[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.
____________________