The Administration supports several provisions of H.R. 2294 that would
improve the administration of Federal courts. The Administration, however,
opposes House passage of the bill as reported because it would:
- Require an annual transfer of funds from the Justice and Treasury Asset
Forfeiture Funds to the Judiciary to cover certain costs, including the
costs of adjudicating civil and criminal forfeiture cases and providing
counsel to indigent defendants in such cases. This provision could appear
to represent a conflict of interest for the Judiciary in that it may obtain
a pecuniary benefit from decisions forfeiting assets or funds to the United
States. In addition, asset forfeiture funds already are used to pay lien
holders, victims of crime committed by the defendant, or others with
superior rights. (Section 101)
- Require the transfer of employer contributions from the Civil Service
Retirement and Disability Fund (CSRD) to a Judicial branch courts operation
fund when judges elect to transfer service credit from the CSRD retirement
systems to the judicial officers retirement system. This transfer of funds
is inappropriate. These funds should remain in the CSRD because they
represent assets used to provide survivorship protection to judges while
they were covered by the CSRD retirement systems. (Section 102)
- Vest magistrate judges with criminal contempt authority in certain
instances. Giving contempt authority to non-Article III judges raises
constitutional concerns. (Section 202)
- Extend to jurors coverage under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act
while going to and from jury duty. This provision undercuts the
longstanding general principle that workers' compensation coverage is not
provided for travel to and from work. (Section 407)
The Administration also has concerns regarding provisions of H.R. 2294 that
would provide 90-day annual leave carryover to designated executives.
Pay-As-You-Go Scoring
H.R. 2294 is subject to the "pay-as-you-go" requirement (PAYGO) of the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. The Administration's PAYGO
estimate for this bill is under development, but the preliminary analysis
of the bill suggests that H.R. 2294 would result in increases in direct
spending. Any bill that would increase mandatory spending or result in a
net revenue loss could contribute to a sequester of mandatory programs as
called for in the Budget Enforcement Act. As a result, if the bill were
enacted, any deficit effects could contribute to a sequester of mandatory
spending.
|
