Dan Phythyon, who recently became the Wireless Bureau Chief, is in the process of implementing the final steps of this reorganization, and is completing his own review of the Front Office staffing and structure. The purpose of this review is to ensure that the Wireless Bureau Front office remains no larger than necessary to perform its job in an efficient manner. We fully expect that the size of the Front Office will remain below 20 staff. Once the Bureau reorganization is finalized, there will be a public announcement of its new structure, including the composition of and responsibilities covered by its Front Office. We will provide the Subcommittee with additional information at that time. Question. Chairman Hundt, the purpose of the Telecommunications Act, we thought, was to promote wide-spread competition in the various sectors of the telecommunications industry. We were led to believe that different entities would build networks and provide bandwidth so that consumers would enjoy the fruits of the information age. As I understand it, your policy will lead to many different entities reselling the same network or service, but that's not the same as building out networks or increasing bandwidth. How would you respond to that? Answer. As we stated in the Interconnection First Report and Order, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 contemplates three paths of entry into the local market: the construction of new networks, the use of unbundled network elements of the incumbent's network, and resale of the incumbent's services. We anticipated that competitive carriers would use a variety of methods to enter the local telephone market, and that some carriers might first enter the market through resale, and gradually offer unique services through the use of their own facilities, the incumbent's unbundled network elements, or a combination of the two. In its Joint Explanatory Statement at 148, Congress recognized that "it is unlikely that competitors will have a fully redundant network in place when they initially offer local service, because the investment necessary is so significant." The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was intended to eliminate statutory and regulatory barriers and economic impediments that retard efficient entry into the telecommunications marketplace. The interconnection provisions of the 1996 Act did not express a preference for any particular entry strategy. The Commission's rules are designed to permit efficient competitive entry through a variety of methods consistent with the 1996 Act. We are in the early stages of what we expect will be a thriving competitive market, in which consumers can choose from among a variety of providers, services, and service packages. As with any burgeoning new market, we anticipate that there will be a significant amount of testing different product offerings and market entry strategies. It is too early to determine which services and entry methods will succeed. A review of the interconnection agreements that parties have reached, as well as discussions with industry participants, however, suggest that many competitive carriers intend to move from resale to use of their own facilities. SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS Senator GREGG. Well, thank you. I appreciate your time. Senator GREGG. The subcommittee is recessed. [Whereupon, at 10:31 a.m., Wednesday, April 16, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED FOR FISCAL AGENCIES YEAR 1998 APPROPRIATIONS THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 1997 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met at 1:30 p.m., in room S-146, the Capitol, Hon. Judd Gregg (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Gregg and McConnell. THE JUDICIARY SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES STATEMENT OF HON. ANTHONY M. KENNEDY, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE HON. DAVID H. SOUTER, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE JAMES C. DUFF, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CHIEF JUSTICE BILL SUTER, CLERK DALE BOSLEY, MARSHAL TONY DONNELLY, DIRECTOR OF BUDGET AND PERSONNEL OPENING REMARKS Senator GREGG. OK, we'll get started. I know the Justices have hearings going on of their own. So they probably don't have too much time, but we do appreciate your coming by in this unique constitutional format. I have no opening statement, so we'll go right to your thoughts. Justice KENNEDY. Thank you very much, Senator. Justice Souter and I are pleased to be here. And we have with us a number of court officers and court staff: our clerk, William Suter, our marshal, Dale Bosley, our budget and personnel officer Tony Donnelly. And I wish to thank the members of your staff for their cooperation and the assistance they have given to ours. This is always an important way for me to learn more about the budgeting process. Our budget this year, Senator, does ask for an increase of $3.318 million. Part of that is buildings and grounds, which is presented by the Architect of the Capitol. When that is presented, we do endorse, of course, the Architect's suggestions. That building of ours was built for under $9 million, beginning in 1934. I think it was occupied in 1935. The estimate for upgrad ing the electricity and the plumbing-the innards of the building— is something like $20 million. Maybe you can understand that. I can't quite understand that. But that's what the Architect is studying, and that's what he's working toward, so in the next few years we are going to be asking for a very substantial appropriation for this building. But it has come to the point where very, very substantial facilities renovations are going to be necessary. Part of the increase the Architect asked for this year is for studies for that. He also is going to recommend in the coming years, I think, additional installations to protect the perimeter of the building for security concerns. Our own portion of the budget includes, again, an increase of $2.121 million; $1.5 million of this is for adjustment to base; and $617,000 is for an increase in program. This is all security. The amount of $217,000 is for six police positions, and $400,000 is to enhance the police radio system. There is a dedicated channel that the police think they should have on a new radio system. The one they have now does not work well. The graphs in the court's budget submission show the work of the court remains constant, with some increase in unpaid petitions, which are generally criminal cases, and habeas cases filed by prisoners. The court is abreast of this work, and is well staffed, and, we think, very well managed by our administrative people. PREPARED STATEMENT And we appreciate, Senator, the opportunity to be here. We recognize that we are a very small part of the courts' budget, and the courts' budget is a very small part of the Federal budget. But we do think that this is important, for us to meet with you and to report to you on the condition of our institution. And I have no further statements by way of supplementing the written statement that we have given to you and your staff. [The statement follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF JUSTICE ANTHONY M. KENNEDY Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, Justice Souter and I appreciate this opportunity to appear before your Committee to address the budget requirements and requests of the Supreme Court for the fiscal year 1998. We have with us today James Duff, Administrative Assistant to the Chief Justice; Dale Bosley, Marshal of the Court; Bill Suter, Clerk of the Court; and Tony Donnelly, Director of Budget and Personnel. As is customary, the Supreme Court's budget request is divided between the "Salaries and Expenses of the Court" and "Care of the Building and Grounds". For the "Care of the Building and Grounds" the total fiscal year 1998 budget request is $3,997,000. Mr. Alan M. Hantman, Architect of the Capitol, will submit a separate statement to the Subcommittee regarding that portion of the total budget. I would like first to point out, however, that the proposed study of building improvements and utility systems upgrade is of particular importance in the Court's total budget request. Due to the age of the Court building, the Architect anticipates the need for substantial spending over several years to upgrade the electrical, plumbing and heating, ventilating and air-conditioning systems. We ask for your approval of this effort to modernize the building support systems. The Architect of the Capitol will address this matter in more detail. With regard to the "Salaries and Expenses" portion of the Court's budget, our total fiscal year 1998 budget estimate is $29,278,000. This is an increase of $2,121,000, or 7.8 percent, over the budget authority for 1997. Most of the increase represents base adjustments—that is, required increases in salary and benefits costs and inflationary increases in fixed costs. Specifically, $1,269,000 of the adjustment represents required increases in salary and benefit costs. And $235,000 is the amount requested for inflationary increases in fixed costs, allowing us to keep up with rising costs in all of our necessary operations. Although we are requesting slightly more of an increase in our budget for 1998, (last year's budget request was for a 5.1 percent increase,) last year our request included only inflationary increases to the Court's budget base and nothing for new programs. As we mentioned in last year's request, we anticipated seeking additional funds in the 1998 budget for increased security. Based upon our initial review of our security needs, we are therefore seeking $617,000 over base adjustments to fund two increases in the Court's security program. These are: the hiring of six additional Police Officers, and the installation of an enhanced Police radio system. $217,000 of this request is to fund the addition of six Police Officers in order to strengthen the Court's overall security. Our intent is to add two officers to each of the three Police shifts that provide exterior security for the Supreme Court over a full twenty four hour period seven days per week. The Marshal recommends that we augment security by adding manpower to each shift in order to create a stronger, full-time security presence at the Supreme Court building. The U.S. Secret Service has recently completed a review of the Court's overall security program, and they have indicated support for this strengthening of security. Subsequent budget requests may propose further increases and security improvements consistent with recommendations of the U.S. Secret Service and the study funded this fiscal year. Adding new positions will also reduce over-time now often required of officers. $400,000 of the request for security programs is a non-recurring increase to fund an evaluation of the remote communications needs of the Supreme Court Police and the purchase and installation of an enhanced Police radio system. The Court's Police radio system that is used to communicate with our Police Officers has become out of date and unreliable. We find that security is seriously compromised when communications between the Police Office and the Officers performing security details are delayed, unclear and unreliable. We continue our efforts to make the most efficient use of the Court's existing resources and to minimize the need to request additional funding or personnel. During this Court Term, we will redevelop the Court's opinion writing system and all other personal computer applications to take advantage of the most up-to-date computer software technology. Implementing these changes and training Court users in the new software and applications will require substantial effort by the Court's Office of Data Systems. While we intend to accomplish these changes working within the existing budget base, we anticipate the need to increase the Court's budget over the next few years to enable the replacement of aging computer hardware and technology infrastructure such as the local area network, cabling and telecommunications. Also, we anticipate that modifications to software and updates to hardware will be necessary to accommodate changes to computer systems that must take place by the year 2000. Although it is not always easy to define specific savings that stem from spending on automation, we are confident that the Court's spending in this area and its attempt to make the most of emerging technology has increased the efficiency with which we address our caseload. This concludes a brief summary of our request. We will be pleased to respond to any questions that the members of the Committee may have. Justice KENNEDY. Perhaps Justice Souter has something to add. Justice SOUTER. Thank you. But I don't think there are any untouched bases, and I will stick to carrying the bags until somebody has a question for me. Senator GREGG. I have one question. The $20 million for building renovation, do you expect that in next year's budget, or the year after? Justice KENNEDY. I think in the next 3 years. The sum has not been requested here, but this is just a warning that we hear that kind of figure being brooded about for the structural installations which are necessary. Electricity, for instance, has to be completely redone. NINTH CIRCUIT SPLIT Senator GREGG. There's been some proposals that we split the ninth circuit. In fact, on the floor of the Senate last year there was significant discussion about this. What are your thoughts on that? Justice KENNEDY. I was on the ninth circuit from 1975 to 1987, and when I first came to the Senate for my confirmation hearing as a circuit judge, that question was being asked, because there was a report by a commission headed by Senator Hruska, Roman Hruska. And at that time I said I didn't know enough about it to make a judgment. When I got on the court, I felt that it should not be split, that perhaps there was a place in the system for a very major circuit, and that there would be certain costs savings by having a very large circuit. And so I was a defender of trying the experiment, and the experiment has now gone to the extent where we have 28 active judges. The ninth circuit has-oh, I would suppose 22 percent of the Nation's population and 22 percent of its judicial business. I have increasing doubts and increasing reservations about the wisdom of retaining the ninth circuit in its historic size and with its historic jurisdiction. We have very dedicated judges on that circuit, very scholarly judges. They are working with tremendous expedition to dispose of the caseload. But I think institutionally, and from the collegial standpoint, that it is too large to have the discipline and control that's necessary for an effective circuit. I am willing to think further about it. I had hoped that there would be a commission report so that we could study the commission report. But I understand that there is no commission authorized as of this time, and I think the Congress ought very seriously and at once to address this problem and make up-and come to some resolution one way or the other as to the size of the ninth circuit. The Hruska report is good reading. Actually the division that it recommends makes considerable sense. One problem is the State of California has about 30 million people. That's as many people as were in the United States in 1860. It's a huge population. That's just the State of California. So as you talk about splitting the ninth circuit, what are you going to do with the State of California? That probably requires, oh, 15 circuit judges. You would have a big circuit with just one State. One answer, and that was the answer of the Hruska report, was to split California. And that requires a special mechanism in the event there is a split between the northern and the southern circuits which affects the State of California, and that that should be studied. Senator GREGG. Thank you. Do you have any thoughts on that, Justice Souter? Justice SOUTER. I really don't. Please don't split the first circuit, but the ninth-[Laughter.] The ninth is not a subject of my expertise. |