On March 7 eleven witnesses presented testimony before the House Subcommittee on Legislation and Security on H.R. 3987, a bill to restore independence to the National Archives and Records Service by separating it from the General Services Administration (GSA). Six public witnesses representing the historical, archival, higher education, and genealogical communities presented arguments from diverse perspectives. Yet all spoke strongly to the necessity of removing the National Archives from the authority of GSA. With persuasive detail James B. Rhoads, the former US Archivist, described numerous events that had bolstered his conviction that the National Archives “could not function effectively, meet the challenges of a dynamic society, or realize its potential as an educational and cultural institution as long as it remained a subordinate element of GSA.” In the question-and-answer period following his prepared statement, Rhoads referred to an international study on the placement of archives in ninety-nine countries. The national archives is placed under a government services agency in only two other countries in the world besides the United States. Those countries are the Philippines and Iran.
Samuel R. Gammon, representing the historical community, pointed out that the legislative decision in 1949 to place the then independent archives under a newly created GSA had been hurried, and no hearings had ever been held on the archival issue. “In fact,” Gammon told the subcommittee, “the task force of the Hoover Commission, which had been set up to examine the archives and records management issue, recommended against such a merger, but the Bureau of the Budget and Commission staff were engaged in a rush to merge agencies with little concern over nice differentiations.”
Speaking as a representative of the American Council on Education, Robert L. Hardesty, the president of Southwest Texas State University, summarized his statement with the assertion that “no new function or government program is being created; no expansion of regulation or government interference in people’s lives is mandated or anticipated. This is a truly nonpartisan legislation,” he emphasized, “which is based in sound public policy.”
Two state archivists, David B. Gracy of Texas, who is also the president of the Society of American Archivists, and Charles E. Lee of South Carolina, presented the perspective of those who are experienced in heading archival agencies. Gracy noted that this is the fiftieth anniversary of the National Archives. “This is the year, if ever there was one, to guarantee clearly and without reservation that both the records and institution keeping of the records of the federal government,” he asserted, “are free of partisan political manipulation and misguided interference.”
Lee compared his position within South Carolina government with that of the archivist of the United States. As the head of an independent agency, Lee told the committee that he had free access to the governor, prepared his own budget requests, and presented them to the legislative committees. “When I appear before a committee of the General Assembly,” Lee stressed, “my words and my answers are my own, not those dictated by a higher authority.” In contrast, Lee explained that “the Archivist of the United States is not his own man in any of these matters, but the creature of the administrator of the General Services. His position lies somewhere between that of orderly and prisoner of war.”
The last public witness, Varney R. Nell, president of the National Genealogical Society, identified several examples that illustrate the inability of the National Archives as a subservient of GSA to fulfill its mission. The identification, preservation, and servicing of records have all been severely hampered in recent years due to GSA interference. Nell specifically urged that statut0ry authority for all archival and records management programs, including field operations, be returned to the Archivists, and that the National Archives be enabled through an independent budgetary process to prepare, defend, and execute its own budget in order to achieve adequate funding for its programs.
Representative Jack Brooks (D-TX), chair of the subcommittee, Frank Horton (R-NY), the ranking minority member, and William Clinger (R-PA) asked each of the witnesses a number of questions and seemed most intent on exploring carefully many aspects of the testimony. The line of questioning did reveal the concern of the representatives that GSA retain statutory authority over current records management activities.
The first witness following the lunch recess was Representative Glenn English (D-OK), chair of the subcommittee with oversight responsibility for the National Archives. Because this bill involves reorganization legislation, it was referred to Brooks’s subcommittee on legislation instead of English’s government information subcommittee. However, as one of the most informed members of the house on archival issues, English made a forceful statement in favor of independence. “Let me assure you at the outset—I know that independence is not a panacea; that it will not solve all of the many problems facing the National Archives. But,” he continued, “after three years as chairman of the subcommittee with oversight of the Archives, I also know that until the Archives becomes independent it can not realistically address many of those problems.”
The next three witnesses represented GSA and the National Archives. Ray Kline, the acting administrator of GSA (Gerald Carmen, the former administrator, left GSA on February 29 to assume another government post), took the position that while the statutory authority of the archivist should be strengthened and a board created to advise the archivist, the National Archives should remain under GSA. In the event of the separation of the National Archives from GSA, Kline recommended that the Federal Register, the National Audiovisual Center, and the records management functions now performed by GSA’s Office of Information Resources Management should remain at GSA.
Frank J. Carr, the assistant administrator of the Office of Information Resources Management, concurred with this position. Robert Warner, the archivist of the United States, spoke briefly to the issue of whether the records management program which was separated from the National Archives in 1982 and placed under GSA should remain at GSA or be returned to an independent archives as S. 905 and H.R. 3987 mandate. Warner stated that records management functions could be split with authorities relating to current records and records systems residing in GSA and authorities relating to archival records management such as ensuring adequate and complete documentation and determining disposition schedules could remain with the National Archives.
The final witness of the day was Wayne D. Rasmussen, the head of the History Office of the Department of Agriculture. Speaking as the president of the Society for History in the Federal Government and from his experience as a federal historian, Rasmussen told of some difficulties he had recently had in retrieving needed documents for a background policy paper he was preparing for the Secretary of Agriculture. The document was neither a current record nor had it been accessioned into the National Archives. It was in a regional archives center where, as Rasmussen noted, there is a “clumsy and inefficient relationship between GSA and the National Archives.” Due to a short deadline, he was unable to locate the document in time for inclusion in the paper. Rasmussen strongly urged that an independent National Archives should “take over, with full responsibility for custody and for providing needed archival services, including inventorying and retrieving the material.”
The next step in the legislative process in the House of Representatives is for the full Government Operations Committee to consider the bill and to “mark up” the legislation by deciding on the final language for the bill. In this case there appears to be a strong possibility that some changes may be made in the bill that Brooks introduced last fall. Authority over current records is subject to revision. Most of the public witnesses at the March 7 hearing felt that by careful wording a division of responsibilities in current records management could be achieved. The National Archives would retain appraisal and disposition authority while the continuous involvement in the day-to-day records systems would be under GSA. Leadership in the AHA, the Organization of American Historians, and the Society of American Archivists have agreed that while the above revisions may not be ideal, they would be acceptable given the current climate in Washington and the urgency of obtaining independence for the National Archives.
The House Government Operations Committee must recommend H.R. 3987 and file the report by May 15 in order for the House to vote on the measure this session. Members of the committee need to hear from historians concerning the importance of this legislation. Currently eight members of the committee are sponsors or cosponsors of the bill. They are Brooks (D-TX), English (D-OK), Synar (D-OK), Barnard (D-GA), Boxer (D-CA), MacKay (D-FL), Owens (D-NY), Erdreich (D-AL). Members of the committee who are not yet cosponsors and should be contacted are: Fascell (D-FL), Fuqua (D-FL), Conyers (D-MI), Collins (D-IL), Levitas (D-GA), Waxman (D-CA), Neal (D-NC), Frank (D-MA), Lantos (D-CA), Coleman (D-TX), Wise (D-WV), Levin (D-NY), Towns (D-NY), Sprall (D-SC), Kolter (D-PA), Horton (R-NY), Erlendorn (R- IL), Kindness (R-OH), Walker (R-PA), Williams (R-OH), Clinger (R-PA), McGrath (R-NY), Gregg (R-NH), Burton (R-IN), McKernan (R-ME), Lewis (R-FL), McCandless (R-CA), Craig (R· ID).
The address for members of the House is: US House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515.
