THE REPORTED TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, CIVIL LIBERTIES, AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE SPEAKS TO H.R. 1046, A BILL TO CLARIFY AND EXPAND THE CIVIL AND CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL MAGISTRATES, AND H.R. 2202, A BILL TO ABOLISH THE DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS, AS WELL AS THE AMOUNT OF CONTROVERSY REQUIREMENT IN FEDERAL QUESTION CASES. BOTH BILLS AIM AT REDUCING THE NUMBER OF CASES HANDLED BY FEDERAL COURTS, THUS REDUCING THE BACKLOG AND DELAYS. THE BACKGROUND MATERIAL PRESENTED NOTES THAT FEDERAL DIVERSITY JURISDICTION IS MADE POSSIBLE BY ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH WAS DRAFTED SO AS TO PERMIT, BUT NOT TO MANDATE, FEDERAL COURT JURISDICTION BASED ON CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN CITIZENS THEREOF AND FOREIGN STATES, CITIZENS, OR SUBJECTS. ABOLITION OF FEDERAL DIVERSITY JURISDICTION WOULD PREVENT FEDERAL COURTS FROM HEARING ISSUES OF STATE LAWS AS A COURT OF FIRST JURISDICTION. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE JUDICIARY AND LEGAL ORGANIZATIONS, AND OTHER LEGAL EXPERTS TESTIFIED ON THE PROS AND CONS OF THE TWO BILLS. ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS, MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE, AND SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL ARE INCLUDED IN THE APPENDIXES. (RCB)