Vol. 36, Number 7—July 2004

Judiciary's Budget Moves Forward in Uphill Budget Battle

The latest news from the House of Representatives on the Judiciary's Fiscal Year 2005 budget is encouraging. There might be reason to be more upbeat about the Judiciary's funding prospects, if Congress wasn't already considering solving its budget battles with a full-year continuing resolution, which would freeze Judiciary funding at FY 2004 levels.

As recommended by the House Appropriations Committee, the full House passed, H.R. 4754, the FY 2005 Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary Appropriations bill providing $5.5 billion for the Judiciary, $430 million over FY 2004 and $175 million below the Judiciary's full request of just over $5.7 billion. Current services in the federal courts could be maintained at this funding level, which promises a 5.6 percent increase, although it is not sufficient for any new programs or initiatives. As of mid-July, the Senate Appropriations Committee had not yet acted on the Judiciary's budget.

In a letter to the courts, Administrative Office Director Leonidas Ralph Mecham offered his thanks to judges and staff who contacted members of Congress on behalf of the Judiciary, saying their efforts and those of the Administrative Office had paid off in the initial stages. "But," he added, "the toughest fight lies ahead. This is an important, yet very early, step in a prolonged and often contentious appropriations process." 

Just how contentious this process might become is unclear. In this election year, there are a number of issues in dispute. While none relates to Judiciary operations, they nonetheless could be roadblocks to swift enactment of the funding bill.

Should funding levels be frozen at FY 2004 levels for FY 2005, it is anticipated that the Judiciary would have to fire or furlough the equivalent of 2,200 to 5,000 court personnel and make at least a 50 percent cut in court operations costs. It is projected that money to pay for the defense of indigent criminal defendants would be exhausted in June of 2005 and money for jury fees in July of 2005.

There is very little time remaining for congressional action with a recess running from the end of July up to Labor Day and a target adjournment for this Congress of October 1. In the meantime, the Judiciary is asking to be exempted from any continuing resolution and to be funded at the House level.

Urgent Need to Control Costs

Chief Judge Carolyn King (5^th Cir.), chair of the Judicial Conference Executive Committee, remains optimistic about funding for the courts, but her optimism is tempered by the fact that Congress will continue to face large budget deficits in the future.

"It is critically important to understand," she said, "that even if we are ultimately successful in obtaining FY 2005 appropriations sufficient for us to maintain current services, it will not diminish in the slightest the urgent necessity for controlling our future costs."

The Executive Committee has been charged by the Chief Justice with developing an integrated strategy for controlling costs in FY 2005 and beyond.

"Because funding in FY 2005 and beyond will remain tight due to overall federal budget constraints," King wrote to judges and unit executives, "the Executive Committee is convinced that together we must continue to find ways to hold down costs while meeting our constitutional and statutory mandates." 

Judicial Conference committees with court programs, defender services and court security under their jurisdiction have been asked to recommend how they would absorb the funding reductions should appropriations be frozen at FY 2004 levels.

"During the last two months, all the members of the Executive Committee and the chairs of many Judicial Conference committees have been actively engaged in identifying short-term and long-term cost-containment ideas, including suggestions from judges and court unit executives," said King. Court advisory council members also were consulted. Over 100 cost-containment measures have been identified for further study. According to King, from these recommendations, the Executive Committee will develop and propose to the Judicial Conference at its September 2004 meeting, an integrated strategy for controlling costs in FY 2005 and
beyond.

With Courts, AO Continues Restrictions

Major reductions already have been made in court and Administrative Office staffing levels and many more would occur under a funding freeze. For more on how courts anticipate dealing with lower funding levels see the April issue of The Third Branch, "Judiciary Plans for Worst, Presses For Funding."

Since 1985, the AO's budget has lagged well behind that of the Judiciary as a whole, receiving only a 79 percent increase adjusted for inflation in that 19-year period. In contrast, the Judiciary's funding has risen by 248 percent. The AO's share of the Judiciary's budget has decreased from 2.8 percent to 1.3 percent. With a budget whose proportion of the Judiciary's total budget has shrunk over time, the AO is among the leanest of support organizations. The AO's share of total Judiciary staffing has dropped from 3 percent to 2 percent since 1985. Over the last ten years, in response to burgeoning caseloads, court staffing grew 23 percent while the AO's staffing has remained the same.

Even starting from such a comparatively low base, the AO is still looking for ways to contain costs and reduce staff. A review has begun of spending in court programs and projects staffed and managed by the AO. Every AO directorate is preparing a plan for operating in FY 2005 at reduced staffing of 10 percent below current levels. Currently in the AO, which has operated under hiring restrictions since the mid-1990's, all positions that become vacant are evaluated for abolishment or reassignment to areas of highest priority. Even though the AO has had no staff growth for 10 years, the agency must hold vacant 94 positions because of the current funding shortage.

"I have directed that all AO operations and programs should be scrutinized with an eye toward cutting cost wherever possible, and recommendations made on what spending can be cancelled or postponed," said AO Director Leonidas Ralph Mecham. "The AO has and will continue to be part of a system-wide cost containment effort."

In further AO cost cutting, travel will be allowed only if mandatory and required to support Judicial Conference committees, continue court operations, or for implementation of approved information technology projects. The number of staff traveling to a given event will be kept to a minimum. Training has been deferred and teleconferences and videoconferencing are being used whenever possible. Cyclical replacement of computers and copiers will be deferred. Only orders for contracts and services, equipment and supplies will proceed that are absolutely essential to the continuation of AO and court support functions. Other cost containment initiatives have eliminated or consolidated library materials and transitioned print publications to electronic format.