[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 17]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 23428-23429]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




H.R. 4093, THE ``FEDERAL JUDGESHIP AND ADMINISTRATIVE EFFICIENCY ACT OF 
                                 2005''

                                 ______
                                 

                    HON. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.

                              of wisconsin

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 20, 2005

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, today I am Introducing the ``Federal 
Judgeship and

[[Page 23429]]

Administrative Efficiency Act of 2005.'' I urge the House to pass the 
legislation expeditiously.
  The purpose of this bill is to provide the President with the 
necessary authority to appoint needed circuit and district court judges 
and to increase the number of authorized bankruptcy judgeships.
  A further purpose is to make changes in the structure of the court of 
appeals system, which are required to modernize, streamline, and 
improve the administration of justice for nearly one in five Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, the last comprehensive judgeship bill that was passed by 
Congress was enacted in 1990. Since that time, the volume of cases 
handled by the judiciary has increased substantially.
  The Federal Judgeship and Administrative Efficiency Act authorizes 
the creation of 68 new judgeships--12 at the circuit court level and 56 
at the district courts. In addition, the bill contains authority to 
create 24 new permanent or temporary bankruptcy judgeships.
  These new judgeships will benefit districts across America. When 
confirmed, these new judges will be in a position to help address a 
growing backlog of cases that threatens to clog our courts and imposes 
substantial human and economic costs on our citizens.
  A judiciary that fails in its basic obligation to dispense justice in 
a timely, fair, and dispassionate manner compromises its own 
credibility. A court that is too far removed from those whose disputes 
it is responsible for adjudicating impose severe costs on those who 
must appear before it. The bill before us speaks to these concerns by 
providing for the realignment of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and 
the establishment of a new Twelfth Circuit Court of Appeals.
  The Ninth has become so big--in geographic size, in workload, in 
number of active and senior judges--that it can no longer appropriately 
discharge its civic functions on behalf of the American people.
  Consider: The Ninth has 47 judges, a figure that approaches twice the 
number of total judges of the next largest circuit. The Ninth 
represents 56 million people, or roughly one-fifth of our Nation's 
population. This is 25 million more people than the second largest 
circuit. The Ninth encompasses nearly 40 percent of the geographic area 
of the United States.
  The Ninth Circuit also has the most number of appeals filed and the 
highest percentage increase in appeals filed over the past 4 years. It 
is the circuit-wide leader in the number of appeals still pending and 
ranks a close second in the longest median time until disposition.
  Given these and other problems created by the mammoth breadth and 
size of the Ninth, I believe the responsible action is to modernize and 
streamline the structure of the Courts of Appeals.
  Briefly, H.R. 4093 creates a new Ninth that will feature California, 
Guam, Hawaii, and the Northern Mariana Islands. The new Twelfth will 
consist of the States of Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, 
Oregon, and Washington.
  Importantly in this regard, H.R. 4093 authorizes the President to 
appoint five new judges to permanent Ninth Circuit seats along with two 
other judges who will fill temporary seats. My bill provides that the 
official duty station for these newly authorized judges will be in 
California.
  These additions are consistent with requests made by the Judicial 
Conference and will ensure that future caseload demands on the new 
Ninth will more closely mirror its judgeship resources. California is 
not being singled out or punished by this legislation. Quite the 
contrary, the district and circuit courts that affect the rights of the 
citizens of California are being provided with their proportionate 
share of resources and being liberated to become more productive.
  Mr. Speaker, bigger does not always mean better. The constant 
expansion of the size of a court without also adopting commensurate 
reforms will, most assuredly, not result in improving the performance 
of the judiciary.
  The allocation of judicial resources must be made with an eye toward 
achieving structural coherence within each circuit.
  H.R. 4093 accomplishes that purpose and I urge its adoption.

                          ____________________