"Federal Courthouse Design and Construction: Examining the Costs to the Taxpayer"
2025-05-20
Loading video...
Source: Congress.gov
Participants
Transcript
The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management will come to order. Chair asks unanimous consent that I be authorized to declare a 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 at mail.house.gov. The chair now recognizes himself for the purposes of an opening statement for five minutes. Let me just begin with an apology to those who have traveled far and waited long and dealt with Washington, D.C. for our tardiness here. Sometimes 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 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 cost by almost 12 just to reiterate in 2010 gao found that courthouses were overbuilt by more than three million square feet the new design guide now will now well result 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 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 calculated 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 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 court's 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 wanna 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 they found were overbuilt. It seemed 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, A courthouse project priority 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 costs to the taxpayer, and not overbill.
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 five minutes for her opening statement. Thank you, Chairman Perry. I have to say it's refreshing to be in a committee when
Sign up for free to see the full transcript
Accounts help us prevent bots from abusing our site. Accounts are free and will allow you to access the full transcript.