2 1 2 3 (c) of section 5 of the Act of March 18, 1966 (80 Stat. 78), is hereby repealed. SEC. 2. In order that the table contained in section 133 4 of title 28, United States Code, will reflect the change 5 made by the first section of this Act in the number of per6 manent judgeships for the eastern district of Wisconsin, such 7 table is amended to read as follows with respect to such 8 district: Senator TYDINGS. S. 952 was introduced by the chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, the Honorable James Eastland, and has the recommendation of the Judicial Conference of the United States. An excerpt from the Conference's September 1968 report describing the Conference's action on additional judgeship requests shall be made a part of the record at this point. (The excerpt from the report, pp. 49 through 51, referred to follows:) ADDITIONAL JUDGESHIPS Judge Johnsen reported that the Committee had received communications from the Chief Judges of the Fourth and Sixth Circuits recommending additional circuit judgeships in these circuits. The Committee had also received a letter from the Chief Judge of the First Circuit outlining a prospective need for the addition of a circuit judgeship on a projection basis but containing no definitive recommendation. Judge Johnsen advised the Conference that the Committee had reviewed with case the situation in these courts and several other circuits in which the level of case filings in 1968 is arguably larger in workload than it should soundly be, even discounting prisoner petitions which are a significant part of the caseload in some circuits, particularly the Fourth. The Committee. pointed out, however, and the Conference agreed that only within the past few months Congress has enacted a bill authorizing nine new circuit judgeships, and 10 additional circuit judgeships were authorized only two years ago. Additionally, there is an unevaluated factor in the courts of appeals, namely, the impact which a second law clerk for each judge may have on the capacity of the courts to sustain a higher level of case dispositions per judge. The Conference, accordingly, agreed to defer consideration of additional circuit judgeships at this time. Judge Johnsen advised the Conference that the Committee had made a full and comprehensive review and survey of all of the district courts. Four years have elapsed since the Committee's last general survey of district judgeship needs and although many requests for additional judgeships have arisen on an emergency basis during these four years, none of the situations was found to be so critical as to require emergency action. Judge Johnsen stated that the Committee had studied the nature and extent of the accumulation of cases, the rate of attrition in the build-up of the backlog, the rate of dispositions as a matter of overall judicial performance as an aspect of the ability of the court to cope with its caseload, the trends in case filings and the comparative weighted caseload per judgeship with the awareness that the weighted caseload requires revision. In recognition of the policy of reviewing judgeship needs once every four years, the Committee also included as a deliberative element a factor of projection. These factors, Judge Johnsen stated, considered in the light of the recommendations of the judicial councils of the circuits and the individual district courts fused themselves into what the Committee considered to be the demonstrably justifiable needs for judgeships in the district courts now and in the next four years, except as extraordinary developments may occur in some individual situations. The Committee recommended and the Conference approved the recommendations for additional judgeships in the district courts as follows: In light of the recommendations approved by the Conference, the Conference disapproved at this time two pending bills, H.R. 19019 which would provide two additional judgeships for the Fourth Circuit and S. 2905 which would provide two judgeships for the Sixth Circuit. Senator TYDINGS. Since its action in September 1968, the Conference has met and voted to support an amendment to S. 952 which would include in the bill an additional judgeship for the western district of Tennessee. A letter to me from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts reporting this action of the Conference will be made a part of the record at this point. (The letter referred to follows:) Hon. JOSEPH D. TYDINGS, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE U.S. COURTS, Chairman, Subcommittee on Improvements in Judicial Machinery, DEAR SENATOR TYDINGS: This refers to S. 952, a bill "To provide for the appointment of additional district judges, and for other purposes." The Judicial Conference of the United States, at its meeting on March 13–14, 1969, on recommendation of its Committee on Court Administration, voted to support an amendment to S. 952, which carries out the recommendations made by the Conference at its September 1968 meeting, so as to include an additional judgeship in the Western District of Tennessee. It is noted that bills to effectuate this purpose have been introduced in the Senate as S. 474 and in the House of Representatives as H.R. 3656. It is believed that if this result were accomplished by amendment to S. 952, the views of the Judicial Conference would be more completely reflected than by enactment of separate legislation. Sincerely, WILLIAM E. FOLEY, Senator TYDINGS. The Administrative Office, at my request, has submitted a detailed statistical justification of the needs of the districts for which judgeship bills have been introduced. That lengthy document will be printed in the appendix to this record. This morning, the subcommittee is pleased to welcome the representatives of the Judicial Conference of the United States and the Director of the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts. I am also informed that the distinguished senior Senator from Tennessee, the Honorable Albert Gore, is now flying to Washington and is expected to appear as a witness this morning. Tomorrow, the subcommitte will hear the views of the Department of Justice and the Committee on the Administration of Justice of the District of Columbia Judicial Council. A number of Senators have expressed the desire either to appear as witnesses or to submit statements for the record. We have received thus far only the views of the distinguished President pro tempore of the Senate, the Honorable Richard B. Russell. His letter to me endorsing the judgeship requests for the northern and southern districts of Georgia will be made a part of the record at this point. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: It is my understanding that the Subcommittee on Improvements in Judicial Machinery will hold hearings on S. 952 in the near future. As you know, this bill contains provision for, among others, three additional judges for the Northern District of Georgia and one additional judge for the Southern District of Georgia. I know you are aware that these two Districts rank second and third in the weighted case load for the nation, and it is becoming imperative that additional judges be provided to alleviate a situation rapidly becoming critical. I hope you will make my interest in these additional judges for Georgia a part of the record when your Subcommittee considers S. 952. Sincerely, RICHARD B. RUSSELL. Senator TYDINGS. It should be noted that each of these districts has a strong case for additional judges. The southern district of Georgia ranks second and the northern district third in terms of weighted caseload. The needs of the Georgia districts are only exceeded by those of the southern district of California which faces a weighted caseload of almost four times the national average. We are honored in having the Honorable Lionel Van Deerlin, the distinguished Representative in Congress from the State of California, scheduled to appear before us this morning, and I am sure we will hear from him on that point. A letter to me from Chief Judge Fred Kunzel of the southern district of California describing the critical plight of his court will be made a part of the record at this point. (The letter referred to follows:) Hon. JOSEPH D. TYDINGS, U.S. DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, San Diego, Calif., April 9, 1969. Chairman, Subcommittee on Improvements in Judicial Machinery, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR: As your committee is holding hearings on S. 952 on April 16th and 17th, I would like to submit some information relative to our dire need for the three additional judgeships provided for in the bill. Since 1961 we have had two active resident judges and one senior judge. The senior judge has been handling naturalization, and all of our border immigration violations with the exception of alien smuggling cases. For the past two years we have also had, at most times, two visiting judges, each for about a month at a time. The visiting judges have been of great help in the trial of criminal cases. However, by reason of the staggering increase in the criminal caseload as indicated by the enclosed graph and Clerk's résumé, the burden on the resident active judges has not and cannot be alleviated by the use of visiting judges. The visiting judges cannot handle the administrative matters, nor can they handle the day to day calendars comprised of bail reviews, arraignments and pleas, pre-trials, pre-trial motions, trial calendar call, sentencing, and post conviction applications. These matters are more than taking up the full time of the two active resident judges. The reason for the unusual criminal caseload is, of course, the Mexican border, with a population in Mexico adjacent to the border, of approximately 1,000,000, and with more than 22,000,000 persons from all over the United States crossing the border annually. The seizures of contraband and arrests at the border have increased at a rate of almost 100% annually in the past few years. There are presently in jail awaiting indictment or triall approximately 260 defendants who are not bailable mainly because they are aliens. While we give these cases priority, we cannot reach them for trail in less than four months. There are now pending four protracted criminal cases where trial time is estimated in excess of one month. How we are going to handle these is beyond me. There are also pending and ready for trial approximately 100 civilian cases, including 20 protracted cases where estimated trial time is in excess of one month, which we will be unable to get at in the foreseeable future without additional |