    [House Hearing, 111 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

    STAKEHOLDERS' VIEWS ON THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION
                                     [NARA]

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                      SUBCOMMITTEE ON INFORMATION POLICY,
                         CENSUS, AND NATIONAL ARCHIVES

                                     of the

                             COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
                             AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                  MAY 21, 2009

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 111-26

                                   __________

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

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

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    54-079 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2009
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
    area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104  Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
    20402-0001

                  COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

                       EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York, Chairman
    PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania      DARRELL E. ISSA, California
    CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York         DAN BURTON, Indiana
    ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland         JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
    DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio             JOHN L. MICA, Florida
    JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts       MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
    WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri              TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
    DIANE E. WATSON, California          JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
    STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts      MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
    JIM COOPER, Tennessee                LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
    GERRY E. CONNOLLY, Virginia          PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
    MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois               BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
    MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio                   JIM JORDAN, Ohio
    ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of   JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
        Columbia                         JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
    PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island     JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah
    DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois             AARON SCHOCK, Illinois
    CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
    HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
    PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire
    CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
    PETER WELCH, Vermont
    BILL FOSTER, Illinois
    JACKIE SPEIER, California
    STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio
    ------ ------

                          Ron Stroman, Staff Director
                    Michael McCarthy, Deputy Staff Director
                          Carla Hultberg, Chief Clerk
                      Larry Brady, Minority Staff Director

       Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives

                       WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri, Chairman
    PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania      PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
    CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York         LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
    ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of   JOHN L. MICA, Florida
        Columbia                         JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah
    DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
    STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio
    DIANE E. WATSON, California
                         Darryl Piggee, Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on May 21, 2009.....................................     1
    Statement of:
        McDermott, Patrice, director, Openthegovernment.org; Meredith
          Fuchs, general counsel, National Security Archives, George
          Washington University; and Lee White, executive director,
          National Coalition on History..............................    16
            Fuchs, Meredith..........................................    34
            McDermott, Patrice.......................................    16
            White, Lee...............................................    46
    Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
        Clay, Hon. Wm. Lacy, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Missouri, prepared statement of...................     3
        Fuchs, Meredith, general counsel, National Security Archives,
          George Washington University, prepared statement of........    36
        McDermott, Patrice, director, Openthegovernment.org, prepared
          statement of...............................................    19
        McHenry, Hon. Patrick T., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of North Carolina, prepared statement of.........     9
        Watson, Hon. Diane E., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of California, prepared statement of.................    12
        White, Lee, executive director, National Coalition on
          History:
            Followup response........................................    59
            Prepared statement of....................................    48

    STAKEHOLDERS' VIEWS ON THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION
                                     [NARA]

                                  ----------

                             THURSDAY, MAY 21, 2009

                      House of Representatives,
       Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and
                                     National Archives,
                  Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in
    room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Clay, McHenry, Norton, Watson, and
    Westmoreland.
        Staff present: Darryl Piggee, staff director/counsel;
    Michelle Mitchell and Alissa Bonner, professional staff
    members; Jean Gosa, clerk; Ron Stroman, staff director, full
    committee; Carla Hultberg, chief clerk, full committee; Adam
    Hodge, deputy press secretary, full committee; John Cuaderes,
    minority deputy staff director; Adam Fromm, minority chief
    clerk and Member liaison; Howard Denis, minority senior
    counsel; and Jonathan Skladany, minority counsel.
        Mr. Clay. The hearing on Information Policy, Census, and
    National Archives will come to order.
        Good afternoon, and the subcommittee of the Oversight and
    Government Reform Committee will now come to order. Without
    objection, the Chair and ranking minority member will have 5
    minutes to make opening statements, followed by opening
    statements not to exceed 3 minutes by any other Member who
    seeks recognition. Without objection, Members and witnesses may
    have 5 legislative days to submit a written statement or
    extraneous material for the record.
        Welcome to today's oversight hearing entitled,
    ``Stakeholders' Views on the National Archives and Records
    Administration [NARA]. The purpose of today's hearing is to
    examine issues that President Obama's administration should
    consider in selecting the next Archivist of the United States
    of America. We will consider several important topics,
    including NARA's strategic plan, the Freedom of Information
    Act, the Presidential Library Donation Act, the Office of
    Government Information Services Act, the collection and storage
    of historical records and the staffing of NARA facilities.
        The National Archives and Records Administration is the
    Nation's record keeper. Its stated mission is to serve American
    democracy by safeguarding and preserving the records of our
    Government. As we will hear from our witnesses today, the next
    Archivist must have the requisite knowledge and skills to
    fulfill this mission using 21st century tools. It is this
    subcommittee's hope that our hearing today will provide the
    President with some valuable information that he can use in
    selecting the next Archivist.
        Before we go to our witnesses, I would like to address the
    recent findings of NARA's Inspector General on the loss of
    records. The NARA Inspector General has repeated a serious
    security breach at the National Archives concerning certain
    Clinton administration documents. Chairman Towns has stated the
    committee's position on the matter, that the committee will do
    everything possible to protect the integrity of the FBI's
    criminal investigation while we fulfill our constitutional duty
    to investigate the compromised security protocols at the
    National Archives and work to prevent future incidents.
        The committee will hold briefings into this matter with
    NARA and the FBI so committee members can begin to understand
    the magnitude of the security breach and all the steps being
    taken to recover the lost information. It is my hope that we
    can work with the minority to accomplish this.
        Now, onto today's topic. I now yield to the distinguished
    ranking minority member, Mr. McHenry of North Carolina.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. McHenry. Thank you, Chairman Clay. Thank you for
    holding this hearing, especially in light of the recent reports
    we have out of the National Archives. I appreciate your
    leadership in working with the minority side of the aisle as
    well.
        The National Archives is an agency with extremely important
    functions, we all know that. The archiving of our Government's
    valuable records requires a methodical approach to guarantee
    the preservation of documents within continuing value to the
    American people. Some of these records contain highly sensitive
    information and these records must be secured to protect
    national security and personally identifiable information as
    well.
        The effectiveness of the Archives as protector of the
    records under its control is a piece of the national security
    puzzle. This is why I am so troubled by the pattern of careless
    handling of sensitive material by the Archives. This week, the
    Inspector General of the Archives described a potentially
    catastrophic loss of data to our committee staff. The Inspector
    General, with the assistance of the Justice Department and the
    Secret Service, is currently investigating the loss of a hard
    drive containing one terabyte of data derived from records from
    the Clinton Presidency that went missing from the Archives'
    College Park facility.
        A terabyte of data is approximately equivalent to several
    million books. We are trying to get an exact description of how
    many pages of text that would be, but it is certainly hundreds
    of millions of pages of data. Data on drives include more than
    100,000 Social Security numbers, contact information and home
    addresses for various Clinton administration officials, Secret
    Service and White House operating procedures, event logs,
    social gathering logs, political records and other highly
    sensitive information. The full extent of the contents of the
    drive is still being investigated. The IG characterized the
    violation as ``the greatest loss ever and troubling and
    amazing.''
        The IG described to us an environment at the College Park
    facility where hundreds of employees have access to sensitive
    data, where janitors, visitors, interns and others with no
    clearance are able to walk through areas where hard drives
    containing national security secrets are just lying around. In
    fact, Archives employees use the area where the hard drives
    were left out as a shortcut to the bathroom. Now, apparently
    another room is too warm and they have to keep the door open
    for cooling purposes, a bizarre enough story.
        This incident should be troubling if it weren't isolated.
    But it is even more alarming because of its part as a larger
    pattern. All you have to do is read the reports released by the
    IG over the last few years to see the loss of this hard drive
    as just the latest example of carelessness at the Archives.
    Archives employees were accidentally or intentionally throwing
    away original Bureau of Indian Affairs records so frequently
    that a rule was put in place that required security officers
    and janitors to check the trash before it was taken out. These
    records are irreplaceable, and they were being thrown in the
    trash by Archives employees and personnel.
        The failures of the Archives' security protocols are
    seemingly endless. In 2007, an annual inventory identified as
    missing approximately 559 pieces of equipment, including items
    with memory storage capabilities and the potential of storing
    sensitive personal identifying information on them. A report
    published in 2006 revealed that the CIA and other Federal
    agencies had to reclassify over 55,000 pages of records taken
    from the open shelves of the Archives.
        But we can't forget the incident in 2005, with former
    President Clinton advisor Sandy Berger, National Security
    Advisor, and he plead guilty to unlawfully removing documents
    from the Archives. Apparently he was stuffing them in his
    socks. There are proper protocols here, and this shouldn't be a
    partisan issue. Historians want access to these records to give
    an original account and an accurate account of American
    history. It is not simply a Clinton administration issue or a
    Bush administration issue. It is truly preserving our Nation's
    history.
        Yesterday the Partnership for Public Service and American
    University's Institute for the Study of Public Policy
    Implementation released their report of best and worst places
    to work in the Federal Government in 2009. Not surprisingly,
    the National Archives was one of the worst. It ranked 29 out of
    30 overall. Now, this is unfortunate. Not only are the
    employees unhappy, but we are not even protecting our Nation's
    history.
        In the categories of leadership supervisors and strategic
    management, the Archives ranked a paltry 22, 20 and 21
    respectively. This is unfortunate. We have to change the
    culture in the Archives and make sure that we protect our
    Nation's data. Acting Archivist Adrienne Thomas was invited to
    appear here today but she declined. Ms. Thomas decided that her
    presence at a ribbon cutting ceremony was of far greater
    importance.
        Mr. Chairman, I hope that we will be able to invite her in
    and have a hearing on that, or at the very least, the new
    Archivist that the President appointments.
        Now, back to Ms. Thomas, her failure to grasp the gravity
    of the situation is shocking. She certainly has something to
    explain. She has a lot of explaining to do here to Congress and
    the American people and her employees.
        And there are immediate questions that she needs to be here
    today to answer. Has an inventory been done to determine if any
    other records are missing? That is a very important question.
    And what immediate security measures have been taken to prevent
    further loss or theft?
        Given the pattern of mismanagement and careless at the
    National Archives, I look forward to working with Chairman Clay
    and the committee majority to schedule a hearing with Ms.
    Thomas as soon as possible. We have to give her the opportunity
    to account for the negligence within the Archives and account
    to Congress what we must do to fulfill our obligations to
    future generations.
        We are here today to discuss the qualifications that
    President Obama should be looking for in a new Archivist. It is
    clear that a replacement for Ms. Thomas can't come fast enough.
    The input of professionals from the Archives would be helpful,
    but there is not, unfortunately, a single representative from
    the Archives here today. And that is unfortunate.
        I thank the witnesses for being here. You are certainly
    experts in the field and we certainly appreciate that, for the
    record, in giving us guidelines going forward.
        Thank you, Chairman Clay, for your leadership and thank you
    for your hard work on this matter and the Census as well.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Patrick T. McHenry
    follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. McHenry, and you can be assured
    that the committee members will be briefed on everything that
    took place at NARA as well as we will eventually get the Acting
    Director here.
        Are there any other committee members that would like to
    make an opening statement? Ms. Watson of California, you are
    recognized for 3 minutes.
        Ms. Watson. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for holding
    today's hearing to bring together various stakeholders to share
    their views on the issues that are of particular concern as the
    Obama administration selects a new Archivist of the United
    States to lead the National Archives and Records
    Administration.
        As the guardian of the historical record of the United
    States, it is imperative that the NARA is run effectively and
    innovatively to protect our Nation's civic narrative for
    current and future generations of inquisitive Americans who
    seek greater understanding of who we are. Finding a new
    Archivist who advocates for transparency, who understands and
    who anticipates the challenges that the NARA may face, and who
    possesses the expertise to implement technology which can
    expedite access to our Nation's records are all critical to
    guaranteeing the NARA is capable of protecting the integrity of
    our national records.
        The next Archivist of the United States must ensure that
    the NARA is equipped with an effective and consistent system
    for electronic records management. And we do hope that the
    Obama administration may have as its legacy an accurate record
    of America's policies, activities and a bit of its history.
        An effective electronic records management system, which
    can process this massive backlog, should also possess the
    ability to assist in the declassification of eligible Federal
    and Presidential records. With approximately 400 million pages
    of valuable documents frozen in a system which grows by 25
    million pages per year, it is critically important that the
    next Archivist takes a proactive approach to modernizing this
    system so that Americans can have timely access to the
    documents which bring context to our national experience.
        I would like all of today's witnesses, I would like to
    thank them for appearing before this committee and their
    testimony will provide invaluable insight into the criteria the
    Obama administration should consider in selecting a new
    Archivist of the United States.
        Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Diane E. Watson follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Clay. Thank you, Ms. Watson, for the opening statement.
        If there are no additional opening statements, Mr.
    Westmoreland has indicated to me he does not have one, the
    subcommittee will now receive testimony from the witnesses
    before us today.
        I want to start by introducing our panel. Our first witness
    is Dr. Patrice McDermott, director of OpenTheGovernment.org.
    Our next witness is Ms. Meredith Fuchs, and she is the General
    Counsel for the National Security archives. And our final
    witness will be Mr. Lee White, executive director of the
    National Coalition on History.
        Welcome to all three. As a note, before we begin, two
    witnesses scheduled today were unable to attend. They are
    Acting Archivist Adrienne Thomas and Dr. Thomas C. Battle, from
    Howard University, who represents the Society of American
    Archivists.
        I thank all of our witnesses for appearing today and look
    forward to their testimony. It is the policy of the Oversight
    Committee to swear in our witnesses before they testify. Would
    you all please stand and raise your right hands?
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Clay. Let the record reflect that the witnesses
    answered in the affirmative. You may be seated. And I ask that
    each of the witnesses now give a brief summary of their
    testimony. Please limit your summary to 5 minutes and the
    little light on the desk will indicate when your 5 minutes is
    up. Your complete written statement will be included in the
    hearing record.
        Ms. McDermott, please begin with your opening statement.

              STATEMENTS OF PATRICE McDERMOTT, DIRECTOR,
        OPENTHEGOVERNMENT.ORG; MEREDITH FUCHS, GENERAL COUNSEL,
     NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVES, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY; AND
      LEE WHITE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL COALITION ON HISTORY

                     STATEMENT OF PATRICE McDERMOTT

        Ms. McDermott. Thank you, Chairman Clay, Mr. McHenry and
    members of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to speak today
    on the issues that the Obama administration should consider in
    selecting the next Archivist of the United States.
        My name is Patrice McDermott, and I am director of
    OpenTheGovernment.org, a coalition of more than 70 consumer and
    good government groups, library associations, journalists,
    environmentalists, labor organizations and others united to
    make the Federal Government a more open place in order to
    strengthen public trust in Government, make us safer and
    support our democratic principles.
        One of my former colleague who recently retired from NARA
    said, ``I believe in NARA--as an ideal.'' I think that is where
    those of us on this panel and our colleagues in the public
    interest community stand as well. We do this because NARA is
    probably the only agency in the executive branch that has, and
    is seen by the public to have, access to Government information
    as its primary mission.
        NARA has primarily understood its mission to encompass
    information that, for a variety of reasons, is historically
    significant. This understanding of its mission is reflected in
    its leadership and its staff. While the employees of NARA are
    dedicated civil servants, and there are many talented
    individuals working there, the agency does have a tendency to
    be inward-looking and focused on the past. The perception of
    NARA is that it is primarily reactive, not proactive. And we
    know that NARA has preferred to take a collegial, rather than a
    leadership stance, with the agencies and within the Government
    overall.
        The critical position of NARA in both the life cycle
    management of the records of our Federal Government and the
    mounting challenges the Government faces in this area
    necessitate that the culture and stance of NARA change. NARA is
    increasingly being asked to take on new challenges and is
    looked to as a site to locate new initiatives and offices
    pertaining to public access to contemporaneous Government
    information. These include the Office of Government Information
    Services, created by the Open Government Act, an office that
    will have responsibility for implementing the memorandum on
    designation and sharing of controlled, unclassified
    information, better known as sensitive but unclassified
    information.
        Moreover, NARA has another primary mission that receives an
    insufficient amount of the agency's attention and resources:
    records administration. Many of us in the public access
    community are deeply concerned about how NARA is addressing its
    responsibility for records management and provision of access
    to the records of our Nation. This is especially true for e-
    records.
        NARA's 2006 to 2016 Strategic Plan is indicative of the
    reasons for our concerns. It has a total of 1.5 pages on
    records administration and one vague strategy for electronic
    records management. That is accompanied by a strategy on
    physical records storage.
        Indeed, the strong and evident focus on the Strategic Plan
    is on the Archives portion of NARA's mission, the first A,
    combined with an emphasis on civic education and exhibits. The
    perception reinforced by conversations with current and former
    NARA staff is that the agency increasingly understands itself
    as a museum.
        The former Archivist, Dr. Weinstein, moved the agency in
    some good directions with the use of technology. NARA's use of
    technology, though, appears to be focused on, again, making
    NARA a museum, rather than a lead agency on life cycle
    management of records for public access. Recent history shows,
    however, that we need an Archivist who has a proven record of
    standing up for open government. Dr. Weinstein took good
    positions on open government when crises arose, but did not put
    the agency in a leadership stance.
        That is an approach we can no longer afford. We need an
    Archivist who understands NARA is not just a museum of
    historical documents, but is a steward responsible for securing
    the integrity of Government records. He or she must be able to
    lead NARA to embrace the role of catalyst for the information
    revolution and enunciate clear, consistent and practical
    electronic record policies.
        More important, most importantly, we need an Archivist that
    will lead the Government to meet the new challenges of managing
    and preserving electronic records, including emails. Records
    management must not be about cleaning up messes after they
    occur, but taking the proactive steps necessary to prevent the
    loss of our documentary record.
        The new Archivist needs to be a visionary in terms of the
    importance and public use of Government records in all forms
    and formats and throughout their life cycle, and so needs to
    have a strong familiarity with technology as a tool. She or he
    also needs to be someone who understands and appreciates
    records management, again, throughout the life cycle, not just
    of records that will be archived.
        The public and the Government need an Archivist who can
    provide vision and leadership for the Federal Government and
    foster successful partnerships with history and access
    professionals inside and outside Government. The key
    qualification is his or her commitment to maintaining the
    record of our national Government and meeting the mandates of
    law.
        Because the next Archivist will have so many challenges--am
    I out of time? I have one more page. We recommend that a second
    tier political appointee be created to serve a chief of staff
    type position and to manage and enliven the bureaucracy at
    NARA. This would free the Archivist to assume the needed
    leadership role and might attract candidates who have the
    vision to move the agency and to assist the President in moving
    forward.
        The new Archivist and this second person should give the
    CUI office and the Office of Government Information services
    the support and independence that the Information Security
    Oversight has. For OGIS, this independence is particularly
    important, because OGIS must also oversee NARA's own
    significant involvement with FOIA.
        In order for President Obama's day one promises on
    transparency to have any meaningful impact, immediate steps
    must be taken to protect the integrity of Government records
    throughout their life cycle, from creation to permanent
    preservation or authorized destruction.
        Thank you for the opportunity to speak on these important
    issues. I am happy to answer any questions you might have.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. McDermott follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Clay. Thank you, Ms. McDermott.
        Ms. Fuchs, you may proceed.

                      STATEMENT OF MEREDITH FUCHS

        Ms. Fuchs. Thank you. Chairman Clay, members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify today about
    the National Archives and Records Administration. I have
    submitted a written statement that details my organization's
    experience with NARA, so you will be happy to know I am going
    to only focus on a few points right now.
        We understand that the White House is actively currently
    assessing candidates for the office of Archivist of the United
    States. I am hopeful that the members of this subcommittee will
    let the White House know that the next Archivist must be
    someone who is eager to confront the challenges that are facing
    NARA and should be someone who has the authority and the
    management skills to have a significant impact.
        I want to preface my remarks to say that my organization
    works very regularly with NARA officials and we strongly
    support their mission. In the years that I have focused on
    information policy, NARA officials have always taken our
    concerns seriously. They have always been responsive when we
    have called upon them. But our experience is that NARA has
    failed to take leadership amongst Government agencies in the
    area where it has unique expertise, and in my view,
    responsibility.
        My written submission describes the divergence between a
    view of NARA primarily as a museum of the past and a view of
    NARA as a critical component in our Government's overall
    information policy. From the outside, to us, NARA often seems
    to act like a disengaged bureaucrat, mechanically doing its
    work, when it should be leading change. Right now, NARA has the
    opportunity to lead the change that President Obama has called
    for in his transparency directives.
        We believe NARA can only fulfill this mission, however, if
    it starts its work long before the boxes of old documents make
    their way to NARA's warehouses. I am going to highlight four
    critical areas that I think will require the Archivist's
    immediate attention.
        The first is electronic records management and the records
    life cycle. If there is one knowledge base that the new
    Archivist should have, it is of electronic records and records
    life cycle management. NARA must solve the problem of long-term
    storage and preservation and on that front, I urge this
    committee to inquire of NARA into the functioning of the
    electronic records archives.
        But NARA also must lead the charge in getting the Federal
    agencies to learn how to manage their records. Agencies have a
    legal obligation to preserve records of historical
    significance. They must have their records disposition
    schedules approved by NARA, but we know of very few instances
    where NARA has taken strong action to enforce the law.
        The second issue is classified records. I believe most
    people at NARA would agree with me that the classified and
    declassified records process is inefficient, time-consuming and
    ineffective. I am not going to spend much time on it, but I
    would say that we strongly support the establishment of a well-
    funded national declassification and historical records center
    at NARA that will make the growing volume of currently
    inaccessible records available to the public. The new Archivist
    should spearhead efforts to gain agency cooperation and advance
    the necessary legislative changes to make this a reality and
    quickly.
        The third area is Presidential records and Presidential
    libraries. NARA's effectiveness at preserving Presidential
    records is an area of grave concern. The Oversight Committee
    has heard over many years about mismanagement of Presidential
    records and problems with the Presidential library system. I am
    not going to revisit all of those details today, but I do think
    that NARA at least does appear to view itself as powerless to
    oversee Presidential recordkeeping. This is their view even in
    the case of legitimate concerns that records may be missing or
    destroyed.
        It also is faced with tremendous challenges regarding the
    Presidential library system. NARA is currently undergoing a
    process to assess alternative models for Presidential
    libraries. I urge this committee to inquire of NARA on the
    details of its process and to ensure that they are considering
    all alternative models in that process.
        Finally, I am going to highlight my fourth concern, which
    is the issue of access. I urge the next Archivist to be someone
    who can view access through the lens of President Obama's
    January 21st, Open Government memorandum. He or she should have
    a vision for Archives 2.0, so that they can serve a new
    generation of researchers.
        So what does this all mean for the selection of the new
    Archivist? The person who is chosen must be someone who doesn't
    only care about history, but also understands what is coming in
    the future. They have to understand the promise of technology
    and frankly, they should be someone who has some experience
    implementing technology for preservation and access. Moreover,
    they must view NARA not just as a museum of the past, but as a
    resource to serve the needs of our people today and in the
    future. Instead of looking at the new responsibilities that
    Congress has been placing on NARA as an interference in their
    mission, they should view these as opportunities to help
    agencies do a better job at preserving records.
        The next Archivist also must be a skilled diplomat and a
    manager who can motivate and lead. I was sad to read that NARA
    had been listed as one of the least favorable places to work in
    the Federal Government, because most of the people I know who
    work there are working there because they care about the
    mission. They should also have the benefit of having a good
    work environment.
        Finally, and for my organization, this is most essential,
    the Archivist must be an unwavering advocate of transparency
    and access. They should understand in their core that the
    National Archives exists to advance our democracy and it can
    only do so if the Government creates, preserves and permits the
    public to see records of its activities and its policies.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to speak to you. I will
    be happy to respond to questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Fuchs follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Clay. Thank you, Ms. Fuchs, for your statement.
        Mr. White, you may make an opening statement.

                         STATEMENT OF LEE WHITE

        Mr. White. I can assure you, my testimony is 5 minutes and
    22 seconds. [Laughter.]
        Chairman Clay----
        Mr. Clay. We are keeping score. [Laughter.]
        Mr. White. Well, start now.
        Chairman Clay and members of the subcommittee, I am Lee
    White, the executive director of the National Coalition for
    History. The Coalition is a consortium of over 60 organizations
    that advocates and educates on Federal legislative and
    regulatory issues affecting historians, archivists, political
    scientists, teachers and other public stakeholders. Thank you
    for the opportunity to discuss the major issues we see facing
    the new Archivist of the United States.
        Let me add to your comments by saying NARA's apparent loss
    of Clinton-era electronic records is inexcusable. The
    mismanagement of these sensitive records exemplifies the urgent
    need for systemic change throughout the agency. It also shows
    why the Obama administration must move quickly to nominate a
    new Archivist with the management skills needed to address the
    serious problems plaguing the agency.
        Here is just a brief summary of the key issue I addressed
    in my written testimony and the ones most pressing we see
    facing the new Archivist of the United States.
        First, resources. Any consideration of the issues facing
    the National Archives must begin with a discussion of
    resources, both financial and human. For too long, the Congress
    and various administrations have given NARA additional
    responsibilities without a commensurate increase in funding.
    The top priority for the new Archivist should be to address the
    growing processing backlog. Congress should give NARA the
    financial resources necessary to not only process the existing
    backlogs of historical materials, but also to keep up with the
    exponential increase of new records.
        With regard to human resources, NARA is facing the
    retirement of a large percentage of its work force. The agency
    must employ and train an entire new generation of archival
    professionals. As everyone else has stated, I am disappointed
    that the National Archives finished 29th out of 30 Federal
    agencies in measuring employees' job satisfaction. The first
    challenge the new Archivist will face is improving NARA's
    organizational culture and restoring morale at the agency.
        Second, the Archivist should ensure the creation and
    preservation of Federal and Presidential records. The Archivist
    of the United States will need both the full backing of the
    President as well as vigilant congressional oversight to ensure
    that all branches of the Government adhere to the legal
    requirements of the Federal Records and Presidential Records
    Act.
        Third, reform the Presidential library system. Last fall,
    Congress directed NARA to prepare a report due this summer that
    suggests alternative models for the Presidential library
    system. We all, I think, agree that the Presidential library
    system is broken and reforming the operations, maintenance and
    funding of the library should be a top priority for the new
    Archivist.
        Fourth, a complete deployment of a new system for
    preserving electronic records. The long-delayed Electronic
    Records Archive is an essential tool for the NARA of today and
    tomorrow. Mandatory use of the ERA by all Federal agencies is
    currently scheduled to begin in January 2011. The new Archivist
    must ensure that the ERA meets that deadline.
        Fifth, pursue efficient declassification and open access to
    public information. Over-classification of Government
    information not only denies or delays public access to records,
    but also squanders resources by adding to the backlog of
    records that need to go through the convoluted declassification
    process.
        The Archivist should play a key role within the
    administration in the development of the forthcoming
    Government-wide controlled unclassified information policy. The
    new Archivist should also advocate within the administration
    for the establishment of a national declassification center at
    NARA, which we were disappointed to see was not included in the
    President's fiscal year 2010 budget request.
        Sixth, improve citizens' access to Government records. NARA
    must expand online access to finding aids and digitized
    portions of its collections, as well as maintain extended
    research hours so that stakeholders can access materials that
    are only available at NARA facilities.
        Seventh, expand NARA's educational and outreach activities.
    The records and artifacts entrusted to NARA's stewardship are
    truly national treasures. To improve historical and civic
    literacy, NARA should continue to expand its excellent
    educational and public programs.
        And finally, Mr. Chairman, this is something that is dear
    to your heart, the National Historical Publications and Records
    Commission. The History Coalition strongly supports the grants
    program of the NHPRC. We urge the administration and the new
    Archivist to work with you, Chairman Clay, toward the passage
    of the legislation you introduce to reauthorize the NHPRC at an
    annual level of $20 million per year for fiscal years 2010
    through 2014.
        Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I will be happy to
    respond to any questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. White follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. White.
        And now we will move to the question period for Members
    under the 5-minute rule. I will go in a different order and
    recognize the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Watson, for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Watson. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
        The Open Government Act of 2007 created the Office of
    Government Information Services within the NARA to review the
    records management procedures of agencies and to improve the
    application of the Freedom of Information Act by serving as an
    impartial mediator toward requestors and agencies. However,
    experts have argued that the OGIS has never been adequately
    funded and Allen Weinstein, the previous Archivist of the
    United States, contended that these responsibilities should not
    be the NARA's, but within the sole jurisdiction of the Justice
    Department.
        So I ask any of you that would like to respond, if you
    think the Department of Justice is the appropriate agency for
    resolving the Freedom of Information Act disputes, and what
    kind of increases do you think the NARA would need to
    sufficiently fulfill the statutory responsibilities of the
    OGIS. Let me just go down the line.
        Ms. Fuchs. Sure, I would be happy to respond. I think that
    it is without question that NARA did not welcome the idea of
    OGIS being placed there, although I do believe that now that
    OGIS is going to be NARA, they are sort of stuck with it, and I
    am hopeful that they are going to take it seriously.
        There is no question that the Justice Department is not an
    appropriate place to have a mediator of FOIA disputes. We have
    long experience dealing with the Justice Department. They are
    very professional, but they defend the Government, so there is
    an inherent conflict of interest in them playing that role.
        We are very concerned that it has taken so long to see the
    appointment of a Director of the Office of Government
    Information Services. I understand that appointment is eminent.
    I think that is going to be a significant test on whether they
    are seriously taking the responsibility to act in that role as
    a mediator. Because that person can make a tremendous
    difference in terms of the openness of Government. But if the
    person who they hire to startup that office is not someone who
    comes with a vision and a desire to make a difference, well,
    then, it is just wasted money.
        Ms. Watson. Thank you.
        Ms. McDermott.
        Ms. McDermott. Yes, thank you. I agree completely with
    Meredith. The placement of the Office of Government Information
    Services was thought through very hard among ourselves and with
    people on the Hill. And while we know that NARA was not pleased
    to have it, partly because it was initially unfunded, we do
    think that is the best place for it, and the Justice
    Department, for the reasons that Ms. Fuchs gave, is not it.
        In terms of how many resources they need, I think that is
    probably something that the NARA folks and the new Director of
    the Office, when he or she is hired, are best going to be
    placed to recommend. We are concerned, though, that enough
    money be allocated for the office that they are not dependent
    on detailees from the Justice Department who are good and
    decent civil servants, but they bring with them, they would
    bring with them their Department of Justice frame of mind. We
    want a new look at these cases and at these issues.
        I would also ask that this office oversee or take a look,
    anyway, at how NARA, at how the FOIA is being implemented
    Government-wide. I think that is going to be a very important
    job. DOJ has responsibility for giving guidance, but nobody
    has, in the executive branch, has responsibility for ensuring
    that the agencies Government-wide are actually complying with
    the law. So we are very hopeful, we are anxious to see who is
    named, and we will work with them and try to get them the
    necessary funding.
        Ms. Watson. Thank you.
        And Mr. White, I have a question for you. I am sure you
    concur with what has been said previously.
        Mr. White. Yes.
        Ms. Watson. In one of his first acts, President Obama
    released a memorandum on transparency and open Government and
    issued Executive Order 13489, which revoked President Bush's
    Executive Order 13233, which placed limits on access to
    Presidential records.
        So what would you say the record of implementation has been
    thus far in terms of the Obama administration applying a
    presumptive openness? And what other actions would you
    recommend the President take to increase transparency and
    accountability in the executive branch?
        Mr. White. Well, I have to say that the day that the
    President issued that Executive order was one of the happiest
    days of my professional life. [Laughter.]
        I have been working on it for quite a long time.
        I think it is too soon to tell. I know that right after the
    President issued the Executive order, some records were
    released, I believe, from the Reagan Library. I think what is
    still needed, however, is there is legislation pending in the
    Senate that passed here in the House, H.R. 35, the Presidential
    Records Reform Act, that needs to be passed. We need to get the
    changes that the administration made put into law, enacted,
    codified, so that the Presidential Records Act is not left to
    the whim of any President, each President that comes in. Once
    it is codified, it is going to be harder for them to manipulate
    the Presidential Records Act to their own uses.
        So I would say, getting the Senate to pass that bill and
    sending it back over here if there are any changes, I know that
    President Obama has already committed himself to signing the
    bill. So you need to get your colleagues on the other side of
    the Hill to start moving.
        Ms. Watson. We will be waiting for it.
        I will yield back to you, Mr. Chairman. I do have some
    other questions.
        Mr. Clay. We will do a second round. Thank you, Ms. Watson.
        Mr. Westmoreland, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Westmoreland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Fuchs, you are an advocate of, or against over-
    classification, I guess. And I know that in the past, there has
    been some things that were released and then later on
    reclassified, I guess, by the CIA or another agency.
        How often are documents released by the Archives that are
    subsequently reclassified?
        Ms. Fuchs. A couple of years ago, there was a very
    significant incident that my organization played a role in
    covering where there was significant reclassification going on
    at the National Archives. As a result of that, an audit was
    done and it was found that most of those reclassifications were
    either inappropriate or, even if technically legitimate under
    the Executive order, were questionable. So there had been a lot
    of unnecessary reclassification, but there was certainly some
    core that was properly apparently reclassified.
        My understanding is that since that time, new procedures
    were put in at the National Archives and there have been very,
    very few reclassifications. In fact, I just looked at this
    number a couple of days ago, and I think within the last year
    or two, there may have been zero, and the year before that,
    there were a couple of pages or a couple of documents.
        There is a serious question, when you are talking about
    reclassifying, what was the reason that the thing was
    mistakenly classified, it is already publicly known, and is
    there actually going to be harm that requires reclassification.
    Because reclassifying itself can lead to harm. These are
    questions which I do believe that the National Archives, in
    response to the scandal, has been much more professional in
    handling.
        Mr. Westmoreland. I know that in 2006, there was a report
    published, and I don't know who that was by, that said there
    were 55,000 pages. So if there were 55,000 pages reclassified,
    and you are saying there was none in the last 2 years, it must
    be doing a better job of it.
        Ms. Fuchs. That report was in response to the fact that we
    had uncovered this massive reclassification effort, and that is
    indeed what the information security oversight was to.
        Mr. Westmoreland. Do you know how many of those 55,000
    pages were then unclassified?
        Ms. Fuchs. I don't know whether they were then
    unclassified.
        Mr. Westmoreland. That is fine.
        Ms. McDermott. If I may, I think it is important to note,
    too, that it was not NARA that declassified these materials.
    NARA cannot declassify other agencies' documents. They were
    materials that were, that various agencies, the CIA and other
    agencies, had interest in. One of them had declassified it and
    other agencies were unhappy when they discovered that CIA was
    unhappy, for instance, when they discovered the State
    Department might have declassified something that they didn't
    want.
        But these were in NARA's safekeeping, and it happened on
    NARA's property. But it was not NARA that declassified the
    information, inappropriately or not.
        Mr. Westmoreland. And I think that is a good point, Ms.
    McDermott. I guess the rush to declassify, maybe that process
    needs to be slowed down, that each one of the agencies has an
    opportunity to look at it before it is put into the
    unclassified.
        Ms. Fuchs. If I could just comment on that briefly, I think
    you are absolutely correct that there needs to be a much better
    process for declassifying. But I don't think that means that we
    should stop declassifying. What I think that means is we should
    pursue something that NARA has in fact initiated, but on a much
    larger scale, which is the National Declassification Center,
    where every agency would be there, and every agency would play
    a role, and so we could make sure that we are not spending
    taxpayer money protecting old secrets that are no longer
    important, and instead we are actually protecting things that
    are really sensitive today.
        Mr. Westmoreland. OK. I am going to have make the questions
    shorter, and we are going to have to make the answers shorter.
        The National Security Archive, they rely heavily on the
    Freedom of Information Act to acquire materials. How long do
    you think is a, or how would you evaluate agencies'
    responsiveness to the Freedom of Information Act request for
    the National Security Archive to get this information?
        Ms. Fuchs. I would say we see a wide range of practice at
    agencies. Some agencies are far more professional. When
    material is classified, it causes a delay in the review and
    release of information. We have seen some improvement in the
    last couple of years in terms of customer service at agencies,
    but we have not seen significant improvements in terms of the
    speed with which records, or with which they are responding to
    FOIA requests that we have filed.
        Mr. Westmoreland. Average time, would you say, if you are
    asking for something to go through the process to see if it is
    classified, non-classified or whatever, what is it? Two years?
    Three months? Four days?
        Ms. Fuchs. Nothing that we request has ever been provided
    in 4 days. [Laughter.]
        Although I would say that if it is classified, we would be
    looking at several months to several years, and at some
    agencies, many years.
        Mr. Westmoreland. Can I just have one little followup, and
    I won't have a second round?
        Mr. Clay. Sure.
        Mr. Westmoreland. And this is for Ms. Fuchs, too. As you
    know, I guess in January there was a report, or the Pentagon
    said there was a report about the detainees in Guantanamo Bay,
    in the fact that of the 534 prisoners, about 1 out of 7 had
    been either gone back into militant activity with the Taliban
    or whatever. They said in January they were going to release
    it.
        Well, as you may know, as of today they have not released
    it. But yet, the New York Times reported on the story of the
    Pentagon and actually gave the exact numbers of the ones that
    had returned to flight.
        If you had requested a report from the Pentagon under the
    Freedom of Information Act, and Pentagon officials promised to
    release it promptly, would you be upset that the Pentagon
    dragged its feet on what you had asked and then leaked it to
    the New York Times? [Laughter.]
        Ms. Fuchs. Well, that is a good question. I think the
    Freedom of Information Act is not always administered as
    professionally as I would like. It is the appropriate way for
    members of the public, like my organization, to ask for
    information from Government agencies.
        I can't really speak to the leak, because I don't know who
    leaked it. But I certainly think that there is a process that
    should be followed when folks like us ask. In this instance, I
    gather, maybe it wasn't.
        Mr. Westmoreland. It sounds like to me, though, that I
    guess the Freedom of Information Act that they submitted
    counted more than getting the information to the public, as was
    promised in January.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
    time.
        Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Westmoreland. Thanks for those
    questions, too.
        A panel-wide question. What are some of the deficiencies in
    the Presidential library system that you believe must be
    addressed by the next Archivist? Let's start with Mr. White.
        Mr. White. Well, it is funny you should ask, because about
    a week ago, or 2 weeks ago, we submitted, as you know, Congress
    asked the National Archives to prepare a report to you that is
    due this summer, detailing alternative models for the
    Presidential library system. I have our comments, if I could
    submit them for the record later on.
        Mr. Clay. Without objection.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. White. One of the issues I hate to point out is with
    Congress. Funding is always an issue with everything. But as we
    have seen with some of the Presidential libraries, the FDR
    Library, for example, had horrible conditions, the roof was
    leaking and everything else. We constantly see appropriators
    adding earmarks for particular Presidential libraries that have
    more, how shall we say, politically powerful people behind
    them.
        Mr. Clay. More popularity? [Laughter.]
        Mr. White. More popularity. And it is not the Harry Truman
    Library, by the way.
        Probably the biggest issue, without belaboring the point,
    is declassification. It is endemic, it affects almost
    everything that the Archives does. Without dealing with
    declassification, you are going to have these backlogs. I
    believe when Tom Blanton, who is the executive director of
    Meredith's organization, testified a few years ago before you,
    there was a 5-year backlog. Now it is a 7-year backlog at the
    Reagan Library, if you put in a request for information.
        Now, if you are a historian, or a grad student, even worse,
    and you are working on your dissertation, you can't wait 7
    years to get the documents that you may need, critical
    documents that you need for your dissertation. So from an
    historian's point of view, this is an absolute nightmare, these
    backlogs.
        Again, I will make another pitch for the National
    Declassification Center that was in the report of the Public
    Interest Declassification Board. If you put declassification in
    one place with agency representatives who have expertise in
    declassification for the CIA, Homeland Security, whatever, if
    they are all in one place, it could speed things up.
        So if you ask me to name one, I would say declassification
    was probably the biggest one.
        Mr. Clay. Thank you.
        Anyone else?
        Ms. Fuchs. I will just quickly sort of jump on that. It is
    not just the historians. Sometimes we have fairly current need
    for information that Presidential libraries have. For example,
    the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice who may have worked
    in an administration previously, people want to see those
    records. Or someone who is running for office, to be President
    of the United States, and people want to see those records,
    because they exist.
        And the Presidential Library, it is particularly
    Presidential libraries, because it is such a huge quantity of
    materials being sent to them, they are just not really, they
    don't have the capacity, frankly, to get all that, get through
    it all and get it out in any reasonable amount of time.
        So we think that NARA should be allowed to really focus on
    the records and getting the records out, and they should be
    looking toward new ways of making things available, including
    much more online availability, so they don't need as much
    physical facilities.
        Mr. White. Can I add one thing, Mr. Chairman? I went to the
    budget hearing for NARA the other day before the Appropriations
    Committee. They have taken in 100 terabytes of electronic
    records from the Bush administration. In the Clinton
    administration, they took in 2 terabytes.
        You heard Mr. McHenry talk about a terabyte is millions and
    millions of pages. So you can see how exponentially the
    electronic records are growing. So it makes another need for
    why we need to get the electronic records archive system up and
    running.
        Mr. Clay. I read that one terabyte was equivalent to one
    million books. Now, with this, with the revelation of a
    security breach, even with some of the things that Mr. McHenry
    said in his opening statement, do we have a cultural problem at
    Archives? Have they advanced with the technology that we are
    now faced with in the 21st century? Have they kept up with
    that? Are they prepared to even receive the records of this
    current administration once that ends as far as being able to
    catalog and store it and to be the purveyor of those records?
    Are they prepared for that, or does the new Director have to
    come in and change the entire culture of an agency?
        Mr. White. I think that the Archives has already learned,
    they called for a number of years for a liaison at the White
    House General Counsel's office, somebody dedicated to dealing
    with them on Presidential records. From what I understand, the
    Obama White House has assigned two people to that task, to
    liaison with NARA.
        So dealing with the issues while they are being created
    will make it much easier in 4 or 8 years when President Obama
    leaves office. So dealing with things up front makes things
    much easier on the back end.
        Mr. Clay. Ms. McDermott.
        Ms. McDermott. I think that the Archives itself, my
    impression, and again, this is from outside, is that it is sort
    of the cobbler's children, that they are, and again, this is
    from conversations, that their own recordkeeping, electronic
    recordkeeping, may not be terrific, that when people are
    leaving their offices, they delete their email. And of course,
    the ERA is under development, although as you know from GAO
    reports and your own committee work, that there are problems
    with that.
        So I think there are potentially technology issues within
    NARA in terms of its own ability to manage its own records,
    much less to manage all the rest of the records. And then there
    is a leadership issue in terms of the rest of the Government.
    They do have that responsibility. They don't really want to
    take it, but they do have that throughout the Government, and
    they have to provide leadership in moving the executive branch
    toward electronic records management. That is a big
    technological challenge and a cost.
        Mr. Clay. Thank you for that response.
        Ms. Fuchs. I am happy to add my voice and I will be very
    quick. I do think there is a need for a cultural change. I
    think that NARA has not had cooperation from the executive
    branch. And so there needs to be pressure put on each agency as
    well, that they should be responsible. They need congressional
    backup, and in some instances, they need some more authority
    from Congress, so that they can actually let agencies know,
    they can be more vocal, perhaps, about the problems.
        I think that they need a leader who can manage, and they
    need a leader who can lead. And that may mean they need more
    than one person. So I would sort of support the comment Ms.
    McDermott said that there should be another political appointee
    position.
        And I urge you, when you do have NARA here, to ask them,
    what are they going to do when they get the things from the
    White House at the end of this administration? Do they have any
    idea how to manage those kinds of records? Because that is a
    whole new level of complexity that I don't think we even had in
    the Bush administration that we clearly are going to have in
    the Obama administration.
        Mr. Clay. Thank you so much.
        Mr. Westmoreland, you are recognized.
        Mr. Westmoreland. Thank you.
        President Obama announced this morning that the
    administration will review the classification policies at every
    agency. So from what we just talked about, and hearing what Mr.
    White said, do you think the appropriate evaluator of these
    Freedom of Information requests would be the OGIS or the agency
    that was in possession of the requested material? Each one of
    you can answer.
        Ms. Fuchs. I think in the first instance, we think that the
    one who should be evaluating the classification is the agency
    that classified it. I don't think that we have any problem with
    that.
        When we talk about the National Declassification Center and
    historical records, we do think that the authority of one
    agency to block declassification is a concern. Because we have
    seen that agencies will simply put up road blocks, even when
    they can't convince another agency. Then you wonder why it
    should be classified.
        So I think those are two different categories.
        Mr. Westmoreland. And if they got confused, it could clog
    up the whole system, is that not right?
        Ms. Fuchs. Right, exactly. At the end of the day, the
    President has ultimate authority about whether something should
    be classified or not. The President certainly has the ability
    to declassify records if he chooses to do so.
        Ms. McDermott. I think it is also useful to note that when
    there is a request for a classified piece of information and an
    agency turns it down, an individual or the requestor has a
    choice to go to court or they can go through a process that is
    a mandatory declassification review. Then there is an appeals
    process beyond that, where people from outside of the
    originating agency have a chance to look at the document and
    make some decisions about whether all or portions of it could
    be declassified and released. That is more or less effective.
        But there are processes in place that it doesn't, for
    contemporaneous declassification as opposed to after the 25
    years or that sort of thing, there are processes that have been
    put in place and that are overseen by the Information Security
    Oversight Office that seem to work reasonably well. Although
    they have a tremendous backlog now, too. Everybody needs more
    resources.
        Mr. Westmoreland. Mr. White.
        Mr. White. I hate to go back to always saying it helps on
    the front end. But President Bush issued, I don't know whether
    it was a policy, called Controlled Unclassified Information,
    where he wanted to reduce, there is something like 100
    different ways things can be classified as sensitive. He
    reduced that to three.
        But we are still waiting for, and then he sent out, the
    President sent out a recommendation from different agencies as
    to how to implement this new policy. It still hasn't been
    implemented. We are waiting for the Obama administration to
    issue this new policy. I think that hopefully, having it so
    that things fall into three different stovepipes instead of 100
    different stovepipes, where we have to determine, if one agency
    says this is top secret, it might not mean what top secret
    means at another agency, hopefully down the road will help the
    process.
        Mr. Westmoreland. Do you think the OGIS should be the
    facilitator or the link between those people to where the CIA
    may say, ``this is classified,'' and the State Department says
    it is not?
        Mr. White. I think that is somewhat what their role was
    envisioned as, as being the final arbiter of what goes and what
    doesn't go. Meredith would know more about it.
        Ms. Fuchs. I would disagree. I mean, they are a mediator.
    So what they will be doing is they will be trying to get the
    agency and the FOIA requestor to reach some sort of agreement.
    I think the reason that our community felt it was important to
    have this office was that we found that agencies were
    obstructing requests for information, for poor reasons, not for
    legitimate reasons. And the only alternative you had was to go
    to court.
        Now, my organization, we are happy to go to court. I am a
    lawyer, I can litigate. But you know what? Your average guy on
    the street really doesn't have the ability to go to court, and
    it is not right that they should have to go to court to find
    out something from their Government.
        Mr. Westmoreland. OK, one last question. Somebody said that
    the President set the policy for the declassification of all
    these things. And I guess he is the final person to decide if
    it is declassified or not. And he announced this morning he was
    going to review all these classification policies at every
    agency.
        But from what I am hearing from you, he could make a policy
    that would automatically set the policy for all the agencies.
    Do you suggest that the President do that, rather than going
    through trying to analyze all these classification policies of
    the different agencies? Or just say, OK, this is going to be
    the policy?
        Ms. Fuchs. Right. I think there are two things going on. I
    think every President has issued an Executive order dealing
    with classification policy. Indeed, President Bush's Executive
    order was in many ways very similar to President Clinton's. And
    President Clinton's had an innovation that has been retained
    that I presume President Obama will retain that will declassify
    the historic records. So that, we should assume that President
    Obama will appropriately issue a broad memo.
        The other thing that I believe he talked about today,
    although I don't know the details, is that each agency has to
    have a review of its own policies. Because some agencies do a
    far better job than other agencies. And that goes with respect
    to classifying, also with respect to protecting classified, and
    also with respect to declassifying.
        Some agencies have things built into their system to
    prevent over-classification. People think, why does over-
    classification matter? Over-classification matters, because
    people lose respect for the system when everything is
    classified. That is why there are so many leaks, because people
    don't feel that the things that are protected must be
    protected.
        In addition, it costs money, and it obviously prevents the
    public from getting information. So each agency does need a
    review of its own policies.
        Mr. Westmoreland. We just don't want it to be political.
    Just one final comment, and I will quit. But we don't want it
    to be political about what is declassified and what is not.
    Because there are a lot of things going on around Washington
    right now that are he says, she says kinds of deals. So if we
    are going to open it up, let's do it.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Clay. Thank you.
        Ms. Watson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Watson. Thank you so much.
        I understand that NARA has entered into a $317 million
    contract with Lockheed Martin to develop a comprehensive
    management system for electronic records. Do any of you have
    reason to believe that a system like that would be capable of
    adequately processing the massive amount of records in the
    system? Do you know of any existing program for records
    management that the NARA could adapt to function on the scale
    they need? Would you have that information? Dr. Battle is not
    here.
        Ms. McDermott. I don't, personally. I mean, I know what GAO
    has said and the other reports that have come out. But no, I
    think there do seem to be some questions about the capacity,
    capability of the electronic records archive. But I think
    that's probably a subject for a hearing with parties who are
    directly involved.
        Ms. Watson. I am sure this committee will be following up
    with Dr. Battle so we can get the direct information.
        Ms. McDermott. Good.
        Ms. Watson. Do any of the other witnesses have something to
    say?
        Ms. Fuchs. I agree, I can't recommend an alternative
    system. Although a lot of money has been spent already on the
    electronic records archive. So hopefully, rather than scrapping
    it, it can be made to work and work quickly. I believe that
    they are, you would have to talk to NARA but they believe that
    it will work. I would add from our perspective that there are
    other things NARA can do before the records even get to them to
    try to make things be in their proper order and proper formats,
    to make it easier for them to ingest, so they don't have to do
    things like buy proprietary software, so that they can hold
    things before they go into electronic record archives. Things
    like that, that they could be doing. But again, I agree with
    Ms. McDermott.
        Ms. Watson. Well, let me throw this out. I have been
    listening to the three of you. You talk about the time it
    takes. If we are going to declassify information, what are the
    steps, what are the procedures that you have to go through? Why
    would it take years? Can anyone comment on why is the process
    so lengthy?
        Ms. Fuchs. That is a good question, and I ask it regularly
    myself. Every time I have the opportunity to talk to people at
    NARA, I try to find out more about the steps.
        I think some of it is, you mentioned the 400 million pages
    that have been declassified that are waiting to get out to the
    public. Once it has been declassified, that is just one part of
    the analysis. So at least for the historical records, they
    still then have to review them for privacy concerns. And there
    are other processing steps.
        My hope is that having a National Declassification and
    Records Center would facilitate some of that. Certainly part of
    the problem with the classified records is the referral to
    every agency. So a record, the Navy might say it is OK to be
    declassified, but they need the CIA to sign off on that, and
    they need the State Department to sign off on that. What do
    they do? They sort of send it from agency to agency and agency,
    or it sits waiting until someone from that agency comes to take
    a look at it.
        A National Declassification Center would bring all those
    people to the table and they would have to agree to cooperate.
    And I think that would save a lot of time and a lot of money,
    if they approached it that way.
        Mr. White. One of the other challenges of the electronic
    records archive is searchability. When the electronic records
    archive is up and running, if I want to write a biography of
    Chairman Clay and I go in and type, Clay, I am going to get a
    zillion records. How efficient will the system be, so that it
    is searchable and user friendly? That is a big, that will be a
    big, big challenge for the system.
        Ms. Watson. I think the technology exists, if we can put a
    telescope greater than the Hubble, that has to travel millions
    of miles, I think we can do that. I heard time and time again
    that the resources were not there, whatever that means. We know
    it means dollars and people with expertise.
        Mr. White. But it also means expertise, right.
        Ms. Watson. But I think what I am hearing, you are not
    saying it, but I am gathering it, a lot of it is political.
        Ms. McDermott. I don't know if I would say that it is
    political. I think to the extent, if there is a problem with
    the electronic records archive, I think it really has to do
    with NARA's internal capability to oversee somebody like
    Lockheed Martin and an enormous contract of that nature.
        I think in terms of access to Presidential records, I think
    maybe there are sometimes political decisions being made. But I
    think mostly NARA has a very professional staff, very committed
    to making the record open. So I don't think that for the most
    part it is politics, in the way we normally understand it.
        Now, leaking of classified information, that is political.
        Ms. Fuchs. I just want to mention, it might be small
    political, it may not be political, which party wants something
    to happen. But it may be agencies jockeying for position and
    not willing to cooperate and not willing to do what they ought
    to be doing and NARA not being in a position to push them the
    right way.
        Mr. White. And all I would add is any time any Government
    agency buys a new computer system of any size, I just read an
    article the other day about the Copyright Office has this huge
    backlog at the Copyright Office because they put in a new
    system and people can't get their copyrights because it is so
    backlogged. Not to excuse NARA, but I think it happens
    routinely when the Government is procuring big information
    systems.
        Ms. Watson. When we then created Homeland Security, an
    agency that took in 750 different agencies underneath, and I
    thought, oh, my goodness, people come, they had budget
    conflicts, and procedural and steps that are so on that are
    unique, I thought, how are we going to manage this. Right now,
    the reality, after it has been created, is that we need to pull
    some of the agencies out, such as FEMA. But that has nothing to
    do with this.
        But I am thinking of the magnitude of it. Is there anything
    out there that can serve as a model of how we would be able to
    expedite? Do you know if anything?
        Ms. McDermott. I don't know off-hand. I think the only
    place to look would be to some of the big corporations. It is
    possible that at some of the very big law firms that are sort
    of nationwide and have national offices all over, or some very
    big corporations, they are facing many of the same challenges
    that the Government has in terms of managing records.
        Now, ingesting massive volumes of electronic data is really
    probably something that is, if not totally unique, essentially
    unique to the National Archives, in that every 4 or 8 years,
    they get this massive influx of information, which they have to
    process and make available.
        So there may be some models for records management. But in
    terms of this, I really don't know that there would be
    anything. I don't know what other agency really faces this kind
    of problem.
        Ms. Fuchs. I guess I would add, that is one of the reasons
    that we have advocated that NARA's concerns need to be
    addressed at the beginning, at the records creation, as opposed
    to waiting until the other end. Because it makes much more
    sense to build into the information technology that all the
    agencies are putting in place the long-term preservation
    concerns. I think in the long run, that would save money for
    the taxpayers and would certainly make it easier, I think for
    NARA, if things came in in the format that is easiest for them
    to deal with. That is something my organization has stated a
    fair bit, that we think it should be built into all sorts of IT
    funding, the long-term life cycle of the record, including
    ultimate access.
        Ms. Watson. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Clay. Thank you, Ms. Watson.
        Let me ask you, NARA officials have developed a detailed
    10-year strategic plan. Some of you note deficiencies in the
    plan. What must the next Archivist do to make the plan
    operational and effective? We will start with you, Ms. Fuchs.
    Or who wants to start?
        Ms. Fuchs. The plan does address the kinds of things that
    NARA should be addressing. But what I would do is for every
    strategic goal, I would make it into an action item. I feel
    like that is the main deficiency of the plan, is that most of
    the strategic goals are stated in, in my view, passive terms.
    The next Archivist should actually view their job as much more
    of an active position.
        Mr. Clay. And actually have benchmarks.
        Ms. McDermott. Well, they do have performance plans that
    they also post. I don't know if you have read them, but they
    are not terribly informative.
        I agree with Meredith that the strategies are fairly
    passive. For records management, for instance, they say we will
    expand the demand for records management in the Federal
    Government. There is no explanation of what that means. By
    advocating for access to it at senior levels, advocating for
    electronic records management is not the same as providing
    leadership and direction and clear policies.
        So I think they need more concrete steps about what
    specifically they are going to do, not these vague statements
    that most agencies' strategic plans are, that is the language,
    it is vague and it is aspirational, but it is not concrete. So
    I think the next Archivist, if there is a second tier political
    appointee, really needs to take the agency through a serious
    thinking of how they are going to move, not only the agency,
    but the Federal Government, the executive branch forward.
        Mr. White. I would just say that I think the Archivist
    needs to be an agent of change. I think we discussed changing
    the organizational culture. The Archivist needs to be, I think,
    more aggressive in making sure benchmarks are met, not only
    that. And No. 2, working with you up here and with the GAO on
    oversight. Oversight in the end is what makes the train go. And
    having an Archivist in there that is dedicated to aggressively
    meeting the Strategic Plan is very important.
        Mr. Clay. Well, thank you all for your testimony today. If
    there are no further questions, I move that the subcommittee
    adjourn. And the question is on the motion to adjourn. All
    those in favor say aye.
        [Chorus of ayes.]
        Mr. Clay. All those opposed, no. In the opinion of the
    Chair, the ayes have it. And the motion is adopted, and the
    subcommittee stands adjourned. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 3:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Additional information submitted for the hearing record
    follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]