Providing for Consideration of H.R. Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2017
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, this bill picks a fight with the librarians. In the bill, we seek to compel the Library of Congress to use an outdated and dehumanizing term to reference people who aren't citizens of the country.
Although the term ``alien'' is used in our statutes, it is outdated and deeply insulting to people born abroad who have worked hard to contribute to our economy and communities. In fact, this fall, the Republican Party in California itself decided not to use the term ``illegal alien'' in its platform. In this bill, the Republicans in the House look like they are doubling down on vilifying immigrant communities.
Now, as part of a longstanding, often-used process for reviewing and updating subject headings, the Library of Congress apolitically decided to use the term ``noncitizens'' and ``unauthorized immigration'' instead of the pejorative term ``illegal aliens.'' The Library makes these types of changes all the time. It is one of 90 such modifications proposed en masse by the Library this last March.
When a subject heading is changed, references to previous headings are retained so researchers can use them, but mandating the term ``illegal alien,'' which is what Republicans are doing in this appropriations bill, is entirely political.
The rider countermands the Library's professional judgment. Now, it is noteworthy that the Library didn't choose the term ``undocumented immigrant'' favored by many because they didn't want to be political. They just wanted to be fair.
Applying these standards in the past, the Library of Congress changed the subject classification ``Negroes'' to ``African Americans,'' the way we discuss African Americans today. The catalog used to say ``cripples.'' That makes me cringe. That was changed over time, first to ``handicapped'' and later to ``people with disabilities.'' But in this political season, it seems there is no limit to the racial invective that is being hurled around, and this bill plays into that.
Now, to my knowledge, Congress has never before told the Library of Congress what the heading in their card catalog has to be, and that we would do it in this case to promote a term that is so offensive to people is a darn shame.
Now, in the past, we have used the appropriations process to shut down the government. Republicans have done that repeatedly. I would hope that the Republicans in the House would not want to go down that path with this. It is true, this term is used in the statute. Our colleague, Representative Castro, has a bill to correct it. I would urge that bill be taken up and this unwarranted measure be rejected.
I include in the Record a letter from the American Library Association. American Library Association and Association for Library Collections & Technical Services, April 28, 2016. Re: Request to Remove ``Library of Congress Classification'' Amendment from Legislative Branch Appropriations Legislation. Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Lowey and Members of the Committee: We write today on behalf of the more than 58,000 members of the American Library Association and of the Association for Library Collections & Technical Services (ALCTS): the division of ALA members expert in cataloging and classification. We do so to respectfully urge the House Appropriations Committee to strike language in legislation just adopted by its Legislative Branch Subcommittee that would bar the Library of Congress (Library) from implementing an appropriate and thoroughly researched change in its subject heading classifications announced in late March of this year.
Specifically, the Library proposes to replace the terms ``Aliens'' with ``Noncitizens,'' and ``Illegal aliens'' with two headings: ``Noncitizens'' and/or ``Unauthorized immigration.'' While some see politics in this decision, Mr. Chairman, as library professionals viewing the work of our colleagues we see only attention to historical detail, intellectual honesty, procedural transparency, and faithfulness to long-standing precepts and practices of librarianship. These have been the hallmarks of cataloging for all of ALCTS' nearly 60 years and of almost 130 years of library science. Stripped of polemic and sensationalism, these are the facts underpinning the Library of Congress' frankly routine and professional determination:
The Library of Congress has a long-established, often used process for reviewing and updating outdated subject headings and establishing new ones as needed that preserves all prior versions of updated headings. Such updates may be proposed from outside or within the Library of Congress, but the Library makes the final decision on all changes to subject headings. The Library reviews each change proposal individually and typically adopts over a thousand each year.
Indeed, the heading change now before the Committee was one of 90 such modifications proposed en masse by the Library in March. When a subject heading is changed, references to previous headings are effectively retained indefinitely so that researchers who perform a search for a former heading are certain to be directed to all relevant materials. No document in the Library of Congress' (or any library's) collection itself is ever substantively edited, modified, annotated or ``corrected'' in any way as the result of a subject heading update like the one interdicted by the Subcommittee's recent action. Only its catalog ``label''is altered.
The Library's process in this case was rigorous, transparent, and consistent with the highest standards of professional cataloging practice. The Library was first asked 18 months ago, quite publicly, to review its use of the cataloging term ``illegal aliens'' by one of the nation's preeminent colleges. That request, with modifications, subsequently was echoed by the American Library Association upon debate and approval of a formal Resolution by its more than 180-member Council in January of 2016. A ``stakeholders'' meeting with all appropriate expert sections from within the Library then was convened just over two months ago at which both outside requests, and the broader issues they raised, were reviewed in detail. It is a measure of the Library's professionalism and independence that, in fact, neither external proposal as submitted actually was accepted. Rather, upon review of the totality of the facts and consistent with venerable cataloging practice, the Library apolitically crafted the proposed policy described above and now before the Committee.
Decisions to update a subject heading are based on many considerations, including ``literary warrant'': the frequency with which a term is or is not used in print and other dynamic resources that, by their nature, change with and reflect current social structures and norms. For subject headings that refer to groups of people, special attention is paid to: popular usage; terms used by members of the group to self-identify; and avoiding terms that are widely considered pejorative toward the group being described. Applying these same standards in the past, for example, the Library of Congress uneventfully changed the subject classification ``Negroes'' to ``Afro-Americans'' and again to ``African Americans'' over a period of years. The catalog term ``Cripples'' similarly morphed over time, first to ``Handicapped'' and later to ``People with disabilities.'' Congress made no move to countermand those expert cataloging determinations.
The Library reasonably and properly concluded in this instance that, when used in reference to people, the long- used terms ``illegal'' and ``alien'' have in recent decades acquired derogatory connotations, become pejorative, and been associated with nativist and racist sentiments. As the Library has noted: the heading ``Aliens'' has been in use by the Library since 1910; ``Aliens, illegal'' came into official use more than 35 years ago; and ``Illegal aliens'' has been in service for almost a quarter-century. Over that long span of time, and particularly in recent years, referring to undocumented persons (as opposed to forms of conduct) as ``illegal'' increasingly has been widely acknowledged as dehumanizing, offensive, inflammatory, and even a racial slur.
This shift has been plain and pronounced, as the Library observed, in precisely the kind of dynamic materials that cataloging standards require any Library to assess in evaluating the suitability of a subject heading in use and its prospective modification. Indeed, in recent years many national news organizations (including the Associated Press, USA Today, ABC, Chicago Tribune, and Los Angeles Times) categorically have stopped using the word ``illegal'' to describe human beings as a matter of editorial policy.
Moreover, the Pew Research Center has documented that their actions were not merely anecdotal or aberrant in any way. To the contrary, Pew compared use of the term ``illegal aliens'' in U.S. newspapers during the same two-week period in 1996, 2002, 2007 and 2013 (all times when immigration matters were much in the news). It found that use of that phrase declined precipitously over the most recent 6-year period surveyed, appearing in 21% of news reports in 2007 but just 5% in 2013: a 76% reduction in use and all-time low.
We understand, Mr. Chairman, why some have chosen to politicize the Library's proposed subject heading changes discussed above. In light of the foregoing, however, it is the view of our Associations that, at minimum, the Library of Congress' recent proposed reclassifications discussed above are fully consistent with accepted professional cataloging standards and practices. Indeed, we believe that a compelling case can be made that the proposed changes are required by them. We hope that the foregoing description of the standards and practices of our profession, rigorously adhered to and unimpeachably applied by the Library of Congress in this case, will assist the Committee to accept the Library's independent professional cataloging determinations.
Specifically, we urge you and all Members of the Committee to strike all language from any piece of appropriations legislation that would countermand or modify the Library's recent determinations pertaining to the terms ``Aliens'' and/ or ``Illegal aliens,'' and to oppose any other legislation that would have similar effect.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide the Committee with a factual context in which to consider its upcoming actions. Please contact us should you or your staff have any questions, or require any additional information. Respectfully submitted, Sari Feldman,
President, American Library Association. Norm Medeiros,
President, Association for Library Collections & Technical Services.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. LOFGREN. Will the gentleman yield?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. LOFGREN. I would just like to note and put into the Record the fact sheet from the American Library Association indicating that it is the Library of Congress' belief that it will need to change its policy already underway on this, so if the gentleman is saying that the language in the bill doesn't require a change on the Library's part, I think that would be news to the Library.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the missive from the American Library Association entitled ``Support Library of Congress Autonomy in Subject Heading Determinations.'' Support Library of Congress Autonomy in Subject Heading Determinations
[From the American Library Association and Association for Library Collections & Technical Services]
In late March of this year, after an extensive process consistent with long-standing library principles and practice, the Library of Congress proposed to replace the subject heading classification ``Aliens'' with ``Noncitizens,'' and ``Illegal aliens'' with two headings: ``Noncitizens'' and/or ``Unauthorized immigration.'' Similar, but not identical, changes previously had been requested by Dartmouth College and endorsed by the American Library Association.
In mid-April, the Legislative Branch Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee adopted language that would, in effect, countermand the Library's professional judgments and reverse the proposed reclassifications noted above. (The Report adopted by the Subcommittee states: ``To the extent practicable, the Committee instructs the Library to maintain certain subject headings that reflect terminology used in title 8, United States Code.'') The full House Appropriations Committee will meet in mid-May and has the power to undo the Subcommittee's action.
On April 28, the Presidents of ALA and ALCTS (ALA's division of members expert in cataloging and classification) wrote the attached letter to the Committee's leaders and members on April 28 asking that they do so. Its principal points and specific requests follow on the reverse. KEY POINTS: ``LIBRARY LETTER'' TO HOUSE APPROPRIATORS BACKING PROPOSED LIBRARY OF CONGRESS RECLASSIFICATIONS
The Library of Congress has a long-established, often used process for reviewing and updating outdated subject headings and establishing new ones as needed that preserves all prior versions of updated headings.
The Library's process in this case was rigorous, transparent, and consistent with the highest standards of professional cataloging practice.
Decisions to update a subject heading are based on many considerations, including ``literary warrant:'' the frequency with which a term is or is not used in print and other dynamic resources that, by their nature, change with and reflect current social structures and norms. For headings that refer to groups of people, special attention is paid to: popular usage; terms used by members of the group to self- identify; and avoiding terms widely considered to be pejorative toward the group being described.
The Library reasonably and properly concluded in this instance that, when used in reference to people, the long- used terms ``illegal'' and ``alien'' have in recent decades acquired derogatory connotations, become pejorative, and been associated with nativist and racist sentiments. Particularly in recent years, referring to undocumented persons (as opposed to forms of conduct) as ``illegal'' increasingly has been widely acknowledged as dehumanizing, offensive, inflammatory, and even a racial slur. This shift has been plain and pronounced:
in recent years many national news organizations (including the Associated Press, USA Today, ABC, Chicago Tribune, and Los Angeles Times) categorically have stopped using the word ``illegal'' to describe human beings as a matter of editorial policy; and
the Pew Research Center compared use of the term ``illegal aliens'' in U.S. newspapers during the same two-week period in 1996, 2002, 2007 and 2013 (all times when immigration matters were much in the news). It found that use of that phrase declined precipitously over the most recent 6-year period surveyed, appearing in 21% of news reports in 2007 but just 5% in 2013: a 76% reduction in use and all-time low.
The Library of Congress' recent proposed reclassifications discussed above are fully consistent with accepted professional cataloging standards and practices. Indeed, a compelling case can be made that the proposed changes are required by them.
ALA and ALCTS, its division of experts in cataloging, urge the Committee to accept the Library's apolitical subject heading judgment and, thus, to strike language from any piece of appropriations legislation that would modify or countermand the Library's recent determinations pertaining to the terms ``Aliens'' and/or ``Illegal aliens,'' and to oppose any other legislation that would have similar effect.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source