[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FEDERAL ELECTRONIC RECORDS MANAGEMENT: WHAT IS THE PLAN? WHAT IS OUR
PROGRESS?
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY, INFORMATION
POLICY, INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS AND
THE CENSUS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 8, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-132
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
93-006 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DOUG OSE, California DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
RON LEWIS, Kentucky DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
CHRIS CANNON, Utah DIANE E. WATSON, California
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER,
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia Maryland
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania Columbia
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio JIM COOPER, Tennessee
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas CHRIS BELL, Texas
WILLIAM J. JANKLOW, South Dakota ------
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
(Independent)
Peter Sirh, Staff Director
Melissa Wojciak, Deputy Staff Director
Rob Borden, Parliamentarian
Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
Philip M. Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental
Relations and the Census
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida, Chairman
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
DOUG OSE, California DIANE E. WATSON, California
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
Ex Officio
TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Bob Dix, Staff Director
Lori Martin, Professional Staff Member
Ursula Wojciechowski, Clerk
David McMillen, Minority Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 8, 2003..................................... 1
Statement of:
Carlin, John W., Archivist of the United States, National
Archives and Records Administration; L. Reynolds Cahoon,
Chief Information Officer, NARA; Harriet Riofrio, E-Records
Management Policy and Program Lead, U.S. Department of
Defense; and Linda Koontz, Director, Information Management
Issues, U.S. General Accounting Office..................... 11
Sprehe, J. Timothy, president, Sprehe Information Management
Associates; Robert F. Nawrocki, CRM, director, Records
Management and Imagining Services Division, Library of
Virginia; Caryn Wojcik, State Government Records
Management, Michigan; and Dr. Richard Lyusakowski,
director, Collaborative Electronic Notebook Systems
Association [CENSA]........................................ 86
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Cahoon, Reynolds, Chief Information Officer, NARA, prepared
statement of............................................... 26
Carlin, John W., Archivist of the United States, National
Archives and Records Administration, prepared statement of. 13
Koontz, Linda, Director, Information Management Issues, U.S.
General Accounting Office, prepared statement of........... 51
Miller, Hon. Candice S., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Michigan, prepared statement of............... 7
Nawrocki, Robert F., CRM, director, Records Management and
Imagining Services Division, Library of Virginia, prepared
statement of............................................... 95
Putnam, Hon. Adam H., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida, prepared statement of.................... 3
Riofrio, Harriet, E-Records Management Policy and Program
Lead, U.S. Department of Defense, prepared statement of.... 40
Sprehe, J. Timothy, president, Sprehe Information Management
Associates, prepared statement of.......................... 89
Wojcik, Caryn, State Government Records Management, Michigan,
prepared statement of...................................... 101
FEDERAL ELECTRONIC RECORDS MANAGEMENT: WHAT IS THE PLAN? WHAT IS OUR
PROGRESS?
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 8, 2003
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy,
Intergovernmental Relations and the Census,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Adam Putnam
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Putnam, and Miller.
Staff present: Bob Dix, staff director; John Hambel,
counsel; Lori Martin, professional staff member; Ursula
Wojciechowski, clerk; David McMillen, minority professional
staff member; and Jean Gosa, minority assistant clerk.
Mr. Putnam. Good morning. A quorum being present, this
hearing of the Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy,
Intergovernmental Relations and the Census will come to order.
I want to welcome everyone to today's hearing entitled,
``Federal Electronic Records Management, What is the Plan and
What is our Progress?''
In today's world of emerging technology, Federal agencies
are conducting more and more of their business through
electronic means. As an example, e-mail has become a primary
form of communication, often used now in place of the telephone
and as a vehicle for sending memos or other important
documents. While this has increased the efficiency and
productivity of the modern day office, it has also presented a
new set of challenges to the issue of records management and
preservation as the Federal Government moves from being paper
based to more and more electronic and technology based.
The importance of records management and preservation has a
long history. Not only is the legacy of our history at issue,
but this issue has a direct impact on the continuing ability of
the Federal agencies to function properly. Without a
comprehensive and cohesive strategy, records can be misplaced
or even lost. This not only has the potential to hinder day-to-
day operations, but also has potentially significant
ramifications on the national archival process.
The management of all Federal records and now particularly
electronically generated records creates new and additional
challenges. Examples include what types of electronic records
need to be saved, what process or technology should be utilized
for their preservation, how will the retrieval of these records
be guaranteed and through what process in the future. This
whole issue raises another set of questions as well, what
happens with all of the existing records in their various
formats? How many, if any, of these existing records will be
converted to an emerging process or technology? How will all of
these records and exhibits continue to be preserved, and how
are these records being cataloged? And what is the magnitude of
the process required to retrieve an existing record and how are
classified versus nonclassified records treated?
The Federal Records Act has provided the National Archives
and Records Management Agency with the responsibility for
oversight of records management within the Federal Government.
Under the provisions of FRA, NARA is to provide guidance and
oversight to Federal agencies as they execute the electronic
records strategy. Certainly having a common set of goals and
objectives in those strategies will ensure consistency and
continuity in this process.
Presently, NARA is working to develop the necessary tools
to support that guidance. A number of projects including the
development of their electronic records archive program and
NARA's leadership role as a managing partner of the Electronic
Records Management E-government Initiative will put them in a
position to help define the national standards for electronic
records management.
At the same time, Federal agencies themselves must begin to
work more diligently in making electronic records management a
higher priority, many agencies have not fulfilled their
obligations to confer with NARA about the progress of their
records management plans. While NARA has been charged with
oversight responsibility regarding these matters, they have
been provided little, if any authority, to enforce compliance.
As it currently stands, it is the responsibility of each
individual agency to develop and implement an electronic
records management strategy. One of the areas we will explore
at this hearing is whether the authority and accountability
that presently exists related to this issue is sufficient to
get the job done.
These are just some of the challenges facing the subject of
Federal electronic records management. Through the research and
preparation for this hearing, the subcommittee has come to
recognize the enormity of the task. It is our objective to
learn from a variety of stakeholders, institution, academic,
government and private sector, and to work with NARA together
with Federal agencies to determine the progress in developing
and implementing an effective management strategy.
Today's hearing can be viewed live via Webcast by going to
reform.house.gov and clicking on the link under live committee
broadcast. It is an important hearing, and we have two
distinguished panels of witnesses, and we are fortunate to have
a vice chairman of this subcommittee who served as the
Secretary of State in Michigan and has worked extensively on
this committee in a number of issues, but particularly in the
modernization and the utilization of technology to improve the
efficiencies of government operations.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Adam H. Putnam follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.002
Mr. Putnam. So I now yield for her opening comments to the
vice chairwoman of the subcommittee, the gentlelady from
Michigan, Mrs. Miller.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
holding this hearing today. I'm sorry, I was just a few minutes
late. I know you like to start your hearings on time. We should
have a hearing on the elevators in this building I think
someday. But I certainly appreciate your commitment to
exploring ways, examining ways to improve the business of the
Federal Government. I think that the challenge facing the
Federal Government in regards to electronic records management
is certainly very complex. It is extremely daunting. The
National Archives and Records Administration [NARA], as we
commonly call it, possesses the responsibility to provide
guidance and oversight to Federal agencies regarding the
records management strategies. Under current law, Federal
agencies are required to submit record schedules to NARA, which
must be approved and then, in turn, to allow NARA to aid
agencies in their records management strategy implementation.
However, as with so many other statutory requirements
concerning the modernization and the improved efficiency of
government, many Federal agencies are not cooperating. NARA has
been working for years on developing an effective electronic
records management policy, but the responsibility of
implementing the strategy really falls directly on each
individual agency, quite frankly.
Today we will be examining the strategy that NARA has
developed and the progress that has been made. I feel it is
very important to also examine the successes and the failures
of Federal agencies in regards to this enormous task. Though
each agency is responsible for its own success, the valuable
lessons learned throughout government at all levels must be
utilized as an important resource. For this reason, I'm very
pleased that we're going to be hearing from witnesses at both
the Federal and State levels of government, and then
representatives from the private sector also.
As the Federal Government progresses into the 21st century
and moves to modernize its operations, a problem has arisen in
that the Federal agencies seem to place different priorities on
utilizing technology. Some agencies have seen the benefits of
implementing substantial technologies, while others seem to be
stuck in a time warp, stuck in the past. Something needs to be
done to force these particular agencies to realize the
importance of modernizing their records management.
The current scenario is simply more than an adjustment to
the current frame of thinking. It also includes agencies not
complying by federally mandated statutes. Currently, there is
no real enforcement mechanism that forces agencies to abide by
statutes outlined by the Federal Records Act and to submit
schedules required by NARA. Many Federal agencies have not
placed any degree of priority on electronic records management,
and this has resulted, of course, in a wide variety of
problems.
I notice Linda Koontz, in her written testimony, states
that NARA has developed a strategy for raising awareness
amongst agency management of the need to place electronic
records management at a very high priority, and I'm also--I
found that very encouraging. I'm also looking forward to Mr.
Carlin's testimony also, hoping that he can elaborate on the
measures taken by NARA within the last year to impress upon
agency officials the need to implement an effective management
strategy, and I certainly especially want to thank Caryn
Wojcik, who will be testifying in the second panel taking some
time to testify before our subcommittee today, as the chairman
mentioned, during my tenure as Michigan Secretary of State, the
archives were sort of under the umbrella of the Michigan
Secretary of State's office, and we think because of the great
people that led our agency there, our State's archiving and
records management projects, Michigan has certainly become one
of the national leaders by incorporating a lot of information
technology into the everyday activities of government, and in
addition, our State managers have been working very hard to
ensure that the State is prepared as its technology evolves
well into the 21st century.
So I hope that Ms. Wojcik will be able to inform the
subcommittee of some of the different things that have
happened. Since I've been gone, I know you're going like rapid
fire there as well. But Federal agencies certainly must utilize
the knowledge acquired by State governments so we're not
reinventing the wheel. Although electronic records management
at the Federal level is very daunting, as we say, there are
resources available that can enrich the process, and again I
reiterate my point that these Federal agencies must make a
concerted effort to implement a successful management policy.
As records sit untouched or the technology that has been used
to create these records becomes obsolete, it is certainly
imperative that action be taken and agencies prepare for the
future, and certainly it is important that Congress play a very
active role in ensuring that electronic records management be
implemented effectively and in a timely manner as well, so I'm
looking forward to all of the testimony from the witnesses
today and I certainly want to thank you all for coming and
thank the chairman for calling this hearing. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Candice S. Miller follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.005
Mr. Putnam. Thank you, Mrs. Miller.
We'll now begin with our first panel of witnesses. Each has
kindly prepared written testimony which will be included in the
record of this hearing, and I ask each of you to summarize your
thoughts in a 5-minute presentation to give us ample time for
questions and dialog. You'll notice that there's a timer with a
light on the table in front of you. The green light means begin
your remarks, the point that you see the yellow light, we ask
you to sum up, and at the red light, please bring it to a
close. In order to be sensitive to everyone's time schedule, we
ask that witnesses cooperate with us in adhering to the time
system.
As is the custom with the Government Reform Committee,
we'll swear in our witnesses. I would ask the first panel of
witnesses to stand and raise your right hands, and if you're
accompanied by anyone who will be called upon to answer the
questions or elaborate on a question, if they would stand as
well, please.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Putnam. Note for the record that the witnesses
responded in the affirmative.
Our first witness this morning is Mr. John Carlin. As
archivist of the United States, John Carlin is the head of the
National Archives and Records Administration, an independent
agency of the Federal Government with more than 2,900 employees
and 33 facilities throughout the Nation. NARA is the Nation's
recordkeeper. Its mission is to ensure for the citizen and the
public servant, for the President and the Congress and the
courts, ready access to essential evidence.
Mr. Carlin was appointed archivist in 1995 by President
Clinton. In 1998, he launched a major initiative to build the
Electronic Records Archives to preserve and provide access to
virtually any type of electronic record created anywhere in the
Federal Government.
Prior to being named archivist, Mr. Carlin had a
distinguished career in politics, business and education. A
native Kansan, he first entered public service in 1971 by
serving in the legislature of the State of Kansas. He became
Speaker of that State's House of Representatives, and in 1978,
won election to the Kansas Governorship serving two terms
through January 1987. His fellow Governors elected him chairman
of the National Governors Association in 1984. Following his
political career, he joined the faculty of Wichita State
University teaching graduate courses in public administration.
In 1987 he received an honorary doctorate of laws degree
from his alma mater, Kansas State. As Governor of Kansas, he
strongly supported the Kansas State Historical Society and the
State archives within it, in which he deposited his own
gubernatorial papers. Before heading NARA, he served on the
National Archives Foundation Board.
Governor Carlin, we welcome you to the subcommittee. You're
recognized.
STATEMENTS OF JOHN W. CARLIN, ARCHIVIST OF THE UNITED STATES,
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION; L. REYNOLDS
CAHOON, CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER, NARA; HARRIET RIOFRIO, E-
RECORDS MANAGEMENT POLICY AND PROGRAM LEAD, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE; AND LINDA KOONTZ, DIRECTOR, INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
ISSUES, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Mr. Carlin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to express to
you our real appreciation for you holding this important
hearing today on the subject of----
Mr. Putnam. If you could just turn the mic on, please.
Mr. Carlin. That might help.
Mr. Putnam. So that we can have it for the archives.
Mr. Carlin. That is a little embarrassing. We're going to
talk about technology today, and I can't turn the mic on.
We're still appreciative of your holding this hearing
today. Obviously, your knowledge of technology has been clearly
demonstrated, Mr. Chairman, in your brief tenure as the Chair
of this committee, and I know your Vice Chair, a former
Secretary of State, likewise has great experience, and we
appreciate the opportunity to work with both of you.
As you all know, the rapid evolution of information
technology has produced huge volumes of diverse and complex
digital records. These electronic records pose the biggest
challenge ever to keeping records in the Federal Government.
When you combine the rate of technological obsolescence with
the explosive number of electronic records being created by the
government every day, then you can begin to imagine the
challenge that we face.
In the National Archives and Presidential libraries, NARA
is responsible for preserving and providing sustained access to
records of all three branches of the Federal Government, and
our challenge is magnified by the need to preserve and deliver
authentic records for generations of Americans who will not be
born for 100 years or more. The National Archives and Records
Administration's statutory responsibilities relating to
electronic records management are rooted in the Federal Records
Act, which is codified under Title 44 of the United States
Code.
Under the statute, the archivist shall ``provide guidance
and assistance to Federal agencies with respect to ensuring
adequate and proper documentation of the policies and
transactions of the Federal Government and ensuring proper
records disposition.''
The archivist also has the responsibilities to approve the
disposal of any temporary Federal record and to take into the
National Archives of the U.S. Federal records that ``have
sufficient historical or other value to warrant their continued
preservation by the U.S. Government.'' And these statutory
responsibilities apply to electronic records as well as records
in other formats.
All this we have summed up in a simple succinct statement
of mission which you have already stated. The mission of the
National Archives and Records Administration is to ensure for
the citizen and the public servant, for the President and the
Congress and the courts, ready access to essential evidence.
The scope of NARA's responsibilities compounds the
challenge, for the historically valuable electronic records
that come to the National Archives and the Presidential
libraries come from applications deployed across the entire
Federal Government. So they can be virtually in any digital
format, from word processing and e-mail, to Web sites, data
bases, geographic information systems, digital photography and
motion video, computer-assisted engineering or manufacturing
applications, laboratory simulations, satellite observations
and many others.
Within the past decade, there has been significant progress
in developing software products which enable agencies to apply
records management discipline to electronic records that are
typically produced on individual desktops. An example, the
Department of Defense has developed a program for certifying
these products as complying with Federal records management
requirements. NARA has worked closely with the Defense
Department on this program, and has endorsed its use by all
Federal agencies.
However, implementing such a product is a time and
resource-intensive effort. As a result, agencies are trying to
manage many records and paper filing systems despite the fact
that some of the new electronic formats cannot be rendered
well, or, in some cases, at all in a paper environment.
Through the E-government Electronic Records Management
Initiative, NARA works with its agency partners, in providing
guidance on electronic records management that is applicable
governmentwide, and will enable agencies to transfer their
permanent records to NARA in a variety of data types and
formats.
In a few moments, Mr. Reynolds Cahoon, the assistant
archivist for Human Resources and Information Service, will
give you details on our programs and initiatives designed to
effectively manage electronic records throughout their life
cycle.
In closing, I'd like to thank you again for your interest
in electronic records and the challenges they pose for agencies
the government as a whole and our Nation. The records of our
country have played a vital role in our history, and it is
imperative that we find solutions for electronic records. For
I'm sure you will all agree with me when I say that records
matter for our citizens, our government and the future of our
democracy.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Putnam. Thank you very much, Governor.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carlin follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.016
Mr. Putnam. Our next witness is Reynolds Cahoon. Mr. Cahoon
was appointed Assistant Archivist for Human Resources and
Information Services and Chief Information Officer at the
National Archives and Records Administration in February 1996.
His responsibilities include the Nationwide Information
Technology Program, oversight of NARA's Electronic Records
Archives Program, human resources staff and organizational
development services, NARA's Record Management Program.
Mr. Cahoon currently serves as cochair of the component
subcommittee of the Federal CIO Council's Architecture and
Integration Committee, and as a commissioner for the
International Commission for the Accreditation of Professional
Genealogists. Prior to his appointment, Mr. Cahoon served as
managing director of the family history department of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
In that position he had global operating responsibility for
one of the world's largest genealogical research support
institutions. He previously served as the director of
administration and controller and is the director of projects
and planning for the Family History Department. He also served
on the board of the Civil War Trust and was a member of the
International Council and Archives Committee on archival
automation from 1986 to 1997. Welcome to the subcommittee.
You're recognized.
Mr. Cahoon. Thank you. I join the archivist in thanking
you, Chairman Putnam, for recognizing the importance of
electronic records management and for holding this hearing.
NARA's plans for electronic records management aim at making it
an integral part of electronic government and at delivering
electronic records to future generations. Both records
management support of current government business and
preservation of electronic records for the long term face the
technical problem of making digital information assets
independent of the specific technologies used to process,
store, and communicate them.
Key objectives of the E-government Act of 2002 depend on
how well the government creates, retains, and manages records
that document its decisions and its performance.
Ultimately, for the trustworthiness of the government,
these assets must remain authentic and reliable in the short
term as they move between different systems and in the long
term when they are retrieved by our great grandchildren and
their descendents. To respond to the challenge in a sustainable
way, we have launched three major interrelated initiatives:
Our first initiative, redesign of Federal Records
Management, builds a foundation that aims to make records
management a normal and integral part of agency's asset and
risk management processes and add real value to the conduct of
government business. We have developed and are working on 14
interconnective strategies to improve records management.
Several of the strategies including flexible scheduling and
resource allocation are being prototyped by partner agencies.
Implementation plans for five more are currently being
developed.
In our second initiative, the electronic records management
project in the e-government portfolio, we are working with
other agencies to provide guidance on electronic records, tools
for agencies to manage them, and more format options for
agencies to transfer electronic records to NARA. We have
produced capital planning guidance on electronic records
management application acquisition. We have promulgated and
endorsed version 2 of the Department of Defense 5015.2
standard. We have authorized two new transfer technologies,
digital linear tape and file transfer protocol and three new
data formats for transfer of electronic records to NARA and,
finally, initiated automating the process of transferring
records to NARA using extensible markup language [XML].
In addition, NARA will lead acquisition of records
management components to be included in the Federal enterprise
architecture service component infrastructure. Service
component software can be reused and leveraged in many
different systems enabling agencies to integrate management and
use of electronic records within the systems they actually use
to transact business.
The electronic records archives must be scalable--excuse
me. In our third initiative, the Electronic Records Archive
Program will authentically preserve and provide access to any
kind of electronic record free from dependency on any specific
hardware or software enabling NARA to carry out its mission
into the future. The Electronic Records Archive must be
scalable and evolvable to accommodate both growth in volume and
new types of electronic records and take advantage of
improvements in technology. We will implement a flexible
approach starting with physical preservation of electronic
records in their original formats and, where appropriate,
converting them to more durable or more accessible formats.
In the long-term, electronic government and electronic
business will drive the emergence of standards, products, and
services that make information assets independent of specific
technology. We expect agencies will increasingly adopt open-
standard infrastructure independent formats, such as XML, which
are also suitable for long-term preservation and access.
In the ERA program, we have spent the last 2 years
developing the management infrastructure to ensure proper
stewardship of this critical program with an eye to its
contribution to both electronic government and to posterity. We
are completing requirements development and refining our
acquisition strategy with the target of issuing a request for
proposals by the end of this calendar year. In this process we
have engaged both our customers and the IT industry in an
extensive dialog.
Facing the challenge of electronic records is a difficult,
serious endeavor, but we have no alternative. To this
committee, I respectfully testify that we, as the National
Archives, face the challenge squarely and with full purpose and
resolve to leave for our descendents a trustworthy record of
our turn on this planet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd be happy
to answer any questions you might have or your subcommittee
might have.
Mr. Putnam. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cahoon follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.027
Mr. Putnam. Our next witness is Ms. Harriet Riofrio. Ms.
Riofrio serves as electronic records management policy lead and
senior staff officer for knowledge management for the Office of
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information
Integration. You must have the longest business card of anybody
in government. You have to flip it over to read what your
address is.
In this capacity her primary role is to assist the deputy
CIO and director IM to enable netcentric process change
throughout the Department of Defense. Duties include strategic
planning for and application of the principles and techniques
of ERM and KM. She is responsible for the management and
evolution of the Department of Defense 5015.2 STD--only the
Department of Defense can come up with this stuff--and the
Records Management Application Certification Program at the
Joint Interoperability Test Center. She represents DOD and the
DOD-NARA partnership that maintains as its objective the
development of DOD standard to improve records management
processes and electronic transfer of records between the two
agencies.
She also originated and leads the DOD-KM community of
practice. We did our best to include every conceivable acronym
in your biography. Previously, Ms. Riofrio headed the Executive
and Information System and Microtechnology Group at HQ Defense
Logistics Agency, where she was responsible for designing and
implementing innovative technology solutions to include major
agency executive information and decision support systems.
She has numerous speaking engagements, awards and
publications to her credit. She was born here in Washington,
DC, and received a Masters Degree in 1980. Ms. Riofrio is known
as an innovator and thought leader in business process design,
new technology insertion and management disciplines. She joined
the OSD staff in 1997. Welcome to the subcommittee. Hopefully
your testimony will be more clear than your biography.
Ms. Riofrio. It took coming here to realize how many
acronyms we use. I apologize for that.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased
to appear before the subcommittee this afternoon to describe
the evolution of the Department of Defense Electronic Records
Management Program and standard, culminating in its current
relevance to and integration with our plans for advancing the
Department to a netcentric government environment.
Netcentricity will provide an unprecedented accessibility and
usability of data to include departmental records in every
electronic media. Through the development of our Global
Information Grid Enterprise Services Initiative, we will be
converting our information infrastructure from a platform based
to a netcentric environment.
We will be applying a metatagging standard to DOD data in
general and facilitating its just-in-time discovery. Official
records are a critical part of our enterprise knowledge base.
The intent is to make them more visible and usable while
utilizing sound content management principles to ensure their
proper storage, preservation and protection.
I will describe how our approach to electronic records
management has been developed and applied to date and how it
represents one of several foundational disciplines converging
to achieve our vision of enterprise wide netcentricity.
Looking back, it seems we have been working for the last 10
years to ready our records management processes for
netcentricity. In 1993, records management was analyzed as part
of a functional process improvement initiative. A baseline
analysis of records management in the Department was developed.
This work culminated in the first version of the DOD 5015.2
standard that was signed in 1997. The focus of the standard has
been to prescribe essential records automation functions
consistent with the law and regulations. The intent has been to
help DOD components bid, test or buy compliant records
management application software. Its objective has been to be
unambiguous and not to dictate design.
In 1998, we began the process of developing the second
revision to the standard. We added a section on national
security classification markings, and the declassification
schedule as requested by the Intel community. We also included
recommendations from NARA. We added a requirement for
information related to section 508 of the Federal
Rehabilitation Act. Version 2 of DOD 5015.2 standard was signed
in June 2002.
Currently, the Joint Interoperability Test Command [JITC],
of the Defense Information Systems Agency, manages the
compliance testing process for the DOD standard. This testing
is mandatory for DOD and endorsed by NARA. At this time, JITC
has certified approximately 43 records management applications
as compliant to our standard.
An example of how this standards process has begun to
influence our enterprise-wide environment can be seen in its
application to the Navy Marine Corps Intranet. The Navy and
Marine Corps are looking to merge records and document
management for over 350,000 users which they claim will make
the Department of the Navy the world's largest electronic
records management customer.
In 2003, DOD formally partnered with NARA on electronic
records management as part of the President's E-government
initiatives. We are working to certify direct export from RMA's
from record management applications to NARA to include
coordination of transfer and specification for transfer file
format. This effort, especially upon its adoption by the
Federal community, has the potential for substantial
improvements in the timeliness, cost and quality of permanent
records transfers throughout the government.
As we begin to operationalize netcentricity through our
Global Information Grid Enterprise Service Initiative, we are
cognizant of the need to assure electronic records management
becomes a part of the Department's enterprise services.
In summary, we are finding that the DOD standard could not
be more opportune. It is being sought after and used by some of
our States, by the Federal Government and even the
international community. It is open enough to encompass
different functions and infrastructures but serves to assure
consistently useful electronic records products. We look
forward to planning for integration of ERM into our new
netcentric environment and working closely with the Federal
community to develop solutions for our common data and records
problems.
We welcome your support as we continue to shape the future
of this critical area together. Thank you.
Mr. Putnam. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Riofrio follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.036
Mr. Putnam. Our final panelist for panel one is Ms. Linda
Koontz. Ms. Koontz is Director of Information Management Issues
at the U.S. General Accounting Office. She is responsible for
issues concerning the collection, use and dissemination of
government information in an era of rapidly changing
technology. Recently she has been heavily involved in directing
studies concerning e-government, privacy, electronic records
management and governmentwide information dissemination issues.
She is a frequent panelist before the subcommittee, and we
always appreciate your insight and support. You're recognized
for your testimony.
Ms. Koontz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to participate in the subcommittee's hearing on the
challenges of records management in an electronic era. As you
know, agencies are increasingly moving to an operational
environment in which electronic rather than paper records are
used to document their activities and business processes. This
migration is likely to accelerate in light of the E-government
Act of 2002 which encourages the expansion of electronic
government. This transformation is leading to improvements in
the way Federal agencies work and interact with each other and
with the public. However, the rapid evolution of information
technology is creating challenges in managing and preserving
electronic records. Complex electronic records are increasingly
being created in a decentralized environment and in volumes
that make it difficult to organize them and make them
accessible.
Further storage media themselves are affected by the dual
problems of obsolescence and deterioration. For example, few
computers today have disk drives that can read information on 8
or 5\1/4\ diskettes, even if the diskettes themselves remain
readable. These problems are compounded as computer hardware
and application software become obsolete. They may leave behind
electronic records that can no longer be read. Unless these
challenges are addressed, the government will be unable to
effectively leverage the information it has and valuable
government information may be lost forever.
We report last year that while NARA has responded to these
challenges, most electronic records, including data bases of
major Federal information systems, remain unscheduled, and
records of historical value were not being identified and
provided to NARA, and as a result, they were at risk of loss.
Three factors contributed to this condition. First, NARA
has acknowledged that its policies and processes on electronic
records have not yet evolved to reflect the modern
recordkeeping environment; second, records management programs
were generally afforded low priority by Federal agencies. A
related issue was that agency management had not given priority
to acquiring the technology tools required to manage electronic
records.
Third, NARA was not performing systematic inspections of
agency record programs. Such inspections are important as a
means to evaluate individual agency records management
programs, assess governmentwide progress in improving records,
and manage and identify areas where guidance needs to be
strengthened. We recommended that NARA develop strategies for
raising agency management awareness of the importance of
records management and for performing systematic inspections.
In the last year, NARA has taken steps to improve its
guidance and address the lack of technology tools. In response
to our recommendations, it has devised a reasonable strategy
for raising awareness among senior agency management. In
addition, it has developed a comprehensive approach to
assessing and improving agency records management programs that
includes identification of risks and priorities and
inspections, but it has not yet described how this will be made
an ongoing program and an implementation plan for the strategy
has not yet been established. Until NARA fully addressed these
issues, the risk is increased that records management programs
will continue to show the weaknesses that led to the scheduling
and disposition problems that we and NARA described in our
earlier work.
NARA also faces significant challenges in acquiring an
electronic record archive, an advanced system that is intended
to address the problems associated with preserving electronic
records and making them accessible. Specifically the plans,
policies and practices that NARA is using to acquire the system
do not, in many cases, conform to standards or to applicable
Federal acquisition guidance.
In addition, NARA is unable to track the cost and schedule
of the product adequately. Unless NARA addresses these issues,
the risk is increased that the system will fail to meet user's
needs, will cost more than currently estimated and will be
delivered later than planned. In view of these risks, we have
recommended that NARA address weaknesses in its acquisition
plans and project schedule.
In conclusion, NARA and the Federal Government face
significant challenges in managing electronic records. While
NARA is responding to these challenges and is making progress,
much work remains to be done to gain control over the massive
numbers of electronic records that continue to grow and prevent
the loss of valuable permanent records.
That concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any
questions.
Mr. Putnam. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Koontz follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.059
Mr. Putnam. I want to thank all of you for your both
written and verbal testimony, and it has certainly set the
table for an interesting hearing.
Before we start peeling this onion down to several layers,
I want to start in a very basic way. If you would, answer for
me how you determine what records are worthy of archiving, what
records are worthy of being kept for posterity and how much of
that is defined in the law. What form it should be saved in and
what the life cycle is of those forms? In other words, an old
TSR 80 RadioShack computer disk that looks like a cassette
tape, what is the life span of that versus a 4\1/2\ inch disk,
3\1/2\ inch disk or microfiche, microfilm, CD ROM? How long do
those things live in a manner that we can retrieve that
information?
And what process do we have for converting that? And is the
conversion of the format in and of itself changing history? In
other words, we wouldn't be content to have run a Xerox copy of
the Declaration of Independence and feel like we'd saved the
Declaration of Independence, and that is an extreme example,
but certainly you can address that spectrum of issue.
So that is a lot to throw out there. But Governor, if you
could begin to attempt to address these issues for us to get us
going.
Mr. Carlin. By law, it is our responsibility. In fact, in
the end, my sign-off on the scheduling of records, in practice
we historically have worked with agencies to evaluate records
to determine whether they should be ultimately an accession to
the archives which works out to be 2 or 3 percent of what is
originally created, which one should be disposed of earlier and
how long they should be kept for appropriate business purposes
as well as protecting rights and entitlements for
accountability reasons and so forth. That has been a back-and-
forth with agency process, and, on any disposal, communication
with stakeholders through a publication in the Federal
Register.
As indicated in testimony that you have here today, we are
working to overhaul that process, because we know, with the
massive size of the Federal Government, with all of the records
now that have been created electronically, with more and more
of them wanting to be the record copy, that we must have a more
efficient, effective way of scheduling records. Things change
too fast for it to be an old system when a schedule stays in
place for a long period of time. We have made a lot of
progress. We are literally testing some of those changes with
agencies as we speak, and I'm confident in the end we will have
a system that will allow us to stay current with the technology
here in which we live and schedule records appropriately, but
it is our responsibility. We accept that responsibility, and
work with agencies to carry it out as well as with
stakeholders.
On the technology issue, the second part of the question,
if I might, I would yield to my colleague here who probably can
better explain to you that aspect of the question.
Mr. Cahoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The technology chosen
for any particular type of record often depends on the
technology that was used to create it, and from there the
technology required to ensure that those records are available
from generation to generation. Microfiche, for example, can
last, if preserved properly, for hundreds of years. When that
microfiche begins to appear to deteriorate, then that
microfiche can be recopied using the same technology because it
is human readable.
Electronic records, however, present a more difficult
challenge. Electronic records will come in many different
formats when they are created but ultimately, for us to
preserve those records for the long term, we need to find
formats that will enable us to remove the dependence that we
often find that those records have on the technology that
created them. We need to find technology independent formats
for them.
The media, which is one of the issues that you raised--the
media presents an interesting problem. We find that the best
way to deal with the media at this point is to migrate the
media as technology changes. For example, we might record
information on cartridge tapes, 3480 cartridge tapes. When
those become obsolete, we might convert that information to
3590 cartridge tapes and continue to progress as the technology
evolves. So we're continually making copies--faithful copies of
those original records.
So to sum up, the technology used to migrate records or
to--excuse me, to preserve records depends on the original
format that they came in and on the strategies we need to
engage to migrate them from one technology to another.
Mr. Putnam. That makes sense for ordinary memos and
personnel records and payroll records, but when you get into
the GIS or maps or digital photography, so much of what we
generate in great volumes in this day and age. Do we save the
original photograph or the original map, or are we content to
scan it and leave it on a cartridge or a disk or microfilm? How
was something like that handled that is, at best, different
than just ordinary memorandums or other documents?
Mr. Cahoon. The technology that creates these electronic
records, a geographic information system record, for example,
is highly dependent on the software that created it and the
format that record is actually stored in. And so, the intent
would be to find a format, ultimately, that would free that
record from its dependence on the format that it was created
in.
So in your example, where we're concerned about scanning a
map, that's different, Mr. Chairman, from the technology used
to capture the record originally and electronically and evolve
it over time. So for scanning a map, for example, we would find
a technology independent format to store that map in and be
able to migrate then that map from generation through
generation of media technology.
For a geographic information system where the information
for the data associated with it is proprietary, we would try to
find a technology independent format for that, and then migrate
it as faithfully as we could through generations of media
technology.
Does that respond to your question?
Mr. Putnam. I'm not sure. Our capabilities today are so
dramatically different than when Lewis and Clark were drawing
their own maps or when Cartier was charting the St. Lawrence. I
mean, it seems obvious to us today that is historic and worthy
of preservation as it is, but if we're shooting tens of
thousands of pictures over Baghdad in a 90-day period of time,
do we save all of those as they are because they are historic--
as they are? Or do we change how they are saved and therefore
lose the actual document that was used by decisionmakers to
make particular policy decisions that are historic by
definition?
But when you calculate that there's a constant stream of
images being generated of Mars or the moon or a tropical storm
in the Gulf of Mexico or where a gas line is in the city of
Alexandria, how do we decide which of those things are worthy
of keeping as they are because the very nature of that form is
in itself historic just as if it had been drawn on the back of
a deer skin?
Mr. Carlin. I would just say this, Mr. Chairman, that when
you move from historically the important documents whether they
are written on parchment or paper, whether they are still
photos or videotapes, as you get more and more into the
technology realm, it changes in terms of preserving that
original. In other words, ultimately 100 years from now to look
at something that was created digitally today, it won't be
essential that you have the equipment of the 2003 to use it to
see it.
What you want to see in modern equipment of 100 years from
now is what was there. So we won't be preserving that record
that is on that first. The information will be preserved, and
it will be preserved authentically. That is one of the real
challenges, to make sure that you have authentic records over
time, but in contrast to that Lewis and Clark map, which we
will keep in its original form because it has intrinsic value
as well as informational value, although even today we will
scan, digitize and put up on a Web site that map to expand
access to it, we will keep that original, yes; but when you
move, it seems to me, into technology, we're not--the original
is important only in the sense that we keep the authentic
document, the information, the numbers, the diagrams, the
descriptions and not keep a historical presentation itself or
the equipment it was presented on.
Now, that is my cut at answering----
Mr. Putnam. If I heard you correctly, you said that it is
less important to preserve the actual document and more
important to preserve the information on that document using
the best available technology. I believe that is what I heard
you say.
Mr. Carlin. As a layperson, that is what I communicate,
yes.
Mr. Putnam. But my point is that the format that it is
saved in today, which is the best possible technology today,
that actual physical document, the map or the photograph or the
thermal imagery of the fires below the rubble in Ground Zero of
New York, in and of itself, will be historical because 100
years from now, people will think, well, isn't that quaint and
charming that they could rely on something so rude, so crude or
so rudimentary compared to what they have 100 years from now?
And so the difference between the pictures of Ground Zero or
the Pentagon from September 11th and the pictures of Pearl
Harbor are the magnitude in terms of volume.
I mean, there's thousands of pictures of New York. There's
probably dozens of pictures of Pearl Harbor. So how do you
decide which of those things are worthy of keeping as they are
because of what they are, in the format that they are in,
because they are intrinsically historic?
Mr. Carlin. Well, Mr. Chairman, to use the Pearl Harbor
example, of photographs taken at that time, at some point, that
record, that picture will diminish, and we will copy it. So 200
years from now they will not be looking at that original
picture. They will be looking at a copy of that record, of that
picture. That's been true in terms of still photos, color
photographs, videos. The preservation over time is
transferring, making sure you have a quality preservation copy,
and then as the use of it from researchers diminishes quality
or just time does, you make a new copy in the technology of the
time. So that will not change. In terms of deciding what we
keep that goes back to the scheduling issue and working out
with the agency and stakeholders' participation whether or not
those images or those records in electronic form should be kept
for 50 years, 100 or as we say permanently in the archives,
accessioned into the National Archives.
Mr. Putnam. Well, my time is long since run out, and I need
to yield to my very able Vice Chair. I would just say that I
hear what you're saying, but the fact that we have made copies
and preserved the content of the declaration of independence
doesn't mean that we quit preserving the actual parchment.
Mr. Carlin. That is correct.
Mr. Putnam. And that same drive to preserve will apply to
other things. As we go through this hearing, my interest is in
finding out the processes used for determining what things are
worthy of keeping for posterity.
People may not have thought it was terribly important to
keep a list of the procurement orders that Washington ordered
for his men for the winter at Valley Forge 225 years ago. Today
an archaeologist looks up what they bought and how many buttons
and where the buttons came from, and they can now find exactly
where the campgrounds were because of what they threw out the
back or what fell off their uniform. It probably didn't seem
terribly important to save all that back then, but it has
tremendous uses today. Now in this information age, in this
allegedly paperless society, we're generating a whole lot more
stuff, and it's in a format that is more tricky, because of
obsolescence, to keep, and so those decisions become more and
more important.
I'll yield to the vice chairwoman, Mrs. Miller.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I find your questions
so interesting, I think it really does go to the whole heart of
this, is what are we trying to archive? What is really
necessary? I think that is what we're all struggling with, what
are we actually--what is necessary and what is not, I suppose.
You know, actually, I think in this case--well, in many cases,
but certainly when we think about archiving, let me just--a
personal example, first of all. We're thinking about everything
that we should be archiving or shouldn't be archiving. I think
Members of Congress need to set our own example and our own
standards of what we are trying to do as well as we're
questioning everybody else and all of the other agencies of
what they are doing, and the Members themselves sometimes could
be more cognizant, I think, of what is important and what is
not.
We've tried to just, within my own office what happens when
you--I'm a freshman. When you become a new freshman Member, you
inherit everything from your predecessor. The most up-to-date
piece of equipment I had was a 1986 Macintosh, if you can
imagine.
So we purchased a new computer system. We have no paper in
our office to speak of. We put our whole data base into the
thing. Any correspondence that we get from any constituent. We
have every registered voter in my district, their name and
their address, if they fax us or call us or what have you. We
have a paper trail on it. We have a workflow that we can
generate their name, and if they were asking us about a Social
Security issue or a Veterans' benefit. That has been a helpful
tool.
Here we are as a Federal Government telling you to get away
from paperwork, and then sometimes we have way too much
paperwork. What is important? We are looking for a little
assistance from you about what is important.
I would like to ask a question of Ms. Koontz. I thought
your testimony was very interesting. You outlined a number of
things in regards to NARA that you thought probably could be
done better. And I am just wondering, should there be a
function with GAO when you are doing your audit process that be
part of your auditing process with the various agencies in
regards to records management? Is it already a part? And, for
instance, if there are some agencies that are doing well, you
might want to point that out to other agencies. DOD is
apparently ahead of the curve. If there are other agencies that
are not doing well at all, would this be identified as a
material weakness in their audit? And how can you assist from
your perspective these other agencies?
Ms. Koontz. I would not say that a look at records
management would be a routine part of our information
technology audits, but I think that is an interesting idea. And
one of the things that we have looked at lately is how to,
perhaps, get more recognition of records management in some of
the institutional processes that we are trying to get in place
across the Federal Government.
I think Mr. Cahoon talked earlier about the Federal
Enterprise Architecture. Another way to go is to try to embed
records management concerns in the investment process that
agencies go through in order to make investment decisions about
new IT systems. As they decide to acquire and monitor a system
over time, that would certainly be a good way for an agency to
be asking over time, how are you handling the records issues?
And putting additional emphasis on them. Those are processes
that we are trying to get institutionalized in agencies. But I
think your idea about making it a more routine part of the
audit is interesting.
The other thing I would mention, too, is that this last
year we contracted with Grant Thornton to start doing some work
that was best practices-oriented on records management across
the Federal Government, and the principal investigator on that
was Tim Sprehe, and he will be talking on the second panel. So
he has developed some, shall we say, preliminary models for
records management and identified a number of best practices
that I think could be transferred to other agencies.
Mrs. Miller. I think that is very commendable that you
would be doing that with best practices with the private
sector. The reason I asked you that question, you also
mentioned that there is a possibility of very important
information being lost in those kinds of things. Have you found
that? How can you make that kind of a statement? Are you
finding these kinds of things very important information that
has been lost by the various agencies? Are you finding that
during your course of your audits? And if you do find that out,
who do you tell about it?
Ms. Koontz. From an audit perspective, once it has been
lost it is hard to find. And from that perspective, I don't
think we have independently documented the loss of the
information. What I think we are talking about there is that
the risk that information is lost is dramatically increased.
Although, I think maybe the NARA representatives might be able
to talk about something like this in more detail that I can at
this point.
Mrs. Miller. I am wondering if part of the hesitancy that
many of the agencies, and maybe this is a question for Mrs.
Riofrio with the Department of Defense, but perhaps much of the
hesitancy on behalf of all of the agencies about archiving and
that kind of thing, particularly e-mails, you mentioned about
e-mails. Now, in this last theater, we saw all of the troops
that were using e-mails to communicate with their families, and
what a wonderful thing that was. Obviously, you do not want to
archive people's personal correspondence. But many people may
feel hesitancy about giving up their records of e-mail in the
normal course of business in the various agencies, and that I
would suspect, makes it more difficult to determine what you
are going to archive, as the chairman was mentioning about
General Washington and those kinds of things. If he could have
sent an e-mail, perhaps he would have done it, and now it makes
some sense.
Ms. Riofrio. We have been working records management from a
very decentralized approach for a long time. And it has not
been particularly visible, I think. We concur with GAO's
statement. But we have found that the focus, the new focus that
we have taken with records management applications really
transforms the way people think about electronic records,
focusing on what is it that we are going to preserve and what
is it that we are not. It seems that the people who are
performing the function have the best understanding of what is
most important.
But they were not necessarily, at least in the past,
thinking about records management. But we were talking about
now records management applications, sound like software. ``Why
don't you go put software in?'' But you can't do that. You have
to rethink your function. You have to rethink your schedules.
You have to plan again. And then everyone in the organization
becomes a records manager of sorts, and becomes conscious of
records, and starts to make those decisions.
And the records management standard--we were going through
this in detail yesterday--requires a great deal of flexibility
and decisionmaking on the part of the organization and then of
the individuals. And I think that is the beginning of some of
the answers that visibility, not just the capability, but the
visibility and the understanding.
So we are very excited about the large efforts in the Navy
to see how that evolves. Thank you.
Mrs. Miller. I am interested as you mentioned about the
flexibility, and I know Mr. Cahoon mentioned in his remarks
about trying to give all the various agencies a great degree of
flexibility, and in concept, I think that sounds very good. But
as we are trying to get to standards, if you give everybody
that much flexibility, you could find yourself in a situation
with particular format that is not compatible with proprietary
systems. I am sure you are finding that all the time. Should
NARA be establishing the standards and defining the standards?
You mentioned during your testimony, I think you mentioned
about the GIS. We are all onto this GIS. We had a very
interesting hearing a couple of weeks ago about GIS, and all
the local municipalities have these wonderful GIS systems, but
nobody at the county level can use them, and the State can't
use them, and the Federal can't use them. And as we think about
homeland security, how does that all trickle down? And in this
way, I think, perhaps as well, is the Federal Government
responsible for setting some standards as you are archiving
different things? How do you work with the States and the other
levels of government?
Mr. Cahoon. I think, Vice Chairwoman Miller, I believe that
NARA has been very cautious about the formats that it has
allowed to be transferred to the permanent archives. In fact,
we have been so conservative in that up until recently, we only
allowed relational and flat-file formatted data bases that
would be readable independent of technology, to be accessioned
into the archives and only records that were in ASCII format;
those were the only formats that we accepted. And, of course,
with that fairly limited set of records, there were a lot of
records being created that did not fit neatly into that set of
standards.
So as a result, we have opened up the possibilities for
additional formats. E-mail with attachments. We have a standard
associated with that. Tagged-image file formats for images, and
PDF for textual documents can now be sent to us. But those are
the only formats currently that are accessionable into the
archives. And so we will continue to set standards for these
other kinds of records as time goes on. That is part of our
major initiative with the Electronic Records Archive.
And we are constantly involved in very collaborative
efforts that include the States in thinking about not only
standards and the records management applications that have
been spoken of, but we collaborate with NASA on the set of
standards, particularly the Open Archival Information System
Model and the standards associated with it. We do believe that
NARA is in a very important position to set standards for
records that would be accessioned into the National Archives.
Mr. Carlin. May I add something to that? You folks helped
us a lot under the leadership of Chairman Davis on the e-
government legislation because of a couple of aspects of that
are going to be very helpful to us in making OMB a real player,
and obviously, helping us as one agency working with the entire
Federal Government, not only in the structure within OMB that
will have a direct responsibility, but the committee that is
set up. We will be a direct participant, including the Deputy
Archivist who is going to be a major player on that.
I think in terms of setting the standards, it is not just
like, yes, we have a responsibility. I also think we have been
given additional tools now to convert that into reality.
The other thing I would quickly add, as a former State
official as well, I understand very clearly the incredible
amount of Federal money that flows to State and local. And
whether it is Homeland Security or whatever, if we do not work
with State and local to make sure those records are preserved,
we will not have, from a Federal point of view, the records to
really deal with accountability, whether the program really
worked. So there are huge incentives for us to work with State
and local. And one of our main avenues, of course, is the
National Historic Publications Records Commission, which is our
modest grant-providing division that supports and helps State
and local governments, and certainly as we look to the coming
years, working with them, passing along, allowing them to try
some things. You, in the State of Michigan, have done some
really great things working with the NHPRC to move us all
forward as we share up and down the channels.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, I think my time has expired, Mr.
Chairman, I appreciate it.
Mr. Putnam. Thank you, Mrs. Miller. Ms. Riofrio, how do you
handle the issues of classified versus nonclassified documents
as part of your electronic records management?
You can answer the question if you would like. We can swear
you in real quick if that will save time. Would you like to do
that? Could you identify yourself and your position for the
record into the mic?
Mr. Matsuura. Steven Matsuura. I am a senior electronic
engineer from the Joint Interoperability Test Command, part of
the Defense Information Systems Agency.
Mr. Putnam. Very good, please rise and raise your right
hand.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Putnam. The witness responded in the affirmative. If
you could please answer the question.
Mr. Matsuura. First of all, classified and unclassified
records have to be segregated. So they are not handled the same
way because there is extra security procedures and safeguards
that are required for classified records.
Additionally, the standard has additional requirements for
information when a classified record is declared as a record.
In addition to the normal information that a user has to input
to document the records, he has to add information such as the
reason for classification, what the declassification schedule
is, and, of course, what level of classification it is.
Mr. Putnam. We collect, in Mr. Rumsfeld's terms, an
``unknowable amount'' of information from around the world
through various sources and methods. It is then filtered and
screened through a variety of appropriate personnel and
agencies as part of our intelligence briefings and intelligence
plans. How would someone know, and at what point in that chain
does someone know, that they should preserve either the raw
data or the interpreted data or the refined data? At what point
does that become a record and subject to the process as a
classified document that you just outlined?
Mr. Matsuura. Well, it is somewhat subjective, but as
mentioned before, each agency has to have a schedule, and if a
record falls into a certain category or series, he knows that--
or a document or a piece of information--he knows that it needs
to be saved as an official record.
Mr. Putnam. Are the schedules designed by each individual
agency, or are the schedules designed by NARA and handed down
to the agency?
Mr. Matsuura. Well, NARA, of course, develops the General
Records Schedule, which agencies use if they are applicable or
where applicable. But actually, agencies propose schedules,
depending on what their business line is, and submit them to
NARA for approval and that gives them the disposition
authority.
Mr. Putnam. Ms. Koontz, would you like to comment on this
whole process? There seems to be a general difficulty in
describing to the subcommittee how the decision is made, what
records are worthy of archiving.
Ms. Koontz. Well, I am not sure I can elaborate a whole
lot. NARA has a whole process that they have used over many
years where they use experts to appraise--that is, you know,
look at the value of a record and determine whether that record
could possibly be a permanent record or not. They are certainly
more expert in that process than I am, but they do have a very
longstanding process to decide which records will be kept and
which records can be disposed of. That is what the whole of
records management is, knowing what to keep and to get rid of
the rest.
Mr. Putnam. But in your testimony, you said that their
architecture for archiving electronic records has raised some
concerns about costs and progress on that system.
Ms. Koontz. Right, the electronic record archiving.
Mr. Putnam. On the electronic side.
Ms. Koontz. Right. We are talking there about the
development of their electronic archival system, which does
what Mr. Carlin and Cahoon talked about preserving electronic
records independent of software, so that you don't have to
worry about software obsolescence, you can maintain the content
over time, and part of the strategy is to migrate the media
over time as well.
Mr. Putnam. And as all agencies move forward purchasing new
IT infrastructure, and we spend $60 billion a year on that,
does OMB require a component of that enterprise architecture to
be electronic records management? Is that part of it?
Ms. Koontz. I think Mr. Cahoon talked with this earlier,
about the relationship of records management to one of the
component service areas in the Federal Enterprise Architecture.
I know less about it than he does. He is working on that
particular aspect.
Mr. Putnam. Well, we have had a lot of hearings in the
subcommittee this year on the inadequacy of our IT procurement
and acquisition programs, the lack of information security, the
fact that even within a department, especially DOD, there is an
awful lot of different rabbit trails that are being pursued
with regard to IT. So it would surprise me if they all had
their act together on electronic records management? Is that
the case or not?
Mr. Cahoon. You needn't be surprised, Mr. Chairman. I would
have to say that we are all working to get our act together.
The Federal Enterprise Architecture specified in four different
places records management as a key component of the business
reference model of that architecture. In the service component
architecture, there are identified a set of service types, and
digital asset management is one of those service types. And
within that service type is electronic records management
identified specifically as a component in the Federal
Enterprise Architecture. And that electronic records management
then has a series of elements to it that, over time, when
implemented, will provide not only guidance but specific
software, component software, that can be used by agency
applications that will help us move a long way toward
standardizing how records are managed, how they are described,
the kind of information that is available about those records
how those records relate to one another, how they form
collections, information about their disposition, how long they
could be kept and for what purposes they should be kept. All of
that is part of this architecture.
And for me, that provides a sustainable, long-term way of
bringing electronic records management into the forefront of
information technology application development, because the
components will be there, available for people to use and to
integrate into their applications rather than having to figure
out everything for themselves. So our requirements and
standards, Mr. Chairman, can be built into those components
themselves.
Mr. Carlin. Mr. Chairman, could I add some, because you
have a question that still has not been answered yet, and I
would like to try one more time.
Mr. Putnam. OK.
Mr. Carlin. First of all there is a basic fundamental that
the format itself does not impact whether a record is kept 1
year, 2 years or permanently, whether it is on paper or
electronic form. So when we shift to more electronic, that does
not suddenly force a whole new set of schedules, generally.
Now, obviously, there are some individual aspects that require
some changes, and we are creating records electronically that
we did not even have before in the paper form, but the format
is not a factor. When we work to schedule records, to make
those determinations, we want to document the decision and what
the decision is will determine to a great extent how long it's
kept.
Reference was made to General Records Schedules by our
friend from the Department of Defense. Those are the schedules
that are across the board for every agency, for them to use
efficiently to deal with very short-time, important for the
moment, but certainly not important in protecting rights and
entitlements, not important for accountability, certainly not
important for telling the national experience, but just for
that particular business transaction for a moment. Those are
General Records Schedules that deal across the board, that will
apply as well electronically.
And so it's not the media that is the factor that
necessarily determines how long a record will be kept. Because
we are now electronic and have so much more volume, does not
mean that we will go from 2 or 3 percent accessioned in the
archives to 50 percent. It may go to 5 percent because of the
ease with which dealt with it and our capacity to provide
access to those records efficiently. But we don't want to cloud
the whole electronic storecase with endless records that are
not needed. If they were not needed in paper, probably they
aren't needed electronically any longer than they were when
they were a paper format.
Mr. Putnam. That is a fair point. My concern is as much as
anything on the map, GIS, geospatial photography side of
things, which are much more voluminous than they were in the
past, and frankly, easier to store because you can put all of
this stuff on a CD-ROM or whatever. But the other issue and as
the Technology Chairman, I am probably going to say something I
shouldn't, but I will make a confession, I was on Air Force 1
on September 11th. And until we shut down all of our electronic
devices, I sent out e-mails to my wife for one. Well, I made a
point of saving those e-mails, but I also printed them out
because I did not trust the computer. One day I would be, you
know, I would hit the wrong delete button. I just did not trust
it, so I printed them out and saved them.
I suspect you all probably do the same thing. That, you
know, as good as your electronic capacity is, if there is
something really special in there, you probably drop back to
the good old-fashioned paper form, which is what all of us do,
which is why this paperless society cuts down more trees than
we ever have.
And so the root of my questions about what is worthy of
being saved and all of that, and how do we save it as the
technology changes so that you don't have to keep a TRS8 to be
able to read this 10 years worth of documents, and a 286 to
read this, and a Pentium to read this decade's worth of
documents. You know, at the end of the day, as that technology
changes so quickly, we have to be very careful about how we
preserve these things. And so that is my concern as an amateur
history buff, that is my issue in trying to decide how you guys
decide what to save.
And, unquestionably, you are the best in the world at it. I
mean, I don't propose to tell you how to decide what to save.
But if you are just the systems administrator in the field
office of the Farm Service Agency somewhere in Kansas, and you
are trying to decide what is worthy of saving, I am trying to
figure out before we go cracking heads who gives them some
direction, some clear-cut policy on what they should keep and
what they can throw out the back-door. And I have taken this
hearing--the staff is going nuts, I have taken this way out
into the historical side and not in the enterprise
architecture, which is where we are supposed to be.
I recognize Mrs. Miller for another round of questions, and
then we will move on.
Mrs. Miller. In the interest of time, I will pass. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Putnam. One last question. Is there--and this gets to
what I was saying about I printed out my e-mails--is there,
say, a backup nondigital system for the storage of vital
information should that information be lost?
Mr. Carlin. Mr. Chairman, what you described previously is
very real. Until we get records management applications to the
quality that we are comfortable, a lot of agencies today, and
with our encouragement, are printing out to paper. The record
copy is paper, not the digital form that was originally
created. So the practical issue you addressed is one that
agencies do address today. That decision out there in Kansas
that you made reference to, first of all, a schedule is going
to determine and that schedule will say whether the electronic
or the paper copy is the record copy. And probably out there, I
would guess, it would be paper today because we are still at
the early stages of developing--when I say we, I mean globally,
we are testing and learning, but the private sector, in
producing, has made a lot of progress. And we may have one
there today, but is it available or been tested to the extent
that everybody across the board, we are saying go forward and
use it. So your experience is one that has been experienced by
agencies all across the Federal Government.
Mr. Putnam. Very good. Would any of the witnesses wish to
add anything? Something that we did not ask about? Something,
if you would like to clarify anything? This is your opportunity
before we seat the second panel. Yes, sir?
Mr. Cahoon. Mr. Chairman, I would like to add, with respect
to this, your critical question. NARA looks very carefully at
the business processes that each agency undertakes to do their
business. And, based on an analysis of those business
processes, determines what records are necessary to document
the decisions and the transactions that business process
creates.
Based on that analysis, a record schedule is developed.
That schedule is then reworked and evaluated and tuned up and
then presented to Mr. Carlin for his signature. And it's based
on that understanding of the business process and what is
necessary to document the rights and entitlements of
individuals, the decisions and actions of Federal officials and
what would be important to know for the national experience,
all become factors in the decision of what we should keep.
Risk of those records being lost, and the value of those
records to the business of the agency all factor in to the
decision that is made as to what we ought to keep and what can
be disposed of after the normal course of business. Thank you.
Mr. Putnam. Very good, anyone else?
Mr. Carlin. Mr. Chairman, I would only add that we
appreciate very much this opportunity. We appreciate your
leadership, along with your vice chair and your interest. And
that we would hope that this would be an ongoing communication
over time, because we realize you need to know what we are
doing. You need to have your questions answered. And as I said
to you privately, we appreciate the relationship with GAO and
their active involvement in what we are doing in all aspects of
electronic records, and we thank you very, very much for this
opportunity today.
Mr. Putnam. You are welcome, and we look forward to seeing
your facility next week. The record will remain open for us to
submit further questions that were not addressed in the
hearing, and we would ask your cooperation in responding to
those. At this time, we will excuse the first panel and seat
the second. So the committee will go in recess for a minute and
a half.
Thank you.
[Recess.]
Mr. Putnam. The subcommittee will reconvene. We want to
welcome the second panel. And as was the custom with this
subcommittee and as you saw with the first panel, I would ask
you to rise and raise your right hands, please, for the oath.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Putnam. Note for the record that all of the witnesses
responded in the affirmative.
We will immediately go to witness testimony.
Our second panel begins with Dr. J. Timothy Sprehe. Dr.
Sprehe is president of Sprehe Information Management
Associates, a firm offering consulting services and information
resources management to government agencies and private firms
since 1991. He specializes in issues such as strategic planning
for information resources management, public access to
government information, electronic records management and
electronic collection and dissemination of information.
He has conducted consulting studies for many U.S. Federal
agencies and private firms doing business with the Federal
Government. He retired from OMB in 1991, where at OMB he was
the principal author of the original 1985 OMB Circular, No. A-
130, the Management of Federal Information Resources. This
governmentwide information policy directive established
comprehensive policy on managing information and managing
information systems and technology.
Mr. Sprehe received an M.A. in 1963 and an Ph.D. in 1967 in
sociology from Washington University in St. Louis. We welcome
you to the subcommittee, Dr. Sprehe, and look forward to your
testimony. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF J. TIMOTHY SPREHE, PRESIDENT, SPREHE INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES; ROBERT F. NAWROCKI, CRM, DIRECTOR,
RECORDS MANAGEMENT AND IMAGINING SERVICES DIVISION, LIBRARY OF
VIRGINIA; CARYN WOJCIK, STATE GOVERNMENT RECORDS MANAGEMENT,
MICHIGAN; AND DR. RICHARD LYUSAKOWSKI, DIRECTOR, COLLABORATIVE
ELECTRONIC NOTEBOOK SYSTEMS ASSOCIATION [CENSA]
Mr. Sprehe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to
appear before this subcommittee to discuss the subject of
electronic records management [ERM].
The National Archives' 2001 survey on current Federal
recordkeeping practices, of which I was a coauthor, stated that
the chief paradox of today's Federal records management is the
disconnect between paper and electronic recordkeeping. Many
agencies do competent paper records management; only a handful
do competent electronic records management.
One reason for this condition is the cultural chasm between
the records management community and the information technology
community. Generally, records managers do not understand IT,
and IT managers do not understand records management.
A Federal record is not just something saved by a computer.
Rather, a record is maintained as evidence in pursuance of
legal obligations or in the transaction of business. It's
something you can take into court where you must be able to
prove that the record has authenticity, reliability, integrity,
and usability. IT professionals seldom understand this meaning
of ``record.'' It's common to say today that most records are
born electronic. Where do they live and where do they grow up?
In IT systems. And nobody is talking to the IT people about
records.
A second reason that ERM is sadly wanting in Federal
records is because the National Archives has been painfully
slow to address ERM, let alone get out in front of it. Bold
out-in-front policy guidance on ERM comes slowly in NARA's
culture of archivists and historians, compounded by the
agency's extreme, and perhaps well justified, fear of adverse
litigation. You might note that for all of its commendable
initiatives in the electronics record management area, NARA
itself does not use electronics records management.
A third reason for the slow spread of ERM is the obstacles
the agencies face, namely, lack of funding for ERM and
indifference on the part of senior management. Too many agency
heads and chief information officers consider ERM a back-burner
low priority. They believe their top priorities are more
immediate and include items such as security and risk
management, not appreciating that ERM improves security and
lowers risk.
Thus, as the volume of electronic records multiplies
exponentially in the agencies, progress in ERM creeps along
inch by inch. Disasters such as happened at the Bureau of
Indian Affairs and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are the
tip of a large iceberg. Many more records management disasters
are out there waiting to happen.
On the bright side, a few agencies have achieved
significant advances in making ERM an integral operating
component in their information architectures. Agencies such as
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management--otherwise known as the Yucca
Mountain Project--in the Department of Energy, and the Office
of Comptroller of the Currency in the Treasury Department.
These are agencies that take records very seriously by the
nature of their missions, agencies where top management has
issued a mandate that ERM shall exist enterprise-wide.
Agencies reaching full ERM implementation discover that an
electronic records repository is an asset with many beneficial
applications beyond records management. ERM gives the agencies
instant access to institutional memory starting yesterday. They
can leverage this asset to provide economies and efficiencies
to other business functions. For example, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission's ADAMS, which stands for agencywide
document access and management system, is a combined electronic
documents and records management system. NRC has made ADAMS a
core component of its public Web site, so that ADAMS not only
performs records management, it also performs other important
public information functions.
Even more, NRC has coupled ADAMS with electronic signature
capability, so that ADAMS can receive electronic submissions
from nuclear reactor licensees in the general public, and,
hence, NRC has leveraged its ERM investment to carry out not
only its records management responsibilities, but also the
Government Paperwork Elimination Act and improve its
performance under the Government Paperwork Reduction Act.
My single recommendation regarding Federal ERM is this: The
Office of Management and Budget should change exhibit 300 on
capital planning and budgeting in its annual budget directive,
Circular No. A-11. The section of exhibit 300 that deals with
IT systems should state that no new IT system will receive
funding for development and acquisition unless the
justification for the new system adequately explains how the
system will provide for records created by or passing through
the system. NRC and the Yucca Mountain Project are already
implementing such a policy.
We can only hope that the many agencies planning today for
ERM will receive the funding and leadership they deserve. From
my research and consulting I have come to believe that ERM is
the bedrock of what is known today as enterprise content
management or what we used to call information resources
management. Without ERM, enterprise content management is
incomplete and hollow at its core. Thank you for inviting me to
testify. And I would be happy to answer any questions you have.
Mr. Putnam. Thank you very much, Dr. Sprehe. I wish the
first panel had hung around.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sprehe follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.063
Mr. Putnam. Our next witness is Mr. Bob Nawrocki.
Mr. Nawrocki is the director of the Records and Imaging
Service Division in the Library of Virginia. Previously he was
the electronic records coordinator for the library. He is
responsible for dealing with electronic records issues facing
the State of Virginia. Previously he spent 2 years as a
contractor with the Air Force working on their integrated
digital environment.
His experience involves working for State and Federal
Governments, as well as for several law firms and private
industry. Mr. Nawrocki is a Certified Records Manager and has a
Masters in Science in Library and Information Sciences from the
Catholic University of America. He is an adjunct faculty member
with Catholic University teaching Information Systems for
Libraries and Information Centers and Organization of
Information.
Welcome to the subcommittee. You are recognized.
Mr. Nawrocki. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will briefly be
speaking today about the Library of Virginia and what we are
doing here in Virginia dealing with electronic records.
The Library of Virginia has responsibility for the
Commonwealth's records management and archival programs. As
such, we work closely with State and local agencies to assist
them with the management of their records. Over the past 5
years, electronic records have become a significant issue. In
2000, the Library was able to hire their first electronic
records coordinator to develop polices, guidance, and provide
advice on the management of electronic records.
The Library faces many of the same problems that NARA does,
even though they are on a much smaller scale. In the 1990's, a
number of Virginia counties began to use scanning and
electronic storage for the recording of deeds. While this
reduced the amount space required and improved access, it did
not provide the long-term stability and preservation required
of such records. In fact, we had a county that actually lost
about 30 or 40 deeds when they had a computer crash. Luckily,
they were able to recover those over a short period of time.
Changes to the Code of Virginia have made digital images
legal substitutes or replacements for original documents. The
Library wants to encourage the use of microfilm as a backup to
digital images, since there are no recognized, permanent media
in the digital arena. When stored properly, microfilm can last
up to 500 years. Through a philanthropist, the Library was able
to obtain a Kodak Archive Writer to convert digital images to
microfilm. We use an encrypted Internet connection for scanned
images to be sent to the Library's State Records Center, where
they are stored on a RAID device until data would be written to
microfilm.
The microfilm was processed under a quality control and the
resultant negatives were stored in our media vault. And this
project continued into the fall of 2002 when most of the staff
was laid off due to extreme budget cuts. By that time, private
vendors were able to step in using the same technology to do
the same actions at the same or lower costs.
Over the past 3 years, the Library has worked to educate
State and local agencies about electronic records and the best
methods to preserve them. Guidelines for transferring
electronic records into the Library are under development. Our
greatest concern is that in the short term we will lose access
to these records before a reliable method of archiving them is
developed. We have found that the single most important tool
for raising awareness, though, is education through
presentations and articles.
Second, we believe that the development of guidelines that
provide advice and suggested tools for electronic records
creators are also useful. We also find it is important not to
develop guidelines and tools that are too narrowly drawn since
the same solution is not always applicable in all cases.
Rapid technological change results in records only a few
years old being unrecoverable because the hardware or software
does not exist. While there is significant, extensive research
being done long-term on electronic preservation, we need to
remember that we have to manage these records in the short
term, so that when the proverbial magic bullet is created,
there will be older electronic records to be preserved.
The current effort to create a Portable Document Format-
Archival is an excellent example of this thinking. The use of
hybrid analog/digital technologies is another. We need more
collaborations like this which utilize existing technology and
software to provide records managers, archivists and librarians
with the tools needed to manage today's electronic records. We
also need to continue to use the tools, both analog and
digital, which allow us to provide access to existing
electronic records and preserve them at the same time.
There is much work being done around the world in the field
of digital preservation and sharing of information. This is
necessary and must continue if we are to solve this intractable
problem. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nawrocki follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.066
Mr. Putnam. At this time, I would like to turn the gavel
over to our distinguished vice chair and native of Michigan,
former Secretary of State, Mrs. Miller, for the next
introduction.
Mrs. Miller [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's my
pleasure to do so, to introduce Karen Wojcik. She has worked
for the State Archives of Michigan since 1996. She is State
Archives' primary liaison with the executive branch, the
legislature, the Supreme Court and our Court of Appeals. She is
responsible for appraising public records for their historical
value and for developing electronic records management and
preservation strategy.
Mrs. Wojcik received both her bachelor's degree in history
and her master's degree in information and library science from
the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. And we wonder who she
roots for on football days between the Michigan State and the
University. She is a Certified Archivist. She has participated
in several grant projects funded by the National Historical
Publications and Records Commission, including the Michigan RMA
Pilot Project, the PERM Project, and she served on the advisory
board for the SDSC Archivists' Workbench Project. She is the
Chair of the National Association of Government Archives and
Records Administrators, on the Committee on Electronic Records
and Information Systems, and has been nominated to serve as
secretary on this board as well, and we are certainly pleased
to have her here as well.
Ms. Wojcik. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting
the Michigan Department of History, Arts, and Libraries to
testify at this hearing. I am honored to be speaking to you
today about the management and preservation of our government's
records, particularly electronic records. And, of course, I
especially want to thank Congresswoman Candice Miller for
inviting us to be here today.
The Michigan Department of History, Arts, and Libraries is
committed to enriching the quality of life for Michigan
residents by providing access to information, preserving and
promoting Michigan heritage, and fostering cultural creativity.
The Division of Archives and Records Management within the
Michigan Historical Center is responsible for ensuring that
Michigan's government records are properly managed and
preserved throughout their entire lifecycle.
Public records are essential for protecting our legal
rights, for documenting the actions of our government, and for
understanding the society in which we live, and, therefore, it
cannot be sufficient to have our history preserved by accident.
As a general rule, we estimate that less than 5 percent of
all government records possess permanent historical value.
Professional archivists and records managers have worked for
years to develop systematic processes that identify which
records possess historical value and to provide for their
preservation. Unfortunately, many government agencies do not
follow these procedures, and they fail to protect the
irreplaceable items in their custody.
In the traditional paper-based world, valuable records have
managed to survive despite this neglect. However, electronic
records will not survive long enough to be used by future
generations without active investments in their ongoing
preservation and access. Computer technology and electronic
records create many challenges and opportunities for the
records management and archival professions. This technology is
a moving target and we need long-term solutions. Certainly, the
National Archives and Records Administration has served as a
leader in this field of research.
The Michigan Division of Archives and Records Management
began discussing electronic records issues more than 25 years
ago. With the advent of desktop computing, we became
particularly concerned about how we could manage and preserve
e-mail and word processed documents.
The U.S. Department of Defense issued the first version of
its standard 5015.2 for Records Management Applications in
1997, and several commercial products are on the market that
comply with this standard. We wanted to test the RMA software
in State government offices to determine if it would address
the record retention problems we were trying to solve.
We decided to apply for and we received a 2-year grant
beginning May 2000 from the National Historical Publications
and Records Commission to conduct a pilot project using a DOD-
certified Records Management Application. At the time, the
State Archives was an agency within the Michigan Department of
State led by Secretary of State, now Representative, Candice
Miller. The project had three goals: One, to assess the ability
of an RMA to classify and manage electronic records and execute
retention requirements, including the identification and
segregation of archival records; two, to analyze the cultural
impact that RMAs have on agency staff, information technology
personnel, records managers and archivists; and three, to
conduct a business process analysis and evaluate the potential
for RMAs to be used in an enterprise-wide setting.
Our pilot project demonstrated that RMA software works.
Electronic records that are created by common desktop programs
can be organized and stored in a centralized repository that
automatically implements the appropriate retention period for
the records. However, we found people will resist changing the
way they file and access their electronic records, because less
than a third of our project participants adopted the RMA
software as their primary tool for storing electronic records.
The RMA features need to evolve to make the filing and
retrieval of electronic documents appear transparent to users.
We also learned that business process improvements can be
derived from using RMA software, especially when the business
process change involves the transformation from a paper-based
process to an automated process. When these improvements are
adopted by the agency, RMA use and satisfaction does increase.
This project demonstrated that management support for
change is essential to the success of an RMA. Managers must
establish expectations and consequences for not following
established procedures for electronic recordkeeping.
Encouragement by management needs to focus on the positive
benefits to the individual and the agency. The Department of
History, Arts and Libraries is continuing to support the
limited use of the RMA software now that our pilot project has
ended.
However, RMAs are record retention tools, not preservations
tools. The electronic records that are stored in the RMA's
centralized repository remain in their native format. The RMA
is not capable of ensuring that they remain accessible as
underlying technology changes. Therefore, a methodology must be
developed for preserving archival electronic records and those
with long-term retention requirements. This is why the NHPRC
initiated a partnership between the San Diego Supercomputer
Center and the State of Michigan to address long-term and
permanent preservation of electronic records. In November 2001,
we were awarded a 2-year grant from NHPRC for what we call the
PERM Project. This collaborative project is developing
functional requirements for preserving electronic records that
are stored in RMA repositories so they remain accessible. These
functional requirements were published in January 2003, and
currently researchers in San Diego are developing a prototype
to test these functional requirements.
These and other projects are essential for ensuring that
our documentary heritage remains accessible to future
generations. Thank you again for inviting me to testify before
you today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wojcik follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.069
Mrs. Miller. We certainly appreciate your testimony today.
Our next witness is Dr. Richard Lysakowski. He is the
executive director and president of the Collaborative
Electronic Notebook Systems Association and the Global
Electronic Notebook Systems Association [GERA] as well. It is a
professional standards association built on government-industry
partnership with a mission to create program, policy, and
procedural and technology standards for quality electronic
records programs. Dr. Lysakowski has 25 years of experience
working with automation systems in various scientific software,
engineering and project management roles in both the public and
the private sectors.
We welcome you to the subcommittee and look forward to your
testimony, sir.
Mr. Lysakowski. Thank you, Ms. Chairwoman.
A little bit of background on CENSA, the Collaborative
Electronic Notebook Systems Association. Our primary mission is
to create totally electronic replacements for inventors'
notebooks and regulatory records, record books that are used in
a research development quality assurance manufacturing other
enterprise business environments. These are vital records that
indicate the quality of a project that manufacturers are
shipping. And the industries we cover include pharmaceutical,
chemical, food and beverage, oil and gas, consumer products,
government and many other industries.
Replacing the inventor's notebook has been one of the
greatest challenges because frequently in a patent interference
it will come down a single page in a single record book that
makes or breaks a multibillion dollar a year, 20-year monopoly
for product revenues. So we are talking about serious
commercial impact.
Regulatory impact, if records are either fraudulent or
inaccurate to the point where product quality is poor, can
frequently shut down a facility--manufacturing facility for as
long as 6 months, losing more than $1 million per day in
potential revenue. So serious consequences can result from poor
quality recordkeeping.
And so for these records, making them electronic has been
quite a challenge. And we worked with NARA to find out what the
best practices are out there now and in the near future and
worked with many vendors. Our role as a market development
association is to create multiple competing products for all
the necessary components that make up a complete electronic
system for records creation, management, archiving,
preservation, retrieval and access. So looking at the whole
life cycle of the electronic record has been quite important
for us.
And NARA's focus has been, at least in its current funding,
focusing on records management. We need it to include archives
management specifications.
So some summary points that I needed to make: We are
appreciative of NARA in having funded the Global Electronic
Records Association to create the first quality electronic
records practice standards. That work is just being complete
now.
But looking more globally, I would say that NARA is
underfunded to face the grand challenge of electronic records
for the full lifecycle for all agencies that it serves and
industry and the private sector in general.
Government needs other funding sources. NARA's budget for
fiscal year 2003 is $268 million. That is less than the annual
revenue of even one of our member corporations. So one issue is
that NARA is insufficiently funded to achieve the goals for all
agencies and the private sector too.
If NARA is to help the agencies and the citizens it serves,
it should provide blueprints, mandate standards and
requirements for policies and technology systems that implement
records management and archives management. Don't forget the
archives for each agency. The DOD standard does a nice job of
covering records management but does very little on archives.
Third point is the OMB exhibit 300. I would concur with the
first witness on this panel, that two parts need to be added to
that exhibit. One is on the preservation of business assets.
The information assets that are created by any IT system must
be demonstrated to be completely exported and reconstructible
in another system before any system is purchased. So that
procurement process must specify interoperability between at
least three to five systems to guarantee alternatives. So the
procurement process itself needs to change. These
demonstrations of reconstruction of an archival information
packet need to be shown before any money is provided to a
vendor.
The last point is subscription-based software pricing is
one of the greatest threats we have to records and information
assets. This is a new pricing model whereby you pay every 12
months for use--continuing use of your software to access your
property. Software is a tool to create intellectual and
business assets. Some vendors are pushing subscription-based
pricing instead of perpetual-right-to-use license for the
software. So unless this software purchase includes purchase of
the format and some type of free viewer that goes along with it
is made available, then subscription-based pricing shouldn't be
pursued by the Federal Government for any system containing
important business assets.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you. You know, I might just pick up on
that subscription-based pricing. I am just trying to understand
what you were saying there. Because it would seem to me, with
all the different--just the government demand itself, that
there would be a software program that would be very viable in
the marketplace, we are talking about setting standards and
that kind of thing. Are you aware of such a thing, a
governmental software for records management archiving? Mr.
Sprehe had mentioned that as well.
Mr. Lysakowski. I am not aware of any software program
freely from the government.
Mrs. Miller. Mr. Sprehe, are you aware of any software that
the government agency would utilize for standards uniformity?
Mr. Sprehe. I am not.
Mrs. Miller. You mentioned, doctor, as well about NARA
being underfunded, and I think you mentioned the amount of what
their funding actually was in that. It would seem that it is
very important that we identify in any funding request, when we
talk about dollars here, from the congressional standpoint
certainly, that we put in place in a business plan--as a plan
that archiving for every agency, that records management, all
of this would be a part of a business plan before appropriators
would talk about funding particular projects for any agency as
well.
And Mr. Sprehe used the example of Yucca Mountain. I think
he used two examples. I forget the other one that you
mentioned. That they had actually included that in their
business plan.
Is that a recommendation that you would make to the
Congress that in any business plan that they should put those
kinds of critical portions in there?
Mr. Sprehe. Most certainly, yes.
Mrs. Miller. Do you have any comment, Doctor?
Mr. Lysakowski. Yes. I was advocating that you actually add
at least one new section to exhibit 300 that requires during
the acquisition process that vendors--at least three to five
vendors demonstrate interoperability of archival information
packets before you make any single purchase. Thereby, you set
up an insurance policy for all congressional systems.
We have successfully used a strategy in industry for
specific analytical techniques, mass spectrometry in particular
is a good example. Dow Chemical wanted to purchase a mass
spectrometry system, an instrument and the data system that
goes along with it, $150,000 purchase, but, as a condition of
the procurement, they short-listed the top three vendors, and
they said, OK, we want you all to show us interchange of the
mass spectral data sets among all three of you before we buy
from any one of you.
Well, it took 2 weeks to write the code by one programmer,
2 weeks to distribute it to the other two vendors and embed it
in their products, and the demonstration happened within 30
days. Now, that was for $150,000 procurement.
There was a specification that already existed, but it was
not a standard and the vendors did not implement it. But if
there is a specification, it is trivial for vendors to
implement it; and on the last page of my testimony document, I
state that vendors will use the lack of a specification as an
excuse for creating proprietary file formats and buyers give up
their power at the most critical moment by not demanding
interoperability demonstrations.
Mrs. Miller. I would be interested to know from the
witnesses in the middle there, Ms. Wojcik from Michigan and
also Mr. Naworocki from Virginia, do you--when you're making
your funding requests to your appropriators, to your
legislature for your work, do you put in as part of your
business plan the kinds of funding that is necessary for
records management and for archiving? Do you make that a big
part of your business case? Do you find that there is enough
attention being paid to what is necessary to actually archive
these kinds of things?
Ms. Wojcik. The State of Michigan does not require that
record retention be addressed in business plans. We did draft a
policy that's published in the Department of Management and
Budget's administrative manual that requires that record
retention be identified during the procurement of new systems,
but, unfortunately, that has not been implemented. We do see
that--if it was implemented systematically, it would certainly
help us identify how long records need to be retained and which
ones need to be preserved.
Mr. Sprehe. If I could add to my comment, exhibit 300 of
the OMB circular does mention records but only with respect to
the Government Paperwork Elimination Act. The problem with that
is GPEA is a very narrow act. It only affects information
collected from the public. If you think of the Department of
Defense, which has probably tens of thousands of IT systems,
DOD collects very little information from the public, and all
those other systems that may be producing or processing
records, they don't pay any attention to records management.
Mrs. Miller. Not to interrupt, but there I think is where
you mentioned the cultural chasm, I think is the way that you
had put it, between historians, perhaps, maybe librarians and
IT, where you have people who are historians wanting to make
sure that everything is archived properly and some IT people
perhaps with the view that it happened, get over it, and not
wanting to keep it.
So how you bridge those, that may be another question. I'll
let Mr. Naworocki respond to the first one first.
Mr. Naworocki. Sure. Within the State of Virginia, working
very closely with the various IT agencies in order to try to
embed records management into that, it hasn't always been
successful. I think our biggest problem has been simply the
fact that Virginia has had a severe budget crisis over the last
2 years, and that's overwhelmed it. But by working very closely
with IT both in local agencies and on the statewide version in
order to try to push that--I think it's very true there's a
cultural disconnect. People assume, because it's electronic,
it's not a record, or they just think it's too much trouble.
I think that possibly one of the areas that we need to work
in is not to work on very specific projects but rather to take
a look at how we can leverage the power of the States and the
Government--the Federal Government in order to talk to some of
the software manufacturers about embedding it.
I'm just thinking, well if we can convince Bill Gates it
was worth a few bucks to him to embed records management and to
award every other product he developed, we wouldn't have a
problem--or archival, actually. That's literally when it comes
down to. Whenever you have to graft something on, it becomes a
kludge and just doesn't work. It needs to be embedded in the
original activity in order to make it function, really.
Mrs. Miller. Do you have any comments on how we might
bridge that cultural chasm there with--how can the Federal
Government assist in that kind of a thing in setting out
standards? As you mentioned, it should be embedded in the
original technology. Is there something that we can do to
bridge that?
Mr. Naworocki. You're the 800 pound gorilla. Whatever you
guys decide, they are going to follow.
Once again, the most important thing is that the Federal
Government has to demonstrate a concern. They have to
demonstrate a commitment to that, and then that flows from
that. I think it also needs to be remembered that, really, it
should not be just strictly what the Federal Government does,
because what may work for you may not work for us, but rather
if you look at it as a collaboration among private industry,
the States, local governments and the Federal Government, I
think certainly, as you continue your work in this project, you
should take a look at what is being done in those other areas
in order to determine what is the best practice. Very simply,
just because it's been done in NARA for the last 50 years
doesn't always mean it's probably the best thing to be done.
Ms. Wojcik. You know, this is a technology problem, and
it's going to need some type of technology solution, and the
people who create that technology are part of that solution.
Having tools is just one part, but there's also that cultural
issue, and I think we need to see more accountability from the
top down, where, you know, administrators, managers are
accepting that responsibility, acknowledging it, are fully
aware of the consequences of not taking responsibility for both
records management and records preservation. Working form the
bottom up isn't going to solve anything.
Mrs. Miller. Working from the top down and setting that
kind of standard I think is very important.
I just mention a personal example that I have within my own
office, but I'd like to address this question to the State
librarian. Are you familiar with--libraries I think with the
advent of the Internet and all this electronic, people thought,
well, geez, no one will read books anymore, that libraries
would lose their value, that they would go by the wayside. But
in fact I think libraries have been very much on the leading
edge of using electronics and reaching out to the community and
in so many different ways.
Are you familiar with the digital library research that's
being conducted by the Library of Congress? And, if so, how
does the Library of Congress--I'm sure you have your national
association--how does that filter through the libraries as far
as, again, a mix of cooperation between the libraries and the
historians?
Mr. Naworocki. I'm not the State librarian. I work in the
records, but I understand the library process. I think what
happens also is there's a number of different government
agencies for different ways, and the Library of Virginia just
as the national--the Library of Congress, we also have our own
digital library project, and that is a very important part
because we have very unique items, and through the Internet,
through digitization, we're able to spread that information,
make it available. So that someone who is doing genealogical
research in their jammies in Australia--they don't have to make
that trip.
I think it's very important that both the archival and the
records management world also understand what is being done in
the digital library arena, because they're doing some very
important work on access and how to obtain access and indexed
material that often we don't think about on our side. I think
sometimes I really would love to just take all the research
that is being done, throw it in a blender and hope that the
answers come out, but I think oftentimes we stovepipe but not
always talk to each other, and we need to do more talking.
But, yes, it's filtering down. I think many State
libraries, local libraries are working on digital projects and,
you know, preserving and making accessible information that
otherwise would be totally inaccessible, except for those few
folks who could make it to the library.
Mrs. Miller. Well, as we're getting into the lunch hour,
this will be my final question for the panel. You were all here
for the first panel, and I think we are just trying to get to
the crux of the problem here of trying to determine what kinds
of records really need to be archived and what is the best
practices. I remember in specific Ms. Koontz from the first
panel had made a comment I think about Mr. Sprehe, that you had
developed some preliminary models for recognizing the best
methods for records management. Perhaps you could elaborate a
little bit on that, if you would, sir.
Mr. Sprehe. Thank you. I put a little bit of that into my
testimony.
One of the things that I learned and that I guess the team
learned in this study of transitioning from physical to
electronic records management--and we have applied the metaphor
of a capability maturity model but only as a metaphor. The
strategic advantage was that it speaks to the IT community.
They know what that is. My view is that we have placed stress
to a great degree on the bad things that will happen to you if
you do poor records management and that the costs and risk--and
that has limited appeal to top leadership in any enterprise,
including Federal agencies.
What we discovered is--and which I tried to present with
the concept of leveraging the records management investment is
that if you do good records management, very good things happen
to you beyond records management. It helps you do other
business functions far better, more efficiently and
effectively. That grabs the attention of top leadership.
In a recent presentation commending the ADAMS system at the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the recipient from NRC said, you
know, it took us a long time to get our electronic records
management system into the shape it is in today. Now what's
happening is that, as other systems are developed in our
agency, those IT managers are saying, and we want a system just
like ADAMS, because they understand that if you can grab
instantaneously yesterday's records and all the way back
electronically, it's an enormous asset that they should build
into their application.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you.
Well, I certainly want to thank you all for attending
today. It has been fascinating. It really is quite a
fascinating subject that we all struggle with, with our
changing world and changing technology and how we best utilize
it for everyone.
Is there anything that any one of you four would like to
add for the record that we didn't ask you or questions or input
that you would like to put in as part of the record?
Mr. Naworocki. If I might just briefly to touch on two
points. One is accountability. And I think working with the GAO
and within the State of Virginia we're looking to work with our
accounting agency in order to develop that accountability. But,
also, we need to understand that everyone will have to become
their own records manager, and it's going to require a lot of
training and a lot of understanding on behalf of folks to do
that, and I think it's a long road ahead, but it really is
going to require a great deal of education as well as the
technological capabilities.
Thank you.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you all so very, very much for coming.
The record will be held open for 2 weeks for submission of
additional testimony or questions, and we'll be happy to have
those given to the subcommittee as well.
At this time, the hearing will be adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:12 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3006.110