[House Report 108-625]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
108th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 108-625
======================================================================
ADDITIONAL PLACE OF HOLDING COURT IN THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
_______
July 21, 2004.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Sensenbrenner, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 112]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 112) to amend title 28, United States Code, to
provide for an additional place of holding court in the
District of Colorado, having considered the same, report
favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill
do pass.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 1
Background and Need for the Legislation.......................... 2
Hearings......................................................... 2
Committee Consideration.......................................... 2
Vote of the Committee............................................ 2
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 2
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 2
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 2
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 3
Constitutional Authority Statement............................... 3
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion....................... 4
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 4
Statement Submitted for the Record............................... 4
Purpose and Summary
The purpose of H.R. 112 is to designate Colorado Springs,
Colorado, as a place of holding federal court for the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado.
Background and Need for the Legislation
Colorado Springs has a population of 500,000, making it the
second largest city in the state, the 80th largest in the
country, and the 18th-fastest growing city in America. Six
military installations and three federal prisons, including a
new terrorist wing within a maximum security facility, are
located in Colorado Springs.
Colorado Springs is roughly equidistant from Denver and
Pueblo, which are already eligible as sites to hold U.S.
district court; however, the commute to either city is about 70
miles. The size of the city and growing caseload demands on the
judicial district emanating from Colorado Springs therefore
justify its designation as a place of holding court.
Finally, H.R. 112 is cosponsored by both Republican and
Democrat Members of the Colorado delegation. The affected
judicial district, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts have stated that they
support enactment of the bill.
Hearings
The Committee on the Judiciary held no hearings on H.R.
112.
Committee Consideration
On June 24, 2004, the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet,
and Intellectual Property met in open session and ordered
favorably reported H.R. 112 without amendment by a voice vote,
a quorum being present. On July 21, 2004, the Committee met in
open session and ordered favorably reported H.R. 112 without an
amendment by a voice vote, a quorum being present.
Vote of the Committee
In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee notes that there
were no recorded votes during the Committee consideration of
H.R. 112.
Committee Oversight Findings
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII 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.
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures
Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does
not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax
expenditures.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with
respect to the bill, H.R. 112, the following estimate and
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974:
July 21, 2004.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
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. 112, a bill to
amend title 28, United States Code, to provide for an
additional place of holding court in the District of Colorado.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Lanette J.
Walker.
Sincerely,
Douglas Holtz-Eakin,
Director.
Enclosure.
H.R. 112--A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to provide for
an additional place of holding court in the District of
Colorado
H.R. 112 would allow federal judges in the District of
Colorado to hold court proceedings in Colorado Springs,
Colorado. CBO expects that implementing the bill could increase
costs to the judiciary to rent facilities in Colorado Springs
to hold such proceedings. Based on information from the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts, CBO
estimates that any additional rental costs would not be
significant over the 2005-2009 period.
Enacting H.R. 112 would not affect direct spending or
revenues. H.R. 112 contains no intergovernmental or private-
sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal
governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Lanette J.
Walker. This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
Performance Goals and Objectives
The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R.
112 will help to alleviate the growing caseload demands on the
judicial district of Colorado emanating from the Colorado
Springs area. The change will also provide a necessary safety
feature--the elimination of lengthy commutes to Denver or
Pueblo--for the processing of terrorists who are housed in a
new wing of one of the maximum security prison facilities in
Colorado Springs.
Constitutional Authority Statement
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for
this legislation in article III, section 1 of the Constitution.
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion
H.R. 112 amends section 85 of title 28 of the U.S. Code by
adding Colorado Springs as a place of holding court in the U.S.
judicial district of Colorado.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) 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 (new matter is
printed in italic and existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
SECTION 85 OF TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE
Sec. 85. COLORADO
Colorado constitutes one judicial district. Court shall be
held at Boulder, Colorado Springs, Denver, Durango, Grand
Junction, Montrose, Pueblo, and Sterling.
Statement Submitted for the Record by Representative Lamar S. Smith of
Texas
Representative Hefley of Colorado is the sponsor of H.R.
112, which designates Colorado Springs as a place of holding
federal court in the U.S. judicial district of Colorado.
Colorado Springs has a population of 500,000, making it the
second largest city in the state, the 80th largest in the
country, and the 18th fastest growing city in America. Six
military installations and three federal prisons, including a
new terrorist wing within a maximum security facility, are
located in Colorado Springs.
Colorado Springs is roughly equidistant from Denver and
Pueblo, which are already eligible as sites to hold U.S.
district court; however, the commute to either city is about 70
miles. The size and growing caseload demands emanating from
Colorado Springs therefore justify its designation as a place
of holding court.
Finally, H.R. 112 is cosponsored by both Republican and
Democrat members of the Colorado delegation. The affected
judicial district, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts have stated that they
support enactment of the bill.
I urge Committee members to support the bill and I yield
back the balance of my time.