Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Holds Confirmation Hearing for US Archivist. On August 13 the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee met and considered the nomination of John Agresto for US Archivist. After two hours of questioning the committee recessed the hearing, which resumed on September 9 and 10. Sixteen organizations, including the American Historical Association, the Organization of American Historians, the Society of American Archivists, and the American Library Association, have officially opposed the nomination; and seven of these organizations presented testimony in opposition to the nomination at the hearing. Opponents have stressed the need for a nonpartisan professional leader with seasoned judgment for insuring credibility of sensitive decisions. Of particular concern is Agresto’s limited administrative experience, his lack of national distinction in his field of political science, the fact that he is steeped in neither archives, records management, information technology, nor historical research, and finally that his nomination appears to be based primarily on his relationship with the Administration. The Archives’ independence legislation specifies that the Archivist be appointed “without regard to political affiliations and solely on the basis of professional qualifications.” The Conference Report also states that the Archivist should be “insulated from the political orientation of a particular administration.”
During the hearing, Senator Durenberger (R-MN) noted that he had received a large stack of mail opposing the nomination and not one letter in support and that all of the professional associations of all of the major user groups have opposed the nomination while no organization has supported Agresto. Senator Levin (D·MI) expressed grave concern over Agresto’s efforts to avoid compliance with Equal Employment Opportunity guidelines at the National Endowment for the Humanities. The primary issue, Levin told Agresto, is his attitude toward abiding by the law. Levin quoted Agresto as saying after special legislation was passed to require NEH to comply with EEOC: “We will abide by the law if we must.” Senator Eagleton (D-MO) concentrated his questions on the intent of the Archives’ independence legislation and explored the qualifications required by Congress for an “officer performing professional archival and records management functions insulated from the political orientation of a particular administration.” Eagleton provided documentation of both Agresto’s partisan relationship to the Reagan Administration and the White House Personnel Office’s efforts to acquire information about political affiliations and contributions from candidates interviewed for the position of US Archivist. Democratic members asserted that such questions from the White House Personnel Office and Agresto’s partisanship violated the spirit of the independence legislation.
In what could only be described as a controversial hearing, Gerald George, the Director of the American Association of State and Local History, stated in answer to a question from Senator Mathias (R·MD) that “Agresto was less well qualified for the archivist job than any current state archivist.” Rabbi Malcolm Stern of the Federation of Genealogical Societies called Agresto’s nomination “an act of political cronyism,” and Ann Morgan Campbell, Executive Director of the Society of American Archivists, said it was “insensitive and inappropriate.” When the hearing resumed on September 10, Professor Mary Berry, a former vice-president of the AHA, testified on behalf of the AHA. “Mr. Agresto wants to be the custodian of our national records,” she noted, “the guardian of our institutional memory. He is simply not qualified for the job.” Berry further noted that “he has demonstrated a disregard for the law in order to accommodate his personally held views.” In conclusion, she stressed that Agresto “is the antithesis of the type of non-partisan professional leader of national stature whom Congress intended to head this independent agency and lead it into the twenty-first century.”
Following the testimony of the witnesses, Senator Levin summarized the evidence revealing 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 as a witness Mr. Robert Tuttle, who heads the White House Personnel Office, and to determine from Mr. Tuttle if the very unique requirements of the archives’ independence legislation which call for the Archivist to be chosen “without regard to political affiliation” had been violated. Three other Senators—Senators Eagleton, Gore, and Glenn—joined Senator Levin in requesting the appearance of Mr. Tuttle in an additional day of hearings. Eagleton also asserted that the selection process had been polluted and politicized in violation of the law. Senator Roth (R-DE), who chaired the third day of hearings, seemed reluctant to consider the request, but Senator Levin had carefully followed Senate rules in making his request. At the close of the hearing, Senator Roth stated that the hearing was recessed. It is undear what the next step will be. Following the completion of the hearing, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee must meet to vote on whether to recommend the nomination to the Senate.
FY’87 Appropriations. As we go to press the House of Representatives has voted on all FY’87 appropriations bills; however, the Senate has not yet brought one budget bill to the floor. The House approved approximately $95 million for the National Archives. This includes S4 million grant funds for the National Historical Publications and Records Commission but means a $2 million reduction in operating expenses for the National Archives since the current budget is $97 million. Although the House Appropriations Committee recommended a $105.3 million budget for the National Archives, the vote on the floor resulted in an across-the-board 9.7 percent cut for a number of programs including the National Archives, thus significantly reducing the Archives’ budget. The Senate Appropriations figure for the National Archives is $100.3 million, which also includes $4 million for NHPRC grants. The House has approved $138 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities for FY’87. This is the same amount appropriated by Congress last fall for the FY’86 NEH budget. Following the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings cuts, the NEH budget was reduced to $132 million. The Senate Appropriations Committee has recommended $136.7 million. The State Historic Preservation Fund, which was targeted by the Administration for zero funding, received in the final House vote $20 million for the states and $4.2 million for the National Trust and $1.5 million for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. The pending amounts for historic preservation in the Senate are dose to the House figures. Final budget amounts for the FY’87 appropriations bills will be determined either by a Conference Committee or by a continuing resolution. ln the past the continuing resolution has frequently used the House and Senate figures, adopting the lower amount. In the case of the National Archives’ budget, this would be most unfortunate since the House figure calls for a $2 million cut and the Senate amount includes a $3 million increase.
Senate Passes Nixon Papers Resolution. On August 15, the Senate passed a resolution to express the sense of the Senate that regulations issued by the National Archives governing the preservation, protection of, and public access to the Nixon Administration Presidential Materials meet the statutory requirements of the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act of 1974 and should be implemented without regard to the Justice Department opinion of the regulations. The Justice Department opinion issued on February 18 includes language that would greatly diminish the authority of the Archivist. Reducing the Archivist to a “purely executive officer . . . subject to the President’s supervision and control,” the Justice Department would significantly expand the “executive privilege” of Nixon, giving him exclusive control over public access to his presidential materials. There is legitimate concern over the politicization of the National Archives in light of an internal Office of Management and Budget memo published in a recent House report which states that the Attorney General recommends getting an Archivist confirmed before forcing the issue on the Nixon regulations. Historians and archivists are on record opposing the Justice Department opinion. The most recent constituent opposition to the Justice Department opinion come from Public Citizen, a consumer group founded by Ralph Nader, and the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press, which have filed a legal complaint to enjoin the National Archives from complying with the legal opinion issued by the Justice Department. The suit requires that the Court order the Justice Department and the Office of Management and Budget to rescind their directive to the Archives.
Impact for Tax Reform Legislation on Academic Scholars. In trying to decipher the implications of the tax reform bill on college and university teachers, we note that dues to professional organizations, subscriptions to scholarly journals, and expenses to attend professional meetings will still be deductible as professional expenses. However, the new aspect of this issue is that only amounts above 2 percent of adjusted gross income will be deductible.
Work Begins on Women’s Landmarks Project. Joan Hoff-Wilson, Executive Secretary of the Organization of American Historians, Denis Galsin, the Deputy Director of the National Park Service, and myself signed a memorandum of agreement to sponsor a women’s history landmark project. The proposed national project, “Reclaiming Our Past: Landmark Sites of Women’s History,” will be undertaken by professional historians who are active in both the teaching and public spheres. It is slated for a three-year period, will be funded privately, and is now in the preliminary planning stage. The proposed project will provide the National Park Service with appropriate theme study essays integrating tangible resources of women’s past with recent scholarship on women’s history. It also will identify existing sites on the National Register of Historic Places which are of national significance to women’s history and will nominate new sites that bring into accurate perspective the role of women in the history and culture of the United States.
