```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 4 (Friday, January 9, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S256-S257]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Inouye,

[[Page S257]]

        Mr. Roberts, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Voinovich, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Johanns, 
        Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Brown):
  S. 193. A bill to create and extend certain temporary district court 
judgeships; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to 
provide urgently needed relief to federal district courts in 
California, Hawaii, Kansas, Nebraska, and Ohio.
  This bill is supported by both Senators from all five of the States 
affected Senators Boxer and myself, Senators Brownback and Roberts, 
Senators Akaka and Inouye, Senators Nelson and Johanns, and Senators 
Brown and Voinovich.
  The bill is identical to a bill passed by the Senate by unanimous 
consent last year. I hope that my colleagues will move expeditiously to 
consent to this bill once again.
  The bill creates one new temporary judgeship in the Eastern District 
of California and one in the District of Nebraska, and it extends 
temporary judgeships in the District of Hawaii, the District of Kansas, 
and the Northern District of Ohio.
  The bill has broad, bipartisan support because the relief it provides 
is sorely needed. All of these courts face overwhelming caseloads that 
are leading to judicial burnout and long delays in the administration 
of justice. The bill, put simply, provides assistance to districts that 
do not have enough judges to handle the work assigned to them.
  I have been concerned about this problem in the Eastern District of 
California for many years now.
  According to statistics provided by the Administrative Office of the 
United States Courts, the Eastern District's caseload burden is higher, 
on a sustained basis, than any other district in the country.
  In 2008, the judges in the Eastern District handled 968 cases each. 
That is twice the number of cases that the Judicial Conference 
recommends. In fact, the Judicial Conference has recommended that 
Congress create a new judgeship in a district whenever a threshold of 
430 cases per judge is reached.
  A caseload burden of this magnitude is not only a problem for judges. 
The people who live in the district and other litigants who appear 
before the court are also affected.
  Victims of crime are forced to endure long waiting periods to see 
justice done. Citizens find that they are unable to resolve their civil 
disputes promptly. And plaintiffs face extensive delays in getting 
damages or restitution for harms that they have suffered.
  Currently, people who have cases in the Eastern District court are 
facing delays of approximately 42 months from filing to verdict. That 
is three and a half years--twice the national average for federal court 
delays. This kind of delay is simply unacceptable.
  The delays are by no means the fault of the district judges either. 
By every measure, the judges in the Eastern District are among the most 
productive in the nation.
  In 2008, each of the district's active judges completed 903 cases. In 
addition to this extraordinary effort, two of the five senior judges 
carry a full load.
  One senior judge has explained that he has not reduced his workload 
for two reasons: ``[F]irst the district is so short of needed judges 
that it appears to me unjust to leave those who require a court either 
to resolve criminal cases or resolve their civil cases; second, I have 
felt great compassion for my colleagues who would be left with a still 
more unmanageable case load if I left or even cut down on my load.''
  In California, the overwhelming burden on the Eastern District court 
is no secret. This past summer, the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit 
called on all judges in the Circuit--district and circuit judges 
alike--to volunteer to hear 15 cases in the Eastern District each. 
Although 84 federal judges generously stepped forward to relieve the 
District of more than 1,000 cases, thousands of cases remain pending.
  The Eastern District of California should not be forced to rely on 
temporary assistance from judges from other districts. Each court needs 
enough judges to handle its caseload in a reasonably timely manner.
  Although not sufficient, one temporary district judgeship would 
provide much needed relief to the hardworking judges of the Eastern 
District and the litigants who come before them. Based on last year's 
filings, one new judgeship would reduce the filings per judge from 968 
to 572.
  Congress has not authorized a new permanent judgeship for the 
district since 1978. In 1992, a temporary judgeship was authorized, but 
that judgeship expired in 2004. Last year, a bill that I co-sponsored--
the Federal Judgeship Act of 2008--would have provided four new 
permanent judgeships, but that bill stalled before the full Senate 
after being favorably reported out of the Judiciary Committee.
  This bill was introduced by Senator Leahy last year, and I want to 
thank him for all of his work on its behalf. The bill passed the Senate 
by unanimous consent. This year, the need is only greater, as caseloads 
have only increased.
  I urge my colleagues to consent to this bill once again, and to do so 
in an expeditious manner.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 193

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. TEMPORARY JUDGESHIPS FOR DISTRICT COURTS.

       (a) Additional Temporary Judgeships.--
       (1) In general.--The President shall appoint, by and with 
     the advice and consent of the Senate--
       (A) 1 additional district judge for the eastern district of 
     California; and
       (B) 1 additional district judge for the district of 
     Nebraska.
       (2) Vacancies not filled.--The first vacancy in the office 
     of district judge in each of the offices of district judge 
     authorized by this subsection, occurring 10 years or more 
     after the confirmation date of the judge named to fill the 
     temporary district judgeship created in the applicable 
     district by this subsection, shall not be filled.
       (b) Extension of Certain Temporary Judgeships.--Section 
     203(c) of the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990 (Public Law 
     101-650; 28 U.S.C. 133 note) is amended--
       (1) in the second sentence, by inserting ``the district of 
     Hawaii,'' after ``Pennsylvania,'';
       (2) in the third sentence (relating to the district of 
     Kansas), by striking ``17 years'' and inserting ``26 years'';
       (3) in the fifth sentence (relating to the northern 
     district of Ohio), by striking ``17 years'' and inserting 
     ``25 years''; and
       (4) by inserting ``The first vacancy in the office of 
     district judge in the district of Hawaii occurring 20 years 
     or more after the confirmation date of the judge named to 
     fill the temporary judgeship created under this subsection 
     shall not be filled.'' after the sixth sentence.
                                 ______
```