House Report 112-152 - TEMPORARY BANKRUPTCY JUDGESHIPS EXTENSION ACT OF 2011

[House Report 112-152]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

112th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 112-152

======================================================================

TEMPORARY BANKRUPTCY JUDGESHIPS EXTENSION ACT OF 2011

_______

July 19, 2011.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed

_______

Mr. Smith of Texas, from the Committee on the Judiciary,
submitted the following

R E P O R T

[To accompany H.R. 1021]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 1021) to prevent the termination of the temporary
office of bankruptcy judges in certain judicial districts,
having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an
amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.

CONTENTS

Page
The Amendment.................................................... 1
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 3
Background and Need for the Legislation.......................... 4
Hearings......................................................... 9
Committee Consideration.......................................... 9
Committee Votes.................................................. 9
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 9
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 9
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 9
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 12
Advisory on Earmarks............................................. 12
Section-by-Section Analysis...................................... 12

The Amendment

The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Temporary Bankruptcy Judgeships
Extension Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY OFFICE OF BANKRUPTCY JUDGES IN CERTAIN
JUDICIAL DISTRICTS.

(a) Temporary Office of Bankruptcy Judges Authorized by Public Law
109-8.--
(1) Extensions.--The temporary office of bankruptcy judges
authorized for the following districts by section 1223(b) of
Public Law 109-8 (28 U.S.C. 152 note) are extended until the
applicable vacancy specified in paragraph (2) in the office of
a bankruptcy judge for the respective district occurs:
(A) The central district of California.
(B) The eastern district of California.
(C) The district of Delaware.
(D) The southern district of Florida.
(E) The southern district of Georgia.
(F) The district of Maryland.
(G) The eastern district of Michigan.
(H) The district of New Jersey.
(I) The northern district of New York.
(J) The southern district of New York.
(K) The eastern district of North Carolina.
(L) The eastern district of Pennsylvania.
(M) The middle district of Pennsylvania.
(N) The district of Puerto Rico.
(O) The district of South Carolina.
(P) The western district of Tennessee.
(Q) The eastern district of Virginia.
(R) The district of Nevada.
(2) Vacancies.--
(A) Single vacancies.--Except as provided in
subparagraphs (B), (C), (D), and (E), the 1st vacancy
in the office of a bankruptcy judge for each district
specified in paragraph (1)--
(i) occurring more than 5 years after the
date of the enactment of this Act, and
(ii) resulting from the death, retirement,
resignation, or removal of a bankruptcy judge,
shall not be filled.
(B) Central district of california.--The 1st, 2d, and
3d vacancies in the office of bankruptcy judge for the
central district of California--
(i) occurring 5 years or more after the date
of the enactment of this Act, and
(ii) resulting from the death, retirement,
resignation, or removal of a bankruptcy judge,
shall not be filled.
(C) District of delaware.--The 1st, 2d, 3d, and 4th
vacancies in the office of a bankruptcy judge for the
district of Delaware--
(i) occurring more than 5 years after the
date of the enactment of this Act, and
(ii) resulting from the death, retirement,
resignation, or removal of a bankruptcy judge,
shall not be filled.
(D) Southern district of florida.--The 1st and 2d
vacancies in the office of a bankruptcy judge for the
southern district of Florida--
(i) occurring more than 5 years after the
date of the enactment of this Act, and
(ii) resulting from the death, retirement,
resignation, or removal of a bankruptcy judge,
shall not be filled.
(E) District of maryland.--The 1st, 2d, and 3d
vacancies in the office of a bankruptcy judge for the
district of Maryland--
(i) occurring more than 5 years after the
date of the enactment of this Act, and
(ii) resulting from the death, retirement,
resignation, or removal of a bankruptcy judge,
shall not be filled.
(3) Applicability of other provisions.--Except as provided in
paragraphs (1) and (2), all other provisions of section 1223(b)
of Public Law 109-8 (28 U.S.C. 152 note) remain applicable to
the temporary office of bankruptcy judges referred to in
paragraph (1).
(b) Temporary Office of Bankruptcy Judges Extended by Public Law 109-
8.--
(1) Extensions.--The temporary office of bankruptcy judges
authorized by section 3 of the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 1992
(28 U.S.C. 152 note) and extended by section 1223(c) of Public
Law 109-8 (28 U.S.C. 152 note) for the district of Delaware,
the district of Puerto Rico, and the eastern district of
Tennessee are extended until the applicable vacancy specified
in paragraph (2) in the office of a bankruptcy judge for the
respective district occurs.
(2) Vacancies.--
(A) District of delaware.--The 5th vacancy in the
office of a bankruptcy judge for the district of
Delaware--
(i) occurring more than 5 years after the
date of the enactment of this Act, and
(ii) resulting from the death, retirement,
resignation, or removal of a bankruptcy judge,
shall not be filled.
(B) District of puerto rico.--The 2d vacancy in the
office of a bankruptcy judge for the district of Puerto
Rico--
(i) occurring more than 5 years after the
date of the enactment of this Act, and
(ii) resulting from the death, retirement,
resignation, or removal of a bankruptcy judge,
shall not be filled.
(C) Eastern district of tennessee.--The 1st vacancy
in the office of a bankruptcy judge for the eastern
district of Tennessee--
(i) occurring more than 5 years after the
date of the enactment of this Act, and
(ii) resulting from the death, retirement,
resignation, or removal of a bankruptcy judge,
shall not be filled.
(3) Applicability of other provisions.--Except as provided in
paragraphs (1) and (2), all other provisions of section 3 of
the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 1992 (28 U.S.C. 152 note) and
section 1223(c) of Public Law 109-8 (28 U.S.C. 152 note) remain
applicable to the temporary office of bankruptcy judges
referred to in paragraph (1).
(c) Temporary Office of the Bankruptcy Judge Authorized by Public Law
102-361 for the Middle District of North Carolina.--
(1) Extension.--The temporary office of the bankruptcy judge
authorized by section 3 of the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 1992
(28 U.S.C. 152 note) for the middle district of North Carolina
is extended until the vacancy specified in paragraph (2)
occurs.
(2) Vacancy.--The 1st vacancy in the office of a bankruptcy
judge for the middle district of North Carolina--
(A) occurring more than 5 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, and
(B) resulting from the death, retirement,
resignation, or removal of a bankruptcy judge,
shall not be filled.
(3) Applicability of other provisions.--Except as provided in
paragraphs (1) and (2), all other provisions of section 3 of
the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 1992 (28 U.S.C. 152 note)
remain applicable to the temporary office of the bankruptcy
judge referred to in paragraph (1).

Purpose and Summary

With respect to the Federal judicial districts listed in
the bill, H.R. 1021 extends the time period within which a
vacancy in the office of bankruptcy judge caused by death,
resignation, retirement, or removal may be filled (with respect
to each judgeship, the ``Lapse Date''). Temporary bankruptcy
judgeships were authorized for these districts by Pub. L. Nos.
102-361 and 109-8. The Lapse Date for certain of these
judgeships was extended by Pub. L. No. 109-8. Currently, the
Lapse Dates for the judgeships affected by this bill either
have already passed or are soon approaching. This bill will
prevent the possible loss of bankruptcy judgeships in judicial
districts that, according to a biennial caseload-per-judge
evaluation conducted by the Judicial Conference of the United
States, have a continuing need for bankruptcy judges.

Background and Need for the Legislation

I. INTRODUCTION

The volume of bankruptcy cases commenced in the United
States continues to grow as individuals and businesses attempt
to cope with the effects of the recent recession. In the 12-
month period ending September 30, 2007, 801,269 bankruptcy
cases were commenced.\1\ Just 3 years later, in the 12-month
period ending September 30, 2010, the number of cases commenced
almost doubled to 1,596,355.\2\ Moreover, in fiscal year 2010,
the number of cases commenced rose in 73 of the Federal
judiciary's 90 bankruptcy courts, remained steady in one court,
and decreased in 16 courts.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Admin. Office of the U.S. Courts, Judicial Business of the
United States Courts: 2008 Annual Report of the Director 293 (U.S.
Gov't Printing Office 2009).
\2\Admin. Office of the U.S. Courts, Judicial Business of the
United States Courts: 2010 Annual Report of the Director 295 (U.S.
Gov't Printing Office 2011).
\3\Id. at 32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bankruptcy cases have also become more complex in recent
years due to the statutory changes made by the Bankruptcy Abuse
Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA) and to
other factors.\4\ Witnesses at a 2009 hearing before the House
Committee on the Judiciary's Subcommittee on Commercial and
Administrative Law testified that BAPCPA's new types of
proceedings and motions have increased the amount of time and
attention a bankruptcy judge must pay to a particular case.\5\
At that hearing, Judge Lynn also testified that there are more
``mega-cases'' today with numerous complicated disputes among
litigants that consume a significant amount of a bankruptcy
judge's time.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Pub. L. No. 109-8, 119 Stat. 23 (2005).
\5\See Bankruptcy Judgeship Needs: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on
Commercial and Admin. Law of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary (the
``Bankruptcy Judgeships Hearing''), 111th Cong. 6 (statement of Hon.
Barbara M.G. Lynn, District Judge, U.S. district court for the Northern
District of Texas, on behalf of the Judicial Conference of the United
States) (the ``Lynn Statement''), 56 (statement Hon. David S. Kennedy,
Chief Judge, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of
Tennessee, on behalf of the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges)
(2009).
\6\Bankruptcy Judgeships Hearing 10 (Lynn Statement) (``Cases such
as Chrysler, Circuit City, and other national and international
corporate reorganizations consume a tremendous amount of a bankruptcy
court's time.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notwithstanding this recent increase in the volume and
complexity of bankruptcy cases, the number of Federal
bankruptcy judgeships has not increased since 2005.\7\
Bankruptcy judges serve as judicial officers of the U.S.
District Courts and preside over the bankruptcy court for their
respective districts.\8\ The number of bankruptcy judgeships in
each district is determined by Congress, which receives a
report every 2 years from the Judicial Conference on the need
for additional judges.\9\ The 2009 report, upon which H.R. 4506
was based in the 111th Congress, recommended that Congress
authorize 13 new bankruptcy judgeships, convert 22 existing
temporary bankruptcy judgeships to permanent status, and extend
two existing temporary judgeships for 5 years.\10\ The 2011
report recommends that Congress authorize 49 new bankruptcy
judgeships, convert 28 temporary judgeships to permanent
status, and extend two existing temporary judgeships for 5
years.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\BAPCPA created 24 temporary judgeships--23 fewer judgeships than
the Judicial Conference determined were needed just prior to its
enactment. Pub. L. No. 109-8, Sec. 1223 (codified at 28 U.S.C. Sec. 152
(2006)).
\8\See 28 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 152(a), 157 (2006).
\9\See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 152(b)(2) (2006).
\10\Judicial Conference of the United States, 2009 Bankruptcy
Judgeship Recommendations (on file with Committee); see Bankruptcy
Judgeships Hearing 18 (Lynn Statement at ``Attachment 1'').
\11\Judicial Conference of the United States, 2011 Bankruptcy
Judgeship Recommendations (on file with Committee).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. HOW THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL BANKRUPTCY JUDGES IS ASSESSED

The Judicial Conference's recommendation to Congress
concerning the need for bankruptcy judgeships is the product of
a multi-step process. First, a bankruptcy court submits a
request for additional bankruptcy judgeships to the district
court, which transmits the request to the circuit court. Then,
the circuit's judicial council considers the request and either
approves it, with or without modification, or disapproves it.
Approved requests are then sent to the Judicial Conference's
Bankruptcy Committee's Subcommittee on Judgeships for
consideration. The Subcommittee reviews the circuit court's
recommendation, conducts on-site evaluations of judicial needs,
and makes a recommendation to the full Bankruptcy Committee.
The Bankruptcy Committee reviews the Subcommittee's findings
and makes a recommendation to the full Judicial Conference.
Upon final approval, the recommendation is then transmitted by
the Judicial Conference to Congress in its biennial report.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\Bankruptcy Judgeships Hearing 47 (Lynn Statement at
``Attachment 4'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is the practice of the Judicial Conference to use a
``weighted case filing'' method to determine judicial needs.
This method assigns a case weight to each new case filed based
on its complexity, the number of parties involved, and other
data relevant to assessing how the case will affect judicial
workload.\13\ Case weights are based on a 1988-1989 study in
which bankruptcy judges completed diaries on how many hours
they spent on specific types of cases.\14\ Weighted case
filings per judgeship equals the annual total of weighted case
filings in a district divided by the number of authorized
judgeships in that district. For example, if a judicial
district had 5,100 weighted bankruptcy case filings and three
authorized judgeships, the weighted case filings per judgeship
is 1,700.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\Id. at 49 (Lynn Statement at ``Attachment 5'').
\14\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Conference has established 1,500 annual
weighted case filings per judgeship as the benchmark for
determining whether a bankruptcy court needs additional
judgeships.\15\ If filings in a bankruptcy court are over 1,500
weighted cases per judge per year, the Judicial Conference will
consider, along with other factors, whether additional
judgeships are needed. It should be noted that the Judicial
Conference's policy is to consider additional judgeships only
for those courts that request them. Thus if a district's
weighted caseload would support requesting another judgeship
but the district does not submit a request, the Judicial
Conference will not recommend to Congress that the judgeship be
created.\16\ Additionally, if a vacancy arises that could be
filled under the authorizing statute but the Judicial
Conference determines the need is not sufficient to fill that
position or an alternative approach is available, it does not
recommend to Congress that it be filled.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\Id. at 50-51.
\16\See id. at 47 (Lynn Statement at ``Attachment 4'')
(determination of judicial need is initiated by the district court on
behalf of bankruptcy court).
\17\See Bankruptcy Judgeships Hearing 6 (Lynn Statement) (``The
conference takes seriously its role as a steward of taxpayer dollars,
and I assure you that we have requested judgeship vacancies be filled
only where there is a workload need after exploring all alternatives to
filling the need for additional resources.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. COST OF BANKRUPTCY JUDGESHIPS

The short title of H.R. 1021 is the ``Temporary Bankruptcy
Judgeships Extension Act of 2011.'' There is no provision in
the United States Code, however, that authorizes an office
called a ``temporary bankruptcy judgeship.'' Every bankruptcy
judge is appointed to a 14-year term and is paid 92 percent of
a district court judge's salary (approximately $155,756 per
year).\18\ Bankruptcy judges with at least 14 years of judicial
service are eligible for a pension equal to 100 percent of the
salary the judge was receiving at the time he or she left
office once he or she reaches age 65.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\28 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 152(a)(1), 153 (2006).
\19\Id. Sec. 377 (2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What, then, makes a bankruptcy judgeship ``temporary''? The
temporariness refers to the provision of H.R. 1021 that
prohibits the filling of the first vacancy in the office of
bankruptcy judge caused by death, resignation, retirement, or
removal in a judicial district after 5 years. It need not be--
and very frequently is not--the death, resignation, retirement,
or removal of the particular judge appointed when the temporary
bankruptcy judgeship is created. After all, that judge would be
beginning to serve the 6th year of his 14-year judgeship when
the lapse date is reached. Consider the District of New Jersey
for example. The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer
Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA) authorized one ``temporary''
judgeship for New Jersey. That judgeship was filled on October
11, 2006. So, if the District of New Jersey suffers a vacancy
in the office of bankruptcy judgeship after October 11, 2011,
and if the vacancy is the result of a bankruptcy judge's death,
resignation, removal, or retirement, the Judicial Conference
cannot fill the vacancy. (It is likely, though, that the
particular judge appointed in October 2006 will still be
serving his 14-year term in October 2011.)
In the 111th Congress, Reps. Cohen, Smith (TX), and Conyers
introduced H.R. 4506, the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2010.
That bill was much broader in scope than H.R. 1021. H.R. 4506
would have created new judgeships, converted existing temporary
judgeships to permanent status, and extended by 5 years certain
temporary judgeships.\20\ Members and Committee staff expected
the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to conclude that the
provisions of H.R. 4506 that authorized permanent judgeships
would increase the federal deficit. And CBO did conclude just
that. It estimated that those provisions would increase direct
spending by $24 million over the next 10 years:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\H.R. 4506, 111th Cong. (2010).

H.R. 4506 also would make 22 judgeships on the
bankruptcy courts that are currently temporary
positions permanent. Under current law, those temporary
judgeships will remain filled for 5 years or until a
vacancy occurs, whichever is later. CBO cannot predict
the timing of vacancies. Therefore, we cannot estimate
how the conversion of the 22 judgeships into permanent
positions under the legislation would affect the
federal budget over the next 10 years. (The same is
true for temporary judgeships that are extended but not
made permanent under the bill.) For this estimate, CBO
assumes that there would be no effect on the federal
budget from this provision over the next 10 years.
However, if any of the temporary judges were to die,
retire, resign, or be removed during the next 10 years,
the bill would require that position be filled at an
additional cost that would not be incurred under
current law.\21\ [Emphasis added.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\See H.R. Rep. No. 111-430, at 10 (2010). The assertion in the
last sentence of this paragraph is not accurate. The bill would have
authorized a vacancy to be filled, but it would not have ``required''
it to be filled. Sometimes, the Judicial Conference elects not to fill
a vacant judgeship because the caseload in the judicial district has
decreased.

However, with respect to Section 4 of H.R. 4506, the
section that simply extended the temporary office of bankruptcy
judge in certain judicial districts, CBO observed that it could
not predict when a specified vacancy in the office of
bankruptcy judge in those districts would occur, and therefore
gave it no score.\22\ The cost of the provisions of H.R. 4506
that did score was more than paid for by Section 5, which
increased filing fees for bankruptcy cases.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\See id.
\23\See id. at 9 (``In total, the changes to direct spending and
revenue made by H.R. 4506 would reduce future budget deficits by about
$1 million over the 2010-2015 period and about $3 million over the
2010-2020 period.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Congress, in preparing H.R. 1021 for bipartisan
introduction, Republican and Democratic staff of the Judiciary
Committee relied entirely on the ``zero'' score that CBO gave
to the section of H.R. 4506 that simply extended temporary
bankruptcy judgeships. H.R. 1021 is identical in nature to
Section 4 of H.R. 4506. Remarkably, however, CBO's cost
estimate of this provision changed in just 12 months. As set
forth below, CBO concludes that H.R. 1021 authorizes new direct
(mandatory) spending. It estimates the bill will cost $5
million over the next 10 years.
CBO's sudden change in the methods it employs to score the
extension of temporary bankruptcy judgeships confesses its
apparently newfound ability to predict when a bankruptcy judge
will die, resign, retire, or be removed, despite the absence of
any objective data concerning the same. It also means that CBO
is newly able to predict whether 4 or 5 years from now the
Judicial Conference will make the decision to fill a bankruptcy
judge vacancy in one of the specified judicial districts.
Despite its inability to make such predictions in February
2010, it is reasonable now to assume that CBO is able to
predict the caseload that such judicial district will bear at
that future time and the rubric that the Judicial Conference
will use in the future to determine judicial need.
Additionally, CBO obviously disregarded the proclivities of
individual bankruptcy judges who are eligible for retirement to
elect to retire just before the 5-year deadline so as to
preserve a bankruptcy judgeship in their district.
The Committee is disappointed to report this bill with a
CBO cost estimate that concludes the bill will increase the
federal deficit by a few million dollars. In authoring H.R.
1021, the sponsors assumed that CBO's scoring methodology would
remain consistent at least for a period as short as 1 year.
Unfortunately, that assumption has proven to be faulty.

IV. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

In the 111th Congress, Representatives Cohen, Smith, and
Conyers introduced the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2010.
Consistent with all of the recommendations in the Judicial
Conference's 2009 report, that bill would have authorized new
permanent judgeships, converted temporary judgeships to
permanent status, and extended some temporary judgeships.\24\
To offset the cost, that bill would have increased filing fees
in chapter 7 and 13 bankruptcy cases by one dollar and in
chapter 11 cases by 42 dollars. The House Judiciary Committee
held one hearing on the bill in the 111th Congress. The
Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2010 passed the House by a vote of
345-5.\25\ The Senate did not vote on the bill and it therefore
did not become law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2010, H.R. 4506, 111th Cong.
(2010).
\25\Roll no. 111, 111th Cong., 2d Sess. (2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1021, the Temporary Bankruptcy Judgeships Extension
Act of 2011, as amended, is a more limited bill than the
Bankruptcy Judgeships Act of 2010. This bill, as amended, does
not create any new permanent judgeships--whether completely new
or from existing temporary judgeships--but merely extends the
Lapse Date for 30 existing temporary judgeships. Upon enactment
of the bill, a vacancy in the office of bankruptcy judge in its
respective district resulting from a judge's death, removal,
resignation, or retirement may be filled until 5 years after
the date of enactment. The affected districts and number of
temporary judgeships whose Lapse Date H.R. 1021 extends are as
follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judicial District Judgeships Extended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central District of California............... 3
Eastern District of California............... 1
District of Delaware......................... 5
Southern District of Florida................. 2
Southern District of Georgia................. 1
District of Maryland......................... 3
Eastern District of Michigan................. 1
District of New Jersey....................... 1
Northern District of New York................ 1
Southern District of New York................ 1
Eastern District of North Carolina........... 1
Middle District of North Carolina............ 1
Eastern District of Pennsylvania............. 1
Middle District of Pennsylvania.............. 1
District of Puerto Rico...................... 2
District of South Carolina................... 1
Western District of Tennessee................ 1
Eastern District of Tennessee................ 1
Eastern District of Virginia................. 1
District of Nevada........................... 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hearings

The Committee on the Judiciary held no hearings on H.R.
1021. In the 111th Congress, the Committee's Subcommittee on
Commercial and Administrative Law held a hearing entitled
``Bankruptcy Judgeship Needs'' on June 16, 2009.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\See Bankruptcy Judgeships Hearing 1 et seq. (transcript of
proceedings).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Committee Consideration

On March 17, 2011, the Committee met in open session and
ordered the bill H.R. 1021 favorably reported with an amendment
by voice vote, a quorum being present.

Committee Votes

In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that there
were no recorded votes during the Committee's consideration of
H.R. 1021.

Committee Oversight Findings

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee advises 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. 1021, the following estimate and
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974:

U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, May 5, 2011.
Hon. Lamar Smith, 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. 1021, the
``Temporary Bankruptcy Judgeship Extension Act of 2011.''
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Martin von
Gnechten, who can be reached at 226-2860.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf,
Director.

Enclosure

cc:
Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Member
H.R. 1021--the ``Temporary Bankruptcy Judgeship Extension Act of
2011.''

SUMMARY

H.R. 1021 would extend the authority to appoint judges to
30 temporary bankruptcy judgeships. Under the bill, those
temporary judgeships could remain filled for 5 years or until
another vacancy occurs, whichever is later. Under current law,
those judgeships cannot be filled if any vacancies occur.
CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1021 would increase direct
spending by about $2 million over the 2012-2016 period and
about $5 million over the 2012-2021 period. Pay-as-you-go
procedures apply because the legislation would affect direct
spending. Enacting the legislation would not affect revenues.
Implementing the bill also would increase spending subject to
appropriation by $4 million over the next 5 years, CBO
estimates.
H.R. 1021 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
and would impose no costs on State, local, or tribal
governments.

ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 1021 is shown in the
following table. The costs of this legislation fall within
budget function 750 (administration of justice).

By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2012-2016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING\1\

Estimated Budget Authority * * * * 1 2

Estimated Outlays * * * * 1 2

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Estimated Authorization Level * * 1 1 2 4

Estimated Outlays * * 1 1 2 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: * = less than $500,000.
1. Over the 2012-2021 period, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1021 would increase direct spending by $5
million.

BASIS OF ESTIMATE

For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 1021 would be
enacted by the end of 2011. CBO cannot predict the timing of
vacancies among temporary judgeships; however, based on
information from the Administrative Office of the US Courts,
historical mortality rates for bankruptcy judges, and mortality
tables provided by the Social Security Administration, we
expect that four vacancies out of an affected population of
more than 100 judges are likely to occur during the 5 years
following the enactment of the bill. Under current law, some
vacancies in judicial districts, regardless of when the judge
was appointed or when the judgeship was established, would
remain vacant; enacting this bill would allow those positions
to be filled.
The salaries and benefits for bankruptcy judges--about
$190,000 per judge per year--are considered mandatory spending
because those amounts do not depend on the enactment of annual
appropriation bills. CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1021
would increase direct spending by $2 million over the 2012-2016
period and $5 million over the 2012-2021 period. If more or
fewer than four judges in the specified districts were to die,
retire, resign, or be removed during the 5 years following the
enactment of the legislation, costs could be higher or lower
than we have estimated.
In addition, CBO estimates that implementing the
legislation would increase spending subject to appropriation by
$4 million over the 2012-2016 period for the salaries and
benefits of support personnel, court operations and
maintenance, and other administrative costs associated with the
additional judges that would be appointed under the bill.

PAY-AS-YOU-GO CONSIDERATIONS

The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 establishes budget-
reporting and enforcement procedures for legislation affecting
direct spending or revenues. The net changes in outlays that
are subject to those pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in the
following table.

CBO Estimate of Pay-As-You-Go Effects for H.R. 1021, as ordered
reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary on March 17, 2011

By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2011-2016 2011-2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NET INCREASE OR DECREASE (-) IN THE DEFICIT

Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Impact 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND PRIVATE-SECTOR IMPACT

The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on State,
local, or tribal governments.

ESTIMATE PREPARED BY:

Federal Costs: Martin von Gnechten
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Melissa Merrell
Impact on the Private Sector: Marin Randall

ESTIMATE APPROVED BY:

Theresa Gullo
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.
1021 extends authorization to refill vacancies in the office of
bankruptcy judge in certain judicial districts by 5 years from
the date of its enactment.

Advisory on Earmarks

In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, H.R. 1021 does not contain any
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff
benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of Rule XXI.

Section-by-Section Analysis

Section 1 sets forth the short title of the bill: the
``Temporary Bankruptcy Judgeships Extension Act of 2011.''
Section 2 extends, with respect to 30 bankruptcy
judgeships, the date after which a vacancy in the office of
bankruptcy judge resulting from death, removal, retirement, or
resignation in the judicial district in which such judgeship
exists cannot be filled by 5 years from the date of the
enactment of the Act.