Appropriations bills pending in the House and Senate would fund the Judiciary below levels necessary to maintain current services in Fiscal Year 2004. The House has passed a bill, while the Senate may vote any day on its bill. Conferees soon will be named to reconcile both bills.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist has written to the chairs of House and Senate appropriations committees asking for a higher overall budget allocation that will accommodate a higher appropriation for the Judiciary than either bill would provide. In his letter he states why anything less than current services would have a significant, adverse impact on the judicial system.
"As Presiding Officer of the Judicial Conference of the United States, I reluctantly write you out of concern for the uncertain budget situation we face. Because of its critical importance, this letter will focus primarily on the Courts' Salaries and Expenses account. The Judicial Conference has a number of other serious concerns that will be addressed in a more detailed conference appeal letter.
If enacted in its present form, the amounts provided the courts in the Senate version of the Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2004 could have a significant, adverse impact on our judicial system. At the Senate levels, the courts will likely be forced to reduce Probation/Pretrial Services and Clerks Offices personnel by an estimated 2,900, or 13 percent below current, on-board staffing levels. Even after imposing an immediate hiring freeze, the only way the courts could realize a reduction in staff of this magnitude would be through lay-offs (RIFs) and furloughs. I would also point out that, although higher than the Senate, the amounts in the House bill will result in reductions of approximately 3-4 percent below current, on-board staffing levels. While staffing reductions at the House level may not require RIFs or furloughs, the end result will still be fewer court staff available to handle the historic growth in bankruptcy filings, the continuing increase in criminal cases and higher levels of released felons under supervised release.
I understand that our Appropriations Subcommittees were forced to choose among a number of high priorities within the limited overall budget allocation provided them. I further understand that, in addition to the courts, the Subcommittees had to reduce the budgets for many critical law enforcement functions and even security for our diplomats overseas. I clearly defer to your collective wisdom on budget matters and only ask that as you proceed to conference on our appropriations bill that you consider the following. First, if there is any possible way to do so, I would ask that you provide an overall budget allocation to the conferees above the higher House level. Second, with the understanding that you are likely not in a position to provide for our full request, a 10.9 percent increase over FY 2003 enacted levels, I respectfully request that you provide the courts an appropriation of $4,055,073,000, a 7.3 percent increase over FY 2003 enacted levels. This is the amount we believe is necessary to fund our mandatory expenses and allow the courts to continue to operate at FY 2003 staffing levels.
As always, I appreciate greatly your continued interest in, and support, of our federal courts and I wish you well as you conclude this 1st Session of the 108th Congress."
Sincerely,
