Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Derails Nomination of Agresto for US Archivist: After holding three days of controversial hearings on the nomination of John Agresto for US Archivist, on October 2 the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee decided not to act during this session of Congress. Action by this Senate Committee is required before the nomination for Archivist can go before the full Senate for a vote. Thus, by refusing to include a vote on Agresto on the agenda for the Committee meeting, a spokeswoman for the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee concluded that “as far as we’re concerned, the nomination is pretty much dead.”
There is the outside possibility that the President could make a “recess appointment” and place Agresto immediately in the position of US Archivist. The Senate would then have to confirm him during the next session of Congress. Additionally, there is the outside possibility that the President may resubmit Agresto’s nomination in 1987 to the next Congress. In that case, the whole cycle of hearings would begin again.
The decision for either a “recess appointment” or resubmitting Agresto’s name must be viewed in light of the fact that the Senate Committee has accumulated a considerable amount of information regarding both Agresto’s lack of qualifications and the politicization of the selection process by the White House Personnel Office. Thus, the sense of many close observers is that there would be a great reluctance at the White House to continue the fight for this nomination.
Sixteen organizations officially opposed the nomination and seven representatives of historical (including the AHA), archival, and genealogical associations testified during hearings on September 9 and 10 that Agresto lacked the experience and qualifications for the position, and that his ties with the Reagan administration violated the intent of the legislation, which stated that the Archivist be chosen “without regard to political affiliations and solely on the basis of professional qualifications.” Agresto, who is now the deputy director of the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), is a political scientist. He has held several nontenured teaching positions, has worked with William Bennett at the National Humanities Center before becoming a political appointee at NEH, and has written one book. Given the fact that he has neither the appropriate background and experience, nor is a seasoned administrator, nor is a person of national stature, it appears that his nomination is based solely on his connections with this particular administration.
A major turning point in the hearings took place on September 10 when Senator Levin (D-MI) summarized evidence which revealed that the White House Personnel Office had politicized the interview process and had done “directly what our statute said it should not do.” Levin then requested that the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee call Robert Tuttle, Head of the White House Personnel Office, as a witness to determine if the very unique requirements of the archives’ independence legislation—designed to prevent politicization—had been violated. Three other Senators—Senators Eagleton (D-MO), Glenn (D-OH), and Gore (D-TN)—joined Senator Levin in requesting the appearance of Robert Tuttle in an additional day of hearings.
After several weeks of negotiations on whether to, and how to, accommodate this request, Senator Roth, the chair of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, tried to bypass the request and bring the nomination to a committee vote. Objections by the majority of Senators on the committee to this procedure resulted in the decision not to deal with the nomination during this Congress, effectively derailing the nomination.
Many historians, genealogists, librarians, and archivists were a part of the effort to oppose this nomination. The hundreds of letters, telegrams, and telephone calls from organizations and from individuals definitely made an impact on the members of the Committee. Many within the historical and archival communities share Senator Eagleton’s sentiments when he stated, “For the sake of the adequate preservation of the historical documents of this country, I hope President Reagan nominates someone who is professional, nonpolitical, and respected by those in the archival and historical disciplines.”
Nominees for NEH Council Pulled from Senate Committee Agenda: In the last days of the ninety-ninth Congress, many committees considered only those issues on the “fast track,” meaning non-controversial or urgent matters. On September 24 when the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee scheduled a “mark-up” to vote on NEH Council nominees, they removed from the agenda the names of Charles Moser (a leader in a textbook censorship campaign) and Anthony Bouscaren (alleged to have plagiarized published articles).
Prior to this the White House dropped E. Christian Kopff, who had been objected to by Senators because of his alleged “anti-homosexual and pro-fascist views.” The committee expected no controversy on the nominations of Robert Hollander (Professor of European Literature at Princeton and a contender for the Chair of NEH) and Robert Bocking Stevens, President of Haverford College.
However, because there was not a quorum, no action was taken. The committee may be polled for a vote on Hollander and Stevens so that the full Senate can consider their nominations before adjournment. If the White House wishes to pursue the nominations of Moser and Bouscaren, their names must be resubmitted to the next Congress; and the committee will take them up when there is time for careful consideration.
Office of Technology Assessment Released Study On Historic Preservation: On September 29, the Office of Technology Assessment, a research arm of the US Congress, released a lengthy report titled Technologies for Prehistoric and Historic Preservation, which had been requested by Representatives Morris K. Udall (R-AZ), John Seiberling (D-OH), Don Young (R-AK), and Ron Marlenee (R-MT). The report, the product of the work of five working panels of experts, should, said Representative Seiberling, “help experts in the field of historic preservation as well as the general public by serving as a guide to specific, applicable technologies,—both ‘high tech’ and ‘low tech’—which can be used to identify, protect, and interpret historic resources.” Emphasizing that the United States is losing important parts of its cultural heritage at an alarming rate, the report concludes that the Department of Interior has not given sufficient attention to its responsibility of stewardship of historic resources.
In the chapter on technology and preservation policy, the report deals with the need for a central facility within the federal structure that could provide assistance with technological problems relating to preservation. It 1s clear from the report that the National Park Service’s efforts in this area are not considered adequate. A copy of the report may be obtained from the US Government Printing Office (GPO), Superintendent of Documents, Washington, DC 20402; 202/783-3238. The GPO stock number is 052-003-01051-8.
House Held Hearing on Access to House Records: On September 17, Dr. Anna Nelson, professor of diplomatic history at American University, testified on behalf of the NCC member organizations at a hearing of the Subcommittee on the Rules of the House on H. Res. 114, a resolution dealing with access to the records of the House of Representative Joe Moakley (D-MA) used this resolution on minor technical matters to raise the larger issue of possible modification of the House’s fifty-year rule, which effectively closes all records of the House committees for fifty years. Although the Senate, since 1980, has routinely opened twenty-year, non-sensitive records, the House has been reluctant to change its fifty-year rule. “The failure of the House to provide a system of access to records in the National Archives,” Nelson concluded, “has led researchers to neglect the contributions of the House and its committees to American government.”
Another witness, Michael McReynolds, Director of the Legislative Archives Division of the National Archives, described the current procedures as “seriously antiquated and misunderstood to a public that is accustomed to viewing the records of their government.” McReynolds joined Nelson in urging that the House adopt a twenty-year policy similar to that of the Senate. Although the Committee did not take any action during this session of Congress on H. Res. 114, the issues have been well stated. It is hoped that legislation may be forthcoming in the next Congress.
