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

71–099 PDF 2012

A REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED 

$400 MILLION LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, 

FEDERAL COURTHOUSE PROJECT 

(112–59) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 4, 2011 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

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 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT

JEFF DENHAM, California, Chairman 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas, 

Vice Chair 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio) 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

BOB FILNER, California 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(II) 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... v 

TESTIMONY 

Goldstein, Mark L., Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, Government Accountability Office ................................................................................................ 9 

Morrow, Hon. Margaret M., District Judge, United States District Court, 

Central District of California .............................................................................. 9 

Peck, Robert A., Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, General Services 

Administration ..................................................................................................... 9 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Goldstein, Mark L. ................................................................................................... 69 

Morrow, Hon. Margaret M. ..................................................................................... 87 

Peck, Robert A. ........................................................................................................ 96 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Morrow, Hon. Margaret M., District Judge, United States District Court, 

Central District of California: 

Memorandum from the United States Marshals Service for the Central District of California to the Chief District Judge which details 

security deficiencies of the Spring Street Courthouse, November 

2, 2011 .................................................................................................... 11 

Assertion that the proposed housing plan for the district court is 

consistent with Judicial Conference courtroom sharing policies ....... 28 

Assertion that consolidating the district court and bankruptcy court 

in the Roybal Building would not be cost-effective or practical ......... 36 

Additional comments regarding the June 2010 Government Accountability Office report ............................................................................... 43 

Additional comments regarding bankruptcy courtroom space .............. 47 

Napolitano, Hon. Grace F., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, request to submit letter in support of the Los Angeles courthouse project signed by 19 Members of the California delegation ................... 6 

Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, a Delegate in Congress from the District 

of Columbia, request to include letter from Hon. Jose ́ F. Serrano, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, November 3, 2011 ....... 60 

Peck, Robert A., Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, General Services 

Administration: 

Actual utilization of old courthouses in cities where new ones have 

been built ................................................................................................ 23 

Response to information request from Hon. Jeff Denham, a Representative in Congress from the State of California ......................... 31 

Slides 1–10 referenced during hearing .................................................................. 101 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Correspondence in chronological order: 

Dan Mathews, staff member, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, memorandum regarding California border station and courthouse GSA 

staff trip, to Hon. John L. Mica, Ranking Republican, Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure, April 23, 2009 ....................... 111 

Page

IV 

Correspondence in chronological order—Continued 

Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Chairwoman, and Hon. Mario DiazBalart, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, joint letter 

to President Barack Obama, August 2, 2010 ...................................... 113 

Hon. Jeff Denham, Chairman, and Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public 

Buildings, and Emergency Management, joint letter to the Hon. 

Martha Johnson, Administrator, General Services Administration, 

October 21, 2011 .................................................................................... 118 

Morrow, Hon. Margaret M., District Judge, United States District Court, 

Central District of California: 

Cover letter to Hon. Jeff Denham, Chairman, and Hon. Eleanor 

Holmes Norton, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, requesting that supplementary materials be included in the hearing 

record, November 22, 2011 ................................................................... 120 

Additional information and views of the Central District of California 

on several questions posed by the subcommittee members at the 

hearing .................................................................................................... 122 

Joint letter from Hon. David B. Sentelle, Chief Judge, United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and Hon. 

Royce C. Lamberth, Chief Judge, United States District Court for 

the District of Columbia, and chart that reflects space assignments 

in the two buildings occupied by those courts, November 8, 2011 .... 129 

Letter from Hon. Loretta A. Preska, Chief Judge, United States 

District Court, Southern District of New York, about the impact 

of courtroom sharing on that court, November 22, 2011 .................... 133 

v 


Insert offset folio 1 here 71099.001
vi 


Insert offset folio 2 here 71099.002
vii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 71099.003
viii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 71099.004
ix 


Insert offset folio 5 here 71099.005
x 


Insert offset folio 6 here 71099.006
xi 


Insert offset folio 7 here 71099.007
xii 


Insert offset folio 8 here 71099.008
xiii 


Insert offset folio 9 here 71099.009
xiv 


Insert offset folio 10 here 71099.010
xv 


Insert offset folio 11 here 71099.011
xvi 


Insert offset folio 12 here 71099.012
(1) 

A REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED 

$400 MILLION LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, 

FEDERAL COURTHOUSE PROJECT 

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC

BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jeff Denham (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. DENHAM. The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management will come to order. We 

are going to be challenged this morning with a very aggressive 

floor calendar. So my goal is to get through opening testimony before the first round of votes. I know we have a number of questions. We will probably reserve those to try to get those through 

between the first and second series of votes. 

Let me first thank our witnesses for being with us today. The 

purpose of today’s hearing is to review the latest GSA proposal for 

a new courthouse in Los Angeles, and to consider if the project is 

a wise use of taxpayer money given the well-documented overbuilding in the courthouse program and the current fiscal crisis in 

our Government. 

Last Congress, at the request of the subcommittee, the GAO completed a review of the 33 courthouses constructed between 2000 

and 2010. What the GAO found was incredible. GSA built over 3.5 

million square feet of courthouse space that we don’t need at a cost 

of $800 million. As a result, the judiciary abandoned existing courthouses across the country and severely underutilized every new 

courthouse. The GAO identified three reasons for this waste: First, 

GSA built courthouses bigger than Congress authorized; second, 

the judiciary’s 10-year projections of the number of judges were not 

worth the paper they were written on; and third, if the judges 

shared courtrooms we wouldn’t need as much courtroom space as 

we have. 

As a result, the subcommittee sent a letter to the President indicating we would not authorize any new courthouses until there 

were significant reforms in the courthouse construction program. 

We also demanded the judiciary conduct a real courtroom utilization study so that a third party could figure out how many judges 

can share a courtroom, because without the data or analysis, it is 

2 

very difficult for us to determine if these projects are a good idea 

or a waste of taxpayer dollars. So it is in this context the GSA and 

the judiciary want to resurrect the Los Angeles courthouse proposal. 

Over the last 11 years, the judiciary projected there would be 

somewhere between 72 and 81 judges in Los Angeles by 2011 or 

2014. The judiciary declared Los Angeles the number one judicial 

space emergency in the United States, and proposed a massive new 

courthouse. However, today we know the primary justification for 

a new L.A. courthouse is wrong. There are fewer judges in L.A. 

now than there were in 1997. 

Let’s put up slide 1, please. 

Today, we have two buildings with 61 courtrooms and only 59 

judges. 

Put up the second slide. 

In 2004, they projected 81 judges, and today we have 59. 

It seems to me that the projections on which the judicial space 

emergency and the new courthouse were based never really materialized. I am also concerned the remaining funds are not near 

enough money to build the courthouse you are proposing. And we 

certainly don’t want to see big cost overruns. 

In 2008, when GSA proposed an even smaller courthouse, the 

judges of the Central District of California unanimously rejected it, 

citing the GSA’s cost estimates were unrealistic, and that the new 

plan would not address their capacity concerns. If there wasn’t 

enough money to build a 414,000-square-foot building in 2008, how 

is it possible to build a 650,000-square-foot one today? And if the 

funds are sufficient, would there be enough money to convert the 

abandoned courtrooms in the Roybal or Spring Street Buildings? I 

am afraid that this will have to be—where GSA spends all of the 

money—— 

Let’s put up slide 3. 

Eighty-five courtrooms for fifty-nine judges, half of which should 

be shared courtrooms under the judiciary’s own sharing policy. We 

have seen this before in at least seven other cities where new 

courthouses were built and the ones sit vacant as a burden to the 

taxpayer and eye sores to the community. To avoid this, I think 

GSA will have to ask for a lot more money. 

Slide 4, please. 

Over $700 million will be needed to build a new courthouse and 

convert the abandoned courtrooms into office space. Yet GSA’s construction budget is zero. GSA has no money for other critical 

projects. A half a billion dollars for the Coast Guard headquarters 

is being constructed, but there is no money for a road to actually 

get to the building. Critical infrastructure work at the White House 

is being delayed indefinitely because the building fund is empty. So 

again, that is the reason to ask those couple of questions on how 

we are going to come up with the extra money on Spring Street 

and the Roybal Buildings and the third new courthouse for the 

amount of money that is already out there. At this time I feel like 

it is unwise to use taxpayer money to build a third L.A. courthouse. 

Before I close, I would like to raise one last point. Yesterday 

morning GAO briefed me on the judiciary’s courtroom utilization 

study and the courtroom sharing models it developed with an outVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:16 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\ED\2011\11-4-1~1\71099.TXT JEAN
3 

side expert. Among other things, the simulation company GAO 

used works with hospitals to determine how many operating rooms 

they need. Apparently hospitals don’t have operating rooms for 

every single surgeon. It is far too expensive to do that. Yet hospital 

needs have an operating room available for emergencies. So GAO 

had the computer simulation modified to incorporate the judiciary’s 

courtroom utilization data, and now it can figure out how many 

courtrooms you need, so there will always be a courtroom available. 

GAO ran this centralized sharing model for Los Angeles, and it appears all of the judges can fit in just the Roybal Building, no new 

courthouse would be needed, and Spring Street could be sold. 

I look forward to hearing from GSA and the U.S. courts today to 

understand their current proposal, its cost, and its justification. I 

also look forward to hearing from GAO. 

I now would like to recognize Ranking Member Norton from the 

District of Columbia for 5 minutes to make any opening statement 

she may have. 

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

today’s hearing on the status of the Los Angeles, California, Federal courthouse construction project, if you can call it still a project 

since it has sat in abeyance for half of my time in Congress, and 

of course its compliance with current courtroom sharing policies 

and the General Services Administration’s current asset management strategy in Los Angeles. 

Today’s hearing on the long-delayed Los Angeles courthouse has 

as its necessary context a Government Accountability report that 

this committee commissioned in 2008 to examine courthouse planning and construction, including management and costs. The GAO 

report, issued last year, contained astonishing findings of mismanagement by GSA and the judiciary, of the courthouse program, 

and documented wasted funds as well as space. GAO determined 

that the 33 courthouses constructed by the GSA since 2000 included 3.56 million square feet of space above—3.56 million square 

feet above the congressionally approved specifications, a frequent 

overestimation of the number of judges that courthouses would 

need to accommodate, and failure to implement courtroom sharing 

despite the committee’s mandate. In essence, virtually every mandate of this committee has been routinely and systematically ignored by GSA and by the judiciary. 

The GAO found that the total value of the extra space was $835 

million in construction costs and $51 million annually in rent and 

operating expenses. The GAO report confirmed what this subcommittee had indicated during almost 15 years of oversight of the 

courthouse program; namely, reducing the size of courthouses 

through more accurate projections of the number of future judges 

and using courthouse sharing could save the Federal Government 

significant amounts of money. 

Every courthouse authorized by this committee since 2007 has 

required courtroom sharing and has restricted the use of projections of new judges. In fact, in some cases, as a result of reducing 

the number of courtrooms, we have been able to plan to move Federal agencies out of expensive long-term leases and into owned 

space. 

4 

The Los Angeles courthouse was first approved by this committee 

in July 2000. The project’s budget, originally supported by GSA, 

has ballooned over the past decade from $266 million to almost $1 

billion simply because of the refusal to build the courthouse as 

mandated by this committee and by the Congress of the United 

States. 

The most recent official action occurred in March 2008, when the 

GSA administrator wrote to the chief judges in California to propose constructing a scaled down, 400,000-square-foot courthouse 

with 20 courtrooms and 20 chambers, in addition to renovating the 

Roybal Courthouse for $700 million. On March 26, 2008, the judges 

rejected GSA’s proposal, requesting a larger courthouse with 36 

courtrooms and 45 chambers, which would have been significantly 

more expensive. 

It is as if this committee didn’t matter. The judges say they reject the courthouse. I don’t know what this subcommittee is supposed to do. But that is not the way it works up here. Although 

one of the judges’ primary justifications for their request is the lack 

of security in the current Los Angeles courthouses, they rejected 

the GSA proposal that would have addressed the security concerns. 

This is the very same conversation we have long been having 

with GSA and the judiciary about sharing, projections of additional 

judges, and maximizing the use of existing assets. There are empty 

courtrooms across the country because of resistance to congressional directives to share courtrooms whenever possible. This subcommittee has been clear in its mandate that all new courthouse 

construction be reconsidered under the sharing guidelines. And the 

Los Angeles courthouse should be no exception. 

I emphasize that although we require courtroom sharing, we are 

also, and always have been, sensitive to issues of security, and will 

examine these concerns carefully today in an effort to make sure 

members of the judiciary are not at risk in carrying out their duties. The American taxpayer has no stomach for waste, especially 

for waste on new large courthouses where judges insist that they 

decide, not the taxpayers, the size of the courthouse and whether 

sharing will occur; and especially when vital Federal programs are 

being scaled down or eliminated. 

We intend to work with GSA and the judiciary to ensure that 

good asset management decisions are made in the courthouse program. We certainly appreciate the testimony of each of today’s witnesses, and we welcome any thoughts and suggestions they may 

have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. I ask unanimous consent that Mrs. Napolitano of 

California and Ms. Richardson of California, who are both members 

of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, be permitted 

to participate in today’s committee hearing. Without objection, so 

ordered. Ms. Napolitano, you have an opening statement? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Yes, I do, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much, 

and Ranking Member Norton, for allowing me to participate. And 

I do ask unanimous consent to submit a letter signed by 19 Members of the California delegation, including Senators Boxer and 

Feinstein, in support of the Los Angeles courthouse project, and 

also urging GSA to proceed immediately with construction of the 

5 

project. For the record, without objection, unanimous consent to 

submit the letter for the record? 

Mr. DENHAM. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

6 


Insert offset folio 13 here 71099.013
7 


Insert offset folio 14 here 71099.014
8 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support 

the Los Angeles County courthouse project. I live in Los Angeles 

County. The current Los Angeles County courthouse has been declared a space emergency by the Judiciary Conference, and continues to be its top priority for a new courthouse. This has been 

maybe what, a decade in the making? And I think it is time we 

remove all the obstacles and move forward, because they have complied with all the requirements that this subcommittee has imposed upon the Central District of California, which is the largest 

district in the Nation, covering seven counties and over 17 million 

people. The division serves four counties with a population of 13 

million. 

This court has dramatically outgrown the existing Spring Street 

facility built in 1938. That is just 2 years after I was born. The 

court has been forced to divide its operations between this courthouse and the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building and the courthouse three blocks away. This split operation creates countless inefficiencies and critical security concerns. I am under the understanding that there are prisoners in orange uniforms traveling in 

the same areas that judges and other members of the courthouse 

are in transit to their offices. 

The new courthouse is necessary to accommodate an increase in 

the number of active and senior district judges, as well as magistrate judges from 59 to 65, and an increase in bankruptcy judges 

from 10 to 14 over the next decade. After a longstanding dispute 

over the size of this project, the judiciary and GSA have come to 

a cost-effective compromise. The building will have 24 courtrooms, 

32 chambers. This is 17 courtrooms and 8 chambers smaller than 

the authorized plan. The project has been fully funded, with no additional funding needed. The current market conditions in L.A. will 

allow the Government to maximize value in building the courthouse now. The local economy will be stimulated by infusion of 

funding and new jobs with a construction project of this size. 

The unemployment rate in the L.A. metropolitan area is 12.5 

percent. Most of that rate is attributed to the construction sector. 

So this project incorporates courtroom sharing policies, it incorporates the directives of this committee to maximize the use of the 

Roybal Building, and not to request any additional funding for the 

project. 

Mr. Chair, Ranking Member, I hope that we will support this 

project, and I yield back. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. I would like to welcome again our witnesses here today, and just remind them we already have a vote 

underway. So we are going to try get through as much of the opening testimony as possible before we take a short recess. 

On our first and only panel today, we have the Honorable Margaret M. Morrow, a United States district judge, U.S. District 

Court, Central District of California. Welcome. And Mr. Robert 

Peck once again, commissioner, Public Buildings Service, General 

Services Administration. And Mr. Mark Goldstein, director of physical infrastructure, Government Accountability Office. 

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, the subVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:16 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\ED\2011\11-4-1~1\71099.TXT JEAN
9 

committee would request that you limit your oral testimony to 5 

minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. MARGARET M. MORROW, DISTRICT 

JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA; ROBERT A. PECK, COMMISSIONER, 

PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; AND MARK L. GOLDSTEIN, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL 

INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY 

OFFICE 

Mr. DENHAM. Judge Morrow, you may proceed. 

Judge MORROW. Good morning, Chairman Denham, Ranking 

Member Norton, and Congresswoman Napolitano. I am Margaret 

Morrow, and I am a district judge in the Central District of California, resident in Los Angeles. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee today to discuss the Los Angeles 

courthouse project, which has been and remains the judiciary’s 

number one courthouse priority. 

Over the past 18 months, the judiciary has worked closely with 

the General Services Administration at both the national and local 

levels to develop a plan for a functional and cost-effective facility 

that will provide long-term, secure housing for the Los Angeles District Court and for the public that uses the building. As I will describe, the courthouse that is planned has 350,000 square feet less 

than the project that this committee considered in prior years. It 

has 17 fewer courtrooms and eight fewer chambers. The plan does 

not require any additional appropriations. It does not provide space 

for projected judgeships. And it includes courtroom sharing for senior and magistrate judges. 

The Central District of California is one of the largest and busiest courts in the Nation. It handles a high percentage of complex 

criminal cases involving drugs, murder, street gangs, prison gangs, 

and terrorism. The court currently operates in the Spring Street 

Courthouse and the Roybal Federal Building two blocks away. Active and senior district judges and magistrate judges have chambers and use courtrooms in both facilities. Between now and 2019, 

14 judges will be eligible to take senior status. Nine of those will 

become eligible in the next 5 years. In addition, if the two judgeship bills currently pending before the Congress as S. 1032 and 

H.R. 2365 were to pass, the district would have nine new district 

judgeships. 

I want to emphasize, however, that despite the pendency of these 

bills, and consistent with the concerns that have been expressed by 

this subcommittee, by the full committee, and by the GAO in its 

June 2010 report, the project that the judiciary and GSA have developed does not include any space for projected judgeship positions. 

All those familiar with the existing facilities in Los Angeles agree 

that there are serious operational, infrastructure, and security concerns that must be addressed. The Spring Street facility was built 

in 1938. There are serious seismic problems with the building. The 

building is also riddled with asbestos, which makes improvements 

complicated and costly. Due to its age, the existing infrastructure 

10 

does not support modern-day technology, and the building systems 

are old and need upgrades or replacement. 

In addition, the Spring Street location has many serious security 

issues that affect the safety of the public, parties, jurors, witnesses, 

and victims, as well as the safety of the marshals, court employees, 

and judges. It is critical to recognize that many of these problems 

cannot be resolved by modifying the building given its particular 

footprint. This is why it has always been anticipated that the court 

would vacate the Spring Street facility. Every day prisoners are 

brought into Spring Street in vans that are unloaded in the judges’ 

parking garage. As a result, judges frequently encounter prisoners 

as they are being unloaded and moved into the building. Because 

there are many courtrooms that do not have adjacent cellblocks or 

any secure prisoner access, and because the secure prisoner corridor that serves the balance of the courtrooms is so small that it 

places both the marshals and the prisoners in danger, prisoners are 

often moved to the courtrooms through public corridors and elevators where they cross paths with parties, with jurors, with victims, and with witnesses. 

The United States Marshal for the Central District of California 

has written a letter dated November 2, 2011, which details these 

security deficiencies. And I would like to submit that letter for the 

record. 

[The information follows:] 

11 


Insert offset folio 15 here 71099.015
12 


Insert offset folio 16 here 71099.016
13 


Insert offset folio 17 here 71099.017
14 


Insert offset folio 18 here 71099.018
15 


Insert offset folio 19 here 71099.019
16 

Judge MORROW. Though GSA planned to award a contract to 

build a new courthouse in fiscal year 2006, due to unprecedented 

escalation of construction costs in Los Angeles at that time, the 

project budget exceeded the funds appropriated and authorized, 

and GSA withdrew its request for proposal due to lack of competition and inadequate funding. Since that time, the judiciary and 

GSA have devised a plan for a courthouse that is smaller than that 

actually proposed, that is cost-effective, functional, and safe, and 

that is responsive to congressional directives to maximize the use 

of the Roybal Building to the extent practicable, to share courtrooms, and to work within the funds that have already been appropriated for this project. 

The new plan will contain 24 district judge courtrooms and 32 

chambers, reduced space for the clerk of court and U.S. Marshals 

Service. The Roybal Building will continue to be used for courtrooms and chambers for senior judges who can’t be accommodated 

in the new facility and for magistrate and bankruptcy judge courtrooms and chambers. The judiciary and GSA believe that they have 

found an efficient and cost-effective solution to the Los Angeles 

courts’ housing problems that addresses congressional concerns and 

that will be safe for the public. 

I would be happy to take any questions you have. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Judge Morrow. 

Mr. Peck, you may proceed. 

Mr. PECK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Norton, 

and Congresswoman Napolitano. Thank you for inviting me here 

today to discuss the new Los Angeles courthouse project. And I 

would like to thank you also for continuing to support the administration’s efforts to pass civilian property realignment legislation 

and improve our asset management. 

The Federal courts play a critical role in our Nation’s democracy 

by ensuring fair and impartial administration of justice for all 

Americans. GSA is proud to build courthouses worthy of that role, 

and we have developed a strong partnership with the Federal judiciary to do so. Since the inception of our Design Excellence Program 16 years ago, GSA has developed a strong track record of delivering high-quality buildings that support the courts’ unique 

needs, while enhancing the building surroundings. GSA and the 

courts have continually improved and refined the management and 

oversight of these projects. 

The judiciary has developed and implemented policies that require courtrooms to be shared among judges. The judiciary has also 

revised its estimates for projected future judgeships based on current data, reducing also their space requirements. GSA, likewise, 

has improved our management of the courthouse program and implemented strong space management controls. We ensure our 

courthouses are constructed within the budget and scope. 

I have to say I am concerned to hear continued reference to the 

GAO report on which we held a hearing last year and the conclusions of which I thought we discredited to a large extent. For example, in their report GAO applied the courts’ revised sharing standards retroactively to completed projects and then claimed the space 

was overbuilt based on those later standards. GAO took incorrect 

measurements of our buildings, assuming high-ceiling spaces and 

17 

atriums were in fact gross square footage of an asset that we somehow had to build, as if we were paying money to build empty highceiling space. 

But to move on, today’s hearing focuses on the Los Angeles courthouse. Due to security deficiencies in the existing buildings and 

courtrooms that do not meet the courts’ space needs or functional 

requirements, the L.A. courthouse has been the courts’ number one 

priority for the last decade. 

Between fiscal years 2001 and 2005, the project received appropriations and was fully authorized. However, the project could not 

move forward for several reasons, including construction cost escalations and programmatic changes. Congress has made clear on numerous occasions that GSA should work with the courts to develop 

a viable solution for the project within the funding already appropriated. 

The courts and GSA have worked closely over the last couple of 

years to develop a feasible solution for a smaller district courthouse 

that supports the judiciary and their mission needs, providing secure courtrooms and chambers. GSA and the courts have incorporated the sharing guidelines. We have eliminated projected 

judgeships and developed a solution to build this courthouse within 

the latest management guidelines and using lessons learned over 

the past several years. 

We now have a plan to deliver this facility within the current appropriation and authorization. This proposal includes 24 district 

courtrooms and 32 chambers in the new courthouse, totaling approximately 650,000 gross square feet of space. This project is a 

worthwhile investment that will enable GSA to improve the security and meet the functional needs of the court while taking advantage of the unfortunate downturn in the market to deliver the 

project within the current appropriation and to create thousands of 

construction jobs in a hard-hit industry. 

GSA is ready to move forward with this project. We already own 

and have cleared the site and are ready to issue a contract solicitation. The new courthouse, with the existing Edward R. Roybal Federal Building and Courthouse, will meet the courts’ requirements 

for 49 courtrooms. That includes district, magistrate, and bankruptcy courtrooms. This project will increase space efficiency and 

consolidate court functions. 

Moving forward, GSA will assess the potential reuse of the 

Spring Street facility and the possibility of modernizing it to accommodate executive branch agencies who are currently housed in 

over 1 million square feet of leased space in Los Angeles. 

In conclusion, the L.A. courthouse project has idled far too long. 

GSA and the courts now have a plan that can be completed within 

the current appropriation, mobilize this funding to put people back 

to work, and help the courts meet their mission needs. GSA is 

ready to move forward with this project, providing the courts with 

a secure state-of-the-art courthouse, helping improve court functions and services, while keeping tenants and the visiting public 

safe. This project is not only important to GSA and the courts, but 

also to the congressional appropriations committees who have 

urged GSA to proceed with this construction over several years 

now. 

18 

Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss our management of the courthouse 

program and to describe the new path forward for the Los Angeles 

courthouse, and I welcome your questions. Thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Peck. Thank you, Judge Morrow, 

for your opening testimony. We are going to break at this time for 

an estimated 15 minutes to vote, and then we will begin back immediately with Mr. Goldstein’s testimony. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. DENHAM. The committee will reconvene back with opening 

testimony from Mr. Goldstein. You may proceed. 

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

pleased to be here today to discuss our recent work on Federal 

courthouse construction issues and on the L.A. courthouse in particular. 

In 2000, as part of a multibillion-dollar courthouse construction 

initiative, the judiciary requested and the General Services Administration proposed building a new courthouse in Los Angeles to increase security, efficiency, and space. But construction never began. 

About $400 million was appropriated for the project. 

For this testimony, GAO was asked to report on the status of the 

courthouse project, challenges GAO has identified affecting Federal 

courthouses nationwide, and the extent to which these challenges 

are applicable to the L.A. courthouse project. This testimony is 

based on GAO’s prior work on Federal courthouses, much of it for 

this committee, during which GAO analyzed courthouse planning 

and use data, visited courthouses, modeled courtroom-sharing scenarios, and interviewed judges, GSA officials, and others. 

GAO reported in 2008 that GSA had spent about $33 million on 

design and site preparations for a new 41-courtroom courthouse, 

leaving about $366 million available for construction. However, 

project delays, disagreements between GSA and the judiciary about 

what to build, unforeseen cost escalation, and low contractor interest had caused GSA to cancel the project in 2006 before any construction took place. GSA later identified other options for housing 

the L.A. court, including constructing a smaller, new courthouse or 

using the existing courthouses, the Spring Street Courthouse and 

the Roybal Federal Building and Courthouse. 

As GAO also reported, the estimated cost of a new courthouse option as of 2008 was over $1.1 billion, significantly higher than the 

appropriation. All the other options were rejected by the courts because they believed that GSA underestimated the costs and created 

overly optimistic project schedules that they feared could not be 

met. 

Finally, in a 2008 letter to the GSA signed by Judge Morrow, the 

L.A. court unanimously opposed a new 20-courtroom building, stating in part that the remaining appropriated funds were not adequate to construct a facility of this size. This situation has essentially been deadlocked ever since. 

The challenges that GAO has identified in recent reports on Federal courthouses include increasing rent and extra operating, maintenance, and construction costs stemming from courthouses being 

built larger than necessary. For example, in 2004 the judiciary reVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:16 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\ED\2011\11-4-1~1\71099.TXT JEAN
19 

quested a $483 million permanent annual exemption from rent 

payments to GSA due to difficulties paying for its increasing rent 

costs. GAO found in 2006 that these increasing rent costs were primarily due to increases in total courthouse space. And in 2010, 

GAO reported that more than a quarter of the new space in recently constructed courthouses was unneeded. 

Specifically, in the 33 Federal courthouses completed since 2000, 

GAO found 3.56 million square feet of excess space. This extra 

space is a result of courthouses exceeding the congressionally authorized size, the number of judges in the courthouses being overestimated, and not planning for judges to share courtrooms. In 

total, the extra space GAO identified is equal in square footage to 

about nine average-size courthouses. The estimated costs to construct this extra space, when adjusted to 2010 dollars, is $835 million, and the estimated annual costs to rent, operate, and maintain 

it is $51 million. 

At the time of that report, GAO recommended that GSA ensure 

that new courthouses are constructed within their authorized size, 

that the Judicial Conference of the United States retain caseload 

projections to improve the accuracy of its 10-year judge planning 

cycles, and that the Conference establish and use courtroom-sharing policies based on scheduling and use data. GSA and the judiciary agreed with most of the recommendations, but expressed concerns with our methodologies and key findings. 

Mr. Chairman, it is quite clear that each of the challenges GAO 

identified related to unnecessary space in courthouses completed 

since 2000 is applicable to L.A. First, as GAO reported in 2008, 

GSA designed the L.A. courthouse with 13 more courtrooms than 

congressionally authorized, which would have added more than 

200,000 square feet of space to the project without legislative approval. This increase in size led to cost increases and delays. 

Second, in 2004, GAO found the proposed courthouse was designed to provide courtrooms to accommodate the judiciary’s estimate of 61 district and magistrate judges in the L.A. court by 2011, 

which as of October 2011 exceeds the actual number of such judges 

by 14. This disparity calls into question the space assumptions on 

which the original proposals were based. 

Third, the L.A. court was planning for less courtroom sharing 

than is possible. While in 2008 the judiciary favored an option proposed by GSA that provided for some sharing by senior judges, according to our 2010 analysis there is enough unscheduled time in 

courtrooms for three senior judges to share one courtroom, two 

magistrate judges to share one courtroom, and three district judges 

to share two courtrooms. In 2011, the judiciary also approved sharing for bankruptcy judges. 

Additional courtroom sharing could reduce the number of additional courtrooms needed for the L.A. courthouse, thereby increasing the potential options for housing the L.A. court. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Norton, this concludes my testimony. We are pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Goldstein. 

20 

GSA has taken exception to some of the methodology you used 

such as applying sharing models retroactively, incorrect measurements. What is your response? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, I think it is disappointing. We 

have discussed this issue with Mr. Peck on a couple of occasions. 

The comptroller general has even sent a letter to GSA on these 

issues. So I have a couple quick comments I will make. 

Regarding sharing, it is the role of GAO to look at budgetary consequences of Government policies. And it has been the policy of the 

courts for the most part to not share courtrooms. That policy has 

had a clear impact on increased and potentially wasteful spending 

of tax dollars, as our report showed. This is something the courts 

should have analyzed themselves so that the lawmakers could have 

a better understanding of the costs and benefits of this policy. 

On gross square footage, Mr. Peck says that we measured incorrectly. GAO did not measure anything. Let me repeat that: GAO 

did not measure anything. We relied on GSA measurements and on 

GSA blueprints. 

Mr. Peck says that we incorrectly included atriums. This policy 

is GSA’s policy. It clearly states that atriums are included in gross 

square footage. That policy has been in place for the entire period 

of construction that we looked at. Regarding atrium costs, we did 

not impute the same construction costs to atriums as other spaces. 

We averaged the costs of all spaces, including very expensive courtroom space and less expensive atrium space. Our report notes that 

atrium space costs less to construct and maintain than other 

spaces. We asked both GSA and outside experts, including BOMA, 

about the suitability of this methodology. And all of them, including GSA, supported the approach. 

And then finally, GAO applied appropriate generally accepted inflation factors to account for the cost growth in the construction 

market. And again, we validated this approach with both GSA and 

outside experts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. And Mr. Peck, I would ask you for a brief response. 

The prospectus that we see, especially in this case, the prospectus 

did not define the same square footage. 

Real quickly, the one that I am looking at here, second-floor atrium area, even the roof line on the fourth floor, you know, we have 

done basic square footages for my office. You know, when we calculate square footage per employee in my office we consider the 

hallways, the restrooms, the meeting areas, every area. So when 

we get a prospectus, we are looking at the same thing. We are approving a building. Build a building, keep it within this cost, and 

meet the parameters. So the atrium I would assume would be in 

the same square footage as everything else that is in the building. 

We are leaving it up to you and the architects, but we expect the 

square footage to be maintained the same, which hasn’t been done 

on every building. 

Mr. PECK. Right. I believe—so if you want my answer, it gets 

complicated, because there are different ways of measuring space 

in the real estate industry. But GAO has basically fundamentally 

confused cubic square footage and linear square footage. For example, if you were to take the square footage of this room and you 

21 

measure the walls from wall to wall in a rectangle, you get one 

measure. If you then multiply it—— 

Mr. DENHAM. Let me stop you and ask you real quick, because 

the study that I am looking at here on atriums and closed courtyards and lobbies comes from your GSA Public Buildings Service 

National Building Space Assignment Policy, and it has that same 

square footage in there. 

Mr. PECK. Yeah, the square footage. But what I am saying is 

they count a five-story atrium as if we had built five floors. And 

then he multiplies, as he just said, he multiplies the cost of that 

atrium by the average square footage cost in the building. And 

what I am objecting to, more than the measurement of the space, 

is multiplying by a dollar number to come up with an inflated and 

erroneous estimate of how much it costs us to build that space. You 

know, the committee’s authorizations and the appropriations that 

we get give us a dollar budget for a building. And that is what we 

fundamentally focus on. For Mr. Goldstein and GAO to suggest 

that there was $800-some million of overbuilding in the courthouse 

program, believe me, we would have known that and they would 

have known that a long time before he did that study. 

Mr. DENHAM. But the problem is you come back to Congress and 

ask for more money, and you build a building after the fact that 

is much bigger than what was originally anticipated in the prospectus. 

Before you answer, I am going to bring this down to you because 

in the gross square footage in your policy book it says B through 

3 are all included in the gross square footage. So it is in your calculation. We will come back to that. I want to make sure you have 

a copy of that. 

Mr. Goldstein, frequently GSA would request funds to construct 

a new courthouse or annex to supplement, not replace, the existing 

courthouse. However, it seems when a new courthouse is built, the 

old one is either abandoned or minimally used. 

Can you put up slide number 6? 

These courthouses right here, were these abandoned courthouses 

included in your 3.5 million square feet of extra GAO identified? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Some of them were and some of them were not, 

Mr. Chairman. We had visited over a number of years many of 

these buildings for a lot of our different reports. Some of them we 

identified as extra space in our rents report back in 2006. And 

some of them are included in the report that we issued last year. 

So it is a combination, sir. 

Mr. DENHAM. Which ones, out of these courthouses, all of which 

have abandoned courthouses in major cities where we are leasing 

huge amounts of space, which of these courthouses have you considered in the 3.5 million square feet of wasted or unneeded space? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. I believe we included Miami, Washington, 

Brooklyn, Tucson. For this particular report, we did not include Seattle or Richmond. But they were part of our study when we looked 

at the reasons why space and rent increased in the courthouses 

several years ago. 

Mr. DENHAM. And Mr. Peck, on this same list, how many of these 

vacant or severely underutilized courthouses are on GSA’s excess 

list or disposal list? 

22 

Mr. PECK. Mr. Chairman, I will have to provide that for the 

record. I don’t know. The only one here at the moment that I have 

had conversations with people in GSA about recently is the Dyer 

Courthouse in Miami, which is vacant and which I am determined 

to move toward excess and surplus. 

Mr. DENHAM. Is it on the surplus list today? 

Mr. PECK. It is not today; no, sir. 

Mr. DENHAM. OK. It is my understanding that none of these 

courthouses are considered in the 14,000 excess properties that we 

have today. And again, these are all hundreds of millions of dollars 

of real estate that could be sold, or space that could be leased; or, 

at a bare minimum, we could be doing the same thing that we have 

done with the Old Post Office. 

Mr. PECK. Mr. Chairman, as you and I are in violent agreement 

about, there are assets that we need to move faster to excess and 

surplus in our inventory. I would have to—I would love to provide 

for the record where we are on all of these properties, because as 

I said, I am only familiar with one. 

[The information follows:] 

23 


Insert offset folio 20 here 71099.020
24 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. And if you could provide other properties that might be in this same type of instance. We tried to pick 

out a few that we knew of. But obviously, your list would probably 

be much more inclusive than what we have. 

But let me just point out, Mr. Peck, let’s put up slide number 8. 

Just the Miami courthouse that you just mentioned, I think there 

are some similarities here with the situation that we are seeing in 

L.A., the Dyer Federal Building. 

Let’s put up 9 real quick. 

This is a beautiful courthouse, beautiful courtrooms, amazing 

historical building. It is empty. I called down there yesterday to see 

who was in the building. Apparently there is a security guard 

around there somewhere. We were unable to find him yesterday. 

So we are going to send some people out there just to see exactly 

who is there. But I am amazed to find out that we have got an 

abandoned, beautiful courtroom, entire facility here. It has been vacant ever since the new courthouse opened. I was amazed to find 

out, when I asked the question whether it was on the excess list, 

we have it listed as mission critical. So I want to make sure this 

doesn’t end up like the Old Post Office that sits for two decades, 

and then it takes a congressional order to actually get the problem 

moved forward. Here you have got an amazing piece of property in 

an area where we are leasing a huge amount of space, same as 

L.A., and yet we have got this vacant. 

Mr. PECK. First of all, in L.A. we have not yet built a new courthouse. So it is a little premature to describe the Spring Street 

Courthouse as underutilized, because it is utilized at the moment. 

But as I said in my testimony and will be prepared to brief you 

more, when we build the new Los Angeles courthouse we will be 

prepared, we will take a look at where we are on Spring Street. 

And we are going to look at one of two things. One, we will either 

find that we can efficiently retrofit the building and move Federal 

agencies out of leased space in Los Angeles and into that building, 

or we will declare it surplus and get rid of it. 

Mr. DENHAM. Old Post Office we spend, what, $6.5 million a year 

in maintenance costs? 

Mr. PECK. I don’t think it was $6.5 million in maintenance costs. 

I think we were losing a couple million dollars a year between 

what we got in rent and what we were maintaining. 

But Mr. Chairman, may I just say the Old Post Office is a little 

more complicated. And I want to report to you something. One is 

that the building itself, the office part of the building is in fact fully 

occupied. Not terribly well utilized. And I agreed, when I was at 

GSA before, that we ought to get it out. And can I just say that 

we have put out an RFP—— 

Mr. DENHAM. I am just using the Old Post Office as an example, 

because we have exhausted that as an example here in this. We 

are all very, very familiar with that one property. This property 

here we spent—— 

Mr. PECK. I am trying to declare victory, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. We spend $1.2 million a year to operate this abandoned building. So again, this is something we are looking at. We 

want to make sure that the Spring Street Building doesn’t end up 

in the same type scenario. If we are able to do courtroom sharing, 

25 

we would want to make sure that we move or utilize that property 

as well. 

At this time my time has expired. Ms. Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, Mr. Peck, it is routine for Federal agencies to attack 

the investigator. Everybody does it. Nobody likes when GSA does 

a report and says what they don’t want GSA to say. But in essence, 

you have attacked the subcommittee because you said that you 

thought that the report had been discredited by your testimony. Do 

you really believe that the GAO report was discredited when 33 

courthouses were constructed above the specifications of this subcommittee without your ever coming back to the subcommittee to 

get new specifications? Where you have allowed frequent overestimation of the number of judges? And where, as the chairman 

has just shown, there are empty courthouses and empty courtrooms? 

I mean, it bothers me if you think that the report has been discredited rather than that the GSA has been discredited. 

Mr. PECK. I said, as Mr. Goldstein noted, we took exception to 

the methodology. We had this out last—we discussed this last year. 

Ms. NORTON. My time is limited, the chairman has already indicated. And your notion of—if you believe that cubic—there is something called cubic feet and square feet—then it was your obligation 

to come to this committee to indicate that. And I have been on this 

committee for 20 years. I have never seen you come back to this 

committee and say to the committee, we have new specifications 

that we need. 

Now, I was at the Prettyman Courthouse, a courthouse I supported. I was at the Prettyman Courthouse just the night before 

last. What a beautiful courthouse, the Prettyman Courthouse is. 

Let me ask you, Mr. Peck, do you believe that this committee 

thought that in building the Prettyman Annex that the judges 

would completely abandon the existing courthouse and that there 

would be almost nothing happening in the existing courthouse? Do 

you believe that this committee believed that when it authorized an 

annex to the Prettyman Courthouse here in the District of Columbia? And how do you justify the fact that that courthouse is sitting 

in the middle of Washington as the major courthouse for the Federal courts in our city, and nobody is using a perfectly beautiful 

courthouse? 

And instead, when the judges saw there was some brand-new 

courtrooms, they just all scooted over to the new courtrooms, leaving a perfectly usable courthouse without any activity occurring in 

it. 

Mr. PECK. Ms. Norton, I am not sufficiently familiar with the 

current activities in the Prettyman Courthouse to answer your 

question. I don’t know what the—— 

Ms. NORTON. I submit it as one I am familiar with, which illustrates my impatience with—your impatience with the GAO report. 

Because it just says to me, Mr. Chairman, since he thinks he is discredited, he is not going to follow it. 

Mr. PECK. Ms. Norton, I should note, just so I can respond, we 

agreed last year when we had the hearing on the GAO report, we 

said two things. One, is it in the years previous? And in all the 

26 

years in which the prospectus system has been in effect, GSA and 

the committee have had the—have taken the position that when 

the costs of a project went up by a certain amount, GSA came back. 

Not when the square footage went up, because the square footage 

can sometimes increase within a budget. What we did agree to last 

year, I want to remind you, is that we—— 

Ms. NORTON. You don’t have to remind me. I am aware of it, and 

I appreciate the practice has been changed. And the practice better 

have been changed. I don’t think you were doing us any favor, Mr. 

Peck. It seems to me that was the professional thing to do. And 

that is what any agency ought do when it goes above what has 

been authorized. I mean that is just par for the course. 

But let me ask you what you also agreed to. After the last hearing, GSA, you said you would go back to examine the GAO modeling, and that you would try to come up with a consensus recommendation that three active district court judges can share two 

courtrooms, or three senior district court judges could share one 

courtroom. 

Let me ask you: Have those meetings occurred and has there 

been any consensus reached? 

Mr. PECK. We have discussions all the time with the courts 

about—— 

Ms. NORTON. I am going to be very specific in my questioning. 

Have you met with Mr. Peck with respect to the issue I just described, the three-to-two and the senior judges, three senior judges 

to one courtroom? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. No, ma’am, there has been no discussion about 

the model. 

Ms. NORTON. So meeting with people all the time is not responsive to my question. 

Mr. PECK. I said we were meeting with the courts. 

Ms. NORTON. Because in your mind the report is discredited, 

even though when the report was—when the report was revealed 

here, the committee was of a different mind. It appears that you 

have not even done what you agreed to do when you testified before this committee. 

Let me ask you, at our last hearing, for example, you agreed to 

study the Southern District of New York and its sharing practices 

involving active judges. Now, have you studied it? That is a realtime example. And are those sharing practices reflected in the 

plans for sharing in the L.A. courthouse proposal? 

Mr. PECK. The sharing practice reflected in the L.A. courthouse 

proposal is the sharing practice that was adopted by the Judicial 

Conference of the United States. We are following their sharing 

practice in this proposal. 

Ms. NORTON. Not the sharing practice that was in the GAO report. 

Mr. PECK. No, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. So the Judicial Conference of the United States 

controls how taxpayer money is going to be spent for courthouses. 

Mr. PECK. Ms. Norton, for many years, and you know I have 

done this before, we have had lots of conversations with the courts 

about their sharing practices. And the courts have changed their 

sharing practices over the years. And in this case we have in our 

27 

program on the courthouses followed the judiciary’s sharing practices. That is correct. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Peck, this is what I mean. You follow the judiciary instead of this committee. Now, this committee was very impressed with the GAO report. And that was before we got in the 

fix we are in now. Imagine this committee going and saying to our 

colleagues, we ought not be doing sharing with courthouses, even 

though your constituents are sharing where they live these days. 

They are sharing food stamps these days. Imagine how we feel 

about courthouses not sharing. 

Let me ask, Judge Morrow, is sharing—does your testimony involve courtroom sharing for active judges? And would you describe 

how that would occur? 

Judge MORROW. The proposed plan does not presently include 

any sharing for active judges. It does incorporate the two-to-one 

courtroom sharing ratio for both magistrate judges and senior 

judges. And I should note that because this is probably the last 

building that will ever be built in Los Angeles, over time it is going 

to require active judge sharing as well, because there won’t be any 

other space. 

28 


Insert offset folio 21 here 71099.021
29 

Ms. NORTON. You betcha, Judge Morrow. You betcha it is going 

to require it. 

Let me ask Mr. Goldstein. Mr. Goldstein, you indicated that 

using the modeling practices that you vetted with outside experts 

that it was possible for 3 district court judges to share 2 courtrooms, and that even in courthouses with more than 10 courtrooms 

there could be even more sharing. Do you have any reason to believe that the L.A. courthouse, which would involve no sharing by 

active judges, should be an exception that should be granted by the 

Congress of the United States? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. I wouldn’t see a reason why, ma’am. In fact, as 

you know, the judiciary’s data, which is what we based our models 

on, showed that at the highest level—which is the active district 

judges—that judges are only using their courts for court-related duties 2 hours a day. A third hour is used for tours and bar groups 

and things like that. The fourth hour is used for events that have 

been scheduled but canceled or postponed, and the other 4 hours 

a day the lights are out. For senior judges and for magistrate 

judges it is even less. 

And that is why we developed the model. We did not, you must 

recall, tell the judiciary that they should use our model. We simply 

encouraged them to develop their own process to do this and to develop their own assumptions. But they have never done that. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Goldstein, on that same line of questioning, 

your current model shows about 1.5 to 2 hours courtroom use per 

judge per courtroom? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. For a district judge’s courtroom it shows—this is 

the judiciary’s own data that they did based on their studies several years ago, the Federal Judicial Center—it shows that the 

courtrooms are used for court-related duties 2 hours a day. They 

are used about an hour a day for senior judges, and slightly more 

than an hour a day for magistrate judges for actual court responsibilities. 

Mr. DENHAM. Put up slide 10. 

Mr. Peck, here is New York City, the Daniel Patrick Moynihan 

Building, Thurgood Marshall Building. You can see again the Patrick Moynihan Building in the background of the Thurgood Marshall Building. Are we running into any problems there right now 

with courtroom capacity? 

Mr. PECK. In the Moynihan Building? 

Mr. DENHAM. Well, there is only one that is being used today. 

Mr. PECK. Correct. Thurgood Marshall is under renovation. 

Mr. DENHAM. Correct. 

Mr. PECK. Not that I am aware of. 

Mr. DENHAM. OK. So we are renovating the Thurgood Marshall 

Building, which is vacant right now during renovation. All of the 

courtrooms are now being fully—or all the judges are fully into the 

Daniel Patrick Moynihan Building. Once the renovation is done in 

Thurgood Marshall, what is going to happen between the two 

buildings? 

Mr. PECK. The Thurgood Marshall, if I remember correctly, and 

I would ask my staff to correct me, is mostly the appellate court 

for the Second District. The Moynihan Building has taken some of 

30 

the—we have moved some of the chambers of the judges from the 

Thurgood Marshall into the Moynihan Building, if I remember the 

whole scheme correctly. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Goldstein, do we have any utilization problems 

in the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Building to your knowledge? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Not that I am aware of, sir. 

Mr. DENHAM. Do you know what the courtroom usage is in those 

buildings? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. I am sorry, sir? 

Mr. DENHAM. Courtroom usage right now, hours per day per 

courtroom? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. We don’t know for that particular one. We can 

get back to you. We can take a look. 

Mr. DENHAM. Do you have the current cost-sharing ratio on that 

building? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. We have just at this point with me today, just 

the general ratios. 

Mr. PECK. And Mr. Chairman, the Moynihan Building was built 

before there was any court sharing at all, so it was built to a different standard; a different standard, I just say again, than we are 

going to use in the Los Angeles courthouse, the new building. 

Mr. DENHAM. I think these are two good comparisons between 

the Miami building where you have got the Dyer Building that is 

sitting vacant and not even on the excess property list—which I 

would consider that similar to Spring Street—and here, where you 

have completely shut down one huge building, moved everybody 

into the second building, and actually have great security and 

courtroom usage. 

Mr. Goldstein, when the renovations to the Marshall Courthouse 

are complete, what do you think the reutilization rate is going to 

be on this building? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Well, you know, I don’t know exactly, sir, but it 

is interesting because, you know, as you know, all of the judges 

moved into Pearl Street while that renovation was going on. The 

Federal Judicial Center examined this several years ago and found 

that the judges were doing quite well, actually, in their sharing; 

that almost all of them said that it had gone very well. And the 

people who were involved in scheduling said that there were no 

issues and that no trials had been postponed; that anytime they 

needed a hearing room, one was obtained. So it seems to me that 

there may not be a huge need for them to go back into the other 

building if sharing is indeed working already. 

Mr. DENHAM. So regardless of whether it was designed for that 

or not, it is happening today, it is working today, you have got everybody in one building. How many cases did you say have been 

lost or suspended? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. None. 

Mr. DENHAM. None? No problems that you have heard of? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. According to the judiciary itself and their report. 

Mr. DENHAM. I am looking forward to going to L.A. and seeing 

the Spring Street and the Roybal Buildings next week to see if we 

have got a similar-type scenario. 

Mr. Peck, I wanted to go back to something you said when answering Ms. Norton’s question. When we look at a prospectus, we 

31 

look at both the scope and the money. And it is my understanding 

you are no longer looking at both of those issues? 

Mr. PECK. No. I said that principally over the many years that 

the prospectus system has been in effect, most of the focus has 

been on containing costs. Of course the scope is looked at, too. But 

with respect to coming back when a project gets underway, we 

have come back when there was a money issue. And I am saying 

once the project has been authorized and appropriated and the 

project gets underway, we have come back for a prospectus when 

the costs exceeded the amount that was—that had been appropriated by more than 10 percent. 

Mr. DENHAM. So when it has been exceeded? 

Mr. PECK. When it has been exceeded by more than 10 percent. 

Because our rule with the Appropriations Committee is that we can 

escalate the cost on a project up to 10 percent without going back 

to them. But if the cost escalation does exceed that, we have to go 

back. 

Mr. DENHAM. Have you ever gone above 10 percent and not come 

back to this committee? 

Mr. PECK. I don’t think so. But I would have to check. 

[Supplementary information submitted for the record by the General Services Administration follows:] 

GSA has a longstanding practice of requiring multiple levels of 

reviews before exercising our authority to escalate projects up 

to 10 percent of the approved limits. After reviewing 5 years 

of internal escalations, we did not find any instances where we 

exceeded the 10 percent without congressional approval. To the 

best of our knowledge we have not exceeded our appropriations 

for projects by 10 percent without approval from the committees, as stated and allowed in our appropriation language. 

Mr. DENHAM. I am going to double-check that, because I have 

heard differently. 

Mr. PECK. On cost. On cost. 

Mr. DENHAM. Well, on cost, yes. You should be coming back on 

scope or cost. 

Mr. PECK. Right. Right. 

Mr. DENHAM. If you are drastically changing a building that has 

been appropriated and been approved by this committee, if the 

scope is drastically changed and you went from 50 courtrooms to 

20 courtrooms, I would expect you to come back. Under the law, 

under Title 40, you have to come back if it is 10 percent. So that 

is something I certainly want to look at and make sure it hasn’t 

been happening across the board. But you are going from—you 

know, I will tell you, if I was running a business that way and I 

waited until I was over 10 percent, and then I went back to the 

banks after I got 20 or 30 or 40 percent over, I would be out of 

business. 

Mr. PECK. Mr. Chairman—— 

Mr. DENHAM. You are waiting until—— 

Mr. PECK. Mr. Chairman, I am simply—— 

Mr. DENHAM. When you have spent 90 percent of the money—— 

32 

Mr. PECK. Mr. Chairman, I am simply reflecting what the law requires. I am not telling you what my personal predilection would 

be or how I would do it if I ran a business. I am just saying that 

we are required by law, if we exceed an appropriation by 10 percent, to come back for notification to the Appropriations Committee 

and approval to go forward. 

Mr. DENHAM. And under law you are required to do that. My 

concern is that you are not. My concern is that you are waiting 

until 20 or 30 or 40 percent. And then at that point Congress is 

under a real bind to say, Do we finish the project? Do we reappropriate new money or not? 

My concern would be when you get to 90 percent and you realize 

something has changed. The requirement has changed. The scope 

has changed. It is going to cost more money. The costs went 

through the roof. Maybe steel has, the pricing has changed way beyond what your budget would have ever imagined. You get to 90 

percent, you realize you are going to have some big cost overruns, 

I would expect you to come back to Congress then, not when you 

get to 110 or 115 or 120 percent of the cost. 

Mr. PECK. Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to go back and see if 

there have been instances where we have not come back when we 

exceeded the 10 percent, number one. And number two, I will certainly submit to you that I don’t—it doesn’t mean that we are at 

110 percent when we come back for approval. 

My experience in the times when I have seen this happen has 

been that when we think we are going to exceed by—I think we 

are talking about just what you are talking about, when we reach 

90 percent or 80 percent or 50 percent for that matter, and don’t 

think we are going to be able to do it within the budget, I believe 

we have come back to the committees and said, OK, we are going 

to need more money. And by the way, we have to tell the Congress 

a source for the funds, which we are required to find savings from 

other projects to apply to a project when we do go overboard. 

But I am just saying that is—I want to assure you that we 

agreed last year, and we will continue to provide if we increase the 

scope, including square footage of a project by 10 percent, we will 

come back and inform you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Have you come back to the Congress on this 

project? 

Mr. PECK. On Los Angeles? 

Mr. DENHAM. The L.A. courthouse. 

Mr. PECK. On the L.A. courthouse we have come back to the Congress a couple of times before. 

Mr. DENHAM. And the scope has definitely changed on this 

project several times. 

Mr. PECK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DENHAM. And at one point the justification was because we 

needed—we were going to have a huge amount of judges we were 

going to go out and hire. We are going to appoint new judges. That 

number has changed several times now. And it is my understanding now that new judges is not the concern. Now the concern 

is Spring Street is just too old. 

Mr. PECK. No, it is security concerns. And that has been consistent since we first proposed the product. I would just note that 

33 

we are now back to—and I have to tell you, I will think this is a 

good story on this project—we are back proposing to you about the 

same amount of square footage that we proposed when this project 

was first authorized in 2000. And we are proposing to build within 

an appropriation that was given to us in 2004 and 2005. 

We have been told any number of times in this committee and 

other committees that we should proceed with this project within 

the budget that was appropriated in 2004, 2005, and we are now 

prepared to do that. 

Mr. DENHAM. Which was 72 judges. And we have 59. 

Mr. PECK. I don’t ever recall a projection for 72 judges in this 

courthouse. There was a proposal for something like 41 courtrooms 

at one time. But as I said, and this is another—— 

Mr. DENHAM. The slide that was presented to you, the 2004, we 

actually had 67, and the 10-year projection was 81. So we were 

basing the scope of this project on 81 judges. In 2011, this year, we 

have actual 59 judges. 

Mr. PECK. That includes, I believe, bankruptcy and magistrate 

judges. There are—you know, you can compare—it is easy in this 

project, because there are lots of numbers floating around, to compare apples and oranges. There are district judges who require district courtrooms. 

Mr. DENHAM. Apples and apples, that was the projection. You 

are changing the scope of the project. That is the concern here. 

Mr. PECK. No, sir. The number of—in fact, the only way the 

scope of this project has changed—and this has been in response 

to concerns of the Congress over the years—is that we no longer 

scope a courthouse project by trying to figure out how many judges 

there might be in a district 30 years from now. We simply don’t assume any expansion in judgeships, and we take a look 10 years out 

to see which judges might be taking senior status and how many 

active judges there will be. 

Mr. DENHAM. I am looking at the GSA prospectus, your prospectus, apples and apples, exactly what you presented to Congress. Number of judges, 72. That is the proposed 2011 number. 

And the actual number right now today is 59? 

Mr. PECK. That includes a number of chambers for judges that 

will be going senior, I am told. And again, that includes district, 

magistrate, and bankruptcy judges. 

Mr. DENHAM. OK. We are in agreement on something. 

Mr. PECK. Pardon? 

Mr. DENHAM. We are in agreement on something. OK. Apples 

and apples now. What do you expect to use the Spring Street 

Courthouse for? 

Mr. PECK. If we continue to use the Spring Street Courthouse in 

the Federal inventory, the only thing I can tell you for certain that 

we know right now, because we haven’t completed a study of it, is 

that there are some historic courtrooms that would be used for the 

grand jury, for U.S. attorney practice, and some other courtrooms 

that might be easily converted to conference room and training 

room space. That is, if we decide to keep it in the Federal inventory. And as I said, if it is cost-effective to do so, that would allow 

us to move a lot of Federal agencies out of costly leased space in 

the Los Angeles area. But we will have to make a determination 

34 

about whether we keep it in the inventory or move it out of the inventory. 

And I would like to assure you that that is a study that we will 

move forward with quickly. So I am well aware that there are previous instances in which the old courthouses weren’t pushed out of 

the inventory fast enough. 

Mr. DENHAM. Quickly within the next decade? What is quickly? 

Mr. PECK. Well, a decade is a pretty long time. 

Mr. DENHAM. I would agree. It took us two decades for the Old 

Post Office. So I would like to clarify what ‘‘quickly’’ would mean. 

Mr. PECK. I would be loath to tell you in Los Angeles exactly how 

fast that would be. We have got do the study and we have got to 

move it out. But I certainly think if we are moving ahead with a 

courthouse, you then have to build a courthouse. And the Spring 

Street Building wouldn’t become excess until we finish construction, which probably wouldn’t be until 2016 or so. So we are talking 

about a ways out before we do it. And then I think you could make 

a decision and certainly excess and surplus the building within a 

year after we move people out of it. 

Mr. DENHAM. If the Civilian Property Realignment Act were in 

place and signed into law today, would this be a candidate to be 

sold? 

Mr. PECK. The Spring Street Building? 

Mr. DENHAM. Yes. 

Mr. PECK. Not right now. 

Mr. DENHAM. If the new courthouse was built, would it be? 

Mr. PECK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DENHAM. So we would not be looking to investing money into 

this to redo it or renovate it for any other purpose. 

Mr. PECK. I want to be really clear. What I said was we would 

take a look at what it would cost to renovate the building for Federal use and see whether that saved the Government in the long 

run, over continuing to lease space. But if it turned out it was too 

expensive to renovate and we didn’t get a return on it, then we 

would say it is excess to the Government’s needs. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

And final question. Judge Morrow, you had said that the challenge that you face right now is that you are in two different courtrooms and they are .4 miles away? 

Judge MORROW. Two different courthouses, yes. They are about 

two blocks away. The problem we have right now, Congressman, is 

that we have active district judges and senior judges and magistrate judges in each building. District judges and magistrate 

judges perform, in our district, very different functions. The district 

judges handle virtually all of the civil trials, all of the felony criminal trials, all the guilty pleas, all the sentencing. Magistrate judges 

do different things. They handle habeas petitions, Social Security 

matters, discovery, settlement conferences, things that require different support functions from the activities that the district judges 

do. 

So we now have everyone split between two buildings. That results in the marshals going back and forth between the buildings 

all the time with the prisoners. It also results in duplicative clerk’s 

office functions in each building. And part of the goal of the design 

35 

plan that we have come up with with GSA is to get all of our active 

district judges and as many of our senior district judges as possible 

in one building so we don’t have to duplicate those support functions, and so that the marshals are not constantly running back 

and forth between the buildings the way they are now. 

So it is a functional split, if you will, as opposed to what we have 

going on now, which is basically running two separate buildings 

doing the same things. 

Mr. DENHAM. And you have a mix right now. You have district 

judges in both buildings and you have magistrate judges in both 

buildings? 

Judge MORROW. Yes. And in the proposed plan we would have 

all the active district judges and approximately 50 percent of the 

senior district judges in one courthouse. We would have all of the 

magistrate judges and some overflow senior judges, if you will, in 

the Roybal Building. And of course the bankruptcy court, which is 

a separate independent jurisdictional kind of court, is also in the 

Roybal Building as well. 

Mr. DENHAM. The district judges, that is where we run into challenges with the marshals and security and—— 

Judge MORROW. Yes. Because we are the ones who are doing all 

the felony work, the guilty pleas, the sentencings. I mean the magistrate judges do handle arraignments, but those are always done 

all in the Roybal Building. But these other criminal activities are 

done exclusively by the district judges. 

Mr. DENHAM. Why not put all the district judges in the Roybal 

Building? 

Judge MORROW. A couple of things about that—first of all, the 

way the Roybal Building is configured. Currently the district 

judges who are resident in the Roybal Building—I am one of 

those—are in a lower part of the building. There are two towers, 

two elevator towers. And in order to move all of the district judges 

into the Roybal Building, there would have to be significant renovations of that building, because the second tower, the higher 

tower, is now occupied by the bankruptcy court. None of those 

courtrooms would work for district court functions. They have no 

prisoner access. They have no holding cells. They have jury boxes, 

but they are not usable by the district court because they only seat 

6 people, and we need 14-people juries in criminal cases, and we 

seat 8-person juries, by and large, in civil cases. 

So the jury facilities are inadequate, the prisoner movement is 

inadequate, and currently we have a holding cell down in the bottom of the building. The Marshals Service has indicated to us that 

in order to access those higher level floors, they would have to 

build a holding cell, a second holding cell on the 18th floor, which 

is where Congresswoman Roybal-Allard’s office currently is. They 

would have two holding cells, two separate prisoner movements, 

and it would create real problems for them in the building. So we 

can’t use the existing bankruptcy courtrooms. We would have to 

completely reconfigure them. GSA would have to build a new elevator shaft. It would be a highly costly venture. 

36 


Insert offset folio 22 here 71099.022
37 


Insert offset folio 23 here 71099.023
38 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Peck, you weren’t here during that time when 

the Roybal Building was built, were you? 

Mr. PECK. No. 

Mr. DENHAM. It wasn’t constructed wrong, was it? 

Mr. PECK. Even before my time. I will say, just so we note for 

the record, I was saying to our staff it seems like we have studied 

just about every permutation and combination of courtrooms, 

chambers, and buildings that you can imagine in the Los Angeles 

District. I was out there last week looking at it. And as you know, 

at one time there was a proposal that GSA put forward to consider 

a combination of a new building and a renovation of Roybal. We 

have looked at the renovation of Roybal alone. It is very costly, as 

Judge Morrow noted. And really, this is I think the smartest way 

to provide the space we need for the district court judges. The Roybal Building would be principally magistrate and bankruptcy, with 

some courtrooms for senior district judges. 

And finally, I would note something, that when we are done, and 

again I think I have the numbers right, we will have something between 42 and 49 courtrooms between the buildings. Again, 21 that 

are active district judge courtrooms, 21; three in the new building 

that would be used for senior judges. And if the projections are 

right on the number of judges that go senior in 10 years, we will 

have 73 judges sharing 40-some courtrooms. So if you want to mix 

up all the courtrooms—— 

Mr. DENHAM. The projections haven’t been right in the last two 

decades. 

Mr. PECK. But I want to be really clear these are not projections 

of Congress creating more judgeships. These are projections—we 

have kind of a baby-boom generation of judges who are eligible to 

go senior. So we will end up for a while with more judges who are 

senior, but we are not building very many courtrooms for them. We 

are not counting on that. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Ms. Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, Mr. Peck, 

when you look at a courthouse like the Prettyman Courthouse, you 

walk into that courthouse, this is the main courthouse in the District of Columbia, it is a perfectly suitable building, but it is also 

an historic building. So, when you consider the emptiness of the 

building now, or virtual emptiness of the building when it comes 

to courthouses, it is difficult to know how better utilization could 

ever be made of Prettyman. Prettyman is historic for a number of 

reasons, including the judges who served there and the trials that 

have occurred there. And so, it makes you want to cry to go into 

a building that no one ever thought would be abandoned and to see 

that probably there is no good use that could be made of it now. 

It also is on Constitution Avenue. 

Mr. PECK. Ms. Norton, may I say I actually share your affection 

for the building. I filed briefs there when I was a much younger 

attorney. I have served on a jury there. I have to say there are two 

things to say about the whole Prettyman. One was that the annex 

was built under the old projections, which we have changed, on 

how we build courthouses. That was built at a time when we did 

assume—— 

39 

Ms. NORTON. That is why I asked you in my prior round of questions whether there was ever any intent to abandon Prettyman. 

Nobody builds an annex with the thought in mind that all the 

judges will no longer be in the historic courthouse. 

Mr. PECK. That is correct. I don’t think there was ever an intention to abandon it. It is partially occupied now, and we have actually been trying to find funds to renovate the building, because I 

believe that the court thinks that there is still a good use for it. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, if not, we are not going to be able to do anything about it. It will just go down as one more reason why we 

have to be very careful in the future. 

Now, you are aware of an issue that was not of GSA’s doing, and 

that had to do with what has led to a new look at utilization rates 

in Federal office buildings throughout the country. We found that 

if you don’t police that, that even Federal agencies will think they 

are Federal judges, and they will get utilization rates that taxpayers would be amazed to see. And so, that occurred when the 

SEC was given authority it never should have had. 

I have introduced a bill. SEC, of course, has said it will never 

do this again, but it was such an outlandish violation of utilization 

rates that I have introduced a bill to take away any authority from 

SEC, even though it has obviously given up the authority. And I 

don’t think any agency except GSA should have such authority. 

But you know, we begin to wonder about GSA when GSA is led by 

the nose by agencies. And it has happened with agencies, and it 

certainly happened with the courts to a fare-thee-well, as if the 

courts, Article III courts, as if they have any jurisdiction whatsoever to say what courthouses will or will not be built. We don’t 

share jurisdiction over that matter with judges or anyone else. 

I want to ask you: Is there any difference between the mandated 

decrease in utilization rates that the administration and GSA is 

supporting and requiring active judges to share courtrooms? 

Mr. PECK. Well, first of all, if you will allow me to say, we are 

achieving some significant success in talking to executive branch 

agencies about reducing their utilization rates. 

Ms. NORTON. Not only are you achieving it, let me commend 

GSA. When you came before us—and I only regret that we did only 

six or so of your leases this time—no one could help but be impressed with the reduction in utilization rates and how they reflected themselves—how that reflected itself in less space that you 

asked for. It was astounding to see how much, how many millions 

of dollars of space GSA saved simply by using a reduced utilization 

rate so that people that work in Federal agencies are going to have 

to work in less space. 

My question to you, after commending you on what you are doing 

I think so well with Federal agencies, is to indicate why, if at all, 

there is any difference between decreasing the amount of space, 

utilization space for other Federal employees, and requiring judges 

to share courtrooms? 

Mr. PECK. Well, I guess I would like to respond in two ways. One 

is even with respect to executive branch agencies, we are not in 

most cases just imposing a blanket number. We are talking to them 

about their functions and asking questions like—— 

40 

Ms. NORTON. You not only are doing that, and we never—this 

committee has never stood for inflexibility. You not only are doing 

that, those numbers are reflected in the prospectuses for leasing 

that come before and are approved by this subcommittee. So we 

know exactly what you are doing, we approve them. We know there 

are differences between agencies. And there may be a difference between courts. No one would require an inflexibility when it comes 

to courts. 

But I am asking a very specific question. And that is, what is the 

difference between a decrease in the utilization rates for Federal office space and requiring active judges to in fact share courtrooms 

where that is feasible? 

Mr. PECK. OK. Well, number one, I think that we should all take 

some comfort in the fact that over the last decade the courts have 

agreed to a different sharing policy. So in essence they are reducing 

space. In fact—— 

Ms. NORTON. But they have not agreed to share space when it 

comes to active judges. We just had a judge testify here today that 

there would not be sharing. 

Mr. PECK. But they are sharing for magistrate judges, for senior 

judges. You know, there are other space—— 

Ms. NORTON. So this committee should be satisfied if the judiciary goes along with some of what we mandated, not all of what we 

mandated? 

Mr. PECK. Well, I think that what the committee, as I understand it, has mandated over the years is that we take a look at 

sharing and see where—— 

Ms. NORTON. You have testified you haven’t taken much of a look 

at sharing, because Mr. Goldstein is seated next to you, and you 

haven’t had any conversations with him about it. 

Mr. PECK. Well, to be candid, my conversation about sharing 

courtroom space has been with the courts, who are—— 

Ms. NORTON. Why hasn’t your conversation also been—I don’t object to your discussing this matter with the courts anymore than 

I would object your discussing utilization rates with Federal agencies. What I do object to is your having no discussions with Mr. 

Goldstein when this committee was clear that it was impressed 

with the GAO report. That is what I am objecting to, Mr. Peck. 

Mr. PECK. I don’t know if you would call it a conversation, but 

we certainly had a back-and-forth with Mr. Goldstein about methodology and the results of his report. 

Ms. NORTON. Just a moment. So your testimony here today is 

having had a back-and-forth with Mr. Goldstein, you do not agree 

with Mr. Goldstein, so you are going to ignore the GAO report? 

Mr. PECK. We have not ignored the GAO report. In fact, as I 

said, we have changed our policy with respect to coming back to 

the committee for scope. And we are—we have also talked to 

the—— 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Peck, you know what, you are filibustering. 

Mr. PECK. No, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. That doesn’t work with me. And this is what I am 

going to ask. Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask that Mr. Goldstein 

and Mr. Peck sit down, and within the next 30 days submit a report to the chairman of this subcommittee on what agreement, if 

41 

any, you have reached with respect to the GAO report. Within 30 

days a document, 30 days of the day of this hearing, not a backand-forth. Mr. Peck, this committee endorses, made that clear 

when it came forward, the GAO report. 

So within 30 days, I want you to have a conversation with Mr. 

Goldstein. And that conversation should be reflected in a report as 

to what, if anything, you have decided in your conversations with 

Mr. Goldstein. 

Mr. PECK. I will be happy to do that. 

Ms. NORTON. That is all I am asking. 

Mr. DENHAM. And respond back to this committee with any recommendations where there is an agreement between the two on 

courtroom sharing. 

Mr. PECK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

At this time, I would ask unanimous consent that Ms. Brown, 

who is a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, be permitted to participate in today’s committee hearing. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. Peck, I think it is great that we are now going to be having 

a conversation with GAO that should have happened a long time 

ago. I agree with Ms. Norton on it. But you said you have had conversations with the judicial branch. Do you have an agreement 

with them on courtroom sharing? 

Mr. PECK. Well, our agreement so far on courtroom sharing is 

the policy that we have described, that there is courtroom sharing 

with senior judges and magistrate judges. 

Just one thing I would like to note. We focus a lot, and we have 

been focusing for a long time, on courtroom sharing. There are 

other aspects to the size of a courthouse that we also have conversations with the courts about: size of jury assembly rooms, the 

size of the district clerk’s office, the size of chambers, whether 

there are large—and if there aren’t any longer—large libraries 

when we don’t use books as much as we used to. So we have reduced the amount of space in courthouses in areas other than just 

courtrooms. 

Mr. DENHAM. I am looking at the Judicial Conference of the 

United States, what they came back to this committee on. And in 

the third paragraph, it says, ‘‘After reviewing the data gathered 

during the study, the Conference today adopted a policy for senior 

trial judges to share courtrooms.’’ 

Is there any courtroom sharing happening right now at the Roybal Building, Judge Morrow? 

Judge MORROW. For the district and magistrate judges in the 

Roybal Building, no; in the Spring Street Building, yes. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Peck, are we following the Judicial Conference 

report as far as the Roybal Building is concerned? 

Mr. PECK. The Roybal Building was built before the Judicial 

Conference adopted its sharing guidelines, so I defer to Judge Morrow on how much sharing is going on right now. 

Mr. DENHAM. In your opinion, Mr. Peck, is there any reason that 

the Roybal Building would not be doing the sharing that the judicial branch has recommended? 

42 

Mr. PECK. I am at a loss to answer your question in part because 

I don’t know enough. But I can tell you that when we do—our plan 

is that the Roybal Building will reflect the sharing policy when we 

are done with building a new courthouse and moving people out of 

Spring Street. 

Mr. DENHAM. Is it your plan to demolish seven courtrooms within the Roybal Building? 

Mr. PECK. It is—part of the plan, as I understand it going forward, part of the plan would be to as many as seven small courtrooms in the Roybal Building—we are not talking about district 

courtrooms, but smaller courtrooms—and convert them into chambers, as I understand it. 

Mr. DENHAM. Are you sure they are not district courtrooms? 

Mr. PECK. I don’t know. 

Judge MORROW. Congressman, may I respond to that? 

Mr. PECK. Some might be district courtrooms. I don’t know. I 

know there are seven courtrooms, some are not district, and they 

would be converted to chambers. 

Judge MORROW. Congressman, we applied the new sharing policies for magistrate judges and senior judges to calculate the 

amount of space required in the new building and also to calculate 

the amount of space that we would occupy in the Roybal Building. 

And the net result of that, if I may disagree with Mr. Peck, is that 

there would be three magistrate judge courtrooms in the Roybal 

Building that would be vacant once the new building is constructed 

and personnel have moved into Roybal and into the new building. 

Those we will need for chambers, because we do not have enough 

chambers in the Roybal Building now to house all of the judges 

who would move into that building. If that wasn’t feasible for some 

reason, then the court would release that space to GSA so it could 

move executive branch agencies in there. Because, as Mr. Peck has 

said, there is about 1 million square feet of lease space in downtown Los Angeles that is presently occupied by executive branch 

agencies. 

Mr. DENHAM. Let’s put up slide number 5 again. I think you all 

have this in front of you. 

So, looking at that courtroom, the bottom floors is where we have 

the security, the holding areas, the district judges. Under the 

GAO’s model, we would be able to fit 47 judges there, 21 district, 

9 senior, 17 magistrate. We also have, instead of the 12, we have 

16 bankruptcy courtrooms right now, 4 of them being unused? Is 

that correct? 

Judge MORROW. That is correct. 

43 


Insert offset folio 24 here 71099.024
44 


Insert offset folio 25 here 71099.025
45 


Insert offset folio 26 here 71099.026
46 

Mr. DENHAM. Well, what are those four used for today? 

Judge MORROW. I can’t answer that question because it is a 

bankruptcy court space. 

47 


Insert offset folio 27 here 71099.027
48 

Mr. DENHAM. My chief consultant here says he toured it and it 

was full of furniture. The four offices were shut down. 

My question is, if we are shutting down Spring Street and we 

have an opportunity to share courtrooms here, why are we building 

a new courthouse? 

Mr. PECK. Because all of the studies that we have done over the 

years have shown that trying to retrofit the Roybal as a courthouse 

that meets the security standards that we have for the courts is expensive. 

So is there enough square footage? There probably is. But at the 

end of the day—— 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Peck, have you done a study on this building 

as it pertains to courtroom sharing? 

Mr. PECK. I would have to—I don’t know if we have done it with 

respect to courtroom sharing. We did it—— 

Mr. DENHAM. OK, hold on. Let me stop you there. 

You have met with the judicial branch. You have agreed with the 

judicial branch that there is going to be a new courtroom-sharing 

model. You have come back to Congress and you said, $400 million 

we are going to spend on this brand-new courthouse. And the Roybal Building, which is a newer, secure courthouse, you have not 

even done a study on courtroom sharing there? 

Mr. PECK. Mr.—— 

Mr. DENHAM. How do you propose—when you are building out 

the entire L.A. area on a courtroom need, how do you find a need 

to have a new building when you haven’t done a courtroom-sharing 

model on what we currently have? 

Mr. PECK. Mr. Chairman, let me correct myself here. We have 

taken a look, again, at the options of renovating the Roybal and 

building a new courthouse to meet the courts’ needs for court district, magistrate, bankruptcy courtrooms, and to do it in a secure 

environment. And our conclusion is that the best way to do that is 

to build a new courthouse and to retrofit the Roybal for certain 

other purposes, but not principally for the district courtrooms. 

So there will be sharing in the Roybal Building. They will be 

sharing senior district courtrooms and magistrate and bankruptcy 

courtrooms. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

It is my understanding, on the lower part of this, where we have 

the secure area, where we have the holding areas, we also have one 

floor that is completely just office space. It was designed to have 

four courtrooms in it. It came to this committee in a prospectus to 

have four courtrooms in it. Yet there was not a need to have extra 

courtrooms at the time, so we put—instead of having the secure 

area being utilized for courtrooms, we now have that as office 

space. 

Is that correct, Mr. Peck? 

Mr. PECK. I am told that that is correct. 

Mr. DENHAM. So we could certainly redevelop that one floor back 

to its original purpose and put four new district secure, state-ofthe-art courtrooms in there. 

Mr. PECK. Mr. Chairman, the problem is that you can describe 

it as secure, but we can’t, in this building, without doing things 

like building a new elevator shaft, make the building a secure 

49 

courtroom to handle prisoners in the way that we do it in modern 

courthouses with three separate circulation systems. 

Mr. DENHAM. I am looking forward to touring it firsthand, seeing 

it firsthand. 

Mr. Goldstein, can you explain this model here? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Yes, sir. What that model represents—as you 

know, we developed this model with simulation experts, and our 

model was peer-reviewed by the people who made the software, so 

it has been vetted and validated. 

So our approach includes: all case-related activities are included; 

all time allotted to non-case-related activities, including preparation time, ceremonies, educational purposes, are included; all 

events that are canceled or postponed within a week of the event 

are included, and that is 60 percent of all events that are scheduled 

in a courtroom. 

So what we did is, the model was then developed using, again, 

the judiciary’s own data. And so, based on the number of current 

judges in the district court, there were three approaches. under a 

dedicated sharing model, which allows judges to be assigned a 

courtroom which they share, you would need 26 courtrooms—17 

district and 9 magistrate. Centralized sharing within type, meaning that the district judges share and then that the magistrate 

judges share, shows that you need 22 courtrooms—15 for district 

and 7 for magistrate. And fully centralized, in which you have all 

judges sharing across the spectrum, you could have 21 courtrooms. 

If, indeed, the projections for additional senior judges were actually to come true—and, in many cases, we know they do not—you 

would need an additional three courtrooms at that point. 

Mr. DENHAM. So an additional three courtrooms. That would be 

converting the one floor of office space into the four courtrooms? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Yes, sir. And you also have, of course, the arraignment, you know, courtroom that exists as well. 

Mr. DENHAM. So there is one extra courtroom, and you could also 

redo one of the upper floors as well? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. That is my understanding, sir, yes. 

And this would still allow, based on the most conservative use 

of the model that we developed, somewhere between 18 and 22 percent of time for courtrooms when they are still not being used. 

Mr. DENHAM. Eighteen to twenty-two percent—— 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Even after this, yes, sir. 

Mr. DENHAM [continuing]. That wouldn’t be used, vacant space. 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Not vacant. Well, in the existing courtroom, the 

time, the time during the day, where the courtrooms would still be 

dark. 

Mr. DENHAM. So if we had a sudden influx of judges, could we 

even accommodate more in the Roybal Building than—— 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. We can certainly take a look and get back to the 

committee. I would hesitate to tell you the full utilization rate until 

I did that. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Goldstein. 

I am way over my time. Ms. Brown? 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am just not really, kind of, comfortable with the tone of this 

meeting, having gone through building a courthouse in Orlando, a 

50 

Federal courthouse, and the first Federal courthouse that was built 

after the Oklahoma City bombing. And so, some of the factors that 

you consider—safety is the first factor. 

And I would like to hear from the judge on the safety issue. Because I will be in Los Angeles next week, and I personally want 

to tour and get an update and see for myself. Because, you know, 

it is one thing for us to put something in writing, but it is a definite difference as to how it pans out in the district. 

So can you give us an update? Because I am most concerned 

about the safety aspect. 

Mr. DENHAM. And, Judge Morrow, before you respond, Ms. 

Brown, I am planning on being there next week as well. I would 

look forward an opportunity if we can coordinate schedules, we 

could see it firsthand together. That would be a good bipartisan 

way to—— 

Ms. BROWN. Sounds like a date to me. 

Mr. DENHAM. Sounds good. 

Judge MORROW. And we would love to give you a tour, all of you 

who would like to come. 

Yes, Congresswoman, I can respond to your question. We have 

two facilities in Los Angeles, the Spring Street Courthouse and the 

Roybal Building. Roybal has relatively good security. Spring Street 

is really the problem. 

Spring Street is a very old building; it was built in the late 

1930s. It has no secure prisoner circulation to many of the courtrooms in the building. The secure prisoner circulation that does 

exist goes to some of the courtrooms, and the marshals have 

stopped using that because it is so dangerous to transport the prisoners in this very narrow, winding corridor, that they are fearful 

for their own safety as well as the safety of some of the inmates. 

So these prisoners are being moved through the building in public 

hallways and on public elevators, where they run into parties, witnesses, jurors, victims, judges, court personnel. 

And large numbers of them have to be moved, often, at one time. 

Because, in our district, we have a number of gang prosecutions 

where we have 50 to 70 defendants in one case. The Department 

of Justice has partnered with the Los Angeles Police Department 

to do large gang takedowns in Los Angeles, because it has one of 

the highest gang populations in the country. And all of those cases 

are brought in Federal court because our penalties are higher. 

So we have all of those kinds of cases. The Department of Justice 

also determined to transfer members of the Aryan Brotherhood 

prison gang from prisons all over the country into our district so 

that they could be prosecuted in our district. We had death-penalty-eligible people in that case. We had very serious security risks 

with those defendants. We have to take special measures when we 

have those kinds of cases in the district. 

So the marshal is, I think, reasonably concerned about the state 

of the security in the Spring Street Building. And the problem with 

it is, because it is such an old building and because of the particular configuration of the building, GSA cannot come in and fix 

those problems. They cannot be fixed. And so it is a real concern 

for us. 

51 

There is also a concern that is somewhat unique to the judges, 

in the sense that the prisoners are brought to the courthouse in 

small vans. A large prisoner bus cannot come into the courthouse. 

It is just not large enough for that to happen. So they are brought, 

very frequently, in these small vans. Those vans pull into the 

judges’ parking lot, the judges’ parking area in the building. Judges 

are getting out of their cars, the prisoners are getting out of the 

vans. They come face-to-face with one another. And they all have 

to be in the courtroom at the same time, so there is no sitting back 

and waiting until the prisoners have been taken in. It is a dangerous situation. And, once again, the building can’t be fixed to 

remedy that problem because you cannot put a sally port on the 

building. 

So there are definite concerns and issues with security in that 

building. 

Ms. BROWN. Mr. Peck, would you like to respond? 

Mr. PECK. I was out there last week, and I actually saw the area 

that Judge Morrow is talking about, where the vans come in and 

let the prisoners out. There were a couple of courtrooms in there 

where the prisoners and the marshals have to be in a very narrow 

space, which is dangerous for the marshals. It is a problem waiting 

to become even more evident, or tragically evident. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Peck, when you were out there, did you see the 

four courtrooms that were full of furniture? 

Mr. PECK. I did not this time. I had one other time. There was 

a very small—I don’t know if I am talking about the same space, 

but I do recall seeing a very small—what had been called a courtroom, looks like a conference room, a one-story space that is now 

used for storage. It was not a two-story full-height district courtroom that is being used for storage. 

There are a number of courtrooms in this complex that we are 

calling courtrooms that are pretty small spaces. And to be fair and 

honest, the bankruptcy proceedings are pretty much just counsel 

and don’t require the same kind of space that a district court requires. 

Mr. DENHAM. And just for the record, I am not saying that we 

should never build any courtrooms in the L.A. area. I am just saying that we ought to fully maximize the ones that we have today— 

use sharing, use a courtroom for more than an hour-and-a-half a 

day, use a courtroom not to store furniture but to actually conduct 

court in it. 

And when we have made a secure area with a holding area and 

we have changed our prospectus and changed our building model 

to facilitate office space, rather than the courtrooms that were once 

proposed, we ought to take a look at those things before we go moving forward on a $400 million project that could possibly go into a 

half-a-billion-plus project. 

Mr. PECK. Well, Mr. Chairman, I couldn’t agree with you more 

that, before we spend this kind of money on the taxpayers’ behalf 

and their money, that we make sure that we are doing it as efficiently as possible. What I am—— 

52 

Mr. DENHAM. Wait. Before we do it as efficiently as possible, yet 

you have not done a court sharing analysis on the Roybal Building. 

Mr. PECK. No, I am sorry—— 

Mr. DENHAM. Wouldn’t you expect to do that before you go out 

and spend $400 million on a new building? 

Mr. PECK. Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify again. The proposal 

that we are making to build a 24-courtroom, 32-chamber new 

courthouse did include an analysis of how we would go forward 

with the Roybal Building. 

And we have—this is a very complicated project. And anyone can 

say, as you have just asked about the Roybal Building, you can 

take a look at square footage in a building and say, can you get 

all this square footage in there? Yes. But this is the problem with 

building projects in real estate: You have to look at the building 

itself. You have to look at the way it is configured. You have to figure out whether, when all is said and done and you were to go into 

the Roybal Building and try do this, whether having spent probably 

the same amount of money or more, whether you would end up 

with a building that is actually efficient and meets the security requirements. 

In our determination—and this has been going on now for 10 

years—is that the best way to do this is to use the Roybal for certain purposes, which includes some court sharing, and to use the 

new L.A. courthouse for other purposes for the district courts. I 

mean, that is—I can tell you, this thing has been studied to death. 

Mr. DENHAM. And, Mr. Peck, I know we do a ton of studies here. 

We do study things to death here. My concern is, in this one area, 

we have failed to do the final studies on most of these courthouses 

and we have moved forward, wasting taxpayer dollars. 

Let’s put up slide number 6 again. These are all buildings that 

we don’t have in our excess property portfolio and yet they are sitting vacant, costing us millions of dollars every year. 

Mr. PECK. Well, Mr.—— 

Mr. DENHAM. And we are going to see the same type of scenario 

here in L.A. with the Spring Street Courthouse. 

Mr. PECK. Mr. Chairman, two things. 

One is that—I would like to separate two issues. In almost every 

one of these instances, we also built a new courthouse because we 

had security issues with the old one or capacity issues. The question of whether we have taken them out of the inventory or should 

take them out of the inventory is a separate question. 

But I would just note the Brooklyn-adjacent courthouse, for example, if it is the one I am thinking of, it has been vacant because 

we have had it under renovation, and I think it is being reoccupied 

for the bankruptcy courts. The Seattle courthouse is being used for 

the—the old one is being used for the appellate court, as you note. 

The other ones I will get you reports on. 

But I have also committed to you that when we finish this 

project in Los Angeles, the Spring Street Building is either going 

to be fully utilized by the Federal Government or we will get it out 

of the inventory. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

53 

And one final question. I am looking forward to seeing the utilization on all of these buildings, as well as the amount of lease 

space that we have in each of those cities. 

But the final question I have before I turn it back over to Ms. 

Norton: I assume that OMB has signed off on this project, Mr. 

Peck? 

Mr. PECK. OMB has signed off on our—yes, sir, on our moving 

forward with the new courthouse, yes, sir. 

Mr. DENHAM. And you intend to resubmit a new prospectus for 

approval to this committee? 

Mr. PECK. Mr. Chairman, we have an appropriation to move forward with the project. We intend to submit to you all the facts that 

are necessary for you to take a look at it. But, as I said, you know, 

this project has already been authorized and it has been appropriated, and we have been under pressure from the appropriators 

to move forward. We will provide you with information so that you 

can see exactly what we are doing. 

Mr. DENHAM. So, once again, we started with a discussion of 

keeping things within scope and cost or coming back to this committee. In the last decade, has the scope of this project changed? 

Mr. PECK. Yes, sir, although the square footage is now back to 

where it was authorized in—we are proposing less square footage 

than was authorized when the project was appropriated in fiscal 

2004–2005. The prospectuses that the committees in the Senate 

and the House approved were for a far larger building. We are proposing less square footage in the building. 

Mr. DENHAM. And in the Roybal Building, are you going to have 

to do any renovations? 

Mr. PECK. We will be doing renovations at some point in the Roybal Building, yes, sir. 

Mr. DENHAM. What is the cost associated with that? 

Mr. PECK. We don’t have the cost estimates on that yet for the 

backfill and other renovations in Roybal. That would be a separate 

prospectus and a separate authorization. 

Mr. DENHAM. Now, how do we always get cost estimates before 

you get cost estimates? Why can’t we work together and come up 

with these estimates together? I mean, we already have estimates. 

We have a pretty good idea of what it is going to cost to renovate 

that building. 

So, before you come back to Congress, before you come back to 

Congress and ask for another appropriation at a time when we 

have a $15 trillion debt and we are trying to cut things everywhere, before you come back to us, you are going to leave a lot of 

this area vacant because you don’t have money to renovate it? 

Mr. PECK. We are mostly moving—remember, this project is 

mostly moving courtrooms out of the Spring Street Building into 

the new L.A. courthouse. That is the crux of the project. The Roybal will be—— 

Mr. DENHAM. I understand, but we aren’t fully utilizing the Roybal Building today. We have one floor that was supposed to be a 

secure courtroom area that is now office space. We have another 

full floor that is full of furniture because we are not utilizing those 

courtrooms. 

54 

Mr. PECK. Mr. Chairman, there is a sequence to the project. And 

the first thing we need—so we need to build a building, move people out of Spring Street. And when we do that, we will then also 

be making some changes to the Roybal Building. But that is quite 

a number of years from now before we get to that. And when we 

do, we will develop detailed cost estimates and a schedule, and we 

will submit that to you. 

To the extent that you have a cost estimate right now, you have 

probably heard the same back-of-the-envelope cost estimate that I 

have heard. But I don’t have a real program or a real budget yet. 

Mr. DENHAM. The proposed courthouse, $400 million, that you 

are not coming back to this committee for a re-approval even 

though we are dealing with something that was appropriated about 

a decade ago, you expect to get this project done for $400 million? 

I know you are downsizing the building because there is not 

enough need. 

Mr. PECK. Yes, sir. Actually, we have $365 million to spend on 

the project because it cost us some money to acquire the site and 

to do a previous design which will no longer work. So it is $365 

million to design and build a new building. 

Mr. DENHAM. To design and build. 

Mr. PECK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DENHAM. Haven’t we already designed it several times? 

Mr. PECK. We designed it once. We only designed it once. We 

have thought about it many times, but we only designed it once, 

thank goodness. 

Mr. DENHAM. So we have $365 million left to build this new 

courthouse. Your plan is to—or at least, under the law, under Title 

14, you can go 10 percent higher than that. At what point do you 

plan on coming back to this committee during the process? 

Mr. PECK. Mr. Chairman, I don’t plan ever to come back to get 

an additional authorization or appropriation on this building. 

Mr. DENHAM. Ms. Norton? 

Ms. NORTON. So, despite the fact that the project originally authorized 1 million square feet and, as I understand it, now you are 

building 650,000 square feet, leave aside the appropriation, it is 

your testimony that you have the authority to go forward now and 

that the scope of the project has not changed? 

Mr. PECK. Well, the square footage has not changed. 

Ms. NORTON. What does ‘‘scope’’ mean to you? It was 1 million 

square feet in the original authorization. 

Mr. PECK. Right, and 40-some courtrooms, if I recall correctly. 

And we are now proposing about the same square footage for—— 

Ms. NORTON. 1 million square feet? I thought it was 650,000 

square feet. 

Mr. PECK. I am sorry. It is about 650,000 square feet is what we 

are now proposing to build. 

Ms. NORTON. And that is not a change in the scope of the 

project? 

Mr. PECK. It is a decrease in the scope of the project, it definitely 

is. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, just a moment. You said a change in the 

scope of the—see, now, this is what—— 

Mr. PECK. I am not trying to parse words. 

55 

Ms. NORTON. I am just asking, is it a change in the scope of the 

project and aren’t you supposed to come back to the committee 

when there is a change in the scope of the project, whether it is 

a change upward or a downward change? 

Mr. PECK. Ms. Norton, we are—— 

Ms. NORTON. I am just saying—I am asking this—— 

Mr. PECK. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON [continuing]. For purposes of precedent. 

Mr. PECK. We—— 

Ms. NORTON. I don’t want the result of this committee hearing 

to be that we authorized you, in spite of what looks to be a change 

in the scope, to go forward without coming back to this committee. 

Mr. PECK. Ms. Norton, well, we are here at the committee. We 

are going to provide you with information on it. I would note, the 

committee has already—— 

Ms. NORTON. We have not authorized a 650,000-foot—and, by the 

way, I hope we are not talking about cubic feet—a 650,000-squarefoot building. We haven’t authorized that. 

Now, I am pleased to see—— 

Mr. PECK. Ms. Norton—— 

Ms. NORTON [continuing]. That you are trying to fit within the 

appropriation. And you don’t have any choice but to fit within the 

appropriation. Believe me, you don’t have any choice. 

Mr. PECK. Correct. 

Ms. NORTON. But that doesn’t mean that the authorizers ought 

to be ignored. 

Mr. PECK. And we are anything but ignoring the authorizers, Ms. 

Norton. We are here today. We are going to provide you with more 

information about the project. 

Ms. NORTON. Do you know why you are here today, Mr. Peck? 

You are here today because this committee called you here today. 

You are not here today to seek the committee’s permission for a 

change in the scope of this project. 

Mr. PECK. That is correct. 

Ms. NORTON. You are here because we got word that you were 

thinking of building a different project in L.A., and we said, well, 

we had better call the GSA here. 

You make it sound as if you have come in the normal course, as 

the subcommittee has mandated, to get the permission of the subcommittee for a change in the scope of the project, when, in fact, 

on the basis of rumor, we called you here to hold this hearing, and 

you did not ask for this hearing. 

Mr. PECK. That is correct. But, Ms. Norton, we were going to provide, and will provide, a notification to the committee. That is our 

practice, and that is what we intend to do. 

Ms. NORTON. I will leave it to the chairman to decide whether 

the notification is sufficient to fit within our mandate regarding the 

scope of the project. I will take that no further, except to say, I 

want to say on the record that this project is not an exception to 

the mandate of this committee regarding changes in the scope of 

a project. I do not want this cited back to us as a precedent for 

how, if you lower, then of course you don’t have to come back. You 

have to come back when the committee says and has already indicated when you come back. 

56 

I have one more question. Now, we have been talking about sharing. And, by the way, Mr. Peck, we intend to inform the appropriators, as well, about the reason that the committee believes that 

sharing should occur with active judges as well. We don’t think the 

appropriators, given what they are going through, are going to take 

the position that active judges shouldn’t share courtrooms unless 

Mr. Peck can get the judges to agree to share courtrooms. 

And I think you are going to have that reflected in the way in 

which appropriations occur going forward, if you are ever able to 

get another appropriation. And I say that advisedly. It is going to 

be very hard to get any money from the appropriators or anybody 

else in the Congress of the United States to do anything. If you 

didn’t already have money that has been lying on the table for 

more than 10 years, this project would be dead in the water. 

And you know, and you are here, and not only because we called 

you here, but you know this money is going to be rescinded if you 

do not use this money. 

Mr. PECK. I am well aware of that. 

Ms. NORTON. I would like Mr. Goldstein—we have been talking 

about sharing in the ordinary course. And, of course, the judges 

have been willing to give away the bankruptcy judges and the magistrate judges, anybody but themselves. 

But I want Mr. Goldstein to describe centralized sharing and 

what is the difference between centralized sharing and the sharing 

we have been discussing here. 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Ms. Norton, the centralized sharing is where 

judges will share based on a scheduling system that is done across 

the court, like you do here for, you know, hearing rooms. If you 

want to use a hearing room here, Mr. Chairman, you have whoever 

is in charge of scheduling schedule your subcommittee when you 

want to use the room. And so, that is how it is done. 

The difference between that and what I called ‘‘dedicated sharing’’ earlier is, there isn’t any sort of central scheduling; it is where 

two judges are paired up. And that is mainly what has been occurring in Manhattan in the last couple years while they have been 

retrofitting the other courthouse. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, is there any centralized sharing going on in 

the United States? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Certainly not among active judges. There is very 

little sharing that goes on, because, obviously, any sharing that 

does occur is at the margins in new construction among some senior and some magistrate judges. 

But the important thing to note here is that the sharing policies 

of the Judicial Conference, while they have gone certainly further 

than they had gone from years past, aren’t based on courtroom 

usage data that the Federal Judicial Center did. They are simply 

based on policies that they developed. But they are not based on 

the actual usage of courtrooms today. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, does your report indicate that centralized 

sharing would be based on actual use? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Well, certainly the model that we produced did 

exactly that. It uses actual data that was developed by the judiciary. And that was the basis of the modeling that we did. 

57 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Peck, why should this committee, in the future—I understand this courthouse has its $400 million dangling 

out there for a decade—but, in the future, given what we are going 

through here in the Congress and that no one sees that there will 

be many changes in it—in fact, the supercommittee has been challenged to go two and three times what they are aiming for—why 

should this subcommittee authorize and why should the appropriators appropriate money for anything except centralized sharing of 

the same kind we do in the Senate and the Congress of the United 

States? 

Mr. PECK. Ms. Norton, I certainly agree that we should take another look at the sharing policy. As I have said, I have had this 

conversation a number of times with the Judicial Conference’s 

Space and Facilities Committee, and we will talk about it again. 

I think, again, that, whether or not we can do it—and I think 

it is fair for the committee to ask us, should we come forward with 

another proposal for a new courthouse, to ask whether, given the 

caseload in that area, the number of judges, the way the facilities 

rate, whether we can share more than they currently are, I think 

it is certainly a fair question and I think that it is something we 

all ought to be talking about as we go forward. I certainly do agree. 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Ms. Norton, I would add just one item to what 

Mr. Peck said. I think it is important to note that the information 

that the judiciary presented, all of the court usage data they developed, shows that there was and our model proved that there is no 

correlation between caseload and courtroom usage across the 

United States based on the generalizable data that they used. 

There is no correlation. 

Ms. NORTON. I believe we should ask the appropriators—and I 

know the appropriators in this area—to hold a hearing where they 

hear some of what you are saying so that we can match up what 

was authorized and we don’t have people running back and saying, 

give us more money. 

Of course, I think this, Mr. Peck. I think that you are going to 

be hard-pressed to get anything but authorization and appropriation for centralized sharing. 

And I would like to ask you and Mr. Goldstein, in light of the 

meeting you will be having and the report you will be giving to the 

chairman within 30 days, to describe how centralized sharing could 

occur. You might even—if you doubt the data, you might even ask 

the judiciary, which apparently has had its way at the expense of 

the taxpayers, whether or not they would be willing to do a pilot 

project on centralized sharing in realtime. 

We are asking people in realtime—we have got 45 million people 

on food stamps. I have been on the ‘‘challenge diet,’’ the ‘‘food 

stamp diet.’’ Glad I am off of it now for a week. I can tell you that 

nobody can live on the food stamp diet. According to the data, it 

lasts for about 21⁄2 weeks. So I think I know what people did. I 

think they went to the kitchens that give out food for the rest of 

the time. 

That is what we are confronting here when we decide where the 

money should go. And nobody is going to go home and say that everybody in the United States ought to be sharing except active 

58 

judges, and that the GSA and the active judges are unwilling even 

to do a pilot project on real-time centralized sharing. 

Mr. PECK. Ms. Norton, I will talk to the judiciary about it. 

And I want to say this. I could not agree more. This is an unbelievably constrained budget time. Every dollar we spend on our inventory should be subject to scrutiny. We need to think about it in 

ways different, perhaps, than we have thought about it before. And 

we will certainly cooperate with you in taking a look at that. 

May I make one final comment, Mr. Chairman? I do want to note 

this, just because if I can, sort of, take us from this topic to the 

broader one of the health of the Federal Building Fund, you noted 

in your opening statement that the Federal Building Fund is empty 

and we don’t have money to spend on projects. 

The Federal Building Fund is actually not empty. It is working 

the way it is supposed to, which is that we are collecting rents from 

Federal agencies and managing the inventory well enough that, at 

the end of the year—I don’t have my final numbers for fiscal 2011 

yet, but we will probably end up with about $1.5 billion in money 

that we proposed and that should be spent mostly on renovating 

and capital maintenance on our Federal buildings; we are just not 

being allowed to spend it. And I understand why, and so I am 

not—some other time, I will make my plea for getting the right to 

spend it. 

But I just want you to know that the building fund is, in fact, 

accumulating the money it is supposed to for capital investment. 

We just can’t get the approval to spend it on, I think, necessary 

projects. And I am not just talking about court projects; I am talking about something that Ms. Norton and I talk about a lot, moving 

forward on the consolidation of Homeland Security at St. Elizabeth’s, which we are not being allowed to spend our money on even 

though we have it. 

Ms. NORTON. This is a point well taken. And, as you know, we 

have been working very hard on it. 

I do note for the record that the judiciary actually asked—this 

takes a lot of gall—to be exempted from the Federal Building Fund 

at one point. Of course, the committee had to laugh in their faces. 

They are the greatest user of the Federal Building Fund, and they 

actually asked. That was their sense of entitlement, that every 

other Federal agency ought to—but the judiciary should not. 

And one of the reasons we are impatient with the courts is they 

have had an attitude toward taxpayers’ money that we have not 

seen any Federal agency have the temerity to have, not the Defense Department, not—and we are just not going to do it anymore. 

Mr. PECK. Ms. Norton, may I say, and Mr. Chairman, to the extent you hear me—and you do—hear me defending the courts, I 

will say that there is new management in the Administrative Office of the Courts. And there is a different, more open attitude to 

discussing these issues than there was when I was at GSA the last 

time. And that is why I give them credit for—— 

Ms. NORTON. We will understand that when the judges understand that we are not going to authorize courts where active judges 

refuse to share courtrooms. 

Mr. Chairman, could I introduce to the record a letter from Mr. 

Serrano? He asked me—— 

59 

Mr. DENHAM. Without objection. 

[The letter follows:] 

60 


Insert offset folio 28 here 71099.028
61 


Insert offset folio 29 here 71099.029
62 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. I am looking at the prospectus now that—the committee resolution that came before Chairman Shuster at the time. 

It says ‘‘continued use of all existing courtrooms in the Roybal Federal Building for judicial proceedings.’’ 

We do not have all existing courtrooms utilized today. You have 

also testified under oath today that you do not plan on fully utilizing all of the courtrooms once this building is done. 

Mr. PECK. Say it again, sir? I don’t understand the question. 

Mr. DENHAM. You testified that the Roybal Building will not be 

100 percent utilized, will not be fully utilized, once this new courthouse is built. 

Mr. PECK. I hope I didn’t say that. But what I said was—— 

Mr. DENHAM. Well, let me ask, do you expect the Roybal Building to be 100 percent utilized once this new courthouse is built? 

Mr. PECK. I certainly do, yes, sir. 

Mr. DENHAM. Is it 100 percent utilized today? 

Mr. PECK. I—— 

Mr. DENHAM. The answer is, no, it is not 100 percent utilized. 

Mr. PECK. As far as—— 

Mr. DENHAM. You were just there. He was just there. I am going 

to be there next week with Ms. Brown. It is not 100 percent utilized. You are not sticking to the resolution that came before us in 

the first place. 

Mr. PECK. Mr. Chairman—— 

Mr. DENHAM. Let me ask again, once this courthouse is done, the 

new courthouse is fully completed, will you have 100 percent utilization in the Roybal Building? 

Mr. PECK. Mr. Chairman, we will have a building—I believe our 

plan is to have a building that is fully utilized, by which I mean 

that every space in the building will be assigned. And we may have 

to do some renovation to get there, but, by the time we finish this 

project, it will be a fully utilized billing. 

Mr. DENHAM. So you will have to do renovations to the Roybal 

Building? 

Mr. PECK. At some point we need to do renovations to the Roybal 

Building for lots of reasons—— 

Mr. DENHAM. Part of this $365 million? 

Mr. PECK. No, sir. 

Mr. DENHAM. So the scope of this project has not only changed 

that you are going to use—you are going to get 40 percent less 

square footage than what was—— 

Mr. PECK. No—— 

Mr. DENHAM [continuing]. Originally proposed to this committee, 

but you are also going to have to come back to this committee and 

ask for more money for the Roybal renovation. 

Mr. PECK. Mr. Chairman, when we proposed 1 million square 

feet, which was, I think, 7 years ago, you know, there has been— 

even though the construction market is now soft, there was a period of significant inflation. And we are still—we could not build 

the same size building for this amount of money as we did then. 

But we are providing for the new courthouse that was the basis 

for the proposal in 2004 and, indeed, in 2000. We are providing a 

63 

building for the U.S. District Court. That was the proposal, and 

that is what we are proposing to build. 

There are other things that are going to have to be done to make 

this a—as in other courthouse projects that we have proposed, Mr. 

Chairman, we propose the work we are doing for the U.S. District 

Court and sometimes for magistrate and bankruptcy as well, but 

we often have follow-on projects to make the rest of the Federal inventory work. 

Mr. DENHAM. The project that was approved by this committee 

says ‘‘continued use of all existing courtrooms in the Roybal Federal Building for judicial proceedings.’’ 

Mr. PECK. That was the proposal at that time, yes, sir. 

Mr. DENHAM. Yes. And you are changing that proposal. The 

scope of the project has changed. We are going to get 40 percent 

less courtroom space, and you are going to go over the budget that 

you originally came to this committee for. 

Mr. PECK. No, we are at the same budget that we came to the 

committee for. As I said, we are at $365 million. 

Mr. DENHAM. $365 million, and I am also looking at the prospectus that came before this committee in 2008 asking for $700 

million. And under that $700 million, you have $50 million that 

you would need to renovate Roybal. 

Mr. PECK. Mr. Chairman, that—— 

Mr. DENHAM. So if you have $50 million that you are going to 

spend to meet the original prospectus, which says ‘‘continued use 

of all existing courtrooms in the Roybal Federal Building,’’ under 

the same prospectus you need an additional $50 million that you 

don’t have in that $365 million. That is definitely over the 10 percent that you need to finish the prospectus. 

Mr. PECK. Mr. Chairman—— 

Mr. DENHAM. So if you are going beyond what the original prospectus said in 2000, where are you going to come up with the 

money and when are you coming back to this committee? 

Mr. PECK. Mr. Chairman, the prospectus, the 2008 prospectus, 

was, as I understand it, dead on arrival. It was never approved. 

If you are talking about the 2000—there was a 2000 prospectus, 

and I believe—give me a moment—there was another prospectus in 

2004. 

Mr. DENHAM. Well, it sounds like you are trying to confuse everybody here. 

Mr. PECK. No, sir, I am not. This is a pretty complex, confusing 

issue. 

Mr. DENHAM. OK, so you came to this committee in 2008 with 

this new prospectus. 

Mr. PECK. Sir, I did not. 

Mr. DENHAM. And under this prospectus—— 

Mr. PECK. Sir, GSA, under a previous administration, came up 

with a proposal. This is not our proposal. 

Mr. DENHAM. Do you refute the numbers in this prospectus on 

what the previous administration came up with? 

Mr. PECK. Yes, sir. I mean, I am not refuting it; I am just saying 

that that is not our proposal anymore. That is—— 

Mr. DENHAM. OK. The proposal that you are going by right now 

is the 2000 prospectus, yes or no? 

64 

Mr. PECK. I believe the prospectus we are going on is the prospectus approved in 2004. 

Mr. DENHAM. Perfect. The 2004 prospectus says ‘‘continued use 

of all existing courtrooms in the Roybal Federal Building for judicial proceedings.’’ Are you going to have 100 percent utilization in 

the Roybal Building? 

Mr. PECK. We will have—— 

Mr. DENHAM. Yes or no? 

Mr. PECK. As I said, yes, sir, when this is over, there also will 

be 100 percent utilization of the space in the Roybal Building. 

Mr. DENHAM. OK. So, when this is over. Which means that you 

have to renovate the Roybal Building when this is over, correct? 

Mr. PECK. Yes, sir. And we will be back—— 

Mr. DENHAM. As part of the original prospectus. So you are saying you are going to come back at some point and ask for more 

money to make sure that you can continue to finalize the prospectus. 

Mr. PECK. We will be back for an authorization to do the work 

in the Roybal, but not—— 

Mr. DENHAM. It is the same prospectus. 

Mr. PECK [continuing]. Not another prospectus to do the courthouse, no, sir. But we will—yes, sir, for the Roybal work, we will 

have to come back for a new prospectus. 

Mr. DENHAM. So you are not only changing the scope but you are 

changing the cost of the current prospectus. 

Mr. PECK. No, sir, because the—— 

Mr. DENHAM. The current prospectus has both buildings in there. 

And, again, it says ‘‘continued use of all existing courtrooms in the 

Roybal Federal Building.’’ If you have to use all existing courtrooms in the Roybal Federal Building, you need $50 million to complete the entire prospectus, which means you that need new authorization from this committee. 

Mr. PECK. No. Mr. Chairman, we have an appropriation to build 

a new courthouse in Los Angeles, and we are going to build a new 

courthouse in Los Angeles. 

The work that needs to be done in the Roybal is not a part of 

the new courthouse project any more than we will have to go back 

and take a look at what we do with the space that is left over in 

the North Spring Street Courthouse. 

Mr. DENHAM. Yeah, the only problem is the North Spring Street 

Courthouse building is not in this prospectus. The Roybal Building 

is. And, again, it says ‘‘continued use of all existing courtrooms in 

the Roybal Federal Building for judicial proceedings’’ not only in 

the 2000 prospectus, but in the 2004 prospectus. No matter which 

prospectus you go to, you have to have 100 percent utilization of 

the Roybal Building. 

So if it is going to cost you $50 million to renovate it to get 100 

percent usage, which—we don’t have 100 percent usage today— 

then you have to come back before this committee to get a new authorization for the $50 million to complete the project. 

Mr. PECK. Mr. Chairman, as I said, we will be back for an authorization to do the work in the Roybal Building. That is correct. 

Mr. DENHAM. It was included in the original prospectus—— 

Mr. PECK. Mr. Chairman—— 

65 

Mr. DENHAM [continuing]. And in the 2004 prospectus to make 

sure that we would never end up in this position. I mean, I think 

that it is egregious that we would do a bait and switch and change 

the complete scope of this project that is going to give the taxpayers 40 percent less square footage than what the original prospectus said. But I think that it is even more egregious to say that 

we are going to just ignore the prospectus and have to come back 

at a later date, after the taxpayers are on the hook for the $365 

million, and have to come up with an additional $50 million to complete the project. 

Mr. PECK. Mr. Chairman, the language that was in both the 

2000 and the 2004 prospectuses—the 2000 was approved by Mr. 

Shuster and the 2004 by Mr. Young—said that we should design 

for and configure for maximum utilization of courtroom-sharing 

model for the courts, ensuring to the maximum extent practicable 

continued use of all the existing courtrooms in the Roybal Federal 

Building. 

So that is our plan, to use to the maximum extent practicable the 

existing courtrooms in the Roybal Building. As I said, we are going 

to have some 24 courtrooms in the new building and 25 courtrooms 

in the Roybal Building. I mean, we have taken that into account. 

The fact that at some later date we are going to have to renovate 

so that we can provide additional chambers is really a separate 

project. And this is the way we have done this before, to my knowledge. 

Mr. DENHAM. It is not a separate project. It is the same prospectus. And in this committee, when it authorized the use of 

funds, said ‘‘continued use of all existing courtrooms in the Roybal 

Federal Building for judicial proceedings.’’ You are changing not 

only the scope of the project, but you are changing the cost of the 

project. 

Mr. PECK. Mr. Chairman, the prospectuses that were submitted 

in 2000 and 2004, I will go back and check, and I will get back to 

you for the record, but I believe that those prospectuses also contemplated additional work being done on the Roybal Building in a 

separate project. 

Mr. DENHAM. Well, you won’t have to go back and check. We will 

make sure you have a copy of this once again for your records. But 

this is what this committee had approved. 

Ms. Norton? 

Ms. NORTON. I just want to say that we have been following the 

prospectuses as you outline, and I associate myself with your comments. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Peck, to say that we have a disagreement on 

the usage of this courthouse would be an understatement. I am certainly disappointed that—you and I have been able to work very, 

very close on the Civilian Property Realignment Act and look at 

correcting a lot of the challenges that we have with our entire inventory. There is so much that is left off. Of the 14,000 excess 

properties that we have listed today, not only can we not sell the 

14,000 that we don’t use, but we have these courthouses that are 

amazing courthouses, historic courthouses, just like the Old Post 

Office, that we could not only create hundreds of thousands of jobs 

in construction and renovation, but revitalize communities and creVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:16 Mar 19, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\ED\2011\11-4-1~1\71099.TXT JEAN
66 

ate hundreds of thousands of long-term jobs, just like what we are 

proposing in the Old Post Office. 

I am disappointed that it appears that you are just trying to get 

around this committee, whether it is the prospectus that was 

passed in 2000, the prospectus in 2004, or the prospectus that was 

presented to this committee in 2008 but never acted upon, all of 

which suggest that—not suggest, they mandate continued use of all 

existing courtrooms in the Roybal Federal Building as the same 

prospectus. 

You have clearly stated that you are going to spend the $365 million on changing the scope of this project, will result in 40 percent 

less square footage than the original prospectus. And then, at some 

later date, you are going to come back, after ignoring the resolution 

and prospectus that passed out of this committee, while ignoring 

the language in that, then come back at a later date and ask for 

an additional $50-million-plus to continue to fix the Roybal Courthouse. 

Mr. PECK. Mr. Chairman, there was an appropriation made in 

2004—appropriations made in 2004 and 2005 and, I believe, in 

2001 for site and design. An appropriation to a Federal agency is 

a directive to do a project. We have the opportunity to take—we 

have sat on that money for a long time, and we are not supposed 

to do that. We are supposed to do what the Congress tells us to 

spend on. We don’t have to spend every money; our goal is to bring 

in projects for less. But, in essence, we have not followed a different direction of the Congress to build this project. We have an 

opportunity to do it now and to create thousands of construction 

jobs in Los Angeles. 

Moreover, we have been told in committee report language, at 

least from the Appropriations Committees for the past several 

years, that we were to get on with it, to figure out what we could 

build within the amount of money we have, and move on with the 

project. And that is what we have done. 

GAO in 2008 took a look at what was going on and said GSA and 

the courts were not agreed on this thing at all and weren’t getting 

anywhere and needed to figure out a way to get this done within 

the budget. And, you know, we followed that mandate, and that is 

why we are here today, to try present to you, in your oversight capacity, what we are doing under that appropriation. 

And you are absolutely right, we have been very much aligned 

on what we are doing. And I believe that there is a good story here 

about finally taking a project that has been sitting here, that is 

needed by the courts, and that will help us align the Federal office 

inventory in the Los Angeles area in a better way than it is today. 

I am sorry that we disagree about how it should move forward. 

I truly am. 

Mr. DENHAM. You have drastically changed the scope of this 

project from a 1.1-million-square-foot project. Now the taxpayers 

are going to receive 40 percent less than that. It is not your prerogative to change projects and bait and switch this Congress into getting something that it—you can’t go out there and do gold-lined 

walls or change a project so significantly without coming back for 

Congress’ approval. 

67 

Nor can you go out and change a prospectus and just ignore the 

fact that the prospectus that was passed out of this committee says 

‘‘continued use of all existing courtrooms in the Roybal Federal 

Building for judicial proceedings’’ and just ignore the language in 

there. 

Mr. PECK. Mr. Chairman—— 

Mr. DENHAM. You, in your own testimony, said that you would 

have to come back to this committee for the $50 million that is in 

your prospectus to continue to renovate that building. This committee expected, clearly, in writing, expected that the $400 million 

that was allocated was going to have two 100 percent fully utilized 

courtrooms. The judges aren’t there, the need isn’t there. And in 

the current building you have vacant space, which I am looking forward to seeing. 

I hope that they do their due diligence over the weekend and pull 

out all of the old furniture that is in these vacant courtrooms and 

actually find some courts to actually see there. But right now, from 

what I am hearing from my colleagues, that does not exist. So you 

have a partially empty courtroom today, you are going to build 60 

percent of the courtroom that you said you were going to build 

when you came before Congress, and the taxpayers are going to get 

left holding the bag of one and a half empty spaces. 

My position stands very clear, that this is something that is not 

only a waste but something that we need to be looking at expediting the sale of this Spring Street Building before we end up in 

another situation like Miami or New York or many other areas 

around the Nation. I will look forward to visiting some of those 

courtrooms, as well. 

But we need to be doing more with less, not continuing to go on 

this spending spree that has gone on in the past. We need to 

change our ways. And that is coming, not only with the CPRA bill 

that is before Congress and before the supercommittee today, but 

we will be further looking at all of these courthouses. 

Mr. Peck, Ranking Member Norton brings up a very good question. We already have a prospectus here in front of us from 2008 

that already has GSA’s numbers in it. With the current scope of 

the project changing as much as it has, with the current prospectus 

out there and the very clear language in this, this committee would 

request that a new prospectus come back from GSA, outlining not 

only the use of the Roybal Building but the expense as well. 

Since you already understand that the renovations are going to 

go outside of this current prospectus, we would request that you 

bring that new prospectus in front of us immediately. 

Mr. PECK. I understand. I will respond to you with—after I consult, I will certainly respond to you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. You have a lot of requests to bring 

back to us. We also look forward to your meeting with Mr. Goldstein. But this prospectus we would expect in a timely manner, especially since you have all of the information already done from the 

2008 prospectus. 

With that, I would like to thank each of you for your testimony 

and comments today. Certainly they have been helpful and enlightening in some concerns. 

68 

I would 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 the record remain open for 15 days for 

any additional comments and information submitted by Members 

or witnesses to be included in the record of today’s hearing. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I would like to thank our witnesses again for their testimony. 

And if no other Members have anything to add, the subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:57 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

69 


Insert offset folio 30 here 71099.030
70 


Insert offset folio 31 here 71099.031
71 


Insert offset folio 32 here 71099.032
72 


Insert offset folio 33 here 71099.033
73 


Insert offset folio 34 here 71099.034
74 


Insert offset folio 35 here 71099.035
75 


Insert offset folio 36 here 71099.036
76 


Insert offset folio 37 here 71099.037
77 


Insert offset folio 38 here 71099.038
78 


Insert offset folio 39 here 71099.039
79 


Insert offset folio 40 here 71099.040
80 


Insert offset folio 41 here 71099.041
81 


Insert offset folio 42 here 71099.042
82 


Insert offset folio 43 here 71099.043
83 


Insert offset folio 44 here 71099.044
84 


Insert offset folio 45 here 71099.045
85 


Insert offset folio 46 here 71099.046
86 


Insert offset folio 47 here 71099.047
87 


Insert offset folio 48 here 71099.048
88 


Insert offset folio 49 here 71099.049
89 


Insert offset folio 50 here 71099.050
90 


Insert offset folio 51 here 71099.051
91 


Insert offset folio 52 here 71099.052
92 


Insert offset folio 53 here 71099.053
93 


Insert offset folio 54 here 71099.054
94 


Insert offset folio 55 here 71099.055
95 


Insert offset folio 56 here 71099.056
96 


Insert offset folio 57 here 71099.057
97 


Insert offset folio 58 here 71099.058
98 


Insert offset folio 59 here 71099.059
99 


Insert offset folio 60 here 71099.060
100 


Insert offset folio 61 here 71099.061
101 


Insert offset folio 62 here 71099.062
102 


Insert offset folio 63 here 71099.063
103 


Insert offset folio 64 here 71099.064
104 


Insert offset folio 65 here 71099.065
105 


Insert offset folio 66 here 71099.066
106 


Insert offset folio 67 here 71099.067
107 


Insert offset folio 68 here 71099.068
108 


Insert offset folio 69 here 71099.069
109 


Insert offset folio 70 here 71099.070
110 


Insert offset folio 71 here 71099.071
111 


Insert offset folio 72 here 71099.072
112 


Insert offset folio 73 here 71099.073
113 


Insert offset folio 74 here 71099.074
114 


Insert offset folio 75 here 71099.075
115 


Insert offset folio 76 here 71099.076
116 


Insert offset folio 77 here 71099.077
117 


Insert offset folio 78 here 71099.078
118 


Insert offset folio 79 here 71099.079
119 


Insert offset folio 80 here 71099.080
120 


Insert offset folio 81 here 71099.081
121 


Insert offset folio 82 here 71099.082
122 


Insert offset folio 83 here 71099.083
123 


Insert offset folio 84 here 71099.084
124 


Insert offset folio 85 here 71099.085
125 


Insert offset folio 86 here 71099.086
126 


Insert offset folio 87 here 71099.087
127 


Insert offset folio 88 here 71099.088
128 


Insert offset folio 89 here 71099.089
129 


Insert offset folio 90 here 71099.090
130 


Insert offset folio 91 here 71099.091
131 


Insert offset folio 92 here 71099.092
132 


Insert offset folio 93 here 71099.093
133 


Insert offset folio 94 here 71099.094
134 


Insert offset folio 95 here 71099.095
135 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 96 here 71099.096