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

49–593 PDF 2009

TRACKING HEARING #2: 

GSA STIMULUS FUNDS - 

UP, OUT, AND CREATING JOBS 

(111–29) 

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 

May 5, 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, Chair 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania, 

Vice Chair 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

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

TESTIMONY 

Ebadi, Shapour, St. Elizabeth’s Project Executive, U.S. General Services Administration .......................................................................................................... 6 

Gallagher, Michael, Assistant Deputy Commissioner, Budget, Finance and 

Management, Social Security Administration ................................................... 6 

Guerin, William, Project Management Office Executive, U.S. General Services 

Administration, accompanied by Dawud Abdur-Rahman, Development Director, Headquarters, Department of Homeland Security ................................ 6 

Miller, Brian, Inspector General, U.S. General Services Administration ........... 6 

PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Pennsylvania ................................................................. 41 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Gallagher, Michael .................................................................................................. 43 

Guerin, William ....................................................................................................... 46 

Miller, Hon. Brian ................................................................................................... 53 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Gallagher, Michael, Assistant Deputy Commissioner, Budget, Finance and 

Management, Social Security Administration, response to question for the 

record .................................................................................................................... 26 

Miller, Hon. Brian D., Inspector General, U.S. General Services Administration, supplemental testimony .............................................................................. 62 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 49593.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 49593.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 49593.003
(1) 

TRACKING HEARING #2: GSA STIMULUS 

FUNDS - UP, OUT, AND CREATING JOBS 

Tuesday, May 5, 2009, 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 

WASHINGTON, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:18 p.m., in Room 

2165, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton 

[chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Ms. NORTON. I apologize to the committee for my tardiness in 

starting this committee hearing. I was detained off campus where 

I was speaking. I do not know what is happening in D.C.—you 

have to detour to get back to the office—but I will find out. 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, signed into law on February 17, 2009, provided $5.55 billion for the General Services Administration. I am especially pleased to be chairing the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management at a time when Congress has provided unprecedented funds for repair and rehabilitation to the GSA: $4.5 billion 

to convert federally owned GSA buildings into high-performance 

green buildings; another $300 million for border stations and land 

ports of entry; and an additional $750 million for repair, alteration 

and construction of other Federal buildings and courthouses, of 

which $450 million is allocated to the new Department of Homeland Security Headquarters project located on the old St. Elizabeth’s west campus in the District of Columbia. 

This second tracking hearing on GSA’s progress on the creation 

of jobs and on the repair and rehabilitation of Federal buildings follows the Full Committee hearing last week, featuring all of the 

Subcommittees, entitled ′′Recovery Act: 10-Week Progress Report 

for Transportation and Infrastructure Programs.′′ 

The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is requiring 

that all funds be obligated by September 30, 2010, with the remainder available until September 30, 2011. Note that word 

′′available.′′ Move it or lose it. However, GSA stands out among 

Federal agencies because this agency does not distribute its funds 

to States or localities, but itself is fully accountable as a Federal 

agency for the necessary job creation, work and timelines on Federal buildings. 

Moreover, because the GSA funds will be spent on Federal structures, taxpayers will get an additional bang for the Federal buck 

with energy savings that are central to all of these GSA projects. 

2 

So important is GSA’s dual role as a Federal agency, for which the 

administration and the Congress is also accountable, that the 

White House announced the GSA projects and locations itself. 

Thus, this Subcommittee has a particularly important oversight 

role to ensure that the GSA and the Federal Government lead by 

example and quickly create jobs. Consequently, I intend to frequently convene hearings to track the progress in obligating funds 

and in creating jobs to help GSA spot issues early. The GSA project 

list, now online, covers all 50 States, the District of Columbia and 

the territories. 

I urge Members of the Subcommittee and other Members of Congress to personally monitor job creation in their districts and 

States. 

Today, I am releasing the 22 projects in my district that include 

six high-performance green buildings, full and partial building 

modernizations, and 16 other high-performance green building 

projects. 

Because the District of Columbia is the seat of the Federal Government, with most of its prime land off the local tax rolls to be 

used for Federal office space, the District ranks number one in government projects in need of work, with Texas ranked number two. 

However, GSA prepared its list of potential projects based entirely 

on its backlog of repairs needed to maintain its own large inventory 

throughout the Nation. 

The Committee insisted, our Subcommittee insisted, that all 

projects contain a significant energy saving component, and GSA 

refined its list to incorporate energy efficiencies and new technologies along with contract timelines. As a result of GSA’s 

projects, we expect to move Federal Government procurement to a 

lead position for energy-efficient buildings, allowing taxpayers to 

receive the rewards of lower energy costs. 

The congressional focus on the repair of existing Federal buildings will also preserve the valuable federally owned inventory for 

occupancy and for other vital needs. Importantly, providing jobs 

that stimulate the economy is the primary purpose of the stimulus 

bill. Our Subcommittee staff has worked closely with GSA to assure that its Recovery Act projects can be implemented quickly 

while providing many jobs at a variety of skill levels. 

Because of its proven twin effects on stimulating the economy 

and on putting people to work quickly, infrastructure is at the 

heart of the Recovery Act itself. It was therefore impossible to 

avoid the reality that the training deficit in construction jobs 

among some Americans could produce disputes when federally 

funded jobs go to the already trained, mostly white male workforce. 

However, these workers, these construction workers, have faced a 

long period of unemployment and have one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. Considering the steep rise in unemployment for minorities, women and the like, however, the last 

thing the country needs is racial, ethnic, or other group tension. 

We have taken some steps to avoid this division among workers 

and allied minorities and women. Consistent training has been the 

major barrier for minorities and women in construction since the 

Federal Government ceased funding a large management-labor 

training program in 1980, resulting in too few journeyman apprenVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:49 Oct 26, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\49593 JASON
3 

tices and other trained workers for many of the trades. However, 

today’s unprecedented amount of stimulus funds committed to infrastructure and job creation is a call to action to avoid missing 

this opportunity by mounting well-designed pre-apprenticeship and 

apprenticeship training that can lead to high-paying journeymen 

jobs. 

If we are vigilant, the economic crisis which has created the 

worst of times can create new opportunities. We have gotten off to 

a good start in this Recovery Act with $3 million for on-the-job preapprentice and apprenticeship training in the GSA section of the 

bill and $20 million for training in the highway section. 

The training money in the GSA section raises several issues, because the amount is so small, about where and how much money 

can be efficiently spent to produce the intended results. Both sections of the bill are woefully insufficient for the training, and I intend to introduce a bill for mandatory training in the upcoming 

highways and transit reauthorization bill. 

A good amount of money has been available in the transportation 

bill for a decade—with one-half of 1 percent of State highway dollars available for training programs. However, only 17 States have 

chosen to spend some of their funds for training, leaving minorities 

and women untrained, and abdicating the responsibility of the 

State and Federal Governments to prevent discrimination when 

Federal dollars are used. 

In the interim, when acting administrator Paul Prouty testified 

at last week’s hearing, I suggested that GSA consider working with 

the Department of Transportation to devise the most effective way 

to allocate these funds on a nationwide basis. Both agencies have 

too little funds for the training necessary, but together they may 

be able to avoid a duplication of efforts and may be able to perhaps 

achieve some economies of scale. 

At today’s hearing, we will hear in greater detail from GSA about 

how it expects to obligate funds to create jobs, to ensure quality 

construction, and to create and adhere to the necessary timetables. 

GSA Inspector General Brian Miller has already acknowledged 

that the rapid spending of government funds creates considerable 

risks. We have learned that lesson in the post-Katrina period as 

well as with spending associated with the Iraqi war. We will also 

hear from a GSA customer, the Social Security Administration, 

that will benefit from these funds. 

I want to thank today’s witnesses, and I very much look forward 

to their testimony. 

May I ask now if the Ranking Member has any opening remarks? 

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

thank you for holding this oversight hearing today on GSA’s Recovery Act funds. 

It seems that Congress is now in the position of having put the 

cart before the horse by, frankly, passing legislation that contains 

no oversight and yet demanding, after the money is spent or has 

been out the door, to have some oversight, which is why this is 

such an important hearing. 

We recently saw the consequences of, frankly, hastily enacted 

legislation, significant and expensive legislation without oversight 

4 

and with the ongoing scandals that we continue to read about and 

see regarding and resulting from the TARP money. 

That is why, again, I want to thank the Chairwoman for holding 

this hearing today—to allow us some opportunity for oversight of 

the funds for the GSA projects. As the Chairwoman said, the Recovery Act included $5.5 billion 

for the GSA Federal Building Fund. Considering this huge investment, we know that the potential is there for waste, frankly. The 

Chairwoman, herself, just talked about that. The 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 multibillion-dollar cost implications to the taxpayer, obviously, and to GSA. So the workload for GSA, with regard to Federal buildings, has tripled now under this legislation, creating, obviously, more potential for problems with mismanagement, with 

waste and with cost overruns. 

So the last thing, obviously, that American taxpayers need or 

want to see are projects that are started and then all of a sudden 

finished because they are too costly, or because there is not enough 

money, or because the money is misspent, or because they are coming back to Congress for more money because those funds were not 

sufficient for the projects that were started. Again, we need to 

make sure that the money is well spent, and that is why I want 

to thank the Chairwoman for this hearing. 

At a hearing in January, the GAO recommended three guiding 

principles for GSA projects funded under this Recovery Act: Number one, it was to create well-defined goals based on identified 

areas of interest. Number two, it was to incorporate performance 

and accountability into funding decisions. Number three, it was to 

employ the best tools and approaches to emphasize return on investment. 

Here lies a bit of the problem. None of these practical suggestions to help avoid risk in spending of taxpayers’ money was incorporated into the bill, which is, I think, too bad. 

Now, however, I am interested in knowing, again, under the employment of these principles, if that is the objective of GSA—to 

make sure that we do not have the problems that we could have. 

So, while the stated purpose of the Recovery Act was to stimulate 

jobs, the bill also set aside $4.5 billion of the $5.5 billion to convert 

GSA facilities to high-performance green buildings, as identified in 

section 401 of the Energy Independence and Security Act. 

So, obviously, we all recognize that energy conservation and independence is an important goal. It is a very important goal. However, it is also important to realize that this was a stimulus bill. 

Ensuring tax dollars included in the bill are there to create jobs 

has to be the primary goal, and I think it is, but it has to be the 

primary goal of GSA. Unfortunately, and we had this conversation 

last week, we have yet to see the number of jobs that are going to 

be created by those funded projects, and I am hoping those will be 

forthcoming. 

In addition, among the requirements of the Energy Act are reducing energy, water and material resources use, improving indoor 

environmental quality, including acoustic environments, and considering the indoor and outdoor effects of the building. 

5 

Again, that is part of the act, so therein lies part of the challenge: create jobs or do this other part that is also required. I for 

one think, obviously, that the purpose of this bill is to create jobs 

and to create them immediately. 

I am pleased that the Chairwoman is holding this oversight 

hearing. She is very committed to doing this, and I want to thank 

her for that. I do remain concerned there is still the tremendous 

potential for mismanagement and for waste, and the number of 

jobs that these projects will create has yet to be demonstrated. 

So, while many of the projects may be worthy—and frankly, even 

some of them very necessary—we must ensure that such large commitments of taxpayer dollars are properly used, that the money is 

properly managed and, obviously, that the priority that Congress 

was hoping for, which is job creation, continues to be priority number one. 

So I look forward to hearing from all of you. I really thank you 

all for being here and for spending your time with us today. Once 

again, I will end by thanking the Chairwoman for having what is 

a very important oversight meeting. Thank you. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Diaz-Balart, it was a pleasure to go to Florida with you last 

Friday and to learn so much. I think that we will prepare the entire country for the coming hurricane season. 

I am pleased to recognize Ms. Edwards of Maryland. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you 

to the panel this morning. 

I am excited to be here and to hear the progress that is being 

made in GSA. I just want to take a moment and recognize, along 

with you, that I know that you have the capacity at GSA to do not 

just the job creation that we envisioned under the Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act, but also to make sure that we are building 

buildings for the future and that we are transforming buildings for 

the future. 

I note that I see, with the GSA team, a fellow who was deeply 

involved in moving forward the amazing green building at the Food 

and Drug Administration, which is in my district, and I would like 

to see those kinds of buildings with Federal funds—Federal buildings—all across the country because, in the long run, it will save 

us a ton of money. 

I know that in the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Madam 

Chairwoman, part of what we recognize is that we want to create 

jobs in the short term and that we want to create opportunities and 

savings for the taxpayers in the future. And so I look forward to 

hearing that aspect of what you all have in mind and to working 

with you over these next several months and years to make sure 

that we can do what the Chairwoman has in mind as well, and 

that is to create job opportunities for the thousands and thousands 

of people out there who could be trained up to engage in productive, economic activity in support of the mission of GSA and in support of the taxpayer, if we could just get them the skills base to 

do that. So thank you for being here today. 

Madam Chairwoman, thank you very much for holding this important oversight hearing. 

6 

I would say in conclusion that while there may not be direct 

oversight authority as we move forward with looking at the expenditure in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Congress always has broad authority to look at the way taxpayer dollars are spent, and that is exactly what we are doing here today. 

Thank you. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Ms. Edwards. May I congratulate you on your performance at Shakespeare last night where 

you were typecast as an environmental activist. 

Mr. Cao, do you have any opening remarks? 

Mr. CAO. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I would like to thank the members of the panel for being here 

today. I am very much interested in the recovery process of the 

Second Congressional District. I know that there are various 

projects in the district that are presently being used—the stimulus 

money being used—in connection with several of the projects down 

there in the district. I am interested in hearing about those 

projects and about how taxpayer money is being used to renovate 

or to improve some of those projects down there. 

I would just like to thank Mr. Brian Miller personally for being 

a member of the Department of Justice Hurricane Katrina Task 

Force because, right after Katrina, we faced a tremendous crime 

issue in the district. Your help, along with others, was very appreciated, and I hope that you can continue to assist us in that area, 

if possible. 

So, with that, thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Cao. 

I am just playing tic-tac-toe with my Ranking Member here. No, 

we were listening to you, but we were having a side conversation. 

Meanwhile, we are very pleased to welcome today’s witnesses: 

William Guerin, who is the Project Management Office Executive 

for this project, who is accompanied by Dawud Abdur-Rahman, 

who is the Development Director for the largest of the projects— 

the headquarters of the Department of Homeland Security; Brian 

Miller, the Inspector General for GSA; and Michael Gallagher, the 

Assistant Deputy Commissioner of Budget, Finance and Management at the Social Security Administration. 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM GUERIN, PROJECT MANAGEMENT 

OFFICE EXECUTIVE, U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED BY DAWUD ABDUR-RAHMAN, DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, HEADQUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY; BRIAN MILLER, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; SHAPOUR 

EBADI, ST. ELIZABETH’S PROJECT EXECUTIVE, U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; AND MICHAEL GALLAGHER, ASSISTANT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BUDGET, FINANCE AND MANAGEMENT, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

Ms. NORTON. Let us begin in the order I have just indicated. 

Mr. GUERIN. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Ranking Member 

Diaz-Balart, Mr. Cao, and Ms. Edwards. Thank you very much for 

inviting us to participate on the panel today. 

7 

My name is William Guerin, and I am the recovery executive in 

our newly established Recovery Program Management Office in 

GSA’s Public Building Service. 

The funds Congress provided us through the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act are a sound investment. First, these funds 

will stimulate growth in the construction and real estate sectors. 

Second, it will help us reduce energy consumption and improve the 

environmental performance of our inventory. Third, it is an investment in the existing infrastructure. We recognize that this is not 

business as usual. 

To better implement our part of the Recovery Act, we created a 

program management office. The PMO is nationally managed and 

is regionally executed. At the national level, we are staffed with a 

combination of in-house experts, high-performing employees, and 

industry hires. The PMO is further supported by contract and consultant resources. I was recently named as the recovery executive 

to lead this Office. In addition, an executive steering committee, 

headed by our Deputy Commissioner, advises the PMO. The steering committee developed a nationwide program strategy and helped 

set priorities. They will approve any changes to the project list and 

will address national customer concerns. 

In terms of project execution, we have an aggressive schedule. 

We are streamlining our business processes and approaches to 

meet that schedule. For example, we created three zone committees. The zones are geographically based to monitor projects at the 

regional level. Each zone is led by a zone executive who assists in 

tracking and in monitoring our projects. They will be able to shift 

support resources to projects and to regions as needed. In effect, 

the PMO serves as an early warning system for projects that are 

not meeting anticipated targets, and we just appointed our three 

zone executives last week. 

Since enactment of the Recovery Act, we have moved quickly. On 

March 31, we delivered a list of 254 projects to Congress. These 

projects fall into three categories: new construction, including $1 

billion invested in 17 projects; full and partial building modernizations, investing $3.2 billion in 43 projects; and limited scope, highperformance green building projects where we have invested $807 

million to repair and to enhance building infrastructure systems in 

more than 194 projects. 

To date, we have awarded close to $100 million, and we currently 

have a number of solicitations on the street. We expect to award 

at least another $100 million in recovery projects by early June. Of 

the $5.5 billion we received, our goal is to obligate $1 billion by August 1st and another $1 billion by the end of the calendar year. We 

have target dates for project awards in each quarter to ensure we 

obligate $5 billion by the end of fiscal year 2010 and an additional 

$550 million by the end of 2011. 

As described previously in our written statement, we use criteria 

in selecting projects for our spend plan that would put people back 

to work quickly and that will transform our Federal buildings into 

high-performance green buildings. For many of the common highperformance green building elements, we have developed standard 

scopes of work. These standard scopes of work will be shared nationwide and with other agencies engaged in Recovery Act work. In 

8 

addition, we are using regional and national contracts to support 

our reporting and tracking efforts and program management activities. 

Finally, pre-apprenticeship and apprenticeship programs will be 

an integral part of our Recovery Act projects. These programs will 

be established as contractual requirements for our building 

projects. The programs will be modeled after GSA’s successful program in the National Capital Region, through which at least 840 

people at 15 projects have been trained and employed since the 

program’s inception in 2002. 

Joining me today is Dawud Abdur-Rahman, the Development Director for the DHS headquarters at St. Elizabeth’s. 

Madam Chair, Ranking Member Diaz-Balart and Members of the 

Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I have briefly described our activities as part of the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act. We look forward to working with you and with 

Members of the Subcommittee as we engage in this important 

work. 

We have just appointed our three zone executives, who fill out 

our whole team in the central office. I will be pleased to answer 

any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee may 

have. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Abdur-Rahman, do you have any statement at 

this time? 

Mr. ABDUR-RAHMAN. No, Madam Chair, I do not. 

Ms. NORTON. Well then, will you be prepared then to answer 

questions later? 

Mr. ABDUR-RAHMAN. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. We are glad to have you here. 

Mr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon. 

Madam Chair, Ranking Member Diaz-Balart, Members of the 

Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify at this important 

hearing. 

These Recovery Act projects are monumental. Fifty years from 

now, people will be talking about how these Recovery Act projects 

have transformed the way government delivers services to the 

American people. It is important that we get these right. Thank 

you for having this hearing. 

As you know, GSA’s normal construction budget for building 

projects is about $1.3 billion a year. The Recovery Act provides 

GSA with an additional $5.55 billion in construction funding and 

$300 million for acquisition of energy-efficient vehicles. The increase in construction funding alone is four times GSA’s typical 

construction budget for a single year. The Recovery Act requires 

GSA to obligate the majority of those funds within a 20-month period. In addition to funds going directly to GSA, significant additional amounts will flow through GSA from other agencies. These 

additional amounts include, for example, $620 million from DHS, 

$90 million from State, and possibly $500 million from the Social 

Security Administration. 

The bottom line is that GSA is being asked to spend and to manage five times more than it normally does in a significantly shortened time frame. 

9 

The Office of Inspector General has been meeting regularly with 

the agency both to monitor Recovery Act activities and to ensure 

that we have a clear understanding of the agency’s plans. This 

postworking relationship exists partly due to the efforts of Acting 

Administrator Paul Prouty, and I commend him for his collegiality. 

We have also developed strategies to conduct more timely reviews 

in recognition of the needs of the agency to act quickly on Recovery 

Act projects. 

The mantra from the movie ′′Field of Dreams′′ is, if you build it, 

they will come. Well, GSA is building it now. However, some of 

those who will come are criminals, fraudsters and cheats. If contracting for Hurricane Katrina and the war in Iraq taught us anything, it was that the quick government spending of large amounts 

of money creates considerable risks. 

To address these risks and to meet the time frames set out in 

the Recovery Act, we have developed new ways to respond quickly. 

We have adopted a quick response approach, using auditors and investigators to rapidly follow up on Recovery Act complaints and referrals, including those forwarded to us by the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board. We have established a core team 

of auditors, and we will be using a streamlined approach to performing reviews. 

The amount of funds and the short time frame will create significant challenges for GSA. I would like to highlight what I see as 

four of those challenges. 

First, I believe that the most critical challenge will be the need 

for additional qualified personnel, especially contracting officers 

and project managers. Because GSA may not be able to hire sufficiently qualified new employees to meet this need, GSA is considering hiring contractors to fill the immediate void and to assist 

with the increased workload. 

This blended workforce, however, will create a second challenge; 

namely, the additional risks related to security, conflicts of interest, and to the management of contractors. 

The third challenge, based on problems identified in the past, 

will be managing projects to prevent cost escalations beyond approved funding, resolving claims, and avoiding project delays. 

A fourth challenge will be managing unbudgeted customer needs. 

As it struggles to meet these challenges, GSA is like a single-engine freight train that suddenly must carry four times its normal 

load with the addition of more freight cars. The anticipated addition of even more cars to that train, as agencies start turning over 

their project funding to GSA, will put even more strain on the GSA 

engine. If it hits a hill or a bump, the engine may quickly fry and 

burn out. 

Thank you for your attention. I will be happy to answer any 

questions. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Miller, for your testimony. 

Mr. Gallagher. 

Mr. GALLAGHER. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Diaz-Balart 

and Members of the Subcommittee, good afternoon. I am Michael 

Gallagher, Assistant Deputy Commissioner for Social Security’s Office of Budget, Finance and Management. 

10 

On behalf of Commissioner Michael Astrue, I thank you for the 

opportunity to discuss our partnership with the General Services 

Administration to construct a new data center using $500 million 

appropriated to us in the Recovery Act. This new center will replace our aging, 30-year-old National Computer Center. In addition 

to being state of the art, the new facility will incorporate green 

building technology and will use new energy-efficient equipment 

and processes. 

To ensure the project is completed on time, on budget, and in full 

compliance with the Recovery Act requirements, we and GSA have 

assigned our best and most experienced project managers. We look 

forward to this important collaboration, and I would like to thank 

GSA for its leadership in this vital project. 

Our current data center is the technological heart of the agency, 

housing critical computer operations and essential data for prompt 

and accurate benefit payments to tens of millions of Americans. Let 

me put this work into context: Last fiscal year, we paid over $650 billion to more than 52 million Americans. We currently process an all-time high of over 75 

million business transactions per day. To support our disability 

workload, we store nearly 370 million imaged health records to 

which we add 2 million more records each week. To manage benefits annually, we exchange over 1 billion data files with Federal 

and State governments and businesses. Given the nature and volume of these workloads, it is clear that the successful construction 

of the new data center is essential for us to continue serving the 

American people. 

With the Recovery Act funding, we at GSA will ensure that the 

new data center will be operational as our current facility nears 

the end of its functional life. I am pleased to report to you that we 

and GSA are moving aggressively to build this new facility. GSA 

has already hired a construction management firm for this project, 

and it has hit the ground running. In addition, we and GSA are 

formulating specific requirements to construct a state-of-the-art 

data center that meets industry standards, developing the site selection criteria and developing a detailed construction plan. Now, 

GSA is primarily responsible for executing these steps. Nevertheless, we will provide input and oversight throughout the process to 

ensure the facility is designed to meet our requirements. 

Our key milestones for this project are acquiring the site in the 

second quarter of fiscal year 2010, awarding the design-build contract in the second quarter of fiscal year 2011, and completing construction in the first quarter of fiscal year 2014. 

GSA is working closely with us and industry experts to review 

procurement options so that we can expedite this project without 

compromising quality or accepting undue risks or added costs. Our 

joint efforts will meet all of the accountability and transparency objectives set forth by the administration and by the Congress when 

these funds were appropriated. 

Again, we thank the Congress for this important appropriation, 

and we extend our appreciation to GSA for working so diligently 

with us to construct the new data center. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today, and I look forward to answering 

your questions. 

11 

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

Mr. Miller, on page 2 of your testimony, you testify as to some 

facts that speak for themselves when you say that the increase in 

construction funding alone is four times GSA’s typical construction 

budget in a single year. The Recovery Act requires GSA to obligate 

the majority of those funds in a 20-month period. This Subcommittee is well-acquainted with the problems of timing at GSA. 

It is one of the banes of our existence. So we have two issues here 

I would like to raise with you. 

One is, given what you know and what, I must assure you, this 

Subcommittee knows about the pruning of the agency with staff, 

such as to hire staff, there is sometimes legendary inefficiency. 

There is the need to spend these funds quickly to produce quality 

work without conflicts of interest. 

Sir, can you testify here today that you think the agency is capable of meeting these standards? 

Mr. MILLER. Madam Chair, that is an excellent question. 

The role of an inspector general is to review what the agency is 

doing, and we are reviewing the agency’s planning process and 

what they plan to do to try to meet these goals, and we will continue to do that. Perhaps Mr. Guerin might want to address this 

question more directly. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, he will tell me ‘‘yes,’’ you see. That is why we 

found you to tell us the truth. 

Believe me, we have a great admiration for GSA. If my remarks 

sound jaundiced, I want you to know the very fact that Mr. Gallagher and the other agencies, by the way, have handed over money 

to GSA to do their work, when they could, I guess, have hired a 

contractor or something, speaks to the high regard in which the 

GSA is held. 

We also have seen the agency—the ′′pruning′′ of staff is quite a 

polite word for what has happened to this agency over the last several years. Yet, even if it were fully staffed as it were, let us say, 

when I came to Congress a century ago, it would have been a lot 

to put on the agency to say: Do this. Do it fast. Do it well. Do it 

so the IG salutes you. 

I don’t expect you to deprecate the agency ahead of time, but I 

have to ask you, sir: 

I know in your testimony on page 5 that you speak, as you have 

just in answer to my question about a quick response approach, 

about using auditors and investigators to ′′rapidly follow up on Recovery Act complaints and referrals.′′ 

Now, the Subcommittee is far more interested in pre-audits and 

in understanding the terrible time constraints you are under that 

keep an agency which is known for slow work—maybe in order to 

make sure they get it right—but to keep the agency from making 

mistakes while the train is running, as you say, four times the rate 

it usually does. 

Are you prepared to do pre-audits or something of that nature to 

help GSA weather this extraordinary storm we have put upon it 

and insist that it do? 

Mr. MILLER. Madam Chair, we are prepared to do that. We are 

not relying on the old yellow book audit standard. They take too 

long. Traditional audits take too long. We are adopting a more 

12 

rapid approach, akin to the critical point evaluations that you may 

be familiar with or may not be familiar with, and we hope to review these projects early, very early, and establish points at which 

we will get feedback back to the agency. We will provide reviews 

to the agency quickly so that they can change direction if they are 

going in the wrong direction, or if they have a mistaken assumption, we will be able to inform them. We are attempting to—— 

Ms. NORTON. Do you have the staff to do that, Mr. Miller? We 

funded you as well. All of the Stimulus Act funds have these extra 

funds, and we realize we are putting the burden on you as well. 

Do you have the funds to do not only the ′′oh, gotcha′′ stuff that 

IGs, of course, do so well but also the ′′here is how not to get you′′? 

Mr. MILLER. Well, we could use more auditors and investigators. 

We are reassigning—— 

Ms. NORTON. How big is your office, and how many additional 

auditors and investigators have you been authorized to hire? 

Mr. MILLER. We have about 300 total individuals in the office, 

a little more than that. 

Ms. NORTON. Now, I know you do a lot of work with GSA contracts aside from the Public Building Service. I am interested in 

the Public Building Service’s auditors and contractors because that 

is where this money, I think, is going. How many are in that service now, and how many additional have you been authorized to 

hire? 

Mr. MILLER. We have seven FTEs who are funded by the Recovery Act. 

Ms. NORTON. Seven? 

Mr. MILLER. Seven. We are reassigning other auditors from other 

projects. As you have noted, we have statutorily required audits in 

other areas that we have to perform, not the least of which is a 

review of customer service centers that we are required by statute 

to do with the Department of Defense IG on the acquisition side. 

Ms. NORTON. Is this staff all together? So that is separate work, 

as far as I am concerned, the Department of Defense work. 

Mr. MILLER. I agree. 

Ms. NORTON. So, given the fact that Public Building Service is 

the largest part of GSA, I am looking for how much of your staff 

is devoted to PBS work. 

Mr. MILLER. Well, under the act, we were funded seven additional FTE, seven additional slots. 

Ms. NORTON. Are most of those other auditors not doing PBS 

work? 

Mr. MILLER. Most of those will go to Public Building Service 

work. 

Ms. NORTON. Okay. 

Mr. MILLER. There is additional money in the Recovery Act for 

fleet—the energy efficient vehicles—so we will be looking at those, 

too. The only reason I mention the other—— 

Ms. NORTON. Does the GSA have authority over the fleet vehicles 

as well? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, it does. The only reason I mentioned the work 

with the DOD IG is that we are trying to move our resources to 

marshal them to look at Recovery Act funds so that we can spot 

13 

issues early, as you said. But we do have limits, and we are 

stretched thin, so we do need auditors and investigators. 

Ms. NORTON. Now, I am very concerned about another issue you 

testified about, concerning the need for more staff, bringing on 

more staff quickly. I am also on another Committee where the entire Federal Government is legendary for how long it takes people 

to get on staff. So some of the best and the brightest say, ′′Later. 

I bet I can get hired tomorrow at some big private firm.′′ 

Let me disaggregate this. When it comes to what is mentioned 

on page 7 of your testimony—security, conflicts of interest, the 

managing of contractors—when my staff heard me earlier ask a 

question about how many retirees, they said, ′′Oh, Congresswoman, 

I thought you wanted new employees,′′ you know, ′′to get more 

jobs.′′ I do, but I am desperate, and I would assume that retirees, 

if you could get them, would already meet the security, conflict-ofinterest and other such requirements. 

What percentage of these new people are going to be retirees? Do 

you expect them to be retirees? Maybe I should also ask this of Mr. 

Guerin. What percentage will be contractors? 

Now, I am assuming that a contractor who is working on government work will have to go through certain kinds of conflicts of interest and security doors that others would have to go through only 

briefly. So I need to know how many of each kind of employee we 

are likely to get working on this matter, because it has a lot to do 

with how quickly we get going. I also assume that if you are a contractor, you need to be trained. God help us if we got a whole new 

training module to get into. So I want to get down into personnel 

really quickly, since nothing gets done in this world unless you 

have got the best people who work on overtime and then some to 

get it done. 

Mr. MILLER. Madam Chair, thank you for asking that. 

We are trying to hire retired annuitants. We have several auditors who have a great deal of experience, who have retired from 

GSA, who would be willing to work for us again, and we would love 

to hire them again. Also, we were hoping to pick up some retired 

auditors from DCAA. We are currently working with OPM to obtain the authority to hire retired annuitants. 

Ms. NORTON. Do you think we will be able to get more retirees 

than contractors or not, Mr. Miller? 

Mr. MILLER. Well, from my office, we are hoping to get more retirees. 

Ms. NORTON. How about you, Mr. Guerin? 

Mr. GUERIN. Congresswoman, we have identified upwards of 20 

annuitants who could potentially come back to work for us. Just in 

reaching out recently, not everybody is interested in coming back, 

of course, and they are concerned about losing so many of their retirement funds as part of that process, but we are actively—— 

Ms. NORTON. Is that still the law here? Let me ask you: Is it still 

impossible for an annuitant? I thought we made some changes in 

that. 

Mr. GUERIN. I think they reduced the annuity for people who are 

coming back. That is my understanding, Congresswoman. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Miller, do you know? 

14 

Mr. MILLER. Madam Chair, we are working with OPM to obtain 

that authority. Currently, my office does not have that authority, 

and I understand that GSA does not have the authority to hire retired annuitants without their waiving their retirements. 

Ms. NORTON. Oh, have mercy. Do you mean they have not instantly done that? 

Mr. MILLER. They have not. We are working with OPM, and we 

are optimistic that they will do it shortly. 

Ms. NORTON. Moan. Moan. Moan. Well, that is something—neither office has it. Do you know how many agencies have it? I am 

on the Oversight and Reform Committee, and here I am under the 

illusion that we have already understood how important that is, 

quite apart from the stimulus funds in certain circumstances, and 

GSA has needed it for a long time. Do you know how many offices 

have this? Do most offices have it? 

Mr. MILLER. Madam Chair, I have been trying to get this authority very quickly because we have about 10 to 15 retired annuitants 

who would come to work for us. I have talked to other IGs, and a 

few of the other IGs have the authority already, but it is a process. 

Ms. NORTON. You know, I want to say to the staff director, while 

I sent you out of the room to fetch my good friend whom I knew 

had some questions, we have just learned that GSA, including the 

IG, has no authority to hire retired annuitants as some agencies 

do. By the close of business tomorrow, would staff let me know if 

GSA has that authority or not. This is crippling. We have already 

had to pull Mr. Guerin, and everybody else from GSA, from everything else they were doing just to get started. 

I am going to go to the Ranking Member, and I then want to go 

to Ms. Edwards, who I know has been waiting. Forgive me for 

going on so long. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you. By the way, it was not a century. 

I just want to defend you here. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. Just don’t tell them how 

long it has been. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Right. Right. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Mr. Guerin, one of the things—and I have mentioned this before 

in other hearings, but the Recovery Act includes money for Federal 

buildings and for U.S. courthouses. In addition, the Recovery Act 

authorizes GSA to initiate design, construction, repair, alteration, 

and other projects through existing authorities of the administrator. 

Now, GSA has an existing authority to acquire properties. This 

is to strategically acquire property, you know; for example, to help 

save stalled buildings that may be out there that would create jobs. 

Obviously, it would help the neighborhood, and it would help the 

whole area, but it would also create jobs. These are buildings, you 

know, that were starting to go up and that are now dead, frankly. 

And there are a bunch of them out there, unfortunately, throughout the entire country. You know, GSA’s purchase opportunity program in the 1980s did a heck of a good job in creating opportunities 

for the taxpayer to save money precisely by doing that, and so I 

am hoping that you are looking at that. Are you? If not, why not? 

Here we have an opportunity to create jobs. Also, here we have 

an opportunity to, in the short and long term, help the taxpayer 

15 

in a really substantial way while creating jobs. It is not something 

where you have to reinvent the wheel. It was done by GSA in the 

1980s. Where are you? 

Mr. GUERIN. We do have the authority. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. And you were successful in the 1980s. 

Mr. GUERIN. Yes, and we are continuing to look at using that authority judiciously where we can afford to do that with projects. We 

are not doing that through the Recovery Act. We looked at those 

projects. Again, as you said, the new construction program was an 

opportunity for us to complete Federal buildings, and we thought 

the legislation was written in a way that that was the target of the 

legislation—to take care of our Federal building program. We have 

quite a backlog of Federal buildings—courthouses and land ports of 

entry. So we looked at that. 

We also included a couple of projects that were going to be lease 

projects but that are now being converted to Federal buildings, including in Billings, in Bakersfield, and an FBI building in San 

Juan. I believe there is one other one, Congressman. So we converted several leases to ownership specifically for that purpose. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Which saves a lot of money for the taxpayer 

in the long term? 

Mr. GUERIN. Yes. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. That should free up some money for you. The 

bottom line is you have projects in the pipeline. Now you are going 

to be able to do them. Is that going to free up some money for you? 

Mr. GUERIN. It does not free up money in the Recovery Act, but 

in the future years, obviously, we will not be leasing those buildings. So, in future years, it will allow us to use our leasing money 

more effectively. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Right. So it does free up money in future 

years? 

Mr. GUERIN. Yes. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. All right. I am trying to be brief, Madam 

Chairwoman. I know we were called for votes. 

Can you elaborate a little bit on your position? What is it, Project 

Management Office Executive? 

Mr. GUERIN. For the Program Management Office, yes. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Can you elaborate a little bit about your structure and what that is and how that works and about what you will 

be doing? 

Mr. GUERIN. Yes. The Program Management Office is set up in 

a three-tiered program. We have regional executives in each of our 

11 regions, focused primarily—or entirely, I should say—on the Recovery Act projects in each of the regions. So those people are able 

to reach into the organization, are able to make sure that information is flowing properly and are able to make sure people are in the 

right positions to do the work that they need to do to support the 

Recovery Act. 

They are reviewing staffing. Congresswoman Norton was talking 

about staffing earlier. They are making sure that they understand 

what the staffing requirements are in the regions and are making 

sure that we have the resources we need—I think I am feedbacking 

here—to make sure the Recovery Act goes well. 

16 

Then we have a second tier, which are zone executives. I announced in my opening comments that we have just recently selected those three people. The zone executives are specifically the 

first line of defense to ensure that the projects are being reviewed 

and tracked properly, and they are to make sure that resources 

across regions are being shared, where necessary, so that we have 

opportunities to use our few GSA resources more effectively. If 

someone in one region is not being used to his full extent, we can 

swap those resources across regions, and those zone executives are 

designed to do that. 

They are looking at variants. They are looking at resources. They 

are looking at sharing, and they are particularly looking at lessons 

learned. So where we have an opportunity to learn a lesson and 

share something good to accelerate the program, we can do that 

quickly and effectively through the zone executives. 

Then in the central office, under my direct purview, is a group 

of people who are specifically there to provide the tracking and reporting function that Congress requires and that OMB certainly requires through the program. We have a series of stakeholders who 

are quite interested in everything that we do, and we are making 

sure that we have the reporting functions set up to both track 

projects, to make sure that they are happening appropriately, to 

jump in where we need to to save projects that are getting themselves in trouble, to revamp the list where necessary if a project 

starts to go haywire and it will not recover. We need to be able to 

jump on that right away and be able to shift the funds to a different source, to a different project, to make sure that those funds 

get spent wisely. Then, finally, they are there to provide that reporting function that I described. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you. 

I have a number of questions, but our time is limited, and I know 

that Ms. Edwards probably has a question, too. 

So, if I may, I will ask Mr. Miller a couple of questions again, 

even though I have a lot more than that. 

Are you going to be able to also review the number of jobs created by the projects among the things that you are looking at? Because, obviously, this is supposed to be for that purpose. 

Mr. MILLER. Well, Congressman, most of the GSA projects are 

building projects. That is the majority of the projects. We will be 

focusing on those projects and on, particularly, the challenges that 

I laid out in my testimony. So we will be looking at the effectiveness of the project as well, but certainly, we would be happy to include that as one of the items that we look at. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Again, I have a number of other questions, but 

as Madam Chairwoman has reminded me, we have votes, and we 

have one more person who wants to ask questions. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. NORTON. Again, I apologize because it looks like we have one 

15-minute vote and two 5’s in this set of votes, for those who can 

vote. I will remain for the remaining questions. 

Ms. Edwards. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you 

to the Ranking Member as well. 

17 

I sat here and I listened to the testimony, and I have to tell you 

that the one thing that jumped out at me, Mr. Miller, is that in 

your testimony—and it is clear from our legislation we have quadrupled the amount of money that we are giving to go out to renovate and to build public buildings. 

Have we quadrupled the number of investigators and auditors to 

oversee that money going out? 

Mr. MILLER. No, we have not. Thank you for asking. We need 

more auditors and investigators to make sure that these projects 

are on track and to get answers back early. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Then I just want to be clear, though. Are you unclear as to your authority to hire those people directly rather than 

contracting them? 

Mr. MILLER. OPM has not given us the right to hire retired annuitants—retirees—so we have no authority to hire them without 

their waiving their retirements. 

Ms. EDWARDS. So, just to follow this along, we may have to do 

something that enables that authority so that we can get people 

who are qualified and experienced and who can hit the ground running to do the kind of oversight and accountability that we need 

for the taxpayer; is that correct? 

Mr. MILLER. That is correct. I am optimistic that OPM will come 

through quickly in the near future. We are working with OPM to 

gain that authority, but we do not have it now. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Let me just continue on this line. 

My major concern is with the hiring of contractors to do what, 

I believe, are all of the things that we have to do. Government 

workers cannot be building roads and buildings, but government 

workers should surely be able to oversee how taxpayer dollars are 

being spent. I think that is the most efficient way for us to oversee 

these funds. I am greatly concerned that, instead, you may have to 

rely on—and no offense intended—a bunch of hired hands to come 

in and do the function of government, and that concerns me tremendously. 

We have the lessons of Katrina. We have the lessons of Iraq and 

of Afghanistan. The list is just long and replete with billions of dollars that are spent where contractors are overseeing every single 

part of the process and where government has no role other than 

that of writing the check, and the check just gets greater precisely 

because we have not overseen the funds. So this Member, anyway, 

is going to be disturbed tremendously if we cannot figure out a way 

to bring people in who know what they are doing because they 

have done it before. 

Let me just ask this as well. On the question of security, how do 

we ensure that we are going to get people in who have the right 

kinds of security clearances to be able to oversee an audit and to 

be able to investigate in the way that they need to if we have to 

rely on a set of contractors and sort of a third-party verification of 

security compliance when we could get that and get it a lot faster 

if we were able to hire those who had already served in government? 

Mr. MILLER. I could not agree more. Hiring contractors compounds the risk. 

18 

Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Guerin, if you have any concerns about this, 

I would appreciate it if you would put those on the record now for 

this Subcommittee, because the last thing that we want is to be accused of mismanaging quadruple the amount of money that GSA 

has ever had before for these functions. We want people back to 

work. We want public buildings that meet efficiency requirements 

and that are able to perform for the future, and we do not want 

to waste taxpayer dollars. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And so do you have the assurances that you are 

going to be able to function in a way that works for the taxpayers, 

given the resource limitations. 

Mr. GUERIN. I will simply say that our biggest concern is around 

contracting officers. We believe that there are project management 

professionals in need of work now that will—and frankly I have received, you know, upwards of 50 applications personally, and I 

know it is happening across the country of people quite qualified 

looking for work with the Federal Government. And we are able to 

bring them in temporarily on 4-year contracts, things like that, to 

support our program, and we will be doing that. We are not looking 

to staff dramatically in Federal hires, Federal permanent employees, because this is a huge program. But it is a blip in our radar. 

We will go back to, I suspect, a typical billion dollar or so a year 

construction program after the stimulus money has been spent out. 

But contracting officers are certainly a concern, and we are actively 

engaged, you know, particularly, you know, chasing annuitants and 

looking at people that have that kind of very specialized experience 

and trying to bring them on board as quickly as possible. It is 

something that, you know, we are actively looking at. Several regions have different ways of doing business. 

We are looking at those lessons learned and those great ideas out 

there to how to use contracting officers more effectively and staff 

them with the kind of support they need to become much more efficient, I guess is the best word to do the contracting that needs to 

be done for this, and then in staffing up. But I think that area is 

a concern for GSA. Otherwise, I think we believe that the people 

are out there that can help us do the program. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And I just look 

forward to working with you and the Ranking Member so that we 

can make certain that with the quadrupling of the money that has 

gone out to GSA that we make sure that it is spent in the most 

efficient and effective way, and that the Agency and the Inspector 

General, in particular, has the authority to do what they need to 

bring on experienced people who know the job to do the job. Thank 

you very much. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. Mr. Diaz-Balart. 

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

have a couple, maybe a minute or so left before I have to run. And 

I thank you for that. I think Ms. Edwards is right on target. The 

key is making sure that the resources are there, that you have the 

flexibility. 

Mr. Miller, you highlighted the potential for cost escalations and 

delays in your testimony obviously. And you also make the point 

that that is not a new issue. With the workload increase, what can 

be done differently to minimize those risks? 

19 

Mr. MILLER. If I may go back to your earlier question about job 

creation, I understand now that, according to Office of Management 

and Budget, they have given the Department of Commerce the responsibility of looking at job creation so that my office will not be 

looking at that particular aspect. So I am sorry I gave you an incorrect answer before. These are historical problems that GSA faces, 

the cost escalations, the time delays, and they are well aware of 

these issues and I assume that Mr. Guerin and others are taking 

efforts to try and correct them. But we will be keeping our eye on 

those issues and looking at those issues very carefully. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Mr. Miller. And again, Madam 

Chairman, I apologize, but I do have to go vote. 

Ms. NORTON. You are excused, sir. 

Let me continue then with questions. Mr. Miller, am I correct 

that if you took on a contractor, the contractor would have to get 

a security clearance and be checked for, as you said, the fraud 

makers will come, to be checked for entire background and if so, 

how long does that take for contractors to be able to do this kind 

of work with the GSA? 

Mr. MILLER. Madam Chairman. You are correct. They would 

have to go get a security clearance. The exact level of the clearance 

would depend on the job that they perform. We are trying to expedite those clearances. But, again, it could take—— 

Ms. NORTON. Is that also through OPM, by the way? 

Mr. MILLER. The security clearances? 

Ms. NORTON. Yes. 

Mr. MILLER. I believe they are. I know at various times our office 

will help out expediting those clearances. Do you happen to know? 

Mr. GUERIN. Some of the clearances that we process go through 

the Federal Protective Service of DHS. 

Ms. NORTON. Then we have got to go to another agency which 

is backlogged on getting those. If we get some contractors we have 

got to get in line behind others who are hiring contractors. 

Mr. GUERIN. And I am not sure where the security clearances are 

processed with GSA. I am talking about the HSPD-12 clearances 

that support our contractors. 

Ms. NORTON. And so there is a security clearance. Who does the 

background check? You do the background check or does OPM do 

that? 

Mr. MILLER. Others do the background check. 

Ms. NORTON. You see what I am getting at, especially with contractors. You are not the only one doing stuff. 

Mr. MILLER. Madam Chairman, if I could clarify that as the office of Inspector General, we don’t plan to hire contractors. 

Ms. NORTON. All right. No contractors. This is important. Who 

are you going to hire, sir? 

Mr. MILLER. We are hoping to hire retirees, as well as new auditors and investigators. 

Ms. NORTON. But they will have to go through the same kind 

of—so what percentage of the new—you only have seven. What percentage will be, do you expect to be—and these are temporary employees, Mr. Miller, you know, they last for a couple of years or so. 

Mr. MILLER. Yes. 

20 

Ms. NORTON. So are you trying to the best of your ability hire 

all retirees or annuitants of one kind or another? If you hire some 

new folks you are going to have to lay them so off, probably. 

Mr. MILLER. Madam Chairman, we are going to hire as many as 

we can because the retired annuitants, as long as they have the experience and they are good workers, we want to hire them. We 

need the help 

Ms. NORTON. So there is a preference for annuitants, given the 

time saving, over brand new employees? 

Mr. MILLER. We need both. We would like to hire both. 

Ms. NORTON. Why do you need both? If you have got seven annuitants who said I am ready to work tomorrow, why would you need 

somebody who had to go through the security clearance, background check? 

Look, I want more people hired. Guess what? GSA better have 

this work done on time. And therefore, I want to know why you 

wouldn’t prefer to hire annuitants who would be presumably, short 

shrifted through this process. 

Mr. MILLER. Madam Chairman, we do. And we are trying to hire 

about 10 to 15 retired annuitants to help us do audits in particular 

of construction projects. We also, in the same process, would like 

to hire new employees. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Miller, are you or are you not giving preference 

to this work? See, I am not nearly as interested, if you will forgive 

me, in your overall agency. I am trying to pinpoint and to circumscribe, if you will, the work that has a time frame. And time 

frames are foreign to the GSA. They don’t do anything. If it is supposed to take you 2 months to do something, it will take them a 

year. So given the time frame that they are accustomed to, which 

is no time frame, if we have front end problems in hiring, I am 

going to get to Mr. Guerin in a moment, when I thought your testimony was that, with respect to this work, you were looking for annuitants. And then you spread it to some other folks you would 

like. And I want to know, are those other folks going to be working 

on this work as well? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, Madam Chairman. We would like to—— 

Ms. NORTON. Do you have some other authority? Do you have authority to hire people for the DOD part of your work, for example? 

Mr. MILLER. Madam Chair, no we do not. 

Ms. NORTON. Do you have any authority to hire anyone except 

for the public building service work? 

Mr. MILLER. Madam Chairman, I would have to check. I don’t believe that we have authority outside of the new FTEs. 

Ms. NORTON. See, because then I can’t understand. There are 

seven people you told us you could hire. Then you went to 15. 

Where are these other people coming from? Who funds those? 

Mr. MILLER. Madam Chairman, we would—the 10 to 15 would 

be retirees, and we are seeking authority to hire those. I guess 

some of the slots, FTEs would be taken by the retired retirees, so 

we would have to iron out the other. 

Ms. NORTON. I just want to know, my question is very simple. 

Will the auditors, with this grant of money, I don’t have the 

amount before me, will you be able to hire authorities for the GSA 

grant of money from annuitants who could hit the ground running? 

21 

I am not—I am pleased that there may be other employees. But 

there is a specific amount of money, and I am going to hold you 

accountable for this amount. 

This says, the conference agreement provides $7 million for the 

GSA administrative Office of Inspector General to be available 

through September 30th, 2013, for oversight and auditor programs. 

I want to know about this $7 million. Is it possible that this $7 million can be used exclusively to hire annuitants who can hit the 

ground running? 

Mr. MILLER. Madam Chairman, we will try to do that. Part of 

the confusion is that with retired annuitants, many of those will 

work part time, so that two to three retired annuitants will equal 

one FTE. 

Ms. NORTON. Now if that is efficient to do, and it might be because people who work part time often end up working more than 

their part time hours. Do you believe that you could do it with 

part-time employees? 

Mr. MILLER. We do believe that. And we are seeking the authority to hire those retired retirees. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. Now, I want to ask Mr. 

Guerin, how many contractors and how many retirees do you plan 

to hire? 

Mr. GUERIN. Congresswoman, we have gone and evaluated that 

with all of our regional offices to determine the total number of 

people required, and we think it is somewhere upwards of 150 people. We haven’t settled on exactly how many will be contractors, 

how many will be temporary employees and how many will be 

GSA. 

Ms. NORTON. What is holding you up, Mr. Guerin? 

Mr. GUERIN. Simple decision making. We are in the process. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Guerin, February 17 is when the bill was 

passed. For at least 6 months ahead of that, you have been preparing for this. And remember what I said to Mr. Miller about time 

lines. I realize that’s a foreign language, but we have got to learn 

to speak it now. So I don’t understand what is the hold up in making the simple decision of how many retirees. For example, the 

easy decision to make is let’s get as many retirees as we can possible find, and anything we can’t find has to go to contractors because of the sheer savings in process time. 

But Mr. Guerin, let me tell you my disappointment. We had to 

bring out, in this hearing, that you didn’t even have the authority, 

and let me just say that over and over again, I have found that all 

that the Agency had to do would be to come to staff and alert staff 

that it didn’t have X, Y and Z and they could have had it. 

The new head of OPM, who I don’t even think I will have to go 

to, happens to be a person I know very, very well. He lives in this 

region, has worked for the Congress and the government his entire 

professional life, is already off and running to create a new, more 

efficient OPM. And I don’t know, if we hadn’t had this hearing, and 

this is a tracking hearing, we are going to have them very often, 

how we would have even found out that you did not have the authority, which this stupid Chair assumed you had. It is very troublesome to me. 

22 

And Mr. Miller, I want you to take notice. I didn’t even know it. 

It is not raised certainly in Mr. Guerin’s testimony. It certainly is 

raised, the hiring issues are certainly raised in your testimony. So 

it is—it gives me no sense of confidence in the Agency that you 

haven’t been here before the bill was passed, knowing how short 

staffed GSA has been for years, to say we don’t have the staff. You 

discussed that with staff and talked about moving people around. 

But no one has ever said to me, we need some OPM—we need to 

move OPM to make us an agency. It is extremely disconcerting to 

hear that only in a hearing. So I have got to ask you, am I going 

to be left with people combing the fields for some contractors because we haven’t even decided that the fastest way to get people 

on board is to look for some people who left the Agency and may 

be lured back? I mean, I don’t understand your proceeding. And 

you need to help me out here because you just lowered my confidence several degrees in your ability to even confront the challenge before you. 

Can I ask you this? 

You heard Mr. Miller say that he believes he will be able to hire 

annuitants to do his work, maybe he won’t, but he sees the efficiency to the government and the time frames. Could I ask you 

whether you will undertake, beginning when you leave this hearing, to recruit as many annuitants as possible to do this work. And 

if that is impossible, or if you see some issue there, I would be 

pleased to hear them because I am only asking this from ignorance, 

you see. I don’t know. Maybe there is a reason why, 1, it shouldn’t 

be attempted and 2, if it were attempted it would not be a good 

thing. So would you please inform me of whether you are willing 

to do that in light of the fact that you have had to pull people from 

all over the Agency just to accomplish what you have done thus far. 

Mr. GUERIN. Yes. As I said earlier, we have already identified 

upwards of a couple of dozen people that we want to bring back to 

GSA. And again, I brought up the challenge of the annuity and 

that I think is what got your concern so immediately. 

Ms. NORTON. Would you also, before you go further, would you 

go down a list of other needs the Agency has, either in legislation, 

or in moves the administration should take? It would be easier for 

us if often, to get that to happen sooner than it would for you to 

go up the ladder because we are a co-equal branch of government. 

And you see, the reason that you see me pressing this is there is 

not going to be anyone to blame except us. It is us doing Federal 

business. So if this doesn’t get in on time we are not going to be 

able to say, you know, Maryland did it or look what—we told Virginia. We are going to have to take responsibility ourselves. 

So we have got to stay on top of this since we have got nobody 

to point to but ourselves. But if we don’t even know things, I am 

left to do what I am doing now. So you already have identified a 

couple of hundred, although you see that is contrary to your initial 

answer, in which case I would have gone on. You said you were trying to decide how many contractors. And I recognize you may run 

out of annuitants, but if there has not even been established a preference for people who can hit the ground running, then I am not 

sure where the hiring authority is at this point. 

23 

Mr. GUERIN. Can I address that? We have two rolling registers 

out now, one focused on primarily contracting officers, and one primarily focused on project managers. We know we have needs in 

both of those areas, and so we have identified those and we have 

put them out and advertised them in three ways. One is permanent 

hire, one is a temporary hire, and one is contractors. 

Ms. NORTON. This is my problem. Guess who is not looking for 

a job? Somebody who is sitting at home on their pension. We have 

got people who retired early. Some of them wish they hadn’t now. 

We have got people who retired. Even the people who might want 

to come back to work are not among those who are looking at your, 

let’s see who is hiring now. So I guess I should ask you who is out 

recruiting annuitants? Who is looking for annuitants? 

Mr. GUERIN. The regions are out recruiting right now. The regional offices are out recruiting. They are the ones who knew the 

people. 

Ms. NORTON. How are you contacting annuitants? 

Mr. GUERIN. Directly. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, what is all this advertising. I will tell you one 

thing. If I saw an ad in the paper and I didn’t have a job, I would 

inundate you all, so a lot of folks are going to come in. Just going 

through those folks to decide who to come, that is a whole big job. 

Who needs it? We are not going to be sitting up here giving excuses 

for GSA. 

Mr. GUERIN. No, we don’t believe there are enough annuitants to 

staff all of the positions that we have out there. But we are identifying the people. 

Ms. NORTON. You will never know if you don’t have somebody on 

the case calling up annuitants. Look, a lot of these people are settled in doing other things. Mr. Miller testified that you can only get 

some of them part time. Somebody ought to say, hey, look, look at 

your 401(k). What do we call ours? Whatever we call ours, wouldn’t 

you like to come back for at least part time work? You have got 

to be aggressively recruiting these people, unless—and let me ask 

Mr. Miller. How long does it take a contractor, a new person, to 

get through the system as opposed to an annuitant to get through 

the system? 

Mr. MILLER. Madam Chairman, I don’t have the precise time 

line, but it would be a lot longer. 

Ms. NORTON. Yeah. I can’t do anything without people. We are 

stuck on stupid without people. And then you know somebody 

comes back to us and says Congresswoman, I am sorry we are having trouble contracting people. I asked the staff how long has it 

been, 90 days since the darn bill was passed, and they were preparing for this long before the bill passed. This is extremely disappointing. How many people have been brought on new at the, to 

work exclusively on this work, Mr. Guerin? 

Mr. GUERIN. I don’t have that number, Congresswoman. 

Ms. NORTON. I tell you what. This is very, very anxiety raising. 

By the close of business tomorrow we want to see a personnel chart 

for the Recovery Act funds alone, including those who have been 

brought on board, and when. When we say tracking hearings that 

is what I mean. You know what? Given the fact that some of this 

only comes out on what I call cross examination, I would say to the 

24 

staff I think we have got to be prepared to hold a hearing, even 

if a brief hearing, every 2 weeks until we are assured that these 

folks have, I mean, we may have to do them on a Friday or we may 

have to do them in one of the other rooms until we are assured 

that they have staff on board and are going, we are going to get 

so backlogged we won’t be able to catch up and it will be on us. 

By the close of business tomorrow, I want that staff chart here, 

please. You need to bring on some people just to help you get on 

people. I understand how understaffed you are. I should think that 

would be an incentive to go forward. 

Let me ask you about swing space. Is there sufficient swing 

space already contracted for the full blown building makeovers that 

are going to take place throughout the United States, Mr. Guerin? 

Mr. GUERIN. We have identified the swing space needs for each 

of those large projects. We have funds available to the program in 

order to accommodate those swing space. 

Ms. NORTON. Are they available? 

Mr. GUERIN. We are investigating that right now. I believe they 

are available. Several of the leases are in the District, and we believe space is available in the District to accommodate those. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I would like by the close of business tomorrow 

to know what the swing space is in the District and whether swing 

space will be needed for, in another areas. You know, where are 

the time lines? Do you have the time lines for the projects? 

Mr. GUERIN. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. Could we have those time lines as well? 

Mr. GUERIN. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. By the close of business tomorrow. 

Could I ask about something that if you had come to us I would 

have made a priority because it has certainly gotten on our nerves, 

but only episodically, so-called unbudgeted customer needs. We 

have seen GSA’s work held up. I don’t know why this wasn’t an 

incentive because the Agency had needs that were not budgeted 

with GSA. As you know, I am in the process of also doing hearings 

to reauthorize the GSA. That is a fancy word to say reform its statute in the hope that it will reform the Agency itself. But one of the 

things I would like to do is to make sure that, for example, things 

like moving funds, GSA has the authority, so the Agency which 

then has to go and find it in its budget, which, of course, is a disincentive, doesn’t hold up the works where we could end up paying 

for space. How many times have I seen that occur? Just because 

GSA doesn’t have the funds to move the Agency into the space that 

is then finished. 

Now, most of your, I mean, the buildings you do are all level 4s. 

Any reason why you—are there any similar unbudgeted customer 

needs that are the kinds that are mentioned on page 8 of Mr.—of 

the kind I just said, moving needs for example, of the kind that are 

also mentioned in passing on page 8 of Mr. Miller’s testimony? 

Agency funds. And I have the Social Security administrator here, 

and I am going to see if there are any such funds related to work 

that the Social Security Administration has asked you to do. Go 

ahead. 

Mr. GUERIN. Before I answer that question, Congresswoman, I 

just want to the clarify something. GSA has requested and received 

25 

a waiver for our contracting officers from OMB regarding the annuitant, the retirement payments, so we have the authority to hire 

them without penalty. And we are seeking—— 

Ms. NORTON. Say that again. You have received the authority. 

Mr. GUERIN. Yes. We asked for a waiver from OPM and they 

granted a waiver for 1102s, which are the contracting officers, so 

we have the ability to bring back our annuitants. 

Ms. NORTON. Okay. So contracting officers, including annuitants. 

Mr. GUERIN. No, for annuitant contracting officers or previous 

contracting officers, we are able to bring them in without penalizing them. And we are seeking authority for other positions as 

well. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. So in other words, you already can and are hiring annuitants. 

Mr. GUERIN. Without penalty. 

Ms. NORTON. Without penalty. 

Mr. GUERIN. Right. And to your question, Congresswoman, the 

Agency moves, as GSA developed the list, we worked with OMB on 

the costs associated with moving the tenants in and out of the 

buildings. Where we had the opportunity and where OMB was able 

to add money to the 2010 program for those agencies, they accommodated. 

Ms. NORTON. That is 2010. Is that connected to the stimulus 

funds? 

Mr. GUERIN. It is connected to getting funding for the agencies 

in 2010 as appropriate. 

Ms. NORTON. You see, this is the kind of inefficiency we have got 

to do without. You all should not be put to that. 

Are any of these funds associated, Mr. Gallagher, with the work 

you have to do. We call them unbudgeted customer needs because 

it falls to you to do what you have already delegated. What is it, 

$500 million to GSA? Are there any other funds you have to delegate or get from your budget in order for them to complete the 

work that they’re doing for you? 

Mr. GALLAGHER. Are you speaking just about the computer center? 

Ms. NORTON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GALLAGHER. I am not prepared to answer that question. I 

could have somebody from our staff get back to your staff and answer that question. 

Ms. NORTON. Yes, I wish you would because we would like to get 

ahead of it in case—— 

Mr. GALLAGHER. We will have someone come back and brief you 

on that. 

[Information follows:] 

26 


Insert offset folio 4 here 49593.004
27 

Ms. NORTON. When did you decide to have the GSA perform this 

work for the Social Security Administration? 

Mr. GALLAGHER. Well, under the law, only the General Services 

Administration can perform this type of real estate function. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I am wondering why this wasn’t included in 

their package. You had to delegate it, you had to give the money 

over. You had the money. You had to give it over to them. 

Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, we will have to do a reimbursable work authorization back to GSA for this function. 

Ms. NORTON. Actually, maybe this was just to keep the funds 

from going beyond certain amounts for each agency. Maybe that is 

the reason this occurred. But you are right. You don’t have the authority. The reason I am asking questions like this is because we 

are reauthorizing the bill. We don’t want to just step into something. That is not what we want do to. 

What are the plans, Mr. Gallagher, for this computer center? 

Mr. GALLAGHER. Well, the first step is to get started on this process, we have a construction management firm that has already 

been contracted by GSA, and so really GSA has the lead on this 

and we will work with them. 

Ms. NORTON. Now, where is it going to be located? 

Mr. GALLAGHER. Where is the company located? 

Ms. NORTON. Yeah. 

Mr. GALLAGHER. Its name is Jacobs Facility. I don’t know where 

it is. 

Ms. NORTON. You mean, it is a facility that—— 

Mr. GALLAGHER. It is a contractor. 

Ms. NORTON. No. No. Where is the new facility? 

Mr. GALLAGHER. Oh, I am sorry. No decision has been made yet 

as to where the new facility will be. We are still undergoing really 

the site selection process on that. 

Ms. NORTON. You have to purchase land? 

Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes. This will require a purchase of land. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Guerin, what about the purchase of land here? 

We don’t even know where you are going to be yet. 

Mr. GUERIN. Well, we are working with the administration to 

identify appropriate locations for the project. 

Ms. NORTON. We understand it is going to be within, the staff 

believes it will be within 50 miles of Baltimore. 

Mr. GALLAGHER. Somewhere about that. We do know that there 

are some technology reasons to be close to our current facility. We 

also need to make sure, there are some technology issues to have 

that amount of data transferred back and forth. There are also 

some reasons we want to make sure that we have access of our intellectual capital, our employees, to be able to get back and forth 

to that facility. 

Ms. NORTON. Where is it located now, Mr. Gallagher? 

Mr. GALLAGHER. It is in our—Baltimore County. If you wouldn’t 

mind, I would rather not give you the specific location due to its 

critical nature. 

Ms. NORTON. Is it a secure facility? 

Mr. GALLAGHER. It is a secure facility, yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. All right. But it is in Baltimore County. 

Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, ma’am. 

28 

Ms. NORTON. What is the delineated area, Mr. Guerin, going to 

be? You said 50 miles, about 50 miles, more or less. 

Mr. GALLAGHER. I can tell you. We are still engaged in the process of actually developing the site criteria. One of the ones we have 

which is the technology driver for some relatively close proximity. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Guerin, in light of, I can only call it a shameful 

episode recently experienced, whereby there were gross violations 

in the delineated area of a facility, unheard of violations which are 

already on the record, I am going to ask you within 24 hours of the 

delineated area choice, to submit that information to this Committee and Subcommittee. And I am going to remind you that 

when there is a delineated area, the rule is that any change in the 

delineated area must be reported to this Committee as did not 

occur with the Social Security, HHS facility which caused its cancellation, as I recall. So that is something we will need to know 

right away, especially since it looks like you will have to purchase 

land. 

How big a facility is this? Any idea, Mr. Gallagher, how big a facility? 

Mr. GALLAGHER. Again, we are in the beginning part of the discussion. It is somewhere around 300,000 square feet. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Gallagher, let me say to you again. You are 

working with an agency that is overburdened in the first place. 

And we believe that there are other agencies that will also be required to ask GSA to do the work. So the earlier you get in, this 

done, because you are a start up, you are essentially starting at the 

beginning with land purchase, the better off you will be. I am going 

to have to ask you to get all your basic decisions made within the 

next 30 days, at the outset. So they won’t be able to put it on it. 

They will do it in a second. They will say oh, you know, what could 

we do? We were waiting for the Social Security Administration. 

Mr. GALLAGHER. We are actually working very closely with region three of GSA and I will tell you we are very pleased with their 

enthusiasm and how they have reached out. 

Ms. NORTON. Oh, they are always enthusiastic. But the site 

hadn’t been selected? 

Mr. GALLAGHER. That is correct. 

Ms. NORTON. Part of this is—remember, it is 90 days. They are 

short staffed, and they really are being asked to do everything at 

one time. So, you know, we are here to do the impossible. But I 

want to make sure you are not left, since you have to start with 

land purchase, which makes yours even more difficult than what 

we have been describing here. 

Mr. GALLAGHER. We do expect because there is a considerable 

amount of work to do, our current plan is we expect to be able to 

acquire the site in the second quarter of fiscal year 2010. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, that, which means that you would have to decide upon the site, acquire it means—— 

Mr. GALLAGHER. That is correct. Actually set up the requirements for it, go through the competitive process for that. This is 

actually a GSA function. 

Ms. NORTON. Yeah. It does take time. And in light of that I am 

going to have to ask Mr. Guerin, since you have testified that you 

are looking for streamlined methods, I think you have used of the 

29 

word innovative approaches, to do projects associated with the 

stimulus. Here is a classic one where you are being asked to do 

really a very difficult thing which is acquire land and then go forward from there. Could you give us an idea what kinds of innovative approaches to deliver projects you are using, what kinds of, 

give me an example of what you mean by innovative or streamlining the present process. 

Mr. GUERIN. Well, as an example, Congresswoman, you are right. 

The new design starts with a new site and those kinds of projects 

are going to be our most challenging because of the time frame involved with all those activities. As an example, in Bakersfield, we 

are looking to have a design competition to completely streamline 

the design selection process and get us very quickly to a—— 

Ms. NORTON. How? 

Mr. GUERIN. Design competition eliminates the need to actually 

go through a formal selection process of the architect. We issue a 

solicitation and the designers actually provide designs as part of 

their initial submission to us, so it cuts out quite a bit of the design 

time associated with getting to a concept, conceptual project. By 

doing that, we shorten the time dramatically in the design phase 

and by using design build bridging we can take that quickly to a 

construction project by using the concepts that are provided, selecting the architect that gets the winning contract, ask them to continue design and starting the design-build process at the same 

time. So it is an example of substantially compressing the time 

frame associated with that. 

Ms. NORTON. That is. It certainly is. Indeed, as I understand it, 

Mr. Abdur-Rahman, we are using something of that kind of process 

for the DHS headquarters? 

Mr. ABDUR-RAHMAN. For the Coast Guard headquarters we are 

using a design build bridging process. 

Ms. NORTON. Coast Guard. Thank you for that correction. Go 

ahead. 

Mr. ABDUR-RAHMAN. Yes, we are. Of course with the St. Elizabeth project we own the site so we have the advantage of having 

the site already. But for the Coast Guard design, which is the first 

phase of that development, we are using a design build bridging 

process to accelerate the project. 

Ms. NORTON. Are you on time? We had some dates that you delivered to us. Are you on time thus far? 

Mr. ABDUR-RAHMAN. Yes, we are on schedule to ultimately have 

a ward of the Coast Guard headquarters building in September of 

this year, as well as the construction manager for that project. 

Ms. NORTON. So that means we won’t be—when will we be obligating funds? 

Mr. ABDUR-RAHMAN. Yes, we will be obligating funds beginning 

this summer. The first part of that development. I was mentioning 

kind of a larger package which is the Coast Guard, the actual 

building. But we are going to be starting with abatement and demolition of the buildings that are on the site that the Coast Guard 

will occupy. That will start this summer, in June. 

Ms. NORTON. That is important. So you are testifying that in 

June the first abatement work and what else, abatement and—— 

30 

Mr. ABDUR-RAHMAN. Demolition. Demolition of the site that will, 

the site for the Coast Guard headquarters is currently occupied by 

buildings that are identified for demolition in the final approved 

master plan. 

Ms. NORTON. Except for acquisition of sites, you, of course, have 

perhaps the most challenging work to do since 450, we have got 

$450 million out of the stimulus package. This is classic old fashioned WPA funding. Those cornerstones down on Pennsylvania Avenue show you that this is what, this is how you do it. Every last 

one of those buildings on Constitution, Pennsylvania Avenue, were 

built during the Great Depression. And I think this may be the 

only one that we are doing, except for the smaller port entry buildings, land port entry buildings in that fashion. 

So that is the reason we were able to get this out in stimulus 

funds. And we got them out largely through the Senate, where 

there was an understanding of the history of the use of infrastructure building to actually build something. And we got them out, 

and the reason we are so focused on you, Mr. Abdur-Rahman, is 

that Congress and particularly the Senate, who was really our 

helpmate here, showed their belief in building as a way to stimulate jobs. 

Now, we have already figured 38,000 jobs. That 38,000 encompasses how many buildings? Where does that figure come from? Is 

that still a good figure? 

Mr. ABDUR-RAHMAN. The figure that you are quoting was from 

the final environmental impact statement and record decision, and 

that is a regional number. So the figure I am recalling was about 

32,000, I think, jobs, direct employment opportunities. 

Ms. NORTON. Over what period of time? 

Mr. ABDUR-RAHMAN. Over the development of the project which 

begins this year and has final occupancy in 2016. 

Ms. NORTON. That is a long-term project. How many buildings? 

Mr. ABDUR-RAHMAN. We are retaining in terms of adaptive 

reads, we are retaining 52 of the 62 buildings that contribute to the 

NHL status, and there will be several-- 

Ms. NORTON. NHL? 

Mr. ABDUR-RAHMAN. National historic landmark status. 

Ms. NORTON. That is reuse of buildings? 

Mr. ABDUR-RAHMAN. Reuse of buildings. 

Ms. NORTON. How many buildings are being reused? That makes 

a lot of work. How many buildings are being reused? 

Mr. ABDUR-RAHMAN. 52. 

Ms. NORTON. That is excellent. 

Mr. ABDUR-RAHMAN. And then there will be a new building. The 

Coast Guard headquarters will be a new facility. There will be a 

national operations center that will be largely an underground facility where DHS will be able to coordinate an organized response 

to different threats and challenges. And then there will be new facilities on the site for other parts of the DHS program, for Transportation Security Agency, Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs support and FEMA. 

Ms. NORTON. I hope you understand, Mr. Guerin, part of my last 

question, that said I do not believe that you are going to be able 

to bring on even annuitants fast enough without selling them on 

31 

coming back and therefore we need a proactive program. Not here 

I am advertising for some contractors. You will get thousands. This 

is a very tough time. We want very special kinds of people, obviously contractors, but to the extent that we can get people who 

shorten this process, the Committee will be particularly looking to 

that. 

Mr. Miller, you mentioned the old bugaboos of fraud, waste and 

abuse, and you have earlier testified that it is very difficult to 

spend government money rapidly, and you mentioned some recent 

examples, without incurring some fraud. 

Now, we are sophisticated about the notion that this guy, there 

is certain some Ph.D candidate will tell us how much fraud, what 

is the minimal fraud you can expect in any government contract. 

Maybe that standard would help us. 

But I am worried about GSA more so than other agencies, because of what you have just seen what it looks like almost a start 

up of an agency for stimulus funds. Got to hire yourself some people. Don’t even know yet whether the experienced people, or people 

who have to go through a long process, got to do four times the 

amount of work, got to make sure it is quality work because in construction you can tell in a mini second if it is not quality work. You 

have got to do a competitive process. 

My question to you is, how should we look at the possibilities 

here for fraud, waste and abuse, with a short-staffed agency who 

essentially has to staff up even to do the stimulus job while keeping its other functions going? How are we going to prevent fraud, 

waste and abuse, given the considerable handicaps and challenges 

this agency experiences? 

Mr. MILLER. Madam Chairman, I share your concern. We are 

very concerned about this as well. We are looking, we hope to look 

at projects very early so that we can spot issues early and spot 

warning signs, red flags, and hopefully, catch the fraud, waste and 

abuse. 

Ms. NORTON. How about warning signs? Red flags scare me. By 

that time it is pretty bad. 

Mr. MILLER. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. How about warning signs? Give us examples of the 

kind of warning signs that would be useful to you and to GSA to 

know of. 

Mr. MILLER. Well, some warning signs are, I guess, the keeping 

of the records. If contracts are being split, if there are equitable adjustments, if there is no record of the contracting officers, technical 

representative on a contract or a project—— 

Ms. NORTON. Is there a project director, for example, for Mr. Gallagher’s project? That is a separate project. 

Mr. Gallagher, do you know if there is yet a separate project— 

you have seen Mr. Abdur-Rahman is the project manager for a 

project that at this point has roughly the same amount of money. 

Is that right? $750 million. You have $500 million. Is there a 

project manager, Mr. Guerin? 

Mr. GUERIN. Yes, there is. Ed Myers in our region three is the 

project manager for the SSA project. 

Ms. NORTON. Very important for a project of this size, both to 

satisfy the client and the Committee. 

32 

I am sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER. If information being reported in multiple locations 

do not match, for example, if a contract awarded in FPDS is not 

reported when the obligation is also reported to OMB. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Miller, is there any percentage? I don’t know 

even if this is feasible. There are some kinds of work that is being 

done all over the country, same kinds of work, for example, HVAC 

work, which is going to be very important because of the emphasis 

on heating, sorry, energy conservation. Is there anything to be 

said—God knows I am offering no opinion here. I have no idea— 

about a contractor who be prepared as a matter of scale, both give 

us a good price and to do the work quickly, even though located in 

a number of different locations? Or is it best to go region by region 

with all of the inefficiencies that can come from that process? 

Mr. MILLER. Madam Chair, that appears to be a very difficult 

issue that we would rely on the expertise of the Agency. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, what does Mr. Guerin say? 

Mr. Guerin, I am offering no view. I have no expertise here. But 

you are put in a very strange position, even for a well-staffed agency. We have decided that there are so many Federal facilities that 

it would be impossible to locate this money in just a few of them. 

So we have tried to work with you to see if there was some objective process for choosing needed work in all 50 states, the territories and the District of Columbia, because all, every single jurisdiction, where there are Federal buildings, has incurred the same 

lack of funding for GSA projects. 

So I am trying to find out whether there are economies of scale 

for work of the same type, or whether, particularly in light of Mr. 

Miller’s concern about fraud, waste and abuse, who knows, that it 

is better to go piece by piece, jurisdiction by jurisdiction and I recognize that you have not had this kind of work going on in all 50 

States before. But it is conceivable that there could be some contractors for whom, whose record of doing similar work with the 

GSA has been of such a quality and such a speed that there could 

be advantages. Do we have any sense of that at this point? 

Mr. GUERIN. We do, Congresswoman. We have a series of IDIQ, 

indefinite quantity contracts that we intend to use for some of—— 

Ms. NORTON. Give me an example of what that means, please. 

Mr. GUERIN. It means we have hired a series of contractors in 

particular geographic locations that we understand the quality of 

the work that they have been producing for us. 

Ms. NORTON. To do what kind of work? 

Mr. GUERIN. To do construction work, to do some design work as 

well. We have a number of different kinds of contracts that we use 

to give us the ability to task contracts so we don’t have to go out 

and recompete, reselect, re-educate someone who has not had experience with GSA in the past. And so those people are available to 

us. And we are increasing the maximum order limitations and the 

amount of money available to those contracts so we can effectively 

use them as we move forward. We want to make sure that we take 

into account our small business goal, so we will push a lot of contracts out to individual contractors and pursue those because we 

want to make sure that we achieve our small business and set 

aside program goals as well. 

33 

We have a series of programmatic contracts that we are putting 

out for lighting, for recommissioning that will be national contracts. We will rely on specific experts to make sure that we have 

a consistent coordinated approach to how we evaluate our projects 

and how we define the scope of work for these programmatic 

projects moving forward. 

So we have those kinds of things going on where we are absolutely relying on specific expertise to make sure that we get exactly 

what we want and make sure that we achieve the energy goals 

that we are trying to achieve. 

Ms. NORTON. Is monitoring of this work centralized here or are 

we relying on the regions? 

Mr. GUERIN. Both. We have some contracts that are being managed centrally. And most, most of the contracts being managed regionally. We have experts—obviously, GSA puts its program out 

through our regional offices, and the vast majority of the work will 

happen in the regional offices. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Abdur-Rahman, would you put on the record 

about small business goals with respect to the DHS project which 

Mr. Guerin alluded to generally. Have you goals, and how have 

they been met or not on DHS work done this far at St. Elizabeth’s. 

Mr. ABDUR-RAHMAN. The goals that were established for the 

DHS program are 40 percent for small businesses. We are, as I 

mentioned we are in the early stages of those procurements, so 

those goals will be included in the request for proposal that are 

being issued and then we will follow up and report on those as the 

contracts are awarded and the GCs submit their subcontractors. 

Ms. NORTON. Now we understand that in the clearing the land, 

there have been some goals. Do you have any figures on those 

goals? 

Mr. ABDUR-RAHMAN. Yes. I think what you are referring to is 

that we have began, we obtained custody and control of this property from the Department of Health and Human Services. We immediately began to stabilize the facilities that were there that were 

in disrepair and do some repairs. And I don’t have the exact figures, but it occurs to me that we spent about $13 million on investing in the site so far and stabilization. All that work has gone to 

small business so far, to date. And I would like to point out that 

the solicitation that we are going to be awarding for the abatement 

and demolition is going to be a small business project also. So that 

will help our record and increase our objective to make opportunities available to the maximum number extent of small businesses 

on this project. 

Ms. NORTON. Given the speed with which you have got to proceed, Mr. Guerin, how are you going to meet the small business 

goals? You are piling that in we are piling that in on top of everything else we have piled on your back. 

Mr. GUERIN. We are used to it, Congresswoman. We pursue 

small business contracts regularly. We have a good track record of 

achieving our goals and we are going to continue to advertise specifically set aside for small business owners to do that. The vast 

majority of the projects, not the dollar amounts, but the projects 

are small projects that can be successfully awarded to small businesses and we intend to do that. 

34 

Ms. NORTON. Well, Mr. Abdur-Rahman and GSA have been holding forums here for small businesses and I was at the last one, and 

saw enthusiastic people out learning about the 8A and other processes. Are those forums going to be held around the country in any 

locations in any other locations, and are any others expected here? 

Mr. GUERIN. Yes, Congresswoman, both across the country and 

in D.C., you will see additional opportunities for small businesses 

to understand and get to know GSA and get to know what our 

processes are and participate in our contracts. That is certainly a 

way that we go out and strive to get as much small business participation as we can through those types of forums that you are referring to. 

Mr. MILLER. Madam Chair, would you mind if I took a very brief 

break? 

Ms. NORTON. Yes, sir. Go ahead. How many of these, Mr. AbdurRahman, how many of the, you have been having these forums. 

Have any of these small businessmen been added to the GSA 

schedule as a result of your forums? 

Mr. ABDUR-RAHMAN. I am not aware and I would have to get 

back to you about whether they have been added to the GSA. 

Ms. NORTON. What does it take to get on the GSA schedule? 

Mr. ABDUR-RAHMAN. They would need to apply to a solicitation 

that GSA would issue specifically for GSA schedule. 

Ms. NORTON. But how do you get on the schedule? 

Mr. ABDUR-RAHMAN. They would, when we have opportunities 

for schedules we announce those in the Federal business opportunities and when those solicitations are issued then those companies 

would compete for those. The training that we are having right 

now is for people to be certified by the Small Business Administration as small or disadvantaged contractors. 

And if I have a moment I would like to clarify that. Our goal for 

construction is 40 percent small business and for the construction 

manager, 38 percent. And the solicitation that we have out for the 

abatement and demolition is specifically for small disadvantaged or 

8A contractors. 

Ms. NORTON. That is for DBEs. How are we getting on the GSA 

schedule? 

Mr. ABDUR-RAHMAN. Yeah. 

Ms. NORTON. You are just talking about SBA. That is important. 

But then there is the all important GSA schedule. 

Mr. GUERIN. I think we should get back to you with a specific 

response on that, Congresswoman. 

Ms. NORTON. Are people being trained? What does it take to get 

on the GSA schedule? What do you have to have in order to qualify 

to be on the schedule? 

Mr. GUERIN. I think we need to get back with a specific answer 

on exactly how that happens because I don’t think Dawud or I are 

in a position to answer that question exactly. 

Ms. NORTON. Would you, within 14 days get back to us. You 

know it is one thing to be on it and to therefore, compete among 

those who are already on it. But I would like details of how you 

get on it. And I would like to know if you are, and may I thank 

GSA, who will be appearing and offering advice at my small business fair held annually, and may I thank you for always being 

35 

there at that fair. And that fair is the 13 of May, next Tuesday. 

And I know you will be offering a workshop on how to get on the 

GSA schedule. 

So I would like a list of all businesses in the District of Columbia 

that are on the DHS schedule, for whatever purpose. Then I would 

like a list of all businesses in the region, National Capitol Region, 

that are on the DHS schedule. That is public information I am 

sure. 

Mr. GUERIN. I am sure it is. 

Ms. NORTON. I am almost through. The purpose of—we would 

not be engaged in this hearing, and you would not have this money 

except for one purpose, to create jobs. So as much as we have 

talked about fraud, waste and abuse, quality of work, how soon it 

gets out, if we were to list what the purpose of this money is, it 

would be to create jobs to help us bring out, get out of this structural recession. Any look at what has happened to our country 

makes it clear that there will be no coming up one sector at a time. 

All 50 States are down. There is a terrible cobweb. You can’t break 

into it and break somebody out of it. Everything has to happen at 

one time. That is why we are doing TARP and why we are doing 

mortgages and why the President does have to do it all at one time 

or go home; and he ain’t going home. 

That being the case, the job creation element of this becomes exquisitely important, if I may say so. The most important element 

of this. Can you tell me how many people have been hired as of 

this time? 

Mr. GUERIN. We have awarded $100 million worth of contracts. 

Those are several large projects and a series of small studies and 

design projects. I don’t have the exact figure of how many people 

have been hired. 

Ms. NORTON. Are any of those projects underway? 

Mr. GUERIN. They are just getting started, Congresswoman. 

Ms. NORTON. And how do we track jobs? Because again, that is 

how we are most accountable, then everything else comes after 

that. How do we track—do we know when somebody is on the 

ground working in whatever capacity? 

Mr. GUERIN. We have a specific contract clause that is going to 

be inserted into every contract that we issue through the recovery 

to ask the contractors to track jobs in a very specific way. They report those jobs directly to a Web site that I don’t remember, I believe it is a Congress Web site where all the jobs are tracked and 

reported, and that will happen across the country. They will feed 

into a specific Web site. 

Ms. NORTON. I know we are early in the obligation, but that, but 

you are separately tracking jobs. For example, if the contractor is 

slow getting people on the ground, what happens to that contractor? He has been awarded a contract, but they’re sitting on a 

contract or somehow or the other isn’t hiring people even though 

there a glut of people looking for jobs. What does he do? What do 

you do? 

Mr. GUERIN. We don’t anticipate that happening, Congresswoman. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, my goodness. I do. I anticipate what you 

should anticipate, and I anticipate what you shouldn’t anticipate. 

36 

And I absolutely anticipate that once some of these guys get the 

job, even though there is every incentive to start, that you will be 

looking at some people who start up and some people who put in 

a good bid, but don’t start up as quickly. How will you make sure 

that all these contractors are working quickly? 

Mr. GUERIN. We are going to continue to use the processes we 

used to pick the best contractors. We have source selection processes that we use. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, they have already got the contract. Yet you 

see that contractor A in X jurisdiction has started up and is working quickly. Contractor B is working less quickly, even though he 

has access to the same work force. What does GSA do? Is there a 

marker that shows how fast someone ought to be able, given the 

number of—— 

Mr. GUERIN. We have very specific information about each of our 

contracts. A milestone schedule for each of the, not only the design, 

but the procurement and the construction project, and my office is 

going to specifically track those things to ensure that the projects 

are happening on the schedules that they created for us and that 

we agreed to contractually. And if they do not perform, and again, 

to get the money out, GSA has to spend the money 5 years and 

that is a very important aspect of this program. 

Ms. NORTON. So what do you do, though, Mr. Miller, if somebody 

does not, you know, get up off his duff because he is as slow as 

GSA used to be, shall we say? What do you do? We have already 

got the contract. Maybe he is hiring some people, but he is not putting the money where the jobs are. You know, he has got this nice 

little piece of paper in his hand. What, if anything, can the government do, having already awarded him the money, except to say you 

should be doing better? See, we do not have that luxury this time. 

Mr. MILLER. Madam Chair, there are probably a number of remedies available to GSA. A cancellation of the contract comes to 

mind. 

Ms. NORTON. I guess that, though, is really the atom bomb. You 

know, that is a nuclear matter, and of course the contractor knows 

that it is nuclear, and he has never seen GSA do that under any 

circumstances, even when it virtually defaults. So what internal 

mechanisms would you or, for that matter, Mr. Guerin or any of 

the rest of you suggest for a contractor who is slow on the draw? 

Mr. GUERIN. We also have remedies through the bonding agencies that bond the contractors. We can force them to perform. I 

think the nuclear bomb, as you referred to it, is there for us, but 

we have various ways to remedy the contracts before that time. 

Again, we are going to be tracking it very carefully, and we will 

know when projects are starting to get off track, and we will use 

every remedy we have available to us. 

Ms. NORTON. I would like to know what those remedies are, I 

really would. I have no confidence in the ′′We will do everything 

we can′′ answers. 

Mr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER. The first remedy is for GSA to issue a cure notice, 

a notice asking the contractor to cure the defect. And that is the 

very first thing. 

37 

Ms. NORTON. And that could include: You are too slow, and we 

are held accountable for jobs, and we have not got any jobs to 

show, to speak of? 

Mr. MILLER. I would think so, yes. 

Mr. GUERIN. And we have liquidated damages, Congresswoman. 

If they do not perform, there is a contractual penalty that forces 

them to pay the government for their poor performance. 

Ms. NORTON. When is the last time we have ever extracted that 

from a contractor? 

Mr. GUERIN. We extract liquidated damages regularly for slow 

contractors who do not perform within the contractual time frame. 

If there is not a good reason and, again, a negotiated reason between GSA and the contractor to—— 

Ms. NORTON. Is that included in the contract? Do they understand that they do not pay us? 

Mr. GUERIN. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. This is so important—sitting on top of government 

money, not acting, and no penalty for it. I am also looking at this, 

I will say to the staff, for the reauthorization to perhaps clarify 

that—about the necessity to do that. 

This is a very valuable piece of paper you have in your hand— 

that is, a government contract—and it is invaluable today. 

Mr. Guerin, you testified—I am here, reading from your testimony—′′pre-apprentice and apprenticeship programs are an integral part. These programs will be established as contractual requirements—′′ that is excellent—′′as construction projects.′′ Meaning, that is in the RFP? 

Mr. GUERIN. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. But then it says, ′′The funding provided in the act 

shall be used for costs of pre-apprentice and apprentice training. 

The programs will be modeled after a successful GSA program in 

the National Capital Region through which at least 840 persons at 

15 projects...′′ 

The problem with that is, if it is modeled after that, we are going 

to get the people who already are apprentices or qualified apprentices. All that does is say, make sure we have certified apprentices 

because of the history, not of GSA, but of the construction industry 

of simply using apprentices. Sometimes those apprentices are not 

certified from certified programs, and so we rectified that. 

What will we do about the fact that the underemployment has 

been among people of color and women who are not certified to do 

anything and who have not been recruited into these programs? 

Because there has been no formal program of the kind there was 

up until 1980. And you, of course, have been given almost no 

money to do it. 

The thing that caught me up—I loved the first part of this—is 

in the RFP, ′′but when we were doing exactly what we have been 

doing here for certified apprenticeship programs, we were not dealing with the pool that the $3 million you have seeks to target.′′ 

That pool of people who already are apprentices, they just have 

to be in a certified apprenticeship program. 

Mr. GUERIN. Right. 

Ms. NORTON. I am looking for people who are in the pre-apprentice category, largely women and people of color. 

38 

Mr. GUERIN. As soon as we got wind of the potential for funds 

in the bill, we got to work with DOL to understand their program 

better and to make sure that we were working with them directly 

to identify underrepresented areas and areas with economic disadvantages so we could identify with DOL—they are going to help 

us identify the locations where we can really use the best bang for 

the buck. 

You said it, Congresswoman. We do not have a lot of money on 

this program, so we want to be very effective in how we spend it. 

Large contracts. We can have apprenticeship, and we can require 

pre-apprenticeship as well through the contracts; but where we 

want to really spend our money is in training those pre-apprentices 

and in bringing them up to speed to get the job skills that you and 

I have talked about before to ensure that they understand what it 

is to hold a job and what it is to have the opportunity, and then 

move them into the apprenticeship programs that are already ongoing across the country. 

Ms. NORTON. Even as we were getting money for this program, 

we realized we were not going to get enough, and we put you at 

a terrible disadvantage. We thought it important to get whatever 

money we could. We anticipate real disputes among people who 

look at these jobs, and we anticipate litigation. In fact, to be just 

clear, the 14th Amendment of the United States and Title VI of the 

1964 Civil Rights Act is very explicit: You cannot spend money, 

Federal money or State money, that has discriminatory purposes. 

If people and various organizations see an overwhelmingly white 

workforce, it will court litigation. It could slow us up, and we have 

not given you enough money to proceed. 

When I looked closely at it, because of my past experience as 

head of the EEOC, it was clear to me that the problem is not in 

construction trades. The problem is in training, and it is not as if— 

there are, of course, qualified journeymen and journeywomen out 

here, but compared to the overwhelmingly white male workforce, 

they pale in numbers. So I expect, frankly, that qualified minority 

journeymen and apprentices will be easily hired. I really do. I think 

the States will grab them up even before you get ahold of them. 

What I am worried about are people in the street, going up there 

and counting people and saying: Well, I do not see a single X, Y, 

Z, and some of that may be bogus. You cannot tell anything, particularly when you are talking about a few million dollars here and 

a few million dollars there. 

I do not have any advice for you. The Secretary of Transportation 

is such a good friend of ours and was before the Full Committee. 

They are in the same predicament. They have a lot more money 

than you. They have only 20 million lousy dollars. The reason you 

got $3 million is proportionate. 

I got a question from the appropriators: If you cannot get as 

much as you ask for—and I forgot what I asked for—do you believe 

that it is fair to get a proportionate amount from the transportation funds? 

Well, in fairness, how could I say ′′no′′? 

Well, you know, they got too few funds, and we got too few. I do 

not know if this will work, but I am going to have to ask you again, 

39 

and my staff, to meet with them this week because I think we are 

all now on unplowed ground. 

I said to the Secretary of Transportation: You and I are in the 

construction business. 

Maybe there is some way for transportation and GSA money to 

be pooled so that, for example, you are not in the same place they 

are or that whatever programs they are using complement yours. 

I have no idea. All I know is that both of you have so little money 

that I am going to ask staff if you will—the Secretary has very 

much agreed to begin to search this out—if you will meet with the 

appropriate transportation staff and with the appropriate GSA 

staff just to investigate how to take a tiny bit of money and make 

it useful to us. And I am at a loss to put this terrible burden on 

you. I do not even believe there are a lot of folks out here, particularly doing pre-apprenticeship work, whom I would trust. 

We are in touch with what we have heard are programs that are 

better than others. We do not know. DOL is problematic because 

they work with States. They have done a lousy job. They have done 

a lousy job of training in the construction trades. 

You heard in my opening statement that I said, shucks, there are 

billions of dollars they could have drawn upon to do training ever 

since 2000 based on our authorization bills. Only 17 pecked at that 

money. So it is important to talk to DOL, but I do not think there 

is good State experience either, because they have chosen to take 

every living cent and put it on the street with whatever workforce 

they have. 

So this is real start-up stuff, and I want to work with you. I have 

a vested interest, very much like what is being done on small business. It is very much easier to do, frankly—a smaller number of 

people, geared to understand the competitive process. Here you are 

dealing with people in the street who have large unemployment 

rates, just like the construction workers who will never, ever understand why they are not being employed, but who will understand if there are targeted projects around the country. There may 

not be in their area, but if there are targeted models around the 

country from which we can proceed—and listen to me on this—in 

the next reauthorization bill, my intention is to make these funds 

mandatory of the States in the next Transportation and Infrastructure reauthorization bill, so that you cannot take billions of dollars 

if you are the State of X, Y, Z, put 100 percent of it in the ground, 

and not train a single person in your State. That is an outrage. 

The way we did it before was, in good faith, we said you are encouraged to take 0.5 of your funds and put it into training. They 

said, thank you. Encouraged, we will take that at face value. Zero. 

That is what most of them said—zero. I have asked the Secretary 

to get back with me as to how much in each State and to give me 

a list of what those States were. 

That being the state of the art, we want to work closely with you 

on what amounts to start-up for training because this, interestingly, is not about small business as much as we have worked on 

that, and you have done a good job on that. This is about jobs. It 

is not about jobs only for those who are out of work; it is about jobs 

for those who could not possibly get the jobs to do the work today, 

40 

but who can use what amounts to a magical, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get a foothold into the construction trades. 

Mr. GUERIN. Congresswoman, I just want to let you know that, 

based on your comments last week at the hearing, we did reach out 

to DOT, and we have started conversation with them about working together. We would definitely welcome the opportunity to participate in a program where you are bringing DOT and GSA together to look at this issue, because we are very interested in it. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. 

At the end of this week, I will get from staff some sense of how 

those conversations are proceeding, given the great difficulty we 

see here. 

Is there anything else any of the rest of you, any others of you, 

or any of you, would like to say before we close this hearing? 

The hearing is very important to us, as you can see by how long 

I have kept you in it. I will tell you one thing: I do not intend to 

offer any excuses. I am not going to say GSA made me do it or that 

GSA did not do it or that the Social Security Administration did 

not do for GSA what it should have done. I am going to take responsibility, and that is why I am going to hold your feet to the 

fire. Expect another tracking hearing within about 2 weeks. 

Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 4:34 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

41 


Insert offset folio 5 here 49593.005
42 


Insert offset folio 6 here 49593.006
43 


Insert offset folio 7 here 49593.007
44 


Insert offset folio 8 here 49593.008
45 


Insert offset folio 9 here 49593.009
46 


Insert offset folio 10 here 49593.010
47 


Insert offset folio 11 here 49593.011
48 


Insert offset folio 12 here 49593.012
49 


Insert offset folio 13 here 49593.013
50 


Insert offset folio 14 here 49593.014
51 


Insert offset folio 15 here 49593.015
52 


Insert offset folio 16 here 49593.016
53 


Insert offset folio 17 here 49593.017
54 


Insert offset folio 18 here 49593.018
55 


Insert offset folio 19 here 49593.019
56 


Insert offset folio 20 here 49593.020
57 


Insert offset folio 21 here 49593.021
58 


Insert offset folio 22 here 49593.022
59 


Insert offset folio 23 here 49593.023
60 


Insert offset folio 24 here 49593.024
61 


Insert offset folio 25 here 49593.025
62 


Insert offset folio 26 here 49593.026
63 


Insert offset folio 27 here 49593.027
64 


Insert offset folio 28 here 49593.028
65 


Insert offset folio 29 here 49593.029
66 


Insert offset folio 30 here 49593.030
67 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 31 here 49593.031