[House Report 104-334]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



104th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 1st Session                                                    104-334
_______________________________________________________________________


 
      COMMENCEMENT DATES OF CERTAIN TEMPORARY FEDERAL JUDGESHIPS

                                _______


 November 13, 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 H.R. 2361]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 2361) to amend the commencement dates of certain 
temporary Federal judgeships, 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 Legislation..............................     2
Hearings.........................................................     2
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
Inflationary Impact Statement....................................     6
Section-by-Section Analysis......................................     6
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............     6

                          Purpose and Summary

    The purpose of H.R. 2361 is to ensure that judicial 
districts, specified as recipients of temporary judgeships 
under the Federal Judgeship Act of the Judicial Improvements 
Act of 1990, receive the benefit of the temporary judgeship for 
five years as intended by the Act. It does so by measuring the 
term of the temporary judgeship from the confirmation date of 
the judge appointed rather than from the effective date of the 
Act.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    In 1990 the Federal Judgeship Act, Pub. L. 101-650, part of 
the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990, created thirteen 
temporary judgeships. These temporary positions are unique in 
that 5 years after the effective date of the Act, December 1, 
1990, the next vacancy occurring in each of those 13 courts 
will not be filled. Therefore, under the present provisions of 
the Act any vacancy created by death, retirement, or by a judge 
taking senior status after December 1, 1995 will not be filled. 
This has the effect of allowing districts with clogged dockets 
to receive the benefit of an extra judge for a temporary period 
of 5 years.
    The problem arises because the confirmation process is 
time-consuming and the temporary judgeship positions were not 
filled in some districts until 1994. For those courts a vacancy 
created soon after December 1, 1995, by death, retirement, or a 
judge taking senior status, would result in that court having 
had the benefit of the temporary position for as little as 14 
months rather than the 5 years intended by Congress. The 
earliest temporary judgeship position was filled in November of 
1991, thus making four years the maximum benefit received by 
any of the affected districts. Under the provisions of the 
present law, the 5 year term intended by Congress may not be 
attained.
    H.R. 2361 establishes the confirmation date of the judge 
named to fill the temporary position as the starting point for 
the 5 years. The first vacancy occurring 5 years after that 
confirmation date will not be filled. This change assures that 
all affected districts receive the benefit of the temporary 
judgeship position for the full 5 years. Under the Act, the 
judge named to fill the temporary position continues in office 
as a permanent federal judge. It is only the first vacancy 
created after the five year term that is not filled, thereby 
allowing the court to return to its pre-1990 Judgeship Act 
number of judges.
    The Western District of Michigan has notified the Committee 
on the Judiciary that because its docket has been dramatically 
reduced, it no longer requires the benefit of an extra judge 
for a temporary period of time and that such a benefit would 
amount to a waste of federal resources. In response to this 
request, H.R. 2361 exempts the Western District of Michigan 
from the new date extension provision.
    This bill will appreciably enhance the administration of 
justice in those districts where the caseloads necessitated the 
creation of temporary judgeships.

                                Hearings

    The provision contained in H.R. 2361 is substantially the 
same as one of the provisions considered by the Committee's 
Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property at a hearing 
on H.R. 1443 on May 11, 1995. Testimony was received regarding 
that provision from the Honorable J. Phil Gilbert, Chief Judge, 
United States District Court for the Southern District of 
Illinois. Section 5 of H.R. 1443 amends the effective date of 
the Federal Judgeship Act in the same manner as the provision 
contained in H.R. 2361. Because of the time deadline for 
enacting the effective date provision, section 5 was introduced 
as a separate bill, H.R. 2361, and brought before the 
Committee.

                        Committee Consideration

    On May 16, 1995, the Subcommittee on Courts and 
Intellectual Property met in open session and reported the 
bill, H.R. 1443, which contains a provision substantially the 
same as that contained in H.R. 2361, by a voice vote, a quorum 
being present. The Committee met in open session and ordered 
reported the bill H.R. 2361, by a voice vote, a quorum being 
present, on October 17, 1995.

                         Vote of the Committee

    Mr. Hyde called up H.R. 2361 and moved its adoption. The 
motion carried on 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)(C)(3) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets 
forth, with respect to the bill, H.R. 2361, 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, October 31, 1995.
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. 2361, a bill to 
amend the commencement dates of certain temporary federal 
judgeships.
    Enacting H.R. 2361 would affect direct spending. Therefore, 
pay-as-you-go procedures would apply to the bill.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them.
            Sincerely,
                                         June E. O'Neill, Director.
    Enclosure.

               congressional budget office cost estimate

    1. Bill number: H.R. 2361.
    2. Bill title: A bill to amend the commencement dates of 
certain temporary federal judgeships.
    3. Bill status: As ordered reported by the House Committee 
on the Judiciary on October 17, 1995.
    4. Bill purpose: This bill would amend the Judicial 
Improvements Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-650), which created 13 
temporary district court judgeships and required that the next 
vacancy in each of the 13 affected districts occurring five 
years after the effective date of the act (December 1, 1990) 
would not be filled. Thus, provisions of Public Law 101-650 
were enacted with the intent of providing each district with 
the benefit of an additional judgeship for at least five years. 
However, because of delays in the nomination and confirmation 
process, many districts have not realized the benefit of having 
an additional judge serving for the intended minimum five-year 
period. Enacting this bill would change the controlling date 
for leaving vacancies unfilled to five years after the 
confirmation date of the temporary judge, rather than five 
years after the effective date of the Judicial Improvements Act 
of 1990. The bill also would exempt the western district of 
Michigan from the date extension provision. Thus, all but 1 of 
the 13 districts would realize the benefit of an extra 
judgeship for at least the full five years.
    5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: Enacting H.R. 
2361 would increase discretionary spending, subject to 
appropriations of the necessary funds, and also would increase 
spending as shown in the following table.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              1996       1997       1998       1999       2000  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATIONS ACTION                                   
                                                                                                                
Estimated authorization level............................  .........  .........          2          3          3
Estimated outlays........................................  .........  .........          2          3          3
                                                                                                                
                                           CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING                                           
                                                                                                                
Estimated budget authority...............................  .........  .........      (\1\)          1          1
Estimated outlays........................................  .........  .........      (\1\)          1          1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Less than $500,000.                                                                                         

    The costs of this bill fall within budget function 750.
    6. Basis of estimate: Based on information from the 
Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC), CBO 
expects that enacting this bill would increase both 
discretionary and mandatory costs associated with the salaries 
and benefits of district court judges and their support 
personnel. Expenses required to support these additional 
personnel also would increase. These increased costs would be 
incurred in most of the 12 affected district courts over the 
next five years when a judgeship is vacated and filled while 
the temporary judgeship is in place. (The thirteenth district--
western Michigan--would be exempt under the bill.)
    Judges' salaries and benefits are not subject to 
appropriations, and thus a change in the number of judges 
affects direct spending. Salaries and benefits for support 
personnel and other expenditures related to a judgeship would 
require appropriation action.
    Based on information from the AOUSC that took into account 
projections for when judges in each of the 12 affected 
districts would retire and the time it takes to nominate and 
confirm judges, CBO estimates that this bill would result in 
slightly more than $2 million in new mandatory spending from 
1998 through 2000 for salaries and benefits of judges. (Under 
current law, total spending for salaries and benefits of 
district court judges during that period would average about 
$150 million a year.) Other additional costs would amount to 
about $8 million over the same period.
    According to the AOUSC, the first vacancies in the affected 
12 districts would not begin to be filled until fiscal year 
1998. CBO estimates that, on average during the 1996-2000 
period, about five more judgeships would be occupied under the 
bill than under current law--for a total of about 15 additional 
work-years for judges. In addition, we estimate that the 
judiciary would have to provide for the equivalent of about 80 
staff-years for both direct and indirect support personnel to 
support judges for the additional 15 work-years cited above.
    7. Pay-as-you-go considerations: Section 252 of the 
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 sets 
up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting direct 
spending or receipts through 1998. CBO estimates that enactment 
of H.R. 2361 would increase direct spending by less than 
$500,000 in fiscal year 1998. The following table shows the 
estimated pay-as-you-go impact of this bill.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            1996       1997       1998  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in outlays......................          0          0          0
Change in receipts.....................  .........      (\1\)  .........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Not applicable.                                                     

    8. Estimated cost to State and local governments: None.
    9. Estimate comparison: None.
    10. Previous COB estimate: None.
    11. Estimate prepared by: Susanne S. Mehlman.
    12. Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine for Paul N. 
Van de Water, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                     Inflationary Impact Statement

    Pursuant to clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee estimates that H.R. 
2361 will have no significant inflationary impact on prices and 
costs in the national economy.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis

    Section 1 of the bill amends Section 203(c) of the Judicial 
Improvements Act of 1990 by providing that the confirmation 
date of a judge named to fill a temporary position established 
under the Act shall serve as the starting point for the 5 year 
term of benefit during which an affected district will receive 
the benefit of the temporary judgeship. Any vacancy occurring 5 
years after that confirmation date would not be filled. This 
change assures that all affected districts will receive the 
benefit of the temporary judgeship position for the full 5 
years intended by the Act. Under the Act, the judge named to 
fill the temporary position continues in office as a permanent 
federal judge. The first vacancy created after the five year 
term is skipped, allowing the specified court to return to its 
pre-1990 Judgeship Act number of judges.
    The Western District of Michigan no longer requires the 
benefit of an extra judge for a temporary period of time 
because its docket has been dramatically reduced. Accordingly, 
section 1 exempts the Western District of Michigan from the 
amended date extension provision.

         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 203 OF THE JUDICIAL IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 1990

SEC. 203. DISTRICT JUDGES FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS.

    (a) * * *
          * * * * * * *
    (c) Temporary Judgeships.--The President shall appoint, by 
and with the advice and consent of the Senate--
         (1) * * *
          * * * * * * *
[The first vacancy in the office of district judge in each of 
the judicial districts named in this subsection, occurring 5 
years or more after the effective date of this title, shall not 
be filled.] The first vacancy in the office of district judge 
in each of the judicial districts named in this subsection, 
except the western district of Michigan, occurring 5 years or 
more after the confirmation date of the judge named to fill a 
temporary judgeship created by this Act, shall not be filled. 
The first vacancy in the office of district judge in the 
western district of Michigan, occurring after December 1, 1995, 
shall not be filled.
          * * * * * * *

                                
