[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 59 (Wednesday, April 28, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4402-S4403]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   JUDICIAL EXPANSION AND THE Y2K ACT

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, over the last several years--according to 
our colleague from North Carolina, over the last 40 years--we have 
heard multiple warnings about the Y2K computer problem. We have heard 
how this problem will overwhelm our Nation's transportation networks, 
financial institutions, business sectors, and State and local 
communities.

  I bring to the attention of the Senate this afternoon another 
institution that could be overwhelmed by the rush to prepare for the 
new millennium, and that institution is one of our direct 
responsibilities--the Federal courts.
  Just over a month ago, the Judicial Conference of the United States--
the principal policymaking body for the Federal courts, chaired by the 
Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court--asked Congress to create 
nearly 70 new permanent and temporary judgeships: 11 on the appellate 
level and 58 in Federal district courts.
  This was an unusually large request by the Judicial Conference. It 
was also an urgent request.
  The Judicial Conference has made biennial pleas for help from 
Congress. Every 2 years, the Conference has recommended additional 
judgeships to be created in order to maintain currency with the 
capacity of the judicial system of the Federal Government of the United 
States with the caseload that system was being asked to accommodate.
  I am saddened to have to state and to indicate to my colleagues and 
the American people that Congress has not created so much as one new 
Federal judgeship since December of 1990--almost 9 years ago.
  Since December of 1990, appellate filings have increased by more than 
30 percent. District court filings have grown by more than 20 percent. 
But this increase is not equally distributed across the Nation.
  In my home State of Florida, we have seen a worse--a much worse--
situation. The Middle and Southern Districts of Florida have seen case 
filings increase by over 60 percent in the last 9 years without one 
additional Federal judge being added to the Middle or Southern 
Districts.
  What has been the consequence of this failure of Congress to respond 
to the legitimate request of the Federal judiciary for additional 
resources to mediate these additional case demands? This has resulted 
in over 1,100 criminal defendants having cases currently pending in the 
Middle District of Florida. On the civil side, more than 5,900 cases 
have yet to receive final disposition.

  The reasons for this need are many. But one stands out in the context 
of the legislation we are now debating, the legislation to turn 
responsibility for Y2K litigation to the Federal courts; and that is, 
the increasing willingness of Congress to federalize what were 
formerly, and I believe properly, State civil and criminal legal 
issues.
  In other forums we have addressed the federalization of criminal 
statutes, and thus I will not dwell on that subject today. But just 
suffice it to say this one fact: It has been now some 135 years since 
the end of the Civil War. Of all of the Federal criminal statutes 
enacted since the end of the Civil War, 30 percent of them have been 
enacted since 1980, or in the last 19 years. So we are in an era in 
which there has been a rush to create new Federal criminal statutes.
  While we can and should debate the merits of this trend, what cannot 
be debated is the fact that this has dramatically increased the burdens 
on the Federal courts and their ability to dispense justice. This trend 
is no less prevalent on the civil side as it is on the criminal side.
  In the last Congress, we considered major legal overhauls that would 
have preempted State tort and property laws.
  In 1998, Chief Justice Rehnquist stated:

       [S]hould Congress consider expanding the jurisdiction of 
     the federal judiciary, it should do so cautiously and only 
     after it has considered all the alternatives and the 
     incremental impact the increase will have on both the need 
     for additional judicial resources and the traditional role of 
     the federal judiciary.

  Unfortunately, the legislation we are considering today runs counter 
to that sage advice. The very nature of the Y2K problem means that 
multiple

[[Page S4403]]

plaintiffs will have similar claims against common defendants--a 
situation ripe for a profusion of class action lawsuits. By giving the 
Federal judiciary original jurisdiction over Y2K class actions, 
Congress will sentence Federal courts to overburdened caseloads far 
beyond the crisis that we currently face.

  I want to make it clear that I recognize the seriousness of the Y2K 
problem and the need to address some of the related legal issues. 
Senators Bennett and Dodd deserve tremendous credit for their 
committee's assessment of how the U.S. Government is preparing for the 
Y2K problem.
  I commend Senator McCain for his forward-thinking focus on the legal 
ramifications of the millennium bug. But I have serious reservations 
about making Federal courts a clearinghouse for Y2K lawsuits of any 
kind. Proponents of this measure have argued that it is necessary to 
federalize the Y2K litigation in order to establish national uniformity 
in this area of the law.
  This view runs counter to basic tenets of federalism. According to 
the National Governors' Association, 39 States currently have 
legislation enacted or pending that could resolve this issue at the 
State level. As such, the burden of proof falls on the proponents of 
this legislation to show why the Federal Government, contrary to two 
centuries of tradition of State responsibility for civil litigation, is 
in the best position to deal with this issue. Such an action of 
federalization amounts to a theft of what has traditionally been the 
State responsibility for these types of cases. As such, I will oppose 
cloture on this legislation.
  Mr. President, thus far, I know of no plan whatsoever to address the 
massive new workload that legislative action such as the federalization 
of Y2K cases could impose on the Federal judiciary, particularly the 
U.S. district courts.
  I urge my colleagues to consider not only the potential legal cases 
that will be generated by the Y2K challenge, but also to thoughtfully 
consider where those cases should best be heard. I believe the 
presumption should be that those cases should be heard where most of 
our civil litigation is heard, which is in State courts. I do not 
believe that the proponents of this change have effectively advocated 
for the necessity of changing that basic tradition in American 
jurisprudence.
  We must be vigilant, as Members of Congress, to avoid legislative 
action that will increase the workload on our Federal courts without a 
commensurate increase in judicial resources. If we fail to do so, the 
end result will be justice delayed and justice denied.
  I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________