Federal Judiciary Administrative Improvements Act of 2010

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join Senators Whitehouse and Sessions to introduce the Federal Judiciary Administrative Improvements Act of 2009, a bipartisan bill that would improve the administration and efficiency of our Federal court system. This legislation would also provide the third branch of government with important assistance to the women and men who comprise the Federal judiciary.

I thank Senator Whitehouse and Senator Sessions for their hard work on this critical issue. I previously introduced a court improvement bill in the 108th Congress. I hope the bill we introduce today will pass the full Senate with unanimous support, and will not be subjected to the objections of Senate Republicans as it was 5 years ago. I have also supported past legislative proposals from the Judicial Conference to improve the administration of justice in the Federal courts, including a similar measure last year, which was enacted into law.

In recent years, the job of a 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. Just as it is the judiciary's duty to deliver justice in a neutral and unbiased manner, it is the duty of the legislative branch to provide the requisite tools for the women and men who honorably serve on the judiciary to ably fulfill their critical responsibilities. I believe our independent judiciary is the envy of the world, and we must take care to protect it.

The legislation we introduce today contains proposals that the Federal judiciary believes will improve its operations and allow it to continue to serve as a bulwark protecting our individual rights and liberties. It also contains additional technical and substantive proposals carried over from previous Congresses.

The Judiciary Administrative Improvements Act of 2009 would facilitate judicial operations and improve judicial resource management. The bill would clarify existing law to ensure that senior judges with a minimum workload can participate in the selection of magistrate judges. The bill would also revise the statutory description of the District of North Dakota to eliminate unnecessary references to divisions and counties, while maintaining the present requirement that North Dakota constitutes one judicial district. I believe this technical change would improve the judicial workload distribution in that district and reduce travel time for litigants.

Our legislation also contains critical provisions that would improve personnel and benefits for certain judges and their hardworking judiciary staff. The bill would authorize a cost-of-living adjustment for Federal territorial judges entitled to receive an annuity. It would also authorize territorial judges who are 65 years of age or older to collect, for the remainder of their lives, an annuity equal to the salary received when they left office. These changes would reduce existing inequities between Federal territorial judges and other term judges such as Federal magistrate and bankruptcy judges. The bill would extend to senior executives in the Federal courts, the Federal Judicial Center, and the Sentencing Commission the same ability to carry over annual leave hours as that enjoyed by senior employees in the Executive Branch and the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, AO. It would also allow the Federal Judicial Center to provide a modest increase in pay for certain division directors.

The Judiciary Administrative Improvements Act of 2009 would also improve the administration of criminal justice. The bill would better protect confidential information about a defendant during sentencing by allowing the ``statement of reasons'' form that judges are required to issue upon sentencing to be filed separately with the court. This change would allow confidential information contained within the ``statement of reasons'' to be more easily controlled and protected. In addition, the bill would clarify the scope of authority of Federal pretrial services officers to supervise and assist juveniles awaiting delinquency disposition in Federal court. Current laws regarding the duties of pretrial service officers focus solely on adults and thus it is unclear what duties those officers have to provide services to juveniles. This bill would fill that gap and ensure that pretrial services officers are fully authorized to arrange drug treatment and other critical services for juvenile offenders. The bill would also improve the statistical reporting schedule for criminal wiretap orders. It would eliminate burdensome monthly deadlines for state and Federal judges to report their wiretap data and unrealistic interagency deadlines for reporting that data to the AO. This change will allow for more comprehensive reporting of wiretap data.

In addition, the legislation we introduce today would also conserve judicial resources over certain court requests from indigent defendants. Under current law, a certain statutory threshold exists at which the costs of hiring expert witnesses and conducting investigations for indigent defendants must be approved by the court. These thresholds do not account for inflation, however, which results in a waste of precious judicial resources. This bill would apply an inflationary index to the threshold amount to make them more cost- effective. As a result, this change will allow judges to spend more time on less of these requests each year, which would better improve the overall administration of justice.

I am glad that this important legislation has the support of the Administrative Office of the Courts, on behalf of the Judicial Conference, and Senators on both sides of the aisle. The Federal judiciary needs these improvements to increase its efficiency and administrative operations. I urge all Senators to support prompt passage of this noncontroversial legislation this year.

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join Senators Whitehouse and Sessions to introduce the Federal Judiciary Administrative Improvements Act of 2009, a bipartisan bill that would improve the administration and efficiency of our Federal court system. This legislation would also provide the third branch of government with important assistance to the women and men who comprise the Federal judiciary.

I thank Senator Whitehouse and Senator Sessions for their hard work on this critical issue. I previously introduced a court improvement bill in the 108th Congress. I hope the bill we introduce today will pass the full Senate with unanimous support, and will not be subjected to the objections of Senate Republicans as it was 5 years ago. I have also supported past legislative proposals from the Judicial Conference to improve the administration of justice in the Federal courts, including a similar measure last year, which was enacted into law.

In recent years, the job of a 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. Just as it is the judiciary's duty to deliver justice in a neutral and unbiased manner, it is the duty of the legislative branch to provide the requisite tools for the women and men who honorably serve on the judiciary to ably fulfill their critical responsibilities. I believe our independent judiciary is the envy of the world, and we must take care to protect it.

The legislation we introduce today contains proposals that the Federal judiciary believes will improve its operations and allow it to continue to serve as a bulwark protecting our individual rights and liberties. It also contains additional technical and substantive proposals carried over from previous Congresses.

The Judiciary Administrative Improvements Act of 2009 would facilitate judicial operations and improve judicial resource management. The bill would clarify existing law to ensure that senior judges with a minimum workload can participate in the selection of magistrate judges. The bill would also revise the statutory description of the District of North Dakota to eliminate unnecessary references to divisions and counties, while maintaining the present requirement that North Dakota constitutes one judicial district. I believe this technical change would improve the judicial workload distribution in that district and reduce travel time for litigants.

Our legislation also contains critical provisions that would improve personnel and benefits for certain judges and their hardworking judiciary staff. The bill would authorize a cost-of-living adjustment for Federal territorial judges entitled to receive an annuity. It would also authorize territorial judges who are 65 years of age or older to collect, for the remainder of their lives, an annuity equal to the salary received when they left office. These changes would reduce existing inequities between Federal territorial judges and other term judges such as Federal magistrate and bankruptcy judges. The bill would extend to senior executives in the Federal courts, the Federal Judicial Center, and the Sentencing Commission the same ability to carry over annual leave hours as that enjoyed by senior employees in the Executive Branch and the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, AO. It would also allow the Federal Judicial Center to provide a modest increase in pay for certain division directors.

The Judiciary Administrative Improvements Act of 2009 would also improve the administration of criminal justice. The bill would better protect confidential information about a defendant during sentencing by allowing the ``statement of reasons'' form that judges are required to issue upon sentencing to be filed separately with the court. This change would allow confidential information contained within the ``statement of reasons'' to be more easily controlled and protected. In addition, the bill would clarify the scope of authority of Federal pretrial services officers to supervise and assist juveniles awaiting delinquency disposition in Federal court. Current laws regarding the duties of pretrial service officers focus solely on adults and thus it is unclear what duties those officers have to provide services to juveniles. This bill would fill that gap and ensure that pretrial services officers are fully authorized to arrange drug treatment and other critical services for juvenile offenders. The bill would also improve the statistical reporting schedule for criminal wiretap orders. It would eliminate burdensome monthly deadlines for state and Federal judges to report their wiretap data and unrealistic interagency deadlines for reporting that data to the AO. This change will allow for more comprehensive reporting of wiretap data.

In addition, the legislation we introduce today would also conserve judicial resources over certain court requests from indigent defendants. Under current law, a certain statutory threshold exists at which the costs of hiring expert witnesses and conducting investigations for indigent defendants must be approved by the court. These thresholds do not account for inflation, however, which results in a waste of precious judicial resources. This bill would apply an inflationary index to the threshold amount to make them more cost- effective. As a result, this change will allow judges to spend more time on less of these requests each year, which would better improve the overall administration of justice.

I am glad that this important legislation has the support of the Administrative Office of the Courts, on behalf of the Judicial Conference, and Senators on both sides of the aisle. The Federal judiciary needs these improvements to increase its efficiency and administrative operations. I urge all Senators to support prompt passage of this noncontroversial legislation this year.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two health care bills that will help control health care costs and provide patients with better care. I believe these bills are easy to understand and reflect commonsense approaches to controlling health care costs.

The first bill, the Reducing Emergency Department Utilization through Coordination and Empowerment, or REDUCE Act, S. 1281, would reduce costly and excessive emergency room visits by providing patients with more consistent and coordinated care.

Emergency room overutilization is a source of wasteful spending in our health care system. Estimates show that $14 billion are wasted each year in unnecessary emergency room visits. It drives up the cost of health care and leads to overcrowding of our emergency rooms.

Frequent users of emergency room services make up a small, but very costly portion of the population. These individuals tend to have multiple chronic illnesses and severe mental illness. They often live in poverty or are homeless. Many times they use the emergency room because they have nowhere else to go.

In the most extreme cases, these individuals can cost the system millions of dollars. You heard right, one person can put a multi- million dollar strain on our health care system. For example in Camden, NJ, one person cost taxpayers $3.5 million over 5 years in Medicaid and Medicare payments.

We need to fix this problem, and I believe we can. The REDUCE Act is modeled after successful pilot programs across the country. It provides beneficiaries with a care management team consisting of a medical provider, a social worker and a community health worker that can provide medical care and support in any setting. The care management team also helps to ensure that these individuals are going to their primary care doctors and mental health providers on a regular basis.

Research shows it works. In fact, after two years of enrollment in one pilot program, on average, individual emergency room visits were reduced by 61 percent and emergency room charges were reduced by 59 percent for those that participated.

There is a lot we need to do to reform our health care system, but as we work on reform broadly, we also need to focus attention on individuals, especially these high cost patients. Doing so will improve care for this vulnerable population and reduce costs.

The second bill, the Access to Affordable Medicines Act, S. 1778, will increase access to lower cost generic drugs by closing a loophole some brand name drug companies exploit that needlessly and unfairly delays the entry of safe, lower-cost generic drugs to the consumer market.

As the law currently stands, when brand name manufacturers make labeling changes, generic drug labeling must reflect this change prior to the drug being approved and introduced in the market.

Too often, big pharmaceutical companies make last minute changes to the label. Many times the labeling changes are insignificant and do not deal with safety or warnings. In fact, these last minute changes are often used by brand name pharmaceutical companies to purposefully delay the introduction of cost-saving generic drugs by weeks or months. This can cost consumers and the federal government millions of dollars.

My bill would stop these costly practices by providing a 60-day grace period for the generic drug company to submit the new labeling for approval and marketplace distribution, while preserving safeguards if the new labeling truly presents a safety issue.

As we work to pass comprehensive health care reform in Congress, we do it with families and small businesses who struggle everyday with the high cost of health care in mind. These bills are the types of sensible reforms that we need to make so that the health care system is more affordable and more efficient. I look forward to working with my Senate colleagues on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 1782) to provide improvements for the operations of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.

I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of S. 1782 is to implement noncontroversial administrative provisions that the Judicial Conference and the House Judiciary Committee believe are necessary to improve the operations of the Federal judiciary and provide justice for the American people. The bill retains most of the content of H.R. 3632, which we passed in October of 2009.

The Judicial Conference is the policymaking body of the Federal judiciary and through its committee system evaluates court operations. The conference endorses all the provisions in this bill.

S. 1782 affects a wide range of judicial branch programs and operations, including those pertaining to financial administration, process improvements, and personnel administration. The bill incorporates five separate items.

First, it clarifies that senior judges must satisfy minimum work thresholds to participate in court government matters, including the selection of magistrates.

Second, the bill eliminates the references to divisions and counties in the statutory description of the Judicial District of North Dakota, which enables the court to better distribute the workload between two active district judges and reduce travel for litigants in the northern central area of the district.

Third, it authorizes the Statement of Reasons that judges must issue upon sentencing to be filed separately with the court. Current law requires that the statement be bundled with other information in the case distributed to the Sentencing Commission, where it can be difficult to maintain a seal related to confidential information.

Fourth, it specifies that the Federal Pretrial Service officers can provide the same services to juveniles as they do for adult offenders, such as drug treatment.

And, finally, it applies an inflationary index to the threshold amount requiring approval by the chief judge of reimbursements for the cost of hiring expert witnesses and conducting investigation for indigent defendants.

The dollar thresholds are statutorily fixed and erode over time. This means chief justices must devote greater time approving what are otherwise not genuine high-dollar requests.

Mr. Speaker, S. 1782 is necessary to improve the functioning of the U.S. courts, which will ultimately benefit the American people. This is a noncontroversial bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.