fact, creating its own system but not a band running at the time that foia on line was up and running so treasury during as it could take advantage of the multi agency portal and tell it was ready to launch its own expanded i have another question i want you to insert in writing. i want you to take a message back to the archivist for crime continuing to look closely at the national archives the inspectors general kept on leave over 17 months. almost $200,000 of taxpayer money while we wait to resolve problems. i think it severely harms the credibility of national archives and needs to be resolved and tell him that.

>> yes, sir. i will. >> the queue to both of you. in senator grassley. director, thank you for testifying this morning. i came late but there was a report that created those agencies that receive the most foia more than 90 percent that the federal government receives but none of those received the grade of f and i am concerned of the long delays that they undergo win day wait for records including groups that are seeking information to make sure the contractors are complying with labor laws. it seems like reform is necessary. what are the biggest

problems agencies face as they work to comply with foia and how do we resolve those problems? vivid their primary reason for having a backlog croupiers' increase for the past five years steadily growing although agencies could increase those processed but the second thing happening is that the requests are more complex them they were before. as agencies post more

. >> also always looking for efficiency as the focus of the guidelines is to ask agencies every year whether they doing to increase efficiency? everyone will have different reasons for delays or different chokepoints looking every year as a deficiency to find ways to make the process more efficient and snooze is another key aspect of what we're doing with the attorney general guidelines and those have been made and will encourage calling for word. >> give half the agency's and they used to be using

the technology, but with the department of justice working to update the foia regulations that was just passed six years ago and the attorneys general cent -- but also to be working on their own regulations which is hard for other agencies. but now they're going to. >> regulations are undergoing a review process? train wreck. [laughter] yes through executive order to give you the details.

there is a specific process and at the tail end it is now in the interagency review stage so we are optimistic they will be ready. we have been working steadily and aggressively from 2009 to implement those guidelines across the government. no changes were needed. we have required agencies to report on their progress to the chief foia officer report. we have a very full record of not just affirmative justice under five years but all agencies doing to increase transparency. >> okay. hopefully it will get

better. thank you for your testimony. you are excused and i would like to witnesses from the second panel to come forward. [inaudible conversations] >> ag for taking the time from your busy schedule to be with us today. the first witness is the assistant director at open the government.org a coalition of 80 plus organizations to make the federal government more open and accountable.

said director and as a share professor at the university of arizona school of journalism. also the president of the society of professional journalists the largest organization of journalists in the united states. our final witness is the adjourned professor executive director of a collaboration of government secrecy at the washington college of law at american university. he is the former director of the justice office of information and privacy. think you for joining us i will give you each five minutes to make opening statements your written testimony will be included

in the record. please go ahead. >> [inaudible] >> your microphone is not on. >> thank you for the opportunity for the freedom of information act and unwavering commitment to protect and strengthen the public right to know i'm the assistant director of open and the government.org the coalition of 80 organizations dedicated to accountability. foia is the effective tool that the public hearing used to give timely access to government records also bureaucratic resistance to disclosure because agency officials believe it belongs to the agency. but technology is responsible but we also make

it easy to use a different information. we help the committee will a move to address -- address these issues in my testimony. the government community would like to see congress a tighter boundaries on the over use of section five the we don't want to give it you exemption. intended to protect the process intended to have as are all foia applications but over time they have expanded the scope to the point it covers practically anything that is not a file version of the document. in one egregious example the cia denied a request for national security archives for a copy of the cia internal history of the 1951 bay of pigs disaster was denied despite it had no

policy decisions in related to evens more than 50 years ago. exemption five has recently been invoked to nine office of legal counsel in seeing them rely on these opinions that go well beyond the meaning of the law. secret interpretation it prevents the public from having debates about the policy but erodes trust in the executive branch. in terms to have to lessons from these examples it needs a public-interest balancing test of the government were not convinced it would divans public-interest there would still have the opportunity to ask the court to invoke the of privilege. there needs to be a time limit.

they're only protected for release 12 years after leaving office and should not be more secrecy than before the president of united states. the critical issue relates to informations services as strongly supports the committees' leadership. you will not be surprised them as they continue to struggle as a mediator with reviewing agency compliance. the first make it abundantly clara things to do senator grassley sharp questioning for the hearing it should not take of thread to drive to the omb to make sure they're delivered in a timely fashion. we need direct reporting to give you and the president recommendations based on the problems that they see. the second problem is age-old problem of resources.

there is a staff of seven to help each agency with the hundreds of thousands of requests. they need resources to promote the market and believe congress as director of operations to carry out its mission is in the final limitation discussed today is the authority to compel agencies to participate in the mediation process. must rely on the goodwill of an agency involved in a dispute to seek mediation service congress should require agencies cooperate to provide information if requested. they're eager to work with you to make foia work better for the public. with other issues in a written and testaverde have a much longer list but we would like to see enacted their several good idea is

in the recently passed house bill signed by more than 25 organizations endorsing the bill calling attention to the good provisions. thank you for the opportunity to speak and i look forward to answering any of your questions. >> thank you. dr.? >> thank you. thank you for the opportunity to testify on the society of professional journalists and as you know, we're passionate about access to government information and. foia helps reveal corruption and were exposed problems and empowers citizens. recently journalists will have dangerous crime aboard cruise ships or conflicts of interest and a bb to show her direct companies would influence. it saves lives. i am here today to think

that foia is terribly broken and needs more than reinvigoration resuscitation you have all worked hard to help with foia and we thank you. but on the ground today people's real access is more and more restricted than never. u.s. dropped 13 spots behind romania and el salvador and botswana. compared foia laws around the world this statute for those countries that to have them, we heard nearly does second half of the strength of the world. also you gonna come in mexico and russia. is to give up. it is supported by a other

recent research with that exemptions increased 22% 2011 through 2012 also showing is aziz as used that to deny eight more often in the above the administration then bush journal's report increased delays and excessive fees in the agency's frankly gaming the system journalists are a angry and livid i have never seen them as a angry as they are now. you may recall that chemical contamination of drinking water in west virginia. it was a reporter down there stonewalled and requested records that the cdc does not end his position in there is no rigid need said a data request initiated a couple of years ago with

customs with resistance they referred the matter for mediation but then they decided not to go through mediation and then they said too much time had passed and the reporter could not appeal so case closed now he has to submit another request and start all over. it is that kind of behavior we see that causes a lot of problems. agencies are getting more sophisticated to mr. samuels or do they request using foia as a tool of secrecy not open this. we can reverse the trend to put it will take significant action. number wineries should codify the presumption of openness signed into law of the record should be freely available a must disclosure would cause a specific identify of all farm. number two in strength with

gis needs were staff come independence and authority. it should have led chief once you have the enforcement powers so they have created enforcement mechanisms so why not the wes government? streamline the process. it is good to hear work is under way to harness the internet saves money and time and frustration but more important far more important technology is to bring in the statutory exemptions that is primarily the most important because exemptions are used to cripple the law. over the years we appreciate the push back on exemptions most recently with the farm bill but narrow the application with these three. a sunset and a balancing

test with the public require exemptions go through the judiciary committee for review. there other ways to make beneficial changes but i know my colleagues will have we provide more ideas. the final thought we are undergoing a climate change in this nation with our transparency and unless we take action now we could forecast the future shrouded by secrecy and darkness the key for the opportunity to testify. i look forward to the answering your questions. >> thank you. professor? >> good morning mr. chairman. members of the committee and as someone who has worked for freedom of information act show for 35 years i am pleased to be here to give ian academic perspective.

my own views today the washington college of war of where to cheese courses been secrecy but in addition to maintaining as of academic web site those are two sides of the same point. to conduct a series of daylong programs to focus on foia and most recently on the obama administration implementation. next week we will hold the 24th program the annual celebration of freedom information day i am pleased to note the chairman has twice purchase of faded this is also informed by the leading proponent of the information of office and privacy that discharges the attorney general responsibility of the

executive branch on the complexities. i know firsthand the challenges and faltering courage proper compliance by all agencies. simply put i have been there done that. so through that lens i use those waves it has ben briefly disappointed with those uprising inadequacies of the new foia policy from what has now been the past five years. this began with the foia memorandum itself contrary to expectations film art -- memorandum did not use the foreseeable harm standard where it would have had the immediate to have a series of hedges to inflate the

pending cases. as one speaker put it foia request committee is still waiting to see a list of any litigation cases that the foreseeable harm standard has been applied after all these years there is a strong suspicion there are few or maybe even though such cases. that is a possibility throughout the executive branch with a concrete and exemplary fashion. perhaps i should note parenthetically that the amendment bill passed by the house that was mentioned by senator grassley has done with the initial implementation and guidance to direct agencies to reduce the backlog of pending foia

cases and i address that at great length and in the interest of time i will skip over that now but it should be a matter of concern for more than one reason that the department of justice own backlog has been allowed to worsen over three years when they leave government agency failed so badly to reduce its own backlog it makes it much harder to press other agencies to comply. do as i stuart -- say not as a dupe problem with those high of the ship but for that to increase rather than increase probably for the same period a and it makes it impossible but turning to issa foia bet number to

death the decision issued but eviscerated section number to leaving a lot of sensitive information without the exemption that applies. i think it is fair to say that there is no reason oppression legislation is is needed and as grassley asked that question two years ago it is irresponsible for the executive branch not to have proposed amendments of the exemption since that time. . .