U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

30–653 PDF 2007

THE FUTURE OF THE FEDERAL COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM:

RESULTS OF A GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE STUDY ON

THE JUDICIARY’S RENTAL OBLIGATIONS

(109–83)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

TRANSPORTATION AND

INFRASTRUCTURE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JUNE 22, 2006

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice-Chair

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

GARY G. MILLER, California

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

TED POE, Texas

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington

CONNIE MACK, Florida

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York

LUIS G. FORTUN ̃ O, Puerto Rico

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JERROLD NADLER, New York

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

BOB FILNER, California

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

RICK LARSEN, Washington

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JULIA CARSON, Indiana

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado

JOHN BARROW, Georgia

(II)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas, Vice-Chair

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York

DON YOUNG, Alaska

(Ex Officio)

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

JULIA CARSON, Indiana

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

(Ex Officio)

(III)

(V)

CONTENTS

TESTIMONY

Page

Goldstein, Mark, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, Government Accountability Office ................................................................................................ 7

Roth, Judge Jane R., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Chair,

Judicial Conference Committee on Security and Facilities, statement ........... 18

Winstead, David L., Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, General Services

Administration, accompanied by Robert Andrukonis, Director, Center for

Courthouse Programs, General Services Administration ................................. 18

PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY A MEMBER CONGRESS

Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, of the District of Columbia ................................. 169

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

Goldstein, Mark ....................................................................................................... 43

Roth, Judge Jane R. ................................................................................................ 176

Winstead, David L. .................................................................................................. 267

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Goldstein, Mark, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, Government Accountability Office, report, ′′Federal Courthouses: Rent Increases Due to

New Space and Growing Energy and Security Costs Require Better Tracking and Management′′, June 2006 ...................................................................... 60

Roth, Judge Jane R., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Chair,

Judicial Conference Committee on Security and Facilities:

Status of the Judiciary’s Study on Courtroom Use ........................................... 30

Judiciary Staffing Formulas ................................................................................ 41

Letter from Leonidas Ralph Mecham, Director, Administrative Office of

the U.S. Courts, June 6, 2006 ......................................................................... 187

Letter, Hon. Benson Everett Legg, Chief Judge, U.S. District Court, District

of Maryland, to Cathy McCarthy, Deputy Associate Director, Administrative Office of the U,S, Courts, Office of Management, Planning and Assessment, June 2, 2006 .................................................................................... 217

Comments on GAO’s Statement of Facts concerning U.S. Courts Rent Exemption Study, memorandum, May 4, 2006 .................................................. 220

Letter from Leonidas Ralph Mecham, Director, Administrative Office of

the U.S. Courts to David Bibb, Acting Administrator, General Services

Administration, May 10, 2006 ......................................................................... 261

Letter to Representatives Young, Shuster, Oberstar and Delegate Norton,

May 24, 2006 ..................................................................................................... 265

ADDITION TO THE RECORD

Space Management Initiatives in the Federal Courts, Space and Facilites

Advisory Group, March 1996 .............................................................................. 281

(1)

THE FUTURE OF THE FEDERAL COURTHOUSE

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM: RESULTS OF A

GAO STUDY ON THE JUDICIARY’S RENTAL

OBLIGATIONS

Thursday, June 22, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, WASHINGTON, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:00 a.m., in room

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bill Shuster [Chairman

of the committee] presiding.

Mr. SHUSTER. The Subcommittee will come to order.

I want to welcome everybody here this morning. We are here

today because, over a year ago, the Judiciary requested a permanent rent exemption from the Federal Buildings Fund, claiming

that rising GSA rent payments were creating a fiscal crisis. OMB

and GSA have reviewed the request and have denied it.

Concerned about the effect a waiver would have on the Federal

Buildings Fund, this Committee asked the GAO, in April of 2005,

to review the reasons why the Judiciary’s rent was increasing, the

impact of a permanent exemption from the Federal Buildings

Fund, and how the Judiciary plans and accounts for rent increases.

We wanted to know if the claims that the Judiciary was a ‘‘profit

center’’ for GSA were accurate.

Last June, the GAO testified before this Subcommittee on the

impact such an exemption would have on the Fund. This report

satisfies the remaining issues: to review the reasons why the Judiciary’s rent increased and how the Judiciary plans and accounts for

rent increases.

The Judiciary courthouses construction program has been of

great concern to this Subcommittee recently. As of May 2006, the

Courts occupied over 41 million rentable square feet, more than triple the amount of space it occupied over 30 years ago. Over the last

ten years, Courts have received 46 new courthouses or annexes at

a cost of $3.4 billion from the Federal Buildings Fund. This increase in space can be easily characterized as a construction boom.

With any increase in space, one should expect an increase in cost

and the Courts’ construction boom resulted in just that.

The GAO investigation revealed a direct correlation between the

increase in rent and the increase in space. The rent increase for

the five year period from 2000 to 2005 was 27 percent. Of that, 19

percent was directly attributed to space increases, and the remain-
2

der resulted from increased security and rising utility costs, which

are uniform throughout the Federal Government. The Judiciary’s

construction boom has directly contributed to the Judiciary’s escalating rent costs.

In fact, this rent increase should come as no surprise to the

Courts. Over ten years ago, the Judicial Conference recognized the

need to reduce the future growth of overall space rental costs. A

March 1996 plan by the Security, Space and Facilities Committee

of the Judicial Conference recognized proposed solutions that could

address rising rent costs, including the release of excess space,

courtroom sharing, updating space standards, and limiting the Design Guide discretion. The Judiciary understood the ramifications

of the building boom, yet implemented few of their own recommendations for reform. Failures over the past ten years to address these growing problems have culminated in a request for a

permanent rent exemption. The Courts failed to manage their

space requirements and has asked for the equivalent of a ‘‘get out

of jail free’’ card. The GAO findings only solidify my, and I believe

this Committee’s, stance against such a rent waiver.

Additionally, the GSA has made numerous proposals to the

Courts to help lower rent and cut costs. I am also aware that a majority of the proposals were rejected by the Judiciary. I recommend,

in addition to suggestions made today by members of this Subcommittee and those testifying, that the Judiciary reevaluate their

stance on the GSA cost saving proposals.

The Federal Buildings Fund was created not only to maximize efficiencies in the construction and maintenance of buildings, but

also to ensure that the occupants acquired new space in a responsible manner. Tenants must make choices and balance their demand for space with their other expenses. By law, GSA charges all

tenants, including the Judiciary, commercially equivalent charges

for the space they occupy.

I like to compare this to a family’s decision to purchase a home.

The family may love the 10,000 square foot mansion, but may only

be able to afford the more conservative 3,000 square foot home. The

family is not driven by desire alone. Financial restraints weigh in

and the family ends up in a home driven by space needs and economic reality. The Federal Buildings Fund is intended to force the

same economic considerations by agencies and prevent poor space

utilization and a drain on the taxpayer.

The finding of the GAO report is the fact that the Federal Buildings Fund worked exactly as intended. GAO, GSA, and this Committee are all well aware of this fact.

I am also concerned with the claims of the GSA errors in rent

bills and inaccurate appraisals. The Judiciary claims over $38 million in overcharges and faulty appraisals. GSA should not be overcharging tenants and if appraisals are inaccurate, they need to be

corrected. The Government’s professional landlord should strive for

excellence. I am eager to hear how the GSA is addressing these

concerns and solving the problem.

I am pleased to see the Federal Building Fund working as originally intended. I am certain its creators would be pleased with

GAO’s findings and proof that the Fund is providing a check to the

Courts’ growth through economic restraint. To provide the Judici-
3

ary with a rent exemption would be disaster for the Federal Buildings Fund and the Government’s ability to control its real property

needs.

I look forward to hearing from all the witnesses today.

With that, I would like to recognize our Ranking Member, Ms.

Norton, from the District of Columbia, for any opening statement

she may have.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate

this hearing. I think it is an important hearing. I hope it is a hearing that gets us to the problem-solving that this Committee, under

your leadership, has sought all along.

Mr. Chairman, a year ago yesterday, June 21st, the Subcommittee met right in this room to hear testimony regarding funding the

Judiciary’s current and future space needs. Many of the witnesses

at that hearing are with us again today, and we welcome them.

At that hearing, the Judiciary, as well as the GSA, committed to

a series of actions that each entity would undertake to control the

Courts’ runaway rental costs. The Committee did its part by asking

the GAO to review how the Courts budget for rent, how GSA accounts for rent, and what impact the Courts’ rent relief request of

nearly $500 million would have on the Federal Building Fund.

However, the Courts chose not to respect the fair and orderly

fact-finding process this Committee developed. Instead, they convinced some Senate and House Judiciary Committee members unaware of this dispute, committees that have no jurisdiction over the

matters before us, to introduce legislation that would, in effect, cap

what the Courts would pay into the Federal Building Fund. They

took this action long before the requested GAO report was finished,

long before they had finished doing what they had committed to do,

long before the GSA had finished its attempts to identify and renegotiate court leases and, of course, without consultation with

you, Mr. Chairman, or with any member of this committee of jurisdiction.

However, in accordance with standard practice, the Parliamentarian referred the House bill that the Courts sought to this Committee, the committee of jurisdiction. This puts the Courts back

where they started, and worse. Rather than work with the Subcommittee to get at the roots of the problem, their solution of

choice was to go around this Subcommittee and limit their own exposure by trying to thrust onto other agencies of the Federal Government—who are feeling the impact of spending and deficit just

as much as the Courts are—thrust on other agencies of the Federal

Government the burden of subsidizing the Courts’ spending habits

through the Building Fund.

However, there is no way to circumvent this Committee. Let’s

try, instead, to try to solve the Courts’ problems.

We are here this morning primarily to hear from the GAO regarding our request. However, in preparation for today’s hearing,

I reviewed the June 2005 hearing record to refresh my memory on

exactly what GSA and the Courts committed to doing to address

the persistent rent problem of the Courts. In recognition of its rent

predicament, in March 2004, the Courts imposed a one year moratorium on court construction. In March 2005, the Judicial Conference voted to extend the moratorium for one year. Also, in 2005,
4

the Courts Security and Facilities Committee committed to reviewing the space standards in the Design Guide with—and I am

quoting them from the record—‘‘an emphasis on controlling courts.’’

You yourself, Mr. Chairman, noted that space for judges had increased 23 percent, with the average space for judges’ chambers at

2800 square feet, as compared with 1200 square feet for members

of Congress. Understand, that in the 1200 square feet, we are not

talking about—I clerked in the Federal courts—we are not talking

about room for a clerk or two, a secretary; we are talking about all

of us. And the average member of Congress has 20 staff members,

some of them in the District offices. All of us in those 1200 feet.

Now, I am not trying to suggest, by pointing that out, that the

Courts should be crammed as we are crammed. I am saying that

right now a judge’s chambers are twice all of the space members

have for themselves and members of their own staff, usually at

least a dozen here in the House of Representatives.

Further, the same Committee began a long-range evaluation of

its planning process by examining staff and judgeship growth, as

well as the space standard used for estimating square footage

needs.

Finally, in order to release unneeded and underutilized space,

the Space Committee, under Judge Roth’s leadership, wrote to all

judges requesting that they cancel pending space requests wherever possible. Judges were also requested to recommend closure of

visiting facilities without a full-time resident judge. They also were

to reexamine criteria for nonresident visiting judges and the release of space in probation and pretrial services. All that from the

record of that hearing.

Thus, from these actions undertaken by the Courts, the Committee should be able to expect the following information:

What changes were made to the Design Guide, which governs the

size, shape, and attributes of courthouses? What is the anticipated

saving associated with each of those changes?

How many facilities without a full-time judge were recommended

to be closed? What is the anticipated savings associated with this

action item?

What is the status of the moratorium? Has it been extended for

another year? What space criteria have been developed for nonresident visiting judges?

What did the review of probation and pretrial services space

produce? What are the savings associated with the release of this

type of space?

You answer these kind of questions, we can get down to what is

left: What can we do?

In addition to these actions taken by the Courts, GSA has also

been tasked to address certain issues. During the June 2005 hearing, the then Commissioner committed to the following: hiring a

third-party consultant to verify the accuracy of the rent bills;—that

analysis was to be completed during the summer of 2005—offered

to work with the Courts to dispose of underutilized courthouse

space based on the list provided by the Courts; offered to reduce

the scope of new projects; offered to reduce the level of finishes;

and offered to renegotiate existing leases in private sector buildings. That GSA all committed or offered to do. I hope these actions
5

produce the results the Committee expected and I, of course, await

GSA’s testimony.

Before I close, Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to your attention and the attention of other Subcommittee members a report

prepared in 1996 by the Administrative Office of the Courts at the

direction of and for the Judicial Conference. This report is entitled

‘‘Space Management Initiatives in the Federal Courts.’’ And I

would like to submit a copy for the record.

What is remarkable about this report, Mr. Chairman, is not the

cost controlling recommendations, it is not that cost controlling recommendations were made a decade ago, but they have such a familiar ring. I won’t quote them all, but they talk about personnel

levels restricted to 84 percent of staffing formulas. Of course, the

Courts have continued in the opposite direction, at 100 percent.

And, yes, they talked about shared space.

In fact, I would like to quote what the report said about courtroom sharing. ‘‘The Congress has asked the Judiciary to consider

sharing courtrooms and to determine the impact of a judge’s ability

to try cases if courtroom sharing were implemented. The Court Administration and Case Management Committee, working in conjunction with other appropriate committees ... should be tasked by

the Conference to determine what policy on courtroom sharing for

active and senior judges should be adopted, and whether the impact of any delays that would result for sharing courtrooms will adversely affect case processing.’’

So here we have, Mr. Chairman, recommendations from a decade

ago from the Courts’ own staff, and still the Courts have not acted

to institutionalize this concept in its planning. In this recommendation, the AOC does say if courtroom sharing should take place—it

does not say if courtroom sharing should take place, it assumes it

will and recommends that a policy be determined.

Further, Mr. Chairman, the AOC suggests this policy cover active, as well as senior judges. And, finally, they ask for impact

analysis linking possible delay with courtroom sharing. All of that

is very fair.

Additionally, this report does address usage data, and I quote:

‘‘The Administrative Office will be required to provide inventory

and usage data on a per capita or other basis to judicial counsels.’’

As I understand it, Mr. Chairman, this is precisely the type of

data you have been trying to get for over a year, and here it is recommended to be collected over a decade ago.

Mr. Chairman, the very first paragraph of the 1996 report acknowledged the report of having centralized rent payment process

driven by decentralized approval and use. In 2006, the GAO identified centralized payment system as a source of problems with efficient space management. In 1996, the Administrative Office of the

Courts recognized the link between maintaining appropriate staffing levels and sufficient funds to pay its rent bill. Thus, it is dismaying to learn that, a decade later, instead of making space decisions with an eye toward maintaining an 84 percent staffing level,

the Courts have moved in the opposite direction and insist on making space decisions based on 100 percent staffing, which, of course,

makes it more difficult to pay rent bills.
6

GSA is not to be held blameless for this rent fiasco. For some

time now the agency has been more of a lapdog for its clients, instead of protecting the taxpayers. Time and again over the past

decade the Agency has allowed its clients to redesign, reassign, and

rethink space decisions, with no thought of the financial consequences borne by the taxpayers. The number of amended resolutions has steadily grown, as has the cost of the court program. GSA

has given the impression to clients that they, the agencies, are the

real estate experts, not GSA.

Where GSA should be leading, GSA is, at best, walking hand-inhand with its clients, and now the Congress is simply going to have

to lay down the law. For example, staff recently inquired of GSA

why there was planned to be not one, not two, but three fitness

centers in the San Diego Courthouse for about a dozen and a half

judges and U.S. marshals. GSA replied that that was what the client wanted.

I understand, since the staff made something of a fuss over the

fitness centers, that the number has been reduced to two. And I am

sure the taxpayers will be glad that, instead of three, there are

only two fitness centers in courthouses that now want to make 100

percent use their space with no sharing of space. And the reason,

apparently, is staff has been told the marshals refuse to share with

the judges. Where was the GSA in all of this? Why were three

planned in the first place?

Mr. Chairman, I am not naive enough to believe the necessary

changes will happen overnight or that they will happen willingly.

We certainly know they don’t happen willingly, because the Courts

have simply defied this Subcommittee. But I am recommending

that we continue the practice put in place last year, that is, to

withholding authorizing new additions to the Courts’ inventory

until Congress gets the utilization report being prepared by the

Federal Judicial Center and details on real savings and programs

put in place by the Courts and the GSA to really control spending.

I don’t see how we can ask everybody else, every committee,

every appropriation to make those savings and say to the Courts,

everybody but you. We are not going to do it. And this Congress—

not only this Subcommittee, this Congress is going to have none of

it. This Committee has a long history of bipartisan—indeed, nonpartisan—action. We are problem-solvers of management issues

that fly under the radar here on Capitol Hill, but have significant

financial consequences. The decisions we are talking about today

have significant financial consequences at a time when Congress is

having to cut public programs that are vitally necessary to the people of this Country.

Under your leadership, we can get our hands wrapped around

this problem once and for all, and we can provide an efficient

framework for GSA and the Courts to make asset management decisions. As I mentioned last year, however, Mr. Chairman, legislation may be necessary, and I am putting the finishing touches on

draft legislation that I am asking my staff to share with your staff

to get their comments and your views.

I think some remedial action may well be necessary, unless we

are going to continue going around Robin Hood’s barn like this.

Some such action may be necessary, and I welcome, of course, your
7

thoughts. I certainly welcome the thoughts of those who will be testifying before us today. But I think everybody should be warned.

We have had it. We need to solve the problem.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I welcome today’s witnesses.

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Ms. Norton.

I would like to welcome Mr. Goldstein back, as well as Judge

Roth and Commissioner Winstead. Thank you for being here today.

Oh, I recognize the gentleman from Arkansas.

Mr. DAVIS. Tennessee.

Mr. SHUSTER. Tennessee. I am sorry.

Mr. DAVIS. I look forward to the testimony and will reserve any

comments.

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you.

With that, I ask unanimous consent that our witnesses’ full

statements be included in the record. Without objection, so ordered.

Since your written testimony has been made part of the record,

we would request that you limit your testimony to a five minute

summary of your testimony.

We have two panels of witnesses today. On our first panel we

have one witness, Mr. Mark Goldstein, Director of Physical Infrastructure Issues of the Government Accountability Office. Mr. Goldstein is going to provide testimony on the GAO’s investigation on

the Judiciary’s rent and the corresponding report released today.

The ability for Congress to perform oversight and investigation is

crucial to our mission and GAO, through unbiased audits and timely responses, assists us in this function.

Following Mr. Goldstein’s testimony, we will be open for questions.

So, Mr. Goldstein, you may proceed.

TESTIMONY OF MARK GOLDSTEIN, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

OFFICE

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Norton, and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you

for the opportunity to testify before you today on our work related

to Federal courthouse rents.

Since the early 1990’s, the General Services Administration and

the Federal judiciary have undertaken a multi-billion dollar courthouse construction initiative to address what the judiciary has

identified as growing needs. The judiciary pays over $900 million

in rent annually to GSA to occupy court-related space, and this

amount represents a growing proportion of the judiciary’s budget.

The rent payments, which, by law, approximate commercial

rates, are deposited into GSA’s Federal Buildings Fund. With

slightly over 20 percent of its budget allocated for rent payments,

in December 2004 the Judiciary requested a $483 million permanent annual exemption from rent payments to GSA.

Denying the judiciary’s requested rent exemption, GSA noted

that the Fund was designed to encourage efficient space utilization

by making agencies accountable for the space they occupy, and that

it is unlikely that GSA could obtain direct appropriations to replace

lost Fund income. In June 2005 we testified before this Subcommittee that Federal agencies’ rent payments provided a relatively sta-
8

ble, predictable source of revenue for the Fund and that previous

rent exemptions such as the one requested by the judiciary hampered GSA’s ability to generate sufficient revenue for needed capital investment.

You asked us today to review the judiciary’s courthouse rent

costs. My testimony will discuss, one, recent trends in the judiciary’s rent payments and square footage occupied, and, two, challenges that the judiciary faces in managing its rent costs. My statement is based on a report that is being released today. In summary, we found the following: One, about two-thirds of the judiciary’s $210 million rent increase from fiscal years 2000 through 2005 is attributable to a 19

percent increase in net square footage. The remaining increase is

attributable to disproportionately high increases in security and operating costs. We found that neither the judiciary nor GSA had

routinely and comprehensively analyzed the factors influencing

rent increases. This information could help the judiciary better understand the reasons behind its rent increases, make more informed space allocation decisions in the future, and identify errors

in GSA billing.

Furthermore, the lack of a full understanding of the reasons for

increases in the judiciary rent, in our view, contributed to growing

hostility between the judiciary and GSA. Conversely, GSA’s lack of

full understanding of the reasons for the rent increases left it unable to justify them to the judiciary and other stakeholders such as

Congress. In the report released with the testimony, we recommend

that the judiciary begin tracking and analyzing rent trends in

order to improve its understanding and ability to manage its rent

costs. The judiciary agreed that tracking rent trends is necessary,

but said the specific types of data we recommended would not be

particularly useful.

Two, the judiciary faces several challenges managing its rent

costs, including costly architectural and structural requirements for

modern courthouses, a lack of incentives for efficient space use, and

a lack of space allocation criteria for appeals and senior district

judges. In our report we recommended that the judiciary establish

incentives to encourage local decision-makers to use space efficiently and improve space allocation criteria in a number of ways.

The judiciary disagreed that additional space allocation criteria are

needed for appeals courts and senior judges, and said that it already had started updating its space allocation criteria.

The judiciary has initiated a rent validation effort, but it does

not address a lack of incentives for efficient space use at the circuit

and district levels. Because rent is paid centrally by AOUSC, circuit and districts have few incentives to efficiently manage their

space.

An example of the inefficiencies that may result is in the Eastern

District of Virginia, where the judiciary paid $272,000 in 2005 to

rent 4,600 square feet of office space for an appeals judge in

McLean, Virginia, in addition to paying for 4,300 square feet of

chamber space originally designated for that judge in the U.S.

Courthouse in Alexandria. According to AOUSC, the judiciary has

subsequently pursued alternative uses for that space. Although

planning and building for future needs may limit alternative uses
9

of space until it is occupied, some of this under-utilization is a result of outdated criteria.

Finally, I must inform you, Mr. Chairman, that AOUSC has objected to much of GAO’s report and believes that we are biased;

that the objectives of our study are not complete; and that our findings, conclusions, and recommendations are unfounded. GAO takes

seriously any notion that our reports do not reflect the highest values and standards of the agency. I can assure you that the concerns expressed by AOUSC were carefully examined.

This report has been reviewed and approved at the highest levels

of GAO and, like all our reports, it represents an institutional view.

GAO strongly rejects any notion that its report was biased, flawed,

or unfounded. Our procedures to ensure integrity, independence,

and objectivity were followed; our evidence is supported and validated; and our findings, conclusions, and recommendations remain

unchanged.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be

pleased to respond to any questions now or for the record that you

or other members of the Subcommittee may have.

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Goldstein. We appreciate that.

Your last statement there, being accused of your report being biased, additionally, the Courts have questioned the legitimacy of

some of the interviews you conducted with court staff during the

investigation. Can you respond to that accusation?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Sure. I will talk briefly about the bias, sir, and

then I will talk about the interviews.

Mr. SHUSTER. Sure. Absolutely.

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Thank you.

Regarding the bias that is alleged, sir, I would say the GAO actually does have a bias: tax dollars should be efficiently spent on behalf of Congress and the American people. But that is the only bias

GAO has. Moreover, we take seriously any potential hint of bias in

order to ensure our integrity and our independence. Everyone

working on our report, including myself, has to sign a form that ensures, at the beginning of every single report we do that we can

affirm that we have no impairments regarding our integrity and

independence.

With respect to the Courts’ contention specifically on this engagement, GAO’s long-held position on the impact that rent relief would

have on the Federal Buildings Fund for any agency does not constitute a bias that precludes us from examining rent trends and

challenges to effective space management.

With regard to our interviewing process, for a number of interviews that the judiciary feels are mischaracterized or perhaps that

didn’t take place or were anecdotal in nature, for a number of these

interviews I was there. I personally heard judiciary officials say the

things that we are being accused of mischaracterizing.

The people we talked with knew what they were talking about.

They were judges, clerks, circuit executives, GSA officials, all with

policy or space management responsibilities. We did more than 60

interviews in the field with relevant officials. They were a combination of walking tours through courthouses and formal conversations

with multiple people taking notes and comparing them later for

write-ups for our formal work papers. I review every single inter-
10

view. This isn’t a case of GAO making up things or leaning on thin

evidence.

Moreover, our interviews revealed multiple court officials in multiple locations corroborating the information, especially regarding

challenges that the judiciary faces or our recommendations. It is

court officials saying that they need better data; it is court officials

saying they need incentives to better manage space; it is court officials saying the criteria for appeals courts would help them manage

space better.

I recognize that much of what we were told out in the districts

may be inconvenient for the Courts. Frankly, I am surprised that

the Courts felt they could reliably determine who we talked to,

since, to ensure the integrity and independence of our work, we do

not reveal the names of the individuals we talk to, so that people

can talk to us truthfully about what they saw and what they think

without a fear of reprisal.

As your staff knows, we requested that the Administrative Office

of the Courts not come along on the site visits, because officials

from that office, in our first visits, attempted to undermine the discussions. They attempted to change the questions being asked, they

attempted to change the answers people gave; they repeatedly interrupted others and got into arguments with GSA. It is quite possible that people changed their answers and were less candid when

asked to confirm statements by their superiors or colleagues.

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. Mr. Goldstein, in testimony submitted

by the Judiciary for today’s hearing, they state the following:

‘‘Since 1985, the rent changes imposed by GSA, adjusted for inflation, has grown at twice the rate as the increase in square footage

rented. Rent increased 333 percent, adjusted for inflation, using the

same CPI Index used by GAO. During the same period, square

footage increased 166 percent.’’

From an empirical point of view, is it possible to draw this conclusion from the data?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. We clearly use very different numbers and very

different years than the Courts data.

Mr. SHUSTER. I am sorry, can you pull the microphone a little

closer?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Sure. Certainly.

We clearly use very different data and years than the Courts’

data. Just the one initial fact that you mentioned, that you just

said that we used a CPI Index is not correct. We use a GDP Index

inflation because we feel that it is broader—and includes a lot more

in the Index, including construction and steel and things like that.

So it is a different inflater.

More generally I can respond and answer by saying a couple of

things. First, AOUSC’s table only expresses rent in gross terms,

making it impossible to analyze how the different rent components

changed. Second, based on their notes in the table, their rent and

square footage statistics don’t appear to include the bankruptcy

court, which represents 17 percent of all square footage in the Federal judiciary. Third, the note in the table indicates that the rent

statistics represent the Judiciary’s judicial services, salaries, and

expense accounts, so it is not quite clear to us exactly what is included and what is not included there.
11

They also use very different years. We chose fiscal year 2000 as

the starting point because it coincides with the full use of GSA’s

new rent pricing policies. We were able to break out the different

components of rent: shell, IT, operations, and security and things

like that, which the Courts are unable to do or anyone was unable

to do before 2000. In fact, when we discussed all these issues with

our professional methodologists back at GAO, we were basically

told they would not approve us being able to go back before 2000

because the data is relatively meaningless for use in making the

kind of decisions and reaching the kinds of conclusions that we are

talking about.

Mr. SHUSTER. Well, why did you use the five years and why have

they gone back further?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. We used only the last five years because going

back before that period you can’t make any causal relationships

about the reasons why the rent changed. Only from 2000 forward,

with the advent of the new pricing policy that GSA has put in place

can GSA track these numbers.

Mr. SHUSTER. And can you explain—you mentioned—what do

you use as an index?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. We use the Gross Domestic Product Index, as

opposed to the Consumer Price Index. And it is broader.

Mr. SHUSTER. Broader. And you said——

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. It includes a lot more things in it, such as the

price of steel and construction materials and lighting and the like.

So it is a broader, more robust index.

Mr. SHUSTER. That is not included in the CPI?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. That is correct.

Mr. SHUSTER. Steel?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. SHUSTER. OK.

With that, I would like to recognize Ms. Norton, if you have questions.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say for the record—

and as a member of the bar—how dismayed I am that judges would

ask for the names of everyone who spoke to the GAO. It smacks

of intimidation. There is a reason why, for as long as there has

been a GAO, GAO has never revealed, and will never reveal, the

names of people who speak to them. They are often investigating

agencies at the top level. The whole point is to speak.

Frankly, the GAO is an investigative agency, it doesn’t take anybody’s word. It does hear from witnesses the way courts hear from

witnesses, except they investigate for Congress. And the confidentiality of witnesses to speak truthfully to the GAO is required by

the Congress of the United States. So I am dismayed that judges

would ask for the names of people who spoke.

Let me go on to the questions.

Mr. Goldstein, nobody wants a GAO report done about them. Nobody knows this better than I do. I headed a Federal agency, and

we all quaked that Congress would come in and ask for a GAO report. GAO reports are objective reviews not aimed at criticizing the

agency, but they are aimed at looking for problems. They are never

complimentary and, over time, agencies learn to be grown up about

what your mission is.
12

I am shocked at the way in which the courts have responded to

the GAO, because courts are in the business of investigating matters. So the whole notion that their rent payments, the way in

which they conduct their business, should not be the subject of an

investigation the very same way that anybody else can be is very,

very troubling to this member of the bar.

The way in which the Courts have, of course, criticized your report is not unusual, except it is rather scathing. It is not unusual.

Were the Courts given an opportunity, a fair opportunity to comment and to rebut your findings?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Yes, ma’am, they were. They received a number

of opportunities. We met with AOUSC throughout the period of our

review. We, of course, hold an entrance meeting where we discuss

what it is we are going to do based on our work here with the Committee and our discussions with your staff. We met with AOUSC

numerous times; we discussed what we would be doing in the field

with them; we kept them apprized, obviously, as we went. We

worked—and made many of our arrangements to the field through

them, so they knew what we were doing, of course.

They had plenty of opportunity, in fact, more than usual opportunity, I would say, to review our work. They reviewed a very early

sort of discussion paper version; they reviewed the draft; they met

with us several times; they presented voluminous comments to us,

which we evaluated; and if you have the fortitude, our evolution is

there in the back of our report.

At least half the report is represented by their comments and our

rebuttals. Very rarely does GAO need to go to this length, quite

frankly, but we had to respond with 70 points to respond to their

comments to us in order to, in our opinion, fully set the record

straight.

Ms. NORTON. Does this include your conclusions as well, your full

report and conclusions?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. It is in the back of that report.

Ms. NORTON. When they offered detailed rebuttals, did you then

review your own findings critically, and did you make any corrections or changes based on their rebuttal?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. We did both things. Not only did the team that

worked on this report review it; any job that—any report that GAO

does, an independent team always comes in after the team that

writes the report and reviews that report, and literally checks

every single word to make sure that it is accurate.

Ms. NORTON. So that is a team that is independent of the team

that wrote the report and——

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Right. A team that had absolutely nothing to do

with the initial effort; might not even know where a Federal courthouse is.

On top of it, in this particular instance, because the Judiciary

had concerns that were so significant, my management brought in

a third team, which is pretty unusual at a high level——

Ms. NORTON. Would you describe that? They brought in, in addition to the team——

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. An additional——
13

Ms. NORTON.—the independent team that would look at GAO

findings of the HHS or the Labor Department, they brought in another team?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Yes, ma’am. A team from our quality assurance

team.

Ms. NORTON. You brought in another team, I am sorry.

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. A third team examined this report to ensure

that we had followed all our procedures, that the report itself was

accurate, that we conveyed all the information correctly, that the

findings and conclusions and recommendations met our standards.

It was obviously also reviewed at the highest levels of the agency.

The head of our methodology department reviewed all of the data

and all the methodology that we used to make the conclusions that

we made. It has been thoroughly vetted.

On top of that, as you suggested, the Courts did have multiple

opportunities to look at the material, and we have made numerous

changes. We have made three kinds of changes: one, we have made

some minor changes for things that—you know, technical corrections, things that we mislabeled. We mislabeled a couple photographs and some buildings, things like that that always crop up,

and the assurance process is designed to get at those kinds of mistakes.

We made changes to the report to add some context as a courtesy

to the Courts, because they felt that because we weren’t handling

certain kinds of objectives, that additional context might be necessary. And then we made some changes on behalf of the judiciary

to update some information that had changed over time. But none

of that changed our findings, our conclusions, and our recommendations.

Ms. NORTON. One of the challenges to your work was how you

chose the courts that were highlighted in the report. How did you

choose the courts when you conduct your site visits? Were there

courthouses that were fully occupied and busy? How did you decide

which courts to visit?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. GAO always tries to do site visits; it is one of

the things that we do. We get out in the field. It is one of the

things we add value to for Congress, finding out what is going on

out in the field, so that we can understand issues, not just here in

Washington. And we felt that for this particular report it would be

useful, since the question being asked was essentially why did the

rent increase and what are the trends in the rent increases, to go

out and look at those districts where the rent had actually increased. And that is the principal driver behind the decisions that

we made.

We also looked at other districts where new courthouses were

being constructed, and a couple where courthouses were not being

constructed as well.

Mr. SHUSTER. Ms. Norton, let me move on and let these other

folks get a question in here, then we will come back. Since you

have a number of questions, I will give you another crack at it.

Mr. Kuhl.

Mr. KUHL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
14

Mr. Goldstein, just a couple questions. Number one, from my our

overview and look, you were aware of the request of Judiciary to

have a permanent rent exemption?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. KUHL. What would happen to the Federal Building Fund if

in fact that exemption were granted?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Well, we testified last June and have long held

the position that rent exemptions of any kind to the Federal Building Fund really have a very negative impact on the ability of the

Fund to generate capital for investment in other government buildings. As you know, GAO already has real property as a high risk

item which we have carried for a number of years, since 2003.

We think that there are a lot of issues and problems with respect

to real property in the Federal Government, and any diminution of

the funds going into it that a rent exemption like this would cause

would further exacerbate the fund and create problems in terms of

being able to renovate Federal property, to be able to effectively

deal with its problems.

Mr. KUHL. What percentage of the Fund is the Judiciary’s contribution?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. My understanding is——

Mr. KUHL. As far as overall income?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. My understanding is that it is about 15 percent,

but that it gets out about 40 percent.

Mr. KUHL. OK. So there would——

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. In fact, the Chairman made that particular point

last year at the hearing.

Mr. KUHL. OK. Question for you. You obviously, in the report,

mentioned going and visiting several of these sites. Is there a

standard percentage square foot basis per person that is acceptable, say, in any courtroom?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. There is a Design Guide that sets out how much

space various components in the building are allowed, such as

judges’ chambers and courtrooms, and they vary even between the

kinds of courtrooms, whether it is a magistrate or a bankruptcy

courtroom or the like. So there are very set numbers for all of those

kinds of things, right down to square feet, and also discusses the

kinds of finishes that are allowed in all these various facilities.

Mr. KUHL. In any of your visits did you find any facilities that

were over-utilized?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. We did find some courthouses that were at capacity. We also found a number of courthouses that were not at capacity; some significantly under capacity. However, the courts——

Mr. KUHL. Could you share some of those examples with the

Committee, what facilities you found, say, underutilized?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Sure. Some of the courthouses that had extra

courtrooms that we saw—and I can supply this more fully for the

record—were—well, let me put it this way. Of the 14 courthouses

we visited, we found 10 that had unassigned courtrooms and chambers, and not just the newer courthouses. For example, the courthouse in Baltimore, which was built in the 1970’s, had four magistrate courtrooms that were being used for storage, the large special proceedings courtroom was unassigned, and two appeals courtrooms that had not been used for that purpose for years.
15

At the Union Station Courthouse in Tacoma, Washington, we

found a number of unassigned courtrooms and chamber suits. One

of the courtrooms there was being used by the U.S. Trustees, which

is not a part of the Federal Judiciary, and, until recently, two of

those chambers were being used by local members of Congress, but

at the time of our visit those chambers were completely empty.

In the Walsh Courthouse in Tucson, Arizona, we found that there

were only two bankruptcy judges currently assigned to the entire

courthouse, which had previously housed the entire district court.

In Seattle, the judiciary had enough courtrooms and chambers

for one bankruptcy judge to have courtrooms and chambers in both

the Seattle courthouse and the Tacoma courthouse 30 miles away.

He had a combined 8,000 square feet.

Those are some others. We have many such examples, sir.

Mr. KUHL. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Mr. SHUSTER. Just a quick follow-up on Mr. Kuhl’s question. Do

the courts have a standard they use for space for people? I know

there is an OSHA standard, and I don’t know what that is. In the

Congress, we are exempt from that, so we don’t give people enough

people to work, we use smaller spaces. So I just wondered is there

a standard that the Courts use for space in the Design Guide, and

how does that compare to commercial businesses, private industry?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. I will have to get back to you for the record, or

you may ask GSA. I don’t have the specifics of it.

I do know that GSA and the Courts have worked together to try

to ensure that space is reasonable and functional, and to try to contain costs, but there are also a number of other things that the Design Guide does not cover, as we indicate in our testimony, such

as space allocation for appeals court judges or senior judges, that

we feel would help the districts, particularly. A number of the folks

that we talked to out in the districts said that having some kind

of space allocation set for these judges and these courtrooms would

help them manage space better.

Mr. SHUSTER. OK. Thank you.

Mr. Davis, the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. DAVIS. When I first was led to the Congress, I sought perhaps maybe opening an office in one of the counties that had a Federal building, and we checked with the Federal building to check

on the cost involved, and it was really too expensive for us to be

able to rent office space from GSA in the Federal courthouse.

I know when you look at the budget there are several things that

you have to provide. You provide utilities, you provide maintenance, and obviously the construction costs, capital outlay, which

we make appropriations for. But what I became concerned about—

not concerned, what I wondered about was whether or not—and I

know you have overhead, you have to pay for employees. You have

got to keep GSA in operations, obviously.

But we appropriate a lot of money here directed to General Services Administration, and I am concerned are you looking at the

rental properties, and that is basically what it is, even though it

is owned by the Federal Government. Are we looking at rental

properties as a way to make a profit from other agencies, since we

are all one big—I mean, we are all part of the Government, but are
16

you using your ability to charge rents that would create a profit,

bottom line, for GSA’s operating expense?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. We have never specifically looked at that question, sir, and you might ask that of GSA. But the Federal Buildings

Fund was designed in the 1970’s to try and get government agencies under GSA to account for their space needs and to pay for

them, rather than just not having to sort of feel the pain, if you

will, of getting any space that they want in order to assure some

accountability.

Mr. DAVIS. I yield back.

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you.

Ms. Norton, do you want another?

Ms. NORTON. I just have one more question, Mr. Chairman.

Based on your analysis, are the Courts a ‘‘profit center’’ for GSA,

as stated in the Courts’ year-end report?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. We did not specifically look at that question, so

I cannot answer it directly. But we did not find, in any of the

things that we examined, that there is any notion of that.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, here is new construction in courthouses. This begins in 1991. And the reason I point this out, Mr.

Chairman, is because I have been on this Committee since 1991,

and I say, without fear of contradiction, that all we authorized for

construction are courthouses. Yes occasionally there is a Federal

building of some kind. We authorized the transportation building

after 30 years, when it was struggling to get a new building.

But in effect, the one kind of construction that Congress has been

willing consistently to do are courthouses, rather than the construction that agencies beg for throughout the Country. You had

the figures, I think, about the number of courthouses. Having sat

through construction of nothing but courthouses, it is hard for me

to believe that anybody is paying for courthouses except other Federal agencies, who pay into the—whose rents go into the Building

Fund and are then used to construct what? Courthouses.

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. As you mentioned yourself last year, roughly 15

percent of the funds of the Courts, but they get about 40 percent

back. The other point that is well worth mentioning is that between 1990 and 2006 there were only four years in which Congress

did not provide additional funds to the Federal Buildings Fund, so

that it is not simply a matter of the judiciary’s own appropriations.

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. Again, can you talk just a little bit, before we close, in the interviews, what went on in the interviews?

When you had an interview, who was in there? You were speaking

to people individually?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. We did a number of kind of interviews. We did

walk-throughs, we did tours of every courthouse we went to.

Mr. SHUSTER. And you went to 14 courthouses, right?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Of the 14—right, in all the districts we went to.

I think it was six or seven districts. And we typically would have

a tour of the courthouses that we were going to look at with GSA,

because they had the keys, and court officials. And those court officials ranged, depending on the courts we were in, from district

clerks and circuit executives and judges of all kinds. We talked to

magistrate judges, bankruptcy judges, district judges, a whole variety of folks. We talked to folks at the circuit levels as well.
17

So we did the tours and got a lot of information that way. Then

we also had more formal interviews afterwards. We went back to

conference rooms and sat down and asked a lot of questions. We

typically were there for a couple days.

Mr. SHUSTER. One-on-one or were they groups when you had the

formal interviews?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. It varied. Sometimes it was one person, sometimes it would be two or more. GAO does all of its interviews with

at least two GAO staff, and those GAO staff always take notes. Our

conversations were not casual, they were formal in nature. After

our interviews were done, the GAO staff taking the notes compare

them, a third GAO staff person looks at them as well. Once they

are written up, based on the notes—we have a number of processes

and procedures that we go through to assure the integrity of the

interviews we take.

Mr. SHUSTER. And did you say that there were officials from the

Judiciary that were in there that were trying to change answers,

did I hear you say?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. When we first began this job for you, we went

to a couple courthouses that were in this part of the country, and

unbeknownst to us—because we had not invited them, but apparently the courts maybe did—some officials from the Administrative

Office attended, and we found their attendance to be very disruptive, so we asked for all future visits that we went on that those

officials not join us so we could be able to do our interviews and

conduct our inquiry unimpeded and independently.

Mr. SHUSTER. OK, thank you. And how long have you been working for GAO and doing these kinds of studies

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. I have been at GAO for about six years, sir.

Mr. SHUSTER. Six years.

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. But I have been doing public service for more

than 20.

Mr. SHUSTER. And, in your opinion, you feel this study was as

fair and unbiased and straightforward as could possibly be?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Yes, sir. It followed all of our procedures and

policies, and was reviewed, as I mentioned earlier, not only through

our normal processes but, because of the concerns the judiciary

had, it received even greater scrutiny.

Mr. SHUSTER. And not just one group reviewed yours, but you

had a second or a third group came in too?

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. That is correct. There were two independent

teams, not just one, in this instance.

Mr. SHUSTER. OK. Well, thank you, Mr. Goldstein. I appreciate

your being here today, and I am sure we will be speaking to you

in the future.

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Ms. Norton.

Mr. SHUSTER. With that, we will invite the second panel to come

to the table.

We are going to have votes in about 20 minutes, so I am sure

we can get through the second panel’s testimony, and we will go

from there.

So Mr. Winstead and Judge Roth, please.
18

We are joined today by the Honorable Jane Roth, who sits on the

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and also

serves as the Chair of the Judiciary Conference’s Committee on Security and Facilities; and also Mr. David Winstead, who is the

Commissioner of General Services Administration Public Building

Service.

I am certain that our second panel will provide us with insight,

and maybe differing opinions, on the GAO report.

So, with that, Judge Roth, would you go ahead and proceed?

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JANE R. ROTH, JUDGE,

THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, CHAIR, COMMITTEE

ON SPACE AND FACILITIES; THE HONORABLE DAVID L.

WINSTEAD, COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC BUILDING SERVICE,

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; ACCOMPANIED BY

ROBERT ANDRUKONIS, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR COURTHOUSE PROGRAMS, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

Judge ROTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the

GAO study of the Judiciary’s growing rental obligation.

The Judiciary is grateful to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for supporting and furthering the administration of

justice through the authorization of new courthouse construction

and renovation projects necessitated in recent years by workload,

growth, and security requirements.

I would like to note at the outset that we did not know until late

in the study that GAO had dropped its original number one objective: to review how GSA calculates the rent bills. GAO has not addressed the fundamental question of whether GSA’s commercially

equivalent pricing practices developed for office buildings are appropriate for special purpose buildings such as courthouses.

There was no assessment of how existing practices impact rent

costs over the long term. Addressing both of these questions we believe would have provided necessary information to the Committee

with regard to our request for rent relief.

It is important to understand that we need the additional space

we have requested. The Judiciary’s workload and consequent need

for additional judges and staff are growing due to many factors, including the increased Federalization of crimes, a proliferation of

multi-defendant trials, and growth in immigration-related and drug

trafficking proceedings.

Security requirements also increased substantially following

Oklahoma City and 9/11, and due to the violent nature of many of

the criminal offenses we try. A modernization and expansion program was therefore critical to provide adequate facilities for the

Federal courts to serve their vital public purpose.

The Judiciary understands that courthouse construction and renovation will cause rents to increase, as highlighted in GAO’s study.

However, since 1985, GSA’s rent charges have grown at twice the

rate as the increase in square footage. Using the GPI Index to adjust for inflation, rent increased 333 percent, while square footage

increased only 166 percent. GAO’s draft report highlighted a six

year period, with 27 percent rent growth, 19 percent of which was

shell rent, and contrasted that to 19 percent growth in new space.
19

This short time frame was too limited and does not present an

accurate picture for the Committee. The 20 year analysis during

which rent grew at double the rate of new space is a more meaningful statistic and reflects our concern that rent has taken up an

increasingly larger proportion of our budget over the years. The

longer look also clarifies the fact that from year to year the greatest part of our rent bill is for courthouses already in our inventory.

The Judiciary’s primary rent concern is that GSA does not price

courthouses appropriately. GSA prices the Judiciary’s rent as if the

Judiciary were a small tenant on a five-year lease in a speculatively built office building. This makes no sense given the true circumstances of our occupancy. The Judiciary is the long-term tenant

for whom a building is constructed. Typically a build-to-suit commercial tenant enters into a long-term lease and enjoys a low longterm level rent reflective of the cost to finance the building over 25

or more years.

Of equal concern to us is whether GSA is in fact calculating our

rent accurately. We had hoped the GAO might corroborate and

gage the extent of inaccuracies we have recently discovered in rent

billings. Although the Judiciary is only at the beginning of a rent

validation effort, in 15 buildings alone we have identified annual

overcharges amounting to approximately $38 million. We brought

these to the attention of GAO, but they were not addressed in the

report.

Another objective of the GAO study was to identify what challenges, if any, the Judiciary faces in managing costs associated

with its space needs. In answering this question, GAO did not analyze the factors that dictate judicial space need and did not ask a

single Judiciary official with policy-making responsibility what they

believe the challenges to be. The GAO conclusions, therefore, fail

to address some of the more significant planning challenges we

face, such as planning for expected growth, the intractability of a

space decision once it is made, and an inventory containing obsolete facilities that do not meet modern technological and security

needs.

Notwithstanding the concerns I have mentioned, we find the

GAO’s recommendations are consistent with efforts we already

have underway to control rent costs. The tracking process recommended by GAO is dependent on GSA providing data in a way

that will lead to meaningful analysis. We are continuing to work

with GSA to complete the measurement and categorization of space

assignments by court component so that they can fully analyze and

track trends as suggested.

We also have a number of space management efforts underway

which may be of interest to the Committee. We are imposing tighter budget control and rent caps on space decisions made by circuit

judicial counsels; we are making changes to the U.S. Courts Design

Guide that will reduce construction costs by about 8 percent; we

are retooling our long-range facilities planning process to introduce

life-cycle cost benefit analysis into the evaluation of housing alternatives; we will continue our rent validation initiative with GSA;

and the Judiciary is conducting a comprehensive study of courtroom utilization.
20

We will continue to improve our facilities planning and management processes to control costs, but these efforts cannot reduce in

a substantial way the Judiciary’s total rent payments for hundreds

of existing courthouse facilities across the Country. Only a reduction in rent charges can have any significant impact on the Judiciary’s rent bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity to testify. We

deeply appreciate the Committee’s recognition of the Judiciary’s

need for adequate and secure facilities in which to conduct the

work of the courts, and I would be very happy to answer any questions the Committee may have.

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much, Judge.

Commissioner Winstead.

Mr. WINSTEAD. Chairman Shuster, Ranking Minority Member

Congressman Norton, and Congressman Kuhl, I am very pleased to

be here. I am David Winstead, Commissioner of the Public Building Service at GSA, and I am here to share with you both the response to the GAO report, as well as to share with you a little bit

about the partnership that we have with the Courts, which is very,

very important to us in terms of some of the objectives you outlined

both in your opening comments, in terms of saving costs, containing costs in the design of new courthouses, and also managing and

trying to work with the Courts in terms of their rent.

As you know, since 1995, GSA—and my full report is for the

record, please, full testimony.

Since 1995, GSA has embarked on the largest courthouse development program in 50 years. In an effort to uphold a lot of the Federal principles of architecture as espoused by Senator Moynihan

and others, we have attempted to return the public buildings to the

real prominence that they once had and creating a portfolio of integral public structures that both represent the public and the importance of the judicial process.

Many circumstances, however, have altered the way these buildings have been shaped since 1995. The program has attempted to

strategically meet both financial accountability to both the present

OMB, Congress, and the taxpayer, who is ultimately supporting

our housing needs, both the Judiciary and the other Federal agencies.

We have done this with difficulty in terms of the construction escalations we have received and have been living with over the last

five years, and these have really impacted all of our construction

and development in recent years. The difficulty of estimating and

forecasting funding requests to meet that cyclical change has been

a challenge, but this Committee has been responsive in terms of its

work in March in approving the 2007 Public Buildings Program.

But the evolution of modern courthouse design has also required

us to be more efficient than ever before, and the last three concepts

that have been approved by GSA and the Courts—both Nashville,

Salt Lake City, and Austin—I think show an attention to the

issues and concerns you have expressed in terms of more efficient

courthouses and greater control of efficiency in terms of utilization

and operation. We believe that these strategic decisions which are

being implemented close to the objectives that you have outlined

before.
21

In terms of the GAO report, the three findings in the report really address the explanation and address the Judiciary’s rent issues,

both finding increased space needs as a major cost, stricter security

needs, and rising energy costs. We agree that the primary factor

underlying the Judiciary’s rent increases has and will continue to

be the increase in space needs, and that has been both the GAO

testimony and reflected in your opening statement, the facts on

that.

We have, from 2000 to 2005, on the space seen about 19 percent

increase, and I think the Judicial Conference has long recognized

that the need to return certain facilities that are not fully used for

full-time resident judges, however, will only release about 15 courthouses, and we believe that this is one area in terms of space utilization, in terms of saving additional space.

The GSA also believes another opportunity to reduce cost is to

enhance space utilization by taking a serious look at courtroom

sharing. As an attorney, obviously, I am very cognizant of the

availability of courtroom for the judge in terms of moving parties

to settlement, but we also think, over the last decade, recommendations have been made in terms of space sharing, wherever possible,

should be made, and, frankly, to this date, very little progress has

been made.

Security. The second finding in the GAO report is the rising cost

of security, and it has become a disproportionate part of the cost

of rent, some 130 percent increase from 2000 to 2005. These security costs are in fact rising for all of our customers, and we are actively involved in reducing these costs wherever possible.

But security enhancements such as progressive collapse have increased building costs by up to 8 percent in terms of the courtroom

cases. We are finding a great deal of success when we integrate security requirements early in the design process in the form of serving for security setbacks, and we also are working to blend hurricane and security measures wherever possible.

The third factor that the GAO report addressed is, again, energy

costs, which, unfortunately, have been a disproportionate rise of

the overall rent and our cost factors, some 45 percent increase from

2000 to 2005. GSA has been aggressively working to explore use of

new technology in both our purchase as well as use of fossil fuels.

We have achieved about a 30 percent average reduction in energy

consumption in recent years, over the past decade, and will continue to focus on efficient HVAC, lighting systems, and instituting

more efficient operating procedures to save cost on the utility side.

The GAO recommendations, they made two in this report. The

first is that GSA and the AOC should work together to both track

rent and square foot data in a way that enables the Courts to attract the effect of their space management decisions. The second

recommendation is for the AOC to work with the Judicial Conference to create incentives for district and circuit judges and circuit executives to better manage space and pace consumption more

efficiently.

With respect to the first recommendation, we believe that we

have programs and systems in place to assist the AOC in tracking

rent and square footage trends on an annual basis, as well as assist in revising the Cost Design Guide. In a recent meeting with
22

Judge Roth and her committee, we worked to refine that, and

where we do feel that the cost savings could be 8 percent, in one

specific project we have identified 2 percent savings in a planning

sense for a new courthouse.

GSA has informed their customer, and we do inform the customer of rent implications as early as possible on two levels: both

the project level, with rent implication documented in our occupancy agreement, and at the aggregate level, where GSA provides

a detailed projection of rent costs two years in advance, known as

the rent estimate, which is also submitted to the OMB.

In the second recommendation the GAO has met, and that is

working with the Judicial Conference to create incentives for judicial districts and circuit executives to better manage space more efficiently, we think that this is essential. Today, at the project level,

judges and local court personnel may make decisions about project

scope without full regard to long-term impact on rent. We will support and continue to focus on this and work with the AOC to connect local space decisions with the accountability for who is paying

for these decisions.

I would now like to share with you what other more immediate

steps we have taken in the past year to work with the Judiciary.

We have made progress in three areas: partnering, billing accuracy,

and lease renegotiation. GSA has partnered with the Judiciary on

three levels.

At the executive level we have new leadership, both at GSA with

Administrator Doan and myself, who came on board at the end of

2005, as well as the Judicial Conference. I think Jim Duff and obviously the new Chief Justice are in place. And I have talked to

Judge Roth, and we are really energized to try to continue this

partnership to control these costs, and I think you will see that

moving out even more. In fact, Monday and Tuesday we are meeting again.

We reestablished partnering sessions. We got together on April

the 11th to review all the projects in the planning stage at GSA

for the new courts, and next week we get together on Monday and

Tuesday with the Courts to work together on both space analysis

and planning methodology. At the project level, every new courthouse has a formal partnering meeting that includes the GSA

project team, the Court project team, design architectures, and

also, eventually, the general contractor.

The other concern raised by GAO and also by Judge Roth is the

rent bill accuracy. Another area of progress in this regard is due

to the volume. We do admit that some human factors were involved

in the complexity of our system. There have been some errors. If

you calculate the percent of those errors and the reimbursements

we paid to the Judiciary, it is about one and a half percent of their

total rent bill.

Last year we reviewed about 2,500 bills and assignments for rent

accuracy, and the Judiciary has recently asked us to review 40 appraisals used by the GSA to calculate rent and owned space for accuracy. We are formally involved in that and will continue to focus

on these appraisal issues.

Also in the renegotiation level, which is a third area that we

have addressed, in renegotiating leases, GSA has worked with the
23

AOC to develop a methodology for determining which leases should

be considered for renegotiation. We have identified 14 thus far, and

we are doing that with other clients as well and achieving some

success in savings. So we do hope that this will continue to yield

areas of cost savings for the Judiciary.

Mr. Chairman, Committee, I would like to conclude by just mentioning, in summary, the actions—because all of you all, in your

opening statements, addressed the directions of this Committee

last year and focusing in on this partnership with the Courts and

trying to save costs and trying to help them control and monitor

and manage their rent bill.

Since May of last year and the hearing which was here in June,

we actually have proposed four different initiatives: closing unused

court facilities, which could save somewhere in the neighborhood of

$13 million; extending the amortization period of tenant improvements, we can save about $14 million; reducing the tenant improvement costs, which is substantial, as highlighted by GAO,

which would save about $2 million; and also renegotiating leases,

as I mentioned before.

To date, unfortunately, we have not been able to succeed pushing

forward on the first three. However, the Judiciary is working with

us on renegotiating leases, and we have refined just very recently,

and are implementing, Design Guide changes, which should save

costs as well.

In conclusion, I think there were several issues that Delegate

Norton raised. We are also, since last year, we have had a thirdparty billing contractor that is reviewing our awards. We have been

very involved with obviously the Courts and the rent guide, and we

continue to push for renegotiation of leases.

The last thing I would like to conclude on, on April the 11th we

got together with our chief architect and his design people and the

head of the Courts program, and as a result of a partnership that

Judge Roth and six Federal judges had, we committed in three

areas to work, both asset management planning with a working

group to coordinate new planning and mission-related requirements and security establishing a working group to look at the

GSA design security tool and to try to reduce those costs, and also

in terms of a selection process.

And this is very, very important—we are going to enhance the

GSA process of site selection in two ways: prior to designating a

panel member, we will agree to have a pre-meeting with the Courts

in administrative offices at building sites, and we will also make

sure that we are clarifying the role of both the Design Excellence

process and our GSA involvement in that. So those are three new

initiatives just taken since the April meeting partnering with the

Courts.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you all for your leadership in this

issue, and I would be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much. We are managing our time

clock up here. Hold on one second.

OK, here is what we are going to do. I have to go vote, and I

am going to recognize Ms. Norton to ask her questions, and when

she is finished, then we are going to go into recess. And I will be

back here at about 12:45 I will be back, and I will end up answer-
24

ing my questions, and whoever else is here. So, with that, I ask

unanimous consent that Ms. Norton is able to proceed with her

questioning, and we will stand in recess when she concludes. So,

with that, I recognize Ms. Norton for her questions.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Judge Roth, one of the things we need to do is to find a way to

get around the repetitive and circular back and forth. I am very

unused to it. You know, when I deal with my friends on the other

side of the aisle, if we want something to be done, we ultimately

get down to what each of us can do to get it done, and everybody

wants a win-win, so somebody gives up a little on each side, and

that is the only way we are able to do legislation.

You can see that the Committee feels strongly that the Court has

to do its part and that the present circumstance of continuing to

study or arguing for the same configuration just doesn’t work, and

what it is doing to me is inspiring me to just go into legislative

mode. I am trying one more time, but I do want everyone to know

what the mood is here on the Hill. We are fraught with issues of

how to simply get through the appropriation process because the

cuts are so huge.

Mr. Winstead, when I went to the so-called THUD, the appropriation for your committee, there wasn’t a lot of controversy there.

The Democrats and the Republicans didn’t have a lot of controversy

because the allocation for that subcommittee, which GSA shares

with five or six other agencies, had been cut something like $600

million. So everyone could see that there just wasn’t the money for

one side to say why don’t you fund my X, Y, or Z.

Ultimately, there was an amendment on the floor just to get

enough for Amtrak to keep going. Amtrak runs through 43 States.

That is one of the few amendments everybody knows you could

pass on the floor for more money. One does have to understand

that that is where the Congress is.

So despite the fact that I am very concerned, because I have been

through this so many times, I enjoy being in the Congress because

I enjoy solving problems. I don’t enjoy gotcha, I enjoy OK, how—

you know, it is like a crossword puzzle for me. And nothing can be

more interesting than the whole notion of, well, you know, courtroom sharing, well, maybe I don’t want to do as much sharing as

you want to do, but I can see that maybe there is something I can

do.

Without that kind of problem-solving mode, it is not that we are

going to continue like this, it is that there is going to be legislation.

And I can tell you that there is nobody in the Congress, nobody,

who would find this anything but an easy bill to pass, a bill mandating the kind of savings, doing the kinds of things this Committee has asked to be done now for more than 10 years. We would

love that, because then we can go home on both sides of the aisle

and show to the American people we are saving on building courthouses.

As much as people want there to be courthouses, let me be clear,

it is nobody’s priority up here except this Subcommittee. Nobody’s.

Nobody cares but us. And we care because we build courthouses,

and want to build courthouses. We build courthouses in one way.

Congress does not appropriate money for courthouses. We build—
25

Congress does authorize courthouses. Courthouses to be paid for

out of the Federal Building Fund. Most of the agencies in that

Fund are in rented buildings, they never get a new building.

So they pay rent year after year in order to build somebody else

a building. Guess who that turns out to be? The Courts. So, if anything, this has been upside down. The Courts have had construction of buildings where it is very hard to find a Federal agency that

isn’t in a building that it hasn’t been in for decades. And the

Courts’ courthouses have been constructed out of the rent paid by

Federal agencies, not because we appropriate money. We do so

very, very rarely. And this is the last thing Congress would do

today.

Having said that, I want to find a way to get through these

issues that keep coming up. Let’s take sharing. This notion that

has been put forward by the Courts, that this one courtroom is essential for the administration of judges and so forth. I am pleased

to see that the Courts have been more analytical than that themselves. We look back at the Design Guide, the first one published

in 1979, and, Judge Roth, I want you, I want Mr. Winstead to see

what the Design Guide said.

This is Judicial Conference. Knows all about the Constitution

and the administration of justice. And here I am quoting: ‘‘In accordance with the October 1971 Judicial Conference Resolution, no

judge of a multiple judge court will have the exclusive use of any

particular courtroom. It is contemplated that a multiple judge

courthouse will contain various size courtrooms. Each courtroom

will be available on a case assignment basis to any judge.’’

Has the Judicial Conference amended this principle, Judge Roth?

Judge ROTH. We are undertaking at this time, as you probably

know, a courtroom utilization study. We have moved up the completion date of that study, and I think it would be inappropriate

for me to indicate at this point what the future position of the Judicial Conference will be, since that will depend upon the results of

that study.

Ms. NORTON. Of course, I was asking you about the underlying

principle. And the Conference itself, the Judicial Conference apparently has not changed the principle. I appreciate that there is yet

another study going on. You see, you keep studying something to

death and you get legislation.

There was some testimony, we were pleased to hear, that sharing

did occur in certain courts, such as Sioux City, Nashville, some

courts in Illinois were named. Did the Judicial Conference receive

complaints about trial delays in these courts where some sharing

in fact was going on?

Judge ROTH. I do not know.

Ms. NORTON. That is something you might want to look at, because if we had that kind of information, it could help us know. I

would be the first with you to say justice delayed is justice denied.

Our court system is inherently slowed; that is the way the framers

wanted it. But we certainly don’t want to slow things up any more

than they ordinarily would be.

Judge Roth, the AOC submitted to the Committee a list of

changes made to the Design Guide. These changes apparently were

intended to save money. We looked at the section describing excep-
26

tions, and one exception seemed very peculiar for judges to be concerned with. It had to do with the plumbing standard for an office.

Why should the plumbing standards be changed?

The first thing that occurred to the Committee was—indeed, staff

was told that closets have been designed in such a way as to include plumbing so that they can, and, indeed, some have already

been, converted to private showers. Are private showers being built

for judges in any courthouses?

Judge ROTH. No, not that I know of.

Ms. NORTON. Why, then, is the Court interested—well, of course,

we were told differently, but perhaps you have no information to

that regard. But let me ask you, why, then, was anybody at the

level of the Design Guide have any interest in plumbing standards

or for an office——

Judge ROTH. That is a matter——

Ms. NORTON. Now, for an office. Not for the courthouse, for an

office.

Judge ROTH. Right. That is a matter of construction costs. In constructing the building, if you can limit the number of pipes run in

the building, it cuts down on the cost of construction. Therefore, we

felt it was appropriate to take steps to limit the plumbing pipe

runs as a cost containing factor.

Ms. NORTON. So you have been more interested in plumbing than

you have in sharing courthouses. I don’t know, Mr. Winstead or

GSA will tell me that plumbing standards for particular offices, as

opposed to a building. You might in fact convince me if you were

talking about fewer pipes throughout the building, but this is in an

office.

It is very interesting that you all have gotten down to the point

of looking at plumbing standards, because you are rather far afield

from what we would expect you to have any sense of. That is why

the Committee is very sensitive, because we lived through the era

of chandeliers and high ceilings and private kitchens and so forth.

So that is why I asked the question.

I think people ought to alert people that if you really to send

Congress up the wall, you just let Congress find out that judges

have private showers in their chambers.

Judge ROTH. Private showers are not permitted in the Design

Guide and they are no longer——

Ms. NORTON. This was, of course, for an exception, that is why

it caught our attention. So obviously it is not in the Design Guide.

But then why in the world would the Design Guide mention it as

an exception? Don’t you think it should be taken out of the Design

Guide until you consult with GSA?

Judge ROTH. Absolutely.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you.

What is the status of the two year moratorium?

Judge ROTH. The two-year moratorium expires in September of

this year. Therefore, the Design Guide revisions will, for the most

part, have been made by then. So, when we move forward with construction projects of sorely needed courthouses, we will incorporate

the new guidelines into new planning.

Ms. NORTON. So are you going to extend the moratorium?
27

Judge ROTH. No, we are not. The moratorium was in place so

that we did not design new courthouses under the old Design

Guide. Now that those revisions are about completed, we will be

able to move forward with designing projects in areas we have

not——

Ms. NORTON. Well, obviously, the Committee isn’t going to authorize any courthouses until it sees what the changes are and how

much money they are going to save. So that would be my next

question. If there is no moratorium, then, of course, I don’t know

what people are designing.

Judge ROTH. Well, there are 35 projects on the list that were

stopped by the moratorium. We will proceed to move forward year

by year, submitting new projects for design as we work cooperatively with GSA to determine which projects should have priority

on the list.

Ms. NORTON. Let me go back to this 84 percent notion. You

heard me quote from the 1996 report. I quoted from the report because it encapsulizes the frustration of the Committee. That is 10

years ago. Virtually all of those recommendations, Judge Roth, are

still in play.

Judge ROTH. You know, I am very happy to say that we reformulated and reduced the overall staffing guide, so that what was 84

percent is now 100 percent. And the fact that we, after that, tried

to staff at 100 percent reflects the reduction in the staffing formula

that was made. So that the later 100 percent is equivalent to the

earlier 84 percent.

Ms. NORTON. Well, I guess, then, we are not talking about the

same thing. You have moved to a 100 percent——

Judge ROTH. With the new formula, yes.

Ms. NORTON. This is what I mean. A hundred percent standard

assumes that all the staff will be on board the day the courthouse

opens. That is the long and short of all I am talking about. That

is what we mean by 84 percent versus 100 percent. And we see

that 100 percent standard as having forced an increase in the

amount of space.

Judge ROTH. Well, I hope you realize now that there are two different formulas and they have no relationship to each other.

Ms. NORTON. I hope you realize what the 84 percent means to

this Committee, because I have just described what it means to

this Committee. Now, if you want to—this is what you did with the

GAO report. You can’t change the subject. The 1996 report I was

talking about comes from the AOC’s report. That report recommended 84 percent for planning purposes, and that means, that

has to do with the staff that will be in the new courthouse. The

staff that will be on board when the facility opens, Judge Roth. You

can’t say what you mean. This is what the AOC meant. That is

what this Committee means.

So you are talking about two different things. That is not what

the AOC was talking about. I have just described what the AOC

was talking bout. What the AOC was talking about was staff that

will be on board when the new facility opens. That is what 84 percent meant. You have proceeded to build on 100 percent basis.

Judge ROTH. But on a different formula, yes.

Ms. NORTON. That has had an effect on——
28

Judge ROTH. On a reduced staffing formula we have built on 100

percent.

Ms. NORTON. Sorry?

Judge ROTH. On a reduced staffing formula, on a new formula established since 1996, the date you are speaking of. We have created

a new formula and new staffing——

Ms. NORTON. So fewer staff will be on board when the courthouse

opens. And, therefore, since fewer staff will be on board, the courthouse will have all staff on board when the courthouse opens.

Judge ROTH. Under the reduced formula, yes.

Ms. NORTON. I mean, you must think that we are not in the

building business.

Judge ROTH. Under the reduced formula.

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Winstead, what does the 84 percent and 100

percent mean in GAO terms? I am sorry, in GSA terms.

Mr. WINSTEAD. Well, in terms of the 84 percent was the original,

obviously, staffing—the 84 percent was the original staffing, and I

think the Judge is referring to the decreases in terms of the staffing, some 1800 staff over the last year. But in terms of the Design

Guide——

Ms. NORTON. What do you use when you plan a building, any

building?

Mr. WINSTEAD. We are using the standards in the Design Guide,

from the standpoint, yes.

Ms. NORTON. Meaning, the number that they have reduced staff

would be a very interesting thing to argue, but that is not what we

are talking about here. I am trying to deal only with what this

Committee deals with.

Mr. WINSTEAD. Right.

Ms. NORTON. And what this Committee—what the 84—and I am

asking you to describe what the 84 percent means versus 100 percent when we are talking about new construction.

Mr. WINSTEAD. Well, we are adhering to, both in the preplanning

phase in terms of the office and the courtroom space, which is

about 15 percent of the average courthouse, we are actually projecting based upon their staffing requirements, which are—and the 84

percent.

Madam Chair, the actual formula, the formula that the Judge

has mentioned is the reduced staffing level, which is the one that

we are utilizing in the pre-design work.

Ms. NORTON. The reduced staff level of what?

Mr. WINSTEAD. In terms of——

Ms. NORTON. I am interested in the following—and would somebody from GSA come to the table to speak? Perhaps it is too technical an issue. Eighty-four percent meaning for planning purposes,

assume 84 percent of the staff recommended for the new courthouse will be on board when the facility opens. That is what I understand it to mean.

Mr. WINSTEAD. Rob is in charge—if you would. As you requested,

Rob is the head of the courthouse program.

Ms. NORTON. Whatever amount of staff they have. Whatever

amount of staff they have, it assumes that 84 percent will be on

board.
29

Mr. ANDRUKONIS. Those projections assumed 84 percent staffing

what the projected 100 percent would be.

Ms. NORTON. Sorry, I can’t hear you at all.

Mr. ANDRUKONIS. I am sorry. The shift to 100 percent staffing,

from what we could see, resulted in larger square footage for the

buildings.

Ms. NORTON. That is all I want to make sure we understand,

that when you assume 100 percent will be on board, ergo, you need

more space. And you are saying that did result in increase in space

needs.

Mr. ANDRUKONIS. Yes, we saw the spaces increase when that

change occurred.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you.

Judge ROTH. Except we changed the formula, so that——

Ms. NORTON. You changed the formula to 100 percent.

Judge ROTH. But the staffing levels we reduced. We have a new

staffing formula, a reduced number.

Ms. NORTON. I don’t even know how to make that any clearer,

but I understand that. See, that is a different figure. We are trying

to compare apples to apples.

Judge ROTH. Yes. One hundred percent——

Ms. NORTON. We are pleased that you reduced the number of

people, but I don’t care if you had two people or 100 people or 1,000

people. The formula asks us, for building purposes, to assume how

many will be on board when the facility opens.

Judge ROTH. Under the new formula, 100 percent is equal to

what 84 percent was under the old formula.

[The information received follows:]
30
31

Ms. NORTON. Well, let us go on. I think we have an understanding of what happened. And GSA has clarified it, and maybe you

and I can get together on it, or somebody.

The staff from the AOC has supplied us with a list of courts that

do not have a full-time assigned judge, containing 63 courthouses.

GSA has a slightly higher number. Based on your testimony from

last year, courts from this list would be identified for closure. Have

any such courthouses been identified for closure?

Judge ROTH. The Judicial Conference, in March, passed a recommendation that we flag courthouses by using a formula based on

the work performed there and the cost of the courthouse to determine whether they are cost-effective. Now, these are statutorily

designated places of holding court. They are courthouses mostly in

very rural areas where, for accessibility to justice and for accessibility of jury pools, we have determined it is important to hold

court. There is a very strong feeling, I think, among members of

Congress that it is important to keep open some of these courthouses.

Since 1996 we have closed 17 courthouses that did not have resident judges. There are courthouses that now have been flagged for

further consideration. I discussed one of them with Mr. Oberstar

the other day, the courthouse in Fergus Falls, which, although it

is very small, conducts very important business in Northern Minnesota. I have here a list of the 17 courthouses we have closed

since 1996, which I will be happy to present to the Committee, and

I can assure you that we are, every year, reviewing the courthouses

to determine where nonresident facilities can be closed.

Ms. NORTON. Staff tells me that they have those 17, and that the

63 are in addition to those 17. That is what my question went to.

Judge ROTH. That is correct.

Ms. NORTON. I am very pleased that 17 have been closed, but

that is not the—the 63 I am talking about are a new list.

Judge ROTH. Yes. And it is very important that some of these

courthouses be kept open——

Ms. NORTON. Judge Roth, you will have no problem with me or

any member here if in fact we have a situation where a community

doesn’t have the kind of access to a courthouse; you will find everybody on both sides of the aisle particularly sensitive to rural areas

where in fact, if you have to travel too long and the rest of it. All

we need is the analysis.

You know, we are not going to give anybody carte blanche on

these 63 courthouses. If in fact there is a list of 63 courthouses that

do not have a full-time assigned judge, we need to know which ones

you think should be opened and which ones you think might in fact

be closed. Now, if you have a rationale for keeping all 63 of them

open, fine. We would like to have that too. But we don’t have that.

That is why I asked for that information. And we are going to get

that information.

And we are going to get that information or there are not going

to be any more new courthouses. I don’t care what committees you

go to in the House or Senate. Because all we have to do is go on

the floor and indicate that new courthouses are being built while

we are not doing what we want to do for the elderly and for children, and that just shuts that down right away.
32

We are the only ones that want to build courthouses, and we do

want to build them, but we don’t have any ammunition here. As

long as we can’t go back. You better believe we are not going to

go back to our colleagues in a rural area and say we are closing

down your courthouse. You better believe it. But we have a whole

bunch of members here who are part of a caucus who would be interested in notions of that kind, and they go on the floor and they

are trying to get us to in fact spend less money on every appropriation.

So I have got to be able to justify, Mr. Shuster has got to be able

to justify by saying, look, we are keeping this one open in No Name

Someplace in a State because people would have to travel. Yes, it

doesn’t have a full-time assigned judge. You ever heard of what the

framers did? They rode circuit. Yes, they don’t have a full-time assigned judge, but this needs to be open because, I don’t know, people have to travel 200—I don’t even know what the mileage is.

But we would be all open to receiving that, because we are not

going to try to shut down a courthouse. That is very hard to do.

So that is why the Court is in much better shape if they make the

recommendation and we look at it. But when we don’t have anything, then, of course, we are put in the position of being asked for

essentially the status quo. Well, we are at the end of the status

quo.

I am almost through here.

Mr. Winstead, you know what I feel about the GAO. See, the

Courts have been the hardest agency to deal with here, because the

Courts have assumed a position, an impossible position: that they

simply didn’t have to abide by the same rules everybody else has

to abide by. They literally have articulated a position, a nonsensical

position based on separation of powers that applies, of course, to

matters of the controversy or, for that matter, to all kinds of other

matters having to do with the law. But I tell you one thing, you

will never find it written that it has anything to do with what gets

built.

So I do want you to know as critical as we have been of the

Courts, we really do believe that GSA has been enablers, that they

have allowed the Courts—even though the Committee has been

very critical, certainly ever since I have been on the Committee, of

lavish spending by the Courts. You have not warned the Courts

that, 10 years after the report I quoted from, these people are going

to be running out of patience.

You have to carry these matters to the OMB, not the Courts essentially. You can imagine where the OMB would be on some of the

notions we have heard here about no sharing. You know, I really

don’t want the OMB to hear that there is any agency of the Federal

Government saying the kinds of things we have heard from the

Courts.

I want to ask you, though, the same question that I asked the

GAO regarding the Courts’ claim, and here I am going to quote

them. Quoting the GAO, that ‘‘Since 1985, rent increased 333 percent, adjusted for inflation, using the same CPI Index used by the

GAO. During this same period, square footage increased 166 percent. Non-inflation adjusted actual rent costs increased four times

as much as square footage.’’
33

So would you comment on that?

Mr. WINSTEAD. Madam Chairman, I would be happy to. First of

all, you know, your concern—obviously, the Judiciary is our biggest

client in the capital programs side, getting about 50 percent of recent capital programs in terms of revenue——

Ms. NORTON. It is your biggest client because that is all we build,

is courthouses.

Mr. WINSTEAD. I understand that. I understand your concern.

And as Commissioner over the last nine months, I have taken a

very close look at this, and I will address the rent question. But

I did want to mention that, you know, you are well aware of the

issues of parody with the Federal Building Funds with regards

with a rent exemption request. I mean, since 1990, the Courts have

received about 36 percent of the money from the Federal Building

Fund, while paying in about 11 percent. So they are getting a lot

more in return, obviously, than they are paying in rent. So I think

the rent exemption question, the GAO report, this Committee has

addressed, and I think we are committed to.

The real question I think you are raising is on the rent charge.

Over the last 20 years, the rent charged imposed by us in the calculation has achieved, with CPI adjustment, those increases, but I

think what you need to keep in mind is that the product, the courthouse product 20 years ago was very, very different than that then

we have seen in the last five years or ten years under Design Excellence. So I think in the last five years the GAO——

Ms. NORTON. The product is different in what way?

Mr. WINSTEAD. Both in terms of the Design Guide applications,

in terms of the tenant improvements and fixtures, in terms of what

the Design Excellence Program has delivered for the courts, and in

terms of major landmark public buildings. But if you actually look

at the GAO report from 2000 to 2005, the costs have not gone up

any greater than the square footage.

So I think, although from the 20 year period you see this great

increase, in terms of the last five years it is in parody with the

square footage increase. The courthouses are in fact bigger, the security costs have gone up. I mentioned in my testimony security

costs have gone up 140 percent. You know, energy costs have gone

up enormously in the last five years because of the cost of energy.

So all have in fact driven that rent figure to the level that is

quoted in the GAO report vis-a-vis the square footage.

Ms. NORTON. And this is, of course, why——

Mr. WINSTEAD. But I do want to mention that it is disturbing to

me as a new Commissioner to be before the Committee on an issue

dealing—such a major issue with our major client. We are working

in partnership with the Courts, and we will continue, Madam

Chairman, to focus in on design excellence both in terms of new

construction scoping, using this new Design Guide, which in the

case of several courts I know is going to save 2 to 8 percent when

implemented, in terms of construction costs. We are very focused

on that.

Ms. NORTON. I am sorry, what is save 2 to 8 percent?

Mr. WINSTEAD. If you apply—a new courthouse in Pennsylvania

that we are going to design—the new Design Guide, we are calculating there will be a saving in roughly 2 percent in cost. So we
34

are going to continue to focus in on both the scoping and contained

costs in these new courthouses going through the Design Excellence Program.

Ms. NORTON. Yes. When we sit with agencies—indeed, this needs

to be understood—their rent payments, they who get no new construction—which is virtually every Federal agency—their rent payments go up, don’t they, in keeping with commercial market rates?

Mr. WINSTEAD. Yes. That is correct.

Ms. NORTON. So as security increases for a building which the

Government doesn’t own and is renting, the agency has to pay out

of its budget, allocated by the Congress, these increases in rent

payments assessed by the GSA.

Mr. WINSTEAD. That is correct.

Ms. NORTON. And those rent payments then go to the Federal

Building Fund.

Mr. WINSTEAD. That is correct.

Ms. NORTON. Now, the Federal Building Fund is used to construct new courthouses and other new buildings. It is also used, is

it not, for repairs? What else is it used for?

Mr. WINSTEAD. It is used for major and minor repairs. About a

third of the money goes to new construction, about a third to minor

repairs for existing owned buildings, and about a third to major repairs, such as the Department of Interior in recent years.

Ms. NORTON. So the Courts get, of course, new courthouses, but

they also get whatever repairs they get——

Mr. WINSTEAD. Yes, they do.

Ms. NORTON.—they get from this Building Fund.

Mr. WINSTEAD. That is correct.

Ms. NORTON. Is there any agency, any single agency that gets—

what is the next—from the Building Fund you have just told us

what percentage the Courts get versus what percentage they give.

What is the next percentage? I know the DOD builds its own.

Mr. WINSTEAD. The IRS and FBI are two of the other major ones.

Ms. NORTON. Are they anywhere close to the Courts?

Mr. WINSTEAD. No. No.

Ms. NORTON. And we know DOD builds its own. They are separate and apart.

Mr. WINSTEAD. That is correct.

Ms. NORTON. So the lion’s share of the Building Fund, compared

to other agencies who also have to have their repairs out of this

Fund; if they ever get a new building, it has to come out of this

same Fund. And they don’t get—the Courts are mostly in—are almost always in owned space, as opposed to rental space.

Mr. WINSTEAD. Largely. There are some rental use courthouses,

but the majority——

Ms. NORTON. And the reason is it is a courthouse. So we don’t

rent courthouses.

Mr. WINSTEAD. Right.

Ms. NORTON. So the courthouses, unlike other agencies, all of

whom want a new building—the other people are in leased buildings, and they are paying into the Federal Building Fund in order

to get whatever they can get in repairs and whatever construction

we do—because we do not appropriate money for buildings for

courthouses, we, in fact, build out of this Fund that every agency
35

pays into through the rent they pay to the Federal Building Fund.

Is that right?

Mr. WINSTEAD. That is correct. The demand on the Federal

Building Fund is ever increasing, and the courthouse program is

assumed a big portion of that, but, as I mentioned earlier, I think

the focus of this Committee and the directives a year ago, I mentioned the improvements and the actions in containing costs

through both the Design Excellence Program and in terms of operating costs, and I think we will continue—you will soon see some

savings and results as a part of that. But you are absolutely correct, the demand and consumption of the capital money in the Federal Building Fund is dominated by the Courts currently.

Ms. NORTON. So it is really ass backwards, if you will forgive me,

about who gets what out of the Federal Building Fund. And if

agencies were to have a true understanding—they who are struggling just to keep alive in this budget period, who always complain

about rents and how come they are paying these increases—where

the lion’s share of the money would go, I think the complaints

would be heard all the way down Pennsylvania Avenue.

One more question. GSA has offered to renegotiate certain leases

for the Courts in order to save them money. That is something everybody always wants. Is this the first time GSA has offered to renegotiate leases for the Courts?

Mr. WINSTEAD. No. We are in the process, as I mentioned in my

testimony, of some 14 lease negotiations, and we actually have recommended a number of those, and we are proceeding to try to

achieve savings. We did, for the IRS, recently negotiate several

leases and got in the neighborhood of $700,000 annual savings.

Ms. NORTON. So in—of course, Courts have some personnel in

leased space.

Mr. WINSTEAD. Correct.

Ms. NORTON. And it is those leased space that you are trying to

renegotiate leases. Have there been any results from that? That is

one kind of quick and easy way to try to save some money.

Mr. WINSTEAD. Yes. We have actually—as I mentioned, we have

tried to look at—there are several conditions that you have to have.

The tenants have obviously got to be willing to continue to provide

the space——

Ms. NORTON. Sorry?

Mr. WINSTEAD. The tenant—we have actually, as I mentioned,

for the IRS we have offered about 14——

Ms. NORTON. No, I am talking about for the Courts.

Mr. WINSTEAD. No. We have offered 14 leases for renegotiation

with the Courts, and we keep moving to try to achieve reduction

through those negotiations.

Ms. NORTON. Have in fact any of the Court leases been renegotiated?

Mr. WINSTEAD. To date, no, but we are still very focused on that

with the Courts, and, obviously, their consent is needed in order to

renegotiate those leases as a party.

Ms. NORTON. I am really, really all mixed up here. If you are renegotiating the lease, then the Courts—you would already have

talked to the Courts.

Judge ROTH. We are working with GSA to accomplish this.
36

Ms. NORTON. But, I mean, renegotiating a lease doesn’t have

anything to do with the Courts. They don’t know what in the world

to do if you are renegotiating leases. I mean, I am really trying to

figure this out. If in fact a court can pay less money because GSA,

who alone knows how to renegotiate a lease—Norton doesn’t know

how to do that.

Mr. WINSTEAD. Right.

Ms. NORTON. Roth doesn’t know how to do that. Are you renegotiating leases? And what are you talking about the Courts? What

could they possibly tell you about renegotiating the rent down?

Mr. WINSTEAD. Madam Chair, we are—obviously, that was one

of the things a year ago we said we would aggressively pursue. We

have. In the last two years we have looked at some 60 leases. We

have recommended 14 for renegotiation and we are proceeding to

accomplish that.

The reality is we have to have—you have to have consent, you

have got to obviously have a fixed term that needs to be approved

by the Courts. So we have to be party with them in terms of the

rent commitments and the extent of the leases. But we are pushing

hard on that, as directed by the Committee.

Ms. NORTON. So nothing has been renegotiated yet.

Mr. WINSTEAD. No. But we have 14 we are working on.

Ms. NORTON. That is outrageous, Mr. Winstead. I mean, you

know, that one really escapes me altogether.

Mr. WINSTEAD. I will get back to this Committee the details on

all the leases that are currently——

Ms. NORTON. What in the world is there—you know, once—you

know, if my real estate agent tells me this is a way to save some

money, let me renegotiate a lease, I am really not going to micromanage him, because I don’t know what in the world I am doing.

So I really can’t understand what the Courts have to do with saving the taxpayers’ money by renegotiating leases pursuant to the

policy of this Committee.

Mr. WINSTEAD. You are correct, we are the real estate agent for

the Courts in this regard. We do need their consent to the longterm in terms of the fixed term commitments and the renegotiated

lease, and we are going to push to close as many of these as we

can. We have looked at 60; we have recommended 14, and it is an

aggressive focus——

Ms. NORTON. When were the 14 recommended?

Mr. WINSTEAD. Sorry?

Ms. NORTON. When did you recommend the 14?

Mr. WINSTEAD. My understanding is that we actually—14 were

recommended last year, in about September of last year, just about

the end of last year. And we will report to——

Ms. NORTON. I want you to submit those 14 to the Committee.

Mr. WINSTEAD. OK. I would be happy to.

Ms. NORTON. I want to know what you have recommended.

Mr. WINSTEAD. I will do that.

Ms. NORTON. I want to know what they are paying now, and I

want to know what is holding them up. I mean, I just think, Mr.

Winstead, this is quite outrageous. I am not sure that the Courts

could tell you anything except a guesstimate on how long that they
37

would want to remain in the building. I also don’t know how they

could do that without consulting with you.

Mr. WINSTEAD. And they are. It can’t be a unilateral action.

Ms. NORTON. And I don’t know why you would do anything but

recommended to them something that I don’t think they would be

in a position to rebut, how long you think they ought to be in there.

And, meanwhile, who is carrying this are the taxpayers of the

United States of America. And you haven’t renegotiated a single

lease.

Mr. WINSTEAD. We are——

Ms. NORTON. Now perhaps you understand our impatience.

Mr. WINSTEAD. I totally understand, and we will get you all 14

leases.

Ms. NORTON. I would like to see the re-leases. I would like you

to submit the re-leases within 10 days. I want to know where they

are located, I want to know the state of the negotiation—when I

say submit to me, I am talking about submitting them to the

Chairman, obviously—and I want to know when—we want to know

when you believe you can begin to negotiate.

The reason I am so up in arms about this is let’s assume you get

‘‘permission,’’ whatever in the world that—here is permission to

save me some money, OK. You get the permission. The hard part

is renegotiating the lease, Mr. Winstead. I don’t want you to renegotiate my lease if I am a party. So you are going to have to renegotiate the lease, and, therefore, you know, the part on the other

end just likes it just the way it is. And the only reason you are in

a position to renegotiate at all is not because of the judges or the

court, it is because a big player in every market is the GSA.

So I am at a loss to understand why we are still carrying those

leases when—not only those 14, but I want to know why there isn’t

wholesale renegotiation of leases going on, at a minimum, to

staunch the bleeding.

Mr. WINSTEAD. OK, Madam Chair, I will get you those leases. I

mentioned that we presented 60 two years ago to the Courts. Following their review, they have analyzed these 14 that they want

to proceed on that meet their long-term needs, and I will get you

the status of the 14.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Winstead. You know, and I want

to go to heaven, but that is what has brought us to this level of

frustration.

Mr. WINSTEAD. I understand.

Ms. NORTON. Because we always hear, of course we intend to do

the right thing. But because we never get there, the cash register

is running. I ain’t paying, but the taxpayers are paying, and we

cannot, with a straight face, justify what is happening to our colleagues in the Congress.

I want to call a recess until Mr. Shuster returns, and that will

be whenever he returns.

The Committee stands in recess.

Mr. WINSTEAD. Thank you.

[Recess.]

Mr. SHUSTER. [Presiding] Sorry for that. Now I have a time constraint on me that we have to be out of here at 1:15, so I am going

to submit some questions to both of you that you might be able to
38

answer in writing, but I do have—I guess I only have time for one

question.

Judge Roth, I know you started to proceed with a space utilization study. My question is, and my concern is, how independent is

it going to be? I guess the Federal Judiciary Center is going to do

it. But I also understand—and tell me if I am correct—that the Judicial Conference has to approve any report that they put out.

That, to me, says that you might not approve it if it doesn’t come

out the way you want to. I think it is important for any study to

be done to let the study happen, and wherever the chips fall, they

fall. So could you talk to me about that? Is that true, that the Judicial Conference is going to approve or potentially disapprove a report?

Judge ROTH. I don’t know, because it is not through my committee that the study is being done. But we can get back to you on

that.

Mr. SHUSTER. OK. I think that is—especially in light of also

what we heard the GAO say that happened in some of those courthouses, some of the officials were disruptive. And it is a great concern that a study that comes out is not going to—that it doesn’t

turn out the way you folks want it to, that you are going to have

some influence on it.

Judge ROTH. Representative, let me clarify the question of the

GAO study. We received the draft statement of facts from GAO and

we sent them out to the interested courts where GAO had visited

for the court’s comments. We got comments back, ′′that this is not

what I said.′′ We did not go around and ask who talked to GAO

and who said what. We sent them the draft report and their response to us was ′′this isn’t what I said′′ or ′′this is only half of

what I said.′′ And that is what raised our concern about the GAO

report.

Mr. SHUSTER. OK, I was just informed that the Judiciary sent a

letter to the GAO asking them who they spoke to. And in a situation like this,——

Judge ROTH. Well, that was because we were getting comments

from the courts they visited saying, ′′we didn’t say this′′ and ′′no

one here said this.′′ So we were concerned.

Mr. SHUSTER. All right. Well, again, to have an unbiased report

means on both sides you have got to look at it, you have got to keep

your hands off it to——

Judge ROTH. I agree absolutely.

Mr. SHUSTER.—as I said, where the chips fall, that is where they

fall, and that is what is going to be so important.

Now, the other thing I have a concern about the study is you are

talking about it being completed in 2008. You know, we really need

to see that thing sooner, because as we have made quite clear,

there is a great concern about the amount of money that is being

spent on courthouses that we have approved.

There are courthouses, you know, one by one you can look at

them and say—like San Diego, for instance, has got a tremendous

increase in the number of cases and activity there. But you really

need to look at the whole system that you have and do long-term

strategic planning with the GSA to decide do you need to downsize

in places, because in the 14 courthouses that they traveled to do
39

the study on the rent, I mean, there were many cases, as you heard

Mr. Goldstein talk about, where you have courtrooms not being utilized.

Judge ROTH. Could I——

Mr. SHUSTER. Sure.

Judge ROTH.—say that in building a courthouse, it is necessary

to build for the future, and our workload has grown, and the number of judges has grown. There is, for instance, a judgeship bill that

has not been passed, but that we hope will be passed. And if we

build a courthouse which is absolutely full the day it is opened,

with the growth of the courts, with new judges, with an increasing

caseload, we will not have room to expand over the ten-year period.

GSA and we agreed at a partnering session a couple of years ago

that a courthouse should be built for the ten-year period from the

date of completion, and that means that there will be more judges

coming on board during that period in certain areas, and that we

need to incorporate space in those courthouses for that.

Now, for instance, there is a photograph in the GAO study of a

future courtroom that is being used for storage space. What GAO

doesn’t mention in the study is that the court closed down rented

storage space elsewhere and brought those items into the courthouse to store in what will become, five years down the pike, a

courtroom. In the meantime, we stopped paying rent for storage

space elsewhere, and are using that empty space now for the storage that we rented space for before.

Mr. SHUSTER. And then we also talked about a courthouse that

was 30 years old that is not being utilized. Again, that is why there

is such a great need in a shorter period of time to get this space

utilization study, because once—as I said to you before in conversations, we know that there are courthouses that need to be built and

we know there are courthouses that need to be expanded, but not

all of them do.

And we have got to look and learn like any organization, any

business has to do, look at what they are doing, study it. We have

to utilize it to the best of our abilities because it is the taxpayers’

dollars. You are not exempt from—the Judiciary, the Executive

Branch, the Legislative Branch, none of us are exempt from doing

our best with the Federal dollar, the taxpayers’ dollar. And, again,

I don’t believe that has occurred, but it needs to occur. And that

is the sticking point in all this.

Judge ROTH. The 30 year old courthouse in Baltimore was designed prior to the sdoption of the Design Guide. The four courtrooms that are not being used were designed by a judge who

thought we could have little hearing rooms. They haven’t worked

out, so we use them for storage space. The plan is now to take

those four unusable small courtrooms and combine them into two

usable courtrooms.

Mr. SHUSTER. Well, again, my time has expired. As you can see

from my time constraints here, we are utilizing this committee

room. More things go on here than just—I don’t get to just have

this committee room to myself, unfortunately, today. We will be

talking to you. Again, I stress the need for that study to be done

in a shorter amount of time and to look at sharing courtrooms for

judges. So, with that, I——
40

Judge ROTH. Judge Tunheim would like to come and talk to you.

He would be very happy to come and talk to you about that.

[The information received follows:]
41
42

Mr. SHUSTER. I would love to engage in that conversation at

length.

Judge ROTH. Great. Great.

Mr. SHUSTER. Well, thank you all for being here. Commissioner,

again, sorry we didn’t get a chance, but I will get written questions

out to both of you, as well as other members of the Committee. But

thank you for your testimony today.

I would like to ask unanimous consent that the record of today’s

hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to them in

writing and unanimous consent that during such time as the record

remains open, additional comments offered by individuals or

groups may be included in today’s record. Without objection, so ordered.

I would like to thank you again for being here today. And the

Committee stands in adjournment.

Judge ROTH. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 1:22 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296

Æ