[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.]