A bill to reform the process for the selection and oversight of administrative law judges, and for other purposes.
Latest action. Reported to House from the Committee on Post Office and civil serviceThe career federal workforce, hired by merit and protected from being fired for political reasons. About 2 million people, the vast majority of the executive branch.Read the full definition (opens a new tab) with amendment, H. Rept. 96-1186.
(Reported to House from the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service with amendment, H. Rept. 96-1186) Revises the procedure for the selection and oversight of administrative law judges. Directs the Office of Personnel Management (OPM): (1) in consultation with the Administrative Conference of the United States, to establish the qualifications for administrative law judges and to administer a system for examining and selecting such judges; (2) to rank such judges; and (3) at the request of an agency, to certify at least five but not more than ten of the highest ranked candidates for a vacant judge position. Permits an agency to select a judge only from such certified candidates or by voluntary transfer approved by OPM. Allows an agency to select a candidate who is receiving a civil service annuity only with the approval of OPM. Requires each agency with more than one judge to appoint a judge to have supervisory responsibilities. Establishes within the Administrative Conference an Administrative Law Judge Performance Review Board. Directs the Board to: (1) establish a performance appraisal system for judges which provides for evaluating the performance of each judge every six years; and (2) receive, investigate, and act upon complaints concerning a judge's performance. Requires the Board to: (1) establish procedures for ordering the reassignment, suspension, removal or reduction in the pay of a judge for unacceptable performance or on the basis of a complaint; and (2) notify the judge, the head of the agency employing the judge, and any supervisory judge of such agency of the reasons for any proposed decision to issue such an order. Provides the judge 30 days to respond to such a decision. Directs the Board to issue an order reaffirming, modifying, or withdrawing the decision after considering such response. Permits the judge to appeal such order to the Merit Systems Protection Board. Prohibits agency officials from interfering or attempting to interfere with the objective performance of the duties of a judge. Declares that an annuitant who is reemployed as a judge does not serve at the will of the employing agency. Makes technical and conforming amendments.
Written by analysts at the Congressional Research Service and published on Congress.gov, not by Civibrief. Summarized at the "Reported to House with amendment(s)" stage on July 23, 1980. It describes the bill, it is not the legal text.
Where is it in the process, and what happens next?
4 steps remain before this bill could become law.
The record's latest action, on July 23, 1980: Reported to House from the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service with amendment, H. Rept. 96-1186.
- Clearing the committees it was referred to, and being scheduled for a floor vote
- Passage by the House
- Passage by the Senate
- The President's signature. If the President vetoes it, two-thirds of both chambers must vote to override.
How likely is it to become law?
Civibrief does not forecast outcomes and this page has no opinion about this one. What the record supports is a base rate, which is a fact about the whole pile, not a prediction about this measure.
In the 96th Congress (1979-80), 613 of the 12,581 bills and joint resolutions introduced became law, about 4.9 percent. That count covers every measure at every stage, including the many that never left committee.
This one is not there yet: 4 steps are still outstanding, listed above.
Has anyone actually voted on it?
No. No roll call in this Congress cites this measure. That is the ordinary outcome: most measures never reach a recorded floor vote, and a committee ends most of them simply by not acting.
A vote is not the only thing that happens to a measure. Hearings, markups, and referrals are all recorded actions, and none of them is a vote of the full chamber.
Who is behind it?
JAMES HANLEY (D-NY) introduced it on March 11, 1980. No cosponsors are recorded.
Cosponsoring is a formal signature on the text. It is not a commitment to vote for the measure, it does not bind anyone's party, and a long list of cosponsors is a measure of attention rather than of prospects.
How long has it been in play?
It was introduced on March 11, 1980, 16984 days ago. The most recent recorded action was 16850 days ago, on July 23, 1980.
Measures do not carry over. Anything the 96th Congress has not finished by January 3, 1981 dies when the term ends, and has to be introduced again from the start in the next Congress.
Every answer above is assembled from this measure's own record on Congress.gov and from published counts of what Congress has passed before. Civibrief does not predict outcomes and takes no position on any measure.
Vote history
- HouseIn committee, no floor vote yet
- SenateAwaits House passage
- PresidentAwaits both chambers