On the recordNovember 2, 2011
I would like to alert my colleagues that I intend to object to any unanimous consent agreement for the consideration of S. 1014, the Emergency Judicial Relief Act of 2011. While the sponsors of the legislation adopted one amendment I offered during debate in the Judiciary Committee, and that amendment improves the legislation, the bill remains deeply flawed and I cannot support it. I oppose S. 1014 in its current form for a number of reasons, and I will just briefly describe them here. First, I believe strongly that we should analyze critically any expansion of the Federal Government, and first and foremost, determine whether there is a more efficient and cost effective way to allocate taxpayer resources. This is especially true during a time when our Federal debt is at historic levels. In its current form, this legislation creates 10 new judgeships and converts two judgeships from temporary to permanent. The legislation does not pay for the increased spending by cutting a corresponding amount of Federal spending. Rather, it raises the filing fees imposed on litigants. The sponsors of the legislation have argued, based on caseload statistics, that these districts have some of the highest caseloads in the country. That may be true if you believe that the caseload statistics accurately describe how busy a particular district is.…





