[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.




                          ____________________