    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                     FEDERAL COURTHOUSE DESIGN AND CONSTRUC-
                       TION: EXAMINING THE COSTS TO THE TAX-
                       PAYER

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

                                    (119-22)

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                  ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND
                             EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                               TRANSPORTATION AND
                                 INFRASTRUCTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION
                                   __________

                                  MAY 20, 2025
                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
                 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

                   [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
         transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
                                 transportation
                                    ______

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    61-277 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2025

                 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                          Sam Graves, Missouri, Chairman
                     Rick Larsen, Washington, Ranking Member
    Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford,           Eleanor Holmes Norton,
      Arkansas, Vice Chairman              District of Columbia
    Daniel Webster, Florida              Jerrold Nadler, New York
    Thomas Massie, Kentucky              Steve Cohen, Tennessee
    Scott Perry, Pennsylvania            John Garamendi, California
    Brian Babin, Texas                   Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgia
    David Rouzer, North Carolina         Andre Carson, Indiana
    Mike Bost, Illinois                  Dina Titus, Nevada
    Doug LaMalfa, California             Jared Huffman, California
    Bruce Westerman, Arkansas            Julia Brownley, California
    Brian J. Mast, Florida               Frederica S. Wilson, Florida
    Pete Stauber, Minnesota              Mark DeSaulnier, California
    Tim Burchett, Tennessee              Salud O. Carbajal, California
    Dusty Johnson, South Dakota          Greg Stanton, Arizona
    Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey       Sharice Davids, Kansas
    Troy E. Nehls, Texas                 Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois
    Tracey Mann, Kansas                  Chris Pappas, New Hampshire
    Burgess Owens, Utah                  Seth Moulton, Massachusetts
    Eric Burlison, Missouri              Marilyn Strickland, Washington
    Mike Collins, Georgia                Patrick Ryan, New York
    Mike Ezell, Mississippi              Val T. Hoyle, Oregon
    Kevin Kiley, California              Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio,
    Vince Fong, California                 Vice Ranking Member
    Tony Wied, Wisconsin                 Hillary J. Scholten, Michigan
    Tom Barrett, Michigan                Valerie P. Foushee, North Carolina
    Nicholas J. Begich III, Alaska       Christopher R. Deluzio, Pennsylvania
    Robert P. Bresnahan, Jr.,            Robert Garcia, California
      Pennsylvania                       Nellie Pou, New Jersey
    Jeff Hurd, Colorado                  Kristen McDonald Rivet, Michigan
    Jefferson Shreve, Indiana            Laura Friedman, California
    Addison P. McDowell, North           Laura Gillen, New York
      Carolina                           Shomari Figures, Alabama
    David J. Taylor, Ohio
    Brad Knott, North Carolina
    Kimberlyn King-Hinds,
      Northern Mariana Islands
    Mike Kennedy, Utah
    Robert F. Onder, Jr., Missouri
    Jimmy Patronis, Florida

                                    ------

          Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and
                              Emergency Management

                    Scott Perry, Pennsylvania, Chairman
                   Greg Stanton, Arizona, Ranking Member
    Mike Ezell, Mississippi              Eleanor Holmes Norton,
    Kevin Kiley, California                District of Columbia
    Tom Barrett, Michigan                Kristen McDonald Rivet, Michigan
    Robert P. Bresnahan, Jr.,            Shomari Figures, Alabama
      Pennsylvania                       John Garamendi, California
    Kimberlyn King-Hinds,                Dina Titus, Nevada
      Northern Mariana Islands           Laura Friedman, California,
    Mike Kennedy, Utah                     Vice Ranking Member
    Robert F. Onder, Jr., Missouri,      Rick Larsen, Washington (Ex Officio)
      Vice Chairman
    Sam Graves, Missouri (Ex Officio)

                                    CONTENTS

                                                                       Page

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

                     STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

    Hon. Scott Perry, a Representative in Congress from the
      Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
      Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
      Management, opening statement..................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     3
    Hon. Laura Friedman, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of California, and Vice Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
      Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
      Management, opening statement..................................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................     7

                                   WITNESSES

    David Marroni, Director, Physical Infrastructure, U.S. Government
      Accountability Office, oral statement..........................     9
        Prepared statement...........................................    10
    Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby, District Judge for the U.S. District Court
      for the Northern District of New York, and Chair, Judicial
      Conference Committee on Space and Facilities, oral statement...    21
        Prepared statement...........................................    23
    Michael Peters, Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, U.S.
      General Services Administration, oral statement................    27
        Prepared statement...........................................    28

                           SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Letter of May 20, 2025, to Hon. Scott Perry, Chairman, and Hon.
      Greg Stanton, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic
      Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, from
      Kristen Swearingen, Vice President, Government Affairs,
      Associated Builders and Contractors, Submitted for the Record
      by Hon. Scott Perry............................................     4

                                    APPENDIX

    Question to David Marroni, Director, Physical Infrastructure,
      U.S. Government Accountability Office, from Hon. Dina Titus....    43
    Questions to Michael Peters, Commissioner, Public Buildings
      Service, U.S. General Services Administration, from Hon. Dina
      Titus..........................................................    44

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  May 16, 2025

        SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER

        TO:      LMembers, Subcommittee on Economic Development,
    Public Buildings, and Emergency Management
        FROM:  LStaff, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
    Buildings, and Emergency Management
        RE:      LSubcommittee Hearing on ``Federal Courthouse
    Design and Construction: Examining the Costs to the Taxpayer''
    _______________________________________________________________________

                                   I. PURPOSE

        The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings,
    and Emergency Management of the Committee on Transportation and
    Infrastructure will hold a hearing on Tuesday, May 20, 2025, at
    10:00 a.m. E.T. in 2167 of the Rayburn House Office Building
    entitled, ``Federal Courthouse Design and Construction:
    Examining the Costs to the Taxpayer.'' In 2021, the United
    States Courts updated the official Design Guide that dictates
    the basic requirements for new courthouses.\1\ This hearing
    will evaluate the recent changes to the Design Guide and
    examine the impacts that the changes have had on the costs
    associated with designing, constructing, and operating Federal
    courthouses. Witnesses for this hearing will be from the
    General Services Administration (GSA), the Federal Judiciary,
    and the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ United States Courts, U.S. Courts Design Guide (revised Mar.
    2021) [hereinafter Design Guide], available at https://
    www.uscourts.gov/administration-policies/judiciary-policies/us-courts-
    design-guide.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 II. BACKGROUND

    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

        The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings,
    and Emergency Management has jurisdiction over all of GSA's
    real property activity through the Property Act of 1949 (P.L.
    81-152), the Public Buildings Act of 1959 (P.L. 86-249), and
    the Cooperative Use Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-541).\2\ These three
    Acts are codified as title 40 of the United States Code. The
    Public Buildings Service (PBS) is responsible for the
    construction, repair, maintenance, alteration, and operation of
    public buildings of the Federal Government, including the
    United States Courts.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Rules of the House of Representatives, 119th Cong. (2025),
    available at https://rules.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/
    rules.house.gov/files/documents/houserules119thupdated.pdf.
        \3\ Dominick A. Fiorentino and Garrett Hatch, Cong. Rsch. Serv.
    (R47722), Overview of the General Services Administration: Acquisition
    Services and Real Property Management, (Sept. 27, 2023) [hereinafter
    CRS Report], available at https://www.congress.gov/
    crs-product/
    R47722#::text=The%20Federal%20Property%20and%20Administrative,and
    %20disposal%20of%20real%20property.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    GSA'S CAPITAL INVESTMENT AND LEASING PROGRAM

        PBS activities are funded primarily through the Federal
    Building Fund (FBF), an intra-governmental fund into which
    agencies pay rent for the properties they occupy.\4\ While the
    FBF is funded through agency rents paid to GSA, it is not a
    true revolving loan fund.\5\ The funds are made available via
    annual appropriations bills.\6\ GSA has not had full access to
    the FBF since 2011, when appropriators began using the FBF to
    offset other unrelated costs in the Financial Services and
    General Government appropriations bill.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Id. at 13.
        \5\ 40 U.S.C. Sec.  592(c)(1).
        \6\ Id.
        \7\ GSA, Fiscal Year 2024 Congressional Justification, Federal
    Buildings Fund (2023), available at https://www.gsa.gov/system/files/
    GSA_FY_2024_Congressional_Justification_
    Final-1.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Each year, GSA submits to the House Committee on
    Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Environment
    and Public Works Committee its Capital Investment and Leasing
    Program (CILP) for the subsequent fiscal year.\8\ The CILP
    submission includes what are known as prospectuses for each
    project, detailing the project scope, need, and estimated
    costs.\9\ For fiscal year (FY) 2026, a prospectus is required
    for any project in excess of $3.961 million.\10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ CRS Report, supra note 3, at 14.
        \9\ Id.
        \10\ GSA, Annual Prospectus Thresholds (last updated Jul. 31,
    2024), available at https://www.gsa.gov/real-estate/design-and-
    construction/annual-prospectus-thresholds.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PROSPECTUS APPROVAL PROCESS

        Pursuant to the prospectus process (40 U.S.C. 3307),
    capital projects exceeding the prospectus threshold, including
    construction of new courthouses, must be authorized through a
    Committee resolution by the House Committee on Transportation
    and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Environment and
    Public Works.\11\ The Committee approves the project by
    adopting a Committee Resolution, which will typically include
    limitations and guidelines that GSA must follow in proceeding
    with the approved project.\12\ Only then may GSA enter into a
    contract to build, purchase, or lease space.\13\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ 40 U.S.C. Sec.  3307.
        \12\ CRS Report, supra note 3, at 14.
        \13\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In addition to the approvals through Committee Resolutions,
    the Appropriations Committees appropriate funds each year from
    the FBF.\14\ For FY 2016 through FY 2022, GSA received $1.9
    billion to construct fifteen new courthouses.\15\ However, in
    recent years Congress has significantly reduced the amount of
    funding provided for courthouse construction.\16\ Since FY
    2022, about $395 million has gone to partially fund three
    courthouses: Hartford, Connecticut; Chattanooga, Tennessee; and
    San Juan, Puerto Rico.\17\ As a result, it is critical that GSA
    prioritize existing construction dollars and focus those
    dollars only on the highest priority projects.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ Id.
        \15\ U.S. Gov't Accountability Off., GAO-25-106724, Federal
    Courthouse Construction: New Design Standards Will Result in
    Significant Size and Cost Increases at 1 (2024) [hereinafter GAO Report
    2024], available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-25-106724.pdf.
        \16\ Admin. Off. of the U.S. Courts, The Judiciary Fiscal Year 2026
    Congressional Budget Summary at 74 (Apr. 2025) [hereinafter Budget
    Summary], available at https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/
    document/fy-2026-congressional-budget-summary.pdf.
        \17\ Id. at 74-75.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FEDERAL JUDICIARY COURTHOUSE PROJECT PRIORITIES LIST

        Each fiscal year, as part of the Judiciary's budget
    justification, the United States Courts publish a Federal
    Judiciary Courthouse Project Priorities (CPP) list.\18\ The CPP
    contains two parts: ``Part I consists of the judiciary's
    highest courthouse construction funding priorities for the
    budget year [and] Part II identifies out-year courthouse
    construction priorities.'' \19\ For FY 2026, the Judiciary is
    requesting $863 million for new courthouse construction
    costs.\20\ The CPP's highest funding priories are: San Juan,
    Puerto Rico; Hartford, Connecticut; Chattanooga, Tennessee;
    Bowling Green, Kentucky; and Anchorage, Alaska.\21\ Below is a
    breakdown of the outstanding funding requests for those
    projects.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ Admin. Off. of the U.S. Courts, Federal Judiciary Courthouse
    Project Priorities (CPP) for Fiscal Year 2025, as Approved by the
    Judiciary Conference of the United States, available at https://
    www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/fy_2025_section_14_
    courthouse_construction.pdf.
        \19\ Id.
        \20\ Budget Summary, supra note 16, at 73.
        \21\ Id. at 74.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         LSan Juan, Puerto Rico: $343.4 million for
    construction.

          + LIn FY 2022, $22.5 million was funded for site and
    design.
          + LIn FY 2024, $3.0 million was funded for site and
    design, and $25.3 million was funded for construction.

         LHartford, Connecticut: $6.1 million for site and
    design, and $151.5 million for construction.
          + LIn FY 2021, $135.5 million was funded for site,
    design, and partial construction.
          + LIn FY 2022, $138.0 million was funded for partial
    construction.
          + LIn FY 2023, $61.5 million was funded for partial
    construction.

         LChattanooga, Tennessee: $3.4 million for site and
    design, and $77.1 million for construction.
          + LIn FY 2021, $94.5 million was funded for site, design,
    and partial construction.
          + LIn FY 2022, $85.5 million was funded for partial
    construction.
          + LIn FY 2023, $38.4 million was funded for partial
    construction.
          + LIn FY 2024, $20.9 million was funded for partial
    construction.

         LBowling Green, Kentucky: $26.0 million for site
    and design, and $193.5 million for construction.
          + LThis project has not received any prior funding.

         LAnchorage, Alaska: $62.1 million for site and
    design.

          + LThis project has not received any prior funding.\22\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \22\ Id. at 74-75.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    UNITED STATES COURTS DESIGN GUIDE

        First issued in 1991, the United States Courts Design Guide
    establishes, ``the federal judiciary's requirements for the
    design, construction, and renovation of court facilities and is
    intended for use by judges, architects, engineers, [GSA]
    personnel, and court administrators who are involved in federal
    court construction projects.'' \23\ The Judiciary made
    revisions to the Design Guide in 1993, 1995, 2007, and
    2021.\24\ The Judiciary also made minor amendments to the 2007
    version of the Design Guide in 2016.\25\ The Design Guide is a
    living document that can be amended or formally updated as
    needed.\26\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \23\ Design Guide, supra note 1, at vii.
        \24\ GAO Report 2024, supra note 15, at 2.
        \25\ Id.
        \26\ Design Guide, supra note 1, at xi.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The changes that the Judiciary incorporated into the 2021
    Design Guide range widely in scope and impact. For example, the
    Design Guide lays out policies related to courtroom sharing and
    space planning for senior and future judges.\27\ However, the
    Design Guide also sets out policies related to acoustic
    requirements and interior finishes.\28\ For a detailed
    breakdown of the changes in the 2021 Design Guide, see Appendix
    1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \27\ GAO Report 2024, supra note 15, at 25-27.
        \28\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            III. COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT

    FEDERAL COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM

        The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings,
    and Emergency Management has had ongoing oversight of the
    Federal courthouse construction program. In 2010, at the
    request of the Subcommittee, GAO completed a study entitled,
    ``Federal Courthouse Construction: Better Planning, Oversight,
    and Courtroom Sharing Needed to Address Future Costs.'' \29\ In
    the report, GAO examined thirty-three courthouses that were
    constructed during the ten-year period from 2000 to 2010.\30\
    GAO found that 3.56 million square feet of extra space was
    built costing the taxpayer more than $800 million because of
    the following reasons:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \29\ U.S. Gov't Accountability Off., GAO-10-417, Federal Courthouse
    Construction: Better Planning, Oversight, and Courtroom Sharing Needed
    To Address Future Costs (June 2010) [hereinafter GAO Report 2010],
    available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-10-417.pdf.
        \30\ Id. at 2.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         LThe Judiciary grossly overestimated its ten-year
    projection of future judges assigned to courthouses;
         LNew courthouses did not incorporate courtroom
    sharing; and
         LGSA constructed courthouses above the
    Congressionally-approved size.\31\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \31\ Id. at 9.

        As a result of these findings, the Committee halted
    approving new courthouses until the Judiciary revamped its
    process for proposing new courthouses, including revising
    judgeship projections and instituting courtroom sharing
    policies.\32\ Following this, the Judiciary subsequently
    updated its Asset Management Planning (AMP) process that
    improved and standardized its method of reviewing the need for
    new courthouses yet the AMP process continues to give greater
    weight to number of courtrooms/chambers (50 percent of the
    weighted AMP system) than building condition (12 percent) or
    security (10 percent) in determining the ``Urgency Evaluation''
    Rating or UE and need for a new courthouse.\33\ While the
    Judiciary has refined its courtroom sharing policies for
    magistrate, senior, and bankruptcy judges, sharing policies do
    not apply to active district court judges.\34\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \32\ Letter from Eleanor Holmes Norton, Chairwoman and Mario Diaz-
    Balart, Ranking Member, H. Subcommittee on Econ. Dev., Public
    Buildings, and Emergency Management to President Barack Obama, (Aug. 2,
    2010) (On file with Comm.).
        \33\ Admin. Off. of the U.S. Courts, Asset Management Planning:
    Process Handbook (2023), available at https://www.uscourts.gov/data-
    news/reports/handbooks-manuals/asset-management-planning-process-
    handbook.
        \34\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Following the United States Courts publication of the new
    Design Guide in 2021, the Subcommittee requested that GAO
    examine the judiciary's rationale for the changes that were
    made in the new Design Guide.\35\ The report, ``Federal
    Courthouse Construction: New Design Standards Will Result in
    Significant Size and Cost Increases,'' studied the extent to
    which these changes could affect the size and cost of
    courthouse projects.\36\ To conduct this study, GAO examined
    six recently constructed courthouses that used the 2007 Design
    Guide, since no courthouses have been constructed using the
    2021 Design Guide.\37\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \35\ GAO Report 2024, supra note 15.
        \36\ Id. at 2.
        \37\ Id. at 3.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The report found that, had the 2021 Design Guide
    requirements been used for the construction of those six
    courthouse projects, the size of the courthouses would have
    increased by almost six percent and construction costs would
    have increased by approximately twelve percent.\38\ GAO largely
    attributes these increases in size and cost, to the increase in
    judiciary circulation requirements (i.e., the amount of space
    required for movement of the public, court staff, and
    prisoners).\39\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \38\ Id. at 29.
        \39\ Id. at 24.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

               IV. CONCERNS WITH FEDERAL COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION

    OVER-ESTIMATING THE FUTURE NUMBER OF JUDGES

        A primary reason for the overbuilding of recent courthouses
    has been the Judiciary's inaccurate ten-year projections for
    future judgeships.\40\ Since courthouses are designed to house
    judges and their staff, the overall size of a courthouse is
    largely determined by the number of judges expected to be
    housed in the building and whether judges will share
    courtrooms.\41\ However, even as far back as 1993, the GAO
    questioned the basis on which the United States Courts
    calculated their projections for new judges.\42\ In particular,
    at that time, the courts based their calculations on a caseload
    projection method.\43\ The problem of over-projecting the
    number of judges has not been resolved.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \40\ GAO Report 2010, supra note 29, at 26.
        \41\ Id. at 6-8.
        \42\ U.S. Gov't Accountability Off., GGD-93-132, Federal Judiciary
    Space: Long-Range Planning Process Needs Revision (Sept. 1993),
    available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/ggd-93-132.pdf.
        \43\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    LACK OF COURTROOM SHARING

        The lack of courtroom sharing has also been an ongoing
    issue. To conduct their report in 2010, GAO created a model for
    courtroom sharing that showed significant amounts of
    unscheduled time in courtrooms, illustrating sharing of
    courtrooms could be significantly higher than practiced.\44\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \44\ GAO Report 2010, supra note 29, at 3.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Congress has consistently questioned the need for every
    judge to have a courtroom, particularly in the case of a large
    courthouse with 20 or more courtrooms.\45\ However, the United
    States Courts have consistently requested a courtroom for every
    active judge.\46\ In 2019, the Judicial Conference updated
    policies with respect to Senior District Judges, Magistrate
    Judges, and Bankruptcy Judges sharing courtroom.\47\ However,
    the new courtroom sharing policy was only implemented for
    courthouses that are renovated or newly constructed, it does
    not impact existing courthouses.\48\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \45\ L.A. Courthouse: GSA's Plan to Spend $400 Million to Create
    Vacant Space: Hearing before the H. Comm. on Transp. & Infrastructure,
    112th Cong. (Aug. 17, 2012), available at https://www.govinfo.gov/
    content/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg75572/pdf/CHRG-112hhrg75572.pdf.
        \46\ Id.
        \47\ Design Guide, supra note 1.
        \48\ Id. at 2-11.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CONSTRUCTION EXCEEDED AUTHORIZED LIMITS

        In the 2010 report, GAO criticized GSA's inability to
    ensure courthouse projects stayed within the authorized limits
    and noted that GSA consistently built courthouses that exceeded
    the scope of Congressional authorizations.\49\ The report found
    that the 3.56 million square feet of extra space that was built
    resulted in an additional $835 million in costs for the thirty-
    three courthouses that were examined.\50\ Furthermore, GAO
    estimated the cost to rent, operate, and maintain the extra
    space would be almost $51 million annually.\51\ Additionally,
    the report found that:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \49\ GAO Report 2010, supra note 29, at 3.
        \50\ Id. at 9.
        \51\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         LTwenty-seven of the thirty-three courthouses
    completed since 2000 exceeded their Congressionally-authorized
    size by 1.7 million square feet;
         LFifteen of the thirty-three courthouses exceeded
    their Congressional authorization for square footage by ten
    percent; and
         LThree courthouses exceeded their authorized
    square footage by fifty percent.\52\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \52\ Id. at 13.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    JUDICIARY CIRCULATION REQUIREMENTS

        In the 2024 report, GAO found that judiciary circulation
    requirements in the 2021 Design Guide would have led to
    increased costs and size if existing courthouses projects had
    been designed to those standards.\53\ In the 2007 Design Guide,
    the Judiciary used ``circulation factors'' (i.e., percentage of
    usable space allotted for circulation) while the 2021 Design
    Guide uses ``circulation multipliers.'' \54\ As highlighted by
    GSA officials, the use of ``multipliers'' instead of
    ``factors'' causes the judicial space necessary to
    increase.\55\ As a result, the overall size and cost of the
    courthouses also increase.\56\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \53\ GAO Report 2024, supra note 15, at 29.
        \54\ Id.
        \55\ Id.
        \56\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 V. CONCLUSION

        Despite implementing new policies in their 2021 Design
    Guide, the United States Courts continue to request the
    construction of courthouses that are too large and overbudget.
    While the Design Guide includes updates to relevant policies,
    including courtroom sharing, the Committee fails to see
    substantive enactment of these policies. Continued
    Congressional oversight is necessary to ensure that the
    prospectus process serves to carefully consider requests made
    by the Judiciary.

                                 VI. WITNESSES

         LMr. David Marroni, Director, Physical
    Infrastructure, United States Government Accountability Office
         LThe Honorable Glenn T. Suddaby, District Judge
    for the United States District Court for the Northern District
    of New York, and Chair, Judicial Conference Committee on Space
    and Facilities
         LMr. Michael Peters, Commissioner, Public
    Buildings Service, United States General Services
    Administration

                                VII. APPENDIX 1

       Table 1: Changes in the 2021 United States Courts Design Guide That
                Could Affect Size or Cost of Courthouse Projects
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Change                             Description
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Space Sharing and Future Courtroom Planning
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Courtroom sharing policy..................  Incorporates judiciary
                                                 policies adopted from 2009
                                                 through 2011 for judges to
                                                 share courtrooms in new
                                                 courthouses with multiple
                                                 magistrate, bankruptcy, or
                                                 senior district judges. For
                                                 example, a courthouse with
                                                 three or more magistrate
                                                 judges includes one
                                                 courtroom for every two
                                                 magistrate judges, plus an
                                                 additional courtroom for
                                                 criminal duty.

    Space planning for senior and future        Incorporates the judiciary's
     judges.                                     policy adopted in 2011 that
                                                 requires new courthouse
                                                 projects to include space
                                                 for existing judges and to
                                                 account for judges eligible
                                                 for senior status within a
                                                 10-year planning period.
                                                 (District judges are
                                                 appointed for life but may
                                                 take senior status and a
                                                 reduced caseload, if
                                                 desired, upon meeting
                                                 certain age and tenure
                                                 requirements.) Courts may
                                                 not program space or
                                                 include space in the
                                                 proposed design for
                                                 projected judgeships.

    Multiparty courtrooms.....................  Allows for one multiparty
                                                 courtroom--used for trials
                                                 involving multiple parties--
                                                 in new courthouses with at
                                                 least four district judge
                                                 courtrooms. Courts can also
                                                 request exceptions to the
                                                 2021 Design Guide for
                                                 courthouses with fewer than
                                                 four courtrooms or to allow
                                                 for more than one
                                                 multiparty courtroom at a
                                                 courthouse. The 2007 Design
                                                 Guide allowed multiparty
                                                 courtrooms at courthouses
                                                 with at least four
                                                 courtrooms that serve as
                                                 the district headquarters.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Size Standards and Flexibilities
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Circulation multiplier....................  Changes the method for
                                                 calculating circulation
                                                 within judiciary units in
                                                 the courthouse. Courthouses
                                                 have three types of
                                                 circulation: (1) public
                                                 circulation for members of
                                                 the public; (2) restricted
                                                 circulation for judges and
                                                 other judiciary staff; and
                                                 (3) secure circulation to
                                                 move witnesses, litigants,
                                                 prisoners, or other
                                                 individuals who are in
                                                 custody. The 2007 Design
                                                 Guide used ``circulation
                                                 factors'' (i.e., percentage
                                                 of usable space allotted
                                                 for circulation), and the
                                                 2021 Design Guide uses
                                                 ``circulation
                                                 multipliers.'' Circulation
                                                 multipliers are values that
                                                 are applied (i.e.,
                                                 multiplied) to the net
                                                 square footage of a
                                                 judiciary unit to determine
                                                 the square footage needed
                                                 to move within and between
                                                 spaces.

    Jury assembly suites......................  Updates ceiling height
                                                 maximums for jury assembly
                                                 suites from 10 feet in the
                                                 2007 Design Guide to 12
                                                 feet and allows ceiling
                                                 height to exceed this
                                                 maximum, if located on a
                                                 floor with increased floor-
                                                 to-floor height. Courts may
                                                 use jury assembly suites
                                                 for other purposes, such as
                                                 for training or
                                                 conferences. The 2007
                                                 Design Guide did not
                                                 address using jury assembly
                                                 suites for other purposes.

    Unique program spaces.....................  As with the 2007 Design
                                                 Guide, the 2021 Design
                                                 Guide allows courts to use
                                                 unoccupied rooms for
                                                 Alternative Dispute
                                                 Resolution purposes.
                                                 However, the 2021 Design
                                                 Guide also allows a court
                                                 to construct a separate
                                                 suite of Alternative
                                                 Dispute Resolution rooms
                                                 within its given space
                                                 requirements, with circuit
                                                 judicial council approval.
                                                 The 2021 Design Guide
                                                 allows for new courthouse
                                                 construction projects to
                                                 include (1) fitness
                                                 centers, provided they are
                                                 within judiciary's space
                                                 envelope and do not
                                                 increase the total square
                                                 footage of the project; and
                                                 (2) secure rooms to store
                                                 sensitive or classified
                                                 information, provided the
                                                 room does not increase the
                                                 total square footage of the
                                                 court unit where the room
                                                 is located.

    Flexibility to configure space............  As with the 2007 Design
                                                 Guide, the 2021 Design
                                                 Guide provides courts with
                                                 flexibility to configure
                                                 space within the space
                                                 envelope of a court unit
                                                 (i.e., the total usable
                                                 square feet within the
                                                 courthouse) to meet their
                                                 needs. The 2021 Design
                                                 Guide also specifies that
                                                 the circuit judicial
                                                 council must approve ``any
                                                 significant departure''
                                                 from square footage
                                                 standards for space and
                                                 ceiling heights, whereas
                                                 the 2007 Design Guide
                                                 specified that the circuit
                                                 judicial council must
                                                 approve ``a change'' to
                                                 these standards. The 2021
                                                 Design Guide does not
                                                 define what ``significant''
                                                 means in this context.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Design Features
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Raised access flooring....................  The 2016 chapter amendments
                                                 removed the requirement in
                                                 the 2007 Design Guide that
                                                 courthouses must use raised
                                                 access flooring in most
                                                 spaces but specified that
                                                 such flooring was required
                                                 in the courtroom well
                                                 (i.e., the area that
                                                 includes the judge's bench,
                                                 court personnel
                                                 workstations, witness box,
                                                 jury box, and counsel
                                                 tables in the courtroom).
                                                 The 2021 Design Guide
                                                 removed the remaining
                                                 requirement for raised
                                                 accessed flooring in the
                                                 courtroom well.

    Access for people with disabilities.......  Adds a requirement that a
                                                 minimum of one courtroom
                                                 per court type and per
                                                 court floor must be fully
                                                 accessible, if all
                                                 courtrooms cannot be
                                                 designed to be fully
                                                 accessible at the start of
                                                 court operation. This 2021
                                                 Design Guide change is
                                                 similar in some ways to
                                                 Architectural Barriers Act
                                                 Accessibility Standards-
                                                 related (ABAAS) guidance,
                                                 which provides that while
                                                 it is preferable for the
                                                 judge's bench and other
                                                 private work areas in all
                                                 courtrooms to be fully
                                                 accessible, in the
                                                 alternative, private work
                                                 areas in at least one
                                                 courtroom of each type
                                                 (U.S. Court of Appeals,
                                                 U.S. District Court, and
                                                 U.S. Bankruptcy Court)
                                                 should be fully accessible.
                                                 The principal difference
                                                 between this 2021 Design
                                                 Guide provision and the
                                                 ABAAS-related guidance is
                                                 that in instances where all
                                                 courtrooms cannot be
                                                 designed to be fully
                                                 accessible, the 2021 Design
                                                 Guide provision requires
                                                 one such fully accessible
                                                 courtroom per court type on
                                                 each floor.

    Restrooms.................................  Provides that if separate
                                                 staff toilets are necessary
                                                 on a single floor, the
                                                 project team will determine
                                                 the total number of toilets
                                                 based on the International
                                                 Plumbing Code. This allows
                                                 selected staff, such as the
                                                 Clerk of the Court, to have
                                                 private restrooms if they
                                                 do not add space to the
                                                 court unit. The 2007 Design
                                                 Guide allowed for up to two
                                                 separate staff toilets per
                                                 floor and did not provide
                                                 for private restrooms for
                                                 court executives.

    Acoustic requirements.....................  Changes the acoustic
                                                 performance requirements
                                                 for the judiciary's spaces.
                                                 For example, the 2021
                                                 Design Guide does not
                                                 include the privacy
                                                 standard of ``inaudible''
                                                 between spaces, which was
                                                 in the 2007 Design Guide.

    Interior finishes.........................  Allows for courts to provide
                                                 input and have flexibility
                                                 in the selection of
                                                 finishes within an approved
                                                 project budget, as
                                                 specified in the 2007
                                                 Design Guide, but also
                                                 provides for additional
                                                 finishes. For example, the
                                                 2021 Design Guide expands
                                                 the type of finish for the
                                                 ceiling of the judges'
                                                 chambers suites from
                                                 acoustical paneling to also
                                                 include tile.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Security
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ballistic-resistant windows, glass, or      Provides for ballistic-
     materials.                                  resistant material for the
                                                 judge's bench in the
                                                 courtroom, as specified in
                                                 the 2007 Design Guide, and
                                                 adds this requirement for
                                                 the deputy clerk station
                                                 within the courtroom. Also
                                                 specifies that ballistic-
                                                 resistant material may be
                                                 considered for a judge's
                                                 private office.

    Mailroom screening requirements...........  Incorporates the latest
                                                 standards for mail
                                                 screening safety, including
                                                 requiring courts to use
                                                 ductless mail screening
                                                 units instead of units that
                                                 need dedicated air-handling
                                                 equipment, as required in
                                                 the 2007 Design Guide.

    Security and co-tenants...................  Adds a new section to the
                                                 Design Guide on security
                                                 considerations for courts
                                                 with multiple tenants, such
                                                 as other Federal agencies.

    Security screening pavilion...............  Includes a new section on
                                                 security pavilions--
                                                 adjoining exterior
                                                 structures for security
                                                 screening--which
                                                 incorporates a 2013 policy
                                                 that the judiciary must
                                                 approve the pavilions prior
                                                 to their construction.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Figure 1: GAO Analysis of Judiciary Information.\57\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \57\ GAO Report 2024, supra note 15, at 25-27.

                      FEDERAL COURTHOUSE DESIGN AND CON-
                       STRUCTION: EXAMINING THE COSTS TO
                       THE TAXPAYER

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2025

                      House of Representatives,
          Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
                   Buildings, and Emergency Management,
                Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:59 a.m., in
    Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Scott Perry
    (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Mr. Perry. The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
    Buildings, and Emergency Management will come to order.
        The Chair asks unanimous consent that I be authorized to
    declare a recess at any time during today's hearing.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        The Chair also asks unanimous consent that Members not on
    the subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at
    today's hearing and ask questions.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        As a reminder, if Members wish to insert a document into
    the record, please also email it to DocumentsTI@mail.house.gov.
        The Chair now recognizes himself for the purposes of an
    opening statement for 5 minutes.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT PERRY OF PENNSYL-
           VANIA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVEL-
           OPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS,  AND EMERGENCY MANAGE-
           MENT

        Mr. Perry. Let me just begin with an apology to those who
    have traveled far and waited long and dealt with Washington,
    DC, for our tardiness here. Sometimes there are things that are
    out of our control. It's really not an excuse, but I just want
    to acknowledge that your time is valuable, and we appreciate
    it.
        I want to thank our witnesses for being here today to
    discuss the costs associated with designing, constructing, and
    operating Federal courthouses.
        In 2021, the United States Courts updated their official
    Design Guide for designing and constructing new Federal
    courthouses. Following the publication of the new Design Guide,
    this subcommittee requested that the Government Accountability
    Office examine the changes that were made and the extent to
    which these changes would have an impact on the size and cost
    of courthouses. We made this request because there has been a
    long history of taxpayer dollars wasted on overbuilt Federal
    courthouses, and we just don't see that as needing to continue.
        In 2010, GAO reviewed 33 courthouses built between 2000 and
    2010 and found they were overbuilt by 3.56 million square feet,
    costing the taxpayers $835 million, plus $51 million annually
    in additional operation and maintenance costs. That's real
    money.
        Following those findings, this committee agreed, on a
    bipartisan basis, to stop authorizing new courthouses until the
    courts updated their process for setting their courthouse
    priorities. Only after the courts updated their Asset
    Management Planning, or the AMP process, and used it to adjust
    their priority list for new courthouses did this committee
    restart authorizing courthouse projects.
        In 2021, the courts issued a revised Design Guide for new
    courthouses. Since no courthouses have been constructed using
    the 2021 Design Guide, to conduct the 2024 report, GAO looked
    at six recently constructed courthouses that had been built
    using the previous 2007 Design Guide. GAO found that, if the
    new Design Guide had been used for these six courthouses, it
    would have increased the size by almost 6 percent and the
    construction costs by almost 12 percent.
        Just to reiterate, in 2010, GAO found that courthouses were
    overbuilt by more than 3 million square feet. The new Design
    Guide now will result in 6 percent more space. This is at least
    questionable, if not unacceptable.
        On top of this, despite the results of its own research
    arm--the Federal Judicial Center--indicating that courtrooms
    sit dark most days, district court judges have continued to
    argue that each of them is entitled to a dedicated courtroom,
    even though State and local courts across the country, many of
    which handle far more cases, routinely share courtrooms without
    issue.
        To accommodate this perceived entitlement, the Federal
    judiciary often includes vacant or unfilled judgeships when
    calculating the number of courtrooms required at a new
    courthouse. This results in overbuilt facilities with unused
    courtrooms and significantly increased construction and
    maintenance costs.
        The Chair expects that we will hear that a major driver of
    the design change is the safety and security, particularly the
    size of circulation spaces. And while the Chair agrees that
    security is an important and legitimate consideration, it is
    our duty to question these things so that we get the most
    value, including with the efficacy that goes with that.
        However, the courts' own methodology for prioritizing
    courthouse projects assigns security just 10 percent of the
    weighted score, while courtroom and chamber needs make up 50
    percent. It seems lopsided, but we are not here to judge, at
    least prematurely; we want to get the answers.
        What is even more concerning is that the expansion of the
    circulation pattern is based, in part, on an outdated 2012
    review of then-existing courthouses, some of which were the
    subject of GAO's 2010 review that found they were overbuilt. It
    seems the changes in the Design Guide had little to do with
    addressing security issues.
        Also, I am surprised by how much of the Design Guide
    focuses on things like millwork and floor and wall finishes,
    and includes notes like polished cement is ``unacceptable.''
    Frankly, it's hard to believe that at a time when Congress and
    the President are focused on downsizing the Federal Government
    and balancing the budget, the judiciary remains so tone deaf to
    the fiscal realities. I mean, I walk on polished--probably
    unpolished--concrete around here every single day, and I am
    perfectly happy with it.
        The United States Courts' courthouse project priorities for
    fiscal year 2026 includes a request for $863 million for new
    courthouse construction. The United States Courts are asking
    Congress and, more importantly, our bosses--the American
    taxpayers--to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on new
    courthouse construction, despite decades of oversight that has
    found the Design Guides have enabled the construction of
    courthouses that are too large and too costly.
        Going forward, Congress must take a hard look at the
    construction priorities of the United States Courts, especially
    the 2021 Design Guide, to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not
    being wasted. We need to ensure that proposals for new
    courthouses that this committee must authorize make sense,
    reduce cost to the taxpayer, and are not overbuilt.
        With that, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
        [Mr. Perry's prepared statement follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Hon. Scott Perry, a Representative in Congress
     from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
        Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management

        I want to thank our witnesses for being here today to discuss the
    costs associated with designing, constructing, and operating federal
    courthouses.
        In 2021, the United States Courts updated their official Design
    Guide for designing and constructing new federal courthouses. Following
    the publication of the new Design Guide, this subcommittee requested
    that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) examine the changes
    that were made, and the extent to which these changes would have an
    impact on the size and cost of courthouses. We made this request
    because there has been a long history of taxpayer dollars wasted on
    overbuilt federal courthouses.
        In 2010, GAO reviewed 33 courthouses built between 2000 and 2010
    and found they were over-built by 3.56 million square feet, costing the
    taxpayer $835 million, plus $51 million annually, in additional
    operation and maintenance costs. Following those findings, this
    committee agreed on a bipartisan basis to stop authorizing new
    courthouses until the Courts updated their process for setting their
    courthouse priorities.
        Only after the Courts updated their Asset Management Planning (AMP)
    process and used it to adjust their priority list for new courthouses
    did this committee restart authorizing courthouse projects.
        In 2021, the Courts issued a revised Design Guide for new
    courthouses. Since no courthouses have been constructed using the 2021
    Design Guide, to conduct the 2024 report, GAO looked at six recently
    constructed courthouses that had been built using the previous 2007
    Design Guide. GAO found that, if the new Design Guide had been used for
    these six courthouses, it would have increased the size by almost six
    percent and the construction costs by almost 12 percent.
        Just to reiterate, in 2010, GAO found that courthouses were
    overbuilt by more than three million square feet. The new Design Guide
    now will result in six percent more space. This is at least
    questionable, if not unacceptable.
        On top of this, despite the results of its own research arm--the
    Federal Judicial Center--indicating that courtrooms sit dark most days,
    District Court judges have continued to argue that each of them is
    entitled to a dedicated courtroom even though state and local courts
    across this country, many of which handle far more cases, routinely
    share courtrooms without issue.
        To accommodate this perceived entitlement, the Federal Judiciary
    often includes vacant or unfilled judgeships when calculating the
    number of courtrooms required in a new courthouse. This results in
    overbuilt facilities with unused courtrooms and significantly increased
    construction and maintenance costs.
        I expect that we will hear that a major driver of the design
    changes is safety and security, particularly the size of circulation
    spaces. I agree that security is an important and legitimate
    consideration. However, the Courts' own methodology for prioritizing
    courthouse projects assigns security just ten percent of the weighted
    score, while courtroom and chamber needs make up 50 percent.
        What is even more concerning is that the expansion of the
    circulation patterns is based, in part, on an outdated 2012 review of
    then-existing courthouses, some of which were the subject of GAO's 2010
    review that found they were overbuilt. It seems the changes in the
    Design Guide had little to do with addressing security issues.
        I am also surprised by how much of the Design Guide focuses on
    things like millwork and floor and wall finishes and includes notes
    like polished cement is ``unacceptable.''
        Frankly, it's hard to believe that, at a time when Congress and the
    President are focused on downsizing the federal government and
    balancing the budget, the Judiciary remains so tone deaf to fiscal
    realities.
        The United States Courts' Courthouse Project Priorities for Fiscal
    Year 2026 includes a request for $863 million for new courthouse
    construction. The United States Courts are asking Congress, and more
    importantly our bosses--the American taxpayers--to spend hundreds of
    millions of dollars on new courthouse construction despite decades of
    oversight that has found that Design Guides have enabled the
    construction of courthouses that are too large and too costly.
        Going forward, Congress must take a hard look at the construction
    priorities of the United States Courts, especially the 2021 Design
    Guide, to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not being wasted. We need to
    ensure that proposals for new courthouses that this committee must
    authorize make sense, reduce costs to the taxpayer, and are not
    overbuilt.

        Mr. Perry. And just prior to recognizing the ranking
    member, I want to enter into the record this letter from the
    Associated Builders and Contractors regarding project labor
    agreements and the increased cost associated with those.
        And without objection, so ordered.
        [The information follows:]

     Letter of May 20, 2025, to Hon. Scott Perry, Chairman, and Hon. Greg
     Stanton, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
      Buildings, and Emergency Management, from Kristen Swearingen, Vice
      President, Government Affairs, Associated Builders and Contractors,
                  Submitted for the Record by Hon. Scott Perry

                                                          May 20, 2025.
    The Honorable Scott Perry,
    Chairman,
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on
            Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency
            Management, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC
            20515.
    The Honorable Greg Stanton,
    Ranking Member,
    Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on
            Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency
            Management, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC
            20515.
        Dear Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Stanton and Members of the U.S.
    House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's Subcommittee on
    Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management:
        On behalf of Associated Builders and Contractors, a national
    construction industry trade association with 67 chapters representing
    more than 23,000 members, I write to thank you for holding the hearing,
    ``Federal Courthouse Design and Construction: Examining the Costs to
    the Taxpayer.'' This hearing is vital to examining cost premiums
    associated with federal construction to ensure efficient use of
    taxpayer dollars and that federal procurement policy is consistent with
    congressional intent.
        ABC members have a strong history of competing on and completing
    courthouse construction and improvements procured by the General
    Services Administration. Furthermore, ABC members play a significant
    role in building America's infrastructure. Specifically, between fiscal
    years 2009-2023, ABC members won 54% of federal contracts worth $35
    million or more, and built award-winning projects safely, on time and
    on budget. ABC is committed to promoting a fair and competitive bidding
    process that allows all qualified contractors to compete on a level
    playing field based on merit, experience, quality and safety to deliver
    the highest-quality projects at the best cost.

                                   Background

        In 2022, President Joe Biden issued Executive Order 14063,
    resulting in the corresponding January 2024 Federal Acquisition
    Regulatory Council Use of Project Labor Agreements for Federal
    Construction Projects final rule, which requires project labor
    agreements on federal construction projects of $35 million or more.
        The Biden administration mandate applies to numerous federal
    agencies, including the GSA, and discourages competition from quality
    nonunion contractors and their employees, who comprise 89.7% of the
    private U.S. construction industry workforce. As a result, this
    anticompetitive policy inflates federal construction projects costs by
    22%, needlessly wasting billions of taxpayer dollars annually and
    preventing taxpayers from getting the best bang for their buck on
    federal construction projects.
        Specific to courthouse construction, ABC identified $277-$317
    million in the below federal courthouse construction solicitations and
    presolicitations affected by the Biden PLA mandate, suggesting
    taxpayers are paying a $55.4-$63.4 million premium for such work.
          Mike Mansfield Federal Building/Courthouse Seismic
    Retrofit & Ltd Modernization Design/Build Phase 1 Solicitation--$30-$40
    million
          Construction Manager as Constructor (CMc) Services for
    the Phases 2-5 Repairs and Alterations Prospectus for the U.S.
    Courthouse in Clarksburg, West Virginia--$40-$50 million
          Carl B. Stokes U.S. Courthouse Plaza Replacement Design
    Build Services--$35-$45 million
          New United States Courthouse, Chattanooga--Construction
    Manager as Constructor (CMc)--$172-$182 million

                                  Developments

        While President Trump issued several executive orders to restore
    merit-based hiring and contracting across the federal government,
    President Biden's executive order and corresponding PLA final rule
    remain in effect.
        On May 16, 2025, Judge Rudolph Contreras of the U.S. District Court
    for the District of Columbia halted the Trump administration's class
    deviations from the Biden mandate for the U.S. Department of Defense
    and GSA. Now, taxpayers return to paying a premium for federal
    construction and workers are prevented from completing jobs in their
    communities.
        With the U.S. District Court's decision, Congress and the Trump
    administration must act to restore merit to federal procurement.
    Specifically, Congress must advance H.R. 2126/S. 1064, the Fair and
    Open Competition Act, to ensure federal and federally assisted contract
    awards occur through a fair and competitive bidding process that allows
    all qualified contractors to compete on a level playing field based on
    merit, experience, quality and safety to deliver the highest-quality
    projects at the best cost.
        ABC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the unnecessary
    premiums associated with federal courthouse construction. It is
    essential that the committee promotes competition in public works
    projects for American taxpayers and workers.
                Sincerely,
                                            Kristen Swearingen,
           Vice President, Government Affairs, Associated Builders and
                                                           Contractors.
        Mr. Perry. The Chair now recognizes Ranking Member Friedman
    for 5 minutes for her opening statement.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LAURA FRIEDMAN OF  CALI-
           FORNIA, VICE RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECO-
           NOMIC  DEVELOPMENT,  PUBLIC BUILDINGS,  AND EMER-
           GENCY MANAGEMENT

        Ms. Friedman. Thank you, Chairman Perry. I have to say,
    it's refreshing to be in a committee when we have Congress
    working in a very bipartisan way and, I think, being in
    agreement on a lot of the issues in front of the committee
    today.
        Over the last 45 years, the Government Accountability
    Office, the GAO, has compiled a large body of work on Federal
    courthouse construction, much of it at the request of this very
    committee. In study after study, GAO found that the judiciary
    has requested and received courthouses that are larger than the
    size authorized by Congress and more expensive to build and
    operate than Congress was aware of.
        Wide latitude amongst judiciary and GSA decisionmakers in
    choices about location, design, construction, and finishes
    often resulted in expensive features in some courthouse
    projects for reasons that are obscure. Long-range space
    projections by the judiciary were not sufficiently reliable.
    The judiciary's 5-year plan did not always reflect its most
    urgently needed projects. And the judiciary did not track
    courtroom uses.
        The judiciary pays rent to GSA for the use of these
    courthouses, and a proportion of the judiciary's budget that
    goes to rent has increased as its space requirements have
    grown. Difficulties in paying for its increasing rent costs
    were so great that the judiciary requested a $483 million
    permanent annual exemption from rent payments to GSA, which
    they did not receive.
        Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton, then-chair of the
    subcommittee, was so concerned about the bloated Federal
    courthouse construction program that she asked then-President
    Obama to place a moratorium on new courthouse construction
    requests. Along the way, the judiciary did seem to try to meet
    the concern of Congress. The Judicial Conference revised its
    courtroom allocation planning assumptions. New courtroom
    construction projects are to be designed to facilitate
    courtroom sharing for senior district judges, magistrate
    judges, and bankruptcy judges, but there is still some cause
    for concern.
        In 2022, this committee asked GAO to look at differences
    between the courts' 2007 Design Guide and their updated 2021
    Design Guide. GAO found that the changes made to the 2021
    Design Guide will increase the size of new courthouses by 12
    percent.
        As the judiciary increases the size of their spaces, the
    building envelope expands: more tile, more wiring, more ceiling
    tiles, more paint, longer hallways, increased circulation. You
    get the picture. The judiciary wanted three circulation zones:
    public, restricted space for judges and staff, and the secure
    circulation that's the Marshals Service purview to move
    prisoners, which, of course, is appropriate. But when updating
    the Design Guide to reflect the changes in circulation, the
    judiciary did not fully collaborate with GSA or the Federal
    Protective Service to determine necessity or even feasibility.
        I appreciate the participation of the witnesses today.
        Director Marroni, you and your colleagues are the
    workhorses of this committee. Year after year, report after
    report, your work is incalculable to the effective and
    efficient operations of the United States, and I want to thank
    you.
        Judge Suddaby, I assume that you and your colleagues are
    probably annoyed by coming in front of Congress as we ask these
    questions, so I really do appreciate your being here and your
    patience with us. I hope we can work together collaboratively.
    So, thank you for being here.
        And Commissioner Peters, I am particularly pleased to see
    you here today, since I am told you declined to participate in
    our last hearing on Federal real estate. I look forward to
    learning more about your plans to shed 63 percent of your
    workforce and 50 percent of your budget, all without impeding
    the progress of courthouses under construction and courthouses
    that need repairs and maintenance. I am interested to see how
    that can happen.
        So, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
        [Ms. Friedman's prepared statement follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Hon. Laura Friedman, a Representative in Congress
    from the State of California, and Vice Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
        Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management

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

        Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlelady. The Chair would
    now like to welcome our witnesses and thank them again for
    being here today. And thank you for your patience with us.
        Briefly, I would like to take just a moment to explain our
    lighting system to our witnesses. There are three lights in
    front of you. Green means go; yellow means you are running out
    of time; and red means to conclude your remarks.
        The Chair asks unanimous consent that witnesses' full
    statements be included in the record.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        The Chair also asks unanimous consent that the record of
    today's hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses
    have provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to
    them in writing.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        The Chair also asks unanimous consent that the record
    remain open for 15 days for any additional comments and
    information submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in
    the record of today's hearing.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        As your written testimony has been made part of the record,
    the subcommittee asks that you limit your oral remarks to 5
    minutes.
        And with that, Mr. Marroni, you are now recognized for 5
    minutes for your testimony, sir.

         TESTIMONY OF DAVID MARRONI,  DIRECTOR,  PHYSICAL IN-
          FRASTRUCTURE,  U.S. GOVERNMENT  ACCOUNTABILITY  OF-
          FICE; HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY, DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE
          U.S. DISTRICT COURT  FOR  THE NORTHERN  DISTRICT OF
          NEW  YORK,  AND  CHAIR,  JUDICIAL  CONFERENCE  COM-
          MITTEE ON SPACE AND FACILITIES; AND MICHAEL PETERS,
          COMMISSIONER,  PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE,  U.S. GEN-
          ERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

         TESTIMONY OF  DAVID MARRONI,  DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL IN-
          FRASTRUCTURE,  U.S. GOVERNMENT  ACCOUNTABILITY  OF-
          FICE

        Mr. Marroni. Thank you, Chairman Perry, Ranking Member
    Friedman, and members of the subcommittee. I am pleased to be
    here today to discuss the judiciary's revised design standards
    for Federal courthouses and the likely impact on courthouse
    costs.
        The judiciary issued these revised standards as part of a
    2021 update to the U.S. Courts Design Guide. That guide sets
    standards for designing and constructing Federal courthouses
    and is meant to help GSA and other stakeholders build
    functional and cost-effective courthouses.
        The judiciary updated the Design Guide for several reasons,
    including to improve security, provide flexibility for local
    courts involved in new courthouse projects, and to contain
    costs. Cost containment is certainly an important goal, because
    Federal courthouses, like all Federal real property, require a
    significant investment of taxpayer resources.
        It can cost over $100 million simply to build a new
    courthouse, and even more to operate and maintain those
    buildings over time. As a result, changes to design standards
    are important, particularly now, as Congress and executive
    branch agencies are taking steps to reduce the Federal real
    property footprint.
        Given that, last year we reviewed the changes that
    judiciary made in the 2021 Design Guide, and analyzed their
    potential impact on the size and cost of future courthouse
    projects. We identified 16 substantive changes and estimated
    that, together, they would increase the size of future
    courthouses by 6 percent and their cost by 12 percent, on
    average. This could equate to tens of millions of dollars in
    additional construction spending. For example, when we model
    what would happen if seven courthouse projects were designed
    according to the updated design standards, we found it would
    increase the construction costs for those seven projects by an
    estimated $143 million.
        These higher estimated costs are due, in part, to changes
    in the 2021 Design Guide that increased the amount of space
    allotted to design pathways like hallways and stairways,
    between courtrooms, and other judiciary spaces. For example, we
    estimated that the updated standards would provide about 350
    additional square feet of circulation space for each district
    courtroom in a courthouse. Building in this additional space
    not only increases the size of judiciary space, it also
    increases the size of the overall courthouse, making it more
    expensive to build, operate, and maintain.
        The judiciary cited the need for improved security as the
    basis for the higher amounts of circulation space, and the
    security of Federal courthouses is certainly a key
    consideration for their design and construction. However, we
    found that judiciary did not fully collaborate with GSA when
    deciding to make this and other updates to the Design Guide.
        Specifically, while the judiciary solicited input from GSA
    on its planned changes to the Design Guide and met with GSA to
    discuss concerns with the final draft, it did not consistently
    engage in two-way communication. For example, the judiciary did
    not fully address GSA's concerns that the revised circulation
    standards were based on a 2012 contract study of older
    courthouses, some of which GAO had previously found to be
    oversized. GSA officials told us it was unclear how the
    judiciary determined the final 2021 circulation standards in
    relation to that study.
        GSA also raised concerns that the proposed changes would
    significantly increase the overall size and cost of courthouse
    projects, which is consistent with our own analysis. While the
    judiciary adjusted some of its proposed circulation changes
    based on GSA's feedback, it did not fully address these
    concerns.
        Given the significant cost implications, we recommended
    that the judiciary, in collaboration with GSA, reassess the
    need for the revised circulation standards in the 2021 Design
    Guide. The judiciary is now working with GSA to identify an
    approach for reassessing these standards, and that is a
    positive step. If the judiciary determines that the increase in
    circulation space isn't needed, then the Federal Government
    could avoid tens of millions of dollars in costs. And if the
    judiciary decides it is important to keep those increases in
    the guide, then it will have a stronger basis to justify the
    higher costs. That is important as the Federal Government moves
    to rightsize its Federal real property footprint.
        Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening statement. I will
    be happy to answer any questions.
        [Mr. Marroni's prepared statement follows:]

    Prepared Statement of David Marroni, Director, Physical Infrastructure,
                     U.S. Government Accountability Office

      Courthouse Construction: Changes to Design Standards Will Result in
                   Larger and More Costly Future Courthouses

                                   Highlights

    What GAO Found
        The judiciary issued a new U.S. Courts Design Guide (Design Guide)
    in 2021 that included many changes in the standards from the prior 2007
    version. GAO determined that 16 of the changes could affect the size or
    cost of courthouse projects. (See table.) Judiciary officials cited
    four overarching reasons for making these changes: to incorporate
    existing policies, provide courts with flexibility to design spaces
    that meet their needs, contain costs, and meet security needs. To date,
    no courthouses funded through fiscal year 2024 have been designed under
    the 2021 Design Guide. According to judiciary officials, as of May
    2025, the judiciary was planning five courthouse projects with the
    intention of using the 2021 Design Guide.

     Selected Changes in the 2021 U.S. Courts Design Guide That Could Affect
                     the Size or Cost of Courthouse Projects
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Change                             Description
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Circulation requirements..................  Increases the circulation
                                                 pathways (i.e., the amount
                                                 of space required for
                                                 movement of the public,
                                                 court staff, prisoners, and
                                                 others) required for
                                                 judiciary spaces--primarily
                                                 those associated with
                                                 courtrooms and associated
                                                 spaces, grand jury suites,
                                                 probation and pretrial
                                                 services, and other court
                                                 units.

    Courtroom sharing policy..................  Incorporates judiciary
                                                 policies adopted from 2009
                                                 through 2011 for judges to
                                                 share courtrooms in new
                                                 courthouses with two or
                                                 more magistrate,
                                                 bankruptcy, or senior
                                                 district judges.

    Ballistic-resistant materials.............  Adds a requirement for
                                                 ballistic-resistant
                                                 material for the deputy
                                                 clerk station within the
                                                 courtroom.

    Raised access flooring....................  Removes the requirement for
                                                 raised access flooring in
                                                 the courtroom well--the
                                                 area that includes the
                                                 judge's bench, court
                                                 personnel workstations,
                                                 witness box, jury box and
                                                 counsel tables.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: GAO analysis of judiciary information. GAO-25-108406

        GAO found that changes made in the 2021 Design Guide will
    significantly increase the size and cost of future courthouse projects.
    To reach this conclusion, GAO estimated the potential impacts of these
    changes for seven recently completed or future courthouses designed
    under the 2007 Design Guide. According to this analysis, changes in the
    2021 Design Guide would increase the size of the courthouses by 6
    percent and project costs by 12 percent on average. These hypothetical
    increases are due, in part, to increases in the amount of circulation
    within the judiciary's space. Increases in the judiciary's space result
    in larger courthouses overall, which GAO estimates will lead to more
    costly courthouses in the future, due to the need for additional
    construction materials and building components.
        Further, GAO found that the judiciary did not fully collaborate
    with the General Services Administration (GSA) or involve the Federal
    Protective Service, which has courthouse security responsibilities. As
    a result, the judiciary missed an opportunity to address significant
    issues, such as those related to the size, cost, and security of
    courthouses. Specifically, the judiciary did not fully address GSA's
    concerns that the revised circulation requirements were based on a 2012
    assessment of older courthouses that GAO had previously found to be
    oversized. Engaging with stakeholders and reassessing the need for
    increased circulation requirements in the 2021 Design Guide using
    relevant information will help the judiciary develop functional and
    cost-effective courthouses and could avoid millions of dollars in
    future costs.
    Why GAO Did This Study
        Courthouses play an important role in ensuring the proper
    functioning of the federal judicial system. For fiscal years 2016
    through 2024, Congress appropriated $2.1 billion for the construction
    of 15 federal courthouse projects. According to the judiciary, this
    funding addressed long-standing needs for new courthouses.
        The Design Guide aims to help GSA and other stakeholders build
    courthouses that are both functional and cost-effective. In 2021, the
    judiciary made changes to the Design Guide, citing the need to provide
    greater security for court personnel and flexibility for local courts
    involved in new courthouse projects.
        This testimony discusses (1) the changes made in the 2021 Design
    Guide, and the judiciary's rationale for making these changes; (2) how
    these changes could affect the size and cost of future courthouse
    projects; and (3) how the judiciary collaborated with selected
    stakeholders in making these changes. It draws primarily from GAO's
    October 2024 report on the judiciary's Design Guide.
    What GAO Recommends
        GAO made three recommendations to the judiciary that remain open.
    These include that the judiciary document a process to ensure
    collaboration with stakeholders when updating the Design Guide and, in
    collaboration with GSA, use relevant information to reassess the need
    for increased circulation requirements. In May 2025, the judiciary told
    us it is continuing to review its collaboration efforts and work to
    identify an approach to reassess its circulation requirements.
                                   __________

        Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Stanton, and Members of the
    Subcommittee:
        I am pleased to be here today to discuss our work on federal
    courthouse construction. Courthouses play an important role in ensuring
    the proper functioning of the federal judicial system and the
    administration of justice. The safety and security of federal
    courthouses are a key consideration in their design and construction.
        The construction of new federal courthouses can cost hundreds of
    millions of dollars. From fiscal years 2016 through 2024, Congress
    appropriated $2.1 billion for the construction of 15 federal courthouse
    projects. According to the judiciary, this funding addressed long-
    standing needs for new courthouses, and for repairs and alterations to
    existing courthouses.
        The judiciary's U.S. Courts Design Guide (Design Guide) establishes
    standards for designing and constructing new federal courthouses. The
    Design Guide aims to help the General Services Administration (GSA) and
    other stakeholders--including architects, engineers, judges, and court
    administrators--build courthouses that are both functional and cost-
    effective. In 2021, the judiciary made changes to the Design Guide,
    citing the need to provide greater security for court personnel and
    flexibility for local courts involved in new courthouse projects.
        Allowing for such flexibilities could affect the size and cost of
    courthouses at a time in which Congress and executive branch agencies
    are taking steps to reduce the real property footprint of the executive
    branch.\1\ Specifically, the Utilizing Space Efficiently and Improving
    Technologies (USE IT) Act--enacted in January 2025--requires executive
    branch agencies to measure their use of buildings and submit an annual
    occupancy report.\2\ It also establishes a building utilization rate
    target of at least 60 percent.\3\ Further, a February 2025 Executive
    Order directed, among other things, that GSA submit to the Office of
    Management and Budget a plan for the disposition of government-owned
    executive branch real property that agencies deemed no longer
    needed.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Federal agencies have long struggled to determine the amount of
    space they need to fulfill their missions, which has at times led them
    to retain excess and underutilized space. This is one reason that
    managing federal real property has remained on our High Risk List since
    2003. GAO, High-Risk Series: Heightened Attention Could Yield Billions
    More and Improve Government Efficiency and Effectiveness, GAO-25-107743
    (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 25, 2025).
        \2\ The USE IT Act was enacted as a part of the Thomas R. Carper
    Water Resources Development Act of 2024, Pub. L. No. 118-272, div. B,
    tit. III, Sec.  2302, 138 Stat. 2992, 3218 (2025).
        \3\ The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in consultation with
    GSA, is required under the USE IT Act to ensure building utilization in
    each public building and federally leased space is not less than 60
    percent on average over each 1-year period. GSA, in consultation with
    OMB, is required under the USE IT Act to take steps to reduce the space
    of tenant agencies that fail to meet the 60 percent target. These
    requirements apply to Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (CFO Act)
    agencies. The CFO Act established, among other things, chief financial
    officers to oversee financial management activities at 23 major
    executive departments and agencies. Pub. L. No. 101-576, 104 Stat. 2838
    (Nov. 15, 1990). The list now includes 24 entities, which are often
    referred to collectively as CFO Act agencies, and is codified, as
    amended, in section 901 of Title 31, United States Code.
        \4\ Exec. Order No. 14222, 90 Fed. Reg. 11095, 11096-97 (Feb. 26,
    2025). For further information on recent executive branch actions to
    dispose of government-owned property and terminate leases, see GAO,
    Federal Real Property: Reducing the Government's Holdings Could
    Generate Substantial Savings, GAO-25-108159 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 8,
    2025).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This testimony is based on our October 2024 report examining issues
    related to the 2021 version of the Design Guide (2021 Design Guide).\5\
    Specifically, my remarks will focus on (1) the changes made in the 2021
    Design Guide, and the judiciary's rationale for making these changes;
    (2) how these changes could affect the size and cost of future
    courthouse projects; and (3) how the judiciary collaborated with
    selected stakeholders in making changes in the 2021 Design Guide. My
    statement will also provide an update on actions the judiciary has
    taken to implement the recommendations we made in our report.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ GAO, Federal Courthouse Construction: New Design Standards Will
    Result in Significant Size and Cost Increases, GAO-25-106724
    (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 16, 2024).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To examine these issues for our report, we reviewed documentation
    and interviewed GSA and judiciary officials. We also worked with these
    officials to estimate the difference in total courthouse size and cost
    that would likely result from building selected projects according to
    the 2021 Design Guide, compared with the prior version of the guide
    from 2007. In addition, we conducted site visits to five of these
    courthouses, selected for variation in size and cost. Detailed
    information on the objectives, scope, and methodology for this work can
    be found in the issued report.
        We conducted the work on which this statement is based in
    accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
    standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
    sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
    findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe the
    evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
    conclusions based on our audit objectives.

                                   Background

    Courthouse Characteristics
        Federal courthouses can have different types of courtrooms and
    chambers, depending on the type of judges in the facility (e.g.,
    circuit, district, magistrate, and bankruptcy). Federal courthouses can
    also have other spaces, such as judiciary offices, libraries, public
    spaces, security screening areas, and office space for other tenants,
    such as the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) and GSA's facilities
    management personnel. The judiciary's Design Guide includes
    requirements for the size of courtrooms, judiciary staff offices, and
    other spaces.
        Courthouses also have various pathways (e.g., hallways, stairways,
    and elevators) that facilitate circulation for different groups in a
    manner that ensures safety and security. The length and width of some
    of these circulation pathways can vary based on their function and to
    meet building codes related to the number of occupants and visitors. As
    described in the Design Guide, the three primary types of circulation
    are: (1) public circulation for spectators, attorneys, and media
    representatives; (2) restricted circulation for judges, courtroom
    deputy clerks, court reporters, other judiciary staff, and jurors; and
    (3) secure circulation for law enforcement personnel, witnesses,
    litigants, prisoners, or other individuals who are in custody.
    Role of Federal Agencies
        The judiciary and GSA share responsibility for managing the design
    and construction of courthouse projects.
          The judiciary establishes funding priorities for the
    construction of new courthouses based on a long-range planning process
    and on the status of funding for previously approved, pending
    courthouse construction projects.\6\ Using its AnyCourt space
    programming tool, the judiciary identifies for GSA the type and size of
    spaces like courtrooms and offices, to ensure that courthouse projects
    meet the needs of the courts. The AnyCourt tool also calculates the
    amount of circulation within judiciary spaces, such as restricted
    hallways for court personnel to get from their offices to the
    courtrooms.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ In prior work, we reported on the judiciary's process for
    ranking courthouse needs and made recommendations to ensure that the
    judiciary's methodology for ranking courthouse projects results in
    greater transparency and consistency. The judiciary implemented one of
    our three recommendations. GAO, Federal Courthouse Construction:
    Judiciary Should Refine Its Methods for Determining Which Projects Are
    Most Urgent, GAO-22-104034 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 5, 2022).

          GSA is typically responsible for requesting the funding
    for courthouse construction, acquiring the building site, and
    contracting for the design and construction work for courthouse
    projects. GSA has used the judiciary's Design Guide, GSA's Facilities
    Standards for the Public Buildings Service (now rescinded), and design
    guidance from other tenants to ensure that the design and construction
    plans of the courthouse meet the space and other needs of federal
    agencies.\7\ GSA uses the judiciary's AnyCourt tool, as well as other
    tenant agencies' space programs, to then determine the total courthouse
    size. Based on this determination, GSA develops projects' cost
    estimates using its Cost Benchmark Tool. The tool is intended to enable
    GSA to accurately forecast courthouse project costs and develop
    realistic budgets based on the information specified in the judiciary's
    AnyCourt tool, as well as other tenants' space requirements.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ GSA's Facilities Standards for the Public Buildings Service
    (P100) established mandatory design standards and performance criteria
    for certain federally owned buildings in GSA's control. GSA, P100
    Facilities Standards for the Public Buildings Service (October 2021).
    In February 2025, GSA rescinded the P100 and issued interim guidance,
    stating that the informational memorandum should assist in the
    preparation of contract documents for architects, engineers, and
    general contractors until GSA develops a process to update the P100 in
    accordance with the Thomas R. Carper Water Resources Development Act of
    2024. GSA, Rescission of PBS P100 Facilities Standards, and Issuance of
    PBS Interim Core Building Standards (Feb. 24, 2025). The memorandum
    provides a list of laws, regulations, codes, and guidelines applicable
    to projects in GSA facilities under design and construction, including
    the Design Guide.

        In addition, USMS and the Federal Protective Service (FPS) have
    security responsibilities at federal courthouses. Generally, USMS
    provides security in judiciary spaces within the courthouse and for
    federal judges, attorneys, jurors, and other members of the federal
    court. FPS is responsible for providing security in nonjudiciary spaces
    within the courthouse and along the perimeter of the courthouse.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ We reported on courthouse security and made recommendations
    that the judiciary, USMS, and FPS collect better information and
    improve coordination on courthouse security. The judiciary and both
    agencies fully implemented our recommendations. GAO, Federal
    Courthouses: Actions Needed to Enhance Capital Security Program and
    Improve Collaboration, GAO-17-215 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 16, 2017).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    U.S. Courts Design Guide
        The judiciary's U.S. Courts Design Guide establishes standards for
    GSA and project stakeholders to follow when designing and constructing
    new federal courthouses. The judiciary issued its first Design Guide in
    1991 and made major revisions in 1993, 1995, 1997, and 2007. The
    judiciary also amended selected chapters of the 2007 Design Guide in
    2016. In 2021, the judiciary issued its most recent revisions to the
    Design Guide.
        Congressional resolutions and appropriations act language for
    courthouse projects typically stipulate that standards in the Design
    Guide should be followed.\9\ No courthouse projects funded through
    fiscal year 2024 were designed under the 2021 Design Guide. According
    to judiciary officials, as of May 2025, the judiciary is planning five
    courthouse projects with the intention of using the 2021 Design
    Guide.\10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Under a statutory requirement, the House Committee on
    Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on
    Environment and Public Works must adopt resolutions approving the
    purpose before Congress can make an appropriation for the proposed
    project. 40 U.S.C. Sec.  3307(a). Such committee resolutions have, for
    example, stipulated that, ``except as provided in the prospectus,''
    courthouse design must not deviate from the Design Guide. If a court
    requests space that the Design Guide does not specify, or exceeds the
    limits established by the Design Guide for a given space, then this
    variation represents an ``exception'' to the Design Guide. The
    judiciary must review and approve exceptions before they are
    implemented and report them to Congress. In our October 2024 report, we
    found that the judiciary had not provided a clear and complete
    definition of, or guidance on, the types of variations that constitute
    an exception. We recommended the judiciary clearly define, or provide
    specific examples of, variations from the Design Guide that constitute
    exceptions subject to additional oversight. See GAO-25-106724.
    According to judiciary officials, the judiciary has taken steps to
    develop a report--and provide information from the report to GSA--that
    describes the type of variations from the Design Guide that constitute
    exceptions subject to additional oversight. In May 2025, we requested
    further information on the report. We will evaluate the extent to which
    its contents satisfy our recommendation when judiciary fulfills this
    request.
        \10\ Judiciary officials stated that two planned courthouses--in
    Anchorage, Alaska and Bowling Green, Kentucky--will include all
    elements from the 2021 Design Guide. An additional three planned
    courthouses--in Chattanooga, Tennessee; Hartford, Connecticut; and San
    Juan, Puerto Rico--will include cost-neutral elements (i.e., those that
    do not increase or decrease costs) from the 2021 Design Guide.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Courthouses Funded from Fiscal Years 2016-2024
        Congress appropriated $2.1 billion for the construction of 15
    federal courthouse projects for fiscal years 2016 through 2024. At the
    time of our review, GSA had completed construction of nine of these
    projects. The other six projects were in varying phases of design or
    construction. (See fig. 1.) GSA and stakeholders used the 1997 version
    of the Design Guide to design one of the courthouses and the 2007
    version of the Design Guide, with the 2016 chapter amendments, to
    design 14 courthouses.

      Figure 1: Status of Federal Courthouse Projects Funded from Fiscal
                                Years 2016	2024,

                               as of August 2024

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

     Sources: GAO presentation of General Services Administration (GSA) and
                                judiciary data;
                       Map Resources (map). GAO-25-108406

        Changes in the 2021 Design Guide Aim to Better Meet Court Needs
        In our October 2024 report, we discussed that the judiciary made 16
    substantive changes in the 2021 Design Guide that were likely to
    increase or decrease the size and cost of courthouses.\11\ Judiciary
    officials cited four overarching reasons for making these changes: to
    incorporate existing policies, provide flexibility to meet the space
    needs at individual courthouses, contain costs, and meet security
    needs. For example, judiciary officials stated that changes such as
    increasing the amount of space for the separate circulation of the
    public, court staff, and prisoners were necessary to ensure safety. The
    16 substantive changes in the 2021 Design Guide fall into four broad
    categories: (1) space sharing and future courtroom planning, (2) size
    standards and flexibilities, (3) design features, and (4) security.
    (See table 1 for examples of changes in each of these categories.)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ We initially identified 28 potentially substantive changes in
    the 2021 Design Guide. We took additional steps to determine which
    changes were most substantive by requesting input from the judiciary
    and GSA on the changes they considered likely to increase or decrease
    the size and cost of courthouses. We used the judiciary and GSA's
    responses and our professional judgment to identify the final 16
    substantive changes that could potentially affect the size and cost of
    courthouses, including their views on whether the changes could
    increase or decrease courthouse size and cost. We did not analyze the
    extent to which these 16 changes would affect size or cost, except for
    the change in the circulation requirements, as discussed later.

       Table 1: Selected Changes in the 2021 U.S. Courts Design Guide That
              Could Affect the Size or Cost of Courthouse Projects
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Change                             Description
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Space sharing and future courtroom planning
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Courtroom sharing policy..................  Incorporates judiciary
                                                 policies adopted from 2009
                                                 through 2011 for judges to
                                                 share courtrooms in new
                                                 courthouses with two or
                                                 more magistrate,
                                                 bankruptcy, or senior
                                                 district judges. For
                                                 example, a courthouse with
                                                 three or more magistrate
                                                 judges is allocated one
                                                 courtroom for every two
                                                 magistrate judges, plus an
                                                 additional courtroom for
                                                 criminal court duty.

    Space planning for senior and future        Incorporates the judiciary's
     judges.                                     policy adopted in 2011 that
                                                 requires new courthouse
                                                 projects to include space
                                                 for existing judges and to
                                                 account for judges eligible
                                                 for senior status within a
                                                 10-year planning period.
                                                 (District judges are
                                                 appointed for life but may
                                                 take senior status and a
                                                 reduced caseload, if
                                                 desired, upon meeting
                                                 certain age and tenure
                                                 requirements.) Courts may
                                                 not program space or
                                                 include space in the
                                                 proposed design for
                                                 projected judgeships.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Size standards and flexibilities
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Circulation requirements..................  Changes the method for
                                                 calculating circulation
                                                 within judiciary units in
                                                 the courthouse. Courthouses
                                                 have three types of
                                                 circulation: (1) public
                                                 circulation for members of
                                                 the public; (2) restricted
                                                 circulation for judges and
                                                 other judiciary staff; and
                                                 (3) secure circulation to
                                                 move witnesses, litigants,
                                                 prisoners, or other
                                                 individuals who are in
                                                 custody. The 2007 Design
                                                 Guide used ``circulation
                                                 factors'' (i.e., percentage
                                                 of usable space allotted
                                                 for circulation), and the
                                                 2021 Design Guide uses
                                                 ``circulation
                                                 multipliers.'' Circulation
                                                 multipliers are values that
                                                 are applied (i.e.,
                                                 multiplied) to the net
                                                 square footage of a
                                                 judiciary unit to determine
                                                 the square footage needed
                                                 to move within and between
                                                 spaces.

    Unique program spaces.....................  As with the 2007 Design
                                                 Guide, the 2021 Design
                                                 Guide allows courts to use
                                                 unoccupied rooms for
                                                 Alternative Dispute
                                                 Resolution purposes.
                                                 However, the 2021 Design
                                                 Guide also allows a court
                                                 to construct a separate
                                                 suite of Alternative
                                                 Dispute Resolution rooms
                                                 within its given space
                                                 requirements, with circuit
                                                 judicial council approval.
                                                 Further, the 2021 Design
                                                 Guide allows for new
                                                 courthouse design elements,
                                                 including (1) fitness
                                                 centers, provided they do
                                                 not increase the total
                                                 square footage of the
                                                 project; and (2) secure
                                                 rooms to store sensitive or
                                                 classified information,
                                                 provided the room does not
                                                 increase the total square
                                                 footage of the court unit
                                                 where the room is located.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Design Features
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Raised access flooring....................  The 2016 amendments to the
                                                 Design Guide removed the
                                                 requirement in the 2007
                                                 Design Guide that
                                                 courthouses must use raised
                                                 access flooring in most
                                                 spaces but specified that
                                                 such flooring was required
                                                 in the courtroom well
                                                 (i.e., the area that
                                                 includes the judge's bench,
                                                 court personnel
                                                 workstations, witness box,
                                                 jury box, and counsel
                                                 tables in the courtroom).
                                                 The 2021 Design Guide
                                                 removed the remaining
                                                 requirement for raised
                                                 access flooring in the
                                                 courtroom well.

    Interior finishes.........................  Allows for courts to provide
                                                 input and have flexibility
                                                 in the selection of
                                                 finishes within an approved
                                                 project budget, as
                                                 specified in the 2007
                                                 Design Guide, but also
                                                 provides for additional
                                                 finishes. For example, the
                                                 2021 Design Guide expands
                                                 the type of finish for the
                                                 ceiling of the judges'
                                                 chambers suites from
                                                 acoustical paneling to also
                                                 include tile.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Security
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ballistic-resistant windows, glass, or      Provides for ballistic-
     materials.                                  resistant material for the
                                                 judge's bench in the
                                                 courtroom, as specified in
                                                 the 2007 Design Guide, and
                                                 adds this requirement for
                                                 the deputy clerk station
                                                 within the courtroom. Also
                                                 specifies that ballistic-
                                                 resistant material may be
                                                 considered for a judge's
                                                 private office.

    Mailroom screening requirements...........  Incorporates the latest
                                                 standards for mail
                                                 screening safety, including
                                                 requiring courts to use
                                                 ductless mail screening
                                                 units instead of units that
                                                 need dedicated air-handling
                                                 equipment, as required in
                                                 the 2007 Design Guide.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: GAO analysis of judiciary information. GAO-25-108406

    Note: To identify changes, we compared the 2007 and 2021 versions of the
      U.S. Courts Design Guide (Design Guide). We also reviewed other
      judiciary documentation and interviewed judiciary and General Services
      Administration officials.

        In our October 2024 report, we noted that some of the 16
    substantive changes in the 2021 Design Guide could increase the size
    and cost of courthouse projects. For example, the 2021 Design Guide
    provides courts the option to add unique spaces that the 2007 Design
    Guide did not address, such as--under certain conditions--fitness
    centers and secure rooms. Fitness centers and secure rooms must not
    increase the total square footage of the judiciary's space in the
    courthouse project. However, according to GSA officials, the increase
    in judiciary's circulation requirements could make judiciary spaces
    larger overall and, therefore, judiciary may use the additional space
    to build unique spaces now allowed under the 2021 Design Guide, such as
    a fitness room. Both the judiciary and GSA projected an increase in
    courthouse project costs to account for additional circulation and
    unique spaces.
        We also discussed changes that could decrease the cost of
    courthouse projects with judiciary and GSA officials. For example, the
    2021 Design Guide removed the requirement that courts must use raised
    access flooring in the courtroom well, which is the area that includes
    the judge's bench, court personnel workstations, witness box, jury box,
    and counsel tables. According to judiciary and GSA officials, this
    change will reduce the cost to construct courthouses because it will
    simplify construction of the floors. Both the judiciary and GSA
    projected no change in the courthouse size from eliminating the use of
    raised access flooring.

      Changes in the 2021 Design Guide Will Increase the Size and Cost of
                               Future Courthouses

        In our October 2024 report, we estimated that changes in the 2021
    Design Guide would increase the size of future courthouses by 6 percent
    and project costs by 12 percent on average. These size and cost
    increases are due, in part, to increases in the judiciary's circulation
    requirements.
    Changes to Circulation Requirements Will Increase the Size of Future
            Projects
        We modeled seven selected courthouses, which included six
    completed, or nearly completed, projects and one future courthouse. As
    shown in table 2, we estimated that changes in the 2021 Design Guide
    would have increased the judiciary's space needs for the seven projects
    by nearly 8 percent, on average, and the overall size of these projects
    by about 6 percent, on average.\12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ The judiciary's space needs are those spaces requested by the
    judiciary for its use, as compared with other tenants' space. We worked
    with the judiciary to use its AnyCourt space programming tool to model
    (i.e., estimate) and compare changes in judiciary space (in usable
    square feet) that would likely result from building selected projects,
    according to the 2007 and 2021 versions of the Design Guide. Total
    courthouse gross square footages are based on estimates GSA provided
    that include the space requirements of the judiciary and other building
    tenants, as well as, for example, building public spaces and
    maintenance support spaces. For further information, see Appendix II of
    GAO-25-106724.

     Table 2: Estimated Increases in Judiciary and Total Courthouse Space in Selected Courthouse Projects That Would
                                Result from Changes in the 2021 U.S. Courts Design Guide
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Judiciary space (in               Total courthouse space
                                                usable square feet)               (in gross square feet)
                                             ------------------------ Percentage ------------------------ Percentage
               Courthouse location               2007        2021      increase      2007        2021      increase
                                                Design      Design                  Design      Design
                                                 Guide       Guide                   Guide       Guide
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Anniston, AL............................      30,105      32,666       8.5%       68,451      72,273        5.6%
    Charlotte, NC...........................     142,481     153,313        7.6      288,913     305,080         5.6
    Greenville, SC..........................     110,892     117,277        5.8      222,575     232,105         4.3
    Harrisburg, PA..........................      99,371     107,155        7.8      192,414     204,032         6.0
    Huntsville, AL..........................      61,143      66,549        8.8      125,751     133,819         6.4
    San Antonio, TX.........................     140,041     152,324        8.8      273,325     291,657         6.7
    Future courthouse.......................      33,731      36,852        9.3       83,946      88,604         5.5
                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.................................     617,764     666,136       7.8%    1,255,375   1,327,570        5.8%
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: GAO analysis of judiciary and General Services Administration (GSA) information. GAO-25-108406

    Notes: We worked with the judiciary to use its AnyCourt space programming tool to model (i.e., estimate) and
      compare changes in judiciary space (in usable square feet) that would likely result from building selected
      projects according to the 2007 and 2021 versions of the U.S. Courts Design Guide. The courthouse projects
      modeled included the following six completed, or nearly completed, projects: (1) U.S. Courthouse in Anniston,
      AL; (2) U.S. Courthouse Annex/Renovation of Jonas Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse in Charlotte, NC; (3)
      Campbell U.S. Courthouse in Greenville, SC; (4) Rambo U.S. Courthouse in Harrisburg, PA; (5) U.S. Courthouse
      in San Antonio, TX; and (6) U.S. Courthouse in Huntsville, AL. Those six projects were built according to the
      2007 Design Guide. The modeled projects also included a future courthouse planned in the eastern U.S. The
      future courthouse is being planned according to the 2021 Design Guide. Because Congress has not yet approved
      and funded the future courthouse, we are not identifying the city where the project is located.

        Total courthouse gross square footages are based on estimates GSA
    provided that include the space requirements of the judiciary and other
    building tenants, as well as, for example, building public spaces and
    maintenance support spaces.
        Based on GSA and judiciary officials and our review of GSA and
    judiciary documentation, we found that the updated circulation
    requirements in the 2021 Design Guide are a significant factor in
    increasing the projected size of courthouses. Specifically, the 2021
    Design Guide increased the circulation requirements for judiciary
    spaces--primarily those associated with courtrooms and associated
    spaces, grand jury suites, probation and pretrial services, and other
    court units. For example, the circulation requirements for courtrooms
    and associated space increased from 17 percent to 25.9 percent of
    usable square footage for those spaces. Based on those percentages,
    each district courtroom--which is 2,400 square feet under the 2007 and
    2021 Design Guides--will require approximately 348 square feet of
    additional circulation space under the 2021 Design Guide.\13\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ See table 4 of GAO-25-106724 for the judiciary's circulation
    space requirements under the 2007 and 2021 Design Guides.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        According to GSA officials, as the judiciary's space increases, the
    overall courthouse size also increases.\14\ This results in an increase
    in the overall building gross square footage, which comprises the total
    space within the courthouse, including judiciary spaces; other tenant
    spaces; and shared lobbies, hallways, and support spaces such as rooms
    for telecommunications equipment.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ GSA expresses the total size of a federal courthouse in gross
    square feet. GSA plans courthouse space to be 67 percent efficient
    (i.e., the ratio of all tenants' usable square feet to the building's
    gross square feet). Consequently, as any tenant's usable square footage
    increases, so does the building gross square footage; as tenant spaces
    expand, public hallways and other building common spaces then expand to
    service the larger areas.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Changes to Circulation Requirements Will Increase the Cost of Future
            Projects
        As a result of the increases in courthouse size identified through
    our modeling, we also estimated that changes in the 2021 Design Guide
    would increase estimated construction costs by approximately 12 percent
    on average for the same seven modeled projects. We worked with GSA to
    use its Cost Benchmark Tool to estimate cost increases that would
    likely result from building selected projects according to the 2007 and
    2021 versions of the Design Guide.\15\ According to our modeling
    estimates, changes in the 2021 Design Guide--mostly those made to the
    judiciary's circulation requirements--increased estimated construction
    costs by approximately $143 million for the seven selected courthouses
    (see table 3).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ We requested that GSA use its Cost Benchmark Tool to calculate
    the likely budget effects on the construction costs for the same seven
    selected projects of the changes in the 2021 Design Guide. GSA cost
    models assume that projects will take 3 years to construct, beginning
    in fiscal year 2026, and use fiscal year 2019 and 2022 cost values.

        Table 3: Increases in Estimated Construction Costs of Selected Courthouse Projects That Would Result from
                                      Changes in the 2021 U.S. Courts Design Guide
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Estimated construction       Cost increase
                                                                          cost (millions)    -----------------------
                                                                     ------------------------
                                Location                                 2007        2021       Overall
                                                                        Design      Design    (millions)  Percentage
                                                                         Guide       Guide
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Anniston, AL....................................................       $67.5       $75.2        $7.7       11.4%
    Charlotte, NC...................................................       274.2       310.3        36.1        13.2
    Greenville, SC..................................................       206.5       220.0        13.5         6.5
    Harrisburg, PA..................................................       198.4       215.3        16.9         8.5
    Huntsville, AL..................................................       127.0       148.3        21.3        16.8
    San Antonio, TX.................................................       238.2       270.9        32.7        13.7
    Future courthouse...............................................        87.9       102.9        15.0        17.1
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
      Total.........................................................    $1,199.6    $1,342.9      $143.3       11.9%
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: GAO summary of General Services Administration (GSA) information. GAO-25-108406

    Notes: We worked with GSA to use its Cost Benchmark Tool to model (i.e., estimate) and compare cost increases
      that would likely result from building selected projects according to the 2007 and 2021 versions of the U.S.
      Courts Design Guide The courthouse projects modeled included the following six completed, or nearly completed,
      projects: (1) U.S. Courthouse in Anniston, AL; (2) U.S. Courthouse Annex/Renovation of Jonas Federal Building
      and U.S. Courthouse in Charlotte, NC; (3) Campbell U.S. Courthouse in Greenville, SC; (4) Rambo U.S.
      Courthouse in Harrisburg, PA; (5) U.S. Courthouse in San Antonio, TX; and (6) U.S. Courthouse in Huntsville,
      AL. The six projects were built according to the 2007 Design Guide. The modeled projects also included a
      future courthouse planned in the eastern U.S. The future courthouse is being planned according to the 2021
      Design Guide. Because Congress has not yet approved and funded the future courthouse, we are not identifying
      the city where the project is located. Figures have been rounded and do not add precisely.

    Estimated costs are for construction and exclude site acquisition, design, and project management and inspection
      costs. The modeled construction cost estimates are not comparable to GSA's original prospectuses to Congress
      (e.g., fiscal year 2016) or to actual construction costs for completed projects, as the modeled cost values,
      durations, and schedules are not the same.

        The increases in estimated construction costs result from both
    increases in the judiciary's space and the additional courthouse space
    and building material needed overall (other building costs).\16\ Of the
    total estimated increase in construction costs, the portion associated
    with increases in the judiciary's space varies across projects but, in
    aggregate, contributes to just under half ($66 million of $143
    million), while the remainder is associated with the overall increases
    in courthouse size. If the judiciary were to revert to the circulation
    requirements in the 2007 Design Guide when designing future
    courthouses, we estimate the federal government could achieve tens of
    millions of dollars in cost avoidance.\17\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ Examples of other building costs associated with the
    building's size increase include costs for telecommunication closet
    wiring; plumbing systems and bathroom fixtures; structural concrete and
    steel; and materials for ``hardened'' construction (e.g., heavy glazed
    block walls rather than lighter drywall) in the USMS's secure
    circulation areas.
        \17\ GAO, 2025 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce
    Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication and Achieve an Additional One
    Hundred Billion Dollars or More in Future Financial Benefits, GAO-25-
    107604 (Washington, D.C.: May 13, 2025).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Judiciary Should Collaborate with Stakeholders to Reassess the Need
                     for Larger and More Costly Courthouses

        In our October 2024 report, we found the judiciary did not fully
    collaborate with GSA or FPS when updating the 2021 Design Guide and
    therefore missed an opportunity to obtain additional information on
    significant issues, such as those related to the security, size, and
    cost of courthouses. We also reported that the judiciary solicited
    input on changes in the 2021 Design Guide but did not fully address
    GSA's concerns.
    The Judiciary Did Not Engage in Consistent Communication with GSA or
            Involve FPS When Updating the Design Guide
        The judiciary solicited input from GSA on changes to the Design
    Guide and met with GSA to discuss some of its concerns with the final
    draft. However, the judiciary did not consistently engage in two-way
    communication with GSA throughout the process of updating the Design
    Guide. For example, while the judiciary communicated with GSA regarding
    comments GSA made on suggested revisions to the Design Guide in
    February 2020, the judiciary did not convey to GSA whether or how it
    had incorporated those comments. According to judiciary officials, they
    did not follow up with GSA on how they had addressed GSA's feedback
    because they did not have a process for communicating with stakeholders
    to address their comments. In addition, the judiciary did not keep a
    record of its final disposition of the comments, because officials did
    not sufficiently monitor the transfer of information across the three
    project managers who sequentially led efforts to update the Design
    Guide.
        Further, although the judiciary identified FPS as a key external
    stakeholder in 2019 during the process of updating the Design Guide, it
    did not solicit input from FPS. According to judiciary documentation
    developed after the update to the 2021 Design Guide was complete,
    officials did not involve FPS in the process because FPS is responsible
    for the external security of courthouses, which does not include the
    internal judiciary space to which the standards in the Design Guide
    apply. This documentation stated that the judiciary had incorrectly
    identified FPS as a stakeholder in 2019. FPS officials told us that the
    Design Guide largely does not affect FPS and that they did not have
    concerns with the 2007 Design Guide and subsequent changes.
        However, the 2021 Design Guide states that the judiciary and
    selected other agencies, including GSA and FPS, have federal courthouse
    security responsibilities, and that security is essential to the basic
    design of courthouses.\18\ Specifically, the Design Guide notes that
    FPS is responsible for nonjudiciary spaces within the courthouse. It
    also includes requirements related to FPS; for example, FPS is to
    install closed-circuit video cameras that provide a clear view of each
    exit of the courthouse.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ In an April 2025 letter to congressional oversight and
    appropriations committees, the judiciary cited its concerns with
    funding in light of threats to the courts, including direct threats
    against individual judges. Judicial Conference of the United States,
    Letter to Congressional Committees (Apr. 10, 2025).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In our October 2024 report, we recommended that the judiciary
    develop and document a process to better ensure effective collaboration
    when updating the Design Guide, including by engaging in two-way
    communication with, and soliciting input from, all relevant
    stakeholders. In May 2025, judiciary officials told us the judiciary
    was conducting a review of collaboration and communication processes it
    had previously used to identify areas of improvement. This
    recommendation remains open.
    The Judiciary Did Not Fully Address GSA's Concerns with Increases in
            Circulation Requirements
        GSA raised concerns about the judiciary's revised circulation
    requirements in the 2021 Design Guide. Specifically:
          GSA questioned the judiciary's basis for increasing
    courthouse circulation requirements. An architectural firm the
    judiciary contracted to assist with revisions to the 2007 Design Guide
    recommended an increase in circulation requirements, in part, based on
    a 2012 study that examined the judiciary's circulation space needs.\19\
    GSA staff raised concerns that the 2012 study relied on a review of
    completed courthouse projects that we previously found exceeded the
    sizes authorized by Congress.\20\ GSA officials were unclear how the
    contracted architectural firm reached its conclusions, as well as how
    the judiciary determined the final 2021 circulation requirements in
    relation to the 2012 study.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \19\ Judiciary officials told us that, in making the decision to
    increase circulation requirements, they relied on the assessment of the
    2012 study by a separate architectural firm that had extensive federal,
    state, and local courthouse design experience. The 2012 study was
    undertaken for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts via a GSA
    contract. Federal courthouses assessed within the study were completed
    between 1995 and 2008.
        \20\ GAO, Federal Courthouse Construction: Better Planning,
    Oversight, and Courtroom Sharing Needed to Address Future Costs, GAO-
    10-417 (Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2010).

          GSA raised concerns that the proposed changes to the
    judiciary's circulation requirements would result in significant
    increases in the overall size and cost of courthouse projects.
    Specifically, GSA noted that the draft Design Guide's increased
    circulation requirements would apply to all areas of courthouses,
    including public circulation and shared common spaces whose functions
    do not require increased circulation space. GSA officials stated that,
    consequently, these circulation changes would increase the overall size
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    and cost of courthouses.

        In response to GSA's concerns, the judiciary adjusted some of the
    circulation requirements to less than what the contractor initially
    recommended. The judiciary also clarified that the revised circulation
    requirements applied only to judiciary spaces accessible from
    restricted or secured corridors. However, the judiciary did not take
    steps to fully address GSA's concerns that the increased circulation
    requirements would significantly increase the overall size and cost of
    future courthouses. Further, the judiciary's preliminary cost estimates
    of increasing the judiciary's circulation space under the 2021 Design
    Guide did not include all potential costs for future courthouse
    projects. Specifically, these estimates did not account for likely
    increases to the overall courthouse size, operations, and maintenance
    costs over the life of the courthouses, and the judiciary's rent
    obligations.\21\ While judiciary officials acknowledged that the
    increased circulation requirements would lead to higher costs, they
    believed the circulation space and cost increases were necessary to
    enhance the safety of judges and the public.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \21\ We have previously reported that operations and maintenance
    costs typically comprise 60 to 80 percent of total life cycle costs.
    See GAO, Federal Buildings: More Consideration of Operations and
    Maintenance Costs Could Better Inform the Design Excellence Program,
    GAO-18-420 (Washington, D.C.: May 22, 2018.). GSA buildings are
    typically built with a 100-year assumed life cycle. Federal agencies,
    including the judiciary, that operate in facilities under the control
    and custody of GSA pay rent to GSA for the space they occupy.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Further, according to judiciary officials, architectural firms that
    worked on past courthouse projects using the 2007 circulation
    requirements reported that the circulation requirements for judiciary
    space were too restrictive. However, judiciary officials were unable to
    provide documentation of any architectural firm's challenges related to
    the circulation requirements, or the number of firms and projects
    affected. In addition, project stakeholders and courthouse occupants we
    spoke with told us that courthouses built according to the 2007 Design
    Guide generally met their circulation needs.
        In our October 2024 report, we recommended that the judiciary, in
    collaboration with GSA, reassess the need for increased circulation
    requirements in the 2021 Design Guide, using relevant information. Such
    an assessment should consider the space and cost modeling of recently
    constructed courthouses discussed in that report, the perspectives of
    project stakeholders and building occupants in these courthouses, the
    cost implications for future rent obligations paid to GSA, and
    operations and maintenance costs of judiciary space and overall
    building space in future courthouses.
        In May 2025, judiciary officials told us that the judiciary and GSA
    had discussed our recommendation and were continuing to work to
    identify an approach for reassessing the circulation requirements in
    the 2021 Design Guide. This recommendation remains open.
        Our modeling shows that the overall increase to judiciary space
    caused by new circulation requirements will increase the overall future
    courthouse size and cost. We believe that reassessing the need for
    increased circulation requirements in the 2021 Design Guide using
    relevant information--such as the perspectives of project stakeholders
    and building occupants in recently constructed courthouses--will help
    ensure that the judiciary and GSA develop functional and cost-effective
    courthouses. This reassessment is especially important as GSA continues
    to take steps to reduce the federal government's real property
    footprint.
        Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Stanton, and Members of the
    Subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased
    to respond to any questions that you may have at this time.

        Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman for your
    testimony. The Chair now recognizes Judge Suddaby.
        You are recognized for your testimony for 5 minutes, sir.

         TESTIMONY OF HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY, DISTRICT JUDGE
          FOR THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DIS-
          TRICT OF NEW YORK, AND CHAIR, JUDICIAL CONFERENCE
          COMMITTEE ON SPACE AND FACILITIES

        Judge Suddaby. Chairman Perry and Representative Friedman
    and members of the subcommittee, I am Glenn Suddaby. I am a
    U.S. district court judge in the northern district in New York,
    and I am the Chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on
    Space and Facilities. Thank you for the opportunity to be here
    today.
        As this subcommittee considers the topic of Federal
    courthouse design and construction, examining the cost to the
    taxpayer, I want to assure you that the judiciary is also
    thinking about being good stewards of taxpayer dollars.
        Federal courthouses play an instrumental role in allowing
    the third branch to carry out its constitutional mission. Every
    day in these buildings across the country, judges preside over
    hearings, trials; litigants appear in courtrooms to present
    their cases to juries; and the public is able to observe the
    administration of justice.
        Courthouses are unique buildings. They serve a vital and
    distinct purpose to the communities in which they are located.
    Accordingly, the judiciary plays particular importance on its
    courthouse construction and facilities programs.
        In recent years, the judiciary has used a number of tools
    to manage its courthouse construction program in a cost-
    efficient and effective manner, including a 3-percent space
    reduction program, circuitwide policies to assure no net new
    space growth, and a Capital Security Program, as well as
    courtroom-sharing policies.
        At the outset, it is important to note the judiciary space
    is not like much of the executive branch. The Constitution and
    statutes passed by Congress requires to have a presence and
    hold court in hundreds of communities across this country to
    ensure there is equal access to justice for all.
        The vast majority of the courthouses are buildings that
    have been in place for decades, many of which have deferred
    maintenance liabilities. At the same time, the judiciary
    acknowledges we are obligated to the efficient use of the space
    we have. To that end, in 2013, the judiciary began its space
    reduction program by setting out on a 5-year goal to reduce its
    nationwide footprint by 3 percent. By 2018, the judiciary
    surpassed that goal, reducing over 1.1 million rentable square
    feet, which equated to an annual cost avoidance of $36 million
    and a cumulative cost avoidance of over $100 million during
    that time period.
        Since the conclusion of that space reduction effort, the
    judiciary has maintained a no net new policy, whereby any space
    increase within a circuit must be met with corresponding and
    equal space reduction in order to ensure the Federal judiciary
    footprint does not grow. Courts today are still finding
    innovative ways to do more with less, closing underused
    nonresident courthouses and leveraging open office workspace
    strategies to gain greater efficiencies.
        The Judicial Conference has also developed its Capital
    Security Program, which provides funding to address security
    deficiencies in existing courthouses. Where physical
    renovations are viable, the construction of new courthouses is
    not needed or expected in the foreseeable future. The program's
    goals include utilizing buildings and Government resources in a
    cost-effective manner to address security deficiencies that put
    the public and Government staff at risk, also providing lower
    cost alternatives to higher cost capital investments. This
    cost-effective program has reduced the need for new courthouses
    in many locations across the country.
        Since 2011, the judiciary has implemented three separate
    courthouse-sharing policies. Courtroom sharing is required in
    all new construction projects for senior, magistrate, and
    bankruptcy court judges. The judiciary also requires sharing
    policies to be followed when a court needs to build out
    additional space in any existing facility as a result of newly
    authorized judgeships.
        An important tool in implementing our courthouse
    construction program is the U.S. Courts Design Guide. The
    Design Guide sets forth the judiciary's unique, essential
    requirements for design, construction, and renovation of
    facilities.
        In March 2017, the Judicial Conference approved undertaking
    a comprehensive review and revision of the existing Design
    Guide--which was previously updated in 2007--as a result of a
    number of new courthouse construction projects being completed.
    It was determined that the previous Design Guide was outdated
    in terms of industry standards and practices, and did not
    reference critical Judicial Conference policies including
    courtroom sharing. The updated Design Guide was incorporated by
    the Judicial Conference, and these policies and standards were
    incorporated.
        The judiciary is evaluating addressing each of the
    recommendations made by the 2024 GAO report, including
    reassessing the need for increased circulation requirements and
    collaborating with GSA on mutually acceptable methodologies.
        As always, the judiciary looks forward to working together
    with the subcommittee and its executive branch service partners
    to design and construct courthouses that meet the branch's
    unique needs and enable us to carry out our constitutional
    mission.
        Thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and I am
    happy to answer any questions.
        [Judge Suddaby's prepared statement follows:]

      Prepared Statement of Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby, District Judge for the
     U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, and Chair,
             Judicial Conference Committee on Space and Facilities

        Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Stanton, and members of the
    Subcommittee:
        Good morning, I am Glenn Suddaby, District Judge for the U.S.
    District Court for the Northern District of New York and chair of the
    Judicial Conference Committee on Space and Facilities. I am appearing
    today by designation of the Secretary of the Judicial Conference of the
    United States and on its behalf. I appreciate your invitation to appear
    today to discuss the federal Judiciary's courthouse construction
    program and U.S. Courts Design Guide.
        As members of the Subcommittee know, federal courthouses play an
    instrumental role in allowing the Third Branch to carry out its
    constitutional mission. Every day in these buildings across the country
    judges preside over hearings and trials; litigants appear in courtrooms
    to present their cases to juries; and the public is able to observe the
    administration of justice. In so many communities across the country,
    these buildings are symbols of the federal government and our
    democracy, and, accordingly, these buildings serve as visible reminders
    of the government's commitment to upholding justice.
        I say this not to overstate the role of the Judiciary in our
    government, but to underscore the importance the federal Judiciary
    places on its courthouse construction program. Simply put, courthouses
    are unique buildings, and they serve a vital and distinct purpose to
    the communities in which they are located.
        The Judicial Conference last testified before this Subcommittee in
    2016 after Congress had graciously appropriated $1 billion in fiscal
    year (FY) 2016 for new courthouse construction. Since that time, many
    of our fundamental policies and practices have remained consistent. One
    example is our Asset Management Planning (AMP) process which was
    adopted in 2008. The AMP process is used to identify and prioritize, on
    an objective basis, the space and facilities needs of the federal
    Judiciary. The AMP process is a ``good government'' measure that was
    developed to: (1) achieve cost-containment goals; and (2) provide an
    objective and consistently applied methodology for identification of
    space needs, prioritization of those needs, and development of
    solutions for all Judiciary buildings. By applying this methodology, we
    ensure that only the most urgent project recommendations are approved
    by the Judicial Conference.
        To enhance long-range facilities planning, the AMP process
    integrates costs, space needs, and functionality. AMP analysis is more
    detailed and robust than was the previous long-range facilities
    planning process--a process that was criticized by the Government
    Accountability Office (GAO) and Congress. The AMP process assesses
    facilities in a holistic and objective manner. It identifies space
    alternatives and strategies, considers the costs and benefits of space
    housing strategies, and thereby determines the best strategy to meet
    the current and future needs of the court. Under the AMP process, each
    district and circuit adopts a long-range facilities plan which entails
    an evaluation of each courthouse location for urgency of space needs.
    The AMP process evaluates the building condition and its security
    needs. An Urgency Evaluation Results List is then developed each year,
    placing each courthouse location in rank order. This objective ranking
    reflects the urgency of the Judiciary's space needs.
        Using this information, courthouse projects are prioritized and
    transmitted to Congress in the Federal Judiciary Courthouse Project
    Priorities list (CPP). The CPP is the Judiciary's planning instrument
    that details its funding priorities for new courthouse construction
    projects as approved by the Judicial Conference. The CPP is structured
    in two parts. Part I lists the Judiciary's ``current year'' courthouse
    construction priorities--projects for which the Judiciary will request
    federal funding in its annual budget submission. The priority order of
    all projects on Part I is maintained until a project has been fully
    funded, at which point the funded project will be removed from Part I.
    Part II of the CPP lists out-year courthouse construction priorities.
    Each year, the priority of projects on Part II is reviewed and updated
    based on the AMP calculated Urgency Evaluation rating for each
    location, the addition of new locations, and the elevation of locations
    from Part II to Part I of the CPP.
        Since FY 2016, Congress has provided approximately $2.12 billion
    for courthouse construction projects. This includes $1 billion for 10-
    plus projects, the largest one-time appropriation ever made for
    courthouse construction. In total, this has resulted in full funding
    for 13 different courthouse construction or acquisition projects, and
    partial funding for three others. Of those 13 fully funded projects,
    nine have been delivered, and the remaining four should be completed in
    the next two years. Working together with the General Services
    Administration (GSA), the Judiciary has managed all of these projects
    successfully, delivering state of the art facilities that meet the
    needs of local courts and communities. The Judiciary works together
    with GSA and other federal stakeholders to track the status of every
    project; identify risks; develop a portfolio management plan;
    participate on the National Courthouse Change Management Board (which
    reviews and oversees potential changes that could impact scopes,
    schedules, and budgets for each project); and execute communication
    strategies that support transparent and timely sharing of information
    with project stakeholders. The Judiciary is appreciative of the funding
    to date and is hopeful Congress will continue to support this program
    and provide additional resources to the projects that have received
    partial funding as well as those projects identified on the Judiciary's
    CPP that have not yet received funding.
        In addition to the progress the Judiciary has made in managing the
    funding provided for new courthouse construction projects, we have also
    made great strides over the past decade in managing our existing space
    portfolio. In 2013, the Judiciary set out on a five-year goal to reduce
    its nationwide footprint by 3 percent. By 2018, the Judiciary surpassed
    its goal, reducing over 1.1 million rentable square feet which equated
    to an annual cost avoidance of $36 million and cumulative cost
    avoidance of over $100 million during the time of space reduction.
    Since the conclusion of that space reduction effort, the Judiciary has
    maintained a No Net New policy, whereby any space increase within a
    circuit must be met with a corresponding and equal space reduction.
    Courts today are still finding innovative ways to do more with less--
    closing underused non-resident courthouses and leveraging open office
    workspace strategies to gain greater efficiencies.
        Additionally, the Judicial Conference endorsed the Capital Security
    Program (CSP) in 2010. The CSP provides funding to ameliorate security
    deficiencies in existing courthouse buildings where physical
    renovations are viable and the construction of a new courthouse is not
    needed or expected in the foreseeable future. The CSP's goals include
    utilizing existing building assets and government resources in a cost-
    effective manner; addressing security deficiencies that put the public
    and government staff at risk; and providing a lower cost alternative to
    higher cost capital investments or even a new courthouse. Typical
    improvements funded through the CSP include constructing secure and/or
    restricted corridors; adding or reconfiguring elevators to provide
    secure and/or restricted circulation; enclosing prisoner drop-off areas
    to create sallyports; creating visual barriers for judges' parking
    areas; and reconfiguring security screening areas. This cost-effective
    program has reduced the need for new courthouses in many locations
    across the country.
        The Judicial Conference has also continued to implement three
    separate courtroom sharing policies, as requested by this Subcommittee.
    Currently, courtroom sharing is required in all new construction
    projects for senior, magistrate, and bankruptcy judges. The Judiciary
    also requires sharing policies to be followed when a court needs to
    build out additional space in an existing facility as a result of a
    newly authorized judgeship or because a judge has taken senior status.
    Additionally, in response to direction given by both this Subcommittee
    and recommendations from GAO, the Judicial Conference eliminated the
    inclusion of projected new judgeship space needs from the project
    requirements for new construction. These policies balance the
    Judiciary's obligation to be good stewards of taxpayers' funds along
    with our duty under the Constitution to provide access to justice and
    ensure that cases are handled in a fair and expeditious manner.
        An important tool in implementing our courthouse construction
    program is the U.S. Courts Design Guide (Design Guide). Appropriate
    courthouse design must balance the need for secure and restricted
    spaces with public access. At the same time, it must address a local
    court's present space needs while incorporating opportunities for
    future growth. Courthouse designs must accomplish these goals in a
    thoughtful, effective, and cost-conscious manner to deliver buildings
    that can serve communities for generations. These values are
    prioritized in the Judicial Conference's management and oversight of
    its courthouse construction program and the development, update, and
    application of the Design Guide.
        The Design Guide sets forth the Judiciary's unique and essential
    requirements for the design, construction, and renovation of federal
    court facilities. As noted above, the buildings are occupied daily by
    federal judges and judiciary personnel, litigants from both the public
    and private sector, federal law enforcement and security personnel, in-
    custody defendants and other individuals who are appearing before the
    local court, and members of the public. Because of the varied business
    of the court, there is a need for a variety of different spaces and
    supporting infrastructure in a federal courthouse. To this end, the
    Design Guide is intended to be used by judges, court administrators,
    architects, engineers, the United States Marshals Service (USMS), and
    GSA personnel that are involved in federal court construction projects.
        In March 2017, the Judicial Conference approved undertaking a
    comprehensive review and revision of the existing Design Guide last
    updated in 2007. Recent congressional funding at the time of nine new
    courthouse construction projects highlighted the need to examine the
    usefulness of the then-current Design Guide to all stakeholders to
    glean best practices from the large influx of new courthouse projects.
    It was determined that the 2007 Design Guide was outdated in terms of
    industry standards and practices and did not reference critical
    Judicial Conference policies including courtroom sharing or the
    elimination of build-out space for projected judgeships, another policy
    requested by this Subcommittee. The review and update would serve to
    increase the clarity and ease of use of the Design Guide as well as the
    Judicial Conference policies and industry standards and practices that
    were missing.
        This effort was a comprehensive, multi-year process that sought a
    broad range of technical and practical expertise. The Administrative
    Office of the U.S. Courts (AO) established a working group of relevant
    stakeholders within the Judiciary, including court personnel and judges
    that had recently undertaken a significant new courthouse or alteration
    project. The Judiciary also sought feedback from our external service
    partners, GSA and USMS. This process was overseen entirely by the
    Committee on Space and Facilities, and the Committee's approved
    revisions were submitted into a draft 2021 Design Guide. At its March
    2021 session, the Judicial Conference considered the recommendations of
    the Committee and approved the 2021 Design Guide for publication.
        Upon approval of the new Design Guide, the Judiciary informed all
    stakeholders of the final product highlighting the significant changes
    made to the previous Design Guide including incorporating all Judicial
    Conference courtroom sharing policies and increasing design
    flexibility. Additionally, the Design Guide was also posted on
    USCourts.gov along with several videos informing stakeholders on
    changes and how to use the document. Finally, the Judiciary began its
    work on a Best Practices Guide, a companion document that demonstrates
    the need for, and applicability of, the Design Guide by providing
    examples of past projects, lessons learned, and case studies on how the
    Design Guide may be implemented. This document was published in 2021.
    In addition to this work, after the Judicial Conference approved the
    updated Design Guide, the AO conferred with staff at the Office of
    Management and Budget to explain significant changes to the updated
    Design Guide and respond to staff inquiries.
        At the time of its approval, the Judiciary intended for this Design
    Guide to be applied to all projects that had not yet received federal
    funding. Accordingly, the first new courthouse project where the new
    Design Guide would apply is the project in Bowling Green, Kentucky. The
    new courthouse projects in Hartford, Connecticut; Chattanooga,
    Tennessee; and Hato Rey, Puerto Rico have all been designed using the
    former 2007 Design Guide.
        In its report on the development of, and standards put forth by,
    the 2021 Design Guide, the GAO makes three recommendations. The
    recommendations address: (1) the definition of a Design Guide
    exception; (2) the Judiciary's collaboration with other federal
    stakeholders; and (3) the new circulation factors incorporated into the
    updated Design Guide. The Judiciary appreciates the time and careful
    consideration that GAO has given to its review and is currently in the
    process of addressing the recommendations.
        With regard to the first recommendation on the definition of a
    Design Guide exception, GAO reports that GSA officials have difficulty
    finding information in the 2021 Design Guide about which changes
    constitute exceptions. Previously, the Judiciary had published an
    Exceptions Appendix, which listed specific exceptions to the standards
    and planning assumptions, that was agreed to by both the Judiciary and
    GSA. This document, however, was not updated after its publication and
    quickly became outdated when considering updated practices and new
    Judicial Conference policies. Moreover, the document actually created
    confusion about which requests would qualify as an exception and the
    level of approval that was necessary. Accordingly, in 2017, the
    Judicial Conference approved eliminating the Exceptions Appendix and
    reported that any item not identified in the program of requirements in
    the Design Guide, would be an exception and require a certain level of
    approval depending on the nature of the exception.
        This approach to identifying exceptions, in the Judiciary's view,
    has proved workable, and until the GAO report, the Judiciary was
    unaware of GSA's critical commentary in this regard. Since the issuance
    of GAO's report, the Judiciary has evaluated options for clarifying the
    exceptions policy, including whether to add specific examples in the
    Design Guide or a new Exceptions Appendix.
        It should be noted that detailed information about exceptions and
    the necessary approvals needed are included throughout the 2021 Design
    Guide. Further, neither the criteria of what constitutes an exception
    nor the process for review and approval of exceptions were changed from
    the 2007 to the 2021 Design Guide. Regardless, the Judiciary is in the
    process of developing a report which identifies all items from the
    previous Exceptions Appendix, where the same items are found in the
    2021 Design Guide, and what level of approval is required for each
    exception. This report will be shared with GSA to ensure a mutual
    understanding of Design Guide exceptions. Defining exceptions is
    critical because not only must they be approved by the Judicial
    Conference, but exceptions must be included in all GSA prospectuses
    submitted to Congress for authorization for the project. I can assure
    you that the Committee on Space and Facilities and the Judicial
    Conference takes their consideration of exceptions very seriously due
    to the implications of them for a project.
        With respect to GAO's second recommendation regarding improved
    collaboration, throughout the Judiciary's review process, the Branch
    sought input from all relevant stakeholders, as referenced above,
    including GSA. Indeed, during the revision process, the Judiciary
    sought broad input from GSA at two separate times in 2018 and again in
    2019. In response, GSA provided 560 comments--all of which the
    Judiciary reviewed and addressed, including comments about Design Guide
    exceptions and circulation factors. In 2020, GSA's Public Buildings
    Commissioner, Daniel Mathews, and his staff met with the Chair of the
    Space and Facilities Committee, Judge Jeffrey Helmick, and the Chair of
    the Space Standards Subcommittee, Judge David Keesler, and AO staff to
    discuss GSA's most significant comments related to the draft Design
    Guide.
        While good faith efforts were made to solicit, consider, and
    incorporate comments from GSA, the Judiciary agrees more could have
    been done with follow-up communications including improved
    documentation on the resolution of all comments. This same improvement
    can be made with the Branch's collaboration with our security partners
    as well. The Judiciary believes it has already made progress on
    addressing this recommendation with regard to our conversations with
    GSA on Design Guide exceptions as detailed above. Certainly, we will
    endeavor to do so in the future.
        Finally, with respect to GAO's third recommendation for the
    Judiciary to collaborate with GSA to reassess the need for increased
    circulation requirements, the Judiciary has been collaborating with GSA
    regarding a mutually acceptable methodology. As the Subcommittee knows,
    a courthouse contains three distinct circulation paths: public,
    restricted (for judges and court employees), and secure (for in-custody
    persons and designated staff). For the safety of the public, judges,
    and staff, all three circulation paths must remain separate, and only
    intersect in a courtroom. The 2007 Design Guide used different
    departmental circulation factors to help designers and GSA estimate the
    necessary square footage for a given courthouse project. These
    circulation factors increased the net square footage of a room to take
    into account space for walls and the hallways and vestibules needed to
    get to those spaces. Because the 2007 Design Guide and GSA used
    different standards to plan for and measure space, the 2007 Design
    Guide did not accurately account for the total circulation area needed.
    As a result, the Judiciary reduced square footage in multiple projects
    from other court areas to align the design of the courthouse with the
    square footage included in the prospectus program. The increased
    circulation factors in the 2021 Design Guide attempt to fix this
    problem by better aligning with how GSA measures space during the
    design phase of construction projects.
        While GSA may disagree with the circulation information cited by
    Judiciary experts, the Judiciary did consider feedback from all
    stakeholders as noted above. Although GAO states that construction
    costs will increase as a result of new circulation factors, the
    Judiciary ultimately determined that the incurred costs are a necessary
    and defensible expense so that federal courthouses are appropriately
    sized to ensure the safety of the public, judges and court staff.
        That being said, the Judiciary has committed to re-evaluating the
    need for the circulation multipliers included in the 2021 Design Guide.
    This review will include the potential impacts on safety and function
    as well as future construction cost and size. The Judiciary will confer
    with GSA and other stakeholders during this review.
        Ultimately, the Judiciary looks forward to continuing to work
    together with this Subcommittee and its executive branch service
    partners to design and construct courthouses that meet the Branch's
    unique needs and enable it to carry out its constitutional mission. In
    the spirit of good stewardship, we will be working hard to deliver
    these projects so that they meet all of the individual courts' needs,
    and in an effective, cost-efficient manner befitting the trust that
    Congress has placed in us by appropriating these needed funds.
        Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Stanton, and members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you again for the opportunity to appear today to
    discuss our courthouse construction program and the U.S. Courts Design
    Guide. I would be happy to answer any questions the Subcommittee may
    have.

        Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the judge.
        Mr. Peters, you are now recognized for your testimony for 5
    minutes.

        TESTIMONY  OF  MICHAEL PETERS,  COMMISSIONER,  PUBLIC
         BUILDINGS SERVICE, U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRA-
         TION

        Mr. Peters. Good morning, Chairman Perry, Ranking Member
    Friedman, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. My
    name is Michael Peters, and I serve as Commissioner of the
    Public Buildings Service at the U.S. General Services
    Administration.
        I accepted this position for two reasons: first, it enabled
    me to fulfill a calling to public service I had not previously
    answered; and second, it provides me with an opportunity to
    contribute to addressing the unsustainable imbalance between
    our Federal revenues and expenditures. I am honored to be
    serving in this role, and grateful for the opportunity to
    appear before you today to discuss the Federal courthouse
    program.
        Since stepping into this role in January, I have been
    focused on realigning PBS with its core mission: delivering
    efficient, cost-effective real estate solutions that support
    Federal agencies and serve the American taxpayer.
        Acting Administrator Stephen Ehikian and I share a
    fundamental belief with this committee: Taxpayers shouldn't pay
    to keep the lights on when nobody is home. That is why we are
    committed to identifying and shedding costly, underused space,
    while investing in the assets that matter most. To date, we
    have sold 19 Federal properties, avoiding $49 million in
    deferred maintenance, and initiated the termination of nearly
    600 vacant or underused leases, saving $298 million in future
    obligations. My strategy centers on focusing limited capital on
    core, mission-critical facilities like courthouses, while
    leveraging the private sector where appropriate.
        PBS partners closely with the Federal judiciary to deliver
    courthouse projects that meet evolving security and operational
    needs. Since 2016, we have completed 10 major courthouse
    projects, with more underway, totaling over $2 billion in
    investment. We have also made significant progress under the
    courthouse security program.
        However, these gains haven't come without challenges. GSA
    currently faces over $24 billion in deferred maintenance needs,
    $8.3 billion of which is tied to courthouses alone.
    Prioritization is essential, and we must continue to ensure
    that every courthouse project approved by Congress delivers on
    time, on budget, and aligned with judicial needs.
        In closing, GSA is dedicated to rightsizing the Federal
    real estate portfolio, reducing liabilities, and investing
    where it matters most. I am proud of the progress we are
    making, and I look forward to working with you to deliver on
    this mission.
        Thank you, and I welcome your questions.
        [Mr. Peters' prepared statement follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Michael Peters, Commissioner, Public Buildings
                 Service, U.S. General Services Administration

                                 Introduction:

        Good morning, Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Stanton, and
    distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Michael Peters,
    and I am the Commissioner of the Public Buildings Service (``PBS'') at
    the U.S. General Services Administration (``GSA''). I appreciate the
    Committee's invitation to appear before you today to discuss the
    Federal courthouse program.
        I am honored to have been appointed as Commissioner of PBS this
    January, and I am excited about the opportunity to serve in alignment
    with the Trump-Vance Administration to return GSA to its founding
    mission of streamlining Federal operations, consolidating resources and
    efficiently providing essential services for American taxpayers.
        Acting Administrator Stephen Ehikian and I agree with Chairman
    Perry, taxpayers should not be paying to keep the lights on when nobody
    is home. That is why we aim to responsibly steward taxpayer resources
    by identifying underutilized and costly infrastructure for the public
    we serve.
        We are not just shrinking our footprint but creating a smarter,
    more agile real estate portfolio. By efficiently delivering our agency
    partners the space needed to effectively accomplish their missions, we
    are maximizing taxpayer value.
        In my time as Commissioner, GSA has sold 19 federal properties,
    avoiding $49 million in deferred maintenance costs and initiated the
    termination of 595 vacant or underutilized leases, eliminating $298
    million in future lease obligations.
        Today, I am prepared to discuss PBS's collaboration and partnership
    with the Federal Judiciary and our ongoing work to execute projects
    that meet the Judiciary's critical mission requirements.

                          PBS Strategy--A New Approach

        In order to accomplish the goals of this Administration, I would
    also like to take a moment to discuss my strategy and approach to
    managing PBS's real estate portfolio in the best interest of the
    taxpayer.
        Generally, I believe that more specialized space, such as
    courthouses, land ports of entry and certain law enforcement facilities
    should be Federally owned, and that is where PBS should use its limited
    appropriation funding to address critical deferred maintenance
    liabilities.
        GSA can no longer afford to effectively maintain all of the
    federally owned assets it currently manages, which is why I am laser
    focused on investing in our core assets, such as courthouses and other
    types of specialized space, and identifying office facilities for
    disposition where the government could lease replacement space from the
    private sector cost-effectively. In fact, since FY2011, GSA has
    requested approximately $19 billion for Repair and Alteration funding
    to maintain our current inventory of assets, but Congress has only
    appropriated approximately $9.5 billion during that time, representing
    a reduction of 50% from the requested level. These funding constraints
    have significantly limited GSA's ability to maintain its portfolio and
    led to the exponential growth in Repair and Alteration liabilities for
    GSA's federally owned portfolio, which now total more than $24.4
    billion, with more than $8.3 billion of those liabilities associated
    with courthouses. Those figures represent a 536% growth in liabilities.
    Downsizing the portfolio, with a focus on assets with substantial
    deferred maintenance, will enable GSA to more effectively deploy the
    available capital over a smaller footprint.

                               Courthouse Program

        The Federal courthouse construction program is administered jointly
    by the Federal Judiciary and GSA. GSA works with the Federal Judiciary
    to propose projects for funding and seek approval of those funds from
    Congress. While the Judiciary establishes its priorities for courthouse
    construction projects and sets forth housing requirements for each
    project, GSA works in tandem to ensure that projects meet the needs of
    the Judiciary and are consistent with the Federal Judiciary Courthouse
    Project Priorities.
        Courthouses are proposed in order of priority by the Judiciary and
    funding is requested in that priority order, including feasibility
    studies. GSA's role is to administer consistent, cost-effective
    delivery of the U.S. courthouse program according to the Courts'
    national prioritization plan and driven by the Judicial Conference on
    Space and Facilities.
        GSA also develops the plans for these projects, including the
    identification of any U.S. Courts Design Guide exceptions approved by
    the Judiciary, and identification of the strategy for the courthouse
    facilities being replaced.

                         Achievements and Opportunities

        With regard to delivery of the program, I would like to point out
    several key recent achievements as we work to deliver both new
    courthouses and repair and alterations projects on schedule and on
    budget, within the parameters established by the prospectuses GSA
    submits and the resolutions approved by this Committee.
        Since Fiscal Year 2016, GSA has delivered ten projects associated
    with the new courthouse program, with five additional projects in
    construction, and three additional projects in the design phase. Those
    eighteen projects, across fifteen cities, total approximately $2.12
    billion. GSA is also coordinating with the Judiciary to deliver the
    Courthouse Security Program, and since Fiscal Year 2012, there have
    been eight projects completed, five in construction, and two more in
    design.
        Recently, PBS-GSA announced the sale of the Gus J. Solomon U.S.
    Courthouse. By including the Solomon courthouse in President Trump's
    strategy to optimize the government's real estate portfolio, GSA will
    avoid over $76 million in potential capital expenditures to modernize
    the vacant 90-year-old building for continued office use.
        The potential for adaptive reuse by the private sector is
    exceptional.
        The results of our efforts are notable, exhibited in our project
    delivery outcomes and provide a solid foundation to grow on into the
    future.

                                   Challenges

        These efforts were not realized without their fair share of
    challenges. As mentioned before, GSA's goal is simply to ensure that
    any courthouse project funded and approved by Congress is completed in
    support of the mission to our federal customer Agencies.
        We will continue our efforts to deliver courthouses on time and on
    budget with the funding already provided by Congress; however, moving
    forward will require working with our judiciary partners and Congress
    on how to best ensure a balanced allocation of resources.
        As I previously mentioned, current estimates equal approximately
    $24 billion in liability for GSA's federally owned portfolio: a
    portfolio that also averages over 50 years of age. And while this
    number is steadily growing, priorities identified by the Judiciary must
    also compete for limited funding across GSA's owned portfolio.
        A few examples of repair and alterations projects competing for
    limited future funding:

            In Pennsylvania at the James A. Byrne Courthouse in
            Philadelphia, this core asset requires upgrades to the heating,
            ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system, which includes
            comprehensive replacement of obsolete air handling units and
            degraded ductwork, and the installation of enhanced controls
            and related electrical and life-safety upgrades. The current
            estimated cost of this investment is $87.4M.

            Also in Pennsylvania, the Joseph F. Weis, Jr. U.S. Courthouse
            in Pittsburgh, which is another core asset, requires
            replacement of the HVAC system, associated electrical systems,
            and a section of the roof, as well as a lightning protection
            and fall arrest system. The current estimated cost of this
            investment is $44.9M.

                                   Conclusion

        In conclusion, GSA requires both funding and prospectus approval to
    deliver high-quality space on behalf of the Federal Judiciary. The need
    for funding, a more streamlined prospectus process, as well as expanded
    authorities to drive the identification and preparation of assets for
    disposition are a few of the tools that would allow GSA to reduce the
    size of the Federal inventory, address deferred maintenance and operate
    more efficiently in this challenging environment.
        I am very proud of the work that we are doing to help return GSA to
    its founding mission drafted over 75 years ago--a mission designed to
    help customer agencies achieve their missions through cost-effective
    real estate investments.
        I look forward to partnering with you to address these key
    priorities in the 119th Congress and to drive cost efficiency in
    Federal real estate. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before
    you today, and I look forward to answering your questions.

        Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman and all our
    witnesses. Thank you for your testimony. We will now turn to
    questions.
        The Chair now recognizes the ranking member, Ms. Friedman,
    for her questions.
        Ms. Friedman. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Peters, thank you again for being here today.
        The Inflation Reduction Act, the IRA, provided GSA with
    $3.4 billion for building renovations and improvements; $975
    million to support the emerging and sustainable technologies;
    $2.15 billion for low-embodied carbon materials in construction
    and renovation projects; and $250 million to turn GSA
    facilities into high-performance green buildings.
        GSA identified 164 projects to be supported with the IRA
    funding: 42 Federal courthouses; 69 Federal buildings; and 53
    land points of entry. These projects include modernizing
    buildings, replacing windows, repairing building facades,
    making deep energy retrofits, installing stormwater management
    technology, stabilizing garages and foundations, resurfacing
    parking lots, and replacing windows and lighting. And to be
    clear, a lot of these kinds of upgrades also make buildings run
    more efficiently and make them less expensive to operate in the
    long run. So, there are a lot of good reasons to do this work.
        What is the status of the courthouse modernization projects
    that GSA identified as good candidates for IRA funding? And I
    will also ask a second question; you can answer them both at
    once.
        Will GSA move forward with the projects for which funding
    has not yet been obligated?
        Mr. Peters. Thank you for the question.
        So, we have done an assessment, in conjunction with the
    work here, and we are continuing to utilize IRA funds, both for
    LPOE projects and for courthouse projects.
        The requirement we have is that we must comply with the
    legislation and the law, but we need to find cost-effective
    alternatives. So, if there is a situation--you mentioned low-
    embodied carbon--where a low-embodied carbon solution was
    prohibitively expensive relative to a more standard solution,
    we wouldn't proceed with the IRA funding in that case. But to
    date, we have been able to utilize IRA funding and have
    actually over $1 billion of funding we look forward to
    utilizing moving forward for LPOEs and for courthouses.
        Ms. Friedman. Thank you very much.
        So, GSA's approach to reducing waste and construction costs
    has included a focus on energy efficiency in both existing
    Federal buildings and new construction. This has been the case
    for the past 30 years, through both Democratic and Republican
    Presidents and leadership. These projects are--like I
    mentioned--often undertaken as energy savings performance
    contracts, where the Federal funds are leveraged to attract
    private investment.
        Does GSA currently have any energy savings performance
    contracts in Federal courthouses?
        And how is GSA's contracting freeze impacting these
    projects?
        Mr. Peters. So, we do continue to utilize ESPCs. We have
    scrutinized and evaluated them on a case-by-case basis. I think
    your assessment is accurate that, in many cases in the past, we
    have been able to employ technology--you can call it green
    technology, you can call it energy-saving technology, whatever
    it is--we want to deliver the most value to taxpayers that we
    can, so we are not opposed to saving money.
        Now, we are opposed, if there is a low-cost alternative--
    perhaps natural gas that is the low-cost solution--we don't
    want to feel like we are obligated to put a solar panel on a
    roof if we have a lower cost solution for securing energy. But
    we are not prohibiting any type of energy sources in our
    projects going forward.
        I can't speak--I would be happy to get back to you on
    ESPCs, and courthouses in particular. We are certainly using
    ESPCs across the portfolio, though.
        Ms. Friedman. Thank you. I will move now to Judge Suddaby.
    Thanks again for being here.
        The judiciary has cited the need for heightened security at
    courthouses as a reason for revisiting the 2007 Design Guide.
    Obviously, we want everyone to be safe and secure in
    courthouses. Given ongoing security concerns, why did the
    judiciary not include the Federal Protective Service in the
    process of revising the design guideline?
        Judge Suddaby. Thank you for the question.
        We participated with our stakeholders, GSA, the Marshals
    Service, and FPS. FPS was consulted. FPS took the position that
    they weren't really involved in the Design Guide, they were
    responsible for the exterior of the courthouses, the courthouse
    proper, the properties. And certainly, going forward with any
    courthouse construction, we are going to be consulting with FPS
    to say, ``Where do you want to put cameras? How do you envision
    courthouse hardening projects?'' to make sure that that
    building is secure.
        Ms. Friedman. Thank you.
        Mr. Marroni, in 2013, GAO cited gross overestimates by the
    judiciary of projected additional judgeships, a refusal to
    share courtrooms, and courthouses constructed by the GSA that
    far exceed the congressionally approved square footage as
    reasons for the overruns.
        So, my question is, how has the implementation of
    courtroom-sharing requirements for bankruptcy, magistrate, and
    senior district judges impacted the judiciary's courthouse
    construction requests?
        Mr. Marroni. So, certainly, when you use courtroom sharing,
    it reduces the number of courtrooms you need to build in
    courthouses. So, that is going to have a positive effect on
    reducing the cost of construction. Courtroom sharing is a great
    way to maximize the utilization of your space.
        Ms. Friedman. Thank you, I yield back.
        Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the Representative, gentlelady.
    The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes of questioning.
    I guess I am going to start with Mr. Marroni here.
        Your most recent report said that the changes to the 2021
    Design Guide result in significant size and cost of future
    courthouses. And it seems to me--like, I think, if nothing
    else, we ought to just maybe question this process as the
    beginning here. You are working with the Conference Committee
    on Space and Facilities which Judge Suddaby, I guess, chairs.
    Do you see this as the appropriate methodology for determining
    what courthouses should be?
        I understand I am not a judge, so I am not in the chambers,
    I don't know what the needs are. I suspect you're not, either,
    so we would design a building differently. So we want that
    input, but is--are we asking the people to provide the input--
    are those the very people that are going to say, well, you need
    this and you don't need that? With all due respect, I mean, I
    would assume that they would advocate for the best for
    themselves--we all would--but is that the best for the
    taxpayer, and is that the most efficient and best way to do
    this, in your estimation, based on what you have seen?
        Mr. Marroni. So, I think it is important that judiciary
    establishes the requirements. As you say, they know best their
    needs. But I think, as part of that, it is important that they
    collaborate with GSA, with their partners, to get a sense of
    the real-world implications of this.
        I also think getting congressional oversight and other
    independent means to look at these Design Guide changes like we
    have done in this 2024 report is important because, yes, as--
    anyone, when you are looking at your needs, you are going to
    know what you need, but you are also--maybe you go for a little
    more than perhaps an independent observer would think you would
    need. So, having an independent source to look at it is
    important.
        Mr. Perry. So, just to follow that line of reasoning, that
    line of thought, who is the arbitrator? Who is the arbiter? Who
    is the honest broker--not to say that anybody is dishonest, but
    is it Congress? Is it this committee that provides all the
    oversight to what the--who else would it be? Who is it? Is it
    you?
        Mr. Marroni. It is not us. The primary oversight would be
    Congress, through the authorization process, as well as through
    the appropriations process. Judiciary, as a branch of
    Government, is setting its own requirements there----
        Mr. Perry [interrupting]. Okay, so----
        Mr. Marroni [continuing]. We certainly can help by
    providing reports, but we are not the primary.
        Mr. Perry. So, that having been said, in my opening
    statement, I mentioned the fact that the courthouse project
    assigned security 10 percent of the weighted score, while the
    courtroom and chamber needs make up 50 percent. Who determines
    that makeup, is it Judge Suddaby's group or--who--is it
    Congress? Who determines that?
        Because the claim is that this is all for security and
    safety, and I think we are all for that, whether you are a
    Democrat or Republican, but it clearly indicates that there are
    other forces that seem to take precedent over safety and
    security. The question is, who determines what that breakout is
    supposed to be?
        Mr. Marroni. So, I believe judiciary sets their
    requirements for the security and the other requirements for
    the courthouse.
        Mr. Perry. Does that not seem at least a little bit like
    the fox guarding the henhouse?
        Mr. Marroni. Well, I think it's a starting point to design.
    You need the customer to decide what the requirements are, but
    you do need some oversight of what's coming out of that.
        Mr. Perry. So, let me ask you this. We have got the 2021
    Design Guide, but we have also got the 2007 Design Guide. The
    committee has been informed that the courthouse in San Juan,
    Puerto Rico, would be designed to the 2007 standards, but may
    include elements from the 2021 standards. Those are the very
    elements that your organization, the GAO, claimed would
    increase cost and size.
        Why do we have two standards, and which one are we
    following, and why are we following--what is happening here?
        Mr. Marroni. So, my understanding there--and Judge Suddaby
    can correct me--but my understanding is they are using the 2007
    Design Guide and then incorporating cost-neutral elements from
    the 2021 guide, so, not circulation we are describing, they are
    including the cost-neutral elements. But Judge Suddaby may be
    able to----
        Mr. Perry [interrupting]. Okay, Judge, what do you say to
    that?
        Judge Suddaby. Yes, thank you.
        First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to assure you that the
    judiciary is not tone deaf with regard to your concerns.
        Now, based on criticism from GAO and this committee, we had
    a 5-year plan which was halted. And we went to the asset
    management program to rightsize courthouses, and we continue to
    do that. And we look for every opportunity to downsize courts.
    We are not looking to build bigger, more elaborate courthouses.
    We are trying to build secure courthouses that will last the
    cycle that GSA sets with 100-year building cycle.
        So, these things that--the 2007 Design Guide was in effect
    when Puerto Rico was authorized to go forward with their new
    construction based on their seismic retrofit concerns and the
    building being unsafe, therefore, the 2007 guide would be used.
    There have been no courthouses constructed or even designed
    under the 2021 Design Guide.
        So, cost-neutral things that can occur to improve the
    design and circulation patterns of that courthouse in Puerto
    Rico, that will be done as long as it is cost-neutral.
        Mr. Perry. Okay, thank you. My time has expired. The Chair
    now recognizes the Representative from Washington, DC, the
    Honorable Ms. Norton.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I support policies like the Courthouse Affordability and
    Space Efficiency Act that ensure cost-effectiveness and space
    efficiency, and require courtroom sharing. This subcommittee,
    including when I was chair, has worked over the past two
    decades to prevent Federal courthouse overbuilding and to save
    taxpayer dollars.
        The judiciary has a history of providing flawed projections
    for future courthouses, which has led to underutilized
    courtrooms across the Nation. This is why the Public Buildings
    Service must collaborate with the Judicial Conference on space
    efficiencies.
        Commissioner Peters, how does this administration plan to
    collaborate with the judiciary to effectively manage the design
    and construction of courthouse projects and implement
    courtroom-sharing policies?
        Mr. Peters. Thank you for the question, Representative
    Norton. That is a great question.
        One of the things that I was really surprised by when I
    first assumed this role was the lack of data we had not just
    about courtroom utilization, but really about utilization of
    Federal properties across our entire portfolio. One of the
    benefits that I had going for me was that, through the WRDA
    legislation which was passed, we were instructed to work with
    OMB to begin developing occupancy data across the portfolio.
    Actually, yesterday--last night, late last night, that data
    just started coming in, and that will really inform our
    decisionmaking on a go-forward basis across the Federal
    portfolio of which assets to dispose of and where to
    consolidate.
        With respect to the courts, we're really lacking in that
    type of data and don't have a good understanding of occupancy,
    going forward. The bills you referenced do call for--to begin
    developing utilization data in the courthouses, and I think
    that would be important data for all of us. But the courts,
    Congress, and us at GSA to identify where there are
    opportunities to increase utilization, where we have shortfalls
    and might need to consider adding additional space or adding
    additional courts.
        In terms of the courts' actual utilization of their
    facilities, that is really outside of GSA's control. That is a
    matter for the courts to assess. I would say it is our
    collective duty and Congress', for sure, to determine how to
    allocate the very scarce capital we have in an environment
    where we have almost $37 trillion in debt. We don't have a lot
    of excess funds. We don't even have enough funds to address the
    $8\1/2\ billion of deferred maintenance within the portfolio.
        So we need to be very judicious in building new courthouses
    and making certain that, when we do so, it is because there is
    a true need there, and putting a close eye to that.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you.
        Mr. Marroni, what steps can Congress take to work with the
    Public Buildings Service and the judiciary to ensure smart
    asset management for courthouses?
        Mr. Marroni. I think Congress needs to do things like this,
    these kind of hearings, ask tough questions during both the
    prospectus process and during appropriations to understand the
    basis for requests for funding for courthouse projects and have
    that independent look.
        Ms. Norton. Justice Suddaby, how can Members of Congress be
    assured that the planning of new courthouses is consistent with
    the actual needs of the judiciary?
        Judge Suddaby. The new courthouse AMP program, where we
    evaluate every year the needs for every court across this
    country--and it is called an urgency evaluation--to consider
    the courts' needs with regard to space, number of judges,
    number of courtrooms, number of chambers, as well as security
    concerns, all that is weighed and they are ranked. And we act
    on the ones that are most urgent at that time.
        We have a courthouse priorities list that--all of this came
    out of the stop work order by Congress with regard to
    courthouses on the 5-year plan, and reassessing how we looked
    at planning and constructing new courthouses.
        With regard to the overbuilding, again, the judiciary heard
    this committee and GAO's concerns, and projected judgeships are
    no longer part of the calculation that is done with regard to
    determining whether courthouses--the size of courthouses and
    how they are built. There is a 10-year window that we look at.
    If there are senior judges or judges who are active judges that
    are looking at taking senior within that 10-year period, the
    courthouse is appropriately built for that future expansion,
    but nothing else.
        So there are a number of things that the court does,
    continuing to look at our portfolio and make sure only the most
    urgent courts across the country are going to percolate up to
    the top of that list to get consideration, and we do that in
    conjunction with GSA to make sure that we are doing things
    appropriately. And, of course, they come to Congress with a
    prospectus. And all of this is put through the Space and
    Facilities Committee and the Judicial Conference for approval
    before it comes here to you for your appropriation approvals.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlelady. The Chair now
    turns to Representative Barrett.
        Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and apologies for not
    being here for your opening remarks, I was on my way across.
        But I did have a few questions for you, so if you have
    already answered them, please bear with me.
        I know we have talked a lot about courtroom sharing, and
    what effect that has on overbuilding or building to rightsize
    or the appropriate size of a courtroom. Can you give us any--
    either of you that have had insight into this, has there been
    any look at what percent of the time a courtroom is in use
    versus time that it is essentially dormant and not in use and
    could help facilitate that courtroom sharing?
        Judge Suddaby. I am happy to take the question.
        Courtroom sharing has been in place now since 2009 for both
    magistrate judges and senior judges, and then bankruptcy court
    judges since 2011. Any construction that goes forward includes
    those requirements.
        Mr. Barrett. Right.
        Judge Suddaby. And any buildout in an existing courthouse
    includes those elements.
        Now, the courtrooms----
        Mr. Barrett [interrupting]. We have got a lot of legacy
    courtrooms that aren't under that condition, right? Because
    they haven't been built or updated since then. And if we look--
    and not to interrupt you or cut you off, but if we look
    retrospectively, do we do any analysis of what percent of the
    time--and this is just an oversimplification of my own, kind
    of, understanding of this, is that most cases end up not going
    to a full trial, with a jury and everything else.
        I am sure the courtrooms are used for other proceedings
    along the way, but the--like the stuff you see on ``Law &
    Order'' is less likely to happen in real life with dramatic
    jury trials and everything else, thereby probably offloading
    some of the need for courtrooms that are fairly dormant most of
    the time. Is that accurate?
        Judge Suddaby. I would say it's not accurate.
        Mr. Barrett. Okay.
        Judge Suddaby. There is a reason for judges having access
    to courtrooms, and that is an important tool to get their
    docket or their cases moved. They have to handle emergency
    motions, they have to do trials that require Speedy Trial Act
    concerns. And active district court judges in this country are
    among the most busy judges in this Nation, and they have to
    have a courtroom accessible to them.
        Now, is that courtroom used every day, 8 o'clock to 5
    o'clock in the afternoon? No, not always. It depends on what's
    going on. But certainly, that access and the ability to be in
    there is what gives them the ability to do their jobs. And the
    courtroom-sharing policies that the Judicial Conference
    continues to look at and refine consider these things, and we
    work on them consistently to make sure that we are sharing
    where appropriate, but making sure that judges have courtrooms
    to do their work.
        Mr. Barrett. And I think, if you look at some of how we do
    our work here, I mean, this committee hearing room is used for
    the full committee, it is used for each of the subcommittees,
    we share this space, and if you were to look at our committee
    today, there are fewer Members than the full committee, and you
    would say maybe we are overbuilt in this room. But when the
    full committee is assembled and we are doing a markup,
    obviously, we are rightsized for that situation.
        I just want to make sure that what we are doing is the
    appropriate use of resources that we have, and the escalation
    dramatically of building costs over time has made it such that
    we have to be far more mindful about the capital expense of
    things, everything from building materials to labor to siting
    approval to engineering design. All of that has become far more
    expensive over time, and it ends up coming out of, certainly,
    the appropriations that come from the Congress.
        Another question I had for you, do we own every Federal
    courthouse? Does the Federal Government own, or do we rent any
    space currently?
        Judge Suddaby. There are some leased courthouses.
        Mr. Barrett. Okay.
        Judge Suddaby. And that is a decision that is made in
    conjunction with GSA, that it is more cost-efficient and
    effective and timely to build--or have a lease-build done in a
    particular area, a lot of times often rural or remote regions
    of the country, where constructing a Federal building just does
    not make good economic sense. So there are a few leased
    buildings. And, of course, we have other leases for different
    court units. Probation and pretrial services often are in
    leased spaces. Federal defenders' offices are typically in
    leased spaces.
        Mr. Barrett. Okay, thank you.
        And thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair now
    recognizes Representative Figures.
        Mr. Figures. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all the
    witnesses for being here today, and thank you to your
    respective teams for getting you guys prepared here. I don't
    know if a law clerk--when I was a law clerk, congressional
    testimony preparation wasn't exactly within the job
    description, so I want to give a special thanks to you guys.
        Judge Suddaby, I want to start with you. Can you just talk
    about and highlight the importance--I have been a Federal law
    clerk myself, I worked at the Department of Justice--can you
    talk about the importance in all of this to making sure that
    prioritizing judicial security remains the, sort of, North Star
    in all of these design changes and all of the construction
    assessments that we are doing, that we don't lose sight of the
    ball of making sure that we are asking our judges and our court
    personnel and officers and witnesses and all of those who are
    participating in courthouse proceedings, that they are in as
    safe as possible position that they can possibly be?
        Judge Suddaby. Yes, thank you. The Design Guide revision
    was--a lot of the impetus for that was on that particular
    concern: security. And it is a major concern in all
    construction.
        The three pathways of circulation: secure for in-custody
    persons in law enforcement, the Marshals Service transporting
    people into our courts; restricted areas for judges and staff;
    and obviously, the open public corridors--in many of our older
    courthouses, those pathways do not exist. These are from
    lessons learned, things like building sally ports for the
    appropriate transportation and security of in-custody persons,
    secure parking, all of these things are incorporated in the
    Design Guide. And, again, we worked cooperatively with GSA to
    make sure those issues are addressed.
        One of the things that drove the size concerns of GAO--and
    we thank them for their analysis--is making sure that those
    corridors existed and didn't impinge on the other areas of the
    courthouse design. So, certainly, again, it is not our
    intention to build bigger or more opulent courthouses. Secure,
    efficient courthouses that will stand for decades and allow for
    reasonable growth without overbuilding is what we are
    attempting to do.
        Mr. Figures. And I want to shift focus a little bit to our
    more rural areas, satellite offices as they are commonly
    referred to. I come from Alabama. Mobile and Montgomery are
    both respective, sort of, judicial district seats, Montgomery
    being the middle district, Mobile being the southern district.
    They both have satellite offices. And those satellite offices
    historically--as I am sure you can relate to, Judge--they have
    historically been the red-headed stepchild when it comes to
    investments in terms of construction, redesign, upgrades,
    renovations, that sort of thing.
        So, as we go through this process, can you talk to me--Mr.
    Peters, I will direct this one to you, but anyone who wants to
    take a stab at it--of what we can do to prioritize making sure
    that those satellite offices don't fall behind the curve in
    this and don't get unnecessarily cut.
        Mr. Peters. I appreciate the question. I actually was born
    in Alabama many moons ago.
        Mr. Figures. Well, here is the question: Roll Tide or War
    Eagle?
        Mr. Peters. Well, I grew up in Florida.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Figures. There is only one right answer.
        Mr. Peters. There is no good answer there, so--but that is
    a great question.
        I mean, we have a great partnership with the courts and
    work with them. I have met with Judge Suddaby on more than one
    occasion before this, and they really set the priority in terms
    of which projects get prioritization, both for new construction
    as well as dealing with deferred maintenance in our facilities.
        And you are right, there are a lot of courthouses,
    particularly some of these stepchildren, but even here within
    the District, that are neglected, right? Of our $24 billion in
    deferred maintenance across GSA, over $8 billion of that is
    just within the courts. And those are--they are not nice-to-
    haves, they are critical needs that need to be addressed, and
    we are working with you to deal with that. So----
        Mr. Figures [interrupting]. Right. And I don't want to cut
    you off, I've got one more----
        Mr. Peters [interposing]. Go ahead.
        Mr. Figures [continuing]. Question I want to squeeze in.
        Throughout the DOGE process, there were numerous Federal
    facilities that were listed for sale, Federal property that was
    listed for sale, and in some cases, this was shared space
    between Federal courthouses and maybe a nonjudicial space. Were
    any of you guys consulted in your roles with any of the
    proposed cuts?
        And the reason I ask this is because there was courthouse
    space in one of my areas that was very valuable and vital
    parking that, without it--they don't build parking decks
    underground in Mobile, Alabama, for hurricanes and sea-level
    issues--without it, employees will be in a tough spot.
        So, A, I want to work with you guys to hopefully try to
    resolve those issues; but B, I just want to know if any of you
    guys were consulted in the, sort of, listing of Federal
    property as it related to shared space with Federal courts
    throughout the DOGE process.
        Mr. Peters. If you don't mind, I will answer that first,
    and then I will let the judge comment.
        The list that we published initially was--there were two
    purposes. Primarily, it was to identify core assets which we
    view as, basically, untouchable assets. They should be owned by
    the Federal Government in perpetuity. There were other assets
    that didn't fall under that category that got listed as
    noncore. Probably not the best name. That was not meant to
    imply that those assets are for sale or that we are trying to
    market them, it was meant to imply that we want to evaluate
    them and assess their importance to the Federal Government
    based on how utilized they are, what level of deferred
    maintenance is in them currently, could the existing tenants be
    moved into another facility. So, probably poor communication on
    our part.
        I will say that the policy we have in place now, whether it
    relates to a potential lease termination or disposing of a
    building, is to first identify it, then contact the agency for
    which it would be relevant to get their input on that decision.
    If the agency is in agreement--in this case, the courts--that,
    hey, this is an asset we could dispose of, then to reach out to
    Congress and the relevant Members of the House and the Senate
    to make certain that they are aware before we take any action.
        But we probably did move a little too quickly in our first
    month here, and we have changed our procedures at this point.
        Mr. Figures. Thank you. I am well over my time. I
    appreciate it, Chair.
        Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The Chair now
    recognizes the gentleman, Mr. Onder.
        Dr. Onder. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
    witnesses for being here today.
        Mr. Peters--and again, I apologize, excuse me if any of my
    questions have been asked previously--but what tools does the
    GSA have to push back when the judiciary proposes a building
    project, a courthouse that appears to be oversized or
    misaligned with the actual usage? What tools are at your
    disposal, and what's usually the outcome?
        Mr. Peters. Yes, so I guess, as I mentioned earlier, I
    think we really have been developing a collaborative
    relationship with the judiciary--but it's in the context of
    what we spoke of earlier, massive Federal debt, tight budget.
    We just have limited funds.
        Many of these projects are clearly useful, not just within
    judiciary, elsewhere. But just because it's useful doesn't mean
    we can afford it. And----
        Dr. Onder [interposing]. Right.
        Mr. Peters [continuing]. So, what we are working to do is
    to develop a better process of assessing need, and I think we
    would like to work collaboratively with the judiciary and
    Congress on--one of the things that was mentioned earlier is
    utilization. Because right now, we are gathering that data
    outside of the judiciary, but we don't have it collectively. If
    they have it, I am unaware of it. Just think about, like, how
    often are these courtrooms occupied? And I don't know what the
    ultimate standard should be, but let's work together to assess
    that so that we can make informed decisions about where do we
    spend our limited capital dollars either improving and
    upgrading an existing facility or investing in it, in a new
    courthouse.
        But our tools are really--we are kind of instructed what to
    build, and Congress appropriates the funds and says, ``Go build
    this courthouse,'' and then we try to do that as cost-
    effectively as we can. But we don't ultimately determine the
    design standards.
        Dr. Onder. Right. So, yes, you touched on something I did
    want to ask. Does the GSA verify whether the new courthouses
    are actually being fully utilized once they are built?
        Mr. Peters. So, I have to admit we do not.
        Dr. Onder. Yes.
        Mr. Peters. I--that--at least historically, that has not
    been our role.
        Like I say, I would welcome the opportunity to work
    together to determine how utilized they are----
        Dr. Onder [interposing]. Sure.
        Mr. Peters [continuing]. To determine how necessary they
    are.
        Dr. Onder. And Judge, do you care to comment?
        Judge Suddaby. Yes, thank you.
        Well, any part of the Design Guide that would deviate, any
    construction deviation, would have to be approved by the
    Judicial Conference, and then it would have to go through the
    process as an exception with GSA. They would then have to
    include it in the prospectus that would be sent over here for
    congressional approval. So, to say that we are looking at
    overbuilding or doing extravagant things, that is not what this
    is about. And that's not what we are doing.
        As far as courtroom usage, there is a separate Judicial
    Conference committee, the CACM Committee, Court Administration
    and Case Management, that has been looking and analyzing this
    issue for a number of years which led, in conjunction with
    feedback from this subcommittee, to courtroom sharing that we
    have now.
        The determination about the way courtrooms are used by
    active district court judges, as I indicated previously, we use
    our space differently. And the fact that a courtroom may be
    empty for a period of time does not mean that that courtroom is
    not being put to use by a judge moving his docket, settling
    cases, being ready to handle emergency motions, or anything
    else.
        So, those types of decisions the Judicial Conference makes
    by informed information coming back from the judges across the
    country.
        Dr. Onder. Okay, very good.
        And Mr. Marroni, the GAO found that many courthouses are
    underutilized, with more space than needed. Has there been any
    measurable improvement since your last audit?
        And are there any reforms you would recommend to rein in
    courthouse proposals that you might deem oversized?
        Mr. Marroni. So, our last look at this was in 2010, so,
    quite some time ago. I don't have current data on the
    utilization.
        I do think the adoption of courtroom sharing has been an
    important step. I think that is worth looking further at. And I
    do agree with Commissioner Peters. The extent that there can be
    data, it sounds like judiciary may have some of that data to
    look at--how are these spaces being used, could there be more
    courtroom sharing, are there methods to increase utilization--
    is worthwhile.
        Dr. Onder. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman from Missouri.
    Are there any further questions?
        Looking around the room, I apologize. The change in
    schedule, unfortunately, oftentimes results in--we have other
    things that are layered on top of these hearings, and I would
    like to have the luxury of other Members being here to ask more
    questions, but we simply don't have them, because I am sure
    they are busy doing other things that comport with their
    schedule before it was kind of upended this morning.
        I do have one, kind of, final question as an overall theme
    here regarding utilization--occupancy, if you will, or
    utilization maybe is the better term. Who is collecting that
    information right now? Is there any ongoing collection?
        And I imagine, differently from some other Federal
    facility, where we are looking for occupancy, it seems to me
    that the court has a very unique circumstance where they might
    have a competing interest in the same room, or something like
    that, so we would have to identify that as a specific category
    to capture. But is anyone doing that? Who should be doing it?
    Who is best suited to do it?
        Judge Suddaby. It is being done, and it's done by the
    Judicial Conference committee that I just mentioned. We refer
    to it as CACM. And the recommendations of this subcommittee to
    the judiciary led to courtroom sharing in the areas that we
    thought were appropriate. And those utilization factors are the
    ongoing study.
        But as I have indicated, the use is so unique and
    different----
        Mr. Perry [interposing]. We understand.
        Judge Suddaby [continuing]. To any other public----
        Mr. Perry [interrupting]. And we are not----
        Judge Suddaby [continuing]. You know, public space----
        Mr. Perry [interrupting]. We are not here to challenge
    that, but we need to have the data.
        In talking to both of you, or all three of you, regarding
    Congress' role in oversight, we can't do a good job at that, or
    an adequate job, if we don't have the information.
        So, there is a study that is ongoing. Is it just a
    continual study, or is there going to be some end to it that we
    receive a report? How will we know--or can we just tap into
    that information at any time and get utilization rates for this
    courtroom or that courtroom and this courthouse, this is how
    many times somebody was in this one when somebody else needed
    to use it--how is that all----
        Judge Suddaby [interposing]. Yes.
        Mr. Perry [continuing]. Meted out at this point?
        Judge Suddaby. The CACM Committee, again, is the one would
    be responsible for that, and we can certainly ask them if they
    have those sort of statistics and numbers.
        Mr. Chairman, for example, I just turned senior this past
    year as a district court judge. In my entire career, I have
    never had a single courtroom that I was assigned to. I have
    shared courtrooms with other senior judges and other active
    judges, because I am in a Federal office building with
    courtrooms that are available throughout the building.
        So, we make do with what we have, and do it effectively and
    efficiently, I think. But certainly, the way that the
    courtrooms are used, I think there is a lack of an appreciation
    of how critical it is to have that availability. And certainly,
    the judiciary is always looking for ways to maximize the usage,
    minimize more space, and give back space when we can. And those
    programs that I mentioned, those tools that we have been doing,
    are continuing all the time.
        So, the answer you are looking for, we will approach the
    CACM Committee, see what information they have, and see if we
    can provide that information back to this committee, what they
    have, sir.
        Mr. Perry. Well, the Chair thanks the judge and thanks the
    gentleman for that. And understand, regardless of whether the
    questions come from myself or other Members here, we are having
    this hearing so that we can formulate appropriate public
    policy, and so, we are seeking information. It would be, I
    think, derelict if we were to make those decisions without
    having the correct input. And I don't think you would like the
    outcome of that, either.
        So, it would be better to have the input----
        Judge Suddaby [interposing]. I see.
        Mr. Perry [continuing]. So that we can make decisions.
        Whether I think that the majority of the consideration
    should be on security as opposed to how the courtroom is
    structured or whatever, that's one person's opinion. But I
    think we all need the information so that we can do the job
    that we are tasked to do. That is the purpose for this hearing.
        And so, I am asking you that question so that we get the
    information, because if we are not going to get the
    information, or we are not knowing when we are going to get the
    information, then I suspect this body is going to move to say:
    you are going to provide this information this way by this time
    so we can make a decision. All right? So that is the reason for
    the question.
        Judge Suddaby. Understood, sir. I didn't take exception to
    that.
        Mr. Perry. Yes, all right.
        Judge Suddaby. We will try and get you the information and
    get back.
        And if I can make just one last comment with regard to the
    cost for space, in our own self-interest in these tough budget
    times which the judiciary recognizes, rent is one of our
    biggest must-pays. And when it comes to an extra conference
    room or some other type of space within a courthouse,
    certainly, we want to be able to keep staff. And when it comes
    to a decision between space and personnel to do the work, we
    are always going to lean towards personnel.
        So, it's in our self-interest to examine our space and make
    sure that we are rightsized and efficient, and optimize the use
    of our space so we can keep not only the lights on, but the----
        Mr. Perry [interposing]. Yes, sure.
        Judge Suddaby [continuing]. People that we need to do the
    job in place.
        Mr. Perry. And we understand that you care for your people.
    We do, as well, whether we are on different sides of the aisle.
    I am sure that Ms. Norton and I both agree that a functioning
    judiciary is critical to our society and the things that we
    have, the great things that we have in this country. We expect
    you to advocate for the things that are important to you. We
    have to be, kind of, the referees in this thing to determine
    the right thing is being done.
        With that, unfortunately, because we have no other Members
    to ask questions, this concludes our hearing for the day. I
    would like to thank each of the witnesses for your testimony
    and for your time and your patience here today.
        This subcommittee now stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:03 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                   Appendix

                                  ----------

          Question to David Marroni, Director, Physical Infrastruc-
           ture,  U.S. Government Accountability Office,  from Hon.
           Dina Titus

        Question 1. The judiciary created an Asset Management Planning
    (AMP) process to prioritize construction projects. In 2022, the
    Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the judiciary's asset
    management process for ranking courthouses was not entirely transparent
    or objective. For example, GAO reported that the methodology the
    judiciary used to score courthouses would prioritize larger courthouses
    over smaller ones.
        Since that report was published, what steps has the judiciary taken
    to improve its Asset Management Planning process? In your view, are
    those steps sufficient?
        Answer: In our 2022 report, we recommended approaches for the
    judiciary's Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) to refine
    its scoring process to improve the objectivity and transparency of the
    results.\1\ AOUSC has taken some actions to implement these approaches,
    but one of our three recommendations remains open.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ GAO, Federal Courthouse Construction: Judiciary Should Refine
    Its Methods for Determining Which Projects Are Most Urgent, GAO-22-
    104034 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 5, 2025).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Recommendation 1 (Closed): In 2022, we found that the
    judiciary did not always update assessment scores, when appropriate, to
    reflect major changes in courthouses' operating status. For example, a
    hurricane destroyed one courthouse in 2018, and another had a mold
    problem. We found that the judiciary did not update these courthouses'
    assessment scores, an update that would have had an important effect on
    the urgency ratings--a later part of the AMP process. By updating
    courthouse assessment scores to reflect major changes in operating
    status, the judiciary can provide more accurate and reliable
    information to decision-makers. We recommended that AOUSC update
    assessment scores, as appropriate, to reflect major changes in a
    courthouse's operating status.

           In February 2025, AOUSC provided us with documentation
    demonstrating that it had taken steps to help ensure that urgency
    ratings accurately reflect major changes in courthouses' operating
    status. Specifically, when a courthouse's operating status changes to
    uninhabitable or permanently closed, AOUSC immediately enters the
    change in operating status and its associated supporting documentation
    into the AMP database. The changes in the database populate the Urgency
    Evaluation Results List, preventing AOUSC from including non-
    operational courthouses in urgency ratings. Additionally, AOUSC
    completes a summary document--with the courthouses that AOUSC has added
    and removed from the Urgency Evaluation Results List, along with an
    accompanying explanation--and publishes it annually. AOUSC distributes
    the Urgency Evaluation Results List and summary to judiciary decision-
    makers for their consideration in approving and funding construction
    projects. By taking these steps, the AOUSC is better positioned to help
    ensure that decision-makers have access to more accurate and reliable
    information on courthouses that experience major changes in operation
    status, which meets the intent of our recommendation.

          Recommendation 2 (Open): In our 2022 report, we noted
    that the AMP evaluation process has three main parts: a courthouse
    assessment, a citywide assessment, and an urgency evaluation rating for
    its courthouse needs. We found that elements of the AMP scoring
    methodology could amplify or diminish the scores of certain courthouses
    and cities in ways that were not always transparent. As a result, the
    scoring methodology was not clearly aligned to the AMP evaluation goal
    of conducting an objective and consistent evaluation. For example, our
    analysis indicated that some of the courthouses with the most
    significant needs nationwide had their citywide scores, and part of
    their urgency ratings, diluted because their city had other courthouses
    that were in better condition. We recommended that AOUSC evaluate the
    AMP's scoring methodology's three-part process, to ensure its effects
    align to the AMP's goals and are made transparent to judiciary
    decision-makers, and make revisions where needed.

           As of January 2024, AOUSC officials stated that they had begun
    an analysis of the AMP's scoring methodology's three-part process to
    ensure its effects align to the AMP's goals and are transparent to
    judiciary decision-makers. Officials further stated they would describe
    this analysis in a memo AOUSC was developing. Once received, we will
    review the documentation and determine if it addresses the
    recommendation.

          Recommendation 3 (Closed): In our 2022 report, we found
    that the scoring methodology sets a cap or limit that is the maximum
    number or score a city can get for each of four rating components.
    Setting caps is an important decision because a city's need can appear
    more or less urgent depending on where the judiciary sets the cap for
    the rating calculation. However, judiciary officials acknowledged that
    they did not have formal or documented criteria for determining where
    to set caps. Further, officials said they set a cap by observing the
    highest calculated needs and placed a cap where natural breaks in the
    data began to occur.

           Without a consistent, transparent process for placing caps,
    there was no guarantee that the judiciary could consistently and
    objectively rank the order of cities' needs. This could lead the
    judiciary to inadvertently recommend courthouses for construction
    projects that are not actually those with the most urgent needs.
    Therefore, we recommended that the AOUSC better document for judiciary
    decision-makers the criteria the judiciary applies for the placement of
    caps.

           In August 2022, we confirmed several actions taken by AOUSC to
    document the criteria for setting caps. AOUSC established an Asset
    Management Planning Process Handbook that described the rating
    methodology for the urgency evaluation and made clear the purpose of
    setting caps each year. Specifically, the handbook described that AOUSC
    would use natural breaks in the data for cap criterion and address
    outlier values as to not skew the overall urgency rankings. To that
    end, the handbook made clear that locations with values at or above the
    cap for each criterion would receive ``full credit'' for the maximum
    allowable value for that criterion. In addition, all other locations
    would receive credit in relation to the cap value and a percentage of
    the urgency evaluation's model weight for that criterion. Within the
    handbook, AOUSC documented and communicated the criteria to the
    judiciary's decision-makers. The AOUSC's actions make the AMP's process
    for setting caps more consistent and transparent, which meets the
    intent of our recommendation.

        Questions to Michael Peters, Commissioner, Public Buildings
         Service,  U.S. General Services Administration,  from Hon.
         Dina Titus

        Question 1. According to Assistant Commissioner for Facilities
    Management Andrew Heller, the Public Buildings Service intends to
    eliminate 3,557 positions through a nonvoluntary Reduction in Force
    (RIF). That is 63 percent of the Public Buildings Service's total
    workforce.
        Question 1.a. How will staff reductions at the Public Buildings
    Service impact GSA's operation of court facilities?
        Question 1.b. How have staff reductions impacted GSA's ability to
    deliver courthouses currently under construction?
        Answer to 1.a. & 1.b.: GSA is adapting to workforce changes by
    continuing to identify and address operational challenges, including
    with our court facilities. GSA is strategically reallocating resources,
    where appropriate, to meet our customer agencies' evolving needs and
    maintain safe, fully functional spaces for our tenants.
        Through a comprehensive analysis of our construction and repair and
    alteration projects, GSA is diligently working to ensure these projects
    have the necessary project management coverage and oversight. GSA
    employees are focused on supporting our customer agencies and providing
    the best value for the American taxpayer.

        Question 2. Through its Fine Arts Program, GSA maintains one of the
    oldest and largest public arts collections in the United States. The
    civic artworks in the collection date back to the 1850s and are
    displayed in federal buildings and courthouses across the United
    States. In Las Vegas, the Lloyd D. George U.S. Courthouse features
    ``Eldorado,'' a stunning landscape of the desert by Brent Thomson
    commissioned by GSA in 2000, among other works that illustrate Southern
    Nevada's unique beauty. Last month, I led other members of the
    Congressional Arts Caucus in a letter to the GSA expressing concerns
    about reports that over half of the GSA Fine Arts Program staff had
    been terminated. The letter demands answers on how GSA will maintain
    those invaluable works.
        Question 2.a. As GSA works to shrink the size of the federal real
    estate portfolio and dispose of public buildings, what is happening to
    this art?
        Answer: As buildings are considered for disposal, the GSA Center
    for Fine Arts will assess the artwork to determine the most appropriate
    course of action. Some pieces may remain in place with protective
    covenants, while others may be removed and relocated to other federal
    buildings or loaned to museums or nonprofit institutions. In some
    cases--such as when artwork is considered part of the real property and
    conveyed with the building--GSA may choose to reallocate the artwork.

        Question 2.b. How are you working with your colleagues at GSA to
    ensure that it is taken care of and accounted for?
        Answer: The GSA Center for Fine Arts continues carrying out its
    responsibility to care for over 26,000 artworks in the Fine Arts
    Collection. The Fine Arts staff use a database and application called
    The Museum System, known as TMS, as the primary tool to manage GSA's
    art collection. The history of each object, its current location and
    condition, and any needed actions such as protection during
    construction or conservation, are tracked in TMS. TMS is a commercially
    available collections management software and is used by museums
    internationally.
        TMS also allows non-art program GSA staff in the field to view past
    inspection forms and to generate new inspection forms. For the next
    biennial inspection in 2026, the Fine Arts staff will rely on and
    coordinate with non-art program GSA staff in the field to confirm
    artwork location, take photos, note artwork condition, and flag
    critical issues for Fine Arts staff to address.
        In addition to artworks installed in GSA-owned facilities, the GSA
    Center for Fine Arts routinely updates the inventory and renews or
    initiates loan agreements with institutions. The TMS database is
    critical to managing the loan program, which accounts for almost 24,000
    artworks in the collection.

                                      [all]