|
Newsletter
of the Federal Courts |
|
Vol. 31
Number 2 February 1999 |
|
| |
Judiciary Takes Dual Budget HitsBudget Includes Negative Allowance for Judiciary, Nixes Court Construction FundsThe President has decided to propose a "negative allowance" in his fiscal year 2000 budget submission to Congress, which will be applied to the Judiciary's budget request. This occurs despite a projected budget surplus of over $76 billion, a statutory requirement that the Judiciary's budget be transmitted to Congress "without change," and a meeting initiated by federal judges and Administrative Office Director Leonidas Ralph Mecham to present the Judiciary's concerns to the White House Chief of Staff and the head of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).  Former White House Counsel Abner Mikva, Judge Richard Arnold (8th Cir.), Judge John Heyburn (W.D.Ky.), Judge Norman Stahl (1st Cir.), Judge David Hansen (8th Cir.), and AO Director Leonidas Ralph Mecham met with White House and OMB leadership in late December to discuss the Judiciary's concerns. In addition, for the third consecutive year the Administration has struck funds for federal courthouse construction from the budget. The FY 2000 budget submitted by the Executive Branch will not ask Congress to provide funds for the General Services Administration (GSA) to construct new courthouse facilities. In mid-December 1998, Mecham, Judge David Hansen, chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on the Judicial Branch; Judge Norman Stahl, chair of the Committee on Security and Facilities; Judge John Heyburn, chair of the Budget Committee; Judge Richard Arnold, and former judge and White House Counsel Abner Mikva met with President Clinton's Chief of Staff John Podesta and OMB Director Jack Lew. Ostensibly, the meeting was to discuss the entire Judiciary budget, but three issues were of prime importance: a salary adjustment for federal judges, a reminder that the President was required to submit the Judiciary's FY 2000 budget unchanged, and funding for construction of new court buildings. The Administration was sympathetic to the inequities caused by the absence of cost-of-living adjustments for federal judges over five of the last six years. On the topic of funding for courthouses and the Judiciary's FY 2000 budget, however, there was little empathy. OMB's Lew cited the impact of discretionary budget caps and the need to fund Presidential priorities as the driving factors in OMB's proposals affecting the Judiciary budget and courthouse construction. Quite clearly the needs and priorities of the Judiciary are not shared by the Administration. This was reflected when, on February 1, the budget was submitted with the negative allowance and without courthouse funding. OMB, which does not review the Judiciary budget request, is of the mistaken opinion that our FY 2000 request is excessive in comparison to Executive Branch requests. Negative Allowance Against JudiciaryThe Administration is required by 31 U.S.C. § 1105 (b) to include in the fiscal year budget the judicial branch's request "without change." OMB has circumvented this law by including in the budget request a recommendation that the overall budget be reduced by a certain amount, or a "negative allowance," and then informally recommending to Congress that reductions be made in the Judiciary's budget to cover the negative allowance. OMB has attempted to include negative allowances in four other fiscal year budgets, and was successful only the first time in FY 1990. Each succeeding time, after discussion by former Budget Committee chair, Judge Richard Arnold, with the President, the Judiciary's budget request was submitted without change. The informal understanding between the branches has been based upon the Judiciary's successful efforts to impose cost-saving measures and efficiencies, and to hold down budget requests. (For the story on the Judiciary's on-going efforts to cut costs and maximize resources, see page 6.) "The Judiciary has kept faith with the Administration by asking only for what is needed to maintain services," said Mecham. "Any increase we have requested helps the Judiciary keep pace with expanding federal caseloads and the added workload for probation and pretrial services. So by substantially reducing our budget, the Administration is curtailing the anti-crime and other services we will be able to provide." Ultimately, it is up to Congress and not the Administration, to determine Judiciary funding. Heyburn and Mecham with AO staff will be working over the next month to undo the damage done by OMB. In addition, legislation is being considered to strengthen the prohibition against executive branch interference in the Judiciary's budget. Courthouse Funds NixedIn a letter written recently on behalf of the Judicial Conference to leadership in the House and Senate, Mecham also argued the desperate need for new and expanded courthouses. He made the point that not only has the caseload in the federal courts increased tremendously, the number of judges and staff has expanded to handle the workload. However, the majority of existing court facilities were built 50 years ago and are not only showing their age, they cannot be modified easily to accommodate staff, additional courtrooms, the new electronic technology that contributes to better case management, or even the increased security measures that are now part of public life. Mecham noted GSA support for timely construction of the new and expanded courthouses. "GSA estimates that construction costs increase an average of 3-4 percent for each year of delay," wrote Mecham, "and the costs of scarce urban sites are expected to increase even more dramatically. For each construction project, GSA performed an economic analysis, which determined that building was more cost-effective than leasing additional space. In leased facilities, the courts end up paying a high commercial rent and a subsidy to GSA for new building and are forced into inadequate space, and the federal government has no asset as a result of its expenditure." The lack of funding for courthouses in the FY 2000 budget is perplexing in light of the many steps urged by Congress that the Judiciary and GSA have taken to prioritize planning of courthouse construction, to initiate major economies in construction and design, including a comprehensive review of the U.S. Courts Design Guide, and to increase the efficiency of new courthouses through policies on courtroom sharing by visiting and senior judges. In the coming months, Stahl and Mecham will mount a campaign similar to the one waged successfully last year to obtain necessary courthouse funding. Legislation also is being discussed that will allow the judicial branch to seek funds itself for these critical projects instead of relying on the executive branch.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Next 
|
