« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
STATEMENT OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL
Thank you for this opportunity to present a prepared statement before the Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice.
I was hired by the Tribunal to be General Counsel in February, and I began work on March 4, 1985. I believe I am especially suited to assist the Tribunal in reaching its regulatory goals. I attended Georgetown University Law Center where I studied copyright law under Dorothy Schrader, General Counsel of the Copyright Office. While I was at Georgetown, I received an award from ASCAP for a paper I wrote on copyright law. For eight years prior to being hired by the Tribunal, I worked at the Federal Communications Commission. In the Private Radio Bureau, I conducted informal rulemaking proceedings, and took a course in draftsmanship at the Federal Register. In the Mass Media Bureau, I supervised a legal staff whose function was to authorize new broadcast stations, and changes in existing stations. In the Office of the Administrative Law Judges, I assisted the judges in the conduct of the cellular radio comparative hearings. of particular relevance to the Tribunal, I assisted the FCC judges in the receipt and analysis of statistical evidence relating to cellular radio.
I believe I can be of service to the Tribunal in the following respects: I can conduct research into legal matters as directed by the Tribunal especially in regard to the conduct of the Tribunal's ratemaking and distribution proceedings. I can assist the Commissioners in the legal expression of their decisions, so that any review of their decisions will reveal the evidence on which the Commissioners based their decisions, and the rationale for their decisions. I can interpret Tribunal rules and make recommendations upon review of those rules to revise or change them. I can interpret the statutes affecting the Tribunal, such as the Administrative Procedure Act, the Sunshine Act, etc., to formalize the Tribunal's compliance with those acts. I can coordinate with the Copyright Office, the Justice Department and other Federal agencies for the smooth functioning of our common goals. I can advise and make recommendations to the Tribunal with respect to proposed legislation. I hope in the future to represent the Tribunal in appellate proceedings.
Overall, I see my function for the Commissioners as helping them in all procedural matters so that they can concentrate on the substantive decision-making which the President and the Congress entrusted to them to perform.
Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you for your presentation.
In answer to the question raised by the gentleman from Oklahoma, is there any particular reason why the other two Commissioners are not here today?
Ms. Hall. I believe that they have indicated that they would be glad to respond to written submissions from this body. I am not sure that they were fully aware that they were supposed to be here.
Mr. KASTENMEIER. Well, it is customary. They were not mandated to be here.
Mr. SYNAR. Mr. Chairman, was the letter of invitation to all three Commissioners?
Mr. KASTENMEIER. I understand that the letter, in fact, was addressed to the Chairman.
Mr. SYNAR. Then I would renew my request that they, in writing, respond to why they are not present today.
Mr. KASTENMEIER. Ms. Hall, I have two questions. They are in two categories. Let me first say at the outset that when you were first appointed, which was quite recently-you were confirmed when by the Senate?
Ms. Hall. I was recess appointed in July. I was confirmed on April 2.
Mr. KASTENMEIER. April 2.
Mr. KASTENMEIER. So we are talking about 1 month ago. I heard you had made a favorable first impression on the committee. You had called on a number of the members indicating your interest in the problems of the Tribunal and possible reforms. You have indicated a willingness to work at that. And I think members of the committee were impressed.
But, as you so well know, during the past few days, there has been a lot of press dealing with your authorship of a book, "Foundations of Sand." I know you are familiar with it. It is a book which I must say offends many people, particularly the part dealing with racial matters. It appears to many people to be a racial tract, a rather radical tract.
Of course this is a free country. One is entitled to think wł at one will about other people. This is a free country, and, indeed, one can also express oneself in written form, in books and otherwise. But when one is a public official in a Federal position such as you, and expressed the views you have, it is a different situation. It then becomes an issue of whether you are able to serve, to have the confidence of those who are affected by your decisions and, perhaps, even of those with whom you work.
Let me ask you what was your role in writing this particular book, "Foundations of Sand"?
Ms. Hall. I was merely the editor, in an extremely ministerial position; simply verbs, nouns, pronouns, dangling participles, sentence structure.
Mr. KASTENMEIER. If you were the editor, why did you then identify yourself as an author on your copyright registration, which is on black and white? You say here that you are an author of this tract.
Ms. HALL. At best, a ghost author. A person who puts ideas into words. Dr. Hafstad is a scientist. He tends to write in very technical scientific terms. Part of my job was to, in essence, translate. So, in that sense I considered myself a ghost author. I didn't know what to call it, and I didn't know how to express it, and I was much younger, and chose the term coauthor.
However, I never did any research, or any writing, or offered opinions, or drew conclusions, or indicated that those views are mine. They are not mine. They are Dr. Hafstad's views.
Mr. KASTENMEIER. I take it that, as has been indicated, Dr. Hafstad may have had the ideas. You were more than an editor. You were, in fact, a writer of the book. At least I think Mr. Morse gives you credit for writing the book.
Ms. HALL. He gave me credit for expressing the ideas in the sense that a translator writes sentences in English from a foreign language. I guess that is the closest I will come to a proper analogy of the relationship.
Once again, I did no research, did not draw conclusions, did not offer opinions, and simply served in a ministerial task.
Mr. KASTENMEIER. Let me ask you this. Do you agree with the conclusions in the book?
Ms. HALL. No, I do not.
Mr. KASTENMEIER. Why did you not disassociate yourself, then, from the project? You have had years to do so. It was copyrighted in 1982. Now, that it has become a sort of public matter you do appear to disassociate yourself at least from the conclusions, but you did not do so earlier.
Ms. HALL. In the same sense that I edited "High Frontier," oftentimes editing is truly a function of a facility with language. Many of the hours I spent editing "High Frontier” I didn't understand what I was reading. I don't understand many parts of this book. It is not in my field of expertise by any means. It is Dr. Hafstad's field. And I take credit for the editing, and in that sense I didn't
Mr. KASTENMEIER. Well, let me ask you this. In your biographical sketch you state that you were coauthor and/or consultant to four books in the fields of politics, economics, and national defense. Now, we know one of these. What are the titles of the other books that you are coauthor of?
Ms. HALL. One is entitled "High Frontier: A New National Strategy.” It is a book compiled by LTG Daniel Graham. It is the work of a panel of physicists and economists from around the country, and it is the prototype for the Star Wars defense. For that book Í was the legal counsel. I set up the corporation, I took care of the legal matters, and I did an editing of the entire work several times for the same types of things I edited for Dr. Hafstad, which was grammar, sentence structure, dangling participles, conjunctions, agreement of pronouns, and the like, and making the book readable to nonscientists. This is where I met Dr. Hafstad. He was on the team of High Frontier.
A second book on which I consulted in a legal capacity and in a copyright capacity is called the Marxist-Leninist Lexicon. It is a book written by Col. Raymond Sleeper. It is a dictionary that draws from the literature of the world on Marxist-Leninist terminology.
Clearly I am not an expert in Marxist-Leninism, either. My job, again, was ministerial.
Mr. KASTENMEIER. Many people who write on it aren't. [Laughter.)
Most, I guess.
Ms. Hall. The fourth book was, I was called upon by a black law firm in Georgetown, whose name I would rather not disclose because I don't want to hurt their project. If, in fact, this can be deemed to hurt anyone. It was a manual that was put together under contract for the SBA, which manual is designed to provide preventive legal assistance for minority businesses under the 8(a) Program of the Small Business Administration.
In this manual I wrote three out of four-out of eight chapters, and in that sense I am a coauthor. However, I don't know if the manual has been printed yet. I do know that several seminars were held, and that I was asked to speak at those seminars.
The area of expertise in which I wrote for this manual was personnel relations, Government contracts, and collections. That is the one book of the four in which I wrote substantive material because it was in my field. It was in law. It was in corporate law. And for that book I provided more than ministerial work.
Mr. KASTENMEIER. Now, in your biographical information form you gave the Senate, you were asked to list all organizations to which you belong that are active in lobbying before public bodies. You responded, None. Yet, you listed yourself as a director of High Frontier, and you are also a lawyer. You are still a director of High Frontier, are you not?
Ms. Hall. I became a director of High Frontier just a few months ago. And again, that is a ministerial position. I do not provide legal counsel to High Frontier any longer. I am not practicing law as of assuming my position on the Copyright Royalty Tribunal.
Mr. KASTENMEIER. Well, are you now aware-you certainly should have been at the time—that High Frontier is registered with the Clerk of the House of Representatives as a lobbying organization and that it also lobbies before public bodies? Do you not know this?
Ms. Hall. High Frontier has both a 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organization. The work that I did for High Frontier was for the 501(c)(3) organization, the tax-exempt, charitable, and educational foundation. If they have changed their status, if the original body for whom I was a direct-am a director has changed its status to a (c)(4), no, I am not aware of that.
My position with General Graham is only with his charitable nonlobbying organization, the 501(c)(3), for which I did the legal work.
Mr. KASTENMEIER. Therefore, in a technical sense, you assert that your answer was truthful; is that correct?
Ms. HALL. It is truthful.
Mr. KASTENMEIER. Well, the organization known as High Frontier does lobby, you know that?
Ms. Hall. There is an organization known as High Frontier which does lobby. It is not one on which I am a board member. I am on the board of the charitable, of the 501(c)(3) tax-exempt, charitable foundation.
If, in fact, my name has been transferred over to the other organization, I will quickly rectify that. My position with High Frontier, as a member of their board of directors, is, again-you know, when you are in private practice of law, you are often asked to sit on boards. Especially of corporations that you form, which I have done for several corporations that I formed.
However, if that presents a problem in any way, if the technical explanation which I have given fails, I will readily resign that position. That is not a problem. I am not aware of the problem that you have uncovered.
Mr. KASTENMEIER. As a matter of fact, out of, I suppose, coincidence on Sunday night in my own district-2 nights ago-I had a debate on television, with a retired naval captain named John Morse. Mr. Morse happens to be, and I did not know so at the time, your coauthor in this enterprise and, of course, a public advocate of High Frontier.
At this point I want to yield to my colleagues. I have some other questions, but they will be in other areas. So I will yield to the gentleman from California, Mr. Moorhead.
Mr. MOORHEAD. You have been with the Copyright Royalty Tribunal now for several months. What recommendations do you have to make to us at this time concerning the making of this Tribunal into a more workable structure?
Ms. Hall. Thank you. I believe that we do need some legislative reform at this time. The Copyright Royalty Tribunal is an organization which was set up with minimal guidelines as to structure. We have a rotating chairmanship and a very segmented office. I have begun centralizing the office and setting in systems which should be permanent, such as master filing systems for our cases and the like.
But I fear that when the chairmanship rotates these permanent systems will again become subject to the whim of another chairman's idea. And that does not render consistent internal policy in the agency nor does it give new Commissioners coming onboard a clear understanding of the legal policy of the agency, the case precedent and things of that nature.
So, I feel one thing that should be done immediately is that a permanent chairman should be appointed to organize the files, set in permanent systems, not only for our administrative in-house work, but for our casework, so that we can follow our case precedent more easily. The permanent chairman should be able to set internal policy for the agency as well.
Second, I think the agency desperately needs professional staff. We now have a general counsel. We probably could use an assistant general counsel. We need a secretary for our general counsel. And we need an economist. We cannot begin our rate hearings this year without the help of an economist. The statutory mandates are replete with references to economic indices and to economic concerns both in our rulemaking, our rate-setting function and in our distribution function. I believe we need an economist.
I believe we need subpoena power because our hearings are the result of the generosity of our claimants. It is very difficult to make decisions based on the impact on our claimants without the aid of some claimant data which we cannot subpoena.