[House Report 105-26]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
105th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 105-26
_______________________________________________________________________
COMMISSION ON STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES FOR THE FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEALS
_______
March 17, 1997.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______________________________________________________________________
Mr. Coble, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 908]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 908) to establish a Commission on Structural Alternatives
for the Federal Courts of Appeals, having considered the same,
report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that
the bill do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 1
Background and Need for the Legislation.......................... 2
Hearings......................................................... 3
Committee Consideration.......................................... 3
Vote of the Committee............................................ 3
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 3
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight..................... 3
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 3
Congressional Budget Office Estimate............................. 3
Constitutional Authority......................................... 5
Section-by-Section Analysis...................................... 5
Purpose and Summary
The purpose of H.R. 908 is to establish a Commission on
Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals. The
Commission would: (1) study the present division of the United
States into several judicial circuits; (2) review the structure
and alignment of the Federal Courts of Appeals system, with
particular reference to the Ninth Circuit; and (3) report to
the President and Congress its recommendations for such changes
in circuit boundaries or structure as may be appropriate for
the expeditious and effective caseload of the Federal Courts of
Appeals, consistent with fundamental concepts of fairness and
due process.
Background and Need for the Legislation
H.R. 908 would create a Commission on Structural
Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals. The legislation
originated as a response to recurring attempts to divide the
largest of the federal judicial circuits, the Ninth. However,
the Commission proposal in this bill represents a sound
approach to a problem of national concern: explosive growth in
the caseload of all of the courts of appeals.
Over the past two decades, filings in the courts of appeals
have increased by more than 200 percent. The number of judges
has also grown, though much more slowly. But the structure of
the federal appellate system remains essentially the same one
that Congress created more than a century ago. The time is ripe
for a careful, objective study aimed at determining whether
that structure can adequately serve the needs of the 21st
century. The task of the Commission would be to carry out that
study.
Although the immediate occasion for the Commission proposal
was the debate over dividing the Ninth Circuit, the proposal
has its origins in the work of the Federal Courts Study
Committee, which was created by Act of Congress in 1988. In a
report issued in 1990, the Study Committee concluded that the
federal appellate courts were already experiencing a ``crisis
of volume.'' The Study Committee expressed the view that
``within as few as five years the nation could have to decide
whether or not to abandon the present circuit structure in
favor of an alternative structure that might better organize
the more numerous appellate judges needed to grapple with a
swollen caseload.'' The Committee's report presented several
``structural alternatives,'' but it did not endorse any of
them; instead, it called for ``further inquiry and
discussion.'' The proposed Commission would thus take up where
the Federal Courts Study Committee left off.
The proposed Commission would be the first of its kind
since the Commission on Revision of the Federal Court Appellate
System (the ``Hruska Commission''), which completed its work in
1975, more than 20 years ago. Needless to say, dramatic changes
have taken place in the work of the federal courts in those two
decades, including the explosive growth noted above. But there
have been no structural alterations except for the division of
the old Fifth Circuit and the creation of the Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit.
H.R. 908 would give the Commission two years in which to
carry out its work. It also includes a requirement that the
initial appointments to the Commission be made within 60 days
of the date of enactment. That will help to assure that the
process will not be delayed unduly.
Under H.R. 908, the composition of the Commission would
consist of 12 members, with two members to be appointed by each
of six individuals--the President, the Chief Justice, the
Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate, and the Speaker
and Minority Leader of the House. A quorum would consist of 7
members, but 3 may conduct hearings. Funding for the Commission
would be $1.3 million, $500,000 of which has already been
appropriated pursuant to Public Law 104-208, an Omnibus
Appropriations Act passed by the 104th Congress. Members of the
Commission who are federal officers or full-time employees will
receive no additional compensation for their services, but
shall be reimbursed for travel, subsistence, and other related
expenses. Those Commissioners selected from private life will
also be reimbursed for expenses in addition to receiving $200
per day when engaged in Commission-related work. The Commission
will have authority to hire staff and procure the personal
services of experts and consultants.
Hearings
Neither the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual
Property nor the Committee conducted hearings on H.R. 908. The
Senate Committee on the Judiciary did hold hearings on a
similar bill, S. 956, during the 104th Congress.
Committee Consideration
On March 5, 1997, the Subcommittee on Courts and
Intellectual Property met in open session and reported
favorably H.R. 908 to the full Committee by voice vote, a
quorum being present. On March 12, 1997, the Committee on the
Judiciary met in open session and reported favorably H.R. 908
to the House by voice vote, a quorum being present.
Vote of the Committee
There were no recorded votes during consideration of H.R.
908.
Committee Oversight Findings
In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports
that the findings and recommendations of the Committee, based
on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the
descriptive portions of this report.
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight Findings
No findings or recommendations of the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight were received as referred to in
clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives.
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures
Clause 2(l)(3)(B) of House rule XI is inapplicable because
this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or
increased tax expenditures.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
In compliance with clause 2(l)(C)(3) of rule XI of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets
forth, with respect to the bill, H.R. 908, the following
estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office under section 403 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, March 12, 1997.
Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 908, a bill to
establish a Commission on Structural Alternatives for the
Federal Courts of Appeals.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Susanne S.
Mehlman.
Sincerely,
June E. O'Neill, Director.
Enclosure.
H.R. 908--A bill to establish a Commission on Structural Alternatives
for the Federal Courts of Appeals
Summary: H.R. 908 would establish a commission to study the
structure and alignment of the Federal Court of appeals system.
The commission, consisting of 12 members, would have two years
after its seventh member is appointed to conduct the study and
present its findings to the President and the Congress. In
addition, the commission would have the authority to appoint an
executive director, who, with the approval of the commission,
could appoint additional personnel to assist the commission in
performing its duties.
The bill would authorize the appropriation of up to $1.3
million for establishing the commission and carrying out its
duties, but $500,000 of that amount has already been
appropriated. Hence, CBO estimates an additional cost of
$800,000, assuming appropriation of the entire amount
authorized. H.R. 908 would not affect direct spending or
receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply.
The bill does not contain any intergovernmental or private-
sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of H.R. 908 is shown in the table on the
following page. CBO assumes that the full amount authorized in
H.R. 908 would be appropriated by the start of fiscal year
1998. Because $500,000 has already been appropriated for this
purpose, CBO estimates that an additional appropriation of
$800,000 would be required for the commission to complete its
study. Projected outlays are based on the historical rate of
spending for similar commissions.
[By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Spending under current law:
Authorization level \1\............................... 0.5 ....... ....... ....... ....... .......
Estimated outlays..................................... 0.3 0.2 ....... ....... ....... .......
Proposed changes:
Authorization level................................... ....... 0.8 ....... ....... ....... .......
Estimated outlays..................................... ....... 0.6 0.2 ....... ....... .......
Spending under H.R. 908:
Authorization level \1\............................... 0.5 0.8 ....... ....... ....... .......
Estimated outlays..................................... 0.3 0.8 0.2 ....... ....... .......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1997 level is the amount appropriated for the year.
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function
750 (administration of justice).
Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 908
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, and would
not impose any costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
Estimate prepared by: Susanne S. Mehlman.
Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Constitutional Authority
The constitutional authority for H.R. 908 is Article I,
Section 8.
section-by-section analysis
Section 1 of the bill establishes a Commission on
Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals and
enumerates its functions; namely, to study the present division
of the United States into the several judicial circuits; review
the structure and alignment of the Federal Court of Appeals
system, with particular reference to the Ninth Circuit; and
report to the President and Congress its recommendations for
such changes in circuit boundaries or structure as may be
appropriate for the expeditions and effective disposition of
the caseload of the Federal Courts of Appeals, consistent with
fundamental concepts of fairness and due process.
Section 2 of the bill describes the 12-member composition
of the commission: two persons to be appointed by each of six
individuals--the President, the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court, the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate, the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Minority
Leader of the House of Representatives.
All members of the Commission are to be appointed within 60
days after the date of enactment of the bill. Vacancies are to
be filled in the same manner as an original appointment.
Section 2 also requires the Commission, once appointed, to
elect a Chair and Vice Chair from among its members. At least
three members may conduct hearings, but seven will constitute a
quorum.
Section 3 establishes rates of compensation for members of
the Commission. Officers or full-time employees of the Federal
workforce will receive no additional compensation, but shall be
reimbursed for travel, subsistence, and other necessary
expenses related to Commission work. In addition to such
expenses, private members of the Commission will receive $200
for each day (including travel time) they perform Commission-
related work.
Section 4 authorizes the Commission to appoint an Executive
Director who, in turn, may hire staff and procure the personal
services of experts and consultants to assist the Commission in
its work. Section 4 further directs the Administrative Office
of the U.S. Courts to provide administrative services for the
Commission on a reimbursable basis, and requires the Federal
Judicial Center to provide necessary research services on a
reimbursable basis.
Section 5 authorizes the Commission to require from any
Federal department, agency, or independent instrumentalities
any information or assistance the Commission determines
necessary to perform its work. The affected departments,
agencies, and independent instrumentalities are correspondingly
authorized to provide such information and assistance.
Section 6 requires the Commission to submit its report to
the President and Congress no later than 2 years after the date
on which the Seventh Commission Member is appointed. The
Commission will then terminate 90 days after the date of
submission of the report.
Section 7 requires the Committees on the Judiciary of the
House of Representatives and the Senate to act on the report no
later than 60 days following its submission.
Section 8 authorizes up to $1,300,000 to be appropriated
for the Commission to perform its work.