{"database": "openregs", "table": "congressional_record", "rows": [["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12451", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES AND COURT REFORM", "SENATE", "SENATE", "ALLOTHER", "S12451", "S12455", "[{\"name\": \"Howell Heflin\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", "[{\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"S\", \"number\": \"1198\"}, {\"congress\": \"104\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"2807\"}]", "142 Cong. Rec. S12451", "Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Senate]\n[Pages S12451-S12455]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n            JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES AND COURT REFORM\n\n Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, as the end of the 104th Congress\nwas drawing to a close, I began making a series of speeches summarizing\nmy activities and legislative efforts relating to some of the major\npolicy issue areas facing our Nation. My purpose was to reflect upon\nand generally summarize my three terms in the Senate, pointing out\nprogress, key accomplishments, disappointments, and suggestions for the\nfuture. So far, I have focused on the areas of civil rights and\nnational defense and foreign policy. Here, I will devote some attention\nto my role as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.\n  Much of my statement on civil rights issues focused on activities\nwithin the Judiciary Committee, since these issues often arise in the\ncontext of court cases and nominations. I will reiterate some of that\nmaterial here, but will focus more on court reform and the\nadministration of justice, issues which were not discussed at length in\nthat statement on civil rights.\n  While serving as chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, my\nprimary goal was to modernize the State's system of justice. The\nbacklog of cases when I came into office was staggering, so we set out\nimmediately to pass reform of the judicial article, which is the part\nof the State constitution outlining the State judiciary. During my\nterm, we were successful in getting the people to adopt a new article\nto the State's constitution in the form of a constitutional amendment\nwhich was known as the new judicial article and in getting the State\nlegislature to pass a judicial article implementation bill, which some\nsay became a model for the Nation. I was extremely proud of our efforts\nand of the many hundreds of people who came together to make it happen.\nI saw first-hand that State courts can be made more efficient and\ncitizens' access to the courts increased.\n  Upon arriving in the Senate, I quickly saw that much of the reform we\naccomplished at the State level was needed at the Federal level. Much\nof my work on the Judiciary Committee has focused on bringing these\nreforms to the Federal court system. As a member, chairman, and ranking\nmember of the subcommittee overseeing the courts and judicial\nadministration, I have had the opportunity to seek many much-needed\nimprovements in the administration of justice. Since judicial\nadministration is so important to access to the judicial system, it is\nmy firm belief that efficient administration is a necessary component\nof swift and sure justice for all those who seek it.\n  Since time and space will not permit me to be as comprehensive in\nsummarizing these various issues as I would like, I ask unanimous\nconsent that a summary listing of legislation I have introduced,\ncosponsored, or directly shaped in some way be included in the\nCongressional Record after my remarks. However, I would like to\nsummarize some of the highlights in these areas.\n  One of the major efforts was in the area of bankruptcy reform.\nPassage of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994 brought to a close nearly\n5 years of work in this area. Over these several years, we were able to\nproduce the first major substantive change in the Bankruptcy Code since\n1984. We successfully streamlined and updated the code.\n  The need for a major reform of the code became apparent with the\nrecord increases in bankruptcy filings the courts had been\nexperiencing. There was a need for changes in the code which recognized\nthe changes in the economy and different types of financial arrangement\nfaced by consumers and businesses.\n  Our act addressed virtually all aspects of bankruptcy, including\nprovisions which made significant and important changes to the\nbankruptcy process in our Federal courts. Also included were provisions\nwhich streamlined the process for the individual consumer debtor\nthrough the encouragement of the use of chapter 13 repayment bankruptcy\nprovisions. The commercial bankruptcy process and procedure was also\naddressed. I am particularly proud that a Bankruptcy Review Commission\nwas set up to review and study the laws and process related to\nbankruptcy filings. Overall, these reforms have led to a more effective\nand workable process.\n  In the 96th Congress, I introduced a bill to divide the Fifth Circuit\nCourt of Appeals into two courts. Its main purpose was to promote\njudicial efficiency. Individual judges in the fifth circuit were\nseverely burdened by an excessively large caseload. Furthermore, the\nentire court had accrued the largest en blanc caseload in U.S. judicial\nhistory. The measure splitting the circuit and creating the 11th\nCircuit Court of Appeals was signed into law in October 1980.\n\n  In the 97th Congress, I was a cosponsor of the Omnibus Victims\nProtection\n\n[[Page S12452]]\n\nAct of 1982, which provided additional protection and assistance to\nvictims and witnesses in Federal cases. I was also proud to have been a\nmoving force in the establishment of a State Justice institute in 1984\nduring the 98th Congress, and in the passage of an act amending title\n18 of the United States Code to ban the production and use of\nadvertisements for child pornography or solicitations for child\npornography. This became law in November 1986, at the end of the 99th\nCongress.\n  I have always been firmly committed to measures which ensure the free\nand open exercise of religion. In 1988, during the 100th Congress, an\nact to impose criminal penalties and to provide a civil action for\ndamage to religious property and for injury to persons in the free\nexercise of religious beliefs was passed by Congress and signed into\nlaw. Later, in the 103d Congress, my subcommittee held hearings on\nproposed Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC] guidelines\nwhich many felt would have adversely affected Federal workers' rights\nto express their religious beliefs in the workplace. Ultimately, we\nwere successful in preventing these guidelines from taking effect. This\nyear, in the wake of the rash of church burnings in the South, I\nstrongly supported the legislation to increase penalties for those\nconvicted of destroying houses of worship through arson.\n  During the 101st Congress, I was extremely proud of being a cosponsor\nof a comprehensive act containing three major parts. One was the Civil\nJustice Reform Act, which required selected U.S. courts to implement\nexpense and delay reduction plans. A second part was the Federal\njudgeships Act, which created 85 new judgeships, thereby streamlining\nefficiency. The third major part of this act was the Federal Courts\nStudy Committee Implementation Act, which put into place a number of\nthe committee's recommendations. The act, which became Public Law 101-\n650 on December 1, 1990, also contained provisions dealing with\ntelevision violence, computer software rental, judicial discipline, and\nthe rights of visual artists.\n  One of the proudest achievements of my career occurred during the\n102nd Congress, with the passage of my bill to name a Federal building\nin Montgomery, AL, after Judge Frank M. Johnson, Jr. Judge Johnson, one\nof the greatest jurists to have ever served on the Federal bench, did\nso much to promote racial progress in Alabama and the rest of the South\nthat I could think of no more fitting tribute to honor his work and\nservice. It became law on March 20, 1992. A new Federal courthouse was\nbuilt in Birmingham and later named the Hugo Black Courthouse and the\nMontgomery courthouse is now being expanded.\n  That same year, the Federal Courts Administration Act of 1992 was\nsigned into law (P.L. 102-572, October 29, 1992). This law encompassed\nfour bills I sponsored: the Federal Courts Study Committee\nImplementation Act, the Judicial Survivors' Annuities Improvements Act,\nthe State Justice Institute Reauthorization Act, and the Court of\nClaims Technical and Procedural Improvements Act. It also contained a\nprovision cosponsored by myself and Senator Grassley which created a\nnew civil cause of action in Federal court for victims of international\nterrorism.\n\n  I supported the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of\n1994, which, among other things, provided funding for 100,000 policemen\nfor communities all across the Nation. While there were several\nprovisions in this bill with which I strongly disagreed, on balance,\nits good provisions far outweighed its bad. I saw it as a positive and\ncomprehensive effort to stop the onslaught of crime and drugs in our\nsociety.\n  Of course, there have been disappointments over the years, such as\nthe failure to pass a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning and\none to require a balanced Federal budget. I and many others in Congress\nworked long and hard to pass these measures, and they came close in the\nmost recent 104th Congress. I think especially in terms of the balanced\nbudget amendment, that we will ultimately be successful. I will\ncontinue doing all in my power as a private citizen to see that these\namendments are added to our Constitution.\n  Much of my time and energy in the 104th Congress was spent on a bill\nto establish an independent Court of Administrative Law Judges. I have\nalways thought it absurd that Federal agencies were allowed to judge\ncases involving themselves and outside parties. How can a ``judge'',\nemployed by the agency he is serving, be expected to decide cases\nfairly and impartially? The bureaucrats fought this proposal\ntenaciously, and again, we were unsuccessful. We did, however, come\ncloser in 1996 than ever before, and I remain hopeful that the next\nCongress will see the wisdom of ensuring independence in Federal\nadministrative law.\n  Another item which ultimately failed in the 104th Congress was\ncomprehensive regulatory reform. I joined with Senators Dole and\nJohnston in seeking to provide a cost-benefit analysis in terms of\ncertain regulations whose economic impact exceeded $100 million.\nRegulatory reform should remain at the top of the congressional agenda.\n  One issue on which its opponents, including myself, were successful\non was in preventing product liability reform from passing. So-called\nproduct liability reform legislation was billed as an effort to rein in\nerrant juries and limit excessive awards to plaintiffs. While I do\nsupport tort reform, I believe it should be done at the State level and\nwithout weakening the jury system. The right of trial by jury is one of\nthe most sacred rights we have as Americans, and nothing should be done\nto limit that right or restrict a citizen's access to the judicial\nsystem. The federalized product liability reform bills contained many\nprovisions which would have immunized many tortfeasors in a manner\nwhich was grossly unfair. This type of legislation should continue to\nbe defeated so that our jury system--imperfect as it may be--remains\nstrong and the bulwark of our system of justice.\n  In 1979, I convinced members of the Judiciary Committee to kill the\ncourt annexed arbitration bill, which would force parties in personal\ninjury, property, and contract cases under $100,000 to submit to\nmandatory arbitration in Federal court. I believed this bill was\nunconstitutional because it would deny the guarantee of a jury trial\nand the constitutional right of access to justice. An arbitration bill\nwhich doesn't penalize a party from seeking a trail de novo will go a\nlong way toward minimizing the faults of the proposal.\n  In 1979, Congress passed an amended Federal Magistrates bill, which\nbecame Public Law 96-82. When it was first introduced, I criticized it\nas the third piece of a haphazard modification to the system in 10\nyears. Rather than amending it piecemeal, lawmakers should study and\napproach the whole system.\n  In 1979, we passed a law, Public Law 96-43, to amend the Speedy Trial\nAct of 1974 in order to limit the delay from charge to trial in the\nFederal courts to no more than 100 days.\n  In 1979, I opposed the Illinois Brick bill. After studying the case\ncarefully, I concluded that Justice Byron White had issued a correct\ndecision. I was fearful that if this legislation were adopted, class\naction antitrust cases would completely occupy the time of Federal\njudges and require a many-fold increase in the number of Federal judges\nin a short time.\n  In 1979, when it passed the judiciary committee, I called the Equal\nAccess to Justice Act one of the best pieces of legislation I have\nseen. The bill would have allowed citizens whom the Government had\ntaken to court unjustifiably or who contested unreasonable regulations\nto recover attorney fees. In other words, if a citizen is proven right,\nhe doesn't have to pay for justice. The House never acted on this bill.\nBut in 1985, Congress passed Public Law 99-80, similar to the Equal\nAccess to Justice Act. This law allowed local governments, individuals,\nand small businesses to collect attorneys' fees if they won cases\nagainst Federal agencies.\n  In 1979, Congress passed the Justice System Improvement Act, Public\nLaw 96-157, to reauthorize the Law Enforcement Assistance\nAdministration. This bill created the Office of Justice Assistance,\nResearch and Statistics [OJARS] which would coordinate the\nadministration of the LEAA and two other, new agencies, the Bureau of\nJustice Statistics [BJS] and the National Institute of Justice [NIJ]. I\nhad become a strong supporter of the LEAA during\n\n[[Page S12453]]\n\nmy tenure as the chief justice of the supreme court. In Alabama, our\npolice and sheriff departments had been largely underfunded,\nundermanned, undertrained and unprofessional, but with the LEAA's help,\nthey developed into well-disciplined and professional organizations.\nUnfortunately, the LEAA died in 1980 during budget debate.\n  In 1980, the Congress passed a bill to create the 11th U.S. Circuit\nCourt of Appeals, which became Public Law 96-452. The old\nFifth Circuit, which comprised six States, had become so overburdened\nthat it could no longer handle its caseload. In fact, its en banc\ncaseload was the largest in the country. We did have a great concern in\nthe Congress about the implications of the split to civil rights, since\nthis court generally handled the most important civil rights cases.\nJudge Frank Johnson served as an excellent advisor for the Court to\nensure that the Congress handled the split with care.\n\n  In 1980, the Senate passed a bill calling for a ``State of the\nJudiciary'' speech by the Chief Justice. Congress as a whole largely\nignores the third branch until some crisis situation demands that we\nprovide additional Federal judges or implement some reorganization.\nThis idea has not yet materialized into law, but I still think it is a\ngood plan.\n  In 1980, I introduced another bill to create a National Court of\nAppeals to relieve the overburdened Supreme Court. During 1979, the\nCourt heard less than 7 percent of the cases before it. This bill never\npassed either, but in the future, the Congress must arrive at some\nsolution to the overwhelming caseload of the Court.\n  In 1982, we introduced legislation to amend Federal habeas corpus\nprocedures by restricting the power of the Federal courts to review and\noverturn State criminal convictions. There is a crying need to achieve\nfinality in our criminal justice system and to protect the integrity of\nthe State judiciary. I had also included certain provisions regarding\nhabeas corpus procedures in my Federal court study implementation bill.\nThe Republican 104th Congress passed some provisions relating to habeas\ncorpus reform, but it contained a number of questionable provisions.\n  Provisions to create a State Justice Institute, which I had first\nintroduced in 1980, became part of Public Law 98-620. Specifically,\nwith the Institute, we sought to provide education for judges and\nofficers of the courts of the States as well as sound proceedings for\nmanaging and monitoring caseloads, and improvement of access to\njustice. Hoping to adhere to the doctrine of federalism and separation\nof powers, we designed the Institute to assure strong and effective\nState courts, and thereby improve the quality of justice available to\nthe American people. These ends were all the more important since\nrecently enacted Federal laws, including the speedy trial act, had\nincreased the cases sent to State courts.\n  This law also amended title 28, United States Code, with respect to\nthe places where court shall be held in certain judicial districts. It\nalso included several other provisions. The first established an\nIntercircuit Tribunal. The second clarified the circumstances under\nwhich a trademark may be canceled or abandoned. The last pertained to\nthe authority of the special counsel.\n  In 1980, Congress passed a bill to cut costs and delays in antitrust\ntrials. This bill became Public Law 96-349.\n  In 1980, the Congress passed a bill to create a U.S. Court of\nInternational Trade and to reform the judiciary machinery relating to\ntrade. This bill became Public Law 96-417.\n  In 1980, the Congress passed a bill to make certain that Federal\ncourts hear all cases under their jurisdiction. Before this bill\npassed, the amount in controversy determined whether or not a Federal\ncourt would hear any given case. This bill became Public Law 96-486.\n  In 1982, Congress created the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal\nCircuit. A new law, Public Law 97-164, combined the U.S. Court of\nCustoms and Patent Appeals and the U.S. Court of Claims. The new court\nhad the same authority as the other 12 U.S. Circuits, but its\njurisdiction was national, rather than regional, and determined by\nsubject matter.\n  During hearings in the 96th Congress, I declared that it was time to\ndeclare a war on crime, and in the following Congress I introduced a\nnumber of measures I hoped might effectively reduce it. Elements of my\npackage became law over the years immediately following. Public Law 97-\n285 set penalties for crimes against cabinet officers, Supreme Court\nJustices, and Presidential staff members. Public Law 97-291 created\nadditional protections for and assistance to victims and witnesses in\nFederal cases. Public Law 98-127 dealt with tampering, as in the case\nof the Tylenol murders. Public Law 98-292 was designed to fight the\nsexual exploitation of children. Public Law 98-305 criminalized the\nrobbery of a controlled substance.\n  In October 1984, several other elements of my war on crime package\nbecame Public Law 98-473. This law included the Justice Assistance Act\nto provide aid to State law enforcement, after the model of the defunct\nLEAA. It provided for victims' compensation. The law also included\nmandatory sentencing for use of firearms in a Federal crime, and other\nsentencing guidelines including the creation of a sentencing commission\nto establish standards for punishment in Federal crimes. Further, it\nprovided for Federal prosecution of murders-for-hire, drug trafficking,\npharmacy robbery, labor racketeering, computer fraud, and assaults on\nFederal officials. Last, the law included provisions which shifted the\nburden of proof in the insanity defense to the defendant. The Hinckley\nacquittal inspired this language. However, the act contained some\nquestionable provisions which I opposed.\n  In 1984, Congress passed a bill to amend the Clayton Act, relating to\nantitrust laws, as it applied to local governments.\n  In 1984, Congress, passed Public Law 98-547 to fight auto thefts in\nwhich the criminals stripped and sold the vehicle as spare parts. The\nlaw required identifying numbers on the major parts.\n  In 1985, we extended the deadline for the sentencing commission,\ncreated by Public Law 98-473, to finalize its guidelines.\nThis extension was included in Public Law 99-417. Another law, Public\nLaw 99-22, made minor changes to the commission.\n\n  In 1985, we passed another law, Public Law 99-218, regarding the\nSupreme Court Police and its authority to protect the Justices and\nofficers of the Court.\n  In 1986, we passed Public Law 99-303 to fight sexual molestation in\nIndian Country.\n  In 1986, we reformed Federal justice and judges survivors' annuities\nwith Public Law 99-336.\n  That year, we also amended the False Claims Act with Public Law 99-\n562 to strengthen enforcement provisions for making false claims to the\nFederal Government. This bill also included protections for\nwhistleblowers, something that we had worked on for a long time. In our\nview, these protections were particularly important in preventing\nGovernment waste, in the Defense Department, and in other areas.\n  In 1986, we banned advertisements for child pornography with Public\nLaw 99-628.\n  In 1986, Congress improved the delivery of legal services to\nindigents with Public Law 99-651.\n  In 1987, Congress passed Public Law 100-236 to amend the laws\ngoverning multiple appeals filed on orders from Federal agencies. Until\nthat time, lawyers frequently filed appeals in different courthouses in\norder to draw a judge they thought would be favorable to their case.\nThe new laws allow 10 days to appeal an order, and created a lottery\nsystem for selection of the judge if multiple appeals were filed.\n  In 1987, I introduced legislation to change the administrative law\nsystem. Congress has considered this language several times since, but\nit has not yet passed a bill. Administrative Law Judges are employed\nand housed by the agencies they oversee. This system represents a clear\nconflict of interest. I believe that judges must, instead, be\nindependent, and for this reason I sought to create an independent\ncorps of administrative law judges. I strongly recommend that Congress\naddress the problem in the future.\n  In 1988, Congress passed the Permanent Federal Court Study Act, which\nI had originally introduced during 1980 as part of a package which had\nincluded the unsuccessful National Court of Appeals. The Federal court\nstudy committee language became part of\n\n[[Page S12454]]\n\nPublic Law 100-702. We designed the Federal court study committee to\nplan for the long range needs of the judiciary. I believe that reform\nmust keep costs in mind, and it must avoid a careless, band-aid\napproach. These two conditions are required if we are to maintain\npublic confidence in the judicial system.\n  Public Law 100-702 also included other significant provisions. It\nraised jurisdictional authority in Federal diversity cases from $10,000\nto $50,000. It also reauthorized the State Justice Institute, created\npilot programs of voluntary court-annexed arbitration, resolved\ndistrict court jurisdictions under the Tucker Act, established methods\nof adopting recommendations of the Judicial Conference, and reformed\njury selection. In a letter addressed to me, Chief Justice Rehnquist\ncalled the bill ``probably the most significant measure affecting the\noperation and administration of the Federal Judiciary to be considered\nby the Congress in over a decade.'' Rehnquist also wrote that passage\nof the bill ``with its many and varied provisions to improve different\naspects of the judicial system, will significantly enhance the\neffectiveness of the Federal Judiciary as a whole.''\n  In 1988, Congress passed another bill which had been part of the 1980\npackage which ultimately became Public Law 100-702. This bill gave the\nSupreme Court greater discretion in selection of its cases. This\nlanguage took 8 years to pass, but it finally became part of Public Law\n100-352.\n  In 1988, the Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, which\nbecame Public Law 100-690. This new law included the creation of a drug\nczar, which had been eliminated from my 1984 crime package. This new\nlaw also included the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Partnership Act and\nthe Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act.\n  In 1988, Congress passed a new law, Public Law 100-694, to protect\nFederal employees from the threat of lawsuits based on their work\nperformance. The bill was designed to overturn the 1988 Supreme Court\ndecision, Westfall versus Erwin.\n  In 1988, we passed Public Law 100-700 to make it a crime to knowingly\ndefraud or attempt to defraud the Government in contracts of $1 million\nor more.\n  I strongly supported a constitutional amendment to ban flagburning in\nthe late 1980's, and I spent a great deal of time on it in the most\nrecent Congress.\n  In 1990, Congress authorized the appointment of 74 new U.S. district\nand 11 new U.S. circuit judges with Public Law 101-650. Importantly,\nthis new law also incorporated the Judicial Discipline Reform Act to\nimprove procedures for disciplining Federal judges, and to establish a\nNational Commission on Judicial Discipline. The final language to\ndiscipline judges short of impeachment was the culmination of years of\nwork that had included a proposed constitutional amendment. I had also\nproposed another constitutional amendment in 1988 to reform the actual\nimpeachment proceedings, which had proven themselves to be cumbersome.\n  Public Law 101-650 contained some other miscellaneous provisions. The\nlaw also contained language to address television violence by removing\nfrom antitrust laws any cooperation within the industry to reduce it.\nThe law included provisions to deal with computer software copyright\nlaws. This bill also contains S. 1198, the Visual Artists Rights Act,\nwhich gives creators of certain artistic visual works the right to\nprevent modification or destruction of their work.\n\n  In 1992, Congress passed the Administrative Procedure Technical\nAmendments Act, Public Law 102-354, to make technical corrections to\nChapter 5 of title 5, U.S.C. This law also amended the Alternative\nDispute Resolution Act (Public Law 101-552) to authorize Federal\nagencies to resolve disputes between two other parties.\n  In 1992, Congress passed the ``Dead-Beat Dad'' bill. This became\nPublic Law 102-521.\n  In 1992, Congress passed the Federal Courts Administration Act of\n1992, which became Public Law 102-572. This law was actually a\nconglomerate of several bills. It codified certain recommendations of\nthe Federal Courts Study Committee, which I believe had turned out to\nbe a valuable experiment. It reformed the judicial survivors' annuities\nsystem. It reauthorized the State Justice Institute for fiscal years\n1993-1996. It altered the claims litigation procedure before a newly\nrenamed U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Public Law 102-572 also included\nlanguage Senator Grassley and I wrote in order to create a new civil\ncause of action in Federal court for victims of international\nterrorism.\n  In 1992, Congress passed a bill to authorize the Juvenile Justice and\nDelinquency Prevention Act of 1974. This legislation became Public Law\n102-586.\n  With Public Law 103-192, Congress extended pilot arbitration programs\nin 20 district courts for one year.\n  Public Law 103-420 reauthorized 10 mandatory and 10 voluntary court\nannexed arbitration pilot programs, and authorized the judiciary\nautomation fund. It also extended the deadline for the Rand Corp.'s\nstudy of civil litigation.\n  Public Law 103-305 changed the rules on the EEOC's guidelines\nregarding religious harassment in the workplace. With this law, we\nsought to allow personal expressions of religious belief, which until\nthat time had been prohibited. Similar language had stalled in the 102d\nCongress due to abortion controversies.\n\n                               bankruptcy\n\n  Our work in the Senate significantly affected the language in Public\nLaw 96-56. This bill (H.R. 2807) originated in the House to amend the\nBankruptcy Act to prohibit the discharge of federally insured or\nguaranteed student loans until 5 years after graduation. The Bankruptcy\nReform Act (Public Law 95-598) had repealed this prohibition until the\nfirst day of fiscal year 1980, but Congress filled the gap with H.R.\n2807. Specifically, before we attached our amendment in the Senate, the\nbill would only have covered loans repayable directly to the Federal\nGovernment or to a nonprofit educational institution.\n\n  In 1984, we passed a much more significant bankruptcy measure to\nbring Federal bankruptcy courts in line with the Supreme Court's\nMarathon decision. This bill became Public Law 98-353. With Marathon,\nthe Court ruled that 1978 bankruptcy law was unconstitutional because\nthe bankruptcy judges, who are not appointed for life, should not have\nthe same authority as other judges. The bill put bankruptcy under the\njurisdiction of the district courts, but gave the article I bankruptcy\njudges the power to hear these cases. With this law, we averted the\nneed to appoint 200 new article III judges for life.\n  Notably, with this bankruptcy legislation, we also sought to protect\nfarmers, catfish growers, and shrimpers who lost their crops in a\nprocessing or storage facility which went bankrupt. Further, the\nlegislation was designed to prevent drunk drivers from escaping their\nliability through bankruptcy laws.\n  Passage of this bill took time, however, and under the Marathon\ndecision, the extant system would collapse--leaving half a million\nunheard cases. For this reason, until the major bill became law, we\nneeded to extend the temporary arrangement twice. We accomplished the\nextension with Public Law 98-249 and Public Law 98-271.\n  Another bankruptcy law which passed in 1984, Public Law 98-531,\nclarified laws on retirement for bankruptcy judges.\n  In 1986, the Congress passed another major bankruptcy law. This law,\nPublic Law 99-554, provided for the appointment of 52 additional\nbankruptcy judges. The law also allowed for the appointment of trustees\nunder the Department of Justice to handle the administration of\nbankruptcy cases. Last, the bill paid special attention to small\nfarmers who went bankrupt and included language to help them avoid\nliquidation.\n  Two other bankruptcy bills became law in 1987. Public Law 100-99\npertained to protections under title 11. Public Law 100-202 included\nlanguage to specify salaries for magistrates and bankruptcy judges.\n  There were four more bankruptcy bills which became law in 1988. The\nfirst clarified laws pertaining to insurance benefits under the\nbankruptcy code for retirees. It became Public Law 100-334. A second\nauthorized additional bankruptcy judges in Colorado, Kansas,\n\n[[Page S12455]]\n\nTexas, Alaska, and Kentucky. This bill became Public Law 100-587. A\nthird clarified the bankruptcy laws as they applied to municipalities,\nincluding changes to the laws governing their bond issues for public\nworks. It became Public Law 100-597. Last, Congress passed legislation\nto provide for retirement and survivors' annuity for bankruptcy judges\nand magistrates, etc. This bill became Public Law 100-569.\n  In 1990, we passed a bill to clarify the laws governing swap\nagreements and forward contracts. It became Public Law 101-311.\n  That year, Congress also passed a law to prohibit drunk-drivers from\ndischarging debts arising from their actions under chapter 13. This\nbecame Public Law 101-581.\n  The 1990 crime bill included some bankruptcy provisions pertaining to\nthe collection of debts to the U.S. Government and the discharge of\ndebts in bankruptcy. This bill became Public Law 101-647.\n  In 1992, Congress passed a bill to authorize the appointment of\nadditional bankruptcy judges. This bill became Public Law 102-361.\nAlabama was to receive another bankruptcy judge for the Northern\ndistrict.\n  1994 saw the passage of a major bankruptcy reform bill. This bill\nbecame Public Law 103-394. It modified provisions concerning the rights\nof debtors and creditors and altered the relationship between secured\nand unsecured creditors. It increased the efficiency of the business\nreorganization procedures. It encouraged the use of procedures that\nallow individual debtors to pay their debts over time instead of facing\nliquidation. It also created a bankruptcy review commission to report\non needed substantive changes. The bill sought to modernize the\nadministration of the bankruptcy process by establishing clear\nauthority for bankruptcy courts to manage their dockets activity\nthrough the use of status conferences. The bill strengthened extant law\nto encourage Federal appeals courts to establish a bankruptcy appellate\npanel to promote expedient bankruptcy appeals.\n\n                          ____________________"]], "columns": ["granule_id", "date", "congress", "session", "volume", "issue", "title", "chamber", "granule_class", "sub_granule_class", "page_start", "page_end", "speakers", "bills", "citation", "full_text"], "primary_keys": ["granule_id"], "primary_key_values": ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgS12451"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 9.507827926427126, "source": "Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API", "source_url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/developers/api/v1", "license": "Public Domain (U.S. Government data)", "license_url": "https://www.regulations.gov/faq"}