[House Report 104-180]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



104th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                    104-180
_______________________________________________________________________


 
           EXTENSION OF DISTRICT COURT DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

                                _______


 July 11, 1995.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


   Mr. Moorhead, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 464]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
Act (S. 464) to make the reporting deadlines for studies 
conducted in Federal court demonstration districts consistent 
with the deadlines for pilot districts, and for other purposes, 
having considered the same, report favorably thereon without 
amendment and recommend that the Act do pass.
                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Purpose and Summary..............................................     1
Background and Need for Legislation..............................     2
Hearings.........................................................     3
Committee Consideration..........................................     3
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     3
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.....................     3
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................     3
Congressional Budget Office Estimate.............................     3
Inflationary Impact Statement....................................     4
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion.......................     4
Agency Views.....................................................     5
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............     7
                          Purpose and Summary

    The Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 (28 U.S.C. 471 note) 
required certain federal district courts to conduct 
demonstration programs from 1991 through 1994 for improved case 
management and cost reduction in civil litigation. This law 
also required the Judicial Conference of the United States to 
prepare a report for the Congress on the programs' results by 
December 31, 1995.
    S. 464 would extend the demonstration period through the 
end of 1995, and the report deadline, to December 31, 1996. 
This change would make the reporting deadlines for studies 
conducted in federal court demonstration districts consistent 
with the deadlines for pilot districts which were also 
established under the Civil Justice Reform Act.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

                               background

    Public Law 101-650 known as the Civil Justice Reform Act of 
1990 set up two programs to study various innovative programs 
in court management. One program involves what are referred to 
as demonstration districts. Under Sec. 105(b) of Public Law 
101-650 the Judicial Conference of the United States was to 
designated the 10 district courts that would be the pilot 
courts, while Sec. 104 (b) of Public Law 101-650 specifically 
named the five district courts that were to participate in the 
demonstration program. As part of their expense and delay 
reduction programs the 10 pilot courts are required to include 
the six principles and guidelines of litigation management and 
cost and delay reduction found in Sec. 473(a) of Title 28, 
United States Code. There is no similar requirement for the 
demonstration districts. Rather, two of the demonstration 
districts, the United States District Court for the Western 
District of Michigan and the United States District Court of 
the Northern District of Ohio are required to experiment with 
systems of differentiated case management. The other three, the 
United States District Court for the Northern District of 
California, the United State District Court of the Northern 
District of West Virginia, and the United States District Court 
for the Western District of Missouri are required to experiment 
with various forms of alternative dispute resolution.
    Both the pilot program and the demonstration program were 
originally established for a three-year period, with studies of 
the two programs to be conducted over a four-year period and 
the resulting reports transmitted to Congress by December 31, 
1995. The Rand Corporation has been carrying out the study of 
the pilot courts, while the Federal Judicial Center is 
conducting the study of the demonstration districts.
    Last year, the pilot program was extended for an additional 
year, and the Rand Corporation received a one-year extension 
for its study of those courts. That extension was included in 
Public Law 103-420, the Judicial Amendments Act of 1994. 
Through an oversight, however, no extension was included for 
the demonstration districts.
    S. 464 would grant the same one-year extension for the 
demonstration districts as was granted for the pilot courts. 
This will make the two programs and their studies consistent so 
that the final reports can be directly compared. That was the 
intent behind the deadlines that were established when the two 
study programs were set up. This legislation will restore that 
end. Also, the extension of the deadline will improve the 
study, since more cases will be complete and included in the 
study.

                                Hearings

    S. 464 was introduced in the Senate on February 23, 1995 by 
Senator Hatch, and then referred to the Senate Committee on the 
Judiciary.
    On March 16, 1995, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary 
ordered reported the bill, S. 464, by a voice vote.
    On March 30, 1995, the bill passed the Senate under a 
unanimous consent request.
    On April 3, 1995, S. 464 was referred to the House 
Committee on the Judiciary, and on April 24, 1995, was referred 
to the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. The 
Subcommittee held a hearing on S. 464, and related court 
proposals on May 11, 1995. The Honorable William W. Schwarzer, 
Senior Judge, Northern District of California and the former 
Director of the Federal Judicial Center; and the Honorable Ann 
C. Williams, Judge, United States District Court of the 
Northern District of Illinois submitted letters in support of 
S. 464 as part of the hearing record. [See Agency Views for the 
complete text of their letters]
                        Committee Consideration

    On May 16, 1995, the Subcommittee on Courts and 
Intellectual Property met in open session and ordered reported 
the bill S. 464, by a voice vote, a quorum being present.
    On June 7, 1995, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered reported the bill S. 464 without amendment by a voice 
vote, a quorum being present.

                      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)(3)(C) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets 
forth, with respect to the bill, S. 464, 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, June 13, 1995.
Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
reviewed S. 464, an act to make the reporting deadlines for 
studies conducted in federal court demonstration districts 
consistent with the deadlines for pilot districts, as ordered 
reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary on June 7, 
1995. CBO estimates that enacting this legislation would result 
in no significant costs to the federal government and in no 
costs to state or local governments. Enacting S. 464 would not 
affect direct spending or receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go 
procedures would not apply to the act.
    Public Law 101-650 required certain federal district courts 
to conduct demonstration programs from 1991 through 1994 for 
improved case management and cost reduction in civil 
litigation. This law also required the Judicial Conference of 
the United States to prepare for the Congress a report on the 
programs' results by December 31, 1995. S. 464 would extend the 
demonstration period through the end of 1995 and the report 
deadline to December 31, 1996. Based on information from the 
Administrative Office of the United States Courts, we estimate 
that enacting this legislation would result in no significant 
additional cost to the federal judiciary.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark 
Grabowicz, who can be reached at 226-2860.
            Sincerely,
                                                   June E. O'Neill.
                     Inflationary Impact Statement

    Pursuant to clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee estimates that S. 464 
will have no significant inflationary impact on prices and 
costs in the national economy.

                      Section-By-Section Analysis

    Section 1. Public Law 101-650 required five specified 
federal district courts to conduct demonstration programs from 
1991 through 1994 for improved case management and cost 
reduction in civil litigation. This law also required the 
Judicial Conference of the United States to prepare for the 
Congress report on the programs results by December 31, 1995.
    This section would extend the demonstration period through 
the end of 1995 and the report deadline to December 31, 1996. 
This change will make the reporting deadlines for studies 
conducted in federal court demonstration districts consistent 
with the deadlines for pilot courts which were extended in 
Public Law 103-420, the Judicial Amendments Act of 1994.

                              Agency Views

                                         San Francisco, CA,
                                                       May 9, 1995.
Hon. Carlos J. Moorhead,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Courts and 
        Intellectual Property, House of Representatives, Washington, 
        DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: I write in reference to S. 464, a bill 
currently before your subcommittee, which would extend for one 
year the date for submission of the Judicial Conference's study 
of the five demonstration districts established under Civil 
Justice Reform Act of 1990.
    The Civil Justice Reform Act as initially passed placed the 
demonstration districts on the same time table as the pilot and 
comparison districts established by the Act. Both sets of 
courts were asked to experiment with various procedures until 
December 1994, and the Judicial Conference was directed to 
report on these courts' experiences by December 1995. The 
parallel time frames permitted comparison of the studies and 
the use of both by the Judicial Conference in making its 
recommendations to Congress.
    Last year the time frames for the pilot and comparison 
courts were extended for an additional year to permit a more 
reliable study of these courts. Due to an oversight, this 
legislation did not include an extension for the demonstration 
districts, and thus the two studies are no longer on parallel 
tracks, nor does the study of the demonstration districts have 
the benefit of an additional year of data collection.
    In response to a request from your staff for comment on S. 
464, I write to express my support for the legislation. As it 
is unlikely that Congress will take action in response to the 
CJRA until it receives the Judicial Conference's report on the 
pilot courts, it seems wise to have the Federal Judicial Center 
use the additional year to continue data collection in the 
demonstration districts. The alternative, to maintain the 
December 1994 reporting date, would leave the report on these 
courts lying dormant until the pilot court study and the 
Judicial Conference's recommendations are submitted in December 
1995. I believe it is the wiser course to strengthen the 
Center's study with an additional year of data collection and 
to keep the two CJRA studies on the same timetable.
    I note that S. 464 had strong bipartisan support in the 
Senate and was passed unanimously. I understand also that there 
would be no budgetary consequences from the legislation, as it 
would impose no additional requirements on the courts or the 
Federal Judicial Center. Given the purely technical nature of 
the amendment and the substantial benefits it would achieve at 
no additional cost. I urge the House to pass this legislation.
            Sincerely,
                                      William W. Schwarzer,
                               Senior United States District Judge.
                      United States District Court,
                             Northern District of Illinois,
                                                      May 11, 1995.
Hon. Carlos J. Moorhead,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Courts and 
        Intellectual Property, House of Representatives, Washington, 
        DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: I write in reference to S. 464, a bill 
currently before your subcommittee. The bill would extend for 
one year the reporting date for the Judicial Conference's study 
of the five demonstration districts established under the Civil 
Justice Reform Act of 1990.
    In the original framework established by the Civil Justice 
Reform Act, the demonstration districts were given the same 
time table as the pilot and comparison districts, with the 
districts' experiments running until December 1994 and the 
Judicial Conference's reports to Congress scheduled for 
December 1995. One purpose of the identical time frames was to 
permit the Judicial Conference to compare the two sets of 
experiments in developing its recommendations to Congress.
    Last year, the time frames for the pilot and comparison 
districts were extended one year, establishing a new reporting 
date of December 1996 (Judicial Amendments Act of 1994). It is 
my understanding that a one-year extension for the 
demonstration districts was to have been included in that 
legislation but was inadvertently omitted. S. 464 would correct 
that omission and thus would restore the parallel timetables of 
the pilot and demonstration districts.
    While the Judicial Conference has no formal position on 
this issue, I would like personally to express my support for 
this extension because parallel timetables will aid the work of 
the Judicial Conference committee I chair. If the demonstration 
districts are not extended, the information from the study of 
those courts will lie on the shelf for a year while we await 
the pilot courts study, when instead the intervening year could 
be used to add information as current and as comprehensive as 
the information we will receive about the pilot courts. Given 
the opportunity for a stronger study, there seems little reason 
to end the study of the demonstration districts prematurely.
    I want to emphasize that the benefits of the additional 
year would be achieved at no additional cost. S. 464 would 
impose no new demands on the demonstration districts and would 
create no new funding needs for the judiciary. I also want to 
underscore that this is solely corrective legislation and that 
I know of no opposition to it. As you know, the legislation had 
strong bipartisan sponsorship in the Senate and was passed 
unanimously by that body. I also have the full commitment of 
the Federal Judicial Center to continue its study on behalf of 
the Judicial Conference.
    I will be happy to answer any questions you may have 
regarding this matter, and I thank you for your consideration 
of our views on this legislation.
            Sincerely,
                                                   Ann C. Williams.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

          SECTION 104 OF THE CIVIL JUSTICE REFORM ACT OF 1990

SEC. 104. DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

    (a) In General.--(1) During the [4-year period] 5-year 
period beginning on January 1, 1991, the Judicial Conference of 
the United States shall conduct a demonstration program in 
accordance with subsection (b).
          * * * * * * *
    (d) Report.--Not later than [December 31, 1995,] December 
31, 1996, the Judicial Conference of the United States shall 
transmit to the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and 
the House of Representatives a report of the results of the 
demonstration program.