[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 66 (Tuesday, April 24, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4920-S4922]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. Cornyn, Mrs. Hutchison, and Mr. 
        Kyl):
  S. 1192. A bill to increase the number of Federal judgeships in 
certain judicial districts with heavy caseloads of

[[Page S4921]]

criminal immigration cases; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that authorizes the Federal judgeships recommended by the 2007 Judicial 
Conference for our U.S. District Courts that are overloaded with 
immigration cases.
  For a year, I have been telling the Senate about the crisis on our 
Southwest border involving judges who are overwhelmed by the sheer 
number of immigration cases that are filed in their courts.
  New caseload numbers have recently become available, and it is clear 
that this problem is not going away--Congress must act to fix it. 
Federal Court Management Statistics available at www.uscourts.gov 
reveal that for the 12-month period ending September 30, 2006, four 
District Courts each had more than one thousand criminal immigration 
filings. Not surprisingly, all of these Districts share a border with 
Mexico.
  In fiscal year 2006, the Southern District of Texas had 3,679 
immigration cases, the Western District of Texas had 2,324 immigration 
cases, the District of New Mexico had 1,940 immigration cases, and the 
District of Arizona had 1,924 immigration filings. In each of these 
Districts, immigration filings make up more than forty-nine percent of 
all of the District's criminal filings. No other District Court 
recommended for new judgeships had more than 314 immigration filings. 
In fact, the four Districts mentioned above account for more than 60 
percent of all immigration filings in fiscal year 2006.
  The legislation I am introducing today authorizes the ten new Federal 
judgeships recommended by the Judicial Conference for these four U.S. 
Districts, where immigration filings total more than forty-nine percent 
of all Federal criminal filings.
  Based on these caseloads, we should already have given 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 to handle the even larger immigration 
caseloads that they will face as a result of immigration enforcement 
efforts would amount to willful negligence on the part of Congress.
  It is imperative to equip our Federal agencies with the assets they 
need to secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws, including 
the Federal District courts that try repeat immigration law violators 
who are charged with Federal felonies.
  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.

  I have also heard first-hand about this problem from Federal judges 
in New Mexico, including one who 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 eight permanent and 
two temporary judgeships recommended by the 2007 Judicial Conference 
for the four U.S. Districts in which the immigration caseloads total 
more than forty-nine percent of those Districts' total criminal 
caseload. I am proud to have Congressman Cuellar join me in this effort 
by introducing companion legislation in the House of Representatives.

  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. 1192

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Criminal Immigration 
     Courts Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Based on the recommendations made by the 
     2007 Judicial Conference and the statistical data provided by 
     the 2006 Federal Court Management Statistics (issued by the 
     Administrative Office of the United States Courts), the 
     Congress finds the following:
       (1) Federal courts along the southwest border of the United 
     States have a greater percentage of their criminal caseload 
     affected by immigration cases than other Federal courts.
       (2) The percentage of criminal immigration cases in most 
     southwest border district courts totals more than 49 percent 
     of the total criminal caseloads of those districts.
       (3) The current number of judges authorized for those 
     courts is inadequate to handle the current caseload.
       (4) Such an increase in the caseload of criminal 
     immigration filings requires a corresponding increase in the 
     number of Federal judgeships.
       (5) The 2007 Judicial Conference recommended the addition 
     of judgeships to meet this growing burden.
       (6) The Congress should authorize the additional district 
     court judges necessary to carry out the 2007 recommendations 
     of the Judicial Conference for district courts in which the 
     criminal immigration filings represented more than 49 percent 
     of all criminal filings for the 12-month period ending 
     September 30, 2006.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to increase the 
     number of Federal judgeships, in accordance with the 
     recommendations of the 2007 Judicial Conference, in district 
     courts that have an extraordinarily high criminal immigration 
     caseload.

     SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGESHIPS.

       (a) Permanent Judgeships.--
       (1) In general.--The President shall appoint, by and with 
     the advice and consent of the Senate--
       (A) 4 additional district judges for the district of 
     Arizona;
       (B) 1 additional district judge for the district of New 
     Mexico;
       (C) 2 additional district judges for the southern district 
     of Texas; and
       (D) 1 additional district judge for the western district of 
     Texas.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--In order that the table 
     contained in section 133(a) of

[[Page S4922]]

     title 28, United States Code, reflect the number of 
     additional judges authorized under paragraph (1), such table 
     is amended--
       (A) by striking the item relating to Arizona and inserting 
     the following:

Arizona.............................................................16;

       (B) by striking the item relating to New Mexico and 
     inserting the following:

New Mexico...........................................................7;

       (C) by striking the item relating to Texas and inserting 
     the following:

  Texas:
    Northern.........................................................12
    Southern.........................................................21
    Eastern...........................................................7
    Western.........................................................14.

       (b) Temporary Judgeships.--
       (1) In general.--The President shall appoint, by and with 
     the advice and consent of the Senate--
       (A) 1 additional district judge for the district of 
     Arizona; and
       (B) 1 additional district judge for the district of New 
     Mexico.
       (2) Vacancy.--For each of the judicial districts named in 
     this subsection, the first vacancy arising on the district 
     court 10 years or more after a judge is first confirmed to 
     fill the temporary district judgeship created in that 
     district by this subsection shall not be filled.
                                 ______