[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 91 (Wednesday, June 19, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6518-S6520]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Heflin):
  S. 1887. A bill to make improvements in the operation and 
administration of the Federal courts, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.


              the federal courts improvements act of 1996

 Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am introducing for myself, 
Senator Hatch, and Senator Heflin, a bill entitled ``The Federal Courts 
Improvements Act of 1996.'' A first version of the bill, S. 1101, was 
introduced in August 1995, at the request of the Judicial Conference. 
In October of last year, we held a comprehensive hearing on that bill 
in the Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the 
Courts, which I chair, at which both judges and lawyers testified at 
length on the substance of many of S. 1101's provisions. The present 
bill was crafted after many months of detailed discussions and intense 
collaboration between myself, Senators Hatch and Heflin, and the 
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. More importantly, we have 
worked closely with the other members of the subcommittee to address 
their concerns and include their suggestions, making this truly a 
bipartisan bill.
  At the onset, I would like to elaborate on the spirit in which this 
bill was crafted. I am sure my colleagues are well aware, many of my 
efforts have focused on saving the Federal Government's sparse 
resources and making the most of taxpayer dollars. As chairman of the 
Judiciary Subcommittee with jurisdiction over the courts, I am also 
concerned that the Federal judicial system be administered in the

[[Page S6519]]

most efficient and cost-effective manner possible, while maintaining a 
high level of quality in the administration of justice. In fact, I sent 
out a judicial questionnaire earlier this year requesting assistance 
from individual judges on their ideas and views of the needs of the 
Federal judiciary. I hope some of you have had the opportunity to 
review my subcommittee's report on the courts of appeal, which I 
released recently. The report on the District courts will be completed 
shortly. I found it enlightening to communicate with the individual 
judges, and hope that these lines of candid and constructive 
communication with the individual judges and the Administrative Office 
remain open and continue to produce beneficial results in terms of 
efficiency, cost savings, and other improvements within the Federal 
judiciary.
  In drafting the Federal Courts Improvement bill, we worked closely 
with the Administrative Office to assess and address the needs of the 
Federal judiciary. As a result, the bill contains both technical and 
substantive changes in the law, many of which were carried over from 
previous Congresses and-or originally proposed in S. 1101. During our 
working sessions on the bill, some of the provisions in S. 1101, such 
as the sections dealing with Federal Defender Services matters, were 
determined to warrant further inquiry or additional hearings. On the 
whole, the bill is broad-reaching, and contains provisions concerning 
judicial process improvements; judiciary personnel administration, 
benefits and protections; judicial financial administration; Federal 
Courts Study Committee recommendations; and other miscellaneous issues. 
Almost all of the provisions have been formally endorsed by the 
Judicial Conference, the governing body of the Federal courts. I would 
now like to mention some of the more salient provisions of the bill.
  Many provisions contained in this bill streamline the operation of 
the Federal court system. A good example of our attempt to render the 
judiciary more efficient is section 605, which abolishes a special 
tribunal with narrow jurisdiction, the Special Court, the Regional 
Rail Reorganization Act of 1973, established in the early 1970's to 
oversee the reorganization of insolvent railroads. The work of this 
court is basically concluded, with the court's docket containing 10 
largely inactive cases. This section transfers the Special Court's 
jurisdiction over those cases and any future rail reorganization 
proceedings to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 
where the court's records and a majority of its judges are currently 
located, and makes other technical and conforming changes incidental to 
the court's abolition. The elimination of this court will produce 
budgetary and administrative economies and, according to the 
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, result in an annual cost 
savings of approximately $175,000.

  Section 209 simplifies the appeal route in civil cases decided by 
magistrate judges with consent by confining appeals of judgments in 
such cases to the court of appeals and eliminating an alternative route 
of appeal to the district judge. A single forum of appeal in civil 
consent cases simplifies court procedures and recognizes the existing 
practice in most districts. The Judicial Conference recommended such 
action in the long range plan for the Federal courts. Also, this 
section would not alter the role of magistrate judges as adjuncts to 
article III courts since district judges would still control the 
referral of consent cases to magistrate judges.
  Section 304 changes the reappointment procedure for incumbent 
bankruptcy judges. Rather than requiring the judicial council for a 
circuit or a merit selection panel to undergo a lengthy and time-
consuming screening process, this section streamlines the reappointment 
process for judges whose performance has previously been reviewed. In 
this manner, the section eliminates unnecessary expenditures of time 
and money.
  Another example is section 202, which authorizes magistrate judges to 
try all petty offense cases. Traditionally, safeguards applicable to 
criminal defendants charged with more serious crimes have not been 
applicable to petty offense cases because the burdens were deemed 
undesirable and impractical in dealing with such minor misconduct. 
Section 202 also authorizes magistrate judges to try misdemeanor cases 
upon either written consent or oral consent of the defendant on the 
record. This amendment enhances the efficiency of the courts, since 
most defendants routinely consent to proceeding before the Federal 
magistrate judge system. Presently, consent to trial of misdemeanor 
cases by magistrate judges is required to be in writing, although there 
is no legal significance between written consent and consent made 
orally on the record, provided that the defendant's consent is made 
with full knowledge of the consequences of such consent, is 
intelligently given, and is voluntary. Elimination of the written-
consent requirement saves time and eases burdensome paperwork for court 
personnel, while preserving knowing and voluntary consent in such 
cases.
  Additional sections that facilitate judicial operations are sections 
201 and 205. Section 201 authorizes magistrate judges temporarily 
assigned to another judicial district because of an emergency to 
dispose of civil cases with the consent of the parties. Section 205 
clarifies that deputy clerks may act whenever the clerk is unable to 
perform official duties for any reason, and permits the court to 
designate an acting clerk of the court, when it is expected that the 
clerk will be unavailable or the office of clerk will be vacant for a 
prolonged period.
  Provisions in this bill also clarify existing law to better fulfill 
Congress' original intent. For example, section 208 enables the United 
States to obtain a Federal forum in which to defend suits against 
Federal officers and agencies when those suits involve Federal 
defenses. This section would legislatively reverse the Supreme Court's 
decision in International Primate Protection League, et al. v. 
Administrators of Tulane Educational Fund, et al., 111 S.Ct. 1700 
(1991), which held that only Federal officers, and not Federal 
agencies, may remove State court actions to Federal court pursuant to 
28 U.S.C. 1442(a)(1). The section would also reverse at least three 
other Federal district court decisions which held that Federal officers 
sued exclusively in their official capacities cannot remove State court 
actions to Federal court. The result of these decisions has been that 
Federal agencies have had to defend themselves in State court, despite 
important and complex Federal issues such as preemption and sovereign 
immunity. Section 208 fulfills Congress' intent that questions 
concerning the exercise of Federal authority, as well as the scope of 
Federal immunity and Federal-State conflicts, be adjudicated in Federal 
court. It also clarifies that suits against Federal agencies, as well 
as those against Federal officers sued in either an individual or 
official capacity, may be removed to Federal district court. More 
importantly, this section does not alter the requirement that a Federal 
law defense be alleged for a suit to be removable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1442(a)(1).
  Another example is section 503, which repeals a provision in a 1981 
continuing appropriation resolution barring annual cost-of-living 
adjustments in pay for Federal judges except as specifically authorized 
by Congress. Repeal of section 140 restores the operation of 28 U.S.C. 
Sec. 461 as to article III judges and parity with the other two 
branches of Government, as enacted by the Federal Salary Cost-of-Living 
Adjustment Act of 1975 and amended by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989.
  Several sections improve the judicial court system in other ways. 
Section 206 amends section 1332 of title 28 relating to diversity 
jurisdiction to raise the jurisdictional amount in diversity cases from 
$50,000 to $75,000. The purpose of this amendment is to supplement the 
increase of the jurisdictional amount from $10,000 to $50,000 in the 
100th Congress by a modest upward adjustment to $75,000. Section 210 
requires each Judicial Council to submit an annual report to the 
Administrative Office of the United States Courts on the number and 
nature of orders relating to judicial misconduct or disability under 
section 332 of title 28 of the United States Code. This reporting 
requirement was recommended by the Report of the National Commission on 
Judicial Discipline and Removal of August 1993, which found that 
reliable information concerning council orders was difficult to obtain.

[[Page S6520]]

  In addition, section 608 extends by 6 months the due date of the 
Civil Justice Reform Act reports on the demonstration and pilot 
programs. The bill at section 609 also extends the authorization of 
appropriations by 1 year of the use of arbitration by district courts 
under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 651. This will give us more time, if needed, to 
consider how we will implement permanently alternative dispute 
resolution in the courts.
  In conclusion, this bill is the result of careful consideration by 
members of the subcommittee and their staff, in close collaboration 
with the Administrative Office, who have all worked long and hard in 
attempting to produce a strong, bipartisan piece of legislation. I am 
pleased to say that the legislation we are introducing today not only 
enhances and improves the operation of the Federal judiciary, but also 
takes into consideration any potential increase in costs to the Federal 
budget.
                                 ______