Courthouse Funding and Security Concern Committee

Judge Jane Roth (3rd Cir.) is the chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on Security and Facilities. She was nominated to the U.S. District Court for Delaware in 1985 and elevated to the Third Circuit in 1991.

_Q:In March, the Judiciary sent its own request to Congress for courthouse funding in Fiscal Year 2004. What is unusual about this request? And what made it necessary?

_A: In the past, the Judiciary has supplemented the materials that the General Services Administration (GSA) provided to Congress with detailed justifications for each project. But this is the first year that the Judiciary also has submitted a budget amendment to Congress. The budget amendment formally requests that Congress appropriate funds to GSA for courthouse construction.

This step was made necessary by the fact that the President, at the recommendation of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), decided not to include any funding for courthouse construction projects in his Fiscal Year 2004 budget submission to Congress. This is the fourth time since 1998 that the President's budget request has not included courthouse construction projects. In two of those years, Congress did appropriate funds for at least some of our projects, but in two other years they provided no funding at all. We are hoping that our courthouse construction request will demonstrate to Congress the importance that the Judiciary attaches to the continuation of this program. These courthouse construction projects are urgent and need to go forward.

_Q:Congress has warned that funding in Fiscal Year 2004 will be especially tight. Will this affect the Judiciary's courthouse planning and construction?

_A: We have attempted over the past few years to limit our courthouse construction request to $500 million per year. This amount is based on previous discussions with Congress, OMB, and GSA and is used for planning purposes. However, since courthouse construction projects were not requested by the President in 1998, 1999, and 2000, a backlog of projects now exists. Our FY 2004 budget request is $967.3 million because it includes unfunded projects from previous years. We hope that Congress will be able to fund at least our highest priority projects on this list, if not all the projects that are ready.

Due to the creation of an appropriations subcommittee for the Department of Homeland Security, two other appropriation subcommittees were combined, and now GSA and the Treasury Department are included under the appropriations subcommittee that funds the Transportation Department. It remains to be seen whether courthouse construction projects will still get the same level of support from Members of Congress when they are competing against highway and other transportation projects. But we feel that we should move forward with our projects despite budget constraints. It's just that we will have to use our best advocacy skills this year if we are going to get the funding that we need.

_Q:The General Services Administration builds the Judiciary's courthouses. How do judges and court staff make certain their courthouses are built to satisfy their operational and security needs?

_A: While GSA is responsible for the design and construction of a new courthouse, the Judiciary participates in the process in two ways. First, a judge is a member of the team that selects the architect/engineering firm, and the judge participates on the design team and then usually monitors the construction process. This monitoring is a very important role for a successful building project. We find that the courthouses where a judge has been involved in the planning and in overseeing the construction throughout the project are the courthouses that have been most successfully completed and where the judges and other occupants of the courthouse are the happiest with the courthouse. We feel this is a very important part of the process.

The judge on the design team, or assigned to the project is involved in reviewing functional space layouts and works closely with the design architect during the space programming, design concepts and design development phases.

The second way the Judiciary participates is through the U.S. Courts Design Guide, which provides functionally-based space and security standards and interior finishes guidelines for new courthouses. We developed the Design Guide in 1991 to supplement GSA's existing guidance in order to ensure that the Judiciary's special functional requirements could be met. The Design Guide has been modified and updated through five editions, the most recent in 1997. As the primary long-term tenants of courthouses, judges and other court employees play an important role in contributing to space programming and design decisions for a new courthouse.

_Q:Security is one of your Committee's responsibilities. How has security changed for the Judiciary since 9-11?

_A: The Judiciary has always been at risk from those who come before us in both criminal and civil cases and who disagree, sometimes violently, with our decisions and with the judicial process. Since 9-11, we have the added risk of terrorism. Because of this increased risk, our security has been tightened. Based on the increased risk, we received, in Fiscal Year 2002 approximately $77 million from a congressional supplemental appropriation for security enhancements. These enhancements included perimeter security upgrades, such as vehicle barriers, card access systems, and closed circuit TV systems. They also include new security equipment such as "bomb sniffers," upgraded x-ray equipment; ballistic hardening for CSO screening posts; and additional CSOs to maintain a higher level of security, including expanded hours of security coverage in our buildings. This funding also allowed us to provide the United States Marshals Service with 106 senior level deputy marshals to coordinate security in the districts and the circuits on a full-time basis.

The Design Guide is now providing for separate mail rooms in response to the anthrax threat. Other security enhancements in courthouses are prescribed by U.S. Marshals Service requirements.

Certainly we are aware of the fact that a courthouse is an open building, open to the public, and that access is required. Nevertheless, there are certain designs that have incorporated a great deal of glass. This has caused the judges who were due to be in such a courthouse to object. We have been able in a couple of locations to make sure the design of the courthouse was more secure by reducing the amount of glass exposure.

Our courthouses are better protected than ever before, but we must continue to maintain a balance between public access and security. I am confident that we are doing everything we can to protect our courthouses and employees in a reasonable, effective, and efficient manner.

_Q:What is our current relationship with the U.S. Marshals Service?

_A: Our current relationship with the USMS is very good. We think they are handling security effectively at the district level. But they need more personnel resources. They're significantly understaffed and may be operating with only 70 percent of their required personnel. Court security cannot be provided effectively when there are not enough deputies to provide adequate coverage, or when the deputies are tired because of over-time demands on them. The USMS must be well staffed to ensure that judicial security continues to be effective and does not take a back seat to other Marshals Service missions. In this regard, we are working with the USMS and the Department of Justice on a new USMS personnel budget model, which will accurately reflect actual security needs. Director Mecham and I have spoken to the Attorney General about these issues and he is committed to ensuring that the USMS gets the resources it needs. Director Mecham also spoke about this issue at a congressional hearing before the House appropriations subcommittee with responsibility for the Judiciary. We have seen some positive steps in correcting the USMS personnel shortages, but it remains to be seen if the marshals will get significant increases in their staffing. They are scheduled to get approximately 275 additional positions in FY 2004. We very much hope that they do, and that this will be an indicator of future staffing increases. Needless to say we will continue to monitor this situation.

_Q:After 9-11, the Judiciary was given 106 deputy marshal positions. Why were these positions created? And what is their status today?

_A: We provided the original funding for the 106 court security inspectors in order that they could assist the district marshals in handling their security responsibilities. For the first time, there will be a senior level position for security in each district. These security specialists will focus exclusively on court security matters. They will ensure that our CSO resources are efficiently utilized. To the extent possible, they will help to standardize security policies and procedures in the districts, and they will ensure that the protection of judges is well coordinated and there are incident response plans for terrorist or other attacks. The positions were created to make sure that this supervision and coordination was being done. Fifty-four of the positions were brought on board last year and the remaining were selected by the USMS this April. They attended a two-week training program from April 28 through May 9. I have spoken to each graduating class and found them to be knowledgeable, enthusiastic, and ready to hit the ground running. This was very encouraging.

In FY 2003, Congress provided funding directly to the USMS for these positions, so the Judiciary will no longer have to request money for them. The Director of the USMS, Benigno G. Reyna, has made a commitment to me that he will keep these 106 security specialists dedicated to the description of their job, as is set out in a memorandum of understanding with the USMS.

_Q:The Judicial Conference recently amended the Judiciary's policy on courtroom security, based upon recommendations from your Committee. How did the policy change and why?

_A: Both judges and the USMS agree that the courtroom is one of the most likely places in the courthouse for an incident to occur. Many judges believe, however, that over the years the deputy marshals are focused on courtroom security only when a prisoner is in custody in the courtroom. This left the security for many of our proceedings to CSOs, who under prior Judicial Conference policy were suppose to be used only in lower-risk proceedings, and then only if their presence in the courtroom did not detract from their other duties. Over the past year, the Committee has been discussing security with many judges and other court personnel from all over the country. We heard a consensus that all criminal proceedings where a defendant is present, whether or not in custody, pose a higher risk. Therefore, all criminal proceedings where the defendant is present should have deputy marshal coverage. USMS Director Reyna agreed with our view on this and indicated he would support the new requirement based on the deputy marshal resources available in each district. We also recognized that civil proceedings, including bankruptcy proceedings, where a party to the case is present, have the potential to be volatile. We therefore concluded that we should require CSOs to be present in these proceedings, if the presiding judge so determines.

Even though CSOs currently provide the bulk of security coverage for civil proceedings, when there is an unusually high degree of volatility, the presiding judge should request a deputy marshal be present. Each court should be working with their marshals to coordinate resources to implement these new policies and to determine if staffing patterns need to be adjusted.