[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 8]
[House]
[Page 11582]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            EFFECTS OF SEQUESTRATION ON FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Connolly) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. I was going to talk about sequestration--and I will, 
Mr. Speaker--but I've got to respond to my friend on what he calls 
ObamaCare. It does everything he says he wants it to do, and I will 
remind those critics of ObamaCare that the individual mandate was a 
Republican idea; and far from putting government between patients and 
their doctors, it actually facilitates patients' care directly with 
their doctors and their medical providers.
  Just 2 weeks ago, we celebrated our Nation's independence, and it 
reminded us of the full panoply of American history. American history, 
especially at the Constitutional Convention, is all about parties 
coming together for the common good and compromising.
  The first great compromise created the United States Senate and the 
United States House of Representatives, allowing proportional 
representation here to protect the interests of the bigger States, but 
equal representation in the other body to protect all of the States. 
That was the first great compromise.
  The second great compromise was between Thomas Jefferson and 
Alexander Hamilton. It involved the Federal debt and the location of 
the future Nation's Capital. They had a dinner, and they compromised. 
Hamilton got what he wanted in the Federal debt, and Jefferson got what 
he wanted in terms of the Nation's Capital. It was all about 
compromise. That's what we have to now remind ourselves of as we deal 
with the horrors of sequestration--yes, horrors.
  On July 5, the EPA, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 
and the IRS completely shuttered their offices throughout the United 
States, furloughing 115,000 employees that day. It was the third such 
agency shutdown for those agencies. Last week, 680,000 Department of 
Defense civilian employees began a one-day-a-week furlough that will 
continue through the end of this fiscal year.
  For my colleagues who are so fond of saying, Let's run government the 
way a business ought to be run, what business would furlough 85 percent 
of its workforce one day a week for 3 months? What CEO or chairman of 
the board would last one day advocating for that as a management 
practice? Yet my friends on the other side of the aisle think that's 
perfectly fine in order to manage the Federal Government.
  I recently met with the members of the Federal Bar Association, who 
highlighted yet another unforeseen cost of sequestration, and that has 
to do with $350 million of cuts in the judicial branch.
  Since July of 2011, spending cuts have forced the Federal court 
system to shed 10 percent of the total judicial staff through layoffs. 
Staffing of the court system is now at 2005 staffing levels, but the 
volume has only grown. Many Federal courts across the Nation plan now 
to close one day a week. Think about that. The American judicial system 
is looking at possibly only operating 4 days a week because of the lack 
of resources due to sequestration. This will result in the slower 
processing of civil and bankruptcy cases, which will have a ripple 
effect on local economies for individuals and companies all across this 
country. Court security will be cut by 30 percent, and we can only ask 
ourselves rhetorically what could go wrong with that. Probation will be 
affected.
  These cuts will undermine our ability to fulfill the Sixth Amendment 
right of defendants to a speedy trial and representation for the 
indigent. Cuts to the Federal Defender Services program will lead to 
attorneys being furloughed up to 15 days for the remainder of this 
fiscal year. The office already is understaffed after losing 113 
employees between last fall and spring as a result of budget cuts.
  Mr. Speaker, the Judicial Conference of the United States recently 
called this situation an unprecedented fiscal crisis that will 
seriously compromise the constitutional mission of the United States 
courts--the same Constitution that so many of my friends on the other 
side of the aisle proudly hold up and say they believe in. It's just 
the latest in a string of what, I hope, are unintended consequences 
from sequestration and another reason we must act within the next month 
to resolve the situation and stop the mindless disinvestment in the 
important functions of government.

                          ____________________