[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 29 (Wednesday, March 6, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H1752-H1753]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1545
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS IMPLEMENTING IMPARTIALITY IN REVIEW OF COMPLAINTS 
     AGAINST JUDGES AND REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEES IN CAPITAL CASES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Under a previous order of 
the House, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Bryant] is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in order to 
explain two bills I introduced today and ask my colleagues for their 
support of this legislation.
  Both bills relate to judicial procedure and are intended to help 
restore the public's confidence in that branch of our Federal 
Government. Today, when citizens distrust their government to the 
degree that we are seeing, it is imperative that we take reasonable 
steps to promote public confidence in our form of Government that is 
set forth in the Constitution.
  We must always remember that we do not legislate in a vacuum. The 
laws we pass have consequences. Our Government processes have 
consequences.

[[Page H1753]]

At this very time, the country needs legislation that has positive 
consequences with respect to the long-term health of our Republic.
  In that regard, I would like to explain my bills. The first bill 
deals with the handling of ethical complaints filed against Federal 
judges. The complaint process currently works like this: The ethical 
complaint is made in writing to the circuit court clerk, and this 
complaint is accompanied by a brief statement of the facts behind the 
complaint. Alternatively, the chief justice of the circuit may also 
initiate a complaint if he is aware of a set of facts that warrant 
review.
  The clerk gives the complaint to the chief judge of the circuit, and 
this chief judge reviews the complaint and enters a dismissal or refers 
it to a special committee of judges from within that same circuit. In 
other words, the complaint is completely adjudicated within the circuit 
of the judge subject to that particular complaint.
  While most of the complaints filed against Federal judges are 
frivolous, the process itself, the procedure, should not give the 
appearance of a lack of impartiality or lack of fairness, or an 
appearance of possible bias, or at worst, a possible biased review. 
That is, these complaints against a judge are now reviewed by his close 
colleagues. They all serve together in the same circuit, some in the 
same district. They work together professionally, they meet at 
conferences, and interact on a personal and social basis.
  Human nature leads to the likelihood of a less than dispassionate 
review in this type of situation. The situation at a minimum presents 
an appearance of partiality. Couple that appearance with the loss of 
public confidence in our Government institutions that we are seeing, 
and we have a crisis in the making.
  The bill I am introducing will remedy this situation whereby judges 
within the same circuit review ethical complaints filed against one of 
their fellow judges. My intent is to introduce a greater degree of 
impartiality and fairness to this process. My legislation will have the 
clerk of the circuit in which a complaint originates automatically 
forward that complaint to another circuit for adjudication.
  This legislation builds on the current complaint review process. It 
calls for the creation of a method by which complaints received against 
judges and magistrates within one circuit are sent to another circuit 
for review.
  The second bill pertains to the amount paid to lawyers and lawyers' 
fees and expenses that a Federal judge may award in a capital case, a 
Federal death case, if you will. Currently title 18, United States Code 
allows compensation at a rate of $60 per hour for court time and $40 
for out-of-court time to be paid to lawyers that are appointed to 
handle Federal criminal cases. These are standard fees. I note that 
title 18 provides a means for raising compensation levels to a higher 
limit than what I have just described. This process has not been used 
yet.

  In capital cases, again death penalty cases, judges may go outside 
this range of $40 to $60 per hour and set even higher rates, at their 
complete discretion. Under our code, if it involves a death penalty 
case, the Federal judges can set this compensation to be whatever they 
deem is reasonably necessary. In other words, again complete discretion 
on the part of that judge.
  Now I understand the need to pay people for their time rendered, for 
their services given, but these payments that are made in these 
situations are being made at taxpayer expense. In certain habeas cases, 
certain death penalty cases in my home State of Tennessee, I am aware 
of a Federal judge awarding the lawyer fees of up to $250 an hour. Not 
many Tennessee lawyers command $250 an hour, much less a court-
appointed lawyer in a criminal case.
  My bill would set lawyers' compensation rates under title 21 in the 
recommended range of $75 to $125 across the Nation, and thereby stop 
the judges from awarding huge amounts, far in excess of the going rate 
in that particular marketplace. Furthermore, my legislation would 
require that these amounts paid in attorneys' fees and expenses would 
be publicly disclosed for all of us to see.
  I hope that my colleagues can support these two bills. I think it is 
time we move toward restoring the public's confidence in the judiciary. 
We can move in that direction by implementing impartially in the review 
of complaints filed against Federal judges, and by having reasonable 
attorneys' fees that are responsible to the taxpayer, who ultimately 
gets the bill.

                          ____________________