	Background

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), originally enacted in 1966, provides the public presumed access to federal government information (5 U.S.C. This presumptive right to access is limited only when the requested information falls within the scope of nine statutory exemptions, which are established by law:
1. Inter- or intra-agency memoranda or letters that would not be available by law except to an agency in litigation; 6. Certain kinds of records compiled for law enforcement purposes; 8. FOIA has been subsequently amended multiple times, most recently by the OPEN FOIA Act of 2009 ( P.L. Further, the memorandum stated that
The Department of Justice will defend a denial of a FOIA request only if (1) the agency reasonably foresees that disclosure would harm an interest protected by one of the statutory exemptions, or (2) the disclosure is prohibited by law. In recent years, some Members of Congress have expressed interest in further amending FOIA to address both the presumption of openness and other issues, especially the electronic accessibility of agency records. The bills, however, also contain substantive differences. This report provides an overview of two FOIA bills in the 114 th Congress, S. 337 and H.R. 653 , and provides analysis of certain FOIA-related provisions within each. While the legislation proposed in both the House and Senate seeks to address many of the same aspects of FOIA—often through very similar language—there are substantive differences between the bills. 653 , as referred in the Senate, would authorize inspectors general to review agencies' FOIA compliance and potentially recommend adverse action, the Senate bill does not. Additionally, H.R. 653 also contains provisions requiring annual training for employees on their FOIA-related responsibilities. S. 337 , as amended, does not contain the new process or the training requirement provisions. In some areas, the amendments to the House and Senate bills made the bills more similar. For example, an amendment to H.R. 653 brought the process for determining FOIA-related search or duplication fees assessed after statutory deadlines have passed more in line with the provisions in S. 337 . As amended, both bills seek to place more requirements and standards on federal agencies—including a 10-day extension for providing records in particular cases, and a notice requirement for agencies to tell requesters when such particular circumstances apply. This bill is based in large part on H.R. Table 1 below provides a side-by-side comparison of S. 337 and H.R. When applicable, the footnote includes current FOIA requirements and practices, providing context to the amending language. The substantive components of the bills have been grouped into four categories:
1. Analysis of Selected Policy Implications

As noted above, H.R. 653 , since their introduction, have sought to make a number of changes to the role of the Administration in FOIA implementation. Both bills, for example, would codify the current standard for information disclosure set in place by the Obama Administration—or the "presumption of openness." Additionally, both the House and Senate legislation would provide the OGIS the authority to report directly to Congress and provide legislative recommendations without review, comment, or approval from other executive branch agencies—including the National Archives and Records Administration, the Department of Justice, or the Office of Management and Budget. 653 , as referred in the Senate, goes further than S. 337 , as passed by the Senate, removing an agency's ability to apply Exemption 5 to "opinions that are controlling interpretations of law," "final reports or memoranda created by an entity other than the agency ... [that are] used to make a final policy decision," and "guidance documents used by the agency to respond to the public." 653 and S. 337 have sought to establish a Chief FOIA Officers Council, comprised entirely of federal employees and headed by the Directors of DOJ's Office of Information Policy and OGIS. Assessment of Search and Duplication Fees

Both S. 337 , as passed by the Senate, and H.R. Amendments added to H.R.
Congress is currently considering legislation that would make substantive changes to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). FOIA was originally enacted in 1966 and has been amended numerous times since—most recently in 2009. FOIA provides the public with a presumptive right to access agency records, limited by nine exemptions that allow agencies to withhold certain types or categories of records.
The legislation under consideration in the 114th Congress, S. 337 and H.R. 653, is largely based on bills from the 113th Congress, S. 2520 and H.R. 1211. Both of the bills in the current Congress seek to amend a number of provisions of FOIA for the purpose of increasing public access—including improving electronic accessibility of agency records, clarifying the right to request information related to intra- and inter-agency memoranda or letters, standardizing the use of search and duplication fees by agencies, and requiring agencies to notify requestors of the status of their requests and of the availability of dispute resolution processes for requests that they believe have been inappropriately denied. Both bills would also create a Chief FOIA Officers Council, responsible for informing government-wide FOIA administrators of best practices, and would establish new FOIA-related oversight responsibilities and reporting requirements.
In addition, both the House and Senate legislation would establish a statutory "presumption of openness," whereby information may only be withheld if it harms an interest protected by a statutory exemption or if disclosure is prohibited by law. This presumption of openness would codify the principles outlined in the current Administration's guidance on FOIA.
While these bills address a number of similar topics, often in similar ways, there are substantive differences between them. For instance, S. 337 provides a timetable for the assessment of fees if an agency fails to comply with a statutory FOIA request response deadline. Conversely, H.R. 653 would authorize applicable federal inspectors general to review agencies' FOIA compliance and recommend the agency head take potential adverse actions against improper or negligent execution of the law. In addition, both H.R. 653 and S. 337 include language seeking to cap the amount of time that agencies can withhold intra- or inter-agency records. The House bill, however, provides additional details that would further limit the withholding of such records. A summary of provisions in both bills, a side-by-side comparison of these provisions, and analysis of selected provisions is provided in this report.
In some areas, amendments to the House and Senate bills made the bills more similar. For example, an amendment to H.R. 653 brought the process for determining FOIA-related search or duplication fees assessed after statutory deadlines have passed more in line with the provisions in S. 337.
In other areas, amendments were added to H.R. 653 that are not found in any version of S. 337. For example, H.R. 653 contains provisions requiring annual training for federal employees on their FOIA-related responsibilities. H.R. 653 would also provide authority to suspend or remove federal employees found to have violated FOIA or a FOIA-related regulation. S. 337, as amended, does not contain the training requirement or violation provisions.
This report provides a side-by-side comparison of the bills, using the versions that have passed each of their originating congressional chambers. The report also provides context related to bill amendments and language additions that occurred between bill versions, when applicable. Finally, the report provides analysis of certain provisions of the bills.