[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 68 (Tuesday, May 17, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Page S3058]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Cornyn, Ms. 
        Klobuchar, Mr. McCain, Mrs. Hutchison, and Mr. Franken):
  S. 1014. A bill to provide for additional Federal district 
judgeships; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, together with my 
colleague and friend Senator Kyl, the Emergency Judicial Relief Act of 
2011.
  This bill would create a total of ten District judgeships in five 
courts across the country that are facing true emergency situations.
  I want to thank our cosponsors, Senators Cornyn, Klobuchar, Boxer, 
McCain, Hutchison, and Franken, for working with Senator Kyl and me on 
this bill.
  As a member of the Senate, I take very seriously our duty to ensure 
that the Nation's Federal courts have the resources they need to 
administer justice for the American people. Our Federal courts bear 
responsibility for adjudicating criminal cases, deciding civil rights 
and employment cases, and resolving commercial disputes between 
companies. When our courts become overburdened, we leave crime victims 
and criminal defendants in limbo and civil litigants without resolution 
to their problems.
  In the Eastern District of California, the need for additional judges 
is acute. This District, which extends over 87,000 miles and 
encompasses California's Central Valley, faces far and away the worst 
caseload crisis in the Nation.
  The District is home to more than eight million Californians, but it 
has only 6 active District Judges. For three decades, the District's 
population has been steadily growing, but the size of the Court has 
been unchanged. Congress has not created a permanent judgeship in the 
Eastern District since 1978 and the only temporary judgeship created 
was allowed to expire and never renewed despite repeated attempts by 
myself and Senator Leahy.
  The result is unacceptable. As of December 31, 2010, the District was 
managing 1,133 weighted filings per authorized judgeship, a caseload 
that is not only the highest in the Nation, but also 300 weighted 
filings per judge higher than any other District Court in the country 
and almost three times the threshold at which the Judicial Conference 
recommends additional judgeships.
  For everyday life, what this means is that individuals and businesses 
must wait months, or even years to have their disputes resolved. 
According to the most recent statistics, criminal felony cases remained 
pending in this court for a median of 12.7 months; and more than 10 
percent of all civil cases were taking more than 3 years from the date 
of filing to be decided.
  The delay is not for lack of effort. As Judge Lawrence O'Neill 
testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2009, the Eastern 
District's judges are among the most productive in the Nation, and the 
court is utilizing every resource currently at its disposal. The 
caseloads are simply unmanageable.
  U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has publicly remarked 
on the problems in the District; so has Associate Justice Anthony 
Kennedy; and the Judicial Conference of the United States has formally 
called on Congress to create more judgeships here.
  The Emergency Judicial Relief Act of 2011 would provide a narrow, 
targeted solution.
  The bill would create new judgeships in five Districts across the 
country where the need is most staggering, four in the Eastern District 
of California, two in the District of Arizona; two in the Western 
District of Texas; one in the Southern District of Texas; and one in 
the District of Minnesota. Additionally, the bill would convert a 
temporary judgeship in the District of Arizona and one in the Central 
District of California to permanent status. The bill would be offset by 
raising civil filing fees $10, from $350 to $360.
  Let me be clear. California needs far more judgeships than this bill 
would create, and I will work with my colleagues to create those badly 
needed judgeships.
  In the meantime, this bill is a narrow, emergency measure to provide 
relief in the handful of Districts that need it the very most.
  I urge my colleagues to work with me to pass this commonsense, good 
government bill.
  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. 1014

       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 ``Emergency Judicial Relief 
     Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGESHIPS.

       (a) Additional Permanent District Judgeship.--The President 
     shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the 
     Senate--
       (1) 2 additional district judges for the district of 
     Arizona;
       (2) 4 additional district judges for the eastern district 
     of California;
       (3) 1 additional district judge for the district of 
     Minnesota;
       (4) 1 additional district judge for the southern district 
     of Texas; and
       (5) 2 additional district judges for the western district 
     of Texas.
       (b) Conversion of Temporary Judgeships.--The existing 
     judgeships for the district of Arizona and the central 
     district of California authorized by section 312(c) of the 
     21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations 
     Authorization Act (28 U.S.C. 133 note; Public Law 107-273; 
     116 Stat. 1788), as of the effective date of this Act, shall 
     be authorized under section 133 of title 28, United States 
     Code, and the incumbents in those offices shall hold the 
     office under section 133 of title 28, United States Code, as 
     amended by this Act.
       (c) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--The table 
     contained in section 133(a) of title 28, United States Code, 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking the item relating to the district of 
     Arizona and inserting the following:


``Arizona..................................................        15'';
 

       (2) by striking the item relating to California and 
     inserting the following:


  ``California:
  Northern.................................................           14
  Eastern..................................................           10
  Central..................................................           28
  Southern.................................................        13'';
 

       (3) by striking the item relating to the district of 
     Minnesota and inserting the following:


``Minnesota................................................     8''; and
 

       (4) by striking the item relating to Texas and inserting 
     the following:


  ``Texas:
  Northern.................................................           12
  Southern.................................................           20
  Eastern..................................................            7
  Western..................................................        15''.
 

       (d) Increase in Filing Fees.--Section 1914(a) of title 28, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``$350'' and 
     inserting ``$360''.
                                 ______