A Converation with Bruce Craig

Bryan Le Beau

As part of our continuing series of interviews with historians, Bryan Le Beau spoke with Bruce Craig, Director of the National Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of History (NCC), about the challenges of lobbying on Capitol Hill on behalf of historians and the history profession.

Bryan Le Beau (BL): When was the NCC created and why?

Bruce Craig (BC): The NCC has been in existence for about twenty years, and is designed to be the voice on Capitol Hill for the historical and archival community. It developed during the time period when there was considerable concern about the future of jobs for historians and archivists. The organization has evolved over time to focus on a variety of different issues of interest to the historical community, including specific pieces of legislation as well as appropriations for a variety of federal agencies like the National Archives, the National Park Service, the Smithsonian, and, most recently, the Department of Education.

BL: So you're a voice for these groups, but you also gather information and keep us in the profession informed as to what's going on?

BC: Yes. I spend a large part of my time culling through dozens of newsletters and newspapers. Through the weekly NCC Washington Update I try to keep the profession informed about the issues that touch upon history and archives.

BL: Let's go back and talk a little bit about your educational background and previous work experience.

BC: I have a bachelor of arts in history and archeology from California State University, Northridge. I went to UC, Santa Barbara, where I was a member of the first class of public historical studies under Robert Kelly, and that's where I did my master's work. After a ten or fifteen year hiatus of work in the "real world," I started on my doctorate at American University, where I studied the history of espionage. I finished my dissertation in 1999. In terms of my work experience, I actually began work as an intern at the National Archives in Laguna Niguel, where I had exposure to a number of different collections. One of them was the International Boundary Water Commission. I worked on a preliminary inventory for that collection. I also did some work on District Court and Presidential records. In 1976 I went to work for the National Park Service as a ranger interpreter. I served as a park ranger historian at the Boston National Historical Park, and then went to Channel Islands National Park in California, where I served as chief of interpretation. While at Channel Islands, I won the Freeman Tilden Award for Outstanding National Park Interpretation, and as a result of winning that national award, the Park Service sent me to Harper's Ferry to teach at the Mather Training Center. I taught there for four or five years. After a decade of service with the federal government, I decided that I did not want to work for the federal government my entire career. The opportunity came up to take a position with an advocacy organization called the National Parks and Conservation Association in Washington, DC. I became the Cultural Resources Coordinator for the organization, which is where I received my initial training and exposure to lobbying. I later served as that organization's first regional director for the northeast region and then Director of Federal Activities--where I supervised the organization's lobbyists. From there I became Executive Director of a group called the Conference of National Park Cooperating Associations, which is the umbrella group for the nonprofit groups and friends organizations that sell books and interpretive publications in national parks and forests and other federal land management agency visitors' centers. I did that for a couple of years and then served as Executive Director of a land conservancy called the National Park Trust. I worked as a history consultant for about a year or two and briefly returned to the Park Service at Gettysburg National Military Park. Then I got a phone call from Page Putnam Miller, and she wondered whether or not I had an interest in leaving the Park Service yet again to work with the National Coordinating Committee. I thought about it for a little bit of time, and then threw my hat in the ring and ultimately was selected for the position and started in May of last year. So I've been here now for about a year.

BL: What appears to tie all of these various jobs together is an interest in public history.

BC: Yes. Bob Kelly started the public history program, and my interest had always been in the practice of history in the nonacademic sector. That's not to say that I haven't done teaching on the side, which I have. I taught at Ventura College and at Shepherd College in West Virginia, and I am currently working on a history and policy course for American University as well. I certainly think that practitioners of public history have an obligation to pass their skills and knowledge on to students. But it is definitely a separate career line in terms of doing public history versus working in the academic sphere. They're both rewarding, but I find that public history satisfies a particular internal need for me.

BL: Okay, how do you do your job? Take us through a typical day in your life at the NCC.

BC: Well, on a typical day I arrive at the office and find a number of messages on my phone that have to be responded to. I do try to return all my phone messages within the day. I download all my e-mail, which is usually thirty to fifty messages a day. They include requests for specific documents, or information, usually that is discussed in the NCC Washington Update. I then spend probably about half of my day researching and writing the Update, as well as pulling together materials relating to columns for different publications. In addition to the NCC Update, I write a column for the OAH Newsletter, the AHA's Perspectives, the SAA newsletter, and I occasionally get requests for other articles to be done as well. A good portion of my typical week is spent sitting at a computer culling through information and writing. Every once in awhile, I am called upon to draft a piece of legislation or comment on legislation. I've appeared a couple of times before a variety of congressional committees to provide comments on behalf of the profession relating to appropriations or authorizing legislation. I must say, also, a good percentage of the time I'm basically doing advocacy work behind the scenes. Washington tends to be more a city of conversation than a city of reading.

BL: With all of the issues you face each day, do you have to be selective in what you choose to pursue?

BC: Yes, it is a small office, and time is limited. Every once in awhile, given the nature of Capitol Hill, there will be an issue that is totally unexpected that we have to deal with. I probably spend twenty to thirty percent of my time working on those issues--new issues, crisis issues, or emergency issues--where something has developed that cannot be anticipated. So it's a matter of moving, deviating from the established work plan in order to be flexible and meet the changing and emerging needs that seem to emerge from the profession.

BL: What are the easiest causes to deal with on Capitol Hill, and what are the most difficult causes?

BC: It varies from Congress to Congress. There are some issues that a large number of people work on over a long period of time. An example would be the budget for the National Historical Publications and Records Commission, the NHPRC. This is an organization this year, for example, that has an authorization for a budget of about ten million dollars. Last year they received an appropriation of about six million dollars, but this year the Bush administration is proposing about a thirty-one percent cut. Here, you're dealing with an issue where you're just seeking a couple of million dollars for a very small, innocuous, but important agency--where viewed from the total budget of trillions of dollars. On the other hand, Senator Byrd, Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, can set aside fifty to a hundred million dollars for history education with a minimum amount of advocacy and lobbying on our part. For example, the fifty million dollars for the teaching American history grants that came through last year was largely the result of just a handful of conversations and a couple of meetings with Senator Byrd's key staffers and people on the Appropriations Committee. So there is not necessarily a direct correlation between the amount of time that is spent on an issue and the amount of money that is generated as a result of those efforts. Appropriations is one of the things, though, that usually does take a tremendous amount of time to work, particularly when you're dealing with a number of different agencies. I follow four or five different agencies that have impact on the work of historians, curators, and archivists.

BL: Talking about history education is probably something that pushes the buttons of many people on Capitol Hill, but let's say you walk in one morning, and you pick up the phone, and there's a controversy at the National Museum of American History over an exhibit. Do you cringe when you hear this--sensing that you are going to have your head handed to you when you go up to Capitol Hill?

BC: Well, the Smithsonian is a very good example, I think, of the type of unanticipated action that emerges from time to time. We were certainly aware, for example, that Secretary Lawrence Small had plans for reorganizing parts of the Smithsonian. We were not aware of the degree of that reorganization. Then, when a number of those very large donations started to come in, it became very clear that the reorganization was somewhat tied to the Institution's revenue flow and that the future of that museum, in terms of the layout and plan, was tied to some overarching desires by the people in the main castle who want to be responsive to potential donors. I think that has turned around now with respect to the Behring and the Reynolds gifts, which are the two most controversial elements. Certainly I would be hard pressed to say that the press is not aware of what's going on with the Smithsonian in terms of those gifts.

BL: One way of looking at the Enola Gay exhibit and other similar problems that have developed in the museums, is the level of disconnect between the profession and the public. Do you find the same level or the same type of disconnect on Capitol Hill? Do you see congressmen, for example, responding from two different directions when they're talking about the public view of history versus that of the profession?

BC: I think there's a variety of different views. What I have found is that members of Congress and their staffs are very appreciative of the information that can be provided from the professional historical organizations and professional historians. For example, if there is a bill that is being considered dealing with, let's say, a Cold War theme study--where Congress is trying to put together legislation that will allow for a study of Cold War sites--they welcome input from historians, because they are the experts. They can provide the necessary insight as to which sites ought to be considered. On other issues, Congress is not so much interested in historians' views, or if they are interested, they simply take them into account but don't follow up on every recommendation. Interestingly enough, there is quite a number of history majors who work on Capitol Hill. They work in congressional offices, and I find a particular affinity for those who are familiar with history and know what it is that we're actually doing.

BL: You've written at some length on, and had some concern with, declassification policies.

BC: Declassification is a potential issue for the future. There have been a couple of declassification horror stories that we're trying to get a handle on right now and to see what the larger ramifications are. But it appears that the Bush administration is not going to be as strong an advocate for declassification as the Clinton administration. One of the issues that we would be very concerned about, of course, is if there was any attempt to make major changes to the Executive Order that President Clinton put into place in terms of declassification. Right now that does not seem to be the case, and agencies are moving forward with declassification, however slowly.

BL: Are there any other issues that you see on the horizon, with which we should be concerned?

BC: Well, I certainly think that the defection of Senator Jeffords is going to change the nature of how Congress works for the rest of this congressional session. In light of the Senate being controlled by the Democrats, the appropriations for different historical organizations, entities, and functions is likely to be far better than it would have been if the Republicans were in control of the Senate. I think there's going to be a handful of legislative initiatives that are going to be introduced for the creation of a couple of new historical areas in the National Park Service--the Steel Industry National Historical Park, for example, and the Abel and Mary Nicholson House, (a historic site associated with the Quaker settlement in the United States). A couple of other issues that we're going to watch is the Historian of the House position and the History of the House Project. Those are two things that Congress initiated last year and appear to be moving forward. But I'd say that probably most of my time, in terms of legislative activities, is going to be focusing on the educational initiatives, appropriations initiatives, and some of the specific matters dealing with freedom of information and copyright.

Bryan Le Beau holds the John C. Kenefick Faculty Chair in the Humanities at Creighton University. He is also the host of the public radio program, Talking History.