[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
GOVERNMENT 2.0, PART I: FEDERAL AGENCY USE OF WEB 2.0 TECHNOLOGIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INFORMATION POLICY,
CENSUS, AND NATIONAL ARCHIVES
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 22, 2010
__________
Serial No. 111-113
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://www.oversight.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
64-925 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York, Chairman
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania DARRELL E. ISSA, California
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York DAN BURTON, Indiana
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JOHN L. MICA, Florida
DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
DIANE E. WATSON, California PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
JIM COOPER, Tennessee JIM JORDAN, Ohio
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of AARON SCHOCK, Illinois
Columbia BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
PETER WELCH, Vermont
BILL FOSTER, Illinois
JACKIE SPEIER, California
STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio
JUDY CHU, California
Ron Stroman, Staff Director
Michael McCarthy, Deputy Staff Director
Carla Hultberg, Chief Clerk
Larry Brady, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and National Archives
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri, Chairman
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
Columbia JOHN L. MICA, Florida
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah
STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
JUDY CHU, California
Darryl Piggee, Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 22, 2010.................................... 1
Statement of:
Ferriero, David S., Archivist of the United States, U.S.
National Archives and Records Administration; Dr. David L.
McClure, Associate Administrator, Office of Citizen
Services and Innovative Technologies, U.S. General Services
Administration; Gregory C. Wilshusen, Director, Information
Security Issues, U.S. General Accountability Office; and
John M. Simpson, stem cell project director, Consumer
Watchdog................................................... 10
Ferriero, David S........................................ 10
McClure, Dr. David L..................................... 18
Simpson, John M.......................................... 61
Wilshusen, Gregory C..................................... 42
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Clay, Hon. Wm. Lacy, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Missouri, prepared statement of................... 4
Ferriero, David S., Archivist of the United States, U.S.
National Archives and Records Administration, prepared
statement of............................................... 13
McClure, Dr. David L., Associate Administrator, Office of
Citizen Services and Innovative Technologies, U.S. General
Services Administration, prepared statement of............. 20
Simpson, John M., stem cell project director, Consumer
Watchdog, prepared statement of............................ 63
Wilshusen, Gregory C., Director, Information Security Issues,
U.S. General Accountability Office, prepared statement of.. 44
GOVERNMENT 2.0, PART I: FEDERAL AGENCY USE OF WEB 2.0 TECHNOLOGIES
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 22, 2010
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census, and
National Archives,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:25 p.m., in
room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Clay, Maloney, Norton, Davis,
Driehaus, Cuellar, Chu, McHenry, Westmoreland, Mica, and
Chaffetz.
Staff present: Darryl Piggee, staff director/counsel;
Yvette Cravins, counsel; Frank Davis and Anthony Clark,
professional staff members; Charisma Williams, staff assistant;
Ron Stroman, staff director--full committee; and Michael
McCarthy, deputy staff director--full committee.
Mr. Clay. Good afternoon. The Information Policy, Census,
and National Archives Subcommittee of the Oversight and
Government Reform Committee will now come to order.
Without objection, the chair and ranking minority member
will have 5 minutes to make opening statements not to exceed 3
minutes by any other Member who seeks recognition. And without
objection, Members and witnesses may have 5 legislative days to
submit a written statement or extraneous materials for the
record.
Welcome to today's hearing: A review of agency use under
the Federal Records Act of Web 2.0 technologies.
As a result of today's hearing, we will have an
understanding of what is meant by Web 2.0 in the Federal
Government, recognize the Federal records management
implications of these technologies, and appreciate what areas
of Web 2.0 may merit further examination by the committee.
To that end, we have invited three government witnesses who
are experts in these fields, including the Archivist of the
United States. It is good to see you again Archivist Ferriero.
Web 2.0 technologies make possible interactive
collaboration and enhanced information sharing, allowing large
groups of users to participate in content creation.
Federal agencies have embraced Web 2.0 for both external
and internal applications to promote transparency,
collaboration and participation.
Agencies must continue to manage content created via Web
2.0 applications under the Federal Records Act and in
compliance with the National Archives and Records
Administration guidance, which is why I have invited the
Archivist to testify today.
The GSA is leading executive branch efforts to identify and
develop Web 2.0 platforms for agencies to use. Therefore, we
will hear today from the Associate Administrator of GSA's
Office of Citizen Services and Innovative Technologies.
Several months ago, I requested the GAO review the
management and protection of information collected and
maintained by commercial providers of Federal social media
services. While they have only just begun that engagement, I
have invited GAO's Director of Information Security Issues here
today.
It is my hope that during today's hearing, Part I in a
series of hearings on Web 2.0, we can remain focused on the
subject at hand and not become distracted by issues outside of
the scope of this hearing and even outside of the jurisdiction
of this subcommittee.
There have been media reports that this hearing will be
used for a showdown with the administration over issues
unrelated to the Federal records implications of Web 2.0,
indeed unrelated to Web 2.0 completely. If true, this is
troubling. A congressional oversight hearing should be where
important issues are thoroughly examined and not a showdown.
Also, rule XV of the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform expressly requires that all questions put to witnesses
before the committee shall be relevant to the subject matter
before the committee for consideration. I am going to make sure
that we use this committee's valuable time and resources
appropriately.
This Congress has been very active in oversight of Federal
as well as Presidential records. I am an original cosponsor of
the first bill passed by the House in this session, H.R. 35,
the Presidential Records Act Amendments of 2009. Not every
member of the subcommittee voted for this important bill, and I
continue to hope that the Senate will move forward and pass
this legislation.
If there is specific credible evidence that any Federal
agency is not properly managing Federal records, we will
examine that, and I am always open to suggestions from all
members of this committee for relevant topics for future
hearings. But it is more important to talk about the subject at
hand, an issue that affects all agencies in broad and diverse
ways, than to spend valuable subcommittee time making political
points on a very different issue.
In any case, this hearing is about Web 2.0, and
particularly the Federal records implications of these
technologies, and I hope that everyone understands that and
will confine their questions to the subject matter of this
committee.
As a final point, I want to clear up some confusion about
today's hearing. There is continuing controversy about an old
story; that is, whether an administration official used his
personal e-mail account in violation of the Presidential
Records Act. First, the official, Mr. McLaughlin, is employed
by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
While this is an entity in the Executive Office of the
President, that office is not subject to the Presidential
Records Act. The Office of Science and Technology Policy is
subject to the Federal Records Act.
In addition, his incidental use of a personal e-mail
account for government business is not in and of itself a
violation of the Federal Records Act, which governs his
records. The individual simply needs to make sure that the
record gets into the proper recordkeeping system. And that is
what happened. In fact, the issue that the White House
examined, dealt with, and closed was not about any records
statute, it was about incidental contact with the official's
former employer, prohibited not by law but by an ethics pledge.
The White House dealt with the matter, and it is now closed.
And now we shall move forward to the subject of today's
hearing.
I now yield to my colleague, the subcommittee ranking
minority member, Mr. McHenry of North Carolina. And you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.001
Dr. McHenry. Mr. Chairman, before I make an opening
statement I would like to record some of my concerns about this
hearing. There was a hearing--this hearing was originally
scheduled for June 24th. And among the witnesses that were
invited to the June 24th hearing was Ms. Beth Simone Noveck,
the Deputy Chief Technology Officer for the White House Office
of Science and Technology Policy. So the fact that the chairman
is saying that it is not, that we don't have oversight over
that, it is perplexing to me that he had this very witness on
the previous hearing canceled.
So in advance of the originally scheduled hearing Ranking
Member Issa spoke publicly of his intention to question Ms.
Noveck about the use of personal e-mail to conduct official
business in the Office of Science and Technology.
Ms. Noveck chairs an office with Andrew McLaughlin, a
former Google lobbyist the chairman references in his opening
statement, turned administration official who used his personal
e-mail account to communicate with more than 25 Google
employees, including influential lobbyists and lawyers.
Now, Mr. McLaughlin also used his G-mail address, his Web
mail address, to communicate with senior members of the Obama
administration. This use of personal e-mail violates the
President's ethics pledge and Federal law. And I do think those
two together, separately and together, are very important
things: Federal ethics pledge from the President as well as
Federal law. And yet the White House refuses to answer
questions from Republican members of this committee about how
the problem is fixed.
Interestingly enough, this witness was dropped before
today's hearing in anticipation of this line of questioning.
Within days of Ranking Member Issa's public statements about
his intentions to question Ms. Noveck about this incident the
hearing was canceled. Today we are holding this hearing without
a White House witness. Without being able to ask questions to a
White House witness, our Members are being deprived of answers
about a very disturbing trend in the administration.
On top of Mr. McLaughlin's use of his personal e-mail to
circumvent the Presidential Records Act and even the Federal
Records Act, the New York Times reported on June 24th that
White House staffers regularly meet with lobbyists at a Caribou
Coffee across the street from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Because
this discussion--because the discussions are not taking place
at the White House they are not subject to disclosure on the
visitors log that the White House releases as part of its
pledge to be, ``the most transparent Presidential
administration in history.''
It is important for this committee's purposes that we are
provided the opportunity to question relevant witnesses and to
conduct proper oversight on our concerns related to the
extraordinary lengths that White House staffers are going to
avoid having their communications captured by the Presidential
Records Act and the Federal Records Act. Not having a White
House witness present to testify at this hearing undermines the
purposes of this hearing and prevents us from doing our job of
conducting oversight of this issue.
So under House rule XI, clause 2(K) sets forth hearing
procedures to be followed by the House committees and
subcommittees. Clause 2(K)(s) of House rule XI states that,
``the Chair shall receive and the subcommittee shall dispose of
a request to subpoena additional witnesses.''
Pursuant to that rule, Mr. Chairman, I move the committee
authorize and issue a subpoena to compel the testimony of Ms.
Beth Simone Noveck or another White House official with the
Office of Science and Technology Policy qualified to testify on
her behalf.
Mr. Chairman, there is a motion.
Mr. Clay. We will address the motion at another time.
Dr. McHenry. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, ask
for a recorded vote on this motion.
Mr. Clay. We will.
Dr. McHenry. At this time.
Mr. Clay. At this time? Well, we will recess. The committee
stands in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Clay. The committee will reconvene. And I will let the
ranking member restate the motion.
Dr. McHenry. Sure. House rule XI, clause 2(K) sets forth
hearing procedures to be followed by the House committees and
subcommittees. Clause 2(K)(6) of House rule XI states, ``the
Chair shall receive and the committee shall dispose of a
request by subpoena to subpoena additional witnesses.''
Pursuant to that rule I move that the committee authorize
and issue a subpoena to compel the testimony of Ms. Beth Simone
Noveck or another White House official with Office of Science
and Technology Policy qualified to testify on her behalf.
Mr. Clay. The members of the committee have heard the
motion.
Dr. McHenry. And with that, I would ask for a recorded
vote.
Mr. Clay. And a recorded vote has been requested. Will the
Clerk call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Clay.
Mr. Clay. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Clay votes no.
Mrs. Maloney.
Mrs. Maloney. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Maloney votes no.
Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes no.
Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Davis votes no.
Mr. Driehaus.
Mr. Driehaus. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Driehaus votes no.
Mr. Cuellar.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Chu.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. McHenry.
Dr. McHenry. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. McHenry votes aye.
Mr. Westmoreland.
Mr. Westmoreland. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Westmoreland votes aye.
Mr. Mica.
Mr. Mica. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Mica votes aye.
Mr. Chaffetz.
Mr. Chaffetz. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Chaffetz votes aye.
Mr. Clay. The clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the noes are five, the ayes are
four. The noes have it.
Mr. Clay. The motion is defeated.
Dr. McHenry. Mr. Chairman, with that, because this is
obviously a hearing that doesn't get to the essence of this
question, and seeing as it is apparent that the majority in the
Congress is very intent on protecting the White House from
these questions, I move that we adjourn.
Mr. Clay. The motion to adjourn is before the committee.
The Clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk. Mr. Clay.
Mr. Clay. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Clay votes no.
Mrs. Maloney.
Mrs. Maloney. No.
The Clerk. Mrs. Maloney votes no.
Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. No.
The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes no.
Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Davis votes no.
Mr. Driehaus.
Mr. Driehaus. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Driehaus votes no.
Mr. Cuellar.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Chu.
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. McHenry.
Dr. McHenry. Yes.
The Clerk. Mr. McHenry votes aye.
Mr. Westmoreland.
Mr. Westmoreland. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Westmoreland votes aye.
Mr. Mica.
Mr. Mica. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Mica votes aye.
Mr. Chaffetz.
Mr. Chaffetz. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Chaffetz votes aye.
Mr. Clay, the noes are five, the ayes are four.
Mr. Clay. By a vote of 4 to 5 the motion is defeated.
Dr. McHenry. Well, Mr. Chairman, after stating the obvious,
that you have the majority and you want to proceed with this
hearing, I just ask why it is that you chose to not invite Ms.
Noveck when she was previously on the last hearing. It was
exactly the same. The only difference was Issa's statement he
was going to ask about----
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, this matter has been settled by a
vote. The Member continues to support a matter that has been
settled by a vote, majority vote of the committee. He is out of
order.
Dr. McHenry. Mr. Chairman. Question to the chair.
Mr. Clay. The gentlewoman is correct and we will proceed
with the hearing.
Dr. McHenry. So the gentleman will not ask the question?
Mr. Clay. I will not answer the question.
Dr. McHenry. Then I demand my opening statement as the
ranking member. I made a motion, which was my initial
statement, that was my motion, and I demand my opening
statement.
Mr. Clay. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Dr. McHenry. Thank you. This could be a very open hearing
about the important part of the new technology that the Nation
is experiencing and certainly this White House and the
government is experiencing as well. With the original hearing
that we were going to have on the 24th, it was clear that we
were going to have that discussion. And with new technology,
the White House is not immune to this. The Bush White House
used the same outlines of rules that the Clinton administration
developed on retaining e-mail. He was entitled to a government
e-mail address, he was entitled to have a political or outside
e-mail address, the limitations on that. And it is apparent
with all sorts of news that we are reading about this White
House is that they are using technology that was not available
during the Clinton era, was not even available when the Bush
administration set forward their rules and regs on who is
entitled to e-mail access that is not official and governmental
and therefore subject to recordkeeping.
So I think it is important that we have this discussion
with the White House. It is apparent that the majority in this
Congress does not want to ask even a White House witness to be
a part of it. In fact, they are trying to protect one White
House witness from even answering questions about their
recordkeeping, even though we have seen in press reports that
they are clearly doing things that are not in keeping with
Presidential records and Federal records laws before you even
mention the President's ethics pledge.
And it is a shame that it had to come to this, that we have
to have a vote on it, but it is the intent of the chairman and
the subcommittee members to do this. And so I beg your apology,
the crowd here, the witnesses, our panel here, but
unfortunately this could have been a much better hearing with a
much better exchange rather than having to vote on subpoenaing
a White House witness because the chairman didn't invite that
person to this hearing. And that is before you even talk about
a violation of the rules that the majority displayed when you
talk about the discussion of what is permissible.
I was in a hearing with the Archivist in a similar panel a
couple weeks ago and the chairman refused to let me ask a
question that he didn't deem in keeping with the subject matter
of the day. Well, the subject matter of the day is deemed by a
majority memo. And under House rules you have to get a memo 3
days in advance. We got our memo at 5 p.m. yesterday. So if my
questions aren't in keeping with what you deem correct I am
going to ask you to have a vote to disallow my questioning if I
can't determine and my staff can't determine and the minority
staff can't determine what questions to ask when you won't even
tell us what the hearing is about. And this is very
frustrating. And so that is the reason why we had to have these
votes today. Because we can have a substantive hearing about
important issues when we are talking about Presidential
records.
Every President does the same thing. They want to make sure
that they have two lines of communication, one that is subject
to the history books and the other that is not. And every
President has done this. Every President. It is not a Democrat
thing, it is not a Republican thing. And we have to make sure
that we use the power of oversight to make sure they adhere to
those rules and regulations. And we have outside groups that
are very interested in this as well, some that are not
traditionally conservative, some that are liberal and some that
are all across the board.
So I think it is important that we have that oversight
authority to make sure that we are getting an administration
adhering to their ethics pledge and the laws of this land.
Mr. Chaffetz, would you like the remainder of my time? And
with that, I would be happy to yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Clay. The gentleman yields back. Are there any other
opening statements? If not, for the record, this is a hearing
on the Federal Records Act and not the Presidential Records
Act. With that, if there are no additional statements, the
subcommittee will now receive testimony from the witnesses
before us today.
I would like to introduce our panel. Our first witness will
be the Archivist of the United States, David Ferriero. Mr.
Ferriero has led the National Archives Census Confirmation last
November. He previously served as the Andrew W. Mellon Director
of the New York Public Libraries, the largest system in the
United States. Mr. Ferriero earned Bachelor's and Master's
Degrees in English literature from Northeastern University in
Boston and a Master's Degree from Simmons College of Library
Information Science also in Boston.
After the Archivist we will hear from Dr. David McClure,
the Associate Administrator of the Office of Citizen Services
and Innovative Technologies in the GSA. Dr. McClure received
his Bachelor's and Master's Degrees from the University of
Texas and a Doctorate in Public Policy from the University of
North Texas.
Our third witness will be Mr. Gregory Wilshusen, Director
of Information Security Issues at the Government Accountability
Office. He is a certified public accountant, certified internal
auditor, and certified information systems auditor. Mr.
Wilshusen holds a BS Degree from the University of Missouri and
an MS Degree from George Washington University.
The final witness will be Mr. John Simpson. He is a Stem
Cell Project Director for Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit,
nonpartisan organization that advocates for taxpayers and
consumer interests. Mr. Simpson holds a Bachelor's Degree from
the State University of New York in Binghamton and a Master's
Degree from the University of Southern California.
I thank all of our witnesses for appearing today and look
forward to their testimony. It is the policy of this committee
to swear in all witnesses. I would like to ask you to stand and
raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Clay. Thank you. You may be seated. Let the record
reflect the witnesses answered in the affirmative. We will
begin under the 5-minute rule with Mr. Ferriero. Please, you
may begin.
STATEMENTS OF DAVID S. FERRIERO, ARCHIVIST OF THE UNITED
STATES, U.S. NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION; DR.
DAVID L. McCLURE, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF CITIZEN
SERVICES AND INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES, U.S. GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION; GREGORY C. WILSHUSEN, DIRECTOR, INFORMATION
SECURITY ISSUES, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; AND JOHN
M. SIMPSON, STEM CELL PROJECT DIRECTOR, CONSUMER WATCHDOG
STATEMENT OF DAVID S. FERRIERO
Mr. Ferriero. Chairman Clay, Ranking Member McHenry, and
members of the subcommittee, thanks for the opportunity to
testify today. This hearing is exploring the use of Web 2.0
technologies by Federal agencies. I am here to state that the
content created within these applications in many cases should
be treated as official Federal records.
In my written testimony, I describe the guidance NARA has
issued and is continuing to issue to agencies about how to
identify and manage content created using Web 2.0 technologies.
Additionally, I have outlined the Web 2.0 initiatives that we
have undertaken at NARA to promote transparency, collaboration,
and participation and the steps we are taking to manage our own
records from these Web 2.0 projects.
NARA has long recognized the content created by Federal
agencies and placed on their Web sites is in many cases a
Federal record and must be managed as such. Over the past
several years NARA has issued an updated guidance for Federal
agencies to manage Web records. The underlying principle in our
guidance is that record content produced or published by
agencies on the Web must continue to be managed in compliance
with NARA's records management guidance. The fact that agencies
have increased their involvement of the Web 2.0 platforms does
nothing to change that fundamental principle.
However, NARA does realize that Web 2.0 platforms raise
additional records management questions. As a means of
exploring these potential records management questions, we
undertook a detailed evaluation involving dozens of discussions
with agencies of the evolving nature of both the Web and
Federal agencies' use of emerging Web 2.0 capabilities. NARA's
subsequent Web 2.0 guidance and activities build on the
research foundation established in this evaluation.
The interactive nature of Web 2.0 platforms present a
number of new factors for agencies to consider. For instance,
agencies need to determine if the interactive nature of the
content creation, such as comments left on an agency blog, need
to be documented as part of the record. They also need to
determine if the frequent update of the content requires
additional strategies to capture the records. These
determinations will impact how agencies properly manage and
schedule their records of their Web 2.0 interactions.
NARA will soon issue a bulletin that will provide
additional guidance and information to agencies about Web 2.0
and social media platforms and how agency use of them may
impact records management procedures.
We are also conducting a study of Federal agencies that are
actively using Web 2.0 technologies in order to gain a greater
understanding of what records are being created and their
potential value, both to agencies and NARA. Both the bulletin
and study will be completed and made available this fall.
As the subcommittee knows, the core of NARA's mission is
public access to information. Web 2.0 tools are allowing us to
fulfill that mission in exciting new ways that are already
improving external and internal communication and
collaboration. NARA is currently using new media tools to
support more than 60 live projects. Some examples are in my
written testimony, including my own blog, where I regularly
report on a variety of issues.
Finally, as an agency that not only archives Federal
records but creates them, I would like to touch on what we are
doing to manage our own records created with social media
tools.
``Rules of Behavior for Using Web 2.0 and Social Media Web
Sites and Responsibilities for Content Management,'' is the
title of our internal guidance. Under this guidance staff
responsible for a Web 2.0 project are directed to assess the
record value at the proposal stage to determine if the social
media activities will create or maintain Federal records.
NARA's records management staff assist in making this
determination.
To support this guidance, the manager of a Web 2.0 proposal
is directed to answer two records questions: Will the proposed
social media be used to create or maintain data or information
meeting the statutory definition of a Federal record, and if
yes, how will the records, drafts and other products from this
project be captured and managed during their entire retention
period?
The records portion of the guidance explains the records
created and maintained in social media may be covered in the
NARA record schedule and/or the general record schedule and
should be managed in accordance with approved dispositions. The
biggest challenge in establishing this guidance or determining
the boundary of social media records, for example, is the
record the whole site or just a portion? And determining the
best ways to capture the record content in a format that
maintains the content context and structure and is sustainable
over the long term.
What we are learning in regard to managing our NARA Web 2.0
records will be shared as best practices on NARA's opening
government Web site. Web 2.0 offers opportunities unimaginable
a decade ago, and I am personally excited that NARA is taking
advantage of its capabilities to increase awareness and provide
better access to our holdings while at the same time working
with agencies to ensure that new types of historic records are
preserved for future generations.
Thanks again for the opportunity to testify and I look
forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ferriero follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.006
Ms. Norton [presiding]. Thank you very much, Mr. Ferriero.
Dr. McClure.
STATEMENT OF DAVID L. McCLURE
Dr. McClure. Thank you, Ms. Norton, and welcome to members
of the subcommittee.
Ms. Norton. Let me just say that the chairman, real
chairman, will be back shortly.
Dr. McClure. Thanks. It is a pleasure to be here to testify
before you on the use of Web 2.0 tools in the government and
how GSA is helping to enable this transformation. My written
statement is full of examples of how social media and Web 2.0
technologies are being used in the Federal Government. But
today I just want to make three primary points to the
subcommittee.
First, I want to emphasize that the use of Web 2.0 tools is
essential for responding to shifting citizen expectations of
government. Web-based social networks play an increasingly
central role in the lives of citizens. For instance, YouTube
has become the second largest search engine in the world. Over
300 billion pieces of content are shared on Facebook each year.
MySpace, YouTube, Facebook host 250 million visitors, 80
percent of the U.S. population each month. And these statistics
I think just provide a glimpse into how Web 2.0 is altering how
citizens both produce and consume information.
Increasingly citizens are expected to find the information
they want and need through Web-based social networks. They use
more and more of them every day. They expect government not
only to deliver services through multiple channels, but to
engage with them on how these services are working and can be
improved.
Connecting citizens and government is not new to GSA, and
our Administrator Martha Johnson has placed open government at
the center of our mission agenda. In response, we have
delivered an apps dot-gov storefront to help connect agencies
with social media tools meeting Federal friendly terms of
service. We are creating a challenge dot-gov Web site, a
governmentwide challenge and contest platform to open up
innovation and problem solving. And through our Web manager
university we have supported and trained over 18,000 agency
customers in areas like plain language and user center design
for Web content.
So GSA is delivering significant Web 2.0 efficiencies by
establishing tools for governmentwide use, sharing agency
policies and building communities that extend across the
government.
My second point is that Web 2.0 is a mission enabler for
government. It is easy to think of Web 2.0 as a novelty or
something that occurs along the real business of government.
However, government's use of social media is extraordinary and
it is very diverse. Its use should be aligned directly with the
efficiency, effectiveness, and quality of core government
functions and programs. I've highlighted several examples in my
written statement for you, such as the Library of Congress, the
U.S. Geological Survey, the State Department, and TSA's
IdeaFactory, just to give you an example of many of the
innovative uses of Web 2.0 technologies.
These efforts show that Web 2.0 isn't fundamentally about
technology itself, but it is how technology is enabling people
to come together in new ways and achieve dramatic results.
Point No. 3, successful engagement with citizens must be
built on a foundation of transparent government. The open
government directive contains specific direction for making
government more open to citizens and enabling them to hold us
accountable. New data releases in areas such as Medicare
diagnostic procedures and charges, educational system revenues,
and standardized scoring outcomes, social security adjudication
processing have virtually unlocked unprecedented transparency
and accountability for the citizens of this country.
Using Web 2.0 technologies GSA is supporting two key
initiatives; data dot-gov, a central portal for citizens to
discover, download and access over 270,000 government data
sets, and U.S. spending dot-gov, which let's the public
visualize how their tax dollars are being spent. We have also
redesigned the government's main citizen Internet portal,
USA.gov and gobierno.gov with mobile applications to expand the
real-time service delivery of information services to the
public.
In closing, I hope we have shed some light in the statement
on Federal agency adoption of Web 2.0 and GSA's work in
encouraging it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to
answering questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McClure follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.028
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Dr. McClure.
Mr. Wilshusen.
STATEMENT OF GREGORY C. WILSHUSEN
Mr. Wilshusen. Thank you very much. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify at today's hearing on Federal use of Web
2.0 technologies. These technologies refer to a second
generation of the World Wide Web as enabling a platform for
Web-based communities of interest, collaboration and
interactive services. Internet-based services using these
technologies include blogs, social networking sites, video Web
sites and wikis. These tools provide flexible, sophisticated
capabilities for interactions among individuals. Among the
general public these services have become quite popular and
Federal agencies are increasingly using them as well.
At Chairman Clay's request, we are initiating a review of
agency procedures for managing and protecting information
associated with the Federal use of social media services such
as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. Our work is just beginning
in this area, and we plan to work closely with the subcommittee
staff as our review progresses. Today, however, I will discuss
the ways Federal agencies are using Web 2.0 technologies and
the challenges associated with their use.
But first, if I may, I would just like to recognize the
contributions of three members of my team who helped prepare
this statement and will be leading this review. John de
Ferrari, Marisol Cruz and Nick Marinos sitting behind them.
Most Federal agencies are using Web 2.0 technologies to
enhance interactions with the public. We have determined that
22 of the 24 major Federal agencies have a presence on
Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. Federal Web managers use these
applications to connect with people in new ways.
For example, the U.S. Agency for International Development
uses Facebook to inform the public about the developmental and
humanitarian assistance that it provides to different
countries. It also posts links to other USA resources,
including blogs, videos and relevant news articles.
NASA uses Twitter to notify the public about the status of
its missions, as well as to respond to questions regarding
space exploration.
And the State Department uses YouTube and other video
technologies in support of its public diplomacy efforts.
While the use of Web 2.0 technologies can transform how
Federal agencies engage the public in the governing process,
agency use of such technologies can also present challenges
related to privacy, security, and records management. One such
challenge is determining requirements for preserving Web 2.0
information as Federal records.
A key question is whether information exchange through
these technologies constitutes Federal records pursuant to the
Federal Records Act. Another challenge is establishing
mechanisms for preserving this information as Federal records
once the need to preserve information has been established.
A third challenge is ensuring that agencies take
appropriate steps to limit the collection and use of personal
information through social media. Federal agencies have taken
steps to identify and start addressing these and other Web 2.0
technology issues.
For example, NARA has provided updated guidance on managing
Web-based records and is conducting a study on the impact of
more recent Web technologies and plans to release additional
guidance later this year. GSA has negotiated terms of service
agreements with several social networking providers that
addresses concerns agencies have with the terms and conditions
generally provided by those providers. And OMB has recently
issued guidance intended to help agencies protect privacy when
using third-party Web sites and applications.
In summary, Federal agencies are increasingly using Web 2.0
technologies to enhance services and interactions with the
public. However, determining the appropriate use of these
technologies poses new questions about the ability of agencies
to protect the privacy and security sensitive information and
to manage, preserve and make available official government
records.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy
to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilshusen follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.045
Mr. Clay [presiding]. I thank the witness for his
testimony.
Mr. Simpson, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOHN M. SIMPSON
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Clay,
Ranking Member McHenry, and members of the committee. Thank you
for this opportunity to orally introduce my written remarks
into the record. I am John M. Simpson, a consumer advocate with
Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit, nonpartisan public interest
group founded in 1985. I am the director of our Google Privacy
and Accountability Project.
Frankly, I wish this were a hearing into Google's recent
Wi-spying activities where they snooped on home lifeline
networks around the world. We have called for congressional
hearings into the scandal, and I respectfully repeat that
request today. I believe that the House Energy and Commerce
Committee were the primary jurisdiction, but I think a very
strong case can be made that your committee have appropriate
oversight.
But we are here today to talk about Web 2.0, and that is
what I am testifying about, Web 2.0 technologies or services
like Google's, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, blogs and the like.
I briefly would like to make three points.
First, as I saw personally when I took vacation time to
campaign for Barack Obama in Missouri, Web 2.0 tools are
powerful indeed. It is no surprise that they have been adopted
by Federal agencies. They certainly improve government
transparency, responsiveness and citizen involvement. I think
they are particularly attractive to young people. All this is
to the good.
Second, on the downside, many of these technologies raise
substantial concerns about and challenges to consumer's
privacy. Given the appalling track record of Facebook and
Google in this area, and one only needs to think of Wi-Spy and
the launch of Google Buzz or Facebook's unilateral revision of
privacy policies to understand that these companies do not have
consumer privacy high on their list of priorities.
Third, and this brings us to the crux of the dilemma where
the Federal agencies are involved, Federal agency use of Web
2.0 techniques implies a government endorsement of many of
these companies. Because this may lull consumers into trusting
such sites far more than they should, it is even more
imperative that Congress enact robust on-line privacy laws to
protect privacy and other rights. And I am delighted to note
that there's another hearing before another committee right now
discussing stronger privacy legislation. That is a very good
thing.
In conclusion, Web 2.0 techniques offer government agencies
powerful and valuable tools. They should be used carefully,
however, without unduly favoring a particular provider, and
there must be explicit warnings when a consumer leaves an
official government site to go to one of the third-party sites.
Most importantly, however, Congress must enact meaningful
privacy legislation to safeguard consumers as they use these
on-line services that have become known as Web 2.0.
I look forward to answering any of your questions. Thank
you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Simpson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4925.051
Mr. Clay. I thank the witness and thank all the witnesses
for their testimony. We are in the middle of a series of votes,
but we will try to get to two questioners. I will start with
Ms. Norton of the District of Columbia.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, before I ask
my question I do want to note a searing hearing I recall in
preface to a question I am going to ask. It was about 2 years
ago. It was a full committee hearing on the Bush
administration's electronic record preservation. It was almost
a scandalous hearing. The minority defended at the hearing, or
the hearing of record, the Bush administration's use of non-
Federal e-mail systems such as the Republican National
Committee's e-mails. No one can forget it, because among the
most notorious use of these e-mails now lost forever was Karl
Rove himself.
My very good friend and the ranking member of the committee
at that time, Mr. Issa, asked the General Counsel of the
National Archives if the use of a personal e-mail account was
inappropriate for official business. That answer was no, that
the actual use of a personal e-mail for official government
business was not a violation of the law. The e-mail simply had
to be placed into the recordkeeping system. That is what would
satisfy the requirements of law. That is what was never done by
88 White House officials led by Karl Rove himself.
In light of that past practice, let me ask Mr. Ferriero,
what is the current policy on archiving Web sites; are any of
those permanent?
Mr. Ferriero. Your question is specifically about Web
sites?
Ms. Norton. Yes, Web sites first. E-mails of the kind I
mentioned.
Mr. Ferriero. The policy around e-mails have not changed.
Ms. Norton. So would you state it?
Mr. Ferriero. On the Federal Records Act or the
Presidential Records Act. That people are free to use external
e-mail accounts as long as those e-mails are captured for the
agencies or the White House's own records management system.
Ms. Norton. Is that system being followed as far as you
know?
Mr. Ferriero. As far as I know.
Ms. Norton. Now, with 2.0, Web 2.0, aren't there new
challenges presented to comply with the Records Management Act,
was not complied with at all in the last administration, now
you say as far as you know it is being complied with, but now
we have 2.0. How are you managing to do that?
Mr. Ferriero. Every new technology presents new challenges
to the basic definition of what is a record. And the guidance
that we have already issued and continue to issue as we work
with the agencies helps them clarify, helps the agencies
clarify exactly what needs to be captured, how long it has to
be retained and eventually what comes to the Archives as
permanent record.
Ms. Norton. Dr. McClure, let me ask you a question about
privacy. Karl Rove and the 88 White House officials apparently
weren't concerned about privacy because they simply took their
personal e-mails with them, they were never archived.
Do you have concerns about the privacy of the content of
government 2.0 sites now that everybody is going to be on these
sites and e-mails like Karl Rove's e-mails would have to be
archived?
Dr. McClure. Well, I think in reference to the Web 2.0 or
social media tools our expectation that GSA and for any tool
that we put up for governmentwide use, it adheres to the
Privacy Act and to privacy impact assessment requirements
before we will accept the product.
Ms. Norton. Meaning what?
Dr. McClure. It has to go through a test by test of data
collection to understand how privacy information is considered
personal.
Ms. Norton. Well, suppose you received Mr. Rove's e-mails.
How would that go through and be managed if that policy had
been followed then as it was not?
Dr. McClure. Well, I think the e-mail area is a little bit
different because it covers e-mail transfer, the receipt and
what is sent on official government system versus what is a
private account that you have with a third-party provider. So
e-mails----
Ms. Norton. For the provider it was done right on the White
House account.
Dr. McClure. So----
Ms. Norton. I don't know who the third-party provider is.
The White House is essentially the account being used.
Dr. McClure. Right, right. Well, again, government
employees, both appointees, as well as civil service officials,
have to still comply with--this is where we get into this
distinction between ethics rules and the use of technology
rules. So that is I think what causes these issues to get
blurred quite a bit.
Ms. Norton. All right. So you shouldn't use the White House
system, are you saying, for such e-mails, or are you saying if
you use them do understand it is our obligation to archive
them?
Dr. McClure. Yeah, absolutely, yes.
Ms. Norton. And you do understand that they were not
archived at all. Millions upon millions of personal e-mails
were lost during the Bush administration when, according to
testimony before this committee, at least 88 White House
officials used the White House system for personal e-mails.
Now, if that happened in the Bush White House those would have
been archived.
Mr. Clay. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Ms. Norton. Those would have to be archived if that
happened in the Obama White House. I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. Clay. Gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for 5
minutes.
Dr. McHenry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think we have this long-term discussion about
Presidential records. Look, the Bush White House had their
folks with outside e-mail accounts and apparently this White
House has the same thing. It's apparently that the high ranking
political officials in the Clinton White House and the Bush
White House had political accounts in order to discuss
political travel. I would raise the question of if Mr. Axelrod
or if Mr. Emanuel have those very same types of accounts in
this administration.
But Dr. Ferriero, the Presidential Records Act applies to
all documentary material created or received by the President,
his immediate staff or a unit or individual of the Executive
Office of the President. The White House Office of Science and
Technology is part of the Executive Office of the President.
Mr. Ferriero, why does the Presidential Records Act not
apply to the Office of Science and Technology?
Mr. Ferriero. Very good question. All I know is that office
is covered by the Federal Records Act and not the Presidential
Records Act. And I'm sure--I have legal counsel behind me. I'm
sure they can explain the history of that.
Dr. McHenry. Now, for instance, if someone within that
department is a part of a Presidential decision, would those e-
mails be subject to the Presidential Records Act?
Mr. Ferriero. If they are Presidential records, if the
President's direct staff were involved, then those records
would be, yes. But, the OSTP's staffers' e-mail would be
covered by the Federal Records Act.
Dr. McHenry. Now we are currently working under a 2008--
2008, NARA conducted an evaluation of Federal agencies use of
the Web 2.0 technologies. We are currently operating under a
2006 guidance in essence for the Federal Government, is that
correct?
Mr. Ferriero. I believe it's 2009.
Dr. McHenry. OK.
Mr. Ferriero. And new guidance about to be released this
fall.
Dr. McHenry. At the end of this year.
Mr. Ferriero. Right.
Dr. McHenry. Mr. Simpson, on January 21, 2000, the
President signed an Executive order requiring every appointee
to sign a pledge to refrain from participating, ``in any
particular matter involving specific matters that is directly
and substantially related to my former employer or former
clients, including and regulating contracts. This lobbying ban
must also be followed by all members of the executive branch.''
Mr. McLaughlin's communications with his ex-colleagues at
Google he communicated regularly and often with Google about,
for instance, net neutrality, China, copyright, policy and
intellectual property rights, privacy regulation and Internet
governance.
Now this was released as a matter of your group's Freedom
of Information Act about his e-mails in this case, is that
correct?
Mr. Simpson. We opposed his nomination from the beginning
because we thought it was inappropriate for an industry
lobbyist, specifically a Google lobbyist, to have that
position. When he got the position, I decided to put in a FOIA
request to obtain his e-mails both on his White House account
and on private accounts, and the result of that was the
documents that you were referring to.
Dr. McHenry. OK. Now, do you know of any other particular,
any other particular policy matters directly or substantially
related to Mr. McLaughlin and his relationship with his former
employer?
Mr. Simpson. All I know is what was released in the FOIA,
as a result of the FOIA request.
Dr. McHenry. In your written testimony, you raised concerns
about some Web 2.0 technology providers could have too close a
relationship with Federal agencies.
Can you expand on these concerns?
Mr. Simpson. I do think that Google specifically has
perhaps too close a relationship with the government. I think
it has worked very hard to do that, I think Mr. McLaughlin's
appointment is one of those ties that is inappropriate, but I
also think that there are other ones. I mean the sort of
revolving door policy that they have of hiring lobbyists, say
one of their top people happens to be Pablo Chavez, who used to
be the counsel to Senator McCain. So this is a sad commentary,
if you will, on the revolving door in Washington. And I'm
particularly upset about how Google has been able to insinuate
itself into that process, and I have opposed, along with my
colleague from the Center for a Digital Democracy, Mr.
McLaughlin's appointment from the beginning.
Mr. Clay. The gentleman's time has expired. For the record,
and for the committee's information, there are two categories
in the Executive Office of the President that come under
different controlling statutes. And in the Executive Office of
the President, the entity subject to the Federal Records Act
are the Council on Environmental Quality, Office of Management
and Budget, Office of National Drug Control Policy, Office of
Science and Technology Policy, and the Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative. And that's in accordance with FOIA.
In the other category of entities that come under the
Presidential Records Act in the Executive Office of the
President, the White House Office, the Office of
Administration, the Office of the Vice President, Council of
Economic Advisers, National Security Council, Office of Policy
Development. And under that office is Domestic Policy Council,
Office of National AIDS Policy, National Economic Council, and
the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.
So that kind of breaks down the categories of which
statutes apply to which offices. And with that, we will recess
until the end of these votes. The committee stands in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Clay. The subcommittee will reconvene. Let me start out
with Archivist Ferriero.
In your statement, you point out that NARA will promulgate
new policies in the form of a bulletin on Web 2.0 and social
media platforms. This is on top of guidance NARA issued in 2005
and 2006. It sounds like you need to continually assess the
implications of new technologies and respond accordingly.
Does NARA do that proactively in response to agency
requests? And how is that accomplished?
Mr. Ferriero. It actually happens in a couple of ways, but
let me first correct what I said in response to Congressman
McHenry's question. The latest guidance is September 2006 and
that covers wiki's logs, Web portals and RSS feeds, a lot of
the 2.0 technologies that already exist. So the updated
bulletin that will come up this fall deals with social media
products that have come out since then.
In terms of how we work with the agencies on that, one of
the imperatives that I have brought to the agency is that if we
are going to be advising other agencies on how to be using
these tools we need to be using them ourselves. So we, there
has been an explosion I would say in the last 6 months at the
Archives in the use of these 2.0 technologies. So that is one
way. And the work that we've been doing with the agencies in
terms of this evaluation and assessment is another way that we
keep on top of what is being used now.
Mr. Clay. Can you tell us more about NARA's own use of Web
2.0 to engage researchers and stakeholders and improve internal
communications?
Mr. Ferriero. We have been aggressively using tools
internally and externally to gather reactions, input, feedback,
on various new ways of doing business. We are, as you know, as
every agency is dealing with a very severe budget year ahead,
and we have been using IdeaScale, one of the social media
tools, internally to gather ideas from the staff about how we
can do business much more efficiently and effectively and save
money. So that is one way that we have been doing that.
We are in the process of redesigning our Web site, and so
we have been using similar tools to get the same kind of
feedback from our user community, from the stakeholders about
how they feel about the redesign.
Mr. Clay. Can you please explain how the very nature of Web
2.0 content, like blogs, comments, editable wikis, Twitter
feeds, Facebook discussions, possibly time sensitive Web links
pose challenges to agencies unlike any previous type of Federal
record?
Mr. Ferriero. They certainly require one to rethink the
definition of record. Each one of these new technologies gives
us the opportunity to kind of rethink what is a record, how
long it needs to be kept, and what part of that technology is
permanent that we need to be accommodating in perpetuity.
Mr. Clay. Thank you for your responses.
Mr. McClure, there have been several recent reports
regarding GSA's policy on the personal use of social media by
agency employees. Can you explain GSA's policy and any
guidelines the agency has provided to employees related to
their use of social media in their personal lives.
Dr. McClure. Chairman Clay, the GSA social media policy is
actually constructed by our CIO office so I probably would have
to get you a formal answer back from our CIO. The GSA policy I
do think makes a distinction between using social media tools
for official government business versus using it on your own
personal time. So I know that is a distinction in our policy,
but we can certainly give you some specifics from the CIO
office.
Mr. Clay. Would you provide the committee with that
information?
Dr. McClure. Absolutely.
Mr. Clay. Thank you.
Mr. Wilshusen, are agencies prepared to schedule and manage
Web 2.0 content as Federal records?
Mr. Wilshusen. That is one of the issues we intend to look
at, Mr. Chairman, as part of the review that you requested on
how agencies manage and protect information that they gather
through these social media sites and things. So that is
something we do plan on looking at, and we will be looking at
the 24 major CFO Act agencies as part of our scope of that
review.
Mr. Clay. In your initial review, have you been able to
identify any agencies that are doing well with 2.0 records
management?
Mr. Wilshusen. No, I wouldn't say that we've identified
because we again are at a very early stage. But we have found
that there are a number of agencies that are using those
technologies in order to interact better with the public and
several agencies that are using what seems to be a very
effective manner in terms of interacting with the public and
getting out their message through videos as well as through
blogs in which they help interact with the individuals.
Mr. Clay. And what are the Freedom of Information Act
implications for Web 2.0 content?
Mr. Wilshusen. Well, one of the key issues associated with
that is determining whether or not the information that is
maintained by third-party providers through these technologies
is actually susceptible to Freedom of Information Act requests.
And so because--what we have found, looking at the Department
of Justice guidelines is that it identifies four criteria to
determine whether or not agency is agency records for the
purpose of the Freedom of Information Act and those are rather
strenuous and strict criteria. So agencies might be challenged
in order to meet each of those as it relates to Freedom of
Information Act's requests for information collected by those
third-party providers.
Mr. Clay. Is the dilemma about separating and determining
what should fall under FOIA?
Mr. Wilshusen. Yes, in making sure that the agency has
adequate control over the information in order for it to be an
agency record under FOIA.
Mr. Clay. OK. Dr. Ferriero, what I guess heading toward a
wrapup of the hearing today, what do you see as the areas this
subcommittee in its oversight and information policy role
should continue to examine?
Mr. Ferriero. I think it's clear in the self-assessment
that we shared with you not too long ago that the agencies
themselves have identified, 80 percent of the agencies have
identified that they are at moderate to high risk around
electronic records. So we need to be providing more guidance to
the agencies around these electronic records. And I'm hopeful
that the new bulletin that we come out with is going to be a
trigger for us to be more aggressive with those agencies.
Mr. Clay. I hope so, too. Thank you for your response.
Dr. McClure, in your written testimony, you give many
examples of the innovative Web 2.0 applications Federal
agencies are currently using. Can you please talk about one
example of an external application and one internal application
that demonstrate the potential of these technologies?
Dr. McClure. Well, I think from a--most of these tools that
are being adopted are actually external rather than internal.
They are easy, lightweight, agile applications that are
relatively inexpensive in the market or in many cases they are
being offered at no cost to Federal agencies. So I think in a
general sense there is a great list of social media tools in
the idea management challenge and platform contest space, in
ranking and rating ideas and problem solving engagements with
the public that cover both commercial as well as no-cost
products.
We actually from our perspective, from an efficiency
perspective think that a lot of the software that is available
in the marketplace, it meets a lot of the agency needs in these
areas. So there is little need for an agency to be building its
own software, developing its own tools when the market is so
robust as it is today.
So almost every example that I can point to in my statement
is using mostly either no-cost or very lightweight commercial
applications for interaction, engagement, content and
challenges, or notifications to the public as is the case with
the TED system at the U.S. Geological Survey.
Mr. Clay. Thank you for your response.
And I have already asked the Archivist this, but I will ask
the panel a wide question, what do you see as the areas this
subcommittee in its oversight of NARA and information policy
should continue to examine?
We will start with you, Dr. McClure.
Dr. McClure. Thank you. I think, Chairman Clay, that we
don't need--we should not lose the perspective of the benefits
that the government is getting from social media tools. It's
one of the reasons why in my statement we documented as
thoroughly as we could the use of this technology across the
government.
It is true that there are challenges in the policy area for
the adoption of social media, and I think we have identified
many of them in the records management area in today's hearing.
No. 1 is what constitutes a record? That has to be
determined by the agency. That is not something that is totally
defined by any guidance put out by the government.
No. 2, we have the changing constantly in these Web sites.
So what is a record? Is it something that changes every 20
seconds, every minute? That creates huge challenges for
agencies in terms of volume and the types of information that
constitute a record.
The third challenge is the social media tools themselves
that are being made available to the government are not
configured to operate in accordance with Federal Records Act
provisions. These are commercial products that are built for
everyday use by consumers or organizations outside of
government.
So it's no easy task for a lot of these tools to be
compliant with policy provisions like the Federal Records Act.
Mr. Clay. Should private industry rework or redesign tools
specifically for government?
Dr. McClure. Well, our position at GSA is before we bring a
tool into the government, it must be compliant, and we
encourage agencies to follow examples of how other agencies are
making sure of that. The GSA procurement schedules, for
example, if it's a for fee product, they have to meet Federal
guidelines in order to be purchased by any Federal agency.
And I will tell you last that for any no-cost product that
we have brought into the Federal Government for governmentwide
use, we had put it through all the policy and legal compliance
tests to make sure that we are not violating or not following
guidance under these laws.
Mr. Clay. Thank you for your response.
Mr. Wilshusen, what should we continue to examine as a
subcommittee?
Mr. Wilshusen. I would second everything that Dr. McClure
stated as key challenges and issues to address. But I would
also add privacy and security challenges associated with the
use of these technologies because they do collect a lot of
personal information on these Web sites and through these
social networking sites that needs to be protected, and to what
extent Privacy Act applies as well as other security threats
that are potentially exposing that information to risk are
issues that should also be addressed, and that is something
that we will be looking at as part of our review.
Mr. Clay. It's interesting you bring up security. I just
completed my information security course required by all
Members of the House.
Mr. Wilshusen. Congratulations.
Mr. Clay. And I passed.
Mr. Simpson.
Mr. Simpson. I would completely concur with my colleagues
on the panel. I would emphasize the problems and challenges
with privacy and security, and I would add a suggestion. I
mean, recently you had a look at cloud computing and that is
very much related to all of this that is tied into Web 2.0. But
I would urge the committee not necessarily only to look in the
abstract at these technologies, but to examine very closely the
companies that are providing these services and look at their
approaches to the challenges to privacy and to security and to
whether they in fact live up to what they say they are going to
do, which is why I think this committee would have complete
oversight to call somebody like Google in and talk to them
about their privacy practices and how this horrible thing could
have happened with Wi-Spy.
Another example of this which relates to the cloud and
security goes precisely to the tendency of technology companies
to overpromise. Google has touted the fact that it sold its
cloud services to Los Angeles. And the fact of the matter is
that the deadline was blown. The city of Los Angeles is about
to have to come up with another $500,000 or so to cover
licenses that they didn't expect to have to have, because
Google was unable to meet the security requirements on the
Government cloud that were required by the Los Angeles Police
Department.
That is the kind of issue that I think this committee
should be exploring, and I think that it's essential, again,
that you do it, by talking to specific companies.
Mr. Clay. Thank you for that. And contrary to what it was
stated earlier, I am continuously open to Members from both
sides of the aisle on suggestions for future hearings, and I
will entertain those suggestions when they are brought to me.
Let me thank all of the witnesses for their indulgence
today. I know we got off to a bumpy start but because of you
all, you made this hearing complete, and I thank you.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]