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

43–913 PDF 2008

S. Hrg. 110–542 

NATIONAL ARCHIVES OVERSIGHT: 

PROTECTING OUR NATION’S HISTORY 

FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT 

INFORMATION, FEDERAL SERVICES, AND 

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 14, 2008 

Available via http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN WARNER, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

BRANDON L. MILHORN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, 

FEDERAL SERVICES, AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JOHN KILVINGTON, Staff Director 

KATY FRENCH, Minority Staff Director 

MONISHA SMITH, Chief Clerk 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 1 

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY MAY 14, 2008 

Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, a U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland .............. 3 

Hon. Allen Weinstein, Ninth Archivist of the United States, National Archives and Records Administration, accompanied by Adrienne Thomas, Deputy Archivist of the United States, National Archives and Records Administration ................................................................................................................... 5 

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

Accountability Office ............................................................................................ 8 

Paul Brachfeld, Inspector General, National Archives and Records Administration ................................................................................................................... 9 

Patrice McDermott, Director, OpenTheGovernment.org ...................................... 25 

Thomas Blanton, Director, National Security Archive, George Washington 

University ............................................................................................................. 28 

James S. Henderson, Former State Archivist, State of Maine, representing 

the Society of American Archivists ..................................................................... 30 

Martin J. Sherwin, University Professor of History, George Mason University, 

representing the National Coalition for History (NCH) ................................... 32 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Blanton, Thomas: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 28 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 90 

Brachfeld, Paul: 

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 76 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L.: 

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

Henderson, James S.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 30 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 100 

Koontz, Linda: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 55 

McDermott, Patrice: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 25 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 83 

Sherwin, Martin J.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 32 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 104 

Weinstein, Hon. Allen: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39 

Page

IV 

APPENDIX 

Questions and Responses for the Record from: 

Mr. Brachfeld .................................................................................................... 112 

Ms. McDermott ................................................................................................. 121 

Mr. Blanton ....................................................................................................... 124 

Mr. Sherwin ...................................................................................................... 128 

Mr. Weinstein ................................................................................................... 131 

(1) 

NATIONAL ARCHIVES OVERSIGHT: 

PROTECTING OUR NATION’S HISTORY 

FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2008 

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT,

GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, FEDERAL SERVICE,

AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:23 p.m., in Room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Carper and Cardin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER 

Senator CARPER. The Subcommittee will come to order. Thanks 

to our guests for their patience, for being here today. This hearing 

marks what I hope to be the beginning of this Subcommittee’s oversight of the National Archives and Records Administration. 

The revolutionary ideas embodied in documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of our country are 

entrusted to one organization, the National Archives. Established 

by Congress to be the Nation’s record keeper, the Archives has the 

critical mission of storing and protecting our Nation’s most valuable and most important documents. 

I am told that Thomas Jefferson once said that an educated citizenry will ensure a free society. In fact, if I can paraphrase Jefferson, I think what he said is if the American people know the truth, 

they will not make a mistake, and it was true then and I think 

that is true today. I think we can all agree that unhindered access 

to information about our government and the ideas of the men and 

women like Jefferson who have made decisions on our behalf is 

critical to the continued health and vibrancy of our democracy. 

The National Archives was established to safeguard and preserve 

the records of our government, ensuring that the people can discover, use, and learn from this documentary heritage. As I prepared for this hearing, I have to say that some questions were 

raised in my own mind about whether the Archives is fulfilling this 

essential mission, at least in some areas. Additionally, I question 

whether Congress and the President are giving the Archives the reVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:18 Oct 23, 2008 Jkt 043913 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\43913.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
2 

sources and the tools that are necessary to do the job that we have 

tasked them with. 

A lot has changed in our country, as we know, due to the evolution of information technology. The ability to create, to search, 

and to access information from any location in the world has greatly affected the way humans communicate and learn. Every year, 

billions of documents that shape the decisions that our government 

makes and the course of human events are never written down 

with pen and paper. Instead, these records are born digital. They 

are created electronically and live not in a filing cabinet somewhere, but on computers and on the Internet. The current controversy surrounding the missing White House e-mails highlights 

the importance of electronic records management. 

Due to a lack of Congressional guidance, poor decisionmaking, or 

just sheer mismanagement, policy discussions involving any number of key issues, including the war in Iraq, may never be seen by 

historians, by authors, and by the public at large. How can democracy thrive, then, if people cannot hold their government—our government—accountable? 

Further, I am troubled by the recent cost overruns on the Electronic Records Archives Project. The system is intended to be the 

Archives’ answer for transferring, preserving and making accessible all Federal and Presidential records. However, we cannot definitively say whether this project will be delivered on time and on 

budget in preparation for the upcoming Presidential transition. 

This reminds me a little of the situation that our country is facing in the Census Bureau with the handheld computer project that 

had to be canceled because it will not be ready for Census takers 

to use by the year 2010. So we end up once again largely doing our 

Nation’s 10-year Census using pencil and paper. 

Instead of dealing with the problems before they escalated, it 

seems like agency officials and contractors, just as they did at the 

Census Bureau, decided to march ahead, assuming that Congress 

would foot the bill. It is imperative that we make this system work 

as planned, and it is equally important that we get it done as 

quickly and as cheaply as we can reasonably hope at this point. 

With that said, I have convened this hearing today not to point 

fingers or to encourage controversy, but to learn how we can help 

the Archives achieve its core mission of safeguarding and preserving the records of our government. Further, we hope to learn 

more about how the Archives is changing its business model to 

bring in the technology necessary to ensure that records born digital are preserved and easily accessible. Finally, I want to determine whether the Archives can improve its services online so that 

the public can access key historical documents. 

We thank the witnesses for appearing before us today and certainly look forward to your testimony. We apologize for starting a 

bit late. We ended up with a vote just on the eve of starting this 

hearing, so I apologize we are starting a little bit late. 

I am delighted that Senator Cardin—I almost said Congressman 

Ben Cardin, since he and I both served as Congressmen together— 

but I am delighted that he was able to join us today. He heard that 

we are having this hearing and I encouraged him to come by and 

spend as much time as he would like. You are recognized for any 

3 

statements or comments you would like to make. We are delighted 

that you have come. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Senator Carper, thank you very much. As you 

pointed out, I don’t serve on this Subcommittee, but I do represent 

the U.S. Senate on the National Historical Publications and 

Records Commission and attended my first meeting yesterday and 

I am very impressed by the work that is done by that Commission. 

I have always been impressed by Dr. Weinstein and his commitment to our National Archives and the work that he does. Just to 

tell you a very short story, on the day before I took the oath of office as a U.S. Senator, I took my family to the National Archives 

because I thought it was an appropriate place to start my career 

in the U.S. Senate. I must tell you that just about every member 

of my family that visited the National Archives has been back because there is just so much they can learn from the records and 

the manner in which those records are kept. 

I think, though, you are asking the right question, Mr. Chairman, and it is how should the National Archives serve our modern 

needs, particularly with new technologies. That is why when I 

talked to Dr. Weinstein, he was excited about this hearing because 

he thinks it is important for Congress and the National Archives 

to work together in partnership to meet these challenges, and I 

know that is the purpose of this hearing, to see how we can make 

sure that the important work that needs to be done is supported 

here in Congress and that we develop a strategy that will provide 

the best possible access to the records of our country for all users, 

whether it be a high school student or whether it be a person in 

academia who is doing important research work. 

That is our goal and I think this hearing will help us in meeting 

those goals, and I thank you for allowing me to stop by. I apologize 

that I will not be able to stay for the hearing, but I wanted the 

Subcommittee to know of my interest and I am willing to work 

with the Subcommittee on this matter. 

Senator CARPER. Senator Cardin, thank you so much for coming. 

We are grateful that you are here and for your interest and we look 

forward to working with you. 

Our first witness today will be the Ninth Archivist of the United 

States. I have called you ‘‘Wine-steen,’’ I have called you ‘‘Winestine.’’ Others have probably called you worse names than that. 

How do you pronounce your name? 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. Well, Mr. Chairman, first of all, thank you for 

holding this hearing. Thank you, Senator Cardin, for being here. It 

depended on which side of the Grand Concourse you were raised 

on. [Laughter.] 

I am a Bronx kid, and that was the issue, but that is at least 

within the realm, you call it this or you call it that. A few weeks 

into being Archivist, I stood up for a speech and the person introducing me turned to me and said, ‘‘Now I would like to present to 

you the Alchemist of the United States, Allen Weinstein.’’ [Laughter.] 

Try to get back into a serious mood after that one. 

4 

Senator CARPER. Well, I am not going to recognize you yet to testify. I am just trying to get you to correctly pronounce your name 

for us. Is it ‘‘Wine-stine’’? 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. It was ‘‘Wine-stine’’ on the side of the Grand 

Concourse—— 

Senator CARPER. That you grew up in? 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. That we could afford. [Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. Just a quick introduction for each of our guests 

and then I will recognize you for your testimony. 

Dr. Weinstein was confirmed by the U.S. Senate about 3 years 

ago and he has been on the job now for several years. Previously, 

Dr. Weinstein served as the President for the Center for Democracy, a nonprofit foundation that he created in 1985 to promote and 

strengthen the democratic process. He has won many international 

awards, including the United Nations Peace Medal in 1986, the 

Council of Europe’s Silver Medal twice, both in 1990 and 1996, and 

several fellowships, including two senior Fulbright lectureships. In 

addition, Dr. Weinstein was a university professor and professor of 

history at Boston University, a university professor at Georgetown 

University, and author of a number of books, articles, and essays. 

Accompanying Dr. Weinstein today but not giving an opening 

statement, I am told, is Adrienne Thomas, is that correct? 

Ms. THOMAS. That is correct. 

Senator CARPER [continuing]. The Deputy Alcherist of the—— 

Ms. THOMAS. Yes, or Anarchist. 

Senator CARPER [continuing]. Anarchist of the United States. We 

are glad that you both are here. 

Our next witness is Linda Koontz, no stranger in these places. 

Ms. Koontz is Director for Information Management Issues at the 

U.S. Government Accountability Office. It is nice to see you today. 

Ms. Koontz is responsible for issues concerning the collection, the 

use, and dissemination of government information, and recently 

Ms. Koontz has directed studies concerning records management, 

privacy, data mining, information access and dissemination, and 

E–Government. Ms. Koontz is a Spartan, a graduate with a B.A. 

from Michigan State University? I am an old Buckeye, Ohio State, 

up here. But better to be a Spartan than one of those Wolverines. 

[Laughter.] 

A certified Government Financial Manager and a certified information privacy professional. 

And our final witness today, at least on this panel, is Paul 

Brachfeld. Did I pronounce it right? 

Mr. BRACHFELD. You did very well. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Good. He is Inspector General of the 

National Archives and Records Administration. Mr. Brachfeld oversees the conduct and execution of all audits, investigations, and inspections for the agency. Are you appointed by the National Archives Director? 

Mr. BRACHFELD. I am appointed by the Archivist of the United 

States. 

Senator CARPER. OK. 

Mr. BRACHFELD. Actually, the former Archivist, John Carlin, selected me. Appointed is not the word. 

5 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Weinstein appears in the Appendix on page 39. 

Senator CARPER. Selected, OK. All right. Fair enough. Thank 

you. Wasn’t he a governor? 

Mr. BRACHFELD. Former Governor of Kansas. 

Senator CARPER. A former governor. There you go. Mr. Brachfeld’s investigative activities include the recovery of hundreds of 

stolen Archival holdings and related successful prosecutions of 

identified subjects. Mr. Brachfeld has a B.S. in accounting from the 

University of Maryland, which makes him a Terrapin. 

We thank you for joining us. We thank all of you for joining us, 

and we will start with opening statements from Dr. Weinstein. 

Welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. ALLEN WEINSTEIN,1 NINTH ARCHIVIST 

OF THE UNITED STATES, NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND 

RECORDS ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED BY ADRIENNE 

THOMAS, DEPUTY ARCHIVIST OF THE UNITED STATES, NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. Thank you, Chairman. Once again, I thank you 

for holding this hearing today. I am pleased to report on progress 

at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) during my 3-year tenure. There is much to report. I can only touch on 

the highlights here. However, I will be happy to answer for the 

record any questions or to provide any supplemental material that 

you would like. 

The stories of this Nation and its people are told in the records 

and artifacts cared for in the National Archives—we call it NARA’s 

facilities around the country. We want all Americans to be inspired 

to explore the records of this country, their country. We want every 

American to have access to the essential documentation of their 

rights and of the actions of their government. We promote civic 

education and facilitate historical understanding of our national experience. When we revised our 10-year strategic plan, we made it 

explicit that promoting civic literacy is essential to our work. 

During fiscal year 2007, the National Archives responded to 1.2 

million written requests for information, served over 135,000 researchers in Washington and in our almost four dozen facilities 

across the country, hosted nearly 220,000 people at public programs, and welcomed 2.9 million visitors to exhibits in Washington 

and in the 12 Presidential libraries, and received 35 million visits 

to our website. 

However, simply allowing access to our holdings is not enough. 

We are committed to providing opportunities for the public to see, 

use, and learn from the records of our government. This will develop a greater understanding of the history, cultural values, and 

ideas that have shaped our Nation. It is vital, Mr. Chairman, that 

the raw documents and facts we possess, preserve, and store—ten 

billion pieces of paper and in the future many terabytes of electronic records—that these have meaning for the American people 

to which they belong. 

In Washington, DC, our learning center, the Boeing Learning 

Center, is now fully open, focusing on NARA’s efforts to help teachers make the study of history, civics, and social studies more enVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:18 Oct 23, 2008 Jkt 043913 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\43913.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
6 

gaging and important for students through the use of primary documents. The Presidential libraries and regional records centers 

conduct similar programs for students and teachers. And for nearly 

30 years, NARA has conducted summer institutes to instruct teachers in the use of historical documents in the classroom. 

The National Archives is a multifaceted organization. The 3,000 

employees who work in 20 States, over 40 facilities throughout the 

country, are dedicated to our mission to preserve democracy by 

safeguarding and preserving the records of the Federal Government. We house the records, Mr. Chairman, of all three branches 

of government and respond to literally millions of requests each 

year from the Executive Branch, the Congress, the courts, and from 

the citizens who own these records. 

Our Center for Legislative Archives holds the records of Congress—at least the institutional ones—and is preparing many of 

these legislative treasures for display in the Capitol Visitors Center. The Center for Legislative Archives delivers over a million 

pages of records annually to support the conduct of current Congressional business. It also preserves and makes available to researchers the historical records of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. The Center uses these historical records 

to promote a better understanding of Congress and the history of 

American representative government. 

The National Archives manages 12, soon to be 13, Presidential 

libraries documenting the Administrations from Herbert Hoover to 

Bill Clinton. President George Bush recently announced that his library will be built on the campus of Southern Methodist University 

in Dallas. We are actively engaged with the White House in organizing the transfer of the Administration’s paper and electronic 

records from the White House to NARA oversight in Texas and 

Washington, DC. 

One of the greatest challenges to the National Archives is the 

rapidly growing number of electronic records being created by the 

Federal Government. These records include text documents, emails, web pages, digital images, videotapes, maps, spreadsheets, 

presentations, databases, satellite images, geographic information 

systems, and more types of records to be created in the future. Unlike parchment or paper, Mr. Chairman, electronic records can become inaccessible quite easily as time passes and technology advances. The hardware and software used to create these records 

can become obsolete very quickly, within months or years. This 

leaves countless important records at risk of being lost forever. But 

the good news is that the technology for preserving electronic 

records is finally catching up with the technology for creating them. 

The mission of the Electronic Records Archives, ERA as we call 

it, is clear and simple. 

Senator CARPER. Dr. Weinstein, this would just be a request I 

would make of you and each of the panelists on this panel and subsequent panels. Sometimes folks feel like they have to use acronyms when they testify before us. To the extent you can stay away 

from them, I would be grateful. Thank you. 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. OK. 

7 

Senator CARPER. ERA, I don’t know if we are talking baseball or 

Equal Rights Amendment for the Constitution. So the extent that 

you can actually use the—— 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. You don’t want to talk baseball to me. I am a 

Yankees fan. 

Senator CARPER. You are probably right. [Laughter.] 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. The mission of the Electronic Records Archives 

is clear and simple. It will authenticate, preserve, and make accessible far into the future important electronic records of the Federal 

Government regardless of the type of hardware or software used to 

create them or the kind available in the future. 

The first phase of our Electronic Records Archives will become 

operational in June of this year, next month. An early challenge 

faced by the Electronic Records Archives will occur on January 20, 

2009, when the National Archives takes custody of the remaining 

records of the Bush Administration. Millions of electronic text documents, digital photographs, and e-mails will be among those 

records. If the past is prologue, the first request for access to those 

electronic records will also come on January 20, 2009. Electronic 

Records Archives will ensure that we are prepared to meet those 

requests. 

In 2009, Mr. Chairman, concluding, we will celebrate the 75 anniversary year of the establishment of the National Archives. During the past 75 years, the staff of the National Archives has found 

itself on the leading edge of change. Almost 30 years before the creation of the Freedom of Information Act, archivists were making 

available the records of the U.S. Government to the public in National Archives reading rooms. Beginning with President Roosevelt’s gift to the Nation and with Congress’s help, we shepherded 

the growth and development of the modern day Presidential library 

system. 

In the 1970s, Mr. Chairman, we heralded the era of archiving 

electronic records by taking in the most permanent computerized 

records from government databases. Today, we are taking the lead 

in archiving digital information with the development of the Electronic Records Archives. We have always embraced these types of 

challenges as part of our unique and important mission as guardians of the records of government. With your support, the support 

of Congress, the National Archives will continue to meet the challenges of the present and the future. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This concludes my formal remarks 

and I welcome any questions you and other Members of the Subcommittee might have. 

Senator CARPER. Dr. Weinstein, thank you very much. 

For this panel of witnesses and for our second panel of witnesses, 

your entire statement will be made part of the record and if you 

wish to summarize, please feel free to do so. Normally we ask people to stick within 5 minutes in giving your testimony. If you run 

a bit longer than that, we are not going to bang the gavel. We will 

let you go a little while longer. 

Ms. Koontz, thank you for joining us and we are happy to see 

you. You are recognized. 

8 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Koontz appears in the Appendix on page 55. 

TESTIMONY OF LINDA KOONTZ,1 DIRECTOR, INFORMATION 

MANAGEMENT ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY 

OFFICE 

Ms. KOONTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing on challenges and progress 

in overseeing the preservation of our Nation’s historical documents. 

As you know, since 2001, the National Archives has been working to develop a modern Electronic Records Archives system. This 

major information system is intended to preserve and provide access to massive volumes of electronic records of all types and formats. The system is also to automate the Archives’ processes for 

records management in archiving. 

However, in 2007, the Archives’ contractor acknowledged that it 

would not be able to meet the planned date for the initial operational capability of the first increment of the system. In response 

to this delay, the Archives changed its approach to developing the 

Electronic Records Archives, but uncertainties remain. The program is currently pursuing a two-pronged development strategy. 

First, NARA has developed plans to achieve an initial operational capability that will have capabilities that are somewhat reduced from those that had been planned. NARA refers to this initial system as the base system. Initial operational capability for the 

base system had been planned for September 2007, but is now 

scheduled for June 2008. 

Although recent delivery deadlines have all been met and testing 

has begun on schedule, NARA has extended some test periods beyond what was originally planned, leaving less time for final security reviews. Although officials remain confident that these schedule changes will not affect the date for the initial operational capability, problems uncovered through testing could lead to delay. According to the officials, they are mitigating the risk of delays by 

paying close and continuing attention to the testing process 

through such actions as weekly meetings of the test team. 

The second part of the Archives’ strategy responds to their need 

to receive the Presidential records of the Bush Administration in 

January 2009. These electronic records are estimated to total 100 

terabytes of data, which is 50 times more than that of the previous 

administration. NARA had planned to use the ERA system for this 

purpose, but the developmental delays in 2007 put this plan at 

risk. 

To address this risk, the Archives and its contractor are pursuing 

a parallel development of a separate part of the system that is to 

be dedicated initially to these records. This part of the Electronic 

Records Archives is referred to as the Executive Office of the President System. This system is being built on a commercial product 

that provides some of the basic requirements for processing Presidential electronic records, such as rapid ingest of records and ability to search content. This separate development decouples the 

EOP system from dependence on the development of the base system. However, it is uncertain whether the system will be developed 

to the point that it can receive the Bush Administration records in 

January 2009, primarily because the Archives and its contractor 

9 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Brachfeld appears in the Appendix on page 76. 

are still negotiating the precise scope of work and system requirements. 

Finalizing the negotiations is challenging because, among other 

things, uncertainties remain regarding the exact nature of the 

Presidential records to be transferred. According to the Archives, 

although the Archives and Bush Administration officials have held 

meetings on this topic, the Administration has not yet provided 

NARA with specific information on the volume and types of records 

to be transferred. System development is nonetheless proceeding 

based on the Archives’ volume estimates and the information available so far. 

According to the Archives, receiving the electronic Presidential 

records and being able to process, search, and retrieve them immediately after the Presidential transition is critical so that they can 

respond in a timely fashion to the information requirements of the 

Congress, the former and incumbent Presidents, and the courts. 

Challenges remain for the Electronic Records Archives program 

in both the near and long term. In the near term, the Archives has 

to complete the testing of the base system and define the requirements and the scope of the Presidential system and complete its 

development. In the long term, it also plans to merge the base system and the Presidential systems into an integrated whole. Meeting these challenges will be important to achieving the ultimate 

aims for the Electronic Records Archives, automating the Archives’ 

records management and archiving lifecycle, and preserving and 

providing access to all types and formats of electronic records. 

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

to answer questions at the appropriate time. 

Senator CARPER. Ms. Koontz, thank you very much for that 

statement. 

Our last witness on this panel is Paul Brachfeld. Mr. Brachfeld, 

you are recognized. Thank you very much for coming. 

TESTIMONY OF PAUL BRACHFELD,1 INSPECTOR GENERAL, 

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. BRACHFELD. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity 

to testify today. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Mr. BRACHFELD. NARA represents America’s past like no other 

agency. We hold the treasure troves of our Nation’s history. However, as an organization, we must live in the present while preparing for the future that focuses upon electronic records. Today, 

I will be quite candid in discussing what I and my staff have observed during my tenure as the IG. 

Archivist Allen Weinstein has in tangible ways supported my office as well as me personally. However, our work comes at a price. 

In the wake of certain investigations and significant audits conducted by my office, my staff and I have been met with significant 

resistance and unfounded challenges. Our audits and investigations 

have consistently identified challenges in core elements of NARA’s 

operations that we believe by definition constitute material weaknesses. 

10 

While preservation work stations sit empty in our world renown 

labs due to funding and staffing constraints, contractors siphon 

funds for projects that are ill-defined, poorly managed, and fail to 

meet user needs. While millions of dollars flow to the Electronic 

Records Archives program, which to date is well over budget and 

has failed to meet deliverable dates and other IT related contracts, 

archivists struggle under resource constraints to process and preserve the ever-expanding quantities of records arriving at NARA 

every day. While NARA is exposed to significant frauds and the 

loss or theft of millions of dollars worth of accountable property, 

such as laptops, desktops, and servers, Presidential artifacts sit unprocessed and vulnerable due to limited resources. 

Finally, the importance of these issues is magnified by the fact 

that the Archivist and I share the belief that NARA is, by definition, a national security agency, as we hold the vital records of virtually every Federal agency, as well as those of other entities, such 

as the Warren and 9/11 Commissions. 

I will dedicate the balance of my testimony to electronic records 

issues. I am also available to discuss other audit and investigative 

work products produced by my office, touching upon areas ranging 

from the preservation of holdings, processing and accessing Federal 

records or the recovery of hundreds of stolen Federal records via 

our highly successful and unique Archival Recovery Team, or ART, 

concept recently featured in the April edition of Smithsonian magazine. 

With regard to Electronic Records Archives program, in December 2001, nearly 7 years ago, I first approached the former Archivist about the need for audit coverage of the ERA program by stating resources have not been assigned to the OIG to facilitate our 

independent analysis of the program and to serve as a basis to report to the Archivist, Congress, and the American people on the 

status of the ERA program. Stakeholders actively involved in designing, building, and coordinating the deployment of ERA may be 

blinded from identifying issues that exist and call out for identification. 

In subsequent meetings, such as in April 2002, I requested audit 

positions to support, again, the fledgling ERA program. The former 

Archivist, John Carlin, told me he could give me 50 people and I 

still couldn’t cover it, so he asked me how I thought I could do it 

with just two. I responded, I would take the two, but none were 

received. 

Dedicated ERA audit resources sought by the OIG in budget submission after budget submission were not forthcoming, even as I 

defined the value of independent, dedicated, and skilled oversight 

over this critical program could not be overstated and the risk of 

not performing this function unacceptable. GAO Audit Report 

03880, issued in August 2003, defined NARA’s need to staff key unfilled ERA positions to mitigate the long-term risk to the acquisition. In meetings with the GAO, I urged them to define that one 

of the key unfilled ERA positions, just one, dedicated to NARA OIG 

to support independent expert oversight of the program and related 

contractors, was sorely needed. Regrettably, the GAO did not act 

upon this request. 

11 

Unfortunately, it came as no surprise to my office when on July 

27, 2007, NARA issued a Cure Notice to the ERA prime contractor 

for ‘‘failure to make progress in the work so as to endanger performance under the subject contract.’’ Indeed, the impact of delays 

and cost overruns—and I was told before this meeting by my staff 

that we are now up to $15 million as of March 2008—is significant 

and profound. While I do not know if or when ERA will be fully 

operational, any additional delay will adversely impact other narrow operations, requiring NARA to consume additional scarce dollars to sustain the Archives’ research catalog or develop other vehicles that bridge the gap until ERA meets baseline functional requirements. 

Finally, in the fall of 2007 with the support of Archivist Weinstein, this office was able to staff a dedicated ERA audit position. 

One need not have been a visionary or a soothsayer to anticipate 

the problems that have encumbered the ERA program. We hope 

that at this late date, the OIG audit support will prove of value. 

Changing subjects, in April 2007, an article raised my concern as 

to the condition of the White House records as under the Presidential Record Act (PRA), Bush 43 Presidential records will accrue 

to NARA. The ingestion of these records is to be a key and early 

benchmark in the successful deployment of ERA. Following the 

April 2007 article, I requested briefings and was informed by key 

NARA staff members that the Bush 43 Presidential records development and transition to a new and effective recordkeeping system 

had not been accomplished and that records are being stored in a 

vulnerable production server environment. After looking into this, 

I found an internal NARA report for the fourth quarter of 2006 

where a NARA official reported that they continue to work on matters related to management of electronic records by the Executive 

Office of the President, Office of Administration. 

The problem for my office is that concerns as to access issues or 

functionality of White House recordkeeping systems were never directed to my attention by knowledgeable NARA officials prior to 

press accounts reaching my desk. Thus, I am not afforded the opportunity to address a significant condition which will potentially 

impact a major NARA program that falls under my statutory jurisdiction. 

I am aware of momentum to provide NARA additional authority 

to ensure Federal agency compliance with records standards, most 

notably with regard to the internal preservation of electronic 

records. I believe that such legislation and related funding is required. If NARA does not assume this role, then I ask who will. 

NARA traditionally has not viewed itself as an enforcement entity, 

but rather one that focuses upon collegiality and relationships. 

I believe that given limited cognizance into agency recordkeeping 

processes, a void exists in which inappropriate treatment or loss of 

Federal records may well be occurring. This position may be alien 

to my peers at NARA, but I come from a dual law enforcement and 

audit background and believe that additional powers, authority, 

and resources are needed in this area. The consequences of failed 

recordkeeping at Federal agencies today will adversely impact our 

Nation tomorrow. 

12 

In terms of personnel and budget, NARA is not large, but its 

mission surely is. I am an Inspector General. My statement today 

will most certainly have repercussions, but my candor reflects my 

statutory duty to this Subcommittee and the American taxpayer. I 

thank you for the opportunity to testify and I am available to take 

any questions you may have. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Brachfeld, thank you very much for that 

testimony. 

We will have a number of questions for this panel. Let me just 

start off, if I could, with Professor Weinstein. Before I begin to ask 

any questions, I just want to give you an opportunity, if you would 

like, to comment on some of what Ms. Koontz and Mr. Brachfeld 

have had to say in their opening statements. You may want to talk 

a little bit about some of the management challenges that they 

highlighted and let us know on the Subcommittee how you are 

dealing with those. 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity. The Inspector General’s statement is puzzling on a number 

of counts. First, Mr. Brachfeld points to my support for his office, 

which is genuine, and for him personally, which was genuine, on 

a range of issues. He then castigates National Archives staff for 

throwing up ‘‘significant resistance and unfounded challenges.’’ 

Whether the Inspector General and I agree or disagree, however, 

final responsibility for maintaining the National Archives rests on 

my shoulders, and inevitably there will be times when I prefer 

some other counsel to Mr. Brachfeld’s point of view. But let there 

be no mistake, the Inspector General has no greater friend at 

NARA than this Archivist, who also respects the work of the Office 

of Inspector Generals government-wide. I work with Mr. Brachfeld 

to reduce waste, fraud, and mismanagement on all levels and will 

continue to do so. 

Mr. Brachfeld makes three assertions of fact, however, which 

need response. First, he concludes that, to date, the Electronic 

Records Archives has not been properly and thoroughly monitored. 

I disagree. Linda Koontz is right here and her colleagues at the 

Government Accountability Office have continually monitored the 

project. The Office of Management and Budget conducts similar full 

court press evaluations. The House and Senate Subcommittee 

members and staff demand monthly—at least monthly, sometimes 

more than that—reports on the state of progress for the Electronic 

Records Archives. And finally, our own National Archives Advisory 

Committee on the Electronic Records Archives, experts from all 

over the world, meet regularly to evaluate our progress. Time precludes a full outline of oversight to date, but it is considerable. 

Second, the Inspector General claims that the Electronic Records 

Archives system may never be operational. In fact, the first phase 

of the Electronic Records Archives becomes operational next month. 

There is no evidence that there is evidence, there is no denying 

that there have been delays, there have been cost overruns in this 

extremely important and challenging project. But little is to be 

gained by exaggerating and panicking. We have confronted the 

problems which caused these delays and the program is again on 

schedule and has been for some time. 

13 

While I am head of this agency, Congress can count on the fact 

that we will not paper over problems. We will never paper over 

problems, but rather we will address them systematically. Electronic Records Archives has been new territory for everyone involved in the project, Chairman. It should not surprise anyone that 

there have been obstacles to overcome. But turning hills into mountains is no way to solve a problem. Assertion is no substitute for 

evidence or any window for proof. 

Third, the Inspector General takes us to task for failing to anticipate and resolve the problem of the missing White House e-mails. 

The Presidential Records Act was crafted by Congress with great 

care to respect the Separation of Powers Clause in the Constitution. I have counseled the White House on its responsibilities under 

the PRA and the Federal Records Act, not once, but a number of 

times. However, that counsel has always been given within the 

bounds of the law and the Constitution. 

Finally, I have been a strong and consistent advocate for maximum transparency in the Federal Government. Everyone who 

knows me knows that. But I think it is a mistake to assign to the 

National Archives, an independent agency, the role of policing the 

White House. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Dr. Weinstein. 

A member of my staff described this as the 30,000-foot question. 

I don’t know if it is 30 or 20 or 10, but the question deals with adequacy of resources. We all know that the Archives is given an extremely large mission, and some would argue relatively little resources to complete that mission. I would just ask Professor 

Weinstein and Mr. Brachfeld, as the protectors of our Nation’s history and some of our most important artifacts, do you feel that you 

are given enough resources to fulfill the mission of your agency, 

and if the answer is no, what more might be needed in terms of 

staff and resources? And finally, are there any areas that you could 

shift your priorities at the National Archives to ensure that you are 

meeting the most important challenges in fulfilling your mission? 

Mr. BRACHFELD. Senator, may I have the opportunity to respond—— 

Senator CARPER. Just briefly, if you will. I don’t want to play too 

much ping-pong here, but just briefly. 

Mr. BRACHFELD. I need to clarify a few matters very quickly for 

the record. 

Senator CARPER. Sure. 

Mr. BRACHFELD. One, in terms of monitoring the ERA program, 

I will give you one example. In June 2007, I met with the program 

director for the ERA program. He told me the program was on 

schedule. Deliverables were—in fact, the contract was ahead of 

schedule. My staff was present. In fact, two or three members of 

my staff. 

In July 2007, we issued a Cure Letter for fail to deliver on 

deliverables. That is the status that was provided to me. We have 

met with many officials in ERA. We have many sources that come 

to us. We have been told that the date for delivery of some 

iteration of ERA, whether it be—the capacity is undefined—would 

be in 2011. I have read in 2012. I have seen statements of 2015. 

14 

There hopefully will be an ERA. I have been a proponent of ERA. 

I have been begging, literally begging for the resources to engage 

in ERA to help bring this home. I saw my role as to be a shepherd 

to assist the agency so the problems that we have unfolded, which 

I anticipated and stated for the record 7 years ago—and I didn’t 

have to be Nostradamus—7 years ago, I warned of this. Given the 

resources, we may not be here today discussing this. 

Quickly, with the White House e-mails, let me make myself very 

clear on this. Those e-mails will accrue to the National Archives 

and Records Administration, to our programs. If our programs will 

be adversely affected, be it additional staff needed or be it additional resources needed, that affects my turf as an Inspector General. I thought that had I gotten timely notification, and, of course, 

part of my statutory duties is to protect our programs, I could have 

made efforts perhaps to address the matter in the early stage. 

I have worked with the White House in other matters. They have 

responded to my inquiries. They have responded to my questions. 

Given the opportunity, maybe information would have been gained 

that would have been helpful. Given that failing, perhaps I could 

have done a management letter to the Archivist, which becomes a 

public document and the Congress would have been made aware of 

the situation much earlier. It was just a question of me wanting 

to be engaged in an issue where I could exercise what I thought 

my authority. I am not trying to teach or alter constitutional law. 

Finally, I just want to make one thing clear. The Archivist and 

I truly are colleagues. When we meet, it is collegial. He is supportive. He has been a supporter of me. When my position was 

jeopardized, which it was because certain NARA staff sought to 

have me removed, he stood by me. So he is a good man and this 

is not between myself and him, and I will tend to leave it at that. 

Now, you asked about—getting back now, I am sorry, budget—— 

Senator CARPER. Adequacy of resources. Thank you for that—— 

Mr. BRACHFELD. Adequacy of resources. The National Archives, 

in my experience, and this is my experience, we have been an agency that is almost afraid to ask for what we need. There have been 

a number of my audit reports where I have said that we needed 

to get additional resources. We have a flood of records coming our 

way that we need to process, a literal flood. We have—— 

Senator CARPER. Because of the change in Administration? 

Mr. BRACHFELD. Well, just records with—we are talking electronic record today, but paper doesn’t stop. There is a flood of 

paper records still coming our way. There is a flood of electronic 

records coming our way. Our staffing has not really grown. Preservation needs, just like everything else, just like an infrastructure 

of a city, paper degrades. Film degrades. Mediums degrade. We 

have a tremendous need for preservation. We have IT security concerns that are very important because of the nature of the material 

we hold. We have physical concerns over our holdings. 

So I have been a proponent of defining our problems clearly and 

then going to Congress, going to OMB and clearly define what we 

need. Clearly, it is my belief, based upon our audit findings, and 

the bedrock of my work is audit, is that we do not have the resources to deploy to address the many challenges that impact 

NARA. There are many great people doing terrific work. I go to our 

15 

preservation labs and I watch our conservators, who are amazingly 

talented, dedicated people, but I can’t help but notice two or threequarters of the work stations are empty. They are empty. But the 

documents that are weathering under time, they don’t stop weathering under time. 

I think that we have strong needs, and in this time of fiscal constraints, everybody said that I understand, but I view National Archives as, A, a national treasure, which is why I am proud to work 

there, and B, and the Archivist and I discussed this probably the 

first time we met, I view the Archives as a national security institution. I won’t go into public testimony and define what we hold, 

but I think a lot of people would be shocked if they understood 

what we hold. So I am concerned about the national security if people got access to the kind of records we hold. And, in fact, my office—taking off my audit hat and putting my investigative hat on, 

we have had cases very specific to that and have worked very closely with other law enforcement agencies, such as the FBI. So there 

are security concerns that affect our national security, as well, that 

need to be addressed. Thank you. 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. I will answer that question very quickly. 

Senator CARPER. Yes, if you would, please. 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. I know you would like to move on. Yes, we need 

more money, we need more resources. I have gotten more resources 

for the Inspector General and I will continue to try to get more as 

he needs them for appropriate projects, and we need them throughout. We need them for new programs and old. We need them to 

help us with a program on developing civic understanding. We 

need them to deal with the backlog of materials that we can release to the American public. We just haven’t processed them all. 

We need them to do the Electronic Records Archives. We need 

them for a variety of purposes. 

But let me also say this. When I came to the National Archives 

over 3 years ago, I made a point at that stage of the game of not 

trying to bury myself in a bureaucratic life. I have been up here 

on the Hill, as you well know, talking to your colleagues, your 

staff—in fact, your staff probably knows that I brought Mr. 

Brachfeld up here for his first encounter with your staff because I 

wanted that story to get out. I wanted his story, I wanted my story 

to get out. 

And Congress has been extraordinarily generous and supportive 

of the National Archives. I am not complaining about levels of support. But you asked about whether we can use more resources. The 

answer is yes, and I thank you for the resources you have provided 

thus far. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. This Subcommittee deals 

a fair amount with IT projects and the ones that we seem to look 

at the most are the ones that have not gone well. IT projects are 

naturally a riskier investment than most other projects that are 

undertaken by our government. We have held several hearings investigating the reasons why so many IT projects are poorly planned 

and poorly preforming and it seems that many times it is because 

agencies, and I am thinking of the Census Bureau especially, but 

agencies have a tough time really defining what they want from 

the contractor and sticking to what they want. 

16 

I understand that the Electronic Records Archives contract with 

Lockheed is worth more than $317 million and the total expected 

cost of the system is expected to be around $450 million. I have a 

couple of questions regarding it. 

First of all, how much do you believe, Dr. Weinstein, that poor 

planning led to the Electronic Records Archives project being over 

budget and behind schedule? And second, what have you done to 

make sure that the project will stay on budget and on schedule? 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I am going 

to ask my Deputy Archivist here, Adrienne Thomas, to join me in 

responding. I will start and she will continue, the reason being that 

she retains her position also as the head of Administration and Finance at the Archives. This is what she was doing when I got there 

and she is an incredibly talented person in that regard. 

But just a few general comments on such projects. There are 

scholars in this audience who know the period better than I do. But 

if you looked at really creative, new, transforming moments in 

American technology—the atomic bomb, the space shot, the first 

shot into space, other things of this kind—I doubt that you would 

see more effective budgetary performance than we have had. These 

unprecedented projects almost—you have to experiment while you 

are trying to decide what works. Is your original plan better? You 

have to adjust that and change it. You can’t depend upon established structures of a budget, and this is one of those projects, because if this works as we think it is going to continue working, and 

it has been working of late, then this is going to help transform in 

a positive way the work of every agency, not just in the Federal 

Government, but every agency, public and private, in the country 

and eventually in many other countries. That is a large claim. 

Now getting back to your point. Could there have been—— 

Senator CARPER. Just to restate my question, what role do you 

think poor planning played in where we have ended up? And second, just explain to us what you are doing to make sure that we 

get back on budget and on schedule. 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. First of all, I don’t think poor planning was a 

major factor here. I would also point out that we have not—this 

isn’t a situation in which somebody has simply announced we have 

wasted $300 million and we are putting an end to this. There are 

other situations in the government where agencies larger and more 

prominent than ours have just said, that is that. We worked at it. 

We discovered belatedly that we may not have had the A Team 

from Lockheed Martin and Lockheed Martin acknowledged that 

fact. And so we got the A Team and the A Team has been performing effectively. 

Senator CARPER. When did you finally get the A Team? 

Ms. THOMAS. Basically, we were concerned about the development of the system long before Lockheed Martin admitted that 

they weren’t going to make the deadlines and so forth. But until 

they reached the first point of deliverable, you don’t have any proof 

that they are or are not going to deliver. When they finally did 

admit it, then we talked to the highest levels of the company and 

they realized that indeed they didn’t have the best professional 

support that was needed for this contract, and at that point they 

17 

basically said, we are going to replace these people. We are going 

to give you the highest level of professional support for this team. 

That is why the IOC slipped from September, which was the first 

deliverable that they were going to deliver, and we also wanted to 

make sure that this team was going—the second team was going 

to produce, so we restructured the contract. 

Senator CARPER. Excuse me. Is this a cost-plus contract? 

Ms. THOMAS. Yes, it is. 

Senator CARPER. Has it been from the outset? 

Ms. THOMAS. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. Is it still? 

Ms. THOMAS. Yes. However—— 

Senator CARPER. Is that smart? 

Ms. THOMAS. It is really necessary for a development contract 

where you can’t put into concrete exactly what every piece of requirement is. I mean, I think we did a very good up-front planning 

effort, but development of IT contracts are still a back-and-forth 

iterative process to get the right sort of system in place, and that 

is what a cost-plus contract is for, basically, when you can’t define 

every requirement down to the last nut and bolt. 

Senator CARPER. Dr. Weinstein. 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. Let me just add one point to this issue, not on 

the cost-plus issue, but on what we are doing now to prevent repetitions, if you will. Anyone who knows me knows that the one 

thing I am not is a technologist or a scientist, but I know how to 

read a budget and I kept a small organization alive for 16 years 

on relatively little money. And one of the things that I am doing 

and that everybody else of consequence in our program at the National Archives is doing and that we are making certain Lockheed 

Martin is doing is we are monitoring this process. Is it working? 

Is it on time? Is it going according to the specs? Is it going according to the financial specs? 

We are monitoring this day by day by day, hour by hour by hour. 

There will be no slippage. If there is slippage at all, this Subcommittee and all of our other committees on the Hill will hear 

about it before these people leave for work that day, whoever is responsible, because there is no substitute whatsoever, as far as I can 

tell, for constant monitoring of the sort that Dr. Koontz and her 

colleagues do, for which we are very grateful. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thanks. Ms. Thomas, did you finish 

your thought, because I want to go to Ms. Koontz and ask her comment, as well—— 

Ms. THOMAS. The only thing I wanted to add is that we restructured the contract so that we took and basically created smaller 

deliverables and said that at the point that a deliverable was presented to us, that we would present it, and if it passed, then we 

would go forward with the next piece of the contract. But that was 

a drop-dead point where we could decide, that is all. So I think 

having done that and having now under our belt three different 

what we call drops of software that have passed the test, and the 

final test will be the testing that is going on now and IOC next 

month, and we think that is going to be the proof that we have got 

the A Team going and we have got a more strict monitoring approach in place. 

18 

Senator CARPER. All right. Does the Archives have, if you will, 

a back-up plan in place to turn to in case the Electronic Records 

Archives is not fully functional when this President leaves office? 

Ms. THOMAS. We are fairly confident at this point that it is, but 

there is a back-up plan and that is the system that we used with 

the Clinton papers, a system called PERL. We don’t think we are 

going to have to need it, but it worked for the Clinton papers, not— 

I would have to say in sort of a clunky way in that the Executive 

Office of the President (EOP) system that we are developing, will 

allow searching across all of the records. The PERL system that we 

used for President Clinton basically was applied to each one of the 

many different systems that we inherited from the White House 

and you have to search each one locally. So it is a clunky system, 

but it will work. It works for Clinton. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. Ms. Koontz, let us hear 

from you on some of these issues, please. 

Ms. KOONTZ. First of all, I will say that we have been following 

the Electronic Records Archives since about 2001 and have worked 

really closely with NARA in terms of their planning as they have 

moved forward. One thing that I would like to say is about NARA’s 

oversight to date. I think that they have been on top of the situation with the contractor. I think they detected early warning signs 

in the schedule. They took decisive action by issuing a Cure Notice 

when they thought that the contractor’s failure to perform was 

threatening the performance of the contract. 

They have revised their strategy. They have come up with, as 

Ms. Thomas talked about, incremental deliverables, which is a 

proven way of doing system development, small increments, build 

a little, test a little, build a little, test a little. This is a very good 

approach. And I think we also saw as they moved forward working 

with the contractor that they always did independent analyses of 

things like the schedule so that they did not accept what the contractor proposed as the schedule unless they themselves were really convinced that it was realistic. 

I would say that I think they do face some risks with the Presidential system. We can’t ignore the history that we have had some 

performance problems. We have had overruns. We have had schedule delays. And while I think NARA has taken some action to get 

things back on track, I think we have to recognize that we have 

a very tight schedule. We have a fixed end date, which is the Presidential transition. We don’t know what all of the requirements are 

for the Presidential records because the NARA does not yet have 

all that information from the Executive Office of the President. And 

the milestones are generally being met by the contractor, but 

slightly late. So for that reason, I think this is a system still at 

risk. 

I would agree, too, with the need for a mitigation plan and that 

I know that NARA has a high-level plan for what they will do if 

they do not meet the date—if the contractor doesn’t meet the date 

for delivery later this year, but I think that a more robust risk 

mitigation plan would be in order here. 

Senator CARPER. Let me just ask, and I will direct this initially 

to Dr. Weinstein and Ms. Thomas, but has anyone at Archives been 

held accountable for poorly managing the contract? 

19 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. Would you repeat that? 

Senator CARPER. Yes. Has anyone at Archives been held accountable for poorly managing this contract? 

Ms. THOMAS. I think we disagree that the contract was poorly 

managed. As Ms. Koontz said, we from the beginning monitored 

what Lockheed Martin was doing. We had our own engineers testing behind their engineers. We were convinced that there were 

problems, but until you reach the first deliverable where they either put up or shut up in terms of whether they were going to 

produce something that was going to work or not, we really 

couldn’t prove it. At the point that they missed their deliverable—— 

Senator CARPER. And when was that? 

Ms. THOMAS. May or June 2007, and we can provide the precise 

date for the record. 

Senator CARPER. And when they missed—— 

Ms. THOMAS. At that point, then we said—we took the problem 

to the president of the company. We got OMB involved. We got the 

E–Government person at the White House involved. We got their 

attention. They admitted that there was a problem with the team 

with the development. They replaced almost all of the team with 

much higher-level, sophisticated IT developers than had been on 

the team. We restructured the contract. I mean, I think we did everything that we could to manage the contract appropriately. 

Senator CARPER. Dr. Weinstein, and then Mr. Brachfeld, if you 

have a comment. Go ahead. 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. Let me personalize the answer to your question. 

Senator CARPER. OK. 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. I was brought into the—one of the things that— 

obviously, neither my deputy or I are there for everything that happens in the course of a day’s work any more than you are there for 

everything that happens in the course of a Congressional day’s 

work. Once the first indications came through that we were significantly behind schedule, I think it is fair to say that we both hit 

the ceiling and began immediately addressing the issues. 

In my case, I said there is only one way to address it. I have got 

to talk to Mr. Stevens, the head of Lockheed Martin, or I have got 

to just conclude this agreement. 

Senator CARPER. Is he the CEO? 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. Yes. And basically, that communication went 

through to him, and the point that it made was that any residual 

attitude that Lockheed Martin that they knew better than we knew 

what we wanted and what we needed was at an end. It is a very 

daunting thing. Congress brings in a Google or a Microsoft, whatever, and you are dealing with folks at the top of their game and 

there is a sort of a reluctance to necessarily challenge them on 

things they say they know, that they understand that they are 

doing. We discovered that Lockheed Martin could do it better, and 

they had been doing it better. 

Now, did they—so punishment No. 1, they came close to sudden 

death in terms of this contract. A very deep embarrassment had 

happened, given the fact that Lockheed Martin has talked about 

the effectiveness of this new technology. 

20 

Punishment No. 2, no bonuses, no special supplements, no everything, all despite the fact that these cost-plus contracts have them 

built in. None of that went out. None of that money went out. 

Punishment No. 3, it is not the most comfortable feeling in the 

world for a major agency like ours to be snarling at this mega-corporation and saying, now we want you to perform at your best because you haven’t been performing at your best. It was humiliating. 

It is humiliating. But that is what they have to live with. They 

have been on trial, and as head of the Archives, it is my responsibility for making certain that we get the fullest measure, the best 

of the best from them for every last day that they are under contract. 

You mentioned some figures. I can’t comment on those because 

I don’t know where you got them. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thanks. Mr. Brachfeld, the last word 

and we will go on to one more question and then we will turn to 

our next panel. But any comments on this exchange—— 

Mr. BRACHFELD. Real quickly. There is a lyric of a song that I 

talk about when I talk about contractors. It goes, ‘‘a man who feels 

the space begins to need the walls.’’ Contractors that don’t feel 

walls, don’t feel that they are getting tight oversight, sometimes 

bleed into space. They need to be looked at. There is no substitute 

for skilled IG oversight. That is why Congress created us. That is 

why the President signed into law the creation of Inspector Generals. That is why the Senate is moving, and I support this, into 

strengthening Inspector Generals. I think that our resource needed 

environment would have been helpful. 

I also want to note that up—again, this came as no surprise to 

me, the problems at Lockheed Martin. I had sources come to me. 

I often have both contractors and NARA staff come to me voicing 

significant concerns about the progress of ERA, and I had gone, as 

I frequently meet with senior management, specifically the Archivist and his senior staff, and I had conveyed concerns that I had 

heard. But again, I had not been given the resources, and a lot of 

this predates—some of this predates the current Archivist and he 

has worked to support my office. He has a limited deck of cards. 

He has a limited number of resources. I don’t blame him. 

But I do state that there were indications of problems. I wish I 

could have been there. I wish I could have been more vigilant. I 

wish I could have caught this earlier on because there were 

ruminations. There was smoke and my staff was aware of that. 

Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Say that again, that lyric that you began with. 

What was it? 

Mr. BRACHFELD. I am sorry, Senator? 

Senator CARPER. You said you use a lyric from a song—— 

Mr. BRACHFELD. A man who feels the space begins to need the 

walls. What I mean about that—it is just like that. I have had 30 

years in government service. I started off in the Secret Service. In 

the Secret Service, the entire computer room was staffed by Secret 

Service employees. Now the government has contractors. Many 

times the contractors possess skill sets that the government does 

not have. They can use their knowledge, their positions, to compel 

modifications to contracts, alterations to contracts, etc. 

21 

It is not just this. It is not just NARA. I came from the FCC before this and what we had going on there was pretty substantial, 

too. And I talk to my peers. This is the nature of the business and 

that is why you need a strong audit and oversight presence. 

Let me just say real quickly—— 

Senator CARPER. Real quickly. 

Mr. BRACHFELD [continuing]. That one of the things that I have 

tried to do more than anything else is strengthen our compliance 

with OMB Circular A–130, Clinger-Cohen, etc. I want us—not just 

ERA—we have many other contracts. I want us to do contracting 

right on major IT systems from the beginning because if you don’t 

have a foundation, you go askew and awry. So I have been there 

for this agency pushing that, and the agency has made strides. 

Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, 90 seconds? 

Senator CARPER. Thirty seconds and then I want to get one more 

question in—— 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. OK. 

Senator CARPER [continuing]. And then turn to our next panel. 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. Mr. Brachfeld likes the song metaphors. I prefer 

speech metaphors. There is a famous Lincoln one that applies in 

this instance and it is the story of—Lincoln tells the story about 

coming across the road and there is somebody beating a mule over 

the head with a two-by-four and it was screaming, but it is not 

moving. And the stranger comes along and says, ‘‘Farmer, you can’t 

move the mule that way. That is idiotic.’’ The farmer says, ‘‘I know 

that, you jerk. I am not trying to move him. I am trying to get his 

attention.’’ We got Lockheed Martin’s attention in this process and 

we have had its attention constantly since then. 

Senator CARPER. That is a little wisdom from Abraham Lincoln, 

and I don’t know if it was Dave Matthews or not, but—— 

Mr. BRACHFELD. Do you really want to know? 

Senator CARPER. No. Thank you, though. 

Last question for this panel is to switch topics a little bit. I understand—this will be actually more for you, Dr. Weinstein, but I 

understand that the Archives recently released a report requested 

by Congress that discusses how the papers written by the Founding Fathers of our Nation can be completed in a timely fashion and 

published online. Some of the entities working on these papers 

have been receiving both public and, I believe, private funds for 

over a half a century but aren’t expected to complete their work for 

some time to come. Could you tell us just briefly how the Archives 

expects to accomplish this, and further, how much can Congress expect this project to cost? 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. Let me take the first. Apparently you don’t have 

a copy. I will make certain that you—— 

Senator CARPER. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. I will get copies for the rest of the Subcommittee. 

Senator CARPER. There are really three questions. Let me just restate the questions and you can take them up. First, could you tell 

us briefly how the Archives expects to accomplish what we are 

talking about here? Second, how much can the Congress expect this 

22 

project to cost? And the third question is, what is the benefit of 

publishing these papers online to the public? 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. Well, Mr. Chairman, there are two ways in 

which people take a look at the writings of the Founders these 

days. They can look at them in these published, elegant, scholarly 

editions, there are hundreds of them now, 218 is the figure that I 

have been given at the moment, and these, of course, will not be 

looked at by the ordinary person who does not necessarily want six 

pages of footnotes for every reference of Thomas Jefferson’s or 

George Washington’s at the time. 

Then there is the possibility of putting all of these papers online. 

In fact, this whole concept, the current perception of it began in the 

office of one of your colleagues, Senator Leahy, who hosted David 

McCullough and myself and various other folks and we testified before Senator Leahy on this several months back. That is when we 

received the instruction that the Congress wanted a report. 

It is possible, and I think we have spelled out all the details, to 

have a situation not more than a few years from now in which 

every one of the papers of the major Founders of the country will 

be online in basic editions, without the entire textual apparatus— 

while the work goes on to complete those textual editions. At the 

same time, we can also put online at the same time those editions 

which are not completed yet but for which there is material that 

people may want to use, students, scholars, etc. All of that can be 

done so that what you are getting, then, at relatively little cost is 

free access, virtually free access to the entire corpus of the Founders. And it is about time, Chairman. It is about time. 

Now, how much will it cost? We are doing calculations now. Obviously, as soon as those are through, this Subcommittee and others will be the first to learn of it. But we have been under enormous time pressures to get this report done, and I should add that 

this report has been supported in large measure by the scholars 

who are involved, by those working on the existing editions of the 

papers of the Founders, but OMB has reviewed the report and has 

released it or else I wouldn’t be here talking about it. So it is fairly 

close to a consensus document and the time has come, I think, to 

move forward on that. 

Have I left anything out, Ms. Thomas? 

Ms. THOMAS. That is the main points. We think that this is a 

perfect example of something that should continue to be a publicprivate partnership and we think that with the goals and the 

methods that we have laid out in the report, that we will indeed 

engage many of the people who are in the business of giving private money to be much more interested in supporting this kind of 

an effort. 

Senator CARPER. I understand that these private sources, I don’t 

know if they are private foundations or not, but I understand they 

provide up to maybe half the total funding for these projects. How 

are the private foundations involved in the planning process? 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. Well, private foundations have been involved in 

supporting these projects, Mr. Chairman, since the projects began 

in the 1930s and 1940s. Private foundations have always provided 

an underpinning, either through universities or through foundations or whatever it would be like. Congress has also supported 

23 

these projects through the NHPRC and through the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC)—I apologize for using an acronym—and also the National Endowment for 

the Humanities has funded some of this. It has been funded from 

a variety of sources. But for the first time, there would be a clear 

focal point for the funding. 

There now, by the count that I have been given, are 218 volumes 

of these papers of the Founders that are already online and we 

would have another 125 volumes to go and the job would be done. 

So I urge you to support the process in Congress. 

I should add that Senator Cardin, who was with us yesterday— 

I don’t want to speak for him, but he seems to be very supportive 

and enthusiastic about it. Congressman Larsen from the House 

was there, same, as well. So this has been a process that has involved Congress from the get-go and it has been in partnership 

with the private sector that we can get this job done. 

Senator CARPER. All right. And before you all leave the witness 

table, let me just thank you very much for being here and for your 

testimony and for responding to our questions. 

I used to be State Treasurer of Delaware for about 6 years and 

we were audited every year by an independently elected official, 

the State Auditor, and every now and then, the State Auditor 

would offer a criticism. However, this was not something that 

would be shared with us internally as they went through their 

audit, but sort of after the fact. In addition, the way it was offered 

was not always well appreciated, and finally, the auditor and I actually just spent some time together and talked things through. We 

would try to maintain a good personal relationship and have a 

more constructive auditing process where we would be more inclined to take the recommendations of the audit to heart. 

It seems pretty clear to me that, Dr. Weinstein, you and Mr. 

Brachfeld have what seems to be a respectful personal relationship 

and I would just ask that you build on that and spend some time 

together talking more about the issues raised today. Maybe you 

will both feel better about the work that you are doing on behalf 

of our citizens. 

With that having been said, I want to thank each of you for coming today, for your stewardship, and for your testimony. We look 

forward to working with you to help give you the resources and the 

support and the direction that you need to make us all proud. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. WEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Chairman. 

[Pause.] 

Senator CARPER. All right. Welcome to our second panel of witnesses. We will hopefully not be interrupted by votes and we will 

be able to march forward to completion of our hearing. Thank you 

for joining us today and for your patience with us. 

Our lead-off witness in the second panel is Dr. Patrice 

McDermott. 

I understand you are the Director of OpenTheGovernment.org, is 

that correct? 

Ms. MCDERMOTT. Yes, sir. 

Senator CARPER. I understand you assumed your current position 

after more than 4 years as the Deputy Director of the Office of GovVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:18 Oct 23, 2008 Jkt 043913 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\43913.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
24 

ernment Relations at the American Library Association. My office 

today was stormed by librarians from all over Delaware. 

Ms. MCDERMOTT. It is Library Legislative Day. 

Senator CARPER. They have literally taken over Capitol Hill. 

Ms. MCDERMOTT. Yes. A good cause. 

Senator CARPER. A great cause. Ms. McDermott was awarded her 

doctorate from the University of Arizona in political science and 

has an M.A. in political science from Brown University, and received a degree in library and information management from 

Emory University. 

Ms. MCDERMOTT. Right, and my undergraduate was at Florida 

State. 

Senator CARPER. You have moved around. 

Ms. MCDERMOTT. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. But we are glad you are here today. 

Our next witness is Thomas Blanton, Director of the National Security Archive. I understand, Mr. Blanton, that you have directed 

the Archives since 1992 and previously served as the organization’s 

first Director of Planning and Research, starting in 1986. We are 

told, Mr. Blanton, that you are a series editor of the Archives online and print documentary publications and that you are a graduate of Harvard College, which is right down the road from where 

my oldest boy goes to school. 

Mr. BLANTON. Yes, and I am almost up there with Ms. 

McDermott because I came there from Bogalusa, Louisiana, so it 

was a nice migration northward, traditional Southern activity. 

Senator CARPER. I used to serve with a Congressman from Louisiana who later became governor and he went to school at Harvard, as well. But when he ran for Governor of Louisiana, he tried 

not to let people know where he went to college. [Laughter.] 

Mr. BLANTON. When I used to say that is where I wanted to go 

to school, they would say, yes, Auburn, that is a very good school. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. Our third witness is Dr. Jim Henderson, who 

is representing the Society of American Archivists. Dr. Henderson 

served as Director of the Maine State Archives from 1987 to 2007. 

In that capacity, he authored several papers relating to the proper 

implementation and management of electronic records. Have you 

ever been to Delaware to visit us in Dover? 

Mr. HENDERSON. I know Tim Slavin very well, if that helps. I 

have not been, though, to your archives. 

Senator CARPER. Mr. Slavin is not only our Director of State Archives, but he is also a member of the Dover City Council, so he 

has a couple of interesting jobs. 

Dr. Henderson holds a bachelor’s degree in international relations from the University of Maine and a master’s and doctoral degree in political science also from Emory University. Did you two 

know each other at that time? 

Ms. MCDERMOTT. No. 

Senator CARPER. All right. You traveled a lot of different paths 

in your life and today you come together here at this table. 

Our final witness is Dr. Martin Sherwin, University Professor of 

History at George Mason University. Previously, I understand, sir, 

that you were the Walter S. Dixon Professor of English and AmerVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:18 Oct 23, 2008 Jkt 043913 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\43913.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
25 

1The prepared statement of Ms. McDermott appears in the Appendix on page 83. 

ican History at Tufts University for 27 years, another school that 

my youngest one visited and liked a whole lot. 

Dr. Sherwin’s recent biography of J. Robert Oppenheimer won a 

2006 Pulitzer Price for biography, the National Book Critics Circle 

Award for Biography, and the English Speaking Union Book 

Award. Congratulations on all those counts. 

We welcome you all. We thank you for joining us. Your entire 

testimonies will be made a part of the record. If you would like to 

summarize, feel free, but thank you for coming. 

Dr. McDermott, why don’t you lead us off. 

TESTIMONY OF PATRICE MCDERMOTT,1 DIRECTOR, 

OPENTHEGOVERNMENT.ORG 

Ms. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Chairman Carper, for the opportunity to speak today on the role of the National Archives and 

Records Administration in protecting our Nation’s history, and 

thank you for holding this oversight hearing on the critical issues 

facing our government in the area of preserving and providing access to our history. 

In my testimony today, I want to discuss a number of roles that 

NARA has traditionally held and new ones it is being called to take 

on. It is critical, I think, that the Subcommittee fully realize, as 

you do, that NARA is probably the only agency in the Executive 

Branch that has, and is seen by the public to have, access to government information as its primary mission. 

While that mission has been understood to encompass primarily 

information that, for a variety of reasons, is deemed historically 

significant, NARA is increasingly being looked to as a site to locate 

new initiatives and offices pertaining to public access to contemporaneous government information. These include the newly mandated Office of Government Information Services, created by the 

Open Government Act, and an office that will have responsibility 

for implementing the Memorandum on Designation and Sharing of 

Controlled Unclassified Information, better known as sensitive but 

unclassified (SBU) information. This latter office will have the task 

of bringing order to the multiplicity of control markings, such as 

SBU, FOUO (for official use only), across the government that are 

meant to safeguard information that is not classifiable but information that is arguably not for immediate public disclosure. 

The Open Government Act established the Office of Government 

Information Services specifically at NARA. A number of other 

venues were considered and they were all dismissed and we were 

all agreed that NARA was the best home for this because of its 

mission of providing access to public information. There is more in 

my written testimony, but I just want to say today that we urge 

your support of NARA’s ability to create and sustain this new office 

and to make it function for the benefit of public access to Federal 

records within a contemporaneous time frame. That is going to 

take some funding, and I know that is not the purview of this Subcommittee but it is a major issue. 

The Controlled Unclassified Information Implementation Office 

is also to be housed at NARA, and the new CUI framework will 

26 

continue to affect the media’s ability to keep the public informed 

and the public’s ability to press government action to improve safety and security. As laid out in the White House memorandum, this 

new framework contains no opportunities for public engagement or 

possibilities of review of marked information. For those of us who 

care about ensuring limitations on control markings that foreclose 

public access to unknown volumes of government information, 

NARA is seen as a good home. Again, this is not part of its traditional mission. This is contemporaneous information and it will 

need the necessary funds to make this work and ongoing Congressional oversight and encouragement to make sure that it is working properly for the benefit of the public, not just for the benefit 

of government, as the structure laid out by the White House does 

not lend itself to the benefit of the public. It is not anywhere considered in the White House framework. 

I want to turn now to records and e-records management. In 

1982, the Committee on Records of Government proclaimed that 

the United States is in danger of losing its memory. They were 

talking about paper records. Our memory is at much greater risk 

now, and of course this is not just the loss of our family photos, 

as it were, but of that information necessary for accountability. 

Across the Federal Government, we do not know with any certainty 

that all of the documents and information that we need to write 

our history, to understand policy development and implementation, 

to trace who knew what, read and edited what document, are being 

preserved. 

Why is our memory in danger? Because, as you noted, the vast 

majority, if not all, of our documentary and information history is 

being created electronically, but not necessarily well managed and 

preserved electronically. The various reasons given for not preserving it are ones that we have all heard before. The volume is 

too great. We don’t have the resources to manage all this. It is not 

of importance to the leadership of our agency. 

Another reason, frankly, is that Congress has been lax in holding 

agencies accountable and for ensuring that records management is 

seen as part of the mission critical components of every department 

and agency. While Congress is rightfully alarmed at the loss of documents and information through a system breach, it and the Executive Branch have turned a blind eye to their loss through indifference. The end result is the same, except with a difference or intentional failure to preserve, we will not necessarily know what has 

been taken from us and will not be able to restore our history to 

its previous status. 

In a report that we cooperated in with the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, we exposed a number of major 

problems in this regard. First, there is a lack of consistent policies, 

as evidenced by the fact in the study that many respondents used 

multiple techniques to preserve e-mail records at their agencies. 

Second, as you have documented, movement toward electronic 

records systems have been unacceptably slow. Most agencies do not 

have an electronic records management system and they are getting no real pressure from NARA to institute them. 

Third, agencies lack training and compliance monitoring, two 

problems that could easily be cured by reforming agency policy and 

27 

increased NARA involvement. The blame in terms of compliance 

falls most squarely on NARA, which has a statutory obligation to 

promulgate standards, procedures, and guidelines and to conduct 

inspections or surveys of the records and records management programs and practices within Federal agencies. NARA has elected, 

however, to limit its role to providing guidance only, with little or 

no agency follow-through, and it has abandoned its practice of conducting annual audits of agency compliance. 

At a symposium last fall, NARA was told by agency personnel 

that the failure to audit meant a failure of records management. 

I am therefore not surprised at the testimony of Mr. Brachfeld in 

this regard. NARA’s approach has to change and it is clear that 

this will not happen without Congressional pressure. 

A couple other things very quickly. Many of the partners in 

OpenTheGovernment.org have serious concerns about the decision 

of NARA not to capture a snapshot of agency websites at the end 

of this administration. They are going to continue to do them for 

the White House. They are going to continue to do them for a 

change of Congress. We feel that these are important point-in-time 

documentations of our policy and political history. NARA did it at 

the end of the Clinton administration. It has proved valuable, and 

we think it will prove of ongoing value in looking from administration to administration at how things change. 

And finally, in terms of public access to the records of our government, NARA has taken the lead to provide digital access to nondigital records. They have also been a leader in looking for private 

sector providers for digitization of records that were created and 

preserved in a non-digital format. Their practice in this area has 

gradually improved, but they are also an example of a more general problem across the Federal Government. The government is 

not willing to pay for the digitization of its non-digital records or 

to explore non-commercial models, such as consortia of libraries 

and others, for the provision of this service. 

And what happens then is that agreements are made with commercial providers who do this for free, but the public has very restricted access. They have to pay for it for 5 to 7 or more years, 

or they have to go to a facility of the entity, such as NARA, that 

has turned over its records to this private entity. They also are not 

in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act—no other entity 

is allowed to come in and digitize those documents. OMB did a 

study or did a survey in 2006 looking at these and we ask you to 

ask for that information and conduct oversight. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. I am happy to 

answer any questions. I apologize for going over. 

Senator CARPER. Dr. McDermott, thank you very much. 

Mr. Blanton, you are recognized. Please proceed. Thank you. 

28 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Blanton appears in the Appendix on page 90. 

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS BLANTON,1 DIRECTOR, NATIONAL 

SECURITY ARCHIVES, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY 

Mr. BLANTON. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for holding 

this hearing. You have my written statement and I would just like 

to summarize and make five points. 

First is to say where I am coming from. We file Freedom of Information requests. We do research. We are a nongovernmental organization. We have worked in every National Archives facility except 

maybe the Herbert Hoover Library, and we brought the lawsuit 

that saved 40 million White House e-mail from the Reagan, Bush 

I, and Clinton Administrations. 

I have to say, just commenting on the earlier panel, 20 million 

of the Clinton e-mail were Presidential records, but 12 million of 

them were Federal records. So the idea that there is a constitutional bar against the National Archives getting involved in the 

White House recordkeeping practices is absurd. It is really a red 

herring. The National Archives has chosen or been too intimidated 

to get involved. I just want to make that point. That is where we 

are coming from. 

Senator CARPER. Say that again. The National Archives—— 

Mr. BLANTON. The National Archives has been intimidated or too 

shy to push the envelope. It was shy against the Reagan White 

House, against the Bush I White House, against the Clinton White 

House, and it is shy today. That is a kind word, I think, for its behavior in this regard. 

Senator CARPER. I understand. We use code words, too. 

Mr. BLANTON. We use code words, too. I am trying to be nice because I remember a Louisiana Congressman named Joe Waggoner 

who said to Jack Kennedy on the campaign trail something like, 

‘‘Do you need me to come out for you or against you, whatever 

would help the most.’’ [Laughter.] 

So I am here to help. 

The second point I want to make is just the big picture. The National Archives fundamentally is almost completely overwhelmed, 

drowning in two rising tides, one electronic records, one the classified and declassified records. I just want to say it is a tiny agency 

with an enormous mission and a level of resources—its total proposed budget is the equivalent of one of the Marine One helicopters. They are asking for a fleet of 28 of them to shuttle the 

President around, $400 million each. 

So this crisis, and this is my third point, electronic records, there 

are lots of data out there about it and what I am saying about electronic records in my prepared testimony is not new. It really comes 

from the National Academy of Sciences, the National Research 

Council, which basically said about the Electronic Records Archives 

that you heard about, cleaning up after the fact is going to leave 

the National Archives behind the curve permanently unless Congress and the Archives require the agencies to build in archiving 

when they build their systems. 

Look at the White House e-mail example, the current White 

House. They junked their archiving system when they moved from 

one e-mail base, Lotus, to a Microsoft system. They junked 

29 

archiving, built a new e-mail system. Everybody started to use it. 

Some of the people started to use the Republican National Committee e-mail system, as well. Nobody required them to have an 

archiving system. The National Archives kept having meetings, but 

nobody went to them and said, you have got to live up to the law. 

As soon as they junked that archiving system, the White House 

was breaking the law, the Federal Records Act and the Presidential 

Records Act. But what we get from the National Archives is a list 

of the series of meetings they had talking about the problem. 

The National Archives can hardly even deal with the existing 

backlogs—this is my fourth point—of classified and declassified 

records. On declassified records, President Clinton’s Executive 

Order, continued by President Bush, resulted in the release of 

more—declassification, I should say—of more than a billion pages 

of historically valuable, 25 years old or older, records that belong 

to the American public, essential to our history, essential to Marty 

Sherwin’s work and his Pulitzer Prize and to all of our accountability of our government. 

And yet out of that more than a billion, 400 million pages, while 

they are declassified, haven’t even been put on the shelves for us 

to use because National Archives is so backlogged, doesn’t have the 

resources or the staff. At the Ford Presidential Library, the CIA 

put in money to scan a bunch of documents that had intelligence 

information in them, took 90,000 documents, processed them, and 

sent them back to the Ford Library. Only 19,000 of those have gotten onto the shelves. A huge backlog. The National Archives is totally behind the curve. 

The only way out, I think, is for Congress to mandate, to change 

the standards, to put a statutory basis for the classification system, 

change the front end. Just like you engineer an IT system so it has 

archiving in it, you have got to engineer a classification system so 

you actually have real cost-benefit analysis and real disincentives 

for that very first stamp that says, ‘‘Secret,’’ because that generates 

a stream of costs all the way down the road. 

Congress also, I think, needs to do something about historical 

records and mandate—the way Congress moved on the Nazi war 

crimes or the Kennedy assassination, huge successes and major 

declassifications. They had new standards for the review. They put 

in independent review boards and they said the presumption is release. We have got to do that for everything that is more than 25 

years old or we are going to be sitting there with 400 million more 

pages, or 800 million more pages as a backlog a few years hence. 

And the final point I just want to make, because I am running 

down to my last seven seconds, is that right now, the National Archives is drowning. And to totally push the metaphor, there has got 

to be a sea change in the Archives’ role. You heard the IG down 

here sitting where Mr. Sherwin is sitting today saying, we are an 

agency that has been historically afraid to ask for the resources we 

really need. Well, the National Archives is also an agency that has 

been historically afraid to ask other agencies to obey the law, especially the White House, and Congress is going to have to do the 

backbone transplant. 

The National Archives has the authority, the legal authority 

under the Federal Records Act, to tell the White House how to keep 

30 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Henderson appears in the Appendix on page 100. 

its e-mail, but it is not doing it. Congress needs to go in there, 

mandate those standards, mandate the archiving standards to the 

agencies. They spend $68 billion on IT purchases per year. The 

Electronic Records Archives entire annual budget for next year is 

only $67 million, a drop in the bucket. Clean up after the fact. On the classification system, agencies spend $8 billion minimum, probably more, on classifying and keeping the record, only $44 million on release. Congress has got to tell them they have got to do 

better. Take 5 percent of your total cost and do your clean-up, and 

that is the only way we are going to get out of the mess. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you for your testimony and the helpful 

way you constructed and presented it. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Henderson, welcome. Thank you for joining us. 

TESTIMONY OF JAMES S. HENDERSON,1 FORMER STATE ARCHIVIST, STATE OF MAINE, REPRESENTING THE SOCIETY OF 

AMERICAN ARCHIVISTS 

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you, Chairman Carper. As you mentioned, I served as the Director of the Maine State Archives and 

I have got similar anecdotes that unfortunately would—— 

Senator CARPER. Who appointed you? 

Mr. HENDERSON. I was appointed by the Secretary of State in a 

very interesting fashion, and nominated by the Secretary of State, 

confirmed by the State Senate, and the salary has to be approved 

by the Governor, so it is in all kinds of ‘‘don’t mess with this guy.’’ 

And a 6-year term, by the way. 

Senator CARPER. A 6-year term, OK. Thank you. 

Mr. HENDERSON. Yes. well, I wasn’t afraid to ask a lot of times, 

but I didn’t get the answers that we wanted much of the time. But 

for now, I have maintained my contents with the archival community since last year and today I am representing the Society of 

American Archivists. 

Just a bit about them. They were founded in 1936 and the Society is the largest organization of professional archivists, with 5,200 

members in the United States and abroad. Just specifically, archivists ensure authenticity, integrity, preservation of and access to 

historical records, and authenticity means is this really a Jefferson 

paper or not and make sure you keep that information. 

We believe that this important oversight hearing is long overdue. 

The National Archives and Records Administration and the National Historical Publications and Records Commission are essential to ensuring government accountability and documentation of 

our history. They have been overlooked and underfunded for far too 

long, in our opinion. 

I touch briefly on three key areas: The challenge of managing 

Federal electronic records, the importance of, if I may, NHPRC, 

and the connection between records management and freedom of 

information. 

NARA and others have struggled for decades with the challenges 

of managing electronic records. In fact, just as an aside, the 

NHPRC funded a retreat for archivists in the 1990s that attempted 

31 

to educate us about just what was coming down the pike and also 

shortly thereafter we had the demonstration of Armstrong v. The 

Executive Office of the President by the National Security Archives, 

saying these things really are records. But we had to bring those 

things back to our States. 

NARA’s Electronic Records Archives project stems from years of 

basic research such as this, including how to even define records 

in the new environment and keep them accessible over hundreds 

of years. Many records will remain outside the Electronic Records 

Archives and be lost if agencies fail at least to follow NARA’s guidance. This will not be a priority unless Congress mandates it and 

provides necessary funding. NARA is no match for a huge agency 

serving substantial political constituencies with little regard to 

records management, and here is true confession No. 1 on my life. 

In the bureaucracy before becoming the State Archivist, I was in 

the Secretary of State’s office as a Deputy Secretary of State and 

this nice lady came by one day to help me schedule my records and 

organize those things and, wait a minute, I had elections to run 

and corporations to file and I really did not understand what I 

should have understood, but somebody should have rapped me on 

the head at that point. But that is the problem. It is not a priority 

for many of these agencies. 

Slowing the loss of these records requires close scrutiny by Congress, some tolerance for uneven progress, and adequate funding of 

the Electronic Records Archives. 

Now to the National Historical Publications and Records Commission. NHPRC helps Archives preserve and provide access to historical records. It is the only Federal program that concentrates on 

archival records that convey, among other things, a shared national 

experience from generation to generation, something that we need 

especially in these days of increased migration and the more complexity of our own population. Documenting personal rights is another element of these records, and providing evidence to hold governments accountable. 

Since 1964, NHPRC has awarded over $175 million to 4,300 

projects in 50 States. It has helped State archives preserve a detailed record of State-operated Federal programs and supported 

regrant projects in local communities, with $5.8 million matched by 

State funds of $8.4 million and additional funds by the local groups 

themselves. Regrant is something where NHPRC gives a State 

money to then grant these smaller institutions. 

Today, community record repositories, however, these smaller institutions, receive electronic equivalents of the old Civil War letter, 

the business journal, or the community photographs. Digital 

photos, spreadsheets, even e-mails often literally sit on a shelf or 

on a hard drive in an aging computer. Without attention, they die. 

Two electronic records grants were crucial to Maine. One produced a strategic grant for managing electronic records, providing 

the guidance needed to educate the State’s information technology 

agencies about the preservation challenges. The second supported 

the Maine Geoarchives that now captures, appraises, and preserves 

Geographic Information System records. Both of these provided the 

credibility and expertise of the Archives to become a lead agency 

for planning a well-managed e-mail system which should improve 

32 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Sherwin appears in the Appendix on page 104. 

retention, speed retrieval for legal discovery and Freedom of Information requests, and enhance agency efficiencies. 

But for the fourth consecutive year, the President has proposed 

no funding. The Society of American Archivists strongly objects and 

asks Congress to appropriate the fiscal year 2009 funding at the 

fully authorized level of $10 million for the grants and $2 million 

for administration. 

H.R. 5582 would reauthorize the NHPRC at an annual level of 

$20 million for the years 2010 through 2014. We urge you to introduce and speed passage of the companion bill. 

Finally, on Freedom of Information, I was and continue to be a 

member of Maine’s Freedom of Information Coalition, which includes news media and public interest groups. An effective archives 

and records management program is inseparable, I believe—we believe—from an effective Freedom of Information policy. Without the 

requirements to retain the records, Freedom of Information requests and Congressional requests would return very little useful 

information. The Society of American Archivists supports sufficient 

funding for the Office of Government Information Services and its 

Freedom of Information Act ombudsman within NARA. 

Finally, archival institutions have looked to NARA as a model for 

records management and preservation. Its work has been vital to 

develop needed standards, policies, and legislation. We hope you 

will continue these oversight hearings, recognizing the critical importance of NARA and the work of the NHPRC, and will provide 

the funding to get that job done well. 

Thank you for the opportunity. 

Senator CARPER. Dr. Henderson, thank you very much. 

Our last witness on this panel and this day is Dr. Martin Sherwin. Dr. Sherwin, please proceed. Thank you. 

TESTIMONY OF MARTIN SHERWIN,1 UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR 

OF HISTORY, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY, REPRESEING 

THE NATIONAL COALITION FOR HISTORY 

Mr. SHERWIN. Thank you, Senator Carper. I appear here today 

representing the National Coalition for History (NCH), a consortium of over 60 historically-oriented organizations under the capable leadership of Lee White. 

My full written testimony covers many issues critical to our concerns today, including, first, the serious need to expand the financial and human resources allotted to the National Archives and 

Presidential libraries. 

Second, the benefits of creating and passing a Senate companion 

bill to H.R. 5582, to reauthorize the National Historical Publications and Records Commission. 

Third, funding for the repair and restoration of many of the older 

Presidential libraries. 

Fourth, the need to support the transfer of the manuscript collections held by the Archives to digital formats so they may be 

accessed from the web. 

Fifth, the need to do something to speed up the declassification 

of government records. 

33 

Sixth, the disgraceful disappearance of millions of White House 

e-mails written between March and May 2003 in the run-up to the 

Iraq War. 

It also addresses a more general and, I think, profoundly important issue, the relationship between Presidential records and our 

democracy. 

In 1941, at the dedication of his library, President Franklin Roosevelt clearly articulated why the National Archives and the Presidential Library System are so vital to the vitality of our democracy. 

The dedication of a library is in itself an act of faith, he said. To 

bring together the records of the past and to house them in buildings where they will be preserved for the use of men and women 

in the future, a Nation must believe in three things. It must believe in the past. It must believe in the future. It must, above all, 

believe in the capacity of its own people to learn from the past that 

they can gain in judgment in creating their own future. 

Forty-six years ago, I was a young Lieutenant JAG in the U.S. 

Navy trying to decide whether to study law, business, or history. 

Then in October 1962, I participated in the Cuban Missile Crisis 

and my experiences during that extraordinary event led me to dedicate my career to understanding the principles, assumptions, and 

details of American politics and foreign policy. 

Anyone so dedicated will confirm that it is in the nature of the 

political process of any government, and the U.S. Government is no 

exception, that much of what we believe about contemporary decisions will be revealed by historical research to have been incorrect, 

or at best partially correct. And I submit that our democracy cannot remain robust without this constant historical auditing of our 

government’s behavior. 

Just as the press is the fourth estate of our democracy, it is clear 

to me that President Roosevelt was making the point in 1941 that 

history is its fifth and equally essential estate. Ominously, the current Administration does not appear to share President Roosevelt’s 

view that sustaining our way of life depends in important ways on 

our access to our government’s history. 

Under the Presidential Records Act of 1978, Presidential records 

were to be released to historians and the public 12 years after the 

end of a Presidential administration. However, in November 2001, 

President George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13233 that gave 

current and former Presidents, their heirs or designees, and former 

Vice Presidents broad authority to withhold Presidential records or 

delay their release. I consider this an outrage, nothing less than a 

frontal assault on the principle of open government that sustains 

our democracy. 

The President and Vice President are public servants, elected to 

office to serve our Nation, not as dictators, not as they define their 

service, but as our laws, our traditions, and our institutions define 

them. After their tenure has expired, it is the public’s right to 

know in a timely manner the details of how they went about fulfilling their responsibilities. Their actions are not a privileged secret that they and their families have the right to control. That is 

how dictatorships operate. That is how totalitarian societies function. That is a certain recipe for corruption. I urge every Senator 

34 

who is truly committed to sustaining the future of our democracy 

to vote to assure that the 1978 Presidential Records Act is restored. 

At a recent hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on 

the completion of the Founding Fathers project that received support from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission, Historian David McCullough said, ‘‘you can tell a lot about 

a society by how it spends its money. Here is our chance, and it 

is long overdue to show what we care about, what we value, and 

what we are proud to pay for.’’ 

I join David McCullough in urging the rejection of the President’s 

zero funding proposal for NARA and the National Historical Publications and Records Commission and request that Congress appropriate funding at the fully authorized level, $10 million for the 

NPRC National Grants Program and an additional $2 million for 

staffing and related program administration. 

In conclusion, when your constituents elected each of you, they 

entrusted you with great responsibilities. I submit that one of those 

responsibilities is to be stalwart stewards of America’s past. Decisions you make about funding the organizations that preserve and 

make available Federal and Presidential records directly affect 

whether our democratic institutions will be reinforced by a robust 

historical understanding or weakened by a shallow, superficial historical awareness. Given these options, I trust that there will be bipartisan support for Franklin Roosevelt’s vision of the centrality of 

history and the vitality of our democracy. 

Thank you for your time. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you for that excellent testimony. Thank 

you so much. 

Mr. SHERWIN. Thank you. 

Senator CARPER. You were in the Navy? 

Mr. SHERWIN. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. Were you on a ship? 

Mr. SHERWIN. In the air. I get seasick when someone runs the 

bathtub. [Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. What kind of airplane? 

Mr. SHERWIN. P2Vs. 

Senator CARPER. P3. Great to see you. 

Mr. SHERWIN. You were lucky. 

Senator CARPER. Yes, we were. I did 5 years active duty in the 

Vietnam War and another 18 beyond that. I would still be in the 

Navy if my wife hadn’t made me quit after 23 years. 

Mr. SHERWIN. Well, we are glad you are in the Senate. 

Senator CARPER. So am I, and thank you for your service to our 

country. 

My first question is really one I am going to ask everyone to 

chime in on. I want to ask you to just step back a little bit and 

to use your outside perspective, not as an IG or someone who is actually working within the Archives office, but how do you think the 

Archives is doing in fulfilling its mission? I know many times it is 

easy to beat up on an agency that is in the hot seat, but if there 

is anything that the Archives is doing exceptionally well, I would 

like to hear about that. If there are things that they ought to be 

commended for, we would like to hear about that. Anything that 

35 

you want to highlight that you have seen and want Congress to 

know about. 

What would you say as outside witnesses, is the No. 1 challenge 

that the Archives faces today, and what advice would you have for 

us in Congress as to what we ought to do about it? And some of 

you have spoken to that, but repetition is not a bad thing. 

Dr. McDermott, do you want to lead that off? 

Ms. MCDERMOTT. Sure. How do I think NARA is doing fulfilling 

its mission? I think NARA is struggling to fulfill its mission. One 

thing that wasn’t in my bio is I used to work at NARA. I worked 

at the Carter Presidential Library and then I actually worked at 

NARA here in DC. I think they have a problem that was addressed 

in the earlier testimony in that they, as Mr. Brachfeld said, they 

take an approach of collegiality and advising rather than being 

willing to seek the money that they need and to take their responsibility fully to ensure that our historical record really is being preserved. 

The Archives 10 years ago adopted a records management standard that DOD had adopted—5015, I think, something like that— 

and nothing has happened. Most agencies, as I said, don’t have 

records management programs. They don’t do records management; 

NARA has abandoned its role of doing auditing. They do training 

and they do guidance, but I think they really are failing in that 

mission. 

And I think that the Electronic Records Archives is a way of 

after-the-fact, as Mr. Blanton said, dealing with that problem, ingesting this material that they should have been dealing with 20 

years ago. I mean, it has been over 20 years now that the government has moved to primarily digital creation of its documents and 

nothing has happened. Scott Armstrong, who helped found the National Security Archive, used to call it the Carlin Gap, that there 

is a 20-year, and now a 30-year gap in our history. We don’t know 

if this stuff is being preserved, the electronic documents. 

So I think they are struggling, but I don’t think they are doing 

well and I think Mr. Blanton is right that they are overwhelmed 

with the volume that is coming at them on classified information 

and the electronic records that are coming at them, and now they 

have these new missions that are arguably different. They are dealing with contemporaneous issues and contemporaneous records. 

So I think they need strong oversight. And I think they need to 

be pushed to seek more funding and then that funding needs to be 

overseen. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. Mr. Blanton. 

Mr. BLANTON. I want to say a few good things about the National 

Archives, which is in my experience at so many of these facilities, 

the National Archives has a phenomenally professional, responsive 

staff that put up with onerous researchers who come in and make 

huge requests for records and want to scan everything yesterday. 

They are phenomenally responsive to their customers. They have 

a very high standard. 

And I think, having done research in archives around the world, 

from Jakarta to Moscow to Guatemala City, I say in the testimony, 

and there are a lot more places we have been, I would say every 

one of those folks comes to College Park or comes down here on the 

36 

Mall and looks at our National Archives and says, well, that is the 

world class standard, and that is true. All that is true, and much 

to their credit. 

And when there is a crisis, like when we found the CIA and the 

Air Force stuffing previously released public documents back into 

the vault, or as the Washington Post called it, toothpaste back in 

the tube, Dr. Weinstein and his tremendous staff did absolutely the 

right thing, did an audit, showed the problem, and while the agency shoved 25,000 documents, hundreds of thousands of pages back 

into the vault before the audit, since the audit and those standards, 

seven documents. So they do the right thing when they see it on 

the front page or they get a call from the U.S. Senate to go do it. 

I outlined what I thought were the two big challenges, the electronic avalanche and the classified and declassified—there is a new 

mountain range of classified secrets being created today under new 

pressures from the War on Terror using old Cold War thinking, 

when even Donald Rumsfeld’s own Defense Department said that 

50 percent of what is classified shouldn’t be, over-classified. Well, 

in that situation, think about the cost structure of that. If we are 

spending more than $8 billion on keeping the secrets and yet $4 

billion of it is unnecessary, and it is more than unnecessary, it does 

damage to our national security to keep those secrets or keep making our own system more inefficient. 

So I think advice to Congress on those challenges, I think you 

have got to get in on the front end. You have got to set the standards for the agencies. It is not just a matter of giving money to the 

National Archives because you give money to the National Archives 

to do the Electronic Records Archives initiative. You are still behind the curve unless you tell the Pentagon, take your $30 billion 

you are spending on information technology and put archiving requirements in there. And when you make a system, build it so that 

it will produce a document that can be released to the public. 

The CIA spent tens of millions of dollars on this Remote Archives 

Capture project and it helped the National Archives a lot to try to 

address this huge load of classified documents. But there is no net 

output because the CIA didn’t design that system to ever put those 

documents online. So now they have been processed digitally here 

in Washington. They come back to a Presidential library and those 

poor archivists have to print them out, review the printout, and 

then walk the printout to a Hollinger box and stick it into a file 

before you or I can get to see it. That is absurd. That is a total 

waste. So we have got to design our systems on the front end, and 

I think Congress is going to have to mandate that. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. Same question, Dr. Henderson? 

Mr. HENDERSON. I have less inside scoop on what has actually 

been going on in many respects, but from the distance point of 

view, the DOD standard which I actually have committed to memory, which is 5015.2—— 

Ms. MCDERMOTT. Right. Thank you. 

Mr. HENDERSON [continuing]. Is an incredibly detailed functional 

requirements for records management applications. This is something, though, as I mentioned, back in the 1990s people were starting to even think about the functional requirement for records 

37 

management applications and just what it ought to be. And 

NHPRC and NARA supported that thinking, so I would give them 

mega-points for just even getting people to understand this. 

I think, though, what could be done more would certainly be to 

transfer some of that operational knowledge to some of the State 

archives in some formal way. I think we often struggle out in the 

provinces, even though we go to the national meetings and we 

know the people, but I don’t think—that has not been one of the 

spin-offs of maybe a lot of knowledge that has been created within 

NARA and should be. 

And the other clearly is the advocacy for the funding. It is just 

part of the mission, I think, is to advocate. So if it isn’t heard, then 

it ought to be clarified and it ought to be clear who heard the message, why it hasn’t been responded to, and clearly the magnitude 

of the funds necessary versus other priorities are just completely 

out of whack since if we don’t spend the resources at the front end 

and now, we are basically saying this is not as important as we all 

say it is when we have our flags on our lapel pins and we go out 

campaigning. But this really isn’t as important as a few pigs in a 

poke. 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thank you. 

The last word here, Dr. Sherwin, on this particular issue. I have 

one more question, and then we are going to wrap it up. Go ahead, 

Dr. Sherwin, please. 

Mr. SHERWIN. I just want to say that I agree with everything 

that Tom Blanton especially said. 

Senator CARPER. Everything? 

Mr. SHERWIN. Yes, everything. Everything. [Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. Has this happened before, Mr. Blanton? 

Mr. BLANTON. Never. [Laughter.] 

In fact, I lectured in a series at the University of Delaware 

hosted by the distinguished journalist Ralph Begleiter and—— 

Senator CARPER. I was just with Ralph on Saturday. 

Mr. BLANTON [continuing]. I never list that in my resume because of the title he put on the lecture series. It was, ‘‘Spies, Lies, 

and Sneaky Guys.’’ I was the only non-spy on the panel. [Laughter.] 

Senator CARPER. All right. Thanks. 

Mr. SHERWIN. Well, asking a historian about the National Archives experience is like asking a shopper who goes into a department store. If you find just what you are looking for on sale and 

you have a great sales person, you are happy as a clown, and that 

has happened to me frequently. Occasionally, I have had the opposite experience. What the internal structures are and the internal 

problems are that lead to the opposite experience, I can’t say. But 

I think Mr. Blanton has put his finger on it. 

I think the most important thing for the near future is getting 

everything digitized and up online, and I think that the National 

Security Archive is really the model. Now, the National Archives, 

of course, are orders of magnitude, tens of thousands of orders of 

magnitude larger organization, and therefore much larger problem. 

But the process of digitizing all this and getting it online will also 

lead to a much more efficient declassification process because you 

can find words in there and you can go through hundreds of thouVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:18 Oct 23, 2008 Jkt 043913 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\43913.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
38 

sands of documents at once, and if none of the one million words 

that indicate that this might be a classified document are in any 

of these documents, bingo, they are declassified and that is the end 

of it. 

And the last thing I want to say is remind us all about the Pentagon Papers. I mean, those were top secret documents and they 

were released in the early 1970s. What harm did that do to the Nation? We knew more about why we were involved in that war and 

that was important to know. I think the Pentagon Papers is something that really should be looked at in terms of its impact on politics and the whole classification idea. 

Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, would you tolerate just a 

minute? 

Senator CARPER. Yes, just briefly. Go ahead. 

Mr. HENDERSON. Yes, and that raises the issue of digitization, 

which certainly isn’t immediate gratification but it is a long-term 

royal pain and expense. So we just have to keep that in mind, that 

these electronic records are not, as everybody is saying, like the 

nice paper you put on the shelf that is going to last 400 years. It 

won’t. It requires a lot of capital investment and long-term amortization of the cost of doing those things. 

So what I would be concerned about is as digitization is important for access, needless to say, preservation is so critical that we 

don’t want to get further behind on that side of the coin. 

Senator CARPER. OK. The last question that I wanted to ask focuses on a point that several of you have made. As somebody who 

has spent some time in the military and here in the Congress, as 

well, the notion that we sometimes over-classify information and 

continue to over-classify it and are reluctant to declassify information. 

I have someone waiting in my office who has been waiting now 

for a half-an-hour for me, and I need to go there in preparation for 

a markup on the Banking Committee on which I serve tomorrow 

on two significant pieces of legislation. I am being rude to them, 

and what I am going to have to do is draw this to a close. But rather than ask this question and one or two others that I have orally, 

what I would like to do is submit them electronically—— 

Mr. BLANTON. We will archive them for you, if you would like. 

Senator CARPER. I was hoping that you might. 

Mr. HENDERSON. If they are deemed worthy. 

Senator CARPER. I have a couple more questions I would like to 

submit. Others on our Subcommittee may have questions, as well, 

to submit, and I would just ask that when you get the questions 

to try and respond to them promptly. We would be most grateful. 

You have been very generous with your time today. This has 

been enjoyable, and frankly, for me, quite informative. It is nice to 

connect with a fellow Navy P2, P3 colleague, as well. So we will 

look forward to submitting a couple of questions in writing. We just 

ask that you respond. 

With that having been said, I am going to declare this hearing 

adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 5:25 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(39) 

A P P E N D I X 


43913.001
40 


43913.002
41 


43913.003
42 


43913.004
43 


43913.005
44 


43913.006
45 


43913.007
46 


43913.008
47 


43913.009
48 


43913.010
49 


43913.011
50 


43913.012
51 


43913.013
52 


43913.014
53 


43913.015
54 


43913.016
55 


43913.017
56 


43913.018
57 


43913.019
58 


43913.020
59 


43913.021
60 


43913.022
61 


43913.023
62 


43913.024
63 


43913.025
64 


43913.026
65 


43913.027
66 


43913.028
67 


43913.029
68 


43913.030
69 


43913.031
70 


43913.032
71 


43913.033
72 


43913.034
73 


43913.035
74 


43913.036
75 


43913.037
76 


43913.038
77 


43913.039
78 


43913.040
79 


43913.041
80 


43913.042
81 


43913.043
82 


43913.044
83 


43913.045
84 


43913.046
85 


43913.047
86 


43913.048
87 


43913.049
88 


43913.050
89 


43913.051
90 


43913.052
91 


43913.053
92 


43913.054
93 


43913.055
94 


43913.056
95 


43913.057
96 


43913.058
97 


43913.059
98 


43913.060
99 


43913.061
100 


43913.062
101 


43913.063
102 


43913.064
103 


43913.065
104 


43913.066
105 


43913.067
106 


43913.068
107 


43913.069
108 


43913.070
109 


43913.071
110 


43913.072
111 


43913.073
112 


43913.074
113 


43913.075
114 


43913.076
115 


43913.077
116 


43913.078
117 


43913.079
118 


43913.080
119 


43913.081
120 


43913.082
121 


43913.083
122 


43913.084
123 


43913.085
124 


43913.086
125 


43913.087
126 


43913.088
127 


43913.089
128 


43913.090
129 


43913.091
130 


43913.092
131 


43913.093
132 


43913.094
133 


43913.095
134 


43913.096
135 


43913.097
136 


43913.098
137 


43913.099
138 


43913.100
139 


43913.101
140 


43913.102
141 


43913.103
142 


43913.104
143 


43913.105
144 


43913.106
145 

Æ 


43913.107