U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

39–022 PDF 2007

REFORM TO THE PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY

DONATION DISCLOSURE PROCESS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

FEBRUARY 28, 2007

Serial No. 110–30

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSISGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman

TOM LANTOS, California

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland

PETER WELCH, Vermont

TOM DAVIS, Virginia

DAN BURTON, Indiana

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

BILL SALI, Idaho

——— ———

PHIL SCHILIRO, Chief of Staff

PHIL BARNETT, Staff Director

EARLEY GREEN, Chief Clerk

DAVID MARIN, Minority Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on February 28, 2007 ....................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Fawcett, Sharon, Assistant Archivist for Presidential Libraries, National

Archives and Records Administration; Celia Viggo Wexler, vice president of advocacy, Common Cause; and Sheila Krumholz, executive

director, Center for Responsive Politics ...................................................... 13

Fawcett, Sharon ........................................................................................ 13

Krumholz, Sheila ....................................................................................... 36

Wexler, Celia Viggo ................................................................................... 28

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Davis, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, prepared statement of ........................................................................ 8

Fawcett, Sharon, Assistant Archivist for Presidential Libraries, National

Archives and Records Administration, prepared statement of ................. 16

Krumholz, Sheila, executive director, Center for Responsive Politics, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 38

Waxman, Chairman Henry A., a Representative in Congress from the

State of California, prepared statement of ................................................. 3

Wexler, Celia Viggo, vice president of advocacy, Common Cause, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 30

(1)

REFORM TO THE PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY

DONATION DISCLOSURE PROCESS

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:20 a.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry A. Waxman

(chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Waxman, Cummings, Kucinich, Clay,

Braley, Norton, Hodes, Sarbanes, Welch, Davis of Virginia, Platts,

Duncan, Issa, Westmoreland, Foxx, and Bilbray.

Staff present: Phil Schiliro, chief of staff; Kristin Amerling, general counsel; Karen Lightfoot, communications director and senior

policy advisor; Michelle Ash, chief legislative counsel; Anna Laitin,

professional staff member; Earley Green, chief clerk; Teresa Coufal,

deputy clerk; Roger Sherman, counsel; Tony Haywood, staff director, Information Policy Subcommittee; Adam Bordes, professional

staff member, Information Policy Subcommittee; David Marin, minority staff director; Larry Halloran, minority deputy staff director;

Jennifer Safavian, minority chief counsel for oversight and investigations; Keith Ausbrook, minority general counsel; Ellen Brown,

minority legislative director and senior policy counsel; Mason

Alinger, minority deputy legislative director; Steve Castor and

Charles Phillips, minority counsels; Allyson Blandford, minority

professional staff member; Patrick Lyden, minority parliamentarian and member services coordinator; and Benjamin Chance, minority clerk.

Chairman WAXMAN. The meeting will come to order.

Today the committee is holding a hearing on the need for public

disclosure of donations to Presidential libraries. Under current law,

private organizations established for the purpose of building a

Presidential library can raise unlimited amounts of money from undisclosed donors while the President remains in office. It takes

nothing more than common sense to see the potential for abuse in

this area and the need for basic reform.

Presidential libraries serve an important purpose as depositories

of Presidential papers and centers for historical research. In 1939,

President Franklin Roosevelt came up with the idea of a privately

built but federally maintained library to house his Presidential papers. This split of responsibilities between the public and the private sectors has continued and has since been codified into law. In

1955, the Presidential Libraries Act formally established a system

under which federally maintained libraries would be built using

2

funds raised by private organizations. More recent amendments

have required these private organizations to provide an operating

endowment to the National Archives in addition to the library

building.

Just as the funding requirements have grown, so have the libraries and their affiliated institutions. Now these libraries are much

more than basic research facilities. They include museums and conference centers, along with other tourist attractions, and they are

getting more expensive all the time.

The George H.W. Bush library was reported to cost more than $80 million to build. The Clinton Library and Museum cost about

$165 million to build. One extra term, doubled the money. News reports have indicated that the fundraising goal for President Bush’s

library is $500 million, half a billion dollars, before this institution

is completed.

The vast scale of these secret fundraising efforts creates opportunities for abuse. Donors who do not need to be identified can give

unlimited amounts of money to support these libraries while the

President remains in office. According to some accounts, some

mega-donors being courted to fund the Bush Library are expected

to contribute $10 to $20 million each, and they may make these

contributions while there are nearly 2 years left in President

Bush’s term.

Later this week Representative Duncan and I will be introducing

legislation to reform this system. This legislation would require

that Presidential libraries disclose the identity of their donors to

Congress and the National Archives during their period of most intense fundraising, which is while the President is in office and in

the several years after the end of his or her term.

I expect the committee to consider this legislation next week.

This legislation is one part of a larger effort by this committee to

restore honesty and accountability to the Federal Government. In

fact, the committee will soon be considering two additional open

government bills, one to improve access in Presidential records and

one to strengthen the Freedom of Information Act.

As we will learn at today’s hearing and when we mark up the

open government legislation, these bills are bipartisan initiatives

with broad public support.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Henry A. Waxman follows:]

3

4

5

6

7

Chairman WAXMAN. I would like to now recognize Mr. Davis for

his opening statement.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding

this hearing today.

Our Nation’s Presidential libraries are a priceless resource for researchers, historians, and the public. Attracting millions of visitors

each year, they serve as legacies to our President, repositories of

history, and a source of tremendous pride for local communities. At

the same time, they have become elaborate institutions, housing official papers, museums, classrooms, conference facilities, and even

gift shops. With this expansion, the cost of building and maintaining these facilities has grown dramatically.

Under current law, Presidential libraries are built with private

funds, then turned over to the archivists for operation. Amendments to the Presidential Libraries Act mandated the establishment of an endowment to cover some of the costs of operating the

library, which are usually met through the establishment of a charitable organization. Funding for construction and the endowment

comes from private sources, but under current law no duty to disclose the source of those contributions exists. Clearly, there is a

great deal of interest in enhancing disclosures on both sides of the

aisle.

Under our colleague Mr. Duncan’s lead, we passed solid bipartisan legislation to require the disclosure of contributions to organizations that raise funds for Presidential libraries and related facilities. His bill, which was H.R. 577 from the 107th Congress, passed

this committee and the House with strong bipartisan support.

Regardless of what we do, I think it is of utmost importance that

we avoid any temptation to politicize the issue. We need a sensible,

even-handed approach to disclosure, one that applies equally to Republicans and Democrats. Mr. Duncan had the right approach, one

that was supported by Chairman Waxman and many others in this

committee, and now the committee will consider legislation on this

issue, too and I hope again will resist inserting politics into a bill

the House passed overwhelmingly last year by a vote of 392 to 3.

With this legislation we are recognizing the perception of impropriety that contributions to a Presidential library can raise. We

don’t need to reopen old news or begin inflicting new ones today.

Presidents leave their mark on our rich history, and those giving

to Presidential libraries should be proud to have their donations

publicly disclosed.

Mr. Chairman, our goal should be, unanimous vote in the committee and on the House floor. I look forward to working with you

to craft bipartisan legislation. I know that you agree.

The cost of building Presidential libraries, millions; the value of

disclosing contributions to those libraries, priceless.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Tom Davis follows:]

8

9

10

11

12

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you very much for your opening

statement.

Without objection, all Members will have a week to submit opening statements for this hearing.

I will be pleased to recognize any Member who wishes at this

point to be called upon to give an opening statement at the hearing. Let me just see if any Member seeks recognition. This side,

Mr. Kucinich, opening statement? Mr. Duncan.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. You and

Ranking Member Davis have outlined the need for this legislation.

It is correct that I introduced this bill in the 106th Congress under

a Democratic President. It was not acted on in that Congress. I introduced it again in the 107th Congress under a Republican President. It was passed in the House by a vote of 392 to 3, with strong

bipartisan support.

I first became interested in this after learning that even some

people from foreign countries were making very large contributions

to Presidential libraries while Presidents were still in office, obviously in an attempt to gain influence. I introduced this bill many

months before any publicity occurred about Mark Rich, the man

who President Clinton pardoned on his last day in office, who had

fled the country to evade $40 million in income taxes, and it turned

out that his wife had contributed $450,000 to the Clinton Presidential Library, and a close friend of Mr. Rich’s had contributed

another million to the Clinton Library.

So this is not aimed at any Democrat or any Republican. It is

a bipartisan bill. It simply does not seek to limit contributions in

any way, it just is a public disclosure bill.

This bill was introduced in the last Congress by our current

Speaker, Speaker Pelosi, so I can assure you that it has strong support from both sides.

I appreciate, Mr. Waxman, your taking the lead on this bill at

this time. I will be pleased to work with you in any and every way

possible.

Thank you very much.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you very much for your statement.

Does any other Member wish to be recognized?

[No response.]

Chairman WAXMAN. If not, we are pleased to have with us three

distinguished witnesses. Let me indicate who they are.

Sharon Fawcett is the Assistant Archivist for Presidential Libraries at the National Archives and Records Administration; Celia

Viggo Wexler is representing Common Cause, an advocacy organization dedicated to improving public participation in government

and reducing the influence of special interests; Sheila Krumholz is

the executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a research organization that tracks the role of money in politics.

It is the practice of this committee to swear in all witnesses, so

you are not being singled out, but I would like you to rise and raise

your hands and take an oath.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Chairman WAXMAN. The record will indicate that each of the witnesses answered in the affirmative.

13

We have your prepared statements. They will be made part of

the record in their entirety. We would like to ask, if you would, to

try and keep the oral delivery to around 5 minutes.

Ms. Fawcett, why don’t we start with you.

STATEMENTS OF SHARON FAWCETT, ASSISTANT ARCHIVIST

FOR PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARIES, NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND

RECORDS ADMINISTRATION; CELIA VIGGO WEXLER, VICE

PRESIDENT OF ADVOCACY, COMMON CAUSE; AND SHEILA

KRUMHOLZ, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR RESPONSIVE POLITICS

STATEMENT OF SHARON FAWCETT

Ms. FAWCETT. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Davis, and members of the

committee, I want to begin by thanking you for holding this hearing today and for inviting me to testify.

Having spent a large portion of my professional life in the Presidential library system, I am delighted to be able to offer some background on the Presidential libraries and their multiple benefits to

scholarship, public policy, education, and a more complete understanding of our democracy.

As I think the chairman knows, this has been a most successful

public/private partnership and we greatly appreciate the opportunity to explain why our relationship with our foundations has

been a large part of our success for 66 years and 12 Presidential

administrations.

If you invite an archivist to testify, you have to start with a little

history. Nearly 70 years ago, as the chairman noted, Franklin Roosevelt proposed creating a Presidential library that would be part

of the National Archives. Roosevelt suggested a novel approach: he

would donate the land, himself, and build the library with private

funding, and then give the library and his papers to the National

Archives.

On June 30, 1941, the war in Europe threatened democracy. Roosevelt dedicated his library at Hyde Park.

President Truman, deploring the loss of Presidential papers in

the past, stated such destruction should never again be permitted,

because the truth behind a President’s actions can be found only

in his official papers, and every Presidential paper is official. Truman felt strongly that Presidential libraries were not to be monuments to a President, but centers for the study of the Presidency.

Over time, the venue for Presidential libraries shifted from the

President’s hometown to larger metropolitan areas or a university

campus. The Kennedy, Johnson, Ford, Bush, and Clinton Libraries

are affiliated with university sites.

As historian Michael Bechloss noted on the News Hour with Jim

Lehrer just a week or two ago, there is a dynamism when a library

is at a university.

In 1996 Congress passed various amendments to the previous act

to reduce the cost to the public of operating Presidential libraries,

one of which requires that a minimum endowment equal to 20 percent of the cost of the building to be transferred to the Government

be turned over to the National Archives. On the day the Bush Library was dedicated, the Bush Foundation presented a check for $4

14

million. Likewise, the Clinton Foundation presented a check for

$7.2 million at its dedication. These endowments are used by the

Government to offset such operational costs as security, utilities,

and building services. The foundations, themselves, continue to

provide ongoing support for exhibits and public programming at

the libraries.

I should also note that in 2002 Congress raised the base endowment requirement to 40 percent of the cost of a library to take effect for the library built after the incumbent George W. Bush.

The materials in Presidential libraries are among the Nation’s

most important documents. Presidential records are often open for

research long before the records of the departments and agencies

of Government are even transferred to the National Archives. Government archivists and curators preserve, process, and provide access to the Presidential materials in their care.

In 1941 the Roosevelt Library cost $369,000, or about $4 million

in today’s dollars. Later expansions for added archival storage, education classrooms, and visitors’ services bring the total cost of the

Roosevelt Library to $26 million in today’s dollars. The Bush Library, at least the portion transferred to the Government, cost a

little over $22 million, and likewise, the Clinton Library, $36 million.

The Presidential Libraries Act requires NARA to certify a library

meets our exacting standards for construction and archival presentation before we accept the library. We also encourage the foundations to build energy efficient buildings.

In 1973, James B. Rhoads, then the Archivist of the United

States, noted the evolving role of the foundations when he told an

education symposium at the Lyndon Johnson Library, ‘‘Presidential

libraries would be fulfilling their purpose if they did nothing more

than preserve and provide access to the papers they contain, but

their charters are broad and their possibilities for service are unlimited.’’

However broad these charters may be, the libraries face limitations imposed by financial reality. Taxpayers are under no obligation to fund a temporary exhibit on World War II, a conference on

civil rights, or education efforts aimed at high school students, admirable and useful as these undeniably are to the public. These efforts are funded by the library support organizations, which continue to raise money long after the library is built and transferred

to the government.

Small foundations such as Hoover and Eisenhower contribute

$80,000 and $130,000 respectively in a typical year in support of

library programs. Foundations with larger endowments and development staff plan to contribute from $450,000 to $1.75 million this

fiscal year in support of museum, education, and public programs.

The Reagan Foundation invested $35 million in expanding the library by adding the Air Force I Pavilion and plans to invest another $3.5 million to build a Discovery Center staffed by education

specialists from the library.

The contributions of these support organizations to the libraries

spell the difference between static repositories and lively, vital centers of scholarship and service to the public. Moreover, many of the

foundations now contribute to the advancement of Presidential

15

scholarship through joint library projects. The first ever joint conference of all the Presidential libraries happened in March 2006, at

the Kennedy Library, and provided a timely discussion by scholars,

journalists, and policymakers on the lessons of Vietnam. In November of this year, we will hold our second joint conference on the Supreme Court at the Roosevelt Library. This will take place in the

70th year from Roosevelt’s court-packing proposal.

The leadership and financial support of the Johnson Foundation

enabled the creation of the Presidential time line, an interactive

Web-based resource that provides learning activities and a cornucopia of digitized assets from all the libraries that is freely accessible

to students and educators from around the world.

Directly appropriated funds, about $58 million annually for the

12 libraries and the central office, pay for activities mandated by

law as part of NARA’s mission. These include accessioning, processing, reference, and preservation of materials held in the libraries.

As existing buildings became cramped and obsolete, many foundations have supported efforts to update and expand library buildings. Public funds to expand spaces in libraries have often been

contingent on the ability of the foundations to raise additional

funds to pay for portions of the construction and support the program functions in these expanded spaces.

In summary, the libraries and their support organizations have

demonstrated an entrepreneurial willingness and a commitment to

public service, their willingness to rely upon financial sources other

than the American taxpayer.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be

happy to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Fawcett follows:]

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Fawcett.

Ms. Wexler, we want to hear from you.

STATEMENT OF CELIA WEXLER

Ms. WEXLER. Chairman Waxman, Ranking Minority Member

Davis, and members of the committee, I am Celia Wexler, vice

president for advocacy for Common Cause.

Common Cause appreciates the opportunity to testify on this important matter. As our written testimony indicates, Common Cause

strongly supports full, timely, and publicly accessible disclosure of

donations to the non-profit groups that raise funds for Presidential

libraries and their affiliated institutions. In 2001, we testified in

support of Representative Duncan’s library disclosure bill, and we

look forward to supporting the Waxman-Duncan proposal.

Aside from getting re-elected, what means more to a President

than his or her legacy? Given how invested Presidents have become

in protecting and enhancing that legacy, and given the fact that

gifts to Presidential libraries are undisclosed and unlimited, you

can quickly perceive the potential for mischief. A special interest,

a major corporation, wealthy individual, foreign government, or foreign national can give in secret millions of dollars to help build a

Presidential library complex. And they can give these undisclosed

donations while the President remains in office. They can use these

donations to curry favor with a sitting President, or to influence

former Presidents who continue to occupy the world stage and who

may even be related to current Presidents or Members of Congress.

These large donations will only get bigger if the trend for everlarger library complexes continues. And I think Chairman Waxman

has talked about the dramatic escalation of costs for these complexes over the years: $26 million for the Carter Library, $57 million for the Reagan, $83 million for the Bush complex, $165 million

for the Clinton complex, and now we are talking about half a billion for the George W. Bush complex.

Disclosure is always the indispensable first step toward comprehensive reform, and it will enable the public and Congress to

truly understand the scope of giving to Presidential library complexes and the potential for conflicts of interest or perceived conflicts that this fundraising may present.

We hope that disclosure will help Congress ultimately grapple

with other questions related to Presidential library fundraising.

As you know, these libraries are public/private partnerships, and

we have gotten a very good tutorial about how those work. Even

so, the Federal Government annually spends tens of millions of dollars for their upkeep and operation. Does this partnership work?

Should the Government directly take on the task of building modest repositories for Presidential records and papers and divorce

itself from Presidents’ increasingly ambitious plans to memorialize

their achievements and to create a platform for their post-Presidential careers? Should sitting Presidents be banned from soliciting

or accepting contributions or pledges of contributions to their Presidential libraries? Should there be a limit on the size of contributions to the libraries of sitting Presidents?

29

This is not an academic question. In the past, the public trust

has been shaken after news reports about Presidential pardons

granted at the request of library donors.

Should there be restrictions on the donations that foreign governments and foreign nationals may give to library complexes?

We present these as questions because Common Cause acknowledges that these are tough issues, issues that will take more debate, discussion, and deliberation, but we believe these questions

are worth considering, and we applaud the committee for examining this issue, and we look forward to working with you on getting

this legislative proposal passed.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wexler follows:]

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Wexler.

Ms. Krumholz.

STATEMENT OF SHEILA KRUMHOLZ

Ms. KRUMHOLZ. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,

my name is Sheila Krumholz. I am executive director of the Center

for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan, non-profit research organization based here in Washington that analyzes Federal campaign

contributions, as well as other forms of money, and a lead influence

in U.S. politics.

I have been deeply involved in the research side of our organization’s work for the better part of 15 years. Many know the Center

for our award-winning Web site, OpenSecrets.org, where we make

freely available our analysis of publicly disclosed information about

the role of money in politics. We can do this because the financing

of your campaigns is open to public scrutiny. But, as I will discuss

today, the financing of Presidential libraries is not similarly transparent, although these campaign-like projects raise similar questions about potential influence buying.

I thank the committee for this opportunity to speak.

My predecessor, Larry Noble, testified on this matter before this

committee in 2001, and my remarks today echo some of his from

that hearing.

Contributions to Presidential libraries fall into a category all

their own, in a sense. While it takes a well-funded campaign to

build a Presidential library, it is not a political campaign, per se.

There is, however, a sort of candidate at the center of this campaign, someone in a position of public trust, both while he is in office and, to a lesser extent, once he has left office. Herein lies the

central concern: that those who donate money to Presidential libraries will, in return, receive special access to and favors from the

President and the Federal Government. To minimize the potential

for that sort of payback and to build trust among a citizenry that

already questions the ethics of elected officials, public disclosure of

contributions to Presidential library projects seems both appropriate and wise.

As you know, contributions aggregating to more than $200 are

itemized and reported to the Federal Election Commission. The

rules call for the disclosure of the amount and date of the donation,

and the name, address, occupation, and employer of the donor. The

FEC makes this information available on the internet to any interested citizen. The fact that the FEC deems the employment information, in particular, worthy of collection is an acknowledgment

that donors sometimes, if not often, give to politicians with an economic self-interest in mind and a hope that their contribution will

gain them access and influence over policy.

The law has long recognized that our system of elections is

strengthened when the public knows who is giving the money, and

yet the public is still in the dark about several back door ways of

buying influence in Washington, including the funding of Presidential libraries.

To a President, a library with its accompanying and usually far

larger museum, is a way to frame and preserve his legacy. For the

President there is great self interest, because the library will live

37

on long after the President’s time in office and on earth have

passed. I am reminded of the Vietnamese emperor who spent 9

years ruling but whose tomb took eleven years to build.

Presidents begin fundraising for their libraries well before they

leave office. According to press reports, site selection for President

George W. Bush’s Presidential library has been going on for some

time, and a half billion fundraising campaign is imminent, 2 years

before he leaves office. Fundraising for President Bill Clinton’s library began in 1998, less than halfway through his second term.

There is great potential here for corruption, apparent corruption,

at least, and, even worse, real corruption. We know well how President Clinton’s pardon of a six-figure contributor to his library fund,

along with other political donations, has left the indelible impression with many that a Presidential pardon was purchased.

The potential for corruption may be greater in the fundraising

for Presidential libraries than in the campaign finance system. Donations to Presidential election campaigns are limited to a few

thousand dollars. Those to Presidential libraries are not, and the

checks can be written in the tens of millions of dollars.

Corporations, unions, and other institutional interest groups cannot directly contribute to Presidential candidates; they can contribute to Presidential libraries. Foreign governments, foreign individuals, and corporations are prohibited from giving money to Presidential campaigns, but donations to Presidential libraries are permissible, even while the President is still in office. And, of course,

the identities of large donors to Presidential campaigns are disclosed to the public, while donors to Presidential libraries can remain anonymous.

As you are all aware, the public’s perception of Washington is

that money at the very least opens doors here. To agree that disclosure of contributions is appropriate as a way to minimize corruption and build public trust only gets us so far. There are many

questions you will have to answer before disclosure of Presidential

library contributions will become a reality. For example, what information must be disclosed, and by whom; how often, and for how

long will disclosure be required; in what form must they disclose

it; who will administer and enforce the disclosure. As history has

shown us, a law unenforced may be worse than no law at all, because it leaves you with the false comfort that you have done something even as a problem persists.

There are many questions to be addressed, and I merely raise

some of them for you and the members of the committee to consider. Presidential libraries are repositories of history and scholarship for all Americans to enjoy, and, while they are built to honor

politicians, their construction and operation should not be political.

As Americans visit our Nation’s Presidential libraries, their awe for

the Presidents who served our country, their confidence in those

leaders, and their trust in that system that honors them should not

be tarnished by any suspicion that the public places they are visiting have been sold for the benefit of private interests.

I have appreciated this opportunity to appear before you and will

gladly answer any questions you have.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Krumholz follows:]

38

39

40

41

42

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you very much, all three of you, for

your testimony. I think you have helped us a great deal with this

subject.

Donations to Presidential library foundations are difficult to categorize. They are not campaign contributions or political contributions in the standard sense. They are not being used to help a candidate win an elected office, nor are they simply contributions to

a standard charity. The Presidential library foundation often begins to raise money to honor a President while the President remains in office.

As we think about reforms in this area, we need to strike a balance. Through campaign finance reform, we have limited the

amount of money individuals and corporations can provide to candidates and have dictated who can donate to campaigns. If we consider donations to these library foundations to be campaign contributions, we could set similar limits. On the other hand, if we

look at the other end of the spectrum, foundations that raise money

for museums and cultural centers are not required to disclose any

information about their donors and, in fact, many of the largest donors often prefer to remain anonymous. If we consider donations to

these foundations to be more like donations to a museum, we

would allow the current system to remain unchanged.

It is clear that these foundations are different. The draft legislation that the committee will be considering soon calls for the disclosure of all contributions of $200 or more that are given to the foundation through the period when the library is turned over to the

Archives, but it does not limit contributions in any way.

Ms. Krumholz, from your perspective does this strike the right

balance? Are there other requirements that you would recommend

we put in place?

Ms. KRUMHOLZ. There is a whole host of questions that we came

up with. I am sure you have come up with the same ones, and

probably more. Those limits, in particular, seem logical to me, or

basically sufficient. I was wondering if the limits that are used for

political campaigns, for reporting to the Federal Election Commission, were considered, and why those limits were not adopted in

this case.

Chairman WAXMAN. So you would recommend that we adopt

those same limits?

Ms. KRUMHOLZ. No. Not necessarily. I was simply saying that is

a model, one model.

Chairman WAXMAN. Yes.

Ms. KRUMHOLZ. I was wondering if that was considered and why

it was rejected in favor of $200 limits per quarter. I do agree——

Chairman WAXMAN. Well, $200 is the limit for reporting it. It

can exceed that $200 limit.

Ms. KRUMHOLZ. I am sorry, for disclosure of the contribution.

Chairman WAXMAN. Right.

Ms. KRUMHOLZ. Yes. I do agree. I think it is important that it

is easier to make the limit based on the contribution and not the

aggregate contribution, as it is, as the rules are at the FEC. I think

that causes a greater burden on all involved and allows for some

confusion about what is required. For instance, the Federal Election Commission, filers do not have to disclose the full information

43

of a donor until they have reached the aggregate of $200 during the

cycle. At that point it must be disclosed, but all contributions under

that are not part of the Federal Election Commission computerized

master data, and so there are questions about when does it get disclosed, when do you meet that aggregate limit, why aren’t the contributions that are less than $00 disclosed. So I think it is simpler

and more intelligible to all involved when it is simply a matter of

each contribution being disclosed when it hits a certain threshold.

Chairman WAXMAN. Ms. Wexler, what is your view on that same

question? Does this proposal strike the right balance? Do you have

any requirements you would recommend that we put in place in

addition?

Ms. WEXLER. Well, I think that this is a very good first step proposal and it is very politically viable, but ultimately I do think, for

a sitting President, it would be important for Congress to seriously

consider some limits. And we do have the precedent, I believe of

the limits on transitional funding, so that after the election but before a new administration takes over, the in-kind contributions received or the money donated to make that transition a little

smoother is—there are limits in disclosure requirements in place

for that, and the reason you can impose limits, I believe, is conditioned on the fact that the GSA is giving this transition team some

resources. In the same way, with the Presidential libraries there is

that public/private partnership, and I think that it might be a reason that one could condition, at least for a sitting President, some

limits.

I think the other question is about limits on contributions from

foreign governments and foreign nationals. You know, there are

some published accounts that say that the elder Bush’s library was

supported, at least initially, by 20 percent. Of that funding, 20 percent came from foreign sources, which, given the challenging environment, international environment we are in may be problematic.

Those are things.

The other, I think, you didn’t ask me about this, but I also think

that ultimately you want to consider again whether looking at contributions and disclosure of contributions just up to dedication,

even though it is several years, is enough time, or whether you

might want to go longer.

Again, I think of the elder Bush’s 80th birthday party where he

raised $55 million. A portion of that money raised did, indeed, go

to the Bush Library Foundation. The Embassy of Quatar was one

of the donors. I think the Washington Times Foundation was another million dollar donor.

So those are some of the things that need to be considered ultimately, not necessarily in this first proposal.

Chairman WAXMAN. Where did the rest of the money go?

Ms. KRUMHOLZ. Various charities.

Chairman WAXMAN. Ms. Fawcett, what do you think about these

ideas?

Ms. FAWCETT. Well, the administration hasn’t taken a position

on the bill at this point in time, but, speaking for the Archives, we

are appreciative of the work of the staff in narrowing the bill to

cover a President before he leaves office and until the transfer of

the library to the Government.

44

As the chairman spoke, donors to foundations, as the foundations

age the donations become very locally based, and many are interested in anonymity. Their donations are to run programs like the

Presidential Learning Center at the Truman Library, the Five Star

Leaders Program at the Eisenhower Library, the Cabinet Program

at the Ford Library. So, you know, the contributors to these foundations aren’t interested at that point in any political influence;

they are interested in promoting educational opportunities in their

communities and bringing specific discourse into the library system.

Chairman WAXMAN. You are assuming you know their motivations?

Ms. FAWCETT. Well, at least that is what they have given money

to us for.

Chairman WAXMAN. That is what they say.

Ms. Krumholz, you worked as a researcher, and our draft legislation proposes that foundations disclose the date and amount of

each contribution, the name of the contributor, and, if the contributor is an individual, the occupation of the contributor. The Archives

is called on to post these quarterly reports on the Internet in a

searchable, downloadable data base. Would you find this information, as a researcher, to be adequate to examine the donations

made to the Presidential library foundations? And, if you had access to such a data base for an existing Presidential library foundation, what kind of searches would you perform and what would you

hope to learn from them? And is there anything in particular that

you would look out for?

Ms. KRUMHOLZ. Yes. There is one. I would agree with that list

of requirements with one exception, and that is that employment

should also be required, not just occupation. Some of the occupations we get in the Federal Election Commission data include maverick, entrepreneur, you know, domestic engineer. So employer is

really key to letting us know——

Chairman WAXMAN. Opportunist could be one, too.

Ms. KRUMHOLZ. I am sorry?

Chairman WAXMAN. They could say opportunist.

Ms. KRUMHOLZ. They could. Freedom fighter is another one. So

it is important that employer be included. Making the data base

downloadable is absolutely key. That provides anyone who wants

to look into this data with the flexibility they need to find the patterns in the data that they might not otherwise see if they were

simply using a limited search provided by the archives or by other

entities. So making it downloadable I think is just a tremendous

idea, would really help with allowing folks to be able to sort the

data and see interesting dates, whether a contribution was given

on a key date right before or right after policy decisions were made.

Again, that is being able to slice and dice the data is how you find

key information.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you.

Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Let me just talk about former Presidents

at this point. Once they are out of office and can’t, at that point,

I think, do any favors or use their office, what is the chance of corruption in a case like that, for terms of disclosure? I can underVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:07 Jan 14, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\39022.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
45

stand if you have a sitting President or somebody maybe within a

couple of years, but if somebody were to give $100,000 to a Jimmy

Carter Library at this point and wanted to do it anonymously,

what is the chance of corruption in a case like that?

Ms. WEXLER. Well, Representative Davis, I think our concern is

this: right now we have three very active living Presidents. They

are all on the world stage. They are all doing all kinds of things

that have a policy implication. In two cases, you have one who is

the father of a sitting President and in another case you have one

who is the spouse of a sitting Senator and Presidential candidate.

So I don’t think just because they are former Presidents they are

necessarily immune from being influenced or having influence.

I mean, President Carter just wrote a very controversial book

that challenges current domestic mideast policy, so I think that

those are the concerns that arise for us.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Ms. Krumholz.

Ms. KRUMHOLZ. Thank you. In addition to that, I would like to

add that, should we be concerned about potentially corrupting effect of donations to the library of a President who has left office

long ago? Maybe so, if he is still living, an ex-President still has

prestige, influence, and even retains access to national intelligence

as a courtesy. And, as I said earlier, foreign governments and interests can donate freely to Presidential libraries currently.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. OK. So the fact that they have access to

foreign intelligence, I mean, intelligence nobody else does, it makes

them corruptible?

Ms. KRUMHOLZ. No, no. But it does set them apart and I think

provides another reason why disclosure should continue for some

time beyond the point at which they leave office.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. At this point I think for some time or forever? I mean, as long as they are alive you would keep these? Do

you understand what I am saying?

Ms. KRUMHOLZ. Right.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. You are not talking about doing this for

Herbert Hoover?

Ms. KRUMHOLZ. I am not sure that I would say until they pass

away, but clearly the current situation with President Bush’s father having an active library fundraising and former President Bill

Clinton actively fundraising while his wife is running for the President, the office, gives us a good indication of what can happen, and

I would say we should consider it a good, long chunk of time beyond the point at which they leave office. Whether that should be

until they pass away, I am not sure we would go that far.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. OK.

Ms. KRUMHOLZ. I would like to clarify a point I made earlier, if

I may.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Sure.

Ms. KRUMHOLZ. When I was talking about disclosure thresholds,

we do not—I just want to make this point clear—we do not encourage limits on contributions necessarily. It is understandable that

limits will—if we impose limits, particularly stringent limits, these

buildings may never get built.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Right. That is a concern. A lot of people

like to give these anonymously. They are just doing it with the

46

right motive in mind. These Presidential libraries can be very important for researchers, for history, for everything else. If you make

it too difficult, people just walk away from it, and then maybe the

taxpayers get stuck with it. So I don’t know what the balance is.

You make a very good point. We could actually be in a period. It

could be 28 years before you have nothing but Bushes and Clintons

in the White House in theory, if you want to stretch this thing out.

I mean, I guess I don’t know what that does to poor Jimmy Carter.

Ms. Fawcett, do you have any estimate on the costs to the Archives for managing and making this information available?

Ms. FAWCETT. I am sorry, I didn’t hear the question.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Do you have any cost estimates for managing and making this information available?

Ms. FAWCETT. No, we don’t. In fact, the Archives has some concern about our ability to do this. We are not the Federal Election

Commission and we have no experience in making available this

type of information. We also are in a peculiar position of working

to partner with an organization that we are then responsible for reporting to the public donations, so in a way it could create some

conflicts of interest for us, so that is a concern. We will work

around whatever the legislation requires, but we would like to express some concerns about whether the National Archives is the

appropriate reporting body for these disclosures.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. I know in Mr. Duncan’s bill we set a

threshold of $5,000 for reporting once a President is out of office.

The $5,000, this threshold corresponds to a trigger for contributions that tax-exempt foundations would disclose to the IRS. What

do you think the proper threshold is for disclosure? Ms. Wexler, I

ask you and Ms. Krumholz.

Ms. WEXLER. You know, I think I believe in Mr. Duncan’s bill the

threshold was $5,000, but the time limit was unlimited, right, for

the disclosure? I think that is not a bad thing to think about, because, again, disclosure at $200 for a sitting President makes a lot

of sense. It may not be a bad idea to raise the threshold once the

President is no longer a sitting President, given the fact that we

are seeing donations that we know about in the millions and tons

of millions.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. They get $100,000 for a speech, more

than that for a speech, I mean.

Ms. WEXLER. Absolutely, but usually that is somehow—you

know, there is usually some disclosure about that. People generally

know a President’s going rate for speeches. But I think $5,000

wouldn’t necessarily be a terrible threshold post the time a President is in office. Are we happy with $200 as a threshold beyond

that time? Yes.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. OK.

Ms. KRUMHOLZ. You mean prior to that time, while they are still

in office?

Ms. WEXLER. Yes.

Ms. KRUMHOLZ. I would concur with Celia’s comments there, too.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. OK.

Ms. KRUMHOLZ. May I just interject?

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. Yes, please.

47

Ms. KRUMHOLZ. Was the FEC considered as the receptacle for

these reports as the agency collecting this information rather than

the Archives? It seems like they have a system and it is working

for them. I don’t know if that would be an appropriate place to——

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. I don’t know that it was. I mean, that

is an interesting concept in terms of allocation of costs and having

systems up and ready, so I think that is something we could give

some consideration to. That is why we hold these hearings sometimes. We don’t think of everything as we go through.

How long should the disclosure take place now? Do you think it

should just take place during the lifetime of a former President? I

mean, if you are talking about a Nixon Library or an LBJ Library

or something like that, should the disclosures continue?

Ms. WEXLER. I think certainly ideally it would be the lifetime of

a President. And we have disclosure. If you pass a disclosure bill

and you realize that, you know, giving just completely drops off

after the first decade, then you may want to reconsider that, but

I don’t think there is any harm and perhaps a lot of good in extending that disclosure through the lifetime of a President.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. All right. You don’t have any concern

that we should ban foreign contributions outright, do you?

Ms. WEXLER. I don’t think it is a bad thing to think about, but

I think it would require an enormous amount of deliberation and,

you know, it is not necessarily a path you want to take.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. OK. Ms. Krumholz, any thoughts?

Ms. KRUMHOLZ. I would be curious how much of the current

makeup of donations to Presidential libraries comes from foreign

governments.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. I would be interested to know, too.

Ms. KRUMHOLZ. And foreign nationals.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. And how much came while they were living and in office and how much afterwards. I think that is something we will ask the staff to look at.

Ms. KRUMHOLZ. Exactly.

Mr. DAVIS OF VIRGINIA. That would be interesting. I think, again,

this is dollars the taxpayers don’t have to pay, so any time we can

get something out of foreign countries, that is probably a good

thing.

I have a couple minutes left. Let me yield to Mr. Issa.

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If I can summarize quickly, it sounds like the logical things for

this committee to consider are: one, moving this to the FEC; two,

potentially harmonizing it with the FEC as though the President

is still a candidate so that it would be consistent with the President’s continued activity. If I can, using Ronald Reagan as an example, certainly in the last 5 years of his life nobody would say

that Ronald Reagan was still active, and thus, even though he was

still alive, reporting under the nod of heads I think I am seeing,

could be suspended. Would that be pretty consistent with what I

am hearing each of you say you view as to this reporting requirement?

Ms. KRUMHOLZ. Suspended during the last years of his life?

Mr. ISSA. In other words, if we harmonize the reporting requirement to the candidate, as we do normally. In other words, if we

48

move this to the FEC, if I stop being a candidate, you know, stop

all activity, the FEC says, OK, you have once a year, report us the

balance, and that is it.

The participation of the individual or individuals of influence is

what specifically I am hearing pretty consistently triggers the question of whether or not money to these otherwise just normal charities—I mean, these libraries are just basically 501(c)(3)’s, as far as

we are concerned, if you take out the power of the President or

former President. They are pretty consistent with the way you

would like us to view regulatory law in this case, including common cause, obviously?

Ms. WEXLER. I think so. I think the sort of question is when does

a President not become active. It was pretty clear in President Reagan’s case, but, you know, it is a kind of delicate question, and a

President might be a little offended if all of the sudden he was declared inactive, which is also something to think about.

Mr. ISSA. I don’t expect Nancy would have declared him inactive,

Nancy Reagan.

Ms. WEXLER. No, I don’t mean that. I just mean, you know, what

is the harm in the disclosure extending until something as final as

death, because presumably it is not going to be terribly burdensome.

Mr. ISSA. I guess my question——

Chairman WAXMAN. Mr. Issa.

Mr. ISSA. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman WAXMAN. The clock never turned red.

Mr. ISSA. OK. I will finish in one followup on the same thing.

Chairman WAXMAN. One last question.

Mr. ISSA. If former Presidents were to say I no longer am doing

anything whatsoever with my foundation, that declaration, whether he is living or not, would be substantially the same thing,

wouldn’t it? No one is ever going to disavow knowledge of their library, but hypothetically they can say I am out of it, as an alternative to death.

Ms. KRUMHOLZ. My concern would be the situation we have here

with President Bush and former President Clinton. Somebody who

wishes to influence a Candidate Clinton or the current sitting

President might well give to their father or their husband’s Presidential library, regardless——

Mr. ISSA. I yield back the ranking member’s unlimited time.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Issa.

Mr. Welch, I think you were here first. No questions? Mr. Hodes.

Mr. HODES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Presidential libraries and their facilities seem to be growing

exponentially larger. The complexes now contain the Presidential

library, research facilities. They also appear to include museums

and event centers and conference centers and a host of other amenities. I read in one of the reports about an apartment in one of the

libraries. There may be academic centers.

During the early phases of the planning and construction, the

role of Presidential library foundations seems very clear. It raises

the money, it ensures that the facility is built, and then, once the

library is turned over to the National Archives, the relationship

seems less clear. I am wondering if the panel could clarify.

49

I will direct this to Ms. Fawcett. Can you explain the role of the

Presidential library foundation once the facility has been turned

over to the Archives, particularly with regard to the non-library

spaces in the complex? Who is in charge? Who is minding the

store?

Ms. FAWCETT. Well, you are correct in that the libraries have

grown in size, and the largest library is the Ronald Reagan Library. Libraries built since the amendments passed in 1986 that

required an endowment come to the Government, in those libraries

only a portion of the library is transferred to the Government. Usually 70,000 square feet or less comes to the Government. The rest

of the venues in the library are the responsibility of the foundation

to operate and maintain those.

Now, what does come to the Government, Congressman, is the

museum, the research room, the archival offices, the storage

spaces, the education classrooms. What doesn’t come to the archives are things like venues to use for conference space, an apartment, sometimes the cafeteria, the museum store. Those venues

and those spaces remain with the foundation, and the foundation

must continue to raise money to provide support for those venues

in addition to supporting the public programming, education programming, and exhibits that are in the library, because the Government does not fund those.

Last year the Presidential libraries cost the taxpayers $58 million in directly appropriated funds. The foundations this year will

be donating almost $11 million to various Presidential libraries for

their use in programming operations.

In terms of managing those spaces, when we accept a library we

have a joint operating agreement with the foundation, and that

agreement outlines the responsibilities of both parties. Often, for

example, since the spaces are sort of interwoven throughout a

building and we have this space and the foundation has that space,

we divide up the utility cost and the operational cost, the maintenance cost of the building so that the foundation pays a percentage

of those costs to the Government.

Mr. HODES. Now, the foundations are organized under State law

as 501(c)(3)’s?

Ms. FAWCETT. Yes.

Mr. HODES. Is that correct?

Ms. FAWCETT. Yes.

Mr. HODES. And I suppose that the National Archives does not

impose any limitations, therefore, on the way the foundations can

use the collateral spaces, if you will, and what purposes they put

them to?

Ms. FAWCETT. Well, we do work out in the joint operating agreement some understandings about the spaces. They understand that

we try to represent a non-partisan library. Over time there may be

an event that takes place in foundation space that, you know, a Republican candidate may come, but foundations and libraries generally invite the Democratic candidates to come also, you know. It

is not normal for a——

Mr. HODES. I was interested to hear, when the chairman asked

the question about the additional use to which the fundraising was

put in that event of the 80th birthday, that there were other charVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:07 Jan 14, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\39022.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
50

ities to whom money was donated. Do any of you on the panel

think there is any issue that could arise in the foundation’s ability

to use those spaces collateral to the library for any purpose whatsoever, even though not related to the joint operating agreement with

the National Archives? Any issue there?

Ms. WEXLER. I am not sure that this directly responds. I think

that one of our concerns is that if you look at these libraries, you

know, Robert Carow said they were America’s pyramids erected to

the memory of America’s rules, and I don’t know if I want to go

that far, but there is that sense that you do get a lot of hagiography, and that a lot of what happens inside them is not necessarily—the access to the Presidential records is absolutely invaluable and, indeed, helped Mr. Carow write his wonderful series

on Lyndon Johnson, but you have that other aspect of these complexes—the tourist sites, the sort of way they pay tribute and emphasize certain aspects of an administration’s history, that, you

know, make you wonder a little about what these are becoming and

what the trend is. So I think that is a concern.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hodes.

Mr. HODES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman WAXMAN. Your time is up.

Mr. Issa, do you wish to be heard?

Mr. ISSA. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You know, I think there is no question that we are going to need

to have a question at some point about the libraries, where they

are going and whether or not the Government support of them remains as appropriate as it has been in the past. I think that is beyond the scope perhaps of today’s hearing. But because I am so

privileged to have the representative of the National Archives, I

have to say I would like to not digress, but it is somewhat related.

Ms. Fawcett, you are familiar, obviously, with Sandy Berger taking

either originals or duplicates of classified documents out of your

care. As I understand, Nancy Smith is a direct report to you; is

that correct?

Ms. FAWCETT. Yes, she is.

Mr. ISSA. And I guess one of the questions is: do you consider

that your responsibility is only to make sure that these documents

remain available for the future, or do you have a separate recognition that you have to protect classified documents from being taken

out by anybody whatsoever, including Sandy Berger?

Ms. FAWCETT. Well, we feel that we have the responsibility to do

both. We are the historical protectors of the records. In the case of

Mr. Berger’s visit to the National Archives, he came to the National Archives as an official representative of President Clinton.

He was reviewing records for the 9/11 Commission for his testimony and for President Clinton’s testimony.

Mr. ISSA. OK, then, following up on that, why was Sandy Berger

allowed to be alone with documents for which there are no duplicates with a briefcase and the ability—we don’t know whether he

did or he didn’t, but he could have simply put them in his briefcase

and left.

Ms. FAWCETT. Well——

Mr. ISSA. Was there special treatment, or would you do this for

other people that came in representing a former President?

51

Ms. FAWCETT. As representatives under the Presidential Records

Act, we did, indeed, treat people differently. We expected, and from

1989 when the Presidential Records Act first was implemented

with Ronald Reagan’s departure from the White House, through

the time of Sandy Berger, we operated with an attitude of trust in

these people. They had statutory responsibility, statutory authority

to view the records. And yes, they were treated with respect. They

were not regular researchers and they weren’t treated as regular

researchers. We expected Mr. Berger to be knowledgeable of the

national security requirements. We had never had an issue. But,

saying that, national security is ever evolving. I go through airports now and I take my shoes off. I didn’t used to.

Mr. ISSA. OK. So——

Ms. FAWCETT. Now, if a Presidential representative comes to——

Mr. ISSA. Right. Looking forward, not back then, today if—Sandy

Berger would be inappropriate, but if anyone from a former administration came, can we be assured that they would never, never be

allowed to be alone with any document and that they would not be

given documents for which there were not catalogs and duplicates?

Ms. FAWCETT. Part of your question, they would not be alone

with the documents in a production request. But, second, would

they be given original materials? The answer to that is probably

yes, because we have 9 billion pieces of paper in the National Archives and we don’t make copies of all of them. There would be

somebody with them in attendance while they worked with the

records, and in many cases they might even be under camera surveillance.

Mr. ISSA. In many cases? So it is safe to say that Sandy Berger

could never again, or someone like him, come in and take original

documents such as e-mails or other desk copy information that

might, in fact, have germaneness to current or future investigations? That is absolutely something you have closed?

Ms. FAWCETT. That is absolutely something that we strive to

have not happen again.

Mr. ISSA. And do you feel there was any wrongdoing in the treatment that was allowed Sandy Berger, the special treatment as you

have described it at the time?

Ms. FAWCETT. I think that it was the vigilance of our staff and

their care and their concern that led to Sandy Berger’s being

caught with these records, and the Congress knowing about it, the

9/11 Commission knowing about it, and the National Security

Council knowing about it. Without our employees’ careful handling

of this case, Sandy Berger would not have been caught.

Mr. ISSA. I thank you for your diligence and I thank you for the

changes that you have implemented.

Ms. FAWCETT. Thank you, Mr. Issa.

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Chairman WAXMAN. Mr. Braley.

Mr. BRALEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Fawcett, let me start with you. One of my family’s cherished

archives is a photograph my mother took on August 10, 1962, very

similar to the one I have in my hand——

Ms. FAWCETT. Were you at the Hoover Library?

52

Mr. BRALEY [continuing]. At the dedication of the Herbert Hoover

Presidential Library in West Branch, IA.

Ms. FAWCETT. Thank you.

Mr. BRALEY. She held a Brownie Instamatic camera over her

head.

Ms. FAWCETT. Yes.

Mr. BRALEY. She is only 5’4’’ and she got a picture of President

Hoover and President Truman walking through thousands of people.

One of the questions that I have for you and for everyone on the

panel is I am concerned about the growing disparity between what

I will call small market and large market Presidential libraries and

the fact that we have talked about this exponential growth in

terms of the dollar value of those libraries and the expanded components available to people who attend those facilities beyond simply a repository of Presidential documents and memorabilia.

Have you thought about how we can preserve the original purpose of these libraries, which is to provide a repository of information and a museum experience for people from all across this country to experience a historical perspective of that Presidency without

turning it into a theme park type environment where there are no

limits on the surrounding opportunities available for experiencing

that Presidency?

Ms. FAWCETT. Well, I don’t view any of the libraries now as a

theme park type of environment. I would say that one of the reasons for the expansion of spaces in libraries is to earn the revenue

necessary to support the library. The funds that come from the

Government, the directly appropriated funds, aren’t sufficient for

us to provide those educational experiences and the museum experiences to the public. We do not use any direct appropriated funds

to pay for museum exhibits. Those are all funded either through

revenues gained from admission to the library that are in the library’s government-operated trust funds, or through donations of

the foundations to the libraries to do that.

Another area of earning revenue is through the rental of spaces

in the library, to use the library as a venue for events. That has

also assisted the libraries in being able to bring programs such as

the Presidential time line, which launched in February. It is a

project of all of the Presidential libraries to bring the digitized assets to school children and educators everywhere across the country. There are learning experiences on the Web site. There are assets you can search across the time line of the Presidency.

We are striving in the Presidential library system to look at the

Presidency as a time line as a whole, because events don’t happen

in any stovepipe way. The civil rights, the Vietnam War, the Middle East Conflict, all of these things extend over a period of time.

Through the revenues that we gain in these projects, we are able

to put together these sort of experiences for the American people,

for students everywhere. We don’t expect Congress to fund those.

If you think it would be better for Congress to fund those, we can

certainly accept the money, but that has not been our intent.

Mr. BRALEY. No, but just talking about the earlier discussion of

what type of revenues were generated from the Hoover Library and

some of the smaller libraries, even if you take a 40 percent endowVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:07 Jan 14, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\39022.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
53

ment requirement for a $500 million library, you are still talking

about $300 million over and above that amount that is available,

and, using another baseball analogy from Iowa, if you build it, they

will come.

Ms. FAWCETT. Yes.

Mr. BRALEY. When you have a Presidential library that has a

think tank component to it, then what restrictions are there under

the current statute that would prevent a theme park from being

added as a component to a Presidential library?

Ms. FAWCETT. Well, that wouldn’t be brought to the national archives and wouldn’t be transferred to national archives. The think

tank component of the proposed George W. Bush Library would not

transfer to the Federal Government. That would be part of something that the foundation would be managing.

Mr. BRALEY. I understand that, but my point is what prevents

us from going to the next step under the current statute?

Ms. FAWCETT. Under the Presidential Libraries Act statute?

Mr. BRALEY. Yes.

Ms. FAWCETT. Well, there is nothing, but the Government

wouldn’t accept that, so, I mean, the fact that the foundation could

build it, yes, there is nothing to prevent the foundation from building whatever they want to build, but what they can transfer to the

Government is codified, and it is up to Congress to decide whether

or not to accept what is transferred to the Government. We prepare

a report that we submit to you some time before the transfer, and

it is up to Congress to make that decision whether this is an appropriate project for the Government to manage.

Mr. BRALEY. Thank you.

Chairman WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Braley.

I want to thank the three of you for your testimony today. I

think we have an excellent record for this committee to consider

legislation.

Thank you.

If there is no other business from any other Members, the committee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]

Æ