There is a jurisdictional issue with the Finance Committee asserting jurisdiction and perhaps preferring to offer their amendments on the floor. We did not take up title VII. which is judicial reform. because there is considerable controversy about the chairmans mark on those provisions. We have included a modification in appeals to the federal circuit courts after the immigration judge has ruled. after the Board of Immigration Appeals has ruled. We have consolidated those actions in the Federal Circuit. We have heard from a number of judicial officials. We heard from the chief judge of the Federal Circuit that with increased resources. the court can handle the additional cases. But with regard to the changes we proposed in trying to provide more independence for immigration judges and in increasing the number of judges on the Board of Immigration Appeals so there are enough judges to write opinions. to try to cut down on the backlog and the number of appeals to the circuit courts. we ought to find out more. We are noticing a hearing for next Monday morning where we will have an opportunity to hear from the judges. who have already written us: the chief judge of the Second Circuit. and a judge from the Seventh Circuit. We will hear from the chief judge of the Federal Circuit. and consider further the viewpoints of the Department of Justice and others on the issue of the independence of the immigration judges on the Board of Immigration Appeals. We have operated with the knowledge that the majority leader filed a bill under rule XIV and announced that would be the bill which would be taken up if the Judiciary Committee did not report out a bill. I think we have produced a bill which is the product of serious debate.
Keywords matched
Immigration immigration