[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 85 (Wednesday, June 18, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5948-S5949]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CHIEF JUDGE KAZEN, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to briefly address an issue
I talked about already on June 5. I want to clarify the record
regarding an inaccurate Washington Post front-page story on Chief U.S.
District Judge George P. Kazen of the southern district of Texas.
To refresh your memory, the Post reported on May 15 of this year that
Judge Kazen had stated he was overworked, couldn't manage his caseload
and needed more judges. The article then more than implied there was a
backlog in his district and there was a crisis across the Nation which
was created by the Judiciary Committee playing politics at the cost of
justice.
I had hoped we were done talking about that example of inaccurate and
misleading reporting, but judging by a remark made Monday here on the
floor, I must reiterate what I already said on June 5: there is no
backlog in the southern district of Texas, the article III judges of
that district, and of most districts of the country, for that matter,
assure me that they can handle their caseloads just fine.
I noticed my colleague Senator Leahy used this article Monday to once
again complain about the pace of confirmations. Unfortunately, he has
also become a victim of that misguided article.
As chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight
and the Courts, I felt compelled to come before my colleagues and set
the record straight on the southern district of Texas. Therefore, on
June 5, I gave you the applicable statistics for the district and I
gave you the responses my 1996 survey produced for that district. As
you might recall, in an effort to keep the lines of communication open
between this Congress and the judicial branch, I sent a comprehensive
survey to all article III judges last year. Some of the questions in
the survey addressed precisely this issue of a backlog. I said on June
5 and I'll repeat it today, both my survey and my communications with
our Federal judges clearly show that there is no backlog and that a
vast majority of the judges in the southern district of Texas, one of
the largest and busiest in the Nation, can more than aptly manage their
caseload. By the way, the same holds true for the Nation in general.
When I spoke to you on June 5, I wondered how come Judge Kazen would
turn to the Washington Post and create such a different impression from
what my research, my figures, and, most importantly, my communications
with our Federal judges indicated. Well, it turns out that Judge Kazen
was as surprised by the article as I was. You see, I just received a
letter from Judge Kazen on June 6 and it has now become clear that
Judge Kazen is as much a victim of inaccurate reporting as everyone who
ended up reading that article is. According to Judge Kazen, he only
talked to the reporter regarding his district's contemplation to move
the home seat of a judicial vacancy from Houston to either Laredo or
McAllen.
Incidently, the vacancy Judge Kazen was talking about has been around
since 1990. It therefore appears that my Democratic colleagues, who are
so quick to cry ``politics'' when the Judiciary Committee dares to
scrutinize a Clinton nominee, had ample opportunity to fill that seat
and for one reason or another they chose not to do so.
Judge Kazen insists in his letter that while the article ultimately
quoted him as speaking about judicial vacancies, the conversation he
had with the reporter was solely on the proposed move of the future
judge's home seat. Judge Kazen further states that the article's focus
on filling vacancies was never the focus of his conversation with the
Post reporter. If mentioned at all, it was nothing more than a passing
reference. Judge Kazen, in his letter to me, is adamant that he never
described ``any caseload as being unmanageable.''
Therefore, not Judge Kazen, but the Washington Post used this one
example to complain of backlog and unmanageable caseloads. Mr.
President, the vast majority of the judges who have responded to my
survey, who have written me letters, who have called my offices, or who
have come before the Judiciary Committee or my subcommittee are not
backlogged and are quite able to manage their caseloads. Judge Kazen's
letter to me underscores that fact, and I ask unanimous consent that
the letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
U.S. District Court,
Southern District of Texas,
June 6, 1997.
Hon. Charles E. Grassley,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the
Courts,
Senate Hart Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Grassley: Your letter of May 30, 1997, prompts
me to seek clarification of what issues you believe that I
raised in the Washington Post article of May 15. That article
was the result of a telephone call in April from a Texas
reporter working for the Post. She inquired about a letter I
had written in February to the Democratic members of Congress
from southern Texas. The letter had apparently been released
to the media by one or more of the recipients, as it had
already been the subject of press reports in Texas.
The purpose of my letter was to advise the Representatives
that our Court was contemplating a request to the Judicial
Council of the Fifth Circuit that the home seat of the judge
who would eventually succeed former Chief Judge Norman Black
be moved from Houston to either Laredo or McAllen. The
possibility of such a move had been discussed off and on
during 1996, but no action had been taken. We knew that this
position would not be filled immediately, and we could have
deferred action until later. However, we learned in February
that the Representatives were meeting soon to recommend a
nominee to the White House. They were doing so under the
natural assumption that the person would sit in Houston. We
decided that basic fairness required us to at least alert the
Representatives to our plan.
The letter advised that the Court would ``probably''
request the move and that our final decision would be made at
a meeting of the full Court in May. The letter stated in
general terms why we were taking this step. This included the
fact that the four ``border'' divisions of our Court have
long borne the burden of one of the heaviest criminal dockets
in this country. We advised that scores of new Border Patrol
agents are scheduled for assignment to Laredo and the Rio
Grande Valley this year, along with projected increases of
other law enforcement agents. We concluded that many more
agents inevitably will lead to more arrests and more
prosecutions in our southern divisions. At least, this
[[Page S5949]]
should be the result if the agents do what they are hired to
do.
The letter also advised that, for the first time in over
twenty years, the chief judgeship of the Court had moved
outside Houston. Under our seniority system, it will remain
outside Houston for at least the next twenty years. The chief
judge has typically been required to take a reduced docket to
attend to the administration of this vast district, which
consists of seven divisions spread over some 44,000 square
miles.
The Post reporter had called to ask about the status of
this matter. I told her that our plan was still on course. I
never described any caseload as being ``unmanageable.'' In
response to her questions about the reason for our decision,
however, I did try to explain the special pressures caused by
an unrelenting criminal docket and why our judges felt the
move was appropriate.
I realize that the Post article ultimately focused on
filling vacancies, but that was not the focus of our
conversation. If that topic was mentioned at all, which I
cannot recall, it would have been a passing reference to the
fact that we have a very old vacancy which we hope can be
filled this year. The portions of the article actually
quoting me are addressed to the issue of why our Court is
seeking to move a judgeship away from Houston. It is our
belief that this move is an internal judicial issue, governed
by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 134(c). If I am mistaken in this regard, or
if your subcommittee has concerns about it, I will try to
assemble whatever data might be relevant, although this
proposal is based to some extent on our best estimate as to
the situation as we expect it to be whenever that new judge
would be confirmed.
It does not surprise me that some of my colleagues reported
to you that their dockets were manageable. It is precisely
for this reason that the Houston judges have supported me in
the effort described above. Their support is based on certain
assumptions. First, we are assuming that Senior Judge Norman
Black will be able and willing to carry at least a fifty
percent caseload in Houston for the next several years. From
June 1992 until December 1996, we had only one senior judge.
That was Judge Hugh Gibson, who was helping with Judge Sam
Kent's unusually large civil docket in Galveston. Judge
Gibson became seriously ill last year and is only now
beginning to attempt a comeback. Second, Judge John Rainey
has currently been working in three divisions--Houston,
Laredo and Victoria. Whenever the new judge arrives, Judge
Rainey would drop Laredo and take a larger portion of the
Houston docket. We think this is a positive step. Travelling
between two divisions is not efficient; travelling among
three divisions is grossly inefficient, especially when those
three divisions stretch over 300 miles. Third, we are hoping
that the Houston filings will not drastically increase during
the next several years. If any of these assumptions prove
untrue, we may well have to go back to the proverbial drawing
board.
I am attaching a newspaper report that a ``record-setting
number of U.S. Border Patrol recruits'' are currently
undergoing basic training, to be assigned along the Mexican
border. Forty-two of these persons are scheduled for the
Laredo Sector and 133 for the McAllen Sector. We understand
that increases in other law enforcement agencies, together
with United States Attorneys, are also planned.
In 1996, the criminal filings in the four ``border''
divisions (Laredo, McAllen, Brownsville, Corpus Christi) were
1239, compared with 1069 in 1995, a 16% increase. As of May
31, the 1997 criminal filings in these divisions are 206 in
Brownsville, 130 in Corpus Christi, 175 in Laredo, and 158 in
McAllen. These are the results of five months of grand jury
work. Projecting those figures over 12 months would yield
filings of 494, 312, 420 and 379 respectively. This would
make a total of 1605, a 29% increase over 1996. These
projections do not consider that, as far as I know, few if
any of the new law enforcement agents are actually in place
yet. Also, these statistics refer to cases, not defendants.
Many of these criminal cases, especially narcotics cases,
involve multiple defendants. For example, the 1239 cases
filed in the four divisions in 1996 involved 1884 defendants.
I am currently processing a single case with 22 defendants.
These projections also do not consider any civil filings.
The step our court is proposing is, in my opinion, sound
management and would increase organizational efficiency. I
would hope that you would applaud our effort to place our
resources where the demand is, since I believe that you have
previously encouraged the Judiciary to consider precisely
this type of move.
Despite the fact that I was not discussing the issue of
vacancies with the Post reporter, I do not wish to imply that
I am disinterested in that issue. Chief Justice Rehnquist and
many others more eloquent and prominent than I have spoken
often on the subject. In addition to the new vacancy created
by Judge Black, we have a vacancy that has existed since
1990. The nominee currently before the Senate is the third
person either nominated or recommended for this position,
going back to President Bush. The current candidate was first
nominated in late 1995, if I am not mistaken. She was
renominated earlier this year. This person is scheduled to
sit in Brownsville. As you can see, we are conservatively
projecting almost 500 criminal filings in that division this
year, apart from any civil filings. The new judge and the
incumbent, Filemon Vela, were also due to help Judge Ricardo
Hinojosa, who sits alone in McAllen. As far as I know, no one
has ever advised our Court that there was any doubt about the
need for this position. In fact, based on our statistics, the
Judicial Conference of the United States recently recommended
that still another judge be added to our Court. The 1996
Biennial Judgeship Survey supporting this request is
attached. I am also attaching our latest Magistrate Judge
Survey, dated December 1994, prepared by the Administrative
Office of the United States Courts, and the 1996 statistics
showing the significant amount of work done by our magistrate
judges.
Ours is a hard-working, very productive Court, which closed
almost 13,000 cases last year, in addition to almost 4500
petty criminal cases closed by our magistrate judges. We
realize that we will not get Judge Black's successor, much
less a new position, anytime soon. However, we believe it is
critical that at least our 1990 vacancy be filled in the
reasonably near future. Judge Vela will be taking senior
status within three years, and we must have a judge with some
judicial experience in Brownsville before the vacancy cycle
begins anew.
I hope this letter is helpful. I would be happy to discuss
this situation with you at your convenience.
Sincerely yours,
George P. Kazen.
____________________