HR-10131-119
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Sponsored by Kevin Mullin (D-CA)
What it does
This bill would amend federal law to prohibit the Archivist of the United States from closing federal records centers or archive facilities that existed before enactment, or imposing unreasonable restrictions on public access to them. It would also bar the Archivist from renovating or converting such facilities if doing so would require relocating records for more than 180 days.
Who benefits
Researchers, genealogists, historians, journalists, and members of the public who rely on physical access to federal records held at existing records centers. Employees at those facilities whose jobs would be protected from consolidation-driven layoffs, and local communities and businesses near the facilities that benefit from their continued operation and staffing.
Who is hurt
The National Archives and Records Administration would lose flexibility to consolidate, modernize, or close outdated or underused facilities, potentially increasing maintenance costs for older buildings. Taxpayers could bear higher costs if inefficient facilities must stay open, and the Archivist's ability to respond to budget constraints, digitization trends, or facility deterioration would be constrained.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that federal records centers hold irreplaceable historical, legal, and genealogical records that citizens, veterans, and researchers depend on, and that past closures or consolidations have reduced public access without adequate notice or alternatives. They contend that a firm statutory prohibition, rather than agency discretion, is needed to ensure the Archivist cannot unilaterally shutter facilities or leave records inaccessible during lengthy renovations.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that locking facility decisions into statute removes the Archivist's ability to manage an aging real estate portfolio efficiently, potentially forcing continued spending on underused or deteriorating buildings that could otherwise be consolidated or modernized. They contend that as digitization expands access to records online, rigid restrictions on closures and renovation timelines may waste taxpayer resources without meaningfully improving public access.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause to structure how executive agencies like the National Archives operate, including limiting an agency head's administrative discretion through statute; this does not implicate removal-power doctrine since it constrains operational decisions rather than the President's authority to remove the Archivist.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain control over an operational decision (facility closures) previously left to executive discretion, narrowing the Archivist's administrative authority, with no direct check on Congress's action beyond ordinary legislative repeal.
Historical precedent
Congress has periodically restricted agency discretion over facility closures in other contexts, such as statutory limits on military base closures outside the BRAC process, though no direct precedent specifically addresses NARA records center closures.