• It would give the Judiciary $280 million less than the level requested to fund the federal courts and other Judiciary programs.
• Funding for court staffing would be slashed, likely resulting in the furlough of all court employees, except judges, for 10 days and a virtual freeze in the filling of vacant positions.
• The Senate would fund the courts at about the same staffing level as in 1996, even though criminal cases filed have since jumped 35%; bankruptcy filings, 24%; and pretrial services investigations have increased 35%.
• Public safety would be compromised as the number of probation and pretrial services officers supervising released felons would be cut.
• Litigants would experience increased backlogs and delays in the disposition of their cases.
• Billions of dollars in dispute in civil and bankruptcy cases would be tied up because of delays.
• Some courts could experience difficulty complying with the Speedy Trial Act, which could risk dismissal of criminal cases.
• Critical court security enhancements would not be funded, jeopardizing the safety of jurors, trial participants, the public, and those who work in courthouses.
• Money to pay private lawyers who represent indigent defendants would run out by next summer.

What would be the impact of the House bill?

• It would give the Judiciary $180 million less than requested.
• It would avoid a furlough of court employees but still result in a virtual freeze in the filling of vacant positions.
• Court staffing levels would be almost 8% below FY 99 levels, while the criminal caseload continues to climb.
• Civil and bankruptcy cases would be delayed and supervision of released felons would be cut back.
• Critical court security systems would be reduced by $6 million below the Senate level.

Why fully fund the Judiciary?

• An independent judicial system is one of the core tenets upon which this nation was founded.
• The courts are a critical component of this country's war on crime and, if not adequately funded, a key link in the criminal justice system is broken.
• The courts can't determine their own workload. That is done by Congress, which assigns work to the courts, and the Executive Branch, which is the primary litigant. If the other two branches expect the courts to carry out their responsibilities, adequate funding must be provided.

What level of funding is the Judiciary seeking for FY 2000?

• Approximately $4.1 billion in appropriations is being sought to run the Third Branch of government in FY 2000, less than two-tenths of one percent of the federal budget.
• Cognizant of tight Congressional budget caps, the Judiciary's funding request is a bare bones one; it provides only current services funding and no additional staff for FY 2000, despite a continuing growth in workload.