[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]