[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 15 (Thursday, January 25, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1190-S1191]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. Kyl, Mrs. Hutchison, and Mr. 
        Cornyn):
  S. 389. A bill to increase the number of Federal judgeships, in 
accordance with recommendations by the Judicial Conference, in 
districts that have an extraordinarily high immigration caseload; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. DOMENICIl. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that authorizes the Federal judgeships recommended by the 2005 Judicial 
Conference for our U.S. District Courts that are overloaded with 
immigration cases.
  It is imperative to equip our Federal agencies with the assets they 
need to secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws, including 
courts which must adjudicate criminal immigration cases that appear on 
their dockets. This includes our U.S. District Courts, which must try 
repeat immigration law violators who are charged with a felony in U.S. 
District Court.
  The legislation I am introducing today creates eleven new Federal 
judgeships recommended by the Judicial Conference for the four U.S. 
Districts in which more than 50 percent of their criminal cases are 
immigration cases. Each of these Districts shares a border Mexico.
  In fiscal year 2004, the Western District of Texas had 5,599 criminal 
case filings, 3,688 of those cases, or 65 percent, dealt with 
immigration. The District Court of Arizona had 4,007 criminal filings, 
of which 2,404 cases, that's 59 percent, were immigration filings. The 
Southern District of California had 2,206 immigration filings, 64 
percent of the 3,400 total criminal filings. Lastly, the District of 
New Mexico had 2,497 criminal filings, 60 percent, or 1,502 cases, were 
immigration cases.
  Based on these caseloads, we should already be giving these Districts 
new judgeships. But to increase border security and immigration 
enforcement efforts, as we have over the past few years, without 
equipping these courts

[[Page S1191]]

to handle the even larger immigration caseloads that they are expected 
to face would amount to willful negligence.
  The New Mexico District Chief Judge, Martha Vazquez, wrote me a 
letter in May of 2006 about the situation her District faces. Judge 
Vazquez wrote: ``As it is, the burden on Article III Judges in this 
District is considerable. This District ranks first among all districts 
in criminal filings per judgeship: 405 criminal filings compared to the 
national average of 87. As in all federal districts along the southwest 
border, the majority of cases filed in this District relate to 
immigration offenses under United States Code, Title 8 and drug 
offenses arising under Title 21. Immigration and drug cases account for 
eighty-five percent of the caseload in the District of New Mexico. . . 
. In fiscal year 1997, there were 240 immigration felony filings in the 
District of New Mexico. By fiscal year 2005, the number of immigration 
felony filings increased to 1,826, which is an increase of 661 
percent.''
  The Albuquerque Tribune has also documented the burden on our 
Southwest border District Courts. An April 17, 2006 article entitled 
``Judges See Ripple Effect of Policy on Immigration,'' stated: ``U.S. 
District Chief Judge Martha Vazquez of Santa Fe oversees a court that 
faces a rising caseload from illegal border crossings and related 
crime. And help from Washington is by no means certain. . . . From 
Sept. 30, 1999 to Sept. 30, 2004 (the end of the fiscal year), the 
caseload in the New Mexico federal district court increased 57.5 
percent, from 2,804 to 4,416. In the 2004 fiscal year alone, 2,126 
felony cases were heard, almost half of all cases in the entire 10th 
Circuit, which includes Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. 
Most typical immigration cases go before an immigration judge, and the 
subjects are deported. But people deported once and caught crossing 
illegally again can be charged with a felony. And that brings the 
defendant into federal district court. Those are the cases driving up 
New Mexico's caseload . . . Some days as many as 90 defendants crowd 
the courtroom in Las Cruces. . . . The same problems are afflicting 
federal border courts in Arizona, California, and Texas.''
  Similar problems were documented in the May 23, 2006 Reuters article 
``Bush Border Patrol Plan to Pressure Courts'' which said: ``President 
George W. Bush's plan to send thousands of National Guard troops to the 
U.S.-Mexico border could spark a surge in immigration cases and U.S. 
courts are ill prepared to handle them. . . . Even without the stepped-
up security at the border, federal courts in southern California, 
Arizona, New Mexico and Texas have been overburdened. Carelli [a 
spokesman for U.S. federal courts] said those five judicial districts, 
out of 94 nationwide, account for 34 percent of all criminal cases 
moving through U.S. courts. . . . Most immigrants caught crossing 
illegally are ordered out of the country without prosecution. But that 
still leaves a growing pile of cases involving illegals who are being 
prosecuted after being caught multiple times or those accused of other 
crimes. Nationwide, each U.S. judge handles an average of 87 cases a 
year. But along the southern border, even before Bush's plan moves 
forward, the average is around 300 per judge, Carelli said.''
  Lastly, I recently heard first-hand about this problem from a Federal 
judge in New Mexico. He told me that he travels almost 200 miles to 
hear cases in Southern New Mexico. Many of the situations he sees 
involve mass arraignments because there are so many defendants in the 
system. He is not alone in this arrangement; other Federal judges drive 
almost 300 miles to hear cases in the Southern part of my home State. 
This is a dire situation that must be addressed.
  The United States Congress must address the overwhelming immigration 
caseload our southwestern border U.S. District Courts face. The bill I 
am introducing today does that by authorizing the nine permanent and 
two temporary judgeships recommended by the 2005 Judicial Conference 
for the four U.S. Districts in which the immigration caseloads total 
more than 50 percent of those Districts' total criminal caseload.
  I ask unanimous consent that-the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 389

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGESHIPS.

       The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate, such additional district court judges 
     as are necessary to carry out the 2005 recommendations of the 
     Judicial Conference for district courts in which the criminal 
     immigration filings represented more than 50 percent of all 
     criminal filings for the 12-month period ending September 30, 
     2004.
                                 ______