[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 113 (Monday, September 20, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9365-S9366]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY
Mr. REID. Mr. President, before I came to the Senate, I practiced law
for many years in my home state of Nevada. I was an attorney who went
to court all the time, and I often went to Federal court. There is a
tremendous difference between State courts and Federal courts. There is
more solemnity in the Federal courts. There are more procedures that
are important to the establishment of justice and maintaining justice
in our Federal court system. The main reason for this is that our
Federal judges are appointed for life. They are not subject to the
whims of a political issue at any given time. They know that if they
rule a
[[Page S9366]]
certain way, they are not going to be thrown off the bench in the next
election.
I am still a very proud member of the Nevada bar, and I have great
respect for the law. I appreciate everyone who is involved in the
practice of the law and the judicial process.
In fact, the reason there has been so much debate about Federal
judicial nominations is because we care deeply about these lifetime
positions. They are vital to our system of Government.
The U.S. Constitution is such an important document. When we come to
this body, we swear we will uphold the U.S. Constitution. Framers of
this great document were visionary, in my opinion. They understood the
importance of the legal process. That is why they made the judiciary
one of the three equal branches of Government, separate but equal.
Our judiciary and our legal system are vital to this democracy.
Unfortunately, some people only seem to recognize that fact when it is
convenient.
I am sad to announce that this administration wants the public to
believe nothing is more important than filling vacancies on the Federal
bench. Yet, this same administration refuses to fund the judicial
branch so it can function properly. This body, because of the numbers
we have gotten from the White House, is contemplating a budget
resolution that would freeze the judiciary appropriations at last
year's levels. The funding for staffing and other expenses was below
the level of fiscal year 2001. That is, 2004 was below the level of
2001.
While funding went down over that time, the workload of our Federal
judiciary has increased by more than 10 percent. The budget crunch has
already forced the judiciary to fire 145 employees. Now if we freeze
judiciary funding at these levels, again we will cripple the operations
of our Federal courts. It will force early buyouts. They will come up
with gimmicks such as these early buyouts. They will have to do some
layoffs. They will have to do furlough days. They will limit the number
of hours people can work, and there will be a loss of between 2,000 to
5,000 probation officers and court staff alone.
What does this mean? Fewer probation officers means less supervision
of Federal offenders and more danger on our streets. Do we want to do
that? By withholding the resources of our judiciary, which is so
desperately needed, we would threaten the ability of our legal system
to function properly.
By next June, payments to court-appointed private attorneys in
criminal cases would be halted. Why is this significant? Because our
Federal public defender system cannot represent defendants in cases
where there are conflicts with other defendants these defendants have
to be represented by court-appointed private attorneys. Without
adequate funding, they are not going to be able to do that anymore. In
addition, civil jury trials would come to a halt in June because there
would be no funds to pay the jurors.
The Constitution is the world's greatest blueprint for democracy, and
our justice system is the fairest and the best in all the world. We
should not be running a second-class judicial system. The Senate needs
to provide our judiciary the resources it needs to fund these functions
properly.
While the Senate committee-passed bill does appropriate funding for
the judiciary, it is not enough. At the very least, we must appropriate
the amount contained in H.R. 4754. Anything less than that will
jeopardize the judiciary's fundamental mission of providing justice.
I have spoken at great length with members of the Federal bench about
salaries for Federal judges, including U.S. Supreme Court Justices. We
have to pay our Federal judges better to continue to attract and retain
the ``best of the best'' in our Federal judiciary, but today we are not
even asking for that. We simply want funding that will be better than
the 2001 level.
As in so many cases, this administration's rhetoric on judicial
nominees is a flip side of reality. The President bemoans the supposed
slow pace of the Senate's confirmation of his judicial nominees. Here
is reality: The Senate has confirmed more than 95 percent of the
President's nominees for the Federal court. I think the number is 203
approved and 9 or 10 turned down.
The pace of our consideration of nominees is faster than that
afforded any President in modern times. The vacancy rate on the Federal
bench is the lowest in many years. Yet the President argues that the
Senate's objection to a small number of his nominees will slow the
administration of justice. Again, that is not reality. Here is reality:
The President proposes a budget that shortchanges the judiciary,
ensuring that the judges who serve today on the Federal bench do not
have the resources they need to do the job they were appointed to do.
That is the reality.
I ask unanimous consent that the full text of a letter I received
from Lloyd D. George, formerly the Chief Judge in Nevada, now on senior
status, a man who has the support and approval of all Federal judges,
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. District Court,
District of Nevada,
Las Vegas, NV, August 24, 2004.
Hon. Harry Reid,
U.S. Senator, Senate Hart Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Reid: This is a brief summary outline of
critical points contained in Mr. Mecham's report on the
urgent judiciary funding needs. I've also attached his full
report. We would be most grateful, Senator, if you could help
bring Congress to an understanding of how the judiciary's
role in sustaining the rule of law will be severely damaged
if the current budget impasse on judiciary funding is not
resolved, and the judiciary's funding is included in a long-
term continuing resolution that would freeze overall
appropriations at FY 2004 levels. It is the operation of and
respect for the rule of law which sets our country apart from
most others.
A minimum current services funding level (sustained by a
6.1 percent increase over FY 2004 appropriations) would
maintain the current staffing and operating expenses.
A freeze of the juror appropriation would require the
halting of civil jury trials in July 2005.
The modest increase in the FY 2004 budget still required
the courts to terminate, buy-out or furlough employees
despite the 10% workload growth from the previous year.
Courts have also scaled back on technology, reduced
improvements and public hours access, and cut back on
probation officers' testing and aftercare of offenders.
The judiciary could be forced to fire or furlough the
equivalent of 2,000 to 5,000 probation, pretrial services,
and clerks' office employees--almost one-fourth of the
current staff. It is worth noting that once a skilled
employee is released, even if funding is eventually restored,
the employee usually does not return, resulting in the loss
of a significant investment in human resources.
A freeze of the defender services appropriations would
require halting panel attorney payments in June 2005.
Should the appropriations process become stalled, an effort
to exempt the judiciary from a long-term continuing
resolution at FY 2004 levels should be considered, and an
annual appropriation at least to the levels contained in H.R.
4754 should be provided. Such a course is not without
precedence, and was taken in 1996 when, at the request of the
Chief Justice, the judiciary was exempted, along with other
law enforcement agencies from a full year continuing
resolution, and an appropriations bill for the judiciary was
resolved within months. Although the Chief Justice rarely
calls upon the Judicial Conference to pass a resolution, this
year he made such a request in view of the critical budgetary
situation. The Judicial Conference unanimously passed the
resolution which I attach for your review.
As always, I respect your judgment and remain confident in
your commitment to the Third Branch and the constitutional
rights and privileges that it protects.
Sincerely,
Lloyd D. George,
District Judge.
Mr. REID. Judge George has served on many committees of the Supreme
Court. He is a great judge. I do not know if ``revered'' is the right
word, but people like this man and look up to him. Lloyd George was
appointed by a Republican President. He is a Republican, and he is not
trying to embarrass the President. He is a person who believes in the
three separate but equal branches of Government and he thinks what is
happening to the Federal judiciary is causing inequality in the
separation of powers doctrine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for up
to 30 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________