[Senate Hearing 110-542]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-542
NATIONAL ARCHIVES OVERSIGHT:
PROTECTING OUR NATION'S HISTORY
FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION, FEDERAL SERVICES, AND
INTERNATIONAL SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE
of the
COMMITTEE ON
HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 14, 2008
__________
Available via http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
43-913 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 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 HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TED STEVENS, Alaska
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
BARACK OBAMA, Illinois PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHN WARNER, Virginia
JON TESTER, Montana JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
Michael L. Alexander, Staff Director
Brandon L. Milhorn, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk
FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, FEDERAL SERVICES,
AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY SUBCOMMITTEE
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TED STEVENS, Alaska
BARACK OBAMA, Illinois GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
JON TESTER, Montana JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
John Kilvington, Staff Director
Katy French, Minority Staff Director
Monisha Smith, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
------
Opening statements:
Page
Senator Carper............................................... 1
WITNESSES
Wednesday May 14, 2008
Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Maryland....................................................... 3
Hon. Allen Weinstein, Ninth Archivist of the United States,
National Archives and Records Administration, accompanied by
Adrienne Thomas, Deputy Archivist of the United States,
National Archives and Records Administration................... 5
Linda Koontz, Director, Information Management Issues, U.S.
Government Accountability Office............................... 8
Paul Brachfeld, Inspector General, National Archives and Records
Administration................................................. 9
Patrice McDermott, Director, OpenTheGovernment.org............... 25
Thomas Blanton, Director, National Security Archive, George
Washington University.......................................... 28
James S. Henderson, Former State Archivist, State of Maine,
representing the Society of American Archivists................ 30
Martin J. Sherwin, University Professor of History, George Mason
University, representing the National Coalition for History
(NCH).......................................................... 32
Alphabetical List of Witnesses
Blanton, Thomas:
Testimony.................................................... 28
Prepared statement........................................... 90
Brachfeld, Paul:
Testimony.................................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 76
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L.:
Testimony.................................................... 3
Henderson, James S.:
Testimony.................................................... 30
Prepared statement........................................... 100
Koontz, Linda:
Testimony.................................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 55
McDermott, Patrice:
Testimony.................................................... 25
Prepared statement........................................... 83
Sherwin, Martin J.:
Testimony.................................................... 32
Prepared statement........................................... 104
Weinstein, Hon. Allen:
Testimony.................................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 39
APPENDIX
Questions and Responses for the Record from:
Mr. Brachfeld................................................ 112
Ms. McDermott................................................ 121
Mr. Blanton.................................................. 124
Mr. Sherwin.................................................. 128
Mr. Weinstein................................................ 131
NATIONAL ARCHIVES OVERSIGHT:
PROTECTING OUR NATION'S HISTORY
FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 2008
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management,
Government Information, Federal Service,
and International Security,
of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:23 p.m., in
Room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R.
Carper, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Carper and Cardin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARPER
Senator Carper. The Subcommittee will come to order. Thanks
to our guests for their patience, for being here today. This
hearing marks what I hope to be the beginning of this
Subcommittee's oversight of the National Archives and Records
Administration.
The revolutionary ideas embodied in documents such as the
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of our country
are entrusted to one organization, the National Archives.
Established by Congress to be the Nation's record keeper, the
Archives has the critical mission of storing and protecting our
Nation's most valuable and most important documents.
I am told that Thomas Jefferson once said that an educated
citizenry will ensure a free society. In fact, if I can
paraphrase Jefferson, I think what he said is if the American
people know the truth, they will not make a mistake, and it was
true then and I think that is true today. I think we can all
agree that unhindered access to information about our
government and the ideas of the men and women like Jefferson
who have made decisions on our behalf is critical to the
continued health and vibrancy of our democracy.
The National Archives was established to safeguard and
preserve the records of our government, ensuring that the
people can discover, use, and learn from this documentary
heritage. As I prepared for this hearing, I have to say that
some questions were raised in my own mind about whether the
Archives is fulfilling this essential mission, at least in some
areas. Additionally, I question whether Congress and the
President are giving the Archives the resources and the tools
that are necessary to do the job that we have tasked them with.
A lot has changed in our country, as we know, due to the
evolution of information technology. The ability to create, to
search, and to access information from any location in the
world has greatly affected the way humans communicate and
learn. Every year, billions of documents that shape the
decisions that our government makes and the course of human
events are never written down with pen and paper. Instead,
these records are born digital. They are created electronically
and live not in a filing cabinet somewhere, but on computers
and on the Internet. The current controversy surrounding the
missing White House e-mails highlights the importance of
electronic records management.
Due to a lack of Congressional guidance, poor
decisionmaking, or just sheer mismanagement, policy discussions
involving any number of key issues, including the war in Iraq,
may never be seen by historians, by authors, and by the public
at large. How can democracy thrive, then, if people cannot hold
their government--our government--accountable?
Further, I am troubled by the recent cost overruns on the
Electronic Records Archives Project. The system is intended to
be the Archives' answer for transferring, preserving and making
accessible all Federal and Presidential records. However, we
cannot definitively say whether this project will be delivered
on time and on budget in preparation for the upcoming
Presidential transition.
This reminds me a little of the situation that our country
is facing in the Census Bureau with the handheld computer
project that had to be canceled because it will not be ready
for Census takers to use by the year 2010. So we end up once
again largely doing our Nation's 10-year Census using pencil
and paper.
Instead of dealing with the problems before they escalated,
it seems like agency officials and contractors, just as they
did at the Census Bureau, decided to march ahead, assuming that
Congress would foot the bill. It is imperative that we make
this system work as planned, and it is equally important that
we get it done as quickly and as cheaply as we can reasonably
hope at this point.
With that said, I have convened this hearing today not to
point fingers or to encourage controversy, but to learn how we
can help the Archives achieve its core mission of safeguarding
and preserving the records of our government. Further, we hope
to learn more about how the Archives is changing its business
model to bring in the technology necessary to ensure that
records born digital are preserved and easily accessible.
Finally, I want to determine whether the Archives can improve
its services online so that the public can access key
historical documents.
We thank the witnesses for appearing before us today and
certainly look forward to your testimony. We apologize for
starting a bit late. We ended up with a vote just on the eve of
starting this hearing, so I apologize we are starting a little
bit late.
I am delighted that Senator Cardin--I almost said
Congressman Ben Cardin, since he and I both served as
Congressmen together--but I am delighted that he was able to
join us today. He heard that we are having this hearing and I
encouraged him to come by and spend as much time as he would
like. You are recognized for any statements or comments you
would like to make. We are delighted that you have come.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, A U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Senator Cardin. Senator Carper, thank you very much. As you
pointed out, I don't serve on this Subcommittee, but I do
represent the U.S. Senate on the National Historical
Publications and Records Commission and attended my first
meeting yesterday and I am very impressed by the work that is
done by that Commission.
I have always been impressed by Dr. Weinstein and his
commitment to our National Archives and the work that he does.
Just to tell you a very short story, on the day before I took
the oath of office as a U.S. Senator, I took my family to the
National Archives because I thought it was an appropriate place
to start my career in the U.S. Senate. I must tell you that
just about every member of my family that visited the National
Archives has been back because there is just so much they can
learn from the records and the manner in which those records
are kept.
I think, though, you are asking the right question, Mr.
Chairman, and it is how should the National Archives serve our
modern needs, particularly with new technologies. That is why
when I talked to Dr. Weinstein, he was excited about this
hearing because he thinks it is important for Congress and the
National Archives to work together in partnership to meet these
challenges, and I know that is the purpose of this hearing, to
see how we can make sure that the important work that needs to
be done is supported here in Congress and that we develop a
strategy that will provide the best possible access to the
records of our country for all users, whether it be a high
school student or whether it be a person in academia who is
doing important research work.
That is our goal and I think this hearing will help us in
meeting those goals, and I thank you for allowing me to stop
by. I apologize that I will not be able to stay for the
hearing, but I wanted the Subcommittee to know of my interest
and I am willing to work with the Subcommittee on this matter.
Senator Carper. Senator Cardin, thank you so much for
coming. We are grateful that you are here and for your interest
and we look forward to working with you.
Our first witness today will be the Ninth Archivist of the
United States. I have called you ``Wine-steen,'' I have called
you ``Wine-stine.'' Others have probably called you worse names
than that. How do you pronounce your name?
Mr. Weinstein. Well, Mr. Chairman, first of all, thank you
for holding this hearing. Thank you, Senator Cardin, for being
here. It depended on which side of the Grand Concourse you were
raised on. [Laughter.]
I am a Bronx kid, and that was the issue, but that is at
least within the realm, you call it this or you call it that. A
few weeks into being Archivist, I stood up for a speech and the
person introducing me turned to me and said, ``Now I would like
to present to you the Alchemist of the United States, Allen
Weinstein.'' [Laughter.]
Try to get back into a serious mood after that one.
Senator Carper. Well, I am not going to recognize you yet
to testify. I am just trying to get you to correctly pronounce
your name for us. Is it ``Wine-stine''?
Mr. Weinstein. It was ``Wine-stine'' on the side of the
Grand Concourse----
Senator Carper. That you grew up in?
Mr. Weinstein. That we could afford. [Laughter.]
Senator Carper. Just a quick introduction for each of our
guests and then I will recognize you for your testimony.
Dr. Weinstein was confirmed by the U.S. Senate about 3
years ago and he has been on the job now for several years.
Previously, Dr. Weinstein served as the President for the
Center for Democracy, a nonprofit foundation that he created in
1985 to promote and strengthen the democratic process. He has
won many international awards, including the United Nations
Peace Medal in 1986, the Council of Europe's Silver Medal
twice, both in 1990 and 1996, and several fellowships,
including two senior Fulbright lectureships. In addition, Dr.
Weinstein was a university professor and professor of history
at Boston University, a university professor at Georgetown
University, and author of a number of books, articles, and
essays.
Accompanying Dr. Weinstein today but not giving an opening
statement, I am told, is Adrienne Thomas, is that correct?
Ms. Thomas. That is correct.
Senator Carper [continuing]. The Deputy Alcherist of the--
--
Ms. Thomas. Yes, or Anarchist.
Senator Carper [continuing]. Anarchist of the United
States. We are glad that you both are here.
Our next witness is Linda Koontz, no stranger in these
places. Ms. Koontz is Director for Information Management
Issues at the U.S. Government Accountability Office. It is nice
to see you today. Ms. Koontz is responsible for issues
concerning the collection, the use, and dissemination of
government information, and recently Ms. Koontz has directed
studies concerning records management, privacy, data mining,
information access and dissemination, and E-Government. Ms.
Koontz is a Spartan, a graduate with a B.A. from Michigan State
University? I am an old Buckeye, Ohio State, up here. But
better to be a Spartan than one of those Wolverines.
[Laughter.]
A certified Government Financial Manager and a certified
information privacy professional.
And our final witness today, at least on this panel, is
Paul Brachfeld. Did I pronounce it right?
Mr. Brachfeld. You did very well.
Senator Carper. All right. Good. He is Inspector General of
the National Archives and Records Administration. Mr. Brachfeld
oversees the conduct and execution of all audits,
investigations, and inspections for the agency. Are you
appointed by the National Archives Director?
Mr. Brachfeld. I am appointed by the Archivist of the
United States.
Senator Carper. OK.
Mr. Brachfeld. Actually, the former Archivist, John Carlin,
selected me. Appointed is not the word.
Senator Carper. Selected, OK. All right. Fair enough. Thank
you. Wasn't he a governor?
Mr. Brachfeld. Former Governor of Kansas.
Senator Carper. A former governor. There you go. Mr.
Brachfeld's investigative activities include the recovery of
hundreds of stolen Archival holdings and related successful
prosecutions of identified subjects. Mr. Brachfeld has a B.S.
in accounting from the University of Maryland, which makes him
a Terrapin.
We thank you for joining us. We thank all of you for
joining us, and we will start with opening statements from Dr.
Weinstein. Welcome.
TESTIMONY OF HON. ALLEN WEINSTEIN,\1\ NINTH ARCHIVIST OF THE
UNITED STATES, NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION,
ACCOMPANIED BY ADRIENNE THOMAS, DEPUTY ARCHIVIST OF THE UNITED
STATES, NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Weinstein. Thank you, Chairman. Once again, I thank you
for holding this hearing today. I am pleased to report on
progress at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA) during my 3-year tenure. There is much to report. I can
only touch on the highlights here. However, I will be happy to
answer for the record any questions or to provide any
supplemental material that you would like.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Weinstein appears in the Appendix
on page 39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The stories of this Nation and its people are told in the
records and artifacts cared for in the National Archives--we
call it NARA's facilities around the country. We want all
Americans to be inspired to explore the records of this
country, their country. We want every American to have access
to the essential documentation of their rights and of the
actions of their government. We promote civic education and
facilitate historical understanding of our national experience.
When we revised our 10-year strategic plan, we made it explicit
that promoting civic literacy is essential to our work.
During fiscal year 2007, the National Archives responded to
1.2 million written requests for information, served over
135,000 researchers in Washington and in our almost four dozen
facilities across the country, hosted nearly 220,000 people at
public programs, and welcomed 2.9 million visitors to exhibits
in Washington and in the 12 Presidential libraries, and
received 35 million visits to our website.
However, simply allowing access to our holdings is not
enough. We are committed to providing opportunities for the
public to see, use, and learn from the records of our
government. This will develop a greater understanding of the
history, cultural values, and ideas that have shaped our
Nation. It is vital, Mr. Chairman, that the raw documents and
facts we possess, preserve, and store--ten billion pieces of
paper and in the future many terabytes of electronic records--
that these have meaning for the American people to which they
belong.
In Washington, DC, our learning center, the Boeing Learning
Center, is now fully open, focusing on NARA's efforts to help
teachers make the study of history, civics, and social studies
more engaging and important for students through the use of
primary documents. The Presidential libraries and regional
records centers conduct similar programs for students and
teachers. And for nearly 30 years, NARA has conducted summer
institutes to instruct teachers in the use of historical
documents in the classroom.
The National Archives is a multifaceted organization. The
3,000 employees who work in 20 States, over 40 facilities
throughout the country, are dedicated to our mission to
preserve democracy by safeguarding and preserving the records
of the Federal Government. We house the records, Mr. Chairman,
of all three branches of government and respond to literally
millions of requests each year from the Executive Branch, the
Congress, the courts, and from the citizens who own these
records.
Our Center for Legislative Archives holds the records of
Congress--at least the institutional ones--and is preparing
many of these legislative treasures for display in the Capitol
Visitors Center. The Center for Legislative Archives delivers
over a million pages of records annually to support the conduct
of current Congressional business. It also preserves and makes
available to researchers the historical records of the U.S.
House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. The Center uses
these historical records to promote a better understanding of
Congress and the history of American representative government.
The National Archives manages 12, soon to be 13,
Presidential libraries documenting the Administrations from
Herbert Hoover to Bill Clinton. President George Bush recently
announced that his library will be built on the campus of
Southern Methodist University in Dallas. We are actively
engaged with the White House in organizing the transfer of the
Administration's paper and electronic records from the White
House to NARA oversight in Texas and Washington, DC.
One of the greatest challenges to the National Archives is
the rapidly growing number of electronic records being created
by the Federal Government. These records include text
documents, e-mails, web pages, digital images, videotapes,
maps, spreadsheets, presentations, databases, satellite images,
geographic information systems, and more types of records to be
created in the future. Unlike parchment or paper, Mr. Chairman,
electronic records can become inaccessible quite easily as time
passes and technology advances. The hardware and software used
to create these records can become obsolete very quickly,
within months or years. This leaves countless important records
at risk of being lost forever. But the good news is that the
technology for preserving electronic records is finally
catching up with the technology for creating them.
The mission of the Electronic Records Archives, ERA as we
call it, is clear and simple.
Senator Carper. Dr. Weinstein, this would just be a request
I would make of you and each of the panelists on this panel and
subsequent panels. Sometimes folks feel like they have to use
acronyms when they testify before us. To the extent you can
stay away from them, I would be grateful. Thank you.
Mr. Weinstein. OK.
Senator Carper. ERA, I don't know if we are talking
baseball or Equal Rights Amendment for the Constitution. So the
extent that you can actually use the----
Mr. Weinstein. You don't want to talk baseball to me. I am
a Yankees fan.
Senator Carper. You are probably right. [Laughter.]
Mr. Weinstein. The mission of the Electronic Records
Archives is clear and simple. It will authenticate, preserve,
and make accessible far into the future important electronic
records of the Federal Government regardless of the type of
hardware or software used to create them or the kind available
in the future.
The first phase of our Electronic Records Archives will
become operational in June of this year, next month. An early
challenge faced by the Electronic Records Archives will occur
on January 20, 2009, when the National Archives takes custody
of the remaining records of the Bush Administration. Millions
of electronic text documents, digital photographs, and e-mails
will be among those records. If the past is prologue, the first
request for access to those electronic records will also come
on January 20, 2009. Electronic Records Archives will ensure
that we are prepared to meet those requests.
In 2009, Mr. Chairman, concluding, we will celebrate the 75
anniversary year of the establishment of the National Archives.
During the past 75 years, the staff of the National Archives
has found itself on the leading edge of change. Almost 30 years
before the creation of the Freedom of Information Act,
archivists were making available the records of the U.S.
Government to the public in National Archives reading rooms.
Beginning with President Roosevelt's gift to the Nation and
with Congress's help, we shepherded the growth and development
of the modern day Presidential library system.
In the 1970s, Mr. Chairman, we heralded the era of
archiving electronic records by taking in the most permanent
computerized records from government databases. Today, we are
taking the lead in archiving digital information with the
development of the Electronic Records Archives. We have always
embraced these types of challenges as part of our unique and
important mission as guardians of the records of government.
With your support, the support of Congress, the National
Archives will continue to meet the challenges of the present
and the future.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This concludes my formal remarks
and I welcome any questions you and other Members of the
Subcommittee might have.
Senator Carper. Dr. Weinstein, thank you very much.
For this panel of witnesses and for our second panel of
witnesses, your entire statement will be made part of the
record and if you wish to summarize, please feel free to do so.
Normally we ask people to stick within 5 minutes in giving your
testimony. If you run a bit longer than that, we are not going
to bang the gavel. We will let you go a little while longer.
Ms. Koontz, thank you for joining us and we are happy to
see you. You are recognized.
TESTIMONY OF LINDA KOONTZ,\1\ DIRECTOR, INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Ms. Koontz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to participate in today's hearing on challenges and
progress in overseeing the preservation of our Nation's
historical documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Koontz appears in the Appendix on
page 55.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you know, since 2001, the National Archives has been
working to develop a modern Electronic Records Archives system.
This major information system is intended to preserve and
provide access to massive volumes of electronic records of all
types and formats. The system is also to automate the Archives'
processes for records management in archiving.
However, in 2007, the Archives' contractor acknowledged
that it would not be able to meet the planned date for the
initial operational capability of the first increment of the
system. In response to this delay, the Archives changed its
approach to developing the Electronic Records Archives, but
uncertainties remain. The program is currently pursuing a two-
pronged development strategy.
First, NARA has developed plans to achieve an initial
operational capability that will have capabilities that are
somewhat reduced from those that had been planned. NARA refers
to this initial system as the base system. Initial operational
capability for the base system had been planned for September
2007, but is now scheduled for June 2008.
Although recent delivery deadlines have all been met and
testing has begun on schedule, NARA has extended some test
periods beyond what was originally planned, leaving less time
for final security reviews. Although officials remain confident
that these schedule changes will not affect the date for the
initial operational capability, problems uncovered through
testing could lead to delay. According to the officials, they
are mitigating the risk of delays by paying close and
continuing attention to the testing process through such
actions as weekly meetings of the test team.
The second part of the Archives' strategy responds to their
need to receive the Presidential records of the Bush
Administration in January 2009. These electronic records are
estimated to total 100 terabytes of data, which is 50 times
more than that of the previous administration. NARA had planned
to use the ERA system for this purpose, but the developmental
delays in 2007 put this plan at risk.
To address this risk, the Archives and its contractor are
pursuing a parallel development of a separate part of the
system that is to be dedicated initially to these records. This
part of the Electronic Records Archives is referred to as the
Executive Office of the President System. This system is being
built on a commercial product that provides some of the basic
requirements for processing Presidential electronic records,
such as rapid ingest of records and ability to search content.
This separate development decouples the EOP system from
dependence on the development of the base system. However, it
is uncertain whether the system will be developed to the point
that it can receive the Bush Administration records in January
2009, primarily because the Archives and its contractor are
still negotiating the precise scope of work and system
requirements.
Finalizing the negotiations is challenging because, among
other things, uncertainties remain regarding the exact nature
of the Presidential records to be transferred. According to the
Archives, although the Archives and Bush Administration
officials have held meetings on this topic, the Administration
has not yet provided NARA with specific information on the
volume and types of records to be transferred. System
development is nonetheless proceeding based on the Archives'
volume estimates and the information available so far.
According to the Archives, receiving the electronic
Presidential records and being able to process, search, and
retrieve them immediately after the Presidential transition is
critical so that they can respond in a timely fashion to the
information requirements of the Congress, the former and
incumbent Presidents, and the courts.
Challenges remain for the Electronic Records Archives
program in both the near and long term. In the near term, the
Archives has to complete the testing of the base system and
define the requirements and the scope of the Presidential
system and complete its development. In the long term, it also
plans to merge the base system and the Presidential systems
into an integrated whole. Meeting these challenges will be
important to achieving the ultimate aims for the Electronic
Records Archives, automating the Archives' records management
and archiving lifecycle, and preserving and providing access to
all types and formats of electronic records.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I would be happy
to answer questions at the appropriate time.
Senator Carper. Ms. Koontz, thank you very much for that
statement.
Our last witness on this panel is Paul Brachfeld. Mr.
Brachfeld, you are recognized. Thank you very much for coming.
TESTIMONY OF PAUL BRACHFELD,\1\ INSPECTOR GENERAL, NATIONAL
ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Brachfeld. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the
opportunity to testify today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Brachfeld appears in the Appendix
on page 76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Carper. Thank you.
Mr. Brachfeld. NARA represents America's past like no other
agency. We hold the treasure troves of our Nation's history.
However, as an organization, we must live in the present while
preparing for the future that focuses upon electronic records.
Today, I will be quite candid in discussing what I and my staff
have observed during my tenure as the IG.
Archivist Allen Weinstein has in tangible ways supported my
office as well as me personally. However, our work comes at a
price. In the wake of certain investigations and significant
audits conducted by my office, my staff and I have been met
with significant resistance and unfounded challenges. Our
audits and investigations have consistently identified
challenges in core elements of NARA's operations that we
believe by definition constitute material weaknesses.
While preservation work stations sit empty in our world
renown labs due to funding and staffing constraints,
contractors siphon funds for projects that are ill-defined,
poorly managed, and fail to meet user needs. While millions of
dollars flow to the Electronic Records Archives program, which
to date is well over budget and has failed to meet deliverable
dates and other IT related contracts, archivists struggle under
resource constraints to process and preserve the ever-expanding
quantities of records arriving at NARA every day. While NARA is
exposed to significant frauds and the loss or theft of millions
of dollars worth of accountable property, such as laptops,
desktops, and servers, Presidential artifacts sit unprocessed
and vulnerable due to limited resources.
Finally, the importance of these issues is magnified by the
fact that the Archivist and I share the belief that NARA is, by
definition, a national security agency, as we hold the vital
records of virtually every Federal agency, as well as those of
other entities, such as the Warren and 9/11 Commissions.
I will dedicate the balance of my testimony to electronic
records issues. I am also available to discuss other audit and
investigative work products produced by my office, touching
upon areas ranging from the preservation of holdings,
processing and accessing Federal records or the recovery of
hundreds of stolen Federal records via our highly successful
and unique Archival Recovery Team, or ART, concept recently
featured in the April edition of Smithsonian magazine.
With regard to Electronic Records Archives program, in
December 2001, nearly 7 years ago, I first approached the
former Archivist about the need for audit coverage of the ERA
program by stating resources have not been assigned to the OIG
to facilitate our independent analysis of the program and to
serve as a basis to report to the Archivist, Congress, and the
American people on the status of the ERA program. Stakeholders
actively involved in designing, building, and coordinating the
deployment of ERA may be blinded from identifying issues that
exist and call out for identification.
In subsequent meetings, such as in April 2002, I requested
audit positions to support, again, the fledgling ERA program.
The former Archivist, John Carlin, told me he could give me 50
people and I still couldn't cover it, so he asked me how I
thought I could do it with just two. I responded, I would take
the two, but none were received.
Dedicated ERA audit resources sought by the OIG in budget
submission after budget submission were not forthcoming, even
as I defined the value of independent, dedicated, and skilled
oversight over this critical program could not be overstated
and the risk of not performing this function unacceptable. GAO
Audit Report 03880, issued in August 2003, defined NARA's need
to staff key unfilled ERA positions to mitigate the long-term
risk to the acquisition. In meetings with the GAO, I urged them
to define that one of the key unfilled ERA positions, just one,
dedicated to NARA OIG to support independent expert oversight
of the program and related contractors, was sorely needed.
Regrettably, the GAO did not act upon this request.
Unfortunately, it came as no surprise to my office when on
July 27, 2007, NARA issued a Cure Notice to the ERA prime
contractor for ``failure to make progress in the work so as to
endanger performance under the subject contract.'' Indeed, the
impact of delays and cost overruns--and I was told before this
meeting by my staff that we are now up to $15 million as of
March 2008--is significant and profound. While I do not know if
or when ERA will be fully operational, any additional delay
will adversely impact other narrow operations, requiring NARA
to consume additional scarce dollars to sustain the Archives'
research catalog or develop other vehicles that bridge the gap
until ERA meets baseline functional requirements.
Finally, in the fall of 2007 with the support of Archivist
Weinstein, this office was able to staff a dedicated ERA audit
position. One need not have been a visionary or a soothsayer to
anticipate the problems that have encumbered the ERA program.
We hope that at this late date, the OIG audit support will
prove of value.
Changing subjects, in April 2007, an article raised my
concern as to the condition of the White House records as under
the Presidential Record Act (PRA), Bush 43 Presidential records
will accrue to NARA. The ingestion of these records is to be a
key and early benchmark in the successful deployment of ERA.
Following the April 2007 article, I requested briefings and was
informed by key NARA staff members that the Bush 43
Presidential records development and transition to a new and
effective recordkeeping system had not been accomplished and
that records are being stored in a vulnerable production server
environment. After looking into this, I found an internal NARA
report for the fourth quarter of 2006 where a NARA official
reported that they continue to work on matters related to
management of electronic records by the Executive Office of the
President, Office of Administration.
The problem for my office is that concerns as to access
issues or functionality of White House recordkeeping systems
were never directed to my attention by knowledgeable NARA
officials prior to press accounts reaching my desk. Thus, I am
not afforded the opportunity to address a significant condition
which will potentially impact a major NARA program that falls
under my statutory jurisdiction.
I am aware of momentum to provide NARA additional authority
to ensure Federal agency compliance with records standards,
most notably with regard to the internal preservation of
electronic records. I believe that such legislation and related
funding is required. If NARA does not assume this role, then I
ask who will. NARA traditionally has not viewed itself as an
enforcement entity, but rather one that focuses upon
collegiality and relationships.
I believe that given limited cognizance into agency
recordkeeping processes, a void exists in which inappropriate
treatment or loss of Federal records may well be occurring.
This position may be alien to my peers at NARA, but I come from
a dual law enforcement and audit background and believe that
additional powers, authority, and resources are needed in this
area. The consequences of failed recordkeeping at Federal
agencies today will adversely impact our Nation tomorrow.
In terms of personnel and budget, NARA is not large, but
its mission surely is. I am an Inspector General. My statement
today will most certainly have repercussions, but my candor
reflects my statutory duty to this Subcommittee and the
American taxpayer. I thank you for the opportunity to testify
and I am available to take any questions you may have.
Senator Carper. Mr. Brachfeld, thank you very much for that
testimony.
We will have a number of questions for this panel. Let me
just start off, if I could, with Professor Weinstein. Before I
begin to ask any questions, I just want to give you an
opportunity, if you would like, to comment on some of what Ms.
Koontz and Mr. Brachfeld have had to say in their opening
statements. You may want to talk a little bit about some of the
management challenges that they highlighted and let us know on
the Subcommittee how you are dealing with those.
Mr. Weinstein. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this
opportunity. The Inspector General's statement is puzzling on a
number of counts. First, Mr. Brachfeld points to my support for
his office, which is genuine, and for him personally, which was
genuine, on a range of issues. He then castigates National
Archives staff for throwing up ``significant resistance and
unfounded challenges.'' Whether the Inspector General and I
agree or disagree, however, final responsibility for
maintaining the National Archives rests on my shoulders, and
inevitably there will be times when I prefer some other counsel
to Mr. Brachfeld's point of view. But let there be no mistake,
the Inspector General has no greater friend at NARA than this
Archivist, who also respects the work of the Office of
Inspector Generals government-wide. I work with Mr. Brachfeld
to reduce waste, fraud, and mismanagement on all levels and
will continue to do so.
Mr. Brachfeld makes three assertions of fact, however,
which need response. First, he concludes that, to date, the
Electronic Records Archives has not been properly and
thoroughly monitored. I disagree. Linda Koontz is right here
and her colleagues at the Government Accountability Office have
continually monitored the project. The Office of Management and
Budget conducts similar full court press evaluations. The House
and Senate Subcommittee members and staff demand monthly--at
least monthly, sometimes more than that--reports on the state
of progress for the Electronic Records Archives. And finally,
our own National Archives Advisory Committee on the Electronic
Records Archives, experts from all over the world, meet
regularly to evaluate our progress. Time precludes a full
outline of oversight to date, but it is considerable.
Second, the Inspector General claims that the Electronic
Records Archives system may never be operational. In fact, the
first phase of the Electronic Records Archives becomes
operational next month. There is no evidence that there is
evidence, there is no denying that there have been delays,
there have been cost overruns in this extremely important and
challenging project. But little is to be gained by exaggerating
and panicking. We have confronted the problems which caused
these delays and the program is again on schedule and has been
for some time.
While I am head of this agency, Congress can count on the
fact that we will not paper over problems. We will never paper
over problems, but rather we will address them systematically.
Electronic Records Archives has been new territory for everyone
involved in the project, Chairman. It should not surprise
anyone that there have been obstacles to overcome. But turning
hills into mountains is no way to solve a problem. Assertion is
no substitute for evidence or any window for proof.
Third, the Inspector General takes us to task for failing
to anticipate and resolve the problem of the missing White
House e-mails. The Presidential Records Act was crafted by
Congress with great care to respect the Separation of Powers
Clause in the Constitution. I have counseled the White House on
its responsibilities under the PRA and the Federal Records Act,
not once, but a number of times. However, that counsel has
always been given within the bounds of the law and the
Constitution.
Finally, I have been a strong and consistent advocate for
maximum transparency in the Federal Government. Everyone who
knows me knows that. But I think it is a mistake to assign to
the National Archives, an independent agency, the role of
policing the White House. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. Thank you, Dr. Weinstein.
A member of my staff described this as the 30,000-foot
question. I don't know if it is 30 or 20 or 10, but the
question deals with adequacy of resources. We all know that the
Archives is given an extremely large mission, and some would
argue relatively little resources to complete that mission. I
would just ask Professor Weinstein and Mr. Brachfeld, as the
protectors of our Nation's history and some of our most
important artifacts, do you feel that you are given enough
resources to fulfill the mission of your agency, and if the
answer is no, what more might be needed in terms of staff and
resources? And finally, are there any areas that you could
shift your priorities at the National Archives to ensure that
you are meeting the most important challenges in fulfilling
your mission?
Mr. Brachfeld. Senator, may I have the opportunity to
respond----
Senator Carper. Just briefly, if you will. I don't want to
play too much ping-pong here, but just briefly.
Mr. Brachfeld. I need to clarify a few matters very quickly
for the record.
Senator Carper. Sure.
Mr. Brachfeld. One, in terms of monitoring the ERA program,
I will give you one example. In June 2007, I met with the
program director for the ERA program. He told me the program
was on schedule. Deliverables were--in fact, the contract was
ahead of schedule. My staff was present. In fact, two or three
members of my staff.
In July 2007, we issued a Cure Letter for fail to deliver
on deliverables. That is the status that was provided to me. We
have met with many officials in ERA. We have many sources that
come to us. We have been told that the date for delivery of
some iteration of ERA, whether it be--the capacity is
undefined--would be in 2011. I have read in 2012. I have seen
statements of 2015.
There hopefully will be an ERA. I have been a proponent of
ERA. I have been begging, literally begging for the resources
to engage in ERA to help bring this home. I saw my role as to
be a shepherd to assist the agency so the problems that we have
unfolded, which I anticipated and stated for the record 7 years
ago--and I didn't have to be Nostradamus--7 years ago, I warned
of this. Given the resources, we may not be here today
discussing this.
Quickly, with the White House e-mails, let me make myself
very clear on this. Those e-mails will accrue to the National
Archives and Records Administration, to our programs. If our
programs will be adversely affected, be it additional staff
needed or be it additional resources needed, that affects my
turf as an Inspector General. I thought that had I gotten
timely notification, and, of course, part of my statutory
duties is to protect our programs, I could have made efforts
perhaps to address the matter in the early stage.
I have worked with the White House in other matters. They
have responded to my inquiries. They have responded to my
questions. Given the opportunity, maybe information would have
been gained that would have been helpful. Given that failing,
perhaps I could have done a management letter to the Archivist,
which becomes a public document and the Congress would have
been made aware of the situation much earlier. It was just a
question of me wanting to be engaged in an issue where I could
exercise what I thought my authority. I am not trying to teach
or alter constitutional law.
Finally, I just want to make one thing clear. The Archivist
and I truly are colleagues. When we meet, it is collegial. He
is supportive. He has been a supporter of me. When my position
was jeopardized, which it was because certain NARA staff sought
to have me removed, he stood by me. So he is a good man and
this is not between myself and him, and I will tend to leave it
at that.
Now, you asked about--getting back now, I am sorry,
budget----
Senator Carper. Adequacy of resources. Thank you for that--
--
Mr. Brachfeld. Adequacy of resources. The National
Archives, in my experience, and this is my experience, we have
been an agency that is almost afraid to ask for what we need.
There have been a number of my audit reports where I have said
that we needed to get additional resources. We have a flood of
records coming our way that we need to process, a literal
flood. We have----
Senator Carper. Because of the change in Administration?
Mr. Brachfeld. Well, just records with--we are talking
electronic record today, but paper doesn't stop. There is a
flood of paper records still coming our way. There is a flood
of electronic records coming our way. Our staffing has not
really grown. Preservation needs, just like everything else,
just like an infrastructure of a city, paper degrades. Film
degrades. Mediums degrade. We have a tremendous need for
preservation. We have IT security concerns that are very
important because of the nature of the material we hold. We
have physical concerns over our holdings.
So I have been a proponent of defining our problems clearly
and then going to Congress, going to OMB and clearly define
what we need. Clearly, it is my belief, based upon our audit
findings, and the bedrock of my work is audit, is that we do
not have the resources to deploy to address the many challenges
that impact NARA. There are many great people doing terrific
work. I go to our preservation labs and I watch our
conservators, who are amazingly talented, dedicated people, but
I can't help but notice two or three-quarters of the work
stations are empty. They are empty. But the documents that are
weathering under time, they don't stop weathering under time.
I think that we have strong needs, and in this time of
fiscal constraints, everybody said that I understand, but I
view National Archives as, A, a national treasure, which is why
I am proud to work there, and B, and the Archivist and I
discussed this probably the first time we met, I view the
Archives as a national security institution. I won't go into
public testimony and define what we hold, but I think a lot of
people would be shocked if they understood what we hold. So I
am concerned about the national security if people got access
to the kind of records we hold. And, in fact, my office--taking
off my audit hat and putting my investigative hat on, we have
had cases very specific to that and have worked very closely
with other law enforcement agencies, such as the FBI. So there
are security concerns that affect our national security, as
well, that need to be addressed. Thank you.
Mr. Weinstein. I will answer that question very quickly.
Senator Carper. Yes, if you would, please.
Mr. Weinstein. I know you would like to move on. Yes, we
need more money, we need more resources. I have gotten more
resources for the Inspector General and I will continue to try
to get more as he needs them for appropriate projects, and we
need them throughout. We need them for new programs and old. We
need them to help us with a program on developing civic
understanding. We need them to deal with the backlog of
materials that we can release to the American public. We just
haven't processed them all. We need them to do the Electronic
Records Archives. We need them for a variety of purposes.
But let me also say this. When I came to the National
Archives over 3 years ago, I made a point at that stage of the
game of not trying to bury myself in a bureaucratic life. I
have been up here on the Hill, as you well know, talking to
your colleagues, your staff--in fact, your staff probably knows
that I brought Mr. Brachfeld up here for his first encounter
with your staff because I wanted that story to get out. I
wanted his story, I wanted my story to get out.
And Congress has been extraordinarily generous and
supportive of the National Archives. I am not complaining about
levels of support. But you asked about whether we can use more
resources. The answer is yes, and I thank you for the resources
you have provided thus far.
Senator Carper. All right. Thank you. This Subcommittee
deals a fair amount with IT projects and the ones that we seem
to look at the most are the ones that have not gone well. IT
projects are naturally a riskier investment than most other
projects that are undertaken by our government. We have held
several hearings investigating the reasons why so many IT
projects are poorly planned and poorly preforming and it seems
that many times it is because agencies, and I am thinking of
the Census Bureau especially, but agencies have a tough time
really defining what they want from the contractor and sticking
to what they want.
I understand that the Electronic Records Archives contract
with Lockheed is worth more than $317 million and the total
expected cost of the system is expected to be around $450
million. I have a couple of questions regarding it.
First of all, how much do you believe, Dr. Weinstein, that
poor planning led to the Electronic Records Archives project
being over budget and behind schedule? And second, what have
you done to make sure that the project will stay on budget and
on schedule?
Mr. Weinstein. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I am
going to ask my Deputy Archivist here, Adrienne Thomas, to join
me in responding. I will start and she will continue, the
reason being that she retains her position also as the head of
Administration and Finance at the Archives. This is what she
was doing when I got there and she is an incredibly talented
person in that regard.
But just a few general comments on such projects. There are
scholars in this audience who know the period better than I do.
But if you looked at really creative, new, transforming moments
in American technology--the atomic bomb, the space shot, the
first shot into space, other things of this kind--I doubt that
you would see more effective budgetary performance than we have
had. These unprecedented projects almost--you have to
experiment while you are trying to decide what works. Is your
original plan better? You have to adjust that and change it.
You can't depend upon established structures of a budget, and
this is one of those projects, because if this works as we
think it is going to continue working, and it has been working
of late, then this is going to help transform in a positive way
the work of every agency, not just in the Federal Government,
but every agency, public and private, in the country and
eventually in many other countries. That is a large claim.
Now getting back to your point. Could there have been----
Senator Carper. Just to restate my question, what role do
you think poor planning played in where we have ended up? And
second, just explain to us what you are doing to make sure that
we get back on budget and on schedule.
Mr. Weinstein. First of all, I don't think poor planning
was a major factor here. I would also point out that we have
not--this isn't a situation in which somebody has simply
announced we have wasted $300 million and we are putting an end
to this. There are other situations in the government where
agencies larger and more prominent than ours have just said,
that is that. We worked at it. We discovered belatedly that we
may not have had the A Team from Lockheed Martin and Lockheed
Martin acknowledged that fact. And so we got the A Team and the
A Team has been performing effectively.
Senator Carper. When did you finally get the A Team?
Ms. Thomas. Basically, we were concerned about the
development of the system long before Lockheed Martin admitted
that they weren't going to make the deadlines and so forth. But
until they reached the first point of deliverable, you don't
have any proof that they are or are not going to deliver. When
they finally did admit it, then we talked to the highest levels
of the company and they realized that indeed they didn't have
the best professional support that was needed for this
contract, and at that point they basically said, we are going
to replace these people. We are going to give you the highest
level of professional support for this team.
That is why the IOC slipped from September, which was the
first deliverable that they were going to deliver, and we also
wanted to make sure that this team was going--the second team
was going to produce, so we restructured the contract.
Senator Carper. Excuse me. Is this a cost-plus contract?
Ms. Thomas. Yes, it is.
Senator Carper. Has it been from the outset?
Ms. Thomas. Yes.
Senator Carper. Is it still?
Ms. Thomas. Yes. However----
Senator Carper. Is that smart?
Ms. Thomas. It is really necessary for a development
contract where you can't put into concrete exactly what every
piece of requirement is. I mean, I think we did a very good up-
front planning effort, but development of IT contracts are
still a back-and-forth iterative process to get the right sort
of system in place, and that is what a cost-plus contract is
for, basically, when you can't define every requirement down to
the last nut and bolt.
Senator Carper. Dr. Weinstein.
Mr. Weinstein. Let me just add one point to this issue, not
on the cost-plus issue, but on what we are doing now to prevent
repetitions, if you will. Anyone who knows me knows that the
one thing I am not is a technologist or a scientist, but I know
how to read a budget and I kept a small organization alive for
16 years on relatively little money. And one of the things that
I am doing and that everybody else of consequence in our
program at the National Archives is doing and that we are
making certain Lockheed Martin is doing is we are monitoring
this process. Is it working? Is it on time? Is it going
according to the specs? Is it going according to the financial
specs?
We are monitoring this day by day by day, hour by hour by
hour. There will be no slippage. If there is slippage at all,
this Subcommittee and all of our other committees on the Hill
will hear about it before these people leave for work that day,
whoever is responsible, because there is no substitute
whatsoever, as far as I can tell, for constant monitoring of
the sort that Dr. Koontz and her colleagues do, for which we
are very grateful.
Senator Carper. All right. Thanks. Ms. Thomas, did you
finish your thought, because I want to go to Ms. Koontz and ask
her comment, as well----
Ms. Thomas. The only thing I wanted to add is that we
restructured the contract so that we took and basically created
smaller deliverables and said that at the point that a
deliverable was presented to us, that we would present it, and
if it passed, then we would go forward with the next piece of
the contract. But that was a drop-dead point where we could
decide, that is all. So I think having done that and having now
under our belt three different what we call drops of software
that have passed the test, and the final test will be the
testing that is going on now and IOC next month, and we think
that is going to be the proof that we have got the A Team going
and we have got a more strict monitoring approach in place.
Senator Carper. All right. Does the Archives have, if you
will, a back-up plan in place to turn to in case the Electronic
Records Archives is not fully functional when this President
leaves office?
Ms. Thomas. We are fairly confident at this point that it
is, but there is a back-up plan and that is the system that we
used with the Clinton papers, a system called PERL. We don't
think we are going to have to need it, but it worked for the
Clinton papers, not--I would have to say in sort of a clunky
way in that the Executive Office of the President (EOP) system
that we are developing, will allow searching across all of the
records. The PERL system that we used for President Clinton
basically was applied to each one of the many different systems
that we inherited from the White House and you have to search
each one locally. So it is a clunky system, but it will work.
It works for Clinton.
Senator Carper. All right. Thank you. Ms. Koontz, let us
hear from you on some of these issues, please.
Ms. Koontz. First of all, I will say that we have been
following the Electronic Records Archives since about 2001 and
have worked really closely with NARA in terms of their planning
as they have moved forward. One thing that I would like to say
is about NARA's oversight to date. I think that they have been
on top of the situation with the contractor. I think they
detected early warning signs in the schedule. They took
decisive action by issuing a Cure Notice when they thought that
the contractor's failure to perform was threatening the
performance of the contract.
They have revised their strategy. They have come up with,
as Ms. Thomas talked about, incremental deliverables, which is
a proven way of doing system development, small increments,
build a little, test a little, build a little, test a little.
This is a very good approach. And I think we also saw as they
moved forward working with the contractor that they always did
independent analyses of things like the schedule so that they
did not accept what the contractor proposed as the schedule
unless they themselves were really convinced that it was
realistic.
I would say that I think they do face some risks with the
Presidential system. We can't ignore the history that we have
had some performance problems. We have had overruns. We have
had schedule delays. And while I think NARA has taken some
action to get things back on track, I think we have to
recognize that we have a very tight schedule. We have a fixed
end date, which is the Presidential transition. We don't know
what all of the requirements are for the Presidential records
because the NARA does not yet have all that information from
the Executive Office of the President. And the milestones are
generally being met by the contractor, but slightly late. So
for that reason, I think this is a system still at risk.
I would agree, too, with the need for a mitigation plan and
that I know that NARA has a high-level plan for what they will
do if they do not meet the date--if the contractor doesn't meet
the date for delivery later this year, but I think that a more
robust risk mitigation plan would be in order here.
Senator Carper. Let me just ask, and I will direct this
initially to Dr. Weinstein and Ms. Thomas, but has anyone at
Archives been held accountable for poorly managing the
contract?
Mr. Weinstein. Would you repeat that?
Senator Carper. Yes. Has anyone at Archives been held
accountable for poorly managing this contract?
Ms. Thomas. I think we disagree that the contract was
poorly managed. As Ms. Koontz said, we from the beginning
monitored what Lockheed Martin was doing. We had our own
engineers testing behind their engineers. We were convinced
that there were problems, but until you reach the first
deliverable where they either put up or shut up in terms of
whether they were going to produce something that was going to
work or not, we really couldn't prove it. At the point that
they missed their deliverable----
Senator Carper. And when was that?
Ms. Thomas. May or June 2007, and we can provide the
precise date for the record.
Senator Carper. And when they missed----
Ms. Thomas. At that point, then we said--we took the
problem to the president of the company. We got OMB involved.
We got the E-Government person at the White House involved. We
got their attention. They admitted that there was a problem
with the team with the development. They replaced almost all of
the team with much higher-level, sophisticated IT developers
than had been on the team. We restructured the contract. I
mean, I think we did everything that we could to manage the
contract appropriately.
Senator Carper. Dr. Weinstein, and then Mr. Brachfeld, if
you have a comment. Go ahead.
Mr. Weinstein. Let me personalize the answer to your
question.
Senator Carper. OK.
Mr. Weinstein. I was brought into the--one of the things
that--obviously, neither my deputy or I are there for
everything that happens in the course of a day's work any more
than you are there for everything that happens in the course of
a Congressional day's work. Once the first indications came
through that we were significantly behind schedule, I think it
is fair to say that we both hit the ceiling and began
immediately addressing the issues.
In my case, I said there is only one way to address it. I
have got to talk to Mr. Stevens, the head of Lockheed Martin,
or I have got to just conclude this agreement.
Senator Carper. Is he the CEO?
Mr. Weinstein. Yes. And basically, that communication went
through to him, and the point that it made was that any
residual attitude that Lockheed Martin that they knew better
than we knew what we wanted and what we needed was at an end.
It is a very daunting thing. Congress brings in a Google or a
Microsoft, whatever, and you are dealing with folks at the top
of their game and there is a sort of a reluctance to
necessarily challenge them on things they say they know, that
they understand that they are doing. We discovered that
Lockheed Martin could do it better, and they had been doing it
better.
Now, did they--so punishment No. 1, they came close to
sudden death in terms of this contract. A very deep
embarrassment had happened, given the fact that Lockheed Martin
has talked about the effectiveness of this new technology.
Punishment No. 2, no bonuses, no special supplements, no
everything, all despite the fact that these cost-plus contracts
have them built in. None of that went out. None of that money
went out.
Punishment No. 3, it is not the most comfortable feeling in
the world for a major agency like ours to be snarling at this
mega-corporation and saying, now we want you to perform at your
best because you haven't been performing at your best. It was
humiliating. It is humiliating. But that is what they have to
live with. They have been on trial, and as head of the
Archives, it is my responsibility for making certain that we
get the fullest measure, the best of the best from them for
every last day that they are under contract.
You mentioned some figures. I can't comment on those
because I don't know where you got them.
Senator Carper. All right. Thanks. Mr. Brachfeld, the last
word and we will go on to one more question and then we will
turn to our next panel. But any comments on this exchange----
Mr. Brachfeld. Real quickly. There is a lyric of a song
that I talk about when I talk about contractors. It goes, ``a
man who feels the space begins to need the walls.'' Contractors
that don't feel walls, don't feel that they are getting tight
oversight, sometimes bleed into space. They need to be looked
at. There is no substitute for skilled IG oversight. That is
why Congress created us. That is why the President signed into
law the creation of Inspector Generals. That is why the Senate
is moving, and I support this, into strengthening Inspector
Generals. I think that our resource needed environment would
have been helpful.
I also want to note that up--again, this came as no
surprise to me, the problems at Lockheed Martin. I had sources
come to me. I often have both contractors and NARA staff come
to me voicing significant concerns about the progress of ERA,
and I had gone, as I frequently meet with senior management,
specifically the Archivist and his senior staff, and I had
conveyed concerns that I had heard. But again, I had not been
given the resources, and a lot of this predates--some of this
predates the current Archivist and he has worked to support my
office. He has a limited deck of cards. He has a limited number
of resources. I don't blame him.
But I do state that there were indications of problems. I
wish I could have been there. I wish I could have been more
vigilant. I wish I could have caught this earlier on because
there were ruminations. There was smoke and my staff was aware
of that. Thank you.
Senator Carper. Say that again, that lyric that you began
with. What was it?
Mr. Brachfeld. I am sorry, Senator?
Senator Carper. You said you use a lyric from a song----
Mr. Brachfeld. A man who feels the space begins to need the
walls. What I mean about that--it is just like that. I have had
30 years in government service. I started off in the Secret
Service. In the Secret Service, the entire computer room was
staffed by Secret Service employees. Now the government has
contractors. Many times the contractors possess skill sets that
the government does not have. They can use their knowledge,
their positions, to compel modifications to contracts,
alterations to contracts, etc.
It is not just this. It is not just NARA. I came from the
FCC before this and what we had going on there was pretty
substantial, too. And I talk to my peers. This is the nature of
the business and that is why you need a strong audit and
oversight presence.
Let me just say real quickly----
Senator Carper. Real quickly.
Mr. Brachfeld [continuing]. That one of the things that I
have tried to do more than anything else is strengthen our
compliance with OMB Circular A-130, Clinger-Cohen, etc. I want
us--not just ERA--we have many other contracts. I want us to do
contracting right on major IT systems from the beginning
because if you don't have a foundation, you go askew and awry.
So I have been there for this agency pushing that, and the
agency has made strides. Thank you.
Senator Carper. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Weinstein. Mr. Chairman, 90 seconds?
Senator Carper. Thirty seconds and then I want to get one
more question in----
Mr. Weinstein. OK.
Senator Carper [continuing]. And then turn to our next
panel.
Mr. Weinstein. Mr. Brachfeld likes the song metaphors. I
prefer speech metaphors. There is a famous Lincoln one that
applies in this instance and it is the story of--Lincoln tells
the story about coming across the road and there is somebody
beating a mule over the head with a two-by-four and it was
screaming, but it is not moving. And the stranger comes along
and says, ``Farmer, you can't move the mule that way. That is
idiotic.'' The farmer says, ``I know that, you jerk. I am not
trying to move him. I am trying to get his attention.'' We got
Lockheed Martin's attention in this process and we have had its
attention constantly since then.
Senator Carper. That is a little wisdom from Abraham
Lincoln, and I don't know if it was Dave Matthews or not, but--
--
Mr. Brachfeld. Do you really want to know?
Senator Carper. No. Thank you, though.
Last question for this panel is to switch topics a little
bit. I understand--this will be actually more for you, Dr.
Weinstein, but I understand that the Archives recently released
a report requested by Congress that discusses how the papers
written by the Founding Fathers of our Nation can be completed
in a timely fashion and published online. Some of the entities
working on these papers have been receiving both public and, I
believe, private funds for over a half a century but aren't
expected to complete their work for some time to come. Could
you tell us just briefly how the Archives expects to accomplish
this, and further, how much can Congress expect this project to
cost?
Mr. Weinstein. Let me take the first. Apparently you don't
have a copy. I will make certain that you----
Senator Carper. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Weinstein. I will get copies for the rest of the
Subcommittee.
Senator Carper. There are really three questions. Let me
just restate the questions and you can take them up. First,
could you tell us briefly how the Archives expects to
accomplish what we are talking about here? Second, how much can
the Congress expect this project to cost? And the third
question is, what is the benefit of publishing these papers
online to the public?
Mr. Weinstein. Well, Mr. Chairman, there are two ways in
which people take a look at the writings of the Founders these
days. They can look at them in these published, elegant,
scholarly editions, there are hundreds of them now, 218 is the
figure that I have been given at the moment, and these, of
course, will not be looked at by the ordinary person who does
not necessarily want six pages of footnotes for every reference
of Thomas Jefferson's or George Washington's at the time.
Then there is the possibility of putting all of these
papers online. In fact, this whole concept, the current
perception of it began in the office of one of your colleagues,
Senator Leahy, who hosted David McCullough and myself and
various other folks and we testified before Senator Leahy on
this several months back. That is when we received the
instruction that the Congress wanted a report.
It is possible, and I think we have spelled out all the
details, to have a situation not more than a few years from now
in which every one of the papers of the major Founders of the
country will be online in basic editions, without the entire
textual apparatus--while the work goes on to complete those
textual editions. At the same time, we can also put online at
the same time those editions which are not completed yet but
for which there is material that people may want to use,
students, scholars, etc. All of that can be done so that what
you are getting, then, at relatively little cost is free
access, virtually free access to the entire corpus of the
Founders. And it is about time, Chairman. It is about time.
Now, how much will it cost? We are doing calculations now.
Obviously, as soon as those are through, this Subcommittee and
others will be the first to learn of it. But we have been under
enormous time pressures to get this report done, and I should
add that this report has been supported in large measure by the
scholars who are involved, by those working on the existing
editions of the papers of the Founders, but OMB has reviewed
the report and has released it or else I wouldn't be here
talking about it. So it is fairly close to a consensus document
and the time has come, I think, to move forward on that.
Have I left anything out, Ms. Thomas?
Ms. Thomas. That is the main points. We think that this is
a perfect example of something that should continue to be a
public-private partnership and we think that with the goals and
the methods that we have laid out in the report, that we will
indeed engage many of the people who are in the business of
giving private money to be much more interested in supporting
this kind of an effort.
Senator Carper. I understand that these private sources, I
don't know if they are private foundations or not, but I
understand they provide up to maybe half the total funding for
these projects. How are the private foundations involved in the
planning process?
Mr. Weinstein. Well, private foundations have been involved
in supporting these projects, Mr. Chairman, since the projects
began in the 1930s and 1940s. Private foundations have always
provided an underpinning, either through universities or
through foundations or whatever it would be like. Congress has
also supported these projects through the NHPRC and through the
National Historical Publications and Records Commission
(NHPRC)--I apologize for using an acronym--and also the
National Endowment for the Humanities has funded some of this.
It has been funded from a variety of sources. But for the first
time, there would be a clear focal point for the funding.
There now, by the count that I have been given, are 218
volumes of these papers of the Founders that are already online
and we would have another 125 volumes to go and the job would
be done. So I urge you to support the process in Congress.
I should add that Senator Cardin, who was with us
yesterday--I don't want to speak for him, but he seems to be
very supportive and enthusiastic about it. Congressman Larsen
from the House was there, same, as well. So this has been a
process that has involved Congress from the get-go and it has
been in partnership with the private sector that we can get
this job done.
Senator Carper. All right. And before you all leave the
witness table, let me just thank you very much for being here
and for your testimony and for responding to our questions.
I used to be State Treasurer of Delaware for about 6 years
and we were audited every year by an independently elected
official, the State Auditor, and every now and then, the State
Auditor would offer a criticism. However, this was not
something that would be shared with us internally as they went
through their audit, but sort of after the fact. In addition,
the way it was offered was not always well appreciated, and
finally, the auditor and I actually just spent some time
together and talked things through. We would try to maintain a
good personal relationship and have a more constructive
auditing process where we would be more inclined to take the
recommendations of the audit to heart.
It seems pretty clear to me that, Dr. Weinstein, you and
Mr. Brachfeld have what seems to be a respectful personal
relationship and I would just ask that you build on that and
spend some time together talking more about the issues raised
today. Maybe you will both feel better about the work that you
are doing on behalf of our citizens.
With that having been said, I want to thank each of you for
coming today, for your stewardship, and for your testimony. We
look forward to working with you to help give you the resources
and the support and the direction that you need to make us all
proud. Thank you very much.
Mr. Weinstein. Thank you very much, Chairman.
[Pause.]
Senator Carper. All right. Welcome to our second panel of
witnesses. We will hopefully not be interrupted by votes and we
will be able to march forward to completion of our hearing.
Thank you for joining us today and for your patience with us.
Our lead-off witness in the second panel is Dr. Patrice
McDermott.
I understand you are the Director of OpenTheGovernment.org,
is that correct?
Ms. McDermott. Yes, sir.
Senator Carper. I understand you assumed your current
position after more than 4 years as the Deputy Director of the
Office of Government Relations at the American Library
Association. My office today was stormed by librarians from all
over Delaware.
Ms. McDermott. It is Library Legislative Day.
Senator Carper. They have literally taken over Capitol
Hill.
Ms. McDermott. Yes. A good cause.
Senator Carper. A great cause. Ms. McDermott was awarded
her doctorate from the University of Arizona in political
science and has an M.A. in political science from Brown
University, and received a degree in library and information
management from Emory University.
Ms. McDermott. Right, and my undergraduate was at Florida
State.
Senator Carper. You have moved around.
Ms. McDermott. Yes.
Senator Carper. But we are glad you are here today.
Our next witness is Thomas Blanton, Director of the
National Security Archive. I understand, Mr. Blanton, that you
have directed the Archives since 1992 and previously served as
the organization's first Director of Planning and Research,
starting in 1986. We are told, Mr. Blanton, that you are a
series editor of the Archives online and print documentary
publications and that you are a graduate of Harvard College,
which is right down the road from where my oldest boy goes to
school.
Mr. Blanton. Yes, and I am almost up there with Ms.
McDermott because I came there from Bogalusa, Louisiana, so it
was a nice migration northward, traditional Southern activity.
Senator Carper. I used to serve with a Congressman from
Louisiana who later became governor and he went to school at
Harvard, as well. But when he ran for Governor of Louisiana, he
tried not to let people know where he went to college.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Blanton. When I used to say that is where I wanted to
go to school, they would say, yes, Auburn, that is a very good
school. [Laughter.]
Senator Carper. Our third witness is Dr. Jim Henderson, who
is representing the Society of American Archivists. Dr.
Henderson served as Director of the Maine State Archives from
1987 to 2007. In that capacity, he authored several papers
relating to the proper implementation and management of
electronic records. Have you ever been to Delaware to visit us
in Dover?
Mr. Henderson. I know Tim Slavin very well, if that helps.
I have not been, though, to your archives.
Senator Carper. Mr. Slavin is not only our Director of
State Archives, but he is also a member of the Dover City
Council, so he has a couple of interesting jobs.
Dr. Henderson holds a bachelor's degree in international
relations from the University of Maine and a master's and
doctoral degree in political science also from Emory
University. Did you two know each other at that time?
Ms. McDermott. No.
Senator Carper. All right. You traveled a lot of different
paths in your life and today you come together here at this
table.
Our final witness is Dr. Martin Sherwin, University
Professor of History at George Mason University. Previously, I
understand, sir, that you were the Walter S. Dixon Professor of
English and American History at Tufts University for 27 years,
another school that my youngest one visited and liked a whole
lot.
Dr. Sherwin's recent biography of J. Robert Oppenheimer won
a 2006 Pulitzer Price for biography, the National Book Critics
Circle Award for Biography, and the English Speaking Union Book
Award. Congratulations on all those counts.
We welcome you all. We thank you for joining us. Your
entire testimonies will be made a part of the record. If you
would like to summarize, feel free, but thank you for coming.
Dr. McDermott, why don't you lead us off.
TESTIMONY OF PATRICE MCDERMOTT,\1\ DIRECTOR,
OPENTHEGOVERNMENT.ORG
Ms. McDermott. Thank you, Chairman Carper, for the
opportunity to speak today on the role of the National Archives
and Records Administration in protecting our Nation's history,
and thank you for holding this oversight hearing on the
critical issues facing our government in the area of preserving
and providing access to our history.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Ms. McDermott appears in the Appendix
on page 83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my testimony today, I want to discuss a number of roles
that NARA has traditionally held and new ones it is being
called to take on. It is critical, I think, that the
Subcommittee fully realize, as you do, that NARA is probably
the only agency in the Executive Branch that has, and is seen
by the public to have, access to government information as its
primary mission.
While that mission has been understood to encompass
primarily information that, for a variety of reasons, is deemed
historically significant, NARA is increasingly being looked to
as a site to locate new initiatives and offices pertaining to
public access to contemporaneous government information. These
include the newly mandated Office of Government Information
Services, created by the Open Government Act, and an office
that will have responsibility for implementing the Memorandum
on Designation and Sharing of Controlled Unclassified
Information, better known as sensitive but unclassified (SBU)
information. This latter office will have the task of bringing
order to the multiplicity of control markings, such as SBU,
FOUO (for official use only), across the government that are
meant to safeguard information that is not classifiable but
information that is arguably not for immediate public
disclosure.
The Open Government Act established the Office of
Government Information Services specifically at NARA. A number
of other venues were considered and they were all dismissed and
we were all agreed that NARA was the best home for this because
of its mission of providing access to public information. There
is more in my written testimony, but I just want to say today
that we urge your support of NARA's ability to create and
sustain this new office and to make it function for the benefit
of public access to Federal records within a contemporaneous
time frame. That is going to take some funding, and I know that
is not the purview of this Subcommittee but it is a major
issue.
The Controlled Unclassified Information Implementation
Office is also to be housed at NARA, and the new CUI framework
will continue to affect the media's ability to keep the public
informed and the public's ability to press government action to
improve safety and security. As laid out in the White House
memorandum, this new framework contains no opportunities for
public engagement or possibilities of review of marked
information. For those of us who care about ensuring
limitations on control markings that foreclose public access to
unknown volumes of government information, NARA is seen as a
good home. Again, this is not part of its traditional mission.
This is contemporaneous information and it will need the
necessary funds to make this work and ongoing Congressional
oversight and encouragement to make sure that it is working
properly for the benefit of the public, not just for the
benefit of government, as the structure laid out by the White
House does not lend itself to the benefit of the public. It is
not anywhere considered in the White House framework.
I want to turn now to records and e-records management. In
1982, the Committee on Records of Government proclaimed that
the United States is in danger of losing its memory. They were
talking about paper records. Our memory is at much greater risk
now, and of course this is not just the loss of our family
photos, as it were, but of that information necessary for
accountability. Across the Federal Government, we do not know
with any certainty that all of the documents and information
that we need to write our history, to understand policy
development and implementation, to trace who knew what, read
and edited what document, are being preserved.
Why is our memory in danger? Because, as you noted, the
vast majority, if not all, of our documentary and information
history is being created electronically, but not necessarily
well managed and preserved electronically. The various reasons
given for not preserving it are ones that we have all heard
before. The volume is too great. We don't have the resources to
manage all this. It is not of importance to the leadership of
our agency.
Another reason, frankly, is that Congress has been lax in
holding agencies accountable and for ensuring that records
management is seen as part of the mission critical components
of every department and agency. While Congress is rightfully
alarmed at the loss of documents and information through a
system breach, it and the Executive Branch have turned a blind
eye to their loss through indifference. The end result is the
same, except with a difference or intentional failure to
preserve, we will not necessarily know what has been taken from
us and will not be able to restore our history to its previous
status.
In a report that we cooperated in with the Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, we exposed a number of
major problems in this regard. First, there is a lack of
consistent policies, as evidenced by the fact in the study that
many respondents used multiple techniques to preserve e-mail
records at their agencies.
Second, as you have documented, movement toward electronic
records systems have been unacceptably slow. Most agencies do
not have an electronic records management system and they are
getting no real pressure from NARA to institute them.
Third, agencies lack training and compliance monitoring,
two problems that could easily be cured by reforming agency
policy and increased NARA involvement. The blame in terms of
compliance falls most squarely on NARA, which has a statutory
obligation to promulgate standards, procedures, and guidelines
and to conduct inspections or surveys of the records and
records management programs and practices within Federal
agencies. NARA has elected, however, to limit its role to
providing guidance only, with little or no agency follow-
through, and it has abandoned its practice of conducting annual
audits of agency compliance.
At a symposium last fall, NARA was told by agency personnel
that the failure to audit meant a failure of records
management. I am therefore not surprised at the testimony of
Mr. Brachfeld in this regard. NARA's approach has to change and
it is clear that this will not happen without Congressional
pressure.
A couple other things very quickly. Many of the partners in
OpenTheGovernment.org have serious concerns about the decision
of NARA not to capture a snapshot of agency websites at the end
of this administration. They are going to continue to do them
for the White House. They are going to continue to do them for
a change of Congress. We feel that these are important point-
in-time documentations of our policy and political history.
NARA did it at the end of the Clinton administration. It has
proved valuable, and we think it will prove of ongoing value in
looking from administration to administration at how things
change.
And finally, in terms of public access to the records of
our government, NARA has taken the lead to provide digital
access to non-digital records. They have also been a leader in
looking for private sector providers for digitization of
records that were created and preserved in a non-digital
format. Their practice in this area has gradually improved, but
they are also an example of a more general problem across the
Federal Government. The government is not willing to pay for
the digitization of its non-digital records or to explore non-
commercial models, such as consortia of libraries and others,
for the provision of this service.
And what happens then is that agreements are made with
commercial providers who do this for free, but the public has
very restricted access. They have to pay for it for 5 to 7 or
more years, or they have to go to a facility of the entity,
such as NARA, that has turned over its records to this private
entity. They also are not in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act--no other entity is allowed to come in and
digitize those documents. OMB did a study or did a survey in
2006 looking at these and we ask you to ask for that
information and conduct oversight.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you. I am happy
to answer any questions. I apologize for going over.
Senator Carper. Dr. McDermott, thank you very much.
Mr. Blanton, you are recognized. Please proceed. Thank you.
TESTIMONY OF THOMAS BLANTON,\1\ DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SECURITY
ARCHIVES, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
Mr. Blanton. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for holding
this hearing. You have my written statement and I would just
like to summarize and make five points.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Blanton appears in the Appendix
on page 90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First is to say where I am coming from. We file Freedom of
Information requests. We do research. We are a nongovernmental
organization. We have worked in every National Archives
facility except maybe the Herbert Hoover Library, and we
brought the lawsuit that saved 40 million White House e-mail
from the Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton Administrations.
I have to say, just commenting on the earlier panel, 20
million of the Clinton e-mail were Presidential records, but 12
million of them were Federal records. So the idea that there is
a constitutional bar against the National Archives getting
involved in the White House recordkeeping practices is absurd.
It is really a red herring. The National Archives has chosen or
been too intimidated to get involved. I just want to make that
point. That is where we are coming from.
Senator Carper. Say that again. The National Archives----
Mr. Blanton. The National Archives has been intimidated or
too shy to push the envelope. It was shy against the Reagan
White House, against the Bush I White House, against the
Clinton White House, and it is shy today. That is a kind word,
I think, for its behavior in this regard.
Senator Carper. I understand. We use code words, too.
Mr. Blanton. We use code words, too. I am trying to be nice
because I remember a Louisiana Congressman named Joe Waggoner
who said to Jack Kennedy on the campaign trail something like,
``Do you need me to come out for you or against you, whatever
would help the most.'' [Laughter.]
So I am here to help.
The second point I want to make is just the big picture.
The National Archives fundamentally is almost completely
overwhelmed, drowning in two rising tides, one electronic
records, one the classified and declassified records. I just
want to say it is a tiny agency with an enormous mission and a
level of resources--its total proposed budget is the equivalent
of one of the Marine One helicopters. They are asking for a
fleet of 28 of them to shuttle the President around, $400
million each.
So this crisis, and this is my third point, electronic
records, there are lots of data out there about it and what I
am saying about electronic records in my prepared testimony is
not new. It really comes from the National Academy of Sciences,
the National Research Council, which basically said about the
Electronic Records Archives that you heard about, cleaning up
after the fact is going to leave the National Archives behind
the curve permanently unless Congress and the Archives require
the agencies to build in archiving when they build their
systems.
Look at the White House e-mail example, the current White
House. They junked their archiving system when they moved from
one e-mail base, Lotus, to a Microsoft system. They junked
archiving, built a new e-mail system. Everybody started to use
it. Some of the people started to use the Republican National
Committee e-mail system, as well. Nobody required them to have
an archiving system. The National Archives kept having
meetings, but nobody went to them and said, you have got to
live up to the law. As soon as they junked that archiving
system, the White House was breaking the law, the Federal
Records Act and the Presidential Records Act. But what we get
from the National Archives is a list of the series of meetings
they had talking about the problem.
The National Archives can hardly even deal with the
existing backlogs--this is my fourth point--of classified and
declassified records. On declassified records, President
Clinton's Executive Order, continued by President Bush,
resulted in the release of more--declassification, I should
say--of more than a billion pages of historically valuable, 25
years old or older, records that belong to the American public,
essential to our history, essential to Marty Sherwin's work and
his Pulitzer Prize and to all of our accountability of our
government.
And yet out of that more than a billion, 400 million pages,
while they are declassified, haven't even been put on the
shelves for us to use because National Archives is so
backlogged, doesn't have the resources or the staff. At the
Ford Presidential Library, the CIA put in money to scan a bunch
of documents that had intelligence information in them, took
90,000 documents, processed them, and sent them back to the
Ford Library. Only 19,000 of those have gotten onto the
shelves. A huge backlog. The National Archives is totally
behind the curve.
The only way out, I think, is for Congress to mandate, to
change the standards, to put a statutory basis for the
classification system, change the front end. Just like you
engineer an IT system so it has archiving in it, you have got
to engineer a classification system so you actually have real
cost-benefit analysis and real disincentives for that very
first stamp that says, ``Secret,'' because that generates a
stream of costs all the way down the road.
Congress also, I think, needs to do something about
historical records and mandate--the way Congress moved on the
Nazi war crimes or the Kennedy assassination, huge successes
and major declassifications. They had new standards for the
review. They put in independent review boards and they said the
presumption is release. We have got to do that for everything
that is more than 25 years old or we are going to be sitting
there with 400 million more pages, or 800 million more pages as
a backlog a few years hence.
And the final point I just want to make, because I am
running down to my last seven seconds, is that right now, the
National Archives is drowning. And to totally push the
metaphor, there has got to be a sea change in the Archives'
role. You heard the IG down here sitting where Mr. Sherwin is
sitting today saying, we are an agency that has been
historically afraid to ask for the resources we really need.
Well, the National Archives is also an agency that has been
historically afraid to ask other agencies to obey the law,
especially the White House, and Congress is going to have to do
the backbone transplant.
The National Archives has the authority, the legal
authority under the Federal Records Act, to tell the White
House how to keep its e-mail, but it is not doing it. Congress
needs to go in there, mandate those standards, mandate the
archiving standards to the agencies. They spend $68 billion on
IT purchases per year. The Electronic Records Archives entire
annual budget for next year is only $67 million, a drop in the
bucket. Clean up after the fact.
On the classification system, agencies spend $8 billion
minimum, probably more, on classifying and keeping the record,
only $44 million on release. Congress has got to tell them they
have got to do better. Take 5 percent of your total cost and do
your clean-up, and that is the only way we are going to get out
of the mess.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Carper. Thank you for your testimony and the
helpful way you constructed and presented it. Thank you very
much.
Dr. Henderson, welcome. Thank you for joining us.
TESTIMONY OF JAMES S. HENDERSON,\1\ FORMER STATE ARCHIVIST,
STATE OF MAINE, REPRESENTING THE SOCIETY OF AMERICAN ARCHIVISTS
Mr. Henderson. Thank you, Chairman Carper. As you
mentioned, I served as the Director of the Maine State Archives
and I have got similar anecdotes that unfortunately would----
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Henderson appears in the Appendix
on page 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Carper. Who appointed you?
Mr. Henderson. I was appointed by the Secretary of State in
a very interesting fashion, and nominated by the Secretary of
State, confirmed by the State Senate, and the salary has to be
approved by the Governor, so it is in all kinds of ``don't mess
with this guy.'' And a 6-year term, by the way.
Senator Carper. A 6-year term, OK. Thank you.
Mr. Henderson. Yes. well, I wasn't afraid to ask a lot of
times, but I didn't get the answers that we wanted much of the
time. But for now, I have maintained my contents with the
archival community since last year and today I am representing
the Society of American Archivists.
Just a bit about them. They were founded in 1936 and the
Society is the largest organization of professional archivists,
with 5,200 members in the United States and abroad. Just
specifically, archivists ensure authenticity, integrity,
preservation of and access to historical records, and
authenticity means is this really a Jefferson paper or not and
make sure you keep that information.
We believe that this important oversight hearing is long
overdue. The National Archives and Records Administration and
the National Historical Publications and Records Commission are
essential to ensuring government accountability and
documentation of our history. They have been overlooked and
underfunded for far too long, in our opinion.
I touch briefly on three key areas: The challenge of
managing Federal electronic records, the importance of, if I
may, NHPRC, and the connection between records management and
freedom of information.
NARA and others have struggled for decades with the
challenges of managing electronic records. In fact, just as an
aside, the NHPRC funded a retreat for archivists in the 1990s
that attempted to educate us about just what was coming down
the pike and also shortly thereafter we had the demonstration
of Armstrong v. The Executive Office of the President by the
National Security Archives, saying these things really are
records. But we had to bring those things back to our States.
NARA's Electronic Records Archives project stems from years
of basic research such as this, including how to even define
records in the new environment and keep them accessible over
hundreds of years. Many records will remain outside the
Electronic Records Archives and be lost if agencies fail at
least to follow NARA's guidance. This will not be a priority
unless Congress mandates it and provides necessary funding.
NARA is no match for a huge agency serving substantial
political constituencies with little regard to records
management, and here is true confession No. 1 on my life.
In the bureaucracy before becoming the State Archivist, I
was in the Secretary of State's office as a Deputy Secretary of
State and this nice lady came by one day to help me schedule my
records and organize those things and, wait a minute, I had
elections to run and corporations to file and I really did not
understand what I should have understood, but somebody should
have rapped me on the head at that point. But that is the
problem. It is not a priority for many of these agencies.
Slowing the loss of these records requires close scrutiny
by Congress, some tolerance for uneven progress, and adequate
funding of the Electronic Records Archives.
Now to the National Historical Publications and Records
Commission. NHPRC helps Archives preserve and provide access to
historical records. It is the only Federal program that
concentrates on archival records that convey, among other
things, a shared national experience from generation to
generation, something that we need especially in these days of
increased migration and the more complexity of our own
population. Documenting personal rights is another element of
these records, and providing evidence to hold governments
accountable.
Since 1964, NHPRC has awarded over $175 million to 4,300
projects in 50 States. It has helped State archives preserve a
detailed record of State-operated Federal programs and
supported regrant projects in local communities, with $5.8
million matched by State funds of $8.4 million and additional
funds by the local groups themselves. Regrant is something
where NHPRC gives a State money to then grant these smaller
institutions.
Today, community record repositories, however, these
smaller institutions, receive electronic equivalents of the old
Civil War letter, the business journal, or the community
photographs. Digital photos, spreadsheets, even e-mails often
literally sit on a shelf or on a hard drive in an aging
computer. Without attention, they die.
Two electronic records grants were crucial to Maine. One
produced a strategic grant for managing electronic records,
providing the guidance needed to educate the State's
information technology agencies about the preservation
challenges. The second supported the Maine Geoarchives that now
captures, appraises, and preserves Geographic Information
System records. Both of these provided the credibility and
expertise of the Archives to become a lead agency for planning
a well-managed e-mail system which should improve retention,
speed retrieval for legal discovery and Freedom of Information
requests, and enhance agency efficiencies.
But for the fourth consecutive year, the President has
proposed no funding. The Society of American Archivists
strongly objects and asks Congress to appropriate the fiscal
year 2009 funding at the fully authorized level of $10 million
for the grants and $2 million for administration.
H.R. 5582 would reauthorize the NHPRC at an annual level of
$20 million for the years 2010 through 2014. We urge you to
introduce and speed passage of the companion bill.
Finally, on Freedom of Information, I was and continue to
be a member of Maine's Freedom of Information Coalition, which
includes news media and public interest groups. An effective
archives and records management program is inseparable, I
believe--we believe--from an effective Freedom of Information
policy. Without the requirements to retain the records, Freedom
of Information requests and Congressional requests would return
very little useful information. The Society of American
Archivists supports sufficient funding for the Office of
Government Information Services and its Freedom of Information
Act ombudsman within NARA.
Finally, archival institutions have looked to NARA as a
model for records management and preservation. Its work has
been vital to develop needed standards, policies, and
legislation. We hope you will continue these oversight
hearings, recognizing the critical importance of NARA and the
work of the NHPRC, and will provide the funding to get that job
done well.
Thank you for the opportunity.
Senator Carper. Dr. Henderson, thank you very much.
Our last witness on this panel and this day is Dr. Martin
Sherwin. Dr. Sherwin, please proceed. Thank you.
TESTIMONY OF MARTIN SHERWIN,\1\ UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR OF
HISTORY, GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY, REPRESEING THE NATIONAL
COALITION FOR HISTORY
Mr. Sherwin. Thank you, Senator Carper. I appear here today
representing the National Coalition for History (NCH), a
consortium of over 60 historically-oriented organizations under
the capable leadership of Lee White.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Sherwin appears in the Appendix
on page 104.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My full written testimony covers many issues critical to
our concerns today, including, first, the serious need to
expand the financial and human resources allotted to the
National Archives and Presidential libraries.
Second, the benefits of creating and passing a Senate
companion bill to H.R. 5582, to reauthorize the National
Historical Publications and Records Commission.
Third, funding for the repair and restoration of many of
the older Presidential libraries.
Fourth, the need to support the transfer of the manuscript
collections held by the Archives to digital formats so they may
be accessed from the web.
Fifth, the need to do something to speed up the
declassification of government records.
Sixth, the disgraceful disappearance of millions of White
House e-mails written between March and May 2003 in the run-up
to the Iraq War.
It also addresses a more general and, I think, profoundly
important issue, the relationship between Presidential records
and our democracy.
In 1941, at the dedication of his library, President
Franklin Roosevelt clearly articulated why the National
Archives and the Presidential Library System are so vital to
the vitality of our democracy. The dedication of a library is
in itself an act of faith, he said. To bring together the
records of the past and to house them in buildings where they
will be preserved for the use of men and women in the future, a
Nation must believe in three things. It must believe in the
past. It must believe in the future. It must, above all,
believe in the capacity of its own people to learn from the
past that they can gain in judgment in creating their own
future.
Forty-six years ago, I was a young Lieutenant JAG in the
U.S. Navy trying to decide whether to study law, business, or
history. Then in October 1962, I participated in the Cuban
Missile Crisis and my experiences during that extraordinary
event led me to dedicate my career to understanding the
principles, assumptions, and details of American politics and
foreign policy.
Anyone so dedicated will confirm that it is in the nature
of the political process of any government, and the U.S.
Government is no exception, that much of what we believe about
contemporary decisions will be revealed by historical research
to have been incorrect, or at best partially correct. And I
submit that our democracy cannot remain robust without this
constant historical auditing of our government's behavior.
Just as the press is the fourth estate of our democracy, it
is clear to me that President Roosevelt was making the point in
1941 that history is its fifth and equally essential estate.
Ominously, the current Administration does not appear to share
President Roosevelt's view that sustaining our way of life
depends in important ways on our access to our government's
history.
Under the Presidential Records Act of 1978, Presidential
records were to be released to historians and the public 12
years after the end of a Presidential administration. However,
in November 2001, President George W. Bush issued Executive
Order 13233 that gave current and former Presidents, their
heirs or designees, and former Vice Presidents broad authority
to withhold Presidential records or delay their release. I
consider this an outrage, nothing less than a frontal assault
on the principle of open government that sustains our
democracy.
The President and Vice President are public servants,
elected to office to serve our Nation, not as dictators, not as
they define their service, but as our laws, our traditions, and
our institutions define them. After their tenure has expired,
it is the public's right to know in a timely manner the details
of how they went about fulfilling their responsibilities. Their
actions are not a privileged secret that they and their
families have the right to control. That is how dictatorships
operate. That is how totalitarian societies function. That is a
certain recipe for corruption. I urge every Senator who is
truly committed to sustaining the future of our democracy to
vote to assure that the 1978 Presidential Records Act is
restored.
At a recent hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee
on the completion of the Founding Fathers project that received
support from the National Historical Publications and Records
Commission, Historian David McCullough said, ``you can tell a
lot about a society by how it spends its money. Here is our
chance, and it is long overdue to show what we care about, what
we value, and what we are proud to pay for.''
I join David McCullough in urging the rejection of the
President's zero funding proposal for NARA and the National
Historical Publications and Records Commission and request that
Congress appropriate funding at the fully authorized level, $10
million for the NPRC National Grants Program and an additional
$2 million for staffing and related program administration.
In conclusion, when your constituents elected each of you,
they entrusted you with great responsibilities. I submit that
one of those responsibilities is to be stalwart stewards of
America's past. Decisions you make about funding the
organizations that preserve and make available Federal and
Presidential records directly affect whether our democratic
institutions will be reinforced by a robust historical
understanding or weakened by a shallow, superficial historical
awareness. Given these options, I trust that there will be
bipartisan support for Franklin Roosevelt's vision of the
centrality of history and the vitality of our democracy.
Thank you for your time.
Senator Carper. Thank you for that excellent testimony.
Thank you so much.
Mr. Sherwin. Thank you.
Senator Carper. You were in the Navy?
Mr. Sherwin. Yes.
Senator Carper. Were you on a ship?
Mr. Sherwin. In the air. I get seasick when someone runs
the bathtub. [Laughter.]
Senator Carper. What kind of airplane?
Mr. Sherwin. P2Vs.
Senator Carper. P3. Great to see you.
Mr. Sherwin. You were lucky.
Senator Carper. Yes, we were. I did 5 years active duty in
the Vietnam War and another 18 beyond that. I would still be in
the Navy if my wife hadn't made me quit after 23 years.
Mr. Sherwin. Well, we are glad you are in the Senate.
Senator Carper. So am I, and thank you for your service to
our country.
My first question is really one I am going to ask everyone
to chime in on. I want to ask you to just step back a little
bit and to use your outside perspective, not as an IG or
someone who is actually working within the Archives office, but
how do you think the Archives is doing in fulfilling its
mission? I know many times it is easy to beat up on an agency
that is in the hot seat, but if there is anything that the
Archives is doing exceptionally well, I would like to hear
about that. If there are things that they ought to be commended
for, we would like to hear about that. Anything that you want
to highlight that you have seen and want Congress to know
about.
What would you say as outside witnesses, is the No. 1
challenge that the Archives faces today, and what advice would
you have for us in Congress as to what we ought to do about it?
And some of you have spoken to that, but repetition is not a
bad thing.
Dr. McDermott, do you want to lead that off?
Ms. McDermott. Sure. How do I think NARA is doing
fulfilling its mission? I think NARA is struggling to fulfill
its mission. One thing that wasn't in my bio is I used to work
at NARA. I worked at the Carter Presidential Library and then I
actually worked at NARA here in DC. I think they have a problem
that was addressed in the earlier testimony in that they, as
Mr. Brachfeld said, they take an approach of collegiality and
advising rather than being willing to seek the money that they
need and to take their responsibility fully to ensure that our
historical record really is being preserved.
The Archives 10 years ago adopted a records management
standard that DOD had adopted--5015, I think, something like
that--and nothing has happened. Most agencies, as I said, don't
have records management programs. They don't do records
management; NARA has abandoned its role of doing auditing. They
do training and they do guidance, but I think they really are
failing in that mission.
And I think that the Electronic Records Archives is a way
of after-the-fact, as Mr. Blanton said, dealing with that
problem, ingesting this material that they should have been
dealing with 20 years ago. I mean, it has been over 20 years
now that the government has moved to primarily digital creation
of its documents and nothing has happened. Scott Armstrong, who
helped found the National Security Archive, used to call it the
Carlin Gap, that there is a 20-year, and now a 30-year gap in
our history. We don't know if this stuff is being preserved,
the electronic documents.
So I think they are struggling, but I don't think they are
doing well and I think Mr. Blanton is right that they are
overwhelmed with the volume that is coming at them on
classified information and the electronic records that are
coming at them, and now they have these new missions that are
arguably different. They are dealing with contemporaneous
issues and contemporaneous records.
So I think they need strong oversight. And I think they
need to be pushed to seek more funding and then that funding
needs to be overseen.
Senator Carper. Thank you. Mr. Blanton.
Mr. Blanton. I want to say a few good things about the
National Archives, which is in my experience at so many of
these facilities, the National Archives has a phenomenally
professional, responsive staff that put up with onerous
researchers who come in and make huge requests for records and
want to scan everything yesterday. They are phenomenally
responsive to their customers. They have a very high standard.
And I think, having done research in archives around the
world, from Jakarta to Moscow to Guatemala City, I say in the
testimony, and there are a lot more places we have been, I
would say every one of those folks comes to College Park or
comes down here on the Mall and looks at our National Archives
and says, well, that is the world class standard, and that is
true. All that is true, and much to their credit.
And when there is a crisis, like when we found the CIA and
the Air Force stuffing previously released public documents
back into the vault, or as the Washington Post called it,
toothpaste back in the tube, Dr. Weinstein and his tremendous
staff did absolutely the right thing, did an audit, showed the
problem, and while the agency shoved 25,000 documents, hundreds
of thousands of pages back into the vault before the audit,
since the audit and those standards, seven documents. So they
do the right thing when they see it on the front page or they
get a call from the U.S. Senate to go do it.
I outlined what I thought were the two big challenges, the
electronic avalanche and the classified and declassified--there
is a new mountain range of classified secrets being created
today under new pressures from the War on Terror using old Cold
War thinking, when even Donald Rumsfeld's own Defense
Department said that 50 percent of what is classified shouldn't
be, over-classified. Well, in that situation, think about the
cost structure of that. If we are spending more than $8 billion
on keeping the secrets and yet $4 billion of it is unnecessary,
and it is more than unnecessary, it does damage to our national
security to keep those secrets or keep making our own system
more inefficient.
So I think advice to Congress on those challenges, I think
you have got to get in on the front end. You have got to set
the standards for the agencies. It is not just a matter of
giving money to the National Archives because you give money to
the National Archives to do the Electronic Records Archives
initiative. You are still behind the curve unless you tell the
Pentagon, take your $30 billion you are spending on information
technology and put archiving requirements in there. And when
you make a system, build it so that it will produce a document
that can be released to the public.
The CIA spent tens of millions of dollars on this Remote
Archives Capture project and it helped the National Archives a
lot to try to address this huge load of classified documents.
But there is no net output because the CIA didn't design that
system to ever put those documents online. So now they have
been processed digitally here in Washington. They come back to
a Presidential library and those poor archivists have to print
them out, review the printout, and then walk the printout to a
Hollinger box and stick it into a file before you or I can get
to see it. That is absurd. That is a total waste. So we have
got to design our systems on the front end, and I think
Congress is going to have to mandate that.
Senator Carper. All right. Thank you. Same question, Dr.
Henderson?
Mr. Henderson. I have less inside scoop on what has
actually been going on in many respects, but from the distance
point of view, the DOD standard which I actually have committed
to memory, which is 5015.2----
Ms. McDermott. Right. Thank you.
Mr. Henderson [continuing]. Is an incredibly detailed
functional requirements for records management applications.
This is something, though, as I mentioned, back in the 1990s
people were starting to even think about the functional
requirement for records management applications and just what
it ought to be. And NHPRC and NARA supported that thinking, so
I would give them mega-points for just even getting people to
understand this.
I think, though, what could be done more would certainly be
to transfer some of that operational knowledge to some of the
State archives in some formal way. I think we often struggle
out in the provinces, even though we go to the national
meetings and we know the people, but I don't think--that has
not been one of the spin-offs of maybe a lot of knowledge that
has been created within NARA and should be.
And the other clearly is the advocacy for the funding. It
is just part of the mission, I think, is to advocate. So if it
isn't heard, then it ought to be clarified and it ought to be
clear who heard the message, why it hasn't been responded to,
and clearly the magnitude of the funds necessary versus other
priorities are just completely out of whack since if we don't
spend the resources at the front end and now, we are basically
saying this is not as important as we all say it is when we
have our flags on our lapel pins and we go out campaigning. But
this really isn't as important as a few pigs in a poke.
Senator Carper. All right. Thank you.
The last word here, Dr. Sherwin, on this particular issue.
I have one more question, and then we are going to wrap it up.
Go ahead, Dr. Sherwin, please.
Mr. Sherwin. I just want to say that I agree with
everything that Tom Blanton especially said.
Senator Carper. Everything?
Mr. Sherwin. Yes, everything. Everything. [Laughter.]
Senator Carper. Has this happened before, Mr. Blanton?
Mr. Blanton. Never. [Laughter.]
In fact, I lectured in a series at the University of
Delaware hosted by the distinguished journalist Ralph Begleiter
and----
Senator Carper. I was just with Ralph on Saturday.
Mr. Blanton [continuing]. I never list that in my resume
because of the title he put on the lecture series. It was,
``Spies, Lies, and Sneaky Guys.'' I was the only non-spy on the
panel. [Laughter.]
Senator Carper. All right. Thanks.
Mr. Sherwin. Well, asking a historian about the National
Archives experience is like asking a shopper who goes into a
department store. If you find just what you are looking for on
sale and you have a great sales person, you are happy as a
clown, and that has happened to me frequently. Occasionally, I
have had the opposite experience. What the internal structures
are and the internal problems are that lead to the opposite
experience, I can't say. But I think Mr. Blanton has put his
finger on it.
I think the most important thing for the near future is
getting everything digitized and up online, and I think that
the National Security Archive is really the model. Now, the
National Archives, of course, are orders of magnitude, tens of
thousands of orders of magnitude larger organization, and
therefore much larger problem. But the process of digitizing
all this and getting it online will also lead to a much more
efficient declassification process because you can find words
in there and you can go through hundreds of thousands of
documents at once, and if none of the one million words that
indicate that this might be a classified document are in any of
these documents, bingo, they are declassified and that is the
end of it.
And the last thing I want to say is remind us all about the
Pentagon Papers. I mean, those were top secret documents and
they were released in the early 1970s. What harm did that do to
the Nation? We knew more about why we were involved in that war
and that was important to know. I think the Pentagon Papers is
something that really should be looked at in terms of its
impact on politics and the whole classification idea.
Mr. Henderson. Mr. Chairman, would you tolerate just a
minute?
Senator Carper. Yes, just briefly. Go ahead.
Mr. Henderson. Yes, and that raises the issue of
digitization, which certainly isn't immediate gratification but
it is a long-term royal pain and expense. So we just have to
keep that in mind, that these electronic records are not, as
everybody is saying, like the nice paper you put on the shelf
that is going to last 400 years. It won't. It requires a lot of
capital investment and long-term amortization of the cost of
doing those things.
So what I would be concerned about is as digitization is
important for access, needless to say, preservation is so
critical that we don't want to get further behind on that side
of the coin.
Senator Carper. OK. The last question that I wanted to ask
focuses on a point that several of you have made. As somebody
who has spent some time in the military and here in the
Congress, as well, the notion that we sometimes over-classify
information and continue to over-classify it and are reluctant
to declassify information.
I have someone waiting in my office who has been waiting
now for a half-an-hour for me, and I need to go there in
preparation for a markup on the Banking Committee on which I
serve tomorrow on two significant pieces of legislation. I am
being rude to them, and what I am going to have to do is draw
this to a close. But rather than ask this question and one or
two others that I have orally, what I would like to do is
submit them electronically----
Mr. Blanton. We will archive them for you, if you would
like.
Senator Carper. I was hoping that you might.
Mr. Henderson. If they are deemed worthy.
Senator Carper. I have a couple more questions I would like
to submit. Others on our Subcommittee may have questions, as
well, to submit, and I would just ask that when you get the
questions to try and respond to them promptly. We would be most
grateful.
You have been very generous with your time today. This has
been enjoyable, and frankly, for me, quite informative. It is
nice to connect with a fellow Navy P2, P3 colleague, as well.
So we will look forward to submitting a couple of questions in
writing. We just ask that you respond.
With that having been said, I am going to declare this
hearing adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 5:25 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3913.107