[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.

                          ____________________