[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 14 (Wednesday, February 8, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E103-E104]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      INTRODUCING H.R. 4710, THE JUDICIARY RENT REFORM ACT OF 2006

                                 ______
                                 

                    HON. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR.

                              of wisconsin

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, February 8, 2006

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce H.R. 4710, 
the ``Judiciary Rent Reform Act of 2006.'' The purpose of this 
legislation is to ensure the rent paid by the Federal judiciary is 
rationally and equitably related to the actual costs of providing their 
facilities.
  It may shock Members to learn that this is not the case nor has it 
been for some time. In fact, the Federal judiciary pays the General 
Services Administration (GSA) hundreds of millions of dollars more each 
year than the actual costs of maintaining and operating buildings. 
Chief Justice Roberts has characterized this practice as resulting in 
the judiciary being used ``as a profit center for GSA.''
  By law, GSA is authorized to establish the rent to be paid by the 
judiciary. GSA's rates are supposed to approximate commercially 
equivalent rates. Their charges are not subject to negotiation.
  Since 1986, the judiciary's annual rent payments to GSA have 
increased from $133 million to almost $920 million. As a percentage of 
the judiciary's operating budget, these payments have climbed from 15.7 
percent to 20 percent. In contrast, rent for executive branch agencies 
averages less than one percent of their budgets and no department is 
charged more than 3 percent.
  To cope with soaring GSA rent payments, the courts have been 
compelled to make difficult choices, including a decision over 18 
months to reduce employee ranks by 1,850 positions--a full 8 percent of 
on board staffing levels.
  Consider the irony: the staffing required by the Judiciary Branch is 
compromised because the Executive Branch charges our courts too much 
for rent.
  In the absence of a swift Congressional response to redress this 
imbalance, there is little doubt that the continued budgetary 
pressures, which will result from constantly rising rental costs, will 
cause the loss of even more court personnel.
  The administration of justice should not be compromised because our 
courts are denied the ability to contain their rental costs. The 
judiciary has taken available action to reign in these expenses, 
including adopting a 24-month moratorium on new construction and 
requesting rent relief from GSA. To date though, GSA has refused to 
work with the courts in any meaningful way to find a solution.
  As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I believe Congress has a duty 
to act to ensure the fair, efficient, and equitable adjudication of all 
legitimate issues brought before the courts. The use of the courts as a 
``profit center'' can no longer be tolerated.
  The bill I am introducing today will put an end to this practice by 
replacing the ``commercially-equivalent'' rent calculation that GSA has 
used with a requirement that the courts pay only for the actual 
operating expenses incurred in providing space. This simple change will 
result in a dramatic savings in the judiciary's rent expense.
  This change will also give the judiciary needed flexibility, 
accountability, and responsibility for balancing the requirements 
imposed by their capital costs, personnel, and nonsalary expenses.
  The courts are best positioned to know whether the administration of 
justice will benefit more by hiring new personnel than by constructing 
a new courthouse or renovating an older one. Our courts should be 
empowered to make the decision that is in the public interest and that 
is most likely to enhance their ability to adjudicate and resolve 
cases.
  In his inaugural year-end report on the Federal judiciary, Chief 
Justice Roberts addressed this issue directly:

       The disparity between the judiciary's rent and that of 
     other government agencies, and between the cost to GSA of 
     providing space and the amount charged to the judiciary, is 
     unfair . . . [and] the judiciary must . . . find a long-term 
     solution to the problem of ever-increasing rent payments that 
     drain resources needed for the courts to fulfill their vital 
     mission.

  Mr. Speaker, the solution is for Congress to enact the ``Judiciary 
Rent Reform Act of 2006,'' which will require the Administrator of 
General Services to charge the judiciary only the actual cost of 
providing space in federally-owned facilities or the actual costs of 
procuring and servicing leases in privately-owned space.

[[Page E104]]

  In addition to allowing the federal courts to better plan and control 
their budget, which will improve the delivery of judicial services to 
the public, this Act will improve the transparency associated with how 
the judiciary's funds are spent.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, which I am 
introducing in direct response to the plea of the Chief Justice that 
this issue ``now warrant[s] immediate attention and action.'' I and the 
Judiciary Conference of the U.S. look forward to the House passing this 
legislation without delay.

                          ____________________