Segment 2 Of 2 Previous Hearing Segment(1)
SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
PLEASE NOTE: The following transcript is a portion of the official hearing record of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Additional material pertinent to this transcript may be found on the web site of the Committee at [http://www.house.gov/transportation]. Complete hearing records are available for review at the Committee offices and also may be purchased at the U.S. Government Printing Office.
THE GSA COURT CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM
THURSDAY, JULY 20, 1995
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Economic Development,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in room 2253, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Wayne T. Gilchrest (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. GILCHREST. Good morning, everybody. I apologize for being late. In the interest of time, the subcommittee hearing will come to order.
I welcome all the witnesses here this morning. I'm particularly pleased to see Judge Robert Broomfield, who is chairman of the Security, Space, and Facilities Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
There are 15 projects for new courthouses that will add 5.5 million square feet of space to the Federal inventory. At a time when Congress is struggling with the difficult task of balancing the Federal budget by reducing both the size of the Federal Government and the cost of its programs, we remain concerned that the space requirements in the Judiciary's most recent version of the U.S. Court Design Guide do not reflect the Government's effort to downsize.
In addition, we are concerned about the fiscal prudence of other practices, such as providing judicial chambers for Federal Circuit Court of Appeals judges in locations where no Circuit Court proceedings take place. The cost of providing multiple judicial chambers for a single Circuit Court judge adds further burden to the construction budget. We believe the requirements for expensive judicial chambers should be limited to cities where Circuit Court proceedings are held.
Before we can authorize any new Federal court construction, we need to be assured that the Judiciary's requirements appropriately reflect the current unfortunate budgetary environment. We believe the requirements in the current U.S. Court Design Guide need review and some possible revision. The Judiciary needs to join with us in reducing the cost of Government. I believe this action is essential if Congress is to exercise its power of the purse.
I look forward to hearing from the Judicial Branch and GSA on this important topic.
Our first witnesses this morning are Rick Lazio, Congressman Ortiz, and Congressman Peterson. We look forward to your testimony.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Is there anybody else here this morning? Mr. Clyburn. I guess we can start with Mr. Lazio and then proceed with the other Members.
[Mr. Duncan's prepared statement follows:]
[Insert here.]
TESTIMONY OF HON. RICK A. LAZIO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM NEW YORK
Mr. LAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee.
I want to begin by thanking you for the various informal discussions we've had with respect to the Central Islip Courthouse and the fate of courthouse construction in general throughout the Nation. I also want to commend and indicate my appreciation for the willingness of Chairman Shuster to work with me to meet this essential need.
I'm going to ask, if I can, to summarize some of this and insert the entire statement in the record, if that's acceptable.
Mr. GILCHREST. That's fine.
Mr. LAZIO. The Central Islip Courthouse and its companion courthouse in Brooklyn were designed to meet the problems of the only space emergency in our Nation declared by the Judicial Conference of the United States. That space emergency for the Eastern District of New York was first declared in 1989, renewed in 1992, and continues to this day. This space emergency declaration is unique in that it is the only time the Judicial Conference has ever taken such an action, making the Eastern District of New York the number one space and facilities priority in the entire Federal judicial system.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
There is a dire need for the Central Islip Courthouse. The growth of cases filed in the Eastern District of New York has skyrocketed, and it now faces the heaviest caseload in the history of the district. Unfortunately, the space has not kept pace. The courthouse would consolidate 110,000 square feet of leased space between five locations on Long Island having a population of about 3 million people.
Many of these rented spaces lack even rudimentary security protection and even have been described by the district's chief judge as a calamity waiting to happen. Prisoners are routinely escorted through public hallways and mixed with judges and members of the public. Some of these rented facilities don't have bullet-resistant glass or bomb-resistant features, and some lack X-ray machines and metal detectors.
One Long Island judge sits at a temporary courtroom in a former IRS center in Brooklyn which was bombed in the 1980s by a revolutionary group, blowing out all the windows. Chambers and jury deliberation rooms are at street level, with windows facing the public sidewalk a few feet away. The courtrooms in this facility have structural pillars that block views of jurors, defendants, lawyers, witnesses, and judges. The glass entrance at the court's facilities in Uniondale was shattered by an angry litigant.
Three additional judges have been authorized by the Judicial Conference for the Eastern District, but when confirmed, there currently will be no place to put them. The space rented by the court at Hauppaugue has gone into receivership, where, ironically, it has been assigned to one of the judges sitting there. The district's seven bankruptcy judges are scattered in three separate locations, and all magistrates' courtrooms are substandard and lack accommodations for juries.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Unless the CI Courthouse is completed by the year 2000, the Eastern District will be short by 225,000 occupiable square feet on Long Island.
The project received its initial Federal funding in fiscal year 1993, when $5.2 million was authorized by the House and Senate Public Works Committees and appropriated for site acquisition. Saving Federal taxpayers over $10 million in site acquisition costs, Suffolk County, my home county, has donated 22 of the 24.7 acres for the site.
In August of 1994, the Suffolk County legislature authorized the issuance of $3 million in serial bonds to cover the county's cost of real property acquisitions and construction costs associated with this project.
Suffolk County has paid $2.4 million to move 675 parking spaces on five acres at the companion court complex next-door to make room for the new Federal court facility slated to be built next to it. Suffolk will also spend another $130,000 to reline the parking lot and move a well for a reflecting pool in front of the county courthouse.
As the subcommittee knows, in 1993 the courthouse was included in the GSA's ''Time-Out and Review.'' Upon completion of this review in February of 1994, it was recommended that construction of this facility proceed. This was followed by an appropriation of $23.2 million in the fiscal year 1995 Treasury, Postal appropriations bill, the first Federal appropriations for the construction phase.
President Clinton recommended $189 million in his fiscal year 1996 budget to continue construction. The House has passed the fiscal year 1996 Treasury, Postal appropriations, including $75.6 million in additional funding for the Central Islip Courthouse. However, while the courthouse is ready to proceed to the construction phase, the project needs to be authorized by the subcommittee and the full Transportation Infrastructure Committee.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
GSA says approximately $11.3 million in Federal funds already have been spent on the Central Islip Courthouse, more than 5 percent of the total project cost. The design contract was awarded in December of 1992, and it is my understanding that it has now been completed. It is scheduled for construction contract signing by this fall. Delaying this project would end up costing the taxpayers significantly more money.
Consultants to GSA Region II estimate the current local construction industry inflation rate is 2.3 percent. Accordingly, a one-year delay of the Central Islip Courthouse would add approximately $4.8 million to the project's total cost. Every month of delay will cost taxpayers an additional $403,000, over $13,400 per day. These figures do not include the approximately $1 million per year the Federal Government pays to rent facilities that will be replaced by the courthouse.
Mr. Chairman, I don't have to tell you, time is of the essence. Any delay in building this courthouse will be costly in terms of our judicial system and in terms of the taxpayers. I certainly appreciate the consideration of you and the subcommittee as you move through your deliberations.
Mr. GILCHREST. Rick, thanks for your testimony. You have our commitment to look at this with a great deal of scrutiny, and we're going to do what's best for your district, what's best for the taxpayers.
Mr. LAZIO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Ortiz.
TESTIMONY OF HON. SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM TEXAS
Mr. ORTIZ. Mr. Chairman, Members of the subcommittee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify before you today regarding the proposed Federal courthouse in Brownsville, Texas, which is in my congressional district.
Now, I realize that we have a long day ahead of us, so I will be brief in my remarks, but I would like to include some other statements for the record and other information, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that the need for a new Federal courthouse in Brownsville, Texas is justifiable. The existing courthouse was built in the early 1930s and can no longer meet the demands of the increasing caseload handled by the Southern District Court in Brownsville, Texas. The Brownsville courthouse currently houses four judges and is awaiting the appointment of the fifth.
We do have three very small courtrooms that do not meet the standards of the GSA. There is no space for visiting judges, and you are well aware that we have a bunch of narcotics cases in that part of the world, and not even room for the bankruptcy judges to hold court.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
As I stated in previous correspondence to Members of this subcommittee, the U.S. Attorney's Office, the Probation Office, the Public Defender's Office, and the Pre-Trial Services Offices are located in separately leased locations away from the existing courthouse, making judicial duties and operations extremely difficult. In fact, the courthouse has 38,000 square feet, and we lease almost the same amount of space scattered throughout the county.
It is my understanding that a design has been chosen and the City of Brownsville has donated a site for the courthouse. I believe that the GSA and the City of Brownsville are currently finalizing the transfer of the property. This would result in further savings of about $3 million to the GSA that had previously been appropriated for site acquisition. I am sure that this committee could appreciate this, especially at a time when we're trying to be fiscally conservative.
In speaking to District Judge Filemon Vela, I have become more aware of the urgency to construct the new courthouse. The space requirements deemed necessary to carry out the duties of the Federal courts efficiently and effectively are insufficient and cannot be redesigned to meet long-term needs.
Breach in security is also a major concern, as the current facility has no secured parking available for judges, defendants, or protected witnesses. Public parking for jurors and employees is also scarce, because it sits right in the middle of the city. Due to the close proximity to the Mexican border and the increasing drug and money laundering workloads the courts have undertaken, it is imperative that the judges, witnesses, and jurors be properly protected. To give you an idea of the busy nature of the court, the rate of criminal filings in this area is five times the national average.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. Chairman, I'd appreciate it if we could move forward with the construction of this courthouse. I believe the need for the courthouse has been demonstrated by the GSA and the Office of Administrative Courts, and I urge the committee to include authorization for construction of the Brownsville Federal Courthouse in your full committee.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee, for giving us the opportunity to appear before you today to testify.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Ortiz. You relay a compelling story, and we'll proceed to find a remedy for this problem.
Mr. ORTIZ. Thank you very much.
Mr. GILCHREST. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Peterson.
TESTIMONY OF HON. PETE PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM FLORIDA
Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee. It's a pleasure for me to be back among my colleagues on the committee on which I served my first term. I think you and I came on this committee together. But I need to have the opportunity to talk a little bit about the importance of completing the expansion of the Federal courthouse in Tallahassee, Florida.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
As you probably know, this courthouse has been on the boards for a number of years; in fact, it predates my election to the Congress in 1990. Therefore, I find it somewhat bewildering that we're even having to discuss this thing today.
In-depth studies conducted by the GSA have conclusively indicated a need for additional courthouse space to relieve the cramped conditions resulting from having to operate from a building constructed in the 1930s. The decision was bolstered by the fact that the number of case filings had risen 13 percent in just six years. Furthermore, it was clearly—
Mr. GILCHREST. Could I interrupt you just for a second? You said this was needed when?
Mr. PETERSON. This has been since before I got here, before 1990.
Mr. GILCHREST. What was your comment about the 1930s?
Mr. PETERSON. That the courthouse was constructed in the early 1930s, 1934 or 1935.
The decision was bolstered by the fact that the number of case filings had risen 13 percent in six years. Furthermore, it was clearly established that it is more cost effective to build rather than lease.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Incidentally, I have some indication of how long ago 1935 was. It's 60 years. I just passed my 60th birthday this past month, so I know how old a person can get and how old a building can get in this process.
[Laughter.]
Mr. GILCHREST. You look pretty good, Pete.
Mr. PETERSON. My foundation is weakening.
[Laughter.]
Mr. PETERSON. Site acquisition and design funds for the courthouse were approved and appropriated starting in 1992. Having gone through the GSA time-out and review, the need for the new structure was reconfirmed and the design significantly modified. Those modifications will achieve a savings of $9.45 million from the original estimate.
GSA purchased three of the five parcels of the land for the project and has options to purchase the two remaining parcels. We are ready to go forward with the construction. We face serious problems, frankly, if we're delayed.
Located in the middle of the downtown Tallahassee District, the three properties which have been purchased each contain large buildings which now just sit vacant. Just two blocks from the State Capitol building, these buildings are boarded up, have holes in the roof, and in general cause the area to take on the appearance of a ghetto. They have become homes for vagrants and rats. This has caused the community to voice concerns about safety and most certainly discourages any commerce in that area. Water continues to leak into the buildings, causing structural damage and aggravating the safety issue.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
In the meantime, the court system is having to make due with an inadequate building whose basement floods on a regular basis. The basement floods several times each year, despite the installation of two sumps that were put in in 1982. Needless to say, this is not only causing a disruption of court activities, but it potentially weakens the building foundation and structural foundation.
To be perfectly candid with you, it was the Federal Government that created this skid row in the face of our having done all the things right. That's what bothers me about this. We presented overwhelming evidence that we needed a new courthouse. When asked, we modified the plan. We cut it to the bone. We've been patient. We've jumped through all the necessary hoops to secure the authorizations and appropriations in absolutely textbook fashion. We did everything right. Anything anybody asked us to do on this courthouse, we did it. Now the committee is proposing to arbitrarily halt the project. Now, after we played by the rules, the rules have changed. It's very, very disconcerting.
We have already invested over $5 million in this project. The need has been established. The design is utilitarian, with no frills. If we continue waiting, we will only be delaying the inevitable. It will cost more, it will contaminate negotiations with the lease circumstances that we have for everybody that's outside the courthouse throughout the Tallahassee area, and it just doesn't make any sense. It's going to cost more, and in this time and, as you said, Mr. Chairman, in the face of doing what's right for the taxpayers, what's right for the taxpayers is getting on with this and not allowing the cost to escalate.
So I appreciate the opportunity to be with you, but this is one of those things that I don't think anybody can defend under the guise of saving the Federal budget or balancing the Federal budget. It just doesn't sell.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I appreciate your help personally. You've been a good friend on this issue with me, and you and I have talked about this a number of times, and I appreciate your concern, but this is one that needs to go forward. We're not talking megabucks, incidentally. We're talking less than $20 million.
Mr. GILCHREST. Well, Pete, you have our commitment to look at this, and we have, and what we want to do is continue the commitment between State and Federal governments in the need for Federal courthouses. You've done a yeoman's work with these modifications, and so you have our commitment to look at this with an open mind and move forward, which is to do the best thing and the deserving thing for Tallahassee and what's good for the Nation as a whole.
I would ask you a question about the rats. It's none of the endangered type, is it? Should Fish and Wildlife go down there and check those out?
Mr. PETERSON. If there are any in there, I'll get rid of them right away.
Mr. GILCHREST. Maybe you could send them to California.
[Laughter.]
Mr. PETERSON. But I do appreciate your help on this. It is, I think, very well justified, and to delay any further would just be without counsel.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. GILCHREST. I understand that it is—I was going to say the cheapest courthouse on the list. Through your modifications, you've come up with about the most inexpensive construction costs.
Mr. PETERSON. Exactly. I'm serious, we jumped through hoops on this thing. We did anything anyone asked us to do. And our judges are not looking for a castle here, they're looking for someplace to do good work, and I think they're deserving of at least having a place to have their courts and to have their witnesses come through in safety and in fact be able to be heard.
Mr. GILCHREST. Okay. Thanks a lot, Pete.
Mr. PETERSON. Thank you.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Clyburn.
TESTIMONY OF HON. JAMES E. CLYBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM SOUTH CAROLINA
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee this morning.
I celebrate my 55th birthday tomorrow, and unlike Congressman Peterson, I can't tell you that my courthouse has been in need that long, but I can tell you this: that this courthouse started—its need was established by Senator Thurmond before I got here, and I don't know if he established it in his first year here or not, but it's something that's been around for a while.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
At any rate, I had the honor of serving on this subcommittee in the 103rd Congress, and, of course, I learned a lot serving on this subcommittee. One of the things I learned is that we must not delegate the authorizing authority, and I learned from that and I understand that, and that's why I'm here this morning.
I want to talk to you about two items regarding this courthouse, the first one, of course, being the fact that I'm here to ask for the authorization, but, specifically, the Matthew J. Perry United States Courthouse is sorely needed because of overcrowded conditions in the courthouse that's currently in my hometown of Columbia.
The General Services Administration has been pursuing this for the past several years, and through the help of Senator Strom Thurmond, the site for construction has been acquired, and last year I worked very hard to ensure that the project will remain on the schedule by securing the design funds. I might add that the design contract has been let for this courthouse as well. Unfortunately, inaction by this subcommittee in the 104th Congress may jeopardize this bipartisan undertaking and squander the significant Federal investment and commitment they've already expended for this project.
Now, I understand the Perry Courthouse was excluded from the recent rescission package because the Conference Committee recognized that it is not a new undertaking, but rather the continuation of a collaborative effort which has been under way for some time. Any action you may take to help expedite this most worthy and necessary Federal property will be appreciated not only by myself, but also by the many South Carolinians who do business before the Federal court.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I thank you very much for allowing me to be here and to make this special plea.
Mr. GILCHREST. Yes, sir, Mr. Clyburn. We will deal with this particular courthouse as we have with the others, the gentlemen from the other States, and you also have our commitment to look at these as closely as we can to understand the nature of the rising cost of construction for courthouses in many areas of the United States, but not penalize those areas that have made a commitment to justice and to fiscal responsibility.
So we'll look very closely at this, and thank you for testifying this morning.
Mr. CLYBURN. Thank you so much for allowing me to.
Mr. GILCHREST. Yes, sir.
Our next panel will be three distinguished jurists: the Honorable Robert Broomfield, Judge Robert Cohen, and Judge Robert Coyle. Would you please come up to the table.
TESTIMONY OF HON. ROBERT C. BROOMFIELD, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE, PHOENIX, ARIZONA, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON SECURITY, SPACE, AND FACILITIES, JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES, ACCOMPANIED BY P. GERALD THACKER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF FACILITIES, SECURITY, AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE U.S. COURTS, HON. ROBERT COHEN, AND HON. ROBERT COYLE, CHIEF JUDGE, U.S. DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, AND SPACE COORDINATOR, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, NINTH CIRCUIT
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Judge BROOMFIELD. Mr. Chairman, if you call us out by our first names, you can make no error. This is Bob, Bob, and Bob here today.
[Laughter.]
Judge BROOMFIELD. I might also indicate that Congressman Peterson alluded to his age, as did Congressman Clyburn, and I noticed that when Congressman Peterson said he was 60, you said he looked pretty good. I just turned 62, and I hope you give me the same comment.
[Laughter.]
Mr. GILCHREST. You don't look a day over 61.
Judge BROOMFIELD. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, you have, I believe, a written statement, and if it's agreeable with you, I'd like that to be filed. I won't try to follow it. I do have some comments, if I might make them, that generally follow that, but some other—
Mr. GILCHREST. Yes, sir. Your testimony will be included in the record, and you may proceed any way that you feel comfortable.
Judge BROOMFIELD. Thank you.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee, the Judiciary has experienced dramatic increases in workload and, as a consequence, size. In the last 10 years, the size of the Judiciary has increased by 87 percent. Of that size, only 40 percent is judges. Most people don't realize it. They think of a courthouse and the Judiciary as judges. It includes a whole host of other people—clerks, probation officers, pre-trial services, and law clerks—a whole host and range of people, and that's where a lot of the growth has come.
Indeed, we even have a chart here, I think, that demonstrates that, if the committee would like to see the actual numbers of the size of it. It's that increase in—there you can see the numbers, Figure 87, at the bottom. That's a 10-year period, 1983 to 1993, and you can see the line in the middle. It's just under 40 percent, the number of judges that have been added. So when you see the size of the Judiciary going from about 15,000 to about 27,500, you have some concept of why there's a need for space.
I might indicate that the committee that I chair was created by the chief justice when Chief Justice Rehnquist became the chief in 1987. There hadn't been such a committee. At the outset, we did two things. We decided we needed to plan for the future. We knew what that said. We knew where things were going with the size of the Federal Judiciary and the Federal Judiciary family, so to speak. So we decided the best thing to do is plan long range.
The Judicial Conference directed all districts—there are 94 judicial districts—to create a long-range plan, as well as the 11 Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, and they have done that. We completed the last of the 94 plans in January of this year. It took a long period of time, but we have them all done. So each one developed a long-range plan that would cover what they thought their growth needs were for 5, 10, 15, 20, and 30 years.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Initially, some of the projects were ''30-year projects.'' That has all been cut back because of financial constraints by GSA—and we understand this—to 10 years. So now all the buildings or most of the buildings that are projected are really 10-year buildings, so to speak, to cover growth for 10 years. However, you measure the 10 years from when you originally see the need.
Back in 1987, when we started this process, a NAPA study showed that it took anywhere from 18 months to seven years for a judge to get a courtroom or a chambers facility. One of the members of the committee, one of the original members, was a circuit judge from the 6th Circuit, was on the Michigan Supreme Court, and he went on the 6th Circuit. He waited four and a half years to get a chambers. He stayed in Michigan Supreme Court chambers for that period of time. That gives you some history why we did the planning, and the planning is done.
We also then dealt with the design guide and tried to develop a design guide. That design guide took a long time to develop. We worked with a whole host of people. It's a big, thick book. I can show it to you if you're interested in seeing it. It was approved by the Judicial Conference in March of 1991. It was developed in a loose-leaf form consciously, and the reason we did that was because the committee that I chair meets twice a year, and we expect every year to make some revisions in the design guide, and every year there have been revisions, and every year I have submitted those revisions to the Judicial Conference of the United States, and they have approved them, with the exception of the changes mandated by the ADA.
I think I can say that every other change in the design guide has been with a view to be cost conscious. We've inserted language in that book to make clear to those who use it—judges, architects, engineers, GSA, anybody—to be cost conscious. Indeed, some of the changes we made—acoustical changes, lighting changes, things like that—we estimate on an average size courthouse would save about $1.5 million just because of those changes in the design guide. We expect to continue to do so, to be cost conscious, as we proceed in the future.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Our goal is to try to develop—well, let me back up for a moment. Most of the Federal courthouses—certainly not all—were built in the 1930s, and there have been some built since then, but there has been no significant number of buildings added since the great number built in the 1930s, and they were usually Federal courts that were put in post office buildings. Since that time, many of those post office buildings have been abandoned by the Postal Service and the court system has taken over those buildings as it has grown larger and larger. But, of course, that was before you saw the numbers on that chart there.
So we're trying to develop a process where courthouses are economical, they're functional, and they're safe, and I can't overestimate the need for safe buildings. It's just got to be evident to everybody what we're talking about, and we've been discussing the issue of safety and security for some long time, not just in the last few months.
I've told you we were trying to deal with long-term needs, up to 30-year plans. They're down to 10-year plans. And I understand, Mr. Chairman, that you've received a letter from Judge Shaw in Lafayette, Louisiana. That's really sort of a typical letter of how the process for the development of a courthouse goes and some of the things that have been done. Now, every one will be slightly different, of course, but I think that's sort of a typical letter, not unlike what you heard from the Members of Congress who testified before you a few moments ago.
I might also indicate one other thing, what the nature of a courthouse is, and I think we have a chart—people sometimes think there's a significant difference between a Federal building and a courthouse, and in one sense there is. If a Federal building is only a Federal building, it's sort of vanilla space, meaning space that you can move walls around with frequency and they're not special-use spaces. A courthouse, of course, much of it is special-use space, but clearly not all of it.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Now, if you look at that little chart over there, when you talk about a courthouse, it is almost never a building that houses only courts. There are a few, but it's almost never that. They're usually always Executive Branch agencies, almost always the United States Attorney, almost always the United States Marshal. In that sense, the Federal courthouse is also part jail. They have holding facilities. Usually they're in the basement or some other facility, and there are usually holding facilities right adjacent to each courtroom where those who are in custody during the course of proceedings are held during trial or in breaks and the like.
The upper portion shows in a typical courthouse—not Federal building—the amount of space occupied by the Executive Branch of Government, and I think it shows it's about 30 percent. And the last of a typical courthouse occupied by the Judiciary—courtrooms, judges' chambers, law clerks, pre-trial services, probation, clerk of the court, and the like—that's the other 70 percent. That's a typical courthouse.
Mr. Chairman, we have been cooperating with GSA, and I'm not quite sure what you're going to hear from them, but I would be most surprised if you didn't hear them echo what I have just said. We have developed, in conjunction with them, a private sector panel of architects, engineers, contractors, and the like to look over the process by which these buildings are developed and designed, the standards by which they're developed, designed, and ultimately built, and that private sector panel indicated that they thought some changes could be made in the process, but the standards that were in use they thought were right on the mark. We have that report for you and would be happy to share it with you, if you'd like it.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So we are working in cooperation with GSA. GSA is value engineering the process, each project, and we are participating in that value-engineering process. GSA is establishing benchmarks for courthouse—low-rise, mid-rise, high-rise—projects to try to ensure that there is consistency with the cost of a project across the country. Obviously, in one community it's going to cost more than another because of the cost of living, but that's what these benchmarks help to do.
There's also another project which they have created called the CMG, the Courts Management Group, which we cooperated in, and it's an effort to try to ensure that there's consistency on a national level so that you don't have projects in one area of the country that are being—
Mr. GILCHREST. What's that organization again?
Judge BROOMFIELD. CMG, Courts Management Group, and I believe the head of that one is here. Dianne Walters from GSA is here, and I believe maybe Mr. Davis will be talking about that with you, and I urge that you ask questions of them concerning that. That's another cooperative effort. We are trying to contain the cost.
I've told you about the revisions in the design guide, why it was created. One other thing about the design guide: it is, of course, a guide, and if any particular court wants a project and they want to deviate from the guide, something more than the guide calls for, they have to go to the circuit judicial council—that's part of the judiciary governance process. Each of the 11 circuits has a judicial council. Indeed, I believe Judge Coyle used to serve—maybe still serves—on the 9th Circuit Judicial Council. He happens also to be the chairman of the 9th Circuit Security, Space Committee. They have to approve a departure.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
By the way, the judicial councils have the statutory authority to request space. People like me, a district judge, I can't request space. I can go to GSA or somebody else and say, ''Hey, we have a problem,'' but statutorily only the circuit councils may approve that, to move the process along. As a matter of fact, we have a chart that shows that process. It looks a little complicated, and I won't go through the whole thing in any detail, but it gives some sense, and I guess it goes back to what Congressman Peterson was saying earlier about the process starting.
Somebody in the upper left-hand corner says, ''Hey, we have a problem, we think we have a need.'' We then require a long-range plan that's being created. No judicial project may go to a judicial council without a long-range plan. We, the Judiciary, have simply said, ''If you think you need a project, you must do a long-range plan.'' They're, of course, already done, and we're updating some of them now.
If there's a perceived need for a new facility, it goes over to this process. It goes to the circuit council, goes to the GSA regional office, and they have regions sort of not unlike the Judiciary's governance regions. It will then go to GSA headquarters, goes over to OMB—GSA headquarters has to approve what the region says should be proposed, goes to OMB, they have to pass on it. They then tell GSA whether they can submit something. The President then submits it to Congress in his annual budget. It then goes to the authorizing committees—yours—in the House and another one in the Senate, and then eventually to the Operations Committees on each side, and then finally the project is approved.
So that whole process takes years and years and years to go through, and there are all sorts of checks along the way, including that design guide and the circuit council, who must be asked whether there can be a departure.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Now, our committee asked the circuit councils to tell us every six months what they have done on these requests for departures, and most of the departure requests that ask for more are turned down. Some are not, and there are unique circumstances where that's the case. It's another strategy that we are using to try to, one, maintain consistency and be cost conscious and prudent with tax dollars.
Another thing the Judiciary is trying to do with increasing frequency is get donated sites for these new projects. Judge Coyle has one, I think, that's before you now in Fresno. That's going to be a donated site. I think one of the Members' testimony earlier talked about a donated site. I forget which one it was. There are many of these projects that are now in donated sites, and we are consciously and GSA is consciously trying to get donated sites in these various communities rather than pay for the site. It won't always work, but we try to.
Many of the older buildings that are out there are not safe buildings, and I don't know that I need to say anything more.
I'm about done. I'd only like to talk about the five-year rolling plan. That's another cooperative venture that we've entered into with GSA to try to develop a five-year plan on what should be proposed in any given year. I presented that to the Judicial Conference at their meeting last March, and they approved the concept of a five-year rolling plan that I've been meeting with GSA about, and I'm to present more specifics of that plan to the Judicial Conference at their meeting in the middle of September for their approval and more precise details of such a plan.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We believe that that, with our long-range planning process—and I might indicate on the long-range planning process, I've said this at many hearings where I've testified, and nobody's ever challenged this—I am unaware of any other branch of Government or any other agency or department of Government that has a long-range planning process for construction building needs, space needs. We have one for all projected space needs, and we think with that planning process and five-year rolling plan, it can give you a snapshot—after this year is over, it will be a rolling five-year plan, so it will go from 1997 to 2001, next year 1998 to 2002.
The only other thing I might mention in that respect is, I think it would be helpful to GSA, it certainly would be to the Judiciary, and I hope it would be to the Congress, if there were some sort of an indication about an approximate amount of money on an annual basis that one could look to for the cost of capital projects, whether they're courthouses or Federal buildings or Air Force bases or what have you, whatever comes through the committee. That would make it much easier and better to plan for the long term.
That five-year rolling plan, instead of going sort of like this, could be more straight-line if we had some indication—obviously, there's no way you or the whole Congress could bind a later Congress, but if there were some indication of what some projected level of funding might be, it would help the process immeasurably, and I think and would hope it would help you in your ultimate decision on what to authorize and when to authorize it.
We want to work with you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of your committee and staff to develop this five-year plan, to work on criteria that can be used to determine what should be improved and when.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Finally, I appreciate your asking us to come here and testify. We don't have any part in the decision-making process. GSA, OMB, the President, and the Congress make those decisions. So it's nice for you to ask us to be here and to give at least our ideas.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Judge. We decided to hold this hearing because of the perceived crisis—well, first of all, the budget crisis. Everybody is sharing in the burden of drawing in the reins of excessive Federal spending. The proposed moratorium on courthouse construction sounds good on the surface and may yet prove to be a positive thing, but what we wanted to do before we proceeded much further was to make sure that we did so prudently and with some sense of logic.
We all know that there needs to be courthouses that are large enough to accommodate the caseload, that are secure enough for those who work there and for the witnesses to attend, and this is the reason that we're having perhaps more than one hearing, to get at the bottom of all this. We don't want to do anything wrong, we don't want to do anything foolish. We want to proceed with a certain amount of prudence.
So we appreciate your attendance here this morning.
Judge Coyle and Judge Cohen, did either one of you want to make a comment before we proceed with questions?
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Judge COHEN. No, we're satisfied with Judge Broomfield's statement.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you.
We'll proceed in the order that Members arrived here this morning, so Mr. LaTourette can go first.
Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, Judge Broomfield, I want to praise you and your committee for the outstanding work that you put into the design guide. I just have four questions, and they only give me five minutes, so if you can't answer them all in the five minutes, if you could be willing to submit some answers in writing, I'd appreciate it.
I'm fully aware, being a former county prosecutor, of the explosion of litigation in our system, but one of the things that concerned me, if I've been given the straight skinny on some of the numbers, is that we've seen a growth in square footage of courtrooms from the previous design guide by about 20 percent, and I'm wondering, although we recognize that perhaps we need bigger courtroom facilities to house additional staff probation officers, holding facilities, why is it that we have gone in courtroom size up 20 percent, magistrate courtroom size up 20 percent? That's the first question.
The second question is, we recently had a hearing in the form of an oversight committee in Cleveland, Ohio, and a woman came and gave some testimony from the floor and indicated that her husband is six-foot-four, and she has difficulty understanding why we need courtrooms with 18-foot ceilings. If you could address that.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Third, the one-judge/one-courtroom discussion has been going on, I know, between various branches of Government, and I, again, know that you can't make a courtroom like you would something that you would reserve, and there are times when things have to be going on simultaneously, but has any thought been given to perhaps three judges to two courtrooms, or is there a more efficient way to use the courtroom space?
And then, lastly, I would commend the benchmarks that are included in the design guide, seeing that the highest is $170 per square foot for the high-rise. I would note and would be remiss if I didn't note that there are, I believe, five projects in the fiscal year 1996 budget that call for substantially higher square footage, the highest being, if I remember right, $304 per gross square foot for construction in New York, and I would like to know your opinion as to how we use those benchmarks. If we were going to say we're going to build buildings at $170 per square foot, recognizing there will be minor fluctuations, I don't think double is a minor fluctuation.
Thank you very much.
Judge BROOMFIELD. Thank you, Mr. LaTourette. Let me take the last one first, if I might. I think it's probably better for GSA to comment on the benchmarks than me, but I think I can say this. The benchmarks—I think they use Washington, D.C. as the basis, and then I think it's on some sort of a standard, it is increased or decreased based on cost of living in a certain area. Now, I don't really know how that is, but it's not just by guess and by golly, and so something in New York obviously is going to cost more than something in perhaps Kansas City. So I think they use those standards, and they fluctuate up or down, depending upon the area of the country.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
With respect to courtroom size, actually courtroom size is going back to what courtrooms were. Courtrooms used to be the size that are currently in the design guide, at least district courtrooms, and they were cut back in, I believe, the 1970s or 1980s, and the problem was, they weren't working very well because of the workload of the court and the nature of its workload. Many of our cases are now multi-party cases much more than they used to be. The old courtroom situation of a lazy summer afternoon in a courtroom with a few people just isn't the way it is anymore.
I've tried cases where I've had 11 defendants and had 43 people in the well of the courtroom. The defendants couldn't even sit in the well. They had to sit in the spectator area. I realize that's a somewhat unusual case, but it is most common to have multi-party cases, whether it's on the civil side or on the criminal side, so the courtroom size reflects its use.
With respect to bankruptcy and magistrate judges, let me talk about magistrate judges first. One needs a little bit of history about the system. They used to have the old commissioner system back in the 1960s and earlier, and the nature of their workload was such that they could operate in a very small area. Since the magistrate judge system has started in the late 1960s—and I understand Judge Cohen was originally a magistrate judge, he then became a district judge, and he's now a circuit judge. I'm not sure what happened to me along the way. But in that process, the nature of the work of magistrate judges has changed dramatically.
In order to cope with the workload, what's happening is a great many magistrate judges are now trying civil cases, jury trials with consent, because, as you know, the statute permits that. So we now have jury trials being conducted by magistrate judges, and they simply have that. Those are the smallest courtrooms in the design guide, and that simply accommodates a jury box of up to eight people. Actually, up to 10, because of alternates.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Bankruptcy judges. There's been a dramatic growth in bankruptcy. That goes up and down like a real yo-yo. But the nature of what they're doing brings scores of people in, and typically in a bankruptcy courtroom, the whole spectator area is filled up with people who aren't spectators, they're people there for a first meeting of creditors or what have you. So that reflects that change.
With respect to ceiling height, I think the only 18-foot ceiling height is what's called a special proceedings courtroom, and there's not supposed to be more than one of those in a given facility, and if it's a small facility, it doesn't even have to be one of those, and that's for the unusual situation. The case I described to you about naturalization proceedings occurred in there. There's a whole host of things. It's the only one that has a ceiling height there, and that's an unusual courtroom.
Courtroom sharing, I guess, is the best way I can describe what I understand your other question to be. That's very difficult the smaller the courthouse is or the less judges there are in the system. The larger the courthouse, the greater the number of judges in the facility, the easier it is. You know as well as I do as a lawyer that what resolves cases is a ready judge and courtroom to try them. That just does it every time, and without it, it just doesn't happen.
So many of the projects—with the larger projects, courtroom sharing is part of the plan right now, and it works, and many of the others, since we're only now building 10-year buildings for the reason I indicated earlier, the expansion is planned to accommodate some courtroom sharing. So I think we've already seen that issue and are trying to deal with it in the fairest way that we can, realizing that it is the courtroom and the judge that makes the cases go, whether they're tried or otherwise.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I hope I've answered all your questions.
Mr. LATOURETTE. You have, and I appreciate it. If I could prevail on the Chairman for just one follow-up, and that is, is there a bench mark for the courtroom sharing? If you have 20 judges, then you begin to look at courtroom sharing as part of the plan? If you have 10 or 15—
Judge BROOMFIELD. The answer is, we're looking into that. The committee is looking into that right now, and I don't have a direct answer to your question. I wouldn't think it would start at 20. That's a little too much. Because, actually, the Federal court system, when you compare it with the State system—and I know a good deal about that, because I used to be a State judge for 15 years over the ninth largest trial court in the United States, so I have a good understanding, and that court is now 100 judges. The biggest Federal court in terms of number of judges now is in New York, the Southern District of New York, 28 judges, and in Los Angeles, the Central District is 27, and I think next is Chicago with like 22 or 23.
So if we used 20, we'd have about four courthouses, and it would be, I think, decidedly lower than that. But we don't have an answer to give you right this moment.
Mr. LATOURETTE. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. LaTourette.
Mrs. Seastrand.
Mrs. SEASTRAND. Well, thank you, gentlemen, for coming today and educating me on this situation. I knew there was a problem, but you have clearly told me that we really have a problem.
And I welcome Judge Coyle from California, and on behalf of Congressman Radanovich, who couldn't be here today. Thank you for being here.
Also, Mr. Chair, I have a statement that I'd like to submit to the record on behalf of Congressman George Radanovich regarding the situation in Fresno and the proposed Federal courthouse, so I'd like to submit that.
[Mr. Radanovich's prepared statement follows:]
[Insert here.]
Mrs. SEASTRAND. I just have a question, being new on this committee and a freshman. We heard this morning about how most of our courthouses were built in the 1930s and such. Could you just give me some idea of how many courthouses we are talking about?
Judge BROOMFIELD. Well, I'm not sure I can answer in terms of how many courthouses. What I can tell you is, I think the Judiciary is in 670 locations—
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. THACKER. Seven hundred and thirty locations.
Judge BROOMFIELD. Seven hundred and thirty. I'm sorry.
Mr. THACKER. Probably 300 of those are courthouses.
Judge BROOMFIELD. All right. This is Mr. Thacker. Mr. Thacker is one of the assistant directors of the Administrative Office of the Courts, and he deals in the security area and the space arena.
Many of those are probation offices that are in some other part of the district that are not located in the courthouse. They may be 100 miles away or something like that. Pre-trial services, things like that. So out of that 730 locations, about 300 of them are courthouses. But, remember, a courthouse is still 30 percent Executive Branch.
Mrs. SEASTRAND. Yes. Now, of the 730 facilities, courthouse locations, whatever we might call them, would you say almost every one of them are expanding and are going to be in need of situations to expand?
Judge BROOMFIELD. I think the fair way to answer that is, you can't go from 14,000 to 28,000 almost in 10 years and not have a tremendous need for space. But it will vary widely. Many of the larger cities are just expanding. It's the urbanization of the population. Ours used to be a rural society, in many respects, in the 1930s, and there were courthouses here and maybe another one 100 miles down the road, another one 150 miles down the road. Many of those people have left those communities and are now in big cities. So we're seeing a need for expansion more in the larger cities—some of the larger cities more than others—and, again, that goes back to the question of which cities are expanding. You're seeing a lot of it out West and a good deal in the South.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So there are some areas of the country where there isn't any present need. That is not to say there may not be a need in the future. Most of the long-range plans show some need for expansion over time. Maybe over the 30-year period, not all right away. That's why we hope that this five-year rolling plan can be of assistance to you all and to everyone.
Mrs. SEASTRAND. Thank you so much.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mrs. Seastrand.
Mr. Mineta.
Mr. MINETA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend you for holding these hearings, and I appreciate your continued stewardship over this subject matter. I appreciate, again, the panel being before us.
Your Honor, on page 3 of your testimony you talk about ''The panel also found that the United States Courts Design Guide is of great assistance to the architectural community and construction contractors. The guide sets forth space standards.'' How has that guide and the specific reference to space standards helped control costs?
Judge BROOMFIELD. Because of the consistency and the departure process that I described a little bit earlier. No court may ask for something that exceeds the guide without asking the judicial council, upon which people like Bob Coyle sit, and most of those departures are turned down, except for unusual circumstances—perhaps a lease situation where you already have a certain size building and you have to conform to the existing structure. But on most new construction, there's no justification for it.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
This private sector panel found that the design guide was of great assistance to everybody in the process, not only the Judiciary and GSA, but architects, engineers, contractors, and the like.
Mr. MINETA. Then, going back to an earlier question that Mr. LaTourette had asked about, does that include the per gross square foot based on what kind of a building it is, low-rise courthouse or mid-rise or high-rise and the attendant square footage costs? Is that part of the design guide?
Judge BROOMFIELD. No, Mr. Mineta, the design guide doesn't deal with cost questions. That's a number that GSA has developed, and I'm sure they'll comment further about that. But the design guide just deals with limitations on the amount of space one might have, depending upon what that space is intended for.
Mr. MINETA. Is there anyplace where, in terms of criteria, where does a courtroom—where should there be a courtroom? Is it okay for people to go 70 miles? Should we keep them within—should everybody have a Federal court facility within 10 miles, whether it's a community of 8,000 or 50,000 as compared to one million or two million? Is there some rule of thumb that's used as to where courthouses ought to be?
Judge BROOMFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to make this a longer answer than it needs to be, but to give you some indication of our effort to try to deal with costs, help contain them, internally within the Judiciary, in its own Budget Committee, there is an Economy Subcommittee. That Economy Subcommittee asked internally within the Judiciary the various committees that deal with expenditures of funds and make up the Judiciary's proposed budget to look at ways to save money. That subcommittee asked our committee to look into the question of underutilized facilities. That's the way I would describe it. And our committee has done just that.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
One of the subcommittees of the one I chair did do that and came up with a report. There in fact are some facilities that we determined to be underutilized. As they've gone through the process, some of those courts have decided to give back that space to the GSA, so it won't be in the inventory and can be dealt with by GSA by putting some other Government agency in it or disposing of the property, selling it for the taxpayer.
So we went through that process, and we are continuing in that process to see if there are other ways to save. We are looking at what the standard ought to be as to how far away from a given location. That matter has not been resolved. It clearly is a balancing of costs, saving money for the taxpayer, with providing a service to the taxpayer. You bring litigants, jurors. The longer distance you bring them, the more you inconvenience them, but the more money you save because you have to have less facilities dispersed.
So there comes some point where it's a rational number where you have to make that determination. We haven't yet arrived at what that is, but we are looking at the process.
Mr. MINETA. And when Congressman Battlestone says, ''We need a Federal court in Rockstone,'' with 7,212 people, does the Conference or AO or anybody ever say, ''He's out of his cotton-picking mind. We don't need one in Rockstone''?
Judge BROOMFIELD. I'm not sure we've had that kind of request. The request for the buildings that you see here—
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. MINETA. Let's see, where is that request?
[Laughter.]
Judge BROOMFIELD. I don't think we have any of the requests, because, as I responded to Mrs. Seastrand's question, people are moving more to the larger cities, so we don't have the problem of the new courthouses in small towns, unless one is talking about building a courthouse in the suburb of a city.
So I guess we just don't have the question of Congressman Battlestone making the request, that we are aware of. Maybe Judge Coyle has a response.
Judge COYLE. Well, I think that it splits into two things, and that is having a presence somewhere within the district by having, as Judge Broomfield stated, some small space or space that's not used full-time. Then we get to what I think Congressman Mineta really hit on the head, the political question of somebody wanting to have a separate district or a separate courthouse where you have an extra million people, and I guess we can say that belongs back here in Washington. That truly is political.
Mr. MINETA. The other thing I hear is when a superior court judge in California gets appointed to the Federal bench, then he says, ''This courtroom is smaller than when I was a municipal court judge handling traffic citations,'' and I'm quite sure you're familiar with that line.
Let me ask something else. We talked about Article III judges, and there are a number of the load because of the number of cases. But what about things like if bankruptcy judges become Article III? Does that change the load on the system in terms of the number of courtrooms that are needed? And what about senior status? We've got places where we've got five sitting judges, but as one of them retires and goes into senior status, a new person is appointed, and do we have to provide the courtroom space there for the senior status? What happens in that instance?
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Judge BROOMFIELD. With the first question, Mr. Mineta, on bankruptcy, that wouldn't change—the status of a judge doesn't change a workload or the need for space or the lack of need for space. Unless you change the jurisdiction of a judge, whether it's a district judge, a bankruptcy judge, or magistrate judge, what that person does in many respects dictates the nature of the facility they need to function in.
That's why I talked earlier about the magistrate judges now hearing civil cases on consent, so there is a need for jury boxes for 8 or 10 people to be able to do that. I don't see, unless you change the bankruptcy judge's jurisdiction, that the size facility they need to do it in would change.
The other thing you asked was about senior status. That, I think, goes back to the question of courtroom sharing that I talked about earlier. Senior judges do about—I think it's 30 percent—Jerry, do you have the number?—of the total workload that's done on an annual basis within the Federal Judiciary. If they chose not to do so, we'd have a potential need for judges to deal with that 30 percent of our workload. It will vary in terms of the amount of work they do. Some don't make a change at all. In our district, we had one judge that went senior, didn't change his workload at all. He has a 100 percent draw of civil cases and a 100 percent draw of criminal cases. Other judges will take a slightly lesser draw.
So the need for those judges for us to contain our caseload is clearly present. However, as we get larger and the facilities get larger—it goes back to the other question I referred to—some courtroom sharing probably can be effective, and I know many of the projects that are under design now or under construction now do contemplate such a sharing, and it isn't exclusive with senior judges, although it focuses more there than elsewhere. I believe you're doing that in Sacramento, because there's a project under construction right now.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Judge COYLE. We've taken courtrooms out, with the recognition of the sharing by senior judges.
Mr. MINETA. Does your committee prioritize court projects?
Judge BROOMFIELD. Mr. Chairman, the answer to the question up to this point has been no, because, as I indicated earlier, we are not a part of the decision-making process. That's GSA, OMB, the President, and the Congress. However, I described earlier about a proposal the committee made to the United States Judicial Conference back in March, and we asked them if we could be involved in such a process—the 5-year rolling plan. The Conference approved that, I might say, 25 to 1. That was the vote within the United States Judicial Conference.
So it was an extremely strong vote supporting it, and our committee since then has been trying to work out the details. I'm to make another presentation to the Conference when they meet again in September on more details of such a process.
Mr. MINETA. In making that prioritization, will you establish your own factors and guidelines for prioritization, or is there one that you would turn to that the judicial council or GSA already has?
Judge BROOMFIELD. I think our view is more apt to be—and, remember, the Conference makes the decision. I'm just the chair of one of its committees. They are the ultimate governing body of the Federal Judiciary. But my sense is—
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. MINETA. But you're an important piano player.
Judge BROOMFIELD. I think the way we're apt to approach it and I think the Conference is apt to approach it is the development of criteria that any rational-thinking person can then apply to a given project that comes up. That's the way we think is the best way to handle it, along with the five-year rolling plan. It seems to me that gives the committee a way of looking not at a year-by-year thing, but you can look out over five years and make a decision, ''Well, that one really doesn't belong here, it belongs here, and this one should belong here.'' That sort of a thing. That's sort of the process that we're going through right now.
Mr. MINETA. Well, thank you very, very much for your work on the committee, as well as to your colleagues.
Judge BROOMFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Mineta.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, thank you very, very much.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Mineta.
Ms. Norton.
Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize to the witnesses and to the committee that I was held up in another hearing and could not be here earlier. This is an issue that has been of very special interest to me, and I appreciate the testimony and the testimony we have gotten beyond being told that the courts, in their great majesty, need buildings with higher ceilings and extraordinary trappings because they are courts. That was a low point, as far as I was concerned, in the hearings we had here, and we truly are making process, and I want to congratulate you for the progress you are making.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
May I just say that the important factor here is going to be oversight, and I'll be particularly interested to talk to the GSA. The reason this got where it got, which is no place for courts to be, was that GSA was not doing its job, and it, frankly, had a view of the separation of powers very different from that of the framers of the Constitution or of the Congress, and there was no gatekeeper. So that the Judiciary went about on its own, building the way you would if somebody gave you a pot of money and said, ''Go to it.''
I mean, that is truly what has happened for years, and some of the responsibility, I have to say, belongs not just at GSA, because this committee and the Congress had hearings. The OMB itself passed these things on through. So we're really dealing with judges who were on a lark of their own, with nobody to hold them back or pull them back, and, frankly, they may have lost their way because there was nobody there and so they figured that's the way it ought to be.
So I continue to believe that unless GSA plays the same role for the courts—with respect, but a role, frankly, no different from a role it plays to others who live entirely on the taxpayers of the United States—unless they play that role, none of this is going to work. But I believe that the point of the committee has been made and we're already seeing progress in that regard, and I'm pleased to see it and commend you for the role you're playing in it.
May I ask only one question, inasmuch as I didn't hear the testimony in the first place. It has to do, on page 4, with the sentence that says that GSA's benchmarks for Federal courthouses built today are ''based on the Washington, DC market, as follows,'' and then it goes on to list some figures. Does this mean the Washington, D.C. market for all courthouses in the United States or for Washington, DC courthouses?
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Judge BROOMFIELD. Ms. Norton, I alluded to that earlier. That is a question that is probably better for GSA to answer, because they would know better about that than I would, but my understanding is that there are standards based on low-, mid-, and high-rise, simply using Washington, D.C. as a base, and they would increase in an area where the cost of living is higher, decrease in an area where the cost of living is lower. They simply use Washington, DC that as a base. They could use Chicago or Paducah, for that matter. But I may be wrong, and I would defer to them.
Ms. NORTON. Thank you.
Judge BROOMFIELD. Thank you.
Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Ms. Norton.
To follow up on that question of the benchmarks, using DC as a guide, would you say Fresno, California, the high bench mark here—and I understand that it will be flexible, depending on the part of the country in which the construction takes place—the high bench mark here for a high-rise is $170 per square foot, gross square foot. But if we look at Fresno, California; Las Vegas; Brooklyn, New York; Central Islip, New York; Scranton, Pennsylvania; Scranton, Pennsylvania is the lowest, at $195, and Las Vegas is $237, Brooklyn, New York is $304.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Is that mostly driven by the area of the country in which the construction takes place, or is that also partly driven by the design of the courthouse, which includes the size of the courtroom, the height of the ceiling, the size of the chambers, the size of the bench which the judge sits behind, and all those things? What would you say would be the disparity between the cost of Brooklyn, New York at $304 per gross square foot as opposed to what it might be in Washington, $170?
Judge BROOMFIELD. Mr. Chairman, it has to be the area. It can't be the guide, because the guide applies, whether it's Fresno or Las Vegas or Islip or wherever. So it has to be the area. I'm not sure the numbers that you've just read are currently accurate numbers for any of those sites, and we'd be happy to provide those. I think GSA may have them.
Mr. GILCHREST. We got those out of the GSA book.
Judge BROOMFIELD. Oh. Well, if it would meet with your pleasure, Mr. Chairman, could we submit you a letter indicating what we understand those costs are?
Mr. GILCHREST. Certainly.
[The referenced document follows:]
[Insert here.]
Judge COYLE. Most of those, I assume, come out at prospectus time, and the court really at that point in time has had really no say in the design or what materials or anything is going to be used.
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. GILCHREST. The court has had no say in the design?
Judge COYLE. There really is no design. There's size, there's space needs, and, in fact, we're always told when we go through a prospectus, the court says, ''Wait a minute, don't tie us down to something,'' because we're not designing, we're just determining needs. Maybe I'm not making myself clear.
Judge BROOMFIELD. The process, Mr. Chairman, starts out—
Mr. GILCHREST. See, we have to go by the—we look at the dollar figures, and that's what we must assume. Then when there has been some—I guess we could agree—some overdesign of courthouses—now, I'm saying that not as a judge and not being in those overdesigned courthouses—and then we see a prospectus that's $304 a square foot, and I think the suggestion, Judge, about a more collaborative effort with this five-year plan to have some sense of the amount of money that will be appropriated and some sense of a very modified courthouse design, understanding all of the complexities that that involves, we can—and then in some sense we'll have an idea of how to prioritize and take some politics out of this. I think that's probably an important step in the right direction.
But we sit up here, and we're trying to gather the right information to move forward in a prudent manner to build the safest and best facilities to accommodate justice, and that's sort of our perspective on this whole problem. But when we sit up here and we see a prospectus that says $304 a square foot in Brooklyn and $195 in Scranton, and there was a courthouse just built—I know it wasn't a Federal courthouse, but one that was built here in Northern Virginia for $98 a square foot, then Members of Congress sort of say, ''Why this huge disparity?''
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
And then, like has been mentioned a couple of times, we see ceilings that are 18 feet. Now, I'm not sure how high this one is. My guess is it might be 14 feet high. Does anybody know how high this ceiling is? Fourteen or sixteen. Sitting in here in this small room, it's not that high. You say 18-foot ceilings, that does sound high. Maybe it is high. Maybe 16 should be the top number.
But I want to read something else that Members of Congress also see, and I would like—this came out of the U.S. Courts Design Guide. I want to read a fairly lengthy quote, not to criticize, but to understand.
''A courthouse facility should be monumental in design, expressing solemnity, stability, integrity, rigor, and fairness in the Federal judicial system and provide a civic presence through continuity with the American architectural heritage of public buildings and courthouses. For the realization of these concepts, massing should be strong and direct, with a sense of repose, and the scale of design components grand, to reflect the national judicial enterprise, all in a proportional and hierarchical arrangement, to signify orderliness.''
Now, when a Member of Congress who wants to cut the budget and wonders whether or not they should spend $800,000 to protect a particular species reads this or hears about this, it doesn't—I can understand—I mean, should the United States Congress sell the Capitol and operate out of a high school auditorium? There would be enough room, and we could probably do that. We could ask the Supreme Court to operate in a building that's much less grand. That's to the extreme.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I think one of the problems in courthouse construction is that there has been perhaps only a few, but there have been some examples that have been a little bit too grand perhaps. So I think it behooves us here to go beyond what has initially been proposed, I guess, as far as designs are concerned.
Mr. Peterson talked about one in Tallahassee, Florida that I think has really been modified to the extent that it warrants perhaps with other Members—I can't speak for all Members—going forward.
We don't want people to sit in overcrowded courthouses that aren't safe, there's no parking, the witnesses are in danger. But all of us must make an effort, in the light of the environment that is now with us, to take a step in the direction of modifying the design not so that it takes away from the presence or the fairness or even the grandness of a facility. I don't think we'd want to be in this room if the ceilings were nine feet. It probably wouldn't work. Or if this room, which is almost too small, would even be smaller, because hardly any Members ever show up, except for some fine—Mr. LaTourette and Ms. Norton and Mr. Mineta, certainly, and Mrs. Seastrand. And, of course, the staff is always here.
[Laughter.]
Mr. GILCHREST. I guess if we talked about Waco, we might have a few more Members here.
But this is an important issue that needs to move forward, and I don't want to make light of the need for new courthouses and for the courthouses to be the type of facility that will provide for the justice that is necessary.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
One of the main reasons we called this hearing is because we don't want to proceed in a haphazard, unprofessional manner. It doesn't behoove this institution or the judicial institution. So as we proceed through this, some of your suggestions, I think, are important for us to take into consideration. This hearing doesn't mark the end of our discussion. Whether we have another hearing or two or whether we sit down with Members that are interested, in my office or someplace else, I look forward to that as well.
If there aren't any other comments, I think most of the questions pretty much have been covered, along with—
Ms. NORTON. Would the Chairman yield for a moment?
Mr. GILCHREST. Ms. Norton.
Ms. NORTON. The Chairman's comments just made were very important. The comments, I take it, from the design guide are in the present design guide. In your testimony, on page 2, there are a set of goals written in less grandiose language. They don't bother me, because I don't want to thumb-down the way in which a courthouse would look. What is problematic, though, is that almost all of them really are drawn from that notion of the courts as institutions. I'd feel much better about those if they were part of a longer list. I mean, they all are about the conceit of the courts. I speak as a lawyer, may it please the court. And it's very difficult to disagree with any of those. But they don't have, for example, that you'd want a Federal courthouse today to be energy-efficient.
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
And of the things listed, almost all of them reflect in one way or the other the values the Chairman just read. ''Exhibit the vigor and energy of the Federal Government.'' I mean, you can take notions like that, you see, and read them and say that ''Indeed, an expenditure that I am making is because our building is making a significant contribution to the public architecture'' or ''We are engendering in the users and the public a respect for the tradition and purpose of the American judicial process.''
My problem with those is not that they are inappropriate, but in a list in which almost—there's one notion that, of course, you sum up in the very beginning, the most important, that it be economical, functional, safe, and the rest of it, but you can see how someone who hasn't gone through the exercise that you have gone through and the committee has gone through might still believe that what the design guide says is really what should drive the way in which courthouses are built, and those are very ephemeral things that could lead the uninitiated to believe that one could actually spend money in order to get to what turns out to be a majority of things that have very little to do, in the committee's view, with a functional courthouse that enjoys the respect of the community and of those who use the courthouse.
I think there is some problem in the way, off of the bare page, what you have in your testimony could be taken.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Ms. Norton.
Gentlemen, we appreciate your attendance here this morning, and we look forward to, in the next few weeks, talking further. We will do what we can to expedite the process. Thank you very much.
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Our next panel will be Mr. Thurman Davis, Acting Deputy Administrator, GSA, accompanied by Ms. Dianne Walters, and also Mr. Kinbrough is here this morning. Thank you for coming. We look forward to your testimony to help us resolve this very important, complex problem.
Mr. Davis.
TESTIMONY OF THURMAN M. DAVIS, ACTING DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED BY KENNETH KIMBROUGH, COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE, AND DIANNE WALTERS, ACTING PROGRAM EXECUTIVE, COURTHOUSE MANAGEMENT GROUP, PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE
Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the committee. Thanks for inviting the General Services Administration to appear before this committee to deal with its Courthouse Construction Program. As you mentioned earlier, accompanying me today is Ken Kimbrough, the Commissioner of Public Buildings Service, and Dianne Walters, who is the executive leading the Courthouse Management Group, which was referred to earlier by Judge Broomfield. You'll hear more about that in a little bit.
I have a formal statement which I would like to have entered in the record. We'll just summarize, if we may, with a few opening remarks and take your questions.
Mr. GILCHREST. Without objection, your prepared statement will appear in the record.
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to begin by giving you an update on a couple of the GSA's early initiatives affecting the courthouse building program, and then ask Ms. Walters and Mr. Kimbrough to deal with a couple of more specific initiatives that we have ongoing that are designed to help us manage the program. These actions address our mutual interests of cost control, efficient delivery methods, and building security.
In 1993, one of Administrator Johnson's first initiatives was to undertake a time-out and review of 200 projects, which was referred to earlier by Judge Broomfield. These projects were of major construction, modernization, and leasing. Today this effort has resulted in a cost avoidance of just under $1.4 billion. Of that amount, just under $350 million represented cost avoidance in connection with court construction projects.
In addition, GSA commissioned a panel of leaders in the design and construction industry—that, too, was referred to earlier in Judge Broomfield's testimony—to provide advice on improving the Courthouse Construction Program. This blue-ribbon panel, which we've called it, has developed a series of recommendations for improving the Court Construction Program. Many of these have been implemented or are being implemented today as we speak, and we'll talk about a few of those in a few minutes.
The most significant of the panel's recommendations, though, was to establish a centralized court construction organization within GSA. As I mentioned earlier, Ms. Walters is heading up that group, and I'd like to ask her to talk a little bit about that, as well as some of the other initiatives, followed by Mr. Kimbrough, who will deal with some more of the specific initiatives that we have under way within PBS currently.
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. WALTERS. Thank you.
In January 1995, as part of the reengineering of the Public Buildings Service and in response to a recommendation of the blue-ribbon panel, GSA established the Courthouse Management Group. It's a small team of six high-level individuals who are focusing on improving management and delivery of the courthouse construction program. The group includes three project directors whose primary focus is on project development and applying consistent strategies to keep both project scopes and budgets in line.
Mr. GILCHREST. Could I interrupt for just a second? Is this blue-ribbon panel the Courthouse Management Group?
Ms. WALTERS. No. The blue-ribbon panel was the group of outside private individuals from the building community. They made a series of recommendations, one of which was the establishment of the Courthouse Management Group.
The Courthouse Management Group, through the project directors, will focus on the early stages of project development, where we can have the greatest influence on the quality, efficiency, and cost effectiveness of the projects. We'll be involved in programming, prospectus development, and site selection, as well as architect/engineer selection and concept design review and approval.
For example, we'll focus on site selection to assure that—
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. GILCHREST. I hate to interrupt. Concept design?
Ms. WALTERS. Yes.
Mr. GILCHREST. Now, this is the Courthouse Management Group from GSA comes up with the program, the prospectus—
Ms. WALTERS. Well, we don't do that by ourselves. We're involved in that.
Mr. GILCHREST. With the—
Ms. WALTERS. With other parts of the General Services Administration and with the Judiciary. They play a role in this, particularly in terms of—
Mr. GILCHREST. How much role would you play, then, in the design of the courthouse?
Ms. WALTERS. Well, the Public Buildings Service is privileged to have a chief architect, Ed Feiner, who works very closely with the Courthouse Management Group in guiding all of our major projects through the design process. Our involvement in terms of design review is assuring that in fact the concept design, the project as it's evolving, meets the program requirements and the prospectus requirements that had been laid out earlier.
Project development is an iterative process which starts with programming, which is needs identification. Prospectus development, which lays out the basic scope and budget constraints for the project. In there, too, you have site selection. Site selection is very important, because it has a big effect on the efficiency of the building, which in turn affects the cost of the building.
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We want to be involved in architect/engineer selection, another step in the process, in order to assure that we're hiring architect/engineer firms that have a solid track record in design excellence within strict budget limitations. And then, finally, to participate in the review and approval of the concept designs to be sure that the basic program requirements have been met, that the scope is being interpreted in the design correctly and within the budget limitations that have been established.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you.
Ms. WALTERS. In short, it's our intention that the Courthouse Management Group will intervene early in the process of developing, designing, and constructing these very complex facilities in order to resolve issues before they become problems.
The blue-ribbon panel also recommended that a rolling 5-year plan for the Judiciary's long-range housing needs be developed, and this will be another of the Courthouse Management Group's activities. The plan will be developed in partnership with the Judiciary, and it will coordinate their requirements with GSA's annual budget request. As you heard from Judge Broomfield, the Judiciary is presently determining the priority of their long-range requirements, and we do expect that that will be approved by the Judicial Conference in September. That will greatly assist GSA in the development of the rolling five-year plan.
Mr. GILCHREST. Yes, sir, Mr. Kimbrough.
Mr. KIMBROUGH. If I may, I'd like to turn to one of our more significant initiatives in our construction program, which is the use of benchmarks. There were in fact several references to the benchmarks to Judge Broomfield, and we'd be happy to try to answer some of those questions that he redirected to GSA.
Page 78 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
We've established the bench-marking process for the evaluation of proposed new construction projects. This would help us identify potential savings in each project and allow the Federal construction program to be compared with comparable private sector construction. They have been and will continue to be used in all of the courthouse construction projects.
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of this bench-marking process, GSA contracted for the analysis of actual construction costs in three Federal courthouses and compared those to the bench mark. We made a downward adjustment of that bench mark following a 1993 study of the Alexandria courthouse. The more recent analysis of two additional courthouses did not reflect the requirement to make any additional adjustments, so we feel that the benchmarks are working at this time.
I need to assure you that GSA is continuing its evaluation of the project benchmarks and is looking for opportunities to refine this process.
A lesson that we learned during the time-out and review process is that we need to focus much more closely on building efficiency, since it has a great deal of significance and an impact on the construction cost. This is the ratio of occupiable space to a building's gross square footage, and, obviously, the higher the ratio, then the more efficient the building. GSA now emphasizes an efficiency factor in its building designs, and we've established an ambitious target of a 67 percent efficiency factor, and we're pleased to report that courthouses which are being designed today meet or, when possible, exceed that target.
In March of 1995, we undertook another initiative which we believe will lead to further improvements in our program. In cooperation with the Federal Judiciary, we conducted a round table on the use of design/build delivery for Federal courthouse construction. A significant number of participants in the building industry, representing both the architect/enigneer and the developer perspective, attended. Pursuant to the findings, we're now working with the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to develop supportive materials for the design/build delivery, including documents outlining the roles and responsibilities of judges in this process and a guideline for preparing a Request for Proposals.
Page 79 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
GSA has initiated a number of business process redesign analyses that have led to revisions in our construction processes. One example is the construction project management, which has given us an opportunity to focus on the professionalism required to undertake the overall delivery of these complex and complicated projects. It is expected that we will undertake changes there in terms of the education in the standards of the typical project manager who is assigned to these projects, and it gives us one more way to assure that the best talent is being applied to the areas where we have the most opportunity to affect the outcome of construction projects.
We will ensure that they comply with these standards. I'd be happy to answer questions after Mr. Davis completes his remarks.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you.
Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, we'd like to conclude by giving just a brief update on the security in GSA facilities—in particular, courthouses.
Following the Oklahoma City bombing, the Department of Justice was charged by the President to conduct a vulnerability assessment of Federal facilities. GSA participated in the development of the minimum security standards and the survey of existing security conditions. The Justice Department report was issued on the 28th of June of this year.
In addition to contracting for additional security personnel since the bombing, GSA has established a task force that is looking into mitigating actions that can be taken in connection with trying to prevent or to protect against the kinds of tragedy which happened in Oklahoma City. We have established a task force in each of our buildings, made up of building occupants, to look at those specific buildings and come up with recommendations to GSA, given a set of criteria that has been developed, that can be implemented to try and increase and enhance the security within those buildings.
Page 80 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
All of the existing facilities, as well as those that are under design, are being reviewed, with the intent of trying to make sure that the new standards that have been developed are going to be incorporated both to the extent that they can in existing buildings and to the extent that they can in the new facilities.
GSA will evaluate enhancements to perimeter security beyond the current courthouse security measures. This may include some enhanced landscaping to provide additional physical barriers, as well as the modification of pedestrian and vehicular circulation.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes our remarks. We'd be very pleased to answer your questions and those of the committee.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis. I have one. I'm going to yield to Ms. Norton in a second, but regarding the task force security study, I think an 11(b) study was authorized on May the 2nd for the Oklahoma City tragedy. Is there any report on that yet?
Mr. DAVIS. Not yet, Mr. Chairman. I'll yield to Mr. Kimbrough, because he's been directly involved in that, but we are working with the citizens of Oklahoma, as well as the mayor and other government officials, to work through how to respond to the situation in Oklahoma in terms housing of the Federal components within the city.
Commissioner.
Page 81 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. KIMBROUGH. I'm familiar with the 11(b) report. We have been preparing it. It is with OMB, so it should be ready for release fairly quickly.
Mr. GILCHREST. You said that this is in each Federal building, that a task force was put together to determine security needs in each Federal building? Or is it just the courthouses?
Mr. DAVIS. Each Federal building has had a task force or, actually, a building security committee established, composed of the occupants of that building, responding to the recommendations that were developed as a result of the Department of Justice task force's work.
Mr. GILCHREST. I see.
Mr. Kimbrough.
Mr. KIMBROUGH. The initial request from the President and the Department of Justice report required that we establish these committees in each of the Level IV buildings by no later than the 14th of July, and that resulted in some 352 committees. Those have been established, but those were for the buildings categorized as Level IV. We will do a similar response for Level III, II, and I, but there's a later date to meet that.
So initially, it's not every Federal building, it's just the ones that were designated as Level IV, the buildings with the most Federal tenants. However committees are to be established for all buildings.
Page 82 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. GILCHREST. So the recommendations that came out of the Oklahoma City bombing have been—these recommendations as a result of that committee's report have been distributed to these other Federal facilities, with the people in those Federal facilities to implement those recommendations?
Mr. KIMBROUGH. The recommendation was that GSA should establish within each Level IV building a committee whose responsibility would be to review the overall recommendations of the Department of Justice, review the conditions within their own facility, and then make recommendations to GSA no later than the end of August for review. GSA will take those recommendations, review them with OMB, and come forward with a plan for developing funding.
Now, there's a menu of things that are prescribed as the minimum level of security for each Level IV building, so the committees are looking at a menu, they're looking at their own situation and deciding they need it or they have it already or they need something else.
Mr. GILCHREST. Can you give an example of a Level IV building?
Mr. KIMBROUGH. Typically it's a building that has over 450 Federal employees, higher risk, and agency security such as law enforcement tenants.
Mr. GILCHREST. Are Federal courthouses Level IV buildings?
Mr. KIMBROUGH. Courthouses may be a Level IV facility, considering population and other risk factors including hours of operation.
Page 83 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. GILCHREST. Okay. Thank you. Now, that will be done by the end of August?
Mr. KIMBROUGH. The recommendations of the committees will be made to GSA by the end of August. GSA will review those, concur with them, roll them up into one document or one report, and then review that with OMB to determine how best to approach funding. Some of them presumably we would do through some requirements for appropriation. Others we may be able to accommodate through some additional add-on for rent. I would imagine things that are ongoing that have a monthly cost would be reflected as a rent adjustment. Things that are capitalized and need construction would probably be reflected as some sort of one-time capital expense, in which case we'd have to come back and get funding for those.
Mr. GILCHREST. I think it would be helpful for us and, in an indirect way or a direct way, also helpful for you if we also reviewed that report, for a number of reasons, one of which is to anticipate increased costs in the next appropriations cycle.
Mr. KIMBROUGH. Well, may I offer myself or my department to do that.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much.
Ms. Norton.
Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 84 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. Gilchrest, questions about security would be of utmost importance in the region which is the headquarters region of the Federal Government. Of course, you were thrown off guard. No one knew that Pennsylvania Avenue, for example, was going to be closed off.
In closing off Pennsylvania Avenue, something that's very hard to dissent from—and I do not dissent from that. What I dissent from is the notion that it's got to be closed off forever and that this is a permanent arrangement and no advances in technology or other advances can give us a different result. In closing off Pennsylvania Avenue, in my judgment, the Federal Government has engaged in a taking.
Under the Constitution, the power of eminent domain does give the Government the right to take land when needed, but if Hecht's department store had decided to close off 12th Street, it would have had to compensate the District of Columbia for doing that. Eminent domain was meant to apply specifically to the governments, including the United States Government.
Now, I want to say right now that either the District of Columbia is going to be compensated or there is going to be a lawsuit in which I myself will be the first-named plaintiff, and compensating by penny-ante putting a cop up for a few weeks is not compensation under the Constitution of the United States. It's designed to make sure that people don't yell too much in the first weeks, but I'm going to yell the first day the cop is not there.
For its convenience, the Congress makes sure that as you come up C Street and D Street and as you come up Independence Avenue, there are cops there, particularly at rush hour, to make sure that the works don't get gummed up. When you come around 15th Street and 17th Street, there are now cops there.
Page 85 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I just want to say to GSA, I don't know how you all are going to figure it out, but if you can have cops there where there are no streets closed off or in the area of the Capitol of the United States just to keep traffic moving for everybody's convenience, somebody somewhere has got to find a way to keep some cops around 15th Street, 17th Street, H Street, which were already among the most congested streets in the District of Columbia. Nor will that be enough, because what you've taken is the downtown—and I do not mean the GSA—is the downtown of a great city and bifurcated it, made it impossible for it to be a whole downtown. It is a serious problem.
I'm glad to see that the GSA is trying to get hold of this after the fact. Obviously, Oklahoma City wasn't anything you could anticipate. Even the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue wasn't. My office has investigated the closing of streets around the Capitol. Streets belong to the Architect of the Capitol, and they are not streets where there are businesses or where there are residences.
But I have a question based on the ad hoc nature of the way agencies have responded, and perhaps the committees will help us to get a consistent response under GSA's leadership. The FBI, on its own, apparently without going to GSA or anybody else, simply took all the spaces around the FBI headquarters, spaces that had meters, which a city would need even if it was in good health, but certainly needs when it's down on its knees. The FBI has worked out an arrangement with the District of Columbia whereby every year it will pay the District of Columbia for the cost for the revenue that would have come through those meters. That is what the Constitution requires. If you take something that was revenue for the city, you don't just take it, you don't steal it. You say, ''We need this, and we'll pay you for it.''
Page 86 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Now, I want to know whether or not you have any word that anymore meters or other revenue-producing activities are now or will be taken off of the rolls around any Government building in the District of Columbia or elsewhere, because there are many jurisdictions that devote a great deal of space to Government buildings. Do you have any information, or have you said to agencies that they are not empowered to do that without coming to the GSA?
Mr. DAVIS. Ms. Norton, we're only aware of the parking meters that we have discussed in the past in connection with the construction of the Federal Triangle Building. We're working with the city now to resolve that issue. We were not aware the meters were taken as a result of the stopping of parking around the FBI building, nor the closing of 15th Street before that happened.
Ms. NORTON. Well, 15th Street is one thing. Does the FBI construction and plant activities now come under the GSA jurisdiction?
Mr. DAVIS. They do, but we were not aware that those streets were going to be closed nor that the FBI was working with the city in that regard.
Ms. NORTON. Well, may I ask you this, then. Since you see that agencies are on their own and don't understand they're supposed to come to the GSA, is there any way for you to make agencies aware that they are not empowered to simply take meters on their own simply because they happen to be a Federal building?
Mr. DAVIS. That we can do.
Page 87 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. NORTON. Okay. I ask you to do that.
Mr. DAVIS. Yes, and we will. I think Mr. Delasota at the FBI did go to the city. We just weren't aware that they were negotiating with—
Ms. NORTON. But after the fact, when the city screamed bloody murder.
Mr. DAVIS. I was just not aware of that fact.
Ms. NORTON. See, but what that says is that people don't know what to do. It's an unprecedented situation. That's why I'm asking you to take action, so we don't have to act after the fact.
Mr. KIMBROUGH. Ms. Norton, may I just add to Mr. Davis' comment? At a joint meeting yesterday with ourselves and GSA's regional administrators, we did advise them of the Government's responsibility to negotiate with local municipalities in States and cities in issues such as that, and we specifically referenced where parking meters were taken out of commission, that—GSA has a requirement to negotiate some agreement with the local municipalities. In some cases, it may not result in compensation if they give this to us willingly. In other cases, it might, and we so advised the regional administrators.
So we may be late in dealing with it in an official capacity, but we have in fact advised all of our regional administrators of this issue.
Page 88 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. NORTON. I appreciate that. I would appreciate it being in writing. I mean, we in the District are pleased to live with the Federal Government. There are many advantages to living with the Federal Government. It just would keep poor relations from developing if you make sure that people know that in some official way.
You indicate in your testimony that with the time-out and review, $1.36 billion in cost avoidance has already been saved, and we're still in that period, are we not?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. NORTON. And $346 million was in savings to courthouses. As I understand it, the Securities Exchange Commission was not a part of your time-out and review. As a result, they have almost, but not quite, tried to take 2,300 jobs out of the District of Columbia and build a brand-new building in Montgomery County.
What agencies are not covered by your time-out and review, and why aren't all agencies covered by your time-out and review? Why is there a loophole so that an agency could actually, at a moment when the Federal Government is downsizing, go out and subsidize a developer to build a brand-new building?
People went crazy when the newspapers reported that somebody was building a brand-new building when other buildings were in need of occupants for Government-owned space. It's like the courthouse debacle. You're going to end up with people talking about waste on the part of GSA and the Federal Government.
Page 89 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. DAVIS. I don't know offhand all the agencies that fall in the same category as SEC. We can provide that. I can say that—
Ms. NORTON. I would like to have you provide for the committee a copy of every agency—and some of them may be independent agencies or whatever—that is not under the time-out and review.
Mr. DAVIS. We'd be happy to do that.
[The referenced document follows:]
[Insert here.]
Mr. DAVIS. I would say, though, that if they are not under our jurisdiction, it's because they have been provided statutory authority to have their own leasing authority, and that is the situation with the Securities Exchange Commission.
Ms. NORTON. Now, an agency could—recognizing that we're going through the most serious and extensive downsizing in the history of the Federal Government, an agency could, on its own, voluntarily decide to participate in the time-out and review. Is that true?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes, ma'am, that is true.
Page 90 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. NORTON. Has SEC decided to do that?
Mr. DAVIS. I think that is true.
Ms. NORTON. Did the GSA write to agencies that were outside of its purview, recognizing that there might be loopholes, and advise them that they could voluntarily decide to participate in a time-out and review?
Mr. DAVIS. Administrator Johnson wrote a letter to both those agencies over which we have jurisdiction as well as those that we do not and invited them to participate, because of the fact that the downsizing could result in substantial blocks of space becoming available and that should be considered before we did anything else.
Ms. NORTON. Thank you. Then SEC, if it were acting responsibly—and it apparently is—would have had notice from you that that was a responsible thing to do.
Could I ask you about the benchmarks that I asked the last panel about? We were told a reason that it was not irrational to use Washington and then go up or down, based on local costs, from that. Why wouldn't it make—is that because you have to have someplace to start from rather than going into the jurisdiction itself and looking at what the cost is to build in that jurisdiction? Why wouldn't that be as good a place to start from?
Mr. KIMBROUGH. If I may, you're right, we needed a place to start, and since we're in D.C., it seemed like a good place to start. I don't think there were a lot of scientific reasons for picking D.C., other than we were here and you need to bench mark it at some point. We have some relevant data, we were here, it was easy to develop that, and from that place you could rationalize other cities as being more expensive or less expensive or rationalize that construction is different for low-rise, medium-, and high-rise. So it's just a place at which you start, a reference.
Page 91 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Ms. NORTON. When would it be acceptable to deviate from the bench mark for a particular city or municipality?
Mr. KIMBROUGH. Establishing the bench mark is a fairly rigorous set of exercises, and it's a mathematical calculation, so there's less art in this than one might think. We start with a basis of the construction, determine whether the building will be low-, medium-, or high-rise, which gives us a multiplier or factor. We then determine whether it is a city that has a higher or lower cost for labor. If there are special problems, such as soil conditions, that would be an added factor. There's a factor for the timing of construction. If it's two or three years out, we must put an escalator in there to capture that cost.
With this all understood, we're able to come up with a predictor of cost, and what I think is fair is, it gives us an opportunity to understand what is a reasonable predictor of the cost of this facility, because, after all, we have to have something we give to the architect/engineer firm. You would like to require us to give you something in advance in a prospectus that says, ''We think this project ought to cost this number,'' and we have to build that based on something.
It is true that almost any architect/engineer firm could build a project to consume any amount of money, so we need to make sure that we have targeted our architects and engineers to design toward something that we can rationalize and defend.
Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, could I just say that the notion that came forward in this testimony of a Courthouse Management Group is one that I want to commend the GSA for. I mean, it does seem to me that you will have some basis for comparison built in the mission of the GSA, which got completely out of control. To help bring it back in, to have a management group who develops the understanding of these courthouses all around the country talking about benchmarks, one might really then begin to have some kind of bench mark that is even more general that will help us compare these courthouses and make sure that we are back where we should have been.
Page 92 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Ms. Norton.
I just have a couple of questions. It's near lunchtime now, and it would be nice if we could all take the rest of the day off, but the busiest part of the day is yet to come.
Could you explain again briefly, how has the time-out and review saved all that money? Particularly in courthouse construction.
Mr. KIMBROUGH. We'll share the answer.
Mr. GILCHREST. All right. Maybe each of you could give a suggestion.
Mr. KIMBROUGH. I think it's also fair to say that when Administrator Johnson arrived, we had many projects underway. I think you heard Judge Broomfield say that some of these projects take up to seven years in its cycle. There were many projects very far along when we arrived, so we elected to take a ''Let's see what we've got,'' approach and in doing so, we had an opportunity to go back and either confirm that numbers that were in a project to be designed to or built to were defensible or we thought they were not.
This gave us the opportunity to take that moment in time to say, ''We think that one is much too much for what's required, where this other one perhaps has only a little too much.'' I don't remember very many where we said it didn't have enough. But it gave us an ability to go back, then, to the project team, to our own people, in a collaborative efforts with the judges, and say, ''We think you can deliver a project and meet your expectation, meet the goals, meet the requirements for a lesser amount of money.''
Page 93 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So, in essence, we started a process long after the fact and took a ''Let's look at it and see if we can defend what's there based on everything we know about what we should do if we were starting today.''
Mr. GILCHREST. So when you began your first look—actually, a second look at the project—you were using a number of different things to consider the cost of the project, and if we look at one of those items as a bench mark, whether it's $170 in Washington or $300 in Brooklyn, that's another part of evaluating the cost of these long-range projects. But that's not containing the costs, that's comparing the costs, I guess you could say, maybe trying to find the most cost-effective contractor or architect.
But you mentioned, Mr. Kimbrough, about space and things like that and how much was really needed, and I would assume that that's a part of the design of the project. Can we really consider lowering the costs of—since we're talking about courthouse construction—simply by bench-marking it or doing some other things? Do we need, I guess I could say, some type of consistent, or can we have a standard for courthouses that is, simplistically speaking, predictable? Is that a possibility for long-range planning, especially in this 5-year planning cycle that seems to be pretty enticing?
Mr. DAVIS. I'd like to try and answer that by saying, when I joined the agency some years back as an architect, we were provided with three or four volumes of standards that we were to use in the design of buildings. They were strictly that, standards that had to be used, and we found that those standards over the years tended to drive the cost up primarily because they did not allow the private sector to contribute new learnings rapidly enough into the design process.
Page 94 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
It would seem to me that if we could learn better and continue to learn how to implement the bench-marking process, we'd give the design community the opportunity to exercise its innovation in terms of their design practice while at the same time containing the cost.
Mr. GILCHREST. Well, that's a good argument, improvising and finding alternatives. The standard design for a compost shed for the chicken industry has not worked very well, because it's standardized and very expensive. But it's a thought.
How much money was saved with the time-out and review, did you say? Just courthouses. How much was it?
Mr. DAVIS. Just under $350 million.
Mr. GILCHREST. So $346 million was saved on courthouse construction as a result of time-out and review. Is that money in the bank somewhere making interest? I mean, we've got the savings. Where is the savings?
Mr. DAVIS. Well, in connection with courthouses, I can't be that specific, because we haven't broken that out. I do have some numbers in connection with the overall, and some of those monies have been captured, at least to the extent that we can to date.
I've been told, for example, that we've had some reductions in the amount of monies that we've asked for over the last couple of years—I can be specific if you'd like—and we've also had monies captured in the rescission bill. Those were monies which were identified as a part of the time-out and review. Something totaling a little over $400 million to date.
Page 95 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
So we've got some work yet to do, and what's out there is still out on projects which are still in the process, if you will. But those are the monies which have actually come back and can't be used anymore.
Mr. GILCHREST. What would you say—now, some people would argue that the courthouse construction is not that extravagant, that these are necessary expenditures, and then there are some people that would say they are extravagant and that's why we want a moratorium. Can you point to one, two, or three—I know how complex this is and how difficult it is, and there have been some recommendations here on how to improve courthouse construction. I think one of the best ways Members of Congress will say to improve courthouse construction, other than the moratorium, is to scrutinize it very closely, actually go on-site and see whether they have too many bathrooms or the chambers are too large or the ceilings are too high.
Could you leave us with some thoughts that I can take back to my colleagues on the best way to proceed in an orderly, fiscally responsible way to continue to build courthouses, but with an eye on the dollar?
Mr. DAVIS. I would ask Mr. Kimbrough and Ms. Walters to respond, but I would agree with the scrutiny, as well as continuing the collaboration between the courts and GSA and this committee. I think that is and will continue to be an important part of how we get a handle on providing what is needed where it's needed.
Mr. KIMBROUGH. I'll share this answer with Dianne. I anticipated you were going to ask this one, so I put some crib notes here. Some of these are my personal opinion. It may not reflect totally the Administration's, but I assume they would tell me if it didn't. Also, I think some of these require collaborative development with the AOC.
Page 96 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
I think we could build more annexes than new free-standing buildings. In a great number of cases, we're building from the ground up, so we're replicating the grandeur, all of the statement that the Federal Government is making in a local community, and often that's because there's no adjacent site available for an annex, which meant we didn't think we needed it, so we didn't plan for it, so we didn't buy the site early enough to reserve the opportunity. So we literally painted ourselves into a corner.
So to the extent that we could now look forward, we ought to figure out where those opportunities are where growth might take place, but we might need an adjacent site for an annex as opposed to a brand-new building.
An idea was mentioned which didn't come forward out of GSA, it came from the Judiciary, and that is the idea of collegial floors. This is floors were judges share their chambers in common as opposed to having the judges on the floor with the courtrooms. We talked about the height. There's a necessary relationship between the height of ceiling and the volume of the room. A room this size with a nine-foot ceiling would feel really funny. A room this size with a 30-foot ceiling would feel really funny.
So the geometry starts to suggest the height of the room by the size, and I think it's up to the judges of the Judiciary to comment on the size of the room, therefore, which starts to set the height of the room. So I don't want to comment on that, except to say I know that that relationship exists.
If you do collegial floors, the judges' chambers don't necessarily have to have that same height, and, in fact, what they do is they drop the ceiling. So the expense of the height is lost, and you have to add the expense of dropping the ceiling.
Page 97 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
The concept of the shared courtrooms, again, I'll let the Judiciary work with that. I know that they are, and I know that in certain instances they've voluntarily come forward and said, ''We're doing it here.'' They mentioned that we had encouraged them—actually, induced them—to go to 10-year projects as opposed to 30-year projects, simply because to build a project for 30 years every place you need a new courthouse, no one could afford it. We're having trouble affording the program now, which is based on building to the 10-year requirement.
These are some ideas. I wanted to make sure you left with something. Sites. You previously asked us to leverage every opportunity to get free sites to the extent that we can get free sites. A site normally might be 10 or 15 percent of the total cost. Obviously, that helps a lot. We've commented that sites ought to be square or rectangular. A site that is not square or rectangular starts to impact on the design of the building, and buildings that are not square or rectangular somehow become more expensive to build or construct.
So just a couple of things to make sure we've addressed this for you.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Mr. Kimbrough.
Mr. KIMBROUGH. Dianne.
Mr. GILCHREST. Ms. Walters, any closing comments?
Ms. WALTERS. I'd just like to add to that by echoing my earlier comments about the role of the Courthouse Management Group in partnership with the Judiciary in terms of proper problem identification through proper programming and prospectus development and proper problem solving through the concept design reviews and working with our contract architect/engineer to assure that we're staying within scope and budget.
Page 98 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Segment 2 Of 2
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you.
I do have some more questions, which could take us until much longer than we are now. What I would like to do is send them over, if I may, and I have some other questions for—I'm sure I can get hold of the judges as well. All of us up here will submit some questions to you, as well as the previous panels, and I thank you so much for your contribution to this effort.
[The questions and the answers thereto follow:]
[Insert here.]
Mr. GILCHREST. The hearing is dismissed.
[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
[Insert here.]