[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 145 (Monday, September 18, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H9037-H9038]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           EXTENSION OF DISTRICT COURT DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

  Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
Senate bill (S. 464) to make the reporting deadlines for studies 
conducted in Federal court demonstration districts consistent with the 
deadlines for pilot districts, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                 S. 464

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

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF CIVIL JUSTICE EXPENSE AND DELAY 
                   REDUCTION DEMONSTRATION PROGRAMS.

       Section 104 of the Civil Reform Act of 1990 (28 U.S.C. 471 
     note) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1) by striking ``4-year period'' and 
     inserting ``5-year period''; and
       (2) in subsection (d) by striking ``December 31, 1995,'' 
     and inserting ``December 31, 1996,''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Moorhead] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] will be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Moorhead].
  Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 464 which is a technical 
corrections bill that was introduced by Senator Hatch and passed the 
Senate on March 30, 

[[Page H 9038]]
1995, under a unanimous-consent request.
  The Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 set up two programs to study 
various innovative programs in court management. One program involves 
so-called pilot courts, and the other involves what are referred to as 
demonstration districts. Those court programs were originally 
established for a 3-year period, with the studies conducted over a 4-
year period and the resulting reports transmitted to Congress by 
December 31, 1995. The Rand Corp. has been carrying out the study of 
the pilot courts, while the Federal Judicial Center is conducting the 
study of the demonstration districts.
  Last year, the pilot court programs were extended for an additional 
year, and the Rand Corp. received a 1-year extension for its study of 
those courts. That extension was included in the Judicial Amendments 
Act of 1994. Through an oversight, however, no extension was included 
for the demonstration districts.
  S. 464 would grant the same 1-year extension for the demonstration 
districts as was granted for the pilot courts. This will make the two 
programs and their studies consistent so that the final reports can be 
directly compared. That was the intent behind the deadlines that were 
established when the two study programs were set up. This legislation 
will restore that end. Also, the extension of the deadline will improve 
the study, since more cases will be complete and included in the study.
  Finally, this 1-year extension will entail no additional cost since 
the demonstration districts are planning to continue the programs under 
study in any event. S. 464 represents a sound judicial housekeeping 
proposal and I urge my colleagues' support for it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I join the gentleman from California in supporting this 
bill, because it will help our Federal courts achieve greater 
efficiency and effectiveness.
  The demonstration program that is the subject of this bill, involves 
five Federal district courts, that have been experimenting with various 
case management systems, and forms of alternative dispute resolution, 
since the program was established 4 years ago. At the same time, there 
is a parallel pilot court program, which is testing certain principles 
of litigation management and cost-and-delay reduction. These programs 
are testing a number of systems, in a manner that will permit the 
Federal judiciary to compare their relative effectiveness.
  As the gentleman from California has explained, we extended the pilot 
program last year for 1 additional year, with a 1-year extension for 
the study that will evaluate that program. We inadvertently failed, 
however, to grant a similar extension to the demonstration program. 
This bill will restore the demonstration program to the same time line 
that applies to the pilot program, making the two programs more 
directly comparable, and improving the studies of both programs, by 
ensuring that an additional year of court experience, is included in 
those studies. Thus, passage of S. 464 will enable our Federal courts 
to get the full benefit of these studies.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Moorhead] that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 464.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the Senate bill was passed.
  The motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________