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

51–111 PDF 2009

GREEN BUILDINGS OFFER MULTIPLE 

BENEFITS: COST SAVINGS, CLEAN 

ENVIRONMENT, AND JOBS 

(111–51) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

July 16, 2009 

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 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

VACANCY 

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 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Columbia, Chair 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania, 

Vice Chair 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Crawley, Drury, Lead Mechanical Engineer, Office of Building Technologies, 

U.S. Department of Energy ................................................................................. 11 

Helsel, James L., Junior, Treasurer, National Association of Realtors .............. 11 

Kampschroer, Kevin, Acting Director, Office of Federal High-Performance 

Green Buildings, General Services Administration .......................................... 11 

Uhalde, Ray, Senior Advisor, U.S. Department of Labor ..................................... 11 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri ......................................................................... 50 

Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, of the District of Columbia ................................. 51 

Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota ................................................................. 53 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Crawley, Drury ........................................................................................................ 56 

Helsel, James L. ....................................................................................................... 80 

Kampschroer, Kevin ................................................................................................ 89 

Uhalde, Ray .............................................................................................................. 106 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Crawley, Drury, Lead Mechanical Engineer, Office of Building Technologies, 

U.S. Department of Energy, responses to questions from the Subcommittee 65 

High-Performance Building Congressional Caucus Coalition, supplemental 

testimony .............................................................................................................. 7 

Helsel, James L., Junior, Treasurer, National Association of Realtors, responses to questions from the Subcommittee .................................................... 88 

Kampschroer, Kevin, Acting Director, Office of Federal High-Performance 

Green Buildings, General Services Administration: .........................................

Fact sheet ...................................................................................................... 94 

Responses to questions from the Subcommittee ......................................... 96 

Uhalde, Ray, Senior Advisor, U.S. Department of Labor: ....................................

Press release .................................................................................................. 114 

Responses to questions from the Subcommittee ................................................... 116 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 51111.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 51111.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 51111.003
(1) 

HEARING ON GREEN BUILDINGS OFFER MULTIPLE BENEFITS: COST SAVINGS, CLEAN 

ENVIRONMENT, AND JOBS 

Thursday, July 16, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC

BUILDINGS AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Eleanor 

Holmes Norton [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Ms. NORTON. I want to welcome all of you to today’s hearing with 

particular appreciation to our distinguished witnesses for their testimony. The Subcommittee will examine plans for green buildings 

and the benefit to energy conservation and climate change in today’s world. 

Since becoming Chair of this Subcommittee, I have been plain 

that one of my priority goals is to maximize the GSA’s outsized real 

estate and property portfolio to make the Agency the green buildings leader in the Country. My first hearing as Chair focused on 

the greening of Washington, D.C. and the national capital region 

because GSA is the leader in the office building market here. 

The GSA has long engaged in energy conservation efforts, well 

before climate change issues became prominent, because the Agency has understood the energy value and savings to the taxpayer. 

However, with a new Administration taking unprecedented leadership on conservation and climate change, we are seeking ways to 

build on the progress we began in the 100th Congress. 

We began that progress, of course, with the pathbreaking Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007. I am pleased that, among 

other things, the bill authorized high efficiency light bulb replacements, a photovoltaic provision, and the creation of an Office of 

High-Performance Green Buildings for the first time that is required to coordinate with the Department of Energy, which is focusing on green issues in the private sector. I am pleased that 

today we will hear from both the GSA Office of High-Performance 

Green Buildings as well as from the Department of Energy. 

As important as these breakthrough initiatives were, they seem 

timid in light of GSA’s potential impact, especially on leasing but 

also on its own inventory and on the economy and climate change 

in the Nation. The President was of the same mind when he 

worked with our Subcommittee to place in the Stimulus Package 

2 

$5.5 billion, most of it for repair and rehabilitation of GSA’s badly 

deteriorated inventory. Much of it should be used on energy conservation. In addition, we achieved through the Stimulus at least 

the bulk of the funding that was needed for the first building in 

the new Department of Homeland Security headquarters compound 

to be located on the old Saint Elizabeth’s west campus. 

The DHS headquarters provides a unique opportunity for the 

Government to build an entirely green set of office buildings, the 

largest construction in GSA’s history. With a little imagination, the 

potential for energy conservation at the new headquarters is bountiful. 

Green building activities generally cover products and practices 

that conserve energy and water, promote clean indoor air, protect 

natural resources, and reduce the impact of a building on a community. Examples include insulation such as double paned windows 

that reduce or conserve the heating loads of buildings and positioning buildings in order to reduce the need for cooling or heating 

the building. Green building includes reduced flow toilets and low 

water plants and landscaping. Green building improves the indoor 

environment with use of non-toxic caulks and adhesive, non-formaldehyde cabinets, and the use of filters. Green building protects 

natural resources by promoting the use of products with recycled 

content like carpet, tile, and wallboard while promoting the use of 

rapidly renewable products like bamboo flooring and natural linoleum. Green building protects waterways like the Anacostia River 

and the Chesapeake Bay by promoting practices that reduce the 

impact of structure on the environment such as mitigating the effects of stormwater runoff by using green roofs, cisterns, and permeable pavers; locating buildings close to mass transit; and including bike racks and storage units. 

With GSA in the throes of redoing its existing inventory, or at 

least part of it, in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and all 

the territories and with its emphasis in that work on energy conservation, along with its work now on the new headquarters and 

the Agency’s own position in the leasing market, the Subcommittee 

is especially interested in new frontiers not only in green thinking 

but particularly in green action steps that can be taken now. 

We are interested in greening and conservation practices in the 

work we will be undertaking, for example in reusing water and energy in various types of green roofs, especially for our existing 

buildings. We are interested in the difference and value among various LEED designations in energy savings technology and in reducing practices that harm the environment in constructing and leasing near waterways. 

We, of course, want to draw on the rapidly developing data that 

allow us to compare cost to benefit and allow us to know cost reductions that are actually resulting. Equipped with the largest footprint in the private leasing market in the United States and with 

one of the most consistent presences in the construction market, 

GSA must not let these opportunities slip away. It is has resources 

at a level it has not had before at one time to do its work. 

Our goal is to invigorate the Federal leadership role in green 

technologies, greening strategies, and high energy standards in all 

new construction, major replacements, and repairs. Using its new 

3 

resources, one of a kind, GSA must now become the trend setter 

it is capable of being, particularly in spin-off and green job creation 

and job opportunities during today’s recession. 

We are very pleased to welcome today’s witnesses and hear their 

testimony. We are just as pleased to hear from our Ranking Member, Mr. Diaz-Balart. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. I 

want to thank you again for your leadership in holding this hearing 

today to examine green buildings and the Green Building Initiative. I want to thank the distinguished panelists for being here as 

well. 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 and also the Energy Independence 

and Security Act of 2007 set standards for Federal buildings and 

required them to meet certain conservation goals. For example, 

these laws require energy consumption in Federal buildings to be 

reduced by 30 percent in 2015 and their use of fossil fuel generated 

energy to be reduced from 55 percent in 2010 to zero in 2030. They 

are very ambitious goals. Similar zero net energy consumption 

goals for the commercial sector are also encouraged in these laws. 

The Department of Energy was also tasked to work with the private sector to identify and develop cost-effective technologies in 

order to reach those ambitious goals. The Office of Federal HighPerformance Green Buildings was established within GSA and it 

was to coordinate with the Department of Energy on those efforts, 

to coordinate green building activities within the GSA, and to develop standards for Federal buildings across the board. 

Evidently the statutory framework enacted by Congress envisions increased conservation not only in the public sector but also 

in the private sector. Obviously, to carry out these efforts, a number of Federal agencies need to coordinate. This is in addition to 

partnerships with private sector organizations such as the U.S. 

Green Building Council, which established the LEED certification 

used to designate the efficiency level of commercial buildings. 

It is also very important to highlight the fact that the requirements set by the 2007 Act actually go much further than just promoting energy conservation, however. I have mentioned this in 

other hearings, that the Act sets very strict requirements on Federal buildings related to the reduction of energy, water, and material resource use; improving indoor environmental quality, including acoustic environments; and also considering the indoor and outdoor effects of buildings. Again, it is more than just conservation. 

Now, while steps are being taken to meet conservation goals including the use of LED lighting systems, advanced metering, insulation, weatherization, and a number of other technologies, the requirements under the Act extend well beyond conserving energy. I 

think it is important to note that. So I really look forward to hearing from the witnesses today about all of those requirements needed for a green building and about identifying where GSA is on 

meeting those requirements of the 2007 Act. Again, they are very 

broad requirements. 

In addition, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the 

so-called Stimulus Act, passed earlier this year. It included $5.5 

billion for the GSA Federal Building Fund and designated $4.5 billion for ‘‘measures necessary to convert GSA facilities to high-perVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:09 Oct 28, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\51111 JASON
4 

formance green buildings.’’ Now, as I have stated many times before, I clearly support efforts to reduce energy consumption and to 

examine ways in which the Federal Government can help minimize 

the environmental impact of its facilities. That is obviously a very 

meritorious and worthwhile goal. I have also stated before, however, that I believe that such efforts must be first scientifically 

based and proven. Technologies must be scientifically proven and 

based and done in such a way that they support American industries and—here is the big one—create jobs. 

I expressed concern in previous hearings that the focus of GSA 

funding, including of the Recovery Act or the Stimulus Act, is on 

greening Federal buildings instead of creating jobs. The two objectives clearly, in my view, are not mutually exclusive. But particularly with that stimulus funding, the priority has to be creating 

jobs. They are not mutually exclusive but that has to be the priority. We cannot lose that perspective. 

I do hope, as Acting GSA Administrator Paul Prouty indicated 

before this Committee in April, that these projects will, according 

to him, stimulate job growth in the construction and real estate 

sectors and long term improvement in energy efficiency technologies. 

We have seen it. We have read it in the news. It is common 

knowledge that Recovery efforts have not worked. The bill has not 

worked. We were promised that unemployment would be capped at 

8 percent if the bill passed. We are now at 9.5 percent. In my State 

of Florida, it is 10.2 percent. We were promised the creation of 3.5 

million jobs when in fact we have lost 2 million jobs since the bill 

was enacted. 

If I was concerned before, I think there is more reason now to 

be concerned about making sure that we emphasize creating jobs. 

Obviously something went clearly wrong, drastically wrong, dramatically wrong with that bill, the implementation of the bill, or 

the creation of the bill. 

I am very pleased however, to have witnesses here today who 

may be able to outline for this Committee how many jobs have 

been created through these efforts. Again, I am a strong believer 

that construction does help create jobs. What industries have been 

supported? How we can reach both improved energy efficiency, 

which as I said before is very meritorious and needed, as well as 

job creation and job growth? So I look forward to hearing from the 

witnesses on these and other issues. 

I once again want to thank the Chairwoman for her leadership 

and for making sure that we continue to not only do oversight but 

continue to lead on these issues that are greatly important to our 

Nation. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Diaz-Balart. 

We are pleased to have other Members present. I want to ask if 

they have any brief opening statements. Mr. Walz of Minnesota? 

Mr. WALZ. I will yield back my time, Madam Chairwoman, so we 

can hear the witnesses. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Walz. 

Ms. Fallin? 

Ms. FALLIN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I am not going to 

be able to stay for the whole hearing so I wanted just to make a 

5 

couple of quick comments. I am going to submit my questions for 

the record and they can be answered later. But I just want to make 

a couple of quick comments. 

Ms. NORTON. So ordered. 

Ms. FALLIN. Thank you so much. Ranking Member, I appreciate 

your time here today, too. I appreciate all of our people who have 

come to testify on the very important subject of green buildings and 

how we can assist the GSA and private sector facilities in becoming 

more energy efficient and cost-effective. 

I am very hopeful that through this hearing we can gain insight 

into what programs we currently are seeing that are successful and 

what programs we see that may need some improvement. I am also 

very interested in how the GSA is implementing the cost-effective 

technology acceleration program put forth by the Energy Independence and Security Act. 

I have had some particular questions from some companies in my 

State of Oklahoma, very specifically from Climate Master in my 

district, that wanted to gain some information about a particular 

section in the Energy Independence and Security Act that has been 

implemented rather slowly. I have an interest in how we can use 

geothermal heat pumps, which I think are both cost and energy efficient, to meet some of the energy goals that are implemented in 

this legislation. 

I think all of us in this room agree that using efficient technology 

can lead to greater cost savings as well as significant benefits to 

our environment. As we decide which energy efficient ways to construct and run these buildings using our taxpayer dollars, we 

should also ask ourselves if we are saving taxpayers and businesses as much money as possible by delivering energy in an efficient manner and using the latest in technologies. 

As we proceed with this hearing, Madam Chairwoman, I would 

just like to have the GSA—and I may not be here at the time but 

for the record I will submit my questions—but I just would like to 

know how we are progressing in geothermal heat pumps to meet 

some of the goals in the Energy Independence and Security Act. I 

wonder if we can at some point in time have a list of the buildings 

that the GSA is considering putting the geothermal heat pump 

technology in, which ones have been selected, and how we are 

working with the industry in these particular sections. 

That is really all I wanted to add today. Thank you, Madam 

Chairwoman. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Ms. Fallin. Mr. Carnahan of Missouri? 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Ranking 

Member Diaz-Balart, for holding this important hearing on the 

benefits of green building. 

I am also co-founder with Congresswoman Judy Biggert of the 

High-Performance Buildings Caucus. We have advocated not just 

for green buildings but for high-performance buildings. 

High-performance buildings incorporate the holistic systems approach of energy efficiencies, water savings, use of recycled and recyclable materials, life cycle analysis, and other environmental attributes into designs that are accessible, safe, secure, resilient, and 

oftentimes historically preserved. These high-performance buildings 

are not just examples of raw technical ingenuity, they are also inVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:09 Oct 28, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\51111 JASON
6 

herently designed to decrease consumption and thus the overall 

cost of the building over the course of its lifetime. 

I believe the Federal Government should lead by example in the 

way we construct and manage our Federal building stock by investing in high-performance buildings. We not only help bring about 

much needed economies of scale for these technologies but we also 

support highly skilled construction workers, builders, architects, 

and maintenance engineers, just to name a few. 

By designing and building high-performance buildings, we reduce 

energy consumption and our carbon footprint. We save both water 

and raw materials. We save demolition and construction debris 

from going into landfills. Most importantly, high-performance 

building construction creates good paying green jobs that give 

workers the valuable skills they need to excel in a clean energy 

economy. 

I would like to give special thanks to the High-Performance 

Building Congressional Caucus Coalition who, at my request, produced detailed recommendations for producing high-performance 

Federal buildings. These recommendations focus on requiring true 

life cycle analysis for the acquisition of Federal buildings and requiring total building commissioning using building information 

modeling and integrated project delivery. I would also like to ask 

unanimous consent that these recommendations be submitted for 

the record. 

To the witnesses before us today, I want to thank you for taking 

the time to be here before this Committee. We look forward to 

working with you and hearing your testimony. 

Ms. NORTON. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

7 


Insert offset folio 4 here 51111.004
8 


Insert offset folio 79 here 51111.079
9 


Insert offset folio 5 here 51111.005
10 

Ms. NORTON. We are fortunate to have here the ultimate leader 

on these matters, the Chairman of our full Committee, Mr. Oberstar, whom I ask if he has any opening remarks. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank you, Madam Chair and Mr. Diaz-Balart, 

our partner in these endeavors. Thank you for the considerable endeavor you have put in and the time that you have committed to 

maintaining watch over our portion of the energy bill. This is a 

down payment on the continuing oversight this Committee will 

conduct with the portions that we included in the energy bill to 

pass the House in 2008 and with our portion of continuing oversight of the Recovery Act. 

The Federal Government has a great opportunity to take a leadership role, as Ms. Norton’s opening statement cited. I think the 

questions raised by Ms. Fallin are very pertinent and very important. I look forward to your responses. But we are way behind the 

curve of other countries on the greening of our economy and on 

doing what the Federal Government, the national Government, can 

and should be doing. 

Over 25 years ago, the province of Ontario had a program in 

which the province surveyed all of its government buildings and 

evaluated their energy needs and requirements, their cost, and the 

savings that could be achieved. It also mounted a program for communities, businesses, and home owners. They conducted energy audits all throughout the province of Ontario and made recommendations to home owners, business owners, and local governments to 

improve the energy efficiency of their facilities. They saved enormous amounts of money. 

Ontario is a big, sprawling province that covers the land territory 

of seven U.S. States. They have a unique encounter with winter, 

as my district does. The glacier retreated 15,000 years ago but 

every December it stages a comeback. So it is very important for 

Ontario and for all of Canada to be energy efficient, particularly in 

the wintertime. Well, we have that responsibility here. 

The purpose of this hearing and subsequent ones will be to measure the effectiveness of the GSA’s management of our 350 to 360 

million square feet of Federal civilian office space and those 

174,000 vehicles that GSA operates annually to assure that we are 

leading, not just following but leading the way in energy efficiency. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. I look forward to the witness testimony. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your leadership throughout your work in this Committee and especially on 

this new transportation bill. We are a very green Committee, not 

just a green Subcommittee. 

I am very pleased now to hear from the witnesses in the order 

in which they appear. 

Mr. Kampschroer is the Acting Director of this new Office of 

High-Performance Green Buildings in the GSA. Mr. Kampschroer? 

11 

TESTIMONY OF KEVIN KAMPSCHROER, ACTING DIRECTOR, 

OFFICE OF FEDERAL HIGH-PERFORMANCE GREEN BUILDINGS, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; DRURY 

CRAWLEY, LEAD MECHANICAL ENGINEER, OFFICE OF 

BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY; 

RAY UHALDE, SENIOR ADVISOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

LABOR; AND JAMES L. HELSEL, JUNIOR, TREASURER, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member 

Diaz-Balart, Chairman Oberstar, and Members of the Committee. 

My name is Kevin Kampschroer and, as you mentioned, I am the 

Acting Director of the Office of Federal High-Performance Green 

Buildings in the U.S. General Services Administration. Thank you 

for inviting me today to discuss the benefits of green buildings on 

cost, the environment, and jobs. 

GSA, through its Public Buildings Service, is one of the largest 

and most diversified public real estate organizations in the world. 

We collaborate with other Federal agencies not only as our clients 

but also as partners in developing, implementing, and evaluating 

Federal green building programs through such initiatives as the 

ENERGY STAR program. 

High performing green buildings provide the best value not only 

for the taxpayer but also to public through both life cycle cost benefits and positive effects on human health and performance. A recent study of GSA’s earliest green Federal buildings shows energy 

use is down by over 25 percent and occupant satisfaction is up by 

the same amount as compared with commercial office benchmark 

data. 

More importantly, the top third of those buildings we studied, 

which use an integrated design approach, deliver significantly better results with 45 percent less energy consumption, 53 percent 

lower maintenance costs, and 39 percent less water use. Other 

studies of private green buildings show that operating costs are 8 

to 9 percent lower and building values are 7.5 percent higher. They 

have 3.5 percent less vacancy and yield a 6.6 total return on investment, an enviable thing in today’s economy. 

Further, their initial capital cost is not significantly higher. Studies in 2004 and confirmed again in 2007 document that green 

building aspects tend to have a lesser impact on cost than the 

many other myriad decisions that enter into building a new building. 

But sustainable design is not just about cost. Good sustainable 

design offers value in environmental and societal benefits. For example, a planted or green roof not only saves costs by lowering the 

roof temperature and thus reducing the amount of cooling needed, 

it reduces the environmental impact by reducing power usage and 

the associated air pollution. The cooler roof temperature also combats the smog-forming heat island effect and even lowers the costs 

for neighboring buildings. Finally, planted roofs absorb stormwater, 

reducing water pollution caused by runoff. In cities like Washington, D.C., which has a combined stormwater and sewer system, 

this reduces water pollution both locally and downstream in the 

Chesapeake Bay. 

12 

The careful use of materials can reduce energy consumption during the manufacturing process and protect the health of occupants. 

Careful construction techniques can reduce the amount of construction waste that reaches landfills by 95 percent or more. Reuse of 

existing structures can reduce total resource consumption as well 

as preserve our Country’s heritage. Careful siting can make buildings perform better both from environmental and human perspectives. Proximity to transportation, for example, reduces pollution 

and improves occupants’ quality of life. The key to this is holistic, 

integrated consideration of all the factors that influence buildings, 

including perhaps the most important one which is the decision 

whether to build at all. 

Much of the focus to date has been on sustainable design. Without design, we don’t achieve the goals. For example, the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005 requires buildings to be designed to be 30 percent better than the current energy code. We need, however, to 

have at least as much emphasis on actual building performance. 

Beginning in 2010, GSA will require new building leases over 

10,000 square feet to have an ENERGY STAR rating, which provides a valuable ongoing performance measure. 

But as has been mentioned before, energy is not the only component of sustainability. The industry needs to expand its performance measures in other areas as well. Buildings exist in context. 

They are parts of neighborhoods, communities, and cities. They are 

also tools for businesses and organizations. One of the key policy 

changes of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 was 

to clearly articulate that a high-performance green building must 

not just perform well mechanically but must perform to improve 

the health and enhance the performance of the occupants. 

A key broad measure of environmental impact is greenhouse gas 

emissions. Measuring the collective effects of an organization’s 

greenhouse gas emissions allows more informed decisions about 

every aspect that affects the buildings. We need to look at the way 

we buy materials for the building, travel to and from the building, 

use the building, and how the building is operating. When we look 

at both what the building is doing and what is happening inside 

the building, we can make even better improvements than looking 

at the building alone. 

The Federal Government can, through its example, influence and 

accelerate the adoption of sustainable building practices and technologies across the Country. We can help do that through publicizing the quantitative results. The increased transparency of Recovery Act transactions and reporting on results are key to that influence. We are also working with the Department of Energy to establish broader benchmarking tools that will be open to the public 

and to businesses. 

The jobs created across the design, engineering, manufacturing, 

construction, and operations industries will bolster the green economy. These jobs will provide practical experience in high-performance technologies, green construction, and building operations. 

GSA has identified over 50 different trades and professions that 

will participate in the accomplishment of GSA building projects. 

Virtually all aspects of construction are changed in some way by 

sustainable practices and principles. This ranges from such basic 

13 

things as demolition work, where we mentioned the demolition recycling, the re-use and recapture of materials in the buildings, to 

avoid things going to the landfill and avoid the purchase in the 

first place, all the way to more high technology and obviously green 

economy components such as photovoltaic solar power systems, 

new lighting systems, which we are replacing in over 100 buildings, 

building controls, and advanced or smart meters. All of these require people with new training, new skills, and new contributions 

to the economy. 

But it is not just in construction that new green jobs are created. 

Building operators in the Government and private sector are unable to find enough well trained people to run and maintain highperformance buildings. Buildings can easily slip into poorer performance without proper maintenance. The aggregate result is an 

unnecessary increase in energy consumption. GSA is already in 

conversation with the Building Owners and Managers Association, 

the International Facility Managers Association, and others about 

the shortage of sufficiently trained building operators. We believe 

that GSA’s Recovery Act projects can provide jobs along this emerging career pathway that will persist to the future. 

Thank you again for this unprecedented opportunity. All of us at 

GSA are excited by the contribution you have allowed us to make. 

I am available to address any further questions you may have. 

Thank you. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Kampschroer. 

Dr. Drury Crawley is a Lead Mechanical Engineer for the Office 

of Building Technologies at the U.S. Department of Energy. Dr. 

Crawley? 

Mr. CRAWLEY. Thank you, Chairwoman Holmes Norton, Ranking 

Member Diaz-Balart, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank 

you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the 

U.S. Department of Energy’s Building Technologies Program and 

the enormous potential for energy savings in the building sector. 

At the Department, I lead the team working through the Commercial Building Initiative to achieve net zero energy commercial 

buildings. Our team has been working closely with Kevin 

Kampschroer and his team at GSA on these issues for a number 

of years. 

As a resident of the District of Columbia, I am particularly 

pleased to be able to provide this information to Chair Holmes Norton. 

In 2008, the Nation’s 114 million households and more than 74 

billion square feet of commercial floor space accounted for nearly 

40 percent of U.S. primary energy consumption, 73 percent of electricity consumption, and 34 percent of direct natural gas consumption. This gave us energy bills totaling more than $418 billion and 

caused 39 percent of carbon dioxide, 18 percent of nitrogen oxide, 

and 55 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions in the U.S. Additionally, 

construction and renovation has accounted for 9 percent of the 

gross domestic product and has employed 8 million people last 

year. 

The Department’s Building Technologies Program develops technologies, techniques, and tools as well as minimum performance 

standards for making residential and commercial buildings more 

14 

energy efficient, productive, and affordable. The Program’s goal is 

to enable net zero energy buildings at low incremental costs by 

2020 for residential buildings and by 2025 for commercial buildings. Achieving these Program goals could potentially result in consumer savings of nearly $3.4 trillion by 2050. 

We know that buildings impact the economy beyond the building 

footprint. In electricity use, for example, flipping on a light switch 

means fossil, nuclear, and renewable energy must meet that demand. Buildings also impact land use through supporting infrastructures such as roads, bridges, street lighting, wires, and pipes. 

For example, consider water usage. While building use does not directly impact water, the water used for cooling generation plants 

and electricity production is very large. 

Thermoelectric power withdrawals accounted for 48 percent of 

total water use and 39 percent of total freshwater withdrawals for 

all categories in 2000. As a result of energy savings through our 

Program’s efforts, we estimate we can avoid freshwater withdrawals of almost 2.5 trillion gallons per year by 2030. 

The Commercial Building Initiative was authorized in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and was launched in 

August of 2008. That Commercial Building Initiative, or CBI, 

guides and coordinates our public and private partnerships, looking 

to advance the development and market adoption of net zero energy commercial buildings all towards a goal of net zero energy use 

by 2025. We are engaged with building industry leaders through 

energy alliances and research partners to move us towards that 

goal. This engagement includes commercial building energy alliances where we are working with commercial building owners and 

operators to significantly reduce energy consumption and carbon 

emissions. Currently we have alliances for retailers, commercial 

real estate, and hospitals in place with more under development. 

We have been working with commercial building national accounts, 

which are largely commercial building owners’ portfolios of many 

similar buildings. 

We have been working with our technical experts at the national 

laboratories to construct buildings that can achieve savings of 50 

percent or more in new buildings or retrofit savings of at least 30 

percent. We are also looking to select a building industry group, a 

consortium to help us disseminate the information on the new technologies and opportunities to the commercial building community. 

The Department’s Building Technologies Program is using up to 

$343 million in Recovery Act funds to expand and accelerate research and development activities, including advanced building systems research projects focusing on system integration and control 

of both new and existing buildings; residential building design and 

development; work expansion to increase home owner energy savings through retrofit and new home designs; the Commercial Building Initiative, where projects are accelerating; and partnerships expansion for exemplary energy performance with major companies 

that own, build, manage, or operate large portfolios of buildings. 

The building and appliance market transformation work will also 

pursue a deeper penetration. The solid state lighting research and 

development area will be rapidly advancing energy efficient solid 

state lighting development and manufacturing. 

15 

In conclusion, I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear 

before you today. I am happy to answer any questions. Thank you. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Dr. Crawley. 

Mr. Uhalde is a Senior Advisor at the United States Department 

of Labor. 

Mr. UHALDE. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Norton, Ranking 

Member Diaz-Balart, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank 

you for the opportunity to speak with you about green construction. 

President Obama and Secretary Solis have made the creation 

and expansion of good green jobs a top priority, especially for economic revitalization and sustained economic growth. Green jobs 

can benefit the American worker by offering good wages, pathways 

to long term career advancement, and prosperity. 

At the Department of Labor, we are working to support green 

jobs through investments in quality labor market information 

about green jobs, investments in training and reemployment services to support the job growth in green industries, and encouraging 

registered apprenticeship in green industries such as construction 

and building retrofitting. The Recovery Act provided $500 million to prepare workers to 

pursue careers in energy efficiency and renewable energy industries. On June 24th, Secretary Solis announced five grant competitions for green jobs training. Four of the competitions are designed 

to serve workers in need of training through various national, 

State, and community entities and outlets. The fifth competition 

will fund State workforce agencies to collect, analyze, and disseminate labor market information about careers in green industries. 

The deadlines for each of these competitions are staggered throughout the fall. 

The Department of Labor is working in other ways to promote 

green jobs. We are partnering with other Federal agencies to support the creation of jobs and to develop pipelines of skilled workers 

in the energy efficiency and renewable energy industries. 

The Department’s Employment and Training Administration 

plans to promote training in green industries, including green construction, through its regular programming programs such as 

YouthBuild, Women in Apprenticeship in Non-Traditional Occupations, and the Job Corps. 

The Department of Labor is also prioritizing green jobs in our fiscal year 2010 budget request. We propose the creation of a $50 million Green Jobs Innovation Fund to help workers access and participate in green career pathways. 

The Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, in consultation 

with other Federal agencies, is working to define green jobs to capture the full range of labor market information in this rapidly 

evolving area. The Department funded a report by the Occupational Information Network, called ONET, to investigate the impact of the green economy on occupational requirements in current 

jobs and to identify new and emerging occupations. The study identified 17 occupations in the green construction sector such as welders and insulation workers where the demand for such workers 

would increase because of green investments but skills and tasks 

would remain largely the same. The study also identified another 

19 occupations in green construction such as plumbers, roofers, 

16 

sheet metal workers that would result in significant change in 

their work and work requirements for these existing occupations. 

The ETA is also recently added green building practices to the 

existing Residential Construction Competency Model to include 

home energy audits and waste management. 

We are coordinating many of these efforts with our Federal partners to ensure dislocated workers, for example, are connected with 

jobs and that waste is minimized. For example, the Department is 

partnering with the Department of Housing and Urban Development on public housing retrofitting and with the Department of 

Education on training for weatherization work. The Department 

has begun initial talks with the General Services Administration to 

help in the greening of our Federal buildings by supporting apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship programs in this effort. 

The Department is looking at good, sustainable jobs. The Bureau 

of Labor Statistics data show that construction and extension operations and occupations pay a median hourly rate of $18.24 per hour 

compared with $15.50 for all occupations. The increased demand 

for green construction and retrofitting work, coupled with the demand for green building materials, is anticipated to speed the increase for manufacturing workers as well. 

In conclusion, the Department will continue to work with the 

broad range of green building stakeholders to ensure that the benefits of green jobs are widely shared. 

Thank you again, Madam Chairwoman and Subcommittee. I look 

forward to answering questions. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Uhalde. 

Mr. Helsel is Treasurer of the National Association of Realtors. 

They actually have a leading green building here in the District of 

Columbia, which I hope he will reference in his remarks. Mr. 

Helsel? 

Mr. HELSEL. Chairwoman Norton, Ranking Member Diaz-Balart, 

Chairman Oberstar, and all the other Members of the Subcommittee on Economic Development and Public Buildings of the 

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, thank you for this 

opportunity to speak before you and testify on the multiple benefits 

of green buildings. 

My name is Jim Helsel and I am the 2009 Treasurer of the National Association of Realtors. I have been a Realtor specializing in 

the commercial sector for more than 34 years. Currently, I am a 

partner with RSR Realtors, a full service real estate company in 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. I testify today on behalf of 1.2 million 

Realtors who are involved in all aspects of the real estate industry. 

In 2002 and 2003, I served as chairman of NAR’s Real Property 

Operations Committee. I oversaw the development and creation of 

NAR’s Washington, D.C. headquarters, which also became the first 

privately owned; newly constructed LEED certified building and 

the first to earn the LEED silver designation in our Nation’s capital. 

NAR is uniquely qualified and honored to offer testimony on the 

importance of green buildings. In addition to certifying a green 

building, NAR has taken a number of other important steps to 

raise pubic awareness about the benefits of green buildings in the 

marketplace. For example, NAR has established a green designaVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:09 Oct 28, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\51111 JASON
17 

tion program to offer advanced training and certification for real 

estate professionals. We have also advanced important green building issues including the greening of local multiple listing services. 

By including data fields in the MLS with information about real 

properties’ green attributes, we are responding to consumer demand for more information about building efficiency. We have also 

partnered with the Federal agencies to promote green buildings. 

For example, NAR and the Department of Energy worked together 

on a joint Energy Savers brochure to provide consumers with the 

facts about reducing energy use and saving money. 

We support the Subcommittee’s efforts to lead by example with 

green investment in public buildings. These investments will help 

demonstrate new technologies and learning that result in lower 

cost options in the long run. NAR believes voluntary and incentivebased approaches such as tax credits will better spur consumer demand for energy efficiency. Moreover, there is also a need for information and education. We look forward to working with the Subcommittee to build on these approaches in the future. 

NAR’s headquarters was the first privately owned green certified 

building, as I mentioned earlier, in the District of Columbia. Located blocks from the U.S. Capitol, the building was first occupied 

in October 2004 and was awarded the Silver LEED rating by the 

U.S. Green Building Council. NAR believes the best way to promote change in our society is to lead by example. The NAR building is our effort to do just that. 

As chairman of the NAR committee responsible for the development of the building, I knew we had a unique opportunity to demonstrate realtors’ belief in green principles. For that reason, we set 

a goal to become LEED certified. While the building’s LEED certification is a worthy goal in itself, it is the steps needed for certification that are creating a positive impact for the environment. 

We began by cleaning up a Brownfields site with a long history 

of commercial use. An abandoned gas station previously occupied 

the site and we cleaned the site of contamination from leaking fuel 

tanks. The high-performance glass wrapped building wisely uses 

the daylight to significantly reduce energy uses. Now, 50 percent 

of the building’s energy comes from renewable energy sources. The 

landscape of the building uses native and adaptive plant species to 

reduce irrigation demands. 

Low flow faucets, lavatory motion sensors, and waterless urinals 

have all helped achieve a 30-percent reduction compared to buildings of similar size. The building is located near Metrorail stations 

and transit bus lines that have allowed us to achieve a high rate 

of transit use: 70 percent of our building occupants ride public 

transportation to work. In addition, showers have been installed to 

encourage biking to work. 

All these accomplishments are highlighting the building as part 

of an education campaign of its sustainable features. 

Just as NAR built a green structure to lead by example, so now 

NAR’s policies support a voluntary, incentive-based approach to energy efficiency. We believe this will help build momentum in the 

private sector to adopt green trends. This provides a win-win by allowing for vigorous economic growth while improving the environment. 

18 

The role of the Federal Government to encourage green development should also lead by example. Through the development of 

green Federal buildings, the public sector can create best green 

practices that will transfer to the private sector. 

During this time when the current real estate market is fragile 

and just beginning to show signs of recovery, additional onerous 

cost in the form of mandates could hamper our economic recovery 

and hurt the spread of green development. Realtors believe the 

Federal Government can do more to promote sustainable development by keeping the market free of mandates. We encourage the 

Federal Government to offer incentives such as tax credits. 

Realtors have shown that building green can be both proactive 

and a profitable process. Our experience has shown that current 

programs have been allowed to thrive, shift, and mold to meet specific conservation needs in geographic areas. NAR supports a national green building program that is flexible and market driven 

that encourages continued growth and sustainable construction 

that protects options for consumers in all markets; and that preserves, protects, and promotes the health of our environment. 

We stand ready to work with the Congress on the best way to 

implement green principles that balance needs in the marketplace 

with those of the environment. We look forward to working closely 

with your Subcommittee as legislation is considered. 

Again, thank you for this opportunity. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Helsel. 

What I am going to do is I am going to ask just one or two questions of each witness and then go to the next person. There may 

be votes. I may even have to go because the District appropriation 

is there. If necessary, we will come back. We will see how far we 

can get. There will be some time, though, I think before any votes 

come forward. 

Mr. Kampschroer, as you can imagine, this office has been particularly interested in your new Office of High-Performance Green 

Buildings, so much so that we saw to it that it was in the first 

groundbreaking energy bill. You couldn’t be coming online at a 

more auspicious time. Never in the history of the General Services 

Administration has it had so much money at one time to do good. 

It has got 22 buildings here in the District alone. They are all 

across the United States, of course. I will begin here. They are in 

my Ranking Member’s State. They are in every State of the union. 

They are in all four territories. I know they have been carefully 

chosen. 

Now, we have heard your discussion of what your office does. 

Now we need to know, given the fact that you have this opportunity with so many resources, precisely what you are doing. What 

kinds of technologies are being required in the new construction, 

for example? What kinds of strategies are being used? We need to 

know if they are being used in all 22 buildings here and all across 

the United States. We understand it depends upon what is happening in the building. 

We are trying to get an idea of some examples of the involvement—if there is involvement—of your office with the unprecedented repair, renovation, and construction now underway. Would 

you give us some of those examples? Let us know how your office 

19 

is involved, if it is directly involved, in the actual use of the stimulus funds the Congress has appropriated for the work of this Subcommittee. 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. Thank you. We are indeed directly and pretty 

intimately involved in the allocation of resources, the selection of 

projects, and the consideration of what goes into those projects. 

I think one of the more interesting things that we have done 

since the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

is to create a series of standardized specifications for various technologies to be included in buildings. We have been working with 

the Department of Energy and several of the national laboratories 

under the Department of Energy to develop those. 

Most particularly, I will highlight what we are doing with roofs. 

Every roof that was in serious need of replacement in the next two 

years we examined for four different possible technologies: integrated photovoltaic membranes, crystalline panels of photovoltaic 

energy production, cool roof technology generally, and planted 

roofs. All of them have standardized specifications that we have 

worked out with the Department of Energy as well as with our 

legal council. These are being used in every contract across the 

Country, both here in the District as well as all across the Country. 

In lighting, we have worked with the Department of Energy, the 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and the National Electrical 

Manufacturers Association to develop a series of seven different 

technical specifications for different lighting systems. What we are 

trying to get across is the idea that lighting technology in the last 

10 years has changed dramatically. The typical approach that you 

hear about from sort of Joe’s Garage Manufacturer and Lightbulb 

Replacement Company is that all you do is you go in and you replace the lamp. You take out a 32 watt lamp and put in a 28 watt 

lamp and you save something. 

But what has happened is that in many of our office buildings 

you have lighting conditions that were designed on standards that 

were developed before the personal computer was even invented. 

We need to completely rethink the way lighting is done in the 

buildings. 

We need to split the systems, have just a little bit of light in the 

ceilings, and recognize that actually what has happened in our 

buildings is that we have too much light. Office buildings in this 

Country have 400 times more electric light today than they did in 

1900. Our eyes haven’t gotten 400 times worse. We need to really 

harvest the daylight that is there. 

I remember vividly the Chairwoman coming into one hearing, 

dramatically opening the windows behind the chair, and saying we 

could really use a little bit more of the light. Of course, we were 

then seeing the CNN camera crew at the other end wince as their 

cameras no longer could focus on the Members. But that is very, 

very possible in today’s environment. 

What we are finding is that even today, compared to the retrofits 

we did in the 1990s, we can reduce consumption of energy by half 

from those even good standards back then. We can also improve 

the working environment for the people there, reducing the amount 

of glare on the screens, recognizing that most of us spend most of 

20 

the day working on devices that produce their own light so we don’t 

need to add nearly so much. 

Then we need to be working carefully with the Chief Information 

Officers of those organizations to make sure that they are using the 

appropriate technologies to reduce the energy consumption in the 

management of the devices on people’s desks. So those are a few 

of the examples of the combination of technology. 

The other thing I did want to mention is that we are systematically instituting a long term measurement process. We are working, for example, with every photovoltaic installation that we have 

to populate the Department’s of Energy database that measures 

long term production and reliability of photovoltaics. That way, we 

know what technology works and what technology works a little bit 

better as we go forward. We will be using several different technologies so this is particularly important for them. 

At the same time, we start every project by going back and looking with a highly qualified engineering team, again, one of our 

standard technical specifications, at every piece of equipment in 

the building that could and should be commissioned. Again, we are 

following the rules that are laid out in the Energy Independence 

and Security Act for re-and retro-commissioning, using that as the 

basis for going forward and not only designing changes to the 

building’s systems but also measuring as we go forward. We want 

to make sure that those savings are achieved. 

Ms. NORTON. It looks like you are involved, Mr. Kampschroer. 

That is what we want to be sure of. These are important to note. 

Mr. Crawley, you have heard some of what Mr. Kampschroer is 

doing. I was interested in your testimony discussion of research, especially as I heard Mr. Kampschroer’s testimony. Here we have two 

offices—the GSA certainly needed its own office given its own inventory and its own needs—but I am interested in the relationship 

of these offices to research. 

Let me indicate what my bias is. I am and always have been a 

strong supporter of the work we are doing here. But I have my 

doubts about the impact we are going to have even if we got everyone in the Country to do what they are supposed to do. The instinct 

of the national population is to believe in inevitable progress and 

that you are not supposed to make sacrifices. Therefore, in my own 

thinking about greening and climate change, I am far more interested in technology. 

I drive a hybrid car. I don’t know how D.C. is so long in getting 

a plug-in car. Even that, it seems like we should be beyond batteries by this time. We have only begun to fight, as they say. But 

at least that is an example of where people could switch immediately based simply on a technological change. That has been 

within our grasp for a very long time and we just have only begun 

to use it, certainly to any significant degree, in this Country. 

So I think we have got to press people as hard as we can to do 

all the things we are doing. I was raised to turn off lights and the 

rest of it. But to have a kind of cosmic impact that we better begin 

to have if we are serious about climate change, we have got to have 

a view of how bad it is, how it shot up so quickly, and then what 

is really available to us. 

21 

Now, Mr. Kampschroer is looking at advanced lighting and heating and the rest. On page two, you list areas of research of the very 

same kind with ventilation and air conditioning. With the kind of 

limitation on funds that we have and the deficit that we have, I 

would be particularly interested in how much actual sharing, particularly in the research area, can be done. The last thing we need 

to do is have one office duplicating the other, especially when it 

comes to frontier research of the kind it is going to take to have 

any difference, if at all, in the short term on climate change. I 

would like that difference to come while there is still an Earth, a 

planet here. 

So could I ask you about how you know whether or not Mr. 

Kampschroer, who works, for example, in the commercial office 

area that hugely overlaps with yours, whether you know even what 

he is doing? How do you envision working with him so that you 

and Mr. Kampschroer aren’t spending Federal dollars doing the 

same work on ventilation or heating, particularly given the advanced science, advanced techniques, and frankly the advanced and 

costly personnel it takes to make any kind of breakthroughs? How 

do you avoid duplication? 

Mr. CRAWLEY. I think we are already avoiding duplication. Mr. 

Kampschroer and my office have been coordinating for several 

years, even before the Energy Independence and Security Act 

asked us specifically to coordinate and to work together. Particularly with the Recovery Act funding, we have been supporting his 

work. Specifically, the expertise of our labs and our other consultants provide technical support. 

He mentioned lighting. We were able to produce specifications for 

the office sector, taking the knowledge we already had from our research, giving it to them directly, and understanding their needs. 

GSA has also been very supportive in the work that we have 

been doing. They are, as we have already heard, a leader in this 

area. They have helped us in establishing our energy alliances. In 

the commercial sector, Kevin and his team have been very supportive in helping us establish best practices since they know what 

works well and what information we can get out into the private 

sector. Also, those alliances are a way for us to learn what research 

needs to be done. Are there technologies in the market today that 

can meet those needs? If not, then our research will support GSA 

and our other Federal agency partners that we are working with 

today. 

Ms. NORTON. I very much appreciate that. The funds will be 

scarce. Did you want to say something, Mr. Kampschroer, on that? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. If possible. One of the other things I did 

want to mention is that when the national laboratories and the Department of Energy are looking for locations in which to do research in actual operating buildings, GSA typically will work with 

them to supply those buildings. Thus, we make the use of actual 

operating buildings. 

We just actually completed with Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory a study on different kinds of filter materials for cooling 

systems in a building that we operate in Cottage Way. So they do 

the research and we provide the place in which to do the research. 

Ms. NORTON. So you are the laboratory? 

22 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. Yes. The guinea pigs, you might say. 

Ms. NORTON. I like that. Indeed, it seems to me the GSA ought 

to have to do virtually no research. You have at your disposal all 

of the Energy labs and the advanced science, perhaps more so than 

any civilian agency. For that matter, I would hope that the Defense 

Department, which has more money rolling around than anybody, 

would be useful to us all. 

I want to ask Mr. Uhalde about these green jobs because I am 

real mixed up about green jobs. I want to make sure this doesn’t 

become a racket. 

I remember when we had our first big Stimulus hearing asking 

the unions and the manufacturers about—particularly, was I interested in the workforce—how interchangeable the workforce was 

and the rest. I certainly recognize that at a certain level there 

would be a certain kind of training. I must say that they assured 

us that the workforce was interchangeable. I am sure that you 

have journeymen and the rest who are already doing this work. 

It occurs to me that much of the work does not or should not, 

in fact, take a lot of training. When we use the term ‘‘green jobs,’’ 

it sounds very mysterious because it covers a multitude of either 

sins or skills that are not spelled out. So I am interested in the levels of jobs that we are calling green jobs. They would go all the way 

up the scale, all the way up to the electrician and the engineer. 

Would you start at the lowest level and make me understand the 

skill level that is necessary and whether it is so terribly much to 

do? What kind of training would it take? Help me understand what 

I mean—which I do not know—by lowest level. Then, to the best 

of your ability, go on from there to where you think you hit a 

threshold where considerable training is necessary. Then what are 

you talking about? Is it on the job training, school training, and the 

rest? Thank you. 

Mr. UHALDE. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. The study that I 

cited in my testimony, the Occupational Information Network, did 

identify many occupations that we currently know and are very familiar with. They, in some sense, have what has been referred to 

as a green patina. There are aspects of the occupation and knowledge that are changing because of energy efficiency and renewable 

energy emphases. 

For example, you could have workers who worked in the auto industry in stamping plants who now can be working in the wind 

turbine manufacturing sector. They are continuing to work in a 

stamping plant are but stamping out metals for wind turbines. 

Similarly, being able to assemble wind turbines on the ground, 

maybe wind turbine assemblers are assemblers that might have 

been working in another field. It is the nature of the product that 

makes it a green job as opposed to the actual skills. 

But we are also learning, like in construction, that there are just 

certain competencies that need to be paid attention to that weren’t 

before. We need much more attention to waste management and 

disposal as well as the identification and treatment of renewable 

waste products. 

Ms. NORTON. But isn’t that a management as opposed to a worker issue? 

23 

Mr. UHALDE. But then the worker has to be given the knowledge 

and has to be able to be sensitive to the fact that they have to pay 

attention to these. 

Ms. NORTON. But you don’t have to be a rocket scientist. 

Mr. UHALDE. We are not talking many, many years or even 

months in many cases. For example, we are interested in career 

advancement, so maybe weatherization tasks, that is the energy 

auditing that is required and then the remediation and installation 

of weatherization products, and weatherizing residential neighborhoods might be considered at the entry level of a career latter in 

this. We have recently spoken with community action programs 

who are doing a lot of the weatherization work. The training and 

certification can be a matter of three or four weeks for energy auditors in that work area. 

Ms. NORTON. Is there anybody that certifies any of these people 

who are all going to now say they can do green job training? 

Mr. UHALDE. Well, what they certify in this case is weatherization, both energy auditors and into the area of remediation and installation of weatherization. 

Ms. NORTON. It is important what you said about how you are 

usually referring to the job as opposed to some set of skills. I recognize that when we get into some of the areas we have been discussing, obviously, you are talking about some specialties, people 

already have the skills but need to get a little more knowledge and 

information. I just want to make sure that everyone understands 

that a lot of this work, and I think the majority of this work, is 

not very advanced. 

Mr. UHALDE. That is correct. Some of it is not and it is as I said, 

putting a green patina on existing occupations. But others like environmental technicians and stuff are very much growing occupations. There are two year community college programs and certificates. They are very important as augmentations to engineers and 

water quality technicians and so forth. 

Ms. NORTON. We want to encourage people to pursue those 

growth occupations. We, of course, are particularly interested in 

the Stimulus funding for jobs that can be done now. That is the 

reason for my question. You don’t have to go to school to get many 

of these jobs or you go to school for a short time and it is worth 

that training. 

Mr. Helsel, when your building was going up, I thought it was 

sent from heaven. I can tell you as a native Washingtonian, that 

strip of land, if anything, was seen as a throw-away strip. There 

was a little park on one end but it was so oddly shaped that no 

one would have thought, frankly, that what would ever replace it 

would be a building. Its shape did not invite a building. But you 

have changed the entire environment by placing a building there. 

I would be particularly interested in why you chose this space. 

Since the building has been up, I remember I went to the opening 

of the building, almost ten years ago, is it? 

Mr. HELSEL. It was 2004, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. You may be able to talk to us about savings you 

have already seen and when they began to kick in. I understand, 

for example, there has been some water reduction but there may 

24 

be others. If you could, speak about this first green building in the 

Nation’s capital. 

Mr. HELSEL. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. First, I would say 

that when we set out to find a new home for the National Association of Realtors, we did so with a number of criteria. One was that 

we wanted to be fairly close to the Capitol. We wanted the legislature to see that we were serious about doing what we wanted to 

do, which was to be in the Nation’s capital. That occurred when 

people were still not sure how much they wanted to build after 9/ 

11, frankly. We started this process right after 9/11. When the 

building went into service in 2004, it was significantly after that. 

It was after a lot of work. 

We also wanted to go to an area where we thought we could help 

the neighborhood. As you have said better than I could, that neighborhood needed some work done in it. I think it was with a little 

bit of help from people like you in the District, from the District 

of Columbia itself, and from the Realtors that we saw the advantage of taking a site that maybe some people did not want to touch 

by virtue of some things like Brownfields. 

We thought we could not only help the environment and the 

neighborhood geographically, but we could do something that the 

Realtors could be proud of as well. We could say look what we have 

done for our Country as it relates to environmental issues and 

things like that. So there were a number of things that went into 

that. 

I will be honest with you: When we started the process, we didn’t 

start the process thinking we would go with a LEED certified 

building. It was shortly after we got on site, purchased the land, 

and began to do work that we decided that was the right thing to 

do. We made the decision at that point. 

To your question that relates to savings, I think I said in my testimony that we save somewhere in the neighborhood of about 30 

to 31 percent in water savings a year. We gather water off the roof 

and off the flat surfaces of the property, which we keep in underground tanks. We use that for rewatering of plants and things like 

that both on the rooftop terraces as well as on the surface of the 

land around the building. We also do things like waterless urinals. 

We have flow restrictors on a lot of things. We have done a lot of 

things like that from a water standpoint that have been very beneficial. It is about 30 or 31 percent. 

We also did some things with electric that were interesting. 

There was a lot of discussion a little bit earlier about lighting with 

buildings. We actually have taken our building and, as some of you 

know, the building is enveloped in glass. We have taken not just 

the natural ambient light from the outside but we have also decided that we can’t just have ambient light. We need to be able to 

adjust lighting based on what people need in their workstation 

areas. That building is set up more in workstations than it is in 

private offices, though there are both. So we use light sensors in 

the building. 

You will find that the lights in those buildings rise or fall in 

terms of brightness based on the ambient light that comes in from 

the outside, which has been a great savings from an electrical 

standpoint. You don’t see the difference; you don’t notice the difVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:09 Oct 28, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\51111 JASON
25 

ference when you are sitting in your cubicle. But it occurs on a 

daily basis, whether it is cloudy, whether it is light, whether you 

are on the east or west side of the building. We have done some 

things like that that have been helpful as well. 

I would say, if you said to me what is the overall savings we gain 

on an annual basis, probably somewhere between 12 and 15 percent over the operational costs of what it would have been had we 

not gone LEED certified. It varies a little bit depending upon the 

year, depending upon what happens with weather inside and outside. No matter how well we have enveloped the interior of the 

building, the exterior weather certainly affects what happens. So 

from a practical standpoint, I am comfortable saying 12 to 15 percent on an annualized basis. That figures in as well the 30 percent 

on water so it is kind of a blended rate, if you will. 

Ms. NORTON. So these systems are paying for themselves? 

Mr. HELSEL. They are. Our estimates were when we built the 

buildings that most of the systems would repay themselves in either three to five years or five to seven years. That is not totally 

true of everything but it is a good average for what we did. 

Ms. NORTON. That payback is so demonstrative; it is so compelling that I don’t see how you could build an office building without 

it today. Of course, you didn’t know in 2004 what we know today. 

Mr. Kampschroer, I heard you testify as well as Mr. Crawley, but 

let me ask Mr. Kampschroer about what we are doing. Then I am 

going to go straight to Mr. Diaz-Balart. 

You talked about over-lighting. Now, you have got this magic opportunity with the DHS building. I hadn’t even heard of this in an 

office building where there are kind of self-adjustments based on 

the lighting. 

We just got in the Capitol a system where, if you step into a hallway, they can feel you or see you and then the lighting comes up 

a little bit. That is where we are. I don’t think anywhere in the 

Capitol is the light adjusted based on the kind of outside lights you 

have and the rest of it. 

So I am going to ask you, when you are doing lighting, have you 

any knowledge of this system installed in 2004 when you are doing 

the 22 buildings here and the buildings across the United States 

with the over-lighting? Are you using these light sensors, for example, that were just described by Mr. Helsel, who was one of the first 

LEED buildings? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. Yes, we are. In fact, it is part of our standard 

specifications that we use variable ballasts. For every light fixture 

or light luminaire in the ceiling that is within 15 feet of the exterior window, they have an adjustable ballast that performs exactly 

was just described. 

Ms. NORTON. On their own, self-adjusting? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. Self-adjusting. Furthermore, we even have 

one installation that we are using as part of our standard specifications when we can where the lighting is tied to individual occupancy. You just described walking into a room and the room lights 

go on. What we are talking about here is the individual desk being 

tied into the control system so that if I am not sitting at my desk, 

the lights automatically go off no matter what is going on, person 

by person. Then furthermore, we allow the individual person to 

26 

override what the controls say. If they happen to be doing work 

where they need more light, they can turn it on. Or, as frequently 

happens in my office, I override the controls and they go off. 

Ms. NORTON. Excellent. I just wanted to make sure we were at 

least current with 2004 and Mr. Helsel. 

Mr. Diaz-Balart? 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I think this 

has been fascinating. It is just amazing cutting edge technology, 

which obviously is very exciting. 

By the way, Congresswoman Fallin did, I think, submit some 

questions to the Chairwoman. If you all could have a chance to look 

at those and make sure that she gets a response, we would greatly 

appreciate that. Thank you. We just have to take care of that house 

cleaning part first. 

I am going to go back to, frankly, a very basic issue. I keep harping on this but it is pretty evident why I keep harping on it. I don’t 

have to tell you all where we are in the economy. This Congress and the Administration charged another $780 billion on our children and our grandchildren because it is money that 

we don’t have. With interest rates, it is over $1 trillion to create 

jobs. That was the explicit reason for that bill. That was, remember, on top of $1 trillion for TARP. That was on top of half a trillion 

dollars for the Omnibus. That was on top of the billions and billions to keep the auto industry from going into bankruptcy, which 

didn’t work because they went into bankruptcy anyway. 

We know that despite all of that, unemployment is now at 9.5 

percent, not at the 8 percent we were told it would be capped at. 

Millions of Americans are working part time jobs or less hours because there are no full time jobs available. So I am not apologetic 

about going back to this one issue, which is jobs. 

Now, I have two questions on that. I heard both in written testimony and in the testimony today that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is now working to define green jobs. So here is a question that 

kind of jumps out at you: How are Labor, GSA, and other agencies 

even measuring the number of jobs created by this funding if we 

don’t even have a measurement of what those are and how to define them? How was Labor able to determine the type of training 

needed for these green jobs when we don’t even have a definition 

of what those green jobs are yet? 

Mr. UHALDE. Mr. Diaz-Balart, when I said the Department’s of 

Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics is working to define green jobs, 

they have requested in their 2010 appropriation funds to be able 

to systematically identify and count over time on a quarterly basis 

green jobs, both the industries and then occupations, and the number of people working in those occupations. This will be over time, 

across the Country. We want to be able to identify by geography 

where these are and what the concentrations and distribution of 

those jobs are. 

But in terms of doing, for example, the job training that we have 

put out, we have a working definition of green jobs that we are 

using and that people are using. We had a discussion just a moment ago and you heard about certain craft and trade occupations 

that are developing green aspects to them, but also that there are 

applications of current jobs in new industries. For example, if we 

27 

are hooking up smart grid systems around the Country in west 

Texas, the Dakotas, and elsewhere, the line installations and stuff 

are contributing to more inexpensive and efficient energy production by hooking to wind turbines and the like. But much of the 

work that is being done is by line installers and repairers that 

have existed before. 

So what we will do over time is to decide whether and how to 

define these as green jobs or not and how many to count. But in 

practice, what the Recovery Act has done is incentivize more of 

that activity. For now, we need more workers to train in those 

areas. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Let me ask you, do we have any idea of how 

many jobs, just jobs, green and otherwise, have been created with 

the funds from the Recovery Act in your areas and how many are 

projected? This is something that the Chairwoman has always been 

very emphatic about, making sure that we can track those. 

Mr. UHALDE. Well, we don’t have the estimates of green jobs. But 

the Administration, early on for the Recovery Act, estimated that 

3.5 million would be created or retained by the last quarter of 

2010. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I understand that. They also said that unemployment would be capped at 8 percent. We are way beyond that. 

We have lost 2 million jobs since the bill passed and unemployment 

is now way above the 8 percent. 

But that is not my question. My question is do we know how 

many jobs in your areas with the Stimulus money have actually 

been created? 

Mr. UHALDE. We are going to count and report. We just got our 

first report from our Department of Labor expenditures. The first 

report, I think, for almost all of Government is July 15th. So all 

the States have reported as of yesterday their first expenditures on 

that. We will start doing that on a monthly basis starting this 

month. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Great. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank 

you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. The Ranking Member is 

right. He mentioned a favorite of mine, which is jobs. It is also a 

favorite of the Administration. It is the whole point of the Stimulus 

funds. The second priority, of course, was energy conservation. 

Going to jobs, let me tell you, Mr. Kampschroer, I had a discussion with a high official a couple of weeks ago at GSA after I had 

labored to get specific funds, albeit only $3 million, placed into the 

stimulus package for pre-apprentice and apprenticeship programs. 

There was no action, even though some of this work isn’t begun, 

that he was able to tell me had been taken. I began to rattle off 

common sense things to do without knowing what to do. 

Meanwhile, at the last big hearing that the Chairman had here 

on Stimulus jobs, I asked the Department of Transportation, which 

has a comparable labor force, what it was doing. I asked them if 

necessary to work with GSA. The Federal Highway Administration 

now has more money—$20 million, that is not a lot either—but it 

has got a two-pronged approach going. It has solicited proposals. 

Its Office of Civil Rights has jurisdiction. 

28 

Let us be clear why. This industry, the construction industry, 

was once and is no longer, I am pleased to say, the most segregated 

industry in the United States. It was not because they set out to 

be that way, but because they had a father/son/nephew way of 

doing jobs. People who weren’t nephews or sons, mainly women 

and people of color, simply were not in the industry at all. The 

courts took action. The Federal Government, along with the industry and Labor, set up a very good labor management Government 

enterprise. It was abolished in 1980 after it got a generation of no 

appreciable systematic addition of minorities and women to this 

workforce. 

Meanwhile, the workforce is aging out. Before the collapse of the 

economy, there were actual shortages of journeymen, for example, 

in most of the trades. So I was heartbroken to hear that the GSA 

had been so slow. They know my priority on this issue. They also 

know I worked very hard to get them the biggest project in the 

Stimulus package. 

So I have got to ask you, where is GSA on its decision about how 

to incorporate the funds that were specifically appropriated to the 

GSA for pre-apprentice and apprenticeship training of people who 

have not had access to such training in the Country? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. Thank you. First of all, our memorandum of 

understanding between ourselves and the Department of Labor has 

been completely executed at the beginning of this month. 

Ms. NORTON. You’re what? I am sorry. 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. We have a memorandum of understanding 

between ourselves and the Department of Labor which identifies 

who is doing what within our programs to identify both apprenticeship and pre-apprenticeship programs, to make sure people are 

properly certified to do them, and how best to apply the funds 

across the Country. We are currently identifying projects and locations on the spending plan that we submitted earlier. 

Where registered apprenticeship programs already exist, we expect a complete report on that by the end of next week. For every 

project that we identify on the list, the construction contractors will 

be required to maintain the apprenticeship program throughout the 

duration of the construction of those buildings. We have already developed contract language and provisions to encertain those contracts modeled on those that have already been successful in the 

national capital region of GSA. 

We are meeting with the Department of Transportation on the 

31st of July to find ways of optimizing our resources and contract 

vehicles to more effectively implement apprenticeship programs in 

GSA and to see if we can’t have some kind of cross-fertilization between the two agencies. 

We have hired a consultant to help identify State and community 

based organizations that currently offer pre-apprenticeship programs including on the job training, classroom training, and work/ 

life training that assist us in developing new pre-apprenticeship 

programs in areas that are deemed most needy across the Country 

and are located where we have Recovery Act funded projects. We 

expect the initial report on how we are going to design that by, 

again, the end of next week. 

29 

That is sort of the nutshell version of where we are today. We 

would be happy to provide further detail if you desire. 

Ms. NORTON. The Chair expresses her profound disappointment 

in what I have just heard. If you had a lot of money, I could understand the bureaucratic approach you have taken of first let us consult with the Department of Labor. The Department of Labor 

knows a lot and it has a lot of money to do what it is going to do. 

You got three million lousy dollars. The notion of treating that $3 million as if there needs to be 

some Government-wide consultation as opposed to forming a 

taskforce of some kind to consider, because you know exactly why 

these funds were put in and you know the embarrassment to the 

Country when people go out on these jobs and see that there are 

not people trained to do the jobs, it makes sense for you to have 

consulted with Labor, but I don’t see how that could have kept the 

GSA from looking at its own, given the small amount of money and 

the need to spend it with the summer coming up. That is the prime 

building season and you have now wasted half of it while you consult. 

Let me tell you, I don’t know why the Department of Transportation has been able to get up and running so much more quickly, 

but it may be because the Civil Rights people were in charge. They 

understood why this money is in there in the first place. There are 

millions of Americans who aren’t trained to do this work, even at 

the lowest levels. Pre-apprenticeship is necessary in order to get 

them even a foothold in the apprenticeship. 

The national capital region program is irrelevant. It is a certified 

apprentice program. I am grateful for it. But it is a program merely 

to make sure that if you are an apprentice on a Federal job here, 

you are a certified apprentice. It keeps jackleg apprentice programs 

from occurring in the national capital region. It has absolutely 

nothing to do with the $3 million, which are training funds. Even 

looking at that program shows me that the Agency has not paid attention to the purpose of the funds. 

It is very, very disappointing to me. It was not easy to get these 

funds. I am not going to go on longer except to say that I already 

spoke with a high level official. With so few funds, all this consultation is make-work. If he identified the Agency’s goals and then 

went to the Department of Labor and said these are the kinds of 

places we are thinking about going and we are thinking about 

going there because there is a critical mass—why would you want 

to do it in the first place if you are only doing a tiny bit of Federal 

work—but there is a critical mass of work to be done here and we 

don’t want to duplicate what Mr. Uhalde has much more money to 

do, just as you are coordinating with Mr. Crawley, at that point, 

when you understood what you were doing and the options available to you, it make all the sense in the world to make sure you 

weren’t duplicating what you were doing. 

This has to be done by, yes, consultants. But this is a pittance 

of money. 

Let me tell you how disappointed I am and what I am going to 

do about it: I would like the appropriate officials to meet personally 

with me, Committee staff, and my staff in my office no later than 

next week. Next week, I won’t set the date. I have no idea what 

30 

is the best date even for me. But whatever date that is, that is the 

best date for GSA to come in. There has got to be something on 

the ground. 

We are talking about on the job training. Most of the money 

should go into pre-apprenticeship programs. That program has to 

do a lot with making sure that you clear the decks of people who 

don’t even understand that an apprentice program, to be successful 

in it, you have got to be able to get up and be to work at 7:00 in 

the morning. You have to work in the heat of the day and you have 

got to be able to go to work when it is very cold. A lot of it has 

to do with training an entirely new workforce of people who have 

not been exposed. 

To the extent that we are sitting around trying to see how many 

boxes to check off before we begin to spend what amounts to two 

cents, that is all we got, and we are now into the middle of July 

and we are not even started in one place even though this area 

right here is rich with opportunities? Yes, they have got to be 

spread all over. Staff told me there was even some consideration 

of taking this $3 million and daubing in here, there, and around 

the Country. If you only have $3 million, you have got to look at 

where it can be most beneficially spent given the Congressional intent and the amount of money. So to act like you can do 50 States, 

the District of Columbia, and the four territories with $3 million 

is so pitiful that I am angry, frankly. 

You ought to know I would be angry. I have called you personally. So I want the meeting in my office. I want your preliminary 

thinking. Talk with the Department of Transportation. Find out 

how they were able to do it so quickly. Don’t come in as a blank 

check about which Federal office you are now talking about. Come 

in with some ideas of your own. We will work with you. There has 

got to be a program of some kind. 

Let me be clear: What is today? What is the date of today? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. The 16th of July. 

Ms. NORTON. Guess what? August the 1st, there has got to be 

some apprenticeship work being done with that $3 million. So get 

yourself geared up. 

This was February. You knew there was going to be a pre-apprenticeship program before February, before the bill was even 

passed. 

The Ranking Member has talked about where the jobs are. Well, 

that is a fair question but it takes time for the jobs to roll out. 

There is a lot of pressure to get the jobs out. But it doesn’t take 

a lot of time to put a training program in place that does not require anything but the preparation for people for on the job training. 

I am profoundly disappointed and will not stand it another moment, not another moment. Be in my office next week and on the 

ground somewhere by August the 1st. 

Mr. Carnahan? 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I am pleased 

to be here and to see the work that this Committee is doing with 

regard to green buildings. I wanted to, again, thank the members 

of the different Departments and the representative from the realtors for being here. 

31 

I wanted to start off with a question for Mr. Kampschroer. Unfortunately, some high-performance building systems can cease working as they have been designed over time, largely because they 

don’t receive proper building management operations or maintenance. You have touched on this point during your testimony. We 

have talked about this before. 

Do you have any estimate on what percentage of facility managers within GSA are properly certified? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. I don’t have a good percentage because there 

isn’t a standardized, nationwide certification program that really 

deals with this technology. One of the things that GSA has done 

in this area is that we have worked with Penn State University to 

develop a program for GSA employees. In the last couple of years 

we have trained nearly 700 people in various aspects of high performing buildings. 

But we do recognize that this is an industry-wide phenomenon. 

I mentioned in my statement the Building Owners and Managers 

Association and the International Facility Managers Association. 

There are also private firms like the Hines Development Company 

who have internal training programs. They have indicated their 

willingness to work with us on some kind of more significant certification program. 

But I think that this is an area that the industry as a whole is 

lacking in. It is one of the reasons that, for example, in the Energy 

Independence and Security Act there is a requirement to recommission buildings every four years. We found that in four years, as you 

mentioned, buildings get out of tune as it were. One of the things 

that we are doing to ensure that doesn’t happen with this unprecedented opportunity is to make sure that as we put in the smart 

meters we have constant monitoring systems going on. So, at the 

very minimum, we can find out with early warning systems when 

things are going out of tune and apply some greater expertise in 

there. 

But I think it is an area where we could incorporate community 

colleges. We could really look at a longer term program that would 

yield not just green jobs but also a career path that doesn’t exist 

today. There are all kinds of levels of work in buildings, from 

changing filters, which requires, as the Chairwoman says, very little training, to actually retuning and making sure that the control 

systems in buildings are tuned. That, in many cases, requires significant programming and engineering experience to understand 

what you are doing and to make sure that it continues to work. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. So, if I understand this correctly, the 700 you 

mentioned are facility managers that have had at least some level 

of training that the GSA has sponsored internally. 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. Yes. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. How many facility managers are there nationwide? I am trying to get an idea of how many people have been 

through this kind of training. 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. That is the significant majority of the people 

who are GSA employees. But we should recognize that about 96 

percent of this work is actually done through contract. 

We are at the moment changing our contract specifications to increase the requirements for training and certification of training. 

32 

But that hasn’t gone into place yet. That is a thing that we need 

to be doing more of. We have recognized that and we are tying, 

again, to work with the institutions to figure out what the best requirements are that are both available and achievable but also effective. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Tell me what kind of time line the Agency is on 

to get those kind of mechanisms in place. 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. If I could, I would get back to you with that 

when I have the accurate information. I don’t have that with me. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. If you could provide that to me and the Committee, that would be very useful. I appreciate your acknowledgment of this in terms of the operational expertise and training for 

buildings as we are improving their performance. 

The next question I had was for Mr. Crawley. You mentioned the 

High-Performance Green Building Consortium under the Commercial Buildings Initiative at DOE as a DOE/private sector effort to 

advance technologies. But I understand that DOE has yet to recognize the participating groups. Can you give us an update on the 

status of those partnership programs? 

Mr. CRAWLEY. Yes. There was a solicitation from the Department 

out six or eight weeks ago. That closed on Tuesday of this week. 

We will be looking to make a selection in the next few weeks. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. What would be the process beyond that point? 

Mr. CRAWLEY. At that point, the consortium that is selected 

through the competitive solicitation is actually contractually working with the Department. We will be working with them to set a 

program of work over the next few months and the contract is put 

in place. Recognized corsortia will also be put on our website. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. I will look forward to seeing that up 

and going. 

Back to Mr. Kampschroer, I would like you to share with us 

what has been your experience with using energy saving performance contracts and how we can increase their use within the Government sector. We have heard some success stories about those 

being used here and overseas in terms of Government entities 

being able to basically at no up front cost be able to have these 

companies come in and retrofit buildings. Part of the cost savings 

from the energy use is passed on to the Government entity and 

part goes to the companies that are doing the work. I want to see 

what kind of opportunities there are to use this mechanism to 

begin to retrofit our buildings. 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. Thank you. Energy savings performance contracts and their twin with utilities, the utility energy savings contracts, have been used in GSA for more than a decade. We currently have 52 active energy savings performance contracts and 

utility energy savings contracts across the Country with a total investment amount of over $200 million and an annual BTU savings 

of one million million BTUs through the use of energy savings performance contracts. 

The Department of Energy has recently established a new contract with a greater number of firms, 16 firms, under the Super 

ESPC contract. Those are for large jobs. GSA, though its schedules 

program, is establishing some of the energy performance features 

33 

into the schedules that we already have for energy contracts that 

will deal with the smaller jobs that other agencies may have. 

We are currently negotiating energy savings performance contracts that are in conjunction with Recovery Act spending where 

we have decided where the best use of the Federal dollars is. Then 

firms are being solicited to do additional work with private financing so that we get the best total energy conservation in the building. 

The key to all of this is solid negotiation with good technical 

backup. We use technical backup from the Department of Energy 

as well as some that is privately contracted directly with GSA to 

ensure that we have got the best engineering reports on hand. For 

Recovery Act projects, as I mentioned before, we are doing an independent commissioning of the building first, which gives us even 

better baseline information before we even go into negotiations 

with the energy services companies. 

We have also dealt directly with the Association of Energy Service Companies to try and encourage them to propose not just the 

short and easy low hanging fruit, or as Secretary Chu says the 

fruit on the ground, but rather to really give us the proposals that 

stretch the limits of capabilities that are available in the technology but that also will give us the most durable benefits over 

time. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Is this being done, in terms of vetting these 

firms and getting them involved, is that being done centrally here 

or is that being done throughout the various GSA regions in the 

Country? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. The individual contracts are negotiated in 

the various regions around the Country. However, the contracts are 

reviewed in the national office before award for two overriding reasons. First of all, we want to make sure that the engineering is 

adequate and we have gotten the best possible deal for the Government. Number two, we want to make sure that the asset value is 

actually being increased by the performance of these contracts and 

that we have the appropriate measurement criteria as we go forward. 

I have one other point. The pre-qualification of all of the firms 

was done nationally by the Department of Energy in the ESPC program. So every firm we deal with is already pre-qualified and has 

a negotiated contract. So we are in essence issuing task orders 

under a master contract. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. 

The next question is really to all the participants. It is related 

to what I believe is a fundamental problem with how we manage 

the construction and maintenance of our Federal building stock. As 

you all know, we have a Congressionally approved budget for acquisition and a totally separate budget for yearly operations. Often 

the responsibilities of these budgets are in two separate organizational elements with different leadership and reporting responsibilities. 

This means that any investment in innovation that increases our 

acquisition cost, while substantially reducing the long term cost of 

operations, is not considered. This is a fundamental dichotomy. I 

34 

believe it creates a misalignment between setting goals for highperformance buildings and achieving these goals. 

There is no short answer for this but I would like to ask each 

of you to comment on this dichotomy and whether you have any 

thoughts on how this can be better coordinated. We will start with 

Mr. Kampschroer. We will go from you and then to your left. 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. This really is a no short answer question. I 

wish I knew the answer to it because then I would be advocating 

it right here and now. I suspect it is going to require a combination 

of the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch working together to figure out a different way to handle the dichotomy that 

you point out. 

One of the things that has happened that I think improves the 

situation, and it actually came from this Committee into the Energy Independence and Security Act, was the lengthening of the 

time over which we can make life cycle cost analyses from 25 to 

40 years. That enables us to make better sets of decisions, especially for those pieces of technology that have a longer life span as 

well as for those components of buildings like the envelope, windows, roof, and so on that last longer but increase capital. As Ms. 

Fallin mentioned, geothermal ground source heat pump systems, 

which have a significantly higher capital cost, certainly pay off in 

lowered operating costs and lower energy consumption over time. 

I am not exactly sure, in a nutshell, what the right answer is. 

But it is some way of linking the two budget activities. 

I think another key is changing the measurement systems for the 

people who are in charge of projects. If today we measure only the 

budget and the schedule of the capital, you are inherently not going 

to measure the long term effects of the building. We have to have 

that feedback loop of the long term effects to make sure that in fact 

decisions that are made during the course of the project are those 

that will yield the greatest overall benefit and not the greatest 

short term or initial cost benefit. 

One of the things that we have proposed to bridge that gap in 

GSA’s budget this year was a line item in the budget that would 

allow us to apply it without regard to the original budget cost to, 

say, a project that started without a geothermal system, for example. We could say that actually this makes a lot of sense and it 

should have been designed in originally. It wasn’t in the original 

budget so let us add it in. This gave us sort of a flexible funding 

mechanism that could be applied to projects, regardless of the initial budget, to improve the long term benefits. That is in this year’s 

appropriation request. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. 

Mr. CRAWLEY. Thank you. The dichotomy you are talking about 

for the Federal sector is also there as well for the private sector. 

We see a lot of organizations that have that same problem where 

the operation budget is separate from the capital budget. So it is 

very difficult for them to make decisions. 

The ones that are most successful have combined those. I am 

thinking of a national grocery store chain where the people responsible for construction of new stores, and they were building many 

new stores every year, also were responsible for the operation 

maintenance of those stores. So they knew the decisions they made 

35 

in construction would make an impact. They were also responsible 

for reporting to the CFO and their chairman on operating costs. 

With very low margins in the grocery sector, an energy impact was 

taken very seriously because it affected their bottom line. 

Like Mr. Kampschroer, I don’t think there is a simple answer. 

But the ones that are looking at it in a comprehensive bottom line 

aspect when they make a capital dollar investment today including 

what are the long term operating aspects of that and can they improve, are really the ones that are being more effective. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. Mr. Helsel. 

Mr. HELSEL. I agree there is a dichotomy and no, I am not sure 

I agree with Mr. Kampschroer approach on this issue. I think there 

is a dichotomy. I absolutely agree with him there. 

I will tell you what we do in the real estate business. We are 

really talking about managing real property right now, as I understand it. We look at both our operating budget and we look at our 

capital budget. We decide what we can do with the capital budget 

based on what the operating budget is allowing us to do based on 

how much money we make, frankly, on a building. Private industry 

would say that works well if you watchdog your buildings well. If 

you don’t watchdog your buildings well, it doesn’t work so well. 

So the dichotomy that Mr. Kampschroer speaks of is absolutely 

correct. Unfortunately, it falls between several different agencies 

within the Federal Government, which makes it very difficult to try 

and work those things out. 

But there are other groups who could also, I think, enter into 

there who can help Mr. Kampschroer work on that. It is a huge 

project. It is not going to happen overnight. I agree with him in 

terms of the difficulty and the long term look at how things will 

occur. 

But I can tell you that, and I will be rather self-serving when I 

say this, there is a group called the Institute of Real Estate Management which provides the preeminent designation for property 

management in the United States. It is called the CPM designation. I didn’t hear Mr. Kampschroer suggest that they were helping 

GSA do that job or that they have contacted them. It is not an unfair comment or meant to disagree with Mr. Kampschroer. I just 

think there are other groups in the private industry who do this 

on a day to day basis. 

Typically, I find private industry manages real property better 

than some of the governmental agencies with which I have done 

work. I just shake my head because I don’t understand how they 

do it. I am not sure that is the case with GSA. My experience has 

not been with GSA, in fairness to Mr. Kampschroer. It has been 

with State agencies. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. I would be interested in getting more information about that program and also seeing if there are ways the Government can learn from what you are doing in the private sector. 

Mr. HELSEL. We will make sure you get the information. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam 

Chair. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Carnahan. 

Mr. Crawley, you may recall that my interest is in making GSA 

not even a leader, but the leader. The Government, it seems to me, 

36 

can’t go about telling everybody else what to do if it owns a comparable set of buildings and isn’t doing it itself. So I would like to 

ask you whether in your coordination with GSA you find that the 

goal of the Government through the GSA, speaking only to the 

GSA, is to exceed private sector standards in the statute and in 

practice? Or are we simply trying to meet them? Or are we even 

trying to meet them? 

Mr. CRAWLEY. In our work with GSA, we very much have seen 

that they are looking to get the best results that they can within 

the constraints provided. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Crawley, that is what everyone is trying to do. 

I am asking about goals. I am not asking are they achieving them. 

They are limited in part by what we give them in funds and the 

rest. But we have got a statute here that says, Mr. Helsel, there 

are certain kinds of things you ought to be doing now. You have 

got the GSA. All you have to do is look at both of them. I am asking are the goals of the GSA to exceed Mr. Helsel’s standards or 

not? 

Mr. CRAWLEY. Yes, they are. 

Ms. NORTON. It seems to me that Mr. Helsel, who was a leader 

and whose realtors have been leaders, ought to be trying to catch 

up with GSA. That is what the Subcommittee is going to be looking 

to see. The standard you are setting has to look at the office building sector all over the Country, for example. 

Is it not true that office building sector is more responsible for 

our carbon footprint than any other part? 

Mr. CRAWLEY. It is the largest part of the commercial building 

sector. 

Ms. NORTON. No, I am saying commercial buildings as opposed 

to residential buildings and cars. Which creates the biggest carbon 

footprint? 

Mr. CRAWLEY. Currently, the residential sector and the commercial sector are about equal, both around 20 percent. 

Ms. NORTON. We are the largest in the commercial building sector? 

Mr. CRAWLEY. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. Now, that means we have an enormous capacity because we are now tipping into more leasing than owning. We have 

enormous capacity, beyond what Mr. Kampschroer is trying to do 

with his own inventory, to change the Country. The gold standard 

for leases is to get yourself Federal lease. 

I ought to first ask Mr. Kampschroer, to what extent does leasing 

require the standards that we have set for ourselves in our own inventory as an item in the RFP, which the GSA uses in deciding 

who rehabilitates, who constructs, et cetera? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. I mentioned earlier that beginning in 2010 

we will require every building that we move into greater than 

10,000 square feet to have an ENERGY STAR rating within the 

most recent year of operation. 

Ms. NORTON. Say that again. By when? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. By 2010. 

Ms. NORTON. That we construct? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. That we lease. 

Ms. NORTON. That we lease? 

37 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. Yes, every building over 10,000 square feet 

that we lease. There are a few exceptions that are specific in the 

law. But we have been out publicizing that relatively new requirement. 

Ms. NORTON. And that means that those buildings will have to 

have what? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. An ENERGY STAR rating, which means that 

they would have to submit information to the Department of Energy and be certified by a professional engineer. It means that they 

would be in the top 25 percent of efficiency for buildings that are 

available in the private sector. 

That is a significant change because in this Country, unlike 

many developed countries, the standard is not to submeter electrical costs to the tenant. Here it is just sort of lumped into the 

overall rent rate. In most of Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and Japan, the tenants actually pay directly for the electrical 

cost and there is a different kind of relationship that you develop 

with the tenant as the result of that. What the ENERGY STAR 

rating does is it starts to put us on a similar kind of footing where 

both we and the tenant are motivated to make changes. 

I should also note, too, that if you compare GSA’s current inventory, even before the effects of the Recovery Act, our inventory operates at about 26 percent less energy consumption than the commercial comparables. This is in large part due to the long standing 

emphasis on energy conservation, certainly since the late 1970s, 

that has been in law. That has affected our decisions and also the 

investment that the Government has made in energy conservation 

activities over time. 

Ms. NORTON. Indeed. As I noted in my opening statement, GSA 

is new to energy conservation. But with Mr. Helsel at the same 

table with Dr. Crawley, who deals not only with our public sector 

but of course with our private sector, you see here an owner that 

moved ahead of the breakthrough energy bill. I know that your office deals perhaps primarily with the private sector in not only 

homes but office buildings, Mr. Helsel, but have you had any relationship with the Department of Energy programs? Do you know 

about those programs? 

Mr. HELSEL. I have not personally had any. I know the National 

Association of Realtors has put together some pamphlets and some 

training pieces of material that are good for the consumer. In fact, 

I mentioned them. Somewhere inside of my testimony, I mentioned 

where we have actually worked with the Department of Energy to 

help educate the public on how they could reduce energy costs and 

things like that. So that is the extent of what I can tell you now 

in relation to what we have done with the Department of Energy. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Crawley, would you indicate what kind of relationship your office would have with a typical building owner in the 

local jurisdictions across the United States? 

Mr. CRAWLEY. With a typical building owner, we don’t have a lot 

of direct activity. We have been working with a number of organizations through our energy alliances. The Commercial Real Estate 

Energy Alliance, with which GSA and Mr. Kampschroer’s office are 

involved, involves over 40 organizations. The leading owners of 

commercial real estate in the Country came together to help us deVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:09 Oct 28, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\51111 JASON
38 

termine what research needed to be done but also what changes in 

practices and procurement we could help them with through specifications and other work. 

Ms. NORTON. In this city, I have often had the impression, of 

course, this city may well not be typical and in fact in many ways 

it is not, that the private sector has long ago understood what was 

to be gained by energy conservation. The Federal Government may 

have had a lot to do with that, as a matter of fact, because of our 

leasing here. 

But to what extent is there a consciousness that they are sitting 

on top of some real money in the private sector if they are not investing in energy efficient systems? Take aside the recession where 

people can’t invest in anything. Is there a consciousness so that you 

see a rapid movement on the part of building owners into saving 

themselves some money, let us say, since the terrible rise in energy 

costs here? 

Mr. CRAWLEY. We are seeing that. The leaders in the market are 

making changes in their buildings. They are beginning to see energy as a real cost center that they can take advantage of to improve their bottom line. Even in the recession they are seeing it as 

an opportunity to save money and cut costs. 

Ms. NORTON. But of course, Mr. Helsel, they don’t have quite the 

funds and they can’t go to the banks today to make the initial investment. So what do they do? 

Mr. HELSEL. Well, what you just said is true. But I will tell you, 

much to Dr. Crawley’s point, that now more than ever the private 

industry is looking at how we can save dollars everywhere. They 

will look at the cost savings and the benefits of doing something 

now when times are tough, when we are losing tenants, when we 

can’t refinance, and do things like that. We are taking extra time 

and effort to find where we can save dollars. Energy is the first 

place we look. 

Ms. NORTON. You sometimes have to do it low-tech first because 

this does take some initial investment, doesn’t it? 

Mr. HELSEL. You are correct. But I would say that the impetus 

on everyone, including the private sector, is as strong or stronger 

now than it ever was. If there is money to be spent somewhere on 

a building right now, one of the first places we look is how we can 

save energy. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Uhalde, I think that people need to understand 

more about these green jobs. You, in your testimony on page five 

point, to May 2008 wages and you say that construction and extraction occupations pay a median hourly rate of $18.24 as opposed 

to $15.57 for all occupations. Is this journeyman pay you are talking about? You say research shows that green construction jobs 

may be well paying. But then, as you go on, you do not indicate 

that these rates are for green construction jobs. I have to assume 

that they are construction industry jobs? 

Mr. UHALDE. That is correct. 

Ms. NORTON. If a person were to be trained to be an apprentice 

or a journeyman today, would that normally mean that those who 

were doing the training would incorporate some green training 

based on the way in which the Country is moving? 

39 

Mr. UHALDE. That is correct. The building and trades and all the 

apprenticeship programs now are currently building in the latest 

aspects of green construction into those apprenticeships. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Kampschroer, I apologize that you happen to 

be the face of GSA here today and so you had to take the scolding 

for the Agency. Normally, I like to not scold the messenger. But the 

responsible figure is Mr. Guerin, whom I personally called, not you. 

So I do want to indicate for the record that Mr. Kampschroer has 

no role. Although I would like to you come to this meeting next 

week because you have had to think beyond the obvious. It was Mr. 

Guerin that I personally called, which I why, frankly, I am angry. 

I personally called him. I don’t personally call the Agency. Once in 

a blue moon, I call the staff and say would you make sure people 

know. 

The matter of these jobs is a personal embarrassment to me. We 

happen to be the capital city. Well, they couldn’t avoid it if they 

were going to do rehabilitation, if they were going to build in the 

Federal sector. They can’t avoid my jurisdiction so of course a lot 

of it is happening here. 

I don’t have a lot of issues with what is being done here. I have 

every indication that the Department of Homeland Security in fact 

recognizes it has a special responsibility building in the lowest income section of the city. I am pleased with what DHS is doing 

there. 

But I am not pleased that there may be another mid-sized city 

like this city, like Baltimore, for example, which isn’t getting attention now even though that is another Federal sector. And that is 

why I am very concerned. This was like six months ago that this 

bill was passed. I will not take another second of it. Sorry. 

Actually, GSA was here last week. I do not know why in the 

world in my haste I did not mention this, and I apologize that I 

did not, but I called before last week to indicate my serious concern 

about having to go all the way to the Speaker to say whatever you 

do, do not put any money out here and then have people in these 

cities—I know you are going to get a lot of money, but I have got 

to be able to say to women and minorities and other people who 

have not been trained that this is the beginning of what we are trying to do, to give you a foothold in the construction industry. 

We have got millions of unemployed journeymen. So understand 

where my concern is. Those are people already prepared to take the 

jobs. So they have got to be hired instantly, and I want them to 

be hired. They have been out of work longer than any key people 

here. 

So here we came up with this notion that the reason we do not 

see many of you is we have had a generation of people not trained. 

But we do have apprenticeship programs, do we not? We have 

them at the Department of Labor and, yes, even in the funds we 

have and funds in the highways part of the bill. 

We have been thoughtful enough to understand that we had an 

obligation, and I am going to see that it is met beginning October 

1st. If they have been sitting on their hands and have not thought 

about it, we are going to help them to think. I cannot express 

enough anger than when the Chair of the Subcommittee calls that 

40 

it does not make a bit of difference to get people moving, even 

when she indicates one approach to kind of start you off. 

So with apologies to you, Mr. Kampschroer, I note that another 

building that I worked to get ever since I came to Congress, the 

Department of Transportation building, is the only truly spanking 

new building here in the District of Columbia and it did not receive 

a LEED rating. I could not believe it. It is a massive building on 

M Street. So I have to ask you, why it is not a LEED? How can 

I know that everything being built in the United States with Federal funds by GSA will be LEED, including the Department of 

Homeland Security Headquarters? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. The simple answer is that we signed a contract for the Department of Transportation building before we established the requirement to have leased new constructed buildings—— 

Ms. NORTON. When was the contract signed? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. In 2002. 

Ms. NORTON. Before you did what? I am sorry. 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. Before we established the requirement that 

buildings that we lease that were constructed specifically for the 

Federal Government had to meet the LEED silver standard after 

that. 

Ms. NORTON. So you could not make it actually LEED, realizing 

that the standard for leasing—it is a pity, people are like how could 

you possibly be leasing this? This has nothing to do with you. It 

has to do with Congress and the way it appropriates money and 

deals with real estate. How could you be leasing a headquarters? 

You just built it. It will be there for eternity. But that is what you 

had to deal with and, therefore, you had to deal with the requirements. 

Okay, it could be a LEED building. But you have long experience 

in energy conservation. It seems to me it ought to be pretty close 

to LEED. Is it or is it not, the DOT building? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. My understanding from the people who constructed the building is that it is close to a LEED certification. 

What has not happened is the documentation necessary to know 

exactly what that is. 

Ms. NORTON. I am sorry. You said what? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. My understanding is that it is close to a 

LEED certification but we do not have the documentation to know 

for sure. What we are doing with leasing, and especially with agencies here, we have, for example, the EPA buildings in Crystal City. 

The two buildings there are both LEED gold. We have, in fact, 

more LEED certifications of various levels in buildings that we 

lease than in buildings that we own to date. 

Ms. NORTON. Say that again. 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. We have more buildings that are leased that 

are LEED certified at various levels than buildings that we own. 

Ms. NORTON. Because they are newer? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. In many respects. They can operate a little 

bit more quickly than Federal construction can. But they both have 

the same requirements right now. 

Mr. NORTON. Mr. Kampschroer, some building manager, somebody has got to know how much of what conserves energy is in that 

41 

building. I am sure there are some things in this building. I would 

like within 30 days to know what the energy conservation features 

of the DOT building are. I would like to know whether or not you 

could go back and see if the building could be LEED certified. 

Based on your prior experience, you already understood, GSA, what 

should go in the building. I need to know how energy efficient this 

brand new building is, which is a headquarters building. 

It cannot move out of the District. We are going to be in there 

for perpetuity just like the Justice Department, and I need to know 

how close it comes to being a LEED building and what its basic 

features for energy conservation are. 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. I would be happy to provide that. 

Ms. NORTON. What are the staffing goals? We have heard about 

your office and you seem deeply knowledgeable. If we are serious 

about your office, you will need staff. What are the planned staffing 

levels? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. The current planned staffing levels, we are 

in fact classifying and recruiting even as we speak, are to have approximately seven or eight people in addition to myself focused on 

the Government-wide responsibilities and four or five people focused on the GSA responsibilities relating to high-performance 

green buildings. 

Mr. NORTON. I do not know how to judge that. How many people 

are in the office now? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. Three. 

Ms. NORTON. Had you worked in this field before? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. Yes. Actually, prior to this job I was working 

with the energy programs of GSA, as well as the environment programs and the research program within GSA, which is modest applied research focused on those things that are not within the 

ambit of the Department of Energy or anyone else doing major research. Before that, I was the research director of GSA and worked 

on development of some basic research into how buildings affect 

human performance. For that I worked in the Office of Portfolio 

Management, sort of the basic asset management functions of the 

agency. 

Ms. NORTON. I appreciate that the Agency, particularly because 

this has all occurred before it has a new head confirmed, has put 

into the office someone like yourself who has deep background in 

this area. 

Would we even consider building a courthouse today that was 

not LEED certified? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. We would not. It has been a requirement 

since 2000 that, beginning with buildings in 2003, they be LEED 

certified. Today the requirement is LEED silver. 

Ms. NORTON. Mentioning gold and silver, what did you say? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. The requirement today is that the minimum 

requirement is LEED silver and every contract has an expressed 

goal of achieving LEED gold. 

Ms. NORTON. What is the difference in savings to the Government ultimately, roughly speaking? Maybe this is to Mr. Crawley 

as well. 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. Roughly speaking, based on that study that 

I mentioned earlier, we can expect savings for gold and platinum 

42 

ratings to be roughly double those for certified, which is the lowest 

level. 

Ms. NORTON. Are they so much more costly that you would not 

almost automatically do them? Let us take the Department of 

Homeland Security, since we are going to be there. We are going 

to be at the Department of Transportation forever even though it 

is a leased building so imagine how long we are going to be at the 

old Saint Elizabeth site. Why would we not want to go platinum 

knowing that that will be outstripped in our lifetime and that the 

savings are already calculable even though it means somewhat 

greater investment now? Indeed, how much greater investment is 

there, relatively speaking? So much so that it becomes a real factor 

or not, a factor considering the savings and the payback? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. A platinum building, you can certainly measure the additional cost. At the silver level, you can, with good integrated design, achieve the benchmark goal within a typical building budget. It is a question of applying those resources effectively 

and using the kind of integration of systems, technologies, sitings, 

and building use. 

Ms. NORTON. When you say effectively, what do you mean? Do 

you mean that it is such a high level of expertise or skill level that 

it would be difficult? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. Integrated design is something that the profession got away from in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and even 

1990s. So what you had delivered in this Country, by and large, 

were buildings that were designed in stovepipes. Mechanical engineers would typically say it does not matter, you can design the 

building any way you want and we will build you a mechanical 

plant that will cool the building. Of course, we ended up creating 

sick building syndrome by that kind of thinking. 

So what is really needed here is a reapplication of things. Let us 

say Michelangelo knew that everything relates to everything else 

and the decisions you make on the envelope, on the way the building faces, and on how you move in and out of the building have 

a long term effect on how healthy the building is but also on how 

well it performs. And that form of integrated design is something 

that is coming back into play. But we do not see it all the time. 

You can look around the Country and not see it in private sector 

buildings that are being built. So it is still the minority way buildings are being put up. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, when you have an opportunity to build three 

buildings for the Department of Homeland Security, is there any 

case to be made for anything other than platinum? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. It is a balancing act of cost and performance 

at the platinum level. 

Ms. NORTON. How much? I need to know. Maybe Mr. Crawley 

can answer as well. Since we know the payback can be very substantial and the building is going to be there forever, what percentage more? Is it 15 percent more to construct a platinum building? 

Is it 50 percent more? Give me just some rough ballpark figure between you and Mr. Crawley that you can agree on. 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. Platinum buildings are pretty few and far between right now, so I am not sure that we have—— 

43 

Ms. NORTON. What is a platinum? To be platinum, what would 

you have to have? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. You would have to have everything working 

together in the building to the maximum extent. 

Ms. NORTON. Everything has to be—— 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. One building I am familiar with that is platinum, actually we have one building in our inventory which is an 

existing building that was retrofitted under the existing building 

program. It is actually the first platinum building in the Country. 

It is an FBI field office in Chicago. The other one is the Genzyme 

office building in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I am going to give you 

the Genzyme one because I have physically been through it and it 

comes to mind. The Genzyme building, compared to a typical specification office building in Cambridge, Massachusetts, was about almost 30 percent premium. 

It was worth it to the company because they are a niche developer of pharmaceuticals and their niche is they develop the pharmaceuticals for illnesses that have a relatively small population. So 

you are talking about a drug with a lot of benefit but maybe to only 

10,000 people. So that is their niche. 

They have a very strong human focus and so they did a lot of 

things. There is a very large atrium that goes all the way down 

through the middle of the building that cascades light through the 

building, So you have 100 percent of the building that is day-lit. 

In a standard commercial office building that would be considered 

floor space that was an opportunity that was lost. So you have a 

significant cost premium associated with that. They have operable 

windows throughout the building that are tied into the control system and a double facade since this is in Cambridge, Massachusetts. 

Again, double the cost for the facade but with significantly greater 

performance. It does pay out in the total life cycle cost of the building but this is really pushing all of the technology pretty much to 

the extreme there. That is the kind of example. 

As we are going forward on Saint Elizabeth’s, we are pushing the 

developers and the designers of that site to give us the maximum 

amount within the budget. We are looking to improve considerably 

from even the original concept. There are a lot of creative things 

already being done with the site with water management on the 

site, with low impact development around it, with the way that the 

roof is treated and the way the water is handled on the roof, and 

a variety of other things. I am sure we would be happy to give you 

more details on where we are today. But we are also pushing them 

to deliver the maximum that the budget will allow. 

Ms. NORTON. I very much appreciate it. Is gold next down from 

platinum? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. Is this going to be a gold building? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. I would hope so. That is the goal for the 

building. The developer of the EPA site has gone on record saying 

he can deliver a gold building for the market comparable rates. So 

I think that is a very reasonable goal for the building. 

Ms. NORTON. It is very gratifying to hear. I want to ask my questions for the others here. 

44 

I have a question for Mr. Uhalde on women. When I went to a 

meeting on another subject during the time that the stimulus was 

being considered, there was a huge gathering—I do not recall the 

purpose—of women from across the Country. Before a few Members of Congress were introduced, the person who was introducing 

the event said that we were doing a stimulus package in the Congress and they did not have any indication that women will get any 

of these jobs. I was glad I was there because I indicated that there 

would be certainly a small amount in my package, a larger amount 

in your Department’s package, and that the Administration was 

fully aware that women and minorities had been left out of the 

growth of the sector. 

In your testimony, you mention a specific program aimed at 

women. Because if minorities are left out, women are a real afterthought in construction. So would you describe that program for us, 

please? 

Mr. UHALDE. Yes. We have Women in Apprenticeship in NonTraditional Occupations programs, $1 million. We focus it on apprenticeships and try and ensure with the grantees—I believe we 

have five or six grantees—that women are able to get the training, 

get the pre-apprenticeships and into apprenticeship programs principally in the building trades. 

We also had $750 million of competitive grants for both green 

training and health care and high growth occupations. Secretary 

Solis is very interested in making sure the populations that are left 

out of high growth occupations get a shot, and that includes women 

in non-traditional occupations. So we put out the solicitations for 

grant applications and made emphasis on populations that had 

been left out traditionally, including minorities, school dropouts, 

and veterans populations that are under served in some of these, 

and women as well. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you. You really do have a haul of money and 

I know you will be careful in the way you spend it. I think you 

have most of the money for these green jobs and I am pleased with 

the thoughtfulness you are inclined to in this area. The Administration is going to be watching this very closely. 

Mr. UHALDE. Absolutely. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Kampschroer, we had a hearing in May of 2008 

where we questioned GSA about, and it surprised us, energy inefficient products on the GSA’s schedules. What is the status of those 

products being removed from the schedules? We know that occasionally an agency may have no choice but we are talking about 

products. So I am assuming that these are products where there 

might be a choice. Where are we on that so that agencies cannot 

have the choice of making the taxpayers spend more money for energy where there is an available energy efficient selection for them? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. There have been new guidelines recently 

issued by the Department of Energy addressing that very issue 

that you raise of choice and when you should make it and when 

you should not. 

Ms. NORTON. When should you ever make it unless your infrastructure requires you to make it? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. That is the idea. That is only where you cannot use the other materials. But what we have done internally is 

45 

we have, first of all, highlighted the electronic version of all the 

schedules so all of the energy efficient products appear with a separate kind of designation within the schedules. They are segregated. 

They are the ones that pop up first when you look for them. 

And second of all, we have instituted in the online ordering system within GSA a warning so that if somebody inadvertently orders something for which there is a more energy efficient product, 

it says you should not be ordering this. Did you know that there 

is a law that—— 

Ms. NORTON. That actually is so excellent and so un-governmentlike and so un-GSA-like that somebody says oops. That is what you 

expect Mr. Helsel to do. Thank you. Yes. 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. The third thing I wanted to mention is that 

we are working with the Department of Energy and EPA so that 

our database of scheduled items has a direct feed from their database of approved items so that when we get the ENERGY STAR 

designation, we know that it is the most up-to-date designation of 

those. In fact, we are meeting with Department of Energy next 

week to keep that project going. Then, when that happens, you 

know that you can be assured that it is not some supplier alleging 

that it is an ENERGY STAR device, that it actually is and we 

know that from the source. 

Ms. NORTON. That is really giving the priority that the Subcommittee, the Speaker, the House, the Senate expected. I am very 

pleased to hear that. 

I must ask Mr. Crawley about net zero energy building. I do not 

understand what that means. 

Mr. CRAWLEY. A net zero energy building is a building that produces on-site as much energy as it needs over the course of a year. 

Ms. NORTON. Now we are talking. 

Mr. CRAWLEY. It is the next generation beyond platinum. 

Ms. NORTON. That is heaven. 

Mr. CRAWLEY. It will help us get a long way toward the goal of 

really reducing the impacts and—— 

Ms. NORTON. Now I recognize that. What is the largest building 

like that in the United States? 

Mr. CRAWLEY. The largest one I know of is about 18,000 square 

feet. 

Ms. NORTON. That is the wave of the future, people. Make your 

own. I am sorry, go ahead. 

Mr. CRAWLEY. There are very few buildings and they are pretty 

expensive right now. But somebody is paying for them and thinks 

it is cost-effective. 

Ms. NORTON. What is it, kind of a pilot or experimental? 

Mr. CRAWLEY. They may be a pilot, experimental or they have 

found a donor that thinks it is a worthwhile investment over the 

life of that building. 

Ms. NORTON. So where are we? This is the kind of stuff we 

should have been experimenting with a generation ago. I concede 

that we did not know very much. One of the big surprises to me 

is that our science, which is usually so advanced beyond what we 

are able to do, seems not to have been where I might have expected 

it to be. I know this is fairly futuristic but I do not see another way 

46 

to go. I can see no way to be serious about climate change going 

the way we are going. 

I went with the Speaker to India. We did not go there about, for 

example, their nuclear issues or Pakistan. This was when we first 

came into the majority. We went there about climate change. I tell 

you, they already have goals for a carbon footprint that will come 

nowhere near ours. We went there to speak to the Chinese. Imagine, having the people who created the carbon footprint that is destroying the planet coming to these two countries and saying why 

don’t you all do your share. It was hard for me to get the words 

out of my mouth, particularly at a time when we had not even 

passed our energy bill, the first one that we passed. 

So as I think about the position that we are all in—that that 

would require sacrifice, that it really ought to be you first in Europe and then we will see what we can do instead—China and 

India are ahead of us in part because what they are bringing online 

is necessarily more inefficient. They have the benefit of the science 

of today. 

But there is just no way to avoid our leadership role given our 

role in creating the problem in the first place. So looking at it, that 

is why I have been so interested in what Mr. Kampschroer and Mr. 

Crawley are doing and what feeds in to what you are doing. 

Short of a shortcut through technology that will say okay, everybody one, two, three, sacrifice, I do not see that mentality even in 

the most advanced thinking about greening. In fact, I see the kind 

of mentality I see in the health care bill, which is everybody is 

going to get everything you get now and even more, and then we 

are going to put some more people into the mix and it is not going 

to cost the Government any more and there will be no deficit. I just 

think that is the kind of thinking that builds up in the world in 

which there are endless resources. 

It took a long time for it to click in that we do not have it. Well, 

the Malthusian notion we would reproduce ourselves did not come 

true. I believe putting as much in technology as we can is the only 

serious answer to short-cutting our problems on the planet before 

it disappears. 

I have only a couple more questions. At the same time I am trying to green the capital region because of the GSA footprint, the 

District of Columbia, one little city, is doing a lot on its own. We 

have 98 million square feet in the national capital region. It is a 

pretty progressive region. 

Are there efforts to coordinate with these folks who can build 

upon this? They help us and we help them, not with money but 

how we play off of one another? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. Indeed, there are. One of the areas that we 

are working with the District of Columbia in is stormwater management. We are, jointly, after the significant flooding along Constitution Avenue in front of the IRS. We have been working with 

them to find out A, why did that happen so cataclysmically, and 

B, what can we do about it. We have jointly funded a study which 

is about to begin to figure out the appropriate solution to that. 

We are looking at all of our projects to increase the ability to do 

stormwater management. In fact, we have 400,000 square feet of 

planted roofs within the District of Columbia already and over 1 

47 

million square feet in the Washington metropolitan region. We are 

working with the District of Columbia on aspects of building technology so that we make sure that we share the information that 

we develop in building technology with the District of Columbia 

and vice versa. I am sure there are others that I just—— 

Ms. NORTON. I know. I would like to ask that with COG, Council 

of Governments, there be some coordination to take advantage of 

the progressive jurisdiction where at least the national capital region is situated. 

Let me say to you, Mr. Kampschroer, I would ask you to look at 

this and get back to me within thirty days. The Federal Government is the biggest ratepayer for water in the District of Columbia. 

The District of Columbia has just passed a bill, actually some 

months ago, that is just the way the Country ought to be going. It 

says that if you have an impervious surface so that your runoff 

flows into the Anacostia River out to the Chesapeake Bay and into 

our waters, there is going to be a surface charge. For most homeowners, this is not anything they can do anything about and must 

contribute to. This is aimed at big folks like the Federal Government and office buildings. 

There are a lot of things you can do around your, let us say, 

parking lot besides repave it, for example, just to catch the water. 

But we believe, based on the charges that the District of Columbia 

has begun—the rebate schedule and all has not come out yet—that 

the Federal Government would have at least $1 million more to 

pay for impervious surfaces such as parking lots, outer Federal 

buildings, and the like. 

Here is an area where there has not been much reason to look 

before. But I would ask you to be in touch with those—I am sure 

there are people at GSA who are already aware of this—and in 30 

days give me some idea of how you believe the Federal Government 

could keep from being the biggest payer into this charge for impervious surfaces. 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. I would be happy to do so. 

Ms. NORTON. In the 2009 conference report for the Financial 

Services appropriation where the GSA appropriation is found, I included a proposal to study the measurable benefits associated with 

green roofs in the GSA owned and leased inventory. We used the 

national capital region because of the huge footprint here. Could 

you give us the status of that study? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. I cannot because I cannot remember it off the 

top of my head. If I could get back to you, I would appreciate it. 

Ms. NORTON. In thirty days, if you would, Mr. Kampschroer, get 

back to me. 

Here is my final question. I am interested in these energy performance contracts. Would you describe what an energy performance contract is and whether or not GSA has them? What is the 

average amount that we might reap from such contracts? I do not 

know if Mr. Helsel has any information on these. He is saying no. 

But I believe you have some energy performance contracts that 

work. 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. Yes, we do. We have at the moment 52 active 

energy savings performance contracts either directly with private 

48 

firms or with utilities, as well as 14 that have been completed already and have been paid off. 

Ms. NORTON. I am sorry. Would you repeat that please? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. I would be happy to. We have currently active 52 energy savings performance contracts. We have 14 where 

they are no longer active because the work has been done and the 

investment has been paid off. 

Ms. NORTON. Where are they located? Across the United States? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. Across the United States. Several of them 

are here in this area. 

Ms. NORTON. Have you described what an energy performance 

contract is? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. I am sorry. I just jumped into the statistics. 

The energy performance contract is a contract for a long period of 

time in which private capital is brought to bear to increase the energy performance. The payment to the firm that invests the private 

capital is made out of the difference between the energy bill before 

the capital investment and the energy bill afterwards. So the savings from reduced energy consumption pay back the capital investment as well as the operating costs of the building. 

Ms. NORTON. Are those generally available across the United 

States? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. They are available across the United States. 

We principally use the Department of Energy Super ESPC program. As well, we are increasing the GSA schedules to have those 

kinds of features. There are also private sector energy savings performance contracts in some areas of the Country. But it is less 

prevalent outside the Government than it is in the private sector, 

and more prevalently offered by utility firms where the public utilities commission has provided that capability with the utilities to do 

so. 

Ms. NORTON. I am just trying to figure out why we would not 

have them in our buildings in the regions. 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. We do have them across the Country. We are 

currently negotiating several even as we speak. We are also—— 

Ms. NORTON. So wherever there is a possibility to have an energy 

performance contract, we will engage in such contracts? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. Yes. Our plan is to significantly expand our 

use of energy savings performance contracts. We had that plan developed before the Recovery Act and we have honestly shifted our 

emphasis onto making sure that the Recovery Act expenditures go 

quickly. But we are also looking at the possibility for making sure 

that in a building where we are doing the building tune up only, 

we are looking at the possibility of using an energy savings performance contract for doing other systems work in the building so 

that we will get more for that building than we are even able to 

get from the Recovery Act funds directly. 

Ms. NORTON. That is an important add-on to make sure that this 

is sustainable for the funds we invest. 

As you can see, these hearings for me are perhaps a little atypical. I use them to really educate myself about areas. I find myself 

kind of a generalist—most Members are—not having deep knowledge about even this area that I have been conversant with ever 

since coming to Congress. So your testimony has been very imporVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:09 Oct 28, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\51111 JASON
49 

tant to my oversight, to giving me indications of the kinds of things 

I ought to be doing to be helpful. 

I want to thank each and every one of you for the time you have 

spent with us this afternoon and to say to you how helpful you 

have been. So thank you very much. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:00 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

50 


Insert offset folio 6 here 51111.006
51 


Insert offset folio 7 here 51111.007
52 


Insert offset folio 8 here 51111.008
53 


Insert offset folio 9 here 51111.009
54 


Insert offset folio 10 here 51111.010
55 


Insert offset folio 11 here 51111.011
56 


Insert offset folio 12 here 51111.012
57 


Insert offset folio 13 here 51111.013
58 


Insert offset folio 14 here 51111.014
59 


Insert offset folio 15 here 51111.015
60 


Insert offset folio 16 here 51111.016
61 


Insert offset folio 17 here 51111.017
62 


Insert offset folio 18 here 51111.018
63 


Insert offset folio 19 here 51111.019
64 


Insert offset folio 20 here 51111.020
65 


Insert offset folio 21 here 51111.021
66 


Insert offset folio 22 here 51111.022
67 


Insert offset folio 23 here 51111.023
68 


Insert offset folio 24 here 51111.024
69 


Insert offset folio 25 here 51111.025
70 


Insert offset folio 26 here 51111.026
71 


Insert offset folio 27 here 51111.027
72 


Insert offset folio 28 here 51111.028
73 


Insert offset folio 29 here 51111.029
74 


Insert offset folio 30 here 51111.030
75 


Insert offset folio 31 here 51111.031
76 


Insert offset folio 32 here 51111.032
77 


Insert offset folio 33 here 51111.033
78 


Insert offset folio 34 here 51111.034
79 


Insert offset folio 35 here 51111.035
80 


Insert offset folio 36 here 51111.036
81 


Insert offset folio 37 here 51111.037
82 


Insert offset folio 38 here 51111.038
83 


Insert offset folio 39 here 51111.039
84 


Insert offset folio 40 here 51111.040
85 


Insert offset folio 41 here 51111.041
86 


Insert offset folio 42 here 51111.042
87 


Insert offset folio 43 here 51111.043
88 


Insert offset folio 44 here 51111.044
89 


Insert offset folio 45 here 51111.045
90 


Insert offset folio 46 here 51111.046
91 


Insert offset folio 47 here 51111.047
92 


Insert offset folio 48 here 51111.048
93 


Insert offset folio 49 here 51111.049
94 


Insert offset folio 50 here 51111.050
95 


Insert offset folio 51 here 51111.051
96 


Insert offset folio 52 here 51111.052
97 


Insert offset folio 53 here 51111.053
98 


Insert offset folio 54 here 51111.054
99 


Insert offset folio 55 here 51111.055
100 


Insert offset folio 56 here 51111.056
101 


Insert offset folio 57 here 51111.057
102 


Insert offset folio 58 here 51111.058
103 


Insert offset folio 59 here 51111.059
104 


Insert offset folio 60 here 51111.060
105 


Insert offset folio 61 here 51111.061
106 


Insert offset folio 62 here 51111.062
107 


Insert offset folio 63 here 51111.063
108 


Insert offset folio 64 here 51111.064
109 


Insert offset folio 65 here 51111.065
110 


Insert offset folio 66 here 51111.066
111 


Insert offset folio 67 here 51111.067
112 


Insert offset folio 68 here 51111.068
113 


Insert offset folio 69 here 51111.069
114 


Insert offset folio 70 here 51111.070
115 


Insert offset folio 71 here 51111.071
116 


Insert offset folio 72 here 51111.072
117 


Insert offset folio 73 here 51111.073
118 


Insert offset folio 74 here 51111.074
119 


Insert offset folio 75 here 51111.075
120 


Insert offset folio 76 here 51111.076
121 


Insert offset folio 77 here 51111.077
122 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 78 here 51111.078