Federal Judiciary Administrative Improvements Act of 2010

Floor Speech

Federal Judiciary Administrative Improvements Act of 2010

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the Federal Judiciary Administrative Improvements Act of 2010 makes a number of changes to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the Federal courts. The House passed a substantially similar version of this legislation last October.

H.R. 3632, which I introduced, was cosponsored by Chairman John Conyers, Ranking Member Lamar Smith, and Ranking Member Howard Coble of the Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy, which I also chair.

S. 1782 would make a number of modest changes to the law and to the administrative operations of the Federal judiciary.

First, it will fix a minor conflict in the law and make clear that senior judges with a reduced workload are permitted to participate in the selection of magistrate judges.

Second, the bill incorporates a proposal supported by my friend and colleague from North Dakota, Earl Pomeroy, to place North Dakota in a single judicial district. This will allow for a more even distribution of the workloads of the Federal courts in North Dakota.

Third, the bill makes some minor adjustments for criminal matters. It requires separating the Statement of Reason from other information relating to the case, enabling confidential information to be more carefully controlled and protected.

The bill also clarifies the scope and authority of Federal Pretrial Service officers to supervise and assist juveniles awaiting delinquency disposition in Federal court as an alternative to incarceration.

Further, the bill adjusts the deadline for both State and Federal judges to file their wiretap totals with the Administrative Office of the Courts so that the annual wiretap report to Congress is accurate and does not later require a later addendum.

Finally, the bill increases the statutory amount that can be paid for experts without requiring approval by the chief judge. This raises the current threshold to accurately reflect the impact of inflation.

While I strongly support passage of the Senate bill, I note that some provisions in the House bill are not included in this bill.

For example, the House bill would have adjusted the disability requirement and cost-of-living annuities of four territorial judges, thereby reducing existing inequities between them and other term judges such as magistrate and bankruptcy judges.

The House bill would have changed the annual lead limit for the judicial branch and adjusted the pay scale.

Finally, the House bill would have allowed four Federal Judicial Center Division directors to receive a salary commensurate with their responsibilities and on par with similar AO personnel.

I intend to introduce new legislation that will include these provisions from my version of the Federal Judiciary Administrative Improvements Act, but let me be clear that passage of the legislation before us today is an important step to improving our Federal judiciary and helping it function in the most efficient way. This legislation is bipartisan and noncontroversial. It passed the Senate under unanimous consent and has the full backing of the Judicial Conference. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source