Home/Contents Masthead

Vol. 35, Number 7—July 2003 Chair Remains Optimistic Despite Tight Budgets Chief Judge John Heyburn of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, was named chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on the Budget in 1997. He was appointed to the federal bench in 1992. The last time TTB interviewed you was in 1997, and you'd been chair of the Budget Committee for just five months. At the time, you said you tried "not to be deterred by the messiness of the [budget] process and instead focus on the positive attributes of those involved." Do you feel as optimistic today? Even though our problems are different from six years ago and even though the congressional budget process is seemingly becoming more chaotic than ever, I remain optimistic as ever. The Judiciary has excellent relationships with the chairs of our House and Senate appropriation subcommittees, Senator Judd Gregg and Congressman Frank Wolf. Both of the subcommittees have very qualified staff with whom we have mutually helpful relationships. The committee chairs and their staff appreciate our forthrightness and our responsiveness to their questions and concerns. How is the Judiciary's annual budget request developed? Once Congress appropriates the funds, how is the money allocated? The Budget Committee develops the Judiciary's annual budget request after extensive consultation with each of the Judicial Conference program committees responsible for major spending areas. The Budget Committee may suggest areas for greater efficiency or redefinition of Judiciary needs. We may also set a budget target; for instance for FY 2005, we have suggested limiting our request to about a 10 percent increase. To help meet this objective, we have asked each committee to challenge its fundamental assumptions about the resources truly necessary to do the job of the Judiciary. However, the Budget Committee recognizes that consultation is a two-way street. Each committee has extensive conversations with the members of the Economy Subcommittee of the Budget Committee. Each committee chair makes a presentation to the full Budget Committee. A committee chair may ask the Judicial Conference to reconsider any Budget Committee decision. Thus, the committees have plenty of opportunity to explain their reasons for increased funding requests. Moreover, since 1997, all of the conference committee chairs have met twice a year as part of the Judicial Conference long-range planning process. These meetings provide an excellent opportunity to discuss Judiciary priorities and needs outside a strictly budgetary context. These meetings have been extremely helpful in developing a number of issues, including those involving the budget. After Congress appropriates funds each fall, Director Mecham, in consultation with the Budget Committee and other program committee chairs, submits a proposed financial plan for the following year to the Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference for its consideration and approval. Earlier this year, you testified before the House on the Judiciary's budget. With all the talk of deficits and tight budgets, what was the congressional reaction to the Judiciary's request and did it differ in tone from previous years? Both Senator Gregg and Congressman Wolf continue to understand and appreciate the Judiciary's need for additional funding due to our increasing workload. We work cooperatively with Senator Gregg and Congressman Wolf as well as their staffs to determine how best to fund the Judiciary's needs. Unfortunately, money is very tight this year. The FY 2004 Congressional Budget Resolution provides an increase in domestic discretionary spending of a little over 2 percent above FY 2003. Within this limited growth, Congress must consider an overall Judiciary-requested budget that asks for an increase of 10.8 percent in appropriations. While it will not likely provide us our full request, I am confident that Congress will recognize the need to provide adequate funding for the Judiciary. What does the Judiciary need to do to convince Congress that our needs should be funded at a level greater, perhaps, than it is considering funding? Over the past 10 years, the Judiciary has been extremely successful in explaining its needs to Congress. The keys to that success are: Congress' recognition that an adequately funded and independent Judiciary is essential to maintaining a civil democratic society; the honesty and clarity of our budget presentations; the Judiciary's willingness to accept and act upon fair criticism and suggestions; our ability to cut expenses and manage resources efficiently; our ability to explain the relationship between additional work and increased costs; and the ability to explain in dramatic fashion the true nature of the work performed every day by the Judiciary and its employees. While we should strive to make our court system as efficient and economical as possible, we must ensure that this does not lessen the quality of justice. The American judicial system is the best in the world. The role it plays in providing the essential glue which holds society together cannot be overestimated. For our part, the Budget Committee intends to continue to challenge our Congress to provide adequate funding so that we can fulfill these important purposes. The Judiciary has asked for supplemental funding for the current fiscal year. Why was this necessary? Without a supplemental appropriations request in fiscal year 2003, the Judiciary will be unable to pay all its panel attorney vouchers and jury fees toward the end of the year. Also, no funds were appropriated to pay for the space and facilities necessary to house the new judges which Congress approved last year. If Congress does not approve the supplemental request for this year, this will place even greater pressure on our budget for fiscal year 2004. Congress, of course, is interested in how the Judiciary best uses the funds we're appropriated. How do we satisfy Congress that we are doing a good job economizing? I believe that Congress is very satisfied with our efforts to economize. Congress is impressed with the management skills of our top unit administrators. The members appreciate our efforts to share administrative services, to adopt better practices, to audit and monitor expenses and to develop the Judiciary's distance learning capabilities. However, each year new challenges appear. Despite all our past successes and achievements, the Judiciary cannot afford to rest on these past successes. We must continually challenge ourselves to be more innovative in the ways we do our work. What is the worst case scenario if the workload in the Judiciary continues to increase and funding remains the same, or decreases? Can the Judiciary cope? I have great confidence in the ability of the judges, administrators and employees of the Judiciary. Congress knows the importance of an independent and adequately funded Judiciary. However, all government may be asked to cope with less-than-anticipated funding levels, and the Judiciary may be no different. Rather than focusing on a worse case scenario, I continue to be optimistic that Congress will provide increased funding each year and that whatever that increase, the Judiciary can continue to do the work that is so important to our country.

Published monthly by theAdministrative Office of the U.S. CourtsOffice of Public Affairs One Columbus Circle, N.E.Washington, DC 20544 — (202) 502-2600