DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND
STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROP RIATIONS FOR 1995
Y 4. AP 6/1: C 73/2/995/
PT.4
Departments of Connerce, Justice, a... T^pn
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND
STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES
NEAL SMITH, Iowa, Chairman
BOB CARR, Michigan HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia JIM KOLBE, Arizona
JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina
DAVID E. SKAGGS, Colorado
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
John G. Osthaus, George H. Schafer, and Sally A. Chadbourne, Subcommittee Staff
PART 4
THE JUDICIARY
Page
United States Supreme Court:
Salaries and Expenses 1
Care of Building and Grounds 39
United States Sentencing Commission 67
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 173
United States Court of International Trade 213
Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial
Services 237
Administrative Office of the United States Courts 237
Federal Judicial Center 237
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
â– â– w
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND
STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1995
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND
STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES
NEAL SMITH, Iowa, Chairman
BOB CARR, Michigan HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia JIM KOLBE, Arizona
JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina
DAVID E. SKAGGS, Colorado
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
John G. Osthaus, George H. Schafer, and Sally A. Chadbourne, Subcommittee Staff
PART 4
THE JUDICIARY
Page
United States Supreme Court:
Salaries and Expenses 1
Care of Building and Grounds 39
United States Sentencing Commission 67
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 173
United States Court of International Trade 213
Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial
Services 237
Administrative Office of the United States Courts 237
Federal Judicial Center 237
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
78-662 O WASHINGTON : 1994
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office. Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-044260-5
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
WILLIAM H. NATCHER, Kentucky, Chairman
JAMIE L. WHITTEN, Mississippi,
Vice Chairman
NEAL SMITH, Iowa
SIDNEY R. YATES, Illinois
DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin
LOUIS STOKES, Ohio
TOM BEVILL, Alabama
JOHN P. MURTHA Pennsylvania
CHARLES WILSON, Texas
NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
JULIAN C. DDCON, California
VIC FAZIO, California
W.G. (BILL) HEFNER, North Carolina
STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
BOB CARR, Michigan
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
RONALD D. COLEMAN, Texas
ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
JIM CHAPMAN, Texas
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
DAVID E. SKAGGS, Colorado
DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
NANCY PELOSI, California
PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
THOMAS M. FOGLIETTA Pennsylvania
ESTEBAN EDWARD TORRES, California
GEORGE (BUDDY) DARDEN, Georgia
NITA M. LOWEY, New York
RAY THORNTON, Arkansas
JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
DOUGLAS "PETE" PETERSON, Florida
JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
ED PASTOR, Arizona
CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida
JOSEPH M. McDADE, Pennsylvania
JOHN T. MYERS, Indiana
C.W. BILL YOUNG, Florida
RALPH REGUIA, Ohio
BOB LrVINGSTON, Louisiana
JERRY LEWIS, California
JOHN EDWARD PORTER, Illinois
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
JOE SKEEN, New Mexico
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia
TOM DELAY, Texas
JIM KOLBE, Arizona
DEAN A GALLO, New Jersey
BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, Nevada
JIM LIGHTFOOT, Iowa
RON PACKARD, California
SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama
HELEN DELICH BENTLEY, Maryland
JAMES T. WALSH, New York
CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina
DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio
ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma
HENRY BONILLA, Texas
Frederick G. Mohrman, Clerk and Staff Director
(H)
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND
STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1995
Wednesday, March 9, 1994.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
WITNESSES
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE ANTHONY M. KENNEDY
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE DAVID H. SOUTER
ROBB JONES, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CHD3F JUSTICE
ALFRED WONG, MARSHAL
TONY DONNELLY, DHtECTOR OF BUDGET AND PERSONNEL
FRANK LORSON, CfflEF DEPUTY CLERK
Introduction
Mr. Smith. I am sure others will be here soon, but we will not
wait, because I know the Justices' time is valuable.
This afternoon we have the 1995 budget for the Supreme Court
of the United States. The request for Salaries and Expenses is
$24,323,000, an increase of $1,323,000 above the amount provided
for the current fiscal year. We will insert the justification material
submitted in support of this request into the record at this point.
[The justifications follow:]
(l)
§
Eg
S f
£ 1
E
t
1
i
OS
£f i
R
§
r^
?
•r °
m U
f2
a
<
cs
a s;
s
!
i
1/5 <0 t«
R
u
3
8
3
o
E «*>
8 — oon ov<*i ^ n ^
\ovomo\t-~m — >£>
— (N <N
+ ,+ + + + + + +
S
o
l 1 a
*3
c
CB
u
o
CB
3
V2
•*
£
c
Q.
S
D.
O.
<
81
E
<
— tNO^WJVOt^OOON
£
it^^mmirnovc*
—
i S
1 g
—
< *"
1
3
$1
Id
E
" 3
5
H
it
E v>
£
< c
E
Q
m c
u
R «
F
•■«
2
M
.O
â– c
E r
li
3
< °
V)
U
< £
!z
w>
©*
C*
E J
» f
1 1
B
< **
.fi
m
-I
E
a
a
<
= f
B w*
< °
si
** <
E
E e
c
jj
6
e
m
*£
£
O
E
«
E
c «â–
.S
e
•*
o
J
.s
E
<Q
|
E
s
o
<
U
a 4
a*
S c . e c
o. J5 5 — u 9 b
k M B â– H â– -c
HI a >. to J, m 5
j # a i 1 i «
« 3
D m
III
m « o
sis
-I s
*is
S J §
-I s
111
â– : ;
3 3
n v> r-;'m *r> <s * r* *©
^ V» (N; cl — ; a5 f- « —
rt <^ -»•. ■«*► *n rl >©
£3
00 ^^n Ba
O <n o « ©
c* — -in r- o
^> »ri «■*
3
3
r< W f- •»
oo as n n
o « ■■**•
en <D * ** f*» '"•l »0
— w r^.»« -^ od t>
■O *r> ^- ■* 3 ©
.5
c
8.
- rt n -
.5 o H â– =
•S .2 ■§ c
O 3 q. a J
§§^| |
'— £ "O « ^ â–
i §• 8 . .r ! j li
.^Iji.IIi-I
— — — <M N fl « fj M n
o
S2 I
(A
z
u
u
i
e
u
b.
4
o
vi
H
H
B
<
o
<
u
t/J
is*
£ j
5*
CO
*^ — C
<n v* r*
<*i ~ o*
3 "41
III
- < «
I
B
E
s
♦"f <o » —
ili f
8 6 85
SI
"5
CI 1*1
Si
-2
81
- •<
S 8 1
CJ
in ^r*
8§
00
c *w-
—
e
o
m
â– ^
On
as
t-
C Q
Vl
E w
VO
—
o
U
V-
IO
O
1
6
in
O*
Z
3
c-
c
03
i
C
o
e
t
*s
c o
©n
CM
E
E
3
>-
u.
Compe
($0
VO
<«
o
J
6
ts
o\
2
3
VI
4>
_o
in
3
•-»
r
a
o
U
«J
E
u
c
Q.
3
t/5
8
CO
s
"C
3
O
w
E
2 a
•2 3
e
a
E
E
3
CO
o M
aj O
O 9
1*
.s<2
52
oisammsiioi
t-aaSooooa^i
> 00CJihO7(
ooooooa a i
W tp lO CO >-«»-* i- IIOQOt^OM^JffifnM
SS*3"2S"2!8SK2S*iS>~s23
'.".^i'.^.tN"."!™ 00 a» ■<* oo 5s S
co co -v -rr •»•<»•" V ■*■» •»•" -a? ■* so io to to"
c-^co eo co eo co viaiaioocoSnt-n
<N CM C) MMe4NMVc4e»e9C9VVlO*
-3 â– *
la
O
c «
= H
fc be
«.S
a §
£
040*0*0)0104040104 ©4 04 04 ©4 04 ©I
olSSsi S lSolS&9SS!Ss3
o* *-;« o» O « O — 'r-.cji3t-«t»c5o
-» ■* leioio leteTioto ib* ioio «o«e e^t-^
i§§§ggS?gg§lsSl§
a> o ■» « — < <
«3t-NO(
co"oo •»■» ^T-
L""L e i "* e i a » ** So eo P
'VWWlOIOBtO
8.
9
09
s
o
09
o
a
00
w g
w to
SO
a <m
£
£
s
as
*
â–
T
• c
K fc
tot-a5ot - woooo«>oO'*cJ-«'e*eBt-i
O S
• o
i
o
4»
c
5
■g £
s i
â– oSE
a) < E
o> 3 t- 1
N3Moo>Hceoat>t9iot-na
aOONMnOOt-OOCOOWMt-Mt-
"5 2 bo
X -0°
** ** »^ »* »^ ** ^* ^* w* w4
a w
o 2
S
Q
*- •>
o c
|
ll
â–
0e(DNOWS)M«O00»lOniO<i
15-
K
.2 >,
•o
Q-o
S
§
a
01
S
a
v <v
r
iot-ioeoo6oot-t-fioc-«NNMO
E
OlOOMNQ«lfilSt>OOIOMC|(0
t-^OOCOCOCOOOOOOOU>OOOOOiaiQOJ
C> TO O Oi O Ok OS O Oi C> Ci O^ <Jj Oj o> o>
E->
0)
c
o
3
10
3
%*
3 v
** a
^2 "3
— M O
•° I ha
&* ** JE
m IS,
O =
03 C
# « **
"5.
a
<
*3
!»•.
licatlo
Cases
eONaiS(BN<S<DSOMIS<»(DO
Si!
<co
is
Chamb
Opinio
-a
- 3
Ications fo
to Individ
ustices
nia<sis^NMeHH«a3Cp«ei
ISlssil § £ 888 8 ! & S
fl f> •—« t-«J t-» f»t - T tP-TtP-T »-^
"o.-s"
o..2
<«
PS
_4>
•
~-*t0O»-*eJC9*l>lQ<Ot«aO0>O*-teiCQ
Crcr90oocoa5oooococoo6ooo^cjajC5
H
3
1
3
Hi
tg.8
l|
IS
• .S
El
03 S
u
.2
c
o
u
a>
11
XL
%-
o
CD
o
o
*â– *
V
CO
o
Z>
o
o
LJJ
c
I
o
1-
CO
CD
Li.
CO
o
(0
o
1-
DC
Z>
o
o
LU
LU
LX
Q_
CO
v>
V)
CO
O
o
o
o
CO
12
O
O
CO
(O
w
4>
<D
O
»*-
a>
o
Q.
>%
*-
>*
CO
m
3
T3
111
<D
1-
o
o
n
LL
O
<0
H
<0
cr o
3
O
o
CM
£
£
o
«> 2
LU
in •
IE
3
LU
a
GC
O
O
CL
as
3
•
jO
CO
a
X
13
XL
o
LU
DC
Q_
CO
(D
(0
<C
O
o
o
o
co
14
O
0)
o
«+-
**—
O
CL
>*
H
CO
CQ
Z>
T3
LU
3
I
D>
h-
<
U_
<0
O
(0
h-
(0
O
LL
ID
o
o
LU
LU
DC
Q.
CM
o>
eo
&
>
o
CO
15
On
ft)
3
8"
OS
E
E
CO
3
o
E
to
a
"S
«o
I
£ fc
a
a
e
e
«)
B
ft)
I
i
as
.Si
5
c
I
a
5
Q
ft)
1
a
S 1
as
.E E
§11
3 = 5
1"
E
o
u
£§1
"O vO ft)
U V» 6.
Hag
pox.
o p â– *
io ft) "!3
ill
Fc5
li
£ 5
I" 3
c
C
ft)
a
17
as
V
B
C
O
e
o
U
* -°
«- ft)
« >
ia
•E =
II
|s
.2 w
IS
â– o *
§ cfl
it
sp 8
s °
£ 8
ft) "3
o
<
W
H
(A
-J
<
as
w
.1 'I i ?
a
a , 5
B. o g c
*> 1 £ 5
•a S a "
C 2 a
tew
ra •»
C 4) ft) •=
sill
â– 5
16
c
I
u
e
§
r:
•s
1
4>
1
9
8"
DC
Ills
us *a
s S |I
P a «^
S c
I
â– s c
GoJ>
*«3 **
S.E£«
.P o
w-i
E S. e S.
4) . CO
C 5 o o> 'w 1
•"- 5 C » .
81 1*
a. ° a. &
t/5 o « a.
8.S S
= .p
§
s.'i ^ .1 c
' rl'l £
Cd O ?;
E £ P
s
£ E
00 t c/5
■T «8 e
>> u
_;*> E
«•> c a
u p K
1 1«
II 8
8«2'E
Q « B
u. 8 2
■a E >»
g U X)
2 "§ ^
3
6 s 8,
â– gl a
3! I.J
2 s P "O
17
1*
"I
In -3"
Si S
tguf
U S3
Si
«5
«l
a*
l&
<*>
re
o
S
i
OS
1
5
ll
° e <j a ~o
C &T3 4
a K *
« u -
flm
lUIl
2
1
>
5 « "i 3 —
* a «
j .E .S .5 ■£
K.S
«j
I
1
I
&£ 3
18
Mr. Smith. We are pleased to have with us Justices Kennedy and
Souter.
Justice Souter, since this is your first time to appear before the
subcommittee, we will insert your biographical material into the
record at this point. You may proceed in any way you please.
[The biographical sketch of Justice Souter follows:]
19
DAVID HACKETT SOUTER
Biographical Data
Bom September 17, 1939 in Melrose, Massachusetts, son of Joseph Alexander and Helen
Adams Hackett Souter.
Education
Harvard College, A.B. 1961, Phi Beta Kappa, selected Rhodes Scholar; Magdalen College,
Oxford. 1963, A.B. in Jurisprudence 1989, M.A. 1989; Harvard Law School, LL.B. 1966.
Judicial Offices
Associate Justice, New Hampshire Superior Court, 1978-1983; Associate Justice, New
Hampshire Supreme Court, 1983-1990; Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, 1990;
Associate Justice. Supreme Court of the United States, 1990.
Legal Positions
Associate, Orr and Reno, Concord, NH, 1966-1968; Assistant Attorney General of New
Hampshire. 1968-1971; Deputy Attorney General of New Hampshire, 1971-1976; Attorney
General of New Hampshire. 1976-1978.
Other Assignments
Maine-New Hampshire Interstate Boundary Commission, 1971-1975; New Hampshire
Police Standards and Training Council. 1976-1978; New Hampshire Governor's Commission on
Crime and Delinquency. 1976-1978. 1979-1983; New Hampshire Judicial Council, 1976-1978.
Civic Activities
Trustee. Concord Hospital, Concord. New Hampshire, 1972-1985, President 1978-1984;
Trustee. New Hampshire Historical Society, 1976-1985; Vice President, 1970-1985, Overseer,
Dartmouth Medical School. 1981-1987.
Affiliations With Professional Organizations and Academic Institutions
Merrimack County Bar Association; New Hampshire Bar Association; American Bar
Association; Honorary Fellow, American Bar Foundation; National Association of Attorneys
General; Honorary Fellow. American College of Trial Lawyers; Honorary Master of the Bench,
Gray's Inn. London; Honorary Fellow, Magdalen College, Oxford; Associate, Lowell House,
Harvard College;
20
Statement of Justice Kennedy
Justice Kennedy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Justice Souter and I are delighted to be here and bring you
greetings from the Chief Justice and from our colleagues. With us
today in the committee room are various members of our staff: the
Chief Deputy Clerk, Frank Lorson; Marshal Alfred Wong; Director
of Budget and Personnel, Tony Donnelly; and the Administrative
Assistant to the Chief Justice, Robb Jones.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, our budget is divided into two
parts; part is for building and grounds. The request is for
$3,080,000, and that part of the budget is presented separately by
the Architect of the Capitol, Mr. George White.
The balance of our budget for the expenses and operations of the
Court is $24,323,000. This represents an increase of $1,323,000
over last year's authority. All of that increase is for adjustments in
the existing base.
The major part of the $1,323,000 increase is to increase salary
and pay benefits for our employees. The amount of $177,000 is for
projected inflationary costs. These are fixed costs for purchases of
equipment, the library, et cetera.
In the submission that we have given you, on page 1.10, we have
a graph showing the work of the Court. This shows a steadily in-
creasing number of filings. You will see at the bottom the civil
docket, the paid docket is relatively constant. But the unpaid dock-
et continues a regular and significant and steady increase.
Since I have been on the Court, Mr. Chairman, the workload of
the Court in terms of filings has increased 40 percent. In the last
seven years, we have asked for only two additional personnel posi-
tions. We have been able to meet this steady increase by very as-
tute and deft management on the part of our court officers. We
have designated and reassigned positions. As vacancies become
available, we hire people with new talents. With computerization,
of course, we need people who have those skills.
Computerization is not necessarily a cost saving, we are finding,
because of the personnel costs involved in operating those systems.
But by redesignating, reassigning and shifting positions, we have
been able to meet this increasing workload without request for new
positions. We think we have now run out of that flexibility.
We think it is inevitable that next year we will come before you
and ask for increased positions. Our staff has internally generated
requests for four new positions this year which we did not think
we needed. We think that we can live within the existing base. But
we think that this year will be the end of that.
There are some hidden costs here. You will see that we are ap-
proaching 8,000 filings. On this unpaid docket, for every two cases
that we accept for filing, the Clerk's Office has had to reject three
for defects of form. This is very, very costly from the standpoint of
our personnel.
The same if you look on page 1.9, you will see the applications
for stay in capital cases, and on the bottom right you will see that
we had 80 capital stays last year. That is, I guess, a little over one
every three working days. This does not show the number of cap-
ital cases where our staff had to keep track of the case before it
21
came to us, and the case would go off the calendar for any number
of reasons and would not result in a final stay, but it meant that
our staff nevertheless had to track it. So again, that is a hidden
cost.
There are some 2,800 persons on death row and this is a very
significant part of our staffing in the Clerk's Office. So this gives
you just an overall summary, Mr. Chairman, and as I have indi-
cated, we are quite confident that in the existing budgetary base,
subject to the adjustments on that base that we have requested,
that we can perform our functions and remain an efficient and re-
sponsive facility and an efficient and responsive institution within
the Court system.
Unless my colleague, Justice Souter, has anything to add, we are
pleased to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Justice Kennedy follows:]
22
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy
Supreme Court of the United States
March 9, 1994
To the House Appropriations Subcommittee:
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, Justice Souter and
I appreciate this opportunity to appear before your Committee to
address the budget requirements of the Supreme Court for the fiscal
year 1995.
We have with us today Robb Jones, Administrative Assistant to
the Chief Justice; Alfred Wong, Marshal of the Court; and Tony
Donnelly, Director of Budget and Personnel.
The budget request is divided into two parts. The first part
is Salaries and Expenses of the Court, and the second, Care of the
Building and Grounds. The total fiscal year 1995 budget for Care
of the Building and Grounds is $3,080,000. Mr. George White,
Architect of the Capitol, will present a statement to the
Subcommittee regarding his segment of the total budget.
Our total fiscal year 1995 budget estimate for Salaries and
Expenses is $24,323,000. This is an increase of $1,323,000 over
the budget authority for 1994. The entirety of this increase
23
consists of base adjustments. The major part of those adjustments,
$1,146,000 represents authorized increases in salary and benefit
costs. The remaining base adjustments of $177,000 are for
inflationary increases in various fixed costs, allowing us to keep
up with the rising costs of normal activity.
We do not propose funding for any new programs this year. We
find that, with adjustments for inflation, the budget base the
Committee has approved for the Court is adeguate to cover our
anticipated needs for fiscal year 1995. Nonetheless, we believe it
is important that the Committee understand the efforts the Court
has undertaken to restructure its operations in order to continue
to live within its budget and why, given the continued increase in
the numbers of filings with the Court, we may need to seek program
increases at some point in the future.
We call the Committee's attention to the Court's increasing
workload. Unlike many agencies that appear before this committee,
the courts have little or no ability to regulate the amount of work
they must do. Instead, they must accept all the cases that are
filed and handle them the best they can.
The charts and graphs we have included in our submission from
page 1.7 through 1.13, illustrate the continuing growth in the In
Forma Pauperis (IFP) filings and the breakdown of the Court's
workload between civil, criminal and habeas corpus cases docketed
24
and argued. The number of cases carried over to the next term
remains constant, indicating that the Court continues to keep up
with the increasing caseload. The statistics do not reflect,
however, the hidden workload of the Court, such as returning for
essential corrections approximately three IFP petitions for every
two that are docketed, returning about 100 stay applications each
year that fail to comply with the Rules of the Court, and tracking
capital cases that do not involve an application to the Supreme
Court or do not result in an order of the Supreme Court.
The increasing burden of capital cases illustrates what the
Court must deal with. There are approximately 2,800 prisoners
under death sentence in the United States. Virtually all of those
prisoners will seek review of their cases in the Supreme Court,
many of them through last-minute stay applications on the eve of
their scheduled execution dates. As you can see from the table
contained at page 1.9 of our budget submission, the number of these
stay applications has increased steadily over the past few years.
We have had to adjust our working procedures and add staff in the
Clerk's Office to accommodate these increases. We expect this
trend, represented by the figures in the table, to continue.
Over the past three years or so we have taken advantage of
automation and other efficiencies to redesignate functions and
positions. This enabled us to hire, as vacancies became available,
more skilled personnel, in higher grades, all within existing
25
appropriation authority. As a result, we have not found it
necessary to request any additions to staff. But it is important
to add that we now have exhausted these means of confronting an
ever increasing caseload. We think it inevitable that for fiscal
year 1996 we will consider it necessary to request at least one new
employee position. Most likely this will be in the Clerk's office,
where the burden of analysis and docketing in additional cases has
the most direct impact.
This concludes a brief summary of our request. We will be
happy to respond to any questions that the members of the Committee
may have.
26
CASELOAD
Mr. Smith. Do you have anything to add?
Justice Souter. I think I am here to be seen and not heard, so
I will answer any questions you have.
Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Well, I appreciate your statement. We had a meeting
this morning trying to analyze the budget resolution which is com-
ing on the Floor this afternoon or tomorrow. As you know, we had
a macro number, and then they illustrate how the macro number
can be reached.
Unfortunately, the illustration, when you have tight budgets, be-
comes more than just an illustration; it becomes sort of a cap, and
the illustration showed a reduction in the courts of $285 million.
I said to them, "Look, we have a crime bill pending." We are not