U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

88–766PDF 2015

S. HRG. 112–917 

GSA AND FEDERAL COURTHOUSES: MANAGEMENT, 

RENOVATION AND CONSTRUCTION ISSUES 

FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 28, 2011 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gpo.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

APRIL 28, 2011 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland .............. 1 

WITNESSES 

Brita, Susan, Deputy Administrator, U.S. General Services Administration .... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Ponsor, Hon. Michael A., District Judge, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, on behalf of the Judicial Conference of the United States ........... 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

Rawling-Blake, Hon. Stephanie, Mayor, City of Baltimore ................................. 27 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 30 

Motz, Hon. J. Frederick, Senior Judge, U.S. District Court for the District 

of Maryland .......................................................................................................... 32 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36 

Fowler, Kirby, President, Downtown Partnership of Baltimore, Inc .................. 45 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 47 

Monk II, Charles O., Esq., Chair, Board of Directors, Greater Baltimore 

Committee ............................................................................................................. 50 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 52 

(1) 

GSA AND FEDERAL COURTHOUSES: MANAGEMENT, RENOVATION AND CONSTRUCTION 

ISSUES 

THURSDAY, APRIL 28, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Baltimore, MD. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:01 p.m. in Courtroom 1–A, Edward A. Garmatz U.S. Courthouse, Baltimore, MD, 

Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, presiding. 

Present: Senator Cardin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the 

Federal courthouse here in Baltimore. This will be the opening of 

the Environment and Public Works Committee hearing and I want 

to thank Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe, the chairperson and 

ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, 

for allowing me to conduct this field hearing for the Environment 

and Public Works Committee dealing with our construction, renovation, and maintenance of our Federal courthouses. 

I want to acknowledge the staff from the Environment and Public Works Committee that are here, Alyson Cooke, Kathy Dedrick, 

William Henneberg, and Steve Chapman, representing the Environment and Public Works Committee, and Josh Klein of my staff, 

who is present. Today’s hearing will be used by the Environment 

and Public Works Committee in our responsibility to oversight Federal courthouse construction, renovation, and maintenance. 

I want to thank our witnesses for being here, from the Federal 

agencies as well as those from Baltimore, including our Mayor, 

Stephanie Rawlings-Blake. It’s a pleasure to have Your Honor here, 

and thank you for your participation today. 

In a May 2010 GAO report, the Government Accounting Office 

noted that in the 33 new courthouses that were constructed at the 

Federal level since 2000, 3.56 million square feet of unauthorized 

extra space was actually put in service. These facilities were both— 

the report was both critical of the General Services Administration 

as well as the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts in the manner in which this additional space was put into service. 

It was based, according to the GAO report, on faulty assumptions. The assumptions were, quite frankly, that all of the vacancies in the Federal judiciary would be filled and the space would 
2 

be needed. Now, I can tell you, serving in the U.S. Senate, that’s 

not necessarily realistic assumptions, knowing that there are intentionally times where court positions are held unfilled. The cost of this unauthorized extra space amounted to $135 mil- lion of knowledge increase and construction cost and $51 million to 

operate and to maintain. 

So, starting in 2004, the Administrative Office of the Courts initiated some reforms in order to try to deal with some of these cost 

issues. At that time, they put the priority on the space needs more 

so than on the security or condition of the building. I’m going to 

come back to that point, because the two points I want to make 

from the beginning on dealing with the 2004—dealing with the 

May 2010 GAO report is: first, that it was expensive. Taxpayers 

money was spent that could have been spent in a more cost—efficient way. Second, it added to I think the wrong conclusion, the 

wrong conclusion being that we should put space needs ahead of 

adequate needs for our Federal bench. We’re going to need to have 

to deal with that. 

I want to thank all of those who are at the Edward M. Garmatz 

Federal Building and Courthouse for allowing us to use this site for 

this field hearing. I particularly want to acknowledge Felicia Cannon, who’s worked very closely with us in regards to the use of this 

courthouse. 

This courthouse was constructed in 1976 and it has the dubious 

distinction of being the cheapest square foot facility constructed of 

its type. I say that without much pride because as you travel 

through this building you’ll see the deficiencies in this building. 

From day one there have been legitimate criticisms as to the adequacy of the Federal courthouse here in Baltimore. 

It has a poor relationship to the city itself. By that I mean is that 

when you design a building that’s in an urban center it should be 

part of the city. Instead, this building was designed sort of as an 

island to itself and not incorporated well into the plans of Baltimore city. 

Second, from day one there was poor acoustics, poor lighting, 

awkward courthouse layouts, electrical system failures; the location 

of the holding cells is not where it should be; the location of the 

galleries is not where it should be. It’s an environmental nightmare 

when you take a look at its energy consumptions. Since 1998 there 

have been 11 published reports of problems dealing with the 

HVAC, plumbing, and the electrical system. 

The safety of the building’s design has also been called into question. It’s similar to the Federal building that was constructed in 

Oklahoma City that was the subject of so much devastation as a 

result of an explosion. There is concern about blast concerns, if you 

get a blast, whether this building could in fact deal with those type 

of issues. 

The GSA report in 2003—and I’m going to quote from it—said 

that: ‘‘Our first impression report that describes the appearance of 

the Baltimore Federal courthouse as ‘anonymous and unrelenting,’ 

with no identification of interior functions, not benefiting’’—‘‘befitting the dignity of a courthouse’’—all helped to elevate the Baltimore courthouse to the No. 1 spot on the Administrative Office of 

the Courts 5-year courthouse plan for replacement. 
3 

That 5-year plan, which was done in the early, around 2006, listed Baltimore for construction by 2008. The reason Baltimore was 

listed No. 1 is for these reasons. There were security issues as to 

whether the building was designed in a way that would provide the 

safety, not just of the judges and the staff, but the public who visit 

and use the Federal courthouse. There was also a concern as to 

whether the rooms were organized in an efficient way for the purposes of a Federal courthouse. 

But once Baltimore reached the top of the list, the rules changed. 

First, there was not enough money to start knowledge, so there 

was nothing being built during those years and there was a moratorium on new construction. So Baltimore stayed No. 1 for a few 

years, but there was no activity at all done. 

Then the criteria used for what courthouses should be built was 

changed. As I noted earlier, there was a change in focus from dealing with having adequate space from the point of view of safety 

and design to whether there was sufficient space in square footage. 

When that was done, the Baltimore courthouse lost its preferred 

position and went from No. 1 to not being on the list at all for new 

construction. 

But Baltimore was in the worst possible position. During those 

years where it was felt that we were going to get a new courthouse 

here in Baltimore, the maintenance work was not done, the improvements were not done. Why put money into a building that 

was going to be replaced? So the conditions that existed here became even worse and no money was spent to really keep the building up to where it should have been. 

So Baltimore lost its position to get a new courthouse and Baltimore’s courthouse became even in worse condition. It was clear 

that Baltimore—it’s clear to me that Baltimore deserves a courthouse befitting the dignity of the Federal judiciary. 

Now, we have—I don’t know if Josh has been showing you the 

pictures behind me. Maybe it would be a good time to show some 

of these, some of these photographs, that will show you the condition of some of the courtrooms here in the Baltimore courthouse. 

For those who are familiar with Federal courthouses, these are not 

the type of rooms that I think most Federal judges would consider 

to be adequate. 

We’ve also had significant water damage because of problems 

with pipe leakage here, that has caused some of the rooms not to 

be able to be used. The most recent was just a few months ago, 

which caused a major problem. It’s my understanding now that 

there’s a requirement to check all the lavatories before you leave 

to make sure they’re set on the right setting or another flood in 

fact could occur. 

So there’s a problem here. There’s courtrooms that can’t be used 

because of their design failure. There is heating and air conditioning issues. There is flooding issues, and there is just the concern of safety in the way that this building was designed and the 

need to either upgrade it through blast protection improvements, 

which would be very expensive, or to consider a new courthouse. 

Now, I think that safety issues should come first, not last. I 

think dignified space should be a requirement for a Federal bench. 
4 

I believe we need a new courthouse here in Baltimore and I have 

strongly stated that in every forum that I can. 

But we cannot continue to allow this courthouse to remain in its 

current condition. That needs to be addressed. I hope our witnesses 

will be able to help us understand how we got to where we are 

today here in Baltimore and, more importantly, around the Nation 

and what we can do to make sure that the public has adequate 

courthouse space in order for the Federal judiciary to be able to 

perform its critical function for our government. 

One last point I want to point out as far as the courthouse is concerned. The Environment and Public Works Committee is also concerned, obviously, about our environment, about our energy policies. President Obama said in an executive order dated October 5, 

2009, that ‘‘To create a clean energy economy that will increase our 

Nation’s prosperity, promote energy system, protect the interests of 

taxpayers, and safeguard the health of our environment, the Federal Government must lead by example.’’ I’d be curious to get 

GSA’s approach as to how this courthouse is leading by example, 

when we know the condition of its heating system. It’s certainly not 

the type of energy efficiency that we would expect from a premier 

building dealing with our Federal courts. 

So for all these reasons, we look forward to the testimony of our 

witnesses. I really do want to thank our first panel for being here 

that represent the General Services Administration and the Federal bench. I want to thank both of you for your service to our 

country. I know both of you devote a lot of time to these issues, and 

sometimes it’s difficult with the resources that are made available 

and the political needs around the Nation. So we very much appreciate you being here today. 

So our first panel consists of Hon. Susan Brita, is the Deputy Administrator of the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA). 

President Barack Obama named her Deputy Administrator of the 

U.S. GSA on February 2, 2010. As Deputy Administrator, Ms. Brita 

works closely with the members of the GSA leadership team to provide guidance to GSA employees, devise policy, and promote services to other Federal agencies, enabling them to best achieve their 

mission of service to the American people. 

A particular pleasure to have Hon. Michael Ponsor here, District 

Judge of the Massachusetts District of the United States, a judge 

appointed by President Bill Clinton in November 1993 and confirmed by the Senate in February 1994. From 1984 to 1994 he 

served as U.S. magistrate for the U.S. District of Massachusetts, 

and he’s Chairman of the Judicial Conference of the United States 

Committee on Space and Facilities, which I take it makes you one 

of the least popular Federal judges in our system. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARDIN. We’ll start with Ms. Brita. 

STATEMENT OF SUSAN BRITA, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. 

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

Ms. BRITA. Good afternoon, Senator Cardin, and thank you very 

much for inviting me to participate in today’s hearing. I am here 

to discuss the U.S. General Services Administration’s management, 

renovation, and construction of U.S. courthouses. The Federal 
5 

courts play a critical role in the constitutional framework of American democracy. Courthouses are traditional landmarks that date 

back to the founding of the Nation and GSA is very proud to construct and modernize courthouses worthy of that role. We help the 

Judiciary carry out its mission by constructing courthouses that are 

economical, sound, and prestigious. 

The Edward A Garmatz Federal Building and United States 

Courthouse is a long-term core asset in GSA’s inventory, but requires reinvestment to ensure continued efficient use and operation. GSA is developing a plan that balances this modernization 

need with investment needs of other buildings and courthouses in 

our inventory. 

As the Federal Government’s landlord, GSA helps Federal agencies achieve their mission by constructing and renovating facilities 

that help them carry out their missions productively and efficiently. GSA has developed a strong partnership with the Administrative Office of the Courts by assisting them in achieving their 

mission of ensuring fair and impartial administration of justice by 

providing welcoming, safe, and functioning courthouses. 

GSA delivers high-quality buildings and courthouses that support the courts’ unique needs while enhancing the buildings’ surroundings. GSA selects construction and modernization projects by 

considering a variety of critical asset management factors. Particularly in this budget climate, GSA must carefully evaluate and select projects most in need of Federal funds. In selecting courthouse 

construction projects, GSA works closely with the courts and relies 

on its 5-year construction plan to prioritize new courthouse 

projects. This plan considers projected space needs, projected 

growth in judgeships, and security concerns. 

As funding permits, GSA incorporates the courthouse projects on 

this plan into our capital investment and leasing program for congressional authorization and appropriation. While the courts 

prioritize new construction projects, GSA determines which courthouses are priorities for repair and alteration, repair and alteration 

needs, by weighing our portfolio-wide reinvestment needs and existing opportunities. 

In selecting modernization projects, we consider a variety of components, including customer needs, building condition, energy efficiency, asset utilization, lease avoidance, and historic significance. 

If GSA determines a building is in need of a major modernization, 

the project will be included in a future GSA capital investment and 

leasing program. Until then, GSA will continue to perform minor 

repair and alteration projects so that our buildings remain safe and 

functional. 

The Garmatz Courthouse is a long-term core asset of GSA’s inventory. In the last 5 years, GSA spent $5 million in building improvements, including repairing the mechanical systems, roof, facade, and interior spaces. Although the building is classified as a 

performing asset, further capital investment is still needed to ensure its operation and functions—it operates and functions efficiently. 

Although the construction of a new Baltimore courthouse is not 

on the courts’ 5-year construction plan, GSA has identified the Garmatz Courthouse as needing modernization due to the building’s 
6 

current condition and reinvestment needs. The renovation, however, is dependent upon available funding and must be considered 

against the needs of GSA’s other aging facilities. 

This concludes my opening statement, Senator Cardin, I am prepared to answer any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Brita follows:] 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much. 

Judge Ponsor. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL A. PONSOR, DISTRICT JUDGE, 

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, ON 

BEHALF OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED 

STATES 

Judge PONSOR. Yes. I want to again thank you, Senator, for having me here, and I would like to thank Mayor Rawlings-Blake. It’s 

a special treat for me to be back here in Baltimore. My mother 

grew up in Baltimore and I have a soft place in my heart for Baltimore. 

I do come from the District of Massachusetts and I’d like to start 

with the disclaimer that the things that I said about Baltimore yesterday evening in the bottom half of the eighth inning were entirely off the record and in the privacy of my own home. It was bad 

enough that you broke our five-game winning streak the day before 

yesterday, but to stick it to us as badly as you did last night was 

especially painful. 

I have four quick points that I want to make. Point No. 1, Senator, you did make reference to the GAO report, which was very 

critical of the Judiciary. I just have to note for the record that I 

did appear twice before House subcommittees to testify about that 

report and the Judiciary very strongly contests the conclusions that 

were drawn in the GAO report about the waste of money. I think 

the report was badly done. I think it was grossly exaggerated and 

quite unfair to the Judiciary, but I don’t want to spend too much 

time parsing that report, which I have done at length on other occasions. I just want to note we don’t accept the GAO’s findings on 

that. 

Point No. 2, I have to say a word of thanks to my friend Ms. 

Brita and to the GSA. They are in many ways a beleaguered administrative agency. They stand at an awkward crossroads between the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive Branches and have 

a difficult time keeping their balance with the sometimes inconsistent pressures that they face. They also are in a position of having to repeat the miracle of the loaves and fishes day after day as 

they try to distribute very limited resources among masses of demands, and they do that, it seems to me, sometimes with amazing 

poise. That’s not to say that there aren’t frustrations and I haven’t 

had my own times when we’ve had to work hard to find our balance. 

Point No. 3, I think if there is anything that I could do today to 

clarify the background of this case, it would be to try to throw some 

light on the apparent heartbreak of being the No. 1 project for 

court construction and then finding yourself off the list. It is true 

that in fiscal year 2006, back in what has quickly become the ancient history of our courthouse programs, the Baltimore courthouse 

was No. 1. But that was our 5-year plan covering a period from 

2005 to 2009. 

Although Baltimore was the first project for 2006 at that time, 

there were projects ahead of Baltimore in line at that time in Los 

Angeles, El Paso, San Diego, Las Cruces, Savannah, San Jose, Buffalo, Fort Pierce, Jackson, Mobile, Norfolk, Salt Lake City, Rock-
13 

ford, Fort Lauderdale, Greensboro, Benton, Cedar Rapids, Nashville, and Sioux Falls. All those projects as of that 5-year plan were 

in fact in line ahead of the Baltimore courthouse, and that was as 

far up the line as a practical matter as Baltimore ever got on our 

5-year plan. 

I should add that, of the courthouses that I’ve just named, a 

number of them dropped off the list during our subsequent planning phase. A few of them have been constructed and some of them 

are still to this very day awaiting funds and have not commenced 

construction or even broken ground, even though they were ahead 

of Baltimore at that time in our 2005 to 2009 5-year plan. 

So I certainly understand and respect the frustration that people 

from this district would feel about that, but Baltimore never got, 

as a matter of fact, quite as close as they might appear to have gotten. 

As you know from my written submission, we did entirely overhaul our assessment program for determining when new courthouses should be built, beginning in 2004. There was a 12-year 

moratorium during which there was no new construction initiative 

while we took a look at how we were going to sequence the building 

of our courthouses. 

I have to say, when you said I was one of the most unpopular 

judges, it isn’t quite that bad, but it certainly is true. I get phone 

calls almost every week. I get phone calls from Detroit, I get phone 

calls from Mobile, I get phone calls from Savannah. I get phone 

calls from all over the country saying: Judge Ponsor, can’t you do 

something to help us get our courthouse construction program 

going? And it is heartbreaking sometimes. 

The security problems that other courthouses face truly make 

your blood run cold. I just collected a few examples of other courthouses which are ahead of Baltimore. The Macon courthouse in 

Georgia, there’s no sally port, no secure sally port, as there is here. 

There is no independent circulation for judges, prisoners, and the 

public, as there is here. The judges and prisoners have to use a 

freight elevator together in that courthouse. The magistrate judge’s 

chambers is located outside the courthouse and all the chambers 

are accessed by public corridors. 

The same problems exist in others: Huntsville, AL; Columbus, 

GA; Detroit, MI. All around the country there is a crying need for 

upgrades in security and it does put the Judiciary and the GSA in 

a very awkward position in trying to address these needs. 

We have evolved in our planning process and we are confident 

that we do it better now than we did before in handling these difficult challenges. 

That concludes my oral remarks and I’m happy to take questions. 

[The prepared statement of Judge Ponsor follows:] 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 

Senator CARDIN. Well, thank both of you for your testimony. 

Judge Ponsor, I think you may have made my point. The point 

that I was trying to make is that we should be paying attention 

to your existing inventory of space to make sure it’s adequate before we’re constructing new space. It seems to me that the judicial 

conference has taken a different view, that is construct new space 

before making sure that the existing space is adequate. 

I do want to point out for the record that Baltimore was ranked 

No. 1 in 2005 of the planning money which should have been in 

Fiscal Year 2006 as the No. 1 priority in the Nation for $30 million, 

and it was then ranked No. 1 for Fiscal Year 2008 for $142 million 

for construction. I believe that was what the record shows. 

Judge PONSOR. Correct. 

Senator CARDIN. So that of the entire construction budget for Fiscal Year 2008, Baltimore had the largest single project in dollar 

amount, as well as being No. 1. 

Judge PONSOR. That is correct. 

Senator CARDIN. That’s also, it looks like, for planning. We were also the largest single project in 2006, fiscal year 2006, at $30 million for strictly the design. Austin, TX, was ranked eighth, but they 

were more money, but it also included construction. 

Then a lot of these projects were taken off the list because of the 

change in standard to go toward space rather than to the adequacy 

of the space. 

Judge PONSOR. That is correct, although I have to refine that a 

little bit. The No. 1 problem that we needed to address and that 

we continue to need to address in what is frankly now a completely 

stalled construction process—all of our projects for 2011—there is 

no money in the 2011 budget for new construction, zero. There is 

no money for new construction. All of our 2011 projects are now 

2012 projects, and that is part of a trend that has been continuing 

to some extent for many years. Many projects are just moving 

along from one Fiscal Year to the other in exactly the same sequence. 

We have to take into consideration situations where there is simply not enough room in the building for the judges to do their work. 

It’s like having an egg carton hat holds 12 eggs and you’ve suddenly got 15 eggs to put in the carton. There isn’t enough room for 

the judges to actually sit down and hold court. Although there are 

other factors that are very important, when you’ve got that kind of 

a situation that has to be prioritized to some extent. 

Now, we never disregard security. We never disregard systems 

functioning. All those are factors that are considered. I know it’s 

hard to say this, and one of the most difficult things about my position is to say to people, your security is good enough, knowing in 

the back of my head that any morning when I wake up I could be 

reading in the newspaper about some terrible tragedy. We lost a 

court security officer in Las Vegas just in this last year and a very 

brave deputy marshal was badly wounded. The security problems 

are very difficult. 

But when I have no secure sally port, when I have no independent corridors, when I have judges’ chambers that are right off 

public corridors, when I have no lockups, and buildings where the 

people are riding elevators with the families and fellow gang mem-
21 

bers of people that they’ve just sentenced, those are situations that 

really concern us and are really a problem in many, many courthouses around the country. 

So we do consider security. We do consider systems functioning. 

But a high priority—and I have to be clear about this and I can’t 

back away from it—is the question, is there enough space in the 

building to hold the people that have to work there. 

Senator CARDIN. That’s a fair question. But let me tell you the 

dilemma you’re putting me in as a member of the U.S. Senate. 

Every year the Judicial Conference comes to us with requests for 

more judges. I am not going to support new judges unless I think 

there’s adequate space for the existing judges. I think that’s a fair 

position for a Senator to take. 

So if you can’t answer the problems of Baltimore and other cities 

like Baltimore so that we have adequate space for our judges, then 

don’t expect support from Maryland Senators for additional judgeships in other areas. 

Judge PONSOR. I understand that. All I can say, I think, in response is that I recognize the chicken and egg problem we have 

there. We would love to build you a new courthouse in Baltimore. 

I love Baltimore. I would love to give you a new courthouse in Baltimore. Give me the money. I feel like, show me the money. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, we might be able to do that. I understand 

the problem. I understand the problem with the Federal budget. 

Believe me, I do. I serve also on the Senate Finance Committee and 

the Senate Budget Committee, so I know the problems we’re going 

to be confronting. We have a debt ceiling limit crisis that’s looming 

in the next 2 months. So I understand that. 

So we’ve got to find creative ways. That’s why we have a second 

panel here today, because there are interest groups here in Baltimore that would like to do something about that. So we might be 

able to find partners. But it will require the Federal Government 

and the Administrative Office of the Courts perhaps to use some 

different standards if we’re going to be able to find creative ways 

to move forward. 

Judge PONSOR. I would be very happy to enter into any type of 

conversation along those lines to try to solve that problem, because 

that’s really a problem that we share. 

Ms. Brita’s written remarks indicated that the GSA is trying to 

handle their upgrades and building maintenance challenges with a 

budget that’s been cut by 80 percent. I’m sure that—I don’t want 

to speak for the GSA, but they would love to come in here and take 

this building and just turn it upside down and make it into the sort 

of facility that the city deserves, that the people that come to the 

building deserve to work in. 

But again, it’s a problem of the need is there, but often the cupboard is bare and there are other challenges that we have to balance out in that environment. 

Senator CARDIN. Ms. Brita, the reason I started with the GAO 

report—and I understand you take exception to the GAO report. 

You wouldn’t be the first Federal Agency that took exception to the 

Government Accounting Office findings. But it says that GSA 

lacked sufficient oversight and control to ensure that courthouses 
22 

were planned and built according to authorized size. That’s a pretty 

strong statement in the report. 

We are talking about extremely difficult resources today. If GSA 

is right—I mean, if GAO is right and there is close to a trillion dollars spent that could have been used—a billion dollars spent that 

could have been used for other purposes, we could have found some 

money perhaps for Baltimore and other courthouses to renovate. 

During the recovery, when we had a trillion dollars, I think, was 

made available to our Federal courts, Baltimore didn’t get—was it 

a billion dollars? A billion dollars made available, excuse me; $1.5 

billion. $1.5 billion made available for the Federal courts. It’s my 

understanding Baltimore didn’t get any of that money. 

So we’ve had some money available, but it hasn’t been made 

available to Baltimore. Can you help me understand this a little bit 

better? 

Ms. BRITA. Let me address the GAO report first, Senator Cardin. 

We did, the agency, GSA, did take great exception to many of the 

findings in the report. But we do take very seriously a charge that 

we did not have proper management or oversight over the program. 

There have been changes or modifications that we have put into 

the program to make sure that there is a double level of review 

now to address what GAO characterized as overbuilding. 

On the issue of the recovery money, Senator Cardin, when we got 

the recovery money—and we fought very hard to get recovery 

money for the built environment, to make sure that GSA did get 

some money to address its backlog—we set up a series, along with 

Congress, of criteria on how to use the money. We worked with the 

House Transportation Committee and the Senate Environment and 

Public Works Committee. 

The first criteria was to make sure that the money that was 

spent went toward projects that could be high performance green 

building projects. The second criteria was to make sure we could 

get the money obligated and into—as you remember, this was a 

jobs bill—to get the money obligated into the economy within 2 

years. Then the third criteria was to make sure that we weren’t entering into any very risky projects. 

The Garmatz Building did receive a teeny, tiny bit of money, I 

think it was a couple of million dollars, to do I think some lighting 

improvements in the building. But as far as the major criteria was 

concerned, the building just did not rise, in comparison to the other 

needs that we had and the amount of money that we had, it didn’t 

make the final cut. We have a list that we can certainly share with 

your staff if they don’t already have it, about the buildings that we 

did invest money in. 

As I say, the major component was making sure they were high 

performance green building projects, then we could get it done in 

time, and then that they weren’t risky, we weren’t entering into 

something that we couldn’t complete or we would end up getting 

sued over. 

So the Garmatz Building relative to other buildings and other 

needs that we had didn’t rise to the occasion. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, I will take a look at those figures. What 

it seems to me again, Baltimore’s being penalized. The fact that the 

building is so energy—inefficient, that it would take a significant 
23 

amount of investment and you’re not going to get—I mean, it’s 

going to take a lot to put into this building to make it anywhere 

near where it should be on energy issues, I can see the cost-benefit 

returns not being as high as other buildings. 

But there comes a point where you have to make some decisions, 

whether you’re going to either fix this building or demolish it. It 

seems to me you then tell me, well, we don’t have any money to 

do it. But we had a pot of money, but you let that train go by, 

where we could have had some money to deal with the courthouse. 

You’ve got to have a plan for Baltimore here, one way or the 

other. It seems to me that you can’t just keep on saying you don’t 

have resources when we give you significant resources and then 

none of them are used. 

Ms. BRITA. Well, Senator Cardin, we do—we do consider the Garmatz Building as a long-term core asset of the GSA inventory. So 

we are committed to the building. We have to match that commitment with, as the Judge has said, very limited resources. 

We have put money into the building. We do have a plan, if we 

get resources, to invest in the building, and we match those resources with other competing needs. But we have not—we have not 

foregone or forgotten the Garmatz Building. As I said, it is a longterm core asset. It’s one of the major assets in our inventory and 

we consider it that. We will invest in the building. 

Senator CARDIN. Help me to understand your rating system on 

the conditions of the building. Do you put any interest in whether 

the building is structurally sound when you talk about the exterior 

envelope and structure? When you rate a building as far as its exterior envelope and structure, do you put any weight on the integrity of the building to withstand a blast? 

Ms. BRITA. Yes. When we do a building engineering report, we 

take into account all aspects of the building. 

Senator CARDIN. Blast protection is certainly an issue as relates 

to a Federal courthouse? 

Ms. BRITA. Absolutely. 

Senator CARDIN. This building is not set back, as you would have 

a building built today, correct? 

Ms. BRITA. Correct. It was built in 1977, before the standards 

were put in place, before the design excellence program was established. Yes, it was built prior to all of that. 

Senator CARDIN. It doesn’t have blast windows, as I understand 

it? 

Ms. BRITA. It does not. 

Senator CARDIN. So is this building adequate from the point of 

view of blast protection? 

Ms. BRITA. Against new construction, it is not. But for buildings 

that are existing buildings and built in 1977, it meets the safety 

standards for that. If we had money, that certainly would be one 

of the items that would be on our list that we would consider for 

the building, the progressive collapse. 

Senator CARDIN. Let me just point out, the world has changed 

since 1976. 

Ms. BRITA. I know. 

Senator CARDIN. The threat issues are a lot different today. Embassies that were safe in 1976 are closed today because they rep-
24 

resent threats. You have a building that is structurally designed in 

a way that’s different than you would a Federal courthouse today 

because of, as I understand it, the pancaking problem. 

Now, you can retrofit the building. All it takes is, what, $20 million, $30 million, $40 million, $50 million? Is that what we’re going 

to do in Baltimore? 

Ms. BRITA. If we get resources, certainly the issue of the blastresistant windows and progressive collapse would be the top of the 

list, the very top of the list of where we would be looking to modernize the building. But it all depends on the amount of resources 

that we get. Senator Cardin, our repair and alteration budget this 

year was cut by 80 percent, and we have no idea of what we’re 

going to get next year. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, where I take exception for you, it seems 

to me what you’re saying when you say that the condition of the 

exterior envelope and structure is good, you’re basing it on 1976 

construction. 

Ms. BRITA. For buildings that were built in 1976, it met the 

standard for that. If we were doing new construction today, we 

would do it—you’re right, we would do it differently. 

Senator CARDIN. Why do you rank the building condition good? 

Ms. BRITA. Because, compared to—— 

Senator CARDIN. What would be poor? 

Ms. BRITA. Not this building. I would have to find a building 

that—I’d have to go into the inventory and find a building that 

would be rated poor. But we don’t rate—the rating is not just contingent on the exterior envelope. 

There are many, many, many criteria that we use to put our 

buildings in the various tiers that we put them in: functionality, return on investment, location, historic significance. There are many, 

many criteria that we use to put our buildings in category 1, 2, 3, 

or 4. 

Senator CARDIN. The building engineer report determined the 

building to be in fair condition, based upon the continuing deterioration of the domestic water branch piping system and the age of 

the building’s electrical and HVAC systems, none of which have 

been upgraded since the building construction in 1976. 

Now, could you tell—are you familiar with the flooding problems 

that have taken place in this courthouse? 

Ms. BRITA. I’ve heard about the several water leaks they’ve had, 

yes. 

Senator CARDIN. I’m just wondering what a poor construction 

building would look, a poor condition building would look like, if 

Baltimore doesn’t make the ‘‘poor’’ category or deficient. There’s 

rooms that can’t be used. I just am curious as to your rating system, whether you really are in fact using a realistic—we depend 

upon you to give us realistic evaluations. I understand it’s my responsibility to appropriate the money. You can’t spend the money 

if you don’t get it from Congress. That’s our responsibility, and 

you’re not getting enough resources. I understand that. 

But if you don’t give us help as to what you need, then I think 

you’re culpable for the problems we’re having, for not advising us 

what you need. 
25 

Ms. BRITA. Senator Cardin, on the security issue—could I go 

back there for a second? On the security issue, on courthouses we 

work very closely with the courts, as Judge Ponsor said, to look at 

overall security issues for the courts. The courts are very concerned 

about, obviously, security in Federal courts. Interior circulation is 

a huge issue for them, as well as the sally port. 

In that regard, on those two criteria alone, this building meets 

the standard. It has a secure sally port and it has three interior 

circulation patterns. So for interior—for the purposes of the courts, 

we have met the security criteria for the courts, because when we 

construct for them that—— Senator CARDIN. Your security issue is only concerning with defendants? 

Ms. BRITA. No, I’m talking about the interior. For the tenants’ 

point of view, from the tenants’ point of view, we have met their 

security criteria. Then we add onto that things that you consider—— Senator CARDIN. I’m a little confused. The two issues you raise 

deal, as I understand it, deal with prisoners? 

Ms. BRITA. Every court, every Federal courthouse, should have 

three interior circulation patterns, one for prisoners, one for the 

public, and one for the judges. In the case of the Garmatz Building, 

that is the case. There are three interior circulation patterns in 

this building. 

Senator CARDIN. That’s your security concern? 

Ms. BRITA. No, I’m saying that’s what the courts want to have. 

When we build a building for them, that is one of their requirements. 

Senator CARDIN. So there’s not a concern about terrorists or 

blasts? 

Ms. BRITA. No, there is. I’m just talking about, as we build into 

it, this is how we build into it. So we try to build a building that 

meets their needs for the three interior circulation patterns. Then 

we have the U.S. Marshals, of course, want to have a secure sally 

port. So that’s built into the plan, too. Then on top of that we add 

the issues that you’re talking about, the progressive collapse, the 

blast-proof windows, because that’s a government-wide requirement. Those are the things if we were building today we would incorporate into an overall building plan. 

But from the tenants’ point of view, we start with them: What 

do you really need in the building? This is standard throughout all 

Federal courthouses: three circulation patterns at a minimum, the 

secure sally port at a minimum. Then we add to that things like 

blast-proof, setbacks, progressive collapse. 

Senator CARDIN. Also point out, functioning toilets that don’t 

overflow might be an issue. We’ve had lots of riots at our baseball 

stadiums when the toilets don’t operate. I can see the same situation. I don’t mean to make fun of this, but to me it’s outrageous 

that we have to have people check the toilets at the end of the day 

to make sure they’re set right. 

Judge PONSOR. Perhaps I could just chime in for a second. I was 

just looking at our list, of course, that we’ve done our asset management planning for. Just to give you a snapshot of the inventory 

that we’re looking at, the Macon, GA, building was built in 1905. 
26 

The Marquette, MI, building was built in 1936. The Benton, IL, 

building was built in 1959. The Paducah, KY, building was built 

in 1938. The Bob Casey Courthouse in Houston was built in 1962. 

The Columbus, GA, Robert Elliott Building was built in 1934. The 

Lexington, KY, building was built in 1934. The New Haven courthouse was built in 1919. The Port Huron, MI, building was built 

in 1877. The Everett Dirksen Building in Chicago was built in 

1964. 

I’ve just gone down a list, almost every single courthouse, for 

none of which right now I have new courthouses in line, were all 

built before 1976 and hardly any of them would qualify securitywise in terms of progressive collapse or any of the things that 

you’re concerned about. That’s what we’re wrestling with. 

Senator CARDIN. Judge, sight unseen I would take a building 

built 100 years ago or 75 years ago or 60 years ago, other than one 

built in the 1970s. 

Judge PONSOR. Fair enough. Fair enough. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARDIN. At what point do you come to the conclusion 

that you just are throwing good money after bad, that it just 

doesn’t pay to try to fix a building, but to replace it? Do you ever 

come to those conclusions? 

Judge PONSOR. It’s hard. Let me just give you an example. We 

were building a new courthouse in Springfield. We were having 

budget problems. We designed a green system for our HVAC. We 

ran into budget problems, and I can tell you—might not happen 

now because the rules have changed, but they hadn’t changed at 

that time—the first thing that went out the window was the green 

building, the green HVAC system, because it demanded an immediate up-front investment of several million dollars, that would be 

earned back over the next 20 years. 

That’s the kind of balance that we’re having to strike all the 

time. I had the pleasure of reading Judge Motz’s written comments 

and he talks about penny wise and pound foolish. You’ll be hearing 

from him about that. I think his point is exactly correct. But when 

you don’t have pounds and you can only spend pennies, these kinds 

of tradeoffs happen, unfortunately. They shouldn’t happen, and we 

should do everything we can to prevent them from happening. But 

unfortunately, sometimes they’re inevitable, and that’s the difficulty. 

Senator CARDIN. I agree with your comments. I just point out 

there was money available from the recovery funds, and to me that 

was a missed opportunity. 

Judge PONSOR. I can’t unweave that one. 

Senator CARDIN. Let me thank both of you very much for your 

testimony. 

Judge PONSOR. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator CARDIN. I thank you both for your service. I know that, 

working at GSA, you have an outstanding reputation and I very 

much appreciate trying to do what Congress wants you to do when 

there’s such a different view around the Nation; I appreciate it very 

much, Ms. Brita. 
27 

As I said to you, Judge Ponsor, it’s a tough job to be a judge, but 

then taking on this responsibility in addition to it, God bless you. 

Thank you very much. 

Judge PONSOR. It has good sides to it. 

I’d like to be excused perhaps to leave a little bit early before the 

hearing’s over so I can get back to the airport. 

Senator CARDIN. Absolutely. 

Judge PONSOR. I’ll be here for a while, but you might see me slip 

away. 

Senator CARDIN. Absolutely. Thank you very much. 

Judge PONSOR. Thank you, sir. 

Senator CARDIN. We’ll now turn to our second panel, which will 

consist of Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, who was 

sworn in as Baltimore’s 49th Mayor on February 4, 2010. She had 

served as City Council president since November 2007. Mayor 

Rawlings-Blake was first elected to the Baltimore City Council in 

1995 at the age of 25 as the youngest person ever elected to the 

City Council. She’s aged ever since being Mayor, and she does an 

outstanding job as the Mayor of Baltimore. We’re very proud of her 

leadership and her vision for Baltimore. 

We also have Hon. J. Frederick Motz, who is a U.S. District 

Court Judge for the District of Maryland. Judge Motz has served 

on the Baltimore bench since 1985, when he was nominated by 

President Ronald Reagan. Judge Motz served as the Maryland District’s chief judge from 1994 to 2001. 

Kirby Fowler is the president of the Baltimore Downtown Partnership and executive director of the Downtown Management Authority. Prior to joining the Downtown Partnership, he served as 

special assistant for Economic and Neighborhood Development 

under Mayor Martin O’Malley. In that position he worked on such 

projects as the Brown Center at the Maryland Institute College of 

Art and the renaissance of Belvedere Square, where I had one of 

my first offices as a Member of Congress. 

Charles O. Monk II is the board chairman of the Greater Baltimore Committee and a managing partner at Saul Ewing in Baltimore. He concentrates his practice in significant litigation matters, 

including business disputes, intellectual property, insolvency, antitrust and security litigation. For more than 5 decades, the Greater 

Baltimore Committee has focused the resources of its board membership on the key issues relating to the business climate and quality of life in the greater Baltimore region. 

We welcome all four of you to the committee. Your full statements will be made part of the record and you may proceed as you 

wish. Start with Mayor Rawlings-Blake. 

STATEMENT OF HON. STEPHANIE RAWLINGS–BLAKE, MAYOR, 

CITY OF BALTIMORE 

Mayor RAWLINGS-BLAKE. Thank you very much, Senator Cardin, 

first for inviting me to testify before the committee. As Mayor, I 

welcome, not you, but the staff that is here with the committee to 

Baltimore. I was pleased to hear Judge Ponsor’s Baltimore connection. Maybe that will loosen the purse strings a little and find that 

money for his dear mother’s sake. 
28 

So this is the second time in the past month that I’ve had the 

pleasure to testify before a congressional committee here in Baltimore, and I think it’s very beneficial to have these hearings, these 

field hearings, so you can see and hear what’s happening on the 

ground outside of the confines of Washington, DC. 

I’m here today to talk about Baltimore’s Federal courthouse, specifically the great need for a new building, as well as the role it 

would be playing or it should be playing in Baltimore’s economic 

development plans. This courthouse was built decades before any 

modern safety and security design standards for Federal buildings 

were established, and we just talked about that. Lessons learned 

from Oklahoma City, from 9–11, need to be incorporated in the 

building design and function, including structural engineering that 

allows for progressive collapse, as you mentioned, sufficient security setbacks from neighboring streets, courthouse design that 

keeps the defendants separate from juries, witnesses, and attorneys. 

Infrastructure in the present courthouse is failing, as your pictures illustrated. Judges, marshals, lawyers, and support staff are 

forced to work in precarious environments with frequent plumbing 

mishaps, electrical failures, and lack of access to technological improvements. 

Baltimore deserves and wants a first-class Federal courthouse. It 

is my understanding that Baltimore City, as you mentioned, has 

been on the list before and no action has been taken by the GSA. 

Plans for construction of a new courthouse are no further along 

than when we first made the list. Major improvements are needed 

for safety, security, energy savings, and infrastructure. They need 

to be made. You’ve already expressed very eloquently how we are 

in a very poor position because the repairs weren’t done in anticipation of a new building and it really put us behind the eightball. 

This courthouse is the center of Baltimore’s prominent legal community and the city where both the State’s law schools are located. 

It’s important that we have a significant courthouse in Baltimore 

City. The Federal judiciary in Baltimore has a long tradition in 

U.S. admiralty law stemming from the Port of Baltimore’s centuries-old role and international impact and export hub for the Nation. In recent years, the Baltimore courthouse has hosted important mutual fund investment litigation, high-profile gang trials, in 

2002 the famous proceedings in the Microsoft antitrust case, and 

in 2010 more than 2700 civil and criminal cases were placed on the 

docket at the Baltimore courthouse. 

Furthermore, for the last several years I’ve lauded the U.S. Attorney’s work on Project Exile prosecutions right here. This is a 

great program and I have a vested interest in making sure that the 

infrastructure is present to get the most violent offenders off of our 

streets. 

Federal courthouses also define the status of the towns and cities 

where they’re located. Millions of commuters, residents and tourists 

walk past this building every year. What they walk past now is a 

building that’s unwelcoming and anonymous, with its Pratt Street 

facade. Most passers-by will hardly notice the entry-less back of the 

building facing Pratt Street, one of the city’s busiest streets. Nor 

will they wonder who owns the building, what work goes on inside, 
29 

and what purpose it serves. The awkward alignment of the building makes it easy to overlook the solitary statue on Pratt Street 

lawn that honors Baltimore’s native son and one of our Nation’s 

greatest legal minds, Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. 

By contrast, the previous Federal courthouse, built in 1932, has 

been recycled, first as Baltimore’s central post office and now as 

part of the State circuit court system. The structure was renovated 

by the State in 1990 and remains part of downtown’s landscape 

and its legal community. We are realizing the ancillary benefits of 

that structure, but not of this current courthouse. 

I convened the Downtown Task Force and just recently issued a 

report that outlines strategies for strengthening Baltimore’s downtown. That vision includes, that the task force laid out, includes 

business, a diverse population of residents, hotels, thriving retail 

and restaurants, and expanding anchor institutions. There would 

be no greater anchor institution than a new Federal courthouse. 

Where we sit now is a gateway to the west side redevelopment. 

A development project known as the ‘‘Superblock’’ is planned just 

a few blocks from here. I’m committed to seeing the revitalization 

of the west side and the Superblock and all of the benefits that it 

will offer to our city. A new courthouse in this vicinity would be 

a hub for the west side and for Baltimore City as a whole. This 

means jobs, construction, commerce, as well as a host of other economic and social benefits that will permeate as a result of this development. 

My motto has been ‘‘Better Schools, Safer Streets, and Stronger 

Neighborhoods,’’ and I believe that a Federal courthouse can help 

promote all of those things. I urge the GSA and the Administrative 

Office of the U.S. Courts to consider plans to build a new Federal 

courthouse in downtown Baltimore. My office, the legal community, 

and downtown business leaders stand ready to work with the GSA 

to move forward with plans to improve the Baltimore Federal 

courthouse. 

Again, Senator, I thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mayor Rawlings-Blake follows:] 
30 
31 
32 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much, Madam Mayor. 

Judge Motz. 

STATEMENT OF HON. J. FREDERICK MOTZ, SENIOR JUDGE, 

U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND 

Judge MOTZ. Yes, thank you, Senator. As you’ve mentioned, I’ve 

been a judge since 1985 and I was the chief judge and that’s the 

reason I’m here today. Chief Judge Chasanow and my colleagues 

thought that I know pretty much the most about the building of 

anybody here. 

I will outline in a moment—as I will outline, we in Baltimore are 

actually grateful to GSA and the Space and Facilities Division of 

the Administrative Office for helping us to make improved improvements to the courthouse. That said, I am well aware that 

GSA has shortcomings. I’d be the first to say that efficiency does 

not always seem to be its goal. 

Further, government agencies are immune from the disciplining 

effect of market forces. For example, as has been mentioned several 

times, we have experienced some very bad floods caused by faulty 

plumbing in recent years, and if we were in a private building we 

could withhold our rent or at least threaten to withhold our rent 

until the building was made habitable. That option is not now open 

to us. It is therefore quite important that public hearings such as 

this be held to provide the accountability that the market would 

otherwise enforce. 

But I’m not here today to vent our frustration at the obstacles 

that sometimes have been placed in our way, but to address an 

issue of vital public importance: assuring that this courthouse either is replaced or that capital improvements are made to it so that 

it remains economically viable for the next 25, 30, 50 years. 

Senator Cardin my colleagues are extremely grateful for the efforts you have made and continue to make to have a new Federal 

courthouse constructed. However, I, like you, have serious doubts 

that this goal can be accomplished in the foreseeable future. Judicial Conference priorities aside, about which you heard, three conditions would have to be fulfilled before a new Federal courthouse 

could be built here in Baltimore. 

First, sound urban planning requires that a site for the new 

courthouse in the downtown area would have to be found to maintain the vitality of the downtown district. Second, in order to prevent disruption of the administration of justice in the Federal 

courts, the new courthouse would have to be completed before the 

present courthouse is vacated, sort of like a baseball stadium or a 

football stadium. Third, funding would have to be found to assure 

that the land on which the present courthouse now sits is put to 

good use. It is highly questionable in my judgment whether the 

first two of these conditions can be met. 

Moreover, I must say from an aesthetic standpoint the present 

courthouse is entirely adequate. Of course, when the courthouse 

was first built it was not well received by my predecessors. The 

Sugarman sculpture, which particularly aggravated the judges, was 

located immediately in front of the office wing of the building. It 

made the courthouse look like a playground, and it became a metaphor for the judges’ discontent. On the inside of the building, the 
33 

courtrooms, which were initially only on the fifth and seventh 

floors, were objectionable. Their light wood, wavy ceilings, and 

ultra-modern furniture did not convey the sense of dignity that the 

public rightly expects a forum for judicial proceedings to have. This 

courtroom itself had all of the dignity of a tennis barn. 

When the court grew larger in the early 1980s, four new courtrooms and chambers were added on the third floor. Although the 

wood that was used was darker, the construction was quite cheap, 

as even an unskilled observer could see. Thus the courthouse remained for a decade or so. 

In the 1990s, however, things dramatically changed. The exterior 

of the building was refinished, the landscaping near the entrance 

was added, the statue of Justice Thurgood Marshall on Pratt 

Street, which the Mayor just mentioned, was remounted. Numerous courtrooms, including this one, and chambers were reconstructed in an appropriate style with advanced electronic technology. A conference room on the first floor was renovated. The 

space on the second floor was reconfigured and rebuilt, and a new 

conference room and attorney’s lounge were constructed. 

The Sugarman statue itself was temporarily removed to be repainted. When it was returned, it was placed, not next to the courthouse, but at the corner of Lombard and Hanover Streets, where 

it is now located. There it adds in my judgment much-needed color 

to what has become a vehicular thoroughfare, and what I consider 

to be its essential message—the bringing of the chaos of life into 

the constraints of ordered liberty—is far better expressed when it 

is near, but apart from, the courthouse. 

Additional improvements have been made in recent years. Two 

courtrooms on the seventh floor have been renovated. Just last 

week, a truly magnificent exhibit about admiralty law was established in the public corridor on the third floor of this courthouse, 

and I hope that after this hearing some of you will come to take 

a look at it. It is the first of what we anticipate will be a series 

of historical exhibits on various themes that are woven into the 

tapestry of Federal law, including civil rights and civil disobedience, the Civil War, professional sports, and the Chesapeake Bay. 

This brings me to my main point. All of the fine aesthetic improvements that have been made in recent years will have been for 

naught unless substantial capital improvements are made to the 

courthouse. It can be replaced; that’s fine. But if not, we need substantial capital improvements. 

The courthouse is over 30 years old. Even if it had been well constructed, the infrastructure would now have to be replaced. But as 

engineering studies commissioned by GSA itself attest, this building was not well constructed. There are serious security concerns 

presented by the design of the building and it would be totally irresponsible in my judgment, particularly after today when public attention has been brought upon these deficiencies, it would be totally irresponsible not to take the steps necessary to address these 

concerns immediately. 

Further, the floods that we have experienced and that have 

caused substantial disruption to the court’s work and significant 

expense to repair, demonstrate beyond dispute that piping and 

electrical and plumbing fixtures—excuse me—that piping and 
34 

plumbing fixtures must be replaced. The building’s heating and air 

conditioning and electrical units now operate by ingenious jerry-rigging that cannot provide a long-term solution. Likewise, the ductwork that was originally installed was inadequate in many respects. Indeed, there were places where, because of construction designs—excuse me—design failures or construction shortcuts, ducts 

come to an abrupt end, instead of of continuing to provide heat and 

air to places where they should be providing it. 

On top of all of this, in the near future we will need more space. 

I have outlined that in my written testimony and won’t say anything more about it now. 

Now, my plea today is that GSA and the Administrative Office 

find or the Congress specifically authorize sufficient funding in the 

next budget year to undertake the very important, but very costly, 

projects that need to be undertaken to maintain this courthouse. 

These projects include a complete revamping of the plumbing and 

HVAC systems and the electrical system, curing the security 

issues, and providing full funding for the construction of additional 

chambers and one new magistrate judge courtroom. If the cost is 

not prohibitive, the greening of the courthouse by adding gardens, 

and perhaps an area for receptions, on the roof would be desirable. 

As a citizen of Baltimore, I also hope that funding can be found 

for what has become known as the ‘‘First Impressions’’ project, 

which was approved by GSA some years ago. This project would 

make the entrance to the courthouse face on Pratt rather than on 

Lombard Street. The reason this is important is exactly as was expressed by the Mayor. If we don’t get a new courthouse, it is important that as people walk up and down the streets from the stadiums to the Inner Harbor that this building be much more welcoming to them. 

I might note that an incidental but important benefit of completion of that project would be that the statue of Justice Marshall 

would be standing in the front and not in the rear of the courthouse. While symbolic, that change would be of monumental significance. 

I have heard suggestions that the various needed improvements—and I have heard this from time to time—be done piecemeal over time. I respectfully suggest that—that’s where I use the 

term that it would be penny wise but pound foolish. It makes no 

sense to do these things seriatim over time. Can you imagine a responsible private property owner tearing out walls and flooring in 

one year to replace pipes, knowing that the following year all that 

money spent on the tearing-out process would need to be completed 

again to replace air conditioning the following year? It makes absolutely no sense. 

Now, the perspective I bring is that of the persons most affected 

by whatever decisions are made. Perhaps it sounds political to even 

say the words ‘‘spending’’ and ‘‘investments’’ in the present political 

environment, but any sound economist or responsible 

businessperson knows that there is a difference between the two, 

and that capital improvements in the Baltimore courthouse constitute an investment. That investment is absolutely necessary and 

in the long run it will generate untold dividends. 
35 

Thank you again, Senator, for listening to me today, and particularly for your commitment to assuring that Baltimore has the wonderful courthouse it deserves. 

[The prepared statement of Judge Motz follows:] 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much, Judge Motz. 

Mr. Fowler. 

STATEMENT OF KIRBY FOWLER, PRESIDENT, DOWNTOWN 

PARTNERSHIP OF BALTIMORE, INC. 

Mr. FOWLER. Good afternoon. It is my pleasure to be here before 

this Senate committee today. I’d like to thank Senator Cardin for 

this privilege. We’ve been very grateful for the extraordinary support that you’ve shown downtown Baltimore throughout your distinguished career. Thank you very much. 

On a personal note, I’d like to advise the group here that the reason I came to Baltimore 20 years ago is to work in this very building. I came to work for Chief Judge Walter E. Black, Jr., and it was 

two of the best years of my life. I have very fond memories of that 

experience, but very few fond memories of this building. I think 

Baltimore deserves better. 

To reiterate, my name is Kirby Fowler, president of the Downtown Partnership of Baltimore, an independent nonprofit organization charged with continuing the renaissance of downtown Baltimore. From our daily work tracking the growth of downtown, we 

know that the Federal courthouse is one of our most critical assets. 

The U.S. Government has long recognized the importance of Federal facilities within the community, and in particular has invested 

in modernizing or replacing courthouses across the country. In cities such as San Francisco, Boston, Denver, and Syracuse, new and 

redesigned Federal properties are dynamic, multi-use destinations 

that include libraries, public event space, gardens, and even cafes 

and public markets. These improved properties are cornerstones of 

their communities. 

The Federal courthouse in downtown Baltimore is incredibly important to the downtown economy. A substantial number of law 

firms, government agencies, and court-related businesses are located in the heart of downtown in large part due to the location 

of this Federal courthouse. On a daily basis, people have business 

in the Federal courthouse, which spills over into additional revenue 

for restaurants, retailers, even parking garage operators. 

Downtown Baltimore is a tremendous location for the court. We 

rank fifteenth in the country for employment density and last year, 

even as the effects of the recession lingered, downtown Baltimore 

added 6,700 jobs, the sixth best rate of increase in the country. 

This growth has occurred throughout downtown, from the west side 

to city center, from the Inner Harbor to Harbor East. Downtown 

also ranks eighth in the country for population density, with some 

of the best-educated residents in the Nation. Downtown is also the 

most transit-connected district in the region. 

For all its positive attributes, the Federal courthouse suffers 

from a fortress-like, single-use design that minimizes its relevance 

to the employees and residents who work and live downtown. Millions of people pass this building every year, but the nondescript 

architecture does little to communicate the important judicial business happening here on a daily basis. Despite the many people who 

use the courthouse each day, its design seals it off from the street 

and creates a dead zone in the middle of a vital part of our city. 

I share Senator Cardin’s belief that this does not have to be the 
46 

case. The Federal courthouse in Baltimore can become an even 

more important asset. 

The Downtown Partnership is charged with creating an economic 

vitality in the heart of our city. Earlier this month we were joined 

by Governor O’Malley and Baltimore Mayor Stephanie RawlingsBlake to release a strategic plan for downtown Baltimore, a major 

component of which is a detailed open space improvement plan. 

Under the plan, our goal for every property in downtown is to create multi-use destinations that add visual as well as economic vitality. 

Locations exist within mere blocks of the current courthouse that 

could accommodate a new Federal courthouse. For example, Baltimore is in the early stages of planning a new arena building. The 

site of the current arena would make an ideal location for a new 

courthouse, in conjunction with a large new green space to be enjoyed by employees, visitors, and residents. We would encourage 

the Federal Government to consider a signature tall building to 

allow for much-needed open space and perhaps do that in conjunction with a private sector partner. 

If renovations to the existing courthouse are preferable, the opportunity is here to completely re-envision how the building interacts with the surrounding neighborhood. Changes continue to come 

to Pratt Street, our city’s grand boulevard, as a result of our Pratt 

Street master plan, which was adopted by the city in 2008. A redesigned and reoriented courthouse could serve as a linchpin for 

greater improvements to the street. 

Downtown Partnership has worked closely with Federal agencies, 

such as the General Services Administration, in programming 

events, cleaning and maintaining the areas around Federal buildings and improving the way downtown looks and feels for everyone 

doing business with Federal agencies. I sincerely hope that we may 

continue to work in partnership with the Federal Government to 

help improve its facilities in downtown Baltimore, and I thank you 

for your time and consideration and your leadership on this issue. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fowler follows:] 
47 
48 
49 
50 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Fowler. 

Mr. Monk. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES O. MONK II, ESQ., CHAIR, BOARD OF 

DIRECTORS, GREATER BALTIMORE COMMITTEE 

Mr. MONK. Good afternoon, Senator. I guess I want to begin by 

saying that, since I am a lawyer and I practice law in this courthouse, I don’t think there is anyone that does practice law in this 

courthouse that doesn’t have a story as Mr. Fowler related about 

this courthouse and about its experiences with the difficulties of 

this courthouse. 

But I’m here today as the Chairman of the Greater Baltimore 

Committee, and it’s my privilege to speak on behalf of this regional 

business organization that has been serving Baltimore and central 

Maryland for more than 50 years. We have a long tradition of 

working with government to find solutions to problems that affect 

our region’s competitiveness and economic vitality. 

Let me respectfully suggest that it is long past time for Baltimore to have a new Federal courthouse. The existing structure is 

not only plagued with the security problems that you’ve heard 

about and frequent general maintenance issues, such as the fact 

that this very ceremonial courtroom was closed because of water 

intrusion, but, more importantly, it does not adequately represent 

the role of the Federal Judiciary as the third branch of our government. 

Candidly, the building has all the charm of an uninspiring, poorly designed, class B office building. Its entrance is turned away 

from Baltimore’s premier business thoroughfare, which is Pratt 

Street. It has a breezeway which must be closed off for security 

reasons, that has been a nuisance since the building was constructed. More importantly, the construction of this building raises 

serious security concerns because it’s similar to the ill—fated Alfred P. Murrah Courthouse in Oklahoma City. 

From an economic development perspective, there are several opportunities to replace this courthouse in the heart of the west side 

of Baltimore, which will not only provide the United States District 

Court with the dignified building that it deserves, but at the same 

time create a significant opportunity for economic development and 

the creation of jobs and growth in Baltimore. 

In that regard, I disagree with Judge Motz, and I do so with 

some trepidation. I have learned long ago not to disagree with His 

Honor. We understand the importance of controlling costs in these 

economic times. But at the same time, the Greater Baltimore Committee would encourage this committee in its priority-setting role 

to recognize the significant security risks and other deficiencies 

presented by this courthouse that compel consideration of relocation. 

In recent months, the GBC has been working with State and city 

leaders, and we particularly appreciate the support of Mayor 

Rawlings-Blake in this regard, to relocate the existing Baltimore 

Arena to the site of the existing Baltimore City Convention Center. 

The project would not only bring a state-of-the-art arena to our 

downtown, but would redevelop and expand the convention center 

and establish a new, larger convention center hotel. 
51 

We are not here to discuss that exciting new project, but rather 

to suggest that that project creates a unique opportunity. The development of the arena-convention center project would create a 

unique space in downtown to establish a new Federal courthouse 

on the existing arena property, which is a large, double-lot, doubleblock tract which is owned by the city. It would serve appropriately 

as a Federal courthouse and create the necessary space for security 

that is a GSA requirement. 

We would be pleased to work in a public-private partnership to 

develop a new Federal courthouse at that location. We are aware 

that there are developers who are interested in participating in 

such a project. We believe this could be done in a manner consistent with the objectives of the Downtown Partnership, which recently released its excellent strategic plan for downtown Baltimore. 

Thank you for your attention and I would be happy to answer 

any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Monk follows:] 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Monk, and thank 

you all, all four of you, for your testimony. 

Judge Motz, first of all I want to go over the numbers here, because I think they’re kind of telling. We have an estimate from 

GSA dated July 14 of last year for the cost of just two of the problems confronting the courthouse here, the Garmatz Courthouse: 

one dealing with the heating and air conditioning, plumbing, which 

they estimate at $18 million; and the other dealing with the construction issues of the blast windows and structural security improvements, that they estimate is $56 million. 

That’s $74 million for just those two modifications. It doesn’t deal 

with the entrance change that you were talking about on Pratt 

Street, doesn’t deal with new courtrooms in the building, doesn’t 

deal with renovating any of the existing courtrooms that are in the 

building. If you start adding all that up, you see that you’re going 

to be easily within $100 million, if not more. 

A new courthouse, we hear different costs. A lot depends on land 

and things like that. But when it was on the books in the mid, 

around 2005, 2006, they estimated construction costs for 2008 to be 

$143 million. 

So I’m just getting to the dollars here. It seems to me you reach 

a point that the economics tells you that you can’t fix this building 

in an economic way. I couldn’t agree with you more. Are we going 

to get in this budget climate $200 million set aside for a courthouse 

in Baltimore? The answer is no. That’s clear in this current economic environment. 

But are we going to get $100 million set aside for the type of improvements you’re talking about? The answer today right now is 

now. So I think we’ve got to look for a better way of trying to figure 

out how we can finance an adequate courthouse here in Baltimore. 

I listened very carefully to all four of your testimonies and I 

think we have agreement here, and I strongly support it, that if 

there is a replacement courthouse, it needs to be located in downtown Baltimore. We’re in agreement on that? 

I see everybody nodding on that. 

Mayor RAWLINGS-BLAKE. Yes. 

Judge MOTZ. Yes. 

Mr. FOWLER. Yes. 

Mr. MONK. Yes. 

Senator CARDIN. It’s interesting that you all deal with the issue 

of the courthouse being compatible to the development of Baltimore. Mayor Rawlings-Blake, I agree with you, it would be far 

preferable to have the entrance located on Pratt Street. Here’s the 

challenge of doing that. I’m not sure that you’re going to get support on the appropriate use of Federal funds at this time to change 

an entrance to the courthouse. It’s very important to us that a 

building be integrated into the city, but I’m not so sure that the 

Federal Judiciary looks at it as a priority area when they’re dealing 

with renovation funds. If it was new construction, that would be 

one thing. But when they’re looking at renovation funds, whether 

they would use the millions of dollars necessary to refocus the entrance or use that to fix the HVAC. That’s the challenge I think 

we confront with trying to renovate this building. 
58 

But you’re absolutely right. I don’t know how many people know 

about the Thurgood Marshall statue or why it’s there or what its 

relevancy is. 

So it seems like our best hope is what Mr. Fowler and Mr. Monk 

and you have been talking about, and that is to try to find a creative way that there is something special about the funding of a 

Baltimore courthouse that may get the attention of the Administrative Office of the Courts and then the Congress because of land 

swaps or other arrangements. I take it from your testimony you 

would be supportive of a creative opportunity in that regard? 

Mayor RAWLINGS-BLAKE. Absolutely. 

Senator CARDIN. Mr. Monk and Mr. Fowler, you both have talked 

about this in somewhat general terms as it relates to some of the 

redevelopment in downtown Baltimore. Neither one of you, though, 

has talked about what this land itself, if the courthouse were removed, what would be the likely or the possible attraction for a private developer to be able to be involved if this land became available? 

Mr. MONK. This is—from the development perspective in Baltimore, this particular lot on Pratt Street, especially with the redeveloped arena and convention center across the street, will be a 

very special, unique opportunity for any developer. Literally, this 

morning it was announced that Constellation Energy and Exelon 

are thinking about a merger, and one of the things that was announced as part of that, that they are looking for a place to develop 

a new LEAD-certified platinum wonderful new building for downtown Baltimore as a corporate headquarters. It would be an ideal 

location for such a building. 

So I think this location, properly fronted on Pratt Street, is a terrific opportunity for development of downtown Baltimore. It would 

give us yet another step on redevelopment of the entire west side. 

Mr. FOWLER. I remember 3 years ago when I used to be on Pratt 

Street, when conventioneers would leave the convention they would 

go straight to the Inner Harbor, but now they go to the Hilton, they 

go throughout all of Pratt Street. It’s become a much more attractive street over the past several years. 

Just to give you a sense of the amount that some of these lots 

are being sold at, during the heyday a few years ago the McCormick Spice lot at Conway and Light sold for $25 million. During 

auction recently it sold for 11, so that’s just a sign of the economy. 

But that’s a similar sized site. So there could be substantial, perhaps tens of millions of dollars, that could come just from the sale 

of this site. 

Before the recession hit, there was a lot of interest in doing 

buildout of retail along Pratt Street. We’re starting to get glimmers 

of that interest again as the economy seems to be waking up a little bit. So this is a valuable site for private use. 

Senator CARDIN. Judge Motz, looking at the numbers again, looking at GSA’s numbers, lit seems to me that—well, let me ask you. 

What are your highest priorities if GSA said there was a limited 

amount of funds, they can’t do it the way you want to do it, they 

can’t do it all at one time? 

Judge MOTZ. Well, after today my highest priority is to fix the 

security problems, because I think I don’t see how after a public 
59 

hearing and problems of progressive collapse are going to be in the 

newspapers—as far as I’m concerned, GSA better fix that problem 

tomorrow. That’s my highest priority. 

In terms of other priorities, you’ve got to fix the infrastructure. 

There have been—regardless of what these gentlemen say, this 

courthouse now internally is an attractive spot. I don’t know 

whether they’ve opened their eyes recently. But you’ve got to fix 

the infrastructure, and that is very costly. 

If somebody wants to get us new money to build a new courthouse, that’s fine. I must say that when people were talking about 

moving the courthouse 10 years ago, it wasn’t to downtown. It was 

to Inner Harbor, it was the Harbor East, which to me—I was 

against it because of the very reason that there is now consensus 

on, that that area was going to develop by itself and you were betraying the downtown office district, because no law firm was going 

to stay down here when you weren’t in walking distance of the 

courthouse. 

So if you get a courthouse down here, you get the arena, you can make it attractive, that’s fine. But I still think realistically $100 

million is less than $200 million and I really think a new courthouse would cost $250 million. I think there’s more chance to get 

$100 million than $250 million, and it’s got to be done. 

I’m telling you as somebody who looks at things pretty conservatively, it makes no sense. Either you raze the building and go 

somewhere else, which is fine, or else you’ve got to fix the infrastructure and the security problems. That is the two highest priorities, and one of those two things in my judgment has to be done. 

Senator CARDIN. Security you rank first. There’s been at least 

three other issues that have been raised. That is the air conditioning, the plumbing, the electrical. 

Judge MOTZ. All of that has to be done. It has to be—there is 

no question, if you look at GSA studies about the ductwork and you 

see about—right now, the plumbing, the air conditioning, and the 

electricity need to be fixed and they should all be fixed at the same 

time. There were proposals that GSA wouldn’t be able to fund this 

all at once, so you’d tear up the building 1 year and then 3 years 

later you’d come out and tear it up again. That makes no sense. 

So if you’re going to fix the building, you’ve got to come up with 

the money to fix it right. This building was not built correctly originally, as you well know. I thought your remark that you’d much 

rather have a building from the beginning of the century than from 

1976 is absolutely right. This was not a well-constructed building, 

and it has got to be fixed. If not, and with all respect, the Mitchell 

Courthouse is beautiful, but it has lost—the infrastructure there 

needs to be fixed and there wasn’t money to fix it. 

Anybody—anybody’s going to tell you that either you raze it, 

which is fine—that’s OK—and build a new one, but you’ve got to 

have the new courthouse built before you leave this one, that’s for 

sure, or else you’ve got to put the money in to fix this building up, 

or else it’s really going to deteriorate and then you’re going to be 

in very, very bad shape. 

Senator CARDIN. I agree with you. Just reality tells me, though, 

if GSA and the Administrative Office of the Courts were not willing 

to make the $74 million investment when they had $1.5 billion 
60 

available to be spent—these studies have been done for a long 

time; they’re ready to go; this was ready-to-go construction; they 

could have gotten people there immediately working on this work. 

If they weren’t willing to invest that, why do we think we have a 

good chance of getting this money now? 

Judge MOTZ. I would hope you—you would hope Congress would 

give us this money. I can’t get the money. I’m the tenant in the 

building. I have absolutely no power to get the money. 

But what we have done is to try to make this courthouse as good 

as it can be, and I think we’ve done a pretty good job limping 

along. But the fact of the matter is if money—realistically, if money 

is going to be put into here for infrastructure work or for a new 

courthouse, whichever it is, Congress is going to have to come up 

with the money. There’s going to have to be a special appropriation 

that says that, because of the problems with the building, because 

of the needs of the city, because urban areas are important, because of the way this building is located, because it’s on valuable 

land and as valuable as the arena would be, this might be more 

valuable, that this is an opportunity for political intervention and 

for Congress to fund things appropriately and specifically. That’s 

where the money’s going to come from. 

Otherwise, as far as I’m concerned—we work with the AO and 

GSA every day to try to get more money, and we haven’t been able 

to do it. Felicia is over there nodding her head. I would hope, I 

would hope that somebody would start thinking new construction 

is not the only way to go. Sometimes it is that if they’re not going 

to give us new money, give us money to fix this courthouse and 

make it so it opens up on the pedestrian thoroughfare. That is good 

investment of public dollars. 

But I have, frankly, I have no hope. 

Senator CARDIN. I’m not disagreeing. In fact, it seems to me that 

you made that point for the last 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 years about let’s 

get on with the major improvements that need to be made, and 

there was an opportunity for GSA to do that and they said no. 

That’s how I see it. 

So my point is this. You said that if you were a tenant in a commercial building you’d withhold your rents, and I agree with you 

you could withhold your rents. These are serious enough issues. 

You don’t have that luxury because of the way the Federal Government is organized. We like to say that we don’t want to exempt 

ourselves from private sector rules, but we do, and it’s wrong. 

One of the reasons we’re holding this hearing is to put a spotlight on this. That’s intentional, because Baltimore’s not the only 

place in the Nation that has a similar problem. There is other problems in other parts of the country. I just think a mistake was made 

when the decision was made by the Administrative Office of the 

Courts that they were going to fund space needs rather than renovation of buildings and making them safe for the people that are 

in there. 

I’m very serious about at least this Senator’s vote on new judgeships until we have adequate space for our existing judges. I think 

that needs to be put into the equation. My concern is that unless 

we put a spotlight on the issues that we have that we could go another 10 or 15 or 20 years and then someone—and I’m not talking 
61 

about terrorist attacks, but someone’s going to get hurt because of 

the conditions of the building, and then all of a sudden we try to 

do things to fix it. Let’s fix it now. I’m not opposed to $100 million being put into 

this Baltimore courthouse to make it look right and have it face on 

Pratt Street. My gut tells me that you’re not going to get the private sector working with us on that. That’s going to be solely a 

Federal Government issue. Here it seems to me that we have an 

opportunity, because of the interest of the private sector, that we 

might be able to put together a creative plan, with the Mayor’s interest, that will allow us to move forward with a new courthouse 

for Baltimore in a way that would be even more economical than 

trying to patch up this existing courthouse, giving the Federal Government a better facility and giving downtown Baltimore a Federal 

courthouse that complements the city as well as another valuable 

piece of land that could be used for economic growth for Baltimore’s 

future. That seems to me to make the most sense in this situation. 

But if we’re able to get the renovation moneys necessary for this 

courthouse—I’m going to fight, I know Senator Mikulski’s going to 

fight, and our congressional delegation is going to fight to make 

sure this courthouse is safe. So we’re going to continue to seek the 

attention of the Administrative Office of the Courts. 

We took politics out of this in a way. You have this rating system 

within the Administrative Office of the Courts to determine priority 

of buildings and Congress follows that priority list. So in a way this 

is a fight. We have to get the Administrative Office of the Courts 

and GSA and then Congress needs to fund it, so we all have responsibilities. 

What I’m going to do is take the information that’s been made 

available at this hearing and share it, obviously, with my colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee, but 

with my colleagues in the U.S. Senate. I am certain, as has been 

pointed out in this hearing, that there are other cities that have 

similar types of problems, and maybe we’ll be able to figure out a 

way that we can move forward with the type of space for our Judiciary which is appropriate to the important role that they play. 

With that, let me again thank our four witnesses for your testimony. I think you added greatly to this hearing. With that, the 

committee will stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

Æ