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

50–973 PDF 2009

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION’S FISCAL 

YEAR 2010 CAPITAL 

INVESTMENT AND LEASING 

PROGRAM (CILP) 

(111–46) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

July 8, 2009 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

VACANCY 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Columbia, Chair 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania, 

Vice Chair 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

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

TESTIMONY 

Costa, Anthony E., Acting Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, U.S. General Services Administration ............................................................................... 6 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri ......................................................................... 39 

Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, of the District of Columbia ................................. 40 

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

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Costa, Anthony E. .................................................................................................... 46 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Costa, Anthony E., Acting Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, U.S. General Services Administration: ..............................................................................

Responses to questions from Rep. Norton, of the District of Columbia ... 53 

Responses to questions from Rep. Oberstar, of Minnesota ....................... 55 

Peck, Hon. Robert A., Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, U.S. General 

Services Administration, responses to questions from the Subcommittee ...... 60 

ADDITION TO THE RECORD 

Stephan, Robert B., Chair, Interagency Security Committee and Assistant 

Secretary for Infrastructure Protection, General Services Administration, 

memorandum on Facility Security Level Determinations for Federal Facilities ......................................................................................................................... 103 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 50973.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 50973.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 50973.003
(1) 

HEARING ON GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION’S FISCAL YEAR 2010 CAPITAL INVESTMENT AND LEASING PROGRAM (CILP) 

Wednesday, July 8, 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 3:50 p.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton 

[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Ms. NORTON. Welcome to today’s hearing entitled ′′GSA Construction and Leasing Stimulus Spending, Energy Goals and Making a Down Market Work for Taxpayers on the General Services 

Administration Capital Investment and Leasing Program for Fiscal 

Year 2010. 

The fiscal year 2010 program represents an important variety of 

real estate projects that should also benefit the economy and taxpayers, if managed well. There are nine construction projects, five 

alteration projects and four leases, for a total of 18 prospectuses before the Subcommittee, with additional leases to come at a later 

date. 

The GSA Fiscal Year 2010 Capital Investment and Leasing Program is national in scope, including a variety of projects across the 

United States. 

The submission also includes reports known as fact sheets on the 

status of ongoing, authorized projects for the Food and Drug Administration at White Oak, Maryland, and site remediation at 

Lakewood, Colorado, as well as almost 50 acres of construction 

under way at Capitol Riverfront near Nationals Park in Washington, D.C., known as The Yard, authorized by our bill, the Southeast Federal Center Public-Private Development Act of 2000. Major 

projects include two alteration projects for the Eisenhower Executive Office Building and infrastructure systems replacement for the 

White House East and West Wings in Washington, D.C. The GSA 

fiscal year 2010 package also includes funds for land ports of entry 

at Madawaska, Maine, and El Paso, Texas. 

We were surprised and disappointed with the submission of two 

courthouse projects in Yuma, Arizona, and Lancaster, Pennsylvania. These projects were not on the 5-year plan submitted to this 

Subcommittee by the administration office of the United States 

Courts, and seem to have come from virtually nowhere. Even more 

2 

troubling, these two small, below-prospectus courthouse projects, 

were originally leased construct projects, typically the most expensive way to house Federal tenants, and GSA had planned to go forward with these construction projects without notifying this Subcommittee. 

Although these projects technically fall below the prospectus 

level that requires congressional approval, GSA would be ill-advised to proceed on any such project in the future without notifying 

this Subcommittee, especially given our consistent and active oversight of the Federal courthouse program. 

We are working on statutory changes to restore fiscal and management professionalism to this very troubled and wasteful program. GSA is again on notice that this Subcommittee expects GSA 

to report consistently and with regularity on all—underline ′′all′′— aspects of its construction program. Failure to disclose information 

on construction projects going forward will not be tolerated. 

The administration’s fiscal year 2010 budget request includes $100 million for the GSA to exercise its purchase option for the Columbia Plaza Building located at 2401 E Street Northwest in 

Washington, D.C. Because I represent this city, I understand that 

any loss of leased space, even for a single building, is a loss for the 

local tax rolls. However, the administration has simply adopted the 

consistent policy of the Federal Government and the Committee is 

in favor of ownership where possible, particularly considering that 

the vital Federal Building Fund depends on payments from Federal 

agencies occupying government-owned space only. This funding, in 

turn, provides the resources that enable GSA to construct, maintain and repair buildings in the Federal inventory. 

However, recent trends have tipped so that the government now 

leases more than it owns. The alarming shrinkage of available 

funds has severely reduced the Federal Government’s ability to 

maintain its valuable inventory of buildings and facilities, as well 

as to generate funds for Federal construction and rehabilitation. 

This skewed lease-to-own ratio trend, which seems likely to continue, resulted in the need for almost $6 billion in stimulus funding 

for vastly overdue energy conservation and other repairs that have 

left a distressing portrait of the condition of Federal asset management, an essential government function. 

The current Federal lease on the Columbia Plaza Building dates 

back to 1992. Moreover, because of the building’s critical location, 

the government does not have the alternative of vacating and moving on. Considering the millions of dollars poured into this space, 

that the government does not own, for upgrades, rehabilitation, as 

well as lease payments, the government has more than paid the 

equivalent cost of the premises by now. 

When the current lease was signed in 1992, however, GSA did 

negotiate a purchase option of $100 million, and in 2006, GSA appraised the Columbia Plaza Building at $190 million. The administration would not easily propose a lump sum $100 million payment 

for real estate today, unless, as here, there was an opportunity 

whose avoidance would be difficult to explain to taxpayers in light 

of the nearly two-to-one return on the initial Federal investment 

and the substantial return to the Federal Building Fund that 

would follow. 

3 

Related to the fiscal year 2010 budget request is the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which became public law 

on February 17, 2009. The GSA Fiscal Year 2010 Capital Investment and Leasing package before the Subcommittee today must be 

viewed in light of the largest single infusion of funding for construction, repair and alteration in many years, all of which was appropriated by the—was authorized, excuse me—by the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act. 

According to GSA’s latest activity report, it has obligated over $10 million of this stimulus funding in the past few weeks. These 

awards include funding for Federal buildings and courthouses, land 

ports of entry and high-performance green building modernizations. 

The stimulus projects range from energy and water studies and 

land acquisitions to the design of energy-efficient construction 

projects and HVAC optimization and improvement projects. 

The projects are being carried out in at least a dozen States. GSA 

has—and I should add, the projects are authorized in all 50 States 

and all the territories and the District of Columbia. 

GSA has also indicated that it plans to award several larger con- tracts in excess of $400 million before July 31, 2009. These projects 

include the Washington Herbert Hoover Building, phase 2 and 

phase 3, at $134,446,000; the Andover, Massachusetts, IRS Service 

Center, $115 million; the Austin, Texas U.S. courthouse, 

$116,041,000, and the San Antonio, Texas, Garcia U.S. Courthouse, 

$61,331. 

GSA stimulus funds must be obligated by 2010. Because of that 

date, this Subcommittee will have to find a way to pace the level 

of obligation by GSA of the funds. 

This Subcommittee has unique oversight responsibility for stimulus funding because the GSA funding is administered by the Federal Government itself, unlike other stimulus funds administered 

by the States. Therefore, the Subcommittee will need to decide how 

to measure the pace at which GSA is obligating the funds. 

This Committee already has begun vigorous oversight over the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, GSA section. We held 

oversight hearings on stimulus spending on April 29, 2009, and on 

June 25, 2009; and we are planning another hearing for the end 

of this month. 

Today, I look forward to hearing from GSA about the execution 

of several of the projects expected to be awarded this summer. We 

thank each of you who will testify today for your preparation for 

today’s hearing. 

And I am pleased to ask our Ranking Member, Mr. Diaz-Balart, 

if he has any opening remarks. 

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

Chairwoman, for holding this hearing today on GSA’s Capital Investment and Leasing Program for Fiscal Year 2010. I thank you 

for bringing us together on this important issue. 

Last month, the General Services Administration submitted 

prospectuses for 21 projects, and that included seven alteration 

projects, ten construction projects and four lease projects. Now, the 

program includes modernization projects for the East and West 

Wings of the White House, as you stated, and construction of land 

ports of entry and courthouses. 

4 

The program also includes the consolidation of the FBI operations in Miami Dade County, in the area of south Florida. Those 

district offices right now, those operations—and this would drive 

you crazy, Madam Chairwoman—they are spread out in 12 different locations right now. So that is clearly a good consolidation 

of the FBI operations into one location, which obviously will be 

more efficient and more secure, et cetera. So that is obviously a 

good project. 

Now, while a number the proposals like the FBI consolidation 

appear to meet important space needs, I am also troubled by some 

of the projects; and you just mentioned a couple of those, Madam 

Chairwoman. I am concerned that instead of maximizing GSA 

funds to create jobs, the Recovery Act—I have brought this up before—made greening existing Federal buildings a priority by providing GSA with $4.5 billion for, ′′measures necessary to convert 

GSA facilities to high-performance green buildings,′′ which we all 

know is a meritorious thing to do. But obviously, job creation was 

what that money was supposed to be for. 

Now, despite that significant investment in greening, which 

again has merit in the stimulus, the fiscal year 2010 program proposes an additional $40 million for conservation measures and 

high-performance energy projects. So I am just not clear as to why 

we need an additional 40 million on top of the $4.5 million already 

appropriated. That is one issue. 

The 2010 GSA program also includes various projects related to 

the New Executive Office Building, the Eisenhower Executive Office Building and the East and West Wings of the White House, as 

I said a little while ago. 

Now, as an example, GSA proposes the construction of a new 

structure for the Secret Service. Now, here is the rub because, obviously, everybody knows the essential service that they provide. But 

the cost to the taxpayer would be about $1,000 per square foot. 

That is pretty significant by any stretch of the imagination. So— 

obviously, I understand and I have the utmost respect for the Secret Service, and there may be some really good reasons why 

$1,000 per square foot is necessary; but I think this Committee 

needs to see that, needs to see an explanation for that and what 

other less costly alternatives were looked at, if they were. If they 

were, I would like to see why those were not accepted; and if they 

weren’t, obviously, why not. 

I also have similar concerns with proposed costs associated with 

the renovation of the East and West Wings of the White House 

now, and I will state why. Last Congress, GSA submitted a prospectus for the modernization of the West Wing of the White 

House. At that time, GSA explained the high cost as including the 

infrastructure in various systems that would be shared with other 

buildings related to the White House. Obviously, we understand 

that. 

This year, GSA is proposing renovations of the East Wing. Now, 

again, I am obviously supportive of important renovations to the 

White House, given the importance of—the national importance of 

that building, the historical importance of the building, the fact— 

I mean, there are so many reasons obviously that I am supportive. 

But I am concerned that there doesn’t seem to be a comprehensive 

5 

plan for the White House complex renovations because we keep 

getting this piecemeal. So, obviously, I think that a comprehensive 

review and evaluation of all the capital improvement needs is warranted, and I think that is pretty essential because I keep seeing 

this piecemeal approach. 

Another concern, Madam Chairwoman, that I have relates to the 

two courthouses proposed in the program. I believe they are the 

ones that you were talking about. And again, there is no clear 

statement of need for these new courthouses and, in fact, neither 

of them is included in the 5-year courthouse plan. 

So, again, there are clearly some worthwhile projects proposed, 

but there are others that appear either unnecessary or, frankly, 

clearly need further explanation, which I think the Committee deserves to have. 

And finally, I want to express my concern about the timing of 

GSA’s submission of the prospectuses to this Committee. As the authorizing Committee for the GSA, our actions here are important 

in informing the appropriations process. Receiving the Capital Investment and Leasing Programs in June provides us with, frankly, 

very little time, almost no time, to review and act on those 

prospectuses before the appropriations process begins, so now—in 

the past, this Committee has received those prospectuses shortly 

after the President’s budget was released. I hope that that will be 

the case again in the future, that they are submitted to us to this 

Committee in a timely manner. 

I want to again—once again, Madam Chairwoman, I want to 

thank you for having this hearing. I want to thank the witness. 

Mr. Costa, it is always good to see you, sir. And I look forward 

to the testimony. 

Thank you. 

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

Could I ask Ms. Edwards if she has any opening remarks. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

And again, thank you, Mr. Costa; it is good to see you again. I 

hope that you will today—I know we have been over this territory 

before, but really focus on the activities of the Agency to implement 

the green buildings and infrastructure program as has been authorized and appropriated in—both in your upcoming open lease 

arrangements, as well as with efficiency improvement, as well as 

with the new construction programs. And I am just interested in 

an ongoing update of how those programs are being implemented. 

And again, as you know—and we will discuss this now and forever more: my ongoing concerns about lease opportunities in the 

Maryland suburban metropolitan area, and how we are proceeding 

on that and what we might need; and your and perhaps even recommendations from the GSA about ways that we may need to 

strengthen the authorizing legislation that gets us to a goal that 

it seems, from the record that you submitted to us in the past, that 

we have not quite achieved in terms of parity of distribution of 

these leases and new construction activities in the metropolitan 

area. And so I look forward to our continuing dialogue on that. 

More importantly, I look forward to achieving some measure of 

success that we can point to more specifically. 

6 

And, again, I thank you for being here and for the outreach that 

your Agency has made and connection with my office, because I do 

appreciate the relationship that we continue to develop. Thank you 

very much. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Ms. Edwards. 

Mr. Tony Costa, the Acting Commissioner of Public Building 

Service. We will hear your testimony at this time. 

TESTIMONY OF ANTHONY E. COSTA, ACTING COMMISSIONER, 

PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE, U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chairman, 

Ranking Member Diaz-Balart, and Congresswoman Edwards. My 

name is Tony Costa, and I am the Acting Commissioner of the Public Buildings Service at the U.S. General Services Administration. 

Thank you for inviting me here to discuss GSA’s fiscal year 2010 

Capital Investment and Leasing Program. 

GSA’s Public Buildings Service is one of the largest and most diverse public real estate organizations in the world. Our inventory 

consists of over 8,500 assets, with almost 354,000,000 square feet 

of space across all 50 States, six U.S. territories and the District 

of Columbia. Our portfolio includes office buildings, courthouses, 

land ports of entry and warehouses. It is the PBS mission to provide superior workplaces for Federal customer Agencies at an economical cost to the American taxpayer. 

I am pleased to be here today to request your authorization and 

support of the individual projects that make up our fiscal year 2010 

capital program. These projects will best meet our customer Agencies’ housing needs and have been thoroughly analyzed so that they 

are consistent with our overall portfolio objectives. 

We try to optimize the value of our own assets. We try to direct 

capital resources toward performing assets and develop workout or 

disposal strategies for under- and nonperforming assets. We have 

to maintain the continued functionality of our buildings and safeguard the health and safety of their occupants and provide quality 

work space that supports the varied missions of our tenants. 

We now have to achieve energy efficiency and environmental 

goals of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. And, 

of course, we have to fulfill our responsibilities under the National 

Historic Preservation Act to proudly protect and preserve our historically significant public buildings. 

GSA is a steward of 1,500 Federal buildings which have a replacement value of over $40 billion. We are requesting a repair and 

alterations program of $496 million to maintain and improve property in our inventory. Because we have received significant Recovery Act funding for our buildings, our repairs and alterations request is slightly below that of recent years. But continuing to reduce our backlog is still our top priority. 

The highlights of GSA’s fiscal year 2010 repair and alterations program include $260 million for the basic program, $176 million 

for major and limited-scope programs, $20 million for the fire and 

life safety program, $20 million for energy and water conversation 

7 

measures, and $20 million for Federal high-performance green 

buildings. 

The Energy and High-Performance Green Buildings Programs 

are a small but crucial part of our repair and alteration request. 

Through these programs, we will make improvements similar to 

those included in our Recovery Act spending plan, but in a different set of buildings. 

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 sets challenging goals. Beginning in fiscal year 2010, it requires GSA to reduce consumption of fossil fuel-generated energy in new buildings, 

major renovations and lease construction. And by 2030 it requires 

GSA to totally eliminate fossil fuel consumption in our new buildings, major renovations and lease construction projects. 

EISA also accelerates the rate at which we must reduce energy 

consumption in our inventory as a whole to 3 percent per year, and 

specifically requires more energy and water retrofits in our existing 

buildings. We are requesting $40 million for the implementation of 

energy and water for retrofit projects in government-owned buildings during fiscal year 2010 to help achieve these goals. 

We are also requesting a Construction and Acquisition of Facili- ties Program of $658 million. Our request includes funding for 

sites, acquisition, design, infrastructure construction and the management inspection costs of 10 Federal facilities. We traditionally 

pursue a construction ownership solution for special purpose and 

unique facilities that are not readily available in the real estate 

market. In addition, we recommend new construction where there 

is a long-term need in a given locality. 

GSA’s fiscal year 2010 New Construction Program is focused on 

urgent customer priorities ranging from laboratories for protecting 

the public health to land ports of entry for securing our borders. 

It includes $138 million for the Food and Drug consolidation at 

White Oak, Maryland; $100 million for the purchase of the Columbia Plaza Building in Washington, D.C.; $25 million for remediation activities at the Denver Federal Center and the Southeast 

Federal Center in Washington, D.C.; $190 million for a new FBI facility in Miami, Florida; $151 million for the design and construction of three land ports of entry; and $53 million for two U.S. courthouses in Yuma, Arizona, and Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Several of 

these projects were originally planned as lease construction, but 

will now be built and owned by the Federal Government, saving 

the taxpayers millions of dollars over the long term. 

In addition to our owned inventory, GSA has entered into more 

than 8,500 private sector leases in 7,000 locations nationwide. At 

178 million square feet, leased space comprises more than half of 

our total portfolio square footage. We are pleased that the vacant 

space in our leased inventory has been at or below 1.5 percent for 

the last 6 years, well below the national industry average. We 

strive to keep leasing costs at or below market levels, and have developed strategies to do so, including the standard use of industry 

benchmarks and market surveys to comparison shop for the best 

value for our customers. 

Due to the volume and complexity of our customers’ lease requirements, we will submit at least one more set of lease 

prospectuses for your consideration. 

8 

GSA continues to work with our customer Agencies to meet their 

mission requirements within their financial restraints by consolidating requirements, reducing unutilized space and minimizing 

tenant improvement costs in expiring space assignments. At the 

same time, we continue to work with stakeholders such as this 

Subcommittee to continue to recognize our capital requirements as 

our inventory ages and as customers’ needs change. 

Madam Chair, Ranking Member, this concludes my prepared 

statement. I will be pleased to answer any questions that you or 

any other Members of the Subcommittee may have about our proposed fiscal year 2010 Capital Investment and Leasing Program or 

any other aspects of the Public Buildings Service. Thank you. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Costa. I have got to lead 

off with this question concerning one of your largest tenants and 

government-owned facility. 

I am into shock and dismay that the USDA, Department of Agriculture, apparently is delinquent in its rent, and very delinquent. 

You notice that in my opening statement—as I have very often in 

the past and as the Ranking Member has, the Full Committee and 

its Ranking Member—I have noted that we are in dire straits because no matter what we do, we will continue to lease. We are not 

going to start building buildings. $6 billion enables us to get a little 

way towards energy conservation and repair, and that is only the 

tip of the iceberg. 

So then, in the preparation for this hearing, I learned that USDA 

is $40 million annually behind in its rent. First, I want to know, 

how behind? How could any Agency be behind? What have you 

done to secure the taxpayers’ money? 

In short, explain yourself. 

Mr. COSTA. Well, Madam Chair, a number of years ago there was 

an internal, inside-the-administration agreement to reduce payments that the USDA would pay to GSA and, in turn, USDA would 

fund their own renovation for their headquarters building. That 

strategy never really worked. The USDA building still needs to be 

renovated. 

Ms. NORTON. Did USDA, in any way, begin to meet that—their 

part of the bargain? 

Mr. COSTA. The USDA did do some renovations. But the building 

still needs a major modernization. 

Ms. NORTON. When was this done, sir? 

Mr. COSTA. Pardon? 

Ms. NORTON. When was this agreement struck? 

Mr. COSTA. Over a decade ago. 

Ms. NORTON. When it became clear that they had no intention 

of proceeding, what then did Public Buildings Service do? 

Mr. COSTA. Over the last 5 years we have been working closely 

within the administration to ensure that the USDA—— 

Ms. NORTON. By doing what? 

Mr. COSTA. By working with the Office of Management and 

Budget and the USDA to ensure—— 

Ms. NORTON. Working with whom? 

Mr. COSTA. Both the Office of Management and Budget and the 

USDA to ensure that the USDA would budget full rent to the General Services Administration. 

9 

Ms. NORTON. What was the response? 

You have to understand that you can’t expect us to continue to 

try to protect the Federal Building Fund at the same time that you 

allow one of your largest tenants to be a decade in arrears. 

So at any point did OMB appropriate or ask for funds? And then 

what happened to those funds? 

Mr. COSTA. Well, yes, they did. We have made progress. In fiscal 

year 2009 the USDA is paying $20 million more rent than they 

paid the previous year. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, you know, 20 million is up from zero. 

Mr. COSTA. For a particular building. But they had been paying, 

I think the figure was over $200 million in rent to GSA in total. 

Ms. NORTON. So I don’t understand. 

They paid—they paid $20 million toward what they owed GSA; 

is that it? 

Mr. COSTA. No. Basically, the USDA was paying full rent for all 

facilities except for two facilities in the Washington, D.C., area. 

Ms. NORTON. Have they continued to do that? 

Mr. COSTA. What has happened is, we basically put them on a 

plan to step up and begin to pay full rent. 

Ms. NORTON. When did you put them on that plan? 

Mr. COSTA. Fiscal year 2009 they are paying $20 million more 

than they had paid the previous year. 

Ms. NORTON. But what had they been paying in previous years? 

Mr. COSTA. $200 million total. 

Ms. NORTON. So they had been paying $200 million? 

Mr. COSTA. Yes, they had been. 

Ms. NORTON. And how much in arrears are they? 

Mr. COSTA. I will have to get back to you. 

Ms. NORTON. So you are counting their facilities across the country, is that right, the 200 million? 

Mr. COSTA. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. It is the facility in Washington they haven’t been 

paying on? 

Mr. COSTA. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. The $20 million is—represents what fraction of how 

much they should be paying, please? 

Mr. COSTA. My understanding is that it is about a third of the 

total gap. And the concern was, trying to fund the full increase in 

a single budget year would harm the mission and program requirements of the USDA. 

Ms. NORTON. Oh, not to mention your own, sir. 

Mr. COSTA. That is true. 

Ms. NORTON. Look, I have served inside of an administration. I 

am the first to understand what you are up against. What I can’t 

understand is why, in fact—indeed, I would have expected you to 

come to the Subcommittee and ask for some assistance since the 

notion of the Federal Building Fund is mentioned virtually every 

time we have a hearing. 

Do you need assistance from this Subcommittee? I will ask you 

directly. 

Mr. COSTA. Well, as we work within the administration developing the fiscal year 2011 budget—— 

10 

Ms. NORTON. What is the 2000—what is USDA supposed to be 

doing every year from here on in, if anything? 

Mr. COSTA. They should be including the full rent for the USDA 

headquarters in their overall budget request for rent to GSA. 

Ms. NORTON. But with no responsibility for arrears? 

Mr. COSTA. Actually, they had been paying in arrears up to their 

ability to move money. In fact, appropriation language was included in the 2008 appropriations bill to allow them to move money 

to pay us back rent. Before that time, they actually could not move 

money to pay that back rent. 

So we have made good progress. We haven’t completed the job, 

but we have made good progress to both pay back rent—— 

Ms. NORTON. Did you inform this Subcommittee of any of this, 

of these deliberations? 

Mr. COSTA. Well, periodically we have talked with staff, but not 

recently, no. 

Ms. NORTON. How much is in the fiscal year 2010 for the Federal 

Building Fund payments from USDA, please? 

Mr. COSTA. My understanding is that there is a step up from the 

$20 million toward full rent bill for the USDA headquarters. 

Ms. NORTON. You know what? I was here until at least 11:00. 

They went on until, I understand, 1:00 at the Financial Services 

hearing. Mr. Serrano, because the District of Columbia happens 

also to be in there. 

By now you mean, being owed as much as you are, you don’t 

know whether it made it into your appropriation, the full amount. 

Mr. COSTA. I personally don’t know that for fiscal year 2010. We 

can certainly find out. 

Ms. NORTON. Will somebody go out right now and call to find out 

whether or not, somebody in this room from GSA and find out what 

is in the 2010 budget that was passed last night. 

Mr. COSTA. We can do that. 

Ms. NORTON. We need to know that. 

You know, I am on—I Chair the Subcommittee. Financial Services Committee is one with which I am closely in touch. This is the 

first I have heard of that, so I have never had an opportunity to 

weigh in on this. Meanwhile, here I am kicking and screaming 

about the Federal Building Fund. We said that you needed to keep 

us in touch with your construction program, even more so on the 

Federal Building Fund. 

Could I ask you, are there any other tenants who are delinquent 

in government-owned space? And what are those tenants? 

Mr. COSTA. No, not delinquent. There are a limited number of 

Agencies where rent waivers were requested and approved. And I 

actually think that we report back to you, to your Subcommittee, 

at least on an annual—— 

Ms. NORTON. Did we approve this rent waiver? 

Mr. COSTA. No, not the USDA. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, how did it occur? 

Mr. COSTA. Through administrative means. 

But you asked whether—we actually have—you did ask us to do 

some drafting assistance, which we have provided to you to deal 

with the USDA rent issue. 

11 

Ms. NORTON. Well, when there is an exchange of letters of that 

kind, this really falls in the category of inform the Committee so 

it can do what it can do. I am very distressed to hear that, especially since we don’t know of any way to make up for what is happening to the Federal Building Fund. 

Before I go on to further questions, I am going to go to our Ranking Member. I have used up more than my time on this one question, so disturbed was I to learn that there was this huge delinquent Agency, that I think I ought to pass now to our Ranking 

Member and then to Ms. Edwards. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you, Madam Chairman. But I never 

complain about the Chairwoman taking too much time, so don’t 

worry about that. 

Actually, I want to talk about some of the issues I brought up 

in my statement, and that includes the White House complex and 

the Executive Office Building. It appears that as the work starts, 

we have already approved projects, yet more projects are identified. 

So, has GSA required, thought about requiring a master plan for 

the White House complex if there is a more orderly assessment of 

all the work that is needed? 

Mr. COSTA. There are a number of organizations that are responsible for facilities on the White House complex—National Park 

Service, GSA, White House Military Office. 

A number of years ago there was a master planning effort that 

went on, but I don’t think that that came to a conclusion, especially 

as it relates to a capital plan which is, essentially, I think, what 

we are talking about. 

What has happened over the last few years, we have had a lot 

of success, with the Subcommittee’s support, both to authorize and 

help support funding for the renovation of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, which needed repair pretty desperately. As we 

worked on that building, frankly, like any other renovation, we 

found things, additional things, wrong on the complex that were associated with the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. And that 

is, frankly, where our discussion started with repairs to both the 

West Wing and the East Wing infrastructure issues. 

It all started when we looked at the Eisenhower Executive Office 

Building and how it served those portions of the White House complex. And we discovered, frankly, pretty dramatic problems which 

have led over the last 3 years to our—a number of requests from 

the General Services Administration to do work for both the West 

Wing and the East Wing. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. But that would not—wouldn’t that actually 

then make the case for a new master plan even more logical? 

Mr. COSTA. I think it is a great idea, and we will go back to our 

customers and the organizations we work with on the complex to 

make that happen. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Because it just seems that, again, the more I 

hear about it, the more sense it makes. And I guess you agree with 

that. 

Mr. COSTA. Definitely. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Now, for example, last year this Committee 

approved a prospectus for the West Wing of the White House, and 

I believe that we were told that part of the cost—the reason that 

12 

the cost was so high was because of, you know, shared infrastructure. Now, however, the improvements on the East Wing seem to 

be just as costly. 

Why, if the cost before was associated with the sharing of the infrastructure—and I guess those costs are no longer there—why is 

this now almost the same price or about the same type of cost? 

Mr. COSTA. What we didn’t know when we proposed the West 

Wing infrastructure improvements, we understood pretty clearly 

the connection between the Eisenhower Executive Office Building 

and the West Wing. After we proposed the project, we began a 

pretty extensive study to look at the East Wing and realized the 

conditions in the East Wing were just as bad. 

Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to do preventive maintenance on a complex like the White House. It obviously runs 24/7, 

and no one allows us to shut down the power for a weekend. And 

so, frankly, that hadn’t happened. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Am I wrong when I say that part of what we 

were told last year about the cost was the shared infrastructure? 

If that was not the case and then I never heard back saying that 

that was not the case, am I wrong when I say that we were basically told that that part of the high cost was because of the shared 

infrastructure? 

It would seem to me that we don’t have the same issue. I mean, 

we have other issues, but do we have the same issue now also with 

the shared infrastructure with the East Wing as well? 

Mr. COSTA. I think—and I am sorry it has taken me so long to 

get to that issue. 

Initially, the shared infrastructure was between the Eisenhower 

Executive Office Building and the West Wing. Now that we have 

learned that the East Wing is in as bad shape, we need to do the 

same kind of repair work. 

And we are also creating a pathway between—from the East 

Wing to the West Wing to ensure that we can do repairs in both 

wings. And so there will be redundancy not only with the EOB, but 

with the West Wing and across the East Wing, so there is even 

more redundancy. 

It is a very complex project, and we would love to offer a detailed 

briefing and, frankly, a tour because the complexities of the project 

really are just amazing. It is a very expensive project. 

Ms. NORTON. With the indulgence of the Ranking Member, they 

are playing games on the floor to such a degree I thought that perhaps we could get a question or two in for Ms. Edwards or Mr. 

Perriello because we may be over by the time they finish if they 

still have votes and so forth. 

Go ahead, Ms. Edwards. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. I 

have a number of questions, but I just want to focus really quickly—and it is a bit of a tangential issue from where we are today. 

But there have been several critiques, including my own, and 

other Members of the Committee about how the Agency determines 

where Federal leases should be located. And so I want you to just 

outline for me and articulate the process that happens on a staff 

level after you receive the requirements from an Agency—what 

they are looking for in a project and what is the role of the staff 

13 

in taking the recommendations, applying them to a specific project, 

and then making the lease. 

And does the Agency then—is the Agency then able to revoke it 

or go back on their decision and ask for new requirements once the 

staff have actually made a determination according to the—a first 

set of requirements set before them? 

And then, lastly, how much of a consideration is it to consider 

mass transit in a determination of leasing or building facilities or 

where the employees are residing? And if that is not in law, it is 

not codified, is there a need to codify it if we make a conclusion 

that the regulatory—the regulations process isn’t working for applying those kinds of criteria? 

Mr. COSTA. Essentially, we first rely on a customer agency to define their requirements, including locality requirements. But the 

General Services Administration ultimately has the responsibility 

to decide on a delineated area. In the past, we didn’t do a good 

enough job, frankly, of working with customers, applying our ability to ask customers detailed questions about their requirements 

that would then conclude with their requirement piece of this. 

But also from the standpoint of the market, we need to do a better job of aggressively pushing for maximum competition, the 

broadest competitive area that we can. We have been doing a better job in the last couple of years and, frankly, much of it has come 

from direction from the Subcommittee. In the past, we had had 

problems with changing delineated areas after authorization for 

projects. We no longer have that problem, both from the standpoint 

of your direction, the Subcommittee direction, to come back and notify when there is a proposed delineated area; but also we have revamped our internal business procedures, so there is not the flexibility that there used to be, both in requirements in general and 

in delineated areas. 

So we have made a pretty dramatic turn over the last couple of 

years to, again, put a fair amount of structure in those deliberations. And staff doesn’t really have the ability, unless there is some 

specific mission requirement, to adjust those requirements, and 

certainly not in mid-procurement. 

There are times when mission needs do change during the procurement process. But none of us like to get into that kind of situation because it is—frankly, it isn’t fair to the market for the government to change requirements unless there is some real need for 

it. 

We had a great meeting in March, talking about this issue. We 

have been issuing new leasing guidance. A year ago we introduced 

what we called our green leasing clauses. We are issuing new 

clauses this fall to require ENERGY STAR buildings. What we 

have talked about, and I think it is a terrific idea, is to start to 

add some structure around the issue of sustainability, commuting 

patterns to locational decisions. 

Now, our current regulations suggest that we need to include 

those things, but I don’t think we have done a good enough job of 

actually both giving direction to Agencies as to how to consider 

those things. We just say, you are required to do it. We are going 

to provide a deeper structure and analytic approach to that so that 

we can do a much better job for the Federal Government, taxpayers 

14 

and localities to explain how we are concluding a locational decision. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Is there a role for this Subcommittee, for this 

Committee, to address some of these questions and give perhaps 

more guidance with your suggestions in that area so that you can 

actually better apply what your goals are? 

Mr. COSTA. I think it would be great to have that kind of discussion. I think it is our obligation to put forth a framework to you 

all to consider. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Chairwoman, I will conclude here, but I 

look forward to working with you to make sure that that, in fact, 

happens. Thank you. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much Ms. Edwards. 

Mr. Perriello? 

I want to say before Ms. Edwards leaves, that she ran down a 

list taken right out of GSA’s playbook where an egregious amendment was added to a prospectus that undermined the very prospectus language that we required, that there would be no change 

in the procurement or the solicitation area. It was a shocking—it 

was so shocking, and it came to our attention only because the developer brought it to our attention. 

I simply must ask you, with her present, since what resulted is 

that you had to cancel, as I understand it, that amendment which 

said that the facility had to be near the existing, also-rented facility; that it be near churches, in violation of church and state; hardware stores; as I recall, hairdressers. It was a clear setup to make 

sure that this facility did not go in Prince George’s County, and 

that the new facility would remain in Montgomery County. 

There was no way to avoid that implication. It bordered on corruption, frankly, but it had a lot to do with simply doing whatever 

the Agency said. 

So let me ask you, what is the status of that project? Has that 

project been awarded? And if so, where and when? It is an HHS 

project, I believe. 

Mr. COSTA. No. I do not think that the HHS lease has been 

awarded. I am certain it has not been awarded. 

Ms. NORTON. Do you intend to award a lease? It was obviously 

something that needed to be done because you had gone pretty far. 

Mr. COSTA. We do intend to award a lease. But as recently as 

this week, talking with our colleagues in the National Capital Region, we did talk briefly about the HHS lease, and it has not been 

awarded. 

I can provide you more details on the schedule for that award. 

Ms. NORTON. Within 30 days, please. 

Mr. COSTA. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Chairwoman, I would just say—one, 

thank you for raising that question. That does go to the heart of 

the questions that I raised, and it is that, you know, once those requirements are set down and GSA goes through the process of implementing that, it does raise a question when the process seems 

to be aborted or deflected based on a whole set of new requirements that were not in place at first when GSA was looking at the 

project. 

15 

And so that is—I mean, my question is, how do we move forward 

in enabling GSA to move forward in implementing Agency requirements without interference and in a process that involves a little 

bit of fairness and equity to all jurisdictions, so that people just understand what the rules are, what the process is, and that there 

is a sense that there was a bit of evenhandedness and even arm’slength distance in that implementation and negotiation without interference once the requirements are set down. 

And so I thank you, Madam Chairwoman, again, for raising this 

question. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. 

So can you assure this Subcommittee that the prospectuses that 

we approve today will abide by the 2007 language, language which 

obviously, in light of the violation, needs to be strengthened; and 

that the solicitation area and that the procurement area will be 

identical and not solicitation area and then you procure in some 

subset of that area? 

Mr. COSTA. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. COSTA. With no uncertainty. 

Ms. NORTON. Now, I understand that—before I put to sleep the 

USDA, that 2 months ago, the staff asked for language for the appropriation report which, I assure you, I could have tried very diligently to get. 

Why is that language regarding—why did that language regarding USDA not come forward? 

Mr. COSTA. My understanding is that we had provided that. If 

we hadn’t, then it is my mistake to suggest that we had. 

Ms. NORTON. You are the Acting Commissioner, and that is 

something as important as providing language for your own appropriation, for delinquent rent that goes back to—10 years, nobody 

keeps track of whether or not it has even been submitted? 

Mr. COSTA. I hope that is not the case, but if it is, I do take full 

responsibility for it. 

Ms. NORTON. Did it clear OMB? Do you have to go to OMB to 

get your own back then? 

Mr. COSTA. No. When we get a request from staff to help with 

drafting language, we do not have to go through the Office of Management and Budget. 

Ms. NORTON. We just ask that you at least give us a little help. 

We can be helpful. 

Mr. COSTA. I understand fully. 

Ms. NORTON. But it leaves a very bad taste in our mouth when 

we are not even informed of how to be helpful. 

Let me ask you about the high-performance green buildings. The 

President of the United States was real clear that in the infrastructure money, he wanted the emphasis on high-performance green 

buildings and other green projects. And because the GSA project is 

under his direct supervision, through you, this was particularly important for GSA. 

I indicated that, unlike virtually every other project, this one is 

going to be traceable right back to us; therefore, the oversight is 

very important. So we have already passed the climate bill. Shows 

16 

you the kind of—energy bill, rather. Shows you the kind of priority 

we have given this. 

Then we learned, or at least I did in preparation for this hearing, 

that this new office we authorized, I suppose in the first energy 

bill, the Office of High Performance Green Building, has yet to 

have a permanent director. I know this issue goes back to at least 

April, at a Full Committee oversight hearing; and we were assured, 

and the language, as I recall, it was full speed ahead to get a director. 

Why is there no director? Or perhaps there is and we just 

haven’t heard about it. 

Mr. COSTA. Well, we have an acting director, and he is sitting behind me to my right, Kevin Kampschroer, who is doing a terrific 

job. 

Ms. NORTON. Why is there no permanent director full speed 

ahead. 

Mr. COSTA. Essentially, what it comes down to is we don’t have 

a permanent administrator. And there are—— 

Ms. NORTON. What does that have to do with it? You are waiting 

for her to appoint the person, but you have somebody to recommend to her? 

Mr. COSTA. Well, the process is already started. We recruited for 

the job. We did interviews. I am sorry, we are scheduling interviews. And we will be ready for a new administrator to make a recommendation so that—— 

Ms. NORTON. As soon as she is confirmed? 

Mr. COSTA. Probably about 3 weeks. Well, we are waiting for her 

to be confirmed. 

Ms. NORTON. I want to know if there is going to be—somebody 

has got to recommend to her. She is not going to start from scratch. 

We are now well into the process, green building process. 

Mr. COSTA. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. I am concerned that you are having to rely I am 

sure on competent personnel, but not on the specialized personnel 

authorized by our bill. Therefore, I need to know whether or not 

when she is confirmed she can be presented with your list of candidates or not. 

Mr. COSTA. She will be. As a matter of fact, she won’t even have 

a list of candidates, she will have a recommendation for an individual candidate. And based on our schedule of interviews, that 

will occur by the end of July, which is what we have been telling 

folks publicly. 

Ms. NORTON. The end of July? 

Mr. COSTA. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. Oh, that would be, assuming we get through the 

confirmation process. 

Mr. COSTA. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. That is just so important that there be somebody 

with that specialized experience. There are all sorts of people who 

know how to do all kinds of things, but we are looking for a highly 

qualified person in this specialty, which is what it is today. I am 

sure I indicated in my opening statement that you know, we are 

funding projects in all 50 States. That is how you do a stimulus 

project, a stimulus funding, because everybody is going to be lookVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:47 Oct 28, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\50973 JASON
17 

ing. That is not how we do project selection generally. So I wish 

you would tell the Subcommittee how the agency prioritizes 

projects. How do you decide, particularly given the poor state of the 

Federal inventory, that one project gets funded and another does 

not? 

Mr. COSTA. Well, essentially we rely on four or five factors. The 

first factor is really customer urgency, the mission occurring in the 

building. 

Ms. NORTON. Now, customer urgency means what, the roof is 

leaking and people are complaining? 

Mr. COSTA. Essentially, things that are either harming productivity of our customers in a building—— 

Ms. NORTON. Give us an example of what those things are. 

Mr. COSTA. Failing roofs, air conditioning that doesn’t work, heat 

that doesn’t work. Things like that. We also rely on customer priorities. So when we are choosing, for instance, courthouses, we rely 

on the Court’s 5-year plan. 

Ms. NORTON. In that regard, how did Yuma, Arizona, and Lancaster, Pennsylvania, not on the full list, get included in the request for 2010? 

Mr. COSTA. The Court’s 5-year plan is a 5-year construction plan. 

Both Yuma and Lancaster were projects that had been blessed by 

the Judicial Council—or the Judicial Conference, I am sorry, but 

were deemed to be lease construction projects. When we continued 

to evaluate the market and—— 

Ms. NORTON. Go ahead. 

Mr. COSTA. Actually, both Yuma and Lancaster were small 

enough projects they would not have required a prospectus. 

Ms. NORTON. No, no, we understand that. 

Mr. COSTA. But both were going to be lease construction. 

Ms. NORTON. Why? Why do lease construction, an expensive way 

to—— 

Mr. COSTA. Because of funding constraints we do lots of leasing 

that in the end—— 

Ms. NORTON. Courthouses? When is the last time you did lease 

construct courthouses? 

Mr. COSTA. In the last 20 years we have probably done 15 to 20 

lease construction for courthouses. 

Ms. NORTON. If that were the case, we wouldn’t be turning down 

so many people to come to us for courthouses. We tell them it has 

got to be in the President’s budget, it has got to be approved in the 

5-year plan. We are being besieged all the time. I don’t know what 

I am to tell people now. Has it been funded? 

Mr. COSTA. The prior 15 to 20? 

Ms. NORTON. No, this one, these two courthouses. 

Mr. COSTA. No, that is what we are requesting this year, or for 

fiscal year 2010. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, just a moment. Somebody really does need to 

look. Has anybody found out the answer to my first question? 

Somebody really better look at that 2010 appropriation, because it 

has been done. God, I am like way on right when it comes to my 

appropriation to see what really got funded. That is all I want to 

know. Did this Subcommittee—I am sorry, Full Committee fund 

this lease construct two courthouses in its appropriation? 

18 

Mr. COSTA. For Yuma and Lancaster? 

Ms. NORTON. Excuse me? For both of them. Or either of them. 

Mr. COSTA. Those projects were both meeting requirements of the 

courts, and we were in the beginning stages for Lancaster and had 

begun a procurement in Yuma, Arizona. When we looked at the 

market and where we thought the—and the rent rate that we knew 

that those projects would require, we decided it made more sense, 

in light of Subcommittee direction and GAO guidance, to change direction and propose the construction of those courthouses because 

of the cost. 

Ms. NORTON. So there is no money in the appropriations for 

these courthouses but you are going to do them anyway? Make me 

understand. 

Mr. COSTA. No. When we proposed these projects as lease construction projects, frankly the only money that was required is for 

the courts to get money to pay us rent. So from that perspective, 

all that was required was for the courts to budget for rent. When 

we started to approach the market in Yuma and started to look at 

the market in Lancaster, it was pretty clear to us that the rent 

rates associated with these lease constructed courthouses would be 

extremely high and didn’t make sense for taxpayers, so we did 

change direction. 

Ms. NORTON. So they will not be constructed. 

Mr. COSTA. We are requesting funding in 2010 to do construction 

of these two courthouses. 

Ms. NORTON. The appropriation passed last night. Have they 

been funded? 

Mr. COSTA. I have a card with neither were funded. 

Ms. NORTON. So your testimony is that these two projects will 

not proceed because they have not been funded. Is that correct? 

Mr. COSTA. Based on House action, no. 

Ms. NORTON. Does that mean you will seek the funds in the Senate? 

Mr. COSTA. That is the part of the President’s request, yes. 

Ms. NORTON. All right. Let’s see if they fall for it. Now, there is $60 million for energy and water retrofit. They are 

high performance green projects, fire protection projects. That is in 

your ongoing budget for 2010. How does that fit, particularly since 

these are energy projects as well, how does that fit with the stimulus? What is the connection, if any, with your stimulus funding? 

Mr. COSTA. The basic connection is that there are two requests, 

one for 20 and one for 20, adding up to 40. The first $20 million 

for—really are for the same kinds of things we are funding through 

Recovery money. It is just a different set of buildings. We had not 

been able to do—— 

Ms. NORTON. These are ongoing needs that you would be funded 

anyway? 

Mr. COSTA. We had requested and received funding for the last 

number of years for this type of work. And so it is the same kind 

of thing, lighting, repairs to HVAC systems, things like that, but 

in a different set of buildings than we had been able to do work 

in through Recovery funding. 

The second request for $20 million is actually to look at buildings 

that are either in the final stages of design or actually, where we 

19 

have begun construction, to look at alternative energy sourcing 

that we had not proposed in the design of those projects. For instance, there is a land port of entry in Alexandria Bay where we 

are looking at geothermal applications that we had not proposed in 

the project. 

Ms. NORTON. Why would you have—I thought when we build 

anything today, given what we now know about payback, we would 

always seek to get that no matter what we build. 

Mr. COSTA. That is what we have done. But because of the economics and the payback, we are much more aggressive about adding that kind of work, and that is what that second $20 million will 

allow us to do. 

Ms. NORTON. Can you assure us that we will not build afresh 

and anew unless there is a significant energy component in the future whatever we do? 

Mr. COSTA. I can assure you of that. We are changing our standards to ensure that—our basic standards to ensure that happens 

for all projects. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Cao, before I proceed further I should ask you 

if you have any questions or any statement you would like to make. 

Mr. CAO. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a very quick question. Based on what I have read here, you have received $5.5 

billion for construction in authorized projects in the stimulus bill. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. COSTA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CAO. How much of that money has been obligated? 

Mr. COSTA. $320 million. By the end of July, we will have obli- gated $1 billion. By the end of the calendar year, we will have obligated $2 billion. By the end of March, our total obligation will be 

$4 billion. 

Mr. CAO. Okay. So as of this point the percentage of obligated 

funds would be approximately—— 

Mr. COSTA. 320 divided by 5.5 billion, 7 or 8 percent. 

Mr. CAO. 7 or 8 percent? 

Mr. COSTA. Yeah. 

Mr. CAO. Okay. Why such a slow process or pace? 

Mr. COSTA. We feel like the pace is pretty quick. We just submitted a list of projects in March. And so what we have tried to 

do is take advantage of projects that were phase projects and fund 

future phases now. And that is the bulk of the work that is going 

on at this point. We are using accelerated contracting methods. 

This pace of obligation is beyond anything we have done before. 

And I know that it might seem slow, but I can assure you it is well 

beyond anything we have done in the past. 

Mr. CAO. Okay. The 2010 program this year was submitted in 

June, which gave us little or no time to review the proposed 

projects prior to the appropriations cycle. Why was the program 

submitted so late? And do you commit to an earlier submission 

next year? 

Mr. COSTA. I can commit to that. I think this year was difficult 

because congressional action didn’t occur on our 2009 budget until 

well into the budget year. And with the Recovery Act, we had to 

submit a fairly extensive list of projects. So we had to both see 

what Congress would end up enacting in 2009, put together a pretVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:47 Oct 28, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\50973 JASON
20 

ty significant project list for recovery, and produce a fiscal year 

2010 project list. So it was a little bit of a perfect storm when it 

comes to project planning. I can assure you that we will do better 

next year. We have to do better next year, because we do understand that a June submission does not give you enough time. 

Mr. CAO. And of the $5.5 billion that you received under the 

stimulus bill, how much of that was or would go to Louisiana and 

how much would go to the Second Congressional District? 

Mr. COSTA. I will have to follow up with that specific information. 

Mr. CAO. Okay. That is all the questions I have, Madam Chair. 

Thank you very much. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Cao. I took note in my opening 

statement of the President’s decision to purchase the Columbia 

Plaza Building. As you know, regardless of whether it is purchasing or leasing or construction, it has long been my view that 

a down economy is the GSA economy. And I would like to know if 

there are any other such opportunities, whether in purchase, leasing, construction, that you could use to the advantage of the taxpayers. 

Mr. COSTA. Madam Chair, you have been very vocal about our 

ability and our initiative related to the market. And it makes perfect sense. We are looking at every major lease across the country, 

looking at terms in the leases to understand better where we might 

have the ability to extend those leases and take advantage of market conditions to extend those leases at better rates. We are also 

looking at the possibility of another building acquisition program, 

which we haven’t had for a decade. And we are looking at those 

possibilities for fiscal year 2011. So we are doing both things, and 

we think they make very good sense. 

Ms. NORTON. So in light of our request in our recent letter for 

a 45-day response on early leasing and lease holdovers, where are 

you? What is the status of that, please? 

Mr. COSTA. Well, we are in the middle of that process, and we 

owe you a response by July 27th. 

Ms. NORTON. And you will be on time? 

Mr. COSTA. We will be on time. 

Ms. NORTON. I hate to think of this economy as something that 

we want to quick, hurry, take advantage of, because we don’t want 

it to linger. It is bad for everybody I can think of except a big developer and real estate operator like the GSA. Now, I recognize the 

President probably doesn’t have $100 million to throw around on 

lots of buildings. That is why we sent our correspondence to you 

on early leasing and the holdovers. The notion of going to an owner 

now seems to me to put you in the position of an offer he can’t 

refuse. He doesn’t want holdover status. And when he sees you are 

into early leasing, he may get an offer he cannot possibly refuse. 

He doesn’t want to lose you. He doesn’t want to be in holdover. And 

we would be dismayed if at least for that, because again $100 million opportunities may not be what the budget will allow. But this 

is ongoing business of the agency. That, it seems to me, has to be 

scrutinized very, very carefully to see what is appropriate and what 

is not. We are not implying that it is always appropriate. We think 

it is always appropriate, bad or good economy, to try to do some 

21 

leasing that you think you are going to need as early as possible. 

We also are aware of what we regard as almost criminally reduced 

staffing so that you have had to borrow people even to do the stimulus correctly. We understand that. But there are some things 

worth bringing in people to help you do. And taking advantage of 

this market I would place high on the list. 

I am very pleased that you are going to have that report back 

to us on time. Now, would you describe what 412 authority is and 

why the agency has not used this authority? Describe 412 authority 

as you understand it as authorized and approved by this Committee and the appropriators. 

Mr. COSTA. Section 412 is a section of an appropriation bill, I 

think 2005 if memory serves me. One thing it provided, which is 

fairly straightforward, is the ability for the General Services Administration to retain proceeds of property that we dispose of. And 

we have taken advantage of that to the tune of about $200 million 

over the last few years. But in addition—— 

Ms. NORTON. What was that in relation to, please? 

Mr. COSTA. Excuse me? 

Ms. NORTON. You said you had taken advantage of it. 

Mr. COSTA. Just from the standpoint of when we dispose of properties. Prior to 2005, those proceeds went into the Treasury. 

Ms. NORTON. Now, have any of those—any disposals where funds 

have gone to the Federal Building Fund? 

Mr. COSTA. Yes, they have, $200 million. 

Ms. NORTON. And what were those? What were those? 

Mr. COSTA. Just the disposal, our normal disposal kinds of—— 

Ms. NORTON. Would you get the Subcommittee a list of those disposals? 

Mr. COSTA. Sure. I can do that. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you. 

Mr. COSTA. But in addition to the retention of proceeds, the language contained in section 412 we think arguably gives us more 

authority than we had prior to 2005. 

Ms. NORTON. Arguably? Is there an argument on the other side 

that the Subcommittee and the Appropriations Committee should 

be aware of? In other words, you think you already had this authority? 

Mr. COSTA. No, we think section 412 gave us additional authority, and we appreciate it. And there are no arguments on the Subcommittee’s end as to what authorities those are. Within the Federal Government there had been and continue to be discussions 

about what that authority looks like. These are ongoing discussions, though. And we are looking at a couple of specific proposals—— 

Ms. NORTON. I have got to understand. Because if the Subcommittee and the Appropriations Committee could clarify what we 

are talking about, that is why I asked you to describe your understanding of 412 authority. Because the failure to use it suggests 

that there is some lack of clarity that the Subcommittee and the 

Appropriations Committee needs to rectify. 

Mr. COSTA. Well, the clarity that would be most useful, because 

many of the arguments are associated with budget scorekeeping, 

not with the authority. 

22 

Ms. NORTON. Say that again. 

Mr. COSTA. Budget scorekeeping. Frankly, the same issue that 

we are dealing with across the board. Section 412 provides authorities, but using those authorities, they are scored. And it mostly has 

to do with who is accepting the risk of these real estate transactions. And so as we proposed—— 

Ms. NORTON. So OMB’s reason for refusing to allow you to use 

this authority is that it scores, although the appropriators and the 

authorizers thought it did not? Have we gone to CBO? 

Mr. COSTA. We have not. But one avenue might be to propose 

specific transactions and do that kind of scoring analysis. 

Ms. NORTON. In other words, sometimes it scores and sometimes 

it doesn’t? I mean if CBO had a different view, it would be important to know that. 

Mr. COSTA. I think that makes perfect sense to talk with CBO. 

Ms. NORTON. Yeah, I know they are reluctant to give, quote, advisory, forgive my legalese here, opinions, but when you consider 

that we were trying to avoid a scoring problem that has kept the 

government from in fact doing what is in its own best interests, the 

notion that OMB says it scores, end of argument, you know, next 

time you see OMB tell them this for us. The people who just informed President Obama a couple of weeks ago that his health care 

bill only covered 16 million of at least 50 million people who would 

need to be covered are in no position to offer a final opinion on 

what scores. There is only one authority on scoring, and all 

branches, all three branches agree that the final authority rests 

with CBO. So I think at the very least we should be trying it. And 

if we are pushed back by CBO, we will understand. But it is the 

failure to use it, especially if it is because OMB says so. You know, 

for OMB to throw up, even if they had a record, scoring would still 

be to deal with a nonobjective source. So we are very concerned 

that after going through a whole lot to get appropriators to understand what we meant and in order to get it done, we have been 

stuck on stupid, it looks like, in two administrations. 

Are you telling me that the Obama OMB is saying the same 

thing that the Bush OMB said with respect to scoring? 

Mr. COSTA. Up to this point we have not had direct and comprehensive discussions with OMB leadership about budget 

scorekeeping of real estate. 

Ms. NORTON. Now, I am going to ask you to do this within 30 

days and report back to this Committee. You will be handicapped, 

as I pose this question to you, by the fact that OMB is handicapped 

by having almost no staff that understands real estate. Remember 

we had to overcome the notion that the Old Post Office scored even 

though it was replicated on the Tariff Building. And they told you 

all it scored. So, you know, OMB has no credibility on the scoring 

matter with us. But your testimony indicates that you have not 

gone before this OMB to say, look, we have this authority, I am 

going to have to go before the authorizing Committee. They felt 

strongly about it, so strongly that they were able to get the authorizers. And this is how it saves the government money. You have 

to take them to dumb school. You have got to say, okay, follow me. 

23 

Is it your view that it would in fact be to the benefit of the government in cost savings or any other respect to in fact use 412 authority? Is that your view or not? 

Mr. COSTA. I think we start—— 

Ms. NORTON. If it did not score. 

Mr. COSTA. We will begin to have that opportunity with OMB 

leadership starting tomorrow, because we have a Federal Real 

Property Council leadership meeting. 

Ms. NORTON. Who is that? 

Mr. COSTA. It is an executive branch, basically, committee of 

Federal real property holders. 

Ms. NORTON. How come these things don’t score for the VA, don’t 

score for DOD, don’t score for DOE, but everything scores for GSA? 

Mr. COSTA. To some extent it has been unclear to us why that 

is the case. 

Ms. NORTON. You have got to put that to OMB. GSA has got to 

get somebody who knows how to advocate for the agency. I believe 

that this administration is trying to bring some fresh eyes to all 

of this, and I will do my best to help. But you are all the people 

with the grounded expertise. And the notion of going to this OMB 

and saying this is how we can save some money, let’s try a project 

and see what CBO says, what is there to lose? Even if there were 

let’s say a pilot project. 

Mr. COSTA. We agree, and I will start that discussion tomorrow. 

Ms. NORTON. Oh, I so appreciate that. Would you let us know in 

30 days how that is coming? I understand internal discussions, but 

we could be having discussions, too. For example, our staff director, 

Susan Brita, had to take—it was CBO, wasn’t it? Now, you know, 

we do depend upon CBO to be objective. But she had to take CBO 

to the cleaners, keep them there for a long time before she was able 

to convince them that the Old Post Office did not score. It was 

very, very troubling. So I guess we should say that real estate is 

not of much concern at CBO either. But we can avoid the fact that 

similar projects in other agencies do not get scored. 

What is the status, since I mentioned the name, of the Old Post 

Office project? 

Mr. COSTA. We are about to host an Urban Land Institute forum 

to talk to the private sector about the current capital markets and 

the ability to finance a project for the Old Post Office so that can 

help—— 

Ms. NORTON. See, that is what we lost from—here, we needed to 

take a bill through the House and the Senate to do something that 

you did administratively with the Tariff Building. Not your fault. 

OMB made you do it again or made you not do it. So we had that 

terrific market, and now you have got to find somebody who can 

go to the capital markets and get the money to renovate that building there, which is going to be harder than it would have been had 

you been able to proceed administratively as you had intended. 

When you are sitting at this real estate forum that you mentioned, you have got to make OMB understand that you are one of 

them, not an agency like other agencies over here. You are classified as far as OMB. And it looks as if even CBO will classify you 

as an agency that is not in the market the way most agencies are 

not. You are in the market. You are a big player in the market. 

24 

And they have you playing by rules that nobody in the market 

worldwide plays by, because nobody over there understands that 

you are not just another Federal agency. You are like the VA, you 

are like the DOD. None of those agencies are held to that standard. 

There is no excuse. The only excuse is OMB has not had—I am 

sorry, GSA has never had the leadership that—because this has 

happened through Democratic and Republican administrations— 

who could take the case and keep pressing the case, in writing if 

necessary, showing them exactly how you save money so that at 

least when handed the authorities—was it 4 years ago—you could 

come back and say, well, CBO now says it. So we find it entirely 

unsatisfactory that we are keeping to ask this. And if you tell me 

you are going to bring it up tomorrow, you should explain to them 

the insistence of this Subcommittee and this Full Committee that 

GSA be treated as similar agencies engaged in the real estate market. 

And I am going to ask my Ranking Member if he has additional 

questions. He was kind enough to yield to the other Members. 

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

was a very good discussion you were just having. I was voting, but 

I understand again that you talked about the building purchase 

program that you are going to be—I apologize, I wasn’t here for 

that. I am going to ask you to repeat what you talked about that. 

Mr. COSTA. Madam Chair suggested that GSA should take advantage of the market both from the standpoint of potential acquisitions and looking at our leases also, not just acquisitions. And we 

agree fully. We are going to look both at all of our major leases to 

understand both the terms and the market conditions to prioritize, 

frankly, where to aggressively push and maybe lease extensions 

and other kinds of things. But in addition, we are going to look at 

the market for building purchase opportunities. We had a fairly 

ambitious building purchase program probably, I am losing track 

of time and I apologize, 10-plus years ago. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. The 80s I think it was. We are getting old. I 

don’t mean to scare you on that one, Mr. Costa, but it was a little 

longer than that. 

Mr. COSTA. It was longer than that. My God. And that was very 

effective. Our issue of course will be finding money to do that also. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Sure. 

Mr. COSTA. So we think it is worth looking at and possibly requesting funding to do that. But from our perspective, obviously, 

we are not going to be able to fund too many potential acquisitions, 

but we can at least look for targeted acquisitions to take advantage 

of the markets. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Good. I am glad to hear that, because it is obviously something that we have been talking about. And as much 

as it can be done, it makes a lot of sense to do it right now, obviously. 

Let me just talk very briefly, I mentioned a little while ago the 

FBI consolidation in Miami-Dade County. Can you elaborate a little bit on the project and what offices will be consolidated? What 

is the timeline? What are we looking at there? 

Mr. COSTA. FBI was part of a request we made a while ago, 

frankly, for a DOJ lease consolidation. This Subcommittee apVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:47 Oct 28, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\50973 JASON
25 

proved that project. That was approved in 2006. Since that time, 

a couple of those agencies, I am sure this is not the technical term, 

bailed out of that consolidation, and we found other lease locations 

for them. We had been working with the FBI to look at a consolidation of their field office function in a lease. But for the same reasons, frankly, that we had talked about those small courthouses, 

when we looked at the costs of that, it made a lot more sense to 

propose the construction of a new building. We are using the same 

delineated area that we were using for the lease project to look for 

sites. And that is exactly what we have started right now. And we 

are in the process over the next basically two-and-a-half months to 

choose a site for the new field office. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. And that would be construction? 

Mr. COSTA. It will be construction. And that is what we requested, authority to go ahead and build a new field office. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. And you are looking at consolidating the 12 locations into one? 

Mr. COSTA. All 12 locations. The FBI mission has grown dramatically in south Florida. There are a number of task forces that have 

been established related to FBI functions that will be part of that 

consolidation. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Great. 

Mr. COSTA. It is one of the most important and critical FBI needs 

in the country. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Great. I am glad to hear that. Again, you said 

you think in the next couple months you will have—— 

Mr. COSTA. Yes, we will keep you informed of how that is going. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Please. Great. Thank you. 

Madam Chairwoman, one more question if that is all right. 

Going to a totally different part of the country, the new land port 

entry in Maine. Now, I understand that it is about $743 per square 

foot. Can you explain that apparent high cost associated with the 

project and the need for this new port of entry? 

Mr. COSTA. Madawaska, Maine, is the third busiest port in New 

England. And the facilities just aren’t adequate for the mission. 

The total cost of the project will be close to $70 million, including 

design. The unit cost for land ports of entry are really, really difficult to both describe and calculate, because a lot of the costs of 

land ports of entry are really the infrastructure, the roadways. And 

in addition, there are many smaller buildings that make up ports. 

And frankly, you don’t get the efficiencies that you do in a bigger 

building. So the unit costs are higher. There is no question about 

it. 

The cost of Madawaska is almost $500 a square foot. And we can 

go into more detail about why land ports of entry, at least on a unit 

cost basis, are more expensive. But it is really difficult to compare 

them to general purpose office space because it is just not general 

purpose office space. You just don’t get the efficiencies. And the infrastructure surrounding land ports are very expensive. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. If I may, Madam Chairman, just to finalize, 

again, thank you, sir, for again, for being here today. I do want to 

just thank you for pursuing the building purchase program. But I 

hope that you get encouragement from this Subcommittee that that 

is something that, again, I don’t know what can be done that has 

26 

better bang for the buck for the taxpayer than that. And particularly in the market like this, which hopefully will not last long, and 

it is an opportunity that I hope you do pursue as aggressively as 

possible. So anyways, thank you. 

Mr. COSTA. We will, and we appreciate the support. 

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

We were briefed yesterday, and apparently the hearing has been 

held in the Senate already concerning a GSA report that showed 

that GSA was able to penetrate at a virtual 100 percent rate Federal office space with various bomb making materials, able to get 

through in various parts of the country. What is your response to 

these tests and the reason for the failures to detect the bomb making materials that we understand could amount to the makings for 

three sticks of dynamite? 

Mr. COSTA. We were extremely concerned to hear about GAO’s 

activities and report on those activities. We learned of them a couple of weeks ago. I met with the director of the Federal Protective 

Service last week to both express our concerns and understand better how the Federal Protective Service was going to respond to 

what the GAO found in their review. I do know the Federal Protective Service has issued guidance both to their folks and to customer 

agencies related to the Contract Guard Program. 

Ms. NORTON. Since these tests were performed by GAO? 

Mr. COSTA. My understanding is that the FPS did get briefed 

early on because of the severity, frankly, of what GAO had been 

able to do, and had provided FPS a little bit of information a number of weeks ago, and the FPS did respond to that with additional 

guidance. But we continue to be concerned. Clearly, we have 

worked extensively with the Federal Protective Service to protect 

and secure our facilities and the people in them. But they have a 

ton of work to do and we have a ton of work to do with them to 

ensure that this doesn’t happen again and is corrected. 

Ms. NORTON. I understand that, Mr. Costa. Of course I come to 

this with some experience because I am a Member of the Homeland 

Security Committee and a Member of the Aviation Subcommittee. 

So after 9/11, GAO did a number of these, various agencies did a 

number of these. And even with the very tight security at the airports, you could get through materials then with people who are 

highly trained. 

Let me tell you what my concern is. See, I am not going to sensationalize this issue. I am very concerned of course. This is the National Capital Region. We don’t know where these were—we do, 

but the public doesn’t, and it is better kept that way. Because there 

is not a lot of alternatives to people entering these buildings. We 

have got to do better. But this is not a hundred percent, and nothing is a hundred percent since 9/11. I hope people understand there 

is some risk. My concern is that the risk analysis is not a part of 

the way Federal Protective Service operates, risk consequences. 

But I am equally concerned because we are all amateurs at security. We have never had to do the kind of security we now do until 

after 9/11. Well, yes, some after Oklahoma City. But 9/11 was a 

wakeup call. And so people who were not security experts, basically 

very good police officers, are called upon to make decisions that 

they clearly haven’t been trained to make. If anything, they overVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:47 Oct 28, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\50973 JASON
27 

compensate more often than not, without being able to show that 

the overcompensation results in better security. 

We are going to have a hearing, but we are not going to have 

a hearing just on the ability to get explosives in. I have been there, 

done that for 7 or 8 years in Homeland Security and GAO, Aviation. I am far more concerned, Mr. Costa, about how each building 

does security and the huge disparities without regard to the security risks in a particular facility. 

For example, today in the Department of Transportation my staff 

on the Congress, your staff, you could not get into the building unless somebody comes down from the Department of Transportation 

on their staff to escort you into the building. We learned that last 

year. We were astonished, since we know for sure of buildings that 

are higher security where this is not the case. 

Could you explain how such disparities in security, without regard to risk and consequences, could result across the various 

agencies of the Federal Government? Who is responsible for deciding what security is appropriate for each of your facilities? 

Mr. COSTA. Well, there is both bad news and good news. The bad 

news, and I agree with you fully that the system isn’t working— 

the bad news is that right now when you look at Federal facilities 

across the board, not just GSA buildings, but building security committees that are made up of customer agencies, the occupants of 

buildings, and the Federal Protective Service and GSA, if it is a 

GSA building—— 

Ms. NORTON. Excuse me, who are these people that you just 

named? 

Mr. COSTA. It is a committee called the Building Security Committee. 

Ms. NORTON. Who would be on such a committee? 

Mr. COSTA. Customer agencies, the tenants of the building, with 

the—— 

Ms. NORTON. What is their role? 

Mr. COSTA. Well, their role is to actually take in information 

from the Federal Protective Service, security assessments, and ultimately make decisions, with Federal Protective Service input, as to 

ultimately both the physical and operational security measures 

that will be implemented in buildings. That system—— 

Ms. NORTON. I have to understand this. So, you know, I am a 

clerk at HHS. What is my role with respect to the Federal Protective Service? I am on this committee. I am very concerned about 

security after 9/11, I am very concerned. 

Mr. COSTA. What is supposed to happen is the agency, the designated agency official, every building has a designated agency official. 

Ms. NORTON. Is that a person with any security expertise? 

Mr. COSTA. No, it is a relatively high level management person 

with responsibility for the building and the occupants of the building, but not necessarily security expertise. What he or she is supposed to do is help guide the formation of a building security committee, which would include one or two or three tenant representatives, the Federal Protective Service, and a GSA building manager, 

because of course GSA has—— 

28 

Ms. NORTON. You have got to help me, Mr. Costa. I can understand how there should be—it is like a tenant advisory committee. 

I don’t understand the role of nonexperts in deciding—sitting at the 

table. Do they have a vote? 

Mr. COSTA. I don’t know how they operate on a day-to-day basis. 

And frankly—— 

Ms. NORTON. They are your buildings, Mr. Costa. I am talking 

about your buildings. I am trying to find out who is responsible for 

establishing, for example, in the Department of Transportation—— 

Mr. COSTA. The Federal Protective Service—— 

Ms. NORTON. —somebody has to come down and get you. And let 

me go further. If you are a taxpayer visiting the District of Columbia and you have a kid who needs to go to the, excuse me, lavatory, 

says mommy, I have got to go, cannot get into that building he paid 

for. Who is responsible, Mr. Costa? 

Mr. COSTA. Tenant agencies ultimately, with Federal Protective 

Service input, describe the countermeasures, both operating and 

physical, that are incorporated into the building. 

Ms. NORTON. So who is the decision-maker or, as President Bush 

would say, the decider? 

Mr. COSTA. The head of the BSC. 

Ms. NORTON. What? 

Mr. COSTA. The head of the building security committee. But 

there is good news. I was hoping to get to the good news. 

Ms. NORTON. Please get to the good news. 

Mr. COSTA. The good news is the Interagency Security Committee has developed draft revisions to how those security committees will work. I have been very concerned about the fact that there 

are people without technical expertise—— 

Ms. NORTON. Here is another committee. Tell me about that committee. 

Mr. COSTA. That committee is a committee that is run by the Department of Homeland Security, and it is supposed to rationalize 

security issues across all Federal agencies. 

Ms. NORTON. What is the point of having—look, I am accustomed 

to people who have expertise not knowing what they are doing. 

Namely, I know there is nobody in the security business in these 

agencies that strikes me as yet of the expertise I have seen on 

CODELs where I visited. Instead, the amateurish quality of it is 

overwhelming to see. 

So you got to make me understand. I can understand that tenants would complain about this, you know, I can’t get in or these 

people can’t get in. Make me understand why nonexperts should be 

sitting at the table with FPS, supposedly expert, in deciding what 

the security arrangements in a building will be. 

Mr. COSTA. FPS brings the technical expertise to the committee. 

They are responsible for doing building security assessments on a 

periodic basis. 

Ms. NORTON. And they alone have the technical expertise, don’t 

they? 

Mr. COSTA. The Federal Protective Service. 

Ms. NORTON. What is the role of somebody who doesn’t have any 

expertise when it comes to security except to do what I do, complain about too much security or I have seen people get in who 

29 

shouldn’t? What is the role? I can understand, I like the fact that 

we hear from Federal employees. What I am trying to understand, 

how come they are sitting at the table in a decision-making capacity with the Federal police, who alone have the expertise at that 

table? 

Mr. COSTA. I think the basic issue is that the expertise comes in 

from the Federal Protective Service, but the ultimate bill for that 

security is paid by those customer agencies. 

Ms. NORTON. Excuse me, it is certainly not being paid by the 

Federal employees who have no expertise. Are you saying because 

they pay to lease buildings they get to decide security in Federal 

buildings rather than GSA and the FPS? 

Mr. COSTA. Ultimately, the Federal Protective Service provides 

technical expertise. The designated agency official is ultimately responsible for making decisions about things like post orders with 

information and expertise provided by the Federal Protective Service, because ultimately those agencies are paying for those security 

measures. 

Ms. NORTON. Now I understand how the bombs got in. It seems 

to me people are all over the map. That is to say you can have people like me who have seen the overregulation, the ′′shut the place 

down′′ kind of approach of your security officials after 9/11. And 

there were a lot of very nervous people. Who is to know who is 

going to be on one of these committees? What bothers me most of 

all is that they would have anything but the kind of role that it 

seems to me they should have. Tell me what your concerns are. 

Tell me what those concerns are based on. We will take those into 

account when we decide what security is appropriate for this building. Is that not the way to proceed? 

Mr. COSTA. Just to be clear, from GSA’s perspective we have 

asked the Federal Protective Service to take on that leadership 

role. We think it is the appropriate place. 

Ms. NORTON. Why are they not taking on that role now? 

Mr. COSTA. I think with the revisions in the drafting in the ISC 

guidelines—— 

Ms. NORTON. When will those guidelines be done? 

Mr. COSTA. This summer. 

Ms. NORTON. Can you give us any assurance that those guidelines will in fact not leave customer agency personnel, expert in 

agency matters, as decision makers for the security of Federal assets? 

Mr. COSTA. I can assure you that as a member of the Interagency 

Security Committee, first of all, we will bring those issues to light. 

I can also provide specific information on how the DHS and the 

schedule for the ISC promulgating the draft guidelines, and we 

would be happy to both attend, facilitate, and help get this to, 

frankly—— 

Ms. NORTON. All these agencies before us, not just you. We are 

going to expose what these agencies are doing. Essentially, Mr. 

Costa, and I say this for the record, just like GSA has given over 

much of its functions to the agency, as Ms. Edwards brought out 

when it decided that HHS should be able to live wherever it wants 

to be, whatever the expense, essentially you have given over security to these people who, as you say, pay the bill, which they are 

30 

required to do as a matter of law, as if they had any alternative 

unless they happened to be the USDA. The notion, particularly 

after this hearing, that we are leaving, you know, civil servants at 

the table as decision makers for security in Federal buildings is 

shocking and totally unacceptable. Ultimately, their advice, just 

like the advice should have been received for the HHS building, is 

important. You can’t know whether the security is too much, too 

little unless you talk to the people who live there. But they will 

have to be overridden sometimes. And if they are at the table, that 

is going to be very hard to do. 

Mr. COSTA. Madam Chair, I am not doing a very good job of explaining what is essentially not within GSA’s direct purview. So I 

think it would be most appropriate—— 

Ms. NORTON. It isn’t in the—these are GSA buildings but it is 

not in GSA’s purview? 

Mr. COSTA. Not the policy and guidelines. 

Ms. NORTON. Whose purview it is that? 

Mr. COSTA. Federal Protective Service. So it would be better—— 

Ms. NORTON. You know, just a moment, Federal Protective Service was a GSA agency. 

Mr. COSTA. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. Now, there is some shared responsibilities. All 

right, it is structurally in Homeland Security. So here we have the 

people that were over Federal Protective Service, who had to fund 

them, add to their funding every year because it wasn’t enough 

funds, from the agency saying, well, you know, we, the parent 

agency, at least until last year, and still they shared a responsibility, it is not us, it is these people beneath us. 

Mr. COSTA. I am sorry if it sounds like I am shirking—— 

Ms. NORTON. It sure does. 

Mr. COSTA. —our responsibility, but that is not what I am saying. I am just saying it is unfair for me to talk in detail and represent—— 

Ms. NORTON. I am just trying to find out who the decider is. And 

you say Federal Protective Service, that reports presumably to you 

on matters of security. 

Mr. COSTA. Federal Protective Service does not report to GSA as 

it relates to security. GSA participates with FPS to conclude on requirements when it comes to the design of buildings and the dayto-day operations. But FPS doesn’t report to us. 

Ms. NORTON. But over the design and day-to-day operations of 

buildings it certainly does. You just said so. 

Mr. COSTA. They do not report to us. 

Ms. NORTON. The day-to-day operations of buildings. 

Mr. COSTA. For instance, the Contract Guard Program, contract 

guards are in our buildings, but we are not responsible for those 

contracts or those programs. 

Ms. NORTON. Who are now? 

Mr. COSTA. Federal Protective Service. 

Ms. NORTON. Does that mean the Department of Homeland Security? 

Mr. COSTA. Yes, I am sorry, DHS. 

Ms. NORTON. Although it was in this Committee that we reformed the FPS wholesalely with respect to contracts, when felons 

31 

received contracts, straightened out I must say entirely satisfactorily. Although they were located in Homeland Security, when 

contracts weren’t being paid, reformed it, just through a series of 

hearings. This is the Committee which has jurisdiction over you. 

What were we doing in that if you don’t have anything to do with 

the Federal Protective Service? 

Mr. COSTA. We have a role to work with them to protect and secure our facilities. But ultimately, security has been moved to the 

Department of Homeland Security. 

Ms. NORTON. We need to see a draft of this guidance as soon as 

possible. It is very disturbing to think that there would be people 

at the table who had no expertise deciding something. And it almost entirely explains why the differences are there. You know, 

those same differences, Mr. Costa, apply when you say you know 

what, you can live in Prince Georges County or you can live in 

Montgomery County. You choose. Handing off that responsibility, 

not claiming responsibility Congress expects you to have, and I 

would certainly hope the Homeland Security agency would expect 

you to have, is very, very disturbing to us. We understand some of 

this may come from the bifurcation that we weren’t able to do a 

great deal about. But the fact is that these committees have been 

in operation long before that bifurcation. Isn’t that true? That is to 

say, you were operating with these same kinds of customer committees for a long time now, have you not? 

Mr. COSTA. We have been. And we have been talking with the 

Interagency Security Committee about clarifications of roles and 

responsibilities and ultimate responsibilities for risk management 

decisions because we share some of the concerns that you have 

raised. 

Ms. NORTON. You know, Mr. Costa, we are going to reauthorize 

your statute, which hasn’t been basically touched since President 

Truman first created the Public Buildings Service. Sometimes 

when I listen to testimony from GSA I wonder whether or not more 

law matters. You have very significant authority in most of the 

areas that concern us. We are just going to have to see more in the 

way of GSA asserting its leadership. You read that statute, and it 

is pretty clear you are given a great leadership role. Congress understood in 1959, I think it was, these people are not going to be 

able to manage buildings across the spectrum of the Federal Government if you don’t give them broad authority. The statute is nicely worded. We are going to have to fill in the blanks, which we 

didn’t believe or Congress didn’t believe at the time were there. 

But for example, there are extra security escort costs associated 

with I think it is the U.S. Secret Service. Oh, excuse me, it is OMB. 

Oh, my, where guards have to take people through the building. 

See, you can get anything you want unless you have to pay for it 

yourself like the American people. What are the security costs associated with the fact that OMB, just because it is the OMB, has 

been able to get special treatment so that guards take people 

through the building? Have to bring down a whole trained guard 

to take people, apparently regardless of what their credentials 

show? 

Mr. COSTA. I think the escorting services as it relates to this particular project aren’t necessarily by a guard. They are just people 

32 

who have clearances. I mean, that is the biggest difficulty with 

projects in buildings that house a high security mission. 

Ms. NORTON. Don’t all the people in OMB have security clearance? 

Mr. COSTA. Well, they do, but our intention wouldn’t be to have 

folks who are doing OMB work also escort construction workers. 

We have some added cost to make sure—— 

Ms. NORTON. No, this goes to whoever pays for guards, as we understand. 

Mr. COSTA. In this case, yes. 

Ms. NORTON. What is the purpose of the guards if a Federal employee, for example, comes, having to get escorted by a guard? 

Mr. COSTA. The Federal employees would not be. 

Ms. NORTON. Who would be? Who would be then? 

Mr. COSTA. Construction workers, contractors who hire folks who 

do work for the General Services Administration. 

Ms. NORTON. No matter how often they come into the building? 

How about making sure that all of them have some kind of clearance? 

Mr. COSTA. That is really—that is what we have to do. I mean 

that is one of the issues we have had—— 

Ms. NORTON. When will that be done? I mean we can’t offload 

this. These guys show up every day and they still have to be escorted. Can’t you get clearance for these people for the limited kind 

of work they do? And if so, when is the earliest you can do that? 

Mr. COSTA. We do that now for a lot of our projects. We get temporary clearances. 

Ms. NORTON. What about for OMB? 

Mr. COSTA. I would have to get you the details as to what 

those—— 

Ms. NORTON. 30 days, sir. 30 days, please. Charged directly to 

you, security escort costs. Amended prospectus. You know, if OMB 

wants this, pay for it themselves. They have got the money. You 

don’t. 

Mr. COSTA. Part of the issue with this project is that when—— 

Ms. NORTON. Not originally contemplated for the new Executive 

Office Building. 

Mr. COSTA. The issue is that we thought the renovation project 

was much more limited, and when we started doing the renovation 

work realized it was much more extensive. So frankly, part of this 

is that we are actually asking them to move so we can do that work 

that had not been contemplated. 

Ms. NORTON. This was a request of OMB, though. 

Mr. COSTA. On security. 

Ms. NORTON. Yeah. Couldn’t you have sought security clearance 

for these workers, even belatedly? Why didn’t anybody think to 

save the government money? Because it is not your money, that is 

why. Why not say, okay, we’ll do this until we see if these people 

can get security clearance? 

Mr. COSTA. Madam Chair, we have a continuing issue, really, 

finding people to do work with clearances. It is a huge issue nationally. 

Ms. NORTON. What kind of clearance do you need? 

33 

Mr. COSTA. To do work in Federal facilities you need extensive 

clearances, the same kind of clearances that Federal workers working in buildings require. 

Ms. NORTON. That is difficult to get for legal workers in this 

country? You know, Joe Lunch Box? 

Mr. COSTA. Yes, it is. It is difficult and takes a long time and 

so often we are in a bind because work needs to be done, and so 

part of the escorting that we sometimes pay for is associated with 

the fact that we can’t get clearances for workers. 

Ms. NORTON. I really have only one more question. The Ranking 

Member asked about what seemed to be a very high cost for construction. Now, this is one that I think will surprise him as much 

as it did us. Apparently, for storage space, the Secret Service is 

costing us a thousand dollars per square foot. What are we trying 

to protect? Why in the world? $10 million for 10,000 square feet. 

Where? Why? 

Mr. COSTA. You are talking about the Secret Service facility on 

the White House complex. When EOB wasrenovated—— 

Ms. NORTON. Where is it located precisely? 

Mr. COSTA. Right now that function is spread across a number 

of buildings on the complex, and that is actually the problem. 

Ms. NORTON. This is a storage room. 

Mr. COSTA. No, no, it is not. I am sorry if the information we provided was not clear. It is office space, meeting rooms, locker rooms, 

IT security requirements for the Secret Service on the White House 

complex. It is basically where they will be stationed. 

Ms. NORTON. So it is within the walls of the White House 

grounds? 

Mr. COSTA. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. Within the gates of the White House? 

Mr. COSTA. Yes, it is. Our proposal is—— 

Ms. NORTON. What costs a thousand dollars? You can’t even get 

in those gates. First you can’t get in the gates. Okay. You can’t get 

in in the first place. Now, once you get in, you have got a more secure space than the White House itself. Explain to us a thousand 

dollars per square foot. To make what the Secret Service, what 

looks to be the most secure space within the White House complex. 

And that is not even for major meetings. So make us understand 

that. 

Mr. COSTA. This cost issue is not really related to security and 

the project. This cost is really related to our proposal to build a 

modular structure in the courtyard of the Eisenhower Executive 

Office Building. We did not contemplate putting a modular structure in the courtyard. We built extensive structures within the 

courtyard, below the surface of the courtyard. 

Ms. NORTON. It is below the surface? 

Mr. COSTA. No. We did a lot of renovation work, added building 

systems underneath the surface of the courtyard. Part of the cost 

is to actually go back, now put a modular structure in the courtyard and build the piering and everything else. 

Ms. NORTON. I always thought modular structures were less costly. Forgive me. 

34 

Mr. COSTA. Well, if you saw the alternative we looked at, you 

would say this was relatively inexpensive because some of the alternatives were just—— 

Ms. NORTON. This was competitively bid? 

Mr. COSTA. No, no, we haven’t gone out to bid with this at all. 

We are requesting authorization funding. Some of the alternatives 

that we looked at to house the Secret Service on the White House 

complex—— 

Ms. NORTON. That were not modular, you mean? 

Mr. COSTA. Were not modular were extremely expensive. 

Ms. NORTON. I can’t imagine what those must have been. 

Mr. COSTA. They were extremely expensive. 

Ms. NORTON. Now that we are up to $1,000 per square foot, I 

won’t ask you what the others would have been. In other words, 

you are telling me, be happy we got it down to a thousand dollars 

a square foot. 

Mr. COSTA. I am not sure I am going to shoot for happiness, but 

this is less costly. The construction itself, because it is in a courtyard, will require cranes, so the complexity of material going over 

the wing of EOB will add costs. Frankly, we have to do work on 

off hours also because of the operation of the White House complex. 

So there are many complexities related to this construction, not 

only how we are going to do the construction, but where we are 

going to do it that drives up the cost. 

Ms. NORTON. I sure hope that when you get to the point, you 

know, people are dying for work, Mr. Costa, in relationship to our 

earlier discussion of buyer’s market, I certainly hope when you bid 

this that you understand who is in a position to negotiate the best 

price. You know, when they see deep pockets and they wonder 

whether they are dealing with people who understand what everybody else in the market understands, I don’t have any assurance 

that, about this $1,000 per square foot, how to judge it, except that 

I certainly hope you try to get it down after there is the appropriate competition. 

Mr. COSTA. We will. 

Ms. NORTON. Appreciate it. Now, before I—I have one more question and I am going to ask the Ranking Member. I just thought 

both of us would like to hear an update on the recovery projects, 

where we are, whether the obligation will be in time for that due 

date. Was it 2010? They all must be obligated. Not built, but obligated? How will you know, let us say, today, for that matter, that 

you are on pace to obligate everything and won’t have to give back 

to the Treasury, God forbid, any of the funds? 

Mr. COSTA. We are doing extremely well with our obligations. 

Ms. NORTON. How do you know that? I would be pleased to see 

the amount. And I indicated, but I didn’t know how to judge that 

against, I don’t know, 5.5 billion, and what it would mean. For example, do you know how much you have to obligate every 3 

months, every quarter? 

Mr. COSTA. Yes, we have month-by-month obligation plans for 

the next 18 months. Our basic plan is to obligate a billion dollars 

by the end of July, a second billion dollars by the end of December, 

2 million additional dollars by the end of March, 2010, and one last 

billion dollars through the end of fiscal year 2010. 

35 

Ms. NORTON. And you are on track to meet that schedule? 

Mr. COSTA. We are on track. We have obligated $320 million 

worth of projects. We are on track to obligate at least a billion dollars by the end of July. We actually think we will be obligating 

more than a billion dollars. That, in addition, some of the bids are 

coming in lower, so we are actually doing more work, more work 

on the ground than we had actually planned. And we are being aggressive as I have ever seen us in 25 years in GSA. 

Ms. NORTON. Excellent. And congratulations, particularly if you 

are able to get people to understand who you are and they are coming in below what you thought the job may cost. 

Could you please give me the status of the Southeast Federal 

Center and the St. Elizabeth’s project? Let’s start with Southeast 

Federal Center. I was very pleased to go over and see that they are 

beginning to do the park. I am not sure who is responsible, I think 

that may be the District’s responsibility. 

Mr. COSTA. It is a joint responsibility, but we helped negotiate 

that with Forest City and the District a number of years ago. 

Ms. NORTON. It was so important to see that there was some 

work proceeding. Almost all the work proceeding in this town is 

Federal work. But we do understand that for Forest City, that 

there are, in fact, various entities that want to move into Forest 

City. They had had difficulty, of course, with the housing. They 

were able to get some help with that and that may be proceeding. 

But I would like to know where they are on housing, where they 

are on entities that have indicated, even in this economy, that they 

would like to be located in that riverfront project. 

Mr. COSTA. I think I will have to follow up with the detailed 

briefing on where that is. The information I am getting is that they 

were slowed by the market, but that is what I assumed, frankly. 

They were slowed by the market. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, of course. We understand that, unlike some 

projects, there are folks looking to locate there. It is very difficult 

because even if there are the banks have to be willing to move. But 

I would like to have, from your perspective, where we are. 

Look, your staff found that the two courthouses were not funded. 

I asked them to go look because the appropriation came out last 

night. So I also ask that they look at the budget figure for Federal 

Protective Service, for USDA and fiscal year 2010, now that it is 

a matter of public record. 

Mr. COSTA. I do have the information for USDA. 

Ms. NORTON. And what does that say? 

Mr. COSTA. The request was close to $238 million. And the House 

appropriations bill, the mark was 224, which is 14, close to $14 

million less. And I am getting information that the Senate bill is 

far below that, less than $170 million. So it is not good news. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, first of all, I am going to have to personally 

thank Mr. Serrano. I mean, you asked for 238. They gave you 224? 

Mr. COSTA. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. And that 238 represented what, please? 

Mr. COSTA. Represented the full rent bill, national rent bill for 

USDA. 

Ms. NORTON. Including the delinquent USDA? 

Mr. COSTA. Yes. 

36 

Ms. NORTON. How much of that is the delinquent USDA facility? 

Is it 20 million you thought? 

Mr. COSTA. No, I think the gap—— 

Ms. NORTON. Because we thought it was 40 million that they 

were—— 

Mr. COSTA. The gap. And that is, that was the gap in fiscal year 

2009. 

Ms. NORTON. Oh, so all they are doing is funding what they usually fund? 

Mr. COSTA. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. Plus the gap? 

Mr. COSTA. No, it looks like it is based, the gap, the $40 million 

gap is not—— 

Ms. NORTON. So no part of the $40 million gap—— 

Mr. COSTA. It does not look like that is the case. 

Ms. NORTON. Very disturbing. We are going to have a go-round 

at it. And indeed, that means that you are funded below what was 

necessary just to keep even; 224? 

Mr. COSTA. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. Had the Subcommittee agreed to try to fund, so 

that would have been what figure? This 238, did that represent—— 

Mr. COSTA. That did not include the full gap. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, that is what you—well, they are not going to 

give you any more than you asked for, Mr. Costa. 

Mr. COSTA. I understand what you are saying. 

Ms. NORTON. Did you ask for the money for the gap as well? 

Mr. COSTA. The President’s request was 238, which did not include the gap. 

Ms. NORTON. And yet how could they possibly have given it to 

you if you don’t ask for it? 

Federal Building Fund, do you think that anybody at OMB 

knows anything about that, the Federal Building Fund? I don’t. 

Not unless GSA takes it on itself to apprise them of what in the 

world they are doing to you and to your very valuable inventory. 

Mr. COSTA. We are going to have those discussions with the Office of Management and Budget. 

Ms. NORTON. Beginning tomorrow, right? 

Mr. COSTA. Yep. 

Ms. NORTON. Status, please, of St. Elizabeth’s? Excuse me. Status, please, of the new DHS headquarters? 

Mr. COSTA. We just awarded a demolition contract for the warehouse site which we are very excited about. It went to a small business in the Washington Metropolitan Area. 

Ms. NORTON. I appreciate that you have set aside particularly 

that contract for small businesses and then had them compete for 

this small business contract in keeping with Federal regulations, so 

that is good. 

Mr. COSTA. We are trying our best to maximize small business. 

But thank you. The ongoing issue with Shepherd Parkway, which 

you have been very supportive of, is actually going very well. The 

draft, what is called the 4-F determination, has been issued; and 

we have been assured by Federal Highways and working with 

them closely that that will be closed by the end of the month. 

Ms. NORTON. What will be closed? 

37 

Mr. COSTA. The 4-F definition that will allow us to proceed with 

Shepherd Parkway. 

Ms. NORTON. That is very important for us. 

Mr. COSTA. And you have been terrific helping us out with that. 

Ms. NORTON. What about Bolling Interchange? Malcolm X? 

Mr. COSTA. We have been able to negotiate with the District and 

conclude on an agreement to start work. They provided us a right 

of entry last week. 

Ms. NORTON. Who? 

Mr. COSTA. The District government. And so we are able to start 

work. 

Ms. NORTON. On what? 

Mr. COSTA. On surveys and site work on that. 

Ms. NORTON. On Malcolm X exchange? 

Mr. COSTA. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. Now, we have a new conglomerate of Federal agencies that now will be at Bolling. They are getting additional employees, DHS. And Martin Luther King Avenue is prominently implicated here. Is the work proceeding so that the Martin Luther 

King Avenue part of this project will also be funded through the 

Federal Transportation Agency, or whoever you are getting to do 

Shepherds Parkway and the rest? 

Mr. COSTA. Well, from our perspective, it needs to. What we are 

doing right now is working, continuing our environmental impact 

work. The District, of course, is looking at the East Campus. Both 

those planning activities include transportation impact analyses 

and—— 

Ms. NORTON. Now, the District hopes to get what would amount 

to a Federal facility, so what the District, which hasn’t moved on 

anything, frankly, is hoping that the Federal facility that would 

face Martin Luther King Avenue will give it a jump start. So I 

don’t see how this makes this the District’s. I know what they are 

going to say. They are going to say both sides are Federal projects. 

So I need to know about Martin Luther King Avenue, since one 

thing we assured the community is that that fairly narrow main 

strip would be taken care of by the Federal agency, first by having 

Shepherds Parkway, and then by making sure that Martin Luther 

King Avenue was equipped to accept the Federal traffic that it inevitably will have to accept. 

Mr. COSTA. Well, it looks like, based on the information I have 

in front of me, both an index card that was just placed in front of 

my nose and my notebook, we are actually looking at acquisition 

to allow widening of MLK as soon as a year from today, July of 

2010, and the actual RUG proceeding the following year. So things 

are moving along faster than—— 

Ms. NORTON. Would Federal Transportation pay for that or GSA 

have to pay for that? 

Mr. COSTA. A blend. We do have some responsibility, no question 

about it. 

Ms. NORTON. Excellent. If—we have had in the office Federal 

Transportation people, they have been very cooperative as far as 

they can go. Your people have been very good. We have also, of 

course, staff has spoken with the GSA. But the one thing that 

could make this project collapse at the get-go would be any difVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:47 Oct 28, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\50973 JASON
38 

ficulty people had in getting there. We haven’t even gotten to the 

point where the DHS people are going to understand that they are 

the first to go across the Anacostia. The last thing we need is them 

to throw in our transportation planning as the reason for ′′I told 

you so.′′ I used to be able to get work, you know, when it was ABC, 

at 60 different locations, wherever they are now. So we need the 

transportation, for us it is first on the radar because we trust your 

work, your experience with respect to the building and the construction that will be going on. 

I have to ask about—our office continues to get questions about 

jobs, and we did put something in our newsletter to let them know, 

oh, you know, the contractor chooses and so forth. But we also put 

in, based on information from your office, that the jobs will be advertised on-line. That is going to be very important. Is that true? 

Mr. COSTA. We are asking contractors to advertise jobs on-line, 

yes. 

Ms. NORTON. Okay. And is that line going to come through the 

GSA or through the—we need to be able to respond to people from 

the region. When they hear of contracts, even small ones, they 

want to know how do you get the jobs? And especially those are 

the ones they are most likely to be interested in because they are 

small business contracts. How do they find out about the jobs, the 

ones you just listed? 

Mr. COSTA. We will give your office the specific information. 

Ms. NORTON. I would like to have that one within 7 days, because we keep getting these inquiries. 

Mr. COSTA. We will do that. 

Ms. NORTON. I just want to say that we have been very pleased 

with the way in which GSA has proceeded with the DHS headquarters, with involving the community, with involving small businesses, with proceeding on time. Will we break ground this year? 

Mr. COSTA. Yes, we will. We will break ground in September. We 

are looking at dates and we are working with your office to figure 

out when everyone can be together for that great event. 

Ms. NORTON. What a positive note to end this hearing on. Thank 

you very much, Mr. Costa. And we will expect, as we always do, 

to receive the responses to our questions. Please be in touch with 

staff if we can be useful to you so that we don’t have to rake you 

across the coals when we didn’t know what we might do before the 

Appropriation Committee and the like. People who go to the appropriators do get responses. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you for the continued support. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Costa. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 6:10 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

39 


Insert offset folio 4 here 50973.004
40 


Insert offset folio 5 here 50973.005
41 


Insert offset folio 6 here 50973.006
42 


Insert offset folio 7 here 50973.007
43 


Insert offset folio 8 here 50973.008
44 


Insert offset folio 9 here 50973.009
45 


Insert offset folio 10 here 50973.010
46 


Insert offset folio 11 here 50973.011
47 


Insert offset folio 12 here 50973.012
48 


Insert offset folio 13 here 50973.013
49 


Insert offset folio 14 here 50973.014
50 


Insert offset folio 15 here 50973.015
51 


Insert offset folio 16 here 50973.016
52 


Insert offset folio 17 here 50973.017
53 


Insert offset folio 18 here 50973.018
54 


Insert offset folio 19 here 50973.019
55 


Insert offset folio 20 here 50973.020
56 


Insert offset folio 21 here 50973.021
57 


Insert offset folio 22 here 50973.022
58 


Insert offset folio 23 here 50973.023
59 


Insert offset folio 24 here 50973.024
60 


Insert offset folio 34 here 50973.034
61 


Insert offset folio 35 here 50973.035
62 


Insert offset folio 36 here 50973.036
63 


Insert offset folio 37 here 50973.037
64 


Insert offset folio 38 here 50973.038
65 


Insert offset folio 39 here 50973.039
66 


Insert offset folio 40 here 50973.040
67 


Insert offset folio 41 here 50973.041
68 


Insert offset folio 42 here 50973.042
69 


Insert offset folio 43 here 50973.043
70 


Insert offset folio 44 here 50973.044
71 


Insert offset folio 45 here 50973.045
72 


Insert offset folio 46 here 50973.046
73 


Insert offset folio 47 here 50973.047
74 


Insert offset folio 48 here 50973.048
75 


Insert offset folio 49 here 50973.049
76 


Insert offset folio 50 here 50973.050
77 


Insert offset folio 51 here 50973.051
78 


Insert offset folio 52 here 50973.052
79 


Insert offset folio 53 here 50973.053
80 


Insert offset folio 54 here 50973.054
81 


Insert offset folio 55 here 50973.055
82 


Insert offset folio 56 here 50973.056
83 


Insert offset folio 57 here 50973.057
84 


Insert offset folio 60 here 50973.060
85 


Insert offset folio 61 here 50973.061
86 


Insert offset folio 62 here 50973.062
87 


Insert offset folio 63 here 50973.063
88 


Insert offset folio 64 here 50973.064
89 


Insert offset folio 65 here 50973.065
90 


Insert offset folio 66 here 50973.066
91 


Insert offset folio 67 here 50973.067
92 


Insert offset folio 68 here 50973.068
93 


Insert offset folio 69 here 50973.069
94 


Insert offset folio 70 here 50973.070
95 


Insert offset folio 71 here 50973.071
96 


Insert offset folio 72 here 50973.072
97 


Insert offset folio 73 here 50973.073
98 


Insert offset folio 74 here 50973.074
99 


Insert offset folio 75 here 50973.075
100 


Insert offset folio 76 here 50973.076
101 


Insert offset folio 77 here 50973.077
102 


Insert offset folio 78 here 50973.078
103 


Insert offset folio 79 here 50973.079
104 


Insert offset folio 80 here 50973.080
105 


Insert offset folio 81 here 50973.081
106 


Insert offset folio 82 here 50973.082
107 


Insert offset folio 83 here 50973.083
108 


Insert offset folio 84 here 50973.084
109 


Insert offset folio 85 here 50973.085
110 


Insert offset folio 86 here 50973.086
111 


Insert offset folio 87 here 50973.087
112 


Insert offset folio 88 here 50973.088
113 


Insert offset folio 89 here 50973.089
114 


Insert offset folio 90 here 50973.090
115 


Insert offset folio 91 here 50973.091
116 


Insert offset folio 92 here 50973.092
117 


Insert offset folio 93 here 50973.093
118 


Insert offset folio 94 here 50973.094
119 


Insert offset folio 95 here 50973.095
120 


Insert offset folio 96 here 50973.096
121 


Insert offset folio 97 here 50973.097
122 


Insert offset folio 98 here 50973.098
123 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 99 here 50973.099