Howard Berman

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and appreciate her comments. At this time I will not get into the issue of the restricted nature under which outsourcing is permitted, but I think the gentlewoman accurately described the base bill. The chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary will be offering an amendment with respect to outsourcing outside the United States that restricts even the limited outsourcing that is allowed under this bill to companies organized under the laws of the United States. As the gentlewoman mentioned, that in and of itself does not protect against international outsourcing, or any State, and employ U.S. citizens to perform the searches. So there will be an amendment to the base bill at the time that once the rule is adopted, if it is adopted, that will deal with that specific issue very specifically and prohibit that kind of outsourcing that the gentlewoman was concerned about.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I take the gentlewoman's point about U.S. companies and who might be called a U.S. company. I simply wanted to point out that the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary has a manager's amendment that will not simply limit this to U.S. companies, but limit it to searches only by companies employing U.S. citizens to perform the searches. So there is that as an additional element.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding the difference of view we have on this issue, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a tenacious fighter for that in which she believes.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. The gentlewoman argued in favor of her position, take more time. There is no problem with taking time. The fact is we want a thorough investigation. We want a good quality patent. But simply taking more time, the argument against that is not simply the one made by the chairman about the patent term and how much of it will be left, it is that in that backlog that is getting longer and longer and longer are lifesaving medical devices, new drugs, new technologies to make America more productive and efficient, fascinating and important inventions that need to be disseminated and distributed and will not be until that patent issues. That time is costing our economy and our people both in terms of quality of life, health care, and economic efficiency. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler), a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to express my strong support for this amendment. If I were a betting man, I would have bet a lot of money that the chairman would not have been able to deal with the end of diversion in the fashion that he was able to without at least 25 or 30 appropriators on the House floor. I congratulate both him and the subcommittee chairman for their excellent work, and I urge the manager's amendment be adopted.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary and the first articulator of the principle ``no end to diversion, no fee increase.''

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1561 is a wonderful illustration of the principle that something does not have to be interesting to be important. This bill is of critical importance to the health of our information economy. Intangible property, such as patents, trademarks and copyrights, now constitute well over 50 percent of the assets of U.S. corporations, both large and small. Most of the great advances in pharmaceuticals, telecommunications, biotechnology, and Internet fields began as patented inventions. Patent protection played a critical role in the creation and dissemination of inventions from the telephone to fiberoptics, from injectable insulin to laser eye surgery. The Patent and Trademark Office, which issues both patents and trademarks, has a critical role to play in creating and securing these assets. By facilitating many needed reforms, H.R. 1561 ensures that the PTO plays a positive role in stimulating our information economy, rather than becoming an obstacle to it. Furthermore, H.R. 1561 does not saddle the U.S. taxpayer with the cost of these reforms. The PTO is fully funded by fees from the patent and trademark applicants, and this bill raises some of those fees to enable those reforms. H.R. 1561 pays for other reforms by ending the innovation tax. Throughout the last decade, over $650 million in fees paid to PTO by American inventors and small businesses have been diverted to unrelated agencies. H.R. 1561 stops this tax on innovators by ending diversion once and for all. The PTO is in a crisis that threatens the stability and usefulness of our patent and trademark systems. At congressional urging, the PTO has crafted a 21st-century strategic plan to address this crisis, but it needs this legislation to implement that plan. H.R. 1561 is necessary because the patent system is coming apart at the seams. A perfect storm of sorts has hit the PTO, which administers the patent system. This storm threatens to make the patent system dysfunctional. This perfect storm involves a tremendous growth in the amount and complexity of PTO workload, matched by a decreasing ability to handle that workload. The number of patent applications received annually by the PTO doubled between 1992 and 2003 to a figure of over 350,000 last year. What is more, the number of applications continued to grow throughout our recent recession and is expected to increase another 5 percent this year. This growth is fed in part by the expanding scope of patentability. Due to a string of court opinions, patentable inventions now include software, business methods, and anything else made under the sun by man. The technology boom in the United States has also resulted in applications for patents on inventions in areas of technology that did not exist just a few years ago. On a daily basis, PTO is asked to review applications for patents on such things as genetic tests and laser vision technologies. The numerical growth, and the expanding scope, are matched by a growth in complexity. For instance, some biotechnology patents covering genetic sequences can occupy the equivalent of 10,000 pages. The PTO must hire new examiners with the requisite skills in these areas or fund extensive retraining for current examiners. The PTO's decreasing ability to deal with this increasing workload is the result of several factors. Most responsible is the cumulative effect of more than a decade of fee diversion. The PTO is entirely funded by user fees. Patent and trademark holders and applicants pay the PTO a variety of fees to obtain and retain their patent and trademark rights. The fees are supposed to reflect the cost of services provided by the PTO; but between 1992 and 2003, Congress denied the PTO the ability to spend $654 million of the fees paid to it. Instead, Congress appropriated these fees for unrelated programs. This will stop as a result of this bill. As a result of that diversion, the PTO has been forced to gradually cannibalize itself. It has deferred critical information technology upgrades. It has squeezed every ounce of possible productivity out of examiners, and appears now to be asking them to review applications in an unrealistic time frame. It even laid off almost one-third of its trademark examining corps. Despite these drastic measures, the PTO only managed to delay, not avert, a train wreck. By all objective measures, that train wreck is upon us. I could go through, and my the statement in the Record will contain a full statistical explanation of the incredible increase in the backlog for patent applications, but in conclusion, it takes more than 2 years now for a patent application to be granted or disposed. In many cases, more than 60 months is the pendency for a patent application. Why does this pendency matter? Why do we care about these backlogs? It affects both the patent applicants and society at large. Patent ownership enables individual inventors and small businesses to obtain capital. Patent ownership gives prospective financiers, such as venture capitalists and banks, important reassurance that investment in a small entity is sound. Long patent pendency also negatively affects society at large. Long patent pendency and patent backlogs creates substantial uncertainty in the marketplace and thus makes it difficult for all businesses to operate. A backlog of 500,000 patent applications may cover business methods now common in the financial service business, software contained in every personal computer, or a type of computer chip that will cost billions to manufacture. As troubling as the lengthy patent pendencies are, they are not the gravest problem facing the PTO. Even greater concern should be given to the quality of the patents granted by PTO. When PTO grants patents in error to things that are not true inventions, many negative side effects occur. Low-quality patents can deter scientific research, create obstacles to legitimate commercial activities, and create opportunities for illegitimate rent-seeking. A bad patent on a pharmaceutical drug means that consumers cannot obtain a cheaper generic version. A bad patent on Web browser technology may force the redesign of every piece of software interoperating with current Web browsers. Using a random sampling methodology, the PTO estimates its error rate for patents issued in fiscal year 2003 at 4.4 percent. That means more than 7,000 patents were issued in error. That means that at any given time given the 7-year pendency term for patents, there are over 120,000 bad patents in force. Enactment of this legislation will enable the PTO to substantially improve patent quality. It will also enable the PTO to hire 750 new patent examiners a year between 2004 and 2006, and additional numbers in subsequent years. It will take time to train these new examiners. They will eventually be able to shoulder some of the patent examination workload that threatens to swamp the current examining corps. With an expanded examining corps, the PTO will be able to give patent examiners more flexibility in the amount of time they spend on any one application. I am convinced that H.R. 1561 is an important part of the solution to the pendency and quality problems. It is a first absolutely necessary step to reforming the PTO. There are other legislative proposals that deal with a number of these issues, but this is the key first step. I urge my colleagues to approve H.R. 1561. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to detail all the different provisions contained in this bill. There are many and they are important. They deal with a problem in the past of setting rates retroactively and how under these reforms rates will be set prospectively, and they deal with the integration of the Copyright Office and its role in providing advice and opinions on matters of law into the process. They create mechanisms for small participants to participate at much less cost than they now participate through all paper rate-setting proceedings, make some changes in evidentiary rules and discovery rules, and at the same time, they enable the copyright owners to negotiate voluntary agreements rather than go through the whole full blown rate-setting and distribution proceedings. I do want to call the attention of the body to one particular provision which I think is very important. We rationalize in this bill, H.R. 1417, the ability of the parties to engage in voluntary negotiations in the context of the Section 115 statutory license for reproductions of musical compositions. The Section 115 license currently provides copyright owners and users a limited antitrust exemption to collectively negotiate rates and terms for Digital Phonorecord Deliveries of musical compositions. With the acquiescence of the Justice Department, H.R. 1417 extends this narrow antitrust exemption to all of Section 115, so that it now covers similar negotiations for mechanical reproductions of musical compositions, as well as the digital deliveries. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1417. I ask all my colleagues to support this non-controversial legislation. H.R. 1417 has received exhaustive process. It emerged from a hearing before the Intellectual Property Subcommittee during the 107th Congress, and from series of open roundtable discussions convened at the U.S. Copyright Office. Early drafts were shaped by several rounds of written comments from all affected stakeholders. After introduction of H.R. 1417 early this Congress, the subcommittee held another hearing. The subcommittee then reported by voice vote a substantially refined amendment, and the full Judiciary Committee made further significant revisions before also reporting its amendment by voice vote. Thus, the version of H.R. 1417 before us today has been forged through an extensive and open process. Both the chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the chairman of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee are to be commended for pushing H.R. 1417 forward. They have devoted significant time and energy to crafting both the substance of this bill and the widespread support behind it. I thank them both for working so closely with me in drafting this bill and its various iterations. The chairmen are also to be commended for ensuring that the bill remedies the procedural defects of the CARP process without straying into substantive copyright law issues that would surely doom its prospects for passage. H.R. 1417 focuses on a narrow but complex goal: It significantly reforms the system for Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panels--or CARP. U.S. copyright law contains a half-dozen statutory licenses that require copyright owners to make their works available to certain users under Government-set rates and terms. For instance, the section 114 statutory license allows webcasters to perform sound recordings under Government-set rates and terms. The royalty rates and terms are established by CARPs, which also determine the appropriate distribution of royalties among copyright owners. There is widespread agreement among copyright owners and users alike that the CARP process is broken. The costs involved are often so high that parties either cannot afford to participate, or find that the costs outweigh any potential royalties or efficiencies. The decisions often take too long to issue, and thus create uncertainty and confusion among licensors and licensees alike. Finally, even when decisions do issue, they are often overturned or modified, are inconsistent with precedents, and cannot be effectively implemented until corresponding rule-makings are completed. H.R. 1417 will go a long way to remedying the defects of the CARP process. While the changes are too copious to list in total, I would like to highlight a few of the improvements made by this bill. The primary flaw with CARPs is that they are conducted by private arbitrators who often have no prior experience in conducting a statutory license rate-setting or distribution, much less any prior familiarity with the substantive law or industry economics involved. Because the CARP arbitrators have neither the expertise nor authority to do so, the Copyright Office is often called on to issue regulations resolving substantive legal issue that arise during CARPs. And all too often, as we saw in the 2002 webcasting CARP, the Copyright Office is called upon to overturn a CARP decision. H.R. 1417 replaces the part-time arbitrators with a panel of three full-time Copyright Royalty Judges. These three CRJs will be appointed by the Librarian of Congress to serve staggered 6-year terms. Thus, each panel will bring at least 6 years of collective experience to every rate-setting and distribution proceeding. Further, the Librarian is required to appoint CRJs with a breadth of experience in copyright law, economics, and adjudications. The bill contains a number of other provisions that further consolidate and strength the authority of the CRJs. For instance, the bill gives CRJs continuing jurisdiction to ensure that they have the ability ``to respond to unforeseen circumstances that preclude the proper effectuation of the determination.'' The continuity, experience, and enhanced authority of the CRJs should lead to decisions that are quicker, more consistent, more likely to withstand appeal, and in the long run, far less expensive to secure. While the new CRJs will have requisite authority and expertise to make good decisions, H.R. 1417 ensures they will be able to draw on, and benefit from, from the substantial expertise of the Copyright Office in this area. H.R. 1417 requires that the Librarian consult with the Register of Copyrights when appointing CRJs. Furthermore, the bill requires the CRJs to solicit the written opinion of the Copyright Office on novel questions of law, and allows the CRJs to consult--on the record--with the Register of Copyrights on all matters other than questions of fact. H.R. 1417 addresses another major flaw of the current CARP process-- the fact that the rates for several statutory licenses are set retroactively. The webcasting CARP concluded in 2002 demonstrates the problems with retroactive rate-setting. When rates were set in 2002 for webcasting that occurred between 1998 and 2002, many small webcasters found their viability threatened because they had not set aside enough money to defray the royalty obligations they had already incurred. H.R. 1417 addresses this problem through a series of interrelated changes to the various statutory licenses. H.R. 1417 ensures that all rates and terms for statutory licenses will be set prospectively, and eliminates the possibility that a time period covered by a statutory license will commence before the establishment of rates and terms. H.R. 1417 also addresses a variety of concerns about how CARPs gather evidence, conduct hearings, determine participation, requires parties to present their cases, and treat negotiated settlements. In addressing these concerns, H.R. 1417 hews closely to the overall objective of promoting expeditious, well-reasoned, and widely-supported outcomes. The bill substantially improves the CARP process from the perspective of small participants. H.R. 1417 allows CRJs to conduct an all-paper, rate-setting proceeding, which in many circumstances, should substantially reduce the barriers to participation for small copyright owners and users. H.R. 1417 also creates an expedited small-claims process to facilitate the distribution of royalties to small claimants. The bill substantially alters some evidentiary rules, while retaining others used by previous CARPs. It allows admission of hearsay ``to the extent deemed appropriate'' by the CRJs, rather than according to the Federal Rules of Evidence, and allows CRJs to issue subpoenas for relevant and material information. It directs the CRJs to conduct discovery conferences for the purpose of setting a schedule for completing discovery. The bill retains the discovery rules currently used in CARP distribution proceedings because distribution participants expressed general satisfaction with those rules. In rate-setting proceedings, the amendment limits discovery to relevant and material information, and allows the CRJs to deny discovery for good cause. The circumstances that constitute ``good cause'' include where the discovery requests are unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, easily obtainable from another source, the burden or expense outweighs its likely benefit, and other circumstances. H.R. 1417 clarifies the rules regarding participation on CARP proceedings. It also ensures that only parties who have fully participated in the proceeding, and are bound by its determination, will have the right to appeal that determination. H.R. 1417 also retains the ability of copyright owners and users, under a number of statutory licenses, to negotiate voluntary agreements rather than suffer through full-blown rate-setting and distribution proceedings. While H.R. 1417 maintains the ability of various statutory licensors and licensees to agree to out-of-cycle rate determinations through voluntary agreements adopted by the CRJs, it allows the CRJs to reject such out-of-cycle determinations if workload concerns so merit. H.R. 1417 also rationalizes the ability to engage in voluntary negotiations in the context of the section 115 statutory license for reproductions of musical compositions. The section 115 license currently provides copyright owners and users a limited antitrust exemption to collectively negotiate rates and terms for Digital Phonorecord Deliveries of musical compositions. With the acquiescence of the Justice Department, H.R. 1417 extends this narrow antitrust exemption to all of section 115, so that it now covers similar negotiations for mechanical reproductions of musical compositions. A comprehensive description of this seventy-page bill would take more time than I am allotted, so I will leave off there. However, I will note that adoption of the CARP reform bill is not the end of the story for reforming the CARP system. Unlike the current CARP system, the bill requires appropriated funds to pay for the new CRJ process. Since Congress has decided the public interest is served by the creation of compulsory licenses in certain instances, it is entirely appropriate that Congress should provide the funds necessary to make the licenses work. CARP costs should not dissipate the meager Government-set royalties received by copyright owners, nor make participation by licensees uneconomical. However, if adequate appropriations are not secured, this legislation will only create further chaos. In this time of record budget deficits, it will take a concerted effort by all interested parties to ensure sufficient appropriations are forthcoming. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think H.R. 1417 will substantially improve the CARP process, and I ask my colleagues to support it.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1417, and I ask all of my colleagues to support what I think is fundamentally noncontroversial legislation. H.R. 1417 has been subjected to an exhaustive review process. It emerged from a hearing before the Subcommittee on the Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property during the 107th Congress and from a series of open roundtable discussions convened at the U.S. Copyright Office. Early drafts were shaped by several rounds of written comments from all affected stakeholders. After introduction of H.R. 1417 early this Congress, the subcommittee held another hearing. The subcommittee then reported by voice vote a substantially refined amendment, and the full Committee on the Judiciary made further significant revisions before also reporting its amendment by voice vote. Thus, the version of H.R. 1417 before us today has been forged through an extensive and open process. Both the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), and the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), are to be commended for pushing H.R. 1417 forward. They have devoted significant time and energy to crafting both the substance of this bill and organizing the widespread support behind it. I thank both of them for working so closely with me and my staff, Alec French, in drafting this bill and its various iterations. The chairmen are also to be commended for ensuring that the bill remedies the procedural effects of the CARP process without straining into substantive copyright law issues that would surely doom its prospects for passage. H.R. 1417 focuses on a narrow, but complex, goal. It significantly reforms the system for copyright arbitration royalty panels. The U.S. copyright law contains a half dozen statutory licenses that require copyright owners to make their works available to certain users under government-set rates and terms. For instance, the section 114 statutory license allows Webcasters to perform sound recordings under government- set rates and terms. The royalty rates and terms are established by CARPs, which also determine the appropriate distribution of royalties among copyright owners. There is widespread agreement among copyright owners and users alike that the CARP process is broken. The costs involved are often so high that parties cannot either afford to participate or find that the costs outweigh any potential royalties or efficiencies. The decisions often take too long to issue and thus create uncertainty and confusion among licensers and licensees alike. Finally, even when decisions do issue, they are often overturned or modified, are inconsistent with precedents, and cannot be effectively implemented until corresponding rule-makings are completed. H.R. 1417 will go a long way to remedying the defects of the CARP process. While the changes are too copious to list in total, I would like to highlight a few of the improvements made by the bill. The primary flaw of the CARPs is they are conducted by private arbitrators who often have no prior experience in conducting a statutory license rate-setting or distribution, much less any prior familiarity with the substantive law or industry economics involved. Because the CARP arbitrators have neither the experience nor authority to do so, the Copyright Office is often called on to issue regulations resolving substantive legal issues that arise during CARPs, and all too often, as we saw in the 2002 webcasting CARP, the Copyright Office is called upon to overturn a CARP decision. H.R. 1417 replaces the part-time arbitrators with a panel of three full-time copyright royalty judges. These three CRJs will be appointed by the Librarian of Congress to serve staggered 6-year terms. Each panel will bring at least 6 years of experience to every rate-setting and distribution proceeding. Further, the Librarian is required to appoint CRJs with a breadth of experience in copyright law, economics and adjudications. Mr. Speaker, rather than list a number of the key changes in this bill, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker I rise today to pay tribute to Tasker L. Edmiston who recently passed away, at the age of ninety-four. Mr. Edmiston was a remarkable man whose accomplishments were legion and whose passion was indefatigable. He was an avid outdoorsman and a very important figure in California's conservation movement. Mr. Edmiston was born on January 22, 1910, in Los Angeles, California. His love for the environment and the outdoors began as a young boy. He was a Sea Scout, an Explorer Scout and later he ran track and set several records in speed-climbing. During World War II, Mr. Edmiston demonstrated his creativity and entrepreneurial spirit by inventing a new series of food canning machinery. His invention increased the volume and quality of food that was distributed to the Armed Forces in the Pacific. In the 1960's and 1970's, Mr. Edmiston turned his attention to the conservation movement. He was one of the cofounders and the first treasurer of the Southern California Chapter of the Nature Conservancy. He proved to be instrumental in the establishment of the Edmund C. Jaeger Nature Sanctuary and the Desert Lily Sanctuary. He also served on the Board of Directors of the Desert Protective Council and the Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs. Mr. Edmiston is survived by his son, Joseph T. Edmiston, his daughter-in-law, Pepper Edmiston, and seven grandchildren. I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to Tasker L. Edmiston and offering our heartfelt condolences to his family members.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, today, the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, Representative John Conyers, and I introduce ``the National Film Preservation Act of 2003.'' Senator Patrick Leahy joins us by introducing identical legislation in the Senate. This legislation reauthorizes the National Film Preservation Board (NFPB) and the National Film Preservation Foundation (NFPF) for ten years. The NFPF is an independent, nonprofit organization established in 1996 with bipartisan Congresssional support to help save America's film heritage. The NFPF is the charitable affiliate of the NFPB of the Library of Congress, which was also established in 1996. This legislation also increases the authorized appropriations for the NFPF from $500,000 in fiscal year 2004 and 2005 up to $1,000,000 in fiscal years 2006 through 2013. It authorizes additional appropriations not to exceed $1,000,000 for cooperative film preservation and access initiatives by the NFPF for each of the fiscal years 2006 through 2013. All authorized appropriations are only to be made available to match private contributions to the NFPF. The excellent work and strong track record of the NFPB and NFPF justify both the reauthorization and increased authorization of appropriations provided by this bill. Working with archives and others in the film preservation community, the NFPF supports activities that save films for future generations, improve film access for education and exhibition, and increase public commitment to preserving film as a cultural resource, art form, and historical record. In essence, its mission is to save America's ``orphan films''--newsreels, silent films, documentaries, avant-garde works, and other independent films that are not preserved by commercial interests. Over the past seven years, the NFPF has done great work in furtherance of this goal. Working with more than 80 organizations, it has helped preserve approximately 600 films and collections. Through its preservation efforts, the NFPF has made it possible for organizations in 34 states and the District of Columbia to use these films in education and research. Many of the films preserved provide unique windows into American history and culture. For instance, films preserved through NFPF efforts include social dramas from Thomas Edison's studio, the earliest ``talkie'' of an American president, and home movies clandestinely shot by Japanese Americans in World War II detention camps. As authorization for the NFPB and NFPF expired on September 30, 2003, Congress must act quickly on this legislation. We cannot allow the important work of these organizations to lapse. Over 50% of the films made before 1950 have disintegrated, and only 10% of the movies produced in the United States before 1929 still exist. We must act to stem further losses of this rich cultural heritage. No art form is more uniquely American than film, but unfortunately, few art forms are more susceptible to degradation through passage of time and poor preservation. All parties interested in preservation and expansion of the public domain, whether for research, education, or further commercial exploitation, must join Representative Conyers, Senator Leahy, and myself in securing passage of this legislation. While it may be intellectually stimulating to debate radical copyright revisions as mechanisms to expand the public domain, these debates should not detract from the pursuit of proven methods, like NFPF projects, to preserve and expand the public domain. The tight fiscal picture for the U.S. government indicates that this legislation will be very difficult to pass, thus all public domain advocates should focus their full attention on this effort.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Sherman and I rise today to pay tribute to our good friend, Simha Lainer who will be celebrating his 100th birthday at a dinner and reception hosted by the New Community Jewish High School on Sunday, December 14, 2003. Simha has been a cornerstone of the Jewish community in Los Angeles for many years, and he continues to play an active role in the promotion of Jewish education and many other worthy causes. Simha was born in the Ukraine. As a young man, he spent time in the Middle East, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela, and Mexico. He immigrated to the United States with his family in 1951. Although he worked in the textile industry, and later in real estate, his passion has always been education. Simha, along with his wife Sara(z''l) and his three remarkable sons Mark, Nahum and Luis, who in their own right have supported so many worthy causes, have pioneered efforts to make a Jewish education available to as many children as possible. In 1989, Simha and his family established the Simha and Sara Lainer Fund for Jewish Education. As a result of this fund, the Los Angeles Bureau of Jewish Education has provided financial aid to many students that otherwise would have been unable to study the Torah. The fund has also provided Simha and his family an opportunity to honor religious schoolteachers and early childhood educators for their hard work and dedication. Simha has also provided critical leadership to promote upper levels of Jewish education. For example, he served on the Board of Directors at the University of Judaism, the Board of Trustees of the Jewish Community Foundation, and the Board of the West Coast Friends of Bar Ilan University. Simha is also the founder of the Western Region of American Friends of the Hebrew University. In addition to his many educational achievements here in the United States, Simha has also displayed an unwavering commitment to the establishment and maintenance of Israeli institutions of education. Thanks to his leadership and vision, thousands of Israeli and American children will be prepared to lead productive lives and promote religious and cultural tolerance. Mr. Speaker, we ask our colleagues to join us in saluting Simha for all of his outstanding contributions and to wish him a happy 100th birthday.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1720 and I ask my colleagues to support the bill as well. It is a narrow bill, but a necessary one. It is identical to the provisions of the Federal Courts Improvement Act currently before the Committee on the Judiciary, and to legislation which has I think several times passed the House. The purpose of the bill is to allow for Federal court proceedings and an additional courthouse in Plano, Texas. As a result, the bill will remedy a critical problem hindering the efficient judicial administration of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The existing courthouse is in Sherman, Texas and is overburdened by its increasing caseload. Filings over the past 5 years have grown by 100 percent. This situation mandates a solution. S. 1720 designates Plano as an additional place of holding court to help address this expanded workload. The one substantive concern about the bill, how cases will be distributed between the two courthouses, has been resolved. As I understand it, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary has agreed to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished gentleman from Texas in which it will become clear that S. 1720 is intended to relieve the overflow of filings in the Sherman courthouse, but not do away with the Sherman courthouse. I think the chairman has already made that clear, that that is his intention. Furthermore, there is agreement from the Senate sponsor, the junior Senator from Texas, that the civil and criminal case filings for the Sherman division will be split 50-50 between the Plano and Sherman courthouses. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas has adopted a resolution memorializing this agreement, and the Judicial Conference of the United States has sent a letter to the same effect. Finally, the Committee on the Judiciary Report on the Federal Courts Improvement Act, which currently contains identical provisions, will reflect this understanding. Through these measures, we can rest assured that the addition of this courthouse will have no negative impact on the Sherman courthouse. I appreciate the efforts that my colleagues have made to address the concerns of those in Sherman, and I am confident that there is general agreement that the judicial business of the Sherman and Plano divisions will be shared equally. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support S. 1720. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her kind comments. I rise in support of the proposal. I opposed the House bill that went through in part because I had concerns about what was in section 3 of the bill allowing data to be shared with State and local governments. That is no longer in the bill that has come over from the Senate. The expansion of the program is conditioned on some additional studies to make sure it is working right, and the fundamental principle is a legitimate principle. Employers who want to do the right thing should be able to access accurate information about status given the state of the Federal law at this time on who they should and should not hire. So I always supported the principle of the pilot program. We just want to make sure it provides accurate information about the employee so that people who are eligible to work are not denied employment as a result of utilizing that system, and I congratulate the majority and the minority for pushing what I think is a more reasonable approach through.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 3349 and ask that my colleagues support it as well. This legislation gives Federal judges a 2.2 percent cost-of-living pay adjustment for 2004. Members of the Federal judiciary deserve this raise. The hardworking men and women of the Federal bench are a critical, if sometimes underappreciated, part of our constitutional democracy. We should do everything we can to ensure that we attract and retain the highest quality judges. While judges are predominantly called to service by a sense of duty and honor, financial considerations can be a powerful deterrent to service. Judges already make far less than they could earn in private firms. While this pay disparity will always exist, Congress should at the least ensure that judicial pay does not effectively shrink. The failure to give judges a COLA would constitute just such a reduction in pay. Unfortunately, Congress has failed several times in the past decade to give Federal judges a COLA pay adjustment. Thus, over time, the pay of Federal judges has effectively shrunk. We should pass this legislation today to ensure this inequity is not increased further. I want to make clear to my colleagues that this legislation in no way decouples judicial pay from the pay of Members of Congress and senior executive service. While I personally would not oppose such a decoupling, I know some of my colleagues, perhaps the gentleman who just spoke, would oppose it. This legislation simply ensures that Federal judges can receive the same COLA increase that Members of Congress and senior executive service officials are already slated to receive for fiscal year 2004. Members of Congress and SES officials receive automatic COLA pay adjustments each year unless Congress specifically prohibits it. Federal judges, on the other hand, do not receive such COLAs unless Congress provides specific statutory authorization each year. Congress typically provides this authorization in the annual commerce-justice-state appropriations legislation. Unfortunately, Congress has lately had some difficulty in passing the CJS appropriations bill by the start of the calendar year, let alone the fiscal year. The fiscal year 2003 CJS bill did not pass until 2003 was well under way, and now it looks like the fiscal year 2004 CJS bill will not be enacted until sometime in 2004. Such congressional action should not be allowed to imperil the COLA that Federal judges are rightfully do. I applaud the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for taking swift action to remedy the situation both earlier this year and now. In January of this year, the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary ensured that virtually the first action of the 108th Congress was to pass H.R. 16, which authorized COLAs for 2003. He exhibits great forethought by bringing H.R. 3349 before the House before 2004 is upon us. I applaud him for taking swift action to make sure that judges will not be denied their COLAs through congressional inaction. Of course, if future Congresses continue to have trouble moving the CJS appropriations bill in a timely fashion, the chairman may want to consider a different approach. A simple repeal of section 140 of Public Law 97-92 would dispense with the need to engage in this annual exercise. I commend this approach for the chairman's consideration and will not use this time to argue about whether or not it makes sense to pay judges more than third-year lawyers in excellent law firms. In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.