[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 64 (Monday, May 10, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5080-S5090]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Durbin, 
        Mr. Schumer, and Mrs. Clinton):
  S. 2396. A bill to make improvements in the operations and 
administration of the Federal courts, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, from time to time the Judicial Conference 
and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts recommend legislative 
proposals to improve the efficiency and enhance the operations of the 
Federal courts. I believe that, out of comity to the judicial branch, 
the Senate should have the judiciary's specific proposals on record so 
that we can give those suggestions proper consideration.
  Today, joined by Senators Leahy, Chambliss, Clinton, Durbin, and 
Schumer, I am introducing the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 2004. 
This bill contains both technical and substantive changes in the law. 
These recommendations made by the judicial branch will improve the 
judicial process and enhance judiciary personnel administration, 
benefits, and protections. Some proposals have been carried over from 
previous Congresses, but the legislation also contains some new 
proposals which the Federal judiciary believes will improve its 
operation. I appreciate the support of my cosponsors, and encourage the 
entire Senate to support this legislation.
  Many provisions contained in this bill streamline the operation of 
the Federal court system or otherwise facilitate judicial operations. 
The bill authorizes some realignments in the composition or the place 
of holding court of specified district courts. For example, section 120 
would grant emergency authority for circuit, district and bankruptcy 
courts, as well as magistrate judges, to conduct court proceedings 
outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court. The need for this 
legislation has become apparent following the terrorist attacks of 
September 11, 2001, and the impact of that disaster on court 
operations, in particular in New York City. In emergency conditions, a 
Federal court facility in an adjoining district (or circuit) might be 
more readily and safely available to court personnel, litigants, jurors 
and the public than a facility at a place of holding court within the 
district. This is particularly true in major metropolitan areas such as 
New York, Washington, DC, Dallas and Kansas City, where the 
metropolitan area includes parts of more than one judicial district.
  Other sections of the bill contain provisions that would improve 
resource management within the judiciary. The bill would improve the 
procedures for recouping technology costs and also would broaden the 
courts' investment options and offer an improved procedure for 
investing court registry funds in Treasury securities. Other provisions 
increase the approval thresholds for payment vouchers or expand the 
delegation authority of respect to approving vouchers. These 
improvements will reduce the amount of time judges must devote to non-
judicial matters.
  Provisions in this bill also clarify existing law to better fulfill 
Congress's original intent or to make technical corrections. For 
example, sections 113 and 114 clarify diversity jurisdiction rules as 
applied to resident aliens and foreign corporations. Section 117 
repeals references to obsolete sections of the U.S. Code.
  In addition, the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 2004 also contains 
provisions designed to improve personnel administration, benefits and 
protections for employees working for the Federal judiciary. These 
provisions, in some cases, bring the Federal judicial system in line 
with the executive branch and other governmental bodies. Other 
provisions are designed to improve the ability of the judiciary to 
recruit and retain personnel.
  Several sections improve the judicial system in other ways. The bill 
offers protection of certain information contained in bankruptcy case 
files, such as Social Security account numbers, from public disclosure. 
The proposed legislation provides protection against malicious 
recording of fictitious liens against Federal judges. The bill provides 
for improving the process for determining Federal court security 
requirements.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation, along with 
a section-by-section analysis of the bill, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill and additional material were 
ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 2396

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Federal 
     Courts Improvement Act of 2004''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.

                 TITLE I--JUDICIAL PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS

Sec. 101. Authority of bankruptcy administrators to appoint trustees 
              and to serve as trustees in bankruptcy cases in the 
              States of Alabama and North Carolina.
Sec. 102. Venue in bankruptcy cases.
Sec. 103. Place of holding court in Texarkana, Texas, and Texarkana, 
              Arkansas.
Sec. 104. Change in composition of divisions of western district of 
              Texas.
Sec. 105. Change of composition of divisions of western district of 
              Tennessee.
Sec. 106. Place of holding court in the northern district of New York.
Sec. 107. Juror fees.
Sec. 108. Supplemental attendance fee for petit jurors serving on 
              lengthy trials.
Sec. 109. Authority of district courts as to a jury summons.
Sec. 110. Automatic excuse upon request from jury service for members 
              of the Armed Services, members of fire and police 
              departments, and public officers.
Sec. 111. Elimination of the public drawing requirements for juror 
              wheels.
Sec. 112. Conditions of probation and supervised release.
Sec. 113. Clarifying the scope of diversity of citizenship for resident 
              aliens.
Sec. 114. Clarifying the scope of diversity of citizenship for 
              corporations with foreign contacts.
Sec. 115. Reporting of wiretap orders.
Sec. 116. Magistrate judge participation at circuit conferences.
Sec. 117. Repeal of Obsolete Speedy Trial Act cross references to the 
              Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act.
Sec. 118. Taxing of court technology costs.
Sec. 119. Investment of court registry funds.
Sec. 120. Emergency authority to conduct court proceedings outside the 
              territorial jurisdiction of the court.
Sec. 121. Restriction of public access to certain information contained 
              in bankruptcy case files.
Sec. 122. Security of social security account number of debtor in 
              notice debtor provides to creditor.

[[Page S5081]]

 TITLE II--JUDICIAL PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION, BENEFITS, AND PROTECTIONS

Sec. 201. Disability retirement and cost-of-living adjustments of 
              annuities for territorial judges.
Sec. 202. Federal Judicial Center personnel matters.
Sec. 203. Annual leave limit for judicial branch executives.
Sec. 204. Supplemental benefits program.
Sec. 205. Student loan forgiveness for Federal defenders.
Sec. 206. Law clerk loan deferment.
Sec. 207. Inclusion of judicial branch personnel in organ donor leave 
              program.
Sec. 208. Transportation and subsistence for Criminal Justice Act 
              defendants.
Sec. 209. Maximum amounts of compensation for attorneys.
Sec. 210. Maximum amounts of compensation for services other than 
              counsel.
Sec. 211. Excess compensation delegation authority.
Sec. 212. Protection against malicious recording of fictitious liens 
              against Federal judges.
Sec. 213. Appointing authority for circuit librarians.
Sec. 214. Judicial branch security requirements.
Sec. 215. Bankruptcy, magistrate, and territorial judges life 
              insurance.
Sec. 216. Health insurance for surviving family and spouses of judges.

                 TITLE I--JUDICIAL PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS

     SEC. 101. AUTHORITY OF BANKRUPTCY ADMINISTRATORS TO APPOINT 
                   TRUSTEES AND TO SERVE AS TRUSTEES IN BANKRUPTCY 
                   CASES IN THE STATES OF ALABAMA AND NORTH 
                   CAROLINA.

       Until the amendments made by subtitle A of title II of the 
     Bankruptcy Judges, United States Trustees, and Family Farmer 
     Bankruptcy Act of 1986 (28 U.S.C. 581 note; Public Law 99-
     554; 100 Stat. 3088) become effective in and with respect to 
     a judicial district in the State of Alabama, or in and with 
     respect to a judicial district in the State of North 
     Carolina--
       (1) a reference in sections 303(g), 701(a), 703(b), 703(c), 
     1102(a), 1104(d), 1163, 1202, and 1302 of title 11, United 
     States Code, to the United States trustee shall be deemed to 
     be a reference to the bankruptcy administrator appointed and 
     serving in such district under the authority of section 
     302(d)(3)(I) of such Act;
       (2) a reference in sections 1202(a) and 1302(a) of title 
     11, United States Code, to section 586(b) of title 28, United 
     States Code, shall be deemed to be a reference to such 
     section as modified in operation by the other provisions of 
     this section;
       (3) a reference in sections 701(a)(1) and 703(c) of title 
     11, United States Code, to a panel of private trustees 
     established under section 586(a)(1) of title 28, United 
     States Code, shall be deemed to be a reference to the panel 
     of private trustees established in such district under the 
     authority of section 302(d)(3)(I)(i) of such Act; and
       (4) a reference in subsections (b), (d), and (e) of section 
     586 of title 28, United States Code--
       (A) to the Attorney General shall be deemed to be a 
     reference to the Director of the Administrative Office of the 
     United States Courts;
       (B) to the United States trustee for the region shall be 
     deemed to be a reference to the bankruptcy administrator 
     appointed for such district;
       (C) to a standing trustee shall be deemed to be a reference 
     to a standing trustee appointed by the bankruptcy 
     administrator;
       (D) to the designation of 1 or more assistant United States 
     trustees shall be disregarded; and
       (E) to the deposit in the United States Trustee System Fund 
     shall be deemed to be a reference to the payment to the clerk 
     of the court for deposit in the Treasury;

     for purposes of cases pending under title 11, United States 
     Code, in such district.

     SEC. 102. VENUE IN BANKRUPTCY CASES.

       Section 1412 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting ``, on its own motion or on timely motion of a 
     party in interest,'' after ``A district court''.

     SEC. 103. PLACE OF HOLDING COURT IN TEXARKANA, TEXAS, AND 
                   TEXARKANA, ARKANSAS.

       Sections 83(b)(1) and 124(c)(5) of title 28, United States 
     Code, are each amended by inserting after ``held at 
     Texarkana'' the following: ``, and may be held anywhere 
     within the Federal courthouse in Texarkana that is located 
     astride the State line between Texas and Arkansas''.

     SEC. 104. CHANGE IN COMPOSITION OF DIVISIONS OF WESTERN 
                   DISTRICT OF TEXAS.

       (a) In General.--Section 124(d) of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``county of El Paso'' and 
     inserting ``counties of El Paso and Hudspeth''; and
       (2) in paragraph (6), by striking ``Hudspeth,''.
       (b) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--This section and the amendments made by 
     this section shall take effect on the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       (2) Pending cases not affected.--This section and the 
     amendments made by this section shall not affect any action 
     commenced before the effective date of this section and 
     pending in the United States District Court for the Western 
     District of Texas on such date.
       (3) Juries not affected.--This section and the amendments 
     made by this section shall not affect the composition, or 
     preclude the service, of any grand or petit jury summoned, 
     impaneled, or actually serving in the Western Judicial 
     District of Texas on the effective date of this section.

     SEC. 105. CHANGE OF COMPOSITION OF DIVISIONS OF WESTERN 
                   DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE.

       (a) In General.--Section 123(c) of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by inserting ``Dyer,'' after ``Decatur,''; and
       (B) in the last sentence by inserting ``and Dyersburg'' 
     after ``Jackson''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking ``Dyer,''; and
       (B) in the second sentence, by striking ``and Dyersburg''.
       (b) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--This section and the amendments made by 
     this section shall take effect on the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       (2) Pending cases not affected.--This section and the 
     amendments made by this section shall not affect any action 
     commenced before the effective date of this section and 
     pending in the United States District Court for the Western 
     District of Tennessee on such date.
       (3) Juries not affected.--This section and the amendments 
     made by this section shall not affect the composition, or 
     preclude the service, of any grand or petit jury summoned, 
     impaneled, or actually serving in the Western Judicial 
     District of Tennessee on the effective date of this section.

     SEC. 106. PLACE OF HOLDING COURT IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF 
                   NEW YORK.

       Section 112(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``and Watertown'' and inserting ``Watertown, and 
     Plattsburgh''.

     SEC. 107. JUROR FEES.

       (a) In General.--Section 1871(b)(1) of title 28, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``$40'' and inserting 
     ``$50''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2004.

     SEC. 108. SUPPLEMENTAL ATTENDANCE FEE FOR PETIT JURORS 
                   SERVING ON LENGTHY TRIALS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1871(b)(2) of title 28, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``thirty'' in each place 
     it occurs, and inserting ``5''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect on October 1, 2004.

     SEC. 109. AUTHORITY OF DISTRICT COURTS AS TO A JURY SUMMONS.

       Section 1866(g) of title 28, United States Code, is amended 
     in the first sentence--
       (1) by striking ``shall'' and inserting ``may''; and
       (2) by striking ``his''.

     SEC. 110. AUTOMATIC EXCUSE UPON REQUEST FROM JURY SERVICE FOR 
                   MEMBERS OF THE ARMED SERVICES, MEMBERS OF FIRE 
                   AND POLICE DEPARTMENTS, AND PUBLIC OFFICERS.

       (a) Removal of Exemption.--Section 1863(b) of title 28, 
     United States Code, is amended by--
       (1) striking paragraph (6); and
       (2) redesignating paragraphs (7) and (8) as paragraphs (6) 
     and (7), respectively.
       (b) Permanent Excuse.--Section 1863(b)(5) of title 28, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking subparagraph (B) 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(B) specify that the following persons, upon individual 
     request, shall be excused from jury service:
       ``(i) Members in active service in the Armed Forces of the 
     United States.
       ``(ii) Members of the fire or police departments of any 
     State, the District of Columbia, any territory or possession 
     of the United States, or any subdivision of a State, the 
     District of Columbia, or such territory or possession.
       ``(iii) Public officers in the executive, legislative, or 
     judicial branches of the Government of the United States, or 
     of any State, the District of Columbia, any territory or 
     possession of the United States, or any subdivision of a 
     State, the District of Columbia, or such territory or 
     possession, who are actively engaged in the performance of 
     official duties.
       ``(iv)(I) Volunteer safety personnel.
       ``(II) In this clause, the term `volunteer safety 
     personnel' means individuals serving a public agency (as 
     defined in section 1203(6) of title I of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968) in an official 
     capacity, without compensation, as firefighters or members of 
     a rescue squad or ambulance crew.''.
       (c) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 1865(a) of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended in the first sentence by striking ``or exempt,''.
       (2) Section 1866 of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), in the first sentence by striking 
     ``exempt or'';
       (B) in subsection (c), in the first sentence--
       (i) by striking ``or (6)''; and
       (ii) by striking ``excused, or exempt'' and inserting ``or 
     excused''; and
       (C) in subsection (d), by striking ``exempt,''.

[[Page S5082]]

       (3) Section 1869(h) of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended in the first sentence by striking ``or exempted''.

     SEC. 111. ELIMINATION OF THE PUBLIC DRAWING REQUIREMENTS FOR 
                   JUROR WHEELS.

       (a) Drawing of Names From Jury Wheel.--Section 1864(a) of 
     title 28, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by striking the term 
     ``publicly''; and
       (2) by inserting after the first sentence ``The clerk or 
     jury commission shall post a general notice for public review 
     in the clerk's office explaining the process by which names 
     are periodically and randomly drawn.''.
       (b) Selection and Summoning of Jury Panels.--Section 
     1866(a) of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the second sentence by striking the term 
     ``publicly''; and
       (2) by inserting after the second sentence ``The clerk or 
     jury commission shall post a general notice for public review 
     in the clerk's office explaining the process by which names 
     are periodically and randomly drawn.''.
       (c) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--Section 1869 of 
     title 28, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (k); and
       (2) by redesignating subsection (l) as subsection (k).

     SEC. 112. CONDITIONS OF PROBATION AND SUPERVISED RELEASE.

       (a) Conditions of Probation.--Section 3563(a)(2) of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``(b)(2), 
     (b)(3), or (b)(13),'' and inserting ``(b)(2) or (b)(12), 
     unless the court has imposed a fine under this chapter, or''.
       (b) Supervised Release After Imprisonment.--Section 3583(d) 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``section 3563(b)(1)'' and all that follows through 
     ``appropriate.'' and inserting ``section 3563(b) and any 
     other condition it considers to be appropriate, except that a 
     condition set forth in section 3563(b)(10) shall be imposed 
     only for a violation of a condition of supervised release in 
     accordance with subsection (e)(2) and only when facilities 
     are available.''.
       (c) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--Section 
     3563(b)(10) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting ``or supervised release'' after ``probation''.

     SEC. 113. CLARIFYING THE SCOPE OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP 
                   FOR RESIDENT ALIENS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1332(a) of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking the last sentence and inserting 
     the following: ``The district courts shall not have original 
     jurisdiction under paragraph (2) or (3) where the matter in 
     controversy is between a citizen of a State and a citizen or 
     subject of a foreign state admitted to the United States for 
     permanent residence and domiciled in the same State.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act and 
     apply only to actions filed on or after such date.

     SEC. 114. CLARIFYING THE SCOPE OF DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP 
                   FOR CORPORATIONS WITH FOREIGN CONTACTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1332(c) of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) a corporation shall be deemed a citizen of every 
     State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and 
     of the State or foreign state where it has its principal 
     place of business; and''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act and 
     apply only to actions filed on or after such date.

     SEC. 115. REPORTING OF WIRETAP ORDERS.

       Paragraph (1) of section 2519 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking all that precedes ``(a)'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(1) In January of each year, any judge who has issued an 
     order (or extension thereof) under section 2518 which expired 
     during the preceding year or who has denied approval of an 
     interception during that year, shall report to the 
     Administrative Office of the United States Courts--''.

     SEC. 116. MAGISTRATE JUDGE PARTICIPATION AT CIRCUIT 
                   CONFERENCES.

       Section 333 of title 28, United States Code, is amended in 
     the first sentence by inserting ``magistrate,'' after 
     ``district,''.

     SEC. 117. REPEAL OF OBSOLETE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT CROSS 
                   REFERENCES TO THE NARCOTIC ADDICT 
                   REHABILITATION ACT.

       Section 3161(h) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking subparagraphs (B) and (C); and
       (B) by redesignating subparagraphs (D) through (J) as 
     subparagraphs (B) through (H), respectively;
       (2) by striking paragraph (5); and
       (3) by redesignating paragraphs (6) through (9) as 
     paragraphs (5) through (8), respectively.

     SEC. 118. TAXING OF COURT TECHNOLOGY COSTS.

       Section 1920 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2) by striking ``of the court reporter 
     for all or any part of the stenographic transcript'' and 
     inserting ``for printed or electronically recorded 
     transcripts;''; and
       (2) in paragraph (4) by striking ``copies of papers'' and 
     inserting ``the costs of making copies of any materials where 
     the copies are.''.

     SEC. 119. INVESTMENT OF COURT REGISTRY FUNDS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 129 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 2044 the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 2045. Investment of court registry funds

       ``(a) The Director of the Administrative Office of the 
     United States Courts, or the Director's designee under 
     subsection (b), may request the Secretary of the Treasury to 
     invest funds received under section 2041 in public debt 
     securities with maturities suitable to the needs of the 
     funds, as determined by the Director or the Director's 
     designee, and bearing interest at a rate determined by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, taking into consideration current 
     market yields on outstanding marketable obligations of the 
     United States of comparable maturity.
       ``(b) The Director may designate the clerk of a court 
     described in section 610 to exercise the authority conferred 
     by subsection (a).''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 129 of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding after the item relating to section 2044 the 
     following:

``2045. Investment of court registry funds.''.

     SEC. 120. EMERGENCY AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT COURT PROCEEDINGS 
                   OUTSIDE THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE 
                   COURT.

       (a) Circuit Courts.--Section 48 of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Each court of appeals may hold special sessions at 
     any place outside the circuit as the nature of the business 
     may require and upon such notice as the court orders, upon a 
     finding by either the chief judge of the court of appeals 
     (or, if the chief judge is unavailable, the most senior 
     available active judge of the court of appeals) or the 
     judicial council of the circuit that, because of emergency 
     conditions, no location within the circuit is reasonably 
     available where such special sessions could he held. The 
     court may transact any business at a special session outside 
     the circuit which it might transact at a regular session.''.
       (b) District Courts.--Section 141 of title 28, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``special sessions''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Special sessions of the district court may be held at 
     such places outside the district as the nature of the 
     business may require and upon such notice as the court 
     orders, upon a finding by either the chief judge of the 
     district court (or, if the chief judge is unavailable, the 
     most senior available active judge of the district court) or 
     the judicial council of the circuit that, because of 
     emergency conditions, no location within the district is 
     reasonably available where such special sessions could be 
     held. Any business may be transacted at a special session 
     outside the district which might be transacted at a regular 
     session. The district court may summon jurors from within the 
     district to serve in any case in which special sessions are 
     conducted outside the district under this section.''.
       (c) Bankruptcy Courts.--Section 152(c) of title 28, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(c)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Bankruptcy judges may hold court at such places 
     outside the judicial district as the nature of the business 
     of the court may require, and upon such notice as the court 
     orders, upon a finding by either the chief judge of the 
     bankruptcy court (or, if the chief judge is unavailable, the 
     most senior available bankruptcy judge) or by the judicial 
     council of the circuit that, because of emergency conditions, 
     no location within the district is reasonably available where 
     the bankruptcy judges could hold court. Bankruptcy judges may 
     transact any business at special sessions of court held 
     outside the district that might be transacted at a regular 
     session.''.
       (d) United States Magistrate Judges.--Section 636 of title 
     28, United States Code, is amended in subsection (a) by 
     striking ``territorial jurisdiction prescribed by his 
     appointment'' and inserting ``district in which sessions are 
     held by the court that appointed the magistrate judge, at 
     other places where that court may function, and elsewhere as 
     authorized by law''.

     SEC. 121. RESTRICTION OF PUBLIC ACCESS TO CERTAIN INFORMATION 
                   CONTAINED IN BANKRUPTCY CASE FILES.

       Section 107 of title 11, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) On request of a party in interest, the bankruptcy 
     court shall, and on the bankruptcy court's own motion, the 
     bankruptcy court may, protect an entity with respect to a 
     trade secret or confidential research, development, or 
     commercial information.
       ``(c) The bankruptcy court for cause may protect a person 
     with respect to the following contained in a paper filed, or 
     to be filed, in a case under this title:
       ``(1) Any `means of identification' as defined under 
     section 1028(d)(4) of title 18.
       ``(2) Information that could cause undue annoyance, 
     embarrassment, oppression, or risk of injury to person or 
     property.''.

[[Page S5083]]

     SEC. 122. SECURITY OF SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNT NUMBER OF 
                   DEBTOR IN NOTICE DEBTOR PROVIDES TO CREDITOR.

       Section 342(c) of title 11, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting ``last 4 digits of the'' before ``taxpayer 
     identification number''.

 TITLE II--JUDICIAL PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION, BENEFITS, AND PROTECTIONS

     SEC. 201. DISABILITY RETIREMENT AND COST-OF-LIVING 
                   ADJUSTMENTS OF ANNUITIES FOR TERRITORIAL 
                   JUDGES.

       Section 373 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c) by striking paragraph (4) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(4) Any senior judge performing judicial duties pursuant 
     to recall under paragraph (2) of this subsection shall be 
     paid, while performing such duties, the same compensation (in 
     lieu of the annuity payable under this section) and the same 
     allowances for travel and other expenses as a judge on active 
     duty with the court being served.'';
       (2) by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
       ``(e)(1) Any judge of the District Court of Guam, the 
     District Court of the Northern Mariana Islands, or the 
     District Court of the Virgin Islands who is not reappointed 
     (as judge of such court) shall be entitled, upon attaining 
     the age of 65 years or upon relinquishing office if the judge 
     is then beyond the age of 65 years--
       ``(A) if the judicial service of such judge, continuous or 
     otherwise, aggregates 15 years or more, to receive during the 
     remainder of such judge's life an annuity equal to the salary 
     received when the judge left office; or
       ``(B) if such judicial service, continuous or otherwise, 
     aggregated less than 15 years, to receive during the 
     remainder of such judge's life an annuity equal to that 
     proportion of such salary which the aggregate number of such 
     judge's years of service bears to 15.
       ``(2) Any judge of the District Court of Guam, the District 
     Court of the Northern Mariana Islands, or the District Court 
     of the Virgin Islands who has served at least 5 years, 
     continuously or otherwise, and who retires or is removed upon 
     the sole ground of mental or physical disability, shall be 
     entitled to receive during the remainder of such judge's life 
     an annuity equal to 40 percent of the salary received when 
     the judge left office or, in the case of a judge who has 
     served at least 10 years, continuously or otherwise, an 
     annuity equal to that proportion of such salary which the 
     aggregate number of such judge's years of judicial service 
     bears to 15.''; and
       (3) by striking subsection (g) and inserting the following:
       ``(g) Any retired judge who is entitled to receive an 
     annuity under this section shall be entitled to a cost-of-
     living adjustment in the amount computed as specified in 
     section 8340(b) of title 5, except that in no case may the 
     annuity payable to such retired judge, as increased under 
     this subsection, exceed the salary of a judge in regular 
     active service with the court on which the retired judge 
     served before retiring.''.

     SEC. 202. FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER PERSONNEL MATTERS.

       Section 625 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``, United States Code, governing'' and 
     inserting ``governing'';
       (B) by striking ``pay rates, section 5316, title 5, United 
     States Code'' and inserting ``under section 5316 of title 5, 
     except that the Director may fix the compensation of 4 
     positions of the Center at a level not to exceed the annual 
     rate of pay in effect for level IV of the Executive Schedule 
     under section 5315 of title 5''; and
       (C) by striking ``the Civil Service'' and all that follows 
     through ``Code'' and inserting ``subchapter III of chapter 83 
     of title 5 shall be adjusted under section 8344 of such 
     title, and the salary of a reemployed annuitant under chapter 
     84 of title 5 shall be adjusted under section 8468 of such 
     title'';
       (2) in subsection (c), by striking ``, United States 
     Code,''; and
       (3) in subsection (d)--
       (A) by striking ``United States Code,''; and
       (B) by striking ``, section 5332, title 5, United States 
     Code'' and inserting ``under section 5332 of title 5''.

     SEC. 203. ANNUAL LEAVE LIMIT FOR JUDICIAL BRANCH EXECUTIVES.

       Section 6304(f)(1) of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``or'';
       (2) in subparagraph (E) by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(F) the judicial branch designated as a court unit 
     executive position by the Judicial Conference of the United 
     States or designated as an executive position in the Federal 
     Judicial Center by the Board of the Federal Judicial 
     Center.''.

     SEC. 204. SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFITS PROGRAM.

       Section 604(a) of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (6) through (24) as 
     paragraphs (7) through (25), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following:
       ``(6) In the Director's discretion, establish a program of 
     benefits, in addition to those otherwise provided by law, for 
     officers and employees of the judicial branch, including 
     justices and judges of the United States;''.

     SEC. 205. STUDENT LOAN FORGIVENESS FOR FEDERAL DEFENDERS.

       Section 465(a)(2)(F) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 1087ee(a)(2)(F)) is amended by inserting before 
     the semicolon the following: ``, or as a full-time Federal 
     defender attorney employed in a defender organization 
     established under 3006A(g) of title 18, United States Code''.

     SEC. 206. LAW CLERK LOAN DEFERMENT.

       (a) Federal Stafford Loans.--
       (1) Amendments to section 427.--Section 427(a) of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1077(a)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (3)(B), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (B) in paragraph (4), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; and''; and
       (C) by inserting at the end the following:
       ``(5) in the case of a borrower who is serving as a full-
     time judicial law clerk in a court as defined under section 
     610 of title 28, United States Code, or appointed under 
     section 675 of that title, payment of the unpaid principal 
     balance and interest on a federally insured student loan may 
     be deferred not in excess of 3 years.''.
       (2) Amendments to section 428.--Section 428(b)(1)(M) of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1078(b)(1)(M)) is 
     amended--
       (A) in clause (i)(I), by striking ``or'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (B) in subclause (II), by striking the comma and inserting 
     ``; or''; and
       (C) by inserting at the end the following:

       ``(III) is serving as a full-time judicial law clerk in a 
     court as defined under section 610 of title 28, United States 
     Code, or a law clerk appointed under section 675 of that 
     title.''.

       (b) Direct Loans.--Section 455(f)(2)(A) of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087e(f)(2)(A)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (i), by striking ``or'' after the semicolon;
       (2) in clause (ii), by striking the comma and inserting ``; 
     or''; and
       (3) by inserting at the end the following:
       ``(iii) is serving as a full-time judicial law clerk, in a 
     court as defined under section 610 of title 28, United States 
     Code, or a law clerk appointed under section 675 of that 
     title,''.
       (c) Federal Perkins Loans.--Section 464(c)(2)(A) of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087dd(c)(2)(A)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in clause (iii), by striking ``or'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in clause (iv), by inserting ``or'' after the 
     semicolon; and
       (3) by inserting at the end the following:
       ``(v) not in excess of 3 years during which the borrower is 
     serving as a full-time judicial law clerk in a court as 
     defined under section 610 of title 28, United States Code, or 
     a law clerk appointed under section 675 of that title;''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to--
       (1) loans made after July 1, 1998; and
       (2) employment as a judicial clerk that occurs on or after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 207. INCLUSION OF JUDICIAL BRANCH PERSONNEL IN ORGAN 
                   DONOR LEAVE PROGRAM.

       Section 6327(a) of title 5, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting ``or an entity of the judicial branch'' after 
     ``An employee in or under an Executive agency''.

     SEC. 208. TRANSPORTATION AND SUBSISTENCE FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE 
                   ACT DEFENDANTS.

       Section 4285 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by striking ``to appear before 
     the required court'';
       (2) by striking ``to the place where his appearance is 
     required,'' and inserting ``(1) to the place where each 
     appearance is required and (2) to return to the place of his 
     arrest or bona fide residence,'';
       (3) by inserting ``during travel'' after ``subsistence 
     expenses''; and
       (4) by striking ``to his destination,'' and inserting ``to 
     his destination and during any proceeding at which his 
     appearance is required,''.

     SEC. 209. MAXIMUM AMOUNTS OF COMPENSATION FOR ATTORNEYS.

       Section 3006A(d)(2) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``5,200'' and inserting ``7,000'';
       (2) by striking ``1,500'' and inserting ``2,000'';
       (3) by striking ``3,700'' and inserting ``5,000'';
       (4) by striking ``1,200'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``1,500''; and
       (5) by striking ``3,900'' and inserting ``5,000''.

     SEC. 210. MAXIMUM AMOUNTS OF COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES OTHER 
                   THAN COUNSEL.

       Section 3006A(e) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``$300'' and inserting 
     ``$500''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``$300'' and inserting 
     ``$500''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3) in the first sentence by striking 
     ``$1,000'' and inserting ``$1,600''.

     SEC. 211. EXCESS COMPENSATION DELEGATION AUTHORITY.

       (a) Waiving Maximum Amounts.--Section 3006A(d)(3) of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended in the second sentence by 
     striking ``circuit judge'' and inserting ``or senior circuit 
     judge, or to an appropriate nonjudicial officer qualified by 
     training and legal experience. In any case in which the 
     delegate judge or nonjudicial officer reduces the excess 
     payment certified by the court, the claimant may seek review 
     by the chief judge''.

[[Page S5084]]

       (b) Maximum Amounts.--Section 3006A(e)(3) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended in the second sentence by 
     striking ``circuit judge'' and inserting ``or senior circuit 
     judge, or to an appropriate nonjudicial officer qualified by 
     training and legal experience. In any case in which the 
     delegate judge or nonjudicial officer reduces the excess 
     payment certified by the court, the claimant may seek review 
     by the chief judge''.
       (c) Controlled Substances Cases.--Section 408(q)(10)(B) of 
     the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 848(q)(10)(B)) is 
     amended in the second sentence by striking ``circuit judge'' 
     and inserting ``or senior circuit judge, or to an appropriate 
     nonjudicial officer qualified by training and legal 
     experience. In any case in which the delegate judge or 
     nonjudicial officer reduces the excess payment certified by 
     the court, the claimant may seek review by the chief judge''.

     SEC. 212. PROTECTION AGAINST MALICIOUS RECORDING OF 
                   FICTITIOUS LIENS AGAINST FEDERAL JUDGES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 73 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 1521. Retaliating against a Federal judge by false 
       claim or slander of title

       ``(a) Whoever files or attempts to file, in any public 
     record or in any private record which is generally available 
     to the public, any lien or encumbrance against the real or 
     personal property of a Federal judge, knowing or having 
     reason to know that such lien or encumbrance is false or 
     contains any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent 
     statement or representation, shall be fined under this title 
     or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both. In the case 
     of an offense under this subsection which was committed after 
     the defendant had previously been convicted of an earlier 
     offense under this subsection, the defendant shall be fined 
     under this title or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or 
     both.
       ``(b) In this section, the term `Federal judge' means a 
     justice or judge of the United States as defined under 
     section 451 of title 28, a judge of the United States Court 
     of Federal Claims, a United States bankruptcy judge, a United 
     States magistrate judge, and a judge of the United States 
     Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, United States Court of 
     Appeals for Veterans Claims, United States Tax Court, 
     District Court of Guam, District Court of the Northern 
     Mariana Islands, or District Court of the Virgin Islands.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 73 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``1521. Retaliating against a Federal judge by false claim or slander 
              of title.''.

     SEC. 213. APPOINTING AUTHORITY FOR CIRCUIT LIBRARIANS.

       Section 713 of title 28, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``Each court of appeals'' and inserting 
     ``The judicial council of each circuit''; and
       (B) striking ``the court'' and inserting ``the judicial 
     council''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``court'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``judicial council''.

     SEC. 214. JUDICIAL BRANCH SECURITY REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 604(a) of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (22) through (24) as 
     paragraphs (23) through (25), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (21) the following:
       ``(22) After consultation with the United States Marshals 
     Service, and others if necessary, determine the security 
     requirements for the Judicial Branch;''.

     SEC. 215. BANKRUPTCY, MAGISTRATE, AND TERRITORIAL JUDGES LIFE 
                   INSURANCE.

       (a) Bankruptcy Judges.--Section 153 of title 28, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) For purposes of construing and applying chapter 87 of 
     title 5, including any adjustment of insurance rates by 
     regulation or otherwise, a bankruptcy judge of the United 
     States in regular active service or who is retired under 
     section 377 of this title shall be deemed to be a judge of 
     the United States described under section 8701(a)(5) of title 
     5.''.
       (b) United States Magistrate Judges.--Section 634(c) of 
     title 28, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(c)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) For purposes of construing and applying chapter 87 of 
     title 5, including any adjustment of insurance rates by 
     regulation or otherwise, a magistrate judge of the United 
     States in regular active service or who is retired under 
     section 377 of this title shall be deemed to be a judge of 
     the United States described under section 8701(a)(5) of title 
     5.''.
       (c) Territorial Judges.--
       (1) Guam.--Section 24 of the Organic Act of Guam (48 U.S.C. 
     1424b) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) For purposes of construing and applying chapter 87 of 
     title 5, including any adjustment of insurance rates by 
     regulation or otherwise, a judge appointed under this section 
     who is in regular active service or who is retired under 
     section 373 of this title shall be deemed to be a judge of 
     the United States described under section 8701(a)(5) of title 
     5.''.
       (2) Commonwealth of the northern mariana islands.--The 
     first section of the Act of November 8, 1977 (48 U.S.C. 1821; 
     Public Law 95-157; 91 Stat. 1265) is amended in subsection 
     (b) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) For purposes of construing and applying chapter 87 of 
     title 5, including any adjustment of insurance rates by 
     regulation or otherwise, a judge appointed under this section 
     who is in regular active service or who is retired under 
     section 373 of this title shall be deemed to be a judge of 
     the United States described under section 8701(a)(5) of title 
     5.''.
       (3) Virgin islands.--Section 24(a) of the Revised Organic 
     Act of the Virgin Islands (48 U.S.C. 1614(a)) is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(a)''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) For purposes of construing and applying chapter 87 of 
     title 5, including any adjustment of insurance rates by 
     regulation or otherwise, a judge appointed under this section 
     who is in regular active service or who is retired under 
     section 373 of this title shall be deemed to be a judge of 
     the United States described under section 8701(a)(5) of title 
     5.''.

     SEC. 216. HEALTH INSURANCE FOR SURVIVING FAMILY AND SPOUSES 
                   OF JUDGES.

       Section 8901(3) of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (D), by adding ``and'' at the end; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) a member of a family who is a survivor of--
       ``(i) a Justice or judge of the United States, as defined 
     under section 451 of title 28, United States Code;
       ``(ii) a judge of the District Court of Guam, the District 
     Court of the Northern Mariana Islands, or the District Court 
     of the Virgin Islands;
       ``(iii) a judge of the United States Court of Federal 
     Claims; or
       ``(iv) a United States bankruptcy judge or a full-time 
     United States magistrate judge;''.
                                  ____


                     Federal Courts Improvement Act

                             108th Congress

                       Section-by-Section Analysis


                 TITLE I--JUDICIAL PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS

  Sec. 101. Authority of Bankruptcy Administrators To Appoint Trustees 
 and to Serve as Trustees in Bankruptcy Cases in the States of Alabama 
                          and North Carolina.

        This section provides that the bankruptcy administrators 
     in Alabama and North Carolina shall have the same authority 
     as that exercised by United States trustees in all other 
     states. The bankruptcy administrator program was established 
     in the judicial districts in Alabama and North Carolina 
     pursuant to section 302(d)(3) of the Bankruptcy Judges, 
     United States Trustees, and Family Farmer Bankruptcy Act of 
     1986. Expanding the duties of bankruptcy administrators would 
     further one of the central goals of the Bankruptcy Reform Act 
     of 1978, Public Law No. 95-598: freeing bankruptcy judges 
     from an administrative role in their cases. This will improve 
     the efficiency and effectiveness of the bankruptcy 
     administrators to facilitate the work of the court to the 
     same degree that United States trustees have done so in the 
     other 48 states.

                  Sec. 102. Venue in Bankruptcy Cases.

        This provision amends section 1412 of title 28, United 
     States Code, to clarify that a district court or a bankruptcy 
     court exercising original jurisdiction under section 157 of 
     title 28, United States Code, may raise an issue of venue sua 
     sponte.
        Section 1412, at present, neither explicitly allows nor 
     explicitly prohibits a district court or bankruptcy court 
     from raising an issue of venue sua sponte. Federal Rule of 
     Bankruptcy Procedure 1014 implements the venue statute. The 
     Rule only contains the phrase ``on timely motion by a party 
     in interest.'' The incongruence between the statute and Rule 
     has caused confusion. Currently, courts in the same districts 
     raise the issue of venue sua sponte, while others do not.
        While multiple fora may be permissive locations for filing 
     a bankruptcy case, it is important that courts have the 
     authority to meet the policy goals of preventing forum 
     shopping and promoting an economic, efficient, and effective 
     administration of that case. The Judicial Conference believes 
     that amending the statute to clarify that the courts have the 
     power to raise this issue sua sonte furthers those goals and, 
     promotes the uniform application of the law. For example, if 
     a debtor company, with its primary business and the vast 
     majority of its creditors and employees in a particular 
     state, has its bankruptcy petition filed in another, 
     geographically removed state, the resulting bankruptcy 
     proceeding could impose significant burdens upon the parties 
     in interest, and may not result in the most efficient or 
     effective administration of the bankruptcy. With the 
     enactment of this section, the court, on its own motion or on 
     a timely motion of a party in interest, may transfer a 
     bankruptcy case or proceeding to a district court for another 
     district in the interest of justice or for the convenience of 
     the parties.

  Sec. 103. Place of Holding Court in Texarkana, Texas and Texarkana, 
                               Arkansas.

        This section amends sections 83(b)(1) and 124(c)(5) of 
     title 28, United States Code, to provide that the Western 
     District of Arkansas and the Eastern District of Texas may 
     hold court anywhere within the Federal courthouse in 
     Texarkana that is located astride the State line between 
     Texas and Arkansas. Two courtrooms in the Texarkana 
     courthouse are in one state and two are in the other. As the 
     caseload in Texarkana has

[[Page S5085]]

     increased in recent years (especially the criminal dockets), 
     the courts have demonstrated a desire to use the court rooms 
     interchangeably to move their dockets more efficiently. 
     Currently, Texas-originated cases must be tried in Texas and 
     Arkansas-originated cases in Arkansas. This amendment is a 
     further refinement of the efficiency move to build one 
     courthouse for judicial districts in different states.

  Sec. 104. Change in Composition of Divisions of Western District of 
                                 Texas.

        This section would amend the jurisdiction of two divisions 
     of the Western District of Texas by removing Hudspeth County 
     from the Pecos Division and including it in the El Paso 
     Division. The change is sought because increased law 
     enforcement activities in the District's border counties 
     continue to result in increased criminal filings. Three major 
     border checkpoints are located in Hudspeth County, which is 
     directly adjacent to the El Paso District. These checkpoints 
     are closer to El Paso then they are to Pecos (by 
     approximately 135, 105, and 50 miles respectively), and most 
     of the law enforcement agents responsible for these 
     checkpoints live in El Paso. In addition, although the 
     prosecution of these cases occurs in Pecos, counsel usually 
     travels from El Paso. Moreover, El Paso is better equipped to 
     handle the burgeoning workload, as it is where two new 
     judgeships will be filled. Thus, this section would benefit 
     defendants, counsel, and law enforcement agencies, reduce 
     travel costs, and increase the cost effectiveness of 
     administering justice in the district. The United States 
     Attorney for the Western District of Texas supports the 
     proposal.

  Sec. 105. Change in Composition of Divisions of Western District of 
                               Tennessee.

        This section amends Section 123(c) of title 28, United 
     States Code, to move Dyer County from the Western Division of 
     the Western District of Tennessee to the Eastern Division. 
     The section further provides that court for the Eastern 
     Division shall be held at Dyersburg and Jackson. Currently, 
     court for the Eastern Division is held only at Jackson. 
     Dyersburg is removed as a place of holding court for the 
     Western Division.
       Dyersburg, the largest city in Dyer County, is 
     approximately 75 miles from Memphis, the location of the 
     Western Division court. However, Dyersburg is only 47 miles 
     from Jackson, the location of the Eastern Division court. A 
     drive from Dyersburg to Memphis takes approximately two hours 
     but a drive from Dyersburg to Jackson requires less than one 
     hour. In addition, there is a new four-lane highway between 
     Dyersburg and Jackson which results in a very easy drive. The 
     judges of this court are in agreement that this transfer 
     would result in a convenience to litigants, lawyers, and 
     jurors from Dyer County. Even more importantly, the court 
     would realize a significant savings resulting from reduced 
     juror mileage fees. The Dyer County Bar Association surveyed 
     its membership concerning the proposed transfer of Dyer 
     County. According to the president of the Dyer County Bar 
     Association at that time, there was near unanimous support 
     for the proposal.

 Sec. 106. Place of Holding Court in the Northern District of New York.

       This section would designate Plattsburgh as a federal place 
     of holding court in the Northern District of New York. The 
     need to designate Plattsburgh as a place of holding court has 
     been necessitated by the effort to increase security near our 
     national borders in the wake of the attacks of September 
     2001. The Department of Justice and the U.S. Customs Service 
     are implementing significant increases in manpower and 
     federal law enforcement capability along the Canadian border 
     in the Northern District of New York. The additional manpower 
     and equipment resources are expected to dramatically increase 
     the number of proceedings that will be heard at the 
     Plattsburgh location.
       Currently, there is a part-time federal magistrate judge in 
     Plattsburgh who holds criminal proceedings at his law office. 
     There are no dedicated federal facilities available for the 
     judge to use. The law office has virtually no security nor 
     sufficient space to properly accommodate the members of the 
     press or public (or even the defendant's own family). 
     Arrestees, the majority of who are charged with trafficking 
     in narcotics between Canada and the United States, must be 
     processed under these circumstances. With a significant 
     influx of cases, this situation will not continue to be 
     manageable.
       A designated court location in Plattsburgh would greatly 
     facilitate the prosecution of the additional cases generated 
     at the northern ports of entry in New York State. The 
     Plattsburgh court location would minimize the transportation 
     of detained defendants to the Albany court location. It would 
     actually shorten detention time and enable the Immigration 
     and Naturalization Service to obtain more prompt dispositions 
     in the administrative removal proceedings that follow federal 
     prosecutions. A Plattsburgh location would also enable 
     detention of defendants locally, a critical advantage as 
     detention space in Albany is severely limited.
       Designation of Plattsburgh as a place of holding court 
     would allow acquisition of space for a criminal proceedings 
     courtroom of approximately 800 square feet at the Federal 
     Building in Plattsburgh. In addition to providing adequate 
     space for courtroom proceedings, the designation will enable 
     the Northern District to create a new jury division 
     consisting of the counties of Essex, Clinton, and Franklin, 
     thereby enabling jurors from these areas to serve in nearby 
     Plattsburgh, rather than drive three to four hours to Albany 
     or Watertown. Also, the bankruptcy court would be able to 
     make use of the new courtroom, which would make an enormous 
     difference in those cases involving litigants from the North 
     County.

                         Sec. 107. Juror Fees.

       This section would amend 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1871(b)(1) by 
     increasing the daily fee to which a juror is entitled from 
     $40 to $50. The change would compensate jurors more 
     adequately for their services. Although the cost of living 
     has continued to increase each year, the daily rate for 
     jurors has not increased in twelve years. Previous increases 
     occurred in 1990 (from $30 to $40), 1978 (from $20 to $30), 
     and 1968 (from $10 to $20).
       The Jury Selection and Service Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1861, et 
     seq. (Jury Act), specifically prohibits exclusion of any 
     citizen from jury service on the basis of economic status, 
     and its legislative history reflects support for fee 
     increases that would make jury service less burdensome. 
     Congress recognized that, to the extent that the burden of 
     jury service is diminished, financial hardship excuses could 
     decline, with consequent enhancement of representative 
     participation of juries. Therefore, while the juror 
     attendance fee has never been intended to support or replace 
     salaries, it is intended to provide a minimal level of 
     compensation for jurors' time and effort in fulfilling their 
     civic responsibility.
       The projected additional cost for FY 2004 for a $50 daily 
     attendance fee would be approximately $8.1 million. Therefore 
     enactment of this legislation would require a commensurate 
     increase in the fees of jurors appropriations account.

   Sec. 108. Supplemental Attendance Fee for Petit Jurors Serving on 
                            Lengthy Trials.

       This section amends 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1871(b)(2) by shortening 
     the number of days that a juror is required to serve before 
     he or she is eligible for the supplemental daily fee 
     authorized by the section. Currently, a juror who is required 
     to serve more than thirty days is permitted to receive an 
     additional ten dollars a day, above the established juror fee 
     of forty dollars. The economic hardship associated with jury 
     service worsens the longer jurors are required to serve, 
     especially if service continued for more than a week. This 
     section recognizes the fact by reducing to five days the time 
     before jurors could qualify for the supplemental fee.
       The projected additional cost for FY 2004 for the 
     supplemental daily fee authorized by this section would be 
     approximately $2 million. Therefore enactment of this 
     legislation would require a commensurate increase in the fees 
     of jurors appropriations account.

      Sec. 109. Authority of District Courts as to a Jury Summons.

       This section would amend 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1866(g) to clarify 
     that a court may, but is not required to, follow up on 
     individuals who do not respond to the jury selection process.
       Under the traditional ``two-step'' jury selection process, 
     qualification questionnaires and summonses are mailed to 
     prospective jurors separately. For those who do not respond 
     to the questionnaires, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1864(a) provides that 
     they ``may'' be called into court to fill out the form. For 
     those who fail to respond to a summons, however, section 28 
     U.S.C. Sec. 1866(g) provides that they ``shall'' be ordered 
     into court to show cause for their non-compliance.
       Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1878, however, 22 districts have 
     combined these two steps into a ``one-step'' jury selection 
     process, whereby questionnaires and summonses are sent out 
     simultaneously. Section 1878(b) expressly provides that ``no 
     challenge . . . shall lie solely on the basis that a jury was 
     selected in accordance with a one-step summoning and 
     qualification procedure.'' Nonetheless, as long as section 
     1866(g) contains the word ``shall,'' challenges that a jury 
     was unlawfully empanelled can be expected to continue. See 
     United States vs. Cisneros, No 97-CR-485 (D.D.C.); United 
     States vs. Hsia, No. 98-CR-57 (D.D.C.). This section will 
     allow a court to take appropriate action against those who do 
     not respond to a jury summons. The section leaves the 
     decision of how to handle non-responders to the discretion of 
     each court, guided by its own circumstances and experiences. 
     The section also makes the provision gender-neutral.

 Sec. 110. Automatic Excuse Upon Request From Jury Service for Members 
  of the Armed Services, Members of Fire and Police Departments, and 
                            Public Officers.

       This section repeals the exemption from jury service now 
     granted to members of the Armed Forces, members of fire and 
     police departments, and pubic officials under 28 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 1863(b)(6) and grants to these persons an automatic 
     excuse from jury service upon individual request. The current 
     statute prohibits individuals in these broad categories of 
     occupations to serve on a jury even if they wish to do so. 
     Barring these individuals from jury duty is unjustified. This 
     provision extends to these persons an automatic excuse from 
     jury by amending 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1863(b)(5)(B) to allow them 
     the opportunity to serve on jury if they choose to do so. If 
     they choose not to serve, they are automatically excused.

  Sec. 111. Elimination of the Public Drawing Requirements for Juror 
                                Wheels.

       This section eliminates the noticing and public drawing 
     requirements for selecting names from jury wheels. The Jury 
     Act at 28 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1864(a) and 1866(a) currently 
     states that the clerk shall ``publicly draw at random,'' from 
     the names of persons required

[[Page S5086]]

     for jury service. ``Publicly draw'' is defined in 28 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 1869(k) as a ``drawing which is conducted . . . after 
     reasonable public notice and which is open to the public.'' 
     Because computers have replaced the physical drawing of 
     names, and because the public has little or no interest in 
     attending a jury drawing, this section would eliminate the 
     requirement to post a separate notice for each drawing from 
     the master and qualified wheels, as well as the requirement 
     to draw names publicly and/or to post public notices. 
     Instead, one general notice will be posted in the clerk's 
     office that explains the process by which names are randomly 
     and periodically drawn from the wheels.
       The Jury System Improvements Act of 1978, Public Law No. 
     95-572, authorized the Judicial Conference to adopt 
     regulations governing the drawing of juror names from the 
     jury wheels when a drawing is made by electronic data 
     processing. Accordingly, the Conference has adopted 
     regulations that take into account the changes in jury 
     selection resulting from technological advances. The 
     Conference regulations narrowed the meaning of ``public 
     drawing`` to apply only to the selection of the starting 
     number and interval (quotient) during the process of 
     selecting juror names from the original source lists. The 
     Conference did not require any public observance of the 
     actual computer operations, interpreting the term 
     ``reasonably public notice'' to mean the posting of a written 
     announcement of the drawing from the master and qualified 
     wheels on a bulletin board or another public place at the 
     courthouse.
       With advanced computer technology, more courts are moving 
     to a purely randomized method for selecting juries. Indeed, 
     the Administrative Office's new Jury Management System for 
     the courts will perform the selection of names form the 
     master and qualified jury wheels by a purely randomized 
     process approved by the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology.

       Sec. 112. Conditions of Probation and Supervised Release.

       As part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty 
     Act of 1996 (Pub. L. No. 104-132), Congress amended title 18, 
     inter alia, by renumbering and amending the discretionary 
     conditions of probation listed in section 3563(b), but failed 
     to conform section 3563(a) (containing the mandatory 
     conditions of probation) to that amendment. Therefore, the 
     references in section 3563(a) to section 33563(b) are now 
     erroneous. The amendment in subsection (a) of this provision 
     corrects this technical error, thereby restoring 
     congressional intent.
       Subsection (b) corrects the same oversight as to 18 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 3583(d), which delineates the conditions of supervised 
     release, as is corrected in subsection (a). When 18 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 3563(b) was amended in 1996, the cross reference found 
     18 U.S.C. Sec. 3583(d) was not conformed to that amendment. 
     The amendment in subsection (b) corrects this technical 
     error.
       Subsection (b) also makes an amendment to the conditions of 
     supervised release. Prior to the 1996 legislation, 
     intermittent confinement available as a condition of 
     probation, but not of supervised release. Experience since 
     1996 has demonstrated that this form of confinement (custody 
     by the Bureau of Prisons during nights, weekends, or other 
     intervals of time) is appropriate in certain circumstances. 
     However, this provision recognizes several appropriate 
     limitations on the use of intermittent confinement in this 
     context. First, its use should be limited, as in the case of 
     probation, to the first year of supervision. Second, it 
     should be ordered only when Bureau of Prisons facilities are 
     available to accommodate the individual in question. Third, 
     it should be available only as a sanction for a supervised 
     release violation as an option for the court that is less 
     severe than revocation of supervised release.
       Subsection (c) amends the section providing for 
     intermittent confinement to clarify that its provisions, 
     including the temporal limitations on its imposition, apply 
     to supervised release as well as to probation.

Sec. 113. Clarifying the Scope of Diversity of Citizenship for Resident 
                                Aliens.

       This section amends the last sentence of section 1332(a) of 
     title 28 to clarify the scope of diversity of citizenship 
     jurisdiction in disputes involving aliens admitted to the 
     United States as permanent residents (``resident aliens''). 
     Congress added this proviso to the section in 1988 (Judicial 
     Improvements and Access to Justice Act, Pub. L. No. 100-702, 
     102 Stat. 4642) to ``deem'' a resident alien as a citizen of 
     the state in which the alien is domiciled, with the specific 
     purpose of denying federal jurisdiction in suits between a 
     citizen of a state and an alien permanently residing in the 
     same state. However, this deeming language has been 
     interpreted as applying to other litigation circumstances 
     involving aliens. For example, under section 1332(a)(2) a 
     non-resident alien has been permitted to sue a United States 
     citizen and a resident alien; the proviso deems the resident 
     alien to be a citizen of the state of his permanent 
     residence. Such application of the proviso has broadened the 
     scope of diversity jurisdiction beyond that contemplated when 
     the statute was enacted.
       Thus, the Judicial Conference of the United States proposes 
     replacing the last sentence in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(a) (the 
     resident alien proviso) with text providing that the district 
     courts shall not have diversity of citizenship jurisdiction 
     under subsections 1332(a)(2)-(3) where the matter in 
     controversy is between a citizen of a state and a citizen or 
     subject of a foreign state admitted to the United States for 
     permanent residence and domiciled in the same state. This 
     section will resolve differing interpretations of the 
     sentence among federal courts.

    Sec. 114. Clarifying the Scope of Diversity of Citizenship for 
                  Corporations With Foreign Contacts.

        Section 1332(a) of title 28, United States Code, grants 
     the district courts original jurisdiction of all civil 
     actions where the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000 and 
     is between citizens of different States or citizens of a 
     State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state. No 
     plaintiff can be from the same State as a defendant for this 
     diversity jurisdiction to be available. Also, diversity 
     jurisdiction does not lie when a citizen or subject of a 
     foreign state (alien) seeks to sue another foreigner in 
     federal court.
       When one of the parties to a civil action is a corporation, 
     section 1332(c) deems that corporation to be a citizen of any 
     Sate in which it has been incorporated ``and of the State 
     where it has its principal place of business.'' The quoted 
     language was added to subsection (c)(1) in 1958 to give 
     essentially dual citizenship to corporations. The intent was 
     to preclude diversity jurisdiction over a dispute between an 
     in-state citizen and a corporation incorporated in that state 
     or primarily doing business in the state. In either 
     situation, neither party faced a threat of bias if the action 
     were to be resolved in state court. For example, today under 
     1332(c), if a corporation incorporated in Delaware has its 
     principal place of business in Florida it is deemed a citizen 
     of both Delaware and Florida. If a Florida citizen or a 
     Delaware citizen sues that corporation, diversity 
     jurisdiction would be defeated because both the plaintiff and 
     defendant would be citizens from the same State (Florida or 
     Delaware).
       Federal courts have struggled with applying this statute 
     when an action involves a U.S. corporation with foreign 
     contacts or foreign corporations that operate in the United 
     States. This difficulty occurs because section 1332(c)(1) 
     makes no reference to a corporation with either of these two 
     types of foreign contacts (country of incorporation or 
     principal place of doing business). Some courts have noted 
     that because the word ``States'' in the subsection begins 
     with a capital ``S,'' it applies only to States of the Union, 
     as well as U.S. territories, the District of Columbia, and 
     Puerto Rico, as defined in section 1332(d). Other courts have 
     concluded that the word ``States'' should mean foreign 
     states, as well as States of the Union, when applying section 
     1332(c)(1).
       The amendment in this section would adopt the majority view 
     of courts interpreting the language by inserting the words 
     ``foreign state'' in two places in section 1332(c)(1) to make 
     it clear that all corporations, foreign and domestic, would 
     be regarded as citizens of both their place of incorporation 
     and their principal place of business. Such an approach 
     builds upon the long-standing recognition that federal 
     diversity and alienage jurisdiction seek to address the 
     problem of perceived bias that results when non-citizens must 
     litigate in a state court against opposing parties who are 
     citizens of that state (or foreign state), either by virtue 
     of its place of incorporation or by virtue of its principal 
     place of business. See C. Wright & M. Kane, The Law of 
     Federal Courts, 170 (6th ed. 2002). In addition to clarifying 
     the application of the statute regarding corporate 
     citizenship, the amendment would bring about a modest 
     reduction in the diversity workload of the federal courts. It 
     would not, however, deprive a corporation of access to a 
     federal forum where there is a threat of local bias in state 
     court. Moreover, the change made by this amendment tracks the 
     definition of corporate citizenship recently codified in the 
     Multiparty, Multiforum Trial Jurisdiction Act of 2002 (Pub. 
     L. No. 107-273).
       The second change in this amendment is to revise the 
     working of section 1332(c)(1) so that a corporation shall be 
     deemed a citizen of ``every State and foreign state by which 
     it has been incorporated,'' instead of ``any State. . . .'' 
     Although corporations can incorporate in more than one state, 
     the practice is rare. In applying the subsection, most courts 
     have treated such multistate corporations as citizens of 
     every state by which they have been incorporated. The 
     amendment would codify the majority view, treating 
     corporations as citizen of every state of incorporation for 
     diversity purposes. See C. Wright & M. Kane, The Law of 
     Federal Courts, 167-68 (6th ed. 2002).

                 Sec. 115. Reporting of Wiretap Orders.

       Currently, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2519(1) requires that federal and 
     state judges submit a report to the Administrative Office no 
     later than 30 days after the expiration of an approved order, 
     or the denial of an order, for a wiretap. Certain judges 
     submit numerous reports to the Administrative Office 
     throughout the year. For example, one state judge in 1999 
     approved 70 wiretap orders, and therefore, was required to 
     submit 70 separate reports. Federal and state prosecutors are 
     required by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2519(2) to submit information 
     relating to wiretap orders they applied for during the 
     preceding calendar year once in January.
       The individual reports submitted by judges are not 
     processed by the Administrative Office until the prosecutors 
     submit their summary reports. The prosecutor's reports are 
     then matched to the judge's reports to complete the set of 
     information published by the Administrative Office in the 
     annual Wiretap Report.

[[Page S5087]]

       The proposed section would permit judges to submit annual 
     summary reports on wiretap orders acted on during the 
     previous calendar year, just as prosecutors do. This would 
     simplify the reporting requirements for the judges and their 
     staffs, without impacting the accuracy or timeliness of the 
     reporting required by the statute.

    Sec. 116. Magistrate Judge Participation at Circuit Conferences.

       This section amends section 333 of title 28 of the United 
     States Code to include magistrate judges among the judicial 
     officers who may by statute be summoned to attend circuit 
     judicial conferences. Magistrate judges conduct a wide 
     variety of pretrial proceedings in criminal and civil cases 
     with consent of the parties. Magistrate judges are regularly 
     invited by chief circuit judges to attend circuit judicial 
     conferences in all circuits. They were not included in 
     section 333 upon its enactment in 1939 because the modern 
     office of magistrate judge was not created until 1968. The 
     amendment updates the statute to reflect the significant 
     contributions of magistrate judges to the federal courts and 
     the value of their attendance at circuit judicial conferences 
     where the business of the courts in each circuit is 
     considered.

 Sec. 117. Repeal of Obsolete Speedy Trial Act Cross References to the 
                  Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act.

       This provision amends 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3161 to remove cross 
     references to the now repealed 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2902. The 
     Children's Health Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-310, Div. B, 
     Sec. 3405(c)(1), 114 Stat. 1221 (Oct. 17, 2000), repealed 
     chapter 175 of title 28, United Sates Code (28 U.S.C. 
     Sec. Sec. 2901-2906), which was entitled, ``Civil Commitment 
     and Rehabilitation of Narcotics Addicts.'' The repeal of 
     chapter 175 of title 28 eliminated long obsolete provisions 
     of title 28 that were enacted as title I of the Narcotic 
     Addict Rehabilitation Act, Pub. L. No. 89-793, 80 Stat. 1438 
     (Nov. 8, 1966) (NARA) which had not been used in decades 
     since it was completely defunded in the late 1970's. See 
     discussion in United States v. Butler, 676 F.Supp. 88 
     (W.D.Pa. 1988).
       There remain, however, three references to 28 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 2902 in the provisions of the Speedy Trial Act, namely, 
     18 U.S.C. Sec. 3161(h)(1)(B), (h)(1)(C), and (h)(5) which 
     should be stricken from this statute.

              Sec. 118. Taxing of Court Technology Costs.

       This section would incorporate some of the expenses 
     associated with new courtroom technologies into the 
     assessment of litigation costs against a losing party as 
     provided by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1920. Currently, Sec. 1920 allows 
     a court to include certain limited costs (such as fees of the 
     clerk, marshal, and court reporter; fees for witnesses; court 
     appointed experts, and interpreters; and fees for docketing, 
     printing and copying of papers necessarily obtained for use 
     in the case) into the final judgment or decree of a case. 
     This amendment would update the section to recognize that 
     transcripts are available in electronic form as well as in 
     hard copy. It would also expand the concept of ``papers'' in 
     order to reflect the decreasing use of paper and the 
     increasing use of technology in creating, filing, and 
     exchanging court documents. It would not, however, permit the 
     taxing of costs associated with the use of technology to 
     create, assist, enhance or present materials during a trial.

             Sec. 119. Investment of Court Registry Funds.

       Registry funds are funds received by the courts in the 
     course of litigation. The United States district and 
     bankruptcy courts presently hold about $1.76 billion in 
     registry funds on behalf of thousands of litigants, witnesses 
     and other participants in court proceedings. These moneys are 
     paid into the federal courts to secure judgments or 
     appearance bonds, to begin interpleader or land condemnation 
     actions, and for other judicial purposes. The funds are held 
     and administered by the clerk of the court pending the 
     resolution of the litigation. The registry funds are 
     deposited in accordance with section 2041 of title 28, United 
     States Code, into interest-bearing accounts, e.g. 
     certificates of deposit, at financial institutions that have 
     qualified as designated depositaries of public moneys in 
     accordance with 31 C.F.R. Part 202. The courts also purchase 
     short-term Treasury bills with registry funds. When the 
     courts purchase these bills on the secondary market, the 
     choice of investment instruments is limited and they must pay 
     transaction fees.
       This section would broaden the courts' investment options 
     and offer an improved procedure for investing in Treasury 
     securities. Under the Treasury's Government Account Series 
     (GAS) program, there are no transaction fees, transactions 
     may be posted daily, and a wider range of Treasury securities 
     is available than the secondary market offers. Also, GAS has 
     full-featured, on-line transaction facilities. Participation 
     in the GAS program would help to reduce the courts' costs in 
     administering registry funds.

Sec. 120. Emergency Authority to Conduct Court Proceedings Outside the 
                 Territorial Jurisdiction of the Court.

       This section would authorize circuit, district and 
     bankruptcy courts, as well as magistrate judges, to conduct 
     special sessions outside their respective geographic 
     boundaries upon a finding by the respective chief judge (or, 
     if unavailable, the most senior active judge who is 
     available) or the judicial council of the circuit, that, 
     because of emergency conditions, no location within these 
     boundaries is reasonably available where such special 
     sessions could be held.
       The need for this legislation has become apparent following 
     the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the impact 
     of these disasters on court operations, in particular in New 
     York City. In emergency conditions, a federal court facility 
     in an adjoining district (or circuit) might be more readily 
     and safely available to court personnel, litigants, jurors 
     and the public than a facility at a place of holding court 
     within the district. This is particularly true in major 
     metropolitan areas such as New York, Washington, D.C., Dallas 
     and Kansas City, where the metropolitan area includes parts 
     of more than one judicial district. The advent of electronic 
     court records systems will facilitate implementation of this 
     authority by providing judges, court staff and attorneys 
     with remote access to case documents.

Sec. 121. Restriction of Public Access To Certain Information Contained 
                       in Bankruptcy Case Files.

       This section would implement Judicial Conference policy 
     regarding protection of certain information contained in 
     bankruptcy case files from public disclosure by means of four 
     revisions to section 107 of the Bankruptcy Code.
       First, the section would transform former subsection (b)(1) 
     regarding protection of trade secret or confidential 
     research, development, or commercial information into a new 
     subsection (b). No substantive change would be made to this 
     provision.
       Second, the section would create a new subsection (c) to 
     allow the court for cause to authorize the redaction of 
     personal identifiers to protect a debtor, creditor, or other 
     person from identity theft or other harm. The amendment 
     incorporates by reference section 3(d) of the Identity Theft 
     and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998 with regard to the 
     types of personal identifiers that may be redacted. These 
     include the debtor's or other person's name, social security 
     account number, date of birth, driver's license number, alien 
     registration number, government passport number, employee or 
     taxpayer identification number, unique biometric data, unique 
     electronic identification number, electronic address or 
     routing code, and telecommunication identifying information 
     or access device. The amendment would also permit the court 
     to exercise its discretion to protect personal identifiers by 
     means other than redaction where appropriate in the 
     circumstances of the case.
       Third, this new subsection (c) would have the effect of 
     striking from the current provision ``scandalous defamatory 
     matter'' as a basis for protection of a person and instead 
     allow the court for cause to seal or redact ``information 
     that could cause undue annoyance, embarrassment, oppression 
     or risk of injury to person or property.'' This language is 
     drawn from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 regarding the 
     issuance of protective orders in the course of discovery. 
     This new provision would expand the authority of the 
     bankruptcy court to allow the court to protect information, 
     such as the home or employment address of a debtor, because 
     of a personal security risk, including fear of injury by a 
     former spouse or stalker. It would also allow the court to 
     protect other information normally considered private, such 
     as medical information which, if publicly disclosed, could 
     result in untoward consequences to the debtor or others.
       Finally, this provision would allow the protection of 
     information under subsection (c) ``contained in a paper 
     filed, or to be filed,'' in a bankruptcy case. This provision 
     is intended to provide persons the opportunity to request 
     protection of the information not only after it is filed with 
     the court, but prior to filings as well. This authority would 
     be especially useful in an electronic filing environment, 
     where information once filed is immediately available to the 
     public.

   Sec. 122. Security of Social Security Account Number of Debtor in 
                  Notice Debtor Provides to Creditor.

       This provision would implement Judicial Conference policy 
     that social security account numbers be protected from public 
     disclosure in court documents.
       Section 342(c) of title 11, United States Code, currently 
     requires a debtor to include his or her taxpayer 
     identification number, which for an individual is almost 
     uniformly his or her social security account number, on any 
     notice the debtor gives to his or her creditors. Debtors are 
     required to give such notice in various contexts, including 
     the filing of adversary proceedings, such as a compliant to 
     determine the dischargeability of a debt, or contested 
     matters, such as a motion to avoid a lien impairing an 
     exemption.
       As a copy of such notice is required to be filed with the 
     court, court files routinely include unredacted social 
     security numbers of debtors. By requiring only the last four 
     digits of a taxpayer identification number to appear on the 
     notice, the debtor's full social security number will no 
     longer appear in the court file and thus be protected from 
     public disclosure.


title ii--judiciary personnel administration, benefits, and protections

   Sec. 201. Disability Retirement and Cost-of-Living Adjustments of 
                   Annuities for Territorial Judges.

       The judges of the district courts of Guam, the Northern 
     Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands are appointed by the 
     President and confirmed by the Senate for ten-year

[[Page S5088]]

     terms. Retirement benefits for territorial judges are set 
     forth in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 373. Under this provision, a 
     territorial judge may retire from office under any of the 
     following three circumstances: (1) after meeting the same 
     ``rule of 80'' age and service requirements applicable to 
     Article III judges; (2) after serving at least 10 years, if 
     removed by the President solely on grounds of mental or 
     physical disability; or (3) at the end of a term, if not 
     reappointed. An annuity equal to the pre-retirement salary, 
     or prorated, in cases of disability or failure of 
     reappointment, for judges with less than 15 years of service, 
     is payable beginning at the time of retirement or upon 
     attaining the age of 65 years, whichever is later. For judges 
     who retire under the ``rule of 80'', the annuity is subject 
     to the same cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) as annuities 
     payable under the Civil Service Retirement System, provided 
     that such adjustments cannot result in a total annuity 
     greater than 95 percent of an Article II judge's salary.
       The retirement arrangements for these four territorial 
     judges compare unfavorably with analogous provisions for 
     bankruptcy judges, magistrate judges, and judges of the Court 
     of Federal Claims (compare 28 U.S.C. Sec. 373 with 28 U.S.C. 
     Sec. Sec. 178 and 377) in that (1) territorial judges cannot 
     retire if removed from office by the President on disability 
     grounds before completing 10 years of service (as compared 
     with five years of other non-Article III judges) and, even 
     then, no annuity is payable until age 65 (no age restriction 
     for other judges) and (2) territorial judges not retired at 
     age 65 or older with combined age and service equal to 
     eighty (``rule of 80'') do not get COLAs and even those 
     retired under the ``rule of 80'' do not get COLAs until 
     salaries of active judges have increased enough to 
     accommodate the 95 percent limitation. There is no 
     rationale for perpetuating these differences between 
     territorial judges and other non-Article III judges.
       In addition, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 373(c)(4) currently appears to 
     permit only those recalled territorial judges who retired on 
     a ``rule of 80'' basis to receive the same compensation, 
     travel, and other expenses as a judge on active duty with the 
     court, in lieu of their annuities.
       Accordingly, subsection (1) of this section makes a 
     technical amendment to section 373(c)(4) that reflects the 
     fact that any territorial judge retiring under 28 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 373 may elect to be a ``senior judge'' eligible for 
     recall service and, therefore, should be eligible to receive 
     the same compensation as an active judge on the court being 
     served.
       Subsection (2) of this section eliminates existing 
     inequities between territorial judges and magistrate judges 
     and bankruptcy judges by permitting territorial judges with 
     five or more years of service to retire on an immediate 
     disability annuity. The annuity would be equal to 40 percent 
     of salary if the judge has less than ten years of service, 
     and is adjusted upward in the proportion that the number of 
     years of service bears to fifteen for service of ten years or 
     more.
       Subsection (3) of this section applies the COLA provision 
     of title 5 to all retired territorial judges, subject only to 
     the limitation that the annuity may not exceed the salary of 
     a judge in regular active service with the court on which the 
     retired judge served before retiring.

          Sec. 202. Federal Judicial Center Personnel Matters.

       This section would restore the historic parity in the 
     salary levels of the Federal Judicial Center's senior staff 
     and that of the Administrative Office of the United States 
     Courts by authorizing the Director of the Center to set the 
     compensation of a limited number of Center professional 
     employees at levels equivalent to Level IV of the Executive 
     Schedule pay rates. The proposed language would limit the 
     Federal Judicial Center to increases in four positions. The 
     section also corrects a misspelling in the original statute.

      Sec. 203. Annual Leave Limit for Judicial Branch Executives.

       The amendment in this section is designed to afford senior 
     executives in the courts and the Federal Judicial Center the 
     same right to leave carryover (720 hours) as employees in 
     comparable positions in the executive branch and in the 
     Administrative Office. It would make applicable to these 
     executives the 720-hour maximum carryover amount of annual 
     leave established for members of the executive branch's 
     Senior Executive Services, in Government Management Reform 
     Act of 1994 (Pub. L. No. 103-356), and for senior executives 
     in the Administrative Office, as a result of the 
     Administrative Office of the United States Courts Personnel 
     Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-474.
       The amendment would affect approximately 400 court unit 
     executives, including circuit executives, clerks of the 
     courts of appeals, district court clerks, district court 
     executives, bankruptcy court clerks, clerk of the Court of 
     International Trade, clerk of the United States Court of 
     Federal Claims, chief probation officers, chief pretrial 
     services officers, senior staff attorneys, chief preargument 
     attorneys, bankruptcy administrators, and circuit librarians. 
     It would also affect five positions in the Federal Judicial 
     Center.

                Sec. 204. Supplemental Benefits Program.

       The purpose of this section is to authorize the judiciary 
     to provide its employees with a benefits package that is more 
     competitive with those already provided throughout the 
     private sector, state governments, colleges and universities, 
     and the banking agencies in the executive branch. The Federal 
     Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and 
     the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation recognized the need 
     to improve benefits and were granted authority by Congress to 
     offer these same enhanced benefits.
       In January 2001 the General Accounting Office issued a 
     report, ``High-Risk Series: An Update'' (GAO-01-263) which 
     describes four key challenges to the federal government as an 
     employer, paramount among them was ``acquiring and developing 
     staffs whose size, skills, and deployment meet agency 
     needs.'' The Judiciary, like the rest of the federal 
     government, must recruit and retain employees with the proper 
     skill mix in a competitive labor market. Over the next five 
     years, the judiciary is at risk to lose 40 percent of its 
     employee population to retirement. Also, the judiciary faces 
     the additional challenges of recruiting staff nationwide, 
     including in competitive labor markets in major urban areas.
       The Judicial Conference of the United States has concluded 
     that a comprehensive benefit program which responds to the 
     current and future needs of the judiciary's workforce is 
     essential to allow the judiciary to compete for the skilled 
     employees that make up that workforce. The need for this 
     authority is urgent. Severe budget constraints will only 
     allow this program to be gradually implemented over a period 
     of years. The personnel management problem it is intended to 
     ameliorate is fast approaching.

       Sec. 205. Student Loan Forgiveness for Federal Defenders.

       This provision amends section 465(a)(2)(F) of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Crime Control Act of 
     1990 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1087ee(a)(2)(F)), to extend the 
     categories of borrowers eligible for loan cancellation to 
     include full-time federal defenders. Under section 
     465(a)(2)(F), a borrower is entitled to cancellation of up to 
     100 percent (phased in over five years of employment in a 
     qualifying agency) of a Perkins Loan made on or after 
     November 15, 1990, for full-time service as a qualifying law 
     enforcement or corrections officer. While the Department of 
     Education has interpreted the Federal Perkins Loan Program 
     regulations to include prosecuting attorneys under the 
     category of law enforcement officer, it has declined to 
     extend the cancellation benefit administratively to public 
     defenders.
       Providing federal defenders with the same eligibility for 
     student loan forgiveness as is held by their counterparts in 
     United States attorney offices would be consonant with the 
     parity established in the Criminal Justice Act between their 
     salaries. See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3006A(g)(2)(A) (the compensation 
     of the Federal Public Defender shall be fixed at a rate not 
     to exceed the compensation received by the United States 
     attorney for that district, and the compensation for 
     attorneys in a Federal Public Defender Organization shall be 
     fixed at a rate not to exceed that paid to attorneys with 
     similar qualifications and experience in the office of the 
     United States attorney for that district). The underlying 
     principle supporting the eligibility of prosecutors for 
     student loan forgiveness--i.e., that the fundamental 
     fairness, integrity, and credibility of the criminal justice 
     system require the recruitment and retention of persons of 
     the highest intellect, capability, character, and commitment 
     to public service--applies with equal force to the men and 
     women who serve as federal defenders. They should qualify for 
     the same benefit.

                  Sec. 206. Law Clerk Loan Deferment.

       Federal judges and Supreme Court Justices depend on the 
     work of their law clerks. For that reason, each judge and 
     Justice attempts to hire young attorneys with, among other 
     qualities, records of high academic achievement. These same 
     individuals have employment opportunities in the private 
     sector which pay far higher salaries than a judge can offer. 
     Because recent law school graduates frequently have 
     significant amounts of student loan debt, judges face 
     increasingly strong competition to secure highly capable law 
     clerks.
       Executive Branch agencies are authorized to pay up to six 
     thousand dollars a year to repay an employee's student loan 
     in certain circumstances. Congress has authorized this 
     program to assist agencies to recruit and retain highly 
     qualified individuals as employees. See 5. U.S.C. Sec. 5379. 
     The proposal in this section is considerably less ambitious. 
     It would only authorize judicial law clerks to defer payment 
     of principal and interest on a federally insured loan during 
     the period they serve as clerks.

 Sec. 207. Inclusion of Judicial Branch Personnel in Organ Donor Leave 
                                Program.

       In 1999, the Organ Donor Leave Act increased the amount of 
     paid leave to serve as an organ donor from seven days to 30 
     days each calendar year. The purpose of the law was to 
     enhance the federal government's leadership role in 
     encouraging organ donations by making it easier for federal 
     employees to become donors. The organ donor statute at 5 
     U.S.C. Sec. 6327(a) currently applies only to executive 
     branch employees. This amendment extends the statute to the 
     judicial branch.

   Sec. 208. Transportation and Subsistence for Criminal Justice Act 
                              Defendants.

       This section would amend 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4285 to give courts 
     the authority to order the

[[Page S5089]]

     United States Marshals Service to furnish transportation and 
     subsistence for defendants returning home from court 
     proceedings, and subsistence while attending such 
     proceedings, including successive court appearances. The 
     statute currently authorizes courts to order the United 
     States Marshals Service to provide a released defendant with 
     noncustodial transportation and subsistence to the court 
     where that individual's appearance is required, when the 
     interests of justice would be served and the client is 
     financially unable to pay transportation costs.
       This proposal would eliminate the present anomaly. While 
     there is authority to bring non-custodial indigent defendants 
     to court, there is no authority to provide the wherewithal to 
     allow them to return to their homes, or obtain food and 
     lodging during court proceedings or on the return trip. This 
     section would provide the presiding judge with discretion to 
     order the payment of reasonable travel and subsistence 
     expenses for a defendant who may need the assistance. A 
     preliminary estimate indicates that the cost of such travel 
     and subsistence would be approximately $600,000 annually. 
     When so ordered, such expenses would be paid by the United 
     States Marshals Service from funds authorized by the Attorney 
     General for such expenses.

        Sec. 209. Maximum Amounts of Compensation for Attorneys.

       The courts are required to pay private attorneys for 
     indigent defendants' representation in criminal cases in 
     situations where Federal Defenders are not available. These 
     attorneys file vouchers for approval by the trial judges to 
     obtain these payments. The Criminal Justice Act in 1986 
     established certain new ``maximums'' or thresholds which, 
     when exceeded, require that the voucher be approved for 
     payment by the chief judge of the circuit in addition to the 
     trial court. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3006A(d)(2)-(3). At that time, 
     the hourly compensation rate was $60 in-court/$40 out-of-
     court which yielded an average of $45.
       The Federal Courts Improvement Act of 2000 raised the case 
     ``maximums'' for compensation for two reasons. In the 
     previous 14 years, the per hour rates had been increased to 
     $75 in-court and $55 out-of-court. Secondly, the 1987 
     adoption of the Sentencing Guidelines significantly increased 
     attorney time per case.
       As of May 1, 2002, the hourly rate for indigent attorney 
     representation was increased to $90 per hour for in-court and 
     out-of-court work. The proposal in this section would realign 
     the case ``maximums'' in light of this increase in hourly 
     rates. The percent of increase tracks the percent of increase 
     in the hourly rate. The goal is to ensure that approximately 
     the same percentage of vouchers are sent on to the court of 
     appeals for approval as were sent on when Congress set the 
     ``maximums'' in 1986 and 2000.
       The purpose of this proposal is to provide prompt as 
     possible payment to the attorneys who volunteer to the court 
     to do representation work. Even at $90 per hour, well more 
     than half of this compensation constitutes reimbursement to 
     an attorney for overhead and operating expenses. It is only 
     fair to these volunteer attorneys to keep the number of 
     vouchers which are delayed by two judge approval to a 
     reasonable portion of the total number. A secondary goals is 
     to relieve administration burdens on court of appeals judges 
     to the maximum extent reasonable.

   Sec. 210. Maximum Amounts of Compensation for Services Other Than 
                                Counsel.

       This section increases the approval thresholds for payment 
     vouchers for services of investigators, experts, and other 
     service providers by approximately the rate of wage inflation 
     since 1986 (63%), the last year the thresholds were 
     increased. It increases from $300 to $500 the amount which 
     could be expended for investigative, expert, and other 
     services without prior judicial approval, and increases from 
     $1,000 to $1,600 the amount which cannot be paid out for such 
     services without the approval of the chief judge of the court 
     of appeals or an active judge of the court of appeals to whom 
     the chief judge has delegated this authority. (18 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 3006A(e).) The cost of professional services has risen 
     since 1986, resulting in a much greater percentage of 
     vouchers being submitted to the chief judges of the courts of 
     appeals for review. This delays payment to service providers 
     and increases the administrative burden of judicial officers.

          Sec. 211. Excess Compensation Delegation Authority.

       This section expands the delegation authority of the chief 
     judge of the court of appeals with respect to approving 
     vouchers in excess of the statutory maximums submitted by 
     panel attorneys and investigative, expert, and other service 
     providers. Chief judges of the circuits currently review and 
     approve vouchers in excess of the statutory maximums after 
     the court before which the services were provided certifies 
     that the excess amount is necessary to provide fair 
     compensation. The proposed amendments would widen the pool 
     (now limited to active circuit judges) of possible 
     individuals to whom the chief judge may delegate such 
     approval authority to include any senior circuit judge or an 
     ``appropriate non-judicial officer qualified by training and 
     legal experience.'' The amendments also provide that a 
     claimant may seek review by the circuit chief judge of a 
     reduction made by any delegate in the amount that had been 
     certified as necessary for fair compensation by the court 
     before which the services were provided. The judiciary 
     believes that the expanded delegation will accomplish the 
     goal of enhanced supervision without compromising judicial 
     responsibility for ensuring fair compensation for panel 
     attorneys and other service providers.
       In 1986, in response to a request from the circuit chief 
     judges, the judiciary proposed and Congress enacted 
     amendments to subsections (d)(3) and (e)(3) of the Criminal 
     Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3006A, to provide that the chief 
     judge of the circuit may delegate the excess compensation 
     approval authority to an active circuit judge. At that time, 
     the chief judges had expressed concern regarding the 
     administrative burden of reviewing excess claim vouchers. 
     Currently, with the large growth in the number of excess 
     compensation claims, the circuit chief judges have indicated 
     that the administration of the compensation system would be 
     further enhanced by expanded delegation authority. By 
     broadening the pool of persons to whom the chief judge may 
     delegate his or her excess compensation approval authority, 
     the chief judge will be better able to designate a person 
     whose background fully equips him or her to decide upon the 
     appropriate amounts of compensation for the services 
     rendered. Moreover, in requiring that any non-judge designee 
     be qualified by training and legal experience, the proposed 
     amendments ensure accountability and effectiveness in voucher 
     review. As a further safeguard for fair compensation, the 
     amendments permit an attorney or other services provider to 
     seek the circuit chief judge's review of a reduction made by 
     the delegate.

 Sec. 212. Protection Against Malicious Recording of Fictitious Liens 
                        Against Federal Judges.

       In recent years, members of the federal judiciary have been 
     victimized by persons seeking to intimidate or harass them by 
     the filing of false liens against the judge's real or 
     personal property. These liens are usually filed in an effort 
     to harass a judge who has presided over a criminal or civil 
     case involving the filer, or who has otherwise acted against 
     the interests or perceived interests of the filer, his 
     family, or his acquaintances. These liens are also filed to 
     harass a judge against whom a civil action has been initiated 
     by the individual who has filed the lien. Often, such liens 
     are placed on the property of judges based on the allegation 
     that the property is at issue in the lawsuit. While the 
     incidences of filing such liens have occurred in all regions 
     of the country, they are most prevalent in Washington and 
     other western states.
       The responsibility to initiate legal action to remove these 
     liens typically falls upon Assistant United States Attorneys 
     (``AUSA''), who represent the judges. The forms of response 
     vary according to the state law and the circumstances. It is 
     sometimes necessary for the AUSA to bring action in state 
     court for the removal of liens. In some circumstances, an 
     action to remove the liens may be brought in federal court, 
     and in others, state court proceedings are commenced and 
     removed to federal court under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 
     Sec. 1452. In some cases, the AUSA may seek an injunction 
     against further filing of liens by the litigant. All of these 
     methods are difficult and time consuming.
       The pendency of these liens prior to their removal has 
     caused some judges great inconvenience and personal financial 
     difficulty. There is no current federal statute under which 
     persons engaging in this tactic may be prosecuted. Thus, a 
     new federal criminal sanction is needed to deter the 
     practice. This proposal would create a new provision in the 
     federal criminal code, punishing any person who files a false 
     lien or encumbrance against the property of any federal 
     Judge. The new statute would provide a maximum sentence on 
     the first offense of up to five years.

         Sec. 213. Appointing Authority for Circuit Librarians.

       This section amends Section 713 of title 28, United States 
     Code, to provide that circuit librarians shall be selected 
     and hired by the circuit council rather than the circuit 
     court of appeals. In recognition of the fact that circuit 
     librarians assist judges and clerks from all courts, 
     including district, bankruptcy and magistrate judges as well 
     as appellate court judges, it is more appropriate for the 
     circuit judicial council to hire the circuit librarian, 
     rather than the appellate court.

            Sec. 214. Judicial Branch Security Requirements.

       This section would enhance the ability of the Judicial 
     Conference to determine the security required for the 
     protection of judges, court employees, law enforcement 
     officers, jurors and other members of the public who are 
     regularly in federal courthouses and other buildings used by 
     the Judicial Branch. The judiciary has the ability to make a 
     determination of its requirements in all other areas of 
     operations. Only in security, perhaps the most critical area, 
     does the judiciary lack the authority to determine basic 
     requirements.
       Currently, the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) and the General 
     Services Administration (GSA) share the responsibility for 
     judiciary security. In recent years, the judiciary has been 
     transferring to the USMS increasing amounts of funding for 
     court security officers and courthouse security equipment 
     from the judiciary court security appropriation. Yet, the 
     Judicial Conference currently lacks sufficient information 
     from

[[Page S5090]]

     the USMS to fully participate in assessing the effectiveness 
     of the security program upon which the judiciary so heavily 
     depends.
       The judiciary seeks to work cooperatively with the USMS in 
     setting security requirements, as required by statute. In 
     order for the judiciary to participate in the determination 
     of security requirements, the judiciary will need information 
     from the USMS including, for example, the current security 
     standards, the allocation of personnel, analyses regarding 
     equipment, and resource needs. This information is necessary 
     to help the judiciary determine weaknesses and potential 
     improvements in its security. It will also help the judiciary 
     to provide support for the USMS budget throughout each 
     funding cycle.
       This section would not alter the responsibility of the USMS 
     for protection of the judiciary in buildings occupied by the 
     courts, pursuant to a memorandum of understanding between the 
     GSA and the USMS, under which authority has been delegated to 
     the USMS for the security of federal courthouses. The USMS 
     would still be responsible for the security of the judges and 
     the court facilities. Examples of security requirements which 
     the judiciary could determine include the need for deputy 
     marshals in certain proceedings and whether electronic 
     devices should be allowed into courthouses.
       With this authority, the judiciary will have a relationship 
     with the USMS that is similar to the one it has with the GSA. 
     The Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 
     has the statutory authority to provide accommodations to the 
     courts, but lacks real property authority. Therefore, the 
     judiciary identifies and defines space requirements for the 
     courts and helps to support the GSA budget request for 
     courthouse construction. The GSA determines how to fulfill 
     the judiciary's space requirements and actually constructs 
     the courthouses. The judiciary seeks this same arrangement 
     with the USMS--a partnership in achieving an end that is 
     agreed to and supported by the judiciary.
       This section provides the Judiciary Conference with the 
     authority to ``determine'' judiciary security needs. That 
     determination is obviously not intended to mean the USMS is 
     required by law to implement what the determination or 
     assessment may be. It also, obviously, does not mean that 
     Congress is under some obligation to fund what the judiciary 
     ``determines'' it needs. However, it is important for the 
     judiciary to have a voice in setting its own security 
     requirements. This provision would give the judiciary that 
     voice.

     Sec. 215. Bankruptcy, Magistrate, and Territorial Judges Life 
                               Insurance.

       Prior to October 1998, Article III judges had the exclusive 
     right to carry full Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance 
     (FEGLI) coverage into retirement, and many judges relied on 
     this coverage in developing their financial and estate plans. 
     In 1998, after Congress enacted legislation expanding this 
     benefit to all federal employees, the Office of Personnel 
     Management proposed rate changes in FEGLI premiums that would 
     significantly increase for judges the cost of maintaining the 
     insurance and, for older judges, make continued coverage 
     prohibitively expensive. To minimize the impact of this 
     regulatory change, Congress enacted legislation, Public Law 
     No. 106-113 (the ``FEGLI fix''), authorizing the Director of 
     the Administrative Office, on direction of the Judicial 
     Conference, to pay the cost of any increase.
       Public Law No: 106-518, the Federal Courts Improvement Act 
     of 2000, included a provision extending the ``FEGLI fix'' to 
     the Court of Federal Claims by providing that a retired 
     Claims Court judge is a ``judge of the United States'' for 
     purposes of Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) 
     coverage. This section would extend that benefit to 
     Bankruptcy, Magistrate, and Territorial Judges.

 Sec. 216. Health Insurance for Surviving Family and Spouses of Judges.

       Federal retirees (executive branch and Congressional 
     employees) and their surviving spouses retain their 
     eligibility for Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) 
     health coverage at the same cost as current employees. In 
     order to carry FEHB coverage into retirement, retirees must 
     have been continuously enrolled (or covered as a family 
     member) in any FEHB plan(s) for the 5 years of service 
     immediately before the date the annuity starts, or for the 
     full period(s) of service since the retiree's first 
     opportunity to enroll (if less than 5 years).
       Unlike surviving family and spouses of federal employees 
     (and retirees) in the executive branch and Congressional 
     branch, the surviving spouses of Article III judges (not 
     enrolled in the Judicial Survivors' Annuities System) are not 
     eligible to continue Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) 
     in the event of the judge's death. The surviving spouses of 
     employees who have been enrolled for five years or more 
     immediately before their deaths may elect to continue FEHB 
     coverage. The surviving family and spouses of deceased 
     federal judges are not eligible to continue to receive health 
     benefits unless the judge, within the first six months of 
     entering service, elects to participate in a survivors' 
     annuity program.
       This section would provide the same benefit regarding the 
     FEHB program to surviving family (the spouse or unmarried 
     dependent child under 22 years of age) of a Justice, judge, 
     territorial judge, judge of the Court of Federal Claims, 
     bankruptcy judge or full-time magistrate judge.

  sMr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to introduce a bill 
that would greatly improve the administration and efficiency of our 
Federal court system. The Federal Courts Improvement Act of 2004 is an 
attempt to assist our hard working Federal judiciary by replacing 
antiquated processes and bureaucratic hurdles with the necessary tools 
for the 21st century.
  I thank my colleagues for joining Senator Hatch and me in supporting 
this bipartisan measure.
  In recent years, the job of the Federal judge has changed 
considerably. Today, Federal judges at both the trial and appellate 
level are hearing more cases with fewer available judicial resources. 
We have a responsibility to pass legislation that helps them keep up 
with changing times and circumstances.
  The judicial branch of Government occupies a place in the 
constitutional scheme of equal responsibility and importance as the 
Congress and the Presidency. Just like it is the judiciary's duty to 
mete out justice in a neutral and unbiased means, it is this branch's 
duty to provide the requisite tools so that the Federal judiciary can 
maintain its prominent place in the American system of Government.
  For the last 20 years I have served on the Senate Judiciary Committee 
and I have worked hard to preserve a fair, independent and efficient 
judiciary. To further this goal, this body has passed a number of 
important judicial reforms over the past decade. The legislation under 
consideration today, like those passed in recent years, assists the 
Federal judiciary in achieving its goals and fulfilling its 
constitutional duties. While I am pleased with many of the reforms that 
have been implemented in recent years, other necessary measures that 
have been considered have not been implemented.
  For example, last year I introduced legislation that would have 
provided Federal judges with a substantial pay raise as an attempt to 
rectify the fact that Federal judges earn far less than their 
counterparts in the private sector. I feel that it is completely 
unreasonable that judges do not automatically receive an annual cost-
of-living adjustment that nearly every other Federal employee receives. 
Chief Justice Rehnquist has observed that, ``inadequate compensation 
seriously compromises the judicial independence fostered by life 
tenure. That low salaries might force judges to return to the private 
sector rather than stay on the bench risks affecting judicial 
performance--instead of serving for life, those judges would serve the 
terms their finances would allow.'' It was for these reasons that I was 
very disappointed that the legislation was not enacted after it was 
reported favorably by the Judiciary Committee. While I understand that 
we are now in a time of record deficits, we should not be so 
constrained as to jeopardize the independence of our Federal judiciary.
  I am disappointed that the legislation introduced today does not seek 
to rectify the inadequacy of judicial pay. Nevertheless, it will assist 
the Federal judiciary by addressing some of its institutional 
inefficiencies and disparities. For example, this bill will strengthen 
the jury system, establish parity in judicial benefits, protect against 
identity theft, respond to changes in technology, and recognize the 
important role of magistrate judges in our Federal justice system. I am 
happy to respond to these requests made by the Judicial Conference of 
the United States.
                                 ______