    [Senate Hearing 112-917]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 112-917

     GSA AND FEDERAL COURTHOUSES: MANAGEMENT, RENOVATION AND CONSTRUCTION
                                     ISSUES

    =======================================================================

                                 FIELD HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 APRIL 28, 2011

                                   __________

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

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

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    88-766 PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2015
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
      Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
             DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
                              Washington, DC 20402-0001

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
                                 FIRST SESSION

                      BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
    MAX BAUCUS, Montana                  JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
    THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
    FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey      JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
    BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
    TOM UDALL, New Mexico                MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York

           Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
                     Ruth Van Mark, Minority Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                 APRIL 28, 2011
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

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

                                   WITNESSES

    Brita, Susan, Deputy Administrator, U.S. General Services
      Administration.................................................     4
        Prepared statement...........................................     7
    Ponsor, Hon. Michael A., District Judge, U.S. District Court,
      District of Massachusetts, on behalf of the Judicial Conference
      of the United States...........................................    12
        Prepared statement...........................................    14
    Rawling-Blake, Hon. Stephanie, Mayor, City of Baltimore..........    27
        Prepared statement...........................................    30
    Motz, Hon. J. Frederick, Senior Judge, U.S. District Court for
      the District of Maryland.......................................    32
        Prepared statement...........................................    36
    Fowler, Kirby, President, Downtown Partnership of Baltimore, Inc.    45
        Prepared statement...........................................    47
    Monk II, Charles O., Esq., Chair, Board of Directors, Greater
      Baltimore Committee............................................    50
        Prepared statement...........................................    52

     GSA AND FEDERAL COURTHOUSES: MANAGEMENT, RENOVATION AND CONSTRUCTION
                                     ISSUES

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, APRIL 28, 2011

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                         Baltimore, MD.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:01 p.m. in
    Courtroom 1-A, Edward A. Garmatz U.S. Courthouse, Baltimore,
    MD, Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, presiding.
        Present: Senator Cardin.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM
                         THE STATE OF MARYLAND

        Senator Cardin. Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to
    the Federal courthouse here in Baltimore. This will be the
    opening of the Environment and Public Works Committee hearing
    and I want to thank Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe, the
    chairperson and ranking member of the Environment and Public
    Works Committee, for allowing me to conduct this field hearing
    for the Environment and Public Works Committee dealing with our
    construction, renovation, and maintenance of our Federal
    courthouses.
        I want to acknowledge the staff from the Environment and
    Public Works Committee that are here, Alyson Cooke, Kathy
    Dedrick, William Henneberg, and Steve Chapman, representing the
    Environment and Public Works Committee, and Josh Klein of my
    staff, who is present. Today's hearing will be used by the
    Environment and Public Works Committee in our responsibility to
    oversight Federal courthouse construction, renovation, and
    maintenance.
        I want to thank our witnesses for being here, from the
    Federal agencies as well as those from Baltimore, including our
    Mayor, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake. It's a pleasure to have Your
    Honor here, and thank you for your participation today.
        In a May 2010 GAO report, the Government Accounting Office
    noted that in the 33 new courthouses that were constructed at
    the Federal level since 2000, 3.56 million square feet of
    unauthorized extra space was actually put in service. These
    facilities were both--the report was both critical of the
    General Services Administration as well as the Administrative
    Office of the U.S. Courts in the manner in which this
    additional space was put into service.
        It was based, according to the GAO report, on faulty
    assumptions. The assumptions were, quite frankly, that all of
    the vacancies in the Federal judiciary would be filled and the
    space would be needed. Now, I can tell you, serving in the U.S.
    Senate, that's not necessarily realistic assumptions, knowing
    that there are intentionally times where court positions are
    held unfilled.
        The cost of this unauthorized extra space amounted to $135
    million of knowledge increase and construction cost and $51
    million to operate and to maintain.
        So, starting in 2004, the Administrative Office of the
    Courts initiated some reforms in order to try to deal with some
    of these cost issues. At that time, they put the priority on
    the space needs more so than on the security or condition of
    the building. I'm going to come back to that point, because the
    two points I want to make from the beginning on dealing with
    the 2004--dealing with the May 2010 GAO report is: first, that
    it was expensive. Taxpayers money was spent that could have
    been spent in a more cost--efficient way. Second, it added to I
    think the wrong conclusion, the wrong conclusion being that we
    should put space needs ahead of adequate needs for our Federal
    bench. We're going to need to have to deal with that.
        I want to thank all of those who are at the Edward M.
    Garmatz Federal Building and Courthouse for allowing us to use
    this site for this field hearing. I particularly want to
    acknowledge Felicia Cannon, who's worked very closely with us
    in regards to the use of this courthouse.
        This courthouse was constructed in 1976 and it has the
    dubious distinction of being the cheapest square foot facility
    constructed of its type. I say that without much pride because
    as you travel through this building you'll see the deficiencies
    in this building. From day one there have been legitimate
    criticisms as to the adequacy of the Federal courthouse here in
    Baltimore.
        It has a poor relationship to the city itself. By that I
    mean is that when you design a building that's in an urban
    center it should be part of the city. Instead, this building
    was designed sort of as an island to itself and not
    incorporated well into the plans of Baltimore city.
        Second, from day one there was poor acoustics, poor
    lighting, awkward courthouse layouts, electrical system
    failures; the location of the holding cells is not where it
    should be; the location of the galleries is not where it should
    be. It's an environmental nightmare when you take a look at its
    energy consumptions. Since 1998 there have been 11 published
    reports of problems dealing with the HVAC, plumbing, and the
    electrical system.
        The safety of the building's design has also been called
    into question. It's similar to the Federal building that was
    constructed in Oklahoma City that was the subject of so much
    devastation as a result of an explosion. There is concern about
    blast concerns, if you get a blast, whether this building could
    in fact deal with those type of issues.
        The GSA report in 2003--and I'm going to quote from it--
    said that: ``Our first impression report that describes the
    appearance of the Baltimore Federal courthouse as `anonymous
    and unrelenting,' with no identification of interior functions,
    not benefiting''--``befitting the dignity of a courthouse''--
    all helped to elevate the Baltimore courthouse to the No. 1
    spot on the Administrative Office of the Courts 5-year
    courthouse plan for replacement.
        That 5-year plan, which was done in the early, around 2006,
    listed Baltimore for construction by 2008. The reason Baltimore
    was listed No. 1 is for these reasons. There were security
    issues as to whether the building was designed in a way that
    would provide the safety, not just of the judges and the staff,
    but the public who visit and use the Federal courthouse. There
    was also a concern as to whether the rooms were organized in an
    efficient way for the purposes of a Federal courthouse.
        But once Baltimore reached the top of the list, the rules
    changed. First, there was not enough money to start knowledge,
    so there was nothing being built during those years and there
    was a moratorium on new construction. So Baltimore stayed No. 1
    for a few years, but there was no activity at all done.
        Then the criteria used for what courthouses should be built
    was changed. As I noted earlier, there was a change in focus
    from dealing with having adequate space from the point of view
    of safety and design to whether there was sufficient space in
    square footage. When that was done, the Baltimore courthouse
    lost its preferred position and went from No. 1 to not being on
    the list at all for new construction.
        But Baltimore was in the worst possible position. During
    those years where it was felt that we were going to get a new
    courthouse here in Baltimore, the maintenance work was not
    done, the improvements were not done. Why put money into a
    building that was going to be replaced? So the conditions that
    existed here became even worse and no money was spent to really
    keep the building up to where it should have been.
        So Baltimore lost its position to get a new courthouse and
    Baltimore's courthouse became even in worse condition. It was
    clear that Baltimore--it's clear to me that Baltimore deserves
    a courthouse befitting the dignity of the Federal judiciary.
        Now, we have--I don't know if Josh has been showing you the
    pictures behind me. Maybe it would be a good time to show some
    of these, some of these photographs, that will show you the
    condition of some of the courtrooms here in the Baltimore
    courthouse. For those who are familiar with Federal
    courthouses, these are not the type of rooms that I think most
    Federal judges would consider to be adequate.
        We've also had significant water damage because of problems
    with pipe leakage here, that has caused some of the rooms not
    to be able to be used. The most recent was just a few months
    ago, which caused a major problem. It's my understanding now
    that there's a requirement to check all the lavatories before
    you leave to make sure they're set on the right setting or
    another flood in fact could occur.
        So there's a problem here. There's courtrooms that can't be
    used because of their design failure. There is heating and air
    conditioning issues. There is flooding issues, and there is
    just the concern of safety in the way that this building was
    designed and the need to either upgrade it through blast
    protection improvements, which would be very expensive, or to
    consider a new courthouse.
        Now, I think that safety issues should come first, not
    last. I think dignified space should be a requirement for a
    Federal bench. I believe we need a new courthouse here in
    Baltimore and I have strongly stated that in every forum that I
    can.
        But we cannot continue to allow this courthouse to remain
    in its current condition. That needs to be addressed. I hope
    our witnesses will be able to help us understand how we got to
    where we are today here in Baltimore and, more importantly,
    around the Nation and what we can do to make sure that the
    public has adequate courthouse space in order for the Federal
    judiciary to be able to perform its critical function for our
    government.
        One last point I want to point out as far as the courthouse
    is concerned. The Environment and Public Works Committee is
    also concerned, obviously, about our environment, about our
    energy policies. President Obama said in an executive order
    dated October 5, 2009, that ``To create a clean energy economy
    that will increase our Nation's prosperity, promote energy
    system, protect the interests of taxpayers, and safeguard the
    health of our environment, the Federal Government must lead by
    example.'' I'd be curious to get GSA's approach as to how this
    courthouse is leading by example, when we know the condition of
    its heating system. It's certainly not the type of energy
    efficiency that we would expect from a premier building dealing
    with our Federal courts.
        So for all these reasons, we look forward to the testimony
    of our witnesses. I really do want to thank our first panel for
    being here that represent the General Services Administration
    and the Federal bench. I want to thank both of you for your
    service to our country. I know both of you devote a lot of time
    to these issues, and sometimes it's difficult with the
    resources that are made available and the political needs
    around the Nation. So we very much appreciate you being here
    today.
        So our first panel consists of Hon. Susan Brita, is the
    Deputy Administrator of the U.S. General Services
    Administration (GSA). President Barack Obama named her Deputy
    Administrator of the U.S. GSA on February 2, 2010. As Deputy
    Administrator, Ms. Brita works closely with the members of the
    GSA leadership team to provide guidance to GSA employees,
    devise policy, and promote services to other Federal agencies,
    enabling them to best achieve their mission of service to the
    American people.
        A particular pleasure to have Hon. Michael Ponsor here,
    District Judge of the Massachusetts District of the United
    States, a judge appointed by President Bill Clinton in November
    1993 and confirmed by the Senate in February 1994. From 1984 to
    1994 he served as U.S. magistrate for the U.S. District of
    Massachusetts, and he's Chairman of the Judicial Conference of
    the United States Committee on Space and Facilities, which I
    take it makes you one of the least popular Federal judges in
    our system.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Cardin. We'll start with Ms. Brita.

     STATEMENT OF SUSAN BRITA, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. GENERAL
                        SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

        Ms. Brita. Good afternoon, Senator Cardin, and thank you
    very much for inviting me to participate in today's hearing. I
    am here to discuss the U.S. General Services Administration's
    management, renovation, and construction of U.S. courthouses.
    The Federal courts play a critical role in the constitutional
    framework of American democracy. Courthouses are traditional
    landmarks that date back to the founding of the Nation and GSA
    is very proud to construct and modernize courthouses worthy of
    that role. We help the Judiciary carry out its mission by
    constructing courthouses that are economical, sound, and
    prestigious.
        The Edward A Garmatz Federal Building and United States
    Courthouse is a long-term core asset in GSA's inventory, but
    requires reinvestment to ensure continued efficient use and
    operation. GSA is developing a plan that balances this
    modernization need with investment needs of other buildings and
    courthouses in our inventory.
        As the Federal Government's landlord, GSA helps Federal
    agencies achieve their mission by constructing and renovating
    facilities that help them carry out their missions productively
    and efficiently. GSA has developed a strong partnership with
    the Administrative Office of the Courts by assisting them in
    achieving their mission of ensuring fair and impartial
    administration of justice by providing welcoming, safe, and
    functioning courthouses.
        GSA delivers high-quality buildings and courthouses that
    support the courts' unique needs while enhancing the buildings'
    surroundings. GSA selects construction and modernization
    projects by considering a variety of critical asset management
    factors. Particularly in this budget climate, GSA must
    carefully evaluate and select projects most in need of Federal
    funds. In selecting courthouse construction projects, GSA works
    closely with the courts and relies on its 5-year construction
    plan to prioritize new courthouse projects. This plan considers
    projected space needs, projected growth in judgeships, and
    security concerns.
        As funding permits, GSA incorporates the courthouse
    projects on this plan into our capital investment and leasing
    program for congressional authorization and appropriation.
    While the courts prioritize new construction projects, GSA
    determines which courthouses are priorities for repair and
    alteration, repair and alteration needs, by weighing our
    portfolio-wide reinvestment needs and existing opportunities.
        In selecting modernization projects, we consider a variety
    of components, including customer needs, building condition,
    energy efficiency, asset utilization, lease avoidance, and
    historic significance. If GSA determines a building is in need
    of a major modernization, the project will be included in a
    future GSA capital investment and leasing program. Until then,
    GSA will continue to perform minor repair and alteration
    projects so that our buildings remain safe and functional.
        The Garmatz Courthouse is a long-term core asset of GSA's
    inventory. In the last 5 years, GSA spent $5 million in
    building improvements, including repairing the mechanical
    systems, roof, facade, and interior spaces. Although the
    building is classified as a performing asset, further capital
    investment is still needed to ensure its operation and
    functions--it operates and functions efficiently.
        Although the construction of a new Baltimore courthouse is
    not on the courts' 5-year construction plan, GSA has identified
    the Garmatz Courthouse as needing modernization due to the
    building's current condition and reinvestment needs. The
    renovation, however, is dependent upon available funding and
    must be considered against the needs of GSA's other aging
    facilities.
        This concludes my opening statement, Senator Cardin, I am
    prepared to answer any questions you might have.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Brita follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

        Senator Cardin. Thank you very much.
        Judge Ponsor.

       STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL A. PONSOR, DISTRICT JUDGE, U.S.
      DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, ON BEHALF OF THE
                JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

        Judge Ponsor. Yes. I want to again thank you, Senator, for
    having me here, and I would like to thank Mayor Rawlings-Blake.
    It's a special treat for me to be back here in Baltimore. My
    mother grew up in Baltimore and I have a soft place in my heart
    for Baltimore.
        I do come from the District of Massachusetts and I'd like
    to start with the disclaimer that the things that I said about
    Baltimore yesterday evening in the bottom half of the eighth
    inning were entirely off the record and in the privacy of my
    own home. It was bad enough that you broke our five-game
    winning streak the day before yesterday, but to stick it to us
    as badly as you did last night was especially painful.
        I have four quick points that I want to make. Point No. 1,
    Senator, you did make reference to the GAO report, which was
    very critical of the Judiciary. I just have to note for the
    record that I did appear twice before House subcommittees to
    testify about that report and the Judiciary very strongly
    contests the conclusions that were drawn in the GAO report
    about the waste of money. I think the report was badly done. I
    think it was grossly exaggerated and quite unfair to the
    Judiciary, but I don't want to spend too much time parsing that
    report, which I have done at length on other occasions. I just
    want to note we don't accept the GAO's findings on that.
        Point No. 2, I have to say a word of thanks to my friend
    Ms. Brita and to the GSA. They are in many ways a beleaguered
    administrative agency. They stand at an awkward crossroads
    between the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive Branches and
    have a difficult time keeping their balance with the sometimes
    inconsistent pressures that they face. They also are in a
    position of having to repeat the miracle of the loaves and
    fishes day after day as they try to distribute very limited
    resources among masses of demands, and they do that, it seems
    to me, sometimes with amazing poise. That's not to say that
    there aren't frustrations and I haven't had my own times when
    we've had to work hard to find our balance.
        Point No. 3, I think if there is anything that I could do
    today to clarify the background of this case, it would be to
    try to throw some light on the apparent heartbreak of being the
    No. 1 project for court construction and then finding yourself
    off the list. It is true that in fiscal year 2006, back in what
    has quickly become the ancient history of our courthouse
    programs, the Baltimore courthouse was No. 1. But that was our
    5-year plan covering a period from 2005 to 2009.
        Although Baltimore was the first project for 2006 at that
    time, there were projects ahead of Baltimore in line at that
    time in Los Angeles, El Paso, San Diego, Las Cruces, Savannah,
    San Jose, Buffalo, Fort Pierce, Jackson, Mobile, Norfolk, Salt
    Lake City, Rockford, Fort Lauderdale, Greensboro, Benton, Cedar
    Rapids, Nashville, and Sioux Falls. All those projects as of
    that 5-year plan were in fact in line ahead of the Baltimore
    courthouse, and that was as far up the line as a practical
    matter as Baltimore ever got on our 5-year plan.
        I should add that, of the courthouses that I've just named,
    a number of them dropped off the list during our subsequent
    planning phase. A few of them have been constructed and some of
    them are still to this very day awaiting funds and have not
    commenced construction or even broken ground, even though they
    were ahead of Baltimore at that time in our 2005 to 2009 5-year
    plan.
        So I certainly understand and respect the frustration that
    people from this district would feel about that, but Baltimore
    never got, as a matter of fact, quite as close as they might
    appear to have gotten.
        As you know from my written submission, we did entirely
    overhaul our assessment program for determining when new
    courthouses should be built, beginning in 2004. There was a 12-
    year moratorium during which there was no new construction
    initiative while we took a look at how we were going to
    sequence the building of our courthouses.
        I have to say, when you said I was one of the most
    unpopular judges, it isn't quite that bad, but it certainly is
    true. I get phone calls almost every week. I get phone calls
    from Detroit, I get phone calls from Mobile, I get phone calls
    from Savannah. I get phone calls from all over the country
    saying: Judge Ponsor, can't you do something to help us get our
    courthouse construction program going? And it is heartbreaking
    sometimes.
        The security problems that other courthouses face truly
    make your blood run cold. I just collected a few examples of
    other courthouses which are ahead of Baltimore. The Macon
    courthouse in Georgia, there's no sally port, no secure sally
    port, as there is here. There is no independent circulation for
    judges, prisoners, and the public, as there is here. The judges
    and prisoners have to use a freight elevator together in that
    courthouse. The magistrate judge's chambers is located outside
    the courthouse and all the chambers are accessed by public
    corridors.
        The same problems exist in others: Huntsville, AL;
    Columbus, GA; Detroit, MI. All around the country there is a
    crying need for upgrades in security and it does put the
    Judiciary and the GSA in a very awkward position in trying to
    address these needs.
        We have evolved in our planning process and we are
    confident that we do it better now than we did before in
    handling these difficult challenges.
        That concludes my oral remarks and I'm happy to take
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Judge Ponsor follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

        Senator Cardin. Well, thank both of you for your testimony.
        Judge Ponsor, I think you may have made my point. The point
    that I was trying to make is that we should be paying attention
    to your existing inventory of space to make sure it's adequate
    before we're constructing new space. It seems to me that the
    judicial conference has taken a different view, that is
    construct new space before making sure that the existing space
    is adequate.
        I do want to point out for the record that Baltimore was
    ranked No. 1 in 2005 of the planning money which should have
    been in Fiscal Year 2006 as the No. 1 priority in the Nation
    for $30 million, and it was then ranked No. 1 for Fiscal Year
    2008 for $142 million for construction. I believe that was what
    the record shows.
        Judge Ponsor. Correct.
        Senator Cardin. So that of the entire construction budget
    for Fiscal Year 2008, Baltimore had the largest single project
    in dollar amount, as well as being No. 1.
        Judge Ponsor. That is correct.
        Senator Cardin. That's also, it looks like, for planning.
    We were also the largest single project in 2006, fiscal year
    2006, at $30 million for strictly the design. Austin, TX, was
    ranked eighth, but they were more money, but it also included
    construction.
        Then a lot of these projects were taken off the list
    because of the change in standard to go toward space rather
    than to the adequacy of the space.
        Judge Ponsor. That is correct, although I have to refine
    that a little bit. The No. 1 problem that we needed to address
    and that we continue to need to address in what is frankly now
    a completely stalled construction process--all of our projects
    for 2011--there is no money in the 2011 budget for new
    construction, zero. There is no money for new construction. All
    of our 2011 projects are now 2012 projects, and that is part of
    a trend that has been continuing to some extent for many years.
    Many projects are just moving along from one Fiscal Year to the
    other in exactly the same sequence.
        We have to take into consideration situations where there
    is simply not enough room in the building for the judges to do
    their work. It's like having an egg carton hat holds 12 eggs
    and you've suddenly got 15 eggs to put in the carton. There
    isn't enough room for the judges to actually sit down and hold
    court. Although there are other factors that are very
    important, when you've got that kind of a situation that has to
    be prioritized to some extent.
        Now, we never disregard security. We never disregard
    systems functioning. All those are factors that are considered.
    I know it's hard to say this, and one of the most difficult
    things about my position is to say to people, your security is
    good enough, knowing in the back of my head that any morning
    when I wake up I could be reading in the newspaper about some
    terrible tragedy. We lost a court security officer in Las Vegas
    just in this last year and a very brave deputy marshal was
    badly wounded. The security problems are very difficult.
        But when I have no secure sally port, when I have no
    independent corridors, when I have judges' chambers that are
    right off public corridors, when I have no lockups, and
    buildings where the people are riding elevators with the
    families and fellow gang members of people that they've just
    sentenced, those are situations that really concern us and are
    really a problem in many, many courthouses around the country.
        So we do consider security. We do consider systems
    functioning. But a high priority--and I have to be clear about
    this and I can't back away from it--is the question, is there
    enough space in the building to hold the people that have to
    work there.
        Senator Cardin. That's a fair question. But let me tell you
    the dilemma you're putting me in as a member of the U.S.
    Senate. Every year the Judicial Conference comes to us with
    requests for more judges. I am not going to support new judges
    unless I think there's adequate space for the existing judges.
    I think that's a fair position for a Senator to take.
        So if you can't answer the problems of Baltimore and other
    cities like Baltimore so that we have adequate space for our
    judges, then don't expect support from Maryland Senators for
    additional judgeships in other areas.
        Judge Ponsor. I understand that. All I can say, I think, in
    response is that I recognize the chicken and egg problem we
    have there. We would love to build you a new courthouse in
    Baltimore. I love Baltimore. I would love to give you a new
    courthouse in Baltimore. Give me the money. I feel like, show
    me the money.
        Senator Cardin. Well, we might be able to do that. I
    understand the problem. I understand the problem with the
    Federal budget. Believe me, I do. I serve also on the Senate
    Finance Committee and the Senate Budget Committee, so I know
    the problems we're going to be confronting. We have a debt
    ceiling limit crisis that's looming in the next 2 months. So I
    understand that.
        So we've got to find creative ways. That's why we have a
    second panel here today, because there are interest groups here
    in Baltimore that would like to do something about that. So we
    might be able to find partners. But it will require the Federal
    Government and the Administrative Office of the Courts perhaps
    to use some different standards if we're going to be able to
    find creative ways to move forward.
        Judge Ponsor. I would be very happy to enter into any type
    of conversation along those lines to try to solve that problem,
    because that's really a problem that we share.
        Ms. Brita's written remarks indicated that the GSA is
    trying to handle their upgrades and building maintenance
    challenges with a budget that's been cut by 80 percent. I'm
    sure that--I don't want to speak for the GSA, but they would
    love to come in here and take this building and just turn it
    upside down and make it into the sort of facility that the city
    deserves, that the people that come to the building deserve to
    work in.
        But again, it's a problem of the need is there, but often
    the cupboard is bare and there are other challenges that we
    have to balance out in that environment.
        Senator Cardin. Ms. Brita, the reason I started with the
    GAO report--and I understand you take exception to the GAO
    report. You wouldn't be the first Federal Agency that took
    exception to the Government Accounting Office findings. But it
    says that GSA lacked sufficient oversight and control to ensure
    that courthouses were planned and built according to authorized
    size. That's a pretty strong statement in the report.
        We are talking about extremely difficult resources today.
    If GSA is right--I mean, if GAO is right and there is close to
    a trillion dollars spent that could have been used--a billion
    dollars spent that could have been used for other purposes, we
    could have found some money perhaps for Baltimore and other
    courthouses to renovate.
        During the recovery, when we had a trillion dollars, I
    think, was made available to our Federal courts, Baltimore
    didn't get--was it a billion dollars? A billion dollars made
    available, excuse me; $1.5 billion. $1.5 billion made available
    for the Federal courts. It's my understanding Baltimore didn't
    get any of that money.
        So we've had some money available, but it hasn't been made
    available to Baltimore. Can you help me understand this a
    little bit better?
        Ms. Brita. Let me address the GAO report first, Senator
    Cardin. We did, the agency, GSA, did take great exception to
    many of the findings in the report. But we do take very
    seriously a charge that we did not have proper management or
    oversight over the program. There have been changes or
    modifications that we have put into the program to make sure
    that there is a double level of review now to address what GAO
    characterized as overbuilding.
        On the issue of the recovery money, Senator Cardin, when we
    got the recovery money--and we fought very hard to get recovery
    money for the built environment, to make sure that GSA did get
    some money to address its backlog--we set up a series, along
    with Congress, of criteria on how to use the money. We worked
    with the House Transportation Committee and the Senate
    Environment and Public Works Committee.
        The first criteria was to make sure that the money that was
    spent went toward projects that could be high performance green
    building projects. The second criteria was to make sure we
    could get the money obligated and into--as you remember, this
    was a jobs bill--to get the money obligated into the economy
    within 2 years. Then the third criteria was to make sure that
    we weren't entering into any very risky projects.
        The Garmatz Building did receive a teeny, tiny bit of
    money, I think it was a couple of million dollars, to do I
    think some lighting improvements in the building. But as far as
    the major criteria was concerned, the building just did not
    rise, in comparison to the other needs that we had and the
    amount of money that we had, it didn't make the final cut. We
    have a list that we can certainly share with your staff if they
    don't already have it, about the buildings that we did invest
    money in.
        As I say, the major component was making sure they were
    high performance green building projects, then we could get it
    done in time, and then that they weren't risky, we weren't
    entering into something that we couldn't complete or we would
    end up getting sued over.
        So the Garmatz Building relative to other buildings and
    other needs that we had didn't rise to the occasion.
        Senator Cardin. Well, I will take a look at those figures.
    What it seems to me again, Baltimore's being penalized. The
    fact that the building is so energy--inefficient, that it would
    take a significant amount of investment and you're not going to
    get--I mean, it's going to take a lot to put into this building
    to make it anywhere near where it should be on energy issues, I
    can see the cost-benefit returns not being as high as other
    buildings.
        But there comes a point where you have to make some
    decisions, whether you're going to either fix this building or
    demolish it. It seems to me you then tell me, well, we don't
    have any money to do it. But we had a pot of money, but you let
    that train go by, where we could have had some money to deal
    with the courthouse.
        You've got to have a plan for Baltimore here, one way or
    the other. It seems to me that you can't just keep on saying
    you don't have resources when we give you significant resources
    and then none of them are used.
        Ms. Brita. Well, Senator Cardin, we do--we do consider the
    Garmatz Building as a long-term core asset of the GSA
    inventory. So we are committed to the building. We have to
    match that commitment with, as the Judge has said, very limited
    resources.
        We have put money into the building. We do have a plan, if
    we get resources, to invest in the building, and we match those
    resources with other competing needs. But we have not--we have
    not foregone or forgotten the Garmatz Building. As I said, it
    is a long-term core asset. It's one of the major assets in our
    inventory and we consider it that. We will invest in the
    building.
        Senator Cardin. Help me to understand your rating system on
    the conditions of the building. Do you put any interest in
    whether the building is structurally sound when you talk about
    the exterior envelope and structure? When you rate a building
    as far as its exterior envelope and structure, do you put any
    weight on the integrity of the building to withstand a blast?
        Ms. Brita. Yes. When we do a building engineering report,
    we take into account all aspects of the building.
        Senator Cardin. Blast protection is certainly an issue as
    relates to a Federal courthouse?
        Ms. Brita. Absolutely.
        Senator Cardin. This building is not set back, as you would
    have a building built today, correct?
        Ms. Brita. Correct. It was built in 1977, before the
    standards were put in place, before the design excellence
    program was established. Yes, it was built prior to all of
    that.
        Senator Cardin. It doesn't have blast windows, as I
    understand it?
        Ms. Brita. It does not.
        Senator Cardin. So is this building adequate from the point
    of view of blast protection?
        Ms. Brita. Against new construction, it is not. But for
    buildings that are existing buildings and built in 1977, it
    meets the safety standards for that. If we had money, that
    certainly would be one of the items that would be on our list
    that we would consider for the building, the progressive
    collapse.
        Senator Cardin. Let me just point out, the world has
    changed since 1976.
        Ms. Brita. I know.
        Senator Cardin. The threat issues are a lot different
    today. Embassies that were safe in 1976 are closed today
    because they represent threats. You have a building that is
    structurally designed in a way that's different than you would
    a Federal courthouse today because of, as I understand it, the
    pancaking problem.
        Now, you can retrofit the building. All it takes is, what,
    $20 million, $30 million, $40 million, $50 million? Is that
    what we're going to do in Baltimore?
        Ms. Brita. If we get resources, certainly the issue of the
    blast-resistant windows and progressive collapse would be the
    top of the list, the very top of the list of where we would be
    looking to modernize the building. But it all depends on the
    amount of resources that we get. Senator Cardin, our repair and
    alteration budget this year was cut by 80 percent, and we have
    no idea of what we're going to get next year.
        Senator Cardin. Well, where I take exception for you, it
    seems to me what you're saying when you say that the condition
    of the exterior envelope and structure is good, you're basing
    it on 1976 construction.
        Ms. Brita. For buildings that were built in 1976, it met
    the standard for that. If we were doing new construction today,
    we would do it_you're right, we would do it differently.
        Senator Cardin. Why do you rank the building condition
    good?
        Ms. Brita. Because, compared to----
        Senator Cardin. What would be poor?
        Ms. Brita. Not this building. I would have to find a
    building that--I'd have to go into the inventory and find a
    building that would be rated poor. But we don't rate--the
    rating is not just contingent on the exterior envelope.
        There are many, many, many criteria that we use to put our
    buildings in the various tiers that we put them in:
    functionality, return on investment, location, historic
    significance. There are many, many criteria that we use to put
    our buildings in category 1, 2, 3, or 4.
        Senator Cardin. The building engineer report determined the
    building to be in fair condition, based upon the continuing
    deterioration of the domestic water branch piping system and
    the age of the building's electrical and HVAC systems, none of
    which have been upgraded since the building construction in
    1976.
        Now, could you tell--are you familiar with the flooding
    problems that have taken place in this courthouse?
        Ms. Brita. I've heard about the several water leaks they've
    had, yes.
        Senator Cardin. I'm just wondering what a poor construction
    building would look, a poor condition building would look like,
    if Baltimore doesn't make the ``poor'' category or deficient.
    There's rooms that can't be used. I just am curious as to your
    rating system, whether you really are in fact using a
    realistic--we depend upon you to give us realistic evaluations.
    I understand it's my responsibility to appropriate the money.
    You can't spend the money if you don't get it from Congress.
    That's our responsibility, and you're not getting enough
    resources. I understand that.
        But if you don't give us help as to what you need, then I
    think you're culpable for the problems we're having, for not
    advising us what you need.
        Ms. Brita. Senator Cardin, on the security issue_could I go
    back there for a second? On the security issue, on courthouses
    we work very closely with the courts, as Judge Ponsor said, to
    look at overall security issues for the courts. The courts are
    very concerned about, obviously, security in Federal courts.
    Interior circulation is a huge issue for them, as well as the
    sally port.
        In that regard, on those two criteria alone, this building
    meets the standard. It has a secure sally port and it has three
    interior circulation patterns. So for interior--for the
    purposes of the courts, we have met the security criteria for
    the courts, because when we construct for them that__
        Senator Cardin. Your security issue is only concerning with
    defendants?
        Ms. Brita. No, I'm talking about the interior. For the
    tenants' point of view, from the tenants' point of view, we
    have met their security criteria. Then we add onto that things
    that you consider__
        Senator Cardin. I'm a little confused. The two issues you
    raise deal, as I understand it, deal with prisoners?
        Ms. Brita. Every court, every Federal courthouse, should
    have three interior circulation patterns, one for prisoners,
    one for the public, and one for the judges. In the case of the
    Garmatz Building, that is the case. There are three interior
    circulation patterns in this building.
        Senator Cardin. That's your security concern?
        Ms. Brita. No, I'm saying that's what the courts want to
    have. When we build a building for them, that is one of their
    requirements.
        Senator Cardin. So there's not a concern about terrorists
    or blasts?
        Ms. Brita. No, there is. I'm just talking about, as we
    build into it, this is how we build into it. So we try to build
    a building that meets their needs for the three interior
    circulation patterns. Then we have the U.S. Marshals, of
    course, want to have a secure sally port. So that's built into
    the plan, too. Then on top of that we add the issues that
    you're talking about, the progressive collapse, the blast-proof
    windows, because that's a government-wide requirement. Those
    are the things if we were building today we would incorporate
    into an overall building plan.
        But from the tenants' point of view, we start with them:
    What do you really need in the building? This is standard
    throughout all Federal courthouses: three circulation patterns
    at a minimum, the secure sally port at a minimum. Then we add
    to that things like blast-proof, setbacks, progressive
    collapse.
        Senator Cardin. Also point out, functioning toilets that
    don't overflow might be an issue. We've had lots of riots at
    our baseball stadiums when the toilets don't operate. I can see
    the same situation. I don't mean to make fun of this, but to me
    it's outrageous that we have to have people check the toilets
    at the end of the day to make sure they're set right.
        Judge Ponsor. Perhaps I could just chime in for a second. I
    was just looking at our list, of course, that we've done our
    asset management planning for. Just to give you a snapshot of
    the inventory that we're looking at, the Macon, GA, building
    was built in 1905. The Marquette, MI, building was built in
    1936. The Benton, IL, building was built in 1959. The Paducah,
    KY, building was built in 1938. The Bob Casey Courthouse in
    Houston was built in 1962. The Columbus, GA, Robert Elliott
    Building was built in 1934. The Lexington, KY, building was
    built in 1934. The New Haven courthouse was built in 1919. The
    Port Huron, MI, building was built in 1877. The Everett Dirksen
    Building in Chicago was built in 1964.
        I've just gone down a list, almost every single courthouse,
    for none of which right now I have new courthouses in line,
    were all built before 1976 and hardly any of them would qualify
    security-wise in terms of progressive collapse or any of the
    things that you're concerned about. That's what we're wrestling
    with.
        Senator Cardin. Judge, sight unseen I would take a building
    built 100 years ago or 75 years ago or 60 years ago, other than
    one built in the 1970s.
        Judge Ponsor. Fair enough. Fair enough.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Cardin. At what point do you come to the conclusion
    that you just are throwing good money after bad, that it just
    doesn't pay to try to fix a building, but to replace it? Do you
    ever come to those conclusions?
        Judge Ponsor. It's hard. Let me just give you an example.
    We were building a new courthouse in Springfield. We were
    having budget problems. We designed a green system for our
    HVAC. We ran into budget problems, and I can tell you--might
    not happen now because the rules have changed, but they hadn't
    changed at that time--the first thing that went out the window
    was the green building, the green HVAC system, because it
    demanded an immediate up-front investment of several million
    dollars, that would be earned back over the next 20 years.
        That's the kind of balance that we're having to strike all
    the time. I had the pleasure of reading Judge Motz's written
    comments and he talks about penny wise and pound foolish.
    You'll be hearing from him about that. I think his point is
    exactly correct. But when you don't have pounds and you can
    only spend pennies, these kinds of tradeoffs happen,
    unfortunately. They shouldn't happen, and we should do
    everything we can to prevent them from happening. But
    unfortunately, sometimes they're inevitable, and that's the
    difficulty.
        Senator Cardin. I agree with your comments. I just point
    out there was money available from the recovery funds, and to
    me that was a missed opportunity.
        Judge Ponsor. I can't unweave that one.
        Senator Cardin. Let me thank both of you very much for your
    testimony.
        Judge Ponsor. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Cardin. I thank you both for your service. I know
    that, working at GSA, you have an outstanding reputation and I
    very much appreciate trying to do what Congress wants you to do
    when there's such a different view around the Nation; I
    appreciate it very much, Ms. Brita.
        As I said to you, Judge Ponsor, it's a tough job to be a
    judge, but then taking on this responsibility in addition to
    it, God bless you. Thank you very much.
        Judge Ponsor. It has good sides to it.
        I'd like to be excused perhaps to leave a little bit early
    before the hearing's over so I can get back to the airport.
        Senator Cardin. Absolutely.
        Judge Ponsor. I'll be here for a while, but you might see
    me slip away.
        Senator Cardin. Absolutely. Thank you very much.
        Judge Ponsor. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Cardin. We'll now turn to our second panel, which
    will consist of Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, who
    was sworn in as Baltimore's 49th Mayor on February 4, 2010. She
    had served as City Council president since November 2007. Mayor
    Rawlings-Blake was first elected to the Baltimore City Council
    in 1995 at the age of 25 as the youngest person ever elected to
    the City Council. She's aged ever since being Mayor, and she
    does an outstanding job as the Mayor of Baltimore. We're very
    proud of her leadership and her vision for Baltimore.
        We also have Hon. J. Frederick Motz, who is a U.S. District
    Court Judge for the District of Maryland. Judge Motz has served
    on the Baltimore bench since 1985, when he was nominated by
    President Ronald Reagan. Judge Motz served as the Maryland
    District's chief judge from 1994 to 2001.
        Kirby Fowler is the president of the Baltimore Downtown
    Partnership and executive director of the Downtown Management
    Authority. Prior to joining the Downtown Partnership, he served
    as special assistant for Economic and Neighborhood Development
    under Mayor Martin O'Malley. In that position he worked on such
    projects as the Brown Center at the Maryland Institute College
    of Art and the renaissance of Belvedere Square, where I had one
    of my first offices as a Member of Congress.
        Charles O. Monk II is the board chairman of the Greater
    Baltimore Committee and a managing partner at Saul Ewing in
    Baltimore. He concentrates his practice in significant
    litigation matters, including business disputes, intellectual
    property, insolvency, antitrust and security litigation. For
    more than 5 decades, the Greater Baltimore Committee has
    focused the resources of its board membership on the key issues
    relating to the business climate and quality of life in the
    greater Baltimore region.
        We welcome all four of you to the committee. Your full
    statements will be made part of the record and you may proceed
    as you wish. Start with Mayor Rawlings-Blake.

      STATEMENT OF HON. STEPHANIE RAWLINGS-BLAKE, MAYOR, CITY OF
                               BALTIMORE

        Mayor Rawlings-Blake. Thank you very much, Senator Cardin,
    first for inviting me to testify before the committee. As
    Mayor, I welcome, not you, but the staff that is here with the
    committee to Baltimore. I was pleased to hear Judge Ponsor's
    Baltimore connection. Maybe that will loosen the purse strings
    a little and find that money for his dear mother's sake.
        So this is the second time in the past month that I've had
    the pleasure to testify before a congressional committee here
    in Baltimore, and I think it's very beneficial to have these
    hearings, these field hearings, so you can see and hear what's
    happening on the ground outside of the confines of Washington,
    DC.
        I'm here today to talk about Baltimore's Federal
    courthouse, specifically the great need for a new building, as
    well as the role it would be playing or it should be playing in
    Baltimore's economic development plans. This courthouse was
    built decades before any modern safety and security design
    standards for Federal buildings were established, and we just
    talked about that. Lessons learned from Oklahoma City, from 9-
    11, need to be incorporated in the building design and
    function, including structural engineering that allows for
    progressive collapse, as you mentioned, sufficient security
    setbacks from neighboring streets, courthouse design that keeps
    the defendants separate from juries, witnesses, and attorneys.
        Infrastructure in the present courthouse is failing, as
    your pictures illustrated. Judges, marshals, lawyers, and
    support staff are forced to work in precarious environments
    with frequent plumbing mishaps, electrical failures, and lack
    of access to technological improvements.
        Baltimore deserves and wants a first-class Federal
    courthouse. It is my understanding that Baltimore City, as you
    mentioned, has been on the list before and no action has been
    taken by the GSA. Plans for construction of a new courthouse
    are no further along than when we first made the list. Major
    improvements are needed for safety, security, energy savings,
    and infrastructure. They need to be made. You've already
    expressed very eloquently how we are in a very poor position
    because the repairs weren't done in anticipation of a new
    building and it really put us behind the eightball.
        This courthouse is the center of Baltimore's prominent
    legal community and the city where both the State's law schools
    are located. It's important that we have a significant
    courthouse in Baltimore City. The Federal judiciary in
    Baltimore has a long tradition in U.S. admiralty law stemming
    from the Port of Baltimore's centuries-old role and
    international impact and export hub for the Nation. In recent
    years, the Baltimore courthouse has hosted important mutual
    fund investment litigation, high-profile gang trials, in 2002
    the famous proceedings in the Microsoft antitrust case, and in
    2010 more than 2700 civil and criminal cases were placed on the
    docket at the Baltimore courthouse.
        Furthermore, for the last several years I've lauded the
    U.S. Attorney's work on Project Exile prosecutions right here.
    This is a great program and I have a vested interest in making
    sure that the infrastructure is present to get the most violent
    offenders off of our streets.
        Federal courthouses also define the status of the towns and
    cities where they're located. Millions of commuters, residents
    and tourists walk past this building every year. What they walk
    past now is a building that's unwelcoming and anonymous, with
    its Pratt Street facade. Most passers-by will hardly notice the
    entry-less back of the building facing Pratt Street, one of the
    city's busiest streets. Nor will they wonder who owns the
    building, what work goes on inside, and what purpose it serves.
    The awkward alignment of the building makes it easy to overlook
    the solitary statue on Pratt Street lawn that honors
    Baltimore's native son and one of our Nation's greatest legal
    minds, Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall.
        By contrast, the previous Federal courthouse, built in
    1932, has been recycled, first as Baltimore's central post
    office and now as part of the State circuit court system. The
    structure was renovated by the State in 1990 and remains part
    of downtown's landscape and its legal community. We are
    realizing the ancillary benefits of that structure, but not of
    this current courthouse.
        I convened the Downtown Task Force and just recently issued
    a report that outlines strategies for strengthening Baltimore's
    downtown. That vision includes, that the task force laid out,
    includes business, a diverse population of residents, hotels,
    thriving retail and restaurants, and expanding anchor
    institutions. There would be no greater anchor institution than
    a new Federal courthouse.
        Where we sit now is a gateway to the west side
    redevelopment. A development project known as the
    ``Superblock'' is planned just a few blocks from here. I'm
    committed to seeing the revitalization of the west side and the
    Superblock and all of the benefits that it will offer to our
    city. A new courthouse in this vicinity would be a hub for the
    west side and for Baltimore City as a whole. This means jobs,
    construction, commerce, as well as a host of other economic and
    social benefits that will permeate as a result of this
    development.
        My motto has been ``Better Schools, Safer Streets, and
    Stronger Neighborhoods,'' and I believe that a Federal
    courthouse can help promote all of those things. I urge the GSA
    and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts to consider
    plans to build a new Federal courthouse in downtown Baltimore.
    My office, the legal community, and downtown business leaders
    stand ready to work with the GSA to move forward with plans to
    improve the Baltimore Federal courthouse.
        Again, Senator, I thank you for the opportunity to testify.
        [The prepared statement of Mayor Rawlings-Blake follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

        Senator Cardin. Thank you very much, Madam Mayor.
        Judge Motz.

        STATEMENT OF HON. J. FREDERICK MOTZ, SENIOR JUDGE, U.S.
              DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

        Judge Motz. Yes, thank you, Senator. As you've mentioned,
    I've been a judge since 1985 and I was the chief judge and
    that's the reason I'm here today. Chief Judge Chasanow and my
    colleagues thought that I know pretty much the most about the
    building of anybody here.
        I will outline in a moment--as I will outline, we in
    Baltimore are actually grateful to GSA and the Space and
    Facilities Division of the Administrative Office for helping us
    to make improved improvements to the courthouse. That said, I
    am well aware that GSA has shortcomings. I'd be the first to
    say that efficiency does not always seem to be its goal.
        Further, government agencies are immune from the
    disciplining effect of market forces. For example, as has been
    mentioned several times, we have experienced some very bad
    floods caused by faulty plumbing in recent years, and if we
    were in a private building we could withhold our rent or at
    least threaten to withhold our rent until the building was made
    habitable. That option is not now open to us. It is therefore
    quite important that public hearings such as this be held to
    provide the accountability that the market would otherwise
    enforce.
        But I'm not here today to vent our frustration at the
    obstacles that sometimes have been placed in our way, but to
    address an issue of vital public importance: assuring that this
    courthouse either is replaced or that capital improvements are
    made to it so that it remains economically viable for the next
    25, 30, 50 years.
        Senator Cardin my colleagues are extremely grateful for the
    efforts you have made and continue to make to have a new
    Federal courthouse constructed. However, I, like you, have
    serious doubts that this goal can be accomplished in the
    foreseeable future. Judicial Conference priorities aside, about
    which you heard, three conditions would have to be fulfilled
    before a new Federal courthouse could be built here in
    Baltimore.
        First, sound urban planning requires that a site for the
    new courthouse in the downtown area would have to be found to
    maintain the vitality of the downtown district. Second, in
    order to prevent disruption of the administration of justice in
    the Federal courts, the new courthouse would have to be
    completed before the present courthouse is vacated, sort of
    like a baseball stadium or a football stadium. Third, funding
    would have to be found to assure that the land on which the
    present courthouse now sits is put to good use. It is highly
    questionable in my judgment whether the first two of these
    conditions can be met.
        Moreover, I must say from an aesthetic standpoint the
    present courthouse is entirely adequate. Of course, when the
    courthouse was first built it was not well received by my
    predecessors. The Sugarman sculpture, which particularly
    aggravated the judges, was located immediately in front of the
    office wing of the building. It made the courthouse look like a
    playground, and it became a metaphor for the judges'
    discontent. On the inside of the building, the courtrooms,
    which were initially only on the fifth and seventh floors, were
    objectionable. Their light wood, wavy ceilings, and ultra-
    modern furniture did not convey the sense of dignity that the
    public rightly expects a forum for judicial proceedings to
    have. This courtroom itself had all of the dignity of a tennis
    barn.
        When the court grew larger in the early 1980s, four new
    courtrooms and chambers were added on the third floor. Although
    the wood that was used was darker, the construction was quite
    cheap, as even an unskilled observer could see. Thus the
    courthouse remained for a decade or so.
        In the 1990s, however, things dramatically changed. The
    exterior of the building was refinished, the landscaping near
    the entrance was added, the statue of Justice Thurgood Marshall
    on Pratt Street, which the Mayor just mentioned, was remounted.
    Numerous courtrooms, including this one, and chambers were
    reconstructed in an appropriate style with advanced electronic
    technology. A conference room on the first floor was renovated.
    The space on the second floor was reconfigured and rebuilt, and
    a new conference room and attorney's lounge were constructed.
        The Sugarman statue itself was temporarily removed to be
    repainted. When it was returned, it was placed, not next to the
    courthouse, but at the corner of Lombard and Hanover Streets,
    where it is now located. There it adds in my judgment much-
    needed color to what has become a vehicular thoroughfare, and
    what I consider to be its essential message--the bringing of
    the chaos of life into the constraints of ordered liberty--is
    far better expressed when it is near, but apart from, the
    courthouse.
        Additional improvements have been made in recent years. Two
    courtrooms on the seventh floor have been renovated. Just last
    week, a truly magnificent exhibit about admiralty law was
    established in the public corridor on the third floor of this
    courthouse, and I hope that after this hearing some of you will
    come to take a look at it. It is the first of what we
    anticipate will be a series of historical exhibits on various
    themes that are woven into the tapestry of Federal law,
    including civil rights and civil disobedience, the Civil War,
    professional sports, and the Chesapeake Bay.
        This brings me to my main point. All of the fine aesthetic
    improvements that have been made in recent years will have been
    for naught unless substantial capital improvements are made to
    the courthouse. It can be replaced; that's fine. But if not, we
    need substantial capital improvements.
        The courthouse is over 30 years old. Even if it had been
    well constructed, the infrastructure would now have to be
    replaced. But as engineering studies commissioned by GSA itself
    attest, this building was not well constructed. There are
    serious security concerns presented by the design of the
    building and it would be totally irresponsible in my judgment,
    particularly after today when public attention has been brought
    upon these deficiencies, it would be totally irresponsible not
    to take the steps necessary to address these concerns
    immediately.
        Further, the floods that we have experienced and that have
    caused substantial disruption to the court's work and
    significant expense to repair, demonstrate beyond dispute that
    piping and electrical and plumbing fixtures_excuse me_that
    piping and plumbing fixtures must be replaced. The building's
    heating and air conditioning and electrical units now operate
    by ingenious jerry-rigging that cannot provide a long-term
    solution. Likewise, the ductwork that was originally installed
    was inadequate in many respects. Indeed, there were places
    where, because of construction designs_excuse me_design
    failures or construction shortcuts, ducts come to an abrupt
    end, instead of of continuing to provide heat and air to places
    where they should be providing it.
        On top of all of this, in the near future we will need more
    space. I have outlined that in my written testimony and won't
    say anything more about it now.
        Now, my plea today is that GSA and the Administrative
    Office find or the Congress specifically authorize sufficient
    funding in the next budget year to undertake the very
    important, but very costly, projects that need to be undertaken
    to maintain this courthouse. These projects include a complete
    revamping of the plumbing and HVAC systems and the electrical
    system, curing the security issues, and providing full funding
    for the construction of additional chambers and one new
    magistrate judge courtroom. If the cost is not prohibitive, the
    greening of the courthouse by adding gardens, and perhaps an
    area for receptions, on the roof would be desirable.
        As a citizen of Baltimore, I also hope that funding can be
    found for what has become known as the ``First Impressions''
    project, which was approved by GSA some years ago. This project
    would make the entrance to the courthouse face on Pratt rather
    than on Lombard Street. The reason this is important is exactly
    as was expressed by the Mayor. If we don't get a new
    courthouse, it is important that as people walk up and down the
    streets from the stadiums to the Inner Harbor that this
    building be much more welcoming to them.
        I might note that an incidental but important benefit of
    completion of that project would be that the statue of Justice
    Marshall would be standing in the front and not in the rear of
    the courthouse. While symbolic, that change would be of
    monumental significance.
        I have heard suggestions that the various needed
    improvements--and I have heard this from time to time_be done
    piecemeal over time. I respectfully suggest that_that's where I
    use the term that it would be penny wise but pound foolish. It
    makes no sense to do these things seriatim over time. Can you
    imagine a responsible private property owner tearing out walls
    and flooring in one year to replace pipes, knowing that the
    following year all that money spent on the tearing-out process
    would need to be completed again to replace air conditioning
    the following year? It makes absolutely no sense.
        Now, the perspective I bring is that of the persons most
    affected by whatever decisions are made. Perhaps it sounds
    political to even say the words ``spending'' and
    ``investments'' in the present political environment, but any
    sound economist or responsible businessperson knows that there
    is a difference between the two, and that capital improvements
    in the Baltimore courthouse constitute an investment. That
    investment is absolutely necessary and in the long run it will
    generate untold dividends.
        Thank you again, Senator, for listening to me today, and
    particularly for your commitment to assuring that Baltimore has
    the wonderful courthouse it deserves.
        [The prepared statement of Judge Motz follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

        Senator Cardin. Thank you very much, Judge Motz.
        Mr. Fowler.

     STATEMENT OF KIRBY FOWLER, PRESIDENT, DOWNTOWN PARTNERSHIP OF
                            BALTIMORE, INC.

        Mr. Fowler. Good afternoon. It is my pleasure to be here
    before this Senate committee today. I'd like to thank Senator
    Cardin for this privilege. We've been very grateful for the
    extraordinary support that you've shown downtown Baltimore
    throughout your distinguished career. Thank you very much.
        On a personal note, I'd like to advise the group here that
    the reason I came to Baltimore 20 years ago is to work in this
    very building. I came to work for Chief Judge Walter E. Black,
    Jr., and it was two of the best years of my life. I have very
    fond memories of that experience, but very few fond memories of
    this building. I think Baltimore deserves better.
        To reiterate, my name is Kirby Fowler, president of the
    Downtown Partnership of Baltimore, an independent nonprofit
    organization charged with continuing the renaissance of
    downtown Baltimore. From our daily work tracking the growth of
    downtown, we know that the Federal courthouse is one of our
    most critical assets.
        The U.S. Government has long recognized the importance of
    Federal facilities within the community, and in particular has
    invested in modernizing or replacing courthouses across the
    country. In cities such as San Francisco, Boston, Denver, and
    Syracuse, new and redesigned Federal properties are dynamic,
    multi-use destinations that include libraries, public event
    space, gardens, and even cafes and public markets. These
    improved properties are cornerstones of their communities.
        The Federal courthouse in downtown Baltimore is incredibly
    important to the downtown economy. A substantial number of law
    firms, government agencies, and court-related businesses are
    located in the heart of downtown in large part due to the
    location of this Federal courthouse. On a daily basis, people
    have business in the Federal courthouse, which spills over into
    additional revenue for restaurants, retailers, even parking
    garage operators.
        Downtown Baltimore is a tremendous location for the court.
    We rank fifteenth in the country for employment density and
    last year, even as the effects of the recession lingered,
    downtown Baltimore added 6,700 jobs, the sixth best rate of
    increase in the country. This growth has occurred throughout
    downtown, from the west side to city center, from the Inner
    Harbor to Harbor East. Downtown also ranks eighth in the
    country for population density, with some of the best-educated
    residents in the Nation. Downtown is also the most transit-
    connected district in the region.
        For all its positive attributes, the Federal courthouse
    suffers from a fortress-like, single-use design that minimizes
    its relevance to the employees and residents who work and live
    downtown. Millions of people pass this building every year, but
    the nondescript architecture does little to communicate the
    important judicial business happening here on a daily basis.
    Despite the many people who use the courthouse each day, its
    design seals it off from the street and creates a dead zone in
    the middle of a vital part of our city. I share Senator
    Cardin's belief that this does not have to be the case. The
    Federal courthouse in Baltimore can become an even more
    important asset.
        The Downtown Partnership is charged with creating an
    economic vitality in the heart of our city. Earlier this month
    we were joined by Governor O'Malley and Baltimore Mayor
    Stephanie Rawlings-Blake to release a strategic plan for
    downtown Baltimore, a major component of which is a detailed
    open space improvement plan. Under the plan, our goal for every
    property in downtown is to create multi-use destinations that
    add visual as well as economic vitality.
        Locations exist within mere blocks of the current
    courthouse that could accommodate a new Federal courthouse. For
    example, Baltimore is in the early stages of planning a new
    arena building. The site of the current arena would make an
    ideal location for a new courthouse, in conjunction with a
    large new green space to be enjoyed by employees, visitors, and
    residents. We would encourage the Federal Government to
    consider a signature tall building to allow for much-needed
    open space and perhaps do that in conjunction with a private
    sector partner.
        If renovations to the existing courthouse are preferable,
    the opportunity is here to completely re-envision how the
    building interacts with the surrounding neighborhood. Changes
    continue to come to Pratt Street, our city's grand boulevard,
    as a result of our Pratt Street master plan, which was adopted
    by the city in 2008. A redesigned and reoriented courthouse
    could serve as a linchpin for greater improvements to the
    street.
        Downtown Partnership has worked closely with Federal
    agencies, such as the General Services Administration, in
    programming events, cleaning and maintaining the areas around
    Federal buildings and improving the way downtown looks and
    feels for everyone doing business with Federal agencies. I
    sincerely hope that we may continue to work in partnership with
    the Federal Government to help improve its facilities in
    downtown Baltimore, and I thank you for your time and
    consideration and your leadership on this issue.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Fowler follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

        Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Fowler.
        Mr. Monk.

        STATEMENT OF CHARLES O. MONK II, ESQ., CHAIR, BOARD OF
                 DIRECTORS, GREATER BALTIMORE COMMITTEE

        Mr. Monk. Good afternoon, Senator. I guess I want to begin
    by saying that, since I am a lawyer and I practice law in this
    courthouse, I don't think there is anyone that does practice
    law in this courthouse that doesn't have a story as Mr. Fowler
    related about this courthouse and about its experiences with
    the difficulties of this courthouse.
        But I'm here today as the Chairman of the Greater Baltimore
    Committee, and it's my privilege to speak on behalf of this
    regional business organization that has been serving Baltimore
    and central Maryland for more than 50 years. We have a long
    tradition of working with government to find solutions to
    problems that affect our region's competitiveness and economic
    vitality.
        Let me respectfully suggest that it is long past time for
    Baltimore to have a new Federal courthouse. The existing
    structure is not only plagued with the security problems that
    you've heard about and frequent general maintenance issues,
    such as the fact that this very ceremonial courtroom was closed
    because of water intrusion, but, more importantly, it does not
    adequately represent the role of the Federal Judiciary as the
    third branch of our government.
        Candidly, the building has all the charm of an uninspiring,
    poorly designed, class B office building. Its entrance is
    turned away from Baltimore's premier business thoroughfare,
    which is Pratt Street. It has a breezeway which must be closed
    off for security reasons, that has been a nuisance since the
    building was constructed. More importantly, the construction of
    this building raises serious security concerns because it's
    similar to the ill--fated Alfred P. Murrah Courthouse in
    Oklahoma City.
        From an economic development perspective, there are several
    opportunities to replace this courthouse in the heart of the
    west side of Baltimore, which will not only provide the United
    States District Court with the dignified building that it
    deserves, but at the same time create a significant opportunity
    for economic development and the creation of jobs and growth in
    Baltimore.
        In that regard, I disagree with Judge Motz, and I do so
    with some trepidation. I have learned long ago not to disagree
    with His Honor. We understand the importance of controlling
    costs in these economic times. But at the same time, the
    Greater Baltimore Committee would encourage this committee in
    its priority-setting role to recognize the significant security
    risks and other deficiencies presented by this courthouse that
    compel consideration of relocation.
        In recent months, the GBC has been working with State and
    city leaders, and we particularly appreciate the support of
    Mayor Rawlings-Blake in this regard, to relocate the existing
    Baltimore Arena to the site of the existing Baltimore City
    Convention Center. The project would not only bring a state-of-
    the-art arena to our downtown, but would redevelop and expand
    the convention center and establish a new, larger convention
    center hotel.
        We are not here to discuss that exciting new project, but
    rather to suggest that that project creates a unique
    opportunity. The development of the arena-convention center
    project would create a unique space in downtown to establish a
    new Federal courthouse on the existing arena property, which is
    a large, double-lot, double-block tract which is owned by the
    city. It would serve appropriately as a Federal courthouse and
    create the necessary space for security that is a GSA
    requirement.
        We would be pleased to work in a public-private partnership
    to develop a new Federal courthouse at that location. We are
    aware that there are developers who are interested in
    participating in such a project. We believe this could be done
    in a manner consistent with the objectives of the Downtown
    Partnership, which recently released its excellent strategic
    plan for downtown Baltimore.
        Thank you for your attention and I would be happy to answer
    any questions that you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Monk follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]

        Senator Cardin. Thank you very much, Mr. Monk, and thank
    you all, all four of you, for your testimony.
        Judge Motz, first of all I want to go over the numbers
    here, because I think they're kind of telling. We have an
    estimate from GSA dated July 14 of last year for the cost of
    just two of the problems confronting the courthouse here, the
    Garmatz Courthouse: one dealing with the heating and air
    conditioning, plumbing, which they estimate at $18 million; and
    the other dealing with the construction issues of the blast
    windows and structural security improvements, that they
    estimate is $56 million.
        That's $74 million for just those two modifications. It
    doesn't deal with the entrance change that you were talking
    about on Pratt Street, doesn't deal with new courtrooms in the
    building, doesn't deal with renovating any of the existing
    courtrooms that are in the building. If you start adding all
    that up, you see that you're going to be easily within $100
    million, if not more.
        A new courthouse, we hear different costs. A lot depends on
    land and things like that. But when it was on the books in the
    mid, around 2005, 2006, they estimated construction costs for
    2008 to be $143 million.
        So I'm just getting to the dollars here. It seems to me you
    reach a point that the economics tells you that you can't fix
    this building in an economic way. I couldn't agree with you
    more. Are we going to get in this budget climate $200 million
    set aside for a courthouse in Baltimore? The answer is no.
    That's clear in this current economic environment.
        But are we going to get $100 million set aside for the type
    of improvements you're talking about? The answer today right
    now is now. So I think we've got to look for a better way of
    trying to figure out how we can finance an adequate courthouse
    here in Baltimore.
        I listened very carefully to all four of your testimonies
    and I think we have agreement here, and I strongly support it,
    that if there is a replacement courthouse, it needs to be
    located in downtown Baltimore. We're in agreement on that?
        I see everybody nodding on that.
        Mayor Rawlings-Blake. Yes.
        Judge Motz. Yes.
        Mr. Fowler. Yes.
        Mr. Monk. Yes.
        Senator Cardin. It's interesting that you all deal with the
    issue of the courthouse being compatible to the development of
    Baltimore. Mayor Rawlings-Blake, I agree with you, it would be
    far preferable to have the entrance located on Pratt Street.
    Here's the challenge of doing that. I'm not sure that you're
    going to get support on the appropriate use of Federal funds at
    this time to change an entrance to the courthouse. It's very
    important to us that a building be integrated into the city,
    but I'm not so sure that the Federal Judiciary looks at it as a
    priority area when they're dealing with renovation funds. If it
    was new construction, that would be one thing. But when they're
    looking at renovation funds, whether they would use the
    millions of dollars necessary to refocus the entrance or use
    that to fix the HVAC. That's the challenge I think we confront
    with trying to renovate this building.
        But you're absolutely right. I don't know how many people
    know about the Thurgood Marshall statue or why it's there or
    what its relevancy is.
        So it seems like our best hope is what Mr. Fowler and Mr.
    Monk and you have been talking about, and that is to try to
    find a creative way that there is something special about the
    funding of a Baltimore courthouse that may get the attention of
    the Administrative Office of the Courts and then the Congress
    because of land swaps or other arrangements. I take it from
    your testimony you would be supportive of a creative
    opportunity in that regard?
        Mayor Rawlings-Blake. Absolutely.
        Senator Cardin. Mr. Monk and Mr. Fowler, you both have
    talked about this in somewhat general terms as it relates to
    some of the redevelopment in downtown Baltimore. Neither one of
    you, though, has talked about what this land itself, if the
    courthouse were removed, what would be the likely or the
    possible attraction for a private developer to be able to be
    involved if this land became available?
        Mr. Monk. This is--from the development perspective in
    Baltimore, this particular lot on Pratt Street, especially with
    the redeveloped arena and convention center across the street,
    will be a very special, unique opportunity for any developer.
    Literally, this morning it was announced that Constellation
    Energy and Exelon are thinking about a merger, and one of the
    things that was announced as part of that, that they are
    looking for a place to develop a new LEAD-certified platinum
    wonderful new building for downtown Baltimore as a corporate
    headquarters. It would be an ideal location for such a
    building.
        So I think this location, properly fronted on Pratt Street,
    is a terrific opportunity for development of downtown
    Baltimore. It would give us yet another step on redevelopment
    of the entire west side.
        Mr. Fowler. I remember 3 years ago when I used to be on
    Pratt Street, when conventioneers would leave the convention
    they would go straight to the Inner Harbor, but now they go to
    the Hilton, they go throughout all of Pratt Street. It's become
    a much more attractive street over the past several years.
        Just to give you a sense of the amount that some of these
    lots are being sold at, during the heyday a few years ago the
    McCormick Spice lot at Conway and Light sold for $25 million.
    During auction recently it sold for 11, so that's just a sign
    of the economy. But that's a similar sized site. So there could
    be substantial, perhaps tens of millions of dollars, that could
    come just from the sale of this site.
        Before the recession hit, there was a lot of interest in
    doing buildout of retail along Pratt Street. We're starting to
    get glimmers of that interest again as the economy seems to be
    waking up a little bit. So this is a valuable site for private
    use.
        Senator Cardin. Judge Motz, looking at the numbers again,
    looking at GSA's numbers, lit seems to me that--well, let me
    ask you. What are your highest priorities if GSA said there was
    a limited amount of funds, they can't do it the way you want to
    do it, they can't do it all at one time?
        Judge Motz. Well, after today my highest priority is to fix
    the security problems, because I think I don't see how after a
    public hearing and problems of progressive collapse are going
    to be in the newspapers--as far as I'm concerned, GSA better
    fix that problem tomorrow. That's my highest priority.
        In terms of other priorities, you've got to fix the
    infrastructure. There have been--regardless of what these
    gentlemen say, this courthouse now internally is an attractive
    spot. I don't know whether they've opened their eyes recently.
    But you've got to fix the infrastructure, and that is very
    costly.
        If somebody wants to get us new money to build a new
    courthouse, that's fine. I must say that when people were
    talking about moving the courthouse 10 years ago, it wasn't to
    downtown. It was to Inner Harbor, it was the Harbor East, which
    to me--I was against it because of the very reason that there
    is now consensus on, that that area was going to develop by
    itself and you were betraying the downtown office district,
    because no law firm was going to stay down here when you
    weren't in walking distance of the courthouse.
        So if you get a courthouse down here, you get the arena,
    you can make it attractive, that's fine. But I still think
    realistically $100 million is less than $200 million and I
    really think a new courthouse would cost $250 million. I think
    there's more chance to get $100 million than $250 million, and
    it's got to be done.
        I'm telling you as somebody who looks at things pretty
    conservatively, it makes no sense. Either you raze the building
    and go somewhere else, which is fine, or else you've got to fix
    the infrastructure and the security problems. That is the two
    highest priorities, and one of those two things in my judgment
    has to be done.
        Senator Cardin. Security you rank first. There's been at
    least three other issues that have been raised. That is the air
    conditioning, the plumbing, the electrical.
        Judge Motz. All of that has to be done. It has to be--there
    is no question, if you look at GSA studies about the ductwork
    and you see about--right now, the plumbing, the air
    conditioning, and the electricity need to be fixed and they
    should all be fixed at the same time. There were proposals that
    GSA wouldn't be able to fund this all at once, so you'd tear up
    the building 1 year and then 3 years later you'd come out and
    tear it up again. That makes no sense.
        So if you're going to fix the building, you've got to come
    up with the money to fix it right. This building was not built
    correctly originally, as you well know. I thought your remark
    that you'd much rather have a building from the beginning of
    the century than from 1976 is absolutely right. This was not a
    well-constructed building, and it has got to be fixed. If not,
    and with all respect, the Mitchell Courthouse is beautiful, but
    it has lost--the infrastructure there needs to be fixed and
    there wasn't money to fix it.
        Anybody--anybody's going to tell you that either you raze
    it, which is fine--that's OK--and build a new one, but you've
    got to have the new courthouse built before you leave this one,
    that's for sure, or else you've got to put the money in to fix
    this building up, or else it's really going to deteriorate and
    then you're going to be in very, very bad shape.
        Senator Cardin. I agree with you. Just reality tells me,
    though, if GSA and the Administrative Office of the Courts were
    not willing to make the $74 million investment when they had
    $1.5 billion available to be spent--these studies have been
    done for a long time; they're ready to go; this was ready-to-go
    construction; they could have gotten people there immediately
    working on this work. If they weren't willing to invest that,
    why do we think we have a good chance of getting this money
    now?
        Judge Motz. I would hope you--you would hope Congress would
    give us this money. I can't get the money. I'm the tenant in
    the building. I have absolutely no power to get the money.
        But what we have done is to try to make this courthouse as
    good as it can be, and I think we've done a pretty good job
    limping along. But the fact of the matter is if money--
    realistically, if money is going to be put into here for
    infrastructure work or for a new courthouse, whichever it is,
    Congress is going to have to come up with the money. There's
    going to have to be a special appropriation that says that,
    because of the problems with the building, because of the needs
    of the city, because urban areas are important, because of the
    way this building is located, because it's on valuable land and
    as valuable as the arena would be, this might be more valuable,
    that this is an opportunity for political intervention and for
    Congress to fund things appropriately and specifically. That's
    where the money's going to come from.
        Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned--we work with the AO and
    GSA every day to try to get more money, and we haven't been
    able to do it. Felicia is over there nodding her head. I would
    hope, I would hope that somebody would start thinking new
    construction is not the only way to go. Sometimes it is that if
    they're not going to give us new money, give us money to fix
    this courthouse and make it so it opens up on the pedestrian
    thoroughfare. That is good investment of public dollars.
        But I have, frankly, I have no hope.
        Senator Cardin. I'm not disagreeing. In fact, it seems to
    me that you made that point for the last 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 years
    about let's get on with the major improvements that need to be
    made, and there was an opportunity for GSA to do that and they
    said no. That's how I see it.
        So my point is this. You said that if you were a tenant in
    a commercial building you'd withhold your rents, and I agree
    with you you could withhold your rents. These are serious
    enough issues. You don't have that luxury because of the way
    the Federal Government is organized. We like to say that we
    don't want to exempt ourselves from private sector rules, but
    we do, and it's wrong.
        One of the reasons we're holding this hearing is to put a
    spotlight on this. That's intentional, because Baltimore's not
    the only place in the Nation that has a similar problem. There
    is other problems in other parts of the country. I just think a
    mistake was made when the decision was made by the
    Administrative Office of the Courts that they were going to
    fund space needs rather than renovation of buildings and making
    them safe for the people that are in there.
        I'm very serious about at least this Senator's vote on new
    judgeships until we have adequate space for our existing
    judges. I think that needs to be put into the equation. My
    concern is that unless we put a spotlight on the issues that we
    have that we could go another 10 or 15 or 20 years and then
    someone--and I'm not talking about terrorist attacks, but
    someone's going to get hurt because of the conditions of the
    building, and then all of a sudden we try to do things to fix
    it.
        Let's fix it now. I'm not opposed to $100 million being put
    into this Baltimore courthouse to make it look right and have
    it face on Pratt Street. My gut tells me that you're not going
    to get the private sector working with us on that. That's going
    to be solely a Federal Government issue. Here it seems to me
    that we have an opportunity, because of the interest of the
    private sector, that we might be able to put together a
    creative plan, with the Mayor's interest, that will allow us to
    move forward with a new courthouse for Baltimore in a way that
    would be even more economical than trying to patch up this
    existing courthouse, giving the Federal Government a better
    facility and giving downtown Baltimore a Federal courthouse
    that complements the city as well as another valuable piece of
    land that could be used for economic growth for Baltimore's
    future. That seems to me to make the most sense in this
    situation.
        But if we're able to get the renovation moneys necessary
    for this courthouse--I'm going to fight, I know Senator
    Mikulski's going to fight, and our congressional delegation is
    going to fight to make sure this courthouse is safe. So we're
    going to continue to seek the attention of the Administrative
    Office of the Courts.
        We took politics out of this in a way. You have this rating
    system within the Administrative Office of the Courts to
    determine priority of buildings and Congress follows that
    priority list. So in a way this is a fight. We have to get the
    Administrative Office of the Courts and GSA and then Congress
    needs to fund it, so we all have responsibilities.
        What I'm going to do is take the information that's been
    made available at this hearing and share it, obviously, with my
    colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee, but
    with my colleagues in the U.S. Senate. I am certain, as has
    been pointed out in this hearing, that there are other cities
    that have similar types of problems, and maybe we'll be able to
    figure out a way that we can move forward with the type of
    space for our Judiciary which is appropriate to the important
    role that they play.
        With that, let me again thank our four witnesses for your
    testimony. I think you added greatly to this hearing. With
    that, the committee will stand adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]