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

56–726 PDF 2010

RECOVERY ACT: PROGRESS REPORT 

FOR INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS 

(111–116) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

May 26, 2010 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

VACANCY 

(II) 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... v 

TESTIMONY 

Bowe, Pete, President, Ellicott Dredges, LLC ....................................................... 37 

Burkett, Tim, Chief Operations Officer, Biohabitats, Inc. ................................... 37 

Fernandez, John, Assistant Secretary for Economic Development, U.S. Department of Commerce ........................................................................................ 8 

Harman, Elizabeth, Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs, Federal Emergency Management Agency ................................................................................. 8 

Hooks, Craig E., Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources 

Management, Environmental Protection Agency .............................................. 8 

Rainville, Brian, High School Teacher and Son of Dairy Farmers ...................... 37 

Salt, Terrence C., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ............................................................................ 8 

Trimble, David, Acting Director, Natural Resources and Environment, Government Accountability Office ............................................................................. 8 

Walsh, Mary, Chief of Staff, Public Buildings Service, ARRA National Recovery Program Management Office, General Services Administration ............... 8 

Welch, Kevin, Senior Project Manager, PCL Construction Services, Inc., Representing the U.S. Green Building Council ....................................................... 37 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona ....................................................................... 57 

Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota ................................................................. 58 

Richardson, Hon. Laura, of California ................................................................... 64 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Bowe, Pete ................................................................................................................ 70 

Burkett, Tim ............................................................................................................ 74 

Fernandez, John ...................................................................................................... 76 

Harman, Elizabeth .................................................................................................. 87 

Hooks, Craig E. ........................................................................................................ 107 

Rainville, Brian ........................................................................................................ 122 

Salt, Terrence C. ...................................................................................................... 124 

Trimble, David ......................................................................................................... 133 

Walsh, Mary ............................................................................................................. 156 

Welch, Kevin ............................................................................................................ 172 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Majority Staff: .....................

Chart entitled, ‘‘Bridges Improved by Recovery Act Highway and 

Bridge Funds’’ ............................................................................................ xcvii 

Chart entitled, ‘‘Miles Improved by Recovery Act Highway and Bridge 

Funds’’ ........................................................................................................ xcvi 

Chart entitled, ‘‘T&I Committee Transparency and Accountability Information by State and Formula Funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) (Recovery Act) Submissions Received by T&I Committee (Data Reported as of April 

30, 2010)’’ ...................................................................................................lxxxvii 

Page

IV 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Majority Staff—Continued 

Chart entitled, ‘‘T&I Committee Transparency and Accountability Information by State under the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) (Recovery Act) Submissions Received by 

T&I Committee (Data Reported as of April 30, 2010), Percentage 

of Allocated Funds Associated with Project Stages, Clean Water State 

Revolving Fund’’ ........................................................................................ xcv 

Chart entitled, ‘‘T&I Committee Transparency and Accountability Information by State under the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) (Recovery Act) Submissions Received by 

T&I Committee (Data Reported as of April 30, 2010), Percentage 

of Allocated Funds Associated with Project Stages, Highways and 

Bridges’’ ...................................................................................................... xciv 

Graph entitled, ‘‘America is on a Path to Economic Recovery from 

Job Losses to Job Gains’’ .......................................................................... 7 

Report entitled, ‘‘The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

Transportation and Infrastructure Provisions Implementation Status 

as of May 14, 2010’’ ................................................................................... xv 

Fernandez, John, Assistant Secretary for Economic Development, U.S. Department of Commerce, response to request for information from Hon. 

Mica, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida ........................ 84 

Harman, Elizabeth, Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs, Federal Emergency Management Agency, response to request for information from the 

Committee ............................................................................................................. 93 

Hooks, Craig E., Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources 

Management, Environmental Protection Agency: .............................................

Response to request for information from Hon. Mica, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Florida ..................................................... 117 

Response to request for information from Hon. Oberstar, a Representative in Congress from the State of Minnesota ........................................ 121 

Salt, Terrence C., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, response to request for information from 

Hon. Mica, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida ............... 130 

Trimble, David, Acting Director, Natural Resources and Environment, Government Accountability Office: ............................................................................

Response to request for information from Hon. Mica, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Florida ..................................................... 153 

Response to request for information from Hon. Oberstar, a Representative in Congress from the State of Minnesota ........................................ 155 

Walsh, Mary, Chief of Staff, Public Buildings Service, ARRA National Recovery Program Management Office, General Services Administration, response to request for information from the Committee .................................... 166 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

International Boundary Water Commission, United States and Mexico, Edward Drusina, United States Commisiioner, written testimony ...................... 180 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

David White, Cheif, written testimony .............................................................. 182 

Smithsonian Institution, Dr. G. Wayne Clough, Secretary, written testimony .. 188 

United States Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, written 

testimony .............................................................................................................. 192 

v 


Insert offset folio 1 here 56726.001
vi 


Insert offset folio 2 here 56726.002
vii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 56726.003
viii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 56726.004
ix 


Insert offset folio 5 here 56726.005
x 


Insert offset folio 6 here 56726.006
xi 


Insert offset folio 7 here 56726.007
xii 


Insert offset folio 8 here 56726.008
xiii 


Insert offset folio 9 here 56726.009
xiv 


Insert offset folio 10 here 56726.010
xv 


Insert offset folio 11 here 56726.011
xvi 


Insert offset folio 12 here 56726.012
xvii 


Insert offset folio 13 here 56726.013
xviii 


Insert offset folio 14 here 56726.014
xix 


Insert offset folio 15 here 56726.015
xx 


Insert offset folio 16 here 56726.016
xxi 


Insert offset folio 17 here 56726.017
xxii 


Insert offset folio 18 here 56726.018
xxiii 


Insert offset folio 19 here 56726.019
xxiv 


Insert offset folio 20 here 56726.020
xxv 


Insert offset folio 21 here 56726.021
xxvi 


Insert offset folio 22 here 56726.022
xxvii 


Insert offset folio 23 here 56726.023
xxviii 


Insert offset folio 24 here 56726.024
xxix 


Insert offset folio 25 here 56726.025
xxx 


Insert offset folio 26 here 56726.026
xxxi 


Insert offset folio 27 here 56726.027
xxxii 


Insert offset folio 28 here 56726.028
xxxiii 


Insert offset folio 29 here 56726.029
xxxiv 


Insert offset folio 30 here 56726.030
xxxv 


Insert offset folio 31 here 56726.031
xxxvi 


Insert offset folio 32 here 56726.032
xxxvii 


Insert offset folio 33 here 56726.033
xxxviii 


Insert offset folio 34 here 56726.034
xxxix 


Insert offset folio 35 here 56726.035
xl 


Insert offset folio 36 here 56726.036
xli 


Insert offset folio 37 here 56726.037
xlii 


Insert offset folio 38 here 56726.038
xliii 


Insert offset folio 39 here 56726.039
xliv 


Insert offset folio 40 here 56726.040
xlv 


Insert offset folio 41 here 56726.041
xlvi 


Insert offset folio 42 here 56726.042
xlvii 


Insert offset folio 43 here 56726.043
xlviii 


Insert offset folio 44 here 56726.044
xlix 


Insert offset folio 45 here 56726.045
l 


Insert offset folio 46 here 56726.046
li 


Insert offset folio 47 here 56726.047
lii 


Insert offset folio 48 here 56726.048
liii 


Insert offset folio 49 here 56726.049
liv 


Insert offset folio 50 here 56726.050
lv 


Insert offset folio 51 here 56726.051
lvi 


Insert offset folio 52 here 56726.052
lvii 


Insert offset folio 53 here 56726.053
lviii 


Insert offset folio 54 here 56726.054
lix 


Insert offset folio 55 here 56726.055
lx 


Insert offset folio 56 here 56726.056
lxi 


Insert offset folio 57 here 56726.057
lxii 


Insert offset folio 58 here 56726.058
lxiii 


Insert offset folio 59 here 56726.059
lxiv 


Insert offset folio 60 here 56726.060
lxv 


Insert offset folio 61 here 56726.061
lxvi 


Insert offset folio 62 here 56726.062
lxvii 


Insert offset folio 63 here 56726.063
lxviii 


Insert offset folio 64 here 56726.064
lxix 


Insert offset folio 65 here 56726.065
lxx 


Insert offset folio 66 here 56726.066
lxxi 


Insert offset folio 67 here 56726.067
lxxii 


Insert offset folio 68 here 56726.068
lxxiii 


Insert offset folio 69 here 56726.069
lxxiv 


Insert offset folio 70 here 56726.070
lxxv 


Insert offset folio 71 here 56726.071
lxxvi 


Insert offset folio 72 here 56726.072
lxxvii 


Insert offset folio 73 here 56726.073
lxxviii 


Insert offset folio 74 here 56726.074
lxxix 


Insert offset folio 75 here 56726.075
lxxx 


Insert offset folio 76 here 56726.076
lxxxi 


Insert offset folio 77 here 56726.077
lxxxii 


Insert offset folio 78 here 56726.078
lxxxiii 


Insert offset folio 79 here 56726.079
lxxxiv 


Insert offset folio 80 here 56726.080
lxxxv 


Insert offset folio 81 here 56726.081
lxxxvi 


Insert offset folio 82 here 56726.082
lxxxvii 


Insert offset folio 83 here 56726.083
lxxxviii 


Insert offset folio 84 here 56726.084
lxxxix 


Insert offset folio 85 here 56726.085
xc 


Insert offset folio 86 here 56726.086
xci 


Insert offset folio 87 here 56726.087
xcii 


Insert offset folio 88 here 56726.088
xciii 


Insert offset folio 89 here 56726.089
xciv 


Insert offset folio 90 here 56726.090
xcv 


Insert offset folio 91 here 56726.091
xcvi 


Insert offset folio 92 here 56726.092
xcvii 


Insert offset folio 93 here 56726.093
(1) 

HEARING ON RECOVERY ACT: PROGRESS REPORT FOR INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS 

Wednesday, May 26, 2010, 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

WASHINGTON, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:09 a.m., in room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable James Oberstar [Chairman of the Full Committee] presiding. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will come to order for the purpose of our hearing this morning, 

the 19th in a series of hearings we have conducted to maintain 

oversight, accountability, and transparency on this Committee’s 

portion of the Recovery Act funds, which I call stimulus funding. 

There is no question about the use of the funds from the programs under the jurisdiction of this Committee, especially, in highway and transit, because those funds go out by formula to each 

State, which receives its specific apportionment according to law, 

and the distribution is very clear. There is a very clear path from 

the time the State DOT obligates the funds, announces bids, invites 

bids, awards bids, contract gets underway, construction work is underway, and the reimbursement process begins. 

All of that is measurable, trackable, and we receive a report 

every 30 days, with now 100 percent of the $34 billion in highway 

and transit funds obligated, all $34 billion. Fifteen thousand, eight 

hundred seventy-eight projects are out to bid. That is $30.7 billion, 

90 percent of the funds out to bid. Fourteen thousand, six hundred 

thirty-four projects are under contract. That is 83 percent of the 

funds. Thirteen thousand, one hundred forty-eight projects are actually underway on job sites. That is 78 percent of the funds. And 

12 percent of all the funds, 5,069 projects, are actually completed 

already. 

The Clean Water State Revolving Fund formula programs, 1,962 projects out to bid. That is 100 percent of the $3.8 billion. One 

thousand, nine hundred fifty-six projects are under contract. That 

also is 100 percent. And 1,836 projects work is underway, 96 percent of the funding. 

In addition, we can account for 1,170,000 jobs in the first year 

of the stimulus program on highway, transit, and wastewater treatment; and an additional 159,066 total direct indirect and induced 

jobs, that is, those that are on job site, the Ready Mix plants that 

reopened, the sand and gravel pits that reopened, the rebar, the 

steel service centers, all of which would not have been producing 

without these stimulus funds. We can account for $2.3 billion in diVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:41 Aug 31, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\56726.0 KAYLA
2 

rect jobs, that is, those that are on job site, $2.3 billion in payroll; 

$472 million in taxes paid by those working, by those onsite job 

persons; and $387 million in unemployment compensation checks 

avoided because people are being paid to work and not paid for not 

working. 

In addition, well over 34,000 lane miles of highway have been 

improved, upgraded, replaced. That is roughly equal to threefourths of the interstate highway system in one year. Twelve hundred sixty-one bridges restored, replaced, rebuilt; 10,000 transit 

buses acquired, purchased, produced by the three manufacturers in 

the U.S., all 100 percent American made; and some 2400 transit 

stations replaced, rebuilt, restored. 

Not only do we have people working, not only are they paying 

taxes, they are paying their mortgages, they are not getting unemployment compensation checks, they are leaving real tangible benefits behind in permanent improvements that improve productivity 

in our total economy. 

Think of December 2008, just before we launched the stimulus. 

The economy lost 673,000 jobs. In April of this year the economy 

gained 290,000 jobs. The Recovery Act really has stimulated economic development not only on the job sites, on the projects under 

the jurisdiction of this Committee, but all throughout the economy. 

We have testimony today from the Environmental Protection 

Agency, from the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, 

the Corps of Engineers, the Public Buildings Service, Economic Development Administration, and FEMA. We also have testimony 

from GAO, which is going to give us a report on their assessment 

of success stories and problems and concerns with oversight by the 

responsible Federal Government agencies; and we have a third 

panel including a dairy farmer from Franklin, Vermont, the President of Ellicott Dredges, the Biohabitats Company, and the Green 

Building Council. 

I think on these programs under the jurisdiction of our Committee there is a good and encouraging success story to tell. The 

$1.1 billion in EPA projects that have improved public treatment 

works affecting 60 million people, about a third of those covered by 

sewers. The Corps of Engineers will report on their navigation repair and improvement to 284 locks, commercial ports, 1,124 dam 

and safety levee projects, and upgrading of 460 recreation areas. 

GSA will give us a detailed report on their insulation of photovoltaic arrays on roofs and improvement of water systems. 

All in all, I think, for the work under the jurisdiction of our Committee, we can say that, from my perspective, it has been a success 

putting people to work, using the funds productively, leaving permanent benefits behind. 

With that, I yield to Mr. Mica, the senior Republican on our 

Committee. 

Mr. MICA. Well, thank you so much. I must say Mr. Oberstar and 

I had the same intentions. We came back right after the elections, 

before we passed the stimulus package. We tried to put together 

a package that would have truly put people to work, I believe; 

probably would have been about $120 billion to $150 billion. We 

had support from the Committee. We thought the bill total would 

be about $250 billion, $300 billion. As it turned out, it was $787 

3 

billion. About 7 percent went for infrastructure. Of that, the Department of Transportation had $48 billion. 

And, Mr. Chair, you tried to put as positive a light on the success, and I think they are trying to get that money out, but as of 

May 21st, only 25 percent of the total money had actually been 

spent by the Department of Transportation. And today we are not 

focusing on the Department of Transportation, we are focusing on 

other agencies; and I put the other agencies up there that are testifying today. I wish the performance could be better for getting the 

money out, because we need to get people to work. We need jobs. 

Now, the little chart that I has shows that, unfortunately, FEMA 

has probably the lowest percentage out, less than 1 percent of the 

money out. Then we have some not as bad performers: 7 percent 

of money. This is actually money spent. There is money allocated, 

and I will talk about that in a minute. We have two in the 7 percent range, GSA. And GSA has a huge amount. Let me say for 

FEMA, they have a much smaller amount, but a very small 

amount. 

Ms. Norton, if you will note that, maybe we can light a fire under 

those people. Got a lot of buildings that we could acquire, right, 

Mr. Chairman, Madam Chairman? And we could save the taxpayers a huge amount of money buying buildings or re-leasing at 

50 cents on a dollar. God, that would be a stupid deal. 

OK, then we have the Corps of Engineers is actually the best, I 

guess, in actually spending the money; they have 30 percent spent. 

So that is the little report, and you can see by that chart. 

Now, you know, if you believe the stimulus package is bringing 

the economy around, maybe again you are smoking the funny 

weed, folks, because unemployment actually went up to 9.9 percent 

across the Country. It is devastating in my State. I have a couple 

counties with over 16 percent unemployment in Florida. In fact, the 

CBS New York Times poll, now, they aren’t the most conservative 

group around, found only 6 percent of Americans believe, now, 

there is an element of belief in this, that the stimulus has created 

jobs. 

Well, the Associated Press found that 34 percent of Americans 

believe in UFOs. So there is more belief in unidentified flying objects than there are that the stimulus is actually helping. And if 

you look at the data, again, we are growing in unemployment nationally. 

There are some disturbing trends here. Unemployment in the 

construction sector is now 21.8 percent. And this Committee, with 

our legislation and our effort, could and should get more people to 

work. And I know every Member here is hurting in their respective 

districts. The numbers of jobs lost since the start of 2008 is 8 million jobs. They told us if we passed the stimulus, the $787 billion 

package, that we would keep unemployment at 8 percent. Folks, it 

is not happening. 

Finally, let me tell you a couple things. I got this economic recovery. This is the Florida fact sheet. Other Members, you ought to 

get one of these; they probably have them for every State, maybe 

the District too, Ms. Norton. But it is quite revealing. I was 

shocked to see that Florida requested $6.9 billion and we got $1.3 

4 

billion allocated for Florida. So far, to date, you know what we 

have spent? Two hundred thirty million dollars. 

Do you know what every job costs us? This is from the report, 

and this data is online from the Administration. We created or 

saved 2,000 jobs, and the cost of each job was $115,000. So I have 

some issues there. 

Then the Government Accountability Office, not the Republican 

side of the aisle, but the Government Accountability Office found 

that one out of every ten jobs that were saved or created by the 

stimulus came from projects that haven’t spent any money yet. 

That is not me, that is the GAO in their evaluation of the performance of this program. 

Finally, a new phenomena is occurring. We are, what, 16 months 

into this, 15 months into this? And I was stunned when I heard 

this. This is what is called a de-obligation sheet. And you are going 

to hear, oh, we have only spent a small amount of money, but we 

have obligated a great deal of money in these agencies. Members 

ought to get a copy of this. This is the de-obligation sheet by district. 

What is happening is the projects are being de-obligated, and for 

several reasons that I looked into: one, States who have to work 

in an honest, fiscally responsible manner, in other words, they have 

to balance their budget, some of them are cutting back dramatically on projects because their revenues are less. So what is happening is they are de-obligating projects. And then some, of course, 

are getting re-obligated. 

But this is something to look at. It is taking so long and it is so 

difficult to approve some of these projects, and then the States 

have shortfalls or local government. These are hundreds of millions 

of dollars in de-obligation which is taking place, a new phenomena 

that concerns me. And, again, we have seen the difficulty in getting 

that money out there. 

So I want to get the money out there. We need to cut the red 

tape; we need to cut some of the bureaucracy. If we can do it in 

Mr. Oberstar’s area, with the bridge that took 437 days to replace 

over the Mississippi River between Minneapolis and St. Paul, if we 

did it there and that was a crisis, an emergency to replace the 

interstate, there is no reason that we can’t, in this emergency situation, put people to work and expedite either a category of funding 

or specific projects like we did in Minneapolis and get people working, get projects and infrastructure underway in this Country. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, you don’t yield back time because you have 

unlimited time to speak. 

Mr. MICA. Well, I meant—— 

Mr. OBERSTAR. You concluded what you had to say. Thank you. 

It is the practice in our Committee that the Chair and the Ranking 

Member have such time as they may need to make their case, and 

you have made your case. And I fully agree that our Committee, 

and I have said it many, many times, should have had at least 

$250 billion of the stimulus, because we can track it, we know 

where it is going, the projects go out, the people are on job sites, 

and the results are long-term and lasting. 

5 

Yet, I think the gentleman’s comment about money being spent 

is not a complete representation of the picture, because in the Federal highway program it is a reimbursement program. The State 

advertises for bids, awards bids, contractors begin work, the State 

pays the contractor and then bills the Federal Government for reimbursement. Those reimbursements lag significantly. That is the 

spending part, when the State is reimbursed. 

So the projects and the work and the jobs and the payrolls precede the so-called spending. So when I said that there is a very 

substantial $2.3 billion in payroll, those are people on job sites, the 

direct jobs. I don’t have payroll numbers for those in the secondary 

because I don’t think it is appropriate to try to get those numbers. 

But we know that there are induced jobs, and every contractor can 

tell you that when they win the bid, they then open their sand and 

gravel pit, and that means people working who are not on the job 

site, but they are supplying for the job site. 

Secondly, for the de-obligation, it is an interesting phenomenon 

that when the bids started coming in 25 percent below final design 

estimates, States realized that they could award many more contracts and do much more work, so they de-obligated projects and 

then started over again; that is, they said they are not going to do 

this project now, we are going to do it another time, we are going 

to redesign it, and they got more for their dollar amount. 

Ms. Norton, a few minutes. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very glad that you 

clarified that point, because I think that point is of utmost importance to how this money is being used and that States are taking 

advantage of the fact that the one advantage we have in this recession is that it has lowered the price of what has to be done and 

what has to be bought. 

I do want to say, Mr. Chairman, that, true to your word, you 

have given new meaning to the word oversight. You were never 

wanting for that, but these hearings and the 30-day reports have 

had a real effect. I have tried to follow your example. We have had 

a great number of hearings in our own Subcommittee, and where 

I could get out, I have actually gone and done unannounced site 

visits. 

I do want to correct some of what the Ranking Member said, because it seems to me you have to talk about these things in terms 

of percentages; you know just show a graph and say how much 

this, that, or the other. For example, the General Services Administration has begun work on 74 percent of the funds. EDA has allocated all and broken ground on 62 percent. 

And if I may say so, Mr. Chairman, all but the GSA, which gets 

to spend directly, are working through States. So the EDA and 

these other agencies don’t have the direct control that can command that the money be spent; we have to use the kind of due diligence to assure competition. And, yet, look at the effect they are 

having. 

Mr. Chairman, finally, I want to just say this is something you 

don’t have to see up close to refute the notion that the stimulus has 

done no good. This is where the Bush administration left everybody: way below the line; so below the line that nobody thought we 

would ever rise above that line in our lifetime. You don’t need to 

6 

see this up close, I think you have it on your desks, to see where 

we are now. 

This down line has gradually diminished and we have nothing 

but up lines in that column. It didn’t get that way by osmosis; it 

got that way for a number of reasons. This is not the only Committee that has been working to, in fact, heal the economy, but, for 

sure, the reason that there is less unemployment, the reason that 

this line looks the way it does has a great deal to do with what 

the stimulus funds allocated by this Committee have done. 

And I think the Chairman and the Administration deserve our 

commendation for these results, graphic results. You want to put 

something up there? Put this up there and explain this except by 

what the Administration, this Committee, and other Committees 

have done. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The information follows:] 

7 


Insert offset folio 94 here 56726.094
8 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank you for that chart. You get the Committee award for the most hearings next to the full Committee 

hearings. You have been vigorous in your pursuit of the responsibilities and I thank you for your relentless pursuit. 

Will there be one Member on the Republican side? 

Mr. MICA. We don’t have anyone. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. We will then begin with our first panel. We will 

begin with Craig Hooks, Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management at EPA. Thank you for being with 

us. 

Mr. HOOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Good to see you again. 

Mr. HOOKS. Likewise. 

TESTIMONY OF CRAIG E. HOOKS, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR 

FOR ADMINISTRATION AND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; TERRENCE C. SALT, 

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL 

WORKS), U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS; MARY WALSH, 

CHIEF OF STAFF, PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE, ARRA NATIONAL RECOVERY PROGRAM MANAGEMENT OFFICE, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; JOHN FERNANDEZ, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE; ELIZABETH HARMAN, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, GRANT PROGRAMS, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY; AND DAVID TRIMBLE, ACTING DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, 

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. HOOKS. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Mica, and Members 

of the Committee, thank you once again for providing me the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss EPA’s progress in 

implementing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. EPA received $7.2 billion for programs administered by the 

Agency to protect and promote both green jobs and a healthier environment. These programs include the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, the Superfund Program, the Brownfields Program, the Leaking Underground 

Storage Tanks Program, and the Diesel Emission Reductions Program. 

As I reported to you last time I appeared before this Committee, 

in February, we worked very hard to quickly distribute 100 percent 

of the funds to our partners to clear the way for rapid investment 

in construction, land reuse, and redevelopment. With that task behind us, we have closely monitored expenditures, tracked how 

quickly cleanup and construction projects are completed, and documented environmental and economic achievements, and the news 

is good. 

According to the latest data, recipients of EPA Recovery Act 

funds have reported over 9,600 jobs as of March 31. We have seen 

an increase of over 2,800 reported new jobs in just about three 

months, the majority coming from State Revolving Fund projects. 

We are very encouraged by the creation of these jobs and I believe 

that they will continue to grow. 

9 

A number of these jobs resulted from the Recovery Act funding 

that went to train individuals to pursue environmental careers. 

One such example comes from a three-year, $500,000 Brownfields 

Job Training grant given to Florida State College in Jacksonville. 

On February 26th of this year, 22 out of 24 students graduated 

from the first environmental cleanup job training course. 

Of the $4 billion provided to the Clean Water State Revolving 

Fund, the March 31 report indicates that 90 percent, or 1,585 of 

the non-tribal Clean Water SRF projects have started construction 

and 58 are complete. Thirty tribal projects are underway and nine 

projects are already completed there as well. 

Currently, 46 Superfund sites have initiated onsite construction 

with new or ongoing projects, with the five remaining Recovery Act 

funded sites commencing work within the next two months. Twenty-seven percent of the $600 million are in rural areas and 20 percent of the Superfund sites have achieved construction completion, 

and at 60 percent of the sites human exposures are now under control. 

Of the $100 million allocated for the Brownfields Program to assess and clean up contaminated land, assessments are complete for 

233 properties. We are currently processing $10.75 million in loans 

in subgrant activity for Brownfields Revolving Fund grantees. 

We are already seeing numerous examples of how Recovery Act 

funds are responsible for many environmental success stories 

across the Nation. For example, trash and litter, along with other 

pollutants, threaten urban waterways like Indian Creek and Cobbs 

Creek in Pennsylvania. On a recent visit to Cobbs Creek, I was 

able to see how Recovery Act funds focusing on green infrastructure are helping to empower local residents to take important and 

critical steps to protect their community. 

Earlier this month, I also had the opportunity to visit, personally 

experience and see the environmental conditions found in Camden, 

New Jersey, in the spirit of its residents and the progress EPA has 

made in cleaning up areas for reuse by this community. The Camden Redevelopment Agency is using $400,000 in Recovery Act 

funds to conduct environmental site assessments and support community outreach activities. Cleaning up this property will facilitate 

the future development of several light industry complexes in this 

area. 

Recovery Act funding is also helping EPA’s Superfund response 

in places like Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. This Superfund cleanup consisted of removing lead-and arsenic-contaminated soil and gravel in 

260 properties, more than doubling the cleanup activities completed during the previous construction season. 

Over the next six months, we anticipate many new project starts, 

more job creation, and other success stories where there are measurable public health and environmental results. We look forward to 

continuing our work with this Committee, our partners, and the 

public to ensure an economically and environmentally healthier 

country for all Americans. 

Thank you again for inviting me to testify here today, and I look 

forward to answering any questions that you might have. 

10 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you for that testimony. I have a number 

of questions, which I am sure others do as well, but I will follow 

up later. 

Mr. Secretary, Civil Works. You call yourself Rock Salt? 

Mr. SALT. Yes. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is a great name. Please proceed. 

Mr. SALT. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of 

the Committee, I am Rock Salt, the Principal Deputy Assistant 

Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Committee today and discuss the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers’ implementation of the Civil Works appropriation within the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 

2009. 

The Corps continues to make great strides to accomplish Recovery Act goals through the development and restoration of the Nation’s water resources activities, protecting the Nation’s regulated 

waters and wetlands, and cleaning sites contaminated from early 

efforts to develop atomic weapons. It is well known that the Corps 

has a backlog of critical infrastructure work for many aging structures, many that are well over 50 years old. The Recovery Act 

funds have enabled the Corps to accelerate repair and improvement of many projects, thereby mitigating the risk to American 

lives and property, and putting many Americans to work. 

Work the Corps has underway includes the repairing or improving of 48 locks and 236 commercial ports to reduce the risk of failures that would disrupt navigation and be detrimental to the 

American economy. In addition, 35 hydropower projects are being 

repaired or improved to avoid disruptive power outages. What the 

Corps is doing with Recovery Act funds is not only a short-term 

stimulus, but also a long-term contribution to the stability of the 

American economy and the well-being of our Nation’s citizens. As of April 30th, 2010, our financial obligations are over $3.5 billion. Total outlays, primarily comprising payments made to contractors for work completed, have reached nearly $1.4 billion. We 

have completed work on over 150 projects. Work is underway or 

complete for 284 navigation projects, 304 flood risk management 

projects, 143 environmental restoration projects, 148 environmental 

infrastructure projects, and 35 hydropower projects, as well as the 

inspection of 820 levees. 

The Corps has awarded over 4,400 contract actions, with 73 percent awarded to small businesses. Almost $1.4 billion, or 44 percent, of the total dollar value has been awarded to small businesses. In addition, larger companies receiving Civil Works contracts are encouraged to hire local small businesses as their subcontractors. 

Recipients of Civil Works funds report approximately 6,700 jobs 

created or retained for the third reporting quarter. Civil Works investments also support numerous indirect jobs in industry supplying material and equipment, and jobs are supported as direct 

and indirect income generates increased consumer spending. 

The $4.6 billion in Recovery Act funds provided to the Corps has 

provided resources for the Corps Civil Works program to pursue investments that create and preserve jobs and yield good returns for 

the Nation’s economy. 

11 

Thank you for allowing me to testify today. I look forward to 

questions from you or other Members of the Committee. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you’very much, Mr. Secretary. And I will 

have questions, but I just want to take this brief moment. 

Sunday I was in Rochester, Minnesota. I had been there for a 

meeting with local and county government officials on their transportation needs, but also to tour the Corps’ flood control project. In 

1978, the City of Rochester was devastated by a massive flood following several days of heavy rain. Seven people died in a nursing 

home when, trying to get out of the building and the elevated 

shorted out, they sank to the bottom and drowned in their elevator. 

I was at a meeting in the yard of the home of an endocrinologist 

at the Mayo Clinic with a gathering, and she said this property 

was under water, completely under water in 1978. Last summer we 

had a similar immense rainfall and this property was dry. 

I had the opportunity to bike ride along the bicycle trails, 30 

miles of cycling, I might say, around the flood control projects of 

Rochester, Minnesota, to see the permanent benefits that happen 

when you do the right thing, when the Corps, that gets so much 

criticism from people about not doing this or not doing something 

else. This is one of thousands of projects the Corps has undertaken 

that have saved lives and made a difference in the economy. The 

central city of Rochester is vibrant again because of that flood control project. 

Mr. SALT. Yes, sir. Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Not my district, but I supported it. I introduced 

it. 

Ms. Walsh, thank you for being with us. 

Ms. WALSH. Good morning, Chairman Oberstar, Ranking Member Mica, and other Members of the Committee. My name is Mary 

Walsh. I am the Chief of Staff for the Recovery Program Management Office of the General Services Administration’s Public Buildings Services. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you 

today to discuss GSA’s contribution to our Nation’s economic recovery through green modernization and new construction of our Federal buildings. 

The investments we made and continue to make in our public 

buildings are helping to stimulate job growth and retention, and 

improve the environmental performance of our inventory, as well 

as facilitate developments in energy-efficient technologies, renewable energy generation, and green building solutions. 

I would like to summarize our recent accomplishments. We submitted an initial spend plan on march 31st, 2009, based on two 

overarching criteria: the potential of projects, one, to put people 

back to work quickly and, two, to transform Federal buildings into 

high-performance green buildings. 

As we identified savings from projects underway, we revised the 

spend plan to reallocate these savings toward the enhancement, acceleration, or funding of other projects. To date, we have revised 

our spend plan three times, in November, January, and March. 

These revisions represent a reallocation of more than $500 million. 

Our current spend plan includes 262 projects in all 50 States, the 

District of Columbia, and two U.S. territories. Our objective is to 

deliver projects on schedule, on budget, and on green. 

12 

We established and met aggressive targets to fulfill the intent of the Recovery Act, including $1 billion in contract awards by August 

1st, 2001; $2 billion in total contract awards by December 31st, 

2009; over $4 billion in total contract awards by March 31st, 2010. 

We are on track to meet our next target of awarding $5 billion in 

total construction awards by September 30th, 2010. 

We are meeting our performance target of on green by investing 

in high-performance green building projects. Recovery funds also 

provide us with the opportunity to become a green proving ground 

by identifying projects and gathering data to measure the returns 

on investment in emerging green technologies and practices. Our 

investments are helping to stimulate the economy. To date, we 

have obligated over $4.1 billion to more than 500 companies. Notably, GSA’s obligations are awards that flow directly to our contractors in the construction, real estate, architecture, and engineering 

sectors. 

Significant activity immediately follows contract award. For example, contractors must secure financing, hire personnel, and begin 

first steps to perform the contract. As progress is made, payments 

for work associated with construction or design projects are outlaid 

through progress payments. This continues over the life of the contract and provides steady support for our economy over an extended period, not just a jolt that lasts only a few months. 

Our Recovery Act funding recipients have reported that 2,683 

prime contractor jobs were funded as a direct result of PBS Recovery Act funding during the reporting quarter ended March 31st, 

2010. I am proud to report that, as of April 30th, 2010, more than 

99 percent of GSA’s recipients have reported in 539 reports. 

GSA’s infrastructure investments vary in scope, type, and complexity, and cover our entire portfolio. Projects range from the new 

courthouse in Austin, Texas, to St. Elizabeths in Washington, D.C., 

the largest Federal project in the area since the construction of the 

Pentagon. At the B.H. Whipple Federal Building project in Fort 

Snelling, Minnesota, the facility will use a geothermal ground 

source heat pump system for both heating and cooling that will 

greatly reduce the facility’s energy usage. Other exciting new approaches to energy conservation include a net zero energy building 

at the Columbus, New Mexico Land Port of Entry. 

Apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship programs are also an important part of our Recovery Act program. Since the launch of the 

pre-apprenticeship program, GSA has made three awards. These 

include the Community Services Agency of the Metropolitan Washington Council, AFL–CIO in Washington, D.C., Oregon 

Tradeswomen Inc. in Portland, Oregon, and Warren Electrical 

Joint Apprenticeship and Training Trust Fund. CSA graduated 126 

pre-apprenticeship trainees, with 52 hired for employment. OTI 

graduated 79 pre-apprenticeship trainees, with 22 hired for employment. 

In addition to our Recovery Act funds, we have received over 

$428 million of an expected $1 billion in Recovery Act reimbursable 

work from other agencies, such as the Department of State and the 

Social Security Administration. 

Today I have described GSA’s accomplishments and contributions 

to our Nation’s economic recovery through funds provided by the 

13 

Recovery Act of 2009. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. We look forward to working with you and Members 

of this Committee as we continue to deliver this important work. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you’very much for that very encouraging, 

uplifting report. Again, I will have questions later, as will others. 

Mr. Fernandez for EDA. 

Mr. FERNANDEZ. Good morning. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Probably my favorite of all Federal Government 

agencies, since I was there at its creation. 

Mr. FERNANDEZ. And we appreciate your continued support, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. For those who don’t understand, the shorthand of 

that remark is that I was chief of staff for my predecessor in 1965, 

when we wrote the Federal Economic Development Administration 

and Appalachian Regional Commission legislation, Mrs. Capito, 

and I wasn’t a Member of Congress, but I feel ownership of that 

legislation and I am very proud of what has been accomplished in 

Appalachia and in EDA. 

So please proceed. 

Mr. FERNANDEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Capito and Members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to update you on our progress with our EDA Recovery Act 

projects. 

As you know, we received $150 million in Recovery Act funding. 

By the end of last September, a year ahead of schedule, we approved 100 percent of our allocation, funding 68 projects in 37 

States. We invested $50 million to promote the development of regional innovation clusters, $37 million to promote business incubation, $27 million to promote green jobs, $11 million for trade promotion, and another $25 million for a variety of other development 

projects. Our project investments ranged from $184,000 to $6.4 million. 

EDA awarded $141.3 million, 96 percent of our Recovery Act 

funds for construction projects. EDA’s Recovery Act investments 

are expected to leverage $981 million in private investment over 

the next nine years. 

In the three months since I last appeared before the Committee, 

a number of additional projects have broken ground, helping communities and businesses create jobs. To date, 72 percent of EDA’s 

Recovery Act projects are underway, compared to 41 percent three 

months ago. These projects total $101.1 million, or 76 percent of 

our Recovery Act allocation. I am pleased to report that, to date, 

nearly all of our projects in our portfolio met anticipated construction start dates and other project implementation milestones. 

In addition, with our regional offices, we developed specific outreach initiatives to assist our recipient partners meet the reporting 

requirements of the Recovery Act. At the end of the second reporting period, 100 percent of our Recovery Act grant recipients successfully met progress reporting requirements. 

EDA’s ability to successfully implement the Recovery Act should 

be no surprise to those familiar with the Agency. We have a long 

history of working with communities to provide effective technical 

assistance and capital investments through our traditional EcoVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:41 Aug 31, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\56726.0 KAYLA
14 

nomic Development Assistance Programs, as well as through budgetary supplementals such as disaster recovery initiatives. 

EDA designs its programs to support job creation and strong regional economies. EDA particularly focuses on building upon two 

key economic drivers, innovation and regional collaboration. Many 

of EDA’s traditional programs support these efforts. For example, 

the agency’s Revolving Loan Fund provides much needed capital to 

help grow and create businesses, and EDA’s University Center Program leverages local assets to support regional collaboration. 

EDA’s ability to obligate the Agency’s entire Recovery Act allocation a year ahead of schedule exemplifies the flexibility of its programs and the continued dedication of EDA staff. In addition, our 

experience administrating the Recovery Act funds has given us a 

unique opportunity to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of 

our programs and processes. 

I am personally committed to making our grant application system work even better for future EDA applicants. Based in part on 

our experience with the Recovery Act, I launched a major process 

improvement initiative. We are analyzing how we can make our 

grant process even more transparent, accessible, and effective, 

while increasing the overall return on investment. We know that 

our grantees will welcome this kind of improvement, and we continually reach out to our stakeholders for feedback. We plan to roll 

out our improved process by the end of this year. 

Mr. Chairman, EDA has a long and successful history working 

with you and this Committee. Though our Recovery Act allocation 

has been awarded, our work to improve the economic conditions in 

our Country is far from done. The Department of Commerce is 

looking forward to working with the Congress on reauthorization of 

EDA to develop an even stronger framework for sustainable economic development that meets the needs of the 21st century. 

Chairman Oberstar and Members of the Committee, I want to 

thank you for your time today and look forward to any questions 

you might have. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you for that excellent report. Some of the 

details which you did not cite, but I will just briefly at this moment. On page 4 of your testimony, the Northeastern Minnesota 

Regional Aviation Cluster is a significant example of EDA’s sustained investment in an area that traditionally had high unemployment. 

The city just north of Duluth, the iron ore mining country, lost 

12,000 jobs when the steel industry crashed in 1982. We have rebounded, but we are still 4,000 jobs instead of 16,000. Duluth lost 

the steel mill, the Coke plant, the cement plant, the Coolerator 

plant. Each time they have come back with help from EDA. 

And this aviation cluster cited on page 4 of your testimony, a 

driver of economic diversification, not only making aircraft, but an 

aerospace industry was started that supplies the frame of the seats 

and then the seat covers, and then the cushions, and then the 

cleaning of the aircraft, and then other aircraft precision-engineered parts, saving thousands of dollars for Cirrus, who have 

begun again to sell aircraft. 

But the problem is not their customer base. Customers are available. Customers can’t get credit from the banking system to buy 

15 

the aircraft. That is not EDA’S problem, that is the seizure that 

this economy has been in since the financial meltdown. 

Just a footnote to your testimony. 

Now, Ms. Harman. 

Ms. HARMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Oberstar and 

Congresswoman Capito, Members of the Committee, my name is 

Elizabeth Harman and I serve as FEMA’s Assistant Administrator 

for the Grant Programs Directorate, also known as GPD. On behalf 

of Administrator Fugate, it is a privilege to appear before you 

today to update the Committee on FEMA’s implementation of the 

Fire Station Construction Grant, or SCG, Program. The Recovery Act provided $210 million to support the program’s 

construction and renovation efforts. Funding under the program 

will enable fire departments to replace or renovate unsafe or uninhabitable fire stations. These investments in infrastructure will 

enable fire departments to better protect communities from fire-related hazards and help ensure firefighter safety. 

On September 23rd, 2009, Secretary Napolitano announced the 

first group of SCG awards. A second group of awards was announced on February 3rd, 2010. To date, 109 awards totaling $189 

million have been made. FEMA also expects to make additional 

grants within the next few months, including three awards totaling 

$11.9 million in the next two weeks. 

An additional 2.29 percent of the initial $210 million appropriated has been retained by FEMA to cover management and administrative costs in accordance with the Recovery Act. The remaining $4 million in SCG funds are being held in reserve to cover 

any budget adjustments related to previously awarded grants. 

Once all current grants are reviewed and are determined to be adequately funded, all remaining funds are available for additional 

awards. 

Since the passage of the Recovery Act in February 2009, GPD 

has worked to move projects forward in a timely manner. GPD has 

placed a high priority on the timely completion of all budget reviews, has worked with FEMA’s OEHP to hasten environmental 

and historic preservation reviews, and has continually reached out 

to our grantees, including the provision of technical assistance, to 

help them in meeting these and other requirements they may face. 

As of today, GPD can report the following: 109 awards have been 

made; 3 will be made in the next two weeks. The 109 current 

awards are funding 116 projects; 26 are ready to begin construction, 3 have begun construction, and 9 will start construction in 

July. Beyond these numbers, it must be remembered that these 

funds make tangible improvements in the health and safety of the 

firefighters who live and work in those fire stations and in the communities served by those fire stations. 

SCG funding will result in enhancing emergency response capabilities, including 45 new fire stations will be built to meet expanded responsibilities. Forty-two unsafe fire stations will be replaced and 16 will be renovated. Ten stations will be expanded to 

accommodate 24/7 coverage and 6 will be expanded to accommodate increased responsibilities. 

Mr. Chairman, the administration of the SCG program has not 

been without challenges. These challenges are inherent to the adVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:41 Aug 31, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\56726.0 KAYLA
16 

ministration of any Federal grant program. Fire Station Construction Grant Program was the first time GPD was charged with the 

development and administration of a major construction grant program. This required not just the development of specific construction grant guidance and application materials, but also the development of policies, processes regarding environmental reviews and 

post-award budget reviews. 

We believe that GPD has successfully met and continues to meet 

these challenges. FEMA released the SCG grant guidance and application materials May 29th, 2009, 91 days after the Recovery 

Act’s enactment. These 91 days included the outreach efforts and 

meetings with the fire service on the program. 

The program’s application period closed July 10th, 2009. First 

grants were awarded September 23rd, 2009, 85 days after the close 

of the application period. These 85 days included GPD’s convening 

and working with fire service staff peer review panels to assist in 

the application and review and selection of more than 6,000 applications. 

Although challenges presented themselves in the pre-award period, most significant challenges have been in the post-award period, specifically post-award budget reviews and post-award EHP 

reviews. Each of these reviews are required by Federal law, entail 

adherence to a number of statutory required processes and procedures, and length the time between GPD’s awarding of a grant and 

a recipient’s ability to access those funds. 

The budget review process determines whether grantees have 

properly explained and documented their funding requests, and ensures compliance with Federal laws, OMB costs and administrative 

principles, and the grantee’s own requirements, including regulations and program guidance. 

Currently, 90 grants have cleared their budget reviews and 19 

are still in the process. The requirement for EHP reviews ensures 

that awarding agencies determines that funds are being spent in 

a manner consistent with Federal law governing the protection of 

the environment and historic structures and sites. 

FEMA’s EHP reviews are managed by FEMA’s OEHP. This office 

ensures that all FEMA grants, including SCGs, meet the requirements of 16 principle Federal, EHP, and Executive orders. Currently, 34 projects have cleared EHP reviews while 82 are still in 

the review process. There have also been times when SCG projects 

have encountered locally driven issues, including local politics 

issues, project and spending approvals from city councils or county 

boards, and State and local procurement and contracting requirements, which grantees are required to address before spending 

funded projects can be initiated. 

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Mica and Members of the 

Committee, I firmly believe that as we move further through the 

current fiscal year, the number of SCG projects that can begin construction will accelerate. GPD is working with our grantees to help 

them succeed, and we want them to succeed. As we move forward 

with this initiative, we look forward to providing this Committee 

with additional information on our progress. 

This concludes my statement, and I am ready to answer any 

questions that you may have. 

17 

Mr. OBERSTAR. You have squeezed a lot of words into a short period. Barney Frank would be proud of you. You are the only one 

I know who can speak as fast as he does. Thank you. 

Mr. Trimble, GAO. You are the cleanup batter here. 

Mr. TRIMBLE. Exactly. Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. At least for this panel. 

Mr. TRIMBLE. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Capito, and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here today to discuss our 

work examining selected States’ use of Recovery Act funds for clean 

water projects. My statement is based on GAO’s most recent report 

on the Recovery Act being issued today, which includes a review of 

the Clean Water SRF programs in 14 States. These 14 States received approximately 50 percent of the $4 billion appropriated for 

the Clean Water SRF program. 

The 14 States we reviewed met all Recovery Act requirements 

unique to the Clean Water SRF. Specifically, these States had all 

projects under contract by the one-year deadline and took steps to 

give priority to projects that were ready to proceed to construction. 

Eighty-seven percent of these Clean Water SRF projects were 

under construction by the one-year deadline. In addition, all of the 

States in our review met or exceeded the 50 percent additional subsidization requirement and the 20 percent green reserve requirement. 

These States awarded nearly 80 percent of the funds as additional subsidization, primarily as principle forgiveness. About onethird of the projects addressed the green reserve requirement and 

almost all of these received additional subsidization. In total, the 

money helped fund 890 water projects, such as secondary and advanced treatment facilities, sanitary sewer overflow, and projects 

intended to address non-point source pollution. 

State officials did face some challenges in meeting Recovery Act 

requirements, especially the one-year contracting deadline. Historically, awarding contracts in this program can take up to several 

years. The compressed time frame imposed by the Recovery Act, as 

well as the increase in number of applications, was challenging for 

some States. New Jersey, for example, received twice as many applications as in past years. 

State programs also had to work with applicants to explain new 

Recovery Act requirements such as Buy American and DavisBacon, as well as to provide support to the nearly 50 percent of recipients that had never received an SRF loan before. 

Additionally, when bids came in under projected estimates, some 

States had to scramble to ensure that all Recovery Act funds were 

under contract by the one-year deadline. While these lower bids 

created a management challenge for the States, it also allowed 

some States to award Recovery Act funds to additional projects. 

Texas, for example, told us that they were able to fund two additional clean water projects because costs were lower than anticipated. 

Most of the States we reviewed took steps to target Recovery Act 

funds to low income communities, generally by considering a community’s median household income when selecting projects. The 

States told us that at least 40 percent of Recovery Act funds, totaling about $787 million, went to projects that serve disadvantaged 

18 

communities, and all of the recipients serving these communities 

were provided additional subsidization. 

While EPA and the States have taken additional oversight steps 

to address Recovery Act requirements, these measures may not be 

sufficient. EPA has not established requirements for States regarding when or how frequently a project must be inspected, or what 

steps need to be taken to assess a sub-recipient’s compliance with 

Recovery Act requirements. 

While some States have increased the frequency of inspections, 

we identified completed projects and those near completion that 

had never been inspected. We also found that most of the States 

in the review had not developed procedures to verify the accuracy 

of job figures reported by sub-recipients by using supporting documentation such as certified payroll records. 

The combination of a large increase in program funding, compressed time frames, and new Recovery Act requirements present 

a significant challenge to EPA’S current oversight approach. In 

light of this, we are recommending that EPA work with the States 

to implement specific oversight procedures to monitor and ensure 

sub-recipients’ compliance with the provisions of the Recovery Act 

funded Clean Water SRF program. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be 

pleased to respond to any questions that you or other Members of 

the Committee might have. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. As usual, a very thorough GAO report and one 

that adds considerably to our understanding of the program and 

also, I think, lessons learned for the future of the SRF program, 

which I will come to in a moment. 

Mr. Schauer, did you have comments you wanted to make at the 

outset? 

Mr. SCHAUER. Yes, a question for the panel. Are we open for 

questions? 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Before we do that, I want to supplement the testimony given this morning. There are agencies not represented here 

under the jurisdiction of this Committee: MARAD, Maritime Administration received $100 million in funding under the Recovery Act, and of those funds, work is underway 

on 66 of the planned projects. New construction of dry dock facilities, 13 such projects; steel machinery work, 23 such projects; 

cranes, forklifts, material handling, $21 million for 18 projects; 

shipyard infrastructure improvements, 6 projects for $6.5 million; 

training of maritime personnel, $6 million; boat hoists on public facilities, ports and docks, $5 million for four such; and port modernization for facilities managed by MARAD, 3 projects for $26 million. A good example is Steiner Shipyard in Bayou La Batre in Alabama, which has received funding for new launch equipment and 

a 400-ton boat hoist. 

FAA has initiated or completed work on 663 airport projects to- taling $1.2 billion, 94 percent of their funds. In fact, FAA and local 

airport authorities were so efficient in getting their funds out that 

I reported for a groundbreaking project, but by the time I got there 

it was a ribbon cutting; they had already completed the project in 

a relatively short period of time because they have advantageous 

contracting authority, do airport facilities. 

19 

Amtrak has replaced 130,000 concrete ties, restored 60 Amfleet 

cars to service, 21 Superliners, 15 locomotives, and invested in 270 

stations to improve those operations. 

Those all add up to jobs created, permanent benefits resulting, 

and a net benefit to the whole Country. 

Mr. Schauer. 

Mr. SCHAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity. 

I want to talk about the issue of American jobs. I represent the 

part of the State of Michigan with the highest unemployment rate 

in the Country of 14 percent, and I was very supportive of the Buy 

American provision that was in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. 

First, Mr. Trimble, you touched on that in your testimony. Can 

you speak briefly to compliance across agencies with regard to Buy 

American provisions? 

Mr. TRIMBLE. Yes. Well, my testimony today is limited to the 

SRF program, so I am not sure I can speak to the other agencies. 

In regard to the Buy America provisions, the States that we did 

our work in mentioned that it is a challenge, but one that they 

could meet. Where we saw issues or concerns was in the internal 

controls to ensure those requirements are met at the sub-recipient 

level. While the States were taking actions and the requirements 

were clear, our recommendation speaks to the need for a more uniform set of compliance tools to make sure that it is happening at 

the sub-recipient level. 

For example, one project in Arizona that the team visited, the 

project was already under construction. They were visiting the 

project site, they were looking at a water meter. On the back of the 

water meter was stamped ‘‘Made in Mexico’’. When the team raised 

that, the State saw immediately the concern, took action, and actually went back and replaced about 100 or so meters that were in 

question. 

On that issue, again, there is a commitment there to do the right 

thing. I think what we are speaking to is the need for more centralized requirements from EPA to the States on how they need to approach sub-recipient monitoring to ensure all of these requirements 

are met. 

Mr. SCHAUER. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, we need to make sure that each of these agencies 

is fully enforcing those Buy American provisions. I will be bringing 

to the Congress an issue that I am working with the DOE, Department of Energy on, a lighting contractor that manufactures a variety of industrial lighting and municipal projects, has lost a contract 

to another company that provided a lighting fixture that said 

‘‘Made in America.’’ They had applied that ‘‘Made in America’’ 

sticker over a sticker that said ‘‘Made in China.’’ Those products actually came from China. The people I represent are very upset, as 

am I, about their tax dollars supporting jobs being created in 

China, rather than jobs here. 

I have a question, Ms. Walsh, on that topic. My office has been 

working with the GSA to try to change the eligibility for photovoltaic roofing materials. We found that the eligibility requirement 

actually favors companies in China. There is a company in Michigan called Unisolar. They have testified before this Committee. 

20 

They have a technology that is very efficient, doesn’t meet the GSA 

requirements. 

So I want to put you on notice about that concern that I have, 

but actually ask you to address. In our Committee information it 

indicates that GSA has used its appropriation to install 78 roofs, 

including 68 photovoltaic arrays for roofs, and wondered if you can 

talk about those 6 photovoltaic arrays on these roofing projects and 

whether that was material from China or material from companies 

in the U.S. 

Ms. WALSH. We anticipate that by the end of the recovery program there will be 68 PV roofs. I will have to get back to you on 

where the materials specifically came from on those projects. 

Mr. SCHAUER. I would ask you to get back to me and get back 

to this Committee as a whole. Again, it is our intent that we are 

supporting and creating American jobs, and fully complying with 

Buy American provisions and making sure that eligibility requirements don’t disadvantage U.S. companies. 

Ms. WALSH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SCHAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Submit that material to the full Committee and 

it will be distributed to Members on both sides. 

Ms. WALSH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mrs. Schmidt. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Salt, I apologize if you had this already in your testimony, 

but I have a rather lengthy question. Customs and Border Protection, along with the GSA and the Corps, plan to spend $7 million, 

originally obligated at $15.7 million in stimulus funds, to renovate 

the Morris Line Port of Entry, the border station on the U.S.-Canadian border in Vermont. 

The border station, which sees 2.5 cars an hour, or about 40 cars 

a day, is located in the middle of a Vermont family’s dairy farm, 

and the owners of the dairy farm were told by the CBP they must 

sell part of the farm for $39,500 or else the farm will be condemned. 

First off, I question the value of that and I do hope that the right 

comps were used, and also factor in the fact that they will probably 

use the farm because this doesn’t sound like enough money when 

you talk a family farm and you destroy it. 

The family and a representative, I believe, will be here, does not 

want to sell and they believe they will go out of business if they 

lose the land. Can you explain the Corps’ role in this situation and 

what is to be done to prevent this condemnation which, contrary 

to the stimulus, will actually put people out of work? 

Would you please tell me what kind of comps you used to evaluate the $39,000 you are going to offer these people? And did you 

look at those comps in relationship to the fact that it will probably 

destroy the farm and put them out of business? Should the port of 

entry stay opened or closed? Is this specific property necessary, and 

how much property is actually necessary, and can you locate it 

somewhere else? 

Sorry for the lengthy question. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Before the Secretary responds, that question is 

also going to be addressed by a witness from Vermont, the farmer 

21 

on whose property, a portion of whose property this project is to be 

undertaken. I would note that the funds are stimulus monies. This 

issue obviously came to my attention as well as yours and Mr. 

Mica. It is stimulus funding through the Customs and Border Patrol, not under the jurisdiction of our Committee. The Corps is simply the leasing agent or the contracting agent, not the initiating 

agent; and I think that there is a serious problem here. 

And we will hear in the next panel from the witness on this subject, but I think that there is a way. There is such a short distance 

between the property in question and the established border patrol 

station that Customs and Border Protection ought to expand the 

existing facility instead of taking property on a new one. I know 

that the Senator from Vermont and the House Member from 

Vermont are both very concerned about it. 

Mr. Salt, if you have further observations on this at this point? 

Mr. SALT. The one question that you asked was what is the 

Corps’ involvement in this. The Customs and Border Protection 

Agency did ask the Corps, as other agencies have, to provide certain services, and the Corps is providing the real estate support for 

that project. But as to the requirements and all of the specifics of 

your question, I would refer those to the Customs and Border Protection Agency, as the Chairman suggested. It is their project and 

we are only providing real estate support to them. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. The Corps is not the initiating agency on this 

project, but we are going to pursue this further in the next panel. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And just as a question, so who decided what value they were going to give this dairy 

farmer? Who made the determination for the monetary consideration? 

And I guess, Mr. Chairman, if I can digress. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Certainly. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. In my background, in my past life, I had to deal 

with eminent domain issues, and almost always I found, in my personal experience, they never gave the property owner their just due 

for the amount that the Government wanted to give. So I have kind 

of a prejudiced notion on the $39,000 just from my past. So this 

might be a legitimate amount; it may not be a legitimate amount. 

I don’t know. I just want to know who set the value so I can ask 

the question how did they arrive at that value. 

Mr. SALT. If I can get back to you on that. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you. Appreciate it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. It is interesting that you have that experience in 

your resume. Did you have highway project experience as well? 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Chairman, I was a township trustee, so I 

dealt with it with the Ohio Department of Transportation and citizens of my township. And I was a township trustee for 11 years, 

so I had to advocate for my citizens on a fairly regular basis when 

we were doing some road widening projects in our township. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. There were a number of such concerns in the 

early days of the interstate highway program, States being heavyhanded in dealing with property owners, the result of which was 

this Committee initiated and moved through to enactment the Uniform Relocation Act, which provides a very rigorous process by 

22 

which property owners get fair treatment, fair compensation, and 

the opportunity, even if the highway does not directly take their 

property, but is close enough so that their business owner’s business would be diverted, they have a right to just compensation, fair 

market value, and not have to proceed through court to be compensated. I would like to hear more about your experience at another time. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. We will talk later. Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Hare was here earliest, so I will go to him 

at this point. 

Mr. HARE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Salt, in your testimony you state that it is well known that 

the Corps has had a backlog of important infrastructure projects, 

many of these structures, including some that are over 50 years 

old. Just a question, then a comment. Well, I will do the question 

first. 

To what extent has the Recovery Act addressed some of this 

backlog? In my district, from west central Illinois, we have seven 

locks, and you probably are aware that most of those are in very 

poor shape. And we are trying to figure out how we are going to 

be able to do that and fix some of these, because I went to one of 

the locks and the lock master asked me if I was left-handed or 

right-handed. I told him I was right-handed. 

He said, well, I want you to hit this portion with your left hand, 

your left fist; and I did and a chunk of concrete the size of a football came off. These locks, it is not really a question of if they are 

going to fail; the question is when are they going to fail, because 

they are really in bad shape. And if they fail, we are going to have 

a serious problem. 

So I guess I am putting a pitch and I realize you don’t have all 

the money, but to what extent has this Recovery Act and the 

money that we gave to you folks addressed some of these aging infrastructure things you guys are in charge of? 

Mr. SALT. The Recovery Act was enormously important for us, 

particularly with respect to our navigation infrastructure. I think 

we tend to focus on the new construction, but about half of our Recovery Act funds were for operations and maintenance, which was 

over $2 billion, and allowed us to address those needs throughout 

the Country. 

As I said in my oral testimony, we were able to address 284 navigation projects, and over 300 flood risk reduction projects. Throughout the Country, both with respect to the Recovery Act and with 

respect to our general appropriations, these are becoming our biggest priority for safety issues and for the performance of the 

project. These are the priorities that we are focusing on. 

Mr. HARE. Well, let me just say I agree with the Chairman and, 

for the record, the Corps does a tremendous job given the resources. We need to give you more so that what you do better than 

probably anybody is to be able to do more of, and at some point 

we are going to have to try to address this situation of how do we 

come up with the funds necessary to do this. But I just want to let 

you know for the record that I have had the opportunity to work 

with the Corps and they do wonderful things for people. So I just 

wanted you to know that. 

23 

Ms. Harman, I just had a question, if I could, for you. These recovery funds are meant to be used quickly and efficiently. What 

steps is FEMA taking to work with the local communities to encourage them to move towards construction? And the second part 

of that is how are you working with them to expedite the internal 

processes? 

Ms. HARMAN. With regard to all of our grantees, we have done 

an enormous amount of work to help them through this process 

and understand what this process is. There were more than 6,000 

applications, and there are 109 awardees, so the 109 is a fairly 

small amount compared to the 20,000 open grants that we actually 

manage each year. 

So the nice part of that is that we do have a dedicated staff with 

that small number of grants that are able to provide technical assistance, particularly with the environmental historic process, 

which seems to be the long, laborious process required by Federal 

law for us to go through, but it is an eye-opening experience, I 

think, for the first responders that have applied for this money, 

and we are shovel-ready at the time of application. Some of them 

had engineering drawings, but as soon as they accepted that Federal dollar, they now have to go through the Federal environmental 

historic preservation section. So a lot of education, a lot of technical 

assistance going on. 

With regard to that process of environmental historic preservation, we work closely with FEMA’s Office of Environmental Historic 

Preservation. The only part we can really narrow, that I have control over, is the public comment period, which is normally 30 days. 

We reduced it to 15. 

But aside from that, we have used the M&A money that we have 

to beef up contractors to sort of triage, geez, is this going to be a 

renovation project or is this going to be a full construction project? 

Renovation ones sort of get more categorical exclusions, which help 

get through the process a little quicker. Those that are pushed for 

full EAs, we have assistance from our FEMA regions to help us out 

with that. So the process is a long arduous process. If I could make 

it go any quicker, I could, but I think I would be breaking the law 

if I did. 

Mr. HARE. We don’t want you to do that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. HARMAN. I don’t want to do that. 

Ms. NORTON. [Presiding] The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mrs. Capito. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. Walsh, I would like to ask you a question. You mentioned 

the work that you are doing on the Federal buildings and the green 

initiatives that you have moved forward with with the stimulus 

dollars. We have a courthouse in my hometown, Charleston, West 

Virginia, where some of that work is being done, I think it is 

$4.696 million. 

And you mentioned also in your statement that you are looking 

at returns on investments. It is my understanding that solar panels 

are being put on the roof of that courthouse, and I would like to 

know what calculation on the return on the investment of the 

$4.696 million, what you calculate savings, energy savings will be 

24 

for that particular building, or at least a building similar to that, 

and how you come to that calculation? When will it begin paying 

back? 

Ms. WALSH. I am going to have to get back to you on the specific 

numbers that we are using for that project, for the calculations. 

Mrs. CAPITO. When you are calculating the cost, is that a make 

or break figure for you, if you are going to get return on your investment or not, when you are deciding which buildings to place 

solar panels or green? Because that is not a very old building is one 

of the reasons I am interested in it. 

Ms. WALSH. We need to look at the the return on investment, 

and look at it in the context of the whole project and the overall 

contribution to the building. But as far as the actual calculations, 

I am going to have to apologize, I don’t know the specifics. 

Mrs. CAPITO. That is OK. That is understandable. 

Ms. WALSH. We will get back to the Committee with that information. 

Mrs. CAPITO. In the general sense, do you make that part of your 

calculation, as to whether it actually is going to be an energy savings bottom line on that particular building when you are deciding 

to green the building? Are you making that as a calculation, that 

you are going to get a return on your investment? Is that a factor 

that is calculated in the decision to go forward? 

Ms. WALSH. We do evaluate the estimated return on our investments. Also, we are developing a database to track and record all 

of the high performance energy elements that we are installing. 

Once these features are installed, constructed and operating, we 

plan to verify energy assumptions modeling. 

Mrs. CAPITO. So basically it is a more look back rather than a 

look forward. You can’t calculate that at this point? 

Ms. WALSH. We do calculate expected performance based on energy modeling but until the building is operating and we see actual 

consumption, we dont know definitively. 

Mrs. CAPITO. When you are soliciting bids for a building, a courthouse of that magnitude, have you shortened the time frame on 

that or what are you finding? Are you finding a lot of local contractors bidding on those projects? Not that one specifically. And are 

they able to meet the demands of a quick turnaround? Because I 

assume the work is being done quicker than maybe normally would 

be done under a GSA contract. 

Ms. WALSH. We do all the recovery work in accordance with our 

procurement requirements. 

Mrs. CAPITO. So you haven’t changed that for this. 

Ms. WALSH. Right. But we are expediting all of our project 

awards in terms of reducing as much time as possible before solicitations go out. And, once contracts are awarded, we are accelerating outlays by identifying disinct elements that can be performed, completed, and paid for, such as site and foundation work. 

And with the smaller projects we are seeing more local contractors 

involved in those projects. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Let me ask you another question along the line of 

courthouses. The GAO report came out, I believe yesterday, and 

among one of their findings was that a lot of the courthouses that 

had been built over the last 10 years were basically overbuilt, to 

25 

the tune of about you could have had nine more courthouses, too 

many courtrooms, not taking into consideration courtroom sharing. 

It was pretty critical and said the estimate cost to construct this 

extra space, when adjusted to 2010 dollars, this is from the GAO 

report, is approximately $835 million, and the annual cost to keep 

them rented and renovated and maintained is another $51 million. 

Having said all that, why are we building new courthouses or 

adding to existing courthouses when this report shows that we 

have overbuilt in this particular area? What is your response to 

this report? 

Ms. WALSH. I have not had an opportunity to review the report 

yet. In terms of the projects we selected, we chose projects that 

would enable us to put people back to work as quickly as possible 

and create jobs, as well as to transform our inventory into high 

performance green buildings. And in terms of the courthouses, 

those were projects that we could get going relatively quickly, and 

they were in the works. 

Mrs. CAPITO. My time is up. Thank you. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mrs. Capito. I particularly thank you 

for your question on courthouses. I am Chair of the Subcommittee 

and the full Committee, both sides, all four of us, the Subcommittee as well as the Chair and the Ranking Member, that requested that report. Those courthouses, I believe, were on the list 

to be done and could be done quickly. 

But her question is a powerful question. Her numbers are exactly 

correct. Because the GSA, frankly, was not doing its oversight job 

and because the courts had apparently seized control of a Federal 

construction program, acting as if Article 3 judges were also in 

charge of construction. This was an overbuilt program. We are pulling it back from the judges. This is an age-old problem. I have only 

been on the Committee 20 years, and it has been out there hanging 

all this time until this GAO report had straightened it out. 

To Mrs. Capito, whose question I appreciate, I want to say that 

the Subcommittee will not be recommending any new courthouses 

until such time as there has been a demonstration that all of this 

overbuilding and overspending—and I see my Ranking Member, 

who was as ardent in his questioning on this matter as I was. 

There is no light between the minority and the majority on spending almost $1 billion in overbuilding courthouses, against the 

authorized amount of the Congress of the United States. I hate to 

say it, but in this instance the courts were lawless, and they are 

the ones who, of course, enforce the law and are supposed to abide 

by the law. 

I want to just take my time to ask just a few questions. 

Ms. Harman, I think, for good reason, Members have been concerned about the firehouse construction. There is broad support, 

again on both sides, for the firehouse program, and that is why we 

put money in there for firehouses. It does seem to me that this program was different from other fire grants and was different from 

other Recovery Act programs. For example, did these firehouses 

have to be peer reviewed by firefighters themselves? 

Ms. HARMAN. Yes, they were. They followed the same peer review model that is used for the AFGE grants, as well as the 

SAFER grants. There was some screening done pre-going to the 

26 

peer review panel because of the number, 6,000, but each award 

that was given and each application, for the most part, that went 

to peer review panel was reviewed by a minimum of three peer reviewers. 

Ms. NORTON. Were there other ways in which these grants did 

not get going as soon as other grants did? And is it true that you 

only have five firehouse projects begun in construction? 

Ms. HARMAN. There are currently three under construction. 

Ms. NORTON. I mean, three. I am sorry. 

Ms. HARMAN. Yes. Twenty-six are ready at any moment. All the 

EHPs are done, all the budget review is done. You know, we are 

getting through the budget review process, of course, the EHP process, but I don’t think we anticipated the almost opposition, if I can, 

at the local level. I will give you an example from a fire chief. 

Ms. NORTON. Opposition to? 

Ms. HARMAN. To receiving the grant. It is an election year. I was 

on the phone with Chief Steward from Rolling Meadows, Illinois 

just last week. Our office here is doing a great job trying to say, 

hey, we gave you the award, could you please accept it? At the time 

of application there was one city council in place; at the time of 

award there was a new city council in place. The award was for $1 

million. The city offered to also pony up $800,000, which was not 

necessary because there was no matching requirements. And it sort 

of became this battle between the fire chief pushing—— 

Ms. NORTON. What did they want to put $800,000 up for, then? 

Ms. HARMAN. They actually thought, well, if we don’t take the $1 million award, we are saving $800,000. 

Ms. NORTON. Sorry? If we don’t take it, because they thought it 

would only cost—— 

Ms. HARMAN. Right. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, why didn’t they then take it and ask that it 

be used for another purpose? 

Ms. HARMAN. Well, they do have to build a fire station with it, 

but I think they had a grander scheme of the fire station. But our 

staff has done such a job of working with them. I actually have a 

letter from Chief Steward expressing his concern in the amount of 

work that has gone in to just getting on the agenda of the city 

council; being on the agenda, being taken off, waiting two months 

to get back on a city agenda just to say, hey, can we accept this 

award? 

Our staff finally said, look, if you don’t accept the award, we are 

going to go to the next person on the list. Can you help us out? 

How can we help you get the fire station that you have applied for 

and competed for and won? 

And the fire chief is gung ho for it, so we put a time line on, and 

there was actually resistance from the city council saying, well, 

FEMA won’t do that. You know, we got the award; they wouldn’t 

put a restriction on it saying if we don’t do it. Finally, our staff had 

to push even further. They have accepted the award but then, 

again, our fire chief had to get on the agenda for the city council 

just to contract—— 

Ms. NORTON. Well, Ms. Harman, I think we get it. But in a real 

sense, although more extreme, more drawn out, your predicament 

does illustrate what we go through in the States. The States don’t 

27 

operate at our command, even though they are very glad to get our 

money, and we do have to respect their processes. On the other 

hand, the Chairman has been real clear you can pass on. We are 

going to pass right over you if in fact you can’t do it. But you can 

see Members are concerned about this matter. 

Ms. HARMAN. Absolutely. 

Ms. NORTON. I have a question for Mr. Fernandez. 

Mr. Fernandez, the agency has lots of support on this panel, and 

one of the reasons it enjoys this support is that EDA has been in 

the forefront of investing in incubators. We note that although the 

EDA’S reauthorization proposal has a loan guarantee and grant 

program focused on science and research parks, there appear to be 

no incubators among your stimulus projects. Why is that? 

Mr. FERNANDEZ. Actually, I believe there were 13 projects that 

supported incubation, 4 specific—— 

Ms. NORTON. I am talking about, of course, in your stimulus—— 

Mr. FERNANDEZ. In the Recovery Act. 

Ms. NORTON. Yes. 

Mr. FERNANDEZ. And that included I know in Scottsburg, Indiana, we funded a technology incubator. 

Ms. NORTON. With stimulus funds? 

Mr. FERNANDEZ. Yes. It was a $4.3 million investment for manufacturing technology incubation. I believe there were three other incubators. I could get you a specific list of the actual incubator 

projects, if you would like that. 

Ms. NORTON. I may have this backwards. You do have them in 

your stimulus or ARRA funding, but not in your reauthorization. 

And why is that? 

Mr. FERNANDEZ. I don’t have the language in front of me. I know 

there is some additional language in what we had proposed to the 

Congress to bring some clarity on incubation. I believe the rationale is that we already have tremendous authority and flexibility 

within our Public Works program, as well as our Economic Adjustment Assistance program to invest in incubators, and, as you know, 

we have invested in a number of incubators over the years, so we 

certainly don’t—— 

Ms. NORTON. So you are saying that incubators would in fact be 

part of your existing programs? So you don’t propose not to go 

ahead with the incubator program? 

Mr. FERNANDEZ. Correct. And, again, I apologize, I can’t remember off the top of my head. I think there is some language that we 

suggested to give us even some flexibility on some operating support for EDA-funded incubation to ensure that they are even 

stronger and more successful. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Fernandez, I just want to bring to the attention 

of the full Committee something that we understand you are going 

to be doing and that is, in its own way, akin to our own process 

that we pass the money on to someone else if you don’t in fact use 

it rapidly. As I understand it, you are going to proceed to use a 

process that has proved very effective in the Delta Regional—— 

Mr. FERNANDEZ. Regional Commission. 

Ms. NORTON.—Commission. I am sorry, the Delta Regional Commission. And that is a kind of clawback. And, again, to the full 

Committee, this is the first time I have ever seen this done effecVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:41 Aug 31, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\56726.0 KAYLA
28 

tively, but if the private entity does not produce the jobs it has indicated it will produce, then the Delta Commission has a kind of 

payback. Of course, contingencies are allowed because there can be 

reasons why a project does not produce jobs. And, of course, there 

is some negotiation. 

But by having in place this clawback, that you have to give back 

some of the money, in fact, the Delta Commission, who testified before us, was able to show that this has been a very effective way 

to get people to be up-front and clear about promising and not overpromising. You indicated you would be spreading that, and I would 

like to know when and how. 

Mr. FERNANDEZ. Yes. As you and I have discussed this, we are 

interested in how the Delta Commission administers their 

clawback. There are some complexities that are a little bit different 

for our agency in terms of the intermediaries that we invest in or 

co-invest in have much more direct control over the ultimate job 

creator that is built around a particular investment. 

So there is some complexity, but we are very interested in looking at how we can embed those types of provisions. We do have authority today and a tremendous amount of ability to hold folks accountable for the investments of taxpayer dollars already, and 

where there are cases where they are not moving forward with 

projects as agreed to, we have the ability to recapture those dollars 

under existing authority. 

The clawback provision, I think, the other way to look at it, as 

well, as part of this process improvement initiative that I mentioned in my testimony. I think we have to look at what we are 

doing at the front end as well, so the depth of due diligence that 

we engage in as part of an application process should be really very 

vigorous so that, in fact, we are ensuring success of the investments at the front end. But if folks don’t meet their obligation, they 

certainly should be held accountable. 

Ms. NORTON. Yes. And people at the front end will negotiate very 

carefully about what they promise and will tend to over-promise 

less. 

Ms. Walsh, I won’t ask you for answers to these questions, but 

I would like to have the answers to these questions within the next 

14 days. You have testified that the largest project ever attempted 

by the GSA and the largest since the Pentagon is underway here 

under the jurisdiction of the GSA and is underway here in the District of Columbia. 

I do have reports on a biweekly basis on how many jobs are 

being created. There has been an apprenticeship program, and 

these funds, I understand, have been fully allocated, and I commend GSA on that; allocated throughout the Country. And because 

this project is so big and because there are 15 other projects in the 

District of Columbia, again, because it is the seat of government 

and there are many government buildings here, these projects are 

now underway using apprentices and pre-apprentices. 

We would like to have some idea of how many apprentices, just 

let’s say apprentices, and that includes pre-apprentices, of course, 

and perhaps they should be disaggregated, because pre-apprentices 

are people who are less trained, they don’t have the full apprentice 

status. 

29 

Since this money is out there and people will expect that since 

we put money out there, that they will in fact be hired, how many 

apprentices are contemplated to actually get positions in jobs in the 

jurisdictions where you have awarded the money? How many 

would you calculate? I understand that there could be differences. 

How many apprentices will be hired? How many pre-apprentices 

will be hired? The $3 million in money out there for distribution 

to a number of districts of this money. 

We don’t want to leave people thinking that everybody who 

thinks of himself as a pre-apprentice or apprentice is going to find 

a job in some kind of Federal program, and the only way to do that 

is to be up front with people about the number of jobs that are anticipated. And I wish you would get back to me with that. 

And I am very interested in the 15 projects in the District of Columbia. These are the big green projects here, where you have old 

Federal buildings that nobody has looked at probably since they 

were put up during the New Deal, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt 

did precisely what we are doing. He said this is the time to build 

the infrastructure for the Federal Government. 

So if you look down on Constitution Avenue and Pennsylvania 

Avenue, you will see 1930-some dates on all those buildings. You 

are doing massive changes in some of those buildings, and the 

kinds of changes that we need most because they are going to save 

us money in air conditioning and heating and other energy conservation. 

Would you, within two weeks, get to the Chair and to me a status report on the status of all 15 projects in the District of Columbia; where they are located, at what stage of construction they are; 

how many jobs? I won’t get to apprentices there, I am interested 

in how many jobs have been provided in what specific categories 

and how many jobs are contemplated to be provided in this bunch 

of buildings located in the Nation’s capital? 

Thank you’very much. 

Ms. WALSH. Yes, ma’am, we will get back to you. 

Ms. NORTON. Next, Mr. Cao. Do you have any questions, Mr. 

Cao? 

Mr. CAO. I do, Madam Chair, and thank you’very much. 

Madam Chair, you know, you and I, for the past year and a half, 

we have been very frustrated with Federal agencies in regards to 

the rebuilding of New Orleans, and obviously one of the agencies 

that we were frustrated with was the Army Corps of Engineers. 

And again we are dealing with an emergency in the Gulf, and it 

seems to me that the bureaucracy that is so inherent in the structure of the Army Corps is impeding their ability to make very 

quick decisions. 

On May 11th of this year, the governor of Louisiana requested 

an emergency authorization to construct a sand barrier along our 

Barrier Islands to provide a critical structure that will block the 

flow of oil into our sensitive waters and estuaries. And it has been 

over two weeks and the Army Corps of Engineers has not provided 

a decision with respect to the permit, and one of the reasons that 

they gave was they had to do an environmental study. 

Now, if I were a layperson looking at the Gulf of Mexico and the 

oil is floating in, it seems to me that the impact from the oil, the 

30 

oil threatens to destroy the way of life, the marshes, the estuaries 

in the Gulf, why are we spending time to do an environmental impact study, when the oil threatens to destroy everything? So it 

seems to me that the bureaucracy of the Army Corps of Engineers 

is impeding their ability to make very common sense decisions. 

So my question to you, Secretary Salt, is what is the delay? I 

really don’t understand. 

Mr. SALT. In light of the current circumstances, the Corps is 

using its emergency authorities and is using its emergency protocols to consider the request of the Governor. I think you are correct 

that the Governor first put forward his proposal on the 11th of 

May. Just last Friday, though, the State amended its request and 

asked us to focus on a different, smaller set of sand berms. The 

Corps is proceeding with its analysis on that and expects a decision—— 

Mr. CAO. But it seems to me that the longer we delay, even a 

day, two days, three days, can lead to very devastating effects to 

the Gulf Coast region, especially to the marshes and to the estuaries. How hard is it to make a decision with respect to allowing 

the berms to be built or not? It seems to me that any environmental impact that comes from the construction of this berm can 

be addressed at a later date. The priority now is to build it to keep 

the oil out. And the answer to the question is either a yes or a no. 

And I don’t know why it takes a week to make a decision. I can 

make one right now. 

Mr. SALT. This is probably the wrong forum to discuss that question. I would just say that it has been my experience, and in my 

understanding in this case, that the Corps has been processing this 

most recent permit request very quickly. Picking up on your point, 

under the Corps’ protocols, the environmental assessments it is 

doing are what I would call screening assessments, and answering 

the questions like what are the protocols if there is oil in the sand 

and—— 

Mr. CAO. If I can inquire further, I believe the President has declared a state of emergency to the fishing industry. Wouldn’t that 

state of emergency allow the Corps to waive some of these protocols 

to make very expedient decisions? 

Mr. SALT. Sir, they do. They don’t waive their protocols, but they 

have a modified set of protocols that allows them to make an emergency decision that then is followed with a more formal process 

that begins in 30 days. And again, the permit application that the 

Corps is now considering was received on Friday by the Corps. It 

is now in the final stages of the decision process and I expect a decision very shortly. 

Mr. CAO. Madam Chair, again, it just deals with this very frustrating bureaucracy that we have to deal with through the Army 

Corps of Engineers, and I believe that we have to find ways in 

order to streamline their decision making to allow them to provide 

us with very quick decisions in case of emergencies in the future. 

And this is a question to the panel. Are there any resources 

unallocated from the Recovery Act that we can somehow redirect 

to help the Gulf regions to address the oil spill? 

31 

Mr. HOOKS. As far as EPA’S resources are concerned, 100 percent of our resources have already been obligated. We actually 

don’t have any additional resources. 

Mr. CAO. Mr. Salt? 

Mr. SALT. I would say right now I am not aware of any requirements that are unfunded. I think we are proceeding with general 

revenues to do the work. You mentioned the permitting issue. 

Right now, our primary involvement is to expedite the permitting 

along the lines of your questions earlier. 

Mr. CAO. Ms. Walsh? 

Ms. WALSH. We have allocated all of our funds, sir. 

Mr. CAO. Basically, that is the same answer from everyone? 

Mr. FERNANDEZ. No. 

Mr. CAO. OK, good. 

Mr. FERNANDEZ. I have a slightly different answer. We are, as 

you know, Congressman, we have deployed staff from our regional 

offices out of Austin, as well as Atlanta, to provide technical assistance and begin coordinating with the coastal community leadership. 

We believe we have some minimal modest amount of funds that 

may be available to help out of existing fiscal year. But we are 

talking a few hundred thousand dollars, not millions, so it is a 

modest amount. But, as you know, the President has proposed a $5 

million supplemental appropriation for EDA to become much more 

engaged in the recovery efforts, and we hope that the Congress will 

act on that request. 

Mr. CAO. Thank you’very much. 

I yield back. 

Ms. NORTON. The gentleman is in overtime and there is going to 

be a bell soon. I will try to get as many Members as possible. 

Mr. Johnson. 

Oh, excuse me, Mr. Fernandez, I understand that you have to 

leave to go to NASA in Florida. You are excused. 

Mr. Johnson? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Madam Chair. And, Madam Chair, 

with all due respect, I would be remiss as Chair of the Judiciary 

Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy, were 

I not to speak out to voice my disagreement with the conclusory allegations against our Judicial Branch of Government with respect 

to courthouse construction projects, the recent courthouse construction projects. 

Preliminary findings by GAO have been disputed by GSA, which 

has primary authority in this area, about the cost of overbuilding 

to the tune of about $600 million. It is alleged in the GAO report 

800 and some odd million dollars was misspent for overbuilding 

that was not authorized by the Congress. GSA disputes that to the 

tune of about $200 million that they would admit to. Of course, 

$200 million is a lot of money Eight hundred million is a lot more. 

And there were some reasonable explanations given for the increased expenditures, along with an agreement that, in the future, 

any overruns, if you will, will be, if they are 10 percent or more 

of the price which Congress approved, then the GSA would come 

back to Congress for authority. 

32 

And again I want to emphasize that the Judicial Branch participated with the GSA insofar as their projected need for additional 

courthouse space based on judgeships that were recommended by 

the Judicial Conference, which ended up not being approved by 

Congress, and those judgeships were approved and courthouse construction done, these estimates done in excess of 10 years ago. So 

I think there are a number of reasons for these overruns, but they 

are not certainly attributable to Judicial Branch misconduct. 

But I do have a couple of questions. I have one city in my district. The name of that city is Pine Lake. It is the suburbs of Atlanta, Georgia. That project that the city has spent money on, it 

is a Clean Water Revolving Fund project. The project was shovelready, it was under contract by the deadlines, but yet the State of 

Georgia refused to fund the project. 

What I would like to know is what is the decision-making process 

insofar as State recommendations and local readiness? What kind 

of discretion does the State have and is it such discretion that 

would allow a project to not be funded for reasons other than the 

merits of the project itself? 

Mr. HOOKS. In terms of the Clean Water SRF program, the State 

almost has 100 percent discretion in terms of what projects they 

actually select. Before the State ultimately makes their decisions, 

we do have an opportunity to evaluate what is termed their intended use plan, what is the description of the types of projects 

that they intend to fund on an annual basis. But once we approve 

that plan, at that point in time it is the State’s determination on 

which projects will ultimately be funded. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

And for all of the panelists, I would like for you to respond. I 

sent a letter on April 21st to the U.S. Department of Transportation, which was signed by 15 other Members of Congress, expressing concern over disadvantaged business participation in Recovery Act programs or projects. This letter was the result of media 

reports indicating that as little as two and as much as six percent 

of Recovery Act funds spent by the State Departments of Transportation went to disadvantaged businesses. I think we would all 

agree that these numbers are disturbingly low. 

Now, I know that DOT is not here today; however, I would like 

to ask the panel how your agencies have awarded contracts and if 

you can provide details on disadvantaged businesses’ participation 

in your contracts. 

Mr. HOOKS. Mr. Congressman, I can speak primarily to the contract funds that we obligated under stimulus, which was primarily 

in our Superfund program. The majority of our money under the 

Clean Water and Drinking Water SRF programs, $6 billion out of 

the $7.2 we received went out in the form of grants. 

But in terms of our contracts, for our small disadvantaged businesses, we have a goal of 10.5 percent. We are at 12.4 percent. For 

our 8A firms, we are at 5.4 percent; our women-owned businesses, 

1.7 percent; Hub Zone, 2.6 percent; and our service disabled vets, 

11.2 percent. So our small business goals were at 56.5 percent overall. I think we have done a pretty good job in terms of Superfund. 

But, again, as I said earlier, we don’t have the ability to direct the 

subgrants for our SRF programs. 

33 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Hooks. 

Ms. NORTON. The gentleman’s time has expired. You are two 

minutes over your time, Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Johnson, I am pleased to award you the time 

and understand your concern in the first part of your remarks with 

the GSA report. I just want to say again that our concern is with 

overspending no matter who overspends. 

But I am sure GSA and the courts will be pleased that there is 

at least one defender to the definitive GAO report showing $1 billion in overspending by the courts, especially in light of the fact 

there is 9.9 percent unemployment in this Country today, and a lot 

of us would rather have seen that money go into jobs and economic 

development where there is not overspending. 

I am compelled to make that point, since even the GSA was not 

willing to defend a great deal of the overspending. It had to defend 

its part of the overspending. And even the courts conceded that 

there had been overspending. I did not want to, in fact, offer an apologia for what amounted to lawless overspending because the 

overspending was of the authorized amount that the Congress of 

the United States had voted, and the last people who ought to be 

disobeying the law are judges or the judiciary. 

Mr. Diaz-Balart. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you’very much, Madam Chairwoman. I 

want to just first emphasize, as you said before, that there is no 

light between us, that you and I, and I would the Committee and 

clearly your Subcommittee, is totally united on these issues, and I 

want to thank you for your leadership there. 

Two questions to Ms. Walsh, if I may. GSA owns and constructs 

a number of border stations. I am trying to find out if GSA is exercising its independent judgment and expertise, and I am going to 

throw out one specific issue, for example. Does it make sense to 

have an eight-lane border station, is that appropriate, eight lanes, 

for a crossing that sees less than 40 cars per day? If you were looking at it and you had a crossing that had less than 40 cars a day, 

would your standard be eight lanes? 

Ms. WALSH. We work with DHS to determine the requirements 

for each land port of entry. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I know, but I am asking is eight lanes for 40 

cars? Under any standards, that sounds like government out of 

control. Eight lanes, does it make sense? Is that the kind of standard that you would usually use for the ones that you own and run 

and construct, eight lanes for less than 40 cars, for a station that 

handles less than 40 cars a day? Does that make any sense to you? 

Or, speaking of overbuilding, is that not classic overbuilding? 

Ms. WALSH. I am not sure which project you are referring to, and 

I would have to defer to the requirements that we work out with 

our customer agency. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Well, my understanding is that there is a border crossing in Vermont that has, again, less than 40 crossings per 

day, and it is foreseen to be built as an eight lane border station. 

And, again, since among the things we are talking about is overbuilding and wasting money in overbuilding, it seems to me that 

34 

I don’t know how you justify eight lanes with less than 40 cars a 

day. 

Now, you have other border stations already that you run. If you 

have a border station that has six lanes and it has less than 40 

cars, do you suggest that it go to eight lanes, or is that excessive? 

Ms. WALSH. We do build also to accommodate future requirements. But in terms of the specific border stations, I would have 

to go back and check and get the Committee the information on the 

number of lanes and whatnot at the various border stations. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. All right. And the other part of my question, 

though, is if there is something planned by the stimulus, do you 

have the ability to exercise your judgment as to what makes sense, 

is it eight lanes, is it six lanes, or do you just have to go forward 

with it and build it, regardless of what the need may actually be? 

Ms. WALSH. I didn’t hear the last part of your question. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Or do you just go forward with it because that 

is what is in the bill, regardless of what the actual need may be? 

Ms. WALSH. I think we discuss the requirements at length with 

our customer to make sure that they make sense. We would be 

happy to set up a meeting with you to discuss this issue, if you 

would like. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Great. I would like to. I would like to find out 

because, again, what we are trying to do is avoid, obviously, unnecessary expenditures. 

Ms. WALSH. Absolutely. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. On the same vein going now back to the courthouses, I know that it has already been discussed a little bit, but 

we had a hearing, the Chairwoman had a hearing yesterday, I believe it was yesterday, on this very issue, where one of the things 

that came out and that there was no debate on was that the standards as to what the needs for future courthouses would be is frankly just plain wrong. It is not working. I mean, that was agreed to 

by everybody. 

And yet the courthouses in the stimulus that are going to be 

built are there because they were using these, frankly, erroneous 

standards. So we know that the need may not be there, and I think 

there is absolute agreement to the fact that those standards that 

were used to determine what the needs were were dead wrong, and 

I mean dead wrong and that we have been overbuilding because of 

that. 

That is what standard, unfortunately, was used for these courthouses in the stimulus bill, and yet are we still going to move forward? Is the Administration still going to move forward, even 

though now we know, because we have the reports, now we know— 

maybe six months ago we didn’t, but now we know that those numbers are wrong, are dead wrong, they are way overinflated. We 

may not need those. We know that is the case. We have the reports 

that say that those are wrong. 

And yet is the intention going to be to continue to spend money, 

knowing ahead of time that that money may be, wrongly spent because the standards that were used to determine that those courthouses were needed were wrong? Again, we know that they were 

wrong now. We didn’t know, maybe, particularly when the bill was 

35 

done, but we do know now, so what are we going not do about it? 

What is the Administration going to do about that? 

Ms. WALSH. We are proceeding with our four new courthouse 

projects. I will have to go back and review which standards are 

being applied; off th top of my head I don’t know. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Well, we do. 

Ms. WALSH. I can’t confirm that they are overbuilding. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Well, here is the issue that we do know. We 

do know. I am pretty sure that the standards that were used were 

the standards that we know now are wrong. So I just want to make 

it very clear that if the Administration moves forward on building 

those courthouses, it is very important that it is public, that there 

is no secret that the standards that were used in order to determine the need are wrong. We know that they are wrong now; we 

have the reports. 

So if one moves forward and spends those, and I believe it is several hundred millions dollars, knowing ahead of time that those 

numbers that were used were wrong, we are then purposely knowingly moving forward on, frankly, wasteful projects. 

So I would suggest very respectfully that you get back to us and 

you determine what are you going to do to make sure that we are 

not moving forward on projects that we now already know are, 

frankly, not needed or clearly overbuilt, because, otherwise, to 

make it very clear, we would be moving forward, the Administration would be moving forward knowing that we would be spending 

several hundred million dollars, whatever the actual amount is, 

when most of it or part of it may not be needed, and that would 

be a gross misuse of taxpayers’ money. So please get back to us on 

that, if you would. 

Ms. WALSH. Yes. I will get back to you on that. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. NORTON. So ordered. 

Ms. Walsh, we recognize that you may not have the answers to 

all of the questions, but the gentleman raises a fair question, so we 

ask you, within 14 days, to get to the Chairman, who will share 

the information with the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee so 

that we can determine whether this is the case and, if so, what the 

Administration is doing about it. 

Have you not been heard? I am sorry. I was about to recess the 

hearing. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. I just wanted to follow up on a question that I 

asked earlier. 

Ms. NORTON. I was supposed to leave here—— 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. It is very quick. It will be very quick. It is regarding the border patrol in Vermont. And I am very confused as to 

who is in charge of the design; who is in charge of the location; who 

is in charge of the price that they are going to give to the farmer; 

how did all of that come about. 

So I am asking the entire panel if you would please get back to 

me within 14 days and let me know how you arrived at the price, 

how you arrived at the location, how you arrived at the design, how 

you arrived at the cost of the design, and who ultimately is the decision maker in this. And that is all I want. 

36 

So I am going to ask each and every panel member if you could 

please get back to me with it so that I have a clear understanding. 

I have been told that the Army Corps of Engineers is the one that 

is handling this and would have the responsibility, but now I am 

being told that they are not. So if everybody on the Committee 

could get back to me on this particular project and what their role 

is and ultimately who decided where it is going to go, who decided 

the design of it, who designed the intensity regarding the 40 cars 

that go there every day, the price tag, how you arrived at the figure for the farmer, and what kind of tactics and mechanisms you 

used so that the farmer knew that he was getting a fair and just 

treatment. Thank you. 

Ms. NORTON. The Chair notes that many of those questions go 

to an agency that I believe is not here, and that is the Department 

of Homeland Security. But I will ask that we attempt to get answers to the gentlelady’s questions. 

The Chair was called away, which is why you have had recurring 

Chairs. We are going to dismiss this panel and recess the hearing 

until the Chair returns. We will have a second panel. I promise you 

the Chairman is very clear that the second panel is very important 

to this hearing. But this hearing is recessed until the call of the 

Chair or his designate. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. OBERSTAR. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will resume its sitting, with apologies to our second panel for 

the delay. Unfortunately, other Committee business has intervened, and Wednesdays, as Counsel on the Republican side was 

saying, is our busiest day, and it is. Every Member is torn in three 

different directions, and that is what happened here. 

By way of explanation, I had a meeting of the National Transportation Safety Advocates organization, who are acknowledging Members of the House and Senate for their work in support of highway 

safety. It is something that I have given a great deal of my time 

to over the years I have served here, and I was privileged to receive 

their award. But you can’t just walk in and say thanks and leave. 

You do have to say a few things, which I did. 

We will begin with Mr. Rainville, introduced by our distinguished 

colleague from the State of Vermont, Mr. Welch. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you’very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I am grateful to you and to Ranking Member Mica for inviting 

a real Vermonter to have a chance to speak to you. You are going 

to hear from Brian Rainville. He lives on a family farm, three generations. It is right on the Canadian border and he is going to tell 

you how a project is impacting his farm. 

But the primary goals of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act are to create quality jobs for Americans and revive our 

economy. But equally important, we want that money to invest in 

recovery that has lasting benefit, without doing damage along the 

way. Not every project falls into that category, and I think this 

Committee is demonstrating that it is open to listening and learning when a recovery project may have some questionable impact. 

So I want to thank you and the Committee on both sides of the 

aisle for inviting a Vermonter here, Brian Rainville, to share his 

37 

story of how this project will impact his family, his family farm and 

our community. 

Thank you’very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. We want to hear the good news. We also want to 

hear those things that didn’t go so well or that just didn’t work out 

at all. That is the purpose of having hearings. As I said, this is the 

19th in our series of oversight and accountability transparency 

hearings, during which we have heard the difficulties that EPA 

had early going in implementing its portion because there were 

some quirks in the law that made it difficult for them, and many 

other such circumstances. And they are all lessons for the future 

as we go through our authorization bill and the other legislation 

under the jurisdiction of this Committee. 

So Mr. Rainville, welcome. You have our full attention. 

TESTIMONY OF BRIAN RAINVILLE, HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER 

AND SON OF DAIRY FARMERS; PETE BOWE, PRESIDENT, 

ELLICOTT DREDGES, LLC; TIM BURKETT, CHIEF OPERATIONS OFFICER, BIOHABITATS, INC.; AND KEVIN WELCH, 

SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER, PCL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC., REPRESENTING THE U.S. GREEN BUILDING 

COUNCIL 

Mr. RAINVILLE. Thank you. It is a pretty amazing opportunity 

today for a child and grandchild and great-grandchild of dairy 

farmers to be here. 

I live at Morses Line, which has three houses and one border 

port. And we have run into a little problem. Instead of looking at 

need, we have an agency focusing on want. What they want to do 

is spend money. What they need to do is leave us alone. 

In 1983, they identified the port at Morses Line for closure. They 

said the traffic volume is low. The geographical proximity to other 

ports, 10 miles west there is one; 10 miles east there is another. 

There is a duplication of services. 

Somehow, Morses Line became a critical port facility in lieu of 

the stimulus bill. We are a little confused. We have a traffic rate 

of 2.5 cars an hour. It is closed for eight hours of every day. At 

midnight, the gate is put down, the sensors are turned on, and the 

hard-working men and women of the Border Patrol go to work. 

So we are trying to figure out why this agency is using eminent 

domain as a battering ram to work its way onto our farm. And the 

only conclusion that we can draw is that if they don’t spend the 

money by the 30th of September, they lose it. In testimony this 

morning, I heard from someone sitting I think at this very microphone and said, well, that is our protocol. I am sorry, this is my 

parents livelihood. And I believe that carries more weight. I believe 

stimulus funds should be administered in the same way that medicine is practiced: First do no harm. 

Our community was not consulted. We asked for a public meeting and we were told that the agency was reaching out to the 

Morses Line community by which they meant my parents, my 

brothers and I sitting around our kitchen table. A public hearing 

was finally held last Saturday and I was thankful tar and feathers 

were nowhere in the room because had they been available, 18 th 

38 

century methods would have been applied to well-meaning people 

who were trying to do their jobs. 

But they never took the step back and asked a fundamental 

question: What does Morses Line need? And a facility designed in 

1936 for a different time and place isn’t necessarily relevant in 

2010. My family asked representatives very early on: How are you 

justifying this project? And they said: We have the money. 

I have never heard that argument before. I spent 10 years planning the renovation of my farmhouse. My brother worked for two 

years to plan a 20-foot addition to our sugar house. We had a group 

of people who came in and told us they were going to do a 12- 

month feasibility study and we found out four months later that 

they had designed and were putting to bid a $15.4 million facility. 

Again, the gap is there. What do they need versus what do they 

want? 

My family said clearly this is vital crop land. Their environmental assessment said this is a vacant lot. Rather than weigh the 

loss against our farm, they compared all our acreage to all the 

acreage in Franklin County. They talk in the environmental report 

about the most affected businesses. They talk about the Dollar 

Store and Stairs Unlimited. Those aren’t even in our community. 

At Saturday’s public meeting, a young woman stood up and said, 

I don’t understand your report because you drew a conclusion and 

then you twisted your data to get there. Retired Customs officers 

who because they are now collecting pensions instead of wages and 

have an opportunity to speak about this very project stood up and 

called their own agency on the carpet and said, we know you wanted to close this in 1983. We know your moratorium report from last 

fall identifies precisely this type of port for closure, but the project 

moves on, so much so that a mere 12 days or so remain to a 60- 

day period in which Customs and Border Protection told my family 

that if we didn’t sell our property voluntarily, they would take it. 

As someone who has taught civics for the last 16 years and explained to my students that this is a responsive government, a government that cares about rights, a government that protects property, I have had increasing difficulty trying to explain to wellmeaning people who want to spend money why they should leave 

my family alone. 

We have a National Register property. It is a Dairy of Distinction. In 1981, this Congress wrote legislation forbidding Federal 

agencies to unnecessarily convert prime agricultural soils. But 

there is money to be spent and the project moves forward. 

I find myself every time I see Representatives using smaller 

words and shorter sentences to make the same point, and I run out 

of patience. And I ask this Committee today to reprimand that 

agency. There is no public good at Morses Line. There is no reason 

to spend money at Morses Line when they know that a gate and 

sensors and the Border Patrol keep this Nation safe. And to have 

veiled this project under economic stimulus and eminent domain 

and national security is reprehensible in a democratic Nation. 

I am incredibly thankful to the Vermont Congressional delegation which asked questions consistently and got us answers, and 

secured a public meeting just last Saturday. But I am out of patience with an agency that refused to give us the traffic count. My 

39 

father asked at the first meeting: How many vehicles come through 

Morses Line in a year? And they told us we will find out and we 

will get back to you. 

And we asked and we asked again and we asked again. We 

shouldn’t have had to file a Freedom of Information request to get 

that information. If this was a necessary project, the agency would 

have voluntarily given us that. And the mere fact that I am the 

only person talking about this project in front of a microphone tells 

me this agency knows they have done wrong. They owe this Committee an apology for the misuse of stimulus funds. They owe my 

family an apology for the manner in which they have treated us. 

They didn’t give us the environmental report. We found out after 

it had been available for eight days and we were already in a 30 

day public comment period. 

And just last Saturday, they walked into our town hall where 

local government representatives have been asked hard questions 

for more than 100 years, and they tried the same dog and pony 

show. And when their laptop crashed, taking down their presentation explaining that this new facility would make us all safer and 

they had superior technology, I had to believe that karma was at 

work. 

I am out of patience with an agency that says a public need is 

to spend money. We accommodated a hydro line, major transmission line into the State of Vermont because it was for the public 

good. We accommodated reconstruction of Route 235 because it was 

for the public good. The public good is not the spending of stimulus 

monies. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you for your heartfelt, impassioned testimony. I would observe, however, your last paragraph saying I return to Vermont with hopes of once again being a teacher, rather 

than a lesson. I think you go back being both. 

Mr. RAINVILLE. Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. There is a provision of the Constitution which I 

refer to quite regularly, and that is the right of the citizens to petition their government for redress of grievances. That is the lesson. 

And the sequel to the lesson is that I think we will be able to 

stop this. I will send to Secretary Napolitano this portion of the 

transcript of the hearing, with a recommendation that the project 

be withdrawn; that the funds be deflected to some other beneficial 

pursuit; and reference the participation of Congressman Welch, 

who may join me in the letter if he wishes, but I will most certainly 

send that letter and make very strong representations to Secretary 

Napolitano. 

I will further say that I noticed your observation of a mere 80 

cows. That used to be a pretty good-size milking herd, at least in 

my District. We had 80 cows fresh and another 80 or 100 waiting. 

What is your pounds per cow over a year? What are you milking, 

Jerseys? Guernseys? 

Mr. RAINVILLE. It is a Holstein herd. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Holstein. 

Mr. RAINVILLE. Yes, and we are hanging on. We have exactly the 

kind of numbers you are talking about. But I have really been frustrated that folks from my own Federal Government have walked in 

and told my parents that they have extra property they don’t need. 

40 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Those are the people and yours are the family 

values that we proclaim in this Country and that we want to preserve. I have seen the same number decline of family farms in the 

southern tier of my district as exurbia has extended its rapacious 

hand north. And dairy farms and roll crop farms, instead of pushing up soybeans and corn are pushing up pansies, daisies and 

houses and lawns. 

Customs and Border Patrol used to be a very friendly, cooperative agency until it was assumed into the Department of Homeland 

Security, which I voted against. I didn’t think we needed anything. 

I said it will grow into a monster. It has. It started collecting at 

a number of Federal Government agencies that were doing just fine 

on their own, into one big family. And once you do that, things become bigger. They started with 134,000, now they are up to 

215,000 or 220,000 employees in this department. 

We have just approved funding for renovation of a facility for 

their headquarters, St. Elizabeth’s Hospital, which I recommended 

to President Bush. I said it is the former home for the mentally 

disabled. This is a crazy idea. I think it needs to go there. 

But I will just add to your observation. I was up in Cook County, 

northeastern part of my District, a couple of years ago and met 

with the county sheriff to see how things are going on the border 

with Canada. We have the Pigeon River. He said, I have to tell you 

this story. The Customs and Border Patrol decided that they needed training on the northern border for their folks in Florida. And 

so they sent them up with a black helicopter. 

And they landed up here in Grand Marais, and then they went 

along 40 miles north to the border with Canada, and they were patrolling the Pigeon River and they saw this conveyance crossing 

over from Canada. And when the little canoe got on the U.S. 

shores, they swooped down on the intruders, put black masks over 

their heads and tied their hands behind their back and laid them 

down on the sand and aimed these vicious looking weapons at 

them. 

All the while, the six people dressed in ominous black, asked 

their names and called the names into the county sheriff who said, 

and I won’t repeat the exact words, but he said: You’ve just arrested the Chief of the Grand Portage Indian Band, who said to 

them, my people have been crossing over here for 2,000 years. If 

you don’t want us to do it, just tell us. don’t aim guns at us. 

You are a victim. There are other victims, and we will do our 

very best to make sure that there are no further victims, and that 

you get an appropriate apology. 

Mr. RAINVILLE. Thank you. I appreciate that immensely. Thank 

you so much. 

Mr. BOWE?

Mr. BOWE. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. You probably don’t have anything quite so dramatic to tell us. 

Mr. BOWE. I hope not. 

My name is Peter Bowe. I am President of a company called 

Ellicott Dredges in Baltimore, Maryland. I am here today to talk 

about the impact of the ARRA on the U.S. dredging industry. Let 

me start with a few facts. 

41 

Dredging is essential to maintain the Country s waterways and 

ports. Marine transportation is the most economical and environmentally friendly mode of transportation we have. Ellicott Dredges 

is the oldest and largest company in the field of making dredging 

equipment. We got our start in this industry when the U.S. Government selected us to build all of the dredges used in the original 

construction of the Panama Canal back in 1907. 

Our most important markets are overseas and the most common 

applications for our equipment are infrastructure projects other 

than navigation, for example, in the sand and gravel pits that you 

mentioned in your remarks this morning. 

Having said that, the ARRA did have a meaningful impact not 

only in the dredge contracting industry, but on our company as a 

leading U.S. equipment supplier. Our sales from the stimulus were 

10 dredges worth over $10 million. These sales sustained over 15 

jobs out of a workforce of about 200. So that is meaningful to as 

a small business. And I think it is worth noting that about half of 

our manufacturing workforce in Baltimore consists of minorities. 

Here is a quick sample of the types of projects the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers funded via the ARRA using a new Ellicott 

dredge. In North Carolina, a contractor new to the industry bought 

a $1 million machine for river navigation. In Virginia, a contractor 

new to the industry also bought a $1 million machine for coastal 

protection. In our home State of Maryland, a minority contractor 

bought a small dredge for river navigation. 

In addition, we had meaningful sales in the domestic power and 

mining industries where the customer’s original intention was to 

hire contractors, but they were forced to develop their own dredging capacity and buy dredging equipment when the traditional contractors were busy doing ARRA work. 

It is our understanding from the Dredging Contractors of America that the ARRA has so far funded 100 dredging projects in 24 

States with a value of over $110 million. It is relevant to know that 

a manufacturer like us relies on a diverse vendor base. We are a 

good example of the ‘‘multiplier effect’’ by which manufacturers buy 

parts, components and raw materials from many other companies. 

Most dredges we make and all of the dredges used in the above examples use CAT engines. They have castings from foundries in 

Pennsylvania and Michigan; hulls from vendors in Wisconsin, 

Michigan and Indiana, rust belt companies. 

I might add that we have at least 15 vendors in Minnesota from 

whom we buy over $100,000 worth of parts and services per year. 

We spend more than half of every sales dollar we receive on outside vendors, and almost all are U.S. vendors. So clearly, the actual 

job impact is much greater than just the direct impact on our facilities in Wisconsin and Maryland. 

The U.S. marine dredging industry does not operate in a way 

which maximizes our opportunity for the sale of new dredges, and 

here is why. Most of the dredging industry serves the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers. For years, the Corps has had a budget well 

under the requirements of approved projects and it is always funded on a year by year basis. 

Further, Corps practice is to let jobs with very short mobilization 

periods. As it takes the better part of a year to build a new dredge, 

42 

the long manufacturing process coupled with a short contracting 

process is not conducive to dredge contractors investing in new 

equipment. As a consequence, the average age of the dredge fleet 

in the U.S. is over 20 years, which is much older than in other 

countries. 

The availability of ARRA funding was most welcome in this industry. Congress’ desire for shovel-ready projects put pressure on 

the Corps and contractors to show that they had the capacity to 

meet the extra demand. The Corps did a great job meeting with the 

industry to plan project roll-outs to maximize the use of existing 

capacity and avoid shortages. 

But the increase in dredging demand did absorb additional capacity, and the increase in capacity utilization was precisely what 

created the opportunity for us as an equipment supplier. Importantly, the additional funding from the ARRA induced contractors 

new to the industry to come in, in which case they obviously needed to buy new dredging equipment and it also induced existing contractors to expand. 

The Corps should enjoy long-term benefits from this industry expansion, not only in capacity as measured by the number of 

dredges, but also in the number of new competitors. The ARRA is 

responsible for that. New dredging equipment introduces newer 

technology and offers more fuel-efficient production. 

All other things being equal, with more contractors bidding and 

additional capacity available, the Government should get lower 

pricing on future jobs than it would otherwise. In just one example 

I cited above, the Virginia project, the low bid, which came from 

a new party to the industry, saved the government over $2 million 

compared to the next low bidder. 

Now, one should ask: What changes could be made on an ongoing 

basis to improve the state of the domestic dredging industry and 

modernize its capacity? And there actually are two good answers 

to this question, both relating to issues now pending before Congress. 

The first relates to a proposal supported by a coalition called 

RAMP: Realize America’s Maritime Promise. RAMP represents a 

broad spectrum of shippers, ship operators, custom brokers, ports 

and port users. RAMP strongly supports passage of H.R. 4844, 

which seeks to direct that Congress should use funds from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund—derived from a small fee on imports—for their intended purpose, and that is funding annual 

dredging and port-related maintenance costs. 

We believe this bill is necessary because contrary to the intentions of that fund, half of the fees generated are in fact used to offset the deficit. Using the trust fund as intended would give dredging contractors a sounder basis for their long-term planning and 

hence the confidence to invest in new capacity, and help support 

the Country’s ongoing maritime needs. 

Secondly, Congress could pass the Water Resources Development 

Act and include the language in H.R. 4844 which will ensure there 

will be consistent and sufficient funding for the Nation s ports and 

harbors on an annual basis. 

Though it is likely that Ellicott Dredges will remain an exportoriented company, it would be terrific if we could continue at the 

43 

higher level of domestic sales we now enjoy. We would like to continue our decade-long trend of growing both revenues and American jobs. 

Thank you’very much for your time. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you for a very splendid statement. I will 

come back to that in a moment. 

I want to hear next from Mr. Burkett. 

Mr. BURKETT. Thank you’very much, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. 

On behalf of Biohabitats, an ecological restoration firm based in 

Baltimore, I would like to thank you, the Committee, two-fold: first, 

for the opportunity to provide our perspective on the value to our 

business of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act; and secondly, for entrusting our firm with the efficient and effective use 

of those taxpayer funds to further the science and practice of water 

quality improvement and habitat enhancement in and around our 

urban centers. 

Specifically, Biohabitats has been entrusted with advancing the 

completion in this calendar year of six projects receiving stimulus 

funds totaling $3.1 million. Included in this funding, Biohabitats is 

directly providing professional services totaling $773,000. These 

seem like small numbers when we were talking about billions earlier this morning, but to a small firm like ours, these have a great 

impact. 

On these projects, there is a direct amount coming to Biohabitats, but there is also a balance of funds going to survey professionals, restoration contractors for both their labor and materials. 

We have acknowledged a weakening in our private sector business over the last 18 months, and we really want to emphasize the 

fact that this stimulus work has played a vital role for Biohabitats 

in bridging that gap. The work that we are talking about represents about 10 percent of our annual revenues, and if you translate that into jobs, that is four to five professional staff, engineers, 

landscape architects, and scientists. And then if you want to look 

at the flow-down from that, probably another 10 to 15 in surveyors 

and contractors and operators that are going to be working for us 

on these projects. 

For our clients, this funding is enabling us and them to implement green infrastructure measures, practices that we believe will 

provide a cost-effective alternative to a lot of the gray infrastructure that is currently in place. And this is all to address the growing challenge that we have in terms of improving our surface waters such as our rivers, lakes and coastal waters. 

Of the six projects that we have been entrusted with, the first 

three are what we call regenerative stormwater conveyance 

projects. They are simply stormwater projects replacing gray infrastructure. One is Carriage Hills. This has already been designed, 

constructed and is in place for the Maryland Department of the Environment near Annapolis. The second two are for the District of 

Columbia, specifically the Department of the Environment at Pope 

s Branch in Rock Creek, which are actually going to be designed 

and constructed for Federal lands within the Park Service. 

The next project is the Wissahickon watershed restoration feasibility study, working for the Philadelphia District Corps of EngiVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:41 Aug 31, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00141 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\56726.0 KAYLA
44 

neers. That project is complete at this time. Another project which 

is going to get started in the next month is Bear Creek Stream restoration for Cuyahoga County, Ohio for their Board of Health. And 

then finally, a project which will be started up in the next two 

weeks is the Jean Lafitte National Historic Park invasive tree and 

wetland restoration project, certainly something that is very timely 

given the issues that are going on down in that area. 

The first of these three projects that I mentioned, the regenerative stormwater conveyance, this is really kind of a unique blend 

of stream and wetland restoration techniques that are being used 

to restore ecologically sensitive areas that have been impacted by 

uncontrolled stormwater discharges. RSC provides not only the opportunity for safe conveyance of water, but also the opportunity to 

reduce flows, which impact our wastewater treatment plants, large 

estuaries and also improves the water quality by naturally filtering 

that water, allowing for biological degradation of that material in 

the stream and wetland-rich soils in those complexes. 

Initial analysis of the RSC projects in the mid-Atlantic supports 

the fundamental contention that these projects, when viewed from 

the perspective of stacked benefits, meaning looking at your restored benefits, your restored streams, reforestation, and water 

storage actually yield a multiple return on investment four to six 

times, meaning for every dollar you spend, you get four to six back 

in terms of natural capital and services provided. 

If you were to compare these costs in terms of installed, they are 

either at or equivalent to the conveyance costs in terms of traditional stormwater conveyance pipes. On this basis, we believe that 

green infrastructure for stormwater management yields a true net 

return on investment for public dollars, when considered against 

the one-time capital expenditure for a conveyance which beyond 

conveyance really yields few long-term benefits. 

These projects that we are talking about are going to provide the 

foundation support for technical advances which will be shared by 

other professionals and other public works departments to really 

drive innovation in this area. 

In terms of the projects in Philadelphia and out in Ohio, the 

Wissahickon Creek has long been a scenic and recreational waterway for Philadelphians, also a drinking water source. Decades of 

development within the Wissahickon, like many other areas, have 

taken a toll on the ecology, and several segments of this creek are 

actually listed among Pennsylvania s 303(d) listing for impaired 

waters. 

The study that we completed prioritizes restoration within the 

Wissahickon very similar to what was mentioned this morning in 

terms of Cobbs Creek and Pennypack in Philadelphia, to look at opportunities to restore areas, implement these initiatives throughout 

the watershed, to improve water quality, improve habitat condition 

for plant, animal and then human communities. 

The stream restoration project out in Ohio is a design-build 

stream restoration project for about 1,600 linear feet. The overall 

objectives of the project are to improve water quality in stream; improve aquatic and riparian habitat; dissipate the stream energy; 

minimize erosion sedimentation; protect existing infrastructure 

within the project site, in this case we have both bridges and road 

45 

surfaces that are impacted; provide stormwater management; and 

finally to create a land lab for the city to use with the Department 

of Health with the school students, providing volunteer activities 

and learning about their ecology. 

And finally, our work in the National Park Service at Jean Lafitte is really a hydrologic restoration. This project came about from 

the access channel dredging associated with oil and gas production, 

historically. What happened in this is you have created these 

dredge dykes. It provides a fertile area for Chinese tallow, an 

invasive species to come in and out-compete all of the natives. So 

we are actually doing a two-fold here by taking that dredge materials, putting it back in the canals. We are going to re-initiate or 

reconnect the floodplain with the wetland area, as well as choking 

out those invasive species. 

But in conclusion, I would just say from our perspective, Biohabitats and our small firm, these projects have been made possible by 

the stimulus funding and that jobs were sustained for a small professional services firm which is hoping to advance the science of ecological engineering. 

This fact is recognized by our firm and by our public sector clients who have been working hard to advance the transition from 

gray infrastructure fixes to green infrastructure solutions. These 

projects will no doubt have a ripple effect for each of our clients 

and their communities, and they will be felt for many years to 

come. 

I thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you for a very enlightening and uplifting 

presentation. 

Mr. Welch? 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you. On behalf of the U.S. Green Building 

Council and their more than 17,000 organizational members and 

nearly 80 local chapters, I would like to thank Chairman Oberstar 

and Ranking Member Mica for the opportunity to testify today. 

My name is Kevin Welch. I am a Senior Project Manager with 

PCL Construction Services in Denver, and if I might add, a former 

resident of Grand Marais. 

PCL is a proud member of the U.S. Green Building Council and 

delivers sustainable construction solutions by using methods and 

materials that minimize harmful effects to the people and the environment. And as a result, they reduce the building operating and 

maintenance costs. 

The utilization of sustainable construction by building owners 

such as the GSA results in a safer, more efficient end product and 

ultimately a higher return on investment for taxpayers. 

PCL has had a longstanding partnership with the GSA and the 

U.S. Green Building Council and we are proud to be here today to 

talk about our work as part of the Recovery Act. 

As previously mentioned, the Recovery Act provided the GSA 

with $5.5 billion for facility upgrades and new construction using 

high-performing green standards. On behalf of the U.S. Green 

Building Council, I would like to commend the Committee and the 

Administration for your leadership in including these provisions in 

the legislation. 

46 

I know first-hand that these programs are putting Americans 

back to work, and they also send a clear signal that building green 

is a key element in reducing the Federal Government s environmental and operating footprint. 

Today, I want to talk about PCL s contribution to this effort with 

our work at the Denver Federal Center. In early 2007, the GSA 

awarded a contract to PCL to provide pre-construction services during the design phase of the Denver Federal Center s utility infrastructure replacement program, with options for construction and 

construction management services following the completion of the 

design. 

The infrastructure at the DFC campus had been installed nearly 

70 years prior and was failing with increasing frequency. Due to 

funding constraints reported by the GSA, the construction for the 

project was postponed in late 2008. As a result of the Recovery Act, 

in February 2009 the Denver Federal Center received approximately $45 million to significantly improve the aged infrastructure 

and to increase the overall readiness, reliability and sustainability 

of what is reported to be the largest Federal complex in the Western United States. 

Due to ARRA funding, the GSA was able to quickly retrieve the 

design and the project team was able to hit the ground running. 

As such, the Denver Federal Center utility infrastructure replacement project was the embodiment of a shovel-ready project. 

After confirming its budget and schedule, the GSA authorized 

PCL to proceed with construction in May of 2009. Examples of 

some of the new services include complete replacement of the domestic and fire water service system with a single more efficient 

service; a new 500,000 gallon water storage tank; and a new pump 

house with a solar array on the roof. 

The project also includes new and rehabilitated sanitary sewer 

services, new and upgraded electrical distribution lines, paving, 

flood drainage, and stormwater collection improvements. 

In total, approximately 21 miles of new utility services will be 

put into place. All told, these improvements, which are already 40 

percent complete, will significantly reduce the campus water consumption and stormwater runoff, while expanding the GSA s vision 

for a more sustainable campus for nearly 6,700 employees who 

work there. 

The project is making the Denver Federal Center a more efficient 

place, but also it is putting people back to work. Over 98 new and 

retained jobs have been created, including 17 onsite PCL staff 

members with nearly 51,000 man hours reported between PCL and 

our subcontractors in the first quarter of 2010. 

With the project scheduled for completion in 2012, it is estimated 

that this project will continue to provide new and retained jobs at 

this level for approximately the next two years. 

The jobs created and retained as a result of the project will necessarily help to stimulate and grow our local economy and the direct benefits of these jobs on the employees of PCL and our subcontractors who have the opportunity to construct this critical 

project are self-evident in this challenging economy. 

47 

I want to thank the Committee for the opportunity to discuss our 

contribution to the Denver Federal Center, and look forward to answering any questions that you have. 

Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. And thank you, Mr. Welch, also for a very illuminating presentation. 

Perhaps, Mr. Rainville, you will be able to go back to your family, to your students and tell them while you had a bad experience, 

there are others who had very uplifting experiences and beneficial 

ones, and that because of your presentation here, we are going to 

be able to correct the situation. As we call it, correcting the record 

here, quaintly, in the House. 

Mr. Bowe, you touch very deep strings in my heart when you 

talk about dredging inland waterways, the works of the Corps of 

Engineers. For seven years, it used to be an annual bill of the 

works of the Corps of Engineers. It then became two years, the 

Water Resources Development Act. For seven years, it didn’t pass 

the Senate. In two Congresses, it passed the House, but didn’t pass 

the Senate. In one Congress, it only got out of our Committee, but 

didn’t make it to the Floor because it was clear the Senate wasn’t 

going to act on it. 

Then at the beginning of the 110th Congress, I became Chairman 

and Mr. Mica and I got together and said we were going to fix that. 

We were going to make sure that these things work, that the legislative process moves ahead. And we took all the 920 projects that 

had been reviewed by the Corps and approved by the Committee, 

that had passed the House at least once, and re-packaged them all 

together with new standards requiring Members to sign a statement that they had no personal or family financial interest; that 

there was a local sponsor who requests the project; that it is within 

the scope of responsibility of the Corps of Engineers. 

And we weeded out those that didn’t meet that standard, and we 

brought the bill to Committee; moved it on voice vote from Committee; and through the House expeditiously with 370-some votes; 

passed the Senate. We had a 45-minute conference with the Senate 

and sent the bill over to the White House where, unfortunately, 

President Bush vetoed the bill. The veto was overridden. 

We had another 378 votes or so margin, so overwhelmingly bipartisan, and showed that the Members of Congress have a keen 

interest in the dredging that is necessary for our ports, our harbors, with five locks on the Mississippi River that don’t meet the 

1,200 foot standard for one each on the Ohio-Illinois River systems; 

for restoring the wetlands in the Gulf of Mexico and eastern Texas, 

Louisiana, Mississippi, up into Alabama; restoring the wetlands of 

the Everglades in Florida. 

All those are long overdue, urgent, necessary needs, and we set 

them in motion. It would take on the average of $4 billion a year 

to $6 billion a year investment in the Corps to accomplish those 

works, and the budget fell short. But the stimulus provided that 

$4.5 billion incentive to move these projects ahead. 

What I liked about your presentation is your reference to all the 

secondary effect of these projects. I have said all along it is not just 

the highway pavement contract, just the bridge builder. It is the 

Ready Mix plant, the asphalt plant, the rebar that goes into the 

48 

concrete; the fence posts, the fencing, the I-beams for bridges. 

Those all have to be provided to this project. The sand and gravel 

pits, I referenced those earlier, those were shut down, reopened. 

People then were called back to work. 

And in your case, you referenced companies that provide the 

multiplier effect: the hulls from vendors in Wisconsin, Michigan, 

Indiana; hydraulics from New Jersey; and all U.S.-based vendors. 

That is the great success story. You also referenced the Maritime 

Administration grants of small shipyards. I did summarize that 

work of MARAD. 

What lessons do you have for us for the future? We are getting 

ready to report another water resources bill. We have on the order 

of 1,100 projects that the Committee staff are now refining into 

final legislative language. But what recommendations do you have 

for us, based on your experience with Recovery Act? 

Mr. BOWE. First, let me thank you and Mr. Mica for your support. You two obviously get the infrastructure task before you. In 

terms of what we recommended, we do recommend a new WRDA 

bill, as you just mentioned, and also your support of H.R. 4844, 

using the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund fees for their intended 

purpose, which will make a lot of this annual give and take go 

away. 

I understand that Congressman Mica actually just signed on to 

support that in the last day or so, so that is a welcome Member 

of the group of Congressmen and Senators already behind it. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I have said many times, I have never seen a 

Democratic road or a Republican bridge, but if we work together, 

we can build all American roads and all American bridges. And we 

do that on this Committee almost uniquely in the Congress. We 

march together on issues that are of importance, of investment for 

all America. 

And what you do in the dredging, on the Mississippi River, Mrs. 

Schmidt, if I may just, then I will yield to you, but the Mississippi 

River from northeast Iowa to New Orleans is an 820-hour round 

trip for barge traffic. New Orleans is the world’s most important 

grain export facility. Grain moves in international markets on as 

little as an eighth of a cent a bushel. That 820 hours, that translates to six weeks. Why? Because the barge tows are 1,200 feet and 

the locks are 600 feet except for Alton, Illinois, which is a 1,200 

foot lock. 

So the barge tows come up. They have to be split in half, send 

600 feet through; the next 600 feet through; then lash them together and go all the way down. 

Now, if you look at a map of South America and you see that 

point of Brazil that sticks out in the South Atlantic Ocean. At that 

point is the port of Recife. It is an export facility for Brazil. Just 

below that is the port of Santos, which is a grain export facility, 

agricultural export facility. They ship soybeans and processed 

sugar and other agriculture commodities to the same West and 

East African and Pacific Rim ports that our farmers ship to, except 

they have a 2,500 mile advantage. They are that much closer to 

those ports than the port of New Orleans. 

49 

So they have a built-in four-or five-day shipping advantage added 

onto our three-week disadvantage of moving goods down the Mississippi River. 

Now, that is an investment in America’s productivity. It is not 

just for the barge operators. We benefit for the dredging contractors. We benefit for all those who will build the works to expand 

the locks. But it benefits America’s farmers and it benefits the 

heartland of America. It benefits the small towns of America. We 

have to make those investments and we got a start on it, but we 

need to do more. And there is more yet to come. 

So I will withhold at this point. 

Mrs. Schmidt? 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you, and I am just going to be brief. It is 

my understanding that you are going to be sending a letter on behalf of Mr. Rainville regarding his issue. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Correct, to the Secretary of Homeland Security. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. I applaud you so much for that. Thank you so 

much. 

And just what I briefly looked over in the testimony presented, 

the stimulus dollars for the most part for projects that were in this 

Committee are working. And to that extent, I am glad and I only 

wish you, and I know you do too, that we could get a highway bill 

so that we could extend this investment in America’s future. 

Mrs. Schmidt, if it were left up to you and me, it would be done. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Bingo. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Because I know where you stand. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Exactly. I am going to turn it back over, sir. 

Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you’very much for your support for the 

work of the Committee and for being here today. 

Mr. Burkett, these projects that you referenced, which I think 

are fascinating, the regenerative stormwater conveyance. This is 

sort of the new look in stormwater and in non-wastewater treatment, isn’t it? 

Mr. BURKETT. We would like it to be the new look. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, it is. It is a movement that is catching on 

all across the Country. We have a provision in the bill that Representative Schmidt just reference, our authorization of the future 

of surface transportation that will apply these principles to the 

highway program, and use regenerative stormwater. There is a 

huge amount of runoff from our Interstate highway system, our 

local highways and roads that carries all the oils and gasoline drippings and the rest of the waste on the highway system into ditches 

that go into creeks that go into rivers, and into estuaries eventually. 

We want to stop that. And we have provisions in our bill that 

will provide encouragement to State DOTs to do better planning for 

regenerative stormwater conveyance. What lessons have you to 

share with us for that experience? 

Mr. BURKETT. I think probably the largest lesson to learn is the 

further we can move up into the watersheds to make these things 

happen, the better off we will all be. In terms of just trying to great 

the Chesapeake Bay or any of these larger estuaries, at the point 

or at the end pipe is not the solution. We need to work further up 

50 

into the watersheds. We need to recognize that as our population 

centers grow, so does the amount of impervious area, which contributes to stormwater. 

So we need to look at ways to manage that. It has impacts from 

the State highway system to the wastewater treatment systems, as 

they handle combined sewer overflows, the more we can infiltrate 

that water near the source. 

Projects like Mr. Welch was talking about, where you are looking 

outside the building envelope at not large centralized stormwater 

facilities, but facilities that infiltrate and push people towards 

these what have been called non-conventional techniques, to consider these as conventional techniques as we move forward. 

There is a lot of very interested parties out there, a lot of progressive public works departments that have put their necks out 

there and are doing some really great things in terms of what I 

would call the research and development of the next stage of 

stormwater management. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Your testimony also references not only the professional staff, engineers, landscape architects, scientists in your 

firm, but those beyond the firm who have also benefitted, equipment operators, laborers. How far out is the reach of the stimulated jobs? 

Mr. BURKETT. The reach for each one of these projects where we 

are doing them on a design-build basis, you have the equipment operators, heavy equipment operators that are out there on the piece 

of equipment. You have lots of materials whether it be sand and 

gravel pits, quarries where a lot of the materials are being harvested. 

The reach is far and wide. Surveyors from the architecture and 

engineering industry, that is one industry that has been decimated 

over the last six to 12 to 18 months, where no construction was 

happening. Surveyors were letting crews go left and right. 

So each one of these projects requires surveys. It is the first step 

of the process. Every one of the projects I mentioned has already 

had a surveyor out there. They have already done one, two, three 

weeks for the survey work. So we know we have crews on the 

ground already, even in doing that work. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Those architects and engineers are the harbingers of the future. The Associated General Contractors have been 

in town this week, along with others in the Construction Coalition. 

I am sure Mrs. Schmidt has been visited, as I and other Members 

have. And the Associated General Contractors say they look to the 

workload of the architects and engineers as an indicator of where 

there business may be going out into the future. And if they are 

doing well, they know that bids will be coming on the design work 

they will have completed. 

You said choking out the invasive species. What specific projects 

have you undertaken with your stormwater conveyance regenerative projects? 

Mr. BURKETT. Well, actually if you look at the regenerative 

stormwater conveyance project, any restoration project that we do 

always involves an invasives management component. Anytime you 

disturb soil, you disturb the seeds and oftentimes you have to give 

51 

the native plants an opportunity to out-compete the non-native 

plants. 

Why is that? Well, your natives are the ones that are droughttolerant. They are the ones that are pest-resistant. And therefore 

for the future of a project in terms of its operation and maintenance expense, you don’t spend you money on herbicides. You don’t 

spend your money chasing after a problem that you created during 

construction. 

So each one of these projects always has an invasives management and O&M piece after it for a few years to maintain the 

project. In terms of the Jean Lafitte project in particular, there is 

one where you are trying to reinstitute a hydrologic regime, a wetland, a true functioning wetland where because of the dredge that 

was done, it is essentially de-watered those wetlands. This is an 

opportunity to essentially rehydrate those. And once you have done 

that, the native plants will have an opportunity to out-compete the 

non-native plants. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is a wonderful, uplifting story, and we all 

through the Great Lakes, Ohio is a Great Lake State, have the 

invasive species not only the lamprey eel, but the European round 

goby and the zebra mussels and spiny echinoderm, and a host of 

those; but the purple loosestrife and others of that nature that 

spread like wildfire because they have no native plant to crowd 

them out and stop them from spreading. 

So lessons learned from your experience are very valuable. 

Mr. BURKETT. We had the good fortune yesterday to actually be 

in Buffalo kicking off our work as a small business set-aside for the 

Corps of Engineers out of the Buffalo District under the Great 

Lakes Restoration Initiative. So there are some real and tangible 

evidence in the coming months to push back against the invasives, 

to restore our ecology of the Great Lakes. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. There is a final question I have about the small 

business setaside, which is something I insisted on that we assure 

that small businesses have a fair opportunity to compete. Did you 

find any difficulty in working with the Corps of Engineers on your 

small business set-aside status? 

Mr. BURKETT. No, that was the kickoff for a new award that we 

just had. Was the process competitive among the small business 

setasides? Yes, it was very competitive. And so there were a lot of 

small businesses available to pursue that work. 

Had we gone ahead and had to compete against the largest of the 

large firms, we would have had a difficult time getting a toehold 

to get in there to work with the Corps. We also are working with 

the Philadelphia District with a small business setaside, and I 

would hope from their perspective, they have been very happy with 

the work that we have done for them. 

And our firm, by its very nature, we try to push our clients to 

be innovative, to push ourselves beyond what we see right in front 

of us to what is ahead of us. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. As a dairy farmer, Mr. Rainville knows very well 

how vitally important water is for agriculture. And all the water 

there ever was, ever will be, is with us today. We are not making 

any new water. And it is our responsibility to husband it carefully. 

Every day over the continental United States, we receive 1.2 trilVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:41 Aug 31, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00149 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\56726.0 KAYLA
52 

lion gallons of moisture. Only about 60 billion of it comes down in 

moisture. In the end, after runoff and impervious pavements that 

contribute to the increased runoff, it is only about 60 billion gallons 

available for surface water every day. That is all you are going to 

have to work with and manage, filter through or run off into the 

lakes and rivers. Protecting those resources in the way that you are 

doing with regenerative stormwater conveyances is vitally important for the future. 

Mr. Welch, in your retrofitting of Federal facilities, have you had 

to present, or have the agencies done this, a lifetime cost analysis 

of installation of solar facilities? 

Mr. WELCH. I believe that they have done an analysis. The GSA 

has done an analysis for that, or their designers, for our project. 

The solar panel that was installed on the pump house was one to 

determine the payback of solar panels. It is about 100 square feet, 

so it is a very small pilot program. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Earlier in the hearing, Mr. Schauer from Michigan referenced the solar issue and expressed his concern that a 

good deal of the production capability for solar panels, though invented here, produced initially in America, has increasingly gone 

offshore. Have you found difficulty in complying with the Buy 

America provisions of the Recovery Act? 

Mr. WELCH. There is a considerable amount of due diligence that 

has to go in place to ensure that solar panels are in fact compliant 

with the Buy America Act, and that due diligence has been put into 

place on this project, and they have done a great deal of research 

and commitment to make sure that it is in compliance down to the 

fasteners themselves. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. You have a splendid story about the Denver Federal Center. I would just observe my first term in Congress, 1975 

and 1976, there was a hearing in this Committee room by the 

Chair of the Subcommittee on Public Buildings, as it was called 

then, and now it has a much longer name, Economic Development 

and so on, by the General Services Administration and the Sheet 

Metal Workers Union on a study that they had commissioned of 

the benefits of retrofitting Federal civilian office space. 

The two-volume study showed that you could generate 135,000 

sheet metal worker jobs alone, not including the electrical workers 

and carpenters and others who would also be required for solar 

panel installation. And that an investment of $175 million a year 

by the Federal Government to buy from the private sector the 

equipment needed to retrofit Federal civilian office space would 

bring down over a five-year period the cost of electricity from solar 

panels from $1.75 a kilowatt hour to something in the range of 15 

cents a kilowatt hour, comparable to the seven cents kilowatt hour 

from the investor-owned utilities. 

I thought that was a splendid way to save energy, to reduce the 

cost of electricity to the Federal Government spends. So I introduced the bill to do exactly these things over a three-year period, 

$175 million a year. Jimmy Carter signed the bill into law. My colleague over in the Senate, Hubert Humphrey at the time, moved 

it through that body. And he put the money in his budget, then he 

lost the election and President Reagan just zeroed out the funding 

for all alternative energy programs. 

53 

But then time passes and I became Chairman of the Committee 

in 2007. So this is going to be the first thing we are going to do. 

We have jurisdiction over 367 million square feet of Federal civilian office space. The electricity bill is $500 million a year. If we cut 

that even 10 percent, that is a savings to the taxpayer. If we cut 

it even more, that reduces the amount of coal we have to burn to 

produce electricity. We can run all the lights in this room, all the 

lights in this whole building with solar panels on the Rayburn 

Building, and we are moving in that direction to do that. 

And so I directed the Committee staff to go back and dig up my 

bill that I had introduced years ago that was signed into law, and 

they found it. And they found my testimony before the Committee 

still in Committee files. So I said, all right, we are going to do this 

with the Department of Energy. We reported the bill, take funds 

out of the Public Building Fund, and retrofit the Department of Energy headquarters. So every day since September of 2007, the Department of Energy roof is generating 2.5 megawatts of electricity. 

Now, we can do that and apply to buildings all over America, and 

you have started to do at the Denver Federal Courthouse. Then we 

will make a significant contribution. And maybe it will cost a little 

bit more at the outset, but in the long run, our children will be 

there to thank us for doing our part to save the environment and 

not burn as much carbon, put that carbon in the air that stays 

there for 100,000 years. 

Mr. WELCH. I would agree. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mrs. Schmidt, do you have any comments? 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. I have a question for the panel. 

Mr. Burkett, a couple of just small questions. 

Mr. BURKETT. Sure. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. I know that with the whole Recovery Act, you 

have to do some paperwork. You have to have an accountability to 

the EPA and perhaps other agencies as well, including job reporting verification, et cetera. 

My question is two-fold. I know sometimes when you get a whole 

bunch of paper, it seems to be overwhelming and you don’t know 

what to do with it. Were you given any guidance on how they wanted these forms to be filled out? Did you feel that you were overburdened with them or that they were just necessary and OK on their 

own? Just a little feedback on the personal experience. 

Mr. BURKETT. I would say that now that we have six projects, 

the first of which came through the Maryland Department of the 

Environment, they were challenged at that point to even understand what their own reporting requirements were. 

As we have moved through this process, three, six, nine months 

now, everybody has refined their processes. The Corps of Engineers, the first time we all went, we kind of felt like we all went 

through the process together. The second time, they provided some 

refinements. The third time, we actually worked back and forth. 

And so now we are at a point where it actually is fairly smooth. 

DC government for those two projects, they have an online system that they have set up. They have their own reporting requirements as well. So we are reporting not only what is required under 

the stimulus funding, but we are also requiring things that the 

54 

District of Columbia wants in terms of the accountability for their 

projects. 

When you have agencies such as Cuyahoga County Board of 

Health, I think this is somewhat daunting for them. This is one or 

maybe a handful of projects for them. And what they are actually 

doing is looking to us, having been through the process now, to 

help them to understand what the reporting requirements are. 

There also is the other level below us in terms of our sub-consultants and having to do a little training of our sub-consultants. For 

the District of Columbia, they want them to report their information directly. Others are asking that that information be rolled up 

through us and reported in our reporting, either on a monthly or 

on a quarterly basis. 

So it is really improving. The larger the entity, the more sophisticated they are. The smaller the entity, they are a little bit in awe 

at first, but they know that this is a worthy project. They want to 

go through with it. They are willing to put up with it as well. So 

that is the qualitative answer to the question. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. To follow up, how could we make it better for you 

in reporting? Would videos explaining what different agencies want 

help? And do we provide that now? And if not, maybe we could? 

Mr. BURKETT. On this side, it seems like a lot of that, there have 

been some basic tenets handed out to each one of the agencies that 

are distributing these funds. And so they have kind of been left to 

their own devices as to how to do this. I am sure that you probably 

could go out there and find some best practices, some entities that 

are doing it very cleanly, easily, and try to create a training process 

for others or maybe even the information packet for them, to say 

here is how you can set up your own system. That might create a 

little more uniformity. 

With the Corps of Engineers, they are a very process-driven organization and so when we filled out the information, they would 

have little drop-downs. Those drop-downs would have 100 selections. And so what we were doing is going back to the project managers at the Corps and saying: What do you want us to fill out 

right here? 

And so the iterations of that process, now the drop-downs are 30 

instead of 100, and we know where we are supposed to populate 

that information. 

So I am sure that as we get through this process, there are certainly some best practices that you are seeing in terms of the reporting that could be filtered out to others, because I know they 

would welcome the information. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you. 

Does anybody else on the panel want to add anything to that? 

Mr. BOWE. It is Peter Bowe here. I heard some comments about 

Buy America. I would like the Committee and Congress to reflect 

on the issue that the President is promoting something called the 

National Export Initiative. He has introduced legislation, or actually he is committed to a process to double the exports from the 

U.S. in the next five years and create 2 million jobs. 

Now, the essence of exporting is you have to have two sides to 

a transaction, a buyer and a seller, and hopefully we are talking 

about American sellers. And I hope that the Committee exercises 

55 

caution with respect to how other parties outside the U.S. have 

read Buy America. 

I might add, our company is selling infrastructure equipment. 

We sell to Canadian governmental entities in competition with Canadian suppliers. We have had great success doing that. And we 

do hear from our customers overseas. We do more business overseas than we do in the States. People ask us: Are you keeping us 

out? 

I don’t control that, naturally, but we do very much want a twoway street with all of the partners that are willing to deal with us 

fairly. And certainly the Canadians and Mexicans are part of 

NAFTA, so I don’t understand all the implications of Buy America 

because we are an exporter, but we do hear feedback from our partners overseas. 

Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you’very much for that question, and for 

your thoughtful response. I think that is important for us to keep 

in mind, particularly with Canada, where we have so much of a 

common market. From my District, we export iron ore to the 

former Stelco, Steel Company of Canada in Hamilton, Ontario. 

Now, that plant has been acquired by U.S. Steel. So Minnesota ore 

goes to Canada to make steel in Canada for a company owned by 

a U.S. steelmaker. And when the product they produce then comes 

to the border, is that Canadian or is it American? 

The workers in the iron ore mine in Minnesota are organized by 

the United Steelworkers Union. Those at the plant in Hamilton, 

Ontario are organized by the Canadian branch of the United Steelworkers Union. So is this a foreign product or is it a domestic product? 

We have so much exchange. Where there are no unfair practices, 

where there is no government subsidy of the cost of production as 

the Japanese are so wont to do with the Bank of Japan totally subsidizing products, giving export incentives and eventually discounting the costs so that it is practically nothing to the Japanese 

steel producer. That is not fair. We should not play in that market 

by Marquis of Queensberry rules when the rest of them are using 

black belt karate on us. But where the field is fair, the market 

ought to be open. 

But there was a great feeling, as Mrs. Schmidt will remember, 

when the stimulus bill came to the House floor, these are U.S. taxpayer dollars. The purpose is to create jobs for Americans. We want 

to be sure that American jobs are funded by these projects. 

And there were some problems early on with the State Revolving 

Loan Fund, SRF, of the EPA. There are some pumps that simply 

weren’t built in America, but only built in Canada. And eventually, 

there are provisions under the Act, under the basic underlying law, 

not just the Stimulus Act, that allow for exceptions and for acquisition from foreign sources of products not readily available or not 

produced at home. 

There is another situation where to meet the standard of treatment of wastewater, ultraviolet application was required. Municipal wastewater treatment facilities said, well, that doesn’t exist in 

America. We don’t have anything here, so how can we comply? And 

56 

EPA didn’t know what to do. I said stand firm. Something will happen. 

And a company in Minnesota that makes ultraviolet treatment 

for air intake said we can adapt our equipment to wastewater. 

They did and that resulted in a company now with 120 jobs, producing equipment for ultraviolet treatment of wastewater works. 

It is a complicated issue. It is one that we have to address, think 

about, and you raised a very thoughtful question. It is a two-way 

street and we will continue working on this issue and learning the 

lessons from this experience. 

You have all been wonderful, instructive, informative witnesses, 

and I am grateful for your participation today, and thank you’very 

much for your patience throughout this day with that long recess 

that we had. 

But as you think further on your testimony today and on the experience, give us your further thoughts. We greatly welcome your 

contribution. 

Mrs. Schmidt? 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. No further comments. 

With an acknowledgment of our marathoner, by the way, she is 

lean and trim because she runs marathons. 

Mrs. SCHMIDT. But I haven’t done Vermont yet. I need to. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. OBERSTAR. OK. 

Thank you’very much. 

The Committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:01 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

57 


Insert offset folio 95 here 56726.095
58 


Insert offset folio 96 here 56726.096
59 


Insert offset folio 97 here 56726.097
60 


Insert offset folio 98 here 56726.098
61 


Insert offset folio 99 here 56726.099
62 


Insert offset folio 100 here 56726.100
63 


Insert offset folio 101 here 56726.101
64 


Insert offset folio 102 here 56726.102
65 


Insert offset folio 103 here 56726.103
66 


Insert offset folio 104 here 56726.104
67 


Insert offset folio 105 here 56726.105
68 


Insert offset folio 106 here 56726.106
69 


Insert offset folio 107 here 56726.107
70 


Insert offset folio 108 here 56726.108
71 


Insert offset folio 109 here 56726.109
72 


Insert offset folio 110 here 56726.110
73 


Insert offset folio 111 here 56726.111
74 


Insert offset folio 112 here 56726.112
75 


Insert offset folio 113 here 56726.113
76 


Insert offset folio 114 here 56726.114
77 


Insert offset folio 115 here 56726.115
78 


Insert offset folio 116 here 56726.116
79 


Insert offset folio 117 here 56726.117
80 


Insert offset folio 118 here 56726.118
81 


Insert offset folio 119 here 56726.119
82 


Insert offset folio 120 here 56726.120
83 


Insert offset folio 121 here 56726.121
84 


Insert offset folio 122 here 56726.122
85 


Insert offset folio 123 here 56726.123
86 


Insert offset folio 124 here 56726.124
87 


Insert offset folio 125 here 56726.125
88 


Insert offset folio 126 here 56726.126
89 


Insert offset folio 127 here 56726.127
90 


Insert offset folio 128 here 56726.128
91 


Insert offset folio 129 here 56726.129
92 


Insert offset folio 130 here 56726.130
93 


Insert offset folio 131 here 56726.131
94 


Insert offset folio 132 here 56726.132
95 


Insert offset folio 133 here 56726.133
96 


Insert offset folio 134 here 56726.134
97 


Insert offset folio 135 here 56726.135
98 


Insert offset folio 136 here 56726.136
99 


Insert offset folio 137 here 56726.137
100 


Insert offset folio 138 here 56726.138
101 


Insert offset folio 139 here 56726.139
102 


Insert offset folio 140 here 56726.140
103 


Insert offset folio 141 here 56726.141
104 


Insert offset folio 142 here 56726.142
105 


Insert offset folio 143 here 56726.143
106 


Insert offset folio 144 here 56726.144
107 


Insert offset folio 145 here 56726.145
108 


Insert offset folio 146 here 56726.146
109 


Insert offset folio 147 here 56726.147
110 


Insert offset folio 148 here 56726.148
111 


Insert offset folio 149 here 56726.149
112 


Insert offset folio 150 here 56726.150
113 


Insert offset folio 151 here 56726.151
114 


Insert offset folio 152 here 56726.152
115 


Insert offset folio 153 here 56726.153
116 


Insert offset folio 154 here 56726.154
117 


Insert offset folio 155 here 56726.155
118 


Insert offset folio 156 here 56726.156
119 


Insert offset folio 157 here 56726.157
120 


Insert offset folio 158 here 56726.158
121 


Insert offset folio 159 here 56726.159
122 


Insert offset folio 160 here 56726.160
123 


Insert offset folio 161 here 56726.161
124 


Insert offset folio 162 here 56726.162
125 


Insert offset folio 163 here 56726.163
126 


Insert offset folio 164 here 56726.164
127 


Insert offset folio 165 here 56726.165
128 


Insert offset folio 166 here 56726.166
129 


Insert offset folio 167 here 56726.167
130 


Insert offset folio 168 here 56726.168
131 


Insert offset folio 169 here 56726.169
132 


Insert offset folio 170 here 56726.170
133 


Insert offset folio 171 here 56726.171
134 


Insert offset folio 172 here 56726.172
135 


Insert offset folio 173 here 56726.173
136 


Insert offset folio 174 here 56726.174
137 


Insert offset folio 175 here 56726.175
138 


Insert offset folio 176 here 56726.176
139 


Insert offset folio 177 here 56726.177
140 


Insert offset folio 178 here 56726.178
141 


Insert offset folio 179 here 56726.179
142 


Insert offset folio 180 here 56726.180
143 


Insert offset folio 181 here 56726.181
144 


Insert offset folio 182 here 56726.182
145 


Insert offset folio 183 here 56726.183
146 


Insert offset folio 184 here 56726.184
147 


Insert offset folio 185 here 56726.185
148 


Insert offset folio 186 here 56726.186
149 


Insert offset folio 187 here 56726.187
150 


Insert offset folio 188 here 56726.188
151 


Insert offset folio 189 here 56726.189
152 


Insert offset folio 190 here 56726.190
153 


Insert offset folio 191 here 56726.191
154 


Insert offset folio 192 here 56726.192
155 


Insert offset folio 193 here 56726.193
156 


Insert offset folio 194 here 56726.194
157 


Insert offset folio 195 here 56726.195
158 


Insert offset folio 196 here 56726.196
159 


Insert offset folio 197 here 56726.197
160 


Insert offset folio 198 here 56726.198
161 


Insert offset folio 199 here 56726.199
162 


Insert offset folio 200 here 56726.200
163 


Insert offset folio 201 here 56726.201
164 


Insert offset folio 202 here 56726.202
165 


Insert offset folio 203 here 56726.203
166 


Insert offset folio 204 here 56726.204
167 


Insert offset folio 205 here 56726.205
168 


Insert offset folio 206 here 56726.206
169 


Insert offset folio 207 here 56726.207
170 


Insert offset folio 208 here 56726.208
171 


Insert offset folio 209 here 56726.209
172 


Insert offset folio 210 here 56726.210
173 


Insert offset folio 211 here 56726.211
174 


Insert offset folio 212 here 56726.212
175 


Insert offset folio 213 here 56726.213
176 


Insert offset folio 214 here 56726.214
177 


Insert offset folio 215 here 56726.215
178 


Insert offset folio 216 here 56726.216
179 


Insert offset folio 217 here 56726.217
180 


Insert offset folio 218 here 56726.218
181 


Insert offset folio 219 here 56726.219
182 


Insert offset folio 220 here 56726.220
183 


Insert offset folio 221 here 56726.221
184 


Insert offset folio 222 here 56726.222
185 


Insert offset folio 223 here 56726.223
186 


Insert offset folio 224 here 56726.224
187 


Insert offset folio 225 here 56726.225
188 


Insert offset folio 226 here 56726.226
189 


Insert offset folio 227 here 56726.227
190 


Insert offset folio 228 here 56726.228
191 


Insert offset folio 229 here 56726.229
192 


Insert offset folio 230 here 56726.230
193 


Insert offset folio 231 here 56726.231
194 


Insert offset folio 232 here 56726.232
195 


Insert offset folio 233 here 56726.233
196 


Insert offset folio 234 here 56726.234
197 


Insert offset folio 235 here 56726.235
198 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 236 here 56726.236