Washington, D.C.—The following are opening remarks from Vice Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management Laura Friedman (D-CA) during today’s hearing titled, “Federal Courthouse Design and Construction: Examining the Costs to the Taxpayer.”
Video of Friedman’s opening statement is here.
More information on the hearing can be found here.
Vice Ranking Member Friedman:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Over the last 45 years, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has compiled a large body of work on Federal courthouse construction—much of it at the request of this Committee.
In study after study, GAO found that the judiciary has requested and received courthouses that are larger than the size authorized by Congress and more expensive to build and operate than Congress was aware of.
Wide latitude among judiciary and GSA decision makers in choices about location, design, construction and finishes often resulted in expensive features in some courthouse projects.
Long-range space projections by the judiciary were not sufficiently reliable.
The judiciary’s 5-year plan did not always reflect its most urgently needed projects.
And the judiciary did not track courtroom usage.
The judiciary pays rent to GSA for the use of these courthouses, and the proportion of the judiciary’s budget that goes to rent has increased as its space requirements have grown.
Difficulties in paying for its increasing rent costs were so great that the judiciary requested a $483 million permanent annual exemption from rent payments to GSA—which they did not receive.
Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton, then-chair of this Subcommittee, was so concerned about the bloated federal courthouse construction program that she asked then-President Obama to place a moratorium on new courthouse construction requests.
Along the way, the judiciary did seem to try to meet the concerns of Congress. The Judicial Conference revised its courtroom allocation planning assumptions. New courtroom construction projects are to be designed to facilitate courtroom-sharing for senior district judges, magistrate judges and bankruptcy judges.
But there is still some cause for concern.
In 2022, this Committee asked GAO to look at differences between the courts’ 2007 design guide and their updated 2021 design guide.
GAO found that changes made to the 2021 design guide will increase the size of new courthouses by 12%.
As the judiciary increases the size of their spaces the building envelope expands—more tile, more wiring, more ceiling tiles, more paint, longer hallways, increased circulation, etc.
The judiciary wanted three circulation zones: public, restricted space for judges and staff and the secure circulation that is the Marshall’s Service purview to move prisoners. But when updating the design guide to reflect changes in circulation, the judiciary did not fully collaborate with GSA or the Federal Protective Service to determine necessity or feasibility.
I appreciate the participation of all our witnesses.
Director Marroni, you and your colleagues are truly the workhorses of this Committee. Year after year, report after report, your work is incalculable to the effective and efficient operations of the United States.
Judge Suddaby, I assume that you and your colleagues are annoyed when Congress questions your priorities, but that is our job.
And Commissioner Peters, I am particularly pleased to see you here today since you declined to participate in our last hearing on federal real estate. I look forward to learning more about your plans to shed 63% of your workforce and 50% of your budget—all without impeding the progress of courthouses under construction and courthouses that need repairs and maintenance.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
--30--