- FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016

[Senate Hearing 114-181]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2016

----------

TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 2015

U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:32 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. John Boozman (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Boozman, Lankford, and Coons.

FEDERAL JUDICIARY

STATEMENT OF HON. JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS

opening statement of senator john boozman

Senator Boozman. Good morning. The subcommittee will come
to order.
As we begin this important hearing to review the budget
request of the Federal judiciary, we welcome our witnesses,
Judge Julia Gibbons, Chair of the Budget Committee of the
Judicial Conference of the U.S.; and James Duff, Director of
the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
Thank you so much for being here today. We look forward to
your testimony.
We all recognize the importance of a fair and independent
judiciary. That independence comes with a great responsibility
and a commitment to the preservation of our rights. Your work
helps to ensure we have a society governed by the rule of law
as envisioned by the Framers of our Constitution.
As members of the Appropriations Committee, it is our duty
to ensure the hard-earned tax dollars from millions of
Americans are spent wisely. We appreciate that the judiciary
takes its responsibility to be good stewards of the taxpayers'
money very, very seriously.
Cost containment is not new to judiciary. Recognizing the
likelihood of future tight budgets, projected increases, and
fixed costs, the Judicial Conference unanimously endorsed a
comprehensive cost-containment strategy that called for
examining more than 50 court operations for reducing expenses.
Since then, the judiciary has focused on three areas that
have the greatest potential for significant long-term savings:
rent, personnel expenses, and information technology. During
the past 10 years, the judiciary's cost-containment efforts
have resulted in a cost avoidance of nearly $1.5 billion
relative to projected requirements.
It is unfortunate that the President's budget does not
reflect the same commitment to reducing the cost of government.
In his proposal for fiscal year 2016, the President wants to
create $2.1 trillion new taxes, increase spending by 65
percent, and add $8.5 trillion to the debt over the next 10
years. While hardworking Arkansans have been forced to cut
their spending significantly the past few years, the President
has been unwilling to do the same in Washington.
Under the Budget Control Act, the discretionary spending
caps for fiscal year 2016 limit nondefense spending to $493
billion. This represents an increase of only $1.1 billion over
the 2015 level for all nondefense departments and agencies.
The judiciary is requesting an increase of 3.9 percent for
fiscal year 2016. While we recognize the strides you have made
to ensure that you spend your resources effectively and
efficiently, it is important to note that all requests for
funding must be considered in the broader context of the fiscal
constraints facing the Federal Government.
The American people want a government that works for them,
not against them. They want us to curb Washington's wasteful
spending habits; make the Government more efficient, effective,
and accountable; and pursue policies that create economic
opportunities for everyone. Again, we appreciate the fact that
you all as an agency have worked very hard to do that.
These are the priorities of the American people. They will
be reflected in the critical oversight we conduct as we
consider the fiscal year 2016 budget request for all of the
agencies within our jurisdiction.
Judge Gibbons and Director Duff, I look forward to hearing
from you this morning. But before that, I will first ask
Senator Coons to proceed with his opening statement.

statement of senator christopher a. coons

Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Boozman.
I would like to welcome our witnesses, Judge Gibbons and
Director Duff. I am thankful for your years of service and look
forward to your testimony today.
As we all know, our citizens rely on a Federal court system
that guarantees the rights of all Americans, ensures the right
to a defense, and secures public safety. I would argue that our
Federal court system is the envy of the world and the gold
standard for this important independent branch of our
constitutional structure.
So I welcome today's opportunity to examine the judiciary's
budget request and discuss how we can best work together to
help our Federal courts fulfill their vital and broad
responsibilities.
As Chairman Boozman mentioned, I look forward to hearing
about your cost-containment strategies and reductions, and
about how proactive planning has made it possible for the
Federal judiciary to be prepared for what has been a very
difficult budget environment over the last couple of years.
As you well know, last year, when I served as chairman of
the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Courts, I heard first hand
and in detail the significantly harmful impacts that
sequestration had on Federal courts, on their operations, on
their staffing, and, in particular, I will just draw attention
for one moment to this, on the Public Defender Services.
Sequester reduced staffing in Federal Defender Services by 11
percent. There were widespread furloughs, a loss of many senior
and seasoned staff. And yet, it was troubling, even ironic,
that this happened on the 50th anniversary of Gideon v.
Wainwright, a decision by the Supreme Court that established a
right to counsel.
And as a consequence of the protected right to counsel, the
deep cuts actually failed to achieve meaningful savings,
because Federal defendants were entitled to representation,
which was provided by panel attorneys. So there was both an
enormous loss of the experience in the Federal Public Defenders
Service and no significant reduction in spending, which is yet
another example of penny-wise and pound-foolish.
Sequestration also resulted in significant cuts in
courthouse security, as well as in mental health testing and
treatment services. The 5 percent sequester cut in fiscal year
2013 came on top of several years of flat budgets, resulting in
2,700 fewer workers overall--in clerks of court, probation,
pretrial services, a roughly 12 percent cut in the overall
workforce.
I am encouraged the judiciary now seems to be on a somewhat
recovering financial footing. As a result of last year, courts
and Federal defender offices are able to backfill some of these
many vacancies. But as we enter another appropriations cycle,
in my view, we shouldn't turn back the clock and impose another
round of senseless and devastating cuts through sequestration.
There is a request before us for a slight increase of $264
million out of a total budget of $6.96 billion. This keeps pace
with recent requests that would allow the courts to maintain
their current level of services.
I am looking forward very much to hearing your plans for
how to prepare for this environment, which, frankly, to be
blunt, is not encouraging. In the fiscal year 2016 funding
forecast, the budgetary constraints that remain in place
suggest that we will have a difficult environment.
So I look forward to hearing your testimony about cost-
containment, and I hope we can work together to ensure that we
come up with a responsible budget that continues to invest in
this vital constitutional function.
Thank you.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Senator Coons.
And thank you, Senator Lankford, for being here.
In the interest of time, I will ask our witnesses to
provide us with their testimony, and then subcommittee members
will proceed with their questions.
Judge Gibbons, I invite you to present your remarks on
behalf of the Federal Judiciary Conference.

summary statement of hon. julia smith gibbons

Judge Gibbons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Boozman,
Senator Coons, Senator Lankford, as you know, I am here today
to testify on behalf of the judiciary's fiscal year 2016
funding needs.
By way of background, I have been a Federal judge since
1983, spending 19 years in the District Court and the last 13
on the Court of Appeals. With me today, of course, is Jim Duff,
our new, although he has been with us before, director of the
Administrative Office of the Courts.

fiscal year 2015 judiciary funding

We have not had a hearing before this panel in several
years, and we appreciate very much your holding this hearing
today. At the outset, I thank you for the funding provided to
us in the 2015 omnibus appropriations bill, the 2.8 percent
overall increase allows us to backfill some vacancies in clerks
of court, probation, and pretrial services offices, and Federal
defender organizations, and allows us enough funding to meet
other operational needs.
We know the funding constraints you faced and greatly
appreciate your making us a funding priority.

role of the judicial branch

Every year, I ask that the Appropriations committees take
into account the nature and importance of the work of the
Federal courts. This plea takes on greater urgency as the
Federal budget tightens and as deficit reduction proposals are
considered that make cuts to nondefense discretionary spending
below the current spending caps.
The scope and volume of our work is dictated by the
functions assigned to us by the Constitution and by statute. We
must adjudicate all cases filed in our courts; protect the
community by our supervision of defendants who are awaiting
trial and who are on post-conviction release; provide defense
counsel for indigent defendants; pay juror costs; and ensure
the safety and security of judges, court staff, litigants, and
the public in court facilities.
Sequestration with cuts in 2013 had a devastating impact,
and we fear a return to sharply reduced funding levels and the
cutbacks that would necessitate. We ask that you take into
account the unique role of the Federal courts in our democracy
and make the judiciary a funding priority again for 2016.

cost containment

Turning to our own efforts to contain costs, which we
appreciate both of you recognizing in your statements, we
continue that effort in order to position ourselves for future
fiscal realities. We have had some real cost-containment
success, but we know there is more work to do.
My written testimony discusses in detail our efforts to
reduce the judiciary space footprint. We are pursuing a
multifaceted approach to space reduction, including plans to
reduce our footprint by 3 percent by the end of fiscal year
2018. We are on track to meet that goal.

nashville courthouse and capital security

Director Duff will discuss these topics in more detail, but
I want to add my strong support for two items in the
President's 2016 General Services Administration (GSA) budget
request, $181.5 million for a new Federal courthouse in
Nashville, and $20 million for the Capital Security Program.
Nashville is our top space priority, and we need a new
courthouse to address significant security and operational
deficiencies. Capital security funding has enabled us to
address security deficiencies in courthouses where physical
renovations are feasible. We would hope that these two items
would be funded.

fiscal year 2016 budget request

Turning to our 2016 budget request, we are seeking $7
billion in discretionary appropriations, a 3.9 percent
increase. We believe the request achieves our goal of holding
down cost growth, where possible, while also investing in
several important new initiatives, most of which, in fact, have
the potential to enable us to realize more savings down the
road.
Our program enhancements, which total $56 million, include
$26 million for IT initiatives related to national hosting of
court IT systems and replacing our aging email system.
We request $15 million for our probation program to expand
the use of best practices to reduce recidivism.
We seek $4.6 million to increase the number of court
security officers at Federal courthouses, based on the U.S.
Marshals' security recommendation.
We request a $6 per hour increase to $134 to the rate paid
to private practice attorneys appointed to represent indigent
defendants, and a $10 increase to $50 for the daily rate for
jury service.

closing remarks

We thank you again for having this hearing today. As you
make your decisions on 2016 funding, we ask that you take into
account our unique constitutional role. In return, we commit to
you that we will continue to be good stewards of the taxpayers'
dollars, cutting costs where possible, spending each dollar
wisely, and making smart investments to achieve long-term
savings.
I would ask that my statement be placed in the record,
along with statements of the Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts, the Federal Judicial Center, the Sentencing Commission,
the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the Court of
International Trade. I look forward to answering your
questions.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Julia Smith Gibbons
introduction
Chairman Boozman, Senator Coons, and members of the subcommittee, I
am Judge Julia Gibbons of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Our court
sits in Cincinnati, Ohio, and my resident chambers are in Memphis,
Tennessee. As the Chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on the
Budget, I will testify on the judiciary's appropriations requirements
for fiscal year 2016. I believe our fiscal year 2016 request of $7.0
billion in discretionary appropriations achieves our goal of holding
down cost growth across the judiciary where possible while also
investing in several important new information technology and program
initiatives that will improve judiciary operations. My testimony will
provide details on those initiatives, discuss recently enacted fiscal
year 2015 judiciary appropriations, and provide an update on our cost-
containment program, including a detailed discussion of efforts
underway to reduce the judiciary's space footprint. This is my eleventh
year testifying before Congress on behalf of the Federal judiciary and
my first appearance before this Financial Services and General
Government panel since 2008. Appearing with me today is James C. Duff,
Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. We
are very appreciative that you are holding this hearing today.
statements for the record
In addition to my statement and Director Duff's, I ask that the
entire statements of the Federal Judicial Center, the U.S. Sentencing
Commission, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the
U.S. Court of International Trade be included in the hearing record.
fiscal year 2015 funding for the judiciary
Chairman Boozman and Senator Coons, I begin today by thanking
Congress for the funding the judiciary received in the ``Consolidated
and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2015,'' the omnibus
spending measure that funds most of the Federal Government for fiscal
year 2015. The omnibus bill provided the judiciary with a 2.8 percent
overall increase in discretionary appropriations above fiscal year
2014, essentially equal to the judiciary's re-estimated request and
sufficient to meet our full funding needs. The 2.8 percent increase
builds on the 5.1 percent appropriations increase Congress provided the
judiciary for fiscal year 2014 and will enable the courts to recover
from the harmful effects of the 2013 sequestration cuts. It will allow
us to backfill some vacancies in clerks of court, probation and
pretrial services offices, and Federal defender organizations, and will
provide sufficient funding to meet operational costs, juror expenses,
and court security requirements for fiscal year 2015. We are aware that
this subcommittee had a 1 percent cut in its allocation below fiscal
year 2014 for constructing a final fiscal year 2015 bill, and we are
greatly appreciative that the judiciary was again treated as funding
priority, receiving an overall 2.8 percent increase as I just
mentioned.
role of the judicial branch
Each year in my testimony before Congress on the judiciary's budget
request, I ask that the Appropriations Committees take into account the
nature and importance of the work of the Federal courts, and I do so
again this year. This plea takes on a greater urgency as the Federal
budget tightens and as proposals for further deficit reduction for
fiscal year 2016 and beyond are considered that make cuts to non-
defense discretionary spending below the current spending caps.
The judiciary performs constitutionally-mandated core government
functions that are a pillar of our democratic system of government. The
scope and volume of our work is dictated by the functions assigned to
us by the Constitution and by statute. We must adjudicate all criminal,
bankruptcy, civil, and appellate cases that are filed with the courts;
we must protect the community by supervising defendants awaiting trial
and offenders on post-conviction release; we must provide qualified
defense counsel for defendants who cannot afford representation; we
must pay jurors for costs associated with performing their civic duty;
and we must ensure the safety and security of judges, court staff,
litigants, and the public in Federal court facilities. We look to
Congress to provide us with the resources we need to accomplish this
broad mission.
While Congress has made the judiciary a funding priority in fiscal
years 2014 and 2015, we remain concerned about the longer-term funding
prospects for the judiciary in what will be a constrained Federal
budget environment for the foreseeable future. As you know, the overall
discretionary spending cap provides essentially no growth from fiscal
year 2015 to 2016, increasing only about $2.0 billion (0.2 percent) to
$1.017 trillion. Beyond fiscal year 2016, assuming the continuation of
current law, the spending caps will rise by only about 2.4 percent
annually through fiscal year 2021, which may not be sufficient to keep
pace with inflation and to meet other critical requirements. This may
be a best-case scenario, given some of the additional deficit reduction
proposals being discussed. Sequestration cuts in 2013 had a devastating
impact on Federal court operations, and we fear a return to sharply
reduced funding levels and the cutbacks it would necessitate. As I
mentioned at the outset of my testimony, Congress has made it possible
for the judiciary to recover from sequestration and we ask you to take
into account the nature and importance of our work and to make the
judicial branch a funding priority again in fiscal year 2016, as well
as in future years.
cost containment
For more than 10 years we have been focused on containing costs in
the judiciary's budget and we have achieved significant success. In
fact, since the beginning of our formal cost containment program in
2005, the judiciary has realized a cost avoidance of nearly $1.5
billion relative to our projected requirements, attributable primarily
to cost-containment policies put in place, as well as other factors.
Changes made to date have reduced current and future costs for: rent,
information technology, magistrate judges, compensation of court staff
and law clerks, law books, probation and pretrial services supervision
work, and other areas. And we have achieved this cost containment
without harming court operations. But we recognize there is more work
to be done.
We are now working on a new round of cost-containment initiatives
that may be more controversial within the judiciary, more difficult to
implement quickly, and could result in significant change within the
judiciary. But we believe these new initiatives are essential to
positioning the judiciary for what likely will continue to be a
constrained Federal budget environment going forward. We continue to
expand the use of shared administrative services among the courts of
appeals, district courts, bankruptcy courts, probation and pretrial
services offices, and Federal defender organizations to reduce
duplicative human resources, procurement, financial management, and
information technology activities. Forty-two percent of all courts have
formal sharing arrangements of some kind, and many others have informal
or temporary arrangements. The decision to migrate to a shared
administrative services model is up to each circuit or district, and we
are exploring ways in which we can increase shared administrative
services, including offering incentives. We also are exploring
voluntary consolidation of offices and other longer-term changes that
would further reduce growth in personnel and operational costs.
As we continue our efforts to reduce cost growth in the judiciary's
budget, I emphasize that no amount of cost containment will offset
budget cuts or even flat funding in fiscal year 2016. Our budget
request is reflective of the cost-containment policies we have put in
place and is the amount we require to fulfill our mission.
reducing the judiciary's space footprint
With strong controls in place to limit the growth in our space rent
costs, including revamping our courthouse planning process and
instituting new procedures to identify billing errors, we are now
focusing on reducing the judiciary's overall space footprint and we are
making real progress in this area. At its September 2013 session, the
Judicial Conference approved three new initiatives to facilitate space
reduction: (1) a 3 percent space reduction target by the end of fiscal
year 2018 subject to certain exclusions such as new courthouse
construction, renovation, or alterations projects approved by Congress;
(2) a ``no net new'' policy in which any increase in square footage
within a circuit must be offset by an equivalent reduction in square
footage identified within that circuit in the same fiscal year; and (3)
requiring each of the 12 judicial councils to formulate a space
management plan articulating how the new space reduction policy will be
implemented.
I am pleased to report to the subcommittee significant progress on
our space reduction efforts. The judiciary's 3 percent space reduction
goal aims to reduce our space footprint by 870,305 square feet by the
end of fiscal year 2018, which is 3 percent of the 2013 space baseline
level of 29,010,183 square feet. The space reduction target was
prorated among the 12 regional circuits nationwide to ensure space
reduction is fair and equitable across the country. As of October 2014,
the judiciary has reduced space on a national basis by nearly 1
percent--that is 242,403 square feet of space that has been removed
from the courts' rent bill, resulting in an annual rent cost avoidance
of $5.8 million to the judiciary. We are on track to accomplish the
full 3 percent reduction by the end of fiscal year 2018.
The judiciary appreciates the funding provided by Congress to
support our cost-containment efforts, particularly those related to
space reduction. Up-front costs to support construction, renovation,
and information technology are critical to the success of this effort.
Our fiscal year 2016 request includes $25.0 million for space reduction
efforts. Space reduction projects requiring renovations each undergo a
two-step process: first, an architectural and engineering analysis is
completed on potential projects to determine if space reduction is
feasible and cost effective; and second, if the architectural and
engineering analysis identifies reasonable savings, funding is made
available for the implementation phase to design and construct the new
space. It is important to note that not all projects make it beyond the
architectural and engineering analysis step to implementation. The
judiciary pursues projects that yield the greatest savings with the
quickest return on investment.
A key component of our space reduction effort is our Integrated
Workplace Initiative (IWI), which seeks to create a smaller and more
efficient workplace that reflects changing work practices, such as
mobile work or telework for some court employees. An example of an area
where an IWI project would be especially useful is a probation or
pretrial services office. Some probation officers require less space
now because they use mobile devices while visiting clients and working
in the field. As a result, some probation offices can reduce the amount
of commercial leased space that they occupy, or they could move out of
commercial leased space and into government owned courthouses and
Federal buildings, while occupying less space than previously needed.
This is just one example. We currently have 10 IWI projects in the
design phase in the courts and an eleventh in the implementation phase.
In addition, we have an IWI project underway right here in
Washington, DC, at the Administrative Office of the United States
Courts (AO). This is a national demonstration project that involves co-
locating the nearly 70 staff from four facilities and security office
divisions into one space on the first floor of the Thurgood Marshall
Federal Judiciary Building. The total occupied space will be reduced by
up to 25 percent and the design fully incorporates IWI mobility
concepts. The space will include systems furniture and movable walls to
allow for flexible space configuration. The design process for this
project is now underway. The project will serve as a working example
for judges and court unit executives who travel to Washington, DC to
experience first-hand what an IWI project looks like and to then
consider something similar for their court.
I will close on this topic by assuring the subcommittee that we are
working hard to reduce the judiciary's space inventory. The General
Services Administration's (GSA) cooperation is essential to our ability
to reduce space and to date GSA has been working collaboratively with
us on our space reduction efforts.
nashville courthouse and capital security funding
Director Duff addresses these topics in more detail in his written
testimony, but I want to add my strong support for two items included
in the President's 2016 budget under the General Services
Administration. First, the President's budget includes $181.5 million
for constructing a new courthouse in Nashville, Tennessee, the Judicial
Conference's top space priority. The Nashville courthouse project has
been on the judiciary's Five-Year Courthouse Construction Project Plan
for nearly 20 years and a new courthouse is needed to address severe
security, space, and operational deficiencies in the existing facility.
The second item is the $20 million in the President's budget for
the judiciary Capital Security Program. This program was designed to
address serious security deficiencies in existing courthouse buildings
where physical renovations are viable alternatives to new courthouse
construction. Eight Capital Security Program projects have been funded
with appropriations provided in fiscal years 2012, 2013, and 2015.
Fiscal year 2016 funding would be utilized to address security
deficiencies at Federal courthouses in Raleigh, North Carolina and
Alexandria, Louisiana. The Capital Security Program has been a
valuable, cost-effective solution to achieving greater security at
courthouses with significant security deficiencies.
I respectfully ask that the subcommittee fund these two items in
fiscal year 2016.
judiciary's fiscal year 2016 budget request
The judiciary's fiscal year 2016 budget request of $7.0 billion in
discretionary appropriations reflects an overall 3.9 percent increase
above fiscal year 2015 to support the constitutional and statutory
mission of the Federal courts. As I mentioned at the outset of my
testimony, we believe the request achieves our goal of holding down
cost growth across the judiciary where possible, while also investing
in several important new information technology and program initiatives
that will improve judiciary operations. With the sequestration cuts of
2013 behind us and our financial position now on more solid footing, we
believe it is the right time to make these investments. The judiciary's
requested increase of $264.5 million includes $209.0 million for
adjustments to base for standard pay and non-pay changes, and a total
of $55.5 million for program enhancements. I will now summarize the
fiscal year 2016 requests for our four major accounts and discuss base
adjustments needed to maintain current services. In the next section of
my testimony I discuss in detail our program enhancements. A more
detailed summary of our fiscal year 2016 request is provided in
Appendix A.
The judiciary's largest account, courts' Salaries and Expenses,
funds the bulk of Federal court operations nationwide, including the
regional courts of appeals, district courts, bankruptcy courts, and
probation and pretrial services offices. For this account, we are
requesting a 3.9 percent increase in fiscal year 2016 to $5.0 billion
in discretionary appropriations. I note that we are not requesting
funding to increase the number of staff in clerks of court or probation
and pretrial services offices, but those offices will have the ability
to continue backfilling some vacancies in fiscal year 2016. The request
includes $136.2 million for standard pay and non-pay inflationary
adjustments for court staff. In addition, we are requesting an increase
of $11.0 million for additional chambers staff associated with
projected changes in filled judgeships. We also seek $8.9 million in
net adjustments in our space program.
The Defender Services program, which provides court-appointed
criminal defense representation under the Criminal Justice Act to
financially eligible defendants, requires a 4.0 percent increase to
$1.06 billion in fiscal year 2016 to handle an estimated 200,000
representations. The fiscal year 2016 request includes $39.3 million
for inflationary pay and benefits adjustments for Federal defender
organizations, changes in projected Federal defender and panel attorney
caseload, and payments to panel attorneys, including a 1 percent cost-
of-living adjustment to panel attorney hourly rates.
Our Court Security account funds protective guard services and
security systems and equipment at Federal courthouses and requires a
5.5 percent increase to $542.4 million for fiscal year 2016.
Adjustments to base total $22.1 million and include $11.7 million for a
required 3 percent wage rate increase for contract court security
officers (CSOs), $4.9 million for additional security systems and
equipment costs, $2.4 million in higher Federal Protective Service
charges, and $3.1 million in other standard pay and non-pay
adjustments.
The Fees of Jurors and Commissioners account funds statutory fees
and allowances for grand and petit jurors and land commissioners
appointed by a court to determine just compensation in Federal eminent
domain cases. This includes the daily compensation paid to jurors as
well as related costs for meals and incidental expenses. This account
requires $52.4 million in fiscal year 2016, a 0.4 percent increase
above fiscal year 2015, a net increase of $220,000 comprised of
downward adjustments to base totaling $3.8 million primarily due to
lower petit juror projections, and a $4.0 million program enhancement
to increase daily juror pay, which I discuss in the next section of my
testimony.
program enhancements to improve judiciary operations
Implementing Centralized IT Hosting Services for the Courts
The judiciary's fiscal year 2016 request for the Salaries and
Expenses account includes $19.0 million for the first year costs of a
multi-year national IT hosting initiative. Over the past decade, the
judiciary has pursued an incremental path toward consolidating both its
national systems and court hosting environments. Previously, courts
were responsible for locally hosting mission-essential systems and
providing the necessary infrastructure for those systems. Most courts
now access their national case management, jury management, email,
telephone service, and other systems over the judiciary's data network
from one of two national data centers, one on each coast.
The remaining systems in the local courts' server rooms are
primarily focused on managing courts' desktop computers and providing
file servers for court staff. Yet even these systems are capable of
being hosted centrally. There are four primary benefits to doing so:
(1) economy-of-scale savings of as much as 40 percent in lower hardware
and software costs as local courts would no longer have to maintain
separate hosting infrastructure; (2) improved continuity of operations
because a regional disaster or outage would not impact data/
applications that are centrally hosted (the national data centers on
each coast provide failure backup to each other); (3) standardized
security for court systems versus the various security models that
exist today; and (4) reduced space needs as rooms previously dedicated
to local computer servers could be given up or repurposed for other
uses. As an example of the benefits of providing centralized IT
services, several years ago the judiciary implemented a national phone
system to replace individual court phone systems across the country.
Since implementation of the new phone system we have seen lower
aggregate telecommunications costs, reduced equipment costs, better
security, and improved reliability.
Currently, 17 court units participate in a pilot program for
national hosting of their local IT systems. The pilot has confirmed
that while the reasons an individual court might decide to adopt
enterprise hosting and cloud computing services for its systems may
vary, the basic benefits across the judiciary are the same: reduce the
total cost-of-ownership for hosting systems; achieve true continuity-
of-operations; and improve IT security. The success of the pilot drove,
in part, the judiciary's decision to seek funding in fiscal year 2016
to make centralized hosting available to all courts nationwide. The
initial implementation will employ a judiciary private ``cloud''
technology that will address our specific and unique security
requirements. Funding requested in fiscal year 2016 would enable the
judiciary to move beyond the pilot with implementation in a number of
additional courts. Locally, courts will be able to accrue savings by
not having to spend funds for hardware and related systems
administration and will benefit from enhanced reliability, redundancy,
and security. In addition, providing a national solution reduces the
need for courts to maintain large computer rooms, thus reducing space
and utilities requirements.
replacing outdated and inefficient email and messaging system
We request $7.0 million in the courts' Salaries and Expenses
account to begin replacement of the judiciary's 14-year-old email and
messaging system that is inadequate to meet the judiciary's current
workload demands. While email and calendaring were the primary needs in
2000, today's email platform includes advanced features and
functionality, such as instant messaging, collaboration, document
sharing, integration with mobile device platforms, and more. This
initial investment will fund the development of a unified judiciary-
wide email and messaging system that incorporates advanced features and
functionality required for mobile computing, document sharing, and
improved security. The judiciary is examining several key issues, such
as whether to migrate legacy email data and alternatives for doing so,
that will determine the ultimate cost. It is anticipated such decisions
will be made this summer so that the project can move forward, subject
to available funding in fiscal year 2016.
reducing offender recidivism
Our probation and pretrial services program strives to employ the
most proven strategies for supervising offenders awaiting trial or
released from prison and living in the community. Our fiscal year 2016
request includes $15.0 million in the courts' Salaries and Expenses
account to expand evidence-based offender supervision practices to
further reduce recidivism rates.
To begin, the Federal system's recidivism rate has been half that
of many States. The 3-year felony re-arrest rate for persons under
Federal supervision is 24 percent, and the revocation rate hovers at 30
percent. In contrast, a Bureau of Justice Statistics study looking at
15 State parole systems found a recidivism rate of 67.5 percent.
Similarly, while supervision violators constituted 33 percent of all
new prison admissions in the States in 2011, violators constituted only
8 percent of the new admissions in Federal prisons during the same
period.
Past supervision approaches have focused on frequency of probation
officer/offender contacts and compliance with conditions of supervision
imposed by the judge. While compliance with conditions still remains a
major component of supervision, working with the offender to change his
behavior will provide the best long-term value to the offender and the
community. ``Evidence-based practices'' (EBP) are the supervision
practices proven to produce specific, intended results. EBP is an
outcome-based approach that focuses on specific supervision and
treatment strategies versus the more traditional contact-driven
supervision approach. One of the judiciary's EBP programs, called Staff
Training Aimed at Re-Arrest Reduction (STARR), involves exercises and
instructions designed to alter the dysfunctional thinking patterns
exhibited by many offenders and improves the quality and nature of the
relationship between the offender and the officer. STARR builds on
officers' existing communication skills, use of authority, and ability
to impart cognitive restructuring strategies to offenders. Since STARR
was implemented in 2012, 1,139 officers have been trained in 57 of the
94 judicial districts nationwide. The $15 million requested for fiscal
year 2016 will expand access to programs like STARR that target dynamic
risks posed by offenders.
We believe that the modest cost for the judiciary's evidence-based
approach to offender reentry into society will reduce the high costs
associated with recidivism. It costs the Bureau of Prisons about $80
per day to incarcerate an offender in a Federal prison. It costs the
judiciary on average less than $10 per day for a probation officer to
supervise an offender in the community. If that offender succeeds, the
costs of further incarceration are avoided and the offender can become
a productive member of society--gain employment, pay taxes, make
restitution, pay fines, etc. This may not be possible in every case,
but we believe there are ways to improve the chances that many more
offenders will remain law-abiding, and through our STARR program we are
proactively seeking to identify and implement supervision practices
that will assist offenders.
adding magistrate judges to meet workload demands
Our request also includes a program increase of $1.9 million in the
courts' Salaries and Expenses account for three additional magistrate
judges and associated staff to address workload demands in three
judicial districts. The Judicial Conference authorizes new magistrate
judge positions based upon a demonstration of need by a requesting
court. The Judicial Conference has approved three new magistrate judge
positions in the following locations: San Francisco or San Jose,
California (California-Northern); Tacoma, Washington (Washington-
Western); and Tampa, Florida (Florida-Middle).
providing adequate compensation to court-appointed counsel
We request your support for a program enhancement in our budget
that will ensure effective representation for criminal defendants who
cannot afford to retain their own counsel. We are requesting $1.8
million in the Defender Services program to increase the non-capital
(non-death penalty) panel attorney rate by $6 per hour above the cost-
of-living adjustment (COLA) level, effective January 1, 2016. If the
judiciary's budget request is fully funded, the new effective non-
capital hourly rate would be $134. The annualized cost of the $6
increase is $14.4 million. A panel attorney is a private attorney who
serves on a panel of attorneys maintained by the district or appellate
court and is assigned by the court to represent financially-eligible
defendants in Federal court in accordance with the Criminal Justice Act
(CJA). There are more than 10,000 panel attorneys accepting CJA
appointments in Federal court and most are solo or small law firm
practitioners.
Panel attorneys currently are paid $127 per hour for non-capital
work and $181 per hour for capital (death penalty) work. The CJA
authorized the Judicial Conference to implement annual cost-of-living
adjustments (COLAs) to panel attorney rates, subject to congressional
funding. The COLA requested in our fiscal year 2016 budget would
increase the current rate by $1 to $128 per hour. If the statutory
COLAs provided to Federal employees (the base employment cost index
component only) had been provided to panel attorneys on a recurring,
annual basis since 1986, the authorized non-capital hourly rate for
fiscal year 2016 would be $144. As a result, we are also seeking a $6
``catch up'' increase to $134 in fiscal year 2016 to close the gap
between the current rate and the authorized hourly rate of $144.
Panel attorneys are small business owners who pay their own salary,
as well as rent, staff salaries, health insurance, and other overhead
expenses from the CJA hourly rate. The rate is intended to cover both
overhead and a fair hourly fee. According to a 2009 nationwide survey
conducted by the judiciary, panel attorneys earned on average $246 per
hour for their non-CJA cases and incurred overhead expenses of $70 per
hour. The current CJA non-capital rate is not competitive with even
these out-of-date figures. For comparison, the Department of Justice
pays $200 per hour to retain private counsel to represent current or
former Federal employees in civil, congressional, or criminal
proceedings. The judiciary is in the process of completing another
nationwide survey of panel attorneys and judges to assess the effect of
the current hourly rate on CJA representations and will share that
information with the subcommittee once the survey data has been
compiled.
Although the judiciary's goal is to eventually attain the full non-
capital rate authorized by statute, we are cognizant of pressures on
the Federal budget and seek only a partial catch-up increase in fiscal
year 2016. We must, however, remain mindful that ensuring the Sixth
Amendment right to effective counsel depends on the quality and
competence of these CJA panel attorneys, and a fair hourly rate is
essential to meeting this constitutional mandate.
improving security at federal courthouses
The judiciary's fiscal year 2016 request for Court Security
includes $4.6 million to improve security at Federal courthouses
nationwide. One of the U.S. Marshals Service's (USMS) primary missions
is to provide security for the Federal courts. Congress appropriates
funding to the judiciary and we transfer about 85 percent of that
funding to the USMS for it to manage the Judicial Facility Security
Program, which includes contracting for 4,200 court security officer
(CSO) positions to protect Federal courthouses, and procuring court
security systems and equipment, such as magnetometers, to deploy at
Federal court facilities.
The USMS currently allocates CSOs to judicial districts based on a
staffing formula that was developed in 1994. The USMS commissioned a
review in September 2011 to assess CSO staffing levels to determine if
they were sufficient to meet current security requirements. Based on
the results of the review, the USMS recommends that 346 additional CSOs
be posted at Federal courthouses during business hours. The updated
standard strengthens security at court facilities by adding CSOs in
security control rooms and at garage/loading docks at large court
facilities. The updated standard also includes a crucial exterior
``forward watch'' position outside courthouse entrances to identify and
address threats earlier, before they gain entry to the courthouse.
Hiring 346 additional CSOs in a single year would cost an estimated
$33.8 million. Mindful of Federal budget constraints, the judiciary and
the USMS propose phasing in the new staffing standard over 5 years,
with 69 additional CSO positions being hired in fiscal year 2016 at a
cost of $4.6 million, and a similar number each succeeding year,
through full implementation in fiscal year 2020.
Additional program enhancements for Court Security include $780,000
to increase the class size for in-depth CSO training at the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center in Glynco, Georgia from 24 to 30 students,
and extending the training from 3 to 5 days, and $1.0 million to
reimburse the USMS for security-related IT support services it provides
but has not previously charged to the judiciary.
increasing the daily pay for federal jury service
The judiciary's fiscal year 2016 request includes $4.0 million in
the Fees of Jurors and Commissioners account to increase petit and
grand juror daily attendance pay by $10, from $40 to $50. Although
inflation and the cost-of-living have increased, juror pay has not
changed since December 1990. If basic inflationary increases were
applied each year since 1990, the current rate would be $72 per day. In
order to compensate jurors more fairly for performing their civic duty,
we are requesting a modest $10 increase to $50 per day. We would
appreciate the subcommittee's support of this proposal.
conclusion
Chairman Boozman and Senator Coons, I hope that my testimony today
provides you with some insight into the fiscal year 2016 funding needs
of the Federal courts, particularly the information technology and
other program initiatives that I just described. Again, I thank the
subcommittee for holding this hearing today and I look forward to
working closely with you going forward. As you make decisions on fiscal
year 2016 funding for the agencies under the subcommittee's
jurisdiction, we ask that you take into account the judiciary's unique
constitutional role in our system of government. In return, we commit
to you that we will continue to be good fiscal stewards, cutting costs
where possible, spending each dollar wisely, and making smart
investments to achieve long-term savings.
Thank you for your support of the Federal judiciary. I would be
happy to answer any questions the subcommittee may have.

APPENDIX A

Summary of the Judiciary's Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request

The judiciary's fiscal year 2016 budget request of $7.0 billion in
discretionary appropriations reflects a 3.9 percent increase above
fiscal year 2015 to support the constitutional and statutory mission of
the Federal courts.
The judiciary's fiscal year 2016 request will maintain current
services across the judiciary, continue the recovery and restoration of
activities that were disrupted because of sequestration, and enable
investment in important new or upgraded program initiatives needed to
support judicial operations.
The judiciary's budget request does not include funding for
additional staff in clerks of court or probation and pretrial services
offices, but those offices will have the ability to continue
backfilling some vacancies in fiscal year 2016. The request fully funds
the judiciary's Defender Services Program which provides court-
appointed counsel to indigent defendants, and includes a $6 rate
increase above inflation to the non-capital panel attorney hourly rate,
from $128 to $134. The requested level also provides for a sufficient
level of security at Federal court facilities nationwide. Lastly, the
judiciary's request will ensure that funds are available for criminal
and civil jury trials, and will allow for an increase in the daily
juror attendance fee by $10, from $40 to $50, the first such increase
since 1990.
details of the fiscal year 2016 budget request
--The judiciary's fiscal year 2016 appropriations request totals $7.5
billion. The request includes $7.0 billion in discretionary
appropriations, an increase of $264.5 million (3.9 percent)
over the fiscal year 2015 enacted level. The request also
includes $571.1 million in mandatory appropriations, an
increase of $20.7 million above fiscal year 2015.
Discretionary Appropriations
--A total of $209.0 million (79 percent) of the $264.5 million
increase requested will provide for pay adjustments, inflation,
and other adjustments to base necessary to maintain current
services. Of this amount:
--An increase of $132.0 million provides for inflationary pay and
benefit rate increases for magistrate and claims judges and
support personnel, including annualization of fiscal year
2015 pay adjustments, expected January 2016 pay adjustments
(e.g. 1.0 percent Employment Cost Index (ECI) adjustment
for Federal workers), changes in benefits costs, a cost-of-
living adjustment for panel attorneys, and a wage rate
adjustment for court security officers.
--An increase of $50.2 million is necessary to replace non-
appropriated sources of funds used to support base
requirements in fiscal year 2015 with direct
appropriations, due to lower fee collections and
carryforward balances projected for fiscal year 2016 versus
fiscal year 2015.
--An increase of $15.7 million provides for increases in contract
rates and other standard inflationary increases.
--An increase of $13.8 million is necessary to maintain on-going
information technology requirements.
--An increase of $11.0 million is associated with additional
chambers staff for newly confirmed judges and judges taking
senior status.
--An increase of $9.7 million provides for space-related
adjustments.
--An increase of $7.3 million funds security-related adjustments.
--A net decrease of $30.7 million is associated with fiscal year
2015 non-recurring requirements, projected changes in
Defender Services caseload, and other minor adjustments.

--A total of $55.5 million (21.0 percent) of the $264.5 million
increase requested will provide for program enhancements. Of
this amount,
--An increase of $26.0 million provides initial funding for a
national enterprise hosting and cloud computing initiative
and to upgrade the judiciary's email and messaging system.
--An increase of $15.0 million expands evidence-based supervision
practices in the probation and pretrial services program to
further reduce recidivism rates.
--An increase of $6.3 million funds security-related enhancements,
including the initial implementation of a new court
security officer staffing standard recommended by the U.S.
Marshals Service.
--An increase of $4.0 million raises the daily juror attendance fee
by $10--from $40 to $50--for grand and petit jurors, the
first such increase since 1990.
--An increase of $1.9 million funds three additional magistrate
judges and staff.
--An increase of $1.8 million provides for a $6 per hour panel
attorney rate increase above inflation, from $128 to $134,
for non-capital cases.
--An increase of $0.5 million funds higher Supreme Court facility
maintenance costs.
Mandatory Appropriations
--A $20.7 million increase is requested for judiciary mandatory
appropriations, as follows:
--An increase of $4.1 million provides for pay adjustments for
Article III and bankruptcy judges' salaries, including
annualization of the fiscal year 2015 pay adjustment, the
proposed January 2016 pay adjustment (e.g. 1.0 percent ECI
adjustment for Federal workers), and changes in benefits
costs.
--An increase of $4.8 million funds salary costs associated with 45
projected judge confirmations and 30 judges taking senior
status in fiscal year 2016, and changes in the number of
filled bankruptcy judgeships.
--An increase of $11.8 million provides for the judiciary
retirement trust funds accounts based on requirements
calculated by an independent actuary.

JUDICIARY APPROPRIATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$ Change % Change
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
Discretionary Appropriations Account 2015 2016 2016 vs. 2016 vs.
Enacted Request Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
2015 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Supreme Court
Salaries & Expenses.................................... $74,967 $75,717 $750 1.0
Care of Building and Grounds........................... 11,640 9,953 (1,687) -14.5
----------------------------------------------------
Total................................................ 86,607 85,670 (937) -1.1

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.............. 30,212 30,841 629 2.1
U.S. Court of International Trade.......................... 17,807 18,145 338 1.9
Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial
Services
Salaries & Expenses--Direct............................ 4,846,818 5,036,338 189,520
Vaccine Injury Trust Fund.............................. 5,423 6,045 622
----------------------------------------------------
Total................................................ 4,852,241 5,042,383 190,142 3.9

Defender Services...................................... 1,016,499 1,057,616 41,117 4.0
Fees of Jurors & Commissioners......................... 52,191 52,411 220 0.4
Court Security......................................... 513,975 542,390 28,415 5.5
----------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................. 6,434,906 6,694,800 259,894 4.0

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts................... 84,399 87,590 3,191 3.8
Federal Judicial Center.................................... 26,959 27,679 720 2.7
U.S. Sentencing Commission................................. 16,894 17,540 646 3.8
Direct................................................. 6,692,361 6,956,220 263,859
Vaccine Injury Trust Fund.............................. 5,423 6,045 622
----------------------------------------------------
Total Discretionary Appropriations................... 6,697,784 6,962,265 264,481 3.9

Mandatory Appropriations:
Salaries of Judges \1\................................. 406,762 415,699 8,937
Judiciary Retirement Trust Funds....................... 143,600 155,400 11,800
----------------------------------------------------
Total Mandatory Appropriations....................... 550,362 571,099 20,737
----------------------------------------------------
Total Judiciary Appropriations................... 7,248,146 7,533,364 285,218
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Mandatory salaries include the salaries of justices of the Supreme Court, judges of the Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit and Court of International Trade, and Article III and bankruptcy judges funded in the
Courts' Salaries and Expenses account. (Magistrate judges and Court of Federal Claims judges are funded by
discretionary appropriations.)

______

Prepared Statement of Hon. Jeremy D. Fogel, Director, Federal Judicial
Center
Chairman Boozman, Senator Coons, and members of the subcommittee:
My name is Jeremy Fogel. I have been a United States District Judge
in the Northern District of California since 1998 and the Director of
the Federal Judicial Center since October 2011. I appreciate the
opportunity to provide you with this statement in support of our 2016
appropriations request. Because our request is modest, this statement
is brief. The Center's Board, which the Chief Justice chairs and on
which the Director of the Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts
serves, approved this request in October 2014.
Our request for 2016 is $27,679,000--an increase of $720,000 (or
2.7 percent) above our fiscal year 2015 appropriations level
($26,959,000). The $720,000 increase is entirely for standard
adjustments to our 2015 base. We are not requesting any funds for
program growth or enhancements.
I would like to provide you with a brief description of the Center
and its activities. I hope to convey to you the important contribution
that the Center makes to the effective and efficient functioning of the
Federal courts.
the center's contribution to the courts
Speaking not only as the Center's director but also as a judge, I
can attest to the importance of the Center to the courts and the people
who work in them. The Center's statutory mission is to further the
development and adoption of improved judicial administration in the
Federal courts. We carry out our mission through educational programs
for judges to help them dispose of complex litigation effectively and
fairly, and for court managers and staff to help them operate
efficiently and to maintain services to the public, including
supervision of Federal criminal defendants and offenders. Our
independent, impartial, empirical research on Federal litigation and
judicial administration contributes directly to changes in procedures
and policies that make litigation and court operations more user-
friendly and efficient.
education and training
Center education programs are vital to judges and court staff.
Orientation programs enable new judges to assume their responsibilities
quickly. Continuing education programs educate judges on topics ranging
from case-management techniques to new statutes and case law and
emerging trends and practices.
Court staff, who play a critical role in supporting judges and
ensuring the efficient operation of the courts, rely on the Center for
educational programs and materials that help them do their jobs well.
Our multi-year leadership programs help court employees do their
current jobs even better and prepare them for positions of greater
responsibility.
The need for education and training remains great. Educating judges
about new legal developments, ethical requirements and effective case
management practices always has been and will continue to be necessary.
Judges and court managers also seek additional education in effective
court management to help address the challenging fiscal climate, use
technology effectively and maintain a productive workforce.
The Center delivers education through in-person programs and a
variety of media to provide education and information to judges and
staff efficiently. The delivery tools we use include hard-copy
publications, and an array of technologies, including our internal and
external Web sites, Web applications, teleconferencing, Web-
conferencing, and streaming video. All these delivery means help us
meet the diverse needs of a diverse population of judges, managers, and
staff in a cost-effective way.
center research
The courts, and particularly the Judicial Conference of the United
States, as well as Congress and the public, are regular consumers of
the Center's research projects. They rely on the Center for thorough,
unbiased, well-documented research. Most of the approximately 50 major
research projects under way in 2015 were requested by the Judicial
Conference and its committees. The Center's research not only helps
judges decide cases efficiently and fairly but also helps the judiciary
and Congress make better-informed decisions about policies and
procedures affecting the courts.
Thank you for your careful consideration of our request. I hope
that the brevity of this statement does not minimize in any way the
vital contribution the Center makes to support the work of the Federal
courts. I respectfully urge you to provide the Center with the modest
2.7 percent increase--simply a current services funding level--it needs
in 2016. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have.
______

Prepared Statement of Hon. Patti B. Saris, Chair, United States
Sentencing Commission
Chairman Boozman, Senator Coons, and members of the subcommittee,
the United States Sentencing Commission (Commission) thanks you for the
opportunity to submit this statement in support of its appropriations
request for fiscal year 2016. The Commission's statutory mission to
ensure sound and just Federal sentencing policy while prioritizing
limited resources to best ensure public safety, as set forth in the
Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, continues to be of tremendous
importance.
resources requested
The Commission is requesting $17,540,000 for fiscal year 2016,
representing a 3.8 percent increase over the fiscal year 2015
appropriation of $16,894,000. The Commission fully appreciates the
serious budget constraints facing the Nation and the need for
Government agencies to allocate their resources responsibly and has
limited its requests accordingly.
justification for commission's appropriations request
The statutory duties of the United States Sentencing Commission
include: (1) promulgating sentencing guidelines to be determined,
calculated, and considered in all Federal criminal cases; (2)
collecting sentencing data systematically to detect new criminal
trends, to determine if Federal crime policies are achieving their
goals, and to serve as a clearinghouse for Federal sentencing
statistics; (3) conducting research on sentencing issues and serving as
an information center for the collection, preparation, and
dissemination of information on Federal sentencing practices; and (4)
providing specialized training to judges, probation officers, staff
attorneys, law clerks, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and other
members of the Federal criminal justice community on Federal sentencing
issues, including application of the guidelines.
The Commission sits at the intersection of all three branches of
Government and synthesizes the interests of the three branches to
effectuate sound Federal sentencing policy. Consistent with statutory
guidance and Supreme Court case law, the Commission continues its core
mission to promulgate new guidelines and guideline amendments in
response to legislation, sentencing data, and information and feedback
from sentencing courts, Congress, the executive branch, Federal public
defenders, and others in the Federal criminal justice system. The
Commission continues to expand its specialized training on Federal
sentencing issues, including application of the guidelines to Federal
judges, probation officers, staff attorneys, law clerks, prosecutors,
defense attorneys, and others.
In fiscal year 2014, the Commission has taken a leading role in
reducing costs associated with rising prison populations, increasing
the fairness and efficiency of sentencing, and improving recidivism
outcomes, thereby saving additional funds. The Commission's efforts are
calibrated to ensure public safety and provide that the statutory
purposes of sentencing are achieved. The Commission will continue these
efforts in fiscal years 2015 and 2016 and is also prioritizing finding
ways to make the guidelines work better, promoting efficiency and
effectiveness and reducing unnecessary litigation.
Furthermore, the Commission continues to refine its data
collection, analysis, and reporting efforts to provide up-to-date data
about Federal sentencing practices and trends. The Commission continues
to disseminate sentencing information in real time and in new ways to
fulfill its statutory duties to monitor the operation of the guidelines
and to advise Congress on Federal sentencing policy. The Commission
also continues to analyze major sentencing issues and report its
findings and recommendations to Congress, as well as to respond to
requests from Congress for data and analysis.
Even as the demand for Commission work-product, information, and
services is increasing, the Commission is not requesting program
increases for fiscal year 2016 because it continues to maximize
existing resources. The Commission appreciates the funding Congress has
provided for the Commission's fulfillment of its statutory duties.
sentencing policy development
In light of the increasing costs of incarceration and the ongoing
overcapacity of the Federal prison system, since fiscal year 2014 the
Commission has made implementing its mandate at section 994(g) of the
Sentencing Reform Act, which requires that the guidelines ``minimize
the likelihood that the Federal prison population will exceed the
capacity of the Federal prisons,'' an overarching policy priority.
Consistent with that goal, in fiscal year 2014 the Commission
reexamined the guideline covering Federal drug trafficking offenses
since Federal drug offenders account for more than half of the Federal
prison population.
The Commission conducted hearings on how the guidelines account for
the quantity of drugs involved in Federal drug trafficking offenses,
analyzed sentencing and recidivism data, considered legislative and
guideline developments, reviewed tens of thousands of letters from the
public, and carefully considered input from Members of Congress and
other key stakeholders, and other relevant information. The
Commission's exhaustive re-examination resulted in the promulgation of
an amendment that somewhat reduces the guideline penalties based on the
quantity of drugs involved in an offense. The amendment is anticipated
to affect approximately 70 percent of Federal drug trafficking
defendants, with their sentences decreasing an average of 11 months, or
17 percent, from 62 to 51 months. In addition to addressing prison
populations and costs, these changes to the drug guidelines respond
appropriately to statutory changes Congress has made and developments
in the guidelines in the years since the drug guideline levels were
originally set.
The Commission carefully weighed public safety concerns and, based
on past experience, existing statutory and guideline enhancements, and
expert testimony, concluded that the amendment should not jeopardize
public safety. To the contrary, the Commission received testimony from
the Department of Justice and other stakeholders that the amendment
would promote public safety by permitting resources otherwise dedicated
to housing prisoners to be used to reduce overcrowding, enhance
programming designed to reduce the risk of recidivism, and increase law
enforcement and crime prevention efforts.
Section 994(u) of the Sentencing Reform Act also required that the
Commission consider whether to make the drug amendment retroactive, and
after extensive consideration, the Commission decided to make the
amendment retroactive with a 1 year delay in implementation. In
reaching its decision, the Commission was informed by its study of
recidivism following retroactive application of the 2007 crack cocaine
amendment which suggests that modest reductions in drug penalties can
be accomplished without an increase in recidivism. The 1 year delay in
implementation will also help to ensure public safety by allowing
judges time to carefully consider each case, providing time for the
Probation and Pretrial Services Office to prepare to supervise more
offenders, and ensuring that the Bureau of Prisons can provide
offenders with transitional services before they are released.
Retroactive application of the amendment is anticipated to have a
significant impact on reducing prison costs and overcapacity, and the
impact will come much more quickly than from a prospective change
alone. More than 40,000 offenders may be eligible for reduced
sentences, and these offenders are eligible to have their sentences
reduced by an average of 25 months or 18.8 percent. This reduction is
estimated to result over time in a savings of more than 70,000 prison
bed years.
The Commission believes that the 2014 drug amendment and its
retroactive application are important first steps toward addressing
prison costs and populations with proportionate guidelines, without
negatively impacting public safety. The Commission hopes the amendment
will lay the groundwork for more comprehensive action by Congress in
the future, and the Commission's Chair testified to that effect before
the House Judiciary Committee's Over-Criminalization Task Force in June
2014.
In fiscal year 2014, the Commission also implemented the Violence
Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, Public Law No. 113-4, a
major piece of legislation impacting a variety of offenses in Indian
Country and beyond. It also resolved circuit conflicts in Courts of
Appeals relating to the guidelines, including differences in
calculating tax loss under the guidelines and the circumstances under
which a defendant receives full credit for acceptance of
responsibility.
In fiscal year 2015 and looking forward to fiscal year 2016, the
Commission has prioritized examining ways the guidelines can be made
fairer, more efficient, and more effective. In furtherance of this
goal, the Commission expects to promulgate guideline amendments
resulting from its multi-year review of economic crimes that target
specific areas of ongoing concern, such as cases involving particularly
high loss amounts and fraud on the market offenses. In addition, the
Commission is prepared to respond to recent rescheduling by the Drug
Enforcement Administration for the drug hydrocodone.
Furthermore, the Commission convened an expert roundtable
discussion on application issues caused by differing statutory,
guideline, and case law definitions of crimes of violence. Differing
and complex statutory and guideline definitions have caused significant
litigation in Federal sentencing, draining judicial resources and
causing increased uncertainty and lack of uniformity in sentencing.
The Commission also continued work on a multi-year study on
recidivism of Federal offenders. In fiscal year 2013, the Commission
held a recidivism roundtable where it heard from a variety of experts
on methodology, quantitative statistical analysis, and program
evaluation. The recidivism study will draw on partnerships across the
Federal criminal justice system and will combine data from the
Commission, the Department of Justice, and the Administrative Office of
the U.S. Courts to develop a comprehensive trajectory of offenders
prior to incarceration, during incarceration, and following reentry
into the community. The Commission believes this research will
contribute significantly to the consideration of Federal sentencing
policy by Congress and others in fiscal year 2015 and beyond.
In addition, in fiscal year 2014, the Commission undertook a study
of Federal sentencing practices pertaining to imposition and violations
of conditions of probation and supervised release, including possible
consideration of amending the relevant provisions in the Guidelines
Manual. The Commission believes this research may inform congressional
consideration of issues including identification of conditions of
supervised release that are correlated with lower recidivism.
Also in fiscal year 2014, the Commission began work on a review of
the use of risk-assessment instruments in the Federal criminal justice
system in order to be able to provide the Commission's data and
expertise to Congress, the Probation and Pretrial Services Office of
the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and researchers at the
Federal Judicial Center. The Commission's study is aimed at considering
these tools in the context of the goals and requirements of the
Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 that sentences remain neutral with
respect to race, gender, and socioeconomic status, among other
consideration.
In fiscal year 2014, the Commission focused on making its data and
research more readily accessible in more easily understood ways to
Congress, the courts, the public, and the press. To this end, the
Commission expanded its Quick Facts series first introduced in fiscal
year 2013. The Quick Facts series is designed to provide concise facts
about a single area of Federal crime in an easy-to-read, two-page
format. The Commission released 14 publications in the Quick Facts
series in fiscal year 2014 covering topics including illicit drugs,
Native American offenders, female offenders, alien smuggling, and
national defense offenses. The Commission will release new publications
in fiscal year 2015 and update them regularly.
In fiscal year 2014, the Commission also introduced a series of
relatively short reports on various topics of interest. For example,
the Commission released a brief publication about recidivism in
connection with 2007 amendments that reduced sentences for crack
offenders. The Commission will continue this short publication series
in fiscal year 2015 and beyond.
The Commission has also continued to work with Congress on its
reports from fiscal years 2011 and 2012 on mandatory minimum penalties,
child pornography offenses, and disparity in sentencing. These
comprehensive reports provide policy-makers with relevant and important
sentencing information and data, as well as the most relevant social
science research and case law.
The information and data contained in these reports has contributed
to the consideration of Federal sentencing policy by Congress and
others in fiscal years 2013 and 2014 and will likely continue to do so.
In particular, during the 113th Congress the Commission worked to
implement recommendations from its report on statutory mandatory
minimum penalties and updated its recommendations on mandatory minimum
penalties to address legislation before both the House and Senate. The
Commission stands ready to work with the 114th Congress and others on
steps that can be taken regarding the findings and recommendations in
those reports.
collecting and reporting sentencing data
Each year the Commission collects data regarding every felony and
class A misdemeanor offense sentenced during that year. Sentencing
courts are statutorily required to submit five sentencing documents to
the Commission within 30 days of entry of judgment in a criminal case:
the charging document, the plea agreement, the presentence
investigation report, the judgment and commitment order, and the
statement of reasons form. The Commission analyzes these documents and
collects information of interest and importance to policy-makers and
the Federal criminal justice community.
The Commission's data collection, analysis, and reporting
requirements are impacted by the high volume of cases sentenced in the
Federal system annually. The Commission will receive documentation on
more than 350,000 documents for more than 76,000 original sentencings
for fiscal year 2014. To put this caseload in perspective, in fiscal
year 1995, the Commission received documentation for 38,500 cases
sentenced under the guidelines.
The Commission also collects real-time data from the courts on
retroactive application of its permanent amendment implementing the
Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Public Law No. 110-220. The guideline
amendment took effect on November 1, 2011.
As of December 2014, the Commission has collected data on
approximately 14,000 cases in which a modification of the sentence
imposed was sought under the 2011 amendment to the sentencing
guidelines that implemented the provisions of the Fair Sentencing Act
and which the Commission voted to retroactively apply to persons
sentenced before the date of that amendment. The Commission anticipates
eventually receiving documentation on more than 15,000 motions for
retroactive application of the 2011 crack cocaine amendment. These
documents and original research will form the basis for a study on
implementation of the Fair Sentencing Act in fiscal year 2015 as
contemplated by the Act, which requires the Commission to submit a
report to Congress 5 years after its enactment (August 3, 2010).
The Commission has also begun collecting data on retroactive
application of the 2014 drug amendment. Beginning November 1, 2014,
judges were able to review sentences imposed prior to that date to
determine if offenders' sentences should be reduced consistent with the
2014 drug amendment. Offenders will not be eligible for release from
Bureau of Prisons custody until November 1, 2015. The Commission
anticipates receiving documentation on more than 40,000 motions for
retroactive application of the 2014 drug amendment.
The Commission's sustained investment in modernization and
refinement of data collection and analysis have kept pace with demands
placed on it, but full funding of the Commission's fiscal year 2016
budget request is necessary to ensure efficient and effective
performance of its data responsibilities given the number of Federal
cases.
The Commission continually updates and modernizes the system that
enables sentencing courts to submit documentation directly to the
Commission electronically. In recent years, the Commission advanced
from an internal electronic data transmission submission system to a
Web-based system and improved its processes related to the receipt and
analysis of sentencing data. By the end of fiscal year 2014, 79
districts were using the Web-based system.
The Commission continues to work to develop means to automatically
extract some data fields from the court documents to improve the
efficiency of its data collection and to expand the type of information
the Commission can collect and analyze on a routine basis. The
Commission began to collect some data through this automated means in
fiscal year 2014, and will continue to do so in fiscal year 2015 and
beyond.
The Commission makes its sentencing data available to the public in
several ways. Analyses of the data extracted from the sentencing
documents it receives are reported in the Commission's Annual Report
and Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics, which is available in
print and on its Web site. In order to provide the most timely
information on national sentencing trends and practices, the Commission
also disseminates on its Web site key aspects of this data on a
quarterly basis and provides trend analyses of the changes in Federal
sentencing practices over time.
The Commission continued to improve and expand use of its
Interactive Sourcebook. The Interactive Sourcebook allows users to re-
create and customize tables and figures, for example by circuit,
district, or State and has improved the transparency and accessibility
of its sentencing data to the public. Additionally, the Interactive
Sourcebook provides analyses not found elsewhere, including analyses of
sentence length by the primary guideline the court used at sentencing,
amount of loss in fraud cases, and age of offenders in drug cases for
each major drug type. In fiscal year 2014, additional analyses were
added to this resource, including several new figures that examine
trends in sentencing data over time.
As required by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 994(g) and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 4047, when
the Commission considers amendments to the guidelines, it considers the
impact of these amendments on the Federal prison population. In
addition, the Commission is asked often by Congress to complete prison
and sentencing impact assessments for proposed legislation. Since
fiscal year 2012, the Commission makes its prison and sentencing impact
analyses available to the public on its Web site.
The Commission often is asked by Congress to complete prison and
sentencing impact assessments using real-time data of sentencing trends
related to proposed and pending legislation. These assessments are
often complex and time-sensitive and require highly-specialized
Commission resources. In addition, the Commission responds to more
general data requests from Congress on issues such as drugs,
immigration, fraud, and sex offenses and provides district, state-wide,
and circuit data analyses to House and Senate Judiciary Committee
members and, on an as-requested basis, to other Members of Congress.
The Commission also responds to requests for data analyses from
Federal judges, including specific data requests relating to pending
cases. In fiscal year 2014, the Commission responded to 77 such
requests from the courts. The Commission's ability to provide these
analyses on demand and with real-time data provides a unique and
helpful resource to judges.
conducting research
Research is a critical part of the Commission's overall mission.
The Commission's research staff regularly analyzes the current and
prior fiscal years' data to identify the manner in which the courts are
sentencing offenders and using the guidelines. The Commission routinely
uses these analyses when considering proposed changes to the
guidelines. Similarly, some analyses are published by the Commission as
a resource for policy-makers and the criminal justice community.
In May 2014, the Commission published an updated study on the
recidivism of offenders whose sentences were reduced as a result of
changes to the 2007 crack cocaine sentencing guidelines. The study
compared the recidivism rates for offenders who were released early as
a result of retroactive application of the 2007 crack cocaine amendment
with a control group of offenders who served their full terms of
imprisonment. The Commission detected no statistically significant
difference in the rates of recidivism for the two groups of offenders
over 5 years. This information represents some of the first high-
quality, quasi-experimental, Federal recidivism data that uses sentence
length as a dependent variable. This data was crucial to the Commission
in making its fiscal year 2014 changes to the drug quantity table. It
has also been used by Members of Congress in their own evaluations of
proposed sentencing legislation.
Since fiscal year 2013, the Commission makes individual offender
datafiles available on its Web site. Datafiles from fiscal years 2002
through 2013 are now available.
training and outreach
The Commission continues to fulfill its statutory duty to provide
training and specialized technical assistance on Federal sentencing
issues, including application of the guidelines, to Federal judges,
probation officers, staff attorneys, law clerks, prosecutors, and
defense attorneys by providing educational programs around the country
throughout the year. In fiscal year 2014, Commissioners and Commission
staff conducted training programs in all 12 circuits and approximately
half of the 94 judicial districts providing instruction and guidance to
more than 6000 judges, probation officers, prosecutors, defense
attorneys and others throughout the year.
In September 2014, the Commission held its annual national training
program in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania with more than 900 attendees,
including many Federal district court judges. The Commission also
participated in training an unusually large number of new Federal
district judges, many of whom were unfamiliar with the Federal
sentencing system prior to their appointments.
Commissioners and Commission staff also participated in numerous
academic programs, symposia, and circuit conferences as part of the
ongoing discussion of Federal sentencing issues. The Commission
anticipates that these expanded efforts and requests for training will
continue throughout fiscal years 2015 and 2016.
The Commission also is relying on a more robust program of distance
and online learning as part of cost containment efforts. The Commission
has increased the number of sentencing-related Webinars and training
videos on its Web site throughout fiscal year 2014 and will continue to
do so in 2015 and 2016. In October 2014, the Commission released its
first training video focused at addressing the needs of Federal crime
victims. The video informs victims of the Federal sentencing process
and prepares them to participate more fully in the process.
summary
The Commission remains uniquely positioned to assist the Federal
criminal justice community, including Congress, in ensuring sound and
just Federal sentencing policy and prioritizing limited resources to
best protect the public safety. Located in the judicial branch and
composed of Federal judges, individuals with diverse experience in the
Federal criminal justice community, and ex officio representatives of
the executive branch, the Commission is an expert, bipartisan body that
works collaboratively with all three branches of Government on matters
of Federal sentencing policy.
As evidenced from the discussion above, demand for the Commission's
various work products continues to increase. The Commission has
responded in recent years by placing a high priority on increasing
public access to its sentencing data, information, analyses, and
training. The Commission has achieved this increased public access in
great part by expanding the availability of resources on its Web site,
and the Commission plans to continue this trend in fiscal year 2016 and
beyond.
The Commission appreciates the funding it has received from
Congress and respectfully submits that full funding of its fiscal year
2016 appropriations request of $17,540,000 will ensure that the
Commission can continue to fulfill its various statutory missions
efficiently and effectively.
______

Prepared Statement of Sharon Prost, Chief Judge, United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Chairman Boozman, Senator Coons, and members of the subcommittee,
thank you for affording me the opportunity to submit this statement in
support of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's
fiscal year 2016 budget request. I am Sharon Prost, and my tenure as
Chief Judge began on May 31, 2014. This is my first budget statement to
you on behalf of the court.
As you know, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit is located in Washington, DC, and the court has exclusive
nationwide jurisdiction over a large and diverse subject area. The
Federal Circuit's jurisdiction includes appeals in all patent cases
nationwide, all Government contract cases, all international trade
cases, all Government personnel cases, all cases involving monetary
claims against the United States under the Tucker Act, veterans' cases,
and many others.
Appeals to the Federal Circuit come from all of the 94 United
States District Courts, the United States Court of Federal Claims, the
United States Court of International Trade, and the United States Court
of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The court also hears appeals from
certain administrative agency decisions, including the United States
Merit Systems Protection Board, the Board of Contract Appeals, the
Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and the Trademark Trial and Appeals
Board. In addition, the court reviews decisions of the United States
International Trade Commission, the Office of Compliance, and the
Government Accountability Office Personnel Appeals Board.
At the outset, let me say that our court fully appreciates and
embraces the need to reduce the Federal deficit and contain Federal
spending. The Federal Circuit has worked diligently to do its part by
finding cost-effective ways to meet its national mission. During my
tenure as Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit, I pledge to continue to
find new ways to control the court's operating expenses. Under my
leadership, the Federal Circuit will be a vigilant steward of its
appropriation, applying not only sound fiscal, procurement and
personnel practices, but innovative ones as well. Indeed, these
principals have consistently guided the court.
In fiscal year 2013, the court managed through the sequestration
and rescission of funds without resorting to the staff furloughs that
many other courts imposed. This was accomplished by a hiring freeze and
the leveraging of funding from staff and chambers vacancies.
Understanding that this was only a short-term strategy, the court
prepared to meet the need for continuing fiscal austerity by
reconstructing our Mediation Services by increasing our reliance on
expert volunteer mediators. We were then able to close our mediation
satellite office in the Kluczynski Federal Building in Chicago and
permanently release three full-time employees. Last fiscal year, the
court began a reorganization to address further staff attrition caused
by the retirement of a number of our retirement-eligible staff, trying
like many courts and other organizations to do more work with fewer
people. In the course of this reorganization, we determined that the
level of staff reduction we experienced over the past 2 years is not
permanently sustainable. We need to fill our remaining vacancies by the
end of fiscal year 2015. In doing so, however, we will remain below our
historic staffing level. This occurs at a time when our case load is
demonstrably rising due to structural changes in the court's caseload,
principally because of recent amendments in the law relating to patent
litigation.
Before I continue with my fiscal year 2016 statement, let me extend
my sincere appreciation to the Committee for recognizing the Federal
Circuit's needs in the enacted appropriation for the court in fiscal
year 2015. The court will be able to fulfill its mission of timely
adjudication of cases during this fiscal year because the funds you
appropriated will allow us to proceed with recovering from the
sequestration's impact.
For fiscal year 2016, I respectfully ask that Congress provide the
funds I have identified as necessary for the court to sustain current
services and to continue to operate in an efficient and effective
manner. With this goal in mind, the Federal Circuit's 2016 budget
request totals $33,763,000, which includes $2,922,000 for mandatory
expenses and $30,841,000 for discretionary expenses. The discretionary
request of $30,841,000 is slightly less than a 2.1 percent increase
over the fiscal year 2015 enacted appropriation for discretionary
expenses of $30,212,000.
For the fifth fiscal year in a row, the Federal Circuit's budget
request includes no request for programmatic or staff increases. I am
requesting only sufficient funds to provide for the essential, ongoing
operations of the court. One hundred percent of the 2.1 percent budget
increase requested for 2016 is to pay for adjustments to the base
budget needed to maintain current services. These adjustments include
projected salaries and benefits increases for staff, staff promotions
and within-grade increases, general inflationary adjustments, and the
increasing cost of library services and computer-assisted legal
research.
I recognize and fully appreciate the relentless pressure on
Congress to contain and reduce Government spending. At the same time,
the court also recognizes that the administration of justice and this
court's unique impact on the economy and on those veterans and Federal
employees who seek relief from this court, would suffer if funds are
insufficient to keep the court properly staffed and fully functional.
In this regard, I note further that our judges are aging and three are
now eligible to elect senior status. As you know, when a judge opts for
senior status, this court must provide two staff positions to support
the judge's continuing work. In recent years, we have used vacant
positions within the court's staff to fill senior judge needs. Having
already absorbed a permanent staff reduction, we will no longer have
this flexibility when all of our current vacancies are filled later
this year. If one or more judges elect senior status, I may need to
request funding sufficient to fill existing, but currently vacant,
full-time equivalent (FTE) positions, or be forced to release two
permanent employees in order to hire staff for any new senior judge. I
will closely monitor this situation, and will notify you of any
emergent need as soon as I am able.
For fiscal year 2015, the Federal Circuit currently has sufficient
resources to address the caseload. As I noted previously, however,
structural changes have occurred in litigation within the jurisdiction
of the court that have begun to increase the Federal Circuit's
caseload. Last year, the court experienced its highest caseload in 5
years. Early indications are that this year will equal or surpass last
year. Moreover, the predominant increase is in complex patent cases, so
the impact is larger than any raw numeric increase might support.
The context of what appears to be a permanent, structural increase
in our caseload begins with the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Public
Law No. 112-29 (the AIA) enacted on September 16, 2011. As a result of
changes to patent practice in the AIA, the Federal Circuit has begun to
see what we expect to be a significant and long-term increase in the
patent appellate caseload. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
is implementing the America Invents Act (AIA) in a manner that makes it
easier for American entrepreneurs and businesses to bring their
inventions to the marketplace sooner, converting their ideas into new
products and new jobs. As you know, the intent of the AIA is to help
companies and inventors avoid costly delays and unnecessary litigation,
and allow them focus instead on innovation and job creation. A number
of important provisions of the law went into effect in September, 2012,
12 months after the law was enacted.
The success of the AIA depends on the Federal Circuit, which will
have to resolve each of the many statutory interpretation questions
posed by the new law. The AIA provides for patentability trials before
the USPTO at the newly created Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB),
which is also tasked with working through a substantial backlog of
appeals from conventional patent examination decisions. The statute
provides that all of the appealed cases of the new PTAB come to the
Federal Circuit for review. Only one AIA trial decision was rendered by
the PTAB in 2013. In comparison, however, by early February of 2015,
the PTAB had generated 254 final written decisions from the more than
800 pending trials. The AIA trial work of the PTAB is expected to
combine with other USPTO appeals to produce a very significant increase
in cases in fiscal year 2016 for review by the Federal Circuit. We have
already begun to see the impact. This past year USPTO patent appeals
nearly doubled over the preceding year, from 110 to 212. This was
accompanied by an increase in patent appeals from the United States
District Courts, for a total increase of about 176 patent cases. While
the numeric rise in cases does not yet appear unmanageable, the
district court and PTAB patent cases are typically the most complicated
and time consuming cases on the court's docket because the patents at
issue are technically complex. Thus, the actual increase in appellate
work is under-represented by last year's statistical increase of cases
viewed in isolation.
Based on the complexity of patent practice under the AIA, and the
case load evidence to date, it is clear that there will be a sustained
and progressive increase in our patent caseload. This is further
confirmed by the fact that the USPTO has increased the number of
administrative judges threefold, as well as attorneys in its
solicitor's office. While facing the potential for a permanent increase
in our caseload will be a challenge, it would be premature to request
additional resources at this time. As a result, in our fiscal year 2016
budget, I have not requested any additional funding to address the
already increasing patent case load.
At the same time, however, I am keenly aware that the Federal
Circuit would be defeating the purpose of the AIA if delays occur in
the appeal process that impede American inventors and businesses from
bringing their products to market and resolving their disputes as
swiftly as possible. It would indeed be unfortunate if the Federal
Circuit is unable to process appeals from the PTAB expeditiously due to
a lack of well-qualified staff resulting from insufficient funds. I
will monitor the Federal Circuit's patent caseload carefully and I will
not hesitate to notify you of any need for additional resources.
Just as the AIA has apparently resulted in a structural increase in
the Federal Circuit's caseload, the United States Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) is accelerating the processing of disability
cases and pension claims that is also likely to result in a long-term
increase in our caseload. Of 380,000 backlogged veterans' appeals,
67,000 have reached the Board of Veterans' Appeals, and approximately
200,000 of the remainder are expected to follow. With the benefit of 60
veterans law judges and more than 400 supporting counsel because of
increased funding by Congress, the Board decided 55,000 cases in fiscal
year 2014 and is expected to decide approximately 57,000 cases in
fiscal year 2015. While backlogs at the Board will continue, it is
clear that decisions by the Board are accelerating.
Despite the fact that the Board significantly increased the number
of decisions in 2014, the number of appeals to the United States Court
of Appeals for Veterans Claims (the Veterans Court) increased by just
over 200 cases. This relatively small increase, however, does not
readily reflect that the appeals rate that generated the increase
occurred largely in the last 6 months of fiscal year 2014. Should
appeals through fiscal year 2015 continue at the same rate, the
Veterans Court will receive more than 1,000 additional appeals this
year and as many as 1,000 more in 2016. As you know, this increasing
pool of cases will ultimately result in decisions that are appealable
to the Federal Circuit, and this number does not include several
hundred decisions the Veterans Court will issue on petitions.
Thus far, the Federal Circuit has not seen a marked increase in
appeals from the Veterans Court. Nevertheless, with the mechanisms in
place to dispose of increasingly large numbers of cases by the Veterans
Court, I fully expect that the number of appeals to the Federal Circuit
will increase this year and continue in fiscal year 2016. Prudence,
therefore, dictates that this source of the Federal Circuit's caseload
be carefully monitored as a potential structural change in our
caseload. It is, however, too early to assess with specificity the
magnitude of that increase, and as a result, I have not requested any
increase in resources to address it. Recognizing that delayed justice
for our veterans and their families is unacceptable, I will monitor the
caseload increases from the Veterans Court, and I will notify you as
soon as I believe additional resources are needed by the Federal
Circuit.
Last year's budget statement cited a third source of caseload
increase at the Federal Circuit, characterized as being imminent,
though likely temporary. The sequestration in fiscal year 2013 resulted
in a flood of furlough appeals being filed with the Merit Systems
Protection Board (MSPB) by Federal employees who were furloughed
because of automatic spending cuts. As of September of 2013, more than
32,000 furlough appeals had been filed at the MSPB. This was in
addition to the average of 6,000 appeals received annually on other
matters that are appealable to MSPB under the law. While MSPB is poised
to make significant progress in processing the existing inventory of
appeals in fiscal year 2015, it is likely MSPB will start fiscal year
2016 with a significant number of appeals in the regional offices and
petitions for review at headquarters. As these appeals and petitions
result in decisions, if a Federal employee's case fails at the MSPB,
that employee may appeal to the Federal Circuit.
The Federal Circuit has yet not received a significant portion of
MSPB furlough cases and it is impossible to predict with certainty how
many of these appeals might survive MSPB review. Nevertheless, it is
prudent to plan for a significant number of these cases to be appealed
to the Federal Circuit and, given the permanent increase in staff at
the MSPB and its view that its caseload will be at historic levels in
2015 and beyond due to changes in the law, I cannot discount that these
circumstances do, indeed, portend a third structural change that will
drive an increase in the Federal Circuit's caseload. In acknowledging
this, however, I do not anticipate such a large increase in MSPB cases
in 2016 that would require resources beyond those I have requested in
our annual appropriation. I will rely on prudent management of the
resources you provide, recognizing that it will be my duty to request
more, if it becomes clear that more is needed. In the interim, the
impending furlough cases serve to reinforce the need for the Federal
Circuit to complete filling current staff vacancies and training those
new employees so that they are able to respond to the organizational
stress an increase in MSPB cases seems likely to impose in the
foreseeable future.
Finally, I would like to address the court's plan to reduce
facilities costs. House Report 113-172 required this court to report on
a plan by July of 2014. That report was developed in consultation with
the Judicial Conference of the United States and the General Services
Administration and was delivered on time. Consistent with that plan,
the court is pursuing actionable alternatives to reduce, reallocate and
reconfigure existing space that will support a reduction in facilities
costs. I note that we have already met the 3 percent reduction goal set
by the Judicial Conference of the United States for the Federal
judiciary at large. While I believe there are still some prudent and
achievable measures that the court can pursue on its own, ultimately,
to make any further significant reduction in facilities costs, the
Federal Circuit may have to request additional funding targeted for
facilities alteration or perhaps new leases.
Chairman Boozman, I would be pleased to provide any additional
information that the subcommittee may require or to meet with
subcommittee members or staff to discuss our budget request in further
detail. Thank you for this opportunity to present my views.
______

Prepared Statement of Timothy C. Stanceu, Chief Judge, United States
Court of International Trade
Chairman Boozman, Senator Coons, and members of the subcommittee:
Thank you for providing me the opportunity to submit this statement
on behalf of the United States Court of International Trade, which is
established under Article III of the Constitution with exclusive
nationwide jurisdiction over civil actions arising out of the
administration and enforcement of the customs and international trade
laws of the United States. As you know, the Court has its roots in the
uniformity requirement of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution
(``all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the
United States'') and in that way serves a vital role that contributes
to the Nation's economic strength.
The Court's fiscal year 2016 budget request is $20,150,000, which
is comprised of $2,005,000 for mandatory appropriations and $18,145,000
for discretionary appropriations. The discretionary portion of the
appropriations request represents an increase of $338,000, or 1.9
percent, from the fiscal year 2015 enacted discretionary appropriations
of $17,807,000. This modest increase reflects the necessary adjustments
to the base in order to maintain current services, fund essential on-
going operations and initiatives, and provide for adjustments in pay
and benefits. It also accounts for other inflationary factors applied
to the base, including an increase in pro-rata costs paid to the
Federal Protective Service (FPS) for the critical and necessary
security of the Federal Complex (including the Court) in lower
Manhattan. Further, it reflects adjustments for security costs paid to
the U.S. Marshals Service for the Court's internal security officers.
The Court remains committed to the efficient and conservative
management of its resources through sound fiscal practices. The Court
continues to utilize cost containment strategies in keeping with the
overall administrative policies and practices of the Judicial
Conference, particularly regarding security costs, equipment costs,
technology, contractual obligations, and personnel. This is consistent
with the Court's long-standing policy of requesting only funds that are
absolutely needed for fulfilling the Court's judicial responsibilities,
such as increases for pay, benefits, and other inflationary factors,
and for essential on-going operations and initiatives of the Court.
Currently, the Court is working actively with the General Services
Administration to release space in the Courthouse to the U.S. Marshals
Service. If this initiative is successful, it will reduce the Court's
rent bill while simultaneously improving security. Additionally, I
would like to note that in fiscal year 2014, the Court transferred
$1.15 million to the Judiciary's Court Security Program to address
critical security needs.
The Court continues to meet the objectives set forth in its
Strategic Plan through the use of its annual appropriation and the
Judiciary Information Technology Fund. These objectives provide access
to the Court through the effective and efficient delivery of services
and information to litigants, the bar, the public, judges, and staff.
For a national court, this access is critical to realizing the mission
of resolving disputes by: (1) providing cost effective, courteous, and
timely service; (2) providing independent, consistent, fair, and
impartial interpretation and application of the customs and
international trade laws; and (3) fostering improvements in customs and
international trade law and practice, as well as in the overall
administration of justice.
Specifically, technology remains a critical component of the
Court's commitment to high quality service to its various
constituencies. To this end, the requested appropriation will enable
the Court to support and maintain its information technology program.
This entails cyclical maintenance and, when necessary, replacement, of
hardware and software to ensure that the Court's infrastructure will
continue to support its present and future technological and
telecommunications needs. During fiscal year 2014, the Court used its
Judiciary Information Technology Fund successfully to strengthen its
technological capabilities by: (1) upgrading the Storage Area Network
for the COOP site; (2) installing a secondary firewall for redundancy
purposes; (3) executing maintenance agreements for computer hardware
and software applications; (4) continuing its support of its video
conferencing system, data network and voice connections, wireless
infrastructure, and Virtual Private Network System (VPN); (5)
installing hard drive encryption software for laptops; and (6)
cyclically upgrading its laptops.
In fiscal year 2015, the Court plans to expend funds on essential
information technology projects to: (1) add redundancy to the core
switch for the network; (2) upgrade the Polycom conference phone system
from analog to digital; (3) upgrade and support existing software
applications; (4) purchase new software applications to ensure the
continued operational efficiency of the Court; (5) install virtual
desktop infrastructure; (6) purchase log management software for the
Court's network; (7) purchase document management software to
streamline workflow for court staff; and (8) replace computer desktops,
monitors and printers in accordance with the judiciary's cyclical
replacement program. Additionally, the Court will continue to support
its long-standing commitment to provide developmental and educational
programs for staff on subjects pertaining to technology and job-related
skills.
In fiscal year 2016, the Court again will use its carry-forward
balances in the Judiciary Information Technology Fund for information
technology initiatives that support the Court's short-term and long-
term information technology needs. Additionally, the Court will
continue to maximize the use and functionality of common and individual
office space. This effort is part of the Court's on-going rent review
process. The Court also will continue its cyclical replacement and
maintenance program for equipment, furniture, and offices to help
extend the useful life of equipment and furnishings. Moreover, the
fiscal year 2016 request once again includes funds for the continued
upgrade, support, and maintenance of the Court's internal and perimeter
security systems. Further, the Court will seek to continue its efforts
to address the educational needs of the bar and Court staff. Finally,
the Court, in fiscal year 2016, will build on its prior efforts in
cost-saving negotiations of contracts with GSA, FPS, and public and
private companies.
I personally extend my deepest appreciation to this subcommittee
and the entire Congress for recognizing the needs of the Court by
providing adequate funding in fiscal year 2015 to maintain current
services so that the Court can fulfill its commitment to the
administration of justice for all.
The Court's ``General Statement and Information'' and
``Justification of Changes,'' which provide more detailed descriptions
of each line item adjustment, were submitted as part of the judiciary
fiscal year 2016 Congressional Budget Justification. If the
subcommittee requires any additional information, we will be pleased to
provide it.

Senator Boozman. Thank you very much, Judge Gibbons.
Director Duff, it is good to have you here.
Director Duff is kind of excited and nervous, not about the
subcommittee today. He is an old University of Kentucky
basketball player, so he has a lot going on, in that sense.
We invite you to give your testimony on behalf of the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
STATEMENT OF JAMES C. DUFF, DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICE OF THE U.S. COURTS
Mr. Duff. Thank you very much, Chairman Boozman, Senator
Coons, Senator Lankford, members of the subcommittee. I am very
pleased to be before you to present the fiscal year 2016 budget
request for the Administrative Office of the United States
Courts, and to support the overall request for the judiciary
that Judge Gibbons will address.
I join Judge Gibbons in thanking the subcommittee for the
support it has provided the judiciary. We fully recognize the
funding constraints that the subcommittee has faced in recent
years and the difficult choices that have been necessary. We
are all the more grateful in that environment for the priority
that was placed on the funding requirements of the judiciary.

RETURN TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE

On January 1 this year, I returned to the Administrative
Office to serve a second appointment as its director. I am very
grateful to Chief Justice Roberts for the privilege of working
for our Federal judiciary again. I am especially looking
forward to working with you and this subcommittee on challenges
that face the judiciary.

TEMPORARY DISTRICT JUDGESHIPS

The Judicial Conference is once again indebted to this
subcommittee for authorizing extensions of expiring temporary
Article III judgeships in your annual appropriations bill.
Without your action, the affected districts would be facing the
loss of a judgeship upon the first judicial vacancy occurring
after the expiration of the previous authorization.
In fiscal year 2016, we will face the same fate as the
existing temporary judgeships will expire beginning in April
2016. If the Judiciary committees are unable to preserve these
expiring judgeships, we urge you to include the necessary 1-
year extensions in your fiscal year 2016 appropriations bill to
enable the work to continue in those districts where they are
most needed. The workload in those districts is simply too
great to lose judgeships that could take years to create and
fill again.

CAPITAL SECURITY PROGRAM

I also would like to thank the subcommittee for its support
of the Judiciary Capital Security Program funded within the
General Services Administration. This was an important new
development that we worked on with GSA. CSP, or the Capital
Security Program, was designed to address serious security
deficiencies in existing court facilities where renovations are
a viable alternative to new construction.
Again, this is in the current environment of fiscal
restraint and constraints. Recognizing that new courthouse
construction was going to be challenging, we embarked upon this
effort to address security concerns in courthouses where it is
most needed.
It has been a cost-effective means to achieve greater
security at existing courthouses nationwide. CSP has projects
currently underway in five facilities nationwide, including
Lexington, Kentucky, with others in the planning stages. The
President's budget request for GSA includes $20 million for the
program in fiscal year 2016. We hope you will support the
funding to continue this critically important program.
Funding of the CSP is not, however, a substitute for new
courthouse construction when it is otherwise needed. For those
courts that not only have severe security deficiencies but also
have a serious lack of space and deteriorated building
infrastructure, the only feasible and economically viable
resolution is new construction.

NASHVILLE COURTHOUSE

I will echo Judge Gibbons' comments. We very much
appreciate the administration's inclusion in the fiscal year
2016 GSA budget request for $181.5 million for the new
courthouse in Nashville, Tennessee, which is the Judicial
Conference's top space priority. This is only the second time
in 6 years that the President's budget has included funding for
a project on the Judicial Conference's 5-year courthouse
construction plan. So it is a recognition, I think, within the
administration of the importance of this particular courthouse
project.
Without stable and consistent funding of courthouse
construction by the GSA, the ability of the judiciary to carry
out its constitutional mission of administering justice is
significantly impaired.
The Nashville courthouse project has been on the 5-year
plan for nearly 20 years, and a total of $25.1 million has
already been spent to acquire the site and building design.
That is why this project we think is within the
administration's budget, because it recognizes investments
already made.
A new courthouse is needed to resolve severe security,
space, and operational deficiencies in the existing facility.
We respectfully urge you to support the funding of the new
Nashville courthouse in your fiscal year 2016 appropriations
bill.

COST CONTAINMENT

Senator Coons addressed cost containment in his opening
statement, as did Chairman Boozman. Cost containment continues
to be a primary focus of the judiciary. As Judge Gibbons
describes in her written testimony at greater length, some
cost-containment initiatives, however, require changes to
existing law.
Last year, we sought the assistance of this subcommittee to
enact several legislative provisions that would result in
savings to the judiciary. We appreciate that the conference
agreement included one of those provisions. However, there are
still several reforms endorsed by the Judicial Conference that,
if enacted, will produce additional savings.

ROLE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE

The Administrative Office (AO) was created by Congress in
1939 to assist Federal courts in fulfilling their mission to
provide equal justice under law. The AO does not operate as a
headquarters for the courts, but rather provides support to the
Judicial Conference and its 25 committees, as well as to more
than 30,000 judicial officers and court employees.
The AO develops and supports technology for the courts. It
provides financial management and personnel services. And it
conducts audits and reviews to ensure the continued quality and
integrity of the Federal court operations.
While the AO has evolved over the years to meet the
changing needs of the judicial branch, service to all the
courts remains our basic mission.

FISCAL YEAR 2016 BUDGET REQUEST

The AO appropriation request for fiscal year 2016 totals
$87.6 million. This is an increase of $3.2 million or a 3.8
percent increase over the 2015 enacted level. It represents a
current services budget--that is to say, there is no additional
staff or program increases requested by the AO. Instead, the
requested resources are necessary to support standard changes
to pay and benefits, as well as requirements such as travel,
communications, and supplies.

CLOSING REMARKS

I fully recognize, as Judge Gibbons does, that fiscal year
2016 will be a difficult year for you and your colleagues as
you struggle to meet funding needs of the agencies and programs
under your purview. In making your funding decisions, we urge
you to consider the significant role that the AO plays in
supporting the courts and the mission of the judiciary.
Chairman Boozman, we appreciate the opportunity to appear
before the subcommittee today. We thank you for the good work
that you have done for us in the past. And we are pleased to
address any questions you have today, of course.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of James C. Duff
introduction
Chairman Boozman, Senator Coons, and members of the subcommittee, I
am pleased to appear before you to present the fiscal year 2016 budget
request for the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AO),
and to support the overall request for the entire judicial branch.
I join Judge Gibbons in thanking the subcommittee for the continued
support it has provided the judiciary. We fully recognize the funding
constraints the subcommittee has had in recent years in writing the
annual Financial Services and General Government Appropriation bill. We
know that difficult choices had to be made and greatly appreciate the
priority that was placed on the funding requirements of the judiciary.
We have a practice of refining our request throughout the year with the
goal of seeking the minimum amount necessary to meet the needs of the
courts. You can be assured that we will continue to provide the
subcommittee with re-estimates of our fiscal year 2016 request
throughout the year.
return to the ao
On January 5, 2015, I returned to the Administrative Office to
serve a second appointment as Director. I am grateful to Chief Justice
Roberts for the privilege of working with our Federal judiciary again.
From my first job in Chief Justice Burger's office 40 years ago,
through later years as Counselor to Chief Justice Rehnquist, and then 5
years as Director of the Administrative Office, from 2006 to 2011, my
respect and admiration for the Federal judiciary has only grown. I look
forward to working on the challenges that face the judiciary--from its
operations to its administration, and I especially look forward to
working closely with this subcommittee.
temporary district judgeships
Once again, the Judicial Conference is indebted to this
subcommittee for authorizing extensions of expiring temporary Article
III judgeships in the annual appropriations bill. Without your action,
the authorization of all ten existing temporary Article III judgeships
would have expired and we would have risked losing judgeships in these
courts upon the first vacancy--through death, retirement, or elevation
to a higher court--occurring after their lapse date.
In fiscal year 2016, we face the same fate. Without further action
the temporary judgeships will expire beginning in April, 2016. If the
House and Senate Judiciary Committees are unable to preserve these
expiring judgeships, I urge this subcommittee to include the necessary
1 year extensions for the following judicial districts: Alabama-
Northern, Arizona, California-Central, Florida-Southern, Kansas,
Missouri-Eastern, New Mexico, North Carolina-Western, and Texas-
Eastern. The workload in these districts is too great to risk losing
judgeships that in all likelihood will take years to create and fill
again.
new judgeships in high caseload districts
It has been 13 years since Congress passed a bill authorizing
additional district judgeships. The last comprehensive Article III bill
was passed in 1990, two and a half decades ago. The Judicial Conference
appreciates the subcommittee's inclusion of language in the fiscal year
2014 and fiscal year 2015 appropriations bills authorizing new
judgeships in seven districts struggling with extraordinarily high and
sustained workloads (Arizona, California-Eastern, Delaware, Minnesota,
New Mexico, Texas-Southern, and Texas-Western), as well as the
conversion of three temporary judgeships to permanent (in Arizona,
California-Central, and New Mexico). While this provision was dropped
in conference, additional judgeships are still sorely needed. The
Judicial Conference will soon be forwarding to Congress recently
approved judgeship recommendations for 2015. We will be working with
the Senate and House Judiciary Committees to hopefully enact a
comprehensive judgeship bill this year and will keep the subcommittee
apprised of our efforts.
capital security program
I also would like to thank the subcommittee for its support of the
Judiciary's Capital Security Program (CSP), funded as a special
emphasis program within the General Services Administration's (GSA)
Federal Buildings Fund. CSP was designed to address serious security
deficiencies in existing courthouse buildings where physical
renovations are viable alternatives to new construction. This program
has been a valuable, cost-effective solution to achieving greater
security at existing courthouses nationwide.
Five projects are currently underway using fiscal year 2012 and
fiscal year 2013 funding--in Brunswick, Georgia; Benton, Illinois;
Lexington, Kentucky; San Juan, Puerto Rico; and St. Thomas, Virgin
Islands. Fiscal year 2015 funding will support projects in Columbus,
Georgia; Monroe, Louisiana; and Texarkana, Texas/Arkansas. For fiscal
year 2016, the President's budget request for GSA includes $20 million
for the Judiciary's Capital Security Program which will support
projects at courthouses in Raleigh, North Carolina and Alexandria,
Louisiana. We hope you will continue to support this successful program
that improves the security provided to occupants and visitors at
Federal courthouses.
courthouse construction
Funding of the Judiciary's Capital Security Program should not,
however, be a substitute for new courthouse construction when it is
otherwise needed. That is, while the CSP may address a court's
immediate security deficiencies, it does nothing to address other
courts that not only have severe security deficiencies, but also have a
serious lack of space, and deteriorated building infrastructure. In
these latter circumstances, the only feasible and economically viable
resolution is to build a new courthouse or annex to meet the
operational needs of the court.
We very much appreciate the administration's support of new
courthouse construction funding in its fiscal year 2016 budget request
for the GSA. The President's budget requests $181.5 million for a new
courthouse in Nashville, Tennessee, which is the Judicial Conference's
top space priority. This is only the second time in 6 years that the
President's budget has included funding for a project on the Judicial
Conference's Five Year Courthouse Construction Project Plan (Five-Year
Plan). Because GSA builds our facilities, these monies come under the
jurisdiction of the executive branch. In some years this has worked
fine, when the President's budget represented the space priorities of
the Judicial Conference as outlined in its Five-Year Plan. But too
often this has not been the case. Without stable and consistent funding
of courthouse construction by the GSA, the ability of the judiciary to
carry out its constitutional mission of administering justice is
significantly impaired.
Over the last 10 years, the judiciary has taken strategic steps to
improve its courthouse facilities planning process, with a focus on
cost containment and development of an objective, consistently applied
methodology. This effort has been significant and has resulted in only
the most important project recommendations going forward, and at a
reduced cost. The designs of courthouses on the Five-Year Plan will
result in lower cost buildings due to the adoption of courtroom sharing
policies as well as the removal of projected judgeships from courtrooms
and chambers construction plans.
The Nashville courthouse project has been on the Five-Year Plan for
nearly 20 years and a total of $25.1 million already has been spent to
acquire the site and design the building. The construction of the
Nashville courthouse is requested to resolve severe security, space,
and operational deficiencies in the existing facility. The Estes
Kefauver Federal Building in downtown Nashville was built more than 60
years ago, has an insufficient number of courtrooms for district
judges, and due to space shortages all magistrate judges must use
hearing rooms instead of courtrooms. This exacerbates issues related to
security and safety. Further, the building houses 17 different Federal
entities and there are no separate circulation patterns for judges, the
public, and prisoners. We respectfully urge you to support the funding
of the new Nashville courthouse in your fiscal year 2016 Appropriations
bill.
legislative initiatives to increase cost containment
Cost containment continues to be a primary focus of the judiciary,
as Judge Gibbons describes in her testimony. AO staff, through their
support of the Judicial Conference and its committees, is heavily
involved in these cost-containment efforts. While there are many
policies and practices that the judiciary has been able to implement to
achieve savings, some require changes to existing law. Absent a general
``Courts Improvement Bill'' or similar legislative vehicle, last year
we sought the assistance of this subcommittee to include several
legislative provisions in the annual appropriations bill that would
result in savings to the Judiciary's Probation and Pretrial Services
program without any loss in the quality of services. We appreciate that
the fiscal year 2015 conference agreement included one of our requested
provisions that removed from law an unnecessary reporting requirement;
however, there are still several reforms endorsed by the Judicial
Conference that, if enacted, would produce additional cost savings.
For example, the Judicial Conference has endorsed the sharing of
probation officers among Federal judicial districts. Section 3602 of
title 18, United States Code, requires a probation officer to work
``within the jurisdiction and under the direction of the court making
the appointment.'' Amending this statute to allow an officer to serve
in another district with the consent of the appointing court, would
facilitate the sharing across district lines of officer positions
requiring special knowledge, such as sex-offender specialists, cyber-
crime specialists, and search team members. Such a sharing arrangement
will conserve resources by allowing the districts to avoid the higher
salary costs associated with these specialized officers, which can be
as much as $15,000 more than a typical probation officer. For instance,
a probation officer in the Eastern District of New York who has been
trained in supervising sex offenders with computer monitoring
conditions might also be able to handle those types of cases in the
Southern District of New York or in the District of New Jersey, thereby
relieving those districts from the obligation of hiring and training
their own specialists.
In addition, this change could lower travel costs by allowing
officers who work in one district to supervise offenders who reside in
a neighboring district, which has its probation office farther from
where offenders live. This option may be especially useful in
supervising offenders from Indian reservations, which may straddle
multiple judicial districts. For example, the Districts of Arizona and
New Mexico both include the Navajo Indian reservation. Currently,
officers from both districts must supervise cases on the reservation,
which means duplicating efforts to learn the territory, develop
relationships with tribal officials, and foster resources for
offenders. If, however, officers in one of the districts were
authorized to work across district boundaries, officers from one
district could assume responsibility for supervising all of the
offenders on the reservation, regardless of which district the offender
resides. Alternatively, such arrangements could result in officers
being assigned to cases not based on the district of supervision, but
based on proximity to the closest probation office. For instance,
officers from the Flagstaff probation office in the District of Arizona
must travel 223 miles to visit offenders from the Round Rock region of
the reservation. If probation officers from the Farmington probation
office in the District of New Mexico were authorized to work across
district boundaries, however, they would only need to travel 118 miles
to visit the same offenders. I hope you will consider the inclusion of
this provision in your fiscal year 2016 Appropriations bill.
role of the administrative office
Created by Congress in 1939 to assist the Federal courts in
fulfilling their mission to provide equal justice under law, the AO is
a unique entity in government. Neither the executive branch nor the
legislative branch has any comparable organization that provides the
broad range of services and functions that the AO performs for the
judicial branch.
Unlike most executive branch entities in Washington, the AO does
not operate as a headquarters for the courts. The Federal court system
is decentralized, although the AO does have management oversight
responsibilities over the court security program, the probation and
pretrial services program, the defender services program, and our
national information technology programs.
AO support to the Judicial Conference and its 25 committees is a
cornerstone of this structure. The Conference committees, which we
staff, not only deal with important issues of judicial administration
and policy, but they are constantly exploring ways to cut costs, work
more efficiently in their program areas, and oversee auditing functions
for the branch. The AO develops and supports the application of new
technology for the courts; provides financial management services, and
personnel and payroll support; and conducts audits and reviews to
ensure the continued quality and integrity of Federal court operations.
The AO has evolved over the years to meet the changing needs of the
judicial branch, but service to the courts has been and remains our
basic mission.
improving judicial administration
The AO is working in coordination with the courts to implement
several national technology solutions that will improve judicial
administration. A major initiative is a ``next generation'' case
management/electronic case filing (CM/ECF) system we are deploying
nationwide to harness improved technologies to meet the evolving needs
of judges, clerks of court offices, the bar, debtors, litigants, and
other users. CM/ECF next generation is currently deployed in two
circuit courts and implementation nationwide will occur over the next
several years. We are also implementing the Judiciary Integrated
Financial Management System (JIFMS), which will provide a single system
of record for financial and procurement processes throughout the
judiciary, including all Federal court units, Federal defender offices,
and the Administrative Office. JIFMS is currently deployed to the
national courts, the AO and several circuit court units, and its full
deployment should be completed by December 2017. In addition, a
Judiciary Electronic Travel System (JETS) will provide a user-friendly,
paperless, Web-based travel system that will reduce errors and
streamline travel planning and vouchering. JETS will be available to
court units and Federal defender offices beginning in the Fall of 2015.
Finally, eVoucher is a new system for issuing payments electronically
to Criminal Justice Act court-appointed counsel, replacing the current
paper-based system, and streamlining the submission and review of
vouchers and improving efficiency and oversight by providing automatic
error checks. Currently, eVoucher is deployed in 75 of 106 court units
and full implementation is expected in early calendar year 2016.
ao restructuring
When I first became Director of the AO in July 2006, I launched a
review of the organization and its mission to ensure that the structure
and services provided by the AO were appropriate and cost-effective,
and that they addressed the changing needs of the courts.
That review resulted in a 2007 report providing recommendations to
enhance AO services to the courts. During fiscal year 2008, improvement
initiatives were pursued through the development of the Strategic
Direction of the AO: fiscal years 2009-2013 to guide the AO's
activities. We then began to integrate the Strategic Plan into our
major initiatives process, focusing on short- and long-term objectives
to help the AO support the judiciary through the economic downturn and
future constrained budgets. In January 2011, I formed a cost-
containment task force that reviewed AO organizational, policy, and
process alternatives, and developed specific actions to contain costs
in fiscal years 2012, 2013, and beyond. Finally, in June 2013, then-
Director Judge Thomas Hogan announced a major restructuring of the AO
to be implemented by the end of fiscal year 2013. The new
organizational structure is now fully in place.
I offer this as background to demonstrate that organizational
change focused on meeting the needs of the courts requires a thoughtful
and strategic approach to achieve continuous improvement in service.
The positive results of the restructuring are evident throughout the
AO, and the improvements make the AO's service to the courts more
effective and efficient.
ao fiscal year 2016 budget request
The Administrative Office appropriation request for fiscal year
2016 totals $87,590,000. This is an increase of $3.2 million, or 3.8
percent, over the 2015 enacted level and represents a current services
budget--there are no additional staff or program increases requested.
Specifically, the requested increase is necessary to support
adjustments to base for salaries and benefits, and recurring
requirements such as the cost of travel, communications, service
agreements, and supplies. The AO account is financed through direct
appropriations, reimbursements from other judiciary accounts, and the
use of non-appropriated funds. In fiscal year 2016, the judiciary
expects to have fewer non-appropriated funds available than it did in
fiscal year 2015. As a result, in order to maintain current services,
the increase also includes $500,000 to replace the slightly lower
estimate of non-appropriated funds available to the AO in 2016.
conclusion
Chairman Boozman, Senator Coons, and members of the subcommittee,
the work performed by the AO is critical to the efficient and effective
operation of the U.S. courts. The AO provides administrative support to
25 Judicial Conference Committees, 2,352 judicial officers, and more
than 28,500 court employees. In addition to our service to the courts,
the AO works closely with our colleagues in the executive branch and
especially with the Congress, in particular the Appropriations
Committee and its staff, to provide accurate and responsive information
about the Federal judiciary.
I fully recognize that fiscal year 2016 will be another difficult
year for you and your colleagues as you struggle to meet the funding
needs of the agencies and programs under your purview. I urge you,
however, to consider the significant role the AO plays in supporting
the courts and the mission of the judiciary. Our budget request for the
AO does not seek new resources for additional staff or programs;
instead, our request represents the minimum investment needed simply to
maintain the organization's current activities and services. We urge
you to support this funding.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today. I would be
pleased to answer your questions.

IMPACT OF A HARD FREEZE IN FISCAL YEAR 2016

Senator Boozman. Thank you, both, very much for your
testimony.
At this time, we will proceed to our questioning, where
each Senator will have 7 minutes. If there is sufficient
interest, then we will have additional rounds.
Flat spending caps will make discretionary funding very
tight in fiscal year 2016, as we all know. What would be the
impact on the judiciary if it had to operate the fiscal year
2015 funding level for fiscal year 2016?
Judge Gibbons. The effect is pretty dramatic. In the
salaries and expenses account, we would have to reduce 520
positions or 260 full-time equivalent (FTE) below 2015 year-end
levels. In the defender account, we would have to defer panel
attorney payments for a month. The court security account, we
would have to defer $6.3 million for enhancements for staffing,
training, and security-related IT developments. We would have
to cut $22 million, which is almost 50 percent, for court
security systems and equipment. We think that the fees of
jurors account could meet requirements.
The result of the elimination of staffing positions in the
court would be reductions in supervision of offenders, which,
of course, carries with it a serious public safety risk, delays
in case processing, and decreased public availability of
courts.
In the IT area, we might face delays in the implementation
of the next generation of the Case Management/Electronic Case
Files (CM/ECF) system, which is our electronic case filing
system, which has been a vehicle for doing more with less.
I think the reason, in order to understand why a hard
freeze hits us so hard, is that if you look at the overall
increase we are requesting, it is a total of $264 million in
discretionary appropriations, or 3.9 percent, and $209 million
of that are escalating costs for the judiciary, rent, benefits,
general inflation. We do give our employees a COLA. We include
it in our request. If the executive branch receives a cost of
living adjustment (COLA), we think it puts us in a very
difficult position, as an employer, not to do that. Also we
have ongoing IT services and implementation.
Those are our adjustments to base. Only 0.7 percent of that
3.9 percent is for improvements or enhancements. As I noted,
many of those go to helping us save money down the road.

TEMPORARY DISTRICT JUDGESHIPS

Senator Boozman. Very good.
For the past several years, the financial services bill has
included language extending temporary Article III judgeships.
Please explain why it is important to continue extending those
judgeships and the impact if the judgeships were not extended.
Mr. Duff. Thank you for the question, Chairman Boozman. It
is very important that the temporary judgeships either be
extended or permanent judgeships created out of those temporary
judgeships. I think the Judicial Conference in its recent March
meeting is recommending ultimately making permanent judgeships
of 9 out of the 10 temporary judgeships.
But it is very important, if new judgeships can't be
created, that the temporary judgeships are extended, because
the workload in those districts where the temporary judgeships
exist is so extreme. That is why the judgeships were created to
begin with, to address that workload. So if the extensions
aren't granted, the workload moves to the other judges on those
courts, and it would be extraordinarily burdensome for them to
pick up the workload.
[Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, Director Duff
provided the following additional information:]

The table below illustrates the importance of extending 9 of the 10
temporary district judgeships and the impact on workload without
extensions. For example, weighted filings per judgeship in Texas-
Eastern was 1,331 in fiscal year 2014. Without an extension that
caseload would increase to 1,521 filings per judgeship.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted
Fiscal Year Caseload in
Authorization 2014 District
District Expires Average With Loss
Weighted of
Caseload Temporary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas-Eastern.................. 9/30/2016 1,331 1,521
Arizona........................ 7/8/2016 742 804
Florida-Southern............... 7/31/2016 695 736
California-Central............. 4/27/2016 664 689
New Mexico..................... 7/14/2016 598 698
Alabama-Northern............... 9/17/2016 381 435
Missouri-Eastern............... 5/20/2016 374 427
Kansas......................... 5/21/2016 366 439
North Carolina-Western......... 4/28/2016 351 439
Hawaii *....................... 4/7/2016 286 381
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Hawaii not recommended for extension or conversation from temporary to
permanent.

NASHVILLE COURTHOUSE PROJECT

Senator Boozman. GSA's 2016 budget request includes $182
million for the judiciary's top construction priority, a new
courthouse in Nashville. Given the backlog of courthouse
construction projects, a new courthouse in Nashville has been
on the judiciary courthouse construction project plan for
almost 20 years.
Can you all describe the judiciary's process for selecting
a courthouse, your construction priorities in that regard,
including why a new courthouse in Nashville is the judiciary's
top space priority?
Mr. Duff. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We did, at the urging of GAO,
restructure, somewhat, our formula for prioritizing new
courthouse construction. There are several factors that go into
that analysis, security being one of them. We carved out
security needs separately, as I mentioned, in the opening
remarks. We did that to enable us to address security needs in
courthouses where an entirely new courthouse wouldn't be
possible, given the fiscal constraints we are operating under.
But under our new space planning process for courthouse
construction, there are very important criteria that go into
those decisions. We have come up with a new listing, if you
will, of courthouse construction priorities. Nashville remains
at the top that list, in part because not only does it meet the
new criteria, but also because so much has already been
invested in the design and study.
As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, it has been on the 5-year
plan for now 20 years. So investments have already been made.
The site has been purchased and partially cleared for
construction. And that is why the Nashville courthouse remains
at the top of that list.
Judge Gibbons. Actually, while security is taken into
account, it values security less than was previously the case,
under the old methodology.
Nevertheless, the Nashville courthouse has both just
really, really serious operational needs, serving the number of
judges it was never intended to serve, and quite serious
security needs.
I am personally familiar with that courthouse. I was a law
clerk in it. I have been in it recently. It is kind of a mess
for the judges who hold court there.
Senator Boozman. Thank you.
Senator Coons.

COST CONTAINMENT PROPOSALS

Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Boozman.
So first, if we might talk further about cost-containment,
you put forward some legislative proposals that will save
money. I think last year it was a proposal to eliminate an
annual report. This year it is a proposal to allow the sharing
of probation services among districts.
I wondered if you would just elaborate on why that might be
a good idea and how it might save some money.
And then also, if we could talk about some of the space
reduction initiatives and whether these involve court staffing
only, or whether there is more that could be done with
courthouses not fully occupied due to there not being a
sufficient number of judges.
And then I want to talk about court security.
Judge Gibbons. Well, I will start. This is not the order
you asked, but if we may start with rent, then court security
from the standpoint of cost-containment, and then move on to
the legislation. There is one, in particular, that I know
Director Duff will want to address. I will try to move through
this pretty quickly.

CONTAINING SPACE COSTS

We have done a lot of things in the past with respect to
space. Our current rent validation effort really involves a
three-pronged approach. Working with our appropriations
subcommittees, we agreed to implement a goal of a 3 percent
reduction in our occupied space by the end of fiscal year 2018.
Going hand-in-hand with that is a requirement for no-net-new,
meaning if you acquire new space, you have to give up space. It
doesn't apply to new courthouse construction like Nashville,
but it does apply otherwise in the system.
The third component is a circuit-wide plan. That really
provides the blueprint for how we would reach goals one and
two. The circuits have all done their plans. The process is
moving forward very well. We believe we are well on target to
meet our goal, and we are pleased with the way that that is
progressing.
[Clerk's note.--Regarding Senator Coons' question about
whether space reduction initiatives apply only to court support
staffing, subsequent to the hearing Judge Gibbons provided the
following additional information:]

The Judiciary's space reduction initiatives apply to our entire
space portfolio, regardless of who is using a particular space and for
what purpose. It is true that most of the space reduction projects
undertaken so far have focused on staff-occupied space. Those are the
projects that have been identified and pursued by the circuits, based
on their local decision making. That said, there are a number of space
reduction projects that have resulted in the reduction, consolidation
or elimination of space occupied or used by judges. For example, the
Judiciary has closed several non-resident facilities, where courtrooms
existed for the use of judges who were not stationed at that facility
full time. We have also moved bankruptcy judges out of leased space and
into courthouses in several locations. In addition, we have engaged in
the creative redesign of some chambers space, resulting in the sharing
of judges' conference rooms and other facilities. We will continue to
consider and approve such projects whenever they are proposed and shown
to be meritorious.

INTEGRATED WORKPLACE INITIATIVE

Along the way, this is one of the areas in which there is a
need to spend a little money to save money. That is why our
budget requests $25 million for some renovations that will
enable us to use less space. We have an initiative underway--we
give everything a name--called the integrated workplace
initiative. The idea is, folks work differently today. Our
probation officers work in the field more. So we have developed
sort of a new workplace that accommodates that, and it occupies
less physical space. There is telecommunicating, there is being
outside the office, all those things.
But sometimes you have to make renovations to do that. We
have two or three projects, Chicago, I think in Phoenix and
Tucson. It seems like there is one other that go to our
implementation of that.
[Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, Judge Gibbons
provided the following additional information:]

Following are brief summaries of Integrated Workplace Initiative
(IWI) projects underway:
Project in Demolition and Construction Phase
--Chicago, Illinois. The Northern District of Illinois probation
office will save $1.4 million in estimated annual rent by
reducing its space footprint 55 percent and relocating from
leased space to a Federal building. This project is anticipated
to be completed in November 2015.
Projects in Concept Design Phase
--San Juan, Puerto Rico. The District of Puerto Rico probation office
will save $300,000 in estimated annual rent by releasing 5,800
sq. ft. in a Federal building and Federal courthouse. There is
no estimated completion date at this time.
--Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona. The District of Arizona probation
office will save $300,000 in estimated annual rent by releasing
7,000 sq. ft. in a Federal building in Phoenix. It will save
another $400,000 in estimated annual rent by releasing 10,000
sq. ft. and relocating staff from leased space to the Federal
courthouse in Tucson. There is no estimated completion date at
this time.
--Dallas, Fort Worth, and Arlington, Texas. The Northern District of
Texas probation office is working to assess options to reduce
space in Federal buildings and courthouses located in Dallas
and Fort Worth, and in leased space in Arlington. The project
is being assessed in conjunction with other space reductions
projects underway in Dallas and Fort Worth involving the
District and Bankruptcy Courts. There is no estimated savings
or completion date at this time.
--Houston, Laredo, Brownsville, and Corpus Christi, Texas. All court
units in the Southern District of Texas are working to assess
options to reduce their respective space allocations in a
Federal courthouse in Houston. In Laredo, the probation office
is working to release leased space and to relocate in a Federal
courthouse. In Corpus Christi, the probation office is working
to reduce its space allocation in a Federal building and
courthouse. There is no estimated savings or completion date at
this time.
--Washington, District of Columbia. A national demonstration project
at the Administrative Office involves co-locating the nearly 70
staff from four Facilities and Security Office divisions into
one space on the first floor of the Thurgood Marshall Federal
Judiciary Building. Total occupied space will be reduced by up
to 25 percent and the design fully incorporates IWI mobility
concepts. The space will include systems furniture and movable
walls to allow for flexible space configuration. The design
process for this project is now underway. The project will
serve as a working example for judges and court unit executives
who travel to Washington, DC to experience first-hand what an
IWI project looks like and to then consider something similar
for their court.

JUDICIARY CAPITAL SECURITY PROGRAM

Senator Coons. I have other questions I would love to get
to, if you could briefly speak to the Capital Security Program
and how that investment will reduce----
Judge Gibbons. It has been a great way for us to take
smaller projects and try to achieve good security improvements
while using lesser amounts of money. It has been very
important.
We have a listing of improvements that we could provide to
you. One of particular interest to this subcommittee might be
the one in Texarkana, Arkansas, that is being carried out at
this time.
If you want more about that, I am full of information. But
if you would like for us to move onto legislation, we would do
that.
[Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, Judge Gibbons
provided the following additional information:]

Following are brief summaries of Capital Security projects either
planned or underway:

--Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, Monroe, Louisiana. $6.1
million (fiscal year 2015 funding). Security deficiencies at
this courthouse would be addressed by enclosing a sally port,
adding one or two elevators (for prisoners and judges), and
reconfiguring/constructing new corridors.
--U.S. Courthouse and Post Office Building, Texarkana, Texas/
Arkansas. $7.2 million (fiscal year 2015 funding). A number of
security deficiencies at this courthouse will be addressed by
this Capital Security project. It will provide secure, covered
parking for judges. It will consolidate U.S. Marshals space
from two locations to one location within the courthouse, and
enclose a sally port. The project will also add elevators and
enhance building corridors to create separate circulation
patterns for judges and prisoners.
--Ron De Lugo Federal Building, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. $20
million (fiscal year 2013 funding). The scope of this capital
security project includes new judge and prisoner elevators, a
judges' garage, a U.S. Marshals Service sally port, and other
security improvements to the site. An architecture/engineering
contract was awarded and the project entered the design phase
in February 2015.
--Frank M. Scarlett Building, Brunswick, Georgia. $5.5 million
(fiscal year 2012 funding). Security deficiencies at this
courthouse are being addressed by building entry improvements,
reconfiguring corridors, adding elevators, enclosing a sally
port, and creating secure parking for judges. The design is
underway, with anticipated completion of construction in
January 2016.
--Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, Benton, Illinois. $4.7
million (fiscal year 2012 funding). Security deficiencies at
this courthouse are being addressed by reconfiguring/
constructing new corridors, adding an elevator, enclosing a
sally port, and constructing visual barriers. Construction was
completed in January 2015 and the court is currently occupying
the renovated space.
--U.S. Courthouse and Post Office, Lexington, Kentucky. $6.7 million
(fiscal year 2012 funding). Security deficiencies at this
courthouse are being addressed by reconfiguring/constructing
new corridors, adding elevators, enclosing a sally port, and
constructing visual barriers. The design-build contract for
this project is in the process of being awarded, with the
anticipated completion of construction in September 2016.
--Hato Rey Complex, Clemente Ruiz-Nazario U.S. Courthouse and
Federico Degetau Federal Building, San Juan, Puerto Rico. $3.1
million (fiscal year 2012 funding). Security deficiencies at
this courthouse are being addressed by reconfiguring/
constructing new corridors and adding elevators for prisoners.
The project is currently under construction and is on time and
under budget. The anticipated completion of construction is May
2015. A CSP study is currently underway in Puerto Rico to
evaluate additional significant security concerns not addressed
by the fiscal year 2012 project.

In addition, the judiciary has requested $20 million for CSP
projects in fiscal year 2016. Funds are requested for the following
locations (with project cost estimates subject to verification by GSA):

--Terry Sanford Federal Building, Raleigh, North Carolina. $11
million. Security deficiencies at this courthouse could be
addressed by adding and/or reconfiguring two or three elevators
and constructing additional secure corridors.
--U.S. Post Office and Courthouse, Alexandria, Louisiana. $9 million.
Security deficiencies at this courthouse could be addressed by
enclosing judges parking and providing an elevator and a
corridor addition to allow the judges secure circulation. The
U.S. Marshals Service would have new space that includes
operations, an enclosed sally port, holding cells, a prisoner
elevator and an interlock corridor for secure prisoner
transport.

SHARING PROBATION OFFICERS ACROSS DISTRICTS

Senator Coons. What is the proposal and how would it save
money, Mr. Duff?
Mr. Duff. Senator Coons, you asked about some legislative
proposals where there may be some cost savings, and we are
grateful for the conference agreement in the last Congress on
one of those, which had to do with reducing an unnecessary
reporting requirement, which is a cost savings.
Our probation and pretrial services program, another
suggestion that we are urging in the way of a legislative fix
is permitting probation officers appointed in one district to
perform services for another district, with the consent of the
appointing court. I will give you an example of where there
could be cost savings, if the prohibitions were lifted as to
sharing probation officers or allowing them to travel outside
their districts.
An officer from the Flagstaff Probation Office in the
District of Arizona has to travel 223 miles to visit offenders
from the Round Rock region of the reservation there. If
probation officers from the Farmington Probation Office in the
District of New Mexico were permitted and authorized to work
across their district boundaries, they would need to travel
only 118 miles to visit the same offenders.
So given the location of these offices, we think, if
officers are allowed to travel outside their districts, it
would actually result in significant cost savings over the long
run.
[Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, Director Duff
provided the following additional information:]

In addition to the example I cited of the benefits of sharing
probation officers across large judicial districts, such sharing
arrangements could also conserve resources by enabling districts to
avoid the higher salary costs associated with officers with specialized
supervision skills, which can be as much as $15,000 more than a typical
probation officer. For example, a probation officer in the Eastern
District of New York who has been trained in supervising sex offenders
with computer monitoring conditions might also be able to handle those
types of cases in the Southern District of New York and in the District
of New Jersey, thereby relieving those districts from the obligation of
hiring and training their own specialists.

NEED FOR ADDITIONAL JUDGESHIPS

Senator Coons. Mr. Duff, you had a conversation with the
chairman about temporary judgeships. Let me just ask a question
on that, if I might.
If I understand correctly, we haven't had a new
authorization, a broad review and authorization, since 1990 of
the number of Federal judgeships required in the Judicial
Conference. Its most recent report is now requesting 73 new
judgeships, as well as the conversion of nine of the temporary
to permanent.
But there are truly acute shortages in several courthouses
around the country, in California, Texas, and Delaware. What
sort of impact does it have on litigants, what sort of impact
does it have on timely access to justice, when you have
significantly overburdened courthouses in certain places? And
what sort of workload leads you to deem a particular courthouse
acute in its shortage?
Mr. Duff. The courts you mentioned, certainly the border
courts that you identified, are severely burdened, as are a lot
of bankruptcy proceedings and courts in Delaware.
The border court judges, they are carrying workloads
sometimes in the range of 800 to 900 cases per year. That is
just unmanageable. So we are doing the best we can in moving
judges, in inter-circuit assignments, moving judges to help out
in those districts.
But your question is a very good one, concerning the burden
it places not only on the courts but on those we serve within
the court system, and those who appear before the courts.
[Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, Director Duff
provided the following additional information:]

Regarding the workload standards that are used to determine whether
a new district judgeship is needed, the Judicial Conference uses a
threshold of 430 weighted filings per authorized judgeship in a
judicial district as a starting point for considering an additional
judgeship. The 430 threshold for a new district judgeship applies to
what filings per judgeship in a district would be after a new judgeship
is created, unless certain circumstances apply. For this reason,
judicial districts that are candidates for new judgeships currently
have filings well above the 430 threshold.

DELAYS IN OVERBURDENED COURTS

Senator Coons. What would be a typical delay, length of
time, in one of these overburdened courts, from filing to first
hearing to resolution?
Mr. Duff. I don't know about a typical delay, but it is
clear that the courts can't keep up with the caseload, if
individual judges are being asked to preside over 800 or 900
cases a year.
[Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, Director Duff
provided the following additional information:]

Speedy trial dictates for Federal criminal cases, including the
Sixth Amendment and the Speedy Trial Act--which establishes specific
time limits between various stages of Federal criminal proceeding--
necessitate that Federal judges give priority to criminal cases over
civil cases. Delays in civil cases are dependent on the size and
complexity of the case. The impact on litigants is that delays in civil
cases can increase attorneys' fees in order to keep the case active, or
can result in a plaintiff feeling pressured to settle a case due to an
uncertain timeline for going to trial. To address caseload needs in
overburdened judicial districts, the Judiciary uses visiting judges
from around the country to assist with criminal and civil dockets.

Senator Coons. I routinely hear complaints about years of
delays before Federal filings are ultimately resolved in some
of the most overburdened courts.
Judge Gibbons. I am sure that is true in courts like
Delaware that are among the most burdened in the Nation.
Senator Coons. Thank you, both.
Senator Boozman. Senator Lankford.

WORKLOAD TRENDS

Senator Lankford. Thank you.
I have several questions here. One is, I have noticed some
of the numbers and the trends here. Civil filings grew by about
4 percent. Criminal filings have fallen 11 percent. So help me
understand the trend that is happening here, and what do you
attribute that to? Is that affecting your judges and placements
and their workloads?
Judge Gibbons. No. Fluctuating filings are a fact of life
for us. In the criminal area, they are very much affected by
both prosecution policies of the Department of Justice and also
by resources available to the Department of Justice.
In the civil area, external events tend to drive civil
filings--trends in personal injury, product liability cases,
the economy. I mean, there are just all kinds of things, and we
are accustomed to dealing with that. But we do take filings
into account in calculating both our judgeship needs and our
staffing needs.
Senator Lankford. Okay. Tell me the trends in filings right
now in drug-related cases and immigration-related cases.
Judge Gibbons. Well, I am not sure that I have information
with me broken down by type of filing. If I do, probably the
staff will pull my coat. But we can, certainly, provide that to
you for the record.
Senator Lankford. Okay.
Tell me about some of the vacancy areas.
Judge Gibbons. I do think that the immigration filings are
down. I am not sure I know about the drug filings.
Senator Lankford. Yes, it is my understanding that both of
them are actually down fairly significantly. I was trying to
figure out the trend and the reason for that.
Judge Gibbons. Well, I don't know, because it is within the
Department of Justice. And I, certainly, don't speak for them.
On the other hand, the two factors I mentioned are
typically the things that drive criminal filings, policy plus
resources. Of course, the Justice Department was under
sequestration, as we were.
[Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, Judge Gibbons
provided the following additional information:]

The table below provides criminal defendants by major offense type
for 2010 through 2014 based on the Judiciary's statistical tables. The
number of criminal defendants in Federal court is determined by the
prosecutorial policies of the Department of Justice. Questions
regarding increases or decreases in the number of defendants
prosecuted, or changes in prosecutions for a particular offense type
can best be answered by the Department of Justice.

Criminal Defendants by Major Offense Type, 2010-2014 \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Offense Type 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drug Offenses................................................. 29,660 31,134 30,653 29,141 26,354
Immigration Offenses.......................................... 29,242 28,676 26,056 24,476 22,160
Property Offenses............................................. 17,146 17,526 15,957 14,733 13,708
Firearms Offenses............................................. 8,474 8,433 8,990 8,402 7,726
Sex Offenses.................................................. 2,825 3,384 3,422 3,450 3,425
Traffic Offenses.............................................. 4,105 4,609 3,486 3,229 2,914
Violent Offenses.............................................. 2,888 2,791 2,734 2,822 2,721
General Offenses.............................................. 2,218 2,609 2,242 2,330 1,977
Regulatory Offenses........................................... 2,055 2,137 2,125 2,013 1,949
Justice System Offenses....................................... 993 967 927 936 845
-------------------------------------------------
Total................................................... 99,606 102,266 96,592 91,532 83,779
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects statistics for criminal defendants for the 12 months ending June 30 for the years shown.

JUDGESHIP VACANCIES

Senator Lankford. Of the openings there and the vacancies,
we have nine individuals who are in the Court of International
Trade. We have four vacancies in the Court of International
Trade. How are they operating and functioning at this point?
Mr. Duff. May I just double back?
Senator Lankford. Sure.
Mr. Duff. Another expansion to the answer on your previous
question is that sequestration did have an impact on the number
of U.S. attorneys, so that had impact on the caseload as well.
Senator Lankford. So the vacancies in the Court of
International Trade, four vacancies there. How significant is
that to their basic operation? That is a pretty large
percentage.
Mr. Duff. Well, it is significant. I think one of the
things that we have done well within the judiciary is we have
been honest brokers, if you will, where there are needs. If a
vacancy occurs in a district, for example, where the workload
does not justify the extension or filling of that vacancy, we
have been candid with the Congress about that in the
appropriations process and throughout.
If, however, a vacancy occurs where the workload demands
the filling of the vacancy or the creation of new judgeships,
which we have come to the subcommittee with from time to time,
we do so.
So a drop-off of four in that particular court is
significant, and it would have an impact on how they deliver
their work.
[Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, Judge Timothy
Stanceu, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of International Trade,
provided the following additional information:]

As Senator Lankford correctly states, there are nine authorized
judgeships on the Court of International Trade and there are currently
four vacancies. One nomination is pending in the Senate. The Court is
addressing workload needs with the assistance of its senior judges who
have left active status but continue to take cases. This, however, can
be only a temporary solution pending the filling of vacancies on the
Court.

DISTRICT COURT WORKLOAD

Senator Lankford. So, which district would you say has the
lowest caseload at this point, as far as number of cases that
are before them? You mentioned the one that is high. You
mentioned some that have up to 800 cases a year. What is our
low-end?
Mr. Duff. I would have to get that number to you. I don't
know off the top of my head for a particular court, a
particular judge.
Senator Lankford. Or just a particular district.
Mr. Duff. A particular district. I don't know the low-end,
the lowest.
Judge Gibbons. I don't know either, and I hesitate to
mention particular areas. I mean, I know historically where
some of the lowest areas are, but I would be hesitant to
identify them. Those judges would be squealing if I happened to
be wrong in light of the exact situation today.
[Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, Judge Gibbons
provided the following additional information:]

In fiscal year 2014, the five Federal judicial districts with the
lowest weighted filings per judgeship are Vermont (241), District of
Columbia (232), New Hampshire (228), Wyoming (189), and Alaska (158).
The national median weighted filings per judgeship in fiscal year 2014
was 415.

EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICES

Senator Lankford. We will try to pull that.
You had mentioned, Judge Gibbons, a statement in your
written testimony where you talked about reducing offender
recidivism. You talked about evidence-based offender
supervision practices increasing recidivism rates.
Can you give me an example of that? You implied you are
having some success in that area, and that is great. What are
tactics? What is happening? And what are you doing to
accomplish that?
Judge Gibbons. It is interesting what evidence-based
practices are. Our recidivism rate has been lower historically
in the Federal system, even prior to our implementation of
these techniques, than say it is in State systems. For us, it
is about 30 percent. In State systems, it has been up to 70
percent or thereabouts.
Senator Lankford. So States are saying 70 percent. Federal,
around 30 percent.
Judge Gibbons. Right. For us, about 30 percent reoffending.
But the impact of evidence-based practices, supervision
historically has been based on visits, keeping up with
offenders, and counseling. There are some practices, which have
been validated by empirical studies, that show that in addition
to those longstanding techniques, it can be very effective for
probation officers to be trained in techniques that help
interrupt and change the cognitive thought processes.
Senator Lankford. That is what I was asking.
Judge Gibbons. For example, we are trying to break patterns
of destructive behavior that drive offenders back into
associations with people they shouldn't be associating with,
that interfere with their obtaining and maintaining employment,
all the things that you can think of, the attitude things that
you can think of that shape an individual's success in life.
Now, I haven't been to evidence-based training, so I can't
tell you how a probation officer would go about doing that. But
this is what that training is specifically designed to address,
so that an officer knows how to work with an individual to,
let's put it in lay terms, to get them to shape up and do
right, as far as attitude.
[Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, Judge Gibbons
provided the following additional information:]

The Judiciary's Staff Training Aimed at Re-Arrest Reduction (STARR)
program involves exercises and instructions designed to alter the
dysfunctional thinking patterns exhibited by many offenders and
improves the quality and nature of the relationship between the
offender and the officer. STARR builds on officers' existing
communication skills, use of authority, and ability to impart cognitive
restructuring strategies to offenders. For example, in applying the
principles of STARR in interacting with an offender, an officer would
utilize skills that help the offender identify dysfunctional thinking
patterns and criminogenic life style issues, such as anti-social peers
and substance abuse, that contribute to their proclivity to re-offend.
Over the series of many interactions, the offender will learn and
practice strategies to manage high risk situations, that in the past,
have led to undesirable behavior and that interfere with the offender's
personal life goals. Where appropriate, the officer will utilize proven
negative and positive reinforcement techniques, and other techniques
such as active listening that enhance the quality of the officer-
offender interactions.

Senator Lankford. Thank you.
I yield back.

FILINGS PER JUDGESHIP

Mr. Duff. Senator Lankford, if I could just double back on
one of your questions as well. Just to put in perspective what
an 800-case per judge workload is like, new judgeships in our
formula are requested when there are 430 cases for a judge. So
a judge carrying 800 cases is basically doing the work of two
judges.
Judge Gibbons. And the low caseload districts would be down
into the 200 or even a bit below that range, perhaps. Something
like that.

RETROACTIVITY OF SENTENCING GUIDELINE CHANGE

Senator Boozman. Let me ask just one more question, and if
Senator Coons has a question, and Senator Lankford, if you
would like.
The U.S. Sentencing Commission recently revised their
sentencing guidelines to include the future and also going back
in the past to those that are currently incarcerated.
How will reduced sentences impact the workload of the
courts? What are you doing to prepare for that?
Judge Gibbons. Well, pretty significantly. Of course, that
sort of thing requires extra work for judges and for court
staff, but that is not where we worry. Where we worry is about
the impact on probation officers.
Probation officers, although the name is kind of a bit of a
misnomer, they supervise an increasingly dangerous and high-
risk population. So when they are not supervised adequately,
there is a public safety risk.
We will need more probation officers to handle the workload
that will be created by the releases of the offenders, which
will begin after November 1 this year.
But right now, we have funds available, thanks to this
subcommittee's appropriation. We have funds available to begin
putting those probation officers in place, which is important
and very good, because probation officers require full FBI
background reports and they require training. So you need a
little bit lead time, so it is very, very fortunate.
We are not asking for new staff for that, because we feel
we have adequate funds now to do what we need to do.

REDUCING RECIDIVISM

Senator Boozman. I appreciate that. I was interested in the
question that Senator Lankford asked about reducing recidivism
and things, evidence-based. This is almost the opposite of
that.
If you have a situation where you don't have the staff in
place as you put people out on the street, if we don't do a
good job in that regard, then that rate is going to go up
dramatically, as we have seen perhaps in some States as they
have done similar things but not provided adequate parole
officers to actually implement. That is so important, as you
said earlier, getting people to change their attitude and shape
up and stay out of jail.
Judge Gibbons. The $15 million we have requested for
increased training for probation officers, some of our officers
are trained in how to do this sort of supervision. Others fell
behind because of the impact of sequestration. While we are
continuing these efforts, in 2016 we are asking for $15 million
more, to get as many of our officers trained in the practices
demonstrated to bring the best results.
Senator Boozman. Very good.
Senator Coons.

EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICES

Senator Coons. Just if I could, a follow up on that. So of
your 94 judicial districts, how long will it take before you
complete training in the probation staff, the teams of all of
them? $15 million won't allow you to accomplish all this in 1
year, will it?
Judge Gibbons. No, it will not. We believe we will have
folks in most districts trained, but we cannot say we will have
every officer in 94 districts trained. We don't believe that is
going to happen.
[Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, Judge Gibbons
provided the following additional information:]

The $15 million in the Judiciary's fiscal year 2016 budget request
will not result in all 94 districts receiving STARR training, but it
will facilitate the expansion of the program by preparing untrained
officers in the currently involved districts (64) and allow some
additional districts to participate in the training.
Regarding implementation, we are prepared to move ahead immediately
with expansion plans in fiscal year 2016 if funding is appropriated.
The Administrative Office's Probation and Pretrial Services program has
identified at least two commercial off-the-shelf programs that would
provide officers with a foundation needed for the STARR program. We
have already selected regional STARR coaches who will work with each
STARR-trained district and can travel there to assess implementation
and provide any necessary booster training that is needed. An internal
group was convened to outline contracting procedures for districts to
begin the development of resources for officers and treatment
providers.

INVESTMENTS FOR LONG-TERM SAVINGS

Senator Coons. There are a couple places in your opening
comments, you stated that there are places where we need to
make investments in order to save money. We talked a little bit
about how restructuring some of the courthouses would allow you
to actually reduce space, but you have to invest money in
rebuilding and reorienting the space.
Here we are talking about investing money in training
probation officers so that you have fewer recidivism incidents,
so you have fewer repeat offenders.
Anything else you wanted to emphasize before we close in
places where your investment in IT or courthouse security, for
example, or, frankly, in rehiring career public defender staff
rather than relying solely on panel attorneys, any other areas
where you might save money in the long-term by making a short-
term investment that is in this proposal?
Judge Gibbons. Let me try to chip away at several of those
as quickly as possible.
In the defender area, there are a number of reasons
defenders have been slow to hire up. We have funds available
for them to get back to near pre-sequestration levels in 2015.
So they are hiring at this point, but we think we will be
there, we hope, by the end of this year.
Another area of investment for us would be the $19 million
we are requesting for enterprise hosting and IT. We need to do
that internally because of security concerns. The $19 million
is a beginning. I can't give you a net cost-benefit analysis,
but ultimately, that promises to bring savings to local courts
that will not have to maintain their own systems in the way
that they do today.
I am trying to think if I have neglected anything that is a
savings down the road, but that is what I am thinking of at
this time.
I might double back and say one sentence about something
that I should have covered earlier. You had asked me previously
about the split in judges versus staffing, space reductions. It
is about 55 percent, 45 percent, many more staff than judges.
But the reason that 45 percent of the burden has been borne by
judges is because of our efforts to close nonresident and other
facilities.
[Clerk's note.--Subsequent to the hearing, Judge Gibbons
provided the following clarification:]

Approximately 55 percent of the Judiciary's space inventory is
comprised of chambers and courtrooms and the remaining 45 percent is
for clerks of court offices, probation and pretrial services offices,
and libraries. The Judiciary's 3 percent space reduction target by the
end of fiscal year 2018 will focus on reducing space where feasible and
practicable, however, space reduction will not necessarily be
accomplished in proportion to the current 55 percent/45 percent split
of chambers and courtroom space to other Judiciary space.

Senator Coons. Thank you both very much. I appreciate it.
Senator Boozman. I want to thank all of the people that
participated in preparing the hearing today. Our staff on both
sides work really hard very hard to do that, so we appreciate
that.
We thank you for your testimony today about a number of
really important issues. We thank you for your frankness and
really feel like this will be very, very helpful as we go
forward in trying to prepare the 2016 funding.
At this time, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from
the Federal Bar Association in support of the judiciary's
fiscal year 2016 budget request be included in the record.
[The information follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Federal Bar Association
March 23, 2015.

Hon. John Boozman, Chairman Hon. Christopher A. Coons, Ranking
Appropriations Subcommittee on Member
Financial Services and General Appropriations Subcommittee on
Government Financial Services and General
United States Senate Government
Washington, DC 20510 United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Re: Fiscal Year 2016 Funding Request of the Federal Judiciary

Dear Chairman Boozman and Ranking Member Coons:

We write to express strong support for the Federal judiciary's
fiscal year 2016 budget request. The request equals $7.0 billion in
discretionary appropriations, and increase of 3.9 percent over the
fiscal year 2015 enacted level. The request also includes $571.1
million in mandatory appropriations. We urge the Congress to make these
funds available to assure the Federal courts are able to fulfill their
constitutional and statutory responsibilities.
Our Association's membership of over 16,000 attorneys represents a
major constituency of the Federal court system. Our members witness the
daily need for adequate funding for the Federal courts. Their clients,
whether defendants or plaintiffs, enter the courts in civil and
criminal disputes with the same expectations for the fair and prompt
administration of justice.
We are deeply appreciative of your subcommittee's past support for
the Federal judiciary and your vigilance to assure that the necessary
resources are made available to permit them to fulfill their
responsibilities as a co-equal branch of Government. The funding that
Congress made available to the Federal courts in fiscal year 2015 was
vital in helping courts across the Nation to stabilize their financial
position and operations after the devastating impact of sequestration.
The judiciary's fiscal year 2016 request will maintain current services
across the judiciary, continue the recovery and restoration of
activities disrupted because of sequestration, and enable investment in
important new or upgraded program initiatives to support judicial
operations.
We note that the judiciary's budget request fully funds the
judiciary's Defender Services program, which provides court-appointed
counsel to indigent defendants, and increases the non-capital panel
attorney hourly rate from $128 to $134. The funding request also
ensures that funds will be available for criminal and civil jury
trials. For the first time since 1990, the judiciary's request provides
for an increase in the daily juror attendance fee by $10, from $40 to
$50.
We ask your subcommittee to take into account the commendable
actions taken by the judiciary to contain costs and implement more
efficient ways to administer justice. Space reduction remains the
judiciary's primary cost-containment initiative. Since 2013, the
judiciary has proactively removed more than 242,000 square feet of
space from its rent bill, representing an annual savings of $6 million.
In addition, we support the judiciary's request for design and
construction services funding for the Nashville, Tennessee Federal
Courthouse, as included in the administration's budget request for the
General Services Administration. Funding of this project would
represent only the second approval of new Federal courthouse funding
since 2010.
Members of the Federal bar are committed to doing everything we can
to continue to support the judiciary's efforts to assure the
administration of justice good stewardship of taxpayer resources. Thank
you for your consideration of our comments.
Sincerely yours,
Matthew B. Moreland,
President.

Senator Boozman. If there are no further questions, the
hearing record will remain open until Tuesday, March 31, at
noon, for subcommittee members to submit statements and
questions to the witnesses for the record. We request responses
to those questions be within 30 days.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator Boozman. Again, thank you very much. And with that,
the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., Tuesday, March 24, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]