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

53–803 PDF 2009

STIMULUS TRACKING HEARING 

NO. 4: ENSURING MONEY MEANS 

SECURITY WHEN BUILDING 

GSA BORDER STATIONS 

TO PROTECT THE U.S.A. 

(111–79) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

December 2, 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 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Columbia, Chair 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(Ex Officio) 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

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

TESTIMONY 

Frazier,Trent, Director, Port of Entry Modernization Program Management 

Office, Facilities Management and Engineering, Office of Finance, U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security ...... 5 

Guerin, William, Executive, Recovery Program Management Office of the 

Public Buildings Service, U.S. General Services Administration .................... 5 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri ......................................................................... 30 

Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, of the District of Columbia ................................. 31 

Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota ................................................................. 33 

Ortiz, Hon. Solomon P., of Texas ............................................................................ 34 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Frazier, Trent ........................................................................................................... 036 

Guerin, William ....................................................................................................... 63 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Frazier,Trent, Director, Port of Entry Modernization Program Management 

Office, Facilities Management and Engineering, Office of Finance, U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 

responses to questions from the Subcommittee ................................................. 41 

Guerin, William, Executive, Recovery Program Management Office of the 

Public Buildings Service, U.S. General Services Administration, responses 

to questions from the Subcommittee .................................................................. 70 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 53803.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 53803.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 53803.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 53803.004
(1) 

STIMULUS TRACKING HEARING NO. 4: ENSURING MONEY MEANS SECURITY WHEN 

BUILDING GSA BORDER STATIONS TO PROTECT THE U.S.A. 

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC

BUILDINGS AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:35 p.m., in Room 

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

[Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Ms. NORTON. Good afternoon. We apologize for the delay. There 

was a press conference that had to be held, and it was delayed because of votes. 

I want to welcome all to today’s hearing and especially to today’s 

panel. 

This fourth stimulus tracking hearing is part of this Subcommittee’s determination to hold itself as accountable as we hold the 

agencies under our jurisdiction that have received so-called 

′′stimulus funds′′ to simultaneously boost the economy and to build 

and repair facilities in our country. 

By the end of 2010, all the stimulus funds must be obligated, the 

jobs created must be documented, and the efficient use of taxpayer 

dollars to repair and upgrade Federal buildings to save energy 

must be assured. Today’s hearing will address these issues as they 

intersect with maintaining security and maximizing trade along 

U.S. borders. 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, signed into law February 17, provided $300 million for the General Services Administration to build and retrofit border stations and land 

ports of entry, the largest funding amount at any one time. A land 

port of entry houses the inspection facilities for legal border crossing, while a border station houses the Border Patrol, which is responsible for monitoring all border activity between the two official 

land ports of entry. There are 163 border stations across 7,000 

miles of borders between the U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada. 

The Recovery Act also provided the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, with an even larger 

amount, $420 million, for the rehabilitation and construction of its 

2 

43 owned land ports of entry, 39 of which are along the northern 

border. 

The new GSA facilities funded by the Recovery Act will include 

state-of-the-art vehicle and pedestrian inspection facilities that 

carry LEED energy-efficient features as well, and will participate 

in the GSA art and architecture program and design excellence 

program. The $450 million appropriated to the Homeland Security 

Department for rehabilitation and construction needs further explanation inasmuch as these funds are limited to facilities along 

the U.S.-Canada border, which sees considerably less action than 

facilities along the southern border. The Subcommittee looks forward to reviewing a General Accounting Office report, recently requested by Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, on the viability 

of new construction of land ports of entry along the northern border. 

Bear in mind that this Subcommittee’s tracking hearings are 

unique because, unlike other funds in the Recovery Act which are 

distributed to States through formulas, GSA, the Economic Development Administration and the Smithsonian are solely responsible 

for administering funds and for meeting the terms, themselves, of 

the Recovery Act. The transparency we require from GSA on 

progress must also be available to taxpayers, who should be able 

to track that progress and the jobs in their own jurisdictions. 

Today, Members of Congress have indicated an interest in these 

programs in their own congressional districts, indicating the importance of this construction for stimulating the economy. However, on 

an average day, GSA reports that $2 billion in trade takes place 

at the 163 border stations across the southern and northern borders of the U.S. This level of economic activity adds substantially 

to the security mission that makes this construction vital today. 

We welcome all of those who have come forward to testify today, 

and I would like to ask the Ranking Member if he has any opening 

remarks. 

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

Thank you for the opportunity and for holding this fourth in a series of oversight hearings by this Subcommittee on the Recovery 

Act funding. 

Now, today, we are focusing specifically on funding for land ports 

of entry and on border stations. Obviously, border stations are critical to our country for both security and for trade. The free flow 

of goods and people lawfully crossing our borders is crucial to promoting trade and commerce, but obviously, at the same time, these 

border crossings are critical to the security of our Nation. So we 

know that enforcing this balance between trade and security is a 

very difficult one. With $2 billion in trade moving through the 163 

border crossings each and every single day, it is crucial to our economy. 

Because of this difficult balance, we must ensure that we have 

the proper infrastructure in place to support this mission and the 

individuals who are there. 

The stimulus, or the Recovery Act, provides GSA with $300 million for land ports of entry and border stations, and GSA has identified eight projects in its spending plan for those funds. In addition, the stimulus, or the Recovery Act, also provided Customs and 

3 

Border Protection with $420 million for land ports of entry within 

its jurisdiction, as the Chairwoman just mentioned. So all of the 

hearing today is focused on border stations. 

I think it’s important to highlight the ongoing concerns generally 

about the so-called ′′stimulus bill.′′ 

Now, first, we need to commend the Chairman of the Full Committee, Mr. Oberstar, and the Chairwoman of this Subcommittee 

for, first, their insistence and their struggle—and they received 

unanimous support from this Committee when that bill was first 

being discussed and debated—in trying to get more money for infrastructure that we all felt would have been a good use of money; 

and secondly, to make sure, once that bill was passed, whether you 

liked it or not, that there would be as much accountability and congressional oversight at least that we can do on this Committee as 

possible. 

So I thank both Chairman Oberstar and the Chairwoman of this 

Subcommittee. They deserve, frankly, the gratitude of all of us. 

Now, on October 30, the administration released updated figures 

on the Recovery.gov Web site related to the number of jobs created 

and saved. That figure of over 640,000 jobs was subsequently called 

into serious question following investigations by a number of news 

organizations, the GAO and Members of Congress. 

Now, some of the issues identified—and we have all heard them 

before—include, for example, jobs that were created or saved in 

congressional districts that don’t exist. The number of jobs created, 

in some cases, seemed inconsistent with the amount of funding provided. 

Some funding claimed to have saved jobs; actually, those funds 

went to other benefits like to pay raises, not to create or save jobs. 

Some jobs were supposedly saved that were never in jeopardy, and 

I could go on and on and on. 

There have been extensive reports on, frankly, the scandalous 

use of some of those funds and on some of the reporting of some 

of those funds. You know, if those things happened in other countries, we wouldn’t call that waste; we would call it corruption. We 

call it a lot of things because it has been scandalous, as the American people know. 

Now, despite the clear inaccuracy of these figures, they remain 

on the administration’s Web site. So to know that they are inaccurate, to know they are not true, to know that they are false 

doesn’t seem to deter. They are still on the administration’s Web 

site. 

The national unemployment rate is now over 10 percent. The unemployment rate in Florida is now over 11 percent. Some States 

have unemployment rates from 12 to even over 15 percent. So, 

clearly, we know that it has not worked, particularly with the 

benchmark set by the administration that specifically said verbally 

and in writing that unemployment, if that bill passed, would not 

exceed 8 percent and that 3.5 million jobs would be created. In fact, 

we know that, after that bill passed, we lost about an additional 

3.5 million jobs. 

I mention that because the American people deserve much better. At the very least, they deserve to have an accurate report card 

of how nearly $1 trillion of their money is actually being spent and 

4 

how it is working or not working, in particular when the Web site 

that all of these inaccuracies are on has cost $18 million of stimulus money—again, if this happens in other countries, we have 

words for it—$18 million for a Web site of stimulus money meant 

to stimulate the economy and to create jobs and a Web site that 

we know now is grossly, at best, inaccurate. 

We, as the Representatives, should insist on accurate information. I have stated this before. I have stated that since before the 

passage of the Recovery Act that the priorities must be on stimulating the economy and creating jobs. Instead of seeing the unemployment rate decrease, we have seen an increase; and now there 

are real questions as to how many jobs have actually been created 

by the Recovery Act versus those that are claimed to have been created, which now we know are not true, are not accurate and are 

outright false. 

As we examine the specific issue of border stations today, there 

are real questions as to whether the taxpayer, in fact, is getting a 

good return on investment. While tens of millions of dollars are 

going to small ports of entry with just three to five vehicles a day, 

none of the funds are going to some of the busiest ports like Laredo, Texas, which sees nearly 6,000 travelers and trucks daily. 

Now, I understand that there may be some legislative impediments, which again, if that is the case, is just one more reason why 

the bill, frankly, has demonstrated to be a fiasco. 

So I hope that we can get answers today on how many jobs have 

been created and on how these projects were selected. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today. I want to thank you all 

for being here once again. 

As I said at the beginning, at the outset, I particularly want to 

thank the Chairwoman of this Subcommittee and the Chairman of 

the Full Committee for really, really doing everything that they can 

to make sure that we have as much accountability as possible. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I thank you very much, Mr. Diaz-Balart, for 

your remarks; and I certainly accept your compliments of the two 

Chairs. I should say a word about your criticism of the administration, which I, of course, understand. I do want to make the record 

clear on one or two matters before I go on to Mr. Arcuri. 

I would agree with you that the 8 percent benchmark, as set by 

the administration, was too high. I can’t understand precisely why. 

It may have had a lot to do with the criticism that it was receiving 

about the cost of the stimulus in the first place and about the demands that they show that somehow they could lick this Great Recession, as it is now called, with one dose of stimulus, despite the 

fact that many of us regarded that $800-or-so billion as far too little, especially because we read history. 

We read history and learn that, for example, the unemployment 

rate, after President Roosevelt had spent a great deal more money 

than we had in relative real money terms, had declined from about 

25 percent to 15 percent. Then, by 1937, they were calling it his 

recession rather than Hoover’s recession. 

If I may recall history for all of us—and none of us were here 

at the time—it took World War II and massive spending to bring 

the United States out of the Great Depression. Those who believe 

5 

that you’re going to come out of the Great Recession with something less than substantial government spending need to reread 

the history of the New Deal. Those books are selling better than 

ever now. 

I do want to correct for the record something that is raised every 

time we have a hearing, and that is that, when a contract is 

awarded, it has almost nothing to do with when jobs come on line 

and when money begins to flow. No matter what this Committee 

has done—and it could not have done more with shovel-ready 

projects and the rest—there are laws and rules that every jurisdiction must abide by. So we look for jobs created as the jobs flow 

through the pipeline, and it is at the end of a job that we can tell 

how many jobs have been there. Even the money flows in weekly 

or in two weekly sessions. 

If we look at the Department of Homeland Security headquarters, for example, we say to you with no fear of contradiction 

that, over about 7 years, there will be 38,000 jobs. Well, if somebody begins to count them up now, one will find that we are tooling 

up for a massive project, and those jobs will not show in numbers 

until years from now. Those numbers have been checked everywhere but up and down and sideways, and I think they are reliable 

if we understand how to count jobs and, above all, when to count 

jobs. I do want to say that the job accuracy figures for GSA have 

been conservative and well-documented thus far. 

I ask Mr. Arcuri for his opening remarks if he has any. 

Mr. ARCURI. I just want to thank the Chair for holding this hearing, and I have no opening remarks. Thank you. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Arcuri. So we will go to our panel. 

I am pleased—I want to identify everybody by the correct title— 

to welcome William Guerin, who is the Recovery Program Management Office director at the GSA. With him is Trent Frazier, who 

is the director of the Land Port of Entry Modernization Program 

Management Office of the Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security. 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM GUERIN, EXECUTIVE, RECOVERY 

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE, U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; 

AND TRENT FRAZIER, DIRECTOR, PORT OF ENTRY MODERNIZATION PROGRAM MANAGEMENT OFFICE, FACILITIES 

MANAGEMENT AND ENGINEERING, OFFICE OF FINANCE, U.S. 

CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Guerin, would you proceed first? 

Mr. GUERIN. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Norton, Ranking 

Member Diaz-Balart and other Members of the Subcommittee. 

My name is William Guerin, and I am the Recovery Executive 

in the Recovery Program Management Office at GSA’s Public 

Buildings Service. Thank you for inviting us to appear before you 

today. I will discuss our Land Port of Entry program, the LPOEs, 

and the challenges of balancing national security with the free flow 

of trade and travel. 

Having just opened U.S. facilities at the new international crossing in Calais, Maine, there are now 164 land ports of entry along 

6 

our borders. This includes 42 LPOEs along the southern border 

and 122 others along the northern border. GSA owns or leases 120 

of these LPOEs, and it provides services to DHS, U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection, for those projects. The National Park Service 

owns one port, and the CBP owns the rest of the ports of entry. 

As the program manager of GSA’s southern border initiative to 

renovate ports of entry in California and in Arizona in the late 

1980s, I can attest that GSA and CBP have a long history of working together to improve the ports, to increase traffic flow across the 

U.S. border, while ensuring the safety of the inspectors who daily 

man these entries into the United States. We continue to work 

closely with CBP to streamline costs and schedules as we develop, 

deliver and maintain LPOE facilities. 

Together, we have identified four actions that will have a huge 

impact on speeding up the delivery of LPOEs and to ensure that 

they will continue to meet CBP’s mission requirements. The first 

one is that CBP will prioritize new construction and modernization 

projects. The second is that GSA will increase the use of design/ 

build contracts. The third is that GSA and CBP will increase the 

number of standardized common LPOE components. The fourth is 

that GSA—— 

Ms. NORTON. I am sorry. There is something blowing in here, 

and I am finding it difficult to hear you. It is not your fault. 

Will you speak more into the microphone, please. 

Mr. GUERIN. I will do that. 

The fourth is that GSA will use indefinite delivery/indefinite 

quantity IDIQ contracts for LPOE design services. 

To further streamline project delivery, we are using a consistent 

approach in LPOE predesign, design and acquisition. We consolidated the procurement and funding of commonly used services, including feasibility studies, project design and special services. We 

sought two national contracts, one for architecture and engineering 

firms to conduct border station feasibility studies and the other to 

provide LPOE design services. Together, these approaches to national contracts help reduce delivery times by up to 5 months. 

GSA and CBP work together on many national and regional levels. Most importantly, we collaborate very closely to identify the 

highest-priority projects based on CBP’s needs, and move forward 

on those LPOEs. In support of that effort, your Committee already 

authorized three of CBP’s top priorities for 2010: the Tornillo-Guadalupe LPOE in Texas, the Calexico West LPOE in California, and 

the Madawaska LPOE in Maine. 

The Recovery Act gave us an unprecedented and exciting opportunity to contribute to our Nation’s economic recovery. The Recovery Act designated $300 million specifically for LPOEs under GSA’s 

jurisdiction. In selecting projects, we used two overarching criteria 

set forth in the legislation, the ability of the project to put people 

back to work quickly and the ability to transform Federal buildings 

into high-performance green buildings; and we worked with CBP to 

set the priorities for these projects. Our decisions were made based 

on the shovel readiness of the projects and on the availability of 

funds that we received through the Recovery Act. 

As identified in our project plan, seven LPOEs were selected for 

Recovery Act funding. We are moving forward on these projects. 

7 

Notably, we recently broke ground, on October 22, 2009, on the 

modernization of the Mariposa land port of entry in Nogales, Arizona. This project is primarily funded by the Recovery Act, and it 

includes the demolition and reconstruction of all facilities within 

America’s third-busiest border crossing. The Mariposa LPOE will 

be built to achieve a LEED silver certification. It will use electricity-generating photovoltaic solar panels, solar-powered domestic 

hot water and advanced lighting. Our goal is to provide up to 20 

percent of the facility’s energy from solar power produced on-site, 

and construction is expected to be completed in 2014. 

The Recovery Act is also helping us to further our efforts to 

green our border crossings while we work through the highest priority projects of the CBP. As part of our regular capital investment 

program, we use the U.S. Green Building Council Leadership in 

Energy and Environmental Design, LEED, building rating system 

at our projects at Calais, Maine, and San Luis, Arizona—at both 

of those LPOE facilities. Both of these projects are planned to 

achieve a gold certification with a minimum level of LEED silver 

at several other project locations, including Massena, New York, 

and Jackman, Maine. 

We are leveraging our Recovery Act investments, and are using 

our building inventory, including LPOEs as a proving ground for 

our green building technologies, materials and operating regimes. 

We are evaluating and adopting new ideas and products, then analyzing and publicizing our results. We are working to become the 

go-to source for data on the environmental and economic payback 

of new green building systems and procedures. Based on smart decisions, our investment will lead to the transformation of the green 

economy. 

In addition to the funding we receive directly from the Recovery 

Act, we are also supporting CBP’s Recovery Act initiatives. CBP 

Recovery Act funds will be used to replace eight aging LPOEs in 

four States along the northern border. Seven projects were awarded 

on August 14, 2009, using GSA IDIQ contracts. The design for 

these projects is currently under way and scheduled for completion 

by the end of January 2010. The recently added Maida LPOE is 

currently scheduled for award in early December, and as of November 27, GSA received almost $88 million in reimbursable work authorizations from CBP. Of this total, GSA has obligated nearly $57 

million. 

We continue to follow our aggressive schedule for awarding Recovery Act-funded projects. As of November 27, GSA has obligated 

over $1.4 billion of recovery funds for Federal building construction 

and renovation projects, and it has expended over $85 million. Of 

this amount, we obligated $76 million and expended over $34 million for our LPOE projects. 

In conclusion, our land ports of entry are critical to the Nation’s 

security and to its economic health. It is imperative that GSA continue to provide and maintain border crossings and border inspection facilities that can most effectively and efficiently handle the 

increased demands of the future growth of traffic and trade while 

still protecting America’s border security. We look forward to working with you and with the Members of the Committee as we conVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:42 Mar 15, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\53803 JASON
8 

tinue to deliver this important work; and I welcome any questions 

you might have. 

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

We want to hear now from Director Trent Frazier of the Land 

Port of Entry Modernization Program. 

Mr. Frazier, please proceed. 

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

and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to appear before you today. 

Today, I will discuss how CBP, in partnership with the U.S. Gen- eral Services Administration, is employing the $720 million provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 for 

the modernization of our land ports of entry. Through the Recovery 

Act, CBP will be able to ensure the safety and security of our Nation while stimulating the national economy. 

CBP is responsible for securing our Nation’s borders at and between the ports of entry while facilitating the lawful movement of 

goods and travelers across our Nation’s borders. The scope of our 

mission is immense. Between the ports of entry, we employ more 

than 20,000 agents to secure more than 5,000 miles of border between the United States and Canada and Mexico. In addition, 

within the ports of entry, we employ more than 21,000 highly 

trained law enforcement professionals to operate 326 land, air and 

sea ports of entry around the United States. During fiscal year 

2009 alone, CBP processed more than 361 million pedestrians and 

passengers across the borders. We processed 109 million conveyances and 25.8 million trade entries as well. In addition, we examined more than 5.2 million containers, and performed over 26.8 

million agricultural inspections. 

As a result of these activities, CBP was able to apprehend more 

than 556,000 illegal aliens attempting to enter the United States, 

and CBP seized more than 4.5 million pounds of illegal drugs. 

In order to accomplish our mission at the ports of entry, CBP relies on a multilayered enforcement strategy that rests upon three 

integral components: a highly professional workforce, state-of-theart technology and a robust network of facilities and infrastructure. 

Since our inception in 2003, CBP has worked diligently to expand its cadre of law enforcement professionals and to equip them 

with a suite of advanced screening and inspection technologies, but 

we have continued to struggle with land port facilities that reflect 

missions and strategies no longer relevant in a post-9/11 world. 

The funding provided through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is a critical step to modernizing the land port 

infrastructure, which is a pivotal component to our mission and to 

the security of our Nation’s borders. 

In total, CBP operates 164 land port inspection facilities. Of 

these 164 facilities, CBP actually owns 43, 39 of which are located 

along the northern border and four along the southern border. Of 

the remaining 121, 120 are owned or leased by the U.S. General 

Services Administration, and the remaining one is owned by the 

National Park Service. 

When Congress appropriated the $720 million dedicated for port 

modernization, it divided the funding between CBP and GSA, allocating $420 million for the modernization of CBP-owned facilities 

9 

and $300 million for the modernization of GSA-owned ports. As a 

result, CBP, in partnership with GSA, will be able to modernize as 

many as 31 port facilities along the northern and southern borders, 

and accomplish substantial repairs and enhancements at numerous 

others. 

For the CBP ports in particular, this effort will address challenges resulting from years of use and deterioration, as most of our 

facilities were originally constructed four decades ago, with some 

dating back as many as 70 years to the Depression era. 

With increasing traffic and terrorist threats at our border crossings, these improvements are a vital step to ensuring that CBP can 

confront the ever-present threat to our national security while continuing to facilitate the flow of legitimate trade and travel across 

our Nation’s borders. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today, and I 

would be happy to answer any of your questions at this time. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Frazier. 

Now, please help the Subcommittee understand—you and Mr. 

Guerin, perhaps—why there are Custom and Border Protectionowned stations and GSA stations and why this work is divided as 

it is. Who owns what and why? 

Mr. FRAZIER. I will take a stab, and Mr. Guerin will, I am sure, 

supplement as necessary. 

In part, it really has to do with a matter of timing. Many of the 

facilities that we own actually predate the legislation that created 

the U.S. General Services Administration and that predate the legislation that actually created the Federal Buildings Fund itself. So, 

in many cases, there was no exchange of title during that process, 

and we actually retained, under the legacy agencies that were INS 

and the U.S. Customs Service, the title to those facilities. 

Those facilities actually, over time, have been reconstructed. 

Seven of those facilities have been reconstructed, and one of them 

was actually reverted to ownership by the U.S. General Services 

Administration. 

Ms. NORTON. Is that the most efficient way to go about building 

important facilities in the United States, Mr. Guerin, to parcel it 

out among agencies which happen to have had the responsibility at 

one time or another? 

I just want your advice and counsel here. 

Mr. GUERIN. The General Services Administration certainly helps 

CBP as much as possible to maintain and operate their ports of 

entry. We are working with them now to ensure that the projects 

that they are working with—— 

Ms. NORTON. Is there any functional reason for the division of 

labor here except that is the way it has always been? 

Mr. Frazier, you are not in the business of construction, generally, are you? 

Mr. FRAZIER. We actually are. We have a substantial construction inventory on our border patrol side. 

Ms. NORTON. Yes. You are in the business of construction border 

control; but generally, your mission is what? 

Mr. FRAZIER. It is border enforcement. 

Ms. NORTON. Yes. Well, you know, we have a lot of concerns up 

here about border control, so I am a little concerned about that. In 

10 

reference to your mission, as a matter of fact, I really want you to 

keep your eyes on that border. That is one of the most controversial 

subjects in the Congress of the United States. 

Mr. FRAZIER. Actually, ownership of the ports of entry is an interesting conundrum in that 22-1/2 of the facilities, themselves, are 

owned by the private sector, and that is, actually, an additional 

challenge that we have to confront. 

Ms. NORTON. Is that because you could not buy the land and 

were forced to lease facilities? 

Mr. FRAZIER. Similar to the ownership that we have of our facilities, those facilities actually predate much of the rule that would 

have normally changed them into Federal facilities. So, in that 

case, we are working actively in leasing arrangements. 

Ms. NORTON. Does that present, from a security point of view, 

any particular concerns for you? 

Mr. FRAZIER. From a security point of view, it has not. We have 

been able to work very closely with GSA and our other Federal 

partners to resolve any of the issues associated with ownership 

thus far, as we are moving through the process; and in particular, 

a number of our private-sector counterparts have been very forthright in supporting the new—— 

Ms. NORTON. Oh, I don’t blame them. You keep paying for the 

buildings over and over again. As long as you are leasing the buildings, I would love you to death, and anything you wanted me to 

do I would keep on doing. 

Mr. Guerin, I must say to you, when we have to find out these 

things in hearings, there is concern here—such concern, for example, that the administration itself bought a building that we had 

bought several times over in leases, a building that has been leased 

by the State Department forever. 

It seems to me, if one were trying to help this administration get 

out of the quagmire into which it fell by inheritance, one of the 

things would be to ask: Should we continue to pay for buildings 

multiple times? Because we continue to lease buildings that will 

never ever be released to the lessor again as long as the United 

States of America exists. 

What would be your recommendation as to when we find multiple facilities where this—look at how old these facilities are. I can 

understand exactly what Mr. Frazier is saying. There was no reason at that particular moment to do anything but grandfather 

them in. But over time, it would be interesting to know how many 

times we have paid for these buildings and to wonder how many 

more times we are willing to pay for these buildings and if there 

isn’t some better way to proceed than to look in the face of waste 

and just continue right along. 

So what do you think should be done? 

Mr. GUERIN. Well, I think, Congresswoman, you know certainly 

that GSA supports ownership by the Federal Government of all of 

the properties that we have. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, I will tell you what, Mr. Frazier. I want a list 

of all of your privately owned sites—border stations or not—when 

they were first leased as well as their locations. We need that within 30 days. 

11 

Ms. NORTON. I must tell you that in addition to my work on this 

Committee, I am a Member of the Homeland Security Committee, 

so I am compelled to ask you whether there are any security issues 

associated with leasing sites post-9/11. 

Mr. FRAZIER. To date, we have not encountered a security issue 

related to the actual leasing activity. 

Ms. NORTON. Have you considered what—I will tell you what. 

Before the Salahis conned their way into the White House, as a 

Member of the Homeland Security Committee, I had not considered, until I saw what happened, that they had pioneered a new 

way for al Qaeda and for just plain evildoers to reach the President, elected officials and just plain celebrities. Don’t worry about 

the barriers; just pretend to be a celebrity, and people will be so 

impressed that that is all it will take. 

I am asking—and I use the words ′′post-9/11′′—whether or not it 

is the best practice for us to lease buildings rather than to seek to 

own buildings that we know we will always need. 

I am not asking you to pay for them, Mr. Frazier. I am trying 

to find out what is the best practice. You are in the homeland security business. I would like your answer. 

Mr. FRAZIER. I think, from our perspective, we have found both 

fee simple ownership and leasing to be useful at different avenues. 

Ms. NORTON. What is the relative use of both? Which is preferable? 

Mr. FRAZIER. It really depends on the strategy that we are trying 

to employ and the size and scope of the type of inventory that we 

are trying to modernize. In fact, in a number of instances where 

we do lease a private port of entry—— 

Ms. NORTON. I will tell you what I am going to do if I own one 

of these buildings in this bad economy: I am going to give you an 

offer you can’t refuse, Mr. Frazier. The offer you can’t refuse is to 

jack up your lease and dare you to do anything about it. 

Mr. FRAZIER. Well, thus far, we have not found that that has 

been—— 

Ms. NORTON. Well, do you know what, Mr. Frazier? I am going 

to ask you to go back to Border Patrol, which is a part of Homeland 

Security, and tell them that a Member of the Homeland Security 

and the Chair of this Committee asked them to consider what they 

would do if, in fact, someone took advantage of their knowing they 

have no place to go but where they are. 

I believe it is your obligation to consider that, even if there is not 

anything you can do about it at the moment. But I am distressed 

to hear that, post-9/11, you have not even considered it. I believe 

they would be within their legal rights. I believe land of the kind 

we are talking about has gotten increasingly dear and expensive. 

So I ask you, within 30 days, to tell me how Border Patrol is considering that scenario. 

Mr. FRAZIER. Of course. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you. 

Ms. NORTON. I am going to ask the Ranking Member, before I 

go forward, if he has any questions. 

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

12 

Mr. Guerin, among the projects included in your plan are a number of smaller border stations. The three sites in Maine had from 

300,000 to over 900,000 personal vehicle entries in 2008. 

However, other sites not included in the plan had far more. I 

mentioned in my opening statement Laredo, Texas, which had over 

6 million personal vehicle entries in 2008. 

Now, can you talk about how GSA develops its list of border station projects and why smaller GSA facilities seem to be given priority over larger facilities with more traffic? Is that part of the legislation? If you could, address that. 

Mr. GUERIN. It actually is part of the legislation in that the funds were limited to $300 million, Congressman. We work with 

CBP on the priorities for our projects. 

The most important project to CBP on their list was the Mariposa port of entry project, which took up fully $200 million of 

the $300 million available to land ports of entry. So we worked 

with CBP. We worked with the priorities of the projects that we 

had—you know, shovel-ready or close to shovel-ready—to ensure 

that we worked through the list to put projects in place that would 

create jobs as quickly as possible. Just the nature of the first project being $200 million of the $300 

million limited our options to other smaller projects, other projects 

that needed funds to complete construction and designs for other 

projects that we knew were coming down the road very shortly and 

would be funded in future fiscal years. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. All right. So most of the CBP-owned facilities 

are along the northern border; and as a result, nearly all of the Recovery Act funding is going to those facilities. 

In light of this, though, did GSA evaluate whether it should focus 

more on the southern border to ensure a more balanced approach 

to station modernization, or are you saying you did not have much 

of a choice because the money was spent or what? 

Mr. GUERIN. Well, I think $200 million was spent on the southern border in the first project, so the quantity of projects was more 

on the northern border, but certainly, in dollars spent, more money 

was spent on the southern border in the Recovery Act. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Okay. In your testimony, you projected that over 60,000 job-years will be created from the $5.5 billion that 

GSA—— 

Mr. GUERIN. Correct. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. —received under the Recovery Act for Federal 

buildings. 

You also indicated that initial reports show that, as of October 

30, GSA Recovery Act funding has created or retained 780 direct 

jobs and that approximately 56 of those are related to port of entry 

projects. 

Now, as you know, and I mentioned it in my opening statement, 

last month a number of serious questions came up regarding the 

accuracy of the job numbers on the Recovery.gov Web site. 

How do you know that these figures are accurate? What mechanisms has GSA put into place to ensure accurate reporting in these 

numbers and also in future numbers to avoid what seems to be a 

pretty large trend? 

Mr. GUERIN. That is a good question. 

13 

We looked at multiple studies by economists to figure out how to 

project the numbers. In fact, OMB settled on a CEA analysis that 

showed that, with construction jobs, typically you use a factor of 

$92,000 per job. If you divide that into the $5.5 billion given to 

GSA, that is where the 60,000 job projection comes from. Those are 

job-years. 

That actually worked out very nicely with the information that 

we received from the recipient reporting, and GSA was actively one 

of the most active players in the recipient reporting process. We 

reached out to the recipients and very actively engaged them to ensure that they were reporting accurately. We provided templates 

for them to report, so we didn’t have the situation of reporting a 

nonexistent congressional district, for instance. 

The numbers that we got back from the recipients matched up very well with the $92,000 figure. The total number of jobs and the 

total amount of money that was outlaid from the recipient reporting was very close to the $92,000 figure, so we are actually quite 

satisfied so far that that is a good number to use. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Good. 

So, again, as far as you can tell, you haven’t gotten hit by the 

same issues that others have. I understand where your estimate 

numbers come from, but the actual numbers are coming from 

whom to you? I mean, are you getting it from—— 

Mr. GUERIN. The people who received funding from the Recovery 

Act. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. They are the ones who are actually counting 

the jobs and are making sure that they are real? 

Mr. GUERIN. Yes. Yes. The whole recipient reporting process is 

an expectation that the recipients of Federal funds will report those 

job numbers and funds received. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. And will do so accurately? 

Mr. GUERIN. And will do so accurately, correct. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. So, at this stage, you really don’t have a way 

to verify that, other than the fact that they are, you know, kind of 

adding up with your estimates? 

Mr. GUERIN. As I said, Congressman, we reached out very 

proactively to the recipients to ensure that they reported accurately. And we gave them a lot of the sort of basic information to 

make their life easier as they reported back to us; and that paid 

off, I think. 

We got all but a few people reporting back, and we know who 

those people are. We are actually contacting them. We have contacted them, and we will continue to contact them to ensure that 

they report in the next go-around at the end of the December, so 

we will have those few stragglers reporting in as well. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Are there no site visits, for example, to 

verify—or something like that to verify that the reports that they 

are giving you are actually accurate? 

Mr. GUERIN. Not so much in the recipient reporting process. But 

certainly GSA is on site on all of our projects, and we actively monitor who is on our projects to ensure that the projects are running 

smoothly and that the schedules and accuracy of information in 

terms of money spent is being well documented. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Right. I understand that. 

14 

Again, you know, we obviously have what is a national embarrassment. From what we can tell, it looks like some of those who 

are doing the reporting are just not being accurate. So other than 

the fact that the numbers—I mean, look, there is a chance, is there 

not, that they are looking at your estimates, and then they are giving you the numbers based on those estimates? I mean, there is a 

chance that they are doing that. 

I am not saying that they would be, but there is no on-site counting of jobs other than by those who are receiving the money. That 

is what you are getting it from. 

Mr. GUERIN. That is a true statement. It is a recipient report. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Right, which in many cases has proven to not 

be accurate as far as we can tell so far from just press reports. 

Mr. Frazier, in the 30-day review of spending by the CBP for 

land ports of entry under the Recovery Act, CBP states that the 

first two legal requirements for the projects funded by the Recovery 

Act include, number one, preserving and creating jobs, which I am 

glad to hear; and number two, assisting those most impacted by 

the recession. Yet it appears, however, of the top 24 CBP projects, 

9 of them are in States with the lowest unemployment rate at 4.2 

percent. 

So how did CBP take into consideration the state of the local 

economies and unemployment rates in determining priority projects 

under the Recovery Act, particularly based on those two assumptions that I just mentioned that you all have? 

Mr. FRAZIER. The actual two governing criteria that were built 

into ours, that we actually used as part of our normal prioritization 

projects, were shovel readiness and the ownership distinctions that 

were drawn within the legislation itself. 

I will say that our current process is not designed to consider 

local economies when we are looking at prioritizing these facilities, 

in part because they are part of a national infrastructure, and we 

have to view them as part of a national border infrastructure. We 

don’t view them as competing between two State or local interests. 

When we prioritize that process, we actually go through and assess all of the facilities that we operate against four categories of 

criteria. Those four categories themselves encompass about 60 distinct data points that we use as the basis of our initial needs assessment for those facilities. 

We then use the resulting information from that assessment 

process to give us an initial ranking of critical needs; and then we 

sensitize that by reaching out to our local stakeholders and operations folks, who can provide us information that would not normally be collected through a national data assessment. We use that 

then to establish our final ranking of need. Then we do what is 

called a project feasibility and risk assessment, and that actually 

allows us to determine the executability of a project in a given fiscal year. 

In particular with these projects, we had to assess that in light 

of the requirements to have these funds obligated as quickly as we 

could into the national economy and to ensure that we could have 

these funds obligated not less than 24 months or by the end of fiscal year 2010. 

15 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. That makes perfect sense to me, but that 

doesn’t jive with, again, preserving and creating jobs as a priority 

and assisting those most impacted by the recession. 

Now, what you are saying makes sense on a regular day in a regular year, but if these funds were to create jobs—again, in the review, it says—and again I may be wrong—that this is preserving 

and creating jobs and is assisting those most impacted by the recession. Those don’t seem to be part of what you just mentioned 

right now. 

Mr. FRAZIER. Well, I think that I would draw a distinction between sending funds to the community where the actual port is located and actually benefiting those impacted by the recession. 

Of course, most of the major construction entities that we have 

to contract with, be they large or small business, will, in fact, not 

be located in the small communities where a number of our facilities are located. So, by infusing money into the construction industry in particular, we view that as a way of ensuring that that industry is actually bringing on people to support these projects and 

move them forward. 

In most cases, we have also—where we did not directly contract 

with small businesses, we have actually asked the construction entities themselves to reach out into the small business community 

as part of their subcontracting for the various associated disciplines 

that they will employ as part of their final construction projects. 

So, while I cannot guarantee, for example, that all of the communities themselves which will have a port of entry project within 

their communities will see job increases within the confines of that 

community, we believe that by employing the acquisition strategy 

that we have utilized for these facilities that we are, in fact, ensuring that we are reaching into the small business community and 

that we are reaching into the various disciplines that will ultimately be where jobs are created. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I understand. I understand that you also have 

the big-picture issue of what your role is in keeping our Nation secure, et cetera. 

But, again, when we are dealing with this specific issue where, 

within the top 24 projects, 9 of them are in States with the lowest 

unemployment rate, that clearly is not assisting those most impacted by the recession. I understand where you are going, but 

those two things don’t match. 

Mr. FRAZIER. Well, I guess, if you look at the unemployment rate 

per capita per State as being the one de facto factor that you would 

use in assessing that kind of criteria, then I wouldn’t really have 

much of a response. I am not really trained in macroeconomics. 

I can say that by employing the acquisition strategy that we 

have, we were looking to infuse money into a national economy 

through the sectors that, of course, we can reach by doing construction. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Understood. Understood. 

Now, do you have any idea how many jobs have been created or 

are expected to be created by these projects? 

Mr. FRAZIER. I am sorry, sir. I couldn’t—— 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I am sorry. How many jobs have been created 

or are expected? 

16 

Mr. FRAZIER. To date, we have created more than 150 jobs. I 

think we are expecting as many as 4,000. Of course, most of our 

projects right now are in their early stages. They are in design, 

which does not, in fact, involve a number of the labor disciplines 

that you would normally employ as part of construction. However, 

our acquisition strategy is built on employing design/build across 

all of our projects. So, where those projects have been awarded, we 

are expecting those contractors will begin their subcontracting 

plans in the next months and that part of the process will see an 

increase in job creation. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Frazier, let me ask you the same question 

that I asked Mr. Guerin. 

You have also seen the reports and the questions about the accuracy of the job numbers on Recovery.gov. What mechanisms does 

CBP put into place or has it put into place to ensure that the data 

that you are going to be receiving or have received is accurate? 

Mr. FRAZIER. Sure. 

Similar to the U.S. General Services Administration, of course, 

the structure of the reporting for job creation is built to where the 

vendors themselves, the recipients of stimulus funds, are the initial 

reporters of job creation; and there is a brief period of time wherein 

the government is afforded an opportunity to review their submissions for accuracy. 

In CBP, we actually are employing independent project managers 

and construction managers to participate in all of our projects, and 

they will actually be the project leads for all of these various 

projects. They then are also part of our reporting reviewers to review the vendor reports. 

Of course, the reports we have had to date—again, I mentioned 

earlier—have not seen substantial growth in job creation. So most 

of the jobs that have been created associated with these projects 

are really on the design side, and most of our project managers actually work daily with those design teams, so we are quite familiar 

with them. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. And lastly, the CBP spend plan includes about $15 million for the land port of entry in Whitetail, Montana, which 

according to the CBP 30-day review, averages 5 vehicles per day. 

Is it—does that make sense to use taxpayer dollars on what—for 

an area that obviously doesn’t have a lot of activity? And what 

types and number of jobs do you think will be created, for example, 

by that project. 

Mr. FRAZIER. I don’t know the exact figures associated with that 

project. I am sure that is something we could come back with the 

estimates associated with that individual project. I can say that of 

course, in viewing these facilities from the perspective of our dual 

mission of securing the border and facilitating legitimate travel and 

trade, we view any authorized crossing as being an area where we 

need to ensure that the facilities and the infrastructure associated 

with that crossing are capable of supporting our mission and our 

operations. 

So from the standpoint that we view Whitetail, Montana as being 

the location of an authorized crossing, we believe that that facility 

along with any other port of entry needs to be maintained at a 

level to ensure that it can support our operations, and we don’t 

17 

view that as being a facility that is the port of entry for Whitetail, 

Montana. We view that as being an authorized port of entry for the 

United States of America. As a result we must ensure that that facility is capable of securing the border to the same measure of security that any port of entry that is in operation today can. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. You also mention in your testimony that sensitivity analysis was part of the process of ranking projects. 

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Can you talk more about this analysis and 

what factors you look at, are included as part of that sensitivity 

analysis? 

Mr. FRAZIER. Sure, the sensitivity analysis itself much like—is 

more akin to a standard statistical activity wherein you want to ensure that the factors that you are using in your aggregate data collection are not themselves sensitive to factors that you cannot collect as part of a national aggregate data set. And I will give you 

an example of that. 

A number of our other facilities are actually located in regions 

wherein the border crossing is associated with a large manufacturing center across the border. However, that happens to be regionalized and does not get counted as part of a national commodities collection set from data that we might collect for the Bureau 

of Transportation Statistics or other associated sets. But we can 

use information from that region to inform the actual workload capacity at that facility over time, and we actually reach out usually 

to the local stakeholders and to the operations at that region themselves to inform us as to whether or not the data that we have collected at the national level would be skewed in any way by changes 

in demographics associated with that locality itself. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Madam Chairwoman, two more if I may. 

Ms. NORTON. Yes. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you as always for being very generous. 

You highlighted in your testimony that shovel ready projects 

were given priority. Can you tell me how many of your projects are 

currently underway? When you mention that most of it is now, I 

guess, in design or whatever, how many of your projects are currently underway and what are the time lines for some of those 

projects? 

Mr. FRAZIER. Currently we have already awarded 17 design/build 

projects out of the original 23 that we identified in our first spend 

plan. Currently we are planning to award an additional 18th 

project. I think Mr. Guerin mentioned it during his original opening statement. That will be awarded sometime in the next few 

weeks as a matter of fact. And then we will have six additional 

projects that were set aside specifically as small business projects. 

Those were scheduled to be awarded right now in the late February, March timeframe. Of the 17 projects that have already been 

awarded, all of them are now approaching 60 percent design, and 

in order to expedite the process for moving those projects through 

design and ultimately into construction, we actually provided those 

vendors themselves as part of their initial submission 35 percent 

bridging documents. So we essentially did a portion of the design 

for them to ensure so that they could move expeditiously into the 

construction phases. 

18 

We are expecting construction for those projects to start in the 

spring of this fiscal year and probably in the April, May timeframe, 

depending upon when the fall occurs, of course because our construction season is restricted by the actual weather patterns on the 

northern border. Except for one project that we currently have 

awarded, that will be in Antelope Wells, New Mexico. That project 

is actually expected to start potentially as early as March because 

they aren’t subject to the same weather patterns in New Mexico. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Again it seems that a lot of them were actually 

not quite shovel ready, they were design ready as opposed to shovel 

ready. The American people I think—and I am not blaming you for 

this, but I am saying the American people kind of think of shovel 

ready as the design has been done, all you need is the money to 

start construction. So obviously that that has not been the case in 

a lot of them. 

Mr. FRAZIER. Well, from our standpoint because of the way that 

we have been able to actually do the design work for these projects 

in advance, all of these projects are now at design/build acquisition. 

So there will be no additional acquisition activity associated with 

these projects. They are moving from design straight into construction on an expeditious timeline. 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Great. And lastly, Madam Chairwoman, to 

both of you gentlemen, obviously we have seen all of these reports 

of inaccurate reporting, inaccurate statements given by those who 

were supposed to give the information. I would hope that you all 

are looking at that and trying to make sure that the information 

that you are getting regardless of who it is coming from is accurate. 

I would love, if you could get back to us, with just what it is that 

you are doing to make sure that those numbers are accurate, regardless of who they are coming from, and so that we can avoid 

some of those embarrassments and some of those fiascos that have 

taken place nationally with this money. I think the taxpayers deserve at least to know that the numbers they are given, whether 

they are good or bad, are accurate numbers. So I would really like 

it if you guys could get back to us as to what you are doing to make 

sure that those numbers are accurate. And not just rely on—I am 

not telling you that they are not great people, but obviously there 

have been some issues in the past and so let’s try to address that 

now so that we do not have to read about in your case these issues 

coming up either. 

So thanks so much. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Mr. FRAZIER. Sure. 

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

Let me compliment the administration for doing what no administration has ever even tried to do before, and that is to calculate 

jobs per funding by the United States Government. And let me indicate as well why I believe GSA has had a far better accuracy 

record. I indicated in my opening statement that, unlike virtually 

every other agency, GSA is on site and has control of its funds. 

That is why we are holding ourselves accountable as we hold GSA, 

the Smithsonian, and the EDA accountable. If, however, you look 

at what the administration has done, it is a very daring thing to 

do. It has—it is at least two steps removed. It hands out the 

money. The money goes to the States and from the States it goes 

19 

to the localities. And somebody down there, way at ground zero 

level, has got to do the counting while they are doing the building. 

It is far easier for you, Mr. Guerin, and even you, Mr. Frazier, 

to be accurate, because you are directly responsible. That is not 

how we do construction in this country. We ask the States to do 

the construction. The States in turn ask down to the lowest jurisdiction to do the construction. That is called local control. So foreign administration to have the guts to say we are still going to 

hold you accountable is to essentially put itself in a position of mistakes because it is so far removed from the people who would have 

the basic information. And you know what I say? Keep on trying, 

because you have set an important precedent, and a precedent because it is the first of its kind, almost inevitably, which would almost inevitably produce the kind of mistakes that we have seen. 

And I compliment you both because you are directly responsible, 

because every GSA site has somebody on the ground from the Federal Government. Nobody from the Federal Government is on the 

ground for Eleanor Holmes Norton’s District’s infrastructure funds. 

Who is on the ground are people from the District of Columbia. Or 

if it is the State of Maryland, Maryland isn’t on the ground. Prince 

George’s may be on the ground and somebody beneath Prince 

George’s may be on the ground and that is how that counting is 

going on. That is a very ambitious undertaking, cannot possibly be 

done except as a practiced way of doing business. And thank you 

for showing that the Federal Government today, unlike at any 

point in past, is willing to take on that task. 

Let me ask you, Mr. Guerin, why don’t we rent courthouse space? 

Mr. GUERIN. We do in fact rent some courthouse space. 

Ms. NORTON. How much courthouse space in the United States 

of your inventory, what percentage is rented? 

Mr. GUERIN. I do not know that, but I will certainly get that 

number for you. But we prefer to own, as you well know. 

Ms. NORTON. Is it not the case that overwhelmingly you own. 

Mr. GUERIN. Yes, yes. 

Ms. NORTON. And you can hardly cite me an instance where 

through this Committee has gone any prospectus for a courthouse 

that was other than owned? 

Mr. GUERIN. That is correct. The vast majority—— 

Ms. NORTON. I asked you for the reason. That is all I am trying 

to get on the record. Why do we own courthouses rather than 

lease? We lease almost everything today. Why don’t you lease 

courthouses? 

Mr. GUERIN. And the simple answer is because we are working 

on them in perpetuity and it is important to own them. As you 

said, we don’t want to pay—— 

Ms. NORTON. One, we are going to own them in perpetuity so 

why would we pay somebody over and over again? What about security? 

Mr. GUERIN. We can control security as a known facility. 

Ms. NORTON. I commend you, Mr. Frazier, you who are supposed 

to be in the security business, that for the duration the United 

States Government has always owned courthouses before 9/11 for 

security reasons and because it was the best real estate practice. 

And I believe we have got to look at this notion. I don’t suggest we 

20 

go buy all the border stations that you could do that. But I would 

hope there would never ever be another leased border station if we 

could possibly help it. 

Mr. FRAZIER. At this time we do not pursue leased new facilities. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. 

Let me ask you, Mr. Guerin, about something that you know is 

dear to the heart of this Committee, but we haven’t found any evidence of it going on. Perhaps you can enlighten us, and that is the 

use of photovoltaic panels. With recovery funds are you trying to 

use voltaic panels, for example, in Mr. Diaz-Balart’s part of the 

country which would seem to be cut out for that kind of thing? 

Mr. GUERIN. We are definitely using photovoltaic panels. We created a large array in the Denver Federal Center and we are adding 

to that array through the Recovery Act. We have a series of other 

projects as well that are using photovoltaics. We have numerous 

roof projects as part of the Recovery Act. And in many of those 

cases we are intending to add photovoltaics to the roofs as well as 

put arrays on the ground, on garages nearby, that kind of thing, 

to try to improve our energy performance. 

Ms. NORTON. What about San Ysidro? 

Mr. GUERIN. San Ysidro, I do not know. We are using 

photovoltaics in Mariposo. 

Ms. NORTON. Apparently, you are not using that at the land port 

of entry. 

Mr. GUERIN. Right, it is an opportunity. There are large canopies 

on the ports of entry that lend themselves to having PV panels on 

them, and I think we are going to use those very frequently. 

Ms. NORTON. Now I am interested in these innovative technologies, particularly in light of the fact that these investments are 

supposed to save energy in the long run. And I want to know how 

you know before you decide on a particular energy conservation approach that the government will—are you guaranteed to make energy savings, Mr. Frazier and Mr. Guerin, as a result of the energy 

conservation mandate of stimulus funding? Do you guarantee that 

to the Federal Government, which is paying more up front almost 

always in order to make these savings? 

Mr. GUERIN. Well, it is not just the Recovery Act, Congresswoman, it is numerous laws and regulations that have been put in 

place recently to ensure that GSA in operating its buildings improves energy performance. And we really think we can guarantee 

that. We are doing commissioning studies on the vast majority of 

the projects that we have underway. A lot of the reason that some 

of the projects haven’t jumped into construction is because we want 

to ensure through a commissioning study that our projects are 

using the funds to the maximum extent possible to improve energy 

performance and we are actively engaged in those. Those studies 

are wrapping up now and will translate into construction work and 

jobs in the coming new year. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Frazier. 

Mr. FRAZIER. And similar to the U.S. General Services Administration, of course we are also subject to all of the various laws, regulations, and executive orders that are now in place to promote and 

ensure the Federal Government is moving to a more energy efficient framework for all of its facilities. And similar to the U.S. GenVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:42 Mar 15, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\53803 JASON
21 

eral Services Administration and in fact I have to thank Mr. 

Guerin in part because we have been able to partner with them a 

great deal in the last several years to explore the use of a variety 

of alternative energy systems and to explore the use of a variety 

of conservation measures that are being built into the newest land 

ports of entry as part of our designs and ultimately into the now 

facilities themselves. 

We go through a number of activities to actually rate and assess 

the performance of those facilities. Currently we actually are conducting energy audits at a number of our locations, not just the 

land ports of entry, in fact at a number of our facilities, to determine what measure of additional conservation we will need to institute to reach the various benchmarks that have been in place 

through the various laws and regulations that are now in place. 

As part of our designing activity as well, we go through a number of kinds of study and analysis that Mr. Guerin referenced earlier to ensure that the designs themselves will be LEED certified, 

will provide the right measure of energy conservation and the right 

measure of performance as part our new facilities. 

In fact, if you look at the facilities that we currently operate, the 

43 land ports in particular that we currently own and operate, 

most of them are so grossly out of date that we could not retrofit 

them to the extent necessary to actually bring them to the level of 

performance that would be required under current law. 

Ms. NORTON. That is a very important point. If you were going 

to do anything with such old buildings today, it almost—you are almost compelled not to be penny wise and pound foolish in retrofitting them. And I think you get to retrofit at a particularly opportune time because now we know, we know from the private sector 

who has been storming ahead on this, that you can calculate now 

in advance pretty reliably what you will reap in saved energy costs, 

and of course this Committee has been very high on that from the 

first energy bill we enacted and we applaud your work there. 

It is you, Mr. Frazier, who testified that your final procurement 

strategy enabled you to save the government about 25 percent over 

your original cost estimates. How were you able to do that? 

Mr. FRAZIER. We actually employed a couple of mechanisms that 

we think were particularly beneficial. One, we actually developed 

our normal design standard into what we call design templates or 

design prototypes. You heard Mr. Guerin reference it as part of his 

opening statement. We have gone through over the last several 

years in working with the U.S. General Services Administration a 

number of efforts to actually standardize the various operational 

components that compose a land port of entry. 

I will give you some easy examples of that. If you look at a standard land port of entry, of course you will always on entering the 

port see a pre-primary lane and a primary lane booth where the 

actual officer is conducting their enforcement operations. Over the 

years in years past those were actually designed independently 

every time we had a new facility. Each time the design team relearned the process of what a land port of entry pre-primary lane 

has to do. In most cases those lanes were not designed to allow us 

to quickly adapt a lane for new technologies over time. So each 

time a new technology came on line we actually had to spend addiVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:42 Mar 15, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\53803 JASON
22 

tional resource to go out and modify the lane to allow it to house 

the new piece of technology. 

Our current standardization effort has allowed us to develop lane 

components that are actually what we call plug and play lanes. 

They actually have temporary conduit vaults that you can open 

when you need to install new technology into the lane to run cabling directly into the lane, close the vault, install the piece of technology, and all of that without having to shut the lane down for 

more than 2 days worth of effort. It is a considerable amount of 

time savings for us, it is a considerable amount of funding savings 

for us. We are doing that across the port of entry, and in fact we 

have finished seven standard component sets now that encompass 

the pre-primary, primary lanes and much of the secondary inspection areas. And we are now extending our look into the actual interior of the buildings themselves to begin to standardize all of those 

component sets as well. By the end of it you will have buildings 

that will reflect elements of distinction that give them the context 

of the environment that they sit within, that work within, but ultimately functioned in a standardized fashion across the northern 

and southern borders. 

Ms. NORTON. First of all, in your work on your work on land 

ports of entry, are you using the same kind of standardization process or not, Mr. Guerin? 

Mr. GUERIN. In fact, CBP and GSA work together on these components to ensure that we are using exactly the same types of technologies and adaptations to improve our ability to deliver. 

Ms. NORTON. I am very pleased to hear about that. You can conform or tailor the building as appropriate, but these are after all 

the same kinds of facilities, the same United States Government. 

May I ask you, Mr. Guerin, whether you think such a standardization process should be used for courthouses in our country? 

Mr. GUERIN. I think in large part the design guide that the 

courts provide, which GSA obviously also worked on with the 

courts, provides a lot of the same idea. They are not as standardized as the land ports of entry, but a lot of the components—— 

Ms. NORTON. You are telling me that there is a standard courthouse? 

Mr. GUERIN. I am not telling you that, Congresswoman, but 

parts of the courthouse are being are becoming more standardized. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Guerin, we have been moribund on courthouses 

for some time and this Committee does not intend to move with 

courthouses, I don’t care how much money is authorized, until 

sharing courthouses is routinely built in, until you in fact have 

ownership of the courthouse business the way you have ownership 

of the land port of entry business, and until, if I may say so, the 

kind of standardization process you and Mr. Frazier have used so 

well here is used in courthouses. But we are unable to proceed in— 

is it L.A.—because they have a sense of what they need that the 

Federal Government is unwilling to spend money to construct. If 

we had begun with standardization, given the fact that it is L.A., 

we would have had to do things that we would not have to do in 

Washington, D.C., but we would have been able to begin saying 

this is how we do courthouses and every increment must be justified. 

23 

So I must ask you where are we with the—I can only call it, to 

be polite, moribund courthouse program? 

Mr. GUERIN. The recent authorizations that this Committee provided helped establish new criteria I think that are going to help 

the court and GSA ensure that our projects are appropriately designed to the requirements that you believe are important to the 

courthouse program. 

Ms. NORTON. We certainly will need to see the elements I have 

just described before approving any more courthouses. You should 

bear that in mind because there may be more courthouses coming. 

It is a favorite of some Members of Congress. I hate to hold them 

up because GSA is in fact who is holding them up. 

But I just want you to know how dissatisfied we have been with 

that program, and especially with the failure to take back the program from the courts who are even less than Mr. Frazier in the 

building business, but have had more to do with building courthouses than is the mandate of Article 3 courts, who have no mandate whatsoever to do that and have wasted tons of money of taxpayer dollars. 

I would like to know particularly if you have been able, Mr. 

Frazier, for example, to come in, boy, do I congratulate you for this, 

5 percent under project costs. What you have done with the rest 

of the money? 

Mr. FRAZIER. Actually as part of the development of our initial 

spend plan that of course reflected 23 projects, we actually scoped 

33 projects and have actually have already prioritized those. 

Ms. NORTON. So you were able to actually retrofit or rehabilitate 

more projects? 

Mr. FRAZIER. We are expecting to do right now with the savings 

we have generated with the first 17 projects awards will be an additional 29—an additional 5 for a total of 29 locations. And we are 

of course expecting commensurate savings from the next six 

projects that we award. Assuming that those savings are also generated, we could do as many as four more, leaving us with 33 total 

design/build projects. 

Ms. NORTON. That is very unusual to hear from a Federal bureaucrat. So let me hear GSA’s report on what percentage below, 

if any, the original projected costs have your projects come in at? 

Mr. GUERIN. We are not quite as lucky as CBP, but we are—— 

Ms. NORTON. Wait a minute. Is this a matter of luck? Roll the 

dice right now then. Let’s see if I can get you to be some more luck. 

Mr. GUERIN. We are experiencing savings of 8 to 10 percent on 

average for the projects awarded so far. 

Ms. NORTON. That is a rather substantial difference. 

Mr. GUERIN. I’m sorry? 

Ms. NORTON. That is a rather substantial difference. 

Mr. GUERIN. It is a rather substantial difference. 

Ms. NORTON. Why the difference? 

Mr. GUERIN. I can only speculate. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Frazier, do you have any insight? 

Mr. FRAZIER. I wouldn’t speak to the deferential itself, but I can 

say that in part a number of the POEs we work on are smaller and 

therefore less complicated as a total construction project. So we 

were able to do a lot of the design prototyping for those facilities 

24 

at the outset whereas most of the GSA facilities that we put at the 

top of our priority list are fairly substantial facilities that have 

very complicated construction designs and construction phasing associated with them. In that case it is typically difficult to generate 

the kinds of savings that we see. 

Ms. NORTON. You know, Wal-Mart has been such a successful 

company, precisely because it doesn’t keep reinventing the wheel 

and the kind of design prototyping that you were describing is routine, although communities obviously force them to tailor their 

stores as well. 

Mr. Guerin, to what extent that is measurable does the GSA engage in design prototyping? 

Mr. GUERIN. The GSA doesn’t do a lot of prototyping on a total 

building scale. We do prototyping, as we talked about earlier, in 

components of buildings. But each building is unique, each building 

is located in a particular place, each building has its own challenges in terms of site. 

Ms. NORTON. That is not true for border patrol stations. 

Mr. GUERIN. We do not work on border patrol stations typically. 

The land ports of entry program, they are actually very unique aspects of land ports of entry, elevation changes, railroad—— 

Ms. NORTON. More so than border patrol stations. 

Mr. GUERIN. I am sorry? 

Ms. NORTON. More so than border patrol stations? 

Mr. GUERIN. I believe so, Congresswoman, because they are located in a particular location that is presidentially directed, actually internationally directed to a specific spot on the map, whereas 

a border patrol station typically can be located in sort of a large 

swath of area depending on CBP requirements. But each land port 

of entry is a unique facility. We have use adaptation, we have tried 

that in several locations. The component process that we are talking about with the—— 

Ms. NORTON. I would ask you, Mr. Guerin, to look at the design 

prototyping that the Custom and Border Patrol uses and within 30 

days submit to this Committee whether or not you think any of it 

is applicable to GSA. If we don’t find ways to pattern build, we are 

not going to be building at all. The fact is that you don’t build that 

much anymore. So I am not suggesting that you are all over the 

country building, increasingly you lease and that is one of the great 

issues. But where in fact you do build, and the most prominent example is courthouses, one would hope that we would not consider 

every courthouses a world unto itself. That is what has given the 

judges license to have ceilings that you would only have found in 

the 19th century, multiple kitchens and facilities that are unheard 

of and unknown in the Federal Government, something almost approaching corruption. But they don’t consider it that way, because 

if the GSA says you can do it they figure the rules must say so. 

So we would ask you to look at what the Border Patrol, since it 

does one kind of building normally, and within 30 days indicate to 

us whether or not for courts—I am not asking to you look at every 

kind of building you do but for courthouses—in the future, somewhere down the pike—I am not asking you to do anything in the 

immediate future—some kind of design prototyping could be perfected. 

25 

Mr. GUERIN. Okay. 

Ms. NORTON. Excuse me? 

Mr. GUERIN. I said okay. 

Ms. NORTON. Okay. I don’t have a lot of questions. This division 

of funds between the two agencies was done at what level; were 

you both asked for your input? Because you are not building, Mr. 

Frazier, for the most part. It seems to me you are not building at 

all. You are building, yet the bulk of the money, or more of the 

money, goes to Customs and Border Protection. How is that division decided upon, and on the northern border at that? 

Mr. GUERIN. We had anticipated—well, the legislation obviously 

dictated the split of the money. I don’t think that was a decision 

of the two executive—— 

Ms. NORTON. The appropriators did it, in other words? 

Mr. GUERIN. I believe that is—— 

Ms. NORTON. With the money. The administration came up with 

a bulk figure of 720 million, or billion or whatever. I just want to 

make sure how—it would seem, Mr. Frazier, that there were a lot 

of deteriorated buildings along the northern border. Is that it? 

There was a particular need? Of course, as the GSA—a GAO report 

coming—and that is not one we requested. So there were folks up 

there on the northern border who wondered about the amount apparently. 

Mr. FRAZIER. I would say that for our facilities prior to the enactment of the stimulus legislation itself we have not been able to do 

major reconstruction of a facility that we own since we were created and probably in 3 decades before that. So most of those facilities are in a substantial state of disrepair right now. 

I will also say and forgive me, Madam Chairwoman, we actually on an annual basis do about 500 to $700 million in major construction. 

Ms. NORTON. What kind of construction? You don’t build all 

those border stations, do you? 

Mr. FRAZIER. We actually build—and I am probably going to get 

in trouble for saying this, because I will say that I only do ports 

of entry, but we build the fence projects as well, we build border 

patrol stations, we build air and marine operation facilities, and we 

actually do build to suit leasing at a number of other locations as 

well. 

Ms. NORTON. So you must have learned how to do pattern design 

building. I would like GSA to take a look at how you do it then. 

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. Apprenticeship, this has been a big concern of this 

Committee and we do have apprenticeship, your apprenticeship 

programs is going to begin here in the District of Columbia. Would 

you report on the status of apprenticeship programs? I asked that 

not only because it is a job creation exercise as well, but because 

the skilled construction trade cohort is aging out. These people are 

retiring or about to retire and this is-- they have good pensions, 

certainly if they are union journeymen and so there is every incentive to get out now. So the apprenticeship program is aimed at, as 

well, replenishing this important sector in the United States. 

So I need to know whether in each of your projects there are apprenticeship programs. 

26 

Mr. GUERIN. I will speak to the GSA projects. There is a requirement in each of the contracts for large construction projects to have 

an apprenticeship program. So it is active and happening in each 

of our large construction projects. 

As you know, there is also a pre-apprenticeship program that Congress authorized $3 million for. We have spent approximately 

$2 million. Our first graduating class here in Washington is happening next weak. Congressman, I understand you are going to 

speak at that event and I appreciate that very much. We are in the 

throes of the second solicitation to spend the rest of those funds. 

We have proposals in and we are evaluating those now. So we are 

getting ready to proceed with the rest of the spending on that program. 

So in summary, we have an apprenticeship program as well as 

pre-apprenticeship programs happening right now. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Frazier. 

Mr. FRAZIER. Candidly, we don’t have an apprenticeship program 

as part of our construction projects themselves. Now I will say that 

as part of our acquisition strategy what we have tried to do is expand beyond the normal pool of design teams and construction 

firms that would normally be involved in a land port of entry 

project, to in fact encourage the growth inside the construction sector of an expertise associated with this type of construction. Land 

port of entry construction has typically been proven to be a particularly challenging kind of project because of the number of interests 

involved and the various complexities of the facilities themselves. 

So as part of our acquisition strategy we are looking to, either 

through subcontracting or direct to small business contracting, encourage growth of both design firms and the construction disciplines themselves that are more experienced in this kind of construction activity. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Frazier, I am going to ask you to have a look 

at Mr. Guerin’s apprenticeship program even as I have asked him 

to take a look your pattern design program. It is not acceptable to 

have Federal funds being used on a construction project today 

without doing some kind of apprenticeship development on that 

project. You are not developing the workforce. And the important 

thing about the administration’s work is not geared only to lifting 

the economy up, it is very forward looking, and given the amount 

of work you do, and you have described defense work, work well 

beyond your own work, it is inconsistent with how this administration has proceeded not to be preparing people for the work that you 

will be doing. And I have to tell you that there will be criticism of 

Federal projects that are not preparing for the workforce of the future. 

Much of that workforce will be people of color and women. These 

are people who faced intentional discrimination for decades. The industry has been open now for a number of decades as well, but 

there was no government funding as there was in the 1960s and 

1970s, wiped out at about 1980, and what we have now is a very 

embarrassing construction industry. It is a largely white male industry. It is an industry that is that way not because of the old discrimination patterns of the past, but because government funding 

has not been there to assist the industry, much less government 

27 

monitoring. We are making up for that now. I don’t think this administration would want to put itself in the same bag as prior administrations, which is feeding money into an almost 100 percent 

white male workforce and doing nothing to prepare younger people, 

people from the very rural areas that you are acquainted with, the 

areas that may not be at the center or the epicenter of the project 

itself. You don’t want to be scarred by that process, not with this 

many Federal funds. 

And I must tell you, as a lawyer, there is, in my judgment, a 

cause of action against the government under Title VI of the Civil 

Rights Act and the 14th amendment of the United States. You cannot use government money to reinforce discriminatory patterns, 

even if you are not the originator of those patterns. 

Be forewarned. An administration with the values of this administration should not only be forewarned, it should be proactive. 

So, Mr. Frazier, could I ask you to look at Mr. Guerin’s program 

and get back to us within 30 days as to whether or not you think 

you might create a similar apprenticeship program? 

Mr. FRAZIER. We would be happy to. 

Ms. NORTON. Appreciate it. 

Final question, small business plans. The President has been 

speaking out about the failure of the banks to follow through with 

the job creation arm of our sector, the small business sector, they 

are dying on the vine. And all of us are therefore looking to see 

whether with government generated funds there are small business 

plans that are in fact employing small businesses and to what extent that is happening. 

I would like each of you to describe your own small business 

plans, if any. 

Mr. GUERIN. The General Services Administration has a long history of encouraging use of small business. We have very high goals 

for ourselves and we achieve them, try to achieve them every year. 

I think we have hit most of them except for a few disabled veterans 

goals last year, I believe. 

Ms. NORTON. Now I am talking about at the moment for the 

stimulus projects. 

Mr. GUERIN. I understand. 

Ms. NORTON. The Recovery Act funding. What were the goals, 

how are they being met? What can you tell me specifically about 

your small business plans? 

Mr. GUERIN. Specifically, Congresswoman, we have the same 

goals for small business for the Recovery Act projects as we have 

for the rest. 

Ms. NORTON. And what is that? 

Mr. GUERIN. We have specific numbers, if you will bear with me 

for just a second. 

Ms. NORTON. While he is looking, Mr. Frazier, would you? 

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, Ma’am. Of the original 23 projects that we 

identified for design/build, six were set aside as direct small business design/build construction projects. The remaining 17 we actually built into each of those projects with our partners, the Army 

Corps of Engineers and the U.S. General Services Administration. 

The small business goals that they themselves instituted as part of 

the IDIQ awards. So for the core multiple award task order conVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:42 Mar 15, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\53803 JASON
28 

tracts, they had a 70 percent goal for set-aide as part of the entire 

contract of which we would probably see 30 to 40 percent set-aside 

as part of small business in each phase. So each phase, design, and 

construction would have the same goals attached to it. And GSA 

has a very similarity set of goals built into it their IDIQs as well. 

For all of our backup projects, because we are no longer on the 

100—the original legislation had a 180-day award timeline set into 

it. For our backup projects they are no longer part of that original 

timeline. So we are actually looking at doing more small business 

direct for any of those projects as we are moving forward. 

Ms. NORTON. And you say at each phase? 

Mr. FRAZIER. For design phase and for the construction phase. 

Ms. NORTON. That is a very important and very good to hear. We 

would like within 30 days to get a copy of your small business plan 

and of the results thus far. 

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Guerin. 

Mr. GUERIN. Congresswoman, we are moving into our smaller 

projects where small business set-asides are appropriate. Right 

now a lot of the commissioning studies are happening and they will 

result in single system projects and projects that are very appropriate for small business set-aside contracts. 

We have a number of goals that I described. Roughly 37 percent 

of our total is set aside for small business. We expect to achieve 

those goals and we have a series of numbers broken down below 

that for various specific set-asides. So we are expecting to, as I 

said, achieve the same kind of performance that we have in the 

past with the Recovery Act projects, and the projects now coming 

into fruition for construction are going to start really helping us towards achieve those goals. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Frazier got my attention by speaking about the 

set-asides for each phase. It is one of the great complaints. Could 

we have your, same for you, Mr. Frazier, a copy of your small business plan, the results thus far within 30 days? 

Mr. GUERIN. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much. Very helpful testimony. We 

congratulate you both on your figures, notwithstanding the criticism, and the criticism may have been well placed elsewhere, but 

certainly both of you have reported statistics that appear to us to 

be credible. We believe you are in a better position to give credible 

statistics because you are directly involved, but we also appreciate 

what looks like the on-schedule timing. By the way, before I go, 

Mr. Guerin has to 2011 for completion—for full obligation. You, Mr. 

Frazier, I think have only to 2010. 

Mr. FRAZIER. That is correct. 

Ms. NORTON. Are you on schedule? He has a little more time 

than you do. 

Mr. FRAZIER. In spite of the fact that I don’t do as much construction as Mr. Guerin does, we are pretty good at moving these 

forward. So we are on schedule to have all of our construction 

projects awarded well in advance. 

Ms. NORTON. Well in advance of the end of 2010. 

Mr. FRAZIER. Fiscal year to 2010, yes, ma’am. 

29 

Mr. GUERIN. And Congresswoman, we have to obligate $5 billion by the end of 2010 and we have $500 million that can move into 

2011, and we are also on track to deliver the $5 billion by the end 

of 2010. 

Ms. NORTON. Very good, Mr. Guerin. 

The Ranking Member—— 

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. No. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, sir, and thank you both for this very 

useful testimony. 

[Whereupon, at 4:09 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

30 


Insert offset folio 5 here 53803.005
31 


Insert offset folio 6 here 53803.006
32 


Insert offset folio 7 here 53803.007
33 


Insert offset folio 8 here 53803.008
34 


Insert offset folio 9 here 53803.009
35 


Insert offset folio 10 here 53803.010
36 


Insert offset folio 11 here 53803.011
37 


Insert offset folio 12 here 53803.012
38 


Insert offset folio 13 here 53803.013
39 


Insert offset folio 14 here 53803.014
40 


Insert offset folio 15 here 53803.015
41 


Insert offset folio 16 here 53803.016
42 


Insert offset folio 17 here 53803.017
43 


Insert offset folio 18 here 53803.018
44 


Insert offset folio 19 here 53803.019
45 


Insert offset folio 20 here 53803.020
46 


Insert offset folio 21 here 53803.021
47 


Insert offset folio 22 here 53803.022
48 


Insert offset folio 23 here 53803.023
49 


Insert offset folio 24 here 53803.024
50 


Insert offset folio 25 here 53803.025
51 


Insert offset folio 26 here 53803.026
52 


Insert offset folio 27 here 53803.027
53 


Insert offset folio 28 here 53803.028
54 


Insert offset folio 29 here 53803.029
55 


Insert offset folio 30 here 53803.030
56 


Insert offset folio 31 here 53803.031
57 


Insert offset folio 32 here 53803.032
58 


Insert offset folio 33 here 53803.033
59 


Insert offset folio 34 here 53803.034
60 


Insert offset folio 35 here 53803.035
61 


Insert offset folio 36 here 53803.036
62 


Insert offset folio 37 here 53803.037
63 


Insert offset folio 38 here 53803.038
64 


Insert offset folio 39 here 53803.039
65 


Insert offset folio 40 here 53803.040
66 


Insert offset folio 41 here 53803.041
67 


Insert offset folio 42 here 53803.042
68 


Insert offset folio 43 here 53803.043
69 


Insert offset folio 44 here 53803.044
70 


Insert offset folio 45 here 53803.045
71 


Insert offset folio 46 here 53803.046
72 


Insert offset folio 47 here 53803.047
73 


Insert offset folio 48 here 53803.048
74 


Insert offset folio 49 here 53803.049
75 


Insert offset folio 50 here 53803.050
76 


Insert offset folio 51 here 53803.051
77 


Insert offset folio 52 here 53803.052
78 


Insert offset folio 53 here 53803.053
79 


Insert offset folio 54 here 53803.054
80 


Insert offset folio 55 here 53803.055
81 


Insert offset folio 56 here 53803.056
82 


Insert offset folio 57 here 53803.057
83 


Insert offset folio 58 here 53803.058
84 


Insert offset folio 59 here 53803.059
85 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 60 here 53803.060