|
JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED
STATES
STATEMENT OF
JUDGE JANE R. ROTH
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
BEFORE
THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,
PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON
THE FY 2004 COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION PLAN
JULY 9, 2003
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today in my capacity
as the chairman of the Judicial Conference's Committee on Security and
Facilities. Chairman LaTourette and Congresswoman Norton, I look forward
to working with you, the other members of the Subcommittee, and your staffs
in the future.
The judiciary greatly appreciates the authorizations the subcommittee
provided for courthouse projects last year. This year, the judiciary is
seeking authorization for 18 courthouse construction projects and 12 repair
and alteration projects. The judiciary understands that the subcommittee
has received the necessary fact sheets and prospectuses from the General
Services Administration (GSA) to use in authorizing these projects.
FY 2004 Courthouse Program
Many committee members will recall that there was a three-year hiatus
in the President's budget request for courthouse funding during fiscal
years 1998, 1999, and 2000. With the assistance provided by this committee
and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works by continuing
to authorize courthouse projects, the President's budget request for the
last three years resumed funding the courthouse construction program.
We were very disappointed, therefore, that the President's FY 2004 budget
request did not include any funding for courthouse construction projects.
Faced with this development, the judiciary has determined it necessary
to submit a courthouse construction budget request directly to Congress
and has asked the Appropriations Committee that GSA receive any fiscal
year 2004 appropriation approved for courthouses.
The President's budget does include $257.4 million for 11 court-related
repair and alteration projects.
The Judicial Conference also supports providing a federal office building
to house federal agencies in Atlanta, Georgia, including the court of
appeals staff. In addition, the judiciary requests that the subcommittee
act on the urgently needed repair and alteration project for the historic
Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse in New York, New York.
A copy of the FY 2004 courthouse projects from the judiciary's five-year
plan is attached for your information. Also attached are two charts that
identify the specific authorizations required for courthouse construction
projects and repair and alteration projects in FY 2004.
Courthouses and Terrorism
The federal government's war on terrorism has impacted the courts in two
ways: it has increased the judiciary's workload and it necessitates more
secure facilities. With the creation of the Department of Homeland Security
and the resultant increase in attention and funding provided to securing
our borders, the judiciary is busier than ever with immigration cases,
especially along the southwest border. Congress provided some funds after
September 11, 2001, for the judiciary to enhance its security, but the
security of some courthouses is so inadequate that it can only be remedied
by replacement of the facility.
In these troubled times when courthouses are such visible targets for
terrorists, ensuring the security of courthouses is more important than
ever. Everyone is aware that New York City and Alexandria, Virginia have
been home to terrorist cases with potentially dangerous proceedings. However,
many other districts such as those in Michigan (Eastern), North Carolina
(Western), Florida (Southern), Illinois (Northern), New York (Northern),
New York (Western), Texas (Northern), Oregon and Massachusetts have also
been involved in terrorist cases. There is
no telling where or when the next terrorist-related might be held. Therefore,
security of courthouses all across our country is one of our primary concerns.
Why New Courthouses Are Needed
There are four criteria that the judiciary uses to determine when a new
courthouse is needed: the year the old courthouse is out of space, the
number of judges impacted, security problems, and operational problems.
For a courthouse project to be considered, the district's long-range facility
plan must indicate that there is no more room for judges at the existing
facility, but more judges are anticipated. Although it can lead to inefficient
court operations, court-related units (probation, pretrial services, and
the bankruptcy court), as well as Executive Branch agencies, have usually
already been moved from the existing building to gain space.
Last year P.L. 107-273 authorized 15 new Article III judgeships effective
July 15, 2003. The President has submitted nominations to Congress for
all these judgeships and we anticipate the majority will be approved this
year. On May 22, 2003, the Senate passed S. 878, which would authorize
36 new bankruptcy and 14 new Article III judgeships. Furthermore, all
57 of the Article III judgeships approved by the Judicial Conference are
included in S. 920 which was introduced on April 11, 2003. Some of these
authorized and pending new judgeships can be absorbed in the existing
space in the courts, but many cannot. The courthouse space planned for
many of these judges will not be ready because of funding delays.
Many of the courthouses that the judiciary uses are more than 50 years
old and can be dangerous, uncomfortable, and inefficient for those who
visit and work there. In fiscal year 2002, our security screening personnel
detected 641,489 weapons and other items prohibited in courthouses. In
that same time period, the U.S. Marshals Service reported the detention
or arrest of 16 persons related to security breaches in courthouses. In
determining the need for new courthouses, the judiciary assesses whether
courthouses have separate routes of circulation so that prisoners are
not transported through the same areas and elevators as judges, jurors,
and members of the public. It also assesses whether courthouses have holding
cells adjacent to courtrooms and sally ports for bringing prisoners into
the courthouses in a secure manner. The operational systems in courthouses
for heating, ventilation, and electricity are often inadequate as well.
Some of the older courthouses also cannot be wired for courtroom technology
and so cannot benefit from the time savings offered by video evidence
presentation systems, videoconferencing systems, and electronic means
of taking the record.
The judiciary's caseload is not determined by the judiciary; it must handle
the criminal cases brought by the Department of Justice, the civil cases
brought by plaintiffs, and bankruptcy cases. The courts experienced record
workload increases in fiscal year 2002. Bankruptcy filings grew 8 percent;
civil filings in the U.S. district courts climbed 10 percent; and criminal
cases rose 7 percent. The number of persons under probation supervision
rose 4 percent, and defendants in cases opened in the pretrial system
grew 4 percent. These increases result in the need for more staff and
court space in which to process the cases.
I urge you to authorize the judiciary's courthouse program for FY 2004
so that the judiciary can overcome these problems and address its growing
workload in secure, efficient facilities.
The Los Angeles Courthouse
In my meetings this year with Members of Congress and their staff, everyone
has asked about the Los Angeles courthouse, which GSA estimates will cost
$428 million to construct and is the judiciary's number one priority for
fiscal year 2004. A new courthouse is needed in Los Angeles to consolidate
the district court operations, which are currently split between two courthouses
several blocks apart. The split district court operation causes delays
in proceedings and confuses jurors and the public. Jurors, critical evidence
such as money and drugs, and confidential files must be escorted across
several busy city streets between the courthouses. There are not enough
courtrooms for the number of judges, over half of the courtrooms are undersized,
and 28 lack adjacent prisoner holding facilities. Prisoners are transported
through the open judicial parking garages and through unsecured corridors
to the main cellblock. Prisoners reach some courtrooms by crossing judicial
or public corridors and by using freight and public elevators. Prisoners
are escorted to courtrooms through long convoluted corridors where deputy
marshals have to follow a multitude of colored lines painted on the floor
in order to find the right courtroom. Finally, the court lacks adequate
space for multi-defendant trials and naturalization ceremonies, requiring
expensive temporary physical modifications or the rental of space.
The judiciary understands how difficult it is for the Congress to fund
this project fully this year. Nevertheless, whatever the international
situation, the courts must function and they must function in a manner
that does not jeopardize the safety of the public, of the jurors, of the
judges, or of any of the other persons coming into our courthouses. I
hope we can work together with GSA and Congress to determine whether the
funding can be split between two years so that the judiciary's entire
courthouse program is not delayed. The judiciary asks that the entire
$428 million be authorized this year, however, so that the project does
not have to be revisited. Hopefully, the Administration will recognize
the authorization as a sign of support for the project. Due to its high
score, the Los Angeles project is likely to be the judiciary's number
one priority until it is funded. The need for it is critical and its cost
will only increase if it is delayed.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and for the Subcommittee's
support of the courthouse program over the years. I am happy to answer
any questions you may have regarding the judiciary's facilities requirements
for FY 2004.
|