[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 74 (Tuesday, June 3, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H3223-H3225]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ESTABLISHING A COMMISSION ON STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES FOR FEDERAL COURTS
OF APPEAL
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 908) to establish a Commission on Structural Alternatives for the
Federal Courts of Appeals, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 908
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT AND FUNCTIONS OF COMMISSION.
(a) Establishment.--There is established a Commission on
Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals
(hereinafter referred to as the ``Commission'').
(b) Functions.--The functions of the Commission shall be
to--
(1) study the present division of the United States into
the several judicial circuits;
(2) study the structure and alignment of the Federal Court
of Appeals system, with particular reference to the Ninth
Circuit; and
(3) report to the President and the Congress its
recommendations for such changes in circuit boundaries or
structure as may be appropriate for the expeditious and
effective disposition of the caseload of the Federal Courts
of Appeals, consistent with fundamental concepts of fairness
and due process.
SEC. 2. MEMBERSHIP.
(a) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 10
members appointed as follows:
(1) One member appointed by the President of the United
States.
(2) One member appointed by the Chief Justice of the United
States.
(3) Two members appointed by the Majority Leader of the
Senate.
(4) Two members appointed by the Minority Leader of the
Senate.
(5) Two members appointed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives.
(6) Two members appointed by the Minority Leader of the
House of Representatives.
(b) Appointment.--The members of the Commission shall be
appointed within 60 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(c) Vacancy.--Any vacancy in the Commission shall be filled
in the same manner as the original appointment.
(d) Chair.--The Commission shall elect a Chair and Vice
Chair from among its members.
(e) Quorum.--Six members of the Commission shall constitute
a quorum, but 3 may conduct hearings.
SEC. 3. COMPENSATION.
(a) In General.--Members of the Commission who are
officers, or full-time employees, of the United States shall
receive no additional compensation for their services, but
shall be reimbursed for travel, subsistence, and other
necessary expenses incurred in the performance of duties
vested in the Commission, but not in excess of the
maximum amounts authorized under section 456 of title 28,
United States Code.
(b) Private Members.--Members of the Commission from
private life shall receive $200 for each day (including
travel time) during which the member is engaged in the actual
performance of duties vested in the Commission, plus
reimbursement for travel, subsistence, and other necessary
expenses incurred in the performance of such duties, but not
in excess of the maximum amounts authorized under section 456
of title 28, United States Code.
SEC. 4. PERSONNEL.
(a) Executive Director.--The Commission may appoint an
Executive Director who shall receive compensation at a rate
not exceeding the rate prescribed for level V of the
Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 5, United
States Code.
(b) Staff.--The Executive Director, with the approval of
the Commission, may appoint and fix the compensation of such
additional personnel as the Executive Director determines
necessary, without regard to the provisions of title 5,
United States Code, governing appointments in the competitive
service or the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of
chapter 53 of such title relating to classification and
General Schedule pay rates. Compensation under this
subsection shall not exceed the annual maximum rate of basic
pay for a position above GS-15 of the General Schedule under
section 5108 of title 5, United States Code.
(c) Experts and Consultants.--The Executive Director may
procure personal services of experts and consultants as
authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, at
rates not to exceed the highest level payable under the
General Schedule pay rates under section 5332 of title 5,
United States Code.
(d) Services.--The Administrative Office of the United
States Courts shall provide administrative services,
including financial and budgeting services to the Commission
on a reimbursable basis. The Federal Judicial Center shall
provide necessary research services to the Commission on a
reimbursable basis
SEC. 5. INFORMATION.
The Commission is authorized to request from any
department, agency, or independent instrumentality of the
Government any information and assistance the Commission
determines necessary to carry out its functions under this
Act. Each such department, agency, and independent
instrumentality is authorized to provide such information and
assistance to the extent permitted by law when requested by
the Chair of the Commission.
SEC. 6. REPORT.
No later than 18 months following the date on which its
sixth member is appointed in accordance with section 2(b),
the Commission shall submit its report to the President and
the Congress. The Commission shall terminate 90 days after
the date of the submission of its report.
SEC. 7. CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION.
No later than 60 days after the submission of the report,
the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives and the Senate shall act on the report.
SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the Commission
such sums, not to exceed $900,000, as may be necessary to
carry out the purposes of this Act. Such sums as are
appropriated shall remain available until expended.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Coble] and the gentlewoman from California [Ms.
Lofgren], each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble].
General Leave
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the bill
under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
[Mr. COBLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.]
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I rise in support of H.R. 908, a bill to establish a Commission on
Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals.
An amended version of this bill is presented for passage under
suspension of the rules. The amendment to the reported bill makes the
following changes:
It reduces the time established in the bill, as introduced, in which
the commission must come to a conclusion to 18 months from the
appointment of the sixth member of the commission as opposed to 2 years
from enactment.
Second, due to the reduction in time, funding for the commission is
reduced from $1.3 million to $900,000, $500,000 of which has already
been appropriated.
And third, the size of the commission will be reduced from 12 members
to 10 members with 2 members being appointed by each of the majority
leader of the Senate, the minority leader of the Senate, the Speaker of
the House, and the minority leader of the House. Additionally the
President and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will appoint one
member each.
H.R. 908 was introduced in response to recurring attempts to divide
the largest of the Federal judicial circuits, the ninth.
{time} 1430
However, if properly implemented, the commission proposal represents
a sound approach to a problem of national concern, and that is the
explosive growth in the caseload of all of the courts of appeals.
The time is right, it seems to me, 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.
The proposed commission would be the first of its kind since the
Commission on Revision of the Federal Court Appellate System, also
known as the Hruska Commission, which completed its work in 1975, or
more than two decades ago. Needless to say, dramatic changes have taken
place in the work of the Federal courts in those two decades, 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.
[[Page H3224]]
As I have indicated, under the amended version of H.R. 908, the
commission will have 18 months 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. The study is a responsible
method to evaluate any prospective split in the ninth circuit and is
generally overdue.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to add as well that this is not to be
exclusively restricted to the ninth circuit. This commission,
hopefully, will examine the entire system and come back with a
recommendation that the commission deems appropriate.
Many people have been involved in this. We have compromised here and
there. It was initially designed to be a 2-year study. That has been
reduced to 18 months. So many people have given and taken on this, and
I think it is, in its present form, a good bill and I urge its passage.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
H.R. 908, as the chairman has just outlined, creates a commission to
study the structural alternatives for the Federal appellate court
system. With the expanding caseload in our Federal courts, there is
concern throughout the Nation and in the circuits, and nowhere has that
concern been greater than in the ninth circuit, composed of my home
State of California, as well as the States of Oregon, Washington,
Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Arizona, Alaska, and Hawaii.
As the chairman has mentioned, increases in the number of filings in
the Federal courts have greatly outpaced the growth in the Federal
judiciary and has greatly enlarged the caseload of each judge, often to
more than manageable levels. As we approach the next century, I think
it is entirely appropriate to examine the structure of the Federal
judiciary, and I strongly support this legislation.
While it is true that the initial impetus for this bill were
proposals to split the ninth circuit, the proposed commission actually
has a broader mandate, as the chairman has just outlined, than studying
the ninth circuit. In fact, as we enter the 21st century, we need to
take a look at the entire range of possibilities.
Certainly the commission could make a recommendation to split one of
the circuits, to reconfigure the circuits and the Congress could follow
the Commission's recommendation or be free to choose another
alternative. But whatever we intend to do, I know that we will be
better off with the expert advice that this commission will provide to
us. It is always better to have good, thoughtful, expert advice than to
simply move forward, especially in dealing with the judiciary.
So I am happy to join the chairman of the committee and my colleagues
on the Committee on the Judiciary in urging support for the passage of
this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the chairman of the House Committee
on the Judiciary.
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I am strongly in support of H.R. 908. It was reported unanimously
by the Committee on the Judiciary and addresses in a comprehensive
manner and in a bipartisan manner some of the concerns that exist about
the Federal court system.
This bill creates a Commission on Structural Alternatives for the
Federal Courts of Appeals. In 1990, the Federal Courts Study Committee
that had been created by statute in 1988 concluded the appellate courts
were experiencing a crisis of volume. The study committee expressed the
view that--
Within as few as 5 years, the Nation would 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 the
swollen caseload.
The committee's report presented several structural alternatives, but
did not endorse any of them. Instead, it called for further inquiry and
discussion. The proposed commission would thus take up where the
Federal Court Study Committee left off.
It is important to note that recent statistics reflect the fact that
in fiscal 1996, the number of appeals filed in the 12 regional courts
of appeals rose 4 percent to 51,991. This is an all-time high in
filings, with eight circuits reporting increases. Clearly, this study
the committee proposed in H.R. 908 could not be more timely.
The goal of the commission will be to study the entire Federal
appellate court system, but, of course, with a particular view toward
addressing the problems facing the largest and most diverse circuit we
have, the ninth. The bipartisan structure of the commission is designed
to guarantee a fair process, give credibility to the commission's
recommendations and ensure the integrity of the Federal court system.
We cannot subject something as important as the structure of our courts
to political gamesmanship or predetermine the commission's
recommendations.
Problems do exist in the size and makeup of the ninth circuit, and
the committee is convinced that the commission established in this bill
will examine these problems in an equitable fashion. The study called
for in H.R. 908 is a responsible method to evaluate the structure of
the Federal appellate courts and make recommendations that can provide
a sound foundation for congressional action in the future, and so I
strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 908.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Alaska [Mr. Young].
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble], for yielding me this time
and for working so hard. I do believe I had something to do with this
working on a compromise between the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Hill],
and of course the chairman of the committee itself.
I strongly support H.R. 908, but I want to talk about the ninth
circuit itself. It is an empire. A lot of people do not understand
this. It covers a land mass the size of Western Europe, including nine
States and two territories. It serves over 15 million people, more than
our largest city, larger than New York or Los Angeles. It is a
monstrous responsibility, and it is a court that is overburdened at
this time.
If I can say another thing about Alaska. Sometimes I think one of the
reasons it is overburdened is they take cases that mean very little. We
have a highway that we would like to extend 2\1/2\ miles, that
everybody agrees with in the State of Alaska, including the State
itself and all those people in the small community, with a railroad
that goes through a tunnel at this time. And because the trustees of
Alaska filed a suit, the ninth circuit decided to hold up construction
for 6 months.
Now, this is an example of a court being out of touch with the people
of America and the people they represent. Not judicially. They had to
review.
So I suggest one thing. I would like to split the court. This bill
does not do that. I am the extreme. I think the court should be split
at this time so it serves the people as a whole, not to guard massive
cities. But I cannot do this.
So this bill right now is a compromise to set up the commission to
establish what I think they will find out, that I am correct, that the
court should be split. It is the right thing, and I urge the passage of
this legislation.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Montana [Mr. Hill].
Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House
Resolution 908, and I want to thank particularly the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble]
and their staffs for their work in bringing this revised version of
House Resolution 908 to the floor. I especially want to thank the
gentleman from North Carolina for accommodating my concerns and the
people of Montana.
Mr. Speaker, justice delayed is justice denied. We need to study the
problems of the Ninth Circuit Court and address the concerns that
Montanans have expressed to me, that they are not obtaining the same
level of judicial
[[Page H3225]]
consideration as residents of other circuits.
Considering the size of the circuit, the Ninth Circuit is comprised
not only of Montana but eight other States and two principalities. The
Ninth Circuit Court is about twice the size of the next circuit court
in both population and geography. The caseload is among the highest. It
is the fastest growing area of the Nation and the time to complete an
average appeal is more than 14 months, which is 4 months longer than
the national average. Its 28 judges are about twice the recommended
number for an appellate court.
Mr. Speaker, I have worked hard and will continue to work with other
Members of Congress to address this problem. The sooner we study the
problems of the Ninth Circuit Court, the sooner Montanans' justice will
be neither denied nor delayed.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that although there may be at this point
different hunches on how we are going to go, there is unanimity that
this bill before us today should be supported and will yield good and
thoughtful answers to the Congress as we struggle to make our appellate
court system work very well for all Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The question is on
the motion offered by the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble]
that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 908, as
amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________