[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REFORM TO THE PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY DONATION DISCLOSURE PROCESS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 28, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-30
__________
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.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
39-022 WASHINGTON : 2008
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON OVERSISGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman
TOM LANTOS, California TOM DAVIS, Virginia
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York DAN BURTON, Indiana
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JOHN L. MICA, Florida
DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts CHRIS CANNON, Utah
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
DIANE E. WATSON, California MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts DARRELL E. ISSA, California
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York KENNY MARCHANT, Texas
JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina
Columbia BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota BILL SALI, Idaho
JIM COOPER, Tennessee ------ ------
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
PETER WELCH, Vermont
Phil Schiliro, Chief of Staff
Phil Barnett, Staff Director
Earley Green, Chief Clerk
David Marin, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 28, 2007................................ 1
Statement of:
Fawcett, Sharon, Assistant Archivist for Presidential
Libraries, National Archives and Records Administration;
Celia Viggo Wexler, vice president of advocacy, Common
Cause; and Sheila Krumholz, executive director, Center for
Responsive Politics........................................ 13
Fawcett, Sharon.......................................... 13
Krumholz, Sheila......................................... 36
Wexler, Celia Viggo...................................... 28
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Davis, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Virginia, prepared statement of......................... 8
Fawcett, Sharon, Assistant Archivist for Presidential
Libraries, National Archives and Records Administration,
prepared statement of...................................... 16
Krumholz, Sheila, executive director, Center for Responsive
Politics, prepared statement of............................ 38
Waxman, Chairman Henry A., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, prepared statement of............. 3
Wexler, Celia Viggo, vice president of advocacy, Common
Cause, prepared statement of............................... 30
REFORM TO THE PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY DONATION DISCLOSURE PROCESS
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2007
House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:20 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry A. Waxman
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Waxman, Cummings, Kucinich, Clay,
Braley, Norton, Hodes, Sarbanes, Welch, Davis of Virginia,
Platts, Duncan, Issa, Westmoreland, Foxx, and Bilbray.
Staff present: Phil Schiliro, chief of staff; Kristin
Amerling, general counsel; Karen Lightfoot, communications
director and senior policy advisor; Michelle Ash, chief
legislative counsel; Anna Laitin, professional staff member;
Earley Green, chief clerk; Teresa Coufal, deputy clerk; Roger
Sherman, counsel; Tony Haywood, staff director, Information
Policy Subcommittee; Adam Bordes, professional staff member,
Information Policy Subcommittee; David Marin, minority staff
director; Larry Halloran, minority deputy staff director;
Jennifer Safavian, minority chief counsel for oversight and
investigations; Keith Ausbrook, minority general counsel; Ellen
Brown, minority legislative director and senior policy counsel;
Mason Alinger, minority deputy legislative director; Steve
Castor and Charles Phillips, minority counsels; Allyson
Blandford, minority professional staff member; Patrick Lyden,
minority parliamentarian and member services coordinator; and
Benjamin Chance, minority clerk.
Chairman Waxman. The meeting will come to order.
Today the committee is holding a hearing on the need for
public disclosure of donations to Presidential libraries. Under
current law, private organizations established for the purpose
of building a Presidential library can raise unlimited amounts
of money from undisclosed donors while the President remains in
office. It takes nothing more than common sense to see the
potential for abuse in this area and the need for basic reform.
Presidential libraries serve an important purpose as
depositories of Presidential papers and centers for historical
research. In 1939, President Franklin Roosevelt came up with
the idea of a privately built but federally maintained library
to house his Presidential papers. This split of
responsibilities between the public and the private sectors has
continued and has since been codified into law. In 1955, the
Presidential Libraries Act formally established a system under
which federally maintained libraries would be built using funds
raised by private organizations. More recent amendments have
required these private organizations to provide an operating
endowment to the National Archives in addition to the library
building.
Just as the funding requirements have grown, so have the
libraries and their affiliated institutions. Now these
libraries are much more than basic research facilities. They
include museums and conference centers, along with other
tourist attractions, and they are getting more expensive all
the time.
The George H.W. Bush library was reported to cost more than
$80 million to build. The Clinton Library and Museum cost about
$165 million to build. One extra term, doubled the money. News
reports have indicated that the fundraising goal for President
Bush's library is $500 million, half a billion dollars, before
this institution is completed.
The vast scale of these secret fundraising efforts creates
opportunities for abuse. Donors who do not need to be
identified can give unlimited amounts of money to support these
libraries while the President remains in office. According to
some accounts, some mega-donors being courted to fund the Bush
Library are expected to contribute $10 to $20 million each, and
they may make these contributions while there are nearly 2
years left in President Bush's term.
Later this week Representative Duncan and I will be
introducing legislation to reform this system. This legislation
would require that Presidential libraries disclose the identity
of their donors to Congress and the National Archives during
their period of most intense fundraising, which is while the
President is in office and in the several years after the end
of his or her term.
I expect the committee to consider this legislation next
week. This legislation is one part of a larger effort by this
committee to restore honesty and accountability to the Federal
Government. In fact, the committee will soon be considering two
additional open government bills, one to improve access in
Presidential records and one to strengthen the Freedom of
Information Act.
As we will learn at today's hearing and when we mark up the
open government legislation, these bills are bipartisan
initiatives with broad public support.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Henry A. Waxman
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9022.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9022.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9022.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9022.004
Chairman Waxman. I would like to now recognize Mr. Davis
for his opening statement.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding
this hearing today.
Our Nation's Presidential libraries are a priceless
resource for researchers, historians, and the public.
Attracting millions of visitors each year, they serve as
legacies to our President, repositories of history, and a
source of tremendous pride for local communities. At the same
time, they have become elaborate institutions, housing official
papers, museums, classrooms, conference facilities, and even
gift shops. With this expansion, the cost of building and
maintaining these facilities has grown dramatically.
Under current law, Presidential libraries are built with
private funds, then turned over to the archivists for
operation. Amendments to the Presidential Libraries Act
mandated the establishment of an endowment to cover some of the
costs of operating the library, which are usually met through
the establishment of a charitable organization. Funding for
construction and the endowment comes from private sources, but
under current law no duty to disclose the source of those
contributions exists. Clearly, there is a great deal of
interest in enhancing disclosures on both sides of the aisle.
Under our colleague Mr. Duncan's lead, we passed solid
bipartisan legislation to require the disclosure of
contributions to organizations that raise funds for
Presidential libraries and related facilities. His bill, which
was H.R. 577 from the 107th Congress, passed this committee and
the House with strong bipartisan support.
Regardless of what we do, I think it is of utmost
importance that we avoid any temptation to politicize the
issue. We need a sensible, even-handed approach to disclosure,
one that applies equally to Republicans and Democrats. Mr.
Duncan had the right approach, one that was supported by
Chairman Waxman and many others in this committee, and now the
committee will consider legislation on this issue, too and I
hope again will resist inserting politics into a bill the House
passed overwhelmingly last year by a vote of 392 to 3.
With this legislation we are recognizing the perception of
impropriety that contributions to a Presidential library can
raise. We don't need to reopen old news or begin inflicting new
ones today.
Presidents leave their mark on our rich history, and those
giving to Presidential libraries should be proud to have their
donations publicly disclosed.
Mr. Chairman, our goal should be, unanimous vote in the
committee and on the House floor. I look forward to working
with you to craft bipartisan legislation. I know that you
agree.
The cost of building Presidential libraries, millions; the
value of disclosing contributions to those libraries,
priceless.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Tom Davis follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9022.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9022.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9022.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9022.008
Chairman Waxman. Thank you very much for your opening
statement.
Without objection, all Members will have a week to submit
opening statements for this hearing.
I will be pleased to recognize any Member who wishes at
this point to be called upon to give an opening statement at
the hearing. Let me just see if any Member seeks recognition.
This side, Mr. Kucinich, opening statement? Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. You and
Ranking Member Davis have outlined the need for this
legislation. It is correct that I introduced this bill in the
106th Congress under a Democratic President. It was not acted
on in that Congress. I introduced it again in the 107th
Congress under a Republican President. It was passed in the
House by a vote of 392 to 3, with strong bipartisan support.
I first became interested in this after learning that even
some people from foreign countries were making very large
contributions to Presidential libraries while Presidents were
still in office, obviously in an attempt to gain influence. I
introduced this bill many months before any publicity occurred
about Mark Rich, the man who President Clinton pardoned on his
last day in office, who had fled the country to evade $40
million in income taxes, and it turned out that his wife had
contributed $450,000 to the Clinton Presidential Library, and a
close friend of Mr. Rich's had contributed another million to
the Clinton Library.
So this is not aimed at any Democrat or any Republican. It
is a bipartisan bill. It simply does not seek to limit
contributions in any way, it just is a public disclosure bill.
This bill was introduced in the last Congress by our
current Speaker, Speaker Pelosi, so I can assure you that it
has strong support from both sides.
I appreciate, Mr. Waxman, your taking the lead on this bill
at this time. I will be pleased to work with you in any and
every way possible.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you very much for your statement.
Does any other Member wish to be recognized?
[No response.]
Chairman Waxman. If not, we are pleased to have with us
three distinguished witnesses. Let me indicate who they are.
Sharon Fawcett is the Assistant Archivist for Presidential
Libraries at the National Archives and Records Administration;
Celia Viggo Wexler is representing Common Cause, an advocacy
organization dedicated to improving public participation in
government and reducing the influence of special interests;
Sheila Krumholz is the executive director of the Center for
Responsive Politics, a research organization that tracks the
role of money in politics.
It is the practice of this committee to swear in all
witnesses, so you are not being singled out, but I would like
you to rise and raise your hands and take an oath.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Chairman Waxman. The record will indicate that each of the
witnesses answered in the affirmative.
We have your prepared statements. They will be made part of
the record in their entirety. We would like to ask, if you
would, to try and keep the oral delivery to around 5 minutes.
Ms. Fawcett, why don't we start with you.
STATEMENTS OF SHARON FAWCETT, ASSISTANT ARCHIVIST FOR
PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARIES, NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS
ADMINISTRATION; CELIA VIGGO WEXLER, VICE PRESIDENT OF ADVOCACY,
COMMON CAUSE; AND SHEILA KRUMHOLZ, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER
FOR RESPONSIVE POLITICS
STATEMENT OF SHARON FAWCETT
Ms. Fawcett. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Davis, and members of the
committee, I want to begin by thanking you for holding this
hearing today and for inviting me to testify.
Having spent a large portion of my professional life in the
Presidential library system, I am delighted to be able to offer
some background on the Presidential libraries and their
multiple benefits to scholarship, public policy, education, and
a more complete understanding of our democracy.
As I think the chairman knows, this has been a most
successful public/private partnership and we greatly appreciate
the opportunity to explain why our relationship with our
foundations has been a large part of our success for 66 years
and 12 Presidential administrations.
If you invite an archivist to testify, you have to start
with a little history. Nearly 70 years ago, as the chairman
noted, Franklin Roosevelt proposed creating a Presidential
library that would be part of the National Archives. Roosevelt
suggested a novel approach: he would donate the land, himself,
and build the library with private funding, and then give the
library and his papers to the National Archives.
On June 30, 1941, the war in Europe threatened democracy.
Roosevelt dedicated his library at Hyde Park.
President Truman, deploring the loss of Presidential papers
in the past, stated such destruction should never again be
permitted, because the truth behind a President's actions can
be found only in his official papers, and every Presidential
paper is official. Truman felt strongly that Presidential
libraries were not to be monuments to a President, but centers
for the study of the Presidency.
Over time, the venue for Presidential libraries shifted
from the President's hometown to larger metropolitan areas or a
university campus. The Kennedy, Johnson, Ford, Bush, and
Clinton Libraries are affiliated with university sites.
As historian Michael Bechloss noted on the News Hour with
Jim Lehrer just a week or two ago, there is a dynamism when a
library is at a university.
In 1996 Congress passed various amendments to the previous
act to reduce the cost to the public of operating Presidential
libraries, one of which requires that a minimum endowment equal
to 20 percent of the cost of the building to be transferred to
the Government be turned over to the National Archives. On the
day the Bush Library was dedicated, the Bush Foundation
presented a check for $4 million. Likewise, the Clinton
Foundation presented a check for $7.2 million at its
dedication. These endowments are used by the Government to
offset such operational costs as security, utilities, and
building services. The foundations, themselves, continue to
provide ongoing support for exhibits and public programming at
the libraries.
I should also note that in 2002 Congress raised the base
endowment requirement to 40 percent of the cost of a library to
take effect for the library built after the incumbent George W.
Bush.
The materials in Presidential libraries are among the
Nation's most important documents. Presidential records are
often open for research long before the records of the
departments and agencies of Government are even transferred to
the National Archives. Government archivists and curators
preserve, process, and provide access to the Presidential
materials in their care.
In 1941 the Roosevelt Library cost $369,000, or about $4
million in today's dollars. Later expansions for added archival
storage, education classrooms, and visitors' services bring the
total cost of the Roosevelt Library to $26 million in today's
dollars. The Bush Library, at least the portion transferred to
the Government, cost a little over $22 million, and likewise,
the Clinton Library, $36 million.
The Presidential Libraries Act requires NARA to certify a
library meets our exacting standards for construction and
archival presentation before we accept the library. We also
encourage the foundations to build energy efficient buildings.
In 1973, James B. Rhoads, then the Archivist of the United
States, noted the evolving role of the foundations when he told
an education symposium at the Lyndon Johnson Library,
``Presidential libraries would be fulfilling their purpose if
they did nothing more than preserve and provide access to the
papers they contain, but their charters are broad and their
possibilities for service are unlimited.''
However broad these charters may be, the libraries face
limitations imposed by financial reality. Taxpayers are under
no obligation to fund a temporary exhibit on World War II, a
conference on civil rights, or education efforts aimed at high
school students, admirable and useful as these undeniably are
to the public. These efforts are funded by the library support
organizations, which continue to raise money long after the
library is built and transferred to the government.
Small foundations such as Hoover and Eisenhower contribute
$80,000 and $130,000 respectively in a typical year in support
of library programs. Foundations with larger endowments and
development staff plan to contribute from $450,000 to $1.75
million this fiscal year in support of museum, education, and
public programs.
The Reagan Foundation invested $35 million in expanding the
library by adding the Air Force I Pavilion and plans to invest
another $3.5 million to build a Discovery Center staffed by
education specialists from the library.
The contributions of these support organizations to the
libraries spell the difference between static repositories and
lively, vital centers of scholarship and service to the public.
Moreover, many of the foundations now contribute to the
advancement of Presidential scholarship through joint library
projects. The first ever joint conference of all the
Presidential libraries happened in March 2006, at the Kennedy
Library, and provided a timely discussion by scholars,
journalists, and policymakers on the lessons of Vietnam. In
November of this year, we will hold our second joint conference
on the Supreme Court at the Roosevelt Library. This will take
place in the 70th year from Roosevelt's court-packing proposal.
The leadership and financial support of the Johnson
Foundation enabled the creation of the Presidential time line,
an interactive Web-based resource that provides learning
activities and a cornucopia of digitized assets from all the
libraries that is freely accessible to students and educators
from around the world.
Directly appropriated funds, about $58 million annually for
the 12 libraries and the central office, pay for activities
mandated by law as part of NARA's mission. These include
accessioning, processing, reference, and preservation of
materials held in the libraries.
As existing buildings became cramped and obsolete, many
foundations have supported efforts to update and expand library
buildings. Public funds to expand spaces in libraries have
often been contingent on the ability of the foundations to
raise additional funds to pay for portions of the construction
and support the program functions in these expanded spaces.
In summary, the libraries and their support organizations
have demonstrated an entrepreneurial willingness and a
commitment to public service, their willingness to rely upon
financial sources other than the American taxpayer.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would
be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Fawcett follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9022.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9022.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9022.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9022.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9022.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9022.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9022.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9022.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9022.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9022.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9022.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9022.020
Chairman Waxman. Thank you very much, Ms. Fawcett.
Ms. Wexler, we want to hear from you.
STATEMENT OF CELIA WEXLER
Ms. Wexler. Chairman Waxman, Ranking Minority Member Davis,
and members of the committee, I am Celia Wexler, vice president
for advocacy for Common Cause.
Common Cause appreciates the opportunity to testify on this
important matter. As our written testimony indicates, Common
Cause strongly supports full, timely, and publicly accessible
disclosure of donations to the non-profit groups that raise
funds for Presidential libraries and their affiliated
institutions. In 2001, we testified in support of
Representative Duncan's library disclosure bill, and we look
forward to supporting the Waxman-Duncan proposal.
Aside from getting re-elected, what means more to a
President than his or her legacy? Given how invested Presidents
have become in protecting and enhancing that legacy, and given
the fact that gifts to Presidential libraries are undisclosed
and unlimited, you can quickly perceive the potential for
mischief. A special interest, a major corporation, wealthy
individual, foreign government, or foreign national can give in
secret millions of dollars to help build a Presidential library
complex. And they can give these undisclosed donations while
the President remains in office. They can use these donations
to curry favor with a sitting President, or to influence former
Presidents who continue to occupy the world stage and who may
even be related to current Presidents or Members of Congress.
These large donations will only get bigger if the trend for
ever-larger library complexes continues. And I think Chairman
Waxman has talked about the dramatic escalation of costs for
these complexes over the years: $26 million for the Carter
Library, $57 million for the Reagan, $83 million for the Bush
complex, $165 million for the Clinton complex, and now we are
talking about half a billion for the George W. Bush complex.
Disclosure is always the indispensable first step toward
comprehensive reform, and it will enable the public and
Congress to truly understand the scope of giving to
Presidential library complexes and the potential for conflicts
of interest or perceived conflicts that this fundraising may
present.
We hope that disclosure will help Congress ultimately
grapple with other questions related to Presidential library
fundraising.
As you know, these libraries are public/private
partnerships, and we have gotten a very good tutorial about how
those work. Even so, the Federal Government annually spends
tens of millions of dollars for their upkeep and operation.
Does this partnership work? Should the Government directly take
on the task of building modest repositories for Presidential
records and papers and divorce itself from Presidents'
increasingly ambitious plans to memorialize their achievements
and to create a platform for their post-Presidential careers?
Should sitting Presidents be banned from soliciting or
accepting contributions or pledges of contributions to their
Presidential libraries? Should there be a limit on the size of
contributions to the libraries of sitting Presidents?
This is not an academic question. In the past, the public
trust has been shaken after news reports about Presidential
pardons granted at the request of library donors.
Should there be restrictions on the donations that foreign
governments and foreign nationals may give to library
complexes?
We present these as questions because Common Cause
acknowledges that these are tough issues, issues that will take
more debate, discussion, and deliberation, but we believe these
questions are worth considering, and we applaud the committee
for examining this issue, and we look forward to working with
you on getting this legislative proposal passed.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wexler follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9022.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9022.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9022.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9022.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9022.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9022.026
Chairman Waxman. Thank you very much, Ms. Wexler.
Ms. Krumholz.
STATEMENT OF SHEILA KRUMHOLZ
Ms. Krumholz. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my
name is Sheila Krumholz. I am executive director of the Center
for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan, non-profit research
organization based here in Washington that analyzes Federal
campaign contributions, as well as other forms of money, and a
lead influence in U.S. politics.
I have been deeply involved in the research side of our
organization's work for the better part of 15 years. Many know
the Center for our award-winning Web site, OpenSecrets.org,
where we make freely available our analysis of publicly
disclosed information about the role of money in politics. We
can do this because the financing of your campaigns is open to
public scrutiny. But, as I will discuss today, the financing of
Presidential libraries is not similarly transparent, although
these campaign-like projects raise similar questions about
potential influence buying.
I thank the committee for this opportunity to speak.
My predecessor, Larry Noble, testified on this matter
before this committee in 2001, and my remarks today echo some
of his from that hearing.
Contributions to Presidential libraries fall into a
category all their own, in a sense. While it takes a well-
funded campaign to build a Presidential library, it is not a
political campaign, per se. There is, however, a sort of
candidate at the center of this campaign, someone in a position
of public trust, both while he is in office and, to a lesser
extent, once he has left office. Herein lies the central
concern: that those who donate money to Presidential libraries
will, in return, receive special access to and favors from the
President and the Federal Government. To minimize the potential
for that sort of payback and to build trust among a citizenry
that already questions the ethics of elected officials, public
disclosure of contributions to Presidential library projects
seems both appropriate and wise.
As you know, contributions aggregating to more than $200
are itemized and reported to the Federal Election Commission.
The rules call for the disclosure of the amount and date of the
donation, and the name, address, occupation, and employer of
the donor. The FEC makes this information available on the
internet to any interested citizen. The fact that the FEC deems
the employment information, in particular, worthy of collection
is an acknowledgment that donors sometimes, if not often, give
to politicians with an economic self-interest in mind and a
hope that their contribution will gain them access and
influence over policy.
The law has long recognized that our system of elections is
strengthened when the public knows who is giving the money, and
yet the public is still in the dark about several back door
ways of buying influence in Washington, including the funding
of Presidential libraries.
To a President, a library with its accompanying and usually
far larger museum, is a way to frame and preserve his legacy.
For the President there is great self interest, because the
library will live on long after the President's time in office
and on earth have passed. I am reminded of the Vietnamese
emperor who spent 9 years ruling but whose tomb took eleven
years to build.
Presidents begin fundraising for their libraries well
before they leave office. According to press reports, site
selection for President George W. Bush's Presidential library
has been going on for some time, and a half billion fundraising
campaign is imminent, 2 years before he leaves office.
Fundraising for President Bill Clinton's library began in 1998,
less than halfway through his second term.
There is great potential here for corruption, apparent
corruption, at least, and, even worse, real corruption. We know
well how President Clinton's pardon of a six-figure contributor
to his library fund, along with other political donations, has
left the indelible impression with many that a Presidential
pardon was purchased.
The potential for corruption may be greater in the
fundraising for Presidential libraries than in the campaign
finance system. Donations to Presidential election campaigns
are limited to a few thousand dollars. Those to Presidential
libraries are not, and the checks can be written in the tens of
millions of dollars.
Corporations, unions, and other institutional interest
groups cannot directly contribute to Presidential candidates;
they can contribute to Presidential libraries. Foreign
governments, foreign individuals, and corporations are
prohibited from giving money to Presidential campaigns, but
donations to Presidential libraries are permissible, even while
the President is still in office. And, of course, the
identities of large donors to Presidential campaigns are
disclosed to the public, while donors to Presidential libraries
can remain anonymous.
As you are all aware, the public's perception of Washington
is that money at the very least opens doors here. To agree that
disclosure of contributions is appropriate as a way to minimize
corruption and build public trust only gets us so far. There
are many questions you will have to answer before disclosure of
Presidential library contributions will become a reality. For
example, what information must be disclosed, and by whom; how
often, and for how long will disclosure be required; in what
form must they disclose it; who will administer and enforce the
disclosure. As history has shown us, a law unenforced may be
worse than no law at all, because it leaves you with the false
comfort that you have done something even as a problem
persists.
There are many questions to be addressed, and I merely
raise some of them for you and the members of the committee to
consider. Presidential libraries are repositories of history
and scholarship for all Americans to enjoy, and, while they are
built to honor politicians, their construction and operation
should not be political. As Americans visit our Nation's
Presidential libraries, their awe for the Presidents who served
our country, their confidence in those leaders, and their trust
in that system that honors them should not be tarnished by any
suspicion that the public places they are visiting have been
sold for the benefit of private interests.
I have appreciated this opportunity to appear before you
and will gladly answer any questions you have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Krumholz follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9022.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9022.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9022.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9022.030
Chairman Waxman. Thank you very much, all three of you, for
your testimony. I think you have helped us a great deal with
this subject.
Donations to Presidential library foundations are difficult
to categorize. They are not campaign contributions or political
contributions in the standard sense. They are not being used to
help a candidate win an elected office, nor are they simply
contributions to a standard charity. The Presidential library
foundation often begins to raise money to honor a President
while the President remains in office.
As we think about reforms in this area, we need to strike a
balance. Through campaign finance reform, we have limited the
amount of money individuals and corporations can provide to
candidates and have dictated who can donate to campaigns. If we
consider donations to these library foundations to be campaign
contributions, we could set similar limits. On the other hand,
if we look at the other end of the spectrum, foundations that
raise money for museums and cultural centers are not required
to disclose any information about their donors and, in fact,
many of the largest donors often prefer to remain anonymous. If
we consider donations to these foundations to be more like
donations to a museum, we would allow the current system to
remain unchanged.
It is clear that these foundations are different. The draft
legislation that the committee will be considering soon calls
for the disclosure of all contributions of $200 or more that
are given to the foundation through the period when the library
is turned over to the Archives, but it does not limit
contributions in any way.
Ms. Krumholz, from your perspective does this strike the
right balance? Are there other requirements that you would
recommend we put in place?
Ms. Krumholz. There is a whole host of questions that we
came up with. I am sure you have come up with the same ones,
and probably more. Those limits, in particular, seem logical to
me, or basically sufficient. I was wondering if the limits that
are used for political campaigns, for reporting to the Federal
Election Commission, were considered, and why those limits were
not adopted in this case.
Chairman Waxman. So you would recommend that we adopt those
same limits?
Ms. Krumholz. No. Not necessarily. I was simply saying that
is a model, one model.
Chairman Waxman. Yes.
Ms. Krumholz. I was wondering if that was considered and
why it was rejected in favor of $200 limits per quarter. I do
agree----
Chairman Waxman. Well, $200 is the limit for reporting it.
It can exceed that $200 limit.
Ms. Krumholz. I am sorry, for disclosure of the
contribution.
Chairman Waxman. Right.
Ms. Krumholz. Yes. I do agree. I think it is important that
it is easier to make the limit based on the contribution and
not the aggregate contribution, as it is, as the rules are at
the FEC. I think that causes a greater burden on all involved
and allows for some confusion about what is required. For
instance, the Federal Election Commission, filers do not have
to disclose the full information of a donor until they have
reached the aggregate of $200 during the cycle. At that point
it must be disclosed, but all contributions under that are not
part of the Federal Election Commission computerized master
data, and so there are questions about when does it get
disclosed, when do you meet that aggregate limit, why aren't
the contributions that are less than $00 disclosed. So I think
it is simpler and more intelligible to all involved when it is
simply a matter of each contribution being disclosed when it
hits a certain threshold.
Chairman Waxman. Ms. Wexler, what is your view on that same
question? Does this proposal strike the right balance? Do you
have any requirements you would recommend that we put in place
in addition?
Ms. Wexler. Well, I think that this is a very good first
step proposal and it is very politically viable, but ultimately
I do think, for a sitting President, it would be important for
Congress to seriously consider some limits. And we do have the
precedent, I believe of the limits on transitional funding, so
that after the election but before a new administration takes
over, the in-kind contributions received or the money donated
to make that transition a little smoother is--there are limits
in disclosure requirements in place for that, and the reason
you can impose limits, I believe, is conditioned on the fact
that the GSA is giving this transition team some resources. In
the same way, with the Presidential libraries there is that
public/private partnership, and I think that it might be a
reason that one could condition, at least for a sitting
President, some limits.
I think the other question is about limits on contributions
from foreign governments and foreign nationals. You know, there
are some published accounts that say that the elder Bush's
library was supported, at least initially, by 20 percent. Of
that funding, 20 percent came from foreign sources, which,
given the challenging environment, international environment we
are in may be problematic. Those are things.
The other, I think, you didn't ask me about this, but I
also think that ultimately you want to consider again whether
looking at contributions and disclosure of contributions just
up to dedication, even though it is several years, is enough
time, or whether you might want to go longer.
Again, I think of the elder Bush's 80th birthday party
where he raised $55 million. A portion of that money raised
did, indeed, go to the Bush Library Foundation. The Embassy of
Quatar was one of the donors. I think the Washington Times
Foundation was another million dollar donor.
So those are some of the things that need to be considered
ultimately, not necessarily in this first proposal.
Chairman Waxman. Where did the rest of the money go?
Ms. Krumholz. Various charities.
Chairman Waxman. Ms. Fawcett, what do you think about these
ideas?
Ms. Fawcett. Well, the administration hasn't taken a
position on the bill at this point in time, but, speaking for
the Archives, we are appreciative of the work of the staff in
narrowing the bill to cover a President before he leaves office
and until the transfer of the library to the Government.
As the chairman spoke, donors to foundations, as the
foundations age the donations become very locally based, and
many are interested in anonymity. Their donations are to run
programs like the Presidential Learning Center at the Truman
Library, the Five Star Leaders Program at the Eisenhower
Library, the Cabinet Program at the Ford Library. So, you know,
the contributors to these foundations aren't interested at that
point in any political influence; they are interested in
promoting educational opportunities in their communities and
bringing specific discourse into the library system.
Chairman Waxman. You are assuming you know their
motivations?
Ms. Fawcett. Well, at least that is what they have given
money to us for.
Chairman Waxman. That is what they say.
Ms. Krumholz, you worked as a researcher, and our draft
legislation proposes that foundations disclose the date and
amount of each contribution, the name of the contributor, and,
if the contributor is an individual, the occupation of the
contributor. The Archives is called on to post these quarterly
reports on the Internet in a searchable, downloadable data
base. Would you find this information, as a researcher, to be
adequate to examine the donations made to the Presidential
library foundations? And, if you had access to such a data base
for an existing Presidential library foundation, what kind of
searches would you perform and what would you hope to learn
from them? And is there anything in particular that you would
look out for?
Ms. Krumholz. Yes. There is one. I would agree with that
list of requirements with one exception, and that is that
employment should also be required, not just occupation. Some
of the occupations we get in the Federal Election Commission
data include maverick, entrepreneur, you know, domestic
engineer. So employer is really key to letting us know----
Chairman Waxman. Opportunist could be one, too.
Ms. Krumholz. I am sorry?
Chairman Waxman. They could say opportunist.
Ms. Krumholz. They could. Freedom fighter is another one.
So it is important that employer be included. Making the data
base downloadable is absolutely key. That provides anyone who
wants to look into this data with the flexibility they need to
find the patterns in the data that they might not otherwise see
if they were simply using a limited search provided by the
archives or by other entities. So making it downloadable I
think is just a tremendous idea, would really help with
allowing folks to be able to sort the data and see interesting
dates, whether a contribution was given on a key date right
before or right after policy decisions were made. Again, that
is being able to slice and dice the data is how you find key
information.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you.
Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Let me just talk about former
Presidents at this point. Once they are out of office and
can't, at that point, I think, do any favors or use their
office, what is the chance of corruption in a case like that,
for terms of disclosure? I can understand if you have a sitting
President or somebody maybe within a couple of years, but if
somebody were to give $100,000 to a Jimmy Carter Library at
this point and wanted to do it anonymously, what is the chance
of corruption in a case like that?
Ms. Wexler. Well, Representative Davis, I think our concern
is this: right now we have three very active living Presidents.
They are all on the world stage. They are all doing all kinds
of things that have a policy implication. In two cases, you
have one who is the father of a sitting President and in
another case you have one who is the spouse of a sitting
Senator and Presidential candidate. So I don't think just
because they are former Presidents they are necessarily immune
from being influenced or having influence.
I mean, President Carter just wrote a very controversial
book that challenges current domestic mideast policy, so I
think that those are the concerns that arise for us.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Ms. Krumholz.
Ms. Krumholz. Thank you. In addition to that, I would like
to add that, should we be concerned about potentially
corrupting effect of donations to the library of a President
who has left office long ago? Maybe so, if he is still living,
an ex-President still has prestige, influence, and even retains
access to national intelligence as a courtesy. And, as I said
earlier, foreign governments and interests can donate freely to
Presidential libraries currently.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. OK. So the fact that they have
access to foreign intelligence, I mean, intelligence nobody
else does, it makes them corruptible?
Ms. Krumholz. No, no. But it does set them apart and I
think provides another reason why disclosure should continue
for some time beyond the point at which they leave office.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. At this point I think for some time
or forever? I mean, as long as they are alive you would keep
these? Do you understand what I am saying?
Ms. Krumholz. Right.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. You are not talking about doing this
for Herbert Hoover?
Ms. Krumholz. I am not sure that I would say until they
pass away, but clearly the current situation with President
Bush's father having an active library fundraising and former
President Bill Clinton actively fundraising while his wife is
running for the President, the office, gives us a good
indication of what can happen, and I would say we should
consider it a good, long chunk of time beyond the point at
which they leave office. Whether that should be until they pass
away, I am not sure we would go that far.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. OK.
Ms. Krumholz. I would like to clarify a point I made
earlier, if I may.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Sure.
Ms. Krumholz. When I was talking about disclosure
thresholds, we do not--I just want to make this point clear--we
do not encourage limits on contributions necessarily. It is
understandable that limits will--if we impose limits,
particularly stringent limits, these buildings may never get
built.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Right. That is a concern. A lot of
people like to give these anonymously. They are just doing it
with the right motive in mind. These Presidential libraries can
be very important for researchers, for history, for everything
else. If you make it too difficult, people just walk away from
it, and then maybe the taxpayers get stuck with it. So I don't
know what the balance is. You make a very good point. We could
actually be in a period. It could be 28 years before you have
nothing but Bushes and Clintons in the White House in theory,
if you want to stretch this thing out. I mean, I guess I don't
know what that does to poor Jimmy Carter.
Ms. Fawcett, do you have any estimate on the costs to the
Archives for managing and making this information available?
Ms. Fawcett. I am sorry, I didn't hear the question.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Do you have any cost estimates for
managing and making this information available?
Ms. Fawcett. No, we don't. In fact, the Archives has some
concern about our ability to do this. We are not the Federal
Election Commission and we have no experience in making
available this type of information. We also are in a peculiar
position of working to partner with an organization that we are
then responsible for reporting to the public donations, so in a
way it could create some conflicts of interest for us, so that
is a concern. We will work around whatever the legislation
requires, but we would like to express some concerns about
whether the National Archives is the appropriate reporting body
for these disclosures.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. I know in Mr. Duncan's bill we set a
threshold of $5,000 for reporting once a President is out of
office. The $5,000, this threshold corresponds to a trigger for
contributions that tax-exempt foundations would disclose to the
IRS. What do you think the proper threshold is for disclosure?
Ms. Wexler, I ask you and Ms. Krumholz.
Ms. Wexler. You know, I think I believe in Mr. Duncan's
bill the threshold was $5,000, but the time limit was
unlimited, right, for the disclosure? I think that is not a bad
thing to think about, because, again, disclosure at $200 for a
sitting President makes a lot of sense. It may not be a bad
idea to raise the threshold once the President is no longer a
sitting President, given the fact that we are seeing donations
that we know about in the millions and tons of millions.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. They get $100,000 for a speech, more
than that for a speech, I mean.
Ms. Wexler. Absolutely, but usually that is somehow--you
know, there is usually some disclosure about that. People
generally know a President's going rate for speeches. But I
think $5,000 wouldn't necessarily be a terrible threshold post
the time a President is in office. Are we happy with $200 as a
threshold beyond that time? Yes.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. OK.
Ms. Krumholz. You mean prior to that time, while they are
still in office?
Ms. Wexler. Yes.
Ms. Krumholz. I would concur with Celia's comments there,
too.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. OK.
Ms. Krumholz. May I just interject?
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Yes, please.
Ms. Krumholz. Was the FEC considered as the receptacle for
these reports as the agency collecting this information rather
than the Archives? It seems like they have a system and it is
working for them. I don't know if that would be an appropriate
place to----
Mr. Davis of Virginia. I don't know that it was. I mean,
that is an interesting concept in terms of allocation of costs
and having systems up and ready, so I think that is something
we could give some consideration to. That is why we hold these
hearings sometimes. We don't think of everything as we go
through.
How long should the disclosure take place now? Do you think
it should just take place during the lifetime of a former
President? I mean, if you are talking about a Nixon Library or
an LBJ Library or something like that, should the disclosures
continue?
Ms. Wexler. I think certainly ideally it would be the
lifetime of a President. And we have disclosure. If you pass a
disclosure bill and you realize that, you know, giving just
completely drops off after the first decade, then you may want
to reconsider that, but I don't think there is any harm and
perhaps a lot of good in extending that disclosure through the
lifetime of a President.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. All right. You don't have any
concern that we should ban foreign contributions outright, do
you?
Ms. Wexler. I don't think it is a bad thing to think about,
but I think it would require an enormous amount of deliberation
and, you know, it is not necessarily a path you want to take.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. OK. Ms. Krumholz, any thoughts?
Ms. Krumholz. I would be curious how much of the current
makeup of donations to Presidential libraries comes from
foreign governments.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. I would be interested to know, too.
Ms. Krumholz. And foreign nationals.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. And how much came while they were
living and in office and how much afterwards. I think that is
something we will ask the staff to look at.
Ms. Krumholz. Exactly.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. That would be interesting. I think,
again, this is dollars the taxpayers don't have to pay, so any
time we can get something out of foreign countries, that is
probably a good thing.
I have a couple minutes left. Let me yield to Mr. Issa.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If I can summarize quickly, it sounds like the logical
things for this committee to consider are: one, moving this to
the FEC; two, potentially harmonizing it with the FEC as though
the President is still a candidate so that it would be
consistent with the President's continued activity. If I can,
using Ronald Reagan as an example, certainly in the last 5
years of his life nobody would say that Ronald Reagan was still
active, and thus, even though he was still alive, reporting
under the nod of heads I think I am seeing, could be suspended.
Would that be pretty consistent with what I am hearing each of
you say you view as to this reporting requirement?
Ms. Krumholz. Suspended during the last years of his life?
Mr. Issa. In other words, if we harmonize the reporting
requirement to the candidate, as we do normally. In other
words, if we move this to the FEC, if I stop being a candidate,
you know, stop all activity, the FEC says, OK, you have once a
year, report us the balance, and that is it.
The participation of the individual or individuals of
influence is what specifically I am hearing pretty consistently
triggers the question of whether or not money to these
otherwise just normal charities--I mean, these libraries are
just basically 501(c)(3)'s, as far as we are concerned, if you
take out the power of the President or former President. They
are pretty consistent with the way you would like us to view
regulatory law in this case, including common cause, obviously?
Ms. Wexler. I think so. I think the sort of question is
when does a President not become active. It was pretty clear in
President Reagan's case, but, you know, it is a kind of
delicate question, and a President might be a little offended
if all of the sudden he was declared inactive, which is also
something to think about.
Mr. Issa. I don't expect Nancy would have declared him
inactive, Nancy Reagan.
Ms. Wexler. No, I don't mean that. I just mean, you know,
what is the harm in the disclosure extending until something as
final as death, because presumably it is not going to be
terribly burdensome.
Mr. Issa. I guess my question----
Chairman Waxman. Mr. Issa.
Mr. Issa. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Waxman. The clock never turned red.
Mr. Issa. OK. I will finish in one followup on the same
thing.
Chairman Waxman. One last question.
Mr. Issa. If former Presidents were to say I no longer am
doing anything whatsoever with my foundation, that declaration,
whether he is living or not, would be substantially the same
thing, wouldn't it? No one is ever going to disavow knowledge
of their library, but hypothetically they can say I am out of
it, as an alternative to death.
Ms. Krumholz. My concern would be the situation we have
here with President Bush and former President Clinton. Somebody
who wishes to influence a Candidate Clinton or the current
sitting President might well give to their father or their
husband's Presidential library, regardless----
Mr. Issa. I yield back the ranking member's unlimited time.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Issa.
Mr. Welch, I think you were here first. No questions? Mr.
Hodes.
Mr. Hodes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Presidential libraries and their facilities seem to be
growing exponentially larger. The complexes now contain the
Presidential library, research facilities. They also appear to
include museums and event centers and conference centers and a
host of other amenities. I read in one of the reports about an
apartment in one of the libraries. There may be academic
centers.
During the early phases of the planning and construction,
the role of Presidential library foundations seems very clear.
It raises the money, it ensures that the facility is built, and
then, once the library is turned over to the National Archives,
the relationship seems less clear. I am wondering if the panel
could clarify.
I will direct this to Ms. Fawcett. Can you explain the role
of the Presidential library foundation once the facility has
been turned over to the Archives, particularly with regard to
the non-library spaces in the complex? Who is in charge? Who is
minding the store?
Ms. Fawcett. Well, you are correct in that the libraries
have grown in size, and the largest library is the Ronald
Reagan Library. Libraries built since the amendments passed in
1986 that required an endowment come to the Government, in
those libraries only a portion of the library is transferred to
the Government. Usually 70,000 square feet or less comes to the
Government. The rest of the venues in the library are the
responsibility of the foundation to operate and maintain those.
Now, what does come to the Government, Congressman, is the
museum, the research room, the archival offices, the storage
spaces, the education classrooms. What doesn't come to the
archives are things like venues to use for conference space, an
apartment, sometimes the cafeteria, the museum store. Those
venues and those spaces remain with the foundation, and the
foundation must continue to raise money to provide support for
those venues in addition to supporting the public programming,
education programming, and exhibits that are in the library,
because the Government does not fund those.
Last year the Presidential libraries cost the taxpayers $58
million in directly appropriated funds. The foundations this
year will be donating almost $11 million to various
Presidential libraries for their use in programming operations.
In terms of managing those spaces, when we accept a library
we have a joint operating agreement with the foundation, and
that agreement outlines the responsibilities of both parties.
Often, for example, since the spaces are sort of interwoven
throughout a building and we have this space and the foundation
has that space, we divide up the utility cost and the
operational cost, the maintenance cost of the building so that
the foundation pays a percentage of those costs to the
Government.
Mr. Hodes. Now, the foundations are organized under State
law as 501(c)(3)'s?
Ms. Fawcett. Yes.
Mr. Hodes. Is that correct?
Ms. Fawcett. Yes.
Mr. Hodes. And I suppose that the National Archives does
not impose any limitations, therefore, on the way the
foundations can use the collateral spaces, if you will, and
what purposes they put them to?
Ms. Fawcett. Well, we do work out in the joint operating
agreement some understandings about the spaces. They understand
that we try to represent a non-partisan library. Over time
there may be an event that takes place in foundation space
that, you know, a Republican candidate may come, but
foundations and libraries generally invite the Democratic
candidates to come also, you know. It is not normal for a----
Mr. Hodes. I was interested to hear, when the chairman
asked the question about the additional use to which the
fundraising was put in that event of the 80th birthday, that
there were other charities to whom money was donated. Do any of
you on the panel think there is any issue that could arise in
the foundation's ability to use those spaces collateral to the
library for any purpose whatsoever, even though not related to
the joint operating agreement with the National Archives? Any
issue there?
Ms. Wexler. I am not sure that this directly responds. I
think that one of our concerns is that if you look at these
libraries, you know, Robert Carow said they were America's
pyramids erected to the memory of America's rules, and I don't
know if I want to go that far, but there is that sense that you
do get a lot of hagiography, and that a lot of what happens
inside them is not necessarily--the access to the Presidential
records is absolutely invaluable and, indeed, helped Mr. Carow
write his wonderful series on Lyndon Johnson, but you have that
other aspect of these complexes--the tourist sites, the sort of
way they pay tribute and emphasize certain aspects of an
administration's history, that, you know, make you wonder a
little about what these are becoming and what the trend is. So
I think that is a concern.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Hodes.
Mr. Hodes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Waxman. Your time is up.
Mr. Issa, do you wish to be heard?
Mr. Issa. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You know, I think there is no question that we are going to
need to have a question at some point about the libraries,
where they are going and whether or not the Government support
of them remains as appropriate as it has been in the past. I
think that is beyond the scope perhaps of today's hearing. But
because I am so privileged to have the representative of the
National Archives, I have to say I would like to not digress,
but it is somewhat related. Ms. Fawcett, you are familiar,
obviously, with Sandy Berger taking either originals or
duplicates of classified documents out of your care. As I
understand, Nancy Smith is a direct report to you; is that
correct?
Ms. Fawcett. Yes, she is.
Mr. Issa. And I guess one of the questions is: do you
consider that your responsibility is only to make sure that
these documents remain available for the future, or do you have
a separate recognition that you have to protect classified
documents from being taken out by anybody whatsoever, including
Sandy Berger?
Ms. Fawcett. Well, we feel that we have the responsibility
to do both. We are the historical protectors of the records. In
the case of Mr. Berger's visit to the National Archives, he
came to the National Archives as an official representative of
President Clinton. He was reviewing records for the 9/11
Commission for his testimony and for President Clinton's
testimony.
Mr. Issa. OK, then, following up on that, why was Sandy
Berger allowed to be alone with documents for which there are
no duplicates with a briefcase and the ability--we don't know
whether he did or he didn't, but he could have simply put them
in his briefcase and left.
Ms. Fawcett. Well----
Mr. Issa. Was there special treatment, or would you do this
for other people that came in representing a former President?
Ms. Fawcett. As representatives under the Presidential
Records Act, we did, indeed, treat people differently. We
expected, and from 1989 when the Presidential Records Act first
was implemented with Ronald Reagan's departure from the White
House, through the time of Sandy Berger, we operated with an
attitude of trust in these people. They had statutory
responsibility, statutory authority to view the records. And
yes, they were treated with respect. They were not regular
researchers and they weren't treated as regular researchers. We
expected Mr. Berger to be knowledgeable of the national
security requirements. We had never had an issue. But, saying
that, national security is ever evolving. I go through airports
now and I take my shoes off. I didn't used to.
Mr. Issa. OK. So----
Ms. Fawcett. Now, if a Presidential representative comes
to----
Mr. Issa. Right. Looking forward, not back then, today if--
Sandy Berger would be inappropriate, but if anyone from a
former administration came, can we be assured that they would
never, never be allowed to be alone with any document and that
they would not be given documents for which there were not
catalogs and duplicates?
Ms. Fawcett. Part of your question, they would not be alone
with the documents in a production request. But, second, would
they be given original materials? The answer to that is
probably yes, because we have 9 billion pieces of paper in the
National Archives and we don't make copies of all of them.
There would be somebody with them in attendance while they
worked with the records, and in many cases they might even be
under camera surveillance.
Mr. Issa. In many cases? So it is safe to say that Sandy
Berger could never again, or someone like him, come in and take
original documents such as e-mails or other desk copy
information that might, in fact, have germaneness to current or
future investigations? That is absolutely something you have
closed?
Ms. Fawcett. That is absolutely something that we strive to
have not happen again.
Mr. Issa. And do you feel there was any wrongdoing in the
treatment that was allowed Sandy Berger, the special treatment
as you have described it at the time?
Ms. Fawcett. I think that it was the vigilance of our staff
and their care and their concern that led to Sandy Berger's
being caught with these records, and the Congress knowing about
it, the 9/11 Commission knowing about it, and the National
Security Council knowing about it. Without our employees'
careful handling of this case, Sandy Berger would not have been
caught.
Mr. Issa. I thank you for your diligence and I thank you
for the changes that you have implemented.
Ms. Fawcett. Thank you, Mr. Issa.
Mr. Issa. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Waxman. Mr. Braley.
Mr. Braley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Fawcett, let me start with you. One of my family's
cherished archives is a photograph my mother took on August 10,
1962, very similar to the one I have in my hand----
Ms. Fawcett. Were you at the Hoover Library?
Mr. Braley [continuing]. At the dedication of the Herbert
Hoover Presidential Library in West Branch, IA.
Ms. Fawcett. Thank you.
Mr. Braley. She held a Brownie Instamatic camera over her
head.
Ms. Fawcett. Yes.
Mr. Braley. She is only 5'4'' and she got a picture of
President Hoover and President Truman walking through thousands
of people.
One of the questions that I have for you and for everyone
on the panel is I am concerned about the growing disparity
between what I will call small market and large market
Presidential libraries and the fact that we have talked about
this exponential growth in terms of the dollar value of those
libraries and the expanded components available to people who
attend those facilities beyond simply a repository of
Presidential documents and memorabilia.
Have you thought about how we can preserve the original
purpose of these libraries, which is to provide a repository of
information and a museum experience for people from all across
this country to experience a historical perspective of that
Presidency without turning it into a theme park type
environment where there are no limits on the surrounding
opportunities available for experiencing that Presidency?
Ms. Fawcett. Well, I don't view any of the libraries now as
a theme park type of environment. I would say that one of the
reasons for the expansion of spaces in libraries is to earn the
revenue necessary to support the library. The funds that come
from the Government, the directly appropriated funds, aren't
sufficient for us to provide those educational experiences and
the museum experiences to the public. We do not use any direct
appropriated funds to pay for museum exhibits. Those are all
funded either through revenues gained from admission to the
library that are in the library's government-operated trust
funds, or through donations of the foundations to the libraries
to do that.
Another area of earning revenue is through the rental of
spaces in the library, to use the library as a venue for
events. That has also assisted the libraries in being able to
bring programs such as the Presidential time line, which
launched in February. It is a project of all of the
Presidential libraries to bring the digitized assets to school
children and educators everywhere across the country. There are
learning experiences on the Web site. There are assets you can
search across the time line of the Presidency.
We are striving in the Presidential library system to look
at the Presidency as a time line as a whole, because events
don't happen in any stovepipe way. The civil rights, the
Vietnam War, the Middle East Conflict, all of these things
extend over a period of time. Through the revenues that we gain
in these projects, we are able to put together these sort of
experiences for the American people, for students everywhere.
We don't expect Congress to fund those. If you think it would
be better for Congress to fund those, we can certainly accept
the money, but that has not been our intent.
Mr. Braley. No, but just talking about the earlier
discussion of what type of revenues were generated from the
Hoover Library and some of the smaller libraries, even if you
take a 40 percent endowment requirement for a $500 million
library, you are still talking about $300 million over and
above that amount that is available, and, using another
baseball analogy from Iowa, if you build it, they will come.
Ms. Fawcett. Yes.
Mr. Braley. When you have a Presidential library that has a
think tank component to it, then what restrictions are there
under the current statute that would prevent a theme park from
being added as a component to a Presidential library?
Ms. Fawcett. Well, that wouldn't be brought to the national
archives and wouldn't be transferred to national archives. The
think tank component of the proposed George W. Bush Library
would not transfer to the Federal Government. That would be
part of something that the foundation would be managing.
Mr. Braley. I understand that, but my point is what
prevents us from going to the next step under the current
statute?
Ms. Fawcett. Under the Presidential Libraries Act statute?
Mr. Braley. Yes.
Ms. Fawcett. Well, there is nothing, but the Government
wouldn't accept that, so, I mean, the fact that the foundation
could build it, yes, there is nothing to prevent the foundation
from building whatever they want to build, but what they can
transfer to the Government is codified, and it is up to
Congress to decide whether or not to accept what is transferred
to the Government. We prepare a report that we submit to you
some time before the transfer, and it is up to Congress to make
that decision whether this is an appropriate project for the
Government to manage.
Mr. Braley. Thank you.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Braley.
I want to thank the three of you for your testimony today.
I think we have an excellent record for this committee to
consider legislation.
Thank you.
If there is no other business from any other Members, the
committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]