Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][graphic][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][graphic][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small]
[merged small][graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

Expenditures

Fiscal Year 1965

Appropriation
$1,914,200

Salaries $1,720,000

89.9%

6.6% Personnel Benefits $126,200
13% Other Exp. $26,000
Printing $42.000

2.2%

Mr. ST. ONGE. Thank you, Mr. Cary.

Mr. Cary, how do you interpret that sentence in the Senate report that indicates that if the legislative committee doesn't take appropriate action, that they will be forced to review their stand on appropriations?

Mr. CARY. That was, I believe, in the House report. Well, it is a sort of "sword of Damocles" hanging over our head.

Mr. ST. ONGE. I am sure this won't happen, but it could result in a crippling of the operation.

Mr. CARY. Yes, I would think this would be quite true.

Mr. ST. ONGE. I take it, then, that the thrust of your testimony is that we should not wait for final action upon the revision bill, but take separate action on the fee bill?

Mr. CARY. This is what I would recommend; yes, sir.

Mr. ST. ONGE. Mr. Poff?

Mr. POFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Comparing H.R. 2853 with section 708 of the bill, that is, the revision bill, I find included in section 708 a number of items which are not included in H.R. 2853, but am I correct in assuming that in each

case it would be impossible to include those items in a fee increase bill unless the revision bill becomes law?

Mr. CARY. Those provisions to which I believe you are referring are required by reason of some changes in administration of the new bill which are not in the present bill; that is quite right.

Mr. POFF. Then the answer to my question is affirmative?
Mr. CARY. That is right.

Mr. POFF. I supported the bill increasing fees for the Patent Office, and I believe you said that it will work a return of about 75 percent of costs. I might say that I think that bill was delayed.

I am sympathetic with what you intend to achieve here, but as a matter of fairness, and in order that all those interested might have an opportunity to present facts that may not be apparent to us, may I inquire if advance notice has been given to those who would be affected by the fee increases?

Before you answer the question, I will call attention to the fact that some of those increases, percentagewise, are rather dramatic. In the case of registration, I believe 50 percent, and in the case of renewals, it is 100 percent. While the absolute amounts may not be dramatic, the percentage increases are.

Now, may I ask, has advance notice been given to those who might be affected?

Mr. CARY. In the sense that H.R. 4347 contains the same increases, there has been notice to that effect; yes.

Mr. POFF. Have they been notified that the Register would ask for action on this specific section promptly and possibly in advance of action on the revision bill?

Mr. CARY. Not in a specific way; no, sir.

Mr. POFF. That is all I have.
Mr. ST. ONGE. Mr. Edwards?
Mr. EDWARDS. No questions.

Mr. ST. ONGE. Mr. Tenzer.

Mr. TENZER. Is there any reason why the increases in the various categories were not made on a proportionate basis in view of the fact that the overall increases in salaries apply to all operations of the Department?

Mr. CARY. If I understand your question correctly, as far as registration fees, all registration fees now will be $6 under the bill, so they are all across the board.

Mr. TENZER. My question was, for example, in the case of registration of commercial prints and labels, the fee in 1948 was $6 and the recommended fee is now $6. Why is that not being increased proportionately?

Mr. CARY. May I give you some history on that?

Prior to 1940, registration of prints and labels was made in the Patent Office, and the fee of $6 was set by the Patent Office. So when the Congress transferred that function from the Patent Office to the Copyright Office in 1940, they left the fee at $6. So ever since, we have had the anomaly of having print and label fees of $6 and every other fee being $2 or $4, as the case may be.

This has caused a lot of administrative headaches from people who say "Why should I pay $6 for this little thing when I can get a whole

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »