Providing For Consideration of S. 878, Creating Additional Federal Court Judgeships

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 878, CREATING ADDITIONAL FEDERAL COURT JUDGESHIPS -- (House of Representatives - October 05, 2004)

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 814 and ask for its immediate consideration.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for purposes of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution before us is a well-balanced, structured rule that provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered as read.

It waives all points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, and makes in order only those amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying the resolution. It provides that the amendments printed in the report may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, and shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. These amendments shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

Finally, the rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report and provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule for S. 878, a bill to authorize the creation of a number of much-needed Federal judgeships, as well as in strong support of the underlying legislation. This legislation already enjoys strong bipartisan support in the other body, where it was sponsored by my good friend, Senator LARRY CRAIG of Idaho, because it would greatly improve the ability of the Federal judiciary to handle its caseload and increase the number of cases and appeals that sit before them weighing the merits of each case.

By passing this legislation, Congress can help to lighten the load on some of our most overworked Federal judges and reduce the amount of time it takes them to review and process cases for appeal. By adding these new judgeships, Congress will be taking a meaningful step towards making justice in the Federal Judiciary more swift and fair in the United States of America.

We are bringing this legislation to the floor today in response to a survey conducted every 2 years by the Judicial Conference of the United States. The Judicial Conference makes an objective, biennial review of all U.S. Courts of Appeal and U.S. District Courts to determine if additional judges are needed in the Federal Court system. Recently, the Conference determined its benchmark caseload standards for Federal courts at 430 weighted cases per judgeship for district courts and 500 weighted cases per panel for circuit courts. This benchmark was then used to recommend to Congress what new judgeships are needed according to how many cases above the benchmark a particular Federal Court is handling.

The Judicial Conference process also took into account additional criteria that may influence the judgeship needs of each court, including the presence of senior judges and magistrate judges that help to relieve caseloads, geographical factors, unusual caseload complexities, and temporary caseload increases or decreases. Based upon these findings, the Conference then made a recommendation to Congress about how many new judges are currently needed to fill the judgeship gap in the Federal Judiciary.

The Judicial Conference of the United States completed its last review in March of 2003 and submitted a list of recommendations to the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary. The legislation that we are considering today reflects those recommendations and creates 11 new circuit court seats and 47 new district court seats. In addition, under this legislation, four other temporary district judgeships are converted to permanent status.

Mr. Speaker, my father, Judge William S. Sessions, was a Federal District Judge in San Antonio, Texas, for 13 years, so I have firsthand experience in understanding how overworked judges are and the need we have for additional judges. However, this legislation is not just about making life easier for our Federal judges; it is about providing people with cases before Federal courts with the appropriate recourse to a speedy resolution of their complaints.

A judicial system that is unable to complete its work in a timely fashion compromises the integrity of that system, and this bill will help to restore our Federal courts' ability to rule on matters before them in a fair, deliberative, and expedited fashion. I believe that it is our duty, as Members of Congress, to address the concerns raised by the Judicial Conference of the United States; and by passing this rule, and this legislation, Congress will help address the overwhelming backlog in our Federal Court system.

I encourage all of my colleagues to stand up for our Judiciary by supporting this rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

The points that have been made by my colleagues on the other side, I think it is important for us to recognize that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has 48 judges. That is twice the number of total judges of the next largest circuit.

The Ninth Circuit represents some 56 million people, roughly one-fifth of this Nation's population. And this is 25 million more people than the next largest circuit. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner), the wonderful chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary here in the House, held hearings on this subject to gain information to be able to render a reasonable observation about how important this would be; and, in fact, we do believe that addressing this problem by breaking up and adding more circuits would be beneficial, would be beneficial to not only other States and other petitioners, but also to make sure that the effective enforcement of justice was properly achieved in the United States of America.

So I am proud to say that the Committee on Rules did yesterday hear the debate about the amendments that were before us. We looked at and I believe properly rendered a decision to say that we are concerned about the number of judges, we are concerned about the way the courts look in terms of the circuit courts that are available to people for litigation, and we moved forward with a bill that I believe is balanced, one which I believe will pass, one which I believe will mirror the other body to make sure that the effective use of judges, effective use of resources, and effective legislation by the United States Congress, hopefully to be signed by President George W. Bush, will be achieved with this legislation.

I wholeheartedly support not only this legislation but would ask each of my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation. And I want to thank, for his exemplary service, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), who is the fabulous chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for bringing forth this bill today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT