Posted on 05/31/2007 8:02:19 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - Advocates of a bill promoting openness in government are fuming that a Republican senator is blocking a vote on the measure.
Dozens of journalism and advocacy groups supporting the Open Government Act say it would speed up the government's response to public requests for information under the federal Freedom of Information law.
But Sen. Jon Kyl (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., says the Justice Department has "uncharacteristically strong" objections to the bill. In a statement Thursday, he said he will block a vote until both sides can work out the differences.
Supporters of the bill are irate.
"This is a good government bill that Democrats and Republicans alike can and should work together to enact. It should be passed without further delay," said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), D-Vt., who sponsored the bill with Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas.
Frustrated, Leahy now is pressing senators to clear the bill for a vote.
Advocates who range from the Society of Professional Journalists to the Humane Society of the United States are particularly rankled because Kyl initially objected under a Senate rule that allows one member with concerns to hold up legislation anonymously.
Kyl revealed his identity Thursday, days after the bill's backers launched an e-mail and telephone campaign, urging supporters to help in "smoking out 'Senator Secrecy.'" They pointed out the irony that an open government bill was being blocked using a rule that allowed secrecy.
Supporters say the bill would plug loopholes in the FOIA law by, among other things, clarifying when federal agencies would have to pay attorneys fees if they miss deadlines to provide information, and bolstering deadlines for the government's response to requests under the law.
Although the Justice Department has objected strenuously to several provisions, advocates say they have answered or addressed the major concerns.
For example, a section has been eliminated that would have lifted exemptions letting the government deny access to privileged or law-enforcement sensitive information, said Leahy spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler.
Kyl also has argued that forcing the government to pay attorneys fees — even when it settles a case without going to court — could make it less likely to settle or change a decision about a FOIA request.
Advocates disagree. They say the government likely would pay less if it voluntarily disclosed records in court proceedings, giving it an incentive to release information earlier in the process.
Kyl said he raised concerns when the Judiciary Committee voted on the bill in April, and that Leahy agreed to work with him and the Justice Department to try to reach a consensus. But Leahy hasn't heard from Kyl on the bill since it passed the Judiciary Committee, Schmaler said.
A similar bill passed the House earlier this year. Advocates believe the Senate will approve it as well.
"This is an important, bipartisan issue that deserves the consideration of the full Senate," Cornyn said.
I don't know about that. Sausages make pretty poor swords. Especially when up against a real sword.
As far as the bill goes, if the Democratics are this enthusiastic about it, it almost certainly must be bad for the country.
I have a feeling this is a "lets go fishing for reasons to impeach" bill.
...then I'm against it!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.