[Senate Report 106-379]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




106th Congress                                                   Report
 2d Session                      SENATE                         106-379
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     



 
                 FEDERAL COURTS BUDGET PROTECTION ACT

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                   COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                              to accompany

                                S. 1564

              TO PROTECT THE BUDGET OF THE FEDERAL COURTS




                August 25, 2000.--Ordered to be printed

   Filed under authority of the order of the Senate of July 26, 2000
                   COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                   FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee, Chairman
WILLIAM V. ROTH, Jr., Delaware       JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
TED STEVENS, Alaska                  CARL LEVIN, Michigan
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine              DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
GEORGE VOINOVICH, Ohio               RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico         ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi            MAX CLELAND, Georgia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania          JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
             Hannah S. Sistare, Staff Director and Counsel
                      Dan G. Blair, Senior Counsel
                      Michael L. Loesch, Counsel,
      International Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services 
                              Subcommittee
      Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Minority Staff Director and Counsel
                Deborah Cohen Lehrich, Minority Counsel
                     Darla D. Cassell, Chief Clerk



                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
  I.  Purpose.........................................................1
 II.  Summary.........................................................1
III.  Background and Need for Legislation.............................2
 IV.  Legislative History of S. 1564..................................3
  V.  Section-by-Section Analysis.....................................4
 VI.  Regulatory Impact Statement.....................................5
VII.  Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate.......................5
VIII. Additional Views................................................6

 IX.  Changes in Existing Law.........................................9




106th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                     106-379

======================================================================




                  FEDERAL COURTS BUDGET PROTECTION ACT
                                _______
                                

                August 25, 2000.--Ordered to be printed

   Filed under authority of the order of the Senate of July 26, 2000

                                _______
                                

Mr. Thompson, from the Committee on Governmental Affairs submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                         [To accompany S. 1564]

    The Committee on Governmental Affairs, to which was 
referred the bill (S. 1564) to protect the budget of the 
Federal courts, having considered the same, reports favorably 
thereon with an amendment in the nature of a substitute and 
recommends that the bill as amended do pass.

                               I. Purpose

    The purpose of S. 1564 is to allow the judiciary to 
communicate directly to Congress its needs for appropriations 
without mediation from the executive branch, thereby preserving 
its independence as a separate branch of government.

                         II. Summary of S. 1564

    The legislation would make two changes in the process 
through which the budget for the judicial branch is submitted 
to Congress.
    First, it would provide that the judiciary budget request 
be submitted directly to Congress. It would also be submitted, 
without change, in the unified budget as submitted by the 
President. The Act emphasizes that the President may not in his 
budget request impose or recommend any alteration, negative 
allowance, rescission, or other change in the judiciary's 
request, directly or indirectly. However, the President would 
not be precluded from commenting on the judiciary's request 
outside of the formal budget document.
    Second, the legislation requires that the judiciary budget 
request submitted to Congress include a request for funding for 
courthouse construction, acquisition, and repairs and 
alterations. S. 1564 would direct that such funds be 
appropriated directly to the judiciary for deposit into GSA's 
Federal Buildings Fund. Under current law, requests for 
courthouse construction and related funding are contained in 
the President's budget request and are subject to review and 
modification by the executive branch prior to the budget's 
submission to Congress.
    The Act would retain existing procedures for GSA to develop 
prospectuses which assess facility requirements, specifications 
and costs of actual construction or alteration work, and the 
housing needs of executive branch agencies located in 
courthouses. GSA would provide these prospectuses to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
which would continue their current role in authorizing this 
work. GSA would continue to provide similar information for 
future project to the Director of the Administrative Office of 
the United States Courts.
    This bill would affect solely the manner in which the 
judiciary's budget request is submitted to Congress; it does 
not otherwise affect Congress' role in the budget process.

                III. Background and Need for Legislation

    The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 (the Budget Act or 
the Act), as amended, calls for the President to submit 
annually to Congress the budget for the entire Government, 
containing among other things ``estimated expenditures and 
proposed appropriations the President decides are necessary to 
support the Government,'' 31 U.S.C. Sec.  1105(a)(5). Budget 
requests of executive branch agencies are subjected to an 
extensive pre-submission screening, as each agency is required 
to submit its requests for appropriations to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB), which in turn advises the 
President on which requests he should ``change'' under 31 
U.S.C. Sec.  1108(b)(1).
    A different course is provided for requests from the 
judicial and legislative branches. These two branches are 
excluded from the definition of ``agency'' which encompasses 
the category of appropriations requests the President may 
change, 31 U.S.C. Sec.  1101(1). Section 201 of the Act 
specifically provides that the budget requests for the 
legislative and judicial branches shall be transmitted by the 
President to Congress ``without change,'' 31 U.S.C. Sec.  
1105(b).
    This process was intended to protect the judiciary's budget 
request from changes made by the executive branch. Yet four 
times since 1990, the President's budget submission has 
proposed multi-hundred million dollar ``negative allowances.'' 
In order to keep its budget within the limits mandated by the 
spending cap legislation, the President included a ``negative 
allowance'' at the end of his budget request, equal to the 
amount that the entire budget exceeded the budget caps. The 
negative allowance, while not explicitly applied to the 
judiciary's budget, is by default attributable to it. Because 
OMB already has trimmed executive branch agencies' budget 
requests to comply with the spending caps, the negative 
allowance has been attributed as the amount by which OMB 
believes the judiciary's budget request should be cut.
    S. 1564 is intended to stop the use of negative allowances. 
It provides that the judiciary's request be submitted directly 
to Congress and expressly prohibits the executive branch from 
imposing any negative allowance against that request in the 
formal budget document.
    In addition to the operational resources included in the 
judiciary's budget request and appropriations, the judiciary 
must conduct its business in adequate courthouse facilities. 
Like most other government entities, the judiciary relies on 
GSA, an executive branch agency, to construct and repair its 
buildings. Pursuant to existing law, the funds for such 
projects are requested by GSA as part of the executive branch's 
budget submission. Because GSA is an executive agency, its 
budget requests have been subject to screening and change by 
OMB. For that reason, the need has arisen to protect the 
judiciary's ability to request directly from Congress the 
amount that it believes appropriate to fund courthouse 
construction.
    For the last several years, the judiciary has had to 
respond to major increases in its workload and to the need for 
an overhaul of the nation's aging inventory of federal 
courthouses. Therefore, GSA and the judiciary have engaged in 
an extensive construction and alteration program. While many 
projects have been successfully completed, both the judiciary 
and GSA agree that more work remains to be done. However, for 
the last four fiscal years OMB has eliminated or substantially 
reduced GSA's courthouse construction requests from the budget, 
``zeroing out'' the entire request in two of these years as 
part of its prioritization of the budget requests from all 
executive branch agencies. Although Congress restored this 
request in fiscal year 1999, the Administration reduced the 
judiciary's courthouse funding request in its fiscal year 2001 
budget request from $755 million to $488 million.
    Both Congress and the judiciary would be much better served 
by having the judiciary's construction request submitted 
directly and unchanged from the outset.

                   IV. Legislative History of S. 1564

    On August 5, 1999, Senator Cochran, along with Senators 
Collins, Roth, and Stevens, introduced S. 1564. Senators Hatch 
and Leahy were added as cosponsors on September 14, 1999. The 
bill requires the judiciary's budget request to be submitted 
directly to Congress and to include requests for funds for 
courthouse construction, acquisition, and repairs and 
alterations.
    On June 14, 2000, the Committee held a business meeting at 
which S. 1564 was considered. Senator Cochran offered an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, which was approved by 
voice vote.
    With no other amendments being offered, Chairman Thompson 
moved adoption of S. 1564, as amended. The bill was ordered to 
be favorably reported by voice vote. Present for the vote were 
Senators Stevens, Collins, Voinovich, Cochran, Lieberman, 
Akaka, Torricelli, Cleland, Edwards and Thompson. (Senator 
Voinovich expressed opposition by voice vote.)

                     V. Section-by-Section Analysis

    Section 1 states the title of the legislation, the 
``Federal Courts Budget Protection Act''.
    Section 2 amends Section 605 of title 28, United States 
Code, to revise the way the judiciary's budget requests are 
submitted to Congress and to expand what is included in those 
requests.
    Section 2(a) requires the Director of the Administrative 
Office of the United States Courts to submit directly to 
Congress before January 25 of each year, cost estimates for the 
annual operating budget of the judicial branch, as approved by 
the Judicial Conference or appropriate courts, as well as for 
federal courthouse construction, acquisitions, repairs and 
alterations. The Director's budget request for courthouse 
projects will be based on prospectuses and cost estimates 
prepared by GSA. To ensure that the judiciary can prepare the 
courthouse projects budget request in a timely manner, the 
Administrator of General Services is directed to prepare and 
submit to the Director prospectuses, including cost estimates, 
and preliminary planning, design and cost estimates for 
courthouse projects. These prospectuses shall also be provided 
to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, the 
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the 
Senate and House Committees on Appropriations. Funds are 
authorized to be appropriated to the judicial branch for 
deposit into the Federal Buildings Fund for courthouse 
projects. These funds may be obligated only if the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
Representatives have approved a prospectus, if such is required 
by law. (This is a repeat of standard language included each 
year in the Treasury, Postal Service and General Government 
appropriations bill.) The Director is also required to submit 
the same cost estimates under subsection (a) to the President 
for inclusion in the budget of the United States. The President 
must include these estimates without change in the national 
budget submitted pursuant to the first sentence of section 
1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, and is prohibited from 
using a negative allowance, rescission or any other direct or 
indirect form of reduction to such estimates. Nothing in this 
legislation precludes the President, however, from making 
comments about the judiciary's funding request in a medium 
outside of the formal budget submission process. To assist the 
President in preparing the unified Federal budget, the Director 
is required to transmit preliminary estimates prepared under 
subsection (a) to the President before October 16 each year and 
final estimates before December 24 each year. The final 
estimates transmitted to the President must be identical to 
those submitted to Congress under subsection (a). TheDirector 
is required to have periodic examinations made of the judicial 
survivors annuity fund by an outside actuary and to transmit those 
findings and recommendations to the Judicial Conference. (This is an 
existing requirement in Section 605.)
    Section 2(b) amends section 1105(b) of title 31, United 
States Code to make conforming changes regarding inclusion of 
the judiciary's budget request in the budget submitted by the 
President.
    Section 2(c) clarifies that, with the exception of the new 
process for providing prospectuses and cost information to the 
Director and to Congress under subsection (a), the role of the 
Administrator of General Services with regard to courthouse 
construction, acquisitions, repairs and alterations, including 
housing plans of executive branch elements which should be 
included in these buildings, shall remain the same as it is 
now.

                  VI. Regulatory Impact of Legislation

    Paragraph 11(b)(1) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of 
the Senate requires that each report accompanying a bill 
evaluate ``the regulatory impact which would be incurred in 
carrying out this bill.''
    The enactment of this legislation will not have a 
significant regulatory impact. S. 1564 contains no 
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would affect the budgets of 
state, local or tribal governments.

             VII. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, June 20, 2000.
Hon. Fred Thompson,
Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1564, the Federal 
Courts Budget Protection Act.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. the CBO staff contact is Lanette J. 
Keith.
            Sincerely,
                                           Steven Lieberman
                                    (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
    Enclosure.

S. 1564--Federal Courts Budget Protection Act

    CBO estimates that enacting S. 1564 would have no impact on 
the federal budget. Because enactment of S. 1564 would not 
affect direct spending or receipts, pay-as-you-go procedures 
would not apply. The bill contains no intergovernmental or 
private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act and would not affect the budgets of state, local, 
tribal governments.
    S. 1564 would require that the Administration submit the 
budget request of the judicial branch to the Congress without 
charge. The bill also would require that the funding request 
for court construction and maintenance be included in the 
budget request of the judicial branch instead of the General 
Services Administration. Because enactment of S. 1564 would 
change the procedure for submitting the budget and would not 
authorize additional amounts, CBO estimates that this 
legislation would have no impact on the federal budget.
    The CBO staff contact is Lanette J. Keith. This estimate 
was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director 
for Budget Analysis.

                         VIII. Additional Views

    I write to express my opposition to S. 1564, the Federal 
Courts Budget Protection Act, sponsored by my good friend from 
Mississippi, Senator Cochran and co-sponsored by four members 
of this Committee, as well as the Chairman and Ranking Member 
of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I regret having to take this 
position, but as Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Budget 
I feel it is my responsibility to make clear that this 
legislation is both an unnecessary and unwarranted amendment to 
the federal budget process.
    Let me begin by explaining how the request for construction 
of new federal courthouses is produced. First, the 
Administrative Office of the United State Courts (AO) compiles 
a five-year plan which prioritizes the Judiciary's request for 
new courthouses. Second, based on AO's prioritization, the 
General Service Administration (GSA) uses the ranking in 
preparing its annual budget request to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) and to Congress for the authorization and 
funding of new courthouse construction.
    Although the Judiciary has the responsibility to identify 
and propose courthouse construction projects, the GSA, as the 
primary federal real property agency, must formally request the 
courthouse funding as part of its annual budget request to 
Congress. Acquiring real property and constructing federal 
buildings is GSA's mission. GSA bases its funding request for 
new courthouse projects on two plans, which are updated 
annually by the AO, the Long-Range Facility Plan (LRP) and a 
Five-Year Rolling Plan.
    As executive agencies and departments such as GSA formulate 
their budget request, they maintain continuous contact with OMB 
examiners. Once these agencies complete their budget request, 
OMB, in consultation with the President and his aides, has the 
oversight duty of reviewing them all for consistency with 
presidential policy and to ensure they all fit within a 
framework of a fiscally responsible budget which meets the 
needs of the American people.
    I understand the concerns of the proponents of S. 1564. I 
also believe that Congress should have full and complete 
information when making funding decisions, especially for 
courthouse construction. I would submit that it already does. 
The President's budget presents the Judiciary budget in full. 
In fact, page 6 of the Appendix to the President's 2001 budget 
Request, states the following:

          In accordance with the law or established practice, 
        the presentations for the Legislative Branch, the 
        Judiciary * * * have been included, without review, in 
        the amounts submitted by the agencies.

    Moreover, nothing prevents the Judiciary from directly 
submitting its own budget request to Members and staff for 
consideration. As a matter of fact, this is regularly done. For 
the Committee's review, I have included in the record a copy of 
the AO's budget request which they provided my staff earlier 
this year. This given, it remains the President's 
constitutional prerogative to request appropriations (and 
Congress's to fund all, none or part of such a request) for any 
or all of the courthouses requested by the Judiciary.
    The proponents of S. 1564 believe that it will reinforce 
the ``balance of powers'' within our constitutional form of 
government by ensuring that the Judiciary's Budget is not used 
as a ``political football.'' I disagree.
    In my view, the Judiciary's budget is appropriately 
presented in the President's budget and any prioritizing 
surrounding the funding of courthouse construction is properly 
handled by the GSA in the normal appropriations process. If 
``politics'' has played a role, I suggest to my colleagues that 
it is the result of the usual ``give and take'' that goes on 
between members of Congress in exercising their most revered 
constitutional prerogative: the ``power of the purse.'' 
Building courthouses is a fiscal matter, not a separation of 
powers issue.
    I believe that S. 1564 will simply leapfrog the proper 
budgetary and management role that OMB provides to the 
President. If S. 1564 were to become law, OMB would no longer 
be able to analyze the details of each request made for 
courthouse construction--thus removing a crucial layer of much 
needed oversight.
    As members of this Committee may recall, past reports 
issued by the General Accounting Office (GAO) and news accounts 
have highlighted the excesses of the federal courthouse 
construction program. Based partly on these accounts of 
excessive costs, inadequate management, inefficient oversight 
and inconsistent execution across the country, Members of 
Congress requested that the GSA help find ways to make the 
federal government's real estate program more cost effective. 
In 1994, the GSA responded by identifying $1.2 billion 
(including $227 million from courthouse construction) in 
savings for the federal government in its Time-Out and Review 
Report of nearly 200 major new construction, modernization and 
lease projects. As a result, the AO complies a five-year plan 
which prioritizes the Judiciary's request for new courthouse 
and assists in determining project urgency. Since then the AO, 
GSA, Congress, as well as the increased oversight role of OMB, 
have all played a positive role in effectively managing the 
courthouse construction program.
    Proponents of S. 1564 have also argued that the President's 
use of ``negative allowances'' has been unfairly (and 
presumably unconstitutionally'') applied against the 
Judiciary's budget request. I believe that this view arises 
from a misunderstanding of the various components of the 
President's budget. The fact is, ``negative allowances'' are 
applied to the ``bottom line''--the President's budget in its 
totality. They represent unspecified reductions in spending and 
are often referred to, in budget jargon, as a ``plug''--a way 
to make the number add up. They are not applied to any specific 
program or federal agency within the President's budget--this 
includes the Judicial and Legislative branch. So to argue that 
the existence of a ``negative allowance'' within the 
President's nearly $2 trillion annual budget submission is 
somehow a misrepresentation of, or a reduction to, the 
Judiciary's $3.96 billion budget belies a serious 
misunderstanding of the federal budget process.
    I also understand the frustration of those who believe that 
recently courthouse construction has not received adequate 
levels of funding. And while it is true that no funds were 
requested for courthouse construction by the President for the 
past three years and Congress appropriated funds in only one of 
those years, the passage of S. 1564 is not the answer. I would 
like to remind my colleagues that the President's 2001 Budget 
does request $488 million for courthouse construction and the 
Senate version of the 2001 Budget Resolution assumed $700 
million.
    I support responsible funding of courthouse construction 
and as a member of the Senate's Committee on Appropriations, I 
welcome the opportunity to work with the members of the federal 
Judiciary to ensure that they have appropriate facilities in 
which to perform their crucial role in our federal system. Now 
that federal budget deficits have turned into surpluses, I 
believe the time is right to revisit the level of courthouse 
funding.
    The following table (which does not include funds requested 
or provided for repairs and alterations and any possible 
rescissions of courthouse construction funds) shows the amounts 
for new courthouse construction funded through GSA's Federal 
Buildings Fund for the past fifteen years. It highlights the 
cyclical nature of budgeting for courthouse construction. In 
some years funding may be minimal, while in other years a 
sizable amount of money may be appropriated.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Amount
                                           requested in        Total
               Fiscal year                  President's    appropriated
                                           budget ($ in   by Congress ($
                                            thousands)     in thousands)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001....................................         488,000             N/A
2000....................................               0               0
1999....................................               0         462,290
1998....................................               0               0
1997....................................         622,744         583,940
1996....................................               0         335,973
1995....................................               0         519,932
1994....................................         566,336         760,517
1993....................................         132,189         222,082
1992....................................          13,572         317,235
1991....................................         231,644         545,816
1990....................................          24,027          13,727
1989....................................          72,660          89,418
1988....................................             850           5,036
1987....................................           1,057           1,057
1986....................................               0         182,173
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Appendix, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Years
  1986-2001 (as compiled by the Congressional Budget Office).

    This bill is not the answer to the ``problem'' of 
insufficient funding for courthouse construction--the answer 
lies within the appropriations process. It will strip OMB of 
its proper oversight role and it will handicap the President as 
he develops his yearly budget request. As Chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget, I cannot support S. 1564; nonetheless, 
as a member of the Committee on Appropriations I have and will 
continue to work to support appropriate levels of funding.

                      IX. Changes In Existing Law

    In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in brackets, new matter is 
printed in italic, and existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

               TITLE 28--JUDICIARY AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURE

Chapter 41--ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 605. BUDGET ESTIMATES.

    [The Director, under the supervision of the Judicial 
Conference of the United States, shall submit to the Office of 
Management and Budget annual estimates of the expenditures and 
appropriations necessary for the maintenance and operation of 
the courts and the Administrative Office and the operation of 
the judicial survivors annuity fund, and such supplemental and 
deficiency estimates as may be required from time to time for 
the same purposes, according to law. The Director shall cause 
periodic examinations of the judicial survivors annuity fund to 
be made by an actuary, who may be an actuary employed by 
another department of the Government temporarily assigned for 
the purpose, and whose findings and recommendations shall be 
transmitted by the Director to the Judicial Conference.
    [Such estimates shall be approved, before presentation to 
the Office of Management and Budget, by the Judicial Conference 
of the United States, except that the estimate with respect to 
the Court of International Trade shall be approved by such 
court and the estimate with respect to the United States Court 
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall be approved by such 
court.]
    (a) The Director, under the supervision of the Judicial 
Conference of the United States, shall submit to Congress 
before January 25 of each year annual estimates of the 
following:
          (1)(A) The expenditures and appropriations necessary 
        for the maintenance and operation of the courts and the 
        Administrative Office and the operation of the judicial 
        survivors annuity fund and any supplemental and 
        deficiency estimates as may be required for such 
        purposes according to law.
          (B) The estimates required by this paragraph shall be 
        approved, before presentation to Congress, by the 
        Judicial Conference of the United States, except that 
        the estimate with respect to the Court of International 
        Trade shall be approved by that court and the estimate 
        with respect to the United States Court of Appeals for 
        the Federal Circuit shall be approved by that court.
          (2)(A) The expenditures and appropriations necessary 
        for real property construction activities, including 
        construction and acquisitions and repairs and 
        alterations, related to United States courthouses and 
        other space occupied by entities of the judicial 
        branch.
          (B) Estimated expenditures and appropriations under 
        this paragraph shall be based on prospectuses and other 
        information provided by the Administrator of General 
        Services.
          (C) For the purpose of preparing estimated 
        expenditures and appropriations under this paragraph, 
        the Administrator of General Services shall, at such 
        times as are required by Congress or the judicial 
        branch to ensure timely development and consideration 
        of courthouse needs and budget requests, prepare and 
        submit directly--
                  (i) prospectuses, including cost estimates, 
                for future judicial branch construction, 
                acquisition, and repair and alteration projects 
                to the Director, the Committee on Environment 
                and Public Works of the Senate, the Committee 
                on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
                House of Representatives, and the Committees on 
                Appropriations of the Senate and House of 
                Representatives; and
                  (ii) preliminary planning, design and cost 
                estimates of future judicial branch 
                construction, acquisition, and repair and 
                alteration projects to the Director.
          (D) In accordance with estimates prepared under this 
        paragraph, funds may be appropriated to the judicial 
        branch for deposit into the Federal Buildings Fund for 
        the construction, acquisition, and repair and 
        alteration of Federal courthouses. Funds deposited into 
        the Federal Buildings Fund under this subparagraph 
        shall not be available for expenses in connection with 
        any construction, acquisition, and repair and 
        alteration project for which a prospectus, if required 
        by section 7 of the Public Buildings Act of 1959 (40 
        U.S.C. 606), has not been approved by the Committee on 
        Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the 
        Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
        House of Representatives, except that necessary funds 
        may be expended for each project for required expenses 
        in connection with the development of a proposed 
        prospectus.
    (b)(1) The estimates submitted to Congress under subsection 
(a) shall also be submitted to the President for inclusion in 
the budget of the United States. In each budget of the United 
States Government submitted by the President under the first 
sentence of section 1105(a) of title 31, the President shall 
make no change or alterations whatsoever, and shall not impose 
or otherwise recommend, directly or indirectly, implementation 
of a negative allowance, rescission, or any other form of 
reduction or change to such estimates.
    (2) For the purpose of preparing a unified Federal budget 
by the President, the Director shall transmit to the 
President--
          (A) preliminary estimated expenditures and proposed 
        appropriations for the judicial branch before October 
        16 of each year; and
          (B) final estimated expenditures and proposed 
        appropriations for the judicial branch before December 
        24 of each year, and such final estimates shall be 
        identical to the estimates to be submitted to Congress 
        under subsection (a).
          (C) The Director shall cause periodic examinations of 
        the judicial survivors annuity fund to be made by an 
        actuary, who may be an actuary employed by another 
        department of the Government temporarily assigned for 
        the purpose, and whose findings and recommendations 
        shall be transmitted by the Director to the Judicial 
        Conference.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                      TITLE 31--MONEY AND FINANCE

CHAPTER 11--THE BUDGET AND FISCAL, BUDGET, AND PROGRAM INFORMATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SEC. 1105. BUDGET CONTENTS AND SUBMISSION TO CONGRESS.

    (b) Estimated expenditures and proposed appropriations for 
the legislative branch and the judicial branch to be included 
in each budget under subsection (a)(5) of this section shall be 
submitted to the President before October 16 of each year and 
included in the budget by the President without change. 
Estimated expenditures and proposed appropriations for the 
judicial branch described under section 605 of title 28 shall 
be included in the budget and submitted to the President in 
accordance with that section.



