U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

88–376 PDF 2014

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 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

JASON T. SMITH, Missouri 

[Vacant] 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

JOE GARCIA, Florida 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

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., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

JASON T. SMITH, Missouri 

[Vacant] 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JOE KEELEY, Chief Counsel 

HEATHER SAWYER, Minority Counsel 
(III) 

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 
Page

IV 

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 
(1) 

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 standalone 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. 
2 

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:] 
3 
4 
5 
6 

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 
7 

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. 
8 

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 statutorilydirected 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-thoughtout 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 
9 

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:] 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 

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:] 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 

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 allo-
30 

*See submission, page 3. 

cated 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.* 

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 systemwide 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 en-
31 

suring 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. 
32 

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 
33 

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:] 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 

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 
54 

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:] 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 

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 
67 

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:] 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 

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. 
73 

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:] 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 

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. 
79 

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. 
80 

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? 
81 

Mr. GELBER. In the Fiscal Year 2014 budget, I believe we re- ceived 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—— 
82 

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 
83 

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:] 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 

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 pro-
89 

viding 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. 
90 

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, cer-
91 

tainly 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. 
92 

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. 
93 

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? 
94 

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 
95 

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. 
96 

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.’’ 
97 

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 per-
98 

centage 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. 
99 

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 
100 

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 
101 

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 
102 

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, 
103 

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 
104 

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.] 
(105) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD
106 

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 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 

f 
114 

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 Feb-
115 

ruary 13, 2013, GSA put together a $3.4 million makeover that totaled nearly onetenth 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. 

Æ