    [House Hearing, 111 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                              TRACKING HEARING #2:
                              GSA STIMULUS FUNDS -
                           UP, OUT, AND CREATING JOBS

    =======================================================================

                                    (111-29)

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
        ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                       TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                  May 5, 2009

                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
                 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

                                   ----------
                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    49-593 PDF                       WASHINGTON : 2009

    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) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP,
    Washington, DC 20402-0001

                 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                     JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman

    NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia,   JOHN L. MICA, Florida
    Vice Chair                           DON YOUNG, Alaska
    PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon             THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
    JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois          HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
    ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of   JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
    Columbia                             VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
    JERROLD NADLER, New York             FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
    CORRINE BROWN, Florida               JERRY MORAN, Kansas
    BOB FILNER, California               GARY G. MILLER, California
    EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas         HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
    GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi             Carolina
    ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland         TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
    ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California        TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
    LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa             SAM GRAVES, Missouri
    TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania             BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
    BRIAN BAIRD, Washington              JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    RICK LARSEN, Washington              SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
    MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts    Virginia
    TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York          JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
    MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine            MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
    RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri              CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
    GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California      CONNIE MACK, Florida
    DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois            LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
    MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
    JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania          CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
    TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota           MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
    HEATH SHULER, North Carolina         VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
    MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York          ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
    HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona           BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
    CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania  ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana
    JOHN J. HALL, New York               AARON SCHOCK, Illinois
    STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin               PETE OLSON, Texas
    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

                                      (ii)

     Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
                                   Management

               ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Columbia, Chair

    BETSY MARKEY, Colorado               MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
    MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine            TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
    HEATH SHULER, North Carolina         SAM GRAVES, Missouri
    PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama             SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
    RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri              Virginia
    TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota           MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
    MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York          BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
    CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY,               ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana
    Pennsylvania, Vice Chair             PETE OLSON, Texas
    DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
    THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia
    JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
      (Ex Officio)

                                     (iii)

                                    CONTENTS

                                                                       Page

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

                                   TESTIMONY

    Ebadi, Shapour, St. Elizabeth's Project Executive, U.S. General
      Services Administration........................................     6
    Gallagher, Michael, Assistant Deputy Commissioner, Budget,
      Finance and Management, Social Security Administration.........     6
    Guerin, William, Project Management Office Executive, U.S.
      General Services Administration, accompanied by Dawud Abdur-
      Rahman, Development Director, Headquarters, Department of
      Homeland Security..............................................     6
    Miller, Brian, Inspector General, U.S. General Services
      Administration.................................................     6

              PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

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

                   PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

    Gallagher, Michael...............................................    43
    Guerin, William..................................................    46
    Miller, Hon. Brian...............................................    53

                           SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Gallagher, Michael, Assistant Deputy Commissioner, Budget,
      Finance and Management, Social Security Administration,
      response to question for the record............................    26
    Miller, Hon. Brian D., Inspector General, U.S. General Services
      Administration, supplemental testimony.........................    62

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

      TRACKING HEARING #2: GSA STIMULUS FUNDS - UP, OUT, AND CREATING JOBS

                                  ----------

                             Tuesday, May 5, 2009,

                      House of Representatives,
                  Subcommittee on Economic Development,
                     Public Buildings and Emergency Management,
                        Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
            Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:18 p.m., in
    Room 2165, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eleanor Holmes
    Norton [chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Ms. Norton. I apologize to the committee for my tardiness
    in starting this committee hearing. I was detained off campus
    where I was speaking. I do not know what is happening in D.C.--
    you have to detour to get back to the office--but I will find
    out.
        The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, signed into law
    on February 17, 2009, provided $5.55 billion for the General
    Services Administration. I am especially pleased to be chairing
    the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and
    Emergency Management at a time when Congress has provided
    unprecedented funds for repair and rehabilitation to the GSA:
    $4.5 billion to convert federally owned GSA buildings into
    high-performance green buildings; another $300 million for
    border stations and land ports of entry; and an additional $750
    million for repair, alteration and construction of other
    Federal buildings and courthouses, of which $450 million is
    allocated to the new Department of Homeland Security
    Headquarters project located on the old St. Elizabeth's west
    campus in the District of Columbia.
        This second tracking hearing on GSA's progress on the
    creation of jobs and on the repair and rehabilitation of
    Federal buildings follows the Full Committee hearing last week,
    featuring all of the Subcommittees, entitled "Recovery Act: 10-
    Week Progress Report for Transportation and Infrastructure
    Programs."
        The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is
    requiring that all funds be obligated by September 30, 2010,
    with the remainder available until September 30, 2011. Note
    that word "available." Move it or lose it. However, GSA stands
    out among Federal agencies because this agency does not
    distribute its funds to States or localities, but itself is
    fully accountable as a Federal agency for the necessary job
    creation, work and timelines on Federal buildings.
        Moreover, because the GSA funds will be spent on Federal
    structures, taxpayers will get an additional bang for the
    Federal buck with energy savings that are central to all of
    these GSA projects. So important is GSA's dual role as a
    Federal agency, for which the administration and the Congress
    is also accountable, that the White House announced the GSA
    projects and locations itself. Thus, this Subcommittee has a
    particularly important oversight role to ensure that the GSA
    and the Federal Government lead by example and quickly create
    jobs. Consequently, I intend to frequently convene hearings to
    track the progress in obligating funds and in creating jobs to
    help GSA spot issues early. The GSA project list, now online,
    covers all 50 States, the District of Columbia and the
    territories.
        I urge Members of the Subcommittee and other Members of
    Congress to personally monitor job creation in their districts
    and States.
        Today, I am releasing the 22 projects in my district that
    include six high-performance green buildings, full and partial
    building modernizations, and 16 other high-performance green
    building projects.
        Because the District of Columbia is the seat of the Federal
    Government, with most of its prime land off the local tax rolls
    to be used for Federal office space, the District ranks number
    one in government projects in need of work, with Texas ranked
    number two. However, GSA prepared its list of potential
    projects based entirely on its backlog of repairs needed to
    maintain its own large inventory throughout the Nation.
        The Committee insisted, our Subcommittee insisted, that all
    projects contain a significant energy saving component, and GSA
    refined its list to incorporate energy efficiencies and new
    technologies along with contract timelines. As a result of
    GSA's projects, we expect to move Federal Government
    procurement to a lead position for energy-efficient buildings,
    allowing taxpayers to receive the rewards of lower energy
    costs.
        The congressional focus on the repair of existing Federal
    buildings will also preserve the valuable federally owned
    inventory for occupancy and for other vital needs. Importantly,
    providing jobs that stimulate the economy is the primary
    purpose of the stimulus bill. Our Subcommittee staff has worked
    closely with GSA to assure that its Recovery Act projects can
    be implemented quickly while providing many jobs at a variety
    of skill levels.
        Because of its proven twin effects on stimulating the
    economy and on putting people to work quickly, infrastructure
    is at the heart of the Recovery Act itself. It was therefore
    impossible to avoid the reality that the training deficit in
    construction jobs among some Americans could produce disputes
    when federally funded jobs go to the already trained, mostly
    white male workforce. However, these workers, these
    construction workers, have faced a long period of unemployment
    and have one of the highest unemployment rates in the country.
    Considering the steep rise in unemployment for minorities,
    women and the like, however, the last thing the country needs
    is racial, ethnic, or other group tension.
        We have taken some steps to avoid this division among
    workers and allied minorities and women. Consistent training
    has been the major barrier for minorities and women in
    construction since the Federal Government ceased funding a
    large management-labor training program in 1980, resulting in
    too few journeyman apprentices and other trained workers for
    many of the trades. However, today's unprecedented amount of
    stimulus funds committed to infrastructure and job creation is
    a call to action to avoid missing this opportunity by mounting
    well-designed pre-apprenticeship and apprenticeship training
    that can lead to high-paying journeymen jobs.
        If we are vigilant, the economic crisis which has created
    the worst of times can create new opportunities. We have gotten
    off to a good start in this Recovery Act with $3 million for
    on-the-job pre-apprentice and apprenticeship training in the
    GSA section of the bill and $20 million for training in the
    highway section.
        The training money in the GSA section raises several
    issues, because the amount is so small, about where and how
    much money can be efficiently spent to produce the intended
    results. Both sections of the bill are woefully insufficient
    for the training, and I intend to introduce a bill for
    mandatory training in the upcoming highways and transit
    reauthorization bill.
        A good amount of money has been available in the
    transportation bill for a decade--with one-half of 1 percent of
    State highway dollars available for training programs. However,
    only 17 States have chosen to spend some of their funds for
    training, leaving minorities and women untrained, and
    abdicating the responsibility of the State and Federal
    Governments to prevent discrimination when Federal dollars are
    used.
        In the interim, when acting administrator Paul Prouty
    testified at last week's hearing, I suggested that GSA consider
    working with the Department of Transportation to devise the
    most effective way to allocate these funds on a nationwide
    basis. Both agencies have too little funds for the training
    necessary, but together they may be able to avoid a duplication
    of efforts and may be able to perhaps achieve some economies of
    scale.
        At today's hearing, we will hear in greater detail from GSA
    about how it expects to obligate funds to create jobs, to
    ensure quality construction, and to create and adhere to the
    necessary timetables. GSA Inspector General Brian Miller has
    already acknowledged that the rapid spending of government
    funds creates considerable risks. We have learned that lesson
    in the post-Katrina period as well as with spending associated
    with the Iraqi war. We will also hear from a GSA customer, the
    Social Security Administration, that will benefit from these
    funds.
        I want to thank today's witnesses, and I very much look
    forward to their testimony.
        May I ask now if the Ranking Member has any opening
    remarks?
        Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Let me first
    thank you for holding this oversight hearing today on GSA's
    Recovery Act funds.
        It seems that Congress is now in the position of having put
    the cart before the horse by, frankly, passing legislation that
    contains no oversight and yet demanding, after the money is
    spent or has been out the door, to have some oversight, which
    is why this is such an important hearing.
        We recently saw the consequences of, frankly, hastily
    enacted legislation, significant and expensive legislation
    without oversight and with the ongoing scandals that we
    continue to read about and see regarding and resulting from the
    TARP money.
        That is why, again, I want to thank the Chairwoman for
    holding this hearing today--to allow us some opportunity for
    oversight of the funds for the GSA projects.
        As the Chairwoman said, the Recovery Act included $5.5
    billion for the GSA Federal Building Fund. Considering this
    huge investment, we know that the potential is there for waste,
    frankly. The Chairwoman, herself, just talked about that. The
    Federal real property has been on the GAO's high-risk list
    since 2003, and according to the GAO, longstanding problems in
    the Federal real property area have multibillion-dollar cost
    implications to the taxpayer, obviously, and to GSA. So the
    workload for GSA, with regard to Federal buildings, has tripled
    now under this legislation, creating, obviously, more potential
    for problems with mismanagement, with waste and with cost
    overruns.
        So the last thing, obviously, that American taxpayers need
    or want to see are projects that are started and then all of a
    sudden finished because they are too costly, or because there
    is not enough money, or because the money is misspent, or
    because they are coming back to Congress for more money because
    those funds were not sufficient for the projects that were
    started. Again, we need to make sure that the money is well
    spent, and that is why I want to thank the Chairwoman for this
    hearing.
        At a hearing in January, the GAO recommended three guiding
    principles for GSA projects funded under this Recovery Act:
    Number one, it was to create well-defined goals based on
    identified areas of interest. Number two, it was to incorporate
    performance and accountability into funding decisions. Number
    three, it was to employ the best tools and approaches to
    emphasize return on investment.
        Here lies a bit of the problem. None of these practical
    suggestions to help avoid risk in spending of taxpayers' money
    was incorporated into the bill, which is, I think, too bad.
        Now, however, I am interested in knowing, again, under the
    employment of these principles, if that is the objective of
    GSA--to make sure that we do not have the problems that we
    could have. So, while the stated purpose of the Recovery Act
    was to stimulate jobs, the bill also set aside $4.5 billion of
    the $5.5 billion to convert GSA facilities to high-performance
    green buildings, as identified in section 401 of the Energy
    Independence and Security Act.
        So, obviously, we all recognize that energy conservation
    and independence is an important goal. It is a very important
    goal. However, it is also important to realize that this was a
    stimulus bill. Ensuring tax dollars included in the bill are
    there to create jobs has to be the primary goal, and I think it
    is, but it has to be the primary goal of GSA. Unfortunately,
    and we had this conversation last week, we have yet to see the
    number of jobs that are going to be created by those funded
    projects, and I am hoping those will be forthcoming.
        In addition, among the requirements of the Energy Act are
    reducing energy, water and material resources use, improving
    indoor environmental quality, including acoustic environments,
    and considering the indoor and outdoor effects of the building.
        Again, that is part of the act, so therein lies part of the
    challenge: create jobs or do this other part that is also
    required. I for one think, obviously, that the purpose of this
    bill is to create jobs and to create them immediately.
        I am pleased that the Chairwoman is holding this oversight
    hearing. She is very committed to doing this, and I want to
    thank her for that. I do remain concerned there is still the
    tremendous potential for mismanagement and for waste, and the
    number of jobs that these projects will create has yet to be
    demonstrated.
        So, while many of the projects may be worthy--and frankly,
    even some of them very necessary--we must ensure that such
    large commitments of taxpayer dollars are properly used, that
    the money is properly managed and, obviously, that the priority
    that Congress was hoping for, which is job creation, continues
    to be priority number one.
        So I look forward to hearing from all of you. I really
    thank you all for being here and for spending your time with us
    today. Once again, I will end by thanking the Chairwoman for
    having what is a very important oversight meeting. Thank you.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Diaz-Balart, it was a pleasure to go to Florida with
    you last Friday and to learn so much. I think that we will
    prepare the entire country for the coming hurricane season.
        I am pleased to recognize Ms. Edwards of Maryland.
        Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you to
    the panel this morning.
        I am excited to be here and to hear the progress that is
    being made in GSA. I just want to take a moment and recognize,
    along with you, that I know that you have the capacity at GSA
    to do not just the job creation that we envisioned under the
    Recovery and Reinvestment Act, but also to make sure that we
    are building buildings for the future and that we are
    transforming buildings for the future.
        I note that I see, with the GSA team, a fellow who was
    deeply involved in moving forward the amazing green building at
    the Food and Drug Administration, which is in my district, and
    I would like to see those kinds of buildings with Federal
    funds--Federal buildings--all across the country because, in
    the long run, it will save us a ton of money.
        I know that in the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Madam
    Chairwoman, part of what we recognize is that we want to create
    jobs in the short term and that we want to create opportunities
    and savings for the taxpayers in the future. And so I look
    forward to hearing that aspect of what you all have in mind and
    to working with you over these next several months and years to
    make sure that we can do what the Chairwoman has in mind as
    well, and that is to create job opportunities for the thousands
    and thousands of people out there who could be trained up to
    engage in productive, economic activity in support of the
    mission of GSA and in support of the taxpayer, if we could just
    get them the skills base to do that. So thank you for being
    here today.
        Madam Chairwoman, thank you very much for holding this
    important oversight hearing.
        I would say in conclusion that while there may not be
    direct oversight authority as we move forward with looking at
    the expenditure in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act,
    Congress always has broad authority to look at the way taxpayer
    dollars are spent, and that is exactly what we are doing here
    today. Thank you.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Ms. Edwards. May I
    congratulate you on your performance at Shakespeare last night
    where you were typecast as an environmental activist.
        Mr. Cao, do you have any opening remarks?
        Mr. Cao. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        I would like to thank the members of the panel for being
    here today. I am very much interested in the recovery process
    of the Second Congressional District. I know that there are
    various projects in the district that are presently being
    used--the stimulus money being used--in connection with several
    of the projects down there in the district. I am interested in
    hearing about those projects and about how taxpayer money is
    being used to renovate or to improve some of those projects
    down there.
        I would just like to thank Mr. Brian Miller personally for
    being a member of the Department of Justice Hurricane Katrina
    Task Force because, right after Katrina, we faced a tremendous
    crime issue in the district. Your help, along with others, was
    very appreciated, and I hope that you can continue to assist us
    in that area, if possible.
        So, with that, thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Cao.
        I am just playing tic-tac-toe with my Ranking Member here.
    No, we were listening to you, but we were having a side
    conversation.
        Meanwhile, we are very pleased to welcome today's
    witnesses: William Guerin, who is the Project Management Office
    Executive for this project, who is accompanied by Dawud Abdur-
    Rahman, who is the Development Director for the largest of the
    projects--the headquarters of the Department of Homeland
    Security; Brian Miller, the Inspector General for GSA; and
    Michael Gallagher, the Assistant Deputy Commissioner of Budget,
    Finance and Management at the Social Security Administration.

        TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM GUERIN, PROJECT MANAGEMENT OFFICE
    EXECUTIVE, U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED BY
        DAWUD ABDUR-RAHMAN, DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, HEADQUARTERS,
       DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; BRIAN MILLER, INSPECTOR
     GENERAL, U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; SHAPOUR EBADI,
       ST. ELIZABETH'S PROJECT EXECUTIVE, U.S. GENERAL SERVICES
        ADMINISTRATION; AND MICHAEL GALLAGHER, ASSISTANT DEPUTY
     COMMISSIONER, BUDGET, FINANCE AND MANAGEMENT, SOCIAL SECURITY
                             ADMINISTRATION

        Ms. Norton. Let us begin in the order I have just
    indicated.
        Mr. Guerin. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Ranking Member
    Diaz-Balart, Mr. Cao, and Ms. Edwards. Thank you very much for
    inviting us to participate on the panel today.
        My name is William Guerin, and I am the recovery executive
    in our newly established Recovery Program Management Office in
    GSA's Public Building Service.
        The funds Congress provided us through the American
    Recovery and Reinvestment Act are a sound investment. First,
    these funds will stimulate growth in the construction and real
    estate sectors. Second, it will help us reduce energy
    consumption and improve the environmental performance of our
    inventory. Third, it is an investment in the existing
    infrastructure. We recognize that this is not business as
    usual.
        To better implement our part of the Recovery Act, we
    created a program management office. The PMO is nationally
    managed and is regionally executed. At the national level, we
    are staffed with a combination of in-house experts, high-
    performing employees, and industry hires. The PMO is further
    supported by contract and consultant resources. I was recently
    named as the recovery executive to lead this Office. In
    addition, an executive steering committee, headed by our Deputy
    Commissioner, advises the PMO. The steering committee developed
    a nationwide program strategy and helped set priorities. They
    will approve any changes to the project list and will address
    national customer concerns.
        In terms of project execution, we have an aggressive
    schedule. We are streamlining our business processes and
    approaches to meet that schedule. For example, we created three
    zone committees. The zones are geographically based to monitor
    projects at the regional level. Each zone is led by a zone
    executive who assists in tracking and in monitoring our
    projects. They will be able to shift support resources to
    projects and to regions as needed. In effect, the PMO serves as
    an early warning system for projects that are not meeting
    anticipated targets, and we just appointed our three zone
    executives last week.
        Since enactment of the Recovery Act, we have moved quickly.
    On March 31, we delivered a list of 254 projects to Congress.
    These projects fall into three categories: new construction,
    including $1 billion invested in 17 projects; full and partial
    building modernizations, investing $3.2 billion in 43 projects;
    and limited scope, high-performance green building projects
    where we have invested $807 million to repair and to enhance
    building infrastructure systems in more than 194 projects.
        To date, we have awarded close to $100 million, and we
    currently have a number of solicitations on the street. We
    expect to award at least another $100 million in recovery
    projects by early June. Of the $5.5 billion we received, our
    goal is to obligate $1 billion by August 1st and another $1
    billion by the end of the calendar year. We have target dates
    for project awards in each quarter to ensure we obligate $5
    billion by the end of fiscal year 2010 and an additional $550
    million by the end of 2011.
        As described previously in our written statement, we use
    criteria in selecting projects for our spend plan that would
    put people back to work quickly and that will transform our
    Federal buildings into high-performance green buildings. For
    many of the common high-performance green building elements, we
    have developed standard scopes of work. These standard scopes
    of work will be shared nationwide and with other agencies
    engaged in Recovery Act work. In addition, we are using
    regional and national contracts to support our reporting and
    tracking efforts and program management activities.
        Finally, pre-apprenticeship and apprenticeship programs
    will be an integral part of our Recovery Act projects. These
    programs will be established as contractual requirements for
    our building projects. The programs will be modeled after GSA's
    successful program in the National Capital Region, through
    which at least 840 people at 15 projects have been trained and
    employed since the program's inception in 2002.
        Joining me today is Dawud Abdur-Rahman, the Development
    Director for the DHS headquarters at St. Elizabeth's.
        Madam Chair, Ranking Member Diaz-Balart and Members of the
    Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I have
    briefly described our activities as part of the American
    Recovery and Reinvestment Act. We look forward to working with
    you and with Members of the Subcommittee as we engage in this
    important work.
        We have just appointed our three zone executives, who fill
    out our whole team in the central office. I will be pleased to
    answer any questions that you or other Members of the
    Subcommittee may have.
        Ms. Norton. Mr. Abdur-Rahman, do you have any statement at
    this time?
        Mr. Abdur-Rahman. No, Madam Chair, I do not.
        Ms. Norton. Well then, will you be prepared then to answer
    questions later?
        Mr. Abdur-Rahman. Yes.
        Ms. Norton. We are glad to have you here.
        Mr. Miller.
        Mr. Miller. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon.
        Madam Chair, Ranking Member Diaz-Balart, Members of the
    Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify at this
    important hearing.
        These Recovery Act projects are monumental. Fifty years
    from now, people will be talking about how these Recovery Act
    projects have transformed the way government delivers services
    to the American people. It is important that we get these
    right. Thank you for having this hearing.
        As you know, GSA's normal construction budget for building
    projects is about $1.3 billion a year. The Recovery Act
    provides GSA with an additional $5.55 billion in construction
    funding and $300 million for acquisition of energy-efficient
    vehicles. The increase in construction funding alone is four
    times GSA's typical construction budget for a single year. The
    Recovery Act requires GSA to obligate the majority of those
    funds within a 20-month period. In addition to funds going
    directly to GSA, significant additional amounts will flow
    through GSA from other agencies. These additional amounts
    include, for example, $620 million from DHS, $90 million from
    State, and possibly $500 million from the Social Security
    Administration.
        The bottom line is that GSA is being asked to spend and to
    manage five times more than it normally does in a significantly
    shortened time frame.
        The Office of Inspector General has been meeting regularly
    with the agency both to monitor Recovery Act activities and to
    ensure that we have a clear understanding of the agency's
    plans. This postworking relationship exists partly due to the
    efforts of Acting Administrator Paul Prouty, and I commend him
    for his collegiality. We have also developed strategies to
    conduct more timely reviews in recognition of the needs of the
    agency to act quickly on Recovery Act projects.
        The mantra from the movie "Field of Dreams" is, if you
    build it, they will come. Well, GSA is building it now.
    However, some of those who will come are criminals, fraudsters
    and cheats. If contracting for Hurricane Katrina and the war in
    Iraq taught us anything, it was that the quick government
    spending of large amounts of money creates considerable risks.
        To address these risks and to meet the time frames set out
    in the Recovery Act, we have developed new ways to respond
    quickly. We have adopted a quick response approach, using
    auditors and investigators to rapidly follow up on Recovery Act
    complaints and referrals, including those forwarded to us by
    the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board. We have
    established a core team of auditors, and we will be using a
    streamlined approach to performing reviews.
        The amount of funds and the short time frame will create
    significant challenges for GSA. I would like to highlight what
    I see as four of those challenges.
        First, I believe that the most critical challenge will be
    the need for additional qualified personnel, especially
    contracting officers and project managers. Because GSA may not
    be able to hire sufficiently qualified new employees to meet
    this need, GSA is considering hiring contractors to fill the
    immediate void and to assist with the increased workload.
        This blended workforce, however, will create a second
    challenge; namely, the additional risks related to security,
    conflicts of interest, and to the management of contractors.
        The third challenge, based on problems identified in the
    past, will be managing projects to prevent cost escalations
    beyond approved funding, resolving claims, and avoiding project
    delays.
        A fourth challenge will be managing unbudgeted customer
    needs.
        As it struggles to meet these challenges, GSA is like a
    single-engine freight train that suddenly must carry four times
    its normal load with the addition of more freight cars. The
    anticipated addition of even more cars to that train, as
    agencies start turning over their project funding to GSA, will
    put even more strain on the GSA engine. If it hits a hill or a
    bump, the engine may quickly fry and burn out.
        Thank you for your attention. I will be happy to answer any
    questions.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Miller, for your testimony.
        Mr. Gallagher.
        Mr. Gallagher. Madam Chair, Ranking Member Diaz-Balart and
    Members of the Subcommittee, good afternoon. I am Michael
    Gallagher, Assistant Deputy Commissioner for Social Security's
    Office of Budget, Finance and Management.
        On behalf of Commissioner Michael Astrue, I thank you for
    the opportunity to discuss our partnership with the General
    Services Administration to construct a new data center using
    $500 million appropriated to us in the Recovery Act. This new
    center will replace our aging, 30-year-old National Computer
    Center. In addition to being state of the art, the new facility
    will incorporate green building technology and will use new
    energy-efficient equipment and processes.
        To ensure the project is completed on time, on budget, and
    in full compliance with the Recovery Act requirements, we and
    GSA have assigned our best and most experienced project
    managers. We look forward to this important collaboration, and
    I would like to thank GSA for its leadership in this vital
    project.
        Our current data center is the technological heart of the
    agency, housing critical computer operations and essential data
    for prompt and accurate benefit payments to tens of millions of
    Americans. Let me put this work into context:
        Last fiscal year, we paid over $650 billion to more than 52
    million Americans. We currently process an all-time high of
    over 75 million business transactions per day. To support our
    disability workload, we store nearly 370 million imaged health
    records to which we add 2 million more records each week. To
    manage benefits annually, we exchange over 1 billion data files
    with Federal and State governments and businesses. Given the
    nature and volume of these workloads, it is clear that the
    successful construction of the new data center is essential for
    us to continue serving the American people.
        With the Recovery Act funding, we at GSA will ensure that
    the new data center will be operational as our current facility
    nears the end of its functional life. I am pleased to report to
    you that we and GSA are moving aggressively to build this new
    facility. GSA has already hired a construction management firm
    for this project, and it has hit the ground running. In
    addition, we and GSA are formulating specific requirements to
    construct a state-of-the-art data center that meets industry
    standards, developing the site selection criteria and
    developing a detailed construction plan. Now, GSA is primarily
    responsible for executing these steps. Nevertheless, we will
    provide input and oversight throughout the process to ensure
    the facility is designed to meet our requirements.
        Our key milestones for this project are acquiring the site
    in the second quarter of fiscal year 2010, awarding the design-
    build contract in the second quarter of fiscal year 2011, and
    completing construction in the first quarter of fiscal year
    2014.
        GSA is working closely with us and industry experts to
    review procurement options so that we can expedite this project
    without compromising quality or accepting undue risks or added
    costs. Our joint efforts will meet all of the accountability
    and transparency objectives set forth by the administration and
    by the Congress when these funds were appropriated.
        Again, we thank the Congress for this important
    appropriation, and we extend our appreciation to GSA for
    working so diligently with us to construct the new data center.
    Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today, and I
    look forward to answering your questions.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Gallagher.
        Mr. Miller, on page 2 of your testimony, you testify as to
    some facts that speak for themselves when you say that the
    increase in construction funding alone is four times GSA's
    typical construction budget in a single year. The Recovery Act
    requires GSA to obligate the majority of those funds in a 20-
    month period. This Subcommittee is well-acquainted with the
    problems of timing at GSA. It is one of the banes of our
    existence. So we have two issues here I would like to raise
    with you.
        One is, given what you know and what, I must assure you,
    this Subcommittee knows about the pruning of the agency with
    staff, such as to hire staff, there is sometimes legendary
    inefficiency. There is the need to spend these funds quickly to
    produce quality work without conflicts of interest.
        Sir, can you testify here today that you think the agency
    is capable of meeting these standards?
        Mr. Miller. Madam Chair, that is an excellent question.
        The role of an inspector general is to review what the
    agency is doing, and we are reviewing the agency's planning
    process and what they plan to do to try to meet these goals,
    and we will continue to do that. Perhaps Mr. Guerin might want
    to address this question more directly.
        Ms. Norton. Well, he will tell me ``yes,'' you see. That is
    why we found you to tell us the truth.
        Believe me, we have a great admiration for GSA. If my
    remarks sound jaundiced, I want you to know the very fact that
    Mr. Gallagher and the other agencies, by the way, have handed
    over money to GSA to do their work, when they could, I guess,
    have hired a contractor or something, speaks to the high regard
    in which the GSA is held.
        We also have seen the agency--the "pruning" of staff is
    quite a polite word for what has happened to this agency over
    the last several years. Yet, even if it were fully staffed as
    it were, let us say, when I came to Congress a century ago, it
    would have been a lot to put on the agency to say: Do this. Do
    it fast. Do it well. Do it so the IG salutes you.
        I don't expect you to deprecate the agency ahead of time,
    but I have to ask you, sir:
        I know in your testimony on page 5 that you speak, as you
    have just in answer to my question about a quick response
    approach, about using auditors and investigators to "rapidly
    follow up on Recovery Act complaints and referrals."
        Now, the Subcommittee is far more interested in pre-audits
    and in understanding the terrible time constraints you are
    under that keep an agency which is known for slow work--maybe
    in order to make sure they get it right--but to keep the agency
    from making mistakes while the train is running, as you say,
    four times the rate it usually does.
        Are you prepared to do pre-audits or something of that
    nature to help GSA weather this extraordinary storm we have put
    upon it and insist that it do?
        Mr. Miller. Madam Chair, we are prepared to do that. We are
    not relying on the old yellow book audit standard. They take
    too long. Traditional audits take too long. We are adopting a
    more rapid approach, akin to the critical point evaluations
    that you may be familiar with or may not be familiar with, and
    we hope to review these projects early, very early, and
    establish points at which we will get feedback back to the
    agency. We will provide reviews to the agency quickly so that
    they can change direction if they are going in the wrong
    direction, or if they have a mistaken assumption, we will be
    able to inform them. We are attempting to----
        Ms. Norton. Do you have the staff to do that, Mr. Miller?
    We funded you as well. All of the Stimulus Act funds have these
    extra funds, and we realize we are putting the burden on you as
    well. Do you have the funds to do not only the "oh, gotcha"
    stuff that IGs, of course, do so well but also the "here is how
    not to get you"?
        Mr. Miller. Well, we could use more auditors and
    investigators. We are reassigning----
        Ms. Norton. How big is your office, and how many additional
    auditors and investigators have you been authorized to hire?
        Mr. Miller. We have about 300 total individuals in the
    office, a little more than that.
        Ms. Norton. Now, I know you do a lot of work with GSA
    contracts aside from the Public Building Service. I am
    interested in the Public Building Service's auditors and
    contractors because that is where this money, I think, is
    going. How many are in that service now, and how many
    additional have you been authorized to hire?
        Mr. Miller. We have seven FTEs who are funded by the
    Recovery Act.
        Ms. Norton. Seven?
        Mr. Miller. Seven. We are reassigning other auditors from
    other projects. As you have noted, we have statutorily required
    audits in other areas that we have to perform, not the least of
    which is a review of customer service centers that we are
    required by statute to do with the Department of Defense IG on
    the acquisition side.
        Ms. Norton. Is this staff all together? So that is separate
    work, as far as I am concerned, the Department of Defense work.
        Mr. Miller. I agree.
        Ms. Norton. So, given the fact that Public Building Service
    is the largest part of GSA, I am looking for how much of your
    staff is devoted to PBS work.
        Mr. Miller. Well, under the act, we were funded seven
    additional FTE, seven additional slots.
        Ms. Norton. Are most of those other auditors not doing PBS
    work?
        Mr. Miller. Most of those will go to Public Building
    Service work.
        Ms. Norton. Okay.
        Mr. Miller. There is additional money in the Recovery Act
    for fleet--the energy efficient vehicles--so we will be looking
    at those, too. The only reason I mention the other----
        Ms. Norton. Does the GSA have authority over the fleet
    vehicles as well?
        Mr. Miller. Yes, it does. The only reason I mentioned the
    work with the DOD IG is that we are trying to move our
    resources to marshal them to look at Recovery Act funds so that
    we can spot issues early, as you said. But we do have limits,
    and we are stretched thin, so we do need auditors and
    investigators.
        Ms. Norton. Now, I am very concerned about another issue
    you testified about, concerning the need for more staff,
    bringing on more staff quickly. I am also on another Committee
    where the entire Federal Government is legendary for how long
    it takes people to get on staff. So some of the best and the
    brightest say, "Later. I bet I can get hired tomorrow at some
    big private firm."
        Let me disaggregate this. When it comes to what is
    mentioned on page 7 of your testimony--security, conflicts of
    interest, the managing of contractors--when my staff heard me
    earlier ask a question about how many retirees, they said, "Oh,
    Congresswoman, I thought you wanted new employees," you know,
    "to get more jobs." I do, but I am desperate, and I would
    assume that retirees, if you could get them, would already meet
    the security, conflict-of-interest and other such requirements.
        What percentage of these new people are going to be
    retirees? Do you expect them to be retirees? Maybe I should
    also ask this of Mr. Guerin. What percentage will be
    contractors?
        Now, I am assuming that a contractor who is working on
    government work will have to go through certain kinds of
    conflicts of interest and security doors that others would have
    to go through only briefly. So I need to know how many of each
    kind of employee we are likely to get working on this matter,
    because it has a lot to do with how quickly we get going. I
    also assume that if you are a contractor, you need to be
    trained. God help us if we got a whole new training module to
    get into. So I want to get down into personnel really quickly,
    since nothing gets done in this world unless you have got the
    best people who work on overtime and then some to get it done.
        Mr. Miller. Madam Chair, thank you for asking that.
        We are trying to hire retired annuitants. We have several
    auditors who have a great deal of experience, who have retired
    from GSA, who would be willing to work for us again, and we
    would love to hire them again. Also, we were hoping to pick up
    some retired auditors from DCAA. We are currently working with
    OPM to obtain the authority to hire retired annuitants.
        Ms. Norton. Do you think we will be able to get more
    retirees than contractors or not, Mr. Miller?
        Mr. Miller. Well, from my office, we are hoping to get more
    retirees.
        Ms. Norton. How about you, Mr. Guerin?
        Mr. Guerin. Congresswoman, we have identified upwards of 20
    annuitants who could potentially come back to work for us. Just
    in reaching out recently, not everybody is interested in coming
    back, of course, and they are concerned about losing so many of
    their retirement funds as part of that process, but we are
    actively----
        Ms. Norton. Is that still the law here? Let me ask you: Is
    it still impossible for an annuitant? I thought we made some
    changes in that.
        Mr. Guerin. I think they reduced the annuity for people who
    are coming back. That is my understanding, Congresswoman.
        Ms. Norton. Mr. Miller, do you know?
        Mr. Miller. Madam Chair, we are working with OPM to obtain
    that authority. Currently, my office does not have that
    authority, and I understand that GSA does not have the
    authority to hire retired annuitants without their waiving
    their retirements.
        Ms. Norton. Oh, have mercy. Do you mean they have not
    instantly done that?
        Mr. Miller. They have not. We are working with OPM, and we
    are optimistic that they will do it shortly.
        Ms. Norton. Moan. Moan. Moan. Well, that is something--
    neither office has it. Do you know how many agencies have it? I
    am on the Oversight and Reform Committee, and here I am under
    the illusion that we have already understood how important that
    is, quite apart from the stimulus funds in certain
    circumstances, and GSA has needed it for a long time. Do you
    know how many offices have this? Do most offices have it?
        Mr. Miller. Madam Chair, I have been trying to get this
    authority very quickly because we have about 10 to 15 retired
    annuitants who would come to work for us. I have talked to
    other IGs, and a few of the other IGs have the authority
    already, but it is a process.
        Ms. Norton. You know, I want to say to the staff director,
    while I sent you out of the room to fetch my good friend whom I
    knew had some questions, we have just learned that GSA,
    including the IG, has no authority to hire retired annuitants
    as some agencies do. By the close of business tomorrow, would
    staff let me know if GSA has that authority or not. This is
    crippling. We have already had to pull Mr. Guerin, and
    everybody else from GSA, from everything else they were doing
    just to get started.
        I am going to go to the Ranking Member, and I then want to
    go to Ms. Edwards, who I know has been waiting. Forgive me for
    going on so long.
        Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you. By the way, it was not a
    century. I just want to defend you here.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much. Just don't tell them how
    long it has been.
        Mr. Diaz-Balart. Right. Right. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        Mr. Guerin, one of the things--and I have mentioned this
    before in other hearings, but the Recovery Act includes money
    for Federal buildings and for U.S. courthouses. In addition,
    the Recovery Act authorizes GSA to initiate design,
    construction, repair, alteration, and other projects through
    existing authorities of the administrator.
        Now, GSA has an existing authority to acquire properties.
    This is to strategically acquire property, you know; for
    example, to help save stalled buildings that may be out there
    that would create jobs. Obviously, it would help the
    neighborhood, and it would help the whole area, but it would
    also create jobs. These are buildings, you know, that were
    starting to go up and that are now dead, frankly. And there are
    a bunch of them out there, unfortunately, throughout the entire
    country. You know, GSA's purchase opportunity program in the
    1980s did a heck of a good job in creating opportunities for
    the taxpayer to save money precisely by doing that, and so I am
    hoping that you are looking at that. Are you? If not, why not?
        Here we have an opportunity to create jobs. Also, here we
    have an opportunity to, in the short and long term, help the
    taxpayer in a really substantial way while creating jobs. It is
    not something where you have to reinvent the wheel. It was done
    by GSA in the 1980s. Where are you?
        Mr. Guerin. We do have the authority.
        Mr. Diaz-Balart. And you were successful in the 1980s.
        Mr. Guerin. Yes, and we are continuing to look at using
    that authority judiciously where we can afford to do that with
    projects. We are not doing that through the Recovery Act. We
    looked at those projects. Again, as you said, the new
    construction program was an opportunity for us to complete
    Federal buildings, and we thought the legislation was written
    in a way that that was the target of the legislation--to take
    care of our Federal building program. We have quite a backlog
    of Federal buildings--courthouses and land ports of entry. So
    we looked at that.
        We also included a couple of projects that were going to be
    lease projects but that are now being converted to Federal
    buildings, including in Billings, in Bakersfield, and an FBI
    building in San Juan. I believe there is one other one,
    Congressman. So we converted several leases to ownership
    specifically for that purpose.
        Mr. Diaz-Balart. Which saves a lot of money for the
    taxpayer in the long term?
        Mr. Guerin. Yes.
        Mr. Diaz-Balart. That should free up some money for you.
    The bottom line is you have projects in the pipeline. Now you
    are going to be able to do them. Is that going to free up some
    money for you?
        Mr. Guerin. It does not free up money in the Recovery Act,
    but in the future years, obviously, we will not be leasing
    those buildings. So, in future years, it will allow us to use
    our leasing money more effectively.
        Mr. Diaz-Balart. Right. So it does free up money in future
    years?
        Mr. Guerin. Yes.
        Mr. Diaz-Balart. All right. I am trying to be brief, Madam
    Chairwoman. I know we were called for votes.
        Can you elaborate a little bit on your position? What is
    it, Project Management Office Executive?
        Mr. Guerin. For the Program Management Office, yes.
        Mr. Diaz-Balart. Can you elaborate a little bit about your
    structure and what that is and how that works and about what
    you will be doing?
        Mr. Guerin. Yes. The Program Management Office is set up in
    a three-tiered program. We have regional executives in each of
    our 11 regions, focused primarily--or entirely, I should say--
    on the Recovery Act projects in each of the regions. So those
    people are able to reach into the organization, are able to
    make sure that information is flowing properly and are able to
    make sure people are in the right positions to do the work that
    they need to do to support the Recovery Act.
        They are reviewing staffing. Congresswoman Norton was
    talking about staffing earlier. They are making sure that they
    understand what the staffing requirements are in the regions
    and are making sure that we have the resources we need--I think
    I am feedbacking here--to make sure the Recovery Act goes well.
        Then we have a second tier, which are zone executives. I
    announced in my opening comments that we have just recently
    selected those three people. The zone executives are
    specifically the first line of defense to ensure that the
    projects are being reviewed and tracked properly, and they are
    to make sure that resources across regions are being shared,
    where necessary, so that we have opportunities to use our few
    GSA resources more effectively. If someone in one region is not
    being used to his full extent, we can swap those resources
    across regions, and those zone executives are designed to do
    that.
        They are looking at variants. They are looking at
    resources. They are looking at sharing, and they are
    particularly looking at lessons learned. So where we have an
    opportunity to learn a lesson and share something good to
    accelerate the program, we can do that quickly and effectively
    through the zone executives.
        Then in the central office, under my direct purview, is a
    group of people who are specifically there to provide the
    tracking and reporting function that Congress requires and that
    OMB certainly requires through the program. We have a series of
    stakeholders who are quite interested in everything that we do,
    and we are making sure that we have the reporting functions set
    up to both track projects, to make sure that they are happening
    appropriately, to jump in where we need to to save projects
    that are getting themselves in trouble, to revamp the list
    where necessary if a project starts to go haywire and it will
    not recover. We need to be able to jump on that right away and
    be able to shift the funds to a different source, to a
    different project, to make sure that those funds get spent
    wisely. Then, finally, they are there to provide that reporting
    function that I described.
        Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you.
        I have a number of questions, but our time is limited, and
    I know that Ms. Edwards probably has a question, too.
        So, if I may, I will ask Mr. Miller a couple of questions
    again, even though I have a lot more than that.
        Are you going to be able to also review the number of jobs
    created by the projects among the things that you are looking
    at? Because, obviously, this is supposed to be for that
    purpose.
        Mr. Miller. Well, Congressman, most of the GSA projects are
    building projects. That is the majority of the projects. We
    will be focusing on those projects and on, particularly, the
    challenges that I laid out in my testimony. So we will be
    looking at the effectiveness of the project as well, but
    certainly, we would be happy to include that as one of the
    items that we look at.
        Mr. Diaz-Balart. Again, I have a number of other questions,
    but as Madam Chairwoman has reminded me, we have votes, and we
    have one more person who wants to ask questions. Thank you.
    Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        Ms. Norton. Again, I apologize because it looks like we
    have one 15-minute vote and two 5's in this set of votes, for
    those who can vote. I will remain for the remaining questions.
        Ms. Edwards.
        Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you to
    the Ranking Member as well.
        I sat here and I listened to the testimony, and I have to
    tell you that the one thing that jumped out at me, Mr. Miller,
    is that in your testimony--and it is clear from our legislation
    we have quadrupled the amount of money that we are giving to go
    out to renovate and to build public buildings.
        Have we quadrupled the number of investigators and auditors
    to oversee that money going out?
        Mr. Miller. No, we have not. Thank you for asking. We need
    more auditors and investigators to make sure that these
    projects are on track and to get answers back early.
        Ms. Edwards. Then I just want to be clear, though. Are you
    unclear as to your authority to hire those people directly
    rather than contracting them?
        Mr. Miller. OPM has not given us the right to hire retired
    annuitants--retirees--so we have no authority to hire them
    without their waiving their retirements.
        Ms. Edwards. So, just to follow this along, we may have to
    do something that enables that authority so that we can get
    people who are qualified and experienced and who can hit the
    ground running to do the kind of oversight and accountability
    that we need for the taxpayer; is that correct?
        Mr. Miller. That is correct. I am optimistic that OPM will
    come through quickly in the near future. We are working with
    OPM to gain that authority, but we do not have it now.
        Ms. Edwards. Let me just continue on this line.
        My major concern is with the hiring of contractors to do
    what, I believe, are all of the things that we have to do.
    Government workers cannot be building roads and buildings, but
    government workers should surely be able to oversee how
    taxpayer dollars are being spent. I think that is the most
    efficient way for us to oversee these funds. I am greatly
    concerned that, instead, you may have to rely on--and no
    offense intended--a bunch of hired hands to come in and do the
    function of government, and that concerns me tremendously.
        We have the lessons of Katrina. We have the lessons of Iraq
    and of Afghanistan. The list is just long and replete with
    billions of dollars that are spent where contractors are
    overseeing every single part of the process and where
    government has no role other than that of writing the check,
    and the check just gets greater precisely because we have not
    overseen the funds. So this Member, anyway, is going to be
    disturbed tremendously if we cannot figure out a way to bring
    people in who know what they are doing because they have done
    it before.
        Let me just ask this as well. On the question of security,
    how do we ensure that we are going to get people in who have
    the right kinds of security clearances to be able to oversee an
    audit and to be able to investigate in the way that they need
    to if we have to rely on a set of contractors and sort of a
    third-party verification of security compliance when we could
    get that and get it a lot faster if we were able to hire those
    who had already served in government?
        Mr. Miller. I could not agree more. Hiring contractors
    compounds the risk.
        Ms. Edwards. Mr. Guerin, if you have any concerns about
    this, I would appreciate it if you would put those on the
    record now for this Subcommittee, because the last thing that
    we want is to be accused of mismanaging quadruple the amount of
    money that GSA has ever had before for these functions. We want
    people back to work. We want public buildings that meet
    efficiency requirements and that are able to perform for the
    future, and we do not want to waste taxpayer dollars.
        Ms. Edwards. And so do you have the assurances that you are
    going to be able to function in a way that works for the
    taxpayers, given the resource limitations.
        Mr. Guerin. I will simply say that our biggest concern is
    around contracting officers. We believe that there are project
    management professionals in need of work now that will--and
    frankly I have received, you know, upwards of 50 applications
    personally, and I know it is happening across the country of
    people quite qualified looking for work with the Federal
    Government. And we are able to bring them in temporarily on 4-
    year contracts, things like that, to support our program, and
    we will be doing that. We are not looking to staff dramatically
    in Federal hires, Federal permanent employees, because this is
    a huge program. But it is a blip in our radar.
        We will go back to, I suspect, a typical billion dollar or
    so a year construction program after the stimulus money has
    been spent out. But contracting officers are certainly a
    concern, and we are actively engaged, you know, particularly,
    you know, chasing annuitants and looking at people that have
    that kind of very specialized experience and trying to bring
    them on board as quickly as possible. It is something that, you
    know, we are actively looking at. Several regions have
    different ways of doing business.
        We are looking at those lessons learned and those great
    ideas out there to how to use contracting officers more
    effectively and staff them with the kind of support they need
    to become much more efficient, I guess is the best word to do
    the contracting that needs to be done for this, and then in
    staffing up. But I think that area is a concern for GSA.
    Otherwise, I think we believe that the people are out there
    that can help us do the program.
        Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And I just look
    forward to working with you and the Ranking Member so that we
    can make certain that with the quadrupling of the money that
    has gone out to GSA that we make sure that it is spent in the
    most efficient and effective way, and that the Agency and the
    Inspector General, in particular, has the authority to do what
    they need to bring on experienced people who know the job to do
    the job. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. Mr. Diaz-Balart.
        Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you Madam Chairwoman. I think I have
    a couple, maybe a minute or so left before I have to run. And I
    thank you for that. I think Ms. Edwards is right on target. The
    key is making sure that the resources are there, that you have
    the flexibility.
        Mr. Miller, you highlighted the potential for cost
    escalations and delays in your testimony obviously. And you
    also make the point that that is not a new issue. With the
    workload increase, what can be done differently to minimize
    those risks?
        Mr. Miller. If I may go back to your earlier question about
    job creation, I understand now that, according to Office of
    Management and Budget, they have given the Department of
    Commerce the responsibility of looking at job creation so that
    my office will not be looking at that particular aspect. So I
    am sorry I gave you an incorrect answer before. These are
    historical problems that GSA faces, the cost escalations, the
    time delays, and they are well aware of these issues and I
    assume that Mr. Guerin and others are taking efforts to try and
    correct them. But we will be keeping our eye on those issues
    and looking at those issues very carefully.
        Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Miller. And again, Madam
    Chairman, I apologize, but I do have to go vote.
        Ms. Norton. You are excused, sir.
        Let me continue then with questions. Mr. Miller, am I
    correct that if you took on a contractor, the contractor would
    have to get a security clearance and be checked for, as you
    said, the fraud makers will come, to be checked for entire
    background and if so, how long does that take for contractors
    to be able to do this kind of work with the GSA?
        Mr. Miller. Madam Chairman. You are correct. They would
    have to go get a security clearance. The exact level of the
    clearance would depend on the job that they perform. We are
    trying to expedite those clearances. But, again, it could
    take----
        Ms. Norton. Is that also through OPM, by the way?
        Mr. Miller. The security clearances?
        Ms. Norton. Yes.
        Mr. Miller. I believe they are. I know at various times our
    office will help out expediting those clearances. Do you happen
    to know?
        Mr. Guerin. Some of the clearances that we process go
    through the Federal Protective Service of DHS.
        Ms. Norton. Then we have got to go to another agency which
    is backlogged on getting those. If we get some contractors we
    have got to get in line behind others who are hiring
    contractors.
        Mr. Guerin. And I am not sure where the security clearances
    are processed with GSA. I am talking about the HSPD-12
    clearances that support our contractors.
        Ms. Norton. And so there is a security clearance. Who does
    the background check? You do the background check or does OPM
    do that?
        Mr. Miller. Others do the background check.
        Ms. Norton. You see what I am getting at, especially with
    contractors. You are not the only one doing stuff.
        Mr. Miller. Madam Chairman, if I could clarify that as the
    office of Inspector General, we don't plan to hire contractors.
        Ms. Norton. All right. No contractors. This is important.
    Who are you going to hire, sir?
        Mr. Miller. We are hoping to hire retirees, as well as new
    auditors and investigators.
        Ms. Norton. But they will have to go through the same kind
    of--so what percentage of the new--you only have seven. What
    percentage will be, do you expect to be--and these are
    temporary employees, Mr. Miller, you know, they last for a
    couple of years or so.
        Mr. Miller. Yes.
        Ms. Norton. So are you trying to the best of your ability
    hire all retirees or annuitants of one kind or another? If you
    hire some new folks you are going to have to lay them so off,
    probably.
        Mr. Miller. Madam Chairman, we are going to hire as many as
    we can because the retired annuitants, as long as they have the
    experience and they are good workers, we want to hire them. We
    need the help
        Ms. Norton. So there is a preference for annuitants, given
    the time saving, over brand new employees?
        Mr. Miller. We need both. We would like to hire both.
        Ms. Norton. Why do you need both? If you have got seven
    annuitants who said I am ready to work tomorrow, why would you
    need somebody who had to go through the security clearance,
    background check?
        Look, I want more people hired. Guess what? GSA better have
    this work done on time. And therefore, I want to know why you
    wouldn't prefer to hire annuitants who would be presumably,
    short shrifted through this process.
        Mr. Miller. Madam Chairman, we do. And we are trying to
    hire about 10 to 15 retired annuitants to help us do audits in
    particular of construction projects. We also, in the same
    process, would like to hire new employees.
        Ms. Norton. Mr. Miller, are you or are you not giving
    preference to this work? See, I am not nearly as interested, if
    you will forgive me, in your overall agency. I am trying to
    pinpoint and to circumscribe, if you will, the work that has a
    time frame. And time frames are foreign to the GSA. They don't
    do anything. If it is supposed to take you 2 months to do
    something, it will take them a year. So given the time frame
    that they are accustomed to, which is no time frame, if we have
    front end problems in hiring, I am going to get to Mr. Guerin
    in a moment, when I thought your testimony was that, with
    respect to this work, you were looking for annuitants. And then
    you spread it to some other folks you would like. And I want to
    know, are those other folks going to be working on this work as
    well?
        Mr. Miller. Yes, Madam Chairman. We would like to----
        Ms. Norton. Do you have some other authority? Do you have
    authority to hire people for the DOD part of your work, for
    example?
        Mr. Miller. Madam Chair, no we do not.
        Ms. Norton. Do you have any authority to hire anyone except
    for the public building service work?
        Mr. Miller. Madam Chairman, I would have to check. I don't
    believe that we have authority outside of the new FTEs.
        Ms. Norton. See, because then I can't understand. There are
    seven people you told us you could hire. Then you went to 15.
    Where are these other people coming from? Who funds those?
        Mr. Miller. Madam Chairman, we would--the 10 to 15 would be
    retirees, and we are seeking authority to hire those. I guess
    some of the slots, FTEs would be taken by the retired retirees,
    so we would have to iron out the other.
        Ms. Norton. I just want to know, my question is very
    simple. Will the auditors, with this grant of money, I don't
    have the amount before me, will you be able to hire authorities
    for the GSA grant of money from annuitants who could hit the
    ground running? I am not--I am pleased that there may be other
    employees. But there is a specific amount of money, and I am
    going to hold you accountable for this amount.
        This says, the conference agreement provides $7 million for
    the GSA administrative Office of Inspector General to be
    available through September 30th, 2013, for oversight and
    auditor programs. I want to know about this $7 million. Is it
    possible that this $7 million can be used exclusively to hire
    annuitants who can hit the ground running?
        Mr. Miller. Madam Chairman, we will try to do that. Part of
    the confusion is that with retired annuitants, many of those
    will work part time, so that two to three retired annuitants
    will equal one FTE.
        Ms. Norton. Now if that is efficient to do, and it might be
    because people who work part time often end up working more
    than their part time hours. Do you believe that you could do it
    with part-time employees?
        Mr. Miller. We do believe that. And we are seeking the
    authority to hire those retired retirees.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much. Now, I want to ask Mr.
    Guerin, how many contractors and how many retirees do you plan
    to hire?
        Mr. Guerin. Congresswoman, we have gone and evaluated that
    with all of our regional offices to determine the total number
    of people required, and we think it is somewhere upwards of 150
    people. We haven't settled on exactly how many will be
    contractors, how many will be temporary employees and how many
    will be GSA.
        Ms. Norton. What is holding you up, Mr. Guerin?
        Mr. Guerin. Simple decision making. We are in the process.
        Ms. Norton. Mr. Guerin, February 17 is when the bill was
    passed. For at least 6 months ahead of that, you have been
    preparing for this. And remember what I said to Mr. Miller
    about time lines. I realize that's a foreign language, but we
    have got to learn to speak it now. So I don't understand what
    is the hold up in making the simple decision of how many
    retirees. For example, the easy decision to make is let's get
    as many retirees as we can possible find, and anything we can't
    find has to go to contractors because of the sheer savings in
    process time.
        But Mr. Guerin, let me tell you my disappointment. We had
    to bring out, in this hearing, that you didn't even have the
    authority, and let me just say that over and over again, I have
    found that all that the Agency had to do would be to come to
    staff and alert staff that it didn't have X, Y and Z and they
    could have had it.
        The new head of OPM, who I don't even think I will have to
    go to, happens to be a person I know very, very well. He lives
    in this region, has worked for the Congress and the government
    his entire professional life, is already off and running to
    create a new, more efficient OPM. And I don't know, if we
    hadn't had this hearing, and this is a tracking hearing, we are
    going to have them very often, how we would have even found out
    that you did not have the authority, which this stupid Chair
    assumed you had. It is very troublesome to me.
        And Mr. Miller, I want you to take notice. I didn't even
    know it. It is not raised certainly in Mr. Guerin's testimony.
    It certainly is raised, the hiring issues are certainly raised
    in your testimony. So it is--it gives me no sense of confidence
    in the Agency that you haven't been here before the bill was
    passed, knowing how short staffed GSA has been for years, to
    say we don't have the staff. You discussed that with staff and
    talked about moving people around. But no one has ever said to
    me, we need some OPM--we need to move OPM to make us an agency.
    It is extremely disconcerting to hear that only in a hearing.
    So I have got to ask you, am I going to be left with people
    combing the fields for some contractors because we haven't even
    decided that the fastest way to get people on board is to look
    for some people who left the Agency and may be lured back? I
    mean, I don't understand your proceeding. And you need to help
    me out here because you just lowered my confidence several
    degrees in your ability to even confront the challenge before
    you.
        Can I ask you this?
        You heard Mr. Miller say that he believes he will be able
    to hire annuitants to do his work, maybe he won't, but he sees
    the efficiency to the government and the time frames. Could I
    ask you whether you will undertake, beginning when you leave
    this hearing, to recruit as many annuitants as possible to do
    this work. And if that is impossible, or if you see some issue
    there, I would be pleased to hear them because I am only asking
    this from ignorance, you see. I don't know. Maybe there is a
    reason why, 1, it shouldn't be attempted and 2, if it were
    attempted it would not be a good thing. So would you please
    inform me of whether you are willing to do that in light of the
    fact that you have had to pull people from all over the Agency
    just to accomplish what you have done thus far.
        Mr. Guerin. Yes. As I said earlier, we have already
    identified upwards of a couple of dozen people that we want to
    bring back to GSA. And again, I brought up the challenge of the
    annuity and that I think is what got your concern so
    immediately.
        Ms. Norton. Would you also, before you go further, would
    you go down a list of other needs the Agency has, either in
    legislation, or in moves the administration should take? It
    would be easier for us if often, to get that to happen sooner
    than it would for you to go up the ladder because we are a co-
    equal branch of government. And you see, the reason that you
    see me pressing this is there is not going to be anyone to
    blame except us. It is us doing Federal business. So if this
    doesn't get in on time we are not going to be able to say, you
    know, Maryland did it or look what--we told Virginia. We are
    going to have to take responsibility ourselves.
        So we have got to stay on top of this since we have got
    nobody to point to but ourselves. But if we don't even know
    things, I am left to do what I am doing now. So you already
    have identified a couple of hundred, although you see that is
    contrary to your initial answer, in which case I would have
    gone on. You said you were trying to decide how many
    contractors. And I recognize you may run out of annuitants, but
    if there has not even been established a preference for people
    who can hit the ground running, then I am not sure where the
    hiring authority is at this point.
        Mr. Guerin. Can I address that? We have two rolling
    registers out now, one focused on primarily contracting
    officers, and one primarily focused on project managers. We
    know we have needs in both of those areas, and so we have
    identified those and we have put them out and advertised them
    in three ways. One is permanent hire, one is a temporary hire,
    and one is contractors.
        Ms. Norton. This is my problem. Guess who is not looking
    for a job? Somebody who is sitting at home on their pension. We
    have got people who retired early. Some of them wish they
    hadn't now. We have got people who retired. Even the people who
    might want to come back to work are not among those who are
    looking at your, let's see who is hiring now. So I guess I
    should ask you who is out recruiting annuitants? Who is looking
    for annuitants?
        Mr. Guerin. The regions are out recruiting right now. The
    regional offices are out recruiting. They are the ones who knew
    the people.
        Ms. Norton. How are you contacting annuitants?
        Mr. Guerin. Directly.
        Ms. Norton. Well, what is all this advertising. I will tell
    you one thing. If I saw an ad in the paper and I didn't have a
    job, I would inundate you all, so a lot of folks are going to
    come in. Just going through those folks to decide who to come,
    that is a whole big job. Who needs it? We are not going to be
    sitting up here giving excuses for GSA.
        Mr. Guerin. No, we don't believe there are enough
    annuitants to staff all of the positions that we have out
    there. But we are identifying the people.
        Ms. Norton. You will never know if you don't have somebody
    on the case calling up annuitants. Look, a lot of these people
    are settled in doing other things. Mr. Miller testified that
    you can only get some of them part time. Somebody ought to say,
    hey, look, look at your 401(k). What do we call ours? Whatever
    we call ours, wouldn't you like to come back for at least part
    time work? You have got to be aggressively recruiting these
    people, unless--and let me ask Mr. Miller. How long does it
    take a contractor, a new person, to get through the system as
    opposed to an annuitant to get through the system?
        Mr. Miller. Madam Chairman, I don't have the precise time
    line, but it would be a lot longer.
        Ms. Norton. Yeah. I can't do anything without people. We
    are stuck on stupid without people. And then you know somebody
    comes back to us and says Congresswoman, I am sorry we are
    having trouble contracting people. I asked the staff how long
    has it been, 90 days since the darn bill was passed, and they
    were preparing for this long before the bill passed. This is
    extremely disappointing. How many people have been brought on
    new at the, to work exclusively on this work, Mr. Guerin?
        Mr. Guerin. I don't have that number, Congresswoman.
        Ms. Norton. I tell you what. This is very, very anxiety
    raising. By the close of business tomorrow we want to see a
    personnel chart for the Recovery Act funds alone, including
    those who have been brought on board, and when. When we say
    tracking hearings that is what I mean. You know what? Given the
    fact that some of this only comes out on what I call cross
    examination, I would say to the staff I think we have got to be
    prepared to hold a hearing, even if a brief hearing, every 2
    weeks until we are assured that these folks have, I mean, we
    may have to do them on a Friday or we may have to do them in
    one of the other rooms until we are assured that they have
    staff on board and are going, we are going to get so backlogged
    we won't be able to catch up and it will be on us.
        By the close of business tomorrow, I want that staff chart
    here, please. You need to bring on some people just to help you
    get on people. I understand how understaffed you are. I should
    think that would be an incentive to go forward.
        Let me ask you about swing space. Is there sufficient swing
    space already contracted for the full blown building makeovers
    that are going to take place throughout the United States, Mr.
    Guerin?
        Mr. Guerin. We have identified the swing space needs for
    each of those large projects. We have funds available to the
    program in order to accommodate those swing space.
        Ms. Norton. Are they available?
        Mr. Guerin. We are investigating that right now. I believe
    they are available. Several of the leases are in the District,
    and we believe space is available in the District to
    accommodate those.
        Ms. Norton. Well, I would like by the close of business
    tomorrow to know what the swing space is in the District and
    whether swing space will be needed for, in another areas. You
    know, where are the time lines? Do you have the time lines for
    the projects?
        Mr. Guerin. Yes.
        Ms. Norton. Could we have those time lines as well?
        Mr. Guerin. Yes.
        Ms. Norton. By the close of business tomorrow.
        Could I ask about something that if you had come to us I
    would have made a priority because it has certainly gotten on
    our nerves, but only episodically, so-called unbudgeted
    customer needs. We have seen GSA's work held up. I don't know
    why this wasn't an incentive because the Agency had needs that
    were not budgeted with GSA. As you know, I am in the process of
    also doing hearings to reauthorize the GSA. That is a fancy
    word to say reform its statute in the hope that it will reform
    the Agency itself. But one of the things I would like to do is
    to make sure that, for example, things like moving funds, GSA
    has the authority, so the Agency which then has to go and find
    it in its budget, which, of course, is a disincentive, doesn't
    hold up the works where we could end up paying for space. How
    many times have I seen that occur? Just because GSA doesn't
    have the funds to move the Agency into the space that is then
    finished.
        Now, most of your, I mean, the buildings you do are all
    level 4s. Any reason why you--are there any similar unbudgeted
    customer needs that are the kinds that are mentioned on page 8
    of Mr.--of the kind I just said, moving needs for example, of
    the kind that are also mentioned in passing on page 8 of Mr.
    Miller's testimony?
        Agency funds. And I have the Social Security administrator
    here, and I am going to see if there are any such funds related
    to work that the Social Security Administration has asked you
    to do. Go ahead.
        Mr. Guerin. Before I answer that question, Congresswoman, I
    just want to the clarify something. GSA has requested and
    received a waiver for our contracting officers from OMB
    regarding the annuitant, the retirement payments, so we have
    the authority to hire them without penalty. And we are
    seeking----
        Ms. Norton. Say that again. You have received the
    authority.
        Mr. Guerin. Yes. We asked for a waiver from OPM and they
    granted a waiver for 1102s, which are the contracting officers,
    so we have the ability to bring back our annuitants.
        Ms. Norton. Okay. So contracting officers, including
    annuitants.
        Mr. Guerin. No, for annuitant contracting officers or
    previous contracting officers, we are able to bring them in
    without penalizing them. And we are seeking authority for other
    positions as well.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much. So in other words, you
    already can and are hiring annuitants.
        Mr. Guerin. Without penalty.
        Ms. Norton. Without penalty.
        Mr. Guerin. Right. And to your question, Congresswoman, the
    Agency moves, as GSA developed the list, we worked with OMB on
    the costs associated with moving the tenants in and out of the
    buildings. Where we had the opportunity and where OMB was able
    to add money to the 2010 program for those agencies, they
    accommodated.
        Ms. Norton. That is 2010. Is that connected to the stimulus
    funds?
        Mr. Guerin. It is connected to getting funding for the
    agencies in 2010 as appropriate.
        Ms. Norton. You see, this is the kind of inefficiency we
    have got to do without. You all should not be put to that.
        Are any of these funds associated, Mr. Gallagher, with the
    work you have to do. We call them unbudgeted customer needs
    because it falls to you to do what you have already delegated.
    What is it, $500 million to GSA? Are there any other funds you
    have to delegate or get from your budget in order for them to
    complete the work that they're doing for you?
        Mr. Gallagher. Are you speaking just about the computer
    center?
        Ms. Norton. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Gallagher. I am not prepared to answer that question. I
    could have somebody from our staff get back to your staff and
    answer that question.
        Ms. Norton. Yes, I wish you would because we would like to
    get ahead of it in case----
        Mr. Gallagher. We will have someone come back and brief you
    on that.
        [Information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Norton. When did you decide to have the GSA perform
    this work for the Social Security Administration?
        Mr. Gallagher. Well, under the law, only the General
    Services Administration can perform this type of real estate
    function.
        Ms. Norton. Well, I am wondering why this wasn't included
    in their package. You had to delegate it, you had to give the
    money over. You had the money. You had to give it over to them.
        Mr. Gallagher. Yes, we will have to do a reimbursable work
    authorization back to GSA for this function.
        Ms. Norton. Actually, maybe this was just to keep the funds
    from going beyond certain amounts for each agency. Maybe that
    is the reason this occurred. But you are right. You don't have
    the authority. The reason I am asking questions like this is
    because we are reauthorizing the bill. We don't want to just
    step into something. That is not what we want do to.
        What are the plans, Mr. Gallagher, for this computer
    center?
        Mr. Gallagher. Well, the first step is to get started on
    this process, we have a construction management firm that has
    already been contracted by GSA, and so really GSA has the lead
    on this and we will work with them.
        Ms. Norton. Now, where is it going to be located?
        Mr. Gallagher. Where is the company located?
        Ms. Norton. Yeah.
        Mr. Gallagher. Its name is Jacobs Facility. I don't know
    where it is.
        Ms. Norton. You mean, it is a facility that----
        Mr. Gallagher. It is a contractor.
        Ms. Norton. No. No. Where is the new facility?
        Mr. Gallagher. Oh, I am sorry. No decision has been made
    yet as to where the new facility will be. We are still
    undergoing really the site selection process on that.
        Ms. Norton. You have to purchase land?
        Mr. Gallagher. Yes. This will require a purchase of land.
        Ms. Norton. Mr. Guerin, what about the purchase of land
    here? We don't even know where you are going to be yet.
        Mr. Guerin. Well, we are working with the administration to
    identify appropriate locations for the project.
        Ms. Norton. We understand it is going to be within, the
    staff believes it will be within 50 miles of Baltimore.
        Mr. Gallagher. Somewhere about that. We do know that there
    are some technology reasons to be close to our current
    facility. We also need to make sure, there are some technology
    issues to have that amount of data transferred back and forth.
    There are also some reasons we want to make sure that we have
    access of our intellectual capital, our employees, to be able
    to get back and forth to that facility.
        Ms. Norton. Where is it located now, Mr. Gallagher?
        Mr. Gallagher. It is in our--Baltimore County. If you
    wouldn't mind, I would rather not give you the specific
    location due to its critical nature.
        Ms. Norton. Is it a secure facility?
        Mr. Gallagher. It is a secure facility, yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Norton. All right. But it is in Baltimore County.
        Mr. Gallagher. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Norton. What is the delineated area, Mr. Guerin, going
    to be? You said 50 miles, about 50 miles, more or less.
        Mr. Gallagher. I can tell you. We are still engaged in the
    process of actually developing the site criteria. One of the
    ones we have which is the technology driver for some relatively
    close proximity.
        Ms. Norton. Mr. Guerin, in light of, I can only call it a
    shameful episode recently experienced, whereby there were gross
    violations in the delineated area of a facility, unheard of
    violations which are already on the record, I am going to ask
    you within 24 hours of the delineated area choice, to submit
    that information to this Committee and Subcommittee. And I am
    going to remind you that when there is a delineated area, the
    rule is that any change in the delineated area must be reported
    to this Committee as did not occur with the Social Security,
    HHS facility which caused its cancellation, as I recall. So
    that is something we will need to know right away, especially
    since it looks like you will have to purchase land.
        How big a facility is this? Any idea, Mr. Gallagher, how
    big a facility?
        Mr. Gallagher. Again, we are in the beginning part of the
    discussion. It is somewhere around 300,000 square feet.
        Ms. Norton. Mr. Gallagher, let me say to you again. You are
    working with an agency that is overburdened in the first place.
    And we believe that there are other agencies that will also be
    required to ask GSA to do the work. So the earlier you get in,
    this done, because you are a start up, you are essentially
    starting at the beginning with land purchase, the better off
    you will be. I am going to have to ask you to get all your
    basic decisions made within the next 30 days, at the outset. So
    they won't be able to put it on it. They will do it in a
    second. They will say oh, you know, what could we do? We were
    waiting for the Social Security Administration.
        Mr. Gallagher. We are actually working very closely with
    region three of GSA and I will tell you we are very pleased
    with their enthusiasm and how they have reached out.
        Ms. Norton. Oh, they are always enthusiastic. But the site
    hadn't been selected?
        Mr. Gallagher. That is correct.
        Ms. Norton. Part of this is--remember, it is 90 days. They
    are short staffed, and they really are being asked to do
    everything at one time. So, you know, we are here to do the
    impossible. But I want to make sure you are not left, since you
    have to start with land purchase, which makes yours even more
    difficult than what we have been describing here.
        Mr. Gallagher. We do expect because there is a considerable
    amount of work to do, our current plan is we expect to be able
    to acquire the site in the second quarter of fiscal year 2010.
        Ms. Norton. Well, that, which means that you would have to
    decide upon the site, acquire it means----
        Mr. Gallagher. That is correct. Actually set up the
    requirements for it, go through the competitive process for
    that. This is actually a GSA function.
        Ms. Norton. Yeah. It does take time. And in light of that I
    am going to have to ask Mr. Guerin, since you have testified
    that you are looking for streamlined methods, I think you have
    used of the word innovative approaches, to do projects
    associated with the stimulus. Here is a classic one where you
    are being asked to do really a very difficult thing which is
    acquire land and then go forward from there. Could you give us
    an idea what kinds of innovative approaches to deliver projects
    you are using, what kinds of, give me an example of what you
    mean by innovative or streamlining the present process.
        Mr. Guerin. Well, as an example, Congresswoman, you are
    right. The new design starts with a new site and those kinds of
    projects are going to be our most challenging because of the
    time frame involved with all those activities. As an example,
    in Bakersfield, we are looking to have a design competition to
    completely streamline the design selection process and get us
    very quickly to a----
        Ms. Norton. How?
        Mr. Guerin. Design competition eliminates the need to
    actually go through a formal selection process of the
    architect. We issue a solicitation and the designers actually
    provide designs as part of their initial submission to us, so
    it cuts out quite a bit of the design time associated with
    getting to a concept, conceptual project. By doing that, we
    shorten the time dramatically in the design phase and by using
    design build bridging we can take that quickly to a
    construction project by using the concepts that are provided,
    selecting the architect that gets the winning contract, ask
    them to continue design and starting the design-build process
    at the same time. So it is an example of substantially
    compressing the time frame associated with that.
        Ms. Norton. That is. It certainly is. Indeed, as I
    understand it, Mr. Abdur-Rahman, we are using something of that
    kind of process for the DHS headquarters?
        Mr. Abdur-Rahman. For the Coast Guard headquarters we are
    using a design build bridging process.
        Ms. Norton. Coast Guard. Thank you for that correction. Go
    ahead.
        Mr. Abdur-Rahman. Yes, we are. Of course with the St.
    Elizabeth project we own the site so we have the advantage of
    having the site already. But for the Coast Guard design, which
    is the first phase of that development, we are using a design
    build bridging process to accelerate the project.
        Ms. Norton. Are you on time? We had some dates that you
    delivered to us. Are you on time thus far?
        Mr. Abdur-Rahman. Yes, we are on schedule to ultimately
    have a ward of the Coast Guard headquarters building in
    September of this year, as well as the construction manager for
    that project.
        Ms. Norton. So that means we won't be--when will we be
    obligating funds?
        Mr. Abdur-Rahman. Yes, we will be obligating funds
    beginning this summer. The first part of that development. I
    was mentioning kind of a larger package which is the Coast
    Guard, the actual building. But we are going to be starting
    with abatement and demolition of the buildings that are on the
    site that the Coast Guard will occupy. That will start this
    summer, in June.
        Ms. Norton. That is important. So you are testifying that
    in June the first abatement work and what else, abatement and--
    --
        Mr. Abdur-Rahman. Demolition. Demolition of the site that
    will, the site for the Coast Guard headquarters is currently
    occupied by buildings that are identified for demolition in the
    final approved master plan.
        Ms. Norton. Except for acquisition of sites, you, of
    course, have perhaps the most challenging work to do since 450,
    we have got $450 million out of the stimulus package. This is
    classic old fashioned WPA funding. Those cornerstones down on
    Pennsylvania Avenue show you that this is what, this is how you
    do it. Every last one of those buildings on Constitution,
    Pennsylvania Avenue, were built during the Great Depression.
    And I think this may be the only one that we are doing, except
    for the smaller port entry buildings, land port entry buildings
    in that fashion.
        So that is the reason we were able to get this out in
    stimulus funds. And we got them out largely through the Senate,
    where there was an understanding of the history of the use of
    infrastructure building to actually build something. And we got
    them out, and the reason we are so focused on you, Mr. Abdur-
    Rahman, is that Congress and particularly the Senate, who was
    really our helpmate here, showed their belief in building as a
    way to stimulate jobs.
        Now, we have already figured 38,000 jobs. That 38,000
    encompasses how many buildings? Where does that figure come
    from? Is that still a good figure?
        Mr. Abdur-Rahman. The figure that you are quoting was from
    the final environmental impact statement and record decision,
    and that is a regional number. So the figure I am recalling was
    about 32,000, I think, jobs, direct employment opportunities.
        Ms. Norton. Over what period of time?
        Mr. Abdur-Rahman. Over the development of the project which
    begins this year and has final occupancy in 2016.
        Ms. Norton. That is a long-term project. How many
    buildings?
        Mr. Abdur-Rahman. We are retaining in terms of adaptive
    reads, we are retaining 52 of the 62 buildings that contribute
    to the NHL status, and there will be several--
        Ms. Norton. NHL?
        Mr. Abdur-Rahman. National historic landmark status.
        Ms. Norton. That is reuse of buildings?
        Mr. Abdur-Rahman. Reuse of buildings.
        Ms. Norton. How many buildings are being reused? That makes
    a lot of work. How many buildings are being reused?
        Mr. Abdur-Rahman. 52.
        Ms. Norton. That is excellent.
        Mr. Abdur-Rahman. And then there will be a new building.
    The Coast Guard headquarters will be a new facility. There will
    be a national operations center that will be largely an
    underground facility where DHS will be able to coordinate an
    organized response to different threats and challenges. And
    then there will be new facilities on the site for other parts
    of the DHS program, for Transportation Security Agency, Customs
    and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs support and
    FEMA.
        Ms. Norton. I hope you understand, Mr. Guerin, part of my
    last question, that said I do not believe that you are going to
    be able to bring on even annuitants fast enough without selling
    them on coming back and therefore we need a proactive program.
    Not here I am advertising for some contractors. You will get
    thousands. This is a very tough time. We want very special
    kinds of people, obviously contractors, but to the extent that
    we can get people who shorten this process, the Committee will
    be particularly looking to that.
        Mr. Miller, you mentioned the old bugaboos of fraud, waste
    and abuse, and you have earlier testified that it is very
    difficult to spend government money rapidly, and you mentioned
    some recent examples, without incurring some fraud.
        Now, we are sophisticated about the notion that this guy,
    there is certain some Ph.D candidate will tell us how much
    fraud, what is the minimal fraud you can expect in any
    government contract. Maybe that standard would help us.
        But I am worried about GSA more so than other agencies,
    because of what you have just seen what it looks like almost a
    start up of an agency for stimulus funds. Got to hire yourself
    some people. Don't even know yet whether the experienced
    people, or people who have to go through a long process, got to
    do four times the amount of work, got to make sure it is
    quality work because in construction you can tell in a mini
    second if it is not quality work. You have got to do a
    competitive process.
        My question to you is, how should we look at the
    possibilities here for fraud, waste and abuse, with a short-
    staffed agency who essentially has to staff up even to do the
    stimulus job while keeping its other functions going? How are
    we going to prevent fraud, waste and abuse, given the
    considerable handicaps and challenges this agency experiences?
        Mr. Miller. Madam Chairman, I share your concern. We are
    very concerned about this as well. We are looking, we hope to
    look at projects very early so that we can spot issues early
    and spot warning signs, red flags, and hopefully, catch the
    fraud, waste and abuse.
        Ms. Norton. How about warning signs? Red flags scare me. By
    that time it is pretty bad.
        Mr. Miller. Yes.
        Ms. Norton. How about warning signs? Give us examples of
    the kind of warning signs that would be useful to you and to
    GSA to know of.
        Mr. Miller. Well, some warning signs are, I guess, the
    keeping of the records. If contracts are being split, if there
    are equitable adjustments, if there is no record of the
    contracting officers, technical representative on a contract or
    a project----
        Ms. Norton. Is there a project director, for example, for
    Mr. Gallagher's project? That is a separate project.
        Mr. Gallagher, do you know if there is yet a separate
    project--you have seen Mr. Abdur-Rahman is the project manager
    for a project that at this point has roughly the same amount of
    money. Is that right? $750 million. You have $500 million. Is
    there a project manager, Mr. Guerin?
        Mr. Guerin. Yes, there is. Ed Myers in our region three is
    the project manager for the SSA project.
        Ms. Norton. Very important for a project of this size, both
    to satisfy the client and the Committee.
        I am sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Miller.
        Mr. Miller. If information being reported in multiple
    locations do not match, for example, if a contract awarded in
    FPDS is not reported when the obligation is also reported to
    OMB.
        Ms. Norton. Mr. Miller, is there any percentage? I don't
    know even if this is feasible. There are some kinds of work
    that is being done all over the country, same kinds of work,
    for example, HVAC work, which is going to be very important
    because of the emphasis on heating, sorry, energy conservation.
    Is there anything to be said--God knows I am offering no
    opinion here. I have no idea--about a contractor who be
    prepared as a matter of scale, both give us a good price and to
    do the work quickly, even though located in a number of
    different locations? Or is it best to go region by region with
    all of the inefficiencies that can come from that process?
        Mr. Miller. Madam Chair, that appears to be a very
    difficult issue that we would rely on the expertise of the
    Agency.
        Ms. Norton. Well, what does Mr. Guerin say?
        Mr. Guerin, I am offering no view. I have no expertise
    here. But you are put in a very strange position, even for a
    well-staffed agency. We have decided that there are so many
    Federal facilities that it would be impossible to locate this
    money in just a few of them. So we have tried to work with you
    to see if there was some objective process for choosing needed
    work in all 50 states, the territories and the District of
    Columbia, because all, every single jurisdiction, where there
    are Federal buildings, has incurred the same lack of funding
    for GSA projects.
        So I am trying to find out whether there are economies of
    scale for work of the same type, or whether, particularly in
    light of Mr. Miller's concern about fraud, waste and abuse, who
    knows, that it is better to go piece by piece, jurisdiction by
    jurisdiction and I recognize that you have not had this kind of
    work going on in all 50 States before. But it is conceivable
    that there could be some contractors for whom, whose record of
    doing similar work with the GSA has been of such a quality and
    such a speed that there could be advantages. Do we have any
    sense of that at this point?
        Mr. Guerin. We do, Congresswoman. We have a series of IDIQ,
    indefinite quantity contracts that we intend to use for some
    of----
        Ms. Norton. Give me an example of what that means, please.
        Mr. Guerin. It means we have hired a series of contractors
    in particular geographic locations that we understand the
    quality of the work that they have been producing for us.
        Ms. Norton. To do what kind of work?
        Mr. Guerin. To do construction work, to do some design work
    as well. We have a number of different kinds of contracts that
    we use to give us the ability to task contracts so we don't
    have to go out and recompete, reselect, re-educate someone who
    has not had experience with GSA in the past. And so those
    people are available to us. And we are increasing the maximum
    order limitations and the amount of money available to those
    contracts so we can effectively use them as we move forward. We
    want to make sure that we take into account our small business
    goal, so we will push a lot of contracts out to individual
    contractors and pursue those because we want to make sure that
    we achieve our small business and set aside program goals as
    well.
        We have a series of programmatic contracts that we are
    putting out for lighting, for recommissioning that will be
    national contracts. We will rely on specific experts to make
    sure that we have a consistent coordinated approach to how we
    evaluate our projects and how we define the scope of work for
    these programmatic projects moving forward.
        So we have those kinds of things going on where we are
    absolutely relying on specific expertise to make sure that we
    get exactly what we want and make sure that we achieve the
    energy goals that we are trying to achieve.
        Ms. Norton. Is monitoring of this work centralized here or
    are we relying on the regions?
        Mr. Guerin. Both. We have some contracts that are being
    managed centrally. And most, most of the contracts being
    managed regionally. We have experts--obviously, GSA puts its
    program out through our regional offices, and the vast majority
    of the work will happen in the regional offices.
        Ms. Norton. Mr. Abdur-Rahman, would you put on the record
    about small business goals with respect to the DHS project
    which Mr. Guerin alluded to generally. Have you goals, and how
    have they been met or not on DHS work done this far at St.
    Elizabeth's.
        Mr. Abdur-Rahman. The goals that were established for the
    DHS program are 40 percent for small businesses. We are, as I
    mentioned we are in the early stages of those procurements, so
    those goals will be included in the request for proposal that
    are being issued and then we will follow up and report on those
    as the contracts are awarded and the GCs submit their
    subcontractors.
        Ms. Norton. Now we understand that in the clearing the
    land, there have been some goals. Do you have any figures on
    those goals?
        Mr. Abdur-Rahman. Yes. I think what you are referring to is
    that we have began, we obtained custody and control of this
    property from the Department of Health and Human Services. We
    immediately began to stabilize the facilities that were there
    that were in disrepair and do some repairs. And I don't have
    the exact figures, but it occurs to me that we spent about $13
    million on investing in the site so far and stabilization. All
    that work has gone to small business so far, to date. And I
    would like to point out that the solicitation that we are going
    to be awarding for the abatement and demolition is going to be
    a small business project also. So that will help our record and
    increase our objective to make opportunities available to the
    maximum number extent of small businesses on this project.
        Ms. Norton. Given the speed with which you have got to
    proceed, Mr. Guerin, how are you going to meet the small
    business goals? You are piling that in we are piling that in on
    top of everything else we have piled on your back.
        Mr. Guerin. We are used to it, Congresswoman. We pursue
    small business contracts regularly. We have a good track record
    of achieving our goals and we are going to continue to
    advertise specifically set aside for small business owners to
    do that. The vast majority of the projects, not the dollar
    amounts, but the projects are small projects that can be
    successfully awarded to small businesses and we intend to do
    that.
        Ms. Norton. Well, Mr. Abdur-Rahman and GSA have been
    holding forums here for small businesses and I was at the last
    one, and saw enthusiastic people out learning about the 8A and
    other processes. Are those forums going to be held around the
    country in any locations in any other locations, and are any
    others expected here?
        Mr. Guerin. Yes, Congresswoman, both across the country and
    in D.C., you will see additional opportunities for small
    businesses to understand and get to know GSA and get to know
    what our processes are and participate in our contracts. That
    is certainly a way that we go out and strive to get as much
    small business participation as we can through those types of
    forums that you are referring to.
        Mr. Miller. Madam Chair, would you mind if I took a very
    brief break?
        Ms. Norton. Yes, sir. Go ahead. How many of these, Mr.
    Abdur-Rahman, how many of the, you have been having these
    forums. Have any of these small businessmen been added to the
    GSA schedule as a result of your forums?
        Mr. Abdur-Rahman. I am not aware and I would have to get
    back to you about whether they have been added to the GSA.
        Ms. Norton. What does it take to get on the GSA schedule?
        Mr. Abdur-Rahman. They would need to apply to a
    solicitation that GSA would issue specifically for GSA
    schedule.
        Ms. Norton. But how do you get on the schedule?
        Mr. Abdur-Rahman. They would, when we have opportunities
    for schedules we announce those in the Federal business
    opportunities and when those solicitations are issued then
    those companies would compete for those. The training that we
    are having right now is for people to be certified by the Small
    Business Administration as small or disadvantaged contractors.
        And if I have a moment I would like to clarify that. Our
    goal for construction is 40 percent small business and for the
    construction manager, 38 percent. And the solicitation that we
    have out for the abatement and demolition is specifically for
    small disadvantaged or 8A contractors.
        Ms. Norton. That is for DBEs. How are we getting on the GSA
    schedule?
        Mr. Abdur-Rahman. Yeah.
        Ms. Norton. You are just talking about SBA. That is
    important. But then there is the all important GSA schedule.
        Mr. Guerin. I think we should get back to you with a
    specific response on that, Congresswoman.
        Ms. Norton. Are people being trained? What does it take to
    get on the GSA schedule? What do you have to have in order to
    qualify to be on the schedule?
        Mr. Guerin. I think we need to get back with a specific
    answer on exactly how that happens because I don't think Dawud
    or I are in a position to answer that question exactly.
        Ms. Norton. Would you, within 14 days get back to us. You
    know it is one thing to be on it and to therefore, compete
    among those who are already on it. But I would like details of
    how you get on it. And I would like to know if you are, and may
    I thank GSA, who will be appearing and offering advice at my
    small business fair held annually, and may I thank you for
    always being there at that fair. And that fair is the 13 of
    May, next Tuesday. And I know you will be offering a workshop
    on how to get on the GSA schedule.
        So I would like a list of all businesses in the District of
    Columbia that are on the DHS schedule, for whatever purpose.
    Then I would like a list of all businesses in the region,
    National Capitol Region, that are on the DHS schedule. That is
    public information I am sure.
        Mr. Guerin. I am sure it is.
        Ms. Norton. I am almost through. The purpose of--we would
    not be engaged in this hearing, and you would not have this
    money except for one purpose, to create jobs. So as much as we
    have talked about fraud, waste and abuse, quality of work, how
    soon it gets out, if we were to list what the purpose of this
    money is, it would be to create jobs to help us bring out, get
    out of this structural recession. Any look at what has happened
    to our country makes it clear that there will be no coming up
    one sector at a time. All 50 States are down. There is a
    terrible cobweb. You can't break into it and break somebody out
    of it. Everything has to happen at one time. That is why we are
    doing TARP and why we are doing mortgages and why the President
    does have to do it all at one time or go home; and he ain't
    going home.
        That being the case, the job creation element of this
    becomes exquisitely important, if I may say so. The most
    important element of this. Can you tell me how many people have
    been hired as of this time?
        Mr. Guerin. We have awarded $100 million worth of
    contracts. Those are several large projects and a series of
    small studies and design projects. I don't have the exact
    figure of how many people have been hired.
        Ms. Norton. Are any of those projects underway?
        Mr. Guerin. They are just getting started, Congresswoman.
        Ms. Norton. And how do we track jobs? Because again, that
    is how we are most accountable, then everything else comes
    after that. How do we track--do we know when somebody is on the
    ground working in whatever capacity?
        Mr. Guerin. We have a specific contract clause that is
    going to be inserted into every contract that we issue through
    the recovery to ask the contractors to track jobs in a very
    specific way. They report those jobs directly to a Web site
    that I don't remember, I believe it is a Congress Web site
    where all the jobs are tracked and reported, and that will
    happen across the country. They will feed into a specific Web
    site.
        Ms. Norton. I know we are early in the obligation, but
    that, but you are separately tracking jobs. For example, if the
    contractor is slow getting people on the ground, what happens
    to that contractor? He has been awarded a contract, but they're
    sitting on a contract or somehow or the other isn't hiring
    people even though there a glut of people looking for jobs.
    What does he do? What do you do?
        Mr. Guerin. We don't anticipate that happening,
    Congresswoman.
        Ms. Norton. Well, my goodness. I do. I anticipate what you
    should anticipate, and I anticipate what you shouldn't
    anticipate. And I absolutely anticipate that once some of these
    guys get the job, even though there is every incentive to
    start, that you will be looking at some people who start up and
    some people who put in a good bid, but don't start up as
    quickly. How will you make sure that all these contractors are
    working quickly?
        Mr. Guerin. We are going to continue to use the processes
    we used to pick the best contractors. We have source selection
    processes that we use.
        Ms. Norton. Well, they have already got the contract. Yet
    you see that contractor A in X jurisdiction has started up and
    is working quickly. Contractor B is working less quickly, even
    though he has access to the same work force. What does GSA do?
    Is there a marker that shows how fast someone ought to be able,
    given the number of----
        Mr. Guerin. We have very specific information about each of
    our contracts. A milestone schedule for each of the, not only
    the design, but the procurement and the construction project,
    and my office is going to specifically track those things to
    ensure that the projects are happening on the schedules that
    they created for us and that we agreed to contractually. And if
    they do not perform, and again, to get the money out, GSA has
    to spend the money 5 years and that is a very important aspect
    of this program.
        Ms. Norton. So what do you do, though, Mr. Miller, if
    somebody does not, you know, get up off his duff because he is
    as slow as GSA used to be, shall we say? What do you do? We
    have already got the contract. Maybe he is hiring some people,
    but he is not putting the money where the jobs are. You know,
    he has got this nice little piece of paper in his hand. What,
    if anything, can the government do, having already awarded him
    the money, except to say you should be doing better? See, we do
    not have that luxury this time.
        Mr. Miller. Madam Chair, there are probably a number of
    remedies available to GSA. A cancellation of the contract comes
    to mind.
        Ms. Norton. I guess that, though, is really the atom bomb.
    You know, that is a nuclear matter, and of course the
    contractor knows that it is nuclear, and he has never seen GSA
    do that under any circumstances, even when it virtually
    defaults. So what internal mechanisms would you or, for that
    matter, Mr. Guerin or any of the rest of you suggest for a
    contractor who is slow on the draw?
        Mr. Guerin. We also have remedies through the bonding
    agencies that bond the contractors. We can force them to
    perform. I think the nuclear bomb, as you referred to it, is
    there for us, but we have various ways to remedy the contracts
    before that time. Again, we are going to be tracking it very
    carefully, and we will know when projects are starting to get
    off track, and we will use every remedy we have available to
    us.
        Ms. Norton. I would like to know what those remedies are, I
    really would. I have no confidence in the "We will do
    everything we can" answers.
        Mr. Miller.
        Mr. Miller. The first remedy is for GSA to issue a cure
    notice, a notice asking the contractor to cure the defect. And
    that is the very first thing.
        Ms. Norton. And that could include: You are too slow, and
    we are held accountable for jobs, and we have not got any jobs
    to show, to speak of?
        Mr. Miller. I would think so, yes.
        Mr. Guerin. And we have liquidated damages, Congresswoman.
    If they do not perform, there is a contractual penalty that
    forces them to pay the government for their poor performance.
        Ms. Norton. When is the last time we have ever extracted
    that from a contractor?
        Mr. Guerin. We extract liquidated damages regularly for
    slow contractors who do not perform within the contractual time
    frame. If there is not a good reason and, again, a negotiated
    reason between GSA and the contractor to----
        Ms. Norton. Is that included in the contract? Do they
    understand that they do not pay us?
        Mr. Guerin. Yes.
        Ms. Norton. This is so important--sitting on top of
    government money, not acting, and no penalty for it. I am also
    looking at this, I will say to the staff, for the
    reauthorization to perhaps clarify that--about the necessity to
    do that.
        This is a very valuable piece of paper you have in your
    hand--that is, a government contract--and it is invaluable
    today.
        Mr. Guerin, you testified--I am here, reading from your
    testimony--"pre-apprentice and apprenticeship programs are an
    integral part. These programs will be established as
    contractual requirements--" that is excellent--"as construction
    projects." Meaning, that is in the RFP?
        Mr. Guerin. Yes.
        Ms. Norton. But then it says, "The funding provided in the
    act shall be used for costs of pre-apprentice and apprentice
    training. The programs will be modeled after a successful GSA
    program in the National Capital Region through which at least
    840 persons at 15 projects..."
        The problem with that is, if it is modeled after that, we
    are going to get the people who already are apprentices or
    qualified apprentices. All that does is say, make sure we have
    certified apprentices because of the history, not of GSA, but
    of the construction industry of simply using apprentices.
    Sometimes those apprentices are not certified from certified
    programs, and so we rectified that.
        What will we do about the fact that the underemployment has
    been among people of color and women who are not certified to
    do anything and who have not been recruited into these
    programs? Because there has been no formal program of the kind
    there was up until 1980. And you, of course, have been given
    almost no money to do it.
        The thing that caught me up--I loved the first part of
    this--is in the RFP, "but when we were doing exactly what we
    have been doing here for certified apprenticeship programs, we
    were not dealing with the pool that the $3 million you have
    seeks to target."
        That pool of people who already are apprentices, they just
    have to be in a certified apprenticeship program.
        Mr. Guerin. Right.
        Ms. Norton. I am looking for people who are in the pre-
    apprentice category, largely women and people of color.
        Mr. Guerin. As soon as we got wind of the potential for
    funds in the bill, we got to work with DOL to understand their
    program better and to make sure that we were working with them
    directly to identify underrepresented areas and areas with
    economic disadvantages so we could identify with DOL--they are
    going to help us identify the locations where we can really use
    the best bang for the buck.
        You said it, Congresswoman. We do not have a lot of money
    on this program, so we want to be very effective in how we
    spend it. Large contracts. We can have apprenticeship, and we
    can require pre-apprenticeship as well through the contracts;
    but where we want to really spend our money is in training
    those pre-apprentices and in bringing them up to speed to get
    the job skills that you and I have talked about before to
    ensure that they understand what it is to hold a job and what
    it is to have the opportunity, and then move them into the
    apprenticeship programs that are already ongoing across the
    country.
        Ms. Norton. Even as we were getting money for this program,
    we realized we were not going to get enough, and we put you at
    a terrible disadvantage. We thought it important to get
    whatever money we could. We anticipate real disputes among
    people who look at these jobs, and we anticipate litigation. In
    fact, to be just clear, the 14th Amendment of the United States
    and Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act is very explicit: You
    cannot spend money, Federal money or State money, that has
    discriminatory purposes. If people and various organizations
    see an overwhelmingly white workforce, it will court
    litigation. It could slow us up, and we have not given you
    enough money to proceed.
        When I looked closely at it, because of my past experience
    as head of the EEOC, it was clear to me that the problem is not
    in construction trades. The problem is in training, and it is
    not as if--there are, of course, qualified journeymen and
    journeywomen out here, but compared to the overwhelmingly white
    male workforce, they pale in numbers. So I expect, frankly,
    that qualified minority journeymen and apprentices will be
    easily hired. I really do. I think the States will grab them up
    even before you get ahold of them.
        What I am worried about are people in the street, going up
    there and counting people and saying: Well, I do not see a
    single X, Y, Z, and some of that may be bogus. You cannot tell
    anything, particularly when you are talking about a few million
    dollars here and a few million dollars there.
        I do not have any advice for you. The Secretary of
    Transportation is such a good friend of ours and was before the
    Full Committee. They are in the same predicament. They have a
    lot more money than you. They have only 20 million lousy
    dollars. The reason you got $3 million is proportionate.
        I got a question from the appropriators: If you cannot get
    as much as you ask for--and I forgot what I asked for--do you
    believe that it is fair to get a proportionate amount from the
    transportation funds?
        Well, in fairness, how could I say "no"?
        Well, you know, they got too few funds, and we got too few.
    I do not know if this will work, but I am going to have to ask
    you again, and my staff, to meet with them this week because I
    think we are all now on unplowed ground.
        I said to the Secretary of Transportation: You and I are in
    the construction business.
        Maybe there is some way for transportation and GSA money to
    be pooled so that, for example, you are not in the same place
    they are or that whatever programs they are using complement
    yours. I have no idea. All I know is that both of you have so
    little money that I am going to ask staff if you will--the
    Secretary has very much agreed to begin to search this out--if
    you will meet with the appropriate transportation staff and
    with the appropriate GSA staff just to investigate how to take
    a tiny bit of money and make it useful to us. And I am at a
    loss to put this terrible burden on you. I do not even believe
    there are a lot of folks out here, particularly doing pre-
    apprenticeship work, whom I would trust.
        We are in touch with what we have heard are programs that
    are better than others. We do not know. DOL is problematic
    because they work with States. They have done a lousy job. They
    have done a lousy job of training in the construction trades.
        You heard in my opening statement that I said, shucks,
    there are billions of dollars they could have drawn upon to do
    training ever since 2000 based on our authorization bills. Only
    17 pecked at that money. So it is important to talk to DOL, but
    I do not think there is good State experience either, because
    they have chosen to take every living cent and put it on the
    street with whatever workforce they have.
        So this is real start-up stuff, and I want to work with
    you. I have a vested interest, very much like what is being
    done on small business. It is very much easier to do, frankly--
    a smaller number of people, geared to understand the
    competitive process. Here you are dealing with people in the
    street who have large unemployment rates, just like the
    construction workers who will never, ever understand why they
    are not being employed, but who will understand if there are
    targeted projects around the country. There may not be in their
    area, but if there are targeted models around the country from
    which we can proceed--and listen to me on this--in the next
    reauthorization bill, my intention is to make these funds
    mandatory of the States in the next Transportation and
    Infrastructure reauthorization bill, so that you cannot take
    billions of dollars if you are the State of X, Y, Z, put 100
    percent of it in the ground, and not train a single person in
    your State. That is an outrage.
        The way we did it before was, in good faith, we said you
    are encouraged to take 0.5 of your funds and put it into
    training. They said, thank you. Encouraged, we will take that
    at face value. Zero. That is what most of them said--zero. I
    have asked the Secretary to get back with me as to how much in
    each State and to give me a list of what those States were.
        That being the state of the art, we want to work closely
    with you on what amounts to start-up for training because this,
    interestingly, is not about small business as much as we have
    worked on that, and you have done a good job on that. This is
    about jobs. It is not about jobs only for those who are out of
    work; it is about jobs for those who could not possibly get the
    jobs to do the work today, but who can use what amounts to a
    magical, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get a foothold into
    the construction trades.
        Mr. Guerin. Congresswoman, I just want to let you know
    that, based on your comments last week at the hearing, we did
    reach out to DOT, and we have started conversation with them
    about working together. We would definitely welcome the
    opportunity to participate in a program where you are bringing
    DOT and GSA together to look at this issue, because we are very
    interested in it.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
        At the end of this week, I will get from staff some sense
    of how those conversations are proceeding, given the great
    difficulty we see here.
        Is there anything else any of the rest of you, any others
    of you, or any of you, would like to say before we close this
    hearing?
        The hearing is very important to us, as you can see by how
    long I have kept you in it. I will tell you one thing: I do not
    intend to offer any excuses. I am not going to say GSA made me
    do it or that GSA did not do it or that the Social Security
    Administration did not do for GSA what it should have done. I
    am going to take responsibility, and that is why I am going to
    hold your feet to the fire. Expect another tracking hearing
    within about 2 weeks.
        Thank you very much.
        [Whereupon, at 4:34 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]