[Senate Report 106-379]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
106th Congress Report
2d Session SENATE 106-379
_______________________________________________________________________
FEDERAL COURTS BUDGET PROTECTION ACT
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
to accompany
S. 1564
TO PROTECT THE BUDGET OF THE FEDERAL COURTS
August 25, 2000.--Ordered to be printed
Filed under authority of the order of the Senate of July 26, 2000
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee, Chairman
WILLIAM V. ROTH, Jr., Delaware JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
TED STEVENS, Alaska CARL LEVIN, Michigan
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
GEORGE VOINOVICH, Ohio RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi MAX CLELAND, Georgia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
Hannah S. Sistare, Staff Director and Counsel
Dan G. Blair, Senior Counsel
Michael L. Loesch, Counsel,
International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services
Subcommittee
Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Minority Staff Director and Counsel
Deborah Cohen Lehrich, Minority Counsel
Darla D. Cassell, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
I. Purpose.........................................................1
II. Summary.........................................................1
III. Background and Need for Legislation.............................2
IV. Legislative History of S. 1564..................................3
V. Section-by-Section Analysis.....................................4
VI. Regulatory Impact Statement.....................................5
VII. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate.......................5
VIII. Additional Views................................................6
IX. Changes in Existing Law.........................................9
106th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 106-379
======================================================================
FEDERAL COURTS BUDGET PROTECTION ACT
_______
August 25, 2000.--Ordered to be printed
Filed under authority of the order of the Senate of July 26, 2000
_______
Mr. Thompson, from the Committee on Governmental Affairs submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany S. 1564]
The Committee on Governmental Affairs, to which was
referred the bill (S. 1564) to protect the budget of the
Federal courts, having considered the same, reports favorably
thereon with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and
recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
I. Purpose
The purpose of S. 1564 is to allow the judiciary to
communicate directly to Congress its needs for appropriations
without mediation from the executive branch, thereby preserving
its independence as a separate branch of government.
II. Summary of S. 1564
The legislation would make two changes in the process
through which the budget for the judicial branch is submitted
to Congress.
First, it would provide that the judiciary budget request
be submitted directly to Congress. It would also be submitted,
without change, in the unified budget as submitted by the
President. The Act emphasizes that the President may not in his
budget request impose or recommend any alteration, negative
allowance, rescission, or other change in the judiciary's
request, directly or indirectly. However, the President would
not be precluded from commenting on the judiciary's request
outside of the formal budget document.
Second, the legislation requires that the judiciary budget
request submitted to Congress include a request for funding for
courthouse construction, acquisition, and repairs and
alterations. S. 1564 would direct that such funds be
appropriated directly to the judiciary for deposit into GSA's
Federal Buildings Fund. Under current law, requests for
courthouse construction and related funding are contained in
the President's budget request and are subject to review and
modification by the executive branch prior to the budget's
submission to Congress.
The Act would retain existing procedures for GSA to develop
prospectuses which assess facility requirements, specifications
and costs of actual construction or alteration work, and the
housing needs of executive branch agencies located in
courthouses. GSA would provide these prospectuses to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House
which would continue their current role in authorizing this
work. GSA would continue to provide similar information for
future project to the Director of the Administrative Office of
the United States Courts.
This bill would affect solely the manner in which the
judiciary's budget request is submitted to Congress; it does
not otherwise affect Congress' role in the budget process.
III. Background and Need for Legislation
The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 (the Budget Act or
the Act), as amended, calls for the President to submit
annually to Congress the budget for the entire Government,
containing among other things ``estimated expenditures and
proposed appropriations the President decides are necessary to
support the Government,'' 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1105(a)(5). Budget
requests of executive branch agencies are subjected to an
extensive pre-submission screening, as each agency is required
to submit its requests for appropriations to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), which in turn advises the
President on which requests he should ``change'' under 31
U.S.C. Sec. 1108(b)(1).
A different course is provided for requests from the
judicial and legislative branches. These two branches are
excluded from the definition of ``agency'' which encompasses
the category of appropriations requests the President may
change, 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1101(1). Section 201 of the Act
specifically provides that the budget requests for the
legislative and judicial branches shall be transmitted by the
President to Congress ``without change,'' 31 U.S.C. Sec.
1105(b).
This process was intended to protect the judiciary's budget
request from changes made by the executive branch. Yet four
times since 1990, the President's budget submission has
proposed multi-hundred million dollar ``negative allowances.''
In order to keep its budget within the limits mandated by the
spending cap legislation, the President included a ``negative
allowance'' at the end of his budget request, equal to the
amount that the entire budget exceeded the budget caps. The
negative allowance, while not explicitly applied to the
judiciary's budget, is by default attributable to it. Because
OMB already has trimmed executive branch agencies' budget
requests to comply with the spending caps, the negative
allowance has been attributed as the amount by which OMB
believes the judiciary's budget request should be cut.
S. 1564 is intended to stop the use of negative allowances.
It provides that the judiciary's request be submitted directly
to Congress and expressly prohibits the executive branch from
imposing any negative allowance against that request in the
formal budget document.
In addition to the operational resources included in the
judiciary's budget request and appropriations, the judiciary
must conduct its business in adequate courthouse facilities.
Like most other government entities, the judiciary relies on
GSA, an executive branch agency, to construct and repair its
buildings. Pursuant to existing law, the funds for such
projects are requested by GSA as part of the executive branch's
budget submission. Because GSA is an executive agency, its
budget requests have been subject to screening and change by
OMB. For that reason, the need has arisen to protect the
judiciary's ability to request directly from Congress the
amount that it believes appropriate to fund courthouse
construction.
For the last several years, the judiciary has had to
respond to major increases in its workload and to the need for
an overhaul of the nation's aging inventory of federal
courthouses. Therefore, GSA and the judiciary have engaged in
an extensive construction and alteration program. While many
projects have been successfully completed, both the judiciary
and GSA agree that more work remains to be done. However, for
the last four fiscal years OMB has eliminated or substantially
reduced GSA's courthouse construction requests from the budget,
``zeroing out'' the entire request in two of these years as
part of its prioritization of the budget requests from all
executive branch agencies. Although Congress restored this
request in fiscal year 1999, the Administration reduced the
judiciary's courthouse funding request in its fiscal year 2001
budget request from $755 million to $488 million.
Both Congress and the judiciary would be much better served
by having the judiciary's construction request submitted
directly and unchanged from the outset.
IV. Legislative History of S. 1564
On August 5, 1999, Senator Cochran, along with Senators
Collins, Roth, and Stevens, introduced S. 1564. Senators Hatch
and Leahy were added as cosponsors on September 14, 1999. The
bill requires the judiciary's budget request to be submitted
directly to Congress and to include requests for funds for
courthouse construction, acquisition, and repairs and
alterations.
On June 14, 2000, the Committee held a business meeting at
which S. 1564 was considered. Senator Cochran offered an
amendment in the nature of a substitute, which was approved by
voice vote.
With no other amendments being offered, Chairman Thompson
moved adoption of S. 1564, as amended. The bill was ordered to
be favorably reported by voice vote. Present for the vote were
Senators Stevens, Collins, Voinovich, Cochran, Lieberman,
Akaka, Torricelli, Cleland, Edwards and Thompson. (Senator
Voinovich expressed opposition by voice vote.)
V. Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1 states the title of the legislation, the
``Federal Courts Budget Protection Act''.
Section 2 amends Section 605 of title 28, United States
Code, to revise the way the judiciary's budget requests are
submitted to Congress and to expand what is included in those
requests.
Section 2(a) requires the Director of the Administrative
Office of the United States Courts to submit directly to
Congress before January 25 of each year, cost estimates for the
annual operating budget of the judicial branch, as approved by
the Judicial Conference or appropriate courts, as well as for
federal courthouse construction, acquisitions, repairs and
alterations. The Director's budget request for courthouse
projects will be based on prospectuses and cost estimates
prepared by GSA. To ensure that the judiciary can prepare the
courthouse projects budget request in a timely manner, the
Administrator of General Services is directed to prepare and
submit to the Director prospectuses, including cost estimates,
and preliminary planning, design and cost estimates for
courthouse projects. These prospectuses shall also be provided
to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, the
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the
Senate and House Committees on Appropriations. Funds are
authorized to be appropriated to the judicial branch for
deposit into the Federal Buildings Fund for courthouse
projects. These funds may be obligated only if the Committee on
Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives have approved a prospectus, if such is required
by law. (This is a repeat of standard language included each
year in the Treasury, Postal Service and General Government
appropriations bill.) The Director is also required to submit
the same cost estimates under subsection (a) to the President
for inclusion in the budget of the United States. The President
must include these estimates without change in the national
budget submitted pursuant to the first sentence of section
1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, and is prohibited from
using a negative allowance, rescission or any other direct or
indirect form of reduction to such estimates. Nothing in this
legislation precludes the President, however, from making
comments about the judiciary's funding request in a medium
outside of the formal budget submission process. To assist the
President in preparing the unified Federal budget, the Director
is required to transmit preliminary estimates prepared under
subsection (a) to the President before October 16 each year and
final estimates before December 24 each year. The final
estimates transmitted to the President must be identical to
those submitted to Congress under subsection (a). TheDirector
is required to have periodic examinations made of the judicial
survivors annuity fund by an outside actuary and to transmit those
findings and recommendations to the Judicial Conference. (This is an
existing requirement in Section 605.)
Section 2(b) amends section 1105(b) of title 31, United
States Code to make conforming changes regarding inclusion of
the judiciary's budget request in the budget submitted by the
President.
Section 2(c) clarifies that, with the exception of the new
process for providing prospectuses and cost information to the
Director and to Congress under subsection (a), the role of the
Administrator of General Services with regard to courthouse
construction, acquisitions, repairs and alterations, including
housing plans of executive branch elements which should be
included in these buildings, shall remain the same as it is
now.
VI. Regulatory Impact of Legislation
Paragraph 11(b)(1) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of
the Senate requires that each report accompanying a bill
evaluate ``the regulatory impact which would be incurred in
carrying out this bill.''
The enactment of this legislation will not have a
significant regulatory impact. S. 1564 contains no
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would affect the budgets of
state, local or tribal governments.
VII. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, June 20, 2000.
Hon. Fred Thompson,
Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1564, the Federal
Courts Budget Protection Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. the CBO staff contact is Lanette J.
Keith.
Sincerely,
Steven Lieberman
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
S. 1564--Federal Courts Budget Protection Act
CBO estimates that enacting S. 1564 would have no impact on
the federal budget. Because enactment of S. 1564 would not
affect direct spending or receipts, pay-as-you-go procedures
would not apply. The bill contains no intergovernmental or
private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act and would not affect the budgets of state, local,
tribal governments.
S. 1564 would require that the Administration submit the
budget request of the judicial branch to the Congress without
charge. The bill also would require that the funding request
for court construction and maintenance be included in the
budget request of the judicial branch instead of the General
Services Administration. Because enactment of S. 1564 would
change the procedure for submitting the budget and would not
authorize additional amounts, CBO estimates that this
legislation would have no impact on the federal budget.
The CBO staff contact is Lanette J. Keith. This estimate
was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director
for Budget Analysis.
VIII. Additional Views
I write to express my opposition to S. 1564, the Federal
Courts Budget Protection Act, sponsored by my good friend from
Mississippi, Senator Cochran and co-sponsored by four members
of this Committee, as well as the Chairman and Ranking Member
of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I regret having to take this
position, but as Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget
I feel it is my responsibility to make clear that this
legislation is both an unnecessary and unwarranted amendment to
the federal budget process.
Let me begin by explaining how the request for construction
of new federal courthouses is produced. First, the
Administrative Office of the United State Courts (AO) compiles
a five-year plan which prioritizes the Judiciary's request for
new courthouses. Second, based on AO's prioritization, the
General Service Administration (GSA) uses the ranking in
preparing its annual budget request to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) and to Congress for the authorization and
funding of new courthouse construction.
Although the Judiciary has the responsibility to identify
and propose courthouse construction projects, the GSA, as the
primary federal real property agency, must formally request the
courthouse funding as part of its annual budget request to
Congress. Acquiring real property and constructing federal
buildings is GSA's mission. GSA bases its funding request for
new courthouse projects on two plans, which are updated
annually by the AO, the Long-Range Facility Plan (LRP) and a
Five-Year Rolling Plan.
As executive agencies and departments such as GSA formulate
their budget request, they maintain continuous contact with OMB
examiners. Once these agencies complete their budget request,
OMB, in consultation with the President and his aides, has the
oversight duty of reviewing them all for consistency with
presidential policy and to ensure they all fit within a
framework of a fiscally responsible budget which meets the
needs of the American people.
I understand the concerns of the proponents of S. 1564. I
also believe that Congress should have full and complete
information when making funding decisions, especially for
courthouse construction. I would submit that it already does.
The President's budget presents the Judiciary budget in full.
In fact, page 6 of the Appendix to the President's 2001 budget
Request, states the following:
In accordance with the law or established practice,
the presentations for the Legislative Branch, the
Judiciary * * * have been included, without review, in
the amounts submitted by the agencies.
Moreover, nothing prevents the Judiciary from directly
submitting its own budget request to Members and staff for
consideration. As a matter of fact, this is regularly done. For
the Committee's review, I have included in the record a copy of
the AO's budget request which they provided my staff earlier
this year. This given, it remains the President's
constitutional prerogative to request appropriations (and
Congress's to fund all, none or part of such a request) for any
or all of the courthouses requested by the Judiciary.
The proponents of S. 1564 believe that it will reinforce
the ``balance of powers'' within our constitutional form of
government by ensuring that the Judiciary's Budget is not used
as a ``political football.'' I disagree.
In my view, the Judiciary's budget is appropriately
presented in the President's budget and any prioritizing
surrounding the funding of courthouse construction is properly
handled by the GSA in the normal appropriations process. If
``politics'' has played a role, I suggest to my colleagues that
it is the result of the usual ``give and take'' that goes on
between members of Congress in exercising their most revered
constitutional prerogative: the ``power of the purse.''
Building courthouses is a fiscal matter, not a separation of
powers issue.
I believe that S. 1564 will simply leapfrog the proper
budgetary and management role that OMB provides to the
President. If S. 1564 were to become law, OMB would no longer
be able to analyze the details of each request made for
courthouse construction--thus removing a crucial layer of much
needed oversight.
As members of this Committee may recall, past reports
issued by the General Accounting Office (GAO) and news accounts
have highlighted the excesses of the federal courthouse
construction program. Based partly on these accounts of
excessive costs, inadequate management, inefficient oversight
and inconsistent execution across the country, Members of
Congress requested that the GSA help find ways to make the
federal government's real estate program more cost effective.
In 1994, the GSA responded by identifying $1.2 billion
(including $227 million from courthouse construction) in
savings for the federal government in its Time-Out and Review
Report of nearly 200 major new construction, modernization and
lease projects. As a result, the AO complies a five-year plan
which prioritizes the Judiciary's request for new courthouse
and assists in determining project urgency. Since then the AO,
GSA, Congress, as well as the increased oversight role of OMB,
have all played a positive role in effectively managing the
courthouse construction program.
Proponents of S. 1564 have also argued that the President's
use of ``negative allowances'' has been unfairly (and
presumably unconstitutionally'') applied against the
Judiciary's budget request. I believe that this view arises
from a misunderstanding of the various components of the
President's budget. The fact is, ``negative allowances'' are
applied to the ``bottom line''--the President's budget in its
totality. They represent unspecified reductions in spending and
are often referred to, in budget jargon, as a ``plug''--a way
to make the number add up. They are not applied to any specific
program or federal agency within the President's budget--this
includes the Judicial and Legislative branch. So to argue that
the existence of a ``negative allowance'' within the
President's nearly $2 trillion annual budget submission is
somehow a misrepresentation of, or a reduction to, the
Judiciary's $3.96 billion budget belies a serious
misunderstanding of the federal budget process.
I also understand the frustration of those who believe that
recently courthouse construction has not received adequate
levels of funding. And while it is true that no funds were
requested for courthouse construction by the President for the
past three years and Congress appropriated funds in only one of
those years, the passage of S. 1564 is not the answer. I would
like to remind my colleagues that the President's 2001 Budget
does request $488 million for courthouse construction and the
Senate version of the 2001 Budget Resolution assumed $700
million.
I support responsible funding of courthouse construction
and as a member of the Senate's Committee on Appropriations, I
welcome the opportunity to work with the members of the federal
Judiciary to ensure that they have appropriate facilities in
which to perform their crucial role in our federal system. Now
that federal budget deficits have turned into surpluses, I
believe the time is right to revisit the level of courthouse
funding.
The following table (which does not include funds requested
or provided for repairs and alterations and any possible
rescissions of courthouse construction funds) shows the amounts
for new courthouse construction funded through GSA's Federal
Buildings Fund for the past fifteen years. It highlights the
cyclical nature of budgeting for courthouse construction. In
some years funding may be minimal, while in other years a
sizable amount of money may be appropriated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
requested in Total
Fiscal year President's appropriated
budget ($ in by Congress ($
thousands) in thousands)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001.................................... 488,000 N/A
2000.................................... 0 0
1999.................................... 0 462,290
1998.................................... 0 0
1997.................................... 622,744 583,940
1996.................................... 0 335,973
1995.................................... 0 519,932
1994.................................... 566,336 760,517
1993.................................... 132,189 222,082
1992.................................... 13,572 317,235
1991.................................... 231,644 545,816
1990.................................... 24,027 13,727
1989.................................... 72,660 89,418
1988.................................... 850 5,036
1987.................................... 1,057 1,057
1986.................................... 0 182,173
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Appendix, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Years
1986-2001 (as compiled by the Congressional Budget Office).
This bill is not the answer to the ``problem'' of
insufficient funding for courthouse construction--the answer
lies within the appropriations process. It will strip OMB of
its proper oversight role and it will handicap the President as
he develops his yearly budget request. As Chairman of the
Committee on the Budget, I cannot support S. 1564; nonetheless,
as a member of the Committee on Appropriations I have and will
continue to work to support appropriate levels of funding.
IX. Changes In Existing Law
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in brackets, new matter is
printed in italic, and existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
TITLE 28--JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE
Chapter 41--ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 605. BUDGET ESTIMATES.
[The Director, under the supervision of the Judicial
Conference of the United States, shall submit to the Office of
Management and Budget annual estimates of the expenditures and
appropriations necessary for the maintenance and operation of
the courts and the Administrative Office and the operation of
the judicial survivors annuity fund, and such supplemental and
deficiency estimates as may be required from time to time for
the same purposes, according to law. The Director shall cause
periodic examinations of the judicial survivors annuity fund to
be made by an actuary, who may be an actuary employed by
another department of the Government temporarily assigned for
the purpose, and whose findings and recommendations shall be
transmitted by the Director to the Judicial Conference.
[Such estimates shall be approved, before presentation to
the Office of Management and Budget, by the Judicial Conference
of the United States, except that the estimate with respect to
the Court of International Trade shall be approved by such
court and the estimate with respect to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall be approved by such
court.]
(a) The Director, under the supervision of the Judicial
Conference of the United States, shall submit to Congress
before January 25 of each year annual estimates of the
following:
(1)(A) The expenditures and appropriations necessary
for the maintenance and operation of the courts and the
Administrative Office and the operation of the judicial
survivors annuity fund and any supplemental and
deficiency estimates as may be required for such
purposes according to law.
(B) The estimates required by this paragraph shall be
approved, before presentation to Congress, by the
Judicial Conference of the United States, except that
the estimate with respect to the Court of International
Trade shall be approved by that court and the estimate
with respect to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit shall be approved by that court.
(2)(A) The expenditures and appropriations necessary
for real property construction activities, including
construction and acquisitions and repairs and
alterations, related to United States courthouses and
other space occupied by entities of the judicial
branch.
(B) Estimated expenditures and appropriations under
this paragraph shall be based on prospectuses and other
information provided by the Administrator of General
Services.
(C) For the purpose of preparing estimated
expenditures and appropriations under this paragraph,
the Administrator of General Services shall, at such
times as are required by Congress or the judicial
branch to ensure timely development and consideration
of courthouse needs and budget requests, prepare and
submit directly--
(i) prospectuses, including cost estimates,
for future judicial branch construction,
acquisition, and repair and alteration projects
to the Director, the Committee on Environment
and Public Works of the Senate, the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure of the
House of Representatives, and the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and House of
Representatives; and
(ii) preliminary planning, design and cost
estimates of future judicial branch
construction, acquisition, and repair and
alteration projects to the Director.
(D) In accordance with estimates prepared under this
paragraph, funds may be appropriated to the judicial
branch for deposit into the Federal Buildings Fund for
the construction, acquisition, and repair and
alteration of Federal courthouses. Funds deposited into
the Federal Buildings Fund under this subparagraph
shall not be available for expenses in connection with
any construction, acquisition, and repair and
alteration project for which a prospectus, if required
by section 7 of the Public Buildings Act of 1959 (40
U.S.C. 606), has not been approved by the Committee on
Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the
House of Representatives, except that necessary funds
may be expended for each project for required expenses
in connection with the development of a proposed
prospectus.
(b)(1) The estimates submitted to Congress under subsection
(a) shall also be submitted to the President for inclusion in
the budget of the United States. In each budget of the United
States Government submitted by the President under the first
sentence of section 1105(a) of title 31, the President shall
make no change or alterations whatsoever, and shall not impose
or otherwise recommend, directly or indirectly, implementation
of a negative allowance, rescission, or any other form of
reduction or change to such estimates.
(2) For the purpose of preparing a unified Federal budget
by the President, the Director shall transmit to the
President--
(A) preliminary estimated expenditures and proposed
appropriations for the judicial branch before October
16 of each year; and
(B) final estimated expenditures and proposed
appropriations for the judicial branch before December
24 of each year, and such final estimates shall be
identical to the estimates to be submitted to Congress
under subsection (a).
(C) The Director shall cause periodic examinations of
the judicial survivors annuity fund to be made by an
actuary, who may be an actuary employed by another
department of the Government temporarily assigned for
the purpose, and whose findings and recommendations
shall be transmitted by the Director to the Judicial
Conference.
* * * * * * *
TITLE 31--MONEY AND FINANCE
CHAPTER 11--THE BUDGET AND FISCAL, BUDGET, AND PROGRAM INFORMATION
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1105. BUDGET CONTENTS AND SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS.
(b) Estimated expenditures and proposed appropriations for
the legislative branch and the judicial branch to be included
in each budget under subsection (a)(5) of this section shall be
submitted to the President before October 16 of each year and
included in the budget by the President without change.
Estimated expenditures and proposed appropriations for the
judicial branch described under section 605 of title 28 shall
be included in the budget and submitted to the President in
accordance with that section.