[Senate Hearing 108-740]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 9:35 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike DeWine (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators DeWine and Landrieu.
Also present: Ms. Norton and Senator Strauss.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Courts
STATEMENT OF ANNICE M. WAGNER, CHIEF JUDGE, DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS; CHAIR, JOINT
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION
ACCOMPANIED BY RUFUS G. KING, III, CHIEF JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
opening statement of senator mike de wine
Senator DeWine. Welcome, everyone. We have with us this
morning two members of the Kiev City Council. Let me see if I
can do the pronunciation, Yurly Zumko and Andre Radrewski. If
you could stand, in the back. Thank you very much for joining
us. I am glad to have you with us.
I hope you enjoy your stay with us today; I hope we do not
bore you too much with our hearing today.
This hearing today will come to order. We will convene the
first fiscal year 2005 budget hearing for the District of
Columbia.
I want to take this opportunity to, again, thank Senator
Landrieu, our subcommittee's Ranking Member and to recognize
her continued commitment to improving life for the residents of
this Nation. It is good to be with you again.
Over the years, Senator Landrieu and I have worked together
on a number of important issues for our Nation's Capital, and I
am sure that we will continue to work together this year as we
work on the fiscal year 2005 D.C. Appropriations Bill.
Today, we are considering the fiscal year 2005 budget
request for the District of Columbia Courts. Under the National
Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of
1997, the Federal Government is required to finance the
District of Columbia Courts.
The President has requested $228 million for the Courts in
fiscal year 2005. This is $60.2 million more than the fiscal
year 2004 enacted level. I understand that the lion's share of
this increase is to be used to restore the now vacant Old
Courthouse, so that it can house the Court of Appeals, which in
turn, will free up more space in the Moultrie Courthouse for a
safe, family-friendly Family Court.
The renovation of the Old Courthouse also will be an
important historical preservation achievement. This building,
the fourth oldest in the District of Columbia, has great
historic significance. It is where President Lincoln's first
inaugural ball was held, and where his assassination
conspirators were tried and convicted.
For a time, the building served as a hospital for the
wounded soldiers of the Union Army. It is here where Frederick
Douglass had his offices and where Daniel Webster practiced
law.
The fiscal year 2005 funding request will allow this very
historic building to be restored to its former majesty, while
also configuring it to be used to serve the people of the
District as a working courthouse.
I am pleased that Judge Wagner, Judge King followed the
advice of this subcommittee and made a compelling case to OMB
to support these construction efforts. I congratulate them for
it. It is to their credit that the President has included
adequate funding for these important Capital projects in his
budget request.
I must say, however, that I am concerned to know that court
officials and representatives of the National Law Enforcement
Museum Fund have, unfortunately, been unable to reach an
agreement on the design of their shared space in Judiciary
Square.
On the one hand, Congress has mandated that the Courts
reorganize and improve their services and facilities, which the
Courts are beginning with the renovation of the Old Courthouse.
On the other hand, Congress authorized the National Law
Enforcement Memorial Fund to build an underground Law
Enforcement Museum on Federal land that partially abuts the Old
Courthouse. It is my firm belief that the Courts and the Law
Enforcement Memorial Fund should reach an agreement that
complies with both mandates. I am sure that they will be able
to do this.
I understand that the Courts and the Memorial Fund
fundamentally disagree on the level of construction and the
design of the plaza area, which will provide the entryway to
both buildings. This disagreement has apparently been going on
for almost a year, with no resolution in sight.
I am concerned that this apparent impasse will result in
delays to the construction schedule and, in turn, increased
construction costs.
As chairman of this subcommittee, which appropriates 100
percent of the funding for the D.C. Courts, I want to work to
ensure that there are no construction cost overruns involving
Federal funds.
As our hearing begins, Judge Wagner and Judge King will
present the Courts' overall budget request, and then I will ask
our witnesses from the National Law Enforcement Memorial Fund,
the National Capital Planning Commission, and the Commission of
Fine Arts to join the panel to discuss the design disagreement,
which I have just mentioned.
prepared statement
Witnesses will be, of course, be limited to 5 minutes for
their oral remarks. Copies of all written statements will be
placed in the record in their entirety.
[The statement follows]:
Prepared Statement of Senator Mike DeWine
Good morning. This hearing will come to order. Today I am convening
the first fiscal year 2005 budget hearing for the District of Columbia.
I want to take this opportunity to thank Senator Landrieu, our
subcommittee's Ranking Member, and to recognize her continued
commitment to improving life for the residents of the District of
Columbia. Over the years, Senator Landrieu and I have worked together
on a number of important issues for our Nation's capital, and I am sure
that we will continue to reach across the aisle as we begin work on the
fiscal year 2005 District of Columbia appropriations bill.
Today, we are considering the fiscal year 2005 budget request for
the District of Columbia Courts. Under the National Capital
Revitalization and Self-government Improvement Act of 1997, the Federal
Government is required to finance the District of Columbia Courts.
The President has requested $228 million for the Courts in fiscal
year 2005. This is $60.2 million more than the fiscal year 2004 enacted
level. I understand that the lion's share of this increase will be used
to restore the now-vacant Old Courthouse so that it can house the Court
of Appeals, which, in turn, will free up more space in the Moultrie
Courthouse for a safe, family-friendly Family Court. The renovation of
the Old Courthouse also will be an important historic preservation
achievement. This building--the 4th oldest in the District of
Columbia--has great historic significance. It is where President
Lincoln's first inaugural ball was held and where his assassination
conspirators were tried and convicted. For a time, the building served
as a hospital for wounded soldiers of the Union Army. It is here where
Frederick Douglass had his offices and where Daniel Webster practiced
law.
The fiscal year 2005 funding request will allow this very historic
building to be restored to its former majesty, while also configuring
it to be used to serve the people of the District as a working
courthouse.
I am pleased that Judge Wagner and Judge King followed the advice
of this subcommittee and made a compelling case to OMB to support these
construction efforts. It is to their credit that the President has
included adequate funding for these important capital projects in his
budget request. I am concerned, however, to know that Court officials
and representatives of the National Law Enforcement Museum Fund have
been unable to reach an agreement on the design of their shared space
in Judiciary Square. On the one hand, Congress has mandated that the
Courts reorganize and improve their services and facilities, which the
Courts are beginning with the renovation of the Old Courthouse. On the
other hand, Congress authorized the National Law Enforcement Memorial
Fund to build an underground Law Enforcement Museum on Federal land
that partially abuts the Old Courthouse. It is my firm belief that the
Courts and the Law Enforcement Memorial Fund should reach an agreement
that complies with both mandates.
I understand that the Courts and the Memorial Fund fundamentally
disagree on the level of construction and the design of the plaza area,
which will provide the entryway to both buildings. This disagreement
has apparently been going on for almost a year, with no resolution in
sight. I am concerned that this apparent impasse will result in delays
to the construction schedule and, in turn, increased construction
costs. As Chairman of this subcommittee, which appropriates 100 percent
of the funding for the D.C. Courts, I want to work to ensure that there
are no construction cost overruns involving Federal funds.
As our hearing begins, Judge Wagner and Judge King will present the
Courts' overall budget request, then I will ask our witnesses from the
National Law Enforcement Memorial Fund, the National Capital Planning
Commission, and the Commission of Fine Arts to join the panel to
discuss the design disagreement which I have mentioned.
Witnesses will be limited to 5 minutes for their oral remarks.
Copies of all written statements will be placed in the Record in their
entirety.
Senator DeWine. Senator Landrieu.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY L. LANDRIEU
Senator Landrieu. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And
welcome to our distinguished panelists this morning, and
welcome to all of our guests.
I want to just reiterate again how much of a pleasure it is
for me to work with Senator DeWine. We have worked as a
partnership now for several years and we can see such progress,
particularly in the area that we are going to be discussing
this morning, the renovation and development of Judiciary
Square, the establishment of a very family-friendly or child-
centered Family Court that will service not only the District,
but serve as a model for the Nation.
We commend you all for the work that is ongoing, and we
look forward to continuing the partnership in that regard.
I also express, again, the importance, at least from our
perspective, Mr. Chairman, of the focus on establishing the new
Family Court, because not only are we establishing a new
building that is operational and conducive to good judgments
and outcomes, but through the partnership of this committee, it
can help to build a new initiative in the City that strengthens
families, protects children from harm and expedites life
changing and sometimes threatening decisions, to make sure that
families and the well-being of children are of paramount
importance for us, for this committee.
PREPARED STATEMENT
So with that, I will just put the rest of my statement in
the record. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the focus this
morning.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Mary L. Landrieu
As the first hearing of year I wanted to join my Chairman, Mr.
DeWine in welcoming the witnesses and sharing a brief philosophy on our
leadership of this committee and our goals. The D.C. Appropriations
bill, under my chairmanship and continuing with Mr. DeWine, has charted
a course to support targeted investments in the District. Congress is
partnering with the District by enhancing security and emergency
preparedness; strengthening schools and education standards; supporting
the Family Court and child welfare. These three areas support the
District's Mayor Anthony Williams' goal to revitalize neighborhoods and
increase the population of the city by 100,000 people in the next 10
years. People want good schools and dynamic, safe neighborhoods. This
committee will continue this partnership, following on our investments
in the Family Court and child services and development of excellent
charter schools.
Today's hearing is focused on one of our Federal agencies, the D.C.
Courts to discuss their fiscal year 2005 budget request. In addition,
we have asked the National Capital Planning Commission, Commission on
Fine Arts, and the National Law Enforcement Museum to join us to
discuss the Judiciary Square Master Plan and we appreciate their
attendance. The Courts are really the core of the D.C. Appropriations
bill and the center of our attention. This subcommittee exercises the
``State'' oversight function for the District, similar to how other
cities and States interact.
As one of the central functions transferred to the Federal
Government in the 1997 Revitalization Act, the Courts serve a unique
role to serve the public and be accountable to the Congress. I believe
this Court, lead by Chief Judge King and Chief Judge Wagner has met
this responsibility aptly. The fiscal year 2005 budget reflects a
commitment to improved management of the Courts and justification for
increased budget authority.
The focus of this year's budget is infrastructure, and I commend
the Courts for making this a priority. In addition, I am pleased to see
over the 3 years that I have been on this committee that the Courts
have undertaken facilities Master Planning process in close
consultation with the Federal oversight panels. I look forward to a
presentation on the Master Plan for Judiciary Square and supporting the
Courts' needs for implementing this plan. Major renovation and
expansion of the Courts' facilities is important to this committee;
however we want to examine the process undertaken to prioritize these
projects and decisions made to focus on construction/renovation rather
than rehabilitation of existing buildings. I understand that there are
serious maintenance issues in the current facilities, such as
inadequate heating and air conditioning, poor lavatories, and an
unfriendly public space.
This committee has invested in regular maintenance at levels much
higher than our predecessors. I think much progress has been made;
however I understand the need for the focus to shift now to long term
capital projects, such as constructing a new Family Court and
completing the restoration of the Old Courthouse. These are ``marquee''
projects which receive a great deal of attention from Congress and the
community, but they are also much more costly and therefore take a
greater bite out of the budget. I recognize their importance but there
is also a balance with ongoing maintenance and making improvements to
public space while rehabilitation projects are underway. I would be
interested to hear your thoughts on balancing these capital
infrastructure needs.
The committee is also joined by witnesses from the National Capital
Planning Commission, Commission on Fine Arts, and the National Law
Enforcement Museum to discuss judiciary square master planning. The
committee is particularly concerned with lack of coordination and
cooperation with the Museum. Federal dollars and oversight is directing
the development of Judiciary Square. It is critical that we can
appropriately direct resources to the moving priorities that also
reflect the needs of the District. The committee has been actively
engaged in creation of the family court and need for a dedicated space
for children and families. Progress of the family court construction is
dependent on agreement of the law enforcement museum and Old
Courthouse, freeing up space in the main Courthouse. I look forward to
hearing progress of the various projects and options for moving forward
with restoration of the square to the original historic design.
I appreciate your attendance today and look forward to working to
improve the appearance and utility of Judiciary Square.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL STRAUSS
Senator DeWine. Senator Landrieu, thank you very much.
Senator Strauss has provided a statement to be included for the
record as well.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Paul Strauss
Chairman DeWine, Ranking Member Landrieu, and others on the
subcommittee, as the elected United States Senator for the District of
Columbia, and an attorney who practices in our local courts, I would
like to thank you for holding this hearing this morning, and for
considering the needs of the people in the District of Columbia.
I fully support the fiscal year 2005 Budget Request for the
District of Columbia Courts. It is vital that the District of Columbia
Court System be fully funded in the amount proposed by the courts. As
the District of Columbia Senator, I myself cannot vote on this
appropriation. I am limited to merely asking you to support their
requests.
As in the past, it appears that the President's request is
significantly less than the amount requested by our judicial
institutions. I find this unfortunate. Unlike citizens of any other
jurisdiction, we lack the legal rights to make these funding decisions
on our own. As I have stated before, unless the local courts are fully
funded by this subcommittee and the Congress, they will not be fully
funded. This is not just an issue of simply allocating appropriations,
but for the residents of our Nation's Capital, an issue of fundamental
justice.
There is a compelling argument to be made that District of Columbia
should not have to look to Congress for the sole financial support of
its courts. I for one agree with that position. This is again a case
where the many limits on the District of Columbia's ability to have
self-government adversely impact the taxpayers of your own States. For
the record, if Congress would simply grant the District of Columbia's
petition for Statehood, the restrictions on our revenue-raising ability
would be lifted and we could fund our court system ourselves and over
$260 million can be returned to the Federal treasury. I have made this
argument case many times before many committees of this body. I do not
intend to discuss D.C. Statehood here today because the unfortunate
truth is that while this status quo is maintained, it is absolutely
essential that Congress fully fund the D.C. Court System, and I am
obligated to support that appropriation.
The President is requesting $225 million for the District of
Columbia Courts for the fiscal year 2005 budget and $41.5 million to
the Defender Services. The Courts themselves are requesting $272.08
million for the fiscal year 2005 budget and $50.5 million for Defender
Services. The fiscal year 2005 budget request for the District of
Columbia Courts furthers the Courts developments by building upon prior
achievements, and supports the Courts' commitment to serve the citizens
of the District of Columbia. The D.C. Courts will be more empowered to
fulfill this commitment by having the necessary funds to do so, and
will be extremely limited in their abilities if they do not.
In order for the District of Columbia Courts to continue to provide
the highest level of justice to the citizens of the District of
Columbia, it is crucial that they receive additional resources in the
fiscal year 2005. The Court's requests command considerable capital
investments in facilities, infrastructure, security, and technology, as
well as operational investments to enhance the administration of
justice and service to the public. If the courts are unable to obtain
additional capital resources, The Moultrie Courthouse and the
District's historic Old Courthouse, along with Buildings A and B, will
continue to deteriorate; the Courts' information technology will fail;
and needed security measures and equipment will not be installed,
putting the Courts' buildings and the public at risk.
I recognize that it can be tempting to refer to the increase of
funds allotted to the District of Columbia Courts by the President in
his request between 2004 and 2005 and conclude that the Court's needs
have been met. I urge you to look past this deceiving increase. The
Office of Management and Budget generated marks are inadequate to meet
the needs of the District of Columbia Courts, and need to be considered
a floor and not a ceiling for purposes of the fiscal year 2005 budget.
I realize the President has other priorities, but the District of
Columbia Courts are in dire need of revenue for program enhancements
and physical improvements. The budget requests they have submitted are
reasonable.
The current and future needs that will be met by the budget
proposal submitted by the District of Columbia Courts are diverse. They
include investing in human resources, broadening access to justice and
service to the public, promoting competence, professionalism and
civility, improving court facilities and technology, enhancing public
security, and strengthening services to families. In this hearing, the
witnesses have presented the fiscal marks that they request regarding
the aforementioned capital improvements for the fiscal year 2005. With
the cooperation of and significant input from General Services
Administration, the District of Columbia Courts previously proposed a
Master Plan for Facilities. The fiscal year 2005 capital request
reflects the significant research and planning included in this Master
Plan. It is essential that the Courts receive the funds needed to
complete this three-part plan in order to ensure the health, safety,
and quality of court facilities and begin to address court space needs.
Let me briefly address whatever conflicting design issues which may
or may not exist between the D.C. Courts and the National Law
Enforcement Fund. I am pleased that the D.C. Courts recently submitted
a viable design that will simultaneously comply with Federal law and
address the concerns of the Memorial Fund. The NCPC has encouraged the
Memorial Fund to accept this resolution as a sound starting point for
development, so that this project does not exceed budget restrictions,
thereby costing taxpayers more money in order to complete it. Judiciary
Square is the historic home of the D.C. Courts, and an original element
of the L'Enfant plan. I am not convinced that any significant conflict
between the plans of the two institutions exists. To the extent that
one does however, any competing needs must be resolved in favor of our
judicial branch. While the planned museum will no doubt enhance the
culture and aesthetics of our community, the Court System is a
necessary government function. While the Court System is ready now with
capital funding, the museum continues to solicit private contributions.
Any restriction of the Courts' mandatory operations would be a
disservice to the people of D.C., no matter how noble the symbolism of
the planned museum.
Notwithstanding the importance of fully funding the District of
Columbia Court System operating budget, I would like to ask the
subcommittee to focus your attention on the Defender Services line
item. I cannot emphasize enough the need to fully fund the Defender
Services line item, at the Court's mark. Presently, there is a mere $9
million difference in the two requests.\1\ In order to provide adequate
representation to families in crisis, we need to fully fund Defender
Services. I said it last year, and it remains true for fiscal year
2005, all of this Committee's accomplished work on restructuring the
Family Court is in jeopardy unless it has the resources to sustain it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The President allotted $134 million for Court Operations while
the Courts requested $151.15 million, a difference of $17.15 million,
and the President allotted $93.4 million for Capital whereas the Courts
requested $120.93 million, a difference of $27.53 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note that it is not the lawyers but the D.C. Court System
itself who is asking for an increase in the hourly rate paid to
attorneys that provide legal services to the indigent. Their request
includes those attorneys that work hard to represent abused and
neglected children in Family Court. The first fee increase in nearly a
decade was implemented in March of 2002 when it was adjusted to the
present rate of $65 per hour. In the fiscal year 2004 request, the
Courts recommend an incremental increase from the current $65 an hour
to $75 per hour and eventually to $90 per hour. They are again
requesting the new rate this year.
This adjustment is important because the Federal Court's appointed
lawyers, literally across the street, already get paid $90 an hour to
do very similar work. Therefore, the disparity in pay between the two
systems creates a disincentive amongst the ``experienced'' attorneys to
work for Defender Services in the D.C. Court. I call on this
subcommittee to once again eliminate this disincentive by fully funding
the requested increase in the Defender Services line item in the bill
for fiscal year 2005, and then fight vigorously to defend that mark
against adverse House action if a conference committee fight becomes
necessary.
The Family Court is an institution that must protect the District's
most vulnerable citizens--its children. Although the budget provides
training for new attorneys, it is the experienced advocates who best
serve these special clients. We are in danger of losing our most
experienced child advocates due to budget cuts. A deficiency in funds
to Defender Services will compromise the safety of children in the
District of Columbia, so I am compelled to ask you to secure children's
safety in the District of Columbia by fully funding Defender Services.
In closing, I wish to sincerely thank the subcommittee for holding
this hearing. I know that this subcommittee has been firmly committed
to meeting its fiduciary obligations regarding appropriations for the
D.C. Courts. On behalf of my constituents, I thank you for all your
hard work and dedication and I look forward to your continued
cooperation. There has been strong bipartisan support in this
subcommittee for our Court system. In particular, I commend Senators
DeWine and Landrieu for all the great work that they have done on the
important issue. Both of you have generally treated the D.C. Courts
with the same consideration as if they were courts in your own States.
Finally, let me thank Kendra Canape, Marco Berte and Brian Rauer of my
staff, for their assistance in the preparation of this testimony.
Senator DeWine. Judge King and Judge Wagner, thank you very
much for joining us. And we welcome your opening statements.
Let me just announce to everyone: We have a vote on the
Senate floor at 10:30. This committee will finish by 10:30
today one way or the other--so we will be able to do that. I am
sure there is plenty of time for us to do our business here
today.
Judge King.
Judge King. If Judge Wagner would start?
Senator DeWine. Oh, Judge Wagner, if you wish to start.
Judge Wagner. Yes. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF JUDGE ANNICE M. WAGNER
Judge Wagner. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Senator
Landrieu, subcommittee members.
Senator DeWine. Good morning.
Judge Wagner. I want to thank you for this opportunity to
discuss the fiscal year 2005 budget request for the District of
Columbia Courts. I am Annice Wagner, and I am appearing in my
capacity as the Chair of the Joint Committee on Judicial
Administration in the District of Columbia. Of course, Chief
Judge Rufus King, III, of the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia, is present and joins in this statement and will make
a statement of his own.
My remarks this morning will summarize only and highlight
our most critical priority, our capital budget request. I want
to thank you for including in the record the detailed written
statement we have submitted. I plan to focus my remarks on this
critical capital requirement.
The District of Columbia Courts, as you know, serve
approximately 10,000 members of the public each day. They
handle more than 200,000 cases each year, and employ a staff of
1,200 who directly serve the public, process cases, and provide
administrative support.
The D.C. Courts' capital funding requirements are
significant because they include funding for projects critical
to maintaining, preserving, and building safe and functional
courthouse facilities essential to meeting the heavy demands of
the administration of justice in our Nation's Capital. Of
course, included in that is our Family Court, in which you both
have been so interested in the past.
Just under a year ago, we appeared before the subcommittee
to discuss our capital budget. We appreciate the support for
our Master Plan for Facilities that you, Mr. Chairman, in
particular, expressed at that time.
And we have taken your advice to heart, working very
closely with the administration during its review of the
Courts' capital budget request.
We are very gratified that the President has included in
his budget recommendations the major components of our
facilities renovation plans, particularly the restoration of
the Old Courthouse for use by the Court of Appeals, which is
the highest court in this jurisdiction. The restoration of this
architectural jewel, the centerpiece of the historic Judiciary
Square, will not only serve to address the Courts' space
requirements, but it will also help to revitalize this
important public area in our Nation's Capital.
Since the most recent study for the restoration of the Old
Courthouse was completed in 1999, with the support of this
subcommittee, we have been successful in mothballing the
building, so to speak; that is, securing its roof and making it
watertight, to prevent further deterioration.
Last year, we procured a nationally renowned architectural
and engineering firm, Beyer Blinder Belle, to design the
restoration. Representatives of that firm are with us today,
Mr. John Belle and Mr. Hany Hassan. They are recognized as
bringing sensitive solutions to complex urban problems
requiring a delicate mix of appropriate historic restoration
and bold inventive design, and have received as a result
Presidential Design awards, this country's highest award for
public architecture. They have worked on such things as the
Grand Central Station and the Ellis Island restorations.
The design for the restoration of the Old Courthouse itself
is now at the 50 percent complete stage. We will be ready to
submit this design to the regulatory agencies next month, with
the final design to be completed in August of this year.
We are scheduled to begin construction in January 2005 and
plan to relocate the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to
the Old Courthouse when it is restored, and we expect that to
occur in January 2007.
This relocation is a critical path of interdependent
actions, which must occur in a complex sequence. That is, one
thing must occur so that other parts of the Court can be
accommodated, including the finalization of our Family Court
with its own separate entrance on C Street.
Formal review and approval by the regulatory agencies of
the Old Courthouse project must proceed expeditiously, as any
delay will increase cost, contribute to further deterioration
and delay implementation of the Courts' Master Plan for
Facilities, including the Family Court.
As you may know, both the Commission of Fine Arts and the
National Capital Planning Commission called for a coordinated
design agreement between the Courts and the National Law
Enforcement Museum, which is authorized to build an underground
museum with above-ground entrance pavilions on part of the
site.
At that time, it appeared that both projects were on
similar construction schedules. Subsequently, however, we have
learned that the museum construction may not commence until
sometime between 2009 and 2012, up to 5 years after the
completed Old Courthouse is scheduled to become the seat of the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
But we are confident that our respective architects will
eventually reach a design for the plaza entranceway which is
agreeable to all parties. However, to address the area in the
interim between construction projects, our architects have
prepared a phase one design that completes the Old Courthouse
restoration without infringing on the area authorized for the
museum. Therefore, an agreement on plaza entranceway design
should not delay the restoration and use of this important
public building.
We recognize that coordination must continue with the
museum and that some modifications to the site may be
necessary.
Senator DeWine. Judge, if you could conclude, please, if
you could finish it.
Judge King. Sir, I do not know if it's appropriate, but I
would be happy to yield most of my time to Judge Wagner.
Senator DeWine. That would be fine.
Judge Wagner. Well, I have only a couple more statements to
make.
Senator DeWine. Sure.
Judge Wagner. The principles of aesthetics, urban design,
planning, and the enhancement of historical, cultural and
natural resources will be best served by permitting the
restoration of the historically and architecturally significant
Old Courthouse.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Again, I thank you for your support of our facilities and
plans and for this opportunity to discuss this very important
issue in our capital budget.
And Chief Judge King and I, we will be happy to answer any
questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Annice M. Wagner
Mister Chairman, Senator Landrieu, Subcommittee members, thank you
for this opportunity to discuss the fiscal year 2005 budget request of
the District of Columbia Courts. I am Annice Wagner, and I am appearing
in my capacity as the Chair of the Joint Committee on Judicial
Administration in the District of Columbia. I also serve as Chief Judge
of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Chief Judge Rufus G.
King, III, of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia is also
present today and joins in this statement.
As you know, the Joint Committee is the policy-making body for the
District of Columbia Courts. By statute, its responsibilities include,
among others, general personnel policies, accounts and auditing,
procurement and disbursement, management of information systems and
reports, and submission of the Courts' annual budget request to the
President and Congress. This jurisdiction has a two-tier system
comprised of the D.C. Court of Appeals, our court of last resort, and
the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, a trial court of
general jurisdiction, which includes our Family Court. Administrative
support functions for our Courts are provided by what has come to be
known as the Court System.
My remarks this morning will summarize the request and highlight
our most critical priority, our capital budget. With me this morning,
along with Chief Judge King, are Ms. Anne Wicks, the Executive Officer
for the Courts and Secretary to the Joint Committee and Mr. Joseph
Sanchez, our Administrative Officer. We are prepared to answer
questions you may wish to pose concerning the budget request for the
Courts.
introduction
Unquestionably, we live in a changing environment, facing new
challenges to our Nation, our Nation's capital, and our court system.
Whatever challenges we face, the fair and effective administration of
justice remains crucial to our way of life. The District of Columbia
Courts are committed to meeting these new challenges. We have been
steadfast in our mission, which is to protect rights and liberties,
uphold and interpret the law, and resolve disputes peacefully, fairly
and effectively in the Nation's Capital. Through our Strategic Plan,
finalized in fiscal year 2003, the Courts strive to enhance the
administration of justice; broaden access to justice and service to the
public; promote competence, professionalism, and civility; improve
court facilities and technology; and build trust and confidence. We
appreciate the support that this Subcommittee has given us that makes
possible the achievement of these goals for our community.
The Courts are committed to fiscal prudence and sound financial
management. We are undergoing significant changes to meet the
challenges of new technologies and are working to ensure that the
courts of this jurisdiction have a sound infrastructure. Although we
have requested funds for several important operating initiatives, the
critical focus of our fiscal year 2005 budget request is our
infrastructure.
To support our mission and strategic goals in fiscal year 2005, the
D.C. Courts are requesting $272,084,000 for Court operations and
capital improvements and $50,500,000 for the Defender Services account.
The Federal Payment request includes: $9,109,000 for the Court of
Appeals; $88,714,000 for the Superior Court; $53,331,000 for the Court
System; and $120,930,000 for capital improvements for courthouse
facilities.
The demands on the D.C. Courts require additional resources in
fiscal year 2005. To build on past accomplishments and to support
essential services to the public in the Nation's capital, investment in
infrastructure, technology, and security are essential priorities. Only
by investing in these areas will the Courts be in a position to ensure
that our facilities are in a safe and healthy condition and reasonably
up-to-date, that our information technology is capable of meeting
today's demands; and that the type of security necessary to protect our
citizens and our institution is in place. Focus on these capital areas
is particularly critical now to meet each of these needs and to ensure
that the quality of justice is not compromised.
The Courts' fiscal year 2005 request is a fiscally responsible
budget that continues to build on our achievements. We are particularly
proud of our progress with a number of recent initiatives. These
include:
--completion of the D.C. Courts' first Master Plan for Facilities
that evaluates the Courts' space needs and provides a blueprint
for space utilization, both short-term and long-term;
--submission of a draft Master Plan for Judiciary Square to the
National Capital Planning Commission, providing a plan for
revitalization and urban renewal of this historic area where
the Courts are located that dates to the original L'Enfant Plan
for the Nation's Capital;
--implementation of the District of Columbia Family Court Act of
Fiscal Year 2001; to date, the Courts have implemented the one
family one judge principle and transferred all required
children's cases to Family Court judges, created attorney
panels and practice standards for neglect and juvenile cases,
established a Family Treatment Court, piloted a Self-Help
Center for litigants with assistance from the bar, increased
resources devoted to family matters with the addition of nine
magistrate judges and three Family Court Judges, and opened the
Mayor's Services Liaison Center in the courthouse;
--completion and initial implementation of the Courts' 5-year
strategic plan, ``Committed to Justice in the Nation's
Capital,'' following 9 months of extensive input from the
public, practicing attorneys and other stakeholders, detailed
analysis of community trends, and significant work by the
Courts' Strategic Planning Leadership Council;
--implementation of the Integrated Justice Information System (IJIS)
in Family Court substantially completed in 2003;
--creation of community-based courts, such as the criminal Community
Court and prostitution calendar, that seek to improve the
quality of community life by reducing nuisance crimes through
community-based sanctions and treatment and social services to
solve the underlying problems leading to the unlawful behavior;
and
--opening the Domestic Violence Satellite Center in Southeast, in
cooperation with community-based advocacy groups and District
agencies, to facilitate protection orders and services for
large number of domestic violence victims who reside east of
the Anacostia river.
critical fiscal year 2005 priority--infrastructure
The District of Columbia Courts serve approximately 10,000
courthouse visitors each day, handle more than 200,000 cases each year,
and employ a staff of 1,200 who directly serve the public, process the
cases, and provide administrative support. The District of Columbia
Courts are among the busiest and most productive court systems in the
United States.\1\ For example, the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia has the second highest number of cases filed per judge, and
the highest number of civil and criminal case filings per capita of all
unified State courts in the Nation. Our Court of Appeals has the
highest number of appeals filed per capita among all States with a
similar court structure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See ``Examining the Work of State Courts 2002: A National
Perspective from the Court Statistics Project'', by B. Ostrom, N.
Kauder, & R. LaFountain (National Center for State Courts 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The D.C. Courts' capital funding requirements are significant
because they include funding for projects critical to maintaining,
preserving, and building safe and functional courthouse facilities
essential to meeting the heavy demands of the administration of justice
in our Nation's Capital. To effectively meet these demands, the Courts'
facilities must be both functional and symbolic of their public
significance and character. In the 2005 capital budget, the Courts
highest budgetary priority seeks to comprehensively address these
issues.
In preparing the fiscal year 2005 capital budget request, the
Courts carefully assessed the capital requirements essential to
performing our statutory and constitutionally mandated functions. The
Courts' request for capital funding is particularly critical in fiscal
year 2005 because of the need to (1) address essential public health
and safety conditions in our extremely busy court buildings; (2) meet
the courts' space shortage requirements for conducting business, which
includes our new Family Court, recently established by Congress; and
(3) avoid interruption of ongoing projects, as that typically results
in substantially increased costs.\2\ Significantly increased space
needs for court operations and inadequate capital funding in prior
years that necessitated maintenance deferral compel the Courts'
significant capital request for fiscal year 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For example, in the last decade, the estimated cost for
restoring the Old Courthouse has more than tripled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Courts presently maintain 1.1 million gross square feet of
space in Judiciary Square. The Courts are responsible for four
buildings in the square: the Old Courthouse at 451 Indiana Avenue, the
Moultrie Courthouse at 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., and Buildings A and B,
which are located between 4th and 5th Streets and E and F Streets, N.W.
In addition, when the District government's payroll office vacates
Building C, the old Juvenile Court, we anticipate that it will be
returned to the Courts' inventory. Recent studies by the General
Services Administration (GSA) have documented both the D.C. Courts'
severe space shortage \3\ and the inadequacy of the physical condition
of the Courts' facilities.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Master Plan for D.C. Courts Facilities, 2002.
\4\ Building Evaluation Report, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The recently completed Master Plan for D.C. Courts Facilities,
secured by the General Services Administration (GSA), defined a present
shortfall of 48,000 square feet of space, with a shortfall of 134,000
square feet projected in the next decade. GSA proposed to meet the
Courts' space needs through three mechanisms: (1) renovation of the Old
Courthouse for use by this jurisdiction's court of last resort, the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which will free critically
needed space in the Moultrie Courthouse for trial court operations; (2)
construction of an addition to the Moultrie Courthouse, a major portion
of which will be developed as a separately accessible Family Court
facility; and (3) the future occupation of Building C, adjacent to the
Old Courthouse.
The restoration of the Old Courthouse for use by the District of
Columbia Court of Appeals is pivotal to meeting the space needs of the
entire court system. We are very pleased that the President has
recognized the importance of this project by supporting it in his
budget recommendation. Investment in the restoration of the Old
Courthouse not only will improve efficiencies by co-locating the Court
of Appeals with all related support offices, but also will provide
37,000 square feet of space critically needed in the Moultrie
Courthouse for Superior Court and Family Court functions. The Moultrie
Courthouse is uniquely designed to meet the needs of a busy trial
court. It has three separate and secure circulation systems--for
judges, the public, and the large number of prisoners present in the
courthouse each day. The Moultrie Courthouse was completed in 1978 for
the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and a 44 judge trial court,
the Superior Court. Today it is strained beyond capacity to accommodate
62 associate judges and 24 magistrate judges in the trial court, as
well as senior judges and support staff for the two courts. Essential
criminal justice and social service agencies also occupy office space
in the Moultrie Courthouse. The Courts have clearly outgrown the space
available in the Moultrie Courthouse. The space is inadequate for this
high volume court system to serve the public in the heavily populated
metropolitan area in and around our Nation's Capital. The Courts
require well-planned and adequate space to ensure efficient operations
in a safe and healthy environment.
historic judiciary square
The historical and architectural significance of Judiciary Square
lend dignity to the important business conducted by the Courts and, at
the same time, complicate somewhat efforts to upgrade or alter the
structures within the square. As one of the original and remaining
historic green spaces identified in Pierre L'Enfant's plan for the
capital of a new nation, Judiciary Square is of keen interest to the
Nation's Capital.
The Old Courthouse, the centerpiece of the historic Judiciary
Square, built from 1821 to 1881, is one of the oldest buildings in the
District of Columbia. Inside the Old Courthouse, Daniel Webster and
Francis Scott Key practiced law, and John Surratt was tried for his
part in the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln. The
architectural and historical significance of the Old Courthouse led to
its listing on the National Register of Historic Places and its
designation as an official project of Save America's Treasures. The
unique character of the building, together with its compact size, makes
it ideal for occupancy by the highest court of the District of
Columbia. At the same time, the structure is uninhabitable in its
current condition and requires extensive work to meet health and safety
building codes and to readapt it for use as a courthouse. Since it has
been vacated, and with the support of Congress, the Courts have been
able to take steps to prevent its further deterioration. The
restoration of the Old Courthouse for use as a functioning court
building will not only provide much needed space for the Courts, but it
will also impart new life to one of the most significant historic
buildings and precincts in Washington, DC. It will meet the needs of
the Courts and benefit the community through an approach that
strengthens a public institution, restores a historic landmark, and
stimulates neighborhood economic activity.
Buildings A, B, and C, dating from the 1930's, are situated
symmetrically along the view corridor comprised of the National
Building Museum, the Old Courthouse, and John Marshall Park and form
part of the historic, formal composition of Judiciary Square. These
buildings have been used primarily as office space in recent years,
with a number of courtrooms in operation in Building A. The Superior
Court's two highest volume courtrooms, Small Claims and Landlord and
Tenant, moved into Building B in November 2003. This move has freed
space in the Moultrie Building needed immediately for the Family Court,
permitting the construction, scheduled to be complete in July of this
year, of three new courtrooms, three new hearing rooms, a centralized
case intake facility, a family-friendly waiting area, a separate
courthouse entrance, and District government liaison offices for family
matters.
The H. Carl Moultrie I Courthouse, built in the 1970's, while not
historic, is also located along the view corridor and reinforces the
symmetry of Judiciary Square through its similar form and material to
the municipal building located across the John Marshall Plaza.
Currently the Moultrie Courthouse provides space for most Court of
Appeals, Superior Court, and Family Court operations and clerk's
offices, as previously described.
judiciary square master plan
The National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) required that the
D.C. Courts develop a Master Plan for Judiciary Square--essentially an
urban design plan--before any construction could be commenced in the
area. The D.C. Courts have worked with all stakeholders on the Plan,
including the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the
National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund (Memorial Fund), the
Newseum, and the Metropolitan Police Department. A draft Judiciary
Square Master Plan was submitted to the NCPC in June 2003 and
subsequently approved in August 2003. We plan to submit the finalized
Judiciary Square Master Plan next month, in March 2004.
The Judiciary Square Master Plan integrates the facilities
development program of the Courts into a rapidly changing and publicly
oriented area of the District. The Plan resolves important technical
issues related to access, service, circulation, and security while re-
establishing the importance of this historic setting in the ``City of
Washington.'' It provides a comprehensive framework for project
implementation and lays the groundwork for the regulatory approval
process with the National Capital Planning Commission, the U.S.
Commission of Fine Arts, the District of Columbia Office of Historic
Preservation, the District of Columbia Office of Planning, and the
District of Columbia Department of Transportation, among others.
The Judiciary Square Master Plan recommends (1) re-introduction of
landscaped green space around court buildings and the construction of
secure underground parking garages for the Courts' vehicles now parked
in surface lots; (2) integration of a new service area, security
features and landscape concept; and (3) coordination of the Courts'
development with development of the National Law Enforcement Officers
Museum by the Memorial Fund.
The Judiciary Square Master Plan will ensure the preservation of
one of the last original green spaces in the District of Columbia
awaiting revitalization, incorporating areas where the public can
gather and creating a campus-like environment where citizens can feel
safe and secure. The Judiciary Square Master Plan will be of great
benefit to the City of Washington.
master plan for facilities
The Courts have been working with GSA on a number of our capital
projects since fiscal year 1999, when the Courts assumed responsibility
for our capital budget from the District's Department of Public Works.
In 1999, GSA produced a pre-design study for the renovation of the Old
Courthouse to house the D.C. Court of Appeals. In 2001, GSA prepared
Building Evaluation Reports that assessed the condition of the D.C.
Courts' facilities, which have been adversely affected by maintenance
deferrals necessitated by severely limited capital funds in prior
years. These projects culminated in the development of the first Master
Plan for D.C. Court Facilities, which delineates the Courts' space
requirements and provides a blueprint for optimal space utilization,
both in the near and long term.
The Master Plan for D.C. Court Facilities, completed in December
2002, incorporates significant research, analysis, and planning by
experts in architecture, urban design, and planning. During this study,
GSA analyzed the Courts' current and future space requirements,
particularly in light of the significantly increased space needs of the
Family Court. The Master Plan examined such issues as alignment of
court components to meet evolving operational needs and enhance
efficiency; the impact of the D.C. Family Court Act of 2001 (Public Law
Number 107-114); accommodation of space requirements through 2012; and
planning to upgrade facilities, including, for example, security,
telecommunications, and mechanical systems. The Plan identified a space
shortfall for the Courts over the next decade of 134,000 occupiable
square feet, and, as noted above, proposed to meet that need through
renovation of the Old Courthouse for use by the D.C. Court of Appeals;
construction of an addition to the Moultrie Courthouse; and
reoccupation of Building C, adjacent to the Old Courthouse. In
addition, the Plan determined that other court facilities must be
modernized and upgraded to meet health and safety standards and to
function with greater efficiency.
family court in the master plan
Interim Family Court Space Plan
The Master Plan concluded that the Family Court would be most
effectively and efficiently located in the Moultrie Courthouse. The
Master Plan incorporates an interim space plan that provides the
facilities necessary to fully implement the Family Court Act, as well
as a long term plan that optimizes space and programmatic enhancements
for family matters. The interim space plan for Family Court will be
complete in the summer of 2004, and fully consolidates public functions
on the JM level of the Moultrie Courthouse. As this interim space plan
proceeds towards completion, procedural changes have been implemented
within the Family Court that meet the requirements of the Family Court
Act. Essential capital components of the plan are straightforward:
--During fiscal year 2002, the Courts constructed and reconfigured
space in the Moultrie Courthouse to accommodate nine new Family
Court magistrate judges and their support staff. The Courts
also constructed four new hearing rooms in Building B for
Family Court magistrate judges hearing child abuse and neglect
cases and renovated short-term space for the Mayor's Services
Liaison Office.
--Two Superior Court operations formerly located on the JM level of
the Moultrie Courthouse, Small Claims and Landlord and Tenant,
were relocated in November 2003 to Building B to free space for
the Family Court.
--Construction on the JM Level of the Moultrie Courthouse began in
December 2003 and will provide three new courtrooms, three new
hearing rooms, the Mayor's Services Liaison Office, a
Centralized Family Court Case Filing and Intake Center, a
family-friendly child waiting area, and a new Family Court
entrance from the John Marshall Plaza into the Moultrie
Courthouse. In addition, the corridors and hallways along the
courthouse's JM-level will be redesigned to create family-
friendly seating and waiting areas. This work will be complete
during the summer of 2004.
Long Term Family Court Space Plan
The long-term plan to optimize space and provide programmatic
enhancements for the Family Court includes expansion of the Moultrie
Courthouse. The Courts are pleased that the President's 2005 budget
provides funding for the design work for the Moultrie Courthouse
expansion. Once complete, it will provide a state-of-the-art, family-
friendly facility for Family Court operations, with its own identity
and separate entrance, which will be a model for the Nation. The plan
envisions a safe facility that will be inviting and welcoming to
families with children of all ages and that will incorporate a ``one-
stop'' concept by locating all related court units in one place and
making it easier for families to access needed social services from
D.C. government agencies. The interim Family Court plan was designed to
transition smoothly into this long-term plan and to maximize the
efficient use of time and money.
The Master Plan studied the cost and feasibility of expanding the
Moultrie Courthouse in the Feasibility Study for the H. Carl Moultrie I
Courthouse--May 2003. This approach has been developed with the
overarching objectives of keeping the court system continually
operating efficiently, while carefully complying with the Family Court
Act. Independent projects related to the Family Court Act include the
renovation and expansion of the Old Courthouse to free space in the
Moultrie Courthouse, system upgrades and renovation of Buildings A & B,
occupation and renovation of Building C, leasing of space for functions
not directly related to the public and court proceedings, and
renovation and expansion of the Moultrie Courthouse. These projects
will shift operations currently located in existing Court facilities
(1) to create ``swing space'' that permits the required construction to
take place in an operating courthouse that receives 10,000 members of
the public daily and (2) to make contiguous space available for all
related Family Court functions.
the courts' strategic plan
The capital projects included in this request are an integral part
of the Courts' Strategic Plan, completed in 2002. The Strategic Plan of
the D.C. Courts, entitled ``Committed to Justice in the Nation's
Capital'', articulates the mission, vision, and values of the Courts in
light of current initiatives, recent trends, and future challenges. It
addresses issues such as implementation of a Family Court, increasing
cultural diversity, economic disparity, complex social problems of
court-involved individuals, the increasing presence of litigants
without legal representation, rapidly evolving technology, the
competitive funding environment, emphasis of public accountability,
competition for skilled personnel, and increased security risks.
Improved facilities were a need identified as a high priority among
all constituency groups surveyed by the Courts as the Strategic Plan
was developed. ``Improving Court Facilities and Technology'' is the
Plan's Strategic Issue 4. The Strategic Plan states:
``The effective administration of justice requires an appropriate
physical and technical environment. Court personnel and the public
deserve facilities that are safe, comfortable, secure, and functional,
and that meet the needs of those who use them. Technology must support
the achievement of the Courts' mission.''
Two strategic goals relate to the facilities and technology
enhancements in this capital budget:
``Goal 4.1: The Courts will provide personnel and court
participants with a safe, secure, functional and habitable physical
environment.
``Goal 4.2: The Courts will provide technology that supports
efficient and effective case processing, court management, and judicial
decision-making.''
The fiscal year 2005 capital budget request will help the D.C.
Courts attain these goals.
capital funding in fiscal year 2005
To permit the Courts to continue to meet the needs of the community
and the demands confronting the District's judicial branch, adequate
resources are essential. The most critical issue we face today is
sufficient capital funding to address the Courts' severe space shortage
and aging infrastructure. Investment in these areas is critical to
enable the Courts to provide to the public and our employees facilities
that are safe, healthy, and reasonably up-to-date and to provide the
type of security necessary to protect our citizens and our institution.
Unless infrastructure needs are addressed, the functional capability of
the Courts will decline and the quality of justice in the District of
Columbia will be compromised.
The first part of the Capital Budget request identifies projects to
renovate, improve, and expand court facilities, as specified in the
Master Plan for Facilities. The request is a comprehensive, 5-year
plan, with projects divided into phases to the extent practicable: $63
million is requested for the construction phase of the Old Courthouse
renovation, which will begin in fiscal year 2005; $13.9 million is
requested for the design phase of the Juvenile Holding area renovation,
C Street Expansion, and Renovation and Reorganization portions of the
Moultrie Courthouse Renovation and Expansion project in fiscal year
2005. For design and pre-design work to renovate Buildings A and C and
for phase 1 construction in Building A, $4.9 million is requested. We
are very pleased that the President has supported these essential
elements of our Master Plan in his fiscal year 2005 budget
recommendations. In addition, to design and prepare signage and
security lighting to guide the public through the court complex, which
will become increasingly important as court operations move out of the
Moultrie Courthouse, $2 million is requested.
The second part of the Capital Budget request addresses the
condition of the Courts' existing infrastructure, including projects
necessary for the health and safety of the public in the courthouse and
including the Integrated Justice Information System (IJIS). To meet
these needs, the Courts make the following requests: $6 million for
fire and security systems, as recommended by GSA and U.S. Marshal
Service studies; $15 million for HVAC, Electrical and Plumbing Upgrades
to remediate lead-contaminated drinking fountains, provide adequate
ventilation, and meet electrical load needs, among other things; $1.1
million to renovate dilapidated restrooms used by the public and court
staff; $2.6 million for, among other things, ADA accessibility, safety
repairs, and refurbishment of run-down areas in courtrooms and secure
areas. To replace prisoner elevators, alleviating trial delays because
of inability to transport incarcerated persons, $0.2 million is
requested. To improve safety and ADA accessibility in public areas, to
clean the exterior of the Courts' buildings, to replace doors and
windows in historic Buildings A and B, and to make other general
repairs, $9 million is requested. Finally, $2.83 million is requested
for continued implementation of IJIS. While we are pleased that some of
these projects, such as IJIS, elevators and escalators, and general
repairs, have been supported, we remain concerned that continued
deferral of needed maintenance projects will increase costs by delaying
major work and by forcing inefficient repairs of equipment that has
reached its expected life and requires major overhaul.
The capital projects identified are critical to the Courts' ability
to meet the current and future needs of the District of Columbia
Courts. Approval of the requested capital funding in fiscal year 2005
offers important advantages including: (1) addressing urgent public
health and safety conditions in the Court's busy buildings; (2)
allowing ongoing projects to continue without interruption, thereby
avoiding increased costs occasioned by delays; (2) and meeting the
Courts' critical space requirements, including our new Family Court.
status of key capital projects
Old Courthouse Restoration
The D.C. Courts' numerous facilities renovation projects have
converging critical scheduling paths. The Old Courthouse project is the
first step in a series of interdependent moves that must progress in
sequence to provide space and make way for the next step in the Courts'
Master Plan. Since the pre-design study for the restoration was
completed in 1999, the Courts have, with the support of Congress, taken
steps to preserve the building, including making watertight the roof,
and mothballing the building. Design of the Old Courthouse restoration
began April 30, 2003 with the selection, from among nearly 30 bids in
the General Services Administration procurement process, of Beyer
Blinder Belle Architects and Planners LLP (BBB). BBB is a nationally
renowned architectural and engineering firm whose historic preservation
and renovation projects have included Grand Central Station, Ellis
Island, and the U.S. Capitol. BBB has nearly completed the design for
the first phase of the restoration, the parking garage to be shared by
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, and its construction is
scheduled to commence later this year.
The Commission of Fine Arts reviewed the preliminary concept design
for the Old Courthouse on October 16, 2003. The Commission's
recommendations were incorporated in the design, which is currently 50
percent complete. Upon completion of this milestone, formal review by
regulatory agencies (e.g., the Commission of Fine Arts (CFA) and the
National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC)) is required for the
project to proceed. The Courts are prepared to present the 50 percent
complete design to the NCPC in March 2004. Formal review and approval
of the Old Courthouse project must proceed expeditiously, as any delay
will increase cost, contribute to further deterioration, and delay
implementation of the Courts' Master Plan for Facilities, including
enhancement to and the full consolidation of all Family Court related
elements.
Both the CFA and the NCPC called for a coordinated design or
agreement between the Courts and the National Law Enforcement Museum
(NLEM), which is authorized to build an underground museum with
aboveground entrance pavilions on part of the site. At that time, it
appeared that both projects were on similar construction schedules.
Subsequently, we have learned that the NLEM construction may not
commence until sometime between 2009 and 2012. The Old Courthouse
construction is scheduled to commence in January 2005 with occupancy
scheduled for January 2007.
Our architects have prepared a ``Phase 1'' design that completes
the Old Courthouse restoration without infringing on the area
authorized by legislation for the museum. Therefore, an agreement on
plaza entranceway design should not delay the restoration and use of
this important public building. We recognize that coordination with the
NLEM must continue, and that some modifications to the site may be
necessary. However, the principles of aesthetics, urban design,
planning, and the enhancement of historical, cultural and natural
resources, which the CFA and NCPC must foster, will best be served by
permitting the restoration of the historically and architecturally
significant Old Courthouse to proceed.
Moultrie Courthouse Expansion
The expansion of the Moultrie Courthouse is a key element in the
long-term plan for Family Court. The expansion builds on the interim
plan for the Family Court, scheduled to be complete the summer, that
will consolidate the public face of the Family Court through a
centralized intake center and space for the Mayor's Services Liaison
Office and provide a separate entrance as well as new courtrooms,
hearing rooms, and a family-friendly child waiting area. The expansion
will complete the facilities enhancements for the Family Court
providing, for example, additional space for child protection
mediation, increased Child Care Center space, and safe and comfortable
family waiting areas. It will also fully consolidate all administrative
operations of the Family Court including relocation of juvenile
probation (the Social Services Division) from Building B to the
Moultrie Courthouse. A portion of the addition will meet critical space
needs for other Superior Court operations. The Courts have requested,
and the President supports, funds in fiscal year 2005 to design the
addition. The addition is scheduled to be completed in 2009.
complete budget request summary
To provide the highest level of justice to the public in the
Nation's Capital and build on recent accomplishments, it is essential
that the D.C. Courts receive additional resources in fiscal year 2005.
The demands on the Courts require significant capital investments in
facility infrastructure, security, and technology as well as
operational investments to enhance the administration of justice and
service to the public. Without additional capital resources, the
Moultrie Courthouse and the District's historic Old Courthouse and
Buildings A and B will continue to deteriorate, placing public health
and safety at risk and undermining public trust and confidence in the
judicial branch; the Courts' information technology will fail,
threatening judicial decision-making and community safety; and needed
security measures and equipment will not be installed, placing the
Courts' buildings and the public at risk. Investments in operational
enhancements will support strategic management; self-representation
services; complete and accurate trial records; financial, materiel, and
facilities management; and human resource development. Targeted
investments in these critical areas are essential to ensuring that the
Courts can fulfill their mission of providing quality justice in the
District of Columbia. The Court's fiscal year 2005 budget request
addresses these requirements by:
--Investing in Infrastructure.--The fiscal year 2005 capital request
reflects significant study and planning detailed in the D.C.
Courts' Master Plan for Facilities. As noted above, today the
Courts have a space shortfall of nearly 45,000 occupiable
square feet, which is projected to rise to a 134,000 square
feet shortfall over the next 10 years. To begin to address the
Courts' space needs and ensure the health, safety, and quality
of court facilities, the fiscal year 2005 capital request
includes $120,930,000.
Included in the capital budget request is $63,000,000 for the
construction phase of the Old Courthouse restoration project,
which will adapt it for reuse by the Court of Appeals. The Old
Courthouse is an architectural jewel located in one of the
significant green areas of the District original to the
L'Enfant Plan for the capital city. Construction of the
accompanying garage, which will be shared with the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Armed Forces, and remove surface parking,
will begin during 2004. Restoring this historic landmark to
meet the urgent space needs of the Courts and preserving it for
future generations are critical priorities for the District of
Columbia Courts.
Also included in the capital budget request is $13,900,000 to
begin work on the Moultrie Courthouse expansion, as delineated
in the Master Plan. This amount includes $6,000,000 for the
design phase of the C Street Expansion, which, as noted above,
will complete the facilities enhancements for the Family Court
and meet critical space needs for Superior Court operations.
The total also includes $3,900,000 to renovate and expand space
in the Moultrie Courthouse for the juvenile holding area and
$4,000,000 for the first phase of the renovation and
reorganization of the Moultrie Courthouse, to make optimal use
of existing space as envisioned in the Master Plan.
In addition, the capital budget request includes $34,300,000 to
maintain the Courts' existing infrastructure, preserving the
health and safety of courthouse facilities for the public and
the integrity of historic buildings for the community.
--Enhancing Public Security.--The Courts are responsible for the
protection of 10,000 members of the public who enter the
courthouse each day, among them local and international
visitors and 1,200 court employees. To meet the increased
security threat post-September 11, 2001, the Courts request
$6,956,000. Included in this figure are: $956,000 in
operational expenditures for additional contractual security
officers and $6,000,000 to finance capital security
improvements recommended by a U.S. Marshal Service Physical
Security Survey and a GSA Preliminary Engineering Report,
including design, construction, and installation of a new
security system, as well as additional security cameras, duress
alarms and upgrades.
--Investing in Information Technology (IT).--The Courts are mandated
to operate an automated, integrated case management system to
provide accurate, comprehensive case data across every
operating area and appropriate case data to the judiciary, the
District's child welfare and criminal justice communities, and
the public. To meet this mandate and achieve the Courts'
strategic goal of improving court technology, the Courts
request $6,729,000 and 6 FTEs in fiscal year 2005. This amount
includes $3,899,000 in the operating budget for infrastructure
enhancements, upgrade of IT operations and implementation of
the disciplined processes the General Accounting Office (GAO)
had recommended for the Integrated Justice Information System
(IJIS) project. In addition, the Courts' capital budget request
includes $2,830,000 to finance fiscal year 2005 procurement of
IJIS, which the Court launched in fiscal year 1999.
Implementation of IJIS is well underway, with Wave 1 of the
Family Court module operational in August 2003 and Wave 2
operational in December 2003.
--Strategic Planning and Management.--To support long-range strategic
planning and management, including the development and
assessment of organizational performance measures, $571,000 is
requested. A comprehensive performance measurement system is a
critical element in accountability to the public and would
enable the Courts to report performance to the community. In
addition, an Office of Strategic Management is essential to
make the Courts' strategic plan the dynamic, evolving document
that it must be to focus resources, priorities and actions.
Specifically, the request would finance performance management
software, training, and knowledgeable staff with the expertise
to institutionalize a proactive, coordinated approach to
management including the establishment, analysis, and use of
performance measures for strategic decision-making.
--Serving the Self-Represented.--To enhance equal access to justice
for the more than 50,000 litigants without lawyers who come to
the D.C. Courts each year, especially in the Family Court,
Civil Division, and Court of Appeals, $2,096,000 and 13 FTEs
are requested for staff and facilities to establish a Self-
Representation Service Center. This amount includes $212,000
and 3 FTEs to assume responsibility for the operation, on a
full-time basis, of the award-winning Family Court Self-Help
Center, which is currently only a part-time operation supported
by volunteers from the D.C. Bar. The Courts would adopt best
practices in assisting the unrepresented with numerous
important legal issues and build on the public information
kiosk project being implemented in fiscal year 2003 and the
very limited pro bono services currently available.
--Investing to Ensure Accurate and Complete Trial Records.--The
Courts' fiscal year 2005 request includes $1,636,000 and 12
FTEs to improve the production of the court record. Maintaining
complete and accurate court records are central to the fair
administration of justice in a court system. Accurate and
complete records of court proceedings are critical to ensuring
a fair trial and to preserving a record for appeal. This
request includes funds to upgrade the Courts' digital recording
system that is installed in 80 courtrooms and has exceeded its
useful life, and funds to hire additional court reporters who
are essential for certain types of proceedings, such as felony
trials.
--Enhanced and More Timely Public Service.--To enhance and provide
more timely services to the public, the Courts' fiscal year
2005 request includes $2,198,000 and 15 FTEs to support
operating division initiatives in family, landlord and tenant,
probate, crime victim's compensation, the juror's office, court
interpreting services, and the Superior Court law library.
Included in the total is $1,000,000 to restore and preserve
Probate Division records that are required, by statute, to be
maintained forever and readily available to the public. This
funding will build on the Courts' recent accomplishments,
discussed above, and ensure that the highest quality services
are provided.
--Financial, Materiel, and Facilities Management.--To enhance
financial, materiel, and facilities management, $2,267,000 and
17 FTEs are requested. Included in the total are $623,000 and 8
FTEs to enhance financial and program management, including a
new internal audit team; $898,000 and 1 FTE for materiel
management, including warehouse space, equipment, and staff;
and $746,000 and 8 FTEs to enhance facilities management,
including building engineers and capital project management
staff.
--Investing in Human Resources.--To help the Courts attract, develop,
and retain highly qualified employees and address the risks of
high retirement eligibility, $1,167,000 is requested for
succession planning, leadership development, tuition
assistance, enhanced benefits and specialized training for
court personnel. Currently, 27 percent of the Courts' non-
judicial employees, of whom 16 percent are in top management
positions, are eligible to retire in the next 5 years,
representing a potential for a tremendous loss of experience
and talent that the Courts must plan now to address.
--Strengthening Defender Services.--In recent years, the Courts have
devoted particular attention to improving the financial
management and reforming the administration of the Defender
Services programs. For example, the Courts have significantly
revised the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) Plan for representation
of indigent defendants and issued Administrative Orders to
ensure that CJA claims are accompanied by adequate
documentation and that only highly qualified attorneys
participate in the program. To enhance the financial management
of the CJA program, the Courts assumed responsibility for
issuing attorney claim vouchers from the Public Defender
Service (PDS). Consolidation of responsibility for all
financial management aspects of the Defender Services programs
will enable the Courts to estimate more accurately program
obligations throughout the voucher processing cycle. To build
on these initiatives and more comprehensively exert greater
management control over the Defender Services appropriation
from a programmatic, rather than a financial perspective, the
Courts request $91,000 and 1 FTE in the fiscal year 2005
operating budget.
In the Defender Services account, the fiscal year 2005 budget
request represents a net increase of $18,500,000 over the
fiscal year 2004 Enacted level of $32,000,000 to fund hourly
rate increases. Of the total request, $9,500,000 would provide
appropriated funding for the March 2002 rate increase for
Defender Services attorneys and investigators. This increase,
enacted in the D.C. Appropriations Act, 2002, has been funded
to-date through a reserve in the account, which is now
depleted. Also included in the total request is $9,000,000 for
an increase in the hourly compensation rates for attorneys from
$65 to $90, to keep pace with the rate paid court-appointed
attorneys at the Federal courthouse across the street from the
D.C. Courts.
conclusion
Mister Chairman, Senator Landrieu, Subcommittee members, the
District of Columbia Courts have long enjoyed a national reputation for
excellence. We are proud of the Courts' record of administering justice
in a fair, accessible, and cost-efficient manner. Adequate funding for
the Courts' fiscal year 2005 priorities is critical to our success,
both in the next year and as we implement plans to continue to provide
high quality service to the community in the future. We appreciate the
President's level of support for the Courts' funding needs in 2005, and
the support we have received from the Congress. We look forward to
working with you throughout the appropriations process, and we thank
you for this opportunity to discuss the fiscal year 2005 budget request
of the Courts.
Senator DeWine. Thank you.
Judge Wagner. Thank you, sir.
Senator DeWine. Judge King.
STATEMENT OF JUDGE RUFUS G. KING, III
Judge King. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Senator
Landrieu. It is a pleasure to be back here and primarily to
express my gratitude on behalf of the Superior Court, at any
rate, for your support for our budget in the past and the
President's support for our budget as we go forward with the
construction plan.
We are engaged in the execution of a complex master plan
that runs over 10 years. We have outlined that in our written
submission, which I trust will be included in the record.
Senator DeWine. It will be made a part of the record.
Judge King. I adopt Chief Judge Wagner's oral statement as
well, and I will just make a point or two.
Thus far, the construction in the Moultrie Building to
round out the first part of the Family Court renovations is on
time and in budget. My commitment is to try to keep it that
way. And to that end, my door is always open and my phone lines
are always open for any discussions that are needed to help
that process along.
The one point that I just want to put on the record,
because I know it is capable of getting lost in the shuffle is:
The President did not support our request for capital funding
for the aging infrastructure. Our building is 30 years old,
essentially. The systems, the HVAC and mechanical systems and
electrical and so on, are all at the end of their useful life.
I personally have had an occasion when the temperature in
my courtroom rose to above 90 degrees, because the air
conditioning had failed. We just had to adjourn for the day.
And that is very frustrating when you have a judge ready to go,
staff ready to go, marshals ready to go, and the lawyers are
prepared to try the case, and you just cannot try the case. So
that is an issue that is over the horizon.
There is a $15 million request for aging infrastructure,
renovation and maintenance that has not been addressed. And at
some point, it is going to need to be addressed.
But I am very grateful for the support for the capital
budget. And I will be glad to answer questions.
Senator DeWine. Good.
Judge King. Thank you.
Senator DeWine. Senator Landrieu.
Senator Landrieu. Could you all just, Judge, just hit--
would you just hit the highlights again of the--I know you have
given us the time frame in the documents here. But just review
for me on this plan that you have, when the Courts move into
what building, so that I could just get a sense of when the
Family Court will be in their new facility? What is the general
time line, if you have it handy? If you do not, I understand.
COURT CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
Judge Wagner. I do not have it handy, but I can--let me
see.
Judge King. I can give you most of the basic points. The
Family Court will be moved--all of the public functions of the
Family Court will be moved into the JM and first floor levels
of the Moultrie Courthouse as of July of this year, in about 5
months, 6 or 5 months.
I believe the move for the Court of Appeals is scheduled
for 2005. The actual occupancy is a little bit later, but the
construction starts in 2005. When that move is accomplished in
2007, we will then round out the relocation of various
functions to bring all of the office or administrative
functions of the Family Court into the JM and the first floors.
Senator Landrieu. So I am understanding that the Family
Court basically moves first into their renovated space. They
are moving first into their renovated space.
Judge King. That is correct.
Senator Landrieu. Is that correct?
Judge King. That is correct.
Senator Landrieu. And then the next piece is the----
Judge King. The C Street Expansion----
Senator Landrieu [continuing]. Renovation.
Judge King [continuing]. Which will begin in 2006.
The C Street Expansion is finished in 2009. We are running
with design phases while we are doing the building of the Old
Courthouse and then----
Senator Landrieu. You all have--you are in the position to
have control of this schedule so that--because they are really
moving pieces. And those pieces have to move in a way that
really helps us to meet these time lines to get these Courts
functioning in the new spaces that we are trying to provide.
And you all know that any barriers to move people or the
authority to make the contractors even move faster or get out
of the way or the architects--I mean, do you all feel like you
have blue skies ahead, or do you need us to do anything that
helps you to make sure you stay on the schedule?
Judge King. The one thing that we have almost no control
over is the funding, and we are looking to you for that, and
you have been very supportive. But given the funding, we have
more barriers to----
Senator Landrieu. But if the funding, you know, is short,
then it puts a crimp in this particular formula.
Judge King. That is correct. That is correct.
Senator Landrieu. Okay.
Judge King. If the funding is not there, then we have to
come up with alternatives.
Senator Landrieu. All right.
Judge Wagner. And the Courts' plans have to be approved by
the regulatory agencies during this process. While we do not
control that, we try to cooperate with them to get all of our
submissions in so that we cause no delays.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
Senator DeWine. Let me invite our other panelists to come
up.
Craig Floyd is the Chairman and Executive Director of the
National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. Patricia
Gallagher is the Executive Director of the National Capital
Planning Commission. And Frederick Lindstrom is the Assistant
Secretary of the Commission of Fine Arts since 2001.
Ms. Gallagher, let us start with you. If you can--we have
everyone's written statement, which will become a part of the
record.
Ms. Gallagher, if you could make some comments, and then we
will move to Mr. Lindstrom, and Mr. Floyd.
STATEMENT OF PATRICIA GALLAGHER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION
ACCOMPANIED BY CHRISTINE SAUM, SENIOR URBAN DESIGNER, NATIONAL CAPITAL
PLANNING COMMISSION
Ms. Gallagher. Good morning, Senator. Is this on?
Senator DeWine. Yes, if you push it down, that is--yes.
Ms. Gallagher. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Senator Landrieu, and members of the subcommittee. I am Patti
Gallagher, Executive Director of the National Capital Planning
Commission. On behalf of the Commission, I thank you for this
opportunity to testify.
We understand from the Conference report language in the
Omnibus bill that there is concern that NCPC may be delaying
the District of Columbia Courts' plans to renovate the Old City
Hall at Judiciary Square, and we are here today to assure you
and the members of the subcommittee that NCPC has not delayed
this renovation.
NCPC began working closely with the Courts and the National
Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund in Spring 2003 during
the preparation of the draft Judiciary Square Master Plan. In
May 2003, the Courts gave an informational presentation on the
master plan to our Commission. And then in August 2003, the
Commission adopted this draft plan.
NCPC staff has been working closely with both parties to
ensure that the redevelopment of Judiciary Square, including
the Old City Hall renovation, meets the highest standards of
planning and urban design. This process is complicated in that
we are working to satisfy the requirements of two legislative
mandates, the National Law Enforcement Museum Act of 2000, and
the District of Columbia Family Courts Act of 2001.
Through the latter, Congress mandated to the D.C. Courts
that they have to reorganize and improve the Courts' services
and facilities.
In the National Law Enforcement Museum Act, Congress
authorized the Memorial Fund to build its museum on Federal
land that partially abuts the Old District of Columbia City
Hall, which is to be expanded and renovated for re-use by the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals. The Act requires the
Memorial Fund to construct the majority of its museum
underground and limit its aboveground construction to two
10,000-square-foot entrance pavilions.
In addition, the Act requires a 90-foot setback from the
renovated Old City Hall and a requirement to maintain a 100-
foot-wide zone, or plaza, on the north-south axis of the Old
City Hall where no aboveground museum construction is
permitted. These areas are depicted on the map attached to my
written testimony.
Our Commission is faced with the challenge of complying
with both mandates, while respecting each of the parties'
separate and distinct visions for the common plaza area. The
Courts and the Memorial Fund each consider the plaza to be a
key part of the entrances to their buildings, and they continue
to fundamentally disagree on the level of construction and
design control each party is permitted to have within the plaza
area.
The Memorial Fund asked NCPC in its March and May 2003
submissions to review proposed memorial designs and museum
designs that would have interfered with the entrance to the
renovated Old City Hall. Since these submissions were clearly
in conflict with the Act's requirement that the plaza area be
kept open, the applicant withdrew both submissions.
Subsequently, in July 2003, the Courts submitted its draft
Judiciary Square Master Plan. This master plan depicted the
plaza as an unobstructed open space extending from the
renovated courthouse's new entrance to E Street, Northwest. The
Memorial Fund opposed that aspect of the master plan on the
basis that it, not the Courts, had the authority to design the
plaza area.
As Congress has addressed, the renovation of the Old City
Hall for re-use by the Courts is an important Federal project.
And delays in its construction could needlessly increase the
cost to taxpayers.
Our Commission recognized this urgency and on August 7,
2003 approved the draft Judiciary Square Master Plan. And in an
effort to move both projects forward, our Commission departed
from its normal process of requiring an approved master plan,
and authorized the Courts and the Memorial Fund to proceed with
the design submissions for their individual projects.
A unified integrated plaza design is essential for both
projects to have unimpeded access to their respective
entrances. Therefore, our Commission asked the parties to
mutually agree on a design solution before requesting further
NCPC approval.
Although NCPC staff has been working with both sides since
last spring to facilitate an acceptable solution, we are unable
to report progress, that an agreement has been reached.
However, on February 13th, the Courts presented to the NCPC
staff for the first time an interim design that would maintain
the plaza as an open area, and one that would provide
sufficient space for the Memorial Fund to construct its
entrance pavilions while allowing both projects open access to
their respective entrances.
The Courts' proposed design is an uncomplicated landscape
solution that could be modified when the Memorial Fund
completes its fund raising and is prepared to proceed with
construction.
We understand that the Courts are prepared to move forward
with this interim design despite the inevitable disruption to
the plaza area and its entrances once the design of--once the
museum design construction begins.
Our staff opinion of the Courts' interim design is that it
appears to respect the design parameters set out in the
National Law Enforcement Museum Act. We feel that it is a
viable solution that should satisfy both parties and allow the
Courts' construction project to move forward.
PREPARED STATEMENT
We have spoken to both the Courts and the Memorial Fund to
encourage the use of this interim design as an acceptable
solution and have informed them that this design, if accepted
by both parties, would be eligible for immediate review by our
Commission. Our staff and the Commission will do our utmost to
accommodate the Courts' timetable and to complete our review as
expeditiously as possible.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony.
Senator DeWine. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Patti Gallagher
Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am Patti
Gallagher, Executive Director of the National Capital Planning
Commission (NCPC). I would like to thank you on behalf of the
Commission for this opportunity to testify. We understand from the
Conference report language in the Omnibus bill that there is concern
NCPC may be delaying the District of Columbia Courts' plans to renovate
the Old City Hall at Judiciary Square. I would like to assure you and
the members of this Committee that NCPC has not delayed this
renovation.
NCPC began working closely with the Courts and the National Law
Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund (Memorial Fund) in spring 2003
during the preparation of the draft Judiciary Square Master Plan. In
May 2003 the Courts gave an information presentation on the master plan
to our Commission, which adopted the draft plan in August 2003. NCPC
staff has been working closely with both parties to ensure that the
redevelopment of Judiciary Square, including the Old City Hall
renovation, meets the highest standards of planning and urban design.
This process is complicated in that we are working to satisfy the
requirements of two legislative mandates--the National Law Enforcement
Museum Act (Public Law 106-492) and the District of Columbia Family
Courts Act of 2001. Through the latter, Congress mandated to the D.C.
Courts that they reorganize and improve the Courts' services and
facilities. In the National Law Enforcement Museum Act (the Act),
passed in November 2000, Congress authorized the Memorial Fund to build
its museum on Federal land that partially abuts the Old District of
Columbia City Hall, which is to be expanded and renovated for re-use by
the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. The Act requires the
Memorial Fund to construct the majority of its museum underground and
limit its aboveground construction to two 10,000-square-foot entrance
pavilions. In addition, the Act requires a 90-foot setback from the
renovated Old City Hall and a requirement to maintain a 100-foot-wide
zone, or plaza, on the north-south axis of the Old City Hall where no
aboveground museum construction is permitted. These areas are depicted
on the attached map.
Our Commission is faced with the challenge of complying with both
mandates, while respecting each of the parties' separate and distinct
visions for the common plaza area. The Courts and the Memorial Fund
each consider the plaza to be a key part of the entrances to their
buildings and they continue to fundamentally disagree on the level of
construction and design control each party is permitted to have within
the plaza area.
The Memorial Fund asked NCPC in its March and May 2003 submissions
to review proposed museum designs that would have interfered with the
entrance to the renovated Old City Hall. Since these submissions were
clearly in conflict with the Act's requirement that the plaza area be
kept open, the applicant withdrew both submissions. Subsequently, in
July 2003, the Courts submitted its draft Judiciary Square Master Plan.
This master plan depicted the plaza as an unobstructed open space
extending from the renovated courthouse's new entrance to E Street NW.
The Memorial Fund opposed that aspect of the master plan on the basis
that it, not the Courts, had the authority to design the plaza area.
As Congress has addressed, the renovation of the Old City Hall for
re-use by the Courts is an important Federal project and delays in its
construction could needlessly increase the cost to taxpayers. Our
Commission recognized this urgency and on August 7, 2003 approved the
draft Judiciary Square Master Plan. In an additional effort to move
both projects forward, our Commission departed from its normal process
of requiring an approved master plan, and authorized the Courts and the
Memorial Fund to proceed with design submissions for their individual
projects.
A unified integrated plaza design is essential for both projects to
have unimpeded access to their respective entrances. Therefore, our
Commission also asked the parties to mutually agree on a design
solution before requesting further NCPC approval. Although NCPC staff
has been working since August with both sides to facilitate an
acceptable solution, we are unable to report that an agreement has been
reached. Very recently however, on February 13, 2004 the Courts
presented to NCPC for the first time an interim design that would
maintain the plaza as an open area, and provide sufficient space for
the Memorial Fund to construct its entrance pavilions while allowing
both projects open access to their respective entrances. The Courts'
proposed design is an uncomplicated landscape solution that could be
modified when the Memorial Fund completes its fundraising and is
prepared to proceed with construction of the museum. We understand that
the Courts are prepared to move forward with this interim design
despite the inevitable disruption to the plaza area and its entrance
once the museum begins construction.
Our staff opinion of the Courts' interim design is that it appears
to respect the design parameters set out in the Act. We feel that it is
a viable solution that should satisfy both parties and allow the
Courts' construction project to move forward. We have spoken with both
the Courts and the Memorial Fund to encourage the use of this interim
design as an acceptable solution and have informed them that this
design, if accepted by both parties, would be eligible for immediate
review by our Commission. Our staff and the Commission will do our
utmost to accommodate the Courts' timetable and to complete our review
as expeditiously as possible.
This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
Senator DeWine. Mr. Lindstrom.
STATEMENT OF FREDERICK J. LINDSTROM, ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, U.S. COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS
Mr. Lindstrom. Certainly. Good morning, my name is
Frederick Lindstrom, and I am the Assistant Secretary of the
Commission of Fine Arts. I am substituting today for our
Secretary, Charles Atherton, who could not be present today.
The Commission appreciates the opportunity to join the
discussion on the status of the renovations to the Old City
Hall for the D.C. Court of Appeals and the construction of the
new National Law Enforcement Museum. As you know, discussions
relating to the renovation of the Old City Hall date back quite
a few years, and the Commission has been supportive of the
building's reuse as an operating courthouse.
The existing configuration of the monumental entrance on
this important building does not allow for ADA accessibility;
nor will it allow for the addition of the required visitor
security screening facility on the south side of the building
without adversely affecting the structure's historic character.
Therefore, the Courts have pursued reestablishing a new public
entrance on the north side of the building, where one existed
up until the 1917 renovation.
With the passage of Public Law 106-492, that authorized and
specified the location of the new museum, it has been our
expectation that both projects would be able to coexist in
Judiciary Square and that the sponsors and their architects
would fully coordinate and cooperate on developing the designs.
So far, the Commission has been disappointed by the lack of
coordination and cooperation and the inability to develop
complementary designs that will enhance the historic setting of
Judiciary Square.
The Commission believes that the new museum serves a very
worthy objective. However, access to the Courts building should
not be obstructed or physically compromised by another use. The
dignity of the public entrance to the courthouse must come
first.
We believe that other designs should be investigated to see
if the Courts and the Law Enforcement Museum can achieve the
openness and accessibility that both projects desire and
deserve. With passage of Public Law 106-492, that has in a way,
since that was signed into law, has inhibited that exploration
of other possibilities, at least for the museum.
One possible way that we have suggested, the Commission has
suggested to avoid the inherent conflicts between the museum
and the Courts, would be to locate the museum's main entrances
to the other side of E Street, at the southern edge of the
Memorial Plaza. And this is a realistic possibility considering
that the major portion of the underground museum has been
authorized to extend under E Street to its northern curb line.
And there may be other alternatives worth exploring as well.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES H. ATHERTON, SECRETARY, COMMISSION OF
FINE ARTS
From the very beginning of the review process, we have
emphasized the need for coordination of all the projects
currently slated for Judiciary Square, and there are quite a
few projects that are slated for the Square at this time. And
it is essential that all of these projects be fully coordinated
and work in a cooperative fashion for an acceptable design to
be achieved.
This concludes our written testimony, and I would be happy
to respond to any questions you might have, Mr. Chairman.
Senator DeWine. Yes. Thank you very much.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Charles H. Atherton
Good Morning, my name is Charles Atherton and I am the Secretary of
the Commission of Fine Arts. The Commission appreciates the opportunity
to join your discussion on the status of the renovations to the Old
City Hall for the D.C. Court of Appeals and the construction of the new
National Law Enforcement Museum. As you may know, discussions related
to the renovation of the Old City Hall date back quite a few years and
the Commission has been supportive of the building's reuse as an
operating courthouse. The existing configuration of the monumental
entrance on this important building does not allow for ADA
accessibility, nor will it allow for the addition of the required
visitor screening facility on this side of the building without
adversely affecting the structure's historic character. Therefore, the
Courts have pursued reestablishing a new public entrance to the north
side of the building, where one existed until the 1917 renovation.
With the passage of Public Law 106-492, that authorized and
specified the location of the museum, it has been our expectation that
both projects would be able to coexist in Judiciary Square and that the
sponsors and their architects would fully coordinate and cooperate on
the designs. So far, the Commission of Fine Arts has been disappointed
by the lack of coordination and cooperation and the inability to
develop complementary designs that will enhance the historic setting of
Judiciary Square. The Commission believes that the new museum serves a
worthy objective, however; access to the court building should not be
obstructed or physically compromised by another use. The dignity of the
public entrance to a courthouse must come first.
We believe that other designs should be investigated to see if the
Courts and the Law Enforcement Museum can achieve the openness and
accessibility that both projects desire and deserve. One possible way
to avoid the inherent conflicts between the museum and the courts would
be to locate the museum's main entrance(s) to the other side of E
Street, at the southern edge of the memorial plaza. This is a realistic
possibility considering that a major portion of this underground museum
has been authorized to extend under E Street to its northern curb line.
There maybe other alternatives as well.
From the beginning of the review process we have emphasized the
need for coordination of all the projects currently slated for
Judiciary Square. It is essential if an acceptable design is to be
achieved.
This concludes our written testimony. I would be happy to respond
to any questions you might have.
Senator DeWine. Mr. Floyd.
STATEMENT OF CRAIG W. FLOYD, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS MEMORIAL FUND
Mr. Floyd. Mr. Chairman, our organization is a major
stakeholder in Judiciary Square. In 1991, at the direction of
the United States Congress we built and now assist the National
Park Service in the maintenance and operation of the National
Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in Judiciary Square.
In November 2000, the Congress gave us a further
authorization to build a National Law Enforcement Museum right
across the street from the National Memorial. The National Law
Enforcement Museum Act was authored by a distinguished member
of the Senate Appropriations Committee, U.S. Senator Ben
Nighthorse Campbell.
Congress was very specific in terms of our authority to
build this museum. The site and precise boundaries of the
museum were spelled out in very clear terms, and a diagram
showing the museum's boundaries is displayed for your
convenience. Two above-ground pavilions, totaling approximately
10,000 square feet, will serve as the entrances to the museum.
The rest of the museum facility, approximately 80,000 square
feet, will be located underground.
And I should point out, Mr. Chairman, that this museum will
be funded exclusively through private donations. No taxpayer
dollars are going to be used at all.
The boundaries of the site laid out in the authorizing law
were established after much discussion and many meetings with
the Committee on Administration of the District of Columbia
Courts, after they informed us of their plans to renovate and
expand the Old Courthouse building.
Recognizing that our two projects are linked so closely in
proximity, the public review agencies have required that we
consult with the Courts in our design plans for the museum
plaza area, and mutually agree on an acceptable solution. We
are working in good faith toward a final resolution. However,
it must be noted, Mr. Chairman, that we have some serious
differences with the Courts about the design of the museum
plaza area.
First and foremost, we believe it is essential that the
Memorial Fund and our architects design, build and maintain the
museum plaza area, just as the Courts should be allowed to
design, build and maintain the areas within their boundaries.
The Courts disagree and have included the museum plaza, the
space between this and surrounding the museum pavilions in
their design plans.
Not only is this in conflict with the authority that
Congress gave the Memorial Fund over that property, but their
plans have ignored a number of our stated needs and concerns.
The museum plaza is, in fact, the roof of our $70 million
museum. There are many technical, aesthetic and practical
considerations when designing and maintaining the roof and
plaza area of our museum; air ventilation, visitor staging,
water leakage, and skylights to let natural light down into the
museum, to name just a few.
It should be noted that we are anticipating between 300,000
and 500,000 visitors annually. On peak days, visits may exceed
4,500 people. The museum is requiring security screening at the
pavilion level. The plaza design must take into account this
queuing requirement. For these important reasons, we cannot
cede control of the museum plaza area to the Courts or to
anyone else.
Further, Senator Campbell addressed this issue in very
strong terms in a letter to the Chairman of the Commission of
Fine Arts in October of 2003. He said, in part, ``The public
law provides full use and control of the museum site,
aboveground and underground, to the Memorial Fund. Any
accommodation to others with regard to the use or access of the
museum site, including the plaza area between the two entrance
pavilions, is and will be at the sole discretion of the
Memorial Fund.''
We are also concerned about the timing of our two projects.
While the construction and renovation of the Courthouse is
planned for 2005 to 2006, construction on the museum is not
expected to commence until at least 2007, and Congress actually
granted us until 2010 to begin construction.
This means that no matter what the Courts decide on for the
final design for the courthouse, and any entry on the north
side, they must include a long-term interim solution. It would
be irresponsible and a waste of taxpayer dollars to design and
build anything on the north side of the courthouse that would
have to be demolished when we begin construction on the museum.
Finally, let me state that the Memorial Fund is committed
to accommodating the future access and usage needs of the
Courts. Any final solution must work for both the Courts and
the Memorial Fund. However, we are not prepared to relinquish
control of the museum plaza area, as defined by the boundaries
in the Museum Authorization Act. And we are not prepared to
make concessions that will in any way appear to diminish the
National Law Enforcement Museum's importance or presence in
Judiciary Square.
And let me just make one final comment. This is the first I
have heard of the Commission of Fine Arts' suggestion that we
move our entrance to the Memorial side of E Street, the north
side. We explored that option. Judge Wagner and I together
looked at that very closely. I responded to the Judge's
concerns in that area. And two things prevented us from doing
that. One, the National Park Service strongly opposes the idea.
They own and control the National Law Enforcement Officer's
Memorial, and they do not think it should be disrupted in any
way. And secondly, any major entrance to the museum on that
site would cause a major disruption and really demolition of a
major portion of the National Law Enforcement Officer's
Memorial, including part of the memorial walls that include
more than 16,000 names of fallen officers.
PREPARED STATEMENT
And for those reasons, I have indicated to Judge Wagner
that that would not be an acceptable solution, but we did
explore it carefully.
Senator DeWine. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Craig W. Floyd
Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to testify
on the appropriations request by the District of Columbia Courts to
renovate and expand the Old Courthouse Building in Judiciary Square. I
am here today on behalf of our board of directors, which is comprised
of representatives from 15 national law enforcement organizations (copy
of board of directors and organizations they represent is attached).
Collectively, these organizations represent virtually every law
enforcement officer, family member and police survivor in the United
States.
Our organization, the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial
Fund, is a major stakeholder in Judiciary Square and has great interest
in any construction and renovation plans in the area. In 1991, we built
and now assist the National Park Service in the maintenance and
operation of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in
Judiciary Square. Today, that Memorial stands proudly as a richly
deserved tribute to the more than 16,000 law enforcement officers who
have been killed in the line of duty and whose names are inscribed on
the Memorial's marble walls, including 698 from your home State of
Ohio, Mr. Chairman.
In November 2000, the Congress gave us a further authorization to
build a National Law Enforcement Museum in Judiciary Square, right
across the street from the National Memorial. The ``National Law
Enforcement Museum Act,'' Public Law 106-492 (copy attached), was
authored by a distinguished member of the Senate Appropriations
Committee, U.S. Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell. As a former deputy
sheriff, Sen. Campbell has a special understanding and appreciation of
the extraordinary level of service and sacrifice that our law
enforcement officers have given our Nation.
Sen. Campbell also knows that many other Americans lack that
understanding and appreciation, mainly because they are not familiar
with the dangers and importance of the job, or the proud history of the
law enforcement profession. The proposed museum will help to educate
Americans about the police profession's worth to our country by
properly commemorating law enforcement's outstanding record of service
and sacrifice.
Congress was very specific in terms of our authority to build this
Museum. The site and precise boundaries of the Museum were spelled out
in very clear terms. (A diagram showing the Museum's boundaries is
attached for your convenience.) Two above ground pavilions, totaling
approximately 10,000 square feet, will serve as the entrances to the
Museum. The rest of the Museum facility, approximately 80,000 square
feet in size, will be located underground.
The authorizing law specifically states that the National Law
Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund ``shall own, operate, and maintain
the Museum after completion of construction.'' Congress also required
that ``The United States shall pay no expense incurred in the
establishment or construction of the Museum.'' All of the funding for
this Museum, just as it was for the Memorial, will come from private
funds. No taxpayer dollars will be used. Finally, Congress stipulated
that sufficient funds to complete construction of the Museum must be
available before we are allowed to commence construction. We were given
until November 2010 to begin construction of the Museum, or our
authority to build the Museum will terminate.
The boundaries of the site laid out in the authorizing law were
established after much discussion and many meetings with the Joint
Committee on Administration of the District of Columbia Courts, which
has plans to renovate and expand the Old Courthouse building to the
south of the Museum site. We have been very sensitive to their needs
and interests throughout this process. In fact, we fully supported a
provision that was included in the Museum Act authorizing the Courts to
construct an underground parking structure to better meet their
security and parking needs.
We also agreed to a provision in the Museum authorizing law that
calls for us to ``consult with and coordinate with the Joint Committee
on Administration of the District of Columbia courts in the planning,
design, and construction of the Museum.'' I believe the record is clear
that the consultation and coordination called for in the legislation
has occurred, and it will certainly continue to occur until the Museum
is completed. (A chronology of that consultation and coordination is
attached.)
Let me say for the record that the renovation plans of the D.C.
Courts for the Old Courthouse building are certainly consistent with
our own efforts to appropriately restore the Judiciary Square precinct
to a condition equal to its historic significance. The establishment of
the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial as the centerpiece of
the Judiciary Square complex was a major step in this direction.
Completion of the National Law Enforcement Museum and the renovation of
the Old Courthouse building will fulfill this important vision.
Recognizing that our two projects are linked so closely in
proximity, both the National Capital Planning Commission, and the
Commission of Fine Arts have required that we collaborate with the
Courts in the design plans for the Museum plaza area, and mutually
agree on an acceptable solution. We are working in good faith toward a
final resolution. However, it must be noted, Mr. Chairman, that we have
some serious differences with the Courts about the design of the Museum
plaza area.
First and foremost, we believe it is essential that the Memorial
Fund and our architects design, build and maintain the Museum plaza
area. The Courts disagree and have included the Museum plaza in their
design plans, which simply do not take into consideration our needs and
concerns. For example, their plans do not provide the skylights we need
to allow natural light down into the underground Museum area. Their
plans call for the elimination of an important outdoor reception plaza
area, and their proposed water elements pose water leakage hazards that
would be out of our control and pose serious risks to our $15 million
worth of exhibits below. We believe that their proposed monumental
staircase and large glass entranceway would serve to overwhelm the
Museum pavilions and diminish the Museum's presence and importance.
The Museum plaza is, in fact, the roof of our $70 million Museum.
There are many technical, aesthetic and practical considerations when
designing and maintaining the roof and plaza area of our Museum--air
ventilation, visitor staging, water leakage, and skylights to let
natural light down into the Museum, to name just a few. It should be
noted that we are anticipating between 300,000 and 500,000 visitors
annually. On peak days, visits may exceed 4,500 people. The Museum is
requiring security screening at the pavilion level. The plaza design
must take into account this queuing requirement. For these important
reasons, we cannot cede control of the Museum plaza area to the Courts
or anyone else.
Further, Sen. Campbell addressed this issue in very strong terms in
a letter to the Chairman of the Commission of Fine Arts dated October
14, 2003 (copy of letter attached). He said, in part:
``It was always my intent, and the authorizing law clearly states,
that the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, Inc.
(``Memorial Fund'') shall be solely responsible for preparation of the
design and plans for the Museum, subject to the approval of the
Secretary of the Interior, the CFA and the National Capital Planning
Commission. Further, the public law provides full use and control of
the Museum site (aboveground and underground) to the Memorial Fund. Any
accommodation to others with regard to the use or access of the Museum
site, including the plaza area between the two entrance pavilions, is
and will be at the sole discretion of the Memorial Fund.''
We believe that our needs and interests in the plaza area, along
with the stated access needs of the Courts, can be successfully
addressed. We have been sharing ideas with the Courts on the Museum
plaza area for several months now, and the next meeting is scheduled
for this Friday, February 27. Our architects will be providing the
Courts with our latest design plans and I am confident that we are
getting close to a final resolution on this important issue.
We are also concerned about the timing of our two projects. While
the construction and renovation of the Courthouse is planned for 2005-
2006, construction on the National Law Enforcement Museum is not
expected to commence until at least 2007, and Congress actually granted
us until 2010 to begin construction. Under even the most optimistic
schedule, the Museum would not be completed until at least 2009, and at
the outside, by 2012. This means that no matter what the Courts decide
on for the final design for the Courthouse, and any entry on the north
side, they must include a long-term interim solution. It would be
irresponsible and a waste of taxpayer dollars to design and build
anything on the north side of the Courthouse that would have to be
demolished when we begin construction on the Museum. In fact, our
construction plans call for closing E Street for approximately 18-24
months, so access on the north side of the Courthouse will be severely
limited during that time.
Finally, let me state that the Memorial Fund is committed to
accommodating the access and usage needs of the Courts. While our
earlier plans were not successful in meeting those needs, we are
working aggressively toward a final resolution. Any final solution must
work for both the Courts and the Memorial Fund. However, we are not
prepared to relinquish control of the Museum plaza area, as defined by
the boundaries in the Museum Authorization Act. And, we are not
prepared to make concessions that will in any way appear to diminish
the National Law Enforcement Museum's importance or presence in
Judiciary Square. As Sen. Campbell said in his October letter to the
Commission of Fine Arts:
``This Museum should never be allowed to become a secondary
consideration. Our Nation's law enforcement officers, especially the
thousands of fallen heroes who are honored across the street at the
National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, deserve no less.''
I know, Mr. Chairman, that you and the other Subcommittee members
share that opinion. We look forward to working with the Courts and with
this Subcommittee in ensuring that the rightfully grand vision we all
share for Judiciary Square is fully realized.
Senator DeWine. Senator Landrieu.
LOCATION OF THE MEMORIAL AND MUSEUM
Senator Landrieu. Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate you
bringing this group together so that we can perhaps explore
some options that work well for the Courts and work well for
the museum.
And you will have to forgive me, because we are not
familiar with all of this, many of the details, but maybe a
little background would be helpful to me, Mr. Floyd, about how
the memorial got to Judiciary Square in the first place. And as
you and the organization that we want to be very respectful to
searched for spaces to put this museum, how did you come across
or settle on this particular space?
Mr. Floyd. Well, it was approximately 1988 when we toured
Washington to find an appropriate location for the National
Memorial. And with the help of the National Park Service and
the Commission of Fine Arts and the National Capital Planning
Commission, we realized that there was strong linkage between
law enforcement and Judiciary Square. It is the seat of our
Nation's judicial branch of government and the seat of the
criminal justice in this Nation of ours.
And everyone involved felt that that would be the
appropriate location for a National Memorial honoring law
enforcement, so that is how we first arrived at Judiciary
Square in 1988. We built the memorial in 1991.
And then when we decided to build a museum to complement
the memorial and further our mission, we felt that it needed to
be located very close to where the memorial is. There needed to
be close proximity. We explored the area, and the Federal
property that now serves as the court parking lot across E
Street to the south we viewed as the prime location for that.
Congress agreed with us when we took that proposal to them,
and they unanimously approved the legislation authorizing that
site for our museum.
And I should point out and emphasize that Judge Wagner was
very helpful in negotiating that site for us. We spent many
months talking this through and defining the boundaries of our
museum so that it would not impact negatively on their
courthouse.
Senator Landrieu. Because both of these projects are so
important, and I am just wondering maybe, Ms. Gallagher or Mr.
Lindstrom, things that Congress does and can undo, things that
Congress does and can change--you know, it is not--anything is
not in stone. Even things that are built are torn down and
redone. So I want to not just--I want to explore all of the
options.
And you all have worked with the law enforcement folks. I
know that area is developed quite a bit and part of the
challenge is that there is so much being constructed and built
all along that area in the Mall. But is there any other space
of land other than this particular plaza that the museum could
be located near to the memorial, which is important for them,
or is this just the only spot that they can be in?
Mr. Lindstrom. Well, I--let me back up. With the--before
the public wall, I do not believe that they consulted with the
Commission of Fine Arts on the siting of the museum. And I know
that was before your time, Ms. Gallagher. So this law was
passed without a conference with our commissioners of the
appropriateness of actually locating it under E Street.
So once the law was passed, all those explorations were
sort of moot. There are, perhaps not, open spaces in Judiciary
Square, but there are other structures that could be
rehabilitated for the museum, just as the Courts is doing for
the Old City Hall, rehabilitating it for their new court.
The building that comes to mind is the building that is
immediately adjacent to the west side of Memorial Plaza.
Senator Landrieu. Could you explain it out with the map?
Because, Mr. Floyd, unless, you know, one possible solution--
and I realize the plaza is very important. We respect the law
enforcement across the country, and we want you all to have
something that, you know, we are all very proud of, and really
fulfills our mission.
But I am wondering if there were--if we could help you, if
there are other buildings that are very, you know, right on the
plaza, so, A, we are not going underground. Is there a
particular reason why you want to go underground as opposed to
being on top of the ground? And if you can be on top of the
ground just as easily as you can be under the ground, maybe we
can help you find a building and help you build it.
Mr. Floyd. I appreciate that, Senator. I would respond with
two things. One, there was a public hearing that the Senate
held on this issue when we were discussing the site for this
museum.
The Commission of Fine Arts and other agencies did testify.
And I believe there was fairly universal support for the
proposal. The National Park Service also testified. We did
explore other options, some of the existing buildings, court
buildings surrounding us, for example, and just found those
buildings unsuitable for a museum.
It is important to understand that a museum requires
certain space requirements and openness and so forth. We did
not find any of the buildings in the area suitable for that.
And Congress, after due deliberation I should point out, and
working with a number of the public review agencies and the
National Park Service, felt that the Court property, the Court
parking lot property that ended up being the site for the
museum was the best and most appropriate location.
Senator Landrieu. Well, and I realize that, and I know that
you all have worked a great deal on this, and I am not going to
reach any conclusion. I am just exploring our options, because
they are all very good public purposes that are being
discussed. And there are other buildings and other spaces and,
you know, there are a lot of demands on this little plot of
land called the District of Columbia, which is a district. And
there are lots of--you know, it is the City, it is also the
Nation's Capital, it is also the Park Service for recreation,
so we go through this all the time. This is not anything that
is unusual.
But I am just thinking for the extent of the renovations
the Court needs, and you want to do a good job with your--of
course, with your project. I mean, is it too late to, in your
opinion, to just explore other options or buildings, even if--
now, I am not sure if there are any buildings that could
actually be demolished and constructed new for you. I do not
know if we would be restricted in that, because maybe all of
these are historic buildings and cannot be.
Mr. Floyd. Senator, I can only say that we have already
spent over $3 million to----
Senator Landrieu. Oh, right.
Mr. Floyd [continuing]. Develop this site and to develop
the plans for the museum. The schematic design plans for the
building have already been completed. I think we have spent
over $600,000 to accomplish that. I think it would be a great
misuse of our donors' money to now revisit the idea of moving
elsewhere. And I will say, I appreciate the concern----
Senator Landrieu. That is a problem, because you have got
$3 million in private dollars----
Mr. Floyd. Yes.
Senator Landrieu [continuing]. Committed to this site.
Mr. Floyd. Yes. Well, we are totally committed. And Judge
Wagner and I, I think, need to get together. We have tried to
hand this off to our architects most recently, I am afraid
without great success, although they have another meeting
scheduled for Friday.
And I think we are getting closer. They came to us with a
plan early February that our architects are now going to be
responding to on Friday. I think once that occurs, Judge Wagner
and I can sit down and talk.
We are going to work this out. I really do not think we are
that far away. So the idea of, you know, can we both live on
that site? I think the answer is absolutely yes. I do not think
Judge Wagner would have agreed to the legislative solution that
we proposed back in 2000 if she did not agree with that.
Senator DeWine. Let me just say, if I could jump in here,
we need a deadline. We have got--this subcommittee provides 100
percent of the funds for the District for the Courts. We have
got a responsibility to make sure we do not have overruns, that
we do not waste money.
Senator Landrieu.
Senator Landrieu. Mr. Chairman, before we--Eleanor, I just
wanted to recognize that you were here before you left. I just
want to recognize the Congresswoman from the District, as well
as our shadow Senator, Paul Strauss, but thank you all. We have
received your----
Ms. Norton. Thank you for holding the hearing. Thank you
very much.
Senator DeWine. It is good to see you.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
SITE PLANS
Senator DeWine. We have got--you know, we have got an
obligation to move on.
Ms. Gallagher, you were--do you want to describe the
physical problem here? I saw your model back there. Not that we
are going to--not that Senator Landrieu and I are going to get
into this here. We are not. We cannot.
Ms. Gallagher. Well, there is a--what we interpret as an
obstruction in the Memorial Fund's design for the plaza.
Abovegrade construction that--that we perceive in the last----
Senator DeWine. I cannot see it.
Ms. Gallagher. I think, if I may with your permission, our
chief architect is here and she may be able to describe this.
Senator DeWine. Yes, just briefly.
Ms. Gallagher. Yes.
Senator DeWine. Just real briefly.
Ms. Saum. In a nutshell----
Senator DeWine. For the record, what is your name, ma'am?
Ms. Saum. My--I am sorry. My name is Christine Saum. I am a
senior urban designer at the National Capital Planning
Commission.
The last time we received additional plans for this
facility was last spring. But this model appears to me to be
pretty much the same, in that the drawings we received last
spring, the plaza location here on E Street between the museum
pavilions was approximately 8 feet lower than the plaza shown
here for the entrance to the courthouse.
Direct access between the two plazas is obstructed by a
water feature and a skylight that provides light to the
underside, to the lower levels of the museum. And access to the
courthouse would be required to pass behind the two museum
pavilions by their loading docks and service areas. And we
thought that was inappropriate for the entrance of the
courthouse and did not----
Senator DeWine. Why is it inappropriate?
Ms. Saum. Because we thought that to have the access to a--
to an important court, the Superior Court, you should not be
required to go around behind the loading dock, essentially. We
thought that they needed direct access.
And it was our interpretation of the Museum Act that when
it stated that there was a 100-foot-wide area to be maintained
where no aboveground construction was to be created, that the
purpose for us to provide direct access to the courthouse and
not merely to provide open views.
Senator DeWine. Thank you.
Judge King, Mr. Floyd said he thinks you all are getting
close. Of course, that has to satisfy Ms. Gallagher, Mr.
Lindstrom, and a lot of other folks----
Judge King. I will just respond briefly, and then I know--
--
Senator DeWine. Are you closer than not?
ENTRANCE TO THE OLD COURTHOUSE
Judge King [continuing]. Chief Judge Wagner will. The Act
is plain. It says there is a 100-foot corridor to get to the
courthouse, so that it is an entrance, a main entrance with the
security features and everything you need for the courthouse.
It says that. It is very clear in the Act. I do not think we
are close on that.
Since last fall, the Court has revised its effort, its
plan, to try to meet some of the concerns at CFA and NCPC. The
Memorial has not.
And the one other thing I do not want to let pass without
commenting on is: We are renting space, swing space, while we
do our renovations. We are depending on all of the buildings in
the area, most of which are historic court buildings, for the
ultimate filling out of our 10-year plan, so if we start giving
those buildings away, then we are going to have to pay for it
somewhere else. We are going to have to build space or lease
space or do something, and it will become much more disruptive
than any plan that we are talking about in terms of the Act as
it stands now.
Senator Landrieu. So you would prefer them to stay
underground where they are, as opposed to having to give up one
of the other buildings or use some comparable site. But the
problem is that underground design that they have is not
conducive to the functioning of the Courts building generally.
Judge King. Well, no. The law says they are to have an
underground building with two pavilions not to exceed 25 feet
in height, and outside a 100-foot corridor that goes from E
Street to the Courts buildings.
So, as we say in the courthouse, ``Follow the law.'' That
is all we need to do.
Senator DeWine. Judge Wagner.
Judge Wagner. May I say something? At the time the Act that
was passed, of course, it was not the first bill. It was
amended.
And if you look back at the legislative history, you will
see that after over 2 months of negotiations, the National Law
Enforcement Memorial Fund and the Courts reached an agreement
to clarify that the building of this museum will in no way
conflict with the Courts' expansion and renovation, which was
planned at that time. And so that is how the museum went
underground.
And if you have ever been down to the Smithsonian castle on
the Mall, the model was essentially that. There is no blockage
to the entranceway to the Castle imposed by the two underground
museums on the Mall. That was how we thought we could coexist
in this very small space.
Symbolically, and given the historic character of Judiciary
Square, we were concerned if the entranceway to the courthouse
gives the appearance that there is blockage that is imposed by
law enforcement. The separation is something that is required,
given our way of life and our system of government in this
country.
And so within those parameters, we are working to try to
accommodate our interests and the interests of the public in
having this historic building----
Senator DeWine. Well, let me----
Judge Wagner [continuing]. You know----
Senator DeWine. Yes. I do not think anyone is more
supportive of, you know, the National Law Enforcement Fund than
Senator Landrieu and I. You know, we want this to move forward
very, very, very, very much.
I guess the question is, Mr. Floyd, having heard these
comments, where do we go from here?
Mr. Floyd. I think the basic thing that the Courts want and
need and deserve is access to their courthouse on the northern
side, which they are planning to build as part of their plan.
And I am absolutely personally committed to making that happen.
I agree that the initial design that we developed with
aboveground skylights precluded that to--in their mind, because
they did not want to go around. They wanted to go straight up
the middle. So we are now coming back to them with a design
approach that gives us skylights, will allow natural light to
get down below, but will give them direct access to their north
entry of the courthouse, as their architects proposed to us
earlier this month.
It has only been a couple of weeks since we have had a
chance to look at their plans, and we are now prepared to
respond on Friday. And I think we are all in agreement that we
want to give them what they want, and we just want to have
control over that space so that we can maintain and deal with
water leakage issues and make sure that we have the staging
area for our visitors that we need. Those are our main
concerns.
And I do not see this as a major impasse. But their
architects and ours have got to work in cooperation.
SUBMISSION TO NCPC AND CFA
Senator DeWine. I understand. But with all due respect, you
know, there has been no agreement for a year. And that is what
this committee has to look at, and we have got a fiscal
responsibility to make sure something moves here. So, you know,
I want you to reach an agreement. I think it is imperative, you
know, that this agreement is reached.
So, you know, I am going to put everybody on notice that I
expect you to reach an agreement and submit your plans to the
National Capital Planning Commission and the Commission on the
Fine Arts no later than March 3. If the Courts and the National
Law Enforcement Fund cannot reach an agreement by March 3, then
the Courts and the Law Enforcement Fund can submit their own
individual plans to the NCPC and the Commission.
Finally, I ask the National Capital Planning Commission and
the Commission on the Fine Arts to review these plans if they
are able, even though the submission deadline for them is
viewed as past. This project is time critical and a decision on
the design simply cannot slip another month. So that is what we
are going to have to do.
So, you know, hopefully we can reach this agreement. I hope
you all can get together and in the next couple of days and get
this thing ironed out. You know, we want both--you know, we are
for all of you. I mean, we really are. And we want, you know--
everybody has public policy objectives that I think everyone is
for. And there has not been anything said up here that we are
not for.
But you are the ones that have to mesh them. We cannot mesh
them for you. We are not architects, and we are not sitting in
your shoes, but you have got to get it worked out. And if you
cannot get it worked out, you are just going to have to submit
the plans, I guess, and let them deal with it. So that is where
we are.
Mary, anything else?
Senator Landrieu. I just--are the architects for Mr. Floyd
here?
Mr. Floyd. They are. Davis Buckley is.
Senator Landrieu. Will you stand please, so I can recognize
you?
And you are the representing the firm, representing the
architects?
Mr. Floyd. He is the principal, yes.
Senator Landrieu. All right. Well, we just hope--I want to
support the chairman. I think those deadlines are tight, but
there is a real need to work this out. And I am hoping that the
architects that are present for both of these projects
understand what is being said, and that these are both two
beautiful projects, and I am sure with a little bit of
understanding, it could be worked out. And if not, then it
could jeopardize them both, and that is just not necessary.
So I know money has been spent, but there is going to be
hundreds of millions of dollars spent on the final construction
of this, so, yes, $3 million has been spent. But if $3 million
could be spent up front a little bit better, then we can go
ahead and do this for everybody. If not, it can cause a lot of
problems.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator DeWine. I mean, you know, we see this Memorial and
that tribute to law enforcement as something we want to see. We
want to see the magnificent courthouse restored. And they are
two good things we want to have, and let us just make sure it
gets done.
Anything else?
Senator Landrieu. No.
Senator DeWine. All right. Thank you all very much. Good
luck.
[Whereupon, at 10:31 a.m., Wednesday, February 25, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]