As I struggled to sleep tonight I stumbled upon a House Committee hearing about the compliance of the FOIA (freedom of information act) in regards to the DHS(Department of Homeland Security). After hearing the chairman's opening statement I had no chance of sleeping. Accusations of political interference in regards to the releasing of documents bothered me and I simply had to watch what happened. I must admit that the opening statement of the ranking member completely disregarded these accusations but I passed this off as partisan protection at first. (For those that don't watch much Congressional action, ranking member means they were the highest ranking member of the minority party, in this case the Democrats, the chairperson is the highest ranking member of the majority party, or the Republicans.) What followed these opening statements was astounding, even for someone so critical of Washington politics as I.
If you listened to the opening questions by the Chairman you would have thought those testifying were undoubtedly guilty of allowing partisan politics to affect their jobs on a regular basis. Furthermore, you would have believed that this was a common practice. Almost without exception, the Chairman gave little chance for those testifying to actually answer the accusations. He was rude, disrespectful and assumptive in his questioning. Repeatedly the Republicans phrased questions in such a way that they answered their own queries and they basically dared the two-person panel to deny the charges. Most of the time, when a Republican heard the beginning of a refute, they simply cut those testifying off. Behind the Chairman's desk hung two highly partisan signs referring to transparency which gave no reference to fact and merely purported to question the integrity of the DHS and those responsible for FOIA compliance. The tone of the Republicans' questioning was so assumptive that I found it impressive that neither of the persons testifying lost their cool.
I was actually impressed with the testimonies offered. Time and again it was shown that the level of information released had significantly increased since 2009. As I was in bed watching, I didn't get a chance to write the names of those testifying, so unfortunately I can't give them here. There was a lady who was in charge of the FOIA personnel within the DHS and the DHS Inspector General. The lady testified that they had reduced the inherited requests by roughly 84% in the first year which was far beyond the requested performance of 10% per year. She also testified that the DHS was among the fastest in response time at about 94 days I believe. She implemented a new system of information sharing about requests which notifies all relative parties through a shared database. Before 2010 information was passed via email which was understandably slower and more cumbersome. I am talking about telling the lawyers, FOIA personnel and political positions about the different FOIA requests that were about to be released. She admitted that when she first took her job that political positions were afforded the opportunity to put their stamp of approval on releases but she quickly noted that due to the new database sharing method; notifications were given the day before information was released. The system she inherited was put into place by Republicans. From all of the testimony on behalf of both her and the DHS Inspector General they showed a remarkable effort to do their job as best they can. Unbelievably, HR1 (the Republican budget proposal) cuts their budget by 9%. If there is one place we ought not to look into for savings, I would suggest it is here. The point of the matter is this; I didn't hear one accusation which had factual support given to it. The only time a Republican came close, it was quickly pointed out that the procedure he was referencing was an inherited one and that it had been discarded for a system removing political appointeess' ability to affect the releasing of documents. I must give those testifying credit. They had all the facts to support their case while those accusing them of partisan foul play had very little if anything to back up their loaded questions.
I do believe there are a few things we can learn from the hearing. First of all, what the hell is the DHS doing which prompts our press and citizens to file 130,000 requests for information in a single year? We know the DHS is granted a myriad of powers totally against not only the idea of liberty but the constitution as well. This was well documented during the initial founding of the department as well as during each time it has been up for renewal. Secondly, we can learn that the House of Representatives is still a circus, just with a different ring-leader. I have watched countless committee hearings over the last few years and with the possible exception of judicial nominations, I have never seen someone testifying treated so rudely without any proof of the accusations cast upon them. These are individuals with reputations. These were human beings for heaven's sake. I am completely in favor of the minority party (not in the House, but in the govt as a whole) keeping the administration honest. I am totally in favor of the checks and balances that Congress can provide by questioning those in charge of FOIA compliance. However, if our politicians can't even hold a hearing armed with evidence to back up their accusations, what good are they doing? They never asked the questions that would have meant something. While the lady in charge of FOIA compliance touted their improved pro-active releasing of documents, no one asked her why there were still so many requests. Out of those 130,000 requests roughly 600 responses were altered or denied; yet no one asked if there were any commonalities among those 600 requests. Not once was subject content of requests addressed. Perhaps if someone had the guts to ask what the majority of questions were about, we might have learned something which could have helped them move forward in the hope of reducing the overhead costs of FOIA compliance. Better yet, from the point of view of the Republicans, they might have learned something they could have sunk their teeth into. Instead we, the citizens, are left with Republicans making a sophomoric scene and with no useful knowledge gained from what should have been an informative and highly relative committee hearing.
No comments:
Post a Comment