March 2023

Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic Documentation March 13–14, 2023


Committee Members

  • James Goldgeier, Chairman
  • Kristin Hoganson
  • Sharon Leon
  • Nancy McGovern
  • Timothy Naftali
  • Deborah Pearlstein

Office of the Historian

  • Kristin Ahlberg
  • Carl Ashley
  • Margaret Ball
  • Forrest Barnum
  • Sara Berndt
  • Josh Botts
  • Tiffany Cabrera
  • Mandy Chalou
  • Elizabeth Charles
  • Kathryn David
  • Thomas Faith
  • David Geyer
  • Renée Goings
  • Michelle Guzman
  • Charles Hawley
  • Kerry Hite
  • Adam Howard
  • Virginia Kinniburgh
  • Michael McCoyer
  • Brad Morith
  • Christopher Morrison
  • Mircea Munteanu
  • David Nickles
  • Nicole Orphanides
  • Paul Pitman
  • Alexander Poster
  • Kathleen Rasmussen
  • Matthew Regan
  • Amanda Ross
  • Seth Rotramel
  • Daniel Rubin
  • Ashley Schofield
  • Nathaniel Smith
  • Melissa Jane Taylor
  • Chris Tudda
  • Dean Weatherhead
  • Joseph Wicentowski
  • Alexander Wieland
  • James Wilson
  • Louise Woodroofe

Bureau of Administration

  • Jeff Charlston
  • Timothy Kootz
  • Marvin Russell
  • Eric Stein

National Archives and Records Administration

  • Cathleen Brennan
  • Elizabeth Fidler
  • William Fischer
  • David Langbart
  • Don McIlwain


  • Over 30 members of the public

Open Session, March 13

Presentation on Foreign Relations, 1969–1976, Volume E-15, Part 2, Documents on Western Europe, 1973–1976, Second, Revised Edition

Goldgeier called the session to order at 10 a.m. and welcomed attendees, virtual and in-person. Howard provided a brief introduction of the upcoming session, discussing Rasmussen’s role as General Editor of the FRUS series and the various volumes she worked on during her time in OH.

Rasmussen explained the backstory of the Italy compilation and its place within the 1973–76 Western Europe volume and the broader the Nixon-Ford subseries. Due to declassification issues, the Italy chapter was not included in the first edition of the Western Europe volume, published in 2014. With the publication of the Italy chapter in February 2021, the Western Europe volume was now complete as a “second, revised edition.” Rasmussen explained the volume’s history as an “e-pub,” a unique FRUS publication format of the Nixon-Ford subseries as a product of a late-1990s efforts by OH and HAC to reimagine the Foreign Relations series.

Rasmussen provided an overview of the Western Europe 1973–76 volume, and she pointed out that complementary coverage of U.S.-Western European relations appears in the European Security volume; two Energy Crisis volumes; the 1973 Arab-Israeli Crisis and War; Southern Africa; Greece, Cyprus, and Turkey; and Foreign Economic Policy (FEP) which she also compiled. Rasmussen noted her prior work on FEP facilitated her planning for the Western Europe volume and allowed her to triage the assignment of issues to one volume or another.

The completed Western Europe volume consists of nine compilations. The first chapter documents the approach that the Nixon and Ford administrations adopted toward the region as a whole, covering such topics as the Year of Europe, NATO, EC, and the rise of Eurocommunism. Then it includes the bilateral relations with Canada, Portugal, the Nordic countries of Norway and Iceland, Spain, the United Kingdom, West Germany, France, and Italy. For some countries, the requirement for selectivity meant that the resulting compilations are small (e.g., Norway/Iceland). The largest bilateral compilation, covering Portugal, features 56 documents, mainly on the Azores basing rights and the U.S. reaction to the April 1974 “Carnation Revolution” military coup that deposed the ruling Estado Novo regime, including U.S. efforts to influence Lisbon overtly and covertly.

Turning to the Italy compilation itself, Rasmussen stated that it consists of 39 documents focused on U.S. concerns about Italian political and economic stability between 1974 and 1976. Italy’s dire financial situation and the rising influence of Italian leftist parties, Rasmussen observed, left U.S. officials increasingly concerned about the country’s future direction in 1974. The Nixon and Ford administrations were particularly concerned with the prospects of a “historic compromise” between the ruling Christian Democrats and the Italian Communist Party (PCI) that might facilitate the latter’s participation in the Italian Government. Rasmussen discussed how the Ford administration perceived of Communist participation in the Italian Government as a threat to U.S. interests, presenting challenges to NATO cohesion, and creating the potential for a ripple effect in other Western European countries.

Rasmussen explained how the compilation illustrates the Ford administration’s use of overt and covert measures to prevent the realization of the historic compromise between the Christian Democrats and the PCI. Overtly, Ford and Kissinger sought to bolster Italy’s global stature by making a high-profile visit to Rome in May 1975, supporting Italy’s inclusion in the nascent Group of Seven, and working with other Western European countries to support Italian economic stability. Then in December 1975, Ford approved a $4.87 million phased covert action program to support Italy’s democratic parties and undermine the influence of the PCI. However, the program soon encountered problems, including media accounts alleging CIA support for anti-Communist Italian politicians that prompted Director of Central Intelligence William Colby to issue a public denial and Kissinger to direct the Ambassador in Rome to refrain from spending on the program. On February 9, 1976, Ford suspended the covert action program, only to approve a more limited plan in May, as the situation deteriorated with the approaching June general election. The June elections resulted in a Christian Democrat-led minority government, with concessions to the PCI including leadership posts within the Italian legislature. Rasmussen concluded that with the June 1976 election results, the Department of State projected gloomily that PCI influence would continue to grow in Italy in the years ahead.

Goldgeier thanked Rasmussen for her presentation and opened the floor for questions and answers.

Pearlstein asked if the U.S. had done any rigorous evaluation of whether its intervention in Italian electoral politics had been “worth it.” Rasmussen responded that, given U.S. assessment of the closeness of the Italian elections, the involvement was generally viewed as worthwhile as policymakers believed it had prevented the “disaster” of a communist party victory.

Langbart commented that while events of the 1970s were playing out, FRUS was documenting U.S. policy toward Italy during later 1940s. Did she find any evidence that one era had influenced another? Rasmussen noted that this was prior to the 1991 FRUS legislation, so FRUS historians would not have had access to intelligence documentation to cover the 1940s policies toward Italian elections, as she did for the 1970s. Goldgeier asked whether Rasmussen found evidence of Nixon-Ford efforts to draw upon the lessons from the 1940s in approaching the 1970s. Rasmussen found nothing specific but noted that Kissinger lamented that the Kennedy administration’s efforts pushed the Christian Democrats leftward during the 1960s.

Munteanu asked whether Nixon or Ford had developed contingency plans related to NATO in event of PCI government involvement. Rasmussen again noted that she had not found any specific documentation like this but stated that the situation in Portugal provided the U.S. Government a guide to handle a leftist government in a NATO country.

Ahlberg asked whether the e-pub format had affected Rasmussen’s research for the volume. Rasmussen responded that the e-pub affected selection but that the research conducted was the same as for print volumes.

Hoganson asked three questions: Was the Department looped into CIA planning for dealing with the Italian elections and was any dissent against administration policy recorded? She then asked whether preconceived notions or prejudices about Italy or Italians drove the U.S. approach or was it really more about communism. Lastly, she asked for a further explanation of the history of e-pubs as part of FRUS production. Starting with the last question, Rasmussen noted that e-pubs were part of a Nixon-Ford experiment to get more documents published in the series, an endeavor not repeated for the Carter subseries. The inclusion of more documents, even with less annotation, created additional burdens on declass and publishing, “gumming up the works,” and slowing overall FRUS production. As an example, she cited the two American Republics e-pubs that had 800+ documents in each and created quite a processing backup. Regarding national stereotyping in formulating Italy policy, Rasmussen noted that Kissinger’s tendency toward blunt assessments, although she recalled no specific examples. She added there had been a long history of U.S. assessment of PCI influence and tendency to see it as unique. As for Department involvement in CIA planning, Rasmussen stated that the assessment of the situation was largely an internal CIA product. On dissent, Rasmussen recalled nothing specific, but observed that Kissinger was generally frustrated and constrained by public and congressional scrutiny over covert actions.

Naftali asked about the end of the e-pub initiative and if this had an effect on document selection for future subseries. This set off a back and forth about the nature of e-pubs and the inclusion of more documents in those volumes versus traditional FRUS volumes. Goings clarified that only three e-pubs were supplemental to print volumes.

Botts asked what had been gained by waiting for the full declassification of this Italy 1973–76 compilation, including covert action documentation. Rasmussen replied that while the Office might have been compelled to publish with title-no-text for denied documents, OH and the HAC had concluded that the covert action coverage was necessary for series to meet its mandatory requirements of “thorough, accurate, and reliable.”

Goldgeier asked a series of questions relating to the connections between U.S.-Western European support for Italian membership in G–7 and efforts to counter the PCI. Rasmussen responded by walking through the chronology of the G–7’s creation including input from U.S. partners in the “Quad,” concluding that the two issues were linked. She elaborated further by observing that this case illustrated the interconnectedness of volumes in a given subseries. Often, the reader needed to consult multiple volumes to see the fullest picture of U.S. foreign relations with allied countries.

Goldgeier followed up on this by asking how users could make such connections. Rasmussen responded that this was facilitated by cross references within volume footnotes, prefaces that direct readers to related volumes, and the website’s search engine that allowed any researcher to, in essence, create a “bespoke” FRUS volume on any U.S. relationship with a foreign country.

Approval of the Record

Following the presentation by FRUS General Editor Kathleen Rasmussen, Goldgeier gave some brief opening remarks and moved for approval of the minutes from the December 2022 HAC meeting. The approval was seconded, and the motion carried unanimously.

Remarks by the Director of the Foreign Service Institute

Goldgeier next introduced the Director of the Foreign Service Institute (FSI), Ambassador Joan Polaschik, who shared the latest information regarding FRUS and OH. Polaschik began by thanking Melani McAlister for her three years of service as the HAC’s Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations representative and for her efforts on behalf of FRUS, OH, and FSI. Polaschik then turned to recent FRUS publications. In December 2022 and January 2023, OH released two newly revised former-microfiche supplements covering Eisenhower policies for China, National Security, and arms control and disarmament. She also highlighted the latest OH outreach efforts. In December 2023, OH historians gave a “tech talk” organized by the Information Resource and Management Bureau on how changing communications technologies impacted the policy and the evolution of the Department; and conducted an “Office Hours” event for the Department featuring a roundtable discussion of the Foundations of Foreign Policy volume for the Reagan FRUS series. Polaschik stressed that both sessions were well-attended and received excellent feedback. For the Department’s celebration of Black History Month, OH co-hosted the third annual Ebenezer Bassett Black History Month Lecture with the Operations Center. This year’s lecture program was entitled “From Resistance and Persistence to Impact: Celebrating the Role of Black Women in International Affairs & Honoring the Legacy of Ambassador Patricia Roberts Harris;” and included a presentation by Dr. Keisha Blain, a professor at Brown University and a panel of current and former Department officials, including FSI Deputy Director, Shelby Smith-Wilson.

Polaschik then turned to OH specific matters and announced that the OH reorganization plan received final approval on January 9, 2023, and that implementation of the plan is underway. This reorganization will allow OH to provide senior level oversight to the FRUS declassification program; to support the Secretary of State’s modernization agenda by systematically capturing and applying lessons-learned through new dedicated OH programs for this purpose; and to expand the types of history training offerings to support the culture of learning in the Department. Polaschik next introduced two new OH historians, Katherine David and Nicole Orphanides. She next reported that according to the National Defense Authorization Act, which Congress passed in December 2023, FSI is to create a new Provost position and a new Board of Visitors. The Provost will to bring new academic rigor to FSI, especially evaluation processes and curriculum development. The Board of Visitors will provide advice and feedback to FSI officials, especially with regard to current trends in national security issues and diplomacy. According to Polaschik, Congress expects FSI to have both the Provost position and the Board in place by the end of the calendar year.

Polaschik then took questions from HAC members. Goldgeier began by asking about the qualifications expectations of the Provost and the Board members. Polaschik said that the Provost should have expertise in both national security matters, including the workings of the Department, and in the education of adults. The Provost will also need to have a long-term view of the FSI learning experience. As far as the members of the Board, FSI is looking at its own gaps—for example, technology—about which new Board members will be able to offer advice and expertise. Hoganson asked Polaschik about potential challenges FSI and OH will be facing in general in meeting their goals. Polaschik said that funding and an adequate budget for necessary resources will be a continual challenge. Another challenge will be adequately balancing telework with in-office work. Recent surveys suggest some of FSI’s functions, particularly FSI language instruction, are much better done in the office and in-person. Nevertheless, the necessity of telework for some staff must also be adequately addressed. Polaschik finished by stressing that FSI and OH had the support of the Department, which has embraced a culture of learning and sees the value of what OH offers to Department efforts. Howard also weighed in on anticipated OH challenges to an expanded FSI portfolio and suggested that ongoing hires would not interrupt FRUS production.

Report by the Executive Director

Goldgeier next turned the session over to OH Director and Executive Secretary Adam Howard for his update. Howard stated that when he became Director one of his main goals was to proselytize the value of FRUS and increase its audience. He offered as examples of this promotion effort OH’s participation in January 2023 conference on declassification at the University of Texas in Austin, which was coordinated by several organizations, the Clements Center for National Security and the Lyndon B. Johnson presidential library. Howard noted that the conference was broadcast on C-SPAN. Another example Howard described was OH recent outreach to the World Affairs Council of America about possible opportunities for OH to give talks and lead discussion related to FRUS.

Report by the General Editor

Once Howard finished with his updates, Rasmussen detailed recent progress of and developments in the FRUS series. She stated that between January 9 and March 3, 2023, eight FRUS historians conducted research at the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library to work on the Bush subseries. She highlighted the trip of three FRUS historians who the Bush estate had granted access to Bush’s personal diary. According to Rasmussen, OH is planning more research trips in 2023 to the Bush, Reagan, and Clinton libraries. She announced that another FRUS volume, South America, 1981–1988, has been submitted for declassification coordination review, and with that submission, there are only nine of the fifty-two volumes of the Reagan subseries that remain to be compiled, reviewed, and submitted to the declassification process. She said of those nine volumes, two to three should be submitted this year for declassification, followed by another four to five in 2024, and the final two volumes in 2025. Rasmussen also confirmed Polaschik’s earlier report of the publication of two microfiche supplements: China, 1955–1957 on December 19, 2022; and National Security Policy, Arms Control, and Disarmament, 1958–1960 on January 24, 2023. So far, OH has published in electronic and fully text searchable form a total of 2,698 documents from these microfiche supplements and there are nine volumes of those remaining to be published in this format.

Rasmussen concluded by taking questions from HAC members and the audience. When asked by Goldgeier how confident she was about the schedule for the remaining Reagan volumes be submitted to the declassification process, she said she was very confident that all the remaining volumes will be submitted by 2025. He then asked about access to the Bush personal diary. Rasmussen explained that because it is deemed his personal diary it is not subject to the Presidential Records Act and therefore OH had to negotiate the terms of that access directly with the Bush estate. A brief discussion ensued between Goldgeier, Naftali, and Langbart about the handling of classified information of documents like a personal diary. Finally, Hoganson asked about status updates for volumes and when they are likely to be published. Rasmussen said determining that is difficult but the status of a volumes remaining to be published may be found on the OH website. She noted that currently the status of volumes through the Clinton administration are on the website. Goings added that with OH’s efforts to incorporate new technology into the declassification process, they hope to further streamline that process and shorten the window between a volume’s declassification submission and its publication. She stressed that the addition of new OH staff, particularly in the declassification division, will also help in shortening the declassification and publication process. Additional remarks pointed out that an increase in declass staff would give the declass team more time to research what has been declassified previously, alleviating the burden of research on other agencies during the review process.

There were no further questions from the HAC members or the audience and Goldgeier adjoined the meeting for a lunch break.

Closed Session, March 13

Report from the National Declassification Center (NDC)

HAC chairman James Goldgeier welcomed William Fischer of the NDC to the HAC. Fischer began by saying that the NDC sees OH and the HAC as partners and that he feels among friends. He stated that the past year has been a year of transition back to the office following the pandemic-related closures. The NDC faced two major backlogs: a Quality Assurance review backlog which was completed by the end of 2022 and a Presidential Mandatory Declassification Review (MDR) and FOIA backlog. On the latter, the NDC made progress, but is not caught up. Fischer commended the hard work and dedication of the NDC staff and management team as a major reason for accomplishing as much as they were able to accomplish. Fischer then presented on topics of interest to the HAC.

On the issue of consolidating the Classified Presidential Records, Fischer reported that nothing has changed as far as Presidential libraries were concerned and that there are no definitive dates for the moves. The only move scheduled to Archives II College Park is of a small number of files from the Hoover, FDR, and Truman administrations that are presently held at Archives I.

On the issue of RAC/STAIRS, Fischer told the HAC that the NDC inherited the system in December 2019 and that they have not yet finalized the process of obtaining the necessary certifications to use the system. While he believed the NDC was close to getting internal-NARA permissions prior to requesting Authority to Operate (ATO), he offered no timetable for when the system might be usable. A lengthy conversation about the role of the RAC and the usefulness of the system to OH researchers and NARA archivists followed. Goings noted that OH tried to provide some funding to keep the RAC/STAIRS process going but that it was unsuccessful.

Fischer reported that the P and N Reel review was advancing well and that the 1980 review of P Reels was completed. There were still challenges to be met—including a review, and that CIA and Energy still need to do a review of their equities before the files can be released.

There still is a FOIA and MDR review backlog. The Federal agencies FOIA and MDR backlog is lower than the Presidential records backlog. Naftali asked if Fischer had a sense of how many cases, on average an archivist could process in a year. He then asked what strategies the NDC would employ to tackle the 10,000 cases in the backlog. Fischer noted that the NDC needs intellectual control over what documents it has and that each library has a different system of counting and tracking cases. He needed time and resources in order to understand where they are and how much they can do. Naftali said that NARA should make it clear to researchers that no requests filed now will receive a timely answer because of the backlog. Fischer noted that even if NARA did everything right, other agencies still need to complete their reviews.

Regarding revisions to EO 13526, Fischer noted that the White House is focused on Special Access issues at this time. When the focus shifts to declassification, the NDC will be involved in the discussion.

Responding to questions about guidelines issued to reviewers, Fischer noted that MDR documents are being “consulted out,” with interagency partners making their own decisions based on ISCAP guidelines. As far as exceptions to review are concerned, ISCAP has narrow exemptions and the NDC was reviewing those claims systematically. If an agency has claimed an invalid exemption, that exemption can be lifted.

Briefing by the Director of the Office of Information Programs and Services (IPS)

Goldgeier welcomed Timothy Kootz of the Agency Records Office to provide updates on the Department of State’s records program. Kootz began his remarks explaining he would focus on a few initiatives the Agency Records Office were undertaking.

The first initiative he spoke on was the NARA campaign to transition to electronic records. He informed the HAC that this transition would be extended until June 30, 2024, allowing for more time for permanent paper records to be transferred to NARA. He remarked that even if the records have not transferred to NARA by June 30, 2024, they can still be accepted in paper form if they are in the pipeline before the June deadline. He noted that over 23,000 cubic feet of permanent records were in the pipeline to be transferred, one set of 3,440 cubic feet of permanent records that are currently eligible for transfer to NARA and another 20,400 cubic feet of permanent records that will be stored in the federal records centers until they are eligible to be transferred.

The second initiative was the Office’s Annual Reporting. He noted that public reports will be released soon about strategic records initiatives, and electronic records and email management (FEREM). He noted that links to these reports would soon be available online.

The next initiative was the Office’s pilot program for capturing electronic messaging and text capture. As of now, the Agency Records Office is working with vendors to identify software that would automatically capture text messages on officially issued government phones for select Department of State Officials, both text messages sent through mobile carriers as well as through text messaging apps like Signal and WhatsApp. The pilot program will kick off in April and will be targeted to “Capstone” personnel in the Department of State—individuals who have already been identified as senior officials whose records need to be archived and who have been issued Department of State phones. These users already have automatic capture in place with their e-mail, this pilot program would put it into place for text messages and text messaging apps like Signal and WhatsApp.

Leon asked Kootz how incoming messages, not just outgoing messages, would be captured using this technology. Kootz responded that some mobile carriers already have this technology to capture incoming text messages. He then added that one of the issues with archiving text messages and WhatsApp threads in particular is how to thread texts and messages together to ensure that all texts about the same conversation are included. Kootz noted that he is looking forward to briefing us about how the April pilot program of text capture goes at the next HAC.

Deborah Pearlstein asked whether this text message capture solution will only apply to government-issued phones. Kootz answered that yes, this will only apply to government-issued phones, elaborating that they have a list of phone numbers officially issued by the Department of State and these are the phones this program will apply to. Pearlstein asked a follow-up question about how long a user will have this on their phone, considering what will happen if people switch roles. Kootz answered that this speaks to a larger question of how the government maintains phone numbers and assigns them to individuals. He then added that the Agency Records Offices does not anticipate that this program will be costly.

Goldgeier asked who are the people that will be part of this program. Is it the same as Capstone individuals whose e-mails are captured already. Kootz answered that Goldgeier was correct.

Kootz then moved on to discussing another initiative, the Agency Records Office resubmission proposal for Capstone. Kootz explained that the Department is not anticipating substantial changes to the roles that are considered for Capstone and is not proposing a significant reduction or increase. He also explained that his office is working with the Office of the Historian to make sure the correct people are included. Goings then expressed her appreciation that the Agency Records Office had reached out to OH on this project. Kootz then added that while they were not significantly changing what positions are included in Capstone, there are new titles that will need to be included, reflecting new offices established for topics like Cybersecurity and Climate Change.

Pearlstein then asked Kootz if his office had made any progress on the ongoing issue with those designated as “Acting” in senior level positions and how their records were being archived.

Kootz answered that the situation continues to be complicated. The Capstone system is based on position and the unique position number assigned to the position that a person encumbers, but when an individual is in an “Acting” position they do not get a new position number and it becomes harder for the system to recognize that change in role. They are trying to apply Capstone status to people designated as “Acting” retroactively to address this issue. He noted that one metric they look at is date of tenure and that they can reprocess records if they find dates of tenure do not match up.

Pearlstein added that the ability to go back and reclassify records opens up the possibility of working with historians and other experts after the fact to reconstitute which records should be identified in Capstone in the situation of someone with an “acting” role.

Naftali asked to clarify whether it was just Capstone individuals who will be having their text messages captured in the pilot program. Kootz responded that if the pilot proves successful then the next phase will be implementation for the 800 identified Capstone individuals. These individuals already have an expectation of capture for e-mails, the pilot program will extend this to text messages.

Naftali then asked a follow-up question about whether Department of State personnel classify their own e-mails, as in choosing whether their emails should be marked as classified or not. Kootz responded that yes. Decisions about whether an e-mail is classified come from the sender of the e-mail, any Department of State employee. But they are also looking into AI tools that could verify whether an e-mail should be marked as classified or not.

Goldgeier mentioned a recent conference regarding declassification, where the twin challenges of over-classification and lack of resources were discussed.

Kootz agreed that over-classification is a challenge. He brought up emerging technologies that can help people not over classify. He referenced AI and machine learning. The capabilities exist today in unclassified systems. Kootz explained that Eric Stein will discuss this issue in his talk the following day.

Kootz moved on to the topic of overseas record-keeping compliance. His office has hired eight new people to confront this issue. He noted that the Department wants to mitigate the mass destruction of records due to contingency events and noted the example of what happened in Afghanistan in 2021.

Next Kootz discussed eRecords. He acknowledged the lack of a Top Secret capability for eRecords. These records have been captured, but they are not searchable and easily retrieved. A request to solve this issue is in for FY 2025, but he hopes funds will be available sooner.

Kootz then discussed the release of new annual training for records management. He wanted to revise the training to include more modern delivery methods. The new version should be ready by the end of the month. The new training will address how to properly maintain records, in addition to why such maintenance is important.

Next, Kootz brought up record disposition schedules. He reviewed the backlog of domestic schedules and how those have been cleared. He then asked the HAC members what their concern was about “big bucket” records schedules. Kristian Hoganson asked why “big bucket” schedules are better and what will they mean for researchers if used. Kootz admitted they weren’t a perfect approach, but individuals who are retiring records have difficulty with the granular level. People make more errors when confronted with more options. Hoganson suggested an assessment to see if “big bucket” schedules are better. Kootz reported that, at least anecdotally, that the benefits are evident in the Capstone project. Since in this program, everything is retained. With a granular approach, mistakes can be made and the process can take more time. Kootz then discussed electronic content and changing “big bucket” schedules to improve collection. He emphasized flexibility in record schedules and to account for different interests.

Goldgeier closed the session at 3:00 p.m.

Closed Session, March 14

Briefing from Global Information Services

Deputy Assistant Secretary Eric Stein began his briefing by stating that frequent updates to the HAC would be resuming shortly. He then answered questions provided by the committee, including the organizational structure of IPS. In terms of FRUS declassification, Stein stated that IPS is positioned well to continue work on this. He also addressed issues related to classification reviews, the IPS move to Charleston, and the new Executive Order on declassification, which is currently being developed.