(Eungreaa at the 1l?niteh gtatea 3301 20515 January 24, 2019 Mr. Russ Vought Acting Director Of?ce of Management and Budget 725 17111 Street, NW Washington, DC. 20503 Via Facsimile: 202-395-3729 Dear Mr. Vought: We write to express our concerns about the pending approval of the recommendations made by the Public Buildings Reform Board (PBRB) to close the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) Federal Archives and Records Center in Seattle, Washington. This facility houses records, both archival and in storage, that are vital to a variety of stakeholders in our states, including state agencies, universities, researchers, scientists, tribal members, and students. We are concerned about the process the PBRB used to develop their recommendations and the negative impact the facility?s closure will have on our constituents and our statesimmediately reject the recommendations. While it appears that the PBRB attempted to notify members of the Washington State Congressional delegation, no noti?cation or request for comments was sent to members of the delegations representing states that have an interest in the contents of the facility. Nor were Native American tribes or Alaska Natives consulted about the proposed relocation of records so important to their sovereignty and history. We also note that the ?Methodology for Identifying Properties for Disposal and Implementing the PBRB Recommendations? chart on page 6 of December 27 submission to OMB states, ?Step 5: Solicit Input from Stakeholders and Public.? The respective state archivists should have been identi?ed as important stakeholders in the decision impacting a federal archive and records center that holds records from a number of states. Yet, the State Archivists of Alaska, Idaho, Washington, and Oregon were not made aware of the recommendation until Wednesday, January 15, 2020?after the PBRB sent its ?nal recommendations to OMB. In addition, the noti?cation came from NARA, not the PBRB. To our knowledge, neither state historical societies nor tribal leaders were noti?ed at all. It is also not clear from the report what the net ?nancial bene?t will be if the facility is closed, sold, and re-developed. The PBRB states that the facility has a maintenance backlog of $2,399,302 and ongoing operating and maintenance costs of $356,763. Nor does the report explain how much funding NARA will need to transport the records to the California and Missouri facilities. There is also no explanation of how much it will cost for NARA to renovate its facility in Riverside, California to house the records from the Seattle facility. The PBRB also does not estimate how much the short?term occupancy agreement will cost as NARA prepares the alternative facilities to receive the records, pack them, and relocate them. The proposal also did not take into consideration the negative impacts the closure will have on our constituents and state agencies as required by section 11(b)(3) of the Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act (PASTA). The report notes on page 9 that this section directed the PBRB to consider a number of factors, including, ?the extent to which public access to agency services is PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER maintained or enhanced.? Although the report states, portion of the property is open to the public for research purposes? and has determined that it can ful?ll its mission needs at the target relocation facilities,? it is quite clear that if Archives and Records Center in Seattle is closed, public access to agency services will be severely degraded for those using the facility?s materials absent additional investment in digitization and the indexing necessary to post the records online. This facility is not simply a ?warehouse.? The facility?s Textual Research and Public Access Research Rooms, open from 9:00 am. to 4:00 pm, Monday through Friday, provide in? person access to records of importance on a broad range of issues and topics including current litigation, tribal membership and land claims, Forest Service timber sales, land claims and disputes, the navigability of federally-owned waters, ongoing scienti?c research, and much more. From Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 to FY 2019, in-person use of the original records in the Textual Research Room has consistently increased. Despite the Federal furlough in FY19 that closed the facility, over 700 textual researchers examined 2,622 boxes of materials. In addition, 343 visitors used the Public Access Computers and examined micro?lm. While NARA has attempted to digitize some of the archival records, very few are accessible online. partnership with amilySearch to digitize records has also not resulted in actual online access to records that have been prioritized by stakeholders. NARA's mission statement reads: ?Our mission is to provide public access to Federal Government records in our custody and control. Public access to government records strengthens democracy by allowing Americans to claim their rights of citizenship, hold their government accountable, and understand their history so they can participate more effectively in their government.? We agree with our concerned constituents that the proposed move will not allow NARA to meet the requirements of their mission. In fact, as the president of the Alaska Historical Society stated, ?the proposal to further divide the collection between locations in Southern California and Missouri would make research a logistic nightmare and far more ?nancially burdensome than it already is currently.? The proposal to close this facility and to move the archival records to the NARA facility in Riverside, California and the records in storage to Kansas City, Missouri elicits many questions and would create a signi?cant hardship for state agencies, Indian tribes, researchers, students, and other individuals in Alaska, Washington, Idaho, and Oregon who would have to travel farther and at greater expense to access these records. Finally, we have not received information regarding the impacts the facility?s closure would have upon its current employees who have ably served constituents from each of our states in accessing and assembling key historical materials. While the statutory mission of the PBRB may be con?ned to maximizing revenue from the sale of real property, we are unaware of any prohibition of public disclosure of the human impacts of this proposal, and PBRB should also take into account and publicly quantify the impacts on the facility?s staff. It has not done so in its recommendations. It is now role to either approve or disapprove the recommendations presented in toto. Should OMB reject the recommendations, the entire PBRB process will come to a halt. While we recognize that the normal statutory process imposed upon the General Services Administration for disposal of federal properties can sometimes be onerous, we believe that the process used by the PBRB to identify and recommend properties for expedited disposal was ?awed and, in the case of Seattle facility, will have detrimental impacts in our states. For those reasons, we respectfully ask you to reject the recommendations and work with us and other Members of Congress to re?authorize the PBRB with clearer requirements to identify the properties that would bene?t from expedited sale and redevelopment, increase transparency of the process for stakeholders, and invite wider input before the recommendations become ?nal. Sincerely, M'urkowski Maria Cantwell United States Senator United States Senator $23 NW Patty United States Senator United States Senator ?mw Ron Wyden United States Senator J'mtiEg?, ch i Unite ates Senate fir/M} United States Senator ?\wt, Al.? 17*" - - [fr .1 any? vmlx?a?/? wkfi?kix I . an DelBene Repr tentative Derek Kilnj'e?i?} nta . .v QM Representative Adam Smith Wsentati/e/ Denny Heck x57 4 4ft i Representative Pramila Jayapal [Representatfvg Kim Schrier, M.D. WYW ep sentative Jaime Herrera Beutler Representative Rick: Larsen mawwvm .WWAA. F. fwim - .3. A. 1/ IMAV (/64 FAQ a Iv 7 old}: