[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS: ENSURING CONTINUITY AND EFFICIENCY DURING
LEADERSHIP TRANSITIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
ADMINISTRATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Held in Washington, DC, April 18, 2012
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration
Available on the Internet:
www.fdsys.gov
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
74-234 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California, Chairman
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania,
PHIL GINGREY, M.D., Georgia Ranking Minority Member
AARON SCHOCK, Illinois ZOE LOFGREN, California
TODD ROKITA, Indiana CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida
Professional Staff
Philip Kiko, Staff Director & General Counsel
Jamie Fleet, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Oversight
PHIL GINGREY, M.D., Georgia, Chairman
AARON SCHOCK, Illinois ZOE LOFGREN, California
RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
TODD ROKITA, Indiana
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS: ENSURING CONTINUITY AND EFFICIENCY DURING
LEADERSHIP TRANSITIONS
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 18, 2012
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Oversight,
Committee on House Administration,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:12 a.m., in
Room 1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Phil Gingrey
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Gingrey, Rokita, Nugent, and
Lofgren.
Staff Present: Peter Schalestock, Deputy General Counsel;
Kimani Little, Parliamentarian; Joe Wallace, Legislative Clerk;
Yael Barash, Assistant Legislative Clerk; Salley Wood,
Communications Director; Linda Ulrich, Director of Oversight;
Dominic Storelli, Oversight Staff; Bob Sensenbrenner, Elections
Counsel; Jamie Fleet, Minority Staff Director; Matt Pinkus,
Minority Senior Policy Analyst; Matt Defreitas, Minority
Professional Staff; Mike Harrison, Minority Professional Staff;
and Greg Abbott, Minority Professional Staff.
Mr. Gingrey. I now call to order the Committee on House
Administration's Subcommittee on Oversight for today's hearing
on the Library of Congress.
The hearing record will remain open for 5 legislative days
so that Members may submit any materials that they wish to be
included therein.
Mr. Gingrey. A quorum is present, so we may proceed. The
witnesses may take their seats. Thank you.
Due to some technical difficulties, we are not able to
broadcast today's hearing. We are hoping that that will be
corrected before the hearing is over.
Is it--are we up and running now?
Okay. Forget this note. We are live.
Established in 1800 to serve Congress, the Library is the
world's largest, with over 150 million items in its
collections. In fiscal year 2011 alone, it received 763,000
congressional reference requests and delivered to Congress more
than 1 million research products.
The four service units before us today represent arguably
the core of the Library. The Law Library; the Congressional
Research Service, CRS; the Copyright Office; and Library
Services fulfill vital needs and services to this Congress and
to the American people.
The Law Library ensures Congress has the necessary
documents for domestic and international legal sources that it
needs for its deliberations. The Congressional Research Service
has the important responsibility of assisting Congress in
researching the legislative issues before it in a nonpartisan
and objective fashion.
The Copyright Office, responsible for our national
copyright system, processes approximately 670,000 registration
applications annually. It is also responsible for adjudicating
copyright disputes, making its services indispensable to United
States industries relying on the protection of their
intellectual property.
Library Services oversees the backbone of the Library. It
is charged with maintaining the world's largest collection.
This unit is responsible for acquisitions and all cataloguing.
However, in this fiscal environment, the Library has seen
its budget reduced. Like the rest of this country and this
Congress, it has been forced to increase operational efficiency
while maintaining the ability to serve its core function and
its clients.
Today, we look forward to hearing from these four service
unit leaders, all of whom arrived recently in their positions.
These four units of the Library comprise almost 70 percent of
the Library's budget. Thus, it will be important to hear from
our witnesses how they are managing these resources, how they
are finding greater efficiencies, and how they will continue to
meet their collective and individual missions in the future.
I want to thank each of my colleagues for being here today.
I would now like to recognize the ranking member of the
subcommittee, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren from California, for
the purpose of providing an opening statement.
Ranking Member Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Chairman Gingrey. And I would ask
unanimous consent that my full statement be made a part of the
record.
Mr. Gingrey. Without objection.
Ms. Lofgren. I would simply say that, of course, we all
appreciate the work that the employees of the Library of
Congress do every day on behalf not only of the Congress but of
the American people.
I think this oversight hearing is an important one. As we
know, Dr. Billington has been the Librarian since 1987. He has
outlasted four U.S. Presidents. And there have been a high
number of turnovers, as you have mentioned, at the division
level. With so many divisions in a state of transition, I think
it is a good time for us to check in to learn the vision of
each of them and to make sure that they are in accord with the
vision that the Congress, on a bipartisan basis, has on behalf
of the Nation.
So I look forward to the hearing, and thank you for holding
this. I think it is an important one. And it is the first one
we have had in all the years I have been on the committee.
So I yield back.
Mr. Gingrey. I thank the ranking member.
Mr. Gingrey. Any other members of the committee have an
opening statement?
Okay, I would like now to introduce our witnesses.
David Mao became the 23rd Law Librarian of Congress on
January the 4th this year. Before being appointed by Dr.
Billington, Librarian Mao had been the Deputy Law Librarian
since June of 2010. Prior to coming to the Law Library, Mr. Mao
had a 5-year tenure in the Congressional Research Service. He
held positions at Georgetown University and practiced law. He
earned his library degree from the Catholic University of
America.
Dr. Mary Mazanec was appointed Director of the
Congressional Research Service on December the 5th, 2011. Dr.
Mazanec had been Acting Director of CRS and has advanced
degrees in law and medicine.
Congratulations.
From 2002 to 2010, she worked with the United States
Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, where she served
most recently as a Deputy Assistant Secretary and director of
the Office of Medicine, Science, and Public Health. Dr. Mazanec
has been a Robert Wood Johnson Health Policy Fellow and a
senior policy analyst at the Medicare Payment Advisory
Commission, MedPAC. She received her doctor of medicine from
Case Western Reserve University Medical School and a juris
doctorate from Case Western Reserve University Law School.
Maria Pallante was appointed the 12th Register of
Copyrights and Director of the United States Copyright Office
last June. Register Pallante has held several key positions
within the Copyright Office. She has been Acting Register, the
Associate Register of Policy and International Affairs, deputy
general counsel, and policy advisor. In addition, she was
intellectual property counsel and director of the licensing
group at the Guggenheim Museums.
Last but not least, Roberta Shaffer is the Associate
Librarian for Library Services. A former Fulbright Senior
Scholar, Ms. Shaffer has had a distinguished career as a
practicing librarian and as a library science educator. Prior
to being appointed, Ms. Shaffer served as Mr. Mao's predecessor
as the 22nd Law Librarian. Associate Librarian Shaffer has also
been the executive director of the Library's Federal Library
and Information Network.
We thank you all for being here today. The committee has
received your written testimonies, and at the appropriate time,
I will recognize each of you for 5 minutes to present a summary
of that submission.
To help you keep time, we have a timing device near the
witness table. I don't think I have yet figured out quite how
to use it, so I will try to be rather generous in the 5
minutes. The device is supposed to emit a green light for 4
minutes, and then it turns yellow for 1 minute. When the light
turns red, it means that your time has expired--the
gentlewoman's or the gentleman's time has expired. I have just
got kind of a light gavel. I have never used it before, so we
will be okay with you.
Law Librarian Mao, we will start with you, and would you
please proceed with your testimony.
STATEMENTS OF DAVID S. MAO, LAW LIBRARIAN, LAW LIBRARY OF
CONGRESS; MARY B. MAZANEC, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH
SERVICE; MARIA A. PALLANTE, REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS, U.S.
COPYRIGHT OFFICE; ROBERTA I. SHAFFER, ASSOCIATE LIBRARIAN FOR
LIBRARY SERVICES, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
STATEMENT OF DAVID S. MAO
Mr. Mao. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lofgren, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to speak about
leadership transition in the Law Library of Congress.
Although only in the position since January, I am nearing 7
years of service in the Library of Congress and have seen a
reenergized and revitalized Law Library emerge under the
direction of my predecessor, Roberta Shaffer. I have assumed
the leadership of a service unit with unique collections and
expertise that not only plays a vital role in supporting the
work of Congress but also advances the knowledge of laws and
legal information worldwide.
The highest priority of the Law Library is to provide the
Congress with timely, authoritative, and confidential foreign
legal analysis and information. For example, in 2011, the Law
Library staff prepared many legal research reports, special
studies, and memoranda in response to congressional inquiries.
More specifically, foreign law specialists and analysts
provided foreign and comparative law reports related to a range
of current U.S. legislative issues, including banking,
citizenship, immigration, taxation, and terrorism.
Current priorities during this fiscal year include working
with other organizations within the Library to design the next-
generation Legislative Information System. Additionally, the
Law Library is collaborating with other parts of the Library
and external entities regarding the digitization of historical
legislative documents.
The Law Library's Reading Room is currently undergoing a
renovation that will include technologies so that clients may
better access virtual collections and utilize improved study
space to access physical collections. In the renovated Reading
Room, Law Library staff will be able to train Members and staff
on THOMAS, give topical seminars and offer briefings on a wide
range of foreign legal issues.
Later this year, the Law Library will launch law.gov as it
pursues a long-term strategic plan aligned with Library of
Congress-wide digital initiatives which will afford Congress
and other constituents the benefits of more timely, targeted,
and complete legal knowledge.
Going forward, in fiscal year 2013, the Law Library will
continue to classify the 800,000 volumes to Class K to the
extent the budget will allow.
Working within the broader Library of Congress Web
enhancement process, the Law Library will continue to establish
law.gov as the vehicle for providing access to digital legal
information. Together with other library service units, the Law
Library also will continue to coordinate training that the Law
Library provides to the Congress and staff.
The Law Library's priorities are not without fiscal
constraints and challenges, however. Reduction in the Library
of Congress budget hampers creation of a workforce with the
skills necessary to implement the envisioned future mission of
the Law Library. Because the Law Library relies heavily on
contractors, a reduced budget means bids for contractual
services with decreased labor hours, which lead to lower
collection maintenance activity levels and a decreased ability
to preserve a backlog of official foreign nations' laws,
regulations, and legal information published exclusively in
newspaper form.
The Law Library also lacks storage space for its vast
collections, which significantly impedes the Law Library's
ability to maintain a comprehensive and current legal
collection. Moreover, the Law Library is currently able to
house less than 50 percent of its rare items in storage
conditions that meet Library of Congress security requirements.
To provide proper security as well as environmental controls
for this material, a new vault for Law Library rare materials
must be constructed in the Madison Building.
Despite the challenges that it faces, the Law Library will
continue to provide the Congress with accurate, authoritative,
and timely foreign legal analysis and will continue to acquire,
preserve, and make accessible world-class legal collections. In
a budget-constrained environment, the Law Library will leverage
all Library of Congress resources and collaborate both
internally and externally to ensure that it maintains the
highest-quality staff and delivers products and services
efficiently and in a cost-efficient manner. The Law Library of
Congress is committed to maintaining its unique role as a
leader for the world's legal and information communities.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I thank you
again for the opportunity to testify today.
Mr. Gingrey. Thank you, Mr. Mao.
[The statement of Mr. Mao follows:]
Mr. Gingrey. Dr. Mazanec.
STATEMENT OF MARY B. MAZANEC
Dr. Mazanec. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lofgren, and
members of the subcommittee, I, too, want to thank you for this
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the
Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress.
I am honored to have been appointed the CRS Director by Dr.
Billington last December. My transition to the Director of CRS
has been seamless, due in large part to the excellent,
dedicated, and talented staff working at all levels throughout
the Service.
My vision is that CRS remains Congress' primary source for
the analysis and information that it needs to perform its
legislative functions. As you recall, CRS's work is driven by
the core values of timeliness, authoritativeness, objectivity,
balance, confidentiality, and nonpartisanship.
CRS recently completed its annual legislative planning
process, identifying over 160 issues before Congress and
organizing its product line and its Web resources around those
issues. We have also met with the leadership offices to ensure
that CRS is well positioned to support Congress' legislative
agenda.
Additionally, in conjunction with this committee, we are
beginning our planning for the CRS Seminar for New Members of
the 113th Congress. The last seminar was attended by a record
number of new House Members, and we expect another productive
exchange with the freshman class of the next Congress.
Looking back over last year, in fiscal year 2011, CRS
completed more than 760,000 responses and services for Members
and committees. This number includes analysis and information
requests, product requests, electronic services, and seminars.
Since becoming Director, I have made it one of my top
priorities to meet personally with Members, committees, and
senior congressional staff. The purpose of these meetings is to
elicit feedback and suggestions about how we are serving the
Congress and how we can do our job better and more efficiently.
Since the beginning of the 112th Congress, I have held meetings
with nearly 30 Members and 85 senior staffers. The meetings
have reaffirmed the findings of the 2010 Customer Satisfaction
Study, which found that a majority of CRS clients are very
satisfied with our products and the services that we provide.
But there is always room for improvement, and we can do better.
Since becoming Director, I have also sought the input of
CRS staff at all levels, initiating a series of open staff
meetings and brown bag lunches, inviting staff to raise
questions and concerns and to brainstorm with me and offer
ideas about how we can do our work better and more efficiently.
In addition, on a regular basis I meet with the president of
the Congressional Research Employees Association.
Turning to fiscal considerations, I am continuously
examining our budget priorities, and I have directed my senior
management team to review our current organization to determine
where we can continue to achieve efficiencies and synergies
between offices and divisions.
CRS is operating at its lowest staff level in more than 3
decades. As of March 31st, 2012, CRS had 618 employees, a
decline of 53 persons in the last 2 years. Although this
decrease in manpower means that the service has limited
flexibility to develop new analytical capacity in increasingly
complex areas such as health care, energy development, military
weaponry, and financial regulation, I am focused on maintaining
the highest level of service for the Congress. To this end, one
of my top priorities is to strategically reshape the workforce,
while maintaining broad analytical capacity. CRS will continue
to work with its congressional clients to scope out and
prioritize needs and to meet these needs in a timely manner.
While we are operating under increased budget pressure,
especially in technology and research materials, we recognize
that it is not just our analysis that we provide, but it is
also how we provide it to a 21st-century Congress. Our
technology needs to evolve as Congress has evolved. And we are
committed to making improvements in this area.
In closing, I want to thank you once again for this
invitation to appear before you. Together with my colleagues at
the Library, we are ready to serve the Congress and the
legislative process, and I look forward to working with you.
Thank you.
Mr. Gingrey. Thank you, Dr. Mazanec.
[The statement of Dr. Mazanec follows:]
Mr. Gingrey. Ms. Pallante.
STATEMENT OF MARIA A. PALLANTE
Ms. Pallante. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lofgren, Mr. Nugent, I also
want to thank you for the invitation to appear today.
I also want to apologize for my voice. I was traveling last
week and unfortunately came back with an ill-timed head cold.
And----
Mr. Gingrey. It sounds great. Proceed.
Ms. Pallante [continuing]. I took a lot of cold medicine,
so let's see what that does to me.
I also want to correct a typo in my written statement. It
states that my predecessor retired on December 31st, 2011, but
in fact it was 2010.
At the outset, I would like to say what a tremendous
privilege it is to serve as the Register of Copyrights at this
point in time. The registration and the recordation functions
of the office have become critically important to the public.
At the same time, the legal framework by which authors create
and disseminate their works and libraries and members of the
public access them requires updating for the online
environment.
When Dr. Billington appointed me to the position last year,
I was quite honored by his trust in me and deeply appreciative
of the opportunity to serve the Library, the Congress, the
copyright community, and the public. I am joined at the office
by a very talented staff, many of whom have specialized
knowledge and training. I respect and admire them for their
dedication to the Nation.
I also have tremendous respect for the position that I
hold, and I am aware of the legacies of those who have served
as Register before me. Ms. Peters directed the office for 16
years and served on the staff for more than 40. Other Registers
have served fewer years but during critical periods of policy
reform. In fact, every Register since 1897 has had to navigate
a complex combination of policy and operations issues, and this
has already proven to be the case for me as well.
Since my appointment in June, my colleagues and I have been
extremely busy on two fronts: first, meeting the day-to-day
demands of our public services and policy duties under the
statute; and, second, evaluating our core operations in
preparation for the future.
The registration and recordation programs of the Copyright
Office form the largest public database of copyright
information in the world--information that is helpful to
commerce, to innovation, and to licensing. That said, unlike
the patent system, registration in the copyright context is not
required as a condition of legal protection under the law. It
is therefore necessary to review the legal incentives that we
provide to authors to entice them to participate in the system
and to analyze and properly calibrate the office's fees for
services so as not to dissuade registration.
Last October, I released a 2-year plan entitled "Priorities
and Special Projects of the U.S. Copyright Office." This
document transparently describes our workload, including trade
and policy work, and reflects our commitment to prepare for
future challenges, including in the registration system.
In addition to our normal workload, we have 10 special
committees working on issues that are pertinent to the future,
on which hundreds of employees from across departments are
working collaboratively. I want to underscore what that really
means at a staff level. In an environment where people are
already doing more than their share, I have asked them, as the
new Register, to do even more. And they have responded with
enthusiasm and pride. Many of the projects will require a
multiyear commitment and sustained funding if implemented.
Others are entrepreneurial and could lead to partnerships with
the private sector.
In summary, my vision for the U.S. Copyright Office is to
position it to be highly efficient and effective over the next
several decades. To do this, we have five challenges. We must
first attract and retain a skilled and experienced staff,
especially in law and information technology. Second, we must
make technical improvements to the registration and recordation
systems, while updating the underlying legal incentives. Third,
we must redesign both the presentation and the usability of our
public databases and records. Fourth, we must fulfill the
education and training activities that are expected of the
office. And, fifth, we must continue to serve the Congress and
departments in the executive branch through policy expertise as
required by the Copyright Act.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
subcommittee's interest in the U.S. Copyright Office, and I
would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Gingrey. Thank you, Ms. Pallante.
[The statement of Ms. Pallante follows:]
Mr. Gingrey. And, Ms. Shaffer, tell us about Library
Services.
STATEMENT OF ROBERTA I. SHAFFER
Ms. Shaffer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will gladly do
that.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Lofgren, subcommittee members,
thank you for the opportunity to discuss my transition to
Associate Librarian for Library Services and an overview of my
unit.
I am no stranger to the Library. Preparation for my current
position began over 30 years ago when I first came to the
Library as a law student. At that point, I resolved that I
would someday return in a leadership role. Now, as Associate
Librarian for Library Services, I am humbled by the
responsibility of the job I have held for just over 100 days
and always try to harken back to my own experiences as a
library customer.
I am grateful to Dr. Billington, Librarian of Congress, for
his confidence in my leadership abilities, the Library Services
staff for their support and commitment to the Library, and my
peer group here for their collegiality. We all work closely
together with the Librarian and Chief of Staff to provide
services to the American people, your constituents, and to
position the Library for its long-term viability.
Library Services is the largest organizational unit, with a
staff of approximately 1,500, 40 percent of the total
headcount, and 42 divisions. It is responsible for the
Library's vast collections. Four-point-seven million items were
just added within the year. As well, Library Services selected
from copyright receipts, one important source of collections,
more than 700,000 copies of works with a net value of $31
million.
Some 11,000 new items from all sources come into the
Library each day. Library Services acquires materials,
catalogues them, makes them accessible, and preserves them.
Staff helps the Library's users navigate these collections.
They answer questions in person, over the phone, via the
Internet, mail, virtually all means of inquiry.
In 2011, we provided reference services directly to more
than half a million individuals. The high demand for our
resources is also underscored by the fact that the Library's
Web site had 512 million page views last year.
Part of planning for the future is anticipating needs of
users within the context of a rapidly changing technological
landscape. As the world's best source of authoritative and
authentic information, the Library of Congress can be an
integral part of everyday life wherever and whenever
information is deployed, except when driving.
From my perspective, I see a number of challenges before
us. First, space: finding and properly managing space for our
constantly expanding collection and format. Second, acquiring
material that spans the ages and all disciplines in almost all
languages--over 460 at last count--and collecting from remote
but strategic regions, where our six overseas offices play a
critical role. Third, retaining a topflight staff with
appropriate subject matter, technical, and linguistic expertise
in sufficient number to meet the ever-growing need for their
unique knowledge.
The Library has always operated in a no-frills environment,
where the love of learning and its mission are our best
recruitment and retention levers. But we must be able to give
staff the necessary tools to do the best job possible and to
keep their knowledge and skills at the cutting edge. Fourth, we
must be opportunistic when unique materials are made available
to us and mindful that gaps in knowledge are difficult to fill
after the fact and even more so in a digital age.
Finally, we must be able to protect the collections from
vulnerabilities, including threats from environmental
degradation caused by improper housing conditions and barriers
caused by changes in technology. Played any eight-track tapes
lately?
Meeting these challenges is crucial to remaining on the
visionary course Dr. Billington has set for us and the United
States Congress has encouraged and enabled for over 200 years.
The idea of the Library of Congress began with Thomas Jefferson
and our other Founding Fathers, James Madison and John Adams,
who envisioned even in our Nation's infancy the uniquely
American concept of a universal collection that embodies the
Library of Congress as we know it today.
Thomas Jefferson said, ``There is in fact no subject to
which a Member of Congress may not have the occasion to
refer.'' At a time when this concept is increasingly prophetic,
it would be impossible to sustain for Congress and the Nation
the knowledge base needed to be creative and competitive in
this information-driven, globalized century as budget
reductions affect, but we hope only temporarily, our ability to
acquire, make available, and preserve our collections.
Thank you.
Mr. Gingrey. Ms. Shaffer, thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Shaffer follows:]
Mr. Gingrey. And I thank all of the witnesses.
We now have time for committee members to ask questions of
the witnesses. Each Member is allotted 5 minutes to question
you. To help us keep track of time, we will also use the timing
device on the witness table. We will alternate back and forth
between the majority and minority. And I will begin and
recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Excuse me. Ms. Pallante, I think I must have caught the
same bug that you did. We won't copyright our voices this
morning.
Thank you.
Ms. Lofgren has just given me a good little lozenge, so
maybe that will help me through.
And I will ask this question to start, and, Ms. Shaffer,
with you, since you are warmed up and all ready to go. From
fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2012, the Library of Congress
absorbed a 6.6 percent budget reduction. I don't have to tell
you guys that. The Library conducted a voluntary separation
incentive program to achieve this reduction.
In this fiscal environment, how is your service doing more
with less? That is a question for each one of the four of you.
And have you observed from your position that the budget cuts
are affecting your ability to produce the quality of work
required by us, the Congress?
Ms. Shaffer.
Ms. Shaffer. I would say that these budget cuts, at least
at this time, have had the effect of causing us in a very good
way to collaborate more with each other as well as with
entities around the country and around the world. And so they
have enabled us to step into more leadership roles within
Library of Congress, helping to set standards and work in
collaborative and cooperative acquisition programs.
One of the things that we have noticed, however, is that
the impact could very soon appear in our collections. As I
mentioned in my testimony, both written and oral, it is very
difficult, once you are unable to acquire materials, to then
fill in those gaps. And this is our biggest concern for a
short-term, hopefully, reduction that could actually have a
very long-term impact.
Mr. Gingrey. Ms. Shaffer, thank you.
Ms. Pallante. Turn on your mike, please.
Ms. Pallante. We have had a 22.7 reduction over the last
couple of years and lost about 10 percent of our workforce. So,
in some ways, that is never a good result. In other ways,
because I am new and would have undertaken an evaluation
regardless, the timing is acceptable, in that I need to figure
out how to plan for the future.
So we have kept our heads above water, in that we have kept
the backlog at bay with registrations. What we are not doing is
effectively maintaining our IT system, which underpins the
entire electronic registration system. And we are not doing a
lot of innovative projects that we are expected to do going
forward.
Mr. Gingrey. Thank you, Ms. Pallante.
Dr. Mazanec.
Dr. Mazanec. First of all, I am committed to maintaining
the quality of service to Congress.
We are taking measures to work through the budget cuts. We
are maintaining our analytical capacity on all the issues by
asking analysts and attorneys and IPs (information
professionals) to broaden their portfolios, take on new issues.
But it does take time to get up to speed on those issues. We
are also looking to take advantage of technology and to use it
to create efficiencies and to make our service to Congress as
effective as what it has been in the past.
Longer term, we will have to strategically think about how
we want to reshape the workforce for a 21st-century Congress.
Mr. Gingrey. Thank you, Dr. Mazanec.
Mr. Mao.
Mr. Mao. Thank you.
As Ms. Shaffer mentioned, the collections are of utmost
importance to us in the Law Library and Library as a whole.
And, yes, declining budgets will have an effect on the ability
for us to acquire materials from around the world. That is one
of the last places we would look to cut if we had to, because
it is so important to keep that consistency and maintain the
collections.
The difficulty for us has been in retaining staff in
certain areas. Last year, as part of the retirement program,
for example, we had a senior specialist covering the area of
Canadian law for us retire. And in the meantime, we have not
been able to hire behind him to fill that position. So we have
been relying on others among our foreign law specialists who
have similar jurisdiction----
Mr. Gingrey. Mr. Mao, thank you. I don't mean to cut you
off, but in my remaining time I did want to ask a question of
Dr. Mazanec.
Dr. Mazanec, CRS serves as the research arm of Congress and
is tasked with providing objective, authoritative, and timely
research. You state in your written testimony that one of the
core values of CRS is nonpartisanship.
Dr. Mazanec. Uh-huh.
Mr. Gingrey. How do you, as head of CRS, attempt to ensure
that the analysts are preparing reports that are, to the
greatest extent possible, objective and free of any bias, any
partisanship?
Dr. Mazanec. Thank you for this question.
CRS takes several steps throughout the preparation of our
products to ensure objectivity and to be true to our core
values. At the very start, during the conceptualization phase,
we involve analysts from across the service so that we get all
the issues, all the different options identified. We then seek
out and only use authoritative source material, which we draw
from the Library. We leverage the Library resources.
And, finally, we have a very rigorous review process that
consists of four different levels, starting with peer review,
then research section review, then division review, and then
finally agency review. As an additional check, on some reports
we ask experts outside of CRS to look at near-final text to
make sure that it is technically accurate.
We also try to foster a culture of objectivity and balance,
both in how we train and work with our colleagues but also in
some of the policies that we have in place.
Mr. Gingrey. Dr. Mazanec, thank you. I have been a little
generous with myself there and went over.
Before I yield to the ranking member, let me tell my
colleagues, since there are only three of us here--hopefully
more Members who had conflicts with other committee hearings
and markups going on simultaneously to this hearing--if we
don't have any other Members come, we will have a second round.
So be thinking about that as you frame your questions.
I now yield to the ranking member, my colleague, Ms.
Lofgren, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Pallante, according to the information provided to the
committee by the Library, you took a trip to Los Angeles in
November of last year, and during that trip you met with motion
picture studio lawyers. Now, 1 day after you returned from
L.A., you testified before the House Judiciary Committee about
the Stop Online Piracy Act and essentially endorsed the bill.
SOPA was an extreme measure which blindly pursued copyright
enforcement at the expense of many other considerations. And,
of course, as we are all aware, the bill sparked massive
protests from, some have said, 14 million Americans, and the
bill did not proceed.
Did you discuss SOPA in your meeting with the motion
picture studio lawyers? Who attended the meeting? What subjects
were discussed? What was the substance of the discussion?
Ms. Pallante. Thank you, Ranking Member.
Yes, in fact, that trip was cut short because of the
hearing; I had to return early. I was out there for a bar
association meeting, and whenever I am out anywhere in any city
other than Washington, I try to do side meetings to maximize my
time.
So, in that case, that was a meeting that we set up--my
general counsel and my associate register were with me--for the
purpose of reaching beyond the trade associations that normally
visit us in Washington. So this is something that I have been
advised to do in getting advice as a new Register. Make sure
you meet with the members of associations, not just the
associations and the government relations people.
So, in that meeting, we talked primarily about the
Priorities and Special Projects document----
Ms. Lofgren. Who attended the meetings?
Ms. Pallante. There were member company business lawyers
there. So the lawyers of Warner Brothers, the lawyers of
Paramount, the lawyers of major studios.
Ms. Lofgren. Would you provide later--obviously you don't
recall the names, and that is fine. If you could provide a list
of all the attendees at that meeting after this hearing, that
would be helpful.
Ms. Pallante. Yes, certainly.
Ms. Lofgren. Now, did you discuss SOPA at that meeting?
Ms. Pallante. Well, again, we discussed the Priorities and
Special Projects document and rogue Web sites because it was a
priority for the leadership of Judiciary as one of the
priorities that I have had to make my own. And so, yes, in that
context it would have been one of many things we discussed.
Ms. Lofgren. In recent remarks published by the American
Bar Association, you said the following: ``Copyright is for the
author first and the Nation second,''.
Now, this comment attracted quite a bit of attention among
some people, especially my constituents in Silicon Valley. And
it seems to me, when you look at the Constitution, which
empowers Congress to grant exclusive rights in creative works
in order, and I quote, ``to promote the progress of science and
the useful arts,'' it seems to me the Constitution is very
clear that copyright does not exist inherently for the author
but for the benefit of society at large.
Now, I am concerned when any public official, especially
one in charge of regulation of a particular industry or area of
law, seems to favor particular stakeholders in that very
industry. We would be alarmed, for example, if the Chairman of
the FCC said the Telecommunications Act was for the telecom
companies first and the Nation second. And it is not clear to
me how your statement, if it was accurately reported, is any
different.
So could you tell us what you meant by this statement and
how this principle guides your work as Register?
Ms. Pallante. I would be delighted to. Thank you.
So when I took the job, I was required to take an oath to
uphold the Constitution and the laws of the United States. The
constitutional clause to promote the progress of science and
the useful arts, works in part by, ``securing for limited times
to authors their respective writings and discoveries.''
What I was doing in that interview--and you have extracted
one sentence from a four-page interview--was making the point
that the Supreme Court has interpreted that clause, including
in two recent decisions, Eldred and Golan in the last year,
that the limited monopoly goes first to authors so that they
will produce so that, in the end, the public will benefit.
Ms. Lofgren. I think that is a real misstatement of the
Eldred case. The Eldred case basically had to do with the
jurisdiction of Congress. It didn't find that the benefit was
to authors instead of society. It basically was a finding that
Congress was not limited by the words ``for limited periods''
for the extreme measure that we have done now, life of the
author plus 70 years.
Let me ask you this. According to the information--well, my
time has expired, Mr. Chairman. I will ask my other questions
at the second round.
Mr. Gingrey. I thank the ranking member for yielding back.
And I will now call on my colleague from Florida, Mr. Nugent,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Nugent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to thank you all for being here today. What a
great group that we have, particularly with your background and
experiences.
But CRS, obviously, to Members of Congress--I was first
initiated back as a freshman during that training period. And
we have reached out to CRS on a number of issues, and we have
been very satisfied with the response from the Library of
Congress and CRS in particular.
But my question to you is, as we move forward, your
relationship, CRS's relationship with the executive branch,
have you been receiving all the information that we request in
a timely manner?
Dr. Mazanec. The simplest answer is no. In a month's
period, approximately two to four times we have difficulty
getting information from executive branch agencies. They either
refuse to provide us with the information or they give us
incomplete or out-of-date information. Or they will ask us who
the information is for and how it is going to be used, and we
feel that by revealing that to them that would breach our value
of confidentiality.
Right now, the current status of our authority is derived
from the chair of the committee. We are agents of the
committee, and that is how it has been interpreted. So that
leaves out the ranking member and the other members of the
committee and Members in their own right.
So there is--Representative Schock has a pending bill that
would give the Director of CRS the authority to seek
information directly from the executive branch agencies if it
is to respond to a request from a Member and if the Member
approves. We think that this would make us better able to serve
the Congress so that we can continue to provide a
comprehensive, authoritative product to the Congress.
Mr. Nugent. I would think that it shouldn't matter what
Member it is for or who it is for, because you are really
trying to give an independent, nonpartisan response. And that
is all I ask for. And I would think, no matter what side,
whether it is majority or minority, we want to make sure that
we get authoritative, you know, in regards to a response, so we
can make decisions as we move forward on legislation. And that
really is a nonpartisan issue.
And I know this is Mr. Schock's area, you know, in his
wheelhouse right now, and he is not here, so I wanted to make
sure to ask that question. But I would hope that the
legislation that he is putting forward would receive bipartisan
support because this is a bipartisan issue. We depend upon
CRS's objectivity to give us just good, solid information.
Because we can get information on a partisan side of it, and we
don't want to necessarily make a decision based upon that. And
so it really is about CRS's ability.
The question that was directed to you, Ms. Pallante, it is
sort of like the chicken and the egg. And my take on it is that
if authors or folks that provide a document or an idea and put
it in writing, they want to make sure that there is some
protection out there for them. Because if it wasn't for that,
all of us, we wouldn't receive the information. It is possible
they could do something different to keep it secretive, but we
want it to be public knowledge.
So is that kind of where you were leading in regards to
trying to keep authors and those that--you know, freedom of
getting that out there and protection for them?
Ms. Pallante. Absolutely. And I think in terms of copyright
owners, you know, they are not a monolith, right? You have
individual creators--the authors, songwriters, artists. And
then you have big multinational companies who may also acquire
copyrights. So in the context of the interview that I was
questioned about, I was talking about authors and how not to
lose them in the system. And I do believe that that is an
important point for the Register of Copyrights to keep in mind.
Mr. Nugent. I would think so, so we all have the ability to
read particular information.
So I want to thank all of you for being here today, and I
will yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Gingrey. Mr. Nugent, thank you.
You know, we have time for a second round, so why don't we
go ahead and get started on that. And let me ask the first
question of the second round in my 5 minutes allotted to Mr.
Mao of the Law Library.
The Law Library, Mr. Mao, appears to be utilized more by
the other two branches of government than by the Congress. Of
all those who utilize the Law Library, what community is the
greatest user?
Mr. Mao. It depends on the type of questions we receive.
For the analytical and legal analysis provided by the foreign
law specialists, when we serve the government, it is
approximately one-third to the Congress--I am sorry, one-third
to one-half to Congress and one-third to one-half to the
executive branch, with a small minority of that remaining part
to the judicial branch.
Now, for the general reference questions that we receive in
the Reading Room, a majority of those are for the public. We
get a lot of questions, whether they be walkup, through the
telephone, or through electronic means. And we serve the public
here in Washington, D.C., across the country, and around the
world.
Mr. Gingrey. So the majority of inquiries are from the
general public?
Mr. Mao. From those that are given to the Reading Room,
yes.
Mr. Gingrey. All right.
Ms. Shaffer, the Technology Policy Directorate of the
Library is housed within Library Services, right?
Ms. Shaffer. It is.
Mr. Gingrey. In 2010, the LOC acquired the rights to the
entire Twitter archive. Do you feel like it is necessary to
archive all Twitter traffic? And are you concerned that these
limited resources that we have been talking about will be
diverted to this archive that could be better used elsewhere?
Ms. Shaffer. Mr. Chairman, yes, I do. And I feel rather
strongly that social media is an emerging media that we need to
pay attention to. I believe that if we had forgotten about
motion picture at the turn of the 20th century, we would deeply
regret it today. And I don't want us to be in a position or our
legacy to be considered that we totally did not think about
important resources.
In Twitter, there are enormous social trends that can be
mined out that, frankly, might not be derived from any other
resources. And so I think it would be highly irresponsible for
the Nation's library not to look at social media sources, data
sets, and emerging new fields of knowledge.
Mr. Gingrey. Well, thank you for that honest and forthright
answer. It just seems to me that making sure that we preserve
``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington'' rather than a bunch of Twitter
gossip by teenagers is--you are not comparing apples to apples
there. And if you want to comment on that, I will give you a
little more time to respond to my opinion on the issue.
Ms. Shaffer. Well, it may be very important as a social
trend to know what teenagers were speaking about. We are always
concerned about the knowledge base in America, and it may help
us understand better things about civic education or preparing
for a future generation of voters.
So I do believe that these are important resources not to
be excluded and----
Mr. Gingrey. Thank you very much.
Let me go to Ms. Pallante. The registration system is
integral to the Copyright Office, is it not?
Ms. Pallante. It is.
Mr. Gingrey. Right now, around 87 percent of the claims are
done electronically. Do you feel prepared to adapt to an
increase in electronic claims? And have you taken steps to
prepare for an increase in electronic claims?
Ms. Pallante. Thank you for the question.
Yes and no. So the answer is, yes, we have taken steps to
prepare, but we do not believe that we are in shape to have the
kind of technology and services that the copyright community
expects of us.
So, for example, we can register what comes in. We are not
sure the legal incentives for registration have kept pace with
the law, meaning that we are not sure people are sure why they
are registering anymore. If people don't register, the public
databases won't be robust, and then the public and users and
those who rely on the information won't have the information
that they need.
And the databases need major upgrades in searchability,
including through the Web, and the presentation of material
that people want.
Mr. Gingrey. Ms. Pallante, thank you.
Dr. Mazanec, in my remaining few seconds, almost 90
percent--you talked about this, actually, in the 5 minutes that
you gave us of your written testimony--almost 90 percent of
your budget is directed toward personnel. Recently, you have
not filled several vacancies and had 22 others leave through
this voluntary buyout program.
CRS is currently operating at its lowest staff level in
more than 3 decades. In fact, I think those were your words.
How would you enact further reductions, given the already low
staff level, if that be necessary in these tough times?
Dr. Mazanec. That is a very good question.
I think at this point what we are asking--as I said, what
we are asking staff to do is take on additional issues and
responsibilities. But we can only expand portfolios so far.
I think the next, or one of the things we will have to
consider is our breadth of services and which services or how
can we prioritize our services to make sure that Congress gets
what they need or what is most valuable to them. And that is
one of the reasons why I have been going around and speaking
with Members and senior staff.
We are also looking at our operations, looking for----
Mr. Gingrey. Well, let me--and my time has expired. Just
real quickly, just getting back to the personnel issue, do you
think you can continue in this environment with the current
level of personnel, and thinking maybe for the next couple or 3
years that it is not going to get any better, that we can still
get the quality of work out of CRS that we have become
accustomed to, certainly in the 9 years that I have been here?
Dr. Mazanec. I think we can. Now, I want to caveat that by
the fact that it really depends on the issues that we are being
asked to work on. And as the issues get more and more complex,
we may need additional analytical capacity or we may need to
hire people that have specific expertise that we need.
Mr. Gingrey. Thank you all.
And I thank my colleagues for indulging me with a little
bit of overtime there.
Let me turn to the ranking member, Ms. Lofgren, for her
second round of 5 minutes.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Pallante, according to the information provided to the
committee, you had a meeting with the Authors Guild and the
Association of American Publishers in New York between December
7th and December 9th of last year. Can you tell me who attended
that meeting? What was the substance of the discussion? And was
SOPA a topic of the meeting?
Ms. Pallante. Yes, thank you.
I remember the trip, because my family came up to join me
in New York, and we went to the Empire State Building at
midnight on Saturday night, and Representative Goodlatte was
there with his family. And my children said, ``I can't believe
we can't even go to the Empire State Building without you
running into people you work with.''
At that meeting, I had been asked by the Publishers'
Lawyers Committee, the in-house counsel for lawyers, people who
work every day in copyright transactions and litigation, to
come and speak. And, again, whenever I take a trip, I try to do
additional meetings to maximize my time. And so I met again
with the businesspeople who are in the Association of American
Publishers, so not the lawyers but the CEOs and businesspeople,
to talk again about the priorities of the Copyright Office.
Then went and met with the Authors Guild, again, just to go
over my priorities and special documents.
Ms. Lofgren. And was SOPA a subject of the discussion?
Ms. Pallante. SOPA and PIPA were introduced at that point,
so it would have been discussed in those terms. But in general,
rogue Web sites have been a topic for the Copyright Office for
a year.
Ms. Lofgren. Let me ask you to do this. You haven't
mentioned the names of the people you met with. So let me ask
you, in addition to the names of the people you met with in
Hollywood, that you provide the names of the people you met
with in New York. And if you could, please, a summary of the
topics discussed at each meeting.
Ms. Pallante. Yes.
Ms. Lofgren. You know, like you, I love books, I love
reading. But I am also mindful that technological changes are
evolving the dominant forms of creative work throughout--they
have throughout our history, and they certainly are today.
In recent remarks to the American Association of
Publishers, you said that--and I assume this is correctly
quoted--you cannot imagine the future without books and without
publishers.
Now, do you believe that the preservation of a particular
form of copyright works or a particular industry business model
is part of your mission as the Register of Copyrights? And if
not, what did you mean by that comment?
Ms. Pallante. Thank you. I was not discussing a particular
format of books; I was talking about books. And in that speech
I had been asked to trace the history of copyright through
books. It was the annual meeting of the members of the
Association of American Publishers. And so I traced it from the
time of the first Copyright Act in 1790 to the Golan decision,
in which Justice Ginsburg repeated that her decision was based,
in fact, on the Framers' intent that dissemination of works was
part of the copyright bundle. That was the point of my remarks.
Ms. Lofgren. Let me ask all of the witnesses about
discrimination. We are aware, we have seen in the newspaper of
an allegation of an individual who asserts that he was fired
because of his sexual orientation. Now, I won't get into that
particular case because it is being investigated.
But we have no tolerance here for discrimination in
employment in violation of our laws. So I would like to know,
what are each of you doing to make sure that the employees
within your purview are not discriminated against based on
race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation?
We will start with you, Mr. Mao.
Mr. Mao. Thank you.
The Law Library of Congress and, indeed, the Library of
Congress believes very firmly that there should not be any
discrimination and believes in its mission to provide an
environment where there is no discrimination.
Now, specifically in the Law Library, one thing that I have
done since taking on the position of Law Librarian is to ensure
proper training for the staff. So I have encouraged the staff
to participate in the classes that are available through the
Library of Congress. And, indeed, at one of the first
management team meetings I held in the Law Library, I invited
representatives from our Office of Opportunity, Inclusiveness,
and Compliance to come and brief our staff about the issue. And
we are planning on making that session available to the staff,
as well. And----
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
Dr. Mazanec.
And, all of you, if you could be brief, that be would be
good because I am running out of time.
Dr. Mazanec. Very specifically, we try to address any
issues around discrimination as rapidly as we can. We also try
to educate our employees about workplace discrimination and
also educate our managers. Diversity is highly valued at the
Library. It makes us do our job better.
Ms. Pallante. I would just repeat everything that my
colleagues have said. I have also instituted supervisory
training. And I have an open-door policy, which my staff have
taken advantage of.
Ms. Shaffer. And I guess I will add a fourth voice to all
of that. But I will also say that I think it is important that
our collections are so diverse. And they reflect such diverse
cultures that, in a sense, we have the environmental
underpinning for diversity there.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired.
Mr. Gingrey. Thank you, Ms. Lofgren.
Second round for 5 minutes for Mr. Nugent.
Mr. Nugent. Dr. Mazanec, you had mentioned that you
forecast. I would like to hear more about how you forecast in
regards to the needs of Congress and how do you get that----
Dr. Mazanec. I think you are referring to our legislative
planning process.
Mr. Nugent. Right.
Dr. Mazanec. We do this on an annual basis. We rely on our
analysts and attorneys who have been working with the
committees and with congressional staff to help identify the
issues that Congress will be focused on in the upcoming
session. We then vet that list with leadership offices and with
our oversight offices to make sure that we have captured all
the issues, that we haven't missed anything.
So that is how we start our planning process for our
research materials, the products, and the services that we
provide.
Mr. Nugent. Does that translate into how many folks you are
going to wind up putting in a particular area based upon the
complexity of the issue, or----
Dr. Mazanec. We try do that to the best of our ability, but
people come in with specific expertise, so they can't always
move very easily from one issue area to another issue area. And
some of the expertise has been developed over decades.
But we are looking at creating more surge capacity, more
cross-coverage, so that we can supplement the lead analysts in
a given issue area that is really hot.
Mr. Nugent. And this is to all of you. You know, given the
cutbacks that you have all faced in regards to personnel and
retirements, how are you growing leaders within specific areas?
And, you know, Mr. Mao, I don't know that you have a second
in command at this point in time, but how are you going to grow
leaders, particularly in this austere budget time? Yes, sir.
Mr. Mao. We have various training programs available. One
of the ones that we have started is, for example, in our
Reading Room. We have what we are calling our Reading Room
Management Training Fellowship, where we are encouraging the
Reading Room staff to gain supervisory experience.
We have also encouraged our members to take details. For
example, we have one member of the Law Library staff who is
working with the House Appropriations Committee currently on a
detail to gain supervisory experience in a context outside of
the Library but still related to the Library.
Mr. Nugent. Dr. Mazanec.
Dr. Mazanec. Very quickly, I would echo all of that. We
also have some recruitment programs where we target bright,
young individuals coming out of school--the law recruit, grad
recruit, and the PMF program, the Presidential Management
Fellows program. We bring them on board, educate them, train
them, give them opportunities to develop their skills.
Mr. Nugent. Ms. Pallante.
Ms. Pallante. And I have a lot of cross-departmental
projects at the moment and am using those to identify leaders.
And I have actually had several people retire after many
decades at the Copyright Office, and so younger people will be
stepping up to fill those jobs.
Mr. Nugent. Thank you.
Ms. Shaffer.
Ms. Shaffer. We are doing a lot of what our colleagues are
doing in Library Services, but we are also creating now a very
robust mentoring and coaching program within the service unit.
And then we are reaching out to colleges and universities
all over the country to help us identify people who are
graduating from college and might be interested or have
knowledge of cultures and language skills, because that is a
critical issue for Library Services.
Mr. Nugent. One more question. As it relates to the
Legislative Information System, which it is now in its 16th
year of existence, and THOMAS, which has been around now 18
years, how do they fit within Library of Congress information
architecture strategies as you move forward? Is there talk
about merging the two, or is there some other way?
Mr. Mao.
Mr. Mao. Yes, the data underneath is essentially the same.
And right now the Library of Congress is working very hard on
updating the information architecture for the THOMAS system and
is looking forward to launching a new system that will
integrate all of this information in one place.
Mr. Nugent. Very good.
Dr. Mazanec. I don't have anything to add except that CRS
has been actively involved in collaborating with the other
service units to modernize our Legislative Information System.
Mr. Nugent. I would think that would definitely be the way
forward, particularly in these times where we have lost
personnel. Any time we can collect information and then
disseminate it in a way that is useful would be great.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Gingrey. Thank you, Mr. Nugent.
And I will now yield to the gentleman from Indiana. And
this is his first round. So, Todd, you can go beyond the 5
minutes and take up to 10, if you wish.
Mr. Rokita. Oh, my.
Mr. Gingrey. Mr. Rokita from Indiana.
Mr. Rokita. It is wonderful to be on House Admin and be
treated this way.
My apologies for being late, with multiple hearings today
that I was scheduled to attend. I thank the witnesses for their
testimony, and my apologies for not being able to hear it all.
If I ask a question that has already been addressed by
another Member, would you please tell me so I can move on? And
I will go back to the transcript to get that answer. That
requires a two-way street, right? You have to think of that as
if being answered in my mind, not yours. But I think we can
accomplish that today.
First, to Ms. Pallante, do the Library's costs to process a
claim vary depending upon the type of work?
Ms. Pallante. Oh, that is a great question. Meaning does it
cost more to register a motion picture than it does a song, for
example?
Mr. Rokita. Yeah, a book versus a movie or a piece of
software or something like that.
Ms. Pallante. Yes. So that is one of the focal points of a
fee study that we are undertaking right now----
Mr. Rokita. Okay.
Ms. Pallante [continuing]. Which is something that I am in
the middle of in my first year as Register. I would suspect the
answer is yes.
Mr. Rokita. And when is that fee report going to be due
then, or that analysis going to be done?
Ms. Pallante. It will be done and delivered to Congress
this summer.
Mr. Rokita. Okay.
Ms. Pallante. And then if Congress approves, it would be
implemented in fiscal 2013.
Mr. Rokita. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Pallante. You are welcome.
Mr. Rokita. Another question. According to your recent fee
report notice, in fiscal year 2011 fee receipts covered 59
percent of the costs. You said this was insufficient by any
standard. Certainly, it would be in the private sector. What
standard would be sufficient?
Ms. Pallante. Again, that is a really good question. As I
understand it, the office fees for services have never covered
the entire cost. And, in part, that is because, at least in
recent decades, copyright registration is a voluntary system,
meaning that as an author or as a motion picture company you
don't have to register to get legal protection under copyright
law. It is automatic.
There are benefits, and we try to entice people to
register, but we do that because the public database is
actually good for other industries who may rely on that
information for innovation and for the public who needs to find
a copyright owner.
So it is a little bit of a circle, and we have to hit the
sweet spot, essentially, with the fee study. But I do believe
that we have not been recovering enough of the fees for
services.
Mr. Rokita. And just so I am clear, do you have a solution
for that or not? You are saying no. Is there a--I can't believe
I am asking you this. Do you think there would be a legislative
solution to that?
Ms. Pallante. Well, I rely on the law when I do the fee
study. I have parameters that are set in the Copyright Act. And
they require that I be fair and equitable and give due
consideration to the objectives of the copyright system, which
in the discussion that you missed is that in part the copyright
system is for authors and in part it is for the public.
So we need to take all of that into account. And,
therefore, I think one answer is, we probably will never be 100
percent fee recovery, but we need to do better.
Mr. Rokita. Okay. I will look at the transcript, as well.
Thank you.
According to I think that same fee report notice, you
recovered 64 percent of the cost to process an online claim but
only 58 percent of the cost to process paper applications. So
with adoption of a new fee structure, what percentage of the
costs are you anticipating recovering in both those categories?
Ms. Pallante. I am hesitant to give you an answer only
because we are in the middle of a public fee Federal Register
process, and I have to wait for the results of that before we
do the final analysis for Congress. So I don't want to prejudge
what the public's comments are going to be in terms of what the
right result should be.
Mr. Rokita. That would imply that you actually weight the
comments----
Ms. Pallante. Yes.
Mr. Rokita [continuing]. Which is something that----
Ms. Pallante. I actually read them and analyze them and----
Mr. Rokita. Wow.
Ms. Pallante [continuing]. Incorporate them.
Mr. Rokita. I don't mean to be flippant, but I am finding--
and this comes from a guy who used to run a couple agencies in
the State of Indiana at one time. When I ask other agency heads
or decision-makers about their formula or their process for
analyzing comments, they don't have one. Which you can come
back and say, ``Well, that is our discretion under the
Constitution,'' but I think that is an insufficient answer. So
I appreciate that non-answer you gave me.
What planning--I am trying not to just pick on you, but I
think this will be the last one for you--what planning has the
Copyright Office engaged in in the event the copyright royalty
judges are deemed unconstitutional? Something I am just
learning about. Do you have a plan? What if these judges are
found unconstitutional?
Ms. Pallante. Well, I don't have plan, but there would be
implications for the Register for sure.
Mr. Rokita. Yeah. Well, do you think you need to start
thinking of one, or are you pretty confident that they are
constitutional? And if so, why?
Ms. Pallante. Well, I know the Department of Justice is
representing the Library in that ongoing litigation. And I
probably shouldn't comment on pending litigation.
Mr. Rokita. Anyone else want to comment? No? Okay.
Ms. Shaffer, currently, 17 studio and movie-related
entities store materials at the Library's National Audiovisual
Conservation Center in Culpeper. You are familiar, obviously.
Assuming the center had authority to charge depositors for
cost recovery storage and preservation fees, what do you
envision for the center? Are there other institutions who have
offered to collaborate? Is there available space if more
entities want to establish a relationship with Culpeper?
Ms. Shaffer. Well, let me start by saying that we would be
able to create the space. We don't currently have it, but we
have some fixed shelving in Culpeper, and our plan for this
deposit program would be to install compact shelving, movable
shelving. So that would create a significant increase in our
available space. We have----
Mr. Rokita. Are you promoting this relationship
opportunity?
Ms. Shaffer. We are trying to. We have a number of
registries that you created for us. And we have spoken to
people who participate in the deliberations on those
registries. Often they are connected to or coming from
industry. And so we have been trying to explain to them what
our plan is in a very objective way, thinking that this will
provide service not only to them but also assure the longevity
and preservation of many of the materials that they possess and
really don't have the technical ability to handle. I think that
is the key issue.
Mr. Rokita. Well, and just so I am clear on your answer, if
you had the authority to charge depositors for cost recovery,
how would you handle that?
Ms. Shaffer. Well, we would use it as--we would institute
it under a revolving fund so that we could then use the monies
that we would collect to improve the preservation and
conditions of the materials that we would be taking in.
Mr. Rokita. A hundred percent?
Ms. Shaffer. Yes, I believe it would be. We would include
in that, however, a number of staff positions so that they
could be dedicated to preserving these materials as well as
developing scientific know-how for all other materials.
Mr. Rokita. Have you thought about fee structure and fees
and percentages of recovery, that kind of thing?
Ms. Shaffer. We are actually right now in the process of
looking at what the marketplace might bear. And we expect to
have that, again, by the summer. So we are looking at it as we
speak.
Mr. Rokita. I would expect the marketplace would bear a
lot.
Ms. Shaffer. Well, it would be cost recovery, so----
Mr. Rokita. I am not asking you to profit, but getting to
100 percent would be nice, or closer to.
Ms. Shaffer. Oh, it would be lovely, for sure.
Mr. Rokita. All right. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
Mr. Gingrey. Thank you, Mr. Rokita.
Let me say to our witnesses, first of all, thank you. I
want to thank each and every one of you. And I thank the
Members, as well. Ms. Lofgren had a conflicting markup, so she
had to leave a few minutes early.
Before I adjourn the committee, though, let me just say
that it is possible the committee members, maybe even some that
couldn't attend at all, they may have some follow-up questions
for the witnesses. And would you all please respond to these
written questions, assuming there are some, in a timely manner?
The committee members would greatly appreciate that.
Mr. Gingrey. But I do thank each and every one of you. The
positions that you hold--four of, what is it, seven or nine?
But you represent 40 percent or more of the budget for the
Library of Congress. And certainly we, the Members, understand
the importance and do realize the constraints that you are
under and are very likely to continue to be under in regard to
being able to provide the same level of service with fewer
people and with a tightened budget. I know that is very, very
difficult for each and every one of you.
And what you do is hugely important. And I think that was
pointed out pretty clearly during the hearing in your testimony
and the Q&A, two rounds of Q&A. So I feel, as chairman of the
Subcommittee of Oversight and Investigation, that we certainly
have had a very good hearing in regard to the Library of
Congress. And, again, thank you all.
At this point, I will declare that this hearing is
adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:29 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]