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

93–006 PDF 2004

FEDERAL ELECTRONIC RECORDS MANAGEMENT:

WHAT IS THE PLAN? WHAT IS OUR PROGRESS?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY, INFORMATION

POLICY, INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS AND

THE CENSUS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JULY 8, 2003

Serial No. 108–132

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

DAN BURTON, Indiana

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

DOUG OSE, California

RON LEWIS, Kentucky

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida

EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas

WILLIAM J. JANKLOW, South Dakota

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

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

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

CHRIS BELL, Texas

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

PETER SIRH, Staff Director

MELISSA WOJCIAK, Deputy Staff Director

ROB BORDEN, Parliamentarian

TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk

PHILIP M. SCHILIRO, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY, INFORMATION POLICY, INTERGOVERNMENTAL

RELATIONS AND THE CENSUS

ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida, Chairman

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

DOUG OSE, California

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

EX OFFICIO

TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

BOB DIX, Staff Director

LORI MARTIN, Professional Staff Member

URSULA WOJCIECHOWSKI, Clerk

DAVID MCMILLEN, Minority Professional Staff Member

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on July 8, 2003 ................................................................................. 1

Statement of:

Carlin, John W., Archivist of the United States, National Archives and

Records Administration; L. Reynolds Cahoon, Chief Information Officer,

NARA; Harriet Riofrio, E-Records Management Policy and Program

Lead, U.S. Department of Defense; and Linda Koontz, Director, Information Management Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office ................... 11

Sprehe, J. Timothy, president, Sprehe Information Management Associates; Robert F. Nawrocki, CRM, director, Records Management and

Imagining Services Division, Library of Virginia; Caryn Wojcik, State

Government Records Management, Michigan; and Dr. Richard

Lyusakowski, director, Collaborative Electronic Notebook Systems Association [CENSA] ........................................................................................ 86

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

Cahoon, Reynolds, Chief Information Officer, NARA, prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 26

Carlin, John W., Archivist of the United States, National Archives and

Records Administration, prepared statement of ......................................... 13

Koontz, Linda, Director, Information Management Issues, U.S. General

Accounting Office, prepared statement of ................................................... 51

Miller, Hon. Candice S., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Michigan, prepared statement of ............................................................. 7

Nawrocki, Robert F., CRM, director, Records Management and Imagining

Services Division, Library of Virginia, prepared statement of .................. 95

Putnam, Hon. Adam H., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Florida, prepared statement of ................................................................ 3

Riofrio, Harriet, E-Records Management Policy and Program Lead, U.S.

Department of Defense, prepared statement of ......................................... 40

Sprehe, J. Timothy, president, Sprehe Information Management Associates, prepared statement of ......................................................................... 89

Wojcik, Caryn, State Government Records Management, Michigan, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 101

(1)

FEDERAL ELECTRONIC RECORDS MANAGEMENT: WHAT IS THE PLAN? WHAT IS OUR

PROGRESS?

TUESDAY, JULY 8, 2003

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY, INFORMATION POLICY,

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS AND THE CENSUS,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Adam Putnam (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Putnam, and Miller.

Staff present: Bob Dix, staff director; John Hambel, counsel; Lori

Martin, professional staff member; Ursula Wojciechowski, clerk;

David McMillen, minority professional staff member; and Jean

Gosa, minority assistant clerk.

Mr. PUTNAM. Good morning. A quorum being present, this hearing of the Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and the Census will come to order. I want

to welcome everyone to today’s hearing entitled, ‘‘Federal Electronic

Records Management, What is the Plan and What is our Progress?’’

In today’s world of emerging technology, Federal agencies are

conducting more and more of their business through electronic

means. As an example, e-mail has become a primary form of communication, often used now in place of the telephone and as a vehicle for sending memos or other important documents. While this

has increased the efficiency and productivity of the modern day office, it has also presented a new set of challenges to the issue of

records management and preservation as the Federal Government

moves from being paper based to more and more electronic and

technology based.

The importance of records management and preservation has a

long history. Not only is the legacy of our history at issue, but this

issue has a direct impact on the continuing ability of the Federal

agencies to function properly. Without a comprehensive and cohesive strategy, records can be misplaced or even lost. This not only

has the potential to hinder day-to-day operations, but also has potentially significant ramifications on the national archival process.

The management of all Federal records and now particularly

electronically generated records creates new and additional challenges. Examples include what types of electronic records need to

be saved, what process or technology should be utilized for their

2

preservation, how will the retrieval of these records be guaranteed

and through what process in the future. This whole issue raises another set of questions as well, what happens with all of the existing

records in their various formats? How many, if any, of these existing records will be converted to an emerging process or technology?

How will all of these records and exhibits continue to be preserved,

and how are these records being cataloged? And what is the magnitude of the process required to retrieve an existing record and

how are classified versus nonclassified records treated?

The Federal Records Act has provided the National Archives and

Records Management Agency with the responsibility for oversight

of records management within the Federal Government. Under the

provisions of FRA, NARA is to provide guidance and oversight to

Federal agencies as they execute the electronic records strategy.

Certainly having a common set of goals and objectives in those

strategies will ensure consistency and continuity in this process.

Presently, NARA is working to develop the necessary tools to

support that guidance. A number of projects including the development of their electronic records archive program and NARA’s leadership role as a managing partner of the Electronic Records Management E-government Initiative will put them in a position to

help define the national standards for electronic records management.

At the same time, Federal agencies themselves must begin to

work more diligently in making electronic records management a

higher priority, many agencies have not fulfilled their obligations

to confer with NARA about the progress of their records management plans. While NARA has been charged with oversight responsibility regarding these matters, they have been provided little, if

any authority, to enforce compliance.

As it currently stands, it is the responsibility of each individual

agency to develop and implement an electronic records management strategy. One of the areas we will explore at this hearing is

whether the authority and accountability that presently exists related to this issue is sufficient to get the job done.

These are just some of the challenges facing the subject of Federal electronic records management. Through the research and

preparation for this hearing, the subcommittee has come to recognize the enormity of the task. It is our objective to learn from a

variety of stakeholders, institution, academic, government and private sector, and to work with NARA together with Federal agencies

to determine the progress in developing and implementing an effective management strategy.

Today’s hearing can be viewed live via Webcast by going to reform.house.gov and clicking on the link under live committee

broadcast. It is an important hearing, and we have two distinguished panels of witnesses, and we are fortunate to have a vice

chairman of this subcommittee who served as the Secretary of

State in Michigan and has worked extensively on this committee

in a number of issues, but particularly in the modernization and

the utilization of technology to improve the efficiencies of government operations.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Adam H. Putnam follows:]

3

4

5

Mr. PUTNAM. So I now yield for her opening comments to the vice

chairwoman of the subcommittee, the gentlelady from Michigan,

Mrs. Miller.

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you holding this hearing today. I’m sorry, I was just a few minutes late. I

know you like to start your hearings on time. We should have a

hearing on the elevators in this building I think someday. But I

certainly appreciate your commitment to exploring ways, examining ways to improve the business of the Federal Government. I

think that the challenge facing the Federal Government in regards

to electronic records management is certainly very complex. It is

extremely daunting. The National Archives and Records Administration [NARA], as we commonly call it, possesses the responsibility to provide guidance and oversight to Federal agencies regarding

the records management strategies. Under current law, Federal

agencies are required to submit record schedules to NARA, which

must be approved and then, in turn, to allow NARA to aid agencies

in their records management strategy implementation.

However, as with so many other statutory requirements concerning the modernization and the improved efficiency of government,

many Federal agencies are not cooperating. NARA has been working for years on developing an effective electronic records management policy, but the responsibility of implementing the strategy

really falls directly on each individual agency, quite frankly.

Today we will be examining the strategy that NARA has developed and the progress that has been made. I feel it is very important to also examine the successes and the failures of Federal agencies in regards to this enormous task. Though each agency is responsible for its own success, the valuable lessons learned throughout government at all levels must be utilized as an important resource. For this reason, I’m very pleased that we’re going to be

hearing from witnesses at both the Federal and State levels of government, and then representatives from the private sector also.

As the Federal Government progresses into the 21st century and

moves to modernize its operations, a problem has arisen in that the

Federal agencies seem to place different priorities on utilizing technology. Some agencies have seen the benefits of implementing substantial technologies, while others seem to be stuck in a time warp,

stuck in the past. Something needs to be done to force these particular agencies to realize the importance of modernizing their

records management.

The current scenario is simply more than an adjustment to the

current frame of thinking. It also includes agencies not complying

by federally mandated statutes. Currently, there is no real enforcement mechanism that forces agencies to abide by statutes outlined

by the Federal Records Act and to submit schedules required by

NARA. Many Federal agencies have not placed any degree of priority on electronic records management, and this has resulted, of

course, in a wide variety of problems.

I notice Linda Koontz, in her written testimony, states that

NARA has developed a strategy for raising awareness amongst

agency management of the need to place electronic records management at a very high priority, and I’m also—I found that very encouraging. I’m also looking forward to Mr. Carlin’s testimony also,

6

hoping that he can elaborate on the measures taken by NARA

within the last year to impress upon agency officials the need to

implement an effective management strategy, and I certainly especially want to thank Caryn Wojcik, who will be testifying in the

second panel taking some time to testify before our subcommittee

today, as the chairman mentioned, during my tenure as Michigan

Secretary of State, the archives were sort of under the umbrella of

the Michigan Secretary of State’s office, and we think because of

the great people that led our agency there, our State’s archiving

and records management projects, Michigan has certainly become

one of the national leaders by incorporating a lot of information

technology into the everyday activities of government, and in addition, our State managers have been working very hard to ensure

that the State is prepared as its technology evolves well into the

21st century.

So I hope that Ms. Wojcik will be able to inform the subcommittee of some of the different things that have happened. Since I’ve

been gone, I know you’re going like rapid fire there as well. But

Federal agencies certainly must utilize the knowledge acquired by

State governments so we’re not reinventing the wheel. Although

electronic records management at the Federal level is very

daunting, as we say, there are resources available that can enrich

the process, and again I reiterate my point that these Federal

agencies must make a concerted effort to implement a successful

management policy. As records sit untouched or the technology

that has been used to create these records becomes obsolete, it is

certainly imperative that action be taken and agencies prepare for

the future, and certainly it is important that Congress play a very

active role in ensuring that electronic records management be implemented effectively and in a timely manner as well, so I’m looking forward to all of the testimony from the witnesses today and

I certainly want to thank you all for coming and thank the chairman for calling this hearing. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Candice S. Miller follows:]

7

8

9

10

Mr. PUTNAM. Thank you, Mrs. Miller.

We’ll now begin with our first panel of witnesses. Each has kindly prepared written testimony which will be included in the record

of this hearing, and I ask each of you to summarize your thoughts

in a 5-minute presentation to give us ample time for questions and

dialog. You’ll notice that there’s a timer with a light on the table

in front of you. The green light means begin your remarks, the

point that you see the yellow light, we ask you to sum up, and at

the red light, please bring it to a close. In order to be sensitive to

everyone’s time schedule, we ask that witnesses cooperate with us

in adhering to the time system.

As is the custom with the Government Reform Committee, we’ll

swear in our witnesses. I would ask the first panel of witnesses to

stand and raise your right hands, and if you’re accompanied by

anyone who will be called upon to answer the questions or elaborate on a question, if they would stand as well, please.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. PUTNAM. Note for the record that the witnesses responded in

the affirmative.

Our first witness this morning is Mr. John Carlin. As archivist

of the United States, John Carlin is the head of the National Archives and Records Administration, an independent agency of the

Federal Government with more than 2,900 employees and 33 facilities throughout the Nation. NARA is the Nation’s recordkeeper. Its

mission is to ensure for the citizen and the public servant, for the

President and the Congress and the courts, ready access to essential evidence.

Mr. Carlin was appointed archivist in 1995 by President Clinton.

In 1998, he launched a major initiative to build the Electronic

Records Archives to preserve and provide access to virtually any

type of electronic record created anywhere in the Federal Government.

Prior to being named archivist, Mr. Carlin had a distinguished

career in politics, business and education. A native Kansan, he first

entered public service in 1971 by serving in the legislature of the

State of Kansas. He became Speaker of that State’s House of Representatives, and in 1978, won election to the Kansas Governorship

serving two terms through January 1987. His fellow Governors

elected him chairman of the National Governors Association in

1984. Following his political career, he joined the faculty of Wichita

State University teaching graduate courses in public administration.

In 1987 he received an honorary doctorate of laws degree from

his alma mater, Kansas State. As Governor of Kansas, he strongly

supported the Kansas State Historical Society and the State archives within it, in which he deposited his own gubernatorial papers. Before heading NARA, he served on the National Archives

Foundation Board.

Governor Carlin, we welcome you to the subcommittee. You’re

recognized.

11

STATEMENTS OF JOHN W. CARLIN, ARCHIVIST OF THE

UNITED STATES, NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION; L. REYNOLDS CAHOON, CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER, NARA; HARRIET RIOFRIO, E-RECORDS MANAGEMENT POLICY AND PROGRAM LEAD, U.S. DEPARTMENT

OF DEFENSE; AND LINDA KOONTZ, DIRECTOR, INFORMATION MANAGEMENT ISSUES, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING

OFFICE

Mr. CARLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to express to you

our real appreciation for you holding this important hearing today

on the subject of——

Mr. PUTNAM. If you could just turn the mic on, please.

Mr. CARLIN. That might help.

Mr. PUTNAM. So that we can have it for the archives.

Mr. CARLIN. That is a little embarrassing. We’re going to talk

about technology today, and I can’t turn the mic on.

We’re still appreciative of your holding this hearing today. Obviously, your knowledge of technology has been clearly demonstrated,

Mr. Chairman, in your brief tenure as the Chair of this committee,

and I know your Vice Chair, a former Secretary of State, likewise

has great experience, and we appreciate the opportunity to work

with both of you.

As you all know, the rapid evolution of information technology

has produced huge volumes of diverse and complex digital records.

These electronic records pose the biggest challenge ever to keeping

records in the Federal Government. When you combine the rate of

technological obsolescence with the explosive number of electronic

records being created by the government every day, then you can

begin to imagine the challenge that we face.

In the National Archives and Presidential libraries, NARA is responsible for preserving and providing sustained access to records

of all three branches of the Federal Government, and our challenge

is magnified by the need to preserve and deliver authentic records

for generations of Americans who will not be born for 100 years or

more. The National Archives and Records Administration’s statutory responsibilities relating to electronic records management are

rooted in the Federal Records Act, which is codified under Title 44

of the United States Code.

Under the statute, the archivist shall ‘‘provide guidance and assistance to Federal agencies with respect to ensuring adequate and

proper documentation of the policies and transactions of the Federal Government and ensuring proper records disposition.’’

The archivist also has the responsibilities to approve the disposal

of any temporary Federal record and to take into the National Archives of the U.S. Federal records that ‘‘have sufficient historical or

other value to warrant their continued preservation by the U.S.

Government.’’ And these statutory responsibilities apply to electronic records as well as records in other formats.

All this we have summed up in a simple succinct statement of

mission which you have already stated. The mission of the National Archives and Records Administration is to ensure for the citizen and the public servant, for the President and the Congress

and the courts, ready access to essential evidence.

12

The scope of NARA’s responsibilities compounds the challenge,

for the historically valuable electronic records that come to the National Archives and the Presidential libraries come from applications deployed across the entire Federal Government. So they can

be virtually in any digital format, from word processing and e-mail,

to Web sites, data bases, geographic information systems, digital

photography and motion video, computer-assisted engineering or

manufacturing applications, laboratory simulations, satellite observations and many others.

Within the past decade, there has been significant progress in

developing software products which enable agencies to apply

records management discipline to electronic records that are typically produced on individual desktops. An example, the Department of Defense has developed a program for certifying these products as complying with Federal records management requirements.

NARA has worked closely with the Defense Department on this

program, and has endorsed its use by all Federal agencies.

However, implementing such a product is a time and resourceintensive effort. As a result, agencies are trying to manage many

records and paper filing systems despite the fact that some of the

new electronic formats cannot be rendered well, or, in some cases,

at all in a paper environment.

Through the E-government Electronic Records Management Initiative, NARA works with its agency partners, in providing guidance on electronic records management that is applicable governmentwide, and will enable agencies to transfer their permanent

records to NARA in a variety of data types and formats.

In a few moments, Mr. Reynolds Cahoon, the assistant archivist

for Human Resources and Information Service, will give you details

on our programs and initiatives designed to effectively manage

electronic records throughout their life cycle.

In closing, I’d like to thank you again for your interest in electronic records and the challenges they pose for agencies the government as a whole and our Nation. The records of our country have

played a vital role in our history, and it is imperative that we find

solutions for electronic records. For I’m sure you will all agree with

me when I say that records matter for our citizens, our government

and the future of our democracy.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PUTNAM. Thank you very much, Governor.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carlin follows:]

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Mr. PUTNAM. Our next witness is Reynolds Cahoon. Mr. Cahoon

was appointed Assistant Archivist for Human Resources and Information Services and Chief Information Officer at the National Archives and Records Administration in February 1996. His responsibilities include the Nationwide Information Technology Program,

oversight of NARA’s Electronic Records Archives Program, human

resources staff and organizational development services, NARA’s

Record Management Program.

Mr. Cahoon currently serves as cochair of the component subcommittee of the Federal CIO Council’s Architecture and Integration Committee, and as a commissioner for the International Commission for the Accreditation of Professional Genealogists. Prior to

his appointment, Mr. Cahoon served as managing director of the

family history department of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter

Day Saints.

In that position he had global operating responsibility for one of

the world’s largest genealogical research support institutions. He

previously served as the director of administration and controller

and is the director of projects and planning for the Family History

Department. He also served on the board of the Civil War Trust

and was a member of the International Council and Archives Committee on archival automation from 1986 to 1997. Welcome to the

subcommittee. You’re recognized.

Mr. CAHOON. Thank you. I join the archivist in thanking you,

Chairman Putnam, for recognizing the importance of electronic

records management and for holding this hearing. NARA’s plans

for electronic records management aim at making it an integral

part of electronic government and at delivering electronic records

to future generations. Both records management support of current

government business and preservation of electronic records for the

long term face the technical problem of making digital information

assets independent of the specific technologies used to process,

store, and communicate them.

Key objectives of the E-government Act of 2002 depend on how

well the government creates, retains, and manages records that

document its decisions and its performance.

Ultimately, for the trustworthiness of the government, these assets must remain authentic and reliable in the short term as they

move between different systems and in the long term when they

are retrieved by our great grandchildren and their descendents. To

respond to the challenge in a sustainable way, we have launched

three major interrelated initiatives:

Our first initiative, redesign of Federal Records Management,

builds a foundation that aims to make records management a normal and integral part of agency’s asset and risk management processes and add real value to the conduct of government business.

We have developed and are working on 14 interconnective strategies to improve records management. Several of the strategies including flexible scheduling and resource allocation are being

prototyped by partner agencies. Implementation plans for five more

are currently being developed.

In our second initiative, the electronic records management

project in the e-government portfolio, we are working with other

agencies to provide guidance on electronic records, tools for agenVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:20 May 10, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\93006.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
25

cies to manage them, and more format options for agencies to

transfer electronic records to NARA. We have produced capital

planning guidance on electronic records management application

acquisition. We have promulgated and endorsed version 2 of the

Department of Defense 5015.2 standard. We have authorized two

new transfer technologies, digital linear tape and file transfer protocol and three new data formats for transfer of electronic records

to NARA and, finally, initiated automating the process of transferring records to NARA using extensible markup language [XML].

In addition, NARA will lead acquisition of records management

components to be included in the Federal enterprise architecture

service component infrastructure. Service component software can

be reused and leveraged in many different systems enabling agencies to integrate management and use of electronic records within

the systems they actually use to transact business.

The electronic records archives must be scalable—excuse me. In

our third initiative, the Electronic Records Archive Program will

authentically preserve and provide access to any kind of electronic

record free from dependency on any specific hardware or software

enabling NARA to carry out its mission into the future. The Electronic Records Archive must be scalable and evolvable to accommodate both growth in volume and new types of electronic records and

take advantage of improvements in technology. We will implement

a flexible approach starting with physical preservation of electronic

records in their original formats and, where appropriate, converting

them to more durable or more accessible formats.

In the long-term, electronic government and electronic business

will drive the emergence of standards, products, and services that

make information assets independent of specific technology. We expect agencies will increasingly adopt open-standard infrastructure

independent formats, such as XML, which are also suitable for

long-term preservation and access.

In the ERA program, we have spent the last 2 years developing

the management infrastructure to ensure proper stewardship of

this critical program with an eye to its contribution to both electronic government and to posterity. We are completing requirements development and refining our acquisition strategy with the

target of issuing a request for proposals by the end of this calendar

year. In this process we have engaged both our customers and the

IT industry in an extensive dialog.

Facing the challenge of electronic records is a difficult, serious

endeavor, but we have no alternative. To this committee, I respectfully testify that we, as the National Archives, face the challenge

squarely and with full purpose and resolve to leave for our descendents a trustworthy record of our turn on this planet. Thank

you, Mr. Chairman. I’d be happy to answer any questions you

might have or your subcommittee might have.

Mr. PUTNAM. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cahoon follows:]

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

Mr. PUTNAM. Our next witness is Ms. Harriet Riofrio. Ms. Riofrio

serves as electronic records management policy lead and senior

staff officer for knowledge management for the Office of Assistant

Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration.

You must have the longest business card of anybody in government. You have to flip it over to read what your address is.

In this capacity her primary role is to assist the deputy CIO and

director IM to enable netcentric process change throughout the Department of Defense. Duties include strategic planning for and application of the principles and techniques of ERM and KM. She is

responsible for the management and evolution of the Department

of Defense 5015.2 STD—only the Department of Defense can come

up with this stuff—and the Records Management Application Certification Program at the Joint Interoperability Test Center. She

represents DOD and the DOD-NARA partnership that maintains

as its objective the development of DOD standard to improve

records management processes and electronic transfer of records

between the two agencies.

She also originated and leads the DOD-KM community of practice. We did our best to include every conceivable acronym in your

biography. Previously, Ms. Riofrio headed the Executive and Information System and Microtechnology Group at HQ Defense Logistics Agency, where she was responsible for designing and implementing innovative technology solutions to include major agency

executive information and decision support systems.

She has numerous speaking engagements, awards and publications to her credit. She was born here in Washington, DC, and received a Masters Degree in 1980. Ms. Riofrio is known as an innovator and thought leader in business process design, new technology insertion and management disciplines. She joined the OSD

staff in 1997. Welcome to the subcommittee. Hopefully your testimony will be more clear than your biography.

Ms. RIOFRIO. It took coming here to realize how many acronyms

we use. I apologize for that.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased

to appear before the subcommittee this afternoon to describe the

evolution of the Department of Defense Electronic Records Management Program and standard, culminating in its current relevance

to and integration with our plans for advancing the Department to

a netcentric government environment. Netcentricity will provide an

unprecedented accessibility and usability of data to include departmental records in every electronic media. Through the development

of our Global Information Grid Enterprise Services Initiative, we

will be converting our information infrastructure from a platform

based to a netcentric environment.

We will be applying a metatagging standard to DOD data in general and facilitating its just-in-time discovery. Official records are

a critical part of our enterprise knowledge base. The intent is to

make them more visible and usable while utilizing sound content

management principles to ensure their proper storage, preservation

and protection.

I will describe how our approach to electronic records management has been developed and applied to date and how it represents

38

one of several foundational disciplines converging to achieve our vision of enterprise wide netcentricity.

Looking back, it seems we have been working for the last 10

years to ready our records management processes for netcentricity.

In 1993, records management was analyzed as part of a functional

process improvement initiative. A baseline analysis of records management in the Department was developed. This work culminated

in the first version of the DOD 5015.2 standard that was signed

in 1997. The focus of the standard has been to prescribe essential

records automation functions consistent with the law and regulations. The intent has been to help DOD components bid, test or buy

compliant records management application software. Its objective

has been to be unambiguous and not to dictate design.

In 1998, we began the process of developing the second revision

to the standard. We added a section on national security classification markings, and the declassification schedule as requested by

the Intel community. We also included recommendations from

NARA. We added a requirement for information related to section

508 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act. Version 2 of DOD 5015.2

standard was signed in June 2002.

Currently, the Joint Interoperability Test Command [JITC], of

the Defense Information Systems Agency, manages the compliance

testing process for the DOD standard. This testing is mandatory

for DOD and endorsed by NARA. At this time, JITC has certified

approximately 43 records management applications as compliant to

our standard.

An example of how this standards process has begun to influence

our enterprise-wide environment can be seen in its application to

the Navy Marine Corps Intranet. The Navy and Marine Corps are

looking to merge records and document management for over

350,000 users which they claim will make the Department of the

Navy the world’s largest electronic records management customer.

In 2003, DOD formally partnered with NARA on electronic

records management as part of the President’s E-government initiatives. We are working to certify direct export from RMA’s from

record management applications to NARA to include coordination

of transfer and specification for transfer file format. This effort, especially upon its adoption by the Federal community, has the potential for substantial improvements in the timeliness, cost and

quality of permanent records transfers throughout the government.

As we begin to operationalize netcentricity through our Global

Information Grid Enterprise Service Initiative, we are cognizant of

the need to assure electronic records management becomes a part

of the Department’s enterprise services.

In summary, we are finding that the DOD standard could not be

more opportune. It is being sought after and used by some of our

States, by the Federal Government and even the international community. It is open enough to encompass different functions and infrastructures but serves to assure consistently useful electronic

records products. We look forward to planning for integration of

ERM into our new netcentric environment and working closely

with the Federal community to develop solutions for our common

data and records problems.

39

We welcome your support as we continue to shape the future of

this critical area together. Thank you.

Mr. PUTNAM. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Riofrio follows:]

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

Mr. PUTNAM. Our final panelist for panel one is Ms. Linda

Koontz. Ms. Koontz is Director of Information Management Issues

at the U.S. General Accounting Office. She is responsible for issues

concerning the collection, use and dissemination of government information in an era of rapidly changing technology. Recently she

has been heavily involved in directing studies concerning e-government, privacy, electronic records management and governmentwide

information dissemination issues. She is a frequent panelist before

the subcommittee, and we always appreciate your insight and support. You’re recognized for your testimony.

Ms. KOONTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the subcommittee’s hearing on the challenges of records management in an electronic era. As you know,

agencies are increasingly moving to an operational environment in

which electronic rather than paper records are used to document

their activities and business processes. This migration is likely to

accelerate in light of the E-government Act of 2002 which encourages the expansion of electronic government. This transformation

is leading to improvements in the way Federal agencies work and

interact with each other and with the public. However, the rapid

evolution of information technology is creating challenges in managing and preserving electronic records. Complex electronic records

are increasingly being created in a decentralized environment and

in volumes that make it difficult to organize them and make them

accessible.

Further storage media themselves are affected by the dual problems of obsolescence and deterioration. For example, few computers

today have disk drives that can read information on 8 or 51⁄4 diskettes, even if the diskettes themselves remain readable. These

problems are compounded as computer hardware and application

software become obsolete. They may leave behind electronic records

that can no longer be read. Unless these challenges are addressed,

the government will be unable to effectively leverage the information it has and valuable government information may be lost forever.

We report last year that while NARA has responded to these

challenges, most electronic records, including data bases of major

Federal information systems, remain unscheduled, and records of

historical value were not being identified and provided to NARA,

and as a result, they were at risk of loss.

Three factors contributed to this condition. First, NARA has acknowledged that its policies and processes on electronic records

have not yet evolved to reflect the modern recordkeeping environment; second, records management programs were generally afforded low priority by Federal agencies. A related issue was that

agency management had not given priority to acquiring the technology tools required to manage electronic records.

Third, NARA was not performing systematic inspections of agency record programs. Such inspections are important as a means to

evaluate individual agency records management programs, assess

governmentwide progress in improving records, and manage and

identify areas where guidance needs to be strengthened. We recommended that NARA develop strategies for raising agency manVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:20 May 10, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\93006.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
50

agement awareness of the importance of records management and

for performing systematic inspections.

In the last year, NARA has taken steps to improve its guidance

and address the lack of technology tools. In response to our recommendations, it has devised a reasonable strategy for raising

awareness among senior agency management. In addition, it has

developed a comprehensive approach to assessing and improving

agency records management programs that includes identification

of risks and priorities and inspections, but it has not yet described

how this will be made an ongoing program and an implementation

plan for the strategy has not yet been established. Until NARA

fully addressed these issues, the risk is increased that records

management programs will continue to show the weaknesses that

led to the scheduling and disposition problems that we and NARA

described in our earlier work.

NARA also faces significant challenges in acquiring an electronic

record archive, an advanced system that is intended to address the

problems associated with preserving electronic records and making

them accessible. Specifically the plans, policies and practices that

NARA is using to acquire the system do not, in many cases, conform to standards or to applicable Federal acquisition guidance.

In addition, NARA is unable to track the cost and schedule of the

product adequately. Unless NARA addresses these issues, the risk

is increased that the system will fail to meet user’s needs, will cost

more than currently estimated and will be delivered later than

planned. In view of these risks, we have recommended that NARA

address weaknesses in its acquisition plans and project schedule.

In conclusion, NARA and the Federal Government face significant challenges in managing electronic records. While NARA is responding to these challenges and is making progress, much work

remains to be done to gain control over the massive numbers of

electronic records that continue to grow and prevent the loss of valuable permanent records.

That concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any

questions.

Mr. PUTNAM. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Koontz follows:]

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

Mr. PUTNAM. I want to thank all of you for your both written and

verbal testimony, and it has certainly set the table for an interesting hearing.

Before we start peeling this onion down to several layers, I want

to start in a very basic way. If you would, answer for me how you

determine what records are worthy of archiving, what records are

worthy of being kept for posterity and how much of that is defined

in the law. What form it should be saved in and what the life cycle

is of those forms? In other words, an old TSR 80 RadioShack computer disk that looks like a cassette tape, what is the life span of

that versus a 41⁄2 inch disk, 31⁄2 inch disk or microfiche, microfilm,

CD ROM? How long do those things live in a manner that we can

retrieve that information?

And what process do we have for converting that? And is the conversion of the format in and of itself changing history? In other

words, we wouldn’t be content to have run a Xerox copy of the Declaration of Independence and feel like we’d saved the Declaration

of Independence, and that is an extreme example, but certainly you

can address that spectrum of issue.

So that is a lot to throw out there. But Governor, if you could

begin to attempt to address these issues for us to get us going.

Mr. CARLIN. By law, it is our responsibility. In fact, in the end,

my sign-off on the scheduling of records, in practice we historically

have worked with agencies to evaluate records to determine whether they should be ultimately an accession to the archives which

works out to be 2 or 3 percent of what is originally created, which

one should be disposed of earlier and how long they should be kept

for appropriate business purposes as well as protecting rights and

entitlements for accountability reasons and so forth. That has been

a back-and-forth with agency process, and, on any disposal, communication with stakeholders through a publication in the Federal

Register.

As indicated in testimony that you have here today, we are working to overhaul that process, because we know, with the massive

size of the Federal Government, with all of the records now that

have been created electronically, with more and more of them

wanting to be the record copy, that we must have a more efficient,

effective way of scheduling records. Things change too fast for it to

be an old system when a schedule stays in place for a long period

of time. We have made a lot of progress. We are literally testing

some of those changes with agencies as we speak, and I’m confident

in the end we will have a system that will allow us to stay current

with the technology here in which we live and schedule records appropriately, but it is our responsibility. We accept that responsibility, and work with agencies to carry it out as well as with stakeholders.

On the technology issue, the second part of the question, if I

might, I would yield to my colleague here who probably can better

explain to you that aspect of the question.

Mr. CAHOON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The technology chosen

for any particular type of record often depends on the technology

that was used to create it, and from there the technology required

to ensure that those records are available from generation to generation. Microfiche, for example, can last, if preserved properly, for

75

hundreds of years. When that microfiche begins to appear to deteriorate, then that microfiche can be recopied using the same technology because it is human readable.

Electronic records, however, present a more difficult challenge.

Electronic records will come in many different formats when they

are created but ultimately, for us to preserve those records for the

long term, we need to find formats that will enable us to remove

the dependence that we often find that those records have on the

technology that created them. We need to find technology independent formats for them.

The media, which is one of the issues that you raised—the media

presents an interesting problem. We find that the best way to deal

with the media at this point is to migrate the media as technology

changes. For example, we might record information on cartridge

tapes, 3480 cartridge tapes. When those become obsolete, we might

convert that information to 3590 cartridge tapes and continue to

progress as the technology evolves. So we’re continually making

copies—faithful copies of those original records.

So to sum up, the technology used to migrate records or to—excuse me, to preserve records depends on the original format that

they came in and on the strategies we need to engage to migrate

them from one technology to another.

Mr. PUTNAM. That makes sense for ordinary memos and personnel records and payroll records, but when you get into the GIS or

maps or digital photography, so much of what we generate in great

volumes in this day and age. Do we save the original photograph

or the original map, or are we content to scan it and leave it on

a cartridge or a disk or microfilm? How was something like that

handled that is, at best, different than just ordinary memorandums

or other documents?

Mr. CAHOON. The technology that creates these electronic

records, a geographic information system record, for example, is

highly dependent on the software that created it and the format

that record is actually stored in. And so, the intent would be to find

a format, ultimately, that would free that record from its dependence on the format that it was created in.

So in your example, where we’re concerned about scanning a

map, that’s different, Mr. Chairman, from the technology used to

capture the record originally and electronically and evolve it over

time. So for scanning a map, for example, we would find a technology independent format to store that map in and be able to migrate then that map from generation through generation of media

technology.

For a geographic information system where the information for

the data associated with it is proprietary, we would try to find a

technology independent format for that, and then migrate it as

faithfully as we could through generations of media technology.

Does that respond to your question?

Mr. PUTNAM. I’m not sure. Our capabilities today are so dramatically different than when Lewis and Clark were drawing their own

maps or when Cartier was charting the St. Lawrence. I mean, it

seems obvious to us today that is historic and worthy of preservation as it is, but if we’re shooting tens of thousands of pictures over

Baghdad in a 90-day period of time, do we save all of those as they

76

are because they are historic—as they are? Or do we change how

they are saved and therefore lose the actual document that was

used by decisionmakers to make particular policy decisions that are

historic by definition?

But when you calculate that there’s a constant stream of images

being generated of Mars or the moon or a tropical storm in the Gulf

of Mexico or where a gas line is in the city of Alexandria, how do

we decide which of those things are worthy of keeping as they are

because the very nature of that form is in itself historic just as if

it had been drawn on the back of a deer skin?

Mr. CARLIN. I would just say this, Mr. Chairman, that when you

move from historically the important documents whether they are

written on parchment or paper, whether they are still photos or

videotapes, as you get more and more into the technology realm,

it changes in terms of preserving that original. In other words, ultimately 100 years from now to look at something that was created

digitally today, it won’t be essential that you have the equipment

of the 2003 to use it to see it.

What you want to see in modern equipment of 100 years from

now is what was there. So we won’t be preserving that record that

is on that first. The information will be preserved, and it will be

preserved authentically. That is one of the real challenges, to make

sure that you have authentic records over time, but in contrast to

that Lewis and Clark map, which we will keep in its original form

because it has intrinsic value as well as informational value, although even today we will scan, digitize and put up on a Web site

that map to expand access to it, we will keep that original, yes; but

when you move, it seems to me, into technology, we’re not—the

original is important only in the sense that we keep the authentic

document, the information, the numbers, the diagrams, the descriptions and not keep a historical presentation itself or the equipment

it was presented on.

Now, that is my cut at answering——

Mr. PUTNAM. If I heard you correctly, you said that it is less important to preserve the actual document and more important to

preserve the information on that document using the best available

technology. I believe that is what I heard you say.

Mr. CARLIN. As a layperson, that is what I communicate, yes.

Mr. PUTNAM. But my point is that the format that it is saved in

today, which is the best possible technology today, that actual

physical document, the map or the photograph or the thermal imagery of the fires below the rubble in Ground Zero of New York,

in and of itself, will be historical because 100 years from now, people will think, well, isn’t that quaint and charming that they could

rely on something so rude, so crude or so rudimentary compared

to what they have 100 years from now? And so the difference between the pictures of Ground Zero or the Pentagon from September

11th and the pictures of Pearl Harbor are the magnitude in terms

of volume.

I mean, there’s thousands of pictures of New York. There’s probably dozens of pictures of Pearl Harbor. So how do you decide

which of those things are worthy of keeping as they are because

of what they are, in the format that they are in, because they are

intrinsically historic?

77

Mr. CARLIN. Well, Mr. Chairman, to use the Pearl Harbor example, of photographs taken at that time, at some point, that record,

that picture will diminish, and we will copy it. So 200 years from

now they will not be looking at that original picture. They will be

looking at a copy of that record, of that picture. That’s been true

in terms of still photos, color photographs, videos. The preservation

over time is transferring, making sure you have a quality preservation copy, and then as the use of it from researchers diminishes

quality or just time does, you make a new copy in the technology

of the time. So that will not change. In terms of deciding what we

keep that goes back to the scheduling issue and working out with

the agency and stakeholders’ participation whether or not those images or those records in electronic form should be kept for 50 years,

100 or as we say permanently in the archives, accessioned into the

National Archives.

Mr. PUTNAM. Well, my time is long since run out, and I need to

yield to my very able Vice Chair. I would just say that I hear what

you’re saying, but the fact that we have made copies and preserved

the content of the declaration of independence doesn’t mean that

we quit preserving the actual parchment.

Mr. CARLIN. That is correct.

Mr. PUTNAM. And that same drive to preserve will apply to other

things. As we go through this hearing, my interest is in finding out

the processes used for determining what things are worthy of keeping for posterity.

People may not have thought it was terribly important to keep

a list of the procurement orders that Washington ordered for his

men for the winter at Valley Forge 225 years ago. Today an archaeologist looks up what they bought and how many buttons and

where the buttons came from, and they can now find exactly where

the campgrounds were because of what they threw out the back or

what fell off their uniform. It probably didn’t seem terribly important to save all that back then, but it has tremendous uses today.

Now in this information age, in this allegedly paperless society,

we’re generating a whole lot more stuff, and it’s in a format that

is more tricky, because of obsolescence, to keep, and so those decisions become more and more important.

I’ll yield to the vice chairwoman, Mrs. Miller.

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I find your questions so

interesting, I think it really does go to the whole heart of this, is

what are we trying to archive? What is really necessary? I think

that is what we’re all struggling with, what are we actually—what

is necessary and what is not, I suppose. You know, actually, I think

in this case—well, in many cases, but certainly when we think

about archiving, let me just—a personal example, first of all. We’re

thinking about everything that we should be archiving or shouldn’t

be archiving. I think Members of Congress need to set our own example and our own standards of what we are trying to do as well

as we’re questioning everybody else and all of the other agencies

of what they are doing, and the Members themselves sometimes

could be more cognizant, I think, of what is important and what

is not.

We’ve tried to just, within my own office what happens when

you—I’m a freshman. When you become a new freshman Member,

78

you inherit everything from your predecessor. The most up-to-date

piece of equipment I had was a 1986 Macintosh, if you can imagine.

So we purchased a new computer system. We have no paper in

our office to speak of. We put our whole data base into the thing.

Any correspondence that we get from any constituent. We have

every registered voter in my district, their name and their address,

if they fax us or call us or what have you. We have a paper trail

on it. We have a workflow that we can generate their name, and

if they were asking us about a Social Security issue or a Veterans’

benefit. That has been a helpful tool.

Here we are as a Federal Government telling you to get away

from paperwork, and then sometimes we have way too much paperwork. What is important? We are looking for a little assistance

from you about what is important.

I would like to ask a question of Ms. Koontz. I thought your testimony was very interesting. You outlined a number of things in regards to NARA that you thought probably could be done better.

And I am just wondering, should there be a function with GAO

when you are doing your audit process that be part of your auditing process with the various agencies in regards to records management? Is it already a part? And, for instance, if there are some

agencies that are doing well, you might want to point that out to

other agencies. DOD is apparently ahead of the curve. If there are

other agencies that are not doing well at all, would this be identified as a material weakness in their audit? And how can you assist

from your perspective these other agencies?

Ms. KOONTZ. I would not say that a look at records management

would be a routine part of our information technology audits, but

I think that is an interesting idea. And one of the things that we

have looked at lately is how to, perhaps, get more recognition of

records management in some of the institutional processes that we

are trying to get in place across the Federal Government.

I think Mr. Cahoon talked earlier about the Federal Enterprise

Architecture. Another way to go is to try to embed records management concerns in the investment process that agencies go through

in order to make investment decisions about new IT systems. As

they decide to acquire and monitor a system over time, that would

certainly be a good way for an agency to be asking over time, how

are you handling the records issues? And putting additional emphasis on them. Those are processes that we are trying to get institutionalized in agencies. But I think your idea about making it a

more routine part of the audit is interesting.

The other thing I would mention, too, is that this last year we

contracted with Grant Thornton to start doing some work that was

best practices-oriented on records management across the Federal

Government, and the principal investigator on that was Tim

Sprehe, and he will be talking on the second panel. So he has developed some, shall we say, preliminary models for records management and identified a number of best practices that I think

could be transferred to other agencies.

Mrs. MILLER. I think that is very commendable that you would

be doing that with best practices with the private sector. The reason I asked you that question, you also mentioned that there is a

79

possibility of very important information being lost in those kinds

of things. Have you found that? How can you make that kind of

a statement? Are you finding these kinds of things very important

information that has been lost by the various agencies? Are you

finding that during your course of your audits? And if you do find

that out, who do you tell about it?

Ms. KOONTZ. From an audit perspective, once it has been lost it

is hard to find. And from that perspective, I don’t think we have

independently documented the loss of the information. What I

think we are talking about there is that the risk that information

is lost is dramatically increased. Although, I think maybe the

NARA representatives might be able to talk about something like

this in more detail that I can at this point.

Mrs. MILLER. I am wondering if part of the hesitancy that many

of the agencies, and maybe this is a question for Mrs. Riofrio with

the Department of Defense, but perhaps much of the hesitancy on

behalf of all of the agencies about archiving and that kind of thing,

particularly e-mails, you mentioned about e-mails. Now, in this last

theater, we saw all of the troops that were using e-mails to communicate with their families, and what a wonderful thing that was.

Obviously, you do not want to archive people’s personal correspondence. But many people may feel hesitancy about giving up their

records of e-mail in the normal course of business in the various

agencies, and that I would suspect, makes it more difficult to determine what you are going to archive, as the chairman was mentioning about General Washington and those kinds of things. If he

could have sent an e-mail, perhaps he would have done it, and now

it makes some sense.

Ms. RIOFRIO. We have been working records management from

a very decentralized approach for a long time. And it has not been

particularly visible, I think. We concur with GAO’s statement. But

we have found that the focus, the new focus that we have taken

with records management applications really transforms the way

people think about electronic records, focusing on what is it that

we are going to preserve and what is it that we are not. It seems

that the people who are performing the function have the best understanding of what is most important.

But they were not necessarily, at least in the past, thinking

about records management. But we were talking about now records

management applications, sound like software. ‘‘Why don’t you go

put software in?’’ But you can’t do that. You have to rethink your

function. You have to rethink your schedules. You have to plan

again. And then everyone in the organization becomes a records

manager of sorts, and becomes conscious of records, and starts to

make those decisions.

And the records management standard—we were going through

this in detail yesterday—requires a great deal of flexibility and decisionmaking on the part of the organization and then of the individuals. And I think that is the beginning of some of the answers

that visibility, not just the capability, but the visibility and the understanding.

So we are very excited about the large efforts in the Navy to see

how that evolves. Thank you.

80

Mrs. MILLER. I am interested as you mentioned about the flexibility, and I know Mr. Cahoon mentioned in his remarks about trying to give all the various agencies a great degree of flexibility, and

in concept, I think that sounds very good. But as we are trying to

get to standards, if you give everybody that much flexibility, you

could find yourself in a situation with particular format that is not

compatible with proprietary systems. I am sure you are finding

that all the time. Should NARA be establishing the standards and

defining the standards?

You mentioned during your testimony, I think you mentioned

about the GIS. We are all onto this GIS. We had a very interesting

hearing a couple of weeks ago about GIS, and all the local municipalities have these wonderful GIS systems, but nobody at the county level can use them, and the State can’t use them, and the Federal can’t use them. And as we think about homeland security, how

does that all trickle down? And in this way, I think, perhaps as

well, is the Federal Government responsible for setting some standards as you are archiving different things? How do you work with

the States and the other levels of government?

Mr. CAHOON. I think, Vice Chairwoman Miller, I believe that

NARA has been very cautious about the formats that it has allowed to be transferred to the permanent archives. In fact, we have

been so conservative in that up until recently, we only allowed relational and flat-file formatted data bases that would be readable

independent of technology, to be accessioned into the archives and

only records that were in ASCII format; those were the only formats that we accepted. And, of course, with that fairly limited set

of records, there were a lot of records being created that did not

fit neatly into that set of standards.

So as a result, we have opened up the possibilities for additional

formats. E-mail with attachments. We have a standard associated

with that. Tagged-image file formats for images, and PDF for textual documents can now be sent to us. But those are the only formats currently that are accessionable into the archives. And so we

will continue to set standards for these other kinds of records as

time goes on. That is part of our major initiative with the Electronic Records Archive.

And we are constantly involved in very collaborative efforts that

include the States in thinking about not only standards and the

records management applications that have been spoken of, but we

collaborate with NASA on the set of standards, particularly the

Open Archival Information System Model and the standards associated with it. We do believe that NARA is in a very important position to set standards for records that would be accessioned into the

National Archives.

Mr. CARLIN. May I add something to that? You folks helped us

a lot under the leadership of Chairman Davis on the e-government

legislation because of a couple of aspects of that are going to be

very helpful to us in making OMB a real player, and obviously,

helping us as one agency working with the entire Federal Government, not only in the structure within OMB that will have a direct

responsibility, but the committee that is set up. We will be a direct

participant, including the Deputy Archivist who is going to be a

major player on that.

81

I think in terms of setting the standards, it is not just like, yes,

we have a responsibility. I also think we have been given additional tools now to convert that into reality.

The other thing I would quickly add, as a former State official

as well, I understand very clearly the incredible amount of Federal

money that flows to State and local. And whether it is Homeland

Security or whatever, if we do not work with State and local to

make sure those records are preserved, we will not have, from a

Federal point of view, the records to really deal with accountability,

whether the program really worked. So there are huge incentives

for us to work with State and local. And one of our main avenues,

of course, is the National Historic Publications Records Commission, which is our modest grant-providing division that supports

and helps State and local governments, and certainly as we look to

the coming years, working with them, passing along, allowing them

to try some things. You, in the State of Michigan, have done some

really great things working with the NHPRC to move us all forward as we share up and down the channels.

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you, I think my time has expired, Mr.

Chairman, I appreciate it.

Mr. PUTNAM. Thank you, Mrs. Miller. Ms. Riofrio, how do you

handle the issues of classified versus nonclassified documents as

part of your electronic records management?

You can answer the question if you would like. We can swear you

in real quick if that will save time. Would you like to do that?

Could you identify yourself and your position for the record into the

mic?

Mr. MATSUURA. Steven Matsuura. I am a senior electronic engineer from the Joint Interoperability Test Command, part of the Defense Information Systems Agency.

Mr. PUTNAM. Very good, please rise and raise your right hand.

[Witness sworn.]

Mr. PUTNAM. The witness responded in the affirmative. If you

could please answer the question.

Mr. MATSUURA. First of all, classified and unclassified records

have to be segregated. So they are not handled the same way because there is extra security procedures and safeguards that are required for classified records.

Additionally, the standard has additional requirements for information when a classified record is declared as a record. In addition

to the normal information that a user has to input to document the

records, he has to add information such as the reason for classification, what the declassification schedule is, and, of course, what

level of classification it is.

Mr. PUTNAM. We collect, in Mr. Rumsfeld’s terms, an ‘‘unknowable amount’’ of information from around the world through various sources and methods. It is then filtered and screened through

a variety of appropriate personnel and agencies as part of our intelligence briefings and intelligence plans. How would someone know,

and at what point in that chain does someone know, that they

should preserve either the raw data or the interpreted data or the

refined data? At what point does that become a record and subject

to the process as a classified document that you just outlined?

82

Mr. MATSUURA. Well, it is somewhat subjective, but as mentioned before, each agency has to have a schedule, and if a record

falls into a certain category or series, he knows that—or a document or a piece of information—he knows that it needs to be saved

as an official record.

Mr. PUTNAM. Are the schedules designed by each individual

agency, or are the schedules designed by NARA and handed down

to the agency?

Mr. MATSUURA. Well, NARA, of course, develops the General

Records Schedule, which agencies use if they are applicable or

where applicable. But actually, agencies propose schedules, depending on what their business line is, and submit them to NARA for

approval and that gives them the disposition authority.

Mr. PUTNAM. Ms. Koontz, would you like to comment on this

whole process? There seems to be a general difficulty in describing

to the subcommittee how the decision is made, what records are

worthy of archiving.

Ms. KOONTZ. Well, I am not sure I can elaborate a whole lot.

NARA has a whole process that they have used over many years

where they use experts to appraise—that is, you know, look at the

value of a record and determine whether that record could possibly

be a permanent record or not. They are certainly more expert in

that process than I am, but they do have a very longstanding process to decide which records will be kept and which records can be

disposed of. That is what the whole of records management is,

knowing what to keep and to get rid of the rest.

Mr. PUTNAM. But in your testimony, you said that their architecture for archiving electronic records has raised some concerns

about costs and progress on that system.

Ms. KOONTZ. Right, the electronic record archiving.

Mr. PUTNAM. On the electronic side.

Ms. KOONTZ. Right. We are talking there about the development

of their electronic archival system, which does what Mr. Carlin and

Cahoon talked about preserving electronic records independent of

software, so that you don’t have to worry about software obsolescence, you can maintain the content over time, and part of the

strategy is to migrate the media over time as well.

Mr. PUTNAM. And as all agencies move forward purchasing new IT infrastructure, and we spend $60 billion a year on that, does

OMB require a component of that enterprise architecture to be

electronic records management? Is that part of it?

Ms. KOONTZ. I think Mr. Cahoon talked with this earlier, about

the relationship of records management to one of the component

service areas in the Federal Enterprise Architecture. I know less

about it than he does. He is working on that particular aspect.

Mr. PUTNAM. Well, we have had a lot of hearings in the subcommittee this year on the inadequacy of our IT procurement and

acquisition programs, the lack of information security, the fact that

even within a department, especially DOD, there is an awful lot of

different rabbit trails that are being pursued with regard to IT. So

it would surprise me if they all had their act together on electronic

records management? Is that the case or not?

Mr. CAHOON. You needn’t be surprised, Mr. Chairman. I would

have to say that we are all working to get our act together. The

83

Federal Enterprise Architecture specified in four different places

records management as a key component of the business reference

model of that architecture. In the service component architecture,

there are identified a set of service types, and digital asset management is one of those service types. And within that service type is

electronic records management identified specifically as a component in the Federal Enterprise Architecture. And that electronic

records management then has a series of elements to it that, over

time, when implemented, will provide not only guidance but specific software, component software, that can be used by agency applications that will help us move a long way toward standardizing

how records are managed, how they are described, the kind of information that is available about those records how those records

relate to one another, how they form collections, information about

their disposition, how long they could be kept and for what purposes they should be kept. All of that is part of this architecture.

And for me, that provides a sustainable, long-term way of bringing electronic records management into the forefront of information

technology application development, because the components will

be there, available for people to use and to integrate into their applications rather than having to figure out everything for themselves. So our requirements and standards, Mr. Chairman, can be

built into those components themselves.

Mr. CARLIN. Mr. Chairman, could I add some, because you have

a question that still has not been answered yet, and I would like

to try one more time.

Mr. PUTNAM. OK.

Mr. CARLIN. First of all there is a basic fundamental that the format itself does not impact whether a record is kept 1 year, 2 years

or permanently, whether it is on paper or electronic form. So when

we shift to more electronic, that does not suddenly force a whole

new set of schedules, generally. Now, obviously, there are some individual aspects that require some changes, and we are creating

records electronically that we did not even have before in the paper

form, but the format is not a factor. When we work to schedule

records, to make those determinations, we want to document the

decision and what the decision is will determine to a great extent

how long it’s kept.

Reference was made to General Records Schedules by our friend

from the Department of Defense. Those are the schedules that are

across the board for every agency, for them to use efficiently to deal

with very short-time, important for the moment, but certainly not

important in protecting rights and entitlements, not important for

accountability, certainly not important for telling the national experience, but just for that particular business transaction for a moment. Those are General Records Schedules that deal across the

board, that will apply as well electronically.

And so it’s not the media that is the factor that necessarily determines how long a record will be kept. Because we are now electronic and have so much more volume, does not mean that we will

go from 2 or 3 percent accessioned in the archives to 50 percent.

It may go to 5 percent because of the ease with which dealt with

it and our capacity to provide access to those records efficiently.

But we don’t want to cloud the whole electronic storecase with endVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:20 May 10, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\93006.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
84

less records that are not needed. If they were not needed in paper,

probably they aren’t needed electronically any longer than they

were when they were a paper format.

Mr. PUTNAM. That is a fair point. My concern is as much as anything on the map, GIS, geospatial photography side of things,

which are much more voluminous than they were in the past, and

frankly, easier to store because you can put all of this stuff on a

CD-ROM or whatever. But the other issue and as the Technology

Chairman, I am probably going to say something I shouldn’t, but

I will make a confession, I was on Air Force 1 on September 11th.

And until we shut down all of our electronic devices, I sent out emails to my wife for one. Well, I made a point of saving those emails, but I also printed them out because I did not trust the computer. One day I would be, you know, I would hit the wrong delete

button. I just did not trust it, so I printed them out and saved

them.

I suspect you all probably do the same thing. That, you know, as

good as your electronic capacity is, if there is something really special in there, you probably drop back to the good old-fashioned

paper form, which is what all of us do, which is why this paperless

society cuts down more trees than we ever have.

And so the root of my questions about what is worthy of being

saved and all of that, and how do we save it as the technology

changes so that you don’t have to keep a TRS8 to be able to read

this 10 years worth of documents, and a 286 to read this, and a

Pentium to read this decade’s worth of documents. You know, at

the end of the day, as that technology changes so quickly, we have

to be very careful about how we preserve these things. And so that

is my concern as an amateur history buff, that is my issue in trying to decide how you guys decide what to save.

And, unquestionably, you are the best in the world at it. I mean,

I don’t propose to tell you how to decide what to save. But if you

are just the systems administrator in the field office of the Farm

Service Agency somewhere in Kansas, and you are trying to decide

what is worthy of saving, I am trying to figure out before we go

cracking heads who gives them some direction, some clear-cut policy on what they should keep and what they can throw out the

back-door. And I have taken this hearing—the staff is going nuts,

I have taken this way out into the historical side and not in the

enterprise architecture, which is where we are supposed to be.

I recognize Mrs. Miller for another round of questions, and then

we will move on.

Mrs. MILLER. In the interest of time, I will pass. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. PUTNAM. One last question. Is there—and this gets to what

I was saying about I printed out my e-mails—is there, say, a

backup nondigital system for the storage of vital information

should that information be lost?

Mr. CARLIN. Mr. Chairman, what you described previously is

very real. Until we get records management applications to the

quality that we are comfortable, a lot of agencies today, and with

our encouragement, are printing out to paper. The record copy is

paper, not the digital form that was originally created. So the practical issue you addressed is one that agencies do address today.

85

That decision out there in Kansas that you made reference to, first

of all, a schedule is going to determine and that schedule will say

whether the electronic or the paper copy is the record copy. And

probably out there, I would guess, it would be paper today because

we are still at the early stages of developing—when I say we, I

mean globally, we are testing and learning, but the private sector,

in producing, has made a lot of progress. And we may have one

there today, but is it available or been tested to the extent that everybody across the board, we are saying go forward and use it. So

your experience is one that has been experienced by agencies all

across the Federal Government.

Mr. PUTNAM. Very good. Would any of the witnesses wish to add

anything? Something that we did not ask about? Something, if you

would like to clarify anything? This is your opportunity before we

seat the second panel. Yes, sir?

Mr. CAHOON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add, with respect to

this, your critical question. NARA looks very carefully at the business processes that each agency undertakes to do their business.

And, based on an analysis of those business processes, determines

what records are necessary to document the decisions and the

transactions that business process creates.

Based on that analysis, a record schedule is developed. That

schedule is then reworked and evaluated and tuned up and then

presented to Mr. Carlin for his signature. And it’s based on that

understanding of the business process and what is necessary to

document the rights and entitlements of individuals, the decisions

and actions of Federal officials and what would be important to

know for the national experience, all become factors in the decision

of what we should keep.

Risk of those records being lost, and the value of those records

to the business of the agency all factor in to the decision that is

made as to what we ought to keep and what can be disposed of

after the normal course of business. Thank you.

Mr. PUTNAM. Very good, anyone else?

Mr. CARLIN. Mr. Chairman, I would only add that we appreciate

very much this opportunity. We appreciate your leadership, along

with your vice chair and your interest. And that we would hope

that this would be an ongoing communication over time, because

we realize you need to know what we are doing. You need to have

your questions answered. And as I said to you privately, we appreciate the relationship with GAO and their active involvement in

what we are doing in all aspects of electronic records, and we

thank you very, very much for this opportunity today.

Mr. PUTNAM. You are welcome, and we look forward to seeing

your facility next week. The record will remain open for us to submit further questions that were not addressed in the hearing, and

we would ask your cooperation in responding to those. At this time,

we will excuse the first panel and seat the second. So the committee will go in recess for a minute and a half.

Thank you.

[Recess.]

Mr. PUTNAM. The subcommittee will reconvene. We want to welcome the second panel. And as was the custom with this subVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:20 May 10, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\93006.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
86

committee and as you saw with the first panel, I would ask you to

rise and raise your right hands, please, for the oath.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. PUTNAM. Note for the record that all of the witnesses responded in the affirmative.

We will immediately go to witness testimony.

Our second panel begins with Dr. J. Timothy Sprehe. Dr. Sprehe

is president of Sprehe Information Management Associates, a firm

offering consulting services and information resources management

to government agencies and private firms since 1991. He specializes in issues such as strategic planning for information resources

management, public access to government information, electronic

records management and electronic collection and dissemination of

information.

He has conducted consulting studies for many U.S. Federal agencies and private firms doing business with the Federal Government. He retired from OMB in 1991, where at OMB he was the

principal author of the original 1985 OMB Circular, No. A–130, the

Management of Federal Information Resources. This governmentwide information policy directive established comprehensive policy

on managing information and managing information systems and

technology.

Mr. Sprehe received an M.A. in 1963 and an Ph.D. in 1967 in sociology from Washington University in St. Louis. We welcome you

to the subcommittee, Dr. Sprehe, and look forward to your testimony. You are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENTS OF J. TIMOTHY SPREHE, PRESIDENT, SPREHE

INFORMATION MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES; ROBERT F.

NAWROCKI, CRM, DIRECTOR, RECORDS MANAGEMENT AND

IMAGINING SERVICES DIVISION, LIBRARY OF VIRGINIA;

CARYN WOJCIK, STATE GOVERNMENT RECORDS MANAGEMENT, MICHIGAN; AND DR. RICHARD LYUSAKOWSKI, DIRECTOR, COLLABORATIVE ELECTRONIC NOTEBOOK SYSTEMS

ASSOCIATION [CENSA]

Mr. SPREHE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to appear before this subcommittee to discuss the subject of electronic

records management [ERM].

The National Archives’ 2001 survey on current Federal recordkeeping practices, of which I was a coauthor, stated that the chief

paradox of today’s Federal records management is the disconnect

between paper and electronic recordkeeping. Many agencies do

competent paper records management; only a handful do competent

electronic records management.

One reason for this condition is the cultural chasm between the

records management community and the information technology

community. Generally, records managers do not understand IT,

and IT managers do not understand records management.

A Federal record is not just something saved by a computer.

Rather, a record is maintained as evidence in pursuance of legal

obligations or in the transaction of business. It’s something you can

take into court where you must be able to prove that the record has

authenticity, reliability, integrity, and usability. IT professionals

seldom understand this meaning of ‘‘record.’’ It’s common to say

87

today that most records are born electronic. Where do they live and

where do they grow up? In IT systems. And nobody is talking to

the IT people about records.

A second reason that ERM is sadly wanting in Federal records

is because the National Archives has been painfully slow to address

ERM, let alone get out in front of it. Bold out-in-front policy guidance on ERM comes slowly in NARA’s culture of archivists and historians, compounded by the agency’s extreme, and perhaps well

justified, fear of adverse litigation. You might note that for all of

its commendable initiatives in the electronics record management

area, NARA itself does not use electronics records management.

A third reason for the slow spread of ERM is the obstacles the

agencies face, namely, lack of funding for ERM and indifference on

the part of senior management. Too many agency heads and chief

information officers consider ERM a back-burner low priority. They

believe their top priorities are more immediate and include items

such as security and risk management, not appreciating that ERM

improves security and lowers risk.

Thus, as the volume of electronic records multiplies exponentially

in the agencies, progress in ERM creeps along inch by inch. Disasters such as happened at the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are the tip of a large iceberg. Many

more records management disasters are out there waiting to happen.

On the bright side, a few agencies have achieved significant advances in making ERM an integral operating component in their

information architectures. Agencies such as the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management—otherwise known as the Yucca Mountain Project—in the Department of Energy, and the Office of Comptroller of the Currency

in the Treasury Department. These are agencies that take records

very seriously by the nature of their missions, agencies where top

management has issued a mandate that ERM shall exist enterprise-wide.

Agencies reaching full ERM implementation discover that an

electronic records repository is an asset with many beneficial applications beyond records management. ERM gives the agencies instant access to institutional memory starting yesterday. They can

leverage this asset to provide economies and efficiencies to other

business functions. For example, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s ADAMS, which stands for agencywide document access and

management system, is a combined electronic documents and

records management system. NRC has made ADAMS a core component of its public Web site, so that ADAMS not only performs

records management, it also performs other important public information functions.

Even more, NRC has coupled ADAMS with electronic signature

capability, so that ADAMS can receive electronic submissions from

nuclear reactor licensees in the general public, and, hence, NRC

has leveraged its ERM investment to carry out not only its records

management responsibilities, but also the Government Paperwork

Elimination Act and improve its performance under the Government Paperwork Reduction Act.

88

My single recommendation regarding Federal ERM is this: The

Office of Management and Budget should change exhibit 300 on

capital planning and budgeting in its annual budget directive, Circular No. A–11. The section of exhibit 300 that deals with IT systems should state that no new IT system will receive funding for

development and acquisition unless the justification for the new

system adequately explains how the system will provide for records

created by or passing through the system. NRC and the Yucca

Mountain Project are already implementing such a policy.

We can only hope that the many agencies planning today for

ERM will receive the funding and leadership they deserve. From

my research and consulting I have come to believe that ERM is the

bedrock of what is known today as enterprise content management

or what we used to call information resources management. Without ERM, enterprise content management is incomplete and hollow

at its core. Thank you for inviting me to testify. And I would be

happy to answer any questions you have.

Mr. PUTNAM. Thank you very much, Dr. Sprehe. I wish the first

panel had hung around.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sprehe follows:]

89

90

91

92

93

Mr. PUTNAM. Our next witness is Mr. Bob Nawrocki.

Mr. Nawrocki is the director of the Records and Imaging Service

Division in the Library of Virginia. Previously he was the electronic

records coordinator for the library. He is responsible for dealing

with electronic records issues facing the State of Virginia. Previously he spent 2 years as a contractor with the Air Force working

on their integrated digital environment.

His experience involves working for State and Federal Governments, as well as for several law firms and private industry. Mr.

Nawrocki is a Certified Records Manager and has a Masters in

Science in Library and Information Sciences from the Catholic University of America. He is an adjunct faculty member with Catholic

University teaching Information Systems for Libraries and Information Centers and Organization of Information.

Welcome to the subcommittee. You are recognized.

Mr. NAWROCKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will briefly be

speaking today about the Library of Virginia and what we are

doing here in Virginia dealing with electronic records.

The Library of Virginia has responsibility for the Commonwealth’s records management and archival programs. As such, we

work closely with State and local agencies to assist them with the

management of their records. Over the past 5 years, electronic

records have become a significant issue. In 2000, the Library was

able to hire their first electronic records coordinator to develop polices, guidance, and provide advice on the management of electronic

records.

The Library faces many of the same problems that NARA does,

even though they are on a much smaller scale. In the 1990’s, a

number of Virginia counties began to use scanning and electronic

storage for the recording of deeds. While this reduced the amount

space required and improved access, it did not provide the longterm stability and preservation required of such records. In fact, we

had a county that actually lost about 30 or 40 deeds when they had

a computer crash. Luckily, they were able to recover those over a

short period of time.

Changes to the Code of Virginia have made digital images legal

substitutes or replacements for original documents. The Library

wants to encourage the use of microfilm as a backup to digital images, since there are no recognized, permanent media in the digital

arena. When stored properly, microfilm can last up to 500 years.

Through a philanthropist, the Library was able to obtain a Kodak

Archive Writer to convert digital images to microfilm. We use an

encrypted Internet connection for scanned images to be sent to the

Library’s State Records Center, where they are stored on a RAID

device until data would be written to microfilm.

The microfilm was processed under a quality control and the resultant negatives were stored in our media vault. And this project

continued into the fall of 2002 when most of the staff was laid off

due to extreme budget cuts. By that time, private vendors were

able to step in using the same technology to do the same actions

at the same or lower costs.

Over the past 3 years, the Library has worked to educate State

and local agencies about electronic records and the best methods to

preserve them. Guidelines for transferring electronic records into

94

the Library are under development. Our greatest concern is that in

the short term we will lose access to these records before a reliable

method of archiving them is developed. We have found that the single most important tool for raising awareness, though, is education

through presentations and articles.

Second, we believe that the development of guidelines that provide advice and suggested tools for electronic records creators are

also useful. We also find it is important not to develop guidelines

and tools that are too narrowly drawn since the same solution is

not always applicable in all cases.

Rapid technological change results in records only a few years

old being unrecoverable because the hardware or software does not

exist. While there is significant, extensive research being done

long-term on electronic preservation, we need to remember that we

have to manage these records in the short term, so that when the

proverbial magic bullet is created, there will be older electronic

records to be preserved.

The current effort to create a Portable Document Format-Archival is an excellent example of this thinking. The use of hybrid analog/digital technologies is another. We need more collaborations

like this which utilize existing technology and software to provide

records managers, archivists and librarians with the tools needed

to manage today’s electronic records. We also need to continue to

use the tools, both analog and digital, which allow us to provide access to existing electronic records and preserve them at the same

time.

There is much work being done around the world in the field of

digital preservation and sharing of information. This is necessary

and must continue if we are to solve this intractable problem.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nawrocki follows:]

95

96

97

98

Mr. PUTNAM. At this time, I would like to turn the gavel over to

our distinguished vice chair and native of Michigan, former Secretary of State, Mrs. Miller, for the next introduction.

Mrs. MILLER [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s my

pleasure to do so, to introduce Karen Wojcik. She has worked for

the State Archives of Michigan since 1996. She is State Archives’

primary liaison with the executive branch, the legislature, the Supreme Court and our Court of Appeals. She is responsible for appraising public records for their historical value and for developing

electronic records management and preservation strategy.

Mrs. Wojcik received both her bachelor’s degree in history and

her master’s degree in information and library science from the

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. And we wonder who she roots

for on football days between the Michigan State and the University. She is a Certified Archivist. She has participated in several

grant projects funded by the National Historical Publications and

Records Commission, including the Michigan RMA Pilot Project,

the PERM Project, and she served on the advisory board for the

SDSC Archivists’ Workbench Project. She is the Chair of the National Association of Government Archives and Records Administrators, on the Committee on Electronic Records and Information

Systems, and has been nominated to serve as secretary on this

board as well, and we are certainly pleased to have her here as

well.

Ms. WOJCIK. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting

the Michigan Department of History, Arts, and Libraries to testify

at this hearing. I am honored to be speaking to you today about

the management and preservation of our government’s records,

particularly electronic records. And, of course, I especially want to

thank Congresswoman Candice Miller for inviting us to be here

today.

The Michigan Department of History, Arts, and Libraries is committed to enriching the quality of life for Michigan residents by

providing access to information, preserving and promoting Michigan heritage, and fostering cultural creativity. The Division of Archives and Records Management within the Michigan Historical

Center is responsible for ensuring that Michigan’s government

records are properly managed and preserved throughout their entire lifecycle.

Public records are essential for protecting our legal rights, for

documenting the actions of our government, and for understanding

the society in which we live, and, therefore, it cannot be sufficient

to have our history preserved by accident.

As a general rule, we estimate that less than 5 percent of all government records possess permanent historical value. Professional

archivists and records managers have worked for years to develop

systematic processes that identify which records possess historical

value and to provide for their preservation. Unfortunately, many

government agencies do not follow these procedures, and they fail

to protect the irreplaceable items in their custody.

In the traditional paper-based world, valuable records have managed to survive despite this neglect. However, electronic records

will not survive long enough to be used by future generations without active investments in their ongoing preservation and access.

99

Computer technology and electronic records create many challenges

and opportunities for the records management and archival professions. This technology is a moving target and we need long-term

solutions. Certainly, the National Archives and Records Administration has served as a leader in this field of research.

The Michigan Division of Archives and Records Management

began discussing electronic records issues more than 25 years ago.

With the advent of desktop computing, we became particularly concerned about how we could manage and preserve e-mail and word

processed documents.

The U.S. Department of Defense issued the first version of its

standard 5015.2 for Records Management Applications in 1997,

and several commercial products are on the market that comply

with this standard. We wanted to test the RMA software in State

government offices to determine if it would address the record retention problems we were trying to solve.

We decided to apply for and we received a 2-year grant beginning

May 2000 from the National Historical Publications and Records

Commission to conduct a pilot project using a DOD-certified

Records Management Application. At the time, the State Archives

was an agency within the Michigan Department of State led by

Secretary of State, now Representative, Candice Miller. The project

had three goals: One, to assess the ability of an RMA to classify

and manage electronic records and execute retention requirements,

including the identification and segregation of archival records;

two, to analyze the cultural impact that RMAs have on agency

staff, information technology personnel, records managers and archivists; and three, to conduct a business process analysis and

evaluate the potential for RMAs to be used in an enterprise-wide

setting.

Our pilot project demonstrated that RMA software works. Electronic records that are created by common desktop programs can

be organized and stored in a centralized repository that automatically implements the appropriate retention period for the records.

However, we found people will resist changing the way they file

and access their electronic records, because less than a third of our

project participants adopted the RMA software as their primary

tool for storing electronic records. The RMA features need to evolve

to make the filing and retrieval of electronic documents appear

transparent to users.

We also learned that business process improvements can be derived from using RMA software, especially when the business process change involves the transformation from a paper-based process

to an automated process. When these improvements are adopted by

the agency, RMA use and satisfaction does increase.

This project demonstrated that management support for change

is essential to the success of an RMA. Managers must establish expectations and consequences for not following established procedures for electronic recordkeeping. Encouragement by management

needs to focus on the positive benefits to the individual and the

agency. The Department of History, Arts and Libraries is continuing to support the limited use of the RMA software now that our

pilot project has ended.

100

However, RMAs are record retention tools, not preservations

tools. The electronic records that are stored in the RMA’s centralized repository remain in their native format. The RMA is not capable of ensuring that they remain accessible as underlying technology changes. Therefore, a methodology must be developed for

preserving archival electronic records and those with long-term retention requirements. This is why the NHPRC initiated a partnership between the San Diego Supercomputer Center and the State

of Michigan to address long-term and permanent preservation of

electronic records. In November 2001, we were awarded a 2-year

grant from NHPRC for what we call the PERM Project. This collaborative project is developing functional requirements for preserving electronic records that are stored in RMA repositories so

they remain accessible. These functional requirements were published in January 2003, and currently researchers in San Diego are

developing a prototype to test these functional requirements.

These and other projects are essential for ensuring that our documentary heritage remains accessible to future generations. Thank

you again for inviting me to testify before you today.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wojcik follows:]

101

102

103

104

Mrs. MILLER. We certainly appreciate your testimony today.

Our next witness is Dr. Richard Lysakowski. He is the executive

director and president of the Collaborative Electronic Notebook

Systems Association and the Global Electronic Notebook Systems

Association [GERA] as well. It is a professional standards association built on government-industry partnership with a mission to

create program, policy, and procedural and technology standards

for quality electronic records programs. Dr. Lysakowski has 25

years of experience working with automation systems in various

scientific software, engineering and project management roles in

both the public and the private sectors.

We welcome you to the subcommittee and look forward to your

testimony, sir.

Mr. LYSAKOWSKI. Thank you, Ms. Chairwoman.

A little bit of background on CENSA, the Collaborative Electronic Notebook Systems Association. Our primary mission is to

create totally electronic replacements for inventors’ notebooks and

regulatory records, record books that are used in a research development quality assurance manufacturing other enterprise business

environments. These are vital records that indicate the quality of

a project that manufacturers are shipping. And the industries we

cover include pharmaceutical, chemical, food and beverage, oil and

gas, consumer products, government and many other industries.

Replacing the inventor’s notebook has been one of the greatest

challenges because frequently in a patent interference it will come

down a single page in a single record book that makes or breaks

a multibillion dollar a year, 20-year monopoly for product revenues.

So we are talking about serious commercial impact.

Regulatory impact, if records are either fraudulent or inaccurate

to the point where product quality is poor, can frequently shut

down a facility—manufacturing facility for as long as 6 months,

losing more than $1 million per day in potential revenue. So serious consequences can result from poor quality recordkeeping.

And so for these records, making them electronic has been quite

a challenge. And we worked with NARA to find out what the best

practices are out there now and in the near future and worked

with many vendors. Our role as a market development association

is to create multiple competing products for all the necessary components that make up a complete electronic system for records creation, management, archiving, preservation, retrieval and access.

So looking at the whole life cycle of the electronic record has been

quite important for us.

And NARA’s focus has been, at least in its current funding, focusing on records management. We need it to include archives

management specifications.

So some summary points that I needed to make: We are appreciative of NARA in having funded the Global Electronic Records

Association to create the first quality electronic records practice

standards. That work is just being complete now.

But looking more globally, I would say that NARA is underfunded to face the grand challenge of electronic records for the full

lifecycle for all agencies that it serves and industry and the private

sector in general.

105

Government needs other funding sources. NARA’s budget for fiscal year 2003 is $268 million. That is less than the annual revenue

of even one of our member corporations. So one issue is that NARA

is insufficiently funded to achieve the goals for all agencies and the

private sector too.

If NARA is to help the agencies and the citizens it serves, it

should provide blueprints, mandate standards and requirements

for policies and technology systems that implement records management and archives management. Don’t forget the archives for

each agency. The DOD standard does a nice job of covering records

management but does very little on archives.

Third point is the OMB exhibit 300. I would concur with the first

witness on this panel, that two parts need to be added to that exhibit. One is on the preservation of business assets. The information assets that are created by any IT system must be demonstrated to be completely exported and reconstructible in another

system before any system is purchased. So that procurement process must specify interoperability between at least three to five systems to guarantee alternatives. So the procurement process itself

needs to change. These demonstrations of reconstruction of an archival information packet need to be shown before any money is

provided to a vendor.

The last point is subscription-based software pricing is one of the

greatest threats we have to records and information assets. This is

a new pricing model whereby you pay every 12 months for use—

continuing use of your software to access your property. Software

is a tool to create intellectual and business assets. Some vendors

are pushing subscription-based pricing instead of perpetual-rightto-use license for the software. So unless this software purchase includes purchase of the format and some type of free viewer that

goes along with it is made available, then subscription-based pricing shouldn’t be pursued by the Federal Government for any system containing important business assets.

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you. You know, I might just pick up on that

subscription-based pricing. I am just trying to understand what you

were saying there. Because it would seem to me, with all the different—just the government demand itself, that there would be a

software program that would be very viable in the marketplace, we

are talking about setting standards and that kind of thing. Are you

aware of such a thing, a governmental software for records management archiving? Mr. Sprehe had mentioned that as well.

Mr. LYSAKOWSKI. I am not aware of any software program freely

from the government.

Mrs. MILLER. Mr. Sprehe, are you aware of any software that the

government agency would utilize for standards uniformity?

Mr. SPREHE. I am not.

Mrs. MILLER. You mentioned, doctor, as well about NARA being

underfunded, and I think you mentioned the amount of what their

funding actually was in that. It would seem that it is very important that we identify in any funding request, when we talk about

dollars here, from the congressional standpoint certainly, that we

put in place in a business plan—as a plan that archiving for every

agency, that records management, all of this would be a part of a

106

business plan before appropriators would talk about funding particular projects for any agency as well.

And Mr. Sprehe used the example of Yucca Mountain. I think he

used two examples. I forget the other one that you mentioned. That

they had actually included that in their business plan.

Is that a recommendation that you would make to the Congress

that in any business plan that they should put those kinds of critical portions in there?

Mr. SPREHE. Most certainly, yes.

Mrs. MILLER. Do you have any comment, Doctor?

Mr. LYSAKOWSKI. Yes. I was advocating that you actually add at

least one new section to exhibit 300 that requires during the acquisition process that vendors—at least three to five vendors demonstrate interoperability of archival information packets before you

make any single purchase. Thereby, you set up an insurance policy

for all congressional systems.

We have successfully used a strategy in industry for specific analytical techniques, mass spectrometry in particular is a good example. Dow Chemical wanted to purchase a mass spectrometry system, an instrument and the data system that goes along with it,

$150,000 purchase, but, as a condition of the procurement, they

short-listed the top three vendors, and they said, OK, we want you

all to show us interchange of the mass spectral data sets among

all three of you before we buy from any one of you.

Well, it took 2 weeks to write the code by one programmer, 2

weeks to distribute it to the other two vendors and embed it in

their products, and the demonstration happened within 30 days.

Now, that was for $150,000 procurement.

There was a specification that already existed, but it was not a

standard and the vendors did not implement it. But if there is a

specification, it is trivial for vendors to implement it; and on the

last page of my testimony document, I state that vendors will use

the lack of a specification as an excuse for creating proprietary file

formats and buyers give up their power at the most critical moment by not demanding interoperability demonstrations.

Mrs. MILLER. I would be interested to know from the witnesses

in the middle there, Ms. Wojcik from Michigan and also Mr.

Naworocki from Virginia, do you—when you’re making your funding requests to your appropriators, to your legislature for your

work, do you put in as part of your business plan the kinds of funding that is necessary for records management and for archiving? Do

you make that a big part of your business case? Do you find that

there is enough attention being paid to what is necessary to actually archive these kinds of things?

Ms. WOJCIK. The State of Michigan does not require that record

retention be addressed in business plans. We did draft a policy

that’s published in the Department of Management and Budget’s

administrative manual that requires that record retention be identified during the procurement of new systems, but, unfortunately,

that has not been implemented. We do see that—if it was implemented systematically, it would certainly help us identify how long

records need to be retained and which ones need to be preserved.

Mr. SPREHE. If I could add to my comment, exhibit 300 of the

OMB circular does mention records but only with respect to the

107

Government Paperwork Elimination Act. The problem with that is

GPEA is a very narrow act. It only affects information collected

from the public. If you think of the Department of Defense, which

has probably tens of thousands of IT systems, DOD collects very

little information from the public, and all those other systems that

may be producing or processing records, they don’t pay any attention to records management.

Mrs. MILLER. Not to interrupt, but there I think is where you

mentioned the cultural chasm, I think is the way that you had put

it, between historians, perhaps, maybe librarians and IT, where

you have people who are historians wanting to make sure that everything is archived properly and some IT people perhaps with the

view that it happened, get over it, and not wanting to keep it.

So how you bridge those, that may be another question. I’ll let

Mr. Naworocki respond to the first one first.

Mr. NAWOROCKI. Sure. Within the State of Virginia, working

very closely with the various IT agencies in order to try to embed

records management into that, it hasn’t always been successful. I

think our biggest problem has been simply the fact that Virginia

has had a severe budget crisis over the last 2 years, and that’s

overwhelmed it. But by working very closely with IT both in local

agencies and on the statewide version in order to try to push

that—I think it’s very true there’s a cultural disconnect. People assume, because it’s electronic, it’s not a record, or they just think it’s

too much trouble.

I think that possibly one of the areas that we need to work in

is not to work on very specific projects but rather to take a look

at how we can leverage the power of the States and the Government—the Federal Government in order to talk to some of the software manufacturers about embedding it.

I’m just thinking, well if we can convince Bill Gates it was worth

a few bucks to him to embed records management and to award

every other product he developed, we wouldn’t have a problem—or

archival, actually. That’s literally when it comes down to. Whenever you have to graft something on, it becomes a kludge and just

doesn’t work. It needs to be embedded in the original activity in

order to make it function, really.

Mrs. MILLER. Do you have any comments on how we might

bridge that cultural chasm there with—how can the Federal Government assist in that kind of a thing in setting out standards? As

you mentioned, it should be embedded in the original technology.

Is there something that we can do to bridge that?

Mr. NAWOROCKI. You’re the 800 pound gorilla. Whatever you

guys decide, they are going to follow.

Once again, the most important thing is that the Federal Government has to demonstrate a concern. They have to demonstrate

a commitment to that, and then that flows from that. I think it

also needs to be remembered that, really, it should not be just

strictly what the Federal Government does, because what may

work for you may not work for us, but rather if you look at it as

a collaboration among private industry, the States, local governments and the Federal Government, I think certainly, as you continue your work in this project, you should take a look at what is

being done in those other areas in order to determine what is the

108

best practice. Very simply, just because it’s been done in NARA for

the last 50 years doesn’t always mean it’s probably the best thing

to be done.

Ms. WOJCIK. You know, this is a technology problem, and it’s

going to need some type of technology solution, and the people who

create that technology are part of that solution. Having tools is just

one part, but there’s also that cultural issue, and I think we need

to see more accountability from the top down, where, you know, administrators, managers are accepting that responsibility, acknowledging it, are fully aware of the consequences of not taking responsibility for both records management and records preservation.

Working form the bottom up isn’t going to solve anything.

Mrs. MILLER. Working from the top down and setting that kind

of standard I think is very important.

I just mention a personal example that I have within my own office, but I’d like to address this question to the State librarian. Are

you familiar with—libraries I think with the advent of the Internet

and all this electronic, people thought, well, geez, no one will read

books anymore, that libraries would lose their value, that they

would go by the wayside. But in fact I think libraries have been

very much on the leading edge of using electronics and reaching

out to the community and in so many different ways.

Are you familiar with the digital library research that’s being

conducted by the Library of Congress? And, if so, how does the Library of Congress—I’m sure you have your national association—

how does that filter through the libraries as far as, again, a mix

of cooperation between the libraries and the historians?

Mr. NAWOROCKI. I’m not the State librarian. I work in the

records, but I understand the library process. I think what happens

also is there’s a number of different government agencies for different ways, and the Library of Virginia just as the national—the

Library of Congress, we also have our own digital library project,

and that is a very important part because we have very unique

items, and through the Internet, through digitization, we’re able to

spread that information, make it available. So that someone who

is doing genealogical research in their jammies in Australia—they

don’t have to make that trip.

I think it’s very important that both the archival and the records

management world also understand what is being done in the digital library arena, because they’re doing some very important work

on access and how to obtain access and indexed material that often

we don’t think about on our side. I think sometimes I really would

love to just take all the research that is being done, throw it in a

blender and hope that the answers come out, but I think oftentimes

we stovepipe but not always talk to each other, and we need to do

more talking.

But, yes, it’s filtering down. I think many State libraries, local

libraries are working on digital projects and, you know, preserving

and making accessible information that otherwise would be totally

inaccessible, except for those few folks who could make it to the library.

Mrs. MILLER. Well, as we’re getting into the lunch hour, this will

be my final question for the panel. You were all here for the first

panel, and I think we are just trying to get to the crux of the probVerDate 11-MAY-2000 10:20 May 10, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\93006.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
109

lem here of trying to determine what kinds of records really need

to be archived and what is the best practices. I remember in specific Ms. Koontz from the first panel had made a comment I think

about Mr. Sprehe, that you had developed some preliminary models

for recognizing the best methods for records management. Perhaps

you could elaborate a little bit on that, if you would, sir.

Mr. SPREHE. Thank you. I put a little bit of that into my testimony.

One of the things that I learned and that I guess the team

learned in this study of transitioning from physical to electronic

records management—and we have applied the metaphor of a capability maturity model but only as a metaphor. The strategic advantage was that it speaks to the IT community. They know what

that is. My view is that we have placed stress to a great degree

on the bad things that will happen to you if you do poor records

management and that the costs and risk—and that has limited appeal to top leadership in any enterprise, including Federal agencies.

What we discovered is—and which I tried to present with the

concept of leveraging the records management investment is that

if you do good records management, very good things happen to

you beyond records management. It helps you do other business

functions far better, more efficiently and effectively. That grabs the

attention of top leadership.

In a recent presentation commending the ADAMS system at the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the recipient from NRC said, you

know, it took us a long time to get our electronic records management system into the shape it is in today. Now what’s happening

is that, as other systems are developed in our agency, those IT

managers are saying, and we want a system just like ADAMS, because they understand that if you can grab instantaneously yesterday’s records and all the way back electronically, it’s an enormous

asset that they should build into their application.

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you.

Well, I certainly want to thank you all for attending today. It has

been fascinating. It really is quite a fascinating subject that we all

struggle with, with our changing world and changing technology

and how we best utilize it for everyone.

Is there anything that any one of you four would like to add for

the record that we didn’t ask you or questions or input that you

would like to put in as part of the record?

Mr. NAWOROCKI. If I might just briefly to touch on two points.

One is accountability. And I think working with the GAO and within the State of Virginia we’re looking to work with our accounting

agency in order to develop that accountability. But, also, we need

to understand that everyone will have to become their own records

manager, and it’s going to require a lot of training and a lot of understanding on behalf of folks to do that, and I think it’s a long

road ahead, but it really is going to require a great deal of education as well as the technological capabilities.

Thank you.

Mrs. MILLER. Thank you all so very, very much for coming.

110

The record will be held open for 2 weeks for submission of additional testimony or questions, and we’ll be happy to have those

given to the subcommittee as well.

At this time, the hearing will be adjourned. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

Æ