Federal Judgeship Act of 2009

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.