The first section of this report provides an overview of the consideration of FY2018 judiciary appropriations, with subsections covering each major action, including the initial submission of the request on May 23, 2017; a hearing held by the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government; the House Appropriations subcommittee markup on June 29, 2017; and the House Appropriations Committee markup on July 13, 2017. The status of FY2018 judiciary appropriations is summarized in Table 1 . This overview is followed by a section on prior-year actions and funding. The report then provides an overview of judiciary accounts. The Budget for Fiscal Year 2018 was submitted on May 23, 2017. It contains a request for $7.86 billion in new budget authority for judicial branch activities, including $7.23 billion in discretionary funds and $0.64 billion in mandatory funding for judges' salaries and benefits. By law, the judicial branch request is submitted to the President and included in the budget submission without change. Table 2 lists the dates of judiciary-related hearings of the financial services appropriations subcommittees in 2017. The House subcommittee announced that it would accept programmatic and language submissions from Members through May 30, 2017. On June 29, the House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government held a markup of the FY2018 Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) bill. The subcommittee recommended $7.70 billion in funds for the judiciary, including $7.09 billion in discretionary funds and $0.61 billion in mandatory funds for judges' salaries and benefits as required under current law. On July 13, 2017, the House Appropriations Committee held a markup of the FY2017 FSGG bill. The committee recommended $7.70 billion in funds for the judiciary, including $7.09 billion in discretionary funds and $0.61 billion in mandatory funds for judges' salaries and benefits as required under current law. The bill was ordered reported by a vote of 31-21 ( H.R. 3280 , H.Rept. 115-234 ). One amendment related to the judiciary reduced the funding for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts by $1 million. It passed by voice vote as part of the manager's amendment package. FY2017 judiciary funding was provided in Division E, Title 3, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 ( P.L. 115-31 ), which was enacted on May 5, 2017. The $6.93 billion in discretionary funds provided by the act represented an increase of $148.8 million (2.2%) from FY2016 and was $64.9 million (-0.9%) less than the judiciary's request. FY2016 judiciary funding was provided in Division E, Title 3, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 ( P.L. 114-113 ), which was enacted on December 18, 2015. The $6.78 billion in discretionary funds provided by the act represented an increase of $79.7 million (1.2%) from FY2015 and was $184.1 million (-2.5%) less than the judiciary's request. FY2015 judiciary funding was provided in Division E, Title 3, of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 ( P.L. 113-235 ), which was enacted on December 16, 2014. The $6.70 billion in discretionary funds provided by the act represented an increase of $221.9 million (2.8%) from FY2014 and was $37.9 million (-0.5%) less than the judiciary's request. Appropriations for the judiciary comprise approximately 0.2% of total budget authority. Two accounts that fund the Supreme Court (the salaries and expenses of the Court and the expenditures for the care of its building and grounds, which are the responsibility of the Architect of the Capitol) together total approximately 1% of the total judiciary budget. The rest of the judiciary's budget provides funding for the lower federal courts and related judicial services. The largest account, approximately 72% of the total FY2017 enacted level, is the Salaries and Expenses account for the U.S. Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services. This covers the "salaries of circuit and district judges (including judges of the territorial courts of the United States), justices and judges retired from office or from regular active service, judges of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, bankruptcy judges, magistrate judges, and all other officers and employees of the federal judiciary not otherwise specifically provided for," and "necessary expenses of the courts." Two other large accounts provide funds for Defender Services (15.1%) and Court Security (8.2%). The remaining judiciary budget is divided among the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (0.4% of FY2017 enacted), U.S. Court of International Trade (0.3%), Fees of Jurors and Commissioners (0.5%), Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (1.2%), Federal Judicial Center (0.4%), U.S. Sentencing Commission (0.2%), and Judicial Retirement Funds (2.1%). Three specialized courts within the federal court system are not funded under the judiciary budget: the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (funded in the Department of Defense appropriations bill), the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (funded in the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies appropriations bill), and the U.S. Tax Court (funded under Independent Agencies, Title V, of the FSGG bill). Federal courthouse construction is funded within the General Services Administration account under Independent Agencies, Title V, of the FSGG bill. The judiciary uses nonappropriated funds to help offset its funding requirements. The majority of these nonappropriated funds are from fee collections, primarily court filing fees. These monies are used to offset expenses within the Salaries and Expenses accounts of Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services. Some of these funds may be carried forward from one year to the next. These funds are considered "unencumbered" because they result from savings from the judiciary's financial plan in areas where budgeted costs did not materialize. According to the judiciary, such savings are usually not under its control (e.g., the judiciary has no control over the confirmation rate of Article III judges and must make its best estimate on the needed funds to budget for judgeships, rent costs, and technology funding for certain programs). The budget request and appropriations figures presented here reflect the net resources for the judiciary, and do not include these offsetting nonappropriated funds. The judiciary also has "encumbered" funds—no-year authority funds appropriated for specific purposes. These are used when planned expenses are delayed, from one year to the next (e.g., costs associated with office space delivery, and certain technology needs and projects). The judiciary continues its cost-containment efforts begun over a decade ago. Specific areas of focus include office space rental, personnel expenses, information technology, and operating costs. In the May 17, 2017, budget hearing, Judge Julia S. Gibbons, chair of the Budget Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States, stressed the results and ongoing efforts of the judiciary's formal cost-containment initiatives. "Since the beginning of our formal cost containment program in 2005, we 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," said Judge Gibbons. Current efforts focus on implementation of shared administrative services among various courts, as well as reducing the judiciary's space footprint. In 2015, Judge Gibbons reported that the judiciary has achieved a cost reduction of "nearly $1.5 billion relative to [the] projected requirements" over the past 10 years. In 2013, the Judicial Conference set a goal of a 3% reduction in total space. According to Judge Gibbons, as of March 2015, 30% of that goal has been reached, resulting in $5.8 million in rent savings, and the judiciary "is on track to accomplish the full three percent reduction by the end of fiscal year 2018." The safe conduct of court proceedings and the security of judges in courtrooms and off-site has been a concern in recent years. Efforts to improve judicial security have been spurred by the double homicide of family members of a federal judge in Chicago in 2005; the Atlanta killings, in 2005, of a state judge, a court reporter, and a sheriff's deputy at a courthouse; the sniper shooting of a state judge in his Reno office in 2006; and the wounding of a deputy U.S. marshal and killing of a court security officer at the Lloyd D. George U.S. Courthouse and Federal Building in Las Vegas in 2010. An FY2005 supplemental appropriations act included a provision that provided intrusion detection systems for judges in their homes, and the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007 aimed to enhance security for judges and court personnel, as well as courtroom safety for the public. The judiciary has been working closely with the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) to ensure that adequate protective policies, procedures, and practices are in place. The FY2018 appropriation continued a pilot program for the USMS to assume responsibility for perimeter security at selected courthouses that were previously the responsibility of the Federal Protective Service (FPS). This pilot was first authorized in FY2009 as a result of the judiciary's stated concerns that FPS was not providing adequate perimeter security.