Ben Cardin

It's interesting that you all deal with the issue of the courthouse being compatible to the development of Baltimore.

I'm going to fight, I know Senator Mikulski's going to fight, and our congressional delegation is going to fight to make sure this courthouse is safe.

Just reality tells me, though, if GSA and the Administrative Office of the Courts were not willing to make the $74 million investment when they had $1.5 billion available to be spent...

Blast protection is certainly an issue as relates to a Federal courthouse?

There is no money for new construction. All of our 2011 projects are now 2012 projects.

This will be the opening of the Environment and Public Works Committee hearing.

So there's not a concern about terrorists or blasts?

Well, where I take exception for you, it seems to me what you're saying... you're basing it on 1976 construction.

You've got to have a plan for Baltimore here, one way or the other.

It doesn't have blast windows, as I understand it?

So we've had some money available, but it hasn't been made available to Baltimore. Can you help me understand this a little bit better?

We have a debt ceiling limit crisis that's looming in the next 2 months.

We should be paying attention to your existing inventory of space to make sure it's adequate before we're constructing new space.

I just point out there was money available from the recovery funds, and to me that was a missed opportunity.

It's outrageous that we have to have people check the toilets at the end of the day to make sure they're set right.

The building engineer report determined the building to be in fair condition...

It says that GSA lacked sufficient oversight and control to ensure that courthouses were planned and built according to authorized size.

A high priority--and I have to be clear about this and I can't back away from it--is the question, is there enough space in the building to hold the people that have to work there.

That's also, it looks like, for planning. We were also the largest single project in 2006, fiscal year 2006, at $30 million for strictly the design.

It's a tough job to be a judge, but then taking on this responsibility in addition to it, God bless you.

At what point do you come to the conclusion that you just are throwing good money after bad, that it just doesn't pay to try to fix a building, but to replace it?

I'm a little confused. The two issues you raise deal, as I understand it, deal with prisoners?

The world has changed since 1976.

We might be able to find partners. But it will require the Federal Government and the Administrative Office of the Courts perhaps to use some different standards.

We have to take into consideration situations where there is simply not enough room in the building for the judges to do their work.