must conform to the exemptions of the Freedom of Information Act. We believe that reducing the 50-year restriction to 30 years is consistent with the thrust of both the Freedom of Information Act and the administration's policy of greater openness in Government. S. 1265 also would amend 44 U.S.C. 2103 to provide for the transfer to the National Archives of Federal agencies' records which have been in existence for more than 30 years and which are determined by the Archivist of the United States to have historical value. Currently the required time period is 50 years.

The shorter period would allow earlier public access and, of equal importance to us, would insure that such permanently valuable records would be stored at an earlier date under archival storage conditions where physical deterioration of the records could be retarded.

I must point out that this is the testimony and represents the views of GSA on S. 1265. We expect the administration's position will develop shortly.

Senator SASSER. For the purpose of saving time we might just put your statement in the record, if that is satisfactory with you, and get to some questions here. It might save us a little time.

Mr. GRIFFIN. On these two bills or on all of them?

Senator SASSER. Sir?

Mr. GRIFFIN. I have only covered two bills, but I can handle the questions on this just as well.

Senator SASSER. We will ask you questions on all three of those, and we will make your statement part of the record; is that satisfactory? Mr. GRIFFIN. Very good.

Senator SASSER. In Senator Percy's bill, S. 1265, why was 30 years chosen?

Mr. GRIFFIN. I ask Mr. O'Neill to comment on that, Mr. Chairman. Dr. O'NEILL. Mr. Chairman, 30 years was chosen for two reasons: One, it was our considered judgment that that is a reasonable period, both for the agencies to maintain the records for their administrative use and for them to control the access to the records. The second reason is that 30 years is the time period for access to security classified. records, the most sensitive kind of public records as distinct from. privacy records, and we felt that bringing nonclassified records into line with the way the Government handled classified records was very desirable from the point of view of both logic and efficiency.

Senator SASSER. What benefit could be derived by opening the records 20 years earlier than is now the case, in your judgment?

Dr. O'NEILL. I think the greatest benefit is the one to which Senator Percy alluded in his testimony this morning, that it would make available to historians and other scholars greater bodies of material which are presently restricted to them, and would enable them to clarify the history of fairly recent times.

One noted historian, Arthur Schlesinger, has commented that in recent times history has "speeded up," meaning we have no longer the luxury of writing about things 60 years ago. We want to write about things 20 or 30 years ago; this measure would help the records to catch up with the historians.

Senator SASSER. Some of us wonder whether that makes history more or less accurate.

Senator SASSER. You have calculated the problems on removing these restrictions which are currently in force?

Do you anticipate any problems with respect to removing these restrictions presently in force; the time restrictions?

Dr. O'NEILL. No, sir; there will still be the Freedom of Information Act, and that is, as Mr. Griffin's statement states, one of our purposes, to bring the handling of restrictions into closer line with both the spirit and the letter of the Freedom of Information Act. We don't anticipate a serious problem.

Senator SASSER. With regard to S. 1267, what is meant by the term "records of a common nature?"

Dr. O'NEILL. Those would be types of records that virtually every agency tends to create. They may not look physically the same, and the form number may be a little different, but they accomplish the same purpose. For example, in handling payroll, some type of standard time and leave record is maintained. It may be maintained in several fashions, but it is a common type of record throughout the agencies, and it is used, of course by GAO as well as agency auditors. That is an example.

Usually, it is a housekeeping record of the agency. The information contained in the record either has a very short life, is not worth preserving, or that information is incorporated in some more permanent record.

Senator SASSER. Would there be an occasion when an agency would want to recall a document? If so, what would be the procedure if an agency wanted to recall a document?

Dr. O'NEILL. A document covered by the general record schedule? Senator SASSER. Yes.

Dr. O'NEILL. The general record schedule, in effect, says, if you have this class of documents, here is how you treat them. You retain them in your files for 6 months or 6 years, or whatever it happens to be, and that varies from one type of record to another, and then they are destroyed.

Obviously if the record is destroyed, the agency couldn't recall it, but the information contained in that record is ordinarily incorporated into some more permanent form of record.

Senator SASSER. Among the constituencies of historians and historical societies are there many requests for information generally kept in the general record schedule?

Dr. O'NEILL. No, Senator. Most of the general records information is ephemeral.

Senator SASSER. This morning there were statements from Senator Percy and Senator Allen regarding their respective bills. I assume GSA does support 1265 and 1267, is that correct?

Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SASSER. And I think you might have different views on Senator Allen's bill, 1273?

Mr. GRIFFIN. Regrettably, yes.

Senator SASSER. Tell us why you are opposed to this.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Well, the bill has several weaknesses in our view, Senator. First of all; it covers only a portion of Government leases. There are many agencies with leasing authority and leasing requirements. The bill as presented only covers GSA, and for that reason if

the bill serves a good purpose, it should be considered in the light of General Government as opposed to just one agency.

Second, we think it would probably be a deterrent to energy saving as opposed to promoting it. These leases normally are competitive, and they are hotly competed for, and it changes the situation after the leases are awarded. There are risks involved in leasing buildings, in leasing to the Government, as well as to the private sector, and the bill doesn't really face up to that.

But more importantly, we have not had good experience with lessors taking steps to reduce energy consumption on a voluntary basis. We believe the bill would create a situation now in which lessors who elected not to support any energy conservation and who need it the most will be rewarded for their potentially wasteful practices. In fact, lessors in this category, after renegotiation of their lease contract, institute the same energy saving measures in their buildings that they have refused to implement earlier. Such conservation measures would result in lower utility costs, thereby increasing the lessor's income flow. Also, the wording of the bill is not sufficiently precise because utilities in the bill are not defined. The term "utilitiy costs" could conceivably include the costs for other items such as water and sewage. The bill would permit renegotiation of contracts for which settlement has been made.

There are many weaknesses to it, and we are generally opposed to it. The Senator did mention that we are relying on the fact that we don't have authority to do this at the present time based on an obscure GAO ruling, but Mr. Mulligan can comment further. We have more than one GAO ruling on this which in the opinion of the Comptroller General does not allow us to renegotiate, so that it could be a very costly thing for GSA as well and for the Government as a whole.

But just in GSA the initial cost of this bill could be in the range of $25 to $35 million and the initial cost of renegotiating perhaps 6,000 to 8,000 lease contracts.

Senator SASSER. Does GSA have the funds to cover such renegotiated contracts?

Mr. GRIFFIN. No, we would not have. It would require-I don't know. The Senator says it would be voluntary and permissive. Very frankly, Senator, I don't know how you would pick and choose those you would grant relief to and those you would not. It would come to be almost universal, so that it would be quite a costly thing, and probably would require a supplemental.

Do you want to add anything to the GAO ruling, Jack?

Mr. MULLIGAN. No; we have a recent opinion from the General Accounting Office with respect to increased utility prices. In that ruling the General Accounting Office reiterated its rule that Government contracting officers do not have the authority to renegotiate contracts except when the consideration the Government gets in return is adequate. What is meant is that when the Government gives up something of value, it must get something equally valuable in return. So if we renegotate a lease such as in the Alabama situation,

we would have to get a substantial reduction in the rental to offset the cost of the utilities presently borne by the owner.

So the principle involved is not obscure. We really feel we don't have the authority to renegotiate these leases in a manner satisfactory to the Government and the owner.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I might point out, Senator, since 1973, as a result of the energy crunch, we do have an escalation clause on 5-year leases, and the clause is based on a 3-year evaluation of the third year's cost against the first year's cost, but in a less-than-5-year period we do not have an escalation clause.

Senator SASSER. Mr. Griffin, I understand that GSA has proposed legislation which would abolish the Federal Records Council. What is the Federal Records Council and why does GSA want it abolished?

Mr. GRIFFIN. The Federal Record Council's precise history will be provided by Dr. O'Neill. The Council was created many years ago when the sophistication of Federal records management had not developed to the level which it has reached today.

Because of the precise pursuit of Federal records management, the calling on the advice and counsel of the Federal Records Council itself has almost evaporated. It has been several years since the Council has met. In keeping with the President's and the administration's desire to reduce the number of units of Government, particularly in the advisory council area, we believe very strongly that this one is not serving a purpose and should be eliminated. Do you want to add to that?

Dr. O'NEILL. Very little. The Council was established, Senator, in 1950, and it had a dual role: First, to advise the Administrator. Since the people on the Council were agency officials, it was presumed they would be in a good position to advise the Administrator on policy in the records management field.

It was also designed, of course, as a means of bringing together those in the government, in both the executive and legislative branches, who had a responsibility in records management, to share common problems and find common solutions, and it did very good work in the 1950's and 1960's.

As the records management program achieved success and established itself in the various agencies and generated viable records management programs, the need for the Council gradually declined. As Mr. Griffin indicated, it has not met in several years.

There are a number of other means by which the records management people in government share their ideas. It is a large enterprise now, much larger than the Council could accommodate. There are various councils, committees and organizations which achieve the same objectives and probably do so more effectively.

Senator SASSER. Mr. Griffin, I want to thank you and your colleagues for being here this morning. Staff, I am sure, will have additional questions which they will wish to propound, and I am confident that you will respond in your usual swift fashion.

Mr. GRIFFIN. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Griffin and supplemental questions

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT T. GRIFFIN, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to appear here today on behalf of Joel Solomon, the Administrator of General Services. With me today are Dr. James E. O'Neill, Deputy Archivist of the United States, Mrs. Allie Latimer, our General Counsel, and Mr. Ronald Royal, Acting Director of our Federal Preparedness Agency.

We appreciate the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee to support S. 1265 and S. 1267. GSA strongly supports the passage of S. 1267 because it will promote greater efficiency in disposal of unnecessary Federal records and it will save the Government an estimated $2.5 million annually.

The General Records Schedules promulgated by the Administrator describe records common to several or all agencies. At present there are twenty General Records Schedules covering routine agency records in such areas as personnel, payroll, procurement and supply, and travel. About 35 percent or 10.5 million cubic feet of all Federal records are subject to the General Records Schedules. Under present law, these schedules are permissive, i.e., agencies are authorized, but not required, to dispose of records when they become eligible for disposal. Mandatory application of the schedules would require disposal of records now commonly retained by agencies long after the usefulness of the records has ended. Exceptions would be made in unusual curcumstances; for example, the extended need to retain records