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

47–412 PDF 2009

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION’S ECONOMIC 

RECOVERY ROLE: 

JOB CREATION, REPAIR, 

AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN 

FEDERAL BUILDINGS 

AND ACCOUNTABILITY 

(111–7) 

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 

FEBRUARY 11, 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 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

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 

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, Chairwoman 

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 .................................................................................... 0vi 

TESTIMONY 

Gordon, Harry, American Institute of Architects, accompanied by Anthony 

Costa, Acting Commissioner, Public Buildings Service .................................... 8 

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

Buildings ............................................................................................................... 8 

Lehrkinder, Leslie, Acting Director, Real Estate and Facilities Management, 

Internal Revenue Service .................................................................................... 8 

Prouty, Paul, Acting Administrator, General Services Administration .............. 8 

PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri ......................................................................... 33 

Diaz-Balart, Hon. Mario, of Florida ....................................................................... 34 

Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, of the District of Columbia ................................. 39 

Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota ................................................................. 43 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Gordon, Harry .......................................................................................................... 46 

Prouty, Paul F. ......................................................................................................... 57 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Alliance to Save Energy, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, 

etc., Ladeene A. Freimuth, written statement .................................................. 63 

National Institute of Building Sciences, Henry L. Green, President, written 

statement .............................................................................................................. 68 

U.S. Green Building Council, written statement .................................................. 70 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 47412.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 47412.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 47412.003
(1) 

HEARING ON GSA’S ECONOMIC RECOVERY 

ROLE: JOB CREATION, REPAIR, AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN FEDERAL BUILDINGS 

AND ACCOUNTABILITY 

Wednesday, February 11, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC

BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Eleanor 

Holmes Norton [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Ms. NORTON. The Subcommittee will come to order. Good morning, and I appreciate you being here this morning for one of the 

most important hearings we will hold this session, involving the 

General Services Administration and the stimulus package. 

The GSA provision for energy efficiency repairs and construction 

of Federal buildings in the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act, H.R. 1, is a classic example of stimulus spending by Government that has the best proven record for meeting three stimulus 

tests simultaneously: to provide jobs, to stimulate the economy 

broadly, and to meet the existing responsibilities of Government for 

infrastructure. This job creation bill will revive the construction 

sector of our economy, and the infrastructure jobs created in turn 

will feed and help revive other sectors down the line. 

Moreover, unlike the other necessary work funded in this bill, 

which is largely delegated to States and localities, the GSA section 

provides funds for Federal facilities for which the Federal Government alone is both responsible and accountable. The GSA infrastructure provision provides funds from the Federal Government 

directly to a Federal agency, the GSA, for maintaining and upgrading essential Federal facilities of various kinds found in every 

State. 

The House-passed version of H.R. 1 authorizes $7.7 billion for alterations and construction nationwide, guided by the goal that the 

funds and activities have the maximum effect on energy efficiency 

and conservation consistent with the funding provided. Border stations receive $1 billion with the same energy efficiency mandate, 

and the GSA Inspector General receives $15 million to participate 

in oversight, auditing, and reporting as required in the bill. 

The Senate-amended version of the bill currently contains $5.5 

billion—too little—in light of the job creation purpose of the bill 

2 

and the needs of the Federal Government the bill addresses. Of 

that amount, the Senate would dedicate $1.2 billion for construction and repair of border stations and $2.5 billion for what it calls 

measures necessary to convert GSA facilities to high-performance 

green buildings, as defined by the energy act that we passed last 

year. There is an amount identified in the Senate bill as $1.4 billion for Federal buildings and courthouses. 

We are left to assume that the Senate version is guided by the 

President’s stated energy efficiency goals for this section of the 

stimulus, but the energy efficiency requirement, as well as a mandate for energy savings and job creation, should be stated explicitly, as the House version does. The Senate language concerning 

measures—and that is its word—to assure high-performance green 

buildings needs to be tightened so that taxpayers are assured that 

funds will go directly to jobs and infrastructure, and not, for example, to spending on consultants or studies, which would undermine 

the purposes of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. 

Notably, President Obama, in his many appearances concerning 

this bill, almost always mentions making Federal buildings energy 

efficient. In his first prime time press conference to the Nation as 

President, the President went out of his way to answer critics of 

funds for Federal buildings. He said, ‘‘When people suggest a waste 

of money to make Federal buildings more energy efficient, why 

would that be a waste of money? We are creating jobs immediately 

by retrofitting these buildings and we are saving taxpayers, when 

it comes to Federal buildings, potentially $2 billion. We are reducing our dependence on foreign oil in the Mideast. Why wouldn’t we 

want to make that kind of investment?’’ 

It is understandable why President Obama focuses on energy 

savings. Otherwise, the Federal Government is directly responsible 

for wasting taxpayer funds on high-energy costs associated with 

lighting, heating, air conditioning, and other energy needs for Federal buildings that range from warehouses to office buildings. And 

the Federal Government is directly and needlessly subsidizing Mideast oil cartels with massive amounts of purchases every day that 

it delays the implementation of energy-efficient systems known to 

yield large energy savings in only a few years. 

GSA’s backlog of needs to repair and maintain its vast inventory 

has grown exponentially, and with it, needless spending created by 

inefficient energy sources. Our staff has worked closely with GSA 

to assure that its repair and rehabilitation projects in this bill can 

be implemented quickly, while providing many jobs, at a variety of 

skill levels, meeting the primary purpose of the bill to provide jobs 

which stimulate the economy. Among the jobs associated with GSA 

construction projects are plumbing, electrical, mechanical, carpentry, sheet metal work, and today a variety of green jobs at various skill levels. 

I have an amendment in this bill for pre-apprenticeship and apprenticeship on-the-job training. This amendment is important because the Federal Government seized funding training programs 25 

years ago for the construction trades and, therefore, bears significant responsibility for the profile of the construction sector, which 

is largely white and male. The modest trading funds in this amendment will allow minorities and women who have not been trained 

3 

in the skill trades in significant numbers—although many, of 

course, do qualify for these jobs—to get a foothold in the construction industry. 

Ironically, the construction trades had experienced a shortage of 

skilled trades workers until this recession. My amendment will prevent antagonism and controversy between minorities and women 

on the one hand and the large number of unemployed construction 

workers on the other. The amendment is also necessary because 

Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act bars the use of Federal funds 

for jobs and contracts that may involve discrimination against minorities and women. 

The GSA provisions of the House bill require that each project 

contain a significant energy component and will help put the Federal Government, with its large procurement possibilities, in a 

leadership position for energy-efficient buildings, allowing the taxpayers to receive the awards of lower energy costs as well. Our 

focus on the repair and authorization of existing Federal buildings 

can also preserve the valuable federally-owned inventory for occupancy and other vital needs. 

Repairing valuable Federal real estate, in time, will reduce 

GSA’s growing dependence on leasing that is a direct result of the 

neglect and deterioration of its owned inventory. Leasing, instead 

of ownership, leads to depletion of the Federal Building Fund, the 

source of funding for repair and alteration. Thus, the repair of the 

Nation’s public buildings presents a unique opportunity to bolster 

the Federal Building Fund, which in turn provides funds for the 

maintenance, repair, and preservation of these same Federal buildings in a revolving fund. 

This Recovery Act will jump start an urgent round of energy-oriented repairs of valuable buildings, ensuring that they remain viable capital assets of the Federal Government. Today’s hearing is as 

important as any concerning the funds in this comprehensive stimulus bill because, unlike other funds in the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act, GSA itself, the Federal Government itself, not 

the States, will be administering these funds. 

Therefore, this Subcommittee intends to provide frequent, direct, 

and vigorous oversight of GSA’s capital priorities and its methods 

for achieving them. GSA transparency in all its decision making 

will be mandatory, including the buildings it intends to repair, the 

nature of the alteration work, and the green building measures 

that the agency plans to implement. 

We begin the necessary oversight today evaluating the rationale 

and details of the GSA portion of the bill. By the way we conduct 

our oversight, the American people will be able to judge for themselves whether Government resources are being used to achieve the 

explicit goals of the bill. 

This morning we have invited not only GSA representatives responsible for carrying out the mandate of the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act, we have asked for a representative of an 

agency that will benefit to give us a real-time and accurate idea of 

what these funds can accomplish. In addition, we have invited a 

witness from outside the Government to help us reach for objective 

measures of best practices. We look forward to learning what needs 

4 

to be accomplished and how it will be done. We are grateful, very 

grateful, to all of today’s witnesses for their testimony. 

I am pleased to ask our new Ranking Member if he has any remarks. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Let me first 

thank you for this very important hearing. I agree with you, it is 

a very important hearing. I also want to echo your words about our 

gratitude for the witnesses that are here. 

You are all busy, so we appreciate your being here. 

We must ensure that effective oversight is there to avoid wasteful spending, so I agree with the Chairwoman. We cannot afford 

another repeat of the TARP bailout fiasco that we have been hearing and reading about. In this case, Congress is proposing spending 

billions more and we have an obligation to ensure that those funds 

will be spent appropriately, and without waste and without problems. 

Last month, the House passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Yesterday, we all know, the Senate passed out their 

version. Now, while the stated purpose of this legislation is to create jobs and to promote economic recovery, there are some real 

questions, frankly, as to whether the different proposals would, in 

reality, provide the taxpayer with the best return on their investment, the best bang for the buck. 

Now, specifically, here we are focusing on GSA and the General Services Administration. The House-passed bill includes $7.7 billion for the Federal Building Fund. The Senate is now proposing 

$5.5 billion. That is in addition to the billions more that are going 

to the individual agencies for their capital projects, obviously. 

Now, while the proposal provides some additional funding to the 

Inspector General and some transparency provisions, I clearly am 

very concerned still that the provisions wouldn’t provide for meaningful congressional oversight of capital projects, and some of those 

things that we have been talking about are not included in this legislation. 

Now, we know that at the Full Committee hearing we heard, 

Madam Chairwoman, last month regarding the stimulus project 

proposal that the GSO recommended three guiding principles for 

GSA projects, and they are the following: number one, to create 

well defined goals based on identified areas of interest; number 

two, to incorporate performance and accountability, performance 

and accountability into funding decisions; and, three, employ the 

best tools and approaches to emphasize return on investment. 

None of these practical suggestions to help avoid wasteful spending of the taxpayers’ dollars has been incorporated into the legislation, none of them. Instead, we have mechanisms that will only 

serve to highlight the problems after the money has already been 

obligated or spent. I repeat that, after the money has been either 

obligated or spent, which is highly unacceptable. 

We know that the potential for waste is huge. Federal real property has been on the GAO’s high-risk list since 2003 and, according 

to the GAO, longstanding problems in the Federal real property 

area have multi-billion dollar cost implications to the taxpayer. 

Now, unfortunately, the proposals pending in Congress would appropriate billions of dollars with little accountability. The funds for 

5 

GSA will be going to the hands of the GSA bureaucracy. They 

would determine, the bureaucracy would determine how to spend 

those funds, however the bureaucracy sees fit. In fact, there seems 

to be little that would prevent funds from being used for projects 

that this Committee specifically has intentionally rejected. 

We can, and need to, hold hearings—and that is why I am so 

grateful to the Chairwoman, who is very aggressive about oversight 

hearings like today’s. But we also know that GSA will be responding to competing interests, and we understand how the process 

works. And given that there is explicit language in the Senate proposal regarding courthouses, for example, GSA could very well decide to spend $1 billion in a single project that this Committee repeatedly refused to approve because of the wasteful nature of that 

proposal. 

Now, while such projects would be reported to the appropriations 

committees and posted on the newly created recovery.gov website, 

not even the standard checks and balances normally in place for 

such projects would apply. It is hard to believe. The proposed bill 

not only ignores the prospectus process normally required for such 

projects, this Committee is not even included in the reporting requirements mandated in the legislation. Again, not acceptable. 

Another concern that I have relates to whether the proposal focuses enough on the actual creation of jobs, which obviously, as we 

know, is the stated purpose of this legislation. Now, for example, 

while energy efficiency is something that the Federal Government 

should strive for and that we all support, it seems that energy efficiency and conservation is given greater consideration in the pending proposals than is job creation. Now, remember, this is supposed 

to be a job creation bill. That is the purpose of the bill. 

The House-passed bill gives priority to projects that will create 

the greatest impact on energy efficiency and conservation. The Senate version goes even further, to require that nearly half of the proposed funds are used to convert GSA facilities into high-performance green buildings as defined by the Energy Independence and 

Security Act, not to create jobs, which is supposedly the purpose of 

the legislation. 

While creating efficient buildings is a noble goal that we all 

share and that obviously might have long-term benefits, it seems 

to trump consideration of the immediate need for job creation and 

economic stimulus, which, I repeat, is supposedly the purpose of 

the bill. If we are going to spend billions of taxpayers’ dollars to 

stimulate the economy and create jobs, as, I repeat, supposedly is 

what the bill is for, we should have a bill that ensures that such 

a stimulus effect is maximized and is prioritized. 

One option, for example, is using acquisition as a stimulus. Now, 

while the proposed bill does not explicitly mention that you can acquire property as an option, they do allow for projects authorized 

under existing GSA authorities, which may include acquisition of 

buildings. Now, such authorities should be encouraged, and I am 

pleased that GSA’s testimony says that it is exploring those options. 

There are many development projects that have either stalled or 

are at risk of, frankly, stalling because of the economy. This potentially creates an opportunity for the taxpayers to acquire needed 

6 

property at a significant savings to the taxpayer and also putting 

people to work immediately, which is the supposed purpose of this 

bill. At the same time, such investment will help to stabilize economic development projects that local economies are relying upon 

to help their neighborhoods and create sustainable jobs. 

Again, however, I remain concerned. This legislation could be a 

good opportunity, could be a great opportunity to put in place real 

solutions that may help ensure and address ongoing challenges related to real property management. Instead, unfortunately, the proposed legislation seems to do little to address these concerns and, 

in fact, may lead to more wasteful spending. We should not repeat 

the mistakes made on the bailout bill, on the TARP bill, of writing 

a blank check. There must be meaningful oversight and accountability. 

I am now, Madam Chairman—and I am working on it right 

now—drafting a resolution that will, at the very least, provide 

some direction to GSA on avoiding wasteful projects and spending. 

That resolution would make clear that funds should not be spent 

on projects that this Committee has rejected, include this Committee on any reporting requirements, and ensure that we know 

the number of jobs that each project will generate. I hope that this 

resolution could be a first step—again, just a first step—in providing some guidance to GSA and to minimize the very real chance 

of wasteful, out-of-control spending. I plan to introduce this legislation later today, and I hope that other Members of the Committee 

would join me in sponsoring it. 

Now, again, while there are very worthy and necessary projects 

in the pipeline that need to be funded, and which actually may 

help to support needed jobs, we must ensure that such large commitments of taxpayer dollars are properly used and managed, and 

we must ensure that the priority is job creation. That is the purpose of this bill. 

So I hope that these issues can be addressed and I look forward 

to hearing from the witnesses on these and other witnesses. I want 

to again thank the Chairwoman for her leadership on these issues. 

Ms. NORTON. I want to thank the Ranking Member for joining 

us in our concern that there be more oversight than one might expect because of the nature of this bill. I do want to say for the 

record that we had a very considerable testimony from the construction industry about green jobs of every kind. We believe that 

when you are retrofitting a building plus making it green, you are 

using construction workers plus a set of workers, many of them 

with special skills, as, if anything, add-ons of the kind you never 

would have used if you were simply repairing buildings. 

I also want to say for the record that the green sections of this 

bill to save taxpayers’ money, which now is pouring, pouring money 

down the drain for Mideast oil, must be a part of this bill, and we 

are pleased at the synergy between the energy savings and the job 

creation that we saw in the day-long hearings that the Chairman 

held. 

And I will ask Ms. Edwards if she has any opening remarks. Ms. 

Edwards, do you have any opening remarks before we begin? 

Ms. EDWARDS. I do, Madam Chairwoman, just very briefly. And 

thank you very much for convening this hearing. 

7 

And thank you to our witnesses in advance for your testimony, 

and I look forward to it. As you may know, I represent Maryland’s 

4th Congressional District, which covers both Prince George’s and 

Montgomery County in the national capital region, and I will say 

I think that there is great consistency between the idea of creating 

green jobs, saving money, and really investing in the future. These 

are not incompatible and inconsistent ideas. 

In the 4th Congressional District, we are home to the Food and 

Drug Administration, the Census Bureau, and NOAA, all buildings 

built very recently that have amazing green components to them, 

and with using some of the latest technologies and techniques that 

really demonstrate to us that the Federal Government can really 

be in the business of creating a model for how you develop and 

build green buildings, create good jobs, and save money for the taxpayer. So I would like to see more of that going on. 

I look forward to your testimony about the way in this stimulus 

package we also balance the distribution of the projects, particularly the national capital region, so that all of the capital region, 

particularly those areas that are the most disinvested, receive the 

benefit of this stimulus and of the jobs and the jobs for the future. 

So I look forward to hearing some of your testimony about those 

aspects of the way that GSA looks at its leases and buildings and 

the projects that are in the pipeline so that the entire national capital area benefits comparably in the projects that are being created. 

I would also like to point to the Chairwoman’s leadership in 

making sure that we also have training opportunities so that the 

jobs we are creating down the line are available to people who may 

not be in the skill set that we have right now, but down the line 

will, working with our apprenticeship programs and our job corps 

programs so that we are training up the folks who can come into 

this industry and build in the kind of way that makes the most 

sense for the taxpayer. 

And if ever there were an environment in which the watch words 

are accountability and transparency, we are in that environment 

now. So I fully expect that from this Subcommittee and from your 

continued testimony and the oversight that we will provide, that 

we offer the taxpayer the kind of accountability and transparency 

they deserve for this significant expenditure in funding, and I look 

forward to your testimony. Thank you. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. 

We will go to our first witnesses and then ask those, after they 

testify, who are accompanying them to come forward for questioning. First, Paul Prouty, who is the Acting Administrator of 

General Services Administration. Mr. Prouty? 

8 

TESTIMONY OF PAUL PROUTY, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; HARRY GORDON, AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS; ACCOMPANIED BY ANTHONY COSTA, ACTING COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC BUILDINGS 

SERVICE; KEVIN KAMPSCHROER, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

FEDERAL HIGH-PERFORMANCE GREEN BUILDINGS; AND 

LESLIE LEHRKINDER, ACTING DIRECTOR, REAL ESTATE 

AND FACILITIES MANAGEMENT, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 

Mr. PROUTY. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Diaz-Balart, and 

Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Paul Prouty, and I am 

the Acting Administrator of the General Services Administration. 

I am pleased to have the opportunity today to discuss GSA’s role 

in the Nation’s economic recovery. My full statement was submitted to the Committee and, with your permission, I will now give 

a brief summary. 

I will also ask the Subcommittee’s permission that Mr. Anthony 

Costa, Acting Commissioner of the Public Buildings Service, and 

Mr. Kevin Kampschroer, Acting Director of our Office of High Performance Green Buildings, be allowed to join me at the conclusion 

of my prepared remarks to assist in answering any questions the 

Subcommittee may have. 

I would also like to thank Leslie Lehrkinder, Acting Director of 

Real Estate and Facilities Manager with IRS, and Harry Gordon, 

with the American Institute of Architects, for joining us today. 

GSA has a unique and exciting opportunity to be part of the solution to this Nation’s economic crisis. By investing in our critical infrastructure projects, we can help stimulate jobs in the construction, manufacturing, and real estate sectors while supporting longterm growth in energy-efficient technologies, alternative energy solutions, and green construction. 

These sectors—construction, manufacturing, and real estate—are 

among the hardest hit by the current economic crisis and we have 

the ability to help them. GSA can get money flowing directly to the 

building industries, to construction workers, electricians, plumbers, 

heating and air conditioning mechanics, carpenters, architects, engineers, and others in the design and construction fields, and 

through them to suppliers and manufacturers. We can help get 

people back to work quickly. 

Not only will we be helping to create jobs in the building construction field across the Country, we will be creating a market for 

skilled building technicians who will manage and operate these 

new technologies. By reinvesting in existing structures and building high-performance green buildings, we will lessen our dependence on foreign oil and encourage the development and use of alternative energy technologies. 

Currently, GSA spends almost a half a billion dollars a year on 

utilities. High-performance green buildings foster energy efficiency 

and promote building systems that work together. By retrofitting 

buildings to be high performing, we can realize immediate savings 

on our utility bills. These buildings are not only high-performing, 

they will also enable the Federal workforce to perform at the highest level. 

9 

At the same time, we can make meaningful improvements to our 

portfolio that will yield a sound financial return, restore our crumbling infrastructure, and ensure these important assets remain 

available to meet the future needs of Federal agencies and serve 

local communities and their citizens. 

Today, I would like to summarize the four major areas of responsibility described in my prepared statement. They are: one, project 

identification; two, energy efficiency and green buildings; three, 

project execution; and, four, transparency and reporting. 

Project identification. I will begin by summarizing how we identify needed projects that achieve the reinvestment goals. We convened a team consisting of national and regional GSA professionals 

in several disciplines to review projects that are likely candidates 

for this funding. We have a large number of new construction, repair and alteration, and below prospectus projects that are already 

in the pipeline and ready to go. 

To this universe we are adding projects that have clear energy 

efficiency components with good return on investment and that 

promote the development of alternative energy technologies. We 

also are enhancing the existing projects to incorporate the latest 

technology, reduce energy consumption, and increase renewable energy generation. 

As we review potential projects, the two most important of several criteria are how fast we can create jobs by getting shovels in 

the ground and how much added energy efficiency we can gain 

from projects ready for construction award. Besides creating jobs, 

investment in our infrastructure provides an unprecedented opportunity for GSA to improve the performance of our buildings. These 

investments will help reduce our energy consumption and cut 

maintenance and utility costs, reduce our backlog of repair and alteration needs, prevent the deterioration of our valuable real property, and prolong the useful life of our building assets. 

In addition, we can rely less on lease space to house Federal 

agencies. In the past, we have had to move people out of federally 

owned space that could no longer meet their needs. If it is included 

in the legislative priorities, we have identified future building 

projects that could become Government construction rather than 

lease construction. 

I want to emphasize that no project is on our list if it does not 

deliver a positive return on investment. 

Turning next to our energy and green building responsibilities. 

GSA is required to reduce our energy consumption and lessen our 

dependence on fossil fuels. We are looking for every opportunity to 

improve the energy efficiency components of existing designs. Many 

improvements are as simple as substituting more efficient equipment or adding components. Some examples we have already identified are: one, providing additional installation; two, installing 

variable frequency drives to reduce energy and extend the life of 

mechanical equipment; three, converting parking structure lighting 

to light-emitting diode, LEED. LEEDs dramatically lower energy 

consumption, improve safety and visibility. LEEDs also lower future maintenance costs because they last longer than typical parking lot lights. And, four, retrofitting or replacing less efficient windows. 

10 

By using well established contracting techniques such as designbuild, we can start work quickly on existing designs and concurrently improve other project designs with energy-efficient approaches. 

To further streamline our energy efficiency improvements, we 

have identified and will continue to identify a number of initiatives 

that can rapidly be deployed in many buildings. Some examples of 

these are, first, installing intelligent lighting systems to use daylight rather than electric lights and to use lower-level ambient light 

with task lights where needed; second, replacing old, inefficient 

roofs with either ENERGY STAR membranes, integrated photovoltaic panels bonded to the membrane, or planted roofs; third, accelerating the installation of advanced meters to help us better 

manage buildings. By providing instantaneous information on a 

building’s energy use, we can take immediate action to respond to 

fluctuations. 

In short, we are looking for every opportunity to quickly optimize 

our reinvestment funds by increasing building energy performance, 

cutting operating costs, and reducing our dependence on fossil fuel. 

Next I would like to address our project execution responsibilities, or what we describe as getting the work done. We are looking 

for new, faster ways of delivering our renovation and construction 

projects. To manage the work expected with the large influx of capital, we are focusing on three areas. They are: management, measurement, and tracking and reporting. We will be supporting regional program personnel with a disciplined approach to standard 

business processes, communication plans, updated policy and guidance, consistent lines of authority, and consistent training. 

Given the complexity of the project management responsibilities, 

GSA has formed a nationally managed, regionally executed Program Management Office, or PMO, which is dedicated to managing 

reinvestment-funded projects. It will be staffed with project management experts and will draw from resources across the Public 

Building Service, Federal Acquisition Service, and other parts of 

the agency. The Program Management Office will maintain an aggressive schedule and will be supported and mirrored by teams in 

each region. 

In the GSA acquisition community, we are exploring a variety of 

tools that can be customized, standardized, and consistently used 

to support the reinvestment initiative. For example, we are using 

consistent, standardized scopes of work and specifications. In addition, we will use existing contract vehicles like indefinite delivery, 

indefinite quantity contracts, and GSA scheduled contracts. In all 

these acquisitions, GSA will seek competition within the marketplace and will strive to maintain our good record of outreach and 

support to small businesses. 

Measurement is a key component in managing the reinvestment 

initiative. Management of these precious reinvestment funds relies 

on accurate measurement, reporting, and tracking. GSA has business measures that are widely considered to be among the best in 

the industry. We currently use several performance measures to 

track the progress and budgets of our capital projects. We will 

apply these measures to track the design process and the progress 

of reinvestment projects. 

11 

We also have well established systems to measure our contract 

and energy performance. To meet the anticipated increase in volume, as well as the need for greater transparency in reporting for 

reinvestment-funded projects, we will be expanding and enhancing 

these measures. 

Our infrastructure reinvestment requires greater accountability, 

transparency of actions, and reporting requirements. GSA will be 

taking the lead to launch and manage recovery.gov, the official 

website of the Federal Government, which will report the ongoing 

progress on the reinvestment funding for the American public. We 

are also ensuring that our financial systems will track information 

at the required level in order to meet the recovery.gov requirements. 

Finally, as part of the proposed American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, GSA is being asked to purchase and promote energyefficient motor vehicles for Federal fleets. We stand ready to help 

stimulate that sector of our economy as well. 

Today, I have described GSA’s readiness to contribute to our Nation’s economic recovery, to address strategic energy goals, and to 

make financially sound and long-overdue reinvestment in our public buildings. We fully recognize this is an extraordinary opportunity and we are ready to move forward with speed, tempered by 

careful consideration of our procurement responsibilities and our 

responsibilities and accountability to the American taxpayer. We 

are eager to work with you and other Members of this Subcommittee as we engage in this important work. 

Madam Chair, Ranking Member Diaz-Balart, this concludes my 

statement. I and my colleagues will be pleased to answer any questions that you or any other Members of this Subcommittee may 

have. 

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

Mr. Gordon of the American Institute of Architects. 

Mr. GORDON. Chairwoman Norton, Ranking Member DiazBalart, and Members of the Subcommittee, good morning. I am 

Harry Gordon, FAIA, the Chairman of Burt Hill, an international 

architecture and engineering firm, and I am appearing today on behalf of the American Institute of Architects, the AIA. 

My architectural firm, Burt Hill, has designed over 20 million 

square feet of buildings nationwide that incorporate high-performance building features. These buildings save 40 to 50 percent of the 

energy used by regular buildings; save up to 80 percent of municipally supplied water; produce less pollution, reducing ozone alert 

days and global warming; provide healthy and productive working 

and living spaces for people; and generally do not cost more than 

conventional buildings. 

On behalf of the 86,000 AIA members and the 281,000 Americans who work for architectural firms nationwide, I would like to 

thank you for the opportunity to appear today. I speak before you 

at a critical juncture in our Nation’s history. The collapsing economy presents us with a challenge that we need to face, but also an 

opportunity to take bold steps that will strengthen our Country 

and its people for years to come. 

Just yesterday, the Senate passed a massive economic recovery 

bill and, as I speak, a conference committee is meeting to produce 

12 

a final bill for President Obama’s signature. The differing bills 

passed by the House and Senate include a number of critical priorities that will stimulate the economy through investments in our 

Nation’s buildings. Unfortunately, the Senate bill drastically reduces funding for GSA’s Federal Building Fund and high performance Federal buildings, as compared to the House bill. The AIA 

and its partners in the design and construction industry strongly 

urge Congress to include the House-passed funding levels for the 

GSA Federal Building Fund and for high-performing Federal buildings in the final version of H.R. 1 that it sends to President 

Obama. 

Investing in green Federal buildings will create jobs, reduce energy costs, increase the value of GSA’s portfolio, and ultimately 

save taxpayers money. A significant investment in high-performance Federal buildings as a part of economic recovery legislation is 

not only warranted, but vital for the continued economic and environmental health of our Nation. 

I’d like to address two specific topics. The first is job creation and 

the second the benefits of high-performance buildings. 

Speaking first to job creation, investing in the design, construction, and renovation of Federal buildings will create thousands of 

jobs in the design and construction industry at a time when this 

sector has all but collapsed. In January alone, these industries 

have lost over 110,000 jobs. A number of recent studies has shown 

that each $1 million in construction spending supports about 28.5 

full-time jobs. This means that the $7.7 billion the House appropriated for the Federal Building Fund could create as many as 

219,000 jobs. 

I would point out that these are private sector jobs across a wide 

range of sectors, from architects and engineers, to sheet metal and 

insulation installers and electricians, plumbers, masons, and carpenters. And because GSA has indicated that it has nearly 500 

projects that are ready to go and can be obligated in 90 to 180 

days, these are jobs that will be created immediately. It also means 

that the Senate bill, by cutting this amount by approximately $2 

billion, essentially eliminates 57,000 job opportunities. This is the 

last thing that we should do at this moment. 

Both Congress and President Obama have stated that saving and 

creating jobs is our Nation’s top priority. By investing in high-performance Federal buildings, Congress can go a long way toward 

meeting this goal and do so in an intelligent way that is good for 

business, good for the environment, and good for the American taxpayer. 

The second topic I would like to address is the benefits of green 

buildings. Both the Federal Government and the private sector 

have proven that investing in high-performance buildings offers 

countless benefits in addition to the potential to create thousands 

of new jobs. Investing in high-performance buildings will increase 

energy efficiency, therefore reducing energy costs. The Department 

of Energy has identified several case studies of commercial buildings that have undergone energy efficiency construction or retrofits. 

They find that the actual energy cost savings—not predicted or theoretical, but actual—to be as high as 67 percent. For private ownVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:49 Nov 05, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\47412 JASON
13 

ers, that is money right back into their pocket, and for Federal 

buildings, that is saving taxpayers money. 

The economic benefits of green buildings go beyond just reduced 

energy costs. In the private sector, high-performing buildings enjoy 

higher rent premiums, higher occupancy rates, and often sell for 

more money per square foot than conventional buildings. This 

shows that the value of a building increases, and increased dramatically, when the building owner goes green. 

The private sector has also shown that high-performance buildings bring a greater ability to attract talented workers, higher employee retention rates, improved worker productivity, and improvements in employee health. I have included details of these facts in 

my written testimony. 

Given the substantial benefits high-performance buildings offer, 

Congress should support our Nation’s largest landlord, the General 

Services Administration, in greening their buildings. Investing in 

high-performing Federal buildings is a common sense approach to 

creating jobs, reducing energy costs, and ultimately saving taxpayers money. For these reasons, the AIA and its partners in the 

design and construction industry strongly urge Congress to include 

the House-passed funding levels for the GSA Federal Building 

Fund and high-performing Federal buildings in the final version of 

H.R. 1 that it sends to President Obama. 

I welcome any questions from the Subcommittee. Thank you, 

Chairwoman Norton and Ranking Member Diaz-Balart, for the opportunity to testify before your Subcommittee today. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Gordon. It is very important to hear from the private sector, which has the immediate 

bottom line to take into consideration when it comes to what to do, 

as the Government does not always have. Of course, we do have 

it with respect to these funds because this is our inventory. 

Before I ask my questions, I will have to leave here at 10:15 because of the markup of a bill involving my District in the Senate, 

and I am only hoping that the Chairman of us all will be able to 

stay and take the chair at that time. We are pleased that the 

Chairman of the Full Committee is here, and ask him if he has any 

comments before I ask my questions. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chair, thank you very much. I wish you 

great success in the mission to the Senate. It is missionary work 

when you go over there, across the border, and it is important for 

you to do that, and I will happily remain here to join with mi 

hermano, Senor Diaz-Balart. We have a very distinguished panel 

of witnesses, very, very above average, recommending we stick 

with the House number. Thank you. 

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

Let me get on the record, so that everyone will understand, that 

GSA was not born yesterday when it comes to energy and incorporating energy in construction and repairs. When we are about to 

embark on the most important, largest perhaps—perhaps not the 

most important, but the largest building project under the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee or the GSA, which is the multi-agency 

Department of Homeland Security, in building that headquarters 

or in doing other construction work today, does the GSA already 

try to meet the state-of-the-art, use the opportunity of repair, alterVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:49 Nov 05, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\47412 JASON
14 

ation, and construction to meet the state-of-the-art in energy efficiency as a part of its general mission? Mr. Prouty. 

And would others please come to the table, now that it is time 

for the questions? 

For example, I will give you another construction example. One 

of the things you often have to do to save a building is to put a 

new roof on that building. In putting a new roof on the building 

today, would the GSA consider photovoltaics as a possibility in 

order to conserve energy in that building? Would it consider the 

possibility of a green roof? Or would it just fix the roof? 

Mr. PROUTY. The answer is we would definitely consider new 

technologies. Kevin Kampschroer has joined us, and he can expand 

on that answer. 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. We would not only consider it, but we have 

experience in doing it. In Waltham, Massachusetts we have incorporated a roof repair, which was badly needed, with an integrated 

photovoltaic roof which today produces 50 percent of the electricity 

required by the building. And we have looked at every project we 

are considering here to see where those opportunities are. This is 

an exact example of the kinds of things we are doing to be responsive to the goals that are articulated in the proposed legislation. 

Ms. NORTON. Now, Mr. Kampschroer, you are from the Office of 

Federal High Performance Green Buildings, which is part of the 

energy bill that we enacted. Are there some up-front costs that 

would deter, or should deter, the Government in making repairs on 

buildings or in construction? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. There are certainly cases where the most energy efficient or the newest technology is more expensive. A good 

example of that is the use of geothermal or ground-source heat 

loop. It is a great technology, it is well proven, but it is more expensive in initial capital costs. So as we examine those, frequently, 

if you have very little money, it is a balancing act between how 

much money you have and what you can afford to do. As we look 

forward, we are trying to maximize that. It is one of the goals that 

was articulated in the Energy Independence and Security Act, and 

we are incorporating those goals into our activities in response to 

the stimulus. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Prouty, it has been alleged that this money will 

be used to ‘‘spruce up office space for Federal workers.’’ Will any 

of this money be used to spruce up or make Federal workers more 

comfortable? Will any of it be used on furniture? Will any of it be 

used on interior finishes? Are any of those expenditures what GSA 

has in mind for this infrastructure money? 

Mr. PROUTY. Once again, the simple answer is no. These projects 

all have a return, they are all involving infrastructure energy. 

However, I might add that there will be some finish work, because 

as we get into the buildings we obviously are going to have to put 

the buildings back together. But that is certainly not a significant 

amount of money. 

Ms. NORTON. Now, normally, if there is major construction, we 

require a prospectus. You come here, we look at it in its exclusive 

detail. Because of the nature of this work here—and, if I may say 

so, you don’t have to come to us for repairs and alterations unless 

they are major. 

15 

But, in any case, because of the time frame, the urgency of the 

economic situation, the normal kind of coming forward here, at 

least for major repairs, may not occur. Of course, we will have oversight and we will have oversight ahead of time, before you begin 

your work. 

This Committee, this Subcommittee will not micro manage what 

it doesn’t understand. We are not builders, we are not repairers; 

we defer to your expertise. At the same time, as a Committee of 

oversight, I want to know what objective measures will you use in 

choosing projects for repair, alteration, construction, or other work. 

Mr. PROUTY. The response to that is, first of all, the projects with 

an existing need and the projects that we can get in the ground, 

but we are still going to use the same criteria that we use for the 

return on investment of all our projects, the existing projects, energy-specific projects, new projects, existing projects that need to be 

brought up to new standards. But, obviously, we are going to look 

at the criteria and the criteria is going to be where those projects 

are located, what those markets look like, what the labor markets, 

how many projects we have in each location. But the criteria that 

we use to determine which projects we are going to go forth with 

is no different than those that we bring to you under the prospectus process. 

Ms. NORTON. We are not in the project business. We are not trying to decide who gets a project business. The most important part 

of what we do on GSA in my 18 years here has been the objective 

nature of it. Nobody can put in a chit for her project or his project 

in his State; this is the cleanest Committee in the Congress. We 

don’t do earmarks; we don’t favor Members of the Committee. At 

the same time, we would be interested in the location of these 

projects. Do you see the need for project spread across the Country 

that meet your criteria? 

Mr. PROUTY. We definitely do. 

Ms. NORTON. You know that the criteria you have just indicated 

is going to be tested, because there will come a time when you will 

come before us with those projects. We know you have to give you 

time to do that, but, by the way, not much time. In fact, I want 

to know how soon, since all the projects have to be shovel-ready, 

are you prepared to choose projects and make them transparent so 

this Committee will know exactly what the projects are? 

Mr. PROUTY. We are going to be prepared to do that as soon as 

we know the final criteria of the legislation. But I will let Tony 

Costa expand on that. 

Mr. COSTA. Good morning. Since discussion of the stimulus started a couple of months ago, we have been scrubbing projects, and 

the interesting thing is we think as many as $6 billion worth of 

projects have already gone through the Subcommittee for authorization, projects, for instance, that are multi-phased that you all 

have already reviewed and approved. So much of the work has already been reviewed. 

Ms. NORTON. So there are projects that we have already approved? 

Mr. COSTA. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. Could you give us examples? 

16 

Mr. COSTA. For instance, the Department of Interior headquarters is a multi-phased project. It’s already been approved and 

we have future phases that are going to be funded in the latter 

years. That is one project, for instance, that we are looking at seriously that could become part of the stimulus project list. So a significant number of projects and money involved in the potential 

project list really has already been seen by the Subcommittee. 

Ms. NORTON. Now, one of these projects involves the Internal 

Revenue Service. This is Ms. Lehrkinder. Ms. Lehrkinder, would 

you describe the internal IRS work and where it is located and why 

you believe it is an example of what we are trying to do with this 

bill? 

Ms. LEHRKINDER. Yes, ma’am. One of the projects that is under 

review and is in consideration that we are working in partnership 

with GSA with is our Andover Campus. 

Ms. NORTON. Where is that located? 

Ms. LEHRKINDER. Andover, Massachusetts. And the campus is an 

aging building. It was constructed in the 1960s. Its infrastructure 

is aging. We have significant concerns with the electrical systems, 

the mechanical systems, the roof. It is a project that, actually, the 

prospectus for design was approved in the 1990s and we have been 

working with GSA to prepare for the construction phase once we 

received approval for construction. So that is one of the projects, I 

believe, that is under consideration. 

Ms. NORTON. That is a building owned by the Federal Government? 

Ms. LEHRKINDER. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. Owned by the Federal Government. How many 

square feet, approximately? 

Ms. LEHRKINDER. It’s about 400,000 square feet. 

Ms. NORTON. If that building is rehabilitated, what will be the 

effect on heating, savings, energy? 

Ms. LEHRKINDER. Let me give you a very good example. We have 

an electrical system that is aging. The switch gear is such that we 

have to manufacture the primary switch gear because it is no 

longer standard manufacture. And we actually have had issues 

where the building electrical systems have gone down. 

Ms. NORTON. You have to manufacture the switch gear? What do 

you mean? 

Ms. LEHRKINDER. The switch gear itself is no longer manufactured, we have to custom manufacture the switch gear. 

Ms. NORTON. Oh, my goodness. 

Ms. LEHRKINDER. It is so old. So we actually have had an example of lost power and the impact of sending the workforce home because we had no power in the facility. So this is, we think, a very 

good candidate for this project. 

Ms. NORTON. Finally, before I go to the Ranking Member, because many of his questions about how you proceed need to be answered. They are important and good questions. But I would like 

to ask Mr. Gordon one final question. The reason that you are an 

important witness for us is because we have noticed many private 

developers and building owners moving ahead of the Government 

in going green and making the up-front expenditure, and your testimony is valuable in a number of ways. 

17 

First of all, you indicate, by talking about the unemployment in 

your area, how construction wakes up other sectors. This is construction work. But on down the line there are many sectors—and 

more so than in any other kind of stimulus spending—that get 

waked up to support or that otherwise are awakened because the 

construction workers have money to spend. It is what has been 

proved over and over again by stimulus spending. So I noted the 

very high unemployment rate, which matches the huge construction worker unemployment rate as well. 

But you mentioned, on page 6, the financial benefits, actual benefits of going green. There are savings and there are benefits. I 

need somebody from the private sector who has a bottom line to 

talk to this Committee about the benefits of going green while you 

are in the process of making repairs or doing construction. 

Mr. GORDON. Thank you, Chairwoman Norton. I would be happy 

to address that point. In the private sector we have found that 

there are very substantial advantages to the incorporation of high 

performance features in green buildings. We found, for example, 

that the rent premiums of high performance buildings over their 

conventional counterparts are typically $11.24 per square foot. We 

have seen a 3.8 percent higher occupancy rate in these green buildings, and some studies indicate that the sales price of green buildings is an average of $171 more per square foot than their conventional competitors. So all of those advantages in the private sector 

accrue directly to the bottom line. 

But that’s not the only benefit. These buildings are better buildings for the people who work in them, and we see higher rates of 

retention, the ability to attract talent to those buildings. We see 

less sick time and we see a number of other benefits to the workers 

in those buildings that come in addition to the benefits of job creation, energy improvement, and increase in value. 

Ms. NORTON. So have you found a reluctance of the private sector? Let’s leave aside this economy, where there is a reluctance to 

do anything. But how much reluctance have you found in the private sector when you advise clients to move forward with greening 

of one kind or another in the work that you do for them? 

Mr. GORDON. We are finding increasingly that our private sector 

clients, both the developer clients and also the private sector universities that we work for, the hospitals and other health care facilities, all these private sector entities recognize the benefits of 

high performance green buildings and are making those investments. Now, that is not to say that every one of them does. We 

don’t all become enlightened at the same time. But a very significant percentage of our clients in the private sector mandate that 

these features are part of the designs that we create for them. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Gordon. 

I would like to go now to our Ranking Member, Mr. Diaz-Balart. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Madam Chairman. We understand, Madam Chairman, that you have an interesting morning 

ahead of you, going to the other side, as the Chairman said, so 

thank you and Godspeed. 

Before I begin my questions, I do want to mention that we are 

obviously honored to have the Chairman of the Full Committee. 

One of the untold stories in this process is that there are areas and 

18 

there are individuals that do not allow partisan bickering to get in 

the way of good products, and if you will kind of hear that between 

the Chairwoman and myself and other Members, we have a lot of 

things in common, a big part of that reason is because the Chairman of the Full Committee has an attitude where he listens and 

will take ideas from anybody and everybody if they are deemed to 

be good ideas. And I think that is one of the reasons you will see 

a lot more cooperation in this Committee than anywhere else. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again. I have told you 

that before, I have told you that in private, I have told you that 

in public, but I think it is important to note that because, when 

times are tough, there are certain times when you have got to look 

at things that do work, and your leadership works. So we thank 

you for that, sir. 

Mr. Prouty, is that how I pronounce it? 

Mr. PROUTY. Prouty. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. With a name like Diaz-Balart, I shouldn’t be 

messing other people’s names up, right? 

You mentioned in your testimony, sir, that each project is being 

evaluated on a number of criteria, including—and I was glad to 

hear that—first, how fast jobs can be created, which is the purpose 

of this bill, and energy efficiency, which obviously we all support. 

Now, can you talk a little more about this criteria and others that 

you are using? 

One of the things that came up in discussion now is energy savings, savings and cost versus up-front costs, and one of the criteria 

that I would like you to kind of discuss—not the only one—is there 

a standard, for example, on how many years the taxpayer will get 

their money back as part of that decision making? If you could just 

discuss that and also other criteria that you are looking at. 

Mr. PROUTY. We will do that. As far as the first question, I will 

ask Kevin Kampschroer to respond to it. 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. Thank you. There is a standard process by 

which we examine that, life cycle costing analysis. We use that on 

all of these projects and we are systematically using that. In the 

money that we have spent in the past, we have had positive returns on investments averaging at around seven or eight years. Obviously, it varies. The projects that get the quickest return are usually control systems, and the ones that have the longest return are 

usually renewable energy generation. So we are seeking to have a 

balance of these with a blended return on investment rate that is 

positive. 

One of the things that this Committee did in the Energy Independence and Security Act was lengthen the amount of time that 

we had available to us to do life cycle cost analysis from 25 years 

to 40 years, and that enables us to really examine over the full life 

cycle of long-lasting products, like photovoltaic panels, exactly 

when they begin to return on investment. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. And that criteria is going to be used for this 

as well, I am assuming? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. That is correct. On every project we are the 

moment looking at total savings and absolute energy, the potential 

savings and the cost of operation of the buildings, as well as the 

savings and the cost of energy. 

19 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Great. The Senate bill requires that nearly 

half of the funds—and, again, I understand we are in conference, 

so we will see what comes out, but the Senate bill says that nearly 

half of the funds to be available for measures necessary to convert 

GSA facilities to high performance green buildings, and the Act 

seems to set some pretty high bars as to what is considered a high 

performance green building. 

I have some of those definitions and they include reducing energy—by the way, we all support this; obviously, this is legislation 

that Congress did. It includes reducing energy, water, material resource use, improving indoor environmental quality, including 

acoustic environments, thermal comfort, considering the indoor and 

outdoor effects of the building, among others. These are only a few 

of the requirements outlined, but it is and. In other words, it is not 

or, it is and, so all those things have to be part of it. 

Now, obviously, we all want to take steps to improve energy efficiency and to minimize the carbon footprint of Federal buildings 

and save money long-term, et cetera, so we also support that. However, the standard set for high performance green buildings may 

seem to be so high that it may actually impact a number of projects 

that might be able to be completed through the stimulus package. 

For example—and we have talked a little bit about that—with 

many older buildings in the inventory in need of repair, it is unclear if they could meet this high bar. At least to me they are unclear. From your current list of potential projects, how many of 

them already meet these requirements? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. From the potential list, I would say none of 

them meet all the requirements, or else they wouldn’t be on the potential list. I hope that doesn’t sound like a facile answer, but we 

are really looking at the buildings that need improvement. We are 

seeking to address all of these. In a new construction project that 

we are starting from scratch, you have the opportunity, using integrated design principles, to address all of these areas in the balance, and, as Mr. Gordon says, that enables you to deliver those 

projects at very little additional cost. 

For repair buildings, we are seeking to address not just energy 

efficiency, but all of the rest of the items that you mentioned, and, 

in fact, in many cases they are interrelated. We can improve the 

indoor environmental quality in buildings by reducing energy consumption simultaneously by maximizing the use of daylight, for example. We use the daylight, we turn off the lights with automatic 

controls and then you have a better working environment for people inside the building, as well as reducing energy and saving 

costs. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. And you mentioned those examples and others. 

In your testimony you talked about thicker insulation, converting 

light into LED, and retrofitting windows, but for each of these 

areas, and others that you just mentioned right now, sir, have you 

determined how many jobs will be created based on the dollars invested and what those figures are? Is there a way that we can see 

something like that? 

Mr. COSTA. We have. There are various models to talk about job 

generation. We have looked at a couple and one that pertains directly to construction spending was developed by the National AsVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:49 Nov 05, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\47412 JASON
20 

sociation of Industrial and Office Properties. Their basic model suggests that for every billion dollars spent in the construction field 

generates about 28,000 full-time jobs, increases $1 billion in personal earnings, and contributes $3.4 billion to the gross domestic 

product. Just doing the math at House spending levels, at $7.7 billion 

worth of construction, that would translate to over 220,000 fulltime jobs and close to $8 billion in personal earnings. We are really 

confident that the work that we are proposing will generate jobs 

quickly and efficiently. Our record is pretty outstanding. For every 

dollar we spend in our budget, 95 percent of it goes directly to the 

private sector to do renovation work, construct our buildings, design our buildings, operate our buildings. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I understand that and I understand those general numbers, but, however, you know, we can make numbers do 

things. And I am not questioning them, however, because they are 

obviously—but specifically on a project-by-project, are you looking 

at specifically how many jobs this project, this retrofit will actually 

create on that project, versus just relying on general numbers that 

are out there in a general sense? 

Mr. COSTA. In our project-by-project analysis, we are looking at 

job generation depending on the kind of work that we are proposing. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Good. Good. And it would be great if you could 

show us some of those when you have a—I am not going to ask you 

to do that right now, but I am saying it would be good to have that 

to have an idea of what specifically each project, whether it is insulation, whether it is LED, whatever, what that is actually going to 

create, as opposed to just the general numbers in a general sense 

that the industry can put out. 

Mr. COSTA. Congressman, when we provide our project listing, 

we expect to provide fairly specific information on each project and 

really an articulation of goals achieved for each project, not in general terms. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Great. 

Mr. COSTA. So we are actually excited to provide that information when we provide our listing. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Great. Thank you, sir. 

I mentioned this a little bit at the beginning. In 1983, GSA made 

a number of acquisitions under the building purchase program. 

And I hate saying this in front of the Chairman because he will 

probably correct me on numbers, because he will remember, unfortunately, all the details. But, anyway, at the risk of not getting it 

totally right, Mr. Chairman, I know that in 1983 GSA made a 

number of acquisitions under the building purchase program. 

Now, this program resulted in, to my understanding, an additional 3.8 million square feet of space, saved the taxpayer nearly 

$300 million in rent payments, and now it is about a half a billion 

dollars worth of property that the Federal Government owns. In 

addition, these programs had an actual effect of stimulating job 

creation because a lot of these projects were ones that were dying, 

that were not going up, that had stalled. 

Can you talk a little bit about these programs and the benefit 

that they provided to the taxpayer? 

21 

Mr. PROUTY. We definitely agree that these programs benefitted 

the taxpayer. We know the inventory you are talking about and it 

was an opportunity that we don’t get very often, and certainly benefitted from it. And to whatever extent we can do that with these 

funds, we will certainly consider it. Obviously, it would take a 

unique circumstance where a project was in trouble so you could 

cause the job creation, but we are certainly open to looking at that 

and we would very much like to have those properties in our portfolio. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Great. Now, one of the things that I mentioned 

also was that the House bill and the Senate bill both require that 

GSA provide detailed plans by project to the Appropriations Committee. Not to this Committee, however. Could we get GSA to commit to provide this Committee the same information that, prior to 

obligating to spending the money, that it is required to provide to 

the Appropriations Committee, regardless of what language comes 

out in the bill at the end? 

Mr. PROUTY. I was going to say yes. Mr. Costa said of course. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. If the gentleman would yield. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Whether they want to or not, they are going to 

provide the information to this Committee. We have made it very 

clear in our bipartisan proposal last fall, last October, last December, that we are going to hold hearings every 30 days and require 

all Federal Government agencies to report to this Committee on 

the jobs created, the payroll made, and the jobs by description, and 

we are going to make that information public. So they will report 

to us regardless what the Appropriations Committee does. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I saw you even 

have an agenda on that, Mr. Chairman, but I just wanted to put 

that on the record as well. Thank you. 

You mentioned also that the project list will be based on sound 

assessed management practices, which is good, following the Real 

Property Council’s guiding principles and principles related to 

green buildings. Will decisions by this Committee related to the approval or disapproval of projects factor in your decision? And, if so, 

how? I mentioned the fact that there is nothing in the legislation 

that would stop you from, for example, funding projects that this 

Committee has not wanted to do. 

Mr. COSTA. Of course, we have a long history of working together. We understand your priorities on a project-by-project basis 

and in general, and we will consider that input when concluding 

on a project listing, no question. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Great. Thank you. Let me ask some questions 

to Mr. Gordon again. 

Thank you, Mr. Gordon, and thank you for being here. It is a 

privilege to have you here, sir. You outlined the costs and benefits 

of green buildings, which, again, we all support. Do you have cost 

benefit statistics related to retrofitting or converting older buildings to meet the standards set in the Senate bill? 

Mr. GORDON. Yes, sir. We found that in renovating existing 

buildings, that if we put some additional funds into the renovation 

of those buildings, we typically get a very high return in terms of 

22 

increased performance and reduced energy costs. So the number 

that was used earlier of approximately a five to seven year return 

on that investment is quite typical of what we see in both our private sector retrofitting of buildings and also the buildings we have 

had the privilege to do for the Federal Government. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Great. Great. Lastly, the intent of the legislation, as we all know—and I have been kind of talking about that 

a little bit today—is to create jobs through a lot of different ways, 

including funding shovel-ready projects, obviously. Any idea how 

long you think it would take GSA to incorporate the standards as 

required by the Senate bill, for example, into existing designs? Is 

that something that can be done quickly? 

Mr. GORDON. Yes, that can be done very quickly. GSA has had 

a very commendable history of improving the performance of their 

buildings over time. They have done this in a number of ways. The 

things we are talking about today in terms of energy performance 

and more environmentally responsive buildings are two examples, 

but I would cite also some of the advancements that GSA has made 

in the use of building information modeling and other advances in 

the building industry. They have really been a driver for those 

things. 

Because of that progressive position that the GSA has had in so 

many areas, they are very familiar with the kinds of things that 

are appropriate to incorporate in these buildings, and I think the 

ability to incorporate those rapidly will be met by the experienced 

levels in the private sector, the architects, engineers, and builders 

who will incorporate those features and will work quite compatibly 

with the GSA to achieve those quickly. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you. And thank all of you for being here 

this morning. I really appreciate that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ARCURI. [Presiding] Thank you, Ranking Member DiazBalart. 

The Chair now recognizes the very distinguished Chairman of 

the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Chairman Oberstar. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and mi amigo DiazBalart, muchas gracias. 

And if you think Diaz-Balart is hard to pronounce, try Pustos 

Schlemshek or Coyvo Kivimaqi, constituents in my district. Those 

are tongue twisters. Diaz-Balart, that rolls off the tongue easily. 

And I thank you for your service on this Committee. It is very, 

very distinguished. 

I appreciate our witnesses. Mr. Gordon, your contributions on behalf of the American Institute of Architects recalls to mind a hearing I presided over in my second term, in 1977, when the American 

Institute of Architects, along with GSA and with the Sheet Metal 

Workers Union, came to this Committee to discuss a study that the 

Sheet Metal Workers Union had commissioned of the benefits of 

retrofitting Federal office buildings with photovoltaic systems. 

Their report concluded—it was a two volume document—that you 

would save huge amounts of electricity, you would create 135,000 

construction jobs over a three year period, with an investment of 

$175 million a year over three years, and would reduce the cost of 

23 

energy from photovoltaics from then $1.75 a kilowatt hour to close 

to the investor-owned utilities rate of $0.07 an hour for PEPCO in 

the Washington, D.C. area. 

Well, I introduced legislation. In fact, the Committee staff resurrected my testimony last year that I gave at our own Committee 

hearing in defense of my bill to implement this proposal, and the 

Committee approved the bill, the House passed the bill, the Senate 

passed the bill, President Carter signed it into law, and put the 

first increment of $175 million in his budget and then lost the election. Unfortunately, the incoming Reagan administration thought 

that windmills and photovoltaics were nonsense and, in effect, repealed by deleting the entire $960 million alternative energy budget. 

Time passes. They are gone; I am Chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. OBERSTAR. It took 30 years, but we resurrected that bill and 

got it into the energy package in 2007, and the first of the targets 

was the Department of Energy facility. 

I mention architects. The AIA was so enamored of and supportive 

of this legislation, and recited for us, by the way, in that testimony 

the experience of the government of Canada and the provincial governments of Canada. As a result of that, I went to Toronto, traveled there, met with my colleagues in the Canadian parliament, 

toured their department of provincial and Federal department of 

energy building in which the Federal and provincial governments 

were doing energy audits for private homeowners, for small businesses, and for all Federal and provincial government facilities. 

They saved hundreds of millions of dollars by retrofitting—today I 

call it futurefitting—those facilities. 

Now, last year, the cost of photovoltaics, all by itself, all through 

various Federal Government agencies, State government agencies, 

private sector entities investing in photovoltaics has come down to 

$0.25 a kilowatt hour, roughly. Investor-owned utility numbers still 

around $0.07. If we had proceeded with this program on a massive 

scale nationwide, we would be way farther ahead than we are 

today, and yet we are not too late, maybe just in time, and with 

an opportunity to both create jobs, save energy costs, protect our 

environment, and do good for America. And by government getting 

in in a big way into acquisition from the private sector of off-theshelf technology, installing, creating jobs, you will reduce the unit 

cost even further, and that is what I am keen on. 

Now, when the Department of Energy photovoltaic roof was installed, I think Mr. Kampschroer, you were lead on that project, if 

I recall. I remember you came up and gave me a briefing on it, and 

then I went to the Department of Energy facility, trucked across 

the—it was a hot day out there, by the way—and it was a five 

month from start to finish, from the time DOE—now, GSA contracted out to—not contracted, but allowed DOE to manage the 

contract. They did things sequentially instead of concurrently. 

GSA’s practice would have been to negotiate concurrently with 

PEPCO on the interconnection, while proceeding with the balance 

of the contract and getting it in place. 

Do you, under this economic stimulus initiative, plan to self-contract, that is, take the lead, as GSA should, instead of being nice 

24 

to those Federal agencies who don’t know how to do this on their 

own? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. Our plan is to do the contracting for these 

projects with GSA professionals, working closely with the private 

sector people who will execute them. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Now, that project took five months. It actually— 

the contract was awarded April 1st, complete August 1. There was 

still some fine-tuning to be done, and then the switch was thrown 

mid-September. It is producing 205 kilowatts of electricity every 

day, correct? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. On sunny days. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. On sunny days, that’s all right. A day like this, 

it’s okay. That’s why you have battery backups. Had GSA done this 

contracting, would that time frame have compressed? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. We believe the procurement process would 

have compressed. It was four months of procurement in front of 

four or five months of construction. We think we can do that more 

quickly. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I think the actual work onsite went very quickly. 

Now we have 175 million square feet of Federal Government GSAowned civilian office space, non-military, non-VA, and 176, roughly, 

million square feet—within a square foot or two—of rental facility. 

Would GSA retrofit—or I still prefer futurefit—those rental facilities with photovoltaics, Mr. Prouty? 

Mr. PROUTY. We would certainly try to cause them to do that, 

but we are not going to invest this money in leased facilities, just 

owned facilities. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Because that would inure as a benefit to the nonFederal owner of the building. 

Mr. PROUTY. Right. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. So that entity could do so if they chose to do it. 

There is a benefit to them in the future value of that building if 

it no longer leased to a Government agency, right? 

Mr. PROUTY. Certainly. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. And you have roughly 8,600 buildings in the GSA 

leased and owned inventory, and the electricity bill, if my recollection is right, is in the range of $500 million a year? 

Mr. PROUTY. That’s right. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. And the cost of installing that roof was roughly 

$2 million, so the payback needn’t be measured strictly in electricity savings—that will take a few years—but also in the broader 

picture of environmental benefit and reduce CO2 and so on. 

Mr. PROUTY. That’s right. And I am sure that’s why we are a 

leader in this. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Have you completed energy audits of all facilities 

under the jurisdiction of GSA? 

Mr. PROUTY. We have been doing energy audits over the past 

years on the rate of about one building in ten every year. Part of 

what we are looking to do in the course of this stimulus work is 

systematically look at all the buildings in the inventory, taking into 

account the goals of the Energy Independence and Security Act, 

which require recommissioning and retro-commissioning of existing 

buildings. 

25 

In a recent example of that, in a courthouse in Maine, we reduced the energy consumption just through the recommissioning of 

the building, tuning up of the systems, changing the operations, 

and installing just one additional physical sensor on the exterior of 

the building by 42 percent. So we think that there is a very large 

benefit to using energy audits, recommissioning and retro-commissioning to make sure that we are identifying, in the process of this 

work, all of the possibilities for energy conservation. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. With Mr. Gordon, I agree that the Senate was 

misguided in cutting funding from the GSA and then further subdividing. They purport to suballocate funds to various functions, designating courthouses, among others. We, in our House-passed 

version, just allocated a total sum to GSA and said you distribute 

it on the basis of projects that are ready to go, that can be under 

development, construction within 90 days. But, nonetheless, do you 

and GSA have a plan for bringing in additional personnel if you 

don’t have enough people to get these projects underway promptly? 

Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, speaking about this just from the 

standpoint of architecture and engineering, since I am the chairman of a private sector firm, let me tell you that the rate of unemployment in the architecture and engineering industry is at record 

levels, and we have many people who are very qualified but for 

whom we don’t have sufficient work, and it is creating great agony 

and devastation, I must say, in the employment within those professions, just as it is in the construction trades. There is not work 

for the construction trades; there is not work for the design disciplines. So I think that the capability of responding quickly is 

there. We have talented people that we can put to work immediately on these projects. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. And you have the experience on the greening 

side. There is other work as well, it is not necessarily related to 

energy conservation. 

Mr. GORDON. Precisely. As I mentioned in my testimony, we have 

been responsible, just our firm, for the greening, if you will, of 20 

million square feet of buildings nationwide. Some of those are facilities for GSA; many of them are facilities for the private sector. 

And those have obvious job creation benefits, but many other benefits as well. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Prouty, do you have plans for bringing in additional contracting out to the private sector who have experience, 

as Mr. Gordon has just described? 

Mr. PROUTY. We do indeed. Tony Costa will answer. 

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Prouty had mentioned early on 

in his opening statement that we were creating a program management office which will deal exclusively with the execution and delivery of the projects we are proposing, and we have great folks 

within GSA who are really excited to deliver this program, and 

many of them will be reassigned to that group to really spend their 

time, again, delivering the program. 

We do expect to hire some additional folks, some permanent 

folks, some experts, some contracting people, and also to hire some 

people on a temporary and term basis throughout the life cycle of 

delivery of this program. And then, again, we expect to rely on the 

26 

private sector, even in some of the contract management roles, to 

help us manage the program nationally. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. My focus all throughout has been very, very directed, very narrowly trained on putting people to work, from December 2007, when this Committee first, on a bipartisan basis, proposed a $15 billion infrastructure stimulus through to the piece 

that passed the House just recently. Now, in that period of time, 

I have worked and brought in the State DOTs, and I just want to 

go over something with you. Every State Department of Transportation, in consultation with and cooperation, partnership with the 

Federal Highway Administration, has a stewardship and oversight 

plan for management of their regular program. They are going to 

shift that into high gear for the stimulus. Do you have a similar 

stewardship and oversight plan at GSA? 

Mr. COSTA. We do, and essentially we are calling our program 

management office, but essentially it will serve that function. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. We also have, in Minnesota—and I saw the similar plan at the Department of Transportation for Illinois—an 

earned value management plan in which the department tracks 

their projects day-by-day—this is an eye test; we will get you copies 

of it. But they envision, at Illinois DOT, at Minnesota DOT, awarding contracts every two weeks starting 10 days from signature by 

the President, notification from Federal Highway Administration of 

their allocation to the State of Minnesota, State of Illinois, State 

of Wisconsin, State of California, every State across the Country I 

have talked with. 

Every two weeks they are going to have bid lettings, and we are 

going to be monitoring that with our flowchart of accountability, 

transparency, and responsibility. And we are going to have a hearing in this Committee every 30 days, so I hope you are prepared 

to have your bid lettings and then come to this Committee and say 

this is what we have done, these are the contractors on the job, 

these are the job descriptions, this is the payroll that we have in 

the works. 

Mr. PROUTY. We look forward to that. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is what I am looking for. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ARCURI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Cao. 

Mr. CAO. Thank you very much. I just have a couple questions 

to ask. How many of GSA’s shovel-ready projects are located within 

the 2nd Congressional District of Louisiana and what does that 

represent as a percentage of projects and a percentage of dollars 

awarded, do you know? 

Mr. PROUTY. We don’t know right now what projects. We have 

assembled a list. We don’t know what the priority is, so we are not 

in a position to comment on which projects are going to be included 

in this list. We will have to get the final number in the final criteria before we can respond. 

Mr. CAO. Do you have a time line when these projects will be 

awarded, if they—— 

Mr. PROUTY. We definitely will. As soon as we get the legislation 

and know the criteria. We have got projects assembled and ready. 

As soon as we make the decisions, they are going to go fast. 

27 

Mr. CAO. And are there any requirements that would be that the 

companies that are awarded these contracts must come from the 

immediate area to ensure the dollars are returned to that community? 

Mr. PROUTY. We can’t specify that in particular, but with the 

amount of work and the many locations, we are confident that a 

lot of local firms are going to get the work. 

Mr. CAO. Okay. And what other types of construction projects 

does GSA have in queue for the 2nd District outside of the stimulus package? 

Mr. PROUTY. As far as the work we are doing in your district? 

Mr. CAO. Correct. 

Mr. PROUTY. We will have to get back to you on the record, if 

that would be okay. 

Mr. CAO. That’s fine. Thank you. That’s all the questions I have. 

Mr. PROUTY. Thanks. 

Mr. ARCURI. Thank you, Mr. Cao. 

A question for the panel, sort of a follow-up. We hear a lot about 

the new projects; we hear a lot about the shovel-ready projects. But 

I represent a very rural district and I am concerned about some of 

the smaller courthouses around the Country, the smaller post offices. What kind of steps are going to be taken to try to make, let’s 

say, a small post office or a small courthouse, let’s say in my district, in Utica, New York, more energy efficient? Mr. Kampschroer? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. Thank you. We have a complete—not a complete, we have a very long list of possibilities that we are using to 

apply to every project we looked at, and we are looking at every 

building in the inventory for the possibility of increasing the energy 

performance and all the related sustainability goals that are articulated in the Energy Independence and Security Act. 

We are also working with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, which has an excellent modeling system which gives us a 

set of priorities so we can feed information into this system and get 

the best return and a prioritized rank of what makes sense to do 

in each individual building. And the third thing that we are doing 

is we are looking at establishing not just building specific projects, 

but also some conceptual projects, if you will, where we look at, for 

example, lighting or roofing, and we do many lighting and roofing 

projects in multiple buildings which may or may not be associated 

with the whole building modernization. 

Mr. ARCURI. Not to put you on the spot, but other than replacing 

light bulbs, what kind of projects can you do in, let’s say, a building 

that is a courthouse that is 100 years old? Would it be the kind 

of building that might be suitable for photovoltaic? And how would 

those decisions be made and who would make them? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. Especially in older buildings, there are a 

number of opportunities, and when we talk about lighting replacement, it is not so much changing light bulbs as really changing the 

entire control systems associated with the lights. So in many cases 

we would be replacing lights with higher efficiency lights, but also 

ones that have ballasts that are sensitive to the lights so that they 

dim automatically when there is daylight in place. 

Also, in a custom house, similar to an older courthouse in Maine, 

in the course of replacing some of the antiquated equipment in 

28 

there, we replaced it with geothermal systems, which are now saving 40 percent of the energy in that building, and that is another 

possibility, especially where chillers are in place. And we have, 

again, made arrangements through the Department of Energy to 

use the geothermal experts of Oak Ridge National Lab to augment 

our own internal expertise in this area. 

Mr. ARCURI. Is geothermal a priority in terms of energy efficiency 

for your department? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. It is. It is one of the acceleration programs 

that the Energy Independence and Security Act particularly pointed out. In 1995, the Government Accounting Office reported to Congress that geothermal technology was one of the overlooked possibilities for increasing energy efficiency, and the problem, of course, 

has been, in the past, familiarity and availability of the technicians 

to install them. 

Now, that availability has gone down since that report was written. But also there is a higher initial capital cost associated with 

geothermal, which means that it tends to get forgotten sometimes. 

So that is why we have an acceleration program within the General 

Services Administration to emphasize that. 

Mr. ARCURI. Thank you, sir. 

Ms. Edwards. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just have a couple of questions, first for Mr. Gordon. We met 

recently with a couple of your representatives from AIA, and I have 

talked with our local architects, and many of them are very frustrated, frankly, that when the fee payment comes along, that 10 

percent of those fees are withheld. Maybe Mr. Prouty can answer 

this as well, but I am curious as to what goes into that decision, 

because a lot of our local architects are independent business people and they might use that extra 10 percent to invest in what they 

need to do to prepare for the next project. 

So it leaves me with a little bit of concern that, particularly for 

small business, for minority business, for women-owned businesses, 

that they won’t have the same capacity to compete from a design 

perspective and an engineering perspective, even with that small 

amount of 10 percent. So I am just curious as to what goes into 

that kind of decision. 

Mr. GORDON. Well, speaking about it from the private sector perspective, cash flow in small businesses is always a critical issue, so 

one always looks to find ways to maintain a positive cash flow and 

not have to be borrowing money from banks, which is especially 

difficult these days. We understand that our clients have a significant and legitimate interest in having architects and engineers 

completely perform their services and be paid for the full value of 

the work that is done, and I think that that is quite possibly, from 

the owner’s side, from the client’s side, one of the reasons that the 

concept of a 10 percent retention is employed. But I would agree 

with you that it can make it difficult, particularly for small businesses, to be competitive and to grow. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Prouty, is there a policy that GSA engages in 

that requires an automatic withholding, no matter what the work 

is? 

29 

Mr. PROUTY. There is not. We pay monthly in arrears based on 

work done that is verified. So that is why we are scrambling here. 

We are trying to figure out exactly what that refers to. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Well, we can get back to you on some specific concerns that have been raised in our office. 

Then, Mr. Prouty, my other question is about valuation. I mean, 

I am very concerned, for example, you look in this metropolitan region and at least one of the counties that I represent seems to not 

get the same value for land for dollar as other jurisdictions. And 

we can pursue this outside of this hearing, but I am very concerned 

about that and I want to put that on the record, because then when 

it comes to obtaining new opportunities in your priority list, I am 

concerned that at least one of the counties that I represent is going 

to be completely left out of the picture. 

Moreover, I think I have a question that goes back to Mr. Oberstar’s concern about leases. I understand where you have a lease 

that the lease is a private owner and you are leasing the building, 

but on these longer term leases that GSA has, if the building isn’t 

energy efficient and you can’t incentivize the owner to retrofit that 

building, it seems to me, without knowing any numbers, that the 

taxpayer cost over time for that leasehold for energy costs really 

greatly outweighs what is happening on the lease side. So I wonder 

if there is some way that you might consider, in these longer term 

leases, incentivizing those owners to retrofit the buildings; not for 

their benefit, but for a taxpayer benefit. 

Mr. PROUTY. The question I was answering previously had to do, 

I thought, at least, with the funds that we might expend on lease 

properties, which we are not. But we do cause incentives. We do 

write the spec. We are increasingly writing specs that require increased energy efficiency. Obviously, there is a concern about existing inventory and causing people not to be able to compete because 

of those requirements, so we try to balance that. 

Ms. EDWARDS. All right. And then, lastly, as you are using this 

money, again going to transparency and accountability, in the 

States with the highway funds, virtually every one of our counties 

in my State has an idea of whether the projects in their jurisdictions are on the priority list, because it is developed by the governor, it is submitted to the Department of Transportation, so everybody knows what the priorities are on the list. And, really, we 

have no clue what the priorities are on the GSA list. 

And I understand we don’t have the legislation yet, but it does 

seem to me that there are a set of factors that go into determining 

what those priorities are and that there is some weighting given 

to those factors, and I would like to explore with a little bit more 

detail what the weighting is, what the factors are so we actually 

might be able to predict in some ways what kinds of projects might 

end up on the priority list. 

Mr. PROUTY. Mr. Costa will respond. 

Mr. COSTA. We did some preliminary work and did provide some 

project information early on, in December, when discussions first 

started occurring about a stimulus package. We have been running 

at 180 miles an hour just to get additional information on projects. 

We expect, in the coming weeks, that it would be a great idea to 

both talk about some specificity on criteria that we are applying to 

30 

those projects and also giving an overview of the projects, where 

they are, potential scopes, obviously without a conclusion, but to 

give you all an overview of what we are looking at. It makes perfect sense. We have just been so caught up, frankly, in pulling together information and verifying it that we hadn’t really had the 

time to do that, but we can. 

Ms. EDWARDS. My last comment is that it would be—I mean, 

there has to be some more empirical basis beyond the subjectivity 

of my building or this courthouse or that building in my district 

needs to be on the list, and we can’t even answer questions that 

come from our districts about what is on and why one thing would 

be prioritized over another thing. So it would be very helpful to 

have that kind of empirical look at how the decision will be made. 

Thank you. 

Mr. COSTA. We feel confident that we can provide that, so we 

will. Thanks. 

Mr. ARCURI. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. 

Mr. Perriello. 

Mr. PERRIELLO. Thank you so much. And thank you to all of our 

witnesses today for all the time you have put into preparing this. 

A few quick questions. 

First of all, looking at the overall strategy of economic recovery 

and the part that is under consideration today, do you feel confident that were the Government functioning as a private business 

and this were the board of directors, that you would be able to recommend and defend the projects that we are talking about as ones 

that are going to be good for business going forward? 

Mr. PROUTY. We absolutely do. 

Mr. PERRIELLO. And related to that, is there a situation here, 

looking at the next, say, 18-month period, where we have actually 

seen construction and other costs dropping in such a way that some 

projects would be coming in under the budgets that had previously 

been estimated? And if so, what scale of savings might we be seeing on that? 

Mr. COSTA. We are revisiting project costs right now, so we have 

seen some drops, and that will be accounted for in the project listing that we provide to you all in 30 or 60 days, whenever we are 

required to provide it. So I think those project budgets will already 

reflect a certain decline, so you will see those on the projects listing. 

Mr. PERRIELLO. And related to that, is there a scale that we 

could take this to beyond this recovery that would not produce, say, 

inflationary costs or not lead to projects that we couldn’t defend? 

What do you think would be the overall investments that would be 

needed over the next couple of years in these areas? 

Mr. COSTA. We would love to continue to get billions of dollars 

to do infrastructure work on our inventory. We have a significant 

backlog and as you will see in our interim information and on our 

project listing, we will certainly have much, much more work to do 

not only when it comes to increasing energy efficiency, but just 

basic infrastructure building systems. So, yes, we think we could 

spend a fair amount more and spend a fair amount that would 

achieve a great return to the Government and taxpayers. 

31 

Mr. PERRIELLO. And one additional question that has come up 

earlier, which is the issue of making sure small towns and rural 

communities are not left out of the equation. Sometimes, when we 

get down to the biggest bang for the buck in terms of job creation, 

the 20 percent of the Country that are small towns and rural communities, much in my district, will not be up on that priority list. 

What guarantees, if any, can you give us that we will be seeing 

representation from those parts of the Country as well? 

Mr. PROUTY. We are mindful of our responsibility to make sure 

that this covers the entire Country. 

Mr. PERRIELLO. Thank you. 

Mr. ARCURI. Thank you, Mr. Perriello. 

I just have a couple more questions. Could someone tell me a little bit about energy savings performance contracts? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. Energy savings performance contracts, which 

were permanently authorized in the Energy Independence and Security Act, act as a method for private sector financing of capital 

improvements in buildings. We have used them in GSA. The Department of Energy has just recently rewarded what is called the 

super ESPC contract, and we issue task orders against that. We 

have several energy savings performance contracts that are ongoing right now and we intend to continue with those as well. 

Mr. ARCURI. Now, the President has called for retrofitting 75 percent of Federal buildings. Both the House and the Senate stimulus 

packages allocate billions in stimulus to the GSA for projects with 

the greatest impact on energy efficiency and conservation. I am 

concerned that the current language in the stimulus may not 

achieve the intended results. Do you think we can leverage more 

efficiency and more jobs if we encourage comprehensive projects 

like the energy savings performance contracts? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. We intend to continue using energy savings 

performance contracts, as there will still be work to be done, as Mr. 

Costa mentioned earlier, in addition to the stimulus. So we will 

continue to do that, and they are already authorized in the bill, 

and the tools and techniques have been provided both inside GSA 

and through the Department of Energy. 

Mr. ARCURI. Do you think they can leverage more jobs, though? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. Certainly, because the investment is coming 

from other sources. 

Mr. ARCURI. Now, it seems to me that additional efficiency and 

job creation can be obtained with leveraging private sector dollars, 

particularly on projects where savings are measured, verified, and 

guaranteed, such as with the ESPCs. This seems to me a very responsible use of Government stimulus dollars. Is the GSA planning 

to fully utilize the ESPCs to reach its energy efficiency goals? And 

will the GSA solicit the assistance of the Department of Energy 

Federal Energy Management Program to achieve these goals? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. We will solicit their assistance. In fact, we 

have been having ongoing discussions with them on how to best do 

that since, certainly, this summer, at the very least, to try and coordinate their activities with our activities and the award of the 

new contract, which they just awarded in December. We have had 

ongoing discussions with Mr. Kidd, who runs the Federal Energy 

Management Program in the Department of Energy. We meet with 

32 

them monthly on the interagency task force on energy management, as well as monthly on the interagency sustainability working 

group to coordinate our activities not just between ourselves and 

the Department of Energy, but also across the entire Federal Government. 

Mr. ARCURI. Will the GSA be able to ensure compliance with the 

Federal building provisions in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007? 

Mr. KAMPSCHROER. These are in the forefront of our thinking in 

the examination of every project and one of the reasons that we are 

looking at some of the older designs to make them better and also 

meet the requirements of the Energy Independence and Security 

Act, yes, sir. 

Mr. ARCURI. I ask unanimous consent to insert two letters into 

the record from the Green Building Council. There being no objection, so admitted. 

Any other questions? 

[No response.] 

Mr. ARCURI. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:00 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

33 


Insert offset folio 4 here 47412.004
34 


Insert offset folio 5 here 47412.005
35 


Insert offset folio 6 here 47412.006
36 


Insert offset folio 7 here 47412.007
37 


Insert offset folio 8 here 47412.008
38 


Insert offset folio 9 here 47412.009
39 


Insert offset folio 10 here 47412.010
40 


Insert offset folio 11 here 47412.011
41 


Insert offset folio 12 here 47412.012
42 


Insert offset folio 13 here 47412.013
43 


Insert offset folio 14 here 47412.014
44 


Insert offset folio 15 here 47412.015
45 


Insert offset folio 16 here 47412.016
46 


Insert offset folio 17 here 47412.017
47 


Insert offset folio 18 here 47412.018
48 


Insert offset folio 19 here 47412.019
49 


Insert offset folio 20 here 47412.020
50 


Insert offset folio 21 here 47412.021
51 


Insert offset folio 22 here 47412.022
52 


Insert offset folio 23 here 47412.023
53 


Insert offset folio 24 here 47412.024
54 


Insert offset folio 25 here 47412.025
55 


Insert offset folio 26 here 47412.026
56 


Insert offset folio 27 here 47412.027
57 


Insert offset folio 28 here 47412.028
58 


Insert offset folio 29 here 47412.029
59 


Insert offset folio 30 here 47412.030
60 


Insert offset folio 31 here 47412.031
61 


Insert offset folio 32 here 47412.032
62 


Insert offset folio 33 here 47412.033
63 


Insert offset folio 34 here 47412.034
64 


Insert offset folio 35 here 47412.035
65 


Insert offset folio 36 here 47412.036
66 


Insert offset folio 37 here 47412.037
67 


Insert offset folio 38 here 47412.038
68 


Insert offset folio 39 here 47412.039
69 


Insert offset folio 40 here 47412.040
70 


Insert offset folio 41 here 47412.041
71 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 42 here 47412.042