NATIONAL VETERANS LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM et al v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Filing 81

NOTICE Of Filing by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA re #52 MOTION for Summary Judgment as to Liability, Order Setting Hearing on Motion, #73 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Tabs 1 through 40)(Nebeker, William)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case No. 16-745-ESH

DECLARATION OF Wendell A. Skidgel Jr.
I, Wendell A. Skidgel Jr., declare as follows:
1.

I have Bachelor’s Degrees in Mathematics and Computer Science from

Eastern Nazarene College and a Juris Doctorate with a concentration in Intellectual
Property from Boston University School of Law. In addition to serving as an attorney at
the Administrative Office of the United States Courts for the past eleven years, I
served as the Systems Manager at a Federal Appellate Court for more than five years
and served as an IT Director at a Federal Bankruptcy Court for six years. Based on
my personal experiences and knowledge gained through my official duties, I make the
following declarations.
Budget Requests to Congress
2.

Tab 1 is a true and correct copy of the portion of the Judiciary’s budget

request to Congress relating to the Judiciary’s Electronic Public Access Program for
fiscal year 2002.
3.

Tab 2 is a true and correct copy of the portion of the Judiciary’s budget

request to Congress relating to the Judiciary’s Electronic Public Access Program for
fiscal year 2003.

4.

Tab 3 is a true and correct copy of the portion of the Judiciary’s budget

request to Congress relating to the Judiciary’s Electronic Public Access Program for
fiscal year 2004.
5.

Tab 4 is a true and correct copy of the portion of the Judiciary’s budget

request to Congress relating to the Judiciary’s Electronic Public Access Program for
fiscal year 2005.
6.

Tab 5 is a true and correct copy of the portion of the Judiciary’s budget

request to Congress relating to the Judiciary’s Electronic Public Access Program for
fiscal year 2006.
7.

Tab 6 is a true and correct copy of the portion of the Judiciary’s budget

request to Congress relating to the Judiciary’s Electronic Public Access Program for
fiscal year 2007.
8.

Tab 7 is a true and correct copy of the portion of the Judiciary’s budget

request to Congress relating to the Judiciary’s Electronic Public Access Program for
fiscal year 2008.
9.

Tab 8 is a true and correct copy of the portion of the Judiciary’s budget

request to Congress relating to the Judiciary’s Electronic Public Access Program for
fiscal year 2009.
Spending Plans Submitted to Congress
10.

Tab 9 is a true and correct copy of the portion of the spending plan

submitted to Congress that relates to the Judiciary’s Electronic Public Access Program
for fiscal year 2006.
11.

Tab 10 is a true and correct copy of the portion of the spending plan

submitted to Congress that relates to the Judiciary’s Electronic Public Access Program
for fiscal year 2007.
12.

Tab 11 is a true and correct copy of the portion of the spending plan

submitted to Congress that relates to the Judiciary’s Electronic Public Access Program
for fiscal year 2008.
13.

Tab 12 is a true and correct copy of the portion of the spending plan

submitted to Congress that relates to the Judiciary’s Electronic Public Access Program
for fiscal year 2009.
14.

Tab 13 is a true and correct copy of the portion of the spending plan

submitted to Congress that relates to the Judiciary’s Electronic Public Access Program
for fiscal year 2012.
Congressional Approval of Spending Plans
15.

Tab 14 is a true and correct copy of a letter from Senator Richard J.

Durbin and Senator Susan M. Collins approving, on behalf of the Senate Committee on
Appropriations, the Judiciary’s Fiscal year 2009 spending plan. (July 13, 2009).
16.

Tab 15 is a true and correct copy of a letter from Senator Richard J.

Durbin and Senator Susan M. Collins approving, on behalf of the Senate Committee on
Appropriations, the Judiciary’s Fiscal year 2010 spending plan. (March 26, 2010).
17.

Tab 16 is a true and correct redacted-copy of an email approving, on

behalf of the House Committee on Appropriations, the Judiciary’s Fiscal year 2011
spending plan. (07/11/2011 at 12:35 PM).
18.

Tab 17 is a true and correct redacted-copy of an email describing verbal

approval, on behalf of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, of the Judiciary’s Fiscal
year 2011 spending plan. (8/11/2011 at 2:34 PM).
19.

Tab 18 is a true and correct copy of a letter from Congresswoman Jo Ann

Emerson approving, on behalf of the House Committee on Appropriations, the Judiciary’s
Fiscal year 2012 spending plan. (March 12, 2012).
20.

Tab 19 is a true and correct copy of a letter from Senator Richard J.

Durbin approving, on behalf of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, the Judiciary’s
Fiscal year 2012 spending plan. (April 16, 2012).

21.

Tab 20 is a true and correct redacted-copy of an email approving, on

behalf of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, the Judiciary’s Fiscal year 2013
spending plan. (07/31/2013 at 1:47 PM).
22.

Tab 21 is a true and correct redacted-copy of an email approving, on

behalf of the House Committee on Appropriations, the Judiciary’s Fiscal year 2013
spending plan. (06/12/2013 at 3:56 PM).
23.

Tab 22 is a true and correct redacted-copy of an email approving, on

behalf of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, the Judiciary’s Fiscal year 2014
spending plan. (04/25/2014 at 12:07 PM).
24.

Tab 23 is a true and correct redacted-copy of an email approving, on

behalf of the House Committee on Appropriations, the Judiciary’s Fiscal year 2014
spending plan. (04/08/2014 at 4:56 PM).
25.

Tab 24 is a true and correct redacted-copy of an email approving, on

behalf of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, the Judiciary’s Fiscal year 2015
spending plan. (03/17/2015 at 11:25 AM).
26.

Tab 25 is a true and correct redacted-copy of an email approving, on

behalf of the House Committee on Appropriations, the Judiciary’s Fiscal year 2015
spending plan. (03/16/2015 at 5:04 PM).
27.

Tab 26 is a true and correct redacted-copy of an email approving, on

behalf of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, the Judiciary’s Fiscal year 2016
spending plan. (05/09/2016 at 11:52 AM).
28.

Tab 27 is a true and correct redacted-copy of an email approving, on

behalf of the House Committee on Appropriations, the Judiciary’s Fiscal year 2016
spending plan. (05/09/2016 at 12:24 PM).
29.

Tab 28 is a true and correct redacted-copy of an email approving, on

behalf of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, the Judiciary’s Fiscal year 2017
spending plan. (08/07/2017 at 4:07 PM).

30.

Tab 29 is a true and correct copy of a letter from Congressman Tom

Graves approving, on behalf of the House Committee on Appropriations, the Judiciary’s
Fiscal year 2017 spending plan. (July 25, 2017).
Electronic Public Access Program Expenditures
31.

Tab 30 is a true and correct copy of expenditures relating to the

Judiciary’s Electronic Public Access Program for fiscal year 2000.
32.

Tab 31 is a true and correct copy of expenditures by the Judiciary’s

Electronic Public Access Program for fiscal year 2001.
33.

Tab 32 is a true and correct copy of expenditures by the Judiciary’s

Electronic Public Access Program for fiscal year 2002.
34.

Tab 33 is a true and correct copy of expenditures by the Judiciary’s

Electronic Public Access Program for fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005.
35.

Tab 34 is a true and correct copy of preliminary numbers on

expenditures by the Judiciary’s Electronic Public Access Program for fiscal year 2006.
36.

Tab 35 is a true and correct copy of expenditures by the Judiciary’s

Electronic Public Access Program for fiscal years 2007 and 2008.
37.

Tab 36 is a true and correct copy of expenditures by the Judiciary’s

Electronic Public Access Program for fiscal year 2009.
Other Requested Documents
38.

Tab 37 is a true and correct compilation of the expenditures that were

listed under the heading “Congressional Priorities” at any time between 2002 and 2016,
along with years the item was listed under “Congressional Priorities”, and the
“Congressional Directive/mandate/approval” for that expenditure.
39.

Tab 38 is a true and correct copy of page 1 and pages 173 thru 183 of

Senate Report 109-293 regarding the 2007 Judiciary Appropriations Bill.
40.

Tab 39 is a true and correct copy of page 1 and pages 30 thru 36 of House

Report 112-136 on the 2012 Judiciary Appropriations Bill.

41.

Tab 40 is a true and correct copy of page 1 and pages 45 thru 52 of Senate

Report 112-79 on the 2012 Judiciary Appropriations Bill.
I declare under penalty of perjury, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that the foregoing is true and
correct.
Executed on March 14, 2018.

/s/ Wendell A. Skidgel Jr.
Wendell A. Skidgel, Jr.

National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al., v. U.S.,
Civil Action No. 16-745 ESH

Tab 1

National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al., v. U.S.,
Civil Action No. 16-745 ESH

Tab 2

National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al., v. U.S.,
Civil Action No. 16-745 ESH

Tab 3

National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al., v. U.S.,
Civil Action No. 16-745 ESH

Tab 4

National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al., v. U.S.,
Civil Action No. 16-745 ESH

Tab 5

National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al., v. U.S.,
Civil Action No. 16-745 ESH

Tab 6

National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al., v. U.S.,
Civil Action No. 16-745 ESH

Tab 7

National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al., v. U.S.,
Civil Action No. 16-745 ESH

Tab 8

National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al., v. U.S.,
Civil Action No. 16-745 ESH

Tab 9

National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al., v. U.S.,
Civil Action No. 16-745 ESH

Tab 10

National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al., v. U.S.,
Civil Action No. 16-745 ESH

Tab 11

National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al., v. U.S.,
Civil Action No. 16-745 ESH

Tab 12

National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al., v. U.S.,
Civil Action No. 16-745 ESH

Tab 13

National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al., v. U.S.,
Civil Action No. 16-745 ESH

Tab 14

National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al., v. U.S.,
Civil Action No. 16-745 ESH

Tab 15

National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al., v. U.S.,
Civil Action No. 16-745 ESH

Tab 16

National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al., v. U.S.,
Civil Action No. 16-745 ESH

Tab 17

National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al., v. U.S.,
Civil Action No. 16-745 ESH

Tab 18

National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al., v. U.S.,
Civil Action No. 16-745 ESH

Tab 19

National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al., v. U.S.,
Civil Action No. 16-745 ESH

Tab 20

National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al., v. U.S.,
Civil Action No. 16-745 ESH

Tab 21

National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al., v. U.S.,
Civil Action No. 16-745 ESH

Tab 22

National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al., v. U.S.,
Civil Action No. 16-745 ESH

Tab 23

National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al., v. U.S.,
Civil Action No. 16-745 ESH

Tab 24

National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al., v. U.S.,
Civil Action No. 16-745 ESH

Tab 25

National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al., v. U.S.,
Civil Action No. 16-745 ESH

Tab 26

National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al., v. U.S.,
Civil Action No. 16-745 ESH

Tab 27

National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al., v. U.S.,
Civil Action No. 16-745 ESH

Tab 28

National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al., v. U.S.,
Civil Action No. 16-745 ESH

Tab 29

National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al., v. U.S.,
Civil Action No. 16-745 ESH

Tab 30

ELECTRONIC PUBLIC ACCESS PROGRAM
EXPENDITURES BY PROGRAM AREA
Original
FY 2000
PLAN
Operations and Maintenance
PACER Service Center
Telecommunications
EPA Equipment
Staff
Miscellaneous Operations
Subtotal -- Operations and Maintenance
Program Enhancement and R&D Experiments
Program Enhancements
Kiosk
EPA Grants
Hold for new positions (1100 & 1200)
Subtotal - Program Enhancements
R&D Experiments
Subtotal -- Program Enhancements and R&D
Total Operations and Maintenance, Program
Enhancements and R&D Experiments
Amount Identified for Expanded Services
Internet
Case Management/Electronic Case Files
Infastructure
Electronic Bankruptcy Noticing
Subtotal -- Expanded Services

1,211,367
4,984,590
4,056,752
601,099
571,932
11,425,741

500,000
200,000
183,981
883,981
890,819
1,774,800
13,200,541

1,624,000
5,850,000
2,544,792
500,000
10,518,792

Reprogramming Obligations
out of
to
Program
Date

2,666,555

2,666,555

0
58,910
58,910
2,725,465

Remaining
Balance

Projected
Additional
Obligations

Surplus/
Deficit

782,034
372,197
1,614,245
432,671
253,022
3,454,169

429,333
1,945,838
2,442,507
168,429
318,910
5,305,017

139,281
1,947,660
1,872,292
0
6,532
3,965,765

290,052
-1,822
570,215
168,429
312,378
1,339,251

0

500,000
200,000
183,981
883,981
831,909
1,715,890
7,020,907

0
0
0
0
0
0
3,965,765

500,000
200,000
183,981
883,981
831,909
1,715,890
3,055,141

0
0

0
0
0
500,000
500,000

0
3,454,169

1,624,000
5,850,000
2,544,792
0

6-Mar-18

10,018,792

0
0
0
500,000
500,000

National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al., v. U.S.,
Civil Action No. 16-745 ESH

Tab 31

ELECTRONIC PUBLIC ACCESS PROGRAM
EXPENDITURES BY PROGRAM AREA
Original
FY 2001
PLAN
Operations and Maintenance
PACER Service Center
Telecommunications
EPA Equipment
Staff
Miscellaneous Operations
Subtotal -- Operations and Maintenance
Program Enhancement and R&D Experiments
Program Enhancements
Kiosk
EPA Grants
Subtotal - Program Enhancements
R&D Experiments
Subtotal -- Program Enhancements and R&D
Total Operations and Maintenance, Program
Enhancements and R&D Experiments
Amount Identified for Expanded Services
Case Management/Electronic Case Files
Subtotal -- Expanded Services

Projected Revenue:
Total Dial-in Usage October - September:
Total Internet Usage October - September:
Total Collections as of September:
Total Collections Less Refunds as of September:

809,912
7,071,439
4,285,786
627,582
512,065
13,306,784

Reprogramming Obligations
within/out of
to
Program
Date
0
-5,180,772
-600,000
3,400
202,203
-5,575,169

6-Mar-18

Projected
Additional
Obligations

Remaining
Balance

709,649
386,380
3,165,852
577,367
242,992
5,082,241

100,263
1,504,287
1,719,934
46,815
471,276
3,842,574

0
0
204,000
0
0
204,000

100,263
1,504,287
1,515,934
46,815
471,276
3,638,574

117,425

500,000

0
0
0
200,000
200,000
404,000

382,575
0
382,575
535,966
918,541
4,557,115

0

0
0

500,000
1,058,994
1,558,994
14,865,778

0
-323,028
-323,028
-5,898,197

117,425
5,199,666

382,575
0
382,575
735,966
1,118,541
4,961,116

13,924,880
13,924,880

-5,780,772
-5,780,772

19,705,652
19,705,652

0
0

$11,500,000.00
$5,139,858.00
$7,859,925.64
$12,381,684.83
$12,171,443.05

Surplus/
Deficit

117,425

National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al., v. U.S.,
Civil Action No. 16-745 ESH

Tab 32

ELECTRONIC PUBLIC ACCESS PROGRAM
EXPENDITURES BY PROGRAM AREA
Original
FY 2002
PLAN
Operations and Maintenance
PACER Service Center
Telecommunications
EPA Equipment
Staff
EPA Program Operations
Subtotal -- Operations and Maintenance
Program Enhancement and R&D Experiments
Program Enhancements
EPA Grants
Subtotal - Program Enhancements
R&D Experiments
Subtotal -- Program Enhancements and R&D
Total Operations and Maintenance, Program
Enhancements and R&D Experiments
Amount Identified for Expanded Services
Case Management/Electronic Case Files
Subtotal -- Expanded Services

Projected Revenue:
Total Dial-in Usage Billed October - August:
Total Internet Usage Billed October - August:
Total Billable Usage October - August:
Total Credits as of September:
Total Collections as of August:

Reprogramming Obligations
within/out of
to
Program
Date

6-Mar-18

Projected
Additional
Obligations

Remaining
Balance

Carry
Forward
to FY 2003

Surplus/
Deficit

871,256
3,218,735
4,190,656
660,124
818,000
9,758,770

0
454,890
-384,281
0
328,493
399,102

778,690
3,108,066
1,957,061
609,499
1,146,493
7,599,809

92,565
565,559
1,849,314
50,625
0
2,558,063

0
366,328
0
0
0
366,328

92,565
199,231
1,849,314
50,625
0
2,191,734

200,000
200,000
686,933
886,933
10,645,703

0
0
-654,890
-654,890
-255,788

81,300
81,300
81,300
7,681,109

118,700
118,700
32,043
150,743
2,708,806

0
0
0
0
366,328

118,700
118,700
32,043
150,743
2,342,477

0
254,200

6,489,928
6,489,928

5,000,000
5,000,000

11,489,928
11,489,928

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

$17,500,000.00
$1,538,130.60
$17,292,931.18
$18,831,061.78
$32,041.12
$17,234,001.00

254,200

254,200

National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al., v. U.S.,
Civil Action No. 16-745 ESH

Tab 33

ELECTRONIC PUBLIC ACCESS (EPA) PROGRAM
Summary of Resources and Requirements
FY 2003 - FY 2005

1
2
3
4
5

AVAILABLE RESOURCES:
EPA Carryforward from Prior Year
Projected New Receipts
Deposit from Print Fee Account (5114CR)
Total Available Resources

$
$
$
$

6 PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS:
7 Program Operations:
8 PACER Service Center
9 Telecommunications
10 EPA Equipment
11 uscourts.gov Support
12 Staff
13 EPA Program Operations (training, risk analysis, etc.)
14 Subtotal, Program Operations

FY 2003
Actuals
5,446,175
27,465,160
97,261
33,008,596

$
$
$
$

FY 2004
Acutals
5,893,257
37,652,752
107,354
43,653,363

$
$
$
$

FY 2005
Actuals
10,063,601
45,542,746
117,000
55,723,347

1,306,900
3,586,000
2,533,100
762,100
683,600
8,871,700

$991,400
$4,532,000
$2,565,000

$1,191,902
$4,268,023
$2,090,684

$592,400
$758,900
$9,439,700

$687,242
$993,637
$9,231,488

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

187,411
187,411

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

49,480
49,480

23 Subtotal, Program Operations + Program Enhancements

$

9,418,899

$

8,921,180

24 Reserve, 1st Quarter O&M

$

475,677

$

597,175

15 Program Enhancements:
16 EPA Grants
17 Interim Archive Project
18 Appellate, District and Bankruptcy VCIS
19
Opinions Database/E-government
20
Transcripts through the PACER Service Center
21
AO Web Site Redesign
22 Subtotal, Program Enhancements

$
$
$
$

-

$
$

149,200

25 Total Program Requirements

$

9,588,900

26 Resources Available for S&E Utilization

$

23,419,696

$

34,234,464

$

46,204,992

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

17,526,439
17,526,439
-

$
$

17,526,439
5,893,257

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

19,493,482
1,106,217
1,856,664
67,200
22,523,563
1,290,100
23,813,663
10,063,601

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

17,816,478
1,480,674
3,421,300
1,926,440
24,644,892
1,510,000
5,673,198
31,828,090
14,376,902

27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40

S&E Utilization:
CM/ECF Related:
Development and Implementation
Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
Hardware Maintenance (absorbed in CM/ECF O&M budget in 2006)
Hardware Replacement (absorbed in CM/ECF O&M budget in 2006)
IMD Identified O&M (absorbed in base in 2006)
Court Implementation Additives
Training for New Employees
Subtotal, CM/ECF Related
Electronic Bankruptcy Noticing
Internet Gateways
Subtotal, S&E Utilization
Projected EPA Carryforward (including 1st qtr. O&M earmark)

$9,418,899

$9,518,355

National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al., v. U.S.,
Civil Action No. 16-745 ESH

Tab 34

DRAFT
ELECTRONIC PUBLIC ACCESS (EPA) PROGRAM
Summary of Resources and Requirements
FY 2006

FY 2006
Prelim Actuals

AVAILABLE RESOURCES:
EPA Carryforward from Prior Year
Projected New Receipts
Deposit from Print Fee Account (5114CR)
Total Available Resources

$
$
$
$

14,974,077
62,119,534
110,000
77,203,611

PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS:
Current Services
PACER Service Center
Telecommunications
CM/ECF Repliction & Archive (provides CM/ECF COOP for Courts)
EPA Equipment
uscourts.gov Support
Staff
EPA Prog Ops (comp security training for courts, IDS & SPAs, etc.)
Subtotal, Current Services

$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$

1,781,900
3,987,117
4,263,700
150,600
725,304
1,030,400
11,939,021

Enhancements to Current Services
EPA Grants
Multi-Court VCIS
JMS Web Page Front-end (moves to O&M in FY 2008)
Transcripts through the PACER Service Center
Subtotal, Enhancements to Current Services

$
$
$
$
$

-

Total Financial Plan Loaded into 51140X-OXEEPAX

$

11,939,021

Development and New Requirements -- Funds Held in 51140X-OXEEPAC Until Project Approvals Received
Outsourcing uscourts.gov Web Site (moves to O&M in FY 2008)
$
Outsourcing Replication/Interim Archive (moves to O&M in FY 2008)
$
Violent Crime Control Act Notification (moves to O&M in FY 2008)
$
Subtotal, Development and New Requirements
$

-

Subtotal, Current Services, Enhancements & New Requirements

$

11,939,021

Reserve, 1st Quarter Current Services

$

694,311

Total Program Requirements

$

12,633,332

Resources Available for S&E Utilization

$

64,570,279

S&E Utilization:
CM/ECF Related:
Development and Implementation
Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
CM/ECF Court Allotments (OXEECFA)
DCN Usage for Docketing, Replicaiton and e-mail
Court Implementation Additives
Subtotal, CM/ECF Related

$
$
$
$
$
$

2,800,090
22,455,568
5,425,390
635,187
31,316,235

JMS Web Page Front-end
Violent Crime Control Act Notification
Electronic Bankruptcy Noticing
Courtroom Technology

$
$
$
$

1,600,000
-

Subtotal, S&E Utilization
Projected EPA Carryforward (includs 1st qtr. reserve)

$
$

32,916,235 *
31,654,044

006

National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al., v. U.S.,
Civil Action No. 16-745 ESH

Tab 35

Revised:
ELECTRONIC PUBLIC ACCESS PROGRAM
AVAILABLE RESOURCES:
FY 2007
Actuals

FY 2008
Actuals

EPA Carryforward from Prior Year
Projected New Receipts
Deposit from Print Fee Account (5114CR)
Total Available Resources

$ 32,200,000
$ 65,036,874
$
120,000
$ 97,356,874

$ 44,503,473
$ 77,845,501
$
130,000
$ 122,478,974

PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS:
Current Services
PACER Service Center
Telecommunications
Replication & Archive (provides COOP for Courts)
EPA Equipment
uscourts.gov Support
Staff
EPA Prog Ops (comp security training for courts, IDS & SPAs, etc.)
Court Allotments (OXEEPAA) [included in program areas prior to FY09]
Subtotal, Current Services

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

$
$
$
$
$
$
$

Enhancements to Current Services
EPA Grants
Multi-Court VCIS
Order/Inventory System
JMS Web Page Front-end
VCIS/AVIS Voice Component
Subtotal, Enhancements to Current Services

1,839,900
4,491,694
4,135,000
196,400
708,000
2,449,400

1,553,267
5,625,391
7,985,731
3,026,734
331,701
534,249
2,789,461

$ 13,820,394

$ 21,846,534

$
$

$
$

-

$
$
$

-

$
$
$

310,200
310,200

Total Financial Plan Loaded into 51140X-OXEEPAX

$ 14,130,594

$ 21,846,534

Resources Available for S&E Utilization

$ 82,406,322

$ 100,632,440

$ 1,965,830
$ 17,842,567
$
-

$
$
$

$ 8,790,533
$
34,000
$ 28,632,930

$
588,793
$
508,292
$ 11,176,451
$
370,283
$ 30,832,785

$
$

1,700,000
7,000,000

$ 2,700,000
$ 24,137,794

Subtotal, Congressional Priorities

$ 37,332,930

$ 57,670,579

Other EPA Revenue Uses:
JMS Web Page Front-end (OXEJMSD)
Violent Crime Control Act Notification (OXJVCCD & OXJVCCO)
Subtotal, Other EPA Revenue Uses

$
$
$

$
$
$

Subtotal, Congressional Priorities & Other EPA Revenue Uses
Projected EPA Carryforward (includes 1st qtr. Reserve for FY07)

$ 37,332,930
$ 45,893,350

Congressional Priorities:
CM/ECF Related:
Development and Implementation (OXEECFP)
Operations and Maintenance (O&M) (OXEECFO)
CM/ECF Court Allotments (OXEECFA)
CM/ECF Futures (OXECMFD)
Appellate Operational Forum (OXEACAX)
District Operational Forum (OXEDCAX)
Bankruptcy Operational Forum (OXEBCAX)
DCN Usage for Docketing, Replication and e-mail (OXDWANV)
Court Implementation Additives
Subtotal, CM/ECF Related
Electronic Bankruptcy Noticing (BXEBNCO)
Courtroom Technology (OXHCRTO-3000)
State of Mississippi (OXEMSPX)

-

2,639,921
8,440,297
7,108,748

1,514,106
1,103,353
2,617,459

$ 60,288,038
$ 40,344,402

National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al., v. U.S.,
Civil Action No. 16-745 ESH

Tab 36

Public Access and Records Management Division
AVAILABLE RESOURCES:
Expanded Quarterly Report

Date Rev.: 08/03/10
Date Printed: 3/6/2018

FY 2009
Actuals

1

PACER Fee Revenue - Prior Year Carry Forward (OXEEPAC)

$

40,344,402

2

PACER Fee Revenue - Current Year Receipts (OXEEPAC)

$

88,563,295

3

Print Fee Revenue - Prior Year Carry Forward (OXEEPAP)

$

481,082

4

Print Fee Revenue - Current Year Receipts (OXEEPAP)

$

170,926

$

129,559,705

5

Total Available Resources

6

PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS:

7

Public Access Services and Applications

8

EPA Program (OXEEPAX)

$

16,412,890

9

EPA Technology Infrastructure & Applications (OXEPTAX)

$

-

10

EPA Replication (OXEPARX)

$

-

$

16,412,890

11

Public Access Services and Applications

12

Case Management/Electronic Case Files System

13

Development and Implementation (OXEECFP)

$

1,991,900

14

Operations and Maintenance (OXEECFO)

$

12,884,173

15

Appellete Operational Forum (OXEAOPX)changed from OXEACAX

$

-

16

District Operational Forum (OXEDCAX)

$

599,236

17

Bankruptcy Operational Forum (OXEBCAX)

$

516,379

$

15,991,688

$

9,700,000

$

9,700,000

18

Subtotal, Case Management/Electronic Case Files System

19

Electronic Bankruptcy Noticing:

20

Electronic Bankruptcy Noticing (OXEBNCO)

21

Subtotal, Electronic Bankruptcy Noticing

22

Telecommunications (PACER-Net & DCN)

23

PACER-Net Content (OXENETV) in FY2010

$

6,388,568

24

DCN Usage for Docketing, Replication /e-mail (OXDWANV/OXENETV $

10,975,978

25

Subtotal, Telecommunications (PACER-Net & DCN)

26

$

17,364,546

Court Allotments

27

Court Staffing Additives(OXEEPAA)

$

-

28

Court Allotments (OXEEPAA) [incl. in program areas prior to FY 09]

$

1,566,879

29

Clerk Backfills-2000 (OXEEPAA)

30

CM/ECF Court Allotments (OXEECFA)

$

6,806,064

$

8,372,943

$

1,696,566

31

Subtotal, Court Allotments

32

Next Generation of CM/ECF

33
34

CM/ECF Futures (OXECMFD)
Courts/AO Exchange Program (OXEXCEX)

35

Subtotal, Next Generation of CM/ECF

$

1,696,566

36

Total Program Requirements

$

69,538,633

37

Congressional Priorities:

38

Victim Notification (Violent Crime Control Act)
$

-

$

68,858

$

68,858

$

260,000

$

260,000

$

24,634,259

$

24,634,259

39
40
41
42
43
44

Violent Crime Control Act Notification (OXJVCCD)
Violent Crime Control Act Notification (OXJVCCO)
Subtotal, Victim Notification (Violent Crime Control Act)
Web-based Juror Services
Web-based Juror Services (OXEJMSD)
Subtotal, Web-based Juror Services

45

Courtroom Technology (OXHCRTO-3000)

46

Courtroom Technology (OXHCRTO-3000)

47

Subtotal, Courtroom Technology Program

48

State of Mississippi (OXEMSPX)

49

State of Mississippi (OXEMSPX)

$

159,547

50

Subtotal, Mississippi State Courts

$

159,547

51

Total Congressional Priorities

$

25,122,664

52

Total Program & Congressional Priorities
Total EPA Carry Forward (Revenue less Disbursement)

$

94,661,297

$

34,898,408

53
54

PACER FEE (OXEEPAC) Carry Forward

$

34,381,874

55

PRINT FEE (OXEEPAP) Carry Forward

$

516,534

$

34,898,408

56

Total EPA Carry Forward

57

Total Print Fee Revenue

$

652,008

58

Disbursed in (OXEEPAA) Allotments

$

135,474

59

PRINT FEE (OXEEPAP) Carry Forward

$

516,534

National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al., v. U.S.,
Civil Action No. 16-745 ESH

Tab 37

Case Management/Electronic Case Files

Congressional Directive/mandate/approval

Years

Budget Name
CM/ECF: Case Management/Electronic Case Files System - Development and
Implementation
Description
Development and Implementation costs for CM/ECF. CM/ECF is the case
management system used in the appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts. CM/ECF
provides the ability to store case file documents in electronic format and to accept filings
over the Internet.

"The Committee expects the fee for the Electronic Public Access program to provide for Case
Management/Electronic Case Files system enhancements and operational costs." - Judiciary
Appropriations Act of 2004 [H.R. Rep. No. 108-221 at 116]
07, 08

Budget Name
CM/ECF: Case Management/Electronic Case Files System - Operations &
Maintentance
Description
Operations & Maintentance costs for CM/ECF. CM/ECF is the case management
system used in the appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts. CM/ECF provides the
ability to store case file documents in electronic format and to accept filings over the
Internet.

"The Committee expects the fee for the Electronic Public Access program to provide for Case
Management/Electronic Case Files system enhancements and operational costs." - Judiciary
Appropriations Act of 2004 [H.R. Rep. No. 108-221 at 116]
07, 08

Budget Name
CM/ECF Next Generation Project
Description
The CM/ECF Next Generation project is assessing the judiciary's long term case
management and case filing requirements with a view to modernizing or replacing the
CM/ECF systems.

"The Committee expects the fee for the Electronic Public Access program to provide for Case
Management/Electronic Case Files system enhancements and operational costs." - Judiciary
Appropriations Act of 2004 [H.R. Rep. No. 108-221 at 116]

07, 08

Budget Name
CM/ECF Operational Practices Forums -- Appellate Courts
Description
The CM/ECF operational practices forums are annual conferences at which judges,
clerks of court, court staff, and AO staff exchange ideas and information about
operational practices and policies related to the CM/ECF system.

"The Committee expects the fee for the Electronic Public Access program to provide for Case
Management/Electronic Case Files system enhancements and operational costs." - Judiciary
Appropriations Act of 2004 [H.R. Rep. No. 108-221 at 116]
07, 08

Budget Name
CM/ECF Operational Practices Forums --District Courts
Description
The CM/ECF operational practices forums are annual conferences at which judges,
clerks of court, court staff, and AO staff exchange ideas and information about
operational practices and policies related to the CM/ECF system.

"The Committee expects the fee for the Electronic Public Access program to provide for Case
Management/Electronic Case Files system enhancements and operational costs." - Judiciary
Appropriations Act of 2004 [H.R. Rep. No. 108-221 at 116]
07, 08

Budget Name
CM/ECF Operational Practices Forums -- Bankruptcy Court
Description
The CM/ECF operational practices forums are annual conferences at which judges,
clerks of court, court staff, and AO staff exchange ideas and information about
operational practices and policies related to the CM/ECF system.

"The Committee expects the fee for the Electronic Public Access program to provide for Case
Management/Electronic Case Files system enhancements and operational costs." - Judiciary
Appropriations Act of 2004 [H.R. Rep. No. 108-221 at 116]
07, 08

Electronic Bankruptcy Noticing

Congressional Directive/mandate/approval

Years

Budget Name
Electronic Bankruptcy Noticing
Description
The Bankruptcy Noticing Center (BNC) retrieves data each day from the bankruptcy
courts' CM/ECF databases, and produces and sends bankruptcy notices electronically or
by mail. Electronic transmission options include internet e-mail or fax and, for large
email recipients, EDI and XML.

"The Committee supports the ongoing efforts of the Judiciary to improve and expand information
made available in electronic form to the public. Accordingly, the Committee expects the Judiciary
to utilize available balances derived from electronic public access fees in the Judiciary Automation
Fund to make information and services more accessible to the public through improvements to
enhance the availability of electronic information. The overall quality of service to the public will
be improved with the availability of enhancements such as electronic case documents, electronic
filings, enhanced use of the Internet, and electronic bankruptcy noticing."-- Judiciary
Appropriations Act of 1997 [H.R. Rep. No. 104-676 at 89]
07, 08

Court Allotments

Congressional Directive/mandate/approval

Years

"The Committee expects the fee for the Electronic Public Access program to provide for Case
Management/Electronic Case Files system enhancements and operational costs." - Judiciary
Appropriations Act of 2004 [H.R. Rep. No. 108-221 at 116]

07, 08

Congressional Directive/mandate/approval

Years

Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2008
(Submitted to Congress in spending plan which was approved by Congress.)

07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12,
13, 14, 15, 16

Congressional Directive/mandate/approval

Years

Budget Name
Court Implementation Additives
Description
These funds for a court additives to support activities like CM/ECF implementation and
making digital audio recordings of hearings available via PACER.

Courtroom Technology
Budget Name
Courtroom Technology
Description
This allotment funds the maintenance, cyclical replacement, and upgrade of courtroom
technologies in the courts.

Telecommunications (PACER-Net & DCN)

Budget Name
PACER-Net
Description
The Public Access Network (PACER-Net) is the network which allows courts to post
court information on the Internet in a secure manner. The public side of CM/ECF as well
as court web sites are hosted on the PACER-Net. As it is the most accessible network

"The Committee supports the ongoing efforts of the Judiciary to improve and expand information
made available in electronic form to the public. Accordingly, the Committee expects the Judiciary
to utilize available balances derived from electronic public access fees in the Judiciary Automation
Fund to make information and services more accessible to the public through improvements to
enhance the availability of electronic information. The overall quality of service to the public will
be improved with the availability of enhancements such as electronic case documents, electronic
filings, enhanced use of the Internet, and electronic bankruptcy noticing. -- Judiciary
Appropriations Act of 1997 [H.R. Rep. No. 104-676 at 89] and Judiciary Appropriations Act of
1992 [Pub. L. No. 102-140, Title III, Section 303]
07, 08

Budget Name
DCN and Security Services
Description
Provides network circuits, routers, switches, security, optimization, and management
devices along with maintenance management and certain security services to support the
Judiciary's WAN network. This DCN cost is split between appropriated funds and EPA
funds.

"The Committee supports the ongoing efforts of the Judiciary to improve and expand information
made available in electronic form to the public. Accordingly, the Committee expects the Judiciary
to utilize available balances derived from electronic public access fees in the Judiciary Automation
Fund to make information and services more accessible to the public through improvements to
enhance the availability of electronic information. The overall quality of service to the public will
be improved with the availability of enhancements such as electronic case documents, electronic
filings, enhanced use of the Internet, and electronic bankruptcy noticing." -- Judiciary
Appropriations Act of 1997 [H.R. Rep. No. 104-676 at 89] and Judiciary Appropriations Act of
1992 [Pub. L. No. 102-140, Title III, Section 303]
07, 08

Victim Notification

Congressional Directive/mandate/approval

Years

"The Committee supports efforts of the judiciary to make information available to the public
electronically, and expects that available balances from public access fees in the judiciary
automation fund will be used to enhance availability of public access." --Judiciary Appropriations
Act of 1999 [S. Rep. No. 105-235 at 114]

09, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
15, 16

Congressional Directive/mandate/approval

Years

"The Committee supports the Federal judiciary sharing its case management electronic case filing
system at the State level and urges the judiciary to undertake a study of whether sharing such
technology, including electronic billing processes, is a viable option."-- Judiciary Appropriations
Act 2007 [S. Rept. No. 109-293 at page 176]

07, 08, 09, 10, 12, 13

Congressional Directive/mandate/approval

Years

Budget Name
Violent Crime Control Act Notification
Description
The Law Enforcement Officer Notification project will develop a system for probation
and pretrial services officers to electronically notify local law enforcement agencies of
changes to the case history of offenders under supervision as required by the Victim

State of Mississippi
Budget Name
State of Mississippi
Description
Mississippi state three year study of the feasibility of sharing the Judiciary's CM/ECF
filing system at the state level, to include electronic billing processes. Not to exceed the
estimated cost of $1.4 million.

Web-based Juror Services
Budget Name
Web based E Juror Services
Description
eJuror hotline and software maintenance cost, escrow services, scanner support

"The Committee supports the ongoing efforts of the Judiciary to improve and expand information
made available in electronic form to the public. Accordingly, the Committee expects the Judiciary
to utilize available balances derived from electronic public access fees in the Judiciary Automation
Fund to make information and services more accessible to the public through improvements to
enhance the availability of electronic information. The overall quality of service to the public will
be improved with the availability of enhancements such as electronic case documents, electronic
filings, enhanced use of the Internet, and electronic bankruptcy noticing._-- Judiciary
Appropriations Act of 1997 [H.R. Rep. No. 104-676 at 89] & "The Committee supports efforts of
the judiciary to make electronic information available to the public, and expects that available
balances from public access fees in the judiciary automation fund will be used to enhance
availability of public access." -- Judiciary Appropriations Act of 1999 [S. Rep. No. 105-235 at 114]
09, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
15, 16

National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al., v. U.S.,
Civil Action No. 16-745 ESH

Tab 38

Calendar No. 535
109TH CONGRESS
"
2d Session

SENATE

!

REPORT
109–293

TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2007
JULY 26, 2006.—Ordered to be printed

Mr. BOND, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following

REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 5576]

The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the bill
(H.R. 5576) making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and independent agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, reports the same to the Senate with an amendment and recommends
that the bill as amended do pass.
Amounts of new budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 2007
Total of bill as reported to the Senate .................... $89,389,989,000
Amount of 2006 appropriations 1 ............................. 102,948,146,000
Amount of 2007 budget estimate ............................ 86,748,272,000
Amount of House allowance 2 .................................. 86,656,536,000
Bill as recommended to Senate compared to—
2006 appropriations .......................................... ¥13,558,157,000
2007 budget estimate ........................................ ∂2,641,717,000
House allowance ................................................ ∂2,654,889,000
1 Includes
2 Excludes

$20,685,563,000 in emergency appropriations.
$575,200,000 considered by the House for the District of Columbia.

28–780 PDF

TITLE IV
THE JUDICIARY
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Established under Article III of the Constitution, the judicial
branch of Government is a separate but equal branch. The Federal
Judiciary consists of the Supreme Court, United States Courts of
Appeals, District Courts, Bankruptcy Courts, Court of International Trade, Court of Federal Claims and several other entities
and programs. The organization of the judiciary, the district and
circuit boundaries, the places of holding court, and the number of
Federal judges are legislated by the Congress and signed into law
by the President.
The Committee’s recommended funding levels support the Federal judiciary’s role of providing equal justice under the law and include sufficient funds to support this critical mission. The recommended funding level includes the salaries of judges and support staff and the operation and security of our Nation’s courts.
The judicial branch is reminded that it, too, is subject to the
same funding constraints facing the executive and legislative
branches and continues to urge the Federal judiciary to devote its
resources primarily to the retention of staff. Further, the judiciary
is encouraged to contain controllable costs such as travel, construction, and other non-essential expenses.
In addition, the judiciary is reminded that section 705 of the accompanying act applies to the judicial as well as the executive
branch.
SUPREME COURT

OF THE

UNITED STATES

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ...........................................................................
House allowance ....................................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$60,143,000
63,405,000
63,405,000
63,405,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The United States Supreme Court consists of nine justices appointed under Article III of the Constitution of the United States,
one of whom is appointed as Chief Justice of the United States.
The Supreme Court acts as the final arbiter in the Federal court
system.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $63,405,000 for
the Justices, their supporting personnel, and the costs of operating
the Supreme Court, excluding the care of the building and grounds.
(173)

174
The recommendation is $3,262,000 above the fiscal year 2006 funding level and identical to the budget request.
CARE OF THE BUILDING AND GROUNDS

Appropriations, 2006 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ...........................................................................
House allowance ....................................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$5,568,000
12,959,000
12,959,000
12,959,000

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $12,959,000 for
personnel and other services related to the Supreme Court building
and grounds, which is supervised by the Architect of the Capitol.
The recommendation is $7,391,000 above the fiscal year 2006 funding level and identical to the budget request.
The Committee has provided the requested funds to complete the
Supreme Court’s building modernization project and the necessary
renovations to the East and West Conference Room ceilings. The
Committee has also provided the requested funds to begin needed
repairs and renovations to the Court’s roof system. Because this
project will be phased over 5 years, the Committee directs the
Court to report to the House and Senate Committee on Appropriations as the Court becomes aware of any changes in schedule or
budgetary needs.
UNITED STATES COURT

OF

APPEALS

FOR THE

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ...........................................................................
House allowance ....................................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$23,780,000
26,300,000
26,000,000
25,273,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was
established under Article III of the Constitution on October 1,
1982. The court was formed by the merger of the United States
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and the appellate division of
the United States Court of Claims. The court consists of twelve
judges who are appointed by the President, with the advice and
consent of the Senate. Judges are appointed to the court under Article III of the Constitution of the United States.
The Federal Circuit has nationwide jurisdiction in a variety of
subject matter, including international trade, government contracts, patents, certain claims for money from the United States
Government, Federal personnel, and veterans’ benefits. Appeals to
the court come from all Federal district courts, the United States
Court of Federal Claims, the United States Court of International
Trade, and the United States Court of Veterans Appeals. The court
also takes appeals of certain administrative agencies’ decisions, including the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Board of Contract
Appeals, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, and the
Trademark Trial and Appeals Board. Decisions of the United
States International Trade Commission, the Office of Compliance of

175
the United States Congress and the Government Accountability Office Personnel Appeals Board are also reviewed by the court.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,273,000.
The recommendation is $1,493,000 above the fiscal year 2006 funding level and $1,027,000 below the budget request.
Of the amount provided, the Committee has funded the requested increase for disaster recovery of information, but denies
the program increase requests for information technology upgrades
and the retrofitting of courtrooms to provide enhanced technological capabilities. The Committee notes that the Federal Circuit
currently has appropriate technology upgrades in one of its three
courtrooms, which meets existing standards enacted by the Judicial
Conference.
U.S. COURT

OF INTERNATIONAL

TRADE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ...........................................................................
House allowance ....................................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$15,345,000
16,182,000
16,182,000
16,182,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The United States Court of International Trade, located in New
York City, consists of nine Article III judges. The court has exclusive nationwide jurisdiction over civil actions brought against the
United States, its agencies and officers, and certain civil actions
brought by the United States, arising out of import transactions
and the administration and enforcement of the Federal customs
and international trade laws.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $16,182,000.
The recommendation is $837,000 above the fiscal year 2006 funding level and the same as the budget request.
COURTS

OF

APPEALS, DISTRICT COURTS,
SERVICES

AND

OTHER JUDICIAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ...........................................................................
House allowance ....................................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$4,308,345,000
4,687,244,000
4,556,114,000
4,583,360,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Salaries and Expenses is one of four accounts that provide total
funding for the Courts of Appeals, District Courts and Other Judicial Services. In addition to funding the salaries of judges and support staff, this account also funds the operating costs of appellate,
district and bankruptcy courts, and probation and pretrial services
offices.

176
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,583,360,000.
The recommendation is $275,015,000 above the fiscal year 2006
funding level and $103,884,000 below the budget request.
The Committee has adequately funded this account to enable the
courts to meet their workload demands. As previously stated, the
Committee urges the Judicial Conference to make the retention of
personnel its top priority. The Committee supports the Federal judiciary sharing its case management electronic case filing system
at the State level and urges the judiciary to undertake a study of
whether sharing such technology, including electronic billing processes, is a viable option.
Southwest Border.—The Committee is concerned about the impact that increased immigration funding and enforcement activities
are having on the Federal judiciary’s caseload and their ability to
handle such a dramatic increase in filings. At present, the criminal
cases filed in the five districts along the Southwest border account
for nearly one-third of criminal cases nationwide. Since 2001, approximately 1,200 border agents have been added along the border
with Mexico, resulting in a significant increase in caseload and
workload levels. The judiciary plays an integral role in the Nation’s
homeland security efforts, and the Committee commends the numerous judges and staff who have ensured the continuing success
of this vital piece of the Nation’s border security strategy. Because
the border courts remain critically understaffed, the Committee has
provided $20,371,000, as requested, for magistrate judges and critical staff positions for those districts located along the Southwest
border. The Committee directs the Administrative Office to include
a plan for the hiring of these positions in its fiscal year 2007 financial plan and to keep the Committee apprised of the number of positions actually brought on board along the Southwest border
throughout fiscal year 2007.
Staffing Formulas.—The Committee is aware that the Administrative Office utilizes a sophisticated staffing formula to determine
the staffing needs for the local courts. Due to the varied nature of
caseload levels throughout the Nation, courts maintain different requirements for staffing. While the Southwest Border Courts have
seen the greatest increase in funds allocated over the past several
fiscal years, the gap between their funding allotment and their actual workload growth remains substantially greater when compared to the courts throughout the rest of the Nation. For example,
during several of the past few fiscal years, supplemental funding
from the administrative office and Congress has been required to
meet the unique needs of the Southwest Border Courts. This consistent need for additional urgently needed funding in this one region demonstrates, at a minimum, the need for a thorough review
of the staffing formulas used to determine local court needs. The
Committee recognizes that the formulas currently employed to determine staffing needs place significant weight on the work requirements of the local courts’ districts. However, due to the increasing gap between workload and staffing levels, the Committee
is concerned that the current formula does not adequately address
the differing staffing requirements that face courts located along

177
the Southwest border. As such, the Administrative Office will report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no
later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this act on what
steps it has taken to ensure that its staffing formulas reflect these
changing trends in caseload activity. The Committee also directs
the administrative office to ensure that the staffing formula ensures that adequate resources are being directed to the Southwest
border and particularly to the Probation and Pretrial Services program.
Courthouse Construction.—The Committee is aware that the judiciary’s self-imposed moratorium on courthouse construction
projects ends September 30, 2006. The Committee notes that the
judiciary continues to face rising rent costs that are, in part, a result of past courthouse construction projects that were not adequately reduced in scope. As such, the Committee strongly urges
the Judicial Conference to weigh carefully its need for more space
to adjudicate cases against the Federal judiciary’s rent needs. The
Committee encourages the Judicial Conference to ensure adequate
checks are in place to guarantee that future construction requests
and projects are subjected to the highest standards of cost-efficiencies. The June, 2006, GAO report entitled, ‘‘Federal Courthouses: Rent Increases Due to New Space and Growing Energy and
Security Costs Require Better Tracking and Management’’ notes
that there are currently no incentives for district and circuit courts
to make more efficient use of their space. The Committee is concerned that such a lack of incentives has caused the judicial branch
to pay rent for more space than is necessary. As such, the Administrative Office is directed to report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than 120 days after the date of
enactment of this act on steps that have been and are being taken
to encourage more efficient use of space by district and circuit
courts. Further, the Committee encourages the Administrative Office to continue to work with the General Services Administration
to ensure fair and accurate rent charges and to pursue corrections
to any inequities.
Carryover Funds.—Due to unique circumstances, the judiciary
reported significant carryover funds for fiscal year 2005 and
projects more carryover in funding for fiscal year 2006. The Committee is concerned that the administrative office has not first used
these carryover funds to offset projected decreases in fee collections
and other projected needs and has, instead, used this funding to
augment existing programs. This has resulted in an increase in the
judiciary’s uncontrollable costs, unnecessary funding requests and
greater baseline needs. As such, the Administrative Office is directed to ensure that current and projected funding needs are met
first with carryover funds before enhancing any program. The Committee directs the Administrative Office to separately include in future financial plans, for approval by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, all sources of carryover funds and their
desired application.

178
VACCINE INJURY COMPENSATION TRUST FUND

Appropriations, 2006 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ...........................................................................
House allowance ....................................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$3,795,000
3,952,000
3,952,000
3,952,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Enacted by The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986
(Public Law 99–660), the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is
a Federal no-fault program designed to resolve a perceived crisis in
vaccine tort liability claims that threatened the continued availability of childhood vaccines nationwide. The statute’s primary intention is the creation of a more efficient adjudicatory mechanism
that ensures a no-fault compensation result for those allegedly injured or killed by certain covered vaccines. This program protects
the availability of vaccines in the United States by diverting a substantial number of claims from the tort arena.
Not only did this act create a special fund to pay judgments
awarded under the act, but it also created the Office of Special
Masters [OSM] within the United States Court of Federal Claims
to hear vaccine injury cases. The act stipulates that up to eight
special masters may be appointed for this purpose. The special
masters expenditures are reimbursed to the judiciary for vaccine
injury cases from a special fund set up under the Vaccine Act.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,952,000. The
recommendation is $157,000 above the fiscal year 2006 funding
level and consistent with the budget request.
DEFENDER SERVICES
Appropriations, 2006 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ...........................................................................
House allowance ....................................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$709,830,000
803,879,000
750,033,000
761,051,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Defender Services program ensures the right to counsel
guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, the Criminal Justice Act (18
U.S.C. 3006A(e)) and other congressional mandates for those who
cannot afford to retain counsel and other necessary defense services. The Criminal Justice Act provides that courts appoint counsel
from Federal public and community defender organizations or from
a panel of private attorneys established by the court. The Defender
Services program helps to maintain public confidence in the Nation’s commitment to equal justice under the law and ensures the
successful operation of the constitutionally based adversary system
of justice by which Federal criminal laws and federally guaranteed
rights are enforced.

179
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $761,051,000.
The recommendation is $51,221,000 above the fiscal year 2006
funding level and $42,828,000 below the budget request.
While the Committee has provided sufficient funds to enable the
Defenders Services program to continue to provide timely and quality counsel services, the Committee is concerned about recurring
projected shortfalls in the Defender Services account. To the extent
that the other salaries and expense accounts within the judiciary
title must absorb certain mandatory adjustments to base, the Committee directs the Defender Services program to treat its Federal
Defender Organizations in the same manner. The Committee has
denied all program increase requests for this account and directs
the Administrative Office to ensure that all resources provided are
first used to ensure the timely payment of panel attorneys.
Panel Attorney Pay Rates.—The Committee has included funding
to annualize the fiscal year 2006 pay adjustment for capital and
non-capital panel attorneys but denies all requests for cost of living
adjustments and pay raises for panel attorneys for fiscal year 2007.
The Committee notes that future cost of living adjustment requests
should not be presented as adjustments to base, but should be requested as a program increase.
FEES

OF

JURORS

AND

COMMISSIONERS

Appropriations, 2006 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ...........................................................................
House allowance ....................................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$60,705,000
63,079,000
63,079,000
63,079,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides for the statutory fees and allowances of
grand and petit jurors and for the compensation of jury and land
commissioners. Budgetary requirements depend primarily upon the
volume and the length of jury trials demanded by parties to both
civil and criminal actions and the number of grand juries being
convened by the courts at the request of the United States Attorneys.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $63,079,000.
The recommendation is $2,374,000 above the fiscal year 2006 funding level and reflects the judiciary’s reestimate of fiscal year 2007
requirements.
COURT SECURITY
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2006 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ...........................................................................
House allowance ....................................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$368,280,000
410,334,000
400,334,000
397,737,000

180
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Court Security appropriation was established in 1983 and
funds the necessary expenses incident to the provision of protective
guard services, and the procurement, installation, and maintenance
of security systems and equipment for United States courthouses
and other facilities housing Federal court operations, including
building access control, inspection of mail and packages, directed
security patrols, perimeter security provided by the Federal Protective Service, and other similar activities as authorized by section
1010 of the Judicial Improvement and Access to Justice Act (Public
Law 100–702).
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $397,737,000.
The recommendation is $29,457,000 above the fiscal year 2006
funding level and $12,597,000 below the budget request.
The Committee is concerned about the security of the United
States Courthouses and is committed to ensuring the Nation’s Federal appellate and district courts possess adequate security measures. Sufficient funding has been provided to retain and hire all requested court security officers for fiscal year 2007. While the Committee has provided funding for the digital video recording initiative, the Committee is concerned about the significant costs associated with procuring these systems. The Committee notes that the
United States Marshall’s Service has indicated that the vast majority of digital video recorders can be purchased for substantially less
than expected and urges the Administrative Office to work with the
United States Marshall’s Service to ensure optimum cost efficiencies.
The Committee has limited the judiciary’s payments to the Federal Protective Service [FPS] to no more than $66,900,000 and directs the Administrative Office to obtain regular notifications from
the FPS on any changes in funding requirements.
Judicial Facility Security Program.—As provided in bill language, the United States Marshals Service [USMS] is responsible
for administering the Judicial Facility Security Program consistent
with standards and guidelines agreed to by the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and the Attorney General.
However, court security funding is appropriated by Congress directly to the judiciary which provides an important stewardship
role, including financial and program oversight. While court security funding is subsequently transferred to the USMS, which is responsible for program administration, the Committee expects full
cooperation from the USMS as the judiciary conducts the fiduciary
and program oversight responsibilities pertaining to this funding.
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE

OF THE

UNITED STATES COURTS

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ...........................................................................
House allowance ....................................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$69,559,000
75,333,000
73,800,000
74,333,000

181
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Administrative Office [AO] of the United States Courts was
created in 1939 by an Act of Congress. It serves the Federal judiciary in carrying out its constitutional mission to provide equal justice under the law. Beyond providing numerous services to the Federal courts, the AO provides support and staff counsel to the Judicial Conference of the United States and its committees, and implements Judicial Conference policies as well as applicable Federal
statutes and regulations. The AO is the focal point for communication and coordination within the judiciary and with Congress, the
executive branch, and the public on behalf of the judiciary.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $74,333,000.
This recommendation is $4,774,000 above the fiscal year 2006
funding level and $1,000,000 below the budget request.
Edwin L. Nelson Local Initiative Program.—As established in the
fiscal year 2005 appropriations act, the Edwin L. Nelson Local Initiative Program made grants available to local courts to develop
and implement information technology solutions for the unique
problems they face. Such grants ensure greater flexibility, access to
funds, information sharing and input into the various obstacles
that must be overcome to produce a more automated and efficient
Federal judiciary. The Committee urges the AO to continue to work
with and provide adequate resources to the local courts for this
purpose.
FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER
SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ...........................................................................
House allowance ....................................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$22,127,000
23,787,000
23,500,000
23,390,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Judicial Center, located in Washington, DC, improves the management of Federal judicial dockets and court administration through education for judges and staff and research,
evaluation, and planning assistance for the courts and the Judicial
Conference. The Center’s responsibilities include educating judges
and other judicial branch personnel about legal developments and
efficient litigation management and court administration. Additionally, the Center also analyzes the efficacy of case and court management procedures and ensures the Federal judiciary is aware of
the methods of best practice.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $23,390,000.
The recommendation is $1,263,000 above the fiscal year 2006 funding level and $397,000 below the budget request.
The Committee has included all requested funds in the Center’s
adjustment to base and half the funds requested for education, re-

182
search and technology enhancements. The Committee directs the
Federal Judicial Center to keep the Committee apprised of staff
brought on board throughout fiscal year 2007.
JUDICIAL RETIREMENT FUNDS
PAYMENT TO JUDICIARY TRUST FUNDS

Appropriations, 2006 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ...........................................................................
House allowance ....................................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$40,600,000
58,300,000
58,300,000
58,300,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The funds in this account cover the estimated future benefit payments to be made to retired bankruptcy judges and magistrate
judges, claims court judges, and spouses and dependent children of
deceased judicial officers.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $58,300,000 for
payments to the Judicial Officers’ Retirement Fund and the Claims
Court Judges Retirement Fund. The recommendation is
$17,700,000 above the fiscal year 2006 funding level and identical
to the budget request.
UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION
SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2006 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2007 ...........................................................................
House allowance ....................................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$14,256,000
15,740,000
15,500,000
15,340,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The United States Sentencing Commission establishes, reviews
and revises sentencing guidelines, policies and practices for the
Federal criminal justice system. The Commission is also required
to monitor the operation of the guidelines and to identify and report necessary changes to the Congress.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $15,340,000.
The recommendation is $1,084,000 above the fiscal year 2006 funding level and $400,000 below the budget request.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—THE JUDICIARY
The Committee recommends the following administrative provisions for the judiciary.
Section 401 allows the judiciary to expend funds for the employment of experts and consultant services.
Section 402 allows the judiciary, subject to the Committee’s reprogramming procedures, to transfer up to 5 percent between appropriations, but limits to 10 percent the amount that can be transferred into any one appropriation.

183
Section 403 limits official reception and representation expenses
incurred by the Judicial Conference of the United States to no
more than $11,000.
Section 404 requires the Administrative Office to submit an annual financial plan for the judiciary.
Section 405 allows for a salary adjustment for Justices and
judges.
Section 406 grants the judicial branch the same tenant alteration
authorities as the executive branch.
Section 407 prohibits any judge from being entitled to sole use
of a courtroom and requires courtrooms to be scheduled based on
the needs of the circuit and district courts. This is intended solely
to address circumstances where courtrooms are not in full use and
where the sharing of a courtroom will help reduce an overburdened
judicial docket.

National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al., v. U.S.,
Civil Action No. 16-745 ESH

Tab 39

112TH CONGRESS
" HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session

!

REPORT
112–136

FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT
APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2012

JULY 7, 2011.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union and ordered to be printed

Mrs. EMERSON, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following

R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 2434]

The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in
explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for financial services and general government for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2012.
INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

Page number
Bill
Report

Title I—Department of the Treasury .......................................................
Title II—Executive Office of the President and Funds Appropriated to
the President ...........................................................................................
Title III—The Judiciary .............................................................................
Title IV—District of Columbia ..................................................................
Title V—Independent Agencies .................................................................
Administrative Conference of the United States ..............................
Consumer Product Safety Commission .............................................
Election Assistance Commission ........................................................
Federal Communications Commission ..............................................
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ............................................
Federal Election Commission .............................................................
Federal Labor Relations Authority ....................................................
Federal Trade Commission ................................................................
General Services Administration .......................................................
Harry S Truman Scholarship Foundation ........................................

2

5

21
34
42
53
53
53
54
54
55
55
56
57
58
67

22
30
36
40
40
41
42
43
45
45
45
46
47
54

67–238

VerDate Mar 15 2010

05:58 Jul 08, 2011

Jkt 067238

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 6659

Sfmt 6659

E:\HR\OC\HR136.XXX

HR136

30
counts within the Executive Office of the President, after notifying
the Committees on Appropriations at least 15 days in advance.
Section 202. The Committee includes new language rescinding
$11,328,000 in unobligated prior year balances from the
Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center. This rescission was
proposed in the budget request.
Section 203. The Committee includes new language prohibiting
funds to prepare, sign or approve statements abrogating legislation
passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate and signed
by the President.
Section 204. The Committee includes new language requiring the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget to submit quarterly reports to the Committee on the implementation of Executive
Order 13563 relating to improving regulation and regulatory review.
Section 205. The Committee includes new language requiring the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget to report on the
costs of implementing the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act (Public Law 111–203).
TITLE III—THE JUDICIARY

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

The funds recommended by the Committee in title III of the accompanying bill are for the operation and maintenance of United
States Courts and include the salaries of judges, probation and pretrial services officers, public defenders, court clerks, law clerks, and
other supporting personnel, as well as security costs, information
technology, and other expenses of the Federal Judiciary.
The Committee recommends a total of $6,326,318,000 in discretionary funding for the Judiciary in fiscal year 2012, which is
$151,256,000 less than fiscal year 2011 and $529,729,000 less than
the request. The Committee recognizes that the number of cases
filed and the number of persons under supervision is not under the
control of the Judiciary. However, the Committee believes the Judiciary needs to continue its cost containment efforts and identify
ways to reduce staffing, travel, space and other financial requirements through the use of technology and best practices.
In addition to direct appropriations, the Judiciary collects various
fees and has certain multiyear funding authorities. The Judiciary
uses these non-appropriated funds to offset its direct appropriation
requirements. Consistent with prior year practices and section 608
of this Act, the Committee expects the Judiciary to submit a financial plan, within 60 days of enactment of this Act, allocating all
sources of available funds including appropriations, fee collections,
and carryover balances. This financial plan will be the baseline for
purposes of reprogramming notification. The Committee notes that
a bill language section included in prior years requiring a Judiciary
financial plan was dropped as it is redundant to the requirement
established in section 608.

VerDate Mar 15 2010

04:06 Jul 08, 2011

Jkt 067238

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 6659

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR136.XXX

HR136

31
SUPREME COURT

OF THE

UNITED STATES

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2011 .........................................................
Budget request, fiscal year 2012 .......................................................
Recommended in the bill ...................................................................
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011 ..................................................
Budget request, fiscal year 2012 ................................................

$73,921,000
75,551,000
74,819,000
+898,000
¥732,000

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $74,819,000 for
fiscal year 2012 for the salaries and expenses of personnel and the
cost of operating the Supreme Court, excluding the care of the
building and grounds. The recommendation is $898,000 more than
fiscal year 2011 and is $732,000 less than the request. The increased funding provided above the fiscal year 2011 level is for
twelve additional police officers requested by the Court to meet security requirements.
The Committee continues to include bill language making
$2,000,000 available until expended for the purpose of making information technology investments. The Committee requests that
the Court include an annual report with its budget justification
materials, showing information technology carryover balances and
describing expenditures made in the previous fiscal year and
planned expenditures in the budget year.
CARE OF THE BUILDING AND GROUNDS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2011 .........................................................
Budget request, fiscal year 2012 .......................................................
Recommended in the bill ...................................................................
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011 ..................................................
Budget request, fiscal year 2012 ................................................

$8,159,000
8,504,000
8,159,000
–––
¥345,000

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $8,159,000 for
fiscal year 2012, to remain available until expended, for personnel
and other services relating to the structural and mechanical care
of the Supreme Court building and grounds. The Architect of the
Capitol has responsibility for these functions and supervises the
use of this appropriation. The recommendation is equal to fiscal
year 2011 and $345,000 less than the request.
UNITED STATES COURT

OF

APPEALS

FOR THE

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2011 .........................................................
Budget request, fiscal year 2012 .......................................................
Recommended in the bill ...................................................................
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011 ..................................................
Budget request, fiscal year 2012 ................................................

$32,511,000
35,139,000
31,472,000
¥1,039,000
¥3,667,000

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has exclusive national jurisdiction over a large number of diverse subject areas, in-

VerDate Mar 15 2010

04:06 Jul 08, 2011

Jkt 067238

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 6659

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR136.XXX

HR136

32
cluding government contracts, patents, trademarks, Federal personnel, and veterans’ benefits. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $31,472,000 for fiscal year 2012, which is $1,039,000
less than fiscal year 2011 and $3,667,000 less than the request.
UNITED STATES COURT

OF INTERNATIONAL

TRADE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2011 .........................................................
Budget request, fiscal year 2012 .......................................................
Recommended in the bill ...................................................................
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011 ..................................................
Budget request, fiscal year 2012 ................................................

$21,447,000
22,891,000
20,628,000
¥819,000
¥2,263,000

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Court of International Trade has exclusive nationwide jurisdiction of civil actions against the United States and certain civil
actions brought by the United States, arising out of import transactions and administration and enforcement of the Federal customs
and international trade laws. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $20,628,000 for fiscal year 2012, which is $819,000
less than fiscal year 2011 and $2,263,000 less than the request.
COURTS

OF

APPEALS, DISTRICT COURTS,
SERVICES

AND

OTHER JUDICIAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2011 .........................................................
Budget request, fiscal year 2012 .......................................................
Recommended in the bill ...................................................................
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011 ..................................................
Budget request, fiscal year 2012 ................................................

$5,004,221,000
5,236,166,000
4,790,855,000
¥213,366,000
¥445,311,000

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,790,855,000
for the operations of the regional courts of appeals, district courts,
bankruptcy courts, the Court of Federal Claims, and probation and
pretrial services offices. The recommendation is $213,366,000 less
than fiscal year 2011 and $445,311,000 less than the request.
The Committee understands that the Judiciary’s staffing, operations and maintenance, and information technology resources are
allocated to the courts according to formulas that are approved by
the Judicial Conference of the United States and equitably distribute resources based on the workload of each district. The Committee believes this is the optimal method of making such allocations and expects the Judiciary to continue to allocate its resources
using this system. The Committee also expects the Administrative
Office to periodically update the formulas to ensure their accuracy.

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

VACCINE INJURY COMPENSATION TRUST FUND

Appropriation, fiscal year 2011 .........................................................
Budget request, fiscal year 2012 .......................................................
Recommended in the bill ...................................................................
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011 ..................................................
Budget request, fiscal year 2012 ................................................

VerDate Mar 15 2010

04:06 Jul 08, 2011

Jkt 067238

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 6659

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR136.XXX

$4,775,000
5,011,000
4,775,000
– – –
¥236,000

HR136

33
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a reimbursement of $4,775,000 for
fiscal year 2012 from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund
to cover expenses of the United State Court of Federal Claims associated with processing cases under the National Childhood Vaccine
Injury Act of 1986. This amount is the same as fiscal year 2011
and $236,000 less than the request.
DEFENDER SERVICES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2011 .........................................................
Budget request, fiscal year 2012 .......................................................
Recommended in the bill ...................................................................
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011 ..................................................
Budget request, fiscal year 2012 ................................................

$1,025,693,000
1,098,745,000
1,050,000,000
+24,307,000
¥48,745,000

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

This account provides funding for the operation of the Federal
Public Defender and Community Defender organizations and for
compensation and reimbursement of expenses of panel attorneys
appointed pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act for representation
in criminal cases. The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$1,050,000,000 for fiscal year 2012 which is $24,307,000 more than
fiscal year 2011 and $48,745,000 less than the request. The recommendation does not provide an increase in the hourly panel attorney pay rate.
The sixth amendment to the Constitution provides for the right
to counsel for those who can not afford it. This is a very important
Constitutional protection. The Committee understands that the
costs associated with this program are driven by: (1) the hourly
rate paid to panel attorneys, which has grown substantially in the
years prior to fiscal year 2011; (2) the costs of operating Federal
defender organizations; and (3) the number of defendants and case
complexity. The appropriation for this account has grown from
$709,830,000 in fiscal year 2006 to a request of $1,098,745,000 in
fiscal year 2012, more than a 50 percent increase. While the Committee believes that attorneys must be adequately compensated
and defendants must be competently represented, the rapid rate of
increase to this program cannot continue indefinitely. The Judiciary has had some success in recent years implementing cost control
measures in other Judiciary programs. The Judicial Conference
must find ways to substantially reduce the level of resources proposed in future years for the Defender Services program. The Committee expects the fiscal year 2013 budget request to identify significant savings in this program.

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

FEES OF JURORS AND COMMISSIONERS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2011 .........................................................
Budget request, fiscal year 2012 .......................................................
Recommended in the bill ...................................................................
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011 ..................................................
Budget request, fiscal year 2012 ................................................

VerDate Mar 15 2010

04:06 Jul 08, 2011

Jkt 067238

PO 00000

Frm 00033

Fmt 6659

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR136.XXX

$52,305,000
59,727,000
57,305,000
+5,000,000
¥2,422,000

HR136

34
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $57,305,000 for
payments to jurors, which is $5,000,000 more than fiscal year 2011
and $2,422,000 less than the request.
COURT SECURITY
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2011 .........................................................
Budget request, fiscal year 2012 .......................................................
Recommended in the bill ...................................................................
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011 ..................................................
Budget request, fiscal year 2012 ................................................

$466,672,000
513,058,000
500,000,000
+33,328,000
¥13,058,000

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $500,000,000 for
Court Security in fiscal year 2012 to provide for necessary expenses
of security and protective services in courtrooms and adjacent
areas. This is $33,328,000 more than fiscal year 2011 and
$13,058,000 less than the request.
The recommended increase over fiscal year 2011 will provide for
additional court security officers and equipment to address the
highest priority security needs identified by the courts and the U.S.
Marshals Service.
The Committee is aware of significant security deficiencies that
exist in many older courthouses which in the past have only been
corrected by constructing a new facility. Given the current fiscal
climate, the cost of constructing new facilities to address these security concerns is in many cases too expensive. As a more cost effective way to address these security concerns, the Committee has
included $20,000,000 in the General Services Administration’s Federal Buildings Fund specifically for security alterations to courthouses. The Committee directs the Judiciary to work collaboratively with the General Services Administration and the U.S.
Marshals Service to identify and fund cost effective security solutions to ensure the safety of court staff and the public.
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE

OF THE

UNITED STATES COURTS

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2011 .........................................................
Budget request, fiscal year 2012 .......................................................
Recommended in the bill ...................................................................
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011 ..................................................
Budget request, fiscal year 2012 ................................................

$82,909,000
88,455,000
80,007,000
¥2,902,000
¥8,448,000

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AO) provides administrative and management support to the United States
Courts, including the probation and bankruptcy systems. It also
supports the Judicial Conference of the United States in determining Federal Judiciary policies, in developing methods to assist
the courts to conduct business efficiently and economically, and in
enhancing the use of information technology in the courts. The

VerDate Mar 15 2010

04:06 Jul 08, 2011

Jkt 067238

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 6659

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR136.XXX

HR136

35
Committee recommends an appropriation of $80,007,000 for the
AO, which is $2,902,000 less than fiscal year 2011 and $8,448,000
less than the request.
FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER
SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2011 .........................................................
Budget request, fiscal year 2012 .......................................................
Recommended in the bill ...................................................................
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011 ..................................................
Budget request, fiscal year 2012 ................................................

$27,273,000
29,029,000
26,318,000
¥955,000
¥2,711,000

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Federal Judicial Center (FJC) improves the management of
Federal Judicial dockets and court administration through education for judges and staff, and research, evaluation, and planning
assistance for the courts and the Judicial Conference. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $26,318,000 for the FJC for
fiscal year 2012, which is $955,000 less than fiscal year 2011 and
$2,711,000 less than the request.
UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION
SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2011 .........................................................
Budget request, fiscal year 2012 .......................................................
Recommended in the bill ...................................................................
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011 ..................................................
Budget request, fiscal year 2012 ................................................

$16,803,000
17,906,000
16,215,000
¥588,000
¥1,691,000

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The purpose of the Commission is to establish, review, and revise
sentencing guidelines, policies, and practices for the Federal criminal justice system. The Commission is also required to monitor the
operation of the guidelines and to identify and report necessary
changes to the Congress. The Committee recommends $16,215,000
for the Commission for fiscal year 2012, which is $588,000 less
than fiscal year 2011 and $1,691,000 less than the request.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—THE JUDICIARY

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS AND RESCISSION)

Section 301. The Committee continues language to permit funds
for salaries and expenses to be available for employment of experts
and consultant services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.
Section 302. The Committee continues language that permits up
to five percent of any appropriation made available for fiscal year
2012 to be transferred between Judiciary appropriations accounts
provided that no appropriation shall be decreased by more than
five percent or increased by more than ten 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 604 and 608 of the accompanying bill

VerDate Mar 15 2010

04:06 Jul 08, 2011

Jkt 067238

PO 00000

Frm 00035

Fmt 6659

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR136.XXX

HR136

36
and shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except in
compliance with the procedures set forth in those sections.
Section 303. The Committee continues language authorizing not
to exceed $11,000 to be used for official reception and representation expenses incurred by the Judicial Conference of the United
States.
Section 304. The Committee continues language enabling the Judiciary to contract for repairs under $100,000.
Section 305. The Committee continues language to authorize a
court security pilot program.
Section 306. The Committee continues language extending a temporary judgeship in Kansas.
Section 307. The Committee includes language rescinding
$100,000 of prior year unobligated balances from the United States
Sentencing Commission.
Section 308. The Committee includes new language requiring the
President submit to Congress, without change, proposed supplemental appropriations submitted to the President by the legislative
branch and the judicial branch.
TITLE IV—DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
FEDERAL FUNDS
FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR RESIDENT TUITION SUPPORT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2011 .........................................................
Budget request, fiscal year 2012 .......................................................
Recommended in the bill ...................................................................
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2011 ..................................................
Budget request, fiscal year 2012 ................................................

$35,030,000
35,100,000
30,000,000
¥5,030,000
¥5,100,000

The Resident Tuition Support program was created by the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999 to provide District college-bound students the opportunity to expand their higher education choices. The program receives its funding through a Federal
appropriation which is deposited into a dedicated account under
the control of the District of Columbia Chief Financial Officer. This
program awards grants up to $10,000 annually for undergraduate
District students to attend eligible four-year public universities and
colleges nationwide at in-state tuition rates. Grants up to $2,500
per year are available for students to attend private institutions in
the D.C. metropolitan area as well as public two-year community
colleges.

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with REPORTS

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a Federal payment of $30,000,000
for the resident tuition support program, which is $5,030,000 less
than fiscal year 2011 and $5,100,000 less than the request. The
funding recommendation, along with unobligated prior year balances, is sufficient to fully fund the program’s proposed expenditure plan.

VerDate Mar 15 2010

04:06 Jul 08, 2011

Jkt 067238

PO 00000

Frm 00036

Fmt 6659

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\HR136.XXX

HR136

National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al., v. U.S.,
Civil Action No. 16-745 ESH

Tab 40

Calendar No. 171
112TH CONGRESS
"
1st Session

SENATE

!

REPORT
112–79

FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT
APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2012

SEPTEMBER 15, 2011.—Ordered to be printed

Mr. DURBIN, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following

REPORT
[To accompany S. 1573]

The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1573) making appropriations for financial services and general government
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes, reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do
pass.
Amounts of new budget (obligational) authority for
Total of bill as reported to the Senate ....................
Amount of 2011 appropriations ...............................
Amount of 2012 budget estimate ............................
Bill as recommended to Senate compared to—
2011 appropriations ..........................................
2012 budget estimate ........................................

68–271 PDF

fiscal year 2012
$44,640,384,000
44,688,058,000
48,726,741,000
¥47,674,000
¥4,086,357,000

TITLE III
THE JUDICIARY
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Established under Article III of the Constitution, the judicial
branch of Government is a separate but equal branch. The Federal
judiciary consists of the Supreme Court, United States Courts of
Appeals, District Courts, Bankruptcy Courts, Court of International Trade, Court of Federal Claims, and several other entities
and programs. The organization of the judiciary, the district and
circuit boundaries, the places of holding court, and the number of
Federal judges are legislated by the Congress and signed into law
by the President.
The Committee’s recommended funding levels support the Federal judiciary’s role of providing equal justice under the law and include sufficient funds to support this critical mission. The recommended funding level includes the salaries of judges and support staff and the operation and security of our Nation’s courts.
The judicial branch is subject to the same funding constraints
facing the executive and legislative branches. It is imperative that
the Federal judiciary devote its resources primarily to the retention
of staff. Further, it is also important that the judiciary contain controllable costs such as travel, construction, and other expenses.
SUPREME COURT

OF THE

UNITED STATES

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2011 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2012 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$73,921,000
75,551,000
74,819,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The United States Supreme Court consists of nine justices appointed under Article III of the Constitution of the United States,
one of whom is appointed as Chief Justice of the United States.
The Supreme Court acts as the final arbiter in the Federal court
system.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $74,819,000 for
the Justices, their supporting personnel, and the costs of operating
the Supreme Court, excluding the care of the building and grounds.
The recommendation is $898,000 above the fiscal year 2011 funding level and consistent with the budget re-estimate. As requested,
funding is provided for 12 new police officers.
(45)

46
CARE OF THE BUILDING AND GROUNDS

Appropriations, 2011 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2012 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$8,159,000
8,504,000
8,159,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Care of the Building and Grounds, for expenditure by the Architect of the Capitol, provides for the structural and mechanical care
of the United States Supreme Court Building and Grounds, including maintenance and operation of mechanical, electrical, and electronic equipment.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $8,159,000 for
personnel and other services related to the Supreme Court building
and grounds, which is supervised by the Architect of the Capitol.
The recommendation is the same as the fiscal year 2011 funding
level and $345,000 below the budget request.
The Court shall continue to provide to the Committee detailed
single-spaced quarterly reports on the Supreme Court modernization project, including descriptions; timeliness; milestones; and
funding committed, obligated, and expended, as well as any unobligated balances of each major capital project. In addition, the report
should include the identification, descriptions, and status of any
contract claims.
UNITED STATES COURT

OF

APPEALS

FOR THE

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2011 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2012 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$32,511,000
35,139,000
31,913,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was
established on October 1, 1982 under Article III of the Constitution. The court was formed by the merger of the United States
Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and the appellate division of
the United States Court of Claims. The court consists of 12 judges
who are appointed by the President, with the advice and consent
of the Senate. Judges are appointed to the court under Article III
of the Constitution of the United States.
The Federal Circuit has nationwide jurisdiction in a variety of
subjects, including international trade, Government contracts, patents, certain claims for money from the United States Government,
Federal personnel, and veterans’ benefits. Appeals to the court
come from all Federal district courts, the United States Court of
Federal Claims, the United States Court of International Trade,
and the United States Court of Veterans Appeals. The court also
takes appeals of certain administrative agencies’ decisions, including the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Board of Contract Appeals, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, and the
Trademark Trial and Appeals Board. Decisions of the United

47
States International Trade Commission, the Office of Compliance of
the United States Congress, and the Government Accountability
Office Personnel Appeals Board are also reviewable by the court.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $31,913,000.
The recommendation is $598,000 below the fiscal year 2011 funding level, and $3,226,000 below the budget request.
UNITED STATES COURT

OF INTERNATIONAL

TRADE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2011 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2012 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$21,447,000
22,891,000
20,968,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The United States Court of International Trade, located in New
York City, consists of nine Article III judges. The court has exclusive nationwide jurisdiction over civil actions brought against the
United States, its agencies and officers, and certain civil actions
brought by the United States, arising out of import transactions
and the administration and enforcement of the Federal customs
and international trade laws.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $20,968,000.
The recommendation is $479,000 below the fiscal year 2011 funding level and $1,923,000 below the budget request.
COURTS

OF

APPEALS, DISTRICT COURTS,
SERVICES

AND

OTHER JUDICIAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2011 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2012 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$5,004,221,000
5,236,166,000
4,970,646,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Salaries and Expenses is one of four accounts that provide total
funding for the Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services. In addition to funding the salaries of judges and support staff, this account also funds the operating costs of appellate,
district, and bankruptcy courts, the Court of Federal Claims, and
probation and pretrial services offices.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,970,646,000
for salaries and expenses. The recommendation is $33,575,000
below the fiscal year 2011 funding level and $265,520,000 below
the budget request.

48
The Committee is aware that the Judicial Conference has communicated to judges and court staff the need to identify ways to reduce operational and administrative costs, given the current fiscal
climate. The Committee endorses these efforts and urges all courts
to review all options in order to help contain costs. The Committee
applauds the Court of International Trade, which historically has
managed its budget well as evidenced by its minimal funding requests year after year. On the other hand, the budget for Defender
Services, currently funded at more than $1,000,000,000, has grown
significantly in recent years. While the services provided by this
program are essential, this trend is not sustainable, given fiscal realities.
Perimeter Security Pilot Project.—The Judiciary submitted its report evaluating the Judicial Perimeter Security Pilot Program on
October 20, 2010, and a follow-up report on execution of the Judicial Perimeter Security Pilot Program on August 8, 2011. The evaluation report concluded that having unity of command, CSO
guards at all posts, and national standards for security coverage resulted in significant security improvements at the pilot sites. The
follow-up report described how a Judicial Perimeter Security Program could be implemented at additional primary courthouses.
While a meritorious program, given budget constraints, further implementation would be feasible only if cost neutral. The Judiciary
is encouraged to identify such opportunities. Section 306 authorizing the pilot is continued in order to allow the Judiciary to maintain the pilot at the seven existing locations and to allow for expansion of the pilot to new locations, if it can be done in a cost neutral
manner.
Capital Security Program.—Recognizing the impact of the Judiciary’s rental expenses on its ability to maintain support of critical
court requirements, the Committee supports the work of the Judiciary in revising its long-range planning process for facility needs.
Budgetary realities, as well as new space design criteria for courtroom sharing, will result in fewer new courthouses recommended
by the Judicial Conference for funding in the future.
Security deficiencies in existing courthouses still must be addressed and can be accomplished in most instances with considerably less funding than would be required for a new facility. Therefore, funding is included within the General Services Administration’s Federal Buildings Fund to establish a Judiciary Capital Security Program, which will address security deficiencies in existing
buildings where physical, interior alterations are viable. The Judiciary and the GSA shall work collaboratively to assess the building
conditions, viability of long-term use, and structural capacity for
these stand-alone architectural solutions which may include: building additional corridors; adding or reconfiguring elevators; building
visual barriers; moving air-intakes; and enlarging security screening areas.
VACCINE INJURY COMPENSATION TRUST FUND

Appropriations, 2011 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2012 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$4,775,000
5,011,000
4,775,000

49
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Enacted by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986
(Public Law 99–660), the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is
a Federal no-fault program designed to resolve a perceived crisis in
vaccine tort liability claims that threatened the continued availability of childhood vaccines nationwide. The statute’s primary intention is the creation of a more efficient adjudicatory mechanism
that ensures a no-fault compensation result for those allegedly injured or killed by certain covered vaccines. This program protects
the availability of vaccines in the United States by diverting a substantial number of claims from the tort arena.
Not only did this act create a special fund to pay judgments
awarded under the act, but it also created the Office of Special
Masters within the United States Court of Federal Claims to hear
vaccine injury cases. The act stipulates that up to eight special
masters may be appointed for this purpose. The special masters expenditures are reimbursed to the judiciary for vaccine injury cases
from a special fund set up under the Vaccine Act.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,775,000. The
recommendation is the same as the fiscal year 2011 funding level
and $236,000 below the budget request.
DEFENDER SERVICES

Appropriations, 2011 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2012 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$1,025,693,000
1,098,745,000
1,034,182,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Defender Services program ensures the right to counsel
guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, the Criminal Justice Act (18
U.S.C. 3006A(e)) and other congressional mandates for those who
cannot afford to retain counsel and other necessary defense services. The Criminal Justice Act provides that courts appoint counsel
from Federal public and community defender organizations or from
a panel of private attorneys established by the court. The Defender
Services program helps to maintain public confidence in the Nation’s commitment to equal justice under the law and ensures the
successful operation of the constitutionally based adversary system
of justice by which Federal criminal laws and federally guaranteed
rights are enforced.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,034,182,000.
The recommendation is $8,489,000 above the fiscal year 2011 funding level and $64,563,000 below the budget request. This program
is urged to scrutinize its costs and reduce expenses in the future.
FEES OF JURORS AND COMMISSIONERS

Appropriations, 2011 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2012 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$52,305,000
59,727,000
59,000,000

50
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides for the statutory fees and allowances of
grand and petit jurors and for the compensation of jury and land
commissioners. Budgetary requirements depend primarily upon the
volume and the length of jury trials demanded by parties to both
civil and criminal actions and the number of grand juries being
convened by the courts at the request of the United States Attorneys.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $59,000,000.
The recommendation is $6,695,000 above the fiscal year 2011 funding level and $727,000 below the budget request.
COURT SECURITY
(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2011 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2012 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$466,672,000
513,058,000
500,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Court Security appropriation was established in 1983 and
funds the necessary expenses incident to the provision of protective
guard services, and the procurement, installation, and maintenance
of security systems and equipment for United States courthouses
and other facilities housing Federal court operations, including
building access control, inspection of mail and packages, directed
security patrols, perimeter security provided by the Federal Protective Service, and other similar activities as authorized by section
1010 of the Judicial Improvement and Access to Justice Act (Public
Law 100–702).
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $500,000,000.
The recommendation is $33,328,000 above the fiscal year 2011
funding level and $13,058,000 below the budget request.
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE

OF THE

UNITED STATES COURTS

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2011 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2012 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$82,909,000
88,455,000
82,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Administrative Office [AO] of the United States Courts was
created in 1939 by an act of Congress. It serves the Federal judiciary in carrying out its constitutional mission to provide equal justice under the law. Beyond providing numerous services to the Federal courts, the AO provides support and staff counsel to the Judicial Conference of the United States and its committees, and implements Judicial Conference policies as well as applicable Federal
statutes and regulations. The AO is the focal point for communica-

51
tion and coordination within the Federal judiciary and with Congress, the executive branch, and the public on behalf of the judiciary.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $82,000,000.
This recommendation is $909,000 below the fiscal year 2011 funding level and $6,455,000 below the budget request.
FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER
SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2011 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2012 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$27,273,000
29,029,000
27,000,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Judicial Center, located in Washington, DC, improves the management of Federal judicial dockets and court administration through education for judges and staff, and research,
evaluation, and planning assistance for the courts and the Judicial
Conference. The Center’s responsibilities include educating judges
and other judicial branch personnel about legal developments and
efficient litigation management and court administration. Additionally, the Center also analyzes the efficacy of case and court management procedures and ensures the Federal judiciary is aware of
the methods of best practice.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $27,000,000.
The recommendation is $273,000 below the fiscal year 2011 funding level and $2,029,000 below the budget request.
JUDICIAL RETIREMENT FUNDS
PAYMENT TO JUDICIARY TRUST FUNDS

Appropriations, 2011 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2012 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$90,361,000
103,768,000
103,768,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The funds in this account cover the estimated future benefit payments to be made to retired bankruptcy judges and magistrate
judges, claims court judges, and spouses and dependent children of
deceased judicial officers.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $103,768,000 for
payments to the Judicial Officers’ Retirement Fund and the Claims
Court Judges Retirement Fund. The recommendation is
$13,407,000 above the fiscal year 2011 funding level and consistent
with the budget request.

52
UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION
SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2011 .............................................................................
Budget estimate, 2012 ...........................................................................
Committee recommendation .................................................................

$16,803,000
17,906,000
16,500,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The United States Sentencing Commission establishes, reviews,
and revises sentencing guidelines, policies, and practices for the
Federal criminal justice system. The Commission is also required
to monitor the operation of the guidelines and to identify and report necessary changes to the Congress.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $16,500,000.
The recommendation is $303,000 below the fiscal year 2011 funding level and $1,406,000 below the budget request.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—THE JUDICIARY
The Committee recommends the following administrative provisions for the judiciary.
Section 301 allows the judiciary to expend funds for the employment of experts and consultative services.
Section 302 allows the judiciary, subject to the Committee’s reprogramming procedures, to transfer up to 5 percent between appropriations, but limits to 10 percent the amount that may be
transferred into any one appropriation.
Section 303 limits official reception and representation expenses
incurred by the Judicial Conference of the United States to no
more than $11,000.
Section 304 requires the Administrative Office to submit an annual financial plan for the judiciary within 90 days of enactment
of this act.
Section 305 grants the judicial branch the same tenant alteration
authorities as the executive branch.
Section 306 provides continued authority for a court security
pilot program.
Section 307 extends for 1 year the authorization of a temporary
judgeship in Hawaii and a temporary judgeship in Kansas.