Mr. Enzi mr. President last week the Senate Budget committee took an important first step in helping to change the way we do business here in washington by reporting out a balanced budget. This week, we take the next step as the Senate Begins debating how best to make the government live within its means and set spending limits for our nation. But were running out of time, and unless we do something soon, our nation will be overspending nearly a trillion dollars a year. Now, thats actually 1 trillion a year. A trillion makes it sound rather trivial. Its a thousand billion dollars a year of overspending. Now, Hardworking Taxpayers are paying attention. In fact, 24 states have already passed a constitutional balanced Budget Amendment and there are ten more that are working on it. If all of these states pass similar measures, well have 34 states needed for a Constitutional Convention on a balanced budget, and well be forced to act as they desire. In it if it isnt all of you they are saying it will be all of us. Well, we are elected to represent our constituents. In the face of such demands we should act or someday it will be out of our hands. One of the best ways to balance our budget is to make our government more efficient effective and accountable. If congress does its job we can have some flexibility and eliminate what isnt working starting with the worst first. Then we can eliminate waste and streamline whats left. But to do this First Congress must do something it hasnt done in the past eight years. Thats scrutinize every dollar for which they have responsibility. Actually, with the billions of dollars we spend every single year, they will be lucky to scrutinize every million dollars. If Government Programs are not delivering results they should be improved, and if they are not needed they should be eliminated. Its time to prioritize and demand results from our Government Programs. Through the process of getting the budget together, i discovered that we had 260 programs that havent been authorized. Whats an authorization . Well the committees are the people that are kind of experts or at least have a very concentrateed concern over that concentrated concern over that particular area, and they pass the new programs, the details of the new programs. The amount that can be spent on those programs, the way that we can measure whether they are getting things done. I discovered that 260 of those programs that we are still funding have expired. Their authorization ran out. One thing thats in those authorizations is some kind of a sunset date, and we passed the sunset date on 260 programs. So what . Were only overspending, according to the authorization 293 billion a year on expired programs. Yes, some of those programs are absolutely essential. What we need to do, though, is have those committees that have the expertise go back and review them and reauthorize them and set the new limits and the new may tricks for what they are new matrix for what theyre supposed to be doing so we can tell if theyre doing their job. 260 programs. Some of them the last time one of them expired in 1983. A whole bunch of them expired before this century. So we know this will be a challenge for every Single Member of congress, but i believe were up to the task because the American People are counting on us. This week, Hardworking Taxpayers will also get to see something they have not they have been waiting to see. Thats an open and transparent legislative process that will see members from both sides of the aisle offering, debating and ultimately voting on amendments to this resolution. Senate republicans will offer amendments that will enhance fiscal discipline, build a Strong National defense boost our Economic Growth, tackle obamacare, protect education and help make our government more efficient, effective and accountable to Hardworking Taxpayers. What this budget does do will we will also hear people say what this budget does do and does not do, but here is what this budget does do. It balances the budget in ten years with no tax hikes. It protects our most vulnerable citizens. It strengthens the National Defense. It improves Economic Growth and opportunity for hardworking families. It slows the rate of spending growth. It preserves Social Security by reducing spending in other areas to fully offset Social Securitys rising deficits and encourage our nations leaders to begin a bipartisan, bicameral discussion on how to protect and save Social Security and avoid the acrosstheboard Social Security benefits that could occur under current law. It protects our seniors by safeguarding medicare from insolvency and extending the life of the Medicare Trust fund by five years. It ensures medicaid savings medicare savings in the president S Health Care law are dedicated to medicare instead of seeing those changes go to other programs and more overspending. It continues funding for Childrens Health insurance program, chip, and it creates a new Program Based on chip to serve lowincome working age ablebodied adults and children who are eligible for medicaid. It increases state flexibility in designing benefits and administering Medicaid Programs to ensure efficiency and reduce wasteful spending and provide stable and predictable funding so Longterm Services and supports are sustainable, both for the federal government and for the states. So as we begin this debate this week its worth noting that strong Economic Growth will provide a balanced budget, and that can provide and will serve as a foundation for helping all americans to grow and prosper. A balanced budget allows americans to spend more time working hard to grow their businesses or advance their jobs instead of worrying about taxes and inefficient and ineffective regulations. Most importantly it means every american who wants to find a goodpaying job and a fulfilling career has the opportunity to do just that. There are problems, however with the family budget. Family income is not growing as it should, and this has dire consequences for our future. If Family Income does not grow, it becomes very difficult for parents to pay their childrens education and for their own training needs. Likewise slow Family Income growth means less money set aside for retirement, health care a down payment on a house and money to get the next generation started. Because job growth has been so slow since the beginning of the recovery its not surprising that Income Growth has been slow too. A lot of people failed to note that when jobs and income slow down together, the real victims are your hopes your dreams and your aspirations. Moreover these trends slow growth in jobs and the incomes are relatively related and recent. Hardly anyone listening to me today would be confused by the term Family Income. It clearly means the cash that families receive from their jobs and their investments. Its the stuff that goes into a savings account into a retirement plan, into education for the kids, into the household rainy day fund. You can count it and its tangible. Now, one of the other things that i discovered as i was going through this process is that we have some things that we all trust funds and ive discovered that you better not trust them. Theres no cash in the trust funds. Normally that would be investments that can be withdrawn and the bills paid. So i think if we really were doing a Financial Statement for the federal government, wed have to move those trust funds over to accounts payable because whats backing them is the full faith and credit of the federal government. And i hope that we can make it so that that is full faith and credit and thats why we need to change some of the things that were doing right now. Last year, we spent 231 billion on interest. Thats on an 18 trillion debt. Now, in the president s budget, thats proposed to go to 780 billion. Thats more than were spending on defense more than were spending on education more than were spending on almost any other function that the federal government does. Now, if 230 billion is 1 , what happens if we go to the normal rate of 5 . Oh goodness. We only get to make choices here on 1,100,000,000,000, so virtually all of the money we have would go to interest. No National Defense no education, no other function that the federal government is involved in. Our overspending is killing us. Yes, there are two ways that you can reduce overspending. One is to cut spending. The other one is to raise taxes. Were already collecting more money than we ever have in the history of the United States. So how are we going to solve this problem of the interest itself from bankrupting us . This budget is designed to put us on a path to do that. It will not solve everything. Weve only had about eight weeks to do what hasnt been done in a budget in six years. So i hope youll bear with us during the course of this process. I am an accountant. Im also the chair of the Senate Budget committee. And we have started the Monumental Task of confronting americas chronic overspending, tackling our nations surging debt and balancing our nations budget. Incidentally under the president s budget, the overspending is this year is 468 billion. Remember we get to make decisions on 1,100 billion dollars. If that constitution that im talking about that the puts are putting together, 24 into the ten makes it mandatory wed have to cut 50 . Were not able to do that. It was tough enough to balance the budget over a tenyear period. But thats a tremendous task we have ahead of us if were going to take care of balancing our nations debt and bringing it down to where its a manageable level. Where we can afford the interest on it. Before coming to congress i ran a Small Business in wyoming for many years. I served as the mayor of my hometown. Then i served as a ledge he legislator and in those roles one of the most important jobs i had wasser were to ensure my budgets were balanced every year. In time we were able to even build some rainy day accounts in wyoming. And so far theres never been a crisis so bad that its rained. Its time to begin this responsible accounting in washington because while you can lie about the numbers the numbers never lie. The worstkept secret in america is this administration is spending more than ever and taxing more than ever. The president s budget increases taxes dramatically and still doesnt get us to a balanced budget. In fact, that 468 billion in overspending this year in the tenth year he projects a trillion dollars which is a thousand billion overspent. It never goes down. It keeps going up. Weve got to reverse that trend. Otherwise, well, ive already explained that dilemma. The federal government should spend your tax dollars wisely and responsibly and give you the freedom and control to pursue your future the way you choose. Hardwork thats correct deserve a government that is more efficient and more accountable. That should be something both parties can agree on. I never heard anybody say they wanted an inefficient and ineffective government. Runaway spending be habits have created a dangerously growing debt because the habit of spending now and paying later is deeply engrained. Actually under the president s budget it isnt even paying later that is included in it. I mentioned weve overspent nearly a trillion dollars a year. Thats a thousand billion. And the more washington overspends the more debt we owe and the more added to what future generations will have to pay. Today americas debt totals 18 trillion. In fact, every man woman and child now owes more than 56,000 on that debt. The number is expected to grow to more than 75,000 over the next decade unless we make important changes. Yes, thats every man woman and child. That means somebody born this morning, they owe 56,000 on that debt. Every dollar spent on interest and our debt is another dollar we wont able to use for government services, for individuals in need or another dollar that wont be available to taxpayers for their own needs. Its time to stop talking and start acting. Washington has to live within its means just like the hardworking families do every day. We have to deliver a more effective and Accountable Government to the American People that supports them when it must and gets out of the way when it should. We didnt get here oversight we wont be able to fix it oversight overnight but we can solve this crisis if we act now. Republicans have put forward a responsible plan that balances the badge in ten years with no tax hikes. It strengthens our National Defense and improves Economic Growth and opportunity for hardworking families. The balanced budget means real accountability in washington and ensures that programs actually accomplish what they set out to deliver. Which goes back to my thing about 260 programs that have expired that were still funding to the tune of 293 billion. A balanced budget supports Economic Growth for hardworking families and creates real opportunity for all americans to grow and prosper. A balanced budget allows americans to spend more time working hard to grow their businesses or to advance their jobs instead of worrying about taxes and inefficient and ineffective regulations that drive their opportunity down. It means job creators can find opportunities to expand our economy and means every american who wants to have a goodpaying job an a fulfilling career has the opportunity to do that. Thats what a balanced budget means for our nation and its what the American People deserve. Congress is under new management and by working together to find shared ground on commonsense solution we can deliver real results and have real progress. Mr. President , i yield the floor and reserve the balance of my time. Mr. Sanders mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from vermont. Mr. Sanders thank you mr. President. Let me just begin by commenting on a few of the thoughts raised by my good friend, senator enzi. Senator enzi says that the Economy Today is not where it should be, and hes right. I dont think anybody thinks that the economy is where it should be in terms of low employment high wages. No debate about that. But i ask the American People to think back six and a half years ago at the end of president bushs term to what the economy was like. At that point we were not gaining the 200,000 jobs a month that were gaining now. We were losing 800,000 jobs a month. At that point the deficit was not at 480 billion where it is today, it was at 1. 4 trillion. At that point the stock market was not soaring as it is today. The american and worlds Financial System was on the verge of collapse. So lets begin by putting issues into perspective. Now, nobody i know thinks that we are where we should be economically in America Today but anybody who does not understand despite enormous republican obstructionism that we have made significant gains over the last six and a half years, would i believe be very mistaken. Mr. President , as we all know, the federal budget that we are working on now is not an appropriation bills. It does not provide explicit funding for this agency or that agency. What it does do is lay the foundation for that process. The total amount of money that the appropriations committees have to spend. In other words this budget is more than just a very long list of numbers. The federal budget is about our National Priorities and our values. It is about who we are as a nation and what we stand for. It is about how we analyze and assess the problems that we face and how we go forward in resolving those problems. That is the task that the senate now is about to undertake and it is a very, very serious responsibility. Mr. President , let us be very clear. No family, no business, no local or State Government can responsibly write a budget without first understanding the problems and the challenges that it faces. And than is even more true when we deal with a federal budget of some 4 trillion. And as i examine the budgets brought forth by the republicans in the house and here in the senate this is how i see their analysis of the problems facing our country. At a time of massive wealth and income inequality, perhaps the most important issue facing this country, a huge transfer of wealth from the middle class to the top. 1 my republican colleagues apparently believe that the richest people in america need to be made even richer. It is apparently not good enough for my republican colleagues that 99 of all new income today is going to the top 1 . Not good enough. It is apparently not good enough that the top. 1 today own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 . Clearly, in the eyes of my republican colleagues, the wealthy and the powerful and the big Campaign Contributors indeed need even more help. Not only should they not be asked to pay more in taxes not only should we not eliminate huge loopholes that benefit the wealthy and large corporations, some of my republican friends believe that we should protect these loopholes not change them at all or maybe even make them wider. Its apparently not good enough that Corporate America is enjoying record breaking profits and that the c. E. O. s of large corporations earn some 290 times what their average employees make, 290 times more. Apparently not good enough that since 1985, the top. 1 has seen a more than an 8 trillion increase in its wealth than it would have if wealth inequality had remained the same as it was in 1985. An 8 trillion increase in wealth going to the top. 1 . But apparently my republican colleagues not only do not talk about this issue, they will do nothing to address the massive wealth and inequality that this country faces. It is apparently not good enough for my republican colleagues not to be dealt with that the wealthiest 14 people in this country 14 people have seen their wealth go up by more than 157 billion over the past two years alone. 14 people saw an increase in their wealth by 157 billion, and the republican budget talks about cutting food stamps and education and nutrition. Because we are presumably a poor nation. Well were not a poor nation. We just have massive wealth and income inequality so the vast majority of people are becoming poor but the people on top are doing phenomenonally well. That is a reality we must address. Mr. President , as manifested in the house and Senate Budgets my colleagues are ignoring a very significant reality and that is that millions of middleclass and working families people who are often working longer hours for lower wages, people who have seen significant declines in their standard of living over the last 40 years but my republican colleagues say those people who are struggling, those people who are trying to feed their families those people who are trying to send their kids to college, those are not the people that we should be helping. Rather weve got to worry about the top 1 . Madam president , at a time when over 45 million americans are living in poverty and that is more than almost any time in the modern modern history of our country and many of pease theme are working people, people are working 40 or 50 hours a week at substandard wages my republican colleagues think we should increase poverty by ending the Affordable Care act by slashing medicaid, by cutting food stamps, and the earned income tax credit. At a time when only when almost 20 of our kids live in poverty, the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world my republican colleagues think that maybe we should even raise that poverty rate a little bit among our children by cutting child care by cutting head start by cutting the refundable child tax credit, and maybe lets even go after nutrition programs for hungry children. Madam president , to summarize the rich get much richer, and the republicans think they need more help. The middle class and working families of this country become poorer and the republicans think we need to cut programs they desperately need. Frankly, those may be the priorities of some of my republican colleagues, but i do not believe that these are the priorities of the American People. Madam chairman, today the United States, shamefully, remains the only major country on earth that does not guarantee health care to all people as a right. Today, despite the modest gains of the Affordable Care act we still have about 40 million americans who lack Health Insurance and millions more who are underinsured. And what is the republican response to the Health Care Crisis . They want to abolish do away with completely, the Affordable Care act and take away the Health Insurance that 16 million americans have gained through that program. So here you have 40 Million People who have no Health Insurance, and the republican response is, well, lets make it 56 Million People. And if you add the massive cuts they propose to medicaid and the Childrens Health insurance program, even millions more would lose their Health Insurance. Does anybody for one second think that this vaguely makes any sense in the real world . People are struggling to try to find Health Insurance, and the response is, lets cut 56 million lets cut 16 million off of the Affordable Care act and millions more off of medicaid. And while the Senate Budget resolution does not end medicare as we know it, unlike the house budget last year, it does make significant cuts. Further, when you make massive cuts to medicaid, it is not only Health Insurance for lowincome people who suffer, youre also cutting the nursing home care for seniors. These are elderly people, 80, 90 years of age in a nursing home. And one might argue that these people are the most Vulnerable People in this country the most helpless people, fragile people. And were going to cut programs for them. Now, madam chairman, i have talked a little bit about the devastating impact that the house and Senate Republican budgets would have on the American People, but i think it is equally important when you look at a budget to talk about not only what a budget does, but to talk about what a budget does not do. The Serious Problems that it does not address. Madam president , poll after poll tells us that the American People when asked what their Major Concerns are what they almost always respond is saying it is jobs, wages and the economy. Thats generally speaking democrats, republicans independents respond its the economy, jobs, and wages. Despite a significant improvement in the economy over the last six years real unemployment today is not 5. 5 . It is 11 counting those people who have given up looking for work and those people who are working part time. Youth unemployment, an issue that we almost never discuss is at 17 . And africanamerican youth unemployment is much higher than that. What the American People want and what the republican budget completely ignores is the need to create millions of decentpaying jobs. If you go out to maine to vermont, to wyoming to california, you ask people what they want and they would say we need more jobs, and those jobs should be paying us a living wage. In my view and in the view of many economists, if we are serious about creating jobs in this country the fastest way to do it is to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, our roads, bridges Water Systems wastewater plants, airports, rail dams, lef levy, broadband in rural areas. According to the american scientists of Civil Engineers we need to invest 3 trillion by the year 2020 just to get our nations infrastructure in good repair. And when we make a significant investment in an infrastructure, we create millions of decentpaying jobs, which is exactly what we should be doing and what our side of the side of the aisle will fight for but it is an issue virtually ignored by the republican majority. Crumbling infrastructure, need to create jobs, doesnt talk about it. Madam president , at a time when millions of americans are working for starvation wages and when the federal minimum wage is an abysmal 7. 25 an hour, we need a budget that substantially increases wages for lowincome and middleincome workers. Inin the year 2015 no one who works in this country for 40 hours a week should be living in poverty. I would hope that that is a tenet that all of us could agree on. No one should be making the totally inadequate federal minimum wage of 7. 25 an hour. Raising the minimum wage to at least 10. 10 an hour would not only be good for lowincome workers it would affect spending programs. Sadly when i offered an amendment in committee that called for a substantial increase in the minimum wage, not one of my republican colleagues voted for it. Well were going to give them an opportunity to rethink of error of their ways. We are going to bring an amendment on to the floor to do exactly what the American People want and that is significantly increase the minimum wage in this country so that no one who works 40 hours a week lives in poverty. Madam president , we also need pay equity in this country so that women do not make 78 cents on the dollar compared to what a man makes for doing the same work. Further, we need to address the overtime scandal in this country in which many of our people are working 50 or 60 hours a week but fail to get time and a half for their efforts. I havent heard i sat through all the committee meetings, Budget Committee meetings, was at the markup on thursday, didnt hear one republican word about the need for pay equity for women workers, about the need to address the overtime scandal, about the need to raise the minimum wage. These are the issues the American People want addressed. But look high and low in that long republican budget, youll not find one word addressing these issues. Madam president , i can tell you that in vermont and i suspect every state in this country young people and their families are enormously frustrated by the high cost of College Education and the horrendously oppressive student debt that many of them leave school with. Student debt today at one point 2 trillion, is the secondlargest category of debt in this country, more than Credit Card Debt and auto loan debt. Does the republican budget do anything to lower Interest Rates on student debt . No. In fact, their budget would make a bad situation even worse by eliminating subsidized Student Loans and increasing the cost of a College Education by about 3,000 for some of the lowestincome students in america. Does the republican budget support or comment on president obamas initiative to make two years of Community College free . Or do they provide any other initiative to make College Affordable . Sadly, they dont. But what they do do is cut 90 billion in pell grants over a tenyear period, which will make college even more expensive for about eight million lowincome college students. Madam president , my republican colleagues say that they are concerned about the deficit which, by the way, has been reduced by more than two thirds since president obama has been in office. And we should be clear this side of the aisle is concerned about the deficit. My republican colleagues are concerned about an 18 trillion National Debt which has skyrocketed in recent years. And one of the reasons that it has skyrocketed is that we went to war in iraq and afghanistan and the experts tell us by the time we take care of the last veteran those wars may cost over 5 trillion. And my deficit hawk friends on the republican side, how do they pay for those wars . What taxes did they raise . What programs did they cut . They didnt. They put it on the credit card. Thats how they paid for it. And i would tell you madam president , what concerns me very much is apparently two wars unpaid for is not enough for my republican colleagues. In the committee markup, they put another 38 billion into defense spending on the credit card off budget. So i think we should ask ourselves how does it happen that the move toward their balanced budget approach, they want to cut nutrition education, health care, virtually every program that working families need. But when it comes to defense spending another 38 billion. Thats not chump change. Even here in washington thats off budget. No problem. Just add it to the deficit. Madam president , when we talk about sensible ways of addressing our deficit or sensible ways of addressing our National Debt, you cannot ignore the reality that Major Corporation after Major Corporation in a given year pays what in taxes . 20 . 10 . 5 . Zero zero percent. Profitable corporations have not only paid nothing in federal income taxes in some recent years, they actually get rebates from the i. R. S. Can we talk about that issue or is the only way toward a balanced budget to cut programs for the elderly the children, the sick and the poor . According to a recent report from the Congressional Research service, each and every year profitable corporations are avoiding about 100 billion in taxes by slashing, by stashing their profits in the cayman islands. The presiding officer the senators time has expired. Mr. Sanders and with that, madam president , i would yield the floor. The presiding officer who yields time . Mr. Enzi id suggest the absence of a quorum. But if the senator needed a few more minutes. Mr. Sanders i thank my colleague. Ill take a few more minutes and if he has more, he should take the rest. The presiding officer the senator from vermont is recognized. Mr. Sanders thank you madam president. The point that i was making is if we are serious about moving, reducing the deficit, it is inconceivable that one does not look at the fact that corporation after corporation is paying zero in federal income tax. It is inconceivable that we do not recognize that in 1952, corporations contributed about 32 of all federal tax revenue. Today they contribute about 11 . It is inconceivable that we do not understand that according to the c. R. S. , each and every year profitable corporations are avoiding 100 billion 100 billion in taxes. How can you not look at that issue . How can your only approach be to make it harder for kids to go to college or for little children to go in the Head Start Program . So madam president i look forward to the debate that we will be having over the next several days. I suspect there will be a lot of amendments being offered. I think its fair to say that on this side of the aisle what the amendments will be saying is that we need to create millions of jobs. We need to raise wages in america. We need a tax system that is fair and does not contain loopholes that allow the wealthy and large corporations to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. We need a budget that says women workers should earn the same as male workers. We need a budget that says we have got to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. So i think there will be a lot of very serious debates. I think the differences between the two sides will become pretty apparent, and i hope the American People pay strong attention to this discussion. With that, Supreme Court justices Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer testified on capitol hill monday on the Supreme Court and the federal judiciarys 2016 budget request. This hearing of the House Appropriations subcommittee on Financial Services and general government is one hour 20 minutes. This hearing will come to order. First of all let me welcome Justice Breyer and Justice Kennedy. Thank you for being here today. I know both of you have testified before our subcommittee in times past, and we appreciate you coming back being with us here again today. We all look forward to this time to have an exchange. Not often does the legislative branch and the Judicial Branch get to talk to each other so we look forward to. I think all of us know that a fair and impartial judiciary is very much a cornerstone to our democratic system of government. And so the fact that you here today i think is important. I think the work that you do is obviously very very important. Not only do you resolve disputes between individuals but also between executive branch and the federal government as well as the legislative branch. And to do that you need the respect of the citizens, and i think you have that. I think you also give respect to the citizens and their view of whats right and whats fair and thats important as well. So i think todays hearing is important because we do have a chance to talk to each other about issues that are important. One of the things that i want to commend you all for is your work to try to help save money. Everybody knows the government needs money to provide services, but of late we are trying to make sure that every task of government is completed more efficiently and more effectively than it ever has been before. Money is limited and you are to be commended for the work that youve done to try to save the taxpayers of dollars. I noticed that your requested issue 88. 2 billion, is almost 1 million less than you requested last year. And i can tell you my fellow members of your dont see that happen very often and in agency comes in and as for less money than they received the year before. So we thank you for that. I know youve done some cost payment initiatives dealing with technology, dealing with personnel. And its paid off. And i know that there are some small increases a part of that overall reduction that are basically inflationary themselves. So Justice Kennedy, Justice Breyer, we look forward to hearing from you about the resources that you need at any other comment you might have about the judiciary in general and were going to pledge to you to work the best we can to make sure that you have the resources necessary to carry out your constitutional responsibility. Once again, thank you for the work youve done to try to save money and be efficient and effective. And in closing let me just say on a personal note, im frm jacksonville, florida, and with something theyre called chester but bill end of the court, what at first into the courts established in florida and every year they have a special occasion on law day. I wanted to let you know that theyll be requesting one of the members of the Supreme Court to come in 2016 to be there for that celebration in jacksonville, florida. So i hope you be on thout for the invitation. I know they would love to have you there, and i would certainly welcome the honor to introduce you to jacksonville, florida. The chairman has no shame. [laughter] and that has nothing to do with your budget request. And so we look forward to hearing your testimony but first let me turn to the acting Ranking Member mr. Bishop. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Ranking member serrano would very much like to of been here today but he couldnt and he sends his sincere apologies. Apologies. Im here and displays adequate also like to warmly welcome you both justices 1080 and breyer to our subcommittee. As has been said in the past years, this is one of the rare opportunities for our two branches of government to interact. Because of this our question sometimes range beyond strict appropriations issues as our nations highest court. Many of us look to you for important insights and to issues affecting the judiciary as a whole which can be especially critical in such a difficult and challenging budget times as we are experiencing. We have to be careful not to allow anything to affect the ability of our federal judiciary to hear cases and to dispense justice and fair and a timely manner. We have to be sure also to provide the Supreme Court us both a final accord our constitution and the most visible symbol of our system of justice with sufficient resources to undertake not just judicial functions, but your Public Information functions as well. So we look forward to your testimony. Welcome, and what if we can do to make sure that we have a strong independent wellfunded judiciary, we want to do that. Thank you mr. Bishop. Now let me recognize first Justice Kennedy for in remarks you might like to make. Well put a written statement in the record and if you could keep your remarks in the neighborhood of five minutes, that will give us some time to ask questions. Begin the floor is yours. Thank you very much a star chairman, Ranking Member bishop. Welcome for youre welcome integrating. Justice breyer, and me, we bring our message of greetings from a college with us today. I will just go in the order of where they are seated. Our counselor to the chief justice and kevin kline, budget and personnel director. The marshal of the court. Scott harris, clerk of the court and is patricia your with you as well . Cant we have kathy r. Berg and patricia from our Public Information office. As you indicated, mr. Chairman we are always very careful, very cautious about Budget Expenditures and his will you know and the committee will knows the budget of the Supreme Court is just a small part of the budget of the court as a whole. The court as a whole is a very small part of the United States budget. And i think today you will hear presentations from Julie Gibbons of the sixth circuit on the budget for the judiciary as a whole. And this is of immense importance. She doesnt marvelous job for the judiciary spends many many days and weeks on the subject. And the budget for the federal judiciary as a whole its important i think for congress to realize it isnt just judges. There are 7900 probation and presentencing officers, and this is costeffective because this keeps people on supervised release so theyre not in custody, and this is a huge cost saving. Without reference to the human factor, and over the years in the federal system we have a very low recidivism rate for those who are on release, really high if you look at it as onethird but its quite low compared to the state. So this is costeffective and the federal court as a whole trained to mr. Chairman, ra probable, visible clear manifestation of our commitment to the rule of law when people from Foreign Countries as judges often, come and they see the federal judicial system and they admire it. They are inspired by and they go back to their countries and say that this is a nation that is committed to the law and law is part of the capital infrastructure. You can have a free Economic System without a functioning legal system. So what you do is of immense importance and we appreciate it. As to her own budget and you indicated, mr. Chairman overall we have a decrease in our own Court Operations and expenditures. We have almost exactly 1 , a little over 1 increase and that is for mandated increases for inflation and salary increases that are mandated. And over half of that we have absorbed costcutting in the court. We have absorbed over half of the mandated increases within the existing framework that we have the. The court is planning to have in the year 2016 and Electronic Filing system so all of the papers that were filed with the court will be on Electronic Filing. We waited in part to the District Court in the circuit courts could get on that system so that we could then take it from them but, of course, its also includes filings from state courts and from prisoners. We think this may require an increase in personnel by one or two people. Were not sure. The pro se petitions of which there are, i dont know, its in your chart, probably in the area of 6000 a year, are usually handwritten, president handwritten. When this is put on electronic retrievable system, you will have a database in which scholars and analysts can look up the whole criminal system both state and federal and make comparisons from how many what is the percentage of cases where theres a complete on inadequate assistance of counsel or search and seizure. So this will be a database that will give us considerable data for first scholars so that we can study our system. We are of course preferred answer questions about the specifics, but once again let me thank you for the honor of being here, and my colleague, Justice Breyer and i are pleased to answer your questions. Justice breyer, you are recognized. [inaudible] youre here and i think thats a very good thing. I think our biggest problem is not necessarily the budget. Its quite summer to yours which is how to get the American People to understand what they are institutions are about. In our case we are not up in some have been somewhere where we agree then some on by communicating directly, that were part of the government of the United States. You were in the mechanics of how we bring this about, good. It means we are not totally off on her out and try to cling to people what we do as you try to explain what you do and you say we are part of you and you are part of us. Thats talking to people of the United States. So glad to even a little opportunity to talk about our institution that works, and im glad you are interested. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, i just might mention the inns of court that you alluded to. The idea of former chief Justice Warren burger he loved all things english anyone to replicate this structure in which judges and attorneys and law professors and law students have dinner twice a month and talk about stuff. He did it with judge Sherman Christiansen the late judge christiansen of utah and its been a remarkable the costs the government no money. And jacksonville, florida, in the sacramento, california, in boston they have inns of court and it is made a tremendous difference. People thought this is kind of interesting idea. Its made real top of all, tangible, visible difference in disability that we have within our commission but its been a remarkable remarkable achievement. It was warren burgers idea. Thats good because that does promote civility, and then doing a certainly a great job. As we begin the questions i cant help but recall last time you over here i asked you how the Court Decides who theyre going to send over to test it before setting Justice Kennedy you replied its based on merit. [laughter] so you are back again. Good job. Let me ask you one of the things that no theres been a lot of work being done on the building and grounds and over the last 10 years i think this committee has spent or appropriate about 120 million Children First time since 1935, a lot of things were upgraded. And so i want to ask for kind of an update on how the work is done. The facade was redone i guess north and south. Is that all complete . Of one type there was a big old in the ground next to her but since i didnt buy of late everything looks nice. Can you give us an update on all the work thats been done . Is that completed and finished . [inaudible] reap for pushing of the building is completed. We came under budget and the project has been closed and its been very, very successful. Incidentally the original cost for that was original estimate was 170 million. And i talked with your predecessor when i got the message, and he said i think we got a problem. He said it sounds too high to me. We hired our own architect and worked with him. In fact, my recollection is he did most of his work pro bono. From the architect we hired, he is from the university of virginia we got it down to 120. And the building came in under that. There were some contract claims. One of the problem was the windows. If you look at our windows these lovely windows, replaced the windows which we have to do they measured them measured the bottom, the width of the window in tonight. They didnt know that its not a rectangular, its a trap is a. So the window at the top is tightly small and thats to give a perspective of the brilliant architecture to so that was about a 15 million mistake which we werent going to pay for but thats the kind of thing that comes up. And it is finished. We had to replace all the wires, all the airconditioning. The airconditioning system from 1938, and when it broke there was a fellow who was retired in west virginia. We said wed better fix this. So thats been nice to the facade is a different project. Thats some of the marble was falling off. The time has not been kind to the marble on the building, and we are still in progress. The entrance, the west side of the building is finished, but the north and south and the east have yet to be done. Gotcha. Let me ask you, it will have time i think for a round of questions, or to. The whole security issue. The world seems to be getting more dangerous whether its international or whether its a domestically. And i know from time to time the Supreme Court hears controversial cases and i know they spend about 18 million a year on security i guess primarily with the Supreme Court police. And i just want you to tell us is that adequate . And for instance, if you here, going to hear may be a highly charged case, do you have to increase security during the time those hearings take place . Give us an overall view of how you see, because i was just in jacksonville with the folks in the federal courthouse, and thats a concern to them. In these difficult Economic Times to make sure with Adequate Security for a lot of people are in public service, but give us a little update on how, is that all being funded, taking care of . It has been. A few years ago we projected that we needed more than we ultimately asked for but we are not satisfied that we have the right number. Of course in high profile cases or wind threat assessments are going up, we have increased security, but we can do it all within our existing staff. Thanks. Mr. Bishop is recognized. Thank you. Thank you very much. When you were last year we discussed the very real impact of sequestration. Unfortunately we still need to discuss that. I think most people think of federal grants and programs our way to dial back operations, but its not the case with the federal judiciary. Course of a constitutional responsibility and you cannot control the scope of your jurisdiction. Engine already undertaken strict costcutting measures prior to sequestration. I know you cant answer for the entire judiciary but what do you see as the continued effects of sequestration . What concerns do you have if sequestration is continue to . I havent heard the testimony from other agencies. Maybe they all say were all unique and cant in any sequester for us. Number one we cant control our work load. Its controlled by forces and factors that are beyond our direction. Number two we have a tradition, as the chairman indicated, of being very prudent in very cautious. With us if they were cutbacks equipping light processing time of cases. And it could mean compromises. With the court in general its much more significant. As indicated we have 790 probation officers and if they are laid off that means more people are in prison at a greater cost. So it works backwards. I agree some point to cut back enough and keep going you will discover that unfortunately in the United States there are crimes. People are arrested and theyre supposed to be tried, and you need a judge in utah jury engineered a courtroom. And the alternative is not to have the trial. If you dont have the trouble person has to be released. And there we are. So there is a minimum and if you go towards that minimum and beyond it you will deprive the country of the services that basically are needed to run the government of the United States in this area. Thank you. I applaud the courts ability to find savings in budget. Your total budget does represent a discretion decrease of 1. 1 from fy 15. It looks like this is a combination of the construction work being completed and saving some nonrecurring costs associate with implementation of the new Financial System. Are there increases your delay but you still feel would be beneficial at some point . And with regard to implementation of your new Financial System which i understand you are leveraging resources from the executive branch of the department of injury, specifically in the area of april and financial tracking and touched understand this has reduce your reliance on contract employees and seems be a great step towards efficiency. You find youre getting the same level or an approved level of service . Would you recommend this to other agencies that are looking to reduce their costs . Im not in of an expert to recommend it to other agencies but our staff tells us its working very, very well. They like it. They like it better than the outside contractors and its much cheaper. We are in partnership with an agency, the department of interior, and, which has some similarities to us and its been the source of generate most of the savings with that over the last few years. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you. Congressman bishop we are not holding back on anything other than we do this projection that we may need to more people because of the Electronic Filings that were going to put in place in 2016. I must remark, thank you very much, mr. Chairman, the answer to my witnesses are so succinct, to the point, concise, not only do we not get people requesting less money, we dont get people that speak clarity and concisely. So congratulations on both fronts. Now i would like to recognize mr. Womack. I wish they were all this way. Justices once again a great honor to have you be forced to we always look forward to hearing your commentary, and specifically interested in the i. T. Peace of whats going on in the sprinkler. These Technology Changes are happening so fast. So fast that we get further and further behind i think in trying to keep up with what technology ought to be able to do for us. So i am interested in knowing just how well the i. T. Upgrades are going. In listening to your testimony, Justice Kennedy, i got to thinking about our friends over at va and dod. Theyre having such a difficult time coming up with a platform that can kind of serve a very special group of people to our country our veterans, and being able to get these two systems to talk to one another. Do you encounter any of that kind of conflict within the judicial realm india with matters of informationtechnology . My guess is Justice Breyer as much worse in this than i. My guess is by comparison with many other agencies, our problems are predictable. You know theres going to be a trial with the plate and defend. We know there will be appealed with an appellate and and appellee. We know there maybe a petition with a petition and of respondent. So the universal problems is rather well known and rather predictable. We dont have to project for uncertainties to the extent, nearly to the extent that other agencies do. And our system from the legal system lends itself very well to the electronic technology. In my own mind i classified three Different Things that this technology can do. One of the just heard about and thats the budgeting and things that are technological and their baby defenses in getting together with other agencies. The second which is coming along slowly to focus the ability to file briefs and opinions and other things electronically which is helpful to the lawyers and its hopeful to the public because they can get it instantaneously. That takes some time but i think is going along satisfactorily and i think that most of the other Court Systems have this already in many forms a week can plug into ours with a too much trouble. The third which is more open ended and i put more weight on it is to use our technology to inform the public about what were doing to take you through our website. I was talking to people from scotus, they do the same kind of thing and thats not so easy to do. We put in a website but the question is will they use it . Will people find out will schoolchildren find out . Where some teachers says i want to know about this case. I tell my class i goes, if we can do that. Ive got some figures and start exactly what it is. We have according to this we have been a year 271530850 hits, but of wasnt sure what that meant biggest that a lot or a little. It sounds like a lot to me. 75 million a month. How do you measure it . They would try to get comparative figures. The white house is way up there maybe with 1000 whatever they are, 2000, and you are but maybe 8000 or 5000 we are about 10000 Inspector General is like 2 million. It seemed there is interest in getting this information. And how to develop that in a way that is usable, over time and encourages the average american to find out, i think thats a big project and i think it will require a lot of experiment back and forth and i think i said you were in it. No question. Spent also, its anecdotal. Its only a tentative hypothesis but i think electronic information has reduced the number of appeals that we have. Because lawyers who are trying a case and just push in who has presumption, and it immediately comes up and into, the latest cases it is a conflict comes up. I think this is easier for lawyers and judges to find a law. With the time i have remaining, i know im about out of time at the risk of getting into a philosophical discussion i have some very strong feelings about our capacity to deal with people with our current prison and local jail overcrowding. I mean, it goes all the way from our county levels to the federal system. And it seems to me that our country continues to struggle with just want to do and how to manage. You just cant build enough incarcerating facilities to do with the population but if such an expensive thing. I was at an event saturday night in my own area my county judges we marked to me that theres a chance that the jail is going to be shut down, and what to do and the opportunities or the solutions to these problems seem to be fewer and fewer. So i just kind of consider myself in the camp of were going to have to start prioritizing a little bit how we deal with his. To supervise piece that you spoke of Justice Kennedy about the provisions and those kinds of programs are just a very invaluable tool to our country and helping managers to many people we have behind bars at a given time. I would just throw that out on the table and yield back my time. I think, mr. Chairman, that the Correction System is one of the most overlooked, misunderstood institutions functions that we have in our entire government. In law school i never heard about corrections. Lawyers are fascinated with the guilt or innocence of the adjudication process. Once the adjudication process is over we have no interest in corrections. Doctors know more about the Correction System and psychiatrist than we do. Nobody looks at it. California, my home state, had 187,000 people in jail at a cost of over 30,000 a prisoner. Compare the amount they get to schoolchildren, its about 3500 a year. The difference, this is 24 hour care so its apples and oranges in a way. And this idea of total incarceration just isnt working. Its not humane. The federal government built what do they call them, super max, super max prisons, isolation cells. Prisoners we had a case come before our court a few weeks ago, the pressure had been an isolation cell, according to his attorney, i havent checked it out for 25 years. Solitary confinement literally drives men mad. Even doctor minette had his tools and give any lost his mind. Recently have to look at the system that we have. The europeans have systems for difficult recalcitrant prisoners in which they have been in a group of three or four and they can Stay Together for three or four and they have human contact and it seems to work much better. But we have been given nearly the study, nearly enough thought. In many respects i think its broken. Just one thing because the want to focus on one word that i think you said, which to my mind is the direction of an answer and thats the word prioritize. Who will do the prioritizing . Do you think you can do it here . You proceed crime by crime. I mean, no matter what crime you chose you find individuals who committed it in a way that seems to deserve a little and some who may be deserve a lot, and you cant look at it individually. Do you want of mandatory minimums . I have said publicly many times that i think thats a terrible idea. Ive given reasons which i will spare you. If you want individual judges to do it always, completely iran the risk of nonuniformity and therefore, we set of rules commissions, sensing commissions and then mandatory minimums. So its a huge topic. Is it worth your time and effort, or mine to try to work out ways of prioritizing . I think it is. I think it is a big problem for the country. And so i cant do anything more than the next minute or 30 seconds and just say the word i like the were prioritize the i hope you follow it up and i hope you do examined a variety of ways that the our of trying to prioritize and then work out what it is. I thank the gentleman. Thank you. Mr. Ridge will. I join my colleagues, all of my colleagues in expressing our appreciation for the work that you do for serving on the court and for your being here today. This is going in my figure serving 50 house of representatives. Its my first you on appropriations and really good scenes on my counter notices coming up i have considered it as mr. Womack said, just on honor to be here and have you here with us today. I would like to visit the topic of electronic case filing system i would post now im not familiar with the but if are going to electronic, that would mean its the present, the physical document being received by the corporate you can elaborate on that if you like but was it is commercially available, or was this written exclusively for the Supreme Court, the software that we will be picketing to . Pivoting. I cant answer that. The lawyers have available to them commercial systems for filing their briefs and so forth and so theyre out there. Theres some competition. As far as a courtside how does the court manage it