[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]