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

54–079 PDF 2009

STAKEHOLDERS’ VIEWS ON THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION

[NARA]

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

FIRST SESSION

MAY 21, 2009

Serial No. 111–26

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

GERRY 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

——— ———

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

DAN BURTON, Indiana

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

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

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

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio

DIANE E. WATSON, 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 May 21, 2009 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of:

McDermott, Patrice, director, Openthegovernment.org; Meredith Fuchs,

general counsel, National Security Archives, George Washington University; and Lee White, executive director, National Coalition on History ................................................................................................................. 16

Fuchs, Meredith ........................................................................................ 34

McDermott, Patrice ................................................................................... 16

White, Lee .................................................................................................. 46

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

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

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

Fuchs, Meredith, general counsel, National Security Archives, George

Washington University, prepared statement of ......................................... 36

McDermott, Patrice, director, Openthegovernment.org, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 19

McHenry, Hon. Patrick T., a Representative in Congress from the State

of North Carolina, prepared statement of ................................................... 9

Watson, Hon. Diane E., a Representative in Congress from the State

of California, prepared statement of ........................................................... 12

White, Lee, executive director, National Coalition on History:

Followup response ..................................................................................... 59

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 48

(1)

STAKEHOLDERS’ VIEWS ON THE NATIONAL

ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION

[NARA]

THURSDAY, MAY 21, 2009

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 p.m., in room

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

Present: Representatives Clay, McHenry, Norton, Watson, and

Westmoreland.

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

Mitchell and Alissa Bonner, professional staff members; Jean Gosa,

clerk; Ron Stroman, staff director, full committee; Carla Hultberg,

chief clerk, full committee; Adam Hodge, deputy press secretary,

full committee; John Cuaderes, minority deputy staff director;

Adam Fromm, minority chief clerk and Member liaison; Howard

Denis, minority senior counsel; and Jonathan Skladany, minority

counsel.

Mr. CLAY. The hearing on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives will come to order.

Good afternoon, and the subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee will now come to order. Without objection, the Chair and ranking minority member will have 5 minutes

to make opening statements, 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 material for the

record.

Welcome to today’s oversight hearing entitled, ‘‘Stakeholders’

Views on the National Archives and Records Administration

[NARA]. The purpose of today’s hearing is to examine issues that

President Obama’s administration should consider in selecting the

next Archivist of the United States of America. We will consider

several important topics, including NARA’s strategic plan, the

Freedom of Information Act, the Presidential Library Donation Act,

the Office of Government Information Services Act, the collection

and storage of historical records and the staffing of NARA facilities.

The National Archives and Records Administration is the Nation’s record keeper. Its stated mission is to serve American democVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:29 Feb 01, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\54079.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
2

racy by safeguarding and preserving the records of our Government. As we will hear from our witnesses today, the next Archivist

must have the requisite knowledge and skills to fulfill this mission

using 21st century tools. It is this subcommittee’s hope that our

hearing today will provide the President with some valuable information that he can use in selecting the next Archivist.

Before we go to our witnesses, I would like to address the recent

findings of NARA’s Inspector General on the loss of records. The

NARA Inspector General has repeated a serious security breach at

the National Archives concerning certain Clinton administration

documents. Chairman Towns has stated the committee’s position

on the matter, that the committee will do everything possible to

protect the integrity of the FBI’s criminal investigation while we

fulfill our constitutional duty to investigate the compromised security protocols at the National Archives and work to prevent future

incidents.

The committee will hold briefings into this matter with NARA

and the FBI so committee members can begin to understand the

magnitude of the security breach and all the steps being taken to

recover the lost information. It is my hope that we can work with

the minority to accomplish this.

Now, onto today’s topic. I now yield to the distinguished ranking

minority member, Mr. McHenry of North Carolina.

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

3

4

5

6

Mr. MCHENRY. Thank you, Chairman Clay. Thank you for holding this hearing, especially in light of the recent reports we have

out of the National Archives. I appreciate your leadership in working with the minority side of the aisle as well.

The National Archives is an agency with extremely important

functions, we all know that. The archiving of our Government’s valuable records requires a methodical approach to guarantee the

preservation of documents within continuing value to the American

people. Some of these records contain highly sensitive information

and these records must be secured to protect national security and

personally identifiable information as well.

The effectiveness of the Archives as protector of the records

under its control is a piece of the national security puzzle. This is

why I am so troubled by the pattern of careless handling of sensitive material by the Archives. This week, the Inspector General

of the Archives described a potentially catastrophic loss of data to

our committee staff. The Inspector General, with the assistance of

the Justice Department and the Secret Service, is currently investigating the loss of a hard drive containing one terabyte of data derived from records from the Clinton Presidency that went missing

from the Archives’ College Park facility.

A terabyte of data is approximately equivalent to several million

books. We are trying to get an exact description of how many pages

of text that would be, but it is certainly hundreds of millions of

pages of data. Data on drives include more than 100,000 Social Security numbers, contact information and home addresses for various Clinton administration officials, Secret Service and White

House operating procedures, event logs, social gathering logs, political records and other highly sensitive information. The full extent

of the contents of the drive is still being investigated. The IG characterized the violation as ‘‘the greatest loss ever and troubling and

amazing.’’

The IG described to us an environment at the College Park facility where hundreds of employees have access to sensitive data,

where janitors, visitors, interns and others with no clearance are

able to walk through areas where hard drives containing national

security secrets are just lying around. In fact, Archives employees

use the area where the hard drives were left out as a shortcut to

the bathroom. Now, apparently another room is too warm and they

have to keep the door open for cooling purposes, a bizarre enough

story.

This incident should be troubling if it weren’t isolated. But it is

even more alarming because of its part as a larger pattern. All you

have to do is read the reports released by the IG over the last few

years to see the loss of this hard drive as just the latest example

of carelessness at the Archives. Archives employees were accidentally or intentionally throwing away original Bureau of Indian Affairs records so frequently that a rule was put in place that required security officers and janitors to check the trash before it was

taken out. These records are irreplaceable, and they were being

thrown in the trash by Archives employees and personnel.

The failures of the Archives’ security protocols are seemingly

endless. In 2007, an annual inventory identified as missing approximately 559 pieces of equipment, including items with memory

7

storage capabilities and the potential of storing sensitive personal

identifying information on them. A report published in 2006 revealed that the CIA and other Federal agencies had to reclassify

over 55,000 pages of records taken from the open shelves of the Archives.

But we can’t forget the incident in 2005, with former President

Clinton advisor Sandy Berger, National Security Advisor, and he

plead guilty to unlawfully removing documents from the Archives.

Apparently he was stuffing them in his socks. There are proper

protocols here, and this shouldn’t be a partisan issue. Historians

want access to these records to give an original account and an accurate account of American history. It is not simply a Clinton administration issue or a Bush administration issue. It is truly preserving our Nation’s history.

Yesterday the Partnership for Public Service and American University’s Institute for the Study of Public Policy Implementation released their report of best and worst places to work in the Federal

Government in 2009. Not surprisingly, the National Archives was

one of the worst. It ranked 29 out of 30 overall. Now, this is unfortunate. Not only are the employees unhappy, but we are not even

protecting our Nation’s history.

In the categories of leadership supervisors and strategic management, the Archives ranked a paltry 22, 20 and 21 respectively. This

is unfortunate. We have to change the culture in the Archives and

make sure that we protect our Nation’s data. Acting Archivist Adrienne Thomas was invited to appear here today but she declined.

Ms. Thomas decided that her presence at a ribbon cutting ceremony was of far greater importance.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that we will be able to invite her in and

have a hearing on that, or at the very least, the new Archivist that

the President appointments.

Now, back to Ms. Thomas, her failure to grasp the gravity of the

situation is shocking. She certainly has something to explain. She

has a lot of explaining to do here to Congress and the American

people and her employees.

And there are immediate questions that she needs to be here

today to answer. Has an inventory been done to determine if any

other records are missing? That is a very important question. And

what immediate security measures have been taken to prevent further loss or theft?

Given the pattern of mismanagement and careless at the National Archives, I look forward to working with Chairman Clay and

the committee majority to schedule a hearing with Ms. Thomas as

soon as possible. We have to give her the opportunity to account

for the negligence within the Archives and account to Congress

what we must do to fulfill our obligations to future generations.

We are here today to discuss the qualifications that President

Obama should be looking for in a new Archivist. It is clear that a

replacement for Ms. Thomas can’t come fast enough. The input of

professionals from the Archives would be helpful, but there is not,

unfortunately, a single representative from the Archives here

today. And that is unfortunate.

8

I thank the witnesses for being here. You are certainly experts

in the field and we certainly appreciate that, for the record, in giving us guidelines going forward.

Thank you, Chairman Clay, for your leadership and thank you

for your hard work on this matter and the Census as well.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Patrick T. McHenry follows:]

9

10

11

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. McHenry, and you can be assured that

the committee members will be briefed on everything that took

place at NARA as well as we will eventually get the Acting Director here.

Are there any other committee members that would like to make

an opening statement? Ms. Watson of California, you are recognized for 3 minutes.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for holding today’s hearing to bring together various stakeholders to share their

views on the issues that are of particular concern as the Obama administration selects a new Archivist of the United States to lead

the National Archives and Records Administration.

As the guardian of the historical record of the United States, it

is imperative that the NARA is run effectively and innovatively to

protect our Nation’s civic narrative for current and future generations of inquisitive Americans who seek greater understanding of

who we are. Finding a new Archivist who advocates for transparency, who understands and who anticipates the challenges that

the NARA may face, and who possesses the expertise to implement

technology which can expedite access to our Nation’s records are all

critical to guaranteeing the NARA is capable of protecting the integrity of our national records.

The next Archivist of the United States must ensure that the

NARA is equipped with an effective and consistent system for electronic records management. And we do hope that the Obama administration may have as its legacy an accurate record of America’s

policies, activities and a bit of its history.

An effective electronic records management system, which can

process this massive backlog, should also possess the ability to assist in the declassification of eligible Federal and Presidential

records. With approximately 400 million pages of valuable documents frozen in a system which grows by 25 million pages per

year, it is critically important that the next Archivist takes a

proactive approach to modernizing this system so that Americans

can have timely access to the documents which bring context to our

national experience.

I would like all of today’s witnesses, I would like to thank them

for appearing before this committee and their testimony will provide invaluable insight into the criteria the Obama administration

should consider in selecting a new Archivist of the United States.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Diane E. Watson follows:]

12

13

14

15

16

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Ms. Watson, for the opening statement.

If there are no additional opening statements, Mr. Westmoreland

has indicated to me he does not have one, the subcommittee will

now receive testimony from the witnesses before us today.

I want to start by introducing our panel. Our first witness is Dr.

Patrice McDermott, director of OpenTheGovernment.org. Our next

witness is Ms. Meredith Fuchs, and she is the General Counsel for

the National Security archives. And our final witness will be Mr.

Lee White, executive director of the National Coalition on History.

Welcome to all three. As a note, before we begin, two witnesses

scheduled today were unable to attend. They are Acting Archivist

Adrienne Thomas and Dr. Thomas C. Battle, from Howard University, who represents the Society of American Archivists.

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

to their testimony. It is the policy of the Oversight Committee to

swear in our witnesses before they testify. Would you all please

stand and raise your right hands?

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. CLAY. Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in

the affirmative. You may be seated. And I ask that each of the witnesses now give a brief summary of their testimony. Please limit

your summary to 5 minutes and the little light on the desk will indicate when your 5 minutes is up. Your complete written statement

will be included in the hearing record.

Ms. McDermott, please begin with your opening statement.

STATEMENTS OF PATRICE McDERMOTT, DIRECTOR,

OPENTHEGOVERNMENT.ORG; MEREDITH FUCHS, GENERAL

COUNSEL, NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVES, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY; AND LEE WHITE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL COALITION ON HISTORY

STATEMENT OF PATRICE McDERMOTT

Ms. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Chairman Clay, Mr. McHenry and

members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to speak today

on the issues that the Obama administration should consider in selecting the next Archivist of the United States.

My name is Patrice McDermott, and I am director of

OpenTheGovernment.org, a coalition of more than 70 consumer

and good government groups, library associations, journalists, environmentalists, labor organizations and others united to make the

Federal Government a more open place in order to strengthen public trust in Government, make us safer and support our democratic

principles.

One of my former colleague who recently retired from NARA

said, ‘‘I believe in NARA—as an ideal.’’ I think that is where those

of us on this panel and our colleagues in the public interest community stand as well. We do this because NARA is probably the

only agency in the executive branch that has, and is seen by the

public to have, access to Government information as its primary

mission.

NARA has primarily understood its mission to encompass information that, for a variety of reasons, is historically significant. This

understanding of its mission is reflected in its leadership and its

17

staff. While the employees of NARA are dedicated civil servants,

and there are many talented individuals working there, the agency

does have a tendency to be inward-looking and focused on the past.

The perception of NARA is that it is primarily reactive, not

proactive. And we know that NARA has preferred to take a collegial, rather than a leadership stance, with the agencies and within

the Government overall.

The critical position of NARA in both the life cycle management

of the records of our Federal Government and the mounting challenges the Government faces in this area necessitate that the culture and stance of NARA change. NARA is increasingly being

asked to take on new challenges and is looked to as a site to locate

new initiatives and offices pertaining to public access to contemporaneous Government information. These include the Office of

Government Information Services, created by the Open Government Act, an office that will have responsibility for implementing

the memorandum on designation and sharing of controlled, unclassified information, better known as sensitive but unclassified information.

Moreover, NARA has another primary mission that receives an

insufficient amount of the agency’s attention and resources: records

administration. Many of us in the public access community are

deeply concerned about how NARA is addressing its responsibility

for records management and provision of access to the records of

our Nation. This is especially true for e-records.

NARA’s 2006 to 2016 Strategic Plan is indicative of the reasons

for our concerns. It has a total of 1.5 pages on records administration and one vague strategy for electronic records management.

That is accompanied by a strategy on physical records storage.

Indeed, the strong and evident focus on the Strategic Plan is on

the Archives portion of NARA’s mission, the first A, combined with

an emphasis on civic education and exhibits. The perception reinforced by conversations with current and former NARA staff is that

the agency increasingly understands itself as a museum.

The former Archivist, Dr. Weinstein, moved the agency in some

good directions with the use of technology. NARA’s use of technology, though, appears to be focused on, again, making NARA a

museum, rather than a lead agency on life cycle management of

records for public access. Recent history shows, however, that we

need an Archivist who has a proven record of standing up for open

government. Dr. Weinstein took good positions on open government

when crises arose, but did not put the agency in a leadership

stance.

That is an approach we can no longer afford. We need an Archivist who understands NARA is not just a museum of historical documents, but is a steward responsible for securing the integrity of

Government records. He or she must be able to lead NARA to embrace the role of catalyst for the information revolution and enunciate clear, consistent and practical electronic record policies.

More important, most importantly, we need an Archivist that

will lead the Government to meet the new challenges of managing

and preserving electronic records, including emails. Records management must not be about cleaning up messes after they occur,

18

but taking the proactive steps necessary to prevent the loss of our

documentary record.

The new Archivist needs to be a visionary in terms of the importance and public use of Government records in all forms and formats and throughout their life cycle, and so needs to have a strong

familiarity with technology as a tool. She or he also needs to be

someone who understands and appreciates records management,

again, throughout the life cycle, not just of records that will be

archived.

The public and the Government need an Archivist who can provide vision and leadership for the Federal Government and foster

successful partnerships with history and access professionals inside

and outside Government. The key qualification is his or her commitment to maintaining the record of our national Government and

meeting the mandates of law.

Because the next Archivist will have so many challenges—am I

out of time? I have one more page. We recommend that a second

tier political appointee be created to serve a chief of staff type position and to manage and enliven the bureaucracy at NARA. This

would free the Archivist to assume the needed leadership role and

might attract candidates who have the vision to move the agency

and to assist the President in moving forward.

The new Archivist and this second person should give the CUI

office and the Office of Government Information services the support and independence that the Information Security Oversight

has. For OGIS, this independence is particularly important, because OGIS must also oversee NARA’s own significant involvement

with FOIA.

In order for President Obama’s day one promises on transparency to have any meaningful impact, immediate steps must be

taken to protect the integrity of Government records throughout

their life cycle, from creation to permanent preservation or authorized destruction.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on these important

issues. I am happy to answer any questions you might have.

[The prepared statement of Ms. McDermott follows:]

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Ms. McDermott.

Ms. Fuchs, you may proceed.

STATEMENT OF MEREDITH FUCHS

Ms. FUCHS. Thank you. Chairman Clay, members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify today about the National Archives and Records Administration. I have submitted a

written statement that details my organization’s experience with

NARA, so you will be happy to know I am going to only focus on

a few points right now.

We understand that the White House is actively currently assessing candidates for the office of Archivist of the United States.

I am hopeful that the members of this subcommittee will let the

White House know that the next Archivist must be someone who

is eager to confront the challenges that are facing NARA and

should be someone who has the authority and the management

skills to have a significant impact.

I want to preface my remarks to say that my organization works

very regularly with NARA officials and we strongly support their

mission. In the years that I have focused on information policy,

NARA officials have always taken our concerns seriously. They

have always been responsive when we have called upon them. But

our experience is that NARA has failed to take leadership amongst

Government agencies in the area where it has unique expertise,

and in my view, responsibility.

My written submission describes the divergence between a view

of NARA primarily as a museum of the past and a view of NARA

as a critical component in our Government’s overall information

policy. From the outside, to us, NARA often seems to act like a disengaged bureaucrat, mechanically doing its work, when it should

be leading change. Right now, NARA has the opportunity to lead

the change that President Obama has called for in his transparency directives.

We believe NARA can only fulfill this mission, however, if it

starts its work long before the boxes of old documents make their

way to NARA’s warehouses. I am going to highlight four critical

areas that I think will require the Archivist’s immediate attention.

The first is electronic records management and the records life

cycle. If there is one knowledge base that the new Archivist should

have, it is of electronic records and records life cycle management.

NARA must solve the problem of long-term storage and preservation and on that front, I urge this committee to inquire of NARA

into the functioning of the electronic records archives.

But NARA also must lead the charge in getting the Federal

agencies to learn how to manage their records. Agencies have a

legal obligation to preserve records of historical significance. They

must have their records disposition schedules approved by NARA,

but we know of very few instances where NARA has taken strong

action to enforce the law.

The second issue is classified records. I believe most people at

NARA would agree with me that the classified and declassified

records process is inefficient, time-consuming and ineffective. I am

not going to spend much time on it, but I would say that we strongly support the establishment of a well-funded national declassificaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:29 Feb 01, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\54079.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
35

tion and historical records center at NARA that will make the

growing volume of currently inaccessible records available to the

public. The new Archivist should spearhead efforts to gain agency

cooperation and advance the necessary legislative changes to make

this a reality and quickly.

The third area is Presidential records and Presidential libraries.

NARA’s effectiveness at preserving Presidential records is an area

of grave concern. The Oversight Committee has heard over many

years about mismanagement of Presidential records and problems

with the Presidential library system. I am not going to revisit all

of those details today, but I do think that NARA at least does appear to view itself as powerless to oversee Presidential recordkeeping. This is their view even in the case of legitimate concerns

that records may be missing or destroyed.

It also is faced with tremendous challenges regarding the Presidential library system. NARA is currently undergoing a process to

assess alternative models for Presidential libraries. I urge this committee to inquire of NARA on the details of its process and to ensure that they are considering all alternative models in that process.

Finally, I am going to highlight my fourth concern, which is the

issue of access. I urge the next Archivist to be someone who can

view access through the lens of President Obama’s January 21st,

Open Government memorandum. He or she should have a vision

for Archives 2.0, so that they can serve a new generation of researchers.

So what does this all mean for the selection of the new Archivist?

The person who is chosen must be someone who doesn’t only care

about history, but also understands what is coming in the future.

They have to understand the promise of technology and frankly,

they should be someone who has some experience implementing

technology for preservation and access. Moreover, they must view

NARA not just as a museum of the past, but as a resource to serve

the needs of our people today and in the future. Instead of looking

at the new responsibilities that Congress has been placing on

NARA as an interference in their mission, they should view these

as opportunities to help agencies do a better job at preserving

records.

The next Archivist also must be a skilled diplomat and a manager who can motivate and lead. I was sad to read that NARA had

been listed as one of the least favorable places to work in the Federal Government, because most of the people I know who work

there are working there because they care about the mission. They

should also have the benefit of having a good work environment.

Finally, and for my organization, this is most essential, the Archivist must be an unwavering advocate of transparency and access. They should understand in their core that the National Archives exists to advance our democracy and it can only do so if the

Government creates, preserves and permits the public to see

records of its activities and its policies.

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak to you. I will be

happy to respond to questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Fuchs follows:]

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Ms. Fuchs, for your statement.

Mr. White, you may make an opening statement.

STATEMENT OF LEE WHITE

Mr. WHITE. I can assure you, my testimony is 5 minutes and 22

seconds. [Laughter.]

Chairman Clay——

Mr. CLAY. We are keeping score. [Laughter.]

Mr. WHITE. Well, start now.

Chairman Clay and members of the subcommittee, I am Lee

White, the executive director of the National Coalition for History.

The Coalition is a consortium of over 60 organizations that advocates and educates on Federal legislative and regulatory issues affecting historians, archivists, political scientists, teachers and other

public stakeholders. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the

major issues we see facing the new Archivist of the United States.

Let me add to your comments by saying NARA’s apparent loss

of Clinton-era electronic records is inexcusable. The mismanagement of these sensitive records exemplifies the urgent need for systemic change throughout the agency. It also shows why the Obama

administration must move quickly to nominate a new Archivist

with the management skills needed to address the serious problems plaguing the agency.

Here is just a brief summary of the key issue I addressed in my

written testimony and the ones most pressing we see facing the

new Archivist of the United States.

First, resources. Any consideration of the issues facing the National Archives must begin with a discussion of resources, both financial and human. For too long, the Congress and various administrations have given NARA additional responsibilities without a

commensurate increase in funding. The top priority for the new Archivist should be to address the growing processing backlog. Congress should give NARA the financial resources necessary to not

only process the existing backlogs of historical materials, but also

to keep up with the exponential increase of new records.

With regard to human resources, NARA is facing the retirement

of a large percentage of its work force. The agency must employ

and train an entire new generation of archival professionals. As everyone else has stated, I am disappointed that the National Archives finished 29th out of 30 Federal agencies in measuring employees’ job satisfaction. The first challenge the new Archivist will

face is improving NARA’s organizational culture and restoring morale at the agency.

Second, the Archivist should ensure the creation and preservation of Federal and Presidential records. The Archivist of the

United States will need both the full backing of the President as

well as vigilant congressional oversight to ensure that all branches

of the Government adhere to the legal requirements of the Federal

Records and Presidential Records Act.

Third, reform the Presidential library system. Last fall, Congress

directed NARA to prepare a report due this summer that suggests

alternative models for the Presidential library system. We all, I

think, agree that the Presidential library system is broken and reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:29 Feb 01, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\54079.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
47

forming the operations, maintenance and funding of the library

should be a top priority for the new Archivist.

Fourth, a complete deployment of a new system for preserving

electronic records. The long-delayed Electronic Records Archive is

an essential tool for the NARA of today and tomorrow. Mandatory

use of the ERA by all Federal agencies is currently scheduled to

begin in January 2011. The new Archivist must ensure that the

ERA meets that deadline.

Fifth, pursue efficient declassification and open access to public

information. Over-classification of Government information not

only denies or delays public access to records, but also squanders

resources by adding to the backlog of records that need to go

through the convoluted declassification process.

The Archivist should play a key role within the administration

in the development of the forthcoming Government-wide controlled

unclassified information policy. The new Archivist should also advocate within the administration for the establishment of a national declassification center at NARA, which we were disappointed

to see was not included in the President’s fiscal year 2010 budget

request.

Sixth, improve citizens’ access to Government records. NARA

must expand online access to finding aids and digitized portions of

its collections, as well as maintain extended research hours so that

stakeholders can access materials that are only available at NARA

facilities.

Seventh, expand NARA’s educational and outreach activities.

The records and artifacts entrusted to NARA’s stewardship are

truly national treasures. To improve historical and civic literacy,

NARA should continue to expand its excellent educational and public programs.

And finally, Mr. Chairman, this is something that is dear to your

heart, the National Historical Publications and Records Commission. The History Coalition strongly supports the grants program

of the NHPRC. We urge the administration and the new Archivist

to work with you, Chairman Clay, toward the passage of the legislation you introduce to reauthorize the NHPRC at an annual level

of $20 million per year for fiscal years 2010 through 2014.

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I will be happy to respond

to any questions you may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. White follows:]

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. White.

And now we will move to the question period for Members under

the 5-minute rule. I will go in a different order and recognize the

gentlewoman from California, Ms. Watson, for 5 minutes.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.

The Open Government Act of 2007 created the Office of Government Information Services within the NARA to review the records

management procedures of agencies and to improve the application

of the Freedom of Information Act by serving as an impartial mediator toward requestors and agencies. However, experts have argued

that the OGIS has never been adequately funded and Allen

Weinstein, the previous Archivist of the United States, contended

that these responsibilities should not be the NARA’s, but within

the sole jurisdiction of the Justice Department.

So I ask any of you that would like to respond, if you think the

Department of Justice is the appropriate agency for resolving the

Freedom of Information Act disputes, and what kind of increases

do you think the NARA would need to sufficiently fulfill the statutory responsibilities of the OGIS. Let me just go down the line.

Ms. FUCHS. Sure, I would be happy to respond. I think that it

is without question that NARA did not welcome the idea of OGIS

being placed there, although I do believe that now that OGIS is

going to be NARA, they are sort of stuck with it, and I am hopeful

that they are going to take it seriously.

There is no question that the Justice Department is not an appropriate place to have a mediator of FOIA disputes. We have long

experience dealing with the Justice Department. They are very professional, but they defend the Government, so there is an inherent

conflict of interest in them playing that role.

We are very concerned that it has taken so long to see the appointment of a Director of the Office of Government Information

Services. I understand that appointment is eminent. I think that

is going to be a significant test on whether they are seriously taking the responsibility to act in that role as a mediator. Because

that person can make a tremendous difference in terms of the

openness of Government. But if the person who they hire to startup

that office is not someone who comes with a vision and a desire to

make a difference, well, then, it is just wasted money.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you.

Ms. McDermott.

Ms. MCDERMOTT. Yes, thank you. I agree completely with Meredith. The placement of the Office of Government Information Services was thought through very hard among ourselves and with people on the Hill. And while we know that NARA was not pleased

to have it, partly because it was initially unfunded, we do think

that is the best place for it, and the Justice Department, for the

reasons that Ms. Fuchs gave, is not it.

In terms of how many resources they need, I think that is probably something that the NARA folks and the new Director of the

Office, when he or she is hired, are best going to be placed to recommend. We are concerned, though, that enough money be allocated for the office that they are not dependent on detailees from

the Justice Department who are good and decent civil servants, but

they bring with them, they would bring with them their DepartVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:29 Feb 01, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\54079.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
55

ment of Justice frame of mind. We want a new look at these cases

and at these issues.

I would also ask that this office oversee or take a look, anyway,

at how NARA, at how the FOIA is being implemented Governmentwide. I think that is going to be a very important job. DOJ has responsibility for giving guidance, but nobody has, in the executive

branch, has responsibility for ensuring that the agencies Government-wide are actually complying with the law. So we are very

hopeful, we are anxious to see who is named, and we will work

with them and try to get them the necessary funding.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you.

And Mr. White, I have a question for you. I am sure you concur

with what has been said previously.

Mr. WHITE. Yes.

Ms. WATSON. In one of his first acts, President Obama released

a memorandum on transparency and open Government and issued

Executive Order 13489, which revoked President Bush’s Executive

Order 13233, which placed limits on access to Presidential records.

So what would you say the record of implementation has been

thus far in terms of the Obama administration applying a presumptive openness? And what other actions would you recommend

the President take to increase transparency and accountability in

the executive branch?

Mr. WHITE. Well, I have to say that the day that the President

issued that Executive order was one of the happiest days of my

professional life. [Laughter.]

I have been working on it for quite a long time.

I think it is too soon to tell. I know that right after the President

issued the Executive order, some records were released, I believe,

from the Reagan Library. I think what is still needed, however, is

there is legislation pending in the Senate that passed here in the

House, H.R. 35, the Presidential Records Reform Act, that needs to

be passed. We need to get the changes that the administration

made put into law, enacted, codified, so that the Presidential

Records Act is not left to the whim of any President, each President that comes in. Once it is codified, it is going to be harder for

them to manipulate the Presidential Records Act to their own uses.

So I would say, getting the Senate to pass that bill and sending

it back over here if there are any changes, I know that President

Obama has already committed himself to signing the bill. So you

need to get your colleagues on the other side of the Hill to start

moving.

Ms. WATSON. We will be waiting for it.

I will yield back to you, Mr. Chairman. I do have some other

questions.

Mr. CLAY. We will do a second round. Thank you, Ms. Watson.

Mr. Westmoreland, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Fuchs, you are an advocate of, or against over-classification,

I guess. And I know that in the past, there has been some things

that were released and then later on reclassified, I guess, by the

CIA or another agency.

How often are documents released by the Archives that are subsequently reclassified?

56

Ms. FUCHS. A couple of years ago, there was a very significant

incident that my organization played a role in covering where there

was significant reclassification going on at the National Archives.

As a result of that, an audit was done and it was found that most

of those reclassifications were either inappropriate or, even if technically legitimate under the Executive order, were questionable. So

there had been a lot of unnecessary reclassification, but there was

certainly some core that was properly apparently reclassified.

My understanding is that since that time, new procedures were

put in at the National Archives and there have been very, very few

reclassifications. In fact, I just looked at this number a couple of

days ago, and I think within the last year or two, there may have

been zero, and the year before that, there were a couple of pages

or a couple of documents.

There is a serious question, when you are talking about reclassifying, what was the reason that the thing was mistakenly classified, it is already publicly known, and is there actually going to be

harm that requires reclassification. Because reclassifying itself can

lead to harm. These are questions which I do believe that the National Archives, in response to the scandal, has been much more

professional in handling.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. I know that in 2006, there was a report

published, and I don’t know who that was by, that said there were

55,000 pages. So if there were 55,000 pages reclassified, and you

are saying there was none in the last 2 years, it must be doing a

better job of it.

Ms. FUCHS. That report was in response to the fact that we had

uncovered this massive reclassification effort, and that is indeed

what the information security oversight was to.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Do you know how many of those 55,000

pages were then unclassified?

Ms. FUCHS. I don’t know whether they were then unclassified.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. That is fine.

Ms. MCDERMOTT. If I may, I think it is important to note, too,

that it was not NARA that declassified these materials. NARA cannot declassify other agencies’ documents. They were materials that

were, that various agencies, the CIA and other agencies, had interest in. One of them had declassified it and other agencies were unhappy when they discovered that CIA was unhappy, for instance,

when they discovered the State Department might have declassified something that they didn’t want.

But these were in NARA’s safekeeping, and it happened on

NARA’s property. But it was not NARA that declassified the information, inappropriately or not.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. And I think that is a good point, Ms.

McDermott. I guess the rush to declassify, maybe that process

needs to be slowed down, that each one of the agencies has an opportunity to look at it before it is put into the unclassified.

Ms. FUCHS. If I could just comment on that briefly, I think you

are absolutely correct that there needs to be a much better process

for declassifying. But I don’t think that means that we should stop

declassifying. What I think that means is we should pursue something that NARA has in fact initiated, but on a much larger scale,

which is the National Declassification Center, where every agency

57

would be there, and every agency would play a role, and so we

could make sure that we are not spending taxpayer money protecting old secrets that are no longer important, and instead we are

actually protecting things that are really sensitive today.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. OK. I am going to have make the questions

shorter, and we are going to have to make the answers shorter.

The National Security Archive, they rely heavily on the Freedom

of Information Act to acquire materials. How long do you think is

a, or how would you evaluate agencies’ responsiveness to the Freedom of Information Act request for the National Security Archive

to get this information?

Ms. FUCHS. I would say we see a wide range of practice at agencies. Some agencies are far more professional. When material is

classified, it causes a delay in the review and release of information. We have seen some improvement in the last couple of years

in terms of customer service at agencies, but we have not seen significant improvements in terms of the speed with which records, or

with which they are responding to FOIA requests that we have

filed.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Average time, would you say, if you are

asking for something to go through the process to see if it is classified, non-classified or whatever, what is it? Two years? Three

months? Four days?

Ms. FUCHS. Nothing that we request has ever been provided in

4 days. [Laughter.]

Although I would say that if it is classified, we would be looking

at several months to several years, and at some agencies, many

years.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Can I just have one little followup, and I

won’t have a second round?

Mr. CLAY. Sure.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. And this is for Ms. Fuchs, too. As you

know, I guess in January there was a report, or the Pentagon said

there was a report about the detainees in Guantanamo Bay, in the

fact that of the 534 prisoners, about 1 out of 7 had been either gone

back into militant activity with the Taliban or whatever. They said

in January they were going to release it.

Well, as you may know, as of today they have not released it. But

yet, the New York Times reported on the story of the Pentagon and

actually gave the exact numbers of the ones that had returned to

flight.

If you had requested a report from the Pentagon under the Freedom of Information Act, and Pentagon officials promised to release

it promptly, would you be upset that the Pentagon dragged its feet

on what you had asked and then leaked it to the New York Times?

[Laughter.]

Ms. FUCHS. Well, that is a good question. I think the Freedom

of Information Act is not always administered as professionally as

I would like. It is the appropriate way for members of the public,

like my organization, to ask for information from Government

agencies.

I can’t really speak to the leak, because I don’t know who leaked

it. But I certainly think that there is a process that should be folVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:29 Feb 01, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\54079.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
58

lowed when folks like us ask. In this instance, I gather, maybe it

wasn’t.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. It sounds like to me, though, that I guess

the Freedom of Information Act that they submitted counted more

than getting the information to the public, as was promised in January.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Westmoreland. Thanks for those questions, too.

A panel-wide question. What are some of the deficiencies in the

Presidential library system that you believe must be addressed by

the next Archivist? Let’s start with Mr. White.

Mr. WHITE. Well, it is funny you should ask, because about a

week ago, or 2 weeks ago, we submitted, as you know, Congress

asked the National Archives to prepare a report to you that is due

this summer, detailing alternative models for the Presidential library system. I have our comments, if I could submit them for the

record later on.

Mr. CLAY. Without objection.

[The information referred to follows:]

59

60

Mr. WHITE. One of the issues I hate to point out is with Congress. Funding is always an issue with everything. But as we have

seen with some of the Presidential libraries, the FDR Library, for

example, had horrible conditions, the roof was leaking and everything else. We constantly see appropriators adding earmarks for

particular Presidential libraries that have more, how shall we say,

politically powerful people behind them.

Mr. CLAY. More popularity? [Laughter.]

Mr. WHITE. More popularity. And it is not the Harry Truman Library, by the way.

Probably the biggest issue, without belaboring the point, is declassification. It is endemic, it affects almost everything that the

Archives does. Without dealing with declassification, you are going

to have these backlogs. I believe when Tom Blanton, who is the executive director of Meredith’s organization, testified a few years ago

before you, there was a 5-year backlog. Now it is a 7-year backlog

at the Reagan Library, if you put in a request for information.

Now, if you are a historian, or a grad student, even worse, and

you are working on your dissertation, you can’t wait 7 years to get

the documents that you may need, critical documents that you need

for your dissertation. So from an historian’s point of view, this is

an absolute nightmare, these backlogs.

Again, I will make another pitch for the National Declassification

Center that was in the report of the Public Interest Declassification

Board. If you put declassification in one place with agency representatives who have expertise in declassification for the CIA,

Homeland Security, whatever, if they are all in one place, it could

speed things up.

So if you ask me to name one, I would say declassification was

probably the biggest one.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you.

Anyone else?

Ms. FUCHS. I will just quickly sort of jump on that. It is not just

the historians. Sometimes we have fairly current need for information that Presidential libraries have. For example, the nomination

of a Supreme Court Justice who may have worked in an administration previously, people want to see those records. Or someone

who is running for office, to be President of the United States, and

people want to see those records, because they exist.

And the Presidential Library, it is particularly Presidential libraries, because it is such a huge quantity of materials being sent

to them, they are just not really, they don’t have the capacity,

frankly, to get all that, get through it all and get it out in any reasonable amount of time.

So we think that NARA should be allowed to really focus on the

records and getting the records out, and they should be looking toward new ways of making things available, including much more

online availability, so they don’t need as much physical facilities.

Mr. WHITE. Can I add one thing, Mr. Chairman? I went to the

budget hearing for NARA the other day before the Appropriations

Committee. They have taken in 100 terabytes of electronic records

from the Bush administration. In the Clinton administration, they

took in 2 terabytes.

61

You heard Mr. McHenry talk about a terabyte is millions and

millions of pages. So you can see how exponentially the electronic

records are growing. So it makes another need for why we need to

get the electronic records archive system up and running.

Mr. CLAY. I read that one terabyte was equivalent to one million

books. Now, with this, with the revelation of a security breach,

even with some of the things that Mr. McHenry said in his opening

statement, do we have a cultural problem at Archives? Have they

advanced with the technology that we are now faced with in the

21st century? Have they kept up with that? Are they prepared to

even receive the records of this current administration once that

ends as far as being able to catalog and store it and to be the purveyor of those records? Are they prepared for that, or does the new

Director have to come in and change the entire culture of an agency?

Mr. WHITE. I think that the Archives has already learned, they

called for a number of years for a liaison at the White House General Counsel’s office, somebody dedicated to dealing with them on

Presidential records. From what I understand, the Obama White

House has assigned two people to that task, to liaison with NARA.

So dealing with the issues while they are being created will

make it much easier in 4 or 8 years when President Obama leaves

office. So dealing with things up front makes things much easier

on the back end.

Mr. CLAY. Ms. McDermott.

Ms. MCDERMOTT. I think that the Archives itself, my impression,

and again, this is from outside, is that it is sort of the cobbler’s

children, that they are, and again, this is from conversations, that

their own recordkeeping, electronic recordkeeping, may not be terrific, that when people are leaving their offices, they delete their

email. And of course, the ERA is under development, although as

you know from GAO reports and your own committee work, that

there are problems with that.

So I think there are potentially technology issues within NARA

in terms of its own ability to manage its own records, much less

to manage all the rest of the records. And then there is a leadership issue in terms of the rest of the Government. They do have

that responsibility. They don’t really want to take it, but they do

have that throughout the Government, and they have to provide

leadership in moving the executive branch toward electronic

records management. That is a big technological challenge and a

cost.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for that response.

Ms. FUCHS. I am happy to add my voice and I will be very quick.

I do think there is a need for a cultural change. I think that NARA

has not had cooperation from the executive branch. And so there

needs to be pressure put on each agency as well, that they should

be responsible. They need congressional backup, and in some instances, they need some more authority from Congress, so that

they can actually let agencies know, they can be more vocal, perhaps, about the problems.

I think that they need a leader who can manage, and they need

a leader who can lead. And that may mean they need more than

62

one person. So I would sort of support the comment Ms. McDermott

said that there should be another political appointee position.

And I urge you, when you do have NARA here, to ask them,

what are they going to do when they get the things from the White

House at the end of this administration? Do they have any idea

how to manage those kinds of records? Because that is a whole new

level of complexity that I don’t think we even had in the Bush administration that we clearly are going to have in the Obama administration.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you so much.

Mr. Westmoreland, you are recognized.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you.

President Obama announced this morning that the administration will review the classification policies at every agency. So from

what we just talked about, and hearing what Mr. White said, do

you think the appropriate evaluator of these Freedom of Information requests would be the OGIS or the agency that was in possession of the requested material? Each one of you can answer.

Ms. FUCHS. I think in the first instance, we think that the one

who should be evaluating the classification is the agency that classified it. I don’t think that we have any problem with that.

When we talk about the National Declassification Center and

historical records, we do think that the authority of one agency to

block declassification is a concern. Because we have seen that agencies will simply put up road blocks, even when they can’t convince

another agency. Then you wonder why it should be classified.

So I think those are two different categories.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. And if they got confused, it could clog up

the whole system, is that not right?

Ms. FUCHS. Right, exactly. At the end of the day, the President

has ultimate authority about whether something should be classified or not. The President certainly has the ability to declassify

records if he chooses to do so.

Ms. MCDERMOTT. I think it is also useful to note that when there

is a request for a classified piece of information and an agency

turns it down, an individual or the requestor has a choice to go to

court or they can go through a process that is a mandatory declassification review. Then there is an appeals process beyond that,

where people from outside of the originating agency have a chance

to look at the document and make some decisions about whether

all or portions of it could be declassified and released. That is more

or less effective.

But there are processes in place that it doesn’t, for contemporaneous declassification as opposed to after the 25 years or that sort

of thing, there are processes that have been put in place and that

are overseen by the Information Security Oversight Office that

seem to work reasonably well. Although they have a tremendous

backlog now, too. Everybody needs more resources.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. White.

Mr. WHITE. I hate to go back to always saying it helps on the

front end. But President Bush issued, I don’t know whether it was

a policy, called Controlled Unclassified Information, where he

wanted to reduce, there is something like 100 different ways things

can be classified as sensitive. He reduced that to three.

63

But we are still waiting for, and then he sent out, the President

sent out a recommendation from different agencies as to how to implement this new policy. It still hasn’t been implemented. We are

waiting for the Obama administration to issue this new policy. I

think that hopefully, having it so that things fall into three different stovepipes instead of 100 different stovepipes, where we

have to determine, if one agency says this is top secret, it might

not mean what top secret means at another agency, hopefully down

the road will help the process.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Do you think the OGIS should be the

facilitator or the link between those people to where the CIA may

say, ‘‘this is classified,’’ and the State Department says it is not?

Mr. WHITE. I think that is somewhat what their role was envisioned as, as being the final arbiter of what goes and what doesn’t

go. Meredith would know more about it.

Ms. FUCHS. I would disagree. I mean, they are a mediator. So

what they will be doing is they will be trying to get the agency and

the FOIA requestor to reach some sort of agreement. I think the

reason that our community felt it was important to have this office

was that we found that agencies were obstructing requests for information, for poor reasons, not for legitimate reasons. And the

only alternative you had was to go to court.

Now, my organization, we are happy to go to court. I am a lawyer, I can litigate. But you know what? Your average guy on the

street really doesn’t have the ability to go to court, and it is not

right that they should have to go to court to find out something

from their Government.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. OK, one last question. Somebody said that

the President set the policy for the declassification of all these

things. And I guess he is the final person to decide if it is declassified or not. And he announced this morning he was going to review all these classification policies at every agency.

But from what I am hearing from you, he could make a policy

that would automatically set the policy for all the agencies. Do you

suggest that the President do that, rather than going through trying to analyze all these classification policies of the different agencies? Or just say, OK, this is going to be the policy?

Ms. FUCHS. Right. I think there are two things going on. I think

every President has issued an Executive order dealing with classification policy. Indeed, President Bush’s Executive order was in

many ways very similar to President Clinton’s. And President Clinton’s had an innovation that has been retained that I presume

President Obama will retain that will declassify the historic

records. So that, we should assume that President Obama will appropriately issue a broad memo.

The other thing that I believe he talked about today, although

I don’t know the details, is that each agency has to have a review

of its own policies. Because some agencies do a far better job than

other agencies. And that goes with respect to classifying, also with

respect to protecting classified, and also with respect to declassifying.

Some agencies have things built into their system to prevent

over-classification. People think, why does over-classification matter? Over-classification matters, because people lose respect for the

64

system when everything is classified. That is why there are so

many leaks, because people don’t feel that the things that are protected must be protected.

In addition, it costs money, and it obviously prevents the public

from getting information. So each agency does need a review of its

own policies.

Mr. WESTMORELAND. We just don’t want it to be political. Just

one final comment, and I will quit. But we don’t want it to be political about what is declassified and what is not. Because there are

a lot of things going on around Washington right now that are he

says, she says kinds of deals. So if we are going to open it up, let’s

do it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you.

Ms. Watson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you so much. I understand that NARA has entered into a $317 million contract

with Lockheed Martin to develop a comprehensive management

system for electronic records. Do any of you have reason to believe

that a system like that would be capable of adequately processing

the massive amount of records in the system? Do you know of any

existing program for records management that the NARA could

adapt to function on the scale they need? Would you have that information? Dr. Battle is not here.

Ms. MCDERMOTT. I don’t, personally. I mean, I know what GAO

has said and the other reports that have come out. But no, I think

there do seem to be some questions about the capacity, capability

of the electronic records archive. But I think that’s probably a subject for a hearing with parties who are directly involved.

Ms. WATSON. I am sure this committee will be following up with

Dr. Battle so we can get the direct information.

Ms. MCDERMOTT. Good.

Ms. WATSON. Do any of the other witnesses have something to

say?

Ms. FUCHS. I agree, I can’t recommend an alternative system. Although a lot of money has been spent already on the electronic

records archive. So hopefully, rather than scrapping it, it can be

made to work and work quickly. I believe that they are, you would

have to talk to NARA but they believe that it will work. I would

add from our perspective that there are other things NARA can do

before the records even get to them to try to make things be in

their proper order and proper formats, to make it easier for them

to ingest, so they don’t have to do things like buy proprietary software, so that they can hold things before they go into electronic

record archives. Things like that, that they could be doing. But

again, I agree with Ms. McDermott.

Ms. WATSON. Well, let me throw this out. I have been listening

to the three of you. You talk about the time it takes. If we are

going to declassify information, what are the steps, what are the

procedures that you have to go through? Why would it take years?

Can anyone comment on why is the process so lengthy?

Ms. FUCHS. That is a good question, and I ask it regularly myself. Every time I have the opportunity to talk to people at NARA,

I try to find out more about the steps.

65

I think some of it is, you mentioned the 400 million pages that

have been declassified that are waiting to get out to the public.

Once it has been declassified, that is just one part of the analysis.

So at least for the historical records, they still then have to review

them for privacy concerns. And there are other processing steps.

My hope is that having a National Declassification and Records

Center would facilitate some of that. Certainly part of the problem

with the classified records is the referral to every agency. So a

record, the Navy might say it is OK to be declassified, but they

need the CIA to sign off on that, and they need the State Department to sign off on that. What do they do? They sort of send it from

agency to agency and agency, or it sits waiting until someone from

that agency comes to take a look at it.

A National Declassification Center would bring all those people

to the table and they would have to agree to cooperate. And I think

that would save a lot of time and a lot of money, if they approached

it that way.

Mr. WHITE. One of the other challenges of the electronic records

archive is searchability. When the electronic records archive is up

and running, if I want to write a biography of Chairman Clay and

I go in and type, Clay, I am going to get a zillion records. How efficient will the system be, so that it is searchable and user friendly?

That is a big, that will be a big, big challenge for the system.

Ms. WATSON. I think the technology exists, if we can put a telescope greater than the Hubble, that has to travel millions of miles,

I think we can do that. I heard time and time again that the resources were not there, whatever that means. We know it means

dollars and people with expertise.

Mr. WHITE. But it also means expertise, right.

Ms. WATSON. But I think what I am hearing, you are not saying

it, but I am gathering it, a lot of it is political.

Ms. MCDERMOTT. I don’t know if I would say that it is political.

I think to the extent, if there is a problem with the electronic

records archive, I think it really has to do with NARA’s internal

capability to oversee somebody like Lockheed Martin and an enormous contract of that nature.

I think in terms of access to Presidential records, I think maybe

there are sometimes political decisions being made. But I think

mostly NARA has a very professional staff, very committed to making the record open. So I don’t think that for the most part it is

politics, in the way we normally understand it.

Now, leaking of classified information, that is political.

Ms. FUCHS. I just want to mention, it might be small political,

it may not be political, which party wants something to happen.

But it may be agencies jockeying for position and not willing to cooperate and not willing to do what they ought to be doing and

NARA not being in a position to push them the right way.

Mr. WHITE. And all I would add is any time any Government

agency buys a new computer system of any size, I just read an article the other day about the Copyright Office has this huge backlog

at the Copyright Office because they put in a new system and people can’t get their copyrights because it is so backlogged. Not to excuse NARA, but I think it happens routinely when the Government

is procuring big information systems.

66

Ms. WATSON. When we then created Homeland Security, an

agency that took in 750 different agencies underneath, and I

thought, oh, my goodness, people come, they had budget conflicts,

and procedural and steps that are so on that are unique, I thought,

how are we going to manage this. Right now, the reality, after it

has been created, is that we need to pull some of the agencies out,

such as FEMA. But that has nothing to do with this.

But I am thinking of the magnitude of it. Is there anything out

there that can serve as a model of how we would be able to expedite? Do you know if anything?

Ms. MCDERMOTT. I don’t know off-hand. I think the only place

to look would be to some of the big corporations. It is possible that

at some of the very big law firms that are sort of nationwide and

have national offices all over, or some very big corporations, they

are facing many of the same challenges that the Government has

in terms of managing records.

Now, ingesting massive volumes of electronic data is really probably something that is, if not totally unique, essentially unique to

the National Archives, in that every 4 or 8 years, they get this

massive influx of information, which they have to process and

make available.

So there may be some models for records management. But in

terms of this, I really don’t know that there would be anything. I

don’t know what other agency really faces this kind of problem.

Ms. FUCHS. I guess I would add, that is one of the reasons that

we have advocated that NARA’s concerns need to be addressed at

the beginning, at the records creation, as opposed to waiting until

the other end. Because it makes much more sense to build into the

information technology that all the agencies are putting in place

the long-term preservation concerns. I think in the long run, that

would save money for the taxpayers and would certainly make it

easier, I think for NARA, if things came in in the format that is

easiest for them to deal with. That is something my organization

has stated a fair bit, that we think it should be built into all sorts

of IT funding, the long-term life cycle of the record, including ultimate access.

Ms. WATSON. Thank you. I yield back.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Ms. Watson.

Let me ask you, NARA officials have developed a detailed 10-

year strategic plan. Some of you note deficiencies in the plan. What

must the next Archivist do to make the plan operational and effective? We will start with you, Ms. Fuchs. Or who wants to start?

Ms. FUCHS. The plan does address the kinds of things that

NARA should be addressing. But what I would do is for every strategic goal, I would make it into an action item. I feel like that is

the main deficiency of the plan, is that most of the strategic goals

are stated in, in my view, passive terms. The next Archivist should

actually view their job as much more of an active position.

Mr. CLAY. And actually have benchmarks.

Ms. MCDERMOTT. Well, they do have performance plans that

they also post. I don’t know if you have read them, but they are

not terribly informative.

I agree with Meredith that the strategies are fairly passive. For

records management, for instance, they say we will expand the deVerDate 11-MAY-2000 16:29 Feb 01, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\54079.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
67

mand for records management in the Federal Government. There

is no explanation of what that means. By advocating for access to

it at senior levels, advocating for electronic records management is

not the same as providing leadership and direction and clear policies.

So I think they need more concrete steps about what specifically

they are going to do, not these vague statements that most agencies’ strategic plans are, that is the language, it is vague and it is

aspirational, but it is not concrete. So I think the next Archivist,

if there is a second tier political appointee, really needs to take the

agency through a serious thinking of how they are going to move,

not only the agency, but the Federal Government, the executive

branch forward.

Mr. WHITE. I would just say that I think the Archivist needs to

be an agent of change. I think we discussed changing the organizational culture. The Archivist needs to be, I think, more aggressive

in making sure benchmarks are met, not only that. And No. 2,

working with you up here and with the GAO on oversight. Oversight in the end is what makes the train go. And having an Archivist in there that is dedicated to aggressively meeting the Strategic

Plan is very important.

Mr. CLAY. Well, thank you all for your testimony today. If there

are no further questions, I move that the subcommittee adjourn.

And the question is on the motion to adjourn. All those in favor say

aye.

[Chorus of ayes.]

Mr. CLAY. All those opposed, no. In the opinion of the Chair, the

ayes have it. And the motion is adopted, and the subcommittee

stands adjourned. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 3:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

Æ