[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.

                                  
