IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
__________________________________________ 
ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., ) 
Plaintiffs, 
v. Case No. 1:96CV01285 
(Judge Lamberth) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
GALE A. NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, et al., ) 
) 
Defendants. )
) 
__________________________________________ ) 
DEFENDANTS' EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY PRELIMINARY 
INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL AND FOR EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION 
Pursuant to Rule 7(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rule 7, 
Defendants respectfully move this Court for an order staying the preliminary injunction entered 
by the Court on March 15, 2004 (Dkt. No. 2531) ("March 2004 PI"), pending Defendants' appeal 
to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Further, because the 
preliminary injunction has already caused great harm to the public's interests and continues to 
cause great harm, Defendants respectfully request expedited consideration of this motion. 
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(m), counsel for the Defendants conferred with Plaintiffs' counsel 
on March 22, 2004, regarding this motion, and Plaintiffs' counsel stated that Plaintiffs would 
oppose this motion. 
I. The Court's March 15, 2004 Preliminary Injunction Should Be 
Stayed Because It Was Issued Without Any Legal Basis 
The issuance of the March 2004 PI was without any legal basis. As is explained below, 
the March 2004 PI is legally deficient for at least four reasons. 
- 1 -
First, this is an action to compel an accounting under the American Indian Trust Fund 
Management Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 103-412, 108 Stat. 4239 (1994) ("1994 Act"). The 1994 
Act provides that "[t]he Secretary shall account for the daily and annual balance of all funds held 
in trust by the United States for the benefit of an Indian tribe or an individual Indian which are 
deposited or invested pursuant to the Act of June 24, 1938 (25 U.S.C. 162a)." Pub. L. No. 103- 
412, § 102(a). Nothing in the 1994 Act permits the Court to sever the Department of the 
Interior’s electronic communications to promote data security. 
Following this Court's entry of its September 25, 2003 injunction, which purported to 
assert control over virtually all accounting and trust operations (to be overseen by a Monitor and 
agents with unlimited powers of access), Congress responded by enacting legislation. Public 
Law Number 108-108 provides that "nothing in the American Indian Trust Management Reform 
Act of 1994, Public Law 103-412, or in any other statute, and no principle of common law, shall 
be construed or applied to require the Department of the Interior to commence or continue 
historical accounting activities with respect to the Individual Indian Money Trust," absent new 
legislation or the lapse of Public Law Number 108-108 on December 31, 2004. Pub. L. No. 108- 
108, 117 Stat. 1241, 1263 (2003). Insofar as the March 2004 PI purports to continue to require 
Interior to undertake steps to commence or continue historical accounting activities, such 
requirements are unauthorized by law in light of Public Law Number 108-108.1 
Second, the Court's entry of the March 2004 PI was contrary to Federal Rule of Civil 
Procedure 65 and Local Civil Rule 65.1 in that it was entered following none of the process 
1 Of course, to the extent the March 2004 PI purports to require steps unrelated to the 
accounting activities, it is beyond any legal basis recognized for this litigation either by this 
Court or the D.C. Circuit. 
- 2 -
provided in those rules. Plaintiffs filed no motion with the Court requesting the issuance of the 
March 2004 PI, and while Plaintiffs undoubtedly welcomed the Court's sua sponte efforts, the 
Court's actions wrongfully deprived Defendants of any opportunity to be heard before the Court 
ordered the Department of the Interior to undergo the disruptive, expensive, and harmful process 
of disconnecting virtually all of its Internet connections for the third time in slightly over two 
years. See generally Temporary Restraining Order (Dec. 5, 2001) (Dkt. No. 1036) (amended by 
Order (Dec. 6, 2001) (Dkt. No. 1038)); July 28, 2003 Preliminary Injunction ("July 2003 PI") 
It is fundamental that before a party is subject to a preliminary injunction, it has the right 
to receive specific notice of the proposed order and the right to be heard. Thus, Rule 65 
specifically provides that "[n]o preliminary injunction shall be issued without notice to the 
adverse party." Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1). In this case, however, the Court issued the March 2004 
PI on its own, thus denying Defendants any opportunity to be heard before the public suffered the 
damages of yet another court-ordered shutdown. 
Third, in response to the July 2003 PI, Interior officials submitted voluminous 
certifications, under penalty of perjury,2 explaining in detail why Individual Indian Trust Data 
(“IITD”) was not at risk on Information Technology (“IT”) systems that remained connected to 
the Internet. This Court apparently refused to consider these certifications on the ground that the 
certifications were purportedly "procedurally" invalid. Each of the government's certifications 
stated that "I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of 
my knowledge, information, and belief." The Court concluded that this language deviated from 
2 The Court’s statement that “agency representatives refused to certify to the security of 
their systems under penalty of perjury,” Memo. Op. at 11, is incorrect. 
- 3 -
the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1746 and Local Civil Rule 5.1(h) because they included the 
words "to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief." See Memo. Op. at 9-11. 
By their terms, 28 U.S.C. § 1746 and Local Civil Rule 5.1(h) apply only where "under 
any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to 
law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported . . . by the sworn declaration, 
verification, [or] certificate . . . of [a] person . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 1746 (emphasis added); see also 
Local Civil Rule 5.1(h). No statute, regulation, or rule required the "certifications" here to be 
executed under oath, and this Court cited none. Moreover, both the statute and the local rule 
provide that a certification meets applicable requirements if it is substantially in the form of the 
language set forth in those provisions, i.e., "I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing 
is true and correct." A declaration or certification "to the best of" the declarant's knowledge, 
information, and belief is plainly sufficient under the statute and the rule, and also under the 
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. See United States v. Roberts, 308 F.3d 
1147, 1154-55 (11th Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 123 S. Ct. 2232 (2003) (false statement attested to 
as "correct and true to the best of my knowledge and belief" was substantially in the form 
provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1746); Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865, 872 (2d Cir. 1995) (reversing 
summary judgment against plaintiff because verified complaint "attesting under penalty of 
perjury that the statements in the complaint were true to the best of his knowledge" was sufficient 
under Rule 56). 
Furthermore, the July 2003 PI required only that the certifications made to the Court were 
to comply with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See July 2003 PI, ¶ B.1(b). 
Rule 11 governs the signing of pleadings, not evidentiary submissions by witnesses, and nothing 
- 4 -
in the Rule would, in any event, support the imposition of the requirement now announced by the 
Court. To the contrary, to the extent Rule 11 is of any arguable relevance, it provides that 
"[e]xcept when otherwise specifically provided by rule or statute, pleadings need not be verified 
or accompanied by affidavit." Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). No rule or statute imposes a specific 
requirement of this kind with respect to the certifications submitted to the Court here pursuant to 
the July 2003 Order. 
Finally, the Court's Memorandum Opinion apparently recognizes that Defendants' appeal 
of the July 2003 PI creates a jurisdictional impediment to the issuance of the March 2004 PI. 
Thus, the Court implicitly criticizes Defendants for appealing the July 2003 PI "[i]n late 
September 2003, before this Court had made its determinations as to whether any systems should 
remain connected or be disconnected . . . ."3 Memo. Op. at 8. Nevertheless, the Court asserts 
that while "the normal rule is that a party's filing of a notice of appeal divests the district court of 
jurisdiction over the matters being appealed," its efforts to replace or supercede the July 2003 PI 
are authorized by Rule 62(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Memo. Op. at 8 n.10 
(citing Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982)). As explained 
below, Rule 62(c) does not provide authority for the issuance of the March 2004 PI. 
While Rule 62(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally provides for an 
automatic stay of efforts to enforce an appealed judgment, there is no automatic stay in injunctive 
actions. Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary K. Kane, 11 Federal Practice and 
Procedure § 2904, at 498 (1995). As a result, absent a court order, a party that appeals an 
3 In fact, Defendants filed their Notice of Appeal near the end of the sixty-day period 
allowed for filing notices of appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b). Had Defendants delayed their filing 
by even a few days, the Notice of Appeal would have been untimely. 
- 5 -
adverse injunction remains subject to that injunction during the pendency of the appeal. Id. ("If 
no stay has been obtained, an injunction that the district court has granted remains in effect."). 
Contrary to the Court's conclusion that Rule 62(c) provides it with the authority to issue 
substantive injunctive relief that supercedes or replaces the matters addressed by the July 2003 
PI, Rule 62(c) simply provides that the district court retains limited powers with regard to a 
preliminary injunction that has been appealed. By its terms, once a preliminary injunction has 
been appealed, Rule 62(c) limits the matters left within the district court's power: 
When an appeal is taken from an interlocutory or final judgment 
granting, dissolving, or denying an injunction, the court in its 
discretion may suspend, modify, restore, or grant an injunction 
during the pendency of the appeal upon such terms as to bond or 
otherwise as its considers proper for the security of the rights of the 
adverse party. 
Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(c) (emphasis added).4 Thus, Rule 62(c) does not provide a district court with 
the authority to revisit the substantive issues addressed in the preliminary injunction under 
appeal, as the March 2004 PI does by expressly superceding and replacing the July 2003 PI. Rule 
62(c) is addressed to matters of bonds and other forms of security for a party during the pendency 
of an appeal. Indeed, if a district court retained authority to revisit substantive matters under 
appeal, it could effectively moot any appeal by withdrawing the injunction on appeal and 
replacing it with another injunction. Such a process would be inimical to the fundamental 
concepts of due process and a party's right to seek appellate review. 
4 Wright, Miller & Kane explain that "[Rule 62(c)], taken together with Rule 62(g), 
codifies the inherent power of courts to make whatever order is deemed necessary to preserve the 
status quo and to ensure the effectiveness of the eventual judgment. Any order of this kind that 
the court makes is to be 'upon such terms as to bond or otherwise as it considers proper for the 
security rights of the adverse party.'" Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary K. Kane, 11 
Federal Practice and Procedure § 2904, at 500 (1995) (footnotes omitted). 
- 6 -
The Court relies upon three cases for the proposition that it possesses jurisdiction to issue 
the March 2004 PI. None of these three cases authorizes the revisitation by the district court of 
substantive matters which are the subject of an appeal. In Venen v. Sweet, 758 F.2d 117 (3d Cir. 
1985), the appellate court expressly stated: 
As a general rule, the timely filing of a notice of appeal is 
an event of jurisdictional significance, immediately conferring 
jurisdiction on a Court of Appeals and divesting a district court of 
its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal. 
"Divest" means what it says – the power to act, in all but a limited 
number of circumstances, has been taken away and placed 
elsewhere. 
758 F.2d at 120-21 (citing Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982), 
and United States v. Leppo, 634 F.2d 101, 104 (3d Cir. 1980)) (footnote omitted) (emphasis 
added). The Venen Court further described in a footnote to the above quotation the "limited 
number of circumstances" as to which the district courts retain jurisdiction: applications for 
attorney's fees, matters governed by Rules 7 and 8 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, 
record on appeal issues, bail bond and arrest orders. 758 F.2d at 120 n.2. The Court further 
stated: 
Although we do not suggest that these are the only circumstances 
in which a district court retains power to act, we reiterate that the 
instances in which such power is retained are limited. 
Id. (emphasis added). 
The Court also relies upon Securities Industry Ass'n v. Board of Governors, 628 F. Supp. 
1438 (D.D.C. 1986), but the issue before the district court was simply whether the court 
possessed personal jurisdiction over one of the defendants, Bankers Trust. Id. at 1440. There, 
the district court observed that while a notice of appeal normally divests the district court of 
- 7 -
jurisdiction, "that rule does not obtain in a case such as this one, where a party has filed a timely 
motion under Rule 59 to amend a judgment." Id. at 1440 n.1 (citing, inter alia, Fed. R. App. P. 
4(a)). Of course, that exception has no application in this case. 
Finally, the Court relies upon Board of Education v. Missouri, 936 F.2d 993 (8th Cir. 
1991), as providing authority for the granting of "substantial injunctive relief during the 
pendency of an appeal in an education desegregation case because the court of appeals believed 
that the nature of the district court's ongoing supervision over the integration of vocational 
educational programs required it to retain the broadest discretion possible." Memo. Op. at 8-9 
n.10. In contrast to the school desegregation case before the Eighth Circuit, however, this Court's 
issuance of the July 2003 PI did not transform this matter into a case in which the Court is 
"supervis[ing] a continuing course of conduct." 936 F.2d at 996 (quoting Hoffman v. Beer 
Drivers & Salesmen's Local Union No. 888, 536 F.2d 1268, 1276 (9th Cir. 1976)). In fact, the 
statement about the district court's retention of "broad discretion" appeared in a prior Eighth 
Circuit opinion regarding the school desegregation litigation. 936 F.2d at 996 (quoting Liddell v. 
Board of Education, 822 F.2d 1446, 1455 (8th Cir. 1987)). 
The July 2003 PI is plainly distinguishable from the long history of court-supervised 
efforts to integrate St. Louis schools. See 936 F.2d at 995 & n.2. While the ongoing efforts to 
desegregate St. Louis schools were properly before the courts, the only issue before this Court is 
Plaintiffs' action seeking an accounting pursuant to the 1994 Act. Even before Congress enacted 
Public Law Number 108-108, the Court did not properly have an ongoing role in supervising the 
Department of the Interior’s efforts to prepare an accounting pursuant to the 1994 Act. 
- 8 -
II. The Preliminary Injunction Should Be Stayed Because None of the 
Elements Required for the Issuance of a Preliminary Injunction 
Has Been Satisfied 
In considering whether to grant an application for a preliminary injunction, this Court 
must examine (1) whether there is a substantial likelihood that the plaintiff would succeed on the 
merits, (2) whether the plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury if the injunctive relief is denied, 
(3) whether the granting of injunctive relief would substantially injure the other party, and (4) 
whether the public interest would be served by the granting of the injunctive relief. E.g., 
Davenport v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL-CIO, 166 F.3d 356, 360-61 (D.C. 
Cir. 1999) (citing Serono Laboratories, Inc. v. Shalala, 158 F.3d 1313, 1317-18 (D.C. Cir. 
1998)); Kudjodi v. Wells Fargo Bank, 181 F. Supp. 2d 1, 2 n.2 (D.D.C. 2001); Memo. Op. at 24- 
25. 
Even assuming this Court may rely upon Plaintiffs' June 2003 application for a temporary 
restraining order, the Plaintiffs never sought the complete shutdown of Interior IT systems 
irrespective of whether they housed or accessed IITD. In that motion, Plaintiffs sought an order 
directing as follows: 
"that Interior defendants immediately shall disconnect from the Internet all • 
information technology systems which house or provide access to individual 
Indian trust data until such time as the Special Master has determined that all 
Individual Indian Trust data is properly secured . . . " and 
"that Interior defendants immediately shall disconnect from the Internet all • 
computers within the custody and control of the Department of the Interior, its 
employees and contractors, that house or provide access to individual Indian trust 
- 9 -
data until such time as the Special Master has determined that Individual Indian 
trust data is properly secured . . . ." 
Plaintiffs' Consolidated Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for a Preliminary 
Injunction to Ensure the Protection of Individual Indian Trust Data, at 9-10 (filed June 26, 2003) 
(Dkt. No. 2116) (proposed temporary restraining order) (emphasis added). The Court’s March 
2004 PI, however, requires “[t]he Office of Inspector General, the Minerals Management 
Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Office of the Special 
Trustee, Fish and Wildlife, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Office of Surface Mining, and the 
National Business Center [to] disconnect all Information Technology Systems within their 
respective custody or control . . . whether or not such Information Technology Systems House or 
Access Individual Indian Trust Data,” and requires the remainder of Interior’s bureaus (with the 
exception of the National Park Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Office of Policy, 
Management, and Budget) to disconnect all of their IT systems if they have “custody or control” 
over any IT system that houses or accesses IITD. March 2004 PI, ¶¶ B.3., B.4. As explained 
below, even disregarding that the Court has, sua sponte, granted injunctive relief far beyond that 
sought by the Plaintiffs in June 2003, the March 2004 PI fails to satisfy the four elements for 
issuance of a preliminary injunction. 
A. The Preliminary Injunction Provides No Basis for 
Concluding that Plaintiffs Have Established a 
Substantial Likelihood of Success of the Merits 
The Court's justification for the March 2004 PI largely relies upon the Court's previous 
analysis supporting the July 2003 PI, which is currently on appeal. See Memo. Op. at 24-25. 
The Court's Memorandum Opinion also relies upon its analysis of the legal requirements for 
- 10 -
certifications made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 and Local Civil Rule 5.1(h), Memo. Op. at 9- 
11, as well as its analysis of various reports prepared by the Special Master's experts, the 
Department of the Interior, the General Accounting Office, and the congressional "report card" 
for the Department of the Interior, Memo. Op. at 14-24. Defendants previously addressed these 
matters in their Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for an 
Order to Show Cause Why the Department of the Interior Secretary, Gale Norton, and Her Senior 
Managers and Counsel Should Not Be Held in Civil and Criminal Contempt for Violating Court 
Orders (Dkt. No. 2451) (filed Jan. 27, 2004), which is incorporated herein by reference. Contrary 
to the Court’s conclusion, see Memo. Op. at 25, whether Plaintiffs succeeded on the merits in 
other proceedings in this case is wholly irrelevant to an assessment of their likelihood of success 
on the merits of this matter. 
As the Court has been apprised in prior submissions, the overwhelming majority of 
Interior’s IT systems – approximately ninety-four percent – do not house or access IITD. Of the 
six percent of the IT systems that do house or access IITD, the overwhelming majority – 
approximately five percent of Interior's IT systems – remain disconnected as a result of the 
Court's December 2001 temporary restraining order. Moreover, as explained previously to the 
Court, the reports referenced by the Memorandum Opinion do not address IT security with regard 
to systems housing or accessing IITD. 
B. The Preliminary Injunction Does Not Establish the 
Potential for "Irreparable Harm" 
As noted above, the overwhelming majority of Interior IT systems that house or access 
IITD have been and remain disconnected from the Internet as a result of the Court's December 
- 11 -
2001 temporary restraining order. Moreover, there has been no showing that any of the systems 
housing or accessing IITD that were previously approved for reconnection by this Court 
(comprising one percent of Interior’s IT systems) have become insecure. 
Putting this complete failure of showing aside, there is absolutely no justification in the 
March 2004 PI for the Court's order to disconnect any of Interior's IT systems that do not house 
or access IITD.5 Whatever claims Plaintiffs properly have before this Court, there can be no 
serious dispute that Plaintiffs have no cognizable interest in the security of IT systems that do not 
house or access IITD. 
Thus, the only potential for irreparable harm is with respect to one percent of Interior’s IT 
systems, and there has been no showing that the security of any of those systems has been 
compromised. One would be hard pressed to find a clearer absence of a showing of the potential 
for irreparable harm. 
C. The Preliminary Injunction Substantially Harms 
Both the Operations of the Department of the 
Interior and the Public Interest 
In the wake of two previous Court-ordered shutdowns, the harm caused to the operations 
of the Department of the Interior and to the general public should be obvious. The March 2004 
PI – issued with no justification and with breadth far beyond any cognizable interest of the 
Plaintiffs – seriously cripples the operations of the Department of the Interior. In turn, the public 
suffers because of the issuance of this preliminary injunction. Even if one accepts the Court's 
conclusions about the likelihood of success on the merits and the potential for irreparable harm – 
5 The March 2004 PI does exempt the National Park Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, 
and the Office of Policy, Management, and Budget because the Court concluded that their 
systems do not house or access IITD. March 2004 PI, ¶ B.4. 
- 12 -
which Defendants seriously dispute – the grave consequences of the Court's latest shutdown 
order cannot be squared with consideration of harm to the Department of the Interior and the 
public. 
The Department of the Interior exists to serve the public, and any action that hampers the 
operations of the Department harms the public. It is impossible to provide an exhaustive listing 
of the harms that have occurred already and will occur as a result of the Court's issuance of the 
March 2004 PI, but the attached declarations of the Secretary of the Interior (Exhibit 1) and W. 
Hord Tipton, Chief Information Officer for the Department of the Interior (Exhibit 2) 
demonstrate the substantial adverse impact upon the public. The following examples are 
illustrative: 
Procurement: The March 2004 PI prevents Interior from complying with (a) 
regulatory procurement requirements and will prevent or, at least, delay public access to 
information necessary for government procurements. Declaration of W. Hord Tipton In Support 
Of Emergency Motion For Stay Pending Appeal (“Tipton Decl.”) at 3-4 (Ex. 2). Moreover, the 
March 2004 PI prevents Interior from performing necessary procurement actions, some of which 
will extend to matters involving national security, even though, strictly speaking, the actions are 
not "essential" for the protection of threats to fire, life, and property. Id. 
Financial Management: Disconnection of Interior’s Internet connections will (b) 
seriously impact the provision of financial accounting, funds control, management accounting, 
and financial reporting for both Interior and other entities. Tipton Decl. at 4. The disconnection 
will hinder the preparation of financial statements and management of grants. Id. at 4-5 
- 13 -
(c) Databases: As a result of the March 2004 PI, numerous databases relied upon by 
the public will not be accessible. Tipton Decl. at 5-6. 
Education: Prior to the issuance of the March 2004 PI, the education of Native (d) 
American students was supported by Internet access. Tipton Decl. at 6. Such access is 
particularly critical because so many Native American students live in remote areas. See id. The 
Internet connection was the link to provide these students with access to educational resources 
and curriculum materials. Id. As a result of the disconnection, these materials are no longer 
available for students, teachers, administrators, and staff. Id. 
Hiring and Personnel: Interior relies upon the Internet for a wide array of hiring (e) 
and personnel activities. See Tipton Decl. at 6-7. The March 2004 PI adversely affects these 
activities. Id. 
MMS Royalties: The Minerals Management Service receives, processes, and (f) 
disburses over $500 million of minerals revenues each month. Tipton Decl. at 7. These 
activities are heavily dependent upon the Internet, and the lack of an Internet connection will 
adversely affect approximately 2,000 reporting entities and the payment of royalties to tribes, 
Native Americans, states, and the federal government. Id. 
IT Security: The March 2004 PI undermines and impedes progress already made (g) 
by Interior with regard to improving its IT security. Tipton Decl. at 8. As a result of the March 
2004 PI, Interior may be required to reconfigure its systems and recertify and reaccredit those 
systems. Id. Moreover, disconnection will hinder Interior's ability to obtain and distribute to 
users security software patches and updates, including antivirus definition files and intrusion 
detection systems signature files. Id. 
- 14 -
(h) Freedom of Information Act: Pursuant to federal law, Interior has electronic 
Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") capabilities. Tipton Decl. at 8-9. The public will lose this 
access as a result of the March 2004 PI. Id. 
CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that this Court stay the 
preliminary injunction entered on March 15, 2004 (Dkt. No. 2531) and, further, because the 
preliminary injunction has already caused great harm to the public's interests and continues 
tocause great harm, Defendants respectfully request expedited consideration of this motion. 
Respectfully submitted, 
ROBERT McCALLUM, JR. 
Associate Attorney General 
PETER D. KEISLER 
Assistant Attorney General 
STUART E. SCHIFFER 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General 
J. CHRISTOPHER KOHN 
Director 
/s/ John Warshawsky 
_________________________________________ 
SANDRA P. SPOONER (D.C. Bar No. 261495) 
Deputy Director 
JOHN T. STEMPLEWICZ 
Senior Trial Attorney 
JOHN WARSHAWSKY (D.C. Bar No. 417170) 
Trial Attorney 
Commercial Litigation Branch 
Civil Division 
P.O. Box 875, Ben Franklin Station 
Washington, D.C. 20044-0875 
Telephone: (202) 514-7194 
March 22, 2004 
- 15 -
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I hereby certify that, on March 22, 2004 the foregoing Defendants’ Emergency Motion To 
Stay Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal And For Expedited Consideration was served by 
Electronic Case Filing, and on the following who is not registered for Electronic Case Filing, by 
facsimile: 
Earl Old Person (Pro se) 
Blackfeet Tribe 
P.O. Box 850 
Browning, MT 59417 
Fax (406) 338-7530 
/s/ Kevin P. Kingston 
Kevin P. Kingston
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
__________________________________________
) 
ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., ) 
Plaintiffs, 
v. Case No. 1:96CV01285 
(Judge Lamberth) 
)
)
)
)
) 
GALE NORTON, Secretary of the Interior, et al., ) 
Defendants. 
)
) 
__________________________________________) 
ORDER 
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Emergency Motion To Stay 
Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal And For Expedited Consideration (Dkt No. _____). 
Upon consideration of Defendants’ motion, any response thereto, and the entire record of this 
case, it is hereby 
ORDERED that Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. 
SO ORDERED this _____ day of _____________, 2004. 
__________________________ 
ROYCE C. LAMBERTH 
United States District Judge
cc: 
Sandra P. Spooner 
John T. Stemplewicz 
Commercial Litigation Branch 
Civil Division 
P.O. Box 875 
Ben Franklin Station 
Washington, D.C. 20044-0875 
Fax (202) 514-9163 
Dennis M Gingold, Esq. 
Mark Brown, Esq. 
607 - 14th Street, NW, Box 6 
Washington, D.C. 20005 
Fax (202) 318-2372 
Keith Harper, Esq. 
Richard A. Guest, Esq. 
Native American Rights Fund 
1712 N Street, NW 
Washington, D.C. 20036-2976 
Fax (202) 822-0068 
Elliott Levitas, Esq. 
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 
Atlanta, GA 30309-4530 
Earl Old Person (Pro se) 
Blackfeet Tribe 
P.O. Box 850 
Browning, MT 59417 
(406) 338-7530
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., 
Plaintiffs, 
V. 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
) 
GALE A. NORTON, 
Secretary of the Interior, ct al., 
Defendants. 
1 
1 
1 
1 
DECLARATION OF GALE A. NORTON IN SUPPORT OF 
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL 
I, Gale A. Norton, am Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior. I am 
making this declaration because the impact of the district court’s March 15,2004, injunction is 
not confined to any one program, office or bureau of our department. The ruling cripples our 
overall departmental ability to carry out a host of statutory mandates and to provide services on 
which the public depend. 
The breadth of the Department’s duties and the variety of its functions defy easy 
summary. Taken together, they affect on a daily basis the lives of millions, the operations of 
other federal agencies, of states and localities, and private business nationwide. 
At some point in the not-so-distant past, activities such as procurement, hiring, financial 
management, mine supervision, and educational programs placed little or no reliance on 
electronic communications. That is no longer the case. The Department is integrated into the 
web of electronic communications as fundamentally as the telephone system. Internet 
communication is not merely a useful tool ~ it is essential to much of what we do. 
That dependency is reflected in our basic operations. As detailed in the declaration of W. 
Hord Tipton, our financial management, procurement, grant management, hiring and recruitment 
are heavily reliant upon electronic communications. Absent a stay, the delay and disruption 
caused by the injunction will result in lost opportunities and incalculable added costs. We all 
understand that the Department could not conduct its activities properly without using the 
telephone. In 2004, it cannot do so without access to the Internet. 
The lack of Internet communications has an immediate effect on departmental 
management. Our workforce is spread across thousands of locations, spanning vast distances and 
Civil Action No. 96-1285 (D.D.C.) several time zones. The Internet allows managers to handle both incoming and outgoing 
information needed to fulfill our responsibilities. Like many Interior managers, I frequently use 
the Internet to obtain information about specific programs and locations within my department, 
to gain external perspectives on important issues, or to review legislation pending in Congress. 
We also use our computer network to communicate policies, updates, assignments and ideas to 
employees. 
It is not only Interior’s operations that are seriously affected. The activities of one federal 
agency often rely on the services of another. As Mr. Tipton explains, by closing down a system 
such as MMS/GovWorks, the injunction short-circuits acquisition services provided to virtually 
every federal agency involved in national security operations. 
The effects of the injunction are wide-ranging. Education provided via the Internet to 
over 50,000 students on 63 American Indian reservations has been brought to a halt. Crucial data 
bases, including those maintained by the Bureau of Land Management and the Office of Surface 
Mining, are off-line. Citizens will be denied ready access to information about our land use 
planning, environmental analysis, and other opportunities for public comment. Visitors to the 
national wildlife refuges and the nation’s wetlands will find that the information on which they 
rely daily is unavailable. 
Interior has invested substantial time, effort and funding in improving our information 
technology security. It is a responsibility we take seriously. But security demands are not our 
only responsibilities, and must be evaluated in the broad context of meeting all the demands 
placed upon government: serving the informational needs of the public, managerial effectiveness, 
Congressional appropriations, and resource protection. The injunction hampers or prevents us 
from effectively fulfilling other important duties, and disrupts the balancing of responsibilities 
determined by working within the Executive Branch and with Congress. 
I have not attempted to replicate the detailed discussion provided by Mr. Tipton which, as 
he notes, is itself only an illustrative summary of the impact of the injunction. However, as the 
Cabinet officer charged with responsibility for carrying out the missions of hundreds of statutes 
and meeting the needs of the public, I can say with absolute certainty that the harm resulting from 
the injunction will be severe and widespread, and I believe that we are still in the process of 
discovering just how far-reaching the injury to our programs and the public will be. 
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my 
knowledge, information, and belief. Executed on March 22, 2004. 
/” 
P G eA.Norton 
-2- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, et al., 
Plaintiffs, 
V. 
) 
1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
GALE A. NORTON, 
Secretary of the Interior, et al., 
Defendants. 
1 
1 
1 
DECLAFUTION OF W. HORD TIPTON IN SUPPORT OF 
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL 
I, W. Hord Tipton, am the Chief Information Officer (CIO) for the United States 
Department of the Interior (Interior). In this capacity, I oversee management of the 
information technology (“IT”) systems and implementation of applicable Interior policies 
and directives. I also coordinate with bureatdoffice CIOs in the development and 
maintenance of bureau-specific IT systems and am responsible for overseeing the 
portfolios of all IT investments and spending for Interior. In this capacity. I rely upon 
information from Interior nianagement and staff to make program management decisions 
or to prepare communications with the Court. as is the case with this declaration. 
The Department of the Interior (the Department) is a cabinet level agency with an 
annual budget of $1 1 billion and 70.000 employees. It is responsible for managing one 
out of every five acres of land in the United States; provides the resources for nearly one- 
third of the nation’s energy; provides water to 3 1 million people through 900 dams and 
reservoirs; receives over 450 million visits each year to the parks and public lands it 
manages; and implements hundreds of statutorily-mandated programs. In addition, the 
Department provides a variety of critical services on which other federal agencies rely. 
To meet its responsibilities, the Department manages a portfolio of approximately 
$1 billion of IT, including approximately 1 10,000 computers. Surveys by the Department 
have shown that approximately 6,600 of those computers - only about 6 percent - house 
or provide access to Individual Indian Trust Data (IITD). Of those 6,600 computers, 
approximately 5,500 have been disconnected from the internet for over two years, and are 
therefore unaffected by the preliminary injunction. Based on current information, 
approximately 1,100 computers housing or providing access to IITD were being used on 
March 15, 2004, when the preliminary injunction was entered. As set forth below, the 
- 1 - __ ~- 
Civil Action No. 96-1285 (D.D.C.) 
Exhibit 2 
Defendants’ Emergency Motion to Stay 
Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal immediate disconnection of IT systems ordered by the court will cause significant and 
irreparable harm to Interior and the public. 
The internet is a crucial and perhaps primary way by which the Department 
communicates with the world. By means of the internet, the Department maintains 
numerous data banks regularly used by governmental organizations and private persons. 
The internet allows the Department to provide educational opportunities to children of 
Indian tribes. As mandated by law and government-wide regulations, the internet is the 
primary means by which the Department receives most proposals for Department 
contracts. The internet is the chief means by which the Department advertises 
employment opportunities and receives applications. It is a crucial means by which the 
Department distributes certain royalty payments. And, ironically, the injunction will 
impair the Department’s ongoing efforts to provide and improve IT security. 
The consequence of the injunction is that these and other fundamental agency 
activities must stop in their tracks. The injunction contains an exception for portions of 
systems that are “essential for the protection against fires or other threats to life or 
property.” It contains no exception for programs that are crucial to the Department’s 
operations and the public welfare. 
The consequences of the injunction are, however, even broader than those 
specifically directed by the court, and will cripple intra-Department communications as 
well as communications between Interior and the public. As noted, the injunction permits 
the Department to maintain connections for portions of systems necessary to protect 
against fires and other threats to life or property. The Department cannot, consistent with 
the public health and safety, fail to make use of that exception. In so doing, however, the 
Department will be forced to reconfigure its IT systems in ways that will drastically 
impact the overall functionality and effectiveness of those systems. 
The computers used for “essential” services are linked to the internet through a 
series of connections that are shared by computers devoted to “nonessential” [as that term 
is defined in the injunction] ser.i+xs. To maintain the internet link for essential systems 
and also sever all internet links for nonessential systems, the Department must physically 
disconnect from all communications access thousands of laptops and personal computers 
not directly used for essential functions. The employees who use those computers will be 
unable to communicate electronically within the Department as we11 as outside the 
Department. The termination of intra-agency electronic communication will have a 
debilitating effect on the operations of the Department that can hardly be overstated. 
Moreover, the emergency reconfiguration of “essential” systems that will be necessary to 
keep those systems on line may well result in substantial impairment to the effectiveness 
of those systems. It is impossible to catalogue briefly the full range of programs immediately 
affected by this court's preliminary injunction. The following discussion is illustrative of 
non-emergency system impacts only. 
1. Procurement. 
The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires that procurement actions be 
electronically posted on a single point of entry for the federal government through the 
General Services Administration (GSA). Since October 1, 2001, the government-wide 
mechanism for complying with this requirement is the internet-based Federal Business 
Opportunities web-site managed by GSA. At any one time, the Department generally 
advertises as many as 100 requests for quotes, requests for proposals and invitations for 
bids. The Department averages more than 50 announcements per business day on 
requirements that exceed $4 billion dollars in obligations annually. 
The injunction will impact or prevent the Department's ability to post notices for 
millions of dollars for critical time-sensitive construction and repair contracts. Delays 
will affect the ability to award contracts in time to complete critical maintenance tasks 
during this year's construction season and will reduce the pool of available competitors 
for the Department's contracts. 
Disconnection will prevent most Interior users from accessing the Interior 
Department Electronic Acquisition System-Electronic Commerce (IDEAS-EC) via the 
Internet to obtain procurement data necessary to perform their duties. Users will be 
unable to initiate or complete any contract actions in the system. Vendors will be unable 
to obtain contract actions such as delivery orders, modifications, change orders to 
contracts, or to provide proposals to active procurement actions. The Department's 
solicitations for vendor responses through the electronic commerce process will be 
blocked because vendors will be unable to submit the required electronic offers. As a 
result of disconnection and the general shutdown of Interior's purchasing and contracting, 
thousands of small businesses which rely on Interior's procurements will be seriously 
affected. 
Further, the Department's contracting officers and grants officials are unable to 
access the Excluded Parties Listing System (EPLS), which identifies people and 
companies that have been suspended or debarred from doing business with the federal 
government. 
The Minerals Management Service (MMS)/GovWorks will only operate for 
emergency support. MMS/Gov Works, through its Franchise Fund operation, provides 
acquisition services to virtually every federal agency involved in national security 
operations either domestically or in other countries, including the Executive Office of the 
President, the Department of Homeland Security, the United States Secret Service, and 
the Department of the Treasury. Because of their diverse locations, the internet is the primary line of communication with these agencies and the contractors who support them. 
The internet is used to receive requirements, conduct necessary acquisition actions, 
provide contract administration, and process timely payments to contractors. 
Disconnection will jeopardize the delivery of critical services. 
2. Financial Management. 
The Federal Financial System ("FFS") provides financial accounting. funds 
control, management accounting, and financial reporting processes for the Department's 
bureaus and offices, as well as approximately twenty entities outside the Department. 
Most of the Department's bureaus use the FFS to manage and control financial activity 
related to appropriated funds, including funds management, payments to vendors, 
reimbursement of charge card transactions, travel reimbursements and other financial 
transactions. The inability to fully access FFS could impact effective financial 
management. It would result in delayed payments to vendors, which carry a 4% penalty 
per transaction and could impede or prevent the ability to control funds or produce 
financial reports. 
The Department's Consolidated Financial Statement (CFS) system is critical for 
the preparation of bureau and Department financial statements. The CFS System 
provides financial statement management and reporting capabilities to all Department 
bureaus and offices and to non-Interior clients. In addition, the CFS system supports the 
annual financial statement audits of the Department and its bureaus and provides access 
to the KPMG audit team engaged by the Department's Inspector General. The ability of 
the Department and its clients to meet monthly, quarterly, and year-end financial 
statement deadlines or to reconcile account balances may be seriously impeded. It would 
be unlikely that the Department or its clients could complete their annual financial 
statement audit, in violation of the Government Management Reform Act and OMB 
Circular A-1 09. Further, delays in the completion of bureau financial statements will 
substantially increase the audit costs and could jeopardize the data submission to 
Treasury for the consolidated financial statements of the federal government. 
The Department uses CASHLINK to view daily receipts and disbursements for 
daily reconciliation of account balances with Treasury. As an example of the impacts 
from not being able to reconcile daily fund balances, the Office of the Special Trustee 
prior to disconnection used CASHLINK for the approximately $3.3 billion portfolio held 
in trust for individual Indians and Tribes. Without daily reconciliation, the investment 
income may be either over- or under-invested, with associated financial repercussions, as 
manual processes cannot be done timely. 
3. Financial Assistance. 
Disconnection will also affect the Department's ability to inanage over $3 billion 
in grants and cooperative agreements that are awarded annually. Federal agencies are required to post financial assistance opportunities on the "Grants.govFTND" web site 
where prospective recipients may also apply for financial assistance via the 
"Grants.govAPPLY" web site. Without internet access, the Department's bureaus will be 
unable to post financial assistance opportunities, and prospective recipients will be unable 
to submit grant proposals. Disconnection would prevent the public from finding out 
about these opportunities and obtaining access to this funding. 
The Federal Aid Information Management System (FAIMS) serves as an internet- 
based link between the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) Payment 
Management System (PMS), which manages Treasury payments to grant recipients, and 
1nterior.s FFS. Obligation and payment transactions for over 3,000 grants involving over 
$800 million in federal funds to the States are synchronized between these two systems 
via FAIMS. The FFS relies on FAIMS to shuttle payments made to grantees from the 
PhlS to the FFS. The Treasury subsequently uses this information to balance cash 
between the PMS and the FFS. Thus, disconnection will adversely affect the 
Department's ability to accurately balance cash with Treasury on a timely basis, as 
required by federal law. 
it. Databases. 
The Department maintains a variety of vital databases that serve the public in any 
number of ways. A few examples are highlighted below. 
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) maintains case status for all public 
domain lands, which consist of approximately 270 million acres and an additional 500 
million acres of subsurface minerals. These land and records management systems are 
used to maintain information regarding ownership status, leasing rights, encumbrances, 
and other land use authorizations. The public accesses approximately 5,100 reports from 
these systems per month and provides data to numerous private vendors who use the data 
in their applications. If these systems are no longer accessible via the internet, the public 
would be required to visit individual BLM offices to obtain this data from the case files. 
The MMS Public lnformation Data System (PIDS) is a huge electronic repository 
of publicly available document images, consisting of documents such as geophysical and 
geological permits, plans of exploration and development, and drilling permits. This 
system contains over one million documents and 2,114 documents are added weekly on 
average. Prior to the implementation of PIDS, it was necessary for customers to visit the 
Public Information Office (PIO) in order to obtain copies of the paper documents. In 
2003. PIDS was used over 6,000 times per month. (This does not represent the actual 
number of documents viewed during these visits.) The absence of PIDS will require 
customers to visit the PI0 to retrieve copies of electronic documents. However, many of 
the paper copies of documents contained within PIDS are no longer immediately 
accessible at the MMS office, as they have been archived at Federal Records Centers. 
The Office of Surface Mining (OSM), which regulates surface coal mining and reclamation operations, administers the Technical Innovation and Professional Services 
(TIPS) database containing critical information pertaining to mines. This information 
includes technical designs, permitting information, subsidence data, and other materials. 
State regulatory authorities access TIPS approximately 135 times each day. OSM's 
disconnection from the internet will prevent or delay access to this information and could 
thereby likely result in: (1) delayed mine permitting decisions, which may result in 
reduced coal production and mine layoffs; (2) less accurate technical evaluations and 
designs, which could cause mine slope failures resulting in mudslides, property loss, 
blocked highways, and possible fatalities. 
Many of the forty million annual visitors to the National Wildlife Refuge System 
rely on web pages (both national- and regional- level as well as individual sites hosted by 
individual field stations) to get driving directions, learn about activities and special events 
offered, and understand site-specific regulations before making a visit. Moreover, the 
National Wetlands Inventory (?I WI) Mapping Service produces information on the 
characteristics, extent, and status of the nation's wetlands and deepwater habitats. 
Through personal computers and internet browsers, members of the public view produce 
on average 26,300 maps a month using the Wetlands Interactive Mapper. 
5. Education. 
Among other activities, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) operates the Office of 
Indian Education Programs (OIEP). The OIEP is a program designed to provide quality 
education opportunities for the children of Indian Tribe and Alaskan Native Tribe 
members. The program serves over 60,000 students attending more than 180 schools and 
dormitories in over 2,000 facilities located on 63 American Indian reservations in 23 
states and is administered almost entirely through the internet. It provides children from 
remote areas with a vast pool of educational resources and curriculum. The BIA's 
disconnection from the internet has prevented Interior from providing this vital service to 
Indian students. 
In addition, the Department operates the Education Native American Network 
("ENAN II"), a stand-alone network that has a single connection to the National Business 
Center for the purpose of accessing critical financial management and payroll systems. 
All Bureau-funded schools and colleges rely heavily on ENAN I1 and the internet to 
augment their daily instructional programs and maintain enrollment data, student 
attendance reports, and grades. The internet is also the only mechanism for schools to 
access programs like the Free and Reduced Lunch Program and the Department of 
Education Grant Administration Program System (GAPS). Grant schools, which are 
typically quite isolated, rely heavily on ENAN I1 for internet access to their banking, 
payroll and procurement systems. 
6. Hiring and Personnel. 
All the Department's bureaus announce vacancies using the "USAJOBS" web site administered by the Office of Personal Management (OPM). In fact, OPM requires that 
all vacancies open to the general public be posted on the USAJOBS site. The Department 
posts about 85 vacancy announcements per day on the site. Applicants apply to vacant 
positions through the internet. Applicants receive e-mail notification of the receipt of 
their applications, their eligibility for the vacant positions and selection or non-selection 
for the vacant position. In addition, most bureaus have web-based hiring systems that 
accept, rate, rank, and refer candidates. The court's disconnection order stops this 
internet-based hiring and recruitment process in its tracks. 
The Department's Paycheck system requires direct interface with FFS and the 
Federal Personnel Payroll System (FPPS). Without proper information from these 
systems, employees will be paid, but perhaps improperly, and corrections will have to be 
made manually within both the Paycheck and FPPS systems. Without FPPS access, 
personnel actions cannot be processed in FPPS. This includes appointment of new hires, 
promotions, awards, reassignments, retirements, transfers to other government agencies, 
and changes in enrollment resulting from open season for federal employees for Thrift 
Savings Plan. FPPS customers would lose secure network connectivity to the VPN to 
input time and attendance data for payroll processing. 
The Department relies on the internet to receive monthly tax bulletins to load 
correct federal, state and local tax information into the payroll systems. This will affect 
not only the correct computation and collection of payroll taxes for Interior, but also 34 
other government agencies, law enforcement, fire fighter personnel, and other emergency 
workers. 
The ability to collect electronic time and attendance information for employees 
and submit that information to the FPPS system could impede the correct and prompt pay 
of employees. 
7. MMS Royalties. 
Disconnection will adversely affect the ability of the Department's MMS to 
receive, process. and disburse over $500 million in mineral revenues on federal and 
Indian leased lands each month. MMS accomplishes its assigned mission through 
delivery of reporting, accounting, and financial services. About 2,000 companies report 
and pay royalties to MMS each month. A11 such functions are heavily reliant on the 
automated systems and access to the internet. Minerals revenues are a major source of 
income for forty-one Indian Tribes; approximately 20,000 individual Indian minerals 
owners; the federal government, and thirty-eight states. The court's injunction will 
prevent or hinder MMS from being able to make timely monthly disbursements of over 
$500 million in mineral revenues to States, Indians, and Treasury accounts. 8. IT Security. 
Disconnection will undermine and impede the progress the Department has 
already made with regard to IT security. Interior has fully certified and accredited 30 of 
its systems and issued interim approval to operate for 108 systems at an approximate cost 
of $13.2 million. These efforts to enhance security measures have been undertaken in 
accordance with guidance provided to federal agencies by OMB and the National 
Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST) and are intended to assure compliance 
with federal statutes (Q., the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002) 
requiring agencies to secure the availability, integrity and confidentiality of federal 
systems and information. However, if the Department must reconfigure its systems to 
meet the court's demands, security compliance must be completed anew. 
Disconnection will also hinder maintenance of the Department's IT systems. For 
example, disconnection will prevent the Department from electronically obtaining 
security software updates and patches, including anti-virus definition files and intrusion 
detection systems signature files. In addition, the Department will lose the capability to 
electronically report and coordinate with the Department of HomeIand Security, which 
operates the Federal Computer Incident Reporting Center ("FedCIRC"). This would 
hinder or eliminate the Department's ability to coordinate security reporting with 
Homeland Security and would affect such operations as reporting incidents to the 
FedCIRC and obtaining patches that allow the Department to secure, update and measure 
IT system configuration compliance. Further, the Department will not receive the 
electronically transmitted Daily Open Source Infrastructure Reports from Homeland 
Security. In addition, the Department's security managers and other network operations 
personnel will not be able to access the Department's website that provides IT security 
policy, patch updates, and a library of information relevant to system management. 
Interior has successfully reduced the vulnerabifities detected through monthly scanning 
from 1000 to less than 10 in 14 months. The effectiveness of this program is threatened 
by the shutdown. 
9. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). 
The Department has Electronic Freedom of Information Act ("E-FOIA") 
capabilities required by 5 U.S.C. 9 552(a)(2)(E). E-FOlA requires the Department to 
make records subject to FOIA electronically available. The total number of FOIA 
requests will increase as a result of disconnection because the public information 
currently available on the Department's websites will no longer be available on-line. The 
time required to process the average FOIA request will increase because the FOIA 
guidance currently available on the Department's website will no longer be available to 
the public and the internal electronic FOIA tracking system will no longer be available to 
employees processing these requests. The Department's websites have become a key 
communication vehicle for the program, directing requestors to the appropriate FOIA 
office, informing requestors of current regulations and fee schedules. The Department's website is a key research and communication tool for FOIA staff, and it will no longer be 
accessible under the court's preliminary injunction. Interior has successfully reduced the 
vulnerabilities detected through monthly scanning from 1000 to less than 10 in 14 
months. This program is threatened by the shutdown. 
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best 
of my knowledge, information, and belief. Executed on March 22, 2004. 
/ ~' W. Hord Tipton Y