The federal Judiciary enters the last year of the 20^th century immersed in many of the same struggles that have defined our federal system of government for 210 years. The ad-ministration of justice is affected not only by the relationships among the Judiciary and the other two branches of the federal government, but also by the balance of power between the federal and state governments. In this, my 13^th Year-End Report, I will address several of the problems affecting the Judiciary in 1998.

I am pleased to report on the progress made in 1998 by the Senate and the President in the appointment and confirmation of judges to the federal bench—a need that I raised in my 1997 Report as one for which both the Executive and Legislative Branches bore responsibility. The Senate confirmed 65 judicial nominees in 1998, a figure that is above the average number of judges nominated and confirmed in recent years. These appointments will help address the disparity between the courts' workload and their resources. I also note my gratitude to senior federal judges who, despite their semi-retired status, continue to help ease backlogs in courts around the country.

I also extend my thanks to Congress for continuing to provide adequate financial support to the Judiciary as we work together to maintain a balanced budget. The Judiciary remains committed to fiscal responsibility, and for its part, requested the smallest percentage funding increase in 20 years for fiscal year 1999, even as it faces a growing caseload. The Third Branch is particularly appreciative of the appropriation for the construction of 13 new or expanded courthouse facilities for fiscal year 1999. The new courthouses will replace aging and obsolete facilities and are much needed to alleviate overcrowded conditions and reduce security risks.

Appointments, Jurisdiction, and Salaries

Although the Judiciary is strengthened by the progress made on important issues in 1998, serious problems continue to confront us. The most pressing of those problems are not new, but they have grown in importance either from the neglect or ambivalence of the other branches of government. They are: (1) the failure to appoint any Commissioners to the United States Sentencing Commission—all seven Commissioner positions are vacant; (2) the growing caseload in the federal Judiciary resulting from continued expansion of federal jurisdiction; and (3) the continuing relative decline in judicial salaries. There are, of course, many challenges facing the Judiciary. I focus primarily on these three problems, however, because they need immediate attention. All three are soluble.

Appointments to the United States Sentencing Commission

The political impasse on the appointments to the United States Sentencing Commission, which has been problematic for the past few years, has now reached stunning proportions. There currently are no Commissioners at the Sentencing Commission and no nominations are pending. The failure to fill these vacancies is all the more egregious when one considers the fact that the seven Commissioners authorized by statute have staggered six-year terms, and that there are additional statutory constraints to insure a bipartisan Commission. For example, at least three of the Commissioners must be federal judges, and no more than four can be members of the same political party. The fact that no appointments have been made to fill any one of these seven vacancies is paralyzing a critical component of the federal criminal justice system.

The Sentencing Commission was created under the Sentencing Reform Act provisions of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. Its principal purposes are to reduce disparity in sentencing in the federal courts; to establish sentencing policies and practices for the federal courts, including guidelines prescribing the appropriate form and severity of punishment for offenders convicted of federal crimes; to advise and assist Congress and the Executive Branch in the development of effective and efficient crime policy; and to collect, analyze, research, and distribute a broad array of information on federal crime and sentencing issues, serving as an information resource for Congress, the Executive Branch, the courts, criminal justice practitioners, the academic community, and the public.

Although the staff of the Commission has been able to carry on the Commission's routine functions, in its present state the Commission is unable to perform some of its core and crucial responsibilities. For example, there are no Commissioners to propose guideline amendments or to take action on Congressional directives or implement legislation. There are no Commissioners to resolve or address circuit conflicts in Sentencing Guidelines interpretations. Every commission needs to make adjustments or respond to changing circumstances or new information. The Sentencing Commission is unable to do so until Commissioners are appointed. With criminal cases in federal courts reaching historic levels, the Judiciary needs a fully functioning Sentencing Commission. If we are going to have Sentencing Guidelines, the Sentencing Commission must be empowered to do its work. The President and the Senate should give this situation their immediate attention.

Caseload and Expanding Jurisdiction

The number of cases brought to the federal courts is one of the most serious problems facing them today. Criminal case filings in federal courts rose 15% in 1998—nearly tripling the 5.2% increase in 1997. Over the last decade, Congress has contributed significantly to the rising caseload by continuing to federalize crimes already covered by state laws. A series of such laws have been enacted in the past few years, including, to name a few, the Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992, the Child Support Recovery Act of 1992, the Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992, and the recent arson provisions added to Title 18 in 1994. In contrast, the effect that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and the Prison Litigation Reform Act are having on habeas corpus proceedings and prisoners' actions continues to appear positive.

The trend to federalize crimes that traditionally have been handled in state courts not only is taxing the Judiciary's resources and affecting its budget needs, but it also threatens to change entirely the nature of our federal system. The pressure in Congress to appear responsive to every highly publicized societal ill or sensational crime needs to be balanced with an inquiry into whether states are doing an adequate job in these particular areas and, ultimately, whether we want most of our legal relationships decided at the national rather than local level. Federal courts were not created to adjudicate local crimes, no matter how sensational or heinous the crimes may be. State courts do, can, and should handle such problems. While there certainly are areas in criminal law in which the federal government must act, the vast majority of localized criminal cases should be decided in the state courts which are equipped for such matters. This principle was enunciated by Abraham Lincoln in the 19th century,

and Dwight Eisenhower in the 20^th century—matters that can be handled adequately by the states should be left to them; matters that cannot be so handled should be undertaken by the federal government.

Recently, the Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals, chaired by Retired Justice Byron R. White, noted that the structure and alignment of the appellate courts is affected by the volume of appeals, which is in turn driven by the jurisdiction of the federal courts. The Commission said in its Final Report that "significant changes need to be made in the jurisdiction of the federal courts," and emphasized the importance of "restraint in conferring new jurisdiction on the federal courts, particularly in areas traditionally covered by state law and served by state courts…."

In 1995, the Judicial Conference of the United States, after much study, adopted the Proposed Long-Range Plan for the Federal Courts for the next century. Recommendation 1 of the Long-Range Plan reads as follows: "Congress should commit itself to conserving the federal courts as a distinctive judicial forum of limited jurisdiction in our system of federalism. Civil and criminal jurisdiction should be assigned to the federal courts only to further clearly defined and justified national interests, leaving to the state courts the responsibility for adjudicating all other matters." In accordance with this principle, the Long-Range Plan recommends that federal courts should only have criminal jurisdiction in five types of cases:

(1) offenses against the federal government or its inherent interests;

(2) criminal activity with substantial multi-state or international aspects;

(3) criminal activity involving complex commercial or institu- tional enterprises most effectively prosecuted using federal re- sources or expertise;

(4) serious high level or widespread state or local government corrup- tion; and

(5) criminal cases raising highly sensitive local issues.

Although Congress need not follow the recommendations of the Judicial Conference, this Long-Range Plan is based not simply on the preference of federal judges, but on the traditional principle of federalism that has guided the country throughout its existence.

Similarly, Justice White and Judge Gilbert Merritt included a separate statement in the Final Report of the Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals that describes the core functions of federal courts, the role federal courts should appropriately have in criminal matters, and the factors that should be considered before assigning new responsibilities to the federal courts. Those factors include determining whether the proposed legislation would assign work to the federal system that is within its core functions; whether states are inadequately addressing the perceived need; whether the federal courts have the capacity to take on new business without additional resources or restructuring; and the extent to which proposed legislation is likely to affect the caseload, and in turn whether the federal courts have the capacity to perform their core functions and fulfill their mandate for "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination" of actions. Other factors include the cost of delay to litigants and whether the perceived needs are, or could be, served as well by alternatives such as alternative dispute resolution or administrative proceedings.

Many others have written on how Congress might appropriately balance jurisdiction between state and federal courts. A common element of the recommended threshold standards for federal criminal legislation is remedying demonstrated state failure. Such an approach would reduce the likelihood that a particularly high profile or egregious event would be enough on its own to justify new federal laws. Such an approach also is more consistent with judicial federalism and with Alexander Hamilton's observation in the Federalist No. 82 that "the national and State systems are to be regarded as ONE WHOLE." A re-examination of diversity jurisdiction is also warranted.

Diversity jurisdiction was originally enacted as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 when there was reason to fear that out-of-state litigants might suffer prejudice at the hands of local state court judges and juries, and there was legitimate concern about the quality of state courts. Conditions have changed drastically in two centuries. At the very least, there simply is no need to allow in-state plaintiffs to avail themselves of diversity jurisdiction to remove matters to federal court. These lawsuits account for a substantial percentage of the federal caseload, and as state law is applied in such cases in any event, there is no good reason to keep them in federal court.

I have requested Chairman Howard Coble of the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property of the House Judiciary Committee to conduct hearings in the next session of Congress on the issue of the general expansion of federal jurisdiction caused by federalizing state crimes, and on curtailing federal diversity jurisdiction. Chairman Coble has demonstrated an interest in the federal courts' caseload and, in the most recently concluded session of Congress, sponsored the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, which directs federal courts to provide alternatives to litigation in court and gives them flexibility in how to do so.

Judicial Salaries

For the fifth time in the past six years, Congress has denied federal judges, top officials in the Executive Branch, and its own members cost-of-living salary adjustments. Since January 1993, the value of the salaries for these positions has declined 16% when measured against the Consumer Price Index. The relative cumulative loss of purchasing power during this period for a federal district judge exceeds $77,000.

Federal judges, who have made a lifetime commitment to federal service, should not be required to bear these continuing financial penalties. The vast majority of career government employees and retirees receive inflation adjustments annually. Career employees may also receive added locality pay adjustments. Denying cost-of-living adjustments to top officials is a regressive approach to compensation and is counter-productive to the common sense goal of encouraging capable individuals to enter the Judiciary. The 1989 law providing for annual cost-of-living salary increases for these positions should be allowed to operate as intended.

Panel Attorney Compensation

Another issue of concern is the rate of pay that court-appointed attorneys receive to defend individuals in criminal cases. By statute, the Judiciary bears the responsibility for ensuring that defendants in federal criminal cases receive legal representation. If the defendant is unable to pay, the Judiciary must provide a lawyer to vindicate the defendant's rights. This responsibility is met through Federal Defender Offices, Community Defender Offices, and attorneys in private practice who are appointed by the court, generally referred to as "panel attorneys."

Congress established maximum hourly rates of compensation for panel attorneys in 1964 with the passage of the Criminal Justice Act. Since the first adjustments to those rates in 1970, the maximums have fallen far behind inflationary effects. In 1986, Congress authorized the Judicial Conference to set higher maximum hourly rates of up to $75. Since then, the Judicial Conference has approved the higher rate in 93 of 94 judicial districts upon a finding of demonstrated need. However, Congress has appropriated funds only sufficient to pay up to the $75 rate in part or all of 16 districts. In other districts, because of a one-time authorized increase, panel attorneys may only be paid $65 for in-court work and $45 for out-of-court work.

The Judiciary's budget request for fiscal year 2000 will include funds sufficient to pay all panel attorneys at the $75 rate. I respectfully urge Congress to give very serious consideration to this request. Inadequate compensation for panel attorneys is seriously hampering the ability of judges to recruit attorneys to provide effective representation. The Judiciary, in turn, is taking steps to insure that defender services' costs are reasonable.

Technological Advancements

The federal Judiciary continues to progress toward the next century with the help of technological advancements. Installation of a nationwide data communications network in the Judiciary was completed in October, one year ahead of schedule. More than 700 Judiciary sites and 28,000 Judiciary employees are now linked electronically by a secure internal electronic communications network. Similarly, the Judi-ciary's Internet sites are increasingly used to disseminate publications, statistics, and other information about the federal Judiciary and its programs. Use of this technology is expected to generate savings of about $1 million annually in paper and postage costs. Judicial opinions are regularly posted on the Internet in many circuits, as are schedules, local rules, fee schedules, and job vacancies. Prototype electronic case files systems which could allow courts to receive, send, store, and retrieve case-related documents in electronic format also have been developed and are being tested in a number of district and bankruptcy courts.

This year, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts completed a preliminary assessment of the use of courtroom technologies—video evi-dence presentation, videoconferen-cing, electronic methods of taking the record, and access to external databases—which confirmed that such technologies can, in many cases, reduce trial time and litigation costs, and improve fact-finding, jury understanding of evidence, and access to court proceedings. This year also, the Federal Judicial Center, along with the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and the U.S. Sentencing Commission, launched the Federal Judicial Television Network to provide some education and information to judges and staff throughout the country without the need for travel.

Information Assistance to Foreign Judiciaries

Representatives from judicial systems of countries from around the world who are engaged in reforming their systems continue to seek to learn more about our Judiciary. This year more than 500 representatives of 41 foreign judiciary systems formally visited the Supreme Court of the United States alone seeking information about our system of justice. Information was provided on topics ranging from judicial independence to judicial review, the Rule of Law, and the work of the federal courts. The International Judicial Relations Committee of the Judicial Conference also continues to play an impor-tant role in providing information and technical assistance to developing judicial systems worldwide.

Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals

In December 1997, pursuant to a law passed by Congress creating the Commission on Structural Alternatives for the Federal Courts of Appeals, I appointed Retired Justice Byron R. White; Judge Gilbert S. Merritt of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; Judge Pamela Ann Rymer of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; Judge William D. Browning of the United States District Court for Arizona; and N. Lee Cooper, former President of the American Bar Association, to serve as Commissioners. The Commission elected Justice White as Chair and N. Lee Cooper as Vice Chair. The Commission was created to study the structure and alignment of the Federal Courts of Appeals, with particular reference to the Ninth Circuit. In less than nine months, the Commission held six public hearings across the country, took testimony from 89 witnesses, and, with the assistance of the Federal Judicial Center, conducted extensive research on structural alternatives, including surveys of all district and circuit judges and a large sample of appellate lawyers. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts also provided valuable assistance to the Commission. On December 18, 1998, the Commission filed a comprehensive Final Report with Congress and the President which contains a thorough analysis of both historical and contemporary information about the federal circuit system. The Commission's recommendations are thought-provoking and should serve as a useful guide to Congress and the Judiciary for years to come. I commend the Commission for its thorough work in such a short time.

Additionally, in 1998 I appointed an Ad Hoc Committee of the Judicial Conference—chaired by Judge Wm. Terrell Hodges, and consisting of Judges William H. Barbour, Jr., Boyce F. Martin, Jr., Robert L. Miller, Jr., and Stephanie Kulp Seymour—to study certain aspects of the Federal Judicial Center's strategic plan as it related to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. The Ad Hoc Committee recommended two motions to the Judicial Conference of the United States which more clearly define the judicial educational and training roles of the Federal Judicial Center and the Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts. Both motions were approved by the Judicial Confer-ence, and the Judiciary extends its gratitude to this Committee.

The Federal Courts' Caseload

For the first time in 26 years, criminal filings experienced a double-digit increase, growing by 15 percent. In 1998, filings of criminal cases grew 15 percent to 57,691 cases. This means that, on average, each authorized federal judge handles 89 criminal filings per year. Not since 1972 have the criminal filings risen by double digits. That year, filings rose 14 percent, and the courts received more immigration cases than fraud cases. Twenty-six years later, immigration filings have once again exceeded the number of fraud filings, making immigration-related offenses the second most significant offense category after drug law violations. The increase in filings related to drugs and immigration occurred primarily along the southwestern border districts, although drug-related filings rose or remained stable in more than 57 districts across the nation. Nationwide, immigration filings rose 40 percent to 9,339 cases, and drug filings rose 19 percent to 16,281 cases.

Filings in U.S. courts of appeals and U.S. bankruptcy courts also rose, by 3 percent and 5 percent, respectively. Appeals filed in the 12 regional courts of appeals rose 3 percent in 1998 to a record level of more than 53,800. The overall increase resulted from civil and bankruptcy appeals, which rose 6 percent and 4 percent, respectively. Criminal appeals remained stable, while administrative agency appeals and original proceedings dropped 14 percent and 8 percent, respectively. Although bankruptcy petitions increased from approximately 1,350,000 to more than 1,400,000, attaining a record high for the 11^th consecutive quarter, the 5 percent increase represented a slowing of the double-digit growth seen in the two previous years. Filings under Chapter 7 accounted for more than 70 percent of all bankruptcies and, with a 7 percent growth, were the main cause of the continued climb in the bankruptcy numbers. Chapter 13 filings, which made up 28 percent of all bankruptcy filings, rose a modest 1 percent. Chapter 11 filings and Chapter 12 filings, each of which constitutes less than 1 percent of all bankruptcy filings, dropped 22 percent and 9 percent, respectively.

In contrast, civil filings declined 6 percent. The number of civil filings in the U.S. district courts was 256,787. The 6 percent decline in filings was attributable primarily to decreases in federal question litigation, filings involving the United States as a defendant, and diversity of citizenship filings. Federal question litigation filings dropped 6 percent from 156,596 to 146,827. The overall decline in these filings was largely a result of a 22 percent decline in personal injury cases, of which the 4,300case decline in product liability filings (mostly breast implant cases) had the greatest effect. In addition, a significant decline in federal question litigation involved state prisoner petitions, which dropped by more than 3,200. The overall reduction in state prisoner petitions likely results from the continuing effects of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which, among other provisions, places limitations on how prisoner petitions may be filed. Filings with the United States as defendant fell by 12 percent from 39,038 to 34,463.

This decline stemmed chiefly from a 34 percent decrease in prisoner petitions filed by federal prisoners. Motions to vacate sentence decreased 46 percent (nearly 5,400 filings), mostly as a result of the subsiding effects of the Bailey v. United States Supreme Court ruling, which restricted the imposition of enhanced penalties for using firearms in violent crimes or drug trafficking offenses, and the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which provided a one-year limitation period for filing state habeas corpus petitions and federal motions to vacate sentence. Diversity of citizenship filings declined 6 percent (more than 3,200 cases) largely because of the drop in personal injury/product liability filings related to breast implants.

The Supreme Court of the United States Caseload Statistics

The total number of case filings in the Supreme Court increased from 6,634 in the previous term to 6,781 in the 1997 Term—an increase of slightly more than 2.2 percent. Filings in the Court's in forma pauperis docket increased from 4,578 to 4,694—a 2.5 percent rise. The increase in the Court's paid docket was by only 30 cases, from 2,055 to 2,085—a 1.46 percent increase. During the 1997 Term, 96 cases were argued and 91 signed opinions were issued, compared to 90 cases argued and 80 opinions issued in the 1996 Term. No cases from the 1997 Term were scheduled for re-argument in the 1998 Term.

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts serves as the central support agency for the administration of the federal court system. The agency provides core administrative services and support in many areas and implements and promotes Judicial Conference policies and programs by issuing guidelines, standards, and procedures; providing technical assistance and training; and conducting reviews and evaluations.

The Administrative Office also prepares and submits the Judiciary's budget to Congress. This year, the Administrative Office enhanced the Judiciary's long-range planning and budgeting process to anticipate budget and program needs over the next five years. This process will strengthen the connections between project plans and budget formulation and execution processes, thereby improving the Judiciary's ability to set priorities, determine resource requirements, and implement program plans.

The agency also has been working with court staff to address computer programming issues relating to the advent of the year 2000. The Judiciary's national case management systems and software have been successfully modified and tested to ensure they are Year 2000 compliant. Agency staff are also working with individual courts to make necessary modifications to their locally developed systems.

The agency implemented a new advisory structure in 1998, streamlining how it obtains input and advice from judges, court managers, and other Judiciary employees essential to the development of policy recommendations and the deployment of useful programs, systems, and services.

As part of a report to Congress this year on the rising costs of the federal defender services programs, the Administrative Office developed a list of recommendations for containing defender service costs. Independent consultants also studied the cost, availability, and quality of appointed counsel in federal death penalty cases. Their final report made a number of recommendations to ensure that expenditures in federal death penalty cases stay within reasonable limits.

The Administrative Office completed an analysis of the federal probation and pretrial services system's home confinement program, which monitors non-violent federal offenders and defendants in their homes on a daily basis as an alternative to pretrial detention or post-conviction incarceration. The findings demonstrated that home confinement is both a successful and cost-effective alternative. The estimated average daily cost of federal custody in 1997 was $64.32, while the estimated average daily cost of home confinement supervision was $17.98.

The Administrative Office received two awards for excellence this year. In recognition of the Judiciary's long-range facilities planning process used to forecast space requirements for the federal courts, the agency received the General Services Administration's 1998 Annual Achievement Award for Real Property Innovation. It also received the National Performance Review's "Hammer Award," which recognizes efforts to help build a federal government that works better and costs less, for a collaboration with the Department of Veterans Affairs resulting in reduced costs for office supplies for Judiciary and Department of Veterans Affairs' offices nationwide.

The Federal Judicial Center improves the operation of the federal courts through research and education. This April, the FJC began operation of the Federal Judicial Television Network, which broadcasts education and information to more than 200 court sites with satellite receiving equipment installed by the Administrative Office. The Judiciary's broadcasting network is the second largest in the federal government, behind only the Social Security Administration. By January 1999, the Network will broadcast more than 500 hours of programming, including 39 programs that the FJC produced specifically for the network.

Appropriately, Congressman Harold Rogers of Kentucky introduced the FJC's first broadcast. Chairman Rogers believes strongly in "distance education"—providing education without the money and time that travel requires. So does the FJC. Last year, over three-fourths of the 30,000 participants in its education programs used distance education technologies including but not limited to the Network.

Technology and science also influence the substance of FJC education because they affect the litigation process. Satellite broadcasts show probation officers how offenders under supervision may be using the Internet illegally and helped judges handle evidentiary problems created by the use of computer simulations to recreate events.

At the request of a Judicial Conference committee, the FJC is evaluating whether panels of experts appointed by judges in the breast implant litigation might be appro-priate for other types of litigation. It is working with the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Sciences to help federal judges who want to call on the scientific community for assistance with scientific evidence. The FJC is preparing a new edition of its Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence to help judges exercise their scientific evidence "gatekeeping" role, and it has provided research and analysis for the Mass Tort Working Group that I appointed last year to assess the seemingly intractable problems posed by mass tort litigation. In anticipation that judges will benefit from additional advice in this area, I have appointed a new Board of Editors, chaired by Judge Stanley Marcus of the Center's Board, to work with the FJC on revisions to its Manual for Complex Litigation.

These efforts are only part of the FJC's much broader offerings that orient new judges and court staff, analyze legislative and case law developments that affect their work, hone skills of court and case man-agement, and inform all members of the Judicial Branch of their obligations under the codes of conduct and ethics statutes that govern them.

In the absence of Commissioners, the Commission staff has continued its work on tasks such as developing policy options to implement recent amendments in criminal statutes and to further previously established priorities; providing training and technical assistance to the criminal justice community; preparing the fiscal year 1998 annual report and sourcebook of federal sentencing statistics; conducting sentencing-related research; and serving as a clearinghouse for federal sentencing information.

In January 1998, the Sentencing Commission published for comment a number of proposed amendments implementing broad changes in the guidelines covering theft, fraud, and other economic crimes and addressing issues relating to telemarketing fraud, congressional initiatives, and proposals to eliminate conflicts among circuits. Subsequently, three public hearings were held to receive comments on the proposed amendments.

On May 1, 1998, when some Commissioners remained in office, the Sentencing Commission sent to Congress 11 sentencing guideline amendments, which took effect November 1, 1998. Several of these amendments resolved conflicting appellate court interpretations. The Commission also adopted an amendment providing for increased punishment in fraud cases involving mass marketing or sophisticated concealment techniques, crimes that impact large numbers of vulnerable victims. The sophisticated concealment amendment was modified by additional guideline amendments adopted by the Commission in September in response to the Telemarketing Fraud Prevention Act of 1998. Commission research staff estimates the combined effect of the amendments will be to increase sentences in telemarketing fraud cases from a current average of 21 months to a minimum of 33 months, representing an approximate 57 percent increase.

Throughout 1998, Commission staff continued to include as one of its top priorities the systematic study and analysis of the guidelines for fraud, theft, and tax offenses. Additionally, in advancing the Commission's research and information dissemination agenda, Commission staff in the fall presented a number of papers at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Criminology. Topics included computer offense conduct, immigration offenses, methamphetamine offenses, and sentencing guidelines for juveniles. In 1998, the Commission received documentation on more than 50,000 cases in which sentences were imposed under the guidelines and trained approximately 2,400 individuals at 44 training sessions, including ongoing programs sponsored by the Federal Judicial Center and the Department of Justice.

While the staff has been able to carry on its routine functions, the Commission needs commissioners to develop necessary guideline amendments to implement legislation, address circuit conflicts in guidelines interpretation, and remedy any other application concerns.

This year, the Judiciary lost a friend and colleague, and the nation lost a distinguished servant, when Lewis F. Powell passed away on August 25. Justice Powell was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Richard M. Nixon in December 1971. He took the oath of office in January 1972 and served for more than 15 years before retiring in 1987. A true patriot and public servant, he practiced law before volunteering to serve in the Air Force in World War II and again before accepting the appointment to the Supreme Court. Lewis Powell was a warm, good man of uncommon influence, personal grace, and fair-mindedness. He endeared himself to all who worked with him, and he will be greatly missed.

As we prepare to complete the work of this millennium and embark upon the next, the Judiciary may take a fair measure of satisfaction in that, despite the challenges we face, the United States court system continues to serve as a global standard of excellence. We must dedicate ourselves to maintaining the splendid tradition of our Judiciary, and to preserving a proper balance with the other branches of government and the states as we continue to work together.