[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 89 (Tuesday, July 12, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 12, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                       NOMINATION OF JUDGE BREYER

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I intend to make a very brief statement.
  Mr. President, this morning the Senate Judiciary Committee began 
holding hearings on the nomination of Judge Steven Breyer to be 
Associate Justice on the Supreme Court. I am hopeful that those 
proceedings will shed light on the record of Judge Breyer in the effort 
to fill this extremely important Supreme Court position with the best 
possible person.
  The position of Associate Justice on our country's highest court is 
one that requires the complete public trust. The American people must 
have full faith and confidence in the Judiciary. I hope that Judge 
Breyer will be able to further the public's trust in these 
institutions.
  Mr. President, there have been very serious charges raised regarding 
the appropriate use of taxpayer dollars for the construction of the 
Boston Courthouse. According to published reports, Judge Breyer 
personally played an active role in the design and site selection 
processes for this facility.
  Mr. President, the cost of this extravagant courthouse continues to 
skyrocket. The courthouse was originally estimated to cost $163 
million. However, due to cost overruns and other costs the taxpayers 
will now be paying $218 million for this Taj Mahal.
  Additionally, architectural fees for the design of this shrine--
originally budgeted at $8,633,000--have now exceeded $11 million. And 
unfortunately, we have no idea when the cost overruns will end.
  These reports also have listed the following proposed expenditures: A 
six story atrium; 63 private bathrooms; 37 different law libraries; 33 
private kitchens; custom-designed private staircases; $450,000 for a 
boat dock; $789,000 for original artwork; and $1.5 million for a 
floating marina with custom-made park benches, garbage cans, and street 
lights, and a 2.6-acre park.
  I am concerned about how the taxpayers' money is being spent. Those 
responsible for public expenditures must be held accountable for their 
actions. Those who spend that money in a fashion that is not 
appropriate or that is called into question must be forthcoming in 
explaining their actions. Judge Breyer was the individual--or client--
responsible for this project. That is why we must now ask these 
questions of Mr. Breyer.
  Yesterday, I wrote to Judge Breyer asking him specific questions 
regarding the Boston Courthouse. Answering these questions in a 
forthcoming manner is crucial so that the Senate may consider this 
serious matter in the advise-and-consent process.
  Mr. President, I do not in any way raise this issue to impugn Judge 
Breyer. I am not a member of the Judiciary Committee and therefore 
cannot ask questions of him directly during his confirmation hearing. 
But I do believe that the many questions surrounding the Boston 
Courthouse and Judge Breyer's role in designing that building and 
selecting this site must be fully and publicly aired. Anything less 
would be wrong and an abdication of our responsibilities.
  Good judgment and discretion are indispensable assets to a Supreme 
Court Justice. We have an obligation to examine Judge Breyer's record 
and to determine if he has exercised good judgment not only in his 
judicial decisions, but in his administrative duties.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter I sent to 
Judge Breyer be printed in the Record. I am hopeful that Judge Breyer 
will soon clarify the concerns surrounding this subject.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                                    July 11, 1994.
     Hon. Steven Breyer,
     U.S. Federal Courthouse, Boston, MA.
       Dear Judge Breyer: As you may know, I have been working to 
     ensure that federal dollars spent on building projects are 
     being used in the most cost efficient manner possible. As 
     such, I have become very concerned about waste and 
     extravagance at the new Boston Courthouse.
       I would appreciate it if you would explain to me exactly 
     what has transpired to date regarding the design and site 
     selection of the Boston Courthouse. In your explanation, I 
     would appreciate it is you would please answer the following 
     questions:
       1. What specifically was your role in the site selection 
     and procurement of such site for the Boston Courthouse?
       2. According to reports, the site chosen by a panel chaired 
     by you originally ranked 11th out of 12 prospective sites, 
     but that by the end of the process it ranked first. Is this 
     accurate? What was your rationale for choosing the Fan Pier 
     site over the other more highly rated sites studied?
       3. According to the Washington Times, in 1989 the Boston 
     Redevelopment Authority finished a study saying the city's 
     crowded federal courthouse would be cheaper to relocate than 
     to expand. The study listed four acceptable sites for a new 
     courthouse, and ranked them by feasibility. The Fan Pier 
     site--later selected by you--was rejected. Please comment, in 
     light of other studies, why you selected the Fan Pier site.
       4. In many cases when courthouses are built, sites are 
     chosen that are already owned by the Federal government or 
     that are owned by municipalities that are willing to deed the 
     sites to the federal government at no cost. For example, the 
     City of Phoenix recently donated land to the federal 
     government for the proposed new Phoenix Courthouse. Noting 
     the fact that the federal debt is looming near $4 
     trillion, what was the rationale for choosing a site that 
     cost $34 million?
       5. According to documents supplied to me by the General 
     Services Administration, one of the risks of not proceeding 
     with the Boston Courthouse is that GSA has already spent $34 
     million for the site and $13 million for design. I am very 
     concerned that $47 million has already been spent on this 
     project in a manner which makes it virtually impossible to 
     build a courthouse on a site which would result in savings to 
     the taxpayer. GSA documents reflect the fact that the court, 
     referred to in their documents as the ``client,'' is strongly 
     pushing for the project to move forward as planned. Please 
     comment on your role in this matter noting specifically what 
     purchases or expenditures you may have personally approved or 
     with which you were involved.
       6. According to published reports, you have personally 
     interviewed architects and played an active role in the 
     design process for the Boston Courthouse. Accordingly, please 
     comment on the need for and prudency of the following 
     proposed expenditures which have been noted by the media: A 
     six story atrium; 63 private bathrooms; 37 different law 
     libraries; 33 private kitchens; custom designed private 
     staircase; $450,000 for a boat dock; $789,000 for original 
     artwork; and $1.5 million dollars for a floating marina with 
     custom-made park benches.
       7. GSA has stated that there is no leased space available 
     in Boston that meets the client's needs. Why does the court 
     believe that no site other than the one chosen will meet its 
     needs? Please note with specifically the needs that the court 
     believe must be met.
       According to reports published in the Washington Times, you 
     would not comment on this matter publicly because ``you have 
     not been giving any interviews or commenting while [the] 
     confirmation process is ongoing.''
       As I know you can appreciate, the Senate has a 
     Constitutional duty to advise and consent regarding certain 
     nominations made by the President. I believe, therefore, it 
     is crucial for the Senate to receive, as soon as possible, a 
     full and public accounting on this issue and your role in 
     developing the plans for the Boston Courthouse.
       In advance, I thank you for your cooperation.
           Sincerely,
                                                      John McCain,
                                                     U.S. Senator.

  Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.

                          ____________________