January 9, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE 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. 

By Mr. CASEY (for himself, Ms. 

SNOWE,, and Mr. VOINOVICH): 

S. 194. A bill to amend the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 to 

require the Secretary of Agriculture to 

help offset the costs of intrastate 

transportation, storage, and distribution of bonus commodities provided to 

States and food assistance agencies 

under the emergency food assistance 

program; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. 

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise 

today to introduce the Bonus TEFAP 

Assistance Act of 2009 with my colleagues Senator SNOWE and Senator 

VOINOVICH. Our bill provides immediate 

and valuable assistance to our national 

food banks and the families who rely 

on food banks to put meals on the table 

by ensuring that food banks can accept 

and distribute food donations they 

might otherwise have had to decline. 

Our bill has the support of Feeding 

America, formerly known as America’s 

Second Harvest, the national hunger 

relief charity that operates a network 

of over 200 food banks across America. 

We are in the middle of a crisis. The 

on-going economic crisis is the worst 

in a generation, but this crisis is more 

than stock prices and market certainty. The economic crisis has a face. 

The faces of hardworking Pennsylvanians who suddenly find themselves unable to afford food for the family 

meals. The economic crisis is also a 

hunger crisis—a crisis that is pushing 

more people to apply for Federal nutrition programs and stand in line at the 

local food bank. It is a crisis that 

threatens to undo all of the progress 

we have made over the past few decades to end hunger in America. 

The United States Department of Agriculture, USDA, reported that, for 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE
S258 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 9, 2009 

2006, 35.5 million Americans did not 

have enough money or resources to get 

food for at least some period during the 

year. This figure was an increase of 

400,000 over 2005 and an increase of 2.3 

million since 2000. With the fragile 

State of our economy, it is extremely 

likely that these figures for 2007 and 

2008 will be even more devastating. The 

only recourse for these millions of families is to turn to federal food assistance programs and emergency food 

banks for their basic food needs. 

Unfortunately, as articles in national 

publications like the USA Today and 

the New York Times have highlighted, 

there is a critical lack of food inventories available in local food pantries 

across the country. Rising demand, 

sharp drops in federal supplies of excess 

commodities, and declining donations 

have forced food banks to cut back on 

rations, and in some cases, close their 

doors. In short, America’s food banks 

are facing critical shortages now. 

As a member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 

Forestry, I was proud to help create 

last year’s farm bill. The bill helps food 

banks by providing additional annual 

funding to shore up food bank supplies. 

But there are additional measures that 

we can take to help ensure that food 

banks can continue to fulfill their mission. 

That’s why today I’m pleased introduce the Bonus TEFAP Assistance Act 

of 2009. This legislation provides the 

critical support needed to ensure food 

assistance agencies, already in desperate need of supplies, can take full 

advantage of the distributions of bonus 

food commodities supplied by USDA 

through the Emergency Food Assistance Program, TEFAP. By helping to 

offset the intrastate storage, transportation, and distribution costs the food 

assistance agencies incur to distribute 

these bonus food surpluses, the bill ensures that commodities reach the 

greatest number of needy individuals. 

The Emergency Food Assistance Program began in 1981 as a temporary program with dual purposes; it was intended to help reduce the Federal food 

inventories and storage costs while 

also assisting the needy. Because of the 

program’s success in helping distribute 

food to those in need, in 1988, after 

much of the federal inventory was depleted, the Hunger Prevention Act authorized funds to be appropriated to 

purchase food for TEFAP. 

Under current-day TEFAP, the USDA 

provides states and food assistance 

agencies with commodities bought specifically for the program and with 

funding to help cover distributing 

agencies’ intrastate storage, handling, 

and distribution costs. In addition, 

when available, USDA provides any excess food not needed to fulfill other 

program requirements to States for allocation to local food assistance agencies. This excess food is known as 

‘‘bonus TEFAP.’’ Unfortunately, while 

the USDA generously distributes these 

bonus TEFAP commodities to the 

States, many of the State and food assistance agencies are unable to accept 

the bonus TEFAP commodities because 

they do not have the resources to store, 

transport, or distribute them. 

The Bonus TEFAP Assistance Act of 

2009 that I am introducing today alleviates this problem by providing offsetting funds to recipient agencies to assist with the costs of storing, transporting, and distributing bonus TEFAP 

commodities. The funds provided 

through this legislation will help to 

provide more food to those in need 

through food banks, food pantries, 

emergency shelters, soup kitchens, and 

other organizations that directly provide these resources to the public. 

To solve the problem the inadequacy 

of local resources causes, the bill authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture 

to use existing funds granted under 

Section 32 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1935. Currently, Section 32 

funds are used to fund child nutrition 

programs and other programs to support the farm sector at the discretion 

of the Secretary. Through this legislation, a small portion of Section 32 

funds would be allocated to each eligible recipient agency in the lesser 

amount of $0.05 per pound or $0.05 per 

dollar value of bonus TEFAP commodities. With this modest increase in 

funding, the States and their food assistance agencies will be able to accept 

more food distributions from the USDA 

through TEFAP, benefitting the many 

low-income recipients who rely on the 

program for emergency food and nutrition assistance. 

I urge all of my colleagues to join 

Senator SNOWE, Senator VOINOVICH and 

me in ensuring that the States and 

food assistance agencies can accept the 

available excess commodity foods the 

USDA provides under the Emergency 

Assistance Food Program. Food assistance agencies are in dire need of funds, 

food, and supplies and we owe it to 

them to ensure that they can take full 

advantage of every opportunity to 

serve those in our nation who are in 

desperate need. 

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. 194 

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

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Bonus 

TEFAP Assistance Act of 2009’’. 

SEC. 2. ASSISTANCE FOR COSTS OF DISTRIBUTING BONUS COMMODITIES. 

(a) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this section 

are— 

(1) to encourage States and food assistance 

agencies to accept commodities acquired by 

the Secretary of Agriculture for farm support and surplus removal activities; and 

(2) to offset the costs of the States and 

food assistance agencies for the intrastate 

transportation, storage, and distribution of 

the commodities. 

(b) COSTS OF DISTRIBUTING BONUS COMMODITIES.—Section 202 of the Emergency Food 

Assistance Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 7502) is 

amended by inserting after subsection (a) the 

following: 

‘‘(b) COSTS OF DISTRIBUTING BONUS COMMODITIES.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall use 

funds made available under section 32 of the 

Act of August 24, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c), to provide funding described in paragraph (2) to eligible recipient agencies to offset the costs 

of the agencies for intrastate transportation, 

storage, and distribution of commodities described in subsection (a). 

‘‘(2) FUNDING.—The Secretary shall provide 

funding described in paragraph (1) to an eligible recipient agency at a rate equal to the 

lower of $0.05 per pound or $0.05 per dollar 

value of commodities described in subsection 

(a) that are made available under this Act 

to, and accepted by, the eligible recipient 

agency.’’. 

By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, 

Mr. CRAPO, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. 

CARDIN, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mr. 

KERRY, Mr. KOHL, and Ms. 

LANDRIEU): 

S. 197. A bill to assist in the conservation of cranes by supporting and 

providing, through projects of persons 

and organizations with expertise in 

crane conservation, financial resources 

for the conservation programs of countries the activities of which directly or 

indirectly affect cranes and the ecosystem of cranes; to the Committee on 

Environment and Public Works. 

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am 

introducing the Crane Conservation 

Act of 2009. I am very pleased that Senator CRAPO has once again agreed to 

lead on this legislation with me. I am 

always glad to work with my colleagues from across the aisle. We are 

pleased to be joined by Senators 

BOXER, BROWNBACK, CARDIN, KERRY, 

KOHL, LANDRIEU, and MARTINEZ, who 

are cosponsors of this legislation. 

The Crane Conservation Act will ensure we do our part to protect the existence of these birds, whose cultural 

significance and popular appeal can be 

seen worldwide. This legislation is particularly important to the people of 

Wisconsin, as our state provides habitat and refuge to several crane species. 

But this legislation, which authorizes 

the United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service to distribute funds and grants 

to crane conservation efforts both domestically and in developing countries, 

promises to have a larger environmental and cultural impact that will 

go far beyond the boundaries of my 

home State. 

Congress’ efforts to help protect and 

recover species throughout the world 

began in earnest in 1994 when Congress 

passed and the President signed the 

Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation 

Act. The passage of this act provided 

support for multinational rhino and 

tiger conservation by authorizing the 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

to distribute up to $10 million in grants 

every year to support projects in developing countries. Since 1994, Congress 

has established the ‘‘multinational species conservation fund’’ to cover other 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with SENATE