Federal Courthouse Design and Construction: Examining the Costs to the Taxpayer

Chairman Scott Perry (R-PA)SPEAKER_05

The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management will come to order. Chair asks unanimous consent that I be authorized to declare recess at any time during today's hearing. Without objection, so ordered. 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. 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 things 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 plan, or the AMP process, and used it to adjust their property list for new courthouses did this committee restart 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% and the construction cost by almost 12%. Just to reiterate, in 2010, GAO found that courthouses were overbuilt by more than 3 million square feet. The new design guide now will— now will result— the new design guide now will result in 6% 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 continue— 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 in a new courthouse. This results in overbuilt facilities with unused courtrooms and significantly increased construction and maintenance costs. The chair expects that we will either hear that a major driver of the design change is 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 efficacy that goes with that. However, the courts' own methodology for prioritizing courthouse projects assigns security just 10% of the weighted score, while courtroom and chamber needs make up 50%. It seems lopsided, but here we're 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 were the subject of GAO's 2010 review that they found were overbuilt. It seems the changes in the design guide had little to do with addressing security issues. So, I'm 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'm 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 of 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 costs to the taxpayer, and are not overbuilt. With that, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. 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 costs associated with those. And without objection, so ordered. The chair now recognizes the ranking member, Friedman, for 5 minutes for her opening statement.

Rep. Laura Friedman (D-CA)SPEAKER_01

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 decision-makers 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 five-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 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 court's 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%. 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 to ask—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'm 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% of your workforce and 50% of your budget, all without impeding the progress of courthouses under construction and courthouses that need repairs and maintenance. Interested to see how that can happen. So thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.

Chairman Scott Perry (R-PA)SPEAKER_05

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'd 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're 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.

David MarroniSPEAKER_04

Thank you, Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Friedman, and members of the subcommittee. I'm 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 the 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% and their cost by 12% on average. This could equate to tens of millions of dollars in additional construction spending. For example, when we modeled what would happen if seven courthouse projects were designed according to the updated design standards, we found it would increase the construction cost 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 the 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's 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's important as the federal government moves to rightsize its federal real property footprint. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening statement. I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Chairman Scott Perry (R-PA)SPEAKER_05

Chair thanks the gentleman for your testimony. The chair now recognizes Judge Suddaby. You're recognized for your testimony for 5 minutes, sir.

The Honorable Glenn T. SuddabySPEAKER_02

Chairman Perry, Representative Friedman, and members of the subcommittee, I'm Glenn Suddaby. I'm a U.S. district court judge in the Northern District of New York, and I'm 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 costs 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 places particular importance in its 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% space reduction program, circuit-wide policies to assure no net new space growth, and the 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 require us to have a presence and hold court in hundreds of communities 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 five-year goal to reduce its nationwide footprint by 3%. 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 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 to 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, non-resident 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 set 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, 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 and 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 this executive branch subcommittee 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'm happy to answer any questions.

Chairman Scott Perry (R-PA)SPEAKER_05

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

Michael PetersSPEAKER_08

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'm 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've 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's home. That's why we're committed to identifying and shedding costly, underused space while investing in the assets that matter most. To date, we've 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've completed 10 major courthouse projects, with more underway, totaling over $2 billion in investment. We've 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'm proud of the progress we're making, and I look forward to working with you to deliver on this mission. Thank you, and I welcome your questions.

Chairman Scott Perry (R-PA)SPEAKER_05

Chair thanks the gentlemen and all our witnesses. Thank you for your testimony. We'll now turn to questions. The chair now recognizes the ranking member, Friedman, for her questions.

Rep. Laura Friedman (D-CA)SPEAKER_01

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 ports 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's 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'll 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?

Michael PetersSPEAKER_08

Thank you for the question. So, we've 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 with the legislation and law, but we need to find cost-effective alternatives. So, if there were a situation—you mentioned low embodied carbon—where 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've been able to utilize IRA funding, and have actually over a billion of funding that we look forward to utilizing moving forward for LPOEs and for courthouses.

Rep. Laura Friedman (D-CA)SPEAKER_01

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, are 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?

Michael PetersSPEAKER_08

So we do continue to utilize ESPCs. We've scrutinized and evaluated them on a case-by-case basis. I think your assessment is accurate that in many cases in the past, we've 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're not opposed to saving money. Now, we are opposed if there is a low-cost alternative, perhaps natural gas, that is a low-cost solution. We don't want to feel like we're obligated to put a solar panel on a roof if we have a lower-cost solution for securing energy. But we're not prohibiting any type of energy sources in our projects going forward. I can't speak. I'd be happy to get back to you on ESPCs and courthouses in particular. We're certainly using ESPCs across the portfolio, though.

Rep. Laura Friedman (D-CA)SPEAKER_01

Thank you. I'll 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?

The Honorable Glenn T. SuddabySPEAKER_02

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're responsible for the exterior of the courthouses, the courthouse proper, the properties. And certainly going forward with any courthouse construction, we're 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?

Rep. Laura Friedman (D-CA)SPEAKER_01

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?

David MarroniSPEAKER_04

So it's 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.

Rep. Laura Friedman (D-CA)SPEAKER_01

Thank you. I yield back.

Chairman Scott Perry (R-PA)SPEAKER_05

Chair thanks representative, gentlelady, and chair now recognizes himself for five minutes of questioning. I guess I'm 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 as the beginning here. You're working with the Conference Committee on Space and Facilities, with which Judge Suddaby, I guess, chairs, and do you see this as the appropriate methodology for determining what courthouses should be? I understand I'm not a judge, so I'm 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 in in your estimation, based on what you've seen?

David MarroniSPEAKER_04

So I think it's important that judiciary establishes the requirements. As you were saying, they know best their needs. But I think as part of that, it's important that they collaborate with GSA, with their partners to get a sense of the real-world implications of this. I also think getting Congress congressional oversight and other independent means to look at these design guide changes, like we've done this 2024 report, is important because, yes, as anyone, when you're looking at your needs, you're going to know what you need, but you're also maybe going to go for a little more than perhaps you, an independent observer, would think you would need. So having an independent source to look at it is important.

Chairman Scott Perry (R-PA)SPEAKER_05

So just to follow that line of reasoning, that line of thought, who's the arbitrator? Who's the— who's the arbiter? Who's the honest broker? Not to say that anybody's dishonest, but, but is it Congress? Is it this committee that provides all the oversight to what the— who else would it be? Who, who is it? Is it you?

David MarroniSPEAKER_04

It's 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. So we certainly can help by providing reports, but we are not the primary.

Chairman Scott Perry (R-PA)SPEAKER_05

So, that having been said, in my opening statement, I mentioned the fact that the courthouses project assigned security 10% of the weighted score, while the courtroom and chamber needs make up 50%. Who determines that makeup? Is it Judge Suddaby's group or who is it? Congress? Who determines that? Because the claim is is that this is all for security and safety. And I think we're all for that, whether you're Democrat or Republican, but it clearly indicates that there are other forces that seem to take precedent over safety and security. The question is is who determines what that what that breakout is supposed to be?

David MarroniSPEAKER_04

So I believe the judiciary sets the requirements for the security and the other requirements for the courthouse.

Chairman Scott Perry (R-PA)SPEAKER_05

Does that not seem at least a little bit like the fox guarding the henhouse?

David MarroniSPEAKER_04

Well, I think it's a starting point to design. You need the customer to decide what their requirements are, but you do need some oversight of what's coming out of that.

Chairman Scott Perry (R-PA)SPEAKER_05

So, let me ask you this. We've got the 2021 design guide, but we've 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's happening here?

David MarroniSPEAKER_04

So, my understanding there, and Judge Suddaby can correct me, but my understanding is they're using the 2007 Design Guide and then incorporating cost-neutral elements from the 2021 guide. So not circulation we're describing, they're including the cost-neutral elements. But Judge Suddaby may be able to.

Chairman Scott Perry (R-PA)SPEAKER_05

Okay, Judge, what do you say to that?

The Honorable Glenn T. SuddabySPEAKER_02

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 a 100-year building cycle. So, these things that when the design guide, 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. And then the—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'll be done as long as it's cost-neutral.

Chairman Scott Perry (R-PA)SPEAKER_05

I thank you. My time has expired. The chair now recognizes the representative from Washington, D.C., the Honorable Ms. Norton.

Rep. Eleanor Norton (D-DC)SPEAKER_00

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?

Michael PetersSPEAKER_08

Thank you for the question, Representative Norton Thank you for the question, Representative Norton. That's 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'll really inform our decision-making 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, both 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's really outside of GSA's control. That's a matter for the courts to assess. I would say it is our collective duty, and Congress's 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 $8.5 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's because there's a true need there and putting a close eye to that.

Rep. Eleanor Norton (D-DC)SPEAKER_00

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?

David MarroniSPEAKER_04

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.

Rep. Eleanor Norton (D-DC)SPEAKER_00

Judge Suddaby, how can members of Congress be assured that the planning of new courthouses is consistent with the actual needs of the judiciary?

David MarroniSPEAKER_04

The new

The Honorable Glenn T. SuddabySPEAKER_02

courthouse AMP program, where we evaluate every year the needs for every court across this country. It's called an urgency evaluation to make—to consider that court's 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're ranked, and we act on the ones that are most urgent at that time. We have a courthouse priorities list. All this came out of the stop work order by Congress with regard to courthouses on the five-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're built. There's a 10-year window that we look at. If there are senior judges or judges who are active judges and 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 to 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're 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.

Rep. Eleanor Norton (D-DC)SPEAKER_00

Thank you. I yield back.

Chairman Scott Perry (R-PA)SPEAKER_05

Chair thanks the gentlelady. The chair now turns to Representative Barrett.

Rep. Tom Barrett (R-MI)SPEAKER_03

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've already answered them, please bear with me. I know we've talked a lot about courtroom sharing and what effect that has on overbuilding or building to right-size 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?

The Honorable Glenn T. SuddabySPEAKER_02

I'm happy to, to take the question. Courtroom sharing, uh, has been in place now since 2009 for both magistrate judges and senior judges, and then bankruptcy court judges, uh, since 2011. Any construction that goes forward includes those requirements,

Rep. Tom Barrett (R-MI)SPEAKER_03

right?

The Honorable Glenn T. SuddabySPEAKER_02

And any build-out in existing courthouse includes those elements. Now, the courtroom is a

Rep. Tom Barrett (R-MI)SPEAKER_03

legacy courtrooms that aren't under that 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 I—and this is just an over 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'm 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?

The Honorable Glenn T. SuddabySPEAKER_02

I would say it's not accurate.

Rep. Tom Barrett (R-MI)SPEAKER_03

Okay.

The Honorable Glenn T. SuddabySPEAKER_02

There there's a reason for judges having access to courtrooms, and that's an important tool to get their docket or their cases moved. They 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, 8:00 to 5:00 in the afternoon? No, not always. 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're sharing where appropriate, but making sure that judges have courtrooms to do their work.

Rep. Tom Barrett (R-MI)SPEAKER_03

And I think if you look at, you know, some of how we do our work here, I mean, this committee hearing room is used for the full committee. It's used for each of the subcommittees. We, we share this space. And, you know, if you were to look at our committee today, there are fewer members than the full committee, and you say maybe we're overbuilt in this room, but when the full committee is assembled and we're doing a markup, obviously we're right-sized for that situation. I just want to make sure that what we're 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, you know, the appropriations that, that come from the Congress. Um, another question I had for you, do we own every federal courthouse? Does the federal government own, or do we rent any space currently?

The Honorable Glenn T. SuddabySPEAKER_02

There are some leased courthouses.

Rep. Tom Barrett (R-MI)SPEAKER_03

Okay.

The Honorable Glenn T. SuddabySPEAKER_02

And that's a decision that's 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.

Chairman Scott Perry (R-PA)SPEAKER_05

Okay,

Rep. Tom Barrett (R-MI)SPEAKER_03

thank you. And, uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Rep. Shomari Figures (D-AL)SPEAKER_06

Chair thanks to gentleman. The chair now recognizes Representative Figures. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all of 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, 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've been a federal law clerk myself, I've worked at 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 the construction assessments that we're doing, that we don't lose sight of the ball of making sure that we're asking our judges and our court personnel and officers and witnesses and, and all of those who are participating in in courthouse proceedings that they are in as safe as possible position that they can possibly be?

The Honorable Glenn T. SuddabySPEAKER_02

Yes, thank you. The design guide revision was— a lot of the impetus for that was on that particular concern, security. And it's a major concern in all construction. The 3 pathways of circulation, secure for in-custody persons and 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 work 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 that making sure that those corridors existed and didn't impinge on other areas of the courthouse design. So certainly, again, it's 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're attempting to do.

Rep. Shomari Figures (D-AL)SPEAKER_06

All right. And I want to shift focus a little bit to our more rural areas, satellite offices, as they're 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'm sure you can relate to, Judge, they have historically been the redheaded 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'll direct this one to you and 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?

Michael PetersSPEAKER_08

Appreciate the question. I actually was born in Alabama many, many moons ago.

Rep. Shomari Figures (D-AL)SPEAKER_06

Well, here's the question: Roll Tide or War Eagle?

Michael PetersSPEAKER_08

There's only one right answer. There's no good answer there. But that's a great question. We have a great partnership with the courts and work with them. I've 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're 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 they're not nice-to-haves. They're critical needs that need to be addressed, and we're working with you to deal with that. So,

Rep. Shomari Figures (D-AL)SPEAKER_06

And I don't want to cut you off, but I got one more 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 non-judicial 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, 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.

Michael PetersSPEAKER_08

If you don't mind, I'll answer that first and then I'll let the judge comment. Um, you know, the list that we published initially was— there were 2 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 into that category that got listed as non-core probably not the best name. That was not meant to imply that those assets are for sale, that we're 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 might be— 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're aware before we take any action. But we probably did move a little too quickly in our first month here, and we've changed our procedures at this point.

Rep. Shomari Figures (D-AL)SPEAKER_06

Thank you. I'm well over my time. I appreciate it.

Chairman Scott Perry (R-PA)SPEAKER_05

Chair thanks the gentleman. The chair now recognizes the gentleman, Mr. Onder.

Rep. Robert Onder (R-MO)SPEAKER_07

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?

Michael PetersSPEAKER_08

Yeah, 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 the judiciary, elsewhere, but just because it's useful doesn't mean we can afford it. And so what we're working to do is to develop a better process of assessing need. 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're gathering that data outside the judiciary, but we don't have it collectively. If they have it, I'm unaware of it. Just think about 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 a new courthouse. But our tools are really, we're 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.

Rep. Robert Onder (R-MO)SPEAKER_07

Right. So, yeah, you touched on something I did want to ask. Does the GSA verify whether the new courthouses are actually being fully utilized once they're built?

Michael PetersSPEAKER_08

So I have to admit, we do not. 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, to determine how necessary they are.

Rep. Robert Onder (R-MO)SPEAKER_07

Judge, do you care to, care to comment?

The Honorable Glenn T. SuddabySPEAKER_02

Yeah 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're 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's a separate Judicial Conference committee, the CACM Committee, Case 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 type of decisions the Judicial Conference makes by informed information coming back from the judges across the country.

Rep. Robert Onder (R-MO)SPEAKER_07

Okay, very good. And Mr. Marroni, the GAO found that many courthouses are underutilized with more space than needed. Has there been any measurable improvements since your last audit, and are there any reforms you'd recommend to rein in courthouse proposals that you might deem oversized?

David MarroniSPEAKER_04

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's 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 or other methods to increase utilization is worthwhile.

Chairman Scott Perry (R-PA)SPEAKER_05

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, you know, we have other things that are layered on top of these hearings, and I'd like to have the luxury of other members being here to ask more questions, but we simply don't have them because I'm sure they're 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're 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 to capture. But is anyone doing that? Who should be doing it? Who's best suited to do it?

The Honorable Glenn T. SuddabySPEAKER_02

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 was were appropriate. And those utilization factors are the ongoing study. But as I've indicated, the use is so unique and different to any other

Chairman Scott Perry (R-PA)SPEAKER_05

public— and we're not,

The Honorable Glenn T. SuddabySPEAKER_02

you know, public

Chairman Scott Perry (R-PA)SPEAKER_05

space— challenge that. But we need to have the data. You know, in talking to both of you or all 3 of you regarding Congress's 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's a study that's ongoing. Is it 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 in this courthouse? This is how many times somebody was in this one when somebody else needed to use it. How is that all meted out at this point?

The Honorable Glenn T. SuddabySPEAKER_02

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. You know, 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'm 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's a lack of 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've mentioned, those tools that we've been doing, are continuing all the time. So, the answer you're 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.

Chairman Scott Perry (R-PA)SPEAKER_05

Well, the chair thanks the judge and thanks the gentleman for that. And understand, you know, regardless of whether the questions come from myself or other members here. We're, we're having this hearing so that we can formulate appropriate public policy. And so we're 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'd like the outcome of that either. So it'd be better to have the input so that we can make decisions whether I think that, you know, the majority of the consideration should be on security as opposed to how the courtroom is, is structured or whatever. You know, that's one person's opinion. But I think we all need the information so that we can do the job that we're tasked to do. That's the purpose for this hearing. And, and, and so I'm asking you that question so that we get the information, because if, if, if we're not going to get the information or we're not knowing when we're going to get the information, then I suspect this body is going to move to say, You're going to provide this information this way by this time so we can make a decision. All right. So that's, that's the reason for the question.

The Honorable Glenn T. SuddabySPEAKER_02

Understood, sir. I didn't take exception to that. We'll try and get you the information and get back. And if I can make just one last comment with regard to, you know, the cost for space, you know, 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, you know, 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're always going to lean towards personnel. So it's in our self-interest to examine our space and make sure that we are right-sized. And efficient and optimize the use of our space so we can keep, you know, not only the lights on, but the people that we need to do the job in place.

Chairman Scott Perry (R-PA)SPEAKER_05

And we understand that you care for your people. We do as well, whether we're on different sides of the aisle. I'm sure that Ms. Norton and I both agree that a a functioning judiciary is critical to our society and and 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 the 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'd like to thank each of the witnesses for your testimony and for your time and your patience here today. This subcommittee now stands adjourned.