[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
IMPROVING CUSTOMER SERVICE FOR THE COPYRIGHT COMMUNITY: ENSURING THE
COPYRIGHT OFFICE AND THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS ARE ABLE TO MEET THE
DEMANDS OF THE DIGITAL AGE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
ADMINISTRATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
----------
HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, DECEMBER 2, 2015
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on the Internet:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/administration/index.html
IMPROVING CUSTOMER SERVICE FOR THE COPYRIGHT COMMUNITY: ENSURING THE
COPYRIGHT OFFICE AND THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS ARE ABLE TO MEET THE
DEMANDS OF THE DIGITAL AGE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
ADMINISTRATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, DECEMBER 2, 2015
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on the Internet:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/administration/index.html
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
21-529 WASHINGTON : 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
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
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan, Chairman
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
RICHARD NUGENT, Florida Ranking Minority Member
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois ZOE LOFGREN, California
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia JUAN VARGAS, California
MARK WALKER, North Carolina
Professional Staff
Sean Moran, Staff Director
Jamie Fleet, Minority Staff Director
IMPROVING CUSTOMER SERVICE FOR THE COPYRIGHT COMMUNITY: ENSURING THE
COPYRIGHT OFFICE AND THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS ARE ABLE TO MEET THE
DEMANDS OF THE DIGITAL AGE
----------
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2015
House of Representatives,
Committee on House Administration,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:11 a.m., in room
1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Candice S. Miller
(chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Miller, Harper, Nugent, Davis,
Comstock, Walker, Brady, Lofgren, and Vargas.
Staff Present: Sean Moran, Staff Director; John Clocker,
Deputy Staff Director; Bob Sensenbrenner, Deputy General
Counsel; John L. Dickhaus, Legislative Clerk; Erin McCracken,
Communications Director; Reynold Schweickhardt, Director of
Technology Policy; Brad D. Walvort, Professional Staff Member;
Edward J. Puccerella, Professional Staff Member; Jamie Fleet,
Minority Staff Director; Matt Pinkus, Minority Senior Policy
Advisor; Khalil Abboud, Minority Deputy Staff Director/Director
of Legislative Operations; Mike Harrison, Minority Chief
Counsel; and Eddie Flaherty, Minority Chief Clerk.
The Chairman. We will move on and now call to order the
Committee on House Administration's hearing today, which is
going to be on the U.S. Copyright Office.
The hearing record will remain open for 5 legislative days
so that members may submit materials that they wish to be
included. [The information follows:]
The Chairman. Today we are holding this hearing to discuss
the current IT functionality of the Library of Congress'
Copyright Office, areas where the Copyright Office is focused
on improving their overall customer service, and how, working
together, the leadership within the Library and its Copyright
Office are meeting the demands of today's digital age.
We would ask our witnesses to come forward. I see them as
we are making our opening remarks.
Wow, you were all back in that room? Okay.
The Copyright Office is one of seven business units within
the Library of Congress and operates using both appropriated
funds as well as the fees that it collects for copyright
registration, recordation, and statutory licensing to manage
the disbursement of royalty payments. Each year the Library's
Copyright Office examines approximately a half a million
creative works, such as books or songs, movies, software,
Internet platforms, and provides a copyright of authorship to
those individual products.
The Library is charged to administer our Nation's system of
copyright law, which it inherited back in 1870. It is really a
huge responsibility that promotes innovation and creativity.
For writers, singers, producers, IT developers, the copyright
process provides clear lines of authorship and ownership of
their creative products and protects them as they are
distributed throughout the world, a task that is becoming
increasingly complex and challenging in today's digital world.
Today, of course, we are streaming and we are downloading
content. We are using social media and multifaceted Internet
platforms and software, constantly updated to improve customer
interface and security.
The mission of the Copyright Office, which is so critical
to innovative growth in the world today, is to provide
customers with the assurance that their hard work and
investment will be protected. It is to instill the confidence
people need to invest in a new idea or a new product. Again, in
today's fast-moving digital world that assurance is
increasingly difficult to provide.
So the technology and business model needs to evolve for
today's customers. It does so with each of the seven units, and
the Library's central IT office plays a critical role in
supporting the Copyright Office, including providing a
technology infrastructure and the support for needed capital
improvements. The two entities rely very heavily on one
another.
Understanding the scope and significance of this operation,
it is very concerning to read the GAO report that was released
just earlier this year outlining the Library's longstanding
weaknesses across several IT areas, including Copyright.
According to the reports, operational and organizational
challenges within the Library and its Copyright Office have
resulted in a serious backlog with the registration and
recordation system, causing extensive wait times, some as long
as 18 months, as has been noted.
In addition to outdated technologies and insufficient IT
capabilities, especially with the recordation process, the GAO
also identified deficiencies related to data integrity and
security. It also highlighted the lack of a Library-wide
strategic plan to address all of these problems.
In its report, the GAO included 31 recommendations for the
Library to address these weaknesses. Perhaps most importantly,
they also highly recommended that the Library hire a Chief
Information Officer. So our Committee, of course, will be
looking for an update on where the Library is with these
recommendations and as well what caused a recent IT service
outage that affected a number of Library-supported systems,
including the Copyright Office. In fact, for more than a week,
an entire week in September, the online copyright registration
system, which is referred to as eCO, was down for a week
because of the outage.
So the Committee obviously wants to hear from the Library
regarding the current IT system and how those operations have
been impacting its Copyright Office in the copyright community.
The Committee is also interested to hear how overall customer
service experiences will be improved.
The Committee will also be hearing from the Register of the
Copyright Office today and how the Copyright Office's own
management structure fits within the broader Library system, if
the Copyright Office is receiving the required support from the
Library, and how these two entities, again, are working
together to correct the current issues that they face today.
Finally, we will be hearing from the GAO about the problems
identified in the March report and the Library's progress
implementing its recommendations.
I would just note that I know there have been a number of
people who have been advocating for some period of time that
the Copyright Office actually be independent from the Library,
but that is not the purpose of today's hearing. That is not
what we are talking about today. Today we want to hear how
Library management, both the Acting Librarian and the Register
of Copyrights, are working together diligently to fix the
immediate problems before them to improve their operations and
customer support.
I want to thank our witnesses for their appearance, and I
will more formally introduce them in just a moment. But now I
would like to recognize my colleague and the ranking member of
the Committee, Mr. Brady, for purposes of his opening
statement.
Mr. Brady. Thank you. And I want to thank the Chairman for
calling this important hearing today. And I would like to
congratulate David Mao on his new responsibilities as Acting
Librarian of Congress.
Madam Chairman, I have a longer statement for the record,
but would like to make a few comments before we hear from our
witnesses.
I want to be clear that I support keeping the Copyright
Office in the Library of Congress, but I also want to be clear
that the Library of Congress needs to support the Copyright
Office. This starts with solid operations support, including a
laser-like focus on informational technology, and I hope to
hear today how the Library of Congress offices are working
together to provide creators and inventors good customer
service.
I am pleased with the work that David and his team at the
Library have done, but that is just a start, and I look forward
to hearing about how we could continue to make important
progress in this area.
I thank the Chairman again, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
[The statement of Mr. Brady follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
I would also like to congratulate David Mao as I formally
introduce him. He became the Acting Librarian on October 1,
2015.
So you are just getting your feet wet, so to say, but not
really because he had previously served as Deputy Librarian of
Congress from January 12 of 2015, and before that he was the
23rd Law Librarian of the Congress, serving in that position
since January of 2012. He also has experience in the Library
working as the section head for the Congressional Research
Service and also became the first Deputy Law Librarian of
Congress. He also has experience in the private sector, working
in private practice for a number of years.
He graduated from George Washington University, obtained
his law degree from Georgetown University Law Center, and also
has a master's degree in Library Science from the Catholic
University of America.
So we welcome you, sir.
Maria Pallante was appointed as the Register of Copyrights
on June 1, 2011, after serving 5 months as the Acting Register
of the Copyright Office. She also served as the Copyright
Office--served it as Deputy General Counsel from 2007 to 2008
and as an Associate Register and Director of Policy and
International Affairs from 2008 to 2010.
Ms. Pallante also has extensive experience working in the
area of copyright. Before coming to this office, she also
worked as the assistant director of the Authors Guild, Inc.,
and then as executive director of the National Writers Union,
focusing on copyright policy, transactions, litigation, and
freedom of expression issues.
She is a 1990 graduate of the George Washington University
Law School. She earned her bachelor's degree from
Misericordia--I hope I am pronouncing that correctly--
University in Pennsylvania.
Finally, Joel Willemssen is the Managing Director of
Information Technology Issues at the U.S. Government
Accountability Office. In this position he has overall
responsibility for the GAO's evaluations of information
technology across the Federal Government.
Since joining the GAO in 1979, he has led numerous reviews
of information technology systems and management at a wide
array of Federal agencies. He frequently testifies on
information technology issues before congressional committees,
appearing as a GAO witness on more than 100 occasions.
So you are pretty old hat at this, I would say. We
appreciate you being here.
He received his bachelor and master's degree in business
administration from the University of Iowa.
So, again, we thank you all for joining us. At this time
the chair would recognize the Librarian of Congress, David Mao.
STATEMENTS OF DAVID S. MAO, ACTING LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS; MARIA
A. PALLANTE, REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED
STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE; JOEL C. WILLEMSSEN, MANAGING DIRECTOR,
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY--U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
STATEMENT OF DAVID S. MAO
Mr. Mao. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Miller, Ranking
Member Brady and Members of the Committee. Good morning. I am
honored to testify before you today in my ninth week as Acting
Librarian of Congress.
Since 1800, the Library has faithfully served Congress.
Congress placed the copyright function in the Library in 1870,
and since then the Library has contributed to the government's
constitutional role to promote the progress of science and
useful arts. Copyright deposits have been a resource for
generations of Americans and we take seriously our stewardship
of this important record of America's heritage.
Factors leading to the 1870 act still exist today; however,
improvements are needed. Copyright law needs to be updated.
Regulations and processes must keep pace with the demands and
expectations of copyright users. The Copyright Office
infrastructure needs to be strengthened and modernized.
The Library is a resource of knowledge that furthers
intellectual and creative activity and customer service is
crucial to our work. I know the Register shares my goal to
provide services when, where, and in whatever form modern users
expect and demand. We will work together to develop the updated
processes and modernized systems to meet the needs of and serve
our customers and stakeholders.
The Library has developed more than 250 enterprise systems
and applications over the past 50 years. While achieving these
successes, though, some areas have not kept pace with the
development of technology and general standards and best
practices. I assure you that these are a top priority. We have
work to do to achieve a high-performing IT environment that
supports the entire Library of Congress in serving you and the
American people, and we are firmly committed to achieving this
objective.
GAO's March report documented IT issues that require
immediate attention. As Acting Librarian of Congress, I accept
responsibility for implementing strategies to forge a new path
forward. These strategies are built on three key pillars:
leadership, collaboration, and secure accessibility.
First, GAO identified the lack of a permanent Chief
Information Officer. I am happy to report that Mr. Bud Barton
joined the Library as permanent CIO this past September. He
heads the newly aligned Office of the CIO, specifically focused
on providing IT leadership and services. With his guidance, the
Library began implementing changes to ensure that IT strategic
planning, procurement, and management are considered at the
appropriate levels and consistent across the Library. The CIO
and I meet weekly to review the status of these changes and
issues identified by the GAO and the Library's inspector
general.
Second, collaboration is essential to managing IT
investments and resources effectively. The Library is committed
to providing an IT framework built upon performance,
reliability, security, and adaptability, and that allows
flexibility for specialized systems best managed at the unit
level. The CIO is implementing agreements across the Library
for delivery of IT infrastructure and services to support
normal business operations. We are in a time of change and
recognize that ongoing communication and adjustment is
necessary to ensure that collaboration continues successfully.
We share GAO concerns about potential duplication in IT
services between the Office of CIO and Library units; however,
an enterprise model provides for individual control of critical
systems and development processes while also ensuring effective
use of resources and preventing investment overlap.
Third, ensuring security while allowing access to data is
one of the most significant challenges in handling digital
content. Collection items such as paper and books are
relatively easy to protect. Digital content, on the other hand,
requires secure storage systems, backups for data protection
and preservation, and access management policies for users.
These challenges are complex, but not insurmountable. The
Library has a long history of protecting digital content while
simultaneously making it accessible and we are proud of our
record of doing so. We will take the steps required to ensure
copyright materials remain secure.
The Library is committed to reaching for the highest levels
of customer service, and I am confident that our current
strategies and planned improvements will allow for us to do so.
We are working closely with the GAO audit team and the
Library's inspector general to fulfill their recommendations.
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Brady, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you
today. You will find additional detail on recent IT management
improvements in my written statement. I look forward to
responding to your questions.
[The statement of Mr. Mao follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
The Chair now recognizes Register Pallante.
STATEMENT OF MARIA A. PALLANTE
Ms. Pallante. Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Brady, and
Members of the Committee, thank you for holding this public
hearing and for your concern in particular about customer
service.
My staff and I have dedicated the past few years to
modernization issues, both assessing gaps in the copyright law
and gaps in copyright administration. Through this work it has
become clear to us that major operational changes are needed
for the Copyright Office if it is to meet the dynamic needs of
the global marketplace that we serve.
Technology is obviously the cornerstone of a modern
copyright system. This is why in October 2011 I announced a
number of multiyear special projects, including a technical
upgrades project from which we published a major assessment of
customer experiences and a series of baseline recommendations.
The project team recommended that we develop a robust,
responsive, and highly secure enterprise architecture decoupled
from Library operations and dedicated to the unique and
critical mission of administering the copyright law.
I also created the first Chief Information Officer position
on the Register's management team in 2012. This Copyright
Office CIO was a recommendation from public interest
organizations and copyright owners alike. But this is just the
beginning. The Copyright Office will need a robust team of
technology and data experts. These experts should not merely be
assigned or on call from another part of the agency, but rather
be integrated into the Copyright Office mission where they can
work side by side with legal and business experts and with
direct, not indirect, accountability to the Register.
Just yesterday I released an exciting 5-year plan, copies
of which you should have received, that draws upon several
years of deliberative analysis and public processes. It
incorporates extensive public recommendations. As stated in the
plan, modernization is about more than upgrades to hardware and
software. The office is at a time where we need to re-envision
almost everything we do, including how customers register
claims, submit deposits, record licenses, file security
interests, share royalty information, and utilize expert
resources. Although it is not the focus of this hearing, many
policy issues are dependent upon modern IT systems, including
improvements to music licensing, orphan works, and small claim
solutions.
In the current paradigm, modernization will depend upon and
be subject to IT services from the Library of Congress, but
this central management of IT resources has never worked well
for the copyright community. It has, in my opinion, quite
literally disconnected the Register's statutory responsibility
to administer the copyright law from the tools, technologies,
and staffing that are necessary to do so. It should be alarming
to all of us that under this arrangement no one in the agency
has complete control of or complete accountability for the
authoritative records of copyright ownership under U.S. law.
IT challenges are difficult to divorce from larger
governance questions. The Library and the Copyright Office have
always had important but distinct missions. It does not serve
either institution to further conflate or entwine them. Such
conflation, in fact, is contrary to the original goals of
Congress, which in 1897 created the Copyright Office for the
purpose of separating copyright functions from Library
functions. These boundaries were important then, but they are
much more important today.
My goals for the Copyright Office reflect all of my
experience as a copyright attorney--some 25 years--and 4 years
of public processes that I conducted as Register. Our customers
should be able to transact easily, quickly, from anywhere at
any time, using consumer-friendly platforms, mobile
technologies, and modern metadata. They should have searchable
digital records that provide the lifecycle of a copyright
interest from creation to public domain and a chain of title
that supports integration of third-party data. These services,
performed properly, will fuel any number of innovative
businesses and ensure that both authors and users of
intellectual property receive the benefits and the presumptions
of the law. This is what copyright administration is about in
the 21st century.
In closing, I want to thank my colleagues at the Library of
Congress and my friend David Mao for engaging on these complex
issues and I want to thank GAO for sharing its expertise this
past year. I hope that the Library can support these goals. But
over the past few years that support has been subservient and
it has also been hostile at times. Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Pallante follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Willemssen for his testimony.
STATEMENT OF JOEL C. WILLEMSSEN
Mr. Willemssen. Thank you, Chairman Miller, Ranking Member
Brady, Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting us to
testify today. As requested, I will summarize our statement on
our reports issued earlier this year on IT issues at the
Library of Congress and at the Copyright Office.
Regarding the Library of Congress, our March report
identified weaknesses in numerous IT management-related areas.
Examples of these were, one, not having an IT strategic plan
detailing how the Library intended to address future goals and
strategies, which was especially important given that
information is increasingly being created, shared, and
preserved in digital formats.
Two, the Library had a highly inaccurate and inconsistent
inventory of its information technology assets.
Three, the Library did not know how much it was spending on
IT. In the absence of such information, GAO conducted work to
estimate expenditures and determined that the Library had at
least $119 million in IT obligations for fiscal year 2014.
Four, the Library was not effectively overseeing its
investments in IT and its acquisitions were not always guided
by well-developed risk management, and cost and schedule
estimating approaches.
Five, deficiencies in information security and privacy
practices and associated technical controls placed systems and
data at risk of unauthorized access, modification, or loss.
Six, the Library's central IT office did not provide
services that satisfied the other operating units. Accordingly,
these other units often considered other options for addressing
their IT needs.
A key factor contributing to these and other weaknesses was
that the Library lacked a Chief Information Officer with clear
responsibility and adequate authority. Subsequent to our report
being issued, the Library appointed a Chief Information
Officer. However, it remains to be seen whether this position
will have clear responsibility and adequate authority to drive
needed improvements.
Overall, the Library generally concurred with our 31
recommendations intended to provide a sound foundation for
improving the management of IT. Further, the Library has
initiated a range of actions to address the recommendations.
However, none of the 31 has been fully implemented yet.
Looking forward, the Library needs to commit to milestones
for implementing our recommendations and focus on meeting those
milestones in order to make progress in improving its IT
management.
Turning to the Copyright Office, our March report
identified a number of IT challenges, particularly with regard
to the Electronic Copyright Office system, or eCO, which is
used for, among other things, the registration of copyrights.
These challenges included numerous user complaints about the
performance and usability of the eCO system.
We also reported that the Copyright Office had proposed
investments in several IT improvement projects, but had not yet
developed an IT strategic plan to guide its efforts. We noted
that the office had been hindered in developing long-term plans
due to the absence of such plans for the Library as a whole. In
addition, dissatisfaction with IT services provided by the
Library led Copyright to pursue its own IT activities.
Since GAO's review, Copyright has issued an overall
strategic plan that, among other things, describes goals and
objectives for improving its IT environment. Going forward,
Copyright will need to follow through on its intentions to
develop a more detailed IT plan that will include specific
strategies, costs, and time lines. Such an approach, if
implemented effectively, can lay the groundwork for
modernization of systems critical to its mission.
That concludes the summary of my statement. I look forward
to your questions.
[The statement of Mr. Willemssen follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you.
Before I start my questions, I have been asked by the
Copyright Alliance to enter in for the record and with a UC, if
I could, a report that they have here, ``Improving Customer
Service for the Copyright Community.'' Without objection, I
will enter that into the record.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Certainly, listening to Mr. Willemssen
articulate a number of the recommendations that were in the GAO
report is eye opening, and I guess let's just start with that.
If I could ask Mr. Mao, here you have 31 recommendations,
which he didn't go through all of them, but really, apparently
none of them have been implemented yet, even though the Library
did say that they were going to start some of them in September
of this year, which has not happened. I do know that you have
hired a CIO, but I don't think you have strategically outlined
all the various areas for how that is all going to work. So
perhaps you could just tell us. I am sure you have read the
report and dissected it, and I am hopeful that you can tell us
how you would be prioritizing all of these various
recommendations that they have made to you.
Mr. Mao. Thank you, yes. And we have taken the 31
recommendations, and by our account some of them are completed.
We are working right now with the GAO audit team to get
validation from them that they are indeed completed. We have
met with them regularly to discuss them and will continue to
meet with them regularly going forward to ensure that all of
the 31 recommendations are completed. We have a schedule that
will allow us to complete the 31 recommendations hopefully by
2018.
The Chairman. Is that something you can share with the
Committee?
Mr. Mao. The schedule?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Mao. Certainly, we can. I am happy to provide it.
The Chairman. Okay, could you just tell us what is your top
priority, one, two, three, perhaps?
Mr. Mao. Well, the top priorities were identified earlier,
and one of them, of course, the number one priority was hiring
a permanent CIO, which we do have on board. And I understand
Mr. Willemssen's comment that, you know, it remains to be seen
whether the hiring of this permanent CIO will completely close
out that recommendation. But he has started just in September
and I think we have made good progress with him in the last 2
months. And I look forward to proving to the GAO that we can
close out that particular recommendation.
And in addition, we have created an IT strategic plan that
was identified in the GAO report. That is in its final stages
right now to be shared with the Executive Committee very
shortly and we hope to have that released by the end of this
month.
We are also implementing processes and procedures for IT
investment strategies going forward to make sure that all of
the information we collect and all of the information is shared
transparently across the entire Library and also that
information submitted by all of the units for their needs are
considered, and that process was just recently started.
For our preparation for the fiscal 2017 budget cycle, we
considered new and expanded program requests from all of the
units and we walked through the process as we have identified.
And certainly, our regulations and internal guidelines will be
modified to reflect all of these processes that we are putting
into place.
The Chairman. I appreciate that.
Mr. Willemssen, as you heard that, maybe you are already
familiar with that list of priorities. What is your thought
about those priorities, or should they be looking at other
priorities? What do you think?
Mr. Willemssen. I agree with the Acting Librarian on the
first priority, appointing a CIO. The next step is making sure
that the CIO has adequate responsibility and authority to carry
out the mission. That is what we will be looking for over the
next couple months, in addition to seeing that the CIO has
oversight over mission-critical systems and takes more of a
leading role on what we refer to as commodity IT--back office
systems, financial management, human resources, email, laptops,
cell phones, et cetera. We would like to see more of an active
role there.
The other critical things that we think from an immediacy
standpoint that need to be addressed are one, you need to get a
clear inventory on exactly where your assets are located. The
Library has made a lot of progress on that, and are doing some
reconciliation of the data now. One of the reasons this is
important is that you have to know where your access points are
from an information security standpoint so that you can protect
your systems and your data.
Secondly, the Library needs to get a handle on IT spending,
and they are in the process of doing that. So it is not to say
they haven't made any progress. They have made tremendous
progress. However, they are not quite there yet.
There are also some information security weaknesses from a
patching and perimeter control perspective that they need to
focus on addressing. The Library has probably made the most
progress in the information security area. You may know we also
issued a not-for-public-release in-depth security report that
had 74 recommendations. The Library has already made progress
on many of those recommendations.
The Chairman. Very good. Well, I am delighted hearing that
you are making that kind of progress and that you look at the
GAO report as an opportunity for help, and a tool of
assistance, not in an adversarial way. Sometimes, when people
are critical of our nest, we have a tendency to see that as an
adversarial kind of thing, but we shouldn't look at it that
way. Audits, and GAO in particular, can be extremely helpful
for every agency.
Ms. Pallante, you and I had an opportunity to chat on the
phone for quite a while yesterday about various things that are
happening in your agency, and I mentioned to you that in my
former life as a Michigan secretary of state where we had
jurisdiction over the DMV as well, I had the largest agency, I
guess, in State government at that time, but we always said
that customer service was the operative phrase for everything
that we were trying to do. I know that is so in your department
as well.
Talking about eCO--I know that is how it is pronounced, I
don't know exactly what it is, E something-- but that is an
ability for your customers to file online, right? Maybe you
could talk about that a little bit. What is that? Is it
particularly helpful? You mentioned about the customer
experiences, so on and so forth. You also said that you just
released this report yesterday. So, I mean, I have not had time
to even--I am just looking at it right now. Anyway, we will
enter it into the record, without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Perhaps you could talk a little bit about
whether or not your customers look at your current system, the
eCO system, as something that is really customer service
oriented, that it is easier for them, that they have a good
experience with that.
Ms. Pallante. Thank you, Chairman Miller.
So I think one way to look at eCO, because it predates
everybody at this table, is that it was a good first-generation
system. It is 10 years old, and it was probably outdated by the
time it was implemented. I get to say that because I was in
private practice in New York at the time and I wasn't there and
don't really know whether it was state of the art at the time
or not.
I do think that off-the-shelf software was a big push in
government agencies at that time, and I think those were
probably the instructions coming from the appropriators in
conversations with the Librarian's office about budget.
And I will further say that I think one of the biggest
issues is that--and, again, this may reflect the period, not so
much the agency--the goal was really to replicate the paper
processes that had been in place for a century into some kind
of electronic interface, rather than create a digital interface
that harnesses digital technology and connects to the global
marketplace, which is where we are today.
So when I was appointed Register on June 1, 2011,
immediately in talking with my staff and doing a lot of
external stakeholder meetings it became clear to me that eCO
was something we needed to look at closely. What I wasn't
counting on was that eCO--as the software application that we
manage--was sitting on top of a network and operating system
and an IT governance model that really held the key to the
effectiveness of whether that could be developed further or
not.
So I am not an auditor or an accountant. We have somebody
here to answer those questions. But this becomes a sunk cost
issue, right? So I am not a fan of eCO. Most people are not. It
is probably not a flexible enough software package to further
customize and invest in. It never extended to recordation,
which is different than registration. That is where one records
security interests and wills and estates and any other way that
you are going to track IP rights in the world.
Recordation is still paper. I think we might want to
consider it a blessing that we didn't go ahead and dump
recordation into eCO 10 years ago as well. That is not to say
it hasn't been painful to have that be a paper process, but I
have come to believe that we have an opportunity now to get
that right, and in doing recordation right, go back and
integrate registration at the same level.
So in the 360 that I did in the technical upgrades report
that I released, it documents many of the frustrations. It is
too slow, it is too clunky, it is not intuitive. One can't go
into the system and track where they are in the process.
I will say this. Whatever frustrations the public
experiences are then some on the employee side who are on the
other side of that software package using it day in and day
out. So with that in mind and having done the baseline report,
we do outline here the kind of administration that we really
should be offering the public.
The Chairman. Well, I will take that as an answer that you
don't really like the system and it is obviously very
antiquated. So one of the things coming out of this hearing,
and following as well, is the Library is prioritizing resources
in IT investment, et cetera. We will be interested to see how
all of that works. I mean, we have to know so that we can help
you. It is really the purpose of this hearing, so that this
Committee can be aware of the challenges that you are all
facing at the Library, and all across the Library, but
certainly in the Copyright Office with IT challenges and how we
can assist getting us up to speed so that customers--I mean,
waiting 18 months for some of these things is a huge handicap
for----
Ms. Pallante. Those are paper processes, just so you know,
not the electronic.
The Chairman. Oh, okay, the paper process.
Ms. Pallante. There are Members who have constituents who
still prefer to mail things in by paper. So that is the extreme
end.
The Chairman. I see.
Ms. Pallante. But it should be immediate. You are right.
The Chairman. All right, very good. The Chair recognizes
the Ranking Member.
Mr. Brady. Thank you, Madam Chair.
David, thank you for your testimony. It is clear that you
are doing a good bit of work very quickly at the Library. It is
a great institution with great resources for us and for the
American people. We are friendlies here. We want to be able to
be helpful to you. So anything that you need when you need
anything from us, just let us know, you know, and maybe we can
get ahead of something before something becomes a lot bigger
than we can have to handle. So stay in touch with us, and we
will stay in touch with you.
I know we are here to talk about the Copyright, but I hope
you give me a little few minutes on some details on other
priorities that the Library is doing now under your watch.
Mr. Mao. Thank you. Well, let me tell you about my goal
during this time as Acting Librarian of Congress, and my main
goal for this period is to ensure that the Library of Congress
is best positioned for the future. That is it. The topic of
today's hearing, IT management, certainly is a part of that
priority and part of that goal. It is a great priority.
But there are others as well. Other priorities for me in
particular are focusing on the staff at the Library of
Congress, our human resources. We need to take the time to
invest the time and resources, develop our staff currently and
develop future staff. Certainly collection care is something
that we all have to worry about at the Library of Congress and
that is another great priority.
But I think if you take all of these, the IT management,
the human resources, the collection care, all of them can be
supported by the pillars that I talked about in my opening
statement talking about leadership and collaboration,
communication, and good governance to make sure that we can
support all of these. And so I look forward to working with not
only my colleague the Register of Copyrights but all of the
senior leaders across the Library of Congress, as well as the
very, very dedicated staff that we have at the Library and you
Members of Congress to ensure that the Library of Congress
continues to be the great institution that it is. Thank you.
Mr. Brady. Thank you.
And thank you, Madam Chair. I have no other questions.
The Chairman. The Chair recognizes Mr. Harper.
Mr. Harper. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thanks to each of you. There is obviously a little
perceived tension on what your job is and what you have to do,
and we want to be very sensitive to that to make sure that you
have everything that you need to function properly. You have
the great responsibility to oversee the Copyright Office, which
is of tremendous importance and becoming more important every
day.
And I can imagine that 10 years ago, we had no real concept
for what we were going to be or no feel for what we were going
to be doing today and the challenges we will have as we move
more and more into a digital age and how that is going to be
done. And you have not only to take care of it there, but to
take care of those users and customers, we shall say, that are
out there.
And, Mr. Mao, you have got an even larger responsibility.
In that larger responsibility we want to make sure that we are
doing everything that you are going to need to do that job,
that is the purpose of this hearing.
So if eCO is not the future, it is really not even the
present, what do we do? Do you have a recommendation that you
have for what you need, how much it would cost, and if you had
that available, how quickly it could be implemented?
Ms. Pallante. Well, thank you.
So, yes, this strategic plan outlines in great detail our
recommendations for moving forward, as well as the broad
copyright community, so all parts of it, copyright owners,
individual authors, businesses, public interest organizations,
the tech sector, et cetera.
Again, eCO is almost the last piece. That is the software
application for certain services that the public interacts
with. And that would have been my early intuition as Register,
could we please throw away eCO and go to something open source?
It can't be that hard. But in fact, it has to be related to the
underlying operating system, who has the ability to maintain
and access that, who has administrative privileges, how that
relates to a robust, secure enterprise architecture designed
with all of the different services in mind.
One of the big issues we have is that all of the services
are not integrated. It is really frustrating, right? I mean, if
you are looking for rights, you want to look for registrations,
but if you registered a book or a movie in 1985 chances are it
has been assigned or licensed multiple times, including
internationally. That is the chain of title that we need to
acknowledge, and that has----
Mr. Harper. So how do you get everything in one universe?
Ms. Pallante. Yeah. And it requires legal thinking and IT
thinking at the same time, and that has been disconnected in
the past.
Mr. Harper. And is it something, though, with work, funds,
and determination----
Ms. Pallante. Absolutely.
Mr. Harper. You are clear in your report, and I looked at
the report last night, my late-night homework to look at it.
So, Mr. Mao, tell me what you have been doing to address
these concerns as far as meeting with your new CIO and with the
Register to make sure that you are going to be able to
accomplish those goals.
Mr. Mao. Well, thank you. First thing I want to say is that
the Copyright Office's concerns are concerns for the Library of
Congress and certainly they are a concern of mine, and we take
them all very seriously. And so we are moving aggressively on
that and I think we have done so in the last few months on
trying to address the Copyright Office's concerns, especially
in the IT arena. We have developed a draft IT strategic plan
that links, when released, you will see that it links with the
recently released Library of Congress Strategic Plan for fiscal
years 2016 to 2020 and also works in concert with the strategic
plan that the Register has released.
In addition, we are working very closely by communicating.
The CIO speaks on a regular basis, if not a daily basis, with
the CIO for the Copyright Office so that we can make sure we
understand the concerns that are being raised and that we can
address them and make sure that we can provide the service and
support that is needed.
Mr. Harper. And does Mr. Barton have the authority and
autonomy to move towards those things that Register Pallante
needs to do?
Mr. Mao. Yes, indeed. The CIO is a member of the Library's
Executive Committee. As I mentioned earlier, I meet with him on
a weekly basis to talk about the challenges that we are facing
and how we are addressing them. And he has taken a great, great
first couple of weeks, you know, in place and moving right
ahead. And I believe Mr. Willemssen had indicated that he was
impressed with the progress that we have made in a very short
amount of time. And so we will continue with that moving
forward.
Mr. Harper. Of course, I realize he has only been on the
job since September the 8th, not even 3 months, and I know
those are ongoing issues and concerns that we have. But it has
certainly got to be, you know, these are things that we as a
Committee expect you to be able to work through, work out.
And we are here to help. And so come to us when those
things are here and give us that plan, what we have got to do.
This is something we cannot neglect. And we want to, certainly,
and I know this is something that Chair Miller is very
committed to doing, and we will continue to have follow-up to
check that progress, I am sure.
With that, I yield back.
The Chairman. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from
California, Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks for this
hearing.
Mr. Mao, welcome to the Committee. You come at a time of
great transition for the Library. And certainly your
predecessor did many wonderful things in his long career. Being
a techie was not one of his fine points. So you have your work
cut out for you, as I am sure you are aware.
You know, I listened carefully to all of the testimony. I
am the only member of the Committee that serves on both the
Judiciary Committee and this Committee. And I don't want to get
too far into the weeds on copyright law, but you have to to
some extent.
Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
assigns to the Register certain functions to provide for
exemptions for anticircumvention provisions and this has been
problematic. I am sure you heard from your constituents a
couple of years ago when the office said you couldn't take the
cell phone that you own and utilize it. And of course we had to
go back in and change it. You may not have heard of the time
that the Register declined to approve in 2010, I believe it
was, the circumvention so that blind people could get text-to-
voice. The reason why you didn't hear about that was because
the Librarian of Congress, thank God, overruled the Register on
that very bad decision.
So I do think there is, there has traditionally been a
great value in having the office located in the Library itself.
I just wanted to express, since I am here and we haven't had
the Register in the Judiciary Committee, some grave concerns
about the latest lack of exemption for vehicle research. As you
know, almost every automobile now has software in it. And what
the ruling has done is that if your auto mechanic has to
circumvent the software to repair the car, they have violated
the DMCA, because there is a specific ruling by the Register
that third parties can't circumvent the software.
I think that is a wrongheaded decision and I think it is
also a dangerous decision, because all of the software defects
in automobiles, and there are many, unfortunately, have been
found out by third parties. The manufacturers aren't the ones
saying, you know, by the way, your car can be hacked. It is
third parties. So I think, I am hoping that the Register can
share this with the new Acting Librarian and he might be able
to step in and put some sense into this issue.
Getting back to funding, I noticed in the GAO report, which
is very helpful--and I am so appreciative of the GAO. You guys
wade in, you don't have an agenda, you just try and figure out
what is going on. You are not perfect any more than any of us
are, but, you know, you call it as you see it. And it is so
appreciated. You are really a valuable asset for the Congress
and the country.
And I notice that you have talked about on page 23 the
Register basically hasn't formatted a plan, which I think is
problematic, but obviously any plan would need to be funded.
Now, I believe, and I don't know if you looked at this, Mr.
Mao, that it is the office's position that the fee-setting
authority would not allow fees to fund the IT upgrades and
expansions. I don't know--I don't think that is true because
the statute actually says that when setting fees the reasonable
costs incurred by the Copyright Office for providing
registration, recordation, and, quote ``provision of services''
can be the basis for the fees. And any tech company in the
world would include software development as part of the
provision of services in something that would be, I think, part
of this fee structure.
Did you have a chance to look at that?
Mr. Willemssen. We did not look at that specific issue.
Ms. Lofgren. I wonder if you could take a quick look at
that.
Mr. Willemssen. Okay.
Ms. Lofgren. And the other thing that I am wondering about
is, does the Copyright Office receive more in fees than it is
allowed to spend in the appropriations cap and how much reserve
is currently sitting in the Copyright Office's treasury? Maybe,
I mean, anybody who can answer that would be welcome to do so,
anyone who knows the answer.
Ms. Pallante. I would be happy to answer that. I would also
like to say, although I don't want to debate section 1201, that
the Acting Librarian signed the rule that went out this year
that you have referred to after extensive consultation based on
a 400-page analysis and a year-and-a-half process. The reasons
for all of the exemptions are noted in great detail and also
provide the input of the Secretary of Commerce as required by
the statute.
With respect to the fees, under the current fee structure
we have recommended that the language, which dates back a
couple of decades, be adjusted to allow for some apportionment
to charge for capital improvements. Yes, it allows us to charge
for some inflation and some additional cost, but effectively we
are charging for the cost of the service as we are rendering
it.
There are other tweaks, whether we can charge in the
aggregate and cover cost in the aggregate, et cetera, how we
protect small actors versus asking big actors to pay a little
bit more. These are bigger policy issues that will require some
statutory recommendations from us. The appropriators have asked
that we conduct a public process on these issues, which we are
in the middle of formulating at the time.
With respect to the reserve, we are asked every year to
articulate what we think we will receive in fees. And we base
that on our best judgment and calculations. And in a good year
we recover more. In a bad year we recover less. When we recover
more it goes into our reserve account, which we then draw on
for the next budget cycle.
So, for example, in the fiscal year 2017 budget cycle,
which we are now putting proposals forward for, some of the
things we want to fund, like, for example, making historic
records searchable, that have finite cost, are well funded out
of a set finite reserve amount of money.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, it was actually a simple question. What
is the amount in the reserve account?
Ms. Pallante. What is the amount right at this moment?
Ms. Lofgren. Right.
Ms. Pallante. I wouldn't know. But we have--it is not much.
It is under $5 million normally.
Ms. Lofgren. I just wondered. I mean, I don't have an
agenda here. I just wondered what the amount was. And I would
note----
Ms. Pallante. We usually estimate within 2- or 3- to $5
million, we get it right.
Ms. Lofgren. The fee-setting authority was given in 1997
with the electronic filing pilot program in 2006. So I think if
you look at the plain language of the statute, you can charge
off. And I am saying this because I don't think the taxpayers
ought to be paying for this. When it comes to the Patent
Office, the patent applicants pay for everything. There is no
taxpayer's money in the patent system, and I don't think the
taxpayers ought to be subsidizing this either. I think users
ought to pay for it.
Ms. Pallante. May I respond to that, please?
Ms. Lofgren. No, because I think this is--my time is over
and I am going to yield back. But that is just my opinion, and
obviously there is a longer discussion, a philosophical one.
But what the taxpayers pay for and what they don't is something
that, you know, we need to talk about.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Nugent.
Mr. Nugent. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate this
hearing. It is a big change from a hearing I just came from
with regards to ISIS. So it is actually a pleasure.
But, you know, when I was Chief Executive Officer of a
sheriff's office IT would come in and I would sort of glass
over in regards to--you know, my big thing was, well, you
should just be able to make that work. And I found out it is
always not as simple as that.
But my question really goes, obviously there is some angst
here, as it relates to the CIO for the Library of Congress, how
many subdivisions does that CIO have under its broad authority
within the Library of Congress?
Mr. Mao. Well, in part of our realignment process launched
earlier this year, where we realigned a lot of divisions across
the Library, not just the CIO office, our first draft at that
has the CIO sitting above, with various units under, for
example, like, development or--off the top of my head I can't
think of the exact titles. But then that is the next management
layer underneath that.
Are you talking about with respect to the other units
specifically, or to the services?
Mr. Nugent. Well, like with the Register. I mean, what
number of subdivisions does the CIO actually control?
Because, Ms. Pallante, you have your own CIO?
Ms. Pallante. Yes.
Mr. Nugent. So how many CIOs does that CIO deal with on a
daily basis?
Mr. Mao. I see. I understand your question now.
There are two other CIOs, Chief Information Officers,
currently at the Library of Congress. One works currently in
the Copyright Office and the other one in the Congressional
Research Service.
Mr. Nugent. Okay. So when the Library of Congress' CIO was
interviewed, hired, Ms. Pallante, did you have any input into
that?
Ms. Pallante. Yes. We had people meet him--meet the two
finalists after the fact. Yes, before he was hired.
Mr. Nugent. Okay. There was an answer given, and you kind
of rolled your eyes, as it relates to the CIO today in regards
to, I guess, working relationship.
Ms. Pallante. No. No. The question that was asked was does
he have sufficient authority. I believe that the CIO and the
state of best practices for CIOs is that they report to the top
of the agency, like I report to the top of the agency. In that
way, you have the trust and partnership and same level of
leadership that you need to really decide what part of the
agency is going to do what.
What I was objecting to, and I think we have discussed
internally, is that the CIO does not report to the Librarian,
but reports to a Chief Operating Officer position that was
created, which in turn reports to the Deputy Librarian, which
reports to the Acting Librarian. I would like to see that
addressed. I have been outspoken about that.
Mr. Nugent. Mr. Mao, do you have a comment in regard? I
mean, that makes a lot of sense. When you have all these
different bureaucracies in between, I think it then becomes a
little more difficult. As the Librarian today, you have to make
decisions, and particularly in resources, I would think, how do
you do those developmental resources that you have two
subdivisions that need help? Would it be easier if that CIO
reported directly to you?
Mr. Mao. Well, in our estimation, the way we planned our
reorganization or realignment, it was what we considered to be
the best structure. And the Chief Operating Officer reports
directly to the Librarian of Congress, similar to, as Ms.
Pallante was saying, the Register of Copyrights. All of the
senior executives, members of the Executive Committee, in
purpose all report up to the Librarian of Congress, or in this
case the Acting Librarian of Congress. The Chief Information
Officer sits on the Executive Committee, along with all of the
other senior executives in the Library. As I mentioned, I meet
weekly with the Chief Information Officer to discuss issues,
and so I make sure that I am aware of what is going on in terms
of our challenges and making sure that we are staying on top of
what is happening.
Now, that is not to say that changes can't be made.
Certainly----
Mr. Nugent. Well, who makes that decision? Who makes that
decision as to the reporting requirements of those department
heads?
Mr. Mao. It would be the Librarian. And so when we launched
the initial realignment earlier this year, it came from the
Librarian's office.
Mr. Nugent. Which you have now taken over.
Mr. Mao. That I am a part of, yes.
Mr. Nugent. You are a part of, yes. Would you have any
recommendations in the future as to how to go forward to make
sure that from a customer standpoint, you know, the Register's
office is a customer of yours, as she has customers of that
particular subdivision. How do you propose to fix that, to make
sure that your customer is getting the proper service in
regards to the proper----
Mr. Mao. Well, that is the goal for the Office of the
Librarian, which is to make sure that all component parts of
the Library of Congress, whether it be the Copyright Office,
the Congressional Research Service, the Law Library, are all
receiving the support needed so that they can carry out their
missions. And that is the goal and that is what we do.
Mr. Nugent. Okay. Well, I think we have beat that up
enough.
I appreciate it, Madam Chair. I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
Vargas.
Mr. Vargas. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. A pleasure to
be here again.
You know, I always measure things in a very basic way: How
many complaints do you get versus how many compliments do you
get on something. And I have to say the Library of Congress is
very skewed. I get lots and lots of compliments, very few
complaints, the truth of the matter. Most people are very, very
happy with the Library of Congress and the work they have been
doing, and I wanted to say that publicly, because that is
certainly what I have experienced. It is not the case with
other agencies and other things that we do in government. But
certainly with the Library of Congress it has been very skewed
on the compliment side. Again, I wanted to say thank you for
that.
I also, though, wanted to say this. Madam Chair, when you
mentioned the DMV, there was a little thing that went down my
spine, and I remember in California we were redoing--I am from
California--we were redoing the DMV in our IT processes. And I
remember after we spent about $200 million we gave up on that
process and went back to the drawing board. And this was using
a lot of those high-tech companies in California that were so
expert supposedly on this. So again, the IT can be a real
nightmare and I am very conscious about that.
But I was happy to hear from GAO, and I would like to
question you a little bit further on this, and I don't want to
put words in your mouth, but when I first heard you describe
some of your recommendations I thought that you were leaning
more on the negative side. Then you used the words tremendous
progress were being made, especially in information security.
Could you go a little deeper in that? Because, again, I thought
that was very positive.
Mr. Willemssen. In my opening remarks, in the oral
statement, I summarized primarily the results of our March
report. Since that report, we have found the Library to be very
responsive to our recommendations and they have made excellent
progress. There is a lot more to do. I think the Library was
probably a little overly optimistic in thinking they were going
to complete between 12 and 15 recommendations by September
2015. It is going to take a little longer than that, especially
to see evidence of the implementation of the recommendations.
Even though it may seem that we are in somewhat of an
adversarial position, I feel like we have had a very
constructive relationship, that we are all after the same
thing, to try to make IT management better. I think along the
way we can save some money and make things more efficient, and
then also focus on the mission-critical needs of some of the
service units like the Copyright Office.
Mr. Vargas. Excellent. Well, let me ask you a further
question then. So you are saying that they have made excellent
progress but they were a little overly optimistic. Where do you
think the problems are going to come from for this overly
optimistic view that they have?
Mr. Willemssen. Well, I think the reality of this is the
central provider of services and service units, they are going
to have to reach agreement on who is going to do what. I think
that is going to not be an easy process.
Mr. Vargas. Do you give recommendations for that?
Mr. Willemssen. We generally do. I mentioned the term
commodity IT a little bit earlier, and that is distinct from
mission-critical systems like some of the systems that the
Register mentioned. Commodity IT includes items such as
laptops, cell phones, human resource systems, financial
management systems, servers, data centers. Those are usually
within the purview of the Chief Information Officer.
When it comes to mission-critical systems, like replacing
eCO and all of its associated systems, the business side needs
to take the lead in defining those requirements and then turn
it over to IT, whether it is internal or to a contractor, and
say, ``Here is what I need. Give me your solutions. Tell me
what you can give me in return.''
Those requirements, that is really with the Register and
her team to lay out--this is what we want the new system and
the new process to look like. For example, this is what kind of
availability, what kind of security, what kind of performance
we want it to have.
Mr. Vargas. Okay. Well, again, I don't want to put words in
your mouth, but I think you said that you had a very
constructive relationship with them. So I hope that
constructive relationship continues and you give some guidance
on these issues.
Mr. Willemssen. That is just my view. I am not speaking for
the other two witnesses here.
Mr. Vargas. I don't see them jumping up and saying no, so I
will take that as an affirmation.
And lastly, again, I would say that I appreciate the work
that the Library does. I personally have been very, very
impressed with the work.
And, again, thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the time.
The Chairman. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Davis, from Illinois.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I will not follow up my colleague's question to get a
response from you about working together with Mr. Willemssen. I
too assume that you guys have a great working relationship.
It is also interesting to note that most of the discussion
here centers upon the Federal Government's inability to develop
better IT practices. You are certainly not the only one that is
affected by this in the Federal Government. And I think we do
need to shine a light and make it a little more noticeable and
put better practices in place.
And, Ms. Pallante, I would like to mention, you know,
obviously one of the key issues for you and for us is ensuring
public availability of the records that you are tasked with
keeping. And I know there is much more work to be done to put
that modern technological infrastructure in place. And I do
believe from some of the comments we heard today that, and most
of you will agree too, the government is not the only entity
that can fix this problem.
And without objection, I would like to ask unanimous
consent to submit a statement from the Internet Archive into
the record.
The Chairman. So ordered.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
I would like you to take a look at this if you have not yet
seen it, some of their recommendations that can help maybe make
some progress in what we are discussing here today.
But my first question, Ms. Pallante, are you looking at any
private resources or capabilities to fill the gaps in services
or areas that the Copyright Office cannot support at this time?
Ms. Pallante. Absolutely.
Mr. Davis. You leveraged some of these resources?
Ms. Pallante. Yes. Copyright law is incredibly intertwined
with technology. Copyright law has traced technology since
1790, right, from the printing press to our iPhones. So the
entire copyright ecosystem that we serve are already technology
experts. That stakeholder group we would like to have more
involvement in the underlying systems that serve them.
So I guess, going back in time, what I would suggest
probably was a mistake is not putting out the IT plan that has
so fundamentally affected our customers, right? There is
nothing that the Copyright Office does that isn't a public
process. We operate under the APA. We have to. Courts, you
know, have to rely on our opinions, et cetera.
So, oddly, the operational infrastructure that is under the
entire act of copyright administration was an agency decision
internal. And, again, I think for us to be able to have
technology advisory committees, to be able to have flexible
Federal contracting, that we--again, another service that we
get from the mothership but which hasn't worked that well for
us--we need much better support in those areas. We need to be
able to have short-term and long-time hires, both, to have
state-of-the-art expertise. We need to be able to have
interoperability between private sector standards and
government sectors, otherwise copyright law won't work. So all
of that is in our plan.
Mr. Davis. So that is in your plan. I like the connotation
of the mothership. I haven't heard that in many hearings. It is
interesting to get it on your side rather than our side.
I appreciate your candor. And I know you have made
recommendations in your testimony, you have made
recommendations just now. What question haven't we asked you
that you feel needs to be answered that can get us to the point
where you come in and sit at that table and talk to us about
the IT successes and talk to us about how eCO or the next
generation of eCO is working well?
Ms. Pallante. Well, thank you for that question. The
question you haven't asked me is--I guess the question I would
ask you is why should our copyright customers feel satisfied by
a renewed commitment to the same central process that just
failed us so miserably?
What we are asking for is the autonomy to make sure that IT
is intertwined with our business and legal expertise. Quite
frankly, even if Bud Barton, who is tremendous, and Doug Ament,
my CIO, can agree that ITS, which is the Library's IT
department, will be more responsive, will have better staff,
they are still serving seven departments that have nothing to
do with the Copyright Office. They are Library departments. It
is a very different mission.
And it is really odd to me as the Register that everybody
reports through the Register's office, the general counsel, the
policy experts, the registration experts, the recordation, all
the business experts, except the IT, which is somewhere else
reporting to someone else.
And so how do we train them in mission? How do we keep them
integrated so that that it is not separated? Because it is not
only that it hasn't worked well, it has been a failure, a
complete failure. And so that just can't work in the future. I
don't see any way it is going to work.
Mr. Davis. Well, thank you. I look forward to working with
all three of you to work with you toward those successes. So
thank you.
I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair recognizes Mrs. Comstock.
Mrs. Comstock. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I too, like Mr. Vargas, appreciate the great work of the
Library of Congress. I am the daughter of a librarian, so I
love my libraries and appreciate all the things we are doing
there.
But I am sort of baffled by the sort of the antiquated, I
think you called it, Ms. Pallante, the 19th century system that
we have here. And, you know, I noted in your testimony you
talked about how really it was always intended to be separate,
and instead of having that autonomy that you need to do your
job, we have made it more top-down, mothership kind of
orientation, which is sort of against everything we are all
doing these days. The reason we all have our own personal
phones and things is we still like having flexibility whenever
our needs demand.
So I am very interested in making sure, given the important
economic driver that you are having, I think there are two very
different missions here. The Library of Congress is our
history, it is Thomas Jefferson. I am from Virginia, I love our
Library. But you are very tied to this huge international
economy. And the idea that for 9 days you were down, I just am
baffled as to--I mean, 9 hours I would be tearing my hair out.
Nine minutes, most of us would be demanding answers. So for 9
days, that just is clearly a system that is not working.
So I just wanted to maybe expound a little bit more upon
how we can make what I think is an outmoded and inefficient
system for you work so that we make sure this important
economic driver in our economy is going to be maximized to the
need, as it should be, and what maybe legislative changes or
anything we might need to do to make sure you are making the
most of this great economic driver in our economy.
Ms. Pallante. Thank you so much for that. I think that the
Copyright Office wants a long-term relationship with this
committee. We want to be able to put forward suggestions for
all kind of things on operations.
But the area where we really disagree, the Copyright Office
and the Library, and it was referenced by my colleague and boss
David Mao, is in duplication of IT services. So that is
designed--and, again, putting aside the conflation of the two
missions over time, which was really done for operational
savings and goes, I think, against the reason that Congress
created the office.
The duplication of services can't mean that there is only
one CIO, that that CIO makes all decisions with respect to the
national copyright system, because de facto IT will affect the
outcome of the system. And it can't mean that we can't develop
our own staff of technology experts on data to work in our
business units.
I, frankly, think about a third of our staff has to morph
into tech and data expertise. It used to be cataloguers. Now it
needs to be technology and data. I don't know how we can
administer the law without it.
And so when you are looking at duplication of IT and you
are trying to save money, don't do it at the expense of the
copyright system. And I think that is really where the real
tension is.
Mrs. Comstock. Thank you. And I yield back.
The Chairman. The Chair recognizes Mr. Walker.
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. A pleasure to be
here today.
I would say that one of the great advocates that you have
in Congress on the Library of Congress is Representative Gregg
Harper. I know he just stepped out. But he loves you guys. He
is always talking well and always advocating on your behalf. So
a little kudos for the work to Representative Harper on that.
Obviously, we have got to get to the 21st century when it
comes to technology. We can't be keeping score with an abacus
anymore. Obviously, with the cyber threats and some of the
things that we are seeing, serving on Homeland Security and
some of the other committees that I have a role, and it is
specifically going after some of the things that we are seeing,
whether it is state sponsored, whether they are criminally
driven, whatever it might be. And I think we have got to do a
much better job long term on it.
A couple questions that I have. Let me start with Mr. Mao,
if I could, please.
According to the GAO's report, apparently the Library did
not know how much it was spending on IT. Can you tell me what
is the Library doing to make sure that is clearly communicated?
I think it is a very important point.
Mr. Mao. Yes. And so we have instituted some processes this
year that we have just started with this current fiscal year,
2016, to make sure that we can track our investment
expenditures. And we are going to continue to develop that so
that we can continue to have a better handle on what our
investment expenditures are going forward.
Now, that said, we are also working with the Library's
Inspector General and working on identifying better ways for us
to further refine the categories in our financial management
system so that we can better track some of those.
Mr. Walker. You agree, you see why that is important, I
would imagine, you see why that is important for people to know
that you guys are confident in knowing how much money is going
in there. Is that something that----
Mr. Mao. Yes, indeed.
Mr. Walker. Okay. Your confidence level in the Library's
ability to monitor its systems and protect itself against
external threats. One challenge I was reading and the GAO noted
in its report was the Library had not conducted complete
security testing, stating that the Library had installed
continuous monitoring, but that guidance to service units on
how out this policy and regularly carrying out the testing had
not always occurred. Can you speak to that and maybe to any
improvements the Library has made specifically in that realm?
Mr. Mao. Yes. And since that recommendation has come out we
have indeed moved forward with training staff, for example,
that you mentioned, so that we ensure that they understand what
the policies are and what it is that they must do to ensure the
safety----
Mr. Walker. Kind of working together. Just having the
information and knowing what to do with it is very important.
Mr. Mao. Yes.
Mr. Walker. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mao.
Ms. Pallante, I noticed that some of the records from the
Copyright Office are still in paper form. I don't know if you
could put an exact number, but what would the value be if this
information was maybe taken from paper form and put into
digital form? I would imagine some of this is very important
documents.
Ms. Pallante, Yeah. Well, there are two pieces to that. The
value, to answer your question, would be enormous to the
economy, to culture, to research.
Mr. Walker. Can you try that mic again one more time?
Ms. Pallante. The value would be enormous, to the economy,
to culture, to research. There are two pieces, though. One is
historic records that stop in 1978. Those are plausibly
important to commerce, but they are old, right? They are much
more interesting for statistical research and following trends
and identifying data rights.
The piece that is still paper that is unforgivable is that
the recordation system itself, the process where you come as a
company or an international business and record your security
interest, or your copyright interest in major motion pictures,
or in software, that is still paper-based, which means that
people submit it--we have moved now to thumb drives--staff then
retype it. Then there is a verification activity. And that
needs to be automated.
We have done two major reports on that. And the question
is, who is going to bring it online? Who is going to have the
investments? Where are those going to be directed, to the
Library or to the Copyright Office in some kind of partnership?
How is it going to work?
Mr. Walker. That is a great question. Thank you, Ms.
Pallante.
With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
I thank all the witnesses for being here today. This
Committee hasn't had a hearing on the copyright for quite some
time, but certainly the GAO report sparked everybody's interest
and attention. You can see by the participation that we have
had here today that there is a great amount of interest from
this Committee and a huge reservoir of good will toward the
Library from every Member of Congress, certainly every member
on this Committee as well.
On the other hand, one of my favorite sayings is the
largest room is the room for improvement. We have a very large
room for improvement, particularly with IT for the Copyright
Office. I think especially when you think of what a critical
component it is, an impetus for the economy, goodness.
So I hope you will look at this Committee as a vehicle to
help resource you and help advocate for what you need to be
able to do there and not wait for us to ask the question.
Please feel free to come forward with recommendations that you
have on the kinds of challenges that you are facing and what
you need. Just because you don't hear from us, or because we
have a hearing, let's face it, we probably didn't ask you all
the questions you thought you were going to get asked. We asked
ones that you never thought you were going to get asked maybe.
So if we didn't ask the right question, let us know about that.
Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days
to submit to the Chair additional written questions for the
witnesses that they might have that we will forward and ask you
to respond, because I am sure all of us will have some.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Typical, right? You go back to your office,
all of a sudden you think, geez, I should have asked them this.
At any rate, we thank you all very much. We look forward to
continuing to work with all of you for our mutual constituency,
quite frankly. We all have the same constituent in this case,
the American taxpayer.
Without objection, this hearing is now adjourned. Thank
you.
[Whereupon, at 12:29 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[all]