112TH CONGRESS REPT. 112–384 " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2nd Session Part 1 

CIVILIAN PROPERTY REALIGNMENT ACT 

FEBRUARY 1, 2012.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. MICA, from the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 1734] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom 

was referred the bill (H.R. 1734) to decrease the deficit by realigning, consolidating, selling, disposing, and improving the efficiency 

of Federal buildings and other civilian real property, and for other 

purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon 

with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do 

pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Amendment .............................................................................................................. 2 

Purpose of Legislation ............................................................................................. 15 

Background and Need for Legislation .................................................................... 16 

Summary of Legislation .......................................................................................... 18 

Legislative History and Consideration .................................................................. 25 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 25 

Committee Votes ...................................................................................................... 27 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 31 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 31 

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 31 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .......................................................... 31 

Advisory of Earmarks .............................................................................................. 40 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

Federal Mandate Statement ................................................................................... 41 

Preemption Clarification ......................................................................................... 41 

Advisory Committee Statement .............................................................................. 41 

Applicability of Legislative Branch ........................................................................ 41 

Changes in Existing Law made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 41 

AMENDMNENT

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Civilian Property Realignment Act’’ or ‘‘CPRA’’. 

SEC. 2. PURPOSES. 

The purposes of this Act are— 

(1) to consolidate the footprint of Federal buildings and facilities; 

(2) to maximize the utilization rate of Federal buildings and facilities; 

(3) to reduce the reliance on leased space; 

(4) to sell or redevelop high value assets that are underutilized to obtain the 

highest and best value for the taxpayer and maximize the return to the taxpayer; 

(5) to reduce the operating and maintenance costs of Federal civilian real 

properties through the realignment of real properties by consolidating, co-locating, and reconfiguring space, and other operational efficiencies; 

(6) to reduce redundancy, overlap, and costs associated with field offices; 

(7) to create incentives for Federal agencies to achieve greater efficiency in 

their inventories of civilian real property; 

(8) to facilitate and expedite the sale or disposal of unneeded civilian properties; and 

(9) to assist Federal agencies in achieving the Government’s sustainability 

goals by reducing excess space, inventory, and energy consumption, as well as 

by leveraging new technologies. 

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

In this Act, unless otherwise expressly stated, the following definitions apply: 

(1) FEDERAL CIVILIAN REAL PROPERTY AND CIVILIAN REAL PROPERTY.— 

(A) PROPERTY.—The terms ‘‘Federal civilian real property’’ and ‘‘civilian 

real property’’ refer to Federal real property assets, including public buildings as defined in section 3301 of title 40, United States Code, occupied and 

improved grounds, leased space, or other physical structures under the custody and control of any Federal agency. 

(B) FURTHER EXCLUSIONS.—Subparagraph (A) shall not be construed as 

including any of the following types of property: 

(i) A base, camp, post, station, yard, center, homeport facility for any 

ship, or any activity under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense or Coast Guard. 

(ii) Properties that are excluded for reasons of national security by 

the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. 

(iii) Properties that are excepted from the definition of ‘‘property’’ 

under section 102(9) of title 40, United States Code. 

(iv) Indian and Native Eskimo properties including— 

(I) any property within the limits of any Indian reservation to 

which the United States owns title for the benefit of an Indian 

tribe; and 

(II) any property title which is held in trust by the United States 

for the benefit of any Indian tribe or individual or held by an Indian tribe or individual subject to restriction by the United States 

against alienation. 

(v) Properties operated and maintained by the Tennessee Valley Authority pursuant to the Tennessee Valley Authority Act of 1933 (16 

U.S.C. 831, et seq.). 

(vi) Postal properties owned by the United States Postal Service, except that the United State Postal Service shall submit to the Commission and the Commission shall consider, pursuant to section 11, postal 

properties suitable for co-location with other Federal agency field offices. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

(vii) Properties used in connection with Federal programs for agricultural, recreational, and conservation purposes, including research in 

connection with the programs. 

(viii) Properties used in connection with river, harbor, flood control, 

reclamation, or power projects. 

(2) FEDERAL AGENCY.—The term ‘‘Federal agency’’ means an executive department or independent establishment in the executive branch of the Government, 

and a wholly owned Government corporation. 

(3) ADMINISTRATOR.—The term ‘‘Administrator’’ means the Administrator of 

General Services. 

(4) COMMISSION.—The term ‘‘Commission’’ means the Civilian Property Realignment Commission. 

(5) OMB.—The term ‘‘OMB’’ means the Office of Management and Budget. 

(6) FIELD OFFICE.—the term ‘‘field office’’ means any Federal office that is not 

the Headquarters office location for the Federal agency. 

SEC. 4. COMMISSION. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established an independent commission to be 

known as the Civilian Property Realignment Commission, referred to in this Act as 

the ‘‘Commission’’. 

(b) DUTIES.—The Commission shall carry out the duties as specified in this Act. 

(c) MEMBERSHIP.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Commission shall be composed of a chairman appointed 

by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and 8 members appointed by the President. 

(2) APPOINTMENTS.—In selecting individuals for appointments to the Commission, the President shall consult with— 

(A) the Speaker of the House of Representatives concerning the appointment of 2 members; 

(B) the majority leader of the Senate concerning the appointment of 2 

members; 

(C) the minority leader of the House of Representatives concerning the 

appointment of 1 member; and 

(D) the minority leader of the Senate concerning the appointment of 1 

member. 

(3) TERMS.—The term for each member of the Commission shall be 6 years. 

(4) VACANCIES.—Vacancies shall be filled in the same manner as the original 

appointment. 

(5) QUALIFICATIONS.—In selecting individuals for appointment to the Commission, the President shall ensure the Commission contains individuals with expertise representative of the following: 

(A) Commercial real estate and redevelopment. 

(B) Government management or operations. 

(C) Community development, including transportation and planning. 

(D) Historic preservation. 

SEC. 5. COMMISSION MEETINGS. 

(a) OPEN MEETINGS.—Each meeting of the Commission, other than meetings in 

which classified information is to be discussed, shall be open to the public. Any open 

meeting shall be announced in the Federal Register and the Federal website established by the Commission at least 14 calendar days in advance of a meeting. For 

all public meetings, the Commission shall release an agenda and a listing of materials relevant to the topics to be discussed. 

(b) QUORUM AND MEETINGS.—Seven Commission members shall constitute a 

quorum for the purposes of conducting business and 3 or more Commission members shall constitute a meeting of the Commission. 

(c) TRANSPARENCY OF INFORMATION.—All the proceedings, information, and deliberations of the Commission shall be open, upon request, to the chairperson and the 

ranking minority party member, and their respective subcommittee chairperson and 

ranking minority party member, of— 

(1) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives; 

(2) the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives; 

(3) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the 

Senate; 

(4) the Committee on Environmental and Public Works of the Senate; and 

(5) the committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 

Senate. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

(d) GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE.—All proceedings, information, and deliberations of the Commission shall be open, upon request, to the Comptroller General of the United States. 

SEC. 6. COMPENSATION AND TRAVEL EXPENSES. 

(a) COMPENSATION.— 

(1) RATE OF PAY FOR MEMBERS.—Each member, other than the Chairperson, 

shall be paid at a rate equal to the daily equivalent of the minimum annual 

rate of basic pay payable for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 

5315 of title 5, United States Code, for each day (including travel time) during 

which the member is engaged in the actual performance of duties vested in the 

Commission. 

(2) RATE OF PAY FOR CHAIRPERSON.—The chairperson shall be paid for each 

day referred to in paragraph (1) at a rate equal to the daily equivalent of the 

minimum annual rate of basic pay payable for level III of the Executive Schedule under section 5314, of title 5, United States Code. 

(b) TRAVEL.—Members shall receive travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 

subsistence, in accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5, United States 

Code. 

SEC. 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. 

(a) APPOINTMENT.—The Commission shall appoint an Executive Director and may 

disregard the provisions of title 5, United States Code, governing appointments in 

the competitive service. 

(b) RATE OF PAY FOR DIRECTOR.—The Executive Director shall be paid at the rate 

of basic pay payable for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of 

title 5, United States Code. 

SEC. 8. STAFF. 

(a) ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL.—Subject to subsection (b), the Executive Director, 

with the approval of the Commission, may appoint and fix the pay of additional personnel. 

(b) DETAIL EMPLOYEES FROM OTHER AGENCIES.—Upon request of the Executive 

Director, the head of any Federal agency may detail any of the personnel of that 

agency to the Commission to assist the Commission in carrying out its duties under 

this Act. 

(c) QUALIFICATIONS.—Appointments shall be made with consideration of a balance 

of expertise consistent with the qualifications of representatives described in section 

4(c)(5). 

SEC. 9. CONTRACTING AUTHORITY. 

(a) EXPERTS AND CONSULTANTS.—The Commission may procure by contract, to the 

extent funds are available, the temporary or intermittent services of experts and 

consultants pursuant to section 3109 of title 5, United States Code. 

(b) SPACE.—The Administrator, in consultation with the Commission, shall identify suitable excess space within the Federal space inventory to house the operations 

of the Commission. If no such space is available, the Commission may, notwithstanding section 20, lease space to the extent funds are available. 

(c) PERSONAL PROPERTY.—The Commission may acquire personal property to the 

extent funds are available. 

(d) RECEIPT AND SALE OF PROPERTY.—The Commission may take custody, control, 

and administrative jurisdiction over Federal property pursuant to section 12(b) and 

is authorized to sell such property for no less than fair market value. 

(e) USE OF SMALL BUSINESSES.—In exercising its authorities under this section 

and section 12, the Commission shall use, to the greatest extent practicable, small 

businesses as defined by section 3 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632). 

SEC. 10. TERMINATION. 

The Commission shall cease operations and terminate 6 years from the date of 

enactment of this Act. 

SEC. 11. DEVELOPMENT OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COMMISSION. 

(a) SUBMISSIONS OF AGENCY INFORMATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.—Not later 

than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act and 120 days after the beginning of each fiscal year thereafter, the head of each Federal agency shall submit 

to the Administrator and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget the 

following: 

(1) CURRENT DATA.—Current data of all Federal civilian real properties 

owned, leased or controlled by the respective agency, including all relevant information prescribed by the Administrator and the Director of the Office of 

Management and Budget, including data related to the age and condition of the 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

property, operating costs, history of capital expenditures, sustainability metrics, 

number of Federal employees and functions housed in the respective property, 

square footage (including gross, rentable, and usable). 

(2) AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS.—Recommendations which shall include the 

following: 

(A) Federal civilian properties that can be sold for proceeds and otherwise 

disposed of, transferred, exchanged, consolidated, co-located, reconfigured, 

or redeveloped, so as to reduce the civilian real property inventory, reduce 

the operating costs of the Government, and create the highest value and 

return for the taxpayer. 

(B) Operational efficiencies that the Government can realize in its operation and maintenance of Federal civilian real properties. 

(b) STANDARDS AND CRITERIA.—Not later than 60 days after the date specified in 

subsection (a), the Director of OMB, in consultation with the Administrator, shall 

review agency recommendations submitted pursuant to subsection (a), and develop 

consistent standards and criteria against which agency recommendations will be reviewed. The Director of OMB and the Administrator shall develop recommendations 

to the Commission based on those standards and criteria. In developing the standards and criteria, the Director of OMB, in consultation with the Administrator, shall 

incorporate the following: 

(1) The extent to which the Federal building or facility could be sold, redeveloped, or otherwise used to produce the highest and best value and return for 

the taxpayer. 

(2) The extent to which the operating and maintenance costs are reduced 

through consolidating, co-locating, and reconfiguring space, and through realizing other operational efficiencies. 

(3) The extent to which the utilization rate is being maximized and is consistent with non-governmental industry standards for the given function or operation. 

(4) The extent and timing of potential costs and savings, including the number of years, beginning with the date of completion of the proposed recommendation. 

(5) The extent to which reliance on leasing for long-term space needs is reduced. 

(6) The extent to which a Federal building or facility aligns with the current 

mission of the Federal agency. 

(7) The extent to which there are opportunities to consolidate similar operations across multiple agencies or within agencies. 

(8) The economic impact on existing communities in the vicinity of the Federal building or facility. 

(9) The extent to which energy consumption is reduced. 

(c) SPECIAL RULE FOR UTILIZATION RATES.—Standards developed by the Director 

of OMB must incorporate and apply clear standard utilization rates consistent 

throughout each category of space and with nongovernment space utilization rates. 

To the extent utilization rates are exceeded by a given agency, the Director shall 

recommend realignment, co-location, consolidation, or other type of action to improve space utilization. 

(d) SUBMISSION TO THE COMMISSION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The standards, criteria, and recommendations developed 

pursuant to subsection (b) shall be submitted to the Commission with all supporting information, data, analyses, and documentation. 

(2) PUBLICATION.—The standards, criteria, and recommendations shall be 

published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the committees designated 

in section 5(c) and to the Comptroller General of the United States. 

(3) ACCESS TO INFORMATION.—The Commission shall also have access to all 

information pertaining to the recommendations, including supporting information, data, analyses, and documentation submitted pursuant to subsection (a). 

Upon request, Federal agencies shall provide, the Commission any additional 

information pertaining to its properties. 

SEC. 12. COMMISSION DUTIES. 

(a) IDENTIFICATION OF PROPERTY REDUCTION OPPORTUNITIES.—The Commission 

shall identify opportunities for the Government to reduce significantly its inventory 

of civilian real property and reduce costs to the Government. 

(b) IDENTIFICATION OF HIGH VALUE ASSETS.— 

(1) IDENTIFICATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES.—Not later than 180 days after 

Commission members are appointed pursuant to section 4, the Commission 

shall identify not less than 5 Federal properties that are not on the list of surplus or excess as of such date with a total fair market value of not less than 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

$500,000,000 to be sold and transmit the list to the President and Congress as 

Commission recommendations and subject to the approval process described in 

sections 13 and 14. 

(2) LEASEBACK RESTRICTIONS.—None of the existing improvements on properties sold under this subsection may be leased back to the Federal Government. 

(3) INFORMATION AND DATA.—In order to meet the goal established under 

paragraph (1), Federal agencies shall provide, upon receipt, any and all information and data regarding its properties to the Commission. The Commission 

shall notify the committees listed under section 5(c) of any failure by any agency to comply with a request of the Commission. 

(4) TRANSFER.—Not later than 60 days after approval of the Commission recommendations pursuant to paragraph (1), Federal agencies with custody, control, or administrative jurisdiction over the identified properties shall transfer 

custody, control, and administrative jurisdiction to the Commission. 

(5) SALE.—Not later than 120 days after approval of Commission recommendations pursuant to paragraph (1) and notwithstanding any other provision of law (except as provided in section 18), the Commission shall sell the 

properties described in paragraph (1) at fair market value at highest and best 

use. 

(6) PROCEEDS.—The proceeds shall be distributed in accordance with section 

17. 

(c) ANALYSIS OF INVENTORY.—The Commission shall perform an independent analysis of the inventory of Federal civilian real property and the recommendations submitted pursuant to section 11. The Commission shall not be bound or limited by the 

recommendations submitted pursuant to section 11. If, in the opinion of the Commission, an agency fails to provide needed information, data or adequate recommendations that meet the standards and criteria, the Commission shall develop 

such recommendations as it considers appropriate based on existing data contained 

in the Federal Real Property Profile or other relevant information. 

(d) RECEIPT OF INFORMATION AND PROPOSALS.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Commission may receive and consider proposals, information, and 

other data submitted by State and local officials and the private sector. Such information shall be made publically available. 

(e) ACCOUNTING SYSTEM.—Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of 

this Act, the Commission shall identify or develop and implement a system of accounting to be used to independently evaluate the costs of and returns on the recommendations. Such accounting system shall be applied in developing the Commission’s recommendations and determining the highest return to the taxpayer. In applying the accounting system, the Commission shall set a standard performance period. 

(f) PUBLIC HEARING.—The Commission shall conduct public hearings. All testimony before the Commission at a public hearing under this paragraph shall be presented under oath. 

(g) REPORTING OF INFORMATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 120 days after the receipt of recommendations pursuant to section 11, and biannually thereafter, the Commission shall, 

at a minimum, transmit to the President, and publicly post on a Federal 

website maintained by the Commission a report containing the Commission’s 

findings, conclusions, and recommendations for the consolidation, exchange, colocation, reconfiguration, lease reductions, sale, and redevelopment of Federal 

civilian real properties and for other operational efficiencies that can be realized 

in the Government’s operation and maintenance of such properties. 

(2) CONSENSUS IN MAJORITY.—The Commission shall seek to develop consensus recommendations, but if a consensus cannot be obtained, the Commission may include in its report recommendations that are supported by a majority of the Commission. 

(h) FEDERAL WEBSITE.—The Commission shall establish and maintain a Federal 

website for the purposes of making relevant information publically available. 

(i) REVIEW BY GAO.—The Comptroller General of the United States shall transmit 

to the Congress and to the Commission a report containing a detailed analysis of 

the recommendations and selection process. 

SEC. 13. REVIEW BY THE PRESIDENT. 

(a) REVIEW OF RECOMMENDATIONS.—Upon receipt of the Commission’s recommendations, the President shall conduct a review of such recommendations. 

(b) REPORT TO COMMISSION AND CONGRESS.—Not later than 30 days after receipt 

of the Commission’s recommendations, the President shall transmit to the CommisVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:25 Feb 02, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR384P1.XXX HR384P1

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

sion and Congress a report that sets forth the President’s approval or disapproval 

of the Commission’s recommendations. 

(c) APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL.—If the President— 

(1) approves of the Commission’s recommendations, the President shall transmit a copy of the recommendations to Congress, together with a certification of 

such approval; 

(2) disapproves of the Commission’s recommendations, in whole or in part, the 

President shall also transmit to the Commission and Congress the reasons for 

such disapproval. The Commission shall then transmit to the President, not 

later than 30 days following the disapproval, a revised list of recommendations; 

(3) approves all of the revised recommendations of the Commission, the President shall transmit a copy of such revised recommendations to Congress, together with a certification of such approval; or 

(4) does not transmit to the Congress an approval and certification described 

in paragraphs (1) or (3) within 30 days of receipt of the Commission’s recommendations or revised recommendations, as the case may be, the process 

shall terminate until the following year. 

SEC. 14. CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS. 

(a) RESOLUTION OF DISAPPROVAL.—Not later than 45 days after the date of the 

President’s transmission to Congress of the approved recommendations pursuant to 

section 13, Congress may enact a joint resolution as described in subsection (c) to 

disapprove the Commission recommendations. 

(b) COMPUTATION OF TIME PERIOD.—For the purposes of this section, the days on 

which either House of Congress is not in session because of adjournment of more 

than three days to a day certain shall be excluded in the computation of the period 

of time. 

(c) TERMS OF THE RESOLUTION.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘joint resolution’’ means only a joint resolution which is introduced within the 10-day period 

beginning on the date on which the President transmits the recommendations to 

Congress under section 13, and— 

(1) which does not have a preamble; 

(2) the matter after the resolving clause of which is as follows: ‘‘That Congress 

disapproves the recommendations of the Civilian Property Realignment Commission as submitted by the President on lllllllll’’, the blank space 

being filled in with the appropriate date; and 

(3) the title of which is as follows: ‘‘Joint resolution disapproving the recommendations of the Civilian Property Realignment Commission’’. 

(d) REFERRAL.—A resolution described in subsection (c) that is introduced in the 

House of Representatives shall be referred to the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure in the House of Representatives. A resolution described in subsection 

(c) introduced in the Senate shall be referred to the Committee on the Environment 

and Public Works in the Senate. 

(e) DISCHARGE.—If the committee to which a resolution described in subsection (c) 

is referred has not reported such a resolution (or an identical resolution) by the end 

of the 20-day period beginning on the date on which the President transmits the 

report to the Congress under section 13, such committee shall be, at the end of such 

period, discharged from further consideration of such resolution, and such resolution 

shall be placed on the appropriate calendar of the House involved. 

(f) CONSIDERATION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—On or after the third day after the date on which the committee to which such resolution is referred has reported, or has been discharged 

(under subsection (e)) from further consideration of, such a resolution, it is in 

order (even though a previous motion to the same effect has been disagreed to) 

for any Member of the respective House to move to proceed to the consideration 

of the resolution. A member may make the motion only on the date after the 

calendar day on which the Member announces to the House concerned the 

Member’s intention to make the motion, except that, in the case of the House 

of Representatives, the motion may be made without such prior announcement 

if the motion is made by direction of the committee to which the resolution was 

referred. The motion is highly privileged in the House of Representatives and 

is privileged in the Senate and is not debatable. The motion is not subject to 

amendment, or to a motion to postpone, or to a motion to proceed to the consideration of other business. A motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion 

is agreed to or disagreed to shall not be in order. If a motion to proceed to consideration of the joint resolution is agreed to, the respective House shall immediately proceed to the consideration of the joint resolution without intervening 

motion, order, or other business, and the resolution shall remain the unfinished 

business of the respective House until disposed of. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
8 

(2) DEBATE.—Debate on the resolution and on all debatable motions and appeals in connection therewith, shall be limited to not more than 2 hours, which 

shall be divided equally between those favoring and those opposing the resolution. An amendment to the resolution is not in order. A motion further to limit 

debate is in order and not debatable. A motion to postpone, or a motion to proceed to the consideration of other business, or a motion to recommit the resolution is not in order. A motion to reconsider the vote by which the resolution is 

agreed to or disagreed is not in order. 

(3) VOTE.—Immediately following the conclusion of the debate on a resolution 

described in subsection (c) and a single quorum call at the conclusion of the debate if requested in accordance with the rules of the appropriate House, the 

vote on final passage of the resolution shall occur. 

(4) APPEALS OF DECISIONS OF THE CHAIR.—Appeals of the decisions of the 

Chair relating to the application of the rules of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case may be, to the procedure relating to a resolution described in subsection (c) shall be decided without debate. 

(g) CONSIDERATION BY OTHER HOUSE.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—If, before the passage by one House of a resolution of that 

House described in subsection (c), that House received from the other House a 

resolution described in subsection (c), then the following procedures shall apply: 

(A) NO COMMITTEE REFERRAL.—The resolution of the other House shall 

not be referred to a committee and may not be considered in the House receiving it except in the case of final passage as provided in subparagraph 

(B). 

(B) RESOLUTION PROCEDURE.—With respect to a resolution described in 

subsection (c) of the House receiving the resolution the procedure in that 

House shall be the same as if no resolution had been received from the 

other House, but the vote on final passage shall be on the resolution of the 

other House. 

(2) NO CONSIDERATION.—Upon disposition of the resolution received from the 

other House, it shall no longer be in order to consider the resolution that originated in the receiving House. 

(h) RULES OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE.—This section is enacted by Congress— 

(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate and House of Representatives, respectively, and as such it is deemed a part of the rules of each 

House, respectively, but applicable only with respect to the procedure to be followed in that House in the case of a resolution described in this section, and 

it supersedes other rules only to the extent that it is inconsistent with such 

rules; and 

(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of either House to change 

the rules (so far as relating to the procedure of that House) at any time, in the 

same manner, and to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of that 

House. 

(i) FAILURE TO PASS RESOLUTION OF DISAPPROVAL.—If Congress fails to pass such 

a joint resolution within 45 calendar days after the date of the President’s transmission to Congress of the Commission’s recommendations, the recommendations 

immediately gain legal force and shall be in effect and Federal agencies shall implement and carry out all of the Commission’s recommendations pursuant to section 

15. 

SEC. 15. IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS. 

(a) CARRYING OUT RECOMMENDATIONS.—Upon the date specified in section 14(i), 

Federal agencies shall immediately begin preparation to carry out the Commission’s 

recommendations and shall initiate all activities no later than 2 years after the date 

on which the President transmits the recommendations to Congress. Federal agencies shall complete all recommended actions no later than the end of the 6-year period beginning on the date on which the President transmits the Commission’s recommendations to Congress. All actions shall be economically beneficial and be cost 

neutral or otherwise favorable to the Government. For actions that will take longer 

than the 6-year period due to extenuating circumstances, each Federal agency shall 

notify the President and Congress as soon as the extenuating circumstance presents 

itself with an estimated time to complete the relevant action. 

(b) ACTIONS OF FEDERAL AGENCIES.—In taking actions related to any Federal 

building or facility under this Act, Federal agencies may, pursuant to subsection (c), 

take all such necessary and proper actions, including— 

(1) acquiring land, constructing replacement facilities, performing such other 

activities, and conducting advance planning and design as may be required to 

transfer functions from a Federal asset or property to another Federal civilian 

property; 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

(2) providing outplacement assistance to civilian employees employed by any 

Federal agency at a Federal civilian property impacted by such actions; and 

(3) reimbursing other Federal agencies for actions performed at the request 

of the Commission. 

(c) NECESSARY AND PROPER ACTIONS.—When acting on a recommendation of the 

Commission, a Federal agency shall continue to act within their existing legal authorities, whether such authority has been delegated by the Administrator, or must 

work in partnership with the Administrator to carry out such actions. The Administrator may take such necessary and proper actions, including the sale, conveyance, 

or exchange of civilian real property, as required to implement the Commission recommendations in the time period required under subsection (a). The Administrator 

shall enter into and use commission-based contracts for real estate services to assist 

in carrying out property transactions required by the Commission’s recommendations. 

(d) DISCRETION OF COMMISSION REGARDING TRANSACTIONS.—For any transaction 

identified, recommended, or commenced as a result of this Act, any otherwise required legal priority given to, or requirement to enter into, a transaction to convey 

a Federal civilian real property for less than fair market value, for no consideration 

at all, or in a transaction that mandates the exclusion of other market participants, 

shall be at the discretion of the Commission. 

SEC. 16. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized a one-time appropriation to carry out this 

Act in the following amounts: (1) $20,000,000 for salaries and expenses of the Commission. 

(2) $62,000,000 to be deposited into the Asset Proceeds and Space Management Fund for activities related to the implementation of the Commission recommendations. 

(b) FEDERAL BUILDINGS FUND.—There is authorized to be appropriated from the 

Federal Buildings Fund established under section 592 of title 40, United States 

Code, for construction and acquisition activities $0 for fiscal year 2012. 

SEC. 17. FUNDING. 

(a) CREATION OF SALARIES AND EXPENSES ACCOUNT.—There is hereby established 

on the books of the Treasury an account to be known as the ‘‘Civilian Property Realignment Commission—Salaries and Expenses’’ account. 

(1) NECESSARY PAYMENTS.—There shall be deposited into the account such 

amounts, as are provided in appropriations Acts, for those necessary payments 

for salaries and expenses to accomplish the administrative needs of the Commission. 

(2) NO APPROPRIATIONS.—If no amounts are appropriated for the salaries and 

expenses of the Commission for a particular fiscal year, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget may support the Commission’s activities under 

this Act during such year if the Director approves, in consultation with the Administrator, a transfer to the Commission of amounts from the ‘‘Civilian Property Realignment Commission—Asset Proceeds and Space Management Fund’’ 

within the Federal Buildings Fund established under section 592 of title 40, 

United States Code, subject to subsection (b)(3) and (4) of this section. 

(b) CREATION OF ASSET PROCEEDS AND SPACE MANAGEMENT FUND.—There is 

hereby established within the Federal Buildings Fund established under section 592 

of title 40, United States Code, an account to be known as the ‘‘Civilian Property 

Realignment Commission—Asset Proceeds and Space Management Fund’’ which 

shall be used solely for the purposes of carrying out actions pursuant to the Commission recommendations approved under section 14. Notwithstanding section 3307 

of title 40, United States Code, the following amounts shall be deposited into the 

account and are hereby appropriated and shall remain available until expended for 

the following specified purposes: 

(1) Such amounts as are provided in appropriations Acts, to remain available 

until expended, for the consolidation, co-location, exchange, redevelopment, reconfiguration of space and other actions recommended by the Commission for 

Federal agencies. 

(2) Gross proceeds received from the proceeds of any civilian real property action taken pursuant to a recommendation of the Commission under section 15. 

The Commission, in consultation with the Administrator, may transfer from the 

gross proceeds to a Federal agency, only amounts necessary to cover costs directly associated with sales transactions pursuant to implementing the recommendations pursuant to section 15. 

(3) Net proceeds (which are gross proceeds received from the sale of any civilian real property pursuant to a recommendation of the Commission, less the 

amounts transferred from this account under subsection (b)(2)), shall be divided 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
10 

between the General Fund of the Treasury and the Asset Proceeds and Space 

Management Fund within the Federal Buildings Fund. On an annual basis, the 

Director of the Office of Management and Budget, shall determine how the net 

proceeds shall be distributed, through transfer, between the General Fund and 

the Asset Proceeds and Space Management Fund, except that the General Fund 

shall receive— 

(A) 100 percent of all net proceeds in a fiscal year until the total amount 

of net proceeds in that fiscal year exceeds $50,000,000; and 

(B) at least 60 percent of the net proceeds thereafter in that fiscal year. 

(4) The Commission, in consultation with the Administrator, may transfer 

from the net proceeds deposited into the Space Management Fund pursuant to 

paragraph (3) to a Federal agency, amounts necessary to cover costs associated 

with implementing the recommendations pursuant to section 15 not necessary 

for the purposes of sale transactions pursuant to paragraph (2) of this subsection. In support of its duties, the Commission, in consultation with the Administrator, may transfer from the net proceeds of the Space Management Fund 

to a Federal agency, amounts— 

(A) to cover the necessary costs associated with— 

(i) consolidation, co-location, redevelopment, and reconfiguration actions; and 

(ii) other actions taken to otherwise realize operational efficiencies, 

including such actions as environmental restoration; and 

(B) for outplacement assistance to Federal employees who work at a Federal property that is affected by actions taken under this section, and whose 

employment would be terminated as a result of such disposal, consolidation, 

or other realignment. 

SEC. 18. DISPOSAL OF REAL PROPERTIES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any recommendation or commencement of a disposal or realignment of civilian real property shall 

not be subject to— 

(1) section 545(b)(8) of title 40, United States Code; 

(2) sections 550, 554, and 553 of title 40, United States Code; 

(3) section 501 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 

11411); 

(4) sections 1 through 3 of the Act of May 19, 1948 (Chap. 310; 62 Stat. 240; 

16 U.S.C. 667b–667d); 

(5) section 47151 of title 49, United States Code; 

(6) sections 107 and 317 of title 23, United States Code; 

(7) section 1304(b) of title 40, United States Code; 

(8) section 13(d) of the Surplus Property Act of 1944 (50 U.S.C. App. 1622(d)); 

and 

(9) any other provision of law authorizing the conveyance of real property 

owned by the Government for no consideration. 

(b) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS.— 

(1) NEPA APPLICATION.—The provisions of the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) shall not apply to the actions of the President, the Commission, or any Federal agency, in carrying out any of the Commission’s recommendations except— 

(A) during the process of property disposal; and 

(B) during the process of relocating functions from a property being disposed of or realigned to another property after the receiving property has 

been selected but before the functions are relocated. 

(2) NEPA EXCEPTIONS.—In applying the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to the processes referred to in subsection (b)(1), the 

agencies do not have to consider— 

(A) the need for closing or realigning the property which has been recommended for closure or realignment by the Commission; 

(B) the need for transferring functions to another Federal civilian property; or 

(C) any alternative path, not associated with an environmental choice, to 

those recommended or selected. 

(3) CIVIL ACTION.—A civil action for judicial review, with respect to any requirement of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to the extent such 

Act is applicable under subsection (b)(2), of any Act or failure to act by a Federal agency during the closing, realigning, or relocating of functions referred to 

in subsection (b)(2), may not be brought more than 60 days after the dates of 

such act or failure to act. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
11 

(4) DISPOSAL OF REALIGNED PROPERTY.—Federal agencies may dispose or realign property without regard to any provision of law described in subsection 

(a), restricting the use of funds for disposing or realigning Federal civilian property included in any appropriations or authorization Act. 

(5) TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—When implementing the recommended actions pursuant to section 15 for properties that have been identified in the Commission’s recommendations and in compliance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 

9601 et seq), including section 120(h) thereof (42 U.S.C. 9620(h)), Federal 

agencies may enter into an agreement to transfer by deed real property 

with any person. 

(B) ADDITIONAL TERMS.—The head of the disposing agency may require 

any additional terms and conditions in connection with an agreement authorized by subparagraph (A) as the head of the disposing agency considers 

appropriate to protect the interests of the United States. Such additional 

terms and conditions shall not affect or diminish any rights or obligations 

of the federal agencies under CERCLA section 120(h) (including, without 

limitation, the requirements CERCLA section 120(h)(3)(A) and CERCLA 

section 120(h)(3)(C)(iv)). 

(6) INFORMATION DISCLOSURE.—As part of an agreement pursuant to this Act, 

the agency shall disclose to the person to whom the property or facilities will 

be transferred any information of the Federal agency regarding the environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance activities described in this Act that relate to the property or facilities. The agency 

shall provide such information before entering into the agreement. 

(c) CONSTRUCTION OF CERTAIN ACTS.—Nothing in this section shall be construed 

to modify, alter, or amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) or the Solid Waste Disposal 

Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). 

SEC. 19. CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL OF PROPOSED PROJECTS. 

Section 3307(b) of title 40, United States Code is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (6); 

(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (7) and inserting ‘‘; and’’; 

and 

(3) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(8) a statement of how the proposed project is consistent with section 11(b) 

of the Civilian Property Realignment Act.’’. 

SEC. 20. LIMITATION OF CERTAIN LEASING AUTHORITIES. 

(a) LIMITATION ON CERTAIN LEASING AUTHORITIES.—Chapter 33 of title 40, United 

States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘§ 3317. Limitation on leasing authority of other agencies 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no executive agency may lease space for the purposes of a public building as defined under section 

3301, except as provided under section 585, and the provisions in this chapter. 

‘‘(b) PUBLIC BUILDING.—For the purposes of this section, the term ‘public building’ 

shall include leased space. 

‘‘(c) FURTHER EXCLUSIONS.—This section shall not apply to— 

‘‘(1) properties that are excluded for reasons of national security by the President; and 

‘‘(2) properties of the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

‘‘(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed as creating new 

authority for executive agencies to enter into leases or limit the authority of the Administration under section 3314.’’. 

(b) SMALL BUSINESSES.—When using commercial leasing services, the Administrator shall adhere to the requirements of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. et 

seq.). 

(c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The analysis for such chapter is amended by adding 

at the end: 

‘‘3317. Limitation on leasing authority of other agencies.’’. 

SEC. 21. IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW BY GAO. 

Upon the date specified in section 14(i), the Comptroller General of the United 

States at least annually shall monitor, review the implementation activities of Federal agencies pursuant to section 15, and report to Congress any findings and recommendations. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
12 

SEC. 22. REALIGNMENT OF REAL PROPERTY OWNED OR MANAGED BY THE BUREAU OF OVERSEAS BUILDING OPERATIONS. 

(a) LIST OF ASSETS.—On an annual basis, the Commission shall identify and create a list of assets located outside of the United States and its territories that are 

owned or managed by the Department of State’s Bureau of Overseas Building Operations that may— 

(1) be sold for proceeds so as to reduce the civilian real property inventory 

and operating costs of the Federal Government; or 

(2) be otherwise disposed of, transferred, consolidated, co-located, or reconfigured so as to reduce the operating costs of the Federal Government. 

(b) LIST TO SECRETARY OF STATE.—The Commission shall provide this list created 

pursuant to subsection (a) to the Secretary of State. 

(c) REVIEW AND REPORT.—Not later than 90 calendar days after the receipt of the 

list created pursuant to subsection (b), the Department of State shall review this 

list and send a report to the Commission. The report shall include the conclusions 

of this review by the Department of State. 

(d) RECOMMENDATIONS OF CERTAIN CIVILIAN REAL PROPERTY ASSETS.—Consistent 

with section 12, the Commission may only make recommendations involving civilian 

real property assets that are located outside of the United States and its territories 

and owned or managed by the Department of State’s Bureau of Overseas Building 

Operations if the assets are on the list provided to the Department of State pursuant to this section and the Department of State has submitted a report on the list 

to the Commission pursuant to subsection (c). 

(e) REMOVAL OF CERTAIN CIVILIAN REAL PROPERTY TRANSACTION ASSETS.—Consistent with section 12, not later than 20 calendar days after the submission of the 

Commission’s report to the President, the Secretary of State may remove any transaction that involves a civilian real property asset that is located outside of the 

United States and its territories and owned or managed by the Department of 

State’s Bureau of Overseas Building Operations from the Commission recommendations or list of recommendations made pursuant to section 12. 

(f) APPEAL BY SECRETARY OF STATE.—Nothing in this section shall restrict the 

ability of the Secretary of State to appeal to the Director of OMB or Commission 

for funding by the Commission’s Asset Proceeds and Space Management Fund to 

support the cost of implementing a recommendation. 

(g) PROCEEDS.—For the purposes of this Act, proceeds from the disposal of assets 

located outside of the United States and its territories that are owned or managed 

by the Department of State’s Bureau of Overseas Building Operations as identified 

by the Commission and disposed of pursuant to this Act shall be deposited into the 

Asset Proceeds and Space Management Fund. Proceeds from the disposal of assets 

by the Department of State that are not disposed of pursuant to this Act shall be 

retained by the Department of State. 

SEC. 23. NATIONAL WOMEN’S HISTORY MUSEUM. 

(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following definitions apply: 

(1) ADMINISTRATOR.—The term ‘‘Administrator’’ means the Administrator of 

General Services. 

(2) CERCLA.—The term ‘‘CERCLA’’ means the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.). 

(3) COMMITTEES.—The term ‘‘Committees’’ means the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee 

on Environment and Public Works of the Senate. 

(4) MUSEUM.—The term ‘‘Museum’’ means the National Women’s History Museum, Inc., a District of Columbia nonprofit corporation exempt from taxation 

pursuant to section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 

(5) PROPERTY.—Except as provided in section 25 of this Act, the term ‘‘Property’’ means the property located in the District of Columbia, subject to survey 

and as determined by the Administrator, generally consisting of Squares 325 

and 326 and a portion of Square 351. The Property is generally bounded by 

12th Street, Independence Avenue, C Street, and the James Forrestal Building, 

all in Southwest Washington, District of Columbia, and shall include all associated air rights, improvements thereon, and appurtenances thereto. 

(b) CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY.— 

(1) AUTHORITY TO CONVEY.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to the requirements of this section, the Administrator shall convey the Property to the Museum, on such terms and conditions as the Administrator considers reasonable and appropriate to protect 

the interests of the United States and further the purposes of this section. 

(B) AGREEMENT.—As soon as practicable, but not later than 180 days 

after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall enter into 

an agreement with the Museum for the conveyance. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
13 

(C) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The terms and conditions of the agreement 

shall address, among other things, mitigation of developmental impacts to 

existing Federal buildings and structures, security concerns, and operational protocols for development and use of the property and provisions to 

provide for the exercise by the Museum of its right of first refusal pursuant 

to section 25. 

(2) PURCHASE PRICE.— (A) IN GENERAL.—The purchase price for the Property shall be its fair 

market value based on its highest and best use as determined by an independent appraisal commissioned by the Administrator and paid for by the 

Museum. 

(B) SELECTION OF APPRAISER.—The appraisal shall be performed by an 

appraiser mutually acceptable to the Administrator and the Museum. 

(C) TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPRAISAL.— (i) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in clause (ii), the assumptions, 

scope of work, and other terms and conditions related to the appraisal 

assignment shall be mutually acceptable to the Administrator and the 

Museum. 

(ii) REQUIRED TERMS.—The appraisal shall assume that the Property 

does not contain hazardous substances (as defined in section 101 of 

CERCLA (42 U.S.C. 9601)) or any other hazardous waste or pollutant 

that requires a response action or corrective action under any applicable environmental law. 

(3) APPLICATION OF PROCEEDS.—The purchase price shall be paid into an account in the Federal Buildings Fund established under section 592 of title 40, 

United States Code. Upon deposit, the proceeds from the conveyance may only 

be expended subject to a specific future appropriation. 

(4) QUIT CLAIM DEED.—The Property shall be conveyed pursuant to a quit 

claim deed. 

(5) USE RESTRICTION.—The Property shall be dedicated for use as a site for 

a national women’s history museum for the 99-year period beginning on the 

date of conveyance to the Museum. 

(6) FUNDING RESTRICTION.—No Federal funds shall be made available— 

(A) to the Museum for— 

(i) the purchase of the Property; or 

(ii) the design and construction of any facility on the Property; or 

(B) by the Museum or any affiliate of the Museum as a credit pursuant 

to subsection (c). 

(7) REVERSION.— 

(A) BASES FOR REVERSION.—The Property shall revert to the United 

States, at the option of the United States, without any obligation for repayment by the United States of any amount of the purchase price for the 

property, if— 

(i) the Property is not used as a site for a national women’s history 

museum at any time during the 99-year period referred to in subsection 

(e); or 

(ii) the Museum has not commenced construction of a museum facility on the Property in the 5-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, other than for reasons beyond the control of the Museum as reasonably determined by the Administrator. 

(B) ENFORCEMENT.—The Administrator may perform any acts necessary 

to enforce the reversionary rights provided in this section. 

(C) CUSTODY OF PROPERTY UPON REVERSION.—If the Property reverts to 

the United States pursuant to this section, such property shall be under the 

custody and control of the Administrator. 

(8) CLOSING.—The conveyance pursuant to this section shall occur not later 

than 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act. The Administrator may 

extend that period for such time as is reasonably necessary for the Museum to 

perform its obligations under section subsection (c). 

(c) ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS.— 

(1) AUTHORIZATION TO CONTRACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE ACTIONS.— 

In fulfilling the responsibility of the Administrator to address contamination on 

the Property, the Administrator may contract with the Museum or an affiliate 

of the Museum for the performance (on behalf of the Administrator) of response 

actions on the Property. 

(2) CREDITING OF RESPONSE COSTS.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—Any costs incurred by the Museum or an affiliate of the 

Museum using non-Federal funding pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be 

credited to the purchase price for the Property. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
14 

(B) LIMITATION.—A credit under subparagraph (A) shall not exceed the 

purchase price of the Property. 

(3) NO EFFECT ON COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS.—Nothing in this 

section, or any amendment made by this section, affects or limits the application of or obligation to comply with any environmental law, including section 

120(h) of CERCLA (42 U.S.C. 9620(h)). 

(d) INCIDENTAL COSTS.—Subject to subsection (c), the Museum shall bear any and 

all costs associated with complying with the provisions of this section, including 

studies and reports, surveys, relocating tenants, and mitigating impacts to existing 

Federal buildings and structures resulting directly from the development of the 

property by the Museum. 

(e) LAND USE APPROVALS.— 

(1) EXISTING AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting or affecting the authority or responsibilities of the National Capital Planning Commission or the Commission of Fine Arts. 

(2) COOPERATION.— 

(A) ZONING AND LAND USE.—Subject to subparagraph (B), the Administrator shall reasonably cooperate with the Museum with respect to any zoning or other land use matter relating to development of the Property in accordance with this section. Such cooperation shall include consenting to applications by the Museum for applicable zoning and permitting with respect 

to the Property. 

(B) LIMITATIONS.—The Administrator shall not be required to incur any 

costs with respect to cooperation under this subsection and any consent provided under this subsection shall be premised on the Property being developed and operated in accordance with this section. 

(f) REPORTS.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and 

annually thereafter until the end of the 5-year period following conveyance of the 

Property or until substantial completion of the museum facility (whichever is later), 

the Museum shall submit annual reports to the Administrator and the Committees 

detailing the development and construction activities of the Museum with respect 

to this section. 

SEC. 24. FACILITIES CONSOLIDATION, SAVINGS, AND EFFICIENCY. 

(a) TRANSFER.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law and not later than December 31, 2012, the Administrator of General Services shall transfer administrative jurisdiction, custody, and control of the building located at 600 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., District of Columbia, to the National Gallery of Art for the purpose 

of housing and exhibiting works of art and to carry out administrative functions and 

other activities related to the mission of the National Gallery of Art. 

(b) REMODELING, RENOVATING, OR RECONSTRUCTING.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The National Gallery of Art shall pay for the costs of remodeling, renovating, or reconstructing the building referred to in subsection (a). 

(2) FEDERAL SHARE.—No appropriated funds may be used for the initial costs 

for the remodeling, renovating, or reconstructing of the building referred to in 

subsection (a). 

(3) PROHIBITION.—The National Gallery of Art may not use sale, lease, or exchange, including leaseback arrangements, for the purposes of remodeling, renovating, or reconstructing the building referred to in subsection (a). 

(c) RELOCATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.— 

(1) RELOCATION.—Not later than December 31, 2012, the Administrator of 

General Services shall relocate the Federal Trade Commission employees and 

operations housed in the building identified in subsection (a) to not more than 

160,000 usable square feet of space in the southwest quadrant of the leased 

building known as Constitution Center located at 400 7th Street, Southwest in 

the District of Columbia. 

(2) OCCUPANCY AGREEMENT.—Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of General Services and the Securities and 

Exchange Commission shall execute an agreement to assign or sublease the 

space (leased pursuant to a Letter Contract entered into by the Securities and 

Exchange Commission on July 28, 2010), as described in paragraph (1), for the 

purposes of housing the Federal Trade Commission employees and operations 

relocating from the building located at 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., District 

of Columbia, pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection. 

(d) NATIONAL GALLERY OF ART.—Beginning on the date that the National Gallery 

of Art occupies the building referred to in subsection (a)— 

(1) the building shall be known and designated as the ‘‘North Building of the 

National Gallery of Art’’; and 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
15 

(2) any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other record 

of the United States to the building shall be deemed to be a reference to the 

‘‘North Building of the National Gallery of Art’’. 

(e) DISCRETIONARY AUTHORIZATION REDUCTIONS.— (1) ENERGY AND WATER RETROFIT AND CONSERVATION.—The authorization of 

appropriations for the energy and water retrofit and conservation measures program of the General Services Administration shall be reduced from $20,000,000 

to $0 for fiscal years 2012 and 2013. 

(2) WELLNESS AND FITNESS PROGRAM.—The authorization of appropriations for 

the wellness and fitness program of the General Services Administration shall 

be reduced from $7,000,000 to $0 for fiscal years 2012 and 2013. 

SEC. 25. ADDITIONAL SALES AND SAVINGS. 

(a) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘Property’’ means the property located 

in the District of Columbia, subject to survey and as determined by the Administrator, generally consisting of Squares 351 N, 351, 352, 325, 326, and the portion 

of Square 383 containing the north building of the James Forrestal Building Complex. The Property is generally bounded by Independence Avenue, 12th Street, 

Maryland Avenue, and 9th Street in Southwest, Washington D.C. 

(b) SALE.—Not later than December 31, 2013, the Administrator shall sell the 

Property at fair market value at highest and best use only if the Administrator determines such sale would result in net proceeds, as defined in subsection (d)(2), to 

the Federal Government exceeding $200 million. 

(c) LEASEBACK RESTRICTION.—If the Property is sold pursuant to subsection (b), 

none of the existing improvements on the Property may be leased back to the Federal Government. 

(d) APPLICATION OF PROCEEDS.— (1) GROSS PROCEEDS.—Proceeds derived from the sale of the Property shall be 

used by the Administrator to provide for not more than 320,000 square feet of 

government-owned replacement space for the federal agency functions housed 

on the Property. 

(2) NET PROCEEDS.—Any net proceeds received, exceeding the expenses pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be paid into an account in the Federal Buildings 

Fund established under section 592 of title 40, United States Code. Upon deposit, the net proceeds from the sale may only be expended subject to a specific 

future appropriation. 

(e) RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL.—The Administrator shall provide the Museum as 

defined in section 23, a right of first refusal to purchase, pursuant to the provisions 

of such section, the parcel generally consisting of Squares 351 N and portions of 

325, generally bounded by Independence Avenue on the north, 12th Street on the 

east, 10th Street on the west, and through a portion of Square 325 on the south 

in Southwest, Washington, D.C. 

(f) DETERMINATION OF PROCEEDS.—If the Administrator determines the net proceeds derived from the sale of the Property would not exceed $200 million, the Administrator shall sell at fair market value at highest and best use Square 326, including the vacant building known as the ‘‘Cotton Annex’’, not later than 180 days 

following the determination of the Administrator, and shall sell the Property as defined in section 23 in accordance with the provisions of that section. 

(g) SALE OF PROPERTY.—If the Museum agrees not to exercise its first right of refusal under this section, the Administrator shall sell the Property described under 

subsection (a) of section 23 in accordance with the provisions of such section. 

SEC. 26. RESTRICTION ON USE OF FUNDS. 

(a) RESTRICTION ON USE OF FUNDS.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 

the Administrator of General Services shall not use funds appropriated for constructing a new courthouse in Los Angeles, California in the Federal Buildings Fund 

established under section 592 of title 40, United States Code, except as provided for 

in a specific future appropriation. 

(b) SALE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY.—Not later than December 31, 2013, the Administrator of General Services shall sell at fair market value at highest and best use 

any property purchased or otherwise acquired for the purposes of constructing a 

new courthouse described in subsection (a). 

PURPOSE OF LEGISLATION

The purpose of H.R. 1734 is to save taxpayer money by shrinking 

the federal real property footprint through selling or redeveloping 

high value properties, consolidating federal space, maximizing the 

utilization rates, and streamlining the disposal of unneeded assets. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
16 

1See High Risk Series: Federal Real Property, U.S. General Accountability Office, GAO–03– 

122, January 2003. 2See, for example, Executive Order 13327, Federal Real Property Asset Management, signed 

by President George W. Bush, February 4, 2004; Presidential Memorandum, Disposing of 

Unneeded Federal Real Estate, signed by President Barack Obama, June 10, 2010; Public Buildings Cooperative Use Act of 1976; Public Law 108–447, Division H, Title IV, Section 412, December 8, 2004 (providing enhanced flexibility to GSA in real property management). 3 High Risk Series: Managing Federal Real Property, U.S. General Accountability Office, 

GAO–11–278, February 2011, p. 58. 4FY 2009 Federal Real Property Report, Federal Real Property Council, September 2010, p. 

5. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Management issues 

Given the vast real estate holdings of the federal government, 

poor asset management and missed market opportunities cost taxpayers significant sums of money. For this reason, in 2003, the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) placed real property management on its list of ‘‘high risk’’ government activities, where it remains today. GAO conducts biennial reviews on high-risk areas 

within the federal government to bring focus to specific areas needing added attention and oversight. Areas are identified as ‘‘high 

risk’’ due to their greater vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, 

and mismanagement or areas that need broad-based transformation to address major economic, efficiency, or effectiveness 

challenges. 

The key reasons the GAO identified federal real property as high 

risk are: • excess and underutilized real property, • deteriorating and aging facilities, • unreliable property data, and • over-reliance on costly leasing.1

Unfortunately, despite executive orders and memoranda issued 

during two administrations and acts of Congress intended to improve the management of federal real property, these problems persist.2 The GAO noted recently in its 2011 High Risk report issued 

in February 2011, that some progress has been made in some of 

these areas but ‘‘federal agencies continue to face long-standing 

problems, such as overreliance on leasing, excess property, and protecting federal facilities.’’ 3

The high risk activities of federal real property are significant. 

Considerable amounts of vacant or underperforming assets can 

translate into significant costs associated with their operation, 

maintenance, and security. For example, in fiscal year 2009, the 

federal government spent $1.7 billion in annual operating costs for 

under-utilized buildings and $134 million, annually, for excess 

buildings.4

IMPEDIMENTS TO REDUCING SPACE COSTS AND THE SOLUTION

There are various reasons why the federal government is paying 

more for space than it should. Through the Committee’s jurisdiction over public buildings and its oversight and review of General 

Services Administration (GSA) proposals for construction, leasing, 

and renovation of federal space, the Committee has identified a 

number of impediments to reducing the cost of space. Many of 

these impediments have also been identified by the GAO in its investigations. These impediments include: (1) agencies unwilling to 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
17 

share space, (2) agencies seeking unnecessarily large offices and 

space even as the private sector has begun reducing office space, 

(3) agencies reluctant to relocate from what they view as ‘‘prime’’ 

locations, and (4) initial costs and red tape associated with selling 

or disposing of unneeded property. 

While the private sector reduced its real estate needs to save 

money, the federal government continues to expand its space footprint. In order to counter this trend, promote better utilization of 

space, realize financial returns on under-used high value assets, 

and improve efficiency, including energy efficiently, H.R. 1734 was 

introduced. The legislation is intended to create a process that 

would independently establish space standards, apply them to the 

federal inventory, and provide a streamlined manner to ensure actions are taken by agencies to reduce the federal real estate footprint. 

H.R. 1734 is intended to save taxpayer money by selling and redeveloping high value assets, consolidating facilities, maximizing 

utilization rates, and increasing the use of efficient space. H.R. 

1734 would require the Commission established in the legislation 

to examine federal real property across government used and unused and make decisions based on the best return to the taxpayer. 

In order to accomplish these goals, H.R. 1734 is modeled after the 

Base Realignment and Closure process. 

Base realignment and closure 

The Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process was first established by Congress through the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1988. Its purpose was to create a framework for 

the realignment and disposal of Department of Defense (DoD) properties. The BRAC process was also intended to establish a fair 

process of evaluating DoD’s space needs and determining the best 

space solutions for DoD facilities. Since 1988, there have been five 

rounds of BRAC, with the most recent commission established in 

2005. 

The BRAC process first requires DoD to collect data about its facilities and establish standards and criteria to apply in the evaluation of those facilities. Applying those standards and criteria, DoD 

then develops recommendations on base closures and realignments. 

Those recommendations are sent to the independent BRAC Commission for review. The Commission then determines if DoD followed its standards and criteria and reviews the associated data to 

determine if changes to the recommendations are appropriate. The 

BRAC Commission may make revisions; however, those revisions 

are limited in scope. The BRAC Commission then submits its recommendations to the President, who in turn must forward all recommendations to Congress or none of them. If the President disapproves of the BRAC recommendations, BRAC can revise and resubmit to the President. If the President approves of the revisions 

the recommendations are transmitted to Congress. Congress must 

affirmatively disapprove of the recommendations within a specified 

period of time and if Congress does not disapprove of the recommendations, the BRAC recommendations are implemented. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
18 

The BRAC process and H.R. 1734 

While H.R. 1734 is modeled after BRAC there are key differences. These differences include: • H.R. 1734 applies Government-wide: BRAC applied to one federal department (DoD) with DoD leadership that was motivated to 

carry out the BRAC process. Unlike BRAC, H.R. 1734 applies to 

property issues government-wide including those agencies that may 

or may not be willing partners in the process. Unlike the private 

sector, agencies have few incentives to eliminate unneeded property or shrink their space footprint. And, even in those cases in 

which agencies want to dispose of real property, the process for 

doing so can be slow and require initial appropriations. • H.R. 1734’s Focus is Reducing Costs: While the BRAC process 

sought to reduce costs and increase efficiencies, the primary purpose of the BRAC process was the realignment of DoD facilities. 

The primary purpose of CPRA is to cut waste and save taxpayer 

dollars. • Authority of the Commission: The BRAC Commission had limited authority to modify the recommendations from DoD. The 

CPRA Commission would have in effect de novo review over agency 

recommendations. Given the fact agencies may or may not be willing partners in the process, the Commission in H.R. 1734 would 

have authority to adopt agency recommendations or adopt others 

developed by the Commission itself. 

Conclusion 

The management of federal real property has been a challenge 

even before appearing on GAO’s High Risk list. The costs of real 

property are significant and most agencies do not have the incentives to minimize those costs. Properties sit vacant or woefully 

under-utilized, not only costing taxpayers billions of dollars but 

often are eye sores in local communities. And, despite the current 

budget climate, many agencies continue to seek more space than is 

necessary, reducing efficiency and increasing costs. H.R. 1734 is intended to bring an independent process, outside of bureaucratic red 

tape, to the management of federal real property. 

SUMMARY OF LEGISLATION

Section 1: Short title 

Section 1 designates the short title of the Act as the ‘‘Civilian 

Property Realignment Act.’’ 

Section 2: Purposes 

Section 2 lists the purposes of the bill to include: reducing and 

consolidating the footprint of federal buildings; maximizing the utilization rate; reducing leasing where appropriate; selling or redeveloping high value assets; using consolidation, co-location, and reconfiguring to reduce operating expenses; reducing overlap in field 

offices; creating incentives for agencies to achieve greater efficiencies; facilitating sale or disposal of unneeded properties; and 

achieving sustainability goals. 

The intention of this section is to highlight that real cost savings 

will only be produced through a combination of actions. While selling off properties already declared excess or surplus may help, 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
19 

many of those properties will realize little net income. Real savings 

are achieved by consolidations, co-locations, reducing field office 

overlap and tapping into the value of high value assets. These high 

value assets would not be of the nature that would be declared excess or surplus. These may be assets that are used to some extent 

but would produce a greater return to the taxpayer if sold or redeveloped and the federal tenants relocated to less valuable locations. 

Section 3: Definitions 

Section 3 provides relevant definitions including a definition for 

civilian real property that is consistent with public buildings definition in the Public Buildings Act. 

Section 4: Commission 

Section 4 establishes a commission to carry out duties as described in the Act. Commission would be composed of 9 members, 

including a chairman appointed by the President, by and with the 

advice and consent of the Senate, and 8 members appointed by the 

President. Six of the members would be appointed with input by 

the House and Senate leadership. The section sets terms for 6 

years and requires that the composition of the members include expertise related to commercial real estate and development, government management or operations, community development, and historic preservation. 

The intention of the Committee is to ensure those on the Commission include individuals with strong private sector real estate 

experience that will help identify properties and opportunities for 

savings. 

Section 5: Commission meetings 

Section 5 requires Commission meetings be public and open, establishes what constitutes a quorum, and ensures information is 

accessible to oversight committees and the GAO. 

Testimony received by the Committee on the legislation included 

lessons-learned from BRAC and indicated that an open process is 

critical. An open process ensures appropriate input into the process 

and ensures the public and stakeholders are fully informed. The 

Committee expects the Commission to utilize regional public meetings to help it identify appropriate federal properties and redevelopment opportunities for its recommendations. 

Section 6: Compensation and travel expenses 

Section 6 sets the compensation rate for the Commission members and allows for per diem reimbursement of travel expenses related to the work of the Commission. 

Section 7: Executive Director 

Section 7 provides for the appointment and compensation of an 

Executive Director. 

Section 8: Staff 

Section 8 provides for the appointment and compensation of staff 

and allows for detailed staff from federal agencies. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
20 

Section 9: Contracting authority 

Section 9 provides the Commission contracting authority for experts and consultants and authorizes the acquisition of personal 

property subject to the availability of funds. Section 9 also requires 

the GSA to identify suitable space for the Commission and, if none 

is available, allows the Commission to lease space. This section authorizes the Commission to take custody, control, and administrative jurisdiction of high value properties identified pursuant to section 12(b) and sell those properties for no less than fair market 

value. This section also requires the Commission, to the greatest 

extent practicable, to use small businesses. 

The contracting authority provided in the legislation is intended 

to ensure the Commission is sufficiently independent. The authorization of the Commission taking custody, control, and administrative jurisdiction of the high value assets identified in the initial 

sales required under Section 12 are to ensure expedited sales of 

those properties outside of the bureaucracy of the federal agencies 

involved. 

Section 10: Termination 

Section 10 terminates the Commission in 6 years. 

Section 11: Development of recommendations to the Commission 

Section 11 establishes a framework for the development of initial 

recommendations to be reviewed and submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and to the Commission. This section also requires the standards developed to incorporate key principles listed in section 2 and requires the recommendations to be 

submitted to the Commission. 

The Commission is also given access to necessary property data 

including the age and condition, operating costs, history of capital 

expenditures, sustainability metrics, number of federal employees 

and functions, and square footage. The number of employees and 

square footage data will ensure the Commission can properly 

evaluate utilization rates. The Committee believes this data is critical to ensuring proper recommendations are developed. This data 

will assist the Commission in evaluating what recommendations 

will yield the best return to the taxpayer given costs associated 

with particular properties. 

The Committee intends the standards be developed to maximize 

the reduction of the federal real property footprint and costs. The 

standards should result in the co-location of agencies and offices 

and standard utilizations rates across categories of properties such 

as general purpose office space. In addition, the standards should 

ensure the sale of property at its highest and best use. In particular, the Commission should identify high value assets for sale 

or redevelopment. 

In the Committee’s review of federal real property assets and 

input from the private sector, it is clear that the federal government sits on assets that are woefully under-used or under-developed. For example, it may produce more savings to the taxpayer, 

to relocate federal offices on under-developed property and sell or 

redevelop that property. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
21 

Section 12: Commission duties 

Section 12 establishes general duties of the Commission as identifying opportunities for the government to reduce its inventory and 

reduce costs, performing an independent analysis, developing final 

recommendations, and conducting public hearings. This section also 

sets an initial time for reporting its final recommendations (and 

then on a regular basis thereafter) to the President. The section requires the Commission establish a website and requires the GAO 

to conduct reviews of the process. Additionally this section requires 

the Commission to recommend $500 million in savings from the 

sale of high value properties in the first 180 days. 

This section also requires the Commission to develop an accounting system to assist in the development of its recommendations. 

The intention is to ensure there is a standard accounting system 

to assist the Commission in developing recommendations that will 

produce the highest return to the taxpayer. 

Section 13: Review by the President 

Section 13 establishes a process for review by the President. It 

requires the President to send to Congress his approval or disapproval of the recommendations. If the President disapproves, the 

Commission is provided additional time to revise its recommendations. If the President fails to approve recommendations, the process ceases for that year. If the President approves the recommendations, they are submitted to Congress. 

Section 14: Congressional consideration of the recommendations 

Section 14 establishes expedited congressional procedures and 

timelines for consideration of a resolution of disapproval in Congress. If Congress fails to pass a resolution of disapproval within 

45 days of receiving the recommendations, the recommendations 

gain legal force. 

Section 15: Implementation of Commission recommendations 

Section 15 requires agencies to carry out the recommendations. 

It requires all activities to be initiated within 2 years and all actions completed in 6 years, unless notice is provided to the President and Congress. The bill allows for agencies to take necessary 

steps to carry out the recommendations, except agencies are required to work within their existing authorities and, if necessary, 

work with GSA. 

The Committee expects GSA to use its existing authorities in a 

timely manner including the authority to sell and exchange properties. In addition, to minimize costs associated with GSA staffing, 

H.R. 1734 requires GSA to use commission-based contracts for real 

estate services to assist in carrying out property transactions recommended by the Commission. The use of commission-based contracts is important in supplementing GSA’s resources. These contracts will assist GSA in implementing the recommendations in a 

timely manner by leveraging private sector expertise and staffing. 

Section 16: Authorization of appropriations 

This section authorizes $82 million for the Commission and initial costs associated with implementing any recommendations. AdVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:25 Feb 02, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR384P1.XXX HR384P1

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
22 

ditionally the bill offsets the cost by reducing GSA’s construction 

and acquisition account by $82 million. 

The Committee expects the initial funding will facilitate the creation of the Commission and fund the initial costs to implement 

the recommendations. As there are often expenses to prepare properties for sale or to make them available, this is intended to cover 

those initial expenses. Future year funding is expected to be derived from the proceeds of property sales and redevelopments. 

Section 17: Funding 

Section 17 establishes an account on the books of the Treasury 

for the salaries and expenses of the Commission and establishes an 

account within the Federal Buildings Fund (FBF) to carry out actions related to the Commission recommendations. The FBF account would be funded with proceeds from any action taken pursuant to the Commission recommendations and provides that the first 

$50 million of net proceeds go to the general treasury and at least 

60% thereafter, with up to 40% going into to new fund to provided 

funding for associated costs of carrying out the Commission recommendations. 

Section 18: Disposal of real properties 

Section 18 waives processes that would allow for the disposal of 

property for less than fair value market for actions taken pursuant 

to the recommendations. The section clarifies that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) does not apply to the decisions of 

the Commission and limits civil actions. This section clarifies that 

the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act (CERCLA) applies and that agencies may enter into 

agreements to sell the property so long as the federal responsibilities under CERCLA are adhered to. 

Section 19: Congressional approval of proposed projects 

Section 19 amends the Public Buildings Act by requiring 

prospectuses for future projects, unrelated to Commission recommendations, to include a statement describing how the proposed 

project is consistent with principles in the Civilian Property Realignment Act. 

This section is intended to ensure that future projects submitted 

to the Committee by GSA though the prospectus process outlined 

in the Public Buildings Act conform with the standards outlined in 

the legislation. 

Section 20: Limitation on certain leasing authorities 

Section 20 increases congressional oversight over leasing authorities of federal agencies. The section also requires GSA to adhere to 

the requirements of the Small Business Act when using commercial 

leasing services. 

Section 21: Implementation review by GAO 

Section 21 requires GAO on at least an annual basis to monitor 

and review the implementation activities related to the Commission recommendations. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
23 

Section 22: Realignment of real property owned or managed by the 

Bureau of Overseas Building Operations 

Section 22 allows for properties owned by the United States overseas to be considered for the purposes of this Act. The bill requires 

the Department of State input and approval for any property proposed. It also restricts the Commission from making recommendations on properties overseas if not recommended by the Secretary 

of State. 

Section 23: National Women’s History Museum 

Section 23 allows for the sale of property at fair market value to 

the Women’s History Museum along Independence Avenue in 

Washington, D.C. for the purposes of constructing a museum. 

Section 24: Facilities consolidation, savings, and efficiency 

Section 24 provides for the consolidation of the National Gallery 

of Art (NGA) from leased space and into underutilized space adjacent to the current gallery buildings. The section requires the NGA 

to raise private funds to renovate the building. This section also relocates the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to other vacant space 

in Washington, D.C. This section also includes an offset by reducing GSA’s wellness and fitness program. The Committee believes this section will save at least $300 million in taxpayer dollars and at the same time make better use of 

a federal building. The Apex building, built 73 years ago, still 

houses the FTC and is located in what has become an active cultural triangle. The FTC is currently housed in three separate locations and has requested that the Committee approve new leased 

space of 427,000 square feet while the FTC continues to maintain 

the use of the Apex building. 

If the FTC’s proposal were approved, the FTC would have nearly 

700,000 square feet for just 1,100 employees. And, with 306,000 

gross square feet of space in the Apex building alone, only little 

more than half is usable as office space. In addition, the new leased 

space would include 144,000 square feet of special use space, such 

as hearing rooms, a child care facility, and deposition rooms, making it more likely than not that this will be a long-term lease for 

many functions currently housed in the Apex building, such as the 

child care facility. As a result, there would be even less utilization 

of the Apex building. 

H.R. 1734 would transfer the Apex building to the NGA, a federal entity. The NGA has outgrown its facilities and is proximate 

to the Apex building. The NGA also has the authority to raise private capital. As such, transferring the use of the building to the 

NGA would attract $200 million of private dollars to renovate the 

Apex building while maintaining it as a federal asset. In addition, 

it would open up the Apex building to the public as opposed to a 

few hundred federal workers and increase the utilization rate of 

the building by more than 30%. 

The Committee believes this section would save the taxpayer at least $300 million. It would avoid the taxpayer-funded $140 million 

renovation of the Apex building and attract private dollars for the 

renovation. In addition, because the NGA has outgrown its existing 

buildings, it has had to resort to leasing space. This section would 

allow the NGA to move from taxpayer-funded leased space and 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
24 

5GAO–10–417. 

avoid future lease costs. The 30-year net present value of those 

avoided lease costs is $145 million. Additional savings should also 

be realized in relocating the FTC to more efficient space. 

Section 25: Additional sales and savings 

Section 25 provides for the sale of underutilized property on 

Independence Avenue in Washington, D.C., including property currently occupied by the Department of Energy (DOE). The occupied 

portions of the property may only be sold if the net proceeds of the 

transaction, including the total costs of replacing the office space, 

exceed $200 million. If a sale would fail to meet that threshold, the 

section provides for the sale of the portions of the property that are 

vacant. 

DOE currently is housed in inefficient buildings located on property that is under-developed. This Committee believes several hundred million dollars can be generated for the taxpayer by selling 

the property and using the proceeds to provide less costly and more 

efficient replacement space for the DOE. 

Section 26: Restriction on use of funds 

Section 26 restricts the use of funds for a new courthouse in Los 

Angeles, California, and directs GSA to sell the land previously acquired to construct the new courthouse. 

The Committee and the GAO has identified significant waste 

over the years on the federal courthouse construction program. 

Last Congress, at the request of the Subcommittee on Economic 

Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management, the 

GAO completed a study entitled, ‘‘Federal Courthouse Construction: Better Planning, Oversight, and Courtroom Sharing Needed 

to Address Future Costs.’’ 5 The GAO provided testimony to the 

Subcommittee on May 25, 2010, on its findings. Specifically, the 

GAO examined 33 courthouses that were constructed during the 

ten-year period from 2000 to 2010. The GAO found that 3.56 million square feet of extra space was built, costing the taxpayer $835 

million and that the estimated cost to rent, operate, and maintain 

the extra space was $51 million annually. 

The primary reasons for the overbuilding include: 

• 1.7 million square feet of space exceeding congressionally 

authorized limits; 

• 887,000 square feet related to the Judiciary’s overestimate 

of the number of judges projected at a given courthouse; and 

• 946,000 square feet related to the lack of courtroom sharing among judges. 

The proposal for a new courthouse in Los Angeles, California, 

was originally submitted to the Committee as part of GSA’s FY 

2001 Capital Investment Program. At that time, the federal courts 

in Los Angeles occupied and still occupy the two buildings—the 

Roybal Courthouse and Federal Building and the Spring Street 

Courthouse. 

The Los Angeles courthouses currently house 59 judges, fewer 

judges than it had in 2000 and 22 fewer than last projected. At the 

same time, the U.S. courts have adopted a sharing policy for magistrate judges, senior judges, and bankruptcy judges. Only 21 of the 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
25 

59 judges are active district judges, meaning the remaining 38 

would be covered under the sharing policy, resulting in the need 

for 42 courtrooms. There are 61 existing courtrooms without a new 

courthouse. 

At a hearing held on November 4, 2011, the GAO testified that 

not only was a third courthouse unnecessary in Los Angeles but all 

of the judges could actually fit in just one—the Roybal Courthouse. 

If GSA spends the available funds to construct a 24 courtroom 

courthouse as proposed, the Los Angeles courthouse complex would 

have three buildings with 85 courtrooms and 59 judges. In fact, 

GSA plans to abandon one courthouse (Spring Street) and demolish 

courtrooms in the Roybal Courthouse. As a result, the Committee 

believes a new courthouse in Los Angeles would result in the need 

for additional spending to renovate the vacated spaces for other use 

to bring the total costs of the project to $700 million. The Committee believes a new courthouse in Los Angeles is not necessary 

and a wasteful use of scarce taxpayer dollars. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND CONSIDERATION

On May 4, 2011, Representative Jeff Denham introduced H.R. 

1734, a bill to decrease the deficit by realigning, consolidating, selling, disposing, and improving the efficiency of federal buildings and 

other civilian real property, and for other purposes. 

On May 25, 2011, the Subcommittee on Economic Development, 

Public Buildings and Emergency Management met in open session. 

The Subcommittee adopted a substitute amendment and ordered 

the bill forwarded to the full Committee by voice vote. 

On October 13, 2011, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure met in open session. Amendments were offered to H.R. 

1734. The Committee adopted amendments to H.R. 1734, including 

an Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute offered by Representative Denham. The two other amendments adopted included an 

amendment that amended the definition of properties covered by 

the legislation and an amendment that provided technical corrections to H.R. 1734. H.R. 1734 was ordered reported as amended to 

the House by a vote of 30 to 22 with a quorum present. 

HEARINGS

The Subcommittee held two hearings specifically on H.R. 1734 

and several other hearings related to subject matter addressed in 

H.R. 1734. In particular, the Subcommittee held the following hearings: 

‘‘Sitting on Our Assets: Cutting Spending and Private Redevelopment of Underperforming Buildings’’ held on February 10, 2011. 

Witnesses included, Mr. Robert Peck, Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, General Services Administration; Mr. David J. Wise, 

Director, Physical Infrastructure Team, Government Accountability 

Office; and the Honorable Anthony J. Principi, Former Secretary, 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Chairman, 2005 Defense 

Base Realignment and Closure Commission. The hearing was held 

in the vacant Annex of the Old Post Office in Washington, D.C., 

and focused on the costs to the taxpayer of underperforming or vacant assets, models for their redevelopment or reuse, and how 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
26 

spending can be reduced through private redevelopment of underperforming assets. 

‘‘Can a Civilian BRAC Commission Consolidate Federal Office 

Space and Save Taxpayers Billions?’’ held on April 6, 2011. Witnesses included the Honorable Daniel I. Werfel, Controller, Office 

of Management and Budget; the Honorable Martha Johnson, Administrator, General Services Administration; Mr. David J. Wise, 

Director, Physical Infrastructure Team, Government Accountability 

Office accompanied by Mr. Brian Lepore, Director, Defense Capabilities and Management Issues, Government Accountability Office; 

and the Honorable Anthony J. Principi, Former Secretary, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Chairman, 2005 Defense Base Realignment and Closure Commission. The hearing focused on whether a civilian BRAC process can effectively consolidate federal office 

space, maximize value to the taxpayer, and save taxpayers billions. 

‘‘How to Stop Sitting on Our Assets: A Review of the Civilian 

Property Realignment Act’’ held on May 12, 2011. Witnesses included the Honorable Daniel Werfel, Controller, Office of Management and Budget; the Honorable Patrick Kennedy, Under Secretary for Management, Department of State; the Honorable Anthony J. Principi, Former Secretary, U.S. Department of Veterans 

Affairs, Chairman, 2005 Defense Base Realignment and Closure 

Commission; Mr. David Winstead, former Commissioner, Public 

Buildings Service, General Services Administration; and Mr. Michael Glosserman, Managing Partner, JBG Companies. The hearing focused on H.R. 1734 and the Administration’s proposal for establishing a civilian BRAC-like commission. ‘‘The Securities and Exchange Commission’s $500 Million Fleecing of America’’ held on June 16, 2011. Witnesses included the 

Honorable H. David Kotz, Inspector General, U.S. Securities and 

Exchange Commission; Mr. Jeff Heslop, Chief Operating Officer/ 

Executive Director, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission accompanied by Mr. Mark D. Cahn, General Counsel, U.S. Securities 

and Exchange Commission; and Ms. Elaine Clancy, Director of 

Leasing, National Capital Region, General Services Administration. 

The hearing focused on the SEC’s management of its independent 

authority to lease space and, in particular, issues detailed in a May 

16, 2011, SEC Inspector General report related to SEC’s most recent lease procurement of 900,000 square feet of space under a 10- 

year lease worth over $500 million. 

‘‘The Securities and Exchange Commission’s $500 Million Fleecing of America: Part Two’’ held on July 6, 2011. Witnesses included 

the Honorable Mary L. Schapiro, Chairman, U.S. Securities and 

Exchange Commission and the Honorable H. David Kotz, Inspector 

General, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The hearing 

focused on the lease the SEC entered into using its independent 

leasing authority and the unused space that the federal government was legally bound to rent for ten years. 

‘‘A Review and Analysis of the Proposed $400 Million Los Angeles, California, Federal Courthouse Project’’ held on November 4, 

2011. Witnesses included the Honorable Margaret M. Morrow, 

United States District Judge, U.S. District Court, Central District 

of California; Mr. Robert Peck, Commissioner, Public Buildings 

Service, General Services Administration, and Mr. Mark L. Goldstein, Director, Physical Infrastructure, Government Accountability 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
27 

Office. The hearing focused on the current justification of a third 

courthouse in Los Angeles, California, including the size, scope, 

compliance with courtroom sharing guidelines, and cost implications of the entire courthouse complex in Los Angeles. 

COMMITTEE VOTES

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives requires 

each committee report to include the total number of votes cast for 

and against on each record vote on a motion to report and on any 

amendment offered to the measure or matter, and the names of 

those members voting for and against. During consideration of H.R. 

1734, a total of three roll call votes were taken—two on amendments offered to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute and 

on ordering H.R. 1734, as amended, reported to the House. There 

were no roll call votes on two other adopted amendments or on the 

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute which were adopted by 

voice vote. The three roll call votes were dispensed with as follows: 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
28 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 31 HR384P1.001
29 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 32 HR384P1.002
30 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 33 HR384P1.003
31 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee’s oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in this report. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX EXPENDITURES

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives does not apply where a cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 has been timely 

submitted prior to the filing of the report and is included in the report. Such a cost estimate is included in this report. 

PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives, the performance goals 

and objectives of this legislation is to decrease the deficit by realigning, consolidating, selling, disposing of, and improving the efficiency of federal buildings and other civilian real property, and for 

other purposes. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received the 

enclosed cost estimate for H.R.1734 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, December 8, 2011. 

Hon. JOHN L. MICA, 

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1734, the Civilian Property Realignment Act. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew Pickford. 

ROBERT A. SUNSHINE

(For Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director). 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 1734—Civilian Property Realignment Act 

Summary: H.R. 1734 would establish the Civilian Property Realignment Commission (CPRC) to better manage federal buildings 

and facilities. In addition to giving the commission broad new authorities to consolidate, dispose of, or sell some government properties, the bill would require the commission to sell over the next 

year at least five civilian facilities that have a combined estimated 

fair market value of’ at least $500 million. 

The legislation also would direct the General Services Administration (GSA) to: 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
32 

• Transfer the Washington, D.C., headquarters building of 

the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to the National Gallery 

of Art (NGA) and move FTC offices to a privately owned building that has already been leased by the federal government; • Enter into agreements with the National Women’s History 

Museum (a private corporation) to sell to the museum a specific parcel of federal land; • Study the possible sale of specific portions of the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) headquarters building in Washington, D.C., and to complete that sale if GSA determines DOE 

offices could be relocated while still allowing for a net gain to 

the government of at least $200 million; and • Sell certain property that the agency acquired to build a 

federal courthouse in Los Angeles, California, and terminate 

the courthouse project. 

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1,734 would result in direct spending savings of $565 million over the 2012–2016 period and 

$595 million over the 2012–2021 period, primarily from ending the 

courthouse project. Enacting H.R. 1734 would not affect revenues. 

Because the legislation would affect direct spending, pay-as-you-go 

procedures apply. 

In addition, CBO estimates that implementing the bill would add almost $200 million to discretionary spending over the 2012–2016 

period, assuming appropriation of the necessary funds, primarily 

for the operations and functions of the new commission. After 2016, 

the need for discretionary funds to operate and maintain certain 

federal buildings and facilities could be reduced if the commission 

is successful in carrying out its mission to better manage federal 

property. 

H.R. 1734 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 1734 over the 2012–2016 period is shown in 

the following table. The costs of this legislation fall within all budget functions that contain facilities and properties other than 050 

(national defense). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2012– 

2016 

CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING 

Sale of High-Value Federal Assets: a

Estimated Budget Authority ................................................ 0 ¥129 ¥129 52 42 ¥164 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................... 0 ¥129 ¥129 52 42 ¥164 

Sale of Property to the Women’s History Museum: 

Estimated Budget Authority ................................................ 0 0 ¥50 0 0 ¥50 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................... 0 0 ¥50 0 0 ¥50 

Sale of the Cotton Annex: 

Estimated Budget Authority ................................................ 0 ¥100 0 0 0 ¥100 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................... 0 ¥100 0 0 0 ¥100 

Terminate Los Angeles Courthouse Project: b

Estimated Budget Authority ................................................ 0 0 ¥20 0 0 ¥20 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................... 0 ¥15 ¥53 ¥73 ¥110 ¥251 

Total Changes: c

Estimated Budget Authority ....................................... 0 ¥229 ¥199 52 42 ¥334 

Estimated Outlays ...................................................... 0 ¥244 ¥232 ¥21 ¥68 ¥565 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
33 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2012– 

2016 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Biannual CPRC Recommendations: 

Estimated Authorization Level ............................................. 97 15 15 15 15 157 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................... 39 41 39 19 19 157 

Transfer FTC Building to NGA: 

Estimated Authorization Level ............................................. 8 40 7 ¥7 ¥7 41 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................... 8 40 7 ¥7 ¥7 41 

Total Changes: 

Estimated Authorization Level .................................... 105 55 22 8 8 198 

Estimated Outlays ...................................................... 47 81 46 12 12 198 

Note: CPRC = Civilian Property Realignment Commission; FTC = Federal Trade Commission; NGA = National Gallery of Art. 

a Provisions to sell high-value federal assets would reduce direct spending by about $60 million over the 2012–2021 period, CBO estimates. b CBO estimates that ending the courthouse project and selling the building site would reduce direct spending by $386 million over the 

next 10 years. c Over the 2012–2021 period, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1734 would reduce direct spending by $595 million. 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the legislation will be enacted in fiscal year 2012, that the funds authorized 

to be appropriated to the commission will be provided, and that 

spending will follow historical patterns for similar management efforts. This cost estimate is based on information from the Federal 

Real Property Inventory database that is maintained by GSA, on 

other specific information provided by GSA and other agencies that 

manage federal properties, and on budgetary information reported 

by the Department of Defense (DoD) regarding its experiences with 

the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) initiative begun in 

1988. 

Sections 1 through 22 of the legislation would create the CPRC 

and establish its authorities and responsibilities; the remaining 

sections would direct GSA to undertake actions regarding specific 

properties in Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles, California. CBO’s 

estimate of the impact those provisions would have on direct spending and spending that is subject to appropriation are described 

below. 

Civilian property and realignment commission 

H.R. 1734 would establish an independent commission, similar to 

the commission that implemented the BRAC process, with the aim 

of better managing the inventory of federal civilian real property. 

Following procedures specified in the bill, including getting input 

from GSA and other federal agencies, the commission would make 

recommendations to the President for selling, exchanging, consolidating, or redeveloping federal property. If approved, those recommendations would be implemented unless the Congress enacted 

legislation to disapprove them. Under the bill, the eight-member 

CPRC would terminate after six years. 

H.R. 1734 would specify two major objectives for the CPRC. 

First, within one year of the date of the legislation’s enactment, 

section 12 would require the commission to identify and recommend the sale of a minimum of five high-value federal properties with an estimated total fair market value of at least $500 

million. CBO estimates that auctioning high-value properties as 

specified in the bill would result in additional net budgetary savings of $164 million over the 2013–2016 period and $60 million 

over the 2013–2021 period. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
34 

1This funding process was outlined in the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act, Public 

Law 108–94. 

Second, the legislation would require the CPRC to make biannual recommendations of property that could be sold, disposed of, 

transferred, exchanged, consolidated, reconfigured, redeveloped, or 

used to co-locate agency operations in order to improve the cost-effectiveness of managing the inventory of civilian real property. 

CBO estimates that implementing those recommendations would 

cost $157 million over the 2012–2016 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. Those costs include: $20 million that 

would be specifically authorized to be appropriated to cover the 

CPRC’s expenses and $62 million for the proposed Asset Proceeds 

and Space Administration Fund, which would be used to pay the 

upfront costs of reorganizing agency operations. The estimated cost 

also includes $15 million annually for other federal agencies to support the CPRC’s work. 

Direct Spending Savings from Sale of High-Value Federal Assets. 

H.R. 1734 would require the CPRC to identify and recommend for 

sale a minimum of five federal properties with a combined market 

value of $500 million. The properties that might be identified for 

sale are not specified, and CBO has no information about which 

properties would ultimately be chosen. Under the bill, they could 

not be excess or surplus to the government’s needs and would have 

to be sold in just over one year. Agencies would be relocated after 

the sale of each facility using sale proceeds to cover those costs, 

with private purchasers taking possession some time later. Under 

H.R. 1734, 40 percent of the proceeds from those sales could be 

spent by the CPRC to cover costs associated with implementing its 

recommendations. 

Based on information from private developers, CBO expects that 

some private purchasers would be unlikely to pay the full fair-market price for properties if they would have to wait months or years 

before taking possession of them. However, while time-consuming, 

this process—under which valuable government assets are offered 

for sale and then a portion of the proceeds are used to pay the cost 

of rearranging government operations before the new owner can 

take control of the asset—has been used before. For example, portions of the electromagnetic spectrum used for communications by 

DoD and other federal agencies have been sold to private-sector 

users using a similar process. Those purchasers have agreed to 

delay using those portions of the spectrum until federal agencies 

can acquire new communications equipment to adjust their use of 

the spectrum.1

Three factors would determine the net savings from the sale of 

the assets required under H.R. 1734: • First, because private owners could not take immediate 

possession of the federal buildings they purchase, CBO expects 

offers to buy those buildings would be discounted by around 20 

percent—or $100 million on properties with a market value of 

$500 million; 

• Second, based on information from GSA and the Office of 

Management and Budget about the costs of government real 

estate transactions and relocating federal operations to new or 

renovated facilities, we estimate that about three-quarters—or 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
35 

2 Although not required by the legislation, this estimate assumes that the high-value properties identified by the CPRC would be sold at auction to the highest bidder and that whatever 

properties are sold would be redeveloped for nonfederal use. If thc properties were sold through 

arranged sales to private developers with the intent of entering into agreements with those developers to lease properties after improvements are made, the budgetary impact would probably 

be a cost and not a savings. Such arrangements are sometimes used by federal agencies under 

current law as an alternative way to finance the construction of improvements and enhancements to federal properties. Typically, such leasing agreements are more costly than seeking appropriated funds to finance such improvements. 3Government Accountability Office, Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs. Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, GAO–11–318SP (March 2011), p. 222, 

http://gao.gov/new.items/d11318sp.pdf. 4The Federal Real Property Council. FY 2009 Federal Real Property Statistics (September 

2010), p.8. 

$300 million—of the sales proceeds would be absorbed by relocation costs, direct costs incurred by GSA or the landholding 

agencies, and real estate commissions; and 

• Third, under the legislation, of the remaining proceeds— 

$100 million—40 percent could be spent by the commission, 

without further appropriation, on other activities, and the remainder—about $60 million—would be deposited into the 

Treasury. 

The amount of proceeds could vary significantly from this estimate, depending on the particular properties identified by the 

CPRC and the method chosen to relocate government operations.2

Discretionary Spending for Developing Biannual CPRC Recommendations. During its six-year term, the CPRC would work 

with GSA and other civilian agencies that have authority to manage real property to develop lists of properties that could be sold, 

disposed of, transferred, exchanged, consolidated, reconfigured, redeveloped, or used to co-locate agency operations. The bill would 

authorize the appropriation of $82 million for those purposes, and 

CBO estimates that federal agencies would need another $75 million over the next five years to help the commission develop recommendations to improve the management of federal properties, 

resulting in a total discretionary cost of $157 million over the next 

five years. 

The sale, transfer, or disposal of federal property would lead to 

a reduction in the need for appropriated funds to maintain and improve federal properties. The Government Accountability Office has 

reported that operation and maintenance costs typically account for 

between 60 percent and 85 percent of the lifetime costs of owning 

a building.3 Some of those amounts would be eliminated even if the 

proceeds from selling or transferring a particular property were 

negligible. 

In 2009, government agencies, including DoD, reported that they 

spent about $1.7 billion to operate about 45,000 underutilized federal buildings and about $0.3 billion to operate about 10,000 buildings classified as excess.4 Some of those buildings are only slightly 

underutilized, and some of the space characterized as underutilized 

is not readily usable. Still, restructuring building occupancy to increase utilization of some facilities so that others could be disposed 

of and disposing of excess properties would eliminate some annual 

operating costs and thus reduce future spending if appropriations 

were reduced by corresponding amounts. However, most of such 

savings would have to come from consolidating existing operations 

and disposing of buildings that are currently being used. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
36 

5DoD budget information indicates that the most recent BRAC round (2005) had a five-year net cost of about $30 billion and an estimated ten-year net cost of almost $20 billion. Over the 

past 20 years, more than 350 military installations have been sold or conveyed to nonfederal 

entities through the 13RAC process. Proceeds from sales have amounted to about $1 billion— 

an average of less than $50 million a year. 6 According to information from GSA, the government has engaged in almost 1,400 transactions involving disposal of civilian property over the past 10 years in some way other than 

destruction. Of those, about 125 properties have been transferred to another federal agency; almost 235 have been made available through public benefit conveyances for nominal amounts; 

84 were conveyed through negotiated sales to state and local governments; and the majority of 

properties, almost 950, were disposed of through public sale. 7Many of the largest civilian landholding agencies (excluding the Department of the Interior), 

such as the Departments of Veterans Affairs, the Treasury, and Energy, as well as GSA, already 

have authorities under current law to enter into enhanced-use leases with the private sector, 

which often prove more lucrative than sales. Those arrangements allow agencies to lease 

underused land and facilities for cash or in-kind services; the agencies thereby secure private 

financing—outside the appropriations process—for construction or renovations of buildings, 

power plants, and other infrastructure for the agencies’ use. 

Over the 2012–2016 period, however, CBO does not expect that 

transactions undertaken as a result of the CPRC’s recommendations would result in any significant net savings in annual operating costs for federal civilian facilities. Prior experience in this 

area—particularly DoD’s experience with BRAC—suggests that efforts to reduce costs by increasing the efficiency of property use 

typically require significant spending up front to rebuild or relocate 

facilities before savings can be realized. Those savings would take 

the form of reduced need for annual appropriations to operate federal facilities. For BRAC, those upfront costs were covered primarily by increases in annual appropriations. Information from 

DoD indicates that the first four rounds of BRAC base closings had 

a net cost of $22 billion over 10 years.5

Without similar upfront resources or some other way to implement its recommendations, CBO expects that the CPRC would 

struggle to make a measurable change in the long-term costs of operating and maintaining federal civilian properties. In CBO’s judgment, the opportunity to generate upfront resources from the ongoing sale of excess federal properties for substantial sums is not supported by the historical record of such sales.6 Although the federal 

government sells property on an ongoing basis, the net budgetary 

impact is quite small. Net proceeds from the sale of civilian real 

property varies from year to year but has totaled about $70 million 

over the past five years.7 Opportunities to sell more valuable properties that are not considered excess to the federal government’s 

needs exist. However, as explained above under the discussion on 

high-value property sales, the net savings from such transactions 

would be diminished by federal rebuilding or relocation costs. 

Directives to GSA regarding properties in Washington, D.C., and 

Los Angeles 

Enacting the remaining sections of H.R. 1734 would yield direct spending savings of almost $520 million over the 2012–2021 period, 

CBO estimates. Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, 

CBO also estimates that implementing those sections would cost 

about $40 million in discretionary funds over the next five years. 

Specifically, those provisions would require GSA to: 

• Transfer the Washington, D.C., headquarters building of 

the Federal Trade Commission to the National Gallery of Art 

and move FTC offices to a privately owned building that has 

already been leased by the federal government; 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
37 

• Enter into agreements with the National Women’s History 

Museum (a private corporation) to sell to the museum a specific parcel of federal land; 

• Study the possible sale of specific portions of the Department of Energy’s headquarters building in Washington, D.C., 

and to complete that transaction if GSA determines offices currently occupying that space could be relocated while allowing 

for a net gain to the government of $200 million or more; and 

• Sell certain property that the agency acquired to build a 

federal courthouse in Los Angeles, California, and terminate 

the courthouse project. 

Transfer FTC building to NGA. H.R. 1734 would direct GSA to 

transfer the FTC headquarters building to the NGA by December 

31, 2012. The building would be renamed the North Building of the 

National Gallery of Art. Under this bill, after the transfer, employees of the FTC Headquarters building would be relocated to leased 

space in a privately owned building (Constitution Center, located 

at 400 7th Street, S.W., in Washington, D.C.). 

Assuming appropriation of the necessary funds, CBO estimates 

that implementing this provision would cost $41 million over the 

2012–2016 period, mostly for relocating the FTC. That estimate is 

net of savings from terminating certain NGA office leases and reflects the assumption that the FTC would occupy office space that 

is currently being leased by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and that would otherwise remain vacant for at least the 

next year. The SEC and GSA are currently considering alternative 

uses for the space, which the SEC leased but no longer requires. 

It is possible that the lease for the portion of Constitution Center 

affected by this bill will be terminated or used by another federal 

agency before the FTC could be relocated under H.R. 1734 late in 

calendar year 2012. If Constitution Center were not available, GSA 

would need to build or lease space for the agency. 

National Gallery of Art. The NGA is housed primarily in two 

buildings on the Mall (the West and East Buildings) that were presented as gifts to the United States from private donors in 1941 

and 1978. The NGA currently has two leases for office space and 

a service agreement to store artwork in other buildings. According 

to the NGA, more space will be needed in the future to accommodate additional administrative staff and to display and store additional artwork. 

Under H.R. 1734, CBO expects that the NGA would move some 

of its administrative staff into the FTC building in 2013 and begin 

to redesign the building’s interior for its use. We estimate that the 

NGA would spend about $20 million over the 2015–2016 period, 

primarily for moving costs, initial design work, and office equipment. Those costs would be more than offset by savings from ending two of the NGA’s leases for administrative office space. Under 

current law, those leases will cost about $7 million over the 2014– 

2016 period and could be terminated if the NGA were able to use 

the FTC building for administrative offices without significant 

modifications. On balance, CBO estimates that net savings to the 

NGA would total about $2 million over the next five years, assuming future appropriations to the agency are reduced because of its 

lower operating costs under the bill. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
38 

The bill specifies that, after transfer of the building from the 

FTC to the NGA, all initial costs of remodeling, renovating, and reconstructing it would be funded by private donations. The NGA estimates that it would cost at least $150 million to modify the structure, mostly to create new areas to display art; those costs do not 

include other possible improvements to the area, such as a tunnel 

from the new facility to the East and West Buildings. 

Although H.R. 1734 states that initial modification costs may not 

come from appropriated funds, it is unclear whether the NGA could 

attract sufficient donations from private individuals to cover those 

costs. Since the original buildings were donated to the NGA, all 

renovations and repairs to those facilities have been completed 

with appropriated funds. For example, the NGA is midway through 

a large renovation project that was begun in 1999 and has involved 

more than $140 million worth of improvements, primarily to the 

West Building. The NGA is also working on an $85 million project 

to repair the exterior marble veneer of the East Building. Both 

projects are being undertaken using appropriated funds. 

Federal Trade Commission. After the transfer of the FTC headquarters building to the National Gallery of Art, H.R. 1734 would 

direct GSA to relocate FTC employees from the current headquarters building to leased space at a specified location (a portion 

of Constitution Center). That location is currently under a 10-year 

lease entered into by the Securities and Exchange Commission in 

July 2010. However, the SEC has no plans to use the space that 

the FTC would occupy. 

According to the FTC, the commission’s headquarters building 

houses more than 700 employees, contractors, and children (in a 

day care center). Based on information from GSA and the FTC, 

CBO estimates that reconfiguring the space, relocating the employees from the FTC headquarters to Constitution Center, and installing furniture, computers, and telecommunications equipment would 

cost $42 million over the 2012–2016 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. 

After the current 10-year lease for space in Constitution Center 

expires, the FTC headquarters employees would still need office 

space. At that time, GSA would need to build a new headquarters 

facility or enter into a long-term lease of space in Constitution Center or another privately owned facility. 

Sale of Property to Women’s History Museum. Section 23 would 

authorize the sale of federal property near the intersection of 12th 

Street and Independence Avenue, S.W., in Washington, D.C., to the 

Women’s History Museum Corporation. (Section 25 would also 

allow the Women’s Museum right of first refusal on the western 

portion of the Forrestal building on Independence Avenue in Washington, D.C.) The legislation would direct GSA to complete the conveyance within three years. Under the bill, no federal funds could 

be used to purchase the site or to design and construct a museum 

on the site; the property would revert to the federal government if 

the corporation uses it for any purpose other than a museum or 

fails to commence work on the museum within five years after enactment of H.R. 1734. Net proceeds from the sale would be deposited into the Federal Buildings Fund, and spending of those funds 

would be subject to future appropriation. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
39 

8 That estimate reflects the assumption that the Cotton Annex would be sold at public auction 

for cash and that the government would not lease back the property. If the property is sold to 

the private sector and leased back to the government, the budget might record a cost from the 

sale rather than a savings, depending on the terms of the lease. 

GSA currently controls the property near the intersection of 12th 

Street and Independence Avenue, S.W., which consists primarily of 

a small parking lot; the agency reports that it has no plans to declare the property excess to its needs. Thus, under current law, 

CBO does not expect that the property would be conveyed for a 

public purpose or sold over the next 10 years. 

An assessment of the property’s value has not yet been completed. That assessment would consider a variety of factors, including the property’s highest and best use, the presence of any hazardous substances or zoning restrictions on the site, and a final 

land survey. Based on recent property sales in the District of Columbia, CBO estimates that net proceeds from this sale would total 

about $50 million in 2014. That sale would be recorded in the 

budget as a reduction in direct spending of $50 million in 2014. 

Consider Sale of a Portion of the Department of Energy Headquarters Building. Section 25 would require GSA to determine 

whether it could sell most of the Forrestal Building (DOE headquarters located on Independence Avenue in Washington, D.C.) and 

build a new federally owned facility to house the relocated DOE 

employees while still realizing estimated net proceeds of at least 

$200 million from the sale. If GSA believes such a transaction were 

possible, the Women’s History Museum would have the right of 

first refusal to purchase a specified portion of the Forrestal building. 

If the Forrestal Building is sold, the bill would prohibit the federal government from leasing back any portion of the building, including during the period of time required to design and construct 

the new DOE facility and relocate the agency. Based on information from GSA, the National Capitol Planning Commission, and 

private developers, CBO expects that proceeds from the sale would 

be significantly diminished by the timing and special financing that 

would be required for the sale because of that prohibition and the 

need to expend sales proceeds to relocate the agency. Thus, CBO 

estimates that net receipts would be less than $200 million and 

therefore that GSA would not sell the Forrestal property. 

Sale of the Cotton Annex. If the Forrestal property was not sold, 

the legislation would allow the Cotton Annex to be sold; the Cotton 

Annex is a building roughly bounded by 12th Street, Independence 

Avenue, Maryland Avenue, the Forrestal Building, and L’Enfant 

Plaza in southwest Washington, D.C. An assessment of the value 

of the Cotton Annex property has not been completed, but based on 

recent property sales in Washington, CBO expects that proceeds 

would probably be around $100 million.8 Under the bill, those proceeds from the sale would be deposited into the Federal Buildings 

Fund, and spending of those funds would be subject to future appropriation. For this estimate, CBO assumes that the property 

would be sold in 2013. 

Terminate the Los Angeles Courthouse Project. In 2000, the Congress authorized GSA to begin designing a new courthouse in 

downtown Los Angeles and has appropriated about $400 million for 

the project. GSA spent $34 million to design the courthouse, purVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:25 Feb 02, 2012 Jkt 019006 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR384P1.XXX HR384P1

wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
40 

chase a building site, and prepare the site. Under current law, 

CBO expects construction will begin in fiscal year 2013. Section 26 

would prohibit GSA from using already appropriated funds to construct the new courthouse; thus, CBO estimates that enacting this 

provision would reduce spending by $366 million (the appropriated 

amount that remains unspent) over the 2014–2019 period. (Because that savings would result from enactment of this legislation, 

it would be recorded as a reduction in direct spending for pay-asyou-go purposes.) 

In addition, the section would require GSA to sell the Los Angeles building site at fair market value. CBO estimates that the proceeds from the sale of the property would be about $20 million in 

fiscal 2014. Net proceeds from the sale would be deposited into the 

Federal Buildings Fund, and spending of those proceeds would be 

subject to future appropriation. 

CBO estimates that total savings from ending the courthouse 

project and selling the site would be $386 million over the 2012– 

2021 period. 

Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act 

of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement procedures 

for legislation affecting direct spending or revenues. The net 

changes in outlays that are subject to those pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in the following table. Enacting the legislation 

would have no effect on revenues. 

CBO ESTIMATE OF THE STATUTORY PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR H.R. 1734, THE CIVILIAN 

PROPERTY REALIGNMENT ACT, ORDERED REPORTED ON OCTOBER 13, 2011 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2012– 

2016 

2012– 

2021 

NET INCREASE OR DECREASE (¥) IN THE DEFICIT 

Statutory Pay-As-You-Go 

Impact ....................... 0 ¥244 ¥232 ¥21 ¥68 ¥51 3 18 0 0 ¥565 ¥595 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 1734 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal 

governments. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal spending: Matthew Pickford and 

Ryan Miller; Impact on state, local, and tribal governments: Elizabeth Cove Delisle; Impact on the private sector: Paige Piper/Bach. 

Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 

ADVISORY OF EARMARKS

Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, the Committee is required to include a list of congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits 

as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of 

the House of Representatives. No provision in the bill includes an 

earmark, limited tax benefit, or limited tariff benefit under clause 

9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of rule XXI. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
41 

FEDERAL MANDATE STATEMENT

The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of federal mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 

pursuant to section 423 of the ‘‘Unfunded Mandates Reform Act’’ 

(P.L. 104–4). 

PREEMPTION CLARIFICATION

Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 requires the 

report of any Committee on a bill or joint resolution to include a 

statement on the extent to which the bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt state, local, or tribal law. The Committee states 

that H.R. 1734 does not preempt any state, local, or tribal law. 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act are created by this legislation. 

APPLICABILITY OF LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to the 

terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or 

accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (P.L. 104–1). 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

TITLE 40, UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 

SUBTITLE II—PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND WORKS 

* * * * * * * 

PART A—GENERAL 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 33—ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND 

ALTERATION 

Sec. 

3301. Definitions and nonapplication. 

* * * * * * * 

3317. Limitation on leasing authority of other agencies. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 3307. Congressional approval of proposed projects 

(a) * * * 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
42 

(b) TRANSMISSION TO CONGRESS OF PROSPECTUS OF PROPOSED

PROJECT.—To secure consideration for the approval referred to in 

subsection (a), the Administrator of General Services shall transmit 

to Congress a prospectus of the proposed facility, including— 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(6) a statement of rents and other housing costs currently 

being paid by the Government for federal agencies to be 

housed in the building to be constructed, altered, or acquired, 

or the space to be leased; øand¿ 

(7) with respect to any prospectus for the construction, alteration, or acquisition of any building or space to be leased, an 

estimate of the future energy performance of the building or 

space and a specific description of the use of energy efficient 

and renewable energy systems, including photovoltaic systems, 

in carrying out the projectø.¿; and 

(8) a statement of how the proposed project is consistent with 

section 11(b) of the Civilian Property Realignment Act. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 3317. Limitation on leasing authority of other agencies 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 

executive agency may lease space for the purposes of a public building as defined under section 3301, except as provided under section 

585, and the provisions in this chapter. 

(b) PUBLIC BUILDING.—For the purposes of this section, the term 

‘‘public building’’ shall include leased space. 

(c) FURTHER EXCLUSIONS.—This section shall not apply to— 

(1) properties that are excluded for reasons of national security by the President; and 

(2) properties of the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

(d) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed as 

creating new authority for executive agencies to enter into leases or 

limit the authority of the Administration under section 3314. 

* * * * * * * 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(43) 

MINORITY VIEWS 

We agree with our Republican colleagues on the need to address 

the management of Federal real property. In fact, in the 110th and 

111th Congresses, the House, under Democratic leadership, held 

over 15 hearings on the management of the General Services Administration (GSA) Public Building Service (PBS) real estate portfolio that encouraged GSA to move forward on the redevelopment 

of several underutilized properties, to sell properties where appropriate, and to be more decisive in its management of its real estate 

portfolio. Because of our interest in such improvements, an interest 

also reflected in President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2012 budget priorities, it had been our hope that H.R. 1734, ‘‘The Civilian Property 

Realignment Act,’’ would provide for a sustained commitment to 

these priorities, and we looked forward to working with our Republican colleagues this Congress in a bipartisan manner to swiftly 

pass this legislation. Regrettably, H.R. 1734, as amended and ordered reported on a vote of 30–22, fails to reflect those mutual 

goals. 

In addition, we are deeply concerned that H.R. 1734 includes provisions that extinguish the claims of homeless providers on Federal 

properties and eliminates environmental review as a consideration 

of the Civilian Property Realignment Commission when making decisions concerning the realignment and disposal of Federal property. H.R. 1734 also includes several controversial provisions, including the transfer of the Apex building in Washington, DC, from 

GSA to the National Gallery of Art, the sale of the Department of 

Energy Headquarters in Washington, DC, and the termination of 

the Los Angeles, California, courthouse construction project. Moreover, we believe the controversial aspects of this legislation will seriously jeopardize the enactment of legislation needed to ‘‘rightsize’’ 

the Federal real estate inventory. 

I. HOMELESS PROVIDER RIGHTS AND OTHER PUBLIC BENEFIT

CONVEYANCES

We are concerned that the bill eliminates a review of the suitability of Federal property for use by homeless providers and a review of possible transfers to non-profits, local and state governments before they are disposed of through public auction. Title V 

of the McKinney-Vento Act (42 U.S.C. 11411) provides an exclusive 

right of first refusal to homeless service providers to apply to own 

or lease any surplus federal property at no charge. Non-profit 

groups, state agencies, and local governments can also apply for 

surplus property at less than fair market value under several public benefit conveyance provisions. The bill precludes the review of 

Federal property for a possible transfer to homeless providers and 

other public benefit conveyances by the Civilian Property Realignment Commission. By extinguishing those rights, the bill limits the 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
44 

pool of Federal properties available for transfer to homeless service 

providers. In these difficult economic times, extinguishing this first 

right of refusal would be a severe blow to homeless service providers that have already had to deal with a significant downturn 

in charitable giving during the recent recession. 

According to the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty (NLCHP), Title V has provided nearly 500 pieces of Federal 

property to homeless service providers for use as shelters, transitional and permanent housing, case management offices, food pantries, job training, mental health and substance abuse treatment 

facilities, and childcare centers. Further, NLCHP indicates that 

each year more than 2.4 million Americans benefit from the assistance provided through these otherwise vacant properties. On July 

27, 2011, the NLCHP testified before the House Oversight and 

Government Reform Committee that, according to the U.S. Conference of Mayors 2010—Hunger and Homelessness Survey, family 

homelessness has skyrocketed during the recession, with unemployment and a lack of affordable housing driving a nine percent 

increase in the last year, a number that is expected to continue to 

increase. 

Moreover, the bill does not require that homeless advocates or 

service providers be represented on the Civilian Property Realignment Commission nor that properties be reviewed for potential use 

to provide homeless assistance if one or more Commission members 

requests it. During the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure markup of H.R. 1734 on October 13, 2011, Subcommittee 

on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management Ranking Member Eleanor Holmes Norton offered an 

amendment to restore a review of Federal properties for homeless 

service providers. Regrettably, the amendment was rejected on a 

vote of 21–27. 

In addition to the waiver of homeless provider consideration, the 

bill eliminates public benefit conveyances of Federal property to 

non-profits, local and state governments for no consideration or less 

than fair market value. To qualify for a public benefit conveyance, 

nonprofit groups, state agencies, and local governments must express interest in a property during the surplus screening process 

and apply to the specific sponsoring Federal agency to acquire the 

surplus property for a particular public use. For example, if a city 

government identified a parcel of land adjacent to a state park that 

was determined to be surplus to the needs of the Federal Government and it was deemed unsuitable for homeless services providers, then the city government could apply for a public benefit 

conveyance of the land for park and recreations use. The Department of Interior, the sponsoring agency for this particular use, 

would then review their application. If the application was approved, GSA could transfer the property to city at no cost on the 

condition that the city would then be required to maintain that 

area as a park or recreation area in perpetuity. 

Because one of the goals of the legislation is to expedite disposal, 

it is counterproductive to exclude public benefit conveyances. Given 

the sluggish economy and real estate market, the Federal Government should retain as many disposal options as possible, including 

public benefit conveyances. Although public conveyances do not 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
45 

often result in monetary consideration, these conveyances can 

eliminate the costs to the government to maintain these properties 

and offer an additional tool to reduce the real estate footprint of 

the Federal Government. 

II. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT WAIVER

We are concerned that the bill, as reported, would waive the application of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to some 

actions of the Commission. Section 18(b) waives compliance with 

NEPA for the actions of the President, the Commission, or any 

Federal agency, when considering any of the Commission’s recommendations except during the process of property disposal and 

during the process of relocating functions from a property being 

disposed of or realigned to another location. 

This provision is unnecessary because the Commission would not 

be considered a Federal agency for purposes of the NEPA, but the 

preclusion of an environmental review unnecessarily limits the 

ability of the Commission to consider all factors in developing recommendations. In addition, since the legislation requires any final 

action to realign, consolidate, or dispose of Federal real estate to 

be reviewed in compliance with NEPA, a full review would be appropriate considering that an inadequate review could cause serious problems later. For example, the 2005 Base Realignment Commission (BRAC) made the decision to move several Defense functions to the Mark Center in Alexandria, Virginia, without the proper consideration of the effects and need for additional infrastructure to support the thousands of workers who were moved to the 

area. This BRAC move to an already congested area has caused 

considerable disruption locally because there are not enough transportation options to sustain the influx of nearly 6,000 workers. An 

environmental review by the BRAC Commission may well have detected this issue and enabled it to be addressed. 

The Mark Center example underscores the importance of carefully conducting an environmental review of any decision to close 

a facility, relocate, or re-configure a Federal facility. Unfortunately, 

however, the current bill precludes a full review of the actions until 

after a decision to sell or dispose of a piece of Federal property has 

already been made. During the Committee markup of the bill, Subcommittee Ranking Member Norton offered an amendment to 

strike this section to ensure that these Federal Government actions 

do not create unanticipated impacts to local communities. Regrettably, the amendment was rejected on a vote of 19–24. 

III. DIRECTED REAL ESTATE SALES

We are also concerned about the directed sales and transfer of 

several valuable federal properties because of the lack of rigorous 

analysis of the potential sales and potential long-term losses to the 

U.S. taxpayer if Federal workers are moved out of Federally owned 

space to more expensive privately owned commercial space. At a 

time when the Federal Government should continue reducing its 

reliance on leased space, H.R. 1734 seeks to sell both the parcel of 

land where the current Department of Energy headquarters is located in the District of Columbia, as well as a parcel of land in Los 

Angeles, California, intended for construction of a U.S. courthouse. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
46 

The bill proposes to sell these Federal properties with no analysis 

conducted on whether the sales are in the best interests of the Federal Government and, thus, the U.S. taxpayer. Both the Los Angeles, California, and Washington, DC, metropolitan areas have a significant Federal presence and currently house several Federal 

agencies in long-term, expensive, privately leased commercial office 

space. By mandating the sale of these properties within a time certain, the government loses leverage in any sales transaction and 

the possibility of GSA using its existing authority to develop government-owned space and further relieve the need to rely on costly, 

privately leased commercial office space is foreclosed upon. Additionally, the bill authorizes the transfer of one Federal agency from 

government-owned space to leased commercial office space. 

Transfer of the Apex Building 

Section 24 of H.R. 1734 directs the transfer of administrative jurisdiction of the government-owned Apex Building in the District of 

Columbia, currently occupied by the Federal Trade Commission 

(FTC), to the National Gallery of Art. The bill further directs GSA 

to relocate the FTC to 160,000 square feet of space in a privately 

owned commercial office building located at 400 7th Street, S.W., 

in Washington, DC. The Apex building is a strong income-producing property generating sufficient funds to meet its reinvestment needs. To pay for this real estate transfer, the bill eliminates 

funding for the GSA energy and water retrofit and conservation 

program and the GSA wellness and fitness programs for fiscal 

years 2012 and 2013. Evicting the FTC from its headquarters and 

mandating that it assume office space in a privately owned building is at odds with many longstanding practices of this Committee. 

Historically, the Committee has made a vigorous effort to ensure 

that agency headquarters functions are located in governmentowned space rather than leased commercial office space because 

leasing such space is generally significantly more expensive than 

housing agencies in government-owned space. In addition, prior to 

this bill, the Committee has never mandated the transfer of an 

agency to a specific, privately owned, leased space. 

Section 24 of H.R. 1734 would also deprive the Federal Buildings 

Fund (FBF), a revolving fund used for the repair and construction 

of Federal buildings, of the $6 million worth of rent that the FTC 

currently pays, while giving rent-free space to the National Gallery 

of Art. The bill expands one Federal agency at the expense of all 

the other agencies housed in Federally owned space. It gives the 

National Gallery of Art an additional 300,000 square feet with a 

new responsibility to renovate and maintain a third facility on the 

National Mall. This Committee has consistently been concerned 

about the ability of GSA to use funds generated by the FBF to 

maintain its real estate inventory and this section would further 

undermine the ability of GSA to maintain its inventory. 

Sale of Department of Energy headquarters 

Section 25 of H.R. 1734 directs GSA to sell the parcel of land currently occupied by the Department of Energy if GSA determines it 

can receive $200 million in net proceeds. Proceeds from that sale 

would be used by GSA to provide for a building of up to 320,000 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
47 

square feet of government-owned replacement space for the Department of Energy. None of the existing improvements on the property 

would be available for lease back to the Federal Government. The 

National Women’s History Museum would have the first right of 

refusal for a portion of the parcel. This provision has had no public 

hearings to evaluate the merit of replacing the headquarters of the 

Department of Energy and it is unclear how selling this Federal 

property would benefit the U.S. taxpayer over the long term. 

Sale of Los Angeles, CA courthouse site 

Section 26 of H.R. 1734 prohibits the use of appropriated funds 

for constructing a new U.S. courthouse in Los Angeles, California. 

It also directs GSA to sell, at fair market value, any property acquired to build a new courthouse in Los Angeles. 

Congress has already appropriated the funds for the Los Angeles 

courthouse and GSA is currently proceeding with the procurement. 

Implementation of this provision would stop an ongoing procurement and sell a site in a part of the country where GSA has a significant need for more Federally owned commercial office space and 

existing commercial office rents are among the highest in the nation. We acknowledge that the merits of the Los Angeles, CA, 

courthouse going forward using existing courtroom sharing guidelines are not clear and this Committee has been clear in its mandate that all new courthouse construction be reconsidered under 

the sharing guidelines. However, selling this site with no analysis 

of the commercial office space needs in Los Angeles simply does not 

make sense. 

CONCLUSION

Although we share our Republican colleagues’ desire to consolidate the real estate holdings of Federal agencies in Federally 

owned space, and reduce private commercial office space costs, we 

are concerned that H.R. 1734—which weakens environmental reviews, deprives homeless service providers of access to Federal 

properties, and sells two large parcels of land without any analysis 

of the merit of the sale—will not advance our mutual goal of making the Federal Government a better asset manager. We, therefore, 

oppose H.R. 1734 as reported by the Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure. 

NICK RAHALL. 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON. 

Æ 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with HEARING