[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 117 (Thursday, August 18, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 18, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                    JUDICIAL AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1994

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2407, the Judicial 
Amendments Act of 1994 introduced earlier today by Senators Heflin, 
Biden, Hatch, Grassley, and Specter; that the bill be read three times, 
passed, motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any 
statements relating to this legislation be placed in the record at the 
appropriate place as if read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce with several of 
my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee a bill that will extend 
several authorities relative to the operation of the U.S. judiciary. I 
know that I and my colleagues would have liked to have done more, but 
the Senate schedule precludes a more comprehensive courts bill this 
year. I would expect that if I continue as chairman of the Courts 
Subcommittee in the next Congress, I will, in cooperation with all 
members of my subcommittee, hold hearings early next year to consider 
legislation on behalf of the administrative office of the U.S. courts 
as well as the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
  Section 1 of this legislation designates the name of the bill as the 
Judicial Amendments Act of 1994.
  Section 2 extends the authorization of the Judiciary Automation Fund 
by 3 years to September 30, 1997 and clarifies the purposes for which 
the fund can be used, authorizing other agencies within the Federal 
judiciary to contribute to and use the fund if they deem it 
appropriate.
  Congress established the fund, which is administered by the 
administrative office of the U.S. courts, in 1989 to create a multiyear 
source of funding to allow the judiciary to develop and implement a 
long term plan to automate the Federal courts.
  The General Accounting Office in a report to Congress on June 30, 
1994 advises that the fund obligations for fiscal years 1990-93 were 
approximately $351 million for automation services, equipment, and 
support for the Federal courts.
  The GAO report states that the fund has financed the expansion of 
automation to 190 of 197 courts by March of this year. This has been, 
however, not without problems--the systems are cumbersome to use and 
maintain. The GAO report notes that the Federal judiciary has begun to 
establish life cycle management standards to ensure quality systems 
design and implementation and to develop greater user involvement in 
systems development.
  The GAO report recommends that Congress should reauthorize the fund 
for less than 5 years, and this legislation would follow that 
recommendation by reauthorizing the fund for 3 additional years to 
September 30, 1997.
  Section 2 also incorporates three other recommendations of the GAO 
report. It will require the judiciary to report annually to Congress on 
the progress in developing a strategic business plan for the courts, 
implementing a long-range automation plan based on the strategic 
business plan, and require effective administrative office oversight of 
court automation efforts. It is my belief that if Congress follows the 
recommendation of the GAO report that these actions will, as the report 
states, ``result in more effective use of the judiciary's automation 
resources.''
  Section 3 of this legislation is a simple reauthorization of 3 years 
to December 31, 1997 of 10 pilot programs of mandatory court-annexed 
arbitration which are currently operating in selected Federal district 
courts as well as 10 additional pilot programs of voluntary court-
annexed arbitration.
  The Judicial Conference has recommended that Congress adopt 
legislation to continue authorization for court-annexed arbitration in 
the 20 districts which are operating such programs, and the conference 
has gone only so far as to recommend authorization for the remaining 
Federal district courts of voluntary court-annexed arbitration. Thus 
the conference has not recommended the expansion of mandatory court-
annexed arbitration for the remainder of the Federal district courts. 
This section of the legislation follows the recommendation of the 
Judicial Conference.
  It is my understanding from discussions with Department of Justice 
officials that the administration expects to present a comprehensive 
civil justice reform plan to congress early next year and that in this 
plan the issue of alternative dispute resolution will be addressed. 
Additionally, later this year I expect to introduce legislation that 
would address this issue as regards voluntary A.D.R.

  Section 4 of this bill extend the Rand Corp's. study of civil 
litigation for 1 additional year. More than 3\1/2\ years have passed 
since the Civil Justice Reform Act [CJRA], the Biden bill, was signed 
into law. Each of the 94 U.S. district courts has implemented expense 
and delay reduction plans in accordance with the dictates of the CJRA. 
The Judicial Conference is required to submit a final report evaluating 
certain case management principles included in the expense and delay 
reduction plans in December 1995 28 U.S.C. Sec. 471 notes.
  The Rand Corp. was designated by the Judicial Conference to conduct 
the study by examining 5,000 cases selected from 20 courts. Ten of 
these courts--pilot courts--were required to implement their expense 
and delay reduction plans on an expedited basis and include the six 
principles of case management outlines in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 473(A). The 
remaining 10 courts--comparison courts--implemented expense and delay 
reduction plans but were not required to adopt the six principles. The 
study will determine whether the six principles contribute to reducing 
expense and delay in Federal courts.
  In May, the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and 
Case Management sent a letter to Chairman Biden outlining Rand's 
concerns about completion of the study. As a result of unforeseen 
problems in implementing plans, some of the courts in the study did not 
implement an expense and delay reduction plan as quickly as expected. 
Rand estimates that 20 percent of the cases chosen as part of the study 
will not be closed by the statutory deadline for completion of the 
study.
  While Rand can estimate the results of the remaining cases, concrete 
results from the open cases are integral to the study and should not be 
the subject of speculation. Both the Judicial Conference and Rand 
maintain that the remaining 20 percent of the cases will represent the 
most complex segment of the caseload--those cases requiring significant 
amounts of judicial involvement, discovery and court time. One of the 
primary purposes behind the CJRA was to develop methods to expedite 
consideration of complex cases. Rand asserts that an additional year 
for the study would leave less than 8 percent of the cases unresolved.
  Again, the provisions of this legislation are designed to address the 
immediate concerns and needs of the Federal judiciary. I urge my 
colleagues to support its immediate passage.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join in introducing this 
legislation to reauthorize certain important programs for the Federal 
judiciary that must be reauthorized this year or they will expire. All 
of the provisions of this bill are vital to the judicial branch and not 
controversial.
  The legislation would reauthorize for 3 years the Judiciary 
Automation Fund, through which the Federal courts purchase automation 
equipment and services to improve their efficiency. The bill makes some 
changes to the Automation Fund in response to a recent study by the 
General Accounting Office, which was critical of certain aspects of the 
fund's operation. These changes will improve the management of the 
Automation Fund, and I thank Senator Heflin and Senator Grassley for 
making them in order to improve the operation of the fund.
  The bill will also extend the Rand Corp.'s study of Federal civil 
litigation that was authorized in the Civil Justice reform Act of 1990 
for an additional year. In order to ensure that this study is most 
useful to Congress and the courts, it must include a review of the most 
complex cases that can take the longest time to resolve. Permitting a 
1-year extension will allow the Rand Corp. to prepare a broader report 
that will be of greater use to Congress in evaluating the Federal civil 
justice system.
  Finally, and of most interest to me, the bill would reauthorize for 3 
years the 20 court-annexed arbitration programs in the Federal courts. 
Currently, 10 Federal judicial districts are authorized to employ 
voluntary, nonbinding arbitration programs and another 10 are 
authorized to employ mandatory, binding arbitration for small civil 
cases.
  The eastern district of Pennsylvania, under the leadership of Judge 
Raymond Broderick, pioneered the use of mandatory court-annexed 
arbitration. Today, all segments of the bar of the eastern district of 
Pennsylvania, plaintiffs' lawyers and defense counsel, strongly support 
the program. The judges of the court also strongly favor the program, 
which enables the court to resolve small cases expeditiously and with 
minimal cost to the litigants. I have heard from many judges of the 
eastern district and the court of appeals for the third circuit 
supporting this reauthorization.
  While there has been debate over whether to expand mandatory, court-
annexed arbitration programs throughout the Federal judiciary, there is 
no reason to prevent those courts that have been employing it 
successfully at their own option to continue to do so.
  I am grateful to both Senator Heflin and Senator Grassley the 
chairman and ranking Republican of the Subcommittee on Courts and 
Administrative Practice, for moving so expeditiously on this bill, 
which will benefit not simply the judges, lawyers, and litigants of the 
eastern district of Pennsylvania, but this Nation as a whole. Because 
the programs reauthorized by this bill will expire this year, it is 
imperative that Congress act promptly. By introducing and passing the 
bill on the same day, the Senate is doing its part to ensure the 
uninterrupted continuation of these programs. I hope that the House 
will act responsibly and adopt this bill promptly so that this 
legislation may be signed into law before the programs expire.
  I thank the presiding officer and yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Heflin in 
cosponsoring the Judicial Amendments Act of 1994. This bill is designed 
to address three elements important to the operation of our Federal 
court system.
  First, the bill reauthorizes for 3 years the existing court-annexed 
arbitration programs. Currently, 10 district courts have mandatory, 
nonbinding arbitration for cases involving less than $150,000. And 
another 10 districts have voluntary, nonbinding programs. The authority 
for these programs would otherwise expire this December without our 
legislation.
  Court-annexed arbitration is designed to let individuals and small 
businesses obtain speedier and less costly relief from the Federal 
courts. The Federal Judicial Center studied court-annexed arbitration 
and concluded that alternative dispute resolution works. I strongly 
agree. But because limited time remains in this Congress, this bill 
will only extend the existing programs, despite the overwhelming 
evidence that all judicial districts should be allowed to create these 
programs.
  The second feature of the bill is to extend the Rand Corp.'s study of 
civil litigation for another year. In the Civil Justice Reform Act of 
1990, the Rand Corp. was tasked with studying various kinds of civil 
cases in the Federal judicial system. A large number of cases have been 
examined. However, the process did not start as early as might have 
been ideal. As a result, the kinds of cases that have not been fully 
studies are the largest, most complex cases that take the longest time 
to proceed to resolution. For the Rand study to be most useful to the 
subject to civil justice reform, it must examine the largest and most 
complex cases, because these cases have a disproportionate impact on 
the quality of civil justice provided by the Federal courts and on 
resources expended. By extending the study for another year, the Rand 
study will be more useful when the 104th Congress considers civil 
justice reform.
  The third element of this bill is a reauthorization of the Judiciary 
Automation Fund. The Federal courts must use this fund for their 
purchase of automation equipment and services. Automation services are 
used by Federal courts for case, financial, and personnel management.
  The Automation Fund is worthy and should be reauthorized. We have 
followed a recent General Accounting Office report which recommends a 
3-year reauthorization rather than 5 years. During these 3 years, the 
judiciary will be able to assess the quality of its ongoing automation 
efforts and demonstrate progress in responding to the criticisms of the 
GAO report.

  The bill conditions reauthorization of the fund on the judiciary's 
development of an overall strategic business plan to identify the 
missions, goals, and objectives of judicial automation. The judiciary 
is required to develop a long-term automation plan based on the 
strategic business plan and estimated user needs. Moreover, the 
judiciary needs to establish effective oversight by the Administrative 
Office to ensure the effectiveness of existing system and control over 
development of future systems. At the moment, there are multiple 
systems of automation in various courts, some of which are incompatible 
with each other. There are a few additional conditions for the 
Administrative Office, such as auditing and financial systems, 
contained in the bill that derive as well from the GAO report.
  Mr. President, because of the immediate need to reauthorize these 
functions in light of the short time remaining for the 103rd Congress, 
the bill is limited to these areas. Nonetheless, the importance of 
civil justice reform remains as important as ever. Although I am 
pleased to see this effort undertaken to keep existing reforms 
continue, and I appreciate chairman Heflin's efforts, this bill is not 
enough. I will work in the 104th Congress to ensure that civil justice 
reform is a top priority of the Judiciary Committee. By then, the 
administration will have issued its recommendations in this area, and 
the Rand study will be completed.
  So the bill (S. 2407) was passed, as follows:

                                S. 2407

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Judicial Amendments Act of 
     1994''.

     SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE JUDICIARY AUTOMATION FUND.

       Section 612 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the second sentence by inserting after ``equipment 
     for'' the following: ``program activities included in the 
     courts of appeals, district courts, and other judicial 
     services account of''; and
       (B) in the third sentence by striking out all after 
     ``personal services'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``, 
     support personnel in the courts and in the Administrative 
     Office of the United States Courts, and other costs, for the 
     effective management, coordination, operation, and use of 
     automatic data processing equipment purchased by the Fund. In 
     addition, all agencies of the judiciary may make deposits 
     into the Fund to meet their automatic data processing needs 
     in accordance with subsections (b) and (c)(2).'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(1) by striking out ``judicial 
     branch'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``activities funded 
     under subsection (a) and shall include an annual estimate of 
     any fees that may be collected under section 404 of the 
     Judiciary Appropriations Act, 1991 (Public Law 101-515; 104 
     Stat. 2133)'';
       (3) in subsection (b)(2) by striking out ``judicial branch 
     of the United States'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``activities funded under subsection (a)'';
       (4) in subsection (c)(1)(A), by inserting after ``surplus 
     property'' the following: ``, all fees collected after the 
     date of the enactment of the Judicial Amendments Act of 1994 
     by the judiciary under section 404 of the Judiciary 
     Appropriations Act, 1991 (Public Law 101-515; 104 Stat. 
     2133)'';
       (5) in subsection (e)(1)--
       (A) by striking out ``(A)''; and
       (B) by striking out ``$75,000,000'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``amounts estimated to be collected under subsection 
     (c) for that fiscal year'';
       (6) in subsection (h) by amending the subsection to read as 
     follows:
       ``(h) Annual Report.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director shall submit to the 
     Congress an annual report on the operation of the Fund, 
     including on the inventory, use, and acquisition of automatic 
     data processing equipment from the Fund and the consistency 
     of such acquisition with the plan prepared under subsection 
     (b). The report shall set forth the amounts deposited into 
     the Fund under subsection (c).
       ``(2) Additional contents of report.--The annual report 
     submitted under this subsection shall include--
       ``(A) the specific actions taken and the progress made to 
     improve the plan developed under subsection (b) and the long 
     range automation plan and strategic business plan developed 
     under subsection (k); and
       ``(B) a comparison of planned Fund expenditures and 
     accomplishments with actual Fund expenditures and 
     accomplishments, and the reasons for any delays in scheduled 
     systems development, or budget overruns.
       ``(3) Report in year of termination of authority.--The 
     annual report submitted under this subsection for any year in 
     which the authority for this section is to terminate under 
     subsection (m), shall be submitted no later than 9 months 
     before the date of such termination.'';
       (7) in subsection (i) by striking out all after ``Judicial 
     Conference of the United States,'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``may transfer amounts up to $1,000,000 from the Fund 
     into the account to which the funds were originally 
     appropriated. Any amounts transferred from the Fund in excess 
     of $1,000,000 in any fiscal year may only be transferred by 
     following reprogramming procedures in compliance with section 
     606 of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the 
     Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1989 
     (Public Law 100-459; 102 Stat. 2227).'';
       (8) in subsection (j) in the second sentence by inserting 
     ``in statute'' after ``not specified'';
       (9) by redesignating subsections (k) and (l) as subsections 
     (l) and (m), respectively, and by inserting after subsection 
     (j) the following new subsection:
       ``(k) Long Range Management and Business Plans.--The 
     Director of the Administrative Office of the United States 
     Court shall--
       ``(1) develop an overall strategic business plan which 
     would identify the judiciary's missions, goals, and 
     objectives;
       ``(2) develop a long range automation plan based on the 
     strategic business plan and user needs assessments;
       ``(3) establish effective Administrative Office oversight 
     of court automation efforts to ensure the effective operation 
     of existing systems and control over developments of future 
     systems;
       ``(4) expedite efforts to complete the development and 
     implementation of life cycle management standards;
       ``(5) utilize the standards in developing the next 
     generation of case management and financial systems; and
       ``(6) assess the current utilization and future user 
     requirements of the data communications network.''; and
       (10) in subsection (m) (as redesignated under paragraph (9) 
     of this section--
       (A) in the first sentence by striking out ``1994'', and 
     inserting in lieu thereof, ``1997''; and
       (B) in the second sentence by striking out ```Judicial 
     Services Account''' and inserting in lieu thereof ``fund 
     established under section 1931 of this title''.

     SEC. 3. COURT ARBITRATION AUTHORIZATION.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 905 of the 
     Judicial Improvements and Access to Justice Act (28 U.S.C. 
     651 note) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence by striking out ``for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 1989, and for each of the 
     succeeding 7 fiscal years,'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``for each of the fiscal years 1994 through 1997''; and
       (2) in the third sentence by striking out all beginning 
     with ``, except that'' through ``this Act''.
       (b) Removal of Repealer.--Section 906 of the Judicial 
     Improvements and Access to Justice Act (28 U.S.C. 651 note), 
     and the item relating to such section in the table of 
     contents contained in section 3 of such Act, are repealed.

     SEC. 4. EXTENSION OF CIVIL JUSTICE EXPENSE AND DELAY 
                   REDUCTION PILOT PROGRAMS.

       Section 105 of the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 (28 
     U.S.C. 471 note; 104 Stat. 5097) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1) by striking out ``4-year period'' 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``5-year period'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(3)--
       (A) in the first sentence by striking out ``3 years'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``4 years''; and
       (B) in the second sentence by striking out ``3-year 
     period'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``4-year period''; and
       (3) in subsection (c)(1) by striking out ``December 31, 
     1995,'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``December 31, 1996,''.

     

                          ____________________