Mr. President, I rise today to express my dismay that my amendment No. 4022 to S. 2611 is not part of the bill the Senate will vote on. At first glance, the immigration bill we are considering takes into account that if we put more border…
Mr. President, I rise today to express my dismay that my amendment No. 4022 to S. 2611 is not part of the bill the Senate will vote on.
At first glance, the immigration bill we are considering takes into account that if we put more border patrol agents and immigration personnel on the border, other Federal agencies that deal with immigration will need more resources. The bill adds new Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice attorneys, public defenders, and immigration judges. But the bill fails to account for that fact that while immigration cases typically go before immigration judges, repeat offenders can be charged with felonies and tried in Federal district court.
As part of this bill, we should have considered the increased federal criminal immigration caseload we will have as a result of increased border security and immigration enforcement, and we should have added new District judges to hear those cases.
Specifically, my amendment would implement the recommendations of the 2005 Judicial Conference for U.S. district courts that have immigration caseloads totaling more than 50 percent of their total criminal filings. There are four districts that have such caseloads; unsurprisingly, all of them are on the Southwest border. Those courts' immigration caseloads vastly outweigh the immigration caseloads of northern border district courts that the 2005 Judicial Conference recommended new judgeships for.
For example, in the Southern District of Texas there were 5,599 criminal filings in fiscal year 2004, and 3,688 of them were immigration cases. By comparison, the Western District of Washington had only 539 criminal filings, and only 78 of those were immigration cases. Similarly, in the District Court for Arizona there were 4,007 criminal filings in fiscal year 2004; 2,404 of them were immigration cases. But in Idaho, there were only 213 criminal filings, and only 71 of those were immigration cases. In fiscal year 2004, the Southern District of California had 3,400 criminal filings, and 2,206 of them were immigration cases. On the northern border, in the Western District of New York, there were only 497 criminal filings; only 35 of those were immigration cases. Lastly, in the District of New Mexico, there were 2,497 criminal filings in fiscal year 2004, and 1,502 of them were immigration cases. In the District of Minnesota, there were 431 criminal filings, and only 15 of them were immigration cases.
With so many figures, the significance of those numbers may be lost, so let me sum those numbers up. In fiscal year 2004, my home state of New Mexico, which shares a border with Mexico, had 100 times more Federal criminal immigration cases than a state that shares a border with Canada.
The Albuquerque Tribune wrote an article about this issue in March. That article, ``Judges See Ripple Effect of Policy on Immigration,'' said:
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 . . . 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, said
Vazquez . . . The same problems are afflicting federal border
courts in Arizona, California, and Texas.
Mr. President, I will ask that this April 17, 2006 article be printed in the Record.
I would also like to read portions of a letter written to me earlier this month by the New Mexico District's Chief Judge, Martha Vazquez. About the Senate's immigration bill, Judge Vazquez wrote:
As with past legislation aimed at improving border
security, this bill will significantly increase the number of
felony immigration and drug cases in the federal courts in
districts on the southwest border. The bill, in recognition
of this fact, provides funding for at least 20 additional
full-time Administrative Immigration Judges. The bill,
however, inexplicably fails to provide funding for additional
Article III judges despite the fact that Article III judges
will be as burdened, if not more, by the increased caseload
that will result from the bill's implementation . . . In
fiscal year 1997, there were 240 immigration felony filings
in the District of New Mexico. By fiscal year 2005, the
number of immigration filings increased to 1,826, which is an
increase of 661 percent . . . Increasing the number of
immigration judges will do nothing to reduce the increasing
caseload in the border states' federal courts.
Judge Vazquez was appointed to the Federal bench by President Clinton. Clearly this is not a partisan issue, as Judge Vazquez and I agree that the Senate's failure to address the needs of our border district courts in inexplicable. I will ask that this May 16, 2006, letter from Chief Judge Vazquez be printed in the Record.
Lastly, I would like to quote an article written this week. On May 23, 2006, Reuters posted an article titled ``Bush Border Patrol Plan to Pressure Courts: Sources.'' That article 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, according to congressional and courts sources
. . . 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.
Clearly, there is already a crisis regarding our Southwest border district courts' immigration caseload. As we worked on S. 2611 to provide more resources to the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice, we should have also addressed the related needs of our U.S. district courts. Senators Kyl, Cornyn, and Hutchison understood that, and I thank them for their cosponsorship and strong support of my amendment.
Unfortunately, our other colleagues were unwilling to recognize this problem or address this need. I was told that this amendment, with an annual cost of $11 million, was too expensive. But this bill authorizes billions of new spending for homeland security and judiciary resources. I was informed that every State needs new judges. But not every State has thousands of immigration cases filed each year.
I am disheartened that the Senate did not act on amendment 4022. I am disappointed that my colleagues were unwilling to address the judicial crisis along the Southwest border. I am dismayed that this body is turning a blind eye towards the need of our U.S. district courts. As a result of such action, my State, and other States on the southwest border, will not be able to enforce the border security and immigration enforcement provisions in the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act because we will not have the necessary resources to prosecute immigration cases.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the aforementioned materials be printed in the Record.