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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

95–504 PDF 2004

S. Hrg. 108–591

NOMINATION OF ALLEN WEINSTEIN

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON THE

NOMINATION OF ALLEN WEINSTEIN, OF MARYLAND, TO BE ARCHIVIST 

OF THE UNITED STATES, NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION

JULY 22, 2004

Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

MICHAEL D. BOPP, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JOHANNA L. HARDY, Senior Counsel 

JOYCE A. RECHTSCHAFFEN, Minority Staff Director and Counsel 

JENNIFER E. HAMILTON, Minority Research Assistant 

AMY B. NEWHOUSE, Chief Clerk 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 1

Senator Lieberman ........................................................................................... 4

Senator Shelby .................................................................................................. 6

Senator Durbin ................................................................................................. 7

Senator Levin .................................................................................................... 7

Prepared statement: 

Senator Lautenberg .......................................................................................... 25

WITNESSES 

THURSDAY, JULY 22, 2004

Hon. Richard Lugar, a U.S. Senator from the State of Indiana .......................... 3

Allen Weinstein, to be Archivist of the United States, National Archives 

and Records Administration ................................................................................ 9

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Lugar, Hon. Richard: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 3

Weinstein, Allen: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 26

Biographical and professional information requested of nominees .............. 32

Pre-hearing questionnaire for the Record ...................................................... 44

Responses to pre-hearing questionnaire for the Record ................................ 53

Post-hearing questions from Senators ............................................................ 123

APPENDIX 

Additional letters and prepared statements submitted for the Record 

Letter from Senator Levin to Mr. Carlin, dated July 21, 2004 .................... 130

Letter to Senator Levin from Mr. Carlin, dated July 22, 2004 .................... 131

Letter to the President from Mr. Carlin, dated December 19, 2003 ............ 132

Letter to Senator Collins from Senator Hutchison, dated May 12, 2004 .... 133

Letter to Senators Collins and Lieberman from Juanita M. Skillman, 

CRM, FAI, Chairman, ARMA International, dated April 27, 2004 .......... 134

ARMA International, prepared statement ..................................................... 137

Society of American Archivists, prepared statement with an attachment .. 143

National Coalition for History, prepared statement with attachments ....... 148

Letters to Senator Collins from: 

Sharon Babaian, President, National Council on Public History, dated 

July 16, 2004 ................................................................................................. 155

Barbara B. Kennelly, President and CEO, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, dated April 27, 2004 ........................ 157

James S. Henderson, Director, Maine State Archives, dated May 13, 

2004 ................................................................................................................ 158

Timothy J. Naftali, Associate Professor, Miller Center of Public Affairs, 

University of Virginia, dated May 4, 2004 .................................................. 160

Heather Gallegos-Rex, President, New Mexico Library Association, dated 

May 6, 2004 ................................................................................................... 162

Elspeth Davies Rostow, Stiles Professor Emerita, Lyndon B. Johnson 

School of Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin, dated May 

6, 2004 ............................................................................................................ 163

Page

IV

Letters to Senator Collins from—Continued

Thomas F. Eagleton, Thompson Coburn LLP, St. Louis, Missouri, dated 

May 14, 2004 ................................................................................................. 164

Daraka S. Cook, President, Maryland Library Association, dated June 

9, 2004 ............................................................................................................ 166

Robert L. Livingston, The Ivingston Group, LLC, dated April 13, 2004 ..... 168

Susanne Hoeber Rudolph, President, American Political Science Association, and Michael A. Genovese, President, Presidency Research Group, 

a section of the American Political Science Association, dated July 

26, 2004 .......................................................................................................... 170

(1)

NOMINATION OF ALLEN WEINSTEIN 

THURSDAY, JULY 22, 2004

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:30 p.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Susan M. Collins, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Collins, Shelby, Lieberman, Levin, and Durbin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN COLLINS 

Chairman COLLINS. The Committee will come to order. 

This afternoon, the Committee on Governmental Affairs is holding a hearing to consider the nomination of Allen Weinstein to be 

the Archivist of the United States. 

As anyone who loves history knows, the Archivist holds an important and challenging position. As head of the National Archives 

and Records Administration, the Archivist is responsible for maintaining the historical documents of our country and for ensuring 

that those and other government records are preserved for the public. Currently, the National Archives holds an astounding 6 billion 

pieces of paper, 18 million aerial photographs, 11 million still pictures, 3 million architectural and engineering plans, 2 million 

maps and charts, and hundreds of thousands of motion pictures 

and audio and video recordings. 

The Archivist provides guidance and assistance to Federal officials on the management of records to determine their retention 

and disposition. He must decide where to place those records with 

sufficient value to warrant their continued preservation. Not surprisingly, the National Archives is running out of storage space. 

However, space is one of only many challenges facing the National 

Archives. 

While rapidly advancing information technology has been a boon 

for business and government alike, it has created a particularly difficult problem for the Archivist. Ensuring that electronic documents created using today’s software and computer programs will 

be accessible 50 or 100 years from now creates novel technological 

and archival issues. The current Archivist, Governor John Carlin, 

has been working on this problem for several years and the National Archives will soon begin the design competition phase for its 

electronic record archives. Whoever replaces him must continue to 

make this significant project a high priority. 

The Archivist is also responsible for making grants to non-Federal institutions to support historical documentation through the 

2

National Historical Publications and Records Commission. In 

Maine, for example, 23 museums, libraries, colleges, State and local 

agencies have received more than $1 million in grants to improve 

the preservation of, and access to, their historic records. It is vitally 

important to such institutions throughout the Nation that the Archivist ensure that this program is adequately funded. 

The Archivist must also be able to work with key stakeholders. 

Other archivists, historians, records managers, and ordinary citizens all rely upon the National Archivist. During our review of this 

important nomination, the Committee has received a significant 

amount of input from organizations such as the National Coalition 

for History, ARMA International, and others including officials 

from the State of Maine Archives. The Committee staff has met 

with and consulted extensively with various groups and individuals 

and I continue to welcome their insights and advice. 

Many stakeholders expect the Archivist to be the advocate for 

open access to government records. At times, this role can prove to 

be difficult. The Archivist must understand the concerns of the 

public, of historians and other stakeholders and be committed to 

working to improve public access. The Archivist must believe in 

and adhere to the core mission of the National Archives which is 

to ensure ‘‘for the citizens and the public servant, for the President 

and for the Congress and for the courts, ready access to essential 

evidence.’’

The National Archives is a public trust that documents our national experience and the activities of our government. Its mission 

is critical to a free and open society because it allows us another 

means of evaluating the actions of our government. For these reasons, it is important that the Archivist not only have the skills 

needed to manage the National Archives but also possess a knowledge of relevant issues such as records management, and demonstrate a commitment to the core mission of the agency. 

As a professor, scholar, and author, Professor Weinstein has a 

multidimensional perspective on the importance of the mission of 

the National Archives. In addition, his work with organizations 

such as the Center for Democracy, and the International Foundation for Election Systems demonstrates his capacity to manage and 

address complex issues. 

I look forward to hearing the professor’s views on the many 

issues that he would face if he is confirmed. I note that he is accompanied today by one of our most distinguished members who is 

going to introduce him. I will now turn to Senator Lugar, for whom 

I have such great respect, in a moment. But first, I would be happy 

to turn to the Ranking Member of the Committee, Senator 

Lieberman, who managed to arrive just in time not to hear any of 

my eloquent opening statement. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. I was receiving the vibrations as I walked 

over here. I am going to hold and I am happy to yield to our respected and dear colleague, Senator Lugar. 

Chairman COLLINS. Senator Lugar, I will call on you and then 

we will resume opening statements by the Committee Members. I 

know that Senator Shelby is also a friend of Professor Weinstein 

and is eager to make comments as well. 

Senator Lugar. 

3

TESTIMONY OF HON. RICHARD LUGAR, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF INDIANA 

Senator LUGAR. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman and 

Members of the Committee. I appreciate this opportunity. I want 

to testify on behalf of my friend Allen Weinstein from a perspective 

of fairly recent history, that is within the last two decades. 

I first met Professor Weinstein when he was a professor at Boston University, but had just become the head of the Center for Democracy in about 1985. That was a big year for me. That was my 

first year as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. We 

were already hearing from young people in the State Department, 

among them Rich Armitage and Paul Wolfowitz, other familiar 

names who are still on the scene, that there were problems in 

terms of our relationship with President Marcos. 

Those developed further throughout the year and when I was in 

Guatemala observing the election at the behest of President 

Reagan I got word that on television in the United States, President Marcos was calling a snap election in the Philippines. But it 

was a challenge to our country, and he said, in essence, and he 

heard a lot of criticism, but now it was put up or shut up. He was 

going to win and win big. And he invited us to come over and observe this. 

Now the problem of observation was a technical one. Before falling into this, Secretary Shultz suggested to me—and the thought 

was that I would head another delegation to observe this election—

we had better find out where our footing was. So for this I called 

on my good friend Professor Weinstein. 

He did some reconnaissance of the Philippines election situation 

which led us to ask some probing questions of the embassy back 

here. Namely, how close to the polls could we get? Who could we 

interview? As a matter of fact, what were the rules of the game in 

terms of the election laws? And what kind of security would our 

delegates have? Because the President intended to name 30 people 

from business, from politics. Senator Kerry and Senator Cochran 

were both parts of that delegation and are still in the Senate, and 

Jack Murtha from Pennsylvania was a part of that situation. 

So we asked Allen and his group to find out for us, and they 

asked the right questions so we asked the right questions. In essence, we established a presence, we observed the election. It was 

covered by enormous fraud and abuse, which we reported before 

leaving the Philippines fairly abruptly thereafter, and came directly back to report to the President, who at first was very skeptical and said he saw fraud and abuse on both sides. 

But without relating all the problems, by Saturday the President 

decided the fraud and abuse was principally on one side and instructed his friend, Senator Paul Laxalt to give the famous words, 

‘‘cut and cut clean,’’ to Ferdinand Marcos up in room S–407 as we 

all observed this. 

Now at that point we asked Allen Weinstein to go back to the 

Philippines for a very important scholarly reconnaissance to find 

out exactly what were the voting totals, what had occurred in all 

the precincts, and which anecdotally, the people had turned over 

the wagons literally and come up with scores of 400 to zero, or 

what have you. So that there was not a very good historical record 

4

of physically what had occurred in that race as well as other races 

on that day. He performed in an exemplary fashion, as you might 

imagine. 

This is all a part of history, and on the basis of this President 

Reagan changed our foreign policy by saying that we will no longer 

make a distinction between totalitarians on the left and authoritarians on the right. Both are enemies of democracy, and we will oppose both. That was a very significant change for President Reagan 

and it came really out of this experience, and out of the documentation. Not just a single observation, but a scholarly effort of published work. 

Allen helped me make certain all the recollections I have in my 

book, ‘‘Letters to the Next President,’’ on the Philippines election 

were right as we both understood it. So in a contemporary way we 

recorded that part of American history. 

Subsequently, I continued to serve on Allen’s board until it was 

in fact merged into IFES, as you have suggested, Madam Chairman, and the board meetings were always stimulating. They always brought in Members of Congress, and the academic community. A good number of legislatures in Latin America and elsewhere 

have their genesis from the beginnings of the Center for Democracy, and the instructions, the materials, as well as judicial conferences that Allen Weinstein sponsored with the center here in 

this country as well as elsewhere each year. 

So for all these reasons, you can understand the depth of my regard and my friendship for this remarkable American. I am most 

hopeful the Committee will give him very favorable consideration. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you very much, Senator Lugar, for 

being here. Your recommendation means a great deal to this Committee. I know your schedule is very busy so I am sure that the 

members would join me in excusing you from listening to their eloquent opening statements as well. 

Senator LUGAR. Thank you very much. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Lieberman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LIEBERMAN 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you, Madam Chairman, both for the 

introduction and that adjective eloquent. I am going to ask that my 

full statement be put in the record and welcome Dr. Weinstein. 

Nine years ago when this Committee considered the nomination 

of then-Governor Carlin to be Archivist the nomination attracted 

what was to me at the time a surprising amount of interest and 

controversy. Today we are considering the nomination of Dr. Allen 

Weinstein for the same position, and again there is some interest 

and some controversy. 

This is actually a week in which the Archives have probably received more attention, thanks to Sandy Berger, than they have in 

a long time. So the limelight is unexpectedly on this usually quiet 

and non-controversial agency of our government. The position of 

Archivist is anything but ordinary, although it is usually not in the 

limelight. Senator Glenn, our former chairman and friend once 

said, and maybe said it best, ‘‘that the Archivist is the guardian of 

our heritage,’’ our national heritage, because the Archivist ensures 

5

the Nation’s historical records are kept safe, never altered, and certainly not illegally destroyed. 

The Archives are now in the midst of a great transition. Along 

with all Federal agencies, National Archives and Records Administration must manage a rapidly increasing volume of electronic 

records. The Archives not only must preserve raw data, they must 

ensure that the best methods for reading and recalling that data 

are preserved as well, so that not just next year or in 10 years, but 

forever the American people will have access to their heritage. 

The next Archivist will also have to deal with the sensitive issues 

surrounding Executive Order 13233 issued by President Bush in 

November 2001 regarding release of presidential documents. As 

you know, Dr. Weinstein, the order has drawn some criticism on 

the basis that it undermines the Presidential Records Act and, 

among other things, diminishes, some would say takes the Archivist out of the process of deciding what documents should be released, and gives the former or sitting Presidents very large sway 

and time to review requests for the release of those documents. I 

hope that is a subject that we can talk about today. 

But I welcome Dr. Weinstein, an accomplished historian, which 

incidentally is a profession several past Archivists have shared and 

it certainly seems to prepare you for this position. An author, a 

teacher, leader of a private non-profit organization that helped 

emerging democracies around the world foster open government. 

And in the spirit of full disclosure I should add, I was privileged 

to be a member of the board of that organization for some time. So 

I welcome you. I thank you for your willingness to serve, and I look 

forward to your testimony today. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Lieberman follows:]

PREPARED OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LIEBERMAN 

Thank you Madam Chairman, and welcome Dr. Weinstein. We appreciate your 

being with us today. 

Nine years ago, when this Committee considered the nomination of then-Governor 

Carlin to be Archivist, the nomination attracted a significant amount of interest and 

some controversy. Today we are considering the nomination of Allen Weinstein for 

the same position, and again there is significant interest and some controversy. This 

surprises people who consider the Archivist’s job to be an ordinary one, far removed 

from the limelight and the daily tug of current events. 

But the position of Archivist of the United States is anything but ordinary. The 

Archivist safeguards the very nature of democratic government. He works with the 

President, the Congress, the courts, and all the Federal agencies to determine what 

government records should be saved, who controls those records, how government 

can preserve them for historical purposes, and how and when the public should gain 

access to them. The Archivist, then, is our national record keeper. His is a public 

trust. 

Both government and the public depend on the National Archives for a wide 

range of information. The National Archives preserves the records citizens rely on 

to trace their families’ history. It also maintains the records historians use to evaluate the government and the people who serve within it. From those records we judge 

our predecessors, just as succeeding generations will judge us. 

Former Senator Glenn may have said it best when he noted that ‘‘the Archivist 

is the guardian of our heritage.’’ He ensures this nation’s historical records are kept 

safe, never altered or illegally destroyed. 

The National Archives, however, is, in many ways, on the cusp of a monumental 

transition, and the next Archivist must be prepared to lead the agency through this 

transformation. Just as all Federal agencies do, the National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA) must manage a rapidly increasing volume of electronic 

records. E-mails, electronic documents, and World Wide Web site pages all present 

6

special archival challenges because the technologies behind them are constantly 

changing. The Archives not only must preserve raw data, it must ensure the best 

methods for reading and recalling that data are preserved as well, so that 10, 20, 

or 100 years into the future, American citizens will still have access to their heritage. 

The Archivist must also be prepared to face some of the same management challenges other Federal agencies are confronting. He must be able to lead a large and 

diverse workforce into the 21st Century. He must also cope with the retirement of 

experienced personnel and be able to recruit and retain new employees with the appropriate training. 

The next Archivist will also have to wade into the sensitive issues surrounding 

Executive Order 13233, issued by President Bush in November 2001, regarding release of presidential documents. the order has drawn criticism for undermining the 

Presidential Records Act, which provides for the public release of presidential 

records. The Executive Order, among other things, essentially takes the Archivist 

out of the process of deciding what documents should be released, gives the former 

and sitting President potentially unlimited time to review requests, and shifts the 

legal burden of challenging decisions to withhold documents to the requestor of the 

documents. This is a subject I am sure we’ll spend some time discussing this afternoon. 

Allen Weinstein is not an archivist by trade. He is an historian, an honorable, indeed significant profession several past Archivists have shared. He is an author and 

teacher, and was the leader of a private non-profit organization that helped emerging democracies around the world foster open government. Concerns have been 

raised, as you know, in connection with Dr. Weinstein’s historical pursuits. 

Some have complained that the previous Archivist, John Carlin, was pressured to 

resign or that Allen Weinstein was an opponent of open access because he kept 

some of his own records and files closed. The Committee has explored these issues 

and will continue to debate them today. 

Again, I welcome Dr. Weinstein, and look forward to his testimony before this 

Committee as we consider his nomination and the interesting, sometimes controversial issues confronting the National Archives and the ‘‘guardian of our heritage,’’ as 

we enter the 21st Century.

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Shelby. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SHELBY 

Senator SHELBY. Madam Chairman, I want to thank you for 

holding this hearing today to consider the nomination of Dr. Allen 

Weinstein to be the Archivist of the United States. Dr. Weinstein, 

as you probably know, is a noted historian, respected educator, renowned author and founder, president and the CEO of the Center 

for Democracy. Dr. Weinstein has had an outstanding career and 

a demonstrated record of service in non-partisan and bipartisan organizations over the past two decades. Throughout his career he 

has conducted a significant amount of scholarly research and published a number of works that brought him in direct contact with 

vast amounts of historic documents and information. 

Throughout his years, Madam Chairman, whether as a writer or 

as an educator, Dr. Weinstein’s reliance on historical documents 

has bolstered his understanding of the importance of maintaining 

the most accurate, accessible and thorough historical records in 

order to connect citizens to their government. I believe that Dr. 

Weinstein will serve our Nation honorably and with the utmost respect for materials that he will be responsible for safeguarding. 

These materials are precious and irreplaceable national treasures 

and it is imperative they be preserved and protected. 

I thank you again for holding this hearing. I look forward to supporting this nomination. I think it is a great nomination. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Durbin. 

7

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DURBIN 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and welcome, 

Dr. Weinstein, to the Committee. I have to agree with Senator 

Lieberman, rarely is there this much intrigue in a nomination, particularly for someone to the Archives. Having had a chance to sit 

down and speak with you, I have no question in my mind that you 

are thoroughly qualified to fill the chair of Archivist. The question 

in the minds of many of us is whether that chair is empty. And 

if it is empty, why is it empty? What decision was made and who 

made it to tell Governor Carlin it was time to go? 

I suppose you may know nothing about that and perhaps questions in this Committee will raise that issue. But it is an unusual 

circumstance and I do not know, God forbid, that politics may be 

involved in it. But it does not take away from the fact that you 

bring extraordinary qualifications. So I am looking forward to the 

questions and your responses. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Levin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN 

Senator LEVIN. Madam Chairman, thank you very much. Let me 

join you and the other Members of our Committee in greeting Mr. 

Weinstein here and welcoming him. 

As has been stated by you, Madam Chairman, and other Members of the Committee, and Senator Lieberman, the National Archives are a national treasure, a repository of critical information 

illuminating the Nation’s development, our understanding of our 

history, and our view of ourselves. The Archives merit our full attention and protection. They were created 20 years ago by the National Archives and Records Administration Act of 1984. The report 

issued by this Committee at the time said that if the decisions 

made at the Archives were made ‘‘arbitrarily or motivated by political rather than professional considerations, the historical record 

could be impoverished, even distorted.’’ The report explained that 

the law established the Archives as an independent agency in order 

to ‘‘provide the best insurance that archival and records management decisions would be made on a professional basis unaffected 

by political considerations or other extraneous factors.’’

Just as decisions at the National Archives must be based on professional, non-political considerations, it is critically important that 

the process of selecting a new Archivist follow the same path. Some 

of the events leading up to the proposed replacement for the current Archivist trouble me deeply. The nominee, Dr. Weinstein, stated in written answers to questions sent him by the Committee that 

he first met with the White House about his possible nomination 

on September 23, 2003. He stated that he was then asked by the 

Office of Presidential Personnel to fill out certain forms required 

for the nomination process during late November and early December 2003. 

Until now, it has been unclear whether the process of seeking out 

a new Archivist had been initiated by the White House or at the 

suggestion of the current Archivist, John Carlin. I recently decided 

just to ask Mr. Carlin directly, and I sent him a letter asking 

whether he initially approached the Administration about resigning 

8

from his position or whether the Administration had initially approached him. Mr. Carlin responded, ‘‘the Administration initially 

approached me. On Friday, December 5, 2003, the Counsel to the 

President called me and told me the Administration would like to 

appoint a new Archivist. I asked why, and there was no reason 

given.’’

Mr. Carlin decided, obviously, to go along with the request. Two 

weeks after the initial contact from the White House, on December 

19, 2003, Mr. Carlin sent a letter to the President stating that by 

the Fall of 2004 he would look for other opportunities. He stated 

he would submit his resignation upon the swearing-in of his successor. I am not sure that Mr. Carlin was aware at the time he 

wrote this letter his potential replacement had already begun the 

paperwork needed to complete the nomination process. 

Congress intended for the Archivist to be a non-political position. 

The law authorizes the Archivist to serve for an indefinite term. If 

a President initiates the removal of a sitting Archivist he is required by law to inform Congress of the cause for removal. In this 

case, it was apparently the White House who asked Mr. Carlin to 

remove himself and gave no apparent reason other than wanting 

to name his replacement. 

Mr. Carlin may be willing to leave at the request of the White 

House, but we have an obligation to protect the objectivity of the 

Archives and to find out why the White House asked him to leave. 

I make no suggestion, by the way, that Mr. Weinstein played any 

role in the request of Mr. Carlin to resign, because I know he did 

not—because he told me he did not. The issue is totally separate 

from Mr. Weinstein’s qualifications, which are high qualifications, 

from his experience which is extensive. But it seems to me that it 

is essential that this Committee now request the White House to 

let us know whether in fact they requested the resignation of Mr. 

Carlin, and if so, why. That again is a separate issue from Mr. 

Weinstein’s qualifications and I think it is important that we talk 

to him about his vision and his qualifications, but that we not simply overlook the importance of finding out how is it and why is it 

that the White House requested the current Archivist to resign. 

The National Archives Vision Statement states that the National 

Archives is a ‘‘public trust on which our democracy depends. . . . 

It enables officials and agencies to review their actions and helps 

citizens hold them accountable.’’ Part of that accountability, it 

seems to me, is that we do make that inquiry of the White House, 

and I will be talking to the Chairman and to the Ranking Member 

about that. I just received the letter today. I tried to get it to our 

Chairman this afternoon and to the Ranking Member. I do not 

know even, frankly, if they got a copy of the letter. 

Chairman COLLINS. Just now. 

Senator LEVIN. But in any event, it just struck me literally yesterday, I just wanted to find out directly from the Archivist as to 

was this his idea or not? And if it is not his idea, I think we should 

find out the source of the idea, to protect the objectivity and independence and integrity of the Archives. So that is, again, a separate matter which I am happy to keep separate from questions of 

Mr. Weinstein, because again I know he should not be caught up 

in this issue, but it is an issue which needs to be resolved. Again, 

9

1The biographical information appears in the Appendix on page 32. 

2Pre-hearing questions and responses in sequential order appear in the Appendix on pages 

44 and 53 respectively. 3The prepared statement of Mr. Weinstein appears in the Appendix on page 26. 

I welcome him to the Committee and I look forward to his answering questions about his own views, vision, and qualifications. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. 

Allen Weinstein has filed responses to a biographical and financial questionnaire,1 answered pre-hearing questions submitted by 

the Committee,2 and had his financial statements reviewed by the 

Office of Government Ethics. Without objection, this information 

will be made part of the hearing record with the exception of the 

financial data which are on file and available for public inspection 

in the Committee’s offices. 

Our Committee rules require that all witnesses at nomination 

hearings give their testimony under oath so, Professor, I would ask 

that you stand and raise your right hand. 

[Witness sworn.] 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Professor, before I ask you if you 

have a statement you would like to make, I am told that you do 

have members of your family here with you and I would ask you 

to introduce them to the Committee. 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. I would like you to meet my wife, Adrienne 

Dominguez, and my son, Andrew Weinstein. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. We welcome you here today. 

Professor, you can proceed with your statement. 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. May I introduce one more person? 

Chairman COLLINS. I am sorry. I had been told there are just 

two. 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. One of your former colleagues in the Congress 

and my friend, Barbara Kennelly, is here in the back. Congresswoman Kennelly? Well, she was here in the back. I don’t know 

where she is now. 

Chairman COLLINS. You should have stopped when you were 

ahead. [Laughter.] 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. It has been a problem, Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Professor, proceed please. 

TESTIMONY OF ALLEN WEINSTEIN,3 TO BE ARCHIVIST OF THE 

UNITED STATES, NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. Thank you. Chairman Collins, Senator Lieberman, Senators on the Governmental Affairs Committee, Committee 

staff, ladies and gentlemen: I am honored and humbled by the 

President’s nomination of me to become the next Archivist of the 

United States. Should this Committee and the full Senate confirm 

the nomination, I will devote all of my effort and energy to addressing the range of responsibilities assigned to the Archivist as the 

head of the National Archives and Records Administration. 

I want to thank Senator Lugar, a friend and mentor, for having 

introduced me to the Committee. I want to thank you, Chairman 

Collins, and all of the Senators on the Committee, along with your 

able staffs; no nominee could have been treated with greater fairVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:33 Oct 22, 2004 Jkt 095504 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\95504.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
10

ness. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the Members 

and staff of this Committee in a completely cooperative manner. 

The Archivist of the United States essentially works for the 

American people across partisan lines and not, regardless of which 

administration nominates the person, for a particular President or 

political party. Thus, the Archivist must display at all times scrupulous independence and a devotion to the laws and principles 

which govern the responsibilities of the office. It should be of some 

help in this connection that for two decades, in this city and 

throughout the country and the world, I have led an independent, 

bipartisan existence while developing a range of programs and initiatives with Members of Congress, their staffs, and administration 

officials of both parties. I would continue that independent and bipartisan approach to my work as Archivist of the United States, 

the designated custodian of America’s essential government 

‘‘records that defy the tooth of time.’’ I note with special pride the 

Center for Democracy’s bipartisan Board of directors which, at various times was honored to include Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison, 

John Kerry, Joseph Lieberman, Richard Lugar, Sam Nunn, Charles 

Robb, and former Senator William Brock. 

With the Committee’s indulgence, I would like to spend a moment reviewing in summary my qualifications for the post of Archivist. My answers to the Committee’s biographical and policy questionnaires, which you already have and which I have appended to 

this statement, expand on these comments. 

First, I believe that my several careers—as a teacher and scholar 

of American history, a global democracy activist for two decades, 

and an NGO administrator for that same period—constitute a varied yet significant professional background, one capable of assuming quickly and effectively the Archivist’s roles and responsibilities. 

Second, my specific activities over four decades as an educator, 

historian, and writer should be noted: As the holder of three longterm professorships—Smith College, Georgetown, and Boston University; author or co-author of six books well received by reviewers, 

of eight edited collections, and of dozens of articles; a user of and 

advisor to various research archives; and an award-winning recipient of fellowships and lectureships. 

Third, having witnessed over almost two decades as President of 

the Center for Democracy in dozens of dictatorships or transitional 

nations the destructive impact of non-democratic habits of mind, 

history, and political behavior, I am keenly aware of the priceless 

constitutional heritage enjoyed by Americans. This awareness instills a fierce desire to protect that heritage and, in doing so, to 

educate Americans in the meaning and importance of our pivotal 

documents. In short, the Archivist’s role in preserving and disseminating our Nation’s ‘‘essential evidence’’ is one for which both the 

global and American aspects of my past experiences have prepared 

me. 

Fourth and finally, the bipartisan background of my international work during the past 20 years, first in developing the National Endowment for Democracy and then in creating and managing the Center for Democracy, working closely in these decades 

with the U.S. Congress and administrations of both parties, has 

11

provided a useful context for assuming leadership and supervision 

of NARA’s various components. 

The Committee’s policy questionnaire asked, among other things, 

what challenge NARA would confront in the period ahead. If confirmed as Archivist, I would undertake both an initial set of briefings by NARA’s management team and other senior staff and another briefing by key NARA stakeholders to gain their assessments 

of current systemwide challenges and priorities. I believe this will 

allow a more cost-effective and efficient use of NARA’s budget. 

Until then, I would place the following group of clear challenges 

and priorities in any list of concern to the Archivist of the United 

States: 

Providing effective post-September 11 security for the documents, 

materials, and staff at the Washington, DC, and College Park 

NARA headquarters and throughout NARA’s installations (i.e., 

presidential libraries, regional records centers, et al.); 

Completing the Redesign of the Federal Records Management 

Initiative; 

Moving forward NARA’s major electronic records initiative (i.e., 

Electronic Records Archive (ERA), the Electronic Records Management (ERM), Records Lifecycle Business Process Re-engineering 

(BPR), et al.); 

Expanding NARA’s educational and public programming not only 

in Washington but throughout the regional records centers and the 

presidential library system; 

Supporting the National Historical Publications and Records 

Commission (NHPRC) in its important work at effective budgetary 

levels; 

Addressing major internal administrative concerns at NARA, including (but not limited to) the loss of experienced personnel due 

to retirement, aging facilities, deteriorating records, and administrative backlogs; 

And, finally, strengthening cooperation with the presidential library system while creating effective liaison with State and other 

non-Federal archival groups. 

Once fully briefed, however, undoubtedly other priorities will join 

this initial list. 

Chairman Collins and Members of the Committee, I want to call 

to your attention the fact that several archival and historical organizations have raised concerns regarding insufficient consultation 

with their groups prior to this nomination, concerns—they were 

quick to point out—more about the process of selection itself than 

about the nominee. I would mention, as a historical note, that 

many of these same concerns—and others—were also expressed 

when President Clinton appointed Governor Carlin as Archivist in 

1995. 

To address these concerns, one of my important goals, if confirmed as Archivist, would be to maintain an open dialogue with 

all of NARA’s key stakeholders and partners, and since my nomination in April, I have attempted informally but vigorously to reach 

out to many of these groups. I have met with the heads of over a 

dozen archival and historical organizations and with a number of 

other influential figures involved in NARA-related activities seeking not endorsements but dialogue. At these meetings, mostly I 

12

have listened and opened lines of communication; if confirmed, I 

would continue to strengthen mechanisms of consultation with 

these and other stakeholding groups. They are all valuable members of the NARA family. 

Since these meetings, one of the concerned archival groups, the 

important Council of State Historical Records Coordinators, your 

State Archivists, unanimously endorsed my nomination as Archivist. In short, I have been working hard and steadily to keep open 

communications with the many concerned NARA stakeholders and, 

as Archivist, will try to engage all segments of NARA’s constituent 

communities, both in and out of government. 

In closing, I want to share with the Committee two personal stories of my encounters with the three great ‘‘Charters of Freedom’’ 

housed in the National Archives Building on Pennsylvania Avenue. 

The first occurred in Boston in 1987, when I was invited to deliver 

the 216th annual Fourth of July Oration at historic Faneuil Hall. 

I called my remarks ‘‘The Declaration Meets the Constitution: A Bicentennial Fourth of July,’’ and the talk concerned the efforts at 

Philadelphia’s Constitutional Convention—in the end successful 

efforts—to avoid a deadlock in its deliberations. The ‘‘Great Compromise’’ eventually agreed upon confirmed the convergence of the 

1776 and the 1787 guarantees of freedom, which even today balance in the American Republic the rights of citizenship and its obligations. 

Three years later, in 1990, the Center for Democracy hosted the 

new President of a democratic Hungary, Arpad Goncz, who spoke 

in front of the Bill of Rights at the National Archives, in a ceremony commemorating its Bicentennial, on the global influence of 

that document. The Faneuil Hall talk had confirmed for me the unbreakable links among the three great founding documents of our 

‘‘first new nation’’ in guaranteeing the rights and responsibilities of 

our people. President Goncz’s remarks called attention to the ideological and geographic reach of this country’s principles, from its 

beginnings, in a world filled with despots, now as then, in which 

ordinary people dream of and fight for freedom, individual rights, 

and the rule of law. Together, the two occasions also symbolize for 

me the awesome responsibilities placed on the Archivist of the 

United States as a designated custodian of America’s national 

memory. For the Archivist, this role is the result of his obligation 

to preserve and assure timely and maximum access to our governmental records in the evolving historical saga of the American people. 

On a personal note, as the son of pre-World War I Russian-Jewish immigrants, if confirmed, I would view my work as Archivist 

as an optimal way of giving back to this great country a small 

measure of what the United States of America has given to me and 

to my family. 

Chairman Collins and Members of the Committee, I am keenly 

aware of the responsibilities involved in the position for which I 

have been nominated, and I welcome the challenge, Senators, as I 

now welcome your questions and comments. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Professor. 

13

There are three standard questions that the Committee asks of 

all nominees. First, is there anything you are aware of in your 

background which might present a conflict of interest with the duties of the office to which you have been nominated? 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. No, Chairman. Nothing that I can think of. 

Chairman COLLINS. Second, do you know of anything, personal 

or otherwise, that would in any way prevent you from fully and 

honorably discharging the responsibilities of the office? 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. No, I do not. 

Chairman COLLINS. And, third, do you agree without reservation 

to respond to any reasonable summons to appear and testify before 

any duly constituted committee of Congress if you are confirmed? 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. Absolutely. 

Chairman COLLINS. We will now have a round of questions limited to 6 minutes each. 

Professor, in your responses to this Committee’s written questions, you cited former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s writings 

on the need to combat excessive government secrecy. You also declared your lifelong commitment to what Senator Moynihan called 

‘‘a culture of openness.’’ You went on to state that, as Archivist, it 

would be your duty to speak out plainly as a primary advocate for 

access. 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. Right. 

Chairman COLLINS. There are, however, some scholars who have 

questioned your commitment to public access to important records. 

How would you respond to their concerns? Which I know you are 

aware of. 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. Well, I am aware of them. Let me take that in 

two parts, if I may, and I will try to be brief. The four most dangerous words in the English language are ‘‘I will be brief,’’ but I 

will try. 

First, on my record on access, back in 1972, when I sued, with 

the assistance of the ACLU, the FBI for its files, this was no easy 

matter, and I won’t go into the details except to say that we were 

very delighted when the suit was finally won in 1975. My lawsuit 

opened FBI files for the first time records of historical interest, not 

just to myself but to any scholar, any researcher who wanted those 

records. The release set a precedent, the FOIA release. Those files, 

those FBI files, are deposited at the Harry Truman Library. 

I have brought other collections to bear at two libraries, for example, the Herbert Solow papers. I brought them from Mexico to 

the Hoover Library. They are a Hiss-related collection. 

I worked with Boris Yeltsin’s Commission on Archives in the 

1990’s to produce the first English-language translation of the first 

Russian archival publication that was designed for a mass audience. I worked with the Russian Government to try to improve 

their access relationships at the time. 

I have helped the Mary Baker Eddy Library in Boston open the 

papers of Mrs. Eddy which had been closed for over 100 years. 

When the new library opened, those papers were opened to all 

scholars, and I was one of the leading forces in that process. 

My commitment has been constant. I could mention other things. 

I worked on seminars with my friends in the Russian Federation 

14

at which documents were opened. There are a number of instances 

I could mention of that kind. 

There is one incident, one issue that critics of my record have 

brought up, and that is the issue of what to do about the fact that 

I have not put my personal records and my personal memos of the 

Hiss case into public display. 

Chairman COLLINS. Let me follow up with a question on that 

particular case. 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. That is fine. 

Chairman COLLINS. There has been concern expressed by some 

scholars who say that you failed to make available for review by 

other scholars the notes and records that you relied upon in writing 

two of your well-known historical works: the ‘‘Perjury’’ book and 

‘‘The Haunted Wood’’ book. You had told the Committee staff that, 

in fact, you planned to donate the notes that you relied on in writing the ‘‘Perjury’’ book, regarding the Hiss-Chambers case, to the 

Hoover Institution. 

Do you plan to impose restrictions that would limit public access 

to those notes once they are donated. 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. No. Madam Chairman, I have signed the deed 

of gift already to the Hoover Institution, and the hope is that these 

papers will all be available by early next year, at the least. I have 

got to get them out there. I have got to collect them. Archivists 

have to process them, and then they will be all available. 

But I do want to point something out. There are two separate instances, if I may spend a moment or two on this. 

Chairman COLLINS. Certainly. 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. When I started my book on the Alger Hiss 

case—I began thinking that Mr. Hiss may have been innocent. I 

changed my mind as the case went along and as I read the FBI 

files and other materials. I found no conspiracy. I found a great 

deal of confusion in the FBI. But I did not find that anyone had 

conspired against him to convict him. And so I wrote the book that 

way. 

The book was controversial. It was a very tense period. I was 

sued by a gentleman who had been a former member of the Communist Party who had been encouraged to sue me for misstating 

his situation. Maybe I did, maybe I didn’t, but it was a lawsuit 

against myself and the New Republic magazine and Alfred A. 

Knopf Publishers. It was settled out of court. But I was threatened 

with other lawsuits, and on advice of counsel, my counsel said, 

well, this is not a time to be giving your papers to anyone who 

wants to look at your private papers. 

In retrospect, I think I probably should have donated them afterwards, because the historical verdict seemed very clear. My book 

was well received, and there hasn’t been another complete book on 

the case in the period since 1978. There was another edition of 

‘‘Perjury’’ that came out in the late 1990’s. So those are going to 

the Hoover Institution, every last bit of documentation, and people 

can make what they want of them. 

By the way, my book was used as one of the major sources for 

Sam Tanenhaus’ brilliant biography of Whittaker Chambers. I gave 

him total access to the papers. I have given others access to the 

papers. 

15

‘‘The Haunted Wood,’’ I still don’t know to this day—people ask 

me what arrangements my publisher made at the time with the 

KGB’s retired agents organization. There was an arrangement to 

allow four Western scholars to do four books. The KGB records had 

never been opened before. The authors had no ability to tell the Soviet folks what to do with this. If we wanted to look at the material, we had to come to a negotiated agreement with them. We had 

to work with the Soviet—with Russian authors. And basically, I 

think it is fair to say that we learned a fair amount. 

All of this is stated in the introduction of my book. I did not 

write a check to the KGB for materials there, and all of this material that we found will be in the Hoover Institution, and people can 

make what they want of it. There were four excellent books produced. One of my colleagues wrote a superb book about the Cuban 

missile crisis, Professor Timothy Naftali, who is in the room here, 

and can explain the lengths to which all of the American authors 

went to try to encourage the Russians to increase their access to 

the West. We failed. They shut down after about a year. And just 

at that time the VENONA Papers in Washington opened up, so we 

were able to confirm a lot of the materials that we had in our book. 

But those were two different stories. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Lieberman. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thanks, Madam Chairman. 

Thanks for your answers to Senator Collins, Dr. Weinstein. One 

of the matters that I wanted to take up Senator Collins has asked 

and you have answered—and others may take it up again—which 

is one of the points of concern expressed to us by some has been 

what your policy would be on openness. I want to get back to that 

in a minute. 

But the second concern I think has little or nothing to do with 

you, but more to do with the White House. And that concern is 

deepened by the letter that Senator Levin read earlier, in which 

the current Archivist, Governor Carlin, clearly says that he was 

asked to resign. 

I wanted to ask you, just to clarify, whether you had any knowledge of why there was a vacancy or how the vacancy came to be 

when the White House began to talk to you about whether you 

were interested in being nominated for Archivist. 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. No. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. None at all? 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. No, sir. They asked me if I would be interested 

in the position. Frankly, at the time, I had very little contact with 

Governor Carlin. We have had a few social contacts. We had lunch 

once or twice over the years. I didn’t know him very well. I assumed at the time that he was—that for some reason or other he 

was leaving his post. I didn’t ask, they didn’t tell. And I didn’t have 

a job offer. They didn’t say, ‘‘We want you to become Archivist.’’ 

They said, ‘‘We are considering the possibility that you might become Archivist. Would you be interested if the job were open?’’ And, 

frankly, if the job were open, I would have been interested. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Yes. I presume—or let me ask you, have you 

seen and talked to Governor Carlin since you were nominated? 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. Once. I called Governor Carlin, I guess the day 

after my nomination was announced, and suggested that we get toVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:33 Oct 22, 2004 Jkt 095504 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\DOCS\95504.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
16

gether. He agreed; then he cancelled the meeting. And after that, 

the only person at the Archives that I had been in touch with was 

Mr. Runkel, Deputy General Counsel, who helped me fill out the 

financial forms that I had to fill out at the time, and I did do that. 

But I took the position that I should not be in touch with anyone 

at the Archives. It was improper or inappropriate for me to be in 

touch with them while Governor Carlin, as Archivist, was still 

there. I didn’t want any confusion about it. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Right. 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. One instance in which somebody from the Archives called about a particular policy matter, a relatively minor 

one, and I said, ‘‘Please don’t talk to me. This is not my business. 

You should talk to Governor Carlin.’’

Senator LIEBERMAN. But other than that phone call, you have 

not talked to Governor Carlin? 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. No, sir. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. And in that phone call, did he raise any—

did he say anything about why the position was becoming vacant? 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. No. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. And I presume, therefore, didn’t say to you 

that he had been asked to resign? 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. Senator, he didn’t say anything like that, no. We 

talked about the meeting. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Who was the person at the White House 

who asked you whether you might be interested in being Archivist 

if there was——

Mr. WEINSTEIN. As I said in my questionnaire, the Director of 

Presidential Personnel, Dina Powell. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Right. And in those conversations—you see, 

I want to get this all out in the interest of disclosure. I think there 

are some people who are maybe not doing it in print but raising 

questions about whether this change is occurring, that Governor 

Carlin was asked to resign, you are coming in, in some sense to 

carry out a more secretive policy at the Archives, perhaps even to 

protect records of this administration or the previous Bush Administration. So I want to ask you whether there was ever a conversation between you and Dina Powell or anyone else at the White 

House along the lines of what your decisions would be about opening up records of the first Bush Administration or this one. 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. Absolutely not. And, Senator, may I say a word 

about this? You and others on the Committee have worked with me 

on different matters and I think understand that I would not be 

here today under those circumstances, neither the job, the very 

prestigious job of Archivist of the United States or any other government position is worth my integrity or anything like that. No, 

I would not—the Archivist’s job is as the advocate for access. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Right. 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. And if one can’t be a serious advocate for access, 

then one shouldn’t want to be Archivist of the United States. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Who else have you at any time spoken to at 

the White House about this appointment? 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. Judge Gonzales once. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Judge Gonzales? And that was at an in-person meeting or a phone call? 

17

Mr. WEINSTEIN. That was an in-person meeting that was in late 

November, at some point. I don’t have the date in front of me. And 

his deputy, whose name at the moment, forgive me, escapes—Mr. 

Deutsch, I think? 

Senator LIEBERMAN. No problem. Did Judge Gonzales question 

you about what your policy would be on the openness of public 

records? 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. We talked generally about public records, but 

did he ask me how I would behave in connection with opening 

records? No. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. No? And just to——

Mr. WEINSTEIN. But generally about the Archivist’s role in dealing with these records, right. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Yes. And just to get it out in the open, no 

specific questions about how you would deal with access to the 

records of this administration? 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. Oh, no. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Or the former Bush Administration? 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. No, absolutely not. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. OK. 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. I have only met the President, just to complete 

that catalogue, if I may, I met him once in 1988 when the President was a participant in a Center for Democracy program. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Right. 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. That is the only time that I met the President 

of the United States. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Thank you. My time is up. 

Chairman COLLINS. Senator Durbin. 

Senator DURBIN. Mr. Weinstein, since seeing Mr. Carlin’s letter, 

I have to ask you a question. He says in his letter, ‘‘We are on the 

verge of awarding a contract for the design of the Electronic 

Records Archive, a ground-breaking system that will allow the Government to manage and preserve any kind of electronic records. 

The design is just the first step. We are working very hard to secure support and funding for systems development. I would like to 

see the budget request through to fruition over the next 4 months.’’

Are you familiar with this contract? 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. I’m familiar with the briefing materials on it 

that were given to me, Senator, yes. I haven’t read the contract. 

Senator DURBIN. Do you know the companies involved in the 

competition for the contract? 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. No, I don’t. 

Senator DURBIN. OK. Let me go to another issue, if I might, and 

I am trying to reconcile one of your responses to the questions with 

some information that I have here. You have said repeatedly in 

your responses to our questions that you are committed to maximizing access to all manner of government records, including Presidential records, in a timely manner and to the greatest extent appropriate. And when it comes to Presidential documents, I gather 

from reading the law, Chapter 22, Section 2203, that the Archivist 

has the responsibility to deposit Presidential records and to decide 

under the law when to release them. Is that correct, one of your 

legal responsibilities would be that? 

18

Mr. WEINSTEIN. I would assume in general, but I’d prefer on any 

legal matter to be able to amend any answer by consultation with 

the general counsel over there before I would do that. 

Senator DURBIN. That is fair. 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. I am not a lawyer. 

Senator DURBIN. But I am going to go——

Mr. WEINSTEIN. I’m married to one, but I’m not a lawyer. 

Senator DURBIN. Maybe you want to talk to her. [Laughter.] 

Because I want to ask you about something you say here because 

it doesn’t square with that. And here is what it is: We passed in 

1989, 25 years ago, the Presidential Records Act declaring Presidential papers were the property of the people of the United States 

to be administered by the Archives, made available 12 years after 

a President left office. President Reagan issued an Executive Order 

which established how long a President had to claim Executive 

privilege on these records. 

Then comes President Bush, in an administration where the 

availability and confidentiality of records has been a big issue, to 

the point where the Vice President took a case to the Supreme 

Court to avoid disclosing documents in the preparation of his energy bill. 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. Right. 

Senator DURBIN. Now, President Bush, with Executive Order 

13233, nullified President Reagan’s order, imposing new restrictions on the access to Presidential papers, requiring the presumption of non-disclosure, which runs counter to your stated purpose 

of being committed to maximum access. 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. Right. 

Senator DURBIN. Now, that is the state of play. You have a law 

where you as Archivist are responsible for Presidential records. 

You have a personal commitment to access. You have a President 

who has issued an Executive Order reducing access. 

Now, let me read you what you told the Committee about this. 

There is a declaratory judgment action involved now about this Executive Order. ‘‘If confirmed by the Senate as Archivist, it would 

be my responsibility—’’ you say, ‘‘so long as Executive Order 13233 

is in place—to oversee NARA’s legal team defending the Executive 

Order against court challenge.’’ That seems exactly the opposite. It 

would seem that you would be defending the underlying law 

against the new Executive Order which restricts access to Presidential records. Why would you be defending President Bush’s Executive Order instead of the law that creates your office? 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. Senator, may I read the remainder of that paragraph? 

Senator DURBIN. Of course. 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. Because I think it explains this, and also, as you 

know, the current Archivist has the responsibility and is, in fact, 

defending—or the general counsel is defending this in court. 

What I said was as follows, after that, I said, ‘‘. . . I would respectfully defer a fuller response until I can consult with NARA’s 

general counsel and his staff.’’ What I can state as a private citizen 

at this point, however, in response to the question of Executive 

Order 13233’s impact on balancing the interest of preserving confidentiality with the interest of public disclosure is that obviously 

19

the Executive Order tilts the balance in confidentiality’s direction 

rather than timely disclosure. That much is clear. 

Then down further, I make my essential point: ‘‘The pursuit of 

consensus on the issues’’—the lawsuit did not work, did not get the 

Executive Order rescinded. ‘‘The pursuit of consensus on the issues 

raised by Executive Order 13233 surely ought to be allowed a moment or two of dialogue and negotiation before proceeding on the 

current legal and adversarial track.’’

I can’t say that anything will happen to that, but I can say that 

if I was confirmed as Archivist, what I would like to do would be 

to sit down with all the interested principals and see if anything 

can be done about the problems here. 

Senator DURBIN. Mr. Weinstein, I hope if you are confirmed that 

you can do exactly that and the lawsuit goes away. You have stated 

here that you believe that as Archivist you would be responsible for 

overseeing the Archives legal team defending the Executive Order 

against a court challenge. Everything else you say is fine: You need 

to consult with attorneys, you hope to work this all out. But why 

would you start arguing from the point that you are not defending 

the law that creates your office rather than the Executive Order 

which diminishes the power of your office? Did you discuss this Executive Order with Mr. Gonzales? 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. No, not at all. 

Senator DURBIN. Did this ever come up? 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. It never came up. 

Senator DURBIN. Well, I am glad it didn’t, but I really hope that 

you will revisit that statement. I think that statement is conflicting 

with your basic statutory responsibility. I think you need to defend 

the law first, whomever the President might be. 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. I couldn’t agree more, Senator, but one thing 

that I think you recognize is that the business of restricting access 

conflicts with my impulses to encourage access at all times. And in 

that statement, there is a conundrum there. I don’t have an easy 

answer for that. But I will go back and look at it again. 

Senator DURBIN. I think I know where your heart is, but I want 

to know where your lawyers’ will be. 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. All right. 

Senator DURBIN. That is what this is all about. And if your lawyers are going to be defending the restriction of access to Presidential records, then I think you are on the wrong side. 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. You make a very good point. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you. 

Chairman COLLINS. Senator Levin. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Was this drafted, this answer to the question, by you or by the 

deputy at the White House? 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. The answer to what question? 

Senator LEVIN. Question 42, the one you were just reading. 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. I drafted every question that was given to me, 

the 46 questions that were sent by the Committee. There was no 

input by anybody, as far as I know, unless—they may have read 

it by now, depending on how one gets copies of these things around 

town. But, no, there was no input by—and not just in the White 

House. I can categorically say there was no input by anybody in 

20

1The letters referred to appear in the Appendix on page 130 and 131. 

the Congress, in the White House, in the interested groups and the 

stakeholders, in the Archives. This is Allen Weinstein’s answer to 

that question. And, as Senator Durbin indicated, Senator Levin, I 

was trying to balance off a number of different ideas in my own 

mind based upon what is certainly not at this stage in the game 

the most informed knowledge of where the Archives has been on 

this issue over the last several years. 

Senator LEVIN. You, in two places in your answer on Question 

42, indicate that the impact of that Executive Order ‘‘on balancing 

the interest of preserving confidentiality with the interest of public 

disclosure is that, obviously, the Executive Order tilts the balance 

in confidentiality’s direction rather than in timely disclosure.’’ And 

then at the end of that answer, you say, ‘‘As previously stated in 

response to this question, it tips the balance—at least temporarily—in favor of greater confidentiality and less public disclosure.’’

So I assume from that you would believe that the Executive 

Order at least contradicts the spirit of the 1978 Act? 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. It doesn’t help. 

Senator LEVIN. Now, in answer to Senator Durbin’s question—

it’s a good question—will you expand your answer to that question 

for the record? 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. Absolutely. 

Senator LEVIN. Are you familiar with the scheduled release of 

certain records from the first Bush Administration in January 

2005? 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. Not to any great degree, Senator. Not to any 

great degree, no. 

Senator LEVIN. Well, to the degree that you are——

Mr. WEINSTEIN. Well, that this was scheduled, yes, but I haven’t 

seen any literature on that. 

Senator LEVIN. Are you prepared and willing to release on schedule whatever records of that administration are scheduled to be released, if you are confirmed? 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. If I’m confirmed, I’m prepared to honor the law, 

whatever the law states and wherever that may take me. If those 

materials are scheduled for release at that stage in the game, then 

I don’t see why they shouldn’t be released. 

But, Senator, I have not received extensive briefing materials on 

that whole area. 

Senator LEVIN. OK. Madam Chairman, I would just ask that the 

letters that I made reference to before, the letter that I wrote to 

Governor Carlin and his response to my letter, be made part of the 

record.1

Chairman COLLINS. Without objection. 

Senator LEVIN. And I also would ask you and the Ranking Member, if you would at some point in the near future, to consider requesting the White House to comment on Governor Carlin’s statement that he was asked to resign. I think it is important that we 

ask the White House why it is that they asked the current Archivist to resign. So I am not going to request that that decision be 

made at this point right now, but I would ask that you and the 

21

1The letter referred to appears in the Appendix on page 132. 

Ranking Member convene your great minds on that question and 

hopefully ask the White House for their comment on that statement. 

Chairman COLLINS. I would note that the Archivist does not have 

a statutory term. I mentioned to the Ranking Member that I was 

surprised to learn that. So I think that is an important point to be 

put into the record because this is not a case where there is a set 

term. 

Senator DURBIN. Madam Chairman, may I ask a question? Isn’t 

it also a fact, though, that if an Archivist is to be removed, there 

has to be a reason stated? 

Senator LEVIN. That was the part that I read earlier. 

Chairman COLLINS. But there was consideration to having a 10-

year term for the Archivist that was not included. It may be something that this Committee should revisit. 

Senator LEVIN. I think that is accurate. There is no specified 

term. But it is also, as Senator Durbin, and as I said in my opening 

statement, that if the Archivist is to be removed, there must be a 

stated reason given to the Congress, I believe, for that. Both of 

those facts, assuming I stated them correctly, are interesting and 

to some extent relevant. But the issue that I am interested in here, 

because I think it really goes to the question of the independence 

of this office, is, if, in fact, Governor Carlin was asked to resign, 

as he says he was, in effect—they said they wanted to appoint a 

new Archivist. So that amounts to a request to resign. I would be 

interested in giving the White House the opportunity to tell us why 

it was they requested that he resign. 

I think that is an important question to be answered, and I 

would ask that the Committee ask the question. Obviously, if the 

Committee through its Chairman and Ranking Member decide for 

whatever reason not to, that is a right I will defend. But I would 

then ask the question on my own as an individual Member of the 

Committee. I think it would be preferable, frankly, that it come 

from the Committee, if it is appropriate. But I do not want to prejudge the appropriateness or your thought processes on it, because 

I have tremendous respect for you both. And whatever decision you 

make I will defend. But if the Chairman and the Ranking Member 

decide for whatever reason not to request that information from the 

White House, then I as an individual Member would make that request. 

Thank you. 

Chairman COLLINS. You are welcome. 

Senator LEVIN. Could these be made part of the record? 

Chairman COLLINS. The letters will be made part of the record. 

I will also enter into the record Governor Carlin’s letter of resignation,1 which has a very different tone to it, and I think that 

is important to be part of the record as well. 

Senator LEVIN. That was part of my request. 

Chairman COLLINS. His letter, as opposed to your letter to and 

from? 

22

Senator LEVIN. If I failed to say that, I made a mistake. I should 

have included his letter of resignation. I thank the Chairman for 

that. 

Chairman COLLINS. Without objection. 

Professor, I just want to ask you one closing question, and that 

is, in view of the discussion we have just had and the questions 

that Senator Levin and others have raised not about your nomination but, rather, the circumstances surrounding your nomination, 

do you believe this Committee should consider legislation that 

would give the Archivist a set term, say, of 10 years? Do you have 

an opinion on that? 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. I would support such legislation, Chairman, because it may do away with some of the dilemmas of archival terms. 

The Archivist’s terms up to now have averaged 8 or 9 years a term 

for the previous Archivists. However, I wouldn’t say that it was essential. I think it is essential in the future to engage in a consultative process beyond perhaps the one that now exists. But as far 

as legislation is concerned, I would support it if the Committee and 

the Congress were in favor of it. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. 

Do either of my colleagues have a final question for our witness 

today? 

Senator LIEBERMAN. I do not. I thank you, Dr. Weinstein. There 

is this funny conundrum which I do think that Senator Levin has 

amplified, which is that Governor Carlin has not been removed 

from office, literally, because he submitted his resignation. But now 

we find that he was asked to submit his resignation, so that is 

what we are going to counsel together on, whether we should ask 

the White House to explain to us why they asked for that resignation. So the Chairman and I will sit and reason together. 

Senator LEVIN. Madam Chairman, just one other thing. As I look 

at the letter, the resignation letter, so-called, actually is—there is 

a statement that, ‘‘I will submit my resignation upon the confirmation and swearing-in of the ninth Archivist of the United States.’’ 

So, technically, I guess, he has not resigned yet. He has been asked 

to submit his resignation, which he has done conditionally. 

Chairman COLLINS. An intention to resign, I guess would be a 

more appropriate description. 

Senator LEVIN. Right. 

Senator LIEBERMAN. Anyway, Dr. Weinstein, I would say your 

testimony has been very responsive, and you do, again—you are 

caught in a swirl that certainly is not of your making, but it is 

around the nomination. But, you know, you do have an extraordinary and very broadly respected record as a historian, and that 

actually seems to make you qualified for this job. 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. Thank you, Senator. 

Chairman COLLINS. You get applause. I mean, the rest of us 

don’t get electronic applause. [Laughter.] 

Senator LIEBERMAN. My staff does this for me, just to make me 

feel good. [Laughter.] 

Chairman COLLINS. To compensation you for no longer being on 

the campaign trail. 

I want to thank the professor for appearing before the Committee 

today and for his cooperation throughout the process. I personally 

23

1The letters referred to appear in the Appendix on pages 134 through 170. 

am impressed that you on your own answered all 46 of those questions. I think there are very few nominees who would have answered, ‘‘Yes, I wrote those personally,’’ to the Committee’s questions. 

There have been several letters and statements submitted to the 

Committee from a variety of organizations, scholars, historians, archivists, and others. All of those, without objection, will be included 

in the hearing record.1

And also, without objection, the record will be kept open until 5 

p.m. tomorrow for the submission of any additional materials, written questions, or statements for the record. 

Again, thank you very much for being here today. You certainly 

have a distinguished background, and your commitment to openness and public access is very important to this Committee, and we 

look forward to working with you in your new position, if all goes 

well. Thank you. 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. Thank you, Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. This hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:41 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(25)

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANK R. LAUTENBERG 

Madam Chairman: I want to welcome Professor Weinstein to today’s hearing. Professor Weinstein has done ground-breaking research to illuminate Cold War history 

on such important matters as the Alger Hiss-Whittaker Chambers case and the extent of Soviet espionage in America from the 1930’s to the early 1950’s. 

I intend to support Professor Weinstein’s nomination to be Archivist of the United 

States. But I do want to raise several concerns about the way in which this nomination has been brought before the Governmental Affairs Committee. 

First, the current Archivist, John Carlin, had expressed his desire to remain in 

the post until 2005. Then, last December, he abruptly changed course and announced his intention to step down as soon as a successor has been ‘‘nominated and 

confirmed.’’

I want to know if Governor Carlin is being forced out of his job by the Bush Administration and, if so why. 

Second, I want to know why this Committee has not conducted any oversight 

hearings with regard to the National Archives and Records Administration in over 

a decade. 

Third, I want to know why the Bush Administration made no attempt to ‘‘vet’’ 

Professor Weinstein’s nomination with ‘‘recognized organizations of archivists and 

historians’’—something required under the National Archives and Records Administration Act of 1984. And I want to know why the Committee refused to invite the 

heads of any of these organizations to testify in person today. 

Fourth, I hope to get Professor Weinstein’s personal commitment—if he is confirmed as our Nation’s Archivist—to pursuing what our former colleague Pat Moynihan called ‘‘a culture of openness.’’

I agree with Senator Moynihan’s assessment that classifying some six million documents each year is the most pernicious form of government regulation since we 

‘‘don’t know what we don’t know.’’ I’m anxious to hear Professor Weinstein’s ideas 

on how, as Archivist, he will work to make our government operate in a more transparent manner since we are, after all, a democracy. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

26


95504.001
27


95504.002
28


95504.003
29


95504.004
30


95504.005
31


95504.006
32


95504.007
33


95504.008
34


95504.009
35


95504.010
36


95504.011
37


95504.012
38


95504.013
39


95504.014
40


95504.015
41


95504.016
42


95504.017
43


95504.018
44


95504.019
45


95504.020
46


95504.021
47


95504.022
48


95504.023
49


95504.024
50


95504.025
51


95504.026
52


95504.027
53


95504.028
54


95504.029
55


95504.030
56


95504.031
57


95504.032
58


95504.033
59


95504.034
60


95504.035
61


95504.036
62


95504.037
63


95504.038
64


95504.039
65


95504.040
66


95504.041
67


95504.042
68


95504.043
69


95504.044
70


95504.045
71


95504.046
72


95504.047
73


95504.048
74


95504.049
75


95504.050
76


95504.051
77


95504.052
78


95504.053
79


95504.054
80


95504.055
81


95504.056
82


95504.057
83


95504.058
84


95504.059
85


95504.060
86


95504.061
87


95504.062
88


95504.063
89


95504.064
90


95504.065
91


95504.066
92


95504.067
93


95504.068
94


95504.069
95


95504.070
96


95504.071
97


95504.072
98


95504.073
99


95504.074
100


95504.075
101


95504.076
102


95504.077
103


95504.078
104


95504.079
105


95504.080
106


95504.081
107


95504.082
108


95504.083
109


95504.084
110


95504.085
111


95504.086
112


95504.087
113


95504.088
114


95504.089
115


95504.090
116


95504.091
117


95504.092
118


95504.093
119


95504.094
120


95504.095
121


95504.096
122


95504.097
123


95504.098
124


95504.099
125


95504.100
126


95504.101
127


95504.102
128


95504.103
129


95504.104
130


95504.105
131


95504.106
132


95504.107
133


95504.108
134


95504.109
135


95504.110
136


95504.111
137


95504.112
138


95504.113
139


95504.114
140


95504.115
141


95504.116
142


95504.117
143


95504.118
144


95504.119
145


95504.120
146


95504.121
147


95504.122
148


95504.123
149


95504.124
150


95504.125
151


95504.126
152


95504.127
153


95504.128
154


95504.129
155


95504.130
156


95504.131
157


95504.132
158


95504.133
159


95504.134
160


95504.135
161


95504.136
162


95504.137
163


95504.138
164


95504.139
165


95504.140
166


95504.141
167


95504.142
168


95504.143
169


95504.144
170


95504.145
171

Æ


95504.146