Judiciary Appropriations for FY2007

Judiciary Appropriations for FY2007
Updated January 26, 2007
Lorraine H. Tong
Analyst in American National Government
Government and Finance Division

Judiciary Appropriations for FY2007
Summary
The federal Judiciary, like the executive and legislative branches, depends on
appropriated funds for its operations. Those funds — which comprise about two-
tenths of 1% (0.2%) of the entire federal budget — are used to pay salaries for judges
and other judicial employees, security for the courts, rent for court facilities, defender
services, information technology, and other expenses to fulfill the Judiciary’s mission
to provide equal justice under the law. The Judiciary also receives some non-
appropriated funds from fee collections and some carryover funds from prior years
to pay for its operations. Changes in judiciary funding that occur year-to-year
generally reflect inflation costs, priorities within each account, new laws and policies,
and workload factors. From time to time, Congress may provide supplemental
appropriations or enact rescissions that affect the judiciary budget.
As a co-equal branch of government, the Judiciary presents its budget request
to the President, who in turn transmits the request to Congress unaltered.
Appropriations for the Judiciary in FY2007 are provided under Title IV of the
Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the
District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies appropriations bill (H.R. 5576).
The FY2007 budget request for the Judiciary was $6.26 billion — a $540.1 million
increase (9.4%) above its FY2006 appropriation of $5.72 billion. On June 14, 2006,
the House passed H.R. 5576 by a vote of 406-22. Title IV of the bill contained
$6.063 billion in funding for the Judiciary — a $342.8 million (6.0%) increase over
the FY2006 enacted amount, but $197.3 million (3.2%) less than the FY2007
request. The House-passed levels for the Judiciary are the same as the amount
reported by the House Appropriations Committee on June 9, 2006. On June 20,
2006, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved H.R. 5576, including $6.098
billion for the Judiciary — a $378 million (6.6%) increase over the FY2006 level, but
$162.1 million (2.6%) less than the FY2007 request. Congress did not take further^th
action on the bill before the 109 Congress adjourned, and funding for the Judiciary
is currently provided under H.J.Res. 102 (P.L. 109-383), a continuing resolution
through February 15, 2007. On January 11, 2007, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.,
contacted congressional leaders to express concern about reports of a possible year-
long continuing resolution, and to revise the FY2007 budget request to $6.029 billion
— $231 million (or 3.7%) less than the original request of $6.260 billion, and $309
million (or 5.4%) more than the FY2006 enacted amount of $5.720 billion.
This report discusses the judiciary appropriations process, including how the
judiciary budget request is prepared and submitted to Congress. It then addresses the
judiciary budget request for FY2007, noting changes in the overall budget and the
primary factors behind the requested increases, and provides the House-passed and
Senate committee-approved amounts for each account. Details about the FY2007
request by budget groups and account are provided along with comparisons with the
FY2006 appropriated levels. The report concludes with a discussion of selected
issues and legislation that may have a budgetary impact on the judiciary budget. It
will be updated upon passage of relevant legislation, or as other events warrant.

Contents
Most Recent Developments..........................................1
In troduction ......................................................1
Judiciary Appropriations Process......................................2
Judiciary Budget Request For FY2007.................................3
Request by Budget Groups and Account............................5
Congressional Action on FY2007 Budget...............................7
House Committee Hearings......................................7
House Committee and Floor Action............................7
Senate Committee Action.......................................7
Highlights of the FY2007 Budget .................................8
Supreme Court............................................8
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit....................9
U.S. Court of International Trade.............................9
Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services......9
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC)..............11
Federal Judicial Center....................................12
United States Sentencing Commission........................12
Judiciary Retirement Funds.................................12
Administrative Provisions......................................13
Related Issues and Legislation.......................................14
Judicial Pay.................................................14
Rental Fees Paid to General Services Administration.................16
List of Tables
Table 1. Judiciary Appropriations, FY2006 and FY2007...................6

Judiciary Appropriations for FY2007
Most Recent Developments
Since October 1, 2006, the Judiciary has been funded at the FY2006 level
through a series of continuing resolutions. H.J.Res. 102 (P.L. 109-383), the third
continuing resolution, provides funding for the Judiciary through February 15, 2007.
A year-long continuing resolution is reportedly under consideration.
In his January 11, 2007, letters to the Speaker of the House and the Majority and
Minority leaders in both the House and the Senate, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.,
expressed his concern about a possible year-long continuing resolution. The Chief
Justice stated that funding at the FY2006 level for FY2007 would have “a severe
impact on court operations, our judicial system, and potentially all U.S. citizens.”
Specifically, he cited the Administrative Office of the U.S. Court’s calculations that
“almost 2,400 probation and pretrial services officers and clerks’ offices staff
currently employed by the courts would be lost. This reduction of almost 12 percent
of the courts’ staff would have to be accomplished through hiring freezes, furloughs
and ultimately the firing of these dedicated employees.” He emphasized that public
safety would be at risk because the appropriate level of supervision would not be
available for felons released from prison and for defendants during the pretrial stage.
He also expressed concern that there would be no funds to pay court-appointed
private attorneys for the last 10 weeks of FY2007 to ensure the timely disposition of
criminal cases.
In his letter, the Chief Justice requested that the Judiciary not be subject to a
budget freeze, and revised the FY2007 judiciary budget to $6.029 billion. This
amount would be $231 million (or 3.7%) less than the original request of $6.260
billion, but $309 million (or 5.4%) more than the FY2006 enacted amount of $5.720
billion. He stated that the revised amount would be needed for the federal courts to
fulfill their constitutional and statutory responsibilities.¹
Introduction
The federal Judiciary, like the executive and legislative branches, depends on
appropriated funds for its operations. Those funds — which comprise about two-
tenths of 1% (0.2%) of the entire federal budget — are used to pay salaries for judges

¹ The Chief Justice noted that there is precedent for his request. In 1996, then-Chief Justice
William Rehnquist asked Congress not to include the Judiciary and certain law enforcement
agencies from a full-year continuing resolution, and Congress responded by appropriating
funds above the freeze.

and other judicial employees, security for the courts, rent for court facilities, defender
services, information technology, and other expenses to fulfill the Judiciary’s mission
to provide equal justice under the law. The Judiciary also receives some non-
appropriated funds from fee collections and some carryover funds from prior years
to pay for its operations. Changes in judiciary funding that occur year-to-year to
reflect inflation costs, priorities within each account, new laws and policies, and
workload factors. In formulating its budget request (discussed in the next section),
the Judiciary also takes into consideration concerns regarding the federal budget
deficit, and has stated its commitment to contain costs. From time to time, Congress
may provide supplemental appropriations or enact rescissions that affect the judiciary
budget.
This report discusses the judiciary appropriations process, including how the
judiciary budget request is prepared and submitted to Congress. It then addresses the
judiciary budget request for FY2007, noting changes in the overall budget and the
primary factors behind the increases. The report proceeds to detail the FY2007
request by budget groups and account, comparing the accounts with the FY2006
budget as enacted, and provides the House-passed and Senate committee-approved
amounts for the Judiciary in the Title IV of Transportation/Treasury appropriations
bill. The report concludes with a discussion of selected issues and legislation that
may have a budgetary impact on the judiciary budget.
Judiciary Appropriations Process
The judiciary appropriation process begins when the chairmen of program²
committees of the Judicial Conference — the principal policy-making body
concerned with the administration of the United States Courts — meet with the
Conference’s Budget Committee in June or July of the year before the President
submits his budget.³ (For example, these meetings took place in July 2005 for the
FY2007 budget request submitted by the President in February 2006.) At the
meeting, the committees work out various program budget amounts within the
judiciary overall budget. Then, at the Judicial Conference biannual meeting in
September, the Budget Committee presents its judiciary budget report to the
conference, which considers and then approves a judiciary budget request. As

² Program committees have jurisdiction over specific judiciary programs or functions. They
include Bankruptcy System, Criminal Law, Information Technology, Judicial Resources,
Magistrate Judges System, Court Administration and Case Management, Defender Services,
Judicial Security, and Space and Facilities.
³ Congress created the Conference of Senior Circuit Judges in 1922, then changed the name
to the Judicial Conference of the United States in 1948 (28 U.S.C., Sec. 331). The Chief
Justice of the United States is the presiding officer of the Conference. Conference
membership comprises the chief judge of each judicial circuit, the Chief Judge of the Court
of International Trade, and a district judge from each regional judicial circuit. The Judicial
Conference also supervises the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,
who also serves as Secretary of the Conference. There are currently 20 conference
committees, and each makes recommendations within its jurisdiction (e.g., budget, court
administration, codes of conduct, and security). For more information about the conference
and its committees, see [http://www.uscourts.gov/judconf.html].

required by statute,⁴ the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
(AOUSC)⁵ transmits the judiciary budget estimate for the next fiscal year to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before October 16. AOUSC budget staff
consult and work with an OMB budget examiner to mark up the judiciary page in the
President’s Budget Appendix. During this period (before the President submits his
budget to Congress), the Judicial Conference Budget Committee and the AOUSC
Director have authority to make technical adjustments in the judiciary budget request.
The Conference Budget Committee typically meets again in January, the month prior
to the President’s February submission of the budget request, to recommend any
needed adjustments to the request.
When the President’s budget is sent to Congress, the President transmits the
judiciary request unaltered because it is a co-equal branch of government.⁶ The
AOUSC later delivers the Congressional Budget Summary and a more detailed
Judiciary Budget Justification document to the House and Senate Appropriations
committees. Funding for the Judiciary is currently provided under Title IV of the
Transportation/Treasury appropriations bill, one of the regular appropriations bills
that Congress considers each year.⁷
At hearings before House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees, the chair
of the Judicial Conference Budget Committee and the AOUSC Director present
prepared statements and answered committee questions concerning the judiciary
budget request. These presentations are separate from testimony presented to the
subcommittees at later hearings by a Justice or Justices regarding the Supreme
Court’s budget request.
Judiciary Budget Request For FY2007
The FY2007 original budget request for the Judiciary was $6.26 billion — an
increase of $540.1 million, or 9.4%, above its FY2006 appropriation of $5.72

⁴ 31 U.S.C., Sec. 1105(a)(32)(b).
⁵ AOUSC is the central support entity that provides administrative, management, program,
and information technology to the U.S. courts. It also provides support to the Judicial
Conference of the United States, and implements conference policies and applicable federal
statutes and regulations.
⁶ The budget for the judicial branch is accorded some independence by 31 U.S.C.
1105(a)(32)(b), which requires the President to transmit the proposed budget request to
Congress unchanged. This process has been in operation since 1939.
⁷ At the beginning of the 109^th Congress, both the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations reorganized their subcommittee structures. Among the changes in
jurisdiction was the transfer of judiciary appropriations from the Commerce, Justice, State,
the Judiciary, and Related Agencies appropriations bill to the Transportation/Treasury^th
appropriations bill. At the beginning of the 110 Congress, the subcommittees were again
reorganized, and jurisdiction of judiciary appropriations was transferred to the Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, and to the
House Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government.

billion.⁸ Of the $6.26 billion requested, $5.87 billion would be allotted for
discretionary spending,⁹ and $0.39 billion for mandatory spending.¹⁰ The
discretionary spending portion of the judiciary budget request for FY2007 increased
by 9.9% over the FY2006 appropriation. In comparison, the discretionary spending
request increased during the same period by 12.1% in the legislative branch and 3.2%
in the executive branch.¹¹ In each of the branches, however, the overall increases
include a range of increases (and sometimes decreases) for individual accounts and
functions.
The FY2007 judiciary budget request includes funding for 33,631 full-time-
equivalent (FTE) positions — an increase of 417 FTEs, or 1.3% over the FY2006
estimate of 33,214 FTEs. The additional positions are requested mainly to continue
efforts to restore some positions lost in previous years,¹² as well as to provide for
expected workload increases.
In The Judiciary Fiscal Year 2007 Congressional Budget Summary, the
judiciary budget request acknowledged the fiscal constraints Congress faces, and
reiterated its commitment to control and restrain spending by continuing to make cost
containment a major priority. Of the $540.1 million requested increase, $461.8
million (86%) would fund pay adjustments and other inflation-related increases
needed to maintain current services:
^!$181.6 million for pay and benefit rate increases, and non-pay
inflationary adjustments;

⁸ In this report, the Judiciary’s FY2006 appropriation includes $18 million in supplemental
appropriations and a 1% across-the-board cut enacted, as part of the Department of Defense,
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and
Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006, P.L. 109-148.
⁹ Discretionary spending is spending that the President and Congress control through annual
appropriations bills.
¹⁰ Mandatory spending is spending controlled by permanent law, rather than annual
appropriations. Budget authority may also provide for certain programs in annual
appropriations acts and is treated as mandatory because the authorizing legislation obligates
the government to make payment. Mandatory spending in the Judiciary comprises the pay
of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices, federal judges’ salaries, and payment to the Judicial
Retirement Funds.
¹¹ The legislative branch’s FY2007 request of $4.3 billion for discretionary spending is
about 12.1% above the $3.8 billion appropriated for FY2006. The executive branch
discretionary request for FY2007 is $860.6 billion, or 3.2% above the FY2006 appropriation
of $834.2 billion. The size and direction of the changes among accounts and function within
the executive branch is noteworthy. For example, the FY2007 request for the Corps of
Engineers is a decrease of 11.2% and the Department of State and Other International
Programs is an increase of 12.2% over the FY2006 appropriation. Data are from “Table S-
3. Growth in Discretionary Budget Authority by Major Agency,” Budget of the United
States Government Fiscal Year 2007, p. 315, Office of Management and Budget. Table S-3
data exclude supplementals and emergencies.
¹² According to the judiciary budget request, over 1,500 court employee positions were lost
from FY2003 to FY2005 due to budget constraints.

^!$138.0 million to replace non-appropriated sources of funds used to
support basic requirements in FY2006 with direct appropriations;¹³
^!$50.2 million to pay for increased rent to the General Services
Administration (GSA) for court facilities, and related costs;¹⁴
^!$92.0 million to pay for changes in the number of active and senior
Article III judges; increases in mandatory payments to retirement
trust funds for judges; workload changes in Defender Services;
security related adjustments; and maintenance, support, and
continued development of ongoing information technology systems.
The judiciary budget request stated that the remaining $78.3 million (14%) of
the $540.1 million increase in the budget request is for expected workload changes
and program enhancements:
^!$24.4 million for additional staff and associated costs;
^!$23.7 million for panel attorney¹⁵ rate increases;
^!$30.2 million for security-related systems and equipment,
information technology, courtroom technology improvements, the
Supreme Court roofing system project, additional magistrate judges
and staff, and start-up costs for new federal defender organizations.¹⁶
Request by Budget Groups and Account
The judiciary appropriation in Title IV of the Transportation/Treasury
appropriation bill is divided into several large groupings (e.g., Supreme Court, U.S.
Courts of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, etc.), some of which are, in turn, divided
into separate budget accounts. The major groupings and budget accounts in the
FY2006 judiciary appropriation and the FY2007 budget request are shown in Table
1 below. The table also shows the funding amount enacted for FY2006, the FY2007
funding request, the House-passed amount, and the Senate-committee approved
amount. Details of each budget group and account follow the table.

¹³ This funding would be for replacing an expected shortfall in non-appropriated funding
sources (additional fee collections, mostly from court filing fees, and carryover funds from
previous years).
¹⁴ Of this increased amount, $46.9 million is requested under the Salaries and Expenses
account. The balance is divided among other accounts, such as Court Security.
¹⁵ Panel attorneys are private practice lawyers who serve on a panel of attorneys maintained
by the district or appellate court. The court assigns them to represent defendants who do not
have the financial means to retain their own legal counsel. Funds to pay them come from
the Defender Services account.
¹⁶ AOUSC provided this information and the request breakdown.

Table 1. Judiciary Appropriations, FY2006 and FY2007
(Budget Authority, millions of dollars)
FY2007FY2007
Budget Groupings and AccountsFY2006EnactedFY2007RequestHouseSenate
PassedCommittee
Supreme Court
— Salaries and Expenses$60.1$63.4$63.4$63.4
— Building and Grounds5.613.013.013.0
Subtotal 65.7 76.4 76.4 76.4
U.S. Court of Appeals for the23.826.326.025.3
Federal Circuit
U.S. Court of International Trade15.316.216.216.2
Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services
— Salaries and Expenses^a4,330.24,691.24,560.14,587.3
— Court Security368.3410.3400.3397.7
— Defender Services709.8803.9750.0761.1
— Fees of Jurors and60.763.163.163.1
Commissioners
Subtotal 5,469.0 5,968.5 5,773.5 5,809.3
Administrative Office of the U.S.69.675.373.874.3
Courts
Federal Judicial Center22.123.823.523.4
United States Sentencing14.315.715.515.3
Commission
Judicial Retirement Funds40.658.358.358.3
Tot a l $5,720.4 $6,260.5 $6,063.2 $6,098.4
^Source:^{Data f}^o^r^th^is^tab^l^e^w^e^r^e^p^r^o^v^id^ed^b^y^th^{e A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^str^a^tiv^{e Of}^fⁱ^{ce o}^f^th^{e U.S. Co}^u^r^{ts, an}^d^th^e
^Ho^u^s^{e A}^p^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^Co^m^m^ittee⁽^C^ongr^es^sⁱ^onal^Recor^d^,^Juⁿ^e^14,^{2006, pp. H}^3969-^H^{3970), an}^{d t}^h^e
^S^eⁿ^a^{te C}^o^m^m^{ittee on}^A^ppropriation^s^{report (S}^.R^{ept. 109-}^{293) accom}^p^an^yⁱⁿ^g^H.R^.^5576.
^No^tes:^T^h^e^F^Y²⁰⁰⁶^en^act^ed^fⁱ^g^u^r^{e i}ⁿ^cl^u^d^es^{a 1%}^acros^s^-^t^h^e-^{board g}^o^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t^-^wⁱ^d^{e res}^cⁱ^s^sⁱ^on^an^d
^th^{e s}^u^pplem^en^{tal $18 m}^illion^con^t^ain^e^{d in}^P^.^L^.^109-^{148. P}^e^rcen^tag^e^s^an^d^totals^m^a^yⁿ^o^{t add u}^p^du^e
^to^ro^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.^T^h^{e Vaccin}^e^In^j^u^ry^T^r^u^s^{t Fu}ⁿ^d^(ab^o^u^{t $}⁴^m^illioⁿ⁾^{is in}^clu^d^edⁱⁿ^th^{e S}^a^{laries an}^d
^Ex^pen^s^es^accouⁿ^t^of^th^{e C}^o^u^r^ts^of^A^ppeals^.^Su^bparts^m^a^yⁿ^o^{t add u}^p^{to totals}^du^{e to rou}ⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.
^{a. T}^h^{e Vaccin}^e^In^j^u^ry^T^r^u^s^{t Fu}ⁿ^d^(slig^h^tly^{less th}^an^$⁴^m^illioⁿ⁾^{is in}^clu^d^edⁱⁿ^th^{e Salaries an}^d
^Ex^pen^s^es^accouⁿ^t^.

Congressional Action on FY2007 Budget
House Committee Hearings
The House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, Housing
and Urban Development, the Judiciary, and District of Columbia held a hearing on
the Supreme Court’s budget request on April 4, 2006. Supreme Court Justices
Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas presented testimony on the Supreme Court
request. The following day, on April 5, the subcommittee held a separate hearing
and heard testimony on the Judiciary’s overall budget request for FY2007 from Judge
Julia Smith Gibbons, United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals and Chair of the Budget Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United
States, and then-Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts Leonidas
R. Mecham.
During the first hearing on the FY2007 Supreme Court budget request,
Representative Joseph Knollenberg, chairman of the subcommittee, said that, “given
the dangers of terrorism and the high profile of the justices and the Supreme Court
building, as chairman, I think that security should be the top priority for any increases
in budgetary resources.” Chairman Knollenberg also said at the second hearing that
that ensuring adequate funds for court security is “a top priority for me.”
Among other issues raised at the hearings were judicial pay, televising Supreme
Court proceedings, rent paid to GSA, the Supreme Court building modernization
project, and workload.
House Committee and Floor Action
On June 6, 2006, the House Appropriations Committee approved H.R. 5576 by
voice vote, including $6.063 billion in funding for the Judiciary — a $342.8 million
(6.0%) increase over the FY2006 level, but $197.3 million (3.2%) less than the
FY2007 request. The committee also adopted an amendment to extend a temporary
federal district judgeship in Wichita, Kansas. Three days later, on June 9, 2006, the
committee reported H.R. 5576 (H.Rept. 109-495).
On June 14, 2006, the House passed H.R. 5576 (by a vote of 406-22) providing
the same level of funding for the Judiciary as was reported by the committee.
Senate Committee Action
On July 20, 2006, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved H.R. 5576
(by a vote of 28-0), including $6.098 billion in funding for the Judiciary — a $378
million (6.6%) increase over the FY2006 level, but $162.1 million (2.6%) less than
the FY2007 request. In the committee report (S.Rept. 109-293), the committee
expressed its concerns about several issues; among them are the following:
^!Staffing: The committee recommended that the Judicial Conference
make the retention of personnel a top priority. The committee also
expressed concern about workload and staffing needs of the district

courts along the U.S. southwest border, resulting from due to
increased immigration funding law enforcement activities. It
directed AOUSC to provide a hiring plan (in its FY2007 financial
plan) for positions that would be funded for magistrate judges and
staff, and to keep the committee apprised as the positions are filled.
It also directed AOUSC to examine staffing formulas to ensure that
they reflect changing trends, and report to Congress.
^!Courthouse construction:¹⁷ Noting that the self-imposed courthouse
construction moratorium will end in September 2006, the committee
urged the Judiciary to carefully weigh its space needs with concerns
about the rent it pays to GSA. It also called for adequate checks and
balances to ensure that future construction needs and requests are
“subjected to the highest standards of cost-effectiveness.” It directed
AOUSC to report to the committee, no later than 120 days after
enactment of this bill, on the steps that have been and are being
taken for more efficient use of space in the district and circuit courts.
Further, it encouraged the Judiciary to continue working with GSA
on fair and accurate rent charges, and also to correct any inequities.
^!Carryover funds: The committee directed that carryover funds be
used to meet current and projected needs before enhancing any
program. The AOUSC is to submit separately in future financial
plans, for House and Senate appropriations committees’ approval,
all sources of carryover funds and their desired application.
Highlights of the FY2007 Budget
Supreme Court. For FY2007, the total request for the Supreme Court is
$76.4 million — a 16.2% increase over the FY2006 appropriation. The request is for
two accounts: (1) Salaries and Expenses — $63.4 million requested for FY2007,
compared with the FY2006-appropriated amount of $60.1 million, and (2) Care of¹⁸
the Building and Grounds — $13.0 million requested for FY2007, compared with
$5.6 million appropriated for FY2006. The Salaries and Expenses account change
includes $390,000 in increased funding for five full-time positions (one contract
specialist, two security analysts, one new server administrator, and one public
information office support person). By far the largest increase was in the Buildings
and Grounds account, which grew by $7.4 million (132.7%). This request includes
funds to repair the roofing system on the Supreme Court building, maintenance costs
of the court building and grounds operations, and to continue the building

¹⁷ For an examination of courthouse construction issues, see CRS Report 98-527, Federal
Courthouse Construction, by Stephanie Smith.
¹⁸ This account is for the expenditure by the Architect of the Capitol (AOC). The AOC
provides for the structural and mechanical care of the Supreme Court Building and Grounds,
but not for the custodial care, which is provided for under the Supreme Court Salaries and
Expenses account. The AOC responsibilities are authorized in the act of May 7, 1934 (48
Stat. 668). The FY2007 request includes funding for 35 FTEs — the same as the FY2006
level.

modernization project already in progress. The House approved the full amount
requested for this account. The Senate committee also approved the full amount.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Appeals to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit come from all 94 federal district courts, the U.S.
Court of Federal Claims, the U.S. Court of International Trade, and the U.S. Court
of Appeals for Veterans’ Claims.¹⁹ The FY2007 request for this account is $26.3
million — a $2.5 million (10.6%) increase over the $23.8 million appropriated for
FY2006. The request provides for pay and other inflationary adjustments, increased
health benefit costs, and increased rental costs related to space for senior judges. The
requested increase also includes $926,000 for information technology upgrades,
infrastructure requirements for a disaster recovery plan, and the implementation of
courtroom technology in two of its three courtrooms. The House approved $26.0
million for this account — a $2.2 million increase over the FY2006 level, but $0.3
million less than the FY2007 request. The Senate committee approved $25.3 million
— a $1.5 million increase over the FY2006 level, but $1.0 million less than the
FY2007 request.
U.S. Court of International Trade. This court has exclusive national
jurisdiction regarding civil actions against the United States, its agencies, and officers
arising from federal laws governing import transactions. It also has jurisdiction over
certain civil actions brought by the U.S. related to import transactions and the
administration and enforcement of federal customs and international trade laws. The
FY2007 request is $16.2 million — a $0.9 million (5.5%) increase over the FY2006
appropriation of $15.3 million that the judiciary budget submission ascribes largely
to increases in pay and benefits. The House approved the full amount requested for
this account. The Senate committee also approved the full amount.
Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services.
This budget group includes 12 of the 13 courts of appeals²⁰ and 94 district judicial
courts located in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, the territories of Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Making up about 95% of the
judiciary budget, the four accounts in the group — salaries and expenses, court
security, defender services, and fees of jurors and commissioners — fund most of the
day-to-day activities and operations of the federal circuit and district courts.

¹⁹ In addition, the Court of Appeals may also hear appeals on certain administrative
agencies’ decisions, including the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, the Boards of
Contract Appeals, the Board of Patent Appeals and Inferences, and the Trademark Trial and
Appeals Board. This court may also review the decisions of the U.S. International Trade
Commission, the Office of Compliance, and the Government Accountability Office
Personnel Appeals Board.
²⁰ The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, one of the 13 courts of appeal, has its
own budget account, as noted above.

Salaries and Expenses. The FY2007 Salaries and Expenses request²¹ for²²
this budget group is $4,691.2 million — a $361.0 million (8.3%) increase over the
FY2006 level of $4,330.2 million. According to the budget request, about 99% of
this increase is required for pay increases and other adjustments needed to maintain
the courts’ current services. For example, of the $361.0 million increase requested,
$106.7 million is requested for pay and benefit adjustments for court personnel.
Another $46.9 million of the increase is requested to pay increased rent to GSA and²³
related costs, such as equipment. In addition, $42.6 million is requested for the
Judiciary Technology Fund to support existing and newly installed information
technology systems, and to continue the implementation of new information systems.
Another increase of $22.1 million would fund 257 FTEs — additional support staff
needed to address the courts’ anticipated workload increase during the year (as a
result of an expected increase in the number of immigration-related cases along the²⁴
southwest border with Mexico). Finally, according to the judiciary budget request,
to maintain the same level of services provided in FY2006, a $115.1 million increase
is needed in this account for FY2007 because of an anticipated shortfall of funds
from fee collections and carryover funds from previous years. The House approved²⁵
$4,560.1 million for this account — a $229.9 million increase over the FY2006
level, but $131.1 million less than the FY2007 request. The Senate committee
approved $4,587.3 million — a $257.1 million increase over the FY2006 level, but
$103.9 million less than the FY2007 request.
Court Security.²⁶ This account provides for protective guard services,
security systems, and equipment for courthouses and other federal facilities to ensure
the safety of judicial officers, employees, and visitors. Under this account, a major
portion of the funding is transferred to the U.S. Marshal Service for administering the
Judicial Facility Security Program.²⁷ The FY2007 request is $410.3 million — a
$42.1 million (11.4%) increase over the FY2006 appropriation of $368.3 million.
This increase is reportedly driven by pay and benefit adjustments and other

²¹ According to the budget request, in addition to appropriated funds, the Salaries and
Expenses account receives other funds. These funds include current year fee collections,
carryover of fee balances from the prior year, and no-year appropriation balances. In
FY2007, these non-appropriated funds are projected to total $285.9 million.
²² This amount includes $4.0 million for the Vaccine Injury Trust Fund.
²³ The Judiciary’s FY2007 request for rent paid to GSA is $997.8 million — a $32.4 million
(3.3%) increase over the $965.5 million FY2006 appropriation.
²⁴ Workload increases are expected from cases created by an additional 1,500 border patrol
agents, positions for whom have recently been funded. The additional FTEs are reportedly
needed for additional probation and pretrial service officers and clerks’ office staff.
²⁵ This amount includes $4.0 million for the Vaccine Injury Trust Fund.
²⁶ For an examination of judicial security issues and legislation, see CRS Report RL33464,
Judicial Security: Responsibilities and Current Issues, by Lorraine H. Tong, and CRS
Report RL33473, Judicial Security: Comparison of Legislation in the 109th Congress, by
Nathan James.
²⁷ In 1983, the Judiciary established the Judicial Facility Security Program, a program that
provides court security officers who are responsible for entry control, interior courthouse
security, and security systems and equipment.

adjustments needed to maintain current services. The increase would also cover the
costs for 34 additional court security officers expected to be needed during FY2007.
Payment to the Federal Protective Service (FPS)²⁸ is also covered under this account.
The FY2007 request for FPS is $67.9 million — a $7.4 million increase over the
FY2006 appropriation of $60.5 million. In addition, $16.8 million is requested for
security systems, perimeter (outside the building) security, and equipment for court
security and for probation and pretrial service offices. An additional $6.6 million is
requested to replace VCRs with digital video recorders. The House approved $400.3
million for this account — a $32.0 million increase over the FY2006 level, but $10
million less than the FY2007 request. The Senate committee approved $397.7
million for this account — a $29.4 million increase over the FY2006 level, but $12.6
million less than the FY2007 request.
Defender Services. This account funds the operations of the federal public
defender and community defender organizations, and the compensation,
reimbursement, and expenses of private practice panel attorneys appointed by the
courts to serve as defense counsel to indigent individuals accused of federal crimes.
The FY2007 request is $803.9 million — a $94.1 million (13.3%) increase over the
FY2006 appropriation of $709.8 million. The increase requested is reportedly to
provide for pay increases and other inflationary adjustments, and to fund workload
increases arising from Supreme Court rulings. The request also provides for the start-
up of new federal defender organizations scheduled to open in FY2007. Currently,
five judicial districts are not served by a Federal Defender Office: Alabama
(Northern), Georgia (Southern), Kentucky (Eastern), Mississippi (Northern), and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. The requested funding would
provide for 80 FTEs to cope with the projected caseload increase of 5,500 cases. The
House approved $750 million for this account — a $40.2 million increase over the
FY2006 level, but $53.8 million less than the FY2007 request. The Senate
committee approved $761.1 million for this account — a $51.3 million increase over
the FY2006 level, but $42.8 million less than the FY2007 request.
Fees of Jurors and Commissioners. This account funds the fees and
allowances provided to grand and petit jurors, and the compensation of jury and land
commissioners. The FY2007 request is $63.1 million — a $2.4 million (3.9%)
increase over the FY2006 appropriation of $60.7 million. The increase is due mainly
to inflationary increases associated with expenses paid to jurors (including meals and
lodging for sequestered jurors, and transportation to crime scenes to view evidence).
The House approved the full amount requested for this account. The Senate
committee also approved the full amount.
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC). As the central
support entity for the Judiciary, the AOUSC provides a wide range of administrative,
management, program, and information technology services to the U.S. courts. In
addition, the AOUSC provides support to the Judicial Conference of the United

²⁸ FPS, previously under GSA jurisdiction, became a division of U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement of the Department of Homeland Security in March 2003. The
mission of FPS officers is to provide security and law enforcement at the federal facilities
nationwide. See [http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/factsheets/fps061104.htm] for more
information about the FPS.

States, and implements conference policies and applicable federal statutes and
regulations. The FY2007 request for this account is $75.3 million — a $5.7 million
(8.3%) increase over the FY2006 level of $69.6 million. The increase is reportedly
for pay increases and other inflationary adjustments and for the anticipated reduction
in non-appropriated funds.²⁹ The House approved $73.8 million for this account —
a $4.2 million increase over the FY2006 level but $1.5 million less than the FY2007
request. The Senate committee approved $74.3 million for this account — a $4.7
million increase over the FY2006 level, but $1.0 million less than the FY2007
request.
Federal Judicial Center. As the Judiciary’s research and education entity,
the center undertakes research and evaluation of judicial operations for the Judicial
Conference committees and the courts. In addition, the center provides judges, court
staff, and others with orientation and continuing education and training. The center’s
FY2007 request is $23.8 million — a $1.7 million (7.5%) increase over the FY2006
appropriation of $22.1 million. The increase is reportedly to fund adjustments to pay
and other expenses due to inflation, and also to restore staff to the FY2005 level (nine
additional FTEs). The House approved $23.5 million for this account — a $1.4
million increase over the FY2006 level, but $0.3 million less than the FY2007
request. The Senate committee approved $23.4 million for this account — a $1.3
million increase over the FY2006 level, but $0.4 million less than the FY2007
request.
United States Sentencing Commission. The commission promulgates
sentencing policies, practices, and guidelines for the federal criminal justice system.
The FY2007 request is $15.7 million — a $1.4 million (10.4%) increase over the
FY2006 appropriation of $14.3 million. According to the budget request, the
increase would provide for pay increases and other inflationary adjustments, and five
FTE positions in the research and data collection area for one year. Supreme Court
decisions and recent legislation have reportedly increased the commission’s
workload, and the need for data collection and analytical requirements.³⁰ The House
approved $15.5 million for this account — a $1.2 million increase over the FY2006
level, but $0.2 million less than the FY2007 request. The Senate committee
approved $ 15.3 million for this account — a $1.0 million increase over the FY2006
level, but $0.4 million less than the FY2007 request.
Judiciary Retirement Funds. This mandatory account provides for three
trust funds that finance payments to retired bankruptcy and magistrate judges, retired
Court of Federal Claims judges, and spouses and dependent children of deceased

²⁹ The AOUSC also receives non-appropriated funds from fee collections and carryover
balances to supplement its appropriation requirements. In addition, other judiciary accounts
reimburse the AOUSC for the support it provides in information technology development
and support services in direct support of the courts, the security program, and defender
services.
³⁰ On Jan. 12, 2005, the Supreme Court’s twin majority opinions in United States v. Booker
and United States v. Fanfan made federal sentencing guidelines advisory, and also declared
certain enhancements to the guidelines unconstitutional. It is expected that a significant
number of inmates would likely ask district and appellate courts to reconsider sentences
(imposed prior to Booker/Fanfan) which would result in increased workload for the courts.

judicial officers. The FY2007 request is for $58.3 million — a $17.7 million
(43.6%) increase over the FY2006 appropriation of $40.6 million. The requirements
for this account are calculated annually by an independent actuary company.³¹ The
large increase reflects a change in methodology that a new actuary company has
adopted. In order to more accurately project future liabilities that had not been taken
into account in the past, the new methodology included a larger population of people
who are likely to join the retirement system. The House approved the full amount
requested for this account. The Senate committee also approved the full amount.
Administrative Provisions
Some administrative provisions continue language that has appeared in previous
years, while others are new (e.g., extension of a temporary judgeship). For various
reasons, Congress has decided to reiterate the language rather than make certain
provisions permanent. The House-passed bill included the following provisions:
Section 401: To permit funds in the bill for salaries and expenses for the Judiciary
to be available for employment of experts and consultant services (as authorized by

5 U.S.C. 3109).

Section 402: To permit up to 5 percent of any appropriation made
available for fiscal year 2007 to be transferred between Judiciary
appropriations accounts — provided that no appropriation shall be
decreased by more than 5 percent or increased by more than 10 percent by
any such transfer except in certain circumstances. In addition, the
language provides that any such transfer shall be treated as a
reprogramming of funds (under sections 805 and 810 of the accompanying
bill), and shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except in
compliance with the procedures set forth in that section.
Section 403: To authorize not to exceed $11,000 to be used for official
reception and representation expenses incurred by the Judicial Conference
of the United States.
Section 404: To require a financial plan for the Judiciary within 90 days
of enactment of this Act.
Section 405: To amend the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-

650) (extension of a temporary federal district judgeship in Wichita,

Kansas).
The Senate Appropriations Committee approved language similar to Sections
401-404 in the House-passed bill, but did not include a judgeship (see Section 405
above). The Senate committee approved the following additional provisions:
Section 405: To allow for a salary adjustment for justices and judges.

³¹ Pursuant to 31 U.S.C., Sec. 9503.

Section 406: To grant the judicial branch with the same tenant alteration
authorities as the executive branch.
Section 407: To prohibit any judge from being entitled to sole use of a
courtroom and to require courtrooms to be scheduled based on the needs of the
circuit and district courts. (The intent of the section is to address circumstances in
which courtrooms are not in full use, and the sharing of courtroom will help reduce
the overburdened judicial docket.)
Related Issues and Legislation
The 109^th Congress considered, but did not act upon, legislation to address
several longstanding issues that could impact the judiciary budget. Two of the issues^th
— judicial pay and rent payments to GSA — will continue to be relevant in the 110
Congress.
Judicial Pay
In the 109^th Congress, on February 10, 2006, Senator Feinstein (for herself,
Senators Patrick J. Leahy and John F. Kerry) introduced S. 2276, the Federal Judicial
Fairness Act of 2006, to increase the salaries of federal judges salaries by 16.5%. In
introducing the bill, she stated:
This legislation is needed to prevent a continuing decline in the pay of our
Federal judges and prevent damage to the quality of our judiciary. Impartial,
dedicated, and wise judges are critical to our justice system. Nevertheless, in the
past three decades, our Federal judges have been neglected. Since 1969, the
salaries of Federal judges have declined by nearly 24 percent in inflation
adjusted dollars. By comparison, in the same time period the salary of the³²
average American worker has increased over 15 percent.
The bill would have increased the salaries of the Chief Justice of the United
States; Associate Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court; judges of U.S. circuit courts,
district courts, and the U.S. Court of International Trade; bankruptcy judges; and
full-time magistrate judges. In addition, S. 2276 would have ended the link between
congressional and judicial salary adjustments which has prevented increases in
judicial pay when Congress does not provide an annual cost of living increase to its
Members. Under the bill, the annual pay increase for federal judges would have been
based on the Employment Cost Index.³³ S. 2276 was referred to the Senate Judiciary^th
Committee, but no further action was taken before the 109 Congress adjourned.
On March 28, 2006, Representative Adam B. Schiff (for himself and
Representative Judy B. Biggert) introduced H.R. 5014, the Federal Judicial Fairness

³² Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 152, no. 16, Feb. 10, 2006, p. S1073.
³³ According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Employment Cost Index is “a
measure of the change in the cost of labor, free from the influence of employment shifts
among occupations and industries. The series measures changes in compensation costs
(wages and salaries and employer costs for employee benefits).”

Act of 2006, a bill identical to S. 2276. In his introductory remarks, Representative
Schiff said that when compared with the private sector, judges’ salaries have declined
so significantly that “consequently, judges have been leaving the federal bench in
increasing numbers, many before reaching retirement age, and a large proportion
leaving to work for private law firms.” He noted that, “if Congress does not provide
reasonable compensation adjustments nor address the growing pay disparity between
judges and other members of the legal profession, the quality of our judiciary will be
compromised.”³⁴ The bill was referred to the House Judiciary Committee on the
Judiciary, but no further action was taken before the 109^th Congress adjourned.
The Judicial Conference, speaking on behalf of the Judiciary, has repeatedly
expressed concern about inadequate judicial salaries. Chief Justice John G. Roberts,
Jr., a strong advocate for higher judicial pay, devoted his 2006 Year-End Report on
the Federal Judiciary to the issue. The Chief Justice stated that the subject of
judicial pay increases had been “ignored far too long and has now reached the level
of a constitutional crisis that threatens to undermine the strength and independence
of the federal judiciary.” Emphasizing that judicial salaries have not kept pace with
inflation over the years, he noted that, “Today, federal district judges are paid
substantially less — about half — what the deans and senior law professors at top
schools are paid.” The retention of federal judges is a further concern for the Chief
Justice. He said:
many judges who must attend to their families and futures have no realistic
choice except to retire from judicial service and return to private practice. The
numbers are sobering. In the past six years, 38 judges have left the federal
bench, including 17 in the last two years. If judicial appointment ceases to be the
capstone of a distinguished career and instead becomes a stepping stone to a
lucrative position in private practice, the Framers’ goal of a truly independent
judiciary will be placed in serious jeopardy.³⁵
On January 8, 2007, Senator Leahy introduced (for himself, and Senators John
Cornyn, Dianne Feinstein, Harry Reid, and Arlen Specter) S. 197, legislation to³⁶
provide an FY2007 salary adjustment for justices and judges. The increase would
be 1.7% and would be retroactive to January 1, 2007. The Senate passed the bill by

³⁴ Congressional Record, vol. 152, no. 36 (Mar. 28, 2006), p. E420.
³⁵ The Chief Justice’s 2006 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary is available at
[http://www.uscourts.gov/newsroom/yearend06.pdf].
³⁶ The authorization was included in H.R. 5454, and in the Senate version of H.R. 5576, as
reported, but neither bill was enacted in the 109^th Congress. H.R. 5454 was introduced in
the House by Rep. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., on May 23, 2006, and referred to the House
Judiciary Committee. The House passed the legislation, under suspension of the rules, by
voice vote on Sept. 25, 2006, and was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. No
further action occurred on the bill. The Senate version of H.R. 5576, the Departments of
Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of
Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill for FY2007, included the
authorization (Section 405). The Senate Appropriations Committee reported the bill on July
26, 2006, but no further action was taken. (U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on
Appropriations, Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary,^th
and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2007, report to accompany H.R. 5576, 109^nd
Cong., 2 sess., S.Rept. 109-293 (Washington: GPO, 2006).)

unanimous consent on the same day. On the next day, the bill was referred to the
House, where it is pending in the House Judiciary Committee.
On January 17, 2007, U.S. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales expressed his
belief that higher salaries for judges would help to attract and retain the best legal
talent. He also said that “he had talked with too many potential judicial nominees
who have politely declined consideration precisely because they did not feel they
could afford to serve. I hope that Congress will consider enacting a meaningful pay
raise for judges, so that future candidates for judicial office will not be faced with
that choice, and so that judicial independence will be strengthened.”³⁷
Not everyone, however, believes a substantial increase in judicial pay is
warranted. Opponents of the increase assert that the current judicial pay levels are
a small sacrifice judicial public servants undertake, which are offset by their
perquisites associated with the prestigious positions.³⁸
Rental Fees Paid to General Services Administration³⁹
The Judiciary pays rent to GSA’s Federal Building Fund (FBF) for the use of
federally owned and leased space.⁴⁰ According to the judiciary budget request, those
payments will total $997.8 million in FY2007 and have increased an average of about

5.8% each year since 1999. For FY2006, these payments will comprise about 20%

of the total judiciary budget. In his 2005 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary,
Chief Justice Roberts stated:
During fiscal year 2005, the judiciary paid $926 million to GSA in rent, even
though GSA’s actual cost for providing space to the judiciary was $426 million.
The disparity between the judiciary’s rent and that of other government agencies,
and between the cost to GSA of providing space and the amount charged to the
judiciary, is unfair. The federal judiciary cannot continue to serve as a profit
center for GSA. Escalating rents combined with across-the-board cuts imposed
during fiscal years 2004 and 2005 resulted in a reduction of approximately 1,500
judicial branch employees as of mid-December when compared to October 2003.

³⁷ The text of Attorney General Gonzales’ prepared remarks at the American Enterprise
Institute is available at [http://www.uscourts.gov/newsroom/Gonzales_11707.pdf].
³⁸ James C. Harrington, “No need to boost salaries,” The National Law Journal, vol. 28, no.

19, Jan. 16, 2006, p. 26.

³⁹ For an examination of GSA’s role as the primary federal real property and asset
management agency, see CRS Report RL32368, The General Services Administration and
Federal Real Property Management: Overview and Current Legislation, and CRS Report
RL33774, Federal Buildings Funding Limitations and Their Implications, both by Stephanie
Smith.
⁴⁰ FBF is an intragovernmental revolving fund that finances the cost of acquiring and
managing federal government real estate and real property maintenance activities for
properties under GSA legal custody and control. Authorized and established by the Public
Buildings Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-313, 40 U.S.C. 592 as codified by P.L. 107-217),
the FBF is financed by the rental charges that GSA assesses federal tenants for use of space.

The Judicial Conference, in a letter dated December 3, 2004, to then-GSA
Administrator Stephen A. Perry, requested an exemption of $483 million in rent
relief for FY2005 to “ensure the judicial branch’s ability to maintain its operations
and independence.” In February 2005, GSA denied the Judiciary’s request, but
reaffirmed GSA’s commitment to help the Judiciary identify opportunities to reduce
space costs.
By law, GSA is required to charge commercially equivalent rent for the space
that agencies occupy.⁴¹ GSA views the judiciary request as “not consistent with its
authorizing legislation,” or with OMB and congressional direction. Rent exemptions,
according to the GSA, are infrequently granted, and are not permanent unless
required by statute. GSA maintains that “since 1990, the Courts have received
approximately 36% of benefits while paying 11% to the FBF.”⁴² According to GSA,
such an exemption could erode the FBF and the rent/user charge system, and could
have a negative impact on other agencies.
Congressional interest in the rent issue has led to actions in both the Senate and
the House. On May 13, 2005, three months after GSA’s denial of rent relief, 11
members of the Senate Judiciary Committee — including the committee chairman,
Senator Specter, and ranking member, Senator Leahy — wrote to the GSA
Administrator to request that the judicial branch be exempt from all rental payments,
with exception of those funds required to operate and maintain federal court
buildings.⁴³ The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its July 2005 committee report
on the FY2006 Transportation/Treasury bill, expressed concern about the rent
increases and support for the Judiciary’s efforts to work with GSA to reduce costs.
The committee also stated, however, that it “does not believe that the GSA rent
charges for courthouses are the appropriate focus for financial relief by the judicial
branch, especially since the Committee believes that the Federal Building Fund
[FBF] is critical to the preservation and development of Federal buildings, including
increased requirements for the judicial branch. In general, the GSA rent policies are
appropriate and necessary.”⁴⁴
The House has also examined the rent issue. The House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee’s Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
Buildings, and Emergency Management held a hearing on June 21, 2005, and heard
testimony from representatives of the Judicial Conference, GSA, and the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) about the Judiciary’s ability to pay for current and
future space needs. GAO reported that it was studying the judiciary request for a rent
exemption but noted that previous exemptions had been a principal reason why the

⁴¹ 40 U.S.C., Sec. 586(b).
⁴² Based on GSA documents provided to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public
Works on the Courts Rent Waiver Request and the GSA Response, dated Jan. 27, 2006.
⁴³ The letter was also signed by Senators Charles E. Grassley, Edward M. Kennedy, Orrin
G. Hatch, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Jon Kyl, Herb Kohl, Mike Dewine, Dianne Feinstein, and
John Cornyn.
⁴⁴ S.Rept. 109-109, pp. 194 and 219.

FBF had accumulated insufficient funds for investment.⁴⁵ A year later, on June 22,
2006, the subcommittee held a follow-up hearing, “The Future of the Federal
Courthouse Construction Program: Results of a GAO study on the Judiciary’s Rental
Obligations.” The GAO report,⁴⁶ undertaken at the committee’s request, attributed
judiciary rent increases to new space and the increasing costs of energy and security
costs. The report found that, “Neither GSA nor the judiciary had routinely and
comprehensively analyzed the factors causing rent increases, making it more difficult
for the judiciary to manage increases.” GAO recommended that the Judiciary track
rent trends, and improve its management of space and associated costs (such as
providing incentives for efficient use and updating its criteria for space allocation).
According to GAO, GSA “generally agreed” with its report. GAO also said that
AOUSC “strongly disagrees” with the usefulness of the tracking rent trends, and
asserts that it is already implementing incentives and updating criteria. GAO said
actions the AOUSC identified “do not fully address our recommendations.”
Judge Jane Roth, testifying on behalf of the Judiciary, said that she had read the
draft report, but had not had the benefit of reading the final report (which was
publicly released on the day of the hearing). She said she believed the draft version
was seriously flawed, and that the assessment of the reasons for the rent increases
was insufficient and misleading. Judge Roth said that, since 1985, rent increased
333% (adjusted for inflation) while square footage increased by only 166%. She
expressed concern that “GAO decided what challenges the Judiciary faced, without
consulting judiciary officials with policy-making responsibilities.” Despite concerns
with the report findings, Judge Roth said that the GAO recommendations were
“consistent with efforts we already have underway to control rent costs,” which
included tighter budgetary controls and rent caps on facilities decisions. Judge Roth
also said that although the Judiciary would continue to enhance its facilities planning
and management processes, the Judiciary still faced “the situation where mandatory
rent payments to GSA have been increasing at a faster rate than the Judiciary’s
appropriations increases.”⁴⁷
Representative Bill Shuster, chairman of the subcommittee, said at the hearing
that the “GAO findings only solidify my, and I believe this Committee’s stance
against such a rent waiver,” and that rent exemption would be “disastrous.” Among
other things, he recommended that the Judiciary reevaluate its position on GSA cost-
saving proposals, and also expressed concern about the Judiciary’s claims of GSA
errors in rent bills and appraisal inaccuracies and that he was “eager to hear how the

⁴⁵ U.S. Government Accountability Office, Courthouse Construction, Overview of Previous
and Ongoing Work, GAO-05-838T, June 21, 2005, p. 2.
⁴⁶ U.S. Government Accountability Office, Federal Courthouses, Rent Increases Due to
New Space and Growing Energy and Security Costs Require Better Tracking and
Management, GAO-06-613, June 22, 2006, available at [http://www.gao.gov/new.items/
d06613.pdf].
⁴⁷ “House Subcommittee Won’t Back Rent Waiver,” The Third Branch, July 2006, vol. 38,
no. 7, p. 5.

GSA is addressing these concerns and solving the problem.” Chairman Shuster said
he was pleased that the FBF was “working as originally intended.”⁴⁸
Members in both the House and Senate introduced legislation in early 2006 —
during the interval between the two House subcommittee hearings — which would
direct GSA to establish rental fees that would not exceed the actual costs of operating
and maintaining accommodations it provides the Judiciary. On February 8, 2006,
Representative James F. Sensenbrenner, Jr., chairman of the House Judiciary
Committee (for himself and Representative Lamar S. Smith) , introduced H.R. 4710,
the “Judiciary Rent Reform Act of 2006,” which was referred to the House Judiciary
Committee and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (and
subsequently referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
Buildings and Emergency Management). On February 15, 2006, Senator Specter,
chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, (for himself, and Senators Patrick J.
Leahy, John Cornyn, Saxby Chambliss, Dianne Feinstein, Joseph R. Biden, Jr., James
M. Talent, Daniel K. Inouye, Richard M. Burr, and Wayne A. Allard) introduced S.
2292 — a similar measure to provide relief for the Judiciary. S. 2292 was referred to
the Senate Judiciary Committee. On April 27, 2006, the committee reported the bill.
However, Congress did not take further action on either bill prior to the adjournment
of the 109^th Congress.
According to a CBO cost estimate of S. 2292, appropriated money would be
needed for GSA to construct, operate, maintain, and repair federal buildings. CBO
said that “amounts appropriated directly to GSA would have to increase to cover
expenses no longer covered by the judicial branch rents, and amounts appropriated
to judicial branch agencies could simultaneously decline by the same amounts to
reflect lower requirements or such rents. CBO estimated that rent charges to the
judicial branch would be reduced by annual amounts between $300 and $350 million
over the next five years (reflecting net estimated changes in both the reduction in
rents paid by the judicial branch and its direct payments for the costs of repairs and
alterations). Assuming that GSA would perform all planned building operations,
maintenance, and construction work during this period, appropriations directly to
GSA would increase by the same amount. CBO said that if future appropriations to
these agencies were adjusted accordingly, implementing S. 2292 would not have a
significant net effect on federal spending.” ⁴⁹
The Judicial Conference supported both rent relief bills. The conference also
took another approach at its biannual meeting on March 14, 2006 — it voted to
affirm its support to shift the responsibility from GSA to the Judiciary for the
management, operation, repair, leasing, and construction of federal courthouses.⁵⁰
The vote followed recommendations contained in a Space and Facilities Committee
report, but the conference left the timing of seeking and implementing such authority

⁴⁸ See [http://www.house.gov/transportation] for the chairman’s statement, and those of the
witnesses.
⁴⁹ See [http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/73xx/doc7308/s2292sj.pdf] for the June 16, 2006, CBO
cost estimate.
⁵⁰ The Conference first supported this position in 1989. See [http://www.uscourts.gov/
Press_Releases/judconf031406.html] for the Mar. 14, 2006, press release.

with its Executive Committee, in consultation with the Space and Facilities and
Budget Committees. At the meeting, the conference also approved, in concept,
setting an annual budget cap for space rental costs. The Budget Committee, in
consultation with the Space and Facilities Committee, would determine those caps.
As noted earlier, the Senate Appropriations Committee encouraged the Judiciary
to continue working with GSA on fair and accurate rent charges, and to report to the
appropriations committees actions on steps for more efficient use of space in the
district and circuit courts. The committee also included administrative language to
prohibit any judge from being entitled to sole use of a courtroom.