[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 98 (Tuesday, July 25, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7544-S7545]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. GRASSLEY:
  S. 2915. 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 IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2000

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today entitled 
the ``Federal Courts Improvement Act of 2000.'' Every few years, the 
Judicial Conference, the governing body of the federal courts, contacts 
Congress regarding changes to the law the Judicial Conference believes 
are necessary to improve the functions of the courts. As chairman of 
the Judiciary Subcommittee with jurisdiction over the courts, I have 
the responsibility to review the operation of the federal court process 
and procedures. In the past, I have also been in the forefront of 
advocating that the federal judicial system be administered in the most 
efficient and cost-effective manner possible while maintaining a high 
level of quality in the administration of justice. The bill I am 
introducing, along with Senator Torricelli, the Ranking Member of my 
subcommittee, is a consensus bill that includes many of the 
recommendations made by the Judicial Conference.
  The Judicial Conference has noted a problem that continues to plague 
the Federal judicial system is the lack of up-to-date technologies that 
would reduce costs while at the same time improve the efficiency of its 
administration along with a wide range of judicial branch programs. The 
``Federal Courts Improvement Act of 2000'' attempts to addresses this 
problem. In accordance with federal policy to defray the cost of 
providing services by assessing a fee for their use, sections of this 
bill provide the judiciary with the authority to set, collect, and 
retain fees to be used to acquire information technologies, such as 
electronic filing, video conferencing, and electronic evidence 
presentation devices. This section requires that the fees collected are 
to be deposited into the Judiciary Information Technology Fund and used 
for reinvestment in information technology. I feel that granting the 
judiciary the authority to collect and retain these fees will go a long 
way toward improving the efficiency of the judicial system while 
providing substantial savings for litigants and attorneys.
  This bill addresses two areas in which I have taken a personal 
interest, over the years: reducing unnecessary expenses and improving 
the efficiency of the judicial system. This bill would help achieve 
both. Traditionally, the 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 offenses. Currently, U.S. 
Magistrate Judges may preside over petty offense cases charging a motor 
vehicle offense and infractions, without the consent of the defendant. 
This bill removes the consent requirement in all other petty cases--a 
position repeatedly supported by the Judicial Conference of the United 
States. Additionally, this bill authorizes magistrate judges to try 
misdemeanor cases involving juveniles currently tried in district 
court. Removing the consent requirement from these petty offense cases 
and authorizing magistrate judges to preside over all juvenile 
misdemeanors would free-up valuable district court resources that could 
be used to deal with more serious crimes and offenders while reducing 
the time and expense necessary in dealing with these offenses.
  Another section of the bill also contains provisions that would free 
up district court resources and allow federal judges more time to deal 
with their civil and criminal dockets. These provisions raise the 
maximum compensation level paid to federal or community defenders 
representing defendants appearing before United States magistrates or 
the district courts before they must seek a waiver for payment in 
excess of the prescribed maximum. Payment in excess of the maximum 
currently requires the approval of both the judge who presided over the 
case and the chief judge of the circuit. This procedure in turn 
increases the amount of time judges must devote to non-judicial 
matters. The last increase was instituted fourteen years ago. During 
this time, the effects of inflation have significantly eroded the 
compensation paid to federal and community defenders.

  The Judicial Conference has expressed to me their concern over a 
growing trend of ``Criminal Justice Act'' (CJA) panel attorneys being 
subject to unfounded suits by the defendants they previously 
represented and the financial damage these attorneys have to deal with 
when they must pay to defend themselves in these actions. These unfair 
costs have the potential of having a chilling effect on the willingness 
of attorneys to participate as panel attorneys and will only make it 
more difficult to obtain adequate representation for defendants. 
Currently, the CJA authorizes the Director of the Administrative Office 
of the United States Courts to provide representation and indemnify 
federal and community defender organizations for malpractice claims 
that arise as a result of furnishing representational services. Panel 
attorneys are the only component of the appointed counsel program who 
are not permitted to receive CJA-funded coverage for any costs 
associated with defending against a malpractice claim by a CJA client. 
Our bill rectifies this oversight in the CJA, and provides CJA panel 
attorneys the same protection as other federal defenders.

[[Page S7545]]

Provisions in our bill authorize the judge who presides over a case, at 
his discretion, to reimburse panel attorneys for out-of-pocket expenses 
for civil claims arising for their CJA services. The judge would 
exercise his discretion limiting the amount of reimbursement available 
for a panel attorney as he views appropriate under the circumstances, 
as has been the practice with respect to malpractice claims against 
other federal defenders.
  In addition, the ``Federal Courts Improvement Act of 2000'' also 
contains provisions designed to assist handicapped employees working 
for the federal judiciary. These provisions bring the federal judicial 
system in-line with the Executive Branch and other governmental bodies.
  The bill also contains a number of other provisions that we believe 
are necessary to improve the Federal Courts' administration, judicial 
process and matters relating to public defenders, as well as other 
items that enhance the operation of the Federal judiciary. I urge my 
colleagues to join us and support these improvements to our Federal 
Court system.
                                 ______