[House Hearing, 111 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] STRENGTHENING THE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PUBLICATIONS AND RECORDS COMMISSION ======================================================================= 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 SECOND SESSION __________ JUNE 9, 2010 __________ Serial No. 111-80 __________ 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 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 L. MICA, Florida DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia DIANE E. WATSON, California PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California JIM COOPER, Tennessee JIM JORDAN, Ohio GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia JEFF FLAKE, Arizona MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of AARON SCHOCK, Illinois Columbia BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 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 JUDY CHU, California 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 CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia Columbia JOHN L. MICA, Florida DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio HENRY CUELLAR, Texas JUDY CHU, California Darryl Piggee, Staff Director C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on June 9, 2010..................................... 1 Statement of: Beschloss, Michael R., Presidential historian, vice president, Board of Directors, Foundation for the National Archives; Dr. Steven Hahn, Roy F. and Jeannette P. Nichols professor of history, University of Pennsylvania; Karen Jefferson, head of archives and special collections, Atlanta University Center; Dr. Ira Berlin, distinguished university professor, University of Maryland, representing the American Historical Association; and Dr. Pete Daniel, curator, National Museum of American History, retired, representing the Organization of American Historians....... 78 Berlin, Dr. Ira.......................................... 97 Beschloss, Michael R..................................... 78 Daniel, Dr. Pete......................................... 104 Hahn, Dr. Steven......................................... 82 Jefferson, Karen......................................... 90 Gottlieb, Peter, State archivist of Wisconsin, representing the Society of American Archivists; Barbara Franco, director, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, representing the American Association of State and Local History; Barbara Teague, Kentucky State archivist and records administrator, representing the Council of State Archivists; Kaye Lanning Minchew, director of archives, Troup County, GA, representing the National Association of Government Archives and Records Administrators; and Susan Holbrook Perdue, director, Documents Compass, Virginia Foundation for the Humanities, representing the Association for Documentary Editing.................................... 120 Franco, Barbara.......................................... 126 Gottlieb, Peter.......................................... 120 Minchew, Kaye Lanning.................................... 144 Perdue, Susan Holbrook................................... 151 Teague, Barbara.......................................... 134 Larson, Hon. John B., a Representative in Congress from the State of Connecticut, member of National Historical Publications and Records Commission; David S. Ferriero, archivist of the United States, chairman, National Historical Publications and Records Commission; and Kathleen M. Williams, executive director, National Historical Publications and Records Commission, U.S. National Archives and Records Administration............... 11 Ferriero, David S........................................ 16 Larson, Hon. John B...................................... 11 Williams, Kathleen M..................................... 64 Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by: Berlin, Dr. Ira, distinguished university professor, University of Maryland, representing the American Historical Association, prepared statement of.............. 99 Beschloss, Michael R., Presidential historian, vice president, Board of Directors, Foundation for the National Archives, prepared statement of............................ 80 Clay, Hon. Wm. Lacy, a Representative in Congress from the State of Missouri, prepared statement of................... 3 Daniel, Dr. Pete, curator, National Museum of American History, retired, representing the Organization of American Historians, prepared statement of.......................... 106 Ferriero, David S., archivist of the United States, chairman, National Historical Publications and Records Commission, prepared statement of...................................... 18 Franco, Barbara, director, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, representing the American Association of State and Local History, prepared statement of................... 128 Gottlieb, Peter, State archivist of Wisconsin, representing the Society of American Archivists, prepared statement of.. 122 Hahn, Dr. Steven, Roy F. and Jeannette P. Nichols professor of history, University of Pennsylvania, prepared statement of......................................................... 84 Jefferson, Karen, head of archives and special collections, Atlanta University Center, prepared statement of........... 92 Larson, Hon. John B., a Representative in Congress from the State of Connecticut, member of National Historical Publications and Records Commission, prepared statement of. 13 Minchew, Kaye Lanning, director of archives, Troup County, GA, representing the National Association of Government Archives and Records Administrators, prepared statement of. 146 Perdue, Susan Holbrook, director, Documents Compass, Virginia Foundation for the Humanities, representing the Association for Documentary Editing, prepared statement of............. 153 Teague, Barbara, Kentucky State archivist and records administrator, representing the Council of State Archivists, prepared statement of.......................... 136 Williams, Kathleen M., executive director, National Historical Publications and Records Commission, U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, prepared statement of............................................... 66 STRENGTHENING THE NATIONAL HISTORICAL PUBLICATIONS AND RECORDS COMMISSION ---------- WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9, 2010 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 2:07 p.m., in room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Clay, Norton, Driehaus, Westmoreland, and Chaffetz. Also present: Representative Jordan. Staff present: Darryl Piggee, staff director/counsel; Yvette Cravins, counsel; Frank Davis and Anthony Clark, professional staff members; Charisma Williams, staff assistant; John Cuaderes, minority deputy staff director; Rob Borden, minority general counsel; Jennifer Safavian, minority chief counsel for oversight and investigations; Adam Fromm, minority chief clerk and Member liaison; Kurt Bardella, minority press secretary; Seamus Kraft, minority deputy press secretary; Justin LoFranco, minority press assistant and clerk; Tom Alexander, minority senior counsel; and Ashley Callen and Jonathan Skladany, minority counsels. Mr. Clay. Good afternoon. The Information Policy, Census, and National Archives Subcommittee 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 materials for the record. Welcome to today's hearing entitled, ``Strengthening the National Historical Publications and Records Commission.'' Because we have a long list of witnesses today who will talk about the specifics of the Commission, I will make my remarks brief and submit my full statement for the record. It has been more than 20 years since the NHPRC's authorization was set at $10 million. In the past there have been attempts to eliminate it by those who claim the Commission was wasteful or redundant. These efforts, I believe, reflected a fundamental misunderstanding of what the NHPRC is and what it does. I am confident that this confusion is, like the records that the Commission's grants preserve are, now part of our past. I introduced H.R. 1556 last year to authorize the NHPRC at $20 million a year for the next 5 years. I hope the bill will enjoy the broad and bipartisan support in the House that it clearly does across the country, judging from the great interest shown in this hearing. I wholeheartedly support the NHPRC. It is a vital, successful, and efficient program. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support increasing the authorized funding to a level commensurate with the Commission's goals and one that recognizes its importance in helping to preserve and make available our Nation's documentary heritage. [The prepared statement of Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Clay. I now yield to my colleague, Mr. Chaffetz, who is sitting in for the ranking member today. Mr. Chaffetz. Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to start by asking unanimous consent to first excuse Patrick McHenry. He had a good excuse of getting married over the weekend. We congratulate him on that and understand that he is not here. We are all so pleased that he actually got married. Mr. Clay. Without objection, we will give him a noted absence. Mr. Chaffetz. We would also ask unanimous consent to allow Mr. Jordan, who does serve on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, to join us here on the dias. Mr. Clay. Without objection. Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. Mr. Chairman, I need to bring up something that is troublesome to us just before I give my opening remarks here. The House rules require that the written statements of non- governmental witnesses and witnesses representing non- government entities shall include a curriculum vitae and disclosure of recent grants and contracts awarded to themselves and the entities they are representing. Despite a request by the committee staff, only one disclosure has been provided to the members of the committee. Even that one disclosure, provided on behalf of the American Association of State and Local History by Ms. Franco, was incomplete as it did not include Ms. Franco's curriculum vitae. Mr. Chairman, because the required Truth in Testimony disclosures have not been included in the written statements of Mr. Beschloss, Dr. Hahn, Ms. Jefferson, Dr. Berlin, Dr. Daniel, Dr. Gottlieb, and Ms. Holbrook Perdue, I move, pursuant to House Rule 11, clause 2(g)(4), that the written statements of these seven witnesses be excluded from the official committee record and the print of this hearing. Mr. Clay. Are you waiting for me to rule on that? Mr. Chaffetz. Yes, please. Mr. Clay. We do have all of the information that you requested. If you would like, we could turn it over to you now. Mr. Chaffetz. Well, obviously, we would like it sooner rather than later. I guess if you did have it all, again, I have the greatest respect for you, I am a good friend. Why weren't we provided that information prior to the hearing? Mr. Clay. I really couldn't tell you. But I am just hearing about it now and it is kind of embarrassing. Hopefully, you will allow these witnesses to be here. If you don't think it is enough time, I understand. Mr. Chaffetz. Oh, clearly. The witnesses have come at great time and expense and what-not to be here, but the rules are there for a reason. Mr. Clay. Sure. Mr. Chaffetz. It allows us to dive deeper into the information, ask probing and informative questions to make the most of this hearing at the taxpayers' dime. I appreciate your sincerity and sharing that with me, but we should have had these records before. Mr. Clay. And I agree. Mr. Chaffetz. And this is an Archives meeting, for goodness sake. Mr. Clay. You should have had those records. I don't have a good explanation as to why you don't have them, and most of this has come to us today. Mr. Chaffetz. If you could provide them. I mean, obviously, we want them as soon as possible. We want to proceed with the hearing. We have important information to review. But that simply shouldn't happen. I have noted it. Mr. Clay. And let me apologize for the delay. We will follow the rules and this won't happen again. Mr. Chaffetz. I appreciate the chairman. Thank you. Mr. Clay. Thank you. Mr. Chaffetz. I do have a statement; I will proceed. Mr. Clay. Go ahead, proceed with the statement. Mr. Chaffetz. Mr. Chairman, our economy is reeling. Jobs are scarce and many Americans are frustrated that Washington isn't listening to loud calls for belt-tightening and fiscal restraint. And just like families that are forced to cut back on good things like music lessons or vacation, Congress is also expected to cut programs, however meritorious, that are not essential to the core mission of our Federal Government. The Federal Government. And I need to emphasize that because, quite frankly, we can't be all things to all people. We are trying to be, but we are more than $13 trillion in debt. We are paying more than $660 million a day just in interest. That is just our interest payment. We are not meeting the basic needs of our Federal Government, and the question and the concern with the bill and some of the things that I have heard discussed before this is expanding a program that, quite frankly, doesn't necessarily meet that Federal nexus. Congress, however, doesn't seem to have received this message, so the American people are taking matters in their own hands. We have a program, for instance, such as YouCut, where each week taxpayers can vote on one of five nonessential programs to cut from the Federal budget. Republicans then bring the top vote-getter to the floor for a vote on cutting it. This week tens of thousands of Americans have voted through YouCut to strip funding from the National Historic Publications and Records Commission from the Federal budget. The American people believe that for whatever contributions the Commission has made to our society through these grants, at a time when our Government is bankrupt, America can live without it. We are going to have to make difficult decisions about what we are going to spend and what we are not going to spend. I happen to agree with those tens of thousands of American people who have said the savings may be modest in comparison to a multi-trillion dollar budget and the program, while well- intended, something has to give. Chairman Clay, in your December 16, 2009, opening statement reminded us that ``managing, preserving, and providing prompt and proper access to Federal records has been and must continue to be the primary mission of the National Archives.'' I totally and wholeheartedly agree. The mission and the goals that the Archives provides is critical to our Nation's future. There are things that, if we don't save them now, they won't be saved in the future. And I concur with that. President Obama recently instructed agencies to cut programs ``least critical'' to their central mission. As the central mission of the National Archives is to preserve records of the National Government, and while the Commission is focused on State and local preservation, it most definitely qualifies this Commission as least critical and funding should be cut. Yesterday, OMB Director Orszag echoed the President's message calling for ``duplicative'' programs to be cut. The Commission does the same thing that the much larger and well- funded National Endowment for the Humanities and the Institute for Museum and Library Services do. I agree with Director Orszag that duplicative programs like the Commission can and should be stripped from the budget. These are difficult decisions. I wish we could just have the luxury of being able to do this, but we simply don't. The American people have the right to a government that saves more than it spends. The first question we must ask ourselves as stewards of the taxpayers' hard-earned money is: What can America live without? Not what more can we spend other people's money on. That is what YouCut is all about. We certainly won't solve America's fiscal problems by simply cutting the Commission. I understand that. We have to start somewhere, and the American people have spoken; they want us to start here. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Clay. Thank you. Just for the record, I would really love to hear what you think about the impact that the NHPRC has had in Utah. I am looking at the total funds spent and for what purposes, establishing a network of archives in Utah, public record support documenting the history of the people of the Great Basin in Utah; State archive support, support going to the University of Utah; Utah Historical Advisory Board; and so on. Mr. Chaffetz. Cut it. Cut it. Cut it. I got elected---- Mr. Clay. Doesn't this have an impact for the people of your State? Mr. Chaffetz. If I could have some time, with all due respect, we have to make tough decisions. I will be the first to say, yes, even if it affects Utah, cut it. We can't do it. We can't be all things to all people. Mr. Clay. OK. All right, thank you for that. Mr. Chaffetz. Sure. Mr. Clay. Any other Members? Representative Driehaus, you are recognized. Mr. Driehaus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hadn't prepared a statement, but I feel inclined to offer one now. Coming from Cincinnati, OH, where history is tremendously important to us, to our culture, to our institutions, I couldn't disagree with the gentleman from Utah more. The relatively minor investment that is made in preserving our history and preserving our culture is critical, critical to the American psyche and critical to so many communities across the country. If we are looking for ways to address spending, if we are looking for ways to address the deficit, the gentleman will have an opportunity to vote, hopefully later this month, on a conference report dealing with Wall Street reform that would have prevented, had it been passed earlier, the greatest recession we have seen in our lifetimes, which has been the single greatest contributor to the deficit. He voted against it once and he has an opportunity to vote for it for the future, so I hope he takes advantage of that opportunity. Likewise, I don't know that the gentleman spoke out against two wars that were unfunded by the preceding administration. Mr. Chaffetz. Oh, yes I did. Mr. Driehaus. I hope he would have done that. Likewise, we had a tax cut under the Bush administration that led to the greatest deficit that we have seen in our lifetimes because we were set on a path that was going straight down when we walked in the door. But this isn't about that. This is about preserving our history because it is so critically important to the culture of communities across the United States. We do have a responsibility to preserve that culture. We do have a responsibility to speak to our history so that we don't make the mistakes in the future of repeating past mistakes. So, Mr. Chairman, I would strongly disagree with my colleague from Utah. I believe the NHPRC is critically important. I support its funding and I am pleased that you are having the hearing today, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. Mr. Chaffetz. Would the gentleman yield? You can always reclaim your time if you don't like the direction I am going. Mr. Clay. The gentleman did not yield. Does any other Member prefer to make an opening statement? Mr. Jordan. [Remarks made off mic.] Mr. Clay. Yes. You have 3 minutes. Mr. Jordan. Three minutes? Mr. Clay. Yes, sir. Mr. Jordan. I would yield the balance of my time to the ranking member. Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you. To clarify, answer the gentleman's question, I campaigned on the very idea the Republicans had the House, the Senate, the Presidency, and they blew it. I did look back in retrospect and said, yeah, what we did in Iraq was wrong, and I questioned the president in the move in Afghanistan. So to help clarify the record, yeah, I have been very critical, even when it says the word ``Bush.'' I think I have been even in my principles. Let me also clarify here that the National Archives and Records Administration proposed budget for fiscal year 2010 is roughly $467 million, the National Endowments for the Humanities is roughly $167 million, and the Institute for Museum and Library Services is roughly $240 million, for a total of roughly $874 million. Now, somehow we are going to have to survive on that kind of money. What is being proposed is to increase that even more. At the same time, you have President Obama, you have the OMB Director calling for a 5 percent cut, a 5 percent across- the-board cut. Let me read this real quickly. This is from Director Orszag, June 8th: ``The bottom line is we do not have the luxury of simply spending more. We must continually review all spending and make sure every dollar addresses a clear need or problem. We can no longer afford the old way of doing business here in Washington, DC. As described below, the President is asking for a renewed effort to go through your budget line by line, with a critical eye to target programs that are not the best use of taxpayer dollars.'' We still have hundreds of millions of dollars allocated to preserving the needed records. One last thing, Mr. Chairman, and I will conclude. On page 2 of Director Orszag's 5 percent target: ``Your agency should identify discretionary programs or sub-programs that constitute at least 5 percent of your agency's fiscal year 2000 discretionary appropriations as enacted.'' But what we are talking about here is a doubling. So I think, ironically enough, I am being consistent with the President and the OMB Director, and I think the gentleman from Ohio and others should answer as to why they think, in this economic peril that we are in, why they can justify doubling a budget. Doubling. I yield back. Mr. Clay. Mr. Chaffetz, the order was to look at programs in agencies that were duplicitous and that were wasteful, and I am sure that those agencies will be able to find some cuts. Let's move toward the testimony of the witnesses. I would now like to introduce our first panel, and the first witness will be the Honorable John Larson, Member of Congress from the great State of Connecticut. Congressman Larson has honorably served the people of the First District of Connecticut since 1999 and is the Chair of the Democratic Caucus. Congressman Larson has been an active and enthusiastic member of the NHPRC since 2007. Our next witness is Archivist of the United States, David Ferriero. Mr. Ferriero has led the National Archives since his confirmation last November. Mr. Ferriero previously served as the Andrew W. Mellon director of the New York Public Library, the largest public library system in the United States. We will then hear from Ms. Kathleen Williams, who has been executive director of the NHPRC since 2008, after serving as deputy director for 4 years. She previously spent over 20 years as an archivist. I thank all of our witnesses for appearing today and look forward to their testimony. I notice this is your first visit, Ms. Williams. We are not as ferocious as we may seem. [Laughter.] It is the policy of the committee to swear in all witnesses before they testify. Would you please stand and raise your right hands? [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Clay. Thank you. You may be seated. Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in the affirmative, and we will try to get through each witness's testimony before we recess. Mr. Larson, you may proceed. STATEMENTS OF HON. JOHN B. LARSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT, MEMBER OF NATIONAL HISTORICAL PUBLICATIONS AND RECORDS COMMISSION; DAVID S. FERRIERO, ARCHIVIST OF THE UNITED STATES, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL HISTORICAL PUBLICATIONS AND RECORDS COMMISSION; AND KATHLEEN M. WILLIAMS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HISTORICAL PUBLICATIONS AND RECORDS COMMISSION, U.S. NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN B. LARSON Mr. Larson. Well, thank you, Chairman Clay. I really appreciate the opportunity to testify before you and ranking member for the day Mr. Chaffetz, my distinguished colleague, Mr. Driehaus from Ohio, Mr. Jordan as well. Thank you for affording me the opportunity to come and address the committee today on what I believe is an extraordinarily important issue for the country, for the Nation, and one that I want to commend, from the outset, Chairman Clay. Chairman Clay has recognized the traditional under-funding that has taken place in such a vital aspect of our Nation's history and its culture. I am a strong supporter, in fact, the cosponsor of H.R. 1556, because I don't believe the decisions that confront us, as have been enumerated both by Mr. Driehaus and by Mr. Chaffetz, while they are important in terms of how we look at what we are assigned to do in the U.S. Congress, it is not a question of whether it is big government or smaller government; it is a question of how efficient the government is that we provide for the people. So as your responsibility, and ours all collectively, is to examine the budgets in our committees and to make sure that what we are producing carries with it the most beneficial and effective use of money that we can find. If I can, Mr. Chairman, I will seek permission to revise and extend my remarks, submit extraneous information, and summarize, if I will, because I think it is best to summarize this around an age-old debate, and one best articulated by Daniel Boorstin, who was the Librarian of Congress. Boorstin was very concerned about the, well, at the time he called it the Year of the Book, and what was happening in terms of literacy, what was happening in terms of the confluence of technology and literacy, and what was happening, in fact--and I think every Member of Congress and, I dare say, everyone in the audience can appreciate this--the differentiation between information and knowledge. It used to be commonplace that we would say we want it to be an informed citizenry. And yet it is hard, I think, for anyone to turn on the TV screen today and not see messages screaming across the bottom of a screen while you are getting direct news, while you are getting the forecast, while there is another sub-column over here, 24/7 cable. Clearly, Americans are informed. But are they more knowledgeable? So when we look at our great institutions, including the National Archives, the Library of Congress, these institutions become, for a democracy and a culture, a fortress of knowledge, differentiating between the information. And especially in this day and age when everything is instant, now, and everywhere, they become the storehouse of knowledge that allows the American citizen to peruse not only present and future, but everywhere in the past at their leisure. And that is why these primary documents, whether they be the documents and the comments and the opening comments of today's committee hearing, whether they be floor statements, whether they be historic in nature by virtue of the plethora of great Americans that have made contributions to this Nation, they do indeed become vitally important. Mr. Driehaus accounted for, in his statements, the need especially for our States and our municipalities and the need for us, if we are to be that beacon of light around the world, to lead intelligently and effectively with who we are as a people. It is one thing to talk about democracy, freedom, and liberty. It is another thing, for all cultures, but most importantly our culture, our people, our citizens, to have the kind of exposure that they need to the great gift of knowledge, historic preservation, and records that aren't just instant, now, and everywhere, but are the culmination of a Nation's history, of a people, of humanity in general. And I would submit that is the great strength of our country, our national archive system, our library, which is second to none in the world. If we are to bring about the kind of change that we would all like to see around the world, there can be no more effective use of money spent by this Congress than in making sure that great and ennobling message is able to reach beyond our borders, but, most importantly, within our borders, to educate our children and future generations, to develop our scholars, to put, in fact, our scholars at work. The National Archives were born out of the effort of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in a time far more difficult than what we face today. But they saw the necessity in investing in the Nation's history and making sure that we not only preserved it, but also used this, going forward, as a beacon of hope not only for our country, but, as we have seen, has served this Nation extraordinarily well. I want to commend you, Mr. Clay. I wholeheartedly support your legislation. I thank the committee for an opportunity to speak here this afternoon. I apologize that, as the chairman knows, we have a caucus that is going and, I guess, concurrent with votes that will be taking place on the floor as well, and I thank all of my colleagues for the opportunity to speak before you today. [The prepared statement of Mr. Larson follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Clay. I thank the witness for his appearance, and you are dismissed. Thank you. Mr. Ferriero, you may proceed. STATEMENT OF DAVID S. FERRIERO Mr. Ferriero. Chairman Clay and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to participate in this hearing on the National Historic Publications and Records Commission, which is especially timely since today is International Archives Day. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for introducing the reauthorization bill, and I would also like to thank Congressman Larson for being here today and for ably representing the House as a voting member on NHPRC. Although the National Archives is a steward of Federal records, the National Historic Publications and Records Commission augments that work by awarding competitive matching grants that help preserve and make accessible a much wider variety of important historical records that tell our American story. As Archivist of the United States, I serve as chair of the Commission. It is a responsibility that I am honored to have, and I say this as one who, for the past three decades in the library profession, has witnessed firsthand the power of these modest grants to encourage and leverage a wide variety of archival projects. The Commission's membership is drawn from executive, judicial, and legislative branches of the Federal Government and from professional associations of historians, editors, and archivists. It rigors the reviews and competitively selects projects each year that preserve historical documents and make them available to all Americans. The most difficult part of this process is that we must cast aside more excellent grant applications than we are able to fund. In my written testimony, I have provided a few examples of grants that work, and I can provide many hundreds of examples from every State in the country. Of course, each and every NHPRC grant is important to the people, institutions, and communities on the receiving end; however, the ultimate grant beneficiaries are future generations of Americans who will continue to learn from the history we are helping to discover, preserve, and make accessible. NHPRC grants, however, can also make records available in ways that have a dramatic impact on the lives of ordinary citizens today. A grant from NHPRC to Texas Tech established the Vietnam Archives Families of Vietnamese Political Prisoners Association Collection, which helps Vietnamese refugees immigrate to the United States. In June 2009, a former Vietnamese reeducation camp prisoner was able to obtain political asylum in the United States by using the documents found in this collection to prove his case. Another area where NHPRC support is making a difference is helping States and localities expand access to digitized records on the Web. Virtually every archives, museum, and library is struggling to meet these challenges of so many records, so much public demand, and so few resources to make them easily accessible. And electronic records, those created as digital files, increase the scale, cost, and complexity of the problem. It is a challenge we are acutely aware of with Federal records at the National Archives and it is a challenge we share with every State, city, county, and town across the Nation. I will be the first to admit that we do not have all the answers here in Washington. Through the NHPRC, however, we are able to fund innovative projects that contribute to a shared base of knowledge on best practices for creating, preserving, and providing access to electronic records. All of us in the Federal Government are very aware of the constrained budget environment. I would only add that the equally difficult budget situations in most States are having a troubling impact on State and local archival programs. I would argue that the preservation of historical records across the Nation is as important in tough economic times as it is in prosperous times, and support from NHPRC is particularly crucial in leveraging resources from State and the private sector, since NHPRC award amounts are usually matched one to one, and also in originating and sustaining jobs for archivists and researchers. Through its grants program, the NHPRC fulfills Congress's vision for national leadership to preserve and make accessible our Nation's rich documentary heritage. School children use these documents in their study of history; citizens use these documents to discover their own heritage and to affirm their basic rights; and storytellers use these documents to write new chapters in the American story. From the award-winning historical biography of John Adams to the PBS series on the Civil War and America's national parks, all are made possible through our support of the original documents in our Nation's archives. I know there are several individuals and organizations testifying today in support of your legislation. With my testimony, I also am including several letters from organizations that are not present here today but wanted their support to be included in this hearing record. Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you, and I look forward to answering your questions. [The prepared statement of Mr. Ferriero follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Clay. Thank you so much, Mr. Ferriero. We will suspend now with witness testimony and the subcommittee will recess and reconvene immediately after these series of votes. [Recess.] Mr. Clay. The subcommittee will come to order. We will now pick up with Ms. Williams' testimony. You are recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN M. WILLIAMS Ms. Williams. Thank you, Chairman Clay and members of the subcommittee, for inviting me to participate in this hearing on the reauthorization of funding for the National Historical Publications and Records Commission. I have been the executive director of the Commission since April 2008, and prior to that I served as deputy executive director for 4 years. During this time, I have had the privilege of overseeing a Federal grantmaking agency that plays a unique and valuable role in helping Americans access their historical records and that leverages its resources to maximum advantage. Grantees each year develop and implement dozens of projects to publish, preserve, and make known the Nation's most important collections of archives and personal papers to scholars, researchers, teachers, and ordinary citizens in every corner of America. Since 1964, the Commission has funded approximately 4,800 projects across the country. These projects in turn have laid the groundwork for countless venues that increase our understanding of the American story and reach millions of Americans, including classroom use of historical documents in schools; public exhibitions at historic societies and museums; prize-winning biographies of the founding fathers and other notable Americans; television series on the Civil War, John Adams, and numerous other topics; and new digitized collections that document such varied subjects as the history of the Florida Everglades and the work of noted conservationist Aldo Leopold. Through our grants programs, we are able to leverage funds from private and public resources to augment the Federal dollars we invest. In addition, the majority of Commission grants support jobs that move these projects forward. In the panels this afternoon, you will learn about the work of historians, documentary editors, and archivists, and the catalytic role the Commission plays in advancing that work for public benefit. You will learn about the thousands of repositories across the country that struggle with caring for and providing access to the Nation's historical records. Over the next 5 years, the Commission seeks to address several critical needs through its programs. First, one of the Commission's cornerstone grants programs is in publishing historical records, which supports projects that transcribe, annotate, and publish the historical records that document the American story, including the founding era, the modern Presidency, the civil rights movement, and more. To date, we have supported some 300 projects, a body of work that tells the Nation's remarkable history in the words of those who made that history. In the Internet age, digital additions have become vital tools for both preserving and making accessible primary source materials. In the years ahead, we should ensure historians and editors the opportunity to creatively adapt to the advantages of online publishing. Second, the archives field must address several challenges in dealing with the numerous backlog of unprocessed records and providing online access to collections. Over the past few years, the Commission has spearheaded new grant opportunities implementing approaches to archival work that address the hidden collections of historical documents to eliminate these backlogs and rapidly get these historical collections known and available to the public. We also are funding projects to digitize entire collections of historical records and put them online, using cost-effective methods and a streamlined approach. Institutions ranging from Princeton to the Denver Public Library are rapidly changing their approaches to archival cataloging preservation and providing online access to substantial collections through our grants. Third, at present, the NHPRC supports State historical records advisory boards with grants to develop statewide services and training in archives, as well as offering effective re-grant programs. The vast majority of State boards actively partner with the Commission in these vital efforts. In Missouri, for example, our partnership with the State board recently helped support a re-grant program for 14 projects across that State, including the archives of historic Booneville, the Jewish Federation of St. Louis, and the architectural archives at the St. Joseph Museums. The Commission stands ready to do more of this kind of work to strengthen historical records preservation and use. Finally, we are eager to develop targeted grants program that focuses on improving access to the Nation's records of servitude and emancipation. These documents are often extremely difficult to find and use, but they are critical resources for anyone doing genealogical and other historical research. The National Archives serves as a hub for the Nation's archives and the NHPRC is a key part of that process. The Commission looks forward to serving as a true and effective Federal partner in preserving and facilitating access to the Nation's historical records. Thank you again for this opportunity to discuss the Commission with the committee, and I look forward to answering your questions about the NHPRC and its work. [The prepared statement of Ms. Williams follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Clay. Thank you, Ms. Williams, for your testimony. Now we will go to the questioning period, and I will start with Archivist Ferriero. As chairman of the Commission, can you please explain how the NHPRC is unique among all grantmaker supporting programs in history, archives, and the humanities? Mr. Ferriero. I think, having been a recipient of grants from both IMLS and NEH, I can speak to that, and now having chaired two meetings of the Commission. The NHPRC is focused on records, historical records. IMLS doesn't deal with archives; the L is for libraries, the M is for museums, and archives fall outside of their funding responsibilities. And NEH is focused on the humanities, not focused on records. And I think that is what distinguishes the NHPRC program. Mr. Clay. OK. Thanks for that response. Why should the Federal Government be interested in helping State and local archives and archivists preserve and make available non-Federal records? Mr. Ferriero. I think my message in my testimony is about telling the American story, and the ability to tell that American story is larger than Federal records. I have, under my purview, 10 billion items, but there are as many as that outside of my purview that are documents that tell the American story. Mr. Clay. Thank you for your response. Ms. Williams, what specifically would an increased authorized funding level mean for the Commission and its future grant recipients? Ms. Williams. Well, I think it would mean a couple of things, Mr. Chairman. I think it would help us to improve already existing programs and expand those. In particular, digitizing historical records really speaks to me and I think a lot of the rest of the citizenry in terms of direct access to these historical records. So I think we would certainly look to expand that. I think we would also look to use any increase to, in effect, enhance publishing projects to really draw on the challenge of working and producing online publications, and that is an investment that is a wise investment, again, for the American people that we are very eager to do. We do some of it now, but I think that there is some investment we could do with that. I think in my testimony just now I also indicated to you we are very eager to take on specific types of records, topical types, records of servitude and emancipation. I think the Congress itself has asked us to see how we can accommodate that and move such a new program forward, and I think we are very eager at the Commission to take that on. That is just a couple of examples that I can provide you with. Mr. Clay. And that inquiry's funding would help you assemble those records and enhance that effort, I am sure. Ms. Williams. That is correct. One of the most effective programs we have is in dealing with the States and the State boards, and we are able to do some of that now, I think, to a great result, but increased funding will let us put more of that funding out there. Mr. Clay. And how do NHPRC grants translate into jobs? Ms. Williams. Well, interestingly, I think a lot of the work that we support with historical records is very core work and it is very labor intensive, so, as a result, the bulk of the money that we award goes to either in publishing or in providing access and preserving goes toward basically jobs to carry out the work. This past year, for example, the Commission awarded about 120 grants, and of that about twice that amount in terms of jobs that are funded fully or in part from this, this is jobs for historians, archivists, those doing digitization work. Mr. Clay. Can you briefly describe the National Network of State Historic Advisory Boards and how that is crucial to the work of the NHPRC? Ms. Williams. Certainly. The States boards, virtually every State has a board and the territories as well, and we at the Commission have been partnering, we feel, very effectively with those boards for over 30 years in trying to provide them with the means to do statewide planning, provide statewide services, and issue what we call re-grants. This is basically the States having the ability to, based on their assessments of needs in their States, not us dictating in Washington how to spend it, but based on what they know the needs are in their State, whether it is training, preservation, digitization, they then issue that money out to smaller modest and smaller repositories to take care of those needs. So, for us, that is actually a critical partnership in order to get the Federal money out into local communities. Mr. Clay. OK. Thank you for your response. Representative Chaffetz. Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Look, the National Archives and Records Administration has given hundreds of millions of dollars of the people's money in order to fulfill a most definite need and service, and I appreciate the work that you do. Just yesterday, Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel highlighted that the administration has proposed a 3-year freeze in non-security discretionary funding and signed off on a directive to have a target to identify at least 5 percent that can be cut out of the budget. What are you proposing to cut out of your budget and why would you support doubling of the grant program? Mr. Ferriero. I got those instructions yesterday afternoon. I have seen them for the first time. We will launch a process to identify the areas in our administration, in our agency where we are going to be making those cuts. The budget that is awaiting approval right now for fiscal year 2011 already is a $10 million reduction in our budget. We will be analyzing every piece of our legislation. Mr. Chaffetz. I hope you can understand and appreciate why some of us look at this and say the proposal in the bill is to double the funding. You are already starting to cut some; the White House is starting to cut some; the Republicans, through YouCut, are trying to cut some, and that is why we have a bit of a disagreement. We printed off the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration mission statement and I want to read the first part of that: ``The National Archives and Records Administration serves American democracy by safeguarding and preserving the records of our government.'' I am struggling to find through the grant process how you are justifying funding some of these programs that are not the records of our government, because we can't preserve everything. We can't be all things to all people. Do you, Ms. Williams, have in your own mind a definition that separates the records of our government versus other projects that may feel like they are worthy of preservation? Ms. Williams. You are asking for a definition that separates that or just my---- Mr. Chaffetz. Well, let me give you an example. Let me give you an example. Princeton University, a pretty wealthy institution, received $122,848 to process 1,965 linear feet of records for the ACLU. I struggle to find the Federal nexus and the national imperative to help the ACLU preserve some of its records. Ms. Williams. Well, maybe it would help if I can suggest how this process works, so you have a better understanding. Mr. Chaffetz. Let me ask real directly. My time is so short, I am sorry. Do you dismiss grant applicants based on--is there a litmus test that says ``this is government, this isn't?'' ``If you are not government, sorry, you are going to scoot over and we are not going to consider it?'' You don't dismiss anybody if they are outside government? Mr. Ferriero. Can I respond to that? Mr. Chaffetz. Yes, sure. Sure. Mr. Ferriero. Congress established NHPRC in 1934 to deal with the non-Federal records. This was an effort to get the National Archives to exert some leadership in the country with non-Federal records. It is a grant program focused on States and local communities, universities, where there are historical records. Mr. Chaffetz. You can see, when you look at the mission statement, of the overall, what you are trying to accomplish for the National Archives. Let me give you another example, and help me understand how you can justify in Wilmington, DE, Eleutherian Mills-Hagley Foundation, $112,203 to process and make available the papers of an interior designer, William Pahlmann, a leader in department and specialty store design. Can you understand why, with $13 trillion in debt, that a lot of people would look at that particular one and say, ``that is what they are doing with our Federal dollars?'' How do we justify that? Why is that a good program? Ms. Williams. Well, if I could go back, again, to kind of the process, because we don't sit in Washington and simply, based on personal interest or anything else, make these sorts of decisions. The grant process is a rigorous one, the review process, so we get a pool of applicants every grant cycle from all across the country. We---- Mr. Chaffetz. And roughly how much money is requested overall? You give out $10 million, so do you know offhand how much was requested? Ms. Williams. This past year almost $23 million was requested. Mr. Chaffetz. So more than 45 percent of the people actually get a grant? Ms. Williams. About 46 percent received a grant thus far this year. Mr. Chaffetz. I see my time has expired. I have more questions, though. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Clay. Let me also note for the record that this is the process. This bill, H.R. 1556, will only authorize; the money will still have to be appropriated. This is the process that we use here, and I just want to note that for the record. Also, when you talk about records, be they Federal or private records, you know, as she mentioned, servitude and emancipation records I think are Federal records. The Freedmen's Bureau was set up after the Civil War. That was a Federal function. We sanctioned slavery in this country. That was a Federal function. And they had the great debates around slavery. I think it is consistent with us knowing our history that we try to preserve those records and try to make that knowledge available in a countrywide effort. That is my editorial and I will stop here and recognize Mr. Jordan for questions. Mr. Jordan. I thank the chairman. I am not as familiar with the subject matter as the chairman and the ranking member, but I have a few questions. If I have enough time, I will yield that time to our ranking member. Do both of you agree that we are at a point in our Nation with our government where we need to reduce spending and begin to get a handle on not just your program, but overall the budget? Would you both agree with that statement? Mr. Ferriero. I agree. Ms. Williams. I do. Mr. Jordan. And you are familiar with the numbers that the ranking member has been talking about, $1.4 trillion deficit, $13 trillion national debt? Within a couple years, within 2 years, we will be paying more than $1 billion a day just on interest just to service the debt, and that is even assuming that the interest rates stay low, which they are right now, relatively low. You are familiar with all those numbers? Let me ask a question. I think Congressman Larson, when he was talking earlier, talked about the overall budgets for Archives, Humanities, and Library of Congress, close to $900 million, is that right? $874 million. And the charge from the administration yesterday was to begin to look at agencies, figure out where there is redundancy, potential waste, programs that aren't effective. In your judgment, is there any potential redundancy with those three budgets? Do you think maybe we can find some places where the Archives are doing some of the same things that the Library of Congress is doing, the Humanities is doing? Do we know that? Mr. Ferriero. I think the figure that was cited for the Archives was the entire Archives budget, not NHPRC, and the NHPRC piece is $10 million. So you are comparing $10 million NEH and IMLS. Mr. Jordan. I guess my question is broader. Just as an expert in this area, do you think that those three, the Archives, Library of Congress, and Department of Humanities, do you think there are---- Mr. Ferriero. Duplication? Mr. Jordan. Yes. Mr. Ferriero. I don't think so. Mr. Jordan. You don't think so at all? Mr. Ferriero. I don't think so. Mr. Jordan. Do you think the taxpayers would accept that, just a general statement that you think no duplication? Mr. Ferriero. Yes. Mr. Jordan. OK. Mr. Chaffetz. Would the gentleman yield for a second? Mr. Jordan. I would be happy to yield. Mr. Chaffetz. Part of the problem here is that one of the funding applications that happened in February 2009 was for the International Tennis Hall of Fame. How can we do that? And I recognize it doesn't come under your direct purview, but how can anybody look the American taxpayers in the eye and say, ``I know you are struggling, but we have to get money to that International Tennis Hall of Fame?'' That is what is so infuriating. It is not because we are trying to do this for the civil rights movement. I would support that. But far from it. The Goodwill for a Computer Museum, for goodness sake, to make sure that we make an allocation for vintage computers? That is the difference. It is not the emotion and the need, the Federal nexus for the civil rights movement, it is about the International Tennis Foundation, the ACLU, Stanford University, Princeton. We are pulling people's money out of their pockets and we are giving it to somebody else. That is not the proper role of government to be doing this at the Federal level. My apologies. I yield back. Mr. Jordan. No, no, I thank the gentleman. I think he makes a great point. Here is, I guess, in kind of a broad context. You know, we always look at programs that are important and we understand that, but in tough economic times you have to make tough decisions. I think an example that comes to mind is our local school district. My wife is a part-time teacher there, local school district. Two months ago, front page of our local paper, they are talking about cutbacks they are going to have to make, and I read through the whole thing, and our kids go to that school, my wife and I went. We think it is a nice little local school. But I read through it all, and once you are looking at what they are planning to do, the question that came to mind was, ``well, why in the heck weren't we already doing this?'' And that is what we are asking. Go through, make those decisions, look at where there potentially is redundancy, potentially waste, and make those tough calls. That is what we are asking. Not to increase the budget. All kinds of taxpayers, all kinds of families, all kinds of small business owners are getting by on last year's budget; in many cases something less than last year's budget. Why in the heck can't government, in particular the Federal Government, do the same? And when you couple that with what the ranking member has pointed out, some of these grant recipients, and where some of these taxpayer dollars are going, I think just adds weight to our argument. That is the point we are making. And, with that, I would yield back my remaining 20 seconds to the ranking member or yield back to the chairman. Thanks. Mr. Clay. OK. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. Just for the record, for my colleagues, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Institute for Museums and Library Services do not duplicate any NHPRC programs. That is just for your knowledge. They do not duplicate those programs. If there are no further questions---- Mr. Chaffetz. I would like another round, if I could. I have the right to do it twice, I believe. Mr. Clay. We have two other panels. I am sure you have enough ammunition---- Mr. Chaffetz. I would like to respond, I guess, to---- Mr. Clay. Well, go ahead and respond. Mr. Chaffetz. Again, I am new to this process, I am a freshman here, but perhaps that perspective is a good one, because I still am struggling to understand why there is not a duplication, because I see that the imperative that you put out in your mission statement is the preservation of the records of our government, and consistently I see that--let me give you another example that happened through the NHPRC. The Norman Rockwell Museum at Stockbridge, MA, $108,000 to process and make available approximately 725 cubic feet of material on American artist Norman Rockwell and 20th century American artists. I fail to understand why that wouldn't fall under Humanities or some other issue. Let me give you another one. Stanford University, $111,000- plus to arrange and describe unprocessed materials from 88 collections within its archived records, sound of spoken words and recordings of music. We could keep going on and on, but that is the kind of stuff that is infuriating. In times of tough budgets, we have to find a way to consolidate and make some cuts. What has been on the table is a doubling of a budget. That is why I think you see so many people just fired up about this. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Clay. You are welcome, Representative. Norman Rockwell, the great American artist, probably deserves to have something preserved in our history. Let me ask Ms. Williams if you would like to respond to anything you have heard. Ms. Williams. Well, I think that part of our emphasis at the Commission is to invite applications for funding to support preservation and access to the Nation's historical records, wherever they reside, and a great variety, a great variety of records; and I think some of the members of the subcommittee have pointed out some that they find perhaps not worthy in their eyes. I just want to reemphasize that these proposals all go through a very rigorous vetting process by peer reviewers, State boards, the full Commission, and staff, and that review process, I think, brings the heavy weight of analysis to these proposals and they are used extensively in making these sorts of decisions. So I think it is documenting for us at the Commission the American story, which goes beyond Federal records. That is the mission of the Commission. It has been its mission since it was created in 1934. Mr. Clay. Thank you so much. At this point, this panel is excused and I would now like to invite our second panel of witnesses to come forward. Mr. Jordan. The previous witness talked about the review process and how extensive it was. Is it accurate to say, though, that, in the end, the 15 members of the NHPRC board make the final decision? Is that an accurate statement? So, in the end, whatever process in place, these 15 people decide who gets taxpayer dollars and who doesn't. Is that right? Mr. Clay. I would think that the board votes on--I am told by staff the Archivist has the final say. Mr. Jordan. But in the end it is those 15 people. Mr. Clay. I am sure it is recommended to the Archivist by the board. Mr. Jordan. Thank you. Mr. Clay. Thank you. I now would like to introduce our second panel. Our first witness will be Mr. Michael Beschloss, a historian specializing in the U.S. Presidency and American politics. Mr. Beschloss is a regular commentator on the PBS News Hour and is the NBC News Presidential historian. He is the vice president of the Foundation for the National Archives. Our next witness is Dr. Steven Hahn of the University of Pennsylvania. He is the co-editor of, ``Freedom, A Documentary History of Emancipation,'' which benefited from NHPRC funding. He is the author of, ``A Nation Under Our Feet: Black Political Struggles in the Rural South from Slavery to the Great Migration,'' which received a Pulitzer Prize in History for 2004. After Dr. Hahn, we will hear from Ms. Karen Jefferson, head of archives and special collections at Atlanta University Center. She was a founding member of the Archives and Archivists of Color Roundtable. In 2003, she received the University of Maryland's James Partridge Outstanding African- American Information Professional Award. Our next witness will be Dr. Ira Berlin of the University of Maryland, here today representing the American Historical Association. He is the founding editor of the Freedmen and Southern Society Project, supported by the NHPRC. His first book, ``Slaves Without Masters: The Free Negro in the Antebellum South,'' won the best First Book Prize awarded by the National Historical Society. And our last witness on this panel will be Dr. Pete Daniel, retired curator at the National Museum of American History, and here today representing the Organization of American Historians, of which he is a past president. He is the author of, ``Lost Revolutions: The South in the 1950's,'' which won the Elliott Rudwick Prize. I thank all of our witnesses for appearing today and look forward to their testimony. It is the policy of the subcommittee to swear in all witnesses before they testify. Would you all please stand and raise your right hands? [Witnesses sworn.] Mr. Clay. Thank you. You may be seated. Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in the affirmative, and I ask that each of the witnesses now give a brief summary of their testimony, and please limit your summary to 5 minutes. Your complete written statement will be included in the hearing today. Mr. Beschloss, please begin with your opening statement. STATEMENTS OF MICHAEL R. BESCHLOSS, PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN, VICE PRESIDENT, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, FOUNDATION FOR THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES; DR. STEVEN HAHN, ROY F. AND JEANNETTE P. NICHOLS PROFESSOR OF HISTORY, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA; KAREN JEFFERSON, HEAD OF ARCHIVES AND SPECIAL COLLECTIONS, ATLANTA UNIVERSITY CENTER; DR. IRA BERLIN, DISTINGUISHED UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION; AND DR. PETE DANIEL, CURATOR, NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AMERICAN HISTORY, RETIRED, REPRESENTING THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN HISTORIANS STATEMENT OF MICHAEL R. BESCHLOSS Mr. Beschloss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to do better than the 5. Thank you so much for inviting me and my colleagues here this afternoon. Both as a historian and also as vice president of the Foundation for the National Archives, I am very glad you are holding this hearing. As one who appreciates history, Mr. Chairman, you know that our founders devoutly hoped to make this country different from England and the other monarchies of Europe. One way they wanted us to be different was the way we Americans treat our history. As you know, the kings and queens of Europe were in favor of history, but only official history. Documents and other evidence that showed their mistakes were suppressed or destroyed. And when the founders began to work on what the United States should be, they knew all of that and, unlike the Europeans, they felt that, for a country's political system, history should be treated not as a dangerous threat to be harnessed, but as a mighty force that could make the country better. Our early leaders felt that only if we knew our full history could we really know how and why our past leaders and citizens succeeded, and also how and why they failed. And I think you can say that from the beginning those founders practiced what they preached. If you go back to the closed door debates of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, you will find the most detailed accounts of what they said and did; there are letters, there are transcripts, there are diaries, there are notes. Over two centuries later, we can hear those actual voices, and they speak to us. We are using those records even still to argue about those constitutional debates and how our society in 2010 compares to the early expectations. I think it is not too much to say that if the founders came back today, they would love the fact that we Americans have created an NHPRC. I think they would feel there is no more patriotic act than creating historical records, preserving them, and then making them available as quickly as possible to the widest number of Americans. And I think they would also love the fact that the NHPRC is not just concerned with the great and famous; it has shown itself just as eager to preserve and publish the letters of Swedish immigrants, for instance, in my home State of Illinois, as the letters of President John Adams and his cabinet. I think the NHPRC's work is now more important than it ever has been. Unlike earlier generations of Americans, we in 2010 don't tend to write many letters or diaries, and not too many of us pour our innermost thoughts and emotions into an email. So I think it couldn't be more vital for the NHPRC to do everything it can to encourage the creation of some kind of detailed historical record. Let me offer a quick example from my own professional experience. I have been working since 1994 on several books in which I transcribe, edit, and try to explain the tapes that President Lyndon Johnson made of 10,000 of his private conversations on the telephone in the Oval Office and elsewhere while he was President. Until the Johnson tapes began to be opened in 1994, almost no one knew that LBJ had secretly taped people he talked to without their knowledge, including his wife, by the way, which I would not recommend for any marriage, but she took it with some good humor. In retrospect, it is probably terrible that Johnson didn't tell his friends that he was taping them, but it is an inexhaustible treasure for the American people. Some of President Johnson's language on those tapes, I am afraid, is not fit for me to repeat in this hearing, but one lesson which is on them, which I will close with, is something I don't think the chairman or any member of this subcommittee will disagree with, and that is this: Presidents should listen to Members of Congress. Not a bad thought. May 1964, LBJ was talking to his old mentor, Senator Richard Russell of Georgia, about whether to go to war in Vietnam. Russell was Mr. Defense, but thought Vietnam was a loser. And on these tapes he tells Johnson, ``Vietnam is a tragic situation; it is just one of those places where you can't win. It will be the most expensive venture this country ever went into.'' He was absolutely right. How different the history of our country could have been had LBJ not rejected Russell's wise advise. I think that one conversation between a single President and a single powerful Senator is just one of the cautionary lessons that are crucial, I think, for later American Presidents and also for all of us citizens. And I think if it weren't for the kind of work so well championed by the NHPRC, we wouldn't even know that conversation took place. [The prepared statement of Mr. Beschloss follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Beschloss, for that brief history lesson. And I am so glad you sanitized President Johnson's language. Dr. Hahn, you are up. STATEMENT OF DR. STEVEN HAHN Dr. Hahn. Thank you. Chairman Clay, Ranking Member Chaffetz, Congressman Jordan, my name is Steven Hahn and I am a professor of history at the University of Pennsylvania, and I am very pleased to have the opportunity of coming before this committee today to speak in support of the authorization of an increased funding for the NHPRC. I have been, as Chairman Clay suggested, a direct beneficiary of the resources that the NHPRC has made available, and I have seen the many ways in which projects that the Commission has supported benefit historical learning and understanding in the United States. Early in my career, I worked as an associate editor at the Freedom History Project at the University of Maryland, the project that had been supported by the NHPRC. At the time, I was a newly minted Ph.D. and very excited about the work that the Freedom History Project was doing: assembling a multi- volume documentary history of slave emancipation in the United States using the records deposited at the National Archives. Most editorial projects, then and since, have focused on very well known, nationally significant and powerful figures and institutions. The Freedom History Project, by contrast, was uncovering the experiences of both the powerful and powerless, of policymakers and bureaucrats, of ordinary soldiers and slaves who were bringing about the destruction of slavery and the construction of a free society in the largest emancipation the world had ever seen. And, I might add, also the best documented one. Owing to the documents that I had the opportunity to read, compile, and annotate during my year as an associate editor on the Project, I became increasingly interested in African- American politics in the rural south. The material that I was using raised intriguing questions both about what former slaves were doing in their first years of freedom and about where their sensibilities and practices came from. When I left the Project to take up a post in the History Department at the University of California-San Diego, I decided to pursue some of the questions and to write a book about what I found. That book, ``A Nation Under Our Feet: Black Political Struggles in the Rural South from Slavery to the Great Migration,'' which I began to formulate while I was working at the Freedom History Project, was eventually published by Harvard University Press and was awarded the 2004 Pulitzer Prize in History. Now, over the years that the NHPRC has supported the Freedom History Project, numerous historians like myself have had the opportunity to find work in this rich intellectual environment, to develop our skills as researchers and writers, and subsequently, in no small measure, owing to our experience at the Freedom History Project, have been hired into full-time positions at a range of colleges and universities and have produced scholarship of genuine importance. Former editors now hold professorships at 15 different institutions of higher education across the United States; they have won major prizes for their work; they have become MacArthur Foundation fellows; they have served on State humanities councils; and they have been elected, as Professors Berlin and Daniel have, president of the Organization of American Historians. But the impact of the NHPRC goes well beyond academic employment and published scholarship. It nourishes the educations and intellectual appetites of students and other learners at all levels of American society. In the time since I worked at the Freedom History Project, I have used the Project documents and essays in my lecture courses and seminars at the University of Pennsylvania and elsewhere. I have also brought them into many public school teacher workshops I have participated in in those years. The teachers, in turn, have brought the documents and other related materials into their junior and senior high school classrooms, and have stimulated interest in our past and an exciting sense of discovery among their students. And I used the Project materials extensively when I taught college level courses for economically disadvantaged adults in North Chicago, in what is known as the Odyssey Program, earlier in the past decade. The reach of the NHPRC has been enormous and the benefits that have derived from its resources are greater still. At a time when the connections between past and present are very much a part of public consciousness and the political discourse, we need to promote the type of work that can make the past and our many pasts come alive for all Americans. The NHPRC has already made an invaluable contribution toward that end, and I would urge you to authorize the level of funding that will allow the Commission not only to continue, but also to expand its important undertakings. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I would be happy to answer any of your questions. [The prepared statement of Dr. Hahn follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Clay. Thank you for your testimony, Dr. Hahn, and thank you for your important work in preserving American history. Ms. Jefferson, you are recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF KAREN JEFFERSON Ms. Jefferson. Chairman Clay and members of the subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to testify to you today about the NHPRC. I am representing my library, who has benefited from the support of NHPRC through our State Humanities Board, and I am going to talk about how we benefited in that way. First of all, I want to say that the archival profession greatly is appreciative of the work of the NHPRC, and that extends to our State Records Historical Advisory Boards that impacts us the most, and I am going to talk about Georgia's Historical Records Advisory Board and the work that it does and how it benefits us directly. First of all, we have a wonderful directory, GHRAB is what we call our historical board, and this directory is an online directory of over 600 different organizations in the State of Georgia so that we know who we are, who is collecting the history, who is preserving the history; and also so that the citizens, our educators, our students, and our researchers will know how to find out where the records are in Georgia. The grants program, of course, or the re-grants program that is done by GHRAB through funding from NHPRC has been very helpful. Our institution has received a small grant, as has our sister institution, Spelman College Archives, to help us do our work. A lot of those awards are very small, they are $2,000 to maybe $15,000, but they are vital to the work that we do. They are covering programs that deal with startup funds to help you begin your archives, to help you improve the work that your archives is doing. In particular, it funds educational opportunities. And, as archivists, we have to stay abreast of what are the best practices and the standards so that we can preserve the records, and these educational opportunities through our State Historical Advisory Boards are brought to the State and made more accessible, and they are less expensive because we don't have to travel and spend extra money to go outside to learn about changes and developments that we should use in our work. This is particularly important because we are now doing a lot of workshops related to managing electronic records and digitizing historical materials, and we are also doing planning around disaster preparedness, because we have to be prepared to recover from when we have disasters. But, in particular, I want to mention the work that we are doing today related to managing electronic records because even today, at this hearing, all of the testimonies that we have done have been prepared by computers. The hearing that we are having right now is being recorded electronically, and the technology is changing very quickly. How are we going to make sure that the records that we are generating today, like the record we are having right now, is going to be accessible to the future? We have to make sure that the practitioners have the training to do it, that we keep abreast of being able to care for these kinds of historical records; they are no longer just going to be paper. Also, our citizens are increasingly wanting only access to the records electronically, so they no longer are simply wanting to look at the paper document; they want to be able to search it, they want to be able to see it online. I also want to mention what is important for us is the job opportunities that these grant projects fund, and I want to talk about how they actually help new archivists come into the field, because when you finish your program as in a master's program of archival administration, you don't always have the experience that you need to get a job, and these grant programs are where we hire folks and they have an opportunity to work for 1 to 3 years and get the experience so that, when they do apply for professional jobs, that they will have experience. Entry level positions often require that you have 1 to 3 years of experience. Where will you get it? These programs also open up the career opportunity for archives and records management to students, so we hire a lot of students in these grant programs. And I know from my institution right now we have hired four students who have gone on to get their professional degrees. Two are in school right now; one is going to pursue the degree in the fall; and we have another who just completed their work and is now working at the National Archives. So this is the kind of programs that put people to work, so I think it is very important. I just want to say that what happens in Georgia is happening across the country in different SHRABs, as we call them, and I don't think that we can devalue or should devalue the work that is being done in terms of keeping our historical records available. I want to say that if we want to have an informed citizenry, if we want our citizens to be proud Americans and understand what it means to be Americans, they have to have access to the records; they have to know that story. So I think that what we do is very important to what we will do in the future. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Ms. Jefferson follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Clay. Thank you so much, Ms. Jefferson. Dr. Berlin, you may proceed for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF DR. IRA BERLIN Dr. Berlin. Chairman Clay, Ranking Member Chaffetz, Westmoreland, Jordan, my name is Ira Berlin. I teach at the University of Maryland, where I am a professor of history and also a university professor. I am also a member of the American Historical Association, the oldest and largest organization of American historians, and I am here today representing that organization. I am most pleased to have the opportunity to testify before this committee on the reauthorization of the NHPRC with a budget of $20 million and to urge an increase in the funding of that agency even at this moment, because I believe that it is critical to the American people's understanding of the past, which in turn is essential to our democracy. I can think of nothing which is more essential at this particular moment. The National Historical Publications and Records Commission is the seed bed of contemporary understandings of American history. During the last 60 or more years, the NHPRC, more than any other single entity, governmental or private--and I should say I have sat on the National Council of the National NEH--has made it possible for the American people to know their history, and that history speaks to the entirety of the American experience; workers as well as bosses, slaves as well as slaveholders, women as well as men, even tennis players, I presume, in short, we have built and protected and to defend our great republic precisely those people. You have already heard accountings of the extraordinary records of the NHPRC in creating archival collections in every State and territory in the United States, and the magnificent documentary volumes, the microfilms, the CDs these have spawned. We are talking literally of miles of records and thousands of volumes. Rather than repeat that accounting, I would like to talk a little bit about my own experience as the founding director of the Freedmen and Southern Society project, that collaborative study of the transit of black people from slavery to freedom, the beginning of the Civil War in 1861 to the beginning of radical reconstruction in 1867, which has been published in a multi-volume edition under the title of Freedom. We are talking of a revolutionary moment, a people who go from being property, something like the chair I am sitting on, to being men and women, free men and women, and then soldiers in the world's most powerful army, and then citizens of this great republic, and then officeholders in that great republic. That happens in 6 years. And if that happens in 6 years, imagine what could happen in 10 years; imagine what could happen in a lifetime. People get a sense that they can transform the world. It seems to me that this is essential to being a citizen of a democracy, particularly this democracy. In transforming this understanding of emancipation and putting slaves at the very center of this story, the Freedom volumes have been called this generation's most significant encounter with the American past, what the Washington Post declared one of the great monuments to contemporary scholarship. Of course, I am very proud of this, but I am even more proud of seeing the Freedmen and Southern Society project become a school for young scholars who are now teaching in our great universities, in our community colleges, in our high schools. Of those people, winning prizes and those prize- winning projects being passed on to their students. It is not simply a matter of creating new careers and creating jobs, but the Freedmen and Southern Society project and the work that is created by that project, which is founded on those NHPRC grants, have found their way into high schools and schools everywhere; they have taught hundreds and thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of students; they have given people a new sense of the American past, a sense of the American past where, in the past, people have controlled their own destiny, and in some ways that empowers them to believe that they themselves can control their own destiny. That is what democracy is all about and that is what history should do, and that is what the NHPRC has done. Thank you so much. [The prepared statement of Dr. Berlin follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Clay. Thank you, Dr. Berlin, for your testimony and the wonderful work you have done on our country's history. Appreciate it. Dr. Berlin. Thank you. Mr. Clay. Dr. Daniel, you are batting cleanup. STATEMENT OF DR. PETE DANIEL Dr. Daniel. Thank you, Chairman Clay and other members of the subcommittee, for the privilege of testifying in support of reauthorization of the National Historical Publications and Records Commission. As a past president of the Organization of American Historians [OAH], I am representing its 9,000 members, to include academic historians, K-12 teachers, public historians, and anyone interested in the history of the United States. The OAH publishes the Journal of American History and the OAH Magazine of History, and is vitally involved in the country's intellectual history. The NHPRC provided critical support to the Booker T. Washington Papers Project that began in 1967 and that concluded in 1989 with a cumulative index of the 13 volumes of documents. As a graduate student at the University of Maryland, I worked with Louis Harlan on this project from its beginning until I graduated with a Ph.D. in 1970 and left as the Project's assistant editor. The first volume of letters included this notation in the acknowledgments: The National Historical Publications Commission--Records was added later--for its part in initiating the Booker T. Washington Papers, its assignment of two fellows in advanced editing of documentary sources in U.S. history to the project, and several grants-in-aid. I should add here that the diversity of these papers is just amazing. Booker T. Washington communicated with primarily Republican politicians. He was a very powerful Republican politician in his own right, recommended white people in the south for office. He communicated with philanthropists, teachers, farmers, Black and White people, rich and poor, men and women, and even with people in Liberia, where he sent some of his people trained at Tuskegee to teach people in Liberia how to farm the southern way. One of the fellows for advanced editing of documentary sources, the late Stuart Kaufman, went on to found and edit the Samuel Gompers project, now in the process of publishing its final volume. These projects have not only made available important documentation on two outstanding leaders, but also trained dozens of graduate students to evaluate documents, identify sometimes obscure people and events, and learn the craft of documentary editing. The flourishing digital environment today is quite different from the card files used to track our documentation on the Washington papers in the late 1960's. In some instances, however, what we call progress bites back with unintended consequences. The microfilm editions so popular in the 1960's through the 1980's, for example, are barely useable today because computers are replacing microfilm and microfiche readers. There is a major opportunity to digitalize microfilm editions and make such collections widely available online. In addition, documents generated on early computer software are often unreadable as programs roll over and become obsolete with alarming frequency. The NHPRC is taking the lead in making digital editions of the papers of the founding fathers available. But to incorporate the diversity of the American experience, historical documentation needs a wider Web presence. Amid all the Web chatter, it is imperative that researchers find ample documentary sources that provide a factual basis for scholarship. The genius of this country lies in its diversity, and preserving the records that fully document all citizens should be an important priority. The OAH enthusiastically supports the reauthorization of the National Historical Publications and Records Commission not only because it has helped to train editors and graduate students and made available documentation of important people and events, but also because it has supported local records projects and, most important, helped preserve our documentary heritage. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Dr. Daniel follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Clay. Thank you very much, Dr. Daniel. We will now go to the question and answer session. I have a question for the entire panel, and let me start it off with Mr. Beschloss. Would you agree that it is difficult to quantify the benefits the public gains from NHPRC? You cite instances where research originated with NHPRC grant passes through our full educational system, from universities to elementary schools. When you combine the value of these educational gems that come from NHPRC along with the jobs created by the NHPRC, it is easy to see these ancillary benefits, wouldn't you agree? And I will start here and we can go through the table. Mr. Beschloss. I would. And I think the other thing is that, you know, this is part of the core mission of the United States, and that is to make sure that these things are gathered and preserved and disseminated, not just Federal Government archives in Washington, but, as I was saying, the Swedish immigrants or African-Americans in North Carolina or Native Americans in New Mexico. That was the intention of this. And the problem is that if you stopped it for a few years, there is a lot of that would be lost; you can never reclaim it. Mr. Clay. Dr. Hahn. Dr. Hahn. Yes, thank you. I think the ripple effects of the NHPRC funding are enormous and, as you suggested, would be very difficult to lay out in the short time we have. I would just say that one of the things that I have learned, especially working with public school teachers who are trying very, very hard to interest their students in the past, have found, like many of us who teach in colleges and universities have found, that the use of documentary sources are not only exciting to the students, but make history come alive to them and make it clear that they can engage like we do in the process of discovery. So when I have gone and worked with teachers, and I bring this material with me, they are very, very excited about it and the more access that they have to this kind of material, the more innovations they can bring to the classroom and accomplish, I think, some of the things that Professor Berlin said so powerfully before. Mr. Clay. Thank you for your response. Ms. Jefferson. Ms. Jefferson. I think that the support that we get from NHPRC provides jobs. And when you talk about cutting jobs from people, you are putting people out of work, and then they can't participate and give back. To give more money, that helps us all. So I think you get into a cycle there. I don't see where you can see cutting out a program and putting people out of work, people in the humanities, and you are going to retool them to then do what? So I think it is very important that we keep these kinds of opportunities open. Mr. Clay. Dr. Berlin, would you agree that there are some ancillary benefits? Dr. Berlin. Yes, I would certainly agree with everything that my colleagues here on the panel have said. I would also think of the NHPRC and the money that has been given to it over the years as an enormous investment that we have made, that we continue to draw upon. In some ways it is different than the question of employment and livelihood. We have created a bank of knowledge which has transformed our understanding of the past and transformed our pedagogy, the way we teach, as well, and that transformation is ongoing because each of those projects have added something to it, changed that debate, enlarged the debate. That is what makes students excited about the past. Mr. Clay. Thank you. Dr. Daniel, is it difficult to quantify the benefits of the NHPRC? Dr. Daniel. Yes, I think it is impossible to quantify. And echoing what Dr. Berlin said, the impact of these sources is enormous. Children who have never seen a primary document, when they are reading what a person wrote coming out of slavery or reading what someone wrote to Booker T. Washington or what he wrote, it is not mediated by a historian; this is the real word that was done at the time, it is a primary source. And students love that because then they can figure out what the past was about. So quantifying the impact of these records that NHPRC has preserved is impossible. We don't know how far it goes. It goes to foreign countries where people read about our documentary heritage. It is a big impact. Mr. Clay. Thank you all for your responses. Let me also state for the record that the NHPRC never funded the International Tennis Hall of Fame. NHPRC turned it down. The NEH funded it, but the NHPRC never funded the International Tennis Hall of Fame. That is for the record. Mr. Chaffetz, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all for the great work that you have done. Our country is better because of the work that you have done. I believe, at least, personally, that the work needs to continue. But I will start with Mr. Beschloss here. If we are going to follow what President Obama's chief of staff and budget director have asked for and we are going to have to make a cut, what are we going to cut? I mean, looking at the Archives, you are the vice president of the Board of Directors Foundation for the National Archives, what would you cut? Mr. Beschloss. That is slightly above my pay grade; that is what you all are here to do. I guess it is rare in Washington when someone says they don't know, but that is not my---- Mr. Chaffetz. Fair enough. Fair enough. I appreciate the candor. Mr. Beschloss. That is not my perspective. All I can say is---- Mr. Chaffetz. I will give you a list, by the way. Mr. Beschloss. Pardon? Mr. Chaffetz. I can give you a list. Mr. Beschloss. OK. All I can say is that let's say you decided to stop this for 5 years. There are a lot of things that we have all been talking about this afternoon that would disappear forever. You can't get them back. Mr. Chaffetz. Let me tell you. I have not heard any person ever suggest that we would totally stop funding the entire archive program. Mr. Beschloss. Sure. No, I am just using as a point of comparison. Mr. Chaffetz. I know. And just as clarification, my point is we have hundreds of millions of dollars that will still be allocated to this, and I support that. But we are trying to trim the budget. We are trying to make some tough decisions. Dr. Hahn, you are very accomplished; you are very well published. I mean, just trying to read through your CV, which we just got, would take a long period of time, and your career has been very accomplished. I need to ask you, though, it says on the Truth in Testimony disclosure, ``please list any Federal grants or contracts, including sub-grants and sub-contracts, that you have received since October 1, 2006.'' Are you saying you haven't received any? None? Nothing? Dr. Hahn. No. Mr. Chaffetz. My understanding is that the University of Pennsylvania has received some $518,000 worth of grants through the NHPRC. Dr. Hahn. Well, it didn't come to me. Mr. Chaffetz. Dr. Berlin, let me ask you the same question. Please list any Federal grants or contracts, including sub- grants or sub-contracts, that you received since October 1, 2006. Dr. Berlin. Not a nickel. Mr. Chaffetz. My understanding is the total funding for the American Historical Association is $536,863, and that you are here representing the American Historical Association. Why the discrepancy? Dr. Berlin. They haven't given me a nickel. It is outrageous. Mr. Clay. Would you please turn on your mic? Dr. Berlin. I have received no money from the Federal Government from a grant or as a member of the American Historical Association. I have not participated in a project that I know which has been funded by the Federal Government. The American Historical Association and the University of Maryland, particularly the latter, are particularly big entities; they get a lot of money from the Federal Government. They do all kinds of contract work. We have the largest physics department in the world. Unfortunately, very little of it has come to me and nothing has come to me since 2006. Mr. Chaffetz. You are also supposed to list if the American Historical Association has received anything. You're saying that the American Historical Association has received no money? Dr. Berlin. I have received no money. Mr. Chaffetz. Well, I beg you to go back and look at your form, because what you signed 2 days ago says that the American Historical Association has received no money. We think you have received over $500,000 through that Association. And I would also ask, Dr. Hahn, if you would go back and review that form, please. Mr. Clay. But, Mr. Chaffetz, I am not sure he is speaking for the Association. Mr. Chaffetz. It says he is. No. 4, ``other than yourself, are you testifying on behalf of any non-governmental entity?'' ``Yes, the American Historical Association.'' Mr. Clay. I invited him as a professor from the University of Maryland. Dr. Berlin. Yes. Mr. Chaffetz. It also says on the document that you provided, Mr. Chairman, representing the American Historical Association. Dr. Berlin. I am representing the American Historical Association here today---- Mr. Chaffetz. The American Historical Association received over $500,000 and you don't know that? Dr. Berlin. I do not know that. And I couldn't tell you what they received it for, nor do I think I am responsible for the grants that the American Historical Association. I was asked to come here to speak on the American Historical Association's position on the National Historical Records Commission. I have done that. I have done that to the best of my ability. I have done that with great honesty. I am not an employee of the American Historical Association, I am a member of that Association, with some 20,000 other people who are interested in history. So I don't think that is my responsibility. Mr. Chaffetz. What I am asking for is that you go back and look at that document, because I think you will find that you were supposed to, as a representative of the American Historical Association, present to us in the Congress so we have time to review it, and we did not get it in advance, so that we understand. That is why the Congress created the Truth in Testimony. And I feel that it is incomplete. Mr. Chaffetz. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman from Ohio. Mr. Jordan. Quick question. Mr. Berlin, did you consult with the American Historical Association prior to filling out the form? Mr. Clay. Mr. Jordan. I am sorry. I am sorry. Let me recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Driehaus, for 5 minutes. Mr. Driehaus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the panel for being here. It is certainly not my intent to impugn your integrity. I think you are all here representing interests and you do have a body of work and dedication to historical archives and record keeping that are tremendous. I would like to followup on the chairman's inquiry as to the value of this relatively small investment into cultural preservation and historical preservation, and if we could just go down the row. I mentioned earlier I am from Cincinnati, OH. We have the Underground Railroad Freedom Center, which has been tremendous not just for educating people as to the everyday issues of freedom that we experience globally today, but also the history of the Underground Railroad and the extent that slavery impacted the south and the north and the impact the Ohio River played and so many places along the river played. But it has also been tremendously beneficial to us culturally, economically, and from an educational perspective the students from all over the region are now better informed when informed when it comes to issues of freedom because of that institution. I think those investments are good investments. So I would like you to talk about any examples you might have of investments made that you are familiar with and the benefits, the compound benefits that you might see in those investments. Mr. Beschloss. Well, I would say, in a general way, Mr. Driehaus, I think an American is a better citizen if he or she knows history, and we are in a time when more and more Americans know less and less about history. So I would say for a relatively modest investment this would mean the Federal Government is saying not only do we feel that it is important for Americans to know history and also use primary sources, but also that history and primary documents are not just those that are sitting in Washington; just as important, sometimes more so, are collections and other historical evidence that can be very far from here. Mr. Driehaus. Just to followup, having served as a board member of a local historical society and working very closely as a State legislator with the Ohio Historical Society, I am very familiar with the difficulty these small organizations have in preserving local history, and I think you are absolutely right. While we have a tremendous resource in the Archives and the Library of Congress to protect so many of our national documents, when it comes to communities and when it comes to State history and the impact that history has made, preserving those documents is extremely difficult, and becoming more and more difficult as resources are cut. Would you not agree? Mr. Beschloss. I would, and I would say something else, too. I am all for costs being borne as much by the private sector as possible, and this is something that does that, because if you reauthorize in a strong way the NHPRC, you are making the statement to local communities we think that this is important as a country. That will bring, and I am sure you saw this in your own experience, people who are local to say, ``well, maybe this is something I should contribute to myself.'' Dr. Hahn. Yes, thank you. Well, your question is very large in many respects, but let me just say a couple things briefly. One thing is that, and I speak to the question of jobs that the projects that the NHPRC funds make possible, you know, we are at a very, very difficult time in this country, not simply because the general problems that the economic crisis has posed, but certainly for those people who are interested in their past, in the intellectual life of their country, and the possibility of going on and becoming academics and writers and teachers, we are in jeopardy of potentially losing an entire generation because there is no work for them. The NHPRC, most of the money goes to pay salaries and has been enormously important, even in the time that I have seen it, even when times were better economically and making it possible for historians to sort of find their footing. The other thing I would just like to say is that one of the things I have seen, too, with the use of documents and the kind of documentary collections that the NHPRC makes possible is what it means for students to read about and understand how the most ordinary of people at different times in our past have been able to act in ways that really make a difference in their lives and in the lives of their communities. It is not something that you can simply get up and tell them about, it is something that they can see by using the materials. And I think there is no way to measure the kind of consequences and excitement and possibilities that experience opens up. Ms. Jefferson. Again, I just want to speak to how important it is for the practitioners, for the archivists and the records managers, and how the support comes through the State so that we can get the training to do the work that we need to do; that we can get funding for some of the small projects; that we can get startup money so that we do have archivists and professional people to care for some of the local records. There are a lot of areas that do not have professionals to take care of the materials, and that is where we get the funding for these small kinds of projects on a local level and we get the training so that we know how to deal with electronic records so we know how to respond in disaster recovery. These kinds of projects really are important and vital to our community as we work to preserve our records, so I can't stress it enough. Mr. Clay. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Driehaus. Thank you. Mr. Clay. You are welcome. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized. Mr. Westmoreland. I want to thank the chairman. Let me say, too, I appreciate all the work that you do and the fact that you are keeping part of history not only for us, but for our families and generations to come. Dr. Hahn, I did want to ask you. You made a comment a while ago that you had received no Federal funding, and as my colleague, Mr. Chaffetz, had said, I looked at your accomplishments and they are quite a lot. How did you do that, how did you accomplish all the things that you have? Where did you get the resources and where did that money come from? Dr. Hahn. Well, I teach at the University and I have taught at a number of universities. I have applied for and I have received grants from non-governmental agencies to advance my research, and I am spending my own money in whatever way I could to make my trips to archives that I have organized records and made them available to me so that I could do that. Mr. Westmoreland. So there are other grants out there other than the grants coming from the Federal Government. Dr. Hahn. Well, there are all sorts of grants. I mean, I applied to granting agencies for individual scholarly grants, exactly. Mr. Westmoreland. What would you say the total sum of all the work that you have done? Could you put a price tag on that? I know that would be awfully hard for you. Dr. Hahn. Well, it is priceless. Mr. Westmoreland. I understand. I understand. And I am sure it is, but is there any--so it is priceless. I mean, you couldn't even put a value on it, really? Dr. Hahn. I think the time and energy that most people like myself, and academics in general, I mean, we are on our own bill for the most part and it is a tremendous burden. Mr. Westmoreland. Yes, but, as the American way, you got it done without the Federal Government, right? Dr. Hahn. Certainly since 2006. Mr. Westmoreland. Sir? Dr. Hahn. Yes, since 2006. Mr. Westmoreland. Since 2006? Dr. Hahn. Right. Mr. Westmoreland. And, Dr. Berlin, you said the same thing, that you had not received any---- Dr. Berlin. Not since 2006. Mr. Westmoreland. Not since 2006. Dr. Berlin. Right. Mr. Westmoreland. So you had prior. Dr. Berlin. But let me say---- Mr. Westmoreland. So both of you had received money prior to 2006. Dr. Berlin. I am deeply indebted to the Federal Government for my own position and for the scholarship I created. Probably the largest debt, in point of fact, is to the NHPRC. I am pleased to acknowledge it. I came to the NHPRC with an idea, an idea that we could write a documentary history of emancipation, that we could tell the story of how this country goes from being a free country, being a slave country---- Mr. Westmoreland. I understand. Dr. Berlin. They supported that. They supported that and they continue to support that even though I am not involved in that. Mr. Westmoreland. I understand. Dr. Berlin. So my own career in some ways rests upon those Federal grants. Mr. Westmoreland. I understand. But you have done things without Federal grants. Dr. Berlin. I have done things without Federal grants. Mr. Westmoreland. OK. So things can be done without getting grants from the Federal Government that would preserve history. Dr. Berlin. Certainly many things can be done and many things have been done. What I would stress to you is that this project, I am confident, could not be done. Mr. Westmoreland. I understand. Dr. Berlin. OK. Mr. Westmoreland. Now, let me just ask one other question, and I apologize for not being here earlier, and this may have already been answered, but if you look at the National Historical Publications and Records Commission, the National Archives and Records Administration, National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Institute of Museum and Library Services, do you see any duplication there of anything that is being done? Because I have read of some of the grants that have come out of the history, and it looks like some of that could be money that should come out of the arts or the museum or the libraries. Do you see any duplication whatsoever in these agencies? And when you apply for a grant, do you apply to all or would someone applying for a grant--and any of you jump in on this--would you apply to all of them or just one in particular? Dr. Berlin. Would you like me to? Mr. Westmoreland. You are fine. Yes, sir. Dr. Berlin. OK. Let me talk to what I know, and I know about two of those agencies that you have mentioned, the NHPRC and the NEH, the National Endowment for the Humanities, because I sat on the National Council for the National Endowment for the Humanities under President Clinton and under President Bush. So I know something about those two agencies. I would say if we took the two and we looked for coincidences, we look for places of overlap, we would find very, very small areas of overlap. There would be some areas in which there would be absolutely no overlap, that is the grants to archival agencies. There might be some areas in which there was some overlap in various publication projects, but I would say that they were very, very small and---- Mr. Westmoreland. OK, but let me ask you a question. But if you were applying for a grant, would you apply to all four of these or one in particular? Dr. Berlin. There were several of those agencies which I wouldn't apply to at all for certain. So if I was looking for a grant to write my history of emancipation, I wouldn't apply to the museum. There would be no point in that. Mr. Clay. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman from Ohio. Mr. Jordan. First, I just want to followup, Dr. Berlin, if I could, on where Ranking Member Chaffetz was. Did you consult with the American Historical Association and ask them about any grant dollars they had received prior to filling out your form and signing it that you had received no money? Dr. Berlin. No. Sounds like I should have, but I did not. Mr. Jordan. So would you then say what you submitted to this committee of the U.S. Congress is inaccurate, where you said, on question 8, that you received no money or organizations you were representing, even though you said on No. 4 you were representing the American Historical Association? Dr. Berlin. The way I---- Mr. Jordan. Would you say the statement you submitted to Congress and signed was inaccurate? Dr. Berlin. No. Mr. Jordan. You think it is accurate? Dr. Berlin. The way I interpreted it, yes, it is absolutely accurate. Mr. Jordan. OK. Appreciate it. I will yield my time to the ranking member. Mr. Chaffetz. [Remarks made off mic.] Mr. Jordan. OK, thanks. Mr. Clay. I recognize the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton. Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that you have held this hearing and only regret that other congressional business kept me from attending. I am struck by the fact the Commission may have set a new record, 20 years at the same funding. Congratulations, I suppose. [Laughter.] Or shame on us. Whichever you choose. Mr. Chairman, I am not for nickel and diming part of the budget where there is no money in the first place. I am inclined to believe that the Commission has paid its dues in 20 years at leveled funding. For my friends on the other side of the aisle who claim such reverence for the framers, pay up. Show it once in a while. It is like family values: I am for it until it costs some money. Now, I admit that I have a special interest. You have to indicate if you have any special interest. When I was getting my law degree, I also got a Masters in American History for the love of history. I have never used this disagree; I just thought that going to law school was like going to trade school. If one considered oneself a real intellectual, one had to really study something serious. And I have never regretted it because C. Van Woodward was at the university, and just the opportunity to study with one of the foremost historians in American history was worth every moment of it. It wasn't a very practical solution, but it certainly gave me an appreciation for why we would want to preserve as much of our history as we could. We have budgets that are busting at the gut. The President is right to hold down virtually everything, but if I may remind the subcommittee, this is an authorization. All it does is to set a limit. You go and ask the many agencies, Federal agencies, not to mention commissions, when they last got the authorized amount, and the memory will not serve most of them well enough to be able to tell you. So I would think that we owe the Commission a reasonable increase in keeping with these times, to be sure. But I would think it would be very pitiable to leave them where they were after the testimony that you have heard today. And I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Clay. I thank the gentlewoman. Do you have to leave? Ms. Norton. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, until you all pass my bill, I am the one that doesn't have to leave. Do you have to leave? Mr. Clay. I do. Ms. Norton. I see. Mr. Clay. Would you conduct the hearing? Ms. Norton. Is there another panel? Mr. Clay. Yes. Ms. Norton. Yes, sir. I would be glad to. Mr. Clay. All right. At this point, there are no further questions for this panel. We will dismiss this panel and ask the third panel to come forward. Thank you. Ms. Norton [presiding]. I want to thank this panel for coming forward. When the votes are over, the chairman will return. We are going to go first to Dr. Peter Gottlieb, the State Archivist of Wisconsin, representing the Society of American Archivists, of which he is the current president. Dr. Gottlieb joined the State Historical Society of Wisconsin in 1991, after serving in the Archives at Pennsylvania State and West Virginia University. Dr. Gottlieb. STATEMENTS OF PETER GOTTLIEB, STATE ARCHIVIST OF WISCONSIN, REPRESENTING THE SOCIETY OF AMERICAN ARCHIVISTS; BARBARA FRANCO, DIRECTOR, PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMISSION, REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE AND LOCAL HISTORY; BARBARA TEAGUE, KENTUCKY STATE ARCHIVIST AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATOR, REPRESENTING THE COUNCIL OF STATE ARCHIVISTS; KAYE LANNING MINCHEW, DIRECTOR OF ARCHIVES, TROUP COUNTY, GA, REPRESENTING THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENT ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATORS; AND SUSAN HOLBROOK PERDUE, DIRECTOR, DOCUMENTS COMPASS, VIRGINIA FOUNDATION FOR THE HUMANITIES, REPRESENTING THE ASSOCIATION FOR DOCUMENTARY EDITING STATEMENT OF PETER GOTTLIEB Dr. Gottlieb. My name is Peter Gottlieb. I am the State archivist---- Ms. Norton. Excuse me. I am sorry. The chairman does swear in all the witnesses. All rise and hold up your right hands, if you would. [Witnesses sworn.] Ms. Norton. Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in the affirmative. Dr. Gottlieb. Dr. Gottlieb. My name is Peter Gottlieb. I am the State archivist of Wisconsin and director of the Library-Archives Division of the Wisconsin Historical Society. I am here today representing the Society of American Archivists, North America's oldest and largest organization of professional archivists, representing more than 5,700 members across the United States and in more than 20 countries. On behalf of my association and the wider archives community in the United States, I wish to thank you for convening this hearing. I offer my testimony in favor of increasing the authorization for the National Historical Publications and Records Commission's competitive grants program to $20 million and creating a new program for pass- through grants that is also authorized at $20 million. In his election-night speech, President Elect Obama spoke eloquently of the enduring power of our ideals: democracy, liberty, opportunity, and unyielding hope. He added that our stories are singular, but our destiny is shared. From community institutions like public libraries and local historical societies throughout America to the National Archives vaults here in Washington, archives keep our stories as a public trust and make them available to all. Just as we protect our country's natural resources to sustain our way of life, we must also safeguard this Nation's archives in order to strengthen democratic government and to pass down from one generation to the next our record of progress and the values our society upholds. We need well preserved and accessible archives in order to write our school textbooks and design our instructional Web sites, in order to produce our documentary and feature films about America, in order to engage all citizens of our country in the continuing experiment of democratic government, and in order to inspire people around the world with the standards of human rights and opportunity that the United States at its best represents. NHPRC grants have provided essential support for this national goal, but its current authorization falls short of today's need. NHPRC is the only Federal program whose specific purpose is helping archivists and other professionals meet this national obligation. Its grants increase access to historical records and published documentary editions for use by classroom teachers, students, journalists, biographers, local historians, lawyers, genealogists, documentary film makers, and many others. In the majority of cases, NHPRC grants support new jobs for skilled professionals who do the preservation, digitizing, organizing, cataloging, or editorial work. NHPRC grants contribute to our Nation's documentary heritage in the following areas: processing archives to make important primary sources more quickly and easily available; developing and testing solutions to the challenge of preserving computer-generated records; providing technical assistance in training and archives work for archivists that need to improve their skills. NHPRC's competitive grants for archives are essential and must be funded at a higher level. But these grants by themselves cannot meet the range of needs to preserve and ensure access to all the historical records kept in American archives. Many local government and community repositories whose records constitute a vital part of our documentary heritage cannot qualify for competitive grants and do not benefit from any type of NHPRC funding. These archives that are also preserving our Nation's stories need help from NHPRC that can come through a new program of pass-through grants. Administered by State archives under rules directing the vast majority of funds to local archives, these grants can reach many more repositories to create new jobs, strengthen their access and preservation capabilities, more broadly protect our national archival resources, and bring the history recorded in many more documents to people throughout the country. This new pass- through grants program should not subtract funding from competitive grants, but have an additional $20 million authorization. John F. Kennedy said, when he spoke in favor of NHPRC's initial authorization, compared with funds required for other programs for the national good, those requested by this Commission are modest indeed. His words remain true today. A reauthorization of $20 million for competitive grants and an additional $20 million for pass-through grants to States and territories is still comparatively modest indeed, but promises to make NHPRC even more effective in preserving our documentary heritage and ensuring its accessibility. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Dr. Gottlieb follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Dr. Gottlieb. We hear next from Barbara Franco, director of the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, here today representing the American Association of State and Local History. Ms. Franco. STATEMENT OF BARBARA FRANCO Ms. Franco. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today about the value and importance of NHPRC. My name is Barbara Franco, and I am the executive director of the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. I am here today on behalf of a national organization, the American Association of State and Local History, whose more than 5,000 institutional and individual members represent the many historical societies, museums, libraries, archives around the country who together preserve the history of America in every county and corner of the country. The members include large institutions with State or national scope, as well as small local organizations and archives with limited and sometimes all-volunteer staff. Together they hold billions of documents that touch the lives of young and old, support tourism and economic development, and employ thousands of people. They include the irreplaceable founding documents of our country, alongside the records of small communities that define the experiences of the ordinary people whose lives they represent. The NHPRC helps these non-Federal institutions preserve records of historical value through grants that help locate, preserve, and provide public access to documents, photographs, maps, and other historical materials. These grants preserve collections and also preserve and create jobs by training staff and supporting the positions that provide these services. In an era where accountability of government is under greater than ever scrutiny, preserving the documentary heritage of national, State, and local governments also means preserving the rights of American citizens and ensuring an informed and engaged citizenry. As Charles F. Bryan, Jr., a past chairman of our organization and director emeritus of the Virginia Historical Society, has elegantly put it, free and open societies value history and turn to it for instruction. They devote significant resources to saving the evidence of the past and making it accessible to the public. Documentary heritage helps preserve and protects the rights of all, holds government accountable, and increases knowledge of our history and culture for generations to come. Historical documents are sometimes a matter of life and death. I would like to say that during the 2002 Quecreek Mine rescue in Somerset, PA, which some of you may remember, archival maps were key in locating the trapped miners and saving their lives. Historical plats and deeds are continually referenced to establish legal ownership and property rights. Military service records are used to establish pension and other benefits. NHPRC is the agency that provides institutions like the Pennsylvania Historical Museum Commission and other State and local institutions with the funding to preserve these historical documents. These projects train or employ archivists and make it possible for lawyers, teachers, biographers, authors, journalists, and teachers to do their work. A recent grant in Pennsylvania, for example, has supported an itinerant archivist program that funds a professional archivist to work with the staff of local governments to do assessments, make recommendations and train their staff to better care for the records. These programs not only create work for the archivists, but help train local government employees to more effectively handle their own records. Across the country, examples abound of how NHPRC is making a difference at the State and local level to preserve documents the public needs and uses. The Federal-State partnership with State Historical Records Advisory Boards have been key to the success of the grants programs, and these and other examples of how States are working with many diverse collections is testimony to the strength of the program. In addition, NHPRC has supported national initiatives through organizations like ASLH. Some of these grants have fostered regional cooperation and addressed major national issues like electronics records management. NHPRC has been authorized at $10 million for nearly 20 years, since 1991. Now more than ever, with the need for trained staff, the importance of digital collections, the need to share information with the public, and the demand for access to these collections, increased NHPRC support is sorely needed. We are asking that funding for NHPRC be reauthorized at $20 million to help members of the public, archivists, documentary editors, and historians by preserving and making available non- Federal records that are essential to our national history and to the daily functioning of our democracy and our economy. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Ms. Franco follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Ms. Norton. Thank you, Ms. Franco. Next, Barbara Teague, Kentucky State archivist and records administrator, and here today representing the Council of State Archivists, of which she is vice president and president-elect. Ms. Teague was appointed State Archivist in 2008. Ms. Teague. STATEMENT OF BARBARA TEAGUE Ms. Teague. Thank you, Representative Norton, and thank you to you and the rest of the members of the subcommittee and Chairman Clay for holding this hearing. We really appreciate the opportunity to be here and talk about the National Historical Publications and Records Commission. As you mentioned, I am Barbara Teague, and I am the vice president of the Council of State Archivists, and I am the State archivist in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. I have worked there for 27 years and I have 27 years of experience with NHPRC grants, and I know how effective those grants have been and how much more remains to be done with the grants. CoSA, the Council of State Archivists, represent all 50 State archivists, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories. CoSA's mission is to strength State and territorial archives and their work to preserve the America historical record. Most State archivists also serve as the chairs of their State Historical Records Advisory Boards, which we have all talked about earlier. On behalf of CoSA, the archival profession, and most of all the millions of citizens who rely on archives and records, I ask that you reauthorize NHPRC not at $20 million, but at $40 million. Twenty million of that $40 million would go to national competitive grants, sort of like a program that we have now, and $20 other million would go for pass-through grants to the States that the State Historical Record Advisory Boards would then administer on their own according to the needs and priorities within the States. Over the last 3 years, State archival agencies have endured very extreme budget cuts, many in excess of 20 percent; my own agency 25 percent. This has had a very negative effect on our Nation's records and on the individuals who depend on those records. In an era of significantly increased emphasis on government transparency, government records continue to play an even more crucial role. From deeds, marriages, court cases, student school transcripts, and wills on the local government level, to documentation of licensing, human services, and environmental controls on the State level, to military service, health care and citizenship among the many functions of the Federal Government, records touch each of us as individuals. When archival documents are preserved in our States and communities, we protect the evidence of land ownership, the rights and privileges of individual citizens, the right to know about the workings of government, the genealogy of our families, and the cultural heritage of America. NHPRC has consistently provided the Federal Government's only support archives in nearly every State, and that is NHPRC, not IMLS and not NEH. In Mississippi, emergency funds after Hurricane Katrina helped save valuable historical records on the Gulf Coast. NHPRC is currently supporting the New York State Archives in identifying and preserving the documents of families who lost loved ones during the World Trade Center attack. Every State, every territory, every local community has similar needs, from developing disaster plans that protect essential records to documenting the history of the civil rights movement to creating tools to bring historical records into the classroom and get children excited about learning. In my own State, a grant of $200,000 from the NHPRC in 1983 ultimately led to the Kentucky Local Records Program, which has awarded over $16 million in grants. That is an 8,000 percent return on investment. The program has preserved almost every important record in Kentucky's 120 counties. Yes, we have 120 counties, and they each have about 50 offices, and that has created countless jobs to care for the archives across our State. And please know that money for archival projects means money for jobs. CoSA's analysis of existing NHPRC grant projects shows that at least 75 percent of all grant funds are used for staff, demonstrating that money for archives generally equates to money for jobs. My first archival job was working on an NHPRC grant, and I did a quick survey of all the other State and territorial archivists, and there are at least 12 of us who started our professional careers with NHPRC funding, and we really didn't make much money, I can tell you. But not just because of that, but because we know, as the chairs of our State boards, we see the needs in the States, I ask on behalf of all the State archivists in the United States and all the territorial archivists to allow NHPRC to make a comprehensive enduring impact to benefit our constituents and yours in every single State and territory and every community by increasing the NHPRC appropriation to $40 million. NHPRC funding is essential to preserving the history of our Nation. I would really be happy to answer any questions about NHPRC and its effect on our citizens and how State archivists need more resources to care for essential government records. Thanks again for this great opportunity to speak about the NHPRC. [The prepared statement of Ms. Teague follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Ms. Norton. Thank you, Ms. Teague. Our next witness is Kaye Lanning Minchew, the director of Archives for Troup County, GA, here today representing the National Association of Government Archives and Records Administrators. Ms. Minchew has been director of Troup County Archives since 1985. STATEMENT OF KAYE LANNING MINCHEW Ms. Minchew. Good afternoon, Representative Norton and members of the subcommittee. My name is Kaye Lanning Minchew, and I have been director of the Troup County Archives in LaGrange, GA, since 1985. I am representing the National Association of Government Archivists and Records Administrators [NAGARA]. I also co-chaired the Council of State Archivists ``Closest to Home Project'' about local government records. I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of reauthorization for the National Historical Publications and Records Commission [NHPRC]. NAGARA is a professional organization dedicated to the effective management of government information and its continued availability at all levels of government. Our constituents include archivists and records managers for over 21,000 local, State, tribal, and Federal Government entities in the United States responsible for records in their care, the records that document the actions of governments, the communities and citizens. Local government agencies are inundated with large collections of records and are begging for assistance with maintaining and providing access to these resources. NHPRC is a valuable partner and key to the continued availability of the records legacy of these entities. The records we house in local repositories include a wide variety of materials. The majority is paper documents, but a growing amount is available in electronic format. Records include birth and death, voter registration, census forms, coroner's inquests, criminal cases, and much more. Materials include land records which deeded a slave woman and her young to a family leaving Georgia for Texas. Other items helped bring to justice a cold case murder that had lain dormant for over 30 years. We also have files that show environmental and cultural changes over the years and support homeland defense. Our heritage is at risk every day. An archives or courthouse burns or destroyed by a tornado, and unique collections are lost or electronic records can't be opened. On a personal level, perhaps a recording your father made about his World War II service has been damaged over time. Your grandchildren will not be able to hear his voice or his story. Records at the local level touch the lives of our citizens every day and in a very direct way. NHPRC provides grant funding that is essential to ensuring the preservation of archival records that provide the foundation for historical research in this country. Since 1976, NHPRC has awarded over 4,800 grants, 250 of these to local governments or programs of local records. Two of these awards were made to the Troup County Archives. Both grants have been extremely important in our existence. An additional note about grants, as others have mentioned: they almost always result in jobs. By our estimations, at least 70 percent of grant funds go to pay people. At a time of high unemployment, NHPRC grants and pass-through grants to States would stimulate jobs, jobs that often lead to permanent employment after grants end. Many of us in the profession, including myself, got our start in archival work this way. Without NHPRC, the archival community has few options for support in caring for historically valuable records. We have seen the positive impact that NHPRC grants have made in thousands of large and small organizations and communities throughout our country. The current authorized funding level of NHPRC is woefully inadequate. NHPRC should be reauthorized and appropriated at a significantly higher level. In addition to more funding, NHPRC should be expanded to include a pass-through grant program with resources directed to States and localities to ensure that documents and archival records in many forms can be readily used for a host of purposes by the people of this Nation. Only by reauthorizing NHPRC and expanding its programs to include pass-through grants to States will we be able to ensure that this important component of the America historical records survives. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Ms. Minchew follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Ms. Minchew. Finally, Susan Holbrook Perdue, the director of Documents Compass, and here representing the Association for Documentary Editing, of which she is the incoming president. Ms. Holbrook was formerly the senior associate editor of the Papers of Thomas Jefferson Retirement Series. Ms. Perdue. STATEMENT OF SUSAN HOLBROOK PERDUE Ms. Perdue. Thank you, Acting Chairman Norton. I am Susan Holbrook Perdue, president-elect of the Association for Documentary Editing [ADE]. I am very grateful for this opportunity to speak on behalf of my professional organization in support of reauthorization of the NHPRC and an increase in its funding. The primary message I want to convey to this committee is just how essential the work is that documentary editors do and its importance to every American. As a society, we need the sort of expertise that editors provide in order to clearly understand the historical record and so that we might have informed and reasoned debate as part of a true democracy. This is not a partisan endeavor, but a mission to establish the definitive works of our historical legacy. This is especially important when it comes to the texts of our founding fathers. These documents are at the core of our Nation's history and they continue to be the substance of significant debate. Many Americans want to lay claim to them, and they should. These documents are part of everyone's story. For this reason, they deserve the time and attention that they receive from the scholars who are now editing them. The ADE was founded in 1978 to promote documentary editing and to build on our shared commitment to the highest professional standards of accuracy of transcription, editorial method, and intellectual access to our Nation's documentary heritage. The organization now has more than 350 members who work with a broad range of historical and literary figures. Many of our members depend on NHPRC funding. Editors preserve the documentary record by creating a comprehensive catalog for all the known writings of an individual. We have performed a valuable service for future generations by collecting and preserving these unique archives in one place. Documentary editors play a beneficial role in establishing the documentary record because they authenticate and provide authoritative versions of the letters and documents produced by their subjects. Editors become experts on all aspects of their subject matter, from their handwriting to their habits. The documentary editions of the founding fathers, the papers of John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington, all have a long and integral history with the National Archives itself, as do the documents associated with the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, the first Federal Congress, and the early Supreme Court. Make no mistake about it, these projects are publishing the records of our Federal Government. One of the most beneficial tasks we perform as editors is ensuring that documents make sense to modern audiences. Editors reveal the hidden meaning in documents through extensive research. This work takes time. Historical documentary editions and records are used by an ever-widening audience, ranging from school children to advanced scholars, as well as genealogists, curators, and the general public. Projects such as the Eleanor Roosevelt Papers produce lesson plans for ages K through 12. Ken Burns' recent documentary film on the National Parks drew on the John Muir papers project that was supported by NHPRC. And recent episodes of American Experience and History Detectives featured editors from three separate NHPRC sponsored projects. Many editors are now retooling in order to meet the demands of both print and digital publication. In order to respond to this new digital world, they look to organizations such as the NHPRC to provide the necessary funding to enable this to happen. There is substantial work to be done on digitizing and providing additional editorial resources to make the thousands of rolls of microfilm from projects done in the 1960's and 1970's available on the Internet. New efforts will need new support. Nonetheless, our mission as documentary editors has changed little over time, even with the added challenge of publishing online. We will adhere to the same high standards we have always followed, regardless of the ultimate medium. We are indeed at a crossroads. This is true not only for the profession of documentary editing, but for archives and repositories worldwide. As we read about the perceived negative impact of the Internet on people as they are increasingly gathering their knowledge through multitasking and sound bites, all of which threaten to shorten our attention spans, we recognize the urgent need for reliable, durable, and rich content on the World Wide Web. Now more than ever we want the good to drive out the bad. If we cutoff support to NHPRC and to the editors and projects that have produced superlative editions for over half a century, we cutoff their ability to reach a new global audience in ways none of us could have imagined 20 years ago. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Ms. Perdue follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Ms. Norton. Thank you, Ms. Perdue. I couldn't help but notice that you are not saying that the next step that archivists have go to is tweeting. [Laughter.] Or even Facebook, maybe. I don't know, Facebook may not be so bad. Ms. Perdue. Right. Right. Ms. Norton. Let me ask a series of questions that I think will be important for our record. I want to say that while I represent 600,000 taxpaying residents deprived of the right to vote on what is happening on the floor right now, I certainly vote in this committee, and I have a strong interest in the testimony you and the witnesses before you have provided. Let's start with Dr. Gottlieb. Could you explain the impact of the grants, the NHPRC grants, on the employment of archivists across the country? Do you have any sense of whether archivists, for example, are the first to go in budget cuts, the effect that the present recession has had on them or what it would mean in terms of jobs if this funding were available? Dr. Gottlieb. In my experience, NHPRC grants almost always create new positions, new jobs to carry out the work that the recipients of the grants have committed to do. The critical resource that archives lack, and the reason that NHPRC is so important to them, is funding for staff to examine records, to organize them, to preserve them, to scribe them so that they can be easily used. Archives, generally speaking, don't buy expensive equipment. We don't need NHPRC to build buildings for us or to rent space for us. What we need the grants for, and the work that the grants help us do, is to make the records accessible; and for that the critical resource is people, is staff. So these grants, in many, many cases, create jobs. Ms. Norton. This is a labor sensitive matter, then. We are talking about people, not things. Ms. Franco, you are aware that some have said that the NHPRC is wasteful and redundant. I wonder what your response to that would be and whether you think there are the sources of support at the State and local level for the kinds of projects that the NHPRC grants make possible. Ms. Franco. Well, I would say that there are obviously other funding sources, but they do not cover the kind of work that is covered by NHPRC, and---- Ms. Norton. They don't cover it, the States' fund don't cover the same kinds of work? Ms. Franco. Well, I can tell you that in Pennsylvania the availability of funding for help for local governments, for other archival groups, and for our own collections is not there, so we really do rely on that national level. I know that there was some discussion in the previous panels about the difference between IMLS and NEH and some of the other Federal funding programs. I think one of the things about NHPRC is this is the nuts and bolts; this is the basic stuff. I can tell you that in our organization, our archives, and I think this is repeated, there are backlogs of boxes of records that are there being saved, but they are not available to the public because they haven't been processed, they haven't been described. So the need to bring the documents that we hold into a format that they can be used is not the stuff of excitement; it is not the kind of thing that granting agencies foundations are funding. This is the nuts and bolts of our historical record, and NHPRC is the one place that comes from. Other places will do projects, they will do exhibits, they will do other kinds of things like that, but you can't get to those products unless you have the records available to scholars and people who are doing that work. Ms. Norton. Ms. Teague, a number of you have indicated examples of work that has been funded through these grants. Are there, in your view, examples of works that simply could not or would not have been done except for such grants? Ms. Teague. Oh, absolutely. That is especially true in my State of Kentucky. We have been the beneficiary of several NHPRC grants over the past 25 years. One started our electronic records program in 1985, where we started working with State and local governments on electronic records or, as we called them back in the 1980's, machine-readable records, to try to capture the earliest electronic records. So back in Kentucky we have computer records that go back to the 1960's and 1970's, where some other States may not have had that. And that just started with I think it was $180,000 from the NHPRC. Currently we have seven staff who are employed working on those issues. We work with State and local governments around the State, around Kentucky. We have a commission where we work with information technology components of State government where we are working with computer records throughout the State. And that really just started with what we like to think of as seed money from the NHPRC, and we were able to grow that into a very large program that is trying to take care of---- Ms. Norton. Once you had the seed money, how were you able to fund it? Ms. Teague. We talked to the legislature back in the 1980's and we were able to add a couple more positions to the State archives so that we could work with State government and local governments for electronic records. So we really have a very good electronic records program now that has been in existence for 25 years because of NHPRC. We also had, as I mentioned earlier, our local records program, which many other States have also copied, where we give grants to local governments to reformat records, to do some preservation work, to do research through genealogy, and that never would have happened without NHPRC money. So that is where we have given out $16 million in grants in Kentucky just because NHPRC gave us $200,000 in 1983. We have also had several instances around the State that have come through the State Historical Records Advisory Board that were recommended by our State board to NHPRC and then were funded by NHPRC, including we recently had a grant to our local cooperative, Apple Shop, which is in Whitesburg, KY. They did some early mountain television programs where they went out and captured folk life, people quilting, people singing, playing with dulcimers. So some of the video from the 1960's has actually been digitized and made available through a grant from NHPRC. So there are so many things just in my State. Another thing that NHPRC does for all of us, for the State archives and the State boards, is we have planning money from NHPRC to work with the State Historical Records Advisory Board so that we can actually make plans for the priorities within our State. You know, we don't really want Washington to tell us what to do in Kentucky every instance; we want to make our own plans. We want to look and see what the needs are in Kentucky. For one thing, we have a lot of religious communities. We have several Catholic Mother Houses in Kentucky, so we want to work with them; their records are very interesting. They have a lot of school records, records of the people that were in their community. So there are things like that the Mount St. Joseph Archives might not be able to apply for an NHPRC grant, but they could come to the Kentucky State Historical Records Advisory Board for advice and assistance, which is one reason we are interested in these pass-through grants as another program that NHPRC could operate for the benefit of the States. Ms. Norton. That is very helpful, Ms. Teague, particularly your discussion of seed money and planning money. You know, when seed money grows money for the State, that is something that the Congress has to be aware of, that it is encouraging other money. When you were asked or when prior witnesses were asked, you know, isn't there some other money, well, if the Federal Government leads by example, maybe there will be other money. The notion of planning money is very important. Those are small amounts yielding a great deal. Ms. Minchew, now, you are a local archivist, and some, particularly coming from some parts of the country that want the Federal Government involved in defense only, I suppose we ought to be able to answer the question why should Federal money go all the way down to the local level to fund preservation of local records. Would you like to comment on that? Ms. Minchew. Certainly. Several reasons. One is that the local records, in most cases, most directly document the lives of the citizens of the United States. So we have had a grant documenting 19th century court records. Those document the lives of thousands of citizens in Troup County that are very much representative of citizens across the country. Another reason is, to use the current example of the oil spill in the Gulf, if we were to save only the records of the Federal Government from this crisis, and not save any of the records of the numerous local governments affected by this crisis and how these local governments are facing the crisis right now, we will only get maybe half the story; maybe not that much of the story. So it is the full picture that gives the historians the stuff to work with and the chance to be accurate in their histories that they write. Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Ms. Minchew. Finally, Ms. Perdue, I wonder if you could briefly describe documentary editing. What is that and why are the grants of the Commission so important for funding it? Ms. Perdue. I tried to convey a bit of the overview of what it is in my short statement, but I touch on it more in depth in the longer testimony. It really is a process of making these documents accessible and understandable to users. In some cases documents have foreign language, have code or cipher, and most users would never be able to use them without the work editors do. What was the second part of the question? Ms. Norton. Why they are critical for Commission support in particular, if you think they are. Would they be supported otherwise? Ms. Perdue. Well, I can say that, just generally speaking, most projects do not rely on NHPRC alone; they couldn't rely on the grants. The grants are not that large. Most of the projects that I am familiar with have staffs of at least five people, and an NHPRC grant may pay for the salary of only a part of that staff. They also obtain a combination of grants from other organizations, such as NEH. They may look to private foundations. But no single foundation or institution is supporting these projects in full. Ms. Norton. I am going to ask the chairman if he has any questions. I still should ask him. Mr. Chairman, do you have any questions for these witnesses? Mr. Clay. Just let me summarize. Ms. Norton. Please do that, sir. Mr. Clay. And thank all of the witnesses. Ms. Norton. You are in a particular position to do so, having been on the floor voting. Mr. Clay. I voted for you too. [Laughter.] Let me thank all of the witnesses today, all three panels who came and gave their time today and highlighted the importance of the NHPRC. It is invaluable how you document and chronicle the history of this country and we are certainly supportive of those efforts here, and hopefully we will move this bill forward and ensure that we secure additional funding for this valuable agency. With that, I say thank you. Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, would you like me to close the hearing? Mr. Clay. Yes. Ms. Norton. So ordered. Thank you very much. [Whereupon, at 5:34 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] [Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]