U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

64–925 PDF 2011

GOVERNMENT 2.0, PART I: FEDERAL AGENCY USE

OF WEB 2.0 TECHNOLOGIES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INFORMATION POLICY,

CENSUS, AND NATIONAL ARCHIVES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 22, 2010

Serial No. 111–113

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

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov

http://www.oversight.house.gov

(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York, Chairman

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

PETER WELCH, Vermont

BILL FOSTER, Illinois

JACKIE SPEIER, California

STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio

JUDY CHU, California

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

DAN BURTON, Indiana

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

RON STROMAN, Staff Director

MICHAEL MCCARTHY, Deputy Staff Director

CARLA HULTBERG, Chief Clerk

LARRY BRADY, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INFORMATION POLICY, CENSUS, AND NATIONAL ARCHIVES

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri, Chairman

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas

JUDY CHU, California

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah

DARRYL PIGGEE, Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on July 22, 2010 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of:

Ferriero, David S., Archivist of the United States, U.S. National Archives

and Records Administration; Dr. David L. McClure, Associate Administrator, Office of Citizen Services and Innovative Technologies, U.S.

General Services Administration; Gregory C. Wilshusen, Director, Information Security Issues, U.S. General Accountability Office; and John

M. Simpson, stem cell project director, Consumer Watchdog ................... 10

Ferriero, David S. ...................................................................................... 10

McClure, Dr. David L. ............................................................................... 18

Simpson, John M. ...................................................................................... 61

Wilshusen, Gregory C. .............................................................................. 42

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

Clay, Hon. Wm. Lacy, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Missouri, prepared statement of .................................................................. 4

Ferriero, David S., Archivist of the United States, U.S. National Archives

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

McClure, Dr. David L., Associate Administrator, Office of Citizen Services

and Innovative Technologies, U.S. General Services Administration,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 20

Simpson, John M., stem cell project director, Consumer Watchdog, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 63

Wilshusen, Gregory C., Director, Information Security Issues, U.S. General Accountability Office, prepared statement of ...................................... 44

(1)

GOVERNMENT 2.0, PART I: FEDERAL AGENCY

USE OF WEB 2.0 TECHNOLOGIES

THURSDAY, JULY 22, 2010

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INFORMATION POLICY, CENSUS, AND

NATIONAL ARCHIVES,

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:25 p.m., in room

2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Clay, Maloney, Norton, Davis,

Driehaus, Cuellar, Chu, McHenry, Westmoreland, Mica, and

Chaffetz.

Staff present: Darryl Piggee, staff director/counsel; Yvette

Cravins, counsel; Frank Davis and Anthony Clark, professional

staff members; Charisma Williams, staff assistant; Ron Stroman,

staff director—full committee; and Michael McCarthy, deputy staff

director—full committee.

Mr. CLAY. Good afternoon. The Information Policy, Census, and

National Archives Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government

Reform Committee will now come to order.

Without objection, the chair and ranking minority member will

have 5 minutes to make opening statements not to exceed 3 minutes by any other Member who seeks recognition. And without objection, Members and witnesses may have 5 legislative days to submit a written statement or extraneous materials for the record.

Welcome to today’s hearing: A review of agency use under the

Federal Records Act of Web 2.0 technologies.

As a result of today’s hearing, we will have an understanding of

what is meant by Web 2.0 in the Federal Government, recognize

the Federal records management implications of these technologies,

and appreciate what areas of Web 2.0 may merit further examination by the committee.

To that end, we have invited three government witnesses who

are experts in these fields, including the Archivist of the United

States. It is good to see you again Archivist Ferriero.

Web 2.0 technologies make possible interactive collaboration and

enhanced information sharing, allowing large groups of users to

participate in content creation.

Federal agencies have embraced Web 2.0 for both external and

internal applications to promote transparency, collaboration and

participation.

2

Agencies must continue to manage content created via Web 2.0

applications under the Federal Records Act and in compliance with

the National Archives and Records Administration guidance, which

is why I have invited the Archivist to testify today.

The GSA is leading executive branch efforts to identify and develop Web 2.0 platforms for agencies to use. Therefore, we will hear

today from the Associate Administrator of GSA’s Office of Citizen

Services and Innovative Technologies.

Several months ago, I requested the GAO review the management and protection of information collected and maintained by

commercial providers of Federal social media services. While they

have only just begun that engagement, I have invited GAO’s Director of Information Security Issues here today.

It is my hope that during today’s hearing, Part I in a series of

hearings on Web 2.0, we can remain focused on the subject at hand

and not become distracted by issues outside of the scope of this

hearing and even outside of the jurisdiction of this subcommittee.

There have been media reports that this hearing will be used for

a showdown with the administration over issues unrelated to the

Federal records implications of Web 2.0, indeed unrelated to Web

2.0 completely. If true, this is troubling. A congressional oversight

hearing should be where important issues are thoroughly examined

and not a showdown.

Also, rule XV of the Committee on Oversight and Government

Reform expressly requires that all questions put to witnesses before the committee shall be relevant to the subject matter before

the committee for consideration. I am going to make sure that we

use this committee’s valuable time and resources appropriately.

This Congress has been very active in oversight of Federal as

well as Presidential records. I am an original cosponsor of the first

bill passed by the House in this session, H.R. 35, the Presidential

Records Act Amendments of 2009. Not every member of the subcommittee voted for this important bill, and I continue to hope that

the Senate will move forward and pass this legislation.

If there is specific credible evidence that any Federal agency is

not properly managing Federal records, we will examine that, and

I am always open to suggestions from all members of this committee for relevant topics for future hearings. But it is more important

to talk about the subject at hand, an issue that affects all agencies

in broad and diverse ways, than to spend valuable subcommittee

time making political points on a very different issue.

In any case, this hearing is about Web 2.0, and particularly the

Federal records implications of these technologies, and I hope that

everyone understands that and will confine their questions to the

subject matter of this committee.

As a final point, I want to clear up some confusion about today’s

hearing. There is continuing controversy about an old story; that

is, whether an administration official used his personal e-mail account in violation of the Presidential Records Act. First, the official,

Mr. McLaughlin, is employed by the White House Office of Science

and Technology Policy. While this is an entity in the Executive Office of the President, that office is not subject to the Presidential

Records Act. The Office of Science and Technology Policy is subject

to the Federal Records Act.

3

In addition, his incidental use of a personal e-mail account for

government business is not in and of itself a violation of the Federal Records Act, which governs his records. The individual simply

needs to make sure that the record gets into the proper recordkeeping system. And that is what happened. In fact, the issue that

the White House examined, dealt with, and closed was not about

any records statute, it was about incidental contact with the official’s former employer, prohibited not by law but by an ethics

pledge. The White House dealt with the matter, and it is now

closed. And now we shall move forward to the subject of today’s

hearing.

I now yield to my colleague, the subcommittee ranking minority

member, Mr. McHenry of North Carolina. And you are recognized

for 5 minutes.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay follows:]

4

5

Dr. MCHENRY. Mr. Chairman, before I make an opening statement I would like to record some of my concerns about this hearing. There was a hearing—this hearing was originally scheduled

for June 24th. And among the witnesses that were invited to the

June 24th hearing was Ms. Beth Simone Noveck, the Deputy Chief

Technology Officer for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. So the fact that the chairman is saying that it is not,

that we don’t have oversight over that, it is perplexing to me that

he had this very witness on the previous hearing canceled.

So in advance of the originally scheduled hearing Ranking Member Issa spoke publicly of his intention to question Ms. Noveck

about the use of personal e-mail to conduct official business in the

Office of Science and Technology.

Ms. Noveck chairs an office with Andrew McLaughlin, a former

Google lobbyist the chairman references in his opening statement,

turned administration official who used his personal e-mail account

to communicate with more than 25 Google employees, including influential lobbyists and lawyers.

Now, Mr. McLaughlin also used his G-mail address, his Web

mail address, to communicate with senior members of the Obama

administration. This use of personal e-mail violates the President’s

ethics pledge and Federal law. And I do think those two together,

separately and together, are very important things: Federal ethics

pledge from the President as well as Federal law. And yet the

White House refuses to answer questions from Republican members of this committee about how the problem is fixed.

Interestingly enough, this witness was dropped before today’s

hearing in anticipation of this line of questioning. Within days of

Ranking Member Issa’s public statements about his intentions to

question Ms. Noveck about this incident the hearing was canceled.

Today we are holding this hearing without a White House witness.

Without being able to ask questions to a White House witness, our

Members are being deprived of answers about a very disturbing

trend in the administration.

On top of Mr. McLaughlin’s use of his personal e-mail to circumvent the Presidential Records Act and even the Federal

Records Act, the New York Times reported on June 24th that

White House staffers regularly meet with lobbyists at a Caribou

Coffee across the street from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Because

this discussion—because the discussions are not taking place at the

White House they are not subject to disclosure on the visitors log

that the White House releases as part of its pledge to be, ‘‘the most

transparent Presidential administration in history.’’

It is important for this committee’s purposes that we are provided the opportunity to question relevant witnesses and to conduct

proper oversight on our concerns related to the extraordinary

lengths that White House staffers are going to avoid having their

communications captured by the Presidential Records Act and the

Federal Records Act. Not having a White House witness present to

testify at this hearing undermines the purposes of this hearing and

prevents us from doing our job of conducting oversight of this issue.

So under House rule XI, clause 2(K) sets forth hearing procedures to be followed by the House committees and subcommittees.

Clause 2(K)(s) of House rule XI states that, ‘‘the Chair shall receive

6

and the subcommittee shall dispose of a request to subpoena additional witnesses.’’

Pursuant to that rule, Mr. Chairman, I move the committee authorize and issue a subpoena to compel the testimony of Ms. Beth

Simone Noveck or another White House official with the Office of

Science and Technology Policy qualified to testify on her behalf.

Mr. Chairman, there is a motion.

Mr. CLAY. We will address the motion at another time.

Dr. MCHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, ask for

a recorded vote on this motion.

Mr. CLAY. We will.

Dr. MCHENRY. At this time.

Mr. CLAY. At this time? Well, we will recess. The committee

stands in recess.

[Recess.]

Mr. CLAY. The committee will reconvene. And I will let the ranking member restate the motion.

Dr. MCHENRY. Sure. House rule XI, clause 2(K) sets forth hearing procedures to be followed by the House committees and subcommittees. Clause 2(K)(6) of House rule XI states, ‘‘the Chair

shall receive and the committee shall dispose of a request by subpoena to subpoena additional witnesses.’’

Pursuant to that rule I move that the committee authorize and

issue a subpoena to compel the testimony of Ms. Beth Simone

Noveck or another White House official with Office of Science and

Technology Policy qualified to testify on her behalf.

Mr. CLAY. The members of the committee have heard the motion.

Dr. MCHENRY. And with that, I would ask for a recorded vote.

Mr. CLAY. And a recorded vote has been requested. Will the

Clerk call the roll.

The CLERK. Mr. Clay.

Mr. CLAY. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Clay votes no.

Mrs. Maloney.

Mrs. MALONEY. No.

The CLERK. Mrs. Maloney votes no.

Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. No.

The CLERK. Ms. Norton votes no.

Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Davis votes no.

Mr. Driehaus.

Mr. DRIEHAUS. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Driehaus votes no.

Mr. Cuellar.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Ms. Chu.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. McHenry.

Dr. MCHENRY. Yes.

The CLERK. Mr. McHenry votes aye.

Mr. Westmoreland.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Aye.

7

The CLERK. Mr. Westmoreland votes aye.

Mr. Mica.

Mr. MICA. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Mica votes aye.

Mr. Chaffetz.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Chaffetz votes aye.

Mr. CLAY. The clerk will report.

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, the noes are five, the ayes are four.

The noes have it.

Mr. CLAY. The motion is defeated.

Dr. MCHENRY. Mr. Chairman, with that, because this is obviously a hearing that doesn’t get to the essence of this question, and

seeing as it is apparent that the majority in the Congress is very

intent on protecting the White House from these questions, I move

that we adjourn.

Mr. CLAY. The motion to adjourn is before the committee. The

Clerk will call the roll.

The CLERK. Mr. Clay.

Mr. CLAY. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Clay votes no.

Mrs. Maloney.

Mrs. MALONEY. No.

The CLERK. Mrs. Maloney votes no.

Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. No.

The CLERK. Ms. Norton votes no.

Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Davis votes no.

Mr. Driehaus.

Mr. DRIEHAUS. No.

The CLERK. Mr. Driehaus votes no.

Mr. Cuellar.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Ms. Chu.

[No response.]

The CLERK. Mr. McHenry.

Dr. MCHENRY. Yes.

The CLERK. Mr. McHenry votes aye.

Mr. Westmoreland.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Westmoreland votes aye.

Mr. Mica.

Mr. MICA. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Mica votes aye.

Mr. Chaffetz.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Aye.

The CLERK. Mr. Chaffetz votes aye.

Mr. Clay, the noes are five, the ayes are four.

Mr. CLAY. By a vote of 4 to 5 the motion is defeated.

Dr. MCHENRY. Well, Mr. Chairman, after stating the obvious,

that you have the majority and you want to proceed with this hearing, I just ask why it is that you chose to not invite Ms. Noveck

8

when she was previously on the last hearing. It was exactly the

same. The only difference was Issa’s statement he was going to ask

about——

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, this matter has been settled by a

vote. The Member continues to support a matter that has been settled by a vote, majority vote of the committee. He is out of order.

Dr. MCHENRY. Mr. Chairman. Question to the chair.

Mr. CLAY. The gentlewoman is correct and we will proceed with

the hearing.

Dr. MCHENRY. So the gentleman will not ask the question?

Mr. CLAY. I will not answer the question.

Dr. MCHENRY. Then I demand my opening statement as the

ranking member. I made a motion, which was my initial statement,

that was my motion, and I demand my opening statement.

Mr. CLAY. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

Dr. MCHENRY. Thank you. This could be a very open hearing

about the important part of the new technology that the Nation is

experiencing and certainly this White House and the government

is experiencing as well. With the original hearing that we were

going to have on the 24th, it was clear that we were going to have

that discussion. And with new technology, the White House is not

immune to this. The Bush White House used the same outlines of

rules that the Clinton administration developed on retaining email. He was entitled to a government e-mail address, he was entitled to have a political or outside e-mail address, the limitations on

that. And it is apparent with all sorts of news that we are reading

about this White House is that they are using technology that was

not available during the Clinton era, was not even available when

the Bush administration set forward their rules and regs on who

is entitled to e-mail access that is not official and governmental

and therefore subject to recordkeeping.

So I think it is important that we have this discussion with the

White House. It is apparent that the majority in this Congress does

not want to ask even a White House witness to be a part of it. In

fact, they are trying to protect one White House witness from even

answering questions about their recordkeeping, even though we

have seen in press reports that they are clearly doing things that

are not in keeping with Presidential records and Federal records

laws before you even mention the President’s ethics pledge.

And it is a shame that it had to come to this, that we have to

have a vote on it, but it is the intent of the chairman and the subcommittee members to do this. And so I beg your apology, the

crowd here, the witnesses, our panel here, but unfortunately this

could have been a much better hearing with a much better exchange rather than having to vote on subpoenaing a White House

witness because the chairman didn’t invite that person to this

hearing. And that is before you even talk about a violation of the

rules that the majority displayed when you talk about the discussion of what is permissible.

I was in a hearing with the Archivist in a similar panel a couple

weeks ago and the chairman refused to let me ask a question that

he didn’t deem in keeping with the subject matter of the day. Well,

the subject matter of the day is deemed by a majority memo. And

under House rules you have to get a memo 3 days in advance. We

9

got our memo at 5 p.m. yesterday. So if my questions aren’t in

keeping with what you deem correct I am going to ask you to have

a vote to disallow my questioning if I can’t determine and my staff

can’t determine and the minority staff can’t determine what questions to ask when you won’t even tell us what the hearing is about.

And this is very frustrating. And so that is the reason why we had

to have these votes today. Because we can have a substantive hearing about important issues when we are talking about Presidential

records.

Every President does the same thing. They want to make sure

that they have two lines of communication, one that is subject to

the history books and the other that is not. And every President

has done this. Every President. It is not a Democrat thing, it is not

a Republican thing. And we have to make sure that we use the

power of oversight to make sure they adhere to those rules and regulations. And we have outside groups that are very interested in

this as well, some that are not traditionally conservative, some that

are liberal and some that are all across the board.

So I think it is important that we have that oversight authority

to make sure that we are getting an administration adhering to

their ethics pledge and the laws of this land.

Mr. Chaffetz, would you like the remainder of my time? And with

that, I would be happy to yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CLAY. The gentleman yields back. Are there any other opening statements? If not, for the record, this is a hearing on the Federal Records Act and not the Presidential Records Act. With that,

if there are no additional statements, the subcommittee will now

receive testimony from the witnesses before us today.

I would like to introduce our panel. Our first witness will be the

Archivist of the United States, David Ferriero. Mr. Ferriero has led

the National Archives Census Confirmation last November. He previously served as the Andrew W. Mellon Director of the New York

Public Libraries, the largest system in the United States. Mr.

Ferriero earned Bachelor’s and Master’s Degrees in English literature from Northeastern University in Boston and a Master’s Degree from Simmons College of Library Information Science also in

Boston.

After the Archivist we will hear from Dr. David McClure, the Associate Administrator of the Office of Citizen Services and Innovative Technologies in the GSA. Dr. McClure received his Bachelor’s

and Master’s Degrees from the University of Texas and a Doctorate

in Public Policy from the University of North Texas.

Our third witness will be Mr. Gregory Wilshusen, Director of Information Security Issues at the Government Accountability Office.

He is a certified public accountant, certified internal auditor, and

certified information systems auditor. Mr. Wilshusen holds a BS

Degree from the University of Missouri and an MS Degree from

George Washington University.

The final witness will be Mr. John Simpson. He is a Stem Cell

Project Director for Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit, nonpartisan

organization that advocates for taxpayers and consumer interests.

Mr. Simpson holds a Bachelor’s Degree from the State University

of New York in Binghamton and a Master’s Degree from the University of Southern California.

10

I thank all of our witnesses for appearing today and look forward

to their testimony. It is the policy of this committee to swear in all

witnesses. I would like to ask you to stand and raise your right

hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. CLAY. Thank you. You may be seated. Let the record reflect

the witnesses answered in the affirmative. We will begin under the

5-minute rule with Mr. Ferriero. Please, you may begin.

STATEMENTS OF DAVID S. FERRIERO, ARCHIVIST OF THE

UNITED STATES, U.S. NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS

ADMINISTRATION; DR. DAVID L. McCLURE, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF CITIZEN SERVICES AND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES, U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; GREGORY C. WILSHUSEN, DIRECTOR, INFORMATION SECURITY ISSUES, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTABILITY

OFFICE; AND JOHN M. SIMPSON, STEM CELL PROJECT DIRECTOR, CONSUMER WATCHDOG

STATEMENT OF DAVID S. FERRIERO

Mr. FERRIERO. Chairman Clay, Ranking Member McHenry, and

members of the subcommittee, thanks for the opportunity to testify

today. This hearing is exploring the use of Web 2.0 technologies by

Federal agencies. I am here to state that the content created within

these applications in many cases should be treated as official Federal records.

In my written testimony, I describe the guidance NARA has

issued and is continuing to issue to agencies about how to identify

and manage content created using Web 2.0 technologies. Additionally, I have outlined the Web 2.0 initiatives that we have undertaken at NARA to promote transparency, collaboration, and participation and the steps we are taking to manage our own records

from these Web 2.0 projects.

NARA has long recognized the content created by Federal agencies and placed on their Web sites is in many cases a Federal

record and must be managed as such. Over the past several years

NARA has issued an updated guidance for Federal agencies to

manage Web records. The underlying principle in our guidance is

that record content produced or published by agencies on the Web

must continue to be managed in compliance with NARA’s records

management guidance. The fact that agencies have increased their

involvement of the Web 2.0 platforms does nothing to change that

fundamental principle.

However, NARA does realize that Web 2.0 platforms raise additional records management questions. As a means of exploring

these potential records management questions, we undertook a detailed evaluation involving dozens of discussions with agencies of

the evolving nature of both the Web and Federal agencies’ use of

emerging Web 2.0 capabilities. NARA’s subsequent Web 2.0 guidance and activities build on the research foundation established in

this evaluation.

The interactive nature of Web 2.0 platforms present a number of

new factors for agencies to consider. For instance, agencies need to

determine if the interactive nature of the content creation, such as

11

comments left on an agency blog, need to be documented as part

of the record. They also need to determine if the frequent update

of the content requires additional strategies to capture the records.

These determinations will impact how agencies properly manage

and schedule their records of their Web 2.0 interactions.

NARA will soon issue a bulletin that will provide additional guidance and information to agencies about Web 2.0 and social media

platforms and how agency use of them may impact records management procedures.

We are also conducting a study of Federal agencies that are actively using Web 2.0 technologies in order to gain a greater understanding of what records are being created and their potential

value, both to agencies and NARA. Both the bulletin and study will

be completed and made available this fall.

As the subcommittee knows, the core of NARA’s mission is public

access to information. Web 2.0 tools are allowing us to fulfill that

mission in exciting new ways that are already improving external

and internal communication and collaboration. NARA is currently

using new media tools to support more than 60 live projects. Some

examples are in my written testimony, including my own blog,

where I regularly report on a variety of issues.

Finally, as an agency that not only archives Federal records but

creates them, I would like to touch on what we are doing to manage our own records created with social media tools.

‘‘Rules of Behavior for Using Web 2.0 and Social Media Web

Sites and Responsibilities for Content Management,’’ is the title of

our internal guidance. Under this guidance staff responsible for a

Web 2.0 project are directed to assess the record value at the proposal stage to determine if the social media activities will create or

maintain Federal records. NARA’s records management staff assist

in making this determination.

To support this guidance, the manager of a Web 2.0 proposal is

directed to answer two records questions: Will the proposed social

media be used to create or maintain data or information meeting

the statutory definition of a Federal record, and if yes, how will the

records, drafts and other products from this project be captured

and managed during their entire retention period?

The records portion of the guidance explains the records created

and maintained in social media may be covered in the NARA

record schedule and/or the general record schedule and should be

managed in accordance with approved dispositions. The biggest

challenge in establishing this guidance or determining the boundary of social media records, for example, is the record the whole

site or just a portion? And determining the best ways to capture

the record content in a format that maintains the content context

and structure and is sustainable over the long term.

What we are learning in regard to managing our NARA Web 2.0

records will be shared as best practices on NARA’s opening government Web site. Web 2.0 offers opportunities unimaginable a decade

ago, and I am personally excited that NARA is taking advantage

of its capabilities to increase awareness and provide better access

to our holdings while at the same time working with agencies to

ensure that new types of historic records are preserved for future

generations.

12

Thanks again for the opportunity to testify and I look forward to

answering your questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ferriero follows:]

13

14

15

16

17

18

Ms. NORTON [presiding]. Thank you very much, Mr. Ferriero.

Dr. McClure.

STATEMENT OF DAVID L. McCLURE

Dr. MCCLURE. Thank you, Ms. Norton, and welcome to members

of the subcommittee.

Ms. NORTON. Let me just say that the chairman, real chairman,

will be back shortly.

Dr. MCCLURE. Thanks. It is a pleasure to be here to testify before you on the use of Web 2.0 tools in the government and how

GSA is helping to enable this transformation. My written statement is full of examples of how social media and Web 2.0 technologies are being used in the Federal Government. But today I

just want to make three primary points to the subcommittee.

First, I want to emphasize that the use of Web 2.0 tools is essential for responding to shifting citizen expectations of government.

Web-based social networks play an increasingly central role in the

lives of citizens. For instance, YouTube has become the second largest search engine in the world. Over 300 billion pieces of content

are shared on Facebook each year. MySpace, YouTube, Facebook

host 250 million visitors, 80 percent of the U.S. population each

month. And these statistics I think just provide a glimpse into how

Web 2.0 is altering how citizens both produce and consume information.

Increasingly citizens are expected to find the information they

want and need through Web-based social networks. They use more

and more of them every day. They expect government not only to

deliver services through multiple channels, but to engage with

them on how these services are working and can be improved.

Connecting citizens and government is not new to GSA, and our

Administrator Martha Johnson has placed open government at the

center of our mission agenda. In response, we have delivered an

apps dot-gov storefront to help connect agencies with social media

tools meeting Federal friendly terms of service. We are creating a

challenge dot-gov Web site, a governmentwide challenge and contest platform to open up innovation and problem solving. And

through our Web manager university we have supported and

trained over 18,000 agency customers in areas like plain language

and user center design for Web content.

So GSA is delivering significant Web 2.0 efficiencies by establishing tools for governmentwide use, sharing agency policies and

building communities that extend across the government.

My second point is that Web 2.0 is a mission enabler for government. It is easy to think of Web 2.0 as a novelty or something that

occurs along the real business of government. However, government’s use of social media is extraordinary and it is very diverse.

Its use should be aligned directly with the efficiency, effectiveness,

and quality of core government functions and programs. I’ve highlighted several examples in my written statement for you, such as

the Library of Congress, the U.S. Geological Survey, the State Department, and TSA’s IdeaFactory, just to give you an example of

many of the innovative uses of Web 2.0 technologies.

19

These efforts show that Web 2.0 isn’t fundamentally about technology itself, but it is how technology is enabling people to come

together in new ways and achieve dramatic results.

Point No. 3, successful engagement with citizens must be built

on a foundation of transparent government. The open government

directive contains specific direction for making government more

open to citizens and enabling them to hold us accountable. New

data releases in areas such as Medicare diagnostic procedures and

charges, educational system revenues, and standardized scoring

outcomes, social security adjudication processing have virtually unlocked unprecedented transparency and accountability for the citizens of this country.

Using Web 2.0 technologies GSA is supporting two key initiatives; data dot-gov, a central portal for citizens to discover,

download and access over 270,000 government data sets, and U.S.

spending dot-gov, which let’s the public visualize how their tax dollars are being spent. We have also redesigned the government’s

main citizen Internet portal, USA.gov and gobierno.gov with mobile

applications to expand the real-time service delivery of information

services to the public.

In closing, I hope we have shed some light in the statement on

Federal agency adoption of Web 2.0 and GSA’s work in encouraging

it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to answering

questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. McClure follows:]

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Dr. McClure.

Mr. Wilshusen.

STATEMENT OF GREGORY C. WILSHUSEN

Mr. WILSHUSEN. Thank you very much. Thank you for the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing on Federal use of Web 2.0 technologies. These technologies refer to a second generation of the

World Wide Web as enabling a platform for Web-based communities of interest, collaboration and interactive services. Internetbased services using these technologies include blogs, social networking sites, video Web sites and wikis. These tools provide flexible, sophisticated capabilities for interactions among individuals.

Among the general public these services have become quite popular

and Federal agencies are increasingly using them as well.

At Chairman Clay’s request, we are initiating a review of agency

procedures for managing and protecting information associated

with the Federal use of social media services such as Facebook,

Twitter, and YouTube. Our work is just beginning in this area, and

we plan to work closely with the subcommittee staff as our review

progresses. Today, however, I will discuss the ways Federal agencies are using Web 2.0 technologies and the challenges associated

with their use.

But first, if I may, I would just like to recognize the contributions

of three members of my team who helped prepare this statement

and will be leading this review. John de Ferrari, Marisol Cruz and

Nick Marinos sitting behind them.

Most Federal agencies are using Web 2.0 technologies to enhance

interactions with the public. We have determined that 22 of the 24

major Federal agencies have a presence on Facebook, Twitter, and

YouTube. Federal Web managers use these applications to connect

with people in new ways.

For example, the U.S. Agency for International Development

uses Facebook to inform the public about the developmental and

humanitarian assistance that it provides to different countries. It

also posts links to other USA resources, including blogs, videos and

relevant news articles.

NASA uses Twitter to notify the public about the status of its

missions, as well as to respond to questions regarding space exploration.

And the State Department uses YouTube and other video technologies in support of its public diplomacy efforts.

While the use of Web 2.0 technologies can transform how Federal

agencies engage the public in the governing process, agency use of

such technologies can also present challenges related to privacy, security, and records management. One such challenge is determining requirements for preserving Web 2.0 information as Federal

records.

A key question is whether information exchange through these

technologies constitutes Federal records pursuant to the Federal

Records Act. Another challenge is establishing mechanisms for preserving this information as Federal records once the need to preserve information has been established.

A third challenge is ensuring that agencies take appropriate

steps to limit the collection and use of personal information

43

through social media. Federal agencies have taken steps to identify

and start addressing these and other Web 2.0 technology issues.

For example, NARA has provided updated guidance on managing

Web-based records and is conducting a study on the impact of more

recent Web technologies and plans to release additional guidance

later this year. GSA has negotiated terms of service agreements

with several social networking providers that addresses concerns

agencies have with the terms and conditions generally provided by

those providers. And OMB has recently issued guidance intended

to help agencies protect privacy when using third-party Web sites

and applications.

In summary, Federal agencies are increasingly using Web 2.0

technologies to enhance services and interactions with the public.

However, determining the appropriate use of these technologies

poses new questions about the ability of agencies to protect the privacy and security sensitive information and to manage, preserve

and make available official government records.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy

to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilshusen follows:]

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

Mr. CLAY [presiding]. I thank the witness for his testimony.

Mr. Simpson, you’re recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF JOHN M. SIMPSON

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Clay, Ranking Member McHenry, and members of the committee. Thank you

for this opportunity to orally introduce my written remarks into the

record. I am John M. Simpson, a consumer advocate with Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit, nonpartisan public interest group

founded in 1985. I am the director of our Google Privacy and Accountability Project.

Frankly, I wish this were a hearing into Google’s recent Wi-spying activities where they snooped on home lifeline networks around

the world. We have called for congressional hearings into the scandal, and I respectfully repeat that request today. I believe that the

House Energy and Commerce Committee were the primary jurisdiction, but I think a very strong case can be made that your committee have appropriate oversight.

But we are here today to talk about Web 2.0, and that is what

I am testifying about, Web 2.0 technologies or services like

Google’s, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, blogs and the like. I briefly

would like to make three points.

First, as I saw personally when I took vacation time to campaign

for Barack Obama in Missouri, Web 2.0 tools are powerful indeed.

It is no surprise that they have been adopted by Federal agencies.

They certainly improve government transparency, responsiveness

and citizen involvement. I think they are particularly attractive to

young people. All this is to the good.

Second, on the downside, many of these technologies raise substantial concerns about and challenges to consumer’s privacy.

Given the appalling track record of Facebook and Google in this

area, and one only needs to think of Wi-Spy and the launch of

Google Buzz or Facebook’s unilateral revision of privacy policies to

understand that these companies do not have consumer privacy

high on their list of priorities.

Third, and this brings us to the crux of the dilemma where the

Federal agencies are involved, Federal agency use of Web 2.0 techniques implies a government endorsement of many of these companies. Because this may lull consumers into trusting such sites far

more than they should, it is even more imperative that Congress

enact robust on-line privacy laws to protect privacy and other

rights. And I am delighted to note that there’s another hearing before another committee right now discussing stronger privacy legislation. That is a very good thing.

In conclusion, Web 2.0 techniques offer government agencies

powerful and valuable tools. They should be used carefully, however, without unduly favoring a particular provider, and there

must be explicit warnings when a consumer leaves an official government site to go to one of the third-party sites.

62

Most importantly, however, Congress must enact meaningful privacy legislation to safeguard consumers as they use these on-line

services that have become known as Web 2.0.

I look forward to answering any of your questions. Thank you

very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Simpson follows:]

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

Mr. CLAY. I thank the witness and thank all the witnesses for

their testimony. We are in the middle of a series of votes, but we

will try to get to two questioners. I will start with Ms. Norton of

the District of Columbia.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, before I ask

my question I do want to note a searing hearing I recall in preface

to a question I am going to ask. It was about 2 years ago. It was

a full committee hearing on the Bush administration’s electronic

record preservation. It was almost a scandalous hearing. The minority defended at the hearing, or the hearing of record, the Bush

administration’s use of non-Federal e-mail systems such as the Republican National Committee’s e-mails. No one can forget it, because among the most notorious use of these e-mails now lost forever was Karl Rove himself.

My very good friend and the ranking member of the committee

at that time, Mr. Issa, asked the General Counsel of the National

Archives if the use of a personal e-mail account was inappropriate

for official business. That answer was no, that the actual use of a

personal e-mail for official government business was not a violation

of the law. The e-mail simply had to be placed into the recordkeeping system. That is what would satisfy the requirements of

law. That is what was never done by 88 White House officials led

by Karl Rove himself.

In light of that past practice, let me ask Mr. Ferriero, what is

the current policy on archiving Web sites; are any of those permanent?

Mr. FERRIERO. Your question is specifically about Web sites?

Ms. NORTON. Yes, Web sites first. E-mails of the kind I mentioned.

Mr. FERRIERO. The policy around e-mails have not changed.

Ms. NORTON. So would you state it?

Mr. FERRIERO. On the Federal Records Act or the Presidential

Records Act. That people are free to use external e-mail accounts

as long as those e-mails are captured for the agencies or the White

House’s own records management system.

Ms. NORTON. Is that system being followed as far as you know?

Mr. FERRIERO. As far as I know.

Ms. NORTON. Now, with 2.0, Web 2.0, aren’t there new challenges presented to comply with the Records Management Act, was

not complied with at all in the last administration, now you say as

far as you know it is being complied with, but now we have 2.0.

How are you managing to do that?

Mr. FERRIERO. Every new technology presents new challenges to

the basic definition of what is a record. And the guidance that we

have already issued and continue to issue as we work with the

agencies helps them clarify, helps the agencies clarify exactly what

needs to be captured, how long it has to be retained and eventually

what comes to the Archives as permanent record.

Ms. NORTON. Dr. McClure, let me ask you a question about privacy. Karl Rove and the 88 White House officials apparently

weren’t concerned about privacy because they simply took their

personal e-mails with them, they were never archived.

70

Do you have concerns about the privacy of the content of government 2.0 sites now that everybody is going to be on these sites and

e-mails like Karl Rove’s e-mails would have to be archived?

Dr. MCCLURE. Well, I think in reference to the Web 2.0 or social

media tools our expectation that GSA and for any tool that we put

up for governmentwide use, it adheres to the Privacy Act and to

privacy impact assessment requirements before we will accept the

product.

Ms. NORTON. Meaning what?

Dr. MCCLURE. It has to go through a test by test of data collection to understand how privacy information is considered personal.

Ms. NORTON. Well, suppose you received Mr. Rove’s e-mails. How

would that go through and be managed if that policy had been followed then as it was not?

Dr. MCCLURE. Well, I think the e-mail area is a little bit different because it covers e-mail transfer, the receipt and what is

sent on official government system versus what is a private account

that you have with a third-party provider. So e-mails——

Ms. NORTON. For the provider it was done right on the White

House account.

Dr. MCCLURE. So——

Ms. NORTON. I don’t know who the third-party provider is. The

White House is essentially the account being used.

Dr. MCCLURE. Right, right. Well, again, government employees,

both appointees, as well as civil service officials, have to still comply with—this is where we get into this distinction between ethics

rules and the use of technology rules. So that is I think what

causes these issues to get blurred quite a bit.

Ms. NORTON. All right. So you shouldn’t use the White House

system, are you saying, for such e-mails, or are you saying if you

use them do understand it is our obligation to archive them?

Dr. MCCLURE. Yeah, absolutely, yes.

Ms. NORTON. And you do understand that they were not archived

at all. Millions upon millions of personal e-mails were lost during

the Bush administration when, according to testimony before this

committee, at least 88 White House officials used the White House

system for personal e-mails. Now, if that happened in the Bush

White House those would have been archived.

Mr. CLAY. The gentlewoman’s time has expired.

Ms. NORTON. Those would have to be archived if that happened

in the Obama White House. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CLAY. Gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 5

minutes.

Dr. MCHENRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think we have this long-term discussion about Presidential

records. Look, the Bush White House had their folks with outside

e-mail accounts and apparently this White House has the same

thing. It’s apparently that the high ranking political officials in the

Clinton White House and the Bush White House had political accounts in order to discuss political travel. I would raise the question of if Mr. Axelrod or if Mr. Emanuel have those very same

types of accounts in this administration.

But Dr. Ferriero, the Presidential Records Act applies to all documentary material created or received by the President, his immeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:45 Apr 08, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\KATIES\DOCS\64925.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
71

diate staff or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the

President. The White House Office of Science and Technology is

part of the Executive Office of the President.

Mr. Ferriero, why does the Presidential Records Act not apply to

the Office of Science and Technology?

Mr. FERRIERO. Very good question. All I know is that office is

covered by the Federal Records Act and not the Presidential

Records Act. And I’m sure—I have legal counsel behind me. I’m

sure they can explain the history of that.

Dr. MCHENRY. Now, for instance, if someone within that department is a part of a Presidential decision, would those e-mails be

subject to the Presidential Records Act?

Mr. FERRIERO. If they are Presidential records, if the President’s

direct staff were involved, then those records would be, yes. But,

the OSTP’s staffers’ e-mail would be covered by the Federal

Records Act.

Dr. MCHENRY. Now we are currently working under a 2008—

2008, NARA conducted an evaluation of Federal agencies use of the

Web 2.0 technologies. We are currently operating under a 2006

guidance in essence for the Federal Government, is that correct?

Mr. FERRIERO. I believe it’s 2009.

Dr. MCHENRY. OK.

Mr. FERRIERO. And new guidance about to be released this fall.

Dr. MCHENRY. At the end of this year.

Mr. FERRIERO. Right.

Dr. MCHENRY. Mr. Simpson, on January 21, 2000, the President

signed an Executive order requiring every appointee to sign a

pledge to refrain from participating, ‘‘in any particular matter involving specific matters that is directly and substantially related to

my former employer or former clients, including and regulating

contracts. This lobbying ban must also be followed by all members

of the executive branch.’’

Mr. McLaughlin’s communications with his ex-colleagues at

Google he communicated regularly and often with Google about, for

instance, net neutrality, China, copyright, policy and intellectual

property rights, privacy regulation and Internet governance.

Now this was released as a matter of your group’s Freedom of

Information Act about his e-mails in this case, is that correct?

Mr. SIMPSON. We opposed his nomination from the beginning because we thought it was inappropriate for an industry lobbyist,

specifically a Google lobbyist, to have that position. When he got

the position, I decided to put in a FOIA request to obtain his emails both on his White House account and on private accounts,

and the result of that was the documents that you were referring

to.

Dr. MCHENRY. OK. Now, do you know of any other particular,

any other particular policy matters directly or substantially related

to Mr. McLaughlin and his relationship with his former employer?

Mr. SIMPSON. All I know is what was released in the FOIA, as

a result of the FOIA request.

Dr. MCHENRY. In your written testimony, you raised concerns

about some Web 2.0 technology providers could have too close a relationship with Federal agencies.

Can you expand on these concerns?

72

Mr. SIMPSON. I do think that Google specifically has perhaps too

close a relationship with the government. I think it has worked

very hard to do that, I think Mr. McLaughlin’s appointment is one

of those ties that is inappropriate, but I also think that there are

other ones. I mean the sort of revolving door policy that they have

of hiring lobbyists, say one of their top people happens to be Pablo

Chavez, who used to be the counsel to Senator McCain. So this is

a sad commentary, if you will, on the revolving door in Washington. And I’m particularly upset about how Google has been able to

insinuate itself into that process, and I have opposed, along with

my colleague from the Center for a Digital Democracy, Mr.

McLaughlin’s appointment from the beginning.

Mr. CLAY. The gentleman’s time has expired. For the record, and

for the committee’s information, there are two categories in the Executive Office of the President that come under different controlling

statutes. And in the Executive Office of the President, the entity

subject to the Federal Records Act are the Council on Environmental Quality, Office of Management and Budget, Office of National Drug Control Policy, Office of Science and Technology Policy,

and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. And that’s in accordance with FOIA.

In the other category of entities that come under the Presidential

Records Act in the Executive Office of the President, the White

House Office, the Office of Administration, the Office of the Vice

President, Council of Economic Advisers, National Security Council, Office of Policy Development. And under that office is Domestic

Policy Council, Office of National AIDS Policy, National Economic

Council, and the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.

So that kind of breaks down the categories of which statutes

apply to which offices. And with that, we will recess until the end

of these votes. The committee stands in recess.

[Recess.]

Mr. CLAY. The subcommittee will reconvene. Let me start out

with Archivist Ferriero.

In your statement, you point out that NARA will promulgate new

policies in the form of a bulletin on Web 2.0 and social media platforms. This is on top of guidance NARA issued in 2005 and 2006.

It sounds like you need to continually assess the implications of

new technologies and respond accordingly.

Does NARA do that proactively in response to agency requests?

And how is that accomplished?

Mr. FERRIERO. It actually happens in a couple of ways, but let

me first correct what I said in response to Congressman McHenry’s

question. The latest guidance is September 2006 and that covers

wiki’s logs, Web portals and RSS feeds, a lot of the 2.0 technologies

that already exist. So the updated bulletin that will come up this

fall deals with social media products that have come out since then.

In terms of how we work with the agencies on that, one of the

imperatives that I have brought to the agency is that if we are

going to be advising other agencies on how to be using these tools

we need to be using them ourselves. So we, there has been an explosion I would say in the last 6 months at the Archives in the use

of these 2.0 technologies. So that is one way. And the work that

we’ve been doing with the agencies in terms of this evaluation and

73

assessment is another way that we keep on top of what is being

used now.

Mr. CLAY. Can you tell us more about NARA’s own use of Web

2.0 to engage researchers and stakeholders and improve internal

communications?

Mr. FERRIERO. We have been aggressively using tools internally

and externally to gather reactions, input, feedback, on various new

ways of doing business. We are, as you know, as every agency is

dealing with a very severe budget year ahead, and we have been

using IdeaScale, one of the social media tools, internally to gather

ideas from the staff about how we can do business much more efficiently and effectively and save money. So that is one way that we

have been doing that.

We are in the process of redesigning our Web site, and so we

have been using similar tools to get the same kind of feedback from

our user community, from the stakeholders about how they feel

about the redesign.

Mr. CLAY. Can you please explain how the very nature of Web

2.0 content, like blogs, comments, editable wikis, Twitter feeds,

Facebook discussions, possibly time sensitive Web links pose challenges to agencies unlike any previous type of Federal record?

Mr. FERRIERO. They certainly require one to rethink the definition of record. Each one of these new technologies gives us the opportunity to kind of rethink what is a record, how long it needs to

be kept, and what part of that technology is permanent that we

need to be accommodating in perpetuity.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for your responses.

Mr. McClure, there have been several recent reports regarding

GSA’s policy on the personal use of social media by agency employees. Can you explain GSA’s policy and any guidelines the agency

has provided to employees related to their use of social media in

their personal lives.

Dr. MCCLURE. Chairman Clay, the GSA social media policy is actually constructed by our CIO office so I probably would have to get

you a formal answer back from our CIO. The GSA policy I do think

makes a distinction between using social media tools for official

government business versus using it on your own personal time. So

I know that is a distinction in our policy, but we can certainly give

you some specifics from the CIO office.

Mr. CLAY. Would you provide the committee with that information?

Dr. MCCLURE. Absolutely.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you.

Mr. Wilshusen, are agencies prepared to schedule and manage

Web 2.0 content as Federal records?

Mr. WILSHUSEN. That is one of the issues we intend to look at,

Mr. Chairman, as part of the review that you requested on how

agencies manage and protect information that they gather through

these social media sites and things. So that is something we do

plan on looking at, and we will be looking at the 24 major CFO Act

agencies as part of our scope of that review.

Mr. CLAY. In your initial review, have you been able to identify

any agencies that are doing well with 2.0 records management?

74

Mr. WILSHUSEN. No, I wouldn’t say that we’ve identified because

we again are at a very early stage. But we have found that there

are a number of agencies that are using those technologies in order

to interact better with the public and several agencies that are

using what seems to be a very effective manner in terms of interacting with the public and getting out their message through videos as well as through blogs in which they help interact with the

individuals.

Mr. CLAY. And what are the Freedom of Information Act implications for Web 2.0 content?

Mr. WILSHUSEN. Well, one of the key issues associated with that

is determining whether or not the information that is maintained

by third-party providers through these technologies is actually susceptible to Freedom of Information Act requests. And so because—

what we have found, looking at the Department of Justice guidelines is that it identifies four criteria to determine whether or not

agency is agency records for the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act and those are rather strenuous and strict criteria. So

agencies might be challenged in order to meet each of those as it

relates to Freedom of Information Act’s requests for information

collected by those third-party providers.

Mr. CLAY. Is the dilemma about separating and determining

what should fall under FOIA?

Mr. WILSHUSEN. Yes, in making sure that the agency has adequate control over the information in order for it to be an agency

record under FOIA.

Mr. CLAY. OK. Dr. Ferriero, what I guess heading toward a

wrapup of the hearing today, what do you see as the areas this

subcommittee in its oversight and information policy role should

continue to examine?

Mr. FERRIERO. I think it’s clear in the self-assessment that we

shared with you not too long ago that the agencies themselves have

identified, 80 percent of the agencies have identified that they are

at moderate to high risk around electronic records. So we need to

be providing more guidance to the agencies around these electronic

records. And I’m hopeful that the new bulletin that we come out

with is going to be a trigger for us to be more aggressive with those

agencies.

Mr. CLAY. I hope so, too. Thank you for your response.

Dr. McClure, in your written testimony, you give many examples

of the innovative Web 2.0 applications Federal agencies are currently using. Can you please talk about one example of an external

application and one internal application that demonstrate the potential of these technologies?

Dr. MCCLURE. Well, I think from a—most of these tools that are

being adopted are actually external rather than internal. They are

easy, lightweight, agile applications that are relatively inexpensive

in the market or in many cases they are being offered at no cost

to Federal agencies. So I think in a general sense there is a great

list of social media tools in the idea management challenge and

platform contest space, in ranking and rating ideas and problem

solving engagements with the public that cover both commercial as

well as no-cost products.

75

We actually from our perspective, from an efficiency perspective

think that a lot of the software that is available in the marketplace, it meets a lot of the agency needs in these areas. So there

is little need for an agency to be building its own software, developing its own tools when the market is so robust as it is today.

So almost every example that I can point to in my statement is

using mostly either no-cost or very lightweight commercial applications for interaction, engagement, content and challenges, or notifications to the public as is the case with the TED system at the U.S.

Geological Survey.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for your response.

And I have already asked the Archivist this, but I will ask the

panel a wide question, what do you see as the areas this subcommittee in its oversight of NARA and information policy should

continue to examine?

We will start with you, Dr. McClure.

Dr. MCCLURE. Thank you. I think, Chairman Clay, that we don’t

need—we should not lose the perspective of the benefits that the

government is getting from social media tools. It’s one of the reasons why in my statement we documented as thoroughly as we

could the use of this technology across the government.

It is true that there are challenges in the policy area for the

adoption of social media, and I think we have identified many of

them in the records management area in today’s hearing.

No. 1 is what constitutes a record? That has to be determined by

the agency. That is not something that is totally defined by any

guidance put out by the government.

No. 2, we have the changing constantly in these Web sites. So

what is a record? Is it something that changes every 20 seconds,

every minute? That creates huge challenges for agencies in terms

of volume and the types of information that constitute a record.

The third challenge is the social media tools themselves that are

being made available to the government are not configured to operate in accordance with Federal Records Act provisions. These are

commercial products that are built for everyday use by consumers

or organizations outside of government.

So it’s no easy task for a lot of these tools to be compliant with

policy provisions like the Federal Records Act.

Mr. CLAY. Should private industry rework or redesign tools specifically for government?

Dr. MCCLURE. Well, our position at GSA is before we bring a tool

into the government, it must be compliant, and we encourage agencies to follow examples of how other agencies are making sure of

that. The GSA procurement schedules, for example, if it’s a for fee

product, they have to meet Federal guidelines in order to be purchased by any Federal agency.

And I will tell you last that for any no-cost product that we have

brought into the Federal Government for governmentwide use, we

had put it through all the policy and legal compliance tests to make

sure that we are not violating or not following guidance under

these laws.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for your response.

Mr. Wilshusen, what should we continue to examine as a subcommittee?

76

Mr. WILSHUSEN. I would second everything that Dr. McClure

stated as key challenges and issues to address. But I would also

add privacy and security challenges associated with the use of

these technologies because they do collect a lot of personal information on these Web sites and through these social networking sites

that needs to be protected, and to what extent Privacy Act applies

as well as other security threats that are potentially exposing that

information to risk are issues that should also be addressed, and

that is something that we will be looking at as part of our review.

Mr. CLAY. It’s interesting you bring up security. I just completed

my information security course required by all Members of the

House.

Mr. WILSHUSEN. Congratulations.

Mr. CLAY. And I passed.

Mr. Simpson.

Mr. SIMPSON. I would completely concur with my colleagues on

the panel. I would emphasize the problems and challenges with privacy and security, and I would add a suggestion. I mean, recently

you had a look at cloud computing and that is very much related

to all of this that is tied into Web 2.0. But I would urge the committee not necessarily only to look in the abstract at these technologies, but to examine very closely the companies that are providing these services and look at their approaches to the challenges

to privacy and to security and to whether they in fact live up to

what they say they are going to do, which is why I think this committee would have complete oversight to call somebody like Google

in and talk to them about their privacy practices and how this horrible thing could have happened with Wi-Spy.

Another example of this which relates to the cloud and security

goes precisely to the tendency of technology companies to overpromise. Google has touted the fact that it sold its cloud services

to Los Angeles. And the fact of the matter is that the deadline was

blown. The city of Los Angeles is about to have to come up with

another $500,000 or so to cover licenses that they didn’t expect to

have to have, because Google was unable to meet the security requirements on the Government cloud that were required by the Los

Angeles Police Department.

That is the kind of issue that I think this committee should be

exploring, and I think that it’s essential, again, that you do it, by

talking to specific companies.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for that. And contrary to what it was stated earlier, I am continuously open to Members from both sides of

the aisle on suggestions for future hearings, and I will entertain

those suggestions when they are brought to me.

Let me thank all of the witnesses for their indulgence today. I

know we got off to a bumpy start but because of you all, you made

this hearing complete, and I thank you.

This hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ