Politicians promote FOIA compliance.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) have joined to crack down on government offices that ignore public requests for information and to widen the public's access to government documents.

Leahy and Cornyn are promoting several legislative proposals that would create, for the first time, penalties for agencies that ignore Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. They also want to create a position for an independent arbiter--an FOIA ombudsman--who would help referee conflicts between the public and the government while requiring departments to provide more information on how quickly they process requests.

"In Washington, there's no real presumption of openness in the culture," Cornyn told the Washington Post. "If you're persistent enough and you're willing to wait long enough, you might actually get what you're entitled to. But there seems to be very few incentives ... to encourage timely compliance with FOIA requests."

FOIA has been used by millions every year since its inception in 1966. Journalists are the most high-profile users, but most requests come from the general public. More than 4 million requests were submitted last year, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) analysis of FOIA statistics submitted by 25 agencies. The majority--82 percent--went to two agencies: the Social Security Administration and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Many requests classified by the agencies as FOIA-related came from individuals seeking information about their own medical records or benefits.

The government can refuse requests for such reasons as national security, personal privacy, and law enforcement concerns. Ninety-two percent of requests were granted in full last year, according to the GAO. Three percent were partially granted, 1 percent was denied, and 5 percent were "not disclosed for other reasons," the GAO said.

The GAO said the backlog of requests has increased 14 percent since 2002. The program has been famous among journalists for long delays, with some reporters waiting years for requests to be fulfilled. Experts said there are good reasons for delays. More people are requesting more information through FOIA--the GAO said the number of requests increased by 71 percent between 2002 and 2004. Documents may be difficult to locate, and requests may be unclearly written. Agencies may not have the money or manpower to keep up with the requests and still tend to their primary jobs.

A Justice Department official told a House subcommittee in May that the government spent more than $300 million last year responding to FOIA requests.

Cornyn and Leahy are pushing a number of legislative changes that would toughen the law. They would penalize agencies that do not respond to requests within 20 days. There is no firm deadline for turning over documents but, under current law, an agency is required to tell requesters within 20 business days whether their requests will be met. The senators' proposal would reduce the number of legal grounds on which an agency could withhold a document if it does not meet the 20-day deadline.

The legislation would also order the creation of a government-wide tracking system--similar to those used by FedEx, UPS, and the U.S. Postal Service --that would enable the public to keep tabs on requests as they make their way through the bureaucracies.

The ombudsman provision is intended to give requesters who are unhappy with an agency's decision an alternative to going to court. Currently, someone can appeal an agency's decision back to the department and then sue, but this option is too costly for many, the lawmakers' aides said. The proposals would also make it harder for the government to avoid paying requesters' legal expenses when disputes end up in court but are resolved before a judge renders a decision.

In June, the Senate passed a bill--also promoted by Leahy and Cornyn--to require Congress to explain future efforts to restrict the public's access to government documents. Approved by a voice vote, the Senate bill requires that future legislation containing new exemptions to what records are open for public scrutiny under FOIA be "stated explicitly within the text of the bill." The legislation must still be taken up by the House.

"If records can be open, they should be open," Cornyn said. "If good reason exists to keep something closed, it is the government that should bear the burden (of proving that), not the other way around."

Leahy said FOIA provided a number of appropriate exemptions for national security, law enforcement, confidential business information, and personal privacy. But he said bills increasingly include statutory exemptions or ambiguous language that the courts might interpret as exemptions.

"Not every statutory exemption is inappropriate, but every proposal deserves scrutiny." he said. "Focusing more sunshine on this process is an antidote to exemption creep."