(1) 

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2017 

TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 2016 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 3:00 p.m., in room SD–192, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Shelley Moore Capito (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Capito and Schatz. 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

STATEMENT OF DAVID MAO, ACTING LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS 

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

ROBERT NEWLEN, CHIEF OF STAFF 

MARIA PALLANTE, REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS 

MARY MAZANEC, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE 

MARK SWEENEY, ASSOCIATE LIBRARIAN FOR LIBRARY SERVICES 

JANE McAULLIFE, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL 

PROGRAM 

BERNARD BARTON JR., CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER 

ROBERTA SHAFFER, LAW LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS 

MARY KLUTTS, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 

KAREN KENINGER, DIRECTOR, NLS BOOKS FOR THE BLIND AND 

PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED 

CARL CARSON III, BUDGET OFFICER 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO

Senator CAPITO. Good afternoon. The subcommittee will come to 

order, and I would like to welcome everyone to the third and final 

fiscal year 2017 budget hearing for the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee. 

Today, we will have two panels of witnesses. The first panel will 

include Mr. David Mao, the Acting Librarian of Congress. At the 

completion of Mr. Mao’s testimony and the subsequent questions 

and answers with the Library, we will turn to the Architect of the 

Capitol, the Honorable Stephen T. Ayers, for our second panel. The 

point of bringing that up is, Mr. Mao, you can leave after the first 

panel. 

I would like to start by welcoming you, Mr. Mao. You have been 

the Acting Librarian since Dr. Billington’s retirement at the end of 

September 2015, and you and I have had a couple of conversations. 
2 

You have been the Deputy Librarian since January 12, 2015, although you have been with the Library for 11 years. 

So, in Library terms, you are a newcomer, but you have obviously proven your dedication and commitment to the Library by 

working in several positions. We appreciate your willingness and 

abilities to do that, including working for the Congressional Research Service, the Law Library, and the Librarian’s office. 

I understand there are several members of the senior leadership 

team here today, and want to extend the subcommittee’s appreciation to all of you for the tremendous work that you do supporting 

the Congress, keeping the Nation informed, and maintaining the 

history of our country as well as many other countries around the 

world. 

Thank you all for being here with us today for this important 

discussion on how the Library is planning to move forward in the 

coming fiscal year. 

I would note that the Library’s total fiscal year 2017 budget request is $667.2 million, a $67.3 million or 11.2 percent increase 

over fiscal year 2016. Included within this requested increase is 

funding for an additional 99 full-time equivalents. Given the continued budget constraints within which we operate, it will be important to hear from you about the most critical priorities for the 

Library, because we may not, and probably will not, be able to fully 

fund all of the requested increases. 

And now, I would like to turn to the ranking member, Senator 

Schatz, for any opening statements he would like to make. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR BRIAN SCHATZ

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you, Chairman Capito. I will address my 

opening remarks to both panels in the interest of time. I want to 

welcome our witnesses, Acting Librarian Mao, and the Architect of 

the Capitol, Mr. Ayers. 

Our budget hearings are critical so that we can understand the 

challenges that your agencies face. The bipartisan budget deal last 

year provided a much needed boost in discretionary funding, but 

next year, the caps are flat, so we need input from the agencies to 

help us to figure out how to make the best tough funding decisions 

in this environment. 

We also need to get a sense of where we are headed in the future 

as we consider the consequences of a continued budget cap scenario, caps that are now at a level that I worry are short-sighted 

and irresponsible given the needs across the Federal Government. 

Of course, our first panel is with Mr. Mao with the Library of 

Congress, an institution that I hold in high esteem, as the steward 

of our cultural and intellectual heritage. This can be a tough job 

in an era of constant change and evolving technologies, but I still 

believe in libraries. I still believe in books. I think there is a need 

for a physical space to be the repository of American knowledge. 

I fully support the Library’s efforts to modernize and incorporate 

the new with the old, and I am glad to see new technologies helped 

to make resources more readily available to the public. We are always going to need books and we are always going to need libraries. 
3 

I want to give a special thanks to the Library for hosting the 

Daniel K. Inouye Distinguished Lecture Series, which I was able to 

attend the first one. The inaugural lecture was captivating and 

really reflected the spirit of Senator Inouye who remains unparalleled in his dedication to public service. 

Now, let me turn briefly to the AOC which preserves a unique 

part of our history here in the Capitol. Mr. Ayers, I noticed that 

the Statue of Freedom has emerged from the scaffolding. I have it 

written down here that ‘‘It is an exciting development.’’ I would call 

it an encouraging development. I am looking forward to seeing the 

finished look of the Capitol and hearing about the progress, especially as we anticipate inauguration. 

I do want to talk to you about the AOC’s responsibility in overseeing the Senate’s contract for food services, and I would like to 

acknowledge and welcome the Restaurant Associates’ employees 

who are here today at the hearing. They have handwritten letters 

that they have given to me about their experiences, and with your 

permission, Chairman Capito, I would like to submit those into the 

record. 

Senator CAPITO. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

LETTER SUBMITTED BY DAVID CUEVAS

DEAR SENATOR SCHATZ: My name is David Cuevas. I work as a cook at the Capitol Visitors Center. We did not receive any raises. We only received our review of 

50¢, even though other Compass workers who are cooks and cashiers at the Senate 

did receive wage increases. 

We struggle to survive on low pay. As a cook at the Capitol Visitors Center I only 

make $13.30 an hour, and now with my review $13.80 an hour. Human Resources 

representative told me that it is fair what I make, but at the Senate cooks make 

$17.45 an hour. 

I feel like our opinions don’t matter. That is why I am writing to you for your 

help because every worker deserves an equal voice and equal pay. That is also why 

we intend to keep fighting until every worker wins a living wage and the right to 

form a union without fear of retaliation. 

Thank you Senator Schatz, 

DAVID CUEVAS, 

Cook, Capitol Visitors Center. 

LETTER SUBMITTED BY CARLOS ALBERTO GARCIA

DEAR SENATOR SCHATZ: My name is Alberto Garcia and I’m a cook at the U.S. 

Senate Cafeteria inside the Dirksen building. As you are aware, we have been fighting for a $15 minimum wage and the opportunity to form a union without the fear 

of retaliation. 

Recently, our employer Compass Group, renegotiated its contract for food service 

with the Architect of the Capitol. After nine strikes over the past year, we thought 

we had finally won a victory in our struggle. The Architect of the Capitol announced 

that raises would be given to all workers to make them more similar to the workers 

at the House of Representatives who earn higher wages and have benefits and a 

union. 

However, in order to avoid paying some of us a higher wage, our employers 

misclassified us into lower paying job categories in violation of the Service Contract 

Act. Although we have heard that these issues are being dealt with, it’s now 3 

months since the contract was set in place, and we have no updates on when we 

will receive the appropriate pay rate or any back pay associated with the 

misclassification. 

I have big dreams. I’m currently enrolled in school and hope to someday become 

a head chef. I would like to attend culinary school, but my current pay is not enough 

to make my dream a reality. 
4 

If I were to get the raise to $17.45 that has been promised to workers like me 

who cook meals for visitors, Senators, and staff at the Senate Cafeteria, my life 

would change significantly. 

I could help support my mother more, finish my current studies and begin my 

training to become a chef. But that dream is currently on hold. Winning this partial 

victory is important, but we are not going to stop until workers at the U.S. Capitol 

earn at least $15 an hour and are allowed a voice on the job to negotiate for better 

benefits and working conditions. I have no doubt that if we had been part of the 

negotiations for this contract, some of the issues that have surfaced since then 

would not be happening now. 

Thank you Senator Schatz, 

CARLOS ALBERTO GARCIA, Cook, Dirksen Senate Cafeteria. 

LETTER SUBMITTED BY BERTRAND OLOTARA

DEAR SENATOR SCHATZ: I am Bertrand Olotara. I was hired as a cook at the Senate by Restaurant Associates on January 16, 2014 until December 18, 2015, when 

Restaurant Associates renewed its contract. They then changed my classification to 

a food service worker, and I keep fighting until they reclassify my title. I only make 

$14.21 an hour as a food service worker instead of $17.45 as a cook. I am a single 

father of five and I work two jobs 7 days and 70 hours a week. As a result, I don’t 

have enough time to spend with my family going to the library, church, attending 

school events, etc., and my American dream is a nightmare right now. 

However, with my reclassification I will leave my second job and have a normal 

life as a father who will work 40 hours a week and take my children to music classes and basketball practices. I don’t want to rely on food stamps to feed my children. 

I will appreciate dear Senator Schatz if you can ask Restaurant Associates to 

treat workers the same way because a cook at the Capitol Visitors Center makes 

less money than a cook at the Senate. Furthermore, having a union will protect 

workers against any wrongdoing from Restaurant Associates. 

Best regards, 

BERTRAND OLOTARA, Senate Food Service Worker. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you. I share the deep concerns that 

many of my colleagues have expressed, that working in the restaurants has been a very tough experience. In the United States 

Capitol, we have a special obligation to take care of the people who 

take care of us. They have not been treated fairly, both as an ethical matter, and in my opinion, as a legal matter, and I look forward to continuing this conversation as we go through this hearing. 

Thank you, Chairman Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Senator. With that, I welcome Mr. 

Mao to give his opening remarks. I think they will be 5 minutes 

in length. Your full statement will be printed in full in the hearing 

record. Welcome. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DAVID MAO

Mr. MAO. Thank you, Chairman Capito, Ranking Member 

Schatz, good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in 

support of the Library of Congress’ mission and its fiscal year 2017 

budget request. 

We are very grateful for the continued support that you and the 

Congress give to the Library, and in particular, I express extreme 

gratitude for your help last year with our urgent physical collection 

management needs. 

For more than 215 years, the Congress has sustained its Library. 

With the largest collection of the world’s recorded knowledge ever 
5 

assembled by one institution, the Library now holds over 162 million items, including the world’s largest collection of legal materials, films, sound recordings, and maps. 

Library staff have provided research and analysis to the Congress for more than 100 years through the Congressional Research 

Service, and for almost 200 years through the Law Library. The Library has supported and protected U.S. creativity and innovation 

since it became the national home of the copyright function in 

1870. 

The Congress remains the Library’s primary focus. Our highest 

priority as an institution is to support the legislative, oversight and 

representational work for the Congress. 

We are, however, at a time of significant change and opportunity 

as we prepare for new leadership for the first time in almost 3 decades. Our focus is on positioning the Library to serve the Congress 

and the American people in a future where change, driven in particular by technological advancement, occurs at an accelerating 

pace. The Library must adapt to this rapidly changing environment. 

Over the last year, we reconfigured the Library’s organizational 

structure to meet increasing demands. We also released a new strategic plan for 2016 through 2020 that provides a path forward, and 

is deliberately flexible in order to accommodate future needs as 

they evolve. 

As part of the realignment and to support the new organizational 

structure, the Library made critical leadership appointments of a 

chief information officer and a chief operating officer to unify the 

Library’s information technology and operational infrastructure 

functions. 

Additionally, we appointed a director of the newly created National and International Outreach service unit, to head consolidated outreach activities, including collaborative efforts with other 

institutions. 

For fiscal year 2017, we asked for $667 million in appropriations, 

which represents an 11 percent increase over fiscal year 2016. Of 

this, 3.5 percent covers mandatory pay and price level increases. 

Moreover, $13 million of the fiscal year 2017 request will non-recur 

in fiscal year 2018. 

The balance of the increase represents critical investments in future areas that will immediately advance the Library’s capabilities 

across its diverse mission areas. 

As the important work of the Library continues, demand for services grows. We, therefore, seek to achieve much needed transitional 

improvements, particularly in response to Government Accountability Office findings of the Library’s management of information 

technology. 

We are dedicated to strengthening our information technology 

and physical infrastructure core that will significantly leverage the 

Library’s capabilities and capacities. 

We are committed also to addressing urgent human capital 

needs, such as analytic capacity in the Congressional Research 

Service. 

While complete transition cannot be accomplished in 1 year, we 

must first address the most urgent shortfalls in key infrastructure 
6 

areas, information technology, the care of and access to our digital 

and physical collections, and developing and maintaining the 

unique human skills needed to fulfill the Library’s mission. 

Through several years of declining budgets, we compromised and 

took risks in these areas, often making difficult choices to cover 

mandatory costs that ensured current operations while sacrificing 

investment for the future. 

Absorbing mandatory pay and price level increases over those 

years further eroded the Library’s buying power. Continually funding near-term operational demands at the expense of long-term investments has allowed some mission critical areas, such as the 

data center and the primary computing facility, to reach the point 

where they present serious risks. 

Much has changed since the Library put key infrastructure into 

place. Technology has advanced, Congressional and public demands 

have changed, and some infrastructure has become outdated. 

The Library’s budget request, which represents transition and 

transformation, aims to position the Library to move forward. To 

avoid mortgaging the future by continuing to support infrastructure that cannot handle current and future demands, we must 

make long-term investments that move us forward in the most economical way. 

Our future service to the Congress and the American people depends on having a modernized infrastructure, and one that is appropriate, efficient, and lasting. 

Madame Chairman, Ranking Member Schatz, the Library is both 

America’s first Federal cultural institution and part of the innovative infrastructure of America. I thank you again for supporting the 

Library of Congress and for your consideration of our fiscal year 

2017 request. 

[The statements follow:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID S. MAO

Madame Chairman, Ranking Member Schatz, and members of the subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony in support of the Library of 

Congress mission and its fiscal 2017 budget request. 

The mission of the Library of Congress is to provide the Congress and the American people with a rich, diverse, and enduring source of knowledge that supports 

the Congress in fulfilling its constitutional duties and empowers America in its intellectual, creative, and civic endeavors. 

For more than 215 years the Congress has sustained its library. With the largest 

collection of the world’s recorded knowledge ever assembled by one institution, the 

Library holds over 162 million items including the world’s largest collections of legal 

materials, films, sound recordings, and maps. The Library’s staff have provided research and analysis to the Congress for more than 100 years through the Congressional Research Service (CRS) and for almost 200 years through the Law Library; 

and the Library has supported and protected U.S. creativity and innovation since 

it became the national home of the copyright function in 1870. Today, ‘‘The Library 

embodies key ideals on which this nation was founded: the right of a free people 

to have unfettered access to knowledge, the necessity for a productive people to have 

material incentives for innovation, and the need to preserve the record of our citizens’ creativity.’’ 

I come before you today during a time of significant change and opportunity for 

the Library. As we prepare for new leadership for the first time in almost 29 years, 

our focus is on positioning the Library to serve the Congress and the American people in a future where change, driven in particular by technological advancement, occurs at an accelerating pace. Our fiscal 2017 budget request represents the beginning of a transformation and transition process for the Library. Looking across the 

Library’s diverse mission areas, successful transformation to an infrastructure that 
7 

can accommodate this fast-moving environment will require increased capacity and 

capability in computing power, information technology, and unique human skills. 

Storage space for our collections continues to be a high priority in this transition 

period. Beginning construction on a fifth preservation and storage module at Ft. 

Meade is a tremendous step forward, and the Library appreciates congressional support of the project. The Ft. Meade modules reduce deterioration of the Library’s collections, provide for better access, and help alleviate an urgent situation with the 

management of physical materials. We are grateful for congressional funding and 

support in fiscal 2016 to start the design of modules 6 and 7, and for the support 

we received for our urgent physical collections management needs. Committed to 

our overall mission of distributing knowledge and information and preserving American heritage and culture, we take very seriously our duty as stewards of these precious resources and as servants of current and future generations. 

Over the last year we implemented a major realignment that reconfigured the Library’s organizational structure to meet accelerating demands. The Library’s 

streamlined organization will set the conditions for providing comprehensive information technology planning and execution; centralizing management of key support 

functions to serve the Library’s mission areas; consolidating management of digital 

and analog collections; and improving the support structure for staff. To enhance 

the Library’s outreach efforts, we brought together under one organization the outward-facing activities and programs that were previously scattered throughout several Library units. They are the foundation for the new National and International 

Outreach service unit. 

As part of the realignment and to support the new organizational structure, the 

Library made critical leadership appointments of a chief information officer and a 

chief operating officer to centralize oversight of and make more efficient the Library’s information technology and operational infrastructure functions. Additionally, we appointed a director of the National and International Outreach service 

unit to spearhead oversight of the consolidated outreach activities, including collaborative efforts with other institutions. 

To further prepare for transformation, the Library developed a Strategic Plan for 

2016–2020. Released in October 2015, the plan sets forth primary strategies that 

are deliberately flexible in order to accommodate future needs as they evolve. Our 

commitment to the following seven strategies will provide the basis for comprehensive planning and programming to ensure the Library’s transition to being a much 

stronger service provider. 

1. Service: Deliver authoritative, authentic and nonpartisan research, analysis 

and information, first and foremost, to the Congress, to the Federal Government, and to the American people. 

2. Collections: Acquire, describe, preserve, secure and provide access to a universal collection of knowledge and the record of America’s creativity. 

3. Creativity: Work with the U.S. Copyright Office to develop modernized copyrights systems and practices, in accordance with copyright laws and public objectives. 

4. Collaboration: Stimulate and support research, innovation, and life-long learning through direct outreach and through national and global collaborations. 

5. Empowerment: Empower the workforce for maximum performance. 

6. Technology: Deploy a dynamic, state-of-the-industry technology infrastructure 

that follows best practices and standards. 

7. Organizational structure: Organize and manage the Library to facilitate 

change and adopt new methods to fulfill its mission. 

As the important work of the Library continues, demand for services grows. We 

therefore are taking aggressive action in this budget request to achieve much-needed transitional improvements, particularly in response to Government Accountability Office findings on the Library’s management of information technology, as 

well as findings from several reports by the Library’s Office of the Inspector General. We are dedicated to strengthening our information technology and physical infrastructure core that will significantly leverage the Library’s capabilities and capacities. 

For fiscal 2017, we ask for $719.260 million, a 12 percent increase over our 2016 

budget. Of this, 3.24 percent covers mandatory pay and price level increases 

($23.332 million). Moreover, $13.098 million of the fiscal 2017 request will non-recur 

in fiscal 2018. The balance of the increase represents critical investments in three 

focus areas that will immediately advance the Library’s capabilities across its diverse mission areas. It is a significant request that represents the beginning of modernization, transition, and risk reduction. 
8 

While complete transition cannot be accomplished in 1 year, the process for positioning the Library to adapt effectively to accelerating demand and advancing technologies requires that we first address the most urgent shortfalls in key infrastructure areas. These areas primarily include information technology, the care of and 

access to our digital and physical collections, and developing and maintaining the 

unique human skills needed to fulfill the Library’s mission. Through several years 

of declining budgets, we compromised and took risks in these areas, often making 

difficult choices to cover mandatory costs that ensured current operations while sacrificing investment for the future. Absorbing mandatory pay and price level increases over these years further eroded the Library’s buying power. Continually 

funding near-term operational demands at the expense of long-term investment has 

allowed some mission-critical areas, such as the data center/primary computing facility, to reach the point where they present serious risks. 

The Congress remains the Library’s primary client. Accordingly, our highest priority as an institution is to provide all members and committees with authoritative, 

timely, and nonpartisan research and analysis, and information to support the legislative and oversight work of both houses of Congress. 

CRS works constantly to position itself for the future by systematically anticipating congressional needs 3 years out. Meeting congressional needs in a multitude 

of areas, including those that cannot be anticipated, depends on CRS staff expertise. 

We request enhancements to analytic capacity in areas of high demand such as defense policy, and emerging issues such as technology policy. Because staffing in CRS 

has declined nearly 10 percent over 5 years of flat budgets, and senior experts’ retirements continue steadily, support for these requests will help CRS maintain appropriate capabilities to offer effective responses to issues that become priorities on 

the congressional agenda. These are unique, not easily acquired, human skills required by CRS in order to process superior research products essential for decisionmaking. 

While filling human capital needs in CRS and other targeted areas is a major 

focus, addressing significant long-term information technology issues also is of high 

importance for the entire Library. IT infrastructure is the foundation for all of the 

Library’s mission areas: a central IT operation supports everything from congress.gov and crs.gov to the copyright online registration system and collections that 

embody America’s heritage and culture. IT is the backbone for much of the services 

the Library provides; it runs the online catalog, operates the Braille and Audio 

Reading Download (BARD) application for the blind and physically handicapped on 

mobile devices, and enables the Library to put online rare documents and images 

that cannot be found anywhere else in the world. While the demand for computing 

power continues to increase, our current capacity is restricted and in dire need of 

modernization to ensure continued operations of essential services and to reduce 

risk. 

Thus, a major focus of this budget is to modernize computing capability. We ask 

for the first year in a 3-year investment to begin building a hosting environment 

for the Library’s primary computing facility (PCF) away from Capitol Hill at the 

shared legislative branch hosting site. The root of many of the Library’s IT challenges is the insufficient computing capability and capacity of the Madison Building 

primary data center. The current center is an Uptime Institute Tier I facility that 

lacks power or cooling redundancy. Library customers rightfully demand that the 

system is always ‘‘on,’’ but our infrastructure struggles to keep pace. In 2008, for 

the first time, the PCF was shut down during the annual fire and safety check due 

to the deteriorating capability of the Uninterrupted Power Source (UPS) to pick up 

the load once Madison Building power was turned off. In August 2011 the PCF was 

shut down twice: once due to the August 23 earthquake, and again due to Hurricane 

Irene. Again the UPS was not trusted to pick up the load during a power loss. Last 

summer, we experienced a serious hardware failure and outage of Library systems— 

including a costly 9-day outage of the copyright registration system—when the PCF 

was shut down during the Architect of the Capitol’s annual fire and safety check. 

Annual shutdowns are required because the generators are 35 years beyond their 

service life and are unable to pick up the full data center power demand during the 

required electrical power shutdown to the building. Currently, the demands of the 

Library’s mission make it the biggest power draw on Capitol Hill. The PCF infrastructure is near capacity and carries a high risk of unplanned shutdowns. Moreover, it is not a matter of if, but when there will be a major mechanical failure— 

exclusive of the risk of a natural disaster or terrorist attack. In our opinion, it is 

imperative that the PCF be modernized, and preferably as part of the House data 

center initiative. 

We therefore strongly recommend modernization as well as locating our primary 

computing facility away from Capitol Hill. The risks of remaining in the current 
9 

aged and inadequate data center on Capitol Hill are significant. A modernized and 

remote PCF will greatly reduce risk, allow for double the capacity, and achieve Tier 

III capability, which Capitol Hill renovation alone will not. It is clear that additional 

capacity and modernization will greatly reduce the risk of shutdown under a multitude of circumstances. 

The exposure of the Library’s IT infrastructure to cybersecurity threats is another 

area of serious concern, and is one weakness identified by Government Accountability Office and Office of the Inspector General findings. The information and 

knowledge that the Library houses and distributes to customers in all mission areas 

is critical to the Nation and must be protected in order to reduce cyber-attack risks 

and ensure mission continuance. For these reasons, we also seek funding for IT security enhancements that will strengthen critical security protection of the Library’s 

IT network and resources as cyber threats continue to grow exponentially. 

The Library’s pace of digital collecting surpasses current collection infrastructure 

capabilities and is another area of concern. For example, the Library’s web archives 

are three times larger than they were in 2010, with the amount of harvested content increasing by an average of 32 percent each year during this period. The expansion rate of digital collections now rivals that of physical collections. We are currently at capacity and request funding for a digital collections management unit to 

collect and manage content for the Library’s digital format collections. The unit will 

work closely with the Chief Information Officer to collect, preserve, and deliver digital collections. It will assume responsibility for key born-digital acquisitions programs and digital materials not supported elsewhere in the Library and will provide 

significantly leveraged capacity and capability needed to manage the explosion of 

content in this area. 

The Integrated Library System (ILS) is a mission-critical enterprise Library system that integrates major operational functions through the use of a common bibliographic database. The ILS supports the acquisitions, cataloging, circulation, and 

loan of Library material and provides online public access to Library collection 

metadata. The Library’s requirements have evolved substantially since the system 

was installed in 1999. Because the current system cannot accommodate all of our 

electronic resource-management needs, the Library must operate several smaller 

ILS systems. We request funding to examine the business needs not currently supported in the ILS in order to develop requirements for the next-generation system 

which will electronically manage the Library’s collection and provide discovery and 

delivery of the Library’s collections to users worldwide. This investment will enhance the Library’s capability to access and deliver critical material across all mission areas. We seek this funding in order to plan responsibly for the replacement 

of a core system. 

One of the seven strategies in the Library’s strategic plan for 2016–2020 is support for the U.S. Copyright Office in its efforts to develop modernized copyright systems and practices. For example, one reason for the request to move the PCF away 

from the Washington, DC area is to ensure against another outage of the copyright 

registration system like the one experienced last summer. Well-developed and flexible information technology systems are critical to the administration of a modern 

Copyright Office. The Library’s systems are supporting the Copyright Office’s efforts 

to improve internal operations and better meet customer needs. 

In support of the Copyright Office’s modernization efforts, we request programmatic increases to address critical staffing needs, ongoing efforts to make historic records searchable, data planning and management, and essential upgrades to 

software and hardware. Seventy-two percent of the request would come from fee 

revenue and prior year unobligated funds. 

Finally, the Law Library has urgent collections needs to strengthen current and 

future service to congressional and other clients. We seek funding for a 7-year 

project to complete classification of the Law Library’s multi-national legal collection 

of current and historic legislative documents, as well as primary and secondary 

sources of American, foreign, and international law. The collection is not fully classified according to the Library’s own classification schedule. The Law Library must 

depend for access on staff members with many years of experience and specialized 

knowledge of where the materials are located. Reclassification and re-shelving of approximately 367,000 volumes will provide better service to Members of Congress 

and the general public through faster retrieval of requested volumes. 

Current and future access to some of the Law Library collections depends on the 

replacement of compact shelving in storage areas. Initially supplied by a company 

now defunct, the compact shelving was retrofitted 15 years ago with a hand-crank 

system, operated by bicycle chains. The retrofit solution is failing and in some instances staff cannot fit carts or ladders—or themselves—into aisles to retrieve or reshelve books. The estimated lifespan of the compact shelving was estimated to be 
10 

25 years; the shelving is now 30 years old. The situation presents serious staff safety issues, makes some collection items inaccessible, and takes some storage space 

out of service. 

To sum up, much has changed since the Library put key infrastructure into place 

in the 1990s and early 2000s. Technology has advanced, congressional and public 

demands have changed, and some infrastructure has become outdated. The Library’s budget request, which represents transition and transformation, aims to position the Library for the future. We laid the groundwork with a realignment and 

new strategic plan for 2016–2020. To avoid mortgaging the future by continuing to 

support infrastructure that cannot handle current and future demands, we must 

make long-term investments that move us forward in the most economical way, and 

also bring in new expertise. 

We are mindful that the Library is an integrated institution. The Law Library, 

for example, obtains materials through copyright deposit, depends on the Library’s 

IT services, and works closely with Library Services staff. All units in the Library— 

the Congressional Research Service, the U.S. Copyright Office, the Law Library, Library Services, National and International Outreach—are increasingly interdependent in accomplishing their missions. We are collaborating in new and better 

ways to ensure we make the best use of our resources. 

Our future service to the Congress and the American people depends on having 

a modernized infrastructure—an infrastructure that is good, lasting and right. 

Madame Chairman, Ranking Member Schatz, and members of the subcommittee, 

the Library is both America’s first Federal cultural institution and part of the innovative infrastructure of America. I thank you again for your support of the Library 

and for your consideration of our fiscal 2017 request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARY B. MAZANEC, DIRECTOR, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH

SERVICE

Madame Chairman, Ranking Member Schatz and members of the subcommittee, 

I appreciate the opportunity to present the fiscal 2017 budget request for the Congressional Research Service (CRS). As you know, CRS has provided a unique service 

to all Members of Congress and committees for over a hundred years—delivering 

research and analysis without advocacy or agenda. In CRS, Congress has at its disposal dedicated specialized expertise and information resources ready to support any 

issue that may arise. 

Our experts work hand-in-hand with your offices on a daily basis. Senators and 

staff know they can count on CRS to be confidential, objective, nonpartisan, authoritative, and timely. We align our work with the congressional agenda from the moment a new issue arises and continue to meet the needs of lawmakers throughout 

all stages of the legislative process. CRS analysts proactively examine the nature 

and extent of the full range of problems facing Congress, anticipate upcoming 

issues, identify and assess policy options, and assist with hearings on legislative 

proposals and on implementation of existing policies. 

In the last fiscal year, the Service offered members and staff multifaceted, indepth support across a wide spectrum of complex and diverse issues, with our experts providing more than 62,000 responses to requests for custom research and 

analysis. By the end of the fiscal year, CRS produced over 3,600 new or updated 

written products, summarized over 8,000 bills for the legislative digest, and hosted 

over 300 seminars, briefings, and other events for more than 7,400 congressional 

participants. 

FISCAL 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The CRS budget request for fiscal 2017 is $114,408,000, with almost 90 percent 

devoted to pay and benefits for our staff. That is a 7 percent increase from fiscal 

2016, the majority of which would serve simply to keep inflation and pay increases 

from eroding our base budget even further. This request will position CRS to face 

the challenges ahead and continue to deliver the extensive support we provide to 

Congress. 

BUDGET CHALLENGES

Congress expects CRS to maintain the ability to offer comprehensive, timely and 

authoritative research and analysis on the full range of issues important to the 

American people. In addition, we are expected to employ the most up-to-date analytical techniques and methodologies, and to present our analysis in readily accessible 

and highly usable formats. 
11 

In this time of static budgets and reduced purchasing power, meeting congressional expectations is growing more challenging for the Service; particularly in a research setting characterized by increasingly complex issues, the explosion of data 

sources and the fast moving information environment in which the Congress operates. CRS must be positioned to nimbly navigate these challenges to support a twenty-first century Congress. 

Since 2010, CRS’s purchasing power has been reduced by thirteen percent. Cost 

containments and increased operational efficiencies have mitigated the effects of 

this shortfall on the ability of the Service to provide timely support to the Congress. 

However, existing CRS capabilities are stretched exceedingly thin to meet current 

congressional requests, while maintaining the high quality of our research and consultative services. CRS staff levels have decreased by nearly 10 percent over the 

past 5 years, and CRS experts are performing more work with fewer resources. For 

example, 17 active staff in the defense policy and budget areas now perform the 

work done by 25 people just a few years ago. In the current budget climate, the 

Service is unable to hire behind every analyst who retires. As a result, portfolios 

have been divided and reassigned to the remaining staff. 

If CRS capabilities are not enhanced commensurate with the Congress’s demand 

for our services over the next few years, we anticipate that: 

—the ability of CRS to conduct in-depth research and analysis will be adversely 

impacted as existing staffing gaps intensify, with the Service facing challenges 

acquiring necessary new expertise, and retaining its invaluable cadre of experienced experts; 

—the Service will not be able to effectively procure and utilize new technologies 

and leverage the increasingly vast amount of data that could provide critical insight for congressional decisionmaking; 

—areas of consistently heavy congressional demand, including education, 

healthcare, defense, and appropriations will increasingly be impaired by staffing 

constraints, and timeliness for responses to requests and updating of research 

products may be adversely impacted due to staff workload; and 

—the Service’s ability to effectively perform all of the functions required by statute will diminish. 

FISCAL 2017 PROGRAMMATIC INCREASE REQUEST

High workloads and coverage gaps risk jeopardizing CRS’s ability to provide Congress with the expertise it depends on to carry out the Nation’s business. To help 

ensure that CRS can continue to meet congressional expectations, the budget request includes a programmatic increase of $3.106 million to fund a total of 22 FTEs 

to allow the Service to secure additional specialized technical skills and policy expertise necessary for research and analysis in support of the Congress. 

This funding would allow CRS to add 12 FTEs to strengthen capacity in issue 

areas of high demand which are currently significantly understaffed. Many of the 

key analysts in areas such as defense, education, healthcare, appropriations, and 

budget are handling 2 to 4 times the average number of requests per analyst, per 

year. 

The increased funding would also allow the Service to hire seven FTEs to fill 

emerging gaps in technology policy, data management and analysis, and data visualization—three areas identified in our strategic planning effort that would have 

a widespread, positive, and immediate impact on service to the Congress. Of the 

seven FTEs, the funding would provide for four analysts focused on technology policy—enabling CRS to better respond to questions around the use of emerging technology in areas like national security, e-finance, transportation, and biotechnology; 

all of these are areas of growing congressional interest, which we anticipate will 

spur an increasing number of requests for the Service. 

The Service is receiving more requests to analyze ‘‘big data’’ sets that can help 

inform policy decisions. Of the seven FTEs, the funding would also provide two positions focused on data management and analysis and an additional position focused 

on data visualization—to enable us to deliver complex information in a more readily 

digestible format. 

The budget increase would also allow the Service to make improvements to the 

Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation (popularly 

known as the Constitution Annotated or CONAN), the highly regarded and widely 

used comprehensive treatise on constitutional law that CRS maintains pursuant to 

statutory mandate. We recently brought in a prominent constitutional scholar to review CONAN and make recommendations on how to modernize and increase its accessibility and usability for Congress, constitutional scholars, and the public at 

large. The budget increase would support three legislative attorneys with expertise 
12 

in constitutional law to perform the complex legal research and analysis that is critical to the success of this modernization project. 

Cognizant of the current budget environment, we have taken significant steps to 

manage our responsibilities within our current resources. We have restructured our 

recruitment strategy to bring in more entry-level analysts who can work on a wide 

variety of issues. And we have created new position types—such as our research assistants—bringing in highly talented entry-level staff to assist analysts with data 

collection and the production of research. Staff capacity is being grown using inhouse, entry-level hiring programs and leveraging low-cost staffing strategies, such 

as volunteer interns, phased retirements, and temporary appointments. Contract 

staff are used where appropriate. 

However, there is a practical limit to the capacity and flexibility of CRS staff to 

absorb additional subject-area assignments while maintaining the knowledge, experience, and expertise necessary to offer timely, in-depth, authoritative research and 

analysis on the full range of issues important to the American people. While some 

issues can be anticipated and properly planned for, others appear rapidly and need 

to be answered immediately. To be able to meet that demand, the Service is compelled to maintain senior staff capable of addressing detailed questions that arise 

in a wide range of specialties. 

LEGISLATIVE SUPPORT FOR CONGRESS

To better illustrate the range of specialties we must maintain on staff, I’d like to 

provide the Committee a sample of the breadth and depth of services CRS provided 

last year. 

On the domestic front, the budget, debt, and deficit continued to drive significant 

demand for research and analysis. Our experts supported the debate over the fiscal 

2015 and fiscal 2016 budgets by analyzing budget trends and the impact of recent 

legislation. Congress called on CRS to examine a number of specific issues such as 

the impact of the Budget Control Act on Federal spending, and issues associated 

with reaching the debt limit. 

Immigration and healthcare remained very active as well. On immigration, CRS 

wrote extensively on legal and policy issues raised by the executive branch’s actions, 

‘‘sanctuary’’ jurisdictions, and related national security concerns. With respect to the 

Affordable Care Act, CRS provided broad and deep coverage on the law’s implementation and potential legislative alternatives. CRS health experts also provided research and analysis pertaining to emerging health reform legislation and worked extensively on issues relating to the passage of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act. 

CRS supported several other major congressional initiatives. Analysts and attorneys worked closely with both the Senate and House on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Our finance and trade staff worked extensively on 

issues around the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. We also provided indepth support for congressional action on transportation and energy legislation, and 

defense department reform efforts. 

When Congress sought to develop a compendium of tax expenditures, CRS analysts provided a comprehensive assessment of each and every one. Analysts also reviewed the potential policy and economic consequences of the various tax reform initiatives proposed by members, the White House, and outside think tanks, and supported the deliberations over extending expiring tax provisions. 

The fiscal year also saw several major social issues capture congressional interest. 

The Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, legalizing same-sex marriages, 

raised a host of questions for CRS attorneys. CRS provided analytical support and 

consultative service to the Congress as it held hearings, introduced legislation, and 

debated issues pertaining to fetal tissue donation and funding for reproductive 

health services. Mass shootings and questions about race relations and the proper 

use of force by law enforcement required impartial CRS policy and legal analysis. 

In the international arena, ongoing violent conflicts abroad, political upheavals, 

power disputes, nuclear proliferation pressures, and major refugee and humanitarian dilemmas captured significant congressional attention in the past fiscal year. 

CRS experts were readily on hand to help with these critical issues. 

CRS assisted the Congress by analyzing the international struggle against the Islamic State and other terrorist groups, not only in Syria and Iraq, but also in Libya, 

Yemen, Egypt, and various sub-Saharan African countries. The Congress also 

sought CRS assistance as lawmakers considered presidential authority to engage in 

military operations against the Islamic State and debated options for new or revised 

congressional authorization for the use of military force. 
13 

The Iran nuclear deal prompted numerous requests for legal and policy analyses 

by CRS on what the agreement required of Iran, the United States, and the other 

parties; the current status of Iran’s nuclear program; and the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Experts assisted with issues such as how 

the deal might alter Iran’s regional policies, including aid to terror groups, and how 

key U.S. partners in the region, including Israel and Saudi Arabia, viewed the 

agreement. CRS also examined the sanctions provisions of the agreement, including 

which sanctions were designated to be lifted, which ones would remain, which sanctions would be brought back into effect if warranted, and the nature of the authority 

to waive or lift sanctions on Iran. 

CRS foreign affairs and legal experts also supported a number of global trade 

issues, including the reauthorization of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the U.S.-EU Transatlantic Trade and 

Investment Partnership (T–TIP), U.S. trade relations with China, and economic 

sanctions against Russia. 

Finally, CRS provided extensive support for Senate operations. Our analysts and 

attorneys provided in-depth research, empirical analysis, and procedural expertise 

on executive and judicial nominations as the Senate exercised its duty to advise and 

consent. And our legislative procedure experts supported Senate deliberations not 

only through reports and tailored work but also through an extensive seminar program on all aspects of the legislative process. 

Many of these issues will continue to be of interest to Congress this session. We 

have completed our annual legislative planning process, identifying over 140 issues 

likely to be on the congressional agenda. To ensure we are prepared to meet congressional needs, we have formed multidisciplinary teams which are preparing and 

updating reports and organizing our product line and web resources around those 

issues. 

This anticipatory legislative planning process spanned several months and resulted in CRS being well placed to provide products and services to the Congress 

this session. However, even the best planning cannot anticipate all issues that may 

suddenly confront the Congress. CRS has the analytical flexibility to quickly address 

emerging issues. For example, the terrorist attack on Paris last year turned attention overnight to a number of international and domestic security issues. As events 

unfolded, we quickly updated our reports on the Islamic State, terrorism, immigration, and domestic security and highlighted that body of work on the home page of 

our Web site. In addition to products focused on those issues, our experts conducted 

in-person briefings and prepared tailored analyses of questions raised by the attack. 

CRS staff stand ready to respond to emerging issues like the Paris event at all 

times. 

CONGRESSIONAL SATISFACTION

Given our close working relationship with Congress, CRS has been tasked with 

leading a Library-wide initiative to survey Members of Congress and their staffs, 

to ensure that the Library’s products and services are meeting expectations. The Library recently entered into a contract with Gallup, which has an 80-year history of 

conducting cutting-edge survey research. Gallup will conduct member and staff surveys and interviews to determine their fundamental and optimal requirements for 

services and support from the Library and especially CRS and what, if any, actions 

are necessary to provide those services. We expect their final report later this year. 

STRATEGIC PLANNING

Although CRS’s statutory mission remains the same, Congress and the environment in which it operates are rapidly evolving. To ensure that the Service is well 

positioned to meet the information and research needs of a twenty-first century Congress, we launched a comprehensive strategic planning effort that identified priorities, goals, and objectives that will enable us to move effectively into CRS’s second 

century. One of the first tasks identified is a review of our operations, beginning 

with an assessment of how we can better manage and utilize the latest technologies. 

This CRS plan is compatible with the Library’s overall strategic plan. CRS has kept 

its congressional oversight committees informed of the goals as well as progress on 

the plan. This 5-year strategic plan will be implemented beginning in 2016, through 

2020. 

NEW AUTHORING AND PUBLISHING TOOL

The Service’s information technology infrastructure shapes our daily operations, 

the research we are able to conduct, and how we are able to deliver our products 

and services to the Congress. CRS made significant progress in fiscal 2015 on a 
14 

multi-year effort to identify and assess options for updating our existing system for 

authoring and publishing written products distributed directly to the Congress. A 

special working group composed of a cross-section of staff from across the Service 

continues to develop a detailed set of requirements and technology options for the 

future of the authoring and publishing system. 

PRODUCT ENHANCEMENTS

In order to meet evolving congressional needs, new ‘‘In Focus’’ and ‘‘CRS Testimony’’ products were developed for release on CRS.gov in fiscal 2015. In Focus products are concise, two-sided, one-page summaries of key issues on a given topic. They 

are available in printable PDF format as well as standard HTML pages. CRS produced approximately 250 In Focus products during the fiscal year. In addition, a 

template was developed to provide congressional staff with easy access to congressional testimony submitted by CRS experts. Both In Focus and CRS Testimony 

products can be located on the CRS Web site by key word or author search, similar 

to CRS Reports. 

To help meet the growing congressional demand for visual information, CRS 

launched a pilot study of a new product line devoted to stand-alone, high-quality 

‘‘infographics.’’ These products present complex information in a condensed visual 

form that is easily understood. Multiple infographics have been posted on CRS.gov, 

covering a range of diverse topics such as regulatory burdens on small banks, economic effects of the fiscal 2014 Government shutdown, and military casualty statistics. Additional infographics will be developed as we determine the effectiveness and 

usability of this product type. CRS also collaborated in the Library-wide project to 

develop a geospatial hosting environment which will allow the creation of interactive maps for congressional use. 

CRS continues to explore additional product formats for presenting key information and analysis in ways that meet congressional needs for authoritativeness, accuracy, and brevity. As part of this effort the Service is developing one-page summaries of CRS reports that will be published as stand-alone products. The Service 

is also developing new Issue Pages for CRS.gov that will provide a one-place stop 

for products on specific issues, like defense and healthcare. The Issue Pages are intended to align the organization of CRS products to the portfolio structure of congressional offices and make them more easily accessible for congressional staff. 

CONGRESS.GOV ENHANCEMENT

Working in collaboration with the Senate, House, GPO, and the broader Library, 

CRS significantly contributed to the continuing development of Congress.gov as the 

official source for Federal legislative information that will fully meet congressional 

needs. CRS provided data analysis, subject matter expertise, consultation, system 

testing, user testing, coordination of data partner relationships, and support for congressional users and data partners. CRS also continues to support the use of the 

Congress-only LIS until equivalent capability is fully developed for the new Congress.gov. 

CONCLUSION

Congress relies on CRS to marshal interdisciplinary resources, apply critical 

thinking, and create innovative frameworks to help legislators evaluate and develop 

sound legislative options and make decisions that will guide and shape present and 

future national policy. The entire CRS staff is dedicated to that mission and proud 

of our unique role as extended congressional staff. However, to continue to provide 

confidential, objective, nonpartisan, authoritative and timely research and analysis, 

CRS needs to be able to continue to build and enhance its research capacity with 

staff capable of meeting fully the needs of Congress as you contend with increasingly complex issues. 

I appreciate your continued support and look forward to working with you to ensure that CRS continues to robustly fulfill its mission to you and the entire Congress. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARIA A. PALLANTE, UNITED STATES REGISTER OF

COPYRIGHTS AND DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE

Madame Chairman Capito, Ranking Member Schatz and members of the subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to present written testimony in support of the fiscal 2017 budget request of the United States Copyright Office. The Copyright Of-
15 

1http://copyright.gov/reports/strategic-plan/USCO-strategic.pdf. 

2See www.copyright.gov/reports/itplan/. 

fice’s core operations are funded through two sources: fees paid by authors, corporate entities, and other customers; and annual appropriated dollars that reflect 

the value of the Copyright Office’s services to both the public and the economy. Historically, fees have made up the majority of this funding, with a range of 58 percent 

to 67 percent over the past 5 years. 

MISSION, POLICY WORK AND STRATEGIC PLANS

The Copyright Office has a critical mission within the United States Government. 

It administers the Nation’s copyright laws for the advancement of the public good; 

offers services and support to authors and users of creative works; and provides expert, impartial assistance to Congress, the courts, and executive branch agencies on 

questions of law and policy, including in the context of interagency discussions or 

intergovernmental negotiations. 

In the past few years alone, the Copyright Office has undertaken a tireless schedule of studies and public meetings regarding areas of both copyright law and copyright administration, all geared towards updating, clarifying and improving the national copyright system. As directed by Congress, some of these reports contain legislative recommendations: for example, in publishing Copyright Small Claims, the 

Copyright Office analyzes and advises on the benefits of creating a small claims 

mechanism outside of Federal court. Other efforts reflect significant updates to the 

administrative practices that implement the Copyright Act: for example, in publishing the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, Third Edition, the Copyright Office completed the first comprehensive revision of the Office’s administrative 

manual for copyright registration and recordation in decades. 

The Copyright Office serves a wide diversity of customers worth trillions of dollars 

to the U.S. economy—from video game developers to mobile device manufacturers, 

from movie studios to Internet streaming companies, from music creators to online 

music services, from educators to libraries. The goal today is ensuring that the Office is positioned to meet the current and future needs of these essential stakeholders. 

Not surprisingly, modernization goals are connected to the evolving and dynamic 

role of technology in the copyright marketplace. Today, it is commonplace for musicians to record songs on a smartphone or tablet, capturing in real time all the data 

needed to satisfy copyright registration requirements. By the same token, a digital 

music service trying to license that song and millions of others should be able to 

connect its servers directly to the Copyright Office via an API and search our data 

completely. Photographers, newspapers and software developers, among others, all 

need targeted attention to ensure services are optimal and regulations are appropriate. To accomplish these goals, we must shift the approach of the past entirely, 

and provide a flexible platform that others can build upon for the effortless protection and licensing of copyrighted works, and allow customers to complete transactions with the Copyright Office in real time, whether to protect their legal rights 

or to access or share business data. 

To this end, and as further discussed below, the Copyright Office released two key 

documents in recent months that reflect our nuanced thinking and deliberations: (1) 

a 5-year strategic plan on December 1, 2015, entitled Positioning the U.S. Copyright 

Office for the Future: 2016–2020 1 and (2) a 5-year IT plan on February 29, 2016, 

entitled Provisional Information Technology Modernization Plan,2 which provides a 

basis for fiscal year 2017 and 2018 activities. 

Together these plans set a path by which to recalibrate almost all of the Copyright Office’s services, from how it registers copyright interests in all kinds of creative works, to how it records and shares critical copyright data. The plans map to 

the strategic plan of the Library of Congress, which states in relevant part that it 

will ‘‘[w]ork with the U.S. Copyright Office to develop modernized copyrights systems and practices, in accordance with copyright laws and public objectives.’’ The 

Copyright Office and Library are also well positioned now to discuss relative points 

of alignment and relative responsibilities for information technology services. 

In general, the Copyright Office IT plan recommends a clean slate approach, in 

which the Copyright Office is responsible for building new mission-critical applications within a dedicated enterprise architecture, and retiring rather than migrating 

legacy systems. The IT plan leverages flexible cloud technologies, while minimizing 

the need for an unwieldy and capital-intensive data center. This approach will allow 

the Office to remain nimble, and adapt to the ever-evolving needs of the copyright 

marketplace. It positions the Office to develop and link a number of IT programs 
16 

3 In the House Report accompanying the fiscal year 2016 appropriations bill, the Committee 

stated: 

The Committee fully understands the importance of the Copyright Office as it relates to 

creativity and commercial artistic activity not only within the United States but also on 

a world-wide basis. In order to serve the copyright owners and the copyright community 

in the 21st century, a robust modern information technology (IT) operation will be necessary. . . . [T]he Committee directs the Register of Copyrights to report, to the Committee on Appropriation and relevant Authorizing Committees of the House on a detailed 

plan on necessary IT upgrades, with a cost estimate, that are required for a 21st century 

copyright organization. In addition to the cost estimate, the Register shall include recommendations on a funding strategy and a timeframe for completion of a new IT system 

that is necessary to better serve the public in the digital age. The Register should seek 

public comments to help inform the Copyright Office with the funding strategy and implementation timeline. 

H. Rep. No. 114–110 (2015). 

4See http://copyright.gov/policy/itupgrade/index.html. 5Library of Congress, Fiscal 2017 Budget Justification 109, available at https://www.loc.gov/ 

portals/static/about/reports-and-budgets/documents/budgets/fy2017.pdf. 6Library of Congress, Fiscal 2017 Budget Justification at 119. 

and data needs that are best suited to its various functions, i.e., developing separate 

business models for copyright registration and copyright recordation, and integrating the respective data sets as appropriate. 

At the House Appropriations Committee’s request,3 the Copyright Office has recently posed several questions regarding funding and implementation to the public.4

FISCAL YEAR 2017 APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST

Turning to our fiscal year 2017 appropriations request, the Copyright Office has 

three line items, as follows: 

1. Copyright Basic budget, which funds most Copyright Office operations— 

$66.870 million. 

2. Copyright Licensing Division, which is a fiscal operation that disperses royalty 

income after statutory distribution proceedings and is funded by fees from private parties—$ 5.531 million. 

3. Copyright Royalty Judges, who report to the Librarian but are included by the 

Library under the Register’s budget for administrative convenience—$ 1.625 

million. 

We have provided budget justifications for all of the above items through the 

agency appropriations process,5 however, the first item is the heart of Copyright Office operations and the focus of my testimony today. 

In fiscal year 2017, for Copyright Basic, the Copyright Office has requested (1) 

authority to spend $33.619 million of offsetting collections, i.e., fees collected from 

customers for services during that fiscal year; (2) authority to utilize $6.147 million 

from the Office’s reserve account, i.e., unobligated fees collected during prior fiscal 

year(s); and (3) $27.104 million in taxpayer support. 

Because this request was prepared prior to the completion of the Provisional IT 

Plan, it does not assume the elements of a future technology state that are discussed therein. Rather, much of the fiscal year 2017 request is directed towards 

maintaining the current state of operation for the Copyright Office and replenishing 

depleted staff to ensure we have sufficient personnel to meet our current responsibilities under the Copyright Act. The request prioritizes an increase in FTEs, 

many of which would be dedicated to improving existing services, for example, technicians to speed the production of certified copies of copyright deposits and other 

materials. (Some would be devoted to transitional assignments involving planning 

activities.) 

The Office’s fiscal year 2017 request represents an increase in the basic budget 

of $14.967 million over fiscal year 2016. The great majority of the request is $13.634 

million in programmatic increases, $9.766 million, would be covered by fees collected 

in fiscal year 2017 or prior fiscal years, should the Committee authorize increased 

spending authority. As explained in the budget justification,6 we have aligned the 

request for increased spending authority with those program changes that support 

copyright owners paying fees into the copyright system, e.g., increased staffing in 

our copyright registration and recordation groups. In addition to the increase in 

spending authority, the 2017 request includes $5.201 million in taxpayer support. 

We have aligned the latter request to program changes that serve the general public 

or businesses taking advantage of free public data, such as increased staffing of the 
17 

legal and policy departments and public information office, and to account for mandatory pay and price level changes. 

The Copyright Office greatly appreciates the Committee’s ongoing interest in, and 

support of, the national copyright system. At your direction, we stand ready to further discuss and report on any and all matters outlined above. 

DATA CENTER RELOCATION

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. I think I will begin the questioning. 

I want to talk about the increase in your budget request for the 

data center relocation. My understanding is that it is in three 

phases, and you are asking for an additional $24.6 this year of a 

3 year investment to migrate the Library’s primary computing facility to an alternate location. 

I understand that House Information Resources currently located 

at Ford plans to move theirs as well to a new location. While there 

may be merit in the decision to move the data centers away from 

Capitol Hill, I am not sure I think the House should dictate other 

legislative branch agencies’ specific courses of action. 

So, would the Library have reached the same decision to move 

its data center to this new location without specific direction from 

the House, and why is it necessary to relocate the data center at 

this particular time? 

Mr. MAO. To answer your second question first, we need to relocate the Madison Data Center because we are in a building that 

is 30 some years old and it does not have the capacity to serve not 

only our current needs but also our future needs. 

As we continue to grow, there is not the capability to ensure our 

redundancy, both in the power and the cooling in the data center 

that will ensure that we can continue to serve Congress and serve 

our clients. So, we need to move out of the data center. 

The first question you asked was whether we would have made 

an independent decision to move to the House location, the Legislative Branch Data Center. We relied on the great work that was 

conducted by the House in the studies they conducted in terms of 

options that were available, and we did not want to recreate the 

wheel. We took a look at their studies and we found they were very 

credible and very, very good at helping us to short circuit the work, 

if you will, on what we needed to do in terms of looking at options 

for us outside of the Madison Building. 

Senator CAPITO. Well, I know in the new location that the Library will be assuming lease costs of $7.1 million a year, which you 

currently do not have being housed obviously in one of your own 

buildings. Is this built into the future budgets? That is a pretty 

hefty sum there. 

Mr. MAO. Yes, it is. We have included that and are prepared to 

fund the leasing of the space going forward, and it is something 

that we might need to consider whether we were there or somewhere else. The critical question is what do we do to get out of the 

Madison Building because it does not serve the needs and the future needs of our data center. 

Senator CAPITO. So, would you put this in the category that you 

spoke about in your opening statement where it is serving the immediate rather than trying to tend to the needs of the future, this 

is something you are going to have to do eventually? 
18 

Let’s say the funds were not provided to begin phase one, is this 

something that you would reprioritize within your budget to begin 

phase one, or is it something you would have to move further back 

before you could proceed? 

Mr. MAO. We certainly need to continue to think about moving 

the data center out of the Madison Building, whether it is this 

year, next year, or the year after that. We would prioritize certainly among all of our needs, but the bulk of phase one, we could 

not absorb that as part of our budget, and if we did not move out 

of the data center, then we would just continue to assume the current risk level that we have for staying in the Madison Data Center until we could move out of the Madison Building. 

BUDGET REQUEST NON-RECURRING COSTS

Senator CAPITO. Let me ask you a quick question. In your open- ing statement, if I heard you correctly, you said $13 million of this 

request was non-reoccurring? 

Mr. MAO. Yes. 

Senator CAPITO. What is that for? 

Mr. MAO. So, there are one time costs for moving and setting up 

the facility in Southwest Virginia. 

Senator CAPITO. So, this is associated with relocating the data 

center, but then next year, you are going to have to ask for different millions of dollars for a different task related to that? 

Mr. MAO. Correct. 

Senator CAPITO. It is not like the $13 million is going to be going 

away. 

Mr. MAO. Yes, that is correct. 

PUBLIC ACCESS TO CRS REPORTS

Senator CAPITO. Okay. Let me ask you about the Congressional 

Research Service, and thank you for what the Library provides for 

us there. When I visited with Mary Mazanec one of the discussions 

that we had was making CRS reports public. 

As you know, there is a bill that has been introduced to the Senate to put those CRS reports up for general viewing. 

I understand there has been some debate on that because of cost, 

and then also the speech or debate clause. In my view, the cost 

issue, we are already doing a lot of this in and around with the 

GPO and others, putting things up online for viewing, I cannot 

imagine that the cost could be that prohibitive to add another portal for the Library of Congress CRS reports. I understand that the 

legislation sort of deals with the speech and debate clause in terms 

of making sure that those issues are cleared up. 

Do you have an opinion on that? I mean to me, I just see this 

as something we are going to be doing in the future. I would like 

to see us get on with it. 

Mr. MAO. It is certainly in the proposal that you are talking 

about, there is talk about having CRS information released 

through the Government Publishing Office, more specifically, 

FDsys, FDsys.gov, the Web site. 

Certainly, from a technical point of view, that is one of the options that is possible. There are certain costs that would be associated with it, and I believe you may have referred to the Govern-
19 

ment Publishing Office talking about those costs that they would 

need to get the system up and the back-end work that needed to 

be done. 

One other thing to consider and something that should be of concern is what unintended consequences and results may happen 

with providing that information. We just want to make sure that 

whatever financial implications there may be they are considered 

as well by this committee. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. Senator Schatz. 

REPROGRAMMING REQUEST

Senator SCHATZ. Mr. Mao, at the end of the last fiscal year, we received a $4.5 million reprogramming request, on the last day. 

Can you explain what happened? 

Mr. MAO. Yes. So, we had some money that was left over, if you 

will, from contracts, the proposals for contracts, you have a proposal in but the costs actually came back much lower than what 

the original estimate—— 

Senator SCHATZ. I understand that part. Why was it the last day 

that we were asked to authorize the reprogramming? 

Mr. MAO. So, we did not actually know the final amount until 

that very last day, or a day or two before, so then we could prepare 

the paperwork. I want to say first of all thank you very much for 

agreeing to allow us to reprogram. 

Senator SCHATZ. I did not. I appreciate it and I understand the 

need, but I just want to drill down a little deeper here. I understand contract costs come in under. That is nothing to scold anybody about. It is hard for me to believe it would have been impossible to get those numbers back except within 4 hours left on the 

last business day of the last day of the fiscal year. 

Can you assure me that will not happen going forward? 

Mr. MAO. Yes. We have taken a hard look at our contracting 

process. As I mentioned in my opening statement, we have appointed a new Chief Operating Officer that overlooks the contracting portion of what we do at the Library of Congress, and he 

is keeping track and making sure that we do not fall into the same 

situation that we did last fiscal year, so that we can ensure if there 

would be a need for us to ask for permission for reprogramming, 

it would be well in advance and with plenty of time for consideration. 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENTS

Senator SCHATZ. Okay. Thank you. We have talked about it a little bit already, the Library is asking for $67 million of additional 

resources to go towards IT and cybersecurity, but given the budget 

caps, what do you do if you do not get this money? Do you have 

a work around? Do you just push things into the future? Are you 

going to internally reorganize? What happens if you do not get this 

money? 

Mr. MAO. So, to address the security request, we do not have the 

ability to absorb that entire sum if we were not to have any increases. 

That said, these proposals were recommended to us. As you may 

know, we had a GAO audit last year, and some of these proposals 
20 

in terms of cybersecurity were recommended as part of the nonpublic report that was issued. They are directly in response to that. 

If we do not have the ability to implement, for example, two-factor authentication, or coordinating the IT security across the entire 

Library, we will continue to proceed with the security that we 

have. Of course, security certainly is a concern to us, and we want 

to make sure that we continue moving forward in that area. We 

will identify what risks there are if needed, and try to adjust them 

with whatever funds we can find. 

COLLECTION OF DIGITAL MATERIAL

Senator SCHATZ. Okay. You have 90 seconds to answer this question. 

Mr. MAO. Okay. 

Senator SCHATZ. Well, I am going to take 20 of them, sorry. You 

know, in the digital world, how does the Library of Congress sort 

of move into the digital world, digitize that which ought to be 

digitized, but not end up being an archive of everything on the 

Internet? What is the long-term vision for digitization and how 

that integrates into the Library’s basic mission? 

The reason I think this is so important is I think whatever we 

do, the Library of Congress ends up being an example for the rest 

of the world in terms of setting a tone going into the future. 

Mr. MAO. So, in terms of everything on the Internet, that is not 

what we are trying to do. What we are trying to do is make sure 

that we have smart collections, we have collection development 

policies, and we also have experts who are looking at all the material and making a determination of what should be added to our 

collection. 

In terms of digitization, we certainly are proceeding down that 

path and making decisions on what materials, analog materials, 

should be digitized, but we are also talking about born digital materials, so things that are already—well, they started off in the digital format. Altogether, we are trying to work together to make 

sure that we, as you say, set the standard for the world, and make 

sure that we at, the same time, are collecting the right information 

going forward. 

Senator SCHATZ. Are we most of the way towards having new 

best practices and a well articulated policy, or is part of the challenge that the Library itself and the librarian community is adjusting to the circumstances, and you are still trying to come up with 

policies? 

Mr. MAO. It is a little bit of both. One of our proposals is to have 

a collection management division within the Library strictly focused on digital materials. We are working now in an analog world 

where we do some digital work but we want to stand up a division 

that will have their primary focus on all digital work. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you. 

FULL-TIME EQUIVALENTS

Senator CAPITO. I am going to ask an additional question, if that 

is okay with everybody. I want to get to the full-time equivalent 

question. I mentioned it in my opening remarks. You are asking for 
21 

99 additional FTEs—Library of Congress, 25, Copyright Office, 52, 

and Congressional Research Service, 22. 

Books for the blind and physically handicapped, no additional. 

We will give them a little gold star over here. 

What is the need for 99 additional FTEs? That is a pretty large 

increase. So, I would like to hear your justification for it. You do 

not have to dig down deep, just a general justification, and then 

maybe we can have subsequent questions. 

Mr. MAO. Certainly. The request is for the funding for the 99. We 

have authorization. We are well below our authorized level. Over 

the last 5 to 7 years, as we have had flat funding and sequestration, we have had to basically absorb mandatory costs and mandatory pay price level increases. 

We have had to make some decisions on the funding for FTEs. 

Overall, from 2010 through 2015, we are down over 400 FTEs. We 

have looked at our needs and targeted the specific areas where we 

have very critical needs on staffing, and those are represented in 

the 99. 

Senator CAPITO. Let me ask you this, is it possible to absorb the 

additional work through a contract type of situation, where maybe 

it is a more temporary kind of position that needs to be filled rather than assuming all of this along with the cost, so that next year, 

you know, if you were to get another 99, you are going to have additional requests because of the obvious benefits and cost increases 

of having that many more people. 

I mean, I am sure you do contracting. Is that an issue that you 

look at before you start asking for more people? 

Mr. MAO. Yes. We have looked at all different ways to get the 

work done, including contracting, although generally speaking, contracting could end up being more expensive than FTEs in certain 

instances. 

We have looked at a variety of opportunities, including having 

work divvied up differently. I mentioned in my opening statement 

that we had a major realignment last year. You may recall that 

this proposal, for example, of the digital division was included in 

last year’s proposal, where we were actually asking for 22. 

As part of the realignment, we looked at the workload and looked 

at who could help out with certain work, so you see this year, it 

is actually 11, because we have prioritized and looked at how we 

could shift some of that work around using our current resources. 

SHIFTING RESOURCES

Senator CAPITO. I mean, I think on the face of it, too, sort of pivoting off of Senator Schatz’s question, in terms of the digitization, 

there are fewer magazines, there are fewer newspapers—although 

it seems like there are more books than ever, I will say that, when 

you see people on a book tour. 

You know, is that a general shift? I know you still need the resources in the traditional areas, but certainly some of those areas 

have got to be shrinking, just by virtue of the way people are communicating. Is that not the case? 
22 

Mr. MAO. That is not the case. I would be happy to provide you 

with the statistics. We continually add print materials to our collection at quite a clip every single day. 

[The information follows:] 

LIBRARY COLLECTIONS

Question. Are certain collection formats diminishing due to the digital age? For 

example, less and less magazines, newspapers, and general print are being produced. Could the Library shift its resources to collection formats that are growing 

more rapidly than other areas? 

Answer. The reality is that print publishing is very healthy even though digital 

publishing has developed into a major industry itself. Thus, the Library must selectively acquire both analog and digital content in order to meet its mission to serve 

Congress and the Nation. When material is simultaneously available in both formats the Library generally acquires only one copy. 

The Publishing Industry 

The amount of print publishing has actually increased in recent years, a trend 

evidenced globally. For example, the following table shows the production of print 

books by traditional publishers in the United States from 2002 to 2013. It also 

shows e-book production from publishers in the United States, 2011–2014. (Provided 

by Bowker, the standard source of U.S. publishing information.) 

Year U.S. Printed Books from 

Traditional Publishers 1

U.S. e-Books from 

Traditional Publishers 

2002 ...................... 215,138 ....................................

2003 ...................... 240,098 ....................................

2004 ...................... 275,793 ....................................

2005 ...................... 251,903 ....................................

2006 ...................... 274,416 ....................................

2007 ...................... 284,370 ....................................

2008 ...................... 289,729 ....................................

2009 ...................... 302,410 ....................................

2010 ...................... 308,628 ....................................

2011 ...................... 292,037 155,979 

2012 ...................... 309,957 301,479 

2013 2 .................... 304,912 260,247 

2014 ...................... .................................... 255,341 

1 Does not include reprints, print-on-demand, self-published titles, etc. 

2 Projected; most recent full year data released. 

So, there are huge numbers of both print titles and e-books being published, in 

many cases with the same content being available in multiple formats. These statistics are from the United States alone. The Library collects worldwide, and the actual publishing landscape is far bigger and varied than just in the United States. 

Magazines and newspapers fall into the general category of serials, which also encompasses journals, annuals, newsletters and other types of periodicals. 

Ulrichsweb.com is a database containing information on all types of serials worldwide. A search of the database on March 28, 2016, for all active serials in all countries retrieved 365,174 records. There were 226,086 records for print serials and 

115,811 records for online electronic serials, with many publications having separate 

records for both print and electronic. From this data, it appears that there are still 

many serials that are only available in print format. 

Current Collecting at the Library 

The Library has a mission to: Acquire, preserve, and provide access to a universal 

collection of knowledge and the record of America’s creativity. Collections materials 

are selectively acquired not only to serve immediate needs, particularly those of 

Congress, but also to be preserved for future generations of use. The Library has 

been steadily increasing its digital collecting capacity and capability over the past 

two decades. Expanding the digital collecting program is an essential part of the institution’s mission. Yet, the transformation of the Library of Congress into a library 

that is primarily digital is impacted by the state of the publishing marketplace (as 

described briefly above), Copyright regulations that need to be updated and limited 

acquisitions funding. 
23 

In this changing hybrid environment, the Library must collect, make available 

and preserve materials in both traditional and digital formats. For example, the following data show the number of new print book and serial titles, from all countries 

of publication, added to the Library’s print collections over the past 5 years. 

New Printed Book & Serial Titles Added to the Collections (all countries) 

Year Fiscal Year 2011 Fiscal Year 2012 Fiscal Year 2013 Fiscal Year 2014 Fiscal Year 2015 

No. of Titles ..................................... 285,123 267,121 230,350 222,498 238,976 

Concurrently, the pace of digital collecting at the Library has accelerated greatly. 

Examples include the following. 

—Last year, the size of the Library’s Web archives (at 763 terabytes of content) 

was more than triple what it had been in 2010. The amount of harvested content increased by an average of 32 percent each year during the 2010–2015 period. 

—Electronic serials received through Copyright mandatory deposit now number 

1,400∂ titles, comprising over 2 million files, compared to the 79 titles and 

91,000 files received as of the end of 2011. 

—Over 4,200 e-Books were added to the collections through the CIP program in 

fiscal year 2015, compared to 67 in the previous year—a 6200∂ percent increase. 

During a period of constrained budgets the Library has been shifting resources 

in order to expand collection of digital content. However, the wealth of overall published creativity still available in analog form precludes a simple shift of additional 

resources to collect more available digital content. An overall increase in funding resources is necessary to support this mission. 

Senator CAPITO. Okay. 

Mr. MAO. It is both. 

Senator CAPITO. It is growing in both areas? 

Mr. MAO. Yes, exactly. 

Senator CAPITO. Okay. Thank you. I think that is very good. I 

appreciate you being here, and that concludes the first panel. The 

hearing record will stay open for 7 days so that Senators may submit any statements and questions by close of business on Tuesday, 

March 22. 

You are excused. Thank you very much. I will call up Mr. Stephen Ayers. 

Mr. MAO. Thank you very much. 

Senator CAPITO. I think we can begin. I would like to welcome 

the Honorable Stephen T. Ayers, Architect of the Capitol, and 

members of the senior leadership team. Christine Merdon, the 

Chief Operating Officer. Tom Carroll, the Chief Financial Officer. 

Mamie Bittner, director of Communications and Congressional Relations. 

I understand that several of the superintendents responsible for 

the daily operation and maintenance of the buildings within the jurisdiction of the Architect of the Capitol also are here today. We 

thank you very much, along with many other AOC employees, and 

we thank them for their dedication and many years of service. 

The total fiscal year 2017 budget request for the Architect is 

$694.3 million, an increase of $81.4, 13.3 percent. I realize with the 

deferred maintenance backlog of $1.5 billion, you have had to make 

some tough decisions when building this budget request. However, 

it still represents a 13.3 percent increase. 

Included within the increase is the funding to support an additional 71 full-time equivalents. The request for additional per-
24 

sonnel is a theme across most of the legislative branch agencies 

today. You heard me talking with the Acting Librarian, and I will 

ask you as I have asked other agencies how can we afford to continue increasing the size of the agency when we do not have 

enough to cover the available current workforce, whose salaries 

and benefits go up every year, and to tackle all the necessary 

projects. 

As the subcommittee has discussed with each of the witnesses 

here, it is highly probable that we will be faced with a flat budget 

for fiscal year 2017, so we have some very difficult decisions to 

make. 

We realize the level of difficulties and expense in managing the 

maintenance of our aging infrastructure while preserving its historical value. We certainly do not want to see these historic buildings 

crumble down around us. 

However, we may have to further delay some of the proposed 

work due to budget constraints. I would like to hear from you regarding the impact of delaying some of this work year after year 

in terms of the increased deterioration and future cost of repair. 

Now, I would like to turn to my ranking member, Senator 

Schatz, for any opening remarks he would like to make. 

Senator SCHATZ. I do not have any opening remarks. 

Senator CAPITO. We will go right to Mr. Ayers, who will give a 

brief opening statement of 5 minutes, and your written testimony 

has been submitted to the committee, which will be printed in full 

in the hearing record. Welcome. 

ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL 

STATEMENT OF HON. STEPHEN T. AYERS, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL 

Mr. AYERS. Thank you, Chairman Capito, and Ranking Member 

Schatz. I appreciate the opportunity today to testify regarding our 

fiscal year 2017 budget request. 

Two thousand sixteen promises to be a banner year for the Architect of the Capitol, as several important projects are scheduled 

for completion. Most visibly, before the January 2017 Presidential 

Inauguration, restoration work on the Capitol Dome and the Rotunda of the Capitol will be complete. 

On the Dome, installation of the cupola windows is complete, and 

cast iron repairs through the mid and lower sections of the Dome 

are complete, and as Senator Schatz said in his opening remarks, 

the Statue of Freedom has emerged, causing some excitement. 

Inside the Rotunda, coffers have been stripped of old paint and 

new painting and repair work are about to get underway. 

Updating and improving our facilities through fiscal responsibility continues to be our most important priority. 

In the Hart Senate Office building, for example, we were able to 

leverage roof and skylight replacement project efficiencies toward 

the solar power system installation and the safety analysis on the 

Calder Clouds. 

Over the past 10 years, the installation of over $90 million in energy savings and performance contracts have significantly aided in 

our ability to achieve a 30.9 percent reduction in our energy inten-
25 

sity. This, of course, exceeds the target set by the 2007 Energy 

Independence and Security Act, and represents a major achievement for us that we are very, very proud of. 

These projects are all success stories, but are also compelling examples of the need for a sustained and significant investment in 

our deteriorating infrastructure. Continuing to defer needs results 

in critical damage that compounds and will become more costly to 

repair in the future. 

Safety and state of good repair upgrades are the centerpiece of our fiscal year 2017 request of $694 million that provides the most 

beneficial and economical use of funding. We must continue to address the enormous backlog estimated at $1.49 billion at the close 

of fiscal year 2015. 

As our needs grow, we recognize the importance of leveraging 

staff expertise, collaboration across the agency and engaging in 

partnerships that have helped to stretch the few dollars that we 

are budgeted. 

Our 2017 request builds on our successes and requests $165.5 

million for major capital projects deemed urgent or immediate. 

Those include replacing obsolete chillers at the Capitol Power 

Plant, and eliminating water infiltration on many of our buildings 

across the Capitol campus. 

In particular, we have begun important stone preservation efforts in the Senate extension of the United States Capitol, as well 

as the Olmsted Terrace, the United States Botanic Garden and the 

United States Supreme Court. 

Also, the Senate underground garage fountains and reflecting 

pool, and all their associated systems have exceeded their life expectancy and are in need of renovation and restoration, and we expect that to begin just after the January 2017 Presidential Inauguration. 

Repairing leaks, corrosion and aging piping systems in the Capitol Building that threaten to affect the operation of that building, 

and improving life safety systems at the Library of Congress 

through the second phase of the Library of Congress’ Thomas Jefferson Building Exit Stair B, which will increase the capacity to 

quickly exit people from that building in the event of an emergency. 

Failing to address these and other critical projects in the short 

term will exacerbate the aging process, facilitate new deterioration 

and failures, and ultimately increase the cost of these repairs. 

I look forward to working with the Congress on these priorities, 

and again, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. STEPHEN T. AYERS

Chairman Capito, Ranking Member Schatz, and members of the subcommittee, I 

appreciate the opportunity to testify today and discuss the Architect of the Capitol’s 

(AOC) fiscal year 2017 budget request. 

The AOC values our unique mission to serve Congress and the Supreme Court, 

preserve the historic facilities and grounds of the Capitol campus and inspire generations of Americans through art and architecture. 

Thanks to your support, 2016 promises to be a banner year as several major 

projects are scheduled for completion. These projects mark important milestones in 

our ongoing efforts to preserve our infrastructure, enhance the beauty of our historic 

buildings and improve safety and security for all employees and visitors. 
26 

By the 2017 Presidential Inauguration, work on our most visible projects, the 

Dome and Rotunda restoration, will be complete. 

Workers Prepare the Rotunda’s Coffered Dome for New Paint. 

Work progresses on the restoration of the Ulysses S. Grant Memorial, accessibility 

improvements to Bartholdi Park and a structural safety analysis on the clouds component of the Alexander Calder Mountains and Clouds sculpture in the Hart Senate 

Office Building. All of these initiatives are nearing completion. 

At the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center (CVC), 2016 will bring the installation of lighter weight entrance and exit doors to ease access for the more than 2 million annual 

visitors. We are also extremely proud of the CVC’s Rotunda App, which was recently 

honored by ADOBE in their public service category for ‘‘Most engaging citizen-facing 

campaign.’’ ADOBE lauded the App for providing ‘‘Videos, infographics, photography, and historical illustrations [that] provide the next best experience to actually 

touring in person.’’ 

Capitol Visitor Center Exterior Door Replacement. 

Off campus, we are constructing new storage space for precious Library of Congress collections at the Fort George G. Meade military installation in Maryland. 

These examples illustrate the broad range of the AOC’s unique mission responsibilities and our focus on strategic investments to update and improve our facilities. 

They are also compelling examples of the need for a sustained, significant investment in our deteriorating infrastructure. Deferring investment results in critical 

damage that only gets worse with time. Without immediate attention, problems become costlier to repair, more intrusive to Congress’ daily operations and a campus 

that is less available to our visitors. 
27 

PEOPLE FIRST, SAFETY ALWAYS

We take seriously the responsibility to protect the physical and human resources 

entrusted to our care. Our commitment to excellence is buoyed by our steadfast efforts to maintain a safe, effective workplace for Congress and a welcoming destination that millions of Americans visit and enjoy all year long. 

The Capitol Building Paint Branch Puts the Finishing Touches 

on the Safety Bannister in Preparation for Pope Francis’ Visit. 

With a staff of more than 2,100, AOC employees are our most precious resource. 

These highly dedicated and talented employees are sought out by other agencies and 

by people across the Nation and around the world to share their unique expertise 

and knowledge. Imparting best practices in risk assessment, and partnering on 

quality contracting procedures, top notch professionals strive to meet our goals and 

performance metrics year-after-year. 

In order for our employees to succeed and continue to deliver positive results, increased resources are required for necessary projects identified by the AOC. The 

U.S. Capitol and the buildings that make up the Capitol campus are losing key elements—such as stone, cast iron and bronze—that define these iconic symbols of democracy and are critical to their structural integrity. The resulting impact is that 

a quarter of our buildings are in poor condition, according to our Facility Condition 

Index. 

Restorations are necessary not only to preserve these symbols of American democracy but also to ensure the health and safety of those who work at and visit the 

Capitol campus each day. Safety and state-of-good-repair upgrades are the centerpiece of our fiscal year 2017 budget request of $694.3 million that emphasizes 

prioritization, effectiveness, efficiency and accountability to provide the most beneficial and economical use of funding. 

Our request is a 13.3 percent increase over fiscal year 2016 enacted funding levels 

and, we believe, the minimum amount needed to begin to address decades of reduced investment and an enormous backlog estimated at $1.49 billion at the close 

of fiscal year 2015. 

The Building Research Board at the National Research Council recommends a 

minimum of 2 to 4 percent of the current value of a building be reinvested on an 

annual basis to reduce the backlog of deferred maintenance. Unfortunately, less 

than 1⁄2 of 1 percent of the value of the buildings within the AOC’s purview is currently reinvested in our infrastructure. 

While these statistics are unacceptable, we continue to make strides by 

prioritizing our most urgent needs. 

STEWARDSHIP THROUGH PRIORITIZATION

The AOC is keenly aware of how far every taxpayer dollar must go to meet our 

stewardship responsibilities. As our needs grow, we recognize the importance of 

leveraging staff expertise, collaborating across the agency and engaging in partnerships that have proven to help stretch limited budgetary resources. There is a balance in addressing repairs and upgrades while also attending to necessary security 
28 

requirements, energy-saving projects, code-compliance issues, historic preservation 

measures and the needs of AOC clients. 

Operationally, over the past 10 years the AOC has successfully implemented a 

plan to exceed the energy reduction target established by the Energy Independence 

and Security Act of 2007, achieving a 30.9 percent reduction from the 2003 baseline. 

The installation of over $90 million in energy conservation measures in our buildings using energy savings performance contracts significantly aided in this effort. 

These contracts are also great examples of public-private partnerships. 

AOC Employees Monitor Energy Usage. 

Additionally, in 2013 we began work to implement a shared-service model with 

the Department of Agriculture’s EmpowHR Human Resources Information System. 

By consolidating our efforts and resources, this strategic partnership allows us to 

curb future operational cost increases. 

On the construction side, a redesign of the Bartholdi Park project at the U.S. Botanic Garden resulted in a cost reduction of approximately $4 million. And in the 

Hart Senate Office Building, we were able to leverage roof and skylight replacement 

project efficiencies toward the solar power system installation and the safety analysis of the Calder clouds. 

Worker Preparing Part of Alexander Calder’s 

‘‘Mountains and Clouds’’ Sculpture for X-ray Analysis. 

The AOC’s investment approach is also focused on the most immediate capital 

needs and operational requirements. The projects AOC recommends for funding are 

prioritized through a rigorous analysis, which includes consultation with industry 

experts and the utilization of best practices. Through this process, in fiscal year 

2015 we were able to bring down the capital program backlog by $61.1 million and 

prevent our current and future needs from growing at a much larger rate. 

The project development process is adjusted annually within the framework of our 

long-range master plan. Projects are classified according to the type of work the 

project addresses. Deferred Maintenance (DM) and Capital Renewal (CR) projects 
29 

are derived from the Facility Condition Assessment surveys. The Capitol Complex 

Master Plan is the principal source for identifying new Capital Construction needs 

as well as major Capital Improvement needs. Urgency, classification and importance 

result in a Composite Rating used to recommend projects for funding. 

Our fiscal year 2017 request builds on our successes, seeking $165.5 million for 

capital projects. Of this, $100.6 million (or 61 percent) is specifically for DM— 

projects where maintenance, repair or replacement is past due, in some cases significantly. In addition, $23.4 million (or 14 percent) is for CR projects that will be 

added to the growing DM list if not funded in fiscal year 2017. The remaining $41.5 

million (or 25 percent) is to upgrade critical safety infrastructure that will improve 

emergency response capabilities. While significant, our request does not address all 

of our needs and recommends that $118 million in capital projects be deferred to 

a future year. 

We are requesting funds for several critical safety projects at the Capitol Power 

Plant (CPP). To ensure safe and efficient air conditioning and distribution, and reduce the risk of system failure, we need to replace the obsolete 5,000-ton constant 

speed chiller and cooling towers along with the chillers at the Alternate Computer 

Facility. These projects will benefit all of the buildings on the Capitol campus along 

with the U.S. Government Publishing Office, the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, the Postal Square Building, Union Station, the Folger Shakespeare Library and all Legislative Branch information technology systems. 

Capitol Power Plant’s Aging Chillers. 

In addition, the CPP’s historic clay tile roof is experiencing structural deficiencies. 

During storms and high winds, the loose elements of the roof are a safety concern, 

posing a significant risk of water damaging the offices and the more than $700 million worth of equipment that is housed at the CPP. 

Water infiltration continues to be a major concern. Water has marred the sandstone and marble encompassing the facades of most of our buildings. As a result, 

the masonry is cracking and spalling and is causing residual damage within the facilities—rusting of steel structures, mold, mildew and energy loss—threatening the 

health and safety of our building occupants. We have begun the stone preservation 

efforts on the Senate Extension of the Capitol as well as the Olmsted Terrace, Russell Senate Office Building, U.S. Botanic Garden and the U.S. Supreme Court. Intensive studies on the remaining buildings are nearing completion, which will allow 

us to identify future needs. 
30 

Damage to Exterior of the Hart Senate Office Building. 

In the near term, we must address the growing safety risks to personnel and 

property due to the deterioration of the parking garages on the Capitol campus. The 

Senate Underground Garage, fountains, reflecting pool and associated systems have 

exceeded their life expectancy and are in need of renovation and restoration. 

The domestic water, storm, sanitary and vent piping in the U.S. Capitol Building 

has deteriorated to the point where frequent repairs are required due to leaks, corrosion and pipe aging. Continued deterioration and leaks may affect operations of 

building systems and facilities leading to a whole or partial shutdown of the building. 

At the U.S. Botanic Garden, continued deterioration of the greenhouse superstructure does not support the current and expected mission requirements of the 

USBG’s world renowned and rare plant collections. Without the addition of a quarantine facility, the USBG runs the risk of introducing a pest or disease, which could 

be catastrophic to the broader collection. 

AOC Safety Employees Provided DC Firefighters With 

Familiarization Tours of the Library of Congress Buildings. 

Several projects in the Library of Congress buildings are necessary to address urgent life-safety needs, including the second phase of the Library of Congress’ Thomas Jefferson Building North Exit Stair B, which will provide increased capacity to 

quickly evacuate the building in an emergency. If the deficient egress capacity is 

not corrected, the building occupants will not have the number of available exits required by code for the building. In addition, we are seeking to replace an emergency 

generator in the Thomas Jefferson Building; modernization of elevators in the John 
31 

Adams and James Madison Memorial Buildings and repairs to ensure the John 

Adams Building garage is fully operational and provides ADA compliant access. 

Failure to address these critical projects in the short term will exacerbate the 

aging process, facilitate new deterioration and system failures and increase the cost 

of repairs. Our fiscal year 2017 budget request steers us away from this unadvised 

and dangerous approach and builds on our growing list of successes. 

CONCLUSION

This fall, we will begin work in support of the 2017 Presidential Inauguration. 

The Inauguration is a time for us to showcase American democracy, and we are 

proud that the restoration of the Dome and Rotunda will be complete. 

As a passionate advocate for the Capitol campus, I believe that with Congress’ 

support, we can build on our successes and remain a strong and healthy symbol for 

America’s growth and prosperity. 

The U.S. Capitol complex houses numerous symbols of an elected government created to serve the American people; where representatives from all corners of this 

great Nation gather to preserve the ideals and tenets of our Constitution and where we inspire citizens to take up the mantle of democracy and freedom. 

While we exercise our faithful stewardship and fiscal responsibility, we appreciate 

the support of Congress to provide us with the resources needed to support these 

lofty goals. 

CAPITOL DOME AND EXTERIOR STONE RESTORATION

Senator CAPITO. Thank you very much. Good news on the Dome, 

absolutely. We look forward to seeing it restored to its beauty. It 

is a wonderful symbol of our freedoms. Thank you for the work on 

that. 

I understand the scaffolding around the Capitol will come down 

for the inauguration and go back in another area, is that correct, 

where it is on the Senate side now? It then will be completed there, 

and then where do you move from there? 

Mr. AYERS. Yes. First, on the Dome, this month we have started 

the removal of the scaffolding and we will take off 8 levels of scaffolding. That should be complete by the end of this month. The remainder of the scaffolding on the Dome will stay there through 

about July, and then it will come down. Of course, the scaffolding 

in the Rotunda comes down during the State work period in August. 

I think you were mentioning the stone conservation work on the 

Capitol Building, which is on the north extension now, and you are 

absolutely correct, that comes down before the January Presidential Inauguration, and right after the inauguration, a different 

portion of that scaffolding will go up and we will continue that 

work over the next several years. 

Senator CAPITO. What is the status of the Grant statue restoration? Will that be down by the inauguration, too? 

Mr. AYERS. Absolutely. We are about 85 to 90 percent complete 

with that work. We had to stop during the cold winter months. We 

are looking forward to warmer temperatures and having our contractor back on-site this spring. We are well ahead of schedule, and 

very confident we will have that done before the inauguration. 

WORKING CAPITAL FUND

Senator CAPITO. That is good news as well. Thank you. That is 

a well trafficked area during the inaugural activities. 

I have a question about a legislative language request that you 

are making, and that is to establish a working capital fund. We 

talked about it briefly. You do not have it now. The reasoning that 
32 

you have given is with your current accounting system, you cannot 

quite get your construction dollars out economically and efficiently. 

I am going to be honest with you, a working capital fund sounds 

to me like a pot of money that may not have the oversight or the 

constraints that you have expressed that are within your budget 

right now. I understand that maybe you are feeling hemmed in by 

it, but at the same time, in this time of fiscal constraint and when 

you read from other agencies across the Government of misappropriations or sloppy recording, a working capital fund, I do want to 

open the door to anything of that nature. 

So, could you explain specifically why you are asking for this, 

and how much money you would envision would be in this, and 

where that money would come from? 

Mr. AYERS. Sure, I would be happy to. It is an important initiative for us, and it is a very cumbersome and complicated accounting process for us. We have 200 employees that work in our construction division, and those employees receive no appropriated dollars. They do work across our 10 appropriations and are reimbursed by those appropriations as they do work, whether it is here 

in the Senate or in the Capitol or the Botanic Garden or Library 

of Congress. 

When one of them conducts work say here in the Senate, they 

incur liabilities because they receive benefits. Those liabilities may 

be annual leave or sick leave, or whatever other benefits or liabilities they are incurring. 

They may not take those liabilities or we may not need to pay 

those liabilities for 6 months down the road or 3 years down the 

road. So we have to keep that account here in the Senate open 

after that project has been complete, we will keep it open for 6 

months or up to 3 years or more until that liability is expensed out 

of that account. 

That is just an accounting nightmare. Thousands of transactions 

across hundreds of accounts. A simple way to fix that is a working 

capital fund. It is not a fund that would build up any money. The 

only money that would be in that fund are the liabilities that these 

200 employees would incur. We think that is perhaps less than $5 

million. 

Senator CAPITO. So, you are not actually building up a working 

capital fund the way I am envisioning, in other words, millions of 

dollars into a working capital fund so that if somebody comes in 

and performs some work, you can pay them in 20 days as opposed 

to going through the Government bureaucracy of maybe a 60 day 

pay, that is not it? 

Mr. AYERS. No, absolutely not. 

Senator CAPITO. It is an employee benefit working capital fund? 

Mr. AYERS. It is a fund that pays the liabilities and we are able 

to pay those liabilities out of that fund. Nothing would change in 

the way we do business now in terms of how we conduct our construction work. To do a project here in the Senate requires that 

your subcommittee approve of that money, that will not change, requires the Committee on Rules and Administration approve of the 

project, that will not change. 

The Congress has to approve it. We will perform the work and 

bill this appropriation which will then reimburse the account. 
33 

Senator CAPITO. Do you know of any other agencies that have a 

working capital fund that is structured like this? 

Mr. AYERS. Working capital funds are a fairly common thing in 

the Federal Government. 

Senator CAPITO. So, this is a common practice, like if I were to 

have asked the Librarian of Congress, he might have a working 

capital fund? 

Mr. AYERS. That could be, yes. 

Senator CAPITO. Okay. Thank you. Senator Schatz. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you, Chairman Capito, and thank you 

Mr. Ayers, for your excellent work on the Capitol grounds. 

Before I get started, I just wanted to say it is easy for elected 

officials to denigrate the investment in the physical plant around 

the United States Capitol, but we have millions of visitors, and it 

is important that we continue to invest in our physical plant. I appreciate the job you do. But I want to set the context here. You are asking for $694 million in fiscal year 2017. We have people here who are not able to 

be here because they are working, 86 employees in particular. The 

lowest hourly wage for people who work for the United States Senate and are tipped is $10.50. For non-tipped employees, it is 

$13.30. 

As you know, we have been working very hard to make sure they 

got a little bit of a bump in pay. What happened was when we 

thought we came to a resolution, in my opinion, Restaurant Associates improperly, intentionally, and systematically misclassified employees. 

What that looks like is if you get a bump in pay, then suddenly 

they decide that you are no longer doing the job that you have been 

doing for 2 or 3 years. They say sign this document, certify that 

you are no longer a cook but rather a food service worker. I may 

be getting the particulars wrong. 

That is what they did. I found it totally outrageous, and I am not 

alone. Members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle found this 

to be outrageous. 

I want to know where we are in that process. I will just say this, 

before you get into where we are in this process, I do not think it 

is Members of the Senate’s job to serve essentially as labor lawyers 

for 86 individuals. 

I think it is your job to ensure contract compliance, and it is Restaurant Associates’ responsibility to not just go by the letter of the 

contract, but to understand they have a special obligation to their 

employees who are not paid enough to even live in the city where 

they work. 

So, what are we doing specifically to remedy the situation for 

these employees, but also what are we doing on a going forward 

basis? 

Mr. AYERS. I certainly agree with your comments completely. 

You know, we modified that contract and made a change in the pay 

rates, and we thought we were doing a good thing, only to be surprised just a week or two later to find out that the pay rates that 

we had adjusted to were not being implemented. 

Immediately, six employees came to our attention, and we spoke 

with Restaurant Associates about those six employees. They agreed 
34 

they were misclassified and they reclassified them, and provided 

them back pay. 

That, of course, raised our suspicion and the suspicion of many 

Members of the United States Senate, and we went about interviewing employees that worked for that vendor here in the Senate 

as well as the Capitol Visitor Center. 

We did not find any issues with job classification for those employees that worked in the Capitol Visitor Center. For those employees that were working here in the United States Senate, we 

had questions and concerns with 51 of those employees after we 

finished about 90 interviews with them. 

We have worked with Restaurant Associates and brought to their 

attention what our concerns were with those remaining 51 employees. They have changed the classification of 35 of them to date, and 

that leaves 16 on the table. Those 16 are broken into two groups. 

The first group are eight that Restaurant Associates wants to talk 

with us about. We began those discussions on Friday, and have 

come to agreement on two or three of the eight to date. 

Senator SCHATZ. Are they treating this like they are in litigation 

with you? I mean, it sounds as if they are resistant at every step 

of the way. 

Mr. AYERS. I think they changed 35 right away without any discussion, after we showed the results of our interviews. There are 

16 that are left on the table that they want to talk about, eight of 

those they want to discuss, and eight we completely disagree on. 

Those eight we disagree on, we think the only way to resolve that 

is to refer it to the experts at the Department of Labor, which we 

have done and Restaurant Associates has done. 

There are eight remaining—— 

Senator SCHATZ. Are you confident that they are complying with 

the terms of the contract? 

Mr. AYERS. I do not think they have been. These misclassifications, it seems to me, are not in compliance with the contract, 

and not in compliance with the modification we issued on December 18. 

Senator SCHATZ. Are you exploring all of your options with respect to the contract? 

Mr. AYERS. Absolutely. You know, I think we need to get the results. We are at the end of our review. The Department of Labor 

is also reviewing this. We need to see those results. We need to 

have all the facts in front of us. Then we need to do what is right 

from a contractual perspective. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you. 

DATA CENTER RELOCATION

Senator CAPITO. Thank you. I would encourage the direction that 

you are going and associate my feelings with the ranking member. 

I mean, we have many of these folks in the audience with us today, 

and we have submitted their written statements at Senator 

Schatz’s request. Hopefully, we can have a very favorable resolution to this issue. 

I would like to ask about the data center relocation. You might 

have heard me ask the Library of Congress Acting Librarian. You 

also have in your budget $3.9 million for relocation to a new facility 
35 

of the AOC data center. Again, it sounds like House Information 

Resource is pushing this move. 

Would you have reached this decision without specific direction 

from the House, and do you believe it is necessary for you to relocate your data center, and what criteria are you using for this? 

Mr. AYERS. Thank you. In 2013, we actually did relocate our data 

center from a space in the Ford House Office Building to be co-located with HIR, the House Information Resource. 

Senator CAPITO. Right, and they are leaving their space. 

Mr. AYERS. Yes. That essentially, from my perspective, tied us to 

the hip of HIR, so if HIR is moving, we felt it appropriate that we 

needed to move with them. I think that provides ultimately some 

benefit of being co-located in one data center. 

I think there are options on the table for us. It is not imperative 

that we move, but we certainly think it would improve our service, 

it would improve our ability to ensure that data is readily available 

to us during emergency situations. 

LEGISLATIVE CALL SYSTEM

Senator CAPITO. Yes, I agree with that, and I do see when you 

are sort of tied with another agency how it is difficult to unwind 

and something could be much more expensive for you as well. 

My last comment will be one of your multi-year requests is $1.4 

million for a new legislative call system. That is going to be a sad 

day when those bells and lights go away, but none of us really 

know what they mean now anyway. 

I do not know if you have already envisioned what kind of replacement you are going to make with that, I understand some of 

the parts are antiquated and cannot be replaced, it is a system obviously that is from the old school time. 

What is your vision there, and will there be follow on requests 

for dollars to help you move through with that project? 

Mr. AYERS. We do not think there will be follow on requests to 

complete the study. We think that the money that we have available will enable us to study what alternatives are out there, and 

to work closely with the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of 

the Senate to find some new technology that will enable us to perform the same function. 

The clock system we have today, that manufacturer has stopped 

making the parts for that. We have about 4,000 of them across the 

Capitol Campus. We have bought several spares that we can keep 

the current system going for a year or two while we carefully and 

methodically study what alternatives are out there. 

We do not have any preconceived notions about what that might 

be. It could be a simple replacement of what is there or we may 

suggest moving completely to television and iPhones and PDAs. 

Senator CAPITO. Yes, that is what I was going to suggest, some 

sort of Smartphone app. We are relying on that anyway to alert us. 

I would not recommend shock collars. I do not think we would be 

in favor of that one. 
36 

Anyway, thank you very much for what you are doing. I cannot 

wait until the trees bloom and all the Dome is clear from construction. It makes Washington a beautiful city, and it makes this campus beautiful, and you work hard to do that. So, thank you. 

Mr. AYERS. Thank you. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator CAPITO. All right. Thank you, Mr. Ayers, to you and all 

the staff of the Architect of the Capitol for your time today. The 

hearing record will remain open for 7 days, allowing members to 

submit statements and/or questions for the record, which will be 

sent to the committee by close of business on Tuesday, March 22. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO DAVID S. MAO

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SECURITY

Question. The Library’s request includes $6.6 million and 5 additional full-timeequivalents for Information Technology Security Enhancements. What security enhancements will this funding provide and why are 5 additional FTE’s necessary? 

Answer. The two main enhancements are: the design and deployment of two-factor 

authentication for all Library users, and the coordination of all IT Security functions 

within the Library. 

The 5 additional FTEs are necessary to assure oversight across the Library’s five 

mission units in the Library’s effort to manage IT Security functions. These FTEs 

would act as subject matter experts for the program by providing guidance and serving as expertise on crucial systems, such as Congress.gov. 

Question. Does this request respond to the recommendations that GAO made in 

its March 2015 report on the Library’s need to address serious information technology management weaknesses? Will this close out all recommendations by GAO? 

If not, what is the Library’s plan for addressing the remaining recommendations? 

Answer. The Library’s fiscal 2017 request addresses several recommendations in 

the GAO non-public report. 

Funding this request will not close all recommendations but will be a good step 

forward to ensure that the pertinent non-public findings are closed and that they 

do not occur again. There are many other areas addressed in the GAO audit that 

are not IT security centric. The Library is currently working on all audit recommendations at this time and meets with the GAO audit team weekly. 

Question. Recognizing that there are many different offices throughout the Library, including the Congressional Research Service (CRS) and the United States 

Copyright Office, each with its own unique IT needs, what are you doing to ensure 

that the individual needs of each of the divisions within the Library are being met? 

Answer. With respect to IT Security, this request will assure that all business 

units within the Library have both secure access to Library resources and trained 

IT Security staff managing the IT Security activities for their systems. In addition, 

business units will no longer need to contract out security functions for experts to 

serve as Information System Security Officers (ISSOs). The OCIO will perform this 

function for all business units within the Library. 

Question. If the Library’s Salaries and Expenses account were held to the fiscal 

year 2016 enacted level of $419.6 million, would the Library prioritize these IT enhancements from within that level of funding, at the expense of other needs? If the 

Library simply could not absorb this cost, what would be the impact to the Library’s 

programs and services? 

Answer. If funding was not approved for both security enhancements, the Library 

would not be able to absorb the costs related to implementing the initiatives. Therefore, the Library would remain in the same security posture. Two factor authentication would not be provided to all Library users and IT security functions would not 

be centralized. Both of these enhancements are recommendations stipulated in recent GAO and Library of Congress Office of Inspector General audit reports. 
37 

MAKING CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE REPORTS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE

Question. I understand that some CRS reports are currently on the ‘‘Congress 

only’’ version of Congress.gov, so how difficult, time-consuming, or costly could it be 

to put the reports on the public version of Congress.gov? 

Answer. CRS reports are currently only published on CRS.gov, a Web site restricted exclusively for congressional use. The site is linked to a number of other 

congressional sites within CapNet, such as the Congress-only side of Congress.gov, 

Webster and HouseNet, but the content is only available in CRS format and to 

members and staff who can access CRS.gov. 

To ensure network security, CRS reports would have to be added separately to 

the public facing section of Congress.gov. Doing that would require a level of effort— 

and cost—similar to adding reports to GPO’s FDSys.gov. There are some technical 

complexities and cost considerations that would have to be addressed to facilitate 

publishing on a different site, such as modifying report formats and coordinating 

metadata requirements. There also may be potential impacts and unintended consequences on CRS that have a financial impact. 

Question. The greatest concern that I have about making the CRS reports publicly 

available, from an appropriations perspective, is the potential for increased costs in 

terms of CRS personnel and hours spent on these reports. Would additional personnel really be necessary in order to make CRS reports ‘‘ready’’ for public consumption? 

Answer. Yes. If Congress decides to make CRS reports available to the public, 

some number of technical staff would be required for a limited time to reconfigure 

how CRS products are produced and to ensure the metadata necessary for the products to be incorporated into another site are present. There may also be a long-term 

need for additional staff at CRS to respond to public inquiries about its products. 

Question. If the decision is made to put certain CRS reports on the public side 

of Congress.gov, what has to be done differently within CRS and why? 

Answer. For years, CRS has made organizational and technological decisions 

based on its mission to work exclusively for Congress and the long-standing prohibition on publishing CRS work for the public. From the structure of the CRS workforce to the design of CRS.gov and the format of reports for use within the closed 

CapNet environment, CRS products and procedures were created to support Congress, not to facilitate publishing information for the general public. A number of 

changes would be required in how CRS operates to provide content for the public 

while protecting the core values that make CRS particularly valuable for Congress. 

For example, the pdf and html versions of every CRS report contain its author’s contact information to enable members and staff to easily contact the expert on that 

issue directly. That would not be sustainable in a more public setting. 

To ensure data security, CRS reports would have to be added separately to the 

public facing section of Congress.gov. From a purely technical point of view, doing 

that would require a level of effort—and cost—similar to adding reports to GPO’s 

FDSys.gov. 

Internally, to ready CRS reports for public release would require modification of 

the CRS publishing process; including redacting author contact information for publicly available reports, ensuring reports meet the formatting requirements of Congress.gov and creating the metadata required by the site for indexing and searching. 

If CRS is required to publicly release other general distribution products, such as 

blog posts, videos, infographics, or the Appropriations Status Table, additional technical hurdles would have to be overcome, including the need to completely reformat 

much of that material. 

One provision of the recently introduced legislation calls for the ability to track 

the version history of CRS products. Depending on how that would be implemented, 

CRS could have to redesign its authoring and publishing tool to allow for that capability. 

CRS would also have to adopt new policies and procedures and dedicate additional 

resources to ensure that Congress remains the primary focus for CRS work, and to 

mitigate the impact that an increased public profile would place on the Service and 

its experts. 

Question. How many additional people would be necessary and why? 

Answer. The total number of additional staff and their duration would ultimately 

be determined by which CRS products are made public, and how they are made 

available. To make just CRS reports public, the Service anticipates requiring at 

least four temporary IT specialists for a minimum of 120 days to establish the new 

publishing process and prep the repository of over 8,000 CRS reports for release. 

The Service would also likely need to permanently expand its communications staff. 
38 

If CRS is required to make additional products public, additional resources would 

be required. 

Question. What are some of the benefits to making CRS reports publicly available? Have you considered developing a mobile app like GAO? 

Answer. Since CRS products have not been made widely available to the public 

by Congress previously, the benefits are uncertain at this time. Proponents state 

that the public release of CRS products will lead to a more informed electorate. 

They also believe that because taxpayers pay for the products, they should have immediate and direct access to them. It has been asserted that public release of CRS 

products would lead to easier access for members and congressional staff; although 

that benefit may be offset by the potential reduction in congressional use of 

CRS.gov, which hosts other features intended exclusively for Congress, including 

registration for CRS events, place a request functionality, a directory of CRS experts, and other CRS products. 

CRS has explored options for the creation of a mobile app, however, constrained 

resources would limit the creation of an app in the near future. 

Question. The bill introduced by Senators Leahy and McCain includes a specific 

section that states there will be no effect on the Speech or Debate Clause and that 

all confidential communications between a member, committee or office of Congress 

and CRS will be kept confidential. I have consulted informally with the Senate 

Legal Counsel and have an understanding that Sec. 6 Rules of Construction, (a) No 

Effect on Speech or Debate Clause, included in this legislation appears to ‘‘negate 

any concern about the effect of publication of CRS reports online on Speech or Debate Clause immunity afforded to members or staff, including CRS employees.’’ 

There is clearly congressional intent to maintain this protection and that intent 

should be considered if any judicial challenges are issued. Do you believe that if this 

language were included in any final legislation regarding the publication of CRS reports that it would eliminate the Speech or Debate Clause concern for CRS? 

Answer. CRS’s confidential relationship with Congress is crucial for its ability to 

best serve the institution. If members lose trust that their interactions with CRS 

will be held in confidence, they may not utilize the Service to inform their legislative 

decisionmaking. 

With that in mind, no, the proposed language would not eliminate the Speech or 

Debate Clause concern for CRS or for Congress. The language would certainly make 

it clear that Congress is seeking to continue the protections CRS has traditionally 

been granted, and, as noted, that intent should be considered if there are any judicial challenges. However, there is no established consensus among legal experts on 

whether a court would uphold the privilege if CRS is seen as a direct provider of 

its publications to the general public. 

The loss of CRS’s Speech or Debate immunity could have a number of consequences for both the Service and Congress, including: 

—CRS analysts potentially being required to publicly testify regarding their work 

for Congress, including their conversations with members and staff; 

—CRS research, including background notes and observations, may be included 

in court discovery processes; and 

—The General Counsel for the House of Representatives and the Senate Legal 

Counsel may be required to expend significant additional time and resources in 

trying to defend CRS against judicial and administrative proceedings. 

CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE FULL-TIME EQUIVALENTS

Question. Following my meeting with Mary Mazanec last month, I had several additional questions about CRS employees and salaries and I wanted to thank CRS 

and the Library for coordinating such a quick response to my questions. As a followup to those responses, I note that CRS is a top-heavy organization with 493 staff, 

out of the current 594 total this year, at a grade level of GS–12 and above, including 

Senior Level Managers and Specialists. The fiscal year 2017 request includes funding for an additional 22 FTE’s, each at a grade level of GS–12 or above. Why is it 

necessary for CRS to be so top-heavy and to want to continue to grow the organization at the top? 

Answer. Very early in the history of CRS, Congress made the decision to support 

the development of high level expertise in the Service. The CRS workforce is designed to provide Congress with in-depth research and analysis expertise equivalent 

to what is readily available to senior leaders in the executive branch and elsewhere. 

CRS analysts and attorneys must be able to exercise independent judgment, perform work of exceptional difficulty and responsibility in complex and highly technical legislative areas. They are expected to interact with, and command the respect 

of, high level Government officials, as well as industry and academic leaders. These 
39 

skills necessitate that CRS maintain at its core experts at higher grade levels in 

order to provide Congress with independent expertise on par with the knowledge of 

high-ranking Government officials, think tanks, international experts, lobbyists, and 

others involved in the production and analysis of legislation. 

With constrained budgets—and evolving demands from Congress—CRS has restructured its recruitment strategy over the last few years to bring in more entrylevel analysts. The Service has also created new position types—such as research 

assistants—to bring in highly talented staff at lower levels to assist analysts and 

address the high volume of work generated for CRS by members’ constituents’ inquiries to their district and DC offices. 

However, currently CRS’s bench is only one deep in many subject areas. To meet 

the full range of congressional needs in those areas, CRS must maintain senior analytical staff capable of addressing any question that may arise; from basic informational inquiries to those requiring nuanced in-depth analysis. Complex policy analysis and legislative work once performed by senior committee staff, whose positions 

have been reduced or eliminated altogether under congressional budget constraints, 

has fallen largely on CRS to accomplish now. This work, as you know, requires high 

levels of professional accomplishment and expertise. 

In CRS, Congress has at its disposal dedicated, specialized experts that member 

and committee offices would have difficulty maintaining on their own. Not only is 

maintaining that high-level expertise within CRS as shared staff for the entire Congress more cost efficient, it also provides a synergy to the research and analysis that 

is available to all members and congressional staff. To fulfill its mission, as it currently stands, CRS needs to be able to continue to build and enhance its research 

capacity with staff capable of meeting fully the needs of Congress as it contends 

with increasingly complex issues. 

COPYRIGHT IT MODERNIZATION

Question. The total estimated for the IT Plan is $165 million over 5 years. At the 

conclusion of the implementation period, the Plan anticipates that operating costs 

would require an increase in the Copyright Office base budget of approximately $25 

million in fiscal year 2023 and beyond. How confident are you in the estimate of 

$165 million for the total IT Plan, given that you are seeking ‘‘full budget control’’ 

and ‘‘contracting authority,’’ which may require additional staff, as well as unidentified ‘‘unwind costs.’’ If you add those costs in, then what would be the cost per fiscal 

year for each of the 5-years of implementation and the out-year base increase to the 

Copyright Office? 

Answer. At Congress’ direction, the Copyright Office was pleased to develop and 

provide to Congress its Provisional Information Technology Modernization Plan and 

Cost Analysis (‘‘Provisional IT Plan’’ or ‘‘The Plan’’) in February 2016, which envisions a ‘‘21st century copyright organization,’’ that includes a ‘‘robust modern [IT] 

operation.’’ The Provisional IT Plan recommends a ‘‘clean slate’’ approach to Copyright Office IT—an approach that is not uncommon when retiring legacy systems 

and minimizing the impact of sunk costs and siloed projects. The Plan assumes ongoing innovation and evolution by prioritizing the flexible cloud technologies that 

are common in the copyright marketplace, while minimizing the need for a capitalintensive fixed data center. It was developed after a prior multi-year public process 

into modernization needs, and with the support of a leading consulting firm, 

Deloitte Consulting LLP, which was subsequently validated by Gartner, Inc. 

The Provisional IT Plan considered a wide array of variables in developing cost 

estimates, and included a number of contingencies of up to 35 percent for certain 

expenses to account for potentially shifting costs. The Copyright Office has also considered the costs necessary for full budget control and contracting authority, both 

of which are essential if Copyright Office appropriations, including customer fees, 

are to be utilized nimbly and to the maximum potential for the Nation’s copyright 

system. The costs for these considerations are anticipated to be modest, and likely 

could be absorbed from the current Copyright Office base budget. This, however, assumes that the Copyright Office would share certain services with the Library, including financial management programs. 

Question. The IT Plan assumes approval in fiscal year 2017, with the first year 

of implementation funding being requested in fiscal year 2018. Are there costs included in the fiscal year 2017 budget request associated with ‘‘year zero’’ for getting 

this Plan off the ground and ready for a first year budget request in fiscal year 

2018? What are the cost increases if the Plan is not approved in this budget cycle? 

What happens if the Committee can only fund a portion of the plan due to budget 

constraints? 
40 

Answer. The Provisional IT Plan currently is set to a 5-year timetable beginning 

primarily in fiscal year 2018. This timeframe was selected because it necessarily follows the Copyright Office’s broader strategic plan finalized in December 2015. Moreover, the fiscal year 2017 budget was already in process when Congress directed the 

Copyright Office to analyze what was needed for a modern copyright IT enterprise, 

including engaging its customers on both the timeline and funding strategies. That 

said, if Congress agrees with the Plan (it reflects a multiyear process and early indications show that customers appear to support it), the Copyright Office could recalibrate its fiscal year 2017 request to maximize activities that should be done in advance of 2018 activities. In this scenario, the Copyright Office would still apply 

funding to certain functions under the current state, including legacy systems, but 

could redirect as much funding as would be practical for the future state. It is also 

the case that, with additional fiscal year 2017 funding, the Copyright Office could 

begin implementing 2018 activities a year early. Although we recognize that the 

Committee’s resources may be limited, we have not yet completed a funding strategy, and would like to discuss funding in detail after we have received public comments (including with regard to fees) and completed our analysis. 

Question. What is your Plan B if you don’t receive approval for this Plan? 

Answer. The Copyright Office firmly believes that upgrades to its IT system are 

crucial to allow the Office to ably support the global trillion-dollar copyright economy and the public at large that it serves. The Office’s core IT business system is 

already more than 8 years old and has not had its technical architecture upgraded 

since it was launched. The Copyright Office developed the Provisional IT Plan in 

response to a congressional directive to assess how best to achieve a robust and 

modern IT operation that would enable a 21st century copyright organization. The 

subsequent plan built upon the previous 4 years of study, public engagement, and 

analysis of technological needs, with the assistance of outside contractors to help assess the most cost-effective and efficient IT solutions. Certainly, if there are aspects 

of the Provisional IT Plan that Congress does not believe are feasible or desirable, 

the Copyright Office will work with Congress to reprioritize its needs and further 

investigate how best to serve the copyright system. If no upgrades are approved, 

however, the U.S. copyright system will continue to lag dangerously behind its global partners, with real world negative impacts for the copyright industries and the 

general public. 

Question. This plan appears to assume that the Copyright Office is a separate and 

distinct entity from the Library versus examining where there may be cost efficiencies of shared servicing with the Library. Given that the Library is also undertaking major IT modernization efforts, did you cost out options of shared servicing 

with the Library? 

Answer. The Provisional IT Plan is designed to be flexible and states explicitly 

that it may be ‘‘implemented according to a variety of governance protocols, approvals, and controls between the Copyright Office and larger Library of Congress.’’ The 

Provisional IT Plan does, however, describe a modern IT system that enables management of Copyright Office IT directly by the Copyright Office, which is most familiar with the needs of Copyright Office staff, Copyright Office customers, and public 

demand for Copyright Office services. This approach optimizes the Copyright Office’s IT resources and investments, which cannot be accomplished unless the Copyright Office is able to analyze all potential solutions, including those outside of the 

Library. That said, there is and should be appropriate coordination and/or collaboration with the Library on these issues. This includes looking into shared services 

with the Library and other Government agencies, some of which could be free or 

subsidized. In fact, whether and when the Library plans to charge the Copyright 

Office for services will be a key consideration vis-a`-vis other vendors. 

Question. Typically, Congress has not found that low-end-of-estimates pan out, 

therefore the higher estimate of $190 million may be more realistic; however, I’m 

concerned that it still might be low given the magnitude of the project. In the current flat budget environment, how do you propose that we take on such a costly 

modernization project? Are Copyright customers prepared to fund all of those costs? 

What would be the fee increases necessary to fund these costs and what happens 

if you don’t have the copyright volume to support the funding need? 

Answer. The Copyright Office cannot administer the Nation’s copyright laws effectively if it does not have the resources to do so. However, it should be understood 

that the Copyright Office is not asking for $190 million in taxpayer support. Rather, 

the Provisional IT Plan presents a cohesive framework that would ensure ongoing 

evolution and likely would increase participation, including from paying customers. 

The Provisional IT Plan speaks to a nimble Government platform for all kinds of 

transactions and data exchanges that are in the Nation’s interest. 
41 

At the request of the Congress, the Copyright Office has issued a set of public 

inquiries soliciting comments on future funding strategies, including for capital 

costs, and looks forward to sharing the results of this as well as its recommendations next month. The Office agrees that copyright owners have a role to play in 

funding the services they receive. It would, however, be a departure from practice 

as well as from the current language of the Copyright Act to require copyright owners to fund the entirety of the Office’s costs in administering the varied provisions 

of the Copyright Act, many of which benefit customers on the back end, i.e., those 

that utilize the granular data in copyright records to build businesses or otherwise 

contribute to the commercial economy or cultural heritage of the United States. 

Moreover, copyright registration is voluntary; while there are incentives built into 

the law, a key goal is to find the right balance between attracting maximum participation in, and contributions to, the public record and providing a sustainable funding model. Again, this is not to say that some copyright owners could not or would 

not pay more for better services. 

The Copyright Office looks forward to working with Congress to potentially update its fee authority, create a revolving fund, ensure multi-year spending, build a 

robust reserve account, build in further safeguards for small authors, and find other 

strategies that will help us to continuously innovate and evolve. Some of these initiatives would require revising the Copyright Office’s statutory fee authority; it also 

is possible that certain modernization activities, including automating recordation 

functions, would eventually require technical adjustments to the law. 

Question. The Government is not always the best at managing service level agreements of contracted services. It is highly likely that in the future an agency would 

have to move from one cloud provider to another in order to improve service, or find 

a new provider if one goes out of business. Has Copyright identified what such a 

move would cost? Is this a cost that would have to be built into the fees for cost 

recovery? 

Answer. The Provisional IT Plan leverages cloud-based services because they are 

scalable and flexible, and, if the Copyright Office is able to control and manage its 

IT systems, more able to provide constant information on how the technology is 

working. The Plan assumes a mix of public and private cloud services because this 

strategy both minimizes risk and best reflects the diverse responsibilities of the 

Copyright Office under the Copyright Act. This approach is not only generally less 

expensive than maintaining a physical data center, but also allows the Copyright 

Office to move quickly to accommodate new trends and technologies. The Plan’s suggested architecture provides for relatively easy migration from one platform to another as required. In doing so, it accounts for the fact that different parts of the 

Copyright Office carry out different duties and allows for relatively easy migration. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CHUCK GRASSLEY

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Question. Mr. Mao, creators seeking to register their works cannot do so without 

a functioning Copyright Office system. Last summer the Library experienced a costly 9-day outage of the copyright registration system when the Library’s Primary 

Computing Facility (PCF) was shut down during the Architect of the Capitol’s annual fire and safety check, and the copyright community was particularly affected. 

In your testimony, you state that the fiscal year 2017 budget request is intended 

to address the most urgent shortfalls in key infrastructure areas—one area being 

technology. 

A major focus of this budget is to modernize computing capability, with the Library having plans for a 3 year investment in building its primary computing facility away from Capitol Hill. Recognizing that a recent study found that copyright industries—those which are primarily engaged in creating, producing, distributing, 

and exhibiting copyrighted works—contribute over than $1.1 trillion to the country’s 

GDP, it is critical that IT improvements for the Copyright Office are a priority. 

Will the Library prioritize the improvement of the Copyright Office’s IT infrastructure and explain where improvement of the Office’s IT system fits within the 

Library’s overall plan to modernize its computing capability? 

Answer. With Library’s fiscal 2015 realignment and development of a reinvigorated strategic plan, the Library is now focused on transition and modernization. 

Modernization of the Copyright Office is at the forefront of that focus. Modernizing 

the Library and Copyright Office begins with an information technology infrastructure buildout. The Primary Computing Facility (PCF) request in the fiscal 2017 

budget is at the heart of that buildout. The PCF not only mitigates national security 
42 

concerns by adhering to the concept of moving Capitol Hill Data Centers outside of 

300 miles, but it provides more than enough capacity and capability for all of the 

Library’s information technology operations. The PCF provides the Library with a 

state of the art Tier III facility with the resilience required to mitigate shutdowns 

and provide significant room for growth. Once moved, the next step would be to 

focus on funding for the new Copyright applications that are described in Copyright’s Provisional Information Technology Modernization Plan which was recently 

distributed. 

Question. In order to serve copyright owners and the copyright community, a modern Copyright Office IT system must be lean, nimble, results-driven, and future-focused. Currently, the Copyright Office is unable to offer the ability to register works 

through mobile devices or apps, or to connect via an API to search public data in 

real time. Their recordation system is paper-based while their registration system 

is tied to a proprietary product, a federally owned data center, and dated underlying 

architecture. 

In an effort to remedy this situation, the Copyright Office has engaged in a yearslong process, beginning in 2011, which has sought public input and assistance from 

multiple consulting services. The result is the Copyright Office’s Provisional Information Technology Modernization Plan, submitted to the House of Representatives 

and dated February 29, 2016, which calls for a comprehensive modernization plan 

to meet the needs of the Office’s customers. 

The Library seeks funds in its fiscal year 2017 budget to modernize it computing 

capability. Please share the analysis that went into Library’s decisionmaking process to update its IT infrastructure. What kind of comments and input did you invite 

from Library and Copyright Office constituents and stakeholders, and other experts 

during this process? How does the Library reconcile its own approach to deploying 

an improved technological infrastructure to undergird a modernized copyright system, with the years-long, substantive approach taken by the Copyright Office— 

which has received significant input from the copyright community? 

Answer. A significant body of analysis has been developed during the last several 

years of Library of Congress Inspector General audits, the Government Accountability Office public and non-public reports as well as numerous assessments from 

Deloitte, Forrester, and other industry experts, all of which contributed to the future 

vision of the Library’s infrastructure requirement. The Copyright Office Provisional 

Information Technology Modernization Plan represents a comprehensive body of 

work that provides a clear vision and direction for modern Copyright Office applications that the Library fully supports and will be seeking to integrate funding requests for in future budgets. With the creation of the Library’s Office of the Chief 

Information Office and an IT Strategic Plan and Investment Process the Library has 

laid the groundwork for methodically implementing IT modernization for all operations of the Library. Once the IT infrastructure is in place, the applications for 

process modernization, if funded, can be developed and installed. The Library believes the most efficient way to provide the IT infrastructure capacity is through implementation of the proposed PCF relocation. This will provide a resilient Tier III 

capability with ample room for growth and security. 

CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

Senator CAPITO. This concludes the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee’s hearings regarding the budget requests 

for 2017. 

I want to thank the ranking member for his service, but also for 

his attention to all the details that are going on. He does a great 

job. So, thank you. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 3:52 p.m., Tuesday, March 15, the hearings were 

concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the chair.]