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

61–585 PDF 2010

STRENGTHENING THE NATIONAL HISTORICAL

PUBLICATIONS AND RECORDS COMMISSION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INFORMATION POLICY,

CENSUS, AND NATIONAL ARCHIVES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JUNE 9, 2010

Serial No. 111–80

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

(

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

http://www.oversight.house.gov

(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York, Chairman

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

PETER WELCH, Vermont

BILL FOSTER, Illinois

JACKIE SPEIER, California

STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio

JUDY CHU, California

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

DAN BURTON, Indiana

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

RON STROMAN, Staff Director

MICHAEL MCCARTHY, Deputy Staff Director

CARLA HULTBERG, Chief Clerk

LARRY BRADY, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INFORMATION POLICY, CENSUS, AND NATIONAL ARCHIVES

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri, Chairman

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas

JUDY CHU, California

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah

DARRYL PIGGEE, Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on June 9, 2010 ................................................................................. 1

Statement of:

Beschloss, Michael R., Presidential historian, vice president, Board of

Directors, Foundation for the National Archives; Dr. Steven Hahn,

Roy F. and Jeannette P. Nichols professor of history, University of

Pennsylvania; Karen Jefferson, head of archives and special collections,

Atlanta University Center; Dr. Ira Berlin, distinguished university professor, University of Maryland, representing the American Historical

Association; and Dr. Pete Daniel, curator, National Museum of American History, retired, representing the Organization of American Historians ............................................................................................................... 78

Berlin, Dr. Ira ............................................................................................ 97

Beschloss, Michael R. ................................................................................ 78

Daniel, Dr. Pete ......................................................................................... 104

Hahn, Dr. Steven ....................................................................................... 82

Jefferson, Karen ........................................................................................ 90

Gottlieb, Peter, State archivist of Wisconsin, representing the Society

of American Archivists; Barbara Franco, director, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, representing the American Association

of State and Local History; Barbara Teague, Kentucky State archivist

and records administrator, representing the Council of State Archivists;

Kaye Lanning Minchew, director of archives, Troup County, GA, representing the National Association of Government Archives and

Records Administrators; and Susan Holbrook Perdue, director, Documents Compass, Virginia Foundation for the Humanities, representing

the Association for Documentary Editing ................................................... 120

Franco, Barbara ......................................................................................... 126

Gottlieb, Peter ........................................................................................... 120

Minchew, Kaye Lanning ........................................................................... 144

Perdue, Susan Holbrook ........................................................................... 151

Teague, Barbara ........................................................................................ 134

Larson, Hon. John B., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Connecticut, member of National Historical Publications and Records

Commission; David S. Ferriero, archivist of the United States, chairman, National Historical Publications and Records Commission; and

Kathleen M. Williams, executive director, National Historical Publications and Records Commission, U.S. National Archives and Records

Administration .............................................................................................. 11

Ferriero, David S. ...................................................................................... 16

Larson, Hon. John B. ................................................................................ 11

Williams, Kathleen M. .............................................................................. 64

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

Berlin, Dr. Ira, distinguished university professor, University of Maryland, representing the American Historical Association, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 99

Beschloss, Michael R., Presidential historian, vice president, Board of

Directors, Foundation for the National Archives, prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 80

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

Missouri, prepared statement of .................................................................. 3

Daniel, Dr. Pete, curator, National Museum of American History, retired,

representing the Organization of American Historians, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 106

Page

IV

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by—Continued

Ferriero, David S., archivist of the United States, chairman, National

Historical Publications and Records Commission, prepared statement

of ..................................................................................................................... 18

Franco, Barbara, director, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, representing the American Association of State and Local History,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 128

Gottlieb, Peter, State archivist of Wisconsin, representing the Society

of American Archivists, prepared statement of .......................................... 122

Hahn, Dr. Steven, Roy F. and Jeannette P. Nichols professor of history,

University of Pennsylvania, prepared statement of ................................... 84

Jefferson, Karen, head of archives and special collections, Atlanta University Center, prepared statement of .............................................................. 92

Larson, Hon. John B., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Connecticut, member of National Historical Publications and Records

Commission, prepared statement of ............................................................ 13

Minchew, Kaye Lanning, director of archives, Troup County, GA, representing the National Association of Government Archives and

Records Administrators, prepared statement of ......................................... 146

Perdue, Susan Holbrook, director, Documents Compass, Virginia Foundation for the Humanities, representing the Association for Documentary

Editing, prepared statement of .................................................................... 153

Teague, Barbara, Kentucky State archivist and records administrator,

representing the Council of State Archivists, prepared statement of ...... 136

Williams, Kathleen M., executive director, National Historical Publications and Records Commission, U.S. National Archives and Records

Administration, prepared statement of ....................................................... 66

(1)

STRENGTHENING THE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PUBLICATIONS AND RECORDS COMMISSION

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9, 2010

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INFORMATION POLICY, CENSUS, AND

NATIONAL ARCHIVES,

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:07 p.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Clay, Norton, Driehaus, Westmoreland,

and Chaffetz.

Also present: Representative Jordan.

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

Cravins, counsel; Frank Davis and Anthony Clark, professional

staff members; Charisma Williams, staff assistant; John Cuaderes,

minority deputy staff director; Rob Borden, minority general counsel; Jennifer Safavian, minority chief counsel for oversight and investigations; Adam Fromm, minority chief clerk and Member liaison; Kurt Bardella, minority press secretary; Seamus Kraft, minority deputy press secretary; Justin LoFranco, minority press assistant and clerk; Tom Alexander, minority senior counsel; and Ashley

Callen and Jonathan Skladany, minority counsels.

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

National Archives Subcommittee will now come to order.

Without objection, the Chair and ranking minority member will

have 5 minutes to make opening statements, followed by opening

statements not to exceed 3 minutes by any other Member who

seeks recognition.

Without objection, Members and witnesses may have 5 legislative days to submit a written statement or extraneous materials for

the record.

Welcome to today’s hearing entitled, ‘‘Strengthening the National

Historical Publications and Records Commission.’’ Because we have

a long list of witnesses today who will talk about the specifics of

the Commission, I will make my remarks brief and submit my full

statement for the record.

It has been more than 20 years since the NHPRC’s authorization

was set at $10 million. In the past there have been attempts to

eliminate it by those who claim the Commission was wasteful or

redundant. These efforts, I believe, reflected a fundamental misVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:25 Oct 27, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\61585.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
2

understanding of what the NHPRC is and what it does. I am confident that this confusion is, like the records that the Commission’s

grants preserve are, now part of our past. I introduced H.R. 1556 last year to authorize the NHPRC at $20

million a year for the next 5 years. I hope the bill will enjoy the

broad and bipartisan support in the House that it clearly does

across the country, judging from the great interest shown in this

hearing.

I wholeheartedly support the NHPRC. It is a vital, successful,

and efficient program. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support increasing the authorized funding to a level commensurate

with the Commission’s goals and one that recognizes its importance

in helping to preserve and make available our Nation’s documentary heritage.

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

3

4

5

6

Mr. CLAY. I now yield to my colleague, Mr. Chaffetz, who is sitting in for the ranking member today. Mr. Chaffetz.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to start

by asking unanimous consent to first excuse Patrick McHenry. He

had a good excuse of getting married over the weekend. We congratulate him on that and understand that he is not here. We are

all so pleased that he actually got married.

Mr. CLAY. Without objection, we will give him a noted absence.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. We would also ask unanimous consent to allow

Mr. Jordan, who does serve on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, to join us here on the dias.

Mr. CLAY. Without objection.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.

Mr. Chairman, I need to bring up something that is troublesome

to us just before I give my opening remarks here. The House rules

require that the written statements of non-governmental witnesses

and witnesses representing non-government entities shall include a

curriculum vitae and disclosure of recent grants and contracts

awarded to themselves and the entities they are representing.

Despite a request by the committee staff, only one disclosure has

been provided to the members of the committee. Even that one disclosure, provided on behalf of the American Association of State

and Local History by Ms. Franco, was incomplete as it did not include Ms. Franco’s curriculum vitae.

Mr. Chairman, because the required Truth in Testimony disclosures have not been included in the written statements of Mr.

Beschloss, Dr. Hahn, Ms. Jefferson, Dr. Berlin, Dr. Daniel, Dr.

Gottlieb, and Ms. Holbrook Perdue, I move, pursuant to House

Rule 11, clause 2(g)(4), that the written statements of these seven

witnesses be excluded from the official committee record and the

print of this hearing.

Mr. CLAY. Are you waiting for me to rule on that?

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Yes, please.

Mr. CLAY. We do have all of the information that you requested.

If you would like, we could turn it over to you now.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Well, obviously, we would like it sooner rather

than later. I guess if you did have it all, again, I have the greatest

respect for you, I am a good friend. Why weren’t we provided that

information prior to the hearing?

Mr. CLAY. I really couldn’t tell you. But I am just hearing about

it now and it is kind of embarrassing. Hopefully, you will allow

these witnesses to be here. If you don’t think it is enough time, I

understand.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Oh, clearly. The witnesses have come at great

time and expense and what-not to be here, but the rules are there

for a reason.

Mr. CLAY. Sure.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. It allows us to dive deeper into the information,

ask probing and informative questions to make the most of this

hearing at the taxpayers’ dime. I appreciate your sincerity and

sharing that with me, but we should have had these records before.

Mr. CLAY. And I agree.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And this is an Archives meeting, for goodness

sake.

7

Mr. CLAY. You should have had those records. I don’t have a good

explanation as to why you don’t have them, and most of this has

come to us today.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. If you could provide them. I mean, obviously, we

want them as soon as possible. We want to proceed with the hearing. We have important information to review. But that simply

shouldn’t happen. I have noted it.

Mr. CLAY. And let me apologize for the delay. We will follow the

rules and this won’t happen again.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I appreciate the chairman. Thank you.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I do have a statement; I will proceed.

Mr. CLAY. Go ahead, proceed with the statement.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, our economy is reeling. Jobs are

scarce and many Americans are frustrated that Washington isn’t

listening to loud calls for belt-tightening and fiscal restraint. And

just like families that are forced to cut back on good things like

music lessons or vacation, Congress is also expected to cut programs, however meritorious, that are not essential to the core mission of our Federal Government. The Federal Government.

And I need to emphasize that because, quite frankly, we can’t be

all things to all people. We are trying to be, but we are more than

$13 trillion in debt. We are paying more than $660 million a day

just in interest. That is just our interest payment. We are not

meeting the basic needs of our Federal Government, and the question and the concern with the bill and some of the things that I

have heard discussed before this is expanding a program that,

quite frankly, doesn’t necessarily meet that Federal nexus.

Congress, however, doesn’t seem to have received this message,

so the American people are taking matters in their own hands. We

have a program, for instance, such as YouCut, where each week

taxpayers can vote on one of five nonessential programs to cut from

the Federal budget. Republicans then bring the top vote-getter to

the floor for a vote on cutting it.

This week tens of thousands of Americans have voted through

YouCut to strip funding from the National Historic Publications

and Records Commission from the Federal budget. The American

people believe that for whatever contributions the Commission has

made to our society through these grants, at a time when our Government is bankrupt, America can live without it.

We are going to have to make difficult decisions about what we

are going to spend and what we are not going to spend. I happen

to agree with those tens of thousands of American people who have

said the savings may be modest in comparison to a multi-trillion

dollar budget and the program, while well-intended, something has

to give.

Chairman Clay, in your December 16, 2009, opening statement

reminded us that ‘‘managing, preserving, and providing prompt

and proper access to Federal records has been and must continue

to be the primary mission of the National Archives.’’ I totally and

wholeheartedly agree. The mission and the goals that the Archives

provides is critical to our Nation’s future. There are things that, if

we don’t save them now, they won’t be saved in the future. And I

concur with that.

8

President Obama recently instructed agencies to cut programs

‘‘least critical’’ to their central mission. As the central mission of

the National Archives is to preserve records of the National Government, and while the Commission is focused on State and local

preservation, it most definitely qualifies this Commission as least

critical and funding should be cut.

Yesterday, OMB Director Orszag echoed the President’s message

calling for ‘‘duplicative’’ programs to be cut. The Commission does

the same thing that the much larger and well-funded National Endowment for the Humanities and the Institute for Museum and Library Services do. I agree with Director Orszag that duplicative

programs like the Commission can and should be stripped from the

budget. These are difficult decisions. I wish we could just have the

luxury of being able to do this, but we simply don’t.

The American people have the right to a government that saves

more than it spends. The first question we must ask ourselves as

stewards of the taxpayers’ hard-earned money is: What can America live without? Not what more can we spend other people’s money

on. That is what YouCut is all about.

We certainly won’t solve America’s fiscal problems by simply cutting the Commission. I understand that. We have to start somewhere, and the American people have spoken; they want us to start

here.

I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you.

Just for the record, I would really love to hear what you think

about the impact that the NHPRC has had in Utah. I am looking

at the total funds spent and for what purposes, establishing a network of archives in Utah, public record support documenting the

history of the people of the Great Basin in Utah; State archive support, support going to the University of Utah; Utah Historical Advisory Board; and so on.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Cut it. Cut it. Cut it. I got elected——

Mr. CLAY. Doesn’t this have an impact for the people of your

State?

Mr. CHAFFETZ. If I could have some time, with all due respect,

we have to make tough decisions. I will be the first to say, yes,

even if it affects Utah, cut it. We can’t do it. We can’t be all things

to all people.

Mr. CLAY. OK. All right, thank you for that.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Sure.

Mr. CLAY. Any other Members? Representative Driehaus, you are

recognized.

Mr. DRIEHAUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hadn’t prepared a

statement, but I feel inclined to offer one now.

Coming from Cincinnati, OH, where history is tremendously important to us, to our culture, to our institutions, I couldn’t disagree

with the gentleman from Utah more. The relatively minor investment that is made in preserving our history and preserving our

culture is critical, critical to the American psyche and critical to so

many communities across the country.

If we are looking for ways to address spending, if we are looking

for ways to address the deficit, the gentleman will have an opportunity to vote, hopefully later this month, on a conference report

9

dealing with Wall Street reform that would have prevented, had it

been passed earlier, the greatest recession we have seen in our lifetimes, which has been the single greatest contributor to the deficit.

He voted against it once and he has an opportunity to vote for it

for the future, so I hope he takes advantage of that opportunity.

Likewise, I don’t know that the gentleman spoke out against two

wars that were unfunded by the preceding administration.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Oh, yes I did.

Mr. DRIEHAUS. I hope he would have done that. Likewise, we had

a tax cut under the Bush administration that led to the greatest

deficit that we have seen in our lifetimes because we were set on

a path that was going straight down when we walked in the door.

But this isn’t about that. This is about preserving our history because it is so critically important to the culture of communities

across the United States. We do have a responsibility to preserve

that culture. We do have a responsibility to speak to our history

so that we don’t make the mistakes in the future of repeating past

mistakes.

So, Mr. Chairman, I would strongly disagree with my colleague

from Utah. I believe the NHPRC is critically important. I support

its funding and I am pleased that you are having the hearing

today, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Would the gentleman yield? You can always reclaim your time if you don’t like the direction I am going.

Mr. CLAY. The gentleman did not yield.

Does any other Member prefer to make an opening statement?

Mr. JORDAN. [Remarks made off mic.]

Mr. CLAY. Yes. You have 3 minutes.

Mr. JORDAN. Three minutes?

Mr. CLAY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JORDAN. I would yield the balance of my time to the ranking

member.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you.

To clarify, answer the gentleman’s question, I campaigned on the

very idea the Republicans had the House, the Senate, the Presidency, and they blew it. I did look back in retrospect and said,

yeah, what we did in Iraq was wrong, and I questioned the president in the move in Afghanistan. So to help clarify the record,

yeah, I have been very critical, even when it says the word ‘‘Bush.’’

I think I have been even in my principles.

Let me also clarify here that the National Archives and Records

Administration proposed budget for fiscal year 2010 is roughly

$467 million, the National Endowments for the Humanities is

roughly $167 million, and the Institute for Museum and Library

Services is roughly $240 million, for a total of roughly $874 million.

Now, somehow we are going to have to survive on that kind of

money. What is being proposed is to increase that even more.

At the same time, you have President Obama, you have the OMB

Director calling for a 5 percent cut, a 5 percent across-the-board

cut. Let me read this real quickly. This is from Director Orszag,

June 8th: ‘‘The bottom line is we do not have the luxury of simply

spending more. We must continually review all spending and make

sure every dollar addresses a clear need or problem. We can no

longer afford the old way of doing business here in Washington,

10

DC. As described below, the President is asking for a renewed effort to go through your budget line by line, with a critical eye to

target programs that are not the best use of taxpayer dollars.’’

We still have hundreds of millions of dollars allocated to preserving the needed records.

One last thing, Mr. Chairman, and I will conclude. On page 2 of

Director Orszag’s 5 percent target: ‘‘Your agency should identify

discretionary programs or sub-programs that constitute at least 5

percent of your agency’s fiscal year 2000 discretionary appropriations as enacted.’’

But what we are talking about here is a doubling. So I think,

ironically enough, I am being consistent with the President and the

OMB Director, and I think the gentleman from Ohio and others

should answer as to why they think, in this economic peril that we

are in, why they can justify doubling a budget. Doubling.

I yield back.

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chaffetz, the order was to look at programs in

agencies that were duplicitous and that were wasteful, and I am

sure that those agencies will be able to find some cuts.

Let’s move toward the testimony of the witnesses.

I would now like to introduce our first panel, and the first witness will be the Honorable John Larson, Member of Congress from

the great State of Connecticut. Congressman Larson has honorably

served the people of the First District of Connecticut since 1999

and is the Chair of the Democratic Caucus. Congressman Larson

has been an active and enthusiastic member of the NHPRC since

2007.

Our next witness is Archivist of the United States, David

Ferriero. Mr. Ferriero has led the National Archives since his confirmation last November. Mr. Ferriero previously served as the Andrew W. Mellon director of the New York Public Library, the largest public library system in the United States.

We will then hear from Ms. Kathleen Williams, who has been executive director of the NHPRC since 2008, after serving as deputy

director for 4 years. She previously spent over 20 years as an archivist.

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

to their testimony. I notice this is your first visit, Ms. Williams. We

are not as ferocious as we may seem. [Laughter.]

It is the policy of the committee to swear in all witnesses before

they testify. Would you please stand and raise your right hands?

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. CLAY. Thank you. You may be seated.

Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in the affirmative, and we will try to get through each witness’s testimony before

we recess.

Mr. Larson, you may proceed.

11

STATEMENTS OF HON. JOHN B. LARSON, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT, MEMBER

OF NATIONAL HISTORICAL PUBLICATIONS AND RECORDS

COMMISSION; DAVID S. FERRIERO, ARCHIVIST OF THE

UNITED STATES, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL HISTORICAL PUBLICATIONS AND RECORDS COMMISSION; AND KATHLEEN M.

WILLIAMS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HISTORICAL

PUBLICATIONS AND RECORDS COMMISSION, U.S. NATIONAL

ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN B. LARSON

Mr. LARSON. Well, thank you, Chairman Clay. I really appreciate

the opportunity to testify before you and ranking member for the

day Mr. Chaffetz, my distinguished colleague, Mr. Driehaus from

Ohio, Mr. Jordan as well. Thank you for affording me the opportunity to come and address the committee today on what I believe

is an extraordinarily important issue for the country, for the Nation, and one that I want to commend, from the outset, Chairman

Clay.

Chairman Clay has recognized the traditional under-funding that

has taken place in such a vital aspect of our Nation’s history and

its culture.

I am a strong supporter, in fact, the cosponsor of H.R. 1556, because I don’t believe the decisions that confront us, as have been

enumerated both by Mr. Driehaus and by Mr. Chaffetz, while they

are important in terms of how we look at what we are assigned to

do in the U.S. Congress, it is not a question of whether it is big

government or smaller government; it is a question of how efficient

the government is that we provide for the people. So as your responsibility, and ours all collectively, is to examine the budgets in

our committees and to make sure that what we are producing carries with it the most beneficial and effective use of money that we

can find.

If I can, Mr. Chairman, I will seek permission to revise and extend my remarks, submit extraneous information, and summarize,

if I will, because I think it is best to summarize this around an

age-old debate, and one best articulated by Daniel Boorstin, who

was the Librarian of Congress.

Boorstin was very concerned about the, well, at the time he

called it the Year of the Book, and what was happening in terms

of literacy, what was happening in terms of the confluence of technology and literacy, and what was happening, in fact—and I think

every Member of Congress and, I dare say, everyone in the audience can appreciate this—the differentiation between information

and knowledge.

It used to be commonplace that we would say we want it to be

an informed citizenry. And yet it is hard, I think, for anyone to

turn on the TV screen today and not see messages screaming

across the bottom of a screen while you are getting direct news,

while you are getting the forecast, while there is another sub-column over here, 24/7 cable. Clearly, Americans are informed. But

are they more knowledgeable?

So when we look at our great institutions, including the National

Archives, the Library of Congress, these institutions become, for a

12

democracy and a culture, a fortress of knowledge, differentiating

between the information. And especially in this day and age when

everything is instant, now, and everywhere, they become the storehouse of knowledge that allows the American citizen to peruse not

only present and future, but everywhere in the past at their leisure.

And that is why these primary documents, whether they be the

documents and the comments and the opening comments of today’s

committee hearing, whether they be floor statements, whether they

be historic in nature by virtue of the plethora of great Americans

that have made contributions to this Nation, they do indeed become vitally important.

Mr. Driehaus accounted for, in his statements, the need especially for our States and our municipalities and the need for us, if

we are to be that beacon of light around the world, to lead intelligently and effectively with who we are as a people.

It is one thing to talk about democracy, freedom, and liberty. It

is another thing, for all cultures, but most importantly our culture,

our people, our citizens, to have the kind of exposure that they

need to the great gift of knowledge, historic preservation, and

records that aren’t just instant, now, and everywhere, but are the

culmination of a Nation’s history, of a people, of humanity in general.

And I would submit that is the great strength of our country, our

national archive system, our library, which is second to none in the

world. If we are to bring about the kind of change that we would

all like to see around the world, there can be no more effective use

of money spent by this Congress than in making sure that great

and ennobling message is able to reach beyond our borders, but,

most importantly, within our borders, to educate our children and

future generations, to develop our scholars, to put, in fact, our

scholars at work.

The National Archives were born out of the effort of Franklin

Delano Roosevelt in a time far more difficult than what we face

today. But they saw the necessity in investing in the Nation’s history and making sure that we not only preserved it, but also used

this, going forward, as a beacon of hope not only for our country,

but, as we have seen, has served this Nation extraordinarily well.

I want to commend you, Mr. Clay. I wholeheartedly support your

legislation. I thank the committee for an opportunity to speak here

this afternoon. I apologize that, as the chairman knows, we have

a caucus that is going and, I guess, concurrent with votes that will

be taking place on the floor as well, and I thank all of my colleagues for the opportunity to speak before you today.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Larson follows:]

13

14

15

16

Mr. CLAY. I thank the witness for his appearance, and you are

dismissed. Thank you.

Mr. Ferriero, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF DAVID S. FERRIERO

Mr. FERRIERO. Chairman Clay and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to participate in this hearing on the

National Historic Publications and Records Commission, which is

especially timely since today is International Archives Day. I thank

you, Mr. Chairman, for introducing the reauthorization bill, and I

would also like to thank Congressman Larson for being here today

and for ably representing the House as a voting member on

NHPRC.

Although the National Archives is a steward of Federal records,

the National Historic Publications and Records Commission augments that work by awarding competitive matching grants that

help preserve and make accessible a much wider variety of important historical records that tell our American story.

As Archivist of the United States, I serve as chair of the Commission. It is a responsibility that I am honored to have, and I say

this as one who, for the past three decades in the library profession, has witnessed firsthand the power of these modest grants to

encourage and leverage a wide variety of archival projects.

The Commission’s membership is drawn from executive, judicial,

and legislative branches of the Federal Government and from professional associations of historians, editors, and archivists. It rigors

the reviews and competitively selects projects each year that preserve historical documents and make them available to all Americans. The most difficult part of this process is that we must cast

aside more excellent grant applications than we are able to fund.

In my written testimony, I have provided a few examples of grants

that work, and I can provide many hundreds of examples from

every State in the country.

Of course, each and every NHPRC grant is important to the people, institutions, and communities on the receiving end; however,

the ultimate grant beneficiaries are future generations of Americans who will continue to learn from the history we are helping to

discover, preserve, and make accessible.

NHPRC grants, however, can also make records available in

ways that have a dramatic impact on the lives of ordinary citizens

today. A grant from NHPRC to Texas Tech established the Vietnam Archives Families of Vietnamese Political Prisoners Association Collection, which helps Vietnamese refugees immigrate to the

United States. In June 2009, a former Vietnamese reeducation

camp prisoner was able to obtain political asylum in the United

States by using the documents found in this collection to prove his

case.

Another area where NHPRC support is making a difference is

helping States and localities expand access to digitized records on

the Web. Virtually every archives, museum, and library is struggling to meet these challenges of so many records, so much public

demand, and so few resources to make them easily accessible. And

electronic records, those created as digital files, increase the scale,

cost, and complexity of the problem. It is a challenge we are acuteVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:25 Oct 27, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\61585.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
17

ly aware of with Federal records at the National Archives and it

is a challenge we share with every State, city, county, and town

across the Nation.

I will be the first to admit that we do not have all the answers

here in Washington. Through the NHPRC, however, we are able to

fund innovative projects that contribute to a shared base of knowledge on best practices for creating, preserving, and providing access

to electronic records. All of us in the Federal Government are very

aware of the constrained budget environment. I would only add

that the equally difficult budget situations in most States are having a troubling impact on State and local archival programs. I

would argue that the preservation of historical records across the

Nation is as important in tough economic times as it is in prosperous times, and support from NHPRC is particularly crucial in

leveraging resources from State and the private sector, since

NHPRC award amounts are usually matched one to one, and also

in originating and sustaining jobs for archivists and researchers.

Through its grants program, the NHPRC fulfills Congress’s vision for national leadership to preserve and make accessible our

Nation’s rich documentary heritage. School children use these documents in their study of history; citizens use these documents to discover their own heritage and to affirm their basic rights; and storytellers use these documents to write new chapters in the American

story. From the award-winning historical biography of John Adams

to the PBS series on the Civil War and America’s national parks,

all are made possible through our support of the original documents in our Nation’s archives.

I know there are several individuals and organizations testifying

today in support of your legislation. With my testimony, I also am

including several letters from organizations that are not present

here today but wanted their support to be included in this hearing

record.

Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you, and

I look forward to answering your questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ferriero follows:]

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much, Mr. Ferriero.

We will suspend now with witness testimony and the subcommittee will recess and reconvene immediately after these series of

votes.

[Recess.]

Mr. CLAY. The subcommittee will come to order. We will now

pick up with Ms. Williams’ testimony.

You are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN M. WILLIAMS

Ms. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Chairman Clay and members of the

subcommittee, for inviting me to participate in this hearing on the

reauthorization of funding for the National Historical Publications

and Records Commission.

I have been the executive director of the Commission since April

2008, and prior to that I served as deputy executive director for 4

years. During this time, I have had the privilege of overseeing a

Federal grantmaking agency that plays a unique and valuable role

in helping Americans access their historical records and that

leverages its resources to maximum advantage.

Grantees each year develop and implement dozens of projects to

publish, preserve, and make known the Nation’s most important

collections of archives and personal papers to scholars, researchers,

teachers, and ordinary citizens in every corner of America. Since

1964, the Commission has funded approximately 4,800 projects

across the country. These projects in turn have laid the groundwork for countless venues that increase our understanding of the

American story and reach millions of Americans, including classroom use of historical documents in schools; public exhibitions at

historic societies and museums; prize-winning biographies of the

founding fathers and other notable Americans; television series on

the Civil War, John Adams, and numerous other topics; and new

digitized collections that document such varied subjects as the history of the Florida Everglades and the work of noted conservationist Aldo Leopold.

Through our grants programs, we are able to leverage funds from

private and public resources to augment the Federal dollars we invest. In addition, the majority of Commission grants support jobs

that move these projects forward.

In the panels this afternoon, you will learn about the work of historians, documentary editors, and archivists, and the catalytic role

the Commission plays in advancing that work for public benefit.

You will learn about the thousands of repositories across the country that struggle with caring for and providing access to the Nation’s historical records.

Over the next 5 years, the Commission seeks to address several

critical needs through its programs. First, one of the Commission’s

cornerstone grants programs is in publishing historical records,

which supports projects that transcribe, annotate, and publish the

historical records that document the American story, including the

founding era, the modern Presidency, the civil rights movement,

and more. To date, we have supported some 300 projects, a body

of work that tells the Nation’s remarkable history in the words of

those who made that history. In the Internet age, digital additions

65

have become vital tools for both preserving and making accessible

primary source materials. In the years ahead, we should ensure

historians and editors the opportunity to creatively adapt to the advantages of online publishing.

Second, the archives field must address several challenges in

dealing with the numerous backlog of unprocessed records and providing online access to collections. Over the past few years, the

Commission has spearheaded new grant opportunities implementing approaches to archival work that address the hidden collections

of historical documents to eliminate these backlogs and rapidly get

these historical collections known and available to the public. We

also are funding projects to digitize entire collections of historical

records and put them online, using cost-effective methods and a

streamlined approach. Institutions ranging from Princeton to the

Denver Public Library are rapidly changing their approaches to archival cataloging preservation and providing online access to substantial collections through our grants.

Third, at present, the NHPRC supports State historical records

advisory boards with grants to develop statewide services and

training in archives, as well as offering effective re-grant programs.

The vast majority of State boards actively partner with the Commission in these vital efforts. In Missouri, for example, our partnership with the State board recently helped support a re-grant program for 14 projects across that State, including the archives of

historic Booneville, the Jewish Federation of St. Louis, and the architectural archives at the St. Joseph Museums. The Commission

stands ready to do more of this kind of work to strengthen historical records preservation and use.

Finally, we are eager to develop targeted grants program that focuses on improving access to the Nation’s records of servitude and

emancipation. These documents are often extremely difficult to find

and use, but they are critical resources for anyone doing genealogical and other historical research.

The National Archives serves as a hub for the Nation’s archives

and the NHPRC is a key part of that process. The Commission

looks forward to serving as a true and effective Federal partner in

preserving and facilitating access to the Nation’s historical records.

Thank you again for this opportunity to discuss the Commission

with the committee, and I look forward to answering your questions about the NHPRC and its work.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Williams follows:]

66

67

68

69

70

71

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Ms. Williams, for your testimony.

Now we will go to the questioning period, and I will start with

Archivist Ferriero.

As chairman of the Commission, can you please explain how the

NHPRC is unique among all grantmaker supporting programs in

history, archives, and the humanities?

Mr. FERRIERO. I think, having been a recipient of grants from

both IMLS and NEH, I can speak to that, and now having chaired

two meetings of the Commission. The NHPRC is focused on

records, historical records. IMLS doesn’t deal with archives; the L

is for libraries, the M is for museums, and archives fall outside of

their funding responsibilities. And NEH is focused on the humanities, not focused on records. And I think that is what distinguishes

the NHPRC program.

Mr. CLAY. OK. Thanks for that response. Why should the Federal

Government be interested in helping State and local archives and

archivists preserve and make available non-Federal records?

Mr. FERRIERO. I think my message in my testimony is about telling the American story, and the ability to tell that American story

is larger than Federal records. I have, under my purview, 10 billion

items, but there are as many as that outside of my purview that

are documents that tell the American story.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for your response.

Ms. Williams, what specifically would an increased authorized

funding level mean for the Commission and its future grant recipients?

Ms. WILLIAMS. Well, I think it would mean a couple of things,

Mr. Chairman. I think it would help us to improve already existing

programs and expand those. In particular, digitizing historical

records really speaks to me and I think a lot of the rest of the citizenry in terms of direct access to these historical records. So I

think we would certainly look to expand that. I think we would

also look to use any increase to, in effect, enhance publishing

projects to really draw on the challenge of working and producing

online publications, and that is an investment that is a wise investment, again, for the American people that we are very eager to do.

We do some of it now, but I think that there is some investment

we could do with that.

I think in my testimony just now I also indicated to you we are

very eager to take on specific types of records, topical types, records

of servitude and emancipation. I think the Congress itself has

asked us to see how we can accommodate that and move such a

new program forward, and I think we are very eager at the Commission to take that on.

That is just a couple of examples that I can provide you with.

Mr. CLAY. And that inquiry’s funding would help you assemble

those records and enhance that effort, I am sure.

Ms. WILLIAMS. That is correct. One of the most effective programs we have is in dealing with the States and the State boards,

and we are able to do some of that now, I think, to a great result,

but increased funding will let us put more of that funding out

there.

Mr. CLAY. And how do NHPRC grants translate into jobs?

72

Ms. WILLIAMS. Well, interestingly, I think a lot of the work that

we support with historical records is very core work and it is very

labor intensive, so, as a result, the bulk of the money that we

award goes to either in publishing or in providing access and preserving goes toward basically jobs to carry out the work. This past

year, for example, the Commission awarded about 120 grants, and

of that about twice that amount in terms of jobs that are funded

fully or in part from this, this is jobs for historians, archivists,

those doing digitization work.

Mr. CLAY. Can you briefly describe the National Network of

State Historic Advisory Boards and how that is crucial to the work

of the NHPRC?

Ms. WILLIAMS. Certainly. The States boards, virtually every

State has a board and the territories as well, and we at the Commission have been partnering, we feel, very effectively with those

boards for over 30 years in trying to provide them with the means

to do statewide planning, provide statewide services, and issue

what we call re-grants. This is basically the States having the ability to, based on their assessments of needs in their States, not us

dictating in Washington how to spend it, but based on what they

know the needs are in their State, whether it is training, preservation, digitization, they then issue that money out to smaller modest

and smaller repositories to take care of those needs. So, for us, that

is actually a critical partnership in order to get the Federal money

out into local communities.

Mr. CLAY. OK. Thank you for your response.

Representative Chaffetz.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Look, the National Archives and Records Administration has

given hundreds of millions of dollars of the people’s money in order

to fulfill a most definite need and service, and I appreciate the

work that you do. Just yesterday, Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel

highlighted that the administration has proposed a 3-year freeze in

non-security discretionary funding and signed off on a directive to

have a target to identify at least 5 percent that can be cut out of

the budget. What are you proposing to cut out of your budget and

why would you support doubling of the grant program?

Mr. FERRIERO. I got those instructions yesterday afternoon. I

have seen them for the first time. We will launch a process to identify the areas in our administration, in our agency where we are

going to be making those cuts. The budget that is awaiting approval right now for fiscal year 2011 already is a $10 million reduction in our budget. We will be analyzing every piece of our legislation.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I hope you can understand and appreciate why

some of us look at this and say the proposal in the bill is to double

the funding. You are already starting to cut some; the White House

is starting to cut some; the Republicans, through YouCut, are trying to cut some, and that is why we have a bit of a disagreement.

We printed off the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration mission statement and I want to read the first part of that:

‘‘The National Archives and Records Administration serves American democracy by safeguarding and preserving the records of our

government.’’ I am struggling to find through the grant process

73

how you are justifying funding some of these programs that are not

the records of our government, because we can’t preserve everything. We can’t be all things to all people.

Do you, Ms. Williams, have in your own mind a definition that

separates the records of our government versus other projects that

may feel like they are worthy of preservation?

Ms. WILLIAMS. You are asking for a definition that separates

that or just my——

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Well, let me give you an example. Let me give

you an example. Princeton University, a pretty wealthy institution,

received $122,848 to process 1,965 linear feet of records for the

ACLU. I struggle to find the Federal nexus and the national imperative to help the ACLU preserve some of its records.

Ms. WILLIAMS. Well, maybe it would help if I can suggest how

this process works, so you have a better understanding.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Let me ask real directly. My time is so short, I

am sorry. Do you dismiss grant applicants based on—is there a litmus test that says ‘‘this is government, this isn’t?’’ ‘‘If you are not

government, sorry, you are going to scoot over and we are not going

to consider it?’’ You don’t dismiss anybody if they are outside government?

Mr. FERRIERO. Can I respond to that?

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Yes, sure. Sure.

Mr. FERRIERO. Congress established NHPRC in 1934 to deal with

the non-Federal records. This was an effort to get the National Archives to exert some leadership in the country with non-Federal

records. It is a grant program focused on States and local communities, universities, where there are historical records.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. You can see, when you look at the mission statement, of the overall, what you are trying to accomplish for the National Archives. Let me give you another example, and help me understand how you can justify in Wilmington, DE, Eleutherian

Mills-Hagley Foundation, $112,203 to process and make available

the papers of an interior designer, William Pahlmann, a leader in

department and specialty store design. Can you understand why,

with $13 trillion in debt, that a lot of people would look at that particular one and say, ‘‘that is what they are doing with our Federal

dollars?’’ How do we justify that? Why is that a good program?

Ms. WILLIAMS. Well, if I could go back, again, to kind of the process, because we don’t sit in Washington and simply, based on personal interest or anything else, make these sorts of decisions. The

grant process is a rigorous one, the review process, so we get a pool

of applicants every grant cycle from all across the country. We——

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And roughly how much money is requested overall? You give out $10 million, so do you know offhand how much

was requested?

Ms. WILLIAMS. This past year almost $23 million was requested.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So more than 45 percent of the people actually

get a grant?

Ms. WILLIAMS. About 46 percent received a grant thus far this

year.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I see my time has expired. I have more questions,

though. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

74

Mr. CLAY. Let me also note for the record that this is the process.

This bill, H.R. 1556, will only authorize; the money will still have

to be appropriated. This is the process that we use here, and I just

want to note that for the record. Also, when you talk about records,

be they Federal or private records, you know, as she mentioned,

servitude and emancipation records I think are Federal records.

The Freedmen’s Bureau was set up after the Civil War. That was

a Federal function. We sanctioned slavery in this country. That

was a Federal function. And they had the great debates around

slavery. I think it is consistent with us knowing our history that

we try to preserve those records and try to make that knowledge

available in a countrywide effort.

That is my editorial and I will stop here and recognize Mr. Jordan for questions.

Mr. JORDAN. I thank the chairman. I am not as familiar with the

subject matter as the chairman and the ranking member, but I

have a few questions. If I have enough time, I will yield that time

to our ranking member.

Do both of you agree that we are at a point in our Nation with

our government where we need to reduce spending and begin to get

a handle on not just your program, but overall the budget? Would

you both agree with that statement?

Mr. FERRIERO. I agree.

Ms. WILLIAMS. I do.

Mr. JORDAN. And you are familiar with the numbers that the

ranking member has been talking about, $1.4 trillion deficit, $13

trillion national debt? Within a couple years, within 2 years, we

will be paying more than $1 billion a day just on interest just to

service the debt, and that is even assuming that the interest rates

stay low, which they are right now, relatively low. You are familiar

with all those numbers?

Let me ask a question. I think Congressman Larson, when he

was talking earlier, talked about the overall budgets for Archives,

Humanities, and Library of Congress, close to $900 million, is that

right? $874 million. And the charge from the administration yesterday was to begin to look at agencies, figure out where there is redundancy, potential waste, programs that aren’t effective. In your

judgment, is there any potential redundancy with those three budgets? Do you think maybe we can find some places where the Archives are doing some of the same things that the Library of Congress is doing, the Humanities is doing? Do we know that?

Mr. FERRIERO. I think the figure that was cited for the Archives

was the entire Archives budget, not NHPRC, and the NHPRC piece

is $10 million. So you are comparing $10 million NEH and IMLS.

Mr. JORDAN. I guess my question is broader. Just as an expert

in this area, do you think that those three, the Archives, Library

of Congress, and Department of Humanities, do you think there

are——

Mr. FERRIERO. Duplication?

Mr. JORDAN. Yes.

Mr. FERRIERO. I don’t think so.

Mr. JORDAN. You don’t think so at all?

Mr. FERRIERO. I don’t think so.

75

Mr. JORDAN. Do you think the taxpayers would accept that, just

a general statement that you think no duplication?

Mr. FERRIERO. Yes.

Mr. JORDAN. OK.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Would the gentleman yield for a second?

Mr. JORDAN. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Part of the problem here is that one of the funding applications that happened in February 2009 was for the International Tennis Hall of Fame. How can we do that? And I recognize it doesn’t come under your direct purview, but how can anybody look the American taxpayers in the eye and say, ‘‘I know you

are struggling, but we have to get money to that International Tennis Hall of Fame?’’ That is what is so infuriating.

It is not because we are trying to do this for the civil rights

movement. I would support that. But far from it. The Goodwill for

a Computer Museum, for goodness sake, to make sure that we

make an allocation for vintage computers? That is the difference.

It is not the emotion and the need, the Federal nexus for the civil

rights movement, it is about the International Tennis Foundation,

the ACLU, Stanford University, Princeton. We are pulling people’s

money out of their pockets and we are giving it to somebody else.

That is not the proper role of government to be doing this at the

Federal level.

My apologies. I yield back.

Mr. JORDAN. No, no, I thank the gentleman. I think he makes

a great point.

Here is, I guess, in kind of a broad context. You know, we always

look at programs that are important and we understand that, but

in tough economic times you have to make tough decisions. I think

an example that comes to mind is our local school district. My wife

is a part-time teacher there, local school district. Two months ago,

front page of our local paper, they are talking about cutbacks they

are going to have to make, and I read through the whole thing, and

our kids go to that school, my wife and I went. We think it is a

nice little local school.

But I read through it all, and once you are looking at what they

are planning to do, the question that came to mind was, ‘‘well, why

in the heck weren’t we already doing this?’’ And that is what we

are asking. Go through, make those decisions, look at where there

potentially is redundancy, potentially waste, and make those tough

calls. That is what we are asking. Not to increase the budget. All

kinds of taxpayers, all kinds of families, all kinds of small business

owners are getting by on last year’s budget; in many cases something less than last year’s budget.

Why in the heck can’t government, in particular the Federal Government, do the same? And when you couple that with what the

ranking member has pointed out, some of these grant recipients,

and where some of these taxpayer dollars are going, I think just

adds weight to our argument. That is the point we are making.

And, with that, I would yield back my remaining 20 seconds to

the ranking member or yield back to the chairman. Thanks.

Mr. CLAY. OK. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. Just for

the record, for my colleagues, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Institute for Museums and Library Services do

76

not duplicate any NHPRC programs. That is just for your knowledge. They do not duplicate those programs.

If there are no further questions——

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I would like another round, if I could. I have the

right to do it twice, I believe.

Mr. CLAY. We have two other panels. I am sure you have enough

ammunition——

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I would like to respond, I guess, to——

Mr. CLAY. Well, go ahead and respond.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Again, I am new to this process, I am a freshman

here, but perhaps that perspective is a good one, because I still am

struggling to understand why there is not a duplication, because I

see that the imperative that you put out in your mission statement

is the preservation of the records of our government, and consistently I see that—let me give you another example that happened

through the NHPRC. The Norman Rockwell Museum at Stockbridge, MA, $108,000 to process and make available approximately

725 cubic feet of material on American artist Norman Rockwell and

20th century American artists. I fail to understand why that

wouldn’t fall under Humanities or some other issue.

Let me give you another one. Stanford University, $111,000-plus

to arrange and describe unprocessed materials from 88 collections

within its archived records, sound of spoken words and recordings

of music.

We could keep going on and on, but that is the kind of stuff that

is infuriating. In times of tough budgets, we have to find a way to

consolidate and make some cuts. What has been on the table is a

doubling of a budget. That is why I think you see so many people

just fired up about this.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CLAY. You are welcome, Representative.

Norman Rockwell, the great American artist, probably deserves

to have something preserved in our history.

Let me ask Ms. Williams if you would like to respond to anything

you have heard.

Ms. WILLIAMS. Well, I think that part of our emphasis at the

Commission is to invite applications for funding to support preservation and access to the Nation’s historical records, wherever they

reside, and a great variety, a great variety of records; and I think

some of the members of the subcommittee have pointed out some

that they find perhaps not worthy in their eyes.

I just want to reemphasize that these proposals all go through

a very rigorous vetting process by peer reviewers, State boards, the

full Commission, and staff, and that review process, I think, brings

the heavy weight of analysis to these proposals and they are used

extensively in making these sorts of decisions. So I think it is documenting for us at the Commission the American story, which goes

beyond Federal records. That is the mission of the Commission. It

has been its mission since it was created in 1934.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much.

At this point, this panel is excused and I would now like to invite

our second panel of witnesses to come forward.

Mr. JORDAN. The previous witness talked about the review process and how extensive it was. Is it accurate to say, though, that,

77

in the end, the 15 members of the NHPRC board make the final

decision? Is that an accurate statement? So, in the end, whatever

process in place, these 15 people decide who gets taxpayer dollars

and who doesn’t. Is that right?

Mr. CLAY. I would think that the board votes on—I am told by

staff the Archivist has the final say.

Mr. JORDAN. But in the end it is those 15 people.

Mr. CLAY. I am sure it is recommended to the Archivist by the

board.

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you.

I now would like to introduce our second panel. Our first witness

will be Mr. Michael Beschloss, a historian specializing in the U.S.

Presidency and American politics. Mr. Beschloss is a regular commentator on the PBS News Hour and is the NBC News Presidential historian. He is the vice president of the Foundation for the

National Archives.

Our next witness is Dr. Steven Hahn of the University of Pennsylvania. He is the co-editor of, ‘‘Freedom, A Documentary History

of Emancipation,’’ which benefited from NHPRC funding. He is the

author of, ‘‘A Nation Under Our Feet: Black Political Struggles in

the Rural South from Slavery to the Great Migration,’’ which received a Pulitzer Prize in History for 2004.

After Dr. Hahn, we will hear from Ms. Karen Jefferson, head of

archives and special collections at Atlanta University Center. She

was a founding member of the Archives and Archivists of Color

Roundtable. In 2003, she received the University of Maryland’s

James Partridge Outstanding African-American Information Professional Award.

Our next witness will be Dr. Ira Berlin of the University of

Maryland, here today representing the American Historical Association. He is the founding editor of the Freedmen and Southern

Society Project, supported by the NHPRC. His first book, ‘‘Slaves

Without Masters: The Free Negro in the Antebellum South,’’ won

the best First Book Prize awarded by the National Historical Society.

And our last witness on this panel will be Dr. Pete Daniel, retired curator at the National Museum of American History, and

here today representing the Organization of American Historians,

of which he is a past president. He is the author of, ‘‘Lost Revolutions: The South in the 1950’s,’’ which won the Elliott Rudwick

Prize.

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

to their testimony.

It is the policy of the subcommittee to swear in all witnesses before they testify. Would you all please stand and raise your right

hands?

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. CLAY. Thank you. You may be seated.

Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in the affirmative, and I ask that each of the witnesses now give a brief summary of their testimony, and please limit your summary to 5 minutes. Your complete written statement will be included in the hearing today.

78

Mr. Beschloss, please begin with your opening statement.

STATEMENTS OF MICHAEL R. BESCHLOSS, PRESIDENTIAL

HISTORIAN, VICE PRESIDENT, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, FOUNDATION FOR THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES; DR. STEVEN HAHN,

ROY F. AND JEANNETTE P. NICHOLS PROFESSOR OF HISTORY, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA; KAREN JEFFERSON,

HEAD OF ARCHIVES AND SPECIAL COLLECTIONS, ATLANTA

UNIVERSITY CENTER; DR. IRA BERLIN, DISTINGUISHED UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION; AND

DR. PETE DANIEL, CURATOR, NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AMERICAN HISTORY, RETIRED, REPRESENTING THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN HISTORIANS

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL R. BESCHLOSS

Mr. BESCHLOSS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to do better

than the 5. Thank you so much for inviting me and my colleagues

here this afternoon. Both as a historian and also as vice president

of the Foundation for the National Archives, I am very glad you are

holding this hearing.

As one who appreciates history, Mr. Chairman, you know that

our founders devoutly hoped to make this country different from

England and the other monarchies of Europe. One way they wanted us to be different was the way we Americans treat our history.

As you know, the kings and queens of Europe were in favor of history, but only official history. Documents and other evidence that

showed their mistakes were suppressed or destroyed.

And when the founders began to work on what the United States

should be, they knew all of that and, unlike the Europeans, they

felt that, for a country’s political system, history should be treated

not as a dangerous threat to be harnessed, but as a mighty force

that could make the country better. Our early leaders felt that only

if we knew our full history could we really know how and why our

past leaders and citizens succeeded, and also how and why they

failed.

And I think you can say that from the beginning those founders

practiced what they preached. If you go back to the closed door debates of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, you will find the

most detailed accounts of what they said and did; there are letters,

there are transcripts, there are diaries, there are notes. Over two

centuries later, we can hear those actual voices, and they speak to

us. We are using those records even still to argue about those constitutional debates and how our society in 2010 compares to the

early expectations.

I think it is not too much to say that if the founders came back

today, they would love the fact that we Americans have created an

NHPRC. I think they would feel there is no more patriotic act than

creating historical records, preserving them, and then making them

available as quickly as possible to the widest number of Americans.

And I think they would also love the fact that the NHPRC is not

just concerned with the great and famous; it has shown itself just

as eager to preserve and publish the letters of Swedish immigrants,

79

for instance, in my home State of Illinois, as the letters of President John Adams and his cabinet.

I think the NHPRC’s work is now more important than it ever

has been. Unlike earlier generations of Americans, we in 2010 don’t

tend to write many letters or diaries, and not too many of us pour

our innermost thoughts and emotions into an email. So I think it

couldn’t be more vital for the NHPRC to do everything it can to encourage the creation of some kind of detailed historical record.

Let me offer a quick example from my own professional experience. I have been working since 1994 on several books in which I

transcribe, edit, and try to explain the tapes that President Lyndon

Johnson made of 10,000 of his private conversations on the telephone in the Oval Office and elsewhere while he was President.

Until the Johnson tapes began to be opened in 1994, almost no one

knew that LBJ had secretly taped people he talked to without their

knowledge, including his wife, by the way, which I would not recommend for any marriage, but she took it with some good humor.

In retrospect, it is probably terrible that Johnson didn’t tell his

friends that he was taping them, but it is an inexhaustible treasure

for the American people.

Some of President Johnson’s language on those tapes, I am

afraid, is not fit for me to repeat in this hearing, but one lesson

which is on them, which I will close with, is something I don’t

think the chairman or any member of this subcommittee will disagree with, and that is this: Presidents should listen to Members

of Congress. Not a bad thought. May 1964, LBJ was talking to his

old mentor, Senator Richard Russell of Georgia, about whether to

go to war in Vietnam. Russell was Mr. Defense, but thought Vietnam was a loser. And on these tapes he tells Johnson, ‘‘Vietnam

is a tragic situation; it is just one of those places where you can’t

win. It will be the most expensive venture this country ever went

into.’’ He was absolutely right.

How different the history of our country could have been had

LBJ not rejected Russell’s wise advise. I think that one conversation between a single President and a single powerful Senator is

just one of the cautionary lessons that are crucial, I think, for later

American Presidents and also for all of us citizens. And I think if

it weren’t for the kind of work so well championed by the NHPRC,

we wouldn’t even know that conversation took place.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Beschloss follows:]

80

81

82

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Beschloss, for that brief history lesson.

And I am so glad you sanitized President Johnson’s language.

Dr. Hahn, you are up.

STATEMENT OF DR. STEVEN HAHN

Dr. HAHN. Thank you. Chairman Clay, Ranking Member

Chaffetz, Congressman Jordan, my name is Steven Hahn and I am

a professor of history at the University of Pennsylvania, and I am

very pleased to have the opportunity of coming before this committee today to speak in support of the authorization of an increased

funding for the NHPRC.

I have been, as Chairman Clay suggested, a direct beneficiary of

the resources that the NHPRC has made available, and I have seen

the many ways in which projects that the Commission has supported benefit historical learning and understanding in the United

States.

Early in my career, I worked as an associate editor at the Freedom History Project at the University of Maryland, the project that

had been supported by the NHPRC. At the time, I was a newly

minted Ph.D. and very excited about the work that the Freedom

History Project was doing: assembling a multi-volume documentary

history of slave emancipation in the United States using the

records deposited at the National Archives.

Most editorial projects, then and since, have focused on very well

known, nationally significant and powerful figures and institutions.

The Freedom History Project, by contrast, was uncovering the experiences of both the powerful and powerless, of policymakers and

bureaucrats, of ordinary soldiers and slaves who were bringing

about the destruction of slavery and the construction of a free society in the largest emancipation the world had ever seen. And, I

might add, also the best documented one.

Owing to the documents that I had the opportunity to read, compile, and annotate during my year as an associate editor on the

Project, I became increasingly interested in African-American politics in the rural south. The material that I was using raised intriguing questions both about what former slaves were doing in

their first years of freedom and about where their sensibilities and

practices came from.

When I left the Project to take up a post in the History Department at the University of California-San Diego, I decided to pursue

some of the questions and to write a book about what I found. That

book, ‘‘A Nation Under Our Feet: Black Political Struggles in the

Rural South from Slavery to the Great Migration,’’ which I began

to formulate while I was working at the Freedom History Project,

was eventually published by Harvard University Press and was

awarded the 2004 Pulitzer Prize in History.

Now, over the years that the NHPRC has supported the Freedom

History Project, numerous historians like myself have had the opportunity to find work in this rich intellectual environment, to develop our skills as researchers and writers, and subsequently, in no

small measure, owing to our experience at the Freedom History

Project, have been hired into full-time positions at a range of colleges and universities and have produced scholarship of genuine

importance. Former editors now hold professorships at 15 different

83

institutions of higher education across the United States; they have

won major prizes for their work; they have become MacArthur

Foundation fellows; they have served on State humanities councils;

and they have been elected, as Professors Berlin and Daniel have,

president of the Organization of American Historians.

But the impact of the NHPRC goes well beyond academic employment and published scholarship. It nourishes the educations

and intellectual appetites of students and other learners at all levels of American society. In the time since I worked at the Freedom

History Project, I have used the Project documents and essays in

my lecture courses and seminars at the University of Pennsylvania

and elsewhere.

I have also brought them into many public school teacher workshops I have participated in in those years. The teachers, in turn,

have brought the documents and other related materials into their

junior and senior high school classrooms, and have stimulated interest in our past and an exciting sense of discovery among their

students. And I used the Project materials extensively when I

taught college level courses for economically disadvantaged adults

in North Chicago, in what is known as the Odyssey Program, earlier in the past decade.

The reach of the NHPRC has been enormous and the benefits

that have derived from its resources are greater still. At a time

when the connections between past and present are very much a

part of public consciousness and the political discourse, we need to

promote the type of work that can make the past and our many

pasts come alive for all Americans. The NHPRC has already made

an invaluable contribution toward that end, and I would urge you

to authorize the level of funding that will allow the Commission

not only to continue, but also to expand its important undertakings.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I would be happy

to answer any of your questions.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Hahn follows:]

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for your testimony, Dr. Hahn, and thank

you for your important work in preserving American history.

Ms. Jefferson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF KAREN JEFFERSON

Ms. JEFFERSON. Chairman Clay and members of the subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to testify to you today about the

NHPRC. I am representing my library, who has benefited from the

support of NHPRC through our State Humanities Board, and I am

going to talk about how we benefited in that way.

First of all, I want to say that the archival profession greatly is

appreciative of the work of the NHPRC, and that extends to our

State Records Historical Advisory Boards that impacts us the most,

and I am going to talk about Georgia’s Historical Records Advisory

Board and the work that it does and how it benefits us directly.

First of all, we have a wonderful directory, GHRAB is what we

call our historical board, and this directory is an online directory

of over 600 different organizations in the State of Georgia so that

we know who we are, who is collecting the history, who is preserving the history; and also so that the citizens, our educators, our

students, and our researchers will know how to find out where the

records are in Georgia.

The grants program, of course, or the re-grants program that is

done by GHRAB through funding from NHPRC has been very helpful. Our institution has received a small grant, as has our sister

institution, Spelman College Archives, to help us do our work. A

lot of those awards are very small, they are $2,000 to maybe

$15,000, but they are vital to the work that we do. They are covering programs that deal with startup funds to help you begin your

archives, to help you improve the work that your archives is doing.

In particular, it funds educational opportunities. And, as archivists, we have to stay abreast of what are the best practices and

the standards so that we can preserve the records, and these educational opportunities through our State Historical Advisory

Boards are brought to the State and made more accessible, and

they are less expensive because we don’t have to travel and spend

extra money to go outside to learn about changes and developments

that we should use in our work.

This is particularly important because we are now doing a lot of

workshops related to managing electronic records and digitizing

historical materials, and we are also doing planning around disaster preparedness, because we have to be prepared to recover from

when we have disasters.

But, in particular, I want to mention the work that we are doing

today related to managing electronic records because even today, at

this hearing, all of the testimonies that we have done have been

prepared by computers. The hearing that we are having right now

is being recorded electronically, and the technology is changing

very quickly.

How are we going to make sure that the records that we are generating today, like the record we are having right now, is going to

be accessible to the future? We have to make sure that the practitioners have the training to do it, that we keep abreast of being

able to care for these kinds of historical records; they are no longer

91

just going to be paper. Also, our citizens are increasingly wanting

only access to the records electronically, so they no longer are simply wanting to look at the paper document; they want to be able

to search it, they want to be able to see it online.

I also want to mention what is important for us is the job opportunities that these grant projects fund, and I want to talk about

how they actually help new archivists come into the field, because

when you finish your program as in a master’s program of archival

administration, you don’t always have the experience that you need

to get a job, and these grant programs are where we hire folks and

they have an opportunity to work for 1 to 3 years and get the experience so that, when they do apply for professional jobs, that they

will have experience. Entry level positions often require that you

have 1 to 3 years of experience. Where will you get it?

These programs also open up the career opportunity for archives

and records management to students, so we hire a lot of students

in these grant programs. And I know from my institution right now

we have hired four students who have gone on to get their professional degrees. Two are in school right now; one is going to pursue

the degree in the fall; and we have another who just completed

their work and is now working at the National Archives. So this

is the kind of programs that put people to work, so I think it is

very important.

I just want to say that what happens in Georgia is happening

across the country in different SHRABs, as we call them, and I

don’t think that we can devalue or should devalue the work that

is being done in terms of keeping our historical records available.

I want to say that if we want to have an informed citizenry, if

we want our citizens to be proud Americans and understand what

it means to be Americans, they have to have access to the records;

they have to know that story. So I think that what we do is very

important to what we will do in the future. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jefferson follows:]

92

93

94

95

96

97

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much, Ms. Jefferson.

Dr. Berlin, you may proceed for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF DR. IRA BERLIN

Dr. BERLIN. Chairman Clay, Ranking Member Chaffetz, Westmoreland, Jordan, my name is Ira Berlin. I teach at the University

of Maryland, where I am a professor of history and also a university professor. I am also a member of the American Historical Association, the oldest and largest organization of American historians,

and I am here today representing that organization.

I am most pleased to have the opportunity to testify before this

committee on the reauthorization of the NHPRC with a budget of

$20 million and to urge an increase in the funding of that agency

even at this moment, because I believe that it is critical to the

American people’s understanding of the past, which in turn is essential to our democracy. I can think of nothing which is more essential at this particular moment.

The National Historical Publications and Records Commission is

the seed bed of contemporary understandings of American history.

During the last 60 or more years, the NHPRC, more than any

other single entity, governmental or private—and I should say I

have sat on the National Council of the National NEH—has made

it possible for the American people to know their history, and that

history speaks to the entirety of the American experience; workers

as well as bosses, slaves as well as slaveholders, women as well as

men, even tennis players, I presume, in short, we have built and

protected and to defend our great republic precisely those people.

You have already heard accountings of the extraordinary records

of the NHPRC in creating archival collections in every State and

territory in the United States, and the magnificent documentary

volumes, the microfilms, the CDs these have spawned. We are talking literally of miles of records and thousands of volumes. Rather

than repeat that accounting, I would like to talk a little bit about

my own experience as the founding director of the Freedmen and

Southern Society project, that collaborative study of the transit of

black people from slavery to freedom, the beginning of the Civil

War in 1861 to the beginning of radical reconstruction in 1867,

which has been published in a multi-volume edition under the title

of Freedom.

We are talking of a revolutionary moment, a people who go from

being property, something like the chair I am sitting on, to being

men and women, free men and women, and then soldiers in the

world’s most powerful army, and then citizens of this great republic, and then officeholders in that great republic. That happens in

6 years. And if that happens in 6 years, imagine what could happen in 10 years; imagine what could happen in a lifetime. People

get a sense that they can transform the world. It seems to me that

this is essential to being a citizen of a democracy, particularly this

democracy.

In transforming this understanding of emancipation and putting

slaves at the very center of this story, the Freedom volumes have

been called this generation’s most significant encounter with the

American past, what the Washington Post declared one of the great

monuments to contemporary scholarship. Of course, I am very

98

proud of this, but I am even more proud of seeing the Freedmen

and Southern Society project become a school for young scholars

who are now teaching in our great universities, in our community

colleges, in our high schools. Of those people, winning prizes and

those prize-winning projects being passed on to their students.

It is not simply a matter of creating new careers and creating

jobs, but the Freedmen and Southern Society project and the work

that is created by that project, which is founded on those NHPRC

grants, have found their way into high schools and schools everywhere; they have taught hundreds and thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of students; they have given people a new sense

of the American past, a sense of the American past where, in the

past, people have controlled their own destiny, and in some ways

that empowers them to believe that they themselves can control

their own destiny. That is what democracy is all about and that is

what history should do, and that is what the NHPRC has done.

Thank you so much.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Berlin follows:]

99

100

101

102

103

104

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Dr. Berlin, for your testimony and the

wonderful work you have done on our country’s history. Appreciate

it.

Dr. BERLIN. Thank you.

Mr. CLAY. Dr. Daniel, you are batting cleanup.

STATEMENT OF DR. PETE DANIEL

Dr. DANIEL. Thank you, Chairman Clay and other members of

the subcommittee, for the privilege of testifying in support of reauthorization of the National Historical Publications and Records

Commission. As a past president of the Organization of American

Historians [OAH], I am representing its 9,000 members, to include

academic historians, K–12 teachers, public historians, and anyone

interested in the history of the United States. The OAH publishes

the Journal of American History and the OAH Magazine of History, and is vitally involved in the country’s intellectual history.

The NHPRC provided critical support to the Booker T. Washington Papers Project that began in 1967 and that concluded in 1989

with a cumulative index of the 13 volumes of documents. As a

graduate student at the University of Maryland, I worked with

Louis Harlan on this project from its beginning until I graduated

with a Ph.D. in 1970 and left as the Project’s assistant editor.

The first volume of letters included this notation in the acknowledgments: The National Historical Publications Commission—

Records was added later—for its part in initiating the Booker T.

Washington Papers, its assignment of two fellows in advanced editing of documentary sources in U.S. history to the project, and several grants-in-aid.

I should add here that the diversity of these papers is just amazing. Booker T. Washington communicated with primarily Republican politicians. He was a very powerful Republican politician in

his own right, recommended white people in the south for office. He

communicated with philanthropists, teachers, farmers, Black and

White people, rich and poor, men and women, and even with people

in Liberia, where he sent some of his people trained at Tuskegee

to teach people in Liberia how to farm the southern way.

One of the fellows for advanced editing of documentary sources,

the late Stuart Kaufman, went on to found and edit the Samuel

Gompers project, now in the process of publishing its final volume.

These projects have not only made available important documentation on two outstanding leaders, but also trained dozens of

graduate students to evaluate documents, identify sometimes obscure people and events, and learn the craft of documentary editing.

The flourishing digital environment today is quite different from

the card files used to track our documentation on the Washington

papers in the late 1960’s. In some instances, however, what we call

progress bites back with unintended consequences. The microfilm

editions so popular in the 1960’s through the 1980’s, for example,

are barely useable today because computers are replacing microfilm

and microfiche readers. There is a major opportunity to digitalize

microfilm editions and make such collections widely available online. In addition, documents generated on early computer software

105

are often unreadable as programs roll over and become obsolete

with alarming frequency.

The NHPRC is taking the lead in making digital editions of the

papers of the founding fathers available. But to incorporate the diversity of the American experience, historical documentation needs

a wider Web presence. Amid all the Web chatter, it is imperative

that researchers find ample documentary sources that provide a

factual basis for scholarship.

The genius of this country lies in its diversity, and preserving the

records that fully document all citizens should be an important priority. The OAH enthusiastically supports the reauthorization of the

National Historical Publications and Records Commission not only

because it has helped to train editors and graduate students and

made available documentation of important people and events, but

also because it has supported local records projects and, most important, helped preserve our documentary heritage.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Daniel follows:]

106

107

108

109

110

111

Mr. CLAY. Thank you very much, Dr. Daniel.

We will now go to the question and answer session. I have a

question for the entire panel, and let me start it off with Mr.

Beschloss. Would you agree that it is difficult to quantify the benefits the public gains from NHPRC? You cite instances where research originated with NHPRC grant passes through our full educational system, from universities to elementary schools. When you

combine the value of these educational gems that come from

NHPRC along with the jobs created by the NHPRC, it is easy to

see these ancillary benefits, wouldn’t you agree? And I will start

here and we can go through the table.

Mr. BESCHLOSS. I would. And I think the other thing is that, you

know, this is part of the core mission of the United States, and that

is to make sure that these things are gathered and preserved and

disseminated, not just Federal Government archives in Washington, but, as I was saying, the Swedish immigrants or African-Americans in North Carolina or Native Americans in New Mexico. That

was the intention of this. And the problem is that if you stopped

it for a few years, there is a lot of that would be lost; you can never

reclaim it.

Mr. CLAY. Dr. Hahn.

Dr. HAHN. Yes, thank you. I think the ripple effects of the

NHPRC funding are enormous and, as you suggested, would be

very difficult to lay out in the short time we have. I would just say

that one of the things that I have learned, especially working with

public school teachers who are trying very, very hard to interest

their students in the past, have found, like many of us who teach

in colleges and universities have found, that the use of documentary sources are not only exciting to the students, but make history

come alive to them and make it clear that they can engage like we

do in the process of discovery.

So when I have gone and worked with teachers, and I bring this

material with me, they are very, very excited about it and the more

access that they have to this kind of material, the more innovations

they can bring to the classroom and accomplish, I think, some of

the things that Professor Berlin said so powerfully before.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for your response.

Ms. Jefferson.

Ms. JEFFERSON. I think that the support that we get from

NHPRC provides jobs. And when you talk about cutting jobs from

people, you are putting people out of work, and then they can’t participate and give back. To give more money, that helps us all. So

I think you get into a cycle there. I don’t see where you can see

cutting out a program and putting people out of work, people in the

humanities, and you are going to retool them to then do what? So

I think it is very important that we keep these kinds of opportunities open.

Mr. CLAY. Dr. Berlin, would you agree that there are some ancillary benefits?

Dr. BERLIN. Yes, I would certainly agree with everything that my

colleagues here on the panel have said. I would also think of the

NHPRC and the money that has been given to it over the years as

an enormous investment that we have made, that we continue to

draw upon. In some ways it is different than the question of emVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:25 Oct 27, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\61585.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
112

ployment and livelihood. We have created a bank of knowledge

which has transformed our understanding of the past and transformed our pedagogy, the way we teach, as well, and that transformation is ongoing because each of those projects have added

something to it, changed that debate, enlarged the debate. That is

what makes students excited about the past.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you.

Dr. Daniel, is it difficult to quantify the benefits of the NHPRC?

Dr. DANIEL. Yes, I think it is impossible to quantify. And echoing

what Dr. Berlin said, the impact of these sources is enormous.

Children who have never seen a primary document, when they are

reading what a person wrote coming out of slavery or reading what

someone wrote to Booker T. Washington or what he wrote, it is not

mediated by a historian; this is the real word that was done at the

time, it is a primary source. And students love that because then

they can figure out what the past was about.

So quantifying the impact of these records that NHPRC has preserved is impossible. We don’t know how far it goes. It goes to foreign countries where people read about our documentary heritage.

It is a big impact.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you all for your responses. Let me also state

for the record that the NHPRC never funded the International Tennis Hall of Fame. NHPRC turned it down. The NEH funded it, but

the NHPRC never funded the International Tennis Hall of Fame.

That is for the record.

Mr. Chaffetz, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And thank you all for the great work that you have done. Our

country is better because of the work that you have done. I believe,

at least, personally, that the work needs to continue. But I will

start with Mr. Beschloss here. If we are going to follow what President Obama’s chief of staff and budget director have asked for and

we are going to have to make a cut, what are we going to cut? I

mean, looking at the Archives, you are the vice president of the

Board of Directors Foundation for the National Archives, what

would you cut?

Mr. BESCHLOSS. That is slightly above my pay grade; that is

what you all are here to do. I guess it is rare in Washington when

someone says they don’t know, but that is not my——

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Fair enough. Fair enough. I appreciate the candor.

Mr. BESCHLOSS. That is not my perspective. All I can say is——

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I will give you a list, by the way.

Mr. BESCHLOSS. Pardon?

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I can give you a list.

Mr. BESCHLOSS. OK. All I can say is that let’s say you decided

to stop this for 5 years. There are a lot of things that we have all

been talking about this afternoon that would disappear forever.

You can’t get them back.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Let me tell you. I have not heard any person ever

suggest that we would totally stop funding the entire archive program.

Mr. BESCHLOSS. Sure. No, I am just using as a point of comparison.

113

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I know. And just as clarification, my point is we

have hundreds of millions of dollars that will still be allocated to

this, and I support that. But we are trying to trim the budget. We

are trying to make some tough decisions.

Dr. Hahn, you are very accomplished; you are very well published. I mean, just trying to read through your CV, which we just

got, would take a long period of time, and your career has been

very accomplished. I need to ask you, though, it says on the Truth

in Testimony disclosure, ‘‘please list any Federal grants or contracts, including sub-grants and sub-contracts, that you have received since October 1, 2006.’’ Are you saying you haven’t received

any? None? Nothing?

Dr. HAHN. No.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. My understanding is that the University of Penn- sylvania has received some $518,000 worth of grants through the

NHPRC.

Dr. HAHN. Well, it didn’t come to me.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Dr. Berlin, let me ask you the same question.

Please list any Federal grants or contracts, including sub-grants or

sub-contracts, that you received since October 1, 2006.

Dr. BERLIN. Not a nickel.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. My understanding is the total funding for the American Historical Association is $536,863, and that you are here

representing the American Historical Association. Why the discrepancy?

Dr. BERLIN. They haven’t given me a nickel. It is outrageous.

Mr. CLAY. Would you please turn on your mic?

Dr. BERLIN. I have received no money from the Federal Government from a grant or as a member of the American Historical Association. I have not participated in a project that I know which has

been funded by the Federal Government. The American Historical

Association and the University of Maryland, particularly the latter,

are particularly big entities; they get a lot of money from the Federal Government. They do all kinds of contract work. We have the

largest physics department in the world. Unfortunately, very little

of it has come to me and nothing has come to me since 2006.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. You are also supposed to list if the American Historical Association has received anything. You’re saying that the

American Historical Association has received no money?

Dr. BERLIN. I have received no money.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Well, I beg you to go back and look at your form,

because what you signed 2 days ago says that the American Historical Association has received no money. We think you have received

over $500,000 through that Association.

And I would also ask, Dr. Hahn, if you would go back and review

that form, please.

Mr. CLAY. But, Mr. Chaffetz, I am not sure he is speaking for

the Association.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. It says he is. No. 4, ‘‘other than yourself, are you

testifying on behalf of any non-governmental entity?’’ ‘‘Yes, the

American Historical Association.’’

Mr. CLAY. I invited him as a professor from the University of

Maryland.

Dr. BERLIN. Yes.

114

Mr. CHAFFETZ. It also says on the document that you provided,

Mr. Chairman, representing the American Historical Association.

Dr. BERLIN. I am representing the American Historical Association here today——

Mr. CHAFFETZ. The American Historical Association received over

$500,000 and you don’t know that?

Dr. BERLIN. I do not know that. And I couldn’t tell you what they

received it for, nor do I think I am responsible for the grants that

the American Historical Association. I was asked to come here to

speak on the American Historical Association’s position on the National Historical Records Commission. I have done that. I have

done that to the best of my ability. I have done that with great

honesty.

I am not an employee of the American Historical Association, I

am a member of that Association, with some 20,000 other people

who are interested in history. So I don’t think that is my responsibility.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. What I am asking for is that you go back and

look at that document, because I think you will find that you were

supposed to, as a representative of the American Historical Association, present to us in the Congress so we have time to review

it, and we did not get it in advance, so that we understand. That

is why the Congress created the Truth in Testimony. And I feel

that it is incomplete.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. The gentleman’s time has expired.

The gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. JORDAN. Quick question. Mr. Berlin, did you consult with the

American Historical Association prior to filling out the form?

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Jordan. I am sorry. I am sorry.

Let me recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Driehaus, for 5

minutes.

Mr. DRIEHAUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank the panel for being here. It is certainly not my

intent to impugn your integrity. I think you are all here representing interests and you do have a body of work and dedication to historical archives and record keeping that are tremendous.

I would like to followup on the chairman’s inquiry as to the value

of this relatively small investment into cultural preservation and

historical preservation, and if we could just go down the row. I

mentioned earlier I am from Cincinnati, OH. We have the Underground Railroad Freedom Center, which has been tremendous not

just for educating people as to the everyday issues of freedom that

we experience globally today, but also the history of the Underground Railroad and the extent that slavery impacted the south

and the north and the impact the Ohio River played and so many

places along the river played.

But it has also been tremendously beneficial to us culturally, economically, and from an educational perspective the students from

all over the region are now better informed when informed when

it comes to issues of freedom because of that institution. I think

those investments are good investments.

So I would like you to talk about any examples you might have

of investments made that you are familiar with and the benefits,

the compound benefits that you might see in those investments.

115

Mr. BESCHLOSS. Well, I would say, in a general way, Mr.

Driehaus, I think an American is a better citizen if he or she

knows history, and we are in a time when more and more Americans know less and less about history. So I would say for a relatively modest investment this would mean the Federal Government is saying not only do we feel that it is important for Americans to know history and also use primary sources, but also that

history and primary documents are not just those that are sitting

in Washington; just as important, sometimes more so, are collections and other historical evidence that can be very far from here.

Mr. DRIEHAUS. Just to followup, having served as a board member of a local historical society and working very closely as a State

legislator with the Ohio Historical Society, I am very familiar with

the difficulty these small organizations have in preserving local

history, and I think you are absolutely right. While we have a tremendous resource in the Archives and the Library of Congress to

protect so many of our national documents, when it comes to communities and when it comes to State history and the impact that

history has made, preserving those documents is extremely difficult, and becoming more and more difficult as resources are cut.

Would you not agree?

Mr. BESCHLOSS. I would, and I would say something else, too. I

am all for costs being borne as much by the private sector as possible, and this is something that does that, because if you reauthorize in a strong way the NHPRC, you are making the statement to

local communities we think that this is important as a country.

That will bring, and I am sure you saw this in your own experience, people who are local to say, ‘‘well, maybe this is something

I should contribute to myself.’’

Dr. HAHN. Yes, thank you. Well, your question is very large in

many respects, but let me just say a couple things briefly. One

thing is that, and I speak to the question of jobs that the projects

that the NHPRC funds make possible, you know, we are at a very,

very difficult time in this country, not simply because the general

problems that the economic crisis has posed, but certainly for those

people who are interested in their past, in the intellectual life of

their country, and the possibility of going on and becoming academics and writers and teachers, we are in jeopardy of potentially losing an entire generation because there is no work for them. The

NHPRC, most of the money goes to pay salaries and has been enormously important, even in the time that I have seen it, even when

times were better economically and making it possible for historians to sort of find their footing.

The other thing I would just like to say is that one of the things

I have seen, too, with the use of documents and the kind of documentary collections that the NHPRC makes possible is what it

means for students to read about and understand how the most ordinary of people at different times in our past have been able to

act in ways that really make a difference in their lives and in the

lives of their communities. It is not something that you can simply

get up and tell them about, it is something that they can see by

using the materials. And I think there is no way to measure the

kind of consequences and excitement and possibilities that experience opens up.

116

Ms. JEFFERSON. Again, I just want to speak to how important it

is for the practitioners, for the archivists and the records managers, and how the support comes through the State so that we can

get the training to do the work that we need to do; that we can

get funding for some of the small projects; that we can get startup

money so that we do have archivists and professional people to care

for some of the local records.

There are a lot of areas that do not have professionals to take

care of the materials, and that is where we get the funding for

these small kinds of projects on a local level and we get the training so that we know how to deal with electronic records so we know

how to respond in disaster recovery. These kinds of projects really

are important and vital to our community as we work to preserve

our records, so I can’t stress it enough.

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

Mr. DRIEHAUS. Thank you.

Mr. CLAY. You are welcome.

The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. I want to thank the chairman.

Let me say, too, I appreciate all the work that you do and the

fact that you are keeping part of history not only for us, but for

our families and generations to come.

Dr. Hahn, I did want to ask you. You made a comment a while

ago that you had received no Federal funding, and as my colleague,

Mr. Chaffetz, had said, I looked at your accomplishments and they

are quite a lot. How did you do that, how did you accomplish all

the things that you have? Where did you get the resources and

where did that money come from?

Dr. HAHN. Well, I teach at the University and I have taught at

a number of universities. I have applied for and I have received

grants from non-governmental agencies to advance my research,

and I am spending my own money in whatever way I could to make

my trips to archives that I have organized records and made them

available to me so that I could do that.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. So there are other grants out there other

than the grants coming from the Federal Government.

Dr. HAHN. Well, there are all sorts of grants. I mean, I applied

to granting agencies for individual scholarly grants, exactly.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. What would you say the total sum of all the

work that you have done? Could you put a price tag on that? I

know that would be awfully hard for you.

Dr. HAHN. Well, it is priceless.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. I understand. I understand. And I am sure

it is, but is there any—so it is priceless. I mean, you couldn’t even

put a value on it, really?

Dr. HAHN. I think the time and energy that most people like myself, and academics in general, I mean, we are on our own bill for

the most part and it is a tremendous burden.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Yes, but, as the American way, you got it

done without the Federal Government, right?

Dr. HAHN. Certainly since 2006.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Sir?

Dr. HAHN. Yes, since 2006.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Since 2006?

117

Dr. HAHN. Right.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. And, Dr. Berlin, you said the same thing,

that you had not received any——

Dr. BERLIN. Not since 2006.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Not since 2006.

Dr. BERLIN. Right.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. So you had prior.

Dr. BERLIN. But let me say——

Mr. WESTMORELAND. So both of you had received money prior to

2006.

Dr. BERLIN. I am deeply indebted to the Federal Government for

my own position and for the scholarship I created. Probably the

largest debt, in point of fact, is to the NHPRC. I am pleased to acknowledge it. I came to the NHPRC with an idea, an idea that we

could write a documentary history of emancipation, that we could

tell the story of how this country goes from being a free country,

being a slave country——

Mr. WESTMORELAND. I understand.

Dr. BERLIN. They supported that. They supported that and they

continue to support that even though I am not involved in that.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. I understand.

Dr. BERLIN. So my own career in some ways rests upon those

Federal grants.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. I understand. But you have done things

without Federal grants.

Dr. BERLIN. I have done things without Federal grants.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. OK. So things can be done without getting

grants from the Federal Government that would preserve history.

Dr. BERLIN. Certainly many things can be done and many things

have been done. What I would stress to you is that this project, I

am confident, could not be done.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. I understand.

Dr. BERLIN. OK.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Now, let me just ask one other question,

and I apologize for not being here earlier, and this may have already been answered, but if you look at the National Historical

Publications and Records Commission, the National Archives and

Records Administration, National Endowment for the Humanities,

and the Institute of Museum and Library Services, do you see any

duplication there of anything that is being done? Because I have

read of some of the grants that have come out of the history, and

it looks like some of that could be money that should come out of

the arts or the museum or the libraries. Do you see any duplication

whatsoever in these agencies? And when you apply for a grant, do

you apply to all or would someone applying for a grant—and any

of you jump in on this—would you apply to all of them or just one

in particular?

Dr. BERLIN. Would you like me to?

Mr. WESTMORELAND. You are fine. Yes, sir.

Dr. BERLIN. OK. Let me talk to what I know, and I know about

two of those agencies that you have mentioned, the NHPRC and

the NEH, the National Endowment for the Humanities, because I

sat on the National Council for the National Endowment for the

118

Humanities under President Clinton and under President Bush. So

I know something about those two agencies.

I would say if we took the two and we looked for coincidences,

we look for places of overlap, we would find very, very small areas

of overlap. There would be some areas in which there would be absolutely no overlap, that is the grants to archival agencies. There

might be some areas in which there was some overlap in various

publication projects, but I would say that they were very, very

small and——

Mr. WESTMORELAND. OK, but let me ask you a question. But if

you were applying for a grant, would you apply to all four of these

or one in particular?

Dr. BERLIN. There were several of those agencies which I

wouldn’t apply to at all for certain. So if I was looking for a grant

to write my history of emancipation, I wouldn’t apply to the museum. There would be no point in that.

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

time has expired.

The gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. JORDAN. First, I just want to followup, Dr. Berlin, if I could,

on where Ranking Member Chaffetz was. Did you consult with the

American Historical Association and ask them about any grant dollars they had received prior to filling out your form and signing it

that you had received no money?

Dr. BERLIN. No. Sounds like I should have, but I did not.

Mr. JORDAN. So would you then say what you submitted to this

committee of the U.S. Congress is inaccurate, where you said, on

question 8, that you received no money or organizations you were

representing, even though you said on No. 4 you were representing

the American Historical Association?

Dr. BERLIN. The way I——

Mr. JORDAN. Would you say the statement you submitted to Congress and signed was inaccurate?

Dr. BERLIN. No.

Mr. JORDAN. You think it is accurate?

Dr. BERLIN. The way I interpreted it, yes, it is absolutely accurate.

Mr. JORDAN. OK. Appreciate it.

I will yield my time to the ranking member.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. [Remarks made off mic.]

Mr. JORDAN. OK, thanks.

Mr. CLAY. I recognize the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that you have held this

hearing and only regret that other congressional business kept me

from attending. I am struck by the fact the Commission may have

set a new record, 20 years at the same funding. Congratulations,

I suppose. [Laughter.]

Or shame on us. Whichever you choose.

Mr. Chairman, I am not for nickel and diming part of the budget

where there is no money in the first place. I am inclined to believe

that the Commission has paid its dues in 20 years at leveled funding.

119

For my friends on the other side of the aisle who claim such reverence for the framers, pay up. Show it once in a while. It is like

family values: I am for it until it costs some money.

Now, I admit that I have a special interest. You have to indicate

if you have any special interest. When I was getting my law degree, I also got a Masters in American History for the love of history. I have never used this disagree; I just thought that going to

law school was like going to trade school. If one considered oneself

a real intellectual, one had to really study something serious. And

I have never regretted it because C. Van Woodward was at the university, and just the opportunity to study with one of the foremost

historians in American history was worth every moment of it. It

wasn’t a very practical solution, but it certainly gave me an appreciation for why we would want to preserve as much of our history

as we could.

We have budgets that are busting at the gut. The President is

right to hold down virtually everything, but if I may remind the

subcommittee, this is an authorization. All it does is to set a limit.

You go and ask the many agencies, Federal agencies, not to mention commissions, when they last got the authorized amount, and

the memory will not serve most of them well enough to be able to

tell you. So I would think that we owe the Commission a reasonable increase in keeping with these times, to be sure. But I would

think it would be very pitiable to leave them where they were after

the testimony that you have heard today.

And I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CLAY. I thank the gentlewoman. Do you have to leave?

Ms. NORTON. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, until you all pass

my bill, I am the one that doesn’t have to leave. Do you have to

leave?

Mr. CLAY. I do.

Ms. NORTON. I see.

Mr. CLAY. Would you conduct the hearing?

Ms. NORTON. Is there another panel?

Mr. CLAY. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. Yes, sir. I would be glad to.

Mr. CLAY. All right.

At this point, there are no further questions for this panel. We

will dismiss this panel and ask the third panel to come forward.

Thank you.

Ms. NORTON [presiding]. I want to thank this panel for coming

forward. When the votes are over, the chairman will return.

We are going to go first to Dr. Peter Gottlieb, the State Archivist

of Wisconsin, representing the Society of American Archivists, of

which he is the current president. Dr. Gottlieb joined the State

Historical Society of Wisconsin in 1991, after serving in the Archives at Pennsylvania State and West Virginia University.

Dr. Gottlieb.

120

STATEMENTS OF PETER GOTTLIEB, STATE ARCHIVIST OF WISCONSIN, REPRESENTING THE SOCIETY OF AMERICAN ARCHIVISTS; BARBARA FRANCO, DIRECTOR, PENNSYLVANIA

HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMISSION, REPRESENTING

THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE AND LOCAL HISTORY; BARBARA TEAGUE, KENTUCKY STATE ARCHIVIST AND

RECORDS ADMINISTRATOR, REPRESENTING THE COUNCIL

OF STATE ARCHIVISTS; KAYE LANNING MINCHEW, DIRECTOR OF ARCHIVES, TROUP COUNTY, GA, REPRESENTING

THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT ARCHIVES

AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATORS; AND SUSAN HOLBROOK

PERDUE, DIRECTOR, DOCUMENTS COMPASS, VIRGINIA

FOUNDATION FOR THE HUMANITIES, REPRESENTING THE

ASSOCIATION FOR DOCUMENTARY EDITING

STATEMENT OF PETER GOTTLIEB

Dr. GOTTLIEB. My name is Peter Gottlieb. I am the State

archivist——

Ms. NORTON. Excuse me. I am sorry. The chairman does swear

in all the witnesses.

All rise and hold up your right hands, if you would.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Ms. NORTON. Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered

in the affirmative.

Dr. Gottlieb.

Dr. GOTTLIEB. My name is Peter Gottlieb. I am the State archivist of Wisconsin and director of the Library-Archives Division of

the Wisconsin Historical Society. I am here today representing the

Society of American Archivists, North America’s oldest and largest

organization of professional archivists, representing more than

5,700 members across the United States and in more than 20 countries.

On behalf of my association and the wider archives community

in the United States, I wish to thank you for convening this hearing. I offer my testimony in favor of increasing the authorization

for the National Historical Publications and Records Commission’s

competitive grants program to $20 million and creating a new program for pass-through grants that is also authorized at $20 million.

In his election-night speech, President Elect Obama spoke eloquently of the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope. He added that our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared.

From community institutions like public libraries and local historical societies throughout America to the National Archives

vaults here in Washington, archives keep our stories as a public

trust and make them available to all. Just as we protect our country’s natural resources to sustain our way of life, we must also safeguard this Nation’s archives in order to strengthen democratic government and to pass down from one generation to the next our

record of progress and the values our society upholds.

We need well preserved and accessible archives in order to write

our school textbooks and design our instructional Web sites, in

order to produce our documentary and feature films about America,

in order to engage all citizens of our country in the continuing exVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:25 Oct 27, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\61585.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
121

periment of democratic government, and in order to inspire people

around the world with the standards of human rights and opportunity that the United States at its best represents.

NHPRC grants have provided essential support for this national

goal, but its current authorization falls short of today’s need.

NHPRC is the only Federal program whose specific purpose is

helping archivists and other professionals meet this national obligation. Its grants increase access to historical records and published documentary editions for use by classroom teachers, students, journalists, biographers, local historians, lawyers, genealogists, documentary film makers, and many others. In the majority

of cases, NHPRC grants support new jobs for skilled professionals

who do the preservation, digitizing, organizing, cataloging, or editorial work.

NHPRC grants contribute to our Nation’s documentary heritage

in the following areas: processing archives to make important primary sources more quickly and easily available; developing and

testing solutions to the challenge of preserving computer-generated

records; providing technical assistance in training and archives

work for archivists that need to improve their skills.

NHPRC’s competitive grants for archives are essential and must

be funded at a higher level. But these grants by themselves cannot

meet the range of needs to preserve and ensure access to all the

historical records kept in American archives. Many local government and community repositories whose records constitute a vital

part of our documentary heritage cannot qualify for competitive

grants and do not benefit from any type of NHPRC funding.

These archives that are also preserving our Nation’s stories need

help from NHPRC that can come through a new program of passthrough grants. Administered by State archives under rules directing the vast majority of funds to local archives, these grants can

reach many more repositories to create new jobs, strengthen their

access and preservation capabilities, more broadly protect our national archival resources, and bring the history recorded in many

more documents to people throughout the country. This new passthrough grants program should not subtract funding from competitive grants, but have an additional $20 million authorization.

John F. Kennedy said, when he spoke in favor of NHPRC’s initial

authorization, compared with funds required for other programs for

the national good, those requested by this Commission are modest

indeed. His words remain true today. A reauthorization of $20 million for competitive grants and an additional $20 million for passthrough grants to States and territories is still comparatively modest indeed, but promises to make NHPRC even more effective in

preserving our documentary heritage and ensuring its accessibility.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Gottlieb follows:]

122

123

124

125

126

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Dr. Gottlieb.

We hear next from Barbara Franco, director of the Pennsylvania

Historical and Museum Commission, here today representing the

American Association of State and Local History. Ms. Franco.

STATEMENT OF BARBARA FRANCO

Ms. FRANCO. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to speak

to you today about the value and importance of NHPRC. My name

is Barbara Franco, and I am the executive director of the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. I am here today on behalf of a national organization, the American Association of State

and Local History, whose more than 5,000 institutional and individual members represent the many historical societies, museums,

libraries, archives around the country who together preserve the

history of America in every county and corner of the country.

The members include large institutions with State or national

scope, as well as small local organizations and archives with limited and sometimes all-volunteer staff. Together they hold billions

of documents that touch the lives of young and old, support tourism

and economic development, and employ thousands of people. They

include the irreplaceable founding documents of our country, alongside the records of small communities that define the experiences

of the ordinary people whose lives they represent.

The NHPRC helps these non-Federal institutions preserve

records of historical value through grants that help locate, preserve, and provide public access to documents, photographs, maps,

and other historical materials. These grants preserve collections

and also preserve and create jobs by training staff and supporting

the positions that provide these services.

In an era where accountability of government is under greater

than ever scrutiny, preserving the documentary heritage of national, State, and local governments also means preserving the

rights of American citizens and ensuring an informed and engaged

citizenry.

As Charles F. Bryan, Jr., a past chairman of our organization

and director emeritus of the Virginia Historical Society, has elegantly put it, free and open societies value history and turn to it

for instruction. They devote significant resources to saving the evidence of the past and making it accessible to the public.

Documentary heritage helps preserve and protects the rights of

all, holds government accountable, and increases knowledge of our

history and culture for generations to come. Historical documents

are sometimes a matter of life and death. I would like to say that

during the 2002 Quecreek Mine rescue in Somerset, PA, which

some of you may remember, archival maps were key in locating the

trapped miners and saving their lives. Historical plats and deeds

are continually referenced to establish legal ownership and property rights. Military service records are used to establish pension

and other benefits.

NHPRC is the agency that provides institutions like the Pennsylvania Historical Museum Commission and other State and local institutions with the funding to preserve these historical documents.

These projects train or employ archivists and make it possible for

lawyers, teachers, biographers, authors, journalists, and teachers to

127

do their work. A recent grant in Pennsylvania, for example, has

supported an itinerant archivist program that funds a professional

archivist to work with the staff of local governments to do assessments, make recommendations and train their staff to better care

for the records. These programs not only create work for the archivists, but help train local government employees to more effectively

handle their own records.

Across the country, examples abound of how NHPRC is making

a difference at the State and local level to preserve documents the

public needs and uses. The Federal-State partnership with State

Historical Records Advisory Boards have been key to the success of

the grants programs, and these and other examples of how States

are working with many diverse collections is testimony to the

strength of the program. In addition, NHPRC has supported national initiatives through organizations like ASLH. Some of these

grants have fostered regional cooperation and addressed major national issues like electronics records management. NHPRC has been authorized at $10 million for nearly 20 years,

since 1991. Now more than ever, with the need for trained staff,

the importance of digital collections, the need to share information

with the public, and the demand for access to these collections, increased NHPRC support is sorely needed. We are asking that funding for NHPRC be reauthorized at $20 million to help members of

the public, archivists, documentary editors, and historians by preserving and making available non-Federal records that are essential to our national history and to the daily functioning of our democracy and our economy.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Franco follows:]

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Ms. Franco.

Next, Barbara Teague, Kentucky State archivist and records administrator, and here today representing the Council of State Archivists, of which she is vice president and president-elect. Ms.

Teague was appointed State Archivist in 2008. Ms. Teague.

STATEMENT OF BARBARA TEAGUE

Ms. TEAGUE. Thank you, Representative Norton, and thank you

to you and the rest of the members of the subcommittee and Chairman Clay for holding this hearing. We really appreciate the opportunity to be here and talk about the National Historical Publications and Records Commission.

As you mentioned, I am Barbara Teague, and I am the vice

president of the Council of State Archivists, and I am the State archivist in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. I have worked there for

27 years and I have 27 years of experience with NHPRC grants,

and I know how effective those grants have been and how much

more remains to be done with the grants.

CoSA, the Council of State Archivists, represent all 50 State archivists, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories. CoSA’s

mission is to strength State and territorial archives and their work

to preserve the America historical record. Most State archivists

also serve as the chairs of their State Historical Records Advisory

Boards, which we have all talked about earlier.

On behalf of CoSA, the archival profession, and most of all the

millions of citizens who rely on archives and records, I ask that you

reauthorize NHPRC not at $20 million, but at $40 million. Twenty

million of that $40 million would go to national competitive grants,

sort of like a program that we have now, and $20 other million

would go for pass-through grants to the States that the State Historical Record Advisory Boards would then administer on their own

according to the needs and priorities within the States.

Over the last 3 years, State archival agencies have endured very

extreme budget cuts, many in excess of 20 percent; my own agency

25 percent. This has had a very negative effect on our Nation’s

records and on the individuals who depend on those records. In an

era of significantly increased emphasis on government transparency, government records continue to play an even more crucial

role.

From deeds, marriages, court cases, student school transcripts,

and wills on the local government level, to documentation of licensing, human services, and environmental controls on the State level,

to military service, health care and citizenship among the many

functions of the Federal Government, records touch each of us as

individuals. When archival documents are preserved in our States

and communities, we protect the evidence of land ownership, the

rights and privileges of individual citizens, the right to know about

the workings of government, the genealogy of our families, and the

cultural heritage of America.

NHPRC has consistently provided the Federal Government’s only

support archives in nearly every State, and that is NHPRC, not

IMLS and not NEH. In Mississippi, emergency funds after Hurricane Katrina helped save valuable historical records on the Gulf

Coast. NHPRC is currently supporting the New York State ArVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:25 Oct 27, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\61585.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
135

chives in identifying and preserving the documents of families who

lost loved ones during the World Trade Center attack. Every State,

every territory, every local community has similar needs, from developing disaster plans that protect essential records to documenting the history of the civil rights movement to creating tools to

bring historical records into the classroom and get children excited

about learning. In my own State, a grant of $200,000 from the NHPRC in 1983

ultimately led to the Kentucky Local Records Program, which has

awarded over $16 million in grants. That is an 8,000 percent return on investment. The program has preserved almost every important record in Kentucky’s 120 counties. Yes, we have 120 counties, and they each have about 50 offices, and that has created

countless jobs to care for the archives across our State.

And please know that money for archival projects means money

for jobs. CoSA’s analysis of existing NHPRC grant projects shows

that at least 75 percent of all grant funds are used for staff, demonstrating that money for archives generally equates to money for

jobs. My first archival job was working on an NHPRC grant, and

I did a quick survey of all the other State and territorial archivists,

and there are at least 12 of us who started our professional careers

with NHPRC funding, and we really didn’t make much money, I

can tell you.

But not just because of that, but because we know, as the chairs

of our State boards, we see the needs in the States, I ask on behalf

of all the State archivists in the United States and all the territorial archivists to allow NHPRC to make a comprehensive enduring impact to benefit our constituents and yours in every single

State and territory and every community by increasing the NHPRC

appropriation to $40 million. NHPRC funding is essential to preserving the history of our Nation.

I would really be happy to answer any questions about NHPRC

and its effect on our citizens and how State archivists need more

resources to care for essential government records. Thanks again

for this great opportunity to speak about the NHPRC.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Teague follows:]

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Ms. Teague.

Our next witness is Kaye Lanning Minchew, the director of Archives for Troup County, GA, here today representing the National

Association of Government Archives and Records Administrators.

Ms. Minchew has been director of Troup County Archives since

1985.

STATEMENT OF KAYE LANNING MINCHEW

Ms. MINCHEW. Good afternoon, Representative Norton and members of the subcommittee. My name is Kaye Lanning Minchew, and

I have been director of the Troup County Archives in LaGrange,

GA, since 1985. I am representing the National Association of Government Archivists and Records Administrators [NAGARA]. I also

co-chaired the Council of State Archivists ‘‘Closest to Home Project’’

about local government records. I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of reauthorization for the National Historical Publications and Records Commission [NHPRC].

NAGARA is a professional organization dedicated to the effective

management of government information and its continued availability at all levels of government. Our constituents include archivists and records managers for over 21,000 local, State, tribal, and

Federal Government entities in the United States responsible for

records in their care, the records that document the actions of governments, the communities and citizens. Local government agencies are inundated with large collections of records and are begging

for assistance with maintaining and providing access to these resources. NHPRC is a valuable partner and key to the continued

availability of the records legacy of these entities.

The records we house in local repositories include a wide variety

of materials. The majority is paper documents, but a growing

amount is available in electronic format. Records include birth and

death, voter registration, census forms, coroner’s inquests, criminal

cases, and much more. Materials include land records which deeded a slave woman and her young to a family leaving Georgia for

Texas. Other items helped bring to justice a cold case murder that

had lain dormant for over 30 years.

We also have files that show environmental and cultural changes

over the years and support homeland defense. Our heritage is at

risk every day. An archives or courthouse burns or destroyed by a

tornado, and unique collections are lost or electronic records can’t

be opened. On a personal level, perhaps a recording your father

made about his World War II service has been damaged over time.

Your grandchildren will not be able to hear his voice or his story.

Records at the local level touch the lives of our citizens every day

and in a very direct way.

NHPRC provides grant funding that is essential to ensuring the

preservation of archival records that provide the foundation for historical research in this country. Since 1976, NHPRC has awarded

over 4,800 grants, 250 of these to local governments or programs

of local records. Two of these awards were made to the Troup

County Archives. Both grants have been extremely important in

our existence.

An additional note about grants, as others have mentioned: they

almost always result in jobs. By our estimations, at least 70 perVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:25 Oct 27, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00148 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\61585.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
145

cent of grant funds go to pay people. At a time of high unemployment, NHPRC grants and pass-through grants to States would

stimulate jobs, jobs that often lead to permanent employment after

grants end. Many of us in the profession, including myself, got our

start in archival work this way.

Without NHPRC, the archival community has few options for

support in caring for historically valuable records. We have seen

the positive impact that NHPRC grants have made in thousands

of large and small organizations and communities throughout our

country. The current authorized funding level of NHPRC is woefully inadequate. NHPRC should be reauthorized and appropriated

at a significantly higher level.

In addition to more funding, NHPRC should be expanded to include a pass-through grant program with resources directed to

States and localities to ensure that documents and archival records

in many forms can be readily used for a host of purposes by the

people of this Nation.

Only by reauthorizing NHPRC and expanding its programs to include pass-through grants to States will we be able to ensure that

this important component of the America historical records survives. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Minchew follows:]

146

147

148

149

150

151

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Ms. Minchew.

Finally, Susan Holbrook Perdue, the director of Documents Compass, and here representing the Association for Documentary Editing, of which she is the incoming president. Ms. Holbrook was formerly the senior associate editor of the Papers of Thomas Jefferson

Retirement Series. Ms. Perdue.

STATEMENT OF SUSAN HOLBROOK PERDUE

Ms. PERDUE. Thank you, Acting Chairman Norton. I am Susan

Holbrook Perdue, president-elect of the Association for Documentary Editing [ADE]. I am very grateful for this opportunity to

speak on behalf of my professional organization in support of reauthorization of the NHPRC and an increase in its funding.

The primary message I want to convey to this committee is just

how essential the work is that documentary editors do and its importance to every American. As a society, we need the sort of expertise that editors provide in order to clearly understand the historical record and so that we might have informed and reasoned debate as part of a true democracy. This is not a partisan endeavor,

but a mission to establish the definitive works of our historical legacy.

This is especially important when it comes to the texts of our

founding fathers. These documents are at the core of our Nation’s

history and they continue to be the substance of significant debate.

Many Americans want to lay claim to them, and they should. These

documents are part of everyone’s story. For this reason, they deserve the time and attention that they receive from the scholars

who are now editing them.

The ADE was founded in 1978 to promote documentary editing

and to build on our shared commitment to the highest professional

standards of accuracy of transcription, editorial method, and intellectual access to our Nation’s documentary heritage. The organization now has more than 350 members who work with a broad

range of historical and literary figures. Many of our members depend on NHPRC funding.

Editors preserve the documentary record by creating a comprehensive catalog for all the known writings of an individual. We

have performed a valuable service for future generations by collecting and preserving these unique archives in one place. Documentary editors play a beneficial role in establishing the documentary

record because they authenticate and provide authoritative versions of the letters and documents produced by their subjects. Editors become experts on all aspects of their subject matter, from

their handwriting to their habits.

The documentary editions of the founding fathers, the papers of

John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington, all have a long and integral history

with the National Archives itself, as do the documents associated

with the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, the first Federal Congress, and the early Supreme Court. Make no mistake about it,

these projects are publishing the records of our Federal Government.

One of the most beneficial tasks we perform as editors is ensuring that documents make sense to modern audiences. Editors reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 14:25 Oct 27, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00155 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\61585.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
152

veal the hidden meaning in documents through extensive research.

This work takes time.

Historical documentary editions and records are used by an everwidening audience, ranging from school children to advanced scholars, as well as genealogists, curators, and the general public.

Projects such as the Eleanor Roosevelt Papers produce lesson plans

for ages K through 12. Ken Burns’ recent documentary film on the

National Parks drew on the John Muir papers project that was

supported by NHPRC. And recent episodes of American Experience

and History Detectives featured editors from three separate

NHPRC sponsored projects.

Many editors are now retooling in order to meet the demands of

both print and digital publication. In order to respond to this new

digital world, they look to organizations such as the NHPRC to provide the necessary funding to enable this to happen. There is substantial work to be done on digitizing and providing additional editorial resources to make the thousands of rolls of microfilm from

projects done in the 1960’s and 1970’s available on the Internet.

New efforts will need new support.

Nonetheless, our mission as documentary editors has changed little over time, even with the added challenge of publishing online.

We will adhere to the same high standards we have always followed, regardless of the ultimate medium. We are indeed at a

crossroads. This is true not only for the profession of documentary

editing, but for archives and repositories worldwide.

As we read about the perceived negative impact of the Internet

on people as they are increasingly gathering their knowledge

through multitasking and sound bites, all of which threaten to

shorten our attention spans, we recognize the urgent need for reliable, durable, and rich content on the World Wide Web. Now more

than ever we want the good to drive out the bad. If we cutoff support to NHPRC and to the editors and projects that have produced

superlative editions for over half a century, we cutoff their ability

to reach a new global audience in ways none of us could have imagined 20 years ago.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Perdue follows:]

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Ms. Perdue. I couldn’t help but notice

that you are not saying that the next step that archivists have go

to is tweeting. [Laughter.]

Or even Facebook, maybe. I don’t know, Facebook may not be so

bad.

Ms. PERDUE. Right. Right.

Ms. NORTON. Let me ask a series of questions that I think will

be important for our record. I want to say that while I represent

600,000 taxpaying residents deprived of the right to vote on what

is happening on the floor right now, I certainly vote in this committee, and I have a strong interest in the testimony you and the witnesses before you have provided.

Let’s start with Dr. Gottlieb. Could you explain the impact of the

grants, the NHPRC grants, on the employment of archivists across

the country? Do you have any sense of whether archivists, for example, are the first to go in budget cuts, the effect that the present

recession has had on them or what it would mean in terms of jobs

if this funding were available?

Dr. GOTTLIEB. In my experience, NHPRC grants almost always

create new positions, new jobs to carry out the work that the recipients of the grants have committed to do. The critical resource that

archives lack, and the reason that NHPRC is so important to them,

is funding for staff to examine records, to organize them, to preserve them, to scribe them so that they can be easily used.

Archives, generally speaking, don’t buy expensive equipment. We

don’t need NHPRC to build buildings for us or to rent space for us.

What we need the grants for, and the work that the grants help

us do, is to make the records accessible; and for that the critical

resource is people, is staff. So these grants, in many, many cases,

create jobs.

Ms. NORTON. This is a labor sensitive matter, then. We are talking about people, not things.

Ms. Franco, you are aware that some have said that the NHPRC

is wasteful and redundant. I wonder what your response to that

would be and whether you think there are the sources of support

at the State and local level for the kinds of projects that the

NHPRC grants make possible.

Ms. FRANCO. Well, I would say that there are obviously other

funding sources, but they do not cover the kind of work that is covered by NHPRC, and——

Ms. NORTON. They don’t cover it, the States’ fund don’t cover the

same kinds of work?

Ms. FRANCO. Well, I can tell you that in Pennsylvania the availability of funding for help for local governments, for other archival

groups, and for our own collections is not there, so we really do rely

on that national level.

I know that there was some discussion in the previous panels

about the difference between IMLS and NEH and some of the other

Federal funding programs. I think one of the things about NHPRC

is this is the nuts and bolts; this is the basic stuff. I can tell you

that in our organization, our archives, and I think this is repeated,

there are backlogs of boxes of records that are there being saved,

but they are not available to the public because they haven’t been

processed, they haven’t been described.

165

So the need to bring the documents that we hold into a format

that they can be used is not the stuff of excitement; it is not the

kind of thing that granting agencies foundations are funding. This

is the nuts and bolts of our historical record, and NHPRC is the

one place that comes from. Other places will do projects, they will

do exhibits, they will do other kinds of things like that, but you

can’t get to those products unless you have the records available

to scholars and people who are doing that work.

Ms. NORTON. Ms. Teague, a number of you have indicated examples of work that has been funded through these grants. Are there,

in your view, examples of works that simply could not or would not

have been done except for such grants?

Ms. TEAGUE. Oh, absolutely. That is especially true in my State

of Kentucky. We have been the beneficiary of several NHPRC

grants over the past 25 years. One started our electronic records

program in 1985, where we started working with State and local

governments on electronic records or, as we called them back in the

1980’s, machine-readable records, to try to capture the earliest electronic records. So back in Kentucky we have computer records that

go back to the 1960’s and 1970’s, where some other States may not

have had that. And that just started with I think it was $180,000

from the NHPRC.

Currently we have seven staff who are employed working on

those issues. We work with State and local governments around

the State, around Kentucky. We have a commission where we work

with information technology components of State government

where we are working with computer records throughout the State.

And that really just started with what we like to think of as seed

money from the NHPRC, and we were able to grow that into a very

large program that is trying to take care of——

Ms. NORTON. Once you had the seed money, how were you able

to fund it?

Ms. TEAGUE. We talked to the legislature back in the 1980’s and

we were able to add a couple more positions to the State archives

so that we could work with State government and local governments for electronic records. So we really have a very good electronic records program now that has been in existence for 25 years

because of NHPRC.

We also had, as I mentioned earlier, our local records program,

which many other States have also copied, where we give grants

to local governments to reformat records, to do some preservation

work, to do research through genealogy, and that never would have

happened without NHPRC money. So that is where we have given

out $16 million in grants in Kentucky just because NHPRC gave

us $200,000 in 1983.

We have also had several instances around the State that have

come through the State Historical Records Advisory Board that

were recommended by our State board to NHPRC and then were

funded by NHPRC, including we recently had a grant to our local

cooperative, Apple Shop, which is in Whitesburg, KY. They did

some early mountain television programs where they went out and

captured folk life, people quilting, people singing, playing with dulcimers. So some of the video from the 1960’s has actually been

166

digitized and made available through a grant from NHPRC. So

there are so many things just in my State.

Another thing that NHPRC does for all of us, for the State archives and the State boards, is we have planning money from

NHPRC to work with the State Historical Records Advisory Board

so that we can actually make plans for the priorities within our

State. You know, we don’t really want Washington to tell us what

to do in Kentucky every instance; we want to make our own plans.

We want to look and see what the needs are in Kentucky.

For one thing, we have a lot of religious communities. We have

several Catholic Mother Houses in Kentucky, so we want to work

with them; their records are very interesting. They have a lot of

school records, records of the people that were in their community.

So there are things like that the Mount St. Joseph Archives might

not be able to apply for an NHPRC grant, but they could come to

the Kentucky State Historical Records Advisory Board for advice

and assistance, which is one reason we are interested in these

pass-through grants as another program that NHPRC could operate for the benefit of the States.

Ms. NORTON. That is very helpful, Ms. Teague, particularly your

discussion of seed money and planning money. You know, when

seed money grows money for the State, that is something that the

Congress has to be aware of, that it is encouraging other money.

When you were asked or when prior witnesses were asked, you

know, isn’t there some other money, well, if the Federal Government leads by example, maybe there will be other money. The notion of planning money is very important. Those are small amounts

yielding a great deal.

Ms. Minchew, now, you are a local archivist, and some, particularly coming from some parts of the country that want the Federal

Government involved in defense only, I suppose we ought to be

able to answer the question why should Federal money go all the

way down to the local level to fund preservation of local records.

Would you like to comment on that?

Ms. MINCHEW. Certainly. Several reasons. One is that the local

records, in most cases, most directly document the lives of the citizens of the United States. So we have had a grant documenting

19th century court records. Those document the lives of thousands

of citizens in Troup County that are very much representative of

citizens across the country.

Another reason is, to use the current example of the oil spill in

the Gulf, if we were to save only the records of the Federal Government from this crisis, and not save any of the records of the numerous local governments affected by this crisis and how these local

governments are facing the crisis right now, we will only get maybe

half the story; maybe not that much of the story. So it is the full

picture that gives the historians the stuff to work with and the

chance to be accurate in their histories that they write.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Ms. Minchew.

Finally, Ms. Perdue, I wonder if you could briefly describe documentary editing. What is that and why are the grants of the Commission so important for funding it?

Ms. PERDUE. I tried to convey a bit of the overview of what it

is in my short statement, but I touch on it more in depth in the

167

longer testimony. It really is a process of making these documents

accessible and understandable to users. In some cases documents

have foreign language, have code or cipher, and most users would

never be able to use them without the work editors do.

What was the second part of the question?

Ms. NORTON. Why they are critical for Commission support in

particular, if you think they are. Would they be supported otherwise?

Ms. PERDUE. Well, I can say that, just generally speaking, most

projects do not rely on NHPRC alone; they couldn’t rely on the

grants. The grants are not that large. Most of the projects that I

am familiar with have staffs of at least five people, and an NHPRC

grant may pay for the salary of only a part of that staff. They also

obtain a combination of grants from other organizations, such as

NEH. They may look to private foundations. But no single foundation or institution is supporting these projects in full.

Ms. NORTON. I am going to ask the chairman if he has any questions. I still should ask him. Mr. Chairman, do you have any questions for these witnesses?

Mr. CLAY. Just let me summarize.

Ms. NORTON. Please do that, sir.

Mr. CLAY. And thank all of the witnesses.

Ms. NORTON. You are in a particular position to do so, having

been on the floor voting.

Mr. CLAY. I voted for you too. [Laughter.]

Let me thank all of the witnesses today, all three panels who

came and gave their time today and highlighted the importance of

the NHPRC. It is invaluable how you document and chronicle the

history of this country and we are certainly supportive of those efforts here, and hopefully we will move this bill forward and ensure

that we secure additional funding for this valuable agency.

With that, I say thank you.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, would you like me to close the hearing?

Mr. CLAY. Yes.

Ms. NORTON. So ordered. Thank you very much.

[Whereupon, at 5:34 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

168

169

Æ