[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
GSA'S FAILURE TO MEET THE NEEDS OF
THE JUDICIARY: A CASE STUDY OF
BUREAUCRATIC NEGLIGENCE AND WASTE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
COURTS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY,
AND THE INTERNET
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 19, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-87
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
88-376 WASHINGTON : 2014
____________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
Wisconsin JERROLD NADLER, New York
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
LAMAR SMITH, Texas Virginia
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ZOE LOFGREN, California
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
DARRELL E. ISSA, California STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
STEVE KING, Iowa Georgia
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas JUDY CHU, California
JIM JORDAN, Ohio TED DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah KAREN BASS, California
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina SUZAN DelBENE, Washington
RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho JOE GARCIA, Florida
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia
RON DeSANTIS, Florida
JASON T. SMITH, Missouri
[Vacant]
Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff & General Counsel
Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina, Chairman
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania, Vice-Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JERROLD NADLER, New York
Wisconsin JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
LAMAR SMITH, Texas JUDY CHU, California
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio TED DEUTCH, Florida
DARRELL E. ISSA, California KAREN BASS, California
TED POE, Texas CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah SUZAN DelBENE, Washington
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York
GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia ZOE LOFGREN, California
RON DeSANTIS, Florida SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
JASON T. SMITH, Missouri STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
[Vacant]
Joe Keeley, Chief Counsel
Heather Sawyer, Minority Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
JUNE 19, 2014
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Howard Coble, a Representative in Congress from the
State of North Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts,
Intellectual Property, and the Internet........................ 1
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet................ 6
The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary 8
The Honorable John Conyers, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan, Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary,
and Member, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and
the Internet................................................... 29
WITNESSES
The Honorable William P. Johnson, District Judge, United States
District Court, District of New Mexico
Oral Testimony................................................. 33
Prepared Statement............................................. 34
The Honorable Glen E. Conrad, Chief Judge, United States District
Court, Western District of Virginia
Oral Testimony................................................. 53
Prepared Statement............................................. 55
Jennifer L. Smith, Architect and Project Manager, United States
District Court, Western District of Virginia
Oral Testimony................................................. 66
Prepared Statement............................................. 68
The Honorable Michael Gelber, Deputy Commissioner, Public
Buildings Service, U.S. General Services Administration
Oral Testimony................................................. 72
Prepared Statement............................................. 74
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Material submitted by the Honorable Howard Coble, a
Representative in Congress from the State of North Carolina,
and Chairman, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property,
and the Internet............................................... 3
Material submitted by the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, and
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary........................... 10
Material submitted by the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, and
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary........................... 15
Material submitted by the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, and
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary........................... 84
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Material submitted by the Honorable George Holding, a
Representative in Congress from the State of North Carolina,
and Member, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and
the Internet................................................... 106
Prepared Statement of Thomas A. Schatz, President, Citizens
Against Government Waste....................................... 114
GSA'S FAILURE TO MEET THE NEEDS OF
THE JUDICIARY: A CASE STUDY OF
BUREAUCRATIC NEGLIGENCE AND WASTE
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 2014
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property,
and the Internet
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:02 a.m., in
room 2141, Rayburn Office Building, the Honorable Howard Coble,
(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Coble, Goodlatte, Marino, Chabot,
Poe, Farenthold, Holding, DeSantis, Bachus, Nadler, Conyers,
Bass, Richmond, and Jackson Lee.
Staff Present: (Majority), David Whitney, Counsel; Olivia
Lee, Clerk; (Minority) Heather Sawyer, Minority Counsel; and
Jason Everett, Counsel.
Mr. Coble. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Good to have
you with us.
The Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the
Internet will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare
recesses of the Subcommittee at any time.
We welcome all of our witnesses today.
I think it is safe to say that most Americans have no idea
what the General Services Administration is or what it does.
But the agency is vast--it has more than 12,000 employees and
is responsible for many of the behind-the-scenes operations
that are intended to enable other agencies to better fulfill
their constitutional and statutory duties.
Among GSA's responsibilities is the management of the
Federal Civilian Real Estate Portfolio. Included in this area
is the management of the overwhelming majority of facilities
that house Federal courts throughout the United States. This
includes most stand-alone courthouses like the Domenici
Courthouse, where the GSA spent $3.4 million to repair a water
leak, and multi-tenant facilities like Roanoke's Poff Federal
Building, where the GSA has spent $65 million and is asking for
an additional $17 million without improving the functions or
operations of its tenant agencies.
While not knowing what the GSA does, I suspect many
Americans, if prompted, would recall the GSA was in the
headlines a few years ago. Some of you will remember that. That
was when the public first learned that GSA officials conducted
an $823 million training conference in Las Vegas that included
a clown, a mind reader, and a reception that cost more than
$30,000, including more than $7,000 for sushi alone.
Americans were justifiably outraged at the GSA's
irresponsible and outlandish behavior not merely because of the
spending but also at the detachment associated with the GSA
officials who approved and participated in the conference. At a
time when many Americans had lost their jobs and were feeling
the continuing effects of the recession, the images of GSA
officials lounging in hot tubs and partying on the taxpayers'
dime struck a chord in many instances.
As a result of that scandal, the GSA Administrator, Martha
Johnson, resigned, and she terminated the Commissioner of
Public Buildings, Mr. Robert A. Peck, for his failures of
leadership and judgment. To her credit, Ms. Johnson spoke
plainly and acknowledged that a significant misstep had
occurred and admitted that taxpayer dollars were squandered
when she stepped down and fired Mr. Peck, who was her top
advisor.
Speaking plainly is something the American people deserve
and should be able to expect from their public officials.
Accountability, responsibility, and credibility are other
characteristics that Americans are entitled to. But I am sorry
to say there is no plain talk in the scripted statement of our
GSA witness today. In fact, there is a massive disconnect
between reality and his testimony.
There are two possibilities when a situation like this
occurs. Either the witness doesn't know the truth about the
relationship between the agency where he works and the Federal
courts, or he knows it and is attempting to deceive the Members
of the Committee and the public. Neither possibility inspires
confidence in GSA.
Since there is no candor in the descriptive statement,
let's take a look at what others in a position to know report
to the Subcommittee, according to a letter from the Honorable
Dean Brooks Smith, the Chair of the Judicial Conference's
Committee on Space and Facilities, dated June 18 that I will
make a part of the record without objection, to this Committee.
[The information referred to follows:]
__________
Mr. Coble. ``[We have] heard from courts and judges about
the many frustrations they have experienced as a result of
deficiencies in the GSA.''
``GSA, as the Judiciary's landlord, is solely responsible
for the new construction, renovation, and alteration of our
facilities as well as other property management services
typically associated with a private-sector landlord.'' Judge
Smith continues, ``Courts have legitimate complaints about GSA
policies and services [to] include the following,'' and then he
lists significant differences in the responsiveness and quality
of the performance of GSA staff from region to region, project
management issues including communications, scope management,
scheduling and cost estimating, appraisal methodology and
accuracy of rent bills, confusion as to how overtime utilities
are calculated and billed, and potential excessive charges for
these items and overall building management issues.
In addition to Judge Smith's letter that speaks to the
chronic and systematic failure of GSA to properly perform its
duties with respect to the courts, the Subcommittee has been
informed of a longstanding and serious concern regarding GSA's
management and performance with respect to court facilities in
North Carolina, Alabama and Puerto Rico over the last few days.
With these concerns and those soon to be detailed by Judge
Johnson, Chief Judge Conrad, and Ms. Smith, the Members of the
Subcommittee and the public will soon be able to determine the
truth for themselves.
Far greater than the amount of taxpayer dollars spent by
GSA on its Vegas adventure, and far more pernicious are the
everyday examples of waste and mismanagement for which GSA is
responsible. It is unfortunate that our GSA witness did not
take this opportunity to be forthcoming and candid in its
scripted statement today. As I stated earlier, the American
people are entitled to expect accountability, responsibility
and credibility from our public officials.
And with that said, I will recognize the distinguished
Ranking Member, the gentleman from New York, for his opening
statement.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The purpose of today's hearing is to consider whether
taxpayer dollars are being wasted when it comes to renovation
of our Federal courthouses. This is an important issue, and the
Committee with jurisdiction, the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, is already exploring it.
Management of the government's public buildings is not
within this Committee's jurisdiction, and this hearing does not
involve funding issues central to the Judiciary's ability to
fulfill its constitutional obligations or manage its critical
operations, considerations that are within our jurisdiction.
The fact that some public buildings house Federal courts
does not itself explain or justify injecting this Committee
into the oversight of those buildings or of GSA. This is
particularly true when we have not yet held a single hearing on
the impact that sequestration and short-sighted budget cuts
have had on the Judiciary's ability to fulfill constitutionally
required and congressionally imposed duties.
There are undoubtedly legitimate concerns regarding
particular renovation projects, and I appreciate the efforts of
Judges Conrad and Johnson and Ms. Smith to explain some of them
to us today. Although they are speaking in their individual
capacities and none is representative of the Judiciary as a
whole, I commend their commitment to ensuring greater
accountability and improving GSA service delivery going
forward. There is no question that Members on both sides of
this Committee take seriously allegations of waste,
particularly in times of fiscal constraint. My concern is
whether today's hearing represents the best use of this
Committee's resources.
The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee already is
well aware of the problems with the Poff Courthouse, which is
located in Chairman Goodlatte's district, and it is otherwise
actively engaged in robust oversight of GSA. That Committee
held a hearing in 2011 on the Poff renovation, and Chairman
Goodlatte testified about his concerns at that time.
We will hear more today about ongoing concerns with the
Poff Courthouse renovation, as well as with concerns regarding
the Domenici Courthouse in Albuquerque, New Mexico. While
today's hearing highlights these two projects as ostensible GSA
failures, it is notable that GSA only learned of complaints
about the Domenici Courthouse after being notified of this
hearing just last week, on the same day that the Majority
issued the public hearing notice.
The failure to alert GSA or to ask for its response before
scheduling this hearing does not demonstrate genuine interest
in meaningful engagement with the agency. As we hear about
problems with particular projects, we should also not lose
sight of the fact that GSA owns and operates more than 9,000
properties across the United States. The Judiciary rents space
in approximately 779 different GSA-managed buildings. Learning
about problems in a handful of locations does not provide the
necessary background, expertise, and context to engage in
appropriate oversight of these 779 buildings managed by GSA and
occupied by the courts, at least partially by the courts. That
responsibility lies and should remain with the Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee, of which I am also a Member.
GSA is the subject of robust oversight and well-deserved
criticism by its Committee of jurisdiction. Some of that
oversight has involved particular courthouse projects. I am not
aware, however, of any formal complaint ever coming from the
Judicial Conference of the United States regarding the GSA's
management of courthouse buildings.
The Conference did notify us just yesterday that it
recently initiated a partnership with the GSA to identify and
address concerns that judges have with deficiencies in GSA
service delivery. I understand that Chairman Goodlatte also has
requested that the Government Accountability Office examine the
GSA selection process with regard to facilities renovated using
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, otherwise known as
stimulus, funding.
These reviews may identify system-wide issues that need to
be addressed, or may not. To the extent they do, I hope that
the Members of this Committee will work with and through our
colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
It is that Committee and not this one that needs to continue
holding GSA's feet to the fire.
This Committee has plenty of business on its agenda. Moving
forward, I hope that our Committee will devote its time and
resources to solving the critical funding issues that truly
involve the unique interests of the Judiciary and leave
oversight and management of public buildings where it belongs.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Coble. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair recognizes the distinguished gentleman from
Virginia, the Chairman of the full House Judiciary Committee,
for his opening statement.
Mr. Goodlatte. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and thank
you for holding today's hearing.
This hearing concerns matters of critical importance to
American taxpayers and all who rely upon our Federal courts to
adjudicate their constitutionally-protected rights and dispense
justice. We are joined by a distinguished panel of witnesses
that includes two Article III Federal judges, a dedicated and
professional employee of the Federal Judiciary, and the Deputy
Commissioner of the GSA's Public Buildings Service.
The purpose of today's hearing is to begin a public
examination in this Committee of longstanding issues between
the GSA, which is charged with managing the Federal Civilian
Real Estate Portfolio, and one of its major tenants, the
Federal courts. This examination is urgently needed because the
Subcommittee is charged with the responsibility of ensuring
that our Federal Judiciary has the ability to perform its
constitutionally-required and statutorily-directed
responsibilities. Essential to the performance of these duties
is the ability to operate in safe, secure, and sound physical
spaces, whether in a stand-alone U.S. courthouse or in a multi-
tenant Federal building. In some instances, including the
example of the Poff Federal Building in Roanoke, Virginia, the
GSA has abysmally failed in its mission to provide superior
workplaces for Federal customer agencies at good economies to
the American taxpayer, which is their mission.
This hearing builds on one conducted in April 2011 under
the leadership of Chairman Shuster and then-Subcommittee
Chairman Jeff Denham of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure's Subcommittee with jurisdiction over public
buildings. That oversight hearing directly examined whether
GSA's management and execution of contracts for the greening
and modernization of the Poff Federal Building violated Federal
law and led to taxpayers being charged excessive amounts for
the work.
At that hearing, which occurred before GSA had broken
ground, GSA's own Inspector General testified, and I quote,
``GSA has an obligation to spend the taxpayers' money on sound,
well-thought-out projects that make the best use of taxpayer
dollars. Our reviews show that GSA does not always meet this
obligation, and did not do so here at the Poff Federal
Building.''
The IG found that the GSA had failed to get an independent
government estimate for construction as required by the Federal
Acquisition Regulations, and violated Federal law in awarding
the construction contract by advertising the guaranteed maximum
price the government would pay. As a result, each of the ten
bids received were identical and, unsurprisingly, at the
maximum amount.
One direct result of GSA's violation of Federal law was
that the IG recommended the agency not exercise options in the
contract that would have improved the building's security and
led to building code and life safety improvements. Startlingly,
this is one recommendation that GSA was more than willing to
follow.
Also testifying in April 2011 was Ms. Julia Dudley, the
Clerk of Court at the Poff Federal Building. Ms. Dudley
correctly anticipated a number of impacts on the court, noting
the ability of court employees to perform their duties would be
negatively affected by repeated moves, losses of space and
facilities, shifting of burdens onto court personnel, and even
disruptions to court security systems and IT infrastructure.
Notwithstanding the public shaming of GSA and repeated
concerns expressed by public officials, including myself,
Senators Warner and Webb, and court officials regarding GSA's
justifications, decision-making, and management of the Poff
renovation, GSA refused to alter its course in a manner that
would have improved the value received by Federal taxpayers or
the ability of its Federal Judiciary tenants to perform their
duties.
Since that hearing, GSA has declared its work at the Poff
Federal Building substantially complete. The project, which was
originally budgeted at approximately $51 million, has already
cost taxpayers in the neighborhood of $65 million, and GSA is
requesting an additional $17 million. A large portion of the
initial increase is attributed to the GSA's failure to
anticipate the need to move the Veterans Affairs Regional
Office out of the building for 3 years. That failure to plan
cost taxpayers approximately $11 million while imposing
incalculable costs on Roanoke Valley veterans.
In addition, GSA claims to have not foreseen the need to
replace two 14-story brick walls that began to collapse in
2012, threatening the safety of court employees and the public
and causing the court to shut down for a week. That condition
is now estimated to cost $6 million to repair.
Notwithstanding GSA's lack of foresight, it turns out the
agency had repaired the wall once before, but it evidently did
so in such a negligent manner that it posed a danger to life
and safety, at least while the building was undergoing a major
renovation.
Mr. Chairman, I request permission to enter into the record
an article entitled ``Bricks Try Patience of Court Workers At
Poff Building,'' which was written by Laurence Hammack and
published in the December 2, 2012 Roanoke Times. The article
describes some of the impact on the court of GSA's
mismanagement of this project.
[The information referred to follows:]
__________
Mr. Goodlatte. According to the GSA, Federal courthouses
comprise nearly one-quarter of GSA's owned portfolio. That
percentage contributes an enormous amount to GSA's bottom
line--the rent it collects from Federal tenants.
While I am disappointed in the testimony of our GSA
witness, I am not at all surprised by its non-responsiveness in
refusing to address the particulars of the two cases before the
Subcommittee today. The Poff case and the expenditure of $3.4
million to win a landscaping design award at the Domenici
Federal Courthouse in Albuquerque, New Mexico, when all that
was needed was a fix to a simple leak are inexcusable. If I
were called to defend the actions of my employer in violating
Federal contracting law and repeatedly failing to prioritize
security and life safety improvements over other projects, then
I wouldn't want to defend those choices either.
These cases are symptomatic of a larger problem, though.
GSA's arrogance, refusal to consult and engage in meaningful
pre-project planning with local court officials, inability to
perform projects on time and on budget, and the lack of
qualified on-site supervision not only costs taxpayers an
enormous amount of money, it also shifts costs to the
Judiciary, jeopardizes the safety and security of judges, court
employees and the public, and impairs the essential duties of
Federal courts to perform their constitutional duties.
Our GSA witness can paint a rosy picture of the
relationship between GSA and the courts, describing it as a
``close relationship'' where projects are ``jointly
prioritized'' and ``joint efforts'' are made ``to improve
planning and drive down the overall cost of the Judiciary's
space needs,'' but he and the Members of this Committee know
the truth. The Judiciary does not have joint responsibility for
determining how its space needs are met, nor do they have
control over the rent GSA collects.
The two projects we focus on today are likely the tip of
the iceberg. Since announcing this hearing a week ago, we have
received reports from several judicial districts around the
country that involve similar concerns about GSA's ineptitude,
incompetence, and lack of responsiveness.
As an example, Mr. Chairman, I ask permission to enter into
the record four documents that were received yesterday from the
Honorable Aida M. Delgado-Colo'n, the Chief Judge of the U.S.
District Court in the District of Puerto Rico.
[The information referred to follows:]
__________
__________
__________
__________
Mr. Goodlatte. Judge Colo'n describes a situation where GSA
has taken 2 years to determine a method to terminate an
allegedly incompetent contractor and jeopardized the completion
of a project that cost more than $99 million. According to
Judge Colo'n, our GSA witness today, Deputy Commissioner
Michael Gelber, has known about this situation for some time.
And yet, to date, progress continues to lag.
And 2 days ago, the Director of the Administrative Office
of the United States Courts sent a memo to the chief judges of
all United States Courts. The memo states, in part, that the
Administrative Office ``and the Judicial Conference's Space and
Facilities Committee have long been searching for a way to hold
GSA more accountable for the services it provides to the courts
for the more than $1 billion in rent the Judiciary pays to the
GSA each year. Disagreements on the rent GSA charges the
Judiciary, on project delivery and estimates, on overtime
utilities, and on space assignments and billing validation have
been longstanding issues.''
Judges and local court officials are clearly thankful that
this Subcommittee is seeking to hold GSA accountable, and many
are approaching us, anxious to tell their stories of waste,
arrogance, and indifference at the hands of the GSA.
In addition, I want to inform the Members of the
Subcommittee that the Government Accountability Office is
conducting a systematic review of all courthouse projects
undertaken by GSA under the authority of the stimulus bill.
I am pleased to report that Chairman Shuster, the Chairman
of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, which
has direct oversight over GSA's operations and management of
the Federal Civilian Real Estate Portfolio, has joined me in
the effort to study GSA's mismanagement of the billions
expended pursuant to this authority.
In a very real sense, GSA's mismanagement of court
facilities imposes a hidden tax on the operations of our
Federal courts and impedes American justice.
I thank the Chairman for conducting this hearing.
Notwithstanding the GSA's continuing efforts to obfuscate and
evade responsibility, I welcome today's hearing as a step
forward in holding GSA and its officials accountable publicly
for their conduct.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Coble. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair recognizes the distinguished gentleman from
Michigan, Mr. Conyers, for his opening statement.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee. And I welcome the distinguished witnesses that are
here.
I sometimes think I am in a Transportation Committee
hearing. We don't have jurisdiction over many of the issues
that have already been raised. They are not squarely within our
Committee's jurisdiction. What we are concerned about here on
this Committee is the Judiciary's constitutional obligations
and fundamental operations. The Federal courthouse renovation
projects are not funded from Federal Judiciary appropriations
for which our Committee is responsible for authorizing in the
ordinary course of events. Rather, funds for these projects are
derived from appropriations allocated to the General Services
Administration, GSA, which is charged with addressing the
building facility needs of the Federal Judiciary and which is
subject to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's
jurisdiction.
So we seem to be searching for some answers to questions
that more appropriately belong in yet another distinguished and
important Committee of the House of Representatives. In fact,
the other Committee has already held a hearing examining many
of the same issues that we expect to explore today, at least
with respect to the Poff Courthouse. Thus, it is unclear why
our Committee is insinuating itself into an area that is not
properly in our jurisdiction.
Now, today's hearing focuses on just two court facilities
out of approximately 779 GSA-managed buildings for which the
Federal Judiciary pays rent. These Federal Judiciary facilities
account for more than 42 million square feet of space and
include 446 Federal courthouses. Unfortunately, GSA has
received sometimes well-deserved criticism with respect to how
it manages these properties and otherwise operates. But the
Deputy Commissioner was only notified last week about this
hearing, and a lot of it, as we can tell, already turns around
the GSA.
I am wondering if we would have even had a GSA witness
present had it not been for the determination of our staff to
make sure that we hear all sides of this issue.
Nevertheless, I am unaware of any formal complaint from the
Judicial Conference of the United States regarding GSA's
management of Federal courthouse facilities. In fact, the
Conference notified us just yesterday that it intends to study
this very issue on a comprehensive survey and working group
collaborative format with GSA, and I think that is a copy of
the letter I have from the distinguished Ranking Member of this
Subcommittee, Jerry Nadler, and I ask unanimous consent to put
it in the record. Thank you.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*See submission, page 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Coble. Without objection.
Mr. Conyers. In fact, the Conference notified us just
yesterday that it intends to study this very issue based on a
comprehensive survey and working group collaborative format
with the General Services Administration. It has further been
told to me that the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr.
Goodlatte, has requested the GSA to examine how it went about
selecting court facilities for renovation under the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
So it strikes me as a bit premature to conduct a hearing on
just two facilities when there are ongoing efforts to undertake
a system-wide review of the GSA management and renovation of
all Federal court buildings.
Now, I am pleased that our distinguished Members of the
Judiciary, Judges Conrad and Johnson, as well as Ms. Smith,
have significant concerns about various aspects of GSA handling
of the renovation projects at their respective courts. Although
these witnesses speak in their individual capacities and not on
behalf of the Federal Judiciary as a whole, I commend their
commitment to ensuring transparency and accountability with
respect to the expenditure of Federal money for these purposes.
It is my hope that GSA will carefully consider their
serious concerns and seek to improve how it can better prepare
court personnel about the scope and anticipated disruptive
effects that such renovation projects can or usually entail.
Finally, if our goal is meaningful engagement with the GSA
on its work in our Federal court buildings, then we should
endeavor to do so in an ongoing and bipartisan fashion, and
unfortunately that does not seem to have happened here. My
understanding is that GSA was only made aware of and invited to
testify at this hearing on the same day that the Majority
issued its public hearing notice. So, in fact, GSA was unaware
of any complaints from my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle about the Domenici Courthouse in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Although today's oversight hearing apparently focuses on
just two case studies, I hope Mr. Gelber on behalf of GSA will
provide some perspective on some of the other renovation
projects that are underway or under consideration. For example,
I know that GSA is preparing a renovation activity in the
Detroit Federal Courthouse, the Levin Courthouse in Detroit, a
long overdue project that will modernize and preserve an
historic courthouse that has served the hub of the Federal
justice system in our area for over 80 years.
Chief U.S. District Judge Gerald Rosen very much welcomes
this renovation, as do I, because it not only will preserve a
major historic landmark for the City of Detroit but contribute
to the revitalization of the city through the creation of new
jobs and opportunities for development.
So I commend Subcommittee Chairman Coble and the full
Committee Chairman Goodlatte for their concern in ensuring
taxpayer dollars are properly accounted for and that Federal
courthouse renovation projects entail no wasteful expenditures.
Equally deserving of the Committee's consideration,
however, is whether the Federal Judiciary is adequately funded
to meet all of its constitutionally mandated responsibilities,
as well as those imposed by Congress. As you may recall, the
sequestration cuts that went into effect last year forced the
Federal Judiciary to delay trials, to recess trials, to reduce
or furlough staff, and cut electronic and GPS monitoring of
some offenders. In fact, the Federal Defender Program
instituted lengthy furloughs and cut its staff by more than 10
percent, thereby threatening the Judiciary's ability to meet
its obligation to provide counsel to indigent defendants, as
constitutionally required.
And so, along with some of my colleagues in the House, we
wrote the Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts,
expressing serious concerns about how these budget cuts were
impacting that program, and we are trying to restore some of
the lost funding for the Judiciary, which was partially
achieved through the Congress' passage of a continuing
resolution and the bipartisan Budget Act of 2013.
So I encourage my colleagues to be sensitive to the
discussions that go on this morning with our distinguished
witnesses and that we work as cooperatively as possible to best
effectuate the Federal Judiciary's imperative mandate to serve
all who seek justice.
I thank you for the time allotted and I yield back.
Mr. Coble. I thank the gentleman.
Without objection, statements from other Members will be
made part of the record.
We have a very distinguished panel today. I will begin by
swearing in our witnesses prior to introducing them.
If you all would please stand?
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Coble. Let the record reflect that all responded in the
affirmative.
Our first witness this morning is the Honorable William P.
Johnson, United States District Court for the District of New
Mexico. In August of 2001, President George W. Bush nominated
Judge Johnson to the Federal bench, and in December of 2001 the
United States Senate confirmed Judge Johnson.
From 2006 until 2013, Judge Johnson served as the 10th
Circuit's Representative to the Judicial Conference Committee
on Space and Facilities. During this time, Judge Johnson dealt
with space and facilities issues at the national and circuit
level, including new courthouse projects, courthouse renovation
projects, and the closure of non-resident courthouses to reduce
the Judiciary's footprint.
Judge Johnson received his J.D. from the Washington and Lee
University School of Law and his B.A. from the Virginia
Military Institute.
You went a long way from your roots Judge, but good to have
you here.
Our second witness is the Honorable Glen E. Conrad, the
United States Chief Judge for the Western District of Virginia.
In April of 2003, President George W. Bush nominated Judge
Conrad as a U.S. District Judge for the Western District of
Virginia, and the United States Senate confirmed his nomination
in a unanimous 89-0 vote in September of 2003.
Prior to his current position, from 1976 to 2003, Judge
Conrad served as a magistrate judge in the Western District of
Virginia's Abingdon, Charlottesville, and Roanoke divisions.
Judge Conrad is a member of the Civil Justice Reform Act
Advisory Committee and the Western District of Virginia Court
Security Committee. He received both his J.D. and B.A. in
Government from the College of William and Mary.
Good to have you with us, Judge, as well.
Our third witness is Ms. Jennifer Smith, Architect and
Project Manager for the Western District of Virginia. In her
position, Ms. Smith managed both the Poff Federal Building
renovation and Abingdon Courthouse renovation on behalf of the
Federal courts. Ms. Smith has 16 years of experience in the
design and construction industry, and 11 years' experience as
project manager and design lead. She received her M.A. in
Architecture from Yale University and her B.S. in Architecture
from the University of Virginia. Ms. Smith is a registered
architect in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Good to have you with us, Ms. Smith.
And our final witness this morning is the Honorable Michael
Gelber, who is Deputy Commissioner of GSA's Public Buildings
Service. In his position, Mr. Gelber serves as the Service's
Chief Operating Officer. The Public Building Service designs,
develops, renovates and manages a real estate portfolio for
approximately 378 million square feet of space in more than
9,000 owned and leased properties in the United States, as well
as six territories.
Prior to his current position, Mr. Gelber was the agency's
Federal Acquisition Service Regional Commissioner in the
Pacific Rim Region. He is a graduate of Columbia University and
possesses a Bachelor's degree in history. He also attended the
University of Chicago.
Mr. Gelber, good to have you with us as well.
Good to have all of you with us.
Folks, you will note there are two light panels on your
table. That is the warning of the timeframe. When the green
light illuminates to orange, that is your warning that you have
1 minute remaining. You will not be severely punished if you
don't wrap it up immediately, but if you keep in mind that it
is on or about a minute to go when that amber light appears.
Good to have all of you with us.
Judge Johnson, we will start with you.
Judge, if you would pull that mic a little closer to you.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE WILLIAM P. JOHNSON, DISTRICT JUDGE,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
Judge Johnson. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee,
it is a distinguished honor for me to have the opportunity to
be here this morning. I thank you for the Subcommittee's
invitation to testify.
I prepared a written statement concerning the sustainable
landscape project that the GSA did on the Albuquerque
courthouse. It is the Domenici Courthouse. It was named by
Congress in honor of Senator Pete Domenici. He was New Mexico's
longest serving United States Senator. My statement is in the
record, so I see no purpose in reading that statement again. I
would be happy to answer any questions.
One thing I would say is that obviously the statement
focused on the landscape project. But one thing, and I tried to
incorporate this in my statement, that the Domenici Courthouse
was completed in 1998, and it was done on time and under budget
at a cost of $41 million. This is 16 years ago. It is an
impressive public building. I attached some photos to the back.
But again, I think it should be noted that at the time it was
built, 16 years ago, it was on time and under budget, which I
think is a significant achievement of the General Services
Administration.
With that, I will yield back the rest of my time, and I
stand for any questions.
[The prepared statement of Judge Johnson follows:]
__________
Mr. Coble. Well, you beat the amber light considerably,
Judge. You are well timed this morning.
Judge Conrad, good to have you with us, sir.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE GLEN E. CONRAD, CHIEF JUDGE, UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Judge Conrad. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr.
Chairman, Ranking Member----
Mr. Coble. Judge, if you would pull that mic a little
closer to you?
Judge Conrad. Thank you. Good morning, and good morning to
Ranking Member Nadler and esteemed Members of the Subcommittee.
My name is Glen Conrad, and I am currently the Chief Judge of
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Virginia. I have been Chief Judge since July of 2010 at a time
shortly after the designation of the Richard H. Poff Federal
Building in Roanoke for a stimulus project under the authority
of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Thank you for
the opportunity to share our court's experiences as the ARRA
project unfolded, with emphasis on our interaction with GSA.
The theme of my testimony this morning is that the quality
of the final product achieved through the expenditure of the
Poff stimulus funds was greatly diminished because Third Branch
officials did not have the opportunity to offer input during
the project's design phase and planning stages. I also suggest
that the compromise in the court's performance of its
constitutional function during the construction phase could
have been better managed had there been more precise
communication between the GSA and the courts.
Following the announcement of the Poff stimulus project,
the chief judges of our district participated in only three
documented meetings regarding the proposed work. These meetings
dealt with how the work would proceed, including the temporary
relocation of all the other tenants in our building, the
dislocation of the court personnel as the window removal and
replacement proceeded, and security precautions. To my
knowledge, at no point were any of the court's representatives
consulted as to how this remarkable infusion of money could be
utilized to produce a more serviceable and functional facility.
Except for those few limited contacts, it was as if a wall of
silence had been established with the court on one side and the
project contractor and GSA on the other.
All of this begs the question as to what the court would
have communicated and what measures we would have implemented
if we had been consulted and advised. As supplemented by my
written statement of testimony, allow me to highlight a few
critical considerations.
First, the Poff Building is a multi-tenant facility in
which the United States District Court and the Veterans
Administration are the major tenants. I have heard no one
suggest that multi-tenant Federal courthouses are not obsolete.
Because the Third Branch was not given the opportunity to
participate in the discussion about the Poff Building during
the design and planning stages, the court's views as to the
building's replacement alternative simply were not considered.
Two, because of the lack of involvement in the planning
stage of the project, I believe that the impact caused by the
construction work was unduly disruptive and that the court's
function and role and the importance of its image were not
adequately considered by those who oversaw the project.
Three, regrettably, despite the expenditure of substantial
sums, I submit that security at the Poff Building was not
enhanced as a result of the stimulus project and that in one
critical respect our security has been diminished.
Four, for me, the most bothersome and disturbing reality is
that 5 years from the announcement of the Poff stimulus project
and after the expenditure of millions of taxpayer dollars, the
user functionality in the court portion of the building has not
been enhanced in any way, shape or form. The Poff Building was
constructed in the 1970's. The building has multiple design
flaws which impede efficiency and safety for the court, for
those who work in the court, and for employees of other
agencies who must traverse court areas in order to reach their
own places of work. If GSA had collaborated with the court in
the design and planning stages, it is reasonable to believe
that most of the design flaws could have been easily remedied,
in most cases at minimal expense.
In conclusion, during my 39 years in the Western District
of Virginia, it has been my experience that court officers and
GSA officials work reasonably well together when they engage in
open discussion and free exchange of ideas and information. On
this occasion, however, I must conclude that we did not enjoy
positive collaboration with GSA on the Poff stimulus project
and that, as a result, the final project suffered. I hope that
my comments will prove useful in helping to ensure that other
courts will have better experiences with GSA in the future.
Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to entertain questions as
the Committee may have for me.
[The prepared statement of Judge Conrad follows:]
__________
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Judge.
Ms. Smith?
TESTIMONY OF JENNIFER L. SMITH, ARCHITECT AND PROJECT MANAGER,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Ms. Smith. Good morning, Chairman Coble, Chairman
Goodlatte, Ranking Members Nadler and Conyers, and esteemed
Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to
present testimony on the impacts of the ARRA modernization
project at the Richard H. Poff Federal Building.
My name is Jennifer Smith, and I am the Project Manager and
Architect for the U.S. District Court in the Western District
of Virginia. Since March of 2011, my primary job responsibility
has been representing the courts in daily interaction with GSA
and the general contractor responsible for construction.
Chief Judge Conrad has given testimony about the hardships
encountered by the courts during construction. I will offer a
few examples.
A certain amount of disruption was expected with
construction, but the magnitude of disruption at the Poff
Building was at times overwhelming. For example, we had five
floods in occupied space during a 17-month period. These were
major deluges of gallons and gallons of water which collapsed
ceilings, saturated walls and carpets. Occupants had to be
relocated and finishes had to be replaced.
We also had frequent loss of power which, although very
disruptive to staff, usually caused no damage. One notable
exception occurred when an electrician cut the circuit which
feeds our server room. Two servers were destroyed, public
Internet and phones were disrupted, and IT staff worked hours
of overtime to restore systems.
Installation of the new 12-story curtain wall created an
intolerable amount of noise. Workers hammer-drilled locations
for new steel anchors in hundreds of locations on the face of
the building. The work took place immediately adjacent to
occupied space at the exterior walls of staff offices. Noise
and vibration traveled through the concrete slab and disrupted
court proceedings as well. This work activity should have only
been planned for off hours. It was conducted almost exclusively
during work hours.
Most disturbing of all the problems we saw was GSA's lack
of enforcement of life safety codes during construction. Fire
exits were frequently blocked by scaffolding, debris and
fencing; smoke detectors were left covered; flammable material
was used as wall and floor protection in exit access corridors;
construction doors leading to work areas open to five-story
drops were left open, unlocked and accessible to the public.
These are just a few examples of what court staff struggled
with every day for 3 years.
Almost without exception, I worked directly with the
general contractor to resolve these problems. GSA had no on-
site staff to fulfill this vital function. GSA project
management staff in Philadelphia visited monthly, except during
a travel restriction period when they didn't visit at all. The
GSA field office representative, originally tasked with filling
many of the functions I assumed, left on medical leave and was
never replaced. In the end, it was the general contractor's
willingness to cooperate on scheduling issues, which allowed
the courts to continue to function at all.
In conclusion, it is my hope that future projects planned
to repair our retaining walls, brick veneer and parking garage
will benefit from GSA's full consideration of our problems
during the ARRA project.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Members Nadler and
Conyers, and Members, for your time today. I will be pleased to
answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Smith follows:]
__________
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Ms. Smith.
Mr. Gelber? Mr. Gelber, pull that mic closer to you.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL GELBER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE, U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Gelber. Good morning, Chairman Coble, Chairman
Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, Ranking Member Nadler, and
Members of the Committee. My name is Michael Gelber, and I am
the Deputy Commissioner of GSA's Public Buildings Service.
GSA's mission is to deliver the best value in real estate,
acquisition, and technology services to government and the
American people. As part of this mission, GSA maintains a close
partnership with the Administrative Office of the United States
Courts to meet the nationwide space needs of the Judiciary in
as cost-effective a manner as possible.
I look forward to outlining our partnership with the
courts, how investments for the Judiciary's space needs are
jointly prioritized, challenges facing these investments, and
joint efforts to improve planning and drive down the overall
cost of the Judiciary's space needs.
GSA works with the courts to create and maintain facilities
that expedite the efficient and secure administration of
justice. A significant representation of this partnership is
GSA's work to make needed investments both in new courthouses
prioritized by the courts, as well as existing facilities where
the Judiciary retains long-term space needs.
In selecting courthouse construction projects, the courts
identify their most pressing space, security, and other
operational needs. Since 1996, the Judiciary has prioritized
proposed new construction in a 5-year plan that incorporates a
number of best practices for capital planning, and GSA works to
include projects from that plan into GSA's annual
appropriations requests. For the projects that Congress
approves and appropriates, such as Mobile, Alabama in Fiscal
Year 2014, GSA pursues design solutions that maximize the
positive civic impact of budgeted resources.
Since 1991, GSA has completed the construction of 80
courthouses for the Judiciary. In that time, Congress has
funded $8 billion for site design and construction of these, as
well as 13 other courthouses that are currently in design or
construction phases.
GSA also executes critical major repair and alteration
projects at existing courthouses within the Federal inventory.
Unfortunately, between Fiscal Years 2011 and 2013, GSA's
capital budget requests were cut by roughly 80 percent,
severely curtailing investment for the courts and the Federal
agencies that GSA serves.
The Fiscal Year 2014 appropriations represented a
meaningful step forward in beginning to address the backlog of
critical capital projects government-wide. In the Fiscal Year
2014 program, GSA is making more than $180 million in specific,
significant investments in Federal courts through major repair
and alteration projects in Mobile, Alabama; Los Angeles,
California; and Detroit, Michigan. In the Fiscal Year 2015
budget, GSA is requesting more than $90 million for investments
in support of the courts.
In Detroit, Michigan, GSA is executing a multi-phase
renovation of the historic Theodore Levin U.S. Courthouse to
replace building systems that have reached the end of their
useful lives. The Fiscal Year 2015 budget request also includes
$20 million to improve physical security in buildings occupied
by the Judiciary and the U.S. Department of Justice Marshals
Service. This program, established by the courts, allows GSA to
address serious security deficiencies in a timely and less
costly manner than new courthouse construction.
If consistency in funding can be restored, GSA will be
better able to invest in its Federal inventory. Having access
to all the receipts of the Federal Buildings Fund will allow
GSA to better address the needs of the courts and the Federal
agencies that pay rent to GSA.
While GSA is pursuing strategic investments in partnership
with the courts, GSA and the courts also are working together
to improve the utilization, efficiency, and delivery of
courthouses.
The Judiciary recently implemented policy requiring judges
to share courtrooms and has revised its estimates of future
judgeships. These changes have allowed GSA to pursue smaller
and less costly new courthouse construction projects. In some
cases, these improvements have eliminated the need for a new
courthouse altogether, allowing for modest renovations to
existing space.
Over the past several years, GSA worked with the courts to
revise and reduce the requirements for almost every courthouse
on the courts' 5-year plan, as well as enhance the level of
oversight on all projects that move forward. While working with
the Judiciary to reduce its space needs, GSA also strengthened
controls to ensure these courthouse projects are constructed
within budget. GSA will continue collaborating with the courts
to reduce courthouse costs while maximizing their functionality
and civic benefit.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about
our ongoing partnership with the courts. I am happy to answer
any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gelber follows:]
__________
Mr. Coble. I thank you, lady and gentlemen. This is the
first time in my memory that all witnesses have prevailed over
the red light, so I commend you for that.
We try to comply with the 5-minute rule as well, so I will
start with Judge Johnson.
You said, Judge Johnson, that your impression was that the
GSA gave little consideration to the concerns raised by judges,
with one exception. Is the lack of consideration typical or
atypical of your experience and the experiences you heard about
from other judges across the country?
Judge Johnson. It has been my experience, Mr. Chairman,
that on many of the projects that are done, whether it is new
courthouse construction or a renovation project, like what
Judge Conrad articulated, that oftentimes there is a lack of
communication and these projects go forward notwithstanding
concerns raised by the courts.
Certainly at the national level, Mr. Gelber has a close
working relationship with the individuals in the Administrative
Office of the Courts that head the space and Facilities
Committee nationally. There is, I think, a close working
relationship. But just, for example, in the Tenth Circuit
alone, I believe there are three different GSA regions. New
Mexico is in the Fort Worth region, but Colorado, for example,
I believe there is a regional headquarters in Denver. So
oftentimes I would say the regional offices and people outside
of the main office maybe don't get the memo about the need to
communicate and do collaborative-type efforts.
So there are times when you have issues where it can be
disruptive in terms of these various types of projects where
there is not that communication.
Mr. Coble. Do you think, Judge, there is a difference in
the level of respect GSA shows to court officials when they are
dealing with the local level rather than working through the
Administrative Office of the Courts?
Judge Johnson. In some instances, yes. But again, it is
hard to make a blanket rule because, for example, it was my
experience when I was chairman of the Tenth Circuit Space and
Facilities Committee, the District of Wyoming, for example, the
Cheyenne Courthouse, there was a major renovation project
there, and there was a very good working relationship.
Actually, the judges and the court officials in the District of
Wyoming were very complimentary of the GSA people there in
Wyoming that handled that project. So I think it depends on
what part of the country you are talking about.
Mr. Coble. I got you.
Judge Johnson. But I will say that, for example, when I
came on board, I wondered why my district employed an
architect. I come from the state court, and like Ms. Smith is
working for the Western District of Virginia, at the time we
were experiencing a lot of growth. We had a border courthouse
in Las Cruces that was in the design phase, and we had to
employ an architect to interface with GSA on numerous issues,
whether it was the new courthouse or just simply doing some
simple tenant alterations on an existing courthouse to
accommodate the addition of new magistrate judges, for example.
Mr. Coble. What say you to that, Judge Conrad, the
difference in the level of the AOC as opposed to the local?
Judge Conrad. I can't speak from the same perspective as
Judge Johnson because I haven't served on the Space and
Facilities Committee, and I don't know what interactions GSA
has with our administrative arm. But on the local level, I
think it depends on the project. Sometimes we get good
response. Sometimes we get good collaboration. But in the case
I have described, we did not, and I think it caused the final
product to be inadequate and not responsive to our needs. So I
would say that it varies on a case-by-case basis.
Mr. Coble. I thank you.
My time has about expired.
I recognize the distinguished gentleman from New York, Mr.
Nadler.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gelber, our colleague from Puerto Rico, Representative
Pierluisi, has some significant concerns about the GSA's
management of renovations to the Degetau--I hope I pronounced
it properly--Degetau Courthouse in his district. We will be
submitting a question for the record on his behalf asking GSA
to explain what specific actions it will take to ensure that
the project is completed within the remaining budgetary and
time constraints. Will you agree to respond in a timely and
complete fashion?
Mr. Gelber. Yes, sir.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Can you get us a response within 45
days?
Mr. Gelber. Yes, sir.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
Ms. Smith, I understand you are currently assisting on a
GSA renovation to the Federal courthouse in Greenbelt,
Maryland. How is that project going?
Ms. Smith. Thank you for your question. My work with the
Greenbelt courthouse, I would say the most marked difference
between the Greenbelt project and the Poff Building project is
that GSA has a significant onsite presence. They have a GSA
inspector who works alongside the night crew, so there is
constant supervision, and their project manager is on site at
least once a week.
I think that the project in Greenbelt at this point is
going very well. We are beginning design on Phases 2 through 5.
Mr. Nadler. So you think the GSA is doing that well?
Ms. Smith. I think there is----
Mr. Nadler. Among other reasons because they have an on-
site manager.
Ms. Smith. Exactly.
Mr. Nadler. Have you talked to the GSA about perhaps having
an on-site manager at the Poff Courthouse?
Ms. Smith. When we lost our field office representative, I
was told it would take a number of months to find a
replacement. His replacement actually just came on about a
month ago.
Mr. Nadler. And his replacement is an on-site manager?
Ms. Smith. Yes. He would have been the on-site construction
contact for the courts. So I believe that GSA responded, but
the response took so long that we were without that supervisor.
Mr. Nadler. And he came on about a month ago.
Ms. Smith. Yes.
Mr. Nadler. So it may be, hopefully, that starting now or
reasonably now and he or she gets acclimated to that position,
that many of these problems will no longer be there on an
ongoing basis?
Ms. Smith. I hope so. We have many projects scheduled to
begin soon, so that would be wonderful.
Mr. Nadler. Okay. So we may have solved this problem, or
may not have. It remains to be seen. Is that accurate?
Ms. Smith. I would hope so. I would hope that he would take
over a lot of the things that I did.
Mr. Nadler. So we should take a look at this again in a few
months, maybe.
Mr. Gelber, the projects that we have been discussing today
involve GSA renovations to existing buildings, not new
construction. What funding has GSA received for such projects
over the past few years, and what has been the funding trend
over time?
Mr. Gelber. For the last 4 years, GSA has only received
funding for one Federal courthouse.
Mr. Nadler. One new Federal courthouse.
Mr. Gelber. One new Federal courthouse in Mobile, Alabama.
For Fiscal Years 2011, 2012, and 2013, we received minimal
funding for our entire capital budget. In Fiscal Year 2014, we
received funding for the Mobile facility.
Mr. Nadler. Now, you said you received funding for one new
Federal courthouse.
Mr. Gelber. In the last 4 years.
Mr. Nadler. How many requests from the Judiciary do you
have for new Federal courthouses?
Mr. Gelber. My recollection of what is called the 5-year
plan produced by the courts, there are at least 10 projects on
that list.
Mr. Nadler. So you have 10 projects on the 5-year list, and
you have gotten funding for one.
Mr. Gelber. That is correct.
Mr. Nadler. What about renovation money?
Mr. Gelber. We have received in the Fiscal Year 2014 budget
some renovation money for facilities at courthouses.
Mr. Nadler. Some renovation.
Mr. Gelber. Again, in the previous three fiscal years, we
had not received a substantial amount of money for our entire
capital program.
Mr. Nadler. Would you call the amount you got in this
fiscal year a substantial amount of money?
Mr. Gelber. Yes, yes. It is the first true infusion of
capital that we have had available in the last 4 years.
Mr. Nadler. And what percentage of need for that going
forward do you think that what you got is?
Mr. Gelber. We have a substantial backlog of capital
investment projects across the country that need to be met. We
are hoping to be able to receive what we refer to as the full
proceeds from the Federal Building Fund, which is approximately
about $2 billion.
Mr. Nadler. When you say full proceeds, full compared to
what?
Mr. Gelber. In the Fiscal Year 2014 budget, I believe we
received around $1.5 billion.
Mr. Nadler. When you said full, you mean full compared to
what you have requested, or full compared to what Congress
appropriated? I mean, full compared to what?
Mr. Gelber. Full compared to the proceeds or the receipts
of the Federal Building Fund. It is a revolving fund account,
and the intent is, in order for us to better serve the Federal
agencies and the Judiciary that occupy these buildings, having
full access to those receipts.
Mr. Nadler. And you haven't had full access.
Mr. Gelber. That is correct.
Mr. Nadler. Because of the appropriations restrictions by
Congress?
Mr. Gelber. My understanding is it is based on the general
constraints on the Federal budget.
Mr. Nadler. Which would be appropriations constraints by
Congress. Okay.
Can you give us a sense of how the inability to maintain
buildings--that is, deferred maintenance--impacts long-term
costs? For example, does it impact ongoing costs of operating
facilities or risk having conditions deteriorate even further
so that later repairs are more costly?
Mr. Gelber. The short answer is yes.
Mr. Nadler. And are you in a position, have you been in a
position where you have to defer necessary maintenance?
Mr. Gelber. Yes.
Mr. Nadler. And that is because of limitations on funding
provided by Congress, limitations on your ability to use that
revolving fund?
Mr. Gelber. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Nadler. Now, let me just ask you one other question
about the revolving fund. How does money get into the fund?
Mr. Gelber. I'm sorry?
Mr. Nadler. How----
Mr. Gelber. Yes. Money entering the fund are the rent
receipts----
Mr. Nadler. Okay. So rent receipts go into the fund, and it
is a revolving fund. The restrictions that we place on your
ability to use that fund, which has a dedicated revenue source,
rent, does that have any impact aside from a negative--does
that have any budgetary impact aside from enabling us to say
the deficit is a little smaller? Does it have any real budget
impact? I don't mean the impact of your having to do the
deferred maintenance. That is obvious. But does it really save
money to the Federal Government?
Mr. Gelber. I believe--I am not an expert on that
particular issue, but my understanding is that, yes, it does
allow the Federal Government to say that they are deferring or
reducing the deficit by a fraction----
Mr. Nadler. To say it, I understand. Does it really save
money in any real way? You don't know.
Mr. Gelber. At the end of the day, these expenses and these
costs will need to be addressed, and these buildings will need
to be maintained properly. We are deferring----
Mr. Nadler. Okay.
Mr. Chairman, may I have one additional minute? I have one
more question.
Mr. Coble. Without objection.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
For Judges Conrad and Johnson, first of all, thank you for
being with us today and sharing your concerns about the
renovation projects in your buildings.
A critical issue that some of us, I and some of my
colleagues, have been urging the Committee to address is the
impact that sequestration and budget cuts have had on the
function of the courts. Can you just tell us briefly what has
been the impact on your courts, the courts that you deal with,
of sequestration and other budget cuts in recent years?
Judge Conrad. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. As probably most
of the Members here know, I joined a number of other chief
judges during the days of sequestration and wrote Congress
expressing our concern as to the impediments, the effects
sequestration had on the administration of justice in our
respective districts, and I stand by all the things that were
said in that letter.
Mr. Nadler. Is that just sequestration or other budget
cuts, too?
Judge Conrad. Sequestration and budget cuts, but I don't
want to be heard to compare apples and oranges.
Mr. Nadler. Okay.
Judge Conrad. Because in those situations, we understood
months in advance what was going to be required by way of cuts.
Mr. Nadler. But with sequestration, you didn't have that
advance warning.
Judge Conrad. We did. We knew what we were going to have to
do to cut our budgets to conform to the money, the
appropriations that were going to be made available to our
districts. So we had a chance to prepare. Furthermore----
Mr. Nadler. So I don't understand what the apples and the
oranges are that we are not supposed to compare.
Judge Conrad. I am going to explain. Furthermore, with
sequestration, Congress was kind to invite representatives from
the Third Branch to be here. Judge Bates, Judge Hogan, Judge
Gibbons have all been called to testify, and they were very
knowledgeable and expressed the position of the court very
well, and I think Congress heard what they were saying. With my
project, though, I was never given the opportunity to be
heard----
Mr. Nadler. I see.
Judge Conrad [continuing]. And I was never given the
opportunity to have advance notice so I could plan properly for
what was going to happen.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
Judge Johnson?
Judge Johnson. Congressman Nadler, these are some rough
numbers, but in Fiscal Year 2011 the District of New Mexico's
budget was $9.7 million. For Fiscal Year 2014, the current
fiscal year, we are at approximately $8.9 million. So it is an
8 percent reduction. In terms of staffing the 2011 court
operations, there were 112 people on board; 2014, 92 on board.
So it is approximately a 14 percent reduction in personnel.
That was accomplished through either retirements, early outs,
or buyouts. And for that same time period, we have had
approximately a 20 percent increase in caseload. That is
virtually all in the criminal area because we are a Southwest
border district.
So in terms of the Clerk's Office, we have handled that,
and again we have handled it through increases in automation.
Probably the biggest area of concern would be in the United
States Probation Office. In addition to being a Southwest
border district, there are 30 different Indian tribes and
pueblos within the states, ranging from smaller pueblos to I
think about a third of the Navajo Nation is in New Mexico, two-
thirds in Arizona. For probation officers to supervise, there
are a lot of logistical issues there. So the impact on the
United States Probation Office was the primary area of concern.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you very much.
My time has expired. I yield back.
Mr. Coble. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Gelber, the 10 projects to which you referred, is that
new construction or renovation, or both?
Mr. Gelber. Those are strictly for new construction, sir.
Mr. Coble. All new construction?
Mr. Gelber. That is right.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, sir.
The Chair recognizes the distinguished gentleman from
Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, following on to the letter I think introduced
by the gentleman from Michigan or the gentleman from New York
dated June 16--actually, it was the letter of June 18, I
believe, that was made a part of the record--I would like to
ask unanimous consent to make a part of the record as well a
letter from Judge Carol Bagley Amon, the Chief Judge of the
Eastern District of New York, to all of the chief judges of the
district courts throughout the country, and a letter from Judge
John D. Bates, who is the Director of the Administrative Office
of the United States Courts, dated June 17, pointing out the
need for the gathering of information and pointing out, for
example, in Judge Bates' letter, ``In addition and in order to
prepare a comprehensive and geographically complete report of
GSA deficiencies from around the country for this initiative,
Judge Amon sent to you by letter yesterday to describe specific
examples. These examples will be provided to GSA.'' So I just
want to make it clear that this is not something that is unique
to the situation in New Mexico or the situation in Virginia,
and I would ask that those two letters be made a part of the
record, along with the one already introduced.
[The information referred to follows:]
__________
__________
Mr. Goodlatte. Mr. Gelber, the point has been made that
funds are tight. This year, for example, we are about 8 months
into the current fiscal year. So far, the Federal Government
has spent more than $600 billion, more than it has taken in.
Would you agree that under circumstances like that, funds need
to be used wisely by government agencies to stretch dollars as
far as they can be stretched?
Mr. Gelber. Yes, sir.
Mr. Goodlatte. So would you say that spending $3.4 million
to patch a leak in a garage at the Federal building in
Albuquerque, New Mexico was a wise use of Federal funds when a
number of suggestions were put forward that are listed in Judge
Johnson's testimony about how the problem could have been
solved without a complete re-landscaping of the exterior of the
courthouse?
Mr. Gelber. We felt the key issue regarding that project
was the preservation of the roof. The landscaping would affect
the parking deck that is below that landscaping. In order to
protect that structure, the GSA believed we should proceed with
a rethinking of how we approached the landscaping at that
facility. But most importantly, stabilizing the roof and
sealing the roof so that no further water leaks would occur.
Mr. Goodlatte. One of the suggestions was that you simply
go to desert landscaping. Was that not considered as a good
alternative?
Mr. Gelber. To the best of my understanding, that is what
we did at that facility.
Mr. Goodlatte. And it cost $3.4 million to----
Mr. Gelber. The majority of the work associated with that
project was associated with, in effect, rebuilding and
resealing the roof for the parking deck. A proportion of that
project was also spent on the new landscaping for that
facility, replacing the grass that was there previously with
what you and I would refer to as desert landscaping.
Mr. Goodlatte. Now, with regard to the Poff Federal
Building in Roanoke, you are aware now that a total of $82
million has been expended or requested by the GSA on this
project for a building that cost $14 million to construct in
the mid-1970's, and the purpose of that was to replace the
windows, the roof, the HVAC system, and the bathrooms in that
building. The ostensible purpose was to green the building, to
create a more energy efficient situation. It is my
understanding that the life expectancy of the materials put
into the building is somewhere between 30 and 40 years, and yet
the payback on the energy savings would take, by the
calculation of some, 218 years to recoup the so-called energy
savings in that building.
Would you say that the going-on $82 million--and I would
suggest there are going to be more expenditures beyond that--
was a good use of the taxpayer dollars in that building?
Mr. Gelber. GSA has an obligation to maintain the various
assets that we have in our inventory.
Mr. Goodlatte. But don't you have an obligation to consider
all of the alternatives in terms of providing facilities when
you do that? And don't you have an obligation to consider what
the impact is on your tenants when you do that? I mean, the
Veterans Administration, which is in a crisis over the
processing of claims and providing services and benefits and
was required to relocate out of the building for 3 years at
four separate locations while the files were remaining in the
building and had to be shuttled back and forth, you don't think
that had a serious impact on veterans? The court found itself
having to work around this with serious security issues with
regard to disruptions, a danger to the safety of the employees.
Don't you think that the GSA could have done a better job of
consulting with the tenants and considering how this would best
work to find better facilities for them and in a more cost-
efficient manner than spending $82 million, nearly seven times
or six times what was spent on the original construction of the
building?
Mr. Gelber. Based on the testimony of the Chief Judge and
Ms. Smith, I fully agree that GSA has space to improve in how
it interacted and communicated with the tenants of that
building.
Mr. Goodlatte. Well, let me ask you this. I agree with you
on that. Why hasn't anyone at GSA been held accountable with
regard to the mismanagement of this project? Has anybody been
fired or disciplined as a result of the decision-making process
that was undertaken and the results that are now painfully
evident?
Mr. Gelber. I am not aware of any personnel actions, and I
would also not agree with the notion that there was any
mismanagement that would require such personnel actions be
taken.
Mr. Goodlatte. Mr. Chairman, if I might have one additional
minute, I would like to ask another question.
Mr. Coble. Without objection.
Mr. Goodlatte. Why hasn't anyone at GSA been held
accountable for violating Federal law in publishing the
guaranteed maximum price that the government would pay for the
renovation of the Poff building? In other words, it is required
under the law that you not reveal the maximum amount. Not the
amount you would like to pay but the maximum amount you would
pay was disclosed to the people who bid on the contract. And,
lo and behold, every single one of them, what did they bid? The
maximum amount.
Was anybody held accountable for what had to be millions of
dollars in loss to the taxpayers, millions of dollars that
could have been diverted to address some of the other needs
that we have talked about here today in maintaining facilities
around the country? Was anybody held accountable for that
violation of the law?
Mr. Gelber. The GSA Inspector General reviewed that part of
the process, and no recommendation for any such prosecution or
action was made.
Mr. Goodlatte. The Inspector General is charged with
pointing out these errors, but he is not charged with managing
the operation of the GSA. The GSA is perfectly capable of
making decisions themselves with regard to how they hold people
accountable for these failures to help ensure that these things
don't occur in the future. Has anybody been disciplined for any
of this?
Mr. Gelber. I am not aware of any disciplinary actions
associated with that.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Coble. The Chair recognizes the distinguished gentleman
from Michigan, Mr. Conyers.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Following on the questions of Chairman Goodlatte, are you,
Mr. Gelber, aware that there was a Transportation Committee
hearing on the issue that keeps coming up and that the
Inspector General issued a report on it, and that came out
during a hearing on April 14, 2011 in the Committee of
jurisdiction, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee?
Mr. Gelber. I am aware of that, sir.
Mr. Conyers. And can you comment on what happened during
that? Because this is not the general subject matter that we
engage in, of oversighting how these courthouses are maintained
or create new ones or restoration, et cetera. We are working
off of a hearing of April 14, 2011 from the Transportation
Committee in which an Inspector General's report was issued,
and unless we had been at that hearing, it is hard to go back
and determine what has been accomplished since then. Would you
agree?
Mr. Gelber. I would agree with that statement, sir.
Mr. Conyers. How do we cover this? Because Mr. Chief Judge
and our other Federal Judicial member and witness, the most
important thing that can come out of this hearing is how do we
increase and improve the cooperation between GSA and the
Judiciary, and what I am trying to get from any of you that
will help me is how can we improve these relations.
Let me start off with the GSA representative.
Mr. Gelber. GSA is actively engaged in regular discussions
with representatives from the court at the senior level
regarding our space issues with the Space and Facilities
Committee. We meet on a regular basis. Just as recently as last
week we attended the Space and Facilities Committee, where we
discussed the court's interaction with GSA. GSA also has
regular meetings with certain circuit courts around the country
to better understand their needs and how we can better serve
them, as well as, as often as possible from GSA's perspective,
we engage with district court judges on specific issues that
may be of concern to those particular judges.
Clearly, based on the testimony I heard today, we have room
for improvement on particular projects, and GSA will take that
and work with the Administrative Office of the Courts, the
Space and Facilities Committee, the various circuits around the
country, and the district courts to better engage and ensure
that the courts are active participants in GSA projects and GSA
facilities around the country.
In many cases, I believe my colleagues around the country
do a good job in this matter; clearly not in all cases. We have
challenges that we need to fix, and I think one of the key
challenges that the court has presented to GSA is we need to
have a more consistent level of excellent engagement with the
court, and that is our commitment to both the court and to this
Committee.
Mr. Conyers. I am glad to hear that. I didn't know about
this tension either until this hearing, and I apologize for you
not getting notice, giving you more than a week to come before
this Committee.
Could I ask the same of Ms. Smith, please?
Ms. Smith. Yes, thank you. I would agree that greater
involvement from people on the court side very early in the
process of planning these projects is going to benefit
everyone--the court, certainly GSA, and the ease of pulling off
a project, and the taxpayer of spending less money.
Not only do the courts understand their own function, but
we also understand our facilities very well. For example, I
believe that GSA has requested funding for partial demolition
and reconstruction of our parking garage in Roanoke. When I
talked to the project executive about this in detail, he was
unaware that the parking garage actually houses the U.S.
Marshals Service sally port for bringing prisoners into the
building. It will also affect our judges' entry. So at this
point, GSA has requested funding for design and construction of
a project that these two major parts are going to have to have
some temporary construction, and I think that is not fully
understood.
So I think we are heading into a project again where I have
yet to be involved in any of the planning. So I would say right
now, the next meeting, I would really like to be at the meeting
for the parking garage.
Mr. Conyers. Well, I hope so, because we are doing major
remodernization at the Levin Courthouse Building in Detroit,
and so far--and I see the judges pretty regularly--no one has
brought any complaints or criticisms to my attention. But we
have taken two courthouses out of hundreds, and that doesn't
give us a clear picture of what is going on.
Chief Judge Conrad, maybe, do you have any impressions on
this? I know you don't work in this area as a chief judge, but
is it your view that we can improve our relationships between
GSA and the Judiciary? And if there are any specific
recommendations you would want us to know about or consider, I
would appreciate it from you, sir.
Judge Conrad. There certainly is.
Ms. Smith, this is the first I have heard that the judges'
entry into the building is going to be affected by this parking
garage demolition. [Laughter.]
Judge Conrad. That is the reason that Ms. Smith and I are
here today. And I agree, Congressman, with the theme of your
question. I think that looking forward, we have to be able to
determine some better ways to effect communication between the
GSA, which has a very difficult job to do, and the courts,
which have our own difficulties in performing our work.
So I would agree, using this Poff stimulus project as an
example, if there could have been more planning up front, if we
could have met with the design official months before the
project was let for bid, I think that we could have addressed
some of the needs that now have been left unaddressed at the
conclusion of the project. So I underline everything that you
say. I agree with it 100 percent.
Mr. Conyers. Well, thank you. Maybe, even though this may
not be in our jurisdiction, we can turn this into a positive
coming together, because this discussion may not have taken
place any other way.
Judge Johnson, what are your feelings?
Judge Johnson. Congressman Conyers, I will draw some on my
experience serving on the national committee, although I am no
longer on that committee. But I know your chief judge, Judge
Rosen.
Mr. Conyers. Yes.
Judge Johnson. And I know the issues. The courthouse in
Detroit is a magnificent historic structure. For example, the
roof has been leaking for years. There have been serious
problems at that courthouse, as well as I am also aware of
another one. I don't think it is in Chairman Coble's district,
but it is the Charlotte Courthouse, which has the same kind of
issues that Detroit has been facing, and I am glad to hear that
resources are being put into renovating what is no doubt a
magnificent building.
But when you look at, for example, what has gone into the
Poff Building, $82 million by the time everything is done and
said, part of that $82 million would go a long way to putting a
roof on the Detroit Courthouse, or the Charlotte Courthouse.
Mr. Conyers. It sure would.
Judge Johnson. So those are some of the issues that I
experienced. The Judiciary, we are captive tenants in these
courthouses, and the rent implications, even though the
landscape project in Albuquerque, the $3.4 million pales in
comparison to the Poff. But one of the concerns we had is we
didn't request this, but are we going to end up paying more for
rent for all this? It did reduce the water. The water is not
going into the garage. I think it is conserving water. But how
is this going to affect our rent bill?
It all comes down to GSA holds all the cards. We are
captive tenants. The rent has to get paid. It is automatically,
I guess--we don't have any--Judge Rosen didn't have a common
law remedy of a tenant where if the roof is not being fixed, he
just doesn't pay rent. We don't have that option.
Mr. Conyers. Of course not.
Judge Johnson. So communication is an issue. But if we had
a little more, I guess, control, or the playing field was
leveled a little bit to where we could get involved a little
more, because we obviously have a vested interest since we are
the tenants in these courthouses.
Mr. Conyers. Well, we will be following this because the
courts have sustained a 20 percent increase in caseload, at the
same time sustaining an 8 percent reduction in funding.
Judge Johnson. That was for my district, Congressman.
Mr. Conyers. Yes.
Judge Johnson. And I am not sure what the numbers are for
other districts.
Mr. Conyers. Oh, I see. Could it be similar, or do you have
any idea, Chief Judge Conrad?
Judge Conrad. Not as dramatic as Judge Johnson.
Mr. Conyers. I see. Well, I want you to know that we will
be following this as we move along into this area. I am
certainly glad that all of you are here today, and especially
Mr. Gelber, who has been taking all of this in and writing
notes furiously. I want to see a coming together and a
reduction of the differences between an important Federal
agency and the Federal Judiciary itself. To me, that is my
primary concern.
So I thank all of you as witnesses for being here, and I
yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Coble. I thank the gentleman from Michigan.
The distinguished gentleman from Texas is recognized.
I stand corrected. The distinguished gentleman from
Pennsylvania is recognized next.
Mr. Marino. Are you in a hurry? Go ahead.
Mr. Poe. Mr. Chairman, am I recognized?
Mr. Coble. Pardon?
Mr. Poe. Am I recognized?
Mr. Coble. Oh, you are indeed recognized.
Mr. Poe. Thank you, thank you.
Thank all you all for being here. I was a former judge in
Texas state court, felony court, tried those outlaws down in
Texas, which we apparently have a lot of, for 22 years, been
through the courthouse building business. We actually have a
courthouse that was built in the 1800's that now has been
refurbished and is useful and looks like what I think a
courthouse traditionally used to look like. So I thank the
judges for being here.
Let me ask the GSA expert, do you see the absolute
necessity of having judges involved in the building of
courthouses in the country? Do you see how important that is?
Mr. Gelber. I do. If the court wishes to participate in
that process, yes, sir, they should.
Mr. Poe. There are factors that only judges and people who
work in the captive environment understand have to be done. No
offense, but government bureaucrats just don't get that
information, whether it is moving juries around the courthouse,
keeping defendants from juries, from the public, all of those
things, keeping lawyers where they can talk to their clients,
lawyers talk to their clients who are in custody, meeting with
witnesses. All of those things judges understand because they
work in the environment where all of that takes place. No
offense, but people in the government, they don't do that. They
work other places.
I just want to stress on you the importance of that
because, obviously, it is not working out too well. From the
public's point of view, they see that these judges are getting
these big courthouses refurbished, and it is costing the
taxpayer a lot of money, and they don't blame you. They blame
the judges for that, and the judges really aren't the ones to
blame for the expense of these new courthouses.
As the gentleman from Michigan has mentioned, judges are
working harder, more cases, more people come and go, whether it
is a trial court or whether it is an appellate court, from all
of these government buildings.
How many courthouses are there in the United States
controlled by the GSA?
Mr. Gelber. I would say, depending on how one defines it,
approximately 200.
Mr. Poe. Are they all occupied?
Mr. Gelber. Those are all Federally owned, occupied
courthouses. Yes, sir.
Mr. Poe. Are there any courthouse buildings, annexes, that
are unoccupied that are owned by the GSA?
Mr. Gelber. Yes, sir, there are some of those facilities as
well.
Mr. Poe. What are you doing with them?
Mr. Gelber. We are in the process of seeking a better use
for them, whether in partnership with the private sector or
with other Federal agencies.
Mr. Poe. Do you ever sell buildings?
Mr. Gelber. We do, sir.
Mr. Poe. How many buildings in America does the GSA have
control over or own?
Mr. Gelber. I believe that number is around 1,900, sir.
Mr. Poe. Almost 2,000 total buildings in the country? That
is all?
Mr. Gelber. We control--sorry, I am just checking a note
here. I apologize. We have approximately 1,500 owned assets and
9,000 leased assets around the country.
Mr. Poe. So you own some buildings and you lease other
buildings from the private sector I suspect.
Mr. Gelber. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Poe. Is there a bid process involved in whether you
build a building or you lease a building?
Mr. Gelber. Yes, there is a financial review and analysis
done to seek the best possible solution to the space challenge
we have.
Mr. Poe. Of those 1,500 buildings, how many of them are
unoccupied?
Mr. Gelber. All those 1,500 buildings are occupied.
Mr. Poe. So GSA has no buildings in the country that are
unoccupied?
Mr. Gelber. I am sorry, sir. We do have unoccupied
buildings. They are not part of that 1,500.
Mr. Poe. Okay. How many buildings are unoccupied that GSA
owns? That is my question.
Mr. Gelber. I believe that number is around 20, sir, but I
would like the opportunity to correct that for the record.
Mr. Poe. Okay, whatever the number is. Do you ever sell
buildings?
Mr. Gelber. We do, sir.
Mr. Poe. All right. And you go through a competitive
process to do that?
Mr. Gelber. Yes, sir. One of the features--we, in effect,
have an online auction for the facility.
Mr. Poe. Why is the cost so much more when you try to
refurbish, the examples that are being used here, the Federal
courthouses? How come this cost is--it is really kind of out of
control. Can you explain the general reason why the cost is so
much?
Mr. Gelber. Sir, unfortunately, the expenses associated
with these buildings are there is a substantial amount of work
that needs to occur, and that work is expensive.
Mr. Poe. That is not the answer. I am not looking for why
you are saying it is expensive. Why is it expensive? I know
what goes into a courthouse. I have been in one for 22 years.
But why does GSA spend so much money on a project that ought to
cost a whole lot less? That is really my question.
Mr. Gelber. We go through a competitive bid process, sir,
and the responses we get to those bids represents the cost of
the project.
Mr. Poe. But based on what we have heard here today, after
the results, after the building is built or whatever is fixed,
the parking lot is fixed without the Marshals' input, it is
more expensive than it ought to be.
Mr. Gelber. Sir, the project that was referenced hasn't
started yet. Our intent is to work with the Marshals Service
and the court to ensure that they understand and are part of
the project planning process.
Mr. Poe. My question really is do you agree or not that
when the GSA is building courthouses or refurbishing them, or
remodeling those courthouses, they seem to be out of line with
what it ought to cost if the private sector handled it?
Mr. Gelber. I would disagree with that, sir. We are going
through a competitive bid process and the private sector is, in
effect, bidding on the work that accomplishes the changes in
the courthouses that we are requesting.
Mr. Poe. And the buildings that you are refurbishing in the
future or building courthouses, are you telling me that you do
and will continue to get the input from the occupants of the
buildings, like the judges?
Mr. Gelber. Yes, sir.
Mr. Poe. All right. I am going to ask the judges a
question. One more question, please, Mr. Chairman.
Do you believe the system works well enough where you give
input at the right time?
Judge Conrad. Congressman, it didn't for us on the Poff
stimulus project. It did not work for us in the Poff stimulus
work. We did not have the opportunity to be heard. We did not
have the opportunity to suggest minor design improvements that
could be made at the same time that would help us do a better
job. Instead, we have a building that is full of invisible
improvements. The employees don't know what has been done. They
don't find it easier to do their jobs.
So for us, the answer is no, it did not seemingly work the
way it should have worked.
Mr. Poe. And so do you see that GSA now has to come back in
and fix those problems?
Judge Conrad. Well, they need to be fixed. Whether they are
going to be fixed or not is another question.
Mr. Poe. All right. So you are saying that they need to be
fixed.
Judge Conrad. Ms. Smith can better answer this question
than I, but now if they are going to be fixed, it is going to
be at our expense, not GSA.
Mr. Poe. I will ask the other judge.
Judge Johnson. Do you want me to answer?
Mr. Poe. Yes, sir.
Judge Johnson. Oh, yes. I would agree with what Judge
Conrad said. You know, on projects, there is a 7 percent
management fee if it is a small project that my district will
get charged for GSA's management and expertise. But typically
we also have to have representatives from the Clerk's Office,
someone similar--it might not be someone at Ms. Smith's level
of expertise, but somebody has to oversee it on our end to make
sure the contractor is doing what they are supposed to even
though we are paying the 7 percent.
If you have a minute, I will give you a real simple example
of a recent situation where there was a judge, one of my
colleagues. Because of the budget issues, there is a dishwasher
in her workroom. She decided to go out and she found one on
sale at Lowe's or Home Depot, someplace like that, paid $400.
She was going to furnish it. But because GSA has to install it,
instead of being able to pay a $50 or $100 installation fee, we
were going to be charged--it was close to $1,000 to install the
dishwasher, and that is because we have to go through GSA.
Those are the types of--whether it is a small project or a
big project, we get hit with those.
We had to replace the judge elevator, the judge and staff
elevator in the Albuquerque courthouse. I assumed since GSA
owned the building, they pay for the elevator. I learned we had
to pay for the elevator. They will pay for the public
elevators, but even though all courthouses now have separate
inmate elevators, public elevators and staff elevators, GSA
considers that a special need for the Judiciary and we had to
pay for it even though, again, we were down 8 percent. The
Circuit helped us pay for that.
But again, if we are paying rent on these buildings, to me
that is something that GSA should be paying for, not us. It
does impact, particularly if you are looking at budget cuts and
potentially furloughing employees. These types of expenses have
a huge impact on not only my district but other courts.
Mr. Poe. There ought to be a law.
Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Marino [presiding]. Thank you, Judge.
Congresswoman Lee?
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much. I want to thank both
the Chairman and Ranking Member of our Subcommittee on Courts,
but I am also going to thank the Chairman of the full
Committee, Mr. Goodlatte, and the Ranking Member, Mr. Conyers,
for cooperating on this hearing, which might be considered a
rather unique and interesting hearing.
First of all, let me say that I was one that was gratified
and voted for the ARRA dollars, and I do not step away from
that. Some of the dollars were used, as I understand, in some
of these projects. But I believe the structure that Judge
Johnson and Chief Judge Conrad, and Ms. Smith, I believe--I was
delayed and so I did not hear all of your testimony--is a
crucial one, and I am grateful for you bringing this to our
attention.
Let me cite you, Judge Johnson, because I am in a Federal
building that is run by GSA that has a number of law
enforcement entities in it, so I consider it a nexus to the
Judiciary, and it is accurate. I do not have the option not to
pay rent, with all of the dissatisfaction.
Now, I am as much a person that believes in the
conservation. I am in my office with a full working staff and
constituency meeting, and the lights go out without my
permission because they say they have it on a timer. I am in a
constituency business. My constituents may come at 6 or 7
o'clock, and I am there with 20 or 30 people in the office, and
the lights go out because GSA, unknowingly to the payer of the
rent, is not kind enough to give a waiver or a notice.
Fortunately, a late-night building operator came up and
said ``It's not my fault, this is what they have done.''
So I think this hearing is worthy, and I want to just pose
this question as I raise some questions to Mr. Gelber, who I do
want to make it very clear that I appreciate the General
Services Administration and the staff. I always want to
separate my appreciation for anybody in public service, but I
think we can do better.
This letter has just come in June 18th, 2014 from the
Committee on Space and Facilities. Judge Johnson, I want to
make sure that this is enough, that there has now been
developed a partnership with GSA aimed at addressing many of
our longstanding problems, and that is intended to improve the
delivery of all services that the Federal Judiciary receives
from GSA.
I really am shocked that you are charged for the elevator
that is part of the building that is in--you are in the
building. They know you are in the building. You are a
Judiciary that has special needs. The Federal Courthouse in my
district, it is across the street from a Federal detention
center. In order to provide protection, there are a number of--
I won't go into it--discreet entrances that we must have,
bringing the detention cartel persons that are in the detention
center over, some of which are there, over to this building. So
we would need special dispensation.
So it is obvious that you need special dispensation. I am
shocked that you are paying for repair of elevators in a
building that you are paying rent for owned by GSA.
Judge Johnson. We were shocked.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me just ask you, does this letter help
that we just received? I assume that you have this letter. This
is a letter coming from the Committee on Space and Facilities
that says they worked out a deal that would work with GSA for
you to have more input. Is that what you are saying that you
need, and is this a good start?
Judge Johnson. Congresswoman Lee, I had earlier mentioned I
am aware of the letter, and Mr. Gelber I know has a very close
working relationship with the members of the Administrative
Office of the Court who handle space and facilities on a
national basis. But what I had mentioned earlier is that there
are a number of GSA regions that have regional commissioners
who are--I think I am correct in this--who are presidential
appointees, and at least it has been my experience, and I say
this from serving on the national committee, that at the
national level for GSA there is a sincere effort to try to work
with the Judiciary. They understand our problems. They
understand the issues. If the rent keeps going up, it is a
choice of either having our people on the payroll or paying
rent. That is why we are trying to----
Ms. Jackson Lee. But----
Judge Johnson. But at the lower levels, the regional
levels, it is not always the same commitment.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I see. Well, this has been at the level of
the Judicial Conference. What would be helpful for you being in
the local level and dealing with the GSA leadership?
Judge Johnson. More local accountability. Again, I gave the
example of little projects that shouldn't cost--I mean, if you
go and if you were going to do something in your office but you
have to go through GSA, if you are like the Judiciary, you are
paying for any type of tenant alteration. You are paying, for
example, a percentage of management fee. So if we had more, I
guess, negotiating--if GSA didn't hold all the cards and we had
the ability to get these projects done on more of a competitive
bid basis without paying the fees, it would help us out a lot.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I ask for your indulgence here for a
moment, please, if you would just yield me just a moment to
finish. I appreciate it, and I thank you for your courtesies to
a fellow Texan, for my colleague who is here.
I have served as a municipal court judge, so I know
buildings. I think these are two important points, Judge, and I
thank you.
I want to go to Mr. Gelber and indicate some of this you
may have to get back to me directly. Let me thank you for your
service and say that your regional office has certainly been
courteous. But I have two major issues that I would like to
address.
Our courthouse, 515 Rusk, has to be as old as Texas.
Unfortunately, it came through an era of unattractiveness. You
are able to propose places of rehab, not new construction. I
would ask you to meet with me. I would ask you to assess why
you have not come to recommend this building for a massive
facelift. It is a place of service of our Judiciary, and it is
untoward. That is number one.
Then let me go to a project that is existing right now that
I have had meetings upon meetings. As I indicated to Judge
Johnson, this is not a partisan issue on this Committee. This
is an issue of trying to remedy an unfortunate set of
circumstances. You hired a contractor that is tone deaf, and
there is no accounting for--we had agreements on reaching out,
getting diversity among the employee base, the construction
base, to ensure that those in the neighborhoods would have the
opportunity if it was to use a broom.
So I want numbers of diversity on that project. We had had
a commitment on the diversity of contractors, subcontractors. I
believe it has been totally violated. The main contractor was
particularly insensitive and rude to establish minority
contractors who they wanted to give a broom, not do the work
but they wanted to just get a broom.
So this is the Mickey Leland Federal Building in Houston on
Smith Street that has basically run off every congressional
person except myself. So I want a full briefing. I am making a
complaint about the contractor, about the lack of
responsibility and the horrific constraints that you put in the
building for those of us who pay compensation.
So I would ask and I would just have you say on the record
that you will be in touch with me on the 515 Rusk and the
Mickey Leland Federal Building.
Mr. Gelber. Yes, Congresswoman.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And you will be in my office. You are
based here in Washington?
Mr. Gelber. I am based in Washington, D.C.
Ms. Jackson Lee. All right, sir. So we will be together
with paperwork and documentation to ensure that this situation
is remedied.
Let me thank the Chairman for his indulgence. I yield back.
Mr. Marino. Mr. Holding?
Mr. Holding. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Having been a tenant of GSA for about 10 years, I am not
particularly surprised by the problems illuminated in the
hearing today. Out of 93 United States Attorneys and all their
various offices, there is a good mix of GSA tenants, and there
are tenants of private entities as well. I think it is fair to
say that GSA tenants unhappy, private tenants happy.
But we are here to talk about the Federal Judiciary, and
the Federal Judiciary has responded to the difficult budget
requirements imposed on them by sequestration by making
sacrifices across the board to reduce spending. Unfortunately,
for far too long, judges in North Carolina and around the
country have related to me instances where GSA has failed to be
good stewards of scarce taxpayer resources.
In the run-up to this hearing I have heard from a growing
number of Federal judges who share with me a number of specific
instances where GSA failed to live up to the standard which we
place on all Federal employees, ourselves included,
particularly in these times of austerity.
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District
of North Carolina, Judge Humrickhouse, has faced an ongoing
battle with the GSA to have her chambers renovated. Despite the
GSA originally estimating that the project would take 6 months
to complete, today, 4 years and 8 months, a myriad of problems
and a fired subcontractor later, the project has yet to be
completed.
More troubling than the contractor's failures, according to
the judges on the ground, is the GSA's lack of oversight which
led to over-billing.
In the Western District of Louisiana's Bankruptcy Court,
judges and clerks relay that, in their experience, GSA has
proved to be both inefficient and ineffective in meeting the
needs of the court. Judges there tell me that the GSA
management structure promotes slow decisions, creates delays,
and causes large-scale cost overruns. This experience caused
the cancellation of their most recent space renovation project,
the remodeling of one bathroom for one of their judges. The
judge there states that there were false starts on the project
due to lack of communication between the different branches of
the GSA, innumerable weekly telephone conferences, and steadily
climbing cost projections.
After court funds had been obligated for the second time,
GSA returned with one additional $4,000 cost requirement. At
this point, the judge chose to abandon the project altogether.
While this was not a matter of large consequence, it is the
smallness of the project that makes GSA's inability to get it
done noteworthy.
So failure on large projects, failure on small projects.
Judges in Texas advise me that GSA PBS has been permitted
through its pricing policies to unreasonably shift some of the
cost of building ownership to tenant agencies, as we were just
discussing. They tell me that, for example, we have been
routinely required over the past decade to pay for cyclical
maintenance and repairs and court space from our salaries and
expenses account even though we already pay market value to
rent the space from GSA and buildings that the Federal
Government has owned for decades.
Now, certainly there are a lot of fine folks working at
GSA, and I want to tell you that during my tenancy at GSA I met
a number of these people and continue to be friends with them,
and I appreciate their service. But I have heard far too many
accounts from judges that I have worked with in the past and
their colleagues around the country that this cannot be
ignored.
There has been some mention that we are only hearing about
two projects. Well, I beg to differ and say we are hearing
about a lot of projects and instances in Federal courthouses
around the country.
So, Mr. Gelber, what does GSA have to say for itself? We
have heard about what is going on in Virginia and North
Carolina, Texas, Louisiana, and I plan to submit for the record
additional information.
So you have 51 seconds. You are welcome to respond, and any
further response you are welcome to submit in writing.
Mr. Gelber. Thank you, sir. GSA is committed to working
with not only the Judiciary but all other Federal agencies who
occupy our facilities to ensure they have the best space
possible to meet their needs, and that is our commitment to the
court here today, to the Congress, as well as all the other
executive branch agencies we work with.
Mr. Goodlatte. Would the gentleman from North Carolina
yield on that point? I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
would like to join the--not with regard to her specific
courthouses, but you heard Judge Conrad express and allude to
security concerns that have gone unaddressed with regard to the
courthouse in Roanoke, and I would like to ask that you and
representatives that deal with those issues, if you would be
willing to meet with me to determine how those are going to be
addressed. I think it is better discussed outside of a public
hearing because they are, after all, security matters that we
don't want to discuss the details of. But I would like to have
the opportunity to have that discussion with you as well. Would
you be willing to commit to doing that?
Mr. Gelber. I would be happy to meet with you, sir.
Mr. Goodlatte. I appreciate it. Thank you very much.
And I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Marino. Mr. Bachus?
Mr. Bachus. Thank you.
Mr. Gelber, I want to quote 28 USC 566. The reason I am, I
want everyone to sort of acknowledge this law in the Federal
Code. It says, and I will quote, ``U.S. Marshals Service
retains final authority regarding security requirements for the
Judicial Branch of the Federal Government.''
Now, the Administrative Office of the Courts says that the
Chief Justice and local U.S. Marshals have final authority
regarding security matters, which I think is consistent with
this code.
That having been said, the Chief Judge of the Northern
District who is in charge of security, along with the U.S.
Marshal, have both indicated to your agency that a statue
placed 10 feet from the front door creates a serious security
threat. Our U.S. Marshal, longstanding under both
Administrations, says it is a perfect sniper hide. He further
says that it creates a fatal funnel because you can actually
hide behind that and you can see all the way through the
rotunda to the very back of the courthouse. So essentially
there is only one place to hide inside for a Marshal, and that
is behind the statue of Hugo Black, which is much more
priceless than this statue of Red Mountain in front of the
building that the GSA insists be located there.
It was removed, and now they want it back. This won't cost
you a dime. I want you just to follow the law and honor when a
chief justice and the U.S. Marshal in charge of security in
that building says it is a security threat, please listen to
them. Follow the law. I am not going to name names, but we have
a letter to our chief justice, and also this is supplied by
Jeff Sessions, my senator, where the GSA responded that they
consulted before they made this decision. They did a security
assessment and they said they consulted both the Federal
Protection Service and the Administrative Office of Courts.
The Federal Protection Service--and I can give you those
things--they are in charge of not only the perimeter, they are
in charge of non-judicial Federal buildings. So I think there
is some confusion within GSA there. They may be responsible for
some perimeter obligations, but it is the U.S. Marshal that is
in charge of the actual security. The GSA said they consulted
with the Administrative Office of Courts and with the Federal
Protection Service. Well, one doesn't have any responsibility,
the Federal Protection Service, for this building. The other
one they consulted with was the Administrative Office of
Courts, and Mr. Templeton, who they consulted there, actually,
here is what he tells us.
He tells us, in fact, no. He said I did not agree that it
should be put back up. In fact, he said, and I will quote, ``I
told Mr. Shaw that the Chief Justice and the local U.S. Marshal
have final authority regarding security matters.'' In other
words, he also said that he agrees with the U.S. Marshal's
assessment of security concerns.
So I just can't imagine how that gets to we consulted with
the Federal Protection Service and with the Administrative
Office of Courts and they agree with the GSA assessment.
So as you meet with the Chairman and Mr. Holding and all, I
am going to give you a letter from the Chief Justice. I just
don't think it is getting--I think there is a misunderstanding
on what the law is. And please, if nothing else, please sit
down with your staff, like I do with mine, and say, look, the
Chief Justice and the Marshal Service by law is charged with
security. The Administrative Office of Courts says we would
like to leave that final decision to them. And when they tell
you that it is a threat to their people, honor that, honor
that, particularly when you are talking about a piece of metal
as opposed to human beings.
I am not even going to ask you for a response. If you want
to respond, you can.
Mr. Gelber. I am aware of the issue, sir. We would be happy
to work with the court and the Marshals Service and the
Administrative Office of the Courts to pursue a resolution to
this issue.
Mr. Bachus. Thank you, I appreciate that. I think this is
something you ought to kind of review and look at.
Mr. Gelber. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Marino. I think I am the last guy here to speak, so I
am just going to get right to the point. But one issue I want
to bring out is there is a difference between legislative
jurisdiction and oversight jurisdiction. That is why they call
us Judiciary, because we have oversight jurisdiction of matters
concerning the administration of justice, and I think the
administrative of justice is hindered here because it is
handcuffing--excuse the pun--the courts based on what we have
heard.
Now, Mr. Gelber, you are a trooper. You drew the short
stick, and you have been a perfect gentleman here today, and I
just want you to know how much we appreciate that. Please don't
take my colleagues' questions or statements personally, but
there is an issue, and I think if we did anything today, we
were able to get GSA, you representing GSA, and the courts
together, and the architect, and perhaps maybe before the
shovel is turned over in these situations, everybody who has a
dog in the fight will be at the table and can eliminate these
problems.
I was a U.S. Attorney for quite a few years, spent a lot of
time in a courthouse. My GSA guys were great. Every time I
needed something from them, they were right there for me. I did
have an instance where I wanted a doorway put in, and I know
where the judges are coming from on this. One of the guys in my
office, one of the attorneys, he is a construction guy too. I
said how much will it cost us to put the door in, and I
remember this precisely. It was $300, no more than that. That
includes the door. But we got a bill well over $1,000 from GSA,
and I know it is because of a lot of administrative issues that
you personally have no jurisdiction over.
But I want to go back to the issue concerning the brick
veneer--do you know what I am referring to?--on the building,
on the Poff. Would not a proper inspection--and let me qualify
that first. Was there an inspection of that building? And if
there were an inspection, wouldn't that have determined the
condition of the veneer wall, of the collapsing? And if that
were the case--and the primary tenant was the Veterans Affairs
Regional Office. They were removed from that building. Should
these costs have been factored into your decision to invest
more than $50 million into the Poff Building, and were they
considered?
Mr. Gelber. Those costs were considered. There had been
evaluations of the wall on the east and west sides of the
facility. We felt while they were minor issues, they were
manageable in place. As we progressed with the ARRA project, we
became aware of greater deterioration to those walls on the
east and west facade, and as a result of that new information,
that is why you have the proposal, or why the Congress has the
proposal before it for additional monies to be spent at that
facility.
Mr. Marino. Can you give us an indication of what the cost
would be to renovate the 13th floor for the director of the
Veterans Affairs Regional Office? GSA does expect to be able to
relocate the entire operation of the VA to the Poff Federal
Building.
Mr. Gelber. I don't have an exact figure for that, but I
would be happy to provide that to you.
Mr. Marino. Would you please, sir?
Mr. Gelber. That would be okay.
Mr. Marino. And regarding the cost/benefit analysis on the
Poff Building, can you please explain why it took GSA more than
a year to make it public? Why did GSA conduct it after the
decision to expend more than $40 million on the renovation was
already made, and is this behavior typical of the manner in
which GSA performs its work?
Mr. Gelber. In terms of releasing information of that
nature publicly, we usually wait until an appropriate time in
the project history so that we don't affect the government's
ability to get good bids on the project. Given that, on this
particular project I know there were some irregularities
regarding the bidding.
Mr. Marino. And my second question and last question,
depending on my time, I am going to refer to a comment made by
Judge Conrad.
Judge, I want to make sure that I am right on this. Did you
state that after all the disruptions and expenses, the building
was no more functional, less functional?
Judge Conrad. Yes, I said that, and I stand by that
statement.
Mr. Marino. Okay. With that, sir, Mr. Gelber--thank you,
Judge--with what you know, did you consider the Poff Building
to be a hallmark in taxpayer savings? And do you personally
consider the project to be one that shows GSA to be a
responsible steward of taxpayer dollars? Because--let me
finish; I don't want to sandbag you here--because the GSA
spokesperson, Gina Gilliam, characterized it in the press
release dated June 21, 2010, as a responsible steward of
taxpayer dollars.
Mr. Gelber. I think the intent of that project was to
maintain a Federal asset, and that is what GSA did. I
understand that the court feels that there was no visible
improvement in the facility. From GSA's perspective, by
maintaining the infrastructure, it maintained that facility in
a better condition than if we had let that infrastructure
further deteriorate.
Mr. Marino. Okay. I have one more question, and maybe if
you want to think about this, that I want to ask Chief Judge
Conrad, if you don't mind, sir. When GSA's Inspector General
determined the agency had violated Federal law in awarding the
construction contract and not seeing to it that taxpayers had a
fair and reasonable price for the work, he recommended GSA not
exercise a $7.6 million option to improve security at the
building and a $4.5 million option to improve life and safety.
How does it make you feel to know the reason GSA never
performed this critical work was because of their failure to
follow the law?
Judge Conrad. It is disturbing, and I will have to say that
when we were first advised of the stimulus project, one of the
keynotes of that communication was that the money was going to
be spent to address unmet security needs. My ears perked up
because we had more than our share of unmet security needs in
the Poff Building, and I saw this as a way, a mechanism of
getting some of these things addressed.
As the project progressed, we came to understand that there
were to be no security enhancements, there were to be no
improvements, and now I am advised that perhaps there were
violations in procedures in not undertaking to do those things.
Now, at the conclusion, in the last days of the project, we
are being advised that to the extent the building needs these
security upgrades, and we desperately need to have some,
perhaps more so than before, the court is going to have to fund
these ourselves. And if we do not, along with the other tenant
agencies, the improvements are not going to be made.
So it is very disturbing. It is very bothersome in terms of
how we advise our employees about the performance of their
functions. They had to endure these many months of hardship,
and now they are given to understand that they are no better
off in terms of security, in terms of working environment, than
they were at the outset. It is bothersome.
Mr. Marino. Okay. And lastly, do you know of anyone at GSA
who has been held accountable for this illegal action which
undeniably led to you and members of the public being exposed
to unnecessary risk over the past 4 years?
Judge Conrad. Congressman, I do not. As a judge, I make
mistakes. I make more than my share. But the Court of Appeals
is very quick to tell me about those mistakes, and I am very
quick to try to rectify those. I don't think anyone would
seriously contend--and I appreciate Mr. Gelber's candor today.
I don't think anyone would contend that there weren't many
mistakes made at the Poff Federal Building in Roanoke, and that
is my biggest concern looking back, in retrospect, that it
seemingly is going to be a situation where no one is held
accountable.
Mr. Marino. And, Mr. Gelber, respectfully, I think you have
a little bit of a list to take back to your superiors and have
a discussion with them, and we appreciate that.
That concludes our hearing today, and I want to thank all
the witnesses for attending.
Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days
to submit additional written questions for the witnesses or
additional materials for the record.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Material submitted by the Honorable George Holding, a Representative in
Congress from the State of North Carolina, and Member, Subcommittee on
Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet
__________
__________
Prepared Statement of Thomas A. Schatz,
President, Citizens Against Government Waste
My name is Thomas A. Schatz, and I am president of Citizens Against
Government Waste (CAGW). CAGW was founded in 1984 by the late
industrialist J. Peter Grace and nationally-syndicated columnist Jack
Anderson to follow up on the recommendations of the Grace Commission
report under President Reagan. Since its inception, CAGW has been at
the forefront of the fight for efficiency, economy, and accountability
in government. Over the past 30 years, CAGW has helped save taxpayers
$1.2 trillion through the implementation of Grace Commission findings
and other recommendations.
We commend the House Judiciary Committee for holding this hearing
today on the General Services Administration's (GSA) ``Failure to Meet
the Needs of the Judiciary: A Case Study of Bureaucratic Negligence and
Waste.'' On behalf of CAGW's 1.3 million members and supporters
nationwide, I am pleased to submit this testimony for the record.
CAGW does not accept government funds. The organization's mission
reflects the interests of taxpayers. All citizens benefit when
government programs work cost-effectively, when deficit spending is
eliminated, and when government is held accountable. Not only will
representative government benefit from the pursuit of these interests,
but the country will prosper economically because government
mismanagement, fiscal profligacy, and chronic deficits soak up private
savings and crowd out the private investment necessary for long-term
growth.
When Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA or stimulus) in 2009, funding was substantially increased for
many existing agencies and programs. As one example, the GSA received
$4.5 billion to improve the efficiency of federal buildings. Stimulus
money was supposed to be spent within a limited period of time on
``shovel ready'' projects. As a result, GSA squandered millions of
dollars on projects such as the renovation of the Poff Federal Building
in Roanoke, Virginia and landscaping for the Pete V. Domenici U.S.
District Courthouse in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
The Poff building project was intended to improve the building's
efficiency, which was not an urgent problem. According to the November
6, 2010 Roanoke Times, GSA officials hastened the renovation because of
``an expedited process that applied to projects funded by stimulus
money.'' A cost-benefit analysis was conducted after GSA had already
awarded a contract. GSA also guaranteed its bidders a maximum price of
$42 million (later amended to $39 million) for the bulk of the
renovation, violating federal procurement law and ensuring that a
competitive bid could not be attained. Despite the effort to rush
forward with the renovation, ground was broken more than two years
after the stimulus bill was enacted. To date, GSA has spent $65 million
and the agency claimed that the energy upgrades were substantially
completed in January, 2014. However, problems remain in regard to
security, and all of the prior tenants have not yet moved back into the
14-story building.
The renovation greatly inconvenienced the building's two primary
tenants, the Department of Veterans Affairs Roanoke Regional Office and
regional branches of the U.S. federal court system. After issues arose
regarding the security of the court system's office space, federal
judges asked GSA for a reevaluation of the project's efficiency and
security. The Veterans Affairs office was forced to relocate to
multiple locations during construction, worsening an existing backlog
of processing claims and leading a veterans lobbying group to file
court papers asking to halt the move.
GSA has attempted to deflect inquiries about the process, which
have frequently come from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob
Goodlatte (R-Va.), whose district includes Roanoke. Rep. Goodlatte has
been repeatedly frustrated by GSA's delayed or unsatisfactory
responses. According to an article in the September 27, 2010 Roanoke
Times, when Rep. Goodlatte requested a copy of an 84-page feasibility
study on the renovation, GSA gave him a version with key sections
redacted, explaining that this was necessary for the protection of its
``deliberative process.''
The Poff building is not the only example of excessive and wasteful
spending by GSA with stimulus funds. Federal judges at the Pete V.
Domenici U.S. District Courthouse in Albuquerque asked GSA to fix a
garage leak and replace its grass with a more efficient species.
Instead, as the Albuquerque Journal reported on February 13, 2013, GSA
put together a $3.4 million makeover that totaled nearly one-tenth of
the entire building's original $41 million cost. In this case as well,
the intended beneficiaries of the project objected to the wasteful
spending. Yet GSA remained enthusiastic about the project, even
professing its hope that the landscape would win an award.
Perhaps GSA perceives these projects as relatively inconsequential,
given that it was provided $4.5 billion for improving building
efficiency by the ARRA. Yet even if the sum is merely a drop in the
ocean of GSA's budget, the bill is being footed by overburdened
taxpayers who deserve to see their dollars invested efficiently and
with adequate forethought.
CAGW has closely tracked earmark spending since the organization
issued its first Congressional Pig Book in 1991. Since fiscal year
1992, Congress has earmarked $2.2 billion for courthouses. While
earmarks are (supposedly) no longer being added to appropriations bills
due to the congressional earmark moratorium that does not mean taxpayer
dollars should otherwise be wasted on courthouse construction and
renovation.
There is no excuse for mismanaging the taxpayers' money. The
American people would be well-served if every day government officials
came to work thinking first and foremost about how they could better
manage the taxpayers' money and solve problems effectively with their
substantial resources. In other words, each agency should ask questions
first and spend money much later, if at all.
I appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony, and would be
glad to answer any questions.