[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 16]
[Senate]
[Pages 21073-21077]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself and Ms. Collins):
  S. 1649. A bill to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass 
destruction, to prepare for attacks using weapons of mass destruction, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Lieberman in 
introducing the Weapons of Mass Destruction Prevention and Preparedness 
Act of 2009. This legislation would increase our Nation's protections 
against an attack using WMDs.
  The bill implements many of the recommendations of the Commission on 
the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and 
Terrorism. Congress established that Commission in 2007 in legislation 
that Senator Lieberman and I coauthored.
  Heading the WMD Commission were former Senators Bob Graham and Jim 
Talent. Last December, the Commission produced a comprehensive report 
on the WMD threats to our Nation and provided recommendations to 
prevent further proliferation and acts of terrorism using these deadly 
weapons. The Commission's ``World at Risk'' report warned that it is 
``more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction will be used 
in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013.''
  The Commission's report is a call to action.
  The Commission reinforces the sense of urgency that the Homeland 
Security Committee has felt during its many hearings on deadly threats 
to the American people--threats that include terrorists dispersing 
anthrax spores, detonating a nuclear device in a major city, or 
striking with other weapons of mass destruction.
  In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress 
created the Department of Homeland Security, reformed our intelligence 
agencies, strengthened FEMA, increased grants for State and local first 
responders, and enhanced security at our seaports and chemical 
facilities. As the Commission observes, however, ``the terrorists have 
been active, too,'' and we must continue our efforts. Nuclear 
proliferation and advances in biotechnology give terrorists new methods 
to carry out their avowed intention to commit mass murder.
  The mental images of nuclear blasts and mushroom clouds are powerful 
and frightening. As the WMD Commission rightly notes, however, the more 
likely threat is from a biological weapon. In contrast to nuclear 
weapons, the technological hurdle is lower to develop and disseminate 
bioweapons, access to pathogens is more widespread, and pathogens are 
harder to contain. The spread of biotechnology, the difficulty of 
detecting such pathogens, and terrorists' known interest in 
bioterrorism combine to produce an even greater menace.
  Bio-weapons are appealing to terrorists in part because we are 
unlikely to realize that an attack has occurred before it begins to 
kill many of its victims.
  Worldwide security has lagged behind the growth of this threat. Even 
within our own country, the Commission and GAO have found that we fail 
to secure potential biological weapons effectively. In July, the GAO 
found significant deficiencies in perimeter security at biological labs 
that handle the world's most dangerous biological agents and diseases, 
such as the Ebola virus and smallpox. Because no cure or treatment 
exists for some of the pathogens handled by these labs, this is 
alarming.
  Thousands of individuals in the United States have access to 
dangerous pathogens. Currently there are about 400 research facilities 
and nearly 15,000 individuals in the U.S. authorized to handle the 
deadly pathogens on the ``Select Agent List.'' Indeed, the FBI has 
determined that a cleared scientist who worked at a regulated research 
lab likely carried out the Anthrax attacks on the Senate and the U.S. 
postal system in 2001.
  To counter this threat, the WMD Commission recommends increasing the 
security of biological laboratories that handle dangerous pathogens. 
This legislation would do so by establishing additional security 
measures for the most dangerous pathogens that terrorists are likely to 
use in an attack. A negotiated rulemaking--with Federal agencies and 
research institutions at the table--would develop these enhanced 
security standards. This would ensure that regulations, which make our 
Nation's labs more secure, would not have the unintended consequence of 
deterring legitimate research endeavors.
  In order to help fund the security enhancements at the highest-risk 
biolabs and avoid diverting research funding to security upgrades, the 
bill authorizes a grant program at $50 million for each of the next 
four years. This is a sufficient level of funding to ensure that each 
of the labs registered to handle the most dangerous pathogens could 
access funding.
  In response to another Commission finding that many research 
facilities that handle less strictly controlled, yet still dangerous 
pathogens are not even known to the government, the legislation 
requires registration of these labs. This system of enhanced security 
for labs with the most dangerous pathogens and the registration of labs 
that handle less dangerous pathogens will result in facility security 
requirements that are tiered based on the risk that a pathogen at a 
particular facility could be used in a biological attack.
  To better prepare the American people for a bio-weapon attack, the 
bill improves the government's ability to distribute medical 
countermeasures and requires actions to improve communications with the 
public before and during a biological attack. As the Commission wisely 
advised, citizens need to know what to expect during a biological 
attack and how they should respond.
  While security controls must be improved within our own country, 
global security problems are daunting. Countries like Syria do not 
adhere to the Biological Weapons Convention, which is the multilateral 
treaty that banned the development, production, and stockpiling of 
biological weapons. Other countries that signed the treaty may not be 
living up to these commitments.
  To address these international biosecurity threats, the bill requires 
that the Director of National Intelligence, DNI, report on countries 
that have facilities with the highest-risk pathogens and the security 
measures in place at these facilities. The DNI also must develop a 
strategy for improving the Federal Government's capabilities to 
collect, analyze, and disseminate intelligence related to weapons of 
mass destruction.
  In addition, the bill would direct the Secretary of State to provide 
assistance to enhance security at laboratories with dangerous pathogens 
worldwide and to use exchange programs to train foreign nationals. In 
this way, foreign nationals can promote lab safety and detect disease 
outbreaks in their home countries.
  This legislation, which would implement the WMD Commission's 
recommendations, is an important and significant step forward in 
addressing the growing threat of weapons of mass destruction, and of 
bio-weapons in particular. Countering this threat is critical for the 
security of our Nation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEVIN:
  S. 1651. A bill to modify a land grant patent issued by the Secretary 
of the Interior; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a companion bill to 
Representative Stupak's bill, which is also being introduced today, 
that would modify a patent issued to the Great Lakes Shipwreck 
Historical Society for the conveyance of a parcel of land at Whitefish 
Point, Michigan at

[[Page 21074]]

the U.S. Coast Guard Whitefish Point Light Station. The land patent was 
originally issued ten years ago for the interpretation and preservation 
of maritime history. In accordance with the land patent, the Great 
Lakes Shipwreck Historical Society established and has operated a 
museum that brings to life the strength and fury of the Great Lakes and 
the bravery of the U.S. Life Saving Service who rescued thousands of 
people from Great Lakes shipwrecks.
  This legislation modifies the land patent such that development of 
new facilities and expansion of existing facilities or infrastructure 
would be implemented in accordance with the 2002 Human Use/Natural 
Resource Plan instead of the 1992 Whitefish Point Comprehensive Plan. 
The 2002 plan was developed pursuant to a court-ordered settlement 
agreement regarding the 1992 plan.
  The modification of the land patent is intended to further the 
purposes of the original patent, which is for preservation and 
interpretation of maritime history, while maintaining the conservation 
of natural habitat and wildlife areas, since Whitefish Point is an 
important birding area as well. This bill would ensure that the vibrant 
stories of the Great Lakes can be preserved and interpreted for future 
generations.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mr. Roberts):
  S. 1652. A bill to amend part B of the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act to provide full Federal funding of such part; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from 
Kansas, Senator Roberts, in introducing the IDEA Full Funding Act. The 
aim of this legislation is to ensure, at long last, that Congress makes 
good on a commitment it made more than three decades ago when we passed 
what is now called the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. At 
that time, in 1975, we told children with disabilities, their families, 
schools, and States that the Federal Government would pay 40 percent of 
the extra cost of special education. We have never lived up to that 
commitment and only recently came close because of the one-time 
investment through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
  As we introduce this bill, our children are beginning another school 
year. Some are meeting new teachers and going to new classrooms. Some 
are starting at a completely new school with new opportunities for 
success and new challenges. Yet we are still shortchanging children 
with disabilities and their educational opportunities.
  We tell our children all the time to keep their promises, to live up 
to their commitments, to do as they say they are going to do. We teach 
them that if they fail to do so, other people can be hurt. Well, that 
is what Congress has done by failing to appropriately fund IDEA: We 
have hurt school children all across America. We have pitted children 
with disabilities against other children for a limited pool of school 
funds. We have put parents in the position of not demanding services 
that their child with a disability truly needs, because they have been 
told that the services cost too much and other children would suffer. 
We have hurt school districts, which are forced, in effect, to rob 
Peter to pay Paul in order to provide services to students with 
disabilities. We have also hurt local taxpayers, who are obliged to pay 
higher property taxes and other local taxes in order to pay for IDEA 
services because the Federal Government has reneged on its commitment.
  I was pleased that we were able to increase funding for the IDEA 
grants to States program as part of the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act this year to $22.8 billion. That represents 34 percent 
of the additional funding needed to support special education. However, 
the Recovery Act is a one-time investment designed to address a crisis 
caused by the recession that could have resulted in the loss of 
thousands of teachers and programs students need to be successful. 
Without the Recovery Act, IDEA grants are currently funded at around 17 
percent of the cost of special education programs. So we have a long 
way to go to reach the 40 percent level. But it is time to do so. It is 
time for the Federal Government to make good on its promise to students 
with disabilities in this country.
  The IDEA Full Funding Act is pretty straightforward. It authorizes 
increasing amounts of mandatory funding in 6 year increments that, in 
addition to the discretionary funding allocated through the 
Appropriations Committee, will finally meet the Federal Government's 
commitment to educating children with disabilities.
  This bill is a win-win-win for the American people. Students with 
disabilities will get the education services that they need in order to 
achieve and succeed. School districts will be able to provide these 
services without cutting into their general education budgets. Local 
property tax payers will get relief.
  Full funding of IDEA is not a partisan issue. We all share an 
interest in ensuring that children with disabilities get an appropriate 
education, and that local school districts do not have to slash their 
general education budgets in order to pay for special education. We all 
share a sense of responsibility to make good on the promise Congress 
made to fully fund its promised share of special education costs.
  In the 3 decades since Congress passed IDEA, and in the 8 years since 
we passed the No Child Left Behind Act, we have dramatically increased 
opportunities for students with disabilities. Likewise, we are holding 
local systems accountable in unprecedented ways. It is time for us in 
Congress also to be held accountable. It is time for us to make good on 
our promise to fully fund IDEA. To that end, I urge my colleagues to 
support this bill.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation with 
Senator Harkin to fulfill a promise that we made over 30 years ago. We 
made a commitment to pay 40 percent of the excess cost of educating a 
special needs child. However, we have not fulfilled that promise.
  Our legislation annually increases funding for Part B of the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act over a 6-year period. With 
these increases, we will be able to fully fund Part B in 2015.
  I encourage my colleagues to add their support to this needed 
legislation. If the Federal Government would provide its promised share 
of special education funding, our schools could then use any state and 
local funds for other educational needs, such as art and music.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Schumer, Mr. 
        Whitehouse, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Kaufman, Mr. Franken, Mr. 
        Harkin, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Brown, Mr. Bayh, Mr. 
        Bennet, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Kerry, and 
        Mr. Akaka):
  S. 1653. A bill to provide for the appointment of additional Federal 
circuit and district judges, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I am reintroducing a comprehensive 
bill to address the resource needs of the Federal judiciary by 
authorizing additional courts of appeals and district court judgeships. 
This good government bill will improve the effectiveness of our Federal 
courts and provide Federal judges with the tools to promptly render the 
justice that Americans so desperately need.
  The Federal Judgeship Act of 2009 establishes 12 new judgeships in 
six courts of appeals and 51 new judgeships in 25 district courts 
across the country. The legislation I introduce today is based on the 
recommendations of the Judicial Conference of the United States, which 
identified the judiciary's resource needs during the completion of its 
biennial survey in March.
  Last Congress, I joined Senator Hatch and 20 other Senators from both 
sides of the aisle to introduce this legislation. A bipartisan majority 
of the Judiciary Committee voted to report the bill to the Senate last 
year. Unfortunately, the Senate did not act on the bill before the end 
of the last Congress.

[[Page 21075]]

  We used to consider judgeship bills at six year intervals. It has 
been 19 years since the last comprehensive judgeship bill was enacted 
to address the growth in the workload of the Federal judiciary. That 
legislation established 11 additional circuit court judgeships, as well 
as 61 permanent and 13 temporary district court judgeships. Since 1990, 
case filings in the Federal appellate courts have increased by 42 
percent, and case filings in the district courts have risen by 34 
percent. Congress has authorized only a few additional district court 
judgeships and extended a few temporary judgeships. We should pass a 
comprehensive judgeship bill in this Congress that will ease the strain 
of heavy caseloads that has burdened the courts and thwarted the 
administration of justice.
  Last year, the weighted number of filings in district courts, which 
takes into account an assessment of case complexity, was 472 per 
judgeship. This figure is well above the Judicial Conference's standard 
of 430 weighted filings per district court judgeship. In the 25 
district courts that would receive additional judgeships under this 
bill, the weighted filings averaged 573 per judgeship, and 10 courts 
had caseloads near or above 600 weighted filings per judgeship. Today, 
the national average circuit court caseload per three judge panel has 
reached 1,104 filings. That statistic approaches the record number of 
1,230 cases recorded in 2005 and far exceeds the 773 average circuit 
court caseload filings recorded in 1991.
  Federal judges are working harder than ever, but in order to maintain 
the integrity of the Federal courts and the promptness that justice 
demands, judges must have a manageable workload. To address the 
excessive caseloads that burden Federal courts, the Federal Judgeship 
Act of 2009 would add nine permanent circuit court judgeships, 38 
permanent district court judgeships, and convert five existing 
temporary judgeships into permanent positions. These additional 
judgeships would help to alleviate the significant increase in 
caseloads that the Federal courts have seen over the nearly two decades 
since the last comprehensive judgeship bill was enacted.
  The bill would also add 13 temporary district court judgeships, three 
temporary circuit court judgeships, and would extend one existing 
temporary district court judgeship. These additional temporary 
judgeships will allow Congress some flexibility with regard to future 
judgeship needs. If caseloads continue to increase, Congress has the 
option to introduce legislation making permanent or renewing these 
temporary judgeships. If those caseloads do not increase, when the next 
judge in that circuit or district retires they will not be replaced.
  After years of debate and Federal courts struggling to adjudicate 
cases despite the overwhelming burden of heavy caseloads, the time to 
enact a comprehensive Federal judgeship bill is long overdue.
  The ability of Federal courts to effectively administer justice will 
continue to be challenged unless adequate resources are provided. The 
Federal Judgeship Act of 2009 responds to the increasing workload of 
the Federal judiciary, and it is long overdue. I thank Senators 
Feinstein, Schumer, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Kaufman, Franken, Harkin, 
Bingaman, Murray, Brown, Bayh, Bennet, Boxer, Shaheen, Inouye, Akaka, 
and Kerry for their support. I urge Senators on both sides of the aisle 
to give this legislation their serious consideration and support.
  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. 1653

       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 ``Federal Judgeship Act of 
     2009''.

     SEC. 2. CIRCUIT JUDGES FOR THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS.

       (a) In General.--The President shall appoint, by and with 
     the advice and consent of the Senate--
       (1) 1 additional circuit judge for the first circuit court 
     of appeals;
       (2) 2 additional circuit judges for the second circuit 
     court of appeals;
       (3) 1 additional circuit judge for the third circuit court 
     of appeals;

       (4) 1 additional circuit judge for the sixth circuit court 
     of appeals; and
       (5) 4 additional circuit judges for the ninth circuit court 
     of appeals.
       (b) Temporary Judgeships.--The President shall appoint, by 
     and with the advice and consent of the Senate--
       (1) 1 additional circuit judge for the third circuit court 
     of appeals;
       (2) 1 additional circuit judge for the eighth circuit court 
     of appeals; and
       (3) 1 additional circuit judge for the ninth circuit court 
     of appeals.

     For each of the judicial circuits named in this subsection, 
     the first vacancy arising on the circuit court 10 years or 
     more after a judge is first confirmed to fill the temporary 
     circuit judgeship created in that circuit by this subsection 
     shall not be filled.
       (c) Tables.--In order that the table contained in section 
     44 of title 28, United States Code, will, with respect to 
     each judicial circuit, reflect the changes in the total 
     number of permanent circuit judgeships authorized as a result 
     of subsection (a) of this section, such table is amended to 
     read as follows:


 
                                                              Number of
                         ``Circuits                             judges
 
District of Columbia.......................................           11
First......................................................            7
Second.....................................................           15
Third......................................................           15
Fourth.....................................................           15
Fifth......................................................           17
Sixth......................................................           17
Seventh....................................................           11
Eighth.....................................................           11
Ninth......................................................           33
Tenth......................................................           12
Eleventh...................................................           12
Federal....................................................       12.''.
 

     SEC. 3. DISTRICT JUDGES FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS.

       (a) In General.--The President shall appoint, by and with 
     the advice and consent of the Senate--
       (1) 1 additional district judge for the district of 
     Arizona;
       (2) 4 additional district judges for the northern district 
     of California;
       (3) 4 additional district judges for the eastern district 
     of California;
       (4) 4 additional district judges for the central district 
     of California;
       (5) 1 additional district judge for the district of 
     Colorado;
       (6) 4 additional district judges for the middle district of 
     Florida;
       (7) 3 additional district judges for the southern district 
     of Florida;
       (8) 1 additional district judge for the southern district 
     of Indiana;
       (9) 1 additional district judge for the district of 
     Minnesota;
       (10) 1 additional district judge for the district of New 
     Jersey;
       (11) 1 additional district judge for the district of New 
     Mexico;
       (12) 1 additional district judge for the southern district 
     of New York;
       (13) 1 additional district judge for the eastern district 
     of New York;
       (14) 1 additional district judge for the western district 
     of New York;
       (15) 1 additional district judge for the district of 
     Oregon;
       (16) 1 additional district judge for the district of South 
     Carolina;
       (17) 1 additional district judge for the eastern district 
     of Texas;
       (18) 2 additional district judges for the southern district 
     of Texas;
       (19) 4 additional district judges for the western district 
     of Texas; and
       (20) 1 additional district judge for the western district 
     of Washington.
       (b) Temporary Judgeships.--The President shall appoint, by 
     and with the advice and consent of the Senate--
       (1) 1 additional district judge for the middle district of 
     Alabama;
       (2) 1 additional district judge for the district of 
     Arizona;
       (3) 1 additional district judge for the northern district 
     of California;
       (4) 1 additional district judge for the eastern district of 
     California;
       (5) 1 additional district judge for the central district of 
     California;
       (6) 1 additional district judge for the middle district of 
     Florida;
       (7) 1 additional district judge for the district of Idaho;
       (8) 1 additional district judge for the northern district 
     of Iowa;
       (9) 1 additional district judge for the district of 
     Minnesota;
       (10) 1 additional district judge for the district of 
     Nebraska;
       (11) 1 additional district judge for the southern district 
     of New York;
       (12) 1 additional district judge for the eastern district 
     of New York; and
       (13) 1 additional district judge for the eastern district 
     of Virginia.


[[Page 21076]]


     For each of the judicial districts named in this subsection, 
     the first vacancy arising on the district court 10 years or 
     more after a judge is first confirmed to fill the temporary 
     district judgeship created in that district by this 
     subsection shall not be filled.
       (c) Existing Judgeships.--
       (1) The existing judgeships for the district of Kansas, and 
     the eastern district of Missouri authorized by section 203(c) 
     of the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-650; 
     104 Stat. 5089) as amended by Public Law 111-8 (relating to 
     the district of Kansas) and Public Law 109-115 (relating to 
     the eastern district of Missouri), and the existing 
     judgeships for the district of Arizona, the district of New 
     Mexico, and the eastern district of Texas authorized by 
     section 312(c) of the 21st Century Department of Justice 
     Appropriations Authorization Act (Public Law 107-273, 116 
     Stat. 1758), 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.
       (2) The existing judgeship for the northern district of 
     Ohio authorized by section 203(c) of the Judicial 
     Improvements Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-650, 104 Stat. 5089) 
     as amended by Public Law 111-8, as of the effective date of 
     this Act, shall be extended. The first vacancy in the office 
     of district judge in this district occurring 23 years or more 
     after the confirmation date of the judge named to fill the 
     temporary judgeship created by section 302(c) shall not be 
     filled.
       (d) Tables.--In order that the table contained in section 
     133 of title 28, United States Code, will, with respect to 
     each judicial district, reflect the changes in the total 
     number of permanent district judgeships authorized as a 
     result of subsections (a) and (c) of this section, such table 
     is amended to read as follows:


 
                          ``Districts                             Judges
 
Alabama:
  Northern.....................................................       7
  Middle.......................................................       3
  Southern.....................................................       3
Alaska.........................................................       3
Arizona........................................................      14
Arkansas:
  Eastern......................................................       5
  Western......................................................       3
California:
  Northern.....................................................      18
  Eastern......................................................      10
  Central......................................................      31
  Southern.....................................................      13
Colorado.......................................................       8
Connecticut....................................................       8
Delaware.......................................................       4
District of Columbia...........................................      15
Florida:
  Northern.....................................................       4
  Middle.......................................................      19
  Southern.....................................................      20
Georgia:
  Northern.....................................................      11
  Middle.......................................................       4
  Southern.....................................................       3
Hawaii.........................................................       3
Idaho..........................................................       2
Illinois:
  Northern.....................................................      22
  Central......................................................       4
  Southern.....................................................       4
Indiana:
  Northern.....................................................       5
  Southern.....................................................       6
Iowa:
  Northern.....................................................       2
  Southern.....................................................       3
Kansas.........................................................       6
Kentucky:
  Eastern......................................................       5
  Western......................................................       4
  Eastern and Western..........................................       1
Louisiana:
  Eastern......................................................      12
  Middle.......................................................       3
  Western......................................................       7
Maine..........................................................       3
Maryland.......................................................      10
Massachusetts..................................................      13
Michigan:
  Eastern......................................................      15
  Western......................................................       4
Minnesota......................................................       8
Mississippi:
  Northern.....................................................       3
  Southern.....................................................       6
Missouri:
  Eastern......................................................       7
  Western......................................................       5
  Eastern and Western..........................................       2
Montana........................................................       3
Nebraska.......................................................       3
Nevada.........................................................       7
New Hampshire..................................................       3
New Jersey.....................................................      18
New Mexico.....................................................       8
New York:
  Northern.....................................................       5
  Southern.....................................................      29
  Eastern......................................................      16
  Western......................................................       5
North Carolina:
  Eastern......................................................       4
  Middle.......................................................       4
  Western......................................................       4
North Dakota...................................................       2
Ohio:
  Northern.....................................................      11
  Southern.....................................................       8
Oklahoma:
  Northern.....................................................       3
  Eastern......................................................       1
  Western......................................................       6
  Northern, Eastern, and Western...............................       1
Oregon.........................................................       7
Pennsylvania:
  Eastern......................................................      22
  Middle.......................................................       6
  Western......................................................      10
Puerto Rico....................................................       7
Rhode Island...................................................       3
South Carolina.................................................      11
South Dakota...................................................       3
Tennessee:
  Eastern......................................................       5
  Middle.......................................................       4
  Western......................................................       5
Texas:
  Northern.....................................................      12
  Southern.....................................................      21
  Eastern......................................................       9
  Western......................................................      17
Utah...........................................................       5
Vermont........................................................       2
Virginia:
  Eastern......................................................      11
  Western......................................................       4
Washington:
  Eastern......................................................       4
  Western......................................................       8
West Virginia:
  Northern.....................................................       3
  Southern.....................................................       5
Wisconsin:
  Eastern......................................................       5
  Western......................................................       2
Wyoming........................................................   3.''.
 

     SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act, including 
     such sums as may be necessary to provide appropriate space 
     and facilities for the judicial positions created by this 
     Act.

     SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act (including the amendments made by this Act) shall 
     take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to state my strong support for 
the Federal Judgeship Act of 2009.
  I am an original cosponsor of this bill, and I think it is a critical 
bill for good government.
  The bill would create new judgeships in circuit and district courts 
where they are badly needed.
  In the U.S. Courts of Appeals, it would create 9 new permanent and 3 
new temporary judgeships.
  In the U.S. District Courts, it would create 38 new permanent and 13 
new temporary judgeships.
  When caseloads get too heavy, the quality of justice in our Nation 
suffers.
  Victims of crime are forced to endure long periods of waiting for 
justice to be done. Citizens are unable to resolve their civil disputes 
promptly; plaintiffs face long delays in getting damages or restitution 
for harms they have suffered. Morale plummets for judges and other 
court staff.
  I have seen this in my own state, where judges in three of the four 
Federal districts are overwhelmed with case filings.
  Let me tell you about one district in particular.
  In the Eastern District of California, each Federal judge carried a 
caseload last year of over 1,000 weighted filings.
  The Judicial Conference of the U.S. recommends that Congress create a 
new judgeship anytime a district reaches a caseload of 430 cases per 
judge. But in the Eastern District, the number exceeds 1,000.
  The situation has become so dire that the U.S. Court of Appeals for 
the Ninth Circuit has stepped in. Last summer, the Chief Judge of the 
Ninth Circuit sent a letter asking every judge in the Circuit to 
volunteer to hear approximately 25 cases from the Eastern District to 
try to get the caseload down.
  The court has literally brought in Federal judges from all over the 
country to help deal with the crushing workload. District judges from 
Alaska, Alabama, and Washington State, as well as from Los Angeles and 
Oakland, handled hundreds of cases in Sacramento and Fresno last year. 
A senior Ninth Circuit judge from Los Angeles handled hundreds more.
  The help is welcome but it is not nearly enough. You see, the problem 
in the Eastern District is not a temporary one.
  The Eastern District is home to Sacramento, Fresno, and the Central 
Valley. In 2008, the District included 18 of

[[Page 21077]]

California's 25 fastest growing counties.
  The District is also home to 19 of California's State and Federal 
prisons and to 100,000 of the State's 167,000 prisoners. Since Congress 
last created a new permanent judgeship in the District in 1978, 
prisoner filings have skyrocketed 700 percent.
  The result is that the judges are severely overworked and justice for 
everyone is delayed. Civil litigants in the District are facing delays 
of approximately 42 months--that's 3-and-a-half years--from filing to 
verdict.
  The situation, put simply, is unacceptable.
  In 1992, Congress did authorize a 10 year temporary judgeship for the 
District, but that judgeship expired and despite repeated efforts by 
Chairman Leahy, Senator Boxer, and myself, it has not been renewed.
  In the meantime, for the last 12 years, every time the Judicial 
Conference has surveyed the U.S. Courts it has said that the Eastern 
District needs more judges, but new judgeships have not been created.
  The Federal Judgeship Act of 2009 that Chairman Leahy has introduced 
today would finally provide a solution. It would authorize four new 
permanent judgeships and one new temporary judgeship in the Eastern 
District.
  This would almost double the number of judges in the District by 
changing from 6 to 11 judges and would substantially reduce the 
caseload and delays.
  This is a necessary solution to a real problem.
  But the Eastern District is only one example. There are plenty of 
others. As I said, the Judicial Conference recommends that Congress 
create a new judgeship whenever there are 430 weighted filings per U.S. 
District Judge. But according to the 2009 survey of the courts, in the 
Northern District of California, the judges are handling 624 weighted 
filings per judge; in the Central District of California, it is 551 per 
judge; in the Middle District of Florida, it is 569 per judge; in the 
Southern District of Florida, it is 549 per judge; in the Southern 
District of Indiana, it is 594 per judge; in the District of Minnesota, 
it is 743 per judge; in the Eastern District of Texas, it is 674 per 
judge; in the Southern District of Texas, it is 543 per judge; and in 
the Western District of Texas, it is 650 per judge.
  So this is a problem in courts across the country; and it is up to 
Congress to craft a solution.
  The last time Congress passed a comprehensive bill to create new 
judgeships was in 1990. Since that time, case filings across the 
country in the federal appeals courts have increased by approximately 
45 percent, and filings in the district courts have increased by 27 
percent.
  The current situation in the courts is not sustainable.
  Neither the Eastern District of California nor any other Court should 
be forced to rely on temporary visits from colleagues who generously 
offer their help. Districts should have enough judges to handle their 
caseloads on their own.
  This Federal Judgeship Act of 2009 is based on recommendations made 
by the Judicial Conference after an extensive review of case filings 
and caseload trends in every federal circuit and district court across 
the country.
  It is time for Congress to act and give the federal courts the 
resources they need to ensure a fail and timely trial for every civil 
and criminal litigant.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

                          ____________________