U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

51–436 PDF 2009

RECOVERY ACT: 160-DAY PROGRESS 

REPORT FOR TRANSPORTATION 

AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAMS 

(111–56) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 31, 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) 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

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

TESTIMONY 

Ashley, Hon. W. Ross, Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency ........................................................................ 9 

Costa, Anthony E., Acting Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, General 

Services Administration ...................................................................................... 9 

Hooks, Craig E., Acting Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management, Environmental Protection Agency ................................. 9 

Rajk, Martin J., Deputy Assistant Commandant for Resources and Deputy 

Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Coast Guard ......................................................... 9 

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

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ............................................................................ 9 

Siggerud, Katherine A., Managing Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office .............................................................. 9 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri ......................................................................... 52 

Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, of Texas .................................................................. 53 

Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona ....................................................................... 58 

Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota ................................................................. 59 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Ashley, Hon. W. Ross .............................................................................................. 65 

Costa, Anthony E. .................................................................................................... 71 

Hooks, Craig E. ........................................................................................................ 79 

Rajk, Martin J. ......................................................................................................... 90 

Salt, Terrence C. ...................................................................................................... 97 

Siggerud, Katherine A. ............................................................................................ 101 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

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

Chart entitled, ′′Putting to Work Recovery Act Highway Formula 

Funds′′ ........................................................................................................ xx 

Chart entitled, ′′T&I Committee Transparency and Accountability Information by States and Formula Funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) (′′Recovery Act′′) 

Submissions Received by T&I Committee (Data Reported as of June 

30, 2009) ..................................................................................................... xiii 

Graph entitled, ′′Percentage of Recovery Act Highway and Transit Formula Funds Associated with Projects Out to Bid as of June 30, 

2009′′ ........................................................................................................... xxii 

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

Transportation and Infrastructure Provisions Implementation Status 

as of July 17, 2009′′ ................................................................................... xxv 

Costa, Anthony E., Acting Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, General 

Services Administration, response to request for information from Rep. 

Mica, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida ........................ 25 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Economic Development Administration, Dennis Alvord, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development, written testimony ... 117 

Page

IV 

International Boundary and Water Commission United States and Mexico, 

C.W. ′′Bill′′ Ruth, United States Commissioner, written testimony ................ 121 

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

Dave White, Chief, written testimony ................................................................ 123 

Smithsonian Institution, Dr. G. Wayne Clough, Secretary, written testimony .. 128 

v 


Insert offset folio 1 here 51436.001
vi 


Insert offset folio 2 here 51436.002
vii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 51436.003
viii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 51436.004
ix 


Insert offset folio 5 here 51436.005
x 


Insert offset folio 6 here 51436.006
xi 


Insert offset folio 7 here 51436.007
xii 


Insert offset folio 8 here 51436.008
xiii 


Insert offset folio 9 here 51436.009
xiv 


Insert offset folio 10 here 51436.010
xv 


Insert offset folio 11 here 51436.011
xvi 


Insert offset folio 12 here 51436.012
xvii 


Insert offset folio 13 here 51436.013
xviii 


Insert offset folio 14 here 51436.014
xix 


Insert offset folio 15 here 51436.015
xx 


Insert offset folio 16 here 51436.016
xxi 


Insert offset folio 17 here 51436.017
xxii 


Insert offset folio 18 here 51436.018
xxiii 


Insert offset folio 19 here 51436.019
xxiv 


Insert offset folio 20 here 51436.020
xxv 


Insert offset folio 21 here 51436.021
xxvi 


Insert offset folio 22 here 51436.022
xxvii 


Insert offset folio 23 here 51436.023
xxviii 


Insert offset folio 24 here 51436.024
xxix 


Insert offset folio 25 here 51436.025
xxx 


Insert offset folio 26 here 51436.026
xxxi 


Insert offset folio 27 here 51436.027
xxxii 


Insert offset folio 28 here 51436.028
xxxiii 


Insert offset folio 29 here 51436.029
xxxiv 


Insert offset folio 30 here 51436.030
xxxv 


Insert offset folio 31 here 51436.031
xxxvi 


Insert offset folio 32 here 51436.032
xxxvii 


Insert offset folio 33 here 51436.033
xxxviii 


Insert offset folio 34 here 51436.034
xxxix 


Insert offset folio 35 here 51436.035
xl 


Insert offset folio 36 here 51436.036
xli 


Insert offset folio 37 here 51436.037
xlii 


Insert offset folio 38 here 51436.038
xliii 


Insert offset folio 39 here 51436.039
xliv 


Insert offset folio 40 here 51436.040
xlv 


Insert offset folio 41 here 51436.041
xlvi 


Insert offset folio 42 here 51436.042
xlvii 


Insert offset folio 43 here 51436.043
xlviii 


Insert offset folio 44 here 51436.044
xlix 


Insert offset folio 45 here 51436.045
l 


Insert offset folio 46 here 51436.046
li 


Insert offset folio 47 here 51436.047
lii 


Insert offset folio 48 here 51436.048
liii 


Insert offset folio 49 here 51436.049
liv 


Insert offset folio 50 here 51436.050
lv 


Insert offset folio 51 here 51436.051
lvi 


Insert offset folio 52 here 51436.052
lvii 


Insert offset folio 53 here 51436.053
lviii 


Insert offset folio 54 here 51436.054
lix 


Insert offset folio 55 here 51436.055
lx 


Insert offset folio 56 here 51436.056
lxi 


Insert offset folio 57 here 51436.057
lxii 


Insert offset folio 58 here 51436.058
lxiii 


Insert offset folio 59 here 51436.059
lxiv 


Insert offset folio 60 here 51436.060
lxv 


Insert offset folio 61 here 51436.061
lxvi 


Insert offset folio 62 here 51436.062
lxvii 


Insert offset folio 63 here 51436.063
lxviii 


Insert offset folio 64 here 51436.064
lxix 


Insert offset folio 65 here 51436.065
lxx 


Insert offset folio 66 here 51436.066
lxxi 


Insert offset folio 67 here 51436.067
lxxii 


Insert offset folio 68 here 51436.068
lxxiii 


Insert offset folio 69 here 51436.069
lxxiv 


Insert offset folio 70 here 51436.070
lxxv 


Insert offset folio 71 here 51436.071
lxxvi 


Insert offset folio 72 here 51436.072
lxxvii 


Insert offset folio 73 here 51436.073
lxxviii 


Insert offset folio 74 here 51436.074
lxxix 


Insert offset folio 75 here 51436.075
(1) 

HEARING ON RECOVERY ACT 160-DAY 

PROGRESS REPORT FOR TRANSPORTATION 

AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAMS 

Friday, July 31, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, WASHINGTON, DC. 

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

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

Mr. OBERSTAR. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will come to order. For our work today we will review our 

third in our series of oversight of the operation, effectiveness and 

implementation of the Recovery Act, also known as stimulus. I 

would like to project on the screen three presentations that I think 

are important for understanding. 

There has been a great deal of discussion in the secular press of 

the Recovery Act and its ability to put money out into the job 

arena. And there are indeed other aspects of the stimulus recovery 

that are not working effectively, but the highway and transit portion, especially the highway formula funds, are in place and are 

working as we anticipated, except for a few States. 

And can we call up the first? Percentage of Recovery Act, highway projects, 59 percent obligated. That means States have committed their money to specific projects. 41 percent not obligated. 

That is still within the parameters of the law, although had our 

Committee version been the final language I think all of that would 

have been obligated. Remember, it was our Committee that moved 

a bill through Committee, and through the House to require obligation and projects within 90 days. That was changed in conference 

and at the request of the administration to 120 days. And that half 

of the funds needed to be out in the first 120 days and the other 

half in the next portion. But at any rate the 59 percent obligated 

is within the parameters. 

The next chart, projects out to bid. And there 49 percent, or $16.7 billion, out to bid and $17.6 billion not out to bid. 

Now I want to go to the flow charts. I think you need binoculars 

to read that. There are copies that will be handed out to all Members. 

Step one, February 17th the President signs the Recovery Act. 

Step two, the Federal Highway Administration apportions the 

highway formula funds to States. That was March 2nd. That was 

roughly 13, 14 days after signing the Federal Highway Administration told all the States what their entitlement would be. 

2 

Step three, within 30 days of enactment our legislation required 

each Governor to certify to DOT that the State will maintain its 

effort in funding of the regular 80/20 program of transportation 

projects. Within 45 days, April 3rd, Governors had to certify that 

funds will be used to create jobs and promote economic growth and 

accept responsibility that infrastructure investment is the appropriate use of taxpayer dollars. We wanted that signed off, we wanted all Governors to buy in on it. We made that clear going back 

to 2008 when this Committee moved such legislation and it passed 

the House. We include that in the Recovery Act. 

Step four, this is now the point at which Federal Highway Administration approves the projects that the State has already 

signed off on and said they are going to commit to these projects. 

They were submitted to the Federal Highway Administration division office, normally approved within 1 or 2 days. 

At step five the Federal role is complete, except for the periodic 

sending out of funds. 

The next steps are all up to the States. State following normal 

contracting procedures sends out invitation for bids. Contractors 

normally have 21 days to bid, depending on the size or complexity 

of the project. The bids come in, the State reviews the bids and 

awards contracts, and that process normally takes 4 to 30 days, 

again depending on complexity of the project. Then the contractor 

mobilizes and prepares to start work hiring new workers or calling 

back their existing staff. And then the State issues a notice to proceed. Work begins on those Recovery Act projects. That is another 

10 to 30 days. So in 90 days States have largely complied with the 

requirements of the act. It obligated the funds, they sent out the 

IFBs, they have received bids, they have awarded bids, they have 

resolved any disputes, as far as I can tell there haven’t been any, 

and they have projects under way and they are continuing this 

process, it now continues, it is just rolling along. Then the latter 

part of that the State then submits its voucher to the Federal 

Highway Administration. And typically that voucher is fulfilled by 

an electronic overnight deposit by the Federal Highway Administration for each State. 

So let’s go to the final fourth chart. So beginning March 15th 

States are obligating projects, April 1st bids were going out, bids 

reviewed April 1st to May 10th, May 11th contracts have been 

awarded, May 12th, not the earliest actually, 13 days after Recovery Act signed Maryland had the first project under way on-site. 

And work begins on the project. Contractor reports job creation to 

the State and they are reporting to us every 30 days. 

Now, I have asked for review of the best States. Wyoming has 

done the best job. 95.7 percent of their funds have been out to bid. 

They are the number one out of 51 jurisdictions, 85 percent of their 

funds are under contract, 76 percent of projects are actually under 

way on the job site. 

Oklahoma, well, let’s see, Iowa was second with 88 percent out 

to bid and 50 percent of projects under way. Unfortunately, Hawaii, 

Florida, and South Carolina rank at the bottom. Florida is 51st. 

And I notice Mr. Mica has impatience and even outright anger, 

with justification, a very high unemployment rate, as in my State, 

but for some reason only 2 percent of the funds are underway in 

3 

the State of Florida, only 12 percent of the funds are under contract. And Hawaii and South Carolina are in that same neighborhood. 

We need to find out why. We have sent inquiries to State DOTs 

to find out what is causing their delay. But I can say this, that for 

the Federal side there was no red tape. The Federal Highway Administration and DOT did their job. They moved the funding out, 

got the projects under way, and we do have, as of June 30, 48,600 

jobs on construction sites. That number is another 10,000 higher 

today, but that is not an official tabulation. 

Today we are going to concentrate more on the nontransportation 

features of the Recovery Act 160 days after enactment. I am troubled that there is considerable unevenness in the implementation 

in nonhighway and transit agencies. As of the end of June 1, 

600,000 construction workers were out of work. That is 1 million 

construction jobs lost since the recession began in December of 

2007. 

So we are today going to review the environmental projects; that 

is, those of the State revolving loan funds, the inland waterways, 

the public buildings. We are going to hear from the Government 

Accountability Office, whose report is splendid and agonizing for 

some, I should think, but on the whole I read every word of it late 

last night. 

While I have already cited the direct on-site jobs in our next report in September, we will have accounting for those supply chain 

jobs that were stimulated by on-site projects. Sand and gravel pit 

operators, the asphalt producers, the cement and ready mix producers, the steel and others, including landscaping business jobs 

that result from these stimulus projects. All of these account for 

jobs created, but we won’t have those numbers until September, 

mid-September. 

Federal agencies under our Committee’s jurisdiction have announced 9,356 transportation and nontransportation projects totaling $30.5 billion. The funds have been obligated for 8,200 projects, 

totaling $24 billion. However, State revolving loan funds are not 

moving their projects out as fast as I anticipated and as fast as the 

SRF managers told us and this Committee that they would be able 

to do last December and early in January. And the American road 

and transportation builders have, and associated general contractors, have expressed their dismay that projects in these nonhighway portions of the stimulus are not moving out as quickly as 

they had hoped and we anticipated. 

So we are going to be hearing from EPA, Corps of Engineers, 

General Services, FEMA, Coast Guard, and the GAO this morning. 

I am happy to yield to my friend and Ranking Member Mr. Mica. 

Mr. MICA. Well, thank you. And thank you again for conducting 

this oversight hearing on the stimulus money. It is something we 

all pledged to do as that legislation moved forward, and very well 

intended legislation to improve the Nation’s infrastructure and get 

people working. 

The Chairman has pointed out that we do have some concerns 

about the rate of which some of the money actually is being put 

into projects. I also have some concerns I want to express this 

morning about that. We saw the amount of obligated funds, and 

4 

that has now increased to over the 50 percent mark. The problem 

is as of July 27th only $919 million, that is not billion, $919 million, of $48 billion of DOT money has actually been spent. Given 

the calculation—and you know we estimate for every billion dollars 

in transportation infrastructure spending you can create 28,000 to 

32,000, and if we use an average of—well, if we even take the high 

number it is less than 32,000 jobs have been created so far by the 

money that has been spent. Now, we do have of course obligated 

money. But in the meantime we have lost 1.5 million jobs nationally. 

Then I think we have to turn ourselves to some of not what we 

say but what some of those will testify. And I had a chance to preview the GAO testimony. And I am also concerned about that. We 

find that they say with most funded projects relating to transportation they focus on paving improvements. And there is nothing 

wrong with that, and I have to compliment the Department of 

Transportation and State Departments of Transportation for trying 

to pick the low hanging fruit, get the money out as soon as possible. But many of those jobs are short-term. Some of the money 

has been spent, and the jobs are already closed down. 

The problem we have is building the larger infrastructure 

projects that are multi-year, and you know significant in complexity, I have to admit that. But for example, we have heard many 

people take to the floor. Mr. Oberstar and I worked on the Minneapolis bridge restoration. That was done in record time, within 

budget. It sped up in less than 437 days, which normally takes 7 

to 8 years to go. 

However, there are almost no projects of that nature that have 

been undertaken. And some of the efforts in the beginning when 

we looked at stimulus, as I said last time, were thwarted in the 

Senate to speed up the process and give the States the flexibility 

that they need to move forward, and also the encouragement and 

the kick in the pants, if necessary, to get those big projects going. 

But the information from GAO says only 12 percent of the funds 

has been obligated for bridge projects, and of that—well, an additional 6 percent is all we are going to see for new bridges. So while 

we have bridges crumbling, we have very few projects on the horizon of a large significant nature that will employ people long-term. 

The other problem Mr. Oberstar and I have is we made a—well, 

we made a deal this week and we had an agreement to supply $7 

billion to the trust fund. We tried to put in as much as we can to 

be responsible to keep the fund whole. We hope that gets done in 

the Senate now. But we are on a collision course to disaster, because in addition to not having stimulus authority to move forward 

in an expedited fashion to take on these big projects that employ 

people long-term, we are about to shut down the whole process if 

we don’t have an authorization, with the current authorization, as 

we all know, expiring the 30th. And we put money in, we have current authorization, but we are approaching a collision course, folks. 

So we are going to need everybody’s help to get behind us to find 

sources of funding, sources of backing, ways to expedite these 

projects. You can’t tell me there isn’t a community from sea to 

shining sea that doesn’t need infrastructure improvements, and 

many of them need large projects. But unfortunately the stimulus 

5 

package is leaving the big projects behind. We want no bridge or 

no project of national significance, regional or community significance, left behind. So we will hear that report today. It is not my 

words. 

And then finally the red tape. President Obama went to Elkhart, 

Indiana in February to push for passage of his stimulus package. 

In July, Jeff Taylor, the county highway engineer in Elkhart said, 

I have got, and I have said this before publicly and repeated not 

his words but my words, I have got an engineer working full time. 

And that is just about all he is doing is red tape every day, filling 

out forms, filling out forms. You will not see, you will not see stimulus used until next year because this is going to be all he is doing 

is that red tape. 

The final thing is again I went up to Boston recently. In the 

South I don’t think of seasonable construction. We have got 18 percent unemployment in construction in central Florida, and we 

would love to have those jobs now. The Chairman also said Florida 

is unfortunately lagging behind in getting the money out, too, for 

any projects, let alone big projects. But what scares me is we have 

got the winter season setting in which you don’t think of again in 

the South. But many of the DOTs across the northern tier of the 

Nation will be shut down and it could be pretty grim this winter. 

So I am not a happy camper with this report, Mr. Chairman. But 

hopefully we can get some. And there are agencies that have gotten 

the money out pretty quickly. DOT has done I think the best they 

can. FAA, excellent work on their part, and others. So we just have 

to redouble our effort and roll up our sleeves. 

I yield back. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for those observations. 

And I am too concerned about the report from Indiana about red 

tape. I have no idea why they have any kind of process issue, because in 2008 and beginning even in 2007 and all through 2008 we 

asked AASHTO to survey their members, every State to give us 

through AASHTO a list of projects that were through right-of-way 

acquisition, EIS, design and engineering, down to final design and 

engineering, ready to go to bid, all they need is the money. There 

should have been no red tape. If there is some processing, I think 

then we need to know about it. But it is at the State level, and I 

have no idea why several States are lagging behind in getting their 

projects out. 

So that is going to be the subject of continuing inquiry. And I 

said at the beginning we have this program, it is supposed to create jobs. We are not going to shield it behind a curtain. We are 

going to expose warts and all and find out what the problems are 

and fix it. Because if we can’t create the jobs in this program how 

do you expect to do it in the long-term, how do you expect to get 

those longer term 3, 4-year type projects out if you can’t do the 

ones that already at the bid stage. So we are ready to roll here. 

Ms. Norton for 2 minutes. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This is a 

very important hearing as we go out for August break. There is a 

significant difference between the funds that my Subcommittee has 

jurisdiction over, GSA, and in particular also FEMA, but particularly GSA. The difference is that unlike the States it is our SubVerDate Aug 31 2005 17:00 Dec 14, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\51436 JASON
6 

committee and it is the Congress and the administration that is responsible for the work that has to be done, because that work is 

owned Federal buildings, and converting them into high performance green buildings, with a double bang for the taxpayer, that 

these buildings that serve the public, part of our Federal inventory 

going down the drain get fixed and we save enormous sums in energy. 

But we are accountable and the White House is accountable because there is no States involved here. Fifty States and four territories and the District of Columbia benefit from these funds, but 

it all leads back to GSA. 

Now, GSA is going to testify this morning, and I am going to 

allow them to indicate how far they have gone. I must say that I 

am right up front, Mr. Chairman, and I am very concerned about 

really a very small part of what they had to do, and that has to 

do with the apprenticeship program, particularly focusing on 

preapprenticeship so that there would not be unnecessary division 

between what amounts to hundreds of thousands of mostly white 

construction workers and minorities and women who have not been 

trained for many years because there has been no consistent training. So there is a small amount in the DOT, and there is a small 

amount in GSA. 

And I have to say, Mr. Chairman, I am very, very distressed that 

160 days later, February 17th is when this bill was signed, they 

knew about this and worked on it even before. The RFP to award 

the small amount of money, only $3 million, is due back September 

8th. So they have you know blown much of the building season. 

I think that what you are doing, Mr. Chairman, in insisting that 

we have these oversight hearings is very, very important. On the 

training money, for example, in 2000 you put in and this Committee put in money that would have allowed half a percent of 

State highway dollars to be used for training. The trained journeymen are aging out. States didn’t use that money for training, they 

just used it to build. And so we have an aging construction workforce, and we have got to use this occasion when we are putting 

this big lump sum into construction and infrastructure to train for 

the first time people to replace those who are aging out and who 

we will need to rebuild our country. 

And thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you for raising that issue. For that very 

person I designating Ms. Napolitano to chair a task force to review 

the progress on minority workers and minority enterprises under 

the Recovery Act. And I think that you and she and I should get 

together and talk about this matter. 

Mr. LoBiondo. Mr. Boozman. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing. Whether you voted for the American Recovery Reinvestment Act or opposed the legislation, we in Congress have the 

responsibility to ensure the money is spent for its intended purposes. Since the stimulus bill short-changed infrastructure investment, we have to conduct rigorous oversight on the allocation of 

these scarce resources, and I appreciate Mr. Oberstar’s effort to do 

so. In some cases Congress did a poor job of picking and choosing 

which programs to fund. In other cases the administration seems 

7 

to be rushing money out the door with little control over how the 

money is to be spent. 

Given the fact that the navigation projects and the flood damage 

reduction projects provide economic benefits to the Nation, I would 

like to see the administration and the Congress place a higher interest in the work of the Army Corps of Engineers. All of the Corps 

projects put people to work, which is another reason to put these 

investments high on the priority list. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, again for holding this very important 

hearing, and I look forward to hearing from the witnesses. And I 

yield back. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Boozman. I share your 

concern about the lagging investment from the Corps of Engineers. 

They were slow to get off the blocks with this program. There 

should have been much more money in the Corps. We had more in 

our House version of the bill. It was cut back in conference. And 

we are going to keep up the rigorous oversight. As I said, we have 

to show everything, warts and all. If it is working, fine. If it is not, 

we have to understand why, and there will be another hearing in 

60 days. 

Ms. Johnson, Chair of the Water Resource Subcommittee. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for continuing on implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Successful implementation of this legislation is essential 

to our collective efforts to turn our economy around and create good 

well paying jobs here in America. While I understand some of the 

public criticism that the Recovery Act is not working fast enough 

and the recovery and the economy continues to lose jobs, if they 

heard the news earlier, the Gross National Product is improving. 

I would suggest that but for the enactment of the Recovery Act we 

would be in far worse shape today. 

That being said, I agree that the primary focus of the legislation 

was creation of jobs, and I am concerned that the creation of jobs 

has not been uniform across the agencies and programs under the 

jurisdiction of this Committee. Hopefully today we will hear some 

assurance that agencies understand the primary intent of this legislation to create jobs, while at the same time promoting accountability and openness in expenditures. 

I read the written testimony of the witnesses here this morning, 

and I commend them for the progress made thus far. I applaud the 

efforts of the Environmental Protection Agency for obligating over 

83 percent of the clean water State revolving fund dollars to the 

individual States and for working through some of the implementation challenges of the buy-American provisions in the Recovery Act. 

And Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this time, and I am going 

to ask unanimous consent to file the rest of my statement. Thank 

you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Without objection, the statement will be included 

in the record. Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I 

thank you for continuing to hold these regular hearings to ensure 

that we have visibility and accountability and transparency over 

the expenditure of every dime of funding provided for transporVerDate Aug 31 2005 17:00 Dec 14, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\51436 JASON
8 

tation-related purposes through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. 

As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime 

Transportation, I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity 

to review the Coast Guard’s expenditure of the funding provided to 

it through the Recovery Act. The Coast Guard received Recovery 

Act funding for two main purposes: To fund the alteration or removal of bridges that pose a hazard to navigation through the Truman-Hobbs program, and to fund its own projects through its Acquisition Construction and Improvements accounting, the AC&I. 

For the Truman program the service received $142 million, which 

is being combined with monies previously appropriated to the programs to support the alteration of four bridges. For its AC&I account the service received $98 million, of which the service has indicated $88 million will be expended to address the repair and rehabilitation needs of shore utilities. 

These Recovery Act funds were sorely needed, particularly those 

directed to the AC&I account, given that the Coast Guard has an 

estimated $1 billion backlog of on-shore facility maintenance and 

repair needs. That said, however, the President’s fiscal year 2010 

project requested only $10 million in capital funding for the Coast 

Guard’s shore-based facilities and aid to navigation recapitalization 

projects. Failure to adequately fund the Coast Guard’s shore-based 

facilities will only increase later maintenance and placement costs 

while leaving personnel in substandard conditions. Thus I would 

hope that the Recovery Act funds are not seen, Mr. Chairman, as 

a replacement for what should be regular and robust AC&I funding. 

Given the backlog of on-shore maintenance needs, however, I am 

also concerned by what appears to be the Coast Guard’s very slow 

expenditure rate for these funds, and I anxiously look forward to 

discussing planned projects in more detail today. 

With that, I look forward to the testimony of all of our witnesses. 

And Mr. Chairman, with that I yield back. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for the comments. And I 

want to assure Chairman Cummings that Federal agencies are 

subject to the same requirements of the States on maintenance of 

effort. These recovery funds should not be a replacement for their 

regularly scheduled program, and we will pursue that matter in 

the course of this hearing. You are right to raise that. 

And now Mr. Hooks, you are in the hot seat for EPA, and not 

so much EPA, but the State SRFs, who I must say I am very disappointed are lagging behind our expectations, including in my 

own State of Minnesota. So the floor is yours. I read your testimony last night. 

9 

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. W. ROSS ASHLEY, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, GRANT PROGRAMS, FEDERAL EMERGENCY 

MANAGEMENT AGENCY; ANTHONY E. COSTA, ACTING COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; CRAIG E. HOOKS, ACTING ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR ADMINISTRATION AND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY; MARTIN J. RAJK, DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMANDANT FOR RESOURCES AND DEPUTY CHIEF FINANCIAL 

OFFICER, U.S. COAST GUARD; TERRENCE C. SALT, ACTING 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY (CIVIL WORKS), U.S. 

ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS; AND KATHERINE A. 

SIGGERUD, MANAGING DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. HOOKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Oberstar, 

Ranking Member Mica, and Members of the Committee, thank you 

for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss EPA’s implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 

2009. As Members of this Committee well know, we are in the 

midst of one of the most severe economic crises our Nation has 

seen. The Recovery Act provides $7.2 billion for specific programs 

administered by the EPA, the Clean Water Act SRF, the Drinking 

Water SRF, Superfund, Brownfields, Underground Storage Tanks 

and the Clean Diesel Programs. 

The programs targeted by EPA’s portion of the Recovery Act 

funding addresses local specific community-based public health and 

environmental needs. Investing in these areas ensures that job creation, economic growth, and beneficial environmental results occur 

at the local level. Funding these programs will not only help our 

economic recovery, but they will protect and increase the number 

of green jobs, sustain communities, restore and preserve the economic viability of property, promote scientific advances and technological innovation and ensure a safer healthier environment. 

The majority of EPA’s Recovery Act funds totaling $4.7 billion 

are specified for programs under the jurisdiction of this Committee. 

The Clean Water Act SRF $4 billion, Superfund $600 million and 

Brownfields $100 million. As we award these funds, we continue to 

place a high priority on oversight, transparency and accountability. 

As the agency’s senior accountable official, I established a steering committee comprised of senior managers from across the agency to monitor Recovery Act planning and implementation on a 

weekly basis. The Inspector General sits on this committee, and 

the Office of Management and Budget representatives are also routinely included. When recipient reporting begins in October we will 

be able to provide on the ground level details of spending and more 

importantly tangible results. 

Of the $7.2 billion made available to EPA thus far, we have already obligated to the States over $5.9 billion, over 82 percent. And 

I am pleased to report that this number has nearly quadrupled 

since Administrator Jackson appeared before this Committee 3 

months ago. 

We are also continuing to improve our processes in order to 

adapt to the new requirements of the Recovery Act, such as the 

Buy-American provision and the green project reserve. And you 

10 

will see in my written testimony we have already made several 

success stories to tell as well. 

I look forward to continuing the work with this Committee, our 

Federal, State and tribal partners, and members of the public as 

we work to effectively implement the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 with oversight, accountability and transparency. 

Thank you again for inviting me to testify today, and I look forward to answering any questions that you might have. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Hooks. We will have a number 

of questions for you. Mr. Salt, welcome back. When you first came 

before this Committee you had kind of a hard time. And you were 

very candid, and I appreciate that. So welcome back. 

Mr. SALT. Thank you, sir. Chairman Oberstar, Ranking Member 

Mica, distinguished Members of the Committee, I am Terrence 

‘‘Rock’’ Salt, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil 

Works. Thank you for the opportunity to testify again to discuss 

the Army’s implementation of the civil works appropriation within 

the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

The accomplishment of Corps of Engineers civil works projects 

through the Recovery Act funding has begun to contribute to the 

Nation’s safety, economy, environment, and quality of life. The Act 

provides funding to the Corps to achieve these results through the 

development and restoration of the Nation’s water and related resources. Funding also supports our permitting activities for protection of the Nation’s regulated waters and wetlands and cleanup of 

sites contaminated as a result of the Nation’s early efforts to develop atomic weapons. 

All told, the discretionary funding for the civil works in the Recovery Act is $4.6 billion and is provided in six accounts. Within 

the total program, the majority of funds was provided for activities 

in the Operation and Maintenance and Construction accounts. As 

of July 17th, financial obligations totaled $694 million, of which 

$648 million were for contracts and outlays that totaled $84 million. Our most recent update as of July 24th raises the obligations 

total to $768 million; $708 million of that is for contracts, with the 

outlay total raised to $100 million. 

More than half of the available Recovery Act funds for civil 

works are scheduled for financial obligation from May through September of 2009. During that period over 1,000 contract actions are 

scheduled such as award of new contracts, options, or task orders. 

This brisk pace will continue through December 2009, at which 

time about two-thirds of the Civil Works Recovery Act funds will 

have been obligated. Through July 17th, awards to small businesses totaled $222 million, or 34 percent of the total obligated. 73 percent of our contract 

actions to date involve small businesses, over 460 actions. These 

numbers do not include the local small businesses that are hired 

by the larger companies as their subcontractors as they proceed 

with this work. 

The civil works projects funded with Recovery Act funds were selected to achieve most of the work through contracting and to 

award the contracts in a short period of time. We believe this approach maximizes private sector employment impacts. Stimulus efVerDate Aug 31 2005 17:00 Dec 14, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\51436 JASON
11 

fects begin with the contract award because that is when the contractor begins to hire workers, order materials and equipment, and 

take other steps to complete the work creating additional indirect 

benefits throughout the economy. As a result, we are finding that 

the stimulus impacts are more closely related to the visible start 

of Recovery Act projects and the contract awards for these projects 

rather than the subsequent outlays which provide payments to contractors for work they have completed or for supplies and equipment they have already purchased. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your chart that you started our hearing with because it makes that point I was trying to make; a point 

you were making here as to how that stimulus part works. 

Just last week I was in Arizona and visited one of our Recovery 

Act project sites, the Tres Rios Ecosystem Restoration Project, and 

spoke to the representative of the contractor. In June, he was 

awarded a $12 million contract for work, and I asked him what the 

impact of this Recovery Act project was. He said, but for the Recovery Act, he would have shut down, he would have had to let go the 

contract team that he had on-site. He said he had 120 people directly related on the work, and when he added in his subcontractors it added up to 250 people just on that one contract. 

More importantly to me, though, was when I met with folks from 

the City of Phoenix. Their enthusiasm and their support for the 

project was partly with respect to the employment, but more importantly the fact that important work that wasn’t able to be budgeted 

was being accomplished, work that is important to the city, important to the Federal interest and work that was meeting the goals 

of the Stimulus Act. 

I think we have to do a better job of explaining how this, not just 

in the job creation, but in the work that we are doing and the overall effect of the stimulus, is actually happening, and we are not 

doing a good enough job of explaining that. 

Overall, the investment of Civil Works Recovery Act funds will 

be invested in over 800 projects directly supporting over 50,000 

jobs. In addition to the direct job support, these investments will 

support numerous indirect jobs in industries supplying material 

and equipment. 

Finally, investment civil works projects create lasting positive 

economic impacts long after the short-term effects of the funded 

construction and maintenance or repair activities have faded. At 

$4.6 billion, the Recovery Act provides resources for the civil works 

program to ensure investments for important and high priority 

projects that will support the stimulus goals directed by the Congress. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, for 

this opportunity to testify on the Recovery Act program for the 

Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works program. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your testimony. I 

will have a number of questions when we conclude all the witnesses. And now Mr. Costa for Public Building Service. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you. And good morning, Chairman Oberstar, 

Ranking Member Mica, and Members of the Committee. My name 

is Tony Costa, and I am the Acting Commissioner of the General 

Services Administration’s Public Building Service. 

12 

Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today to discuss 

GSA’s contributions to our Nation’s economic recovery through the 

green modernization and construction of our buildings. I have submitted my written statement for the record. Today I will highlight 

the significant progress we have made since our Acting Administrator Paul Prouty testified in front of this Committee in April. 

On March 31st you received a list of 254 projects in all 50 States, 

the District of Columbia and four U.S. Territories where GSA will 

spend $5.5 billion of Recovery Act funding to repair and green our 

existing Federal buildings and construct new high performance 

green buildings. 

Three months ago Mr. Prouty committed to this Committee that GSA would award $1 billion of Recovery Act funding by August 1st. 

I am pleased to report that we not only met that goal, we exceeded 

it. As of this morning our obligation stood at just under $1.1 billion. This first billion will fund 120 projects in 42 States, plus the 

District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. It will allow GSA to construct six new land ports of entry, eight new Federal buildings and 

implement over 100 high performance green building projects in existing GSA buildings. At least 20 of these 120 projects are already 

under construction, the rest will begin soon. 

We intend to award the remaining funds on an equally aggressive schedule. The second billion dollars will be awarded by the end 

of the calendar year, with an additional $2 billion by the end of 

March 2010. In one year GSA will obligate $4 billion, over three 

times the volume of work the Public Building Service typically 

awards in a year, and we are on track to obligate $5 billion by the 

end of fiscal year 2010. Over 70 percent of the funding will flow 

into the economy within the next 8 months. 

To get this work done we have streamlined our business processes to ensure these projects are delivered on time, on budget, and 

on green. We established standard scopes of work, performance 

specifications, technical guides, and contract templates to facilitate 

rapid project award. We have awarded national and regional contracts to support recovery reporting, tracking and contract management, and we are taking additional steps to accelerate contract execution. 

The investments we make in our public buildings will help stimulate job growth, reduce our backlog of repair and alteration needs, 

reduce energy consumption and improve environmental performance of our inventory. According to a 2008 study assessing green 

building performance, green Federal buildings on average use onequarter less energy than the national average, cost 13 percent 

lower to maintain, have higher tenant satisfaction, and emit onethird less carbon dioxide. 

Although behind schedule, I am also pleased to provide an update on the $3 million of Recovery Act funding provided for on-thejob preapprenticeship and apprenticeship training programs. Under 

these programs GSA will provide training opportunities for individuals affected by the economic downturn. A request for proposals for 

the apprenticeship and preapprenticeship programs was issued this 

morning to interested firms and community-based organizations. 

We anticipate multiple awards for preapprenticeship programs on 

September 9th. 

13 

In closing, I would like to highlight that we have taken advantage of the current market conditions and have awarded projects 

at lower costs than we originally estimated. Our preliminary analyses show that our larger projects were awarded at 8 to 10 percent 

below the estimated cost. We will continue to take advantage of 

market conditions and identify and track all project savings. 

Chairman Oberstar, Ranking Member Mica and Members of this 

Committee, this concludes my prepared statement. I am thrilled to 

report that we have exceeded our original commitment of $1 billion 

by August 1st. We look forward to working with you and Members 

of the Committee as we continue with this important work. I am 

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

this Committee may have. 

Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Costa. We will have questions for 

you. 

And Mr. Ashley, Assistant Administrator For Grant Programs at 

FEMA, welcome. Glad to have you here. 

Mr. ASHLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Oberstar, 

Ranking Member Mica, and Members of the Committee, my name 

is Ross Ashley, and I serve as the Assistant Administrator at the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Grant Programs Directorate. 

On behalf of the Administrator Fugate, it is a privilege to appear 

before you today to discuss how FEMA is implementing the Assistance to Firefighters Fire Station Construction Grant Program as 

provided for under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

of 2009, which will improve the capabilities of the Nation’s Fire 

Service while aiding the economies of many American communities. 

FEMA’s Grant Programs Directorate is comprised of dedicated 

professionals with years of experience in the planning, execution, 

management and monitoring of Federal grant programs. Currently, 

GPD manages 52 different disaster and nondisaster programs. 

GPD makes between 6,000 and 7.000 individual grants annually, 

which total between $7 billion and $10 billion in Federal financial 

assistance. GPD is proud of its professionalism. It is also proud of 

its record of cooperation with both the field, the constituents it 

serves, and with the Congress and the development of the programs it administers. Every grant program GPD develops and administers is marked by a high level of outreach, discussion, and collaboration with the communities, the individuals, and the stakeholders the grant program is designed to help. 

The Assistance to Firefighters Fire Station Construction Grant 

Program is no different. FEMA and GPD have a long record of 

working closely with the Nation’s Fire Service. GPD’s portfolio includes the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program and the Staffing For Adequate Fire and Emergency Response or SAFER Grant 

Program. Our partnership with the Fire Service is demonstrated 

through the process by which each near AFG and SAFER programs 

are developed. Each year FEMA convenes a panel of Fire Service 

professionals to assist in the development of funding priorities for 

the coming year. This also provides an opportunity to discuss any 

changes in program requirements. 

14 

The development of the Assistance to Firefighters Fire Station 

Construction Grant Program did not differ from the development of 

GPD’s other AFG programs. As with the other AFG programs, GPD 

consulted and worked with a panel of Fire Service professionals 

representing the nine major Fire Service organizations to develop 

funding priorities and other implementation for the Fire Station 

Construction Grant Program. In keeping with the goals of the ARA 

to not only assist the Fire Service but more broadly assist in the 

economic revitalization of the communities fire departments serve, 

GPD collaborated with additional stakeholder organizations in the 

development of the Fire Station Construction Grant Program. 

These groups represent the Nation’s towns, cities, counties and 

States and included the National Association of Counties, the National Governors’ Association, the National League of Cities, U.S. 

Conference of Mayors, and many others. 

Our collaboration and outreach will extend through the Fire Station Construction Grant award process. Fire Station Construction 

Grant awards are competitive and will be based on the funding priorities provided by the Fire Service and on peer reviews by panels 

comprised of representatives of the Fire Service. The ARA provides 

a total of $787 billion, including additional Federal assistance to 

State and local communities. Of that, $510 million was provided to 

support FEMA’s efforts to enhance the security of our Nation’s 

ports and transit systems and to enhance the capabilities of the 

Nation’s Fire Service by funding the construction, renovation or 

modification of fire stations. Specifically, the ARA designated $210 

million to support these fire station construction and renovation efforts. 

On May 29, 2009, 100 days after ARA enactment, FEMA released the grant guidance and application materials for the Fire 

Station Construction Grant Program, thus opening the application 

period. It is our belief that this initiative will directly assist the 

Nation in achieving the objectives of the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act. Under the Fire Station Construction Grant Program, funds will be awarded directly to non-Federal fire departments or to State and local governments that fund or operate fire 

departments. 

Under Fire Station Construction Grants there is no match or cost 

share requirement, and Fire Station Construction Grant funds will 

cover 100 percent of the project’s cost. The immediate result will 

be an infusion of funding that supports local construction. This 

local construction will in turn create new jobs, services, purchases 

and enhance essential services. 

The Fire Station Construction Grant funds are also a direct investment in public safety. Funding under this program will enable 

fire departments to replace or renovate unsafe or uninhabitable 

structures. These investments in infrastructure will enable fire departments to enhance response capabilities and fire protection coverage, better protecting communities from fire-related hazards and 

help ensure firefighter safety. 

To maximize the benefit of the ARA funding FEMA limited for 

each individual project within a grant application to $5 million. 

There is, however, no limit on the number of projects that can be 

included in an application, as long as the total amount of funds reVerDate Aug 31 2005 17:00 Dec 14, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\51436 JASON
15 

quested does not exceed the $15 million statutory cap set forth by 

ARA. 

Fire Station Construction Grants application period closed on 

July 10, 2009. By the close GDP received over 6,000 Fire Station 

Construction Grant applications requesting a little over $9 billion 

in Federal assistance. Application reviews are currently under way, 

and we expect that all grants under the Fire Station Construction 

Program will be awarded before the end of the fiscal year. 

Mr. Chairman, I will conclude my statement by emphasizing the 

commitment that we at the Department of Homeland Security from 

Secretary Napolitano to Administrator Fugate to myself have for 

the goals of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in providing the critical assistance being made available through the Fire 

Station Construction Grant Program. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Mica, and Members 

of the Committee, for allowing me to testify today. I am happy to 

answer any questions you may have on the subject. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you for your presentation. I do have a 

number of questions which I will come to. 

And now we have Mr. Rajk, Deputy Assistant Commandant for 

Resources at the Coast Guard. Welcome. 

Mr. RAJK. Thank you, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today on the Coast Guard’s progress in 

executing funding received through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The strength of our service relies squarely on the 

dedication and courage of our people. 

Over the past year Coast Guard men and women continue the 

consistent trend of premier service to the public. They perform superbly in the heartland, the ports, at sea, and around the globe to 

safeguard America’s maritime interests. Men and women of the 

Coast Guard require capable, safe, and reliable assets and facilities 

and funding to achieve mission success. I appreciate the Congress’ 

recognition of these needs through your continued strong support 

of the Coast Guard. 

Specifically, with the $240 million appropriated in the Recovery 

Act, the Coast Guard is addressing critical priorities for the safe 

and unobstructed navigation on the Nation’s waterways, servicewide shore infrastructure deficiencies, and replacing obsolete and 

often inoperable equipment on our high endurance cutters. 

With respect to bridges, there is $142 million, which permits 

completion of four projects to alter bridges identified by the Coast 

Guard under its Truman-Hobbs Act authority as unreasonably obstructive to navigation. These four bridges are older, with more 

narrow navigable openings, which result in significant risk to the 

people and cargo traveling on the bridges and the mariners 

transiting the openings. 

Completion of these construction projects will improve the safe 

and efficient navigation on U.S. waterways, will benefit the construction sector in local communities, avoids future costs to repair 

or fix structures and vessels and leverages the $120 million previously appropriated to these projects. 

Mr. RAJK. In total, the act funding results in a $262 million positive stimulative impact on the economies of Iowa, Illinois, Alabama 

16 

and Texas, as well as through national suppliers of equipment and 

materials associated with the bridge construction. 

Without the act funding, these projects would not have been able 

to begin construction this soon. As of today, we have obligated just over $51 million, or 36 percent of the Iraq funds, and expect to have obligated 100 percent by 

the end of this fiscal year. These four projects will create an estimated 1,200 jobs. Of the $98 million appropriated the for acquisition construction improvement of the Coast Guard’s capital account, $88 million will be used for the construction, renovation and 

repair of vital shore facilities that provide support necessary to execute a full range of mission needs. 

An estimated 19 percent of this amount has been set aside for small business. This includes the $7 million already under contract 

for completing a 26-unit family housing project in southeast Alaska 

for the crew of the Coast Guard Cutter Sycamore. The remaining $10 million will address high-endurance cutter 

engineering changes. Over the past several years, the Coast 

Guard’s aging high-endurance cutters have experienced a significant increase in major system casualties, resulting in over 300 lost 

cutter days per year. 

These engineering changes target the top mechanical and electrical system mission degraders and are necessary to improve existing capabilities and to reduce system casualties. We expect to execute 25 to 30 percent of these funds this fiscal year, with another 

50 percent executed in the first quarter of fiscal year 10. 

Mr. Chairman, there was no question that the funding provided 

through the Recovery Act will improve the Coast Guard’s ability to 

execute its missions. Additionally, with an estimated 1,400 jobs created, this funding is expected to have a significant impact on local 

economies. 

I am grateful for your continued support of the United States 

Coast Guard and the opportunity to speak with you today. I am 

pleased to answer your questions. 

Thank you, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Wender tells me your name is properly pronounced Rajk. 

Mr. RAJK. Rajk, sir. If we were in Slovakia it would be pronounced Rajk. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thought it had to be a Slovak name, but there 

are some consonants missing from your name, from the spelling of 

it. It was Anglicized when they came through Ellis Island. 

Mr. RAJK. Yes, sir, 1911 through Ellis Island. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I know. It happened to our family too, the Oberstars and the Posta Schlemcheks, they all got their names changed 

by those Irish immigration officers. 

That’s true. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. All right. Ms. Siggerud, you are the clean-up batter here. We look forward to your testimony. 

Ms. SIGGERUD. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I 

am pleased to be here to discuss our work examining selected 

States’ use of funds for highway infrastructure projects under the 

Recovery Act. As you know, the act is far-reaching and includes a 

number of transparency and oversight mechanisms. 

17 

GAO’s role, as established in the act—excuse me, I am sorry. 

GAO’s role in establishing the act is to review use of funds by 

States and localities. We are doing so by following major Recovery 

Act programs in 16 States in the District of Columbia, as well as 

monitoring trends nationwide. 

The highway program is one of our major focuses. My statement 

today will draw from our July 8 update on the Recovery Act and 

will cover first how States have used the $26.7 billion apportioned 

to them in the Recovery Act for highway projects. Second, the steps 

they have taken to meet the act’s requirements; and, third, GAO’s 

other work on transportation under the Recovery Act. 

As of 2 weeks ago, $16.8 billion of apportioned funds for highways have been obligated for over 5,700 projects nationwide. This 

is 63 percent of apportioned funds. 

Page 3 of my statement shows the types of projects States have 

selected. Almost half of these funds are for pavement improvement 

projects, like reconstructing or rehabilitating deteriorated roads. 

State officials told us they selected these types of projects because 

they did not require extensive environmental clearances, could be 

quickly obligated in bid, could employ people quickly and could be 

completed within 3 years. 

About 17 percent of Recovery Act funds were obligated for increasing capacity through pavement-widening projects, while 12 

percent is going for bridge projects. FHWA’s reimbursements to 

States, which occur after contracts have been awarded and contractors paid, are proceeding at a slower rate. As of 2 weeks ago, DOT 

had outlaid $401 million or 2.4 percent of obligations for highway 

projects. 

However, we noted a significant increase in outlays in the last 

month. In fact, outlays grew significantly faster than obligations 

over that time period. States have been getting good deals in bidding these projects. They told us that due to competition and other 

factors, the bid prices had been between 5 to 30 percent below estimated costs. 

Turning now to the act’s requirements, every State met the requirements that 50 percent of funds be obligated by June 30. We 

found more variation in how States were implementing the requirement to give priority to projects that can be completed within 3 

years and that are located in economically distressed areas, as defined by the Public Works and Economic Development Act. 

While the State officials said that they considered project readiness, including the 3-year completion requirement, we found inconsistent approaches to giving priority to selecting projects in economically distressed areas and how they identified these areas. 

Because States had known for some time that the so-called 

ready-to-go-projects would be a priority, States had taken steps to 

identify projects months before the act. But the act added priorities 

for economically distressed areas, requiring States to apply a new 

criterion within a relatively short time. Any inconsistencies we saw 

included applying criteria not identified in the Public Works Act; 

for example, States using long standing allocation formulas they 

typically use for distributing Federal aid highway funds within the 

States. 

18 

Several States also developed their own criteria, like foreclosure 

rates and percentage increases in unemployment. This variation results in part from unclear guidance from the Federal Highway Administration on how to apply this part of the act. Lack of coordination within the Department of Commerce, which defines economically distressed areas for its grant programs, was also a program. 

We recommended the DOT clarify its guidance, and the Department has committed to working with Commerce to develop new 

guidance. We review that and continue to follow this issue. 

Finally, while there were some initial bumps in the road, DOT 

has determined that all States but one met the requirement that 

the Governors certify they will maintain their level of effort. This 

means the States committed to maintaining their level of highway 

spending at the level planned on the date of enactment. However, 

given the significant fiscal distress in some States and the technical challenges in determining whether the States are actually 

maintaining their planned spending, we will also continue to follow 

this issue. 

Mr. Chairman, our future work in the States will add key transit 

capital programs for our September report. We will also look at obligations of highway funds at the local and metropolitan planning 

organization level and contracting practices in the States. 

We also recently issued a positive review of DOT’s initial actions in implementing the Secretary’s $1.5 billion discretionary grant 

program. We also provided observations and testimony on FRA’s 

strategic plan for allocating high-speed rail funds, and have additional work planned in the rail area. 

We will, of course, also be happy to work with the Committee to 

select other areas for review. 

This concludes my statement. I am happy to answer any questions the Committee may have. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Ms. Siggerud. 

As always, GAO’s work is splendid, it is precise, it is thoughtprovoking, and you have provided a better chart on utilization than 

DOT has done. And it is very instructive, because you break down, 

as we expected you would do, the obligation of funds on highway 

projects, pavement improvement, widening, new road structure, 

bridge improvement, replacement, new bridge construction and so 

on. 

It is very, very instructive for us to see how these dollars are 

used and where they are being allocated, and I will come back to 

you a little bit later. 

But I want to start with EPA, and I know each of our Subcommittee Chairs and Ranking Members and other Members of the 

Committee will have very specific questions on their respective 

areas of jurisdiction. 

Mr. Hooks, your testimony was considerably lacking in specifics 

about projects and projects underway and jobs created. EPA was 

slow out of the blocks because we heard that—we heard that there 

are problems with the Buy American Act; that many communities 

in building interceptor sewer projects or pump stations—pumps 

aren’t made in America. The act requires Buy American, and we 

all thought that was a good thing. But it would have been useful 

if EPA had said, oh, there is a problem here; some of the equipVerDate Aug 31 2005 17:00 Dec 14, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\51436 JASON
19 

ment to be purchased here isn’t made in America. We could have 

crafted exemptions. 

So tell me—and I also heard from members of the Canadian Parliament who were concerned about their major producer pumps, 

and regularly sell them in the U.S. marketplace, but they were not 

allowed to do so under the Recovery Act. 

So what have you done to address that issue and how widespread 

is this Buy American Act as an impediment getting projects underway? 

Mr. HOOKS. In some respects I think it is almost too early to tell. 

At this point in time, we have actually awarded ten waivers for the 

Buy American provisions associated with the act. And I think we 

are doing that fairly expeditiously. 

One of the things that I know that we are trying to do and that 

we are doing, is meeting quite extensively with the contractors that 

are involved with producing and constructing these projects within 

the form of Web sites, Webinars, what have you. 

Right now we are turning these waiver requests around in 2 

weeks, as we are learning more and we are able to modify and 

produce national waivers and also site-specific waivers as time goes 

on. 

To date we haven’t denied any waivers. I think we are doing a 

good job in terms of educating the contracting community, and also 

we are learning as we go along as well. So at this point in time, 

we anticipate that there will be additional waivers from the Buy 

American provisions. 

Of course, our goal is for all of the projects to be bought in America. But, in some instances, we are finding that is not possible. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. As you proceed—and thank you for that response—but as you proceed and you encounter these issues and 

questions, please have your staff consult with our Committee staff 

on both sides of the aisle here so that we understand what is going 

on. 

But, you know, the front line of this program, as at the highway 

and the bridge program and the transit program, is at the States 

and MPO and transit agency level. In this case, the SRF, the State 

Revolving Loan Funds, I noted as I went through our State-byState tabulation that, surprisingly, South Carolina doesn’t have 

any funds allocated. Is that because they don’t have an SRF? 

Let me ask, first, Mr. Brown. Are you aware of this; that the 

State of South Carolina does not have a State revolving loan fund 

program? 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Well, they do have a revolving 

fund program. I am not sure why they are not requesting those 

funds. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, they stuck out like a sore thumb to me last 

night, as I read through the chart, that South Carolina has no 

funds allocated to it. 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. I noticed that same thing, and 

I noticed that Mississippi doesn’t have any either. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Is that that they didn’t report, Mr. Hooks, or 

what? 

Mr. HOOKS. At this time there are six States that have not received their allocation. I would predict they are within one or 2 

20 

weeks of receiving their allocation. But you are right. At this point 

in time, South Carolina has not received their allocation. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. They have not received—— 

Mr. HOOKS. We have not obligated the money to South Carolina 

at this point; yes, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Is that because they did not request—or what is 

the reason for that? 

Mr. HOOKS. Well, all of the States will submit intended use plans 

to the agency for us to review, where they are in that process. I 

believe they have actually submitted their use plans. We are in the 

process of approving it now. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Brown, I will yield to you now at this time 

if you want to follow up on that matter. 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 

noted that we had some problems at the administrative level accepting some of these stimulus funds. These funds were include in 

that original 700 million, was it? 

Mr. HOOKS. Actually, I am not sure what funds you are referring 

to. 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. I know the Governor had problems accepting stimulus money. I am sure you must have been 

somewhat involved in that. So I guess what I am trying to find is 

the right question to ask you—why that South Carolina is not included, and what should I do in order to be able to implement the 

progress? 

Mr. HOOKS. I am not sure if that contributed to part of the delay 

or not. 

I do know that for the six States that have not received their 

funding, we actually are personally visiting those States to offer 

any sort of technical assistance that we can. We have visited South 

Carolina and intend to expedite it as quickly as possible. 

Again, I would predict that probably within a week or 2 weeks, 

those funds will be available. 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Okay. If you could keep me in 

the loop on that, I would appreciate it. Anything we might do from 

this level to make it work. 

Mr. HOOKS. I appreciate that. 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. I know we have funded this, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I am not taking away from your time, Mr. Brown. 

I am yielding you my time. I thought it was an appropriate moment to intercede. 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. You also report that State revolving loan funds 

are leveraging funds. I know in Minnesota I got a report that of 

the $123 million, the SRF had planned to use some State funds 

and local dollars and various programs to leverage that into $502 

million. But they are woefully behind. I don’t understand this. You 

have done your job. They have allocated their money. Why don’t 

they have these out to contract? We have only eight projects on 

which work has begun. 

In fact, I asked the Underground Utility Contractors Association 

to give me a list of the sites. I expected 15 or 20 that I could visit 

21 

during August and personally observe a project. They had only four 

or five. You have eight listed here. 

Have you followed up with these States and prodded them and 

said, what’s going on? 

Mr. HOOKS. Yes. Again, like I said, we actually are visiting the 

States. We are concerned as well. We do know that everybody is 

working as expeditiously as possible. We have accelerated many of 

our activities, and we know that the States are accelerating many 

of their activities as well. 

One of the things that I think we had always predicted was 

starting in the months of July and August, particularly because of 

the construction season, we expected these numbers to ramp up 

significantly. We are starting to see that. In fact, the past 4 weeks 

the pace of outlays has actually increased 85 percent. I suspect in 

August it will probably even double that, maybe even exponentially. 

I think just based on the bidding process, on the borrowing process and the State processes, which vary from State to State, it has 

taken this long to get to this point. Some States have been more 

aggressive in terms of their pace versus others, but we are trying 

to get everybody up as quickly as possible. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I am not going to pursue through all of the witnesses—I just have to ask, Mr. Salt, the legislation prohibited the 

Corps from funding new starts. Is that a mistake? 

Mr. SALT. Sir, I would never say you made a mistake. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. We didn’t make the mistake. It wasn’t our job. It 

was the Appropriations Committee that said no new starts. We 

were all for new starts. 

Mr. SALT. Sir, sorry I can’t tell if it was a mistake or not. I think, 

obviously, we would have had a different list of work. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I probably could have worded it differently, or 

you can rephrase your answer. But what the question is really getting at: Don’t you have a number of new-start projects that could 

have been, bang, underway, just like that? 

Mr. SALT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. All right. That is enough. I am sure in the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Mr. Brown has cited a number of 

projects. 

I will cease there and recognize the gentleman from Florida. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. First let me turn to the GAO representative, Ms. Siggerud. You testified again about some of the difficulty 

that you all reviewed, and uncovered in trying to get some of this 

money out. You talked about the—I thought you said Federal Highway Administration and DOT failed to clarify some of the terms, 

and then you also said that the Department of Commerce also had 

difficulty, I guess, in defining the economically depressed areas. 

Can you elaborate on that? 

Ms. SIGGERUD. Yes. The act, the Recovery Act did require that 

State detainees give priority to projects that had two characteristics: They could be completed within 3 years and were in an economically distressed area. And that definition of economically distressed area is within the Public Works Act that uses a definition 

that Department of Commerce uses to provide grants. 

22 

The initial guidance from the Federal Highway Administration 

was much vaguer in the way that it described what an economically distressed area was, and provided a fair amount of, shall we 

say, flexibility to the States, rather than referring specifically to 

the set of criteria laid out in the Public Works Act and as administered by the Department of Commerce. We are seeing progress as 

the Department of Commerce and Department of Transportation 

now work together to arrive on a set of criteria that can be used. 

Mr. MICA. They haven’t agreed on the criteria yet, or there is 

confusion at least. 

Ms. SIGGERUD. Yes. 

Mr. MICA. And is it true that 70 percent of the 17 billion obligated so far is going to go primarily for repaving or some widening? 

Is that what you found in your study? 

Ms. SIGGERUD. What we found is that 49 percent is going for 

paving and 17 percent for widening, the capacity addition-type 

projects. 

Mr. MICA. So we add them up? 

Ms. SIGGERUD. Right. 

Mr. MICA. And, again, I use the figure of 6 percent for new—let 

me see here. 

Ms. SIGGERUD. There is 6 percent for new road construction, yes. 

Mr. MICA. For new road construction, new road and bridge construction. So those would be bigger, longer-term projects. 

Ms. SIGGERUD. Right. 

Mr. MICA. So a very small amount. 

Ms. SIGGERUD. Mr. Mica, we did find in the State of Florida, the 

discussion earlier that the State of Florida planned to spend a significantly higher portion on new bridges and on new highways than 

other States. 

Mr. MICA. I don’t know if you have seen this, but what we did 

was take the amount of money that was spent as of the 27th—I 

guess it is 9/16, but it is still under a billion—47, $48 billion total. 

And then we took the States with the highest unemployment and 

the figures show just a few million dollars in some of the States 

with very high unemployment. 

Rhode Island is interesting, too. They are supposed to have a 

bridge project—I think it was touted—some of their bridge deficiencies, and it looks like most of the money didn’t—well, the little 

bit that has been spent, nothing has been going for those major 

bridge or deficient obsolete bridge projects. 

Are you aware that this—what is happening here with money 

not going to places with high unemployment? 

Ms. SIGGERUD. Yes. Let me mention. Excuse me, I am sorry, I 

am getting over a cold. Let me mention a couple of things. The way 

the Recovery Act set up the highway portion of the act was using 

an existing formula to distribute these funds. It is not based necessarily on economic—— 

Mr. MICA. There is a problem of clarification of that. And then 

you said there are problems on the Department of Commerce even 

defining the depressed area. 

Ms. SIGGERUD. Right. 

Mr. MICA. Again, we are trying to get to the root of what the 

problem is, as opposed to why we don’t have major amounts of 

23 

money going on significant projects that will be longer term, and 

you have done a good job in compiling some of that information for 

us. 

Let me turn, since I don’t have too much time, to the FEMA representative. Mr. Ashley, is it? You have 6,000 requests. It seems to 

take sort of an inordinate amount of time. You said that you won’t 

get those—the money out until when—or the contracts out until 

the end of the year? 

Mr. ASHLEY. 30 September. 

Mr. MICA. How many do you have out right now? 

Mr. ASHLEY. None, absolutely zero. The application period just 

recently closed and they are currently in the peer-review process. 

Mr. MICA. Are you going to do it incrementally? 

Mr. ASHLEY. No, sir. Unlike in the AFG program, we are going 

to roll these out to get them out faster at the time they are reviewed. 

Mr. MICA. It won’t be until the end. Maybe we could loan you 

some staff during the recess to speed up the process on both sides 

of the aisle. 

Mr. ASHLEY. You have to remember, sir, that this is a completely 

new program, zero authorization language for this program, and 

the development and the staff—— 

Mr. MICA. I know. But, again, our job and our intent was to get 

this money out in a hurry. 

GSA, Mr. Costa. Mr. Costa, you have got—you outlined 5.5 billion for green Federal buildings and 4.5 for converting green— 

buildings to green. Do you know how much money has gone out so 

far in that effort? 

Mr. COSTA. Of the $5.5 billion we have obligated, 1.1 billion as 

of this time. 

Mr. MICA. And actually how much has gone out? 

Mr. COSTA. The contracts have been awarded. 

Mr. MICA. Yes. I have $34 million; is that correct? 

Mr. COSTA. I have no idea what that number refers to, to be honest. 

Mr. MICA. Well, I can’t imagine you coming to a hearing without 

knowing the amount of money that has been expended so far. Can 

you get that to the Committee? 

Mr. COSTA. Yes, sure can. 

Mr. MICA. But the information I have is 34 million—it is from 

your Web site. 

And then I also notice—and we will make this part of the 

record—that you have a total of $11.7 billion in unobligated GSA 

funds as of 7/28/09. I will put this in the record. And you have outlined ways of which you are going to dispose of a fair portion of 

that. 

When will you be able to tell the Committee a good schedule on 

which you will be able to deal with all of the unobligated funds? 

Mr. COSTA. We can follow up with a detailed schedule. Much of 

those, for instance—— 

Mr. MICA. But 34 million out of 4.5 billion doesn’t sound like you 

are really greening. Sounds like a little bit of lagging behind, even 

in that program. 

24 

Mr. COSTA. Well, Congressman, again, I can’t really—the $34 

million—— 

Mr. MICA. I know. But you are the contracting agency. This isn’t 

like maybe FEMA has new responsibilities. You guys do this all the 

time, don’t you, or the Federal Government? 

Mr. COSTA. Congressman, the way—I am sure the $34 million 

must refer to outlays, actual expenditures. 

Mr. MICA. Yes. 

Mr. COSTA. And just like any other project, even a home renovation, it is not a good idea to pay your contractor before they do the 

work. 

Mr. MICA. Before the job is done. But so far—— 

Mr. OBERSTAR. They make progress payments. 

Mr. COSTA. Yes, they do. 

Mr. MICA. But 34 million out of 4.5 billion, that is like the highway money, too. They have obligated now 59 percent. But we have 

actually spent 1 billion today. 

So, you know, the money has to be spent to pay people to work, 

to get them employed, to get them to jobs. And, unfortunately, it 

appears in a couple of areas we are falling behind. But we know 

you can do better, and maybe we can send you some Majority or 

Minority staff during the recess to help you along, or at least to 

nudge you along. Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. We will be continuing this review of that. That 

is the purpose of this—to this review—is to understand how 

projects are moving, and perhaps why they are not. 

Now the Chair of the Subcommittee, Ms. Norton. 

Mr. MICA. Before we go to Ms. Norton, just one second. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I am happy to. 

Mr. MICA. I do want for the record and request in writing that 

we get the rest of the plan for utilization of those—the total 

amount that I gave, $11.7 billion—to the Committee as part of the 

record. I would ask that. Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Without objection. That document will be made 

part of the record, and we look forward to GSA explaining the unobligated balance issue. 

Mr. COSTA. We will be happy to, thank you. 

[The information follows:] 

25 


Insert offset folio 76 here 51436.076
26 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Ms. Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Indeed, the dialogue 

you have just been having about expenditures versus obligation is 

an important one to have, since the point here was to get the 

money into the economy. Now, once something is obligated, the 

money can be spent. 

You have testified that you expect in the first 8 months 70 percent will be, quote, flowing into the economy. Now, are you referring to funds going to people who are working? Are you simply referring to the amount of obligation in funds GSA shall have been 

done? Because this is an important difference here? 

Mr. COSTA. Yes. No question that 70 percent refers to obligations, not outlays. 

Ms. NORTON. To what extent can you hasten outlays? You are absolutely right, you are not going to pay somebody before the work 

is done. But the Ranking Member is right. You know, if somebody 

is doing some work, he has to be paid on a—what basis, what basis 

are people paid? 

Mr. COSTA. Basically when we award a contract, a construction 

contract, the contractor and GSA negotiate a schedule and payments are based on that schedule andcomplete—— 

Ms. NORTON. Well, you have got a billion dollars obligated, right? 

Mr. COSTA. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. And so how do you explain the difference, what the 

Ranking Member pointed out, between what appears to show up, 

$34 million, and all of that money having been obligated? 

Mr. COSTA. Well, the majority of our billion dollars of obligations 

occurred over the last 3 weeks. And so what happens very quickly 

is that contractors start to ramp up, design work occurs, hiring occurs. Hiring really can’t occur before a contract is awarded. 

Ms. NORTON. I understand that is an important difference. 

Would you get the Committee and the Subcommittee on a monthly 

basis the obligation and the expenditure amounts so that we can 

understand how much money is flowing into the economy? 

Because you do appear to be doing a good job in getting these 

funds obligated, and I do know that that is difficult, because of the 

necessary—necessary competition that we must do in all Federal 

contracts. As you could tell by my opening remarks, I am concerned 

about the apprentice and pre-apprenticeship program. Today the 

RFP is out; you expect it to be awarded in September. 

Given what you know and the preparations you were making all 

along, the fact that we are just getting an RFP out is extremely 

disappointing to me. I understand the preliminary work that has 

been done, but in light of that work, I would like to focus you on 

the fact that before you have done—before you even did an RFP, 

you had done a lot of preliminary work on where the unemployment is, on the kinds of organizations that are available. 

In light of that work, could we not shorten the time to award a 

contract so that we don’t blow the entire building season? Because 

the way it is—your schedule has it now— is you don’t even award 

a contract until September. And it looks like we are about to wave 

goodbye to much of the building season, at least in parts of the 

country. 

27 

Since you have done so much preliminary work, done so much 

preliminary screening, could you not shorten the amount of time to 

review the folks who have responded to your RFP so that you, perhaps, could get it out in the middle of August, say, instead of waiting until September or some kind of bureaucratic time frame that 

you usually set? 

Mr. COSTA. We will do our best to quicken the pace. 

Ms. NORTON. I would very much appreciate that quickening the 

pace, if at all possible, to the middle of August. 

I have to do double duty here. 

I do want to ask a question about St. Elizabeth’s. Here we have 

half a billion dollars that you have for the Department of Homeland Security headquarters. You also have some preliminary money 

that we had also gotten for you. 

The reason I was able to get the remainder of the money included in the stimulus package is jobs. Pure and simple jobs. This 

is your biggest project. It is the biggest project you have ever done. 

It is a compound. So you could have a real effect on the economy, 

certainly of this entire region. 

There are two parts of this project. One is building a building, 

and that building is the first building—— 

Mr. COSTA. Yes, the Coast Guard building. 

Ms. NORTON. The Coast Guard building. But the other is 

reusing—rehabilitation of historic sites, including the building that 

the Secretary will be in. 

Is there any reason, given the focus on the economy and on getting jobs, why GSA could not be doing the rehab work and the construction work at the same time, getting that money right out into 

the economy with jobs and all that implies? 

Mr. COSTA. We expect to award our first contract—— 

Ms. NORTON. Now, that contract is for buildings. Please, I have 

limited time. I am talking about two different kinds of work, both 

involving infrastructure, but very different work. Construction, 

that is what you have been focused on. I am putting another question to you. 

Is there any reason why you couldn’t have, given the focus on 

work, on jobs, and the fact that this is a huge project, that you 

could not begin with RFPs and all that goes with it, the rehabilitation work of the reused buildings, buildings to be reused on the old 

St. Elizabeth’s Campus, simultaneously with building the first new 

building? 

Mr. COSTA. The $350 million will be awarded in August. 

Ms. NORTON. For? 

Mr. COSTA. For the U.S. Coast Guard. And then the next tranche 

of money, which is in the stimulus package for $450 million, we 

have actually moved up the award from the beginning of fiscal year 

2011 to fiscal year 2010. That package includes construction, infrastructure, and renovation of—— 

Ms. NORTON. When will that be awarded? Excuse me. 

Mr. COSTA. By the end of fiscal year 2010, which is actually sooner than we expected 3 months ago. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, why could it not be awarded sooner? 

28 

Mr. COSTA. Just because we have to complete design to actually 

provide the construction documents so they can go out to bid. So 

that work is ongoing. 

Ms. NORTON. I think that I would like to have a discussion with 

staff on simultaneously pursuing very different kinds of work; that 

if we hastened the work and didn’t see them as two separate kinds 

of work, almost sequencing them, could get a fair amount of money 

into the economy. 

Mr. Chairman, I didn’t get to ask—you are having me do double 

duty here—FEMA is here. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes, but I have to go to other Members. They will 

stay. We are not going to let them go away. 

Ms. NORTON. I will wait until the next round. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. LoBiondo. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the panel for 

being here today. 

Earlier this year the Coast Guard informed the Committee—and 

Mr. Rajk, this is basically for you—the Coast Guard informed the 

Committee that it had a shore-side infrastructure backlog of about 

$1.1 billion. Mr. Cummings has talk about this. Mr. Oberstar, I 

know you are keenly aware of it. 

To say I was very disappointed that the stimulus bill only included 88 million is a tremendous understatement. It is only about 

7 percent of what is needed to address the backlog. And then to 

add to this high level of disappointment, the administration followed up with a one-time emergency appropriation, with the request of no funding for the construction. And this is very troubling. 

So my question is: Is the Coast Guard simply using the stimulus 

money to meet recurring annual needs? And if this is what they 

are doing, how is that stimulative? 

Mr. RAJK. Sir, thank you for your question. Essentially what we 

have looked at over the last several years, sir, is a capacity provided through the appropriations process to address our shore infrastructure. The Congress has been very supportive of that over 

the last 2 fiscal years in providing between 450- and $470 million 

for some of our highest priority shore infrastructure needs. 

This includes the funding that was provided in fiscal years regular appropriations 2009 and 2010—excuse me, 2008 and 2009—as 

well as the almost $300 million that was applied to the shore infrastructure in the hurricane supplemental at the end of fiscal year 

2008, sir. 

So the combination of that with the stimulus money, as we are 

trying to address those that appeared in the highest priority list or 

the highest portion of that list that we provided to the Congress 

previously. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Well, how is the Coast Guard going to manage 

the over $1 billion backlog, and isn’t this going to affect mission 

readiness and performance? 

Mr. RAJK. Sir, I would expect in future years the Coast Guard 

would address additional funding that would be required to address most of those needs, in the order of priority, with meeting the 

highest needs, sir. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Well, through you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Oberstar, 

I just can’t begin to find the words. 

29 

We always talk about the job that the Coast Guard does, and, 

once again, they are underrecognized, underappreciated and now 

tremendously underfunded. 

And I know, Mr. Chairman, you have called the shots as you see 

them—the good, the bad and the ugly—but I think we are missing—I think the administration missed a real opportunity here. We 

could have made a much needed investment into the Coast Guard. 

We keep talking about how much more we are asking them to 

do and how much we are depending on them. 

And I hope, Mr. Chairman, that through your influence and that 

of Mr. Cummings and this Committee and our Subcommittee, that 

we will find a way to remedy this tragedy that is once again happening to the Coast Guard right in front of our eyes. 

And just finally, Mr. Rajk, for you, in your testimony you said 

that there are seven shore-side projects that are being funded with 

the 88 million. Can you tell the Committee how much funding each 

project will receive? 

Mr. RAJK. Yes, sir. I think it is in my written statement that was 

submitted for the record, sir. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. Okay. I thank you. 

Again, Mr. Oberstar, we have talked about this on many occasions, and, with Mr. Cummings, I think we have got a very bipartisan effort on behalf of the Coast Guard. 

And as we go through these tremendous trying times with homeland security challenges and maritime antiterrorism initiatives, I 

think that we have got to find a way to raise a level of awareness 

for the Coast Guard and ensure that they have at least minimum 

funding necessary. And 88 million out of a $1.1 billion backlog, in 

my book, doesn’t even come close. Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, I concur with the gentleman, and when our 

Committee reported or contributed our portion to the Recovery 

Act—of course, this was done as an appropriation bill—we had over 

$8 billion for the Coast Guard. That got cut back before it went to 

the floor, but then it got cut back even more in conference. 

We anticipated funding. We envisioned funding for Coast Guard 

assets—cutters, and for the new ice breaker, a second ice breaker 

for the Great Lakes to facilitate coal and iron ore shipments and 

other agricultural products that shipped through the St. Lawrence 

Seaway but need the Great Lakes to get there. 

All that was cut back—and I have to be candid about it, with the 

participation of the White House—it was shortsighted, and that is 

why we are having these hearings. 

So the good, the bad and the ugly. 

Mr. LOBIONDO. The good, the bad and the ugly. I appreciate that. 

We went through this with the previous administration, with the 

Bush administration. Much to my dismay we got rolled—our Committee got rolled. Appropriators and the White House went out on 

these things. 

Mr. Chairman I have tremendous confidence in your ability to 

raise the level of awareness and be effective, along with other 

Members of the Committee, to make sure we don’t get rolled again. 

Not us being rolled, but the Coast Guard being shortchanged. 

These men and women who are putting their lives on the line, 

they don’t have these shore-side projects. If they don’t have the 

30 

money necessary, we are doing a terrible disservice to their service 

to our Nation, what they are giving back to this country, and we 

are doing a terrible disservice to the mission of the Coast Guard. 

And I thank you very much for the opportunity. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you for your continued vigilance and passion for—as Mr. Cummings—for this very, very important agency 

of government. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Ms. Brown. 

Ms. CORRINE BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Many Members think when we pass a bill, that it is the end. But 

I know, having been here for 17 years, it is the beginning. So I 

want to thank you, Mr. Oberstar, for having these hearings so we 

can do our job as far as accountability and oversight, and find out 

where we are. 

The Wall Street Journal recently did a study and said that only 

20 percent of the dollars was out and that Florida ranked dead last 

with the amount of funds. 

I want to know why that is the case, and is it something that 

the State of Florida—did we not apply for a waiver? 

What is the problem in getting the money out? Twenty percent 

of the dollars that we have put in the stimulus package, and Florida dead last. 

Everybody doesn’t have to speak at once. 

Ms. SIGGERUD. Ms. Brown, if I may. 

Ms. CORRINE BROWN OF FLORIDA. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. SIGGERUD. If you are referring to the highway projects, we 

looked at a number of States across the country, including the 

State of Florida, in our work. 

And the State of Florida does stand out somewhat from other 

States in terms of choosing projects that are largely new construction, both on the highway side and on the bridge side of the work. 

These are projects that are more complex and appear to be taking 

longer to bid and to get out to contract than some of the other 

States that we have reviewed. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. The gentlewoman wasn’t here at the outset, but 

I pointed out the States who were doing the best and those that 

were doing the worst. And Wyoming was doing the best, and Florida was 49th or 50th in getting their recovery funds under contract. 

Now, this is a partial explanation. 

But Mr. Mica and I are going to follow up on this hearing. And 

before our next hearing in September, we are going to write to 

those lagging States and DOTs and find out why you are not getting the projects out. 

Ms. CORRINE BROWN OF FLORIDA. Well, Mr. Chairman, you spoke 

to the Secretary of Transportation yesterday. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I did. 

Ms. CORRINE BROWN OF FLORIDA. So why don’t we invite her to 

come and give us an update at the next hearing? 

Mr. OBERSTAR. This hearing was to be on the other Federal agencies, and the next hearing will include those. So during August we 

will write to all these lagging indicator States and put them on notice and ask them for information and invite them to our next 

hearing, yes. 

31 

Ms. CORRINE BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you. Well, but water. 

Can you speak to water? We need it. 

Mr. HOOKS. Well, I would agree with you. In fact, the difference 

between obligations and outlays is tremendous. I don’t know what 

the specifics are for your particular State. The reporting requirements don’t start until October, and then we will have that data. 

But, you are right. The delta between obligation and outlays is 

tremendous. 

I think of the things—and when I first started this process, I actually kind of do this in two chunks. You know, I thought we needed—we, as Federal, speak to EPA. EPA needed to accelerate what 

we needed to do to make the money available to the States, obligate the fund. And then I thought we were really going to move 

into kind of a management and oversight mode. 

What I am realizing is that we have basically had to create another section of work for EPA, and that is to help the States get 

this money out. And that is what we are kind of readjusting ourselves to do now by either visiting the States, making our contract 

dollars available to the States, to a system with their solicitation 

and bids, to help them with difficulties in the Buy American provisions, doing whatever we can to facilitate the States increasing 

their outlays. 

You know, I think it is important to also bear in mind that the 

work actually starts before outlays actually start to be paid out. So 

there is a little bit of a small delta between how much work is actually taking place versus the outlays that you will see in some of 

the charts. 

But I agree with you, the overall work between delta and outlays 

is so large, there is a lot of work that has yet to be done. 

Ms. CORRINE BROWN OF FLORIDA. My last question: Have you 

found that the States are trying to use these dollars to balance the 

budget? I mean, we are all in a crunch. But if we bit the bullet to 

raise this revenue to stimulate the economy, are the States doing 

what we are asking them to do? Are they trying to circumvent 

what we are trying to do; in other words, take our dollars and use 

theirs to balance the budget? 

Mr. HOOKS. Sure. To date we have not seen any evidence of that 

taking place. 

Ms. SIGGERUD. Congresswoman Brown, on the highway side, 

GAO is looking at this maintenance-of-effort issue. As you know, it 

was a requirement in the act. Every State, including the State of 

Florida, has certified that it will not supplant Federal dollars 

with—State dollars with Federal dollars. But the actual following 

of those dollars is a more complex challenge that we will be taking 

on and reviewing the Department of Transportation’s work as well. 

Ms. CORRINE BROWN OF FLORIDA. We will count on you doing it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Ms. Brown, and we will be following 

up on those matters, as I previously announced. 

Mr. Brown. 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Hooks, back to the original question that we were talking 

about, I noticed that maybe we have some 40 million that has been 

assigned to South Carolina but hasn’t been actually dispatched yet. 

32 

Does anybody in your group that is with you, could they give me 

an answer, why that has not taken place? 

Mr. HOOKS. Perhaps. I am not sure. It would probably be—some 

of those questions can be fairly complex in trying to determine 

where exactly in the many steps that are involved in getting money 

out the door. 

I would be happy to get back and report back to you, to your office. 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Okay. We have gotten a report 

back that you all were waiting on having a press conference before 

the money was distributed. Is that normal procedure? 

Mr. HOOKS. I think there have been many press conferences involved in announcing various releases of money for a variety of programs that EPA is responsible for. Typically those time frames are 

fairly short; that once the money has been approved, the award announcement follows almost the very next day or within a couple of 

days. 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Okay. If you really see a problem along the line, I appreciate you contacting me and my office 

so we could try to expedite it. 

Mr. HOOKS. I appreciate that. 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Thank you. 

Mr. Salt, I noted the Chairman asked a question about new 

starts. Is that a policy that you are following with the stimulus 

funds, too? 

Mr. SALT. I think the question was how big an impact was the 

part of the legislation that prohibited new starts? 

Before the act was finally passed, we had started putting lists together of projects that would qualify, and a number of those were 

new starts. When that part of the legislation was included, those 

projects dropped out. 

And so I think—was it a mistake? Well, it is a different list. We 

had our criteria for ranking and selecting projects, and when those 

projects fell out, we just went down to the next projects in our criteria of ranking. 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. And so there are no new starts 

in the stimulus funding either, then? 

Mr. SALT. That is correct, sir. But that is by statute. 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. So we need to change a statute? 

Mr. SALT. Well, yes, sir. Were the statute to be changed, then we 

would have had other projects on the list. All but just a small 

amount of the funding has been allocated to projects. I think, if you 

were to change the law now, that would mean taking something off 

the list to put something else back on. 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. I know Mr. Hooks said they 

were able to override the policy based on Made in America. But you 

don’t have that option in new starts? 

Mr. SALT. That is correct, sir. In fact, we inadvertently included 

projects within programs that had been funded. But the determination was that the specific wording in the act talked about programs, projects, or activities. And we had to withdraw certain 

projects from our original allocations because of that. 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Okay. Thank you. 

33 

Ms. Siggerud, we talked about, I guess, the slowness of the process moving. And my question is: How many States are at risk of 

losing their funds by not meeting the deadline? 

Ms. SIGGERUD. Well, there are a number of different deadlines. 

All States met the first deadline to obligate 50 percent of funds by 

June 30. There is another deadline in March of next year when 100 

percent of funds need to be obligated, and then, finally, another 

deadline 2 years later, by which time the funds must actually have 

been outlaid. 

So at this point, it is early to say whether any States are in particular jeopardy. The first deadline has been met by all States. 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Okay. So I guess the proposal 

would—then it could be 2 years before this money has to be spent? 

Ms. SIGGERUD. Yes, because of the nature of the Federal Aid 

Highway Program. And that is the model being used here in the 

Recovery Act. It is a reimbursable program. So once projects are 

identified, the contracts do need to be bid and let. And then as contractors submit vouchers to the State, the State can be reimbursed 

by the Federal Government for those projects. So it is something 

that plays out over time, even if you do identify the projects early 

on. 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. Thank you very much. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you holding this hearing. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for that question. It is a 

very important one, and I think the outcome would have been considerably different if our Committee language had prevailed. 

What we proposed, what we submitted to the Recovery Act 

team—which consisted of the Appropriations Committee, Ways and 

Means Committee and the Obama team—was 90 days. Under contract, no obligation, or lose the funds. 

We met with great resistance from the Senate and from the 

White House team who said, oh, that is too hard on the States. 

I said, no; ASHTO submitted to us in December and again in 

early January and testified right here in this Committee room that 

they had 5,800-and-some projects that were designed, engineered, 

right away acquired, EIS completed, ready to go to bid, and we will 

hold them to that. 

But putting funds obligated language into the bill gave an escape 

hatch for the States. It is easier to obligate than it is to put it 

under contract. Keeping our original language would put a blowtorch on the behind of these State DOTs, and they would have had 

projects under contract sooner. 

Mr. BROWN OF SOUTH CAROLINA. And get people back to work. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. It would have been a lot better. 

But we were undercut in this process by Senators and others 

who were claiming, oh my goodness, this won’t work; be too burdensome on the States. 

Baloney. They all testified right here in this Committee room 

saying we can do this. And then after they thought about it for a 

while they said, oh, maybe we can’t. 

Well, we should have kept our original language. 

Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

34 

Mr. Rajk, of the $98 million provided to the Coast Guard RACI account, $88 million to be directed to the rehabilitation of shore facilities of the Coast Guard, the Committee has received extensive 

testimony regarding the backlog. And I think Mr. LoBiondo—who, 

by the way, I agree with every syllable that he said. 

But I am particularly concerned about housing. As I travel 

throughout the country speaking to Coast Guard personnel, one of 

the biggest complaints is housing. 

And I have told them that as a Chairman, I am their number 

one constructive critic, but I am also their number one advocate 

and cheerleader. And certainly if we don’t, you know, have housing 

for our people, it is kind of hard for them to be at their very, very 

best. 

And that said, I understand that only one contract for sure, for shore facility project, the $7 million project for the Cordova building project in Alaska, has been executed to date. 

And I further understand that this was an option on an existing 

contract; is that correct? 

Mr. RAJK. Yes, sir; that is correct. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And so what did that mean? In other words, it 

was already—I mean, that was just ready to go, and what does 

that entail? 

Mr. RAJK. Yes, sir. There was a four-phase project for the housing crew and family of the Coast Guard Cutter Sycamore in Cordova. This was phase 4, which was actually completed; four structures or duplexes for eight housing units, for a total of 26 family 

housing units at that location, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And that was—was that the only one? 

Mr. RAJK. I am sorry, sir? 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Is that the only housing project? 

Mr. RAJK. Specifically in terms of the family housing, yes, sir. 

That is the only project. The way we looked at this, sir, if I might, 

is there are two other aspects of providing housing, safe and capable housing for our personnel, sir, is at Yorktown where we have 

a training center. 

What we have done there, sir, is the stimulus money will be used 

to upgrade and enhance the water system on Yorktown Training 

Center, and to include safety for the sprinkler system, fire and 

safety system. 

In addition, sir, we are constructing the first phase of a multiphase project, in Elizabeth City, North Carolina, for the Aviation 

Technician Training Center, to replace an aged building which in 

and of itself does not have fire suppression systems in it. So we are 

bringing that up to code and bringing it closer to the actual training center at that location, as well as moving it away from the runway at the airfield there. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So with regard to the treatment—our bridge program—it is my understanding your testimony indicates that $142 

million provided for the program through the Recovery Act is being 

combined with $120 million, is that correct—from earlier funding— 

is that correct? 

Mr. RAJK. Yes, $120.22 million previously appropriated. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And that all of the bridge projects are expected 

to begin construction this year; is that right? 

35 

Mr. RAJK. Yes, sir; that is right. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Now it is also my understanding that no disadvantaged business requirements attached to the funding distributed through Truman Hobbs; is that correct? 

Mr. RAJK. Yes, sir; again, unless the bridge owner is the contracting activity in this particular case, and then we would reimburse the bridge owner. So the extent to which they award the procurement processes in the State in which they will conduct the 

business may have requirements for that, sir. But that has been incorporated. But there is nothing in particular here. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Even if there is no specific requirements, is the 

Coast Guard making any effort to promote the use of disadvantaged enterprises on the bridge projects? And the reason why I ask 

you that is you probably know there was a scathing report about 

the Coast Guard with regard to the Office of Civil Rights which 

was actually—the Coast Guard actually requested a report. 

And the report came back and had some very not-so-kind things 

to say about the Coast Guard with regard to their Civil Rights Office. 

We have been able, with the help of our Chairman—and certainly are able to correct a lot of that. But I am just wondering, 

is there any encouragement that goes out to—although there is not 

a requirement—to at least suggest that some of these people look 

at disadvantaged businesses and give them opportunities? 

Mr. RAJK. Sir, I don’t know that there is anything specific. I 

think that on each of these four projects, the program office is in 

constant dialogue with the bridge owner, and will continue to do 

that. If that is an area that we should look at, we will go back and 

work through the program to do that, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I see my time has run out. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. We will follow up on those issues. The gentleman 

is right on. 

And as I said, I designated Ms. Napolitano to coordinate the Minority issues involved here, and she and Mr. Clyburn’s staff are 

working together on it. So we should have a meeting probably in 

September to look at this. But over the recess, staff will continue 

to follow up on these matters. 

Mr. Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your patience and 

for having this hearing today. I have learned a lot. 

My question deals with Ms. Siggerud. Did I pronounce that correctly? 

Ms. SIGGERUD. Yes. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thanks. I have been working on it for the last 20 

minutes. 

In your testimony, in your written statement, you talked about 

maintenance requirement efforts. And that is something I was very 

concerned about when the stimulus went out, and I thought the 

States were going to struggle, and what was going to happen was 

the Federal money would fill the hole in the State budgets. And it 

appears in your written statement that you address that a little 

bit, mentioning Illinois and Mississippi facing challenges. 

36 

Mr. SHUSTER. So could you talk about that? How many States 

did you talk to? You just have the two here. I assume you talked 

to a lot more than that, and what was the across the board—— 

Ms. SIGGERUD. We have an ongoing case study until September 

of next year of 16 States and the District of Columbia on highway 

and transit programs and a variety of other Recovery Act issues. 

In every State we did talk with the State DOT about what I call 

both the form and the substance of the maintenance of effort. 

The actual letter that was required to be given to the Department of Transportation, that took some time to work out in a number of States, as well as in the substance the extent to which the 

State is actually able to fulfill that requirement. 

Many States are in very significant fiscal distress. I think this 

is something that the Department and GAO needs to keep an eye 

on. We won’t really know how this all turned out, though, for some 

time because it is a requirement that applies over a period of time. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Again, the numbers were 16 States. 

Ms. SIGGERUD. Sixteen States and the District of Columbia. And 

Pennsylvania is one of the States we are following. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And they have all—they are all obviously experiencing the same kind of—— 

Ms. SIGGERUD. Yes, to different levels, depending on the budget 

situation in the States, but everyone is worried about it, yes. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And it always seems to me that, whether it is the 

Federal Government, the State government, or local government, 

transportation infrastructure always seems the easiest to cut; and 

when we cut it takes so long for us to catch—and that is what, of 

course, we are facing now with the Chairman trying to move a bill 

that the States are crying out for, that we leave the funding out 

there. So, again, I was concerned that would happen; and it appears that it is. 

A second question, directed to Mr. Costa and Mr. Salt. A lot of 

this money—very small amounts of this money has not—or has 

gone out, and there is huge pots of money that we don’t seem to 

be moving that quickly on. It seems to me that in the situation that 

we face we should have looked to Minnesota and what they did on 

the I-35 bridge and the speed with which the money went out. And 

I think a big component of that, and I may be wrong, but was design-build. And how much are we doing that at the GSA? 

And I don’t think we are doing much. I don’t know if you are 

doing anything on the design-build at the Corps of Engineers. And 

it seems to me with stimulus money this is the time to employ that 

strategy. 

So can you talk about how much design-build you have put out 

there? Because my understanding is it saves maybe 20 to 30 percent of the time that it takes when you go through the normal process. 

So either of you want to take that first? What are we doing on 

design-build? 

Mr. COSTA. Traditionally, GSA had not used design-build extensively, but with Recovery Act projects we actually are—a majority 

of our projects will be design-build contracts. 

Mr. SHUSTER. What kind of percentage are you talking about? 

Mr. COSTA. I was just searching through. I can provide that. 

37 

Mr. SHUSTER. Is that something you can get? 

Mr. COSTA. Yes. 

Mr. SHUSTER. It would seem to me this is a situation where we 

need to employ this strategy to get the money out there, so I would 

be real curious to see what you are doing on that at GSA. 

Mr. SALT. Sir, as we did the project lists and started getting the 

money, we had more projects ready to go than we had dollars, and 

so part of what we are seeing right now is just, particularly in the 

O&M, as soon as those projects are ready we are taxiing those out 

and it is happening. 

On the construction side, there are other factors that affect a 

schedule for a construction project. But in our criteria I think the 

Corps does design-build. As you say, that is an effective technique. 

In the case of the stimulus, we were focusing on projects that 

had designs completed or that were nearly complete so that we 

could just go ahead and proceed with that. 

I don’t know the direct answer to your question. I don’t know 

how many design-builds were built into our Recovery Act program. 

Mr. SHUSTER. My understanding is that the Corps has typically 

not utilized a design-build that frequently, and I would like to see 

what you are doing on design-build. Because as we come out of the 

economic downturn I believe that is something that the Corps 

ought to be looking at. Because I have talked to many folks in 

Pennsylvania that say that is something they haven’t seen the 

Corps use, so I would encourage you—— 

First of all, if you could report back to me what you are doing 

on that, both of you, and as we go down the road look to that design-build technique. 

I see my time is expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. The gentleman raised a very important issue 

here. And GSA, I noted in the details of testimony, are moving to 

a design-build approach on a number of these larger projects in 

particular. 

The Corps of Engineers generally has not used this practice. Because of the nature of the Corps work, they are the design people, 

and they have the engineering staff that puts the projects together, 

lays out the details of how they are to be undertaken in, say, building a lock or doing a lock pool construction or harbor maintenance 

project and then they put it out to bid. 

We will have to explore that in a future hearing with a lot of resources of the Subcommittee on the extent to which design-build 

might work. You raised a very important issue and a very interesting one. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Ms. Hirono. 

Ms. HIRONO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have been visiting a lot of projects throughout my district that 

is using our funds, and I am sure my colleagues are doing likewise. 

It is a good way for us to find out what is happening on the ground, 

so to speak; and I am going to describe a situation which I am sure 

other States face. 

This has to do with the Army Corps having selected in my district two harbor dredging projects for our funding use. Shortly 

thereafter, an hour was passed before we passed the Omnibus ApVerDate Aug 31 2005 17:00 Dec 14, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\51436 JASON
38 

propriations Act. So when Congress passed the Omnibus Appropriations Act I am told by the Honolulu District of the Army Corps 

that appropriated funds must be used first. Therefore, we will be 

having to turn back most of the RA funds for these projects. And 

we already have a lot of new start projects ready to go, ready to 

move to the construction phase. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I hope that there is something we can do to 

make sure that these RA funds that are coming to the various 

States actually are able to be used for that purpose; and if that 

means that we need to amend the law so that new starts can access these funds I think we need to do that. 

And, Mr. Salt, if you have some other suggestion or a way that 

we can make sure this happens I would be happy to hear it, although that is just part of my question. If you can keep your response short. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. If the gentlewoman would yield, I did raise this 

matter earlier with Mr. Salt. We did not have a limitation on the 

types of projects that the Corps could undertake when we contributed our portion, our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 

portion, to the Recovery Act. But when it got into the appropriation 

process, in the hands of the White House and to the Senate, they 

put this limitation in its part of the law. So you are right. We 

would have to change that. We would have to change the law. And 

I think it was a mistake. 

Ms. HIRONO. Yes. And it is really manifesting itself in a real way 

on the ground. 

In addition, on these two particular harbor projects sand is being 

dredged from those harbors and they could be cleaned and used to 

replenish eroded areas. However, I have been told that our funds 

from these projects cannot be used for this purpose because sand 

cleaning is not considered construction, even if the sand is as a result of the construction activity. So all these tons and tons of sand 

will have to go to a landfill, which is already a huge problem for 

us in Hawaii. 

So, Mr. Salt, is this a matter of interpretation or is this again 

a limitation that we have put into the use of our funds? 

Mr. SALT. Congresswoman, I don’t think this is a Recovery Act 

issue. As I have gone around, I, too, have been concerned that we 

don’t seem to think very completely about how we best use dredge 

material and particularly how we use it; if it is contaminated, obviously, we have to deal with that in a safe and appropriate way. But 

if it is available to put it on a beach, our cost-sharing protocols for 

doing that are sometimes disincentives for doing things that are 

the smartest answer for our people and for the public, for the Nation. 

I don’t have an answer for that, other than it is an issue that 

we are trying to work through, not just with the Recovery Act but 

with the beneficial use of dredge material in general. I know the 

Committee has given us authority with respect to that, and I think 

we are trying to look hard at it. I agree with your point, that if 

we are not careful, we constrain yourself into answers that don’t 

make a lot of sense. So in that sense I agree. I don’t think it is a 

Recovery Act issue. I think it is a more general policy issue that 

we are working on. 

39 

Ms. HIRONO. And what is the time frame? Because this dredging 

activity is happening right now, and there is all these piles and 

piles of sand that we could use in a beneficial way. So could you 

just move rapidly and can my office talk with you so that we can 

resolve this in a sensible way? 

Mr. SALT. Yes ma’am. We will get back with you. 

Ms. HIRONO. And apparently this is a situation that affects other 

districts. 

Mr. SALT. Yes. 

Ms. HIRONO. Since I have a little bit more time, I commend you, 

Mr. Salt, for the fact that you are sending—a lot of your contracts 

are with small businesses. And I hope that the other testifiers are 

doing the same thing, especially GSA, with regard to the contracts 

that you are letting, that you are focusing on small businesses and 

encouraging the use of smaller contractors. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I will look forward to your response. 

I think your comment is correct, Mr. Salt, that this is a broader 

issue than Recovery Act funds, and it is a question of basic underlying policy. And that is a matter that will be properly disposed of 

in our next Water Resources Development Act. 

Mr. Boozman. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, I would like to thank Mr. Ross Ashley from FEMA. 

I understand that he’ll be leaving government service this fall, and 

I want to take this opportunity to thank him for his service. 

Mr. Ashley took over the Department of Homeland Security’s 

grants department at a time when it was having a fair amount of 

problems. At the time, the grant dollars and guidance were coming 

out late; and the States and first responders were pretty unhappy 

about that. Mr. Ashley made a concerted effort to work closely with 

its stakeholders to improve its programs and release grant funding 

more quickly. 

Again, I just appreciate you for your hard work and for your 

service; and I and I know the rest of the Committee wishes you the 

best of luck in your future endeavor. So thank you very much. 

Mr. ASHLEY. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Salt, the American Recovery and Reinvest- ment Act provides more than $2 billion for operation and maintenance to the Army Corps of Engineers, the intention which was to 

adequately operate and maintain our water resources and provide 

jobs. However, in the tables that we were provided, a large portion 

of the funding will go to surveys and upgrading tide gauges, things 

of that nature. Can you explain how these activities help stimulate 

the economy and provide jobs? 

Mr. SALT. Well, I would say that all of the work that we are talking about in the Recovery Act is provided through contracts or contract instruments to the private sector to get the work done. So, in 

that sense, those kinds of operation and maintenance activities are 

work for people, not government employees but for people, privatesector folks, who do that work. 

I would say that by far the majority of the dollars that we are 

spending are going to the kinds of things you would expect, the 

larger kinds of things, dredging and maintenance of our facilities 

40 

and those sorts of things. I would say there are items, as you described, but none of our work is done in-house in that sense. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. Thank you. 

I guess you know again Water Resources, the entire Committee, 

I think all of our efforts are really trying to see how we can really 

get people-to-work work. 

Kind of a related thing, the Congress has not received an Army 

Corps of Engineers report in 3 years. Are stimulus funds being 

used to complete the chief’s reports? How many chief reports 

should Congress expect by the end of 2009 and how many by the 

end of 2010? 

Mr. SALT. I can’t speak for the Administration on that. My goal 

would be to have many. 

When I ask that question—and we have those conversations—the 

comfortable answer is less than 10; the aggressive answer is up to 

25 or so. And in that delta are projects that will fall out because 

they aren’t ready. 

I think it is a priority at the Administration to engage in conversations with the Committee over the next year and to not sit on 

our hands and force the Committee to do all the lifting but rather 

to come forward with some ideas about how we would proceed and 

then to have a good effort between the Executive branch and the 

Congress about not only a new set of projects with a Chief’s Report 

but also with a series of policy initiatives like the Chairman was 

talking about before, such as a beneficiary use of dredged material 

and things like that. 

I think there are a number of areas that we are discussing now, 

and it would be premature for me to get too far along that line 

other than to say it is an important priority for us. 

Mr. BOOZMAN. What I would like to do is yield the remaining few 

seconds that I have to Mr. Shuster. He has a follow-up question. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Just a question. 

And the Chair made a point about the Corps set up to do much 

of the design. And I am not sure. So the question is, I thought the 

Corps was giving up or putting some of that design responsibility 

out there to the private sector. Is that—what percentage? I still 

think you do quite a bit of design, but I am not sure, actually. 

Mr. SALT. A lot. I am told more than half of our design work 

went out to the private sector. 

As the Chairman pointed out, there is not a big market for a 

number of the things the Corps does, such as, great big concrete 

structures; and so there are types of work that the private sector 

isn’t really tuned to do. 

Mr. SHUSTER. So about 50 percent. 

Mr. SALT. About 50 percent. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I see I have exceeded Mr. Boozman’s time, so I 

yield back. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is a very important point. I am glad you 

raised it. And thank you for your response, Mr. Salt. 

Ms. Richardson. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

When I looked at the intentions of the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act, if we looked at the objectives which are—right 

now I am looking at Mr. Ashley’s testimony on page 4. The RecovVerDate Aug 31 2005 17:00 Dec 14, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\51436 JASON
41 

ery Act was signed into law on February 17th in 2009 and its objectives were straightforward: To preserve and create jobs and to 

promote economic recovery and to assist the most impacted areas 

by the recession. So my question is, Mr. Ashley, of the 6,000 applications that were submitted how many meet those top two objectives and are they in economically distressed areas. 

Mr. ASHLEY. Great. Thank you very much for that question. 

When we went and did our outreach with all of these different organizations to include the fire services, as well as the National Association Towns and Townships, Conference of Mayors, NGA, and 

all others, we did take their inputs into what did they mean by economically distressed. So one of the large factors inside of the program is, we are determining in the 6,000 applications that are currently under review, is how many more firefighters is it going to 

put on a fire faster, how is it going to provide for firefighter safety 

and then also balancing that with a heavily weighted factor of is 

it coming from an economically depressed area. Because actually 

we want to do two things at the same time; one stimulate the economy with the jobs that are anticipated to be created under this program, but we also want the dollars to be going towards a place 

where it is going to provide an added capability to the fire service 

as well. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Well, Mr. Ashley, with all due respect, I represent California’s 37th Congressional District. In that district is 

the city of Compton, which prior to this whole collapse, had an unemployment rate of 19 percent and now it exceeds 22 percent. So 

it is my intention, and the only reason why I voted for this bill, is 

that you would maintain the first two objectives of the stimulus. 

And so I would like to go back for you that although you have the 

goal that you have, and I agree with it and I think it is important, 

but your top two objectives of what we authorized for this bill is 

to preserve and create jobs and promote economic recovery, and to 

assist those most impacted by the recession. So again, I am going 

to ask you the question, do you know of those 6,000 applications, 

which ones meet these two criteria? 

Mr. ASHLEY. To some degree, I would imagine all 6,000 do. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Can you supply to this Committee a map of the 

6,000 applications and where they in fact do follow this particular 

area and that they are in economically distressed areas? 

Mr. ASHLEY. Define economically as distressed. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Well, I think we through this—— 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Excuse me, the Act defines economically distressed as described by the Economic Development Administration 

and the U.S. Department of Commerce. It is spelled out in the Act. 

It was my language. 

Mr. ASHLEY. We can provide that data as provided by the individual applicants that have put the applications in. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So what I would 

like, Mr. Chairman, as we can hear from the testimony, that although we took great pains in this Committee to ensure that it was 

clear, the actual implementation into the communities is not necessarily consistent. So if you would agree, maybe we can send a letter to the various agencies that are using these funds to reiterate 

what the objectives are of the Act that we passed, and to make 

42 

sure if they are not clear, which it seems like today I don’t think 

Mr. Ashley is clear, of what that definition is so we can ensure that 

the money is being spent appropriately. Further, Mr. Chairman, 

what I would like to suggest maybe that we request, this is an excellent tool, and I am using it in my district, and I am sure other 

Members are as well, but it might be helpful to expound upon it 

a little further and to include information of what were the existing 

or saved jobs that we achieve through these, through all of these 

projects. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. That information, if the gentlewoman will yield, 

will be available in our September report, end of August report. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Perfect. And if we could, since we have time to 

plan, the numbers I would be looking for are what were the existing and saved jobs that were preserved, what were the new jobs, 

which I think there is a category here, of these projects, how many 

are in economically distressed areas, how many are benefiting 

small businesses, minority owned and women businesses. And I 

know you are always on it, so I look forward to September of us 

having this information. And you were kind, Mr. Chairman. And 

I would like to say for the record when we talked about supporting 

this bill, you committed to the fact that yes, these were our objectives and you would work on our Committee to achieve it. So thank 

you, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. And we are following up on that. And we have 

sent notices to all the agencies and to the States Departments of 

Transportation, transit agencies and all the rest, that that level of 

detail is expected in the end of August, mid September report on 

which we will have a further hearing. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Carney, you have been very patient. You are 

one of the first ones here, and unfortunately one of the last to have 

at it with our panel. 

Mr. CARNEY. The trials of being a sophomore sir, but thank you 

for the recognition. I would like to continue, Mr. Ashley, along this 

vein with fire grants. There are 6,000 or so applications. What are 

you doing to make sure that there is going to be sort of regional 

equity when you are distributing these funds? 

Mr. ASHLEY. As you are aware, there is no authorization language. This is a brand new program start. What we set out for in 

the guidance was a goal to, but not a strict adherence to, the existing AFG allocations, which is pretty straightforward in looking at 

rural, volunteer, urban and such as a goal. Until we go through the 

complete review of the applications, looking at economic need and 

looking at does a community need a new fire station, we won’t 

know exactly how that regional distribution will look. 

Mr. CARNEY. Well, there is an aspect of this, of the air money 

for the fire grants that is somewhat troubling to me. It is not that 

I disagree with its intent, but there seems to be a waiting toward 

sort of a response to terror. 

Mr. ASHLEY. No, sir, there is no categorical inclusion nor criteria 

that ties to any nexus of terrorism. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Will the gentleman yield? That is not correct. 

Every volunteer fire department is required to submit in this application for funding a showing of connection to Homeland Security 

43 

and terrorism. And I have raised that issue with the previous administration and with Secretary Napolitano. And that is unnecessary and an obstacle and an impediment and it is wrong, and I am 

glad you raised that point. 

Mr. CARNEY. Well, I appreciate it. Because as we sit here at this 

moment, I have been on my BlackBerry with my staff. Several 

counties in my district are now under flood warnings. And it is the 

local fire that responds to these floods. And they are disadvantaged 

if they have to find some terror nexus here in terms of getting 

funds. Now, that is quite a concern to me and to the 14 counties 

in the rural areas that I represent. And these are the local community volunteer responders that we are trying to help here. And they 

will be pulling on their boots and have pulled on their boots and 

are monitoring the creeks and sandbagging right now. And they 

are doing it with frankly antiquated equipment. And if they are 

disadvantaged because they can’t find a terror nexus in this particular job, I think we need to rethink this whole thing. 

Mr. ASHLEY. If I might, sir, there is no selection criteria under 

any of these grants that require any of the categories when you go 

through the 12 categories of what they are applying for that ties 

it to terrorism. 

Mr. CARNEY. Well, the administration’s fiscal year 2010 budget 

seems to go the other way on that. I think we need to get to the 

bottom of this. I also had a question for Mr. Salt and Mr. Costa. 

When we talk about projects, and Mr. Salt this probably more for 

you, do we look at life cycle costs of a project when the Corps wants 

to do something. 

Mr. SALT. As the project is formulated and brought to this Committee for authorization the overall analysis includes a life cycle 

analysis of the project. 

Mr. CARNEY. Do we consider alternative sorts of construction materials, maybe composite materials, versus steel or iron or any 

other kind of materials in terms of what it costs over the life cycle 

of a project. 

Mr. SALT. I think you should expect us to do that. I can’t report 

to you how well we are doing those sorts of things. I would want 

to say yes that is part of our responsibility. 

Mr. CARNEY. Okay. Very good. Well, if that is not the case truly, 

perhaps Mr. Chairman, we could look into drafting some legislation 

to that effect. Thank you very much. Mr. Costa do you. 

Mr. COSTA. Congressman yes, we do include life cycle cost analysis in basically choosing our project’s materials. It is a pretty core 

part of how we look at doing our business. 

Mr. CARNEY. And do you look at—Mr. Salt. 

Mr. SALT. I just wanted to as a follow-on to my answer, as part 

of our regular process there is a value engineering step where outside experts take a look at our designs and make the kinds of cost 

saving recommendations that you are talking about as appropriate. 

Mr. CARNEY. Mr. Costa, go ahead. 

Mr. COSTA. Well, I have just been handed a card. 

Mr. CARNEY. So it is good. 

Mr. COSTA. No, it is good, it is good. That this Committee 

changed the law so that—you all extended the life cycle analysis 

44 

from 25 to 40 years, which, of course, is helpful looking at new energy and management kinds of techniques. 

Mr. CARNEY. And building materials and things of that nature? 

Mr. COSTA. Yes. 

Mr. CARNEY. Very good. Excellent. My time has expired. You are 

very patient with me Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I interrupted you. You can have another minute. 

Mr. CARNEY. I am done. Thank you. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Ms. Edwards. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks also Mr. 

Chairman for your attention and this Committee’s attention to 

oversight, transparency and accountability, because I think it is 

really important, especially for taxpayers and for job seekers. I 

would note that just yesterday my State of Maryland came in sort 

of number one in its transparency and accountability for telling the 

public and telling the story in our State Web site about the expenditure and allocation of Recovery Act funds, where they are going, 

in very good detail. It was actually number one rated among all the 

States by an independent nonprofit group Good Jobs First. But I 

think it highlights what our obligation is here on this Committee, 

to look in great detail about how these funds are being expended. 

I have a question really directed—a lot of questions. But I am 

going to direct these to Mr. Hooks, about the clean water State revolving funds. 

I look down the list, and although in your testimony you cite 45 

programs across the country that have—I guess for which funds 

have been obligated. I counted in our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee chart that only 24 States out of all of the 

States and territories have actually obligated funds. And when you 

look at the charts across obligations, contracts put out to bid, jobs 

created, there are a lot of zeroes there. And so I am really concerned about whether we are meeting our goals and deadlines and 

what is happening to those resources, because this is about creating jobs. And I just don’t see that except in really a handful of 

States. And I am concerned about that. Also, I wonder if you could 

describe for us ways that we can track the State Revolving Fund 

implementation progress. 

And then I wonder if you could also describe for me what actually is happening and what projects are going on regarding the 

green water—the green infrastructure 20 percent allocation. I 

would love to see a State-by-State analysis of those specific projects 

because I think it would actually help this Committee. 

Mr. HOOKS. I think there has been some confusion in terms of 

the use of the term obligation. While we have obligated our resources to 45 States the States also obligate monies to borrowers, 

and I think there might be a little bit of a disconnect in terms of 

the numbers. And we would be happy to try to work with you to 

try to reach some clarification. 

Ms. EDWARDS. So you have actually obligated funds for 45 

States? 

Mr. HOOKS. Correct. We have made those resources available to 

45 States. There are six States that are still in the balance. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And so where are the contracts then? 

45 

Mr. HOOKS. The States are now going through their bidding process as well. Some States have already started. There is a little bit 

of a lag in terms of outlays, which I mentioned earlier. But between identifying the borrowers that have been selected, putting 

these contracts out for bid and then proceeding on the work, that 

has taken some time. Right now based on what we are seeing now, 

bear in mind the reporting requirements from the States, at least 

to the Federal Government, doesn’t begin until October. We have 

been launching a pilot at EPA to start to go out and start to receive 

some of these State specific and recipient specific data to try to 

identify really what is happening on the ground. And so back in 

terms of our tracking, we will have much more data, much more 

comprehensive data, come October. 

Ms. EDWARDS. So are you saying to me though that when we look 

at the number—the amounts of obligations and the number of contracts put out to bid that that is incomplete. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Would the gentleman yield—gentlewoman yield? 

See, this is the problem. This is budget speak. Obligation is a budget term of art. All it does is make a step, it doesn’t accomplish anything, which is why I insisted in our submission to the Recovery 

Act program, and we are crafting it in the Committee, that the 

funds be under contract within 90 days at the behest of States, at 

the urging and complaint of the Senate whose knees buckled under 

this issue. And the big think pieces over in the White House in 

OMB they submitted this budget speak term obligate. Obligate just 

says, yep, we are going to put the money onto this project, that is 

all. You know, for the highway projects the States just signed off 

and said we obligate the money for this project. That doesn’t put 

a single contract on—doesn’t put a single project under contract. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Well, Mr. Chairman, if you would yield, this is exactly my question, because when I look at the number of contracts 

that are out to bid, they are just State after State, zero after zero, 

the number of jobs that are created or sustained zero after zero. 

And if we are out there telling the American people we, you know, 

put out all of this money that is being paid for by their children 

and by their grandchildren, surely we have got to be creating jobs. 

And so I think if that data is out there, it really would behoove the 

administration to let us all know that, because it looks as though 

somebody is just holding onto the money and it is not really going 

to these projects. I look at my State of Maryland, for example, and 

what I see is that the fund has $19 million. There is obligated 

$7,127,000. And then after that it is just projects under contract 

zero, recovery funds associated with projects under contract zero, 

projects in which work is begun zero, direct job’s total job hours 

zero, zero, zero. And that is State after State. And I just think 

that—I mean, I am very supportive of the State Clearwater revolving fund, but we have got to create jobs with these funds. This is 

really intense infrastructure. We know that it is needed infrastructure. And I just think at some point or other the American public 

is going to start asking where are the jobs, and we deserve to have 

an answer for them. 

Mr. HOOKS. I agree with you, which, in part, is why I talked earlier about kind of the three phases that I now view this work in. 

Again, before it was make the monies available, and then I thought 

46 

we would move into the management and oversight of what the 

State was doing. Now, however, you are right, you are absolutely 

right, we actually are concentrating our efforts to try to assist the 

States in breaking down any sort of barriers that they might have, 

whether that is with Buy America provisions, Davis-Bacon, getting 

their bids out. We are making our contracts available, our contracting resources available, we are actually making our contract 

vehicles available in one state’s instance, so we are trying to do 

whatever we can to assist the States in facilitating getting the 

work started. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And so when we see your—you said that there 

will be reports back from the States in October because we haven’t 

come to that deadline yet. I guess I am presuming looking at the 

charts that we have here all of a sudden we are going see a glut 

of projects because there are very few. And hopefully with our jobless numbers and stuff that means that people will have jobs in the 

fall. 

Mr. HOOKS. We anticipate these numbers starting to ramp up 

significantly over the next couple of months. They have gone up 85 

percent just over the last four weeks. And I suspect again that the 

numbers actually in the fall will be dramatically different. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Well, hopefully we are not then getting into a winter season which then we can’t do these jobs in States that have 

climate issues. And so we thought, I guess we thought in this Committee, and I am greatly exceeding my time, that given the spring 

time frame and the deadlines for contracts going out that we would 

actually be able to get to those States that have seasonable and climate issues. And it feels like we are bumping right up against that 

yet again. And so there is the prospect that in some of these States 

really work is not going to be able to happen until next spring, 

which that is a lot of time for somebody who is out of a job. 

Mr. HOOKS. The legislation does specify that all of the SRF work 

under the clean water and drinking water, that they all be under 

contract or construction within one year, February 17, 2010. And 

based on what my staff is telling me, based on the personal visits 

that we are making, all of the States will meet that goal. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Just before I go to Mr. Mica, I want to again underscore this issue of budget speak term, the budget speak term obligation. If our language had prevailed, there would have been no 

escape hatch. States and the executive branch agencies would have 

had to have projects under contract within 90 days or lose the 

money to someone who could use them. And your point is well 

taken. Mr. Mica commented on it and said, well, you are right on. 

Well, that is the way most of the Members of the Committee feel. 

We committed these funds with the anticipation they put people to 

work. But when the OMB got into it and when the White House 

staff got into this thing and when the Senate stuck their nose into 

it and said, oh, well, you have to give them a little leeway that they 

can obligate the funds and have 120 days to do that, that obligation 

is a very different term from having the project under contract. It 

was an escape hatch. Mr. Mica. 

Mr. MICA. Well, I do have to compliment the gentlelady from 

Maryland. Her questioning and commentary was so refreshing. 

47 

And you know we are going to go home in a few hours, whether 

it is up the road or to Florida, and you have got to face people who 

haven’t had jobs for months. And you go back and say, well, we 

have got $11 billion unobligated here, we have got billions here, 

and all they want is an opportunity to work and provide for themselves. And that solves all the other problems, it really does. But 

you two are magnificent, Ms. Edwards and Mr. Chairman. I want 

to make sure that gets in the record. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. 

Mr. MICA. A final thing, and this is just a point, particularly to 

the agency folks that are trying to get the money out. We will 

never get projects cheaper than you can right now. There is a fire 

sale going on to do every kind of project in this country. People 

want business, they want—contractors want work and contracts. 

And in my district—I met with my district transportation secretary 

who covers my area of Florida. He said the prices they are getting 

in are 25 and 30 percent cheaper than what they had budgeted, 

which is a fire sale to do these projects. So getting this money out 

now is so important. And I am just asking you all to find ways— 

to support Ms. Norton here, St. Elizabeth’s, I have a project that 

I am interested in doing. NoMa, right to the north of Union Station, we will never find real estate bargains, opportunities to renew 

leases, opportunities to save the taxpayers billions of dollars and 

get more for less. 

Now, we can screw around and let this go on to next year. You 

already see the signs of some recovery in spite of what government 

has done, but maybe we could wait longer and pay more. Again, 

hopefully you all have taken away from us the message, particularly again the agencies. I appreciate GAO’s honest assessment 

here today too. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you. That is very, very important. Now I 

committed to Ms. Norton that she could pursue her line of inquiry. 

Ms. NORTON. I appreciate that Mr. Chairman, because I did not 

get to ask Mr. Ashley a question. I do want to associate myself 

with the remarks of Ms. Edwards and the Ranking Member, although I promise the Ranking Member we will not buy a building 

in NoMa. That is what he was really talking about, but he is still 

working on it, and I always work with him. But a fire sale is exactly correct. That is why I pressed the GSA not only to begin work 

on the first building, the Coast Guard building, but for goodness 

sake, begin work on the same grounds on the rehabilitation of 

other buildings which are not construction but which also make 

jobs. 

Now, Ms. Edwards’ question really went to what I asked Mr. 

Costa to do. On a monthly basis, to get us obligation on one line 

and expenditure on the other, because those are the—that is the 

real deal. So although GSA and I commend you, Mr. Costa, have 

made—have set goals and are meeting the goals for obligation, I 

will require a monthly expenditure report as well. 

Mr. COSTA. The only distinction I would add is that that billion 

dollars that we have obligated, they are contract awards. 

Ms. NORTON. But when the Ranking Member asked you about $34 million you were not able to say that there was more money 

being expended in light of the billion dollars. 

48 

Mr. COSTA. Because we made progress payments, that is exactly 

right. 

Ms. NORTON. But even so, if there is $1 billion out there and 

somebody is being paid to do work, you would expect a whole lot 

more than $34 million to show up at this time. If you want to explain that to staff, we will be glad to hear it, but that is an important point. I want to ask Mr. Ashley something that has been on 

the mind of this Committee, especially the Chairman, and on the 

mind of me with respect to my work on the Homeland Security 

Committee. I am not sure it applies to stimulus funds, although it 

is related to Mr. Carney’s question, and that is the award of fire 

grants in relation apparently to terrorist programs. 

Now, the fire grants are for basic fire fighting capability because 

they are for all hazards. You don’t go to a hazard that they haven’t 

called out your firefighters as well. We had to go after the last administration persistently for attempting to use the President’s 

budget to focus fire grants on terrorism. The Congress, in a bipartisan fashion, consistently rejected this attempt by the prior administration. I was very disappointed to see that in the 2010 budget 

of the new administration what appear to be, unless you can show 

me this is not the case, a continued attempt to focus fire grants on 

preparedness by words such as in the event of a terrorist attack as 

opposed to all hazards, which, of course, deals with terrorist attacks, as well as with what we in this country face 99.9 percent of 

the time, which are hazards unrelated to terrorism. 

Can you explain why the administration’s budget describes, and 

apparently attempts to continue to focus fire grants as a program 

on preparing fire departments for terrorism notwithstanding the 

very clear language of the law and congressional intent as repeated 

several times over during the last administration. And just let me 

ask you straight out, does the fire grant program today, whether 

for the stimulus package or for fire grants generally, require or 

give any preference to fire departments that show a nexus to terrorism in their applications. 

Mr. ASHLEY. None whatsoever. 

Ms. NORTON. So you say that is completely gone. Why did the administration’s 2010 budget request attempt in some language to 

focus on terrorism then. 

Mr. ASHLEY. I wasn’t party to those specific discussions on the 

request as far as you know tying the 2010 budget to whether it is 

terrorism or risk-based allocations of that nature, so I was not part 

of those discussions. 

Ms. NORTON. I wish you would carry back then to FEMA the 

Subcommittee’s very substantial interest in making sure that all 

hazards are covered, firefighters go out for all hazards. And we intend to enforce that we have the backing of the entire Congress on 

it. We don’t want to repeat that with this Congress. Thank you 

very much, Mr. Chairman. I thought it was my obligation to get 

that question on the record. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I appreciate you raising that. And I also appreciate the questions raised by Mr. Carney on this particular issue. 

I raised it, and I have been incensed about this matter, because in 

2008, there was a fire caused by a very negligent camper within 

the bounty waters canoe area wilderness of the Superior National 

49 

Forest in northeastern Minnesota in Cook County, right, oh, just 

a mile or so from the Gunflint Trails, so it was in the wilderness. 

These campers left the fire going and left their camp site. Wind 

came up, blew the sparks and flame into a nearby brush and a fire 

broke out of a significant amount. And the volunteer fire department rushed to the site with their pumper, which they knew was 

defective, and the pumper truck could not operate. It could not 

draw water from the lake, could not attack the fire. Maybe they 

would not have been able to contain the whole thing, but I think 

they would have significantly impeded its progress so that it could 

have been contained to just a few acres. Instead 76,000 acres 

burned, half in the U.S., half in Canada. 

When I went up for a town meeting with all the residents, 134 

structures burned to the ground. Fortunately, there were no fatalities and no injuries. And part of the reason for that was that 

FEMA’s preparedness program, the mitigation program, had supplied funding for homeowners and residences to install sprinkler 

systems to draw water from lakes and underground aquifers. And 

those homes and facilities that had availed themselves of the funding put the systems, the sprinkler systems into work and they 

saved those structures, but others burned to the ground. 

And I asked why, why didn’t you have an adequate pumper 

truck? And they said because we were turned down 2 years ago, 

and again this year because we did not show a connection between 

our pumper truck and Homeland Security. That is about the 

remotest place in the world or in America, except perhaps Nome, 

Alaska, that a terrorist attack is likely to occur. So I called Mr. 

Paulson in, your predecessor over there, and raised literal hell with 

him over this. It turned down twice because it doesn’t show a connection to terrorism. He said, well, we will address that, we will 

get to it. There were a number of other small projects, small funded, $2,500, $25,000, I think a pumper truck probably runs a little 

bit more than that, that were turned down because they didn’t 

have, they didn’t show a nexus to, in effect, terrorism. Our terror 

in the northland is blizzards, fire, high winds, a storm that blew 

down 26 million trees. That is our terror. It happens every year. 

We never had one of these terrorist attacks in the northland. 

So I asked two of the fire departments. These are the documents 

they have to file. And I have just spent the last few minutes going 

through there. There is no current showing, and I am happy to see 

that, no showing requested of a nexus to terrorism. Well, whoever 

did it, thank you for that, whether it was Paulson on his departure 

or the new team. You have at least addressed that issue. But I 

don’t want to see that appearing again in a firefighter grant application. Can you assure me that won’t happen? 

Mr. ASHLEY. Well, between now and August 30th I can. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Oh, you are leaving? 

Mr. ASHLEY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. Good Lord. Well, you just get these people trained 

up and then they leave. 

Mr. ASHLEY. I stayed past January 20th so. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. All right. Well, thank you for that. Let’s see, I 

had some other. The Corps, you have 800 projects, you have outlays of $84 million. When do you expect those outlays, that is acVerDate Aug 31 2005 17:00 Dec 14, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\51436 JASON
50 

tual payments to contractors to ramp up from that number, Mr. 

Salt? 

Mr. SALT. Sir, I think I really like your chart. I think your chart 

makes the point that in our case over 90 percent of our obligations 

are to contracts, to private sector contractors. And as your chart 

points out, you award the contract, they then hire, they then order 

materials, the money, the stimulus starts to happen. After that, 

they send the request for progress, payments or bills. And so the 

outlays always lag. The other issue this chart raises which is when 

the State is involved it goes up, even when you get down to the actual contract, the points you were making earlier, there is another 

lag behind that that is there. I think there are two important 

things: 

Number one, the points you made, when you award the contract, 

the work starts, people start getting hired, all those things start to 

happen. And secondly, people in the community start to see good 

things happen. The other point that you made, that these are for 

things that otherwise wouldn’t get done, that they start to see that 

work happening, and I think that starts to create the sense that 

this is happening. And although the outlays are important, I mean, 

we must pay, I would say that the real important part is up at the 

other end of that. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. The awarding of contracts is critically important 

here. And each of you has submitted, each of you agencies has submitted that information, and I invite you to supplement your current testimony in the coming months with updates as we have requested on our Committee Web site of contracts not only awarded, 

bids awarded and projects under contract, but actual work underway, supplement that information. This is a lagging indicator. I 

mean, the highway program, the Federal Government did all of its 

work, DOT did its job, the Federal highway did its job and notified 

the States. Next it is up to the States. And if there is some red 

tape, we want to know about it. They had plenty of time to tell us 

from December until February, from actually September of 2008 

when we passed, the House passed the first stimulus bill, it died 

in the Senate, but they had plenty of time to say, well, we might 

have this problem, we might have that paper work problem. They 

never did. Not a single one of them came in to us. It was yes we 

can, it was a we-can-do-this. 

So Mr. Mica and I are going to send a letter to these States who 

are lagging behind and say what is your problem, what is the red 

tape, what are the obstacles. We are going to find that out. But 

meanwhile, you tell us, you are through the first phase, contract 

is awarded, update those, update that information by the third 

week of August, by the end of the third week of August. 

Ms. Siggerud, do you agree with that? 

Ms. SIGGERUD. In terms of—— 

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is not the right question. Would you comment on what I just said? 

Ms. SIGGERUD. Yes, I can comment. 

Yes, I can comment. We are seeing, with regard to the lagging 

concept obligations and then moving to the outlays, we are seeing 

a pretty significant uptick—that was July—as we are are hitting 

the construction season, and as States have had time to put these 

51 

bids out for contract, and I expect to see a real difference as we 

go forward over the next couple of months in that area. 

But there are still a number of projects that have not been obligated and so there will still be—this will play out over several 

years, especially the more complicated projects, as we mentioned, 

that will need to have a longer bid time and that will take longer 

to construct. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I know there was some hand-wringing by the 

economists who said, well, as constructed, and with these time constraints, the Federal Highway Administration, the State DOTs and 

transit agencies are only going to do those projects that are quickhitters. That is what we expected. 

The longer-term projects are going to be covered in our upcoming 

bill, 6 years. 

Ms. SIGGERUD. And, Mr. Oberstar, that is what we are seeing. 

That is why you see such a percentage of repaving rehabilitation, 

because these are the projects that could be built quickly and done 

during this construction season. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is what we want to see. 

Mr. Mica, do you have any closing statements? 

Mr. MICA. No, just thank you. I think it was a very informative 

hearing. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. I appreciate that, and I appreciate the contribution that each of you has made. 

And for the record, our next hearing will occur about the third 

week of September and we will make a further in-depth review. 

Thank you again for your participation. 

Mr. Ashley, I wish you well in whatever your next pursuit is. 

Ms. Siggerud, keep your eye on them. 

Ms. SIGGERUD. Will do. 

Mr. OBERSTAR. The Committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:08 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

52 


Insert offset folio 77 here 51436.077
53 


Insert offset folio 78 here 51436.078
54 


Insert offset folio 79 here 51436.079
55 


Insert offset folio 80 here 51436.080
56 


Insert offset folio 81 here 51436.081
57 


Insert offset folio 82 here 51436.082
58 


Insert offset folio 83 here 51436.083
59 


Insert offset folio 84 here 51436.084
60 


Insert offset folio 85 here 51436.085
61 


Insert offset folio 86 here 51436.086
62 


Insert offset folio 87 here 51436.087
63 


Insert offset folio 88 here 51436.088
64 


Insert offset folio 89 here 51436.089
65 


Insert offset folio 90 here 51436.090
66 


Insert offset folio 91 here 51436.091
67 


Insert offset folio 92 here 51436.092
68 


Insert offset folio 93 here 51436.093
69 


Insert offset folio 94 here 51436.094
70 


Insert offset folio 95 here 51436.095
71 


Insert offset folio 96 here 51436.096
72 


Insert offset folio 97 here 51436.097
73 


Insert offset folio 98 here 51436.098
74 


Insert offset folio 99 here 51436.099
75 


Insert offset folio 100 here 51436.100
76 


Insert offset folio 101 here 51436.101
77 


Insert offset folio 102 here 51436.102
78 


Insert offset folio 103 here 51436.103
79 


Insert offset folio 104 here 51436.104
80 


Insert offset folio 105 here 51436.105
81 


Insert offset folio 106 here 51436.106
82 


Insert offset folio 107 here 51436.107
83 


Insert offset folio 108 here 51436.108
84 


Insert offset folio 109 here 51436.109
85 


Insert offset folio 110 here 51436.110
86 


Insert offset folio 111 here 51436.111
87 


Insert offset folio 112 here 51436.112
88 


Insert offset folio 113 here 51436.113
89 


Insert offset folio 114 here 51436.114
90 


Insert offset folio 115 here 51436.115
91 


Insert offset folio 116 here 51436.116
92 


Insert offset folio 117 here 51436.117
93 


Insert offset folio 118 here 51436.118
94 


Insert offset folio 119 here 51436.119
95 


Insert offset folio 120 here 51436.120
96 


Insert offset folio 121 here 51436.121
97 


Insert offset folio 122 here 51436.122
98 


Insert offset folio 123 here 51436.123
99 


Insert offset folio 124 here 51436.124
100 


Insert offset folio 125 here 51436.125
101 


Insert offset folio 126 here 51436.126
102 


Insert offset folio 127 here 51436.127
103 


Insert offset folio 128 here 51436.128
104 


Insert offset folio 129 here 51436.129
105 


Insert offset folio 130 here 51436.130
106 


Insert offset folio 131 here 51436.131
107 


Insert offset folio 132 here 51436.132
108 


Insert offset folio 133 here 51436.133
109 


Insert offset folio 134 here 51436.134
110 


Insert offset folio 135 here 51436.135
111 


Insert offset folio 136 here 51436.136
112 


Insert offset folio 137 here 51436.137
113 


Insert offset folio 138 here 51436.138
114 


Insert offset folio 139 here 51436.139
115 


Insert offset folio 140 here 51436.140
116 


Insert offset folio 141 here 51436.141
117 


Insert offset folio 142 here 51436.142
118 


Insert offset folio 143 here 51436.143
119 


Insert offset folio 144 here 51436.144
120 


Insert offset folio 145 here 51436.145
121 


Insert offset folio 146 here 51436.146
122 


Insert offset folio 147 here 51436.147
123 


Insert offset folio 148 here 51436.148
124 


Insert offset folio 149 here 51436.149
125 


Insert offset folio 150 here 51436.150
126 


Insert offset folio 151 here 51436.151
127 


Insert offset folio 152 here 51436.152
128 


Insert offset folio 153 here 51436.153
129 


Insert offset folio 154 here 51436.154
130 


Insert offset folio 155 here 51436.155
131 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 156 here 51436.156